A History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta) 9042942126, 9789042942127

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 Jerusalem and Judah

by EDWARD LIPIķSKI

P E E T ERS

A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM AND JUDAH

Fragment of a 9th century B.C. cultic stand from the Ophel (Jerusalem, Y. Shiloh’s excavations)

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ————— 287 —————

A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM AND JUDAH

by

EDWARD LIPIŃSKI

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2020

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2020, 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 978-90-429-4212-7 eISBN 978-90-429-4213-4 D/2020/0602/62

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

VII

FOREWORD .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XI

INTRODUCTION .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

I. JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I .

.

.

.

.

.

7

Bronze Age . . . . . . . Egyptian Execration Texts . Archaeological researches . El-Amarna letters . . . Iron Age I . . . . . . . Jebusites . . . . . . Davidic Jerusalem . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

8 9 12 18 21 21 23

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

27

The reign of David . . . . . . . . Hebron . . . . . . . . . . Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . The reign of Solomon . . . . . . . The reigns of Rehoboam, Abiam, and Asa The reign of Jehoshaphat . . . . . . The reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah . . The reign of Joash . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

28 28 32 33 36 39 41 43

III. JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

.

.

.

.

.

.

49

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

49 54 57 60 63 73

. . . . . .

79

.

79

II. DAVIDIC DYNASTY .

.

.

.

Trade relations . . . . . The reign of Amaziah . . . The reign of Azariah, Uzziah, The reign of Ahaz . . . . The reign of Hezekiah . . The reign of Manasseh . .

.

. . and . . .

. . . . . . Jotham . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

IV. JUDAH FROM MID 7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C. Edomite-Judaean relations

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

VI

CONTENTS

The reigns of Amon and Josiah . . . . . . . . . . . . Egyptian and Babylonian domination . . . . . . . . . . V. RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH . Local shrines . . . . Foreign religious symbols “Sacred prostitution” . . Molk-sacrifices . . . . Micah 6:7 . . . . Leviticus 20:2-5 . . Isaiah 30:33 . . . The altar of Beersheba . The temple of Arad . . The temple of Qiṭmīt . . The sanctuary of Tamar . Terracotta figurines . .

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

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

86 89

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

102 107 108 111 111 114 121 124 125 131 133 137

VI. BETHEL, SANCTUARY AND THEONYM

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 141

From Bethel to Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Bethel as stele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 VII. BURIAL CUSTOMS

AND THE

NETHERWORLD

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 153

Judaean rock-cut tombs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Sheol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 EPILOGUE .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 165

INDEXES .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 167

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

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

167 169 171 174 175 175

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR ADAJ AHw AION AIPHOS AJA ANEP ANET ANRW AOAT APN ASOR BAH BASOR BIFAO BiOr BN BTAVO BZAW CAD CAH CIS I CIS II CUSAS DBS DDD

DNWSI

= = = = =

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III, Wiesbaden 1965-81. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves, Bruxelles. = American Journal of Archaeology. = J.B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures relating to the Old Testament, 2nd ed., Princeton 1969. = J.B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, 2nd ed., Princeton 1955; Supplement, Princeton 1969. = H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Berlin-New York. = Alter Orient und Altes Testament. = K.L. Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names, Helsingfors 1914. = American Schools of Oriental Research. = Bibliothèque archéologique et historique. = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. = Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Le Caire. = Bibliotheca Orientalis. = Biblische Notizen. = Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. = The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago 1956-2010. = The Cambridge Ancient History. = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Pars I: Inscriptiones Phoenicias continens, Paris 1881 ff. = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Pars II: Inscriptiones Aramaicas continens, Paris 1889 ff. = Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology, Bethesda. = Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément, Paris 1928 ff. = K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of the Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed., Leiden-Grand Rapids 1999. = J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Leiden 1995.

VIII

E, F

e, f

EA

EAEHL ErIs ESI HSM HUCA IAA Reports IEJ IGLS II JANES JAOS JCS JEA JNES JPOS KAI KTU

LAPO NEAEHL OBO OIP OLA OLZ

ABBREVIATIONS

= Execration Texts edited by G. Posener, Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Textes hiératiques sur des figurines d’envoûtement du Moyen Empire, Bruxelles 1940. = Execration Texts edited by K. Sethe, Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefäßscherben des Mittleren Reiches (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1926, 5), Berlin 1926. = The El-Amarna tablets numbered according to J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna - Tafeln (VAB 2), Leipzig 1915; A.F. Rainey, El Amarna Tablets 359-379 (AOAT 8), 2nd ed., Kevelaer - Neukirchen - Vluyn 1978; id., The El-Amarna Correspondence. A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amarna based on Collation of All Extant Tablets, ed. by W.M. Schiedewind, Leiden 2015; W.L. Moran, Les lettres d’El Amarna (LAPO 13), Paris 1987; id., The Amarna Letters, Baltimore 1992. = M. Avi-Yonah (ed.), Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I-IV, Jerusalem-Oxford 1975-78. = Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem. = Excavations and Surveys in Israel, Jerusalem. = Harvard Semitic Monographs. = Hebrew Union College Annual, Cincinnati. = Israel Antiquities Authority Reports. = Israel Exploration Journal. = L. Jalabert and R. Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie II. Chalcidique et Antiochène (BAH 32). = Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, New York. = Journal of the American Oriental Society. = Journal of Cuneiform Studies. = Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. = Journal of Near Eastern Studies. = Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. = H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, Wiesbaden 1962-64 (3rd ed., 1971-76). = M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24), Kevelaer-Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976; īd., Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten, 3rd ed. (AOAT 360), Münster 2013. = Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient, Paris. = E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I-V, Jerusalem 1993-2008. = Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. = Oriental Institute Publications. = Orientalia Lovaniensia. Analecta. = Orientalistische Literaturzeitung.

ABBREVIATIONS

PAT

IX

= D.R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, Baltimore 1998. PEQ = Palestine Exploration Quarterly. PJBR = The Polish Journal of Biblical Research, Kraków-Mogilany. PNA = K. Radner and H.D. Baker (eds.), The Prosopography of the NeoAssyrian Empire, Helsinki 1998-2011. QDAP = Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, London. RA = Revue d’Assyriologie, Paris. RB = Revue Biblique. RÉJ = Revue des études juives, Paris. RÉS = Recueil d’épigraphie sémitique. RHA = Revue hittite et asianique, Paris. RIMB II = G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination: 1157-612 BC (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Babylonian Periods II), Toronto 1995. RLA = Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. RS = Inventory numbers of the Ras Shamra - Ugarit tablets. SAA = State Archives of Assyria. SBO = Scripta Biblica et Orientalia. TAD I-IV = B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt I. Letters, Winona Lake 1986; II. Contracts, Winona Lake 1989; III. Literature, Accounts, Lists, Winona Lake 1993; IV. Ostraca & Assorted Inscriptions, Winona Lake 1999. TCS = Texts from Cuneiform Sources, Locust Valley. ThDOT = J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids 1974-2006. ThWAT I-VIII = J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1970-1995. TSSI I-III = J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions I. Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions, 2nd ed., Oxford 1973; II. Aramaic Inscriptions, Oxford 1975; III. Phoenician Inscriptions, Oxford 1982. TUAT = Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Gütersloh 1982-1995. UET = Ur Excavations Texts, London. UF = Ugarit-Forschungen, Neukirchen etc. ZAW = Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. ZDPV = Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins.

FOREWORD

The history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah in biblical times lasted less than four centuries, but its proto-history reaches the early second millennium B.C. and its spirit survives in the period of the Achaemenid Empire, in Hellenistic and later times. However, our historical survey ends with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 B.C. and the deportation of the elite of its population to Babylonia. The work is regarded to some extent as a study “facing” our History of the Kingdom of Israel (OLA 275), but it aims at showing simultaneously that we deal with two states with different original populations and distinct ideologies. Our approach differs therefore from the usual “biblical histories”, often misnamed History of Israel. Particular attention is given to extra-biblical sources and to results of archaeological excavations. The writer should thank his wife Małgorzata for helping him to bring this book to a happy end through many changes and corrections. He also acknowledges that it was a pleasure to work once again with the competent and friendly staff of the Uitgeverij Peeters and the printing office NV Peeters S.A.

INTRODUCTION

Writing a history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah is an enterprise quite different from narrating biblical history. The accounts of the Old Testament are related to historical events, especially in the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, but this part of the Bible got in the Jewish tradition the name of Former Prophets, whose activity represents the core of biblical redactors’ interest. They were writing several centuries after the events and were not even interested in many facts recorded in their written sources of the monarchic period. They refer the reader to “the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah”, which are not preserved. Various accounts are nevertheless reported, but their historical value is sometimes doubtful, while redactional comments are often added to the text and, no doubt, changes occur as well. The use of extra-biblical sources dating from the periods concerned is thus very important. These sources are written in Egyptian, Akkadian, Aramaic, Moabite, Phoenician. Later Greek writings may also provide interesting information, transmitted from older sources. Although fragments of a novel on Judah occur in the Book Genesis, Judah is no name of a tribal ancestor. As noticed already by Shemuel Yeivin (1896-1982), Judah is a toponym derived from the West-Semitic root whd (in Hebrew yhd), like the Arabic noun wahd, “gorge, ravine”. The name ’ereṣ yǝhūdāh most likely designated the hill country of Judah, west of the Dead Sea, frequently interrupted by wide valleys intruding deeply into the confining mountain flanks. This characteristic landscape gave its name to the kingdom of Judah in the 9th/8th century B.C., first called Beth David, as well as to the tribe formed from various West-Semitic clans of the region. Jerusalem was situated at its northern border and it is attested with its rulers since the 19th-18th centuries B.C. by Egyptian sources. Here begins our proto-history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah. Our information concerning the Bronze Age is based on sources dating from the concerned period. Instead, the events of the Iron Age are known mainly thanks to the biblical accounts which present a combination of short notices relying on royal annals and of narrative elements often related to prophetic figures. They have been collected by an author of the late sixth century B.C., usually called Deuteronomistic historian, following Martin Noth’s theory1. His anti-Israelite comments directed against Jeroboam I, Omri or Ahab were mainly inspired by the Yahwistic sanctuaries of Bethel, Samaria, and their dependencies. This seems to show that the Deuteronomistic redactor belonged 1

M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943.

2

INTRODUCTION

to the priestly class of the Jerusalem Temple. A confirmation is provided by his repeated reproaches addressed to kings of Israel or Judah who have tolerated shrines in groves or on high places. This indicates that he was writing after the reforms of king Josiah, probably around 500 B.C., when the Temple of Jerusalem had been rebuilt. Many centuries have thus elapsed between the time of the earlier Judaean monarchy and the time when narratives allegedly describing the events of that period were committed to writing. The main problem concerns the chronology of the events reported, which the Deuteronomistic historian was inclined to date from the reigns of David and of Solomon, the first kings of Judah / Beth David. His own comments were sometimes corrected by a later scribe, whom we call post-Deuteronomistic. Unfortunately, historical information provided by the Annals of the kings of Judah, still available to the Deuteronomistic historian, has been neglected by him: he simply recommends to the reader to consult these Annals which are no longer accessible to modern historians. A large part of the narrations is related to prophetic figures – the Former Prophets – and it deserves a particular study, but such a subject no longer belongs to a history of the biblical kingdoms, not even to their religious history, because the interventions of the Former Prophets generally concern the king or his dynasty, not the whole nation. The historical background of the Books of Chronicles, written towards the end of the Persian period or in early Hellenistic times, is somewhat different2. According to Leviticus Rabbah 1:3, the amoraim of the first generation (3rd century A.D.) were saying that “the Book of Chronicles was only to be expounded midrashically”. From the beginning of biblical research, it was noticed that the Chronicler subordinated his presentation of the course of histories to purposes determined by some ideological principles of Jerusalem’s spiritual leaders. Julius Wellhausen attributed the particular Chronicler’s description of the events to the influence of the Priestly Source3. Instead, Martin Noth4 and Wilhelm Rudolph5 adopted a more religious explanation, which can be linked to the role of the Davidic dynasty, as proposed by D.N. Freedman6. This combined approach corresponds to the writer’s opinion, unshaken by the more recent studies of Isaac Kalimi, who dates Chronicler’s work from the 4th century B.C.7 This small 2 An excellent short presentation is provided by Sara Japhet, Chronicles, Book of, in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem 1971, Vol. 5, col. 517-534. 3 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 6th ed., Berlin 1905, p. 165-223. 4 M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943, p. 110-180. 5 W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/21), Tübingen 1955, p. III-XXV. 6 D.N. Freedman, The Chronicler’s Purpose, in The Catholic Biblical Quartely 23 (1961), p. 436442. 7 I. Kalimi, An Ancient Israelite Historian. Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place, and Writing (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 46), Assen 2005; id., Starożytny historyk izraelski, Kraków 2016.

INTRODUCTION

3

chronological difference is of little importance for the historical evaluation of the Chronicles. Leaving aside the genealogies of I Chron. 1-9, the main basis of the work were the Books of Samuel and Kings. Some other sources were used as well, dealing for instance with kings Jehoshaphat or Uzziah. Although I. Kalimi admits the presence of midrashic elements in the Books of Chronicles, Chronicler’s concerned passages are not discussed in his works. He only mentions Jehoshaphat’s prayer in II Chron. 20:6-12, and Uzziah’s building activities (II Chron. 26, 9). In any case, the Chronicler should not be called “Israelite Historian”, but “Judaean Historiographer”, commissioned apparently by some Jerusalem priestly authority in order to establish that the legitimate worship of Yahweh is possible only in Jerusalem, “David’s City”, and that only Judah is the legitimate Yahweh’s community. This is a polemic against the Samaritans and Yahweh’s temple built on Mount Gerizim. It is also a firm assertion that only the monarchy of David and his house are legitimate, since it has been given “to David ... forever and to his sons by a covenant of salt” (II Chron. 13:5), i.e. a permanent, eternal covenant. These principles are already present in the Deuteronomistic history, but Chronicler’s description of historical events aims at showing them in a clear way. However, the degree of adaptation of the sources is not uniform. Some accounts are completely rewritten, while other passages are transmitted in their original wording with eventual additions or comments. As a consequence, the historical value of the resulting new information is at least doubtful. The history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah is presented here in seven chapters. The chapters I-IV follow in principle the chronological order of the events, while chapters V-VII concern particular questions related mainly to religion. Chapter I deals with Jerusalem in the Bronze Age and in Iron Age I. Information is provided by Egyptian Execration Texts from the 19th-18th centuries B.C., by El-Amarna letters sent from Canaan, and by archaeological researches. While the rulers of Jerusalem in the 19th century bear Amorite names, linked closely to Hebrew, the ruler of the 14th century is Hurrian, like probably the one of the first part of the 10th century. This does not imply a change of the local population, but parallels the situation attested in other Canaanite and SyroPhoenician cities. Chapter II concerns the Davidic dynasty, whose lineage can be followed until the reign of Jehoshaphat in the mid-ninth century B.C. Accounts connected in the Bible with the reigns of David or Solomon are often based on sources dating from a later period or written to refer David’s succession by Solomon to God’s will (prophet Nathan) and to increase the importance of their reigns, which covered together a period of some thirty-five years, not of eighty years as stated symbolically in the Bible. Their power extended only to limited areas

4

INTRODUCTION

of Saul’s Kingdom and to the land of Judah, the ’ereṣ yǝhūdāh, west of the Dead Sea. Chapter III deals with the period going from the mid-ninth to the midseventh century B.C. A confused situation results then from the biblical redactional distinction of two kings Jehoram, and from the plot organized against Athaliah, the widowed wife of king Jehoshaphat. The continuity of the Davidic dynasty becomes doubtful and doubts increase following successive murders of kings of Judah. New confusion appears with a biblical identification of king Azariah with the probable vice-king Uzziah. The situation is clarified under the reigns of Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh. An important event of this period is Sennacherib’s campaign against Jerusalem and Judah in 701 B.C. An important afflux of refugees from the Kingdom of Israel, occupied by the Assyrians, led to the formation of a new social contexture in Jerusalem and its suburbs. Chapter IV concerns the history of Judah from the mid-seventh to the midsixth century B.C., thus to the end of the kingdom. Edomite-Judaean relations are presented in the first place; they mainly concern the Beersheba Valley and the surrounding areas. The reigns of Amon and Josiah are then examined in the historical context of the final years of the Neo-Assyrian empire and of the Egyptian intervention in the Levant, helping the last kings of Assyria. Josiah is killed in these circumstances by pharaoh Necho II, who in 610 appoints Jehoiakim as king of Judah. Neo-Babylonian successes of Nebuchadnezzar II led in 597 B.C. to the deportation of Jehoiachin and to the appointment of Zedekiah as last king of Judah. The final Judaean revolt ends in 587 B.C. with the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, whose population is partly deported to Babylonia. The short governorship of Gedaliah is then followed by an obscure period of about half a century, ended by the beginning of the Persian period, when Judah was only a district of the Achaemenid Empire. Chapter V examines a few questions concerning religion in Jerusalem and Judah. No concrete information is available for the Bronze Age and Iron Age I, while the Books of Kings repeatedly refer to local shrines, condemned by the Deuteronomistic historian. This question is followed by an examination of the alleged problems of foreign deities represented in the Temple and of “sacred prostitution”. A real problem concerns the practice of molk-sacrifices examined in detail. Particular cases recorded further are the altar of Beersheba, the temples of Arad and Qiṭmīt, the Edomite sanctuary of Tamar, as well as the meaning of the terracotta figurines in Judaean, Edomite, and other shrines. Chapter VI discusses the special case of Bethel, known for his Yahwistic sanctuary, and of the theonym Bethel, which is related at Elephantine and Syene to this shrine, but is also connected with erected stones symbolizing the divine presence and called Bethel in Aramaic inscriptions of northern Syria. The solution of the problem depends mainly from the provenance of Bethel’s worshippers at Elephantine – Syene. It seems that some of them emigrated to

INTRODUCTION

5

Egypt from Beitīn, ancient Bethel, in the 7th century B.C., after Josiah’s drastic reforms applied to the sanctuary of Bethel and its dependencies after the annexation of this area to Judah. Chapter VII deals with burial customs and the conception of the netherworld, especially in Jerusalem and surrounding areas. Family plots and rock-cut tombs characterize the burial customs of rich and middle class Judaeans in Iron Age II. The dead are supposed to join their forefathers in the Sheol, which is certainly the name given to the netherworld. However, this is the proper name of the Hurrian goddess Šuwala, known from Sumerian times on and attested also at Ugarit and Emar. Her partner was Nergal or Môt, who appears with her in ancient sources, also in biblical poetical texts. She is not yet fully demythologized at the time of the Qumran texts. Her integration in the Hebrew conception of the netherworld goes perhaps back to the time of Hurrian rulers of Jerusalem. No chapter is added for the Persian period, because this study would require a previous examination of the recently published and forthcoming documents of Judaean and West-Semitic exiles in rural Babylonia8. These documents will allow for the first time to sketch not only the social and economic living conditions of the exiles, but also to understand the background and perhaps the motivations of the generations going back to Jerusalem and Judah. A careful study of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah would also be required, as well as researches in some prophetic writings, even in other post-exilic works, like Tobit9 or the Book of Esther10. Results of archaeological researches dealing with the Second Temple period should also be taken into account. All this would require an additional monography.

8 L.E. Pearce and C. Wunsch, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer (CUSAS 28), Bethesda 2015, and two volumes to be published by C. Wunsch with New Historical Evidence from Rural Babylonia (Babylonische Archive 6 A and B, Dresden). These documents, dated ca. 570-470 B.C., belong to various collections and contain a few reeditions. 9 M. Chrostowski, Księga Tobiasza – Przypowieść o początkach diaspory Izraelitów w Mezopotamii (Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 49), Warszawa 2018. 10 J. Middlemas, Dating Esther. Historicity and the Provenance of the Masoretic Esther, in R.J. Bautsch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe 101), Tübingen 2019, p. 149-168. However, dating from the Persian period is unlikely, since persecution of Jews is a central motive in the novel (Esther 3 ff.), while nothing similar had succeeded in the Achaemenid Empire. The writer of the Esther novel must have been inspired by the news about Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ attempt to suppress Judaism by force (II Macc. 6:1 – 7:42) during his reign (176-164 B.C.). Even the promotion of Haman by Xerxes I parallels the appointment of Geron by Antiochus IV to force the Jews to abandon their ancestral customs (II Macc. 6:1). This seems to indicate that the Book of Esther has been written in the mid 2nd century B.C., a date apparently confirmed by the absence of any fragment of Esther among Qumran manuscripts. The novel has probably been written in Babylonia, as suggested by the names of Esther and Mordecai, based on the Babylonian theonyms Ištar and Marduk.

CHAPTER I

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

The history of the Jerusalem Kingdom does not start with David in the 10th century B.C. It was assumed half a century ago that the name of Jerusalem could be read on a cuneiform tablet from the 23rd century B.C., found at Tell Mardiḫ/Ebla in northern Syria. However, such a reading of the place name appeared soon unjustified. Jerusalem emerges into the full light of history a few centuries later, in the Middle Bronze II period1. The earliest evidence of human presence in the area of Jerusalem has been assigned to the Lower Palaeolithic. Flint implements of the Acheulean and Levalloisian types have been found in 1933 and 1962 southwest of the city, in the Rephaim or al-Baq‘a Valley2, near the Abū-Tōr quarter. These assemblages show some affinities with the Jabrudian culture and the Mousterian, dated to ca. 50,000 B.C. Mousterian man in the Levant is close to the Neanderthal race, which has replaced the Homo erectus. He is well represented in Palestine by a series of Neanderthaloid burials in the Mount Carmel caves. The prevailing dryness of the following periods made life conditions more difficult for prehistoric man in the Jerusalem area and only scanty information is available from Mesolithic and Neolithic times. Some sherds of the Chalcolithic period (ca. 43003300 B.C.) were found in clefts and natural pits in the bedrock on the slopes of the Southeast Hill3, corresponding to the biblical “City of David” (II Sam. 5:7, 9; etc.). The whole rocky spur to the southeast of the present walled city is generally called Ophel, and this appellation, inclusive of the misnamed “David’s City”, will be used in the present chapter. The Ophel was the first nucleus of the pre-Judaean site. The advantage of this hill lies in its sharply descending slopes, easy to defend, and in its vicinity to the Gihon Spring, the ‘Ayn Sitti Maryam or ‘Ayn Umm ad-Daraǧ. 1 One can see E. Stern (ed.), Jerusalem, in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. II, p. 698-804; K. Bieberstein and H. Bloedhorn, Jerusalem. Grundzüge der Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frühzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft (BTAVO B/100), 3 vols., Wiesbaden 1994; H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, new ed., Jerusalem 1994; G. Auld and M. Steiner, Jerusalem I. From the Bronze Age to the Maccabees, Cambridge 1996. 2 The results of the excavations of 1933 and 1962 have been published respectively by M. Stekelis, Rephaim-Baq‘a: A Palaeolithic Station in the Vicinity of Jerusalem, in JPOS 21 (1948), p. 80-97; B. Arensburg and O. Bar-Yosef, Yacimiento paleolítico en la Valle de Refaim, Jerusalém, Israel, in Ampurias 29 (1967), p. 117-133. 3 Y. Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David I (Qedem 19), Jerusalem 1984, p. 7 and 25.

8

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

BRONZE AGE There was certainly occupation in Jerusalem during the Proto-Urban period of the Early Bronze Age, for some of the most beautiful specimens of Proto-Urban B pottery come from a tomb discovered on the slopes of the Southeast Hill, the Ophel4. This pottery type is characterized by geometric weaving patterns painted in red thin lines by using a delicate brush. It occurs also at Tell an-Naṣbeh and ‘Ay (at-Tell), in some of the Jericho tombs, in a later phase of Early Bronze I at Bāb aḏ-Ḏra‘, contemporary with the first permanent settlement at this site, and in one tomb in northern Jordan, at ‘Arqub ad-Dahr5. Excavations on the slopes and summit of the Ophel ridge have produced more Early Bronze Age pottery, but only fragments of occupation levels, especially a part of a typical dwelling of Early Bronze I-II built on the bedrock. In this period, apparently, the settlement was not walled here6. Early Bronze I, the end of which can be placed at ca. 3000 B.C., was a creative period, characterized by cultural features, which seem to have been introduced by a new ethnic group. This can be identified confidently with Semites having “Egyptian connections”. However, Jerusalem does not emerge during the Early Bronze Age into the full light of history and it is represented in the Early Bronze IV / Middle Bronze I period (ca. 22502000 B.C.) only by a one-period not-walled settlement with brick and stone houses, which was excavated southwest of the city, in the Rephaim or alBaq‘a Valley. The entire area of the Ophel site is 4.4 hectares, but only half of it was built up and its population was thus estimated at 390 inhabitants7. Higher estimates, 200-250 inhabitants per built-up hectare, propose between 500 and 600 inhabitants.

4 L.-H. Vincent, Jérusalem sous terre, London 1911, p. 31-32, pls. VII-XII; K.M. Kenyon, Excavations in Jerusalem, 1965, in PEQ 98 (1966), p. 73-88 (see p. 74). 5 A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E., New York 1990, p. 102103. 6 Y. Shiloh, Excavations (n. 3), p. 25. 7 This low estimate of 156 inhabitants per built-up hectare is proposed by A. Sasson, The Pastoral Component in the Economy of Hill Country Sites in the Intermediate Bronze and Iron Ages: Archaeo-Ethnographic Case Studies, in Tel Aviv 25 (1998), p. 3-51 (see p. 25-26). He bases himself on the density coefficient of the village of Beit Duqqu, northwest of Jerusalem, in 1945. Only the settlement of the intermediate period Early Bronze IV / Middle Bronze I is taken into account, not the settlements of Middle Bronze IIB and of the Iron Age, uncovered by G. Edelstein and E. Eisenberg, ‘Emeq-Refa’im - 1985, in ESI 4 (1985), p. 54-56; E. Eisenberg, Naḥal Refa’im, in ESI 7-8 (1988-89), p. 84-89; 9 (1989-90), p. 150-156; 12 (1994), p. 67-71; id., Naḥal Rephaim: A Bronze Age Village in South-Western Jerusalem, in Qadmoniot 26 (1993), p. 82-95 (in Hebrew); E. Eisenberg and G. Edelstein, Rephaim, Naḥal, in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. IV, p. 1277-1282; G. M. Edelstein and I. Milevski, The Rural Settlement of Jerusalem Re-Evaluated: Surveys and Excavations in the Reph’aim Valley and Mevasseret Yerushalayim, in PEQ 126 (1994), p. 2-23.

BRONZE AGE

9

Egyptian Execration Texts The presence of a Middle Bronze IIA settlement at Jerusalem is certain thanks to the evidence provided by the Egyptian Execration Texts and by some archaeological material uncovered at the site of the Ophel hill8. In Middle Bronze Age IIA-B Jerusalem was a fortified town9. The foundation of the massive city wall was thus assigned by excavators to the period in which the Egyptian Execration Texts mention Jerusalem for the first time, under the reign of the Twelfth Dynasty.

Clay figurine with Execration Texts

Reconstituted bowl with Execration Texts

These Egyptian Execration Texts of the 19th-18th centuries B.C. are written in hieratic or cursive script on pottery bowls or earthenware figurines, which were broken or buried with magical rites. They list places, tribes, and rulers of Canaan and surrounding areas, regarded as actually or potentially dangerous for Egypt, the pharaoh or the Egyptian interests. The names of the foreign rulers, tribes, and cities, were known from official records and commercial or 8 S.L. Cohen, Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections. The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to Middle Kingdom Egypt (Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 3), Winona Lake 2002, p. 84. 9 K.M. Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem, London 1974, p. 83; Y. Shiloh, Excavations (n. 3), p. 25; Jerusalem, in ESI 1 (1984), p. 49-51; Y. Shiloh, The Material Culture of Judah and Jerusalem in Iron Age II: Origins and Influences, in E. Lipiński (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations (OLA 19), Leuven 1985, p. 113-146 (see p. 114-115).

10

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

diplomatic relations with the concerned countries. The inscriptions on pottery bowls are in Berlin and were published by Kurt Sethe in 1926. The dozen figurines with Execration Texts are kept in the Cinquantenaire Museum in Brussels and were edited by Georges Posener in 1940. The inscriptions in Berlin are usually dated ca. 1900 B.C. and the ones in Brussels about 1800 B.C. Of course, these dates are very approximate and should be lowered by half a century, if one follows the low chronology synchronized with chronologies advocated by Manfred Bietak for Egypt and by H. Gasche, J.A. Armstrong, S.W. Cole, and V.G. Gurzadyan for Mesopotamia10. The toponym “Jerusalem” is written Ꜣw-w-šꜢ-Ꜣ-m-m11, followed by the “triple mount” determinative which characterizes place names. In the Bronze Age II, the consonant l/r was indicated by Ꜣ, the aleph sign. The reading Rušalimum is established by comparison with the later cuneiform spelling Ú-ru-sa-lim of the El-Amarna letters12. The initial vowel was not indicated, since Egyptian orthography neglects it also in genuine Egyptian words, like in Bśt.t, the goddess whose name was later pronounced Ubasti, or in rwd, “to be flourishing”, that appears in Coptic as ourot13. The El-Amarna spelling shows nevertheless that the initial vowel was U, probably Wu. Initial W changed into Y in later WestSemitic languages, as attested from the end of the second millennium B.C. Final m of the Egyptian spelling indicates the mimation used at that time with the absolute state of the nouns and names. It generally disappears in the midsecond millennium B.C. This shows that the first element of the place name is apparently a derivative of the common Semitic root wrw, the basic meaning of which is likely to be “to throw, to launch” (Hebrew, Ethiopic), hence “to bring forward”, “to lead” (Akkadian), “to attack” (Sabaic)14. Hebrew yrh < wrw may refer to foundations, like in Job 38:6, but the verb does not mean “to found”, 10 M. Bietak, Die Chronologie Ägyptens und der Beginn der mittleren Bronzezeit-Kultur, in Ägypten und Levante 3 (1992), p. 29-37; H. Gasche, J.A. Armstrong, S.W. Cole, and V.G. Gurzadyan, Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology, Ghent Chicago 1998. Cf. M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. I-II, Wien 2000-2003. 11 K. Sethe, Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefäßscherben des Mittleren Reiches (Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1926. Phil.-hist. Kl. 5), Berlin 1926, p. 53, e 27 and e 28; p. 58, f 18; G. Posener, Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Textes hiératiques sur des figurines d’envoûtement du Moyen Empire, Bruxelles 1940, p. 86, E 45. The identification of ꜢwšꜢmm can be considered as certain (W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. [Ägyptologishe Abhandlungen 5], 2nd ed., Wiesbaden 1971, p. 48), since the “weak” Semitic liquids r and l are often marked in Egyptian by Ꜣ; cf. E. Lipiński, Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA 80), 2nd ed., Leuven 2001, §2.4; §17.2. 12 EA 287, 25.46.61.63; 289, 14.29; 290,15. See W.L. Moran, Les lettres d’El Amarna (LAPO 13), Paris 1987, and The Amarna Letters, Baltimore 1992. 13 W. Westendorf, Koptisches Handwörterbuch, Heidelberg 1965-77, p. 276. 14 A.F.L. Beeston, M.A. Ghul, W.W. Müller, and J. Ryckmans, Sabaic Dictionary (EnglishFrench-Arabic), Louvain-la-Neuve - Beyrouth 1982, p. 162.

BRONZE AGE

11

as assumed by some authors. The form wuru of the toponym seems to be an Amorite noun, comparable to bu-nu, “creation”, derived from the root bny, “to build”15. The root wrw appears in the Qatabanic personal name Wrw’l16, probably “Offshoot of El”. Wuru is qualified by Šalim, probably the Amorite name of the divine evening star. The writer did not follow this interpretation in a recently published article, arguing that no divinity Šalim is related to Jerusalem. However, the toponym is replaced by Šalem in Gen. 14:18 and Ps. 76:3. Moreover, despite the vocalization of the Hebrew textus receptus, Absalom’s name, attested at Mari17, and Solomon’s Hebrew name Šlmh can both be based on the theonym Šalim, Šlmh having a paragogic vowel. At any rate, Šalim appears in several Amorite personal names, such as ’Abu-Šalim, ’Ila-Šalim, ‘Ammu-Šalim, Mut-Šalim, Yatar-Šalim or Yītur-Šalim, Yi’uš-Šalim, Yindub-Šalim, Yīṣi’-Šalim18. However, the toponym *Wurū-Šalim-um does not designate a person but the rocky spur to the southeast of the present-day Old City, which was thus considered as a creation of this Amorite godhead: “Offshoot of Šalim” or, topographically, “Spur of Šalim”19. The earlier group of Execration Texts mentions two rulers of Jerusalem: YqꜢ‘mw and Śṯ‘nw20; one more appears in the slightly later group, but his name is illegible21. YqꜢ‘mw is an Amorite anthroponym which appears as Ḫa-mu-iaqar at Mari, in the 17th century B.C.22 The inverted order of the components does not affect its meaning “the Ancestor is esteemed”, ‘Ammu-yaqar or Yaqar‘Ammu, as authors commonly agree23. One can also refer to Amorite Ia-qί-raa-bu-um, “the Father is esteemed”24. ‘Ammu is the ancestor, like in the names of Jeroboam or Rehoboam. In Nabataean, ‘ammu is the “great-grandfather”, but in Arabic it designates today the paternal uncle. 15 H.B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. A Structural and Lexical Study, Baltimore 1965, p. 176. 16 G.L. Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Near and Middle East Series 8), Toronto 1971, p. 641. Cf. Hebrew Yrw’l: I Chron. 7:2 (Septuagint); II Chron. 20:16. 17 Abu-Šalim: M. Birot, Noms de personnes, in Répertoire analytique I. Noms propres (Archives royales de Mari XVI/1), Paris 1979, p. 49. 18 M. Birot, Noms de personnes (n. 17), p. 49, 101, 118, 158, 235; I.J. Gelb, Computer-aided Analysis of Amorite (AS 21), Chicago 1980, p. 182. The divine name is written with the initial cuneiform sign SA which corresponds in Amorite names to a phonemic ša; cf. E. Lipiński, Semitic (n. 11), § 13.4-5. 19 The often alleged meaning “foundation” for yrw is not attested so far in Semitic languages. 20 K. Sethe, Die Ächtung (n. 11), p. 53, e 27 and e 28. 21 G. Posener, Princes (n. 11), p. 86, E 45. 22 G. Dossin, Deux listes nominatives du règne de Sûmu-iamam, in RA 65 (1971), p. 37-66 (see p. 52, col. X, 62); M. Birot, Noms de personnes (n. 17), p. 101. 23 H.B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names (n. 15), p. 214; W. Helck, Die Beziehungen (n. 11), p. 48. 24 M. Birot, Noms de personnes (n. 17), p. 101 et 224.

12

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

The second name Śṯ‘nw is most likely Amorite as well, as suggested by the hypocoristic suffix or afformative -ānu25. Since Egyptian ṯ often corresponds to Semitic s, the basis Śṯ‘ seems to correspond to šassā’u, “crier”, “implorer”, and to the verb šasū, “to shout”, but it is attested so far only in Akkadian26. Besides, its meaning hardly suits a tribal chief or a city-ruler. Therefore, it is preferable to refer here to the Hebrew root šs‘, which means “to cleave, to split”27, speaking also of wood. Final n must belong to the suffix -ān > -ōn of personal names, like Simeon, Samson. The personal name Šs‘n occurs in South Arabian where it qualifies a farm-house28, most likely designating its proprietor. The name without the suffix -n occurs also at Mari, where it is written Ša-su-e29. It appears therefore as an Amorite anthroponym. In Arabic, the adjective šāsi‘ means “large, distant”30 and has the form of an active participle, whose first meaning could be “enlarging, widening”. Considering these connotations Śṯ‘n might designate someone who clears land of forests, enlarges fields, splits soil with plough. It could be the name or surname of the chief of an agricultural community. The toponym and the two personal names show that the population was Amorite like the later inhabitants of this region. Archaeological researches The situation and the topography of the Amorite city have been clarified to a large extent in the course of archaeological research. Scholars agree that the earliest city was situated only on the narrow Ophel hill and that its superficies amounted to ca. 4.4 hectares. If the demographic density coefficient is taken as 200-250 inhabitants per built-up hectare, the total population of Jerusalem at that time can be estimated at about 880-1,100 persons, women and children included. There is no reason to suppose that this population belonged to a tribal group different from the rulers’, and it should therefore be considered as Amorite. The mention of this small city in the Egyptian Execration Texts can probably be explained by its good defensive position, its influence on the surrounding area, and its location on crossroads in the highlands of Canaan. A later confirmation of this opinion can be found in the ethnolinguistic information provided by the inscribed arrow- or javelin-heads from the 11th century B.C., uncovered in 1953 at el-Ḫaḍr, five km west of Bethlehem. A farmer of this village found in his field a large hoard of arrowheads, belonging probably 25

H.B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names (n. 15), p. 135-138. AHw, p. 1194-1197. The etymological basis of šasū can be śs‘ since ancient Egyptian ṯ usually corresponds to Semitic s. The translation “der Kluge”, proposed by W. Helck, Die Beziehungen (n. 11), p. 48, can hardly be justified. 27 A derivative of this verb is used in Biblical Hebrew to designate animals having a cloven hoaf. 28 G.L. Harding, An Index (n. 16), p. 348: ŠŚ‘N. 29 M. Birot, Noms de personnes (n. 17), p. 195. 30 H. Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Wiesbaden 1961, p. 470. 26

BRONZE AGE

13

Obverse and reverse of an arrowhead from el-Ḫaḍr (photo: BASOR 238 [1980], p. 5)

to the grave of a warrior buried there with his full quiver. The presence of such a warrior in an area close to Jerusalem confirms the latter’s importance near crossroads of southern Cisjordan. The hoard was scattered among antiquities dealers in Jerusalem and Ammān. It consisted of at least twenty-eight arrowheads, including five inscribed weapons published by J.T. Milik and F.M. Cross31. The inscription of four arrowheads reads only ḥṣ ‘bdlb’t, “Arrow of ‘AbdLabi’at”, while the fifth weapon is incised on both sides with the patronymic, but without ḥṣ. The obverse reads ‘bdlb’t and the reverse bn ‘nt, “son of ‘Anath”. Both names belong to the Amorite or Canaanite anthroponomy. The name ‘bdlb’t is attested also at Ugarit32 and means “Servant of the Lioness”, what is probably a title of a goddess, possibly of ‘Anath, appearing in the patronymic. The same patronymic is born by the “minor Judge Shamgar son of ‘Anath” (Judg. 3:31), the most famous warrior among the “Judges”. Theonyms may stand alone as hypocoristic names, but ‘Anath may be shortened from bn Bn-‘nt, since an arrowhead from Biqa‘ Dart bears the name Zkrb‘l bn Bn-‘n[t]33. 31

F.M. Cross and J.T. Milik, Inscribed Javelin-heads from the Period of the Judges, in BASOR 134 (1954), p. 5-15; īd., A Typological Study of the El-Khadr Javelin- and Arrow-heads, in ADAJ 3 (1956), p. 15-23; F.M. Cross, Newly found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts, in BASOR 238 (1980), p. 1-20 (see p. 4-7); id., Newly discovered inscribed Arrowheads of the 11th Century B.C.E., in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Jerusalem 1993, p. 533-542 (see p. 539); KAI 21 and pl. 1. 32 F. Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Studia Pohl 1), Rom 1967, p. 105, 154, 377. 33 J.T. Milik, An unpublished Arrow-head with Phoenician Inscription of the 11th-10th Century B.C.E., in BASOR 143 (1956), p. 3-6; T.C. Mitchell, Another Palestinian inscribed Arrowhead, in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, London 1985, p. 136-153 (see No. 5).

14

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

Sketchy plan of ancient Jerusalem

The excavations carried out on the Ophel hill by Kathleen M. Kenyon (19611967) and Yigal Shiloh (1978-1985)34 allowed dating the foundation of Jerusalem’s city wall to about 1800 B.C. and presenting a clear picture of a fortified city during the 18th century B.C. Research conducted in 1995-1996 by Ronny Reich and Eli Shoukron in the Middle Bronze II water system near the Gihon Spring35 uncovered a “Rock-cut Pool” with no rock ceiling, but protected by towers. It was about 16 × 10 m large and offered a capacity of more than 1000 m³. Through channels water was led from the spring to this pool, where it was easily drawn, while the overflow was diverted by Channel / Tunnel II to the southern part of the hill into a still unknown location in the Kidron Valley. The “Rock-cut Pool” was not aimed at storing water, but only at bringing it within the safe reach of the population of the inner city. Potsherds and a couple of scarab impressions, uncovered in crevices of the “Rock-cut Pool” tower, as well as above and under the floors inside the tower 34

One can see E. Stern (ed.), Jerusalem, in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. II, p. 698-804. The chronology should be adapted to more recent researches. 35 R. Reich and E. Shukron, Light at the End of the Tunnel, in Biblical Archaeology Review 25/1 (1999), p. 22-33, 72 ; īd., The Excavations at the Gihon Spring and Warren’s Shaft System in the City of David, in H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, reprinted and expanded edition, Jerusalem 2000, p. 327-339 ; īd., New Excavations on the Eastern Slope of the City of David (in Hebrew), in Qadmoniot 34/2 (2001), p. 78-87 (illustrations) ; īd., The History of the Water Spring in Jerusalem, in Levant 36 (2004), p. 211-223 ; īd., The Middle Bronze II Water System in Jerusalem, in C. Arnould-Béhar and A. Lemaire (eds.), Jérusalem antique et médiévale. Mélanges en l’honneur d’Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz (Collection de la Revue des études juives 52), Paris Louvain 2011, p. 17-29.

BRONZE AGE

15

The ‘Rock-cut Pool’ in the initial phase of the excavations (Qadmoniot 34/2 [2001], p. 81)

or abutting it, date the rock-cut parts of the system from the Middle Bronze II period, seemingly MB IIC, i.e. the first half of the 16th century B.C. according to a low chronology. This newly discovered complex of fortifications is located about 15 m to the east and down slope of Middle Bronze II city-wall excavated by K.M. Kenyon. A long segment was later added to the wall further south in Y. Shiloh’s excavations. It means that a protruding bastion has been built in the Middle Bronze Age in order to protect the Gihon Spring and the exit of the Warren’s Shaft System. A massive tower protected the “Rock-cut Pool” from the north and it was probably paralleled by a similar tower on its southern side, as shown by indications already available. Besides, a wall of large boulders protected the pool on the east. Although located in an outer bastion or redoubt, the water system of the Middle Bronze II period was thus protected from all sides. No archaeological evidence is available on the Ophel hill for the period extending from Middle Bronze IIB (17th century) or IIC, first half of the 16th century B.C., to the final phase of Iron Age I (900 B.C.). If we neglect the few sherds scattered on the Ophel hill, we remain with an archaeological gap of more than six hundred years, from ca. 1550 to ca. 900 B.C., in the history of the city of Jerusalem, since its likely location on the

16

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

The plan of the Warren’s Shaft System (Qadmoniot 34/2 [2001], p. 80)

Temple Mount (Ḥaram aš-Šarīf)36 is so far not substantiated. Fortunately, archaeological evidence for the settlement of Jerusalem in Late Bronze I and II comes from the burial caves on the western slopes of the Mount of Olives, across the Kidron Valley, and in Naḥalat Aḥim37, northwest of the Old City, 36 E.A. Knauf, Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, in Tel Aviv 27 (2000), p. 75-90. Nothing can be said about the Temple Mount, although thirty-seven subterranean cavities have been recorded there in the 19th century. It has been suggested by R. Gonen, On Ancient Tombs and Holy Places: The Cave of Machpela and the Temple Mount, in Cathedra 34 (1985), p. 3-14, especially p. 8-14 (in Hebrew), that some cavities may be tombs from the pre-Israelite period. This would place this area beyond the city walls. At any rate, there are now the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqśā mosque on the Temple Mount, both being places holy to Islam, which effectively cut off the possibility of archaeological investigation. 37 Mount of Olives: P. Lemaire, Une tombe du Récent Bronze au Mont des Oliviers. Rapport préliminaire, in Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani 5 (1954-55), p. 261-299; S.J. Saller, The

BRONZE AGE

17

Amenophis IV Fragment of a colossus in the Luxor Museum

as well as from a tomb on the grounds of the “Government House”, later “General Quarter” of the United Nations38, south-east of Silwān. Besides, Egyptian finds from the end of the 13th century B.C., uncovered in the area of the S. Étienne monastery and Biblical School of the Fathers Dominicans, suggest that there was an Egyptian temple there in the Late Bronze Age II39. Its existence implies the presence of some Egyptian temple officials and other personnel in Jerusalem. Aegean, Cypriot, and Egyptian imported pottery, also Excavations at Dominus Flevit (Mount Olivet, Jerusalem). Part II. The Jebusite Burial Place (Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 13/II), Jerusalem 1964. Mycenaean fragments and Egyptian faience belong to the contents of this large tomb. See also Naḥalat Aḥim: R. Amiran, A Late Bronze Age II Pottery Group from a Tomb in Jerusalem, in Narkiss Volume (ErIs 6), Jerusalem 1960, p. 25-37, pls. III-IV (in Hebrew), with an English summary on p. 27*. The homogeneous material of this tomb dates from Late Bronze II. 38 D.C. Baramki, An Ancient Cistern in the Grounds of Government House, Jerusalem, in QDAP 4 (1935), p. 165-167. It is a tomb: G. Barkay, A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem?, in IEJ 46 (1996), p. 23-43 (see p. 40, n. 37). An Egyptian scarab belongs to the material found in the cistern. 39 G. Barkay, A Late Bronze Age (n. 38).

18

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

an Egyptian scarab of the Eighteenth Dynasty, were found in these places. These finds witness the relative importance of Jerusalem in the Amarna age40, when the city ruler was corresponding with pharaoh Amenophis IV, alias Akhenaten (ca. 1354-1337 B.C.). El-Amarna letters Seven letters from Jerusalem survive in the Amarna archive (EA 285-291) and two or three letters sent from Gath mention Jerusalem (EA 280, 366, possibly 335). The ruler of Jerusalem at that time was called mARAD-Ḫe-ba, “Servant of Ḫeba(t)”, the great Hurrian goddess. However, ARAD might also be read purame in Hurrian41, but no syllabically written Hurrian name is known so far with purame followed by a theonym. In fact, the Hurro-Urartian basis of the word “servant” was *pōra-42, and this form appears in Hurrian proper names when it is determined by a second element, as apparently in Pu-ra-Gu-uš at Tell Taanach43 and Pu-re-Tešub at Ras Shamra44. The Hurrian origin of the ruler is supported not only by the theophorous element Ḫeba(t), but also by the title EN-ri he attributes in one of his letters to the pharaoh45. In fact, this word should be read ewri in Hurrian, i.e. “lord”, “(great) king”46. The letter has most likely been written by a scribe different from the one who wrote the other letters sent from Jerusalem. The “Canaanisms” of the Jerusalem Amarna letters should not be attributed systematically to the dialect spoken in the city in the Late Bronze Age, since their scribe appears to have been of Syrian origin47. Even the usual linkage of

40

N. Na’aman, The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E., in BASOR 304 (1996), p. 17-27. 41 E. Laroche, Glossaire de la langue hourrite (= RHA 34-35 [1976-77]), Paris 1978-79, p. 205. The interpretation of ARAD is considered as uncertain by R.S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names (ASOR, Dissert. Ser. 9), Winona Lake 1993, p. 176-177. 42 I.M. Diakonoff and S.A. Starostin, Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language, München 1986, p. 16. 43 Letter 3, 10, published by B. Hrozný, Keilschrifttexte aus Ta‘anek, in E. Sellin (ed.), Tell Ta‘anek, Wien 1904, p. 113-122, pls. 10-11 (see p. 117 ff.). Cf. APN, p. 182b. 44 RS. 17.110, in J. Nougayrol, Le Palais royal d’Ugarit IV, Paris 1956, p. 178. 45 EA 286, 7.15.32. Cf. W.L. Moran, Les lettres (n. 12). 46 O. Loretz, ENri = iwri in EA 286, in UF 6 (1974), p. 485; W.L. Moran, The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters, in H. Goedicke and J. Roberts (eds.), Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, Baltimore 1975, p. 146166 (see p. 163, n. 52); E. Laroche, Glossaire (n. 41), p. 85-87. Older opinions are discussed by O. Schröder, Zu Berliner Amarnatexten, in OLZ 18 (1915), col. 293-296 (see col. 295-296). A.F. Rainey, The Scatterbrained Scribe, in Y. Avishur and J. Blau (eds.), Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to S.E. Loewenstamm, Jerusalem 1978, p. 141-150, considers EN-ri as an erroneous transposition for LUGAL-ri = šarri, but such a mistake can hardly occur three times in the same letter. 47 W.L. Moran, The Syrian Scribe (n. 46).

BRONZE AGE

19

the first person singular pronoun a-nu-ki, found in one of the letters48, with Hebrew ’anōkī cannot be accepted without qualification, since ’nky occurs also in Sam’alian49, an Early Aramaic dialect, and ’nwky appears twice in a fragmentary law from Palmyra50. The presence of a Hurrian ruler and of a Syrian scribe in Jerusalem certainly implies settling of some exogenous families, but nothing indicates so far that the bulk of the Jerusalem population had changed ethnically or linguistically in the Late Bronze Age51. In the initial sentences of three letters Abdi-Ḫeba stresses that neither his father nor his mother, but the pharaoh made him king52. Although he writes in one of these letters that “the mighty arm of the king let me enter into the house of my father” (EA 286, 12-13), it does not seem that there had been a struggle over his father’s succession. This is rather an allusion to the hostility of some neighbouring rulers, of the nomadic or semi-nomadic ‘Apiru, and even of the Egyptian governor of Canaan. The main reason for recording pharaoh’s formal role in Abdi-Ḫeba’s accession is the urgent request of an Egyptian military help, repeated in every letter: “Let the king send fifty men as a garrison to guard the land! The entire land of the king has deserted!” (EA 289, 42-44). Abdi-Ḫeba’s enemies were not only the ‘Apiru, dwelling in the Cisjordanian highland with Shechem as their centre, but also the Western petty kings of Gezer, Gath, Ginti-Kirmil. As shown by this correspondence, the Egyptians had little interest in the hill country and were engaged in minimal activity there, stationing in Jerusalem a very small garrison, not even on a permanent basis. One letter records the loss of uruBīt-dNIN.URTA which went “over to the side of the men of Qeilah” (EA 290, 15-18). The rather funny identification of the War-god Ninurta with the goddess ‘Anath, suggested by N. Na’aman53, overlooks the identification of this place, close to Jerusalem, with Bethlehem, the name of which means “House of the War-god”. In fact, the root lḫm > lḥm is used in Hebrew, Moabite, and Sabaic in the sense “to fight” and milḥamāh is “war”. The name of the town was probably pronounced *Bêt-Lāḫim, the vowel a being still preserved in Arabic Bêt-Laḥm. In another letter, Abdi-Ḫeba writes that he has almost been killed by Nubians in his own house (EA 287, 71-75). 48

EA 287, 66.69. Cf. W.L. Moran, Les lettres (n. 12). KAI 215 = TSSI II, 14, 19. 50 D.R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, Baltimore 1996, PAT 2767, lines 3 and 4. 51 The rough estimate of 2,500 inhabitants proposed by J. Wilkinson, Ancient Jerusalem. Its Water Supply and Population, in PEQ 106 (1974), p. 33-51 (see p. 46), is too high. It is based on the available water supply and not on the built-up area. 52 EA 286, 9-13; 287, 25-28; 288, 13-15. 53 N. Na’aman, Jerusalem in the Amarna Period, in C. Arnould-Béhar and A. Lemaire, Jérusalem antique et médiévale. Mélanges en l’honneur d’Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz, Paris - Louvain 2011, p. 31-48 (see p. 45). 49

20

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

This seems to indicate that he was not living in a well protected domain and raises the question about the precise location of Jerusalem in the Amarna period and in the following centuries. Considering that no pottery or other archaeological items from the Late Bronze and Iron Age I periods were found either in the Water System linked to the Gihon Spring or on the Ophel hill, it seems reasonably certain that no town was located on the Ophel hill in those times. Jerusalem’s urban structure has to be sought north of the Ophel hill, i.e. in the Ḥaram area, never excavated, or less likely south of the hill, near ‘Ēn Rōgel, “Job’s Well”, at the convergence of the Kidron and Ḥinnom Valleys. Also this area has not been excavated, but a royal palace was found further south, at Ramat Rahel. However, the excavations of 1954-1962 and 2005-2007 discovered there only remains of buildings from the 7th century B.C. and later periods. Instead, the large burial place of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550-1250 B.C.), discovered on the Mount of Olives54, may have been connected with the Hurrian dynasty living on the Temple Mount, the Ḥaram55. If Jerusalem of the Late Bronze Age was then located at the site of the Ḥaram aš-Šarīf, one wonders whether it was a walled city or a fortified domain managed by the family of Abdi-Ḫeba. The presence of a royal domain with some annexes is supported by Abdi-Ḫeba’s statement that fifty Egyptian archers would suffice to protect it (EA 289, 42-43). The actual area of the Ḥaram aš-Šarīf corresponds to ca. 14 hectares, but the size of the city of Jerusalem in Late Bronze II and Iron Age I was most likely smaller and the built-up area would amount only to ca. 7 hectares at most. In fact, the area was later occupied also by a threshing-floor, by fields and stables for oxen56, by the tent of the Ark of God, by the Temple, by Solomon’s palace, by the Millō’ sanctuary (Egyptian mꜢrw) prepared for the latter’s Egyptian wife57. If we reckon then with an approximate population density of 250 persons per built-up hectare58, we obtain ca. 1750 inhabitants for Jerusalem in the Amarna period and the end of the Bronze Age. Water was possibly provided at the Old Pool (Isa. 22:10), the Lower Pool (Isa. 22:9), and the Upper Pool (II Kings 18:17; Isa. 7:3; 36:2), the latter being unlikely the Ḥammām eš-Šifa’, to the west of the Ḥaram, since it only contained rain water.

54

See here above, n. 37. Question raised by M.L. Steiner, Re-dating the Terraces of Jerusalem, in IEJ 44 (1994), p. 13-20 (see p. 20). 56 See here below, p. 22-23. 57 See here below, p. 25-26. 58 G. Biger and D. Grossman, Village and Town Populations in Palestine during the 1930s-1940s and Their Relevance to Ethnoarchaeology, in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990. Pre-Congress Symposium: Population, Production and Power, Jerusalem 1993, p. 19-30. 55

IRON AGE I

21

IRON AGE I Despite Josh. 10:1-1559, no authentic information about Jerusalem is available in the Bible until the time of David, ca. 960 B.C. The Book of Judges preserves a conquest tradition of a military subjugation of Jerusalem by the tribe of Judah (Judg. 1:8), but this is contradicted by a later verse in the same chapter (1:21) and by the narrative of II Sam. 5:6-9, where Jerusalem is described as a Jebusite city until its capture by David around 960 B.C.60 Jebusites The ancient inhabitants of the city are called Jebusites in the Bible61 and the Jebusites are included in the stereotyped list of the pre-Israelite populations of Palestine62. The Chronicler deduced from this appellation that Jebus was an ancient name of the city itself63, but this deduction is not supported by any ancient source and Palestinian Jebusites are not recorded in any written document independent from the Bible. However, Yabusi’um is attested at Mari as an Amorite anthroponym64 and several Mari texts mention a Ḥanaean clan of Jebusites, that provided small military units to some places in Syria, on the Euphrates65. Their name seems to be the same as the biblical one and their role in Syrian towns corresponds to the one we should attribute them in the Jerusalem area in the Later Bronze II and Iron Age I. This tribal name derives from the root bs’, in Arabic basa’, “to treat amicably”, as indicated by Hebrew yǝbūsī’, written with a samek. No remains pointing at the existence of a distinct Jebusite material culture were found in the excavations and nothing suggests that Jerusalem’s population has changed drastically. To understand the biblical erroneous reports on Jebusites one must go back to the historical situation of Palestine at the end of the 12th and in the early 11th century B.C. Egyptian withdrawal from Canaan, progressing Philistine settlement, penetration of Transjordanian clans in Cisjordan, all these events required a military reinforcing of the petty Jerusalem kingdom. A small contingent of 59 As noticed already by M. Noth, Das Buch Josua (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7), 2nd ed., Tübingen 1953, p. 63, the names of the five Amorite kings and the particular role attributed to the king of Jerusalem (Josh. 10:1a, 3-4) are secondary features of the story, dating from the Second Temple period. 60 Higher dates, often proposed, are based on the assumption that the forty years of David’s and Solomon’s reigns are exact figures. This is certainly not correct. 61 Josh. 15:63; Judg. 1:21; II Sam. 5:6, 8; I Chron. 11:4, 6 (cf. Zech. 9:7). 62 Gen. 10:16; 15:20; Ex. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; Judg. 3:5; I Kings 9:20; Ezra 9:1; Neh. 9:8; II Chron. 8:7. 63 I Chron. 11:4-5. 64 M. Birot, in Noms de personnes (n. 17), p. 214. 65 E. Lipiński, Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire (OLA 267), Leuven 2018, p. 5-7.

22

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

Jebusite mercenaries seems to have been the available solution, taken urgently by the ruler of Jerusalem. The biblical mention of the occupation of Jerusalem by David (II Sam. 5:68) simply indicates that its ruler has not been protected by his Jebusite mercenaries: “Any killer of the Jebusite will reach on the rock the blind and the lame” (v. 8), who were supposed to defend him. The rock is the high place of the Temple Mount where the ewri was staying, for Hebrew ṣinnōr is the same word as Aramaic ṭynr, “rock”66. Its first consonant is the emphatic interdental ṯ̣, corresponding to Arabic ẓ, but no longer attested in Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian. The noun ṣinnōr still occurs in Ps. 42:8, where the meaning “rock” suits the context perfectly67. The killer of the ruler, called Jebusite, was David, as said explicitly in II Sam. 12:9b by the prophet Nathan: “You have struck down Uriya the Hittite with the sword”. A gloss changes the meaning of these words in order to exculpate David, and the related story appears in II Sam. 11. Of course, ’wryh is no Yahwistic anthroponym, but the Hurrian word ewri “lord”, and Ḥty is no Hittite, but the frequent Hurrian personal name Ḫutiya, thus: “You have struck down ewri Ḥutiya with the sword and taken his wife as your own wife”. Her name Btšb, “Daughter of Tešub”, the great Hurrian god, was changed in Btšb‘, “Daughter of the oath” allegedly sworn by David promising that her son will succeed him as king. An old story recording the occupation of the Temple Mount by David can be read in II Sam. 24:18-25, which still uses the Hurrian title ewri, “lord”, with the determinative suffix -ni/-ne and must be based on an ancient source. It records the acquisition of a place by David, as requested by the seer Gad, in order to build there an altar and to offer a sacrifice. Hurrian ’wrnh must be restored in the whole account, as shown by the Greek transcription Ορνα in the Septuagint. This correct spelling is preserved only in v. 16. The qualification “Jebusite” in II Sam. 24:16 and 18 is an incorrect addition, inspired by II Sam. 5:6-8, for ’wrnh is no personal name, but the Hurrian title “the lord”, translated correctly by the gloss h-mlk, “the king”, in v. 21. The other mentions of the king in the account are later additions, eventually replacing the name of David. The initial account of II Sam. 24:18-25, written to show David’s magnanimity and piety, had no relation with the famine dealt with in the preceding verses of the chapter and referred to in v. 21b, added by the redactor. The original text can thus be translated as follows: “Gad came to David and said to him: ‘Go and set up an altar to Yahweh on the threshing-floor of the ewri’. David thus went up, as Gad told him to do according 66 M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature I, New York 1886, p. 533a ; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 3rd ed., Ramat Gan 2017, p. 234b. 67 For a larger discussion, cf. E. Lipiński, Jerusalem à l’âge du Bronze et du Fer I, in PJBR 17 (2018), p. 7-25 (see p. 18-20).

IRON AGE I

23

to Yahweh’s order. When the ewri looked down and saw David and his servants coming over towards him, he went out and prostrated himself, nose on the ground, and said: ‘Why has my lord come to his servant?’ David said: ‘To buy the threshing-floor from you to build an altar to Yahweh’. The ewri said then to David: ‘Let my lord take and offer what he pleases. See the oxen for the burnt offering and the threshing-sledges and oxen’s implements for wood. The ewri (the king) gives it all’. And the ewri said: ‘May Yahweh, your God, accept you’. But David said to the ewri: ‘No, I will buy it from you for a price and I will not offer to Yahweh, my God, whole-offerings free of charge’. So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. David built an altar to Yahweh there and offered whole-offerings and shared-offerings.”

The same story in I Chron. 21:18-26 contains a variant showing that people who should have opposed the transaction failed to act: “ewri’s four sons who were with him hid themselves” (I Chron. 21:20). Since nothing is said at the end about ewri’s fate, this peaceful story seems to hide a deadly event. This threshing-floor, where David built the altar to offer sacrifices, is most likely the site of the future Temple of Yahweh; it was located next to the ewri’s palace and its annexes. Such a place could be protected by some fifty Egyptian soldiers, but Egyptians were not inclined to do it in the 14th century B.C., as one can see from the letters of Abdi-Ḫeba. A fortiori, the internal problems of Egypt after the death of Ramesses III (1182-1151 B.C.) and the collapse of the Egyptian power in Canaan in the later part of the 12th century B.C. do not support the idea that Egyptians could provide protection to the ruler of Jerusalem. Mercenaries were needed and this is most likely the historical context of the Jebusite presence in this area, misunderstood by later biblical writers. However, the distance from eastern Syria through desert areas is quite big. Therefore, one cannot simply assume that the Jebusites of the Mari archives belonged to the same clan or tribe as the biblical ones. However, a perennially flowing eastern tributary of the Jordan, 6 km south of Pella, preserves the name of Jebus. It is Wādi Yābis, usually related to the biblical city of Jabesh in Gilead. If a tribal identification cannot be proved by the sole reference to the name of the tribe or clan, Transjordanian provenance and mercenary function of foreign Jebusites in Jerusalem seem to offer quite a reasonable explanation of their presence in a city which was not governed by members of the local community. Davidic Jerusalem The Deuteronomistic historian, writing ca. 500 B.C., believed apparently that the Ophel hill and the space between the Ophel and the Temple Mount were inhabited under the reigns of David and of Solomon. This might explain the role played by the area of ‘Ēn Rōgel, near the southern tip of the Ophel hill, in some biblical stories related to David. Jonathan and Ahimaaz, who acted as spies and runners for David when he was fleeing from Absalom, waited there for news from Jerusalem (II Sam. 17:17). Adonijah’s abortive attempt to succeed

24

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

Stepped Stone Structure after the excavations of 1982

David as king took place at ‘Ēn Rōgel (I Kings 1:9), where he offered sacrifices, what seems to imply the nearby presence of a sanctuary. However, in short chronology, no archaeological findings from the Ophel and from the space lying between the northern edge of the Ophel and the southern wall of the Ḥaram, inclusive the Stepped Stone Structure, can be reasonably dated before the mid-9th or the 8th century B.C. It is noteworthy, in particular, that both K.M. Kenyon and Y. Shiloh dated occupational layers in houses built on a steep slope of the Stepped Stone Structure to the second half of the 7th century B.C.68 One must assume therefore that David’s residence was situated on the grounds of the Ḥaram. It was most likely protected by the “Kerethites and Pelethites”69, a free Canaanite transcription of Greek κραταιὰ πέλτη, “robust peltasts”, πέλτη (a light shield) being used in a collective sense to designate a unit of peltasts70, like in Euripides, Rhesos 410. In biblical texts, this expression refers to Philistines hired by David. 68

K.M. Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem, London 1974, p. 137; Y. Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David I. 1978-1982. Interim Report of the First Five Seasons (Qedem 19), Jerusalem 1984, p. 28. 69 II Sam. 8:18; 15:18; 20:7, 23; I Kings 1:38-44. 70 E. Lipiński, Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques (Studia Phoenicia XXI; OLA 237), Leuven 2015, p. 12-13.

IRON AGE I

25

“City of David” as conceived by Eilat Mazar after her excavations campaign of 2005 (Biblical Archaeology Review 40/1[2014], p. 59)

The reconstruction of the area to the south of the Ḥaram, proposed by Eilat Mazar, cannot be accepted71. The location of the Millō’ on the Stepped Stone Structure is also hardly acceptable, especially if Millō’ is regarded as a transcription of Egyptian mꜢrw, that was a pleasant site with a sanctuary to the 71 E. Mazar, Did I find King David’s Palace?, in Biblical Archaeology Review 32/1 (2006), p. 16-27, 70. Cf. I. Finkelstein, Z. Herzog, L. Singer-Avitz, and D. Ussishkin, Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem been found?, in Tel Aviv 34 (2007), p. 142-164.

26

JERUSALEM IN THE BRONZE AGE AND IRON AGE I

Sun-deity72. It should be located also in the area of the Ḥaram, where Solomon made it for his Egyptian wife (I Kings 9:15, 24), most likely a daughter of Shoshenq I (943-922 B.C.). The location of the “Temple of Millō’” seems to be specified in II Kings 12:21, where Millō’ is said to “extend down to Sillā”, but Γααλλα according to the Septuagint, possibly transcribing G‘l’; the samek of the Hebrew textus receptus would then result from a reading of joint g‘ as s. This was most likely a place situated at the eastern side of the Temple Mount, since mꜢrw was a cult place of the Sun-deity. Writing about mꜢrw ’Itn at El-Amarna, A. Badawy says: “The mꜢrw was essentially a religious building, best described as ‘viewing place’... It was connected only with solar gods”73. It was thus important to see from the Millō’ the rising sun. We do not know whether Shoshenq I visited his widowed daughter’s millō’ when he came to Jerusalem in 924 B.C. to receive the treasures of the Temple and of the royal palace, given him by Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, as payment for the Egyptian military intervention against the Kingdom of Israel (I Kings 14:25). The name of pharaoh’s daughter is unknown, but one should not forget that David’s first name is also unknown. Dāwid is a surname “warden, sheikh”, attested in the Moabite inscription of king Mesha (line 12) and in Isa. 16:5 referring to Moab. It was probably given him by men of his gang before they entered the service of king Saul74.

72 M. Görg, Maru and Millo, in Göttinger Miszellen 20 (1976), p. 29-30 ; D. Shapira, Was Solomon’s Palace in Jerusalem modelled on Egyptian Palaces?, in Bibliotheca Orientalis 73 (2016), col. 644-676, in particular col. 671-672. Cf. R. Hannig, Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Grosses Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64), 2nd ed., Mainz a/R 1997, p. 320b. 73 A. Badawy, Maru-Aten, Pleasure Resort or Temple?, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 42 (1956), p. 58-64 (quotation from p. 63). 74 Cf. below, p. 30, n. 14.

CHAPTER II

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

There is little in the record, either literary or archaeological, to show that much progress in the field of urbanism was made in Jerusalem during David’s reign1, which lasted about twenty years. The forty years of David’s reign and the forty years of Solomon’s reign are of course fictitious estimates, proving that the redactor did not know their real length. However, a close estimate can be obtained on basis of quite reliable data, which place the reigns of both kings in Jerusalem ca. 960-928/7 B.C. with 928/7 being Year 1 of Rehoboam, son of Solomon (I Kings 14:25)2. Since Rehoboam became king at the age of 16 according to the Septuagint (III Kings 12:24a) and was most likely Solomon’s eldest son, born in 944/3 B.C. before Solomon’s actual accession to the throne after David’s death (I Kings 14:21), Solomon’s actual reign lasted at most fifteen years (942/1-928/7 B.C.) and his birth may be dated ca. 960 B.C., about two years after David’s seizure of power in Jerusalem, if we rely on the historical background hidden behind the account of II Sam. 11:2-12:233. This reconstitution is possible if the annalistic notices on the enthronement of Rehoboam are taken into account. The notice of the Septuagint, in III Kings 12:24a, reads as follows: “And Solomon slept with his fathers and he was buried with his fathers in the City of David, and Rehoboam, his son, reigned in his stead in Jerusalem, being sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned twelve years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Na‘amah, daughter of Ḥanan, son of Naḥaš, king of the sons of Ammon.” 1

The modest archaeological data from the time of David are the result of the repeated utilization of the structures and they are consistent with the biblical accounts, which attribute major building operations only to Solomon. 2 Cf. E. Lipiński, rev. in Rocznik Orientalistyczny 64/2 (2011), p. 126-127. Solomon’s accession to the throne at the age of twelve, as stated in III Kings 2:12 and in the Seder Olam Rabba 14, indicates his age when the ceremony of I Kings 1 has taken place before David’s death, not his age at the time of his real succession to David (I Kings 2:1-12), a few years later. 3 E. Lipiński, Itineraria Phoenicia (Studia Phoenicia XVIII; OLA 127), Leuven 2004, p. 499500. The earliest historical report is preserved in Nathan’s words addressed to David in II Sam. 12:9, which should be translated: “You have struck down Lord Ḫutiya with the sword and you have taken his wife for you as your own wife”. – The ruler of Jerusalem was killed by David himself, what was palliated by the story of II Sam. 11 and 12:9b (cf. p. 22). The meaning of this sentence was changed by the addition of II Sam. 12:9b. This seems to be overlooked by I. Ababi, Natan et la succession de David. Une étude synchronique de 2 Samuel 7 et 12, et 1 Rois 1 (Biblical Tools and Studies 32), Leuven 2017, p. 138. It does not matter whether Nathan was a historical figure or not.

28

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

This record does not look like a fictitious information with invented figures and it should be based on an authentic source. I Kings 14:21 adapts “sixteen” to the figure “forty” of the reign of Solomon (I Kings 11:42), indicating by its “forty-one” that Rehoboam was born before the actual accession of Solomon after David’s death. Therefore, if Shoshenq I’s campaign against Israel took place in 924 B.C.4, this was Year 5 of Rehoboam (I Kings 14:25) and his Year 1 corresponded then to 928 B.C., Solomon’s last year. THE REIGN OF DAVID Following disagreements with king Saul5, David fled to Gath and entered the service of Achish, i.e.’Αχαιός, the Philistine king of Gath (I Sam. 27). Achish gave him in fief the city of Ziklag (I Sam. 27:6). From this basis David was raiding with his men the nomads of the Negeb, most likely the Amalekites6, and from the abundant spoil taken in his raids he made gifts to the notables of southern Judah (I Sam. 30:26-31) aiming at winning their favour. While he was raiding the enclosed camps of the Negeb dwellers, the Amalekites vandalized Ziklag (I Sam. 32). Having seen this disaster, David and his men attacked the Amalekites in their settlements and they rescued all people they had taken. This event was very likely the main reason why David decided to shift to Hebron with all his people and their families (II Sam. 2:1-3; 3:2-5). His connections by marriage with prominent Judaean families, in particular of the Calebite clan (I Sam. 25:1-42), helped him to win the sympathy of the population of Hebron (II Sam. 2:2). The men of Judah came then and anointed David as king of Judah (II Sam. 2:4), what is obviously the conclusion of the Deuteronomistic historian. Hebron At that time, Hebron was located on the Ǧebel ar-Rumaydah, south of the modern city and of Abraham’s sanctuary. The American excavations conducted by Philip C. Hamond in 1963-1967 have uncovered several occupation levels going back to the Middle Bronze period and the Israeli excavations of 1982-1986, led by Avi Ofer7, have found a fragment of an economic tablet from the end 4 See here below, p. 36-37. In E. Lipiński, A History of the Kingdom of Israel (OLA 275), Leuven 2018, p. 55, the years 922, 926, 940, 927/6 should be corrected in 924, 928, 942, 929/8. 5 E. Lipiński, A History (n. 4), p. 50-51. 6 Semi-nomadic population of the Negeb, living in “enclosures” called ‘ămālēq, probably a Hurrian loanword: E. Lipiński, Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire (OLA 267), Leuven 2018, p. 21-25. 7 Grid ref. 1598/1030. Cf. A. Ofer, Tell Rumeideh (Hebron), in ESI 5 (1987), p. 92-93; 6 (1988), p. 92-93; id., Excavations at Biblical Hebron, in Qadmoniot 22 (1989), p. 88-93 (in Hebrew); E. Eisenberg and A. Nagorski, Tel Ḥevron (Er-Rumeidi), in ESI 114 (2002), p. 91-92.

THE REIGN OF DAVID

29

of the Babylonian period8, datable from the early 15th century B.C. It is an account of sheep belonging to royal herds, apparently aimed at being sacrificed. Hebron thus seems to have been an important centre at that time. Josh. 14:12-15 states that the ‘Anāqīm were the ancient inhabitants of Hebron, built seven years before the foundation of Tanis in the Nile delta (Numb. 13:22). According to a tale, fragments of which have been preserved by the Deuteronomistic and later historians, they were tall men (Numb. 13:22; Deut. 1:28), nәpīlīm, “giants” (Numb. 13:13), similar to those from the time of the flood (Gen. 6:4). Their name and the legend do not appear in any ancient Near Eastern source, except the Bible, although a personal name ‘Anāq is well attested in North-Arabian9, possibly designating a kind of West-Asiatic lynx (Lynx caracal), which has no relation to the tale10. Who were they? Some historical information is provided by the Deuteronomistic historian, writing in the Second Temple period. It can be found in Josh. 11:22: “No ‘Anāqīm were left in the land taken by Israelites; they survived only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod”, thus in Philistia. This is an important indication showing the way towards a historical answer to the question, although a complementary explanation should be found for the alleged presence of ‘Anāqīm in the area of Hebron at an earlier date. The name ‘Anāq in the singular is always preceded by the article, hā-‘ănāq (Numb. 13:22, 28; Josh. 15:13, 14 [bis]; Judg. 1:20) or hā-‘ănōq (Josh. 21:11), except in Numb. 13:33 and Deut. 9:2. This shows that ‘nq is no proper name but an appellative, used often in the plural ‘ănāqīm (Deut. 1:28; 2:10, 11, 21, 28; 9:2; Josh. 11:22; 14:12, 15), hā-‘ănāqīm (Josh. 11:21). Kurt Sethe has proposed to identify them with the ’I‘nqἰ of the Egyptian Execration Texts of the 19th-18th centuries B.C.11 However, the reading qἰ is doubtful12 and the ancient name with the verbal prefix y- does not correspond to the biblical nominal pattern of ‘ănāq. The Philistine context of Josh. 11:22b rather suggests 8

M. Anbar and N. Na’aman, An Account Tablet of Sheep from Ancient Hebron, in Tel Aviv 13-14 (1986-87), p. 3-12, pl. 1. 9 G.L. Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Near and Middle East Series 8), Toronto 1971, p. 445; A. Negev, Personal Names in the Nabatean Realm (Qedem 32), Jerusalem 1991, p. 53, n° 925. 10 Other interpretations of the name ‘nq are possible as well, since the Arabic root ‘nq means “to embrace” and ‘anāq can also be a “she-kid, a young she-goat”, while ‘anqā’ is a legendary bird, a griffon. 11 K. Sethe, Die Ächtung feindlicher Fürsten, Völker und Dinge auf altägyptischen Tongefäßscherben des Mittleren Reiches (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1926, 5), Berlin 1926, e 1-3, f 4. Cf. also G. Posener, Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie. Textes hiératiques sur des figurines d’envoûtement du Moyen Empire, Bruxelles 1940, E 36, 64. The symbols e, f, E, F refer to the names of rulers, tribes or towns mentioned in the two publications. 12 R. Hannig, Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Grosses Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64), 2nd ed., Mainz a/R 1997, p. 1298b.

30

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

a comparison with Greek ἄναξ, “lord, chief”, wa-na-ka in Mycenaean syllabic script of the 12th century B.C., when the Philistines settled in Canaan. It seems therefore that one should renounce to Kurt Sethe’s hypothesis, which the writer had followed almost half a century ago, and to relate ‘Anāqīm to Ἄνακες, old by-form of ἄνακτες, hence “lords, chiefs”. This became a title of the Dioscuri, Castor and Pollux, but also of the Tritopatores, the first ancestors of mankind in Attic mythology, still recorded by Cicero, De natura deorum III, 53. People were calling upon them in marriage ceremonies to get a numerous posterity. The name of these obscure figures of Attic cult seems to mean “great-grandfathers” and they could be regarded as the background of the mythological connections of the biblical ‘Anāqīm. However, the name Tritopatores was misunderstood as “Three times father” and this led to the appearance of the three sons of ‘Anāq in Numb 13:22; Josh. 15:14; Judg. 1:10. They became the allegedly pre-Israelite population of Hebron13. This location has to be connected with David’s men of Philistine descent who came with him and their families from Ziklag to Hebron (II Sam. 2:3; cf. I Sam. 30:14). They had still some knowledge of their ancestral Greek religion and culture, especially related to marriage and family, linked to the Attic cult of the Tritopatores, surnamed Ἄνακες. It is also possible that they still knew the original meaning of ἄναξ and used this word to designate their “chief”, correctly translating his surname Dwd14, but this cannot be proved. Hebron is referred to in the Bible also as Qiryat-’Arba‘, “City of Arba‘”, who would have been “the greatest among the ‘Anāqīm” (Josh. 14:15), but some scholars maintain that the toponym implies that the city belonged to four (’arba‘) neighbouring clans. One could also imagine that “Four” refers to ‘Anāq and to his three sons: Aḥiman, Sheshay, and Talmay. The name Ššy of the second son of ‘Anāq seems to date the Judaean account from the NeoAssyrian period, since this name goes back to Šamšay, contracted to Šaššay > Šāšay and written mSa-sa-a-a in Neo-Assyrian with several variants15. The third son of ‘Anāq is called Talmay, like the father of Maacah, married by David when he was ruling in Hebron (II Sam. 3:3). This would confirm the connection of the legend with David’s presence at Hebron. A historical clan related to Hebron seems to be mentioned in the tale of the purchase of the Machpelah Cave by Abraham from Ephron the Ḥty (Gen. 23:10), a tribe attested in southern Canaan by Egyptian and Assyrian sources. No. 129 of Shoshenq I’s topographical list of Canaanite and Negebite place names mentions

13

E. Lipiński, Toponymes (n. 6), p. 25-27. Cf. the Moabite Mesha inscription, line 12. Cf. E. Lipiński, A History (n. 4), p. 50-51. Dwd < ḏwd is the same word as Arabic ḏā’id < ḏāwid, “defender, protector”. 15 PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 1093-1095. 14

THE REIGN OF DAVID

31

[’I]r-ḥ-t16, which should be interpreted as ’Āl-Ḥatt, “Clan of Ḥatt”. This is the name of a nomad group which two hundred years later surrendered to Tiglathpileser III during his campaign in southern Palestine. 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-e-a or [āl (URU) Ḫa-at]-ti-a-a17. The cuneiform spelling of the name shows that Assyrian scribes have confused ’āl, “clan”, “tribe”, with ālu, “town”, and consequently have added to the name the ethnic ending -iy. The tribe in question is mentioned each time next to the Idiba’ilay, known from the Bible as ’db’l18 and playing a major role in Tiglath-pileser III’s time, since its sheikh was appointed as warden of the area facing Egypt19. One can assume therefore that some of these tribes were living in the Sinai and the Negeb, while other were represented in this area by caravans coming to the emporium of Abu Ruqeish20 or to Gaza with spices from distant places in Arabia. In an earlier period, the ’Āl-Ḥatt may have dwelled in the Beersheba Valley, hence their mention in Shoshenq I’s list and the appearance of members of the tribe in some biblical narratives. In fact, biblical texts referring to the Ḥittīm probably confuse these tribesmen with Neo-Hittites. The typically tribal designation of the Bǝnē Ḥēt at Hebron (Gen. 23) and Esau’s marriages with “Hittite” women at Beersheba21 strongly support this assumption, confirmed by the Semitic names and patronymics of these “Hittites”22. Ahimelek, the Ḥty from David’s inner circle (I Sam. 26:6), is in the same situation23. The name of the tribe Ḥt may be related to Arabic ḥatt, “fleet”, “swift”, attested as a Ḥaḍramitic and Ṣafaitic proper name24. The Calebites were another historical clan living in the area of Hebron (Josh. 15:13-19; I Sam. 25:3) in the first millennium B.C. They belonged to an Edomite tribe, since their ancestor Caleb was a “brother of Qenaz” 16 The readings are based on the copies made during the epigraphic survey conducted at Karnak by the Oriental Institute of Chicago: Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak. Vol. 3, The Bubastite Portal (OIP 74), Chicago 1954. 17 H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria. Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Jerusalem 1994, p. 142, Summ. 4, line 28’; p. 200, Summ. 13, line 10’. The group was also mentioned p. 168, Summ. 7, rev., line 3’. Cf. I. Eph‘al, The Ancient Arabs, Jerusalem 1982, p. 34, 87, 89, 217. 18 Gen. 25:13; I Chron. 1:28. 19 H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (n. 17), p. 142, Summ. 4, line 34’; p. 168, Summ. 7, rev., line 6’; p. 202, line 16; cf. p. 82, Ann. 18, line 13’. The name Idibi-’Ilu appears also in Thamudic, Ṣafaitic, and Sabaic inscriptions: G.L. Harding, An Index (n. 9), p. 31. 20 E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age (OLA 153), Leuven 2006, p. 376-378. 21 Gen. 26:34; 27:46; cf. Gen. 36:2. 22 Even Ephron’s name in Gen. 23:8-17 (cf. 25:9; 49:29-30; 50:13) is Semitic: it derives from the same root as Arabic ya‘fūr, “gazelle”, and Hebrew ‘oper, “fawn”. 23 The case of Uriah the Hittite in II Sam. 11 is different, because the actual text is based on a confusion. In reality, ’wry(h) is the Hurrian title “Lord” and Ḥty is the Hurrian proper name Ḫutiya; cf. E. Lipiński, Itineraria Phoenicia (n. 3), p. 499-500, and here above, p. 22. 24 G.L. Harding, An Index (n. 9), p. 175.

32

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

(Josh. 15:17; Judg. 1:13; 3:9), the eponym of an Edomite tribe (Gen. 36:11, 15; I Chron. 1:36). If one trusts II Sam. 5:4-5, David’s reign in Hebron would have started ca. 965 B.C. Since events in the Books of Samuel are not recorded always in a chronological order, it is not clear whether David’s presence in the “fortress”, mǝṣūdāh, on the outskirts of Bethlehem (II Sam. 23:14) still belongs to his activity based on Ziklag or testifies already of his attempts to expand his power from Hebron northward and to prepare the capture of Jerusalem. In any case, David’s alleged wars against the Philistines (II Sam. 5:17-25; 8:1) contradict his policy based on Philistine support, also in the case of the Philistine occupation of Bethlehem (II Sam. 53:8-17), which could have served as basis for an easy seizure of Jerusalem. Even the transfer of the Ark of God to Jerusalem was realized with the implicit agreement of the Philistine king of Gath (II Sam. 6:10-12), while David’s protection in Jerusalem was assured by the Canaanized “robust peltasts”, h-krty w-h-plty. Jerusalem David’s proclamation as king of Israel probably took place in Jerusalem, not in Hebron. It was not unanimous, as suggested by the rebellion of the Benjamite Sheba ben Bikri, what was an attempt to withdraw Israel from the Davidic realm. This shows undoubtedly that David’s reign over Israel was not accepted everywhere, especially not in the tribe of Benjamin (II Sam. 20:1-7, 16-22). In Sheba’s case, quick action was called for and David sent Amasa at once to call out the levies of Judah, not those of Israel, what is significant. But Amasa took longer than expected. The Judaeans were obviously not prone to intervening in Israel, and David dispatched then the Kerethites and Pelethites, commanded by Joab. They were Philistine mercenaries, in Greek κραταιὰ πέλτη, “robust peltasts”, an appellation often transcribed in Hebrew h-krty w-h-plty (II Sam. 20:7). Joab progressed rapidly with these troops to the farthest north of Canaan, to Abel Beth-Maakah, today Tel Dan, where Sheba ben Bikri sought refuge, what suggests that the place was then lying outside Israel. The revolt of Sheba, as described in II Sam. 20, shows that the reign of David over Israel was not accepted everywhere, and the summary of David’s victorious campaigns in II Sam. 8 lacks any historical value, just like David’s wars against Aram, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. These are stories invented or misinterpreted by the Deuteronomistic historians, writing ca. 500 B.C. Their purpose was obviously increasing the importance of David and of his dynasty. The defeat which David allegedly inflicted upon Hadadezer and the other “kings who were servants of Hadadezer” (II Sam. 10:19) is a story based on events from the 9th century B.C. Hadadezer, called Adadidri in Assyrian sources, was king of Damascus in the mid-9th century B.C., not of Ṣoba, and he fought

THE REIGN OF SOLOMON

33

against Jehoram, king of Israel. Instead, David’s rule ca. 950 B.C. did not extend beyond some southern tribal territories of Israel. The Ammonite monarchy was a close ally of David, who married his young son Solomon to Na‘amah, daughter of Ḥanan, son of Naḥaš, king of the sons of Ammon (III Kings 12:24a; cf. I Kings 14:21). She was the Queen-mother under the reign of Rehoboam. Some clashes may have taken place at the time of Absalom’s revolt, since Shobi, another son of Naḥaš, supported David who had fled to Maḥanaim, in Transjordan (II Sam. 17:24-29). The account of David’s first Ammonite war (II Sam. 10:1-19) contains unlikely elements, like the unforgivable insult to David’s ambassadors (II Sam. 10:1-5; I Chron. 19:1-5) and the intervention of Hadadezer, supposed to be king of Ṣoba (II Sam. 10:6, 16), while the story of the second Ammonite war (II Sam. 11) was invented to exculpate David from the murder of Ḥutiya, the Hurrian ruler of Jerusalem25. The Moabite war (II Sam. 8:2) is unlikely, since David sought asylum for his father and mother with the king of Moab (I Sam. 22:3-4). According to II Sam. 8:2, “the Moabites became servants to David and brought tribute”, but this story must go back to presents sent by kings to their neighbours. The war against Edom (II Sam. 8:13-14; I Chron. 18:12-13) is probably an echo of a fabulized story of Amaziah’s (802-776 B.C.) campaign ca. 800 B.C. (II Kings 14:7). Instead, border clashes between Israel and the kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah started quite early, since Jerusalem lay on the very border of the Benjamite territory. Gibeon, present-day el-Ǧib, 6 km northwest of Jerusalem, was the main scene of clashes between the troops of David and of Ishbaal, son of Saul, what led to an open war (II Sam. 2:12-3:1). After Ishbaal’s death, David managed to connect somehow the semi-independent Gibeon with Jerusalem (II Sam. 21:1-8). David’s main task consisted in defending his power in Jerusalem and Judah, also against his own sons, in particular Absalom (II Sam. 13-19) and Adonijah (I Kings 1:5-6). Absalom plotted to revolt against his father, but was defeated by the latter’s Philistine mercenaries and was killed on Joab’s orders, while Adonijah attempted to seize power when David was on his deathbed. However, Solomon’s supporters organized a palace intrigue and managed to anoint Bathsheba’s son as king at the Gihon Spring under the protection of the Philistine “robust peltasts”, κραταιὰ πέλτη (I Kings 1:38). THE REIGN OF SOLOMON Solomon’s reign lasted at most fifteen years, as stated above, and this seems to be confirmed by the building of his palace, achieved in thirteen years (I Kings 7:1). His Hebrew name Šlmh differs from its Greek counterpart 25

See here above, p. 22.

34

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

Σαλωμων, which corresponds to the West-Semitic name Šalamānu, borne in the 8th century B.C. by a king of Moab. No explanation of this difference is available. Solomon’s surname, given him by the prophet Nathan according to II Sam. 12:25, was Yǝdīdyāh, “Yahweh’s beloved”. Most accounts related in the Bible to Solomon are either legends or reports not concerning Solomon’s reign originally. Only compulsory labours imposed in Jerusalem on men from the tribe of Ephraim (I Kings 11:28-40) reveal some of Solomon’s power over Israel, but trouble came near to exploding, when the plot was discovered and squashed, while its leader Jeroboam was forced to seek asylum in Egypt. The entire description of the districts of the kingdom (I Kings 4:8-19) and the story concerning the Land of Kābūl (I Kings 9:10-14) date from the reigns of Omri and Ahab26. The biblical legend of Solomon’s seven hundred wives of queenly status and three hundred concubines (I King 11:3) hides historical information about Solomon’s relations with foreign kings. In fact, he was sonin-law of Ḥanan, king of the Ammonites (III Kings 12:24a), and of pharaoh Shoshenq I, called Šīšaq or Šōšaq in the Bible. The latter gave Gezer as dowry with his daughter’s hand to Solomon (I Kings 9:16). Instead, Solomon’s alleged relations with countries south of the Red Sea, illustrated by the visit of the Queen of Sheba (I Kings 10:1-10, 13-15), are based on a tale dating probably from the 8th century B.C.27 To the north, Solomon’s kingdom did not extend beyond southern Ephraim, despite the Chronicler’s statement about Solomon’s buildings of “Tadmor in the Wilderness” (II Chron. 8:3). This notice, inspired by I Kings 9:18, confuses Palmyra with Tamar in north-western Edom, very likely present-day ‘Ain al-Ḥuṣb (‘En Ḥaẓeva)28. As for the accounts related to the building of the Temple of Jerusalem and of the palace of Solomon, they require here an examination. The Deuteronomist, who ca. 500 B.C. wrote the history which reaches from Deut. 1 to II Kings 2529, presents the building of the Temple of Jerusalem as an enterprise achieved by Solomon with the help of Phoenician architects and craftsmen, who built it after a pattern then current in Syro-Phoenicia30. 26 E. Lipiński, A History of the Kingdom of Israel (OLA 275), Leuven 2018, p. 72-77 and 79-82. 27 E. Lipiński, Toponymes (n. 6), p. 82-88. 28 E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 20), p. 386-388, with early literature. 29 M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Halle 1943. Further studies distinguished a primary author, regarded as historian (DtrG), and one or more later redactors, interested in legal and ritual matters (DtrN). The dating of the core of the work to ca. 550 B.C. is generally maintained, for instance by J. Nentel, Trägerschaft und Intentionen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW 297), Berlin 2000, but later additions or re-workings can be dated as late as the end of the 5th century B.C. A good presentation of actual studies on the Deuteronomistic history can be found in T. Römer (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, Leuven 2000. 30 A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E., New York 1990, p. 376377.

THE REIGN OF SOLOMON

35

They participated in preparing the timber and the stones for the works at the temple (I Kings 5:32) and also at the palace. In fact, the latter’s hall was called “House of the Forest of Lebanon” (I Kings 7:2), no doubt because of its rows of cedar pillars that had to be prepared and dressed by expert craftsmen. A craftsman in bronze is even mentioned by name in I Kings 7:13-14. According to I Kings 6:37-38, the building of the temple was completed in seven years and the building of the palace, in thirteen years. Since I Kings 9:10 estimates the length of these works at twenty years, these enterprises were regarded by the redactor as successive undertakings31. If Phoenician craftsmen were actively involved in both enterprises, they had to dwell in or around Jerusalem. Although they did not need to be numerous, some archaeological traces of their presence should be recovered. As for the total of 180,000 men from Israel employed as woodcutters, porters, and quarrymen (I Kings 5:25-30), it is a symbolic number that says nothing about the real labour force. It can just indicate that no archival value should be attributed to I Kings 5:27-30. Instead, Phoenician involvement at some point can hardly be doubted: the two bronze pillars of the temple (I Kings 7:15) are most likely copies of the two pillars in the Melqart temple at Tyre32 and the four rows of pillars in the “House of the Forest of Lebanon” are reminiscent of the 8thcentury B.C. Phoenician temple at Citium on Cyprus, where there were four rows of pillars as well33. They probably date also from the 8th century B.C. The historical value of the entire account is shaken by internal contradictions. The most striking feature of the section reporting Solomon’s alleged partnership with Hiram of Tyre in the building enterprise is the mention of Sidonians and Byblians instead of the expected Tyrian craftsmen. The first sentence in question refers to the fetching of timber: “So now give the order that they may fell for me cedars from Lebanon, ... for you know that there is none among us skilled in tree-felling like the Sidonians” (I Kings 5:20). The second sentence concerns preparation of building material: “and the Byblians carved ... and prepared the timber and the stones for the building of the House” (I Kings 5:32). Hiram, king of Tyre, could not send Sidonians and Byblians to fell trees or prepare timber and stones to build a temple or a palace. This could be done only by an overlord. It appears therefore that the bulk of I Kings 5:15-32 was elaborated by the Deuteronomist using an older text, which mentioned Sidonians and Byblians providing timber and participating by order of an overlord in the building of a temple or palace. The overlord in question could only be an Assyrian king, probably Tiglath-pileser III, since we know that Ahaz paid tribute to him, visited him in Damascus, and thereafter commissioned important 31 32 33

Of course, these data do not correspond to historical reality. Herodotus, History II, 44; Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio evangelica I, 10, 10-11. V. Karageorghis, Kition, London 1976, p. 118-119, Fig. 18.

36

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

works in the temple of Jerusalem (I Kings 16). The building account of I Kings 6-7 rather suggests a re-decoration of the Temple34, as implied by I Kings 6:7: “No hammer or axe or any iron tool whatever was heard in the House while it was being built”.

It is quite possible, therefore, that also these chapters are based in part on written information from Ahaz’s time. In particular, the “unveiling” of the “bronze Sea” by Ahaz (II Kings 16:17) must refer to the fountain for ablutions made by the Tyrian craftsman according to I Kings 7:23-39. Ahaz inaugurated it by “making the Sea run down from upon the bronze oxen which were under it and it flowed on the pavement of stone” (II Kings 16:17), like can be seen today at the fountain of ablutions in the Omayyad mosque in Damascus. Additional striking features in I Kings 7:13-47 are the craftsman Hiram, bearing the same name as Hiram, king of Tyre35, and the phrase “for king Solomon”, which reveals an overworking of the whole passage. The latter seems to have originally listed the bronze-work that “Hiram made for the House of Yahweh”, not “for king Solomon in the House of Yahweh”. In other words, we have to do with an adaptation of an etiological story in order to boast the legendary magnificence of Solomon. Since no official annals existed at the time of Solomon36, the Deuteronomist could find some information only in various stories and legends, possibly collected in the “Book of the Acts of Solomon” (I Kings 11:41), or expand his description of the reign of Solomon by connecting it with events that have taken place in Jerusalem at a later period and were indicative of the city’s splendour in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.37

THE

REIGNS OF

REHOBOAM, ABIAM,

AND

ASA

Solomon was succeeded by his eldest son Rehoboam, whose mother was “Na‘amah, daughter of Ḥanan, son of Naḥaš, king of the sons of Ammon” (III Kings 12:24a). The later redactor of I Kings 14:21 shortened her mention to “Na‘amah, the Ammonitess”, most likely to avoid mentioning the name of her father who appears as David’s enemy in the invented stories of Ammonite wars 34 This was the interpretation of I Kings 6-7 advocated by K. Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe (BZAW 144), Berlin 1977. However, the writer believes that the works were commissioned by Ahaz, not by Solomon. 35 The Chronicler, wanting to distinguish the two characters, changed his name into HuramAbi (II Chron. 2:12-13), a name not attested in anthroponymy. 36 E. Knauf, King Solomon’s Copper Supply, in E. Lipiński (ed.), Phoenicia and the Bible (Studia Phoenicia XI; OLA 44), Leuven 1991, p. 167-186 (see p. 173-174). 37 A. Mazar, Archaeology (n. 30), p. 424.

THE REIGNS OF REHOBOAM, ABIAM, AND ASA

37

in II Sam. 10 and 1138. He also adapted Rehoboam’s age to the fictitious forty years of Solomon’s reign, showing at the same time that Rehoboam was born about one year before Solomon’s actual reign that lasted at most fifteen years. Besides, he attributed 17 years to Rehoboam’s reign, probably basing himself on the latter’s complete royal annals. Rehoboam’s name is connected with the expected complete division of David’s and Solomon’s so-called “united monarchy”. No sooner had Solomon died (ca. 928 B.C.), the elders of Israel’s tribes assembled at Shechem, in Ephraim, which was a usual centre for such meetings since centuries. Rehoboam’s attitude and words, as reported in I Kings 12, show that Solomon’s son could not become king of Israel. The anti-Davidic author of I Kings 12:11-12 attributed him these phrases in metrical form39: “My father loaded upon you a heavy yoke, And I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with rods, And I will chastise you with lashes”

The answer could only be negative (I Kings 12:16): “What portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in Jesse’s son. To your tents, O Israel! Now see to thine own house, O David!”

Rehoboam fled ignominiously and made no effort at that moment to force Israel’s tribes into the Davidic realm. However, Benjamin or a part of its territory remained connected with Jerusalem, if the mention of this tribe in I Kings 12:21 is no later addition to the text, as suggested by I Kings 12:20. Rehoboam decided then to wage war against Israel in a vain effort to expand his domain. According to II Chron. 11:5-12, Rehoboam ringed his kingdom with a system of forts, but he was forced in his Year 5, probably 924 B.C. (I Kings 14:25), to ask the help of Shoshenq I, paying him from the treasures of the palace and of the Temple. Shoshenq I’s Canaanite campaign, alluded to I Kings 14:25-26 and II Chron. 12:1-9, took place most likely in 924 B.C. The Egyptian list of conquered cities does not mention either Jerusalem or Hebron or any other city of Judah. The biblical passages dating the campaigns from Year 5 of Rehoboam show that the wording of the notice results from the misunderstanding of an annalistic report recording the payment of a large tribute by Rehoboam in order to make Shoshenq attack the Kingdom of Israel. The same procedure was followed a few years later by Asa, king of Judah, who took all the gold and silver from 38

See here above, p. 33. Translation of J.A. Montgomery and H.S. Gehman, The Books of Kings, Edinburgh 1931, p. 250. 39

38

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

the royal treasure and from the Temple to give it to Bar-Hadad I, king of Damascus, asking him to attack Israel (I Kings 15:18-19). Shoshenq’s campaign did not have serious consequences, because the pharaoh died soon, and it did not change the situation in the relations between the Kingdom of Israel and Jerusalem. I Kings 14:30 and 15:6 simply records that “there was permanent war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam”. This situation continued under Rehoboam’s successor Abiam or Abiah, as stated in I Kings 15:7: “There was war between Abiam and Jeroboam”. Although Abiam’s reign was short (ca. 910-908/7 B.C.), the Chronicler was able to report that Abiam defeated Jeroboam on the frontier of Ephraim (II Chron. 13) and occupied Bethel with the nearby area (II Chron. 13:19). In spite of the exaggerated figures of this narrative, the battle and the occupation of Bethel can be historical, but this gain was temporary. After a peaceful period of ten years (II Chron. 13:23; 14:5), Asa (908-868 B.C.), Abiam’s successor, had to fight against Baasha, who had meanwhile seized the power in Israel and established friendly relations with Bar-Hadad I, king of Damascus (I Kings 15:19). Baasha was unwilling to regard the frontier with Judah as fixed and his army trusted southward into Benjamin, taking and fortifying Ramah, only 8 km north of Jerusalem (I Kings 15:17). Acting like Rehoboam in 924 B.C., Asa empted the treasures of the Temple and of the royal palace, and sent them as gifts to Bar-Hadad I of Damascus, begging him to come to his aid (I Kings 15:18-19). Like Shoshenq I had done in 924 B.C, so did Bar-Hadad I ca. 900 B.C. He sent his army to hurry in northern Galilee: “They attacked ‘Iyyōn, Dan, Abel Beth-Maakah, and the whole of Kinnereth beside all the land of Naphtali” (I Kings 15:20). The name ‘Iyyōn survives in the present-day Merǧ ‘Ayūn, while the ancient site can be identified with Tell Dibbīn. Dan is very likely the large Abil al-Qamḥ, Abel Beth-Maakah must correspond to Tell al-Qāḍi40, and Kinnereth designates the area on the north-western shore of the Sea of Galilee. When Baasha realized the importance of Bar-Hadad’s intervention, he stopped fortifying Ramah and withdrew to Tirzah (I Kings 15:21). Asa, who ruled for forty-one years (ca. 908-868 B.C.), died after three years of sickness, having probably raised his son Jehoshaphat to the rank of co-regent. According to II Chron. 16:14, he had prepared for himself a rockcut tomb, where his body has been laid with spices and perfumes. Such a notice is exceptional, while the mention of the rock-cut tomb raises the question of the location and real existence of a royal cemetery in David’s City, regularly referred to by the Deuteronomistic historian. No trace of it has yet been found.

40

E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 20), p. 243-265.

THE REIGN OF JEHOSHAPHAT

39

THE REIGN OF JEHOSHAPHAT Asa was succeeded by his son Jehoshaphat, whose reign got a short notice in the Books of Kings (I Kings 22:41-50), but he is also named in the textus receptus of I Kings 22:2-38, a long story referring to the battle of Ramoth Gilead in 841 B.C. However, the king of Judah, accompanying Jehoram, king of Israel, was the latter’s son Ahaziah, who had become king of Judah in 841, as we shall see below. Ahaziah’s name from the original account has been replaced by the name of Jehoshaphat and the account has been placed in the frame of Ahab’s history (I Kings 22:20, 39-40), although Ahab had died in 851 B.C. The second story relating Jehoshaphat to a king of Israel is presented in I Kings 22:49-50. It reports that Jehoshaphat brought Ahaziah, son and successor of Ahab, into a trading project. 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 Codex Vaticanus 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 (I Kings 22:52; II Kings 1:2-17a). Nor did he 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 for Beth Horon”. Targum Jonathan to Jer. 10:9 identifies Ophir with Roman Africa, the province corresponding to the former realm of Carthage. This is probably a correct understanding of the toponym, since it had to be reached by “ships of Tarshish”, equipped for the long journey to Tartessus, in southern Spain, as exposed by the writer in Itineraria Phoenicia. The notice of I Kings 22:49-50 dates most likely from the late Persian period and has no historical value. The third story relating Jehoshaphat to a king of Israel is presented in II Kings 3. It reports that Jehoram, son and second successor of Ahab, engaged him in a campaign against Moab, because “the king of Moab rebelled against me” (II Kings 3:6). 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.

40

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

The reign of Jehoshaphat gets a much fuller report in the Chronicles (II Chron. 17:1-21:3). He is said to have introduced administrative changes, dealt with religious matters, taken military measures. One wonders whether all this activity does not date from the time of the Second Temple with the use of some earlier sources. An important historical fact is nevertheless recorded in II Chron. 18:1: peace was made between Israel and Judah “when Jehoshaphat had become very wealthy and famous”. It was sealed by the marriage of Jehoshaphat, almost fifty years old, with a daughter of Ahab, king of Israel. The text specifies that Jehoshaphat “became Ahab’s son-in-law”, wytḥtn l-’ḥ’b. The hitpael ytḥtn, formed from the root ḥtn, “son-in-law”, can only mean “to become son-in-law”. Jehoshaphat’s wife was certainly Athaliah, Ahab’s oldest daughter41, although her name is not mentioned in the verse, probably to avoid tarnishing the image of king Jehoshaphat, which is very positive in the Chronicles (II Chron. 17:6; 19:4-11). Athaliah is instead presented in a very negative way in the final version of the Books of Kings, an important source of the Chronicler. However, she is correctly called “daughter of Ahab” in II Chron 21:6, a passage copied from II Kings 8:18. Since Athaliah was present in Jerusalem and played as queen an official and public role, she became the main target of attacks against the Israelite royal House of Omri and Ahab. She certainly exercised an influence on the aging king Jehoshaphat, who not only participated in military campaigns with her brother Jehoram, but even invited him to become a viceroy of Judah. This is reported in II Kings 8:16-18, but a post-Deuteronomistic redactor noticed that a king Jehoram is mentioned in the list of the kings of Israel and in the list of the kings of Judah, and he assumed that there were two kings bearing this name, that Jehoram succeeding to Jehoshaphat was the latter’s eldest son, and that Athaliah was his wife. This misled interpretation of her role resulted probably from the known fact that Athaliah, widowed ca. 845 B.C., was paying much attention to her younger brother and to his family. The post-Deuteronomistic redactor thus inserted a few explanatory words in II Kings 8:16-18 and 25-28. Omitting these words, we can read the original text of the Deuteronomistic historian, who seems to worry about the continuation of the Davidic dynasty (II Kings 8:19): “In the fifth year of Jehoram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, while Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, Jehoram ... became king of Judah. He was thirty-two years old when

41 Athaliah’s name ‘tlyhw means “He importuned Yahweh (with prayers)”, a connotation of ‘tl attested in Sabaic: A.F.L. Beeston, M.A. Ghul, W.W. Müller, and J. Ryckmans, Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic) / Dictionnaire sabéen (anglais-français-arabe), Louvain-la-Neuve Beyrouth 1982, p. 22. Such a name seems to imply that Athaliah was the first-born, impatiently expected child of Ahab and Jezabel. The subject of ‘tl was most likely Ahab, the father of Athaliah. The same name was borne by the wife of Sargon II (721-705 B.C.): K. Radner, Atalia, in PNA I/2, Helsinki 1999, p. 433. It is possible that she was the granddaughter of Jeroboam II or the daughter of Menahem, kings of Israel in the mid-8th century B.C.

THE REIGNS OF JEHORAM AND AHAZIAH

41

he became king and he reigned in Jerusalem for eight years. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab did, ... and he did what was wrong in the eyes of Yahweh” (II Kings 8:16-18).

To explain the chronological data of this passage one should remember that the partial first and last years of a king’s reign were counted by the scribes recording the royal annals as full regnal years. Jehoram’s fifth year in Samaria was thus the same as his first year in Jerusalem. The eight years in Jerusalem corresponded in reality to 847-842 B.C., still followed by one year in Samaria. In fact, Jehoram has not been buried in Jerusalem as king of Judah, as recorded expressly in II Chron. 21:20, although the usual editorial note of II Kings 8:24 is repeated by the Chronicler. The latter had obviously access to an old source, which was unknown to the Deuteronomistic historian. This is also the case in II Chron. 21:2-4, where the Chronicler only added a few words to his source42: “The sons of Jehoshaphat were Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariahu, Azariahu, Michael, and Shephatiahu. These were all sons of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and costly things, as well as fortified cities in Judah, but the kingship he gave to Jehoram ... When Jehoram had risen and was firmly established in his kingship43, he put all of (them)... to the sword and also some princes of Israel” (II Chron. 21:2-4).

THE REIGNS OF JEHORAM AND AHAZIAH Jehoshaphat died two years after having associated Jehoram to the throne of Jerusalem, probably in 846/5 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. He also put to the sword “some princes of Israel”, probably his adversaries who took refuge in Jerusalem when Jehoram succeeded to his brother Ahaziah44. 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). Leaving aside the post-Deuteronomistic misled statements that Ahaziah’s mother was Athaliah, daughter of Omri, and that she influenced Ahaziah’s policy (II Kings 8:26b, 27b), II Kings 8:25-28 offers a fairly good presentation of the Deuteronomistic view on Ahaziah’s short reign, stressing his appurtenance to the House of Ahab: 42 These words are “his son”, “his brothers”, “because he was the oldest”. The existence of only one king Jehoram has been noticed already by J. Strange, Joram, King of Israel and Judah, in Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975), p. 191-201. 43 Reading of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus of the Septuagint. 44 E. Lipiński, A History (n. 4), p. 90-91.

42

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

“In the twelfth year of Jehoram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of Judah, became king. Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king and he ruled one year in Jerusalem... And he went in the way of Ahab and did what was wrong in the eyes of Yahweh like the House of Ahab... And he went with Jehoram, son of Ahab, to fight against Hazael, king of Aram, at Ramoth Gilead, but archers struck him45.”

The Aramaic inscription of Tel Dan (lines 7-9) records that both kings, Jehoram and his son Ahaziah, have been killed in the battle by the Aramaeans. The place available in the damaged line 8 of this inscription does not give a reasonable chance to a reconstitution different from the one first proposed by the writer in 200046. Besides, this information is supported by II Kings 8:16-18, 25-28, as soon as later additions are left out47.

Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, was certainly born in Samaria. Israelite scribes recording the royal annals were not used to mention the name of the new king’s mother, as was done in Jerusalem. A wrong name was added later in the Bible (II Kings 8:26b). Ahaziah probably came to Jerusalem when his father had firmly established his power and put all Jehoshaphat’s sons to the sword. Ahaziah married Ṣibyah from Beersheba, mentioned as mother of his son Joash in II Kings 12:1 and II Chron. 24:1. These were the days when the borders of the country ruled by the Omri dynasty extended “from Dan to Beersheba”. Also other children of Jehoram may have come to Jerusalem at that time, such 45

Version preserved in II Chron. 22:5, cf. E. Lipiński, A History (n. 3), p. 95-96. E. Lipiński, The Aramaeans. Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Leuven 2000, p. 378-379, n. 176. 47 See here above, p. 40-41. These additions are “son of Jehoshaphat” and some references to Athaliah or to her negative influence. 46

THE REIGN OF JOASH

43

as his daughter Jehosheba (II Kings 11:2; II Chron. 22:11). According to II Chron 22:11, she became a wife of the high-priest Jehoiada, who seems to have governed the country after the tragic death of Jehoram and of his son Ahaziah at the battle of Ramoth Gilead in 841 B.C. In fact, Jehoiada was later buried with the kings in the City of David (II Chron. 24:15-16). THE REIGN OF JOASH The normal successor of Ahaziah in Jerusalem should have been his son Joash, probably one year old. His mother Ṣibyah from Beersheba is mentioned in II Kings 12:1 and II Chron. 24:1, but only an anonymous nurse appears in II Kings 11:2 and II Chron. 22:11. Athaliah, widow of king Jehoshaphat and sister of king Jehoram, is accused in these texts of destroying the royal line and of intending to murder Joash (II Kings 11:1-2). One would expect just an opposite statement, since young Joash would have given to Athaliah a legitimate power. The absence of Ṣibyah and of the ‘am hā’āreṣ from most narratives show that we do not deal here with official records. As for the accusations uttered against Athaliah, they seem to indicate that Joash has been secretly carried off from the royal palace to prevent queen Athaliah, his grandaunt, from acquiring a legitimate power in the country. The record that the high-priest Jehoiada was buried with the kings in the City of David, allegedly at the age of a hundred and thirty years (II Chron. 24:15-16), while Joash was not buried in the burial-place of the kings (II Chron. 24:25), suggests that before the enthronement of Joash, the official power was exercised in Judah by the high-priest, not by Athaliah. This may have been the case also later, if the words of II Chron. 24:17 are taken literally, since the leading men of Judah would have made obeisance to Joash only after the death of Jehoiada. The accusations uttered against Athaliah seem to hide a plot. Being a widowed queen, Athaliah had certainly some influence and authority, but it is unlikely that she could ever assume the government of the country (II Kings 11:3) and even “destroy all the royal line”, as said in II Kings 11:1 and II Chron. 22:10. This was already done by Jehoram (II Chron. 21:4), while foreign enemies would have left to the imaginary Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, only his youngest son (II Chron. 21:17). Athaliah did certainly not intend to kill him or to massacre the royal line (II Kings 11:1-2; II Chron. 22:10-11). She did not even introduce a foreign deity in Jerusalem, for Mattan’s sanctuary (II Kings 11:18) might go back to pre-Davidic times. Besides, the Deuteronomistic historian calls Baal the God of Israel worshipped outside of Jerusalem or according to a different ritual (I Kings 16:32; II Kings 11:18). The accusation uttered against the widowed queen only expressed the anti-Israelite feelings of the Judaean population, especially of the clergy of the Jerusalem Temple.

44

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

This appears in the two stories of the murder of Athaliah, combined in II Kings 11. The first account, in II Kings 11:1-12 and 18b-20, attributes her fall to the clergy supported by the royal guard. The second account, in II Kings 11:1318a, is incomplete; it is characterized by the presence of the ‘am hā’āreṣ in the Temple (II Kings 11:14, 18a). The fact that two sources are involved is shown by the double mention of the death of Athaliah. According to the first source, she was killed in the palace (II Kings 11:20) after the installation of the young king on the throne. In the second account, the ‘am hā’āreṣ gathering in the Temple of Yahweh play a major role, but Athaliah is taken away and put to death in the Horse Gate of the royal palace (II Kings 11:16). The death of Athaliah does not answer a question which raises spontaneously: Is the young Joash installed as king the same person as Joash, secretly taken away from the palace? Athaliah’s cry “A plot! A plot!” reveals her conviction that a plot was hidden behind the disappearance of Ahaziah’s son from the palace and some following events, not recorded in the Bible. The forty years attributed to the reign of Joash in II Kings 12:2 show that the Deuteronomistic historian avoided fixing the precise length of his reign. However, the six years of the alleged hiding of Joash cannot be regarded as a reign time of Athaliah despite II Kings 11:3b and 12:1-2. No stereotyped formulas are used by the Deuteronomistic historian, who obviously does not

Athaliah’s arresting, oil painting by Antoine Coypel (1692) in the Louvre Museum

THE REIGN OF JOASH

45

regard these years as a distinct regnal period. In other words, the reign of Joash should be calculated from 841 B.C. on, even if the real ruler was initially the high-priest Jehoiada. The last year of Joash’s reign should correspond to ca. 803, the second year of Joash, king of Israel (804-789 B.C.) (II Kings 14:1). His reign would thus have lasted ca. thirty-eight years, what is confirmed by II Kings 13:10, where his thirty-seventh year is said to correspond to the first year of Joash, king of Israel48. One could hope that the accounts of the murder of Joash, king of Judah, might reveal something about his ancestry or identity, but the texts show nothing of the kind, although they present two versions of Joash’s death. According to II Kings 12:21, he was killed in Beth-Millō’. This was probably an Egyptian sanctuary in Jerusalem, if Millō’ is a transcription of Egyptian mꜢrw, a religious pleasant place connected with solar deities49. In this case, king Joash would have worshipped an Egyptian deity and his murder would have had religious motivations. Instead, according to II Chron. 24:25, Joash was slain in his bed to avenge the death of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah, stoned to death on the king’s order because, in God’s name, he had addressed reproaches to the people. There was also here an obvious religious background. In both texts, the Yahwistic names of the assassins are recorded, as well as the name of their respective mother; the Books of Chronicles even add the nationality of the two women, an Ammonitess and a Moabitess. The reason of this addition is hard to understand. The qualification “Ammonitess” of Na‘amah, daughter of an Ammonite king and Rehoboam’s Queen-mother (I Kings 14:21), suggests nevertheless to regard Shimeath the Ammonitess and Shomrith the Moabitess (II Chron. 24:25) as wives of Jehoram who had come with him to Jerusalem. Their sons, Jozachar and Jehozabad (II Kings 12:21) may then have judged that they should seize the power considering the uncertain origin of Joash and his controversial policy. Of course, this is a hypothesis, but it is supported by the fact that the murderers were not condemned immediately, as noticed below. The murder was possibly followed by a coup d’état not recorded in our sources. These accounts do not answer the question concerning the identity of king Joash, but his unusual intervention against Zechariah, stoned to death, requires an explanation. Isn’t it by chance that Joash was just another son of the high-priest? This could have been the main reason why he was not buried in the burial-place of the kings (II Chron. 24:25), rather than his intervention against Zechariah, as suggested by the Chronicler.

48

E. Lipiński, A History (n. 4), p. 66. M. Görg, Maru and Millo, in Göttinger Miszellen 20 (1976), p. 29-30; D. Shapira, Solomon’s Palace in Jerusalem modelled on Egyptian Palaces?, in Bibliotheca Orientalis 73 (2016), col. 644-676, in particular col. 671-672. Cf. also R. Hannig, Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Grosses Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (2800-950 v. Chr.) (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64), 2nd ed., Mainz 1997, p. 320b. 49

46

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

Of course, this is a speculative approach to the question, but we deal with a plot, a šeqer, as Athaliah shouted before being put to death by order of the plotters (II Kings 11:14-16). The complicated history of the examined narratives and the redactor’s changes in the familial relations between the persons involved require two genealogical trees, one historical and one based on the final redaction of the text. The historical genealogical tree of the royal families of Israel and of Beth-David in the mid-ninth century B.C. can be presented as follows: Omri (882-871) Ahab (871-851) Asa (908-868) Ahaziah (King of Israel) (851-850)

Ṣibyah

Jehoram (King of Israel) (851/0-841) (King of Beth-David) (847-842)

Ahaziah (king of Beth-David) (841)

Athaliah

Jehosheba

Jehoshaphat (870-846) Six sons (killed by Jehoram)

Jehoiada (high-priest)

Joash

The genealogical tree resulting from the redactional changes of the Second Temple period is different and preserves a fictitious continuation of the Davidic dynasty. Omri Jehoshaphat Ahab Six sons (killed by their brother)

Ṣibyah

Jehoram (king of Judah)

Ahaziah (king of Judah) Joash

Athaliah

Jehosheba

Jehoram (king of Israel)

Jehoiada (high-priest)

THE REIGN OF JOASH

47

The question of the real identity of Joash is related to the problem of the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. If Joash was the son of Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and grandson of Ahab, the Davidic dynasty was replaced by the descendants of the Omri dynasty. Instead, if Joash was a son of the high-priest Jehoiada, the answer depends on the latter’s genealogical tree. He may have been a member of a side-line of the Davidic lineage. But this is again a hypothesis. The fact is that the country name Beth-David was changed into Judah, attested in Assyrian inscriptions already in the mid-8th century B.C. The effective reign of Joash, king of Judah, began only after the death of the high-priest Jehoiada (II Chron. 24:17). Towards the end of his reign, probably ca. 810 B.C., Judah had to face Hazael’s thrust to Canaan, inclusive Philistia proper. The king of Aram-Damascus captured Gath according to II Kings 12:15 (cf. Am. 6:2), and came up against Jerusalem. Joash was forced to yield to Hazael, and according to II Kings 12:18-19 he gave him all the gold that was found in the treasures of the Temple and of the royal palace, as well as all the gifts that the preceding kings of Judah had dedicated to the Temple, buying Hazael off from attacking the city. According to II Chron. 24:23-25, this happened shortly before the death of Joash, but it does not seem that these events were a reason of his murder by some high officials50. It is significant that they were not punished immediately. Only when Amaziah, son of Joash, felt that he was firm on his throne, did he put to death the murderers of his father (II Kings 14:5; II Chron. 25:3). *

* *

The demographic situation of Jerusalem did not change significantly in the 9th-8th centuries B.C., poorly represented in the excavations51, except in the area immediately south of the Ḥaram aš-Šarīf. The dislocation of the short-lived “united kingdom” of David and Solomon, the price paid for the Palestinian campaign of Shoshenq I52, the protracted wars between Israel and Judah53, and the probable dependence of Judah from Israel under Jehoshaphat, culminating in Jehoram’s accession in Jerusalem54, did certainly not favour the development of the city. Besides, it appears from the events linked with Athaliah’s death that there was a clearly cut distinction in the 9th century B.C. between the population 50

Cf. here above, p. 45. Y. Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David I (Qedem 19), Jerusalem 1984, p. 27; E. Mazar and B. Mazar, Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem (Qedem 29), Jerusalem 1989, especially p. 58-60. 52 Cf. K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), 2nd ed., Warminster 1986, p. 293-302, 432-447, 575-576. 53 I Kings 14:30; 15:6-7, 16-22; II Chron. 16:1-6. 54 Cf. here above, p. 40-41. 51

48

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

of the capital and the people of Judah. The account of the death of Athaliah and of the accession of Joash explicitly distinguishes “the people of the land”, which is the name of the assembly of Judaean clans55, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Following the enthronement of Joash, says the author, “all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet, and they killed Athaliah with the sword in the palace” (II Kings 11:20). The opposition between “the people of the land” and the inhabitants of the city, as mentioned above, should not be understood in the sense that Jerusalem and Judah were two comparable entities. According to an estimate based on a density coefficient of 250 inhabitants per built-up hectare, the kingdom of Judah had a population of ca. 110,000, with a density of 22 per km2 in the regions situated north of the Negeb56. Even if we reduce this estimate to about 80,000 with a density of 16 per km2, there is no common measure between these figures and the supposed 2,500 inhabitants of Jerusalem living in an area of about 13 ha, inclusive the Temple and palace precinct.

55

Cf. E. Lipiński, Juda et “tout Israël”: analogies et contrastes, in E. Lipiński (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations (OLA 19), Leuven 1985, p. 93-112, especially p. 104 and note 34 with literature on the subject. 56 M. Broshi and I. Finkelstein, The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II, in BASOR 287 (1992), p. 47-60 (see p. 54); M. Broshi, The Population of Iron Age Palestine, in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Supplement, Jerusalem 1993, p. 14-18 (see p. 15).

CHAPTER III

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

The sources of knowledge for the period going from the mid-9th to the mid7 century B.C. are fortunately not limited to the books of the Bible. Before dealing with events of political history, we shall pay attention to the development of the material culture in the Beersheba Valley, near the borders of the kingdoms of Judah and Edom. We should nevertheless record here possible links of king Joash with this region. Even if he was no real son of Ahaziah, the widowed Queen mother, mentioned in II Kings 12:1 and II Chron. 24:1, should be Ṣibyah, probably “Gazelle”1. She was coming from Beersheba (Tell as-Seba‘). Her familial background is unfortunately unknown. th

TRADE

RELATIONS

Tell as-Seba‘, distant 75 km from Jerusalem as the crow flies, enjoyed an unprecedented prosperity in the 8th-7th centuries B.C., which was precisely the period of the pax Assyriaca. Large amounts of Edomite pottery can then be found in settlements laying along the road from Edom to the Mediterranean, e.g. at Khirbet al-Ġarra2 and Tell as-Seba‘3. Also cuboid limestone altars appear at that time in Stratum II of Tell as-Seba‘4. These small altars have four short, square legs, and a cavity containing traces of soot is hollowed on top of the cube. These are obviously incense altars, well attested in South Arabia and already described in 1922 by A. Grohmann5. The number of published items increased considerably since that time6. In particular, several altars of this type 1 R. Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography (OLA 28), Leuven 1988, p. 84. 2 Tel ‘Ira, Stratum VII: L. Freud, Iron Age, in I. Beit-Arieh (ed.), Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv 1999, p. 189-289. 3 Tel Beersheba, Strata III and II: L. Singer-Avitz, Beersheba: A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E., in Tel Aviv 26 (1999), p. 3-75; ead., ‘Busayra Painted Ware’ at Tel Beersheba, in Tel Aviv 31 (2004), p. 80-89. 4 E. Stern, Limestone Inscense Altars, in Y. Aharoni (ed.), Beer-sheba I, Tel Aviv 1973, p. 52-53 and pls. 29 and 52; L. Singer-Avitz, Beersheba (n. 3), p. 41-44. 5 A. Grohmann, Südarabien als Wirtschaftsgebiet I, Wien 1922, p. 115-119. 6 The list established by W. Zwickel, Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte. Exegetische und archäologische Studien zum Räucheropfer im Alten Testament (OBO 97), Freiburg/Schweiz Göttingen 1990, p. 70-74 (“Die Räucherkästchen von der arabischen Halbinsel”), can be enlarged, as shown by W.W. Müller in his review of the book: BiOr 49 (1992), col. 265-266.

50

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

have been found in Ḥaḍramaut, at al-Ḥureiḍa in the Wādi ‘Amd7, in Qataban, at Hağar bin Ḥumeid, some 13 km south of Timna8, but also in central Arabia, at Qaryat al-Faw9. The complex of al-Ḥureiḍa can be dated to the 7th-5th centuries B.C. by objects reflecting foreign influence. This date roughly corresponds to the period when similar altars appear in southern Palestine10, especially at Tell as-Seba‘ (Beersheba), on the trade route from Arabia to the Mediterranean, and at sites closer to the seacoast, like Tell Ǧemmeh11 and Tell al-Far‘ah South12. The specimens attributed to the Persian period and found at Gezer13, Lachish14 or Samaria15 can be related, if properly dated16, to the Arabian units of the Achaemenian army, stationed in Palestine and worshipping ‘Ashtarum17. Several specimens of these incense altars, found in Saba, Ḥaḍramaut, Qataban, and Ma‘in, are provided with short South Arabian inscriptions18. 7 G. Caton Thompson, The Tombs and Moon Temple of Hureidha (Hadhramaut) (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 13), London 1944, p. 49-50, pls. XVI-XVII. 8 G.W. Van Beek (ed.), Hajar bin Ḥumeid. Investigations at a Pre-Islamic Site in South Arabia, Baltimore 1969, p. 272-273. 9 A.R. al-Ansary, Qaryat al-Fau. A Portrait of Pre-Islamic Civilization in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh 1982, p. 73, figs. 7-8. 10 W. Zwickel, Räucherkult (n. 6), p. 91-109, offers a catalogue of 65 pre-Hellenistic specimens found in Palestine, with drawings and respective publication places, as well as a map of the concerned sites (p. 75). See besides: I. Beit-Arieh, Tel ‘Ira (n. 2), p. 275-276; id., The Excavations at Tel Malḥata – An Interim Report, in Qadmoniot 31 (1998), p. 30-39 (in Hebrew) (see p. 37); R. Cohen and Y. Yisrael, The Excavations at ‘Ein Ḥaẓeva / Israelite and Roman Tamar, in Qadmoniot 29 (1996), p. 78-92 (in Hebrew), figs. on top of p. 84, where the photographs show at least one altar of this type; L. Singer-Avitz, Beersheba (n. 3), p. 41-44, and ead., Arad. The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages, in Tel Aviv 29 (2002), p. 110-214 (see p. 161-162). 11 W.M.Fl. Petrie, Gerar, London 1928, pls. XL-XLI and XLII, 5-6. 12 E. Macdonald, J.L. Starkey, and L. Harding, Beth Pelet II, London 1932, pls. LXXXVIII, 14 and XCIII, 662. 13 R.A.S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer II, London 1912, p. 443-445, figs. 524-526. 14 O. Tufnell et al., Lachish III, London 1953, pls. 68-71. 15 G.A. Reisner, C.S. Fisher, and D.G. Lyon, Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908-1910, Cambridge Mass. 1924, pl. 80a-c. 16 Such limestone cubes could easily be reused. Their dating to the Persian period is therefore questionable. In particular, the decoration of the Samaria altar shows surprising resemblance to the engravings of one of the Tell as-Seba‘ specimens and should probably be dated to the 8th or 7th century as well. In this case, it is a new witness of trade links with South Arabia, to be mentioned next to the Beitīn stamp. 17 E. Lipiński, The Cult of Ashtarum in Achaemenian Palestine, in L. Cagni (ed.), Biblica et Semitica. Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni, Napoli 1999, p. 315-323. The spelling ‘štrm with mimation occurs in several inscriptions from the Sharon plain: R. Deutsch and M. Heltzer, Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions, Tel Aviv - Jaffa 1974, p. 69-89. It apparently matches the Ḥaḍramitic orthography of the divine name ‘sꜢtrm (RÉS 4065; A.G. Lundin, Die Inschriften des antiken Raybūn, in Mare Erythraeum 1 [1997], p. 19-25), but the inscriptions are written in West Semitic script, in Phoenician or Aramaic, and South Arabia was not under Achaemenid rule. The worshippers of ‘štrm must thus be North-Arabians, perhaps from Teima or Dedan. The theonym ‘štrm is written with mimation like the names of Mlkm, the Ammonite national god, and of Wdm, the moon-god Wadd worshipped in Ma‘in, but originating from North Arabia. 18 At least 31 inscribed examples are actually published. The oldest ones may easily date from the 5th century B.C.: A. Jamme, Deux autels à encens de l’Université de Harvard, in BiOr 10

TRADE RELATIONS

51

The South Arabian origin of these altars, found mainly in funerary and domestic contexts, has already been noticed by W.F. Albright19, but poor acquaintance with the pertinent material led some authors astray. No disquisition is needed to see that these altars can by no means be related to a Phoenician workmanship of the Persian period, as stated surprisingly by E. Stern20. Nor can they be linked to the small chests of clay from the third and mid-second millennium B.C. found at sites along the great bend of the Euphrates, in northern Syria21. As for the similar Babylonian altars made of clay22, the oldest of which date to the 8th-7th centuries B.C., they derive very likely from South Arabian prototypes as well, and should be related to the presence of Old Arabian tribes in Babylonia23 and to the inscriptions in “South Arabian” script found at several Babylonian sites24. Some cuboid altars are decorated with incised figures of animals, humans, and plants, framed by a row of triangles reminiscent of the oldest Nabataean tombs at Petra and Hegra. These are characterized by a façade ornamented by a single or double row of crenelations above the entrance25. It is reasonable to assume that the same patterns have inspired the decoration of the limestone incense altars and of the oldest Nabataean tombs. Stratum II at Tell as-Seba‘, to which seven cuboid limestone altars belong, should be dated to the 8th-7th centuries B.C.26, the period of the pax Assyriaca. These altars are thus roughly contemporaneous with the South Arabian (1953), p. 94-95, pl. XIV; ANEP, Nos. 579 and 581; Corpus des inscriptions et antiquités sudarabes I/2, Louvain 1977, p. I.275-I.292; S. Antonini, Nuovi incensieri iscritti yemeniti, in Oriens Antiquus 27 (1988), p. 133-141, pls. IV-VI; W.W. Müller, rev. in BiOr 49 (1992), col. 265-266. 19 W.F. Albright, Some Recent Publications, in BASOR 98 (1945), p. 27-31 (see p. 28), and 132 (1953), p. 46-47; id., L’archéologie de la Palestine, Paris 1955, p. 156-158. See further: M. Forte, Sull’origine di alcuni tipi di altarini sud-arabici, in AION 29 (1967), p. 97-120, in particular p. 104-108, 115-118, and 120. M. O’Dwyer Shea, The Small Cuboid Incense-Burner of the Ancient Near East, in Levant 15 (1983), p. 76-109, rightly observes that there are good reasons for thinking that the obsolete dating of the Arabian specimens to the 5th-1st centuries B.C. is too low. In the writer’s opinion, the oldest, not inscribed examples, must go back at least to the 8th century B.C., since they are present in the Beersheba Valley in the 8th or 7th century B.C. 20 E. Stern, Limestone Incense Altars, in Y. Aharoni (ed.), Beer-sheba I, Tel Aviv 1973, p. 52-53, pls. 29 and 52; id., Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, Warminster 1982, p. 182-195. 21 L. Singer-Avitz, Beersheba (n. 3), p. 44. 22 L. Ziegler, Tonkästchen aus Uruk, Babylon und Assur, in ZA 47 (1942), p. 224-240. A single specimen was found in Assur. 23 I. Eph‘al, The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th-5th Centuries B.C., Jerusalem 1982; E. Lipiński, The Aramaeans. Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100), Leuven 2000, p. 409-489. 24 One can find references in I. Eph‘al, “Arabs” in Babylonia in the 8th century B.C., in JAOS 94 (1974), p. 108-115 (see p. 109-110, n. 12). The list is not complete; it does not refer to the three fragments found in 1926-27 at Ur and published in RÉS 3934-3936. 25 A. Negev, The Nabateans and the Provincia Arabia, in ANRW II/8, Berlin 1977, p. 520-686, pls. I-XLVIII (see p. 574-575, pls. VIII-IX); Inoubliable Petra, Bruxelles 1980, p. 36, fig. 17. 26 If Stratum II at Tell as-Seba‘ had to be dated from the 7th century B.C. (K.M. Kenyon, The Date of the Destruciton of Iron Age Beer-Sheba, in PEQ 108 [1976], p. 63-64), the dates proposed

52

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

Incense altar from Tell as-Seba‘ (Beersheba), decorated with a dromedary and a snake, framed by a row of triangles (photo: excavations of Y. Aharoni)

monograms of Tell al-Kheleifeh and pinpoint the route of the caravans toward the Mediterranean. Their discovery at Tell as-Seba‘ may even indicate that South Arabian merchants were settled in the town or at least disposed there of some facilities. The Old Arabian inscription khn, incised on a small limestone object, and the dromedary bones found in Stratum II of Tell as-Seba‘ confirm such a general socio-economic context, as well as small alabaster or limestone stoppers of South Arabian origin27. Also the altars from Tell Ğemmeh and the large amount of dromedary bones excavated at this site28 can very likely be dated from the 8th-7th centuries B.C. on. The role of Tell as-Seba‘ in the trade with Arabia is witnessed also by Edomite ware. Since the pottery assemblages of Strata III-II at Tell as-Seba‘ are similar to those of Level III at Lachish, these layers are dated from the second half of the 8th century B.C.29 and their destruction is attributed to Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 B.C.30 In the original view of the first excavator by L. Singer-Avitz, Beersheba (n. 3), p. 41, 52, should be lowered; cf. also ead., ‘Busayra Painted Ware’ (n. 3), p. 80-89. But this is unlikely. 27 L. Singer-Avitz, Beersheba (n. 3), p. 50-52, and ead. Arad (n. 10), p. 162. 28 P. Wapnish, Camel Caravans and Camel Pastoralists at Tell Jemmeh, in JANES 13 (1981), p. 101-121. 29 L. Singer-Avitz, ‘Busayra Painted Ware’ (n. 3), p. 81-82. 30 I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, The Judahite Shephelah in Late 8th and Early 7th Centuries BCE, in Tel Aviv 31 (2004), p. 60-79 (see p. 64-66 and 69-75).

TRADE RELATIONS

53

of Lachish, J.L. Starkey31, followed previously by a number of distinguished archaeologists32, Level III at Lachish was instead destroyed in the first Babylonian invasion of Judah in 598/7 B.C. This opinion was apparently supported by the palaeography and the orthography of the legends in the seal impressions on jar handles from Lachish Level III. However, they can be dated also from the 8th century B.C.33 Biblical texts, especially Am. 1:11-12 dating from the second half of the 8th century B.C., refer besides to destructions and massacres caused in that period by Edomites, possibly responsible also for the end of Strata V-IV at Tell as-Seba‘: “For three crimes of Edom and for four, I will not revoke it: Because he pursued his brother with the sword, and destroyed his womenfolk, I will send fire upon Teiman, and it shall devour the buildings of Buṣeirā”.

The area to the east of the Beersheba Valley played an important role in trade relations. It is called in the Bible Negeb of Arad (Numb. 21:1; 33:40; Judg. 1:16), ca. 30 km south of Hebron. In the early 8th century B.C. Arad was a fortress about 50 × 50 m in size, built on a high hill and protected by a solid stone wall with an entrance gate flanked by two towers. Water supply was provided by a deep well at the foot of the hill, from where donkeys brought water to a canal passing through the wall of the fortress and leading to rock-cut cisterns inside. The fortress with solid wall continued in use until the end of the 7th century B.C., despite a severe destruction around 700 B.C. Various levels of Arad provided a large group of Judaean ostraca. Another fortress from the 8th-7th centuries B.C. was discovered a few kilometres south of Arad at Khirbet al-Ġazza, today Ḥorvat ‘Uza. It guarded the road descending toward the Dead Sea and Transjordan. Almost twenty Hebrew ostraca were found there, as well as an Edomite letter showing that the site was 31 J.L. Starkey, Lachish as Illustrating Bible History, in PEQ 69 (1937), p. 171-179 (see p. 175); id., Excavations at Tell ed-Duweir, in PEQ 69 (1937), p. 228-241 (see p. 236). 32 W.F. Albright, Some Recent Publications, in BASOR 132 (1953), p. 46-47; id., Recent Progress in Palestinian Archaeology: Samaria-Sebaste III and Hazor I, in BASOR 150 (1958), p. 21-25 (see p. 24); G.E. Wright, rev. of O. Tufnell et al., Lachish III: The Iron Age (Oxford 1953), in Vetus Testamentum 5 (1955), p. 97-105 (see p. 100-104), and in JNES 14 (1955), p. 133135; B.W. Buchanan, rev. in AJA 58 (1954), p. 335-339; K.M. Kenyon, in J.W. & G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon, Samaria-Sebaste III. The Objects from Samaria, London 1957, p. 204-208; ead., Archaeology in the Holy Land, 4th ed., London 1979, p. 295-302; R. de Vaux, rev. in RB 66 (1959), p. 298. 33 They are dated from the 8th-7th centuries B.C. by L.G. Herr, The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals, Missoula 1978, p. 86-94. For the spelling -yh of the theophorous element in proper names, see R. Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy (n. 1), p. 185.

54

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

Settlement of the Beersheba Valley in the second half of the 8th century B.C.34 3

4

35

occupied by Edomites around 600 B.C. The Hebrew ostraca show nevertheless that the fortress belonged to Judah in the 7th century B.C., but has been abandoned by its Judaean garrison. Some ostraca will be examined in the next chapter. THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH Amaziah succeeded to his father Joash, but has been murdered in his turn (II Kings 14:19). He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years (ca. 803-775 B.C.). The name of his mother was Jeho‘addīn (II Kings 14:2) or rather Jeho‘addān (II Chron. 25:2), “Yahweh made prosperous”36; she was from Jerusalem. The Deuteronomistic historian reports Amaziah’s victories over the Edomites (II Kings 14:7) and his disastrous war against Israel (II Kings 14:8-14). His Edomite campaign is recorded in a single verse: “He smote Edom in the 34 Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad. An Interim Report, in Tel Aviv 29 (2002), p. 3-109 (see p. 100). 35 I. Beit-Arieh and B. Cresson, An Edomite Ostracon from Horvat ‘Uza, in Tel Aviv 12 (1985), p. 96-100 and pl. 12/2. Cf. here below, p. 82. 36 Final -ān was changed in -ōn, mistakenly read later -īn.

THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH

55

Valley of Salt to the number of ten thousand and took possession of the Rock by war and called the name thereof Joktheel, (as it is) to this day” (II Kings 14:7). The Valley of Salt (Gy’ h-Mlḥ) is probably the Wādi Milḥ, east of Beersheba37, and the rock (Sela‘) should then be a hill not yet identified and apparently not strongly fortified, since no siege of the Rock is recorded in II Kings 14:7. It might be Tel Esdar, 4 km south of Wādi Beersheba. Seven kilometres to the northeast of Tel Esdar one finds Tell al-Milḥ. It is a mound with a superficies of ca. 1.5 ha, 14 m high, situated on lowland. The earliest pottery of the site is Judaean, as shown in I. Beit-Arieh’s excavations, while Edomite pottery appears in the destruction stratum of the early 6th century B.C.38 Contrary to Arad, which was only a fortress39, Malḥata became a town with a population estimated at 300-400 inhabitants, women and children included. A further result of Amaziah’s campaign against Edom was probably the fortification of Khirbet al-Ġarra, today Tel ‘Ira. Its ancient name was possibly ‘Arad ’Ilat-awlād. Arad is a general name “watch post” which should be specified by a qualification. Since it is missing in the biblical lists of settlements in southern Judah (Josh. 15:21-32) and Simeon (Josh. 19:1-9; I Chron. 4:28-33), it should be added before incomplete toponyms, consisting only of a qualification. This is the case of ’ltwld (Josh. 15:30; 19:4), abridged to twld in I Chron. 4:29. The correct reading of the qualification is obviously ’Ilat-awlād, “Goddess of children”, and the full name of the place must be ‘Arad ’Ilat-awlād, “Watch post of the Goddess of children”40. An important piece of information is provided by the “fiscal” bulla of Eltolad, published in 1990 by N. Avigad41. It dates very likely from the 26th year of Josiah’s reign over Judah, i.e. 617 B.C.: b-26 šnh ’ltld l-mlk, “in year 26, Eltolad for the king”. The ancient place name ’Ilat-ōlad is attested here with the reduction of the diphthong aw > ō, which is quite normal in Hebrew. The use of a “fiscal” bulla seems to indicate that the town was relatively important. B. Mazar suggested to identify it with Khirbet al-Ġarra42, only 4 km northwest of Tel Malḥata and 14 km east of Tell as-Seba‘, today Tel Beersheba. An identification with Arad is unlikely, since the Iron Age II settlement was confined to a citadel about 50 × 50 m in size. An important settlement has been excavated at this Khirbet al-Ġarra43. Its Stratum VII, posterior to the reign of Amaziah, goes back to the second half of 37

F.-M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine I, 2nd ed., Paris 1933, p. 407-408. I. Beit-Arieh, Tel Malḥata-1995, in ESI 18 (1998), p. 106-107. 39 Cf. here above, p. 53, and below, p. 125-131. 40 E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age (OLA 153), Leuven 2006, p. 123 and 410. 41 N. Avigad, Two Hebrew Fiscal Bullae, in IEJ 40 (1990), p. 262-266, pl. 28A-D (see p. 262265, pl. 28A-B); N. Avigad and B. Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem 1997, p. 177-178, No. 421. 42 N. Avigad, Two Hebrew Fiscal Bullae (n. 41), p. 263. 43 Grid ref. 1487/0713. Cf. I. Beit-Arieh, Tel ‘Ira. A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv 1999, p. 410-411; id., ‘Ira, Tel, in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. II, p. 642-646. 38

56

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

the 8th century B.C.44 and one may assume that the city occupied, in the 7th century B.C., the entire mound which extends over some 2.5 ha with a population estimated at ca. 500 inhabitants. This was therefore, in the 7th century B.C., the largest town in the region. It was defended by solid walls, and a large gate, probably with six chambers, led into the city. If it is ‘Arad ’Ilat-awlād, its name is not Judaean, but goes probably back to a sacred shrine which served Kenite clans who joined Judah (Judg. 1:16). Amaziah’s military campaign certainly disturbed the trade relations through Tell al-Kheleifeh (Elath) and the Negeb, concerning Arabia, Edom, Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean coast. Since this was a blow striking also Judaean traders of this area, it is possible that an allusion to Amaziah’s Edomite campaign is found at the end of the Arad ostracon No. 40 from Stratum VIII, destroyed ca. 700 B.C. Amaziah could be the subject of ‘śh in the partly reconstructed sentence ’t hr‘h ’š[r b]’d[m ‘śh ’mṣyhw?], “the evil which [Amaziah’ did to] Edom”45 . The narrative in II Kings 14 leaves the new quarrel between Israel and Judah without motivation. Amaziah declared war on Joash, king of Israel, 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; II Chron. 25:27). No reason is given for this plot, but his irresponsible policy may have been one of its causes. Joash, king of Israel, appears instead as a wise politician: he had left Amaziah on the throne, although he could have incorporated Jerusalem and Judah in his realm. He possibly wanted to avoid any conflict with the Edomites. Amaziah’s policy was probably one of the causes why a conspiracy had arisen in Jerusalem against him. The defeat he sustained in the war against Israel and its consequences brought about a cooling of relations between the king, some members of the Court, and the heads of the ‘am hā-’āreṣ. According to II Kings 14:17 and II Chron. 25:25, Amaziah was murdered several years after the defeat of Judah in the battle of Beth-Shemesh. It is difficult therefore to regard the murder as a consequence of the defeat alone. Amaziah’s body was later buried in the tombs of the kings in Jerusalem (II Kings 14:19-20; II Chron. 25:27-28). Both regicides, Amaziah’s and his father’s Joash, have 44 45

L. Singer-Avitz, ‘Busayra Painted Ware’ (n. 3), p. 84-86. Cf. here below, p. 80.

THE REIGN OF AZARIAH, UZZIAH, AND JOTHAM

57

probably been prompted also by the suspicion of some people at the Court that they did not really belong to David’s lineage. THE REIGN OF AZARIAH, UZZIAH,

AND JOTHAM

Amaziah’s son Azariah succeeded to his father without apparent problems at the age of sixteen (II Kings 14:21; 15:2; II Chron. 26:3). His reign is given only a brief treatment in II Kings 14:22; 15:3-7, what can be explained by his skin decease, called “leprosy”, which he had till his death after fifty-two years of reign (II Kings 15:2; II Chron. 26:3). Instead, the Book of Chronicles presents him as a very active ruler, but calls him Uzziah, like II Kings 15:13, 30, 32, except in I Chron. 3:12 mentioning Azariah, son and successor of Amaziah. However, there are confusions and misidentifications in the biblical texts. In some manuscripts or ancient translations of II Kings 15:13 and 32 Azariah is mentioned instead of Uzziah, while the death “in the twentieth year of Jotham, the son of Uzziah” contradicts the length of Jotham’s reign and is omitted in II Kings 15:30 of the Septuagint edition by Lagarde. Besides, Uzziah is mentioned in Isa. 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; Hos. 1:1; Am. 1:1; Zech. 14:5, and he bears the title “king” or “king of Judah” in Isa. 1:1; 6:1; Am. 1:1; Zech. 14:5. These verses date from the Second Temple period. Considering that the “leprosy” obliged Azariah to stay in “a house apart”, while his son Jotham was appointed “over the household, judging the people of the land” (II Kings 15:5), one should assume that Uzziah was a different person, a tutor chosen by Azariah and the ‘am hā’āreṣ. The latter’s task would have consisted in providing fatherly and royal education to Jotham in physical and military training, diplomacy and government, also in religious matters 46. Jotham’s name or surname, the original meaning of which was “fatherless orphan”47, hence “youngest”48, shows Jotham’s real situation resulting from the isolation of his “leprous” father. The tutor was thus playing the role of a viceroy until Jotham was twenty-five years old (II Kings 15:33) and could fully take on the government of Judah. Supposing that his son Ahaz became king ca. 740 B.C., Jotham would have assumed the full royal power in ca. 754 B.C. (II Kings 15:33). At any rate, it is unlikely that the names Azariah and Uzziah designated the same person, one being the king’s original name and the other a throne name. A repeated confusion of ‘zryh and ‘zyh is even more unlikely. 46

According to A. Demsky: “Drawing on the Former and Latter Prophets, it is possible to reconstruct broadly the curriculum of a prince’s education” (Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem 1971, vol. 6, col. 390). 47 DNWSI I, p. 478. 48 Old Aramaic used the emphatic state Yāt(a)mā of the noun to express the same familial condition. Cf. E. Frahm, Iatāmâ and Iatmâ, in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 495b and 496b.

58

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

The presence of two distinct persons is supported by different burials and activity. Azariah was buried “with his fathers in the City of David” (II Kings 15:7), like his son Jotham (II Kings 15:38), who certainly died before his father. Since he reigned only sixteen years (II Kings 15:33), he died at the age of forty-one, while his father was king for fifty-two years. Jotham had possibly health problems in his youth, what could also explain the role assumed by the tutor Uzziah. The latter bore no royal title in his lifetime and he was not buried in the City of David, but “in the burial ground which belonged to the kings, for they said ‘he is a leper’” (II Chron. 26:23). This unlikely explanation assumes that Uzziah was Azariah, struck with “leprosy”. Uzziah’s burial outside the City of David is confirmed by the discovery of his Aramaic epitaph of the Herodian period, found in the collection of the Russian Convent on the Mount of Olives49. Its exact provenance is unknown, but it may have been the place called by Josephus Flavius “Uzziah’s garden”, where he has been buried50.

Epitaph of Uzziah (photo: David Harris)

The epitaph reads: 1) 2) 3) 4) 49

lkh htw ḥt(w) ṭmy ‘zyyh mlk yhwdh wl’ l-mptḥ

“Hither were brought down the bones of Uziyyah, king of Judah. And (do) not (try) to open!”

E.L. Sukenik, An Epitaph of Uzziahu, King of Judah, in Tarbiz 2 (1930-31), p. 288-292, pls. I-II (in Hebrew); id., Funerary Tablet of Uzziah, King of Judah, in Palestine Exploration Fund. Quarterly Statements 63 (1931), p. 217-221. The usual decipherment of lines 1-2 is not entirely correct, but it does not change their meaning. The assumed hofal htwḥt, formed from tḥt, “beneath”, would be a monologism of the Hellenistic period. 50 Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities IX, 4, §227.

THE REIGN OF AZARIAH, UZZIAH, AND JOTHAM

59

This inscription proves that the bones of Uzziah were removed from his first tomb, which was no royal grave. The initial phrase of several prophetic books of the Bible shows nevertheless that he was later regarded as king, because of his activity described in II Chron. 26:6-15. This has been officially recognized in the epitaph. Except the sentence copied in II Chron. 26:2 from II Kings 14:22, Uzziah’s activity described in II Chron. 26 does not deal with the building of the sea harbour at Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba and with its restoration to Judah, the only activity ascribed to Azariah in II Kings 14:22. The latter was thus supposed to achieve the work brought almost to its end by his father Amaziah. This redactional detail provides an additional argument distinguishing Azariah from Uzziah. However, the sentence repeated in II Kings 14:22 and II Chron. 26:2 is not confirmed by the results of the excavations at Tell al-Kheleifeh (Tell al-Ḫulayfi)51, the ancient site of Elath, as supported by the seal inscribed l-Ytm, “belonging to Jātham” (“Fatherless orphan”), discovered by N. Glueck at Tell al-Kheleifeh52. In fact, the seal represents a ram, ’ayil, alluding to the name of the place. It possibly belonged to a governor of Elath in the first half of the 7th century B.C.53 An identification with king Jotham is thus excluded.

Seal of Jātham (Washington, Smithsonian Institution)

The Edomite pottery of the 8th-6th centuries B.C. and the stamp impressions of an Edomite seal on several jars prove that the site belonged to Edom in those times. The inscription reads l-Qws‘nl ‘bd hmlk, “Belonging to Qaws‘anāli54, 51 An analysis of the results of the excavations can be found in G.D. Pratico, Nelson Glueck’s 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh. A Reappraisal, in BASOR 259 (1985), p. 1-32. Cf. also E. Lipiński, On the Skirts (n. 41), p. 381-386. 52 N. Glueck, The Third Season of Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh, in BASOR 79 (1940), p. 2-18 (see p. 13-14). 53 The relation between the ram and the toponym was noticed by N. Avigad, The Jotham Seal from Elath, in BASOR 163 (1961), p. 18-22. For the date, cf. L.G. Herr, The Scripts (n. 33), p. 163. 54 The name Qws‘nl means “Qaws answered me” (Qaws ‘anā lī).

60

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

Seal impressions of Qaws‘anāli (photo: Excavations of N. Glueck)

servant of the king”. The script dates from the 7th century B.C., showing that Elath belonged to Edom until the Neo-Babylonian period. The description of Uzziah’s activity in II Chron. 26:6-15 may have a historical background, if it is based on trustful ancient sources, but the information collected ca. 300 B.C. by the writer does not inspire much confidence, specially because of the story of II Chron. 26:16-21. Uzziah, identified there with Azariah, would have been struck with “leprosy” because he had tried to burn incense on the altar of the Jerusalem Temple without heeding the words of the priests declaring that this was a priestly prerogative. Josephus Flavius developed this story55, which is folkloristic and not historical. Azariah’s skin decease must instead be a real fact, that explains the somewhat complicated situation resulting from his “leprosy”. It was misunderstood by the copyists of the Deuteronomistic history and by the author of the Chronicles, writing several centuries later and identifying the two men. THE REIGN OF AHAZ Ahaz succeeded to Jotham at the age of twenty ca. 740 B.C. and ruled for sixteen years (ca. 740-725 B.C.). For unknown reasons, the name of his mother is not indicated. His full name mIa-ú-ḫa-zi, “Yahwe took possession”, appears only in a cuneiform inscription of Tiglath-pileser III56. His refusal to join the anti-Assyrian alliance led by Raṣˊiyān, king of Damascus, and Peqaḥ, king of Israel, caused the traditionally called “Syro-Ephraimite war” (II Kings 16:5; Isa. 7:1). The anti-Assyrian coalition naturally desired Judah to join them, but Ahaz, assessing the realities of the situation, refused. Raṣˊyān and Peqaḥ, unwilling to have a neutral power in their rear, decided therefore to depose Ahaz of Judah 55 56

Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities IX, 10, 4, §223-227. D. Schwemer, Iau-ḫazi (Aḥaz), in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 497a.

THE REIGN OF AHAZ

61

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, Ahaz appealed to Assyria, accompanying his request with a large tribute, paid probably in 734 B.C.57 Tiglath-pileser III responded quickly and marched on Damascus in 733. Damascus was taken by the Assyrians in 732 B.C. and the Kingdom of Israel was reduced to Samaria and to the highland of Ephraim. An allusion to the “Syro-Ephraimite war” may be found in an inscription incised at the eye-level of a standing man in an ancient burial cave uncovered at Khirbet Beit Lei, 8 km east of Lachish and 17 km northwest of Hebron58. The inscription is copied and translated by Joseph Naveh as follows:

“Yahweh (is) the God of the whole earth: the mountains of Judah belong to Him, to the God of Jerusalem”59.

On palaeographic grounds, the editor dates the inscription from the reign of Hezekiah, when the country was occupied by Sennacherib’s Assyrian troops in 701 B.C., with the exception of Jerusalem. The sudden Assyrian retreat proved in the eyes of the population that Yahweh was not only the God of Jerusalem, who saved the city, but the God of the whole earth. However, the inscription incised at Khirbet Beit Lei, only 8 km from Lachish, conquered and destroyed by Assyrians in 701 B.C., suggests another explanation, inspired by the mention of “Yahweh of Samaria” in an inscription on a pithos found at Kuntillet Aǧrud. The ink inscription reads l-Yhwh Šmrn w-l-’šrth, “To Yahweh 57

II Kings 16:7-8; H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria. Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Jerusalem 1994, p. 170, line 11’; D. Schwemer, Iaū-ḫazi (Aḫaz), in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 407a. 58 Grid ref. 1437/1078. The inscriptions have been published by J. Naveh, Old Hebrew Inscriptions in a Burial Cave, in IEJ 13 (1963), p. 74-92, pls. 9-13 (see p. 81-92, pl. 13). 59 Copy, transcription and translation by J. Naveh.

62

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

of Samaria and to His shrine”60. Since one of the adversaries of Judah in the “Syro-Ephraimite war” was the king of Samaria, their final insuccess and disaster, due to the intervention of Tiglath-pileser III, showed that the God of Jerusalem was the God of the entire land of Judah, which did not lose a part of its territory: “Yahweh is the God of the whole land: the mountains of Judah belong to Him, the God of Jerusalem”. The inscription would have been incised by a man hidden in the cave when the Samarian and Aramaic troops were retiring after having invaded Judah and inflicted a severe defeat to Ahaz according to II Chron. 28:5-8. This account contains unreal figures, but it precisely implies a retreat of Samarian forces taking captives to Samaria (II Chron 28:8). This is apparently confirmed by people hiding in burial caves. Ahaz went to Damascus to pay homage to Tiglath-pilseser III; from there he sent instructions to the high-priest to introduce some changes in the Jerusalem Temple and, in particular, to make an altar modelled on an altar he had seen in Damascus. The description of works realized in the Temple, allegedly under Solomon, concerns in reality changes and improvements realized under the reign of Ahaz61. Ahaz is nevertheless accused in II Kings 16:3 of having “passed his son through the fire”62. This looks like a fictitious increasing of Ahaz’s negative features, since the latter recognized somehow his overlord’s gods in the Temple, “because of the king of Assyria” (II Kings 16:18). The heavy tribute paid by Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser III and the works he commissioned in the Temple of Jerusalem indicate that the royal treasure of Jerusalem had comfortable revenues, probably coming from commercial relations with South Arabia. The discovery of four potsherds with South Arabian letters and monograms in the excavation of the City of David proves that Sabaean merchants were reaching Jerusalem in the 8th/7th century B.C.63 One can surmise that they were bringing “all kinds of spices”, in particular myrrh and frankincense. The fact that these inscriptions were incised on local vessels is of particular importance, because it shows that Sabaean merchants were staying in Jerusalem in the 8th/7th century B.C. or were at least storing there some of their merchandise. 60 Z. Meshel, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, Jerusalem 1978, fig. 12; J. Naveh, Graffiti and Dedications, in BASOR 235 (1979), p. 27-30 (see p. 28b). 61 Cf. here above, p. 35-36. 62 For this subject, see E. Lipiński, “Shall I offer my Eldest Son?” (Mi. 6:7), in The Biblical Annals 5 (2015), p. 95-109, and here below, p. 111-124. 63 Y. Shiloh, The Material Culture of Judah and Jerusalem in Iron Age II: Origins and Influences, in E. Lipiński (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-roads of Civilizations (OLA 19), Leuven 1985, p. 113-146 (see p. 141-144); id., South Arabian Inscriptions from the City of David, Jerusalem, in PEQ 119 (1987), p. 9-18; M. Höfner, Remarks on Potsherds with Incised Arabian Letters, in D.T. Ariel (ed.), Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985, Vol. VI. Inscriptions (Qedem 41), Jerusalem 2000, p. 26-28. One can safely dismiss the claim that two of these inscriptions are Greek, as argued by B. Sass, Arabs and Greeks in Late First Temple Jerusalem, in PEQ 122 (1990 [1992]), p. 59-61.

THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH

63

South-Arabian monograms on a jar fragment from Jerusalem (photo: A. Hai)

These finds must be viewed in connection with the 1957 discovery of a South Arabian clay stamp at Beitīn (Bethel)64, north of Jerusalem. The stamp is paralleled by an identical clay stamp from a pre-Islamic site near Mešhed in Wādi Dū‘an (Ḥaḍramaut)65. This shows that the Beitīn stamp is Ḥaḍramitic and that Ḥaḍramaut was the point of origin of the caravan that reached Beitīn in the 8th century B.C. Unfortunately, both stamps are incomplete and the reading of the three short lines of the Beitīn text is thus uncertain, perhaps [...Ḥ]my[n] fdn, “[...Ḥa]miya[n], the delegate”66. One could recall here that Ḥaḍramaut is mentioned in Gen. 10:26 and I Chron. 1:20 with the correct Hebrew spelling Ḥṣrmwt. South Arabian caravans were probably reaching Jerusalem and Beitīn by the way of Tell al-Kheleifeh, ‘Ain al-Ḥuṣb, Tell Arad, and the Judaean highland, or from Ammān by the westward route. THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH Ahaz was succeeded by his son Hezekiah, whose mother was Abiyah, daughter of Zechariah (II Kings 18:1-2; II Chron. 29:1). He reigned in Jerusalem for twenty-nine years, ca. 725-697 B.C. The full, correctly vocalized name of 64

J.L. Kelso, The Excavation of Bethel (1934-1960) (AASOR 39), Cambridge Mass. 1968, pl. 118. 65 Th. Bent, Southern Arabia, London 1900, p. 436; A. Jamme and G.W. Van Beek, The South Arabian Clay Stamp from Bethel again, in BASOR 163 (1961), p. 15-18. 66 G.W. Van Beek and A. Jamme, An Inscribed South Arabian Clay Stamp from Bethel, in BASOR 151 (1958), p. 9-16.

64

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

The 7-metres-wide city wall of Jerusalem, uncovered in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, probably built by Hezekiah before 701 B.C. (photo looking northeast)

Hezekiah is written mḪa-za-qi-a-ú or mḪa-za-qi-ia-a in Assyrian inscriptions: “Yahweh is mighty”67. According to II Kings 18:9-10, Samaria was conquered by the Assyrians in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign, but this date does not refer to the last year of Shalmaneser V, 722 B.C., the official Assyrian date of the capture of Samaria, but to the end of the rebellion in Syria, in 720 B.C., when the Assyrian troops sent by Sargon II occupied the rebellious cities, inclusive Samaria68. According to II Kings 18:13, followed by Isa. 36:1, Sennacherib’s campaign in Judah took place in the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah, while this war can certainly be dated in 701 B.C. One should correct Hebrew ’rb‘ ‘śrh in ’rb‘ ‘śrm, the final mēm having been confused with hē before the insertion of the mater lectionis yōd, thus “in the twenty-fourth year”. 67 D. Schwemer, Ḫazaqi-Iau (Ḫezekiaḫ), in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 496b, with an erroneous transcription of Hebrew Ḥzqyh or Ḥzqyhw. 68 E. Lipiński, A History of the Kingdom of Israel (OLA 275), Leuven 2018, p. 116-118.

THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH

65

According to II Kings 18:7, Hezekiah “rebelled against the king of Assyria and was no longer subject to him”. However, an Assyrian inscription from Kalḫu (Nimrud), probably dating shortly after 716 B.C., states that Sargon II “subdued the land of Judah, situated far away”69. Such a sentence means that Hezekiah was paying the tribute, but the localization of Judah “far away” may suggest that this was done in a rather irregular fashion. In any case, Hezekiah was hardly a rebellious king in the years around 711 B.C., when Sargon II intervened in Ashdod, as recorded also in Isa. 20 and 22:1-14. Sometime before 711 B.C., he deposed its king Azuri, who had attempted to form an anti-Assyrian alliance, and he replaced him with his brother Ahi-Miti. This puppet ruler was killed by his subjects and Iamani or Iadna, the rebel leader of Ashdod, made new efforts to win the support not only of the neighbouring rulers, probably of Hezekiah as well, but also of the pharaoh himself. However, this alliance did not materialize and in 711 Assyrian troops crushed the revolt and occupied the city of Ashdod70. Hezekiah had thus to reckon with an Assyrian attack, if he really wanted to rebel. Having made preparations for a struggle with Assyria by strengthening his forces and defences, he built new city-walls and assured the supply of water to Jerusalem by diverting the Gihon Spring waters by means of a tunnel 540 m long to the pool of Siloam, which was situated within the walls71. There is epigraphic evidence for the construction of this tunnel in the Siloam inscription which was engraved near the pool end of the tunnel. It was discovered in 1880 and is kept in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul72.73

Facsimile of the Siloam inscription by É. Puech73

69 J. Briend and M.J. Seux, Textes du Proche-Orient ancien et histoire d’Israël, Paris 1977, p. 111. 70 A. Fuchs, Šarru-kēnu 2., in PNA III/2, Helsinki 2011, p. 1239-1247 (see p. 1243b-1244a). 71 II Kings 20:20; Isa. 22:9-11; II Chron. 32:30. 72 ANEP, n° 275 ; KAI 189 ; TSSI I, 7 ; É. Puech, L’inscription du tunnel de Siloé, in RB 81 (1974), p. 196-214. 73 É. Puech, L’inscription (n. 72), p. 198.

66

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

1) “This is the tunnel. And such was the story of its breaching: While the masons were wielding 2) the pick, one towards another, and while there were three cubits to breach, a man’s voice was heard cal3) ling to his mate, for there was a resonance in the rock from the south and the north. So on the day the 4) breach was made, masons struck, one towards the other, pick against pick. Then 5) flowed the waters from the spring to the pool along one thousand two hundred cubits. And a hundred 6) cubits was the height of the rock above the head of the masons.”

In 705 B.C. Sargon II campaigned once more in Tabal (Anatolia) personally, where he died under unclear circumstances. His son Sennacherib ascended the throne already in the summer 705, but the political situation in Babylonia was unstable and probably in the early year 704 the kingship over Babylonia was usurped by the well-known archenemy of Assyria, Marduk-apla-iddina, the biblical Merodach-baladan, whose messengers came to Jerusalem74 to reinforce his ties with Hezekiah. The latter also tried to ensure the support of Egypt (II Kings 18:21; Isa. 36:6), in spite of Isaiah’s opposition (Isa. 30:2; 31:1). Sennacherib’s reaction was swift. His first campaign, in 703, was directed against Babylonia, the second one, in 702, concerned the Zagros region, and the third one, in 701, was directed against Judah and the West. Sennacherib’s unique campaign against Jerusalem and Judah in 701 B.C.75 is recorded not only in II Kings 18:13-37 and 19:1-37, but also in Isa. 26-27 and II Chron. 32:1-21, where some events are interpreted and presented in a particular way. The final edition of Sennacherib’s annals reports this campaign with many details, but it does not record the siege and capture of Lachish represented on reliefs from the palace in Nineveh, kept in the British Museum76. Sennacherib’s annals show that the campaign of 701 B.C. was a reaction to the withholding of the annual tribute imposed by the Assyrians on several Phoenician and Philistine cities, as well as on the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites, on Jerusalem and Judah. Sennacherib marched first against Phoenicia and put Ittobaal (Tub’alu) on the throne of Sidon instead of its former king Lulî who fled to Cyprus77, and he received the tribute of several cities and countries. Sennacherib then marched southwards and deported to Assyria Ṣidkā, the king of Ashkelon, who had not submitted, together with the gods of his father’s house and his family. He installed Šarru-lu-dari, son of Rukibtu, the former king of Ashkelon, and imposed tribute over its population and the surrounding 74

II Kings 20:12-21; Isa. 39:11; II Chron. 32:31. The sources are analyzed by Nazek Khalid Matty, Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah and Jerusalem in 701 B.C. (BZAW 487), Berlin 2016. 76 ANEP, Nos. 371-374. 77 D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2), Chicago 1924, p. 77, lines 17-22. 75

THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH

67

area78. Sennacherib then marched eastwards to Ekron, whose officials had deposed their king Padi and delivered him to Hezekiah. The Assyrian account in the Oriental Institute prism relates: “The officials, nobles and people of Ekron, who had thrown Padi, their king, bound by oat and curse to Assyria, into fetters of iron and had given him over to Hezekiah the Judaean; he kept him in confinement like an enemy. Their heart became afraid and they called upon the Egyptian kings, the bowmen, chariots and horses of the king of Meluḫḫa (Nubia), a countless host, and these came to their aid. In the neighbourhood of Eltekeh, their ranks being drawn up before me, they offered battle. With the aid of Assur, my Lord, I fought with them and brought about their defeat. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the charioteers of the king of Meluḫḫa, my hands took alive in the midst of the battle. Eltekeh and Timnah I besieged, I captured and took away their spoil. I drew near to Ekron and slew the governors and nobles who had committed sin, and hung their bodies on stakes around the city. The citizens who sinned and misconducted, I counted as spoil. The rest of them, who were not guilty of sin and contempt, for whom there was no punishment, I spoke their pardon. Padi, their king, I brought out of Jerusalem, set him on the royal throne over them and imposed upon him my kingly tribute.”79

Since Jerusalem has not been captured by Sennacherib, it is possible that the messengers sent by the Assyrian king from Lachish to Jerusalem have negotiated the liberation of Padi. As for the battle of Eltekeh, the Egyptian army could not be commanded by Taharqo, as stated in II Kings 19:9 and Isa. 37:9, since he was in 701 B.C. nine or ten years old and succeeded to Shebitko only in 690 B.C. The biblical reference to Taharqo in this context results from a confusion in the names of the Cushitic pharaohs. The Egyptian tradition, reported by Herodotus, History II, 141, deserves more attention. Sennacherib’s army would have reached Pelusium, at the eastern Egyptian border, where Σεθῶν, the high-priest of Hephaistos, was entrenched with his men who were no warriors. However, the Assyrian troops have been forced to pull back by field rats, a divine intervention, compared sometimes to the Angel’s action according to the biblical narratives of II Kings 19:35-36; Isa. 37:36-37; II Chron. 32:21-22. The story reported by Herodotus may have a historical background. After his victory at Eltekeh, some of Sennacherib’s troops have possibly pursued the retiring Egyptians, but the Assyrians were not prepared to act in desert conditions and pulled back, having perhaps lost some men and equipment. This episode of the Eltekeh battle is, of course, not recorded in Sennacherib’s annals, which deal then with Hezekiah and Judah. The Assyrian account relates: “As for Hezekiah, the Judaean, who did not submit to my yoke, forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small cities in their neighbourhood, which were 78 79

Ibid., p. 30-31, lines 60-71. Ibid., p. 31-32, col. II, 73 - III, 17.

68

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

without number, by having ramps trodden down and battering-rams brought up, the assault of foot-soldiers, sapping, breaching, and siege engines I conquered. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep, without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. Himself (Hezekiah), like a caged bird, I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. Earthwork I threw up against him, and I turned back to his misery the one coming out of the city-gate. The cities of his, which I had plundered, I cut off from his land and I gave (them) to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Ṣillī-bēl, king of Gaza. And I diminished his land. To the former tribute, their annual payment, I added the offering of gifts due to my overlordship. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendour of my lordship overcame him and he sent after me to Nineveh, my royal city, the Arabs and the elite troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, by providing auxiliary forces, in addition to the 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, choice antimony, large blocks of red stone, couches of ivory, armchairs of ivory, elephant hide, elephant ivory, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his concubines, male and female musicians. And he sent his messenger to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance.”80

The Rassam Cylinder replaces the words “all kinds of valuable treasures” by a detailed enumeration81. This list completes the overview of treasures kept in Hezekiah’s royal palace: “Garments with multi-coloured trim, linen garments, blue-purple wool, red-purple wool, utensils of bronze, iron, copper, tin (and) iron, chariots’ shields, lances, armour, iron belt-daggers, bows and uṣṣu-arrows, equipment, implements of war, (all of) which were without number”.

Sennacherib’s annals record the conquest of several cities in Judah, but never mention Lachish, which constituted the central subject of the reliefs in the palace of Nineveh. Several reliefs show the storming of the double-walled town with towers at regular intervals, manned by bowmen and soldiers who hurl stones and firebrands upon the attackers. A relief shows Sennacherib sitting upon a high throne, receiving the prisoners and the spoil from Lachish. An inscription before him reads: “Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sits upon an armchair and the booty from Lachish passes before him”. Behind Sennacherib’s throne is the royal tent on a wooded hill with the inscription “Tent of Sennacherib, king of Assyria”. From Lachish Sennacherib was sending messengers to Jerusalem, trying to discourage its population, as shown in II Chron. 32:9; Isa. 36:2; cf. Isa. 37:8-13. Lachish was one of the largest and most prominent fortified cities of ancient Judah. Extensive excavations were conducted there by three expeditions. The first one, in 1932-1934, was directed by James Starkey, the second one, in 1966-1968, was conducted by Yohanan Aharoni, and the third one, between 80 81

Ibid., p. 32, lines 18-49. N.Kh. Matty, Sennacherib’s Campaign (n. 75), p. 91.

THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH

69

Relief showing Sennacherib sitting on a throne at Lachish and receiving the prisoners and the spoil from the city (BM 124011)

1972 and 1993, was directed by David Ussishkin82. Archaeological researches and the Lachish reliefs in the British Museum provide the unique information about the siege of the city by the Assyrian army83. The conquest of Lachish illustrated in Nineveh the power of Sennacherib, who apparently did not intend to conquer Jerusalem by force. He wanted to bring the rebellion to an end and to turn Hezekiah into a loyal Assyrian vassal. This was more profitable than to conquer and destroy Jerusalem, and to annex Judah as a province of the Assyrian Empire84. N.Kh. Matty’s monograph on Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah and Jerusalem leads convincingly to the conclusion that Sennacherib’s campaign in the West was mainly aimed at acquiring tribute and ensuring that all the rulers 82

For a short summary, see D. Ussishkin, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah. The Archaeological Perspective with Emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem, in I. Kalimi and S. Richardson (eds.), Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem. Story, History and Historiography (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 71), Leiden 2014, p. 75-103, in particular p. 76-79. 83 Ibid., p. 79-89. 84 Ibid., p. 101-102.

70

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

were showing submissive behaviour. The reliefs of the conquest of the fortified city of Lachish in Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh were aimed at showing the power of Assyria and of Sennacherib despite the fact that he did not manage to conquer Jerusalem and received the tribute of king Hezekiah only later, in Nineveh, as stated explicitly in Sennacherib’s annals85. This agrees in general with the biblical version of the story, but it does not explain the sudden withdrawal of Sennacherib. Matty’s hypothesis presents a new historical approach, based on Isaiah’s oracle in II Kings 19:6-7, inspired by the knowledge of information received by Sennacherib during the siege of Jerusalem. The oracle is addressed to king Hezekiah: “Do not be alarmed at what you heard when the lackeys of the king of Assyria blasphemed me. I will put a spirit in him and he shall hear a rumour and withdraw to his own country”. According to N.Kh. Matty, this “rumour” concerned a new rebellion in Babylonia, what is apparently confirmed by Sennacherib’s campaign to Babylonia in 700 B.C., a few months later86. Beside Lachish, number of Judaean towns have been destroyed by the Assyrian army, as stated in Sennacherib’s annals. A few examples can illustrate here this situation. The excavations carried out at the sites of several large settlements indicate that they have been completely destroyed at the end of the 8th century B.C, most likely in 701 B.C. Beside Lachish, one should mention in the Shephelah the site of Tel ‘Eton (Tell ‘Aitun)87, possibly ancient Maqqēdāh, ca. 18 km west of Hebron and 11 km southeast of Lachish. One can also mention Tel Burna88, Tell Beit Mirṣim89, Tel Batash (Tell al-Baṭaši), identified with Timnah90. In northern and eastern Negeb, the Assyrians have apparently destroyed Tel Ḥalif (Tell Ḥalif)91, Tel Beersheba (Tell as-Seba‘)92, Tel ‘Ira (Khirbet al-Ġarra)93, and Stratum VIII of the Arad fortress94. *

* *

85

D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (n. 77), p. 34, col. III, 41-49. N.Kh. Matty, Sennacherib’s Campaign (n. 75), p. 152-156. 87 O. Zimhoni, The Iron Age Pottery of Tel ‘Eton and Its Relation to the Lachish, Tell Beit Mirṣim and Arad Assemblages, in Tel Aviv 12 (1985), p. 63-90; A. Faust, Tel ‘Eton Excavations (2006-2009). A Preliminary Report, in PEQ 143 (2011), p. 191-214; H. Katz and A. Faust, The Assyrian Destruction Layer at Tel ‘Eton, in IEJ 62 (2012), p. 22-53. 88 I. Shai and J. Uziel, The Fortifications at Tel Burna: Date, Function and Meaning, in IEJ 62 (2012), p. 141-157. 89 For the date of the final destruction, cf. O. Zimhoni, The Iron Age Pottery (n. 87), p. 82-84. 90 A. Mazar and N. Panitz-Cohen, Timnah (Tel Batash) II. The Finds from the First Millennium B.C.E. (Qedem 42), Jerusalem 2001, p. 279-281. 91 Grid ref. 1373/0879: D. Seger, Tel Halif, in RB 84 (1977), p. 393-398; RB 85 (1978), p. 423425, pl. XXVII; id., Halif, Tel, in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. II, p. 558. 92 Y. Aharoni, Beer-Sheba I, Tel Aviv 1973, p. 5-7. 93 L. Singer-Avitz, ‘Busayra Painted Ware’ (n. 3), p. 84-86. 94 Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad. An Interim Report, in Tel Aviv 29 (2002), p. 3-109 (see p. 14 and 98). 86

THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH

71

The mention of Sennacherib’s murder in II Kings 19:37; Isa. 37:18, and II Chron. 32:21, just after the account of the siege of Jerusalem and of its end, indicates that the biblical redactors regarded this event as God’s punishment for the attack of the Holy City. However, they did not say it explicitly, since twenty years separate the siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. from the murder of Sennacherib in 681 B.C. The Assyrian records do not state where Sennacherib was murdered, but the place is indicated in the original biblical text, restored with the help of the Septuagint and in the light of well-known tiqqunē soferīm95. This happened at Khorsabad in the palace built by Sargon II, while Sennacherib was prostrating himself in prayer. The version of Isa. 37:37-38 in the Septuagint reads as follows: “The king of the Assyrians decamped; he went back and stayed at Nineveh. And, while he was prostrating himself in the House of Nasarach in front of his πάταρχος, Adramelech and Sarasar, his sons, struck him down with the sword and escaped to Armenia. His son Asordan reigned in his stead”.

The noun πάταρχος is not used elsewhere, but it is replaced by πατριάρχης, “family head”, in the Codex Marchalianus or Codex Q, what must be a correct interpretation of Hebrew ’byhw. The translator assumed therefore that the text was referring to the head of the dynasty. His name can be easily recognized in the light of tiqqunē soferīm consisting in the transposition of a letter. Since Sennacherib’s father was Sargon, in Akkadian Šarrukīn, the correct West Semitic transcription of his name was Srkn, for Neo-Assyrian š corresponds usually to Aramaic and Hebrew s. The tiqqūn soferīm was thus nsrk, vocalized later Nisrok, “We shall join” the murderers. Since the name of king Sargon II is written Srgwn96 in Isa. 20:1, Srkn has not been recognized as name of the Assyrian king: the word has been regarded as a theonym, the more so since it is preceded in Isa. 37:38 by mštḥwh byt, what can be understood “prostrating himself in the temple”. Byt Srkn can only be the Aramaic name of Dūr-Šarrukīn, today Khorsabad, 16 km north of Nineveh. The reading Nsrk of a supposed theonym led to the change of ’byhw in ’lhyw, “his God”, by replacing b by l and inversing yh in hy. The names of the murderers are easily distinguishable. The first one, written ’drmlk in 1QIsa, is Urdu-Mullissu, “Servant of Ninlil”, son of Sennacherib and crown prince between 698 and 684 B.C.97 The original spelling was ’rdmlš, but the confusion of š with the head of k followed the inversion of the similar letters r and d. However, the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea mentions Adramelus, 95 E. Lipiński, Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire (OLA 267), Leuven 2018, p. 173-180. 96 This spelling shows that k and g were not distinguished clearly in Assyrian and that yōd has been confused with a waw. 97 K. Radner, Urdu-Mullissu 1., in PNA III/2, Helsinki 2011, p. 1407b-1408a.

72

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

where the final s/š seems to be preserved: “... he was struck down with a sword by his son Adramelus; Adramelus was killed in his turn by Axerdus”98, his half-brother according to Eusebius. This is certainly Esarhaddon, although the name is similar to that of Aḫšeri, who was then king of the Mannaeans99, to the south of Lake Urmia. The Assyrian tradition and Eusebius knew only one murderer, but the Bible mentions a second one, whose name is written śr’wṣr in 1QIsa, i.e. Šarru-uṣur, “Protect the king!”100; this may be an abbreviation of several anthroponyms, whose first element is a theonym. This man may have been a helper of UrduMullissu, unless the name has been added in an Assyrian source, because of its meaning which stressed the fact that the king’s protection was inefficient.

Reconstitution of Sargon II’s palace at Khorsabad101 101

The original notice of II Kings 19:36-37 and Isa. 37:37-38 read therefore: “Sennacherib, king of Assyria, decamped: he went back and stayed in Nineveh. And, while he was prostrating himself in the House of Sargon, his father, UrduMullissu and Šarru-uṣur, his sons, struck him down with the sword and escaped to Urartu. His son Esarhaddon reigned in his stead”.

One could still ask what Sennacherib’s prostration was meaning. It could be a religious act in the local sanctuary or a homage in memory of Sennacherib’s father who had died in Anatolia in imprecise circumstances and was perhaps commemorated by a relief or statue in the palace which he had built. 98 Translation based on the Latin version of A. Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum libri duo I, Berlin 1875, col. 35, lines 17-20. 99 A. Fuchs, Aḫšeri, in PNA I/1, Helsinki 1998, p. 68. 100 M. Luukko, Šarru-uṣur, in PNA III/2, Helsinki 2011, p. 1252. Hypotheses based on this name are recorded by E. Frahm, Sīn-aḫḫē-erība, in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 1113-1127 (see p. 1115). 101 V. Place, Ninive et l’Assyrie III, Paris 1867, pl. 18 bis.

THE REIGN OF MANASSEH

73

THE REIGN OF MANASSEH Sennacherib was murdered in 681 B.C., when Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, was already king of Judah for sixteen years. He has succeeded to his father in 697 and reigned for fifty-five years according to II Kings 21:1 and II Chron. 33:1, i.e. 697-644 B.C. He was only twelve years old when he came to the throne and his mother was Ḥepṣī-bāh, “My delight is in her”102. Manasseh’s name means “Making forget”, probably qualifying a child whose birth helps forgetting the death of an earlier child. His long reign coincided with more than half of Sennacherib’s reign (704-681 B.C.), all of Esarhaddon’s reign (680-669 B.C.), and most of Assurbanipal’s (668-630 B.C.). Our biblical sources are rather meagre, but archaeology shows that great changes have taken place in Jerusalem during the late 8th and the 7th centuries B.C., when the walled city of Jerusalem has been considerably enlarged, already before Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 B.C.

Sketchy plan of Jerusalem in the 8th-6th centuries B.C.

A topographical reminder may be useful at this point. Thus, the eastern ridge of post-Solomonic Jerusalem, comprising the Temple Mount and the Ophel hill, was bordered on the west by a valley, later called Tyropoeon (al-Wad). The ridge to the west of this valley, known as the “Western Hill”, comprises today’s Jewish and Armenian quarters in the Old City, as well as “Mount Zion”, outside the Ottoman city walls. This hill is bordered on the west and south by the Ḥinnom Valley (Wādi ar-Rababi) and on the north by the so-called 102

R. Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy (n. 1), p. 57.

74

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

“Transversal Valley”. Now, a segment of a 7 metres thick stone wall was discovered along this valley103, witnessing the extension of the walled city to the Western Hill. This city wall, dated by the excavators to the late 8th century B.C., probably continued until just south of the present-day Jaffa Gate. From here its direction was most likely southward along the western crest of the hill, above the Ḥinnom Valley, until it swung to the east following the curve of the valley to join the southern corner of the Ophel hill, at the confluence of the Ḥinnom Valley, the Tyropoeon, and the Kidron Valley (Wādi an-Nar)104. The area encircled by this wall is about 50 or even 65 hectares. Houses seem to have spread over the entire Western Hill, as suggested by impressive amounts of broken pottery of the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. found at several locations on the hill105. Besides, remains of constructions outside the city-wall, dating to the end of the 8th century, confirm the important growth of the city that may have counted at that time up to 15,000 inhabitants106. Large quantities of pottery found in two extramural caves on the eastern slope of the Southeast Hill, the City of David, and dated to the first half of the 7th century B.C.107, as well as the relatively large number of Iron Age II sherds from the 8th-7th centuries B.C. encountered in the Damascus Gate excavations108, confirm the extensive occupation of the Jerusalem area at that time. The same period is characterized by luxurious constructions, traces of which were uncovered in the excavations of the City of David, on the Southeast Hill. The Proto-Aeolic capital and the window balustrade reveal a Phoenician architectural style and ornamentation109, which seem to imply the presence of skilful craftsmen in Jerusalem. The same kind of ornamentation and fine ashlar 103

Cf. here above, p. 64. H. Geva, The Western Boundary of Jerusalem at the End of the Monarchy, in IEJ 29 (1979), p. 84-91; id., Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1979-1980: Preliminary Report, in IEJ 33 (1983), p. 55-71 (see p. 56-58); N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, Nashville 1983, p. 31-60; Y. Shiloh, The Material Culture (n. 63), p. 132-134; A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E., New York 1990, p. 417-424; E. Stern (ed.), NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. II, p. 705-706, 716. 105 N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (n. 104), p. 35-36; A.D. Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961-1967, Toronto 1985, p. 1-24. 106 The assumption that a middle size city of ca. 30 hectares already existed in the mid-8th century B.C. with a population estimated at 7,500 is not corroborated so far by concrete evidence. This opinion was expressed by M. Broshi and I. Finkelstein, The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II, in BASOR 287 (1992), p. 47-60 (see p. 51-52). 107 I. Eshel, Two Pottery Groups from Kenyon’s Excavations on the Eastern Slope of Ancient Jerusalem, in Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961-1967, Vol. IV, Oxford 1995, p. 1-157. An earlier dating of both caves, respectively 9th century (Cave II) and 8th century (Cave I), was proposed by H.J. Franken and M.L. Steiner, Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961-1967, vol. II, Oxford 1990. 108 H. Geva and D. Bahat, Architectural and Chronological Aspects of the Ancient Damascus Gate Area, in IEJ 48 (1998), p. 223-235 (see p. 223-225). 109 Y. Shiloh, The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11), Jerusalem 1979, p. 10-11, pl. 15. The date of the capital should be lowered. 104

THE REIGN OF MANASSEH

75

masonry are encountered in the palace erected in the early 7th century B.C. at Ramat Rahel (Stratum VA)110, about 4 km south of Jerusalem, where Hezekiah or Manasseh have built a “summer palace”111. It is the best example of Phoenician workmanship and ornamentation discovered in a 7th-century B.C. site lying outside the Phoenician coast112. One can suspect that comparable works were then executed in the Temple of Jerusalem and that its description in I Kings 6-7 is inspired by its aspect in the 7th and early 6th century B.C.113, not in Solomon’s days. The rapid and sudden expansion of Jerusalem in the 8th and 7th centuries cannot be explained by normal demographic or economic growth. It resulted most likely from the destruction of the northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians and by the afflux of numerous refugees into independent Judah and its capital. A second wave of refugees was composed of Judaeans flying from their villages and towns when Sennacherib invaded the Kingdom of Judah in 701 B.C.114 This unusual influx of people native from Israel and Judah radically changed the composition of Jerusalem’s population. To understand the significance of this change one should remember that the distinction between Israel and Judah was by far older than the political schism which marked the end of David’s and Solomon’s “united kingdom” shortly after Solomon’s death, probably in 929/8 B.C.115 The so-called Song of Deborah in Judg. 5, composed towards the end of the second millennium B.C., shows that, at that time, Judah was neither a part of Israel nor a tribal entity in close contact with the peoples of central and northern Canaan. The events, which led 110 Ibid., p. 8-10 and 58, pls. 11-14 and 29-30. The date should be lowered: R. Reich, Palaces and Residences in the Iron Age, in A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Period, Jerusalem 1992, p. 202-222 (see p. 207-208, 211-213). 111 For the 8th-7th centuries fashion of building a winter palace and a summer palace, see KAI 216 = TSSI II, 15, 17-20; Am. 3:15; Jer. 36:22. The lack of any tangible remains of Assyrian presence undermines the hypothesis of N. Na’aman, An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Raḥel?, in Tel Aviv 28 (2001), p. 260-280. 112 E. Stern, The Phoenician Architectural Elements in Palestine during the Late Iron Age and the Persian Period, in A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Period, Jerusalem 1992, p. 302-309; id., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible II. The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods: 732-332 BCE, New York 2001, p. 167-168. 113 One can agree that the basic text of I Kings 6-8 was written between 597 and 587 B.C., not the final text, as suggested apparently by R. Tomes, “Our Holy and Beautiful House”: When and Why was I Kings 6-8 Written, in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 70 (1996), p. 33-50. The description of the temple in I Kings 5-8 is attributed to the Deuteronomist himself by J. Van Seters, Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (1997), p. 45-57. 114 M. Broshi, The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh, in IEJ 24 (1974), p. 21-26 (see p. 23-26). 115 This date corresponds to Rehoboam’s 5th year, probably 924 B.C. by reference to Shoshenq I’s campaign in Palestine.

76

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

to David’s accession to the throne of Judah and of Israel, the Israelite revolts against him, and Solomon’s political and administrative measures show that Judah and Israel were two separate geopolitical entities even during the reign of those two kings. The historical background and evolution of these two nations were, in fact, quite different. Judah, which seems to have become a tribal entity only in post-Davidic times, originally stemmed from a few Rubenite and Simeonite clans and, above all, from some Kenizzite, Kenite, and Ephrataean tribes living in and around “the land full of ravines”, ’ereṣ yǝhūdāh, which gave its name to the tribe of Judah, when the latter came into existence as such and was given an eponym, who was subsequently integrated in the pan-Israelite framework of the patriarchal traditions. If we accept the definition of a nation as a community bound together by common traditions, customs, civilization, idiom, and a determined geopolitical situation, it is clear that, in spite of the numerous religious and socio-cultural aspects they had in common, Israel and Judah were, from a historical point of view, two separate nations. In fact, besides the clear geographical boundary which existed between them, there were differences even in the traditions: those related to Abraham and Isaac, for instance, were typical of the Palestinian south, while those concerning Jacob-Israel were peculiar to the tribes of central Canaan and Transjordan. Likewise, the institution of a hereditary monarchy often met with a strong opposition in the traditionalist circles of Israel, whereas the people of Judah was devoted to the dynasty of David, the founder of Judah as a political entity, first called Beth David. Furthermore, the Hebrew language spoken in Judah differed from the one spoken in Israel. And lastly, Judah’s isolation can be seen also in its material culture, whose regional features gain in being studied from the viewpoint of rather radical differences between Judah and Israel. These differences show that the merger of populations native from Israel and Judah in the frame of the single city of Jerusalem and its suburbs had to lead to the formation of a new social contexture. Conservative and traditional forces seem to have finished by gaining the upper hand in this society living in a mountainous area, situated somewhat off the main international thoroughfare along the coastal plain. Josiah’s reform116, following the collapse of Assyria, corresponded undoubtedly to a trend towards isolationism, favoured by the 116 II Kings 23. See E. Reuter, Kultzentralisation. Entstehung und Theologie von Dtn 12 (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 87), Frankfurt 1993, p. 231-258; H. Niehr, Die Reform des Joschija. Methodische, historische und religionsgeschichtliche Aspekte, in W. Gross (ed.), Jeremia und die Deuteronomistische Bewegung (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 98), Weinheim 1995, p. 33-56; I.K. Handy, Historical Probability and the Narrative of the Josiah’s Reform in 2 Kings, in W. Holloway and I.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Åhlström, Sheffield 1995, p. 252-275, where earlier literature can be found. One could also mention the reprint of E. Würthwein, Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW 227), Berlin 1994, p. 188-216. For the account of the reform in II Chron. 34, see D.A. Glatt-Gilad, The

THE REIGN OF MANASSEH

77

geopolitical situation of Jerusalem and by a religious fervour. The latter was hardly inherited from the Israelite refugees, although they were bearers of northern Elijah’s and Elisha’s prophetic traditions. The nostalgia for ancient days, that characterizes the Book of Deuteronomy, already prepares the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. During Manasseh’s long reign Judah enjoyed the pax Assyriaca, paying the annual tribute to the king of Assyria. Manasseh (mMe-na-si-i with variants), is mentioned with twenty-two kings of Syro-Phoenicia, Philistia, and Cyprus in one of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions relating that he imposed forced labour upon their subjects, making them convey timber and stones for the construction of his palace in Nineveh117. Most of these kings, including Manasseh (mMi-in-see), are also mentioned in one of Assurbanipal’s inscriptions which relates that their armies accompanied him to Egypt in his campaign against Taharqo118. Some scholars assume that part of Manasseh’s troops remained in Egypt as garrison and that they were the first Judaean settlers of Elephantine. The Books of Kings do not provide any information on these matters, but Nah. 3:8-10 refers to No-Amon, i.e. Thebes in Upper Egypt, which has been then occupied by the Assyrians ca. 664 B.C. This passage could be based on souvenirs of a Judaean member of the unit sent to Egypt. The story of Manasseh’s conversion in II Chron. 33:11-17 is introduced by a sentence which must have a historical background: “Yahweh brought against them the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria; they fastened Manasseh with spikes, and bound him with fetters, and brought him to Babylon” (II Chron. 33:11). One would expect an imprisonment of Manasseh in Assur or Nineveh, not in Babylon. However, Sennacherib was king of Babylon in 688-681 and Esarhaddon, in 680-669 B.C. Besides, Shamash-shum-ukin, son of king Esarhaddon and brother of king Assurbanipal, was ruler of Babylon from 668 to 648 B.C. but he rebelled in 652 against his brother Assurbanipal, who squeezed the rebellion and replaced his brother by Kandalānu in 647 B.C. II Chron. 33:11 seems to allude to a rebellion in Judah, paralleled to the one of Babylon. In fact, Shamash-shum-ukin managed to get allies from the lands of Akkad, Chaldea, Aram, and Sealand, and he had turned them against Assurbanipal. Judah is not mentioned, but may be implied by Aramu, since even Arabs participated in this uprising119. Very likely Manasseh submitted to

Role of Huldah’s Prophecy in the Chronicler’s Portrayal of Josiah’s Reform, in Biblica 77 (1996), p. 16-31. 117 R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien, Graz 1956, p. 60-61, lines 54 ff. English translation in ANET, p. 291. 118 English translation in ANET, p. 294. Cf. K. Radner, Aššūr-bāni-apli, in PNA I/1, Helsinki 1998, p. 150b-171a (see p. 164). 119 H.D. Baker, Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, in PNA III/2, Helsinki 2011, p. 1214b-1219a (see p. 1216b1217).

78

JUDAH FROM MID-9TH TO MID-7TH CENTURY B.C.

Assurbanipal and was allowed to continue to reign. These political events of the years 652-647 B.C. were presented by the Chronicler as foreign religious practices, and Manasseh’s submission became a conversion. His deportation to Babylon reveals a misunderstanding of the origin of the rebellion, initiated from Babylon by Shamash-shum-ukin, while Manasseh was most likely secluded by Assurbanipal’s officials. The conversion of Manasseh inspired an unknown psalmist, active about the first century B.C. He composed a brief penitential psalm, appropriate for the occasion, which was later incorporated among the books of the apocrypha120.

120 An English translation is available in the New English Bible, Cambridge 1970, The Apocrypha, p. 208-209. The Greek text is included among the fourteen Odes appended to the Psalter of the Septuagint.

CHAPTER IV

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

Amon, son of Manasseh, succeeded to his father in 643 B.C., when he was twenty-two years old (II Kings 21:19; II Chron. 33:21-25). Since he was born when his father was forty-five years old, it is very likely that he was not the eldest son of Manasseh. His mother was Meshullemeth, “The one who keeps safe”, daughter of Ḥarūṣ, from Joṭbah. It is not likely that a Galilean fortress would be the hometown of the wife of a Judaean king and later a Queenmother1. Joṭbah should probably be identified with Joṭbathah, known as ’Ιωτάβε in the Byzantine period. It is the small island of Ǧezīrat al-Far‘ūn, about 12 km south of Elath, offshore the nearby oasis of Ṭabeh, whose name resembles Joṭbah and ’Ιωτάβε. On this island there are ancient remains of fortifications and of a harbour2. One can assume that this small island was an Edomite outpost in the Gulf of Aqaba, whose governor was Ḥarūṣ, Meshullameth’s father. His name means “sharp, diligent”3, and it is attested in 681 B.C. as mḪa-ru-ṣa-a4. It occurs later at Palmyra as Ḥrwṣ5. If Ḥarūṣ was the governor of this outpost, his daughter, perhaps educated at the Edomite Court, has possibly been given in marriage to Manasseh, king of Judah. Such marriages imply various political and social relations between Courts of neighbouring kingdoms.

EDOMITE-JUDAEAN RELATIONS This explanation of the names and the suggested origin of Meshullemeth assume that good relations existed in the mid-7th century B.C. between Edom and Judah. The opposite historical reconstruction of hostile relations between 1 This was the opinion of F.-M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine II, 2nd ed., Paris 1938, p. 366; Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, London 1967, p. 350, followed by several scholars. 2 Y. Aharoni, The Land (n. 1), p. 183 with n. 28. For ancient hypotheses concerning this site one can see F.-M. Abel, L’île de Jotabè, in RB 47 (1938), p. 510-538. 3 R. Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography (OLA 28), Leuven 1988, p. 210. The name Ḫrḍ is attested in Thamudic, while the daughter’s name Mslmt / Mslmh occurs in Sabaic and in Liḥyanite. Cf. G.L. Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Near and Middle East Series 8), Toronto 1971, p. 219 and 546. 4 R. Mattila, Ḫaruṣâ, in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 463a. 5 D.R. Hillers and E. Cussini, Palmyrene Aramaic Texts, Baltimore 1995, p. 287, PAT 2160, rev. 1.

80

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

the two kingdoms is based on weak data. The Assyrian documentation, central to understanding the power relations of the 8th-7th centuries, deals with Edom only in connection with the Assyrians themselves. Instead, Arad ostracon No. 40 from Stratum VIII, destroyed ca. 700 B.C., attests the existence of diplomatic relations between the Edomite and Judaean Courts on the eve of Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 B.C.6 One should notice that ’d[m] in the last line of the ostracon No. 40 is partly reconstructed, that two letters are probably missing there, and that this line 15 can be read ’t hr‘h ’š[r b]’d[m ‘śh], “the evil which [X did to] Edom”, with no statement about evil caused by Edom7. These peaceful relations do not exclude earlier and later antagonism, not always visible in archaeological researches. Edomites could apparently occupy Judaean outposts without causing severe destructions.8

Settlement in the Beersheba Valley in the 7th and early 6th centuries B.C.8

The discovery of 22 Hebrew ostraca and inscriptions in the gatehouse of the Khirbet al-Ġazza fortress, today Ḥorvat ‘Uza, and only of one Edomite ostracon gives the impression that the fort was in Judaean hands. The presence of an ostracon with a Hebrew literary text9 even suggests that a professional 6 J.R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, Sheffield 1989, p. 131; L. Singer-Avitz, Arad. The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages, in Tel Aviv 29 (2002), p. 110-214 (see p. 180). 7 It is important to emphasize this difference, since this partial reconstruction is contrary to the editio princeps: Y. Aharoni, Ketūvōt ‘Arad, Jerusalem 1975, p. 72-73; id., Arad Inscriptions, Jerusalem 1981, p. 73-74. See also above, p. 56. 8 Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report, in Tel Aviv 29 (2002), p. 102. 9 I. Beit-Arieh, A Literary Ostracon from Ḥorvat ‘Uza, in Tel Aviv 20 (1993), p. 55-63.

EDOMITE-JUDAEAN RELATIONS

81

Hebrew scribe had been working there for some time. Moreover, a small fort (21 × 25 m) was discovered at Ḥorvat Radum, some 2 km south of Khirbet al-Ġazza, and it yielded five Hebrew ostraca as well10. The linkage of BaalathBeer to Ramath-Negeb in Josh. 19:8, where Simeon’s border seems to be fixed, might suggest that Baalath-Beer, “The Mistress of the Well”, is the ancient name of Ḥorvat Radum, but the localization of Ramath-Negeb is so far uncertain. The Edomite letter sent by Lamalek or (E)limelek with a blessing by Qaws and practical dispositions11 seems instead to imply that the fort of Khirbet al-Ġazza was under Edomite control and that the addressee was its commander. It is possible that the fortress changed hands without any fight leaving permanent traces or that the small Judaean garrison simply abandoned the site, which was immediately occupied by the Edomites. This could have happened at the time of one of the Babylonian invasions of Judah, in 597 or 587 B.C., but possibly earlier, in the troublesome years when the Egyptian forces of Necho entered Palestine, about 610 B.C.12 In fact, the palaeography of the two published Hebrew ostraca suggests an earlier date than that of the ostraca from Stratum VI at Arad. Since the yōd of both ostraca still has its foot-stroke, a date ca. 610-600 B.C. would be appropriate. The Ahiqam ostracon from Khirbet al-Ġazza might be a message announcing to the Judaean commander of the fort that three supplementary men will be sent to reinforce the small garrison. The patronymic and the origin of the second man suggest however that he or his father were native from Edom, despite his own Yahwistic name: 1) 2) 3) 4)

⌜š⌝lm.l’ḥqm.bn.Mšlm ‘mdyhw.bn.Zkr.m-Mldh Hš‘yhw.bn.Nwy.m-Rptn Mky.bn.Hṣlyhw.m-Mqdh

“Greetings to Ahiqam, son of Meshullam. ‘Amadyahu, son of Zakkūr, from Moladah. Hosha‘yahu, son of Nawiy, from Raptān. Maki, son of Hiṣṣilyahu, from Maqqēdāh.”

The name Nwy still occurs in Ṣafaitic inscriptions and means “Neighbour” or “Friend”13. The toponym Rftn is attested in a Minaean inscription14. This is certainly a different place, but derivatives of the common noun rpt, “stall”, with the widespread suffix -ān can occur in various regions. The patronymic and the toponym seem to be related to Arabic and should therefore be regarded as Edomite. The name Hš‘yhw is instead Hebrew and would thus attest a case 10

Grid ref. 1659/0665: I. Beit-Arieh, Radum, in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. IV, p. 1254-

1255. 11 I. Beit-Arieh and B. Cresson, An Edomite Ostracon from Horvat ‘Uza, in Tel Aviv 12 (1985), p. 96-101 and pl. 12:2. Cf. also W. Zwickel, Das ‘edomitische’ Ostrakon aus Ḫirbet Ġazza (Ḥorvat ‘Uza), in BN 41 (1988), p. 36-40; H. Misgav, Two Notes on the Ostraca from Ḥorvat ‘Uza, in IEJ 40 (1990), p. 215-217. 12 See here below, p. 89. 13 G.L. Harding, An Index (n. 3), p. 604. 14 RÉS 2754, 2 = Halévy 169; cf. G.L. Harding, An Index (n. 3), p. 252.

82

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

of an Edomite settled in a Judaean community. Settlements with a mixed population would of course accept easier Edomite rule. The analysis of the four proper names in the Edomite ostracon is also informative, as none of them is Yahwistic. They imply a non-Judaean population:

The Edomite letter found at Khirbet al-Ġazza (n. 11)

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

’mr.Lmlk.’mr.l-Blbl hšlm.’t.whbrktk l-Qws.w‘t.tn.’t.h’kl ’šr.‘md.’ḥ’mh.yšlḥ? whrm.‘z’l.‘l mz[r‘.tn?] [’t?].ḥmr.h’kl

“Lamalek speaks: Say to Bulbul: Are you well? I recommend you to Qaws. And now: Give the grain, which is with Aḥ’immahu; he should send? (it). And set ‘Azzi’il over the sow[ing. Give?] [a] donkey-load of the grain”.

If the name of the sender consists of the preposition l and of the noun mlk, “king”, it would be a typical name of Court officials: “Belonging to the king”15. The addressee bears a one-word name which can be compared with Arabic bulbul, “nightingale”, and with the Old Babylonian proper name Baal-ba-lum /Balbal-um/16, with the mimation characteristic of that period. The keeper of the grain bears a name which is attested also on two apparently Hebrew seal impressions, but neither patronymic is Yahwistic: ’ḥ’mh Dml’ and l-’ḥ’mh Krmy17. 15 One may compare the contemporaneous West Semitic feminine name Le-be-el, “Belonging to the husband / Baal / lord”; cf. C. Ambos, Le-Bēl, in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 659. In North Arabian, one finds L-’l, “Belonging to God”, L-S1ms2, “Belonging to the Sun-god”, L-‘m, “Belonging to the Ancestor”, L-Qs2 or L-Qys2, “Belonging to Qayś”: G.L. Harding, An Index (n. 3), p. 508, 515, 517, 519, 520. 16 I.J. Gelb, Computer-aided Analysis of Amorite (AS 21), Chicago 1980, p. 116. 17 R. Deutsch, Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae. The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection, Tel Aviv 2003, Nos. 70 and 71, p. 407.

EDOMITE-JUDAEAN RELATIONS

83

The fourth person mentioned in the letter is ‘z’l, “God is strong”. The name is attested also at Khirbet al-Ġarra, where l-‘z⌜’⌝[l] is incised on the shoulder of a pithos from Stratum VII18, and it occurs likewise in Liḥyanite19. It should be vocalized ‘Azzi-‘Il, despite the absence of gemination in its cuneiform notations20. Aroer is another site witnessing Edomite-Judaean relations. About 8 km south-west of Khirbet Qiṭmīt and 7 km south of Tell al-Milḥ, the prominent Khirbet ‘Ar‘ara (Aroer) overlooks an important well. A Herodian fort was built there above an Iron Age fortress from the late 8th-7th centuries B.C., which enclosed an area of about 1 ha, doubled by quarters built outside the wall with offsets21. The rich ceramic material from this period includes Edomite pottery, which may attest cultural closeness of Edom. The discovery of jar handles with the Hebrew lmlk and zyp inscriptions22, on the one hand, and of a jasper seal with the Edomite inscription l-Qws’23 and an incomplete Edomite ostracon24, on the other, leads to raising the same question as in the case of Khirbet al-Ġazza, viz.: Did this settlement with some 400-500 inhabitants pass at a certain moment in Edomite hands? A similar question can be raised concerning Tel Masos, which the writer proposes to identify with Ramath-Negeb. A different opinion was defended by Y. Aharoni who has identified Khirbet al-Ġazza, today Ḥorvat ‘Uza, with Ramath-Negeb25, where ngb would be used in its original meaning of “store” or “supplies”, not in the topographic sense of “southern region”. In other words, Ramath-Negeb would mean “Hill of the Store”. The site is located at the eastern end of the Beersheba Valley, thus fitting apparently its mention in Josh. 19:8, where Ramath-Negeb seems to be situated at the border of the territory allotted to the tribe of Simeon. It guards the access to the valley by the

18

I. Beit-Arieh, Tel ‘Ira: A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv 1999, p. 410-411. G.L. Harding, An Index (n. 3), p. 417. 20 J.A. Brinkman, Azi-il, in PNA I/1, Helsinki 1998, p. 239. Cf. I.J. Gelb, Computer-aided (n. 16), p. 15 and 268, sub ‘AZZ. 21 Grid ref. 1479/0623: A. Biran and L. Cohen, Aroer, in IEJ 26 (1976), p. 138-140; 27 (1977), p. 250-251, pl. 38; 28 (1978), p. 197-199, pl. 32C-D; 31 (1981), p. 131-132, pl. 24A-D; 32 (1982), p. 161-163, pl. 23; id., Aroër, in RB 83 (1976), p. 256-257, pls. XXVI-XXVII; 84 (1977), p. 273-275, pl. IXd; 85 (1978), p. 425-427, pl. XXVIII; 86 (1979), p. 465-466; 89 (1982), p. 240245, pl. VIII; id., Aroer in the Negev, in Y. Aharoni Volume (ErIs 15), Jerusalem 1981, p. 250-273 (in Hebrew); A. Biran, Aroer (in Judea), in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. I, p. 89-92. 22 A. Biran and L. Cohen, Aroer (n. 21), in RB 83 (1976), p. 257. Ziph is a place name. 23 A. Biran and L. Cohen, Aroer (n. 21), in IEJ 26 (1976), p. 139 and pl. 28B, and in RB 84 (1977), p. 274 and pl. IXd; N. Avigad and B. Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem 1997, p. 392-393, No. 1055. 24 A. Biran and L. Cohen, Aroer (n. 21), in RB 58 (1978), p. 427 and pl. XXVIIIe; J. Naveh, Published and Unpublished Aramaic Ostraca, in ‘Atiqot. English Series 17 (1985), p. 114-121, pls. XIX-XX (see p. 120-121, pl. XX, 13). 25 Y. Aharoni, Three Hebrew Ostraca from Arad, in BASOR 197 (1970), p. 16-42 (see p. 22-24); id., Ketūvōt ‘Arad, Jerusalem 1975, p. 146-148 (in Hebrew); id., Arad Inscriptions, Jerusalem 1981, No. 24. Aharoni has thus abandoned his previous identification of Qynh with Khirbet al-Ġazza. 19

84

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

Arad ostracon No. 24, verso

road coming from the Wādi Arabah and from Edom, and was therefore exposed to Edomite attacks. It is more important to pay attention to Arad ostracon 24, where RamathNegeb is mentioned twice. It results from the context that the town was threatened by the Edomites and that military help had to be sent urgently from other forts26, namely from Arad and Qinah. The ostracon can be dated palaeographically to the late 7th or early 6th centuries B.C., but it was found in a stratigraphically undetermined area on the western side of the mound, not with the ostraca forming the so-called “Elyashib archive”. It was written before the events of 598/7, perhaps about 609 B.C., when Egyptian troops had penetrated in Judah, creating conditions that could favour an Edomite attack. Despite its fortifications with solid walls and a six-chambered gate, Khirbet al-Ġazza was taken and destroyed27. Other identifications of Ramath-Negeb have been proposed, like Khirbet al-Ġarra, today Tel ‘Ira28, but Arad ostracon No. 24 shows that Ramath-Negeb 26

Y. Aharoni, Ketūvōt ‘Arad (n. 25), p. 48-51; A. Lemaire, L’ostracon ‘Ramat-Négeb’ et la topographie historique du Négeb, in Semitica 23 (1973), p. 11-26; id., Inscriptions hébraïques I. Les ostraca (LAPO 9), Paris 1999, p. 188-195. 27 N. Getzov, R. Lieberman-Wander, H. Smithline, B. Syon, D. Avshalom-Gorni, Y. GorinRosen, and E.J. Stern, Horbat ‘Uza, the 1991 Excavations I-II (IAA Reports 41-42), Jerusalem 2009. 28 Grid ref. 148, 8/071, 2: A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques (n. 26), p. 191-192, basing himself on the description of the site by Y. Aharoni, in IEJ 8 (1958), p. 36-38.

EDOMITE-JUDAEAN RELATIONS

85

Archaeological sites of Iron Age II in Judah29

was a settlement threatened by Edomites and that the place could be easily seized by them. This does not suit the strong fortifications either of Khirbet al-Ġazza or of Khirbet al-Ġarra. The document must refer to a place which was not fortified or, at least, not fortified in a strong way. 29 The letter of ostracon No. 24 thus recommends to send soldiers there from other Negebite settlements. Although various localizations have been proposed 29

A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E., New York 1990, p. 370. Ancient names are in italics, modern names in roman.

86

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

for Ramath-Negeb, its name suggests a different place which would have been the main centre of northern Negeb. This was the case of Khirbet al-Mšāš, today Tel Masos, whose Strata II-I from the 10th-9th centuries B.C. covered an area of about 6 hectares and appeared as the main centre of the entire region30. It was an agricultural centre and a trading point for the whole area, at least in the period 950-875 B.C. The abundant water supply and the fertility of the soil explain the existence of this large, unfortified settlement, which does not show major destruction layers for more than a century. It was completely abandoned in the 9th century B.C., probably for a more strategic and easier defensible position. However, its name was preserved in Hebrew, not only in Josh. 19:8 and I Sam. 30:27, but also in Arad ostracon No. 24. In the 7th century B.C., a new settlement, also unwalled, was established near the wells, about 500 m from the Middle Bronze earth rampart of Khirbet al-Mšāš. Its area may be estimated at 0,5 ha, what implies a population of 100-125 persons. However, the Middle Bronze rampart and the remains of Iron Age IIA settlement were certainly recognizable and they evidenced the existence of a former major centre. These visible ruins explain the aetiological story telling the destruction (ḥērem) of the settlement by Judaeans’ ancestors entering Canaan (Numb. 21:3; Judg. 1:17) and taking revenge of a battle lost there in a first attempt at reaching the Judaean highland (Numb. 14:45; Deut. 1:44). The place got the name Ḥormāh, “wholly destruction”, attested in various passages of the Bible, but the real toponym was perhaps Zephath (Judg. 1:17) or rather the old name Ramath-Negeb, according to Josh. 19:8; I Sam. 30:27, and Arad ostracon No. 24. The presence of Edomite pottery on the small 7th-6th century tell, as well as of two ostraca, seems to witness some Edomite presence on the site, but it does not prove its annexation by Edom. Our written sources do not provide much information in this matter, they are silent about the relations between the kings of Edom and Judah, and do not mention the activity of traders from the two countries. THE REIGNS OF AMON AND JOSIAH Before presenting the following decennia of the history of Judah it is useful to show a genealogical tree of the rulers of this period, characterized by foreign interventions. Amon’s reign was very short, since he has been murdered two years after his enthronization. The reasons for Amon’s assassination by members of his Court 30 Grid ref. 146/069. Cf. V. Fritz and A. Kempinski, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Ḫirbet el-Mšāš (Tel Maśōś) 1972-1975, Wiesbaden 1983; A. Kempinski, Masos, Tel, in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. III, p. 986-989; Z. Herzog, The Fortress (n. 8), p. 87-88; Z. Herzog and L. Singer-Avitz, Redefining the Centre. The Emergence of State in Judah, in Tel Aviv 31 (2004), p. 209-244 (see p. 222-223).

87

THE REIGNS OF AMON AND JOSIAH

Pedaiah Elnatan

Manasseh

Adaiah

Amon (643-641)

Jedidah

Zebidah

Nehushta

Josiah (641-610)

Jeremiah Hamutal

Jehoiakim (610-600) Jehoiachin (600-597)

Jehoahaz (610)

Zedekiah (597-587)

Genealogical tree of the last kings of Judah

are not explained in the Bible, but one can assume that this was a conspiracy prepared by his older brothers. The fact that the conspirators were put to death without delay by the ‘am hā-‘āreṣ, “the people of the land” representing the free citizens of Judah, shows that they respected Manasseh’s choice of his successor. They enthroned Amon’s young son Josiah, who was only eight years old. It seems that the conspirators were opponents of the pro-Assyrian policy of Manasseh, followed also after the latter’s “conversion”, and that they have possibly been somehow involved in Shamash-shum-ukin’s rebellion against Assurbanipal in 652-647 B.C. Instead, the active members of the ‘am hā-’āreṣ were most likely enjoying profits from the pax Assyriaca. Amon, who is said to have followed the ways of his father (II Kings 21:20-21), was too young to be really involved in the preparation of the rebellion of 652-647 B.C. and he could be regarded by Assurbanipal as loyal to the Assyrian regime. His enthronization in 643 B.C. thus belonged to a wise policy, followed by the crowning of Amon’s eight-years-old son Josiah (II Kings 22:1; II Chron. 34:1). In such a way, eventual complications with Assyria were forestalled. Josiah reigned in Jerusalem for thirty-one years (641-611 B.C.). His mother was Jedidah, “Beloved”, daughter of Adaiah, from Boṣqat in the Shephelah (II Kings 22:1). The first part of Josiah’s reign corresponds to the last years of Assurbanipal, who probably reigned until 630 B.C. No biblical or Assyrian information is available concerning the relations between Judah and its Assyrian overlord. Since Manasseh’s policy had to be followed, Judah was most likely paying the yearly tribute to Assyria. The situation changed probably after the death of Assurbanipal ca. 630 B.C. or the seizure of the Babylonian throne by Nabopolassar in 625 B.C. The Babylonian Chronicle of Nabopolassar (BM 21901) is relatively well preserved for the years 617-609 B.C.31 In 617 B.C., Sin-shar-ishkun’s Assyrian 31 A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS 5), Locust Valley 1975, No. 3, p. 90-96.

88

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

army was defeated by Nabopolassar near the town of Baliḫu, certainly on the Baliḫ, but an Egyptian army joined forces with Assyria and the Babylonians had to withdraw. The presence of the Egyptian troops east of the Euphrates, in the area south of Harran, implies an important evolution in the policy of Psammetichus I (664-610 B.C.), the real founder of the Twenty-Sixth Egyptian Dynasty. The decision of sending an Egyptian army to help the Assyrian king Sin-shar-ishkun (627-612 B.C.) had to be taken a few years before 617 B.C., as it implied a renewed Egyptian control of roads leading through Canaan and western Syria to the area of Carchemish, and the establishment of Egyptian transit centres in the Assyrian provinces of these regions, which were thus passing under Egyptian control. In exchange for Egyptian help Assyria renounced to its overlordship over Phoenicia and Canaan. The latest sign of Assyrian domination in the area is found ca. 619 B.C., when Mannu-ki-aḫḫē, governor of Ṣimirra, appears in the list of eponyms32. A few years later, an Egyptian inscription of 613/2 B.C., Year 52 of Psammetichus I, records the appointment of an Egyptian courtier over these regions. Lines 7-12 of the inscription read: “Their chiefs were subjects of the Palace, with a royal courtier placed over them, and their taxes were assessed for the Residence, as though it were in the Land of Egypt”33. Seen from a political point of view, a small Neo-Assyrian State in northern Syria could provide a buffer zone between the new Mesopotamian powers and the Egyptian dependencies in Syro-Phoenicia and Philistia. In these circumstances, as it seems, Josiah, king of Judah, occupied some border areas of the Assyrian provinces of Samaria, created in the former kingdom of Israel, in particular the region of Bethel (II Kings 23:15-20). He could nevertheless be in the same situation as the Phoenician kings and be regarded by the pharaoh as a vassal of Egypt. One cannot assume therefore that Josiah has extended his power as far as the coastal fort of Metsad Hashavyahu, where Hebrew ostraca from the late 7th century B.C. have been found, in particular a complaint of a worker, probably written for him by a professional scribe and addressed to a high official34. This complaint only suggests that a Judaean corvée worker was employed in the fort controlled by Egyptians35. The Egyptian intervention and the Egyptian transit centers, especially at Megiddo, were undoubtedly worrying Josiah. The situation became more

32

R. Jas, Mannu-ki-aḫḫē 31., in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 684b. References in E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age (OLA 153), Leuven 2006, p. 156-157. 34 J. Naveh, A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C., in IEJ 10 (1960), p. 129-139, pl. 17; id., Some Notes on the Reading of the Meṣad Ḥashavyahu Letter, in IEJ 14 (1964), p. 158159. 35 A. Fantalkin, Meẓad Ḥashavyahu: Its Material Culture and Historical Background, in Tel Aviv 28 (2001), p. 3-167 (see p. 144). 33

EGYPTIAN AND BABYLONIAN DOMINATION

89

dangerous, when the newly enthroned pharaoh, Necho II (610-595 B.C.), son of Psammetichus I, marched with a large force to provide additional help to the last Assyrian king Assur-uballiṭ II (611-609 B.C.), who had succeeded to the throne of Assyria in Harran, but left the city in front of the advancing Babylonian and Ummanmanda armies. The Egyptian army nevertheless reached Harran and helped the Assyrians to defeat the Babylonian garrison stationed in the city, but apparently failed to take it36. Did Josiah intend preventing Necho II’s army from helping the Assyrians? The biblical text of II Kings 23:29 simply states: “King Josiah went to meet him, and (pharaoh Necho) slew him at Megiddo, when he saw him”. There is no allusion to a battle. The reader does not know even whether the meeting with Necho was an initiative of Josiah or the answer to Necho’s convocation of a vassal ruler. Instead, II Chron. 35:20-24 records a battle in the valley of Megiddo, what is confirmed by Herodotus, History II, 159, where the Greek historian records Necho’s victory over Syrians at Magdolos, which must be Megiddo37. Josiah was probably accompanied by some units of the Judaean army, at least to protect the king against the local population which was undoubtedly exacerbated by the religious persecutions resulting from Josiah’s reform38. It seems in any case that a battle followed Josiah’s killing by pharaoh’s men. Its knowledge reached Herodotus in a vague form, but its souvenir became a fully fledged account, recorded in II Chron. 35:23-24: Josiah, severely wounded in the battle of Megiddo, was lifted out of his chariot and carried in his second chariot to Jerusalem. There he died and was buried among the tombs of his ancestors (cf. II Kings 23:30). “The ‘am hā-’āreṣ took then Josiah’s son Jehoahaz and anointed him king” (II Kings 23:30b; II Chron. 36:1). Several scholars accept the historical value of this account and interpret Josiah’s intention in two different ways: Josiah was possibly bound by a treaty with the Babylonians or, more likely, he feared a revival of the Assyrian power. This would mean, in both hypotheses, that Josiah no longer followed Manasseh’s policy. EGYPTIAN AND BABYLONIAN DOMINATION Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, was twenty-three years old, when he came to the throne. His mother was Hamutal, daughter of Jeremiah, from Libnah, probably north of Lachish, in the Shephelah39. Jehoahaz reigned only for three months. 36

A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (n. 31), No. 3, lines 66-68. H. Cazelles, Sophonie, Jérémie et les Scythes en Palestine, in RB 74 (1967), p. 24-44 (see p. 26). 38 II Kings 23:15-20; II Chron. 34:6-7. See Chapter VI, p. 141. 39 N. Na’aman, The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah, in Tel Aviv 18 (1991), p. 3-71 (see p. 18 and 21). 37

90

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

Necho summoned him to his headquarters at Riblah in central Syria, deposed him and deported him to Egypt, where he died (II Kings 23:31-33; cf. Jer. 22:1012). The failure of saving a petty Assyrian kingdom east of the Euphrates, in the area of Harran, convinced Necho that he should consolidate his position west of the river. He thus placed Jehoahaz’s half-brother Eliakim on the throne as an Egyptian vassal, changing his name to Jehoiakim to underscore his dependence from the pharaoh. A tribute was also imposed on the land, a hundred talents of silver and one talent of gold, paid to Necho by Jehoiakim who taxed the country to meet the pharaoh’s demands (II Kings 23:33, 35). Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he was appointed as king by Necho and he reigned in Jerusalem for eleven years (610-600 B.C.). His mother was Zebidah, daughter of Pedaiah, from Rumah (II Kings 23:36-37). During the first six years of Jehoiakim’s reign Judah was a vassal state of Egypt. But in 605 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 B.C.), Nabopolassar’s (625-605 B.C.) son, defeated the Egyptian forces at Carchemish and the Babylonian army reached the borders of Judah. Then Jehoiakim recognized Nebuchadnezzar’s overlordship (II Kings 24:1), while Adon, the Philistine king of Ekron, sent a letter in Aramaic to pharaoh Necho II with a futile appeal for aid40. However, three years later, Jehoiakim broke with Nebuchadnezzar, considering probably that the latter’s difficulties and heavy losses at the border with Egypt in 602/141 announced a change of the political situation. This was a fatal error, paid by his son and successor Jehoiachin in 597 B.C. Jehoiakim was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, who was eighteen years old when he came to the throne, but reigned only three months according to the Bible, but three years in correct chronology (600-597 B.C.). His mother was Nehushta, daughter of Elnatan, from Jerusalem (II Kings 24:6, 8; II Chron. 36:9). The chronological error is probably due to the similar case of II Kings 23:31; II Chron. 36:2. Besides, incorrect is the version of II Chron. 36:9 which states that he was only eight years old at the time of his enthronization. Excavations in several Judaean tells have uncovered seal impressions with the inscription l-’lyqm / n‘r Ywkn, “Belonging to Eliaqim, squire of Jehoiachin”42. Ywkn is an abridged form of the name Yhwykyn, “Yahweh will establish”, borne by the king of Judah43. Eliaqim was therefore a man of high birth who performed the function of Jehoiachin’s estate manager or steward44. His seal was most likely used at the time when Jehoiachin was crown prince and during 40

KAI 266, TSSI II, 21. A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (n. 31), No. 3, p. 101, lines 5-7. 42 R. Zadok, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy (n. 3), p. 316; Y. Avishur and M. Heltzer, Studies on the Royal Administration in Ancient Israel in the Light of Epigraphic Sources, Jerusalem 1996, p. 86-87 (in Hebrew) and 186, n° 27. 43 W.F. Albright, The American Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim, in ZAW 47 (1929), p. 1-17 (see p. 16). 44 Cf. H.F. Fuhs, na‘ar, in ThDOT IX, Grand Rapids 1998, p. 474-485 (see p. 483). 41

EGYPTIAN AND BABYLONIAN DOMINATION

91

the three years of his rule, confirming the need of correcting the “three months” of II Kings 24:8 in “three years”. The usual Deuteronomistic formula closing a Judaean king’s biography lacks the indication of the place where Jehoiakim has been buried (II Kings 24:6). The Lagarde edition of the Septuagint adds nevertheless “in the garden of Uzza”. The background of this omission may be found in an oracle of the prophet Jeremiah referring to Jehoiakim’s death (Jer. 22:18-19): “And so, this is what Yahweh has said concerning Jehoiakim ben Josiah, king of Judah: ‘Woe to this man!’ They’ll not lament him, ‘Ah, my brother! Ah, sister!’ They’ll not lament him, ‘Ah, lord! Ah, his majesty!’ They’ll give him a donkey’s funeral! - Hauled out and dumped outside Jerusalem’s gates.”

A prose parallel to this oracle is found in Jer. 36:30: “Yahweh has said concerning Jehoiakim, king of Judah: ‘No descendant of his shall sit on David’s throne! His dead body shall be flung out to the heat by day and to the frost by night’”45.

According to II Kings 24:4, Jehoiakim had shed much innocent blood in Jerusalem (Jer. 22:17), and one can assume that he has been imprisoned by the ‘am hā-’āreṣ. He died in prison, executed or committing suicide. After Jehoiakim’s death, his son, the crown prince, was officially proclaimed king. This is probably the background of the story of II Chron. 36:6 relating that Nebuchadnezzar bound Jehoiakim in fetters in order to bring him to Babylon46. Chronicler’s oral or written sources could have recorded that Jehoiakim “had drenched Jerusalem with innocent blood” (II Kings 24:4) and was “put in fetters” (cf. II Chron. 36:6), what the Chronicler connected with the later intervention of Nebuchadnezzar, not taking into account that Jehoiachin, who surrendered and was exiled in 597 B.C., was not the same king who had rebelled in 601 B.C., i.e. Jehoiakim, who after three years had changed his attitude towards Nebuchadnezzar. The Babylonian Chronicle does not record these events. Jehoiachin (Yhwykyn), son of Jehoiakim (Yhwyqym), was eighteen years old when he came to the throne at the height of a rebellion against Babylon. Although Nebuchadnezzar did not campaign in 600/599 and was occupied elsewhere in 599/598, he had no intention of letting Judah go. In the winter 598/597 the Babylonian army marched on Jerusalem and the city surrendered 45

Translation by J. Bright, Jeremiah (The Anchor Bible), Garden City 1965, p. 137-138 and

178. 46 According to Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities X, 6, 3, §82-83, Jehoiakim was killed on Nebuchadnezzar’s behest and his body thrown from the wall without sepulture.

92

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

on 16th March 597, after a short siege. Jehoiachin, the Queen-mother, high officials and leading citizens, together with an enormous booty, were taken to Babylon. The king’s uncle Mattaniah was installed as ruler in his place and his name was changed into Zedekiah (II Kings 24:10-17)47, a symbolic expression of his political status as a vassal of the king of Babylon. Jehoiachin’s mother Nehushta, daughter of Elnatan, must have been very influential in the palace, since she is mentioned several times in the biblical accounts (II Kings 24:8, 12, 15; Jer. 13:18; 22:26; 29:2). Instead, her name does not appear in the oil distribution lists found in a storeroom of the royal palace in Babylon48. These lists, dated from the 10th to the 35th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (595/4-570/69 B.C.), contain only masculine names. Jehoiachin’s name occurs on four tablets. The lists also mention his “5 sons”, probably “sons” in a larger sense, and one list still records “8 persons from the land of Judah”. Besides, the first list also names four other Judaeans. Jehoiachin is called “king of Judah” in three lists, once “son of the king of Judah”, probably by mistake. From the large quantity of oil distributed to Jehoiachin – more than 15 liters – it would appear that he and his family were living together. However, each of “his sons” received separately ½ liter of oil, like the other persons mentioned in the lists. The title given to Jechoiachin in these documents indicates that he was considered a captive ruler. According to II Kings 25:27b-30; Jer. 52:31-34, Jehoiachin’s status improved after Nebuchadnezzar’s death (562 B.C.). His successor Awel-Marduk/Evil-Merodach (561-560 B.C.) honoured him and gave him a seat at his own table. We do not know whether this was connected with a general change in the Babylonian attitude toward exiled rulers, but the rule of Awel-Marduk was very short and we have no information about the attitude of his follower Nergal-šar-uṣur/Neriglissar (559-556 B.C.). In the meantime, Judah was governed by Zedekiah, installed as king by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. He was then twenty-one years old; his mother was the widowed wife of Josiah, Hamutal, daughter of Jeremiah, from Libnah (II Kings 24:18; Jer. 52:1). Judah was then an impoverishing country, deprived of its leadership; several settlements were destroyed and Zedekiah was prevented from refortifying them suitably (Ez. 17:12-14). Ostraca from Arad, if properly dated, show nevertheless that Zedekiah was able to pay Greek mercenaries in the Judaean army49, the Kittim whose name may derive from the city 47

A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (n. 31), No. 3, p. 102, lines 11-13. E.F. Weidner, Jojachin, König von Juda in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten, in Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud II (BAH 30), Paris 1939, p. 923-935 and pls. I-V, in particular p. 923-928. 49 The writer had previously assumed that orders concerning the Kittim of these ostraca were issued by Gedaliah, appointed governor of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar: E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 33), p. 398. However, the pottery of Arad Stratum VI shows that the destruction of 48

EGYPTIAN AND BABYLONIAN DOMINATION

93

Arad ostracon No. 1

of Kition in Cyprus. Their presence in the northern Negeb is confirmed by the Cypriot and eastern Greek pottery discovered at several sites in the region. Some Arad ostraca include instructions to send food supplies to the Kittim: flour, oil, and wine50. For instance, Arad ostracon No. 1 reads: “To Elyashib: And now, give the Kittim three baths of wine, and write the name of the day. And from the rest of the first flour, send one ḥomer of flour in order to make bread for them. Give them the wine from the aganoth vessels”. The location of these troops in northern Negeb indicates that they protected Judah from attacks of desert nomads or Edomite robbers. Most scholars agree that the beginning of Edomite infiltration in this region predates the Babylonian conquest of Judah and had already started in the 7th century B.C. Among excavated sites in the Negeb – Beersheba, Arad, Malḥata, Tel ‘Ira, Tel Masos, Ḥorvat ‘Uza, Aroer – none has a destruction stratum which is clearly identified with the Babylonian invasion51. Also the Arad ostraca do not contain references the site should be dated in 587/6 B.C.: R. Singer-Avitz, Arad. The Iron Age Pottery (n. 6), p. 182. The date of Stratum VI also excludes the hypothesis of N. Na’aman, The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah (n. 39), p. 47-48, that the Kittim belonged to the Egyptian army supplied by the king of Judah, already subordinated to Egypt. 50 Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, Jerusalem 1981. 51 G. Barkay, The Redefining of Archaeological Periods, in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Jerusalem 1993, p. 106-109 (see p. 106).

94

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

to the Babylonian army. The army units of the Lachish area, well documented in the Lachish ostraca of the final period of the Kingdom of Judah, protected the land on its western borders, facing the Philistines52. Some Lachish ostraca also reflect the tensions of the last days of the kingdom, in 587 B.C. In those years, Judaeans were divided about their relations with Babylonia. Some circles were disposed to rely on Egypt and to throw off the Babylonian yoke. They were inciting people to rebellion and some prophets, prophesying lies according to Jeremiah, instilled confidence in them. On the opposite side stood Jeremiah and people who had similar ideas. They were persecuted and Jeremiah has even been imprisoned53. Judging by Zedekiah’s repeated consultations with Jeremiah54, the king was not assured in his own mind, but he was unable to withstand the enthusiasm of some high officials. During the first years of his reign, Zedekiah bore the yoke of Babylon loyally. It was only in his fourth year, 594/3 B.C., that he showed a tendency to throw off that yoke in spite of the oracles of Jer. 27-28, which refer to incidents in the fourth year of Zedekiah’s reign. In that year, various rulers of vassal kingdoms in the western part of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire began to consider the possibility of a rebellion. This idea was no doubt inspired by disturbances that had erupted in Babylon in 595 B.C.55 According to Jer. 27:3, emissaries from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon had come to Jerusalem, presumably in order to enlist Zedekiah’s support and to formulate plans. For unknown reasons, the rebellion did not take place and – probably in this context – Zedekiah went with a delegation to Babylon to humble himself before Nebuchadnezzar and to express loyalty to his overlord (Jer. 51:59). The final rebellion of Judah against Babylonia broke out in 589/8 B.C. (II Kings 25:1; Jer. 52:4), but Babylonian sources concerning these events are unfortunately missing. Instead, its date coincides with the beginning of the reign of pharaoh Hophra (Apries) (589-568 B.C.), whom Zedekiah had asked for help (Jer. 44:30; Ez. 17:11-21). Lachish ostracon No. 3:14-16 reports that “the commander of the army, Konyahu, son of Elnatan, has come down in order to go to Egypt”56. This army commander had most likely undertaken a mission to the pharaoh on behalf of Zedekiah. In fact, Hophra sent Egyptian troops and Nebuchadnezzar lifted the siege of Jerusalem to oppose them, but the Egyptians have been repelled, the siege was renewed, and Jerusalem was taken in the summer 587 B.C.57 Also other Judaean cities have been attacked by the Babylonians and seized as well. 52 53 54 55 56 57

A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques (n. 26), p. 85-143. Jer. 37:11-21; 38:1-28a; 39:15-18. Jer. 21:1-7; 37:3-10, 17; 38:14-23. M.P. Streck, Nebukadnezzar II. A, in RLA 9 (1998-2001), p. 194-201 (see p. 198a). Cf. A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques (n. 26), p. 103-104, 107-108. Jer. 37:5-11; Ez. 17:29-32; cf. Lam. 4:17.

EGYPTIAN AND BABYLONIAN DOMINATION

95

Lachish ostracon No. 4 (photo: S.W. Michieli)

In Jer. 34:7 we are told that at the time only Lachish and Azekah of all the Judaean fortified towns still held out. A concrete case is known thanks to Lachish ostracon No. 4:10-13. The commander of one of the fortified outposts writes to the chief commander in Lachish: “We are watching for the signals of Lachish according to all the indications which my lord has given, but we cannot see Azekah”. It is very probable that this message, sent to Lachish, reflects the moment when the fortified place of Azekah had fallen and the signals from it had ceased58. Jerusalem held until the summer 587 B.C. In July 587 (II Kings 25:2-3; Jer. 52:5-6), “when famine was severe in the city and there was no food for 58

Cf. A. Lemaire, Inscriptions (n. 26), p. 113, 116-117, 147, with some unconvincing comments.

96

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

the common people”, the walls of the city were breached and the Babylonians poured in. Zedekiah with his armed escort fled by night toward the Jordan (II Kings 25:3-4; Jer. 52:7-8), hoping to find temporary security in Ammonite territory. However, he was captured near Jericho and brought to Nebuchadnezzar’s headquarters at Riblah, in central Syria. There his sons were killed before his eyes, after which he was blinded and sent in chains to Babylonia where he died (II Kings 25:4-7; Jer. 39:4-7; cf. Ez. 12:1-14). A month later (II Kings 25:8-12; Jer. 52:12-16), Nabû-zēra-iddina (Nebuzaradan), commander of Nebuchadnezzar’s guard, arrived in Jerusalem and ordered to set fire to the Temple of Yahweh, to the royal palace, and to houses in the city; the city walls were pulled down. New and clear evidence of the Babylonian conquest and destruction of the city was uncovered in 2019 during the archaeological excavations on Mount Zion by a research team of Charlotte University in North Carolina. Layers of ash, potsherds, lamps, arrowheads dating from the period were obvious signs of fighting and burning. A significant piece of jewelry – a gold and silver tassel or earring – has also been found. The newly uncovered deposit can be dated to the specific event of the conquest because of the significant mix of domestic artifacts discovered sideby-side with bronze and iron “Scythian” arrowheads, used by the Babylonian warriors59. Leading Jerusalem citizens were hauled before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah and executed (II Kings 25:18-21; Jer. 52:24-27), while a further group of the population was deported to Babylonia. An indirect reference to Judaean deportees is possibly provided by a cuneiform document from 586 B.C. mentioning the presence at Sippar, in Babylonia, of the governor of the Arpad province in northern Syria. He may have led a transfer of deportees to their final destination60. The assumption that there was a total destruction and depopulation of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. is not correct61. There was some continued population presence among the ruins of the Western Hill, as shown by several 6th century B.C. sherds discovered in excavations. Since the total number of exiles from Jerusalem was 4,600 according to Jer. 52:28-30, a significant part of the population apparently remained in the city, although there was no occupation continuity in the City of David. The situation in the area of the Ḥaram is of course unknown, but the Temple and the royal palace have been burned. Traces of total destruction during the Babylonian invasion can also be found in several excavated towns and fortresses in Judah, south of Jerusalem, and in the Shephelah, at Lachish (Stratum II), Ekron, Timnah. The final destruction of 59 Information provided by Sh. Gibson and R. Lewis on https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_ releases/2019-08/uonc-eot080819.php, consulted on 17.09.2019. 60 F. Joannès, Une visite du gouverneur d’Arpad, in NABU 1994, n° 20; M.P. Streck, Nebukadnezzar II. A (n. 55), p. 200b. 61 G. Barkay, The Redefining (n. 51), p. 107-108.

EGYPTIAN AND BABYLONIAN DOMINATION

97

Beth-Shemesh should also be attributed to the Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar II62. Only in the land of Benjamin, north of Jerusalem, at Tell al-Fūl, Mizpah, Gibeon, did the Babylonian conquest not cause severe destruction, and life continued under Babylonian rule63. After the fall of Jerusalem, the Babylonians organized Judah into the provincial system of the Empire. Gedaliah, member of a family which obviously followed a line of moderation to Babylon, was appointed as governor of Judah (II Kings 25:22-23; Jer. 40:5-6). He may have been a high official under Zedekiah’s reign. Beginning with R. de Vaux64, several authors even assumed that he was the chief minister whose seal impression was found in the Lachish excavations: l-Gdlyhw ’šr ‘l-hbyt, “Belonging to Gedaliah, who is over the Palace”65. Some authors also admit the possibility that he was previously a “king’s servant”, whose seal impression has also been found66: l-Gdlyhw ‘bd hmlk.

Impressions of Gedaliah’s seals

The disruption of life in Jerusalem was such that Gedaliah, the appointed governor, had to place his seat of government at Mizpah (Tell an-Naṣbeh), 12 km north of Jerusalem, in the former territory of Benjamin. He tried to 62 A. Fantalkin, The Final Destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax Assyriaca in the Judahite Shephelah. Alternative View, in Tel Aviv 31 (2004), p. 245-261. S. Bunimovitz and Z. Lederman, Close yet apart. Diverse Cultural Dynamics at Iron Age Beth Shemesh and Lachish, in I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman (eds.), The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, Winona Lake 2011, p. 33-53, seem to maintain their dating of the destruction of Beth-Shemesh from 701 B.C. (see p. 48). Cf. īd., The Final Destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax Assyriaca in the Judean Shephelah, in Tel Aviv 30 (2003), p. 3-26. 63 A. Mazar, Archaeology (n. 29), p. 460. 64 R. de Vaux, Le sceau de Godolias, maître du Palais, dans RB 45 (1936), p. 96-102. 65 Y. Avishur and M. Heltzer, Studies (n. 42), p. 78-79, n° 10 ; p. 152 and 273, n° 183, with further literature; P. van der Veen, Gedaliah ben Aḥiqam in the Light of Epigraphic Evidence (A Response to Bob Becking), in M. Lubetski (ed.), New Seals and Inscriptions, Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform, Sheffield 2007, p. 55-70. 66 Y. Avishur and M. Heltzer, Studies (n. 42), p. 79 and 98, n° 5; p. 276, n° 200.

98

JUDAH FROM MID-7TH TO MID-6TH CENTURY B.C.

restore the land to some normality, but he was regarded by Judaean hards as a collaborationist. A plot to kill him was organized and he was murdered, as well as some of his supporters. Gedaliah’s friends, fearing a Babylonian vengeance, fled to Egypt, taking the prophet Jeremiah with them (II Kings 25:22-26; Jer. 40-41). The Babylonian period between 587 and 538 B.C. was apparently a period of peace which did not leave the abundant archaeological evidence produced by destruction. As a consequence, it is a dark period for stratigraphic archaeology. Written information is also missing. Therefore we do not know how long Gedaliah’s period of office lasted. If the Babylonian exile from Judah in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (Jer. 52:30) is connected with the murder of Gedaliah, this would have happened in 582/1 B.C. The biblical account suggests instead that Gedaliah governed only for a short time, about two or three months. In any hypothesis, the Bible provides no explicit information about the later status of Judah and Jerusalem for almost half a century, until the beginning of the Persian period. One can assume nevertheless that other governors were appointed by the Neo-Babylonian kings and resided at Mizpah. The last one, probably appointed by Nabonidus (556-539 B.C.), might have been Adoni-zedek, as he was called in the midrash reused in Judg. 1:4-7 by the Deuteronomistic historian of the Second Temple period. His original name, preserved in Josh. 10:1-15, shows a connection with the name of Zedekiah, given by Nebuchadnezzar to the last king of Judah, but the name of his residence at Mizpah (Tell an-Naṣbeh) was changed in Bezek, Bzq, “Pebble” in Aramaic, Jewish Aramaic, and Syriac67. The aim of this change was making the seat of his governorship ridicule by reading the toponym mṣbh, “stele, standing stone”, and replacing it by bzq, “pebble”. Such a play on words can be compared, for instance, with the case of the personal name Ishba‘al, borne by the second king of Israel, which the textus receptus of the Bible changed into ’šbšt, “man of shame”. In the Hebrew textus receptus of Judg. 1:4-7, also the name of Adoni-zedek was changed in Adoni-bezek, “My lord is a pebble”, but this happened in a later period. Since only Judah is mentioned in the second part of the story of Judg. 1, Simeon is a later addition, just like the Canaanites and the Perizzites. Restoring the original personal name in Judg. 1:4-7, we can thus translate the fragment taken from the midrash, as follows: “Judah went up, ... they came upon Adoni-zedek at Bezek, and engaged him in battle... Adoni-zedek fled, but they pursued him and took him prisoner. They cut off his thumbs and his great toes. Adoni-zedek said: ‘I once had seventy kings, whose thumbs and great toes were cut off, picking up the scraps from under my 67 M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature I, New York 1886, p. 154b ; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 3rd ed., Ramat Gan 2017, p. 72a ; L. Costaz, Dictionnaire Syriaque-Français / SyriacEnglish Dictionary, Beyrouth 1963, p. 27b.

EGYPTIAN AND BABYLONIAN DOMINATION

99

table. What I had done, God has done to me.’ He was brought to Jerusalem and died there.”

The mutilation doubly disabled him for using the arc and the lances68, and made him unfit for fighting. The midrash behind Judg. 1:4-7 thus assumes that armed people of Judah attacked the residence of the governor at Mizpah, misnamed Bezek, what could have happened towards the end of the Neo-Babylonian period. The mention of Judah excludes any link with an early period after the death of Joshua, as stated in Judg. 1:1, because Judah was not used as a tribal or national name before the 8th century B.C. In the 9th century that region was called “House of David”, while Judah designated the Judaean highland cut by profound wadis69. Adoni-zedek, the governor, was captured and brought to Jerusalem, which was obviously controlled by people from Judah, and he died there. Before the name of Adoni-zedek was changed in Adoni-bezek, a Deuteronomistic redactor used it in Josh. 10:1-15, where the names of the five Amorite kings and the particular role attributed to the king of Jerusalem (Josh. 10:1a, 3-4) are secondary features of the story, added later to the account70. The Deuteronomistic redactor did it before Adoni-zedek’s name was changed in Adoni-bezek in Judg. 1:5-7, but in the 3rd/2nd century the Greek translator of Josh. 10:1, 3 adopted the name already changed. By 538 B.C. all Western Asia to the Egyptian frontier was under Persian control. According to Ezra 5:14, a certain Shesh-bazzar (Σασαβασαρ) was appointed by Cyrus as peḥāh of the Yәhūd mәdīnәtā’ (Ezra 5:8), thus “governor of the Judah province”. His real official position is nevertheless uncertain, as well as the status of the district of Judah. Shesh-bazzar’s name is Babylonian: Šamš-ab-uṣur, “O Šamaš, protect the father!” The theonym Šamaš was usually written DINGIR.UTU, later DINGIR.UTU.MEŠ in the Murašû documents. The identity of Shesh-bazzar is uncertain and he cannot be identified with Shen’aṣṣar (Σανεσαρ) of I Chron. 3:18, in Akkadian Sīn-nāṣir, “Sīn is a protector”.

68 For similar cases in ancient Greek literature, cf. G.R. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary to Judges, Edinburgh 1898, p. 47-48. 69 E. Lipiński, L’étymologie de “Juda”, in Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973), p. 380-381. 70 M. Noth, Das Buch Josua (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7), 2nd ed., Tübingen 1953, p. 63.

CHAPTER V

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

The Egyptian Execration Texts and the El-Amarna letters provide no information about the religion in Jerusalem. Nor do biblical sources inform us about the religion in Judah before the reign of David. The transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem (II Sam. 6) and the appointment of the priest of its shrine (I Sam. 22:20-23) lack a better established context, while the background of Zadok is unknown. He may have been the priest of Ḥutiya’s god worshipped by the Hurrian ruler of Jerusalem1. In any case, Zadok participated in Solomon’s enthronement (I Kings 1). The Temple of Yahweh has been built by Solomon, but the biblical account in its present form probably dates from the reign of Ahaz2. It results from II Kings 11:18 that another shrine existed at Jerusalem in the 9th century B.C.; its priest was a certain Mattan. This might have been a sanctuary going back to pre-Davidic times, but it could also be a shrine of Yahweh of Samaria, built by Queen Athaliah, wife of king Jehoshaphat. In fact, the Deuteronomistic historian gives the name Baal to the God of Israel worshipped outside Jerusalem or honoured according to a different ritual (I Kings 16:32; II Kings 11:18). Jehoshaphat (870-846 B.C.) is the first king of Judah bearing a name with the theophorous element Yahweh. Starting from Rehoboam (I Kings 14:23), the Deuteronomistic historian reproaches to almost every Judaean king to have tolerated local shrines (’ăšērīm) and erected standing stones on high hills (bāmōt) or under green trees. These places were popular sanctuaries dedicated to Yahweh and the standing stones were symbolizing the presence of the divinity. The Deuteronomist was writing in the perspective of Hezekiah’s (II Kings 18:3-4) and Josiah’s (II Kings 23:814) reforms, which inflicted a severe blow to popular religion by suppressing local sanctuaries3. Since no clear traces of foreign cults have been found so far in archaeological excavations at Jerusalem, the alleged altars or symbols of Assyrian astral deities must have been hardly distinguishable cultic objects4. Homage to the Assyrian overlord had to be paid, but this was probably done by incense sacrifices and other rites performed in a small shrine, wooden or 1

See above, p. 22. Cf. here above, p. 35-36, 62. 3 For the sense of the common noun ’ăšērāh, “shrine”, see E. Lipiński, A History of the Kingdom of Israel (OLA 275), Leuven 2018, p. 139-144, and here below, p. 102-107. For a shorter explanation, see id., in Biblical Archaeological Review 40/3 (2014), p. 8 and 10-11. 4 For the terracotta or clay figurines, see here below, p. 132-133, 137-140. 2

102

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

distinguished by side curtains. In II Kings 23:6-7 king Josiah is said to “have taken the shrine from the House of Yahweh outside Jerusalem to the Kidron Valley, burnt it in the Kidron Valley and pounded to dust”. LOCAL SHRINES Concerning local shrines, there are particular cases requiring an explanation because of the usually erroneous translations of the biblical text. In fact, ’ӑšērāh could be a chapel containing a sculpted divine symbol. According to I Kings 15:13 and II Chron. 15:16, Queen-mother Maaka had made a mipleṣet for the ’ӑšērāh of Jerusalem. The noun mipleṣet derives from the root blẓ / plẓ (blṯ / plṯ), “to protrude”, hence “to be cut in relief”, and must designate a sculptural “relief”5, possibly comparable to the stele from the 9th/8th century B.C., found at et-Tell in 19976. It had to be placed in the ’ӑšērāh, either a sacred grove or a chapel, like in II Kings 21:7, where king Manasseh is said to have “put the stele (pesel) of the shrine that he had made in the Temple of Yahweh”7. The stele transferred from its shrine to the Temple obviously symbolized the presence of the Lord, but such hewn stones were prohibited by Ex. 20:4 and Deut. 5:8. A tree with a divine symbol and a large stone serving as altar could constitute a shrine as well, as indicated for instance in Jer. 17:2, condemning Judah’s “altars and shrines by a spreading tree”. In the light of such texts, the treatise ‘Aḇōdāh zārāh 3:7 of the Mishnah defined ’ӑšērāh as “any (oak) under which a foreign cult is performed”. However, the Deuteronomist, like later the Sages, did not distinguish the shrines of heathen deities, like that of Judg. 6:25-30, from those of Yahweh, formally attested by the Hebrew inscriptions of Kuntillet Aǧrud and Khirbet el-Qōm, which refer to “Yahweh and His shrine”8, proving decisively that 5 The Septuagint translation σύνοδος, “coition”, and the Vulgate interpretations simulacrum Priapi, simulacrum turpissimum, refer to a phallic emblem or an ithyphallic idol. However, this is less likely in those times. 6 M. Bernett and O. Keel, Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor: die Stele von Bethsaida (et-Tell) (OBO 161), Fribourg - Göttingen 1998, p. 70; id., Der Kult am Stadttor von Betsaida, in G. Fassbeck, S. Fortner, A. Rottloff, and J. Zangenberg (eds.), Leben am See Gennesaret, Mainz a/R 2003, p. 70-76. For similar reliefs from the Hauran area, see I. Skupińska-Løvset, Kulty na et-Tell. Źródła archeologiczne, in SBO 3 (2011), p. 109-125 (see p. 112-115 and p. 119-120, fig. 1-2). The technique is improperly called “sunk relief” (“relief wklęsły”: p. 112); we deal in fact with “bas-reliefs”, the figures being projected from the ground, as suggested also by the meaning of mipleṣet. 7 All along the article of S. Długoborski, Wpływ imperialnej Asyrii na religię Judy, in SBO 3 (2011), p. 143-156, II Kings 21:7 is misinterpreted, because the author forgets the relative clause ’ӑšer ‘āśāh, qualifying hā-’ӑšērāh. The relative clause is omitted in the Septuagint, because ’ӑšērāh is translated there by ἄλσος. 8 Although the importance of the shrine in Yahwistic religion appears in the repeated biblical mentions of “the place (māqōm) which Yahweh will chose”, Deuteronomistic phraseology uses

LOCAL SHRINES

103

Stele from et-Tell (photo: Israel Museum, Jerusalem)

’ӑšērāh could be a Yahwistic cult place in the countryside. In the inscription from Khirbet el-Qōm, datable to the 8th century B.C., we read brk ’ryhw l-yhwh w-l-’šrth, “Blessed be Uryahu by Yahweh and by His shrine” 9. The two inscriptions on pottery vessels from Kuntillet Aǧrud, datable to the second part of the 8th century10, contain two blessing formulas11: brkt-’tkm l-yhwh šmrn w-l-’šrth, “I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and by His shrine”; brktk l-yhwh māqōm instead of ’ӑšērāh. The paramount role of the Wailing Wall in Judaism, of the Holy Places in Christianity, of the Ka‘ba in Islam expresses the same hope of being “blessed by God and His shrine”. 9 The pronominal suffix occurs in the well known Hebrew inscriptions from Khirbet el-Qōm (yhwh w’šrth, “Yahweh and his shrine”) and from Kuntillet Aǧrud (yhwh šmrn w’šrth, “Yahweh of Samaria and his shrine”; yhwh tmn w’šrth, “Yahweh of the South and his shrine”). The Khirbet el-Qōm inscription was first published by G. Dever, Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el-Kôm, in HUCA 40-41 (1969-70), p. 139-189, pls. I-IX (see p. 151-156 with fig. 7 and pl. V), but its correct reading was provided by A. Lemaire, Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qôm et l’ashérah de YHWH, in RB 84 (1977), p. 595-608, pl. XXXI. Cf. further J.M. Hadley, The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription, in Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987), p. 50-62; etc. The Kuntillet Aǧrud inscriptions were first made known by Z. Meshel, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai, Jerusalem 1978; id., The Israelite Religious Centre of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, in Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 198283, p. 52-55; Sh. Aḥituv, E. Eshel, and Z. Meshel, The Inscriptions, in Z. Meshel (ed.), Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (Horvat Teman), an Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, Jerusalem 2012, p. 73-142. 10 E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical and Topographical Researches (OLA 153), Leuven 2006, p. 373-378. 11 See here above, n. 9.

104

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

tmn w-l-’šrth, ‘I bless you by Yahweh of the South and by His shrine’. The qǝdēšīm were possibly deserving these sanctuaries. Such provincial shrines were prohibited after the centralization of the cult by Josiah in the seventh century B.C. (II Kings 23), hence assimilated to heathen sanctuaries. This situation is reflected in Jer. 17:2. In other texts, like Jer. 2:20 and 3:6-10, the metaphors of prostitution and adultery are used as poetical descriptions of Judah’s infidelity to the Lord. The lack of any cultic reference does not justify the assumption that these passages allude to cult prostitution performed by young Judaean women, although the existence of fertility cults in Canaan was certainly known. In any case, such texts show that rural sanctuaries did not disappear, and the treatise ‘Aḇōdāh zārāh 6:8 of the Tosefta still refers to Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, who in the 2nd century A.D. mentions three ’ӑšērōt sites in the Land of Israel: the evergreen carob-tree of Kfar Qasem (or Petem), the carob-tree of Kfar Pigsha, and the sycamore which is amidst the pines of the Carmel. Their exact locations are unknown. The text of II Kings 21:7 indicates that the ’ăšērāh built by Manasseh in Jerusalem contained an idol or emblem (pesel)12, which the king ventured to transfer with its shrine to the Temple of Yahweh: “and he put in the Temple the idol of the ’ăšērāh that he had made”. That ’ăšērāh with its idol stood in the Temple until the reform of king Josiah13, who took it away (II Kings 23:6; cf. II Kings 21:7) and pulled down the annexes of the Temple “where the women were hiring14 cottages as a shrine (’ăšērāh)” (II Kings 23:7). The ’ăšērīm were at that time small constructions, since they were “built” (II Kings 14:23), “set up” (II Kings 17:10), or “restored” (II Chron. 33:19). As holy places they are asso ciated in the texts with incense burners 15, 12

Cf. II Chron. 33:19; 34:3, 4, 7. II Kings 23:4. This passage summarizes II Kings 21:3. 14 The words ’rg and battīm have been explained in different ways. We consider that ’rg as a metathetic variant of ’gr; cf. below, p. 110. 15 Isa. 17:8; 27:9; II Chron. 34:4, 7. The ḥammānīm are most likely incense burners. Cf. W.R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites I, London 1894, p. 489; E. Littmann, Nabataean Inscriptions (Publ. of the Princeton Univ. Archaeol. Expeditions to Syria in 1904-1905 and 1909. Div. IV, Sect. A), Leiden 1914, Nos. 27 (= RÉS 2053) and 97 (= RÉS 2115); J. Cantineau, Le Nabatéen II, Paris 1932, p. 97; K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon, Tübingen 1937, p. 20; H. Ingholt, Le sens du mot Ḥammān, in Mélanges syriens offerts à M. René Dussaud (BAH XXX), Paris 1939, vol. II, p. 795-802; K. Elliger, Chammanim = Masseben?, in ZAW 57 (1939), p. 256-265; id., Der Sinn des Wortes Chamman, in ZDPV 66 (1943), p. 129-139; W.F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Baltimore 1942, p. 215-216; L.-H. Vincent, La notion biblique du haut-lieu, in RB 55 (1948), p. 245-278 (see p. 251-253); A. Dupont-Sommer, Les autels à encens de Lakish, in AIPHOS 13 (1953) (Mélanges Isidore Levy, Bruxelles 1955), p. 135-152 (see p. 149152); R. De Langhe, L’autel d’or du temple de Jérusalem, in Biblica 40 (1959), p. 476-494 (see p. 486); R. de Vaux, Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament II, Paris 1960, p. 110-112. However, J. Lindblom, Die Jesaja-Apokalypse, Lund - Leipzig 1938, p. 91 ff., identified the ḥammānīm with the maṣṣebōt, and M. Haran, The Uses of the Incense in the Ancient Israelite Ritual, in Vetus Testamentum 10 (1960), p. 113-129 (see p. 121), expresses doubt on the question. 13

LOCAL SHRINES

105

altars16, and hill-shrines (bāmōt)17, or are mentioned in antithetical parallelism with “the House of Yahweh” (II Chron. 24:18). They could be demolished, ground (II Chron. 33:4), crushed (II Chron. 33:7), or swept away (II Chron. 19:3). 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. In I Kings 18:19, the words “the four hundred prophets of the ’ăšērāh” appear as an intrusion, since they were asterized in the Hexapla and since the prophets of the ’ăšērāh are not mentioned in the subsequent story. In any case, the word ’ăšērāh does not need to be understood in strict parallelism to Baal; the whole expression nəbī’ê hā-’ăšērāh designates rather “the prophets of the shrine”, where the Baal was worshipped. The Hebrew word ’ăšērāh, with its masculine plural ’ăšērīm and its recent feminine plural ’ăšērōt, means indeed “place” and designates a shrine, which can be a sacred grove or a chapel. The word must be compared with the Akkadian aširtu, ešertu, iširtu, išertum, ašrū or ašrātu, which all designate shrines, chapels, sanctuaries. The term exists also in Phoenician and in Aramaic, while the goddess Aṯirat is never mentioned in Phoenician or Punic texts18. Thus we find a dedication “to Astarte in the sanctuary of the god of Ḥammōn”, l‘štrt b’šrt ’l ḥmn19, paralleled by the mention of a “servant of the temple of Astarte at the holy place”, ‘bd bt ‘štr[t b]’šr hqdš20, and by that of a “holy place” (’šr 16 Ex. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; Judg. 6:25, 30; II Kings 21:3; 23:15; Jer. 17:2; II Chron. 14:2; 31:1; 33:3; 34:4, 7. In texts reflecting the older stage of religion the ’ăšērīm are sacred groves. 17 I Kings 14:23; II Kings 17:9-10; 18:4; 21:3; 23:15; II Chron. 14:2; 17:6; 31:1; 33:3; 33:19; 34:3. 18 The inscription CIS 1,13 is not dedicated lrbty l‘mh ‘šrt (line 3), as its first editor, P. Schröder, thought, but lrbty l’m h’zrt, “to the Lady, to the Mother of the household”. 19 KAI 19,4. Cf. M. Dunand and R. Duru, Oumm el-‘Amed, une ville de l’époque hellénistique aux Échelles de Tyr, Paris 1962, p. 185-187, n° 4; G.A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, Oxford 1903, p. 50, and M. Lidzbarski, Kanaanäische Inschriften, Giessen 1907, n° 16, have already noticed that ’šrt designates here a sanctuary: “’šrt scheint hier nicht den Kultpfahl, sondern den Kultort zu bedeuten”. The Ḥmn of this text is identical with the Ḥammōn of Josh. 19:35 and must be localized at ’Umm el-‘Awamid. If there is a relation between this “god of Ḥammon” and the well-known Baal-Ḥammon of Carthage, as G. Garbini thinks, Note di epigrafia punica III, in Rivista degli Studi Orientali 43 (1968), p. 5-17 (see p. 11), the place of Ḥammōn (“hot well”?), near Tyre, might have been the original sanctuary of that god. The case would be similar to that of Milk-‘aštart, who appears in a text from Ugarit as the god Malik of the city of ‘Aštarot. Cf. RS 24.272, line 41, edited by Ch. Virolleaud, in Ugaritica V, p. 568, and A. Caquot, Nouveaux documents ugaritiens, in Syria 46 (1969), p. 241-265 (see p. 246). 20 CIS I, 3779, 5-6.

106

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

qdš) made for Astarte “in the temple” (’bbt) of Pyrgi21. The masculine form ’šr of the word corresponds to the usual Hebrew plural ’ăšērīm. The feminine form ’šrt seems to appear also in the Old Aramaic inscription of Sfire I B, 1122, while ’trt’ is used in an Aramaic inscription from Sardis with the meaning “shrine, chapel”23. In other later Aramaic texts the corresponding word is ’tr, which has also the meaning “shrine, sanctuary”24, as, for instance, in an inscription from Palmyra where it is used next to the word ḥmn, “incense burner”, just like in Isa. 17:8; 27:9; II Chron. 34:4, 7. The text records the erection of a statue in honor of a certain Aqyah, who, at Vologesias, near Ctesiphon, had offered “the whole incense burner, itself and its sanctuary”, ḥmn’ klh hw w’trh25. The Hebrew words ’ăšērā, ’ăšērīm, ’ăšērōt must be understood in the same sense as the corresponding Akkadian, Phoenician, and Aramaic terms which designate the shrine, chapel or sanctuary. It seems that no biblical passage mentions the goddess Aṯirat or her emblem. The old Greek and Latin translations ἄλσος, δένδρα, lucus, nemus, correspond thus better to the real meaning of the word than the modern mistranslations “goddess Ashera” or “sacred pole”. It is suitable to refer also to the Syriac translations of the word ’ӑšērāh, since the Peshitta version of the Pentateuch and of the Prophets goes back to the first and second centuries A.D. Its translation of ’ӑšērāh is variegated26. In the 21 Inscription from Pyrgi, lines 1-5 (KAI, 2nd ed., No. 277; TSSI III, 42). This “holy place” was most likely a chapel containing a statue or emblem of the deity, namely the m’š ’lm mentioned in line 9 of the inscription. Unlikely are the interpretations of ’šr qdš inspired by the questionable meaning of ’ašērā in the Bible, “sacred pole” or “cult object”. Such explanations have been suggested by M. Delcor, Une inscription bilingue étrusco-punique récemment découverte à Pyrgi. Son importance religieuse, in Le Muséon 81 (1968), p. 241-254 (see p. 243-244), and W. Röllig, Beiträge zur nordsemitischen Epigraphik (1-4), in Die Welt des Orients 5 (19691970), p. 108-126 (see p. 117-118 with n. 41). 22 KAI 222 B, 11. Cf. A. Dupont-Sommer and J. Starcky, Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré (Stèles I et II), Paris 1958, p. 62; A. Caquot, Le dieu Milk‘ashtart et les inscriptions de ’Umm el ‘Amed, in Semitica 15 (1965), p. 29-33 (see p. 31); M. Delcor, Une inscription bilingue (n. 21), p. 243, n. 6. 23 Line 3, according to the edition of J. Friedrich, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler, Berlin 1932, p. 109-111 (KAI 260). Cf. G.R. Driver, Problems in Aramaic and Hebrew Texts, in Miscellanea Orientalia dedicata A. Deimel annos LXX complenti (Analecta Orientalia 12), Roma 1935, p. 46-70 (see p. 53). 24 The plural ’try’ designates one holy place in CIS II, 350, line 3. For this text see J.T. Milik, Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes III. – Inscription nabatéenne de Turkmaniyé à Pétra, in RB 66 (1959), p. 555-560. The translation of ’tryh in the Hermopolis papyrus V, line 6, by “i pali”, “the poles”, as proposed by E. Bresciani and M. Kamil, Le lettere aramaiche di Hermopoli, in Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie. Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche. Ser. VIII, vol. XII, fasc. 5, Roma 1966, p. 357-428 and pls. I-X (see p. 407), is by no means justified. Cf. J.T. Milik, Les papyrus araméens d’Hermoupolis et les cultes syrophéniciens en Égypte perse, in Biblica 48 (1967), p. 546-622 and pls. I (see p. 553-554), and P. Grelot, in RB 74 (1967), p. 435-436. 25 E. Lipiński, A History (n. 3), p. 141. 26 M.P. Weitzman, Lexical Clues to the Composition of the Old Testament Peshitta, in M.J. Geller, J.C. Greenfield, and M.P. Weitzman (eds.), Studia Aramaica. New Sources and New Approaches (Journal of Semitic Studies. Supplement 4), Oxford 1995, p. 217-246 (see p. 229).

FOREIGN RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS

107

Peshitta Pentateuch, which goes probably back to the first century A.D., the rendering of ’ӑšērāh depends on the immediate context. In Deut. 7:5 and 12:3, where ’ӑšērāh is governed by the verb šābar, “to break”, the translator regarded ’ӑšērāh as a construction and used the noun ḥešǝltā: “break their fabrics”, obviously some chapels, not “cast images”, since idols are mentioned further in the text. Deut. 16:21 prohibits “the planting of an ’ӑšērāh of any kind of tree”, clearly suggesting the translation šteltā, “grove”, like in the Septuagint. No doubt, a sacred grove is intended. The translator of the Book of Judges confused ’ӑšērāh (Judg. 6:25-30) with ‘aštārōt (Judg 2:13; 10:6) and rendered both words by esterā, a dialectal form of the theonym Ištar, used in the general sense of “goddess”. Instead, ’ӑšērāh appearing frequently in the Books of Kings is translated by deḥaltā, “worship”, a term used especially in beyt deḥaltā, “temple”. The word certainly designates a sacred place or object. Isa. 17:8 and 27:9 use the Persian loanword ptakrā, “sculpture”, which designates a divine figure, like glīpā, “graven image”, in Micah 5:13. Further renderings of ’ӑšērāh are found in the Chronicles, which have been translated later, probably in the 3rd century A.D.: Greek adrianṭā, “statue” (II Chron. 14:2), ḥugbā, “idol” (II Chron. 33:19), nemrā, “leopard” (II Chron. 31:3; 33:3)27, and ṣalmā, “image” (II Chron. 24:18). In II Chron. 19:3, the translator confused h’šrwt with Syriac ’ǝšadt and rendered the phrase by dmā zakyā lā ’ǝšadt, “you did not shed innocent blood”28. The translator of the Chronicles thus regarded ’ӑšērāh as an idol, but never took it for the proper name of a deity.

FOREIGN RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS A completely different case concerns the alleged introduction of religious symbols of the Assyrian overlord in the Temple of Jerusalem. This happened already under the reign of Ahaz and was done again by Hezekiah, followed by his successors. Rituals of solar and astral cults, no doubt of Assyrian origin, were certainly stopped by Josiah in the first place (II Kings 23:4-6, 10-12). Instead it is doubtful that Sidonian, Moabite or Ammonite religious symbols were ever placed in the Temple of Jerusalem. According to I Kings 15:12, king Asa “expelled from the land the qǝdēšīm and did away with all the idols which his fathers had made”. The Septuagint translates qǝdēšīm by τὰς τελετὰς, “pagan rites”29, with no reference either to cultic prostitution or to idols.

27 M.P. Weitzman, Lexical Clues (n. 26) p. 229, n. 35, relates this translation to the worship of bar nemrē at Harran, attested in the 6th century by Jacob of Sarug: J.P.P. Martin, Discours de Jacques de Saroug sur la chute des idoles, in ZDMG 29 (1875), p. 107-147 (see p. 110, line 54). 28 M.P. Weitzman, Lexical Clues (n. 26), p. 229. 29 T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Leuven 2009, p. 675.

108

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

In II Kings 23:7, king Josiah is said “to have pulled down the houses of the qǝdēšīm who were (on the grounds) of the House of Yahweh”. The Septuagint only transcribes the Hebrew word qǝdēšīm, which obviously designated attendants of the Temple, possibly providing clay figurines to be placed in shrines in order to recall to God the worshippers addressing to Him prayers, as we shall see below. These figurines did not represent foreign deities. There were however problematic Judaean practices, examined below.

“SACRED PROSTITUTION” The existence of “sacred prostitution” in ancient Israel was induced from the prophetic image of Israel “whoring under every spreading tree” (Jer. 3:6) and from the biblical mentions of qǝdēšīm and qǝdēšōt30, especially in connection with ’ăšērā, as in II Kings 23:7. Besides, terms connected with harlotry are employed figuratively in the Bible to characterize unfaithfulness toward Yahweh (Numb. 25:1-2; Judg. 2:17; 8:27, 33; Jer. 3:6; Ez. 6:9; Hos. 4:12). Therefore, it becomes important to determine the meaning of the words qǝdēšīm and qǝdēšōt in the biblical world. At Ugarit, in personnel lists datable around 1200 B.C., the qdšm are often mentioned with the khnm, “priests”31, and they are obviously cultic servants assisting the priests. One might translate qdšm by “clerics” or “deacons”. There were also qdšt, who obviously had some relation to the cult and might appear as “oblates” or “deaconesses”, but a personnel list and a will document mention a certain bn.qdšt32 and a witness ‘Abdu-Pidar mār qadišti33. There is no mention in these texts of the qdšt-women themselves, and no indication of their obligations or duties, but the fact that some men could be called “son of a qdštwoman”, instead of being mentioned with their patronymic, indicates that at the very least those qdšt did not have a conventional family life. They were probably consecrated women who provided some ritual assistance, domestic help in sanctuary’s annexes, also musical entertainment, possibly sexual services. One class of Babylonian and Assyrian priestesses is also called qadištu, but there is no indication whatsoever that they were cult prostitutes. On the

30 H. Ringgren, Qdš, in ThWAT VII, Stuttgart 1989, col. 1179-1201 (see col. 1200-1201). In I Kings 14:24, the Septuagint reads qšr, “conspiracy”, instead of qdš. 31 E. Lipiński, The Socio-Economic Condition of the Clergy in the Kingdom of Ugarit, in M. Heltzer and E. Lipiński (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 15001000 B.C.) (OLA 23), Leuven 1998, p. 125-150 (see p. 143-144). 32 KTU 4.69: V, 11. 33 RS 17.36:14, in Ugaritica V, 11, No. 7. His name means ‘Servant of the Penis’, cf. E. Lipiński, Burnt Offering of Head, Peder, and Kidneys, in Ch. Cohen et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom, Winona Lake 2008, vol. I, p. 59-68 (see p. 63 with references).

“SACRED PROSTITUTION”

109

contrary, an Old Assyrian qadištu could be married34. Instead, the kezrētu of the temple personnel may have provided sexual services, since Neo-Assyrian sources refer sometimes to men called “son of a kezrētu-woman” instead of mentioning their patronymic35. The Hebrew Bible never refers directly to female or male cult prostitutes and no information of the kind is available in Hebrew inscriptions. Modern Bible translations are simply misleading in this respect. True, a few biblical texts mention qǝdēšōt-women, the plural of qǝdēšāh, “consecrated” maiden according to scholarly etymology. This appellation is related to the word qodeš, “sanctuary”, and goes back to the institution attested in the ancient Near East, in Mesopotamia and at Ugarit. Women could in fact be dedicated by their fathers or their masters to a deity, they could also devote themselves to the service of a god or a goddess in order to secure their living. This was done mainly by young widows without grown up children, by repudiated wives, female slaves sent away like Hagar in Gen. 20, lonely women, etc. These “consecrated” persons performed various tasks in the sanctuary, remitting their occasional fees to the temple. Women on duty at the entrance of the sanctuary are mentioned also in Ex. 38:8 and I Sam. 2:22, but their tasks are not described. According to II Kings 23:7, women could play a role also in the area of the Temple of Jerusalem. In any case, they are not called qǝdēšōt, because this word meant “harlot” in Biblical Hebrew, even “street harlot” as appears from Gen. 3836. Scribes in biblical times did not bother about etymologies. The meaning “harlots” results from the perception of some women’s tasks in Canaanite temples, where “consecrated” maidens could be employed as prostitutes in the frame of fertility cults, especially of the goddess Ashtoreth, and act as such in the immediate precincts of the sanctuary. This practice or the simple fact of serving a heathen deity led to the understanding of the word qǝdēšāh by outsiders in the sense “harlot” and to its use in Biblical Hebrew as a synonym of zōnāh, “prostitute”37. No other meaning of qǝdēšāh occurs in the Hebrew Bible, except the possible use of a figurative sense. The earliest attestations of the word are found in the tale of Judah and Tamar. Thus, in Gen. 38:21-22, Judah’s friend is searching for a woman he refers to as a qǝdēšāh, although there is no cultic context implied. The men of the place tell him that there is no prostitute (zōnāh) in the area. The word

34 H. Hirsch, Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion (Archiv für Orientforschung. Beiheft 13/14), Graz 1961, p. 58. 35 J. Cooper, Prostitution, in RLA XI, Berlin 2006-08, p. 12-21 (see p. 19). 36 The Testament of Judah 12:2, attested at Qumran by a tiny fragment, compares Tamar’s behaviour to passage rites preceding marriage. Cf. E. Lipiński, Cult Prostitution and Passage Rites in the Biblical World, in The Biblical Annals 3 (2013), p. 9-27 (see p. 11-14). 37 This semantic development can be compared to Latin paganus, “countryman”, used in the sense “heathen”.

110

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

qǝdēšāh may just have been less derogatory than zōnāh, perhaps because it was rarely used. There is apparently a reference to the cult in Deut. 23:18-19, that also concerns the kǝlābīm, “dogs”, a designation of male prostitutes, occurring later in the Revelation of John 22:15. However, a closer analysis of the Deuteronomy passage shows that qǝdēšāh just means “whore” here. In fact, verse 18, written in the third person, is obviously a later addition to verse 19, formulated in the second person like the other prohibitive clauses in this section of Deut. 23. Verse 19 forbids bringing the proceeds of female or male prostitution into the Temple, even in fulfilment of a vow: “You shall not allow a harlot’s fee or the pay of a sodomite to be brought into the House of Yahweh your God in fulfilment of any vow”. A later redactor noticed that not only the gains derived from prostitution should not be offered to God, but that any form of prostitution is prohibited as well. He thus added: “There will be no qǝdēšāh among the daughters of Israel. There will be no qādēš among the sons of Israel”. The word qǝdēšāh is here a synonym of zōnāh, as in Gen. 38:21-22, while qdš, occurring in parallelism with qdšh and having a disparaging meaning in the Deuteronomistic tradition, is perhaps used here in the sense of “pimp”, possibly in II Kings 23:7 as well. Now, how did qādēš acquire such a disparaging connotation? At Ugarit, in lists of temple personnel, referred to above, the qdšm are often mentioned with the khnm and seem to be cultic servants assisting the “priests”. There were qdšm also in the Kingdom of Judah, where they appear as officiating ministers in provincial shrines (I Kings 14:24). Comparison of I Kings 14:24 with II Kings 23:5 shows that qādēš is a synonym of komer, “priest”, a word always used in the Bible in a disparaging sense. Allegedly expelled by kings Asa (I Kings 15:12) and Jehoshaphat (I Kings 22:47), the qǝdēšīm are still active in the Temple of Jerusalem in the seventh century, until the reign of Josiah. The latter is said to “have pulled down the houses of the qǝdēšīm in the House of Yahweh, where women were hiring cottages as a shrine (’ăšērāh)” (II Kings 23:7). The usual translations of this verse cannot be accepted, because they render ’ӑšērāh as if it was a divine name, while it designates a place, and they change Hebrew battīm, “houses”, in a word meaning “robes, tunics, garments”, to find a suitable grammatical object for ’rgwt, supposedly “weaving”. Now, the participle plural ’rgwt is a metathetic variant of ’grwt, “renting” in common Semitic38. This is no scribal mistake, but a dialectal form occurring also in Isa. 38:12, where a hireling is referred to; it was later misunderstood. A similar metathesis of r occurs in the word “gate”, š‘r in Hebrew, ṯġr in Ugaritic, but tr‘ in Aramaic.

38

Cf. agāru in Akkadian, ’agar in Aramaic, ağara in Arabic.

MOLK-SACRIFICES

111

Since qǝdēšōt is not employed in II Kings 23:7, the writer assumes at present that the battīm in question were not used for “sacral prostitution”, and that ’ăšērāh, “shrine”, does not designate the place where this was practiced. One should rather consider the possibility that clay figurines were placed in these battīm in front of a stele symbolizing the presence of the divinity39 in order to recall to God the worshippers’ prayers addressed to Him. In fact, it is not likely that such figurines were disposed in the Temple itself. The qǝdēšīm mentioned in this context could then be “sacristans” preparing clay figurines for the believers using this kind of objects for their recourse to the divinity. To answer our initial question, qādēš most likely acquired a disparaging connotation in the Bible (Job 36:14), because the word designated a cultic function in Canaanite sanctuaries, also in Yahwistic shrines condemned by king Josiah’s reform and possibly by some ordinances of his predecessors (Deut. 23:18; I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; II Kings 23:7). MOLK-SACRIFICES Sacrifices of the first-born child were still practiced in Judah in the 7th century B.C., as implied by the suppression of the molk-sacrifices by Josiah according to II Kings 23:10. The existence of this practice is confirmed in Gen. 22:1-18 by the parable of the Sacrifice of Isaac, which must date from the monarchic period. Its original aim was to make people understand that God no longer wants such sacrifices. They should be replaced by the sacrifice of a ram, as shown by the parable concretizing the old law of Ex. 23:20 and 34:20: “You shall buy back every firstborn of your sons”. The name molk given to these sacrifices is a substantive derived from the root hlk, “to go”, just as “holocaust” is called ‘ōlāh, a derivative of the root ‘ly, “to go up”. Micah 6:7 The particular characteristic of molk-sacrifices is best expressed in Mi. 6:7: “Shall I offer my eldest son?”, ha-’ettēn bəkōrī; this is the question a pious Judaean countryman is asking at the time of prophet Micah, in the second half of the 8th century B.C. This is precisely the period when we start having literary, epigraphic, and archaeological attestations of child sacrifices among Western Semites: Phoenicians and Punics, Israelites and Judaeans, also Aramaeans, although we lack here a factual information. Only some clauses of Neo-Assyrian contracts, written in an Aramaic ambient, refer to such an eventuality and warn the possible perjurer, that “he shall burn his first-born son in the sacred precinct 39

See here below, p. 128-129.

112

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

of Adad”40. The Assyrian phrase is māršu rabû, literally “his great son”, and it does obviously not refer to a just born baby. The same can be said about the Hebrew word bəkōr, which is often replaced by the phrase habben haggādōl, “the great son”, for instance in Gen. 27:1, where we read that Isaac called his eldest son Esau, bənō haggādōl, what corresponds exactly to Neo-Assyrian māršu rabû. There is still another Hebrew phrase designating the first-born, namely peṭer rāḥam, literally “splitter of the mother’s womb”. This phrase occurs in Ez. 20:2641, which also refers to child sacrifice, but it does not designate the first-born of a patriarchal family. It considers the child from the point of view of the mother. Such an approach has an institutional significance in a matriarchal family, but does not express the notion of “eldest son” in the polygamic patriarchal family like the one of the biblical tradition. Matriliny, however, the custom of reckoning kinship and descent in the female line, is attested by Mandaean bowl inscriptions and lead amulets from Babylonia. The strict rabbinic conception of Jewish identity as pending on Jewish matrilineal descent can possibly be traced back to this Babylonian ambient, since Mandaeans and Jews were living in the same areas and were speaking very similar dialects. The sacrificial term used in Mi. 6:7 is the verb nātan, “to give”. In fact, this is the oldest Hebrew verb used in the sacral semantic field to signify an offering made to the deity. We find it in the law of Ex. 22:28b, 29, which belongs to the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 20:22-23:13) preserving an old Levantine legal tradition: “You shall give Me the first-born of your sons”, bəkōr bānēkā titten-lī, “he shall stay with the mother for seven days; on the eighth day, you shall give him to Me”, bayyōm haššəmīnī tittənō-lī. This offering of the firstborn to the deity did not mean originally that this was a kind of spiritual consecration of the child to God, as it was later interpreted and as some present-day writers would like to see it. Some biblical texts seem indeed to support such an interpretation. For instance, the verb nātan is used in the story of Samuel in I Sam. 1:11, where it expresses certain reciprocity without sacrificial overtones: if the Lord gives an offspring to Hannah, Samuel’s mother, “she will give the child to the Lord for his whole life”. In the post-exilic period, we find the institution of the nətīnīm, literally “the given ones”, who constitute a category of people dedicated to the Lord and serving in His temple in Jerusalem42. Here too, there is no question of sacrifice.

40

E. Lipiński, Le sacrifice molk dans le cadre des cultes sémitiques, in C. González Wagner and L.A. Ruiz Cabrero (eds.), Molk como concepto del sacrificio punico y hebreo, y el final del dios Moloch, Madrid 2002, p. 141-157 (see p. 147-148). 41 The phrase occurs also in Ex. 13:2, 12, 15; 34:19; Numb. 3:12; 18:15. Cf. H. Niehr, pāṭar, in ThDOT XI, Grand Rapids 2001, p. 529-533 (see p. 530-532). 42 E. Lipiński, nāṯan, in ThWAT V, Stuttgart 1986, p. 693-712 (see p. 709-712).

MOLK-SACRIFICES

113

However, the situation and the context are different in Ex. 22:28-29, where the offering of oxen and sheep is mentioned as well: “You shall do the same with your oxen and your sheep”. But the law was later modified, as we can see in Ex. 34:19-20, that belongs to a younger tradition. The principle remains valid, but its formulation is a little changed because of the animals: “Every splitter of the mother’s womb belongs to me, ... but you may replace the splitter of a she-ass by a sheep. If you do not replace it, you must break its neck. You shall replace every first-born of your sons”. There is no question of replacing oxen and sheep by other offerings. Instead, a substitution sacrifice is prescribed for the first-born son and for the first-born of an ass, because the latter is considered as unfit for sacrifices. If it is not replaced by a sheep, its neck must be broken, what is no sacrifice. The text at our disposal does not specify how the child must be replaced, but the formula was most likely identical in the case of a child and of a young ass: tipdeh bə-śeh. In any case, the biblical story of the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen. 22 provides a ram as substitutive animal. The primary aim of this parable was to instruct people that God has changed His mind at the time of Abraham and no longer requires the offering of the first-born child43. The descendants of Abraham should henceforth replace it by a substitution offer of a ram or a lamb. Lambs were regularly used in Punic substitution offerings and the biblical story of the institution of Passover in Ex. 12 refers to sheep as substitutive offerings for the first-born Israelite children, while every Egyptian first-born of man and beast is killed. Now, there are decidedly two different religious practices behind the effective or substitutive sacrifices of children. One practice is based on the principle formulated in Ex. 22:28b and in Ex. 34:19, that belong to two different traditions, but both are based on the same belief: “You shall give Me the first-born of your sons” and “Every splitter of the mother’s womb belongs to Me”. The sacrificial terminology linked with this basic religious principle is characterized by the use of the verb nātan, “to give”. There is another religious practice which is ultimately not related to this supposedly divine law, but which is linked to an oath or a vow formulated by a human being in particular circumstances. It aims at performing a sacrifice which is not imposed by a general divine law, but results from a contract either agreed between human beings or concluded between man and God, on man’s initiative. We have an excellent example of such a case in the biblical story of the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter in Judg. 11. The essential passage is found

43 The redactor connected the parable with the whole narrative in Gen. 22:1: “The time came when God put Abraham to the test”. The Christian allegoric or typological interpretation of this chapter is not related to its original aim. For this kind of exegesis, cf. G.G. Stroumsa, Herméneutique biblique et identité: L’exemple d’Isaac, in RB 99 (1992), p. 529-543, with further literature.

114

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

in verse 30: “and Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh”, wayyiddar Yiptaḥ neder lə-Yahweh: “Whoever it may be that comes out of the door of my house to meet me, when I return successful from the Ammonites, shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer him up as a burnt offering”, an ‘ōlā. Jephthah returns in triumph and his only child, his daughter, comes joyfully to meet him. The father is in despair, but he must keep his vow, his contract with God. And after two months he accomplishes his vow according to verse 39: “and he accomplished on her the vow which he had vowed”, wayyā‘aś lāh ’et-nidrō ’ăšer nādar. The technical term used in this account is not the verb nātan, ‘to give’, but the noun neder, “vow”, and the verb nādar, “to vow”. The relation to God is expressed by the phrase he‘əlā ‘ōlā (verse 31), “to let a burnt offering go up” to God. The same difference occurs in the Punic inscriptions engraved on stelae which were placed above the vessels containing burnt remains of children or substitution animals sacrificed first to Baal Ḥamon, later to Tanit and to Baal. In the archaic inscriptions from Carthage, from Sulcis in Sardinia and from the island Mozia near the western shore of Sicily, we find the verb yatōn, “to give”, while nadōr, “to vow”, occurs in most Carthaginian inscriptions from the 5th to the 2nd centuries B.C.44 This change is not due to the sole chronology. There has been a religious reform or evolution and a change occurred in the conception of the sacrifice itself. In fact, the introduction of a different terminology coincides more or less with the appearance of the name of Tanit in Carthaginian inscriptions, henceforth mentioned always before Baal: l-rbt l-Tnt-pn-B‘l w-l-’dn l-B‘l Ḥmn ... ndr ’š ndr, “For the Lady, for Tanit-pane-Baal, and for the Lord, for Baal Ḥamon, ... the vow which he had vowed”. The noun “vow” and the verb “to vow” have a determinate meaning and they indicate that the sacrifices referred to were accomplished in fulfilment of a vow which had been pronounced by the person mentioned in the inscription. The older terminology, with the verb “to give”, belongs to a period or, at least, goes back to a time when the first-born was offered to the deity, to Baal Ḥamon, because every first-born was supposed to belong to him. Leviticus 20:2-5 We shall pay attention here to two texts, which are referring to this ritual practice and use its technical terms. The verb “to give” is found in the important passage of Lev. 20:2-5, which is supposed to reproduce words addressed by the Lord to Moses, who had to repeat them to the sons of Israel. This passage is preserved in the Palaeo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 44 M.G. Amadasi Guzzo, Le iscrizioni del tofet: osservazioni sulle espressioni di offerta, in C. González Wagner and L.A. Ruiz Cabrero (eds.), Molk como concepto del sacrificio punico y hebreo, y el final del dios Moloch, Madrid 2002, p. 93-119.

MOLK-SACRIFICES

115

(11Q1), published by Freedman and Matthews in 198545. The differences between the scroll and the masoretic text are insignificant. In verse 2, instead of mibbənē Yiśrā’ēl we have mibbēt Yiśrā’ēl, like in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in verse 3 we have wə-ḥillēl, also like in the Samaritan Pentateuch, instead of the infinitive ū-lə-ḥallēl. Another remark concerns the word mlk in verse 5, which is vocalized by the Masoretes like in verse 4, but this passage is an antiroyal addition referring to a king of Judah, probably Manasseh (cf. II Kings 21). One should thus read hammelek, what the Septuagint interpreted as a plural, εἰς τοὺς ἄρχοντας, as we shall see below.

We can translate this passage as follows: “2Every man from the sons of Israel and from the settlers settled in Israel who gives any of his offspring for the molk-offering shall be put to death. The assembly of the land shall stone him. 3And I shall see to that man so that I may cut him off from his people, because he has given one of his offspring for the molk-offering, thus desecrating My sanctuary and defiling My holy name. 4And if the assembly of the land turns the eyes away from that man while he is giving one of his offspring for the molk-offering, without putting him to death, 5may I then see to that man and his family, so that I may cut him and all those prostituting themselves behind him – to prostitute themselves behind the king – from their people.” This passage has been attributed to a secondary level of the Priestly legal source, but the terminology used by its author and the situation it implies clearly belong to the 7th century B.C. First of all, the role attributed to the ‘am hā’āreṣ, which has the juridical power to condemn someone to death and to execute this sentence by stoning him, shows that this has nothing to do with the despised post-exilic ‘am hā’āreṣ of the Judaean countryside, in opposition 45

p. 38.

D.N. Freedman and K.A. Matthews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll, Winona Lake 1985,

116

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

to the orthodox xenophobes in Jerusalem who have returned from Babylonia. Instead, we know that the ‘am hā’āreṣ as a people assembly played an important role in the Kingdom of Judah from the 9th century B.C. to the Babylonian conquest. The double use of the name “Israel” is not an objection against this interpretation, because this is the name which has been used in the final redaction of the biblical books to present the religious traditions of Israel and of Judah. However, it is possible that the original text of our passage was first mentioning Judah or perhaps Bēt Dāwid, as suggested by 11Q1 (’yš ’yš mbyt[...]), since this was the official name of the Kingdom of Judah in the mid-ninth century B.C., as shown by the Aramaic inscription discovered at Tell al-Qāḍi (Tel Dan) and by line 31 of the Moabite stele of king Mesha46. Instead, the second mention of Israel in “settled in Israel” must be correct, but b should be corrected into m: miy-Yiśrā’ēl, “from Israel”, i.e. from the Northern Kingdom. The text has been slightly changed, when the situation of the 8th-7th centuries was no longer understood. This phrase contains a second interesting element. In fact, the gēr, “settler”, can hardly be considered here as a foreigner from Transjordan, Philistia, Phoenicia, or another country. This gēr is most likely the refugee from the Kingdom of Israel who settled in Judah or in Jerusalem, flying from the Assyrian invasions and occupation47. The number of these refugees must have been very large, judging from the extension of Jerusalem towards the end of the 8th century B.C. According to a serious evaluation made by archaeologists, the walled city of Jerusalem contained, at the end of the 8th century and in the 7th century B.C., a population of about 15,000 inhabitants48, while the earlier population amounted only to about 3,500, also at the time of Solomon’s reign. The conspicuous mention of the gēr, as an important part of the population, suggests that we are in the 7th century B.C. A third chronological element might be provided by the mention of one sanctuary, miqdāšī, which would suggest the final part of the 7th century, after the centralization of the cult. However, this interpretation has a shaky base, because it is supported only by the singular vocalization miqdāšī, whereas we could perfectly read the plural miqdāšay, “My sanctuaries”. In fact, the Greek translators of the Septuagint have read the plural and translated miqdāšay by τὰ ἅγιά μου. This is possibly the correct reading in many places, but a distinction can be made only with mqdšy (byt) Yhwh, mqdšy-’l, etc. Besides, the text gives the impression that the ‘am hā’āreṣ may be indifferent to the form of cult which is condemned by the author. This is easier to understand if we deal with 46

E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 10), p. 337 with n. 108. D. Kellermann, gūr, in ThWAT 1, Stuttgart 1973, p. 979-991 (see p. 985-986). 48 Cf. M. Broshi, The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh, in IEJ 24 (1974), p. 21-26; id., La population de l’ancienne Jérusalem, in RB 82 (1975), p. 5-14 (proposed 20,000); H. Geva, in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990 (Jerusalem 1993), p. 620-624. 47

MOLK-SACRIFICES

117

the time of kings Manasseh or Amon who are reproved in the Deuteronomistic history for their infidelity to Yahweh (II Kings 21) and are referred to in the additional clause lznwt ’ḥry hmlk of Lev. 20:5. Their reigns correspond approximately to the years 697-641 B.C. The kind of sacrifices condemned by the author of this Priestly passage was offered to Yahweh in His own sanctuaries. This results clearly from verse 3b, since people sacrificing their own children were desecrating Yahweh’s sanctuaries and defiling His holy name. The verb ṭimmē’ signifies causing ritual impurity, thus desecrating, while ḥillēl has a larger meaning, something as “defiling”. From the grammatical point of view, it is interesting to note that ləma‘an does not express here an aim or an intention, but a consequence, a result. The sacrifice in question is signified by the phrase nātan pəlonī lam-molek. This is a syntagm which occurs frequently in Biblical Hebrew with different indirect complements, for example nātan pəlonī lə-raḥamīm, “to give somebody for compassion”, nātan pəlonī lə-’ālā, “to give somebody for a curse”, nātan pəlonī lə-zəwā‘ā, “to give somebody for a bugbear”. All these expressions – and similar ones – mean that somebody is made an object of compassion, of curse, of fright, of offering: he is, in consequence, pitied, cursed, feared, and offered. There is even a very close biblical parallel to the phrase nātan pəlonī lam-molek in I Chron. 21:23: natattī habbāqār lā-‘olōt, “I give the oxen for the whole-offerings, the threshing sledges for the fuel, and the wheat for the grain offering”. The name of the sacrifice itself was molk in Punic, as we know from Latin transcriptions of the Punic word, attested in North-African inscriptions49. The Hebrew vocalization molek follows the rules of the Masoretes from Tiberias and corresponds perfectly to molk, and the same can be said of the Greek transcription μολοχ, μολεχ, when the Septuagint does not try to translate this word by ἄρχοντι. We can thus conclude that the pronunciation of the word was transmitted correctly down to the time of the Masoretes, in the 9th century A.D. This is not surprising, since the pronunciation molch is still attested in the 3rd century A.D. by Latin inscriptions from North Africa, where the Jewish communities were then quite numerous50. One should add that the Hebrew Bible is so far the unique Palestinian source in which the word molk occurs. 49 The Latin variant mork just shows the well-known phonetic confusion l/r, especially in foreign words. Egyptian does simply not distinguish l and r. An elementary acquaintance with phonetics is required when dealing with such questions. An additional inscription with molk was published by J.-P. Laporte, N’Gaous (Numidie): deux inscriptions nouvelles, in S. Demougin et al. (eds.), H.-G. Pflaum, un historien du XXe siècle, Paris 2006, p. 89-109, with a bibliography of the concerned Latin inscriptions. 50 P. Monceaux, Les colonies juives dans l’Afrique romaine, in RÉJ 44 (1902), p. 1-28; H. Solin, Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt, in ANRW II/29, 2, Berlin 1983, p. 587-789 and p. 1222-1249 (see p. 770-779); Y. Le Bohec, Bilan des recherches sur le judaïsme au Maghreb dans l’Antiquité, in Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, 2nd ser., 7 (1994), p. 309-323; cf. also

118

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

The inscription RÉS 367, allegedly discovered in the 19th century at NebiYunis, between Ashdod and Jaffa, and kept before World War I in the Russian consulate in Jerusalem, is a forgery, as noticed already by M. Lidzbarski51. The publication of a photograph of its squeeze in 197652 does not change anything in the matter, except that the only words [n]ṣb mlk of line 1, “stele of a molkoffering”, seem to have been added by the forger in the still available tiny space in order to increase the antiquarian value of the piece, which was no stele, but an offering table. What about the meaning of molk? The exact meaning was later forgotten, but the knowledge that the word designated an unorthodox Jewish ritual act was preserved. This appears from the translation pulḥānā nukrāyā or nukrā’ā, “foreign priestly service”, in the Palestinian Targum, especially in Targum Neofiti 1, the original of which can be dated around the 4th century A.D. This Aramaic phrase occurs also in Targum Yerushalmi I, for instance in Numb. 23:1, where pulḥānā nukrā’ā does not translate molk, but clearly refers to a foreign cult practice, namely Balaam’s. The general understanding of molk appears also from the Tiberian vocalization lam-molek, with the vowel a of the preposition and the gemination of m, which indicate that molek was no proper name according to the Masoretes, but a common noun, used with the article as for a generic category or class determination. The real confusion started only with modern authors, especially in the late 20th century, despite the fundamental study of the question by Otto Eissfeldt53. It is useless to insist on the obvious fact that molk cannot be related to the root mālak, “to be king”. The vocalization clearly points at a noun with the prefix ma-, lengthened like Akkadian mālaku, “march”, after elision of hē and then changed into mō-. We find a similar form in the Hebrew Bible, namely, the participle hiphil of the verb hālak, “to go”, which is mōlīk, “the one who lets go”. However, we cannot identify molek with mōlīk because of the latter’s long vowel ī. We must rather assume a substantive formed from the same verbal root hālak by prefixing ma-, thus *ma-hlak, then *mālak after elision of the intervocalic h, finally *mōlək after the change ā > ō, which is common in Hebrew and in Phoenician, with a further shortening and final elision of the vowel a, which is a general trend in Phoenician. In Arabic, the hē does not disappear and we thus find the noun mahlaka; it means “dangerous place”, for the verb is used in the sense “to pass away”. Ch. Pietri, Un judéo-christianisme latin et l’Afrique chrétienne, in Église et histoire de l’Église en Afrique, Paris 1990, p. 1-12. 51 M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik, Weimar 1898, p. 131-132; id., Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik I, Giessen 1902, p. 285-287. 52 B. Delavault and A. Lemaire, Une stèle “molk” de Palestine, dédiée à Eshmoun?, RÉS 367 reconsidéré, in RB 83 (1976), p. 569-589, pl. XLIV. 53 See here above, n. 1.

MOLK-SACRIFICES

119

Such a noun designates etymologically a place, like Arabic mahlaka, or a tool used to go somewhere, just as ‘ōlā, “burnt offering”, which etymologically means “going up” when speaking of the smoke that goes up to God in heaven. The meaning of mōlək can be further determined, because the yiphil of the verb hālak is used in Phoenician and in Punic as a sacrificial term. It is attested in the Karatepe inscriptions from the 8th century B.C. and in a Punic inscription from Carthage, dating to the mid-5th century B.C. (CIS I, 5510, 9), where the context seems to refer ylk to a solemn molk-sacrifice. At Karatepe, when introducing a list of sacrifices to be offered in different periods of the year, Azatiwada, the local prince and the strong man of the Kingdom of Adana, says: “Having I made Baal Karantaryash dwell in it (viz. the city), the whole river-land sacrificed to him”, wylk zbḥ l kl h-mskt54. The pronominal suffix is not expressed after the preposition l, because the intervocalic hē is elided, while the final vowel is not marked (la-hū > lō). The noun mskt, derived from nsk, “to pour out”, does not mean “molten image”, like in Hebrew, but it designates plains watered by rivers, as shown by the parallel Hieroglyphic Luwian text which uses the word hapari-, “river-land(s)”55. Earlier translations of this Karatepe passage are thus erroneous. The verb hālak is used in Hebrew also with the meaning ‘to flow’ (I Kings 18:35; Cant. 7:10). In the inscription of the Siloam tunnel in Jerusalem, we read that “the water went from the spring to the pool”, wylkw hmym mn hmwṣ’ ’l hbrkh (KAI 189:4-5; TSSI I, 7:4-5). It results from such texts that molek may imply effusion of blood and designate a bloody sacrifice. This would mean that the victims were killed and bled before being burnt, and not burnt alive, as was suggested because of the biblical phrase “to make his son pass through fire”, for instance in Deut. 18:10. This explanation is confirmed by the account of the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen. 22:11, where we read that Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to kill his son. We may safely assume that this account is based on a precise knowledge of the ritual in question, but its purpose was convincing people that God wished to get a substitutive offer. It is remarkable that God’s intervention in Lev. 20:4-5 is expressed conditionally, namely, God will turn against the man offering his child for the molk sacrifice, if the people assembly does not act. Moreover God’s effective action is formulated in the apodosis in the form of the so-called “converted perfect”, wə-śamtī ’ănī and wə-hikrattī ’otō (Lev. 20:5). The “converted perfect” is traditionally explained as having the function of an imperfect. In reality, this 54

Phu/A II, 19; PhSt/C IV, 2: W. Röllig, The Phoenician Inscriptions, in H. Çambel (ed.), Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions II. Karatepe-Aslantaş, Berlin 1999, p. 50-82 (see p. 52-53 and p. 64-65); TSSI III, 15, A ii, 19-iii, 1; cf. C iv, 2-3. Cf. DNWSI 282. One can compare ylk zbḥ to ha‘al zebaḥ in Lev. 17:8. 55 A. Morpurgo Davies and J.D. Hawkins, The Late Hieroglyphic Luwian Corpus: Some New Lexical Recognitions, in Hethitica 8 (1987), p. 267-295 (see p. 270 ff.).

120

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

perfect preserves an old function of the stative, namely optative or precative. It expresses the intention of the speaker; it signifies what the speaker would like to do. This is why we should translate those phrases “may I set My face”, “may I cut him”. These are neither statements of facts, nor plain declarations. They are just conditional expressions of an intention. One can quote here a passage from an article written by William Moran half a century ago for the Albright Festschrift. He deals there with the Byblos letters found at El-Amarna, where there are twenty-four occurrences of a perfect/stative preceded by the conjunction u and referring to the future. He writes56: “all of these perfects occur in sentences which are implicitly or explicitly conditional. And the exceptions are more apparent than real, since they occur with a temporal clause, the general structure of which is identical with that of conditional sentences. This restriction to conditional sentences, where optative and precative elements are well attested, would seem to corroborate H.L. Ginsberg’s insight that the development of the waw conversive with the perfect in Hebrew was favored by one of the original functions of the perfect, namely, as an optative or precative”. In the present text, we have original examples of this construction in Classical Hebrew. This certainly favours a pre-exilic dating of the concerned passage57. The two idiomatic expressions used in these sentences are also remarkable. The first one śīm or nātan pānīm bi-pəlonī occurs also in Lev. 17:10 and frequently in the Amarna letters, especially those sent from Tyre, but also from Jerusalem, where nadānu pāna ana58 means “to see about”, “to see to”. This phrase can have either a positive or a negative sense. In the Amarna letters it has a positive meaning, because the acting subject is supposed to “see to” a matter with the aim of bringing it in order. In any case, we have here an Old Canaanite expression. The second phrase hikrīt miqqereb ‘am is a juridical formula which signifies somebody’s exclusion from his clan, from his tribe. The consequences of such an exclusion should be examined further, also in the light of ethnographic parallels. We come then to the explicative or complementary gloss li-zənōt ’aḥarē hammolek which aims at interpreting kol-hazzonīm ’aḥarā(y)w in the light of the phrase zānā ’aḥarē ’elōhīm ’aḥērīm, “to prostitute one’s self behind foreign gods”. If this was the original meaning, it would imply that its author considered hammolek as a divine name despite the presence of an article, which is not used with proper 56

W.L. Moran, The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background, in G.E. Wright (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East, London 1961, p. 54-72, quotation from p. 65. 57 The changing verbal system of Canaanite and Hebrew cannot be discussed here. At any rate, the simple apodosis of a conditional sentence in the Second Temple period is expressed by a yiqtol form: w’m ynwḥ yhwh ṣryk (Sir. 31:4), “And if he relaxes, he will become poor”. 58 EA 134:37; 150:14; 155:59; 288:49.

MOLK-SACRIFICES

121

names59. However, the Greek translators did not understand the text in this way, since they translated εἰς τοὺς ἄρχοντας, which can go back to Hebrew ’aḥarē ham-məlākīm, “to commit fornication behind the kings”, i.e. at the example of the kings. This meaning of ’aḥarē is also attested elsewhere, for example in Deut. 12:30. It is possible that this is the original reading of the gloss which was referring to the kings of Judah, Manasseh and Amon. In a later phase, the m was suppressed because the whole passage was about mlk without final m, whereas this m of məlākīm was appearing as a dittography of the m in miqqereb. However, there is another possibility: the Hebrew gloss had to be read ’aḥarē ham-melek, ‘behind the king’, in the singular, with an allusion to king Manasseh, while the Greek translation is a quite common generalization using the plural instead of the singular. Considering the absence of any Hebrew manuscript reading the plural məlākīm, this seems to be the best explanation. It would also confirm our dating of the text in the 7th century B.C., the gloss belonging also to that period. Another question is to know what the Greek translators intended exactly by ἄρχοντες. This is a different problem, which cannot be discussed here. They may have thought of lesser deities, called ἄρχοντες in the Graeco-Roman period60, but ἄρχοντες could just be “leaders”. The text of the Book Leviticus does not speak about the first-born son, but uses the phrase mizzar‘ō, “from his offspring”. The reason is probably that the author intended to include all kind of child sacrifices. Besides, there is a literary feature in the text that opposes nātan mizzar‘ō to hikrīt miqqereb ‘ammō. Isaiah 30:33 Let us now take a look at our second text in Isa. 30. This is a highly poetical passage giving a description of a tophet, the place where the remains of sacrificed children were burnt, and applying it to the lot the Lord has reserved to Assyria. The poem is quite long, but we are interested only in verse 33, where the characteristic words topteh, “His tophet”, and lammolek occur, the latter vocalized erroneously lammelek in the masoretic text61. 59 It appeared that this requires some explanation. Common nouns used with an article do not become grammatically proper names. The article just shows that they are used as such. This is a question for grammars dealing with languages which have a definite article or a similar affix, like Aramaic. In a French elementary school, for instance, one could explain that grand means ‘great’, but that le grand, with the definite article, can become the family name Legrand. This does not mean that grand has become a proper name. The Grolier Webster dictionary of the English language defines the article as “a part of speech used before nouns to limit or define their application”. A particular use of the article is attested in Punic, when the place name designates citizens of the town. 60 DDD, 2nd ed., Leiden - Grand Rapids 1999, p. 78b, 82-85. 61 As a matter of principle, the historical interpretation of texts from the first millennium B.C. should not rely on unconfirmed masoretic vocalization of the 9th-11th centuries A.D. The latter is important, when one studies the Mediaeval Jewish understanding of biblical texts.

122

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

In archaeological terminology tophet is used to designate the sacred area where vessels with burnt remains of sacrificed children or substitutive animals were buried. This is not the original meaning of the word which clearly designates the place where the victims were burnt. In Greek transcriptions this word appears constantly as θαφεθ or ταφεθ, not tophet, and it should be linked etymologically with Aramaic tapyā, “hearth”, “fire-place”, and with the verb təpā, “to put on fire”, “to set on for cooking”, or its variant ’āpā (’py), “to put in the oven”, used in a Neo-Punic inscription in relation to a child sacrifice62. So far, the substantive tophet occurs only in the Bible, and Isa. 30:33 is the only place where it is used with a pronominal suffix referring to Yahweh who is the active subject in the whole verse.

“His tophet is ready from yesterday; also He is prepared for the molk-offering: He had made deep and broad its pit, fire and trees He had heaped up. The breath of Yahweh is like a flow, a brimstone blazing in it.”

The consonantal text of the manuscript in St.-Petersburg is perfectly preserved and the variants of the great Isaiah manuscript from Qumran (1QIsa) rather show that the text was not understood properly. In particular, the scribe did not grasp that the whole image, the whole metaphor was taken from a tophet and from a molk-sacrifice, and he did not understand that the active subject was Yahweh described as preparing the sacrifice and the burning of Assur. Thus, verbal forms in the singular, like hūkān, he‘mīq, and hirḥib were replaced in the Qumran scroll by plurals, not easily recognizable because of the great similarity of wāw and yōd. There are also some other changes that make the meaning of the text quite obscure. For instance, “His tophet” is changed into tiptaḥ, “she will open”, and hū’ is changed into hī’, “she”, quite logically, but obscuring the sense of the poem. It is remarkable that the tophet is called “Yahweh’s fire-place”, “His tophet”. It confirms our interpretation of the text of Leviticus and also of Mi. 6:7 from which it results that these sacrifices were offered to Yahweh and not to a foreign 62 A. Berthier and R. Charlier, Le sanctuaire punique d’El-Hofra à Constantine. Planches, Paris 1952, pl. XL, D, line 4. Cf. E. Lipiński, Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques (OLA 237), Leuven 2015, p. 320.

MOLK-SACRIFICES

123

The Valley of Ben Ḥinnom in 1927 with its age-old stock market (photo: American Colony)

deity. The phrase lammolek hūkān has a meaning quite different from nātan lammolek. Lammolek hūkān means “to be equipped for the molk-sacrifice” as sacrificer or temple’s attendant. This is explained in the following stichos; everything is ready for the fire-place: wood in quantity, firestone, bellows to make up the fire. Did such sacrifices ever take place in the Temple of Jerusalem itself? This does not seem to be the case, because the Bible itself specifies that this ritual was practiced in the Valley of Ben Ḥinnom (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35), the Gehenna of the Greek transcriptions. This valley should not be identified with the Kidron Valley, but with the valley bordering, on the west and the south, the so-called Western Hill which comprises the Jewish and Armenian quarters of the Old City, as well as the “Mount Zion”, now outside the Turkish city walls. Tombs from the Iron Age have been found in this area, but no stelae which could be related to this cult.

124

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

In conclusion, the text of Isa. 30:33 applies the metaphor of the tophet to Assyria, alluding to a practice known in the 7th century B.C. to the author of Isa. 30 and to his listeners or readers. This text should not be neglected in studies dealing with the molk-sacrifice. The texts examined above show that Yahweh-worshippers offering the molksacrifice believed to honour their own God, despite the negative attitude of some segments of Judaean clergy around the 7th century B.C. The situation may have been different in earlier times, as suggest Judg. 11 and Mi. 6:7, but the account of Gen. 22 and Ex. 34:20b already reveal a changing approach to such practices. The date of the Yahwistic, Elohistic, Priestly or Deuteronomistic redactors has no great importance in these matters. Approximate chronological indications must be furnished, if possible, by their sources, which often go back to pre-exilic times. THE ALTAR OF BEERSHEBA The sanctuaries suppressed by Hezekiah (II Kings 18:3-4) were not only private shrines, but also Yahwistic sanctuaries of a town like Tell as-Seba‘, ancient Beersheba, whose sanctuary is mentioned by Am. 8:14 (cf. Am. 5:5). Its large ashlar altar with horn-shaped cornerstones was discovered in 1973 during the fifth excavations campaign led by Y. Aharoni63. It was found dismantled, most likely as a consequence of king Hezekiah’s reform, and its stones have been reused as building materials for the storehouses of Stratum II. Since this stratum was partly destroyed around 700 B.C., most likely during Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 B.C., the demolition of the altar cannot be associated with Josiah’s reform64. The altar must have been used earlier, in the 9th8th centuries B.C., and could have been demolished following Hezekiah’s reform. Its original location in the town is unknown in spite of several suggestions. It could stand in an open air sanctuary, an ’ăšērāh in biblical terminology, or in the courtyard of a temple which was not preserved65. A. Mazar notes that the altar was built of ashlars, contrary to the biblical law of Ex. 20:25-26 and Deut. 27:5-6, which requires that altars’ construction should be of uncut stones. However, Deut. 27:6 specifies that a stone should be šǝlēmōt, “perfect” or “whole”, not gǝzīt. Šǝlēmōt is often translated by “unhewn” because Ex. 20:25 clearly expresses that the altars should not be made of “hewn stone”, gǝzīt66. 63

Y. Aharoni, The Horned Altar of Beersheba, in The Biblical Archaeologist 37 (1974), p. 2-6. This initial interpretation is still mentioned by J.J. Waszkowiak, The Altar Laws in the Pentateuch in the Light of the Archaeological Evidence (Faculty of Theology UAM. Studies and Texts 161), Poznań 2013, p. 50. 65 A. Mazar, The Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E., New York 1990, p. 442, 495-496, and 528, n. 28. 66 J.J. Waszkowiak, The Altar Laws (n. 64), p. 90-91. 64

THE TEMPLE OF ARAD

125

The altar of Tell as-Seba‘ (Beersheba) restored with “perfect” ashlars67

These differences show that the law underwent changes, and the complete suppression of the shrine must have led to the demolition of the altar.67

THE TEMPLE

OF

ARAD

The excavations of the fortress of Arad, about 30 km east of Beersheba and 30 km south of Hebron, led to the discovery of a small temple of the 8th century B.C., which is generally regarded as a Judaean sanctuary, abolished following the reform of king Hezekiah68. However, the problem is not so simple and the interpretation of the concerned archaeological strata should be reviewed. The Iron Age II settlement of Arad consisted in a citadel built on the highest part of the hill and surrounded by a casemate wall. A violent conflagration destroyed the fortress of Stratum XI (850-750 B.C.)69 and a solid walled stronghold replaced it in the 8th century B.C. It was constructed with a gate protected by two towers and included a central courtyard, storage and dwelling rooms for some fifty people, and a small temple. Its Strata X-IX must date from the mid and second half of the 8th century70. 67

Ibid., p. 106, n° 5. Z. Herzog, Is there Evidence for the Intentional Abolishment of Cult in the Arad and Tel Beersheba Excavations?, in Ephraim Stern Volume (Eretz Israel 29), Jerusalem 2009, p. 125-136 (in Hebrew), with English summary, p. 286-287*. 69 Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad : An Interim Report, in Tel Aviv 29 (2002), p. 3-109 (see p. 26). 70 Ibid., p. 14 and 98. 68

126

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

Suggested reconstruction of Arad Stratum X fortress71 71

The considerable difference in the fortifications and vessel types between Stratum XI and Strata X-IX72 do not indicate a gap in the occupation of the site, but another centre of power planning and erecting the new fortress. As Edomite pottery and Assyrian finds, like a bronze weight in the shape of a crouching lion73, first appear in Strata X-IX, they were very likely built by the Edomite central authority to watch the trade route through the Beersheba Valley. This is also suggested by significant findings belonging to that period. The two inscribed offering dishes, found near the altar of the 8th century shrine at Arad74, bear each a roughly scratched North-Arabian inscription yḥ75. There can be little doubt that this is an abbreviation of yd ḥrm, “possession of the sanctuary”, according 71

Drawing by Judith Dekel, ibid., p. 34. L. Singer-Avitz, Arad. The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages, in Tel Aviv 29 (2002), p. 110-214 (see p. 162). 73 Inscribed lion weights appear in Assyria in the last quarter of the 8th and the early 7th centuries B.C.: F.M. Fales, Assyro-Aramaica: The Assyrian Lion-Weights, in K. Van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński (OLA 65), Leuven 1995, p. 33-55. 74 Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, Jerusalem 1975, p. 117-119, Nos. 102-103. 75 These are neither 7th-century Phoenician inscriptions, as argued by F.M. Cross, Two Offering Dishes with Phoenician Inscriptions from the Sanctuary of ‘Arad, in BASOR 235 (1979), p. 75-78, nor Proto-Hebrew (?) inscriptions. The alleged kāf of A.F. Rainey, in Z. Herzog (ed.), Beer-sheba II. The Early Iron Age Settlements, Tel Aviv 1984, p. 32, quoted by Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad (n. 69), p. 56, 58, should be dated back to the 11th century B.C.! 72

THE TEMPLE OF ARAD

127

Inscription on a offering dish from the Tell Arad sanctuary (Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, No. 102)

to an old connotation of yd, “hand”, preserved in Islamic law. The slightly different shape of ḥ in these inscriptions represents the two varieties of the Teimanite ḥ. This is an interesting feature, since Teimanites and Sabaeans were associated in the huge caravan attacked by Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur, the ruler of Sūḫu76. It is unlikely that this association was an exceptional case. The fragmentary vessel found in Arad Stratum IX with the name of the fortress written several times, also from left to right77 like some North-Arabian inscriptions, exhibits an Edomite legless daleth. 76 77

RIMB II, text S.0.1002.2, p. 300, col. IV, 26’-38’. Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscripitons (n. 74), p. 114-115, No. 99.

128

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

Inscription on a offering dish from the Tell Arad sanctuary (Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, No. 103)

The presence of two stelae in the cella78, paralleled by two asymmetric incense altars, is certainly a feature alien to the Yahwistic tradition79. The stelae symbolize a couple of divinities, possibly ’Il and ’Ilat. If one prefers to find at Arad the Edomite god Qaws80, his consort could be Rabbat, whose name appears in Shoshenq I’s list of Negebite toponyms81: 78 Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad (n. 69), p. 63, tries to present the smaller stele as a “construction stone”, but on p. 57 he mentions the “stone stele found embedded into the back wall of the later Stratum IX debir”. 79 The two tablets housed in the Ark of the Covenant may have been stone relics from preYahwistic times, but they never appear in the biblical tradition as divine symbols. 80 Cf. E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 10), p. 400-404. 81 Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak. Vol. 3. The Bubastite Portal (OIP 74), Chicago 1954, Nos. 108-109. Cf. R. Hannig, Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Grosses Handwörterbuch ÄgyptischDeutsch (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64), 2nd ed., Mainz a/R 1997, p. 1321b.

THE TEMPLE OF ARAD

129

‘-rw-d-ἰ Rw-bꜢ-t, “Watch-post of the Lady”. This corresponds to Semitic ‘rd Rbt and one could suggest that this was the full name of biblical Arad in northern Negeb. Rabbat is a well-known title of goddesses in Old Arabian and one may refer in particular to ’Ilat, worshipped as ar-Rabbat in her main sanctuary at aṭ-Ṭā’if in North Arabia82. The temple existed at Arad only in Strata X-IX83, but there are no signs of its destruction by fire. The intentional cancellation of the temple is reflected in the excellent state of preservation of its remains in Stratum VIII, when the temple was no longer in use84. The Arad Hebrew ostraca Nos. 50-57, found in a room next to the temple remains and linked to Stratum VIII, only bear a personal name written in ink. Since two of them, Meremot (No. 50) and Pashhur (No. 54), are names of priestly families known in Jerusalem (Jer. 20:1; Ezra 8:33), it was assumed that these ostraca served to draw someone in view of a cult activity85. This is possible, but these ostraca should then belong to Stratum IX and concern either the sacral use of only one stela86 and of the altar by Judaean priests or the ritual desecration of the temple and of its sacred contents towards the end of Stratum IX, following Hezekiah’s reform. How can we reconstruct the history of the small temple in Strata X-IX? – The temple of Stratum X was dedicated to a couple of North-Arabian or Edomite divinities, as shown by the two stelae, the two incense altars, and the two open pottery bowls with two engraved letters87. The smaller stone stele was “found embedded into the back wall of the later Stratum IX”88. The higher one was reused in the Stratum IX temple “symbolizing the presence of the deity”. It was “a hewn stone about one meter long with rounded base and top”89. The two incised dishes were found in Stratum X at the foot of the sacrificial altar. They bear each a roughly scratched North-Arabian inscription yh90. The two incense altars may have been used only in the Stratum X temple91. Z. Herzog describes them with precision: “Two carefully hewn limestone incense altars were found lying on their sides on the middle stair at the entrance to the debir. The altars are in the shape of oblong prisms, the top part separated from the base by a groove. The altars are not identical in size. The area of the base of the larger altar is 31 × 29 cm. and it is 51 cm. high, while the base of the smaller of the two is 22 × 20 cm. and its height 40 cm. There is a shallow depression cut into the top of the upper surface. Remains of burnt organic material 82 M. Höfner, Die Stammesgruppen Nord- und Zentralarabiens in vorislamischer Zeit, in H.W. Haussig (ed.), Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient, Stuttgart 1965, p. 407-481 (see p. 422). 83 Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad (n. 69), p. 51-67. 84 Ibid., p. 65-67. 85 A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques I. Les ostraca (LAPO 9), Paris 1999, p. 214. 86 The smaller stele of Stratum X has been used in Stratum IX as a construction stone. 87 See here above, p. 127-129. 88 Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad (n. 69), p. 57. 89 Ibid., p. 63. 90 See here above, p. 126-127. 91 Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad (n. 69), p. 57.

130

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

Restored Stratum X of the Tel Arad sanctuary with two stelae and two incense altars (Photo: S. Halliday)

were found adhering to the top of both altars. The altars served to burn incense as part of the cultic rituals of the temple. The form of the altars at Arad are unique and differ from the large group of altars found at Megiddo (May 1935) and Tel Miqne in that they are not horned”92. The fortress and the temple of Stratum X must have been Edomite93. Its aim was to guard the trade route from Arabia to Philistia, Canaan, and Syro-Phoenicia. The silver hoard discovered in Stratum X to the south of the temple might even witness to the presence of a merchant operating at Arad94. Besides, Arad was probably laying on the road by which Qaws-malaka, king of Edom, was sending his tribute to Tiglath-pileser III95 or Sargon II96. These official relations should be kept in mind when considering Assyrian items discovered in Strata X-IX97. The distinction of these strata implies a political change not involving noticeable destructions. The fortress has been certainly occupied by Judaean troops, who first used its temple, removing one of the steles and the incense altars. 92

Ibid., p. 64. The Hebrew ostraca Nos. 59-72, assigned by Y. Aharoni to Stratum X, should belong to Stratum IX, as noticed already by A. Lemaire, referring to palaeography. See also here above, p. 129. 94 Z. Herzog, The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad (n. 69), p. 80. 95 ANET, p. 282a. 96 S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II. Part I. Letters from Assyria and the West (SAA I), Helsinki 1987, No. 110, rev., lines 10-13. 97 L. Singer-Avitz, Arad (n. 72), p. 161-162. 93

THE TEMPLE OF QIṬMĪT

131

After a few years, Hezekiah’s reform was adopted and the fortress has been rebuilt. The result was Stratum VIII. According to L. Singer-Avitz, “A date ca. 715 B.C. could be appropriate for the end of Stratum IX and the establishment of Stratum VIII”98. THE TEMPLE OF QIṬMĪT The temple of Arad Stratum X was no unique Edomite sanctuary in the border area between Judah and Edom in northern Negeb. Another Edomite cult place was discovered at Khirbet Qiṭmīt (Ḥorvat Qitmit), 13 kilometres to the southwest of Arad99. It is a single period site of the 7th century B.C. The relatively high percentage of Edomite pottery points to a direct connection with Edom, while the preponderance of cultic vessels indicates that the site was not domestic in nature. No evidence of destruction by human hand was found, which means that the site has been abandoned, possibly when the collapse of the Assyrian power in the region signified a stagnation and the end of the lucrative trade through the Beersheba Valley in the last quarter of the 7th century B.C. At any case, there is a complete absence of Neo-Babylonian and Persian pottery. This open-air shrine consisted of a double complex of structures and enclosures (1300 m2) with stone altars, a plastered basin, and dressed stones. The excavations of 1984-1986 brought there to light remains of about 800 figurines and cult objects, mostly of local origin, as suggested by the neutron activation analysis of twenty-three samples. Six short Edomite inscriptions are incised on pottery sherds, some with the name of the main Edomite and Idumaean god Qaws (Nos. 2, 3, 4), and a stamp seal bears the legend l-Šwbn-Qws, “Belonging to Shuban-Qaws” (No. 7). There is no doubt that Qaws was the main deity of the Edomites100 and that this name implies a community of worshippers that 98

Ibid., p. 176. For the Edomite shrine discovered on the site, see I. Beit-Arieh and P. Beck, Edomite Shrine. Discoveries from Qitmit in the Negev (The Israel Museum. Cat. No. 277), Jerusalem 1987; I. Beit-Arieh, An Edomite Shrine at Horvat Qitmit, in Y. Yadin Volume (ErIs 20), Jerusalem 1989, p. 135-146 (in Hebrew); id., The Edomite Shrine of Ḥorvat Qitmit in the Judean Desert, in Tel Aviv 18 (1991), p. 93-116; id., Qitmit, Ḥorvat, in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. IV, p. 12301233; id. (ed.), Ḥorvat Qitmit. An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev, Tel Aviv 1995; J. Gunneweg and H. Mommsen, Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and the Origin of Some Cult Objects and Edomite Vessels from the Horvat Qitmit Shrine, in Archaeometry 32 (1990), p. 7-18; P. Beck, Transjordanian and Levantine Elements in the Iconography of Qitmit, in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990, Jerusalem 1993, p. 231-236; ead., Ḥorvat Qitmit Revisited via ‘En Ḥazeva, in Tel Aviv 23 (1996), p. 102-114. 100 E.A. Knauf, Qôs, in DDD, 2nd ed., Leiden - Grand Rapids 1999, p. 674-677, with a very incomplete bibliography. One should mention in particular: J.T. Milik, Nouvelles inscriptions nabatéennes, in Syria 35 (1958), p. 227-251, pls. XVIII-XXI; id., Notes d’épigraphie orientale 2. À propos du dieu édomite Qôs, in Syria 37 (1960), p. 95-96; Th. Vriezen, The Edomite Deity Qaus, in Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 (1965), p. 330-353; J. Starcky, Le temple nabatéen de Khirbet Tannur, in RB 75 (1966), p. 206-235, pls. XV-XX (see p. 208-221); J. Naveh, The Scripts 99

132

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

is quite different from the “people of Chemosh” settled in Moab. Their proper names reveal their North-Arabian origin101, while names with the theophorous element Qaws establish a link with the Shasu of the Late Bronze II and with the Liḥyanites of Dedan in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods102. The origin and nature of this deity is important also in order to understand the provenance and the cultural connections of the Edomites103. 104

Map of the Beersheba Valley104

The largest group of iconographic and cultic finds at Qiṭmīt consists of anthropomorphic stands, hollow and open at both ends. They are composed of two parts, the body, consisting in a storage jar turned upside down, and a head, which is a hollow mouth crater. of Two Ostraca from Elath, in BASOR 183 (1966), p. 27-30 (see p. 28-30); M. Du Buit, Qôs, in DBS IX, Paris 1979, col. 674-678; H. Niehr, Religionen in Israels Umwelt. Einführung in die nordwestsemitischen Religionen Syrien-Palästinas (Die neue Echter-Bibel. Ergänzungsband 5 zum Alten Testament), Würzburg 1998, p. 217; E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 10), p. 400-404. 101 One should refer in particular to the two names Mškt, “Tenacious”, and Wḥzm, “Violent”, engraved on the seal from ‘Ain al-Ḫuṣb (‘En Ḥaẓeva); cf. here below, p. 135. 102 G.L. Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Near and Middle East Series 8), Toronto 1971, p. 164 (Gltqs1, “Splendor of Qaws”), p. 400 (‘bdqs1, “Servant of Qaws”), p. 491 (Qws1br, “Qaws is loyal”, and Qws1mlk, “Qaws is king”, perhaps Qws1t). Two names appear also in Minaic inscriptions, but most likely designate Liḥyanites; cf. G.L. Harding, An Index (n. 102), p. 102 (Brqs1, “Qaws is loyal”), p. 326 (S1lmtqs1, “Bounty of Qaws”). The spelling with s1 results from the merging of s1 and s3 in Liḥyanite, that only uses the signs s1 and s2, like other North-Arabian dialects. Cf. E. Lipiński, Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA 80), 2nd ed., Leuven 2001, § 14.3. The monophthongization of aw takes place when the theonym is the second element of the name. 103 E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 10), p. 401-404. 104 I. Beit-Arieh, The Edomite Shrine (n. 99), p. 94.

THE SANCTUARY OF TAMAR

A cult stand from Khirbet Qiṭmīt in the form of a male105

133

Head of a goddess from Khirbet Qiṭmīt

105

Pirhiya Beck rightly explained the function of these stands as representing the worshippers who deposited them in the shrine to address permanently their prayers to the deity. The upper opening is wide enough to hold an incense bowl106. From the fragments collected at the site one can estimate that over twenty such stands were placed within the enclosure. A special find was the sculptured head of a deity, a goddess according to Pirhiya Beck107. THE SANCTUARY OF TAMAR Another Edomite sanctuary was discovered south of the Judaean-Edomite border, at the site of ‘Ain al-Ḥuṣb (‘En Ḥaẓeva)108. The excavations conducted in 1990-1994 by Rudolph Cohen and Yigael Yisrael have uncovered three successive fortresses (Strata VI, V, and IV) of the Iron Age at this strategic site situated about 35 km south of Zoar, at the crossroads of the north-south and eastwest routes, from Transjordan to the Gulf of Aqaba and to Egypt. The site must be identified with Tamar in the Desert (I Kings 9:18), as shown convincingly by Y. Aharoni109. Ez. 47:19 and 48:28 seem to locate Tamar at the south-eastern 105

Ibid., p. 112. P. Beck, The Sculptures, in I. Beit-Arieh and P. Beck, Edomite Shrine (n. 99), p. 23-27. 107 P. Beck, The Head of a Goddess from Qitmit, in Qadmoniot 19 (1986), p. 79-81. 108 Grid ref. 1734/0242. R. Cohen and Y. Yisrael, The Excavations at ‘Ein Ḥaẓeva / Israelite and Roman Tamar, in Qadmoniot 29 (1996), p. 78-92, pls. 1-3 (in Hebrew); īd., ‘En Ḥaẓeva – 19901994, in ESI 15 (1996), p. 110-116, pls. XI-XII. See also the bibliography in E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 10), p. 386, n. 121. 109 Y. Aharoni, Tamar and the Roads to Elath, in IEJ 13 (1963), p. 30-42. 106

134

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

corner of the future Holy Land and the gloss b’rṣ, originated in I Kings 9:18 from a misread b’dm, correctly located Tamar in Edom110. The large fortress of Stratum V, excavated in 1992-1994111, has been built by the Edomites. It is dated to the 8th century B.C. by the pottery found in one of casemate rooms, and its four-chambered gate closely resembles that of Khirbet al-Muḍaybi‘112, which was founded perhaps in the first half of the 8th century B.C. It measured ca. 50 × 50 m in its first phase (Stratum VB) and was later enlarged to ca. 100 × 100 m (Stratum VA). If all this area was built up, the number of residents can be estimated at ca. 250 persons. Its Stratum VA was four times larger than the other Negeb fortresses and covered a space almost as large as the city of Tell as-Seba‘, ancient Beersheba. This might be explained by its situation and its use as a kind of caravanserai, protected by its casemate wall. 113

Plan of ancient Tamar Stratum VA113 110 The frequent confusion d/r does not need to be discussed, while the misreading of m as ṣ can be explained by the similarity of the zigzag-head of mēm with a top of ṣade resembling the old zayin. 111 R. Cohen, Ḥaẓeva, Meẓad, in NEAEHL, Jerusalem 1993, Vol. II, p. 593-594; R. Cohen and Y. Israel, The Iron Age Fortress at ‘En Ḥaẓeva, in BA 58 (1995), p. 223-235; P. Beck, Horvat Qitmit Revisited via ‘En Ḥazeva, in Tel Aviv 23 (1996), p. 102-114. 112 E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 10), p. 329. 113 R. Cohen and Y. Yisrael, The Excavations at ‘Ein Ḥaẓeva (n. 108), p. 79.

THE SANCTUARY OF TAMAR

135

The date of Stratum VB suggests connecting its construction with the invasion of Edom by king Amaziah of Judah (803-775 B.C.). The remains of the fortress of Stratum VI seem to date from the 9th century B.C. They have been exposed under the gate of the fortress of Stratum V114. Since it was not built before the end of the 9th or the 8th century B.C., it is useless to discuss its attribution to Solomon in I Kings 9:18. The fortress of Stratum IV is badly preserved. The architectural remains are scanty, but there is some characteristic pottery of the 7th century B.C. and the finds in this stratum included a stone seal carved with a horned altar flanked by two facing figures and the Edomite inscription l-Mškt bn Wḥzm, “Belonging to Mškt, son of Wḫzm”115, two North-Arabian names meaning “Steadfast” and “Violent”116.

Edomite seal from ancient Tamar117 117

Anthropomorphic incense stands from ancient Tamar (photo: T. Sagiv) 114

R. Cohen and Y. Yisrael, ‘En Ḥaẓeva (n. 108), in ESI 15 (1996), p. 114. R. Cohen and Y. Yisrael, The Excavations at ‘Ein Ḥaẓeva (n. 108), p. 83, and ‘En Ḥaẓeva (n. 108), p. 112, fig. 116; J. Naveh, A Sixth Century Edomite Seal from ‘En Hazeva, in ‘Atiqot 42 (2001), p. 197-198. One should correct Wḫzn /Wḥzn in Wḫzm /Wḥzm in OLA 153, p. 388. 116 G.L. Harding, An Index (n. 102), p. 545 (MSKT), and the Arabic adjectives waḫḫāz and wāḫiz with mimation. 117 R. Cohen and Y. Yisrael, The Excavations at ‘Ein Ḥaẓeva (n. 108), p. 83. 115

136

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

Selection of incense stands and other cult vessels from ancient Tamar (Photo: T. Sagiv)

A unique assemblage of sixty-three complete cult vessels and seven stone altars have been found in a favissa at the foot of the wall of the Stratum V fortress. The many incense burners and the three anthropomorphic stands carrying an incense bowl on their head show that these cultic vessels, placed in the sanctuary, were permanently recording or representing their donors standing in front of the deity.

TERACOTTA FIGURINES

137

The pottery items are similar to the figures found in the Edomite temple at Khirbet Qiṭmīt118, and they witness the existence of an Edomite shrine in the 7th and the first half of the 6th century B.C. The sanctuary could probably be connected with the fortress of Stratum IV, which was smaller and whose scanty remains were recovered only in one area. The building of these Tamar fortresses certainly implies the intervention of a royal administration. One can also assume that a “servant of the king” commanded them, like Qaws‘anāli at Elath. TERACOTTA FIGURINES The Edomite use of cult vessels and anthropomorphic stands to represent the worshipper in front of the deity, attested at Khirbet Qiṭmīt and at ‘Ain al-Ḥuṣb, ancient Tamar, is paralleled in Judah by the use of the so-called “pillar figurines” and other terracotta statuettes which seem to have been prominent in daily Judaean religious practices. 119

“Pillar figurines” from Judah119

The “pillar figurines” are female terracotta statuettes holding their breasts with their hands. They are no goddesses, as assumed by several authors. They represent mothers standing in the sanctuary and begging the divinity for milk to feed their babies. The statuettes were placed in the shrine, where they continuously recorded the prayers of the mothers they represented. After a certain 118 119

See here above, p. 132-133. A. Mazar, Archaeology (n. 65), p. 501.

138

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

time they were removed from the sanctuary and broken in order not to be used by other women. This explains the findings of broken figurines in favissae. Now, which divinity was worshipped by the women, is quite a different question. To get a child, Hannah was going to Yahweh’s sanctuary in Shiloh (I Sam. 1). The practice attested by these figurines explains the large number of fragments, especially of heads, found during the excavations in the City of David120. The meaning of these figurines may be larger and imply the prayer for getting a child, expressed by statuettes showing the mother nursing her child. Tell Ṣippor in the southern coastal plain, east of Ashkelon, provided a large amount of terracotta female figurines from the 5th-4th centuries B.C. They were discovered in 1963 during excavations conducted by A. Biran and O. Negbi121. The figurines, all broken in Antiquity, have been found in a pit and were most likely the refuse of a nearby sanctuary. Mineralogical and petrographic examination was carried out on them and it revealed that three different clay compositions were used. There is a type common in the Syro-Palestinian coastal area, of which about 70% of the figurines were made. A second type, found in the hilly region around Tell Ṣippor, is represented by 25% of the statuettes, while the third type, made of Rhodian clay, is represented by 5% of the Tell Ṣippor figurines122. Such figurines were probably forbidden in Judah because they represented various goddesses, especially Isis nursing Horus123. Such an interdiction is not formulated in the Bible, but it occurs in the treaty Aḇōdāh zārāh of the Tosefta and the Talmud. Aḇōdāh zārāh V, 1 of the Tosefta reads: “If someone finds a ring with the image of the moon, of the sun or of a dragon, he must throw it into the Dead Sea, also (a ring) with the figure of a nursing woman or of Sarapis”. The mention of Sarapis shows that the nursing woman is here the Egyptian goddess Isis. Beside the fragments of the feminine “pillar figurines” the excavations of the City of David provided many fragments of clay animal figurines. Among the 211 fragments depicting animals’ heads, 174 were defined as horses’ heads. Thanks to some intact figurines, it was possible to identify traces of a rider’s body applied to the body of the animal124. It seems therefore that lasting prayers for riders and their horses, sent sometimes far away, could be addressed by the family to the deity in a way similar to the practice of the “pillar figurines”. 120 D.T. Ariel and A. de Groot (eds.), Excavations in the City of David 1978-1985, Vol. IV (Qedem 35), Jerusalem 1996, p. 122-125. 121 A. Biran and O. Negbi, Tell Ṣippor, in RB 71 (1964), p. 399-400, pl. XXa-b. 122 O. Negbi, A Contribution of Mineralogy and Palaeontology to an Archaeological Study of Terracottas, in IEJ 14 (1964), p. 187-189. 123 E. Lipiński, “... Także postać Karmicielki lub Serapisa”, in SBO 7-8 (2015-16), p. 189-210 (see p. 194-201). 124 E. Tchernov, The Faunal World of the City of David as represented by the Figurines, in B.T. Ariel and A. de Groot (eds.), Excavations of the City of David (n. 119), p. 85-86.

TERACOTTA FIGURINES

139

Isis nursing Horus (Statuette in Berlin)

Fragment of a horse-and-rider figurine from Jerusalem125

Saddle-horse figurine from Tell an-Naṣbeh126 125 126

125

M. Ben-Dov, The Dig at the Temple Mount, Jerusalem 1982, p. 63 (in Hebrew). C.C. McCown, Tell en Naṣbeh. Archaeological and Historical Results, Berkeley 1947, pl. 87:1. 126

140

RELIGION IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH

The exceptional cases of other animal representations should logically be explained in a similar way. It is quite easy to do in the case of a camel or of cattle belonging to a farm, but a comparable situation should be found also for the few remaining cases. The small shrines containing such figurines could be dispersed in the city, and they should contain a symbol of divine presence, most likely a standing stone. Their great number explains the repeated reproach addressed by the Deuteronomistic historian to kings tolerating the existence of ’ăšērīm or bāmōt, although they played a role similar to chapels and oratories with lightning candles. When the prayer was heard, the figurine was removed and broken or buried somewhere.

CHAPTER VI

BETHEL, SANCTUARY AND THEONYM

Dealing with religion, a special case concerns the sanctuary of Bethel, annexed to Judah by king Josiah following the gradual dissolution of the Assyrian empire in the years 625-610 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 the cult of Bethel and related shrines 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, 19-20).

FROM BETHEL

TO

EGYPT

This text of the Deuteronomistic historian, recording Josiah’s reform with the execution of priests serving in shrines and high places of ancient Israelite territory, seems to refer to foreign cults. One thinks in particular of the NorthArabian tribes resettled in Samaria by Sargon II, probably in the area of Bethel, since Aramaic papyri from Egypt connect Bethel with North-Arabian words referring to sanctuaries, as masǧid and ḥaram. Sargon’s Annals for his seventh year (715 B.C.) record the event explicitly: “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”1. Members of these tribes assimilated to some extent to the local population, also in cultic matters, and were certainly hurt by Josiah’s reforms. Flight to Egypt appeared then as the best solution, the more so since the pharaohs of the

1 Translation of A.L. Oppenheim, in ANET, p. 286a. Cf. A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen 1994, Ann. 120-123.

142

BETHEL, SANCTUARY AND THEONYM

Twenty-Sixth Dynasty were active in Philistia and at the southern border of Egypt, face to the “Troglodytes” (’Iwntἰw)2. An important papyrus from Elephantine (Jeb), dated in 419 B.C., lists the names of persons who contributed 2 shekels each for the expenses of the temple of the god Yahu or Yahwe. The title of the list, TAD III, C3.15, col. 1, 1 reads: “On the 3rd of Phamenoth, year 5. This is (the list with) the names of the Jewish garrison who gave silver to Yahwe the God, each person: silver, [2] sh(ekels)”. It results nevertheless from the summing up of the contributions that money was wanted for Yahu (l-Yhw), for the Name of Bethel (l-’šm byt’l), and for Anath of Bethel (l-‘nt byt’l)3. The text reads4: “The silver which stood that day in the hand of Jedaniah, son of Gemariah, in the month of Phamenoth: silver, 31 karsh, 8 shekels. Herein for Yahwe 12 k(arsh), 6 sh(ekels); for Ishmi-Bethel, 7 karsh; for Anath of Bethel, silver, 12 karsh”. In these cases, Bethel is the place name identifying the deity as the one worshipped at Bethel, while ’šm is the old North-Arabian word ism, “name”, written with šin5; it replaces the proper name of the divinity, like later Jewish Ha-Šem. It seems that we have here an indirect reference to the NorthArabian tribes resettled by Sargon II in Samaria. They emigrated to Egypt with some Israelite and Canaanite people of the region annexed to Judah by king Josiah to escape the consequences of his religious reforms. They were soon joined by Judaeans fleeing in large numbers from the Babylonian occupation. The presence of this Semitic population at Elephantine and Syene (Aswān) confirms the information sent by the Jews of Elephantine to Bagohi, the governor of Judah, concerning the Jewish temple on the island: “And during the days of the king(s) of Egypt our fathers had built that temple in Elephantine the fortress and when Cambyses entered in Egypt, he found that temple built”6. The temple has thus been erected before the Persian conquest of Egypt by Cambyses (529-522 B.C.), possibly in the days of Psammetichus II (593-589 B.C.), but the first emigration probably happened earlier, in the later years of Psammetichus I (664-610 B.C.), for he was likely to have engaged Semitic mercenaries to protect the southern border of Egypt against Nubian raids.

2 W. Huss, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit, München 2001, p. 25; R. Hannig, Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Grosses Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64), 2nd ed., Mainz a/R 1997, p. 35b. 3 TAD III, C3.15, 126-128. 4 TAD III, C3.15, 123-128. 5 For the prosthetic aleph, see E. Lipiński, Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA 80), 2nd ed., Leuven 2001, §29.16. For the change š > s in Arabic, cf. ibid., §14.4. 6 TAD I, A4.7, 13-14.

FROM BETHEL TO EGYPT

143

Sketch map of the area of Elephantine and Syene7 7

The proposed interpretation of ’šm in TAD III, C3.15 is confirmed by the use of North-Arabian ḥrm (ḥaram) and msgd (masǧid), “sanctuary”, in an oath formula8 from the late 5th century B.C. found at Elephantine: bḥ[rm ’lh]’ bmsgd’ w-b‘ntyhw, “by the holy place of the God, by the sanctuary, and by Anath of Yahu”. We have here the three sacred items of the papyrus of 419 B.C., but they are named in a different way. The first God is Yahu, masǧid is the sanctuary of Bethel, and Anath of Yahu is the same goddess as Anath of Bethel, related to Yahu. A third text from Elephantine contains a judicial declaration9 ‘l ḥrm byt’l ’lhy.10, “On the holy place of Bethel, of the God...”. Also this text uses the North-Arabian noun ḥaram. It is dated from the 18th January 401 B.C. The text seems to indicate that Bethel is a divine name. However, leaving aside the 7

E.G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, New Haven 1953, p. 22. TAD II, B7.3, 3. 9 TAD II, B7.2, 7-8. 10 The final letter does not seem to be aleph. Yōd is possible, but it is followed by a small stroke. 8

144

BETHEL, SANCTUARY AND THEONYM

North-Arabian word ḥaram, one could interpret byt’l as “House of El”. But this is not the case in a private letter sent to Syene (Aswān), towards the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 5th century B.C.; it begins as follows11: šlm byt Bt’l w-byt Mlkt šmyn, “Greetings to the temple of Bethel12 and to the temple of the Queen of Heaven”. The letter refers clearly to deities worshipped at Syene by people speaking Aramaic, but most were neither Israelites nor Judaeans. Greetings are sent also to persons whose names and patronymics show that they belonged to families living in Egypt since several generations, for instance “Greetings to Shail, son of Peṭeḥorṭais, and Ashah, son of Peṭekhnum”13. There is also a recommendation concerning Bethelnatan (Byt’lntn) and showing that Bethel is used as theonym: “Take care of Bethelnatan”14. B. Porten noticed that “El does not appear in any of the personal names from Elephantine-Syene. His place is taken by Bethel ‘The House of El’”15. In fact, El appears in only one personal name of a witness mentioned in a document dated from July 6, 451 B.C.: Šk’l br Nbwkṣr16. His name is Aramaic17. It means “God has looked out”, the verbal root being śky, but the patronymic is Akkadian18. The man does not seem therefore to belong to the West-Semitic population settled since generations at Elephantine-Syene. Since names with the theophorous element ’l appear at Saqqara in the 5th century B.C.19 and are attested later in Egypt20, one must conclude that ’l has been replaced by Bethel in the anthroponomy of Aramaic speaking population of Elephantine-Syene. The importance of Bethel at Elephantine is most likely linked to the presence of his temple at Syene. To understand the situation one should recall the origins of the Aramaean community settled there from the late 7th century B.C. Summing up, the coming of Semitic mercenaries to Egypt at the time of Psammetichus I seems to have a connection with king Josiah’s religious persecutions in the area of Bethel after annexing this region to Judah. The consequences of his reform seem to explain the emigration of some population from this area to Egypt, in particular to Syene and Elephantine. They were later 11

TAD I, A2.1, 1. This is by no means a goddess, as stated by P. Dec, Kolekcja listów rodzinnych z Hermopolis i papirusy z Elefantyny. Przekład i komentarz, in SBO 7-8 (2015-16), p. 85-103 (see p. 96, n. 77). 13 TAD I, A2.1, 11-12. 14 TAD I, A2.1, 8-9. 15 B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, Berkeley - Los Angeles 1968, p. 169. 16 TAD II, B3.2, 11. 17 A.M. Bagg, Sakâ-il, in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 1065b. 18 A.M. Bagg, Nabû-kāṣir, in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 838b-839a. It means “Nabû is the one who strengthens”. 19 Brk’l, ‘ṭy’l, ’ly’yt’, ’lšw, in J.B. Segal, Aramaic Texts from North Saqqâra, London 1983, nos 28a:1; 31a:3; 28b:2; 44:7; 69b:1. 20 TAD IV, D8.4, 22: Šnt-’l, 3rd century B.C. 12

FROM BETHEL TO EGYPT

145

Elephantine, Judaeo-Aramaean quarter (photo: G. Vittmann)

allowed to build there a sanctuary dedicated to their Semitic divinity. The dating of the emigration in the later period of Josiah’s reign corresponds to the approximate date proposed long ago by A. Vincent21, who nevertheless assumed that the Judaeo-Aramaeans of Elephantine ignored Josiah’s reform22. He dates it in 622 B.C. and therefore places their coming to Egypt in a somewhat earlier period of the 7th century B.C. However, still in the 5th century B.C. the Elephantine Jews were seeing nothing wrong in having their own temple, though a Temple of Yahweh existed in Jerusalem. Moreover, when the Judaeo-Aramaean temple of Elephantine was completely plundered in 411/410 B.C. by believers of the Egyptian god Khnum and by priests of the latter’s nearby situated sanctuary with the help of the Persian commander Vidranga, the Jews appealed to the high priest Jehohanan in Jerusalem to take steps to restore the temple in Elephantine23. They obviously disregarded Josiah’s reform, more than two centuries old, and were surprised that the high priest in Jerusalem did not see fit to answer them. They wrote then to Bagohi, the governor of Judah, who 21 A. Vincent, La religion des Judéo-araméens d’Éléphantine, Paris 1937. This study requires serous revisions and updating. 22 Ibid., p. 357. 23 TAD I, A4.7, 18; A4.8, 17.

146

BETHEL, SANCTUARY AND THEONYM

Elephantine, pavement of the Yahu temple (photo: G. Vittmann)

answered them about 408 B.C. after having consulted Delayah, the governor of Samaria: “Memorandum of what Bagohi and Delayah said to me, saying: Memorandum: You may say in Egypt before Arsames about the Altar-house of the God of Heaven which was built formerly in Elephantine the fortress, before Cambyses, and which that wicked Vidranga demolished in year 14 of King Darius: to (re)build it on its site as it was formerly, and they shall offer the meal-offering and the incense upon that altar just as was done formerly” (TAD I, A4.9).

The decision taken by Bagohi and Delayah is addressed in fact to Arsames, the Persian governor of Egypt. It disregards completely Josiah’s reforms, although these were obviously known to the priests of the Temple of Jerusalem. The Judaeo-Aramaeans of Elephantine had acted in the same way in the late 7th or 6th century B.C., when the temple of Yahu was built in Elephantine.

BETHEL AS STELE

147

BETHEL AS STELE The explanations proposed in the preceding pages do not resolve entirely the problem of the origin of the theonym Bethel and of its use instead of El in the area of Elephantine-Syene. This theonym is attested from the 7th century B.C. and occurs first in Esarhaddon’s treaty with Baal, king of Tyre. This treaty was probably concluded after the conquest and destruction of Sidon in 676 B.C. Its formulation is relatively favourable to the king of Tyre, but Assyrian and Syro-Phoenician deities are invoked in the oath formula considering the eventual breach of the agreement by the king of Tyre: “May Bethel and Anath-Bethel [throw] you to the paws of a man-eating lion”24. The Sidonian provenance of Bethel, assumed by T.J. Milik25, provides no convincing hypothesis. The cuneiform spelling Ba-a-a-ti-DINGIR.MEŠ of Bethel’s name in Esarhaddon’s treaty shows that it is based on Old Aramaic Byt’l, not on a Phoenician form which should be Bt’l. The goddess Anath, mentioned with Bethel, was known also in Israel, as shown by the patronymic of Shamgar, son of Anath (Judg. 3:31)26, but Anath-Bethel is a particular figure of the goddess appearing with ’IšmBethel at Elephantine in the late 5th century B.C.27 and she is called “Queen of Heaven” in a letter found at Hermopolis Magna28. The next text apparently mentioning Bethel as theonym is Jer. 48:13, which refers to Bethel in parallelism with the Moabite god Chemosh, whose name occurs also in an inscription from Reḥob, unless Kmš is an abridged personal name29. Jer. 48:13 reads: “Moab shall be betrayed by Chemosh, like the House of Israel was betrayed by Bethel which was their hope”

According to many authors, Bethel is here a divine epithet30, a surrogate for Yahweh. The writer could not place Yahweh on the same level as Chemosh and pretend that he disappointed his people. He thus used a different name, but a theonym Bethel does not occur in other biblical texts, while the temple at Bethel is often mentioned and it is usually condemned by Judaean writers. It seems therefore that the toponym Bethel was used in Jer. 48:13 instead of Yahweh or El, implying again that the cult practiced in this shrine had betrayed 24 S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Royalty Oaths (SAA II), Helsinki 1988, p. 27, no 5, IV, 6’-7’. 25 T.J. Milik, Les papyrus araméens d’Hermoupolis et les cultes syro-phéniciens en Égypte perse, in Biblica 48 (1967), p. 546-622, pl. I, in particular p. 565-577 dealing with the god Bethel. 26 Anath is here the abridged form of a personal name. 27 TAD III, C3.15, 127-128. 28 TAD I, A2.1, 1, cf. here above, p. 144. 29 Cf. E. Lipiński, A History of the Kingdom of Israel (OLA 275), Leuven 2018, p. 70, n. 22. 30 J.P. Hyatt, The Deity Bethel in the Old Testament, in JAOS 59 (1939), p. 81-98.

148

BETHEL, SANCTUARY AND THEONYM

the House of Israel. The translators of the Septuagint did not see any difference between the use of Byt’l in Jer. 31:13 (LXX) and the place name Βαιθηλ. If this interpretation is correct, the first origin of the theonym Bethel cannot be linked to the biblical place name and to its shrine, despite the many personal names with the theophorous element Bethel among the Judaeo-Aramaean population of Elephantine. Such names occur also elsewhere. The first origin of the theophorous element Bethel seems to be an Aramaean ambience of northern Syria. One century after Esarhaddon’s treaty an Aramaean official of the Babylonian crown prince’s household is called “Bethel is a bull”, Baytil-šūr. The document is dated to year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar II, i.e. 563 B.C.31 In an Aramaic sale contract, written on a clay tablet, dated in 571/570 B.C., and presumably originating from Sefire, 22 km southeast of Aleppo, four persons bear a name with the theophorous element Bethel32. The buyer is called Byt’l‘šny, “O Bethel, help me!”, the seller is Byt’lyd‘, “Bethel has recognized”, two witnesses are called Byt’ldlny, “Bethel has saved me”. J.T. Milik has also seen at Aleppo a seal with the name Byt’lpn33, “Bethel paid attention”, the verbal root being possibly pny. These documents suggest searching the geographic origin of the theonym Bethel in northern Syria. The Cisjordanian Bethel is by no means the unique toponym bearing such a name34. Besides, any “House of God” can easily become the current appellation of the deity worshipped in this place or shrine. Before becoming a theonym byt’l, “House of God”, was a popular designation of the maṣṣēbāh, the dressed stone symbolizing the divine presence. This is shown by the occasional use of North-Arabian bayt with reference to a standing stone35. An earlier use of the expression “House of God” to designate a stele occurs in the Sefire inscription IIC, 2-3.7.9-10, where bty ’lhy’ refers to the stelae themselves36, like in Gen. 28:2237. The god Bethel thus seems to owe his

31

P.A. Beaulieu, An Aramaean (or Israelite) in the Service of the Crown Prince Amēl-Marduk, in NABU 2015/4, p. 105. 32 A. Lemaire, Nouvelles tablettes araméennes (Hautes Études Orientales 34), Genève 2001, p. 64-68, with former literature. 33 J.T. Milik, Les papyrus araméens (n. 25), p. 565. 34 For the toponym Bīt-ili, see S. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6), KevelaerNeukirchen-Vluyn 1970, p. 83. 35 H. Lammens, Le culte des bétyles et les processions religieuses chez les Arabes préislamiques, in BIFAO 17 (1919), p. 39-101, in particular p. 65-88; J. Pirenne, La religion des Arabes préislamiques d’après trois sites rupestres et leurs inscriptions, in Al-Bahit (ed.), Festschrift Joseph Henninger (Studia Instituti Anthropos 28), Bonn 1976, p. 177-217 (see p. 191-200); M.-J. Roche, Les bétyles de Pétra, forthcoming. 36 J.A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriprions of Sefire, rev. ed. (Biblica et Orientalia 19A), Roma 1995, p. 131-132 37 A. de Pury, Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob. Genèse 28 et les traditions patriarcales, Paris 1975, p. 424-430, in particular p. 426-428.

BETHEL AS STELE

149

existence to a process of divinization of stelae symbolizing the divine presence in a shrine38. The appellative divinization of the stele seems to have happened about the th th 8 /7 century B.C. in Syria, but it is difficult to propose its precise geographic origin. Instead, the frequent use of Bethel in the personal names of ElephantineSyene should be related to the presence of a temple of the God of Bethel at Syene. It is mentioned in the initial greetings of one of the letters found at Hemopolis Magna and addressed “to the temple of Bethel and to the temple of the Queen of Heaven”39. The reference to Bethel among Aramaeans native from northern Syria probably influenced the religious vocabulary of people from the area of Palestinian Bethel, resettled in Egypt. This led to an identification of the place name with the theonym, which initially referred in Syria to dressed stones symbolizing the divine presence in a shrine. Much later Greek inscriptions seem to preserve this North-Syrian tradition, which one should connect, to some extent, with the cult of Bethel by the Aramaeans of Elephantine-Syene and with his mention in the Aramaic papyrus Amherst 63 in Demotic script40. A 3rd century A.D. inscription from Dura Europos, found in the temple of Palmyrene deities, refers to “the ancestral god Zeus Betylos of those who dwell along the Orontes”41. The Greek inscription from Kafr Nābo, a village of the Ǧebel Sim‘ān in the Antiochene area, dated in 224 A.D., is dedicated to Σείμῳ καὶ Συμβετύλῳ καὶ Λεόντι θεοῖς πατρῷοις42, “to Seima, and to the Name of Bethel, and to the Lion, (their) ancestral gods”. Seima is the South-Arabian title of a patron deity43. The second theonym designates an avatar of the divine name, like Jewish Ha-Šem, qualified by Bethel, while the Lion could be the support of a divinity, quite often Ištar’s, which is represented standing on a lion44. *   * * 38 T.N.D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament series 42), Stockholm 1995, p. 72 and 130-132. 39 Cf. here above, p. 144. 40 J.W. Wesselius and W.C. Delsman, in TUAT II, Güttersloh 1986-91, p. 930-932. 41 H. Seyrig in N.I. Rostovtzeff, Excavations at Dura-Europos IV, New Haven 1933, p. 38-71, n° 168, pl. XV, 1; J.T. Milik, Les papyrus araméens (n. 25), p. 568. 42 IGLS II, p. 215-217, n° 376, reading corrected by J.T. Milik, Les papyrus araméens (n. 25), p. 569. 43 A.F.L. Beeston, M.A. Ghūl, W.W. Müller, and J. Ryckmans, Sabaic Dictionary (EnglishFrench-Arabic) / Dictionnaire sabéen (anglais-français-arabe), Louvain-la-Neuve - Beyrouth 1982, p. 136. 44 ANEP, n° 522.

150

BETHEL, SANCTUARY AND THEONYM

To conclude, the name of Bethel can be a reference to the deity, which was worshipped at Bethel, in the former kingdom of Israel, by the ancestral population of this area and by North-Arabian and other clans resettled there at the time of Sargon II. The mixed origin of the worshippers is shown by the theonyms ’šm Byt’l and ‘nt-Byt’l45, simplified to Byt’l in references to its temple at Syene46 and in the Aramaic papyrus Amherst 63, col. XII, 1847. The theonym occurs also in nine different anthroponyms of the Elephantine-Syene area48 and in four names of the Aramaic inscriptions from Saqqara49. O. Eissfeldt regarded the biblical sanctuary at Bethel as the place where the cult of the god Bethel originated50. The particular use of Bethel in Egypt should nevertheless be related also to the North-Syrian use of the name byt’l of a sacred pillar to designate the deity. Some contacts between the two usages and an influence of the North-Syrian Bethel are quite likely in the area of Elephantine-Syene. Besides, maṣṣēbāh, the standing stone, already plays a role in the traditional association of Bethel with Jacob’s dream (Gen. 28:10-22). Fleeing from his brother Esau, Jacob spent the night there and saw in his dream a ladder reaching to heaven with angels ascending and descending it. A voice spoke then to him and assured him of Yahweh’s protection and confirmed the promise that the land on which he rested would be given to him and to his descendants. Arising the next morning Jacob erected a maṣṣēbāh over which he poured oil as a thanksgiving sacrifice, saying that the stele will become a “House of God”. Judaean names on Late Babylonian tablets offer a different picture with many names in Ya-ḫu-ú or DINGIR.MEŠ, the Akkadian logogram indicating the plural (MEŠ) of the word ilu, “god”. This spelling is inspired by Hebrew ’Elōhīm, which designates the unique God who has the attributes of all the assumed deities of the nations51. No particular use of theonyms is noticed in recently published documents of Judaean and West-Semitic exiles in rural Babylonia, dating between 572 and 47752 B.C. As for the texts from the trading

45

TAD III, C15, 127-128. TAD I, A2.1, 1. 47 S.P. Vleeming and J.W. Wesselius, Bethel the Saviour, in Jaarbericht “Ex Oriente Lux” 28 (1983-84), p. 110-140; īd., Studies in Papyrus Amherst 63, Amsterdam 1985, p. 45, 51, 59, 103, 109; īd., in TUAT II, Güttersloh 1986-91, p. 930-932. 48 W. Kornfeld, Onomastica Aramaica aus Ägypten (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Kl. 333), Wien 1978, p. 43. 49 J.B. Segal, Aramaic Texts (n. 19): Byt’lnwry (n° 53, 20), Byt’lšrh (n° 30a, 3), Byt’lśgb (nos 9, 7; 47, 6 reading corrected in TAD), Byt’ltqwm (n° 47, 7). 50 O. Eissfeldt, Kleine Schriften I, Tübingen 1962, p. 206-233. 51 A similar trend toward quasi-monotheism is attested in Phoenician, using sometimes the plural ’elīm as a singular, and in Akkadian using DINGIR.MEŠ with verbs in the singular. One could add that the plural may express an abstract idea, such as Divinity. 52 A. Berlejung, Social Climbing in the Babylonian Exile, in A. Berlejung, A.M. Maeir, and A. Schüle (eds.), Wandering Arameans: Arameans outside Syria (Leipziger altorientalische Studien 5), Wiesbaden 2017, p. 101-124. 46

BETHEL AS STELE

151

house of Murašû in the area of Nippur, belonging to the years 455-403 B.C., their Judaean names offer several anthroponyms in El, written DINGIR.MEŠ, and only four names with Bethel53. Since a theonym Bethel is not used in Biblical Hebrew, the presumed change of El into Bethel must have been fashionable in Aramaean ambience, probably since the 5th century B.C. It implies no religious change, as shown, for instance, in the case of Bethel-natan, son of Yahō-natan54, who was certainly Jew and bore a name paralleled by Hebrew El-natan, attested also in the Murašû archives. The use of the theonym Bethel instead of El appears therefore as a current fashion in some Judaeo-Aramaean ambiences of the Persian period, not involving any fundamental religious changes. The North-Syrian use of Bethel might instead refer to another divinity, but it designates most likely the upper deity, as shown by the Greek composed theonym Zeus Betylos, and it hides a quasimonotheistic conception of God.

53 M.D. Coogan, West Semitic Names in the Murašū Documents (HSM 7), Missoula 1976, p. 43-49. 54 TAD II, B6.4, 10.

CHAPTER VII

BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THE NETHERWORLD

Decent burial of the dead in tombs belonged to the religious ritual, both among nomads and among settled peoples of the ancient Near East. Cremation, however, was not unknown in biblical times, and “burning” was one of the four death penalties imposed by biblical law for a number of offences (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 20:14; 21:9; Josh. 7:15, 25; Isa. 30:33). However, burning of certain criminals was a mode of execution, not a mode of burial. Instead, I Sam. 31:11-13 refers to the cremation of the mutilated remains of King Saul and of his three sons by men of Jabesh-Gilead, who did it by undying gratitude to Saul. Besides, “they collected the bones and buried them under the tamarisk at Jabesh”, thus providing them a grave. References to “burnings” at the funeral of certain kings of Judah (Jer. 34:5; II Chron. 16:14; 21:19) do not provide evidence that cremation was sometimes practiced. These texts refer most likely to the burning of incense in honour of the dead king. However, cremation is attested in various sites of the Near East from the mid-second millennium B.C., but remains exceptional, except at Ḥama in central Syria1, where the influence of the Neo-Hittite kingdom of Hamath probably played a role in the Iron Age. Two cases of cremation are also attested at Tell Ḥalaf (Guzana, Gōzān) and seem to concern high-rank citizens, perhaps priestesses of the 10th-9th centuries B.C. The excavation of Tell Beit-Mirṣim, south of Lachish, have also uncovered a case of cremation2. Nevertheless, Am. 2:1 reprobates Moab for “having burnt the bones of the king of Edom to lime”. A permanent grave in the vicinity of the settlement belonged often to burial customs of settled population. Symptomatic is the story of Abraham’s purchase of a familial tomb (Gen. 23:4). Joseph’s burial in Shechem, in the heart of “the great house of Joseph”3, must be seen as expression of the same custom (Josh. 24:32), seen from a historical point of view. No similar account exists for Judah, who was no real tribal ancestor; it was a toponym qualifying a land without gorges, ’ereṣ yǝhūdāh (root whd).

1

P.J. Riis, Hama II/3. Les cimetières à crémation, Copenhagen 1948. E. Strommenger, Grab I. Iraq und Iran, in RLA III, Berlin 1957-71, p. 581-593 (see p. 592); B. Hrouda, Grab II. Syrien und Palästina, in RLA III, Berlin 1957-71, p. 593-603 (see p. 601); M. Weippert, Sarkophag, Urne, Ossuar, in K. Galling (ed.), Biblisches Reallexikon, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1977, p. 269-276 (see p. 273). 3 E. Lipiński, A History of the Kingdom of Israel (OLA 275), Leuven 2018, p. 2-6. 2

154

BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THE NETHERWORLD

The custom to bury the dead in a family plot is very well attested in Judah in Iron Age II, the period in which the Patriarchal narratives of the Bible were written; in earlier times, this mortuary practice did not exist in the highlands. This explains the extremely small number of discovered burials from Iron Age I in these areas4. This most likely means that Iron I dead were buried in simple inhumations, usually not observable or not preserved. Such burials can be identified only accidentally. Also most of the Iron Age II population was buried in a simple way, but a new type of familial, rock-hewn tombs began to appear in Judah in the 9th century B.C.5 JUDAEAN ROCK-CUT

TOMBS

Concerning Jerusalem, attention should be paid here to the burial chambers discovered in Silwān (Siloam village), in the area north of the Old City, and on the eastern slopes of the Western Hill, near the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. The form of several of these tombs is foreign to Judah and was very likely inspired by Phoenician prototypes. These tombs express Phoenician

Interior of a burial cave on the grounds of the St. Étienne monastery6

4 E. Bloch-Smith, Resurrecting the Iron Age I Dead, in IEJ 54 (2004), p. 77-91; A. Faust, Mortuary Practices. Society and Ideology: The Lack of Iron Age I Burials in the Highlands in Context, in IEJ 54 (2004), p. 174-190. 5 A. Faust and S. Bunimovitz, The Judahite Rock-cut Tomb: Family Response at a Time of Change, in IEJ 58 (2008), p. 150-170. 6 Photo: A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E., New York 1990, p. 523.

JUDAEAN ROCK-CUT TOMBS

155

influence in Jerusalem, perhaps due to the heterogeneous population of the city, and must date to the 9th and 8th centuries B.C. As some of the Silwān tombs were not finished, it was assumed that they have been commissioned by officials who had close ties with Phoenicia and whose influence came abruptly to an end, supposedly in the second half of the 9th century B.C.7 However, they can also be related to the presence of Phoenician craftsmen in Jerusalem at the time of the works commissioned by Ahaz on the Temple Mount, as exposed above, while the works in the necropolis were interrupted by some event, for instance by Sennacherib’s attack in 701 B.C. The most elaborated tombs were identified in the area of the St. Étienne monastery and biblical school of the Dominicans, north of the Damascus Gate8.

Plan of the largest burial cave in Jerusalem, on the grounds of the St. Étienne monastery9 7 D. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan. The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom, Jerusalem 1993, in particular p. 331. 8 A. Mazar, Iron Age Burial Caves North of the Damascus Gate, in IEJ 26 (1976), p. 1-8. See also id., Archaeology (n. 6), p. 521-525. 9 According to A. Mazar, Archaeology (n. 6), p. 522.

156

BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THE NETHERWORLD

Among them, two exceptionally large caves consist of a central hall surrounded by several benched rooms. Architectural details recall burial caves of kings of Urartu and suggest cultural connections, possibly going back to Hurrian relations of Jerusalem rulers in Middle Bronze II and Iron Age I-II A. The burial rooms in the cave have usually three benches and repositories for collecting the bones. These two caves must have served as burial place of important families, perhaps even of the last kings of Judah. Neither the royal tombs in the City of David nor “the burial field belonging to the kings” (II Chron. 26:23) have been discovered. On the southern tip of the Ophel, R. Weill found in 1914 monumental walls that he identified as the graves of the House of David10, but they later appeared to be fragments of a complicated series of fortifications. A number of hewn graves dating from the monarchic period and belonging to high officials have instead been uncovered above the Kidron Valley. The lintel of one of these tombs partially preserves the Hebrew epitaph, dated to the late 8th century B.C. The owner of the tomb, a high-ranking royal official bearing the title ’šr ‘l hbyt, was buried there with his ’āmāh11.

A fragment of another inscription was found above the entrance to the so-called “tomb of the Daughter of Pharaoh” hewn in the rock of Silwān (Siloam village). 10

R. Weill, La Cité de David II, Paris 1947. N. Avigad, The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from Siloam Village, in IEJ 3 (1953), p. 137152, pls. 8-11. 11

JUDAEAN ROCK-CUT TOMBS

157

It was investigated as early as 1865 by F. de Saulcy12. A survey of such rockhewn graves at Silwān was made by D. Ussishkin in 196813 and other rock-cut tombs were then examined by B. Mazar south of the Temple Mount. In the Kidron Valley there was a necropolis of common people, which has been desecrated by king Josiah (II Kings 23:6), probably because they were opposed to his reform destructing the shrines of popular Yahwistic religion. The above mentioned statement of the epitaph that “there is no silver and no gold here” acquires its full meaning when we notice that various offerings and precious objects are found in Judaean burials. The seal of the deceased was sometimes placed in his tomb14 together with his weapons, jewellery, and other items. The profusion of offerings can be noticed especially in the burial caves of Ketef Ḥinnom15 on the slopes of the Ḥinnom Valley in Jerusalem, southwest of the Western Hill16 For instance, two silver talismans with an inscription engraved in miniature letters were found by G. Barkay17 in the repository of a burial cave at Ketef Ḥinnom. It quotes an abridged version of Numb. 6:24-25: “Yahweh bless you and watch over you! Yahweh make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you!”

The pottery vessels found in tombs probably contained food and drink for the dead, while oil lamps served to light their way to the abode of dead. Such offerings confirm not only the existence of the belief in the afterlife, but also the assumption that a road leads in darkness to the abode of dead. This recalls 12 F. de Saulcy, Voyage en Terre Sainte I-II, Paris 1865, including his account of the excavation of the supposed tombs of the kings in vol. I, p. 345-410; vol. II, p. 188-189, 309-311. 13 D. Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan. The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom, Jerusalem 1993. 14 R. Hestrin and M. Dayagi-Mendels, Seals from the First Temple Period, Jerusalem 1978 (in Hebrew). 15 G. Barkay, Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age, in I. Singer (ed.), Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period, Jerusalem 1994, p. 96-164 (in Hebrew); id., Burial Caves and Dwellings in Judah during Iron Age II. Sociological Aspects, in A. Faust and R. Maeir (eds.), Material Culture, Society and Ideology: New Directions in the Archaeology of the Land of Israel, Ramat Gan 1999, p. 96-102 (in Hebrew). 16 It is interesting to see how this area was described hundred years ago: K. Bædeker, Palestine et Syrie. Manuel du voyageur, 4th ed., Leipzig 1912, p. 81: “Le versant du Djébel Abou Tôr est couvert de tombeaux creusés dans le roc ayant chacun une entrée basse, souvent décorée d’ornements, à laquelle conduit parfois un escalier ; quelques-uns ont des portes de pierre. Il y a à l’intérieur plusieurs caveaux de famille. Ces tombeaux ont souvent été utilisés dans le cours des temps: au commencement du moyen âge, ils ont été habités par des ermites ; plus tard, ils ont servi d’abri à des familles pauvres ou encore d’étables pour les bestiaux”. 17 G. Barkay, Ketef Hinnom. A Treasury Facing Jerusalem’s Walls (Israel Museum Catalogue 274), Jerusalem 1986, p. 34-35; id., The Priestly Benediction on the Ketef Hinnom Plaques, in Cathedra 52 (1989), p. 37-78 (in Hebrew); id., The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem, in Tel Aviv 19 (1992), p. 139-192 (see p. 162, fig. 13).

158

BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THE NETHERWORLD

Inscribed talisman from a grave in Ketef Ḥinnom (n. 17).

the Road to the Sun in the Epic of Gilgamesh IX, col. IV, 44-V, 46. Biblical texts are generally very vague. Isa. 14:19-20 and Ez. 31:15-18 only reflect a belief that those who were slain by the sword or were not decently buried are assigned to the lowest level of the netherworld, where rules Šuwala, mentioned in both texts. Similar rock-cut tombs are also found in other places, for instance at Gibeon (el-Ǧib) and near Tel Maresha (Tell Ṣandaḥanna), 6 km northeast of Lachish.

JUDAEAN ROCK-CUT TOMBS

159

Entrance of a rock-hewn tomb at Tel Maresha (photo: S. Halliday)

The site is listed among the towns of Judah (Josh. 15:44; cf. I Chron. 4:21), but the necropolis dates from the third and second centuries B.C., when Maresha was the Hellenistic capital of western Idumaea18. Thirty-four burial caves of Gibeon, near Jerusalem, have been discovered in 1870 and another one was accidentally found in 1949. Eight of them have been carefully described by H. Eshel in 198719, who noticed some variations in their structure. Rock-cut tombs characterize the burial practice of the middle and upper classes of Judah’s population. This new custom is a consequence of social change resulting from increasing income due to mass production and trade, sensible especially in urban centres, mainly in Jerusalem20. This process was at its peak in the 7th century B.C., during the pax Assyriaca. It seems to be paralleled to some extent by the apparition of tombstones, named maṣṣebet, as the 18 A precise study was offered in 1984 by E. Oren and U. Rappaport, The Necropolis of Maresha-Beth Govrin, in IEJ 34 (1984), p. 114-153, pls. 10-18. 19 H. Eshel, The Late Iron Age Cemetery of Gibeon, in IEJ 37 (1987), p. 1-17. 20 A. Faust and S. Bunimovitz, The Judahite Rock-cut Tomb (n. 5), p. 156-162.

160

BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THE NETHERWORLD

one set up by Jacob over the grave of Rachel according to Gen. 35:20, written in Iron Age II. Another term, ṣiyyūn, is used in a similar sense in II Kings 23:17, where king Josiah is said to have noticed the ṣiyyūn (σκόπελον in the Septuagint) over the grave of the prophet who had predicted Josiah’s reforms. Also Ez. 39:15 uses ṣiyyūn for a mark placed over a grave. However, tombstones recording a single person lack the collective meaning of the rock-cut family tombs which materialize the continuation of the family in the afterlife. This idea is expressed by the Deuteronomistic historian each time when he records that a dead king has joined his forefathers. SHEOL Judaean burial customs are related to the Sheol, that undoubtedly designates the netherworld, where the spirits of the dead descend21. The word Š’wl was originally the name of a Hurrian goddess22. It has no Semitic etymology, although several scholars have tried to derive it from Akkadian23. The problem is that they did not notice that the aleph does not indicate a consonant of the root, but serves at separating šin and waw to avoid a pronunciation šūl. The same use of aleph occurs in R’wbn in order to avoid a reading Rūben or in Rṣy’n at Qumran (1QIsa. 9:10) to avoid a pronunciation Raṣīn or Rǝṣīn. The consonantal Hebrew spelling of the theonym should thus be Šwl. The expected pronunciation of the name was then Šuwala24, which should not be confused with the Hittite god Šuwaliyatt25. Despite the constant biblical spelling š’wl, the aleph is sometimes missing in the Targums, also in Neophyti Targum, and one finds then the spellings šywl, šywl’, šyywl26. These spellings might suggest a reading Šiwala, Šīwal or Šēwal, since yod could be here a mater lectionis. However, Syriac vocalizes the word šǝyōl, while the Parthian spelling šwlh in Frahang-i Pahlavīk II, 2027, based on 21

L. Wächter, še’ôl, in ThDOT XIV, Grand Rapids 2004, p. 239-248. E. Laroche, Glossaire de la langue hourrite II (RHA 35 [1977]), Paris 1979, p. 174 and 245. 23 L. Wächter, še’ôl (n. 21), p. 240. 24 Cf. E. Lipiński, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II (OLA 57), Leuven 1994, p. 31-32, 50, 73; id., Šuwala, in O. Drewnowska (ed.), Here & There. Across the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of Krystyna Łyczkowska, Warszawa 2009, p. 115-120; H. Niehr, Unterwelt, Unterweltsgottheiten. D. Nordwestsemitisch, in RLA XIV, Berlin 2014-15, p. 348-350 (see p. 349b, §4). 25 D. Schwemer, Šuwalijatt, in RLA XIII, Berlin 2011-13, p. 374-376. This confusion encumbers the argumentation of D.E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar (Harvard Semitic Studies 42), Atlanta 1992, p. 139, n. 222; p. 251, n. 199. 26 M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature II, New York 1903, p. 1558; M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 3rd ed., Ramat Gan 2017, p. 612. 27 B. Utas and Chr. Toll (eds.), Frahang-i Pahlavīk, Wiesbaden 1988, p. 42, 64. 22

SHEOL

161

East Aramaic, is likely to stand for Šuwala or Šwāla, not for šōlā. The final a is preserved and indicated by he, although it was generally lost since a quite early period. Šuwala appears already as dŠu-a-la in Ur-III documents28 and she is often associated in Kizzuwadna (Cilicia) with the Hurrian goddess Nabarbi, to such extent that her name looks sometimes like a Nabarbi’s cognomen29. She entered the West-Semitic pantheon in the Late Bronze Age and is mentioned both at Ugarit and Emar. An Ugaritic tablet lists unspecified offerings to various deities, among them l-Ṯwl⌜y⌝30 whose name is written with a final -y like another goddess’ name ending in -a in syllabic texts, namely ’Isḫry / ’Usḫry for Išḫara. The same orthographic peculiarity appears in many Ugaritian place names, as Gb‘ly = Gibala, Ḫldy = Ḫulda, M‘rby = Ma‘araba, ’Ubr‘y = Ubura, etc. Šuwala is also mentioned in a Hurrian alphabetic text from Ugarit: her name is spelt Ṯwl and she is placed between Kumarbi and Nubadig31. These spellings Ṯwl and Ṯwly with the interdental ṯ explain the form Swl of the Tell Fekherye inscription32, which constantly uses “s” to mark the etymological ṯ33. At Emar, d Šu-wa-la appears in Semitic rituals together with Nergal (dU.GUR)34, and Nergal is mentioned after her in the Aramaic imprecation of the Tell Fekherye inscription (Nyrgl: line 23), while his name is conspicuously absent from the Assyrian version, the parallelism of which is dismantled by the Aramaic mention of Šuwala and of Nergal (lines 18-23). This parallelism corresponds exactly to the couple of dŠu-wa-la and dU.GUR in the Emar texts35 and shows that Šuwala is not identified at Tell Fekherye with the goddess Šāla, mentioned in the cuneiform text. She replaces the Akkadian goddess and brings on the reference to Nergal. 28

R. Zadok, Remarks on the Inscription of Hdys‘y from Tell Fakhariya, in Tel Aviv 9 (1982), p. 117-129 (see p. 121, n. 4). The author refers to D. Loding, Economic Texts from the Third Dynasty (UET IX), London 1976, No. 111, col. III, 8’. 29 E. Laroche, Glossaire (n. 22), p. 174. Cf. H.G. Güterbock, The God Šuwaliyat Reconsidered, in RHA 19 (1961), p. 1-18 (see p. 15). 30 KTU 1.81, 24. The correct reading of l was already recognized by Ch. Virolleaud, Le Palais royal d’Ugarit II, Paris 1957, n° 4, in margin. 31 RS 24.274, 4, published by E. Laroche, in Ugaritica V, Paris 1968, p. 504. The editor hesitates to identify Ṯwl with Šuwala because of her association with Kumarbi, the Hurrian Dagan, and with Nubadig (ibid., p. 505). However, the latter is a characteristic deity of Kizzuwadna (Cilicia), a fact which might explain this juxtaposition of theonyms. Cf. M.L. Barré, dLAMMA and Rešep at Ugarit: the Hittite Connection, in JAOS 98 (1978), p. 465-467; E. Laroche, Glossaire (n. 22), p. 186-187. 32 A. Abou-Assaf, B. Bordreuil, and A.R. Millard, La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne, Paris 1982, Aramaic Inscription, line 18; E. Lipiński, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II (OLA 57), Leuven 1994, p. 48. 33 The divine name Swl should be added to the list compiled by A. Abou-Assaf, B. Bordreuil, and A.R. Millard, La statue de Tell Fekherye (n. 32), p. 44, and other authors. 34 D. Arnaud, Recherches au Pays d’Aštata. Emar VI/3, Paris 1986, No. 385, 23. She is also mentioned in Nos. 328, 2; 388, 6.57. 35 E. Lipiński, Šuwala (n. 24), p. 115-120.

162

BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THE NETHERWORLD

The cult of Šuwala is represented in Middle-Assyrian by the name Erīb-Sua-la36, “Šuwala has replaced” the child that she had taken away. Her cult is still attested among Western Semites in the beginning of the 7th century B.C. by the feminine proper name fA-mat- (d)Su-’a-la37, “Maidservant of Šuwala”. The goddess’ association with Nergal indicates that she is a chthonic deity and that the Hebrew name of the underworld, šǝ’ôl, is related to Šuwala’s name and nature. Hebrew poetry used the parallelism Šuwala // Môt, the god of the underworld in Ugaritic mythology38. Môt often parallels Šuwala in the Bible: II Sam. 22:6; Isa. 28:15, 18; 38:18; Hos. 13:14; Hab. 2:5; Ps. 6:6; 18:6; 49:15; 55:16; 89:49; 116:3; Prov. 5:5; 7:27; Cant. 8:6. One can add 11QPsa 19:9-10: “I became Môt’s property for my sins and my iniquities sold me to Šuwala.”

The same connection occurs also in Qumran Hymns, thus in 1QH 9:4: “The waves of Môt [surrounded me] and on the layer of my bed Šuwala intonated a lament.”

Or in 1QH 3:9-10: “Amid Môt’s waves she shall give birth to a male and in Šuwala’s bonds he shall surge from the womb of the gravid one.”

Both passages are inspired by Ps. 18:4-5 or by David’s canticle in II Sam. 22:5-6: “The waves of Môt’s swept round me, the torrents of Belial overtook me. The bonds of Šuwala tightened about me, the snares of Môt were set against me.”

In v. 5 Šuwala is replaced by Belial, in Hebrew Bǝliyya‘al, whose name seems to mean “May destruction go up”. No specific reason explains the mention of this negative figure in the context of Ps. 18:4. 36 D. Schwemer, Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen, Wiesbaden 2001, p. 409; id., Šāla. A. Philologish, in RLA XI, Berlin 2006-08, p. 565-567, especially p. 565. 37 Th. Kwasman and S. Parpola, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I: Tiglath-Pileser through Esarhaddon (SAA VI), Helsinki 1991, No. 142, 3 and r. 3; F.M. Fales, Amat-Šūla, in PNA I/1, Helsinki 1998, p. 99, where the erroneous interpretation and vocalization should be corrected. 38 G. del Olmo Lete, Mythologie et religion de la Syrie au IIe millénaire av.J.C. (1500-1200), in id., Mythologie et religion des Sémites occidentaux II (OLA 162/II), Leuven 2008, p. 25-162 (see p. 71-78).

SHEOL

163

“The waves of Môt”, mišbǝrê Māwet, mentioned in II Sam. 22:5-6 and in the Qumran texts, seem to refer to the location of the netherworld under the waters of the cosmic ocean, “penned in dense cloud masses”. This is the vision of Job 26:5-10 and 38:16-17, where the netherworld is called ’ăbaddōn (Job 26:6). This word is used also in Job 28:22 and 31:12. Abaddōn is personalized in Job 28:22 and associated to Môt. An ocean, the Ḫubur, also separated the land of the living from the realm of the dead in Mesopotamian mythology. The boatman of the netherworld ferried the dead to the other side of the Ḫubur. However, no similar personage is found in the biblical tradition. Also other terms are used in the Bible to designate the netherworld, but they do not lead to its concreter conception. The fate of the dead could be worsened or alleviated depending on their burial and on the practice of feeding the dead. But the latter’s purpose is not clear and depends on beliefs hardly integrated in a general conception of the afterlife. In prose-texts, the phrase “to go down to Sheol” is used, where Sheol plays the same role as Ereškigal in Mesopotamia. The phrase became a literary euphemism meaning “to die”, as we say “to depart” or “ to pass away”. The Semites had no own conception of the netherworld and conceived death as a travel to join the forefathers. Hebrew Sheol was a borrowing, as shown by its connection with Šuwala. This still appears linguistically in the use of the word as feminine and in the fact that God was not supposed to have created the Sheol, although passages occasionally extend Yahweh’s power to the underworld (Am. 9:2; Ps. 139:8; Job 26:6). Where did the Hebrew tradition borrow the name and the conception of Šuwala as a goddess of the netherworld? – Possibly in Jerusalem, where a Hurrian dynasty was ruling at least from the 14th to the first part of the 10th century B.C. The Hurrian conception of the role of Šuwala appears best in a Hurrian myth, in which her name is replaced by her title Allani, “the Lady”, “the Queen”, the determinative suffix -ni/-ne being added to Allai, “lady, queen”39. The mythological story, partly preserved on a broken tablet found at Hattuša in 198340, reports the visit of the Storm-god Tešub, king of heaven, to his sister Allani, “the Queen” of the netherworld. It is summarized by G. Wilhelm, as follows41: “Tešub is welcomed and greatly honoured, and the old gods, whom he once had chased into the netherworld, are sitting at his right side. Enormous quantities of oxen and sheep – actually 30,000 sheep according to the text – are slaughtered for the feast. Allani serves as her brother’s cupbearer; she is holding a

39

E. Laroche, Glossaire (n. 22), p. 42-43. H. Otten and C. Rüster, Die hurritisch-hethitische Bilingue und weitere Texte aus der Oberstadt (Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 32), Berlin 1990, No. 13. 41 G. Wilhelm, The Hurrians in the Western Parts of the Ancient Near East, in Michmanim 9 (1996), p. 17-30 (quotation from p. 19-20). 40

164

BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THE NETHERWORLD

vessel in a peculiar way which the text carefully describes: she carries the vessel on four fingers – but here the text breaks off”. This story seems to reveal the original meaning of the phrase “to go down to Sheol”, where the dead ones meet their forefathers at a banquet. Of course, this is no original Semitic idea, since even the Akkadians did not have an own Semitic name to designate the Queen of the netherworld. It is quite possible that nomadic or semi-nomadic Semites had a conception of the afterlife which was rather close to the oldest Egyptian ideas about the matter: a new life, to some extent similar to the earthly life. In any case, the discussions about the “personified Sheol” in the Bible42 forget its Hurrian starting point with the goddess Šuwala. Šuwala was progressively depersonalized and her name became a designation of the netherworld, for which there was no proper Semitic appellation, beside “earth”, “vast earth”, “land of no return”. Even the feminine gender of the word was sometimes forgotten and the term was translated by Hades in Hellenistic times. At the time of the Qumran texts Sheol was not yet fully demythologized. Its mention in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:3, occurs in a quotation of II Sam. 2:6 by Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, active in the early 2nd century A.D. More importantly, the word is found somewhat later with the article (!) in a speech of Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar, active in the late 2nd century A.D. He is quoted in Aḇot 4:22, as saying: “Let not your passion reassure you that the Sheol will be a house of refuge for you” (w’l... š-h-š’wl byt mnws Ik). This is by now the earliest text using the article with š’wl and clearly showing that it is no longer a proper name, but an appellation of the grave or of the netherworld. The idea that God is acting also in the netherworld occurs already in Am. 9:2 and Ps. 139:8, where šǝ’ōl is depersonalized and used as a place name. The use of šǝ’ōl in the sense of “pit” occurs later in the Tosefta, Yoma 4:11, where its meaning is explained by a quotation of Prov. 28:17, bwr corresponding there to šǝ’ōl. The place where the final judgment of the wicked will be past and where those condemned will be closed for ever is described in I Enoch 26:5-27:3. It is not named, but it is obvious that it is the Gehenna which designates the netherworld in the Talmud and Midrash. The site corresponds topographically to the Wādi ar-Rababi, to the southwest of Jerusalem’s walls.

42 For instance, J. Lemański, Hebrajski Szeol na tle wyobrażeń eschatologicznych sąsiednich kultur, in SBO 3 (2011), p. 67-97.

EPILOGUE

We have traced the history of Jerusalem and Judah from the earliest known mentions of Urušalimum in the 19th century B.C. to the destruction of the city by Babylonians in 587 B.C. Despite large gaps in our historical information and the misleading perspective in which the Deuteronomistic and later redactors often present the history of the monarchy we have managed to follow the development of the area from the highland settlements, through the days of a Davidic dynasty domain, to a monarchic state. It has been a long way, but the very fact that our story has been broken off abruptly shows that the Babylonian exile was no terminus. It was hiding a new start, initiated by the social and economic climbing of ordinary Judaean exiles in the Babylonian countryside, followed by the return of some deportees and by the emergence of the Jewish Diaspora, starting in the Persian period and increasing in Hellenistic-Roman times. After the establishment of the Persian rule (538 B.C.), Judah, officially called Yehud, was included in the fifth satrapy, the ‘Abar-Nahara’, “Beyond the River”, i.e. the Euphrates. The qualification “Hebrew” (‘ibrī) derives from the name of the satrapy and designates Western Jews and their language in opposition to the Jews of Babylonia. Its origin is certainly Mesopotamian, but its earliest known attestation occurs ca. 130 B.C. in the Greek preface to the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus. The grandson of the author, who had written the work in Jerusalem (ca. 190-180 B.C.), argues that “it is impossible for a translator to find precise equivalence for the original Hebrew (ἑβραϊστί) in another language”. The translation was made in Egypt. The Persian rule ended with the Hellenistic conquest (332 B.C.), followed by the reigns of the Ptolemies and of the Seleucids. The outbreak of the Hasmonaean revolt (167 B.C.) led to the instauration of a new Jewish state, reduced to Judaea under Pompey’s settlement of 63 B.C., but slightly enlarged in the following years, in 47 B.C. and when Herod replaced the Hasmonaean dynasty. After successive political and territorial changes, most of the territory was administered by Roman procurators up to the Jewish War of 66-73 A.D. After the siege and destruction of Jerusalem Judaea was under the rule of Roman governors. This was very likely the period of the most important Diaspora in Antiquity, probably still increased after the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 A.D.). These were initial phases of a history that continues nowadays, alternating with the “Return” to the Holy Land, and goes on, inspired by principles written down more than three thousand years ago.

INDEXES PERSONAL NAMES Personal names occurring in quoted inscriptions or used to justify the translation of a term are not listed below, unless they have a historical or chronological relevance.

A Abdi-Ḫeba, mARAD-Ḫe-ba, ruler of Jerusalem 18-20, 22 f. ‘Abd-Labi’at, Judaean warrior 13 Abiam, Abiah, king of Judah 38 Abiyah, mother of Hezekiah 63 Abraham 30, 76, 119, 153 Absalom, son of David 23, 33 Achish, Ἀχαιός, king of Gath 28 Adon, king of Ekron 90 Adonijah, son of David 23, 33 Adoni-zedek 98 f. Adramelech, see Urdu-Mullissu Adramelus, see Urdu-Mullissu Ahab, king of Israel 1, 34, 39-42, 47, 49 Ahaz, king of Judah 4, 35 f., 60-63, 101, 107, 155 Ahaziah, son of Ahab, king of Israel 41 Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of Judah 39, 41-43, 47 Ahimaaz 23 Aḥiman 30 Ahimelek 31 Ahi-Miti, king of Ashdod 65 Aḥiqam 81 Aḫšeri, king of the Mannaeans 72 Amasa 32 Amaziah, king of Judah 33, 54-57, 59, 135 Amenophis IV (Akhenaton) 17 f. Amon, king of Judah 4, 79, 86 f., 117, 121 ‘Anaq 29 Antiochus IV 5 Apries, see Hophra Aqyah 106 Arsames, governor of Egypt 146 Asa, king of Judah 38, 110 Assurbanipal 73, 77, 87 Assur-uballiṭ II, king of Assyria 89 Atalia, wife of Sargon II 40 Athaliah, daughter of Ahab 4, 40-48, 101 Axerdus, see Esarhaddon

Awel-Marduk, king of Babylon 92 Azariah, king of Judah 4, 57-60 Azatiwada 119 Azuri, king of Ashdod 65 B Baal, king of Tyre 147 Baasha, king of Israel 38 Bagohi, governor of Judah 145 f. Balaam 118 Bar-Hadad I, king of Damascus 38 Bar Kokhba 165 Bathsheba 22, 33 Bat-Tešub, wife of Ḥutiya 22 Baytil-šūr 148 Bethelnatan 144, 151 C Cambyses 142, 146 Cyrus I 99 D Darius II 146 David 2 f., 7, 21-24, 26-28, 30-33, 37, 47, 75 f. Deborah 75 Delayah, governor of Samaria 146 E Eliakim, see Jehoiakim Eliaqim 90 f. Elijah, prophet 77 Elisha, prophet 77 Elyashib 84, 93 Ephron the Ḥty 30 Esarhaddon 72 f., 77, 147 f. Ethbaal, see Ittobaal Esau 31, 112, 150 Esther 5 Evil-Merodach, see Awel-Marduk Ezra 77

168

INDEXES

G Gad, prophet 22 Gedaliah, governor of Judah 4, 97 f. Geron 5 Gilgamesh 158 H Hadadezer, king of Damascus 32 Haman 5 Hamutal, mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah 89, 92 Ḥanan, Ammonite king 27, 33, 36 Hannah, mother of Samuel 112, 138 Ḥarūṣ 79 Hazael, king of Damascus 47 Ḥepṣī-bāh 73 Herod 165 Hezekiah, king of Judah 61, 63-70, 73, 75, 101, 106, 124, 129 Hiram of Tyre 35 f. Hophra, pharaoh 94 Ḥutiya, ruler of Jerusalem 22, 27, 33 I Iamani, Iadna, king of Ashdod 65 Isaac 76, 111 Isaiah, prophet 66 Ishbaal, son of Saul 33, 98 Ittobaal, Phoenician king 66 J Jacob 76, 150, 160 Jātham, Edomite 59 Jedidah, mother of Josiah 87 Jeho‘addān, mother of Amaziah 54 Jehoahaz, king of Judah 89 f. Jehohanan, high-priest 145 Jehoiachin, king of Judah 4, 90-92 Jehoiada, high-priest 43, 45, 47 Jehoiakim, king of Judah 4, 90 f. Jehoram, king of Israel and Judah 4, 33, 39-43, 45, 47 Jehoshaphat, king of Judah 3 f., 38-41, 101, 110 Jehosheba, daughter of Jehoram 43 Jehozabad 45 Jephthah, judge’s daughter 113 f. Jeremiah, prophet 94, 98 Jeroboam I, king of Israel 1, 34 Joab 32 Joash, king of Israel 45, 56

Joash, king of Judah 43-49, 54, 104 Jonathan 23 Joseph 153 Joshua 99 Josiah, king of Judah 2, 4, 76, 87-89, 101 f., 108, 111, 141, 145 f., 157, 160 Jotham, king of Judah 57-60 Jozachar 45 Judah, tribal eponym 76, 109 K Kandalānu, king of Babylon 77 Konyahu ben Elnatan 94 L Lamalek, (E)limelek, Edomite 81 f. Lulî, king of Sidon 66 M Maacah, a wife of David 30 Maaka, queen 102 Manasseh, king of Judah 4, 73, 75-79, 87, 102, 104, 115, 117, 121 Mannu-ki-aḫḫē, eponym 88 Marduk-apla-iddina, Merodach-baladan 66 Mattan, priest 43, 101 Mattaniah, see Zedekiah Meremot, priest 129 Mesha, king of Moab 26, 39, 116 Meshullemet, mother of Amon 79 Mitinti, king of Ashdod 68 Mordecai 5 Moses 114 Murašû 99, 151 N Na‘amah, wife of Solomon 27, 33, 36, 45 Nabonidus, king of Babylon 98 Nabopolassar, king of Babylon 87 f., 90 Nabû-zēra-iddina, Nebuzaradan 96 Naḥaš, Ammonite king 27, 33, 36 Nathan, prophet 27, 34 Nebuchadnezzar II 4, 90-92, 94, 96 Necho II, pharaoh 4, 81, 89 f. Nehemiah 77 Nehushta, mother of Jehoiakin 92 Nergal-šar-uṣur, Neriglissar, king of Babylon 92 Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur 127 O Omri, king of Israel 1, 34, 40, 47

DIVINE AND MYTHOLOGICAL NAMES

P Padi, king of Ekron 67 f. Pashhur, priest 129 Peqaḥ, king of Israel 60 Peṭeḥorṭais 144 Peṭekhnum 144 Pompey 165 Psammetichus I, pharaoh 88, 142, 144 Psammetichus II, pharaoh 142 Q Qaws‘anāli 59 f., 137 Qaws-malaka, king of Edom 130 Qenaz 32 R Rachel 160 Ramesses III 23 Raṯiyān, king of Damascus 60 Rehoboam, king of Judah 27 f., 36-38, 45, 101 Rukibtu, king of Ashkelon 66 S Samson 12 Samuel, prophet 112 Sargon II 64-66, 71, 130, 141 f., 150 Šarru-lu-dari, king of Ashkelon 66 Šarru-uṣur 72 Saul, king of Israel 4, 26, 28, 33, 153 Sennacherib 61, 64-73, 75, 155 Sethôn, high-priest 67 Shail 144 Shalmaneser V 64 Shamash-shum-ukin, king of Babylon 77 f., 87 Shamgar ben ‘Anath, “minor judge” 13 Sheba ben Bikri 32 Shebitko, pharaoh 67 Shen’aṣṣar 99 Sheshay 30 Shesh-bazzar 99

DIVINE AND A Abaddōn 163 Allani 163 Anakes 30 ‘Anath 11, 19, 147

169

Shimeath, Ammonitess 45 Shobi, son of Naḥaš, Ammonite king 33 Shomrith, Moabitess 45 Shoshenq I, pharaoh 26, 28, 30 f., 37 f., 47, 128 Ṣibyah, wife of Ahaziah 42 f., 49 Ṣidkā, king of Ashkelon 66 Ṣillī-bēl, king of Gaza 68 Simeon 12 Sin-shar-ishkun, king of Assyria 87 f. Solomon 2 f., 26-28, 33-37, 47, 75 f., 101 Śṯ‘nw, ruler of Jerusalem 12 T Ṭāb’el 61 Taharqo, pharaoh 67, 77 Talmay 30 Tamar 109 Tiglath-pileser III 31, 35, 61 f., 130 U Urdu-Mullissu 71 f. Uriyah the Hittite 22 Uryahu 103 Uzziah, king of Judah 3 f., 57-60 V Vidranga 145 f. X Xerxes 5 Y Yahō-natan 151 Yǝdīdyāh, surname of Solomon 34 YqꜢ‘mw, ruler of Jerusalem 11 Z Zadok, priest 101 Zebidah, mother of Yehoiakim 90 Zechariah, son of Jehoiada 45 Zedekiah, king of Judah 4, 92-97

MYTHOLOGICAL NAMES

Anath of Bethel 142 f., 147 Anath of Yahu 143 Angel 67 ‘Ashtarum 50 Assur 67

170

INDEXES

Astarte, ‘aštārōt 105 f., 109 Aṯirat 105 f. Aton (’Itn) 26

Melqart 35 Milkom 50 Môt 5, 162 f.

B Baal 105 Baal Ḥamon 114 Baal Karantaryash 119 Belial 162 Bethel 143 f., 147-151

N Nabarbi 161 Name of Bethel 142, 149 Nergal 5, 161 f. Ninlil 71 Ninurta 19 Nisrok 71 Nubadig 161

C Castor 30 Chemosh 132, 147 D Dioscuri 30 E El, ’Il 128, 144, 147-151 ’Elōhīm 150 Ereškigal 163 G God of Heaven 146 God of Jerusalem (’lhy Yršlm) 61 f. H Ha-Šem 142, 149 Ḫebat 18 Hephaistos 67 Horus 138 f. I ’Ilat 128 Ilat ’awlād 55 Išḫara 161 ’Ishmi-Bethel, cf. Sumbetulos Isis 138 f. Ištar 5, 107, 149 K Khnum 145 Kumarbi 161 L Labi’at (Lyoness) 11 Λέων 149 M Marduk 5

P Pollux 30 Q Qaws 59, 81-83, 128, 131 f. Queen of Heaven 144, 147, 149 R Rabbat 128 f. S Šāla 161 Šalim 11 Sarapis 138 Seima, Seimos 149 Sumbetulos 149 Sun-deity 26, 45 Šuwala, Sheol 5, 160-164 Šuwaliyatt 160 T Tanit 114 Tešub 22, 163 Tritopatores 30 Y Yahu 142 f., 146, 150 Yahweh 101-105, 110, 114, 117, 122, 138, 142, 145, 147, 157, etc. Yahweh of Samaria 101, 103 Yahweh of the South 103 f. W Wadd(um) 50 Z Zeus Betylos 149

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNICAL NAMES

171

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNICAL NAMES The general toponyms Canaan, Israel, Jerusalem, Jordan, Judah, Palestine, Syria are not listed below.

A ‘Abar-Nahara 165 Abel Beth-Maakah 32, 38 Abil al-Qamḥ 38 Abu Ruqeish 31 Abū-Tōr (Jerusalem) 7 Adana 119 ‘Ain al-Ḥuṣb, see Tamar Aleppo 148 al-Baq‘a Valley 7 f. ’āl-Ḥatt 31 al-Ḥureiḍa 50 Amalekites 28 Amarna, El-Amarna 10, 18-20, 101, 120 Ammān 63 Ammon, Ammonites 32-34, 36, 45, 66, 94, 96, 114 ‘Anāqīm 29 f. Anatolia 72 Antioch 149 ‘Apiru 19 Arabia, Arabs 31, 50, 52, 56, 68, 70, 141 Arad 4, 53, 55 f., 63, 80 f., 84, 86, 92 f., 125-131 Aram, Aramaeans 42, 62, 72, 77, 111, 144, 148 f., 151 Aroer 83, 93 Arpad (Syria) 96 ‘Arqub ad-Dahr 8 Ashdod 29, 65, 67 f., 118 Ashkelon 66, 138 Assur (city) 51, 77 Assyria, Assyrians 4, 61, 64-72, 88 f., 121 f., 124 ‘Aštarot 105 at-Tell (‘Ay) 8 ‘Ayn Sitti Maryam, see Gihon Spring ‘Ayn Umm ad-Daraǧ, see Gihon Spring Azekah 95 B Baalat-Beer 81 Bāb aḏ-Ḏra‘ 8 Babylon, Babylonia 4, 5, 51, 53, 66, 70, 77 f., 81 f., 88-94, 96-98, 112, 116, 150, 165 Baliḫ, Baliḫu 88

Beersheba (Tel Beersheba / Tell as-Seba‘) 4, 42 f., 49-53, 55, 70, 124 f., 134, 138 Beersheba Valley 4, 49, 53-55, 83, 126 Beitīn, see Bethel Bǝnē Ḥēt 31 Benjamin, tribe 32, 38, 97 Beth David 1 f., 76, 116 Bethel 4 f., 38, 63, 88, 141-151 Beth Horon 39 Bethlehem 12, 19, 32 Beth-Millō’ 26, 45 Beth-Shemesh 56 Biqa‘ Dart 13 Boṣqat 87 Buṣeira 53 Byblos 35, 120 C Calebites 28, 31 f. Carchemish 88, 90 Carmel, Mount 7, 104 Carthage 39, 114, 119 Cisjordan 13, 21 Citium (Cyprus) 35 City of David, see Ophel Ctesiphon 106 Cyprus 35, 66, 77, 92 D Damascus 32, 36, 38, 47, 60-62 Damascus Gate (Jerusalem) 74 Dan 38 Dead Sea 4, 53 Dedan 50, 132 Dura Europos 149 Dūr-Šarrukīn, see Khosrabad E Ebla 7 Edom, Edomites 4, 31 f., 34, 49, 53-56, 59 f., 79-86, 94, 133, 153 Egypt, Egyptians 5, 9 f., 21, 31, 66 f., 77, 81, 84, 88, 90, 94, 133, 142-151 Ekron 67 f., 96 Elath (Tell al-Kheleifeh) 52, 56, 59 f., 63, 79, 137

172

INDEXES

Elephantine (Jeb) 4, 77, 142-151 el-Ǧib, see Gibeon el-Ḥaḏr 12 f. Eltekeh 67 Emar 161 Eltolad 55 ‘En Ḥaẓeva, see Tamar ‘Ēn Rōgel 20, 23 Ephraim (region) 34, 37 f., 61 Ephrataeans 76 et-Tell 103 Euphrates 88, 90 Ezion Geber 39 G Galilee (Sea of) 38, 72 Gath 19, 28 f., 32, 47 Gaza 29, 31, 67 f. Ǧebel ar-Rumaydah, see Hebron Ǧebel Sim‘ān 148 Gehenna 144 Gezer 19, 34, 50 Ǧezirat al-Far‘ūn 79 Gibeon 33, 97, 158 f. Gihon Spring 7, 14 f., 20, 64 Ginti-Kirmil 19 Gōzan, Guzana, see Tell Ḥalaf Gulf of Aqaba 39, 59, 133 H Ḥaḍramaut 31, 50, 63 Haǧar bin Ḥumeid 50 Haiapa 141 Ḥama, Ḥamath 153 Ḥammām eš-Šifa’ 20 Ḥammōn 105 Ḥaram, Ḥaram aš-Šarīf (Jerusalem) 16, 20, 23 f., 47, 73, 96, 157 Harran 88-90 Hattuša 163 Hebron 28-32, 37, 53, 70 Hegra 51 Hermopolis Magna 147, 149 Ḥinnom Valley (Jerusalem) 20, 73 f., 123, 157 Hittites 31 Ḥormah 86 Ḥorvat Radum 81 Ḥorvat Qitmit, see Khirbet Qiṭmīt Ḥorvat ‘Uza, see Khirbet al-Ġazza Ḫubur 163

Hurrians 18, 22, 33, 101, 156 I Ibadid 141 Idiba’ilay (tribe) 31 Idumaea 159 ’I‘nqἰ. 29 Iôtabe 79 ‘Iyyōn 38 J Jabesh-Gilead 23, 153 Jaffa (Gate of) 74, 118 Jebusites 21-23 Jericho 8, 96 Joktheel 55 Jordan, river 23 Joṭbah 79 K Kābūl 34 Kafr Nābo (Syria) 149 Kalḫu 65 Karatepe 119 Kenites 56, 76 Kenizzites 76 Kerethites 32 Ketef Ḥinnom (Jerusalem) 157 f. Kfar Pigsha 104 Kfar Qasem (Petem) 104 Khirbet ‘Ar‘ara, see Aroer Khirbet Beit Lei 61 Khirbet al-Ġarra 49, 55 f., 70, 83-85, 93 Khirbet al-Ġazza 53, 80-85, 93 Khirbet al-Mšāš, see Tel Masos Khirbet Qiṭmīt 4, 83, 131-133, 137 Khirbet el-Qōm 102 f. Khorsabad 71 f. Kidron Valley (Jerusalem) 14, 16, 20, 74, 123, 156 f. Kinnereth 38 Kition (Cyprus), Kittim 92 f. Kizzuwadna 161 Kuntillet Aǧrud 61, 102 L Lachish 50, 52 f., 56, 61, 66-70, 89, 9497, 158 Lake Urmia 72 Lebanon 35 Libnah 89, 92

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNICAL NAMES

Liḥyanites 83, 132 M Magdolos 89 Maḥanaim 33 Ma‘in 50 Malḥata, see Tell al-Milḥ Mannaeans 72 Maqqēdāh 70, 81 Mari 11, 21, 23 Marsimanu 141 Mediterranean Coast / Sea 39, 50 f., 56 Megiddo 89, 130 Meluḫḫa (Nubia) 67 Merǧ ‘Ayun, see ‘Iyyōn Mešhed 63 Mesopotamia 10, 109 Millō’ 20, 25 f. 45 Metsad Hashavyahu 88 Mizpah, see Tell an-Naṣbeh Moab, Moabites 26, 32-34, 39, 45, 66, 94, 153 Moladah 81 Mount Gerizim 3 Mount of Olives (Jerusalem) 16, 20, 58 Mount Zion 73, 96, 120, 123 Mozia 114 N Nabataeans 51 Naḥalat Aḥim 16 Naphtali 38 Nebi-Yunis 118 Negeb 28, 31, 48, 53, 56, 70 f., 85, 92 Nile delta 29, 81 Nineveh 66, 68-70 No-Amon, see Thebes North Arabia, North-Arabians 128, 141 O Ophel (City of David) 3, 7-9, 12, 15, 20, 23, 38, 73 f., 96, 138, 156 Ophir 39 Orontes, river 149 P Palmyra 19, 34 Pelethites 32 Pella 23 Pelusium 67 Petra 51

173

Philistines 21, 29, 32 f., 47, 56, 66, 77, 116, 142 Phoenicia, Phoenicians 34 f., 51, 66, 75, 88, 111, 116, 155 Pyrgi 106 Q Qaryat al-Faw 50 Qataban 50 Qeilah 19 Qinah 84 Qīr-ḥadāšat 39 Qiṭmīt, see Khirbet Qiṭmīt Qumran 5, 114, 122, 160, 162-164 R Ramah 38 Ramath-Negeb 81, 83 f., 86 Ramat Rahel 20, 75 Ramoth Gilead 39, 42 f. Raptān 81 Reḥob 147 Rephaim Valley, see al-Baq‘a Valley Riblah (Syria) 90, 96 Rock (Sela‘) 55 Ruben (tribe) 76 Rumah 80 S Samaria 41 f., 50, 61 f., 64, 103, 141 f., 146 Saqqara 134 Sardinia 114 Sardis 106 Sefire, Sfire (Syria) 106, 148 Sheba, Saba 34, 50, 62, 127 Shechem 19, 37, 153 Sheol 160-164 Shephelah 87, 89, 96 Sicily 114 Sidon 35, 66 Siloam, see Silwān Siloam, pool 65 f. Silwān (Siloam village) 17, 154-157 Simeon (tribe) 55, 76, 83, 98 Ṣimirra 88 Sinai 31 Ṣoba 32 f. South Arabia 49-52, 62 f. Southeast Hill, see Ophel Spain 39 Suḫu 127

174

INDEXES

Sulcis (Sardinia) 114 Syene (Egypt) 4, 142-151 T Tabal 66 Ṭabeh 79 Tadmor 34 Tamar 4, 34, 63, 133-137 Tamud, Tamudaeans 141 Tanis 29 Tarshish, Tartessus 39 Teima (North Arabia) 50, 127 Teiman 53 Tel Batash 70, 96 Tel Beersheba, Tell as-Seba‘, see Beersheba Tel Burna 70 Tel Dan 32, 38 Tel Esdar 55 Tel ‘Eton 70 Tel ‘Ira, see Khirbet al-Ġarra Tel Maresha 158 f. Tel Masos 83, 86, 93 Tel Miqne 130 Tell ‘Aitun, see Tel ‘Eton Tell Arad, see Arad Tell al-Baṭaši, see Tel Batash Tell Beit Mirṣim 70 Tell Dibbīn 38 Tell al-Far‘ah South 50 Tell Fekherye 161 Tell al-Fūl 97 Tell Ǧemmeh 50 Tell Ḥalaf (Gozan, Guzana) 153 Tel(l) Ḥalif 70 Tell al-Kheleifeh, see Elath Tell Mardiḫ, see Ebla Tell al-Milḥ (Malḥata) 55, 83, 93 Tell an-Naṣbeh (Mizpah) 8, 97-99 Tell al-Qāḍi, see Tel Dan

Tell Qasile 39 Tell Ṣandaḥanna, see Tel Maresha Tell as-Seba‘, see Tel Beersheba Tell Ṣippor 138 Temple Mount, see Ḥaram Thebes (Egypt) 77 Timna (Qataban) 50 Timnah, see Tel Batash Tirzah 38 Transjordan 33, 53, 116, 133 Tyre 35 f., 94, 147 Tyropaeon (Jerusalem) 73 U Ugarit 109 f. Ummanmanda 89 ’Umm el-‘Awamid 105 V Valley of Salt 55 Vologesias 106 W Wādi ‘Amd 50 Wādi Arabah 84 Wādi Dū‘an 63 Wādi Milḥ 55 Wādi an-Nar, see Kidron Valley Wādi ar-Rababi 73, 164 Wādi Yābis 23 Western Hill (Jerusalem) 73 f., 96, 120, 123, 134, 157 Z Zagros 66 Zephath 86 Ziklag 28, 30, 32 Zoar 133

OTHER SUBJECTS Confusions g‘ / s 26 d / r 71, 134 head of k / š 71 l / r 117 m / h 64 ṣ / m 134

w / y 71, 122 Conversive perfect 119 f. David’s lineage 36-47 Genealogical trees 46, 87 Phonetic changes ḏ > d 30 š > s 142

INDEX OF AUTHORS

w > y 10 wrw > yrh 10 f. Population 8, 12, 20, 48, 55 f., 73-75, 86, 96, 116, 125, 134 Roots and words discussed ’wry 18 ’wrnh 22 ’rg,’rgwt 104, 110 ’šm 142 ’šrh 102-107 blẓ / blṯ 102 bs’ 21 ewri 18, 22 gēr 116 krty w-plty 24

175

lǝma‘an 117 millō’ 25 f., 45 mipleṣet 102 molk 117-119 mskt 119 plẓ / plṯ 102 qǝdēšīm, qēdēšōt 107-111 šǝ’ōl 160-164 ṣiyyūn 160 ṣinnōr 22 šassā’u, šs‘ 11 f. topet 121 f. ytḥtn 40 terracotta figurines 108, 111, 133, 135-140 tiqqūn soferīm 71 f.

MAPS Beersheba Valley 132 Beersheba Valley in the 7th-6th centuries B.C. 80 Beersheba Valley in the 8th century B.C. 54

Elephantine and Syene 143 Judah in Iron Age II 85 Sketchy plan of Bronze Age Jerusalem 14 Sketchy plan of Jerusalem in the 8th-6th centuries B.C. 73

INDEX OF AUTHORS A Ababi, L. 27 Abel, F.-M. 55, 79 Abou-Assaf, A. 161 Aharoni, Y. 70, 79 f., 83 f., 93, 124, 126 f., 130, 133 Aḥituv, Sh. 103 al-Ansary, A.R. 50 Allbright, W.F. 51, 53, 90, 104 Amadasi Guzzo, M.G. 114 Ambos, C. 82 Amiran, R. 17 Anbar, M. 29 Antonini, S. 51 Arensburg, B. 7 Armstrong, J.A. 10 Arnaud, D. 161 Auld, G. 7 Avigad, N. 55, 59, 74, 83 Avishur, Y. 90, 97, 156

Avshalom-Gorni, D. 84 B Badawy, A. 26 Bædecker, K. 157 Bagg, A.M. 144 Bahat, D. 74 Baker, H.D. 77 Baramki, D.C. 17 Barkay, G. 17, 93, 96, 157 Barré, M.L. 161 Bartlett, J.R. 80 Bar-Yosef, O. 7 Beaulieu, P.A. 148 Beck, P. 131, 133 Beeston, A.F.L. 10, 40, 149 Beit-Arieh, I. 50, 54 f., 80 f., 83, 131-133 Ben-Dov, M. 139 Bent, Th. 63 Berlejung, A. 150

176 Bernett, M. 102 Berthier, A. 122 Biberstein, A. 7 Bietak, M. 10 Biger, G. 20 Biran, A. 83, 138 Birot, M. 11 f., 21 Bloch-Smith, E. 154 Bloedhorn, H. 7 Bordreuil, B. 161 Borger, R. 77 Bresciani, E. 106 Briend, J. 65 Bright, J. 91 Brinkman, J.A. 83 Broshi, M. 48, 74 f., 116 Buchanan, B.W. 53 Bunimovitz, S. 97, 154, 159 C Cantineau, J. 104 Caquot, A. 105 f. Caton Thompson, G. 50 Cazelles, H. 89 Charlier, R. 122 Chrostowski, M. 5 Cicero 30 Cohen, L. 83 Cohen, R. 50, 133-135 Cohen, S.L. 9 Cole, S.W. 10 Coogan, M.D. 151 Cooke, G.A. 105 Cooper, J. 109 Costaz, L. 98 Cresson, B. 54, 81 Cross, F.M. 13, 126 Crowfoot, J.W. & G.M. 53 Cussini, E. IX, 19, 79 D Dayagi-Mendels, M. 157 Dec, P. 144 Dekel, J. 126 De Langhe, R. 104 Delavault, B. 118 Delcor, M. 106 del Olmo Lete, O. 162 Delsman, W.C. 149 f. Demsky, A. 57

INDEXES

de Pury, A. 148 de Saulcy, F. 157 Deutsch, R. 50, 82 de Vaux, R. 53, 97, 104 Dever, G. 103 Diakonoff, I.M. 18 Dietrich, M. VIII Długoborski, S. 102 Donner, H. VIII Dossin, G. 11 Driver, G.R. 106 Du Buit, M. 132 Dunand, M. 105 Dupont-Sommer, A. 104, 106 Duru, R. 105 E Edelstein, G. 8 Eisenberg, E. 8, 28 Eissfeldt, O. 150 Eleazar ha-Kappar, rabbi 164 Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, rabbi 164 Elliger, K. 104 Eph‘al, I. 31, 51 Eshel, E. 74, 103, 159 Euripides 24 Eusebius of Caesarea 35, 71 f. F Fales, F.M. 126, 162 Fantalkin, A. 88, 97 Faust, A. 70, 154, 159 Finkelstein, I. 24, 48, 52, 74 Fisher, C.S. 50 Fitzmyer, J.A. 148 Fleming, D.E. 160 Forte, M. 51 Frahm, E. 57, 72 Frame, G. IX Franken, H.J. 74 Freedman, D.N. 2, 115 Freud, L. 49 Friedrich, J. 106 Fritz, V. 86 Fuchs, A. 65, 72 Fuhs, H.F. 90 G Galling, K. 104 Garbini, G. 105 Gasche, H. 10

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Gehman, H.S. 37 Gelb, I.J. 11, 82 Getzov, N. 84 Geva, H. 74, 116 Ghul, M.A. 10, 40, 149 Gibson, J.C.L. IX Gibson S.M. 96 Ginsberg, H.L. 120 Glatt-Gilad, D.A. 76 Glueck, N. 59 Gonen, R. 16 Görg, M. 26, 45 Gorin-Rosen, Y. 84 Grayson, A.K. 87, 89 f., 92 Grelot, P. 106 Grohmann, A. 49 Gröndahl, F. 13 Grossman, D. 20 Gunneweg, J. 131 Gurzadyan, V.G. 10 Güterbock, H.G. 161 H Hadley, J.M. 103 Halliday, S. 130, 159 Handy, I.K. 76 Hannig, R. 26, 29, 45, 128, 142 Haran, M. 104 Harding, G.L. 11 f., 29, 31, 50, 79, 81-83, 132, 135 Hawkins, J.D. 119 Helck, W. 10, 12 Heltzer, M. 50, 90, 97 Herodotus 35, 67, 89 Herr, L.G. 53, 59 Herzog, Z. 24, 54, 70, 80, 86, 125 f., 128-130 Hess, R.S. 18 Hestrin, R. 157 Hillers, D.R. IX, 19, 79 Hirsch, H. 109 Höfner, M. 62, 129 Hoftijzer, J. VII Hrouda, B. 153 Hrozný, B. 18 Huffmon, H.B. 11 f. Huss, W. 142 Hyatt, J.P. 147 I Ingholt, H. 104

177

J Jacob of Sarug 107 Jalabert, L. VIII Jamme, A. 50 Japhet, S. 2 Jas, R. 88 Jastrow, M. 22, 98, 160 Joannès, F. 96 Jongeling, K. VII Josephus Flavius 58, 60, 91 K Kalimi, I. 2 f. Kamil, M. 106 Karageorghis, V. 35 Katz, H. 70 Keel, O. 102 Kellermann, D. 116 Kelso, J.L. 63 Kempinski, A. 86 Kenyon, K.M. 9, 14 f., 24, 51, 53 Kitchen, K.A. 47 Knauf, E.A. 16, 36, 131 Knudtzon, J.A. VIII Kornfeld, W. 150 Kraeling, E.G. 143 Kwasman, Th. 162 L Lammens, H. 148 Laporte, J.-P. 117 Laroche, E. 18, 160 f., 163 Le Bohec Y. 117 Lederman, Z. 97 Lemaire, A. 94, 103, 118, 129 f., 148 Lemaire, P. 16, 84 f. Lemański, J. 164 Lewis, R. 96 Lidzbarski, M. 105, 118 Lieberman-Wander, R. 84 Lindblom, J. 104 Lipiński, E. 10 f., 21 f., 24, 27 f., 30 f., 34, 38, 41 f., 45, 48, 50 f., 55, 59, 62, 64, 71, 88, 92, 99, 101, 103, 106, 108 f., 112, 116, 122, 128, 132, 134, 138, 142, 147, 153, 160 f. Littmann, E. 104 Loding, D. 161 Loretz, O. VIII, 18 Luckenbill, D.D. 66-68, 70

178

INDEXES

Lundin, A.G. 50 Luukko, M. 72 Lyon, D.G. 50 M Macalister, R.A.S. 50 McCown, C.C. 139 Macdonald, E. 50 Martin, J.P.P. 107 Matthews, K.A. 115 Mattila, R. 79 Matty, N.Kh. 66, 68, 70 Mazar, A. 8, 34, 36, 70, 74, 85, 97, 124, 137, 154 f. Mazar, B. 47 Mazar, E. 24, 47 Meshel, Z. 62, 103 Mettinger, T.N.D. 149 Michieli, S.W. 95 Middlemas, J. 5 Milevski, I. 8 Milik, J.T. 13, 106, 131, 147-149 Millard, A.R. 161 Misgav, H. 81 Mitchell, T.C. 13 Mommsen, H. 131 Monceaux, P. 117 Montgomery, J.A. 27 Moore, G.R. 99 Moran, W.L. VIII, 10, 18 f., 120 Mouterde, R. VIII Morpurgo Davies, A. 119 Müller, W.W. 10, 40, 49, 51, 149 Muraoka, T. 107 N Na’aman, N. 18 f., 29, 52, 75, 89, 93 Nagorski, A. 28 Naveh, J. 61, 83, 88, 131, 135 Negbi, O. 138 Negev, A. 29, 51 Niehr, H. 76, 112, 132, 160 Nentel, J. 34 Noth, M. 1 f., 21, 34, 99 Nougayrol, J. 18 O O’Dwyer Shea, M. 51 Ofer, A. 28 Oppenheim, A.L. 141

Oren, E. 159 Otten, H. 163 P Panitz-Cohen, N. 70 Parpola, S. 130, 147 f., 162 Pearce, L.E. 5 Petrie, W.M.Fl. 50 Pietri, Ch. 118 Pirenne, J. 148 Place, V. 72 Porten, B. IX, 144 Posener, G. VIII, 10 f., 29 Pratico, G.D. 59 Pritchard, J.B. VII Puech, E. 65 R Radner, K. 40, 71, 77 Rainey, A.F. VIII, 18, 126 Rappaport, U. 159 Reich, R. 14, 75 Reisner, G.A. 50 Reuter, E. 76 Riis, P.J. 153 Ringgren, H. 108 Roche, M.-J. 148 Röllig, W. VIII, 106, 119 Rudolph, W. 2 Rupprecht, K. 36 Rüster, C. 163 Ryckmans, J. 10, 40, 149 S Sagiv, T. 135 f. Saller, S.J. 16 Sanmartín, J. VIII Sass, B. 62, 83 Sasson, A. 8 Schoene, A. 72 Schröder, O. 18 Schröder, P. 105 Schwemer, D. 60 f., 64, 160, 162 Segal, J.B. 144, 150 Seger, J.D. 70 Sethe, K. VIII, 10 f., 29 Seux, M.-J. 65 Seyrig, H. 149 Shai, I. 70 Shapira, D. 26, 45

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Shiloh, Y. II, 7-9, 14 f., 24, 47, 62, 74 f. Shukron, E. 14 Simeon ben Eleazar, rabbi 104 Singer-Avitz, L. 24, 49-52, 56, 70, 80, 86, 93, 126, 130 f. Skupińska-Løvset, I. 102 Smith, W.R. 104 Smithline, H. 84 Sokoloff, M. 22, 98, 160 Solin, H. 117 Starcky, J. 106, 131 Starkey, J.L. 50, 53 Starostin, S.A. 18 Steiner, M.L. 7, 20, 74 Stekelis, M. 7 Stern, E. 49, 51, 75 Stern, E.J. 84 Strange, J. 41 Streck, M.P. 94 Strommenger, E. 153 Stroumsa, G.G. 113 Sukenik, E.L. 58 Syon, B. 84 T Tadmor, H. 31, 61 Tallqvist, K.L. VII Tchernov, E. 138 Toll, Chr. 160 Tomes, R. 75 Tufnell, O. 50 Tushingham, A.D. 74 U Ussishkin, D. 24, 69, 155, 157 Utas, B. 160 Uziel, J. 70 V Van Beek, G.W. 50, 63

van der Veen, P. 97 Van Seters, J. 75 Vincent, A. 145 Vincent, L.-H. 8, 104 Virolleaud, Ch. 105, 161 Vittmann, G. 145 f. Vleeming, S.P., 150 von Soden, W. VII Vriezen, Th. 131 W Wächter, L. 160 Wapnish, P. 52 Waszkowiak, J.J. 124 f. Watanabe, K. 147 Wehr, H. 12 Weidner, E.F. 92 Weill, R. 156 Weippert, M. 153 Weitzman, M.P. 106 f. Wellhausen, J. 2 Wesselius, J.W. 149 f. Westendorf, W. 10 Wilhelm, G. 163 Wilkinson, J. 19 Wright, G.E. 53 Wunsch, C. 5 Würthwein, E. 76 Y Yardeni, A. IX Yeivin, Sh. 1 Yisrael, Y. 50, 133-135 Z Zadok, R. 49, 53, 73, 79, 90, 161 Ziegler, L. 51 Zimhoni, O. 70 Zwickel, W. 49 f., 81

179

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. F. 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 Names and 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, Essai sur les douze travaux d’Héraclès. Édition critique, traduction et introduction. 271. M. PIASENTIN, F. PONTANI, Cristoforo Kondoleon, Scritti Omerici. 272. A. HILKENS, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and its Sources. 273. M. HONEGGER (ed.), Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century. 274. M. ABOU-ABDALLAH, L’histoire du royaume de Byblos à l’âge du Fer, 1080-333. 275. E. LIPIŃSKI, A History of the Kingdom of Israel. 276. L. SELS, J. FUCHSBAUER, V. TOMELLERI, I. DE VOS (eds.), Editing Mediaeval Texts from a Different Angle: Slavonic and Multilingual Traditions. 277. C. WAERZEGGERS, M. SEIRE (eds.), Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence. 278. K. D’HULSTER, G. SCHALLENBERGH, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IX. 279. M.-J. ROCHE, Inscriptions nabatéennes datées de la fin du IIe siècle avant notre ère au milieu du IVe siècle. 280. W. CLARYSSE, A.I. BLASCO TORRES (eds.), Egyptian Language in Greek Sources. Scripta onomastica of Jan Quaegebeur. 281. J. BRETSCHNEIDER, G. JANS (eds.), About Tell Tweini (Syria): Artefacts, Ecofacts and Landscape. 282. J. LEEMANS, G. ROSKAM, J. SEGERS (eds.), John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala: Homilists, Exegetes and Theologians. 283. A. PELLITTERI, M.G. SCIORTINO, D. SICARI, N. ELSAKAAN (eds.), Re-defining a Space of Encounter. Islam and Mediterranean: Identity, Alterity and Interactions. 284. E. DESPOTAKIS, John Plousiadenos (1423?-1500). A Time-Space Geography of his Life and Career. 285. J.-M. DAHMS, Die Särge des Karenen. Untersuchungen zu Pyramidentexten und Sargtexten. 286. A. BUCOSSI, A. CALIA (eds.), Contra Latinos et Adversus Graecos. The Separation between Rome and Constantinople from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century. 287. E. LIPIŃSKI, A History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah. 288. M. CONTERNO, M. MAZZOLA (eds.), Intercultural Exchange in Late Antique Historiography.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706