No title

The BIBLICAL

ARCHAEOLOGIS

Published by THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Jerusalem and Bagdad Drawer 93-A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn.

Vol. XXVIII

September, 1965

No. 3

::r::;41

ONE,?

Fig. 1. The outer south wall of the storehouse-granary at Tell el-Kheleifeh, showing double row of apertures caused by burning and/or decay of horizontal wooden beams.

70

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

is published quarterly (February, May, September, December) The Biblical Archaeologist by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the non-technical, yet thoroughly Bible. Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chicago 14, Illinois. Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University. Service Agency, 31 East 10th $2.00 per year, payable to Stechert-Hafner Subscriptions: Street, New York 3, New York. Associate members of the American Schools of Oriental Research receive the journal automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to the same address, $1.50 per year for each. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. In England: fifteen shillings per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell. Ltd., Broad Street. Oxford. Back Numbers: Available at 60, each, or $2.25 per volume, from the Stechert-Hafner Service Agency. No orders under $1.00 accepted. When ordering one issue only, please remit with order. The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end of every fifth volume of the journal itself. Second-class postage PAID at New Haven, Connecticut and addit'onal offices. Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1965. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY PETERBOROUGH, N. H.

Contents ................. Ezion-geber, by Nelson Glueck ........................................... The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old Testament, Patrick W . Skehan ........................................

70 by

87

Ezion-geber NELSON GLUECK Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute

of Religion

Years ago, President Glueck wrote three articles on Ezion-geber:Elath the B.A. Since that time, as he makes clear below, new information perfor taining to the interpretation of the remains has come to light. Since the "smelter"there has found its way into many of the standard textbooks in biblical archaeology. Glueck's new ideas on the matter are extremely important, and they demonstrate a capacity to change cherished convictions gracefully. Since scholars will want to trace Glueck's shift, we have left the rather full documentation in the footnotes intact. - Ed. The first one to suggest the identification of Ezion-geber with Tell el-Kheleifeh was Fritz Frank.' The small low mound is located approximately in the center of the north shore of the Gulf of Aqabah, midway between Jordanian Aqabah at its east end and Israeli Eilat at its west end. It is about 500 yards from the actual shoreline today and may have been some 300 yards or more several millennia ago. For all practical purposes it is possible to say that the shoreline has experienced no great change since 1. Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins, LVII (1934),

208-278; esp. p. 244.

1965, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

71

Tell el-Kheleifeh was first occupied in the 10th century B.C. The conviction that there has been comparatively little change in the northern shoreline derives partly from our discovery of a copper smelting site on a low shoreline foothill at Mrashrash, now incorporated into Eilat, immediately overlooking the northwest end of the Gulf of Aqabah. The location of Tell el-Kheleifeh approximates therefore the description in I Kings 9:26 of Ezion-geber'sbeing located "beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom." When we first examined the potsherds, copper slag, bits of copper ore and implements on the surface of Tell el-Kheleifeh, it was seen that the pottery remains dated from the 10th to the 5th-4th centuries B.C. Frank had correctly adjudged them to be older than Roman. Among the surface finds that Frank mentions, in addition to some copper arrow heads, is "an inch high animal figure apparentlycast in copper." It was natural at first, however, to search for the remains of Eziongeber and Elath at or in the immediate vicinity of modern Aqabah, with its strong springs of fresh water, its good soil that supports flourishing and extensive date palm groves, its fine anchorage and its command of crossroads to and from Arabia. Nothing earlier than Nabataean remains could be found at Aila immediately to the west of Aqabah and nothing earlier than Byzantine and mediaeval Arabic at Aqabah itself. It is highly possible that Iron I-II remains are buried under the debris of Aqabah or have been washed away by devastating freshets that periodically have inundated the site when diversion dams did not exist or were not kept in repair. One certainly would have expected the equivalent of a 10th century B.C. and later police-post and customs house at Aqabah. Furthermore, a fortress dating from Solomonic times may have existed on top of one of the hills overlooking the site of Aqabah below, with its fertile terrain, crossroads,springs and harbor. Such a fortress may yet be found, and its existence would comport with the general practice of the early Iron age of building fortifications on defensible hilltops dominating strategic points. At the present time, however, the mound of Tell el-Kheleifeh is the only site known on the north shore of the Gulf of Aqabah showing the occupational history necessary for either Ezion-geber or Elath or both. If Tell el-Kheleifeh is not in all finality to be identified with Ezion-geber: Elath, then it must be considered a fortified industrial, maritime, storage and caravanseraicenter for both. The Smithsonian Institution - American School of Oriental Research excavations of Tell el-Kheleifeh took place in the spring seasons of 19381940. The final report should have been published long ago. Now that the report on the Khirbet Tannur excavation in 1937 has been completed (publication, autumn 1965), we have begun reviewing the Tell el-Kheleifeh

72

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

excavation records. We find ourselves compelled in their light and in view of new knowledge and some convincing criticisms of our initial reports to revise radically some of our original conclusions.2 The location of the tell in the middle of the southern end of the Wadi Arabah, its possession of the first potable water, however brackish, as one comes from the western side of the north shore of the gulf, and the fact that the shoreline in front of it is free of rocks and that small boats could have been drawn up on it or anchored close to it, add up to the sum of its natural advantages. The site can, however, easily be bypassed. Its position is not a commanding one.

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

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

..:::

WX :l::-:::i ::::i~ii-ii:-: --:-: ___ - --:::::::: ::::::: ?-:::,ii~::::a :::li~i:::~ i:ia1 _-:::-:l-iiii---::::::?:::::~iii::i -::::::::. :::".:::::: :_:::: _:: :::::j::-:: :::: :::::::::::::: :::::...........:::::: :::::::: .:= :::i:i..?::i:-: :::_:i:~-::::::i::1i~ i i-ii-::~-iij.ir hi ......i::_::: :?:::::::~ iil;:i:..i:::::::::::::::::::::::i .......... ?- QU& %,Z:jiii x :::::::::?::jilE~~'~::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: .::::-:::::::_-:_::::::.:i

. ~. .........:i~i :"::::": :':::: ::_:::::: ':'-:::::: '..:': -' :---i: ::il:::. ......._:---. "";"~:~' :::ii~.?-;::?s~i~iiii~iii~irii ~':??:li::::il::--::~i :ll..,..:i::::::::?: : : i : :iiii::i~i~::ii.:i~:::iii ,i~i::ii : liili:-:-i~i''ilj;:~jii : : : ::::::::::::: : ::i : ?::: . ???-'i'l:::.. . . .. . . I::::: S-::'i'?:;g,:,::: :::?i::i:: i:.::::::::?: i:-::?-:j:::::::::. ?-

:' : ?: :

: : i~i.,igil~li l.i

:::::_:

i;(?:i;i~ii. :::::::ir:?::::::::::::::::::

: :-

: -: :-

i~: :-_:

:

:- :

:'

?:

: ,

-

:

: .: : : :

:

: :

. .

. : . -il-ji~li li:- i~-:i: ............ilii

: -:;? :

:': ':-:?:': : -: ' :i- ?: :

:

_: i

:- ?: i::il::iir:;:.:::i::;::i:::::?:::::::::::............:. : : : : : : i~l: : :, li .

:-_

:i-

: :_i: -:

.

i-:`?

:

-: :

i?-i i i i~i i i ?i i i

i'.........i j:-ij

::::::..............E

:::i~ii-:................i--:i~

:

-:

:

:

..:

_i

Fig. 2. The low mound of Tell el-Kheleifeh.

In order to have our backs to the winds and sandstorms, we began excavating at the northwest corner of the mound, unearthing a building that seemed to us to furnish the logic for the location of the site, regardless of its lack of the amenities and advantages possessed in such abundance by Aqabah. All the walls of the square building with its original pattern of three long rectangularand three small square rooms were pierced with two horizontal rows of apertures. When the debris had been cleared, the drafts 2. BASOR, 71 (Ozt., 1938), 3-18; 72 (Dec., 1938), 2-13; 75 (Oct., 1939), 8 11; 79 (Oct., 1940), 2-18; 80 (Dec., 1940), 3-10; 82 (May, 1941), 3-11; 85 (Feb., 1942), 8-9; 159 (Ozt., 1960), 11-14; 163 (Oct., 1961), 18-22; The Other Side of the Jordan, pp. 50-113; Rivers in the Desert, pp. 153-68; Smithsonian Report for 1941, pp. 453-78; BA, XXII (1959), 89-94; G. E. Wright, BA, XXIV (1961), 59-62; B. Rothenberg, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, XCIV (1962), 5-71; Illustrated London News, Sept. 3, 1960, pp. 383-5.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1965, 3)

73

or air entering through the apertures in the outer north wall could be felt emerging at the outer ends of the apertures in the outer south wall, the length of the building removed. With the exception of the outer south wall, only a few of the aperturesin the top rows remained. It had been our thought, which we now abandon, that the apertures served as flue-holes during Period I of this building. Through them, we opined, the strong winds from the north-northwestentered into the furnace rooms of this structure, which we called a "smelter,"to furnish a natural draft to fan the flames. We had previously explored the Wadi Arabah and examined numerous copper-mining and smelting sites, many of them already visited by others, notably Fritz Frank, and had been able through surface pottery finds to place them for the first time within the framework of history. The surface sherds at these Wadi Arabah sites belonged to Iron I and early Iron II in general and especially to the 10th century period of king Solomon. We had as a result called them "king Solomon's mines," and had attributed, as we still do, a considerablepart of his wealth to his exploitation of the mineral wealth obtained there. This led to our considering the building as a smelter or copper refinery and the aperturesas flue-holes. We have, however, come to the conclusion that these apertures resuited from the decay and/or burning of wooden beams laid across the width of the walls for bonding or anchoring purposes. There are numerous analogies to this kind of construction both inside and outside of Palestine. After the walls containing the wooden crossbeams had been completed, with some beams being inserted also laterally and vertically, the inner and outer faces of the walls were plastered over with a mud coating, which hid the ends of the timbers from sight3 and would have effectively prevented any air entering the apertures.Obviously then, this structure could not have functioned as a smelter, as Rothenberg has correctly contended.4 Examples of this kind of construction of mudbrick walls, which strengthens their bonding, prevents warping and gives them a high degree of elasticity useful in case of earthquakes have been found at Sendschirli, Boghazk6y, Tell Tainat, Tell Halaf and also at Troy and Knossos, for example.5 The use of timber joists for bonding purposes in stone walls has 3. Lloyd, Mounds of the Near East, p. 86; Wheeler, Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient

in Piggott, Orient, pp.

The Dawn of Civilization, p 245; 145 and 169. It is not impossible,

of course, that several of the apertures were intended for ventilation, as occurred, for example, in the tower of Saul's fortress at Gibeah; cf, Albright, AASOR, IV (1924), 9; Sinclair, AASOR, XXXIV-XXXV (1960), 14. The Tell el-Kheleifeh apertures could have resulted from purposeful burning away of the crossbeams, but we regard this as unlikely because of the coating of mudplaster on the faces of the walls and especially because of the mudbrick rampart built against the outer faces of the walls of this building. 4.

Palestine

Exploration

Quarterly,

XCIV

(1962),

45-56;

cf.

Albright,

Bibliotheca

Orientalis,

XXI (1964), 67. 5. Von Luschan, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, IV, pp. 247-8, Abb. 155-7; p. 249, Abb. 157A;

p. 299,

Abb.

209;

Bittel

and Naumann,

Bogazkby,

II, 49-51;

Lloyd,

Mounds

of the Near

East,

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

74

been attested by finds in Samaria.6This type of construction seems to be reflected in the description in I Kings 6:36, which reads: "He (Solomon) built the inner court with three courses of hewn stone and one course of cedar beams."7At Jericho,numerous horizontallacing-timberswere employed in several stages in the town walls.8 Striking parallels to the apertures at Ezion-geber are furnished by those in the mudbrick base of the "granary" at Mohenjo-daro in India. The burning and/or disintegration of a series of reenforcing crossbeams created horizontal rows of holes and grooves there and in related ones at Chanhu-daro and Harappa.9

. . ... mg-MM 'v,

............ ... .. . x;::

...... ..

-ny

:x,

::Z:: Zr.?Rw

.. .

X.:

X.

...........

..

....

........

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

..... ........ xx ...

W-:?.......... x. x.?,X:.

.....

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

..

X

.......... xxx

......

X

.....

.............. ... . ......... .......... ............ .......... ....... ... .......... X:

....... ........... . ...... .... .......... X ............... ..

............ -....... ... . ...... ...... ...................... X

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

........ ..

...

.... ......

.................. .-A ........... -X ...... ..................... .... X-N.. ....... 'Zx., . ....... ................. .......... .... e ............. ......... ....... ........ ......... . I" .......... .................... X ...... .............. ... ............... ... .......... ...... ....... .......... ....... ......... ....... -. ........ ... ...... ..... ......... ..... ........ ........ .... ..... .......... ........ ....... ... ....... X .... .................... .' . X . . . ..... .............. ...... ... .......... XX X: win ........... .... ......... . 44' X NI: IX: ...... .... IM ?X. ..... .......... ..... ....... Fig. 3. Close view of apertures in the mudbrick walls; conceivably they served for ventilation, but their basic purpose was for bonding.

In addition to the coating of mud plaster in the initial construction of the Tell el-Kheleifeh building, a mudbrick rampartwas built against its 86-7; Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, pp. 145 and 169; Naumann, Tell Halaf, II, figs. 23-24, 40; McEwan, American Journal of Archaeology, XLI (1937), 13; Woolley, Alalakh, pp. 123 and 126; Evans, The Palace of Minos at Knossos, I, pp. 347-50 and figs. 250-2; p. 368, fig. 267; Blegen, Caskey, Rawson, Troy, III:1, 288-9. 6. Crowfoot, Kenyon, Sukenik, The Buildings at Samaria, p. 17; cf. Schaeffer, Ugaritica, III, pl. XIX:4. 7. Cf. I Kings 7:12, Ezra 6:4. Schaeffer, Ugaritica, III, pl. XIX:1-3; Thomson, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, XCII (1960), 57-63 and references there; Barrois, Manuel d'archeologie biblique, I, 103-4; Frankfort, Art and Architecture, pp. 139-145, 169. 8. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, p. 314. 9. Wheeler in Piggott, The Dawn of Civilization, pp. 233, 244-6; cf. McEwan, American Journal of Archaeology, XLI (1937), 13, and Frankfort, Art and Architecture, p. 169, fig. 81. Wooden anchor or bonding beams to strengthen mudbrick walls are utilized in modern Aqabah. They are visible also in the late Mameluke castle there and in the Byzantine and later ruins on Jeziret Far'un, AASOR, XVIII-XIX (1939), 11.

1965, 3)

75

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

walls, which would likewise have negated the use of any apertures either for draft or ventilation purposes and which indeed transformed the building into a citadel. We believe now, as Rothenberg has suggested, that this structure with its purposely high floors was also designed and used as a storehouse and/or granary,10and that the site, whether actually Ezion-geber or a suburb or satellite of Ezion-geber, belonged in a comparativelymodest way to the type of fortified district and chariot cities which Solomon built in elaborate fashion at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer (I Kings 9:15-17, 19). Before continuing with the discussion of this storehouse-granarystructure and its relationship to the wall enclosing the square in which it originally stood, we should like to underscore the fact that industrial and metallurgical activities did indeed take place in the various periods of occupation of Tell el-Kheleifeh. Copper slag was definitely found in the excavations, as well as remnants of copper implements and vessels. There was, however, little slag compared to the great masses of slag marking numerous Iron I and early Iron II copper mining and smelting sites in the Wadi Arabah, where mining and smelting activities also were carried on in Middle Bronze I1 and late Chalcolithic times.12 The small amount of slag at Tell el-Kheleifeh may be explained by the difference in metallurgical operations as carried out in the Wadi Arabah and at Tell el-Kheleifeh. At the latter place, they were devoted, we believe, to remelting the globules of copper ore obtained through several metallurgical processes in the Wadi Arabah smelting sites, in order to shape them into more easily salable ingots or to pour the molten metal into molds for manufacturing purposes. This process would have produced no slag. One recalls the pouring of molten metal in "thickened earthen molds between Succoth and Zarethan" in the Jordan Valley (I Kings 7:45, 46). In addition, there may have been further refining of some of the Wadi Arabah smelted ores, resulting in the production of the limited amount of slag which we did find. A small quantity of slag may also have resulted from the repetition of the open hearth and crucible methods employed in the Wadi Arabah. It should be mentioned in this connection that both on the surface and in the excavations of Tell el-Kheleifeh a coarse, handmade type of pottery was found that at the time was new to us, and that for a brief while 10. Albright, AASOR, XXI-XXII (1943),

22-4; Bibliotheca Orientalis, XXI (1964),

67; Wright,

Biblical Archaeology, pp. 131, 170-1, and 185; Shechem, pp. 146-9; Macalister, The Excavations Tell en-Nasbeh, I, 209; Kelso, Interpreter's Dictionary of the McCown, of Gezer, I, 199-202;

Bible, II, 838; Sellin and Watzinger, Jericho, pp. 67-68 and pl. IV; Tufnell, Lachish, III, 53 and in Piggott, The Dawn 237; Wheeler, 78; Starkey, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, LXIX (1937), 225. of Civilization, pp. 244-5; Cross and Wright, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXV, (1956),

11. AASOR, XV (1935), 12. Rivers

in the Desert,

32-36; Rothenberg, pp. 12, 60-1. pp.

58-9;

Perrot,

Israel

Exploration

Journal,

V (1955),

berg, pp. 57-61; Hestrin and Tadmor, Israel Exploration Journal, XIII (1963),

80-3;

286-8.

Rothen-

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

76

appeared to us to be utilized for crucibles. We soon abandoned this idea when it became apparent how common this pottery was on contemporary sites in the Negeb, as well as in the Wadi Arabah and at Tell el-Kheleifeh. Many of these crude, handmade vessels, with which appeared more familiar types of Iron I and early Iron II wheelmade wares, some of which seemed to have regional differences, had mat bases and knob or horn or ledge handles. We believe that this crude, handmade ware was largely the

Medi.ter

lea:-, ,i

,

e,

,.e

r

,

*Kurn

h

irbet

Tannur

a as o.Shobek

, Petra a.Ma'an

Timna , elTell Kheleifeh Amrani Eilat . Aqabah

Fig.

4. Research map of region 47.35 miles to the inch.

around

Tell

el-Kheleifeh,

prepared

by Eleanor

K. Vogel.

Scale:

work of Kenites, Rechabites, Calebites, Yerahmeelites and related inhabitants of the Negeb and the Wadi Arabah and is characteristicof much of the pottery of Iron I-II in an area comprising the Negeb, Sinai, the Arabah, and much of Arabia. Tell el-Kheleifeh was obviously a central point of that area. 1\Miss Caton Thompson found very similar pottery in Arabia, which, however, she dated to about 400 B.C.14 The Kenites, who introduced the Report for 1941, p. 13. BA, XXII (1959), 10-12; Smithsonian 93-4; BASOR, 155 (Oct., 1959), God's 241 and pl. 49-52; Rothenberg, Journal, VIII (1958), 478; Aharoni, Israel Exploration pp. 105-8 (1962), Convention Elath, 18th Archaeological Wilderness, pp. 124 and 137; Dot,-an. (Hebrew). 14. Letter dated Dec. 18, 1938.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1965, 3)

77

Israelites to the art of metallurgy, may also have had wheel-made pottery going back to the beginnings of Iron I, some examples of which we found in the Wadi Arabah. It is clear, furthermore, that my original suggestion made years ago of how the copper ores in the Wadi Arabah were smelted needs to be changed and amplified in view of Rothenberg's clear demonstration of the smelting in the Wadi Arabah of crushed cupriferous ores in charcoal fires in shallow cavities with the utilization of tuyeres and bellows. By the same token, his discovery of numerous cisterns in the Wadi Arabah, which I had not found in my own expeditions, has added further valuable information to the growing body of knowledge of the past in the Wadi Arabah. His ??;?::::i::?::i:i~:i ::::::::ii-:i::-: ii.:f1~2~i"~~~i~~?~-:~~~.:~i:;ie?:,i?ii-li?ii:~ii~~ji.'L~~:~?~~i~i,?-?:-;:: ::':'''5?'~'i:.iii::~~J:iiiiii'-:: ":`'::i!"''i'i:i:i'-:i-: ::--.:::::-ii__li~i--:: :::: -::::::::i 'i'i'i'i:i'i?:~3ii?~?::iiii:ii;':::-l.i: : :::-: ":~A .: :?:-:::::::':: I;~5 ?i :-::;:i:::i:::::-::::: :-:::::ili-i::ii ii-iiiiiijii:ijijijiiii fiiiiiiIIl, E B:iiiiij :::m BII:i~t~l~:'i~`~*'g ~s~s~a~g~gg~~~r~%lggp~~.-~ ii~iiiiiiii"r il;:si~ :i::::::::i::i:i ~:?`::a ~?~i.:::::'':'i:i-,~~:Ui' ~i:?:-:-:::~~:~ :i:-::i::::::: ii::`.~*-::::::::::::': '::i:::i:_::::::::: C~:X ix?iii-a :::n:~::::::::: ,i:i:i'i'iii;_iiiii ~liji iiiii~~:iiiiiii:i:iiii:iii::i:iiiiiiiiii :--~~ is::'iii~i iiizi~iiiiiiiii

:i:::::::~::1::j

""" ~~:~1~ ij:jiiiiilr i~~iiiiiiiliiE~ ii~ii::i

~::::i::~ ,:::::I::::::

*?lp :,:.:.:

:::-:l:::?:i::: :?:::::::::i~ raaaaa:ii:i:i:::.l:_:I:::::i::?` -::-?i:::::i:_:_

:iiiiiii:jiiii:~illiij7':iiiiiij~g~~li ~i:~~?~~iiiiia~.~,,:.'~:j

"'::::::::: I:::::;~:i-:iiii:iiiiiiii:;i?i~iiiiiii;i i?ii::::::a*_ --?- i:i::i-il~j-:i~ ::: :Si?~s?:-:-:i;:i:::::-_:i:::::~? kili~ 1:-:ib: i::BPS ;::::::-;i;:::: i::-: ::'s:?F;jBS i:

'-:::i:-::li::::: ;iii

?-~iii i?i?i8i ii-ii'iia

:II

':

:~j(::g--~b

~~s~P~6B~P~Y~

i:::::::::::::,i ::::::r::-::i::i:::1

3BEra-_.r- " ;tiIiiiiX

?:::::::~~ :j:::::::i:

liiiiiliail~i::i:iii'iii:iii~a Xilii~i

i:~~i:ii:i8i:i:i:i:i:~i:'::;;:::::::-:: ii:i:ii:'l:::::l?:l:i:'l:l:I:ii:::#:I: ?:::::i:::::: :?:?:?:?: ::i~

i~ai~~. ii;iiiii;l~cg

il~i:l i;

~i?i~i

Fig. 5. Ancient copper mine shaft at Timna.

finding of additional places where cupriferous sandstone or nodules of silica-boundcopper-oreswere mined is also helpful. Welcome too is the proof of Prof. A. Fahn of the Hebrew University, whom he cites, to the effect that the charcoal used in the initial smelting processes in the Wadi Arabah was made out of the native accacia there and not of the oak trees from the slopes of the hills of Edom, as I had originally surmised.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXV1II,

78

It should be remembered, however, that cupriferous ores were mined in many places on both sides of the Wadi Arabah, including, for example, more or less level areas in the Wadi Amrani and at Timna (Wadi Mene'iyeh). The ores were certainly not mined solely in the western escarpments above them. For example, in the earth stripping operations by the Israel Mining Corporation in the mid-1950's at Timna, we came across remnants of an ancient small mining shaft (Fig. 5) of the kind discovered by Fritz Frank in the Wadi el-Merah near the northwest end of the Gulf of Aqabah.'5 Noteworthy too is the fact that in addition to the open hearth method of smelting copper in the Wadi Arabah, pottery crucibles were employed. Pieces of them, with slag still adhering to the inner surfaces, have been found by us in the Wadi Amrani.16 It was a pleasure to show one particularly striking example in March 1965 to Pare R. de Vaux. The writer showed a fragment of a crucible found in the Wadi i\mrani and submitted copper slag and ore specimens from there and from TimnM to metallurgistsof the Inland Steel Co. of Chicago, Illinois for examination. It is a pleasure also to express our gratitude to them and to the officers of the company for their helpfulness. In a letter of May 1, 1964, Dr. M. O. Holowaty, Associate Manager, Research and Development, Inland Steel Company expressed the belief that the metallic globules produced in the small, open hearth smelting operations had to be reprocessedin a "crucible in which the high temperature and the reducing atmosphere could easily be reproduced."In his reportproperhe writes in this connection: To demonstrate the type of process that could have been used to extract copper from the .

.

. ore, the submitted sample of ore (from

the Wadi Amrani) was crushed, roasted and mixed with iron oxide and placed in homemade and commercial clay crucibles. The crucibles were then inserted separatelyin a bed of charcoal which was ignited and fanned by an air blower for a period of approximately one hour and twenty minutes. Charcoal was added periodically. When the contents of the crucible were melted, they were permitted to cool in the bed of glowing charcoal and ash. In both cases, a button of copper was produced as shown in the sample. The homemade crucible fell apart and cannot be sent for that reason. The sample was preparedin the commercialclay crucible. In specific reply to my question as to how the coating of slag was formed on the inside of the refractorycrucibles, Dr. Holowaty wrote: 15. Frank, 16. BASOR,

pl. 46B. 159

(Oct.,

1960),

13.

1965, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

79

The slag is formed just below 1900 F. The slag of the indicated composition is quite liquid at this temperature and readily coats the walls of the crucible. Whether or not such crucibles were placed for charcoal firing (with the employment of hand bellows) in the numerous small stone structures that abound in almost every mining-and-smelting site in the Wadi Arabah,'7 as we believe, is a matter that requiresfurther careful examination.

7-MMM",:

i?:lj~::ssasr~~a ar llr~~r~~ sl~~o?P--~:l:gl.:g X.i::~l:

:::i::x.:

i~id:? i~ii:ta~. ......pam

::::::N :':i~X\

.

::::::::\MM

.......... i:: :-: ..... ... ...............................

Fig. 6. A globule of copper at the base of a test crucible, with slag adhering to the crucible's inner surfaces. From the tests conducted by Dr. Holowaty of Inland Steel Company.

Assuming that this central building at Tell el-Kheleifeh was a citadel as well as a storehouse and/or granary, we find that a loosely packed, hard clay debris piled to approximately the same height on the floor of each room, served several purposes, helping preserve dryness and diminishing the heat caused by the weight of the supplies deposited. The fact that some 17. AASOR, XV (1935), 24, fig. 10; p. 27, fig. 12; cf. Rothenberg, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, XCIV (1962), 12, 15, 26, and 27, who believes they were tombs, having found burials in some of them. There is no evidence, however, of the time of origin of the burials, which may have come from much later times. See BASOR, 79 (Oct., 1940), 9-10 and fig. 4 for the type of "mastabah" grave excavated at Tell el-Kheleifeh.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

80

of the middle rows of bricks of this building had been turned into the consistency of kiln-baked bricks may stem from the burning on more than one occasion of the roof timbers and their collapse onto the raised floor level or onto the supplies stored there, resulting in conflagrations that could easily have baked the rows of bricks with which the flames and resultant heat came into particular contact. This possibility has already been suggested by Rothenberg. The various wooden anchor beams inserted into the walls would also burn in such a general conflagration,helping to bake the bricks they touched. !"`? :.:I:::1_:-: ,i'_:ii-,::-:~,;.c:?::.:::::::-: ??::.i::

;?:. -':::?tlf

I

..

:?c; ?,:

r -I:ii.:_: :ji?'-i~j?i:;x:::::-~: -:::i*::: :I:--:.i:::::_l:::r '::''::::?:::::-'-'?': ::: Ci~ii~:i: "'"'i%:ama~,'i:i:::'

:

: i::

1 1;1:I::i ,iFI:~" ::i:::i ..-.:::-il_-E?;~":-* ii : ,:::-:::_::: ? ; i:: ::'?: : ~i?ri~ : ?1:::: . ?; iiii:: ~,': :-:: :i i: i: .':::::.::::-:-::I?::'i"~:':'l~ :.:.:::: ::-:I :?::::::?:::: 1'I.I: i ~l-,~:i~ei-i:::ii:~i-:::: :.-:?::.::h~:_:?; --ji:-_ _ :_::j-::-:_::::::-:i:-::::i '--:__:ill:jl:.''?::~~::il~i:::j'i: ~:_jiijii:Si:-i-: ,ii::i.-_~:l:::_? : : ?: ::: r::::i_::: ::'!iiliiii-;:s i~ii:__::iii;:-,'j,:j:: . ij:.i; I--,:1.:r:J-`::l:~i;-:::: i:~-i::i:-': 'i_-i-;,-~i~li~,ijli:; :I,:.:11: :, I:?::-~.:-:i .::-iii~ iiii :::.:l:i~-j::-:i -::-'-::rilii:-i:,? i-il_?:--:-i6-ij'-::l;-'I.:-:?::i:-:_.l :::l:::-:-:--:-:_:?i:::i:-:?:::, ::;.:::-ri?~?'.?::::a:: ':-.-?-I" :':ei-i;;-ii::i*i-::: P ....." :::::: r:::j-::_::::i::_:::.:.:;~;~-:jiij;;ii:; ?:? :::::::-*'.:-:-*:?-:;':: :.:-: :::: ::' ::(::::-~'.::::::-':::--: 1:::::-.::i-;i-:i?-::?i:i~-iii;?t:l::`x-l:?:i::-:i' :.:::: :r-::: ::-: ':::::: ::::: _::: .:::_-::::-::::i:::::: .::: ::`:,::: I-*:j:s _:::~i:-ii-i:: :::-' i?Ri?i-iii-'?i:ii~iiili::::ii: *: ( i:?-. :?:: i8?ti:::ll:;ii;i:~::i:i-f::li--::?-:? ::j::-l::*-i-::?-::i::::: ;:.::::.:.,::::;, ?-::~--: :::::r;:i:::::-::?:::::: :-I::::--:?:I:-a:::~t:s ' ;::.-l::.:i?:iiii;.::-t-~--i:l:i?:i?:?:: :;i:-li: ::'~i;"" ::'.B-?~?:... ,?i'--'?i::P":-:::: :' :-:: ?::: -t:ii-i:1:i-::i? i:_; ~I?::::: ::-I::?i: :::-::i-.::j:-: , :: _i~--~i:-:--:: :::: :::::j:::~:?:_ir: ?i:: :ii:l'i.: ii::iiiiii:.lii-_ _-i::i::l_;?i'i-l~il: i-:i$-: i. :::::-:i::ii:--::--?::i:-:,::-?:-j-:ij:1 -.Ii-::l:~:::::~-?' I-::::?:i:::::: il:l::~.:-:.-.i~::l,:_:;:~:ir::i::,:,:::::~,P?._,:iii ?: CI -: i::::::::-?::::-:l:.i?;:::: ::?i-_:l I:;::::::?-::ii:r::-s: ,::_:-:_::I:_ :::: :I_:i:i :-:::i:r:( '?i--:'?i'-:::--:ii?i:~:ai?_:l(~;-i;~ '-::-: :: ;?,--_i :i:i^ : ::?:::: :: :?I::?: :: * ~--.ig:~-:;ii I-::-ii:i:i: Piiiii-_i ii?i-li:-ii :i:_:-?iiii-: ::ii',i-:-;6`-?:: -..:rl;: i?:.:: '.:i: 'I: ::::::::::--~l~llil:i~:*1 i-::::i:: ; :::?:,:::::: ::::I:?.::::.::?:_:_ ij.~::i--'*::ii-j i-.i: -:?:.:: ::::: i .* ..:::::~~ ?i'?l????--:;-:-r;~?ci:-;:? c:i.i*-i:::::_:l-.-l _:I::_:-:? ~::::::1:: :::::*''-'::::::::: .:?::;-::-'i:.-::: ::::i.;ii:ii:'~':-:-:-:'r-:::-:::::::: ?`--;" :;? ;? ::~-: ? ?'?: -;i-?;?:;??;; ?, :?:.:::,::.: c-j-`-:::::::-;: :-".:::;::_i:-:ili i.:'-:i-:iiBji3:?: -i?. -~,;i-iiiir:--:-::::i::i~,i:-?:'i?':::_: (:il_~~l~ :i:-:::::_i~:-l : ii:::::: *:??; c~i~~iiiii'i-u:i:?::' ::?i-li: -_i-';:~ii~:;:i-iii~::::i:ll _:::::r::::: : ::;:::::-:ii:-:-::i-::i::~ ix,?::: ii,:::i~ii-':i;iii3::j:::i;-:6:i ::i--:l :i: :ii-':..iEi::r~b;.:i-P~-I.:l:::::;::::i: iti;ii~:::-~-t ';._':?::: ~II::' ~:-: _;.:::::: i i:* i~L&i-:i:i:i: ':-::?:i:i-:i:'?i::-??i:-:-:i?.i:i:i: ::::e::-iii:i-:ii-i_':''': :" ::::i~~?ii-i~':'' '-x:: :"::i':i:''~:'-':~:::: '::''-j':-:*'':"3s~s.~-~;? a~?:I:: ?:;i;: ': _-: :6::::::: :::::1.:1:

1.

*

"t I

:: ::.^

*:c~:* Z i! -i * i ..

.::

, .r :i 'j r'l t i

?-: sir? :i :I: \::: i: r; i i ": 't: r

f:.

"

i--::::::i._::_:~ii--i:i:,:i_-_li : ::. ?i::_-iiil-ii -r. ::::_~ i:,---.-... :~'iii:%:-:: ?:::?::: ::::i : ::::::::-:: .e i ~I~iii~i.-iiii:in:_ii~:;:_:,::_:::::.:i::::::::: :i;:? :::,:,:::,;,j-'-Ij-:i: i::: :-:_ :.: ::--i::::.: :::: :::j ,?: j: :, ::::r::: ?:*, i :': ::::::i *jt:,~cli:i:.ii iiliiiiii8';-~"~j~_-lir:ii::l:lllll)*:l :::.2?i:::::::::~-:::;::::,:: :-:::::::::-:-:,:-:::*i : :i:::iii~: iiiiijiiiii':::i:::-::-'if: ...... :":-:::?:::i ?:::::::::::-":': i:::.,i:~:I .::'::?::i:::r: ii-:::::iTT::: i::: i ::i...:.....j ::i:.. :-:- : :,:.::::::*:.-.jb-,::i:j-*i:i:i;::::ji_ :I--i-l:i:-lll':::~::'--i:-1~:i:i~:::; ::iii:: :::=:; :-:::-:?jn :)::::::::r.:,i: -:r;::-:-::-:. -j--:::::_:::; ;. :.?. *-; ?i ::r,::::::i*:::::i::::::::::I: ?::::i?l:;;jj:jj:j:_:i-itiii:i:i-::i:i ::::'i :::::,:V I: -i:i::iii;:i:li:?:iij:i:i:i::::::I"::::::j:::::t::: i::_: :,:.:::::::::_*::~ 1:,I:: :iii:-l~-:-:??:_iii-iiiiiil5 -?:r :_l~;~~i. ri :::il: ::::~:;?i?5-;i;:'::?''::i ::?: r:::i::::::::::l:1-: :,:?-:i:-:;:::?:::l:t'-'-:::::-?::::I:?: :::~:::':: i: ;r;-?-i?;:?;?r IP::.:IP::?: ;i-i?-P , i :::::c: L)'-;:ii.-'*--'E :~-~~~:~:i.l?~~__i-~~~~i*,:3Ail r-:.. `~iji:: ---I?:i: P$~,,:i t li;:?~-~~3i :::r::~:::-i?I::;-. ~u~iii_:l`r:?iiiiiirii~li,~?:lii is::: ?aiiiiiiiii:iiii~~.si~~l??,n?,?~i:?~ia -: .--.-2:*:; g~,iii ::':':'::-:::':""::i:::-':-:-::::::::?:: ia-:ial;liii:ili-ii:;-;iiiiiliii:-ii_' i;ii-!-: _; * f'?':i;?-: :::::i?::::: I::... i j i-::::::-s:::i:::;iiii-iiiiiiiiii:i:lRiiiiiliii~~ii:iii ?r~h?ua I~F-:"""ill.---;" ... i i::-;-.:::::l:: '8::i-~::::-:. ::::: :~:-: :*:""i:"i::i-I-.:':'`i?li;?'~~:~sZ?:?* '~-''''''-''::'':' I :::::i?::::i_-i:: riiiil ~~ liL:~8:?'i~??'iiaiii:~ ii:~~ii.':.~,ii~i:?i-:i:ji:.iiiii:i';l-: ? :?i ::::Bi iii:B'i:i?i~ i~-~i7ii~i:iiii8 :::a:::::::::::?:?:?::?::::: :.-

P

:::::.::::::::~

:':":''I:;": ::::?x-:,::i

;~S'.4??i'i:~Er;~?:?~ii'$?';BiTl.i.iii? :::l:::::::i:-l:i:?. i,:::::::: "-''"Hiiiiiii;

;~.?': ~--?li;r~??:??g

?tlF?'

ii":~:?is ???? :::::_,::::.::

i::--~a:~-id ::i--:::::;:: i .o

i ?:*? \ lg.

:::.:,.:.:::::::::?:: :.:. -.:i::::::---: ,::-?:::-::-, :::?r?: i-:r-*l i-':::_:ii-l?_1:: .;? i_:waaii:ii:ii:iiiii:~~i ::?r-:_9:::::::::?,:-:::i:--:_-i--'::-~ ::::-::~: :::?::': : ::::i:-:i?::::::-: .:- :?.:: /:::-::. ..-T~~'~:;::i:;'ii'b::jiiii:3~:.j?..:?~ f:::l::::::::::::i::: ::: :::'::::::::: .':::: :::I:I:^.' :::::1:::::. :iis.r.?i~e_.;li'6j:i.i:-i:1.2:i:.?i?;' :';(-'''1;::~i~'?ji:?-i-.:ii:; -ii:iiiiiii:i::,ir Xi~iowi?iii?iiia?I:__:,:::::.: :?i:i:ii.i~P'-ii:iil;je-:: :__r,::_l-::..:.iiii',:i8l:a(ijll~:~~jii:ljS:ii :::,:....:. ::...,?:i:-?:'ili;:i:i'-i:i.ii::i?ifiii;:~:':I .''::::-:::-ii: I'':--':''--:-'':':'-' '::-:-:-:--r-:::l::::;::I?:-:.:: :':'' ;:-''''~::-~:~ Zjiiii:i:ii~::iiii:':iii:i:i'il:iii. ii?iiiii' :-:-;: :5::::: ::::::::i::~:::I:j ::::x:::.:::-:::::::_:_i:i:::-:::-':-*B ' :::..:::::::-::::?::)::-:_:_:-:*_:_: ::.:-' ?::?_::::: i:::::l ::ii?;?:i._:-:;:i:ria:-i: .--.:i?i-: ~:k~'j-:*? :-':`:::::-"I:::siTiiI5ii:-il'i:!iliiiii?~:; :li?:i~~i?::i:::`i'?~^~i"l?'i B;iii:ii:a:::i:: :::::::-I:":: :':~-:--::i:?i-:i:il::-l:i:-.:-:: i::::::::-i:,:~?i~:,:8_-s-r:-i-ii:ii\i--::: :-:--:i-i:?--:-:::i:::^1?::::---x-*::--:::lli-:i~i:-iii~i :iiiiiiiZi'.z';i'iilir;-::-:;:-:-;:ii_: -:::.: :i:;?.-:ii.:::::?;i:il-:.i :::*::::::I:: - ::::::*:'::'::.::: ...--...._ :::~:: :~,:::-::::::::;:::i:i : ::?-:? ::?:::*-::?i:::: -:ll:l?:i.i-is ....`.. I?:-::i:_?~:::Zi:; I::tl:iii::`~"-i:i:::-l::::::::::::"'~i :'r ::'.i-?~!~i:~.~:::?:ili~ili?iisasi~?ii ii::i:i*?iii~ii-iij`i''j~i ~i:li! :''::;j:l.j:.i:ii:--i: :::?:?:::?:. i :I -.-i-,-a..i-,i:i:-,:::iii:,:-_:_:_: : -~::::.,_,:,a i i;---:_:)-i~.::?i-i_:: :::i?i-?:--iii:-:jl:II I;bi9`ii-';:;i ifiii:'-.::;-ii'.'iiiihii-'iai;i: ;:::::l:i::ii:::.::::-:::?i'ii.Liiiiiii :::i~i.~:: ? ::,:-i:i:;::i I:'*::?:-:: '~~I-::il:j:ii--l-j:ii:l ,--:ai -:: i::::-: ::. i:::~ri'!ii';'~:i:::::::-':--':---:' r:::::,i:,:-~:: -:.:::.::.::, i?`?:?:?::::`-:-~~?:-:.:::::-,ti:'r`b:: :*: :,- :~?::::_:::_:::::::-::-----::;':^:i ::i?-i-iiii?i_,i ::::: '--i-~'_?r-_-,__I::..:;:j:-~l'r:-: ::l::'.~a:'.i;:kl:i -:~_::_:.. .......,. :::-__::. :_ .::::: .;. :---?:::::::ii;:-::-??-:::::::--:::::?' ?':~'"':?-''":i-,-i-:,-ajiiii..:-i;:~:;-"i-:j:?::^:?^?-. :j-::::::-_-i:_;: c :: ?-:::i:--"::I:liiii'?ii:il4iii:liiiii~iiii!iiiiii::i. :_::;i--.~-:.::-I

?i ' '.'

.

it :x :.-.fi

: ::::i-::-i:::-: -:: .li?* .*:::::-'-'i ::::~: :::: _::::, '... ::

i:

i _.:

Fig. 7. Isometric view of period I fortified storehouse and glacis surrounded by casemate wall with salients and recesses, from Solomon's time.

This main building was considered so important that a sloping rampart of mudbricks was built against its outer sides, as mentioned above. It

1965, 3)

81

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

of Period IA and the glacis built is likely that the "storehouse-granary" to Period IB belong together. Both had been it which assigned against utilize 16 by 8 by 4 inch mudbricks and could have been built within a comparativelybrief span of time. Unlike the glacis of the major one of the double outer fortification walls of a later period, it is not tied into the walls of the "storehouse-granary"but is built against it as has already been mentioned. -----------------------"Mm

.7 W so

lmd ?,,VWm ..... ......

:m. XX.

..... ZRM

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

g...........

:1 X.. 5-x

Fig. 8. Part of the glacis built against outer east wall of storehouse-granary.

This well built structure, with its glacis, is located not quite in the center 9f a square enclosed by a fortification wall with its salients and recesses on its outer sides and casemate rooms against its inner sides.18 Each side of the enclosure wall was 150 feet in length, divided into three slight salients and two recesses, each 30 feet in length. It was built of bricks somewhat larger (about 17?2 by 9?2 by 5 inches) than those of the and its glacis; possibly an interval of time elapsed be"storehouse-granary" tween the construction of the two, although only a short one. This case18. Albright, AASOR, XXI-XXII (1943), 15; The Archaeology of Palestine, pp. 121-2; Aharoni, BASOR, 154 (May, 1959), 38; Rothenberg, God's Wilderness, pp. 122, 123, and 137; Dothan, Elath, 18th Archaeological Convention, pp. 101, 104. Attention has been called correctly to the fact that what I originally designated workshops or foundry rooms are really casemate rooms; cf. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 136; Mashal, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (Yediot), XXV (1961), 157-9 (Hebrew); Rothenberg, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, XCIV (1962), 53-4; Gichon, ibid. XCV (1963), 126, n. 54.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

82

mate wall with its salients and recesses has been assigned to Period IC. If Period I AB can be attributed to the time of Solomon, then the Period IC wall should be assigned to the same period. The casemate rooms opening on the square had all been occupied at one time or another. In the middle offset of the south side of the wall was an eight-foot wide gateway with the outer entrance originally at the east end and the inner entrance at the west end. The gateway turned out to be in line with the massive one of a later, much larger, double, enclosing fortification wall, with both gateways pointing toward the sea. The enclosure wall proper, including the salients, is about 31/2 feet thick, and, with the casements, some 131/2feet thick. The recesses in the outer face of the wall are set back some 10 inches. Whether or not this casemate wall with its salients and recesses can be assigned, as we have assigned it, to the time of Solomon remains open to question.19 Yadin's excavations at Hazor, as well as his findings at Gezer and Megiddo,20 have made it possible to distinguish sharply between their casemate walls built by Solomon and the more massive and solid walls of later periods with their salients and recesses. Related to Solomon's casemate walls of Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo are those of Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah), Tell Beit Mirsim (Qiriath-sefer) and Beth-shemesh, probably of the time of David and those of Gibeah of the time of Saul.21 Ezion-geber I with its central structure and enclosing wall may have been destroyed by Shishak (the Egyptian Pharaoh Sheshonk) in the fifth year of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon (I Kings 14:25-26; II Chron. 12:24). At the beginning of Period II, a completely new series of massive fortification walls of mudbrick was erected on the ruins of Ezion-geber or its satellite, if that is what Tell el-Kheleifeh was. The glacis-strengthened central structure was no longer in the center of the site but at its northwest corner. The north and west sides of the former enclosure wall were built over by the new wall. It wxvas largely weathered away particularly on these were drawn by the late Jacob 19. The plan of this wall and all the plans of the excavations For the attribution 57-60 (Hebrew). of of blessed memory; see Kedem, I (1942), Pinkerfield the time of Jehoshaphat to (871(Qadesh-barnea) the fortress casemate walls at Ain el-Qudeirat 116-7 B.C.), see Dothan, Elath (1962), 849 B.C.) and possibly to the time of Uzziah (784-733 Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, pp. 376-7; Aharoni in God's Wilder(Hebrew); ness, pp. 122-5. For the possible ascription of the casemate walls in the Ain Qadeis fortress to the time of Solomon or earlier, see Aharoni, ibid., pp. 125 and 137-8. Yadin thinks that the Ain although he does not exclude the possibility Qadeis citadel was apparently built by Jehoshaphat, Quarthat it was constructed by Solomon; Yadin, Hazor, II, 3; cf. Gichon, Palestine Exploration and recesses is no proof in itself of postsalients of 125-6. The existence terly, XCV (1963), to pre-Iron They can be traced back, like casemate construction, Solomonic period construction. age times; see Wright, Shechem, p. 75 and figs. 20 and 31; for Iron II salients and recesses, see Yadin, Hazor, II, 37, 47 and pl. CCV. 20. Yadin, The Art of Warfare, pp. 289-90, 372-8. 21. Albright, AASOR, XXI-XXII (1960), AASOR, XXXIV-XXXV Palestine Ouarterly, Exploration

XXVIII (1965),

4. -Ed.]

of Palestine, pp. 21-2; Sinclair, 12-14; The Archaeology (1943), 12-14 and pl. 35; Yadin, The Art of Warfare, p. 290; Gict-on, 123 and 126. [On Gibeah, see now Lapp, BA, XCV (1963),

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1965, 3)

83

sides at the time of our excavations as a result of the constant winds and sandstorms from the north. In general, the tell is better preserved at the south end than at the north end for the same reason. F

D

I

G

L

N

M

P

0

u

S

a

45!i

K"M

4A

• . •/... ?1. ...--L,,•,W•

46! 47

+

• •

"

.

.... ..49

i

•

• ""!

Vl '"

o •

.,0

... ..

,,.K!

IL

.is

.

!_

"• " " '

.. . . ..

.ICA .s

4s •...

i'

"•

. . .. T-. .L. . . "' ..- . . .. .t-a-.,

44

i

.

i

'

00

•

IS

. .

..,

!

'

.

I

•

J IuR. .p!i

Fig. 9. Plan of period II, showing double outer wall with supporting glacis and massive gateway of Jehoshaphat's time. The wall was built in part over the north and west sides of the Solomonic building.

The new outer mudbrick fortification consisted of a large inner wall and a smaller outer wall, each strengthened by a glacis with a dry moat between the walls. The major inner wall, with its salients and recesses, further strengthened by a strong glacis with corresponding offsets and insets tied into it above its foundation levels, was a particularly massive affair. It was originally some 26 feet high, perhaps 6 feet wide at the top and

84

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

13 feet wide at the foundation base. About 10 feet beyond the base of its glacis was another but thinner outer wall, which seems to have mirrored the construction features of the inner one. The dry moat between the two walls was marked by a stamped clay and mudbrick floor. At the corners of the inside major wall were towers overlooking its supporting glacis. The scheme of double-walled outer defenses with a dry moat between the walls can be paralleled at the Moabite site of Khirbet el-Medeiyineh overlooking the Wadi Themed and at other sites.22 On the south side, near the southwest corner of the double-wall was a massive city gateway, with three pairs of doors and two opposite sets of guard-roomsbetween them. It is much similar to the massive gateway of city IV (IVA) of Megiddo, which Yadin has shown was built long after the time of Solomon, perhaps by Ahab. He has pointed out that at the end of the 10th century B.C. and the beginning of the 9th, the tendency was to reduce the entrance corridorsof the Solomonic period from three chambers on either side to two chambers on either side, as evidenced at postSolomonic Megiddo IV (IVA), Tell Halaf, Carchemish and now at Eziongeber (Tell el-Kheleifeh).23 We believe that Period II may represent a reconstruction by Jehoshaphat of Judah, who reigned from about 871-849 B.C. He was the one who made the abortive attempt to revive the sea-tradebetween Ezion-geber and Arabia and Africa which had flourished during the reign of Solomon (I Kings 22:48; II Chron. 20:36, 37). As a result of the subsequent economic decline, coupled with the growing political weakness of Judah, the importance of Ezion-geber seems to have diminished. At any rate, after the time of Jehoshaphat,it is no longer mentioned in biblical literature. Ezion-geber may have been destroyed during the successful rebellion of the Edomites against his son Jehoram/Joram(II Kings 8:20-22; II Chron. 21:8-10), shortlyvafter the middle of the 9th century B.C. They were, however, not powerful enough to rebuild it and were probablynot strong enough to renew copper mining and smelting on a large scale in the Wadi Arabah. Nor apparently was their economic and military strength sufficient to enable them to build a fleet of ships of their own and emulate the foreign trade activities of Solomon. About half a century later, the Edomites again lost their independence to the Judaeans under Amaziah (ca. 803-775 B.C.).. He captured their great stronghold of Sela, (the Umm el-Biyara of modern Petra), which he XIV (1934), 13-15, 22-25; XVIII-XIX 22. AASOR, Jericho, p. 6; 1940), 7; cf. Sellin and Watzinger, Wright, Biblical Archaeology, pp. 150, 169 and 170 23. Yadin, The Art of Warfare,

pp. 289-90,

323-5.

(1939), Albright,

119, fig. AASOR,

45; BASOR, 79 (Oct., XXI-XXII 19; (1943),

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1965, 3)

85

renamed Joktheel (II Kings 14:7; II Chron. 25:11-12). Ezion-geber remains unmentioned in the Bible and there is no reference to an Elath of that time. It was first during the reign of his very capable son Uzziah (Azariah) (775-734 B.C.) who "built towers in the wilderness (the Negeb) and hewed out many cisterns" there (II Chron. 26:10) that the name Elath appears or reappears. It is written that he "built Elath and restored it to Judah" (II Kings 14:22; II Chron. 26:1-2). This occurred probably early in his reign, shortly after the first quarter of the 8th century B.C. The new city he built is to be identified, we believe, with the one of Period III of Tell el-Kheleifeh.

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

.......

...

Fig. 10. Brickyard of period II at Tell el-Kheleifeh.

Nearly seventy years had passed between the destruction and abandonment of Ezion-geber or its satellite town and the rebuilding of a new city on its sand covered ruins, with which in the interval the name of Elath became associated, as we have suggested. It preserved thus the name of the original Eloth (I Kings 9:26), that at the time of the Exodus and later may have existed farther east, either near or on the site of modern Aqabah. In any event, the occupational history of Tell el-Kheleifeh encompasses the histories both of Ezion-geberand Elath as delineated in the Bible, spanning the period between the 10th and 5th-4th centuries B.C.

86

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

It was in the Period III city of (Ezion-geber:) Elath that a seal signet ring, with the inscription "belonging to Jotham"was found. The reference is probably to Jotham, king of Judah, the successor of Uzziah. Underneath the inscription is a horned ram and in front of it an object that N. Avigad has brilliantly identified as the representationof a bellows.24 This ring may well have belonged to the governor of Elath ruling in the name of Jotham. The representation of the bellows seems to testify to the continuation of metallurgical activities first inaugurated on a large scale by Solomon in the Wadi Arabahand of related industrialactivities at Ezion-geber. After the time of Uzziah and Jotham, Elath was to change hands once more. Taking advantage of the distress of Uzziah's grandson, Ahaz, during the Syro-Ephraimiticwar in 733 B.C., the Edomites regained control of Elath. II Kings 16:6 has been emended to read: "At that time the king of Edom restored Elath to Edom and drove out all the Judaeans from Elath; whereupon the Edomites came to Elath and dwelt there unto this day." Having considerably damaged the city while retaking it, the Edomites proceeded to rebuild it. Their substantial new city is representedby Period IV at Tell el-Kheleifeh. With its several sub-periods,it lasted from about the end of the 8th century to about the end of the 6th century B.C. The freedom regained by Edom from Ahaz was never again threatened by Judah, which was not strong enough thereafter to dispute Edom's control over the Arabah and Elath. Edom itself, however, despite periods of efflorescence, apparently became progressively less able to take full advantage of its independence. Stamped on the handles of a series of jars belonging to the first phase of Period IV, which probably extended well down into the seventh century B.C., was an Edomite inscription reading: "Belonging to Qausanal, the servant of the king." The first part of the theophorous name of Qausanal or Qosanal, namely Qaus or Qos is that of a well known Edomite and subsequently Nabataean deity and occurs also in the Bible (Ezra 2:53; Neh. 7:55). Belonging also to Period IV were fragments of a large jar, which was probably used for transporting incense and spices from Arabia. On two of its pieces were incised the first ancient South Arabic letters in Minaean script25ever discovered in a controlled excavation in greater Palestine. Other finds were made in the course of the excavationsshowing connections with Egypt, which were to be expected. The Babylonian conquest brought an end to Edomite rule over the Elath of Period IV. It was destroyed before the end of the 6th century 163 (Oct., 1961), 18-22. 15, fig. 5; Rivers in the Desert, 25. BASOR, 71 (Oct., 1938), 247-9 and pl. VI. XLVIII (1939),

24. BASOR,

p. 162; Ryckmans,

Rivue

Biblique,

1965, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

87

fig.,

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

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

Oil

..

liiii ...

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

.

. ..

. ..

. . .

....

.. .........:::::ii::iii

Fig. 11. Jars with stamp impression reading "belonging to Qos'anal, the servant of the king."

B.C. A new industrial city of Period V was built over it, which lasted from near the end of the 6th or from early in the 5th century down to the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 4th century B.C., mainly under Persian administration.Trade on an extensive scale was still carried on with Arabia as evidenced by Aramaic ostraca, including wine receipts.6 And goods were exchanged between both countries and Greece as indicated by fragments of 5th-4th century B.C. black glazed Greek pottery. Tell el-Kheleifeh was abandoned thereafter and the subsequent Nabataean settlement was located farther to the east at Aila, close to present day Aqabah. .26. BASOR, 80 (Dec., 1940), 6-9; Albright, BASOR, 82 (May, 1941), 11-15; for other ostraca from the site see Torrey, ibid., 15-16; Rosenthal, BASOR, 85 (Feb., 1942), 8-9.

The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old Testament PATRICKW. SKEHAN Catholic University

So many partial lists of Old Testament manuscriptsfrom Qumran exist -in the scholarly literature that it seems necessary to begin this account with

88

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

a full inventory. The numbers to be given are minimal. They are given in four separate groups, for cave 1, for caves 2, 3, 5-10, for cave 4, and for cave 11; thus for the published material those especially interested can verify how these totals have been arrived at. A manuscript which contains any Psalm and no extant non-biblical material is counted as a Psalms manuscript. Three isolated bits from cave 4 are not counted, however; and 11Q Psa and 4Q Psf, both of which are definitely Psalms manuscriptsincorporating non-biblical compositions, are included. A manuscript which contains any of the Minor Prophets is counted as a manuscript of the Twelve, as the evidence seems to require. The four manuscripts which indicate inclusion of two biblical books in a single scroll (two of Gen.-Ex., two of Lev.-Numb.) are counted one to each of the biblical books concerned. Since one of these manuscripts (4Q paleoEx1) contains of Genesis only the bottoms of two letters from its last line of text, one could add one each to the totals for Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, but hardly to that for Genesis. Tentative identifications have been passed over when too little text is extant for certainty as to the nature of the manuscript. There are, then, the following manuscripts. From cave 1: Genesis 1, Exodus 1, Leviticus 1 (with Numbers), Deuteronomy 2, Judges 1, Samuel 1, Isaiah 2, Ezekiel 1, Psalms 3, and Daniel 2. From the "minor caves" 2, 3, 5-10: Genesis 3, Exodus 3, Leviticus 2, Numbers 3, Deuteronomy 5, Kings 2, Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 1, Ezekiel 1, Minor Prophets 1, Psalms 4, Job 1, Ruth 2, Song of Songs 1, Lamentations 3, and Daniel 1. From cave 4: Genesis 11 (one includes Exodus), Exodus 11, Leviticus 4, Numbers 2 (one includes Leviticus), Deuteronomy 18, Joshua 2, Judges 2, Samuel 3, Kings 1, Isaiah 15, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 3, Minor Prophets 7, Psalms 17, Job 3, Proverbs 2, Ruth 2, Song of Songs 3, Ecclesiastes 2, Lamentations 1, Daniel 5, Ezra 1, Chronicles 1. From cave 11: Leviticus 1, Ezekiel 1, Psalms 3. Included in this inventory are the ten manuscriptsin the paleo-Hebrew script, which are four copies of Leviticus (one each from caves 1, 2, 6, and 11), two each of Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, one of Numbers and one of Job. Translation materials are not included. Of Septuagint Greek texts, Qumran furnishes portions of Exodus (7Q1), Leviticus (4Q LXX Leva, b), and Numbers (4Q LXX Numb); and there are Aramaic targums of Leviticus (from cave 4) and of Job (from both 4 and 11). These lists do not include materials of varying date from sites in the Judean desert other than the Qumran area such as the Wadi Murabba'dt, Masada, Engeddi, Khirbet Mird, and Wadi Khabra, though some of these texts will need to be mentioned in what follows. Neither do the lists take into account the extensive paraphrasesof Torah texts from cave 4 being studied by J. Strugnell, nor the substantialnumber of phylacteriesand mezu-

1965, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

89

zas, with their excerpts (not always the traditional ones) of key Torah passages. No such lists can be absolutely definitive,' but the gleanings from further study of caves 4 and 11 cannot be expected to alter these totals by more than a few slight bits. Qumran and the Canon

It will be noticed from the above that Esther alone, of the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, has still not been found at Qumran. It is easy to discount an argument from silence, but when one considers the late origin of the Purim festival with which Esther is connected, its partial identification with the victories of Judas the Maccabee (whose Hasmonean kindred were abhorred at Qumran), and the rigidity in matters of the liturgical calendar that characterized the Qumran group, it seems more likely that the book was avoided than that it was simply not known. After all, the colophon to the Septuagint text of Esther, though of doubtful value for dating the translation, is usually taken to indicate that even in Greek the book of Esther was circulating by about 75 B.C. at the latest. The recognized authority of the Torah and the Latter (Writing) Prophets at Qumran is beyond dispute on the basis of formal citations and commentary in addition to the copies of the text. The composite book of the Minor Prophets was known at Qumran in the Hebrew order of the books, and in its integrity; the inference that lies ready to hand from Ben Sira 49:10 is thus confirmed from the manuscripts.The "FormerProphets" (Josh., Judg., Sam., and Kings) are adequately represented, and show, like a part of the Torah evidence, a text type with Septuagintal affiliations. Among the "Writings,"the Psalms occupy a privileged place. While in at least two manuscriptsthe canonical Psalms are combined with other hymnic or wisdom compositions, there can be no doubt at all of the existence of the Psalm collection we know, and of its attribution in a general way to David. Job, Proverbs, and four of the five Megilloth are quite adequately represented; the only really scanty evidence is that for Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. Daniel was much used at Qumran in it part-Hebrew, part-Aramnaic text, without the expansions known from the Greek, as 1Q 72 already shows. Most of the "Apocrypha"retained as canonical in the Vulgate are not represented at Qumran; so for I-II Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, and the Wisdom of Solomon. One can hardly suppose that the Qumran group would have shown special favor to the books which were composed in Greek (II Macc. and Wis.), or to the Greek text which survives to us from elsewhere of the others. Yet a bit of the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6 in the Vulgate) 1. The Psalms total above includes a cave 4 fragment of Psalm 89 being studied by Fr. J. T. Psalms inventory published by J. A. SandMilik, which is in addition to the otherwise exhaustive 114-23. ers, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXVII (1965),

90

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

did turn up in Greek, in 7Q2. The case of Tobit, of which cave 4 contains four Aramaic manuscripts and one Hebrew one, is somewhat different; it is the long text of the Greek Sinaiiticus manuscript and of the Old Latin version that is supported at Qumran. Also well enough known at Qumran was the book of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus); besides the stichometricfragments of 2Q 18, there are now to be included the first half and the last two words of the acrostic poem in 51:13-30. This occurs in 11Q Psa, columns 21-22, recently published by J. A. Sanders in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, IV. It is not too much to infer that the scribe of 11Q Psa or some predecessorof his wished to count this piece among the 4050 compositionshe attributes to David, along with a scatteringof other Hebrew texts that are currently in nobody's canonical list.2 These data for the history of the Canon should be weighed in the light of various other considerations.Not liking Hasmoneans, the Qumran group would not have been partialto I Maccabeeseven in Hebrew, were it available to them in that form. On the other hand, they had ten copies of the various sections of Enoch in Aramaic (still without the Parables,chaps. 37-71), and eleven copies of the Book of Jubilees in Hebrew. Since they studied and applied the Jubilees calendar of 364 days, they no doubt took this book which enshrined it quite seriously. Of their own sectarian compositions, we know of fourteen copies of the community rule (Serek, or "Manualof Discipline"), ten of the Zadokite "Damascus Document," seven of the Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot), seven of the War Scroll, and six of the sapiential work represented in 1Q 26. Then there are three manuscripts of the Testament of Levi in Aramaic and one of the Hebrew Testament of Nephthali. All in all, the Qumran library gives the impression of a certain selectivity, but hardly of any fine distinction between a closed canon and all other texts. Qumran and Septuagint

Studies

The fragment of 4Q LXX Numb shown in Figure 12 will serve to illustrate one contribution of the Qumran texts to our knowledge of Septuagint origins.3 The years after the second World War witnessed a lively controversy, centered in England, between two distinguished scholars now dead, Paul Kahle and Peter Katz. Kahle insisted strenuously that in view of the confusion of evidence and the variations of reading inherent in the use of the Greek Old Testament in our earliest literary sources (Philo, the New 2. Study of Ben Sira in this period will be further stimulated by the portions of thirteen fragmen120-2 announced tary columns of it, from 39:37 to 44:20, by Y. Yadin, Yediot, XXIX (1965), as having been recovered at Masada in a hand of the early first century B.C. The (Hebrew), connections of the Cairo geniza fragments of Ben Sira with a presumptive Qumran prototype have been stressed again by A. A. DiLella in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXIV (1962), 245-67, and in and Historical Study, The Hague, 1965. his The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-critical has been partially published, 3. The manuscript including 155-7. to Vetus Testamnentum, IX Supplements (1957),

this

piece,

by

the

present

writer

in

1965, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

91

Testament, Josephus, and early Church writers), any attempt to recover a single pre-Christianrendering in its primitive form from the extant manuscripts must be an illusory quest. He proposed instead that the Greek Old Testament grew after the fashion of the Palestinian Aramaic targums, in a welter of divergent and unrelated oral traditions that afforded no fixed form of text for general acceptance before the 4th century A.D. This position, which in the United States was strongly opposed by H. M. Orlinsky, always

..

.. .:.

.......

.........

.

w

Fig. 12. The Greek fragment of Numbers from cave 4 at Qumran designated 4Q LXX Numb. Photo courtesy The Palestine Archaeological Museum.

had against-it the evidence of the ancient secondaryversions from the Greek namely the Old Latin, the Coptic, and the Ethiopic. It was further belied by the two pre-Christianbits of Deuteronomy in Greek which had been recovered from Egypt before the Qumran discoveries (papyrus Rylands gr. 458 and papyrus Fuad inv. 266). To these the Qumran caves have added the four LXX manuscripts of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers enumerated above, plus the Letter of Jeremiah fragment. All fit quite clearly into the textual tradition that we know from the great 4th century manuscriptsand

92

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

thus counter the sweeping theory of Kahle with tangible facts. For example, the second line of text in the fragment here illustrated contains the Greek word [pro]keimenin. To place this in Numbers 4:7 with their aid of a Septuagint concordance, it was necessary only to fit the verb form with the proper prepositionalprefix ("pro-"),broken away with the missing beginning of the line. Yet in the whole Greek Old Testament this is the only place where this particular turn of phrase, "(the table) lying before (the Divine Presence)" is to be found (RSV: "table of the bread of the Presence"); the rendering is hardly an obvious or necessary one. Hence we are dealing with basically only one translation,in our fragment and in the later manuscripts. The same fragment poses problems of its own, however. The last complete word it contains is the word phauseos, a part of the phrase "(the lampstand) of the lighting" in Numbers 4:9, where the later Greek tradition regularly reads "the light-giving lampstand" (RSV: "the lampstand for the light"). Now it happens that the Greek word in our fragment also occurs in Genesis 1: 14-15 in connection with the same Hebrew word as in the Numbers passage. One way or another, it seems clear that the Septuagint text has at this point undergone a deliberate retouching of some sort. Rather than from the Qumran texts, however, the key to a large part of the confusion in Septuagint textual evidence and the history of its transmission has come from a Greek Minor Prophets manuscript almost certainly O.P.4 In this manufrom the Wadi Khabra, published by D. Barth61emyv, of the first half second from the dates he which century A.D., Barscript, LXX of the Minor translation of the form reworked a identified has thelemy rabbinic hermeneutical in with accord in Palestine developing Prophets done principles, with the purpose of bringing the Greek text more closely into line with the Hebrew manuscripts in use there in the early first century A.D. These Hebrew manuscripts were still not completely standardized, as in the consonants of the now received Masoretic text, but they stood closer to the Masoretictext than did the Hebrew prototypeof the original Alexandrian Septuagint for these books. This early reworking of the Greek Old Testament text does not stand alone. In the Minor Prophets tradition, Barth6lemyhas been able to equate it with the seventh column, or quinta editio (Va), of Origen's Hexapla; with a series of approximationsto the Hebrew in the Sahidic Coptic secondary version from the Greek, and in the Freer codex in Greek; and with the citations in Justin Martyrin the mid-2nd century A.D. The recension has certain fixed characteristicswhich make it possible to go further;most obvious, though only one of a whole complex of similar features, is the recurrent rendering 4. In Les devanciers

d'Aquila,

Supplements

to Vetus

Testamentum,

X (1963).

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

1965, 3)

93

of the Hebrewparticlegim by kaigein Greek.Here Barthelemywas able to build on earlierstudiesof H. St. J. Thackerayin the Greekbooksof Kingdoms (Samuel-Kings),and also to tracethe samerecensionthrougha number of otherOld Testamentbooks.To summarizethe resultsof this, the recensionin questionincludesin its scope the later supplementsto the short LXX texts of Job and Jeremiah,the "Theodotion" text of Daniel, the "Sepof Lamentations and tuagint"renderings (probably)Ruth, the text of II Samuelto I Kings2:11 and of I Kings22 and all of II Kingsin the "Septuagint"column of Origen'sHexapla and in our printed Bibles. This rethen equates cension,whoseexactlimitsremainto be markedout, Barthdlemy with the workof "Theodotion," whomhe situatesin A.D. 30-50and identifies with the Jonathanben Uzziel of Jewishtargumicand talmudictradition. with Jonathan,the Prescindingfromthe identificationof "Theodotion" described and the afford do much to relieveSeprelationships insightsthey studies of certain continualembarrassments. It appearsto be the tuagint "Theodotion" form of Daniel that is cited in the New Testamentand by Clement of Rome;if so, somethingof what has been ascribedto the 2nd centurypersonageTheodotionwas alreadyextantin the precedingcentury. Barthlemy'sdemonstration of the existenceof an extensiveworkof revision of the Greektext in firstcenturyPalestineremovesthis anomaly.In addiand Aquila (ca. 135 A.D.) is tion, the relationshipbetween "Theodotion" set straight,because Barthdlemycan show that Aquila'swork dependson this "Theodotionic" revision,which it supplements,refines,and in the end, smotherswith laboredand rigidlyapplieddevices. Once the conceptof widespreadrecensionalactivityin the GreekOld Testamenttext in Palestineby the firstcenturyA.D. is accepted,ramifications of it are not difficultto find. The secondaryrecensionof the Greek Sirach,best known from codex 248 and the Old Latin, and now available for intensivestudyin J. Ziegler'scriticaleditionof the book,5is quotedin the Teachingof the Twelve Apostles(Sir. 12:1 at Did. i:6, see BiblicaLXIV (1963), 533-536);hencethis is basicallya firstcenturyrecension.The variant Greektext of Proverbs2:21 is quotedby Clementof Rome(I Clem.xiv:4); thus the reworkedformof the firstnine chaptersof the GreekProverbsis a productof the sameearlyperiod.And in Ezekiel,J. Zieglerhas shown that papyrus967 (the Beatty-Scheidemanuscript)displaysa pre-Origen,first centuryA.D. recensionaltreatmentof the text. In fine, insteadof being at the beginningsof a "critical" reworkingof the Greektext on the basisof the Hebrew,Origencomesnearthe end of the process,which was otherwisean which entirelyJewishundertaking,in which Aquilabuilt on "Theodotion," itselfbuilt on earliermaterials. 5. Septuaginta

XII,2:

Sapientia

Jesu filii

Sirach,

edited

by J. Ziegler,

Gittingen,

1965.

94

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

The nature of those earlier materials will take us back to the evidence afforded by the Hebrew manuscriptsof Qumran. One last reflection on the Greek Numbers fragment seems necessary, however. It has been seen by good Greek paleographers,and dated tentatively at about the turn of the era, too early, seemingly, for Barth61emy'sJonathan ben Uzziel personage, whom he puts between 30 and 50 A.D. Yet the retouchings in the Greek text of Numbers in this fragment are already such as to suggest the Greek "Theodotionic" reviser. There are other reasons, we shall see, for placing the origins of revision work on the Greek text in Palestine prior to the Christian era; and it seems possible that Barth6lemyputs his "Theodotionic"reviser slightly too late. Greek Pible Revision

in Palestine

before the Christian Era

The key to the next step, forward in research, but backward in time, lies in the text of Samuel. We have noticed that there was a revision of its Greek text, part of the undertaking ascribed to Theodotion, which dates in fact from about the turn of the era. Was this revision founded, as we might offhand expect, on a translation made in Egypt in about the 3rd century B.C.? Besides the "Theodotionic"materials isolated by Thackeray and dated for us by Barth6lemy'sresearches, there exists still another body of evidence for the Greek text of Samuel which has preoccupied scholars for a long time, and which has seemed inconsistent with any such Egyptian explanation. This is the text which, in biblical manuscriptsis associatedwith Syrian sources and the memory of Lucian of Antioch (died A.D. 312). It cannot be of 4th century A.D. date because, as A. Mez pointed out in 1895, it is substantially the text of Samuel used by Josephus Flavius before A.D. 94. Barthelemy has been able to show that for those parts of Samuel and Kings (see above) in which the "Theodotionic"recension has invaded the general stream of Septuagint transmissionthrough its use by Origen in the 5th column of his Hexapla, the adjoining material in the 6th column, an older text that formed the basis for the "Theodotionic"one, is in fact the same text that appears in the Lucianic manuscriptsand in Josephus. It is at this point that the Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran cave 4 begin to assume their full importance. Prof. F. M. Cross, Jr., has followed upon Barthelemy'spublication with a study6 which has as only the first of its merits the fact that it specifies the exact nature of this "Lucianic"text of Samuel in Greek. From an examination of the various Greek texts in the light of his Hebrew evidence, Cross is able to show that the "Lucianic"text also is a reworking of a still older Greek text, with the purpose of bringing it Cross' earlier studies on his Samuel texts 6. Harvard Theological 281-99. Review, LVII (1964), can be traced through this article and the Anchor Book edition of his Ancient Library of Qumran (1962).

1965, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

95

into line with the state of the Hebrew text of Samuel in Palestine itself, perhaps toward the end of the 2nd, and certainly in the first century B.C. Thus besides a proto-Theodotion,we now have a proto-Lucian. There are, then, three important stages of transmission of the text of Samuel (and Kings) in Greek, all three of them prior to the fixing of the Hebrew tradition with the received consonantal text near the end of the first cent. A.D. These are: 1. The earliest Alexandrian rendering, largely preservedfor us in codex but B, only for the sections I Samuel 1:1-11 Samuel 11:1 and I Kings 2:12 -II Kings 21:43.r This may be supposed, with H. St. J. Thackeray,8to be the full extent of this first translation;it is certainly all that is extant. 2. The "proto-Lucianic"revision from the Hebrew, of the 2nd-first centuries B.C., done in Palestine, and including all of Samuel-Kings. This is found especially in the minuscule manuscripts b, o, c., in Josephus, e., and partly in the 6th column materials from Origen's Hexapla. 3. The "proto-Theodotionic"recension of the first century A.D., which regularlybuilds on "proto-Lucian"and brings it much closer to what we now know as the Masoretic type of Hebrew text, though the two forms are by no means identical. In the reconstructed"Septuagint"text of his Hexapla, Origen employed the first version of Samuel-Kings where it existed, and where it did not, he chose the third. Thus the nature and date of the second, or proto-Lucianic recension became obscured, and it took on for the future the character of a missing link, whose restorationto its proper place in the sequence makes a true historical perspective on the development of the Greek text possible for the first time. Since the same proto-Lucianicrevision has survived to us also in our evidence for Exodus through Deuteronomy in Greek, where once again its date and significance have never been clear, it can be but small wonder that a scholar of Kahle's calibre should have despaired of any unraveling of the resultant web. Cross, in his critique of Barthelemy, holds to a real function for the Theodotion of ca. A.D. 180, and for Lucian at the beginning of the 4th century. One proximate task in Septuagint studies, however, would seem to be the endeavor to ascertain how much of the function normally attributed to these worthies was already performed for them in the centuries before they were born, and with the prioritiesbetween them reversed. Qumran and the Transmission

of the Hebrew

Text

In this matter, once again, the books of Samuel play a crucial role; and it is through the same article of Cross that new perspectives on their 7. There is a transposition here; II Kings 20 and 21 are given in the Greek in the reverse order, hence the 43 verses for what is actually Masoretic text II Kings 20. 8. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 2nd ed. 1923, pp. 16-28 and 114-5.

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

96

Hebrew text become available. The Qumran cave 4 evidence for Samuel is copious (in 4Q Sama; see fig. 13), is in part early (4Q Samb, end of the 3rd century B.C.), and there exist both in Hebrew and in Greek substantial bodies of related materialagainst which to test it. To present only the results, Cross finds in the books of Samuel a chain of evidence for a distinctive Palestinian text type, the archetype to which he would place in the 5th

.........

..... ..

.......

....

.

. ...

. ........

..........

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

Fig. 13. Leather fragments of I Samuel 1-2 from 4Q Sama. Photo courtesy The Palestine Archaeological Museum.

century B.C. This line of transmission is witnessed to by the Chronicler (4th century B.C.), by 4Q Samb (3rd century B.C.), by 4Q Sama jointly with the proto-Lucianic Septuagint (first century B.C.), and finally by Josephus (at the end of the first century A.D.). It is the type of text to which, in its Lucianic manuscript witnesses, J. Wellhausen appealed in

1965, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

97

1871 as a means of healing, if possible, the defects in the Masoretic tradition. For with all due respect to the scholars who would have it otherwise, it has long been held by serious students of Samuel that in their case the Masoretic text presents us with a truncated text with notable omissions, both deliberate and accidental; it is a text that is much below the standard of excellence observable in the received text of other Old Testament books. Over against this early Palestinian text with its five centuries of traceable history, Cross sets a text that would have branched off as a local text in Egypt, not later than the 4th century B.C.; from this is derived the Old Greek rendering preservedto us in codex B as far as II Samuel 11:1 inclusive, where it stops. More sharply divergent from the Palestinian form of earlier times is the first century A.D. text reflected in the proto-Theodotionicmaterials; in general the Hebrew they suppose may be labeled proto-Masoretic. Close to, but not identical with this is our extant Masoretic text. Faced with the problem of where the two latter texts, seemingly intrusive in Palestine, may have had their origin, Cross recalls that the rather frequent loss by homoioteleuton (similarity of ending) which the Masoretic text of Samuel manifests is suggestive of transmission in comparative isolation; and given the date of the appearance, first of proto-Theodotion and then of the Masoretic text form, he refers them "back to a local text preserved in Babylon in the fourth-second centuries B.C., reintroduced into Jerusalem in the Hasmonean or Herodian period" (p. 297). Some such solution does appear to be demanded by the data at hand. Moving on from the books of Samuel, one can admit, with Cross, that the study of the Hagiographa and the Minor Prophets in the Qumran cave 4 materialsis not at the point where clear inferences can be drawn regarding early textual families in these books. To quote him again, "The evidence for textual families for the time being is restrictedlargely to the Pentateuch, the Former Prophets, and the book of Jeremiah. Study has been directed first of all to those books whose texts are dramaticin their variety, and whose Greek versions are relatively trustworthy" (p. 286). The reflection is perhaps not out of place, that the texts which are dramaticin their variety (i.e., part Septuagintal, part Palestino-Samaritan,part proto-Masoretic)are in most cases those of the very books whose authority is longest and most firmly fixed. Genesis is an exception; its Qumran text is, says Cross, already allied with the textus receptus. The present writer has had occasion to work on half a dozen Torah manuscriptsfrom Qumran cave 4, five of them in the old paleo-Hebrewscript and the sixth a separate copy of Deuteronomy 32. This last, with the Qumran evidence for Septuagintal readings in Hebrew in all parts of the Song of Moses, has been discussed by both Cross and myself before now. Two of

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

98

.. :• ....... ..

4

? .

Ar

001

4i

;4:

.

Fig. 14. Fragments of the "Samaritan" type manuscript of Exodus, 4Q paleoExm, in paleo-Hebrew script. Photo courtesy The Palestine Archaeological Museum.

the othersare too limitedin scopefor a goodtext sampling;and a not very carefulDeuteronomyhad bestbe consideredwith the largenumberof manuscriptsof the bookbeing studiedby Cross.That leavestwo copiesof Exodus; the "Samaritan" see fig. 14) alreadya number typemanuscript(4Q paleoExm;

1965, 3)

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST

99

of times described, and 4Q paleoEx1,a manuscriptin a tiny hand of perhaps the beginning of the first century B.C. This last is quite near to the received text, with only slight concessions to the tendency towards expanded readings for the sake of clarity and smoothness. For the books from Exodus through Deuteronomy, what emerges thus far when the 4Q manuscripts are placed in the context of the Samaritan recension, the Old Greek, the proto-LucianicGreek, which makes itself felt also in these books, and finally of the Masoretic text, is that in some degree all these witnesses (the Old Greek least, the Samaritan text type most) except the Masoretictext give evidence of a continuous expansionist tendency in text transmissionin pre-ChristianPalestine. This expansionist feature involves syntatical smoothing, harmonization of related passages, borrowings from one section or one book to another of supplementary materials, and sometimes an expanded orthography.A comparisonof the short form of Jeremiah, known now from its appearancein 4Q Jerbas well as from the Septuagint, with the fuller Masoretic form of the book suggests that the editing of the latter consisted largely of the application, presumably in Palestine, of similar expansionist techniques to the shorter text. The fullest instance of the expansionist technique is, of course, the "Samaritan"recension of the Torah. This was complete in all its essentials by the beginning of the 2nd century B.C. at the latest, as 4Q paleoExm (early in that century) shows. As Cross, following W. F. Albright, has repeatedly emphasized, the actual branching off of the Samaritan sectarian textual tradition, as such, from this developing Palestinian type does not antedate the period of John Hyrcanus I toward the end of that same century. In the standard Hebrew text of Exodus 36-39 we have what may be one of the earliest manifestations of this expansionist mentality, and one which, apart from the Greek tradition, has won universal acceptance. Whatever God tells Moses to have done, it must be said explicitly that the Israelites actually did at Moses' bidding, normally in the same order and in the same detail; this is the rationale for the chapters in question. Of the tendency for a sacred text transmittedin Palestine in the period between the Exile and the first century A.D. to grow by accretion and reworking on the basis of its own integral logic, so that the form becomes expanded but the substance remains the same, we may see other instances in the editorial process that has given us the book of Ezekiel, in the complete Qumran Hebrew scroll of Isaiah (1Q Isa) and, independently, in the Septuagint form of that prophet. The underlying attitude is one of explicit rever-

100

THE BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXVIII,

ence for a text regarded as sacred, an attitude of explaining (as we would put it) the Bible by the Bible in the very transmissionof the text itself; but it is not the attitude of stern adherence to an unalterableHebrew consonantal text that we meet with regularly after A.D. 70. If this be a fair estimate of the evidence, what of the sound, tightly organized, unexpanded text of the Torah that stands in our Bibles? How has it not (except perhaps for the chapters of Exodus noted above) undergone the kind of development present in varying degrees in our other witnesses? Cross, in the article referred to, would root the Masoretic text of the Torah in a conservative Babylonian tradition, as he does for the books of Samuel. In any case, the received Hebrew text of the Torah appears again as an exceptional text, but this time, as an exceptionally good text. With the recent publication of the Psalms scroll 11Q Psa and the nonBiblical materials which it contains, there will undoubtedly be a period of renewed speculation as to how far we can see the Psalter as a closed collection in the days of the Qumran community. Fr. J. Starckyis about to publish in the Revue biblique a collection of three non-biblical hymns, one of which is the "Apostropheto Zion" of the cave 11 Psalter. Since these have been established as being part of a manuscript (4Q Psf) already known for the canonical Psalms 22, 107, and 109, the question will arise again there. With no special desire to press for an overly conservative answer to the question, the present writer will close this interim report by mentioning three small facts that seem to him to indicate dependence of the cave 11 Psalter on the complete collection of Psalms as we know it. One is that Psalm 133, which is detached from the group of "Songs of Ascents" in 11Q Psa, still retains the same title as the other Psalms of this group. A second is that Psalms 151A and B, compositions written for David on the basis of the text of Samuel, appear after the prose narrativeabout all David's compositionsin the cave 11 collection (along with Pss. 140, 134, which in a reshufflingof the order may simply have been skipped at some earlier place). The third is that Psalm 146 stands in columns [i] -ii in 11Q Psa,and Psalm 145 in cols. xvi-xvii; yet after the 11Q text of Psalm 146:9 there stands an extra line based on Psalm 145:9 and 12.