No title

) BIBLICAL

ARCHEOLOGIST Fall 1981

,..-

,,b..?f."•':•m~

Volume44 Number4

.'-'L?r

II .

•.

..

,

.

;-L ?

.

- . ..-.

-

,

,

.?

.?

. ..

xvT

..,'

x

rtc C;-'il 5,

,,; ~I:;;

0

.,;

~::?;of

i?

71c ?,-?40

?

' ' "" '.i! -4F I T 10 Xf. ~c~ , :.?.:7: 65 .Cm .• •

.2?%

....Q:

r;

?

C 'Cc•i : ; ,? iT .... :.,+.. . -•..:~ .. . . .....-•5 ..' . .:J•.:.-,+,.. .. . ::- -?I 15

'PAL:. i: t? ':t I t: 05

~COff

5

10

.-? ,a?~

II I

___

t?~. I 65

C

Reconstruction drawing of the Nabratein ark.

i

r .

'

Some

will

find in this

A marble column such as this, now encrustedwith the patina of the ages, lies in 3 to 20 feet of water off the coast of the state of Israel. Soon it can stand again, symbol of the survival of the human spirit, but the names to be inscribedupon it will be those who would join with Caesarea World Monument to see reborn one of the greatest cities of ancient times. For this column, and many like it, lies in the harbor of Caesarea Maritima, City of Herod-the ancient city so rich in religious traditions of Moslem, Christianand Jew. Detail of a O So much of moment has hapCrusader seal pened in Caesarea. At Caesarea Maritima has ebbed and flowed the epic of Jewry... there in the horror of one hour were thousands massacred. Yet, out of death and persecution, came forth 300 years of learning and regeneration. Student pilgrims flocked to Caesarea to learn from sages such as Bar Qappara whose life mirroredone principle: "In all thy ways know Him and He will make straight thy paths." (Prov. 3:6) [i It was in Caesarea that Peter Marble capital converted Cornelius to Chrisof 5th Centuty A.D.. tianity. Paul of Tarsus was tried with menorah before Felix, at Caesarea. In Caesarea, King Agrippa said to Paul, his prisoner: "Almost thou persuadestme to be a Christian." (Acts 26:28) It was from his home, in Caesarea, that Philip conducted much of his missionary work. (Acts 21:8) Caesarea indeed shared much in shaping Christian faith and forwarding it to the future.

of

you

names your column. D Recent excavations promise rare treasuresin Christian, Jewish and Moslem history, still hidden within the stone and marble of Caesarea, awaiting discovery and restoration. WHY THIS NOW? Commercial and industrialforces now at work in Caesarea can cause ruin or permanentloss of priceless archaeological treasures, Coin of Agrippas I already discovered and many struck at Caesarea still to be found. You can help save them, before it is too late. You are invited to join with other like-mindedmembers of Caesarea World Monument to restore and preserve Caesarea's past greatness through a World Center for study, education and researchin six civilizations. One early aim (with the approval of the Department of Antiquities) is to reconstructoriginal Roman columns lining the famous Cardo Maximus (main north/south street). Those members who qualify may have their names engraved on one of these magnificentcolumns. For full details on how to qualify, let us hear from you soon. D Basic membershipbegins at $20 All members will be sent, as a thank-you gift, Vol. 1: The Joint Expedition to CaesareaMaritima.

Caesarea'j WorldMonument

/

Caesarea World Monument P.O. Box 222522, Carmel, California 93923 D Yes, CWM has my support!

Name Address City

L $20 [ $50

State

L $100

L $1000

1 $500

l

Zip

IN

THE

NEXT

BA

*-N

! EM~i

4

wit

-

ZIA: 4k*:

Recent activities in the mountainous Sinai Peninsula are the focus of an illuminating series ofarticles. Included are Itzhaq Beit-Arieh 'sdiscussion of his recent discoveries at Seradbitel-Khaddimand their relationship to the mysterious Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions (an example is depicted above from Bir Nasb, courtesy of R. Giveon) and Michael Stone's report on his new corpus of Armenian inscriptions found along the main pilgrim routes leading to St. Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

193

BIBLICAL( ARCHEOLOGIST Editor David Noel Freedman AssociateEditor David F. Graf AssistantEditor MarshaD. Stuckey EditorialCommittee FrankM. Cross,Jr. Tikva Frymer-Kensky Sharon Herbert CharlesR. Krahmalkov John A. Miles, Jr. WalterE. Rast ProductionManager BruceE. Willoughby EditorialAssistants David M. Howard,Jr. TerrenceM. Kerestes Composition LouiseWashburnePalazzola DistributionManager R. Guy Gattis

Biblical Archeologist (ISSN: 0006-0895) is published quarterly (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to provide the general reader with an accurate, scholarly, yet easily understandable account of archeological discoveries and their bearing on the biblical heritage. Unsolicited mss. are welcome but should be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Address all editorial correspondence and advertising to Biblical Archeologist, 468 Lorch Hall, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Address all business correspondence to ASOR, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139. 1981 American Schools of Oriental Copyrightt Research. Annual subscription rate: S16.00. Foreign subscription rate: S18.00 (American currency). Current single issues: SS500. Second class postage paid at Cambridge, MA 02139. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Biblical Archeologist, 126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139. Composition by ASOR Publications, Ann Arbor, MI. Printed by Printing Services, The Universityof Michigan.

194

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

Ronald A. Veenker is Professor of Bible and Judaica at Western Kentucky University. He holds the Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College and has published a number of articles dealing with Assyriology and the Bible. John H. Walton received his Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College and recently joined the faculty of Moody Bible Institute. He is the author of Chronological Charts of the Old Testament (Zondervan, 1978). Tikva Frymer-Kensky is Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Wayne State University. She is currently writing a book on biblical and Near Eastern cosmology under a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Victor H. Matthews is Instructor of History at Anderson College, Anderson, South Carolina. He received his Ph.D. from Brandeis University and is the author of Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom, an ASOR publication (1978). William H. Shea is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. His Ph.D. dissertation from The University of Michigan was "Famines in the Early History of Egypt and Syro-Palestine." L. Y. Rahmani is Chief Curator of State Antiquities with the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums in Jerusalem. He has done extensive research on the Jewish tombs in the environs of Jerusalem. Eric M. Meyers is Professor of Religion and Director of the Graduate Program in Religion at Duke University. He is also Director of the Meiron Excavation Project and a past Director of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. James F. Strange is Professor of Religious Studies and Dean of the College of Arts and Letters of the University of South Florida. He is coauthor with Eric M. Meyers of Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity (Abingdon, 1981). Carol L. Meyers is Assistant Professor in the Department of Religion at Duke University and Associate Director of the Meiron Excavation Project. Her doctoral dissertation on The Tabernacle Menorah was published by ASOR in 1976.

Cover:Reconstructiondrawingof the Nabrateinark.

d

P~z7c

SBIBLICAL ARCHEOLOG Fall 1981

Ronald A. Veenker John Walton

Tikva Frymer-Kensky

Volume 44 Number 4

Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant

199

The Antediluvian Section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5

207

Patriarchal Family Relationships

209

and Near Eastern Law VictorH. Matthews WilliamH. Shea

L. Y. Rahmani Eric M. Meyers,

James F. Strange and Carol L. Meyers DEPARTMENTS

Pastoralists and Patriarchs

215

Artistic Balance Among the Beni Hasan Asiatics

219

Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs-Part Two

229

First Glance

237

The Ark of Nabratein-A

196 197 245 251

Letter to the Readers Polemics and Irenics Notes and News Book Reviews Aharoni, Land of the Bible (Baly) Evans, Environmental Archaeology (Rose) Bimson, Redating the Exodus (Callaway) Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution (Zaas) Yamauchi, Archaeology of New Testament Cities (Kraabel) Miscellany (Graf)

Biblical Archeologist is published with the financial assistance of Zion Research Foundation, a non-sectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and the history of the Christian Church. BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

195

Letter to

the

Readers In this Fall issue, BA again takes pride in presenting initial coverage of a remarkable archeological discovery, this time from Upper Galilee. Until recently, this important center for late Judaism had been largely neglected, but in the last decade systematic excavations of a number of Galilean sites has helped advance our knowledge of developments in this region during the Roman and Byzantine periods. These efforts were further enhanced this past summer by the uncovering of a Torah Shrine fragment at the excavations of the synagogue at Nabratein. Such repositories for the scriptures were related in Judaism to the biblical Ark of the Covenant, the disappearance of which has become a subject of popular interest as the result of a current film. Our appreciation is expressed to professors Eric Meyers, James Strange, and Carol Meyers for this preliminary report on their unique and important find. The focus for most of the remaining articles is the problematic chronology and cultural setting for the Genesis narrative. On the basis of the genealogies of the Hebrew Bible, Archbishop James Ussher placed the birth of Abraham in 1946 B.C. and the creation of man in 4004 B.C. While the modern world has been unanimous in categorically rejecting the latter date for man's beginnings, Ussher's date for the patriarchs remains controversial and disputed. Although many scholars still maintain that the picture of Abraham as a migrant or caravaneer of the Middle Bronze Age (20-16th centuries B.C.) is historically appropriate, recent years have witnessed efforts to shift the setting for the patriarchal narratives to the earlier or later periods. Some feel that these episodes are merely transmuted traditions of the Late Bronze or Amarna period which were later utilized as political propaganda by the royal establishment of David and Solomon, and therefore divorced from historical reality. Further complicating the issue has been the discovery of the Ebla Tablets and the suggestions that the cultural milieu for the patriarchs is the third millennium, not the second or first! Although the articles in this issue are not strictly directed to this ongoing debate, they attempt to illuminate the patriarchal

narrativesfrom the perspectiveof ancientMesopotamianand

Egyptian culture. In a study of the familial relationships of the patriarchs, Tikva Frymer-Kensky provides some interesting comparisons with the legal documents of cuneiform sources. Instead of viewing the domestic affairs of the patriarchsas the product of some peculiar insular culture of the ancient Near East, she interprets them rather as being quite compatible with the general Mesopotamian legal traditions. On the vexed question of the heterogeneous occupational activities of the patriarchs,

196 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

which do not seem to fit any general pattern, Victor Matthews argues that their oscillation between sedentary and nomadic life-styles should be seen from the perspective of the fluctuating economic circumstances of a migratory pastoralist community. Two other articles have as their concern the enigmatic longevity of the antediluvians found in cuneiform literatureand the book of Genesis. Ron Veenker proposes that the Mesopotamian tale of Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant, now enmeshed in a larger epic of a search for immortality, originally stood as an independent etiological myth and explanation for the mysteriously great lifespan of the ancient heroes. In a complementary piece, John Walton briefly attempts to resolve the chronological disparities between the Sumerian kings and the genealogical records of the antediluvians in Genesis. Since his view involves the modification or elimination of part of these accounts, it may be found unconvincing by some readers, but others will be attracted by the ingenious logic and mathematical nature of his interpretation. From the Egyptian sphere of patriarchalactivity, William Shea presents an artistic analysis of the famous Beni Hasan mural, which depicts a procession of Asiatic traders in a visit to the city in the 19th century B.C. The historical significance of this scene for the dress and movements of the biblical patriarchs has frequently been emphasized, but Shea's interest is ratherthe overall symmetry and aesthetic qualities of this picture of the foreign visitors to the land of the Nile. As for other matters, L. Y. Rahmani continues his interesting discussion of the funerary monuments and burial practices which characterized the inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem and its environs. This second installment of the fourpart series describes some of the recent archeological finds in the capital of Judah before the city was stormed by the Babylonian troops of Nebuchadnezzar in the 6th century B.C. Of course, there is also the stimulating material of the various departments, including an interesting alternative interpretation of the letter of King Adon, which Bezalel Porten earlier placed in the context of events of the late 7th century B.C. (see BA 44.1 [1981]: 36-52); Charles Krahmalkov offers the possibility that the communication may be correlated with historical developments at the end of the previous century. Finally, there are several book reviews and some reports of recent archeological activities at conferences and museums.

Polemics&

Irenlcs The HistoricalSettingof the Adon Letter

In his recent article "The Identity of King Adon" in BA 44 (1981): 36-52, Professor Bezalel Porten presents vital new information on the Aramaic "Adon Letter" which advances immeasurably our understanding of this precious historical document and its contemporary setting. When Professor Porten lectured on the subject at the University of Michigan, I had the pleasure of sharing with him some of my own impressions of the letter, which I would like to express briefly in writing here. We are indebted to Professor Porten for his remarkable discovery of a hitherto unnoticed Demotic notation on the third fold of the verso of the papyrus and his efforts to have it translated by leading Demotic scholars, among them Professor Hughes. If Professor Hughes' reading is correct, the Demotic identifies Adon as king of the Philistine city of Ekron. From this important new datum and from the mention of the King of Babylon in the fourth line of the letter, Professor Porten argues that Adon of Ekron wrote to Pharaoh probably in 604/ 3 B.C.E., when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Palestine. This may well be correct. There are, however, several indications in the letter which perhaps suggest that the Ekronite king made his appeal for Egyptian support in ca. 702, in anticipation of Sennacherib's Palestinian campaign of 701. My reason for proposing this alternative interpretation is as follows. In the final line of the letter (line 9) the text, according to Professor Porten's excellent new reading, has wspr &ndwrsn[ . . ], rendered by him "And as for the letter of Sindur ... [ ]." We may ask whether, in fact, the namegndwr is that of Sanduarri, the king of Kundu and Sizu in the Taurus range, who was allied with Abdmilkot of Sidon in revolt against Esarhaddon and who, with Abdmilkot, was executed by the Assyrian king in 676 (ANET p. 290-91). The reason for entertaining such a possibility is not merely the formal similarity between the names &ndwrand Sanduarri but the fact that the name is followed in the text of the Adon letter bysn[... ], which could well be restored *sn[hryb], Sennacherib. Accordingly, the passage might be rendered: "As for the letter of Sanduarri, Sennacherib [has intercepted it]." From this we may with good reason infer that Sanduarri'santi-Assyrian activities had begun in the time of Sennacherib, abetted then as later by the Sidonians. Indeed, Elulaios (Luli) of Sidon was, we know from the Assyrian annals, a leading member of the coalition against Sennacherib which included Hezekiah of Judah and the Philistine states of Ashkelon and Ekron (ANET p. 287). In his annals Sennacherib dwells at some length on the crimes of the Ekronites, who had deposed their pro-Assyrian king Padi and placed him in the custody of Hezekiah (ANET p. 288). The Assyrian king relates how the people of Ekron appealed for military aid from Egypt and, receiving the support requested, met the Assyrian army at Eltekeh, where they were soundly defeated. Ekron played a major r6le in the events of 703-701, a fact which accounts for the considerable press given the rebellious city by the Assyrian annalist. But neither the Assyrian annals nor the Bible provides the name of the pro-

Egyptian puppet king of Ekron who ruled in Padi's place until the latter was restored to his throne by Sennacherib in 701. Was this king not Adon of the Aramaic letter, and the appeal by him for Egyptian military support that which is mentioned in the annals of Sennacherib? My proposed reconstruction of the historical setting of the letter, it may be argued, falters because in line four it is the king of Babylon and not the king of Assyria who is mentioned, seemingly in the context of a military campaign in Palestine. But the difficulty is only apparent, for the passage in question is not textually intact. Professor Porten, like other scholars before him, suggests that the missing word at the end of line three be restored as *hyP "army"and the passage be completed [hyP] zy mlk bbl 'tw wmt'[w] 'pq "[the forces] of the King of Babylon have come (and) reach[ed] Aphek . . . ."There is, however, an alternative restoration possible which is entirely consistent with the known events of 703-701. In the year 703 Merodach-baladan (Marduk-apal-iddin) staged an insurrection against Sennacherib, who two years earlier had ascended the throne of Assyria. With the support of the Chaldean and Aramean tribes and the backing of the Elamites, Merodach-baladan made himself king of Babylon. The insurrection was short-lived, put down that same year by Sennacherib, but not until Merodach-baladan had already fomented an anti-Assyrian uprising in the west. We know, in fact, that Merodach-baladan sent ambassadors to the western dependencies of Assyria from the account of their arrival at the court of Hezekiah (II Kgs 20:12-19, Isa 39). In light of this, I suggest that in lines 3/4 of the Adon letter mention is made not of the arrival of Babylonian troops at Aphek but of the ambassadors of Merodach-baladan on their way to Jerusalem and no doubt to Ekron as well. It is quite possible that this damaged passage contained, in fact, mention of the names of other cities besides Aphek which were visited by the Babylonian king's envoys. Thus, we may restore the passage to read: "['the ambassadors] of the King of Babylon came to Aphek and [to ... ]." In his request for Egyptian troops, justifiably fearing an impending attack by Sennacherib, Adon reminded Pharaoh of the events leading up to his installation as king, including the invitation to rebellion made by Merodach-baladan. Quite possibly the words of the Babylonian envoys were quoted by Adon in line 5 of his letter: the sole legible item 'hzw is perhaps not part of a statement of the taking of cities by the Babylonians, as suggested by Professor Porten, but part of the exhortation of Merodach-baladan's representatives to the Philistines to arrest ("seize ye!") their pro-Assyrian kings, among them Padi of Ekron. If my arguments are valid, the Adon letter must have been written about 702, after the embassy of Merodach-baladan to Palestine (703) and just before Sennacherib's campaign (701). The west was in confusion on the eve of the Assyrian invasion. Sanduarri and his Phoenician allies were busily engaged in cementing the anti-Assyrian coalition through the exchange of diplomatic correspondence. Adon and his Ekronite subjects, woefully insecure as leaders of the Philistine anti-Assyrian

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981 197

faction which was not supported by Ashdod or Gaza, were wholly dependent on Egypt for comfort and support. Egypt, the "breakablereed,"stoutly met her obligations to her allies on the field of battle but was no match for the powerful Assyrian army. Ekron was to regret bitterly her decision to oppose Sennacherib. In Sennacherib's own words: "I assaulted Ekron and killed the officials and patricians who had committed the crime and hung their bodies on poles surrounding the city. The (common) citizens who were guilty of minor crimes I considered prisoners of war. The rest of them, those who were not accused of crimes and misbehavior, I released. I made Padi, their king, come from Jerusalem and set him as their lord on the throne, imposing upon him the tribute (due) me (as) overlord" (ANET p. 288). Charles R. Krahmalkov University of Michigan

Orientationin Egyptand Palestine andin the andJudea:Roadsand Fortifications" In "Jerusalem excursus "Orientationin Biblical Lands,"Menashe Har-El once again demonstrateshis unsurpassedexpertisein biblical geography(BA 44 [Winter1981]:8-20).Of particularinterestis his notingthe Egyptianorientationto the southandthe source of the Nile vs. the Semiticorientationto the eastandthe rising of the sun. It remainsto be observedthatthe Egyptianwordfor "west," mm and its derivatives, is cognate to the Hebrew word for "south,"ydmfn. Not only are the phonetic correspondences

overtones. Professor Matthiae may be understandably affronted by accusations that his evaluation of the material has been influenced by political expediency. However, with all due respect and without taking sides, he should perhaps be reminded that there is historical precedent for such expediency in the face of politically intolerant powers: the case of Galileo and his ideas concerning the nature of the solar system. In the end, Galileo did recant his ideas. Yet even today, 350 years later,

his case is still not closed. If scientific"truth"is reallywhatboth men seek, why not allow otherindependentpartiesto evaluatethe tablets.While biasesand prejudicesprobablycannotbe totallyeliminated,at least a less impassioned and personal appraisal may ensue. Dr. B. J. Geldzahler Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Corrigenda In the Spring 1981 BA, a credit was omitted for the superpositionof the templeplan on p. 109of the article"The EasternWallof the SecondTempleat JerusalemRevealed"by AsherS. Kaufman.This illustrationwas reproducedby courtesy of Christian News from Israel. Our apologies both to

this organizationand the authorfor our oversight.

Creditshouldhave been givenin the Summer1981BA to the

valuable work of two translators of articles in that issue: Lawrence A. Wilson, Emeritus Professor of Romance Lan-

perfect,butbothof thesewordsmean"right"and"right-hand" guagesat Oberlin College,wasresponsibleforthetranslationof as well.To theEgyptianfacingsouth,rightbecomeswest;to the Alfonso Archi's article "Further Concerning Ebla and the Semitefacingeast, rightbecomessouth. Bible,"whichpreviouslyappearedin the ItalianjournalStudi Eblaiti 2 (1980): 17-40; Oded Borowski, professor in the GaryRendsburg Department of Modern Languages and Classics at Emory CanisiusCollege University,served as the translatorfrom Hebrew of Yigal Buffalo,NY Shiloh'sreporton The Cityof David ArchaeologicalProject's Third Season. We regret the unconscionable delay in properly

Ebla Again acknowledging their generous assistance. As your Letterto the Reader(BA 44.3) pointsout, it is indeed sad thatProfessorsPettinatoand Matthiaehavelettheirdebate of the Eblatabletstakeon suchpersonal overthe interpretation

198 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

Gilgamesh the and Magic Plant Ronald A. Veenker An episode in the Gilgamesh Epic is interpreted as an earlier, singular response to the puzzling lengthy generations of the antediluvian heroes in Mesopotamian tradition. For many years scholars have been preoccupied with the literary history and structure of the Gilgamesh Epic (Kramer 1944). It appears that much of the eleven-tablet Akkadian version is based upon severalindependent Sumerian stories which are much shorter than epic length. They are "Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living," "Gilgamesh, Inanna, and the Bull of Heaven," "The Death of Gilgamesh," "The Deluge," and "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld."A Semitic author, presumably during the Old Babylonian period, added to elements of the six Sumerian tales other legendary material of uncertain origin and wove the entire composition around the theme of immortality (Jacobsen 1976: 208-19; Kramer 1944: 18-19). Only the barest essentials of the original plots and characters remain. In addition to the six Sumerian stories, the larger Akkadian epic contains material whose origin remains a mystery. Besides the famous flood story, the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic presents three short episodes based on a motif one might entitle "squandered opportunities for immortality." The first relates a contest between Gilgamesh and the "gods of slumber" (XI: 197-233; see ANET: 9596); the second has been called "a bath in the Fountain of Youth" (XI: 234-57; see ANET: 96 and Oppenheim 1964: 263); the third episode and focal point of

this paper is called "Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant" (XI: 258-300; ANET: 9697). In the course of the first ten tablets of the epic, Gilgamesh has found his way with great difficulty to paradise (which in one part of the epic is surrounded by the "Waters of Death"). He has been told previously that Utnapishtim, the only human ever to obtain immortality, resides there. Surely Utnapishtim will disclose to him the secret of eternal life. Tablet XI opens with Gilgamesh posing his important question. In response, Utnapishtim fills the first 196 lines of the tablet telling how he survived the great flood and was granted immortality by virtue of his heroic feat. After hearing the story, Gilgamesh realizes his quest for immortality is in vain. Alas, he cannot duplicate the heroic feat of Utnapishtim, for the gods have repented of any further destruction of the world by deluge. However, hope is held out to him in a contest: Utnapishtim suggests that if Gilgamesh can resist sleep for six days and seven nights, the gods might grant him immortality. In a moment we realize that there is to be no real contest. No sooner does our hero settle to his haunches when "sleep, like a fog, blows upon him" (XI: 200)-a grim reminder of his mortality. Following the contest, the author abruptly presents the second tale, the puzzling "Fountain of Youth" narrative (XI: 234-46): Utnapishtim[saysto him],to Urshanabi, the boatman: "Urshanabi,may the landingpl[ace not rejoicein thee], May the place of crossing renounce thee!

To him who wanderson its shore,deny thou its shore! The man thou hast led (hither),whose body is coveredwith grime, The graceof whosemembersskinshave distorted, Take him, Urshanabi,and bringhim to the washing-place. Lethimwashoff his grimein waterclean as snow, Lethimcastoff hisskins,lettheseacarry (them) away, that the fairnessof his body may be seen. Let him renewthe bandroundhis head, Let him put on a cloak to clothe his nakedness, That he may arrivein his city, That he may achievehis journey. Let not (his) cloak have a moldy cast, Let it be wholly new." After renewing himself in the mysterious waters, Gilgamesh boarded the boat with Urshanabi and set sail for home. That the Neo-Assyrian scribes considered this "fountain of youth" story an independent piece is indicated by the traditional horizontal lines separating it from what precedes and follows.' We now come to the third episode, "Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant" (XI: 256-300):

Gilgameshand Urshanabiboardedthe boat, [Theylaunch]edthe boat on the wavesand they sailed away. His spouse says to him, to Utnapishtim the Faraway: "Gilgameshhas come hither,toilingand straining. What wilt thou give (him) that he may returnto his land?" At that he, Gilgamesh,raised up (his) pole, To bring the boat nigh to the shore.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

199

Utnapishtim[says] to him, [to] Gilgamesh: "Gilgamesh,thou hast come hither, toiling and straining. Whatshall I give thee that thou mayest returnto thy land? I will disclose, O Gilgamesh,a hidden thing, And [a secretof thegods I will]tell thee: Thisplant,likethe buckthornis [its ... ]. Its thornswill pr[ickthy hands]just as does the rose. If thy handsobtainthe plant,[thouwilt find new life]." No sooner had Gilgameshheard this, Than he opened the wa[ter-pipe], He tied heavy stones [to his feet]. Theypulledhimdowninto thedeep[and he saw the plant]. He took the plant,thoughit pr[ickedhis hands]. He cut the heavystones [fromhis feet]. The [s]ea cast him up upon its shore. Gilgameshsaysto him,to Urshanabi,the boatman: "Urshanabi,this plant is a plantapart, Wherebya man may regain his life's breath. I will take it to ramparted Uruk, Will cause [...

] to eat the plant ... !

Its nameshall be 'Man BecomesYoung in Old Age.' I myselfshall eat (it) And thus returnto the state of my youth." After twenty leagues they broke off a morsel, After thirty (further)leaguesthey preparedfor the night. Gilgameshsaw a well whose waterwas cool. He went down into it to bathe in the water. A serpentsnuffedthe fragranceof the plant; It came up [fromthe water]and carried off the plant. Going back it shed [its] slough. Thereupon Gilgamesh sits down and weeps, His tears runningdown over his face. [He took the hand] of Urshanabi,the boatman: "[For]whom,Urshanabi,havemyhands toiled? Forwhomis beingspentthe bloodof my heart? I have not obtaineda boon for myself. Forthe earth-lionhaveI effecteda boon! And now the tide will bear (it) twenty leaguesaway! When I opened the water-pipe and [... ]

the gear, I found that whichhas been placedas a sign for me: I shall withdraw, And leave the boat on the shore!"

200

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

~ O~R~t~ \I~TP~h/s OF ASH

0;

c~

~m~F?

/

t

r

\r

L1~

m

a.

~5

c,

ct

1,ct>

Y1

c/3

r~2~t

~Q~

Q?

~Yi~ The world of Gilgameshand the map of Paradise.Courtesyof B. A. Bowles. The purpose of this discussion is to show that (1) the story of the magic plant was once separated from the larger epic, and that (2) although it enhances the motif of "squandered opportunity for immortality"within the epic, it was originally a story about antediluvian longevity. That this story existed apart from the larger epic can be seen by examining the transitions between it and the tale immediately preceding. Lines 256-57 inform us that, after washing in the mysterious waters, "Gilgamesh and Urshanabi boarded the boat, [they launch]ed the boat on the waves (and) they sailed away." This statement indicates that at one time the preceding portion of the epic ended with the return to Uruk immediately following the episode of the "fountain of youth." The legend of the magic plant begins as Utnapishtim'sspouse supports Gilgamesh, begging her husband to give our hero one more opportunity to find the life he seeks. In order to add this last tale to the epic, the author must bring the boat back to the shore (11. 261-

62)--a rather obvious but necessary literary ploy. Further evidence of the story's independence is found in the discrepancy between the description of the waters of Paradise here and another description found in Tablet X, column 4. According to the latter passage, Gilgamesh and Urshanabi, the ferryman, must cross the dread Waters of Death in order to reach Utnapishtim in Paradise. Should just one drop of those waters touch our hero he would certainly die (ANET: 92). The waters of the story in Tablet XI are clearly nontoxic, for Gilgamesh, without a moment's hesitation, dives into them (11.271-73). Furthermore, the fact that the magic plant has been continually nourished by these waters demonstrates their benign nature. It appears, then, that the episode of the magic plant, while serving to dramatize the ultimate failure of Gilgamesh's quest, was borrowed and adapted to fit the themes of the Gilgamesh Epic. Questions immediately arise: What did the story teach before it was woven into the epic? How

might the ancients have entertained themselves with the tale? What sort of narrative could be concocted from the ingredients: Magic Plant, antediluvian hero, and deep water? The structure of the story, in its present form, remains sufficiently unaltered that one may reconstruct its original elements. My thesis is that the tale of the magic plant, removed from its context in the Gilgamesh Epic, is a myth which offers an explanation for the extraordinary longevity of the antediluvians. In no other extant tale have the Mesopotamian writers given so much as a hint regarding the basis for their belief in the incredibly long-lived forbears. The wellknown Sumerian King List (Oppenheim 1969: 265-66) records the reign of eight kings in five cities before the "flood swept over" the earth. The shortest regency is that of Ubar-tutu in Shuruppak: 18,600 years; the longest is En-men-lu-Anna in Bad-tibira: 43,200 years! Before such political tenure, the longevity of biblical Methuselah pales to insignificance. First, let us consider the famous antediluvian Utnapishtim, the central figure in the tale. His presence is necessary to provide the link between the civilizations before and after the deluge. The poet tells us at the very beginning of the epic that Gilgamesh "brought back knowledge from times

before the flood," and that "he saw the abyss," i.e., the watery deep (I: i: 6). No other figure from the literature of ancient Mesopotamia could reveal to us the secret of the extreme longevity enjoyed by those mysterious kings of the ancient Sumerian city-states. Second, notice that the plant does not offer the boon of true immortality which Gilgamesh seeks throughout the epic, but merely the sop of rejuvenation: "Itsname shall be'Man Becomes Young in Old Age' " (XI: 281). The motif of longevity is certainly more correctly applied to antediluvians than to Gilgamesh in search of immortality. Neither Mesopotamian tradition nor the Bible suggest that the generations before the flood possessed immortality-only unusual longevity. Consider now the location of the plant. Its whereabouts are known only to Utnapishtim, since he, by virtue of surviving the flood, is acquainted with antediluvian terrain. Why is the plant inaccessible to mankind in the postdiluvian era? It is found in the most remote region of the earth-Paradise. As though that were not enough, it is growing deep beneath the water. Are these the waters of the great flood? Certainly, since Utnapishtim, who remembers the earth before the flood waters came, is the only one who can tell us where to dive for the plant. What more powerful symbol of

the flood than a doubly forbidding barrier between postdiluvian man and his more durable forbear? This plant, this hope for longer life, is not only as remote as Paradise, but is buried deep beneath the waters of the deluge! So the skeleton of the myth becomes clear: The antediluvian kings, perhaps all men, had access to the plant of rejuvenation before the gods concealed it under the waters of the flood. These waters which separated the longlived and short-lived kings of the Sumerian King List also separate postdiluvian society from the secret of rejuvenation, the miraculous plant. Furthermore, the myth also points out that ancient man, not unlike ourselves, raised questions about this longevity. What has long puzzled modern theologians and students of the Bible was similarly perplexing to the ancients and gave rise to this etiological myth. While literary analysis has taken us about as far as we can reasonably expect in reconstructing the tale of the magic plant, we might ask what sort of worldviews were held in ancient MesopoHand copy of a cuneiformtablet of the GilgameshEpic (Tablet XI: lines 278-82). Translation:"Urshanabi,this is a plant apart,wherebya man may regainhis life's breath.... Its nameshallbe 'ManBecomes Young in Old Age.' "

-I~

(~~~6~~b~

?Wb~ e~4~~`

p~44-~(

bTTe ?L?Ykh

~~g~

:.r.? r

LbgZIZ-9

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981 201

tamia which would provide a background for our story. The motif of a rejuvenating plant as well as that of watery deeps suggests immediately the domain of the wise and beneficent Ea. This deity (known in Sumerian as 'Enki) is well known as the "Lordof the Apsil," i.e., the sweet waters beneath the earth which feed springs and rivers (Jacobsen 1976: 111). He was the patron deity of the ancient city Eridu, where he was worshipped as the benevolent fishgod. Even more common are the references to Ea as the benefactor of all mankind who is the "Lord of Wisdom." Since all the secrets of heaven and earth are his, he and his son Marduk are masters of the priests whose task is to perform exorcisms and other magicalmedicinal rituals (Oppenheim 1964: 195; Saggs 1962: 292-95; Romer 1969: 129). In the Atrahasis Epic, Ea helped mankind survive the wicked plan of the gods to send plague, drought, and flood upon the earth. Again in the Gilgamesh Epic, it was Ea who took pity upon humans, warning Utnapishtim to build an ark to escape the deluge. So Ea, who knows magic and incantations, is also predisposed to help human beings who are in desperate need. His connection with the regions under the earth also prompts us to mention his interest in plants. In the myth of Enki and Ninhursaga, Lord Ea

is the creator and sustainer of all primal plants (Jacobsen 1976: 112-13; Kramer 1969a: 37-41). In the story of Inanna's descent to the netherworld we read (Kramer 1969b: 54, 11.65-67): FatherEnki,the lord of wisdom, Who knowsthe Plant of life,2 Who knowsthe waterof life, He will surelybringme to life. There is an Assyrian incantation which states: "After Anu had begotten the heavens and Ea had established the plants in the world below... "(Lambert and Millard 1969: 166-67). From this we learn that not only does Ea createplants, but he nurtures them in his marine world beneath the earth. The Atrahasis story contains a similar notion. After Enlil made the decision to destroy mankind, he posted guards over all the critical regions of the universe to make certain that no one would help the illfated earthlings. He decreed that Anu would guard the upper regions of heaven, that Sin and Nergal would be posted in Middle Earth, and that Ea would guard "the bolt, the bar of the Sea, together with his plants" in the subterraneanwaters (Lambert and Millard 1969: 117, 166-67). How could these plants have survived the poisonous salt waters of the evil sea? An ancient cosmological myth, the Eridu

Creation Story, provides the answer (Heidel 1942: 62, 11. 1-13). It says that before creation, there was no earth, no cities, not even the apsd existed. There was only Tiamat, the salt water deep. At that time a certain god made a freshwater spring which was simply a freshinto the salt sea; water "pipeline" then he made the (r.tu) apsd and situated Eridu upon it. It has been suggested that this "pipeline"nourished and sustained Ea's plants of the deep (Speiser 1969:96, n. 232). If that is the case, it certainly provides an explanation for a similar notion in the story of "Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant." When Gilgamesh went in search of the plant we are told that "he opened the water-pipe and descended to the apsd, the(ri.tu)" sweet waters, Ea's abode (XI: 271-73). Perhaps this connection between Gilgamesh's descent and the water-pipe of the deep is further alluded to in the incipit to the Epic:Sa nagba Tmuru"hewho has seen the abyss," or the apsd where Ea guards his plants. Ea's son Marduk, often mentioned in texts dealing with exorcism and medicine, is frequently called by the name of Asalluhi. One such text reads: "May Asalluhi, patron god of exorcism, absolve you by means of the plants of the mountains and the plants of the deep" (Biggs 1967: 17:15). And in a similar passage (Craig 1895: 59, 11.1-5):

An Akkadiancylinderseal impressionshowingthe god of life-givingwaters,Ea. Courtesyof FrederickA. Praeger.

"4

77i Ills-~

202

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

21

Asalluhi,the exorcistof the gods, Marduk,the holy god, exorcist of the gods, King of the apszd,whose incantation meanslife, Asalluhi,exorcistof thegods,whobrings the dead to life, [Giverof] the plant of life, who purifies heavenand earth .... Note further Ea's instructions to Marduk regarding a ritual and incantation against bewitchment: "Go, my son Marduk! Give him your pure drink of life, let him eat the plant of life" (Saggs 1962: 304). Thus Ea, so willing to aid the antediluvians, and his son Marduk know the mysteries of the deep as well as the cultivation and use of magic plants. It has now become clear that the story of "Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant" was once a separate and independent tale. Its central figure Gilgamesh, the survivor of the flood, as well as the elements of a magic plant and waters of the deluge, have led us to the inescapable conclusion that the story in its original form was a myth accounting for the belief in antediluvian longevity. Furthermore, the mythological world-views of the ancient Near East, culled from a variety of sources, provide the original story with a comfortable environment. "Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant" is indeed at home in the thought-world of ancient Mesopotamia. Of course, most interest in the antediluvians stems from the stories in the early chapters of Genesis. For more than 100 years, scholars have been tantalized by the many parallels in Mesopotamian literature to the prehistoric motifs of the Bible. The idea that the Genesis flood narratives are based on Babylonian forerunners is not without controversy. However, the close

literary parallels between the so-called "J" flood story and Gilgamesh XI cannot be brushed aside. It is very difficult to imagine that the episode of the birds (Gen 8:6-12) is not based on the very similar story in Tablet XI: 14554 (Lambert 1965: 291-92; Heidel 1946: 224-69). Furthermore, the behavior of Yahweh at the sacrifice in Gen 8:20-21 is astonishingly similar in tone to the very gross story of the gods who, having repented of their evil plan, are "crowding like flies about the sacrificer" (XI: 155-61). Obviously, the Yahwist has in mind a monotheistic revision of the Babylonian tradition. One must demonstrate that God would not act irrationally in bringing about the deluge. The blame must be placed upon sinful mankind who is indeed deserving of punishment. Notice that the biblical narrative totally ignores the deceitful plan of the god Ea to lie to the citizens of Shurrupak about the impending disaster (XI: 32-47). Biblical justice demands that humans, while deserving punishment, should not be deceived by Yahweh. Further offence is avoided by a slight change in the door-closing episode. In XI: 94-95, Puzur-Amurri battens down the hatches of the ark only to remain behind, short-term heir to the palace of the city.' In order to remove the moral problem brought forward by the necessity of someone's remaining outside the craft after having participated in the project, Yahweh himself closes the door to Noah's ark (Gen 7:16b). The closing of a door is too small and insignificant a detail for two authors to include independently. Gen 7:16b is a moral comment on Gilgamesh XI: 94-95. However, it is not appropriate to say more about such matters here. What can be learned from literary

An Akkadian cylinder seal impression showingGilgameshwrestlingwitha lion. In the centera triple plant and at the righta dedicatoryinscriptionnaming the son of Abilum, a scribe.Courtesyof Batchworth Press.

comparisons of biblical and Babylonian flood traditions has been most ably set forth by T. Frymer-Kensky (1977). The puzzling fact remains that the Bible does not offer us an explanation for the long-lived generations before the flood. Even extrabiblical Jewish legends leave us wondering. Rabbinic traditions abound regarding the durability of the generations before the deluge. It is said thay they suffered neither pain nor disease, that they knew neither toil nor care because, by means of magic, they made sure that the yield of one harvest would be sufficient for forty years. They gave birth after a few day's pregnancy and their offspring walked and talked immediately. There are some allusions as well to magic plants. The book of Enoch, commenting upon the encounter between human and divine beings in Gen 6:1-4, says that the humans were taught the arts and crafts of civilization, including the efficacy of plants. However, this story intends nothing more than to account for the origin of human medical knowledge. Another legend informs us that shortly before his demise Adam took sick (an event whose uniqueness caused all manner of curiosity among his contemporaries) and wished desperately to be healed. He sent Eve and Seth to Paradise to procure for him the oil of life which flows from the tree of mercy. At the gates of the garden, Michael refused their request, informing them that only at the time of the resurrection will the pious receive the benefits of such anointing. (For the rabbinic material mentioned above, see Ginzburg 1909: 93-94; 153-74.) None of these traditions has demonstrated features of an etiological

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

203

Snake eating a plant. Courtesyof B. A. Bowles.

They was two fellas a'goin' along one time in th' woods, an' saw two snakes a'tangledup fightin'.Theyjust stopped an'watched'em.It was a big blacksnake anda rattlesnake.Th'blacksnake'dwork all th' time t'getwrappedaroundan'get up nextt'hisneck'n'head, y'know.Rattlesnake, he'd keep bitin'iman' pushin'im back. An' said directlythat black snake just quit an' wheeledan'run.Said, "I reckon th'fight'sover."It wadn'tthough,ferhere he come back, an' they hookedup fer a fight again. An' said directlyth' rattlesnake pecked'imagain, an' he fit just a little mores with'imand took off in th' same directionhe did in th' first.

myth of antediluvian longevity. It appears that we possess no tradition, biblical or otherwise, which indicates ancient Hebrew knowledge of an etiological story similar to our plant myth. "Gilgamesh and the Magic Plant" stands alone as literaryevidence that the ancients too required an explanation for the tradition of antediluvian longevity.4

The Snake Within the narratives of the plant myth there is a short but fascinating myth about the snake. Gilgamesh XI: 287-89 provides a story which answers the question: "Why does the serpent shed his skin?" i.e., why should the snake receive rejuvenation rather than mankind? The answer is clear: the serpent has the ability to identify magic plants by sniffing their fragrance. The same story is told in the ancient Greek tale, "The Resurrection of Glaucus" (Frazer 1921, vol. I: 301-13). According to Apollodorus, there was a certain Polyidus of Argos who, while visiting the isle of Crete, was selected from a group of diviners to make a search for the lost lad Glaucus. It was soon

204

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

discovered that the boy had fallen headlong into a jar of honey and was drowned. His father, insisting that Polyidus should have found the lad alive, shut the poor traveler in the tomb with the body of Glaucus. While contemplating his predicament, Polyidus observed a snake slithering slowly toward the corpse. Seizing a stone, he threw it and killed the viper, insuring that no worse fate would befall him. A second serpent appeared, spied its dead mate, and left only to return with a herb. No sooner had the serpent placed the plant upon the dead snake than it came to life. Polyidus had the presence of mind to press the same plant to the body of Glaucus with the result that the lad was restored to life. The motif of the serpent's gift is very common in world literature. Tales nearly identical to this one can be found in the folk literature of Germany, Lithuania, Russia, Turkey, Poland, Italy, and Armenia (Frazer 1921,vol. II: 363-70). Somehow the same tale has come to the soil of the United States. Here is one version which is typical of the Appalachian culture (Wiggington 1972: 299-300):

So when he come back an' they went t'fightin',why,hebit'imagain.Andwhile they's doin' th'fightin',way I always heered it, one a'these men follered th' black snake. An' there was a kind'aa buncha weedsa'standin'there,an' that blacksnakewentout a lookin'aboutan' directlyhe see'dit an' madea run fer'it and grabbedoff some'ait an'eatit, and back he went fer his fight. An'that manreacheddowntherean'just pulledthat up an'hadit in his hand?An' th' next time that blacksnakewentback fer his weed, he couldn'tfind it sinceth' man had pulled it up. He hunted an' huntedaroundtherean'couldn'tfindany likeit, an'directlyhe sortakeeledoveron his side, an' in a few minuteshe'uzdead. Never knowed what weed it was, but looks suspiciouslike it might work fer humans. Every semester when teaching the Gilgamesh Epic, I recount a version of the Appalachian story. Invariablya student will volunteer, "That's right! It happened to my gran'daddyjust like that!" Although students frequently have great difficulty accepting the Near Eastern myths as meaningful in any sense, when the same story is placed in their cultural milieu, with only slightly different dress, and the informant claims to know the one to whom this happened, it makes all the difference in the world.

Notes 'See Thompson 1930, pls. 51 and 52. Notice that of the several tablets containing this portion of the epic, only one (K3375) omits the dividers. 2For the phrase . nam.t.la we translate: "Plant of Life." See also Oppenheim 1964: 263. 3Translating11.94-95: "For (his) final caulking of the ship, I gave the palace along with its contents to Puzur-Amurri, the boatwright." 4Josephus (Thackeray 1930: sections 105-6) speaks briefly to the issue suggesting somewhat "scientifically" that their diet was conducive to longevity. Moreover, he suggests, it was necessary for them to live through at least one complete "great year" (some sort of greater planetary cycle requiring from 350-700 years) in order to learn astronomy. However, one can scarcely refer to Josephus' comments as "an ancient etiological myth."

Bibliography Biggs, R. D. 1967 Saziga: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. Locust Valley: Augustin. Craig, J. A. 1895 Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Frazer, J. G. 1921 Apollodorus, The Library, I/II. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University. Frymer-Kensky, T. 1977 The Atrahasis Epic and its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1-9. Biblical Archeologist 40: 147-55. Ginzburg, L. The Legends of the Jews. Vol. 1. 1909 Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Heidel, A. 1942 The Babylonian Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testa1946 ment Parallels. Chicago: University of Chicago. Jacobsen, T. Treasures of Darkness: A History 1976 of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven: Yale University. Kramer, S. N. The Epic of Gilgameg and its Sumer1944 ian Sources. Journal of the American Oriental Society 64: 7-23. 1969a Enki and Ninhursag: a Paradise Myth. Pp. 37-41 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, 3rd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University.

Inanna's Descent to the Nether World. Pp. 52-57 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, 3rd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University. Lambert, W. G. A New Look at the Babylonian Back1965 ground of Genesis. Journal of Theological Studies 16: 287-300. Lambert, W. G., and Millard, A. R. 1969 Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford: Oxford University. Oppenheim, A. L. 1964 Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago. The Sumerian King List. Pp. 265-66 1969 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, 3rd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University. R6mer, W. H. Ph. 1969 Religion of Ancient Mesopotamia. Vol. 1 in Historia Religionum. Leiden: Brill. Saggs, H. W. F. 1962 The Greatness That Was Babylon. New York: New American Library. Speiser, E. A. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Pp. 72-99 in 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, 3rd edition with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University. Thackeray, H. St. J. 1930 Josephus. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Harvard University. Thompson, R. C. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Oxford: 1930 Clarendon. Wiggington, E. The Foxfire Book. Garden City, NY: 1972 Doubleday. 1969b

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

205

Announcement

The distribution of all ASOR books and back issues is now being handled by Eisenbrauns. Please send all orders, information requests, claims, and payments to: Eisenbrauns P.O. Box 275 Winona Lake, IN

46590

206

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / FALL 1981

Section Antediluvian

The of and

Sumerian King

the

List

Genesis 5

John Walton The key to the correlation of the chronologies for the antediluvian heroes in the biblical and Mesopotamian texts is found in the peculiar system of numeration among the Sumerians. Scribal confusion of this method with the decimal values of the original tradition accounts for the disparity in the two genealogies. Scholars in biblical and Mesopotamian studies have done much in the last century to show us the similarities as well as the idiosyncrasies within the traditions which Israel and Mesopotamia had in common. The creation and flood accounts of both cultures have been given added dimension by discussion of the influences which directed the development of the traditions. In contrast, the relationship between the antediluvian king lists and the Genesis genealogies has, for the most part, eluded such analysis. The difference in the magnitude of the numbers presented by each is almost as disturbing, and just as much an enigma, as the long lives are themselves. We would like to present a new perspective on the possible relationship of these two traditions. First the two lists:

Genesis 5 Seth Enosh Kenan Mehalalel Jared Enoch Methuselah Lamech

912 905 910 895 962 365 969 777

Jacobsen's Critical List' WB 444 Alulim Alalgar Enmenluanna Enmengalanna Dumuzi Ensipazianna Enmenduranna Uburtutu

28,800 36,000 43,200 28,800 36,000 28,800 21,000 18,600 241,200

There are three basic differences in the two lists which need to be neutralized if we wish to compare them.2 First, the biblical list normally has ten names while WB 444 has only eight. It should be noted that WB 444 does not include the flood hero, nor does it suggest that it begins with the first man. It begins "When kingship descended from heaven." This difference is best neutral-

ized then by omitting Adam and Noah from the biblical list, as has been done above. Second, the biblical list is presented as a genealogical line whose members' lifetimes overlap. The Sumerian list is a list of rulerswhose reigns are consecutive. For the purpose of comparison, then, let us treat the biblical figures as consecutive. This would produce a total of 6695 in the first collumn above, or for simplicity, 6700. Third, the Genesis figures are decimal system numbers, while the king list uses the sexagesimal system of the Sumerians. To neutralize the difference, let us use a neutral notation system for conversion. * and o will be successive mathematical places. 1. Where * = 1000 and o = 100, 6700 =*** oooo (6 X *) + (7 X o) $

000

2. Where * = 36,000 and o = 3600, (6 X *) + (7 X o) = 216,000 + 25,200 = 241,200 As can now be seen, once the three differences of the lists have been neutralized, the totals are the same. This may be an indication that at one time the differences did not exist. The differences between the two lists, then, seem to be totally explainable by the suggestion that a scribe read a perhaps ambiguous notation as one number system (e.g., sexagesimal) when

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981 207

the document actually intended the other system (e.g., decimal). Several factors would indicate that such an error would be a possibility. 1. The distinction between decimal and sexagesimal is not always clear when it comes down to the system used by an individual society. The number system used in some of the Ebla inventory tablets, for instance, is decimal in its operations but sexagesimal in its symbolic notation.3 2. A set of tablets published by van der Meer shows the use of the standard sexagesimal symbols for a different set of values.4 This set of values may have had a specific use, but the very fact that the same symbol could signify different values suggests that a time lapse of a few centuries could bring about the possibility of confusion or ambiguity. 3. Sumerian civilization seems to be the source of the sexagesimal system. Semitic cultures (except for the Sumerian-based Akkadian) show a preference for the decimal system. The origin of number systems and the question of which system came first are as unresolved as the question of Sumerian and Semitic origins. However, just as the Sumerians and Semites experienced various degrees of isolation, syncretism and amalgamation, it seems likely that decimal and sexagesimal systems had sufficient opportunity for interchange. These three areas would all indicate that conditions existed by which scribal confusion could occur. Thus a list such as WB 444, which may have originally appeared as in column I below, could have been read either with sexagesimal values as in column II5 or with decimal values as in column III.6A reading like column II would become the prototype of the Sumerian version while a reading such as column III would produce a list similar to Genesis 5.

208 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST / FALL1981

Notes I

II

III

oooo

28,800

800

0000

1000

S36,000 O0

1200

S43,200 oooo 0000

o

28,800

800

36,000

1000

28,800

800

0000

oooo

600

oo21,000 00

o

18,600

500

241,200

6700

00

The lack of individual correspondence between the Genesis 5 list and column III above is easily explainable by the internal fluidity which is characteristic of genealogical tradition.7 We have sought to find a basis by which to analyze the relationship between the two traditions of antediluvian heroes. The observation that neutralizing the differences brings the lists to the same total suggests a common tradition (the other alternative, coincidence, is out of the question). We have furthermore presented evidence that confusion in numerical notation and values could have fomented the diversion of our known traditions from the common tradition.

'Thorkild Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939), pp. 70ff. 2These key differences were also pointed out recently in independent work by G. Hasel, Andrews University Seminar Studies 16 (1978): 361-74. 3G. Pettinato, "Il Calendario Semitico Del 3. Millennio," Oriens Antiquus 16 (1977): 258-61. 4P. E. van der Meer, "Dix-sept Tablettes Semi-pictographique," Revue d'Assyriologie 33 (1936): 185-90. 528,800 = 8 X 3600; 43,200 = (1 X 36,000) + (2 X 3600); etc. 6800 = 8 X 100; 1200 = (1 X 1000) + (2 X 100);

etc.

7Robert Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale, 1977), 27ff.

Patriarchal Family and

Near

Eastern

Relation

Law

Tikva Frymer-Kensky The social relationships of the patriarchal narratives are placed in the context of thefundamental legal traditions and cultural milieu of ancient Mesopotamia. The stories of Genesis are so much a part of our own culture, and so vivid in and of themselves, that we tend to treat them as timeless, almost universal, pieces of literature. Whether or not we regard them as sacred scripture, we analyze them for their literarystructure, their moral import, and their psychological truths. In this there is a danger that we will forget that even though the very durability of the Bible proves its ability to transcend cultural and temporal boundaries, nevertheless it comes out of a specific cultural milieu and manifests many of the features of the culture from which it sprang. This has been made abundantly clear during the last 100 years, during which time we have witnessed the discovery of the cuneiform culture, the dominant culture of the ancient Near East and the mother-culture-if you will-of Israel. There were published in short order such documents as the Gilgamesh Epic, which contains a flood story exceedingly similar to the biblical account, paralleling it in such detail as the sending forth of birds to determine the emergence of dry land. The discovery of the Laws of Hammurabi, with their close affinity to the Covenant Code of Exodus, must have seemed even more threatening to the traditional biblicists of the time. The emergence of these documents at the beginning of Assyriological research effected a radi-

cal transformation in our perception of the Bible. There was an initial period of shock during which the similarities to Babylonian material seemed so vast as to be explainable only in terms of gross plagiarism. Now, however, the intimate relationship of Israeliteculture to earlier and contemporary traditions is taken as axiomatic. Attention is increasingly focused on the nature of that relationship and on the ways in which Israel adapted, utilized, and transformed the cultural materials at hand. This is all in the realm of ideas, and such comparisons serve primarily to illuminate the formal legal tradition and the great cosmological cycle of Genesis 1-11. The rest of the book of Genesis is of a very different order: we have an anthology of ancestral stories, centering first around Abraham (12:1-25:18), then Jacob (25:19-37:2a), and finally a coherent cycle of tales about Joseph and his brothers (37:2b-50:26). These stories are not uniform. In form they represent a wide variety of poetry and prose pieces; some of them are folkloristic. A whole school of Bible study, called form criticism, has developed to analyze these different forms and their import. The stories are, furthermore, not all from the same stylus. It is now generally accepted that there are three main streams of tradition represented and partially united in the book of Genesis. There is a tradition that developed in the southern state of Judah and, which it is commonly believed, began to be composed in a unified form in the 10th century B.C.E. This tradition is usually referredto as J, originally because of its distinctive use of the tetragrammaton YHWH as the name of God in the patriarchal period,

but better termed J for Judean. There is a second, parallel tradition that probably developed in the North and was composed in unitary form just slightly later than J. This tradition used to be called E or Elohist, because of the way it refers to God. Now, with our increased sophistication we usually refer to it as Ephraimite, conveniently E. Finally there is a priestly recension of these origin-traditions, known as P, whose date of composition is still a matter of considerable dispute. To increase our sense of insecurity, we must remember that these traditions, sometimes called "sources" or "documents," themselves represented compilations and unifications of other, earlier material, some of it oral, and some more probably written at a time contemporary with, or soon after, the events they portrayed. Genesis, then, is a very complex book, and the question of how to understand and interpret the patriarchal stories is a complicated one. As is usual in biblical studies, the first publication and general acceptance of the theory of separate sources (which has come to be known as the "documentary hypothesis") led to a period of such radical skepticism and doubt that some prominent groups of biblical scholarsmost notably the school of Alt-refused to believe in the reliability and reality of any of the patriarchal narratives, maintaining that recoverable Israelite history first began with the entry into Canaan. Paradoxically, it is the cuneiform evidence that elucidates and illuminates the patriarchal material, indicating its historical authenticity by demonstrating its fidelity to the cultural mores of the ancient Near East. There are many customs reflected in the patriarchal

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

209

tales thatdid not exist in classicalIsrael and must have seemed peculiarto the compilersof J, E, or P, not to mention the finalcomposerof Genesis.Thewide variety of documentsthat we possess from Mesopotamia,and from diverse culturesstrungout along its periphery, has revealed these customs to us, indicatingsome of the subtletiesof their meaning,and, in so doing,causingus to give more credence to the historical value of Genesis. In particular, the discovery in the 1920s of such peripheralcentersas Ugarit,Alalakh,and Mari provided us with enormous amounts of material with which to illuminatethe patriarchalhomelandof Haran.Among these, the city of Nuzi, an unimportanttown (atthattime)near the city of Arrapha(modernKirkuk), had yielded thousands of documents from the privatearchivesof one single prosperousfamily over a span of four generations,thus giving us our closest picture of family relationshipsin the Near East. So manyof the customsreflectedin Genesis are paralleledby documents fromNuzithatit is temptingto thinkof all this as Hurrian law, unique to Haran,and learnedthereby the patriarchs. This was the view of Speiser (1964: 91-92 and passim) and was commonly accepted among scholars. However,new discoverieshave tended to contradictthis by indicatingthatthe parallelsfirst found in Nuzi are themselvesparalleledelsewherein the cuneiformcultures.Recently,reactionhasset in and the "Hurrianhypothesis"has beenattackedby vanSeters(1975),who claims that the patriarchalnarratives belongmoreproperlyin thefirstmillennium, and by Thompson(1974), who deniesthe valueof thesecomparisonsin establishingthe historicityof the patriarchalnarratives.A carefulstudyof the materialindicatesthat the patriarchal stories are clearly a part of the general cuneiform tradition, and although the parallels may not enable us to pinpoint the date of the patriarchalera, they can illuminate the patriarchal stories themselves. One of the key issues in the patriarchal narratives is the problem of succession and its accompanying inheritance of the covenant with God, an area in which we have particularly rich information from the cuneiform materials. Before studying this question, how-

210

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

ever, I wouldlike to pauseto give some picture of the various types of cuneiform evidenceand the value of each to biblical studies. The first important body of cuneiformmaterialbearingon the patriarchsis the cuneiform legal tradition,the so-calledcodes. Earlyin the Sumeriansouth there developeda tradition of composing collections of legal cases. The impetus for this was apparentlyscholarlyand jurisprudential rather than statutory, and the compilers combined and elaborated upon legaltype-casesthatillustratedthe ideal legal principles.Thesecollections are commonlyknown by the name of the rulerwho commissionedthem, the first major identifiableone being the laws of Ur-Nammu,king of the city of Ur in southern Iraq from 2111-2098

to get such texts writtenin Akkadian, the Semitic languageof Babylon.The firstsuchcollectionknownto us arethe Lawsof Eshnunna,a city on the Dyala River prominentat this time. In this case the laws are calledby the nameof the city because the king's name was apparentlyin the brokenbeginningof the tablet. The next is the Laws of Hammurabi,by accident of discovery the firstone knownto modernscholars, the most extensive and detailedof all these collections, and the one most often copiedand studiedin the schools of Babylonia. All of these codes are from southern Mesopotamia in its classical period. The tradition of the study of law throughsuch documents spread from there to the other cuneiform civilizations,and we have such documents from Assyria, from the Hittites, and again from Babyloniain the MiddleBabylonianperiod.In fact,

as YBT28. Around 1800B.C.E.we begin

pregnantwomen usuallyknow enough to keep out of fights, and miscarriages are rarely caused by a blow-but becausethey illustratewellthe principle involved. The penalties imposed may varyfromsocietyto society,and it is in the carefulstudy of these changesand differencesthatwe get someinsightinto the fundamental legal principles of these societies. In additionto thesegroupsof lawas-it-ought-to-be,we have a large assortmentof humbledocumentsof law as it was practiceddaily: bills of sale, marriage contracts, law suits, court depositions, letters from creditors, adoptioncontracts,and so forth.These are harderto studybecausethereareso many of them and they are not organized,but whensiftedtheyyieldclose details about the nature of societal relationshipsin those days. The family, as seen throughthese documents,is a large extendedfamily which is patrilocalin residence,patripotestalin authority,and patrilinealin descent. This means that all the sons stay togetherin one householdwiththe father, who remains the undisputed head of the family until his death.The fathercontractsmarriagesfor his children. In the case of a daughter,he has unlimitedauthorityto disposeof herin any way he sees fit, whetherby contractinga marriagefor her or even by giving her as a slave. He provideshis daughterwith a dowry,which she gets in lieu of an inheritance,and she leaves his house.The fatheris also expectedto obtain wives for his sons, either by activelynegotiatingand contractingthe marriage,or by acquiescingto it and providing the bridal payment. The then entersthe father's daughter-in-law house and becomes a memberof the family.The bondbetweenthefather-inis a verystrong lawanddaughter-in-law

we probably should consider the Book of the Covenant in Exodus to be a document in this tradition. In all these law books the laws themselves may change. Certain typecases, like the Goring Ox (criminal negligence) or the problem of two men brawling and accidently hitting a pregnant woman who promptly miscarries (grievous battery without assault), illustrate important juridical situations. They therefore appear in the laws over and over again, not because of the frequency of such occurrences--

one and is, I believe, the strongest new legal relationship created by this marriage, which must be seen as a transfer of membership from one household to another. When the father dies the eldest son takes over as the head of the household: he is given the charge of the household emblems, insignia, and deities and presides over the management of the estate. The brothers may, for one reason or another, continue to hold the land in common for some period rather than divide the inheritance immediately, or they may divide the smaller

B.C.E. This collection is written in

Sumerian,as arethelawsof Lipit-Ishtar andtheas yet unidentifiedgroupknown

property,such as housesand orchards, and maintain corporateownershipof the productiveland. Whetheror not they divideimmediately,theymustfirst provide dowries for their unmarried sistersand insurethe bridalpayment(in some cases) for their youngerbrother from theirjoint holdings,only dividing the remainder of the property. The eldest son thereuponreceivesa preferentialshareat the divisionof the estate. This, then, is the pattern.It is not unique to the ancientNear East but is rather a common patternfor patriarchal families in many societies. The distinctive characterof Near Eastern law appearsin the waysthatthispattern is perceivedand understood,for in the ancientNear East suchapparentlyselfevident kinship terms as "son,""brother,"and "eldestson"arenot limitedto their biological referents, but rather define special juridical relationships, relationshipsthat can be createdartificially throughvarioustypes of adoption and specification.Problems and unusual situations are therefore resolved in characteristicNear Eastern ways. Childlessness and Succession A problem that must have arisen quite frequently is that of a childless man, as was Abraham for a very long time in his

marriageto Sarah. He may choose to adopt a son, and adoption is very commonin theNearEasteventhoughit does not seem to have been used in classicalIsrael.Adoptionsare not confined to cases of childlessness,and we have a numberof texts (e.g., HG iii 23 and vi 1425) in which it is quite clear that the adopteralreadyhas children. Adoptionsmay occurfor a widevariety of reasons, and the adopted son,

moreover, need be neither an orphan nor a child. He is frequentlya member of the adopter'sfamily(e.g., a nephew). Occasionally he may be a member of the household who is made a son and heir in return for taking care of the man in his old age and providing for him in his death. Such an arrangement may underlie Abraham's complaint in Gen 15:2-4 that, since he was childless, "Dammesek Eliezer" would inherit from him (Speiser 1964: 112; Pr6vost 1967: inter alia; for other interpretations of this difficult passage see Snijders 1958: 268-71; Thompson 1974: 203-30, and the literature cited there).

Adoption of an heir is not the only

recoursea childlessmanhas. In Genesis 16 Sarah gives Hagar, her own handmaiden, to Abraham, declaring her desire to producea child throughher. This is not the only time that a barren matriarch gives her handmaiden to her

maiden, although no longer a mere servant,mustnot becomea rivalto the original wife nor consider herself her equal. One of our problemsin interpreting the Laws of Hammurabiis that manyof thedomesticlawsarecitedonly

husband in the hope of bearingchil- for the naditu, and for each provision

dren: Rachel, also barren, gives Bilhah

to Jacob. Here again the reason is so

that she might have Bilhah give birth on her, Rachel's, knees and thus reproduce through her (Gen 30:3). When Bilhah thereafter bears a son, Rachel calls him

Dan (30:6),declaringthat God has thus

vindicated (dn) her cause. We find

allusion to this ratherpeculiarcustom in the Lawsof Hammurabiin a section dealing with a man who marries a naditu-priestess.This is a specialclass of women who may have been whores or nuns, but it is at least clear that whatever their sexual condition they were not legally allowed to have children. Here we find: 144.If a manmarrieda nadituandthat naditu has given a female slave to her husband and she (the slave) has then produced children: if that man then decidesto marrya ?ugitu( a secondary wife),' they may not allow that man (to do so); he may not marrythe 3ugitu. 145.If a manmarrieda nadituand she did not providehimwithchildrenandhe decidesto marrypa 3ugitu,that manmay marry a 3ugitu, bringing her into his house-with that 3ugitu to rank in no way with the naditu. 146.If a manmarrieda nadituandshe gave a femaleslave to her husbandand she (the slave)has thenbornechildren:if later that female slave has claimed equality with her mistressbecause she bore children,her mistressmay not sell her, (but) she may mark her with the slave-markand count her among the slaves.

147.If she did not bearchildrenher mistressmay sell her. Apart from the insights that this section gives us into the relationship between Sarah and Hagar, these provisions also indicate the reason behind this apparently peculiar custom. A woman was expected to bear children for her husband. If she could not do so, whether prohibited by law, as the naditu in Hammurabi, or otherwise incapable, he might marry another. Possibly to forestall this, the woman might give her own personal slave to her husband to bear the children for her. This hand-

we do not know whether that stipulation is unique to that class of women or

typicalof the statusof all women.This is also the case with the grant of concubines, and we do not know if barren women in Babylon also gave their husbands concubines. Elsewhere

in the Near East, however, we find documentsrelatingto ordinarywomen that also mention this custom. In an

interestingadoption tablet from Nuzi (HSS V 67 [Speiser1930:31-32])a man gave his son Shennimain adoptionto Shuriha-iluso that he couldbecomehis heir. As part of this adoption agreement,Shennimais givena wife, Kelimninu. He must not take anotherwife, but if she does not bear children she will give him a woman from the Lullu-land

(i.e., a slavegirl)as his wife.Theparallel is not exact,for Kelimninugoes abroad to get a servant girl ratherthan give Yalampa, the handlmaidenmentioned in the sametext as partof herdowry,to

her husband. Nevertheless, the custom is the same, and it seems to have had a long history in the ancient Near East. We have a contract from Nimrud, one of the capitals of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, in which a certain AmatAssartu gives her daughter Subietu in

marriageto Milkuwiththe provisothat

should Subietu prove barren she should take a slave girl and give her to her husband, the sons thus born being her

sons (Parker 1954:37-39); van Seters 1968: 406-8; Grayson and van Seters 1975: 485-86). We also have an Old Assyrian text from Anatolia (ICK 3), 1200 years earlier than the NeoAssyrian text, that records the marriage between Laqipum and Hatala. If within two years she does not provide him with offspring, she herself will purchase a slave woman. Later on, after she will have produced a child by him, he may dispose of her by sale wheresoever he pleases (Hrozfiy 1939: 108-11; Lewy 1956: 8-10, and cf. text I 490 [Lewy 1956:6-8] in which the man may himself buy a servant as a concubine). These documents do not show uniform treatment of the proper rela-

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

211

tionship between the wife and the concubine,or the wife and the concubine's children. In Hammurabi the concubine who has borne children cannot be sold, although she can be demotedto the statusof a slave. In the Old Assyriantext she can be sent away even after she has borne children,and this also seems to be indicatedby the Neo-Assyrian text (according to the collation of line 46 by Postgate in Graysonand van Seters 1975:485). In the Bible Sarah has Abraham send Hagar away, but only after much agonizing on his part and after the direct interventionof God. Similarly, the Neo-Assyriantext declaresthat the childrenbornfromthe concubineareto be consideredSubietu'schildren.Thisis the intention expressly stated by Rachel, who gives Bilhahto Jacob so that she can producethroughher(Gen 30:3) and then declaresthat God has heeded her pleas by giving her a son (30:6). In Nuzi the situationis unclear becausethebrokenlineof HSS V 67 can be restored either u ?erri Gelimninu[fla

umar "and Kelimninushall not send away the offspring"(Speiser 1930:31, text 2:22) or, more probably,u ?erri Gelimninu-[m]a uwar "and Kelimninu

... it is the cuneiform evidence that elucidates and illuminates the patriarchal material, indicating its historical authenticity by demonstrating its fidelity to the cultural mores of the ancient Near East.

shall haveauthorityoverthe offspring" (Speiser1964:120).It is clearlySarah's intention to "be built up" by giving Hagarto Abraham(16:2[Speiser1964: 121]), but Ishmaelis never treatedas Sarah'schild, and he is ultimatelysent away with Hagar (perhaps for this reason). The proper intrafamilyrelationshipsmayhavebeensubjectto local customsor individualcontract,but it is clearthatthe conceptof the barrenwife giving her husbanda concubineis well establishedin the Near East. Successionand the First-born As is often the case, no soonerdoes a couple adopt a child than the wife immediately becomes pregnant, and such adoptions have even been considered a treatment for infertility (Kardiman 1958: 123-26). When a hitherto childless man who has acquired a child either through adoption or by being given the female slave of his wife or by marrying another suddenly has children by his original (first) wife, many very complex questions arise about the status of the children and their relationship to each other. The boys are certainly brothers, and any

212

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

attemptto deny this was considereda seriousmatter.Wehavetherecordof an Old Babylonianlawsuit from Nippur (Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden 174)

in which one brother claims that Shamash-Nasiris not his brother,that his father did not really adopt him. Witnessesare called who prove that Shamash-Nasirwas trulyadopted,and he is therebyreinstatedto his inheritance. The brotherwho had attempted to deny him is himselfdisinherited.As an Old Babyloniantext from Susatells us (MDP 23 321:16):"Accordingto the customestablishedby the gods Shushinak and Ishmekarabthat brotherhood is brotherhoodand sonshipis sonship, the possessionsof my father PN now belongto me."The childof the slaveor second wife and the adopted son are thus real children and share in the inheritance.Butwho is the "eldestson," the one who receivesthe double portion?Whenall the sons areadopted,the heirshipof the firstmaybe stipulatedin the contract,and one of the conditions to an adoptionin fact may be that the adopter does not adopt any more children. But when a man acquiresa natural son the situation is quite different.On one Nuzi adoptiontablet,in whicha manadoptshis own brotheras his son-and-heir,we read(HSS V 7):"If a son of my own is born to me, he shall be the oldest, receivingtwo inheritance shares. Indeed, should the wife of Akabshenni(the speaker)bearten sons, they shall all be major(heirs),Shelluni followingafter."The termhereusedfor "major heir" is the same as "eldest": chronological age is not always the determiningfactor and the naturalson may precede, as here, all adoptive childrenin statusas eldesteven though he follows them in date of birth. Althoughwe have no justification for assuming that natural children always superseded adoptive ones, such a stipulation is not confined to the one document just discussed. We mentioned before an adoption tablet (HSS V 67) in which Shuriha-ilu adopted Shennima and gave him a wife. There are other contingencies in this contract. If Shuriha-ilu does have a natural son, that son will be the eldest and will inherit the double portion, with Shennima coming next. This text is very interesting for yet another reason. It is clear-cut, and one would think that Shennima would have no trouble in

putting forth his claim to be the heir. Yet when Shuriha-ilu was about to die, another text (HSS V 48) tells us that a dispute about succession did in fact arise. A committee then went to visit Shuriha-ilu, who was apparently on his deathbed, and said to him, "Now you are alive, and claims are being raised against you. Since you may die, point out your son to us that we may know him." We must assume that Shuriha-ilu was not bound by the other document, which is not mentioned in this text, and could have appointed whomever he pleased. He does appoint Shennima (who is, incidentally, his nephew) as his son and heir. From this case one might infer that even though Esau had sold Jacob his birthright, Isaac could nevertheless have appointed Esau his heir when he announced his intention to make a deathbed pronouncement with the formulaic phrase, "Now that I have grown old and know not the day of my death" (Gen 27:2), a phrase used elsewhere for just this purpose (Speiser 1955: 252-53). However, we really should await more evidence on this point. To get back to the crucial problem of inheritance, it is clear that an adoptive son could be displaced as the eldest by a natural son. Similarly, when there was contest between the sons of a prime wife and the children of a slave, there was in fact no contest. In the laws of Hammurabi we read: 170.If a man'swifeborehimchildren: if the fatherduringhis lifetimehas ever said "my children"to the childrenthat the slave bore him, thus havingcounted them with the childrenof the first wife (then),afterthefatherhasgoneto hisfate the children of the slave shall share equally in the goods of the paternal estate,with the first-born,the son of the share. primewife,receivinga preferential The parallel is not perfect, i.e., this law refers to the children of any slave, rather than specifically of a slave given by a wife to her husband in fulfillment of her marital obligations. Nevertheless, it seems clear that Isaac, as the son of Sarah the prime wife, could be legally considered the first-born even though he was chronologically younger than Ishmael. Sarah, however, is not really satisfied with this preferred status for her son-she does not want Ishmael to have any part in the inheritance, and

wants him sent away. Such a situation is not unknown, for the Laws of Hammurabi continue: 171.If thefatherduringhislifetimehas neversaid "mychildren"to the children that the slave bore him;afterthe father has gone to his fate the childrenof the slave may not sharein the goods of the paternalestatealongwiththechildrenof theprimewife.Freedomfortheslaveand her childrenshall be effected, with the children of the prime wife having no claimagainstthe childrenof the slavefor service. This is what Sarah wants to arrange while Abraham is still alive. He, however, is reluctant to do so, for we read in Gen 21:11, "the child was his also," i.e., he had legitimatized the boy. This was the reason for his having slept with Hagar, which he did at Sarah's request and for the express purpose of bearing legitimate children. God intervenes, for it was his will that Isaac should be sole heir to the covenant. In the narrativeas it stands God had already told Abraham (Genesis 17) that Sarah would bear a son through whom the covenant would be renewed. God does not have to act arbitrarily against the laws and customs of his times in order to arrange his plan of having the son of Sarah inherit the covenant, for the times permit the choice of the son of the prime wife as the heir. The situation is not much different when a man marriesa second wife rather than take a slave girl as concubine. We have a Neo-Babylonian text (VS VI 3 1411 [Szlechter 1972: 106]) in which a man requests a girl named Kulla from her father, explaining that he has no children and that he is extremely desirous of having some. The contract stipulates that whenever Esagilbanata, the first wife of the man, has a son he will get twothirds of the patrimony. When Kulla gives birth her son will get one-third of the patrimony. If the first wife has no children, then Kulla and her son are to inherit the entire property. Here we are not dealing with slave girl vs. mistress, but with two free-born women both married by proper contract. Nevertheless, the chronological age of the son does not matter:the son of the firstwife is automatically the "first-born" and major heir. This brings us a little closer to the most ticklish situation of all-the plight of Jacob with his two unequal wives and

...

in the Near Eastern milieu

the term 'first-born," like the terms "son, "'father,""brother, "and "sister,"is essentially a description of a particular juridical relationship which may be entered into by contract as well as by birth.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

213

way accordedhim the rightof the firstborn. The Bible contains a consistent motifof thechoosingof theyoungerson over the older. Isaacand not Ishmael, Jacob and not Esau,inheritthe Covenant;Joseph(throughhis children)and not Reubeninheritsthe doubleportion. MosesoutshinesAaron,David,andnot his elderbrothers,rules,and Solomon, and not his elders, inherits. More examples could be added to this list. God'splanunfoldsthroughsuchchoice, and primacy is not automatically achieved by birth rank. In order to achievethisaim,however,Goddoesnot haveto act in an arbitraryor capricious manner, or to disorient society by disruptingthe expected norms, for in the Near Easternmilieuthe term"firstborn," like the terms "son,""father," "brother,"and "sister,"is essentiallya description of a particularjuridical relationshipwhichmay be enteredinto by contractas well as by birth. People adopt others as brothers, brothers before its promulgation in 621 B.C.E., adopt each other as sons, brothers but not before Sinai, and neitherGod adopt womenas sisters,and the designor Jacob could be expected to be nation of an individualas "first-born" boundby lawsnot yet in force.Further- can also be a matterof choice. more,Jacobdid marryt'wosistersat the Thisarticleis basedon a paperdelivered sametime,a marriageforbiddenby Lev on "Biblical to 9 a 1975 symposium May 18:18. It is clear that neither the in Literature: Brothers Western Themes prescriptionin Leviticus nor that in in Conflict"at State University. Wayne the Deuteronomyhad any bearingon patriarchalperiod,andwe cannot simply assumethat Josephhadno claimto Note be heir. Leah, it is true, was married first, but only by a ruse, and Rachel's 'In standard translations the naditu is usually marriage agreement was made first. translated "hierodule," and is translated Rachel is clearly portrayed as the "lay priestess." These, however, eugituare misleading desired wife, and Leah has to ask terms. There is no evidence that gugitu were Rachelto send Jacob to sleepwith her priestesses of any type, and the term seems to bea limited to secondary wives, particularly when in returnfor the mandrakes(Gen30:14- naditu is prime wife. It is probably best to leave 16).Jacobdidmanageto chooseJoseph the terms untranslated. as chief heir. Although he had been ratherclumsy in his early preferential treatmentof Joseph,particularlyin the

two handmaidens, twelve sons, a daughter,and the necessityof choosing a chief heir. Reuben,as we know, was bornfirst,andquiteobviouslyexpected to be the preferredheir. Joseph, the first-born of the beloved Rachel, seemed to think that he ought to be consideredthe first-born;he naivelylet his brothersknow it by tellingthemhis dreams of glory and power and by flauntingthe preferentialtreatmentthat their father had given him. Was he simplybeingan obnoxiousspoiledbrat, or did he reallyhavea legitimateclaim? Was Jacob simplybehavinglike a silly old mandotingon theson of hisbeloved Rachel,or was somethinglegallysignificant involved?The law of Deuteronomy is quite clearthat should a man have two wives, one beloved and the other despised,he may not give preferential status to the son of the beloved wife but must take the chronologically olderson as the first-bornwho gets the double portion. Deuteronomy may have beencomposed(in the main)long

incident of the "coat of many colors," in his old age he had learned to be cunning and devious. On his deathbed (where such pronouncements should be made) he adopted Joseph's two children, Ephraim and Manasseh, as his own sons, making them equal to Reuben and Simeon, and declaring that any other sons would inherit from them (Gen 48:5). He thus bypassed Joseph in order to give him the double portion due an heir through his children, and in that

214

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

Bibliography Grayson, K., and van Seters, J. 1975 The Childless Wife in Assyria and the Stories of Genesis. Orientalia 44: 48586. Hrozfiy, B. Ober eine unver6ffentlichte Urkunde 1939 vom Kuiltepe(ca. 2000 v. Chr). Symbolae ad iura Orientis Antiqui pertinentes Paulo Koschaker dedicatae Studia et Documenta 2:108-11.

Kardiman, S. 1958 Adoption as a Remedy for Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs. Journal of Semitic Studies 3: 123-26. Lewy, J. 1956 On Some Institutions of the Old Assyrian Empire. Hebrew Union College Annual 27: 1-79. Parker, B. The Nimrud Tablets 1952-Business 1954 Documents. Iraq 15: 29-30. M. Pr~vost, 1967 Remarques sur l'adoption dans la Bible. Revue international des droits de l'antiquit? 14: 67-78. Seters, J. van The Problem of Childlessness in Near 1968 Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel. Journal of Biblical Literature 87: 401-8. Abraham in History and Tradition. 1975 New Haven: Yale University. Snijders, L. A. Genesis XV the Covenant with Abra1958 ham. Oudtestamentische Studien 12: 261-79. Speiser, E. A. New Kirkuk Documents Relating to 1930 Family Laws. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 10. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1955 "I Know Not the Day of my Death." Journal of Biblical Literature 74:25256. Genesis. The Anchor Bible. Garden 1964 City, NY: Doubleday. Szlechter, E. Les Lois Neo-Babyloniennes (II). 1972 Revue international des droits de l'antiquiti 19: 43-128. Thompson, T. L. 1974 The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: the Questfor the Historical Abraham. Beiheft, Zeitschrift der alttestamentliches Wissenschaft 133. Berlin; New York: deGruyter.

Pastoralists and Patriarchs Victor H. Matthews Subsistence in ancient Palestine was based upon a mixed economy. The Patriarchs of the Old Testament worked and prospered within this system. The accounts of the patriarchs in Genesisare filled with varioustypes of occupational activity-both pastoral and nonpastoral.No clear case can be made from these narrativesthat the patriarchswere pastoral nomads who constantly engaged in the search for waterand grazingfor theirflocks. The stories do, however, point up very clearly the mixed social and occupational normexistingamongthe peoples of the ancientNear East. What will be presented here is a variety of the occupational endeavors of the patriarchal groups in relation to the integratedsocietyof whichtheywerea part. Occupational specialization became possible in the ancient world as soon as menwereableto devotetimeto pursuitsother than food gathering.As the village community became more self-supporting,pastoral, artistic, and humanisticactivitiesevolved.Whenthe villageherdsbeganto outgrowthelocal sources of pasture, a transhumant patternwas formedin whicha portion of the male populationregularlydrove the animalsto newgrazingareasduring particular seasons of the year. They would then returnto marketor shear the animalsandrejointheirfamilies.No actual break of social ties betweenthe herdinggroup and the sedentarycommunityoccurreduntilit waspossiblefor the herdersto become relativelyselfsufficient as well. They could then establishnew ties with other groups in more distantareas (Gottwald1978). In light of this, the migration of Abraham from Haran in Gen 12:5 exhibits the type of separation which could take place in the ancient Near

East.Abrahamis not characterizedas a where, servingas merelyanotherecoherdsmanpriorto this,andyet,in many nomicassetof theirowner.Despitethis, respects he will become one as the Lot retainedsome of the socialcustoms narrativeprogresses.In preparationfor which were a part of this tribal exisdeparture,he gathersall of his retainers tence (Gen 18:1-8).His defense of the and familyand, ina sense,"retribalizes" laws of hospitality(Gen 19:8)reflects them to form a migratory group. the strong ties which tribal obligation Organized in this way, they could still had on him. Abraham,too, had to dealwiththe manage and protect the herds, which wouldin turnfeedand supplycapitalto realitiesof livingwithinthe boundaries the groupduringits journey. of the urbanauthority.At the death of The process of retribalization his wife Sarah (Gen 23:8-20),he ap(Gottwald 1975)is based on a shift in proached a member of the Hittite subsistenceconcerns.Abrahamrecog- community in Hebron in order to nized the need to restructurehis fol- purchasea burial place. A price was lowing as an autonomous economic agreedupon and duly witnessedby the entitywhichwouldhaveto cooperateas Hittites in the city gate (see similar a group in order to survive.This is of transactionfromMari,in box). Thefact course not necessaryin urbansocieties that Yahwehwas not invokedas partof where individualconcerns often take this agreementmayreflectthe extentto whichAbrahamwas willingto subordiprecedenceover group concerns. Once Abraham had entered Ca- nate himselfin dealingwith the settled naan with his nephew Lot, he dis- community.Certainly,the purchaseof coveredthat the land simplycould not land by a new immigrantcould be next supportthe entire herdingcommunity to impossibleif therewasanyexpressed they had formed.Thushe resortedto a enmitybetweenthe two peoples. common stratagem among pastoralWithin his own group, however, ists-division of the herd and the Abrahamheld strictlyto tribalcustom. grazingarea(cf. Swidler1972).Lot was In Gen 24:2-4he chargedhis servantin giventhe areaof the Jordanvalley(Gen the strictestpossibletermsto seeka wife 13:12),and Abrahammoved his herds for his son Isaacamonghis kinsmenin off to the westin Canaan.Thisarrange- the region of Nahor. This practiceof mentbenefitedbothgroupsand,as Gen marryingonly within one's own tribe 13:8says, preventedany sort of inter- (endogamy) is very common among necinestrifebetweenkinsmen. tribal groups and helps insure the From this point on in the patriar- perpetuation of social custom and chal narratives, it can be said that authority in each generation (Barth herding became only one part of the 1961:35-36).Thus,whenEsautook two economyof theirgroups.Theynowhad Hittite wives (Gen 26:34),he forfeited returnedto intimatecontactwithsettled his rights as the heir of Abraham's communities,and they therebybecame covenantjust as surely as when Isaac an integratedpart of the total society, mistakenlyblessed Jacob in his place. including at least an outwardaccept- Rebekah,Jacob'smother,finalizedher ance of legal and social customs. Lot son's claimto the inheritanceby urging eventuallybecamevery mucha partof Isaac(Gen 27:46-28:2)to sendJacobto the Sodom community,"sittingin the Paddan-aramto obtain a bride. This gate" (Gen 19:1), probably transacting adherence to tribal custom marked his business there. There is no further Jacob as the true heir of God's mention of his herds, and it can only be assumed that they were grazing else-

covenant. The extremely tenuous position of

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

215

Kanesh* Idamaras. Taurus Mis.

Amanus `I ?A,,,,,,u,.,Mis. ( l,,,.. Carchemig Harran AaaaahKaat

ala

KEmar * Aleppo.eEmarl --

Bazar K

"

ubatuarr Enlil? Nineveh

h

Nahur

Tuttul

Ugarit ----Terqa --,/

Chagar

Karand ,Qattunan

uarr

Ekallatum

A99ur.

Arrapba

*Sagar~tum A

- Qatna

Mediterranean ...Tadmor Sea

Mari

4

*Tamo

*Damascus Hazor

0e Tuttul.

* Egnunna Sippar* Babylon

The Mari Kingdomand the MesopotamianArea in the Old Babylonian Period(1830-1760B.C.)

*DMr 0

Susa

Nippur

NippurIsin

Susa e Lagash

Uruk

*Larsa Ur kpj

the patriarchalgroups in Canaan is seen provoke a fight, he moved on. This cycle in a number of instances. One graphic was repeated twice more before they example appears in Genesis 26. Here, were allowed to settle down. At last, Isaac's recognition of his own weakness they gained the right to establish a base and inability to protect himself and his of operations near Beer-sheba after family is demonstrated in the repetition supplying military assistance to the (previously found in Gen 12:11-20 and local rulers (Gen 26:26-33). The most detailed discussion of the 20:2-18) of the wife-sister deception the narrative As (Gen 26:7). progresses, pastoral activities of one of the patriIsaac is portrayed as becoming pros- archs is found in the Jacob account. perous because of bountiful harvests Again it should be pointed out that a and the increase of his herds (Gen 26:12- "departure"from the settled existence is 16). However, his good fortune is seen involved here-somewhat in the same as a threat to the stability of the other vein as Abraham's departure from inhabitants of the area, and he is obliged Haran. Due to the laws of primogenito move on. This episode suggests that, ture and the wrath of his older brother as new immigrants in the land, they Esau, Jacob had to return to his uncle's could be evicted at any time. The actual house in search of a bride and claim to the land was not yet theirs. employment. From the very beginning of this Once Isaac's group left Abimelech's city of Gerar, they again returned story Jacob is shown to be familiar with to the pastoral nomadic life. In Gen animal husbandry and herding prac26:18-22 they move into the valley (i.e., tices. In Gen 29:7 he questions the herding areas) of Gerar to graze their herdsmen of Haran, who, because of the herds near wells that Abraham original- jealousy over water rights, were waiting ly had dug. When they opened the wells, for all the flocks to be gathered together however, the local herdsmen immedi- before watering them, thereby allowing ately laid claim to them. Because preference to no one. Jacob berates Isaac had no clear claim to water them for such a practice since it wasted a rights and apparently did not wish to good part of the day that could have

216 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

been spent grazing. He sets an example for them by watering Rebekah's sheep and then moving away, presumably to return them to the pasturing area. Since Jacob was in a sense surplus labor and without any means of support, he struck a bargain with Laban whereby he could earn a wife (Gen 29:15; 30:29-33). Once he had fulfilled this obligation, a more elaborate contract was drawn up that allowed Jacob a portion of the flocks in exchange for his labor (Finkelstein 1968: 32; Postgate 1975: 2-5). Jacob's actual breeding practices partially hinge on sympathetic magic (Gen 30:37-40), including the placing of peeled poplar rods in front of the watering trough so as to induce the breeding sheep to produce striped offspring. Gen 30:41-42, however, displays a fairly intimate knowledge of genetics, allowing the stronger animals to breed only among themselves. This insured that dominant traits were selected, and thus the best of the flock became Jacob's portion. Having established himself as a prosperous man, Jacob returned to Canaan at God's urging to renew relations with his brother and to take up

the covenantpromiseagain. Upon his arrival he emulated Abraham (Gen 20:1)and Isaac(Gen26:6)by obtaining a piece of land near a city, in this case Shechem(Gen 33:18-20).Fromherehe directedhis herdsto the pasturingareas (Gen 34:5). This is an example of the establishmentof what Dever describes as a temporaryor "satellite"village (1977: 112). Perhapsa parallelcan be drawn between this arrangementand the tribal settlementsknown as 'dldn, which are describedin texts from the site of ancientMari(a city nearHaran). The didna also were settlementsset up within the close environs of a city by pastoralists (Matthews 1978). It was fromthesevillagesthat the herdsmenof the tribecould takethe flocksandgraze them while the remainderof the group established relations with the nearby town. While in the vicinity of Shechem, Jacob and his people were invited to become sedentary members of the community(Gen 34:8-10)and to intermarrywith the local people. In return they would receivefree access to land and trade. The actual motive of the villagers,however,is givenin v 23:"Will not theircattle,theirproperty,andtheir beasts be ours?"Such an arrangement must have seemedextremelyattractive to the people of Shechem for they agreed to universalcircumcisionas a sign of good faith(v 22). Unfortunately for them,theydid not takeintoaccount the damagedone by Shechem'srapeof Dinah (Gen 34:2-7).This act had laid

..

.............i

*""; Brwoe

?::i?• _:•i

obligationsof revengeon the sons of Jacob and led them to deceive the peopleof Shechemand to destroytheir city (Gen 34:25-31). Followingthe assaulton Shechem, Jacob'sgroup resumedtheirmigratory patternin Canaan.Theywentto Bethel (Gen 35:1-7)to renewthe claim which Jacob's religious revelationthere had given them (Gen 28:10-17).They then moved on towardEphrath(Gen 35:1617),and finally, they settledfor a time between Bethlehemand Hebron, "beyond the tower of Eder"(v 21). This traveling probably reflected the fact thatJacobhad no permanentterritorial claimsin Canaanand thus hadto move with his herdsin orderto makea living. This patternwas to continue until the death of Isaac. At the death of his father (Gen 35:27-28),Jacobreturnedto the areaof Hebron"whereAbrahamandIsaachad sojourned."Now he had that permanent base from which his herdsmen undisputedlycould take the animalsto graze (Marx 1977:344). Gen 37:12-17 describesthis patternin whichthe sons of Jacobtook the flockfrom Hebronto the area of Shechem and then on to Dothan. Seemingly, the transhumant life of the patriarchsis highlightedonly whentheyactuallygainthe securityof a permanentbase of operations. One final note on the occupational characterof the patriarchsis found in Gen 46:32-34.In this coachingsession between Joseph and his brothers, he urges them to portray themselves to

i ••• .... i/ i!

Fill, ~a-14

W

•

Pharaoh as men who ". . . have been

keepersof cattle from our youth even untilnow, both we and ourfathers...." This, coupled with the Egyptians' "admonition"of shepherds (v 34), insuredthatJoseph'skinsmenwouldbe allowedto retaintheirlivestockand to continue their principaloccupationas herdsmenrather than be forced into constructionjobs or similarlabors. One of the best illustrationsof the towardtheshepherd Egyptians'attitude or desertpeopleis found in the storyof Sinuhe (ANET: 22, lines 265-80).This Egyptianexile lived witha tribalgroup in Palestine but returned to Egypt toward the end of his life when the Pharaohgrantedhim a pardon.Upon reaching the court, he was brought before Pharaohand was madethe butt of some very pointedjokes concerning his desert garb and generally "barbarous" appearance. He was not allowed to returnto Egyptiansociety until the dust of the desert had been scrubbedfrom him and ceremoniously given back to the dunes. Thus, Pharaoh'sacceptanceof the Israelites' status as shepherdsis seen in his offer (Gen47:6b)to hiretheirsurpluslaboras herdsmenfor his own flocks. The theme of the narrativesseems to be a continualmovementof pastoral people, taking advantageof a herding economywhennecessary,towarda site Left:Nomadcampwiththornenclosure for theherd.Above:Youngshepherd withkid. Bothphotoscourtesyof AldinePress.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

217

in whichthecommunitycouldgrowand prosper-thereby fulfilling the covenant. Each patriarchin turn travels throughthe land establishingties, and eachin turnfinallyreturnsto theHebron area as his base of operations.The evidenceof pastoralismin thesenarratives most likely reflects the occupational realityof the times. Bibliography ANET AncientNearEasternTextsRelating to the Old Testament,3rded., ed. J. B. Pritchard.Princeton:Princeton University,1969. Barth,F. 1961

Nomadsof SouthPersia,TheBasseri Tribeof the KhamsehConfederacy. Oslo:Oslo University.

Boyer,G. 1958 Archivesroyalesde Mari, 8: Textes juridiques. Paris: Imprimerienationale. Dever,W. G. 1977 The PatriarchalTraditions.Pp. 70119 in Israeliteand JudeanHistory, eds. J. Hayesand J. Miller. Philadelphia:Westminster. Finkelstein,J. J. 1968 An Old BabylonianHerdingContractand Genesis31:38f.Journalof theAmericanOrientalSociety88:3036. Gottwald,N. Domain Assumptionsand Societal 1975 Modelsin the Studyof Pre-Monarchic Israel. Supplement to Vetus 28: 89-100. Testamentum 1978 Were the Early IsraelitesPastoral Nomads?BiblicalArchaeologyReview 4: 2-7. Marx,E. 1977 The Tribeas a Unit of Subsistence: NomadicPastoralismin the Middle East. AmericanAnthropologist79: 343-63. Matthews,V. Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari 1978 Kingdom, ca. 1830-1760 B.C.Ameri-

can Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 3. Cambridge, MA: AmericanSchools of Oriental Research. Postgate,J. 1975 SomeOldBabylonianShepherdsand TheirFlocks(witha contributionby S. Payne).Journalof SemiticStudies 20: 1-21. Swidler,W. 1972 Some DemographicFacets Regulating the Formationof Flocks and CampsAmongtheBrahuiof Baluchistan. Pp. 69-75 in Perspectiveson Nomadism, eds. W. Irons and N. Dyson-Hudson.Leiden:Brill.

218 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

Artistic Beni

Balance

Hasan

Among

The

Asiatics

William H. Shea An artistic analysis of the famous Egyptian mural at Beni Hasan reveals an unusual sense of proportion and harmony in the arrangement of the Asiatic caravan, their dress and equipment. When the sons of Jacob sought relief from famine in Egypt, and later when they, theirfamilies,and Jacobdescended into Egypt to settle in the land of Goshen,they followed in the footsteps of generations of Canaanite and Egyptiantraders.Joseph had already gone before them into Egypt as a captiveof Midianitemerchantsreturning from a foray into Canaan. These storiesof the patriarchsas wellas many documentsattest to commercialinteractionbetweenthe areas.In addition,a famous Egyptiantomb painting from the 19th century B.C.E. portrays a particular group of Asiatic traders journeying into Middle Egypt. Their depiction contributesnot only to evidenceof and knowledgeaboutCanaanite trade with Egypt duringthe patriarchal period, but also to a greater familiaritywith the appearance,dress, and habitual equipmentof the patriarchs themselves. The painting of Asiatic traders, first published in 1845 by Franqois Champollion, a deciphererof hieroglyphicEgyptian,and manytimessince reproducedin works on Egyptianart and in biblicalhandbooks,decoratesan Egyptianprovincialgovernor'stomb at Beni Hasan.Beni Hasanlies about 160 miles south of Cairo near the ancient site of Monet-Khufu,the capitalof the 16th,or Antelope,nome(= province)of

Egypt. This city flourishedin the early 2nd millennium B.C.E., but today hardly

anythingremainsof it exceptthe tombs of someof its rulers,cutin thecliffshigh above the eastern shore of the Nile. Althoughthe city is gone, the paintings on the walls of these tombsprovidean interestingglimpse into the everyday life of the peoplewho livedherearound the time of the biblicalpatriarchs. The mural depicting the Asiatic tradersdecoratesTomb 3, which was cut and decoratedfor a nomarch or provincial governor named Khnumhotep, designated Khnum-hotep III because of two other Khnum-hoteps known at this site. The mural, which datesto the 6thyearof SesostrisII (1892 B.C.E.), indicates thatthisKhnum-hotep musthavecarriedout his officialduties duringthe earlypartof the 19thcentury B.C.E. The doors, rooms, pillars, and otherarchitecturalfeaturesof his tomb werecarvedinto solid rock,as werethe tombs of other officialsin the vicinity. The walls of the spacious second, or main, hall of Khnum-hotepIII's tomb are almosteven in length,31feet in one directionand32in the other.Theceiling is 19feet high, and four flutedcolumns divide the hall into three naves. S. H. Horn has describedthe decorationof the tomb (1957:78-79):

Rows andhiswifeviewedforrecreation. matchesinall of picturesshowwrestling stages.Onecanfollowsucha matchfrom its beginningto its close by looking at

thesepictures.

The third row on this hall'snorth wall holds the paintingof the Asiatics, its adult human figurespaintedabout 0.5 mtall. Thevisitof the Asiatictraders recordedhereapparentlymeritedinclusion among the notable events of Khnum-hotep'snomarchyby virtueof its rarityand so, withthem,waspainted on the wallsof his tomb.WhileAsiatics traveledto and fro acrossthe isthmusof Suez into the regionof the easterndelta throughout the history of ancient Egypt, these particulartraders must have traveledas far south as Middle Egyptto find a marketfor the stibium, or eye-paint,whichthey sold, andtheir visit here aroused considerableattention. Since the preservationof this kind of historical evidence is much less common in the delta, Khnum-hotep's interestin this visit of the Amoritesto his domain is fortunate.Whetherone datesthe biblicalpatriarchsjust before, aroundthe time of, or sometimeafter this 19th-century B.C.E. record, the

of thesetradersprobably representation fairly indicates the appearance of Allthewallsarecovered withinscriptions people like them and their mannerof andcoloredpaintings thelife dress, mode of travel, and equipment. describing storyof the ownerand his administra- As W. F. Albrightnoted (1949: 208), tion, and the specialeventsthat took "Sinceit is unlikelythatthe dressof the Palestinian semi-nomad changed applace in his time. .... One scene shows peoplein front of the rulerweighing preciablyin the following century or silver,whichhas been broughtin as two, we can scarcelygo far wrongif we taxes. Othersdepictthe measuring of pictureJacob and his familyas clad in grain,the workin the fieldsand vine- much the same way." An inscriptionwhichaccompanies yards,life by the river,huntingscenes, andvarioussportseventsthatthe ruler this scene identifiesthe two Egyptians BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981 219

IL

01

Or

Detailed view of the Semitic chieftain who led his caravan to Middle Egypt to trade eye-paint. His name has been read as Ibsha or possibly, in a more biblical or Amorite style, as Abi-shar. The title given to him is heqahasut, which means "rulerof a foreign country." The later word "Hyksos" was derived from this title.

220 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

who introducethe Asiatics as Neferhotep, Scribeof the RoyalDocuments, and Khety, Overseerof Hunters.The portion of the inscriptionadjacentto the Asiatic chieftain identifieshim as Ibsha,Rulerof a ForeignCountry.The specific Semitic form of his name has not been definitelyestablishedfrom its transcriptioninto Egyptian here, but Albrightsuggested(1934:8) that it may havebeenAbi-shar.If this suggestionis correct,the shortsentencewhichconstitutes his name means, "My father is king."Thisnameis a typicalinstanceof namesdenotingkinship;both formsof Abraham'snameindicatethe existence and use of such names. The Egyptian title used here, "Ruler of a Foreign Country,"is the word from which the nameHyksos was laterderived.In this later usage the term referredto the foreignerswho rulednorthernor Lower Egypt during a portion of what is known as the Second Intermediate Period of Egyptianhistory,extending fromthe end of the MiddleKingdomof Dynasty XII to the beginning of the New Kingdom with Dynasty XVIII. The label above the scenetells the purpose of the Amorites' visit: "The arrival,bringingstibium,which thirtysevenAsiaticsbroughtto him"(Wilson 1955:229). Stibium, a black cosmetic used for paintingaroundthe eyes, was much prized by the Egyptians. The docketshownin the handof the scribe, Nefer-hotep, restates the purpose of their coming, adding the date of their visit and their place of origin:"Year6

prevailed upon them to come to his town further south with their wares. The precise location of the land of Shut(u), from which they came, is uncertain,but it is sometimestaken to referto Transjordan. Theintrinsichistoricalsignificance of Khnum-hotep'stomb paintingneeds no belaboring, and its interest to studentsof the age in its detailof dress and appearance has been explored elsewhere. Recognition of its artistic framework,withinwhichthe historical detail has been set, however, must surelyenhanceboth its generalappeal and its historical interest. It is the approximatesymmetryof this mural around its central point, occasionally interrupted by significant variations fromthe expectedbalance,whichdraws the viewer'sattention.A divisionof the painted scene at its center reveals a carefuland intentionalbalancingof all its elements;the painteror paintersof these Canaanitemerchantsof stibium organized them around a midline, pairing and balancing them in even symmetry.

People The muralportraystwo Egyptians,the aforementionedscribeand the overseer of hunters,presentinga processionof 15 Asiatic tradersto their ruler, presumably Khnum-hotephimself. He stands twicethe heightof all otherfiguresand is drawnto a largerscale. The painting of the processionitselfdividesnaturally just between the two donkeys in the scene. An analysisof the processionof under [Sesostris II] . . . List of the Asiatics whom the son of Count Asiatics must of course exclude both Khnum-hotepbrought on account of Khnum-hotepand the two Egyptians stibium,Asiaticsof Shut. List thereof: who lead the Asiatic traders; this thirty-seven"(Wilson 1955:229). The exclusion moves the midpoint of the presence of this docket in the scene painting backward, cutting the first indicatesthatthiseventwasof sufficient donkey in half and allowing all comsignificanceto warrantmakinga formal parisons of the two halves of the recordof it; it also drawsattentionto paintingto revolvearoundhim. the difference between the actual number of Asiatic visitors, 37, and those painted to represent them, 15. On the basis of dated astronomical references in other texts from the 12th Dynasty, a rather precise chronology has been reconstructed for this period. From that chronology the 6th year of Sesostris II can be equated with the Julian year of 1892 B.C.E.The reference to Khnum-hotep's son's bringing the Asiatics could mean that he went north to the delta, met them there, and

Excluding the two Egyptian figures, the human figures in this scene number 15, in direct contradiction of the 37 specified on the scribe's docket. The 15 figures, along with their animals and equipment, are clearly not intended, then, as strict representations of objective reality, but as artistic and functional representatives of that reality, dramatic stand-ins on the historical record. Their portrayal takes on special significance in light of that understanding.

A groupof threechildrencomesin the center of the Asiatic line, and the middle child of those three dividesthe line into equalhalves,eachcomposedof seven identically grouped people. In fact, the midpointof the lineitselfonce the Egyptianshave been excludedfalls upon this centralchild,so thatwhilehe does not look to the untutoredeye like the centralfigure,he is so both numerically and metrically. Two groups of four figureseach appear on either side of the three children,a group of four men on their right and a group of four women on theirleft. Differencesof gender,stance, and equipmentdifferentiatethese two groups; the artist distributedthe elements similarly but did not slavishly repeatthem.Thepeoplein bothgroups stand so closely together that they overlapin the painting,obscuringone another'sarmsandclothing.In frontof the groupof fourmen,two menappear, separatedone fromthe other.Similarly, two men, also separated from one another, appear behind the group of four women. The distributionof people in the relief is both balancedand functional. Thechieftainnaturallyleadsthe procession, whilethe children,most in needof protection,comeat thecenterof theline of march, just before the women. A large group of warriorsprecedesthe women and children, and a small rearguardfollows them. The Asiatic figures,painteda lightercolor than the Egyptianswho introduce them, have black hair, cropped short on the men and long on thewomen,who tieit witha band aroundthe forehead.The Asiatic men all wear short, pointedbeards. Animals Four animals appear in the painting, and they too are distributedevenly, in two pairs. The two animals at the head of the procession, identified on occasion as an antelope and a gazelle, are male and female, as are the two donkeys toward the end of the line. In each case the male animal goes before the female. At the head of the line, the antelope is larger and darker than the gazelle which follows, and his beard proves him to be male. Similarly, toward the end of the procession, the lead donkey is depicted with male genitalia, while the donkey following him is smaller and lacking obvious genitalia. At each end of the

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981 221

J71BVL ff"ZMX -l I

J

----I] U

11ju-;

11AAII

K\

(f

.-,

A4 /

.*'

/??

I; :i

W1LA~

/

w'

MMt

Full view of the painting on the north wall of the inner chamber of the rock-cut tomb of Khnum-hotep III at Beni Hasan. He ruled the 16th or Antelope nome of Egypt early in the 19th century B.C. This inner chamber is 10 ft. long and 8 ft. wide and its walls are covered with inscriptions and paintings that describe Khnum-hotep's life and administration, including special events like the visit of the Asiatics depicted in the 3rd register from the top.

procession, then, comes a male and female animal pair, balancing and complementing the groups of men and

women.

Spatial alternation also marks the four animals, as it does the human figures. For example, the gender identification of the two males is spatially differentiated. That is, the male at the head of the procession is so identified by

222 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

the secondary sex characteristic on his chin, his genitalia being hidden by the robe of the chieftain, while the male donkey is so identified by his genitals, which appear just before his hind legs. Again, the pointed objects associated with these animals project from them in alternating directions. The horns on the lead antelope curve backward, while those on the gazelle point upward.

While the donkeys have no horns, both carry bellows with pointing handles; those on the saddle of the first donkey point upward, while both the bellows' handles and the spear on the following donkey point backward. (Actually, of course, the bellows' handles point in two opposite directions; those on the first donkey point up and down, those on the second forward and backward.

--AL\f

it

I-

IsI2I/U

- I)

i

i

i

t

UL

/

h?

_

-7-A

4LQ

dt

df

k F#A

fAi

4M I

?-L'i_

C-J

[71

;0 4

jji/

i--- ~

?

SAMW

R&A ir

Ar

h r

LAW Ih

Y

YA

The special value of the spear on the second donkey is its reinforcementof the bellows' backward-pointinghandles; this reinforcementdeterminesthe viewer's perception of the primary directionof the second set of bellows' handles. The direction of the first bellows'handlesmay be similarlyreinforced by the two small headspointing upwardon eitherside.) Even the colors connected with these beasts alternate. The chieftain, who standsin frontof the leadantelope, wears a red, white, and blue garment which, because of his position, covers

part of the flanks of the antelope. Similarly, the saddle placed over the lead donkey covers part of his flanks, and it too is colored red, white, and blue. In contrast,the chieftain'sassistant stands behindthe gazelle,allowing the yellow of her belly to appearmore prominently.The second,female,donkey bearsa brownand yellow saddle. In a differentkind of balance,the two animalsat the head of the procession belongto the same family of wild animals, just as the two donkeys of course belong to the same species of domesticatedanimal.In thiscase, then,

the leading pair, the wild animals, balance the following domesticated pair. The four main features of the animals are distributed,then, in three differentpatterns.In gender,a female animal both times follows a male, establishinga patternof A:B::A:B.The same parallel pattern occurs in the colors associatedwith the animals.The brightercolors distinguishthe malesred, white, and blue appear at or on theirsides-while yellow is the primary color seen on the females. Again, two wild animalsprecedetwo domesticated

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

223

artisticbalanceof the scene,as does the groupingof the people themselvesand of the animals.Thethreechildrenat the center of the line presumablydress alike, all in loincloths like the child walkingbehindthe donkey. But as no garment shows on the two riding figures,the smallboy standingalone is the centralfigurein the arrangementof the peopleby clothing.Oneithersideof this child stand the groupsof four. All the people in these two groups wear long garments which reach from the shoulder to below the knee, the women's garments extending a little fartherbelowthe kneethanthose of the men. At the end of the processioncome two menin loincloths,whichreachonly from the waist to below the knee. The correspondingfigureat the beginningof the processionis the gazelle'sguide, a man also dressedin a short kilt. Up to this point the lengthof the adult garmentsin the two halvesof the relief balances. The garment of the chieftain,however,upsetsthis balance. For total symmetry,he should have beenpaintedin a kiltlike thatof the last man in line, but, in accord with his importance,he wears a very colorful fringed robe which covers him from shoulderto below the knee. Although this impressivegarment disturbs the balancebetweenthe two halvesof the relief, it provides some in another direction.Although all of the women wear garments that extend from the shoulder, three of them wear those garments as if they were fastened, presumablywith toggle pins, over one shoulder. Two of the men in the correspondinggroupof four also wear their long garmentsfastenedover one shoulder.The additionto theirnumber of the chieftain,who wearshis garment similarly,gives, in the first half of the relief, three men who wear their garments off one shoulder and, in the second half, three women who wear Ridingon an animalwasalso something theirsoff one shoulder. strange to the Egyptians, for which The garmentof one of the men in reason they depicted it. The ancient the first group of four remainsout of Egyptiansneverused animalsfor riding balance, however. Two men in that purposesuntil late in theirhistory,and wear full-length, undyed gargroup they were so surprisedto see foreigners ments from both shoulders.In hanging ridingon the back of donkeysthat they the of the thirdwearsa women, group depictedthemeach time they saw sucha to this;hersalso garmentcorresponding curiosity. hangs from both shoulders. But no otherwomandresseslike herto balance Clothing The garments of the men and women in the second man so attired. Balance may, however,be estabthe procession contribute to the overall

ones, establishinganotherparallelpattern of A:A::B:B. Reinforcing this pattern,the two wild animalswear no saddles but follow guides, while the donkeyswearsaddlesbut seemto need no guides.Finally,the projectionsfrom the animals form a different, alternating,patternof A:B::B:A;the horns of the antelope and the spear of the second donkey point backward,while the hornsof the gazelleandthe bellows' handles of the lead donkey point upward. The use of threedifferentpatterns, two parallel and one alternating,in arrangementof the featureslinkingthe four animalsshows a skillful unity in diversity. Additionally, each of the patternsaccomplishesa particularpurpose in the pattern of the whole painting.The A:B::A:Bpatternof the animals'genderand of theirassociated colors emphasizes the traditional male:femalearrangement.The second paralleldistribution,the A:A::B:Bpattern of wild and domesticatedanimals, indicatesthat the wild animals at the headof the processionwereto be a gift to the Egyptiansand remainwiththem, while the domesticatedanimalstoward the rear of the procession were to continue as beasts of burden for the Asiatics and remain with them. The traders'apt gift of an antelopeto the nomarchof the Antelopenome merits note. Finally, the one alternatingpattern occurring with the animals is primarilyan aestheticallyfunctioning one; the A:B::B:Apattern of points projectingfrom the animalsdrawsthe eyes of the viewertowardthe centerof the reliefand dividesthe wholeintotwo halvesaroundthat center. The painter's depiction of two childrenridinga donkeyin thecenterof this scenebetraysmorethana casualor merely aesthetic interest. Horn has noted (1957:80-81):

224 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

lished in a differentway. Three men, includingthechieftain,wearfull-length, off-the-shouldergarmentsin the first halfof therelief,andthreewomenin the second half of the reliefweargarments similarto these. Again,in the firsthalf of thescene,two figureswearfull-length garmentsextending from both shoulders,and in the secondhalf two figures wear kilts. One figure in the first half wearsa kilt,andone figurein thesecond half wears a full-lengthgarmentthat extends from both shoulders.Despite the differences,then,theadultgarments may be categorizedinto threetypes:A (full-length, off-the-shoulder garments), B (full-lengthgarmentscovering both shoulders),and C (loincloths or kilts). Theirdistributionin the two halves of the scene is A(3):B(2):C(1): :A(3):C(2):B(l).The last two elements have here been interchanged.Between standsthesmall thesetwoarrangements child wearingthe loincloth. The colors of the garmentsalso show an interestingdistribution.All four of the women wear garments colored red, white, and blue, but white predominatesin the garmentsof the first and thirdwomen.The secondand fourth membersof the group of four men wear undyed garmentsof white. Thus some correspondenceexists between the all-white garments of the second and fourth men and the predominantlywhite garmentsof the first and third women. The predominant blue of the clothingof the chieftainand the man following him is balancedby the predominantred of the garmentsof the two men in the rearguard.The centrallyplacedchild'sloinclothis red. Fringeson the garmentsappearto be evenlydistributed.None appearson the clothingof the menor the womenin groups of four. They do appear,however,on the hemsof the garmentsof the chieftain, at the head of the procession, and of the last two figures in the relief. The kilt of the second person in line may also bear a fringe along its hem, but the gazelle obscures it. The fringe down the side of the chieftain's garment compensates for its absence. The pattern of fringing is, then, A:B::B:A. The distribution of footwear follows a different pattern. In general, the men wear sandals and the women wear low boots or moccasin-type shoes. The two men at the rear of the procession wear sandals, as do the four grouped

I

i-

/,

_

Detailed view of the registerof the Beni Hasan tomb paintingwhich depicts the visit of the caravanof Asiatic traders.This scene demonstratestheirpersonalappearanceand theircontrastwith the nativeEgyptians.It also illustratestheirgarments,footwear,musical instruments,tools, and weapons.This scene providesthe basis for the graphicanalysisdiscussedbelow. men who precede the children. All four of the women wear shoes, and the central figure, the walking child, wears similar shoes. At the head of the scene walk the chieftain and his assistant, barefooted like the Egyptians who lead them into the presence of Khnumhotep, and presumably for the same reason; probably these two were the only members of the trading party to be admitted into the presence of the nomatch. Organizing the footwear simply in terms of sandals and nonsandals, then, from back to front the pattern shows sandals:nonsandals (shoes)::sandals:nonsandals (bare feet), an A:B::A:B pattern of distribution.

Equipment In this scene 11 different items of equipment appear, dividing almost equally into the categories of weapons (5) and nonweapons (6). The items in both categories are relatively evenly distributed between the two halves of the scene. As weapons the people bear

bows, a quiver for arrows, spears, throw donkey backward. This forms an sticks or boomerangs, and a battle-axe. A:B::A:B parallel pattern, but more The first man of the group of four interesting is the aesthetically funccarries a bow slung over his shoulder in tional fact that the two inner spears the first half of the scene, and, balancing point toward the center of the scene, so him, the last man in the second half of enclosing it, while the outer two point the scene carries a bow in his left hand. outward, away from the center. The The quiver slung over the shoulder of other pointed objects in the procession, the last man in the scene does not those associated with the four animals, immediately appear to be matched in form a similar pattern, as has been shown above; the horns of the gazelle the first half. The spears show a particularly and the handles of the first bellows interesting distribution, and the direc- pointupward,focusingattentionon the tion in which they point contributes to center of the scene, while the horns of the scene's symmetry. Two spears the antelope and the bellows on the appear in the first half of the scene, and second donkey point backward. two more in its second half. The spears The throw sticks and the battlein the first half are carried by the last axe, painted with similar configuratwo men in the group of four, while the tions, can be considered together. It is first spear in the second half is carried interesting in this context to note that by the small child behind the male the throw stick was so common a donkey, and the second is attached to weaponamongthe Canaanitesthat the the saddle of the female donkey. The Egyptians adopted it as a hieroglyph first man with a spear carries it pointing meaning"Asiatic";it occursin the top forward, and the second carries his inscription in this painting, just above pointing backward. Again, the boy's the chieftain, before the bound, kneelspear points forward and that on the ing man. Two men in the first half of the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

225

procession carry such objects with them. The short staff with which the chieftain guides the antelope has also been classified as a throw stick or boomerang, but it is evident that it differs considerablyfrom those of the second and third men in the group of four, and it should not be considered with them. Two such objects come, then, in the firsthalf of the procession, and anothertwo of a similarconfiguration in the second. The first of these is carried on the back of the second donkey.Thiscurvedwoodenobjecthas the same curvesas those of the throw sticksheld by the men towardthe front of the line, and so has also been identifiedas a throw stick (Pritchard 1954:249). Its colors suggest that this piece might be a part of the saddle furnitureratherthan a weapon,but its juxtaposition here with another weapon, the spear, supportsits identificationas a throw stick. From the perspectiveof artistic balance, it is not necessaryto decide betweenthese alternatives.The artist's purposewas not exactlyto replicatetwo objectsherebut to depicttwo similarly shaped objects in both halves of the scene. The same point can be made about the second similarobject in the secondhalfof theprocession,the battleaxe in the righthandof the lastwarrior. It is not the preciseequivalent,in shape or function,of the throwstickscarried by the earlier men, but its general configurationechoestheirshapeand so establishes an overall balance in the scene. Of the five types of weapons carriedin the procession,then,fourare paired, at least by shape, in the two halves of the scene. Each half of the reliefcontainsone bow, two spears,and two throw sticks or similarlyshaped weapons. The quiver alone of the weaponsis not preciselybalancedin the

otherequipment,apparentlynot weapons. Of such nonweapons the scene depicts the previouslydiscussedshort stickwithwhichto guidetheantelope,a rope used as a halter on the gazelle, water skins, bellows, a lyre, and a plectrumwithwhichto pluckthelyre.If the lead stick or short staff with which the chieftainguidesthe antelopeis not allowedto balancethe quiverat the end of the line, it has no functionalequivalent in the secondhalf of the procession. It findsa visualparallel,however, in the bow carriedin the left handof the last figurein the line,themanwhois the chieftain'sown parallel.The curve of the chieftain'sshort staff resembles,to some extent, the upperhalf of the bow at the other end of the line. The bow, of course,alreadyfunctions to balancethe bow carriedby the firstmanin the groupof four,so should not perhaps be counted here as well. The quiver is a closer match to the chieftain'sguidestick in shapeand, not itselfa weapon,but onlya containerfor weapons,may belong more truly with the nonweaponsthanwiththe weapons. In that case, the last inanimatepieceof equipmentin the processionperfectly balancesthe first such object. The rope used for a halteraround the neckof the gazellecan be seenupon close inspectionto be balancedby the stringsof the lyre.As the secondperson from the front holds the rope in his left hand,so the secondfromthe end holds the lyrein his. Theplectrumin his right hand then parallels the horn of the gazelle,graspedby the righthandof the guide. Theseparallelfigures,then,each hold a pointedobjectin the righthand and a cord of some sort in the left. Incidentally,the lyrepicturedhereis the earliestextant portrayalof a Canaanite musicalinstrument. Other equipment carried in the processionalso balances. The second

first half of the scene, except perhaps by the unidentified stick used by the chieftain to guide the antelope. Its position in the line may also explain its balance. Slung over the shoulder of the last warrior, it may be artistically balanced not by another weapon, but by the garment worn over the shoulder of the chieftain at the head of the procession.

man in the group of four carries one water skin slung over his left shoulder, while the man next to the end of the procession carries another slung over his right. Both donkeys carry bellows (Albright 1949: 208) on their backs. The bellows' presence in the scene argues that these Asiatics worked with metal, perhaps as tinkers, at least some of the time. The position of the bellows alternates: one stands upright, the other lies flat. As the scene as a whole divides at the second boy on the first donkey's

Equipment: Nonweapons The Canaanite traders carry with them

226

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

back, the verticalbellowscomes in the first half of the scene betweenthe two small riders,and the horizontalone in the second half. While not all the nonweaponsbalancein the samewayin the scene,all may be said to balancein one way or another betweenthe two halvesof the scene. Bodily Attitude Another aspect of balancewithin the processionof the Asiatictradershas to do with their bodily stance or the position of their arms and legs. For example,the men secondfromthe end of the line and second from the front hold theirarmsalmostidentically.Each holds a rope or some stringsin his left handand, in his right,a sharplypointed object,a plectrumin that of the former and a gazelle'shornin that of the latter. Similarity also occurs in the arm position of the chieftainand of the last man in line. Theleft armsof both reach forward,graspingcurved wooden objects. Their right arms both extend downward,the arm of the last man in line moresharply.Therighthandof the leaderreachesdown to the neck of the antelope,whilethe righthandof the last man in line holds a battle-axe. The maingroupsof fouralso show similarityin this respect.The painting presentstheir armsin three ways:bent at a right angle at the elbow, hanging directlydownwardfrom the shoulder, and obscured.The left armsof the first and third men in the groupof four are bent at rightangles,as are those of the first and fourth women. The men's handshold weapons,whilethose of the womenareempty.Therightarmsof the first, second, and fourth women hang down,as do the rightarmsof thesecond and third men. Thus one more of the womenis depictedwith a hangingright arm. Again,the righthandsof the men hold weapons, while those of the women are empty. Both arms of the fourth man and of the third woman are obscured, as are the left arms of the second man and the second woman and the right arm of the first man. Of the eight arms on the four adults in each of these groups, seven can be matched in the other group. One man's obscured right arm and one woman's hanging right arm fail to match. This balance, it should be noted, does not occur by order of depiction in the scene but is purely numeric.

Two features of posture in this scene do not matchat all, but perhaps for good reason. The chieftain bends forward,unlike any other Asiatic figure, although like the first of the Egyptianswho precedehim. Obviously this is a gestureof humilityand respect to Khnum-hotepfromthe leaderof the foreign visitors. The other anomalous figure is the last man in the group of four, who alone in the scene faces backward.In fact, curiously,his head and shouldersface backward,but his feet point straightahead. This unique position probablyhas both artisticand functionalsignificance.Artistically,this is where the scene divides in half, between this warrior and the child followingthedonkey.Hislookingback, like the inward-pointing spears,focuses attention on the center of the scene. Functionally,this last memberof the group of warriorslooks backupon the women and childrenhe is assignedto protect. While the balancing physical stanceson eitherhalf of the procession line appear only to contributeto the overall symmetryof the portrait,one balancing pair holds a particular interest in its very unexpectedness. Additionally,it mayrepresenta glimpse into the artist's attitude toward the people he paints. The first man in the groupof fouris unmatchedbyanyother adultfigureinthegroupbutmirroredin postureby the smallboy who walksjust beforethe group of four women. Both appear,oddly, to lack right arms, but theirleft armsbendat theelbowto cross their bodies, and they hold weaponsin their left hands, the man his bow, the boy his spear. This unexpectedparallelimpliesa functionalparallelas well, for each of these two leads a group of marchers who represent those Asiatic traders withoutspecificrole in the procession. That is, the first two men in line bring gifts and the last two guard the procession, but the eight adults and three children who come between represent the undifferentiated mass of those 37 who come selling stibium to the Egyptians. The two armless leaders of these groups function as their heads and protectors, and their identical portrayal emphasizes their parallel roles within the groups. For perfect parallelism, of course, one might expect either two groups of

five or two of fourwithan armedleader for each. The fact that the first group contains only four marchersled by a manwhilethe secondholdsfive led bya child seems inconsistentin light of the predictablepatternof symmetrywithin the painting.Theveryreliabilityof that pattern, however, may in fact yield insight into the painter's attitude towardhis subjects.Perhapsthepainter preferredto portraya childleadingand with his spear protectingthe group of womenratherthan placinga warriorin such close propinquityto the women and so by implicationdiminishinghis valor. Or, perhapsthe painterfelt that four men could better balance four womenplusone childthanfour women alone. Counting this group of four womenplus one child as the equivalent of four men, then, would leavethe two ridingchildrenaloneat the centerof the scene,so narrowingthe focusthereand balancing the processionwith a poron each trayalof 2 + 4 male-equivalents side of the line. As has just been suggested, the dramatic characterof the procession determinesthe locationof all thepeople in the line of march. The unarmed womenandchildrenmarchin thecenter of the line, wheretheycan be protected. The largergroup of warriorsprecedes them, but they are also protectedby a rear guard, the second of whom is the most heavilyarmedfigurein the scene. In front of himcomesan unarmedman who carriesa waterskin and plays the lyre. The chieftain and his assistant, who lead the procession,are naturally unarmedand are readywith gifts-the two wildanimals-to enterthe presence of Khnum-hotep.The artisticbalance of the scene results, then, from the functionaldistributionof the personsin it rather than from a meaningless aestheticism.

by theirfluctuatingstructuralfunction. The sex of the three children is ambiguous, although the viewer perceives them as male because of their shorthairand the loinclothof the third child, whose shoes, on the other hand, resemble those of the women. The children'scentralposition betweenthe men and women assurestheir protection, andtwo of themarecarriedupona donkey for additionalease and safety, but one of themhimselfcarriesa spear and actsas both leaderand protectorof the women who follow, a role confirmedby his physicalmirroringof the leaderof the male group of four. As the children'sdramaticfunction and identificationshift back and forth within the scene, so too does their spatialrole. Metricallyand numerically they are central to the line, and the second of the two ridingchildrenis in those termsthe centralfigure. But the two children on the donkey are so closelylinkedvisuallyas to appearto be togetherat the centerof thepicture,and bothvisuallyand functionallythewalking childtakeshis placewiththe second half of the line ratherthan betweenthe two halves; furthermore,his forwardpointingspear separateshim from the other two children while reinforcing their visual centrality. In analysis of the picture by clothingand by colors,the two children who ride must be excludedfrom consideration,for their clothes and shoes are hidden and no color is associated with them. Suddenly,then,the walking child becomes numericallycentral to the scene, but the red of his loincloth continuesto associatehimmoreclosely withthe rearhalfof the procession,as it is the two men in the rearguardwhose garmentsare predominantlyred. The same effect resultsfrom analysisof the scene by weapons: the two riding

Children In a curious way the central position of the three children in line emphasizes their somewhat anomalous relationship to the scene as a whole. Neither men nor women, dressed like the rear guard but shoed like the women (so far as one can see), two riding and one walking, associated with both weapons and nonweapons, the children play a constantly shifting thematic role in the procession, one befitting and amplified

children are put out of consideration, but the spear-carrying boy, while numerically central, is clearly associated with the second half of the scene. A consideration of nonweapons in the scene reinforces the identification of this child with the second half of the line of march, for the two riding children flank a bellows and must be brought back into consideration. Now the second riding child is again the central figure, but the bellows is one of three nonweapons in the first half of the procession matching three in the second

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

227

half, and the scene divides behindthe donkeywhichcarriesit and behindthe central child. When considering the scene with regardto animals,however, the centerdividingline suddenlyshifts forward,beforethe firstdonkeyandthe children he carries. Now the second child is again the centralfigure,but he rideswell backfromthe visualdivision of the scene. Thefluctuatingcenterof thelineof marchfinds its clearestrepresentation in the shifting and occasionally ambiguousrepresentationand roles of the three children.The painter,then, with all his concernfor balancewithin his painting, chose to representthat balancenot as a rigidsymmetrywith a fixed and immutablecenter, but as a fluid yet dependableconcept. As the dramaticcentermoves gently forward and backward,so the depictionsand roles of the childrenwho embodythat center shift and fluctuateas well. The veryambiguityof theirportrayalpoints consistentlyto thepainter'sfirmcontrol of the balance and symmetryof his painting.

as weapons follow much the same distribution,as mostof theseobjectsare carriedby the advanceand rearparties. The weapons,on the other hand, follow the distributionA:B::A:B;for obviousfunctionalreasons,neitherthe lead pairenteringto Khnum-hotepnor the four women carryweapons.All of the weaponsare carriedby the advance guard, the group of four men, the walking child, and the second of the men in the rear guard. The animals move in a still differentdistribution, A:A::B:B;two wild animalsappearat the head of the procession,and two domesticatedanimals follow later in line. Regardlessof the patternin any individualfeature, however,the pairs which characterizeall three of these schemesindicatea consciouseffort on the partof the artistto balancethe two halves of the scene symmetrically,and thegentlyshiftingcenterof thepainting, accented by the fluctuatingdramatic rolesof the childrenwho representthat center,revealshis flexibility,his refusal to define orderand balanceas rigidity. He achieved his aesthetic goal to a remarkable,previously unappreciated degree. The variouslybalancingelements and the overallsymmetryof this portrait of 19th-centuryAsiatic traders delightand illuminate.As the halvesof the processionreflectone anotherwith only occasional discrepancies,so the wholemaybe seento reflect,againwith inevitableerrors,the biblicalpatriarchs and their world. This symmetry,this representationof historicalreality,was surely not intendedby the painterfor the purposesof 20th-century C.E.scholbut it was ars, unquestionablya real of his mural. part Essayingto mirrorthe real world while confessingthe inevitable inaccuraciesof his portrayal,the painter of Beni Hasan composed an

Conclusion The basicpatternof humandistribution in this scene determines the distributionof mostof the scene'sother features.The group of two men at the beginningof the processionis balanced by the group of two men at the end of the procession. The group of four closely spacedmen balancesthe group of fourcloselyspacedwomen.Thethree children appear at the center of the scene,andthe middleone of the threeis the centralhumanfigure in the whole procession.Thematicallythis patternis A:B:(C):B:A,a chiastic arrangement. Features like clothing, nonmilitary equipment,and bodily attitudesgenerally follow the same distribution. To recapitulate,the clothingon the indelible statement about art, about last two men closely resembles that of the pair at the beginning of the procession, excepting, naturally enough, some aspects of the chieftain's garb. The garments of the more centrally located group of four men more closely match those of the group of four women. The bodily attitudes of the pair at the end of the line resemble those of the lead pair, while the bodily attitudes of the four men again are closer to those of the four women and the small child who leads them. The pieces of equipment not used

228

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

history, and about reality.

Bibliography Albright,W. F. 1934

The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography.American Ori-

entalSeries5. New Haven:American OrientalSociety. 1949

The Archaeology of Palestine. Har-

mondsworth:Penguin. Champollion,F. 1845

Monuments de ltgypte

et de la

Nubie. Vol. 4. Paris:Didot. Horn,S. H. 1957

The Spade Confirms the Book.

Washington:Reviewand Herald. Lepsius,C. R. 1849-59 Denkmdler aus Agypten und Athio-

pien. Vol. 2. Berlin:Nicholas. Pritchard,J. B., ed. 1954

The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament.

Princeton:PrincetonUniversity. Wilson,J. A. 1955

Egyptian Historical Texts. Pp. 22764 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J.

B. Pritchard.Princeton:Princeton University.

t ov:L" Alm

U4 4's,c7v ??,

.-

d'

c~Raw

lotP ?: *4r., W

10" AwI

Pf,

:-Aft-

Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary

Customsand Part

Tombs

Two

L. Y. Rahmani The burial practices of the inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem are tracedfrom the 3rd

millenniumB.C. to the end of the Judean monarchy and the Babylonian exile of its citizens. Tombs of "Absalom,""Zechariah,"and BeneHezirin theKidronValleyoppositethe templemount of Jerusalem.

Important discoveries in the past few decades have substantially added to our knowledge of ancient burial practicesin and around Jerusalem. In this essay, we shall survey the new archeological data concerning the way in which the various inhabitants of Jerusalem buried their dead between the end of the 3rd millennium and 586 B.C. Much of this new evidence pertains to the Iron Age Israelite occupation of the city, but significant contributions have also been made with respect to the earlierperiods.

Subsequent discussion will examine the funerary customs of the Second Temple period and the early centuries of our era.

EarlyCanaanite

The earliest tombs from Jerusalem belong to Early Canaanite I (3100-2900 B.C.). These rock-hewn caves have been discovered in the tunnels under Ophel Hill, of which Cave 3 is the best example (Vincent 1911). Herein, clay-leveled ledges held numerous disturbed human

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

229

...........

+ ...

. •

::,::!~i

• -

. ..

• :

•

Q1/0

i •

7

'

::.,At

A M

Middle Canaanite I tomb at Hablet el cAmud, east slope of Silwan. Northwest viewfromsquareintooval-shapedchamber. Courtesyof IsraelDepartmentof Antiquities and Museums,Jerusalem. skeletons and vessels. The excavator also discovered remnants of food and noted that the bones seemed to have been covered with red ochre. The painted vessels found in the tomb are the same as those in tomb deposits at Mizpeh (Tell en-Nasbeh), Gezer, and Jericho VI-VII. Ruth Amiran (1969: 55) suggested that the cult of the dead at that time might have required special types of vessels, essentially different from those made for the living. In these burials the bones may have been painted red in order to return to them some life-force, while the food was put in place for their nourishment. Whether an Early Canaanite settlement existed at Jerusalem is still uncertain. Scattered pockets of sherds

230

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

however, seem to indicate some settlement of this period on Ophel Hill. Middle Canaanite I A somewhat different picture is encountered in a Middle Canaanite I tomb (late 3rd, early 2nd millennium B.C.), which was discovered in 1941at a site on the eastern slope of Silwan village called Hablet el 'Amud (Saad 1964). A shaft descends to the entrance of a double cave, one of oval and the second of square plan. Disarticulated bones were heaped in different parts of the caves, with pottery vessels, mainly jars, nearby. Lamps were standing in a wall niche or on the floor. This tomb may be compared to the so-called pottery-type tombs from Jericho of the period, designated by Kenyon as Intermediate Early BronzeMiddle Bronze (1957). Although no signs of a Middle Canaanite I settlement have come to light in Jerusalem as yet, Kenyon's interpretation of the Jericho

tombs may be valid for the Hablet el 'Amud tomb. She suggests that these tombs are reburial sites of the deceased belonging to nomadic tribes who brought the bones from temporary burials near their encampments to a central ancestral tomb. In these final resting places, they were deposited together with lighted lamps and necessary food and drink in order to find their way in the nether world. This practice may have been merely utilitarian, dictated by either nomadic conditions or beliefs similar to those of groups such as the Toradjes of Celebes and the Caribs. In such cultures it is held that as long as the body stinks, it will be refused entrance into the Land of the Fathers. Middle CanaaniteII and Late Canaanite Currently we have no knowledge of tombs in this period in Jerusalem, except for very vague indications of a Middle Canaanite II tomb "east of the

city wall of Jerusalem," from which characteristic pottery vessels of that period were acquired (Smith 1970). It is only when we come to the time between Middle Canaanite IIB and Late Canaanite I (ca. 1700-1400 B.C.) that we have both a city wall at the foot of Ophel Hill above the Gihon spring (though dated by Kenyon to ca. 1850 B.C.) and a large tomb on the slope of the Mount of Olives (Saller 1964). This bilobate tomb in the grounds of Dominus Flevit represents a well-known type of family tomb with a large amount of grave goods: pottery, faience, alabaster, as well as glass, stone, metal objects, and a few scarabs.

Another tomb (Maisler 1932-33; Amiran 1960), without a discernible plan and to the west of Jerusalem, has 27 imported vessels out of a total of 56. These date to the 14thcentury B.c., with Egyptian, Cypriote, and Mycenean types represented. Such far-flung trade relations for this period also are indicated at the Athenian Agora, where Mycenean vessels appear together with samples from Palestine.

Royal Tombs of the House of David. The reference in 1 Kgs 2:10, "So David slept with his fathers and was buried in the City of David," appears contradictory, since David's fathers were buried in the ruralhomeland while he must have been the first to be buried in his new capital city. The intricate text-critical problems involved need not be discussed here. Those who desire to delve into this matter will find ample

Israelite I and II Before a discussion of the known cemeteries of the Israelite II period to the east, north, and west of Jerusalem, we must first deal with the enigma of the

"Pharaoh'sDaughter."IsraeliteII monolithic tomb at Silwan,oppositethe City of David. Plans, sections,and restoredviews after Avigad(1954:20, fig. 14).

101 % ,I

.

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

)

lr

NOR----------

-

------------

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

231

ever, does not permita final judgment at present. Yeivin (1948) suggested that the ? .. . ?, , ?:,% early Royal Sepulchers should be : '.--. '.'?? ":. a';... sought on Zion, at the northern end of ;''.-••; Ophel Hill. When these were filled to - ; capacity by the time of Hezekiah, Manasseh and his heirs were buried in the Garden of Uzzah, which Yeivin wishes to identify with "the field of "~~~~~ ".r.~~;. burial belonging to the Kings" (2 Chr 26:23), in the vicinity of the palace somewhere above the Sinnor, the tunnel •':" .i . ::.• carrying water from the Gihon into the royal enclave. Mazar (1971: 30; cf. Alt 1959),who ,. ,..•,;:• ?: basically seems to accept Weill's suggestions concerning the early royal tombs, identifies tombs that were discovered in his excavation west of the Temple Mount with sepulchers belonging to royalty and courtiers from Yehoram (851-843 B.c.) to Ahaz (743724 B.C.). Mazar also points to certain Phoenician features in these tombs, which date to the second half of the 8th and first half of the 7th centuries B.c. For the royal burials from the time of Manasseh, in the Garden of Uzzah, he points to the village of Silwan, where Israelite II tombs at St. ttienne, North beautiful tombs of that period have Jerusalem.Plans after Barkaiet al. (1975: come to light. 72). Courtesy of Israel Department of Jerusalem. and out that the Phoenician-cited The Museums, Antiquities examples difficulty in the suggestion of a are late, such as the 6th-century B.C. royal cemetery in the group of tombs material in the bibliography (Yeivin sepulchers at Sidon. Early examples west of the Temple Mount is again in 1948; Simons 1952; Barkai 1977). The from Byblos-Tomb I, which has a long the paucity of finds in situ. Most of focus shall rather be restricted to the gallery with a tomb chamber at its these tombs have been discovered end-are much too early, dating to the empty, reused, and often reshaped into archeological facts. 18th century B.C. Byblian tombs like miqvaoth (dip-baths) of the late Second Weill (1920), in his excavations of the City of David, attempted to identify that of King Ahiram, which presumably Temple period or cisterns of the Byzantombs that were discovered at the south are slightly earlier than the time of tine period. Still, some Phoenician end of the hill as those of the early kings. David, show the different features of a features are observable, such as the These tombs, heavily damaged by shaft and a tomb chamber at its right opening in the roof, which may support quarrying, possibly from as early as angle, containing the sarcophagus, an early date of origin. More recently, Barkai (1977) Maccabean and as late as Byzantine lacking any gallery. The of in Jerusalem which a and almost show times, part rejecting Weill's identification, sugpeculiar unique feature: tunnel-formed gal- these tombs are located may have been gested that the Early Royal tombs up to leries-up to 16.0 m long, over 2.0 m inside the walls from the time of David and including Hezekiah, who was wide, and 1.8 m high-one ending in a to A.D. 70. Under Jewish rule it seems interred "in the burials of his fathers"(2 trough, which could have contained a unlikely that the burial of anyone Chr 35:24), should be sought at the sarcophagus. except the kings would have been south end of the city, somewhere near Certain features led scholars like permitted inside the city. Two con- its eastern wall (cf. Neh 3:16). Barkai clusions are possible: (1) these are royal wishes to find the royal burials in the Galling (1931), Watzinger (1933), Simons (1952: 216-21), Vincent-Steve tombs, preceding David-ranging from Garden of Uzzah, where later tradition (1956), Noth (1966), and Kuschke the putative Melchizedek, King of placed the "Tomb of David." In favor of (1977) to accept this identification, Salem, to the Jebusite rulers, or (2) they this theory, he cites the fact that the often with reservations, at times point- are the tombs of David and the other royal tombs-considered by all to be ing to Phoenician parallels. Some, like early kings of his line. The crudeness practically intact at that time-were Alt (1959), doubt it, while others, like and monumentality of these tombs later identified as such by Josephus Yeivin (1948: 45) and Kenyon (1967), allow for either of these possibilities. (Ant. 7, 15:3; 16, 7:1), and in the New reject it completely. It must be pointed The lack of any positive evidence, how- Testament (Acts 2:29). Authorities from ,..

r

232

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1981

the 4th century onward identified the Tomb of David and his dynasty with the Place of the Last Supper and the site of Pentecost on Mount Zion, now seen on the southwestern hill. Again we must remark that Barkai's suggestion so far has not been supported by archeological proof, except that Israelite II pottery has appeared on that hill and some Israelite II tombs have turned up west of the present city wall. We shall deal later with the possibility that the tombs of the last Judean kings may be identified with those on the grounds of the Ecole biblique. There are indications in the Bible that the extension of the city westward brought with it the evacuation of earlier Israelite tombs, such as those discovered west of the Temple Mount. Ezekiel's words, "Let them put away... the carcasses of their Kings, far from me . . ." (43:7-9), seem to show some

uneasiness at that time about burials, even of kings, inside the city. This also may be indicated by Jeremiah, whose words about the evacuation of tombs in a rebuilt and enlarged Jerusalem mention "thewhole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes" (31:38-40). A late inscription relating to such an evacuation was found, but the exact spot of discovery remains unknown. It concerns the bones of King Uzziah (783-

742 B.c.), who lived in seclusion and is said to have died of sdracat. (About the unlikelihood of this illness being leprosy, which seems to have reached this part of the world much later, see Andersen 1969and Encyclopedia Biblica, 6 J-M (1971), s.v.rny1n.)Uzziah thus was buried in the "field of burials belonging to the Kings" (2 Chr 26:23). Our tablet, in the square script of the late Second Temple period, most likely comes from a resting place to which his bones must have been transferred at that late period. It reads: Hereto were brought Uzziah's bones The King of Judah. And not to open! Silwan's Monolithic and Rock-Cut Tombs The group of Israelite II tombs, none earlier than the 8th centuryB.c., located on the western slope of the Silwan village and opposite the City of David, has been studied and published by Avigad (1947: 112-15; 1954: 18-36) and reconsidered by Ussishkin (1970). These are one-chamber structures, beautifully carved out of the rock, including the tomb of the "Steward of the House," with its famous inscription, read by Avigad (1953):

This is the tomb of... ]yahu who is over the house. No silver or gold is here but (his bones) and the bones of his Amma. Cursed be the man who opens this. An 'Amma seems to have been, in addition to its meaning of "secondary wife," a kind of female official, the position somewhat equal in standing to a secretary. She might have been betrothed as wife to the owner of the tomb (cf. Exod 21:9). It has been suggested that this was the tomb of Shebna (Shebanyahu), treasurer and steward to King Hezekiah (727-698 B.c.), whom Isaiah (22:16) reproaches for his presumption: "What hast thou here and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewn thee out a sepulchre here, as he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, and that graveth an inhabitation for himself in the rock?" The monolithic tomb nearby, commonly called Bath Par' oh-Bint Faracun-"Pharaoh's Daughter," contains one burial chamber. Originally there must have been a pyramid on top of it, resting upon a nicely worked cornice. Over its entrance, enlarged at some later date, it had an inscription in

IsraeliteIItombwestof citywall,Jerusalem. Plan after Davis and Kloner (1978: 17). Courtesyof IsraelDepartmentof Antiquities and Museums,Jerusalem.

"

.....'

..:. ?~-

, 0."

1

1oil

U:-

LAD

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

233

ancient Hebrew script of which a res' clearly survives. The tomb's nearest parallels come from Egypt and Anatolia. The rock-hewn tombs at Siloam should thus be attributedto the rich and important inhabitants of the city in the 8th and 7th centuries B.c. These tombs have right-angle cornices near their ceilings, which are gabled or rounded; most of these tombs have resting places with rounded pillows cut at one end. Ussishkin (1970: 38) suggests that the highest of these benches was for the husband and the lower for the wife. He also suggests that the length of the bench was cut to order (2.10 m-1.75 m). Here, too, some suggest direct Egyptian and northern Anatolian influence. Phoenician culture-eclectic and mixing its style in masonry, ivory, pottery, and figurines from many sources-also might be considered as the transmission agent.

rough. It contained many Israelite II pottery vessels, including the so-called "water decanters" (or wine jugs, as we shall presently demonstrate), juglets, and lamps. Another cave nearby, with few pottery finds but including holemouth jars, is again of the carefully tooled type, with right-angle walls, a charnel pit, and head-rests. It has been suggested that the so-called "Garden Tomb" nearby, discovered in 1882 by General Gordon and proposed by him as the Tomb of Jesus, should be dated in fact with this group. Excavations undertaken here in 1873 brought to light Israelite II pottery, including lamps of the well-known type of that period. This tomb seems to have gained its present shape by a recutting in Byzantine times. A few small tombs with similar features, reported here and there as early as the 1860s, may be added to the northern cemetery of Israelite II Jerusalem.

The Northern Cemetery Most of these tombs can now be dated as well to the 8th-7th centuries B.c., thanks to the work recently done by G. Barkai (1975: 71-76; 1976: 55-57), A. Kloner (1978: 16-19), and A. Mazar (1976: 1-8). Let us start with well-known tombs situated on the ground of the lcole biblique-St. Etienne (Barkai et al. 1975, 1976). All have in common very careful craftsmanship and benches with shallow depressions and head-rests in a peculiar rounded form. All have the carefully tooled cornice near the ceiling, as well as communal charnel pits, which hold the remains from burials, evacuated from the benches. Such charnels still ensured that the deceased would find rest within the Tomb of his Fathers. The sumptuousness of the tombs, as well as their uniformity, clearly points to a common and contemporaneous plan of execution. A number of scholars believe that these are late royal tombs, thus locating the Garden of Uzzah in this vicinity. Be this as it may, their date can be in little doubt; all their features are found in much less sumptuous tombs such as one beside the Suleiman Road, which is near another cave north of the Old City Wall and the Damascus Gate, cleared in 1937 and recently published by A. Mazar (1976). In the latter cave we find a similar general plan, including the charnel pits; the workmanship is

The WesternCemetery

234

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

Scattered tombs, that were discovered to the west of the present city walls, give some indication of burial of Jerusalemites in the Iron II period. Ruth Amiran (1957) reported two tombs, their plans unfortunately unavailable, at Lower Mamilla Road. Their Israelite II pottery includes a socalled "Pillar-Astarte."It may be added that such figurines, though common enough among the inhabitants of Jewish Jerusalem and other cities of Judah and Israel, are rare in tombs of Jerusalem, although common in the tombs of other cities. The significance and use of these figurines among the populace in general and the Jews in particular is still a matter of speculation. (On these figurines, see Holland 1977.) A further group of tombs, located immediately to the west of the present city wall, was uncovered by Davis and Kloner (1978). Their blocked entrances can be seen today along the road going up from the Citadel to the City Wall's southwest corner. This group can be dated to the end of the 8th and beginning of the 7th centuries B.c. Two bodies were laid out on each of the benches, with the head of one near the feet of the other. A lamp was placed on the bench near the head, reminding one of "When his lamp [rather than 'candle' of the AV] shined upon my head and when by his light I walked through

darkness"(Job 29:3). Whateverthe date of composition, these words may well reflect an earlier practice of lighting the way for the deceased in the nether world as the Lord did for the living upon the earth. At the feet of the deceased a socalled "water decanter" was found. Though some of these decanters indeed may have held water, the inscription on a decanter, holding 2.5 1 and said to have come from the Hebron hills and of similar date, mentions wine, perhaps dark wine (khe'hal). (For a different translation compare Avigad 1972: 1-5.) Seals and arrowheads round off this picture of personal practical belongings left with the deceased for use in the nether world. The bones of earlier burials are here as well. They were either pushed into a corner of the bench or transferred, with the remnants of their tomb goods, into a pit inside the tomb. Anthropological research verifies that these are indeed the bones of one family. It should perhaps be added that nothing here points to the conclusion reached by Morgenstern (1973: 147) that "the ghost of the dead was conceived of as a dangerous and hostile spirit, who had to be dealt with carefully and wisely in order that the living might be protected from his wrath and malice." As far as the Jewish sphere in the First Temple period is concerned, there is no proof for this conclusion. At great variance with beliefs held from early periods in Mesopotamia, nothing of this fear is noted in the Bible or can be extracted from the tombs. Even when rare cases of questioning the dead are mentioned (e.g., 1 Sam 28:7-25), no fear of the dead prophet is implied beyond the natural awe in which Saul holds Samuel, or the anxiety caused by Samuel's harsh words. The remarkable thing about the Jewish attitude toward the deceased at this period is its strong rejection of any worship of the dead and the absence of dread or the need to overcome it. The dead are conceived as going down to the nether world, where they are sustained as well as can be by supplies provided by the living. The dead are now completely cut off from the living. It is a sharp differentiation, which is expressed clearly in Ps 115:17-18: "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. But we will bless the Lord, from this time forth and evermore!"

Bibliography Andersen,J. G. 1969 Pp. 15-16in Studiesin the Medieval Diagnosis of Leprosyin Denmark. Copenhagen:Costers. Alt, A. 1959 P. 45 in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichtedes Volkes Israel, III, Milnchen: Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Amiran,R. 1957 Two Tombs of the Period of the Kingsof Judahin Jerusalem.Pp. 6572 in Judah and Jerusalem, The TwelfthArchaeologicalConvention. Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew). A LateBronzeAge II PotteryGroup 1960 from a Tomb itnJerusalem.EretzIsrael 6: 25-37 (Hebrew; English summary:27*). 1969 Pp. 49-54 in AncientPotteryof the Holy Land.Jerusalem:Massada. Avigad,N. 1947 Architectural Observationson Some RockCutTombs.PalestineExploration Quarterly79: 112-15. 1953 The Epitaph of a Royal Steward fromSiloamVillage.IsraelExploration Journal3: 137-52. 1954 Pp. 9-36 in Ancient Monumentsin the KidronValley.Jerusalem:Bialik Institute(Hebrew). 1972 Two Hebrew Inscriptionson Wine Jars. IsraelExplorationJournal22: 1-9. 1976 TheTombsin Jerusalem.Pp.627-28 in Encyclopediaof Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land II. Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society. Barkai,G.; Kloner,A.; and Mazar,A. 1975 TheNorthernCemeteryof Jerusalem in the First Temple Times. Qadmoniot 8: 71-76 (Hebrew;English summary:IsraelExplorationJournal 26 [1976]:55-57).

Barkai,G. 1977 On the Locationof theTombsof the LatterKingsof theDavidicDynasty. Pp. 75-92 in BetweenHermonand Sinai. Jerusalem:Bialik(Hebrew). Davis, D., and Kloner,A. 1978 A BurialCave of the Late Israelite Period on the Slopes of Mt. Zion. Qadmoniot11: 16-19(Hebrew). Galling,K. 1931 s.v. Grab.P. 247 in BiblischesReallexikon.Ttibingen:Mohr. Holland,T. A. 1977 A Study of PalestinianIron Age Baked Clay Figurineswith Special Reference to Jerusalem, Cave 1. Levant9: 121-55. Kenyon,K. 1957 Digging Up Jericho.London:Benn. P. 70 in Jerusalem.London:Thames 1967 and Hudson. Kuschke,A. 1977 s.v. Grab. P. 127 in K. Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon2.Ttibingen: Mohr. Maisler,B. 1932-33 CypriotePotteryat a Tomb in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. American Journal of Semitic Languagesand Literature49: 248-53. Mazar,A. 1976 Iron Age BurialCavesNorth of the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem.Israel ExplorationJournal26: 1-8. Mazar,B. 1971 Pp. 25-34in TheExcavationsin the Old City of Jerusalem, near the ReTempleMount,2nd Preliminary port. Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society. Morgenstern,J. 1973 Ritesof Birth,Marriage,Deathand Kindred Occasions Amongst the Semites.New York.

Noth, M. 1966 P. 169in TheOld TestamentWorld. London:Adam& CharlesBlack. Saad, J. 1964 A Bronze Age Tomb Group from Habletel 'Amud,Silwan.Annualof the Departmentof Antiquities of Jordan8-9: 77-80. Saller,S. 1964 TheJebusiteBurialPlace, Dominus Flevit, Jerusalem.Jerusalem:Franciscans. Simons,J. 1952 Pp. 194-225in Jerusalemin the Old Testament.Leiden:Brill. Smith, R. H. 1970 A MiddleBronzeII Tombfrom the Vicinityof Jerusalem.Annualof the Departmentof Antiquitiesof Jordan 15: 17-19. Ussishkin,D. 1970 The Necropolisfromthe Timeof the Kingdomof Judahat Silwan,Jerusalem.TheBiblicalArchaeologist33: 34-46. Vincent,L. H. 1911 Pp.24-29in Underground Jerusalem. London:HoraceCox. Vincent,L. H., and Steve, M. A. 1956 Pp. 313-23, 638 in JMrusalem de I'AncienTestament.Paris:Gabalda. Watzinger,C. 1933 PallistinasI. Pp. 104-5in Denkmdiler Leipzig: Hinrichs'scheBuchhandlung. Weill, R. 1920 Pp. 157-75in LaCitikdeDavid.Paris: Geuthner. Yeivin,S. 1948 The Sepulchresof the Kingsof the House of David. Journal of Near EasternStudies7: 30-45.

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1981 235

Announcemen

ASOR Subscription Services is now being handled at ASOR's Administrative Offices. Please send all subscription orders, claims, complaints, payments, and information requests for Biblical Archeologist, the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Newsletter, the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, and all correspondence regarding membership in ASOR to: ASOR Subscription Services 126 Inman St. Cambridge, MA 02139

236

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

Ark of NabrateinThe A First Glance Eric M. Meyers, James F. Strange, and Carol L. Meyers Current excavations of Galilean synagogues have led to the important discovery of an architecturalfragment of a Torah Shrine, the successor to the ancient Ark of the Covenant in late Jewish tradition. The ancient village of Nabratein, with its synagogue and associated buildings, is the fourth such site in Upper Galilee to be investigated by the Meiron Excavation Project.' It is the first site, however, to catapult the excavation team and its discoveries into the international public eye. The recovery of a unique architectural fragment, a portion of an aedicula or Torah Shrine, most commonly referred to as Holy Ark, as a functional architectural element of the Late Roman synagogue of Nabratein, is the archeological reason for the current interest in the site. General public awareness of archeology at this time, as stimulated by cinematic notions of lost arks, has contributed to a recognition of the significance of this find. The Nabratein ark fragment needs to be carefully studied and analyzed before its final publication. This preliminary reporting of its discovery and its characteristics will serve to initiate the scholarly discourse that will ultimately allow for proper understanding of its place in the history of sacred architecture and symbolic tradition. Stratigraphic Context The 1980 season at en-Nabratein, which lies about 4 km north-northeastof Safed, initiated an investigation of the stratigraphic history of the synagogue ruins of that site. While the ruins had been

identified as early as 1866 by Charles Wilson's explorations, the first excavations-and the only ones until the efforts of the present team-were not carried out until the brief soundings of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft under the direction of Kohl and Watzinger in early June, 1905 (Kohl and Watzinger 1916: 2, 101-6, pl. XIV). The site had received some additional attention between the German effort and the current American project in the discussion of the inscription on the lintel stone, which was finally deciphered and published by Avigad (1960: 49-56). That lintel stone, with its Hebrew inscription, provided some clues to the stratigraphythat the recent excavations have sought to clarify. The architectural style of the lintel and the visible architectural members of the synagogue ruins would suggest a synagogue date of the Late Roman period (mid 3rd to mid 4th centuries). However, the inscription itself dates the building to the 494th year after the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, or 564 C.E. Both Avigad and the current excavators have concluded that this inscription with its Byzantine date is an addition to a lintel first used in the Late Roman period. In other words, at least two periods of the building's history are suggested by the lintel: a Late Roman structure and a Byzantine reusage or rebuild. The 1980 excavations provided further detail to that conclusion (Meyers, Strange, Meyers forthcoming a and forthcoming b). The theory of the late Byzantine rebuild, after a gap in occupation of about 150 years, was substantiated. The Late Roman structure was tentatively identified, although some confusion as to the date of the

synagogue's initial construction persisted. In the first season, only a small exposure of the earliest flooring was attained. Nevertheless, a preponderance of Middle Roman pottery underneath that flooring seemed to indicate a founding of the building prior to the Late Roman period. Similarly, while the southern, Jerusalem-oriented wall seemed to have remained constant throughout the building's history, the location of the northern wall for the periods preceding the latest Byzantine usage could not be identified in the 1980 season. Furthermore, two badly disturbed stone foundations flanking the single southern doorway were uncovered at the end of the 1980 dig and signified that the early history of the building was more complicated than any previous considerations had led anyone to suspect. The 1981 season, therefore, had as one of its primary aims the clarification of the stratigraphic history of the synagogue and the investigation of the stone foundations, possible prayer platforms or bemas, of the earliest synagogue and of its successors. This goal was pursued through intensive excavation in Field I, which is this expedition's designation for the synagogue building. A revised stratigraphy of the synagogue, based now on two seasons of excavation, has been established (see Meyers, Strange, Meyers forthcoming c). The building was indeed founded in the Middle Roman period. That first synagogue at Nabratein was a broadhouse, the exterior dimensions of which were 11.6 m X 9.3 m. It seems to have had some internal columnation, although the positions of those columns can no longer be exactly located. The

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

237

Middle Roman building was small and probably rathersimple, with a plastered floor and some rudimentary benching. It did, however, have two developed stone platforms flanking the southern entryway. At least one of these platforms, if not both , can be considered a bema or podium from which the biblical scrolls were read as part of the synagogue liturgy.The one on the west of the doorway was somewhat larger than the eastern one, the former protruding over 3 m from the south wall of the synagogue. This unusual length has suggested to the excavators that perhaps a structure-an ark-for the placement of the Torah scrolls stood on the western bema against the south wall. It would have protrudedfrom that wall, taking up space on its bema and thus necessitating a platform somewhat longer than the eastern bema. By the Late Roman, period the village had grown, and consequently an enlarged synagogue was needed. In the middle of the 3rd century, the Middle Roman broadhouse was extended northward. This alteration created a basilica, 11.6 m X 13.75 m in external dimensions, probably with two rows of three columns each. Many of the fine architectural fragments recovered from the site, including the inscribed lintel, no doubt were associated with this structure. Several other lintel fragments, possibly from windows although

238

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

more likely from a side entryway, have been found. They are executed in the same manner as the main lintel and reflect the excellent style of 3rd-4th century east Mediterranean stone masonry. That small but finely decorated building was damaged in the earthquake of 306 C.E. It is not clear how extensive the damage was, but the rather rapid rebuild that ensued suggests that the building had not been totally destroyed. A second phase of the Late Roman building is thus assigned to the first half of the 4th century. This second Late Roman building was identical in plan to its predecessor, except that the flooring was renewed, the stylobate was repairedand strengthened, and the level of the two bema platforms was raised to accommodate the higherflooring. These alterations included the utilization, in secondary placement, of fragments of architecturalelements that had been too damaged by the tremors of 306 C.E.to be reinserted into their original situations. This second Late Roman building was also affected by earthquake, specifically the earthquake of 363, although the demise of the Late Roman synagogue and village may have stretched over a longer period of time, 350-363 C.E.After this mid-4th-century disruption, however, the synagogue was not immediately repaired. Rather it, along with the entire site, lay abandoned for

The ark of Nabratein,a pedimentor gable whichwas originallypartof a TorahShrine in the LateRomansynagogueat Nabratein. It featuresrampantlions, rosettes,a gable with egg and dartmotif,and a scallopshell with hole for suspensionof a lampchain. somewhat less than two centuries. It was not until well into the Byzantine period, or 564 c.E. to be exact, that a synagogue, rebuilt over the Late Roman ruins, was dedicated. This latest building persisted well into the Early Arab period. The Late Roman synagogue, with its two phases, was the locus for the use and then disuse of the Nabratein ark fragment. The piece was recovered by the 1981 expedition from its location of secondary reuse. It had been inserted upside down, with its flat side topmost, into the raised western bema of the second Late Roman synagogue. It must have stood originally on the western bema in the fine, first phase of the Late Roman synagogue. Damaged somewhat in the 306 earthquake, it could not be restored to its original position. But neither, it seems, could it be simply discarded. Rather, it was reverentially retained in the part of the building which was the focus of worship. It was "buried"in the western bema as part of the repair work that marked the second Late Roman building. This treatment is paralleledby the burial of roof tiles, presumablyfrom the gabled roof of the Holy Ark or Torah Shrine itself, in a specially

Perhaps more interesting from the point of view of ancient Jewish art are the two lions rampant on top of the gable to the left and right. These are skillfully executed so that the hinderparts of the lion on the left, for example, can be seen in high relief from the side. Evidently the sculptor knew that the lions would be viewed from that angle and took pains to finish these animals for viewing from behind. These figures are modelled realistically, communicating excitement and high energy via taut bodies and erect penises. The stone is badly battered on the top, front edge. That is, the relief on top received many powerful blows that shattered the lions' heads and blunted the peak of the gable. Furthermore, about one-third of the stone is badly broken and missing on the right side, either from a fall or from something else of great weight falling on it. Its battered state and the evident direction (from above) from which damage first came strongly suggest earthquake as the cause of the fragmentation and deterioration of the stone.

prepared pit under the flooring of the second Late Roman synagogue at a spot in the southwest corner of the building near the place where the Nabratein ark had once stood on its bema. Description and Parallels The stone is a gable or pediment, a finely carved solid piece of limestone 1.30 m long, 0.58 m high, and 0.50 m thick.2 The front is decorated with a deeply sculpted scallop shell, one of the most telling elements in ancient Jewish art. The radius of the shell is 0.36 m. A raised border or molding defines the gable of the pediment, following the edge of the shell in a semicircle at the bottom edge. The top, raised edge of the gable is decorated inside with egg and dart molding that is interrupted on the left side (apparently broken off on the right) with a damaged six-petalled rosette in relief about 7.2 cm in diameter. A larger (10 cm in diameter) twelve-petalled rosette is placed just below the apex of the gable and directly above the shell.

, ..

.-7

'?

..

-.?~ "?

... I

....

...

V,"

ri'

Stones of this specific shape are already known from several ancient synagogues and have been identified as window lintels (Kohl and Watzinger 1916: 14, 70, 118). However, the presence of a vertical hole in the raised molding directly above the shell happens to correlate precisely with depictions of the Torah Shrine in ancient Jewish art, as in the mosaic floors of Beth Alpha and Beth Shean, and on the Nab rateinceramicbowl (Meyers and Meyers forthcoming), wherein an eternal light is suspended in front of the double doors. Thus identification of the stone as the pediment of a Holy Ark seems assured. Kohl and Watzinger published a window lintel from Capernaum that exhibits the same general shape (1916: 14). That the stone from Capernaum stood originally as part of a window cannot be denied, as it was furnished with two slit-holes for iron bars. That lintel is 2.06 m long and 0.72 m high. The recessed shell in its face-its most prominent decorative element-has a radius of 39 cm. Egg and dart molding is

F"r"

..

....

.

.

..

-

..

...

. ..i?... .. . . I?:I

,,

,.oo,:

'! 0

5

.

.N

:

"

"b •':":K:"--

I10

:

?.

•

t 4-

-•

•" : ' . . ..?':.. :, ?.:.;• :." .I:.... ..:., . ,• ":' :"": ":•'r" :.

j; , .

I

.

.. .

.:m

__-

:.

1

t -

I ,

;

15

"•'

I

65

e

cm

Drawingof Nabrateinark to scale.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

239

'

i~ 1t03F-?'?

rOAS xII

'/I .,:!).

C-;

? ?:. :

?i

A

-.

,

?

•:,

...

. . .. ~

L7

~-:-I >':T "W 777Y ... ... :x, ?--?.

?'7

O,. .

..d

i~

.. ...

,L.

yi ..? ?f.'i?C

~

CS

-1

0

5

10o 15

to be found on its bottom edge, rather than on the top, as at Nabratein. The ratios of length to height of the stone from Capernaum and that of the pediment from Nabratein are almost identical. From Arbel, also in Galilee, came a stone the German excavators called a "gable"(Kohl and Watzinger 1916: 70), following the British who discovered it (Conder and Kitchener 1881: 398-99). In this case the stone measured 1.50 m long by 0.80 m high. The radius of its shell is 30 cm. It was published schematically, without any repeated moldings. Kitchener also interpreted the stone from Arbel as a window lintel. Other parallels could be cited, but none are full parallels. What is missing are the rosettes and the lions, but also, most significantly, the hole for the lamp chain. The occurrences of rosettes in synagogues have been extensively discussed by Goodenough (1953: vol. 1, passim), and that discussion need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that this is a well-known motif in ancient Jewish art that is conspicuous for its absence in window lintels and other stones that exhibit the shell and gable motifs. This

240 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

65 Cm

makes the Nabratein stone all the more striking. Lions, likewise, are deeply rooted in Jewish art as early as Herod's temple (Strange 1979: 657-58). Lions also appear at Capernaum in the frieze of the front arch, for example (Kohl and Watzinger 1916: 16), but also possibly on a frieze in the wall which was later defaced (pp. 34-35). Furthermore, lions sculpted in the round are known from Capernaum, Beth Alpha, Chorazin, and Baram (Sukenik 1932: 32-34). Two lions rampant are to be found in relief on lintels from, for example, Capernaum (Loffreda 1978), Umm el-Amed, and Khirbet Semmaka (Kohl and Watzinger 1916: 73, 137). Facing lions are also a relatively common feature in mosaic floors, as at Hammat-Gader, Beth Alpha, and Jerash (Goodenough 1953: vol. 3, 626-27, 631-32, 656). The best parallel to lions rampant above a gable and shell was found at erRafid just east of the Jordan river and virtually due east of Nabratein. The Rafid stone is apparently from a window or a "screen inside" (Goodenough 1953: vol. 1, 211). Scarcely discernable lions are to be seen left and right of the gable (Goodenough 1953:

Reconstruction drawing of the Nabratein

ark to scale.

vol. 3, 538). Since the twisted rope or guilloche that graces the bottom of that stone and the edge of the shell evidently runs off the stone to the right and left, it is evident that this Rafid stone is only part of a much longer frieze. In this connection it is important to note that standing lions are associated with Torah Shrines on gold glass from Rome. On at least two of them the lions are depicted crouching right and left of the Holy Ark with mouths open, presumably guarding the whole (Goodenough 1953:vol. 2, 110;vol. 3, 964-66). On a third piece of gold glass the two lions guard the menorah, which appears below the Torah Shrine (Goodenough 1953: vol. 1, 110; vol. 3, 967). That lions, however, are not a necessary part of the ancient depictions of the Torah Shrine, even in the Diaspora, can be seen in the fresco of the Holy Ark from the Jewish catacomb of the Villa Torlonia in Rome (Weitzmann 1979: 371). Thus, this Nabratein stone stands out as a parade example of ancient Jewish art and as an element of ancient architecture. Although its decorative elements are well known across the Roman world, that they should come

together in this unparalleled arrangement at this time and place is a forceful indication of the unique role of the stone in its ancient context. The excitement felt by its modern discoverers may be no less than that of the ancient artisans who finished and installed it in place so long ago. Significance The importance of the discovery of the Nabratein ark cannot be gainsaid from either an archeological or a religioushistorical point of view. That the 1981 ark comes just one season after the discovery of another ark depicted on a black ceramic bowl recovered in the 1980 excavations at Nabratein (Meyers and Meyers forthcoming) is a coincidence of remarkablegood fortune. Both the architectural Holy Ark (Aron HaQodesh), which dates to the 3rd century C.E., and the Holy Ark of the 6th century ceramic attest to the pivotal importance of Scripture in the sacred architecture of late antiquity. There can no longer be any doubt about the function of the ark in such a setting. As the repository built to house and honor Holy Writ, it is the architectural structure devised as successor to the biblical Ark of the Covenant.3 15 km

The firm dating and clear stratigraphic context of the 1981 discovery of the structural ark provide an entirely new level of understandingof Nabratein and many other sites in the ancient world. It is not that this find was unexpected, since the numerous depictions in ancient art of the Holy Ark of the synagogue show clearly that there should have been such a physical piece of sacred furnishing. Still, the fact that so beautiful a piece as the Nabratein pediment was finally recovered lends a new and vital dimension to consideration of the synagogue and village life in Roman Palestine. Here at last is that sacred piece of furniture, with lions, shell, egg and dart motif, rosettes, and chain hole for the everburning light. The lions underscore the theme of power and suggest the lions of Judah; their exposed private parts exaggerate the themes of life and fertility. The niche or scallop, borrowed from a GrecoRoman pagan setting, identifies the wall of orientation and perhaps symbolizes immortality, especially with the eternal light suspended within its confines. The entire composition of the fragment shows how deeply committed were the artisans who sculpted the piece, and doubtless also the inhabitants who

commissioned them, to the artistic style of the contemporary Roman world. Neither artisan nor worshipper seems to have been concerned with the apparent open disregard for the Second Commandment which the Nabratein ark implies. The ban on representational art was surely relaxed at Nabratein, where so much animal sculpture has been found, so much so that the student archeologists of the 1981 expedition began to call this site "the biblical zoo." Whereas so many other places in Upper Galilee had seemed to shy away from representational art, the present discovery indicates a degree of hellenization and flexibility in understanding the tradition that is not evident at nearby Meiron, to cite one example. Now that this evidence for a structural ark has been discovered, it seems reasonable to conclude that many such Holy Arks for biblical scrolls stood in the ancient synagogues of Eretz Israel and the Diaspora. Perhaps it was through the Holy Ark itself that the Map of Galilee, showing the four sites excavatedby the Meiron ExcavationProject. Notealso theproximityof Nabrateinto Hazorin the rift valley.

10 5

0

-0-

u Rat'

ee •G a le e"

cj5-

?????~-

i~

J

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981 241

Renditionof thearkor TorahShrineon the bottominsideof a blackceramicbowlfrom the 6th century.Thisexample,foundin the 1980season,featuresa double-gabledroof, columns with hornedprotrusions,and an everburninglamp suspendedby a chain underthe gable. symbolism of the sacred niche was transmitted to Christianity in the form of the apse.4Not only does the Holy Ark (Ark of the Law or Torah Shrine) underscore the centrality of Scripture in the ancient liturgy, but also it graphically evokes the theme of the Ark of the Covenant with its mergerof Temple and synagogue (or surrogate Temple) imagery. This ark clearly stood on top of a prayer platform or bema, giving new meaning to the phrase "to cross or descend before the ark (tevah)" (m. Meg. 4.6 and m. Ro? Ha?. 5.4). Thus, not only was Scripture honored by being placed on the wall facing the holy city of Jerusalem and housed in a revered niche or Torah Shrine, it was also elevated upon a platform (bema) to accentuate its importance as the logical successor to the Ark which stood in the Temple. Even when felled by the earthquake of 306 c.E., this fragment was so revered by the inhabitants that when the synagogue was rebuilt this stone was kept within the synagogue, upside down, in the floor of the raised bema. It is our opinion that this was a kind of

242

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

burial, a reverentialusing of the bema as a sort of genizah for this as well as other architectural fragments. The existence of the second raised prayer platform at Nabratein, located east of the southern doorway, together with the western one upon which this ark stood, would seem to corroborate the idea that the Cohathite priests ascended to pronounce the threefold priestly benediction of Num 6:24-26 (b. Rof. Ha?. 31b). Such is the custom in modern orthodox Jewish practice, although the cantor or precentor in both nonothodox Jewish and Christianliturgy would in all likelihood pronounce the priestly benediction him/ herself from the bema. All this demonstrates once again that the power of God's word is reflected in the placement of the Holy Ark and bema on the most sacred wall of the synagogue. The Holy Ark of the ancient synagogue therefore became the legitimate successor to the Ark of the Tabernacle and Ark of the Temple (Covenant) when it became formally incorporated into the synagogue architecture of the Jewish people. Its doors and shelves,

probably of wood, are no longer preserved. At least one rabbinic source supposes that the Holy Ark was still portable (m. Tacan. 2.1), and at least one scholar would have us identify as the ark that portable element that stood beneath the shell and in which the scrolls were placed (Hachlili 1976: 49). In our opinion, however, while several depictions in art suggest that a separate chest would have stood within the Torah Shrine, the vast majority of these depictions indicate the chest to be the central and fixed element of a larger architectural whole. Whatever the case may be, the history of the ark tradition in wood and stone has been made prominent in the Nabratein monument: tabernacle, temple, and synagogue all converge in a common if not universal theme and symbol. Archeological discovery has illumined once again another important if not central aspect of our biblical heritage.

Notes 'The Meiron Excavation Project has previously excavated at Khirbet Shemac (1970-72), Meiron (1971-72, 1974-75, 1977), and Gush Halav (1977-78). The 1981 season at Nabratein was sponsored by Duke University and the American Schools of Oriental Research. 2These measurements represent its existing size; before being damaged it would have been 0.65 m high. See the drawing of our architect, Larr Belkin. There has been and remains a great deal of confusion in the literature regarding the appropriate terminology for both the biblical and postbiblical ark. In general, it is known most frequently in biblical texts as "the ark of the covenant" as in Josh 3:6, 14 or "the ark of the covenant of the Lord" as in Num 10:33 et al., though there are many other variations. The term "Holy Ark" occurs only in 2 Chron 35:3; while referring to the Solomonic ark, it becomes the ubiquitous term in postbiblical literature for connoting both the physical portion of the architectural structure in which the biblical scrolls were placed as well as the entire structure above and alongside the central repository. The fact that the term "Aron Ha-Qodesh" is chosen above all others reflects the proclivity of the post-Temple sages to substitute Temple language and symbols whenever possible when they discussed the successor to the Temple, the synagogue. In much of the scholarly literature on this subject, however, the most frequently used terms are Torah Shrine or Ark of the Law. The Latin term commonly used is aedicula. Another term frequently used in the Mishnah is tevah, the same word used for the ark of Moses' birth and Noah's ark. While it most often connotes the structure of the ark, it can also mean the portable chest in which the scrolls themselves are stored, as in m. Meg. 3.1. 4The adoption of the architectural convention of the apse in churches as the focal point of worship may also come from the influence of the apsidal synagogue. Yet it should be emphasized that the apsidal building in Judaism results from the placement of the Torah Shrine or Holy Ark at the apse end of the building. Concomitantly, the Church adopted the raised platform or bema as the central architectural element to emphasize the reading of Scripture.

Hachlili, R. 1976 The Niche and Ark in Ancient Synagogues. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 223: 4354. 1980 The Conch Motif in Ancient Jewish Art. Assaph I: 57-65. Kohl, H., and Watzinger, C. Antike Synagogen in Galilaea. 1916 Leipzig. Hinrichs. Loffreda, S. 1980 A Visit to Capernaum (7th ed.). Jerusalem: Franciscan. Meyers, C. L., and Meyers, E. M. forthThe Ark in Art: A Ceramic Rendercoming ing of the Torah Shrine from Nabratein*. Eretz Israel (Orlinsky volume). Meyers, E. M., Strange, J. F., and Meyers, C. L. forthNabratein 1980. Israel Exploration coming' Journal. forthPreliminary Report on the 1980 comingb Excavations at en-Nabratein, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. forthSecond Preliminary Report of the 1981 comingc Nabratein Excavations-the Season. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Shanks, H. 1979 Judaism in Stone: The Archaeology of Ancient Synagogues. New York: Harper & Row. Strange, J. F. 1979 Archaeology and the Religion of Judaism in Palestine. Pp. 646-85 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der rdmischen Welt, ed. W. Haase, Vol. 19.1. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Sukenik, E. L. 1932 The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha. London and Jerusalem: reprinted Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1975. Weitzmann, K., ed. 1979 Age of Spirituality. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Princeton University.

Bibliography Avigad, N. A Dated Lintel-Inscription from the 1960 Ancient Synagogue of Nabratein. Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synagogues, Bulletin III: 49-56. Conder, D. R., and Kitchener, H. H. 1881 Survey of Western Palestine. Vol. I: Galilee. London: Palestine Exploration Fund; reprinted 1970, Jerusalem: Kedem. Goodenough, E. R. 1953 Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Vols. 1-3. New York: Pantheon Books.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/ FALL 1981

243

Notes

&

News The SBL Centennial The Society of Biblical Literature celebrated its 100th anniversaryat its annualmeetingheld in conjunctionwith the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearchand the American Academy of Religion at Dallas, 5-9 November 1980. The festiveoccasionwasmarkedbya seriesof Centennialaddresses, symposia,reports,a specialexhibition,the bestowingof nine awardsto scholarsdistinguishedin the fieldof BiblicalStudies, and a banquet. The idea of a "Societyof BiblicalLiteratureand Exegesis for the purposeof promotinga thoroughstudyof the Scripture by the readinganddiscussionof originalpapers"wasconceived in 1880by FredericGardiner,a professorof New Testamentat Middleton,Connecticut.Initially,membershipwas by invitation onlyand "wasrestrictedto thosewhohadpublishedessays or treatiseson subjectswithin the rangeof the object of the Society."From its very beginnings,the Societyhad movedin the directionof HigherCriticism,andduringitsfirst30 yearsits directionwas largelydeterminedby W. R. Harper,the first Presidentof the Universityof Chicago,who had declaredin 1889that"Thecryof ourtimeis for theapplicationof scientific methods in the study of the Bible." Until 1960 the basic structureof the Society remainedunchangedeven though alterationsand amendmentsto the constitutionand by-laws were effected. However, in view of strong demands by a generation of younger scholars for active participationin leadershipand decisionmaking,the BerkeleyMeetingof 1968 markedthe beginningof a new direction.New programsof workweredevised,collectivescholarlyendeavorsin theformof sections, seminars,groups, and "consultations"were established,regionalandannualmeetingsat differentlocationswere approved,officerswere restrictedto limitedtenure,a budgetcontrolledfinancialstructurewas adopted,and ScholarsPress came into being. The Society was linkingitself to the larger familyof learnedbodies. At the presenttime, the Society of BiblicalLiteratureis undergoingother ideologicalchanges.New areasfor biblical researchare beingexploredand the resourcesof such related disciplinesas sociologyand anthropologyare beingenlisted. Noteworthyamong the Centennialaddresses(as well as those by Frank Moore Cross and Hans Kiing) was the thoughtfulpresentationof HayimTadmor(HebrewUniversity)on "TreatyandOathin the AncientNearEast,"inwhichhe stressedthe distinctionbetweenthe loyalty oaths and vassal treatiesof West Semiticareas of the Ancient Near East and those treatiesand alliancesnegotiatedin East Semiticregions suchas Mesopotamiaand Babylonia.Theformerdetermineda relationshipbetween ruler and subjects, the latter, mutual agreementsbetweenequals,"tying"themtogether.Procedures in the Assyrian Empire would suggest that the Assyrians borrowedthe terminologyof loyaltyoaths (calledin Aramaic cadi) fromNorthSyriaand usedthemas a tool in the imperial administration.Later,within Assyriaitself, this type of oath regulated the relationshipbetween the monarch and his subjects, especially in cases of irregular succession, as exemplifiedin Esarhaddon'sappointmentof Ashurbanipal.

Loyaltyoathswereespeciallyimportantin Syria,and the Syriantermfor a vassaltreatywasstillin use in the 9thcentury B.C.A fragmentarilypreservedtreatyof Sennacheribdemonstrates that when the royal dynasty was threatened, its legitimacywas protectedby the termsof suchan oath. Later, loyaltyoaths wererequiredfromchieftainsin foreigndistricts. Althoughthe conclusionof treatieswascommonin Israel, the vassalformdid notexistin Canaanduringtheearlierperiod of Egyptiansuzerainty.Judging,however,both fromthe type of relationshipthat associatedthe Kingsof Israeland Judah withtheAssyrianemperorsandfromthetermsof Esarhaddon's vassaltreatiesof 664 B.C.,it would seem that the Deuteronomist'sview of the covenantat Sinai was basedon this model. Among the many contributionsto the Centennialby membersof the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch,the symposiumon "BiblicalHistory and Archeologyas Disciplines"deservesspecialmention.JamesA. Sauer,directorof the AmericanCenterof OrientalResearchat Amman,speaking on "Syro-PalestinianArcheology, History, and Biblical Studies,"pointedout that duringthe past decade Palestinian archeologyandbiblicalstudieshaddevelopedintotwo separate disciplines,whereasthey formerlyhad been combinedin the concept of "BiblicalArcheology."The latter, however,had been confinedgeographicallyfor the most part to one small regionof the Near Eastand chronologicallyto the Bronzeand Iron Ages, the periodof greatestrelevanceto biblicalhistory. Since,however,archeologyas understoodtodaydealswiththe entirehistoryof manin the NearEastfromprehistorictimesto the present,attentionis now being focusedintensivelyon the entirearea,especiallyon Jordan,Syria,and Lebanon,and on all periods. In order to synthesize the cultural history of man, archeological evidence must be combined with historical evidence.The Bible,however,has alwaysarousedcontroversy. At one extreme,Judeo-Christianfundamentalistsinsiston its historicalaccuracyin all periodsandusearcheologicalevidence to proveand supportthe scripturalaccount,whileat the other, some scholarsrejectthe biblicalaccounton the groundsthatit interprets Near Eastern history solely from an Israelite perspective.Sauerrecommendsa "middleof theroad"position: the Biblemustbe usedascriticallyas anyotherhistoricalsource and "theonly criteriawhichcan be employedto correlatethe archeologicalevidenceandthebiblicalsourcesaretheempirical ones."Sinceit is generallyagreedthatthe biblicalsourceswere all writtenafter ca. 1200 B.c., archeologicalcorrelationcan beginonlyat the end of the LateBronzeAgeand theearlyIron Age, and not earlierthan 1300 B.c. Archeologicalevidence fromthe EarlyBronzeand MiddleBronzeAges,ca. 3300-1500 B.C., cannot be correlated convincingly with the biblical tradition of the patriarchs,since the chronologicaldistance betweenthe biblicalwritingsand the archeologicalperiodsis too great.

MaxwellMiller(EmoryUniversity)speakingon "Biblical Historyas a Discipline"expresseddoubt as to whetherthe reconstructionof biblical history could always be objective. Historiansare influencedby and areunderpressurefromtheir

FALL1981 245 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/

environments, and this inevitably colors their historical interpretations. Furthermore, each field of specialization exerts its built-in influence upon its investigator, and this too is reflected in his treatment of the data. Archeology, dealing with material objects, is confident that it can reconstruct details of biblical history, whereas literary-critical research is more negatively oriented and tends to concentrate on scrutinizing the factors underlying a given account rather than on isolating a historically reliable datum contained in it. These opposite approaches toward Israelite history are demonstrated by A. Alt and his students (in particular Martin Noth) on the one hand and by W. F. Albright and his students (such as G. E. Wright) on the other. "Both schools recognized that the biblical presentation of Israel's history is not entirely accurate as it stands," but Alt's school sponsored the idea that literary-critical analysis of the biblical documents was the proper starting point for the reconstruction of Israelite history, whereas the Albrightians correlated archeological data with the biblical account, even though this involved a revision of some of its details. Miller contends that since the Old Testament is still our only source of information about the ancient Israelites, "any convincing treatment of Israelite history must begin with a systematic literary-critical analysis of the biblical materials." This is essential, since specific details of biblical history cannot be obtained by means of archeological evidence or sociological theories. Anson F. Rainey (Tel Aviv University) in his contribution "The Link between Historical and Archeological Interpretation" stressed the importance of geographical history in the reconstruction of man's life in ancient times. The details of everyday life in "Bible Lands" are being retrieved by excavations, but digging in narrow trenches destroys valuable evidence, since structuresare sliced in half and do not reveal, for example, all occupation periods at a given site. Stratigraphic sequence is not equivalent to the history of a site, and "the dirt archaeologist thinking he is going down in history is really going down in ruins." Modern archeology attempts to conduct excavations over broad areas, for this leads to a better understanding of urbanization and community organization in ancient times and facilitates the study of man not only in its political and religious aspects but also in regard to his social and economic environment. The information obtained from ecological and archeological investigations must be coordinated with such written records as are available, and historical geography provides the link between literary and material remains. Rainey drew special attention to the lack of proper historical and geographical methodology which resulted in faulty and misleading interpretations of archeological data, such as as Kenyon's comparison of Lachish pottery with that of Beer-sheba and the excavation of Samaria. In another session, Lawrence E. Toombs (Wilfrid Laurier University), in his paper "Temple or Palace: A Reconsideration of the Shechem Courtyard Temple," attempted to reevaluate the identification of the function of this building. The problem is exemplified by a complex of rooms in Field IV at Shechem (Tel Balatah). This was designated by Sellin in 1926as a housing area, by the Drew-McCormick Expedition in 1960 as a palace, and by G. E. Wright in 1962 as a sequence of four courtyardtemples. Toombs stated: "The ideal parallels to the Shechem building would be provided by public buildings of the MB II period within the Syria-Palestine area and associated with a Hyksos-type embankment. Such analogues are difficult or impossible to find." The nearestapproximation to the Shechem complex appears to be the Palace of Yarim-Limat Atchana. No positive identification of the Shechem complexes can be obtained from available evidence, but the highest probability points to the identification of these buildings as palaces. The

246 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

multifunctional nature of palace buildings which Nauman had already recognized, namely, that they contain a public area, a work area, and a dwelling area, pertains to the buildings at Shechem, even though these areas are not properly defined. However, evidence of their trifunctional nature favors their identification as palaces. A pronounced preoccupation with the discoveries at Nag Hammadi and Gnostic writings was evident from the number of papers devoted to this field of study. Two deserve special note. Bentley Layton (Yale) addressed himself to the philological aspects of Nag Hammadi studies. The philological exegete, he said, is concerned primarily with the language and literary forms of the documents. His task is to establish the readings,to detect scribal errors, and, so far as possible, to work back to the Urtext underlying the Coptic versions that have come down to us. Since our texts are translations from Greek, it is not to be expected that they always adhere closely to the originals, or have themselves been correctly copied. Any reference to a Coptic "archetype"should be avoided and due recognition be given to the fact that the Nag Hammadi versions have all too often been Christianized. In another paper on these texts, George MacRae (Harvard) reviewed the vexed question of whether Gnosticism had laid the groundwork for New Testament doctrines or whether the New Testament contained elements of an already prevalent Gnosticism. He referred to W. Schmithals, who had contended that New Testament teaching must be regarded as having been fluid rather than static and that Gnostic interpretations were a factor in this respect. Hans Jonas even argued that Gnosticism was prevalent in the incipient stages of Christianity and that its earliest manifestations could be found in Paul. I Corinthians 2 is Gnostic, and there are also Gnostic trends in the Fourth Gospel. An interesting point is that some of the Nag Hammadi texts seem to echo Peter, whose authority was claimed both by Gnostics and their opponents. Themes, motifs, and language which appeared in these stages but which were not at home in the New Testament can be ascribed to Gnosticism and were due to a prior oral tradition. Some of the Nag Hammadi texts were, in fact, free of Christian influence and represented this tradition, which survived down to the 2nd century. Limitation of space restricts further detailed accounts of the wealth of material presented in other papers, but most of it should eventually become available in specialized publications. Therefore, only brief reference can be made to A. T. Kraabel (University of Minnesota), who in his "Evidence from the Synagogues of the Roman Period" recommended a reexamination of Acts in the light of new archeological data. These lead to a rejection of the claim that the synagogues of the Diaspora had been invaded by gentiles who used them for missionary and proselytizing purposes. Since 1948, evidence for Roman Diaspora synagogues (Sardis, Priene, Delos, Duro, Stobi, and Ostia) suggests that they were centers of Jewish life and more important than their counterparts in Palestine. Contact between Christians and Jews was rare, even though they lived in close proximity to each other, and evidence from Sardis shows that Christianity had no impact on Jewish life or on the synagogue. Reference to gentile sympathizers or "God-fearers" in Acts would therefore appear to be a theological construction rather than a statement of fact. In the section "InterpretingAncient Remains," E. D. Oren (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) in his presentation "The Ancient Military Highway between Egypt and Canaan" provided negative evidence to the effect that the Exodus did not take place in Northern Sinai, and in the "Workshop on AphekAntipatris," David Owen (Cornell University) gave an account of eight cuneiform texts and fragments unearthed at the site.

The largest and most complete text, a 41-line Akkadian letter from Ugarit, was excavated in 1978. It was written by Takublina, prefect of Ugarit, to Haya, the "great man (rabO)," presumably of Egypt, who may have been stationed in one of the Egyptian administrative centers in Canaan. The exhibition entitled "Ancient Scribes and Modern Scholars," devised by James Brashler (Claremont), illustrated by means of photographic reproductions and descriptive material the discovery and the decipherment of ancient manuscripts, starting with Tischendorf's find of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1844 and extending to the recent discovery of the royal archives at Ebla, Syria, in 1974. Most of these manuscripts were the writings of "losers," such as the Qumran sect and the Gnostics, whose documents were not preserved by the mainstream of the establishment. Nevertheless, they are fascinating segments of religious history. To this it may be added that while the scribes in Egypt were celibates, they nevertheless produced offspring in the form of books. It is only to be hoped that the intention of sending this interesting and illuminating exhibition to many campuses of the U.S. can be realized. Lotta Gaster Heshbon Exhibit and Lectures A new exhibit in the Siegfried H. Horn Archeological Museum at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, celebrated ten years of excavation by a team from Andrews University at Tell Heshbon in Jordan. A series of lectures by noted historians and archeologists marked the 25 March 1981 opening of the exhibit, "Tell Heshbon: 3000 Years of Frontier History." The exhibition contained over 500 of the best and most significant artifacts recovered at Tell Heshbon, lent to the museum by the National Museum of Jordan. Dr. Ghazi Bisheh, representing Dr. Adnan Hadidi, Director of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, addressed the participants in the lecture series at a banquet preceding the official opening of the exhibition. In his address he praised the members of the Heshbon Expedition for their prompt and meticulous publication of their finds and expressed the thanks of Jordan's Department of Antiquities to Professor

Siegfried Horn, originator "of the project,... the driving force behind it, and its director for the first three seasons of excavations," and to Professor Lawrence Geraty, who succeeded him. Dr. Bisheh emphasized especially the cooperation between the Department of Antiquities and Andrews University in organizing and carrying out the exploration at Tell Heshbon and spoke of the warm friendships that have developed over the years between participants in the expedition and members of the Department. He voiced a desire that the cooperative efforts might soon resume and that the current exhibition in the Horn museum might increase the understanding of Jordan's history and archeological heritage. He concluded with the words of King Hussein of Jordan: "We are caretakers of a legacy that belongs not only to us, but to the world." The exhibition was held from 25 March-3 May 1981, concurrently with the Heshbon Authors' Conference, which ran from 22-27 March. Sessions of the authors' conference presented the results of the excavation and exploration at Tell Heshbon from their beginning to the present. On 26 March two additional panels were open to the public for their discussion of the implications of the work at Tell Heshbon. Larry Geraty, Larry Herr, Bert DeVries, J. Bjornar Storfjell, and a host of others dealt with the archeological/ historical aspects of Heshbon, and Dr. George Armelagos, Dr. Joachim Boessneck, and Dr. P. Edgar Hare presented a report on the zooarcheological/anthropological perspectives on Heshbon. In the closing session of the joint conference Dr. Siegfried H. Horn, Director of the Heshbon Excavation in 1968, 1971, and 1973, addressed participantsand visitors on "Heshbon: The Bible and Archaeology." Dr. Horn, the first curator of the archeological musuem named in his honor, is professor and dean emeritus at Andrews University. The combined exhibit and lecture series at Andrews University made available to the public the most significant of the finds at Tell Heshbon, explored the evolution of the ancient Middle Eastern city, and offered the rare and exciting opportunity for interaction between a wide variety of scholars and lay visitors. Lawrence T. Geraty Andrews University

Larry Geraty and Ghazi Bisheh at the opening of the Heshbon Exhibit at Andrews University. a

M : :_: i: : h 25 A pti f 2,,:::?::~:i::i: TELL HESHBO1N: 3.000 YEARS ar

4W_:::i

:

:-.

:. ISTORY

_i_i--~i::::% -:-: i_-_i-:?: r::

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981 247

Book.

Revlews The Landof the Bible:A HistoricalGeography,by Yohanan more information from Feinan before we can say that. The

Aharoni. Revised and enlarged edition, translated and edited by A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980. xiv + 423 pages. Appendices and indexes top. 481. $19.95 paper.

It is a pleasure to welcome a second edition of this outstanding work, though sad to think that the author is no longer with us. Once more it has been excellently translated by A. F. Rainey, who has also edited it and added from time to time a few valuable comments of his own. The book has been reset in clearer and slightly larger type, though in transliteration the Cayin sign has become well nigh invisible. The maps have been reproduced largely unchanged, only one (of archeological excavations, p. 100) having been redrawn. Twice (maps 6 and 10) alterations in the text are not indicated on the accompanying map, and, alas, the rather misleading representation of wadis in the rift valley remains. Changes in the site identifications include: Abel-meholah (T. Abu St2s), Debir (Kh. Rabt2d), Madmannah (Kh. Tatrit), and Rabbah in Judah (Kh. Hamideh). Additional sites listed with coordinates (though not shown on the maps) are: EnRimmon (Kh. Khuweilfeh), Kinah (Kh. Taiyib), Ramothnegeb (KH. Ghazzah) and Shikmonah (T. es-Samak). Teman is still identified with Tawilan, rather than with a region, as most scholars would now suggest. The greater part of the text remains unchanged, but there are many modifications and additions, all of which demonstrate once more the author's outstanding scholarship. Only the more extended additions and changes can be listed here. They concern the relations of Israel and Midian (pp. 204-5), the capture of Jericho and Ai (pp. 209-10), the early history of the Negeb (pp. 215-18), the campaign of Deborah, rightly described by the author as "revolutionary," (pp. 227-29), the cities of Simeon (pp. 260-62), Psalms 60 and 108 as describing David's conquests (pp. 293-94), Solomon's administrative districts (pp. 309-17), the districts of Judah (pp. 347-52), the work of Hezekiah (pp. 377-79), and new Assyrian information about Sennacherib (pp. 391-92). Nevertheless, a few errors remain or have crept in. The Persian Gulf probably did not extend further north in ancient times (p. 5). The granite of southern Transjordancertainly does not form "wild spikes," and the Hill of Moreh is not a volcano (p. 6). It is misleading to state that the rains occur "mostly [rather than only] in the winter season" (p. 14), or that only "a few iron mines have been discovered in Transjordan" (p. 18). The Transjordan scarp rises much more than "3,000 feet ... above the rift"(p. 32), and all the western slopes of Gilead were thickly forested in antiquity, south as well as north of the Jabbok (p. 38). Punon, at the foot of the scarp, was definitely not on the King's highway (p. 55), and it is far from likely that the assault on Kir-hareseth(II Kings 3) went up the Wadi Kerak (p. 62). There are also, inevitably, queries. It is far from certain that "copper mines on both sides of the Arabah were probably of only secondary importance" in the Israelite period. We need

Lebanese Beqac was not the "most convenient thoroughfare" northward. It was convenient only for armies that wished to avoid Damascus. Not all scholars would accept such a close identification of some of the Capiru with the Hebrews (p. 176), and one must surely question the tendency to represent the nomads as little more than marauders (pp. 10, 11, 14, 15); nor should the commercial tradersand nomads be identified (p. 57). Finally, it is very surprising to find Aharoni relying so heavily upon Glueck's survey of Transjordan in the light of so much that has been published since his day. It is quite incorrect to say that the establishment of well-organized kingdoms in Moab and Edom in the 13thcentury B.C.is "moreand more attested by archaeology" (p. 206). Misprints are very commendably few, but a sentence appears to have been omitted on p. 58, and in the summary of general rules of linguistic mutations the last four letters of the Hebrew alphabet have dropped out (p. 123), to be appended later in the end notes, which may confuse the uninitiated. But when the captious critic has had his say this remains a brilliant and magisterial work, worthy of the highest praise. No biblical archeologist or biblical geographer at any level can afford not to own it and use it continually. Denis Baly Kenyon College

An Introductionto EnvironmentalArchaeology,by John G. Evans. xiii + 154 pp. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1978; $6.95.

In this book Professor Evans, Senior Lecturer in Archaeology at the University of Cardiff, gives "a simple introduction to theoretical aspects of the subject." The book is not intended to be a field manual or a practical handbook for gathering data for environmental studies. Evans divides the book into three parts: (1) a general overview of the subject which indicates the various aspects of the human environment, (2) three chapters devoted to the kinds of evidence used to reconstruct ancient environments and to collection techniques, and (3) two chapters devoted to the actual deposition of the data in natural and archeological situations. The book concludes with an Appendix which lists the main environmental and archeological periods, a glossary of terms, and a lengthy list of referencesto books in the field where more information can be obtained. For Near Eastern archeologists, the most valuable part of the book is the center section, which deals with the kinds of evidence used to establish ancient environments. These chapters deal with botanical and animal remains and soils. For example, in the chapter on botanical remains, Evans deals with pollen analysis, macroscopic plant remains, charcoal, impressions, and dendrochronology, among other things. In each of these sections he explains the basic theory behind the use of such data in terms that are understandable by nonspecialists.

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981 251

The explanations in the chapter on soils and sediments brings into focus the manner in which various soils are deposited. The final chapter examines the occurrence of these data in archeological settings. He discusses the effect of human endeavors on the deposit and erosion of environmental data and where environmental data can be found under conditions of human occupation. The chief criticism of this book is that practically all of the examples are taken from prehistoric archeology and from the geographical region of Britain. While this limits the value of the book for a Near Eastern archeologist, the discussion of principles still is valid for any period site, and the information learned can be usefully applied to Near Eastern sites where environmental work is in its infancy. D. Glenn Rose Phillips University

An Introduction to Old Testament Study, by John Hayes. 400 pp. Abingdon, Nashville: 1979; $10.95 pb.

This of course does not detract from the thoroughness with which Hayes has treated the topics that he did choose to discuss. However, if this book is used as a textbook in introductory courses-a use for which it seems most ably suited-I would hope that scholars would remember these omissions and provide supplementary materials. Tikva Frymer-Kensky Wayne State University Redating the Exodus and Conquest, by John J. Bimson. 351pp. Sheffield, England: Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 5, 1978; $10 (paper), $15 (hard). This abridgment of a doctoral thesis written in the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield proposes a novel redating of the Exodus and Conquest at the end of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Lest the reader be seized with historical vertigo, however, it should be noted that Bimson moves the end of the Middle Bronze Age into the 15th century B.c. instead of the usual 100years earlier. The bottom line for his date of the Exodus thus remainsabout where ultraconservatives have always had it, i.e., 480 yearsbefore Solomon began building the temple in Jerusalem, as indicated in I Kgs 6:1. What is new is the interesting rearrangement of archeological support for his thesis. Eschewing biblical criticism, Bimson works from the premise that the Exodus and Conquest traditions originated with historical events which "all befell the same body of people" (p. 32) very much as depicted in the present form of the text. His method is to cast doubt upon the major interpretations of archeological evidence that lead to views other than his, and to claim, therefore, that his views have as much support as any others. With this variation of opinions, it is not difficult to predict what Bimson will do. Having -demonstrated that archeologists do not all agree on the length of LB I, he feels free to shorten the period to fit his own reconstruction. This reconstruction requires an Exodus about 1470 B.c., and a conquest some 40 years later (ca. 1430B.c.). The "Asiatics"who destroyed Jericho at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, therefore, were not the Hyksos of Kenyon's reconstruction, but Hebrews of the Exodus! It is difficult to evaluate dispassionately a book like Bimson's that challenges scholarship on so many sides under the flag of ultraconservatism. I find myself admiring his industry and thoroughness on some points and appalled at the way he deals with both archeology and the Bible on other points. Perhaps I can summarize my remarks adequately as follows:

This is a very useful book and should ably serve as a handbook to introduce students to the field of biblical inquiry and as a handy reference for scholars already in the field. Hayes has ten chapters, each presenting a major discipline or field, and each provided with a solid bibliography: The Canon of the Old Testament, The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, The Historical-Critical Approach to the Old Testament, Old Testament Form Criticism, The Pentateuch, The Historical Books, Israelite Prophecy, The Psalms, Israelite Wisdom Literature, and Daniel and Jewish Apocalyptic. Hayes' discussion of each issue is clear and efficient, and he is particularly adept at summarizing concisely the complex views of such scholars as Wellhausen, Gunkel, and Mowinckel. The book tries hard to present a balanced view of all the subdivisions of biblical study, though the determination of the issues is (as it must be) ultimately subjective. One might quibble with some of the choices: in my opinion, Kaufmann's views about the date of P should be treated as seriously as the attempts to find such narrative strands as L, N, or S; and the new literary criticism deserves more extensive treatment, with perhaps specific mention of the work of Greenberg and Talmon. However, no such work could possibly include everything, and Hayes has done a commendable job of guiding the student through much of Old Testament study. There are, however, two omissions which strike me as more serious. There is no chapter devoted to the study of biblical thought. Neither the study of biblical religion nor biblical law is presented, although there is a discussion of the thatwould ofevaluating evidence form criticism of the laws. The study of the origins of the text, (1)Bimsonusesmethods the literary problems, the form questions, the Sitz im Leben, seemto be moreat homein a courtof lawthanin a scholar's and the history of tradition should not be allowed to displace study. For instance, he reviews the opinions of archeologists the study of the content of Israelite ideas. One could have with regardto bichrome ware pottery in Megiddo Strata X-VIII hoped that an introduction to Old Testament study would and demonstrates a lack of unanimity in those opinions. This also guide the student into this area. The second omission is casts doubts upon the credibility of his "witnesses,"and opens related to the first: the study of the ancient Near East, which the door for him to push forward his own position as at least as has proved so helpful in providing keys to understanding the acceptable as those of the others. Nowhere does he engage the thought of ancient Israel (even if sometimes only by contrast) problem of untangling the Megiddo strata himself, utilizing the is nowhere treated as a method of approach to the Bible, primary sources of the scholar. (2) Bimson has a variable credibility threshold that is although mention of Near Eastern background is made in reference to such specific issues as covenant, prophecy, "myth" disconcerting. In discussing the expulsion of the Hyksos by the (nowhere elucidated), and the role of the king. It is Egyptians and the pursuit of them as far as Sharuhen in the unfortunate that the contributions of Near Eastern studies coastal plain, any further activity by the Egyptians in Palestine and, indeed, the arguments about the value and necessity of is ruled out because no other places are named, although the such studies, should be omitted from a handbook such as this. texts indicate a three-year siege of the city. On the other hand,

252 BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST/FALL1981

"internalizedtwofold Law" (p. 302). This search is clearly of significantfor the historyof Judaism,for our understanding Judaism'splace among world religions,and for the author's own confrontation with his pharisaic ancestors. Rivkin conducts his inquiry with scholarly rigor, eloquence, and passion. A HiddenRevolutionis presentedin threeunequalparts. Thefirstof these,"TheSources,"makesupalmosthalfthebody of the book (pp. 29-179). Here Rivkin presentsa straightforwardand thoroughsurveyof availabledocumentspertaining to the origin of the Pharisaicrevolution. His strictly observedmethod of selection is based on two fundamental principles. The first of these excludes all sources from considerationthatarenot contemporaneous or nearlycontemporaneous with the Phariseesor that do not mention the Phariseesby name. Thus many pseudepigraphawhich have often been consideredproductsof early Pharisaism(e.g., the Psalmsof Solomon),as wellas the Qumrantexts,falloutsideof Rivkin'spurview,whichis limitedby this principleto the New Testament,to the writingsof Josephus,and to the Tannaitic literature. Rivkin'ssecond methodologicalprinciplewill be rather more controversial.Noting that the Hebrewperushimmight not always be a proper noun, Rivkin assigns greatest evidentiaryweightto those passagesabout the Phariseesthat juxtaposethem to the Sadducees,in orderto be surethat the text is referringto thegroupin question,and not to someother "separatists."This procedure, while permitting Rivkin to distinguishbetweenthe Phariseesand,say,theasceticperushim of t. Sota 15: 11-12(pp. 162f.),will be seenby somereadersas being as much an assumptionas a methodologicalprinciple. Thus,as Rivkinhimselfnotes (pp. 166f.),the well-knowntext Hag2:7,whichdistinguishestheperushimfromtheamha-aretz and from the priests,by degreeof observanceof ritualpurity, fallsoutsidehiscriteria,frustratingattemptsto seethePharisees as a fellowshipself-distinguished fromthe impuremultitudes. Theassumptionof a multitudeof meaningsfor the Hebrewterm is, however,on firmergroundthanthesameassumptionapplied to Josephus'Greek. In his discussionof Ant. 17.41-45(pp. 321ff.), Rivkinassumesthe fanaticalpharisaioiof the text to have been createdby Josephus'source'sinappropriatetransliteration of perushim, referringto some other group of separatists.Some less complicatedsource-criticalhypothesis might servebetterhere. The disparatesources, under Rivkin'scarefulhandling, agreeon a surprisinglycoherent,thoughgeneral,definitionof the Pharisees.The Gospels,Paul,Josephus,and the Tannaitic texts all portray the Phariseesas a class of scholars who presidedovera twofold Law,"nothingmore,nothingless"(p. 179). In the second section of his book, Rivkin providesan used retrospectively in Gen 47:11, ". . . why not also in Exod 1:11?"(p. 43)becauseit didnot fit in hisredatingschemereflects analysis of Ben Sira, whose extolling of the hierocracyand a kindof contemptforthebiblicaltraditionsanda fundamental seeming unawarenessof a separate scholar class gives a terminus a quo for the origin of the Pharisees. The terminus ad refusalto let the Biblebe itself, whichis disturbingto me. quem is providedby Josephus'descriptionof the Pharisees underJonathanthe Hasmonean,the earliestexplicitreference Joseph A. Callaway to them. SouthernBaptistTheologicalSeminary In his thirdsection,"Pharisaism: An InternalRevolution" (pp. 209-311),Rivkinfixes the date of originfor the Pharisees and, in so doing,emphasizestheirrevolutionaryorigins.In his A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisees' Search for the Kingdom analysis,one revolution,that of the Hasmoneansagainstthe Within, by Ellis Rivkin. 336 pp. Nashville: Abingdon, 1978; repressivepoliciesof AntiochusIV, spawnedanother,that of $12.95. the Pharisees.To demonstratethis, Rivkin invokes several Thesubtitleof Dr. Rivkin'sstudymaynot beentirelyadequate. passagesin 1 Maccabeesin whichlegaldecisionsare rendered One of the maininterestsin this veryinterestingvolumeis the not basedon the Mosaiccode, suchas theelectionbythe"great author'ssearchforthehistoricalPharisees,withtheirpreaching synagogue"of Simon the Hasmoneanto high priest(1 Macc of the "good news" of God's revelation to Israel of an 14:25-44),in violationof the biblicalruleof priestlysuccession.

there seems to be a kind of recklessnessin associatingevents relatedin the biblicalaccountsof the Exodus and Conquest with archeologicalevidencethat seems to support Bimson's reconstructions.Oneexampleis the connectionmadebetween the plague at Shittim, opposite Jericho,that was reportedly inflictedupon the peopleof Israelas a judgmentof God (Num 25:9;see also 31:16)and Kenyon'sstatementaboutan increase in multipleburialsof Canaanitesat Jerichoneartheend of the MiddleBronzeAge. (3) Bimson uses a highly selective eye in choosing his grounds for argumentthat makes him appear deceptiveat times.The list of citiesgiven on p. 230 whichare namedin the biblicaltraditionsas "destroyedby Israelitegroups"is scored by Bimsonfor his proposedschemeif there was destruction evidencedatingto theend of the MiddleBronzeAge,and for a 13th-centuryschemeif therewas evidencedatingto the latter period. Of course Bimson'slist receivesmore positivemarks than the 13th-centurylist, but he confines his list to cities and convenientlyomits othercities mentionedin "destroyed," connectionwith the entryinto Canaanthat would haveto be therealso at the end of the MiddleBronzeAge but werenot I am referringto Heshbon,the statesof Edomand "destroyed." Moab,and Arad,all of whichwouldreceivenegativemarkson Bimson'slist and would thus dilute the self-servingvote of confidencein his scheme. (4) Perhapsthe most distressingaspectof Bimson'swork to me is the way he uses the biblicaltraditions.One"pillar"of the entire redatingschemeis the statementin I Kgs 6:1 that Solomon began buildingthe templein the fourthyear of his reign,480 yearsafterthe peopleof Israelcameout of thelandof Egypt. Recognizingthat 480 representsa "roundnumber, chosen becauseit embodiesthe numbers12 and 40," Bimson insiststhatit neednot be significantlydifferentfromthecorrect figure(p. 86). Chronologicaldata in the Book of Judges is used to supportthe 480 years betweenthe Exodus and Solomon by acceptingthe 300yearsin Judg 11:26as a reliablefigurefor the periodfrom the Exodusto Jephthah,dated to 1130B.C.,or a total of 1430,Bimson'sdate for the Conquest,or 1470for the Exodusif 40 yearsmoreare added. To do this, he rejectsthe periodsof 40 or 80 years rest from war, as in Judg 3:11, 30, becausetheseperiodsarenot "... tiedto theagesof individuals, . . and they maybe completelyartificial"(p. 102).Thecritical point seemsto be thatnumbersthatsupportBimson'sredating schemeare acceptable,whilethose whichresistfittinginto the schememay be "artificial."This was true earlierin his book whenthe name"Raamses" in Exod 1:11,whichwasthenameof a historicallyverifiableindividualand place, was dropped becauseof a "retrospective" referenceto thelandof Raamsesin Gen 47:11.Bimson'sstatementthat if the name Raamseswas

BIBLICAL FALL1981 253 ARCHEOLOGIST/

Here, clearly, an authority has arisen which at times can supersedethe writtenLaw. Rivkinillustratestheextentof thisinternalrevolutionwith referenceto the Mishna,a documentso completelyincongruent to the HebrewScripturethat it presupposesa legalrevolution withinJudaism.TheJewishLawis no longerset downwithina narrativecontextbut is now presentedtopically,backedby the authorityof the Pharisaicscholarclassandonlyoccasionallyby proof-textingreferencesto the Bible.The latterare of such a natureas to demonstratethat the oral Law appeals to the writtenfor authoritybut is not always based on it in any substantivesense. For Rivkin, this internal Jewish revolution had farreachingconsequencesfor the religioushistoryof the Western world. Whilethe Phariseesmay have modeledtheir conventicles on Hellenisticphilosophicalschools, they lent their teaching and preaching approach to the early Christian movement,which substitutedan internalizedChrist for an internalizedLaw (p. 303). As the Jewscarriedtheirrevelation with them, with its warrantsand stricturesfor everyphaseof their life, so did the Christianscarrythe indwellingspirit of Christ,as a guide for behaviorand a promiseof salvation. Islam, too, falls within this "Pharisaic"scheme,substituting God'srevelationto the Prophetfor the internalizedLaw. Rivkin'sbook is a modelof clarityand simplicity.Readers whoarenot alreadyimmersedin the eraandliteratureof which he writeswill appreciatehis completeand lucidcitationof all pertinenttextsandwillbe ableto followhisargumentswithout difficulty.Footnotesarefewand unobtrusive.Specialistsin the field will find the book equallyfascinating,full of incentivesto rethinktheirown imagesof classicalJudaismand of primitive Christianityas well.

and ClassicalArcheology.In GreatBritain,on the otherhand, the classicaleducationof mostNewTestamentpeoplehasmade a substantialdifferencein theiruse of Greekand Latinsources and the materialevidence,and thus in their siting of early Christianityin the Romanworld. For all these reasons,Yamauchi'snew book deservesthe warmestwelcome.It is up-to-date,the priceis remarkablylow, and there is nothingelse availablewhich so handilyreviews thesemajorNew Testamentsites. A chapteris devotedto each city;in the list whichfollowsthe SevenChurchesof Revelation 1-3 are in italics:1. Assos (Acts 20), 2. Pergamum,3. Thyatira, 4. Smyrna, 5. Sardis, 6. Philadelphia, 7. Ephesus,

8. Miletus,9. Didyma(a majororaclesite, not namedin the New Testament).The last threeare mentionedin Colossians: 10. Laodicea, 11. Hierapolis, and 12. Colossae, home of Philemonand the slave Onesimus. The standardplan for a chapterincludesa discussionof geographicallocation, New Testamentreferences,historical background,and theexcavations.Usefulphotographs,usually by the author,and sketch-mapsof the ruinsarealso provided. Some judgment-calls:the author affirms the abiding importanceof the work of Sir William M. Ramsayfor the historyAndarcheologyof thisarea;I agree.Buthealsotakesan overlyoptimisticviewof the historicalvalueof Actsandwould include Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles among the authenticlettersof Paul;I cannotagree.Yamauchi'srelianceon Acts leads him to misconstruethe famous Miletus theater inscription;Adolf Deissmann'stranslationremainsthe correct one:the fifth-rowseatsarelabeled"Placeof the Jews,whoalso are called God-fearing."Yamauchi also accepts the old identificationof a Miletusbuildingcomplexas a synagogue, but that is unlikely;no clearlyJewishevidencewaseverfound. Rather,A. von Gerkanthoughtthat the structure,neverfully PeterS. Zaas excavated,was a synagoguebecauseof supposedarchitectural HamiltonCollege parallels with the Galilean synagoguesthat had just been publishedby H. Kohl and C. Watzinger!The Holy Land's influenceis felt again. If thereis a majorcriticismof the book underreview,it is The Archaeologyof New TestamentCities in WesternAsia that not enoughspace is devotedto settingthese cities in the Minor, by Edwin Yamauchi.180pp. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980; paper $7.95. historyof the earlyRomanEmpire;we see too littleof the rich provinciallife in whichDiasporaChristianityfirst took root. The archeologyof the New Testamenthas not counted for Thelastchapter,"RivalryAmongCities,"couldwellhavebeen muchrecentlyin the UnitedStates. BA readersoughtto find eliminatMd in favor of more Roman history.For the broader thishighlypeculiar,whentheyrecallthat(1) onemaynot study view of a site's history and excavations,see entriesin The the Old Testament in proper academic fashion without Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (1976). For more substantialexposureto excavatedevidence;and that (2) later informationon the sites as they are today, see G. E. Bean, Jewishevidence,morecontemporarywiththe New Testament, Aegean Turkey: An Archaeological Guide (1966). hasalso becomeincreasinglyimportant-as ASORdiscussions As biblicalstudiesare done increasinglyin the context of and publicationsindicate-since the discoveryof the Dead Sea university religious studies, and interdisciplinarymethods Scrollsand sincethe 1967IsraeliWarwhichbroughtAmerican become more popular,it is likely that lively and substantial of theseearlyChristiancommunities participationin "the archaeologyof early Judaism,"a term historicalreconstructions coinedby G. ErnestWrightto referto the excavationof Jewish willbe produced,perhapsbya teamof classicists,archeologists, sites from the first centuriesof the CommonEra. and New Testamentpeople. Until that time, this volumewill But the New Testamentworld-and particularlythose continue to have great value for every student of the New New Testamentsites outside Palestine-is not a part of this Testamentand its socialcontext,and particularlyfor pilgrims activity.Thereareat leasttwo reasons,thefirstof whichis the to the Christiansites of westernTurkey. commonpracticeof limiting"thearcheologyof the Bible"to the archeologyof the Holy Land,indeedto present-dayIsrael,an A. T. Kraabel assumptionwhich is substantiallycorrect for much of the Universityof Minnesota Hebrewscriptures,but surelynot for Paul,halfof Acts,andthe entire Book of Revelation.(ProfessorJack Fineganin 1969 couldwritea substantial,handsome,andoftenveryusefulbook Miscellany called The Archaeology of the New Testament and seldom get

beyondPalestine.) The other reason for the chronic ill health of New Testamentarcheologyis the lack of contact in this country betweenNewTestamentstudiesand Classics,AncientHistory, FALL1981 254 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/

A recent addition to the useful Guides to Biblical Scholarship

series is H. Darrel Lance's The Old Testamentand the Archaeologist(xiii + 98 pp. Philadelphia:Fortress,1981;$4.50 paper).Theauthor,a formercoeditorof thisjournal,focuseson the basic principlesof stratigraphyand typology utilizedin

modem excavations. The difficult task of applying this the brilliant study of D. W. Engels (Alexander the Greatand the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, 1978) recently demonmethodology to questions of biblical history is illustrated by a discussion of the Solomonic era, in which it is concluded that stratedthat there is much that can still be learnedabout the "the synthesis of archaeological information is a ceaseless task, military genius of Alexander, so that Hammond's contribution with today's 'assured results' in jeopardy to tomorrow's new on the Macedonian general and his conquests is certainly to be welcomed. discovery." Lance also makes a clear and precise statement as to An exciting regional study that should be of great interest why "biblical archeology" should be maintained as a separate field of discipline from "Syro-Palestinian archeology" in the is Sean Freyne's Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, brief but stimulating pages of this volume. Another intro- 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism (xv ductory volume, Jack Finegan's Discovering Israel: A Popular + 491 pp. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier/ University of Guide to the Holy Land (xii + 143 pp. Grand Rapids: Notre Dame, 1980; $27.50). Freyne has provided a serious Eerdmans, 1981; $6.95 paper), will be an especially valuable challenge to the prevailing opinion that Galilean Judaism was handbook for those contemplating a tour of the Middle East. distinctively revolutionary and extensively influenced by More than 4000 years of the history of the land of Israel are Greco-Roman culture. From a detailed critical analysis of the briefly summarized by Finegan, illustrated by more than 60 literary and archeological sources, Galilee is rather depicted as photos and maps, with an annotated bibliography and predominantly oriented to the temple at Jerusalem and its cult. suggestions for further reading. A noteworthy feature of the In light of the current archeological and historical interest in slender volume is the concise and sensitive discussion of Galilee, this engaging thesis is destined to undergo thorough postbiblical developments in the Holy Land. For those scrutiny. interested in the archeology of the Aegean, William R. Biers Guides to two important ancient cities of the Near East and (The Archaeology of Greece: An Introduction. 342 pp. Ithaca their important ruins have recently appeared. Iain Browning's and London: Cornell University, 1980; $29.95; $14.95 paper) Palmyra (223 pp. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes, 1979; $18.00) is an has provided a survey of the major developments from the attractive sequel to his masterful volume on Petra. This Bronze Age to the Hellenistic period. Aside from the significant spectacular caravan city of the Syrian desert is described in architectural monuments and sculpture, there are also discus- intimate detail, with both color and black and white sions of typical minor objects found in excavations, such as illustrations of the fabulous colonnaded streets and monuments. Browning's skill as popularizer, photographer, and pottery, metalwork, lamps and coins. In Jawa: Lost City of the Black Desert (xviii + 270 pp. architect have dynamically captured the glory of the famous Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1981;$37.50), Svend W. Helms city, destroyed by the Roman emperor Aurelian in A.D.273 after presents the fascinating story of the strange 4th millennium B.c. the revolt of its queen, Zenobia. The magnificent ruins of settlement in the midst of the bleak lava wasteland of Harrater- Baalbek, located in the Beqah Valley of Lebanon, have also Rajil in northeast Jordan. Excavated in the early 1970s, this beenadmirablytreatedby FriedrichRagette(Baalbek.128pp. impressive 30-acre Bronze Age site is viewed as the product of Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes, 1980;$21.00). In this lucid account, the an alien culture, probably from Syria or Mesopotamia, that monumental architecture of the Roman period is examined in temporarily made its home in this hostile desert. Discussion of detail and an attempt is made to outline the techniques utilized the town plan, fortifications, and extensive water retention in the construction of the massive temples. Although the photos system is amply supplemented by numerous diagrams, are neither as extensive nor as beautiful as those in the architectural reconstructions, photos, and tables. Helms' preceding volume, there are abundant architectural drawings hypothetical account of the struggles of the foreign intrudersto of the monuments. Noyes Press is to be thanked for the survive in the desolate region and their conflicts with the local publication of these excellent volumes for the general reader. nomads may be riddled with conjectures and assumptions, but Also of note is a recent volume in the new Arab Backhis imaginative attempt to infuse life into the enigmatic ruins ground Series edited by Dr. Nicola A. Ziadeh of the American should provoke some fruitful discussion. University in Beirut and published jointly by Longman The Searchfor Alexander exhibition currently touring the Group Limited of London/New York and the Librairie United States has created some fresh interest in one of history's du Liban.In J. SpencerTrimingham's ChristianityAmongthe most intriguing figures. The exhibition features some of the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times (xiv + 342 pp. 1979. ?14.95) the magnificent treasures discovered in the 1977 excavations at the author takes up a subject rarely investigated by church royal Macedonian tombs at Vergina in northern Greece. (It will historians. This well-documented study provides an excellent be at The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston until 10 January 1982, survey of the development of Christianity among the Arabs of after which it will travel to The Fine Arts Museum of San Syro-Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula. Of special Francisco for a showing from 19 February to 16 May 1982.) interest is Trimingham'seffort to explain the minimal impact of Several volumes on Alexander the Great are also on display the new faith on Arab nomads: Although he is willing to admit with the exhibit-such books appear in English at the rate of that there were some notable exceptions along the Euphratesas about one per year! The most recent entry to this expanding well as deep within the Arabian Peninsula at Najran, it is the catalog is N. G. L. Hammond's Alexander the Great: King, resistance of bedouin to Christianity that is emphasized and Commander, and Statesman (x + 358 pp. Park Ridge, NJ: explained as a result of their peculiar tribal spirit and social Noyes, 1981; $24.00). This noted Greek historian's focus is on consciousness. An unfortunate oversight in the discussion is the military tactics and strategy of the Macedonian general. any reference to S. J. Saller's important work The Town of More than 40 maps, photos, diagrams, and battle plans Nebo (Khirbet el-Mekhayyat) With a Brief Survey of Other illustrate the discussion, which is primarily dependent on the Ancient Christian Monuments in Transjordan (Jerusalem, 2nd-century A.D. account of Arrian of Nicomedia. Hammond's 1949). Nevertheless, Trimingham's study will become a defense for relying on this source is stated briefly: "Arrian standard reference for all pursuing this neglected area of supplied a consecutive, consistent, objective military account, ecclesiastical history. which was mainly derived from the factual record of the King's Journal." Although most scholars may agree with this David F. Graf assessment vis-i-vis military matters, few would completely Book Review Editor exonerate either Arrian or his sources from bias. Nevertheless,

BIBLICALARCHEOLOGIST / FALL1981 255

NEW

STUDIES THEOLOGICAL BARTH,

LETTERS I961-968

Translatedby GeoffreyW Bromiley

"Documentsan ut-

III, ,Ili!l terly rich and diversified evening in the life of a great and historic man."-H. MartinRumscheidt, Atlantic Schoolof Theology Cloth, $18.95

THE BOOK OF JOSHUA New International Commentaryon the Old Testament By Marten H. Woudstra

"Penetrating analyses of most of the problems connected with Joshua... maintainsthe high standardscharacteristic of the NICOT series."-Allan A. MacRae, President,Biblical Theological Seminary Cloth, $16.95

First published in 1962, this highly acclaimed, comprehensivesurvey of biblical archaeologyhas been newly revised to incorporate information from the most recentfindings. Cloth, $15.95

Based on the surviving draft of Barth's proposed chapter on the ethics of reconciliation. Cloth, $17.95

By W.A. Whitehouse

"Profoundandshrewdinsights,to which I constantly send my students and to which I myselfreturnagainand againto ponder and to learn."-Thomas F. Torrance Paper, $10.95

THEOLOGICAL

REFLECTIONS By Henry Stob

"...vintage Stob-reflective, probing, profound and informed by Christian wisdom...exquisitely written."-Alvin Plantinga, CalvinCollege Paper,$11.95

"Strikesa powerfulblow in the battleto hold biblical exegesis and systematic theology together...will help students to see New Testamenttheology in perspective."-C. F. D. Moule, University of Cambridge Cloth, $15.95

ByJ.A. Thompson

By Karl Barth

Essaysin Response KarlBarth

By LeonhardGoppelt

THE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY and Revision

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE ChurchDogmatics,Vol. IV, Part 4, LectureFragments

CREATION SCIENCE, AND THEOIOGY to

THEOLOGYOF THE

NEW TESTAMENT VolumeI Jesusand the Gospels

LAST SUPPERAND LORD'S SUPPER

By I. HowardMarshall

Comprehensiveyet easilyreadsurveyof the New Testamentaccountsof the last supper celebrated by Jesus and the "Lord's Supper" celebrated by the ChristianChurch.Focuses on the background of ancient meals as well as literary, historical,and theological aspects. Paper,$4.95

TESTAMENTS

OF LOVE

THE NEW CENTURY BIBLE COMMENTARY Balanced and up-to-date in both its scholarshipand its reflectionof the contemporaryrelevanceof the biblicaltext, this standardcommentarybased on the RSV is now being issued in softcover. Now available: EXODUS, JamesP. Hyatt U JOB, H. H. RowleyU PSALMSI-72,A. A. Anderson U PSALMS 73-150, A.A. Anderson 0 ISAIAH 1-39, R. E. Clements 0 ISAIAH 4o-66, R. N. WhybrayU MATTHEW,DavidHill U LUKE, 0 MARK,HughAnderson

By LeonMorris

BONHOEFFER

A thorough and instructiveanalysisof the concept of love as it is used in the Old and New Testaments. Cloth, $12.95

E. Earle Ellis 0 JOHN, Barnabas LindarsU I AND II CORINTHIANS, F. F. BruceU PHILIPPIANS, Ralph Martin U REVELATION, G.R. Beasley-Murray 0

. Understanding Edited by

SAMUEL HOPKINS AND THE NEW DIVINITY MOVEMENT

For more completedescriptionson these and other recentpublications,write for a copy of the latest Theologist Catalog. Examination copies of most publications are availableto qualified professors. Contactthe TextbookDepartment at Eerdmansfor more details. Pricessubjectto change.

A

LEGACY Essaysin

A.J. Klassen

Over 20 leading scholarsconsiderthe theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer from different perspectives and attempt to define what the goal of his thinkingmight have been. Cloth, $18.95

A Studyof Lovein the Bible

ByJosephA. Conforti

"An excellentanalysisnot only of Hopkins himself but of the Calvinistschool he profoundly influenced."--Edwin S. Gaustad, University of California, Riverside A ChristianUniversityPressPublication Paper,$12.95

In Canada: OxfordUniversity Press

??

1

WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING

CO.

2ssJEFFERSONAVE.S.E. / GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. 4950o3

TWELVE

in

FIRhMSTRIPS

color

rich

on

biblical

and

geography

documentaries ontheShroud ofTurin. including

NEW!I

archeology,

THE EBLATABLETS: Their Relevance to the Bible.

This extremely valuable filmstrip is divided into two parts: the facts of Ebla that no one can deny; and the presentation of the argument for the influence of Eblaite in understanding ideas of the Hebrew (Old) and Greek (New) Testament. Photography: Aldo Dura==i. Narration: Francis L. Filas, S. J. Consultant: Mitchell Dahood, S. J., Professor of blaite and Ugaritic. Pontifical Biblical Institute. Rome. 100 Frames. 30 Minute $35.00 cassette description. Automatic/manual signals for filmstrip. Musical interludes. Printed Key.

Informational Packet: PILATE" OFPONTIUS FROM COINS "THE OFTHESHROUD TURIN DATING OF from Pilate coin on 7000-word and data to substantiate

Offers written Monograph imprints right eye. photographic by Francis L. Filas, S. J., Professor of Theology at Loyola University of Chicago. Answers to 16 queries. Numismatic sketches. 2 coded slides of face (dups.) 2 color prints and 2 slides of enlarged Pilate coin and right-eye area (dups.) $6.50

CHRIST? #163. THESHROUD IS THISTHEPHOTOGRAPH OFJESUS OFTURIN:

84 frames, 38-minute cassette explanation in this updated 1978 edition of the burial cloth in Turin, Italy, traditionally held to be that of Jesus Christ, with photographically negative stains of crucified man. Summarizes evidence from photography, physiology, pathology, art, history, textile science, blood chemistry, with electronic image$25.00 analyzer experiments as well as pollen analysis proving 3-D human body from Palestine.

A DOCUMENTARY OFTURIN: #173. THE1978EXPOSITION OFTHESHROUD

113 frames, 30-minute cassette explanation. Includes priceless historical scenes of Shroud in natural faint shades; pollen off Shroud; list of scientific experiments; computer reconstruction. Some photos already collectors' items. $25.00 Adds new data to =163.

#160. JERUSALEM,66 A.D.

105 frames, 42-minute cassette explanation, of Holyland Hotel Model in Jerusalem on scale of 1/50 of life size; $22.00 reconstruction of ancient Jerusalem in 66 A.D.

#164. THE DESERTSOF BIBLICALISRAELTODAY 135 frames, 31-minute cassette explanation, of Sinai, Negev, and Judean deserts, including Qumran, Jericho, $22.00 Murabba'at,Masada, Herodion.

#165. BIBLICALLOCATIONSIN JERUSALEMTODAY 133 frames, 38-minute cassette explanation, 24 orientation maps and floor plans; at least 40 locations as seen from walk on Jerusalem walls, nearby Bethlehem, and westbound through Jerusalem from Mount Olivet. $22.00

#167. BIBLICALLOCATIONSIN GALILEETODAY

133 frames, 31-minute cassette explanation, of Hazor, Megiddo, Nazareth, Capernaum, Tabor, Naim, sources of $22.00 Jordan River, and around Lake of Galilee.

#169. THESEACOASTOF THE BIBLETODAY 135 frames, 30-minute cassette explanation of Yafo (biblical Joppa), Askelon, Gaza, Caesarea-on-the-sea, Carmel $22.00 Caves, Mount Carmel Range, Haifa Bay, Acre, Achziv.

# 170. LITERARYFORMS:A KEYTO UNDERSTANDTHE BIBLE

92 frames, 20-minute cassette explanation, using 25 sprightly cartoons, 42 biblical locales. Distinguishes what the $22.00 biblical passagemeans rather than what its words literally say. Contemporary examples and selected passages.

#172. THE RESURRECTIONOF JESUS 116 frames, 25-minute cassette explanation, as an audio-visual "recap" of the New Testament Resurrection narratives, with their logic and their modern milieu: Jerusalem, Emmaus, Lake of Galilee, Mt. Olivet. Unreservedly presents the $22.00 Resurrection as the central fact of Christian faith.

#174. WHEREJESUS LIVED- AS IT LOOKSTODAY Children's filmstrip (5th grade & under). 70 frames, 15-minute cassette explanation; Bethlehem, Galilee, Jerusalem, $20.00 in a pattern following life of Christ.

#175. PLACESPAUL VISITEDAS THEY LOOKTODAY Pictorially follows life of Paul from Tarsus to Rome, in modern setting. Striking aerial and ground photography by Raymond V. Schoder, S. J., Professor of Classical Literature and Archeology at Loyola University of Chicago. $25.00 27-minute cassette explanation. 106 frames.

All cassettesfor these filmstripshave automatic/manualsignalsto advancestrip. Printedkeys for each1 frame.

Musical

interludes.

Production,

narration,

photography

by

Francis

L.

S.J

Filas.

DISTRIBUTED BY: Cogan Productions, A Division of ACTA Foundation, Suite C, 11134 Youngtown Avenue, Youngtown, Arizona, 85363. If ordering for institution, please give name of person ordering. If individual, please give credit reference. (No delivery charges if payment with order. U.S.A. ONLY.)

----

---------

/

"TOOMUCH" BIBLE? VOLUMES. 15,066 PAGES. AND IF

04

YOU

STILL DBUT GROWING.

ANDYOUR

FAMILYARE TRULY

INVOLVED

WITH

HOLY

CANYOUAFFORDNOTTOSUBSCRIBE SCRIPTURE, -WHILE

YOUCANSTILL SAVE25%ON EACH

VOLUME?..

Ifyou wantnot onlythe best possible biblicaltranslation,butalso the finest possible biblicaleducation,TheAnchorBibleis exactlythe right size. Foronlya workof this scope can bringyou so close to the actualmessage.of each bookof the Bible...towhat it says and how it emergedfromits historicalsetting. Morehas been learnedaboutthe Biblein the past centurythanin all the previouscenturiesof its existence. Contributors to TheAnchorBibleareall deeply involvedin this continuing scholarlyrevolution.Andbecause The AnchorBibleis being publishedbook by book,subscriberswillbe gettingthe resultsof tomorrow'sscholarshipas wellas today's.Theyare,in fact, participatingin an ongoing projectof enormoussignificance,one thatwill continueto shed new lighton previouslymisunderstoodpassages and biblicalepisodes. Answeringquestions aboutthe Bible -as you readthe Bible Whydoes it takea 372 page volumeto translateand introducea biblicalbookas briefas Jeremiah? (Actually,morethanone contributorhas discoveredthattwo volumesare necessaryto do justice to the single book assigned to him!) TheanswermakesTheAnchor Biblean unprecedentedopportunityfor the modem readerto appreciate, perhapsforthe firsttime,the central bookof his civilization.Everypage of translationis madeclearerby several pages of notes andcomments.Ancient texts areilluminedby contemporarylinuistic andarchaeologicaldiscoveries. evious or alternatetranslationsare givenforalldoubtfulpassages. And each volumeincludesa fascinating introductionwhichis often a bookin itself. ReadingTheAnchorBibleedition of a familiarbiblicaltext is a new, wonderfullysatisfyingexperience.As you readGenesis, forexample,you will discoveran intriguingexplanationof whyAbrahamintroducedhis wife as his sister whenvisitingforeignlands.InPsalms,you aregiventhe firsttrans-

lationto take intofullaccountthe RasShamrahUgaritictexts--with some startlingexamplesof importantprevious mistranslations. As you readthe Gospelof Matthew,you willfindthe answersto such questions as: Whatwerethe actuallaws used to bringJesus to trial? Howcan we followthe events leading to the Crucifixionwitha first-century concept of time?Againandagain,contemporaryscholarshipmakesancient Scripturemoremeaningfulthanever before. The extraordinary acclaimcontinues TheAnchorBiblehas already receivedthe highest honorof the Americanpublishingindustry,the Award.Aboutthe project Carey-Thomas as a wholethereis generalagreement: "Thebest EnglishBibleyet;'says the BaltimoreSun. "Theoutstanding biblicalcommentaryof ourgeneration,' says ProfessorCyrusGordon."For specialist,scholar,andgeneral reader alike;'says the BostonGlobe,"The AnchorBibleis one of the greatest biblicalcontributionsof the century:' Commentsas each new volume is publishedarejustas enthusiastic. "Themost significantworkon the Psalterin the last hundredyears.' -Frederick L Moriarity, S.J. the most provocative "Certainly commentarypublishedthis past year,"-ChristianityTodayon Revelation."Freshandexciting...anew lookat the FirstGospel:'-Pulpit Digest on Matthew."Thebest commentaryon John availablein English''--Christian acclaimsuch as this Cetuntinuing attests to the originalwisdomof generaleditorsWilliamFoxwellAlbright and DavidNoel Freedman,who sought as contributorsthose scholarsbest qualifiedto translateand introduce each particularbookof the Bible. AnchorBibletranslatorshavetherefore come frommanynationsand faiths, andeach volumeis translatedby an individual,not a committee.Everycontributoris concernedexclusivelywith

whatthe Biblesays, not withanyone interpretation of "whatit means:' A familyinvestment Presentplanscall forTheAnchor Bibleultimately to consist of 63 volumes,includingthe Apocrypha. Rightnow,you mayacquireexisting volumeson a convenientmonthlybasis andthen receivenew volumesas they are published.Youwillreceivea discountof 25%on each volumeas it is sent to you (currentlyAnchorBible volumesare regularlypricedfrom$12.00 to $14.00;subscriberspayjust$9.00 to $10.50).And,ifyou wish,you mayalways returnanyvolumewithintwoweeks withoutcost or obligation.Finally, you maycancel yoursubscriptionat any time. Therewillneverbe a more advantageoustimeforyou andyour familyto discoverthe lifelong advantagesof an AnchorBiblesubscription.Tostartyourtrialsubscription,mailthe coupontoday.

THE ANCHOR K Doubleday&Company,Inc.

DyID Garden City,NewYork11530 BIDJL A

Pleaseacceptmy applicationfora trialsubscription to

TE ANC'HOR IBLE.and send me immediately my copy of the firstvolume. Genesis.I understandthat with Genesis(as with all succeeding volumes) I may return the book within two weeks withoutcostor obligation. Otherwise youwill bill me for Genesisat the special subscriber'sprice of S10.50 ($3.50 less than the regular bookstore price of $14.00) plus andhandling. shipping If I keep Genesis. Kwill then be shippcd one volume a month until I have received all published volumes. Thereafter. I will receive volumes as they are published. I am assured that I may return any book within two weeks without obligation: that will be billed individually (plus shipping and handling) for all volumes I accept. at a discount of off the regular bookstore price of each volume: that25.% Ti*. ANC'HORBBL.E is currentlypriced at S12.00 to S14.00 per volume: and that I may cancel this subscription at any time without penalty.

NAM ZIP

SIGNATURE

I

A-00

I

I

ADDRESS

STATE

I

I

ThisoffervalidonlyuntilJune30,1982.

R

EL EI I ~

I

RELIGIONAND ETHICSINSTITUTE,INC. P. O. Box 664

Evanston, IL 60204!

NEW SLIDE LECTURES FOR ACADEMIC TEACHING REI proudly announces the publication (Sept. 1981) of a new slide lecture series for academic courses on the Bible, ancient religion, or ancient history. Produced with a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, it is entitled "The Sacred in Ancient Israel and the Near East, " and edited by Paul F. Gehl and Howard M. Teeple. The authors are experts, and each lecture has been reviewed by a different consultant. Most of the slides are color photographs of archaeological sites and artifacts, and have been carefully selected to contribute to knowledge of the subject. Each set consists of an 8-page printed lecture and 24 35mm. slides, including title slide. $25 per set; all six, $135. No approvals or rentals. All prices include shipping and postage. OT1, THE MIGRATIONOF CULTURE, by R. A. Oden, Jr. OT2, YAHWEHAND THE OTHER GODS, by Wolfgang Roth OT3, SACRED PLACES, by Lloyd R. Bailey OT4, SACRED KINGSHIP, by Wolfgang Roth OT5, SACRED ACTS AND SEASONS, by Walter Harrelson OT6, SACRED LITERATURE, by Rebecca J. Schiffman OTHER SLIDE LECTURES PUBLISHED BY REI The MYSTERY RELIGIONSSERIES consists of ten slide lectures of the Hellenistic mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world; one each on Eleusis, Dionysos, Samothrace, Mithra, Isis-Sarapis, Orphism, Cybele and Attis, and the Syrian Goddess, plus an overview and an examination of possible influence on Christianity. Completed with the aid of a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. 24 slides (23 in Eleus.) & 8-p. printed lecture. $25 per set; all ten, $225. Also ARCHAEOLOGYSERIES and NEW TESTAMENT SERIES. BOOKSon biblical interpretation. Write for free list. MEMBERSHIP: Personal membership, $10 per calendar year, entitles members to 1/3 discount on personal orders. No institutional memberships. REI'S PURPOSE AS STATED IN ITS CHARTER: "to promote the discovery and distribution of sound historical and scientific knowledge in the fields of religion and ethics." REI is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation founded in 1972, dedicated to objective, accurate scholarship.