=aus
,
,*
"
DL
I
,
1P
I,,e,
• l Brough.
D
ItI u
,
--4#.
v
i
n', n
,4 .
. .o
`
tl it
1'rII
i
_1
,
,
I
I
I
'~I
R
~
~
I
AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF
ORIENTAL RESEARCH
ADMINISTRATIVE MD 21211(301)889-1383 OFFICE,ASOR,711WEST40TH STREET,SUITE354, BALTIMORE, Eric M. Meyers, President James W. Flanagan, First Vice President for
Publications WalterE. Rast, Second Vice Presidentfor Archaeological Policy GeorgeM. Landes,Secretary RogerS. Boraas,Assistant Secretary Holden Gibbs, Treasurer KateGould, Assistant Teasurer Gough W Thompson, Jr.,Chairmanof the Boardof Trustees Norma Kershaw,Directorof Tours MarkGallagher,ASOR Administrator
ASORNewsletter; Editor BiblicalArchaeologist;EricM. Meyers, Editor Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research;WalterE. Rast, Editor Journalof Cuneiform Studies;Erle
W.F.AlbrightInstitute of ArchaeologicalResearch(AIAR). P. O. Box 19096,91 190 Jerusalem,Israel. SeymourGitin, Director JoeD. Seger,President Carol Meyers,First Vice President Second Vice JoyUngerleider-Mayerson, President;Acting Board Chair JohnSpencer,Secretary-Treasurer
Leichty, Editor
O
0
~$:u
OF O9 7
m
co
BaghdadCommittee for the Baghdad
School.
JerroldS. Cooper,Chairman Near EasternStudies,The Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore,MD 21218. American Center of OrientalResearch (ACOR). P. O. Box 2470, JebelAmman, Amman, Jordan. Bert de Vries,Director RobertCoughenour,President LawrenceT. Geraty,Vice President MarjorieCooke, Secretary Anne Ogilvy, Treasurer
Editorfor Books, WalterE. Aufrecht
O•
Biblical
CyprusAmericanArchaeological ResearchInstitute (CAARI). 41 KingPaul Street,Nicosia, Cyprus. StuartSwiny,Director Charles U. Harris,President LydieShufro,Vice President Ellen Herscher,Secretary AndrewOliver,Jr.,Treasurer Damascus Committee. GiorgioBuccellati, Chairman Center for MesopotamianStudies, University of California,405 Hilgard Avenue,Los Angeles, CA 90024.
Archaeologist
P. O. BOXH.M., DUKESTATION,DURHAM,NC 27706 (919)684-3075 Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895) is
published quarterly(March,June,September, December)by the JohnsHopkins University Press for the American Schools of Oriental Research(ASOR),a nonprofit, nonsectarianeducational organization with administrativeoffices at 711West40th Street, Suite 354, Baltimore,MD 21211. Subscriptions.Annual subscriptionrates are $19.95 for individuals and $30 for institutions. There is a special annual rate of $17.95 for students and retirees.Single issues are $7 for individuals and $10 for institutions. In Canadaand Mexico, add $3.40 for annual subscriptionsand $2 for single issues. In other foreigncountries, add $8.40 for annual subscriptionsand $2 for single issues. Ordersshould be sent to the JohnsHopkins University Press, 701 W 40th Street, Suite 275, Baltimore,MD 21211 (telephone:301-338-6964;telex: 5101012198,JHUPress Jnls). Second-classpostagepaid at Baltimore, MD 21211and additionaloffices. Postmaster:Send addresschanges to Biblical Archaeologist, the JohnsHopkins University Press, 701 W 40th Street, Suite 275, Baltimore,MD 21211. Copyright? 1990 by the American Schools of OrientalResearch. All rights reserved.No portion of this journalmay be reproducedby any process or technique without the formal consent of the American Schools of Oriental
Researchand the JohnsHopkins University Press.Authorizationto photocopy items for personalor internal use is grantedfor librariesand other users registeredwith the CopyrightClearanceCenter (CCC)TransactionalReportingService, providedthat the copier pay the base fee of $1.00 per copy plus $.10 per page directly to CCC, 27 CongressStreet, Salem, MA 01970. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying,such as copyingfor generaldistribution,for advertisingor promotionalpurposes,for creatingnew collective works, or for resale. 0006-8095/$87 $1.00 + .10
Editor Associate Editor Book Review Editor SeniorEditor Assistant Editor Designer
EricM. Meyers LawrenceT. Geraty JamesC. Moyer Leslie Watkins ToddMcGee LauraHughes
EditorialCommittee WalterE. Aufrecht P.Kyle McCarter EdwardF.Campbell David W.McCreery Carol L. Meyers Douglas L. Esse S. Thomas Parker JamesFlanagan VolkmarFritz JackSasson Neil A. Silberman SeymourGitin MarkS. Smith JoAnn Hackett A. T. Kraabel StuartSwiny Thomas E. Levy L. Michael White
Advertising.Correspondenceshould be addressedto the JohnsHopkins University Press, 701 W 40th Street, Suite 275, Baltimore, MD 21211(telephone:301-338-6982). Biblical Archaeologistis not responsible for errorsin copy preparedby the advertiser. The editor reservesthe right to refuse any ad. Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. EditorialCorrespondence.Article proposals, manuscripts,and editorial correspondenceshould be sent to the ASOR Publications Office, P.O.BoxH.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscriptsmust be accompaniedby a self-addressed,stampedenvelope.Foreign contributorsshould furnish international reply coupons. Manuscriptsmust conform to the format used in Biblical Archaeologist,with full bibliographicreferencesand a minimum of endnotes. See recent issues for examples of the properstyle. Manuscriptsmust also include appropriate illustrations and legends. Authorsare responsiblefor obtainingpermission to use illustrations. Composition by LiberatedTypes,Ltd., Durham, NC. Printedby PBMGraphics, Inc., Raleigh,NC. Publisher The JohnsHopkins University Press
Archaeolo Biblical
A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Volume 53
Number 2
June 1990
The New Halakhic Letter(4QMMT)and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect
64
Lawrence H. Schiffman A Qumran scholar discusses the historical implications of the soon-to-be-published halakhic document, 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah. Commentary
The EliakimNacarYokanSealImpressions:SixtyYears of Confusionin BiblicalArchaeologicalResearch
74
YosefGarfinkel Confusion caused by the misinterpretation of one inscription provides a good illustration of how difficult it is to integrate material culture and historical events.
The Figureof the Paidagogosin ArtandLiterature Page 74
80
Norman H. Young When Paul used the term paidag6gos (pedagogue)to describe the law until the coming of Christ, he used a metaphor for which there is no agreed upon interpretation. What clues to Paul'smeaning can be found in visual examples of the pedagogue from the ancient world?
KhirbetRosZayit- BiblicalCabul: A Historical-Geographical Case
88
Zvi Gal Evidence gathered from the LowerGalilee survey suggests a possible identification for biblical Cabul and helps outline some of the historical-geographical characteristics of the Lower Galilee during the Iron Age. BA Guide to Artifacts
Page 80
Seashells and Ancient Purple Dyeing
98
I. Irving Ziderman Purple dyeing was a major source of economic prosperity in the ancient Phoenician city-states. A fiber expert from Israel describes the use of seashells in the process.
The Use and Abuse of Archaeology in Current One-VolumeBible Commentaries
104
Victor H. Matthews and James C. Moyer In the third of a series of in-depth book review articles, eight one-volume Bible commentaries are evaluated with an emphasis on their use of archaeological information to illuminate the Bible.
the Authors Introducing BookReviews
Page88
62 116
On the Cover:A pedagogue,seated and holding a staff, looks on while his chargereceives instruction in poetry and music. Photo courtesy of the Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,Berlin (West).
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
61
YosefGarfinkel
Introducingthe
Authors
LawrenceH. Schiffman is Professorof Hebrewand Judaic Studies at New YorkUniversity. Forthe past year he has been a Fellow of the Institute for AdvancedStudies of the HebrewUniversity of Jerusalemand has participatedin a research group focusing on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dr. Schiffman is a member of the Association for Jewish Studies, the World Union of Jewish Studies, and the Society of Biblical Literature. He also serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Biblical Literature as chairman of the section on Qumran. LawrenceH. Schiffman
62
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
A participant in many archaeological excavations at biblical and Neolithic sites, Yosef Garfinkel is a doctoral student at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.He has directed excavations at the pre-pottery, Neolithic B village of Yiftahel in the LowerGalilee and at the pre-pottery,Neolithic A site and Middle Bronze IIa cemetery at Gesher in the central JordanValley. Norman H. Youngis Senior Lecturerin New Testament at AvondaleCollege in Cooranbong,Australia. He received his Ph.D. from Manchester University in 1973. A member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, Dr. Young has published numerous articles about New Testament writings. He is the author of Rebuke and Challenge: The Point of Jesus'Parables(Washington,DC: Review & Herald Publishing Company).
Norman H. Young
Zvi Gal
Zvi Gal is a faculty member in the Department of the Land of Israel Studies at the University of Haifa. He received his Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University. Forthe past 15 years he has conducted comprehensive surveys in the LowerGalilee as well as excavations at various sites such as Tel Qarney Hittin and 'TelMador. Dr. Gal has been director of the KhirbetRo' Zayit excavations since 1983. A 1957 graduateof University College (London),I. Irving Ziderman earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Since 1966 he has been Senior Research Scientist at the Israel Fiber Institute in Jerusalem,heading the Laboratoryfor Natural Fiberand CarbohydrateChemistry. Dr. Ziderman serves on executive committees of the IsraelTextile Association and the Israel Association of Concerned Scientists. He is also Associate Editor of Yalkut, a publication of the Israel textile industry.
I. IrvingZiderman
VictorH. Matthews
Victor H. Matthews is Professor of Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri State University. He has published several articles in Biblical Archaeologist as well as two books, PastoralNomadism in the Mari Kingdom (American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 3, 1978)and Manners and Customs in the Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, 1988).He is co-author,with Don C. Benjamin of Rice University, of a forthcoming volume from Paulist Press titled Old Testament Parallels: Stories and Laws from the Ancient Near East. Currently serving as Book Review Editor for Biblical Archaeologist, James C. Moyer is Professor of Religious Studies and Head of the Department of Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri StateUniversity. He has excavated at Gezer, Raddana,and The City of David. His publications include several articles for Biblical Archaeologist and a co-edited book, with William W.Hallo and Leo G. Perdue, Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the ComparativeMethod (Eisenbrauns,1983).
James C. Moyer
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
63
The
New
Halakhic Letter
and the (4QMMT) the Dead Sea Sect since the initial announcement of the Qumran text titled 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah (Qimron and Strugnell 1985a),it has become clear that this text is very significant for our understandingof the history of Jewishlaw and, in particular, for unravelingthe difficult question of the provenanceof the Temple Scroll and its relationship to the Qumran sectarian corpus.' The text is important for another issue, namely, the origins of the sect and the early history of the Qumran community. This document purports to be a letter from the leaders of the nascent sect to the leaders of the (probablypriestly) establishment in Jerusalem.The text sets out some 20 laws regardingsacrificial law,priestly gifts, ritual purity, and other matters overwhich the writers disagreewith the Jerusalemauthorities. Stated in a polemical manner, these laws clearly represent the views of the foundersof the sect as opposed to those of their opponents, whom the sect calls upon to accept their view. The laws are set within a framework that may allow us to learn much about the ideology of those who authored the text. Such conclusions, together with those that are being gatheredfrom the study of the main body of the document dealing with matters of Jewishlaw, will allow us to drawsome tentative conclusions regardingthe significance of this text for the question of the origins of the Qumran group.
64
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Originsof Schtffman byLawrenceH.
It is important to reiteratethat this document, preservedin six manuscripts,purportsto be a letter. It remains to be determined if it is an actual letter, dating to the earliest days of the Qumrangroup,or if it is an apocryphaltext written years, or even decades, later to express the fundamental reasons for the sect's break,or schism, with the Jerusalem establishment. In any case, as indicated by the number of copies that have survived, this letter was undoubtedly significant in the life of the sect. Wewill have to wait for the full publication of the manuscripts and paleographicstudy to clarify this matter further (see Cross 1961)? In the following pages, I will discuss the substance of the introductory sentence and the concluding paragraphsof this document to analyze its stated ideology.Takinginto consideration the halakhic content of the text, I will also offer some general observationsof the historical significance of 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah. Structureand Content of the 'Txt It is necessary to begin by giving some sense of the overall structure of the text. Forthe purposes of this article, the text can be divided into three sections: an introductorysentence setting out the nature of the letter; a section listing the halakhic disagreementsthat the founders of the groupclaim to have had with the Jerusalemauthorities; and a concluding section that raises several issues related to the group'sschism. In at least one of the manuscripts, the text proper is copied immediately after a 364-day soli-solar calendar of the type known from some of the Qumran scrolls, Enoch and Jubilees (see Talmon 1989)? The opening of the letter contains no designation for the document. The authors use the expression katavnu (twice, once restored), which indicates a written text. Normally the text uses katuv as a rubric for quoting the Hebrew Bible. Alongside the word torah, for
6N
0
the Pentateuch, the Torahis referred to as sefer mosheh, the Book of Moses, or (ha-)sefer,the Book (that is, Bible in the literal sense-Greek ta-Biblion).Actually, no formal term is used to characterizethe text as a whole. Its name, Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah,comes from the description of its contents in the concluding section of the text but was not intended to be a title. The Introduction. The initial introductory sentence states that what follows are some of "ourwords"(note the use of the plural form), which are legal rulings (macasim, as in its use in later Palestinian Hebrew;see Qimron and Strugnell 1985a:401, 406, and note 5). These are rulings "wehold to"(restored:'anahnu hoshevim). Further,the text tells us that these rulings concern only two topics, one of which is in the lactna and the second of which concerns
I25m
Opposite page: WadiQumranas seen from the west looking east towardKhirbetQumran and the Dead Sea. Fromthis immense wadi, or stream bed, ran a complex water system leading to the cisterns and ritual baths of the settlement. Qumran was first inhabited after 135 B.C.E. and was destroyedby the Romans in 68 c.E.All photos are used courtesy of LawrenceH. Schiffman.Above: Plan of the period lb ruins at Qumran, which date from the first centuryB.C.E.Note the main entrance (1);the assembly and dining hall (2);the potter'sworkshop(3);the so-called Scriptorium (4);the kitchen area (5), where five fireplaces werefound;and the aqueduct(6).Areasshaded by dots arecisterns.Drawingby KentP Jackson.
BiblicalArchaeologist,June1990
65
the laws of purity (abetter translation would be "ritualsof purification").The lacuna must have contained a term like matanot (gifts to the temple and priests) or qorbanot (sacrifices).Such a term would fit the list of laws that follow (Schiffman 1989:245-46). Fromthis sentence alone one can graspthe fundamental point of the text, the halakhic disagreements between this sect and the Jerusalemestablishment. The Listing of the Laws.In this section the authors list 20 or so matters of Jewishlaw, which, in their view, resulted in the schism and formation of their sect. The key point here is that the fundamental disagreements that led this groupof dissatisfied priests to withdraw from participation in the ritual of the Jerusalem Temple pertained to matters of Jewish law. Indeed, the major conflicts of Second Temple Judaismdid not result from disagreements over messianism and other such theological matters but, rather,from issues of Jewishlaw. This does not mean that there may not have been mixed motives, but I want to emphasize the self-image of the founders of the Qumran sect who saw Jewishlegal matters and interpretationof the Torah'sprescriptions as the causes of the schism. Indeed, the entire sectarian corpus testifies to such reasons for the split, and this text is in perfect accordwith the picture presented by the Zadokite Fragments, for example. The Concluding Section. After the final law, the text turns to the concluding section, which raises several general issues. Beforediscussing these issues, let me first present a detailed outline of this section of the text.? The authors state that, by accepting the rulings listed in the previous section, they have separated (parashnu)from the mainstream of the people (rovha-cam)6and, accordingly,have had to withdraw from participation in these rituals as performedby the majority of the
66
The opening of Cave 1 where bedouins discoveredthe first scrolls in 1947. This cave contained the central writings of the Qumransect: The Manual of Discipline, Pesheron Habakkuk, H6day6t (ThanksgivingHymns), and the WarScroll as well as two scrolls of Isaiah, the Genesis Apocryphon,and numerous sectarian compositions.
people. This assertion is backedup by a general statement that the addressees (plural,we-'attem)know that the members of this dissident group are reliable and honest, meaning that the list of laws is indeed being strictly observed,as stated by the authors. At this point the letter explains its purpose:The sectarians have written to the addressee (now in the singular form) in orderthat "you" will investigate the words of the Torah(termedthe Book of Moses), the Prophets,and David, and the history of the generations. It should be noted that this passage assumes the threefold canon of the Hebrew Scriptures:Torah,Prophets,and Writings.The Writingsare not yet a closed corpus, and the text may specifically be referringto the Book of Chronicles, the primarysubject of which is David. Here the text turns to what is to be found in those biblical documents. The addresseeis told, again in the singular (aftera lacuna), that it was foretoldthat he (the addressee) would turn aside from the path
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
(of righteousness) and, as a result, suffer misfortune. This leads to an adaptationof Deuteronomic material (this passage, to a great extent, is fragmentary). The following texts are quoted: Deuteronomy 31:29 (compareDeuteronomy 9:12, 16, and 11:28)and Deuteronomy 30:1-27 The text of this scroll foretells that, in the end of days,"you"(singular)will return to God (in the first person, as is common in the Temple Scroll;see Yadin 1983a:71-73) and that all this is in accordwith what is written in the Torah(againcalled the Book of Moses) and in the Prophets.The Writings are not mentioned here, probablybecause they do not contain blessings and curses, whereas the earlier reference to the Writings concerned the history of the period of the monarchy,which is discussed in those texts. (Therefollows another lacuna of several lines.) The text now returns to the discussion of the kings, recalling the blessings that were fulfilled during the time of Solomon and his son David and the curses visited on Israel
It appearsthatthisletterwaswrittento
theheadof theJerusalem establishment, knownto us as thehighpriest.
from the days of Jeroboam,son of Nebat, through the time of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah.The writers (plural)now state that, in their view, some of the blessings and curses have come to pass and that this (their own day)is the period of the end of days in which Israel is called upon to repent ratherthan to backslide. Accordingly,the addressee (singular)is exhorted to recall the events surroundingthe reigns of the kings of Israel and to examine their deeds (macasehemah) and to note that those who observedthe laws of the Torahwere sparedmisfortune, and their transgressions were forgiven (partlyrestored).The text states that this was the case with David, whom the addressee is asked to remember.8 The authors (plural)now sum up why they have sent this text to the addressee (singular).Here the phrase "MiqsatMacaseh Ha-Torah" appears,meaning, "someof the legal rulings of (that is, pertaining to) the Torah."The authors state that the letter is intended for the benefit of the addresseeand the nation. The addresseeis said to be wise and to have sufficient knowledge of the Torahto understandthe halakhic matters presented in the letter. The writers then call on the addressee (singular)to mend his ways and remove all incorrect thought, that is, incorrect views on matters of Jewish law. This, the addresseeis told, will lead to rejoicing at the end of this period (of the end of days, be-'aharitha-cet), when he will come to realize that the views of the sect are indeed correct. The addressee's
The Nature of the Addressee One of the interesting features of this text is the manner in which the number (in the grammatical sense) of the addresseeshifts. In the introductory sentence the letter is addressedto an individual ('elekha),but in the list of laws the authors'dispute is with a group ('attem,"you"plural).When the list of laws is concluded and the text returns to its main argument, the singular is again used. The addresseeis admonished to take care so that he will not go the way of the kings of the First Temple period. Here the text is clearly addressing a figure who, because of his station in life, would be able to identify with the ancient kings of biblical Israel. It appearsthat this letter was written to the head of the Jerusalem establishment, known to us
as the high priest? The comparisons with the kings of Judahand Israel must have been particularly appropriate for one who saw himself as almost a royalfigure. True royal trappingswere later taken on by the Hasmoneans who, on their coins, styled themselves as kings. The transition must have been a gradual one, however.10What we must have here is a letter either actually written to or purportingto have been written to a Hasmonean high priest.
A Parallelwith the T'ImpleScroll
One significant parallel between this text and the Temple Scroll (11QT)should be discussed in some detail." Both texts include sections in which Pentateuchal materials referringto the people of Israelare taken to referto the king himself. In
Cave 4 was the source of a largehoard, more than 400 fragmentarymanuscripts that included texts of the Dead Sea sect and numerous othercompositions dating to the Second Templeperiod as well as biblical texts. Among these manuscripts were six copies of 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah(4QMMT).This photo was taken from the ruins of Qumranlooking west.
resultant repentance will be considered a righteous deed, beneficial both for him and for all of Israel (presumably in the eschatological sense).
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
67
Macaseh haswide Ha-Torah 4QMiqsat forthehistoryof ramifications in theHasmonean Judaism period. Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah,the quotations of Deuteronomy 31:29 and 30:1-2 appearto be referringexclusively to the king (as can be seen from the text that follows). Deuteronomy 31:29 is in the plural and seems (if the restorations are correct) to have been adaptedto the singular.In this way it was brought into agreement with Deuteronomy 30:1-2, which are in the singular but which, in their original context, clearly referredto the people of Israel.'2It may be that the authors of this document actually understood the singular use of Deuteronomy to referto the king, but the context makes this unlikely. Most probably we are dealing with the adaptation of passages dealing with the people of Israel to their ruler.The same phenomenon is observablein 11QT 59:16 in which the biblical rebuke passages directed in Scripture against the people as a whole are modified to make them referto the king (compareYadin 1983a:269-70 and Schiffman 1987b:255-57). In any case, this usage strengthens our assertion that this text, in its concluding paragraphs,is addressingthe ruler of the nation. There is no mention in this text of the Teacherof Righteousness or any other leader known from the sectarian documents. The official history of the sect presented in the Zadokite Fragments(Damascus Document) claims that the sectarians'initial separationfrom the main body of Israel took place some 20 years before the coming of the teacher.13I do not wish to engage in a discussion of the exact chronological accounting, but I take this passage as indicating that the schism took place some time before the sect came to be led by the teacher. It
68
seems most likely, therefore,that this halakhic letter was written by the collective leadership of the sect in those initial years. Hence, the teacher does not appear.
Inside Cave 11 where the TempleScroll was found as well as the job Targum,the Psalms Scroll, the Paleo-HebrewLeviticus Scroll,and other smaller texts, both biblical and nonbiblical compositions. The size of this cave makes it unlikely that it was used either as a regulardwelling place or as a permanent storageplace for texts. Morelikely, scrolls were put here prior to the destruction of the settlement.
PossibleQumranAllusions Twotantalizingallusionsin the scrollsfromQumranmightbe understoodas referringto this particularletter.Mostimportantis a passagein the Pesheron Psalmsto Psalms37:32-33 (Allegro1968: 42-50; compareStrugnell1970:216, whosecorrectionsmustbe followed). As restoredbyYigaelYadin,this pasthat the sagerefersto a "Torah" Teacherof Righteousnesssent to the WickedPriest.Yadinsuggestedthat this mightbe a referenceto the TempleScroll(1983a:396).It might also be suggestedthat this Torahwas the text of MiqsatMacasehHabut this suggestionseems Torah,14 most unlikely.This text explicitly andvarious uses the term"Torah"
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
synonyms several times, yet it never refersto itself by that name. Unlike the author of the Temple Scroll, who sees his text as a complete Torah, these authors are fully awareof the distinction between the canonical text of the Mosaic Torahand the letter they are writing. In addition, if this halakhic letter is indeed a foundation document, or if it purportsto be such, it would referto a time before the Teacherof Righteousness began to take a leading role in the affairsof the sect. The referencein Pesher on Psalms, and all other accounts that seem to point to events in the life and careerof this sectarian leader,would have had to have taken place after this text purportsto have been penned. In view of these strictures, any attempt to relate the "secondbook of the Torah"mentioned in 4Q Catena (Allegro 1968:67-68; Strugnell 1970:236-48), also mentioned by Yigael Yadin(1983a:396-97; see his restoration),to this text must be discounted. We have to reckon with the probability that Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahcannot be identified with a previously known text. It needs to be emphasized nonetheless that the reference to the Torahsent by the teacher does indicate that such epistles were not out of the question within the chronological and cultural contexts in which the sectarian scrolls were written. That a letter such as this might have been sent is not beyond the realm of possibility.
HistoricalRamifications 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahhas wide ramifications for the history of Judaismin the Hasmonean period. In the 20 or so disputes listed in this text, the view ascribedby the letter to the opponents of the emerging
sect is usually the same as that attributed in rabbinic literature to the Pharisees or the tannaim (mishnaic rabbis).In those cases where tannaitic texts preservethe corresponding Pharisee-Sadduceeconflicts regarding the same matters discussed in Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah,the view espoused by the writers of this document is that of the Sadducees.'5 Only one possible explanation can be offeredfor this phenomenon. The earliest members of the sect must have been Sadduceeswho were unwilling to accept the situation that came into being in the aftermath of the Maccabeanrevolt(168-164 B.C.E.). The Maccabees replacedthe Zadokite high priesthood with their own priests, reducing the Zadokites to a subsidiary position for as long as Hasmonean rule lasted. It has long been theorized that this is how the Qumran sect originated. Some disaffected Zadokites separatedthemselves from their brethren in Jerusalem and formed the sect.'6This is why the sect so often refersto itself, or its leaders,as the "Sonsof Zadok."17 If this is true, our text makes clear that "Sonsof Zadok"is to be taken at face value: These were Sadducees who protested the following of Pharisaic views in the Jerusalem Templeunderthe Hasmoneanpriests. This would explain why the writers of this letter constantly assert that their views are known to be correct by the addressees.These halakhic polemics (addressedto a plural opponent, as indicated previously) were aimed at their Sadducean brethrenwho stayed in the JerusalemTemple and accepted the new order.It was they who now followed views known to us from Pharisaic-rabbinicsources and who, in the view of the authors of this
Above: View of the so-called Scriptoriumwhere mudbrick fragmentsof a table more than 5 meters (about 17 feet) long and two smaller tables were found as well as two inkwells. Many scholars believe the scrolls were copied here, but others doubt that the remnants of tables and inkwells were suited for scribes and maintain that most of the scrolls were actually copied elsewhere and broughtto Qumran. Yet4QMMTin six manuscripts, must have been copied at the sectarian center at Qumran.Below: This IronAge cistern dates from the eighth to the when Qumranmay have served as an Israelite military outpost. In the seventh century B.C.E., later Hellenistic period it was included in the complex water system that broughtwater from the wadi to the settlement. This is the deepest cistern and the only round one at the site (see site plan on page 65).
letter, knew very well that they were not practicing the old Sadduceanteachings. This theory has been challenged
because it does not explain the more sectarian or radicaltendencies, including the animated polemics and the hatredfor outsiders, so often
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
69
found in the later sectarian texts. Yet this is precisely the point. It is in these later texts that one sees the results of the schism. After attempts such as this letter to reconcile and win over the Hasmoneans and the remaining JerusalemSadduceesto their system of temple practice, the Qumran Zadokites developed,over time, the sectarian mentality of the despised, the rejected,and the abandoned;so they began to look upon themselves as the true Israel and to condemn and despise all others. All of history, ancient as well as contemporary,was now interpreted
Qumran Wadi
En-gedi Nahal Hever
as figuring and prefiguringthis new history.18 Put another way,the Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahtext is a sectarian document from the earliest stage of the development of the Qumran sect, when its members still looked for a return to a participation in temple worship. It is not even certain that this text postdates the physical, self-imposed exile of the sect. Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahrepresents the halakhic disagreements overwhich the sect was formed. It was later that the Teacherof Righteousness and other leaders, most
70
Pharisees,Sadducees, Essenes, and 4QMMT s Lawrence Schiffman's article demonstrates, 4QMMT, a soon-to-bepublished Qumran text, presents historians with an opportunity to reconsider the origin and interaction of various Jewish sectarian groups. In other words,as more of the Dead Sea Scrolls arepublished, we will likely be better able to understandthe development of the Pharisees, Sadducees,and Essenes. Since several theories now compete to explain some aspects of this history, any new evidence that can be made availableis surely to be welcomed. Accordingto the writer (orwriters)of 4QMMT,in orderto performprecepts (macasim)of the Torah,one Jewishgroupdeclared,"Wehave separatedourselves (parashnu)from the majority of the people."But what group is this? The use of the verb parashnu will no doubt raise questions about the development of the designation Pharisee, which comes from the same root (meaning separatists or, as some suggest, interpretersor specifiers).However,some of the text's positions on halakha (literally, the way to proceed with religious observances) match positions that later rabbinic literature describes as Sadducean rather than Pharisaic. In addition, many scholars-although by no means all scholarsconsider the sectarian texts found at Qumran to be Essene because their concerns resemble those attributedto the Essenes by Philo, Josephus,and Pliny. If all of these observations were true, would this imply that 4QMMT is a PharisaicSadduceanEssene text? Evidently,one needs to consider the possibility that these three groups,and their names, evolvedovertime; the names had somewhat differentconnotations for different writers. Rabbinic literature provides an important source for comparison with Qumran literature, as Schiffman and others have shown. However,Mishna Yadayim,which details some disputes between Pharisees and Sadducees,was compiled by the rabbisperhapstwo or three hundredyears after 4QMMT,so the sense of the names Pharisee and Sadduceemay have developed somewhat. Rabbinic literature evidently avoids the term Essene (although scholars have not reacheda consensus on the Semitic spelling of the Greek term Essene),and the term Sadduceeseems to include more diversepeople in rabbinic texts than in Josephusand the New Testament. In addition, although it remains a fair observationthat the rabbiswere "heirsof the Pharisees,"some rabbiswere not eager to associate themselves with this term (see Tosefta Berakhot 3, 25, which records a curse on Perushim, and Avot de Rabbi Natan A 37, which describes seven kinds of Pharisee, not all favorably).The destruction of the
probablyof the priestly class, developed the sect into what we encounter in the corpus of sectarian texts as a whole. It is for this reason that many of the agreements noted previously between this document and the Temple Scroll exist (Schiffman 1989: 246-50 and forthcoming).We must
in the Sadduceantradition.19If so, Qumran now providesus with an insight into this tradition that has never before been available.
This new text also leads to a reevaluationof some of the older theories regardingthe scrolls. A few of these ramificationswill be sketched out here. With the publication of this bear in mind that disagreements, cer- text, many scholars will no doubt deal with these aspects in detail. tainly in detail, do exist. These two texts cannot be regardedas linearly First, it is apparentthat we must abandontheories that seek to related in any way.Yet, at the same link this sect and its origins with time, the similarities do point to the Hasidim, supposedly a secondthe notion that at least some of the sources of the Temple Scroll also lie century-B.C.E. groupthat was opposed
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Second Temple in 70 C.E.-an event that occurred between the writing of the Qumran texts and the rabbinictexts - may have altered the perspectiveof some writers to the term Pharisee, when taken in the sense of separatist,because the rabbiswere promotingJewishunity. Also, it may be worth noting that Philo,who died around40 C.E.,used the term Essenebut not the terms Phariseeor Sadducee. Therefore,although rabbinicparallelsprovidean essential resource,they cannot be safely retrojected back into previous centuries without allowing for the evolution of terms. If one attempted to use rabbinicterminology to characterize the time in which 4QMMTwas written, the early Hasmoneans would appearto be Pharisees, a description for which there seems to be no evidence. The dating of 4QMMT, then, will be important in placing any sectarian terminology in perspective.JohnStrugnelland ElishaQimron suggested,in their preliminary publications, that the text was written by the Teacherof Righteousness. In his article, Schiffman argues for a date before the teacher. If either of these proposalsis correct,it would remain to date that person or office called the Tacher of Righteousness.Those considerationsaside, it could be arguedthat the highly developedsense of group identity in 4QMMTand the text's severallinks with Mishnaic Hebrewcould suggest a later date that would accordwith a retrospective look at the origin of this sectarian group:in other words, a foundation myth. In anycase, detaileddiscussions of these issues will certainlyfollow the full publicationof the text. It is reasonableto expect that these discussions will significantly advanceour understandingof Jewishgroupsin the Second Templeperiod. Although no entirely adequateaccount of the historyof Pharisees,Sadducees, and Essenes has yet been written, one may usefully consult, in addition to the works cited in Schiffman's article: Albert I. Baumgarten,"The Name of the
Pharisees," Journalof BiblicalLiterature102(1983):411-28;StephenGoranson, "'Essenes': Etymologyfromcasah,"Revuede Qumran11 (1984):483-98; John Kampen,The Hasideans and the Originof Pharisaism:A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees (Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1988);JacobNeusner, The Rabbinic Taditions about the Pharisees (threevolumes, Leiden:E. J.Brill, 1971);Emil Schtirer,The
Historyof theJewishPeoplein theAgeofJesusChrist,revisedandeditedbyGeza Vermes and others (Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, volume 1, 1973;volume 2, 1979;
volume3, part1, 1986;volume3, part2, 1987).
- Stephen Goranson
Temple under Hasmonean rule. Further, the nature of the collection, even if it contains texts that are not explicitly sectarian but might have been acceptable to all Jews in Second Temple times, is still that of a subgroup of society in opposition to the political and religious authorities of the time. Conclusion There can be little question that the publication of 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahwill necessitate the reevaluation of many aspects of Qumran studies. Among these will certainly be the question of Qumran origins and early history. Henceforth, any theory of sectarian origins must place the earliest, preteacher stage of the history of the Qumran sect in the offshoots of intrapriestly contention and must reckon with the Sadducean views of those who formed the sect. It is my profound hope, adapting the words of the concluding section of Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah,"that you will rejoice in the end when you find some of our words correct. And let it be considered right for you, and lead you to do righteousness and good, and may it be for your benefit, and for that of Israel."
Notes
to Hellenism and devoted itself to a strict observance of ritual law. This designation, which actually described not a sect but a loose agglomeration of people, must be discounted as a solution to the problem of sectarian origins. The attempt by some to see the sect as emerging from some subgroup of the Pharisees certainly must now be rejected. The dominant Essene hypothesis, if it is to be maintained, would require a radical reorientation. It would be necessary to assume that the term Essene came to designate the originally Sadducean sectarians who had gone through a
process of radicalization and were now a distinct sect in the sense derived from the sectarian documents. The notion that the collection of scrolls from Qumran is in no way representative of a sect but must be seen as fairly representing the Judaism of the time must also be rejected?2 There is no question that the origin of the community that collected these scrolls was in a sectarian conflict that sustained the community throughout its existence?1 Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahpreserves evidence that this conflict was with those in control of the Jerusalem
This article was written duringmy tenure as a Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem. The supportand help of the Institute and its staff are gratefully acknowledged. A more technical version of this article will appearin the published Proceedings of the InternationalColloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls,which was held in Mogilany,Polandin 1989. 'I have had the privilege of contributing to this debate (Schiffman 1989 and forthcoming),and I want to thank JohnStrugnell and Elisha Qimron for graciously making availabletheir soonto-be-publishededition and commentary of this text. 2Seepage 149 on which Cross dates one of the manuscripts of this work to around 50 to 25 B.C.E.He studies this
manuscript, numbered4Q S135b,on
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
71
Publication of 4QMMT will necessitate the of manyaspectsof Qumran reevaluation studies, amongthemQumran originsandearlyhistory. pages 186-88, and in the summary on page 188 he states that this and other manuscripts of this semicursive type "belongto the late Hasmonean period, or, at latest, to the beginning of the early Herodianera." 3Note that this was not the only calendarknown at Qumran.The daily prayertexts were tied to a luni-solar calendarsuch as that known from tannaitic sources (see Schiffman 1987a: 38-39 and Baumgarten1986). 4SeeZadokite Fragments(also known as Damascus Document) 4:125:14.This text, originally discoveredin the Cairo Genizah at the end of the last century in two medieval manuscripts, was later found in severalcopies in the Qumrancaves. It has been firmly established that this text was important to the Qumran sect. SAphotographof one of the manuscripts containing the conclusion of the text can be found on page 10 of Qimron and Strugnell (1985b). 6CompareProverbs14:28,be-rovcam hadrat melekh. 7Hereberakhahrefersto the blessings promised for the end of days,and qellalah denotes the catastrophicperiod that is to precedethe onset of the eschaton, or the end of days.Compare 11QT 29:9 in which, accordingto the reading by Yadin,yom ha-berakhahrefersto the "Endof Days"(1983b:129).Qimron read yom ha-beri'ah,written bryh (1978:142; compareYadin 1983a:412). I, however, note what may be the lower part of the letter kaf in plate 14* 2 (infraredphotograph;Yadin1977). 8Davidappearsas well in the Zadokite Fragments(DamascusDocument) 5:1-6. Regardingthis passage,compare Schiffman (1975:30-31). 9Qimronand Strugnell (1985a:400) suggest that the letter is from "aleader of the Qumran sect (possiblythe Teacherof Righteousness himself) to the leader of its opponents (possiblyJonathanor Simon)."CompareQimron and Strugnell (1985b:9). I, however,believe that the letter must predatethe Teacherof Righ-
72
teousness, as I will explain later in this article. 10Josephustermed JohnHyrcanus
(1990:159-60). '7See especially Zadokite Fragments (DamascusDocument) 3:20-4:4. '8CompareZadokite Fragments (134-104 B.C.E.)a king (Greek basileus) in Antiquities XIII,viii, 4 (249)and XIII, (Damascus Document) 2:16-3:14. 19Burgmann(1989)asserts this x, 5 (288).On Aristobulus, compare thesis in his title but fails to arguefor it Antiquities XIII,xi, 1 (301).See Schiffman (1987b:258). in a sustained manner,as he deals only halakhic are the with Levitical favoritismin the Temple agreements 11The Scroll. subject of my forthcoming article, a 20Thelatest statement of this view papergiven at the GroningenConference held in September 1989 to be published is that of Golb (1989).This theory has in a volume of Revue de Qumrizndedibeen shown to be impossible by GarciaMartinez (forthcoming),who has excated to those proceedings. amined its underpinningsin detail. 12TargumsPseudo-Jonathanand entire translated the 21Golb(1989)is certainly correct in passage Neophyti in the us that the scrolls preserve plural, reminding 31:1-10) (Deuteronomy whereas TargumOnqelos preservedthe many compositions authoredoutside of the group.I see these, however,as assingular of the Masoretic Text. sembled by the sectariansbecause of '3ZadokiteFragments(Damascus their affinity for or adherenceto the 1:9-10. Document) 14Thissuggestion was raisedby teachings of these texts. On the other Qimron and Strugnell (1985b:9), who hand, the scrolls also preservemuch information about other groups of Jews said that "themss [manuscripts]of in this period:the Pharisees,the SadMMT may well be exemplarsof that letter." ducees, the Hasmoneans, and other 15TheSadduceannature of these groups known only from their literary views was realized as early as 1980 by compositions. Baumgarten(163-64) and is the subject of an article by Y. Sussman to appearin Hebrew in Tarbizand to be included in the English translation in the Qimron Bibliography and Strugnellpublication of 4QMMT. Allegro,J.M. 1968 Qumran Cave 4. I(4Q158-4Q186). Some comment on the use of the term Series:Discoveries in the Judaean Sadduceeis necessary.Despite the dif5. Oxford:ClarenDesertof Jordan ferent pictures of the Sadduceesfound in donPress. the works of Josephusand in rabbinic J.M. Baumgarten, literature,I believe we are dealing here Contro1980 ThePharisaic-Sadducean with one groupthat, as so often happens, versiesaboutPurityandthe Qumran is perceivedand portrayeddifferently in texts. Journalof Jewish Studies various ancient sources. These differing 31: 157-70. 1986 4Q 503 (Daily Prayers)and the Lunar perceptions,as always,result either from Calendar.Revuede Qumran 12: differencesof opinion on the part of the 399-407. authors or from historical development H. Burgmann, in Nonethe regarding group question. The SadduceanTorah." 1989 "11QT: Pp. theless, we see the Sadduceesof Josephus 257-63 in TempleScroll Studies, as the sedoqim of rabbinicliterature, edited by G. J.Brooke.Sheffield: who, it is turning out, are closely related SheffieldAcademicPress. to the bene sadoq ("Sonsof Zadok")who Cross, E M. 1961 The Development of the Jewish apparentlyfounded the Dead Sea sect. 160n the priestly origins of the sect, Scripts.Pp. 133-202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East:Essaysin see Cross (1969)and compare Schwartz
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Honor of William Foxwell Albright, 1987a The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early edited by G. E. Wright.GardenCity, History of JewishLiturgy.Pp.33-48 in The Synagoguein LateAntiquity, NY: Doubleday. edited by L. I. Levine.Philadelphia 1969 The EarlyHistory of the Qumran and New York:The American Community. Pp.63-79 in New Schools of OrientalResearchand Directions in Biblical Archaeology, The JewishTheological Seminaryof edited by D. N. Freedmanand J.C. America. Greenfield.GardenCity, NY: 1987b The King,his Guardand the Royal Doubleday. Council in the TempleScroll. ProGarcia-Martinez,E forth- A GroningenHypothesis of Qumran ceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research54: 237-59. coming EarlyOrigins and History.Revue de 1989 The Temple Scroll and the Systems Qumrain. of JewishLawof the SecondTemple Golb, N. Period.Pp. 239-55 in TempleScroll 1989 The Dead Sea Scrolls:A New PerStudies, edited by G. J.Brooke.Shefspective. The American Scholar field: SheffieldAcademic Press. Spring:177-207. forth- Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahand the Qimron, E. 1978 Le-Nushlahshel MegillatHa-Miqdash. coming TempleScroll.Revue de Qumran. Leshonenu42: 136-45. Schwartz,D. R. 1990 On TwoAspects of a Priestly View of Qimron, E., and Strugnell,J. Descent at Qumran.Pp. 157-79 in 1985a An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran.Pp.400-07 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, The New York Biblical Archaeology Today,edited University Conferencein Memoryof by J.Amitai. Jerusalem:Israel Yigael Yadin,edited by L. H. SchiffExplorationSociety. 2 and JSPS man. Series:ASOR-JSOT 1985b An Unpublished Halakhic Letter 8. Sheffield:SheffieldAcademic from Qumran.Israel Museum Press. Journal4: 9-12. Strugnell,J. Schiffman,L. H. 1970 Notes en margedu volume V des 1975 The Halakhah at Qumran.Leiden: "Discoveriesin the JudaeanDesert E. J.Brill.
Recent
and
of Jordan." Revue de Qumran 7: 163-276. Talmon,S. 1989 The CalendarReckoningof the Sect from the JudaeanDesert. Pp. 157-85 in The Worldof Qumranfrom Within. Jerusalem:Magnes.(reprint of pp. 162-99 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by C. Rabinand Y.Yadin,1958, Magnes) Vaux,R. de 1956 Fouilles de KhirbetQumrAn.Rapport preliminairesur les 3e, 4e et 5e campagnes(PlanchesIII a'XIII). Revue Biblique 63: 533-77. Yadin,Y. 1977 The TempleScroll, Volume3, Part2: SupplementaryPlates. Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety,Institute of Archaeologyof the Hebrew University,Shrine of the Book. 1983a The TempleScroll, Volume1:Introduction. Jerusalem:IsraelExploration Society,Institute of Archaeologyof the HebrewUniversity,Shrine of the Book. 1983b The TempleScroll, Volume2: Text and Commentary.Jerusalem:Israel ExplorationSociety,Institute of Archaeologyof the HebrewUniversity, Shrine of the Book.
Discoveries Archaeological
Biblical
Research
William G. Dever Does the Bible recordhistoricalevents? Does archaeologyprove the accuracyof the Bible? William Dever believes that we can at last begin to answer these controversialquestions by using archaeologicalevidence from excavations and surveys done in Israel during the last generation, as well as the Hebrew Bible and other ancient texts. His provocative analysis offers the departing point for a new model of ancient Palestine that conforms both to recent archaeologicalwork and the Bible. The Samuel and Althea Stroum Lecturesin Jewish Studies Clothbound, $17.50 Available at your local bookstore or call 1-800-441-4115
UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON PRESS
P.O. Box 50096 * Seattle, WA 98145
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
[
73
Commeary
El/akim/ NaCar The Seal Imressions Yokan Sixty Years of Confusion in Biblical Research byYosefGarfinkel Archaeological n thewinterof 1928,inhisex-
cavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, F. discovereda W. Albright stamped jarhandle bearing a paleo-Hebrewinscription: 1'lyqmncr ywkn (1928:9). A second stamped handle with the same impression, "EliakimnacarYokan,"was found two years later in Elihu Grant'sexcavations at Beth Shemesh (Albright 1932a:77-78). A few months later, in the summer of 1930, a third, identical seal impression on another jar handle was found at Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932a).Because Eliakim and Yokanare personal names, and because the term nacar was interpreted in accordancewith biblical the seal imparallels as "servant,"
74
pression was understood to mean "belongingto Eliakim servant of Yokan."Twojarhandles with royal (lmlk) stamps were also found at Tell Beit Mirsim in the vicinity of the two Eliakim stamped handles (Albright 1932a).This type of royal stamped handle, now a common find at biblical sites (Welten 1969; Avigad 1979;Lemaire 1981),was at that time known from only seven sites: Jerusalem,Azeka, Tell Judeideh, Tell es-Safi, Tell Sandahana (Maresha),Gezer, and Beth Shemesh. In addition, many handles stamped with seals bearingpersonal names (the so-called private seal impressions) were found at these sites. The royal,private, and Eliakim nacar
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Yokanstamps were all impressed on the same type of double-ridged handles, which were dark,reddish brown in color. Using these three elements Eliakim the servant, Yokanhis master, and the royal stamps -Albright unhesitantly related Yokanto King Jehoiachin,the penultimate king of Judah.Jehoiachinruled for only three months in the year 598/597 B.C.E. and was exiled to Babylon 12 years before the final destruction of the First Templeby Nebuchadnezzar II, a Chaldean who ruled Babylonin the early sixth century B.C.E. With the help of his colleague PereVincent, a French archaeologist and epigrapher,Albright interpreted
ywkn as an abbreviationof Jehoiachin (Albright 1932a:81). Thus, the inscription was taken to mean: "Eliakim steward(orintendant) of King Jehoiachin"(Albright 1932a:84). Albright used the Eliakim nacar Yokanstamped handles as a chronological cornerstone for dating the destruction of the Tell Beit Mirsim layer in which these handles were found (stratumA2) to the year All of these finds, 587/586 B.C.E. the royal stamps exwith together cavatedin this layer,were dated to the same time - shortly before the destruction of the FirstTemple and the Babylonianexile in 587/586 B.C.E. (Albright 1932b).Albright came to the same conclusion with regardto the Beth Shemesh excavations: This picture was taken at TellBeit Mirsim in 1928, the year Albright uncoveredthe first "Grant'srecent excavations have stamped jar handle bearing the paleo-Hebrewinscription l'lyqmncr ywkn (Eliakimnacar Yokan).Thephotograph,taken from the archivefile of the site, is used courtesy of the Israel provedthat the town was occupied Antiquities Authority. in the seventh century, and the disworked at Lachish, located only coveryof the Eliakim stamp furnishes King Jehoiakim,who ruled Judah the final proof that the destruction before Jehoiachin.Aharoni related 14 kilometers (less than 9 miles) was due to the Chaldaeans"(Albright this building to the biblical verse, away.The British archaeologist 1932a: 104).Albright published his "Woeto him who builds his house JamesL. Starkeyconducted six seafirst excavation reportfor Tell Beit sons of excavations at Lachish, from by unrighteousness, and his upper Mirsim almost immediately (1932b), rooms by injustice"(Jeremiah22:13). 1932 until he was murderedby banso it was availableto scholars in the Todaythere is no doubt that jars dits in 1938. The last two IronAge with handles of this type stamped strata at Lachish, stratum II and early 1930s and became one of the most important texts in the history with either royal seals or with seals stratum III,both ended in total of biblical archaeological research. destruction. We now know that bearing personal names were manuIn 1961, 33 years after Albright's facturedin Judahin the eighth censtratum II was destroyedby the initial discovery,a fourth stamped tury B.C.E.They are found in large Babyloniansin 587/586 B.C.E.and numbers in the destruction layers that stratum IIIwas destroyedby the jarhandle with an Eliakim nacar related to the Assyrian king SennaYokanimpression was found by Assyriansin 701 B.C.E. In the 1930s, YohananAharoni at his excavations cherib'scampaignof 701B.C.E. We however,Starkeydated stratum II to at the palace of Ramat Rahel (1964: also now know that Albright'sinter- the destruction of the FirstTemple 33). Aharoni dated the destruction of pretation of the Eliakim nacarYokan in 587/586 B.C.E.and, because of the the palaceto 597 B.C.E. andinterstamped jarhandles -that Yokan presence of numerous royalhandles referredto King Jehoiachin-was and similar pottery, related stratum preted it as having been built by incorrect. Unfortunately, this misIIIto stratum A2 at Tell Beit Mirsim. On the basis of the Eliakim nacar interpretationwas not correctedfor Opposite page: These are three of the four almost 50 years and resulted in a Yokanstamped handles, Albright jar handles that have been found bearing dated the destruction of stratum A2 great deal of confusion over the the Eliakim nacar Yokanseal impression. at Tell Beit Mirsim to 587/586 B.C.E. chronological sequence and stratiLeft:The first jarhandle discovered by William F Albright at TellBeit Mirsimin graphicalanalysis of the archaeology At Lachish, this date was already 1928. ?Jvoyears later, Albright uncoveredan of Judahfrom the time of the "occupied"by stratum II, so a "new" identical seal impression on another jar Divided Monarchy. destruction was invented for stratum handle at TellBeit Mirsim. Center: The jar handle found at Beth Shemesh, by Elihu III- 598/597 B.C.E.,when the BabyGrantin 1930. Right: The jar handle disThe Chronological Bias lonians first took control of the coveredby YohananAharoni at the palace of Ramat Rahelin 1961,33 years afterAlbright's One of the first expeditions to be kingdom of Judah.In this way, first discoveryat TellBeit Mirsim. Photos used influenced by the Tell Beit Mirsim only 12 years separatedstrataII and courtesy of the IsraelAntiquities Authority. excavations was the team that IIIat Lachish.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
75
Sennacherib'sfamous campaign into Judahand the siege of Lachish, well-documented historical events, left no archaeologicalevidence related to them. It is ratherstrange that Starkey,who must have been deeply impressed by Sennacherib's relief from Lachish on display in The British Museum, did not date any layerto the time of this historical event. In his very first description of the excavations,however, Starkeymentioned "evidenceof the presence of Assyrian troops before the city at the beginning of the eighth century B.C."(1934: 183). After the first season of excavation at Lachish, even Albright wrote about "theelaboratefortification of the pre-exilic city and the evidence that it had been besieged by the Assyrians"(1934:24). Why,then, was this idea not developedfurther?
7tvo years afterAlbright'sinitial discovery, Elihu Grantuncoveredanother jarhandle stamped with the Eliakim nacar Yokan impression at Beth Shemesh. This photo, which shows excavation work at Beth Shemesh, is taken from Grant (1929).
After the second and third seasons at Lachish it probablybecame clear that stratum IIIwas very similar to stratum A2 at Tell Beit Mirsim where the Eliakim nacarYokan stamped handles were found. A new scenario was needed, and Starkey soon stated, "Lachish,then, provides the first tangible evidence of the two captivities, which are so difficult to
76
Holladay (1976),and constituted the official version of those days.The earlier date of 701 B.C.E. was supported primarily by Tufnell (1953), Aharoni, and Ruth Amiran (Aharoni and Amiran 1958: 182, note 42), and Benjamin Mazar (1964:295, note 18), who formed a small minority. This controversy,known as "LachishIII," has been discussed so frequently in the literature (Ussishkin 1977)that it is unnecessary to repeat the arguments for and against the two suggestions. The debate was so selfperpetuatingthat the basis of all chronology,namely the Eliakim nacarYokanseal impressions, was virtually forgotten.These objects, the source of the confusion, still enjoyeda consensus of opinion regardingtheir connection with King Jehoiachin. It is rather surprisingthat Aharoni accepted the dating of stratum them to the eighth century B.C.E., but this did not really affect the dat- IIIat Lachish to 701 B.C.E.(1975)but dated the palace from stratum Vaat ing of the sites. Time and again the errorwas repeated:at Beth Shemesh, Ramat Rahel, which revealedthe Beth-Zur,Tell el Full, Tell en-Nasbeh, same material culture, to 597 B.C.E. Ramat Rahel, Gezer, and other sites. because the fourth Eliakim nacar A mysterious gap between the tenth Yokanstamped handle was found there. In so doing, he ignored the and seventh centuries seemed to appearat most of the excavatedsites striking resemblance of the Ramat in Judah.In this way a distortedpic- Rahel palace to the Israelite palace ture emerged, not only of the archae- at Samaria,which was destroyedby the Assyrians in 720 B.C.E. Yigael ology of the kingdom of Judahbut also of other related disciplines such Yadin,who criticized Aharoni on this point, suggested that the Ramat as ancient Hebrew epigraphy,the Rahel palace be dated to the middle historical geographyof the Bible, of the ninth century B.C.E., some 250 and biblical studies. In 1953, a quartercentury after years earlier (1973).However,Yadin the first Eliakim nacarYokanhandle did not discuss the dating of stratum IIIat Lachish, the royalseals, or the was found, Olga Tufnell published Eliakim nacarYokanimpressions. the final excavation reporton the Nahman Avigad was the first Iron Age strata at Lachish. Tufnell
separatein the written narrative" (1937:177).This idea was adoptedby Albright:"Starkey'slatest work at Lachish establishes ... two destructions with the two Chaldaeaninvasions in 598/7 and 588/7"(1937:26). In this way, stratum IIIat Lachish, as well as the royalstamps, were assigned to the time of KingJehoiachin, towardthe end of the First Temple period. Inasmuch as these stamps were very common finds at many sites in Judah,each layer in any new site where they were found was automatically dated to the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E. and not, as it should have been, to the end of the eighth century B.C.E. The royal stamps were associated mainly with the activities of King Josiah.Both Albright (1932b:78) and David Diringer (1949)suggested that some types of royal seals were older, dating
concluded that stratum III was destroyed in 701 B.C.E.and not in 597 B.C.E.as had been previously supposed, and a hot dispute ensued. The 597-B.C.E. date was supported by Albright (1953), G. Ernest Wright (1955), Kathleen Kenyon (1957: 20608), and their followers, including Paul Lapp (1960), Peter Welten (1969), H. Darrell Lance (1971), A. Douglas Tushingham (1970, 1971), and John
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
scholar who suggested severing the accepted link between Yokan and King Jehoiachin- almost 50 years after the first Eliakim nacar Yokan stamped handle was found. By studying other seals bearing the title ncr, he showed that this word was never used for royal officials but only for servants of private individuals (Avigad 1976, 1981). Avigad did not relate this point to the question of
dating either stratum IIIat Lachish or the royal stamps, however.That very year,David Ussishkin published new data from his excavations at Lachish (1976).It now became clear that the various types of royal seals all came from stratum III.By presenting complete jarsand not only handles, he demonstrated that on the same jars some handles were stamped with royal seals while others bore the impressions of private seals (Ussishkin 1976).Ussishkin suggested that the two Eliakim nacarYokanhandles and the two royalhandles found by Albright in the same area in Tell Beit Mirsim all belonged to the same jar.He concluded, "The acceptance of our suggested reconstruction of the Tell Beit Mirsim royalstoragejarsmeans that the Elykim handles antedate Jehoiachin's reign. In that case, Albright's identification of Ywknwith Jehoiachin becomes impossible"(Ussishkin 1976: 11).At this point, however, Ussishkin did not suggest any alternative dates for the royal seals. Foralmost half a century, from 1928 to 1977, confusion over the stratigraphyof the kingdom of Judah persisted. The dating of stratum III at Lachish and the royalstamps was finally solved by evidence from new excavations at Lachish in which Ussishkin (1977)clearly demonstrated that stratum IIIand all the associated royal stamped jarhandles should be dated to 701 B.C.E., that is, to the time of Sennacherib'scampaign. As with the royal seals, Yokan and Eliakim should be dated to the eighth century B.C.E. and, therefore, have nothing to do with King Jehoiachin. Only in the late 1970s, a century after the first royal handles were discovered by Charles Warren in Jerusalem and about half a century after the first Eliakim nacar Yokan handle was found by Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim, was the chronological position of these finds finally resolved. A whole series of studies and dozens of excavation reports had to be revised in the wake of this
In 1961,33 years afterAlbright'sinitial discovery,YohananAharoni discovereda fourth jar handle stamped with the Eliakim nacar Yokanseal impression in his excavations at the palace of Ramat Rahel. This photograph,from the archivefile of the site, is used courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
the term nacar was interpretedas and this explanameaning "servant," tion is still the accepted opinion today (Macdonald1976;Avigad1976). Albright suggested that Eliakim was the stewardof King Jehoiachinwhen he was exiled to Babylon.This idea was later developedby Klein (1937). In 1976, as mentioned previously, Avigadseveredthe connection between Yokanand King Jehoiachin and suggested that Eliakim was the servant of a privateperson. That same year,Ussishkin clearly demonstrated that the so-called private seals were impressed alongside the royal seals on the same jarhandles; he also suggested that the two Eliakim nacarYokanstamped handles and the two royal stamped handles that were found together in the same area of Tell Beit Mirsim had actually come from the same royaljar (1976). This created a new difficulty that Avigadlabeled the "servantof two masters"problem (1979).Avigad wonderedhow it could be possible The Functional Problemthat Eliakim was, on the one hand, A Servantof TwoMasters the servant of a private individual, As stated at the beginning of the Eliakim nacar the first when yet had, on the other hand, the right article, to stamp royaljars,which would Yokanstamped handle was found,
chronological revolution, but from that point on the chronology of the kingdom of Judahwas established on solid ground. One related discipline that was seriously affectedby the whole affair was ancient Hebrew epigraphy.Even after stratum IIIat Lachish, the royal stamps, and the Eliakim nacar Yokanseal impressions were safely dated to 701 B.C.E., many private stamped handles were still mistakenly dated to the seventh and early sixth centuries B.C.E.(Herr 1977;Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1979). Only in 1984, seven years after the publication of the results from the new Lachish excavations, were some 120 stamped jarhandles safely reinstated to their original positions in relationship to the royal jars (Garfinkel1984, 1985).However, this solution has given rise to some new, as yet unsolved problems, which I will discuss next.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
77
historical eventsandarchaeology Integrating is an admirable goalbutalsooneof the mostdifficultgoalsto achieve. have been the prerogativeof an official courtier.In other words, how could a royalcourtier carrya seal on which he was described as the servant of a private individual?Avigad consequently questioned whether the Eliakim nacarYokanstamped handles actually came from royaljars. In 1984, Hans Mommsen, Isadore Perlman, and JosephYellin published a new archaeometricresearch on the provenanceof the royaljars. Froman examination of the chemical compositions of some 120 handles with royaland private seal impressions, it became clear that the handles were all producedfrom the same clay and thereforemust have been manufacturedat the same place. The Eliakim nacarYokanstamped handle from the palace at Ramat Rahel also was examined and was shown to have the same chemical composition as the others. This researchprovesthat the handles stamped with Eliakim'sseal are in fact connected to the royaljars.The datawere reinforcedby the geographical distribution of the four Eliakim nacarYokanstampedhandles.Together with about 120 handles stamped with personal names, all from royal jars,they fit well into spatial patterns based on central places and hierarchies theories (Garfinkel1984, 1985).How can the apparentlycontradictoryevidence be explained? WasEliakim a royalofficier, or was he a private servant? Variousinterpretationsof the function of the royaljarshave been put forwardover the years (Avigad 1979).These interpretationssuggest that the jars served as: 1)standard
for marketing goods from royalestates; 3) vessels used in administration, such as tax collection vessels; and 4) storagevessels for military use. Scholars have posited various proposals to explain the presence of private stamps on the jarhandles, suggesting that the seals belonged to: 1)private landlords (this suggestion is problematic, however,because the seals are impressed beside the royalstamps);2) potters employed in the royalworkshop;and 3) royalofficials. It is still unclear which is the best explanation for all the problems connected with the royaljars,the private stamps, and the Eliakim nacarYokanimpressions. Nadav Na'aman(1986: 16)has discussed the problem:"Theprivate stamps may theoretically belong to either royal
volume measurements of the realm (however, the volumes of the complete jars discovered at Lachish vary considerably); 2) wine and oil vessels
salem and his discovery of the royal stamped handles. Since that time, all we have succeeded in solving is their chronological position. The
78
other aspects of the phenomenon remain obscure. The formal and generally accepted conceptual framework was established by Albright about 60 years ago in connection with his excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim. It now seems quite amazing that until a decade ago our picture of the chronology and stratigraphyof the period of the kingdom of Judah was fundamentally incorrect. In this article I have tried to show how this mistake occurredand how it persisted for half a centuryundoubtedlybecause of the supposed identification of ywkn with king Jehoiachin.This controversyposes methodological questions about the relationship between archaeological data and historical information. Anson Rainey (1985:73) has written about "themisjudgement of Starkey officials or royal potters ... but the and Albright regardingLachish III title nacar appearingin the seal of and the historical conclusions they ncr would suit deduced from the 'archaeological ywkn 'lyqm hardly not evidence'."As a matter of fact, the did Na'aman explain potters." the be more title nacar would why opposite happened:From "historical suitable for a royalofficial than for a evidence"(ywkn = King Jehoiachin), potter, however,and he ignored the they deduced archaeological conclu"servantof two masters"problem. sions. Integratinghistorical events The Eliakim nacarYokanseal imand archaeology is an admirable pressions are a unique phenomenon, goal, but it is also one of the most and no satisfactory explanation for difficult goals to achieve. The most them has as yet been proposed.It is important thing we can learn from that some the Eliakim nacarYokanepisode is quite possible adequate the of the of function that no archaeological data should explanation and of the title nacar be royaljars categorically integratedinto our may yet appear. picture of biblical history. Albright never excavateda cenConclusion tral biblical site such as Jerusalem, Archaeological researchinto the Samaria,Hazor, Gezer, or Lachish. of started more than worked on a rather small site, He kingdom Judah a century ago with Charles Warren's without much historical background, pioneering excavationwork in Jeru- and ended up establishing the corner-
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
stone of the stratigraphy, chronology, and terminology of biblical archaeology. Unfortunately, when he found the Eliakim nacar Yokan stamped
handles, he made an errorthat was replicated and misled others for many years. This situation underlies the necessity of taking great care when attempting to integrate material culture and history.
Garfinkel,Y. 1984 The Distribution of Identical Seal Impressionsand the Settlement Pattern in JudahbeforeSennacherib's Campaign.Cathedra32:35-53 (in Hebrew). 1985 A HierarchicPatternin the Private Seal-Impressionson the LMLKJar Handles.Eretz-Israel18: 108-15 (in Bibliography Hebrew). Aharoni,Y. Grant,E. 1964 Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Sea1929 Beth Shemesh (Palestine):Progress sons 1961 and 1962. Rome:Univerof the HaverfordArchaeological sity of Rome. Expedition. Haverford,PA:Biblical 1975 Lachish V:Investigations at Lachish: and KindredStudies. The Sanctuaryand the Residency. Herr,L. G. Tel Aviv:Tel Aviv University. 1977 The Scriptsof Ancient Northwest Aharoni,Y.,and Amiran, R. Semitic Seals. Missoula, MT: 1958 A New Scheme for the Subdivision ScholarsPress. of the IronAge in Palestine. Israel Hestrin, R., and Dayagi-Mendels,M. ExplorationJournal8: 171-84. 1979 Inscribed Seals: FirstTemplePeriod: Albright,W F. Hebrew,Ammonite,Moabite,Phoeni1928 The Second Campaignat Tell Beit cian, and Aramaic. Jerusalem:The Mirsim. Bulletin of the American IsraelMuseum. Schools of OrientalResearch31:1-11. Holladay,J.S. 1932a The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest 1976 Of Sherdsand Strata:Contributions Pre-ExilicHistory of Judah,With towardan Understandingof the ArSome Observationson Ezekiel. chaeology of the Divided Monarchy. Journalof Biblical Literature51: Pp. 253-93 in Magnalia Dei. The 77-106. Mighty Acts of God: Essays in the 1932b The Excavationsof TellBeit Mirsim, Bible and Archaeologyin Memory Volume 1: The Potteryof the First of G. Ernest Wright,edited by E M. ThreeCampaigns.Series:Annual of Cross,W E. Lemke,and P. D. Miller. the American Schools of Oriental New York:Doubleday. Research12. New Haven,CT:AmeriKenyon,M. K. can Schools of Oriental Research. 1957 The Evidenceof the SamariaPottery 1934 Archaeologyin Palestine and Syria and its Bearingon Finds at Other during 1933. Bulletin of the AmeriSites. Pp. 198-209 in Samariacan Schools of Oriental Research Sebaste III:The Objects from 53: 22-25. Samaria,edited by J.W Crowfoot, 1937 FurtherLight on the History of G. M. Crowfoot,and K. M. Kenyon. Israelfrom Lachishand Megiddo. London:Palestine ExplorationFund. Bulletin of the American Schools of Klein, S. Oriental Research68: 22-26. 1937 Eliakim,Stewardof Joiachin.Bulletin 1953 Some Recent Publications. Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration of the American Schools of Oriental Society 5: 98-101 (in Hebrew). Research 132:46-47. Lance,H. D. Avigad,N. 1971 The RoyalStampsand the Kingdom 1976 New Light on Nacar Seals. Pp. 294of Josiah.HarvardTheological 300 in Magnalia Dei. The Mighty Review 64: 315-32. Acts of God: Essays in the Bible and Lapp,P.W Archaeologyin Memoryof G. Ernest 1960 LateRoyalSeals from Judah.Bulletin Wright,edited by F M. Cross, W.E. of the American Schools of Oriental Lemke,and P D. Miller. New York: Research 158: 11-22. Doubleday. Lemaire,A. 1979 HebrewEpigraphicSources.Pp.20-43 1981 Classificationdes estampillesRoyales in The WorldHistory of the Jewish Judeennes.Eretz-Israel15:58*-60*. People:The Age of the MonarchiesMacdonald,J. Political History,edited by A. 1976 The Status and Role of the Nacarin Malamat.Jerusalem:MassadaPress. IsraeliteSociety.Journalof Near 1981 Titles and Symbols on HebrewSeals. EasternStudies 35: 147-70. Eretz-Israel15:303-05 (in Hebrew). Mazar,B. Diringer,D. 1964 Sennacherib'sJudaeanCampaign. 1949 The RoyalJar-HandleStamps of AnPp. 286-95 in The Military History cient Judah.Biblical Archaeologist of the Land of Israel in Biblical 12:70-86.
Times, edited by J.Liver.Jerusalem: Maarachoth(in Hebrew). Mommsen, H., Perlman,I., and Yellin,J. 1984 The Provenienceof the LMLKJars. IsraelExplorationJournal34: 89-113. Na'aman,N. 1986 Hezekiah'sFortifiedCities and the LMLKStamps.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research261: 5-21. Rainey,A. F 1985 On "TheIsraeliteFortressat Arad." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research258: 73-74. Starkey,J.L. 1934 Tell ed Duweir:Excavationsin Palestine 1932-3. The Quarterlyof the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 3: 182-83. 1937 Lachishas IllustratingBible History. Palestine ExplorationQuarterly70: 171-79. Tufnell, O. 1953 Lachish III: The IronAge. London: OxfordUniversity Press. Tushingham,A. D. 1970 A RoyalIsraeliteSeal (?)and the RoyalJarHandle Stamps (PartOne). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research200: 71-78. 1971 A RoyalIsraeliteSeal (?)and the RoyalJarHandle Stamps (PartTwo). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research201: 23-35. Ussishkin, D. 1976 RoyalJudeanStorageJarsand Private Seal Impressions.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research223: 1-13. 1977 The Destruction of Lachishby Sennacheriband the Dating of the RoyalStorageJars.TelAviv 4: 28-60. Welten,P. 1969 Die K6nigs-Stempel.Ein Beitragzur Militiarpolitik Judas unterHiskia und Josia. Series:Abhandlungendes Deutschen Paldstinavereins.Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz. Wright,G. E. 1955 Review of Lachish III. Journalof Near EasternStudies 14: 188-89. Yadin,Y. 1973 The "Houseof Baal"in Samariaand in Judah.Pp.52-66 in EretzShomron, The ThirtiethArchaeological Convention. Jerusalem:The IsraelExploration Society (in Hebrew;published in English in 1978 as The House of Baalof Ahab and Jezabelin Samariaand that of Athaliah in Judah.Pp. 127-35 in Archaeologyin the Levant:Essays for Kathleen Kenyon,edited by R. Mooreyand P.Parr.Warminster:Aris andPhillips).
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
79
The
Figure of
the
Paidag
os
in
and Literature Art
Variousaspectsof thepedagogue's task
have been preservedin artistic representations, such as this vase painting from Cervetri(Italy).Dating to the fifth century B.C.E., the painting depicts young Hercules being followed by his nurse, Geropso,in the role of pedagogue. The vase is an Attic red skyphos (a two-handled drinkingcup);it is 14.9 centimeters (about 6 inches) tall and 18.2 centimeters (7 inches) wide. Reproduced courtesy of the Staatliches Museum, Schwerin(D.D.R.).
by Norman H. Young hen Paul wrote that the law was our
pedagogueuntil
'VV Christ came but now that faith had arrivedwe are no longer under a pedagogue(Galatians 3:24-25), he used a metaphorwithout parallel in the Greek Bible. Because the term paidagogos is exclusive to Paul in the biblical literature, the commentator is forced to sift through the classical and Hellenistic sources in an effort to elucidate Paul'smeaning.
80
The pedagoguewas a slave guardianappointedby a father to supervise his son's activities and behavior from the time the child woke up in the morning until he went to bed at night (see Longenecker 1982; Lull 1986;Young 1987).A boy came under the pedagogue'scontrol at about age six and remained under his authority until well afterpuberty. Pedagogueshad a reputation for harshness, which was not unwarranted, as the cane, the whip, and
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
the rodwere basic accoutrements of the pedagogue'sart. Severitywas not the universal practice, however. Many pedagoguesfulfilled their role with kindness and endearedthemselves to their chargesin a life-long bond. Nevertheless, whether bad or good, the pedagogue'sadministration alwaysterminatedwhen the boy came of age and became his own master. The manifold nature of the pedagogue'srole has led to considerable differencesof opinion regardingthe interpretationof Paul'ssuggestive
completely accurate,for the pedagogue did much more than simply take the child to school, and he did not always lead but often followed his charge.The Greek biographer and moralist, Plutarch, noted this anomaly and commented that the pedagogue"issaid to lead (agein), though he walks behind them and not before"(Moralia,1008F,see Cherniss 1976: 101).Both the literary sources and the artistic depictions make it quite clear, however,that the pedagoguefrequently led rather than followed his charge,especially when the boy was a very young child. Variousaspects of the pedagogue's task have been preservedin artistic representations.On a vase painting dating to the fifth century B.C.E., Geropso,the nurse of Hercules, is depicted as his pedagoguefollowing him to school. ApparentlyHercules was to have a music lesson, because Geropso is shown carryinga lyre. A Lekythos (a single-handledjug used AncientExamplesof the Pedagogue for oil) shows an actual pedagogue When Socrates asked the youthful doing the identical task (Beck 1975: Lysiswhether anyone ruled (archein) plate 12, figure 68). Such examples over him, he replied that his pedaclarify those texts that use akolougogue, a slave, ruled him. In response thein ("tofollow")3to describe the to the further inquiry as to how the pedagogueaccompanyingthe child to school. However,numerous terpedagogueruled over him, Lysis racotta examples indicate that answered,"Byleading (agon)me to younger boys were led by the hand or school, I suppose."1This common2 were helped along with a gentle hold description is hardly exhaustive or
metaphor. Some scholars have stressed the severity of the pedagogue and thus of the law (Hiibner 1984:33; Betz 1979: 177-78); others, focusing on the benign characterof the pedagogue,have seen the law in more positive terms (Lull 1986:496; Gordon 1989: 153-54). On the other hand, most commentators have emphasized the relevance of the temporarynature of the pedagogue's task for Paul'sanalogy with the law (Burton1921:200; Bruce 1982: 183; Longenecker 1982: 56). It is not the purpose of this article to solve these exegetical difficulties by pinpointing which aspect of the pedagoguefigure Paulintended when he made the analogy in Galatians 3:24-25. I merely want to draw attention to some of the more visual examples of the pedagogue'sfunction in the ancient world in the hope that such illumination will offer valuable clues to Paul'smeaning.
aroundthe shoulder (see, for example, Beck 1975:plate 12, figure65). Thus, those texts that use agein ("to lead")or hegeisthai ("toguide")4are not so contraryto custom as Plutarch would have had us believe. That the nurse of Hercules should be depicted as a pedagogueis not so surprising when one considers that the pedagogue often functioned as a nurse. Ancient authors frequently associated the pedagoguewith the titthe5 or trophos6("nurse"), ("wet-nurse") sometimes calling the pedagoguea trophos7or tropheus8("foster-father"). Although the pedagogue'srole usually began after the nurse had concluded her task (that is, at about age six), there are texts that referto Numerous terracottaexamples show young boys being helped along by their pedagogues. Below left: This terracottafigurefrom Myrina for example, shows a pedagogue (Turkey), leading his charge by the hand. Dating to the Hellenistic era, the figureis 16 centimeters (about 6 inches) tall. It is currentlyhoused in the National ArchaeologicalMuseum,Athens. Reproducedcourtesy of the TA.P service. Below center: This terracottafigurefrom Cyrene(Libya),dating to the Hellenistic period, shows a hooded old man leading five children.It is 13.4centimeters(about5 inches) tall. Reproducedcourtesy of the Musee du Louvre,Paris.Below right: Foundin a tomb on the TamanskiPeninsula along the Black Sea, this terracottafiguredepicts a hooded pedagogue carryinga lyre and gently leading a small boy.Dating to the fourthcenturyB.C.E., it is 14.1centimeters (about 5/2 inches) tall. Reproducedcourtesy of the Hermitage Museum, Leningrad.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
81
the pedagoguehaving charge of a baby?Similarly,accordingto the ancient author Libanius,whenever a child became sick, the pedagogue played the role of nurse (Oration, 58.8-11, see Festugiere 1959:469). There are also terracottaexamples of pedagoguescarryingvery young children (Rostovtzeff1941:1.212, plate XXX,figure 2; Darembergand Saglio 1907:IV.272,figure 5450; Klein 1932:plate 32B)as well as one where the pedagogueis holding the child's rattle. The role of a pedagoguewalking behind his chargewith his charge's lyre in his hand is colorfully described in the following passageby Pseudo-Lucian: We ought thereforeto contrast with the evils associated with women the manly life of a boy. He rises at dawn from his unwed couch, washes awaywith pure water such sleep as still remains in his eyes and after securing his shirt and his mantle with pins at the shoulder "he leaves his father'shearth with eyes bent down"and without facing the gaze of anyone he meets. He is followed by an orderly company of attendants and tutors (paidag6goi), who grip in their hands the reveredinstruments of virtue, not the points of a toothed
82
monly held in low esteem. Pedagogues certainly got drunk;11some no doubt did so habitually. The image of the instructor on terracottafigurines is so like the Silenus/pedagoguecaricaturethat one barely hesitates before identifying each figure as a pedagoguehelping a child with his homework.12 Libanius (Oration, 58.9, see Festugiere 1959: 469) and Aphthonius (Progymnasmata,5.15, see Hock and O'Neil 1986:227) inform us that the pedagoguesometimes performed this task. The ugliness of the pedagogues on these terracottafigures supports the proverbialdreadthat children had of the pedagogue's visage.13 Pedagoguesoften sat in on the lessons of the teacher proper.The famous Duris artist'svase from the fifth century B.C.E. is an excellent example of this (Beck 1975:plate 18, figure 97, plate 19, figures 100 and 101,plate 20, figure 107).The pedagogues sat within earshot of the lessons in music (flute and lyre), poetry, and writing. The classical stemless cup by the Painter of Munich in the MetropolitanMuseum of Art in New Yorkshows a groupof children playing school, accurately reproducing this same kind of scene, including a as was The usually stylized pedagogue Left: on as the Socrates look-alike, portrayed grumpy pedagogueseated nearby. this terracottafigurefrom Corinth. Terracotta Both Aelius Aristides (Oration were modeled after the appearanceof
comb that can caress the hair nor mirrorsthat without artists' aid reproducethe shapes confronting them, but behind him come many-leavedwriting tablets or books that preservethe merit of ancient deeds, along with a tuneful lyre, should he have to go to a music master (Affairsof the Heart, 44, see Macleod 1967:217-19). School began early,as the above referenceto rising at dawn and others'0indicate. Sometimes it was necessary,therefore,for the pedagogue to carrya lamp (Rostovtzeff 1941:1.212,plate XXX,figure 2). The pedagogueput the boy to bed and personally woke him up early for school (Libanius'sOration, 58.8, see Festugiere 1959:469). The pedagoguewas usually stylized as a grumpy Socrateslookalike (see, for example, Beck 1975: plate 12, figure 67). This is because the terracottafigures were modeled after the appearanceof the satyr, Silenus. Socrates and Silenus were often portrayedas having similar features. Silenus was notorious as a bibulous and lecherous old oaf and was thus a natural model for the pedagogue,whom the ancients com-
figures the satyr Silenus. Socratesand Silenus were often portrayedas having similar features. Notoriousas a bibulous and lecherous old oaf, Silenus was a naturalmodel for the pedagogue, whom the ancients generallyheld in low esteem. Dating to the Hellenistic era, the figureis 14 centimeters (almost 5 ? inches) tall and is located in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Reproducedcourtesy of the TA.P service. Right: The tender side of the pedagogueis shown on this terracotta figure,probablymade in Myrina(Thrkey). Thepedagoguehas his arm wrappedaround the boy'sback and is looking on warmly,as if listening to him read. The figureis 11.8centimeters (4? inches) tall and dates to the Hellenistic era. Reproducedcourtesy of The Trusteesof the BritishMuseum, London.The image of the instructoron this and other terracottafiguresis so like the Silenus pedagoguecaricaturethat one barelyhesitates beforeidentifying each as a pedagoguehelping a child with his homework.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
32.15, see Behr 1981: 160-61) and Suetonius (On Grammarians, 23, see Rolfe 1914:429) tell us that the pedagogue often gained knowledge and manumission from the opportunity affordedby such proximity to the teacher.The most celebratedexample of this is the pedagogueRemmius Palaemon, who became a wealthy educator in the time of the emperors Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. Such learned former pedagogueswere ridiculed, of course, both in literaturel4 and in art (see Hunter and Marsh 1982: 254 for a reproductionof "a humorous painting of a pedagoguedescribed as a new-style lecturer of the cult of reason"). Despite the system'sshortcomings, children often had a lasting affection for their pedagogues;not infrequently on reaching maturity they manumitted their faithful childhood guides. Funerarytexts dedicated to pedagoguesillustrate the regardwith which their former chargesesteemed them. However, the pedagoguewas also infamous for administering punishment - often all too vigorously.15 The darkeraspect of the pedagogue'scharacteris faithfully depicted in artistic representations. One terracottafrom Myrina (Daremberg and Saglio 1907:IV.272,figure 5449) shows a pedagoguetwisting the ear of a presumably recalcitrant boy.The technique of twisting the ear was a discipline favoredby Chilo, the pedagogueof Cato the Elder's son (Plutarch'sMarcus Cato, 20.4, see Perrin 1914:361), and recommended by Clement of Alexandria (TheInstructor, 1.7, see Robertsand Donaldson 1962: 223). The pedagogue represented by a Hellenistic terracotta figure from Asia Minor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art has what appears to be a strap over his right shoulder, a corrective instrument favored by the pedagogues.16 The crooked staff that the pedagogue is often depicted carrying is a sign of a freedman and is not especially designed as a rod for the back.
Various taskhave aspectsof thepedagogue's beenpreserved in artistic representations.
*b,
To
.?
rt .
**
. *?
L~/,I~? Oo
h~:_/X?/A\
?~~ ~~'.
o '4
..
Q or
3
~t.
Pedagoguesoften sat in duringlessons in the arts. In the scene above,pictured on one side of an Attic red-figuredcup by the Duris painter, a pedagogue(with staff) looks on while his chargereceives formal instruction in poetry and music. The cup dates to the fifth century B.C.E. Reproducedcourtesy of the Staatliche Museen PreussischerKulturbesitz,Berlin (West). Standing at the far left of the scene below, painted on an Attic red-figuredhydria found in a tomb at Camiros (Rhodes)and attributed to the Pig Painter,is the pedagogue,looking on during a music lesson. The hydria (a large, three-handledjar used to carrywater from a fountain) dates to the fifth centuryB.c.E.It is 28.3 centimeters (11inches) tall. Reproducedcourtesy of The Trusteesof the BritishMuseum, London.
AW
'
...
a
*
lbb
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
83
awayfrom an angrypedagogue(on the other side of the vase) who has SeO TAMANSKI his stick raised ready to deliver the PENINSULA punitive blows. There is no doubt that the pedaBlack Sea gogue'sreputation for being zealous with the strapand cane was well .Rome deserved.Children generally had a great dreadof their pedagoguesand secretly desired the opportunity to mock and abuse them.'7 However, GREECE TURKEY there are also numerous texts that *Elitia Myrina speak of the great affection that Athens existed between a child and his pedaCorinth" gogue. Many terracottafigures reveal a gentle side to the pedagogue'sdisCamiroseRHODES position. An example of this is the apparenthabit of placing a tender hand on a boy's shoulder or head MediterraneanSea (Rostovtzeff 1941:1.416,plate L, Cyenee figure 1),which demonstrates that ruthless discipline was not the only EGYPT LIBYA characteristicof the pedagogues. Determining exactly what Paul meant when he referredto the law The staff was too serviceable an inpounded with the crooked staff of as our pedagogue(Galatians3:24) strument, however,and too readyat Smicrines, his harsh pedagogue hand not to have been used to beat requiresa largersurveyof the sources (Epistle,3.7.3-4, see Benner and the disobedient. Alciphron recorded Fobes 1949: 151).There is also a vase than is undertakenhere (see Longenecker 1982;Lull 1986;Young 1987; scene where a naughty boy (on one an example of such a usage where the carousing Charicles had his back side of the vase) is depicted running Gordon 1989).Paul'sanalogy of the Thepedagogue was often depicted as carryinga crookedstaff, a sign of a freedman that was not especially designed as a rod. The staff was too serviceable an instrument, though, and too ready at hand not to have been used to beat chargeswho were disobedient. Left:This red-figuredpelike (a two-handled vessel used to carryliquids) by the OrpheusPainter,from Eldtia (Greece),illustrates the pedagogue'suse of a crookedstaff. Thepelike dates to the fifth It is 28 centimeters (almost 11inches) tall and is located in the National ArchcenturyB.C.E. aeological Museum, Athens. Reproducedcourtesy of the TA.P service. Below: Pedagogues had a reputationfor harshness, which was not unwarranted,as the cane, the whip, and the rod were the basic accoutrementsof his trade.ThisAttic red-figuredskyphosfromRuvo(Italy), for example, shows an angrypedagogue with his stick raised ready to punish a naughty boy, who is running away on the opposite side of the vase. Dating to the fifth centuryB.C.E., the vase is 11.6centimeters (4Y2inches) tall and 10 centimeters (almost 4 inches) in diameter at the base. Reproducedcourtesy of the SoprintendenzaArcheologiadella Puglia, Taranto, Museo Nazionale, Bari.
lip=F~
84
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
pedagogue seems to refer to the period when Israel was under the law as a temporary restrictive protection (or protective restriction) imposed until the coming of Christ. Be that as it may, the picture we get of the pedagogue's role from the terracotta figures and vase paintings in association with the literary references certainly increases our appreciation of the richness of this pauline metaphor and, it is hoped, our understanding of it.
Notes 'Plato, Lysis, 208C (see Lamb 1925: 23).
2Julian,Misopogon, or, Beard-hater, 352C (see Wright 1913: 461); Appian,
Roman History: The Civil Wars,5.4.30 (see White 1913: 191); Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, 6.36.2 (see Rolfe 1914: 153),
and On Grammarians, 23 (see Rolfe 1914:429). 3Aristides,Oration, 32.15 (see Behr 1981:160-61);Plutarch,Moralia, 195C (see Babbitt 1931: 159), and Moralia,
1008F(see Cherniss 1976: 101);PseudoLucian,Affairs of the Heart, 44 (see Macleod 1967:217-19). 4Plato,Lysis,208C (see Lamb 1925: 23);Aristides, In Defence of Oratory,189 (see Behr 1973: 385); Julian, Misopogon, or, Beard-hater, 352C (see Wright 1913:
461);Plutarch,Moralia, 1008F(see Babbitt 1931: 159).
5Demosthenes, Oration, 47.56 (see
Murray1939:311);Epictetus,Discourse, 1.11.21-23 (see Oldfather 1925: 83-85);
Philo, Whois the Heir, 295 (see Colson and Whittaker 1932:435), and On The Sacrifice of Abel and Cain, 15 (see Colson and Whittaker 1929: 103). 6Plato,Protagoras,325C-D (see Lamb 1924: 143),and Republic, 373C (see Shorey 1937: 163); Libanius, Oration, 18.289 (see Norman 1969: 475).
'ArtemidorusDaldianus, 1.78 (see White 1975:60). 8Xenophonof Ephesus, 1.14.4 (see Hadas 1953:82); Josephus,Antiquities of the Jews, 9.126-27 (see Marcus 1937:69). 9Martial,Epigram, 11.39 (see Ker 1968:267). '0Aeschines, Against Timarchus, 12 Adams 1919: 13). (see
"Plato, Lysis,223A (see Lamb 1925:
69); Plutarch,Moralia, 4B (see Babbitt 1927: 19). '2Scholarsare divided over the identification of these terracottafigures. Forexample, S. E Bonner (1977:vii, figure 5) has identified the Silenuspedagoguefigure from Eretria(Greece) in the British Museum as a pedagogue, whereas E A. G. Beck (1975:20, note 71) has indicated that the figure is a teacher with a pupil. '1Alciphron,Letter,3.1.3 (see Benner and Fobes 1949: 151);Life of Aesop, 15 (see Daly 1961:37). '4Aristides,In Defence of Oratory, 380 (see Behr 1973:507);see also the referencesin note 13. '5Aristides,In Defence of Oratory, 380 (see Behr 1973:507);Libanius, Orations, 43.9, 58.9 (see Festugiere 1959: 162, 469), Epistle, 1188.3-4 (see Foerster 1903-1923);Quintilian, 1.3.17 (see Butler 1920:61);Martial,Epigram,11.39 (see Ker 1968:267). '6Alciphron,Epistle, 3.7.3-4 (see Benner and Fobes 1949: 151);Libanius, Epistle, 911.2 (see Foerster1903-1923); Pseudo-Callisthenes,Life of Alexander, 1.39.4 (see Kroll 1958:44). '7Dio Chrysostom, Discourse, 72.10 (see Crosby 1951: 185).
Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Betz, H. D.
on Paul's 1979 Galatians:A Commentary
Letterto the Churchesin Galatia. Series:Hermeneia. Philadelphia: FortressPress. Bonner,S. E 1977 Education in Ancient Rome. London:Methuen. Bruce,E 1982 The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: A Commentaryon the Greek Text. Series:The New International Greek TestamentCommentary. Exeter:PaternosterPress. Burton,E. D. 1921 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Series:The International Critical Commentary.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Butler,H. E., translator 1920 Quintilian I. Books I-III.Series: LoebClassical Library.Cambridge, MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Cherniss, H., translator 1976 Plutarch'sMoraliaXIII. Series:Loeb Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Colson, E.H., translator 1962 Philo X. The Embassy to Gaius. Series:LoebClassical Library.CamBibliography bridge,MA, and London:Harvard Adams,C. D., translator University Press and Heinemann. 1919 The Speeches of Aeschines. Series: Colson, E H., andWhittaker,G. H., translators LoebClassical Library.Cambridge, 1929 Philo II. Series:LoebClassical MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Library.Cambridge,MA, and LonPressand Heinemann. don: HarvardUniversity Pressand Heinemann. Babbitt,E.C., translator 1927 Plutarch'sMoraliaI. Series:Loeb 1932 Philo IV Series:LoebClassical Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, Library.Cambridge,MA, and Lonand London:HarvardUniversity don: HarvardUniversity Pressand Press and Heinemann. Heinemann. 1931 Plutarch'sMoraliaIII. Series:Loeb Crosby,H. L., translator Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, 1951 Dio Chrysostom V Discourses LXIand London:HarvardUniversity LXXX.Series:LoebClassical Library. Press and Heinemann. Cambridge,MA, andLondon:Harvard Beck, F.A. G. University Press and Heinemann. 1975 Album of GreekEducation. Sydney: Daly, L. W, translator Cheiron Press. 1961 Aesop without Morals.New York: Thomas Yoseloff. Behr,C. A., translator 1973 Aristides I. Panthenaic Oration and Daremberg,C., and Saglio,E., editors In Defence of Oratory.Series:Loeb 1907 DictionnairedesAntiquitis Grecques Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, et Romaines IV/1(reprinted1969). Graz:AkademischenDruck-und and London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Verlagsanhalt. 1981 P Aelius Aristides. The Complete Festugibre,A. J.,translator Works,volume 2, Orations 17-53. 1959 Antioche paienne et chritienne: Leiden:E. J.Brill. Libanius, Chrysostomeet les moines de Syrie.Paris:editions E.de Boccard. Benner,A. R., and Fobes,F.H., translators 1949 The letters of Alciphron,Aelian and Foerster,R., editor Philostratus. Series:LoebClassical 1903- Libanii Opera. VolumesI-XII.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
85
7-iscover 4bibica1
1923 Lipsiae:B. G. Teubneri. Gordon,T. D. 1989 A Note on HAIAAPrOPOE in Galatians 3.24-25. New Testament Studies 35: 150-54.
Library.Cambridge,MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Pressand Heinemann. Norman, A. E, translator 1969 Libanius. Selected WorksI. The Hadas,M.,translator Julianic Orations. Series:LoebClas1953 ThreeGreekRomances. New York: sical Library.Cambridge,MA, and The Bobbs-MerrillCompany. London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Hock,R.,andO'Neil,E.,translators 1986 The Chreiain Ancient Rhetoric:The Oldfather,W.A., translator 1925 EpictetusI. The Discourses Book Progymnasmata,volume 1. Series: TextsandTranslations:Greek-Roman I & II. Series:LoebClassical Library. Series. Atlanta, GA: ScholarsPress. Cambridge,MA,andLondon:Harvard Hiibner,H. University Press and Heinemann. 1984 Law in Paul'sThought.English Pack, R. A., editor Translationin Series:Studies of the 1963 Artemidorus:OnirocriticonLibri V New Testamentand Its World.EdinLipsiae:B.G. Teubneri. burgh:T. & T. Clark. Perrin,B., translator 1914 Plutarch'sLivesII. Series:LoebClasHunter,E., and Marsh,P.,editors 1982 The Book of Bible Knowledge. sical Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:ScriptureUnion. London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Ker,W.C. A., translator 1968 Martial II. Epigrams.Series:Loeb Roberts,A., and Donaldson, J.,editors Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, 1962 The Anti-nicene FathersII. Fathers and London:HarvardUniversity of the Second Century.Reprinted Press and Heinemann. GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans. Klein, A. Rolfe,J.C., translator 1932 Child Lifein GreekArt. New York: 1914 Suetonius II. Livesof the Caesars Columbia University Press. (continued)and the Livesof Illustrious Men. Series:LoebClassical Kroll,G., editor 1958 Historia Alexandi Magni (PseudoLibrary.Cambridge,MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Pressand Callisthenes).Berlin:Weidmannsche Heinemann. Verlagsbuchhandlung. Lamb,W R. M., translator Rostovtzeff,M. 1924 Plato II. Laches, Protagoras,Meno, 1941 The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World.Oxford: Euthydemus.Series:LoebClassical ClarendonPress. Library.Cambridge,MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Pressand Shorey,P.,translator 1937 Plato V The Republic, BooksI-V Heinemann. 1925 Plato III. Lysis,Symposium,Gorgias. Series:LoebClassical Library.CamSeries: LoebClassical Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:Harvard University Press and Heinemann. bridge,MA, and London:Harvard University Press and Heinemann. Sutton, E. W, and Rackham,H., translators 1942 Cicero III. De Oratore,Books I, II. Longenecker,R. 1982 The PedagogicalNature of the Law Series: LoebClassical Library.Camin Galatians 3:19-4:7. Journalof the bridge,MA, and London:Harvard EvangelicalTheological Society University Pressand Heinemann. 25: 53-61. White, H., translator 1913 Appian'sRomanHistory IV Series: Lull, D. J. 1986 "TheLawwas our Pedagogue": A LoebClassical Library.Cambridge, Study in Galatians3:19-25. Journal MA, and London:HarvardUniverof Biblical Literature105:481-98. sity Press and Heinemann. Macleod,M. D., translator White, R. J.,translator 1967 Lucian VIII.Series:LoebClassical 1975 The Interpretationof Dreams: Oneirocriticaby Artemidorus.Park Library.Cambridge,MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Pressand Ridge,NJ:Noyes Press. Heinemann. Wright,W C., translator 1913 Julian. The Worksof the Emperor Marcus,R., translator 1937 JosephusVI.JewishAntiquities, JulianI. Series:LoebClassical Books IX-XI.Series:LoebClassical Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Pressand Library.Cambridge,MA, and LonHeinemann. don:HarvardUniversity Pressand Heinemann. Young,N. H. 1987 Paidagogos:The Social Setting of a Murray,A. T., translator 1939 Demosthenes V PrivateOrations Pauline Metaphor.Novum TestaXLI-XLIX.Series:LoebClassical mentum 29: 150-76.
.Arhaeologist Eachyear many new discoveriesare made that enrichour understanding of the rootsof Westerntradition. Sinceit firstreportedthe discovery
of theDeadSeaScrollsin 1947,
has been first BiblicalArchaeologist on the scene with fascinatingreports of the latestfield work. Published quarterlyby the JohnsHopkins UniversityPresson behalfof the AmericanSchoolsof Oriental
BAcontinues thistradition Research, of timely,challengingarticlesthat set the pace for scholarsand laypeoplealike. To placeyoursubscriptionor renew a currentsubscription,completethe form below and returnit to the JohnsHopkins UniversityPress,
Journals Division(HUP), Publishing
701W.40thSt.,Suite275,Baltimore, MD 21211.Individualordersmust be prepaidby check or money order
drawnon a UnitedStatesbankor
by VISA or MasterCard.To placean orderby creditcard,dial our toll-free numbe; 1-800-537-JHUP. Maryland residentspleaseadd5%salestax. O $19.95individuals 0 $30.00institutions
O Checkor money-order endosed [ MasterCard O[Visa Card number
date Expiration Name Address City State Country
86
Zip
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Ros ZayitKhirbet Cabll Biblical A
Case Historical-Geogr by
uchinformation about the historical geography of the Iron Age has been discoveredduring the last two decades through the method known as regional archaeological survey.This method relates the settlement pattern revealedin a given region through geographical, occupational, and historical analyses to the area'senvironmental features and provides a basis upon which to drawhistorical conclusions. The LowerGalilee, located west of the Sea of Galilee between the JezreelValleyto the south and the Upper Galilee to the north, was not comprehensively surveyeduntil the present projectwas initiated in 1974. Our study focused on the Iron Age (1200to 586 B.C.E.), during which time the relationship between Israel and Phoenicia developedand deepened. Of special interest is the event that occurredin the second half of the tenth century B.C.E., during the reign of King Solomon, when the "landof Cabul"was handed over to King Hiram of Tyre(1Kings 9:10-14). This transaction undoubtedly reflects the economic and political exchanges that were taking place in the borderzone between these two kingdoms. Evidence gatheredfrom our survey has helped to clarify this historical-geographicalcase. Now
88
Zvi
Gal
largest pocket valley in the Lower Galilee and has great agriculturaleconomic potential. This pocket valley was not well drainedin ancient times and thereforeflooded in winter, which left a high level of subterraneanwater and enabled dry The LowerGalileeSurvey The surveyof the LowerGalileelwas farming in the summer. This kind of carriedout accordingto the methfarming can still be observedin the eastern part of the valley, where the ods of The IsraelArchaeological local villagers maintain some feaSurvey.Basedon an examinationof every squarekilometer, these meth- tures of traditional agriculture. ods providemaximum data at every The natural oak forests that cover a site of any period. The survey was largeportion of the hills of Nazareth launchedin the EasternLowerGalilee and Alonim are another feature of this subregion. Accordingly,it had in 1974 (Gal 1980).Later,between the largest cluster of ancient sites, 1978 and 1983, the survey was exLower entire to include the including LowerGalilee's largest panded areas were some Galilee; surveyedby tell, Tel Hannathon. the same method, whereas in other SubregionII-Eastern LowerGalilee. The secondsubregion,the Eastern areas selected sites were examined. Consequently, we were able to deter- LowerGalilee,consistsof basalt mine the environmental subregions plateausthat createa rockyarea with limitedagriculturalpotential. and their effects on settlement patThis regionis bisectedbythree terns during various archaeological 1983: wadies,or dryriverbeds:Nahal periods (Gal 38-41). I-The Southern Lower Issachar,Nalal Tabor,andNahal Subregion which streamedin deep Galilee. The main subregion of the Yabne'el, so LowerGalilee comprises the Nazagorges that theirwaterwasnot availableon the plateaus.Addto this reth and Alonim Hills and the Beyt the low annualrainfall,andit seems This north. to the Netopah Valley that the ancienteconomyof this area contains many water sources and fertile lands; thus it seems that subregionwasbasedprimarilyon cattleandgrazing.It is worthnoting irrigatedagriculturewas a common part of the region'sancient economy. that the area'scentral site, Tel RekeS, lies in the deep canyon of Nahal The Beyt Netopah Valley is the
that most of our task has been completed, it is also possible to outline some historical-geographicalcharacteristics of the LowerGalilee during the Iron Age.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
..- ,,.. -1. 1. -_ .. .?I..1.-I....II....1. ''.. .?. .--I. - ..?-- ?I -.' .?. I_ .- -I.I-I? -I_-i- I? ,?. - ..- -, .I :- .;I , - -. ,.. . .._ -.--: ? -I'?.. I :.: -.-, .. -1. ,m?.- I? .I. I.1.I. -:,.1.I-,,.1-I-I. ?,'--?.-- .1.?1 --?-.I- -,.?1 .-j.1?- ?i_%., --.-.?I-.,,1- .-.I'-..-?--1.,?1-,,..,? ,?-. ._ ,.--I-I .-. -,.-I__.? I..I. -..I.?_1.1-?,I.I.-.%...- I1..?I- _,1-.1.,-??_-..1?- -,--I..I.. ; , . . 1...1, ....:1.-. ..I...?1.?I....-.. .?., ? .I. ?' . . ' .. I .-..II I?...-??I?II..I..?1. ...I..?,--I I....I1.?.-,. .I ...?. _..I.?1. .... - . ?I1. .. "...?1.1-1.II. ...??..._.-. -.I.? ?.:1 ..1?...I?--..1 I.1-I...I1..,.?1.I?I.. I.1..?. ,..II-?::I..-. 1 mI..I.:.'I.. . 1 1 . " ? . , 1 ? . , ? . . I I ? , ? , , _ , . .1, . .. .- 1I 1.. I I1-.? . II-.- .? 1 . .1.1 -I . I?. 1?.. I .. .1. I-.1 -.? . 1I _.., I ?'.-. ? II. . ,. I . 1 I. -, .. -I . -1.? . .I ? .I ?.. .I. , .- I. . : :I 1.-. ?: . -1.-% -. ,t-I? ?- I, .-., I ,_1". -- ?,- ?-,.1- ,_: 1-.?i".1, -. ,? -?:. I , 1-'.. , . 1-I ?.,- ?I _,? -'1 I. _-._ --1, 1,%-. ?-I_. - ,_.- . -?_ _--I-' 1?. .T_-.?,1._I_, -?I .-"I ,-I..- ?,,-. 1? ,._.- 1 . I,?.?._._1 -?. _?,-1-_?, -I,.,i .1L"-,- -li-?,.. -I .1 --1'.?1,. -?., '.I, -.- -i1-, -I..1?'_IL.1",. _-I)-... ,' 1."- ' -.I ?-, .1 ,,--.. I ,.I-. ? ? 1 . I .I I ?. .I1 I. ? I 1. ? .I . -I - - . I .1 . . - I . ? - ,- - -. , " . '. I - ? - I ' ,I - - . - I - , -.1 . I ?- , .
Map of the LowerGalilee survey and the area'sthree subregions.
: ?..--.?. . ?, !-??.?? .... ?. ..I...... I.... -?.I. I.I.1-..I...?.. ,-:.. I.1 -,.....-II....-. .?-- ... ?-.?-..-??I I- ,- ?...-?..?;, ?.- .-?.....I.....- ?.......?.. . .I1 ?,_ "I :1, "._-,:"-V .:.?.-,?..,-1 1?-?-!.? ?:, I-,,??? ,_
-
.?
..I ?,?I..I1: I1 ?._.I1-1..I.?I .?.I,. I.1 I.-II?-. ?1?I..- 1.--I?...1I1?,.?..-:-I1.I..-I:?1-..I:I- _-..1,,?-.I..: ,--'?I.,.:I-?,.i.;._ II1.,.. II1:.?-.?I ,.11_II.?.,,I--.I.? -".,?I 1.-- ?..',I_ ?,-v-- ,."_%? I,I-.?_"- ,.-,?'"..?I1.1_--:.'I ,.-I?-.,?.' f, -.._!,1%-I'-?I. ,II?.11.:--',-I.?1._?_"--?,,. -?-_-.LI .,_1.-,?I-I. --I . ?-',?.1--"?.--1, %.-.-r,.V?,-1.-,I_1i ._-,_?I-,?1. ..-,-I ,?tI,..- ?,.I_.-_1 !?,I-'.,v-II-1..,?-1,,? I1..I-, -__-?:I?. -?._I,.I 1- _. -.-1.'I ,_i-1.0I,-. .. :1? . . 1.-I-,?.1 I . .--I ? ..I1--..I? . .I1 .1I?. ,.??.I .-1.I?.I?,:.-?1.I?1I,. :?.I , ?: ?.:. ,?,?.I-"1,:, z-_?.-t,, ? -.?,- , I.1:I?',?-."I_1,- I'"??-.-I_1, i..-7-_,;,?I.. _ ,--I? ,;I-.1-,.,?? .-_" ,-1I _.?-1.I?,._- ?-",,..I ?-,? _.1, .-" I?.,1.-, . .-,I?_, .. -'I,,:?_..-7I, .-1I, I_,..1,?- 1I.??'%.,- ?.,;1 I .1 ,?-?1.I -. ,I~?-t.1,': --,?I1.I ,-,.. ??I,, --. ?,,.IiI-.- ??,I,-I1".. _?, .-, 1?I.-"-,?I-.'_1 ,..- I, -?.1%-'i ?.?I . ? . I.. I?.- .?I. - I1.? 1 ..I? - .I . ,.. ..?1 '.. .- I1. , .I . li.?!. - .: , - ?. 1,. . , I .- ..I ,?'.-I ..1 I . ., . I ,. - -- .?, I- _.-1- ._-,? - I ,. -.?, . -. ,I?1- I- ir-_. , ?-1 -. ,- , -?- .1', _1 ?. ,- , - ? -- ? - _.- ?, _.` --? , . W;,?- ., II_ .I? ,-._I ?.-.1 _-,- . ., ._-,,. . I- 1. ?-I . I.-- ? I- 1??,. ?. - . , , - ._% -? I." -. _."- -. ?-, ., ," .- -I1,. -? -_I?, .S - ,- " r I .,-?. .?._ - .,? _I -, . _.?'i - -,? . .'"
r,:
:d
.
?.
-.
?.I
.
.
1
?. -
.
I.
.
I.
1-
?
:_
.
I.
.
. . .
-
.
?,
.:
.I
.
I
I .
1.
1.
I.
?.
?.
:
-?.
I.
O
I.
.
-
?:,
.
-
?
.
.
.
I.
:
:-
.
1.
'.
._
.
-
?.
.":
I:.
.1
1.
.- .
,
.
.
.1
1.
.
.
?. .
I....
,.
.
.
.?
.,
.-
.
.
I
.I
.
.
?
.
1.
:.
?
I.
.
,_
I.
:
.
?
:
.:
,.:
-
-
.
.1
. . I
.
?
.I
.1
.
I
I.
?.
?
1.
.?,
?,
:
.1
-i?
I.
_,?
.
_?:,
,?:
-
1
?.
?'.
i,
:
,
,?
?
.
I?
-
:
,:
r?
-
".
. -
,_
?;
.
_
-? :.,?_ ,?.
?:.-
?
? *_
,?
?
.
"
7,
,
I
I
.:;-
.
.
_*
,
-?
-
.
:?-
? : '.
?.
-
I.
.-
:_
.
-
.
-?
:
,:.
%_,
.
?,
%-1
-
-
?:
_,;
,-
V
'I
-
:i'l
,
:-
-,
- -
-
"I
?
i?
-
- ? _
:
ir
-
-
?'_
-
-
I_
:?
- ?.,
?
?
".
-
-'it
:
'?
, ,
,;.
1,?
ml?
- "
-.
?`
?.
'_
"I
.-
- w
,
?
.
-, :,
_?
-.
-,
?:,
.I- -,
_
?.
I
.:
_I
:
?-
-
?Z
0
-
;I
:
.
.1
t:
1 ?,
1
:,
?
-
,.
i'
I,
?,
':
i?
?:-
` ? ,:_- ,?
:?
-
;
'71
,
3
?
?
-
?';
-
?
':
: ,.i;
,
?-
_;.
,?
,.
_ .:
"I
'm
.,
-
1.
:,
.
;1'
,
?
.
-
.
-
".",?:-
:_
.
1,
.?,_.
.
-1
.
-?_
,
.,:
?
I
,._?
-
?
1
I
"I,.
?
.-
:,.
:
,
i:-
1,
? I
:
?
?
i'.
-,
,
-
-
.L
?
?-%-.; -
,;?, -
_.
? I , .: T.?: "
1.
?,
?,
_b.
: ._
-1
?
;
1.'?
?,.
. ._,
I ? ? - I
-
_."
,
?.
_
,
..
7
I
,
-.0
,
:
- -
_.
?
. :
?
?
.. 1 1 ? ,
.-
.
'-?i,
.-
,. ,?
_-
?.
" :
%?
?
-
"
_
,
.-
-
1_
?
,._
,:
,
. _ : _?
. ?
?_
"
?_,
I
: 1-
,:.
I!
?
I
?-
-
-
-_
:'_
?_
:
I-
"
._
%-
,
?.
-
:7
I
?
1:
;. I
_?-
1
.1
?v
-
A
,
I
.
I:.
a n
?/
-"I ,
",
,? '.
"
,
.
?'.
?'.
?
D
-i.
.-
,!?
,.?
-
_I-
,
-
-
. -
1". -
. ? :, :
.
_'.
:
?-, .i
:_
-
I!-,
?,
- -
?
,:_
- -
_.
?
i
I
.
;,
-
:.-
-
"
-
.
I.
, ,
?
I
:
I%_
?
I
?,
-
:*,
_Ii
,
I.
?".
t,%
:
,
?.
n , ,:
"I
. t
-
I ,_
? ?;
!:
. , ,.i?
-,;.
?,_
.
?'.
-
-
-.
-
?,
?.'
'.
_?
:
. , ?. -
-,:
-
':-
:
?
_.
_?
-
-,
-,
1-
_?
-L
-
?,
-:
_'.
?`
?:
.,
L_
-
?
:
.:
."
1-?_
,:
-:
.:, :
' .
,?
-
".
-1
-
-_
-
-,;
-
.I
:
?
?
:
- : ? ; .
_.
?
-
?
".,
-?
- ,
?_.
?
i:
!.
.-
-.
.- .
_
?,
-
?
,
?
-,:.
,-4
? 0
?
I.
?
I?l,
:,
-
I
:'-
-
'6
-
?-
?
?,
.
?,.
I ,'?
. :-
-
1 .,L?
q,
_i-
-
:
_:?
?_".
_.
_ _
?-
_
-.
i.
"
:
?
- I ?
i-
-,:
"
.
,
'T
;
:
.
I
7"
-
?
r
?.
_.
j.
I
1.
.
'.-
-1.
?
?.
,.
.
.
:._-,
- - _: _
:
:
?
?
?,
_.
.,
.
i,
f
I.,
1.
I.
.
I.
.,
:
?
,
.
.I
-
._ -,:
.
, -., :
_-
_:,. '
?.
-
:-I
-
?-
_,-
_
1-
,
-
1,
.:
.
.
.-:7 -
?.
':",
?.7
-
_-
-
_i.
-.
;
-
.:
.1
.,
_-,
?
V.
-
-,.
-
.'
,
"
.
.:
.
.:
.I
7 1' -
-,
:
;
?
?,
,
?.
: :
:.
. .
:
?
?t
_?,
i!?_
I
'.
?,
I . : '
'
T?
_?
-.
?.
:
?.
:
,1
?i,
_- i.?,
.:,
.?
?
?-
,-
_.
I."
I.
?_
-,
,
?
.:
?.:
.,
'.
-
t
?-!
.
-;.,-_?-
`
?
-
1.
:
.
.
-
-
_?,
:'
,-
:
.:
,
"
I .
.:
I.
:.,
'?
:
"
.:
1 .,
/
1,
.
?
:
_p
I.
.1
:
1
. . .
.
.:
-
.
.i
:1
I-.
f.-,
?
?',
-
"
-
I.-
1:
:.
.
I
:.
-
.
1.
- I-
:
?:
?.
..
?I.
.
?
.
1
-
?
?
.
I.
:1
.
.
x
I.-
-
.
. .
:_
-?
.-
-.1
.;,
?:
1-
.
-
?-
-
?.:
:
:
I ?:
".
I.
.
.
?.
?.
..
.
.
:,.-
,_-
:
.
:.
I
.
%
1.
?.
.
.
.,:
-
..
:
-
I.
.
re
.,_
_-.
.?
?.
.
1.
I.
_T
.?!
.
'.:-
.:
?.
:
:
.
-
:,
.
I.~
?,
,
'.
,
?
1
:1, ?,
,. ,?-- ?I-1. .?,-.I.-1.: .?:-:.,?",- ?..?I-I'. . ,....1?,-I iL .-,-- I., ..I.II?II?:..1 ---.t:,.-?. .,.,-:,t.-??? .-,III.I???*,,-1?:,--?7 .1? , .1,t,?:.?,? -I-I .-..??.-."_i ? -. . I..?I,.:.I-. . .I.I:. I......?...I?.1.. I?...II..1. . ?..: -,.-??_ ...I.?..1 ?:, -.,? .,? .,?- ,. 2.? .1 II....... . ... 1. -????-?..7?., -,,-I-._i? - .:?,.1.?.,% .I??11 1? ,--?,.-..-.:..--,-..,I.,..-,I-.?1,-.,,.?--?I!I?-,.--.-?,.I?I-II.-?, :, -.-,-?.??.z???": ?-.;. ?, :i-,?--.?.-..?% ??.:.,.I.,.?I.,-,,% -?..-,I...t ,-,-,,?.?-"?.."???I.--.,--:--,;_? -I..1:-,?.?.,..?, _? .1. 11 .?.....,.......I..I...?.I.II..II...I..I..:?...?.:?I.1. .,I. I....,..,....?.II?:..,L .4.....I..?..?.?.?.I?II?..1. :-.?,...,,.,1: --II.?,I-1 ??. .-.:-..I?..,.I?, -.I. -I- ?,, .. ,IIII,-,-,II...:. -.1, ?.?.1?_- _..I ?-,% ,-?.--..?L ? ? : I . ? ., . :: , 1 ; I .. ? . .. I . . . . I . ? . , ? I ? ? . 3 , . ? 1 .1 . i : ? I , ? . ? -, , . :?'- ?, I?. I . I- ?.?_? Ir ?, - - _. . ....,. . .. .? .. " . I.1 - . I. . ?'_. I ,. .I . . .I. I. ...I. I.: ?. . .?: .? : I7. . . A ch i ib -, .- , --? ?I 1. -- ? I-1? _? -i I. H?. .?a z :o? ?:r' ,-. ", -,,,?:,,?r,.,-. P P E R :G A L IL ? E :,
-
.i
I
.
:.1
.
-
I.:
:;
.
I:_
? I -
:,`'.
:
:?
',
:1
-
:
.?,
'1
:
.:
.-
?
-:t
:
.:
:.
?.
?.
?,:.
,.
'.
-
I
1?
-?
:.-
i.
I
_
.
?_
?
!,
-,
? - ,-
.-
.:
:,
. ?
.:
1,
4?.:
,:
:
I.
: 1:
?
:
-?
.
.-
.
?".
.
?.
,:
.
"
.
-
.
?
:
;
:
:
"
-.?,
,?_
I.-
. I I -
.
?
,:%
,
,
"
-,
.
. "
.
.-:
?
. , :
:.
?
,?:
,?
- ?: -
?
-
-
I
:
?
,I.:
."
,
.?
-
?
-,
. ?.
"
_
:
t'?
-
?_.
.
?.
:
?,
?
"
,
? -
:-
?,.
1.
.
?.
I.
.1
.
.
.
.1
I.
`_,
"
:.
.
?.
:
?:.
-
I
.,
I .
.
.
.
,
.
.
I
I.
_.
.? ;
.
-
I.
I
.
1.
:
.:
-
_
1_
.
I
.
.
I
,:
.:
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
:
I.
.
.
I
.1
'.1
H
r
?
.
. 1.
?.
.
.
?.,
J
ifa:.
a
_:
i,
?,
_-
:.,
-,?
.
:
?.-
:
"
?
:.
"
.
,
. _ -
,?
-
:
-
1,
. .,
.
t.
-
.
I -
_,"
-
?.
_. _,I.-
? _ ?_,
'
:-
'?--
J
?.,
Z
:,
,
- -
.
V.,
-?
-
;
.1
_
1
-:?
1.
.
?
.
!i
i
!
1
1
!
j!
!:l
L
.
1.
?,
'
I~
.
.
1
_.
Ii
-
-
:
.1
.:
?
.
-
:
.
-
!
?
?'
?.
I
, .1 :
_ . .?_'-
I
. .
,
?:
._
:
.
: ?,.
i,
?
?
"
:
?
:
.:
-i,:
?;
:
,-
:i
A
:
1.
.
1
:
:?
-
:.
.1:
-
.?
I
.1
,
1.
.1
.:
?
?'.
'.?
I
.?
1,
? ,
z.
-
t.
.
.:
:.
:1?
i
i
1
.1
?
"
:
?
'.
,:
,? ,
.?
.r
:
.
i:!
.
-.1
,
1
fl
_,
1
:
:1
'I
.'
1.
1:
L
'I
.,
!
m
. I-
1
?-
?
:
:?,
1
I
?
_.
-4
-
?
'.?
:i
:_
. .
,
,?
,.-
I."
_.
:;.'
-
-,;
:,;
.
_
A_?
i,
"
`?
!?;
?
?,:.
1:
Z.",
:
:,
"
.
I
, I ? .,-
o
?
:j
;
.?
-1
:
?:
;,?
-
, ? .
-_
.-?:-?,
?
?
:
:
x : ? ,
?
i,
i-
1,
4
.,
-
.
-,
-
.
.
a
.,
, ;'
-,.
-
I-
_,?
-
A
"
. ,-
,
?
_?
"
.,
?
.
-
,
I
.
-
?
_.,i
-.?
W
_
,_
,:.
.:
? ?:;
,?
I
.
-
-?_
?
- ,
-
,?
?:
?
,-
.?
-:
i
? t- -
,:
1:
,
.-
-
-
:
.
-
.
r
:?
:,
_ .
1:
- -
I
.?'
.
-
,
,'?
.1
-
b h k h
e
- :.
,
.
1.
"
?
":-
-.
I
-
i
-
:1
:
?.
;
-.?
:%I'-
.:?
.?
;?
in
'I -
?
.
2.
_.
'"
'i,
,-_
.
, -71-
1
,:
_?
?
?
.
."
-?:,
-,
%?:_
?
,
,:
.
I _1
_,:?!?-
?:,.
_.,
,.:
?
.,
-
A
.1
-
.,
?.
1 1
?;`
S
:.
:-
?
:?
?,'
.
,-
V,
-?
-
,_
?.
:
:-
'.
?._.I ,_-_-___
:,?
,-
_. '-
,
-.
?,
.i:,;
.a
I
I.,-
A
,.-
T.'
_?
-
?.:-. -
?-
?_
?
t
.,
?_
:.,
I
,:_
:
-
.
-
_1
_
.,
I.
-_
? t, .
i-
?._
_.
1
?-,
':
.1
?
_?;.
?-
-
,.
?
?
.,
.1
.
.,
,
,
?,.
?_
?
.
I.
. I.:
.
.
-
.
_.
':.,
:
?:
*;'
1?,
-
t
.1
.:
.
,
-
.?
_?
-1.
?
,
-
,
.- ,_.7
i
-
-
,
:
-
:
_ _
.:, /
:
1.
,.<
.1 .0
?
.
-
b_
:
:
?
-1
-.
:
-.
-
,.?
?i-
,"-
,
-_
-
.,
-
.
i,
?
Y_
.-
-
?
. .
?,
i?
. .
:,
.:
?_
_
,.
,
-_ .
-,
,
:
?'
?
I
1-
-
_'I
??
?
-
:
1.?
.?
-
A
-1
:
:.
.
:
.?,
.-
.
?.
1,
?
-
I-
_.
,
:
,-
?,
_.
-
:
;
-,
?
i;
I~-
-
,?
,- ?
:
t-
"
1.
.-
-
t'.1
?
_-
,?'g,
-
.-
?-
I-.,
?
,;-
:?,
JU
_?
-_;
i-
:
.1
-
?
?
"
:.I
.
?
.
.
.
7_
?
.
-
.
?,
-
"
;
?.
I ?
.
I-
-.
,._
-!
-
-,
-
`-,
-
L?-, .
,?
-
,
-
:
:
,:
v - I.-
?-
,
:,
?
: ',
.
7_1-
-1,
_-
?
7,
?,
? -
?,
?.
.
I.
: ,-
?, '
,:-.
1,-
,:.
:
:.
'.
.
.
?
10
I.,
.
,
-:
-:,
"
U
.i?
'?
-.
_.
I,
?.
.
,
_.,?
?
-I_,. -.'
I
.
A
I
.,
.?
I~
,
?
I
I-
-
:?
-
I
:_
,
_,.?-
-
.
2
?
.
I-
?
t
,?_.
1.
.
'.
?.
?,.
:,.
:.
:',
1;
-1,
.
.
,
I
-
:.
t:
?
:
?_
I.
_-
,?.
,?
: ?.;
;
-
?-
:1
,?
.:
.
'1-
;-
,
,
:?'
-
F
-
i
?
.
1,
?
-
-,
:1 ? -
_-
.-
?
-
?,
i:
?
?
L.
?_
1
;,%
,
I
1
:
?_
?-
.;
:-
-,
I,-
"
f"
:.
_?:
,1?
.
_.
:
"
:.
- ? . I-
?
-:
?
.,
_
-.1i
,:
L
"
-
',
-_
-
-
'I,
;
?i _
_-
A
_1
!
.:
:
-1,
4-I.
.
.;
.
I.
-
1. -
-
.;?
-,
-,
:.
-
:-
"
i._-:,_?
b-
.:
-
-
?
:-
.1-
:
:
:.1
_?
,:
?-.
:
_V.I
?,'.
-,
?
L
-
-
:
.'
.%:
?,
-,
-,
_-
?
L
?'-
:
?!,;
_
?-;
,_
_'.,
? ,
?
_.?
?-
-
,_
.
?
?
;
.:
?.
.-
':
-1
.:?,
.
I:_
:
.
-
i-
-.v
.:
:?
.:
.:
I.
.1
1
.
I
I.'
:-,.
Galilee. The third and poorest subregion is the Northern LowerGalilee, which extends north of the Beyt Netopah Valleyup to the Beyt Hakerem Valley.This areaconsists mostly of dolomite rocky landscapes, small pieces of land, and only a few water sources. A limited number of sites was found in this region;most were Verysmall and sparsely distributed. Settlement History.Based on this ecological backgroundand the archaeological data gatheredin our survey,we present the following settlement history of the LowerGalilee.
?
.?
. ? . ?I.1.? .- ,I. , I:.1 ?-..?1I,I :.. ,I .?_ I-1 . I:-: , _?.-,?I t.'1I, -S-,. ?1:,.-.-, _.--t ?,.. --I 1 ?-..1 1_ - , I ,1-? S?.I -"I . I --? ?, .- . , ,I- I,.?.-1- ,I, . .,-_?, -: . , - , -, , . , -_.I ,. - 1. -. I- :?,.' - ,.- .?. ,- - ,? ,,_I*i-I- ,..? , -1 .:-".- _. ?.-, _I,1 .? ,_-. I, -??I-.'.-rI, ?1-.". ? ,I -_- I 1.- _?,j. --?. I .1 ?-?. 1,- . . I --. ,? I?,- ,. I-'_-, - - - -?. i'-?.1- , .- ?.- .-,- . -,- , I- ._,- - ?. , ,- , ?--'I.-?_ ? - '- . ?-I1 .,_.I 1.I :-... II. ..? 1. . I-I_I-.. ??I .1?1i.I.I .I.1:?- ?,.1I.. .:.1II. 1-.I.I1 -.?.....-1.I ,II..,I"1.-? I..%I..I.'-?4....?.-.,.I- I.....,I .I ... ,:I..., ? . _ .I'.- - , -.-..I :.v .. ,. ?..?,.?I ..:? ,.-?.1 . I. . ' - -? 1., .-:, . - - ,. i:: -- . - -.? i?TT .- . ;_ ??_ ?. ,-1 -. ,I_?-1 - L ._ ,.1 "-I ? ,.- .- ?I- - , . _-.1 . I, . I . "I ?- _' LI,1 _,. - , . 1, ?_.- ?. 1 , ? ? ? _ . , 1 . , _ . 1 ? , " . I , , ? . . I . I _ _ . I I ? . ? , . ' ? _ ' . . 1 . ' " I , ;,. _ .1. I . .I.I,.1: ? ?... I.I.. ? .I. . ?I . .? . I.. ...? 1 .1. I? :..-?.I .I.1.? I-1 ?. .,- -1:.I ?iI,I. ?I.-1.I.1?,'.II.-I .I.. -1.?.I -,-1.. ..? ,-.. .? -I.'.,I.I.,_,1",?.-1-- I?:-.,?.--.i-:-I-.,I -?,-,.. . , ? ,-I-.?,",-I-,-. ?I-, --? , .t?i,.1 ,`I. -- I .--?, .I%-I1?,.-?- .1?I--?1 _,-..,"-I? .,?-,.I..?"-, ._. , .. ?,? , -II.?,..- ? . ? ?- ? -?. ? . I , - - _ I- . ' ? I . -I 1. - , .1 . -I. 1. I .1 ?.z.I11I 4?-.I,I,-1 ,.- ? -., ,1.? -7. II . ,? ,? I .,-1, -?I- 1 .- ,?, --..I ,I?? -.:-- .. . -I,,-? ?. -- . .,?,i -. ? . ?. 1? -.,? I .,.--,I ?.-, , ,?I .1t-.I,..1 . ?. ?,. .-11,?.. I _I,. -i I,-1 ?-. II.-.:- ?, .. I' -- 1,, - ? "i 1I'..--, .-? -I ,.?_I .-_. .. ? I1 .I1I 1?.I I .. .1I -. ,-.1 I.1.I ?.I?:?.II-- ..II- ?1.I .1.?I-I I.' ?-1.,.?.I - .? I-1 ?.-. II.:'. . :.II.1 ? ...1_I, ..?I .I??- : . ?,-I?1, .:I.-I. , ?..-I' .,,-I. iI c?.IL1 -.,.iti-? I-,..1--_.1,. ?-?1.I,. ,i ",.?- .-, :.I. ?'?- ,-I..1 --I1,.; . --- ., . -? . .1 . , I . 1. . . ? . :I 1. I ' .I.- I-.1.I 1 .? ?I- '. 1I-.. I ,.17.- . . ,:I. I._ ,I?I . :. .?. .. II ., 1 m.I".,? L,.I-1?-i. .I? -. I 1. ..?I .. 1 . ?.?1:.I . ?I-. I I .. . .1 ?I . . I ?. . 14 . ? .I. 1 ..I ?.- I , :1 I .1.? ..- . .?1. I .?I, .,. ,_.- . I ? ,-,-. : ?.-. ,. --.:-,4.-_, ,-.iI1- ,? - ., ?__ ? --? .,I-? -. . ?- I ?I-,. I ? 1:, -%,"i.I- - 1.-I ,. I '%,t. , . . - . ?I 1 . . 1 , , .11. .1 - .?I .? ...I-I. -I1... III..., .I.?..1 I.I .? .I. ?-. .I-?.1, 1,..,.-.?, .-.?. . ,-.?- . 1.-- ?.1?,- . ._,i-,1.. I -,-:... - ?. "I :I..,,-?IT:..?,-I ?-i-" 1...--?I?, ;-I?j.1i.-,1I.? ?I,?.7i-.-1 -7.?T.1 ,'--"?, ?-_._I 1?-.-I' _,I".-1,-?I_I."1.-?- ?I-.?,_"-._-_I1 -,,I,?? . ? r--,.., i? ---.1I .-1.?I V.--,'"?., I.,- -. . i : . . I . 7 . I ? . ?. , i! i 1 Ii? . _ . z .1? 1 - ? . L ?.1 .,' ? ,-.:-w,. I-i?1 , .,, . .I? .., .-. ,II:??:,.11.'_?I . .1I1.I ..,I,?_.- .I ? '..I.? ?I, ? ..." ...?,:I .1 .?,? .it1I.I-,. .?-?--,.I.I I .1 . . I ? , I , .1 _ , I . . I. , .
:?
-
.
:
Lower
.
,'
I
I.
. I.
Subregion III-Northern
,
.
- .
.
.
-.
Tabor,away from the basalt plateaus but close to the water source.
-
.'
:
.
?
:.
_-,
"
Early Bronze 11(2850 to 2650 B.C.E.).As in other areas, the Early
BronzeAge was characterizedby the establishment of largefortified cities, which are well representedin the first subregion. There we found a
chainof five sites alongNahalSip-
pori and the Beyt Netopah Valleybut hardly any ruralsites. Thus, the settlement pattern of this period consisted primarily of major,urban, fortified centers. In the second subregion, however,we found, along with the central city at Tel Reke",a fortified camp that probablyserved as a gathering areafor cattle; cattle raising was a major economic component in the region (Gal 1988a).
Settlement Patternsin the Lower Galilee ArchaeologicalPeriods EarlyBronzeI-II Middle BronzeII LateBronzeI-II Iron I
IronII Iron III
Persian
Southern LowerGalilee 13 14 3
Eastern LowerGalilee 8 11 3+(3?)
Northern LowerGalilee 5 3 0
15
3
5
33
14
10
0
0
0
25
2
4
Note:IronAgedatesarebasedon a new chronologysuggestedbythe author.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
89
Middle Bronze II (2000 to 1500
It is evident from the survey that most of the LowerGalilee was abanthis doned during this period with settleera a during multitype pattern of settlement developedin the first ments at only three or four major and second subregions.This pattern sites. In light of the environmental consisted of a settlement hierarchy characteristics of the Nazareth Hills made up of severalfortified cities and their vicinity, it seems that the for example, Tel Hannathon, Tel Canaanite settlers of both the Early Gath Hepher,and Tel Reke' -with Bronze II and the Middle BronzeII a hinterland of villages, such as Tel were confronted with this region's oak forests; thus, deforestation of and small rural Vavit, sites, very of them near the small many springs certain areas was a precondition for in the Nazareth Hills. any extensive settlement. Following LateBronze (1550 to 1200 B.C.E.). the poor occupation of the Late B.C.E.).Our survey indicates that
BronzeAge (Gal 1988b),during which time the forest reneweditself,2 this factorbecame very significant on the eve of the Israelite settlement in the second half of the thirteenth century B.C.E.Therefore,when new settlements were established during the Iron Age, another phase of deforestation was carriedout. Iron 1(1200 to 1000 B.C.E.). Known as the "settlement period," Iron I was characterizedby small ruralsites and a new and different pattern of settlements clustered
The main archaeologicalsites in the LowerGalilee and partial boundarylines of the four Israelite tribes that settled there.
e
~M yRnor~nu
hirbet
-lo Khre~uuAwerug
a,0
,,vt
ador
o an nas
mAHi E ulEBroze
Iddi4(ironzeGIh
Np teBronze IT I-
4
n
90
Megiddo
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
primarily in the Nazareth Hills. These sites apparentlymade up the core of the settlement of the tribe of Zebulun. Of the three other tribes that later occupied the LowerGalilee, Asher's first settlements were found north of the region under discussion (Finkelstein 1987:97), and some of Naphtali's sites were discoveredin the Yabne'elValley (Gal 1983:37, 90). Evidence gatheredin our survey demonstratesthe absence of "Israelite settlement sites"in the Eastern LowerGalilee, which was apparently the core of Issachar'sinheritance. We suggest, therefore,that Issachar did not settle its territoryprior to the period of the United Kingdom in the tenth century B.C.E.(Gal 1982: 83),
contraryto a long-standingtheory of settlement in the fourteenth cen-
A
New
Chronology
B.C.E.).Beginning with the tenth century B.C.E.,the period of the
United Kingdom,this era initiated changes in the settlement pattern in the LowerGalilee with the development of the first Israelite cities and their satellites. Fifteen new fortified cities were founded, some in places that had never been occupied. In addition, more than two dozen rural sites were revealedin the survey. Historically, this is the period of the kingdoms, including the united and divided monarchies, and these dates have great archaeological significance. An analysis of pottery from Iron II sites indicates that two majorbreaks occurredduring this period in the LowerGalilee. The first break, which took place in the middle of the ninth century, is demonstrated by the destruction of more than half the sites, among them Tel Mador (Gal 1985: 122) and Khirbet Roi Zayit. The possible historical source for this destruction is either Aramean attacks on Israel's northern border (1 Kings 20:1-34, 22:1-40) or, more likely, the 842-B.C.E. campaign of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. The second break fol-
the
Iron
Age
Several dating systems havebeen suggestedfor the IronAge. In his chronology, William F Albright (1954: 112)referredmostly to biblical-historical dates, namely the division of the United Kingdomafter the death of Solomon and the destruction of the first temple. In their chronology,YohananAharoni and Ruth Amiran (1958)delineated the so-called settlement period, but their subdivision of IronIIfollowed historical considerations.Another widely used classification, published in the Encyclopediaof Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Avi-Yonah1976),is highly schematic, and its reasoningcan be difficult to follow. In light of changes in settlement patternsthat took place duringthe IronAge in the LowerGalilee, I am suggesting a new subdivision of this period. The main reason for this subdivision is that the Assyrian destruction of 733 B.C.E. brought the IronAge settlement in this areato an end and resultedin an occupational gap. The destruction in Samariain 722 B.C.E. markeda majorsettlement breaksimilar to the case of Sennacherib'sdestruction of Judahin 701 B.C.E.Hence, the end of IronAge IIhas differentdates in differentregions.Consequently, the last phase of the IronAge is of a different nature and pattern of settlement and should, therefore, be designated as a separateperiod, namely Iron III. The following chartcomparesmy datingsystem, which relies, in essence, on archaeological-settlementdata, with those previously published.
tury B.C.E.during the Amarna period
(forexample, Aharoni 1979: 192). Iron II (1000 to 733/722/701
of
Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Aharoniand Excavationsin Archaeological Periods Albright Amiran the HolyLand IronI Iron II Iron IIa Iron IIb IronIIc Iron III
1200 to 925 1200 to 1000 925 to 586 1000 to 840
550 to 330
840 to 586
lowed the 733/732-B.C.E. campaign of
the AAsyrianking Tiglath-pileserIII, who, accordingto his annals, conquered the LowerGalilee and deported the vast majority of its population, resulting in the end of the new settlement pattern mentioned above.Our survey confirmed this deportation by evidence that the vast majority of sites had been destroyedby the end of the eighth century B.C.E. Iron III (733 to 586 B.C.E.).Our
survey revealedthat the LowerGalilee was almost entirely abandoned during the seventh century through the mid-sixth century B.C.E0.
Persian (586 to 332 B.C.E.).Many
new villages were established during this period, most of them at sites that had never been settled. These were primarily rural sites, which
1200 to 1000 1000 to 586 1000 to 900 900 to 800 800 to 586
Gal 1200 to 1000 1000 to 733/722/701
733/722/701 to 586
created a different and new settlement pattern that forwardedthe occupation of the HellenisticRoman era. The Galilean Tkibes In our survey of the LowerGalilee, we not only studied regional settlement patterns, we also examined some of the historical-geographical documents related to the area- first and foremost biblical references to the boundaries of the tribes of Israel. The Book of Joshuacontains detailed descriptions of the boundaries of the tribes. Chapter 19 contains descriptions of the inheritances of the four tribes that settled in the LowerGalilee-Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Issachar.It seems that the biblical author was familiar with the geographyand the topographyof the
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
91
region, as specific terms relating to the regional topographicalcharacteristics are used. Forexample, the western side of Zebulun'ssouthern borderends, as stated in the following, at: ". .. the brook which is east of Jokneam"(Joshua19:11;Revised StandardVersion),which undoubtedly refersto the Kishon River. The biblical descriptions consist of the names of settlements, sites, wadies, summits, and valleys, many of which have been preservedand can be identified. All are major sources for studying the historical geographyof the biblical period. The more we study the boundarylines, the more it is clear that they follow the basic topographicaland ecological bordersof the Galilee, in particular, and the Landof Israel, in general. Each inheritance is describedby boundaries to which a list of city names is added.Yearsago it was suggested that these two sources reflected two differentperiods in the history of the Israelite kingdom. Data gatheredin the archaeological survey show that the only way to outline the boundaries of the tribes is by studying both the borderdescriptions and the lists of cities, which reflect the period of the United Kingdom in the tenth cenOf particularinterest tury B.C.E. here, in light of the findings of our survey,is the geographicalrelationship between Zebulun'swestern borderand Asher's eastern border and the possible identification of KhirbetRo' Zayit as biblical Cabul. The BoundaryBetween Zebulun and Asher. Of the four tribes that occupied the LowerGalilee, the inheritance of Zebulun has the most detailed description (Joshua19:10-16). Following this source, it is generally accepted that Zebulun settled in the Southern LowerGalilee, namely Nazareth and the Alonim Hills as well as the Beyt Netopah Valley (for example, Kallai 1967: 155-67; Aharoni 1970:plate 72, 1979:257-58). Although Zebulun'ssouthern boundaryis well identified, the exact
92
locations of its northern and western boundaries are unclear. The key to understandingthese lines lies in Joshua 19:14:"thenon the north the boundary turns about to Hannathon, and it ends at the valley of Iphtahel" (RevisedStandardVersion).Since the identification of Tel Hannathon with Tell el-Badawiyahon the western fringes of the Beyt Netopah Valley is generally accepted (forexample, Na'aman 1986: 134-43), it seems that the northern boundary of Zebulun ran along the southern cliffs of YotbatRidge and the fringes of Beyt Netopah Valley.Accordingto the environmental conditions, pattern of settlement, and the material culture studied in our survey,this contour was a major settlement-cultural boundarywithin the LowerGalilee throughout ancient history. It would follow that the boundaryended in the valley of Iphtahel, which traditionally has been identified with Nahal Sipporibecause of its prominent topographicalnature (Aharoni
1970:plate 72). However,the lack of IronAge sites along Nahal Sippori and the discovery of IronAge II fortified cities in Nahal 'Eblayim,west of Tel Hannathon, shed new light on the biblical description, which, at this point, correspondsto Cabul as well. Because of its nature as an ecological boundary similar to the Yotbatcliffs, and supportedby Iron Age sites, our survey suggests that Nahal'Eblayim was the Valley of Iphtahel. This location of the Valley of Iphtahel, which is also mentioned in the description of the territory of Asher (Joshua19:24-31),helps us determine the eastern boundaryof this tribe. Startingat Helkath (Tel cAmar)on the southwest fringe of the cAkko Plain (Gal 1985: 124, note 8), this boundarypassed eastwardto Zebulun and north along the western side of the Alonim Hills. Then, accordingto the Septuagintversion of Joshua 19:27,it passed through the cities of Zephath and Beth-emek,
The boundaryline between the tribes of Asher and Zebulun and the location of KhirbetRo' Zayit, possibly to be identified as biblical Cabul.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Kei7Y
El
'77?:ER?
thetS
o_6
W94;
e
Beth d.
A
.
....y.i.
elkath i
aVT
which should be identified with two sites along Nahal 'Eblayim:Tel Madorand KhirbetAbu Mudawer Tamra,respectively (Gal 1985: 125). This section of Asher'sboundary ends in Neiel (KhirbetYacnin)to the north of Cabul, whose name is well preservedin the Arabvillage of Kabul, located 15 kilometers (about 9 miles) east of cAkko. KhirbetRo` Zayit - Biblical Cabul? Severaltimes during our survey we visited Kabul,knowing that previous scholars had found no archaeological evidence of an Iron Age occupation there (forexample, Saarisalo 1929: 40). After examining all possible areas within the village, including cultivated gardensand ditches dug into the ground, we came to the same conclusion: Kabulwas not settled priorto the Hellenistic period (fourththrough the mid-first century B.C.E.). Alternatively, we were attractedby KhirbetRo' Zayit, located 1.5 kilometers (abouta mile) north of Kabul. The Site. KhirbetRo' Zayit is situated on a small summit 150 meters (about492 feet) abovesea level, within the low hills spreadalong the western hillside of the LowerGalilee. These hills are an intermediate zone between the fertile plain of cAkko and the summits of the Lower Galilee. Evidence from the survey showed that KhirbetRo' Zayit was occupied from the twelfth through the ninth century B.C.E. We were able to determine various components of this stage. A stone structure 3 meters tall occupies the center of the site, and aroundit areseveralruinedbuildings as well as agricultural installations. A stone terrace, which might have been an enclosed wall or a fortification, can be seen along the circumference of the site. The proximity of Khirbet Rol Zayit to modern-day Kabul raised the possibility that this site may be biblical Cabul. Therefore, we selected Khirbet RoS Zayit as an excavation site during the second phase of our regional project.
ii,?
Y B? :sr
NN
Excavationsat KhirbetRo' Zayit revealed that the central structureof the site was a 25 by 25 meter (82 by 82 feet) fortressfortified on the west by a wall 2 meters (about 6 feet) thick. The western fortification, pictured above, was built of
unhewnstones;it has beenpreservedup to 3 meters(about10feethigh).As can be seenin theabovesiteplan,withinthefortresswasa singlebuildingwith walls builtof undressedstonesandcornersandpiersmadeof ashlarmasonryin theheadersandstreacherstechnique,an indicationof thestructure's possible royalfunction.Themainbuildingconsistedof a centralhall with roomsaround
it, resemblingAssyrian buildings typical of the period. Notice the blocked up entrance at the northwest cornerof the main building- an attempt by the inhabitants to protect themselves against attack-and, under the southwestern
room,thecellarwheremanystoragejarswerefound.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
93
4~
4L am
v
.0
'VW
ioN. c4
?// K
The Excavations.Fourseasons of excavations have providedus with information regardingthe nature of the central structure of the site. This structure was a 25 by 25 meter (82 by 82 feet) fortress fortified by a wall 2 meters (about6 feet) thick. The wall, built out of unhewn stones, has been preservedup to 3 meters (about 10 feet high). Within the fortresswas a single building with walls built of undressed stones and corners and piers made of ashlar masonry in the headers and streachers technique. This type of architecture - an unexpected find at this small site -was the first indication of its royalfunction. The main building consisted of a central hall with rooms aroundit, resembling Assyrian buildings typical of the period. Accordingto the accumulation of debris, the building was two stories high, and the upper story collapsed onto the space of the lower one when the site was destroyed. More than 300 storagejars, accounting for about 50 percent of all vessels uncoveredat the site, were found in the fortress.Under the southwestern room of the main building was a 2 by 3 meter (roughly 61/2 by 10 feet) basement where more More than three dozen jars were found in the storagecellar, underneath the southwestern room of the main building of the fortress, pictured above left. Many clay stoppersalso were found here, some of them still resting on the mouths of their respective jars,as can be seen on the mouth of the pot to the far right in the photo at left. One of the clay stoppersbearsa seal impression with the geometric design representedabove.
94
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
?,, ,1 c~~i?f ~\? ~Lt~i
i r
Storagejarsfound in the cellar at KhirbetRo? Zayit are pictured at right. One type was full of carbonized wheat; another contained sediment of what seems to be wine; and the third type contained soot, which originated from the burningof olive oil. This representation of a potteryfragment,below center, with
r z. t
rfr ?'
z
jQ
???,
,c~W
I
a ~?~-~;??
r
I
a
rr-
'?
~Llad f.. rrrr.-
~~'
3
I
I
or "wine of Hemar." H.emar
than three dozen storagejarswere found. Many clay stopperswere discoveredin this cellar, some of them still resting on the mouths of their respective jars;one stopperbears a seal impression with a geometric design. Three basic types of jars were found in the cellar. One jarof the first type was full of carbonized wheat; several jarsof the second type contained sediment of what seems to be wine; and jarsof the third type contained soot, which originatedfrom the burning of olive oil. Apparentlythese were the main crops stored in the fortress.The average volume of the jarsis about 25 liters (between 5/2 and 6'/2 gallons); one type holds 23 liters, which is one bat, a biblical volume unit. Hence, the fortress could store a few thousand liters of agriculturalcrops. The debris revealedother finds as well, including remarkablequantities of Phoenician pottery.This pottery includes Black on Redbowls and juglets, which have an orange slip and are decoratedwith symmetric and concentric circles; Red or "Achzib" Slip Ware("Samaria" which is delicate and perfectWare), and Bichrome ly burnished; Ware, which is decoratedwith colorful patterns. In addition, we found many iron tools, among them axes, sickles, ploughs (one weighing 3 kilograms, or about 6'2 pounds), and even a saw 75 centimeters (about2/2 feet) long. The amount of iron in these tools
':4~Gtc:?; .?e -~ljs
,?
the inscription "... n h m r"may be trans-
lated as [Yey]n
-r ?='
?r??? ,,
?~. r
''
4
:?
I ''
..... ; .-.r ,? ,,1?-3 ii~t::c
'"~
Z(:
rr;
~? r~
t
-.
^r? ?:-
..
,,I r.
~ft~
?i-?'-Y ''
r
.?1.1 " ~:~?~c~ 4 .7~Yr,
i ,.?
:W
r
r
6?
'
Remarkablequantities of Phoenician pottery were uncoveredat the site, among them these Black on Red juglets.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
95
Thefortressat Khirbet Ro'Zayitapparently functioned as a royalPhoenician stronghold. totals more than 20 kilograms, or 44 pounds. Twoprobes were used to excavate both the southwest and northwest towers of the fortification. It is evident from both probes that there is an earlier stratigraphicalphase in the fortress.Finds in the northwest tower included storagejars,Phoenician bowls and juglets, a jardecoratedwith the palm tree motif, and a rarecult vessel called a kernos- all of which indicate that the earlier fortresspresumably contained some kind of a cult room. The fortress was attacked by an enemy and destroyedby a conflagration that left its clues everywhere. Probablythe burning of olive oil created temperaturesthat were high enough to fire the limestone masonry,which then became a layer of chalk that sealed, and thereforepreserved, the iron tools and other objects. In an attempt to defend themselves, the inhabitants blocked up the entrance at the northwest corner of the main building with a wall. In the ashes near that wall we found a cluster of iron arrowheads,which the defendersprobablyused. An analysis of the pottery shows that the fortress was destroyed aroundthe middle of the ninth century B.C.E.This dating is based, among other considerations, on the presence of Red Slip ("Samaria") Ware,on the one hand, and the complete absence of torpedo jarsand mushroom rim jugs on the other; the first is typical of pottery assemblages dating no earlier than the late tenth centuryB.C.E., whereas the other is typical of assemblages dating to the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. (Gal 1988-1989: 59-62). Therefore,the earlier phase dates to Among the finds in the northwest tower of the fortification were: top, a geomorphicjug in the the end of the tenth century B.C.E., shape of a four-leggedanimal; center,a jar decorated with the symbolic palm tree motif; and, bottom, this rarecult vessel, a kernos,in the shape of a ring. These finds indicate that the which means the fortress lasted for earlierfortresspresumably contained some kind of a cult room. one century at most.
96
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Conclusion Takinginto consideration the royal architecture, the storage of large quantities of goods, and the abundance of Phoenician pottery, it appears that the fortress functioned as a stronghold of a Phoenician royal administrative system in the vicinity of the cAkko Plain. Moreover,the proximity of KhirbetRo' Zayit to modern-dayKibul allows us to suggest that it be identified with biblical Cabul, one of the sites along Asher's eastern boundary.However, Cabul is also mentioned in 1 Kings 9:10-13, where it is written that King Solomon gaveKing Hiram of Tyre20 cities in the Galilee as a tribute for his support in building the temple and the palace in Jerusalem. It is said that the Phoenician king did not like the area and therefore named it "theland of Cabul." This narrativeobviously contains the historical backgroundof the political changes taking place in the vicinity of Cabul when it became a Phoenician territory. According to various digs, especially at nearbyTel Keisan, it is clear that the cAkko Plain was under Phoenician cultural influence even before the time of Solomon and Hiram? Yet, it seems that Hiram was the first to implement a Phoenician royaladministration over this region, as has been provenby the KhirbetRo' Zayit excavations. Hence, one can assume that the northern and central parts of the cAkko Plain were probably"the Landof Cabul." The fort of Cabul, like many other sites in the Lower Galilee, was destroyed in the middle of the ninth century B.C.E. (Gal 1988-1989: 64). It is possible that this destruction was caused by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III, who, during his 842B.C.E.campaign, crossed the Lower Galilee before reaching Mount Bacal Rasi on the Phoenician coast. Khirbet Rol Zayit, like other sites in the region, did not recover from Shalmaneser's campaign, and the rest of the
LowerGalilee was completely destroyedby a later Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser III,during his campaign in 733/732
B.C.E.
Notes 'Thesurveywascarriedout on behalfof the IsraelArchaeological Survey (1974-1983)and The Society ForProtec-
tion of Nature(1974-1977).I wasdirector of the survey.MystaffincludedValter Kulmann,GadLandaw, Yotbat, Yacaqob AvitalTabori,andstudentsof the Department of the Landof IsraelStudiesat the Universityof Haifa. 2Botanical researchshowsthata forestcanrenewitselfwithin 25 to 30 years(Rabinowitz1986:235-37). 3Inlightof changesin settlement patternsthattookplacein the Lower Galileeduringthe IronAge,I am suggestinga new divisionof this period. Seethe accompanying sidebarfora descriptionofmychronologyanda comparison of the IronAgechronologiesof otherscholars. 4The excavationsat KhirbetRo' Zayitweresponsoredby the Institute of Archaeologyat the Universityof Haifawith the collaborationof The NelsonGlueckSchoolof Biblical HebrewUnionCollege, Archaeology, and Jerusalem, with the supportof the MisgavRegionalCouncil.Thefirsttwo seasonswerecarriedout in 1983-1984, the thirdandfourthseasonsin 1988-1989. sStrata10-9 of TelKeisan(Briend andHumbert1980:plates57-80),which dateto the late thirteenththroughthe eleventh century B.C.E., show coastal
Phoenicianculturalinfluencein their materialculture.
Bibliography Aharoni,Y. 1970 Carta'sAtlas of the Bible. Jerusalem: Carta. 1979 The Land of the Bible, A Historical Geography,translatedfrom the Hebrew and edited by A. E Rainey. Philadelphia:WestminsterPress. Aharoni,Y.,and Amiran,R. 1958 A New Scheme for the Subdivision of the IronAge. Israel Exploration Journal8: 171-84.
Albright,W.E 1954 The Archaeologyof Palestine. Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks. Avi-Yonah,M., editor 1976 Encyclopediaof Archaeological Excavationsin the Holy Land, volume 2 (Englishedition). Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety and MassadaPress. Briend,J.,and Humbert, J.M. 1980 TelKeisan (1971-1976).Paris: tditions Universitaires. Finkelstein, I. 1987 The Archaeologyof the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem:Israel ExplorationSociety. Gal, Z. 1980 Ramat Issachar,Ancient Settlement in a PeripheralRegion (Hebrew with English summary).Tel Aviv: Ha-KibbutzHa-Meuhad. 1982 The settlement of Issachar- Some New Observations.TelAviv 6: 79-86 1983 The IronAge in the LowerGalilee. Ph.D. dissertation (Hebrewwith English summary).Tel Aviv:Tel Aviv University. 1985 Cabul, Jiphtaheland the Boundary between Zebulun and Asher in the Light of ArchaeologicalEvidence. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PaliastinaVereins101(2):114-27. 1988a H. Shalal Tahtitand the "Early Enclosures."Israel Exploration Journal38: 1-5. 1988b The LateBronzeAge in Galilee: A Reassessment. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research272: 79-84. 1988- The LowerGalilee in the IronAge II: 1989 Analysis of SurveyMaterialand its Historical Interpretation.TelAviv 15-16: 56-64. Kallai,Z. 1967 The Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes.Jerusalem:Bialik (Hebrew). Na'aman,N. 1986 Bordersand Districts in Biblical Historiography,Seven Studies in Biblical GeographicalLists. Jerusalem: Simor. Rabinowitz,A. 1986 Rock-formation,Soil and Vegetation in Galilee. Tel Aviv:Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Meuhad(Hebrew). Saarisalo,A. 1929 TopographicalResearchesin Galilee. Journalof Palestine Oriental Society 9: 27-40.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
97
BA
Guidke
to A1rtifacts
by
wools in the fabrication of priestly vestments and tabernacle awnings; chapter 4 of the Book of Numbers describes their use for covering sacred vessels when being transported from the sanctuary.EveryJewwas requiredto attach blue-purplecords to the tassels on his four-cornered garments (Numbers 15:38).This observance was abandonedin the
Seashells and ncient Purple Dyeing I. Irving Ziderman
seventh century C.E.,when the
purple dyeing industry collapsed during the Arab conquest of the Levantwith the destruction of Tyre in 638 and the Jewish exile from the Golan Heights. Thereafterpurple dyes were producedsporadically in a few Byzantine centers until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 C.E.,when
kermes, and blue-purpleused in the mong the most precious construction of the first temple (see treasures of antiquity 2 Chronicles, chapter 2). were the purple textiles The first written records of Phoenithe producedby cians along the Mediterranean purple dyeing, from Nuzi, Mesopobasin. Ranking in value with gold, tamia, are about 3,500 years old, these purple cloths were very impor- followed by texts in Hebrew (the Book of Exodus,3,300 years old), tant in international trade and tribute as well as for the adornment of Ugaritic (3,000 years old), Akkadian and sanctuaries (2,700 years old), Greek, and Latin. sovereigns (Born evidence of purple Franklin Forbes 1984; Archaeological 1964; 1937; to dates seventeenth-centurydyeing Jensen 1963). B.C.E. Crete. Bandeddye-murex It was probablypartially as a result of the quest for new sources of shells found in 1903 in association with pre-Phoenicianartifacts on purple dye that the Phoenicians deLeuke (modern-dayKonfonision),a established and navies their veloped colonies at so many sites aroundthe small island southeast of Crete, constitute the earliest evidence for a Mediterraneanlittoral. Punic, the Latin designation of "purple-colored" purple dyeing works that is more andof the dialect of ancient Carthage, than 3,700 years old. The Phoenicians producedtwo derives from "Phoenician"(compare distinct purple products, a blueNumbers 26:23; see Astour 1965). The Phoenicians called themselves purple, hyacinth, and a red-purple, Tyrianpurple;both are often referred Canaanites, and their territorywas to in the Bible where they are respecpart of Canaan, so there are ample references to them in the Bible. They tively called, in Hebrew,tekelet and These two dyed wools are organizedthemselves into city-states 'arginmuin. mentioned many times in Exodus and are designated in the Bible accordingly as Tyrians,Sidonians, and (chapters25-40), together with another colored wool called tOlacat so on (compareGenesis 10:15-19). Purple dyeing became a majorsource shini in Hebrew;this was made of economic prosperity in these city- with kermes, a red insect that lives on certain species of oak.' The Book states. In fact, it was King Hiram of Exodusprescribes the use of blueof Solomon who King provided Tyre with a craftsmanexpert in red-purple, purple, red-purple,and crimson
98
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
the craft ceased to be practiced in the Mediterraneanbasin.
The ManufacturingProcess Ancient purple dyes were made from certain shellfish that were gathered from the shallow seafloor near the Mediterraneancoast. Colorless dye precursorsare present in the hypobranchial gland, which was removed from fresh snails and then used to dye wool by exposure to sunlight and air so as to develop the purple artifact. Small shells were crushed and processed in toto. The importance of sunlight in this process is mentioned by the ancient authors. A major source for details of the ancient dyeing techniques is Pliny's Natural History, in which we read as follows: The vein already mentioned is then extracted and about a sextarius [approximately7 pounds] of salt added to each hundred pounds of material. It should be soaked for three days, for the fresher the extract, the more powerful the dye, then boiled in a leaden vessel. Next, five hundred pounds of dye-stuff, diluted with an amphora [about 8 gallons] of water, are subject to an even and moderate heat by placing the vessels in a flue communicating with a distant fur-
nace. Meanwhile the flesh which necessarily adheres to the veins is skimmed off, and a test is made about the tenth day by steeping a well-washed fleece in the liquefied contents of one of the vessels. The liquid is then heated till the colour answers to expectations. A frankly red colour is inferior to one with a tinge of black. The wool drinks in the dye for five hours and, after carding,is dipped again and again until all the colour is absorbed(Book9, paragraphs 133 and 134, as translated by K. C. Bailey, 1929:29; see Baker 1974;for a slightly different translation, see Rackham 1967:
252-55). The Shells The primary artifacts that mark purple dyeing locations are the shells left behind by the dyers. An enormous mound of Phoenician banded dyemurex shells was found near Sidon in 1864. This mound of shells, all broken abovethe chromogenic gland, revealedthe species from which bluepurple was manufactured.Nearby, but carefully separatedfrom this mound, was a second pile containing shells of only two other species, spiny dye-murexand the rock shell or oyster drill, Thais haemastoma. Here was a striking indication of a
separatedyeing site whereby the two species in the second mound served for dyeing red-purple. Bandeddye-murex (Phyllonotus (Murex)trunculus) lives in shallow shore waters aroundthe Mediterranean Sea at depths from 1.5 to at least 12 meters (around5 to 39 feet) on rocky bottoms or coarse sand coveredwith pebbles. The shell has blunt spikes arrangedin a spiral band and a broadchanneled beak. It is interesting to note that purple dye can be made in the absence of light from banded dye-murex (fromno other species, however),but the hue obtained may differ from that formed in sunlight. These shells have been caught in modern times, just as they were in antiquity, by lowering mussel-baited wicker baskets into the depths. The second predominant species of purple shell, spiny dye-murex (Bolinus (Murex)brandaris),occupies a sandy, silty, or muddy habitat at considerable depths (10 to 150 meters, around33 to 492 feet) off the Mediterraneancoast. The shells of this species are characterizedby an elongated beak and prickly spikes. The antique deposit at Tyreis exclusively spiny dye-murex;accordingly, the red-purplemanufacturedthere was the extolled Tyrianpurple. The two species just described are among those referredto by Pliny
as types of pelagia (sea purples)or murex. Spiny dye-murex is probably or his "meltingPliny's "mud-purple" purple,"the latter designated by him as the best source for dye, whereas banded dye-murexis probablythe that he states is "pebble-purple" remarkablysuitable for dyeing. Dyeings made solely with sea purples are called conchylia by Pliny. Thais haemastoma dwells on rocks in waters less than 150 centimeters (or 5 feet) deep, both in the MediterraneanSea and, more widely, on the Atlantic coasts of Africa; thus, it is particularly accessible, although less abundant than the other species. Its shells are round in shape, and it is recognizable by the striking red coloration within the large shell orifice that has a characteristically serratedouter edge. We identify this rock shell as Pliny's "trumpet-shell" (buccinum) that did not yield a fast dye alone and was therefore used in admixture with murex species (pelagia)for purpurasdyeings. At some locations, a particular species might predominate and thereby determine the type of purple dye made locally, for example, bluepurple at Sidon and Sareptaand redpurple at Tyre.By defining the species of shells found in an excavation, the archaeologist can ascertain whether blue- or red-purplewas made locally. Before a firm conclusion can be
The shell pictured at left is banded dye-murex (Phyllonotustrunculus), the species used to manufactureblue-purple(hyacinthin English, t'kelet in Hebrew).This shell has blunt spikes arrangedin a spiral band and a broadchanneled beak. Picturedat right is a fragmentof the same species with the spire brokenoff to permit excision of the chromogenicgland.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
99
reached, however,it is necessary to provide supplementary evidence that the shells were in fact used in dyeing rather than for some other purpose, such as lime production as at Berenice. In Adriatic fish markets, purple snails are sold today as a culinary delicacy, so the archaeologist who finds a dye-murexdeposit cannot exclude the possibility that what has been uncovered are merely kitchen middens. Because murex are cooked whole and the snail is removed without breaking the shell in preparationfor human consumption, a deposit of broken or crushed shells indicates a dyeing site. D. S. Reese (1979-1980) has emphasized that analysis of beach- and water-wearallows for a determination of whether the shell was collected alive, necessary for food and purple dyeing, or dead, for ornamentation or possibly secondary use in lime production, pottery temper, or construction fill. Other Artifacts Related to Purple Dyeing In addition to shells there are three other archaeological artifacts connected with purple dyeing: dyeing installations, colored potsherds, and dyed textiles. The assignment of industrial installations to dyeing has been the subject of dispute (see Horn 1968;Pritchard 1978). Purple dyeing techniques were
100
with red-purpleare from thirteenthcentury-B.c.E.Sarepta(McGovern " and Michel 1984). Since the malacological and chemical natures of blue-purple H H have only recently been elucidated, The chemical formula of purpledyestuffs. investigatorshave hitherto been The molecule depicted is composed of atoms unable to study its possible occurand carbon of (C),hydrogen(H),nitrogen(N), oxygen (0) that are linked by chemical bonds rence in archaeological artifacts. (- and =). Substituting hydrogen for each X Moreover,the meager chemical eviin the above chemical structureyields the dence that was available could not in important dye compound indigotin (found the archaic vegetable dyes woad and indigo). be attributed to the presence of bluewhereas a bromine substitution for X gives We can now ascertain, how6.6'-dibromoindigotin,the brominatedindigo- purple. ever, that a woolen specimen from tin that is the principal colorant of 7)rian purple, the red-purple'argamanof the Bible. Palmyra,some 1,700 years old, is The banded dye-murexproduces a mixture of with true blue-purple(Pfister dyed both of these dyestuffs, forming the blue1937: the Bible. 23). Furthermore,a seventhpurple tke-let of century-c.E.woolen weave from cEn probablyclosely guardedsecrets of Boqeq near the Dead Sea is also Phoenician commercial dyers who pigmented with this elusive dye handed them down discreetly to (Sheffer 1987), as are two textile fragtheir successors. The authentic ments from first-century-B.C.E. Enkomi on Cyprus (Daniels 1985) product was so valuable and in such great demand that a plethora of imi- and one from third-century-c.E. tation purples of inferior quality Roman Britain (Walton 1986).Acwere faked by ancient artisans. Becordingly,it is now possible to corcause of this phenomenon, purple roboratethe previous assignment of colored potsherds and textiles must purple wool from the Bar-Kokhba be subjected to chemical analysis These three species of marine shells were before they can be designated as used by the ancient Phoenicians in manugenuine shell-purple?Chemical facturingpurple dyes. They are, left to right, banded dye-murex(Phyllonotustrunculus), analysis has identified true redused for making blue-purple,and spiny purple in many archaeological dyedye-murex(Bolinus brandaris)and the rock ings and ceramics and in particular shell Thais haemastoma, both used for abundance from fourth-century-c.E. making red-purple.The Thais shell bears tomb textiles at Palmyra(Pfister signs of water wear and the encrustations of other creatures. 1937).The earliest sherds encrusted H
BiblicalArchaeologist,June1990
CH
period found in the Judean Cave of Letters, dated 135 c.E., as being an authentic imitation of blue-purple that was intended for use as the colored cord of Jewish ritual corner tassels (Yadin 1963: 182-87). Purple dyeing was a singular feature of ancient and classical culture. It has repeatedly kindled the imaginations of modern scholars in the quest to fathom its origin and techniques. Scientific research into the chemistry of dyeing with murex has helped solve the enigma (Ziderman 1981, 1982, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1988a, 1988b). So much for the Old World. American archaeologists have discovered red-purple at many preColumbian locations. But, then, that's another story.
Notes 'In most English bibles based on the King Jamesversion, these three dyes are translated,respectively,"blue,""purple," and "scarlet."T61lacatshIni, usually rendered"scarlet,"is translatedby some as "crimson";both words originally designateda bluish shade of red that we now call crimson. Modem usage of "scarlet"for a red of orange tone originated in the seventeenth century with the introduction of stannous chloride as a new mordant for dyeing wool with American cochineal (Gerber1978: 12, 13, and 27); it is thus a misnomer for biblical red. The translation of tikelet as "blue"is, in my opinion, erroneous;the correct rendering,"violet,"appearsin the New EnglishBible (OxfordandCambridge University Presses, 1970),The Jerusalem Bible (Darton,Longmanand TIbdd, London, 1966),and in E. Fox'snew English rendition of the Book of Exodus,Now These Are the Names (New York,
murex, is a mixture containing two major colorants, brominated indigotin (the colorant of Tyrianpurple)from the female snails together with plain indigotin from the male snails. The latter material is also found in the archaic vegetable dyes, woad and indigo, as well as in the synthetic indigo used for dyeing jeans.
Bibliography Astour, M. C. 1965 The Origin of the TermsCanaan, Phoenician and Purple.Journalof Near EasternStudies 24: 346-50. Bailey,K. C., editor and translator 1929 The Elder Pliny's Chapteron Chemical Subjects, part 1. London:Edward Arnold & Co. Baker,J.T 1974 TyrianPurple:An Ancient Dye, a Modem Problem.Endeavour 32: 11-17. Born,W. 1937 Purple.Ciba Review 4: 106-29. Daniels, V. 1985 Dye Analysis of Two Fragmentsfrom Enkomi. Pp. 15-18 in Dyes on Historical and Archaeological Textiles: Summary of Talks (FourthMeeting, September).London:The British Museum. Forbes,R. J. 1964 Dyes and Dyeing. Pp. 98-142 in Studies in Ancient Technology, volume 4, second edition. Leiden:
E.J.Brill.
Franklin,D. 1984 Blue-PurpleDye of Antiquity Reborn. Science News 126: 148. Gerber,F.H. 1978 Cochineal and the Insect Dyes. Ormond Beach,FL:E H. Gerber. Hom, P. 1968 Textiles in BiblicalTimes. Ciba Review 2: 1-37. Jensen,J.B. 1963 RoyalPurpleof Tyre.Journalof Near EasternStudies 22: 104-18. McGovem, P. E., and Michel, R. H. 1984 RoyalPurpleand the Pre-Phoenician
MASCA DyeIndustryof Lebanon.
Journal3(3):67-70.
Pfister,R.
1937 Nouveaux Textilesde Palmyre.Paris:
Schocken, 1986: 140). 2Fortunately,shellfish purples have a unique chemical composition distinguished by the presence of organicbro-
tditions d'Artet d'Histoire. Pritchard, J.B.
colorant called ITrianpurple that, chemically, is a brominatedindigotin in
Rackham,H., translator 1967 Pliny:Natural History.Series:Loeb
mine.Red-purple hasa singlemajor
whicheachmoleculeof dyecontainstwo bromine atoms. On the other hand, blue-
purple,as madefromthe bandeddye-
1978 RecoveringSarepta,a Phoenician
City.Princeton,NJ:Princeton UniversityPress.
ClassicalLibrary. Cambridge, MA, andLondon:Harvard University Press and Heinemann.
Reese, D. S. 1979- IndustrialExploitationof Murex 1980 Shells: Purple-Dyeand Lime Production at Sidi Khrebish,Benghazi (Berenice).Society for LibyanStudies Annual Report 11:79-83. Sheffer,A. 1987 Textiles from cEn Boqeq.Eretz-lIsrael 19: 160-69. Walton,P. 1986 Dye Tests on Textile Samplesfrom Arlington Avenue,Dorchester. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report4956. London:Historical Buildingsand Monuments Commission for England. Yadin,Y. 1963 The Finds from the Bar-Kokhba Periodin the Cave of Letters.Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety. Ziderman, I. I. 1981 Blue Threadof the Tzitzit: Was the Ancient Dye a PrussianBlue or TyrianPurple?Journalof the Society of Dyers and Colourists 97: 362-64. 1982 Correction.Journalof the Society of Dyers and Colourists 98: 247. 1986a 3600 Yearsof Purple-ShellDyeing: Characterizationof Hyacinthine Purple (Tekhelet).Pp. 167-98 in Historic Textileand PaperMaterials, edited by H. L. Needles and S. H. Zeronian. Series:Advancesin Chemistry Series Number 212. Washington,DC: American Chemical Society. 1986b Purple Dyes Madefrom Shellfish in Antiquity. Review of Progressin Coloration 16:46-52. 1986c Biblical Dyes of Animal Origin. Chemistry in Britain 22(5):419-21, 454, 638. 1987a Letters:Responseto Antique Controversy.Journalof the Society of Dyers and Colourists 103:404-05.
1987b FirstIdentification of Authentic Tgkilet. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research265: 25-33.
1987c HalachicAspectsof Revivingthe Ritual Tekheletin the Lightof
ModemScientificDiscoveries.Pp. 207-20 in The RoyalPurpleand the Biblical "Blue,"Argamanand Tekhelet:The Study of Chief Rabbi Dr. Isaac Herzogon the Dye Industries ofAncient Israel and Recent Scientific Contributions, edited by E. Spanier.Jerusalem:Keter. 1988a Short Notes: Response to Has
AuthenticTikilet BeenIdentified?
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269: 84-87. 1988b A Modem Miracle:Rediscoveryof
"Blue'DyeforTallitTassels.Israel Yearbook43: 287-92.
BiblicalArchaeologist,June1990
101
The
and
Use
Abuse of
in Current Archaeology
One-Volume Bible byVictorH.Matthews
Commentaries andJamesC.Moyer heappearance offour,
new, one-volume Bible commentaries during the last two years is a very significant publishing event. The most recent of these is The New JeromeBiblical Commentary (1990), which is a revision of a 1968 edition and represents the collective efforts of a team of distinguished Roman Catholic scholars. Two other commentaries appearedin 1989: The Collegeville Bible Commentary, which first appearedin booklets (1983, 1986),and the Evangelical Bible Commentary,which represents the newest efforts from the conser-
vative perspective.The Harper's Bible Commentary (1988)continues the collaboration of the Society of Biblical Literatureand Harper& Row that resulted in the Harper's Bible Dictionary (1985).Several important older volumes also are on the market: The International Bible Commentary (1979),The Interpreter'sBible Commentary (1971), The Eerdmans Bible Commentary (1970),and Peake'sBible Commentary (1962). In the September 1985 issue of Biblical Archaeologist, we evaluated the use and misuse of archaeologyin Bible handbooks, followed that
n.0
oft
a?1.
on
Co rn r:
BIBL
theHarper ?Bible ;?I
,?
commentary. 11W.
104
December by an evaluation of Bible dictionaries. With the recent publication of these four new volumes, we now turn our attention to onevolume Bible commentaries. In the following pageswe present our analysis of their use and abuse or, in some cases, exclusion of archaeological materials.Whatwe discoveredalmost immediately is that the one-volume Bible commentary is a very different genre from the Bible dictionary and is especially different from the Bible handbook. The one-volume Bible commentary has some of the same characteristicsbut, thankfully, is much more thorough, thoughtful,
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
O MMEN ~~TARY
~I~_ '
and responsible in its treatment of the biblical texts and related subjects, including archaeology. The following presentation is devotedprimarily to the four most recent commentaries and secondarily to the most important of the older works. Among the items we will examine with respect to the use of archaeology are the volume's basic format, its use of topical and introductory articles, and any special features. Our reviews are arranged accordingto publication date with some variances due to reprints and revisions. Our conclusion sketches out what we believe are essential features of a one-volume Bible commentary that makes the best use of relevant archaeological information.
s
The New JeromeBible Commentary (1990; abbreviatedas Jerome) This volume was designed to update ("two-thirdsnew")the 1968 edition as well as take advantageof the views and contributions of laypersons and women. Editedby RaymondBrown, JosephFitzmyer,and RolandMurphy, it contains the contributions of 71 other Roman Catholic scholars. (This number includes some of the original authors, now deceased, whose articles have been revised; see, for instance, Philip King's thorough revision of RobertNorth's article on "BiblicalArchaeology," pages 1196-1218.) As reflected in its length and thoroughness of articles, the book is
ent references to the town in both gearedtowardthe serious student the topical and commentary articles. and scholar. With about 1.7 million words, it is the longest of all the cur- The index entry on Jerichopoints to rent volumes. It contains 26 topical, all of the sections dealing with the excavation of the site and cites both or general, articles, which cover almost 460 pages.Archaeologicaltopics the passage in the "Joshua"article and the topical article on "Biblical are coveredvery broadly and in detail in "BiblicalArchaeology,"by Archaeology."The latter article disNorth andKing;"BiblicalGeography," cusses the results of JohnGarstang and Kathleen Kenyon'sexcavations, by North and Brown;"AHistory of William F.Albright'stheory, and the and Israel,"by Murphy,Fitzmyer, A. G. Wright;and "Apocrypha,Dead occupational situation at Ai (pages Sea Scrolls, Other Jewish Literature," 1208-209/article 74, sections 80-87). Even the disposition of New Testaby Brown,Pheme Perkins, and ment Jerichois discussed (page overall The Saldarini. Anthony is 1217/article74, section 148). No articles in these topical coverage of other one-volume commentary gives of extensive far most the any by the one-volume commentaries under this kind of detailed, up-to-date information and an extensive index review.Only the literature of the ancient Near East and the Grecothrough which to locate it all. In general, the commentators the worlds that Roman parallels use here less attention Bible receives archaeologyto illuminate the text. One way of doing this is by prothe In in than Harper's. fact, topical the articles in Jerome,plus viding site information (see page 121 subject of much index, combine to provide the information found in the best Bible dictionaries. Jeromeclearly does The commentary articles also the best job of using are extensive and naturally cover the archaeologyto Deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha). illuminate the Bible. The verse by verse format provides No other one-volume more detail but makes for tedious and difficult reading.This is further commentary is as aggravatedby the small print and up-to-dateor as very crowdedpages. Numerous upcomprehensive in its to-date bibliographicalsuggestions treatment. are presented at the beginning of each article, in the article itself, and on the location of Eglon);another is in a separatefour-pagesection near the end of the volume. The comby mentioning extra-biblicalsources such as the Moabite Stone (page175). mentaries are arrangedin chronoAn example of the use of archaelogical orderinstead of the usual canonical order, which many readers ological discoveries is found in the critical discussion of the Babylonian will find confusing. On the other and Sumerian flood stories, comhand, each of the 83 articles is paring them to the flood story in numbered, then further broken Genesis and citing primary sources down into sections and numbered. This provides a convenient cross(Atrahasis:The Babylonian Story of the Flood, by W.G. Lambertand reference within the text, enabling A. R. Millard)and translation sources the reader to find things quickly by (Ancient Near Eastern TextsRelating using the 43-page subject index at to the Old Testament,edited by James the back. The subject index is extremely valuable for checking archae- B. Pritchard)for further study (pages 15-16). Regardingthe archaeological ological information; the entry on evidence for the fall of Jericho,comJericho, for example, lists 19 differ-
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
105
One-VolumeBibleCommentariesnot Reviewed Title
Author(s) E. E. Hindson W.M. Kroll General Editors
mentator Michael Coogan writes: This is a story, not a history, a conclusion reinforced by the results of the excavations at Jericho.... The latest Late Bronze occupation at the site is 14th cent., and there was no subsequent settlement there until the 9th cent. In the time of Joshua, then, no one lived at Jericho (page 116/article 7, section 25). Similarly, in his discussion of Ai, Coogan notes that "the archaeological history of Ai ... contradicts the biblical narrative; there is no evidence of occupation at Ai from the Late 3rd millennium to the early Iron Age" (page 117).
106
Date 1983
Pages Price Publisher 2,719 $29.95 Nelson
Comments Fundamentalist approach; does contain some archaeological information but discounts any suggestion of literary or cultural borrowing. Ignores some difficult archaeological problems. Includes King JamesVersionin left column. F B. Meyer F B. MeyerBible 1979 645 Homilectic $16.95 Tyndale approachcontaining no critical analysis or archaeologicalinformation. Commentary The Teacher'sBible H. E Paschall 1972 830 $27.95 Broadman Limited in scope to SundaySchool teachH. H. Hobbs ers and limited in treatment of subjects, Commentary Editors with little on archaeologyor its values and limitations in dealing with the text. C. E Pfeiffer 1962 The WycliffeBible Conservative treatment. Contains some $19.95 Moody 1,525 E. E Harrison use of archaeologicaldata.Authors mixed Commentary Editors on some issues, such as date of exodus. Lacks indices, maps, and general articles and needs to be updated. The One Volume 1909 J.R. Dummelow 1,092 $19.95 Macmillan Prescientific era volume. Contains only Bible Commentary Editor the earliest analysis and comments on archaeology and the relations between Israel and the Near Easterncultures. Gaebelein's Concise Arno C. Gaebelein 1970 1,237 $29.95 Loizeaux Reprint of conservative, prescientific era on the work. Discounts literary or cultural Commentary Whole Bible contacts with Near Eastern societies: a "far-fetchedinvention." Matthew Henry's Matthew Henry 1966 $25.95 Moody Reprint of abridged edition of multi1,024 Concise Commentary volume prescientific erawork. No archaeOn the Bible ological information or issues discussed. & 1957 Zondervan Fausset, $29.95 Jamieson, Jamieson 1,591 Reprint of prescientific era work. What Brown Commentary Fausset little archaeological data it does contain (revised on the Whole Bible Brown edition dates to the beginning of this century. in 1961) Liberty Bible Commentary
An attempt is made in the articles on the New Testament to integrate archaeological data into an explication of the biblical texts. Examples of this include the citing of extra-biblical literary sources such as Papyrus Florentius to corroborate the custom of amnesty for prisoners (page 671) and numerous references to Greek writers, the Jewish historian Josephus, and the Nag Hammadi and Qumran texts. Excavations of New Testament sites also are mentioned. For instance, in her article on "The Gospel According to John,"Perkins notes in the discussion of Bethesda: The structure found by archaeologists had five porticoes with
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
two pools - a smaller one to the north and a larger one to the southern side - enclosed by four porches with a fifth one between the two pools (page 959). The reader is frequently referred to the article on "Biblical Archaeology" for a further explanation of a point made in the text (see, for example, page 956 on Jesus' route from Judea to Galilee). This article is the finest and most comprehensive topical article on archaeology found in any of the one-volume commentaries. It covers 23 pages and includes a history of excavation, a chart of major excavations (page 1198), a section on archaeological methods,
information, but these are centered primarily in the section on the Old Evangelical is up-to-date, Testament. but its archaeological A mainline approachis used to information is limited. describethe materialin Genesis 1-11: "Itwas inevitable that Israelwould well as as resurrection and fication, appropriatethe mythological motifs on an emphasis personal application of the ancient Near East"(page37). This approachis also found in the for the contemporaryreader. archaeof relevant discussion of the exodus, "Most The inclusion Almost varies. information ological no help is given in dating the exodus and conquest.Forexample,A. Bowling cautiously writes that "The identification of Ai is uncertain since the archaeologyof the possible site does not completely fit the literary eviEvangelicalCommentaryon the Bible dence"(page 141).More archaeological information is given in (1989; abbreviatedas Evangelical) This volume, written by 38 AmeriJudges- one instance is found in a footnote dealing with the concan evangelicals and based on the struction of the iron chariots menNew InternationalVersiontranslaauthorities place the Exodus in the tioned in verse 19 of chapter 1-but tion, is the newest evangelical onethirteenth century B.C.E."(page 80), volume Bible commentary. There is theological concerns and personal no coverageof the Apocrypha,but applications tend to dominate. With and the conquest, ". .. archaeological evidence shows that they [Jericho each book of the Old and New Testa- regardto the same passage (Judges ments is discussed in a very readable, 1:19),referringto Israel'sinability to and Ai] were not occupied after the fourteenth century B.C.E.and that Ai capture the cities along the coast, paragraphby paragraphfashion. The format for each book includes a brief Bowling writes: "Aspiritually whole had been destroyedabout a thousand nation could have coped with Caintroduction and outline plus an years before the Israelites entered the land"(page230). The section on naanite chariots"(page161).Direct extensive commentary designed for wisdom literature,written by L.Boadt, use of archaeologyis found in R. K. Harrison'sintroduction to Proverbs, contains an excellent discussion of in which parallels between the Bible literary genre and the comparisons that can be made between ancient and ancient Near Easternwisdom onthe e Near Easternwisdom literature and literature are described. This is an up-to-dateevangelical the Bible. Collegeville has the finest commentary,but its archaeological colored map section of any of the information is very limited. Earlier commentaries. However,it only has evangelical commentaries, such as EDITOR the International and Eerdmans, introductoryarticles;it has no topical articles on archaeology,geography, contain much more archaeological or history and no subject index. This information. the nonspecialist and a very brief bibliographyemphasizing primarily evangelical books. There is no index, The CollegevilleBibleCommentary Collegeville has the as Collegeville) no topical articles, no pictures of any (1989;abbreviated finest colored map This commentary,based on the New kind, and no gazetteer. There are a few maps, including the inside front American Bible, is the work of 33 section of any of Roman Catholic scholars headed by and back covers, and there are a few the commentaries. chronological charts.Verybrief intro- Dianne Bergantand RobertJ.Karris. ductions (usually one or two pages) Originally published in fascicles, the are given before the various sections amalgamated volume brings todistinguishes it from the more scholof the Bible. The commentaries tend gether a popular examination of the arly Jeromeand makes what is otherwise a fine popular commenbiblical materials. Some efforts have to emphasize theological topics tary a less useful tool for readers. such as creation, redemption, sancti- been made to utilize archaeological
and a surveyof archaeologicalperiods, which includes major discoveries at important sites from the Stone Age to the New Testament period. With such extensive archaeological coverage,it is unfortunate that Jeromecontains only one illustration (a line drawingof Solomon's Temple on page 1263)and only five maps, three of which are in twocolor. This lack of illustrations is a significant weakness carriedover from the older edition. In addition, Jeromeis almost twice as expensive as other commentaries, which will be a deterrentfor some readers.
Kco
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
107
information. Therefore,this commentary differs from other onevolume Bible commentaries. In fact, without the dictionary as a companion, this commentary is inferior to several of the others surveyedin terms of the effective use of archaeological data. This is not to say that there is no direct use of archaeology or its methods. There are several good sections in the special articles on "BibliBible cal Literaturein its Historical ConHarper's Commentary as abbreviated text: The Old Testament"by S. Dean (1988; Harper's) More than 80 member scholars of McBride,Jr.(pages 14-21) and "The the Society of Biblical Literature Bible and the Literatureof Antiquity: contributed to Harper's.Their conThe Ancient Near East"by J.J.M. tributions cover all books of the Old Roberts (pages33-37). Each of these and New Testaments as well as the sections describes the importance of Deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha)in a specific ancient Near Easterntexts. readable,paragraphapproach.Supple- Robertsis especially helpful in this menting individual commentaries regardin his discussion of Egyptian on each of these books are 15 topical hymns and wisdom literature;the articles and 32 short articles within Babyloniancreation stories, Enuma the commentarieson varioussubjects Elish and Atra-Hasis;laments in the such as "Womenin Genesis"(pages Ludlul strand;and the legal collections. McBridesupplies information 116-18). The articles and commentaries on the Mari prophetic texts and the are fully up-to-dateand representa- Cyrus Cylinder. In his chapter on tive of the best of current biblical Genesis, JohnS. Kselman makes an scholarship.Briefbibliographies interesting statement about these ancient texts: ". . . ancient Near appearat the end of each article. There are 16 excellent color maps Easternmaterial was consciously with a helpful six-pageindex of reshapedand altered in accordwith Israelite theological perspectives" place-names keyed to these maps. Black-and-whiteillustrations are (page91). This mainline approachis scattered throughout the volume, significantly different from the very and 16 pages of color illustrations conservative position expressed in are included after pages 462 and 942. such works as the International: These illustrations and their captions are an asset, but they are quite small since each page of colored ilThe articles and comlustrations comprises three or four mentaries in Harper's pictures. The pictures tend to emare representativeof phasize artistic renderingsin the the best of current tradition of Bible Review rather biblical scholarship. than ancient sites, artifacts,or geographicalsurvey. Harper'sfunctions in tandem with the Harper'sBible Dictionary. "The suggestion that Gen. 1 is derived from Sumerian or Akkadian Although the introduction is not specific about their direct relationmythology, shows only how the refusal to accept revelation drives men ship, the use of indicators, such as to folly" (page 114). (-- archaeology), direct the reader to the dictionary volume for more Regardingthe use of archaeologiq9LD
108
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
cal data to help explain the exodus, settlement, and conquest periods, the mainline treatment is again espoused. Accordingto McBride: ... because neither the fourteenth-
century B.C.Amarna letters nor campaign reports of Merneptah's immediate pharaonicpredecessors referto such a population, it is likely that "Israel"only emerged in Canaan towardthe end of the thirteenth century (page 14). WalterRast, the only field archaeologist in the list of contributorsto this commentary, is the only one to discuss in any detail the methods of archaeology.He makes the welcome statement on page 236 that "archaeology can sometimes help to clarify what lies behind the book, but archaeology also has increased the difficulty in some cases."Then, in speaking of Ai, he notes that ". .. ex-
cavation has producedno evidence of destruction of this village dating to the time of Israel'sentry"(page239). The story of its conquest by Joshua "... may simply be a story based on the earlier ruins, although that interpretationalso cannot be taken as assured."This last disclaimer is the sort of thing one expects from a cautious scholar who realistically attempts to resolve differences between archaeologicaland literary information. In her commentary on Judges, J.Cheryl Exum makes a fine statement in the introductorymaterial: "Manyof the places mentioned in Judgeshave been excavated,and archaeologyhas addedconsiderably to our knowledge of life during the period" (page 247). The commentary itself, however, fails to use this knowledge to illuminate the text. Instead, literary concerns dominate here as in most of the rest of the volume. The New Testament section reveals no concerted effort to include archaeological data in the commentary. Pictures of Ephesus (page 1080) and Corinth (page 1178) apparently
The most conservative opinion comes from Ellison in his treatment of the primeval history. He refuses to entertain the idea that the Mesopotamian epics might predateGenesis (page 114).Although noting the importance of the new discoveries at Separatearticles on Ebla,he points out the serious probarchaeologyin the Old lems that arise from jumping to conand New Testaments and clusions but then ends by making a other features make the statement that accepts unquestionInternational the best ingly the historicity of the pre-flood of the conservative characters(page 123). We are quite impressed with commentaries. Millard'sarticle on the New Testament and archaeology.He suggests Wiseman sets a reasonable tone an explanation for why little attention is usually given to this subject: by stating: Less value is attached by most Archaeology is not an exact science. ... Its results ... may people to archaeological disbe subjective, subject to changcoveries relating to the NT than to those relating to the OT,being interpretationor limited by lack of comparablematerial or cause so much written informaThe InternationalBible Commentary even by the viewpoint and tion has survived from the era of (1979, revised edition 1986; abbremethods employed by the excathe Romanworld rule. Moreover, viated as International) vator .... Biblical archaeology the NT contains a smaller Writtenby a group of British and ... occasionally confirmed the amount of narrativewhich American evangelical scholars, this biblical text. It does not, howmight be associated with monuIN IF 1 I O A to true" be the Bible mental remains (page 1019). ever, "prove -rN 39). (page P)IB)I , He uses the controversyover the XI IW He notes that "archaeologyalso Gabbathapavement (page 1021)to I raises problems which still await a show how "archaeologycan raise final solution" (page43), such as the more questions and give rise to opproblem of interpretation at Jericho posing theories."He makes mention and Ai. He admits that "thereis no of the site locations of Emmaus and evidence of any occupation of Ai, Derbe and of the stone inscriptions and K. M. Kenyonclaims to have that contain the names of Pilate, Herod, Erastus,Paulus, and Lysanias. is a fairly well-balancedcommentary, found no trace of fallen walls at with the exception of the articles by Jerichodated to this time (contrary Unfortunately, there are no illustrations - although there are some good H. L. Ellison. It originally appeared to J.Garstang'searlier surmise)..." in 1979 based on the Revised Stan(page39). Alternative suggestions on maps and charts. the conquest of these cities are disdardVersion of the Bible. The 1986 The Interpreter'sOne-Volume edition, while making a few correc- cussed in detail on pages 289 and of the which same the is 294, opinions present Commentary on the Bible (1971; except tions, basically F.Albright, Anson Rainey,G. abbreviated as Interpreter's) for its use of the New International W. When this volume was published it Version.This volume benefits greatly ErnestWright,and D. Livingston. Carl Armerdingclearly favorsa functioned, as Harper's claims to from the articles by D. J.Wiseman date for the function, as the official voice of the and A. R. Millard on "Archaeology thirteenth-century-B.C.E. mainline scholarly interpretation of and the Old Testament"(pages39-44) exodus (page309), as does Ellison the Scriptures. Because it is in one Discoveries and (page150),and E E Bruce (page89), and '"Archaeological volume and deals openly and comthe New Testament"(pages1019-1024). although Bruce does spell out the The latter is the only article in any arguments that have been made for a prehensively with all of the major of the surveyedvolumes that deals fifteenth-century date (noting it was critical questions, we would rate it higher than Harper's and on a par specifically with archaeological dis- favoredduring the 1930s).
suffice. The only article listed in the bibliography(which is too selective in both the Old and New Testament sections) dealing with archaeology is JeromeMurphy-O'Connor'sarticle on "St.Paul'sCorinth"(page 1189). As a multiauthored work, this volume holds together quite well. It is consistent in its style of presentation and its use of mainline scholarship. A clear strength is its emphasis on literary issues. However,Harper's weaknesses are most evident in its heavy reliance on the companion dictionary volume. Instead of utilizing archaeological information, most of the authors (except Rast) have minimized archaeology and left it to the industrious readerto consult the dictionary for "therest of the story."
coveries related to the New Testament, although North's article, "BiblicalArchaeology,"in Jerome contains a similar discussion.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
109
with Jeromeif they had all been published at the same time. The only real edge that Jeromeand Harper's have is their up-to-datescholarship and greaterreadability. The commentary on Joshuareflects a mainline approachin its discussion of the conquest of Jericho: ... archaeology has revealed
little trace of habitation of the city at the time of the Israelite conquest. What excavatorsof 1930-36 thought to be the wall that fell down was shown in excavations of 1952-57 to be of much earlier date; of the wall of Joshua'sday there is no tracepossibly because of erosion in that part of the ruins (page127). JamesB. Pritchardwrote the section on "Archaeology"(pages 1054-062) in which he provides an excellent survey of the methods and history of excavation in the Near
by their very nature beyondthe scope of archaeologicalresearch, their significance has been brought into sharperfocus by contrasts with the ideas of other religions of the Ancient Near East as they have been recovered through archaeology(page1054).
tism, if it can be called that, is found in Kenneth Kitchen'sdiscussion of the conquest, which he sums up by saying that "thebiblical recordmust be accepted as authentic"(page239), and in which he discounts the theory that Ai appearsin the list of conquered cities just because it was a ruin already"sinceit denies the historicity of the biblical account" When Interpreter's (page240). This could be compared with the statement in Peake'sthat was published in 1971, "thestory may be in part an explanait functioned as the tion of the name Ai, meaning 'ruins'" official voice of the (page294). mainline scholarly Throughout the commentary a date for the interpretationof thirteenth-century-B.C.E. exodus and conquest is used: the Scriptures. Excavationshave established conclusively that several imporWhat little could be gleanedfrom tant cities of Canaan were dethe New Testament section of this stroyedin the latter half of the volume includes a statement regard13th century BC, the probable ing the discovery of the Gospel of period of the Israelite conquest Thomas in UpperEgyptin 1945 (page (page232). 617) and the captions of illustrations showing the synagogueat Capernaum TIlEEERINIANS (page619), the gatewayat Gerasa (page620), and a tomb dating to the
BIBLE
first century C.E.(page 670).
s i I
I
HEII![:II!
The volume contains a 90-page subject index that enables the reader to search out a complete series of referencesto particulartopics. Only Jeromehas an index rivaling the usefulness of this one. One of the principal weaknesses of Harper'sand others such as Evangelical and This statement is followed by arguments based on excavationsat Bethel, Collegeville is that they contain no subject index. Lachish, Eglon, Debir, and Hazor showing "evidenceof violent confla-~-
East. A description of writing, inscriptions, and the parallels in these documents is provided,as are statements on the relevance of religious buildings, altars, and objects. In his discussion of the Mari and Nuzi texts, he sums up by stating: "Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on the question of the relevance of archaeological discoveries for the historicity of the patriarchalmaterial" (page1019).As a caution for the use of archaeologicalmaterials in the study of the Bible, he states: While the religious truths for which the Bible is cherished are
110
The EerdmansBibleCommentary
(1970, reprintedin 1987; abbreviated as Eerdmans) Like the International and the Evangelical commentaries, this is an evangelical project.It first appeared in 1970 under the title The New Bible Commentary and was reprinted by Eerdmansin 1987 under its new name. The scholarship is good, moderately conservative, and not a polemic like some of the handbooks and dictionaries we have reviewed. The only evidence of dogma-
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
grations at this time. . . . [which]
confirms the biblical account of Joshua'scampaigns as striking fiercely in those areas."This claim may be a bit overstatedsince the destruction does not have to have been caused by the Israelites. The Philistines, Egyptians, or other peoples in Canaan could easily have been the culprits in this violent age. It is more typical of conservative scholars than mainline scholars to use words such as "confirm."The contributorsto Harper'sare sometimes reluctant
The scholarship in Eerdmans is good, moderately conservative, and not polemic like some of the handbooks and dictionaries we have reviewed. to take positions that cannot be provenconclusively- for example, the following statement from P.Kyle McCarter,Jr.: Thus many modern historians preferto say nothing about the date of the events related in Exodus,except that, as basic components of the story that defined Israel, they must have taken place before the final formation of the Israelite community in twelfth-century Canaan (page 132). In addition to being seriously dated, the principal weakness of this volume is its lack of in-depth supplementary material. Topicalarticles updating findings in archaeology and spelling out biblical history and geographyare needed, as are maps and illustrations. The commentary does not contain anybibliographieseither; thus, it does not provide suggestions for additional readingand study.
century date for the exodus. Gray presented this same idea in Peake's: ... the only certain archaeologi-
cal evidence for the date of the Exodusand subsequent Hebrew settlement seems to us that discoveredby Prof.Glueck in Transjordanthat there was a complete recession of sedentary occupation there from the end of the EarlyBronze Age to c. 1300, after which clearly defined territorial states, Edom and Moab, emerged.... the Exodus should be dated early and the settlement in Palestine late, in the 13th cent. (page51).
k~
L
-
Despite the fact that this book contains the scholarship of the 1940s and 1950s, much of what the contributors have to say is what the public knows about biblical archaeology. Forinstance, Kenyon's"correction"of JohnGarstang'sexcavation findings at Jerichois referredto in nearly every other volume reviewedhere. May also relies on the findings of Martin Noth and Albright in his discussion of Jerichoand Ai, writing:
parallels between the Mesopotamian creation and flood stories. Taking what today would be called a moderate view, he states: The point of parallels is not ... to emphasize the dependence of Hebrew symbolism upon Babylonian myths, but to emphasize the fact that the Hebrew writers, whether Yahwistor Priestly,did not invent a symbolism to express the various aspects of the divine activity, but took what lay ready to their hand, the material which they had inherited as part of their early cultural contacts, and transformed it into the vocabularyof the divine speech (page179). Robertstakes a similar view in Harper'sin his description of the epics: "TheAtrahasis Epic is particularly important because it shows that Genesis' linking of the creation of humankind and the Flood story . . was not a unique achievement of Israelite theology" (page37). Similarly, in Jerome,RichardClifford states: "Thebiblical account is within the ancient Near Easterntradition, esp. as attested in Mesopotamian literature"(page15). Ellison counters this
Despite the fact that Peake'scontains the scholarship of the 1940s and 1950s, much of what the contributorshave to say is what the public knows about biblical archaeology.
Peake'sCommentary on the Bible (1962; abbreviatedas Peake's) Readingthis volume was like going back through the hall of fame of bib... Ai (et-Tell)disclosed no signs lical scholarship. At the time the of occupation between c. 2400 volume was put together, it must and 1000. A terrific destruction have been quite a publishing coup to and conflagrationevident at argument in the International by Kathleen Kenyon,JohnGray, get the due to and Bethel H. S. H. declaring: G. probably W.E.Albright, May, It is usually taken for granted the 13th to datable is Israelites the to write others and Hooke, that the Genesis story is derived the ultimate be and their scholarticles. cent., may Although major from the Babylonian,but since Ai of the source are still is story (page116). quoted arship dated, they we are dealing with living memscholars. conservative extensively by ories of a tremendous disaster, Another interesting contrast Forinstance, both the International there is no valid reason why both that can be drawnbetween this vol(page50) and Eerdmans (page232) should not be based on valid recume and the more conservative use Nelson Glueck's survey of the ords of the event, though the of the discussion Hooke's is works thirteenthfor a to Transjordan argue
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
111
Summary of Commentaries Reviewed Title and Publisher The New Jerome Biblical Commentary
Date and Price 1990 $69.95
Prentice Hall
Evangelical 1989 Commentary $29.95 on the Bible BakerBook House
The 1989 Collegeville $45.00 Bible Commentary
Pagesand Words
Editorsand Contributors
Coverage/ Ibpical Articles Pages RaymondBrown, OT/512 26 1,475 1.7 million JosephFitzmyer, NT/435 RolandMurphy, APOC/70 and 71 Roman Catholic Verseby contributors verse
1,229 W.A. Elwell and OT/712 0 1.0 million 38 American NT/516 APOC/O evangelical contributors Paragraph by paragraph
7 maps, 4 chronological charts, no illustrations and no index; based on NIV
Dianne Bergant, 1,335 1.0 million RobertJ.Karris, and 33 Roman Catholic contributors
33 colored maps, no illustrations, no bibliographies,and no subject index; based on NAB
Liturgical
1988 Harper's Bible $32.50 Commentary Harpere& Row
112
Special Features 5 maps (3 two-colored), 1 illustration, 43-page subject index
OT/717 2 NT/439 APOC/95 Paragraph by paragraph
OT/684 15, 32 short J.L. Maysand 1,344 1.3 million 82 contributors NT/382 essays within from Society of APOC/180 commentaries Biblical Literature Paragraph by paragraph
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
16 pages of color pictures, black-andwhite illustrations in text, 16 full-color maps with 6-pageindex of placenames, no subject index
Comments Most thorough and completecoverageofanycurrent volume,thoughthe scholarly style and verseby verse formatis tediousand difficult. It makes good use of archaeology in the commentariesandhasextensive topical articles, including the bestcoverageof biblical
archaeology in any onevolume commentary. The thorough subject index is extremely valuable. This is an extensive revision ("twothirds new") of the 1968 edition. It needs illustrations and more maps. Up-to-dateandreadableevangelical commentary done by American scholars. Theological emphasis with limited coverage of archaeology.Needs topical articles, illustrations, subject index, more maps, and expanded bibliographies. Roman Catholic, popular, and pastoralapproach.Some use of archaeological information. Two introductory articles and readable paragraph approach. Originally appearedin 1983 and 1986 as 36 booklets covering one or more biblical books. Needs subject index, more topical articles, illustrations, and bibliographies. Mainline, up-to-date, readable scholarship.Its emphasis on literary analysis is excellent, but the commentaries do not always make use of archaeological discoveries. There are no topical articles on biblical archaeology or geography.It relies too heavily on the companion Harper's Bible Dictionary to fill these gaps. The maps and map index and the illustrations arereal assets. A subject index is needed.
Summary of Commentaries Reviewed Title and Publisher The International Bible Commentary
Date and Pagesand Price Words 1979 (RSV) 1,644 1986 (NIV) 1.6 million $29.95
Editorsand Contributors E E Bruceand 43 mostly British and Canadian scholars
Zondervan
The 1971 $29.95 Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible
C. M. Laymon 1,400 1.5 million and 70 contributors
Thomas Nelson
Primarily verse by verse
OT/518 45 NT/362 APOC/180 Paragraph by paragraph
Abingdon The 1970 Eerdmans (revised Bible and reset); Commentary reprinted (formerlyThe by New Bible Eerdmans Commentary) in 1987 $29.95 Eerdmans Peake's 1962 Commentary $29.95 on the Bible
Coverage/ Ibpical Articles Pages OT/883 28 NT/508 APOC/0
D. Guthrie, 12 OT/729 1,328 1.4 million J.A. Motyer, NT/498 and 51 evangeli- APOC/0 cal contributors Paragraph by paragraph
Matthew Black, OT/483 40 1,142 1.6 million H. H. Rowley, NT/292 and 62 APOC/0 contributors Paragraph by paragraph
Babylonian account is further from the reality (page 121). There is little archaeology related to the New Testament that can be gleaned from Peake's. The only instance worth quoting is found on page 953 regarding the "Erastus Stone": "Still more doubtful is the identification of Erastus here with the Erastus of an inscription at Corinth." Peake's has set the standard for the last quarter century. However, it is visually difficult to use because of
its compressed style, tiny print, and few charts and maps. Any revision should provide a more readable page and greater use of illustrations.
FinalThoughtsand Recommendations Unlike most Bible handbooks and some Bible dictionaries, most onevolume Bible commentaries contain valuable information for the reader. Some are more up-to-date than others, however, and some succeed better than others in utilizing the
Special Features 29 maps, good bibliographies at end of each section, no subject index
Comments Conservative commentary making good use of archaeological information. Separate articles on archaeology in the OT and NT and other features make this the best of the conservative commentaries. Needs subject index. 16 full-color Mainline scholarship; exmaps, black- cellent topical articles cover and-white biblical archaeology very maps and broadly;commentariesmake illustrations, good use of archaeology. Extensive subject index is 90-page subject index; valuable. Needs to be upbased on RSV dated and revised. No maps, Evangelical commentary illustrations, done primarily by British bibliographies, scholars. Needs to be exor index; panded to include more based on RSV topical articles, including biblical archaeology and geography.Also needs maps, illustrations, subject index, bibliographies,and updating. 16 pages of Contains the best mainline full-color scholarship of the 1950s and makes very good use of armaps with map index, chaeology.Albright,Kenyon, subject index, and Gray wrote topical arno illustraticles on archaeology.It laid tions; based excellent foundation for on RSV later volumes. The compressed style and tiny print make it difficult to use. A revision with illustrations is needed.
latest archaeological information to illuminate the Bible. We would like to suggest five essential features that we believe should be in any onevolume Bible commentary if it is to give archaeological discoveries the place they deserve in illuminating the Bible. Number one, the commentary should have topical or general articles covering the subjects of biblical archaeology, biblical geography, the historical context of the Bible, and relevant extra-biblical literature
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
113
ology, Methods of"by William Dever and "Archaeology,History, and the Bible"by Philip King, only King deals with these issues and only in a little more than one page. This is a very significant weakness in our opinion. The second topical article, on biblical geography,should include the physical features, climatic conditions, and so forth of the biblical lands. The impact of archaeologyon site identification and historical How CurrentVolumes Rated With these criteria in mind, we will geographyis also essential. Once now evaluate how the one-volume again, Harper'somits such an article, whereas Jeromecontains an excelBible commentaries surveyedhere lent example of this type of compreratedon this scale. hensive environmental overview. or articles. Jerome general Tobpical The Harper'sBible Dictionary does has 26 long comprehensive articles, have a good summary article on whereas Interpreter'shas 45 shorter "Palestine"by Philip King, which articles coveringadditional topics. deals with geographyand climate, Given the attention span of most but it also is an archaeologicalhisreaders,our preferenceis for the shorter article, but those in Jerome tory.The article "BiblicalGeography" are well markedwith subtitles that by RobertNorth and Raymond Brownin Jeromeis much more deallow for easy scanning. Harper's tailed and, in our opinion, superior. also uses shorter articles; none is The third topical article should more than 12 pages long. However, cover the historical context of the only 15 articles are included, and in our opinion this is simply inadequate. Bible utilizing archaeologyto reconstruct the history of both the Old The four essential articles for and New Testamentperiods. Here Bible one-volume commentary any related to archaeology.The article Jeromeand Harper'shave good articles. In Harper'sS. Dean McBride on biblical archaeologyshould indoes a good, succinct job in "Biblical clude a discussion of the values as Literaturein its Historical Context: well as the limitations of using arThe to Old Testament,"and Eldon Epp research illuminate chaeological does a similarly fine job in "Biblical the biblical texts. It is essential that the readerhave a clear understanding Literaturein its Historical Context: of what archaeologycan and cannot The Apocryphaand the New Testament."The article on the history of do to illuminate the Bible. Actual in Jerome,by RolandMurphy, these Israel that demonstrate examples values and limitations would be par- JosephFitzmyer,and A. G. Wright,is balanced and contains a full treatticularly helpful. Furthermore,the article should deal with both the ment of the scholarly arguments from the ancient Near East and Greco-Romanworld. Number two, it should use archaeologicalinformation to illuminate the Bible. Number three, it should have colored maps with an index of place-names. Number four, it should have diverse illustrations, including pictures, charts, and diagrams.Number five, it should have a subject index.
Old and the New Testament and not just the Old Testament, as is too often the case. The "Biblical Archaeology" article in Jerome by Robert North and Philip King is comprehensive, helpful, and up-to-date; it fulfills all the criteria we suggest for this article. Unfortunately, Harper's has no article on biblical archaeology. Even if we use the two articles in the Harper's Bible Dictionary, "Archae-
114
regarding historical questions on the exodus, conquest, settlement, and subsequent biblical periods. A companion article, "Religious Institutions," by John Castelot and A. Cody, provides the cultural background to the religious practices and rituals of the Israelites. The fourth and final essential general article should cover the relevant literature of the neighboring
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
ancient Near Easterncultures and the Greco-Romanworld. Here Harper'sreally excels. J.J.M. Roberts provides an excellent summary in "TheBible and the Literatureof Antiquity: The Ancient Near East"; David Aune does likewise in "The Bible and the Literatureof Antiquity: The Greco-RomanPeriod."To some extent these are pioneering articles for one-volume Bible commentaries. A topical article titled "Israeland Her Neighbors"was in the older edition of Jerome(pages210-22) but for some reason was not included in the revised volume. We can only hope that this type of article will become a part of all future onevolume Bible commentaries. An additional point should be made before leaving the discussion of introductory articles. Harper'shas 32 short essays within the commentaries; most are a page or less, and none coversmore than three pages. This is a valuable new feature for one-volume Bible commentaries and a good one in our opinion; other commentaries would do well to follow Harper'slead. It should be noted, however,that none of these essays fills any of the gaps in the introductory articles noted previously. The use of archaeologicalinformation to illuminate the Bible. Not every biblical book lends itself to the utilization of archaeologicalinformation, but the historical books in the Old Testament and the Gospels and Acts in the New Testament certainly do. Forthese books the choice of commentators is critical. Ideally the commentator should be both a biblical scholar and an archaeologist; realistically, the commentator must be a biblical scholar who can utilize archaeology to illuminate the Bible. Jerome does a good job of handling archaeology in its commentary articles. Richard Clifford and Michael Coogan, both of whom have worked extensively with ancient Near Eastern sources, provide thoughtful treatments of the books of Exodus and Joshua, injecting examples from
ancient treaties and law codes and presenting an informed look at archaeological investigations. Where space limits the amount of archaeological data that can be presented, Jeromemakes referenceto the topical articles on biblical archaeology,geography,andhistory.Unlike Harper's, these resources are in Jeromeand do not requirethe readerto consult a separatereferencework. Harper'swisely chose Walter Rastto do the commentary on Joshua, and his commentary is a model of how to use archaeologyto illuminate the book. P.Kyle McCarterJr. does a fine job on Exodus,and John S. Kselman uses some ancient Near Easternliterature to illuminate Genesis. Beyondthat, however,the commentaries pay little more than lip service to archaeology.We find this most disappointing and note again that in Harper'sthe emphasis is on literary matters ratherthan archaeological matters. Colored maps. Here Collegeville and Harper'sexcel. Collegeville has 33 colored maps (byCarta),and Harper's has 16 colored maps (byHammond) reflecting up-to-dateinformation. In addition, Harper'shas an index of geographicalnames keyed to the maps for easy location. Although the maps and map index are much the same as those in the Harper's Bible Dictionary, some improvements were made in the commentary volume. Interpreter'shas colored maps and an index, but Harper'shas considerably improvedthis feature. Illustrations. Here, too, Harper'ssucceeds well. Harper'shas 16 pages of four-color pictures, which, although small, are a real asset. Black-andwhite photographs are scattered throughout the text, and they also are valuable. There are only a few charts and drawings. It should be noted that the colored pictures are mostly artistic representations; more photographs of archaeological excavations, biblical sites, and topography would have been helpful. In fairness, however, Harper's far surpasses the
competition in this category.Peake's, Collegeville, Evangelical, and Eerdmans have no illustrations at all, and Jeromehas only one. Jerome does have several very useful charts, including diagramsof the "Synoptic Problem"(pages588-89), a list of documents found at Qumran (page 1070),and a chart of excavations (page 1198). Subject index. A subject index is essential for readerswho want to find all relevant information on a site or check excavationsat a particularsite. The greaterthe number of general articles, the more essential the subject index. Both Jeromeand Interpreter'shave an extensive subject index. It is quite surprising, and a serious weakness in our opinion, that Harper'shas no index.
Harper'sis also useful. Its readability, illustrations, maps, and short topical articles are keys to its value. However, its utilization of archaeology is limited, even when used in tandem with the Harper'sBible Dictionary. Forthose who want a conservative perspective, the International is clearly superior to both Eerdmans and Evangelical;it has excellent introductoryarticles, including separateones on archaeologyrelated to the Old and the New Testament. Although it is not the overall equal of Jeromeor Harper's,it is certainly a helpful commentary. Despite the achievements of Jeromeand Harper's,both could be improved.Futureprintings of Jerome should include more maps and a gazetteer, and Harper'sshould, at the very least, add a subject index. Conclusion We urge publishers to revise existing Of all the one-volume Bible comnew ones commentaries or mentaries currently on the market, that contain morepublish archaeological Jeromeclearly does the best job over- illumination of the Bible. There is all of using archaeologyto illumito room for nate the Bible. No other one-volume certainlyeven betterpublishers one-volume produce commentary is as up-to-dateor as Bible commentaries in the future. comprehensive in its treatment.
1991-1992 TheDorotResearch Professorship of Archaeology, Jerusalem Institute W.F Albright
The Dorot Research Professorshipat the W. F. AlbrightInstituteof Archaeology in Jerusalem is open to senior scholars in the humanities working in ancient Near Eastern studies, including ancient Semitic languages, literature,art and religion, archaeology,anthropology,biblical studies, epigraphy,geography,and relatedinterdisciplinaryfields. The primarypurpose of the awardis to encourage a major research projectwhich must have an early publication date, contribute to the understandingof the cultures and peoples of the ancient Near East, and help advance research in the appointee'sdiscipline. The Professorshipprovides an awardof $30,000-a stipend of $22,000 plus the use of a furnished apartmentand partialboard at the AlbrightInstitute.The appointmentis for a period of 10 to 12 months, effective July 1, 1991. Applicants must hold the degree of Ph.D. or its equivalent. Applications for the appointment in 1991 must be postmarked by September 15, 1990. The awardwill be announced in October.Only completed applications,with detailed research proposal, required attachments, and letters of reference, will be considered. For applicationmaterialsand additional information,contact the ASOR AdministrativeOffice at 711 West 40th Street, Suite 354, Baltimore, MD 21211; or
call (301) 889-1383; faxat (301) 889-1157.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
115
Book
Reviews
A New ITestamentGuide to the Holy Land,by JohnJ. Kilgallen, xi + 268 pp. Chicago:Loyola University Press, 1987; $12.95.
person of Jesus- all in less than three pages.Verylittle attention is given to the site, and the result is an inadequatedescription of the village'sgeographicalor archaeologicalimportance.This pattern continues throughout the work. JohnKilgallen has tried to write a guide book of holy sites in Israel relatedto the Another weakness is the ratherloose experiences of Jesus.His approachis de- mixture of fact and tradition. At the scribed as unique in that it emphasizes beginning of the book, for example, a "therelationship of the Gospels to New map of Galilee (page3) shows the locaTestament sacredsites"and uses "the tions of sites to be visited. However, sites as an opportunity to develop for the when Cana is described,it is not Khirbet readersome of the main ideas which Qana, the geographicalsite given on the preoccupiedthe evangelists and moved map, but another village, KefrKenna, them to write their Gospels."Another located about four miles north, northpurposewas to provideenough informa- east of Nazareth where the wedding tion "tobe sufficient for a visitor or miracle has been commemoratedby the pilgrim who would want to know the building of a church. In the same secbasic geographicaland archaeological tion, where Nazareth is identified, a data, as well as biblical meaning, of each brief history of the site is given along site."Sites related to events in the life of with a short explanation of the meaning of the natural cave:"hereit is that Mary Jesusare analyzed accordingto this learned of God'splan for her."Although purpose.The presentation is divided this site has been used to commemorate into three parts:Galilee and Samaria; The includes this encounter, perhapseven beforethe and text Judea; Jerusalem. severalmaps and black-and-whitephoto- third century c.E., such a statement overgraphs,and, in addition to the table of steps the weight of historical evidence. contents, there is an index of Scriptural There are some technical, mechanireferences and an index of names and cal, and factual problems as well. Forthe subjects. pilgrim on a first tour, these problems Kilgallen'swriting style is very com- would probablynot be significant, but fortableand would put the lay readerat they could be fixed easily. Severalexease immediately. It has a conversational amples are:The picture on page 76 apparently is not the "innergate to ruins of quality that encouragesthe readerto trust the guide and think about the reli- King Herod'sPalace (CaesareaPhilippi)" but the crusadergate into Caesarea gious issues that are introducedat each site. The book is printed on nice glossy Maritima;the description of a church at It in has clear a hard Sycharassumes a completed building paper good, type. that, to my knowledge, is far from cover,which is acceptable,but some readersmight prefera paperbackfor finished; the date of Zerubbabel'stemple is given as 515 B.c.on page86 and 480 B.C. travel.The text would be easier to read on page 189;the sequence of events rein justified type, as the raggedright margin is so jaggedthat it is distracting. lating to the vision andstoning of Stephen on page 173;and the temple being built This is a minor criticism, however. In general, the book attempts to do on "thespot in which Abrahamwas willmore than can be accomplished in such ing to sacrifice his belovedIshmael at a short space, with the result that it does the command of God"on page 190. (The little very well. Forexample, in the seclatter statement reflects a position held in Islam, but here it must be the result tion on Capernaum,the miracle of the healing of the man with a withered hand of an unclear sentence that should indicate it is a Moslem and not a Jewishor is introducedand describedin light of Christian belief.) Jesus'use of miracles at Capernaum. As a guide book this work is not Kilgallenthen proceedsto how that relates to the issue of the Sabbaththen adequatefor the pilgrim or the student, continues with a discussion of the but it does do a very fine job of informmeaning of miracles in general and then ing the visitor of biblical stories related to particularlocations and providinginto what they demonstrateabout the
116
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
sight into their spiritual significance. Kilgallen shows himself to be very sensitive to the religious values held in the Holy Landand how those values can be communicated to the pilgrim. This is a valuable contribution and will be appreciated by those to whom the book is directed. GeorgeW Knight Hardin-SimmonsUniversity
Asherahand the Cult of Yahwehin Israel, by Saul M. Olyan, Number 34 in The Society of Biblical LiteratureMonograph Series, Adela YarbroCollins, Editor,and R KyleMcCarter,Jr.,Associate Editor, vii-xiv + 100pp. Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1988; $19.95 (hardcover),$12.95 (paper). This book is a revision of a doctoraldissertation completed in 1985 under the direction of FrankCross. Extensive footnotes and a 16-pagebibliographymake the edition appealprimarilyto the specialist. There are no line drawingsor photographs,but the indices of passages, authors, and subjects are helpful. Olyan is a careful student of the Hebrewtext, noticing that King Ahab's construction of the temple for Baalin Samariais syntactically separatefromhis making of the asherah (IKings 16:32-33), which may thereforebe interpretedas a native IsraeliteYahwisticcult object ratherthan a Jezebelimport (page6). The heart of his thesis is that Baal is never associated with Asherah as consort in Canaanitereligion. This is a polemical device of Deuteronomistic revisionists (page73). The author is also convinced that this asherahof Samaria,mentioned in the most provocativeof the inscriptions from Kuntillet cAjrud,stands in a Yahwehtemple that he posits as a golden calf sanctuarythere implied by Hosea (8:5).Then he notices that the asherah was permitted to remain there until the reign of Jehoahaz,the son of Jehu(2 Kings 13:6)despite the propheticallyinspired revolt of Jehuagainst Jezebel'sBaalreligion and the destruction of the Baal temple at Samaria(2 Kings 9:10). Olyan is a master of the inscriptional material relevantto the study
of both Israelite and Canaanite religions. He is particularlystrong in the Phoenician and Punic sources, although his last chapter,BaalSamem and BaalAddir,is really tedious and peripheralto his primaryargument. This monographwill be welcomed as the most comprehensive study of biblical and inscriptional evidence concerning the goddess Asherah and her symbol, which Olyan interpretsas a carved wooden pole ratherthan a living tree, since JohnDay's splendid Mitchell Dahood lecture of 1984 (1986). The book's strength is also its weakness, however.Asherah hasn'thad such a strong scholarly devotee since G. W. Ahlstrim's monographof 1963, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion.
increasingly voluminous literature on the Kuntillet cAjruddiscoveries,both in texts and pictures. JudithHadley (1987)and Ruth Hestrin (1987)have suggestedwhat Olyan independently concluded about the pictures: that the stylized palm, or lotus tree with an ibex on each side, placed abovea splendid lion on pithos A is more likely to be an asherahthan either of the Bes figures or the lyre playernearest the key inscription (pages29-30). He rejectsBill Dever'sargument (1984)that the lyre playeris Asherah and prefersto interprether (orhim) as a musician appropriateto Bes, who is associated with music. Indeed,as Olyan and many other scholars agree,the blessing by Yahweh Shomronor YahwehTeman"andhis asherah"must mean the cult symbol ratherthan the goddess Asherah because in Hebrew propernames do not take pronomial suffixes. Nevertheless the cult symbol representsthe goddess, and I cannot rule out what Olyan affirms: that her cult symbol may have been associated with some early forms of Yahwism,whether popularor official. The key question is whether or not Asherah could be thought of as Yahweh's consort. In his conclusion, Olyan tentatively connects Asherah with the Nehushtan removedby Hezekiah'sreform (2 Kings 18:4)along with an asherah symbol. He supposes that an early myth connecting Asherah with a serpent stands behind the Eden story.He understandsthe Deuteronomistic condemnations of Asherah and her symbol in the Hebrew Bible as polemic, and the false association of her with Baalas intentional to aid this polemic. Regardlessof whether or not one agreeswith the author,and I do not totally agree,this is an excellent, well-written, and competent piece of research.It is to be recommendedto any readerinterested in the history of Israelite religion.
Olyan has as strong a bias against the Deuteronomistic reformsof Hezekiah and Josiah,with their narrow,antiCanaanite ideology, as he claims most scholars have in favorof this polemical misinterpretationof IronAge Yahwism. His languagegives him awaywhen he regardsJeroboam'srevisions of Jerusalem Yahwismas a "reformcult" (page11). Here he is reflecting the views of his mentor, Cross, whose Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973)is the definitive statement of the pervasiveinfluence of Canaanitecultic tradition on early Israelite religion. JohnEmerton (1982)has a more balancedand mature assessment of the implications of the Kuntillet cAjruddiscoveries and their impact on the history of Israel'sreligion. ForOlyan, everything that would be appropriateto the worship of El is appropriateto Yahwehreligion of the pre-Deuteronomisticperiod, including human sacrifice (pages12-13). His conclusion is "wearguethat the asherah was a legitimate part of the cult of Yahwehboth in the north and in the south, in state religion and in popular religion, finding opposition in deuteronomistic circles"(page13). The best part of this monographis the exceedingly well-informedand commendably cautious treatment of the reBibliography cently discoveredKhirbetel-Qom and G. W. Ahlstr6m, Kuntillet cAjrudevidence in chapter2. 1963 Aspects of Syncretismin Israelite Khirbetel-Qom is later in date and closer Religion. Lund:C. W.K. Gleerup. to Jerusalem(only nine miles southwest Cross, F.M. of Hebron),but the inscription is notori1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. ously difficult to readand interpret Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity. Day,J. (pages23-25). Olyan does an excellent 1986 Asherahin the HebrewBible and job of summarizing and reacting to the
NorthwestSemitic Literature.Journal of Biblical Literature105:385-408. Dever,W 1984 Asherah,Consort of Yahweh?:New Evidencefrom Kuntillet Schools of Bulletin of the AmericancAjrild. Oriental Research255: 21-37. Emerton,J.A. 1982 New Light on IsraeliteReligion:The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet cAjrud.Zeitschrift fiordie Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94: 2-20. Hadley,J.M. 1987 The Drawingsand Inscriptionson TwoPithoi from Kuntillet cAjrud. VetusTestamentum37(2): 180-213. Hestrin, R. 1987 The LachishEwerand the Asherah. Israel ExplorationJournal37(4): 212-23.
M. Pierce Matheney MidwesternBaptistTheological Seminary
Chattel or Person:The Status of Women in the Mishnah, by Judith Romney Wegner, xii + 267 pp. New York:Oxford University Press, 1988; $24.95.
A welcome entry into the realm of rabbinic studies, Chattel or Person is seminal to the project of restructuring that
field with concerns of gender.Wegner analyzes Mishnaic laws about the status of women, asking when and why the Mishnah treats females as either persons or property. To do so, Wegner groups the laws pertaining to six categories of females, first examining three classes in which a woman is legally dependent on a man (minor daughter, wife, levirate woman), then turning to three examples of autonomous and potentially independent women (emancipated daughter, divorcee, widow). Her conclusion: At stake for the writers of the Mishnah were the rights of the male who had legal ownership of a specific woman's sexuality. "Whenever some man has a proprietary interest in the sexual and reproductive function of a specified girl or woman, the Mishnah's framers treat the woman as that man's chattel in all
matters that affect his ownership of her sexuality; in all other contexts, the dependentwoman is treated as a person." The book's structure follows these
six categories,investigatingin turn the legal treatment of each groupof women. Three concluding chaptersdiscuss the
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
117
variations of women'sstatus in public and privatedomains and emphasize the anomaly of the categoryof woman in the Mishnah'staxonomy.To end, Wegner sets her conclusions about the legal status of the "Mishnaicwoman"in the context of contemporaryfeminist theory. Her writing style is straightforwardand admirablyreadablethroughout,despite the legalistic content. EachMishnaic reference is translatedinto English, and endnotes addhelpful explanations,making this book more accessible and certainly satisfying to a wide rangeof readers. While recognizingthe strengths of
lives of Jewishwomen duringthe Roman period, but she does not incorporatethe methodological implications of these studies into her analysis. Bibliography
de Beauvoir,S. 1949 The Second Sex (LeDeuxieme Sexe). New York:Vintage(reprinted1974). Brooten,B. 1982 WomenLeadersin the Ancient Synagogue.Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Kraemer,R. 1985 A New Inscriptionfrom Maltaand the Question of WomenEldersin Chattel or Person, several methodological the DiasporaJewishCommunities. flaws should be noted. First,Wegner's HarvardTheological Review 78: 431-38. particularchoices of feminist explanatory Meyers,C. models are unconvincing. She appro1983 Procreation,Production,and Protecpriates Simone de Beauvoir'sconcept of tion: Male-FemaleBalancein Early the other (1949)to arguethat the rabbis Israel.Journalof the American of the Mishnah treatedwomen the way Academy of Religion 51:569-93. they did on account of the radicalother1988 DiscoveringEve:Ancient Israelite ness of females when perceivedthrough Womenin Context. New York:
male eyes and senses. This thesis, often heard,providesa psychological analysis for the sexual oppressionof women but rejects explanations that include the material condition of women'slives. Recent feminist theory has suggested convincingly that psychological explanations alone do not explain the social status of women. Toput into context the centrality of female sexuality in the Mishnaic status of women, Wegner might have turned to feminist theories that peer insightfully into the windows of the relationship between female sexuality and the economic roles of women in male society (Rubin1975)or into the varyingbalance of women's work in reproductiveand productive spheres (Meyers1983, 1988). Readersof Biblical Archaeologist will notice that Wegner'swork does not referto the cultural environment of the Mishnah-Middle Roman Palestine. All of her conclusions about the status of women in the Mishnah emerge without the help of archaeology.In this regard, Wegnerfollows other scholars of the socalled rabbinicperiodwho too rarelyuse material culture to amplify the written texts at hand. The growingcorpus of archaeologicalevidence is providingnew and exciting possibilities for reconstructing women'shistory in Roman Palestine. Wegnerdoes referto studies by Brooten (1982)andKraemer(1985),which examine inscriptional evidence of the religious
118
roundinga central concern in biblical studies and archaeologicalfieldwork. Stiebing does not claim to provide exhaustive coverageof the scholarly literaturerelatedto past and present perspectiveson the Exodus/Conquest, but he presents a current surveyof the pertinent issues in the book's six major subdivisions: textual and archaeological evidence; dating the Exodusand Settlement; archaeologyand a LateBronze Age Exodus;redatingthe Exodusand Conquest;interpretationsof the Israelite Settlement in Canaan;and the end of the LateBronzeAge in the eastern Mediterranean.
ARCHAEOLOGY ANC?THEXODU•S CO)••UES T NARTIVES
ceou .?**
OxfordUniversityPress. Rubin, G. 1975 The Trafficin Women:Notes on the PoliticalEconomyof Sex.Pp. 157-200 in 7bwardan Anthropologyof Women,edited by R. Rapp.New York:Monthly ReviewPress.
rT
M. B. Peskowitz Duke University
Out of the Desert? Archaeologyand the Exodus/ConquestNarratives,by William H. Stiebing, Jr.,265 pp. Buffalo, New York:Prometheus Books, 1989; $21.95.
Gone are the dayswhen one'stheological viewpoint was directly linked to advocacy of either the early or late date for the Exodus/Conquest.Nowadaysthe options include a wide rangeof dates and a variety of models, that is, hypothetical reconstructions.To the uninitiated, comprehension of the scholarly debate over the nature and date of the Exodus/ Conquest may seem impossible, but William Stiebing'spopularlywritten survey offershope for readerswho seek entrance into this complicated field. Continued interest in this subject, at both the generaland technical levels, justifies Stiebing's effort. There is no
doubt that both audiences will profit from his readable,systematic, and honest treatment of the evidence sur-
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Although the book considersvarious kinds of literary and nonliterarydata that have been retrievedfrom all over the Mediterraneanbasin, Stiebing focuses on the two majorgoals that are clearly stated in his preface.First,he assesses the ways in which these datahave been interrelatedin recent discussions on Israel'sexodus from Egyptand conquest of Canaan.Second, Stiebingmakes his own contribution to the debateby attempting to "understandthese events as part of a largersocial and cultural collapse that was taking place throughout the eastern Mediterraneanat the end of the BronzeAge"(page13).Specifically, he suggests that the "Exodusand settlement of Palestine,"which are datedto the transition from the BronzeAge to the IronAge, must be seen as part of a widespreadsocial upheavalthat resulted from climatic change (the onset of a dry era that producedfamine) in this region and period. Stiebing'sattempt to explain the emergence of Israelin a context of climatically caused social unrest will not convince everyone,but he deserves
praise for drawingtogether evidence on this subject from severalgeographic regions and from severaldisciplines. Climatic fluctuations certainly occurred in antiquity,but the magnitude and duration of these fluctuations and the impact that such changes had on ancient societies, including BronzeAge Canaan, cannot be determined without more evidence. The volume's real strength lies in Stiebing'swillingness and ability to analyze fairly a wide spectrum of viewpoints on the Exodus/Conquest,from the more traditional to more radical reconstructions.His 46-pagebibliography includes many titles that are not generally considered in other (usually shorter) treatments of the subject, indicating that there is more parochialism in such scholarly inquiry than we recognize. There can be no doubt that Stiebing has readwidely in this field, and his skills as a historian and his experiences as a field aZ.:haeologistare evident in his argumentation; he is awareof newly recovered data, and he knows that there are new ways of interpretingold data. This book reminds us that radicallydifferent conclusions can be drawnfrom the same evidence. We are also reminded that the persistent ambiguities of the Exodus/ Conquest debate mean that this is not a good illustration of what archaeology can do for biblical study. It is, however, an essential investigation for those who take seriously the task of studying the Bible in its archaeologicaland historical contexts, whatever the consequences. Gerald L. Mattingly JohnsonBible College
Women'sEarliestRecordsfrom Ancient Egyptand WesternAsia, edited by BarbaraS. Lesko,xl + 350 pp. Atlanta, Georgia:Scholars Press, 1989; $49.95. This volume presents the proceedingsof the Conferenceon Womenin the Ancient Near East, organizedby BarbaraLesko and held at BrownUniversity in November, 1987. The subject of the conference, and thereforeof this volume, is the "neglectedarea"of study concerning "the roles and status of ordinarywomen in the earliest societies."The presented papersare from specialists in the field of Near Easternstudies. The result is an
interdisciplinaryview of women in the pronouncements. ancient world. The readermight question the sucLeskonotes both the limits placed cess of severalof the paperson Egyptian on historians by the lack of access to and Mesopotamianculture in reaching the announced goal of examining the primarytexts and the small number of scholars who have the appropriatelinlives of "ordinarywomen,"since primary evidence is often found in the plastic arts, guistic skills in comparison to the large number of inscribed tablets availablefor tomb paintings, and funeraryartifacts, which are the province of the wealthy. study. The focus of the conference is delineated in the prefacethrough quesHowever,these papersalso display a contions addressedto the participants. tinuing effort to move beyond the agenda These questions concern:the stereoof cultural self-presentationby the typing of male and female roles; women's wealthy to the activity, function, and activities outside the home; women's social status of all the women pictured. The recurrentacknowledgment of place and authority in the work force; the paucity of material culture evidence literacy and professionaltraining;the active participationof women in the related to the public and privatelives of purchaseand/orinheritance of property; women is one of the volume's greatest and, finally, women'slegal status in com- strengths.The readeris repeatedly remindedof the problems inherent in parison to that of their male relatives. Lesko suggests that responses would interpretingwritten texts, artistic repbuild upon previous researchconcerning resentations, and structuralremains. A second primarystrength of the volmarriagecustoms as well as women's familial and legal status. ume is the inclusion of the discussion by The volume is divided accordingto the participantsfollowing each paper. the time structure of the conference and Ratherthan implying that the concluthe chronology of the subject. Day one sions are incontrovertible,these rewas devotedto Old KingdomEgypt, sponses allow us to see and hear the Middle KingdomEgypt,and thirdparticipantsin dialogue modeling the millennium Mesopotamia;day two to manner in which the readermay also the EgyptianNew Kingdom,secondask questions. millennium WesternAsia, and firstThe volume is enhanced by tables of millennium Egypt;day three to firstlinguistic designations and texts, line millennium WesternAsia and ancient drawings,and photographsof paintings, Israel.The three-dimensionalprogram inscriptions, and other artifacts.The was designed to show a series of parallels bibliography,arrangedaccordingto the moving from the earliest to the latest geographicareas consideredduringthe historical events. Briefintroductions to conference, is a treasuretrove of primary each chronological periodposit the hisand secondary sources. Severalof the torical context and function to refresh papersthat depend on complex textual the knowledge of the scholar or to assist analysis may be difficult for some nonthe nonspecialist in entering the time specialist readers.However,the percepframe addressedby the papers. tions gained may be well worth the Of particularinterest to those instruggle. Some readerswould sigh for a terested in the recordsof women in the longer section on ancient Israeland its biblical world are the papersby Carol women. Women'sEarliest Recordsfrom Meyersand Phyllis Bird.Meyers observes the place of women in the domestic Ancient Egyptand WesternAsia will economy of premonarchialIsraelwhile help fill spaces on libraryshelves where we have missed women'sdiverse and Birdexamines women'sreligious practices andexperiences.Eachacknowledges sometimes surprisingactivity in the ancient world. As a teacher in an underthe scarcity of evidence of material culture on which to base normative con- graduatewomen's college, I welcome clusions pertainingto the position and this volume to our library.It will help activity of women. The care with which my students learn to ask questions of all each of these scholars addressesthe texts and not just those that concern problems established by the stereotyping women. Of great importance is the sugof women in Hebrew Scripturesuggests gestion, particularlyexplicit in the criteria useful for the interpretation Concluding Discussions section of the of scholarly biblical and theological volume, that the thoughtful student can
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
119
perceive this ancient world (orany world) in its wholeness only by considering the roles of women and men together within the interplay of political, social, economic, and religious spheres. PatriciaCockrell Wood MaryBaldwin College
Noah: The Personand The Story in History and 'Tradition,by Lloyd Bailey,
xi + 244 pp. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989; $26.95 (hardback), $13.95 (paper).
In 7 chapters,supplemented by 5 appendices and accompaniedby 13 figures, 10 maps, and 11 tables, LloydBailey deals with such questions as "Catastrophe Stories Around the World,""FloodStories in the Ancient Near East,""Isthere Physical Evidence of Noah's Flood?"and "HasNoah'sArk Survived?"He then includes an analysis of the primeval story, of the figure Noah in the Bible, and concludes by discussing "So,What Does It Mean?"A selected bibliographyis also included. Material discussing the survival of the ark was published in Bailey's previous work (1978),which I reviewed here (1979).Appendix 4 of the present volume summarizes some of the ark searches that took place between 1982 and 1987, which, like their predecessors, were frustratedby failure. Bailey centers on a period of interpretation that is earlier than that studied by Don C. Allen (1949)and myself (1961). After surveying the silt layers of Mesopotamian sites as evidence for the flood, Bailey concludes that they indicate floods but not the flood. Such layershave not been found at Syro-Palestiniansites. Pointing to the differenceof opinion over a local or universal flood, Bailey notes that how one defines flood determines whether or not one can say there is archaeologicalevidence. He reviews cases that attribute the source of the silt layers to a tidal wave, a glacial melt, a vaporcanopy,an extraterrestrialorigin, and to dust. He concludes with a negative opinion of these cases as well as of so-called Creation Science. Bailey characterizeshis study as being historically descriptive.Chapters5 and 6 deal with Pentateuchal criticism ratherthan with archaeologicalmatters.
120
In presenting his case for the flood narrative being a primevalstory, Bailey casts his net wide in attempting to identify its place in Genesis 1-11. Included is a survey of Julius Wellhausen's(andhis successors')skepticism of early history. Bailey summarizes (without significant addition) standardsource-criticalarguments for the Pentateuch'scomposition from four sources or traditions. In the primitive stories, independent narratives are gatheredin the two stages Jand P.He gives reasons for conjecturaldates for these sources and supposes that Jhas been truncatedin being joined with P. The standardargumentsfor thinking that the Noah story is a compilation of earlier independent units are summarized. Bailey notes that all the data do not fit and that Isaac Kikawadaand Arthur Quinn (1985)have asked if the narrativeis not a single composition. However,Bailey finds their effort to see a politrophe in the flood narrativedefective when the Hebrew text is consulted, and he rejects it. In raising the question of what the story of Noah meant, Bailey surveys six post-biblicallevels of meaning. Choosing to center on what the editor/redactor said, Bailey surveys the Jand P levels of the story.The latter centers on the fact that for the sake of one righteous man the world was preserved.Bailey is not explicit about what he thinks the flood story should now mean to the individual. The appendicesgive a translation of a portion of a study of evidence for a native Armenian flood story,a discussion of Faustus'saccount, a study of nonliteral numbers in the Bible, and a survey of recent searches for the ark. Appendix 5 offers a conjecturethat the episode of Noah the Farmermay originally have been a continuation of the account of the originof craftsof Genesis 4. It is conjecturedthat the flood is inserted at its place because Noah is the eighth generation from Adam as there are eight monarchs in the Sumerian king list. The methodology of Bailey'sstudy is more to raise questions than to give answers.The proposalsmade are hypothetical, usually prefacedby the words "ifthe interpretationgiven is correct" and presentedwith "maybe"and "might." Bailey offershis questions and hypotheses as coming from the desire to take the text seriously and understandit. He
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
doubts, however,if some of the mysteries will ever be clearedup. Bibliography Allen, D. C. 1949 The Legendof Noah. Urbana:University of Illinois Press. Bailey,L. 1978 Whereis Noah'sArk?Nashville: AbingdonPress. Kikawada,I. M., and Quinn, A. 1985 BeforeAbraham Was:The Unity of Genesis 1-11. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Lewis,J.P. 1968 A Study of the Interpretationof Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature.Leiden: E. J.Brill. 1979 Review of Whereis Noah'sArk?by LloydR. Bailey.BiblicalArchaeologist 42:190-91. Whitcomb,J.C., Jr.,and Morris,H. M. 1961 The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia:
PublishandReformed Presbyterian ing Company.
Jack P. Lewis Harding Graduate School of Religion
- Do you have a question aboutyour subscription? - Do you need to changeyour address? Call JohnsHopkins UniversityPressat 1-301-338-6964 or write JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress 701 W. 40th St., Suite275
MD 21211. Baltimore,
When callingor writing, pleasegive your name, address and zip code as it appearson your mailinglabel.
BOOKPUBLISHERS Please send all review copies to: Dr. JamesC. Moyer Department of Religious Studies Southwest Missouri State University 901 South National, Box 167 Springfield,MO 64804-0095
Back Matter Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Jun., 1990), pp. 87-103 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210109 Accessed: 02/04/2010 09:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Biblical Archaeologist.
http://www.jstor.org
"fabulous THE OF
ATLAS ILLUSTRATED JERUSALEM
"IW Produc t's eof "C"
(M
Grad
ptoduct
X
pl[
Dan Bahat with Chaim T. Rubinstein Translated by Shelomo Ketko Forewordby Benjamin Mazar Introduction by Eric Meyers
.... ............
SAMA
6 The publication of the first true atlas of Jerusalem is an occasion for much rejoicing... [it] provides an extraordinary opportunity to view Jerusalem as it has evolved through the ages and as it exists today...[the Atlas is] superior in every scientific way to all existing books of its kind on Jerusalem. It beckons all lovers of the city to protect its archaeological treasures and to safeguard its unique legacy of hope for future generations. 9 -Eric Meyers, from the Introduction* For the first time in English, here is a comprehensive visual introduction to one of the world's most sacred-and most studied --cities. Complete with line drawings, maps, and isometric drawings based on the latest archaeological findings, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem provides a colorful, informative view of the city throughout its fascinating history. TheAtlas will be an invaluable resource for anyone interested in biblical archaeology, Jewish studies, geography,bible studies, and Middle Eastern history.
..
,' ? i'i~i:a:jiiili:i:iiiiii:?i j:
Beh
aW ves tbi~
X
...::
i
.:
;:i
i~
w,
AW
dwi ....
....... ....... Ifw,
r I'ii~i~~~iiib;"_::?::1:-A.: I
tip-
Specialfeaturesof the Atlas include:
N concise, easy-to read text N four-color illustrations, maps, drawingsthroughout N complete bibliographyfor further reading N thorough index N an up-to-date approach, based on the latest archaeological evidence Dan Bahat is the official archaeologist for the city of Jerusalem. Chaim T. Rubinstein has written several books and articles on Jerusalem. Shelomo Ketko, former literary editor of the Jerusalem Post, is a well-known translator. Ben Mazar is the former Chairman of the Archaeological Board of Israel. Eric Meyers is the Editor of Biblical Archaeologist and the Executive Director of the American Schools of Oriental Research. He is the head of Jewish Studies at Duke University. 144 pages *9 x 12 *more than 400 illustrations * ISBN: 0-13-451642-7 Publication date: October
EI-AmarmaLetter
Special Offer: Order now and save $10! Pre-publication price: $85.00 until October 1, 1990; $95.00 thereafter Orderfrom:
SIMON
SCHUSTER
AcademicReferenceDivision BoxBA 15ColumbusCircle NewYork,N.Y.10023 Attn:ClaireSchoen
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
87
BOOK
SPRING/
SUMMER EXEGETICALDICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Volume1
REVOLUTIONWITHIN THE REVOLUTION TheFirstAmendmentin
Editedby HorstBalz and GerhardSchneider
HistoricalContext,1612-1789 WilliamR. Estep Foreword byBillMoyers
The firstvolume of a projectedthree-volume set which offersa completelexiconfor the English-speakingreaderof New Testament Greekas well as a superbguide to the usage of every New Testamentword and to modem New Testamentscholarship. Cloth,$39.95
RETURNTO REASON A Critiqueof Enlightenment Evidentialism anda Defenseof ReasonandBeliefin God KellyJamesClark
A clear,cogent accountof the recentwork on the rationalityof religiousbelief, this book helps bridgethe existinggap between technical philosopherand educatedlayperson. Paper,$10.95
DistinguishedhistorianWilliamEstepoffersin this book a lively accountof the persons and events that influencedthe shaping of the FirstAmendment. Paper,$14.95
THE FABRICOF THIS WORLD InquiriesintoCalling,CareerChoice,and theDesignof HumanWork LeeHardy
Thoroughlyresearched,historicallygrounded, philosophicallyand theologicallyinformed, this book makes a unique contributionto the evangelicalliteratureon work and careerchoice. Paper,$12.95
THE LORD'S PRAYER JanMili6 Lochman
THE FUNDAMENTALIST PHENOMENON A ViewfromWithin; A ResponsefromWithout
Editedby NormanJ. Cohen
The work of some of today's leading academicians,theologians,and thinkers,this book assesses the natureof fundamentalism and its impacton our social,political,and religiouslife. ContributorsincludeJaroslav Pelikan,GeorgeM. Marsden,ClarkH. Pinnock, JamesDavison Hunter,RichardJohnNeuhaus, JamesM. Dunn, Leon Wieseltier,and Donald W. Shriver,Jr. Paper,$14.95
This expositionby Lochmanof the Lord'sPrayer is thoughtfuland heartfelt,full of historicaland theologicalinsights, and aboundingin contemporaryapplication. Paper,$12.95
AND THE METAPHYSICS IDEA OF GOD WolfhartPannenberg
Reflectingthe pervasivelyhistoricalorientation of much of Pannenberg'searlierwork, this book offersa superband succinctintroductionto the crisscrossingsof theology and metaphysicsover the last two thousandyears. Cloth, $21.95
WHY? THE TECHNOLOGICALBLUFF JacquesEllul
A masterpieceof contemporarycriticalanalysis, this book presentsa penetratingcritiqueof modem technologywhich cuts acrossseveral areas- sociology,socialethics, economics, history,politicalscience, and philosophy of science. Cloth,$24.95
102
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
On Suffering, Guilt, and God
A. van de Beek
In this book A. van de Beekgrappleshonestly with the mystery of sufferingand evil. His writingrevealsa pastoralheartkeenly awareof the profoundevil and sufferingin our world today,and he considersthese perplexitiesvia a fresh, differentapproach. Paper,$19.95
from
EERDM
IMAGES OF JESUS
How Jesus Has Been Portrayedand Perceivedin OtherCultures
AntonWessels A study on the varietyof ways Jesushas been perceivedand portrayedin differenttimes and places throughouthistory. Compellingreadingfor both academicand generalreaders. Paper,$12.95
GOD'SPEOPLEIN GOD'S LAND Family,Land,and Property in the Old Testament
Christopher. H. Wright
This unique survey examines socioeconomic life in Old TestamentIsraelfrom an ethical perspectiveby looking at how the economicfacts of Israel'ssocialstructurewere relatedto the people's religiousbeliefs. Paper,$16.95
SERIES COMMENTARY THENEW INTERNATIONALGREEK
TESTAMENT COMMENTARY
W WardGasqueandL HowardMarshall, editors
COMMENTARY ON 1& 2 THESSALONIANS CharlesA. Wanamaker Cloth, $29.95
THENEW INTERNATIONAL
COMMENTARY ON THE NEWTESTAMENT
EE Bruce,editor
THEFIRSTEPISTLEOFPETER
INTERNATIONALTHEOLOGICAL COMMENTARY Fredrick and Holmgren G.A.EKnight,editors
JUDGES
At Risk in the PromisedLand
E.JohnHamlin Paper,$12.95
NEWTESTAMENT TYNDALE COMMENTARIES LeonMorris,editor
MARK Revised Edition
PeterH. Davids
R. AlanCole
Cloth, $24.95
Paper,$8.95
THEEPISTLETOTHEHEBREWS
GALATIANS
Revised Edition
Revised Edition
EE Bruce
R. AlanCole
Cloth, $27.95
Paper,$6.95
Pricessubjectto change without notice. Formore informationon these and other Eerdmanstitles, writeto EerdmansTextbook Departmentfor a copy of our most recent AcademicCatalog.
At your bookstore,or call 800633-9326 In Michigan, call collect 6164594591 FAX616-459-6540 025
WM.B. EERDMANS
mmm PUBLISHING CO.
z55JEFFERSONAVE.S.E. / GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. 49503
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
103
American
The
The
Johns
Schools
of
Oriental
Research
and
Hopkins UniversityPress
Books
Journals
(Urice) QasrKharanain the Transjordan TheSynagoguein LateAntiquity(Levine) Scrollsfrom the Wilderness of theDeadSea(Cross) LeviticusScroll(11QpaleoLev) ThePaleo-Hebrew andMathews) (Freedman in theMideast(King) AmericanArchaeology A Comprehensive Indexto BiblicalArchaeologist Volumes 36-45 (1973-1982)(MacKay) Excavationsat AncientMeiron(Meyers,Strange,andMeyers) Scrollsfrom QumranCaveI (Trever) Excavations,1981-83 PreliminaryReportsof ASOR-Sponsored (BulletinSupplement 23) (Rast) Excavations,1980-84 PreliminaryReportsof ASOR-Sponsored (BulletinSupplement 24) (Rast) Excavations,1982-1985 PreliminaryReportsof ASOR-Sponsored (BulletinSupplement 25) (Rast) TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress 701West40th Street,Suite275 Baltimore,MD21211 Allpreviouslypublishedworks,in printandnotlistedabove,arestill handledby Eisenbrauns forASOR. Eisenbrauns P.O.Box275 WinonaLake,IN46590
Subscriptions,claims, and back issues or aboutsubscriptions OrdersforASOR journalsandcorrespondence singleissuepurchasesshouldbe sentto theJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress. (telephone301-338-6964,telex#5101012198) Advertising aboutadvertisingshouldbe addressedto theJohns Correspondence HopkinsUniversityPress.(telephone301-338-6982) TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress 701West40th Street,Suite275 Baltimore,MD21211 EditorialCorrespondence shouldbe andeditorialcorrespondence Articleproposals,manuscripts, sent directlyto the journaleditors. EricM.Meyers BiblicalArchaeologist, Office ASOR Publications BoxHM,DukeStation,Durham,NC27706 Bulletinof ASOR,WalterRast of Theology Department IN46383 University,Valparaiso, Valparaiso Journalof CuneiformStudies,ErleLeichty of OrientalStudies Department Universityof Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,PA19104 editor ASORNewsletter, AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch 711West40th Street,Suite354, Baltimore,MD21211
SubscriberCategory
Bulletinof ASOR
ASOR Newsletter
Journalof CuneiformStudies
Biblical Archaeologist
NonmemberSubscriptions individual UnitedStates Canada,Mexico outsideNorthAmerica
41.00 50.00 51.50
16.00 17.50 18.00
36.00 39.50 40.00
19.95 23.35 28.35
students,retirees,handicapped UnitedStates Canada,Mexico outsideNorthAmerica
39.00 48.00 49.50
14.00 15.50 16.00
34.00 37.50 38.00
17.95 21.35 26.35
institutions UnitedStates Canada,Mexico outsideNorthAmerica
55.00 64.00 65.50
23.00 24.50 25.00
48.00 51.50 52.00
30.00 33.40 38.40
0006-0895(199006)53s 2-Q
