The basic approach to this outline is to work from the extra-biblical sources to the Bible. Therefore, in the earlier parts, the notes are really a general outline of the history of the peoples impinging geographically upon the biblical history.
I first began teaching this course at the Capital Bible Seminary some forty years ago. So much has happened in this field, and so much reinterpretation of the data, that I’m sure I have left out many salient materials. I hope that the outline will stimulate the student to wider research.
These notes are intended to be cursory and outline in nature. The student is expected to use them as a guide for the development of ideas related to this vast and complex area of study. Because of these inherent limitations, it should be remembered that many of the statements contained in this outline may be misconstrued if taken outside the lecturer’s context.
I have been diligent in crediting all the sources of the contents of these notes. Even so, some or much of them is the result of extensive reading over the years, and it is possible that I have failed to identify every source properly. For that I apologize. My interest in archeology and history is of the “arm chair” variety. Be assured that all or almost all the content comes from others. I am grateful for all those contributors to the subject.
It is easy for errors of many kinds to creep into a work of this sort. Any corrections or criticisms would be much appreciated.
I dedicate this work to my colleagues at the Capital Bible Seminary with much appreciation for forty years of camaraderie and service in the task of training men and women for the ministry of the Gospel.
Homer Heater, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Capital Bible Seminary
Summer 2014
Attitudes between the 20’s and the 30’s and currently toward the Bible in the Ancient Near East, the role of archaeology and its impact on the Bible, as well as questions about whether there is such a thing as biblical archaeology have shifted dramatically. The following citations from Glueck and Wright in particular come from the fifties and sixties, when there was somewhat of an “Albrightian consensus” that was particularly salutary. Later we will discuss contemporary (1990’s) views, but for now let the men working with the Bible and archaeology in that era speak for themselves.
Nelson Glueck (Rivers in the Desert. p. 30ff) addresses the issue of the place of the Bible in the discussion of archaeology:
“The purpose of the biblical historian and archaeologist is, however, not to ‘prove’ the correctness of the Bible. It is primarily a theological document, which can never be ‘proved,’ because it is based on belief in God, whose Being can be scientifically suggested but never scientifically demonstrated.”1
“Those people are essentially of little faith who seek through archaeological corroboration of historical source materials in the Bible to validate its religious teachings and spiritual insights.”
“As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries. They form tesserae in the vast mosaic of the Bible’s almost incredibly correct historical memory.”
G. Ernest Wright (“Is Glueck’s Aim to Prove that the Bible is True?” Biblical Archaeologist, XXII, December, 1959) defends the “Albrightian consensus” against the charge of holding to a biblical agenda:
“J. J. Finkelstein of the University of California presents a review of Rivers in the Desert (Commentary, April, 1959, XXVII No. 4). In actuality the article is not so much a review of Glueck’s discoveries as a critical essay on the question as to whether archaeology proves the historicity of the Bible. He takes #3 above as Glueck’s thesis and debates it.”
Finkelstein: “Wright says in his Biblical Archaeology, ‘The most surprising and discouraging result of the work so far has been the discovery that virtually nothing remains at the site between 1500 and 1200 B.C.’” (Jericho). Wright: “Finkelstein asserts that the word ‘virtually’ is simply a scholarly hedge for ‘nothing,’ and that what I am actually saying is that the site was unoccupied in the Late Bronze Age. Furthermore, says Finkelstein, my word ‘discouraging’ in this connection ‘speaks volumes on the subject of scholarly detachment in the area of Biblical studies.’ He continues: ‘The dictates of the new trend, which requires that every contradiction between archaeological evidence and the Biblical text be harmonized to uphold the veracity of Scripture, has apparently driven Dr. Wright--in this case at least--beyond the reach of common sense.’”
Wright: “There are many people both here and abroad who honestly think and frequently assert that Palestinian and biblical archaeology was conceived and reared by conservative Christians who wished to find support for their faith in the accuracy of the Bible. As a matter of actual fact, however, that is not the case at all. In the great fundamentalist-modernist controversy that reached its height before the First World War, archaeology was not a real factor in the discussion. Indeed, the discoveries relating to the antiquity of man and the Babylonian creation and flood stories were usually cited against the fundamentalist position. As for the excavations in Palestine, one need only call the roll of the leading American sponsors and contributors to indicate what the true situation has been: Harvard University (Samaria), University of Pennsylvania (Beth-Shan), University of Chicago (Megiddo), Yale University (Jerash), the American Schools of Oriental Research, etc. Palestinian archaeology has been dominated by a general cultural interest, and one can say that ‘fundamentalist’ money has never been a very important factor.2 Archaeological research by and large has been backed by the humanist opinion that anything having to do with historical research, with the investigation of our past is an obvious ‘good’ which needs no justification.”
“The introduction of the theme, ‘archaeology confirms biblical history,’ into the discussion of scientific archaeological matters is a comparatively recent phenomenon. And it is to be credited to the pen of William Foxwell Albright more than to any other one person. Since the 1920’s, Albright has towered over the field of biblical archaeology as the greatest giant it has produced, and more than any other single person he has influenced younger scholars, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, to take the subject seriously as a primary tool of historical research. At the same time, he has been a most important encouragement to young conservative scholars. Through his writings, they have come to realize that if they but master the tools of research, there is indeed a positive contribution that they can make to biblical research, and that the radical views which they could not accept do not necessarily find support in recent research.”
“Yet Albright has often been misunderstood at this point. He has never been a ‘fundamentalist’ (Note, for example, the robust attack on him as an old-fashioned liberal at heart by O. T. Allis, “Albright’s Thrust for the Bible View,” CT, May 25, 1959, Vol. III. 17, pp. 7-9), and the encouragement of that movement could scarcely be farther from his center of interest… At the same time Albright’s deep interest in ancient history and his mastery of several disciplines within it brought him to the conviction that a whole new environment for biblical study was emerging of which the 19th century knew nothing.”
“Consequently, at first in his popular writings and finally in his scholarly synthesis of the evidence (From the Stone Age to Christianity), he led the attack in the English-speaking world on the unexamined presuppositions of ‘Wellhausenism’ from the standpoint of ancient history and particularly archaeology. The early historical traditions of Israel cannot be easily dismissed as data for history when such a variety of archaeological facts and hints make a different view far more reasonable, at least as a working hypothesis, namely, that the traditions derive from an orally transmitted epic which has preserved historical memories in a remarkable way, that ‘pious fraud’ was not a real factor in the production or refraction of the traditions, and that in Israel aetiology was a secondary, never a primary, factor in the creation of the epic.”3
“This information from Jericho was said to be ‘disappointing,’ and the reason is this: not only is it now difficult to interpret the biblical narrative of the fall of Jericho, but it is impossible to trace the history of the tradition. For my part, I do not believe that it can any longer be thought ‘scientific’ simply to consider stories such as this one either as pure fabrications or as ‘aetiologies.’ They have a long history of transmission, oral before written, and they derive from something real in history, no matter how far removed they may now be. In a number of instances, both the origin and history of a given tradition can be made out by historical, form-critical, and other methods of study. But the problem of Jericho is more of a problem than ever, precisely because the history of the tradition about it seems impossible to penetrate.”
Scoggin, J. Alberto, BA, XXIII, No. 3, September, 1960. Qin’at sofrim tarbeh hokma. (The jealousy of scholars increases wisdom.) He presents the views of Albrecht Alt and his younger contemporary Martin Noth as opposed to the Albright school represented by John Bright, A History of Israel. The former argues for complete dismissal of the historicity of anything before the constitution of the Twelve-tribe League (Amphictyony) on Palestinian soil. Whereas the latter holds the essential historicity of the traditions underlying the sources. For a more detailed discussion of this cleavage and subsequent modifications, see DeVaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, pp. 111-122.
W. F. Albright died in 1971. An issue of the Biblical Archaeologist was devoted to “celebrating and examining” his legacy. The editor says, “W. F. Albright represents, as it were, an Atlantis of biblical and Near Eastern studies, lingering in memory and story long after slipping beneath the sea.”4 Devers is particularly devastating in his evaluation of Albright’s work.5 He says, “The fact is the ‘Biblical archaeology’ of the classic Albright-Wright style is dead, either as a serious intellectual enterprise, or as an effective force in American academic or religious life.” He goes on to say, in spite of Albright’s arguments that there was a 13th century Moses who was a monotheist, “the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure, that Yahwism was highly syncretistic from the very beginning; and that true monotheism developed only late in Israel’s history, probably not until the Exile and Return (see the state-of-the-art studies gathered in Miller, Hanson, and McBride 1987).”
Thus we have come full circle: Albright rejected the excessive higher critical claims for the non-historicity of the Bible, but now his position has been rejected. We must now speak of the new archaeology not Biblical archaeology.6
Kitchen argues that Albright’s views were good based on Mari (18th century) and Nuzi (15th century). There was wide travel, semi nomadism, West-Semitic personal names, and legal/social usage.7 Kitchen goes on to say that this data has been clouded by later treatments. Gordon dated Abraham in the 14th century and identified him as a merchant prince. Others identified him as a warrior hero. Albright himself identified him as a donkey caravaneer, a traveling trader rather than a pastoralist. Speiser gave a Hurrian interpretation based primarily on Nuzi. The Patriarchs began to look more like Hurrians than Hebrews! There was a reaction, he says, against Albright’s views in the 1970’s encouraged by old style “die hards” in Germany and America. It is nothing but old German rationalism. Those who are trying to “debunk” Albright include T. L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 1974; J. van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975; and D. B. Redford, “A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph,” VTSup 20 (1970).8
Albright’s general views will continue to be presented in this outline for the simple reason that I believe many of his historical conclusions are correct.
During this same period (80’s-90’s), the issue of minimalism vs maximalism arose. A small number of advocates (Whitelam,9 Thompson,10 Davies,11 Lemche,12 Finkelstein,13 e.g.) exercising a disproportionate influence on the scholarly world, argue for no historicity of the Bible prior to the sixth century B.C. So, again, we have come full circle to the place where Albright began to debunk the hyper-critical views of the 19th century. See Dever (himself no conservative) debunking this.14 Kenneth Kitchen came out with his monumental work in 2003.15 In my opinion he devastates the arguments of the minimalists.
Thompson even argues against the Tel Dan inscription that specifically mentions the house of David coming from the ninth century BC. He desperately tries to find other meanings for the words.16 Kitchen makes a slashing attack on the biblical minimalists on pp. 449-500. See his discussion of Philistines and camels during the patriarchal time on p. 465. The lack of records regarding the exodus is discussed on p. 466. He interacts with Dever’s, Who were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? on pp 468ff. “There seems to be a psychological hangover here; in the 1950s to 1960s, Albright and Dever’s much-hated ‘American Biblical Archaeology’ (plus theology) movement had believed in the patriarchs and exodus—so (irrationally) nobody now (two generations later) must either be allowed to study them seriously or to produce any data (no matter how genuine or germane) that do suggest their possible reality. In the light of what is now known, there is no excuse whatsoever for dismissing either the patriarchs (with a firm date line) or the exodus; see the entirely fresh treatments in chapters 6 and 7 above. The treatments given here by me are not based on Albright, Gordon, or the vagaries of the little local (and very parochial) United States problem of the long-deceased American Biblical Archaeology/ theology school. Archaeologists that ‘have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible ‘historical figures’ (98) are not thereby rendered ‘respectable’; in fact, they simply do not know the relevant source materials (which are mainly textual), are not competent to pass judgment on the issues, and would be better described as pitifully ignorant, and can now be mercifully dismissed as out of their depth.”17
1But seeking confirmation of written documents by archaeology is not improper and practical for other documents than the Bible (Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, 169, 70).
2Schoville (Keith Schoville, Biblical Archaeology in Focus, p. 97) cites this statement and adds, “There is currently a trend, nevertheless, for increased financial and staff support derived from conservative circles.”
3Albright said, “In the center of history stands the Bible” (cited by J. M. Sasson, “Albright as an Orientalist,” BA, 56 [1993] 6).
4David C. Hopkins, “From the Editor,” Biblical Archaeologist 56 (1993) Inside cover.
5W. G. Dever, “What Remains of the House that Albright Built?”BA56 (1993) 32-33.
6See John van Seters (In Search of History) for a classical presentation of the newer perspective.
7See Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel, p. 115 for a recent discussion of Nuzi and the Patriarchs.
8K. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World, pp. 57-58. For a 1987 survey, see F. R. Brandfon, “Archaeology and the Biblical Text,” BAR 14 (1987) 54-59.
9Keith W. Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History, NY: Routledge, 1996.
10Thomas L. Thompson, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel, NY: Basic, 1999.
11P. R. Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel,” Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
12Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition.
13Israel Finkelstein and N. A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts.
14William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel.
15K. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (OROT), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
16 Kevin D. Miller, “Did the Exodus Never Happen?” Christianity Today, September, 1998, for a good discussion of the issues.
17Kitchen, OROT, pp. 468-469. See also a response to Dever in John Oswalt, The Bible among the Myths, pp.180-81.
Biblical Archaeology is a special arm chair variety of general archaeology. Someone has quipped that it is the study of durable rubbish. The archaeologist’s chief concern is not with methods or pots or weapons alone. His central and absorbing interest is the understanding and exposition of Scripture. The biblical student must be a student of ancient life, and archeology is his aid in recovering the nature of a period long past. We cannot, therefore, assume the knowledge of biblical history is unessential to faith. Biblical theology and biblical archeology must go hand in hand if we are to comprehend the Bible’s meaning. Many facets of biblical teaching cannot be buttressed or enlightened by archaeology, e.g., the resurrection of Christ. So for this reason many will part ways in interpreting the data because of their frame of reference.
William Smith, “Father of English Geology”--1799 stratification of rock.
Principles of Geology (1830) Sir Charles Lyell--uniformitarianism.
Huxley’s Man’s Place in Nature (1863); Darwin’s Descent of Man. Criticism of the Bible began here and peaked in the early 1900’s.
Albright moved away from his very liberal mentors and was the pillar in the “biblical archaeology” movement from the 1920’s on.
The idea that no history of Israel can be written and a minimalistic approach to the biblical text comes into play in the last part of the 20th century.
Ideas of the east were poorly preserved by Greek and Latin authors. There was a dim understanding of the east. In the 17th-18th centuries, travelers began to return with reports of ancient cities. The first cuneiform writing was brought to Europe just after 1600.
Napoleon set off for Egypt in 1798 with an army of soldiers and scholars. Description de l’Egypt (1809-13) caused Europe to become acquainted with the dazzling empire of Egypt. The Rosetta Stone was discovered by a soldier. It contains hieroglyphics, demotic and Greek and dates from about 195 B.C. The triple text was a decree issued by a king giving exemption to priests from taxes. The Rosetta Stone provided the key to hieroglyphics.ANE#72.
Old Persian had been deciphered but Akkadian was a puzzle. The Behistun Inscription: a steep rock face in Iran bearing a triple text inscription of Darius the Great (522-486 B.C.) in Old Persian, Elamite and Babylonian, (see Kramer, The Sumerians, pp. 12ff). Work had been done on trilingual inscription before the Behistun inscription, but through Rawlinson, definitive results came about. Old Persian had been learned from India. Rawlinson copied the first and third texts in 1843-47 (see National Geographic, December, 1950). The inscription was 345 feet above a spring and 100 feet above where man can climb. There was much early skepticism of the decipherment, but proof was given when a recently excavated tablet was copied and sent to four different Assyrian scholars. The translations were substantially the same, and by 1880 all were convinced.
French and British excavators were at work in the Assyrian ruins of Khorsabad and Calah where there were great palaces of Assyrian kings (see atlas). The most important single discovery was the library of Ashurbanipal (669-633 B.C.). Thousands of documents of all sorts had been copied. History, chronological lists, astronomy, math, religion, prayers, cuneiform sign lists, texts in two languages, were among the works. G. Smith discovered an account of the flood epic while working on these.1
Moabite stone--1868--ANE 1 #74.
Work at Byblos--Phoenicians. 1860’s.
Ugarit--alphabet--1930’s--ANE 1 #63.
Lachish letters--1930’s--ANE 1 #80.
Gezer Calendar--ANE 1 #65.
Siloam Inscription--ANE 1 #73.
Megiddo--recent--ANE 1 #181.
Dead Sea Scrolls.
Proto-Sinai alphabet.
Arad Ostraca--BASOR, 197, February, 1970, p. 16ff.
An important publication on the materials found in Palestine is H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften, Vol. I = Text; Vol. II = Commentary; Vol. III = Glossary.
Ebla--1975-
The New ‘Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel (1300-740 BC)3
The Tell Dan Stela (Beyt David)
The Pool of Siloam in Jesus’ Time
Jerusalem’s Stepped-Stone Structure (Millo)
Tell Qeyafa with the ancient ostracon
Heinrich Schliemann was an amateur archaeologist who excavated Troy in the 1870’s. He discovered the importance of mounds (see Joshua 11:13; 8:28). It was easy to date monuments, but there are few in Palestine. Flinders Petrie found the clue in pottery in 1890 in the dig at Tell el-Hesi which is perhaps Eglon (ANE 1 #27). In the earlier days excavation was merely a treasure hunt. Now it is highly scientific. See picture of a Tell in Wright, Biblical Archaeology, p. 23, 26. Note the stratigraphic typology. See step trench in Ed Chiera, They Wrote on Clay, p. 34.
Archaeological methods have progressed dramatically, primarily through technology. Pottery sequence continues to be a major dating instrument and stratigraphy is still basic. Laughlin gives a popular and thorough presentation of the modern approach to digging. 4
1Read Pritchard’s account of the Black Obelisk, Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 139 and his postscript, p. 246.
2The use of Palestine here is not intended to enter the debate of the modern name Israel vis à vis Palestine. This designation was used by the British Mandate after WW I.
3See “Issue 200: Ten Top Discoveries,” BAR 35:4/5 (2009) pp. 74-96.
4John C. H. Laughlin, Archaeology and the Bible.
The ability to communicate in a permanent manner caused radical changes in the culture of the Middle East. People were now able to transmit information to succeeding generations in written as well as oral form. This included divine revelation as well as other more mundane matters.
Clay tablets have been found in the Mesopotamian valley with writing dated before the beginning of the third millennium B.C. Writing began with pictographic representations first on cylinder seals, then perhaps on wood, and, finally, clay. Gelb suggests a possible link between Chinese and proto-Sumerian pictographs. He gives seven ancient pictographic systems: Sumerian (3000 B.C. to A.D. 75), Elamite (3000-2000), Chinese (1300 to present), Indo (2300), Egypt (3000 to A.D. 400), Cretan (2000 to 1200), Hittite (1500-700).1
It was the medium of clay which determined the nature of writing in Mesopotamia. Figures at first were drawn, but it was discovered that the end of the stylus pressed in the clay made easier and clearer impressions. This wedged shaped writing is thus called cuneiform (Latin: wedge-shaped), or in German, Keilschrift.
Cuneiform was apparently developed by the Sumerians, an unknown people in the southern part of the Mesopotamian valley. They and their language were probably Asian in origin.2
Around the third millennium B.C., a Semitic people began to intrude into the valley, finally dominating the Sumerians completely. They adapted the cuneiform writing system to their own language which is referred to as Akkadian. The later dialectical developments of this language are referred to as Assyrian and Babylonian.
Cuneiform Akkadian is syllabic in character. That is, vowels and consonants are always written together, e.g., ab, ib, ub, aba, bab, ba, bi, etc.
Because of commercial exchanges with the west, cuneiform Akkadian has been found in Egypt, Anatolia and Syria.
The Egyptians have writing on their monuments by 3200 B.C. These are called “holy incisions” or hieroglyphs. Gelb argues that Mesopotamian influence in Egypt c. 3000 B.C. suggests that the Egyptians learned from the Sumerians.3
Like Sumerian, this was pictograph writing, but unlike Sumerian, it was not reduced to a syllabary. The hieroglyphs are divided into sound signs or phonograms used purely for spelling (some of which stand for a single consonant) and sense signs or ideograms which depict an object or ideas connected with an object.
Cartouche of Khufu (Cheops), the great pyramid builder. The symbols outside the cartouche are translated “King of Upper and Lower Egypt.” This symbol was used by all the Pharaohs even during Greek and Persian times.
There were over 600 hieroglyphs. They contained 24 phonetic one-letter signs which do not differ greatly from the alphabet of the Semitic languages.
The hieroglyphs never evolved into an alphabet, but a cursive, simplified form was developed called hieratic which was further simplified after the 7th century B.C. into demotic.
An alphabetic system of writing Egyptian came with the adaptation of the Egyptian language to the Greek alphabet to which were added needed symbols. This is called Coptic.
The Rosetta Stone, discovered by one of Napoleon’s soldiers in 1799, contained an edict from the third century B.C., written in hieroglyphic, demotic, and Greek.
The alphabet itself was left to be developed by people in Palestine. In the Sinai peninsula, the Egyptians mined turquoise. They utilized Semitic slaves for this task. In 1904-5 Flinders Petrie discovered certain inscriptions on the walls of the caves and pits in which the slaves worked. The writing was obviously an ancestor of the Phoenician and Hebrew alphabet. These letters are easily discernible in the picture in ANEP, #270. lb[lt means “to Baalat,” a goddess of the Canaanites. Albright originally dated this around 1800 B.C. but has since reduced it to about 1500 B.C. at the latest, but its development must antedate that considerably.
Precisely who developed this alphabet and when remains shrouded in mystery, but its possible connection with the Egyptian hieroglyphs has been shown. It also is a form of pictograph writing with this exception: the object represented in the symbol gives its initial sound to that symbol so that it can be used over and over again as a sound rather than a representative of one object.4 For instance, a represents an ox. The Semitic word for ox is aleph. However, a no longer means “ox,” but “a.” Likewise, [ is “eye,” (Semitic aayn), but it comes to represent “aa” as in Baalat above.5
This alphabet became refined in its shapes to the point that some of the original objects are no longer discernible. The old Phoenician, Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions used the following alphabet:
Some of this writing appears at Qumran for the purpose of archaizing. For instance, the divine name is written in some documents.
Somewhere around the eighth century, through their commercial contact with the Phoenicians, The Greeks adopted and adapted this alphabet. For example, a is turned clockwise one half turn and written “A.” The Greeks wrote originally from right to left as did the Semites.6 Sometimes they wrote boustrophedon (as an ox plows) right to left and left to right. Eventually they wrote only left to right.
In view of the fact that not all letters corresponded, certain improvisations had to be made. Note the following comparison:
From Greek, of course, the alphabet spread to Latin, and its descendants. Hence, every alphabet in the world with the exception of Korean (c. A.D. 1500) owes its origin to the Semitic alphabet developed in Palestine.7
Since there were no vowels in the alphabet, each ethnic group using this alphabet had to come up with vowels. Syriac, e.g., uses Greek vowels over and under the letters. Arabic uses small slash marks and Ethiopic builds tiny vowels into the letters. Greek, itself, used existing Semitic letters for vowels (see above).
The alphabet used in the Hebrew Old Testament is not the old Hebrew but a development of that same alphabetic script by the Aramaic speaking people. The Jews adopted this alphabet during the Babylonian captivity and are using it to this day. It is referred to as the “square script.”
In Syria a place called Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) has yielded a treasure trove of tablets coming from c. 1400 B.C. These tablets are inscribed on clay with a stylus attesting their indebtedness to cuneiform, but they are alphabetic not syllabic. We assume the alphabet was borrowed from the Canaanites because of the shape of some of the letters, e.g., Canaanite samek, Ugaritic . See ANEP, #263.
“We must again emphasize the fact that alphabetic Hebrew writing was employed in Canaan and neighboring districts from the Patriarchal Age on, and that the rapidity with which forms of letters changed is clear evidence of common use. It is certain that the Hebrew alphabet was written with ink and used for everyday purposes in the 14th and 13th centuries B.C. (Lachish, Beth-Shemesh, Megiddo), that quantities of papyrus were exported from Egypt to Phoenicia after 1100 B.C. (Wen-amun), that writing was practiced by a youth of Gideon’s time (early eleventh century), that it was known in Shiloh before 1050 B.C., that several examples of writing from Iron I (cir. 1200-900 B .C.) have been found in Israelite Palestine, and that David had a staff of secretaries. In the light of these facts, hypercriticism with regard to the authenticity of much of the material preserved by P is distinctly unscholarly, and its independent attestation of facts given by J and E is a valuable guarantee of their historicity. It is even less likely that there is deliberate invention of ‘pious’ forgery in P than in JE, in view of the well attested reverence which ancient Near-Eastern scribes had for the written tradition (see above, p. 77).”8
Sumerian is the oldest pictographs. All others seem full-blown from the beginning (indication of adoption).9 Their initial use was during foreign influence.10 There is a good possibility of monogenesis of writing.
Is there a monogenesis of language? Colliers Enc. XII, p. 141. Italian scholar Trombetti--yes, but it cannot be proved or disproved. Complete differences do not disprove it. (Once Indo-European relationship was not understood.)
From Pictography to Syllabic Writing
After Contenau, Everyday Life in Babylon an Assyria
1I. J. Gelb, A Study of Writing, p. 60.
2See Contenau, Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria, p. 186.
3Amahai Mazar (Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE., p. 105) says, “Sumerian influence on Egyptian culture was considerable during the Late Gerzean and Archaic periods in Egypt. These international relations during one of the most creative periods in the history of the ancient Near East may indicate movements of people over long distances—both by land, from Mesopotamia westward through Syria to Palestine and Egypt, and by sea, connecting Elam and southern Mesopotamia with Egypt around Arabia. Within this general framework, close though short-term connections between Egypt and southern Palestine in EB I [3300-3050] are of particular significance.”
4See D. J. Wiseman, Illustrations from Biblical Archaeology.
5See Orly Goldwasser “How the Alphabet Was Born from Hieroglyphs,” BAR, March/April 2010 and Rainey’s response to her.
6Harris thinks it might be because of inscriptional use (Z. Harris. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language, p. 11).
7Jonathan Tubb, Canaanites, p. 146, “If an enduring tribute to the Canaanites is needed then it is surely the printed text of this book …The letters used may look very different from those devised in the second millennium BC, but the process of their usage, the alphabetic system, remains as the towering achievement of the Canaanites.”
8Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, (SATC), p. 253ff.
9I. J. Gelb. The Study of Writing, pp. 212ff.
10Amihai Mazar. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE, pp. 104-105.
Space does not permit an extensive discussion of the table of nations presented in Genesis 10 beyond a general identification of the peoples. Custance (The Three Sons of Noah), an anthropologist, posits an interesting theory on the dispersal of man. The eight point summary of his thesis is as follows:
The geographical distribution of fossil remains is such that they are most logically explained by treating them as marginal representatives of a widespread and in part forced dispersion of people from a single multiplying population established at a point more or less central to them all, and sending forth successive waves of migrants, each wave driving the previous one further toward the periphery.
The most degraded specimens are those representatives of this general movement who were driven into the least hospital areas, where they suffered physical degeneration as a consequence of the circumstances in which they were forced to live [such as the Neanderthal man in Europe].
The extraordinary physical variability of fossil remains results from the fact that the movements took place in small, isolated, strongly inbred bands; but the cultural similarities which link together even the most widely dispersed of them indicate a common origin for them all.
What I have said to be true of fossil man is equally true of living primitive societies as well as those which are now extinct.
All the initially dispersed populations are of one basic stock: Hamitic, the family of Genesis 10.
The initial Hamitic settlers were subsequently displaced or overwhelmed by Indo-Europeans (i.e., Japethites), who nevertheless inherited, or adopted, and extensively built upon Hamitic technology and so gained an advantage in each geographical area where they spread.
Throughout the great movements of people, both in prehistoric and historic times, there were never any human beings who did not belong within the family of Noah and his descendants.
Finally, this thesis is strengthened by the evidence of history which shows that migration has always tended to follow this pattern, has frequently been accompanied by instances of degeneration both of individuals or whole tribes, usually resulting in the establishment of a general pattern of cultural relationships which parallel those archaeology has revealed.1
In Graph form, Custance’s theory looks this way:
Generally speaking, the Hamites are the most dispersed and diverse people, both ethnically and linguistically. They will be found, according to Genesis, in Asia Minor, Canaan, Egypt (North Africa), South Africa, and Mesopotamia.
Likewise, the Japethites represent the Indo-European peoples, that is, from Europe to India. This classification is usually referring to linguistic similarities rather than ethnic, although the latter is also a consideration. Looking at a relief map of the world, one can see that these people are often mountain people.
Finally, from a biblical point of view, the Semites are the center of God’s work. Semitic people come out of the desert. They are Assyrian, Babylonian, old South Arabians, and, of course, the descendants of Abraham. It is no coincidence that the three great monotheistic religions had their origin among Semitic people.
There is ongoing debate about the identification of all the names listed in the genealogies. Some are quite clear, others are not. Below is a list of all the biblical names in Hebrew and English with notes as to the assumptions about their identity.
(Tiras332, Meshech343, Tubal354, Javan365, Madai376, Magog387, Gomer398)
(Elishah409, Ashkenaz4110, Tarshish4211 (4), Riphath4312 (3), Kittim4413, Togarmah4514, Dodanim4615)
(Canaan4716, Cush4817, Seba4918, Babel5019, Erech5120)
As with many genealogical lists, this one is selective and oriented toward a certain position--namely, the history of Abraham.23 Also in characteristic fashion, the most remote person (Japheth) is dispensed with and the family in the center of interest is taken up last and amplified (Shem and in ch. 11 Terah).
There are numerical considerations. Japheth has seven sons but descendants are listed for only Javan (four descendants) and Gomer (three descendants). The sons and grandsons of Cush total seven (Nimrod is dealt with as a separate entity). Mizraim has seven descendants. There are fourteen members of Yaktan’s family and ten of Shem’s consummating in Abraham (both numbers are favorites in genealogies). There are seven from Heber to Abraham. Canaan and his descendants total twelve which might be used to counterbalance the twelve tribes of Israel.
The descendants of Canaan and Mizraim are treated as peoples rather than individuals, but this is not to deny that an individual headed up the group originally.
The Israelites are linked with Heber (Gen. 10:21) apparently associating the names Heber and Hebrew.
The fact that Cushites (Hamites) are mentioned as the founders of the Mesopotamian cities shows that they must have been pushed out later by Semites (Custance argues that the Sumerians were Hamitic).
The division of the earth into languages probably took place during the time of Peleg (in his days the earth was divided) or four generations after the flood.
Excursus on Nimrod: This text presents a very tantalizing situation. A descendant of Cush became so famous his name was a household word. His very name means “rebellion” and the LXX is an early witness to an interpretation of “before the Lord” (לִפְנֵי יהוה) as “against the Lord” (ἐναντίον). All the cities mentioned are of great antiquity and are referenced in the earliest writing (cf. the Gilgamesh Epic). There is a problem of whether Asshur went out and built cities or Nimrod (or his descendants) went to Asshur and built. The latter is grammatically feasible (although a little unusual) and since Shinar has four cities, then Asshur would be given four to balance it. This would mean Semitic people in Asshur who were influenced by Nimrod.
1For a review critical of Custance’s thesis, see E. Yamauchi, “Meshech, Tubal and Company: A Review Article,” JETS 19 (1976) 239-47.
2U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Some link to Turshnoi = Etruscans, but uncertain. Note seven names.
3Ibid., Assyrian inscriptions mention Tiras and Meshech in Cilicia.
4Ezek. 27:13; 32:26; 38:2; 39:1. Southeast of the Black Sea.
5Ionians. Cassuto says they founded 12 settlements in Western Asia Minor.
6Medes near the Caspian Sea.
7Ezek. 38:2. Cassuto thinks they might be Scythians.
8Ezek. 38:6 (uttermost part of the North). CAH 3:53 says they are barbarians from the north beginning to attack Urartu and Assyria. The Assyrians called them Gimmirrai, the Greeks Kimmeroi. They were located north of the Black Sea.
9Concerned with Cyprus?
10Jer. 51:27; Scythians.
11Spain? Ezek. 27:12.
12Unknown.
13Cyprus.
14Armenia? CAH 3:55: Tilgarimu.
15Rhodes?
16Could it be that the story in Genesis 9 about Ham/Canaan was included in the Pentateuch to show the depravity of the Canaanites?
17Cassuto links him to an Arabian tribe south of Israel or Transjordan. Cf. the Cushite woman whom Moses married.
18Cassuto says they migrated south in the 8th century.
19Capital under Hammurabi.
20Uruk, Warka.
21Driver admits that inscriptions point to an early Semitic people in Elam but that the writer of Genesis would not have known that! Book of Genesis, p. 128. Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East, argues that the very earliest settlers were Semitic Elamites (Al-Ubaid, Jemdet Nasr) who were pushed out by Indo-European Sumerians. Pp. 133-136, 145, 146.
22G. Rawlinson (The Origin of Nations, p. 209) says linguistic evidence points to a north-central population of Arabian speaking Semitic and southern population speaking non-Semitic, more related to aboriginal dialects of Abyssinia.
23Cf. Ruth 4 where only five generations are listed for 431 years and Matthew 1 where four kings are omitted. See Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, pp. 35-40.
The chronology of the Bronze Age follows the official Assyrian dates back to the 15th century B.C. and adjusts Babylonian chronology to them with the aid of the new Mari synchronisms between Assyria, Mari and Babylonia.1 (For an important note on priority of Mesopotamian civilization, see Finegan, In the Beginning, pp. 76ff.)
Zagros Mountains, desert, Fertile Crescent are the significant geographical features. Refer to the atlas and Finegan.2
Ends in the flood according to the Sumerians (See ANET, 265). Albright divides it into the stone age and chalcolithic age.
Classical Sumerian age to the triumph of Sargon of Akkad. Sumerian King List. City states: Ur, Ereck, Lagash, Susa, Larsa, Eridu, Nippur, Kish, Babylon, Eshnunna, Nuzi, Mari. Civilization probably had links with the Indus Valley (because of common carved precious stones). There were Semites in the valley long before Sargon.3
Semite takeover under Sargon of Akkad (ANET, pp 267-68). His influence extended as far as the Mediterranean. The Sumerian ideal was the city state; Semitic ideal was “world” power—four quarters of the earth. The leader is not just a servant of God, but God.
The ancient city of Ebla was found in the mound of modern Tell Mardikh in North Syria, some 44 miles south of Aleppo. The excavation began in 1964, but in 1975 confirmation was found that this mound was Ebla indeed. Now for the first time it was known that Ebla was at one time an empire rivaling that of Sargon of Akkad, of Mari and of Assyria.
In 1974 42 clay tablets were found. Dated paleographically they belong to about 2300 B.C., roughly contemporaneous with Sargon of Akkad. In 1975 1000 tablets and fragments were found, and in another room some 14,000 tablets were found as they fell from burning shelves when Ebla was sacked by Naram Sin of Akkad in 2250 B.C. This comes to some 15,000 tablets altogether.
Linguistically, Eblaite belongs to the Northwest Semitic family.5 This material however comes from 1000 years before Moses and three or four hundred years before Abraham. Obviously, the impact on the Bible will be indirect. Sumerian was the pattern for both Akkadian and Eblaite. “There are 32 (perhaps up to 56) bilingual vocabularies, having each Sumerian word translated into Eblaite (i.e., early Canaanite). One superb example (with 18 duplicate copies!) contains 1000 words in both languages.”6 There are paradigms of verbs as well as lexical texts containing lists of birds, animals, fish, and other items.
Ebla furnishes us with names (Ebrum = Eber, Ishmail, Ishrail); places (Hazor, Megiddo, Jerusalem, Lachish, Dor, Gaza, Ashtaroth); religion (Dagan, El, Adad, Resheph, Asherah, Kemosh [known in the Bible]). Ebla has nabi’utum as a class of prophets. This will add to the discussion of prophecy at Mari. As Kitchen says, however, “These men indeed delivered the ‘message’ of Dagan or other gods to the king of Mari—but always briefly, and purely in the king’s political or military interests, sometimes with promise or threat, depending on the king’s response. Never, however, do they adopt the stance of a Nathan, an Amos or a Hosea, or an Isaiah, to reprove and admonish on vital issues of personal morality, social justice, or obedience to God as man’s due to him. Apart from the eloquent (but relatively ‘secular’) pleas for just conduct of affairs in Egyptian works such as the Eloquent Peasant or the Admonitions of Ipuwer, the moral and spiritual tone of the later Old Testament prophets remains without real parallel in the ancient world.”7
Caucasians from eastern mountain country invaded the valley. With the defeat of the Akkadian dynasty, the Sumerian culture was given an opportunity for renaissance. Abraham leaves Ur before 2086.8
Gudea (c. 2050 B.C.) (ANEP, # 511ff). He left some of the longest Sumerian inscriptions (ANET, pp 268-69). Semitic and Sumerian existed side by side in apparent harmony with Semitic gradually gaining the ascendance.
The new dynasty or kingdom (Sumero-Akkadian) was founded by Ur-Nammu of Ur and lasted over a century. Kings of Sumer and Akkad, Ziggurat.
A Semitic people called by the Babylonians Amorites (Westerners) began to invade the valley. The most important of the smaller states were Isin, founded by the Akkadian governor of Mari, and Larsa, headed by an Amorite. Nearly all these states eventually passed under Amorite rule.9
First dynasty of Babylon—Bab-i-lu. Hammurabi (1792-1750) conquered all (see atlas).10 This is the period of the epics. The Code of Hammurabi comes from this time.11
As noted above, the middle and upper Euphrates states eventually passed under Amorite control. Shamshi-Adad I (1813-1781 B.C.) ruled Assyria and Mari. At his death, his son, Ishme-Dagon ruled Assyria and his younger son ruled Mari. The people who had been pushed out of Mari were able to take advantage of the weakness of Shamshi-Adad’s successors and return to control Mari. Under Zimrilim, Mari became a great city because of her strategic location. It was the most important city during the 3rd and early 2nd millennium (see the section on Assyria). Hammurabi allowed Mari’s independence for a while but eventually took it over. 20,000 tablets were found at Mari.
Mari goes back to the third millennium and early names are Semitic under Sumerian influence. Zimrilim’s father may himself have been Amorite. The evidence is not clear.12
Scribal Activity. Kramer says, “One of the most human documents ever excavated in the Near East is a Sumerian essay dealing with the day-to-day activities of a school boy. Composed by an anonymous schoolteacher who lived about 2000 B.C., its simple, straightforward words reveal how little human nature has really changed throughout the millenniums.”13
Spread of Akkadian—lingua franca—Ras Shamra, Hittite Anatolia (some Gilgamesh tablets were found here), El Amarna Tablets.14
Heroic age—insecurity. Relation to Greek and Roman of later era.
Frustrations of life, fear of death.
Search for immortality (see the Gilgamesh Epic).
Gods made in image of man—fickle and fearful. Zeus, Chronos, Aphrodite, Athene, Enlil, Ishtar, Ea, Shamesh (Utu).
Fear of the nether world—crossing the ocean (River Styx).
Womanhood played down—love of Gilgamesh and Enkidu (cf. David and Jonathan).
Pathetic and hopeless. Out of this situation God called Abraham.
Creation.
Fall—myth of Adapa—loss of eternal life.
Flood—Sumerian and Akkadian accounts (latter in the Gilgamesh epic). See Wright’s comments on Navarre in BASOR Newsletter #3, Oct. 1970.15
Note Albright’s explanation of the origins in From Stone Age to Christianity, p. 238. He assumes that all were brought to Palestine by Hebrews in early second millennium B.C. No borrowing from canonical Babylonian sources. See Kitchen, The Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, pp. 88ff, who argues that accretions are normal, not purgations.
These can only be explained as two accounts from one original source. Flood stories are to be found in almost all cultures.16 These are not “Israelite purgations” of polytheistic stories, but the transmission of the actual account probably through Abraham. John Oswalt has written a delightful little book describing and contrasting the Israelite point of view vis à vis the ancient near eastern view.17
1Albright, SATC, p. 147.
2Jack Finegan, Light From the Ancient Past, pp. 9-12.
3See Custance, The Three Sons of Noah, p. 23.
4For a very readable presentation of the Ebla material, see K. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World, 37-55. See the popular presentation of the archaeologist in Paolo Matthiae, Ebla, an Empire Rediscovered, and from the point of view of the epigraphist, G. Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla.
5Though some argue that it is closer to Northeast Semitic (Akkadian).
6Kitchen, The Bible in Its World, p. 45.
7Ibid., pp. 54-55.
8See Unit VII and Speiser who says the Gutians played a limited part in the downfall. See also Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, p. 23.
9J. Bottéro, CAH I, 1, p. 321 and C. J. Gadd, “Ur,” pp. 625-28.
10Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia.
11See Albright, SATC and Finegan for chronology and history of Mesopotamia.
12M. E. L. Mallowan, CAH 2,1:291-97.
13S. N. Kramer, History Begins at Sumer, p. 8.
14See Albright, SATC, p. 209.
15See Especially J. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.
16John Bright, “Has Archaeology Found Evidence for the Flood,” BAR #1, pp. 32-40.
17John Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths, pp. 91-107.
Egypt, like Mesopotamia, is a fluvial civilization. Unlike Mesopotamia, Egyptian history is characterized by a great stability brought about by the predictability of the annual inundations of the Nile. This river is 4,000 miles long. The White Nile, originating in Kenya, joins the Blue Nile, originating in Ethiopia, at Khartoum in the Sudan. The annual melting of the highland snows produces the flooding which brings rich alluvial soil to the banks of the Nile. The Nile produces two tensionsthere is unity because of the one river, but disunity because of its great length. These tensions are historically evident in the union of upper (south) and lower (north) Egypt. The Pharaohs will be known as the kings of upper and lower Egypt.
Cartouche of Khufu (Cheops), the great pyramid builder. The symbols outside the cartouche are translated “King of Upper and Lower Egypt.” This symbol was used by all the Pharaohs even during Greek and Persian times.
No one pretends to be satisfied with the present chronology of Egyptian history. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, pp. 46-48, presents an excellent discussion of the problems. The materials from which a chronology is generally derived are as follows:
Manetho was an Egyptian priest contemporary with the first two Ptolemies (323-245 B.C.). He listed the entire history of Egypt in two parts: first the era of gods and demi-gods and then 31 dynasties for the real history. His work is only partially preserved in the works of others (notably Josephus) and has been demonstrated to be quite defective, but the dynastic presentation has become so entrenched in Egyptology that it is still used today for the outline of Egyptian history.
This hieratic papyrus comes from about the time of Ramases II (1290-1224 B.C.). It is very fragmentary and yields only 80 or 90 royal names.
An inscription from the temple of Abydos shows Seti I (1303-1290) with his oldest son, Ramases II, making offerings to 76 of his ancestors. In addition to these are the Table of Sakkara and the Table of Karnak.
This stone is now in the museum of Palermo, Italy. It is only a fragment containing some of the names in Egyptian history. Its date, significance and extent are still much debated.
These data, synchronized in so far as possible with Mesopotamian events and astronomical date, provide a framework for the erection of Egyptian history, but, it must ever be kept in mind, that the framework is only tentative.
Racial origins and language.
Multiple political divisions.
Kingdom in south under the god Seth.
Unification of lower Egypt. First union of upper and lower under falcon kings of lower Egypt. Capital was at Heliopolis. They worshipped Horus.
Break-up of the union. Development of both kingdoms.
Conquest of lower by upper about 2900 B.C.
Dynasties I, II. 2900-2700 B.C.
Innovation and adventure mark Dynasties III-IV (400 years). The achievements of this era become “canonized” and copied by all succeeding generations. Wilson argues that cylinder seals, architecture (bricks), art, the potter’s wheel, and above all writing come from Mesopotamia.1
Religious significance of Pyramids is the preservation of the Pharaohs. Old pyramids are best here. The Great pyramid (IV dynasty) contained 6.25 million tons of stone. Some of the blocks were 2.5 tons each. The joints were 1/50th of an inch. Squareness deviation: .09 N-S, .03 E-W. Plane deviation: .004%.
Relation with neighbors--expeditions against Nubia, Libya, Palestine, Syria. Close relations with Byblos--cedar wood.
There was a slowly developing crisis from the Vth dynasty onward. The priesthood begins to ascend and feudalism begins.2
There was a leveling of the Pharaoh and nobility. The administration approached that of a democracy. There was a loss of the intellectual self-confidence which had characterized the earlier period.
Egypt fell into disorganized feudalism which lasted almost four centuries. The priesthood at Heliopolis and the sun god Re become dominant.
The XIth dynasty at Thebes began to fight for supremacy against the Fayum and eventually won. Under the XIIth dynasty, Egypt was again unified and became strong. Amon emerges and becomes the dominant god. (There is some confusion as to the placement of Dynasties XIII and XIV.)
The Egyptians penetrated to the first cataract (see the story of Sinuhe--1960-1928 B.C.).
The Egyptian standard was carried to Syria (1887-1849). JOSEPH ENTERS AROUND THIS TIME (1871 for Jacob). There is evidence for Asiatic intrusion into Egypt during the “first sickness” (see ANEP, #3).3
This is the classical period of art and literature.
The Middle Kingdom ended with the invasion of the Hyksos (“second sickness”).
The Hyksos are still an obscure people in part because of the effort of their successors to eradicate any memory of them from the monuments. Josephus, quoting Manetho, believes they are the Israelites.4 He calls them “shepherd kings,” but the word is now translated “rulers of foreign lands.” There were, apparently, contemporaneous dynasties at the southern capital of Thebes which were too weak to overthrow these foreigners. Their influence is noted in the importation of the composite bow, chariotry, Canaanite words and Canaanite divinities.5
Kamose, from the rival Egyptian dynasty, began the wars of liberation against the Hyksos. He is considered the last of the XVIIth dynasty and the brother of Amose I who is considered to be the founder of the XVIIIth and most powerful dynasty of all. Kamose was able to drive the dreaded Asiatics back into Palestine.6
Place of Israel. The period of the Hyksos is very obscure for obvious reasons. Biblical chronology, however, puts Jacob and his descendants in Egypt before the Hyksos invasion and the exodus after their expulsion. This synchronism is based on the assumption that the dates for the pharaohs are correct, and an early date for the exodus based on 1 Kings 6:1.
1 J. A. Wilson, The Burden of Egypt, pp. 37-38.
2Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, p. 107.
3A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 109.
4Josephus, Contra Apion I, 14.
5Cf. CAH, 2,1:633-638 for a connection with the Greeks. Stubbings hypothesizes a link between Danaus, founder of the Mycenaean dynasty, and the Hyksos.
6See P. Montet, Lives of the Pharaohs, pp. 64ff., and Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, pp. 109-10.
Perhaps no period of biblical history has received more help from archaeology than this one (cf. Albright, SATC, pp. 236ff; DeVaux, BANE, pp. 111-122). Yet, it is the very conclusions of these men that have been attacked and denied at the end of the 20th century.1 In “New Archaeology,” the patriarchs are created by the imagination of a later generation.
The date for Abraham can be derived by working back from the 480 year period between the Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon as given in 1 Kings 6:1. This involves using Solomon’s accession date which can be determined with a fair amount of accuracy although there is some disagreement concerning it.
4th year of Solomon |
958 After Freedman, BANE, p. 274. (Thiele = 961 B.C.) |
Exodus to Solomon |
480 1 Kings 6:1 1438 (Thiele = 1441) |
From promise to Abraham’s seed to Exodus |
430 Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6; Exod 12:40-41; Gal. 3:17 |
Jacob’s age when he entered Egypt |
130 Gen. 47:9 |
Isaac’s age at Jacob’s birth |
60 Gen. 25:26 |
Years from Haran to Isaac |
25 Gen. 12:4; 21:5 |
Note: M. Anstey, Chronology of the Old Testament, pp. 56-66, argues that the 430 year figure in Exodus and Galatians includes the entire period of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Palestine (total 215 years) so that only 215 years are involved in the Egyptian sojourn. The LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch support this interpretation. The 400 years, he believes, omit the period of Abraham’s sojourn and the 5 years before Isaac’s weaning. Following this reckoning, Joseph would have entered Egypt at roughly the same time as the Hyksos--a very tempting hypothesis. It would also place Abraham’s migration during the Amorite eruptions. However, though this interpretation is rather easy in Galatians 3:17, it is much more difficult in the other three passages. Consequently, the 430 years should be considered as applying only to the period in Egypt. The date 2083 is generally supported by Glueck.3
Abraham would have left sometime during the Gutian interlude. The period which followed is known as the 3rd dynasty of Ur (2060-1950). C. L. Wooley is the most famous excavator of the city.4 The most famous king of this dynasty is Ur-Nammu, King of Sumer and Akkad. He is famous for his ziggurat (ANE 1 #85). It was completed by Nabonidus in the neo-Babylonian era. It was 200 x 150 x 70 feet. There was much business in the sacred area. There were receipts for sacrifices and other items of trade. There were factories, workshops and about 20 houses per acre. Ur had about 24,000 residents. Ur-Nammu is also famous for what is now the earliest law code known.
The reference to the city of Ur (Gen. 11:28, 31) as being in the land of the Chaldeans has provoked much debate and speculation. Speiser says, “The mention of Ur of the Chaldeans brings up a problem of a different kind. The ancient and renowned city of Ur is never ascribed expressly, in the many thousands of cuneiform records from that site, to the Chaldean branch of the Aramaean group. The Chaldeans, moreover, are late arrivals in Mesopotamia, and could not possibly be dated before the end of the second millennium [1200-1000]. Nor could the Arameans be placed automatically in the patriarchal period. Yet the pertinent tradition was apparently known not only to P (31) but also to J (28). And even if one were to follow LXX in reading “land” for “Ur,” the anachronism of the Chaldeans would remain unsolved.” He concludes that it is intrusive, however old, and tentatively explains the intrusion as an identification of Ur (center of moon worship) with Haran (also a center of moon worship). This telescoping of two cities would have taken place later when the Chaldeans were prominent.5 Gadd also considers “Chaldean” to be anachronistic, but he does locate it in southern Mesopotamia and not up north as some do. He gives credence to “echoes of Abraham” maintained in legends and traditions for the area.6 The Arameans do not become a political force in history until the first millennium, but as Moscati says, “The one certainty arising from the modern view of their history is that their self-assertion in Syria is no longer to be regarded as coincident with their arrival in the area, but only with the formation of the states known to us.”7 In other words, the Arameans were in the area long before they became known. Is it not possible that when Moses wrote Genesis 11, that the area of Ur was in some way identified with the Chaldeans? The outlines of this problem are too uncertain for dogmatism.8
The Patriarchs were nomads but not like contemporary Bedouin (read the story of Sinuhe). There is a beautiful representation of Semites in Egypt at Beni Hasan from about 1900 B.C. (ANEP, #3).
Execration texts list Canaanite names. Gezer indicates that it was probably an outpost of the Egyptians during the Patriarchal time. The temples at Megiddo indicate Egyptian influence as well.9
The Transjordan and Jordan valley indicate settlement about 2000 B.C. and a sudden departure in about the 19th century according to Glueck.10 This supports the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Speiser argues that Genesis 14 is a historical document. It is not from sources (JEDP). Probably a translation of an Akkadian document. Tidal = Hittite Tudhalya, Arioch = sub prince of Mari, etc. He dates it in the 18th century.11
1 See the discussion in Chapter 1.
2Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel, p. 113, says, “This nice, neat date is not unambiguous even on biblical grounds. For one thing, all the numbers sound like round numbers, but of course this fact would only adjust the date by decades. Second, textual variation is present with some of the dates; for instance, the Septuagint understands the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 to cover not only the time in Egypt but the patriarchal period as well. Nonetheless, even with these uncertainties, the Bible itself appears to situate the patriarchs in Palestine sometime between ca. 2100 and 1500 B.C.—the first half of the second millennium B.C.”
3N. Glueck, Rivers in the Desert. See also Freedman, BANE, pp. 266-270, for a general discussion.
4See his account of “The Graves of the Kings of Ur” in Leo Deuel, The Treasures of Time.
5E. A. Speiser, Genesis in Anchor Bible, p. 80.
6C. J. Gadd, “Ur” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study (AOTS), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967, pp. 87-101. In the same work see Parrot, “Mari.”
7S. Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, p. 214.
8Cf. Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel, pp. 116-17 who refer to “Chaldeans” as a later updating.
9See G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology, pp. 48-49. See also I. Finkelstein and D. Ussishkin, “Back to Megiddo,” BAR 20 (1993) 26-43.
10Cf. Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel, on Glueck’s methodology and the comment that “more recent surveys have indicated some evidence of occupation in Transjordan during the so-called ‘gap’ between Early Bronze IV and Late Bronze IIb,” pp. 136-137.
11Speiser, Genesis (on chapter 14).
God’s revelation did not come into a vacuum. He spoke to a people who were a part of the contemporary culture and called them to become followers of His true way. In the process, God did not ignore the culture surrounding His called ones.1 There are many points of contact with the cultures of the Mesopotamians, Canaanites, Egyptians, Hittites and others. The large question is, how much of the revelation of God is couched in terms and concepts familiar to all people in that region and how much is unique. Cross is critical of Yehezkel Kaufmann for his insistence that Israelite religion “was absolutely different from anything the pagan world ever knew.” Cross insists that this approach violates fundamental postulates of scientific historical method.2 The Evangelical will find himself in more sympathy with Kaufmann than with Cross.
Nevertheless, it is mistaken to assume that there is no connection between the Bible and its cultural milieu. Cross uses the term “epic” to describe the genre of Israel’s religious expression (in contrast to mythic). He believes that the word “historical” is a valid description of what goes on in this religious expression, but he says, “At the same time confusion often enters at this point. The epic form, designed to recreate and give meaning to the historical experiences of a people or nation, is not merely or simply historical. In epic narrative, a people and their god or gods interact in the temporal course of events. In historical narrative only human actors have parts. Appeal to divine agency is illegitimate. Thus the composer of epic and the historian are very different in their methods of approach to the materials of history. Yet both are moved by a common impulse in view of their concern with the human and the temporal process. By contrast myth in its purest form is concerned with ‘primordial events’ and seeks static structures of meaning behind or beyond the historical flux.”3
God called Abraham from Ur and made a unique covenant with him. The record also indicates that the main center of Patriarchal activity before coming to Palestine was Haran (Aram-Nahariam, Gen. 24:10. Padan-Aram, Deut. 26:5). Many of the place names in the region of Haran are tied in with Abrahamic history: Serug, Nahor, Terah.4
“Nuzi [sometimes Nuzu], modern Yorghan Tepe, about 9 miles south-west of Arrapha, modern Kirkuk, in the eastern hill-country of ancient Assyria, was excavated (1925-31) by the American Schools of Oriental Research in Baghdad, first with the Iraq Museum and later with Harvard University, under the direction of E. Chiera, R. H. Pfeiffer, and R. F. S. Starr. The settlement, originating before 3000 B.C., had, c. 2200 B.C., an Akkadian population and was called Gasur, but by 1500 B.C. its name was Nuzi and its population mainly Hurrian. The ruins, including a temple in seven levels, a palace, with some painted rooms, and many private houses, contained pottery, and other small objects. Most important, however, were some 4,000 cuneiform tablets dating c. 1500-1400 B.C. and written in Akkadian influenced by Hurrian vocabulary and idioms.”5 While the dates of these tablets are considerably later than the date for Abraham (c. 2000 B.C., though critical scholars would date the patriarchs, if they even existed, in the middle of the second millennium), the fact that the patriarchal narratives have more in common with these data than with those later in Israelite history, makes their discussion pertinent to patriarchal studies. Kitchen’s excellent little work defends the patriarchal authenticity and deals with the parallels. He also argues that the Hurrian influence has been exaggerated. Many of these parallels are found in Mesopotamia in general.6
The purpose of this adoption was to provide a childless couple with care in their old age and the performance of religious rites in exchange for an inheritance. This seems to fit the action of Abraham in connection with Eliezer as a “son of his house” who would inherit from Abraham (Gen. 15:2-4).7 Weir also includes the adoption of someone into a family without sons. He believes the Jacob and Laban situation fits this description.8
The Teraphim stolen by Rachel were once assumed to represent property ownership.9 Kitchen believes this is a fallacious identification. He believes she took them for her own protection and blessing.10
The importance of the birthright is stressed at Nuzi. “A double share by the principal son, normally the eldest natural son, as is definitely prescribed in Deut. xxi. 15ff.”11 At Nuzi, an eldest son might be demoted as was Reuben.
Kitchen downplays the significance of blessing-oaths at Nuzi and of the idea of selling a birthright.12 In other words, he does not believe the Nuzi material is parallel.13
Weir concludes his discussion by saying, “The Nuzi documents do not mention any Old Testament incident or personage, nor do they indicate with certainty that any of Israel’s ancestors ever lived in or visited Mesopotamia. Their fifteenth-century provenance cannot accurately date patriarchal traditions since the customs they portray may have originated much earlier and may have persisted in Palestine until the monarchial period. They reveal, however, that the social customs, much of the terminology, and many of the personal names in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Old Testament were those current in parts of the Near East during the second millennium B.C., and to that extent they validate Israelite tradition.”14
Van Seters has led the way in trying to destroy the edifice built up in the Albright era supporting the historicity of the patriarchs. Kitchen has shown that Van Seters’ attempts to tie the patriarchal stories into the first millennium are unsuccessful.15
Albright16 defends the general historicity of the Book of Exodus, though he believes the patriarchs were polytheistic. In so far as Moses is concerned, he makes the following observations:
“It is absurd to deny that Moses founded the Israelite religious system. He was a Hebrew born in Egypt, raised under Egyptian influence. Egyptian slave labor, Rameses, topography of eastern delta, Sinai peninsula fits, etc.”
“The Name YHWH was revealed only to Moses--Exodus 6:1; 3:14. ‘He causes to be.” Yahweh asher yihweh. Beside this fuller form there was also a normally abbreviated form Yahu (the jussive form of the imperfect causative which appears as Yahweh), which is found in all early personal names (shortened in northern Israel to -yau- and after the Exile to -yah). There is no non-Israelite name which has been put forth as an antecedent to this name which can be adequately defended. Elephantine = yaho.” Pettinato tentatively believes he has found a “ya” ending on names.17 [However, the biblical account in Exodus 3 seems to indicate a qal, the simple form].18
“An original characteristic of the Israelite God was that he stood alone, no family connections. The Sons of God (Angels and Israelites) were so by creation.”
He was not restricted to any abode. No exact spot.
Anthropomorphic--but the body was always clothed in the Kabod.
Aniconic aspect--nothing to prove Israel ever depicted God. He argues that even the calves of the northern Israel were pedestals for Jehovah.
A sacrificial system was a part of the practice of all Asiatics and particularly imbedded in Semitic thought (cf. Genesis 4).
Law codes were common to Semites (cf. Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi). The striking peculiarity of Israel is that they were commanded not to sin because Yahweh so wills it. There is a moral-ethical element present here that is not present in the other law codes of antiquity.
Was Moses a monotheist? “If by that we mean one who teaches the existence of only one God, the creator of everything, the source of justice, who is equally powerful in Egypt, Palestine and in the desert, who has no sexuality, and no mythology, who is human in form, but cannot be seen by human eye, and cannot be represented in any human form--then the founder of Yahwehism was certainly a monotheist.”19
The Bible, of course, does not begin monotheism with Moses. The majestic opening of the Bible with Bereshit …Elohim, “In the beginning God . . .” is not simply a Mosaic or later religious thought which has developed through the intellectual process of man, but is a statement of fact. Whether we speak of the time of Abraham (2000 B.C.) or of Moses (1500 B.C.) there is nothing in the surrounding situation which is conducive to monotheism. Crass polytheism has had a long history in the Mesopotamian valley when God calls Abraham out of it. The Canaanite religion as graphically depicted in the Ugaritic literature as well as in the archaeological finds is virulently hostile to monotheism. The only logical conclusion at which one can arrive is that monotheism comes only through divine revelation in a miraculous manner. If this could have happened in the time of Moses, it could have happened in the time of Abraham and, of course, did happen in the time of Adam. Historical study simply will not support the evolutionary hypothesis as an explanation of the development of monotheism.20
Ur-Nammu. Sumerian (212-2095)ANET, Supplement p. 523.
Laws of Eshnunna--ANE, p. 133 (c. 2000 B.C.) Discovered at Susa around A.D. 1900. It is Amorite and was apparently carried there.
Code of Hammurabi--ANE, p. 138ff (c. 1700 B.C.) Laws found at Ebla antedate Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi by centuries.
Compare the following:
|
Hammurabi |
Bible |
Law # |
1 |
Exod. 23:103; Deut. 5:20; 19:16-21 |
|
8 |
Lev. 19:11, 13; Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19; 22:1-4 |
|
14 |
Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7 |
|
21 |
Exod. 22:2-3 |
|
24 |
Deut. 21:1ff |
|
60 |
Lev. 19:23-25 |
|
117 |
Exod. 21:2-11; Deut. 15:12-18 |
|
120 |
Exod. 22:7-9 |
|
129 |
Deut. 22:22 |
|
130 |
Deut. 22:23-27 |
|
154 |
Lev. 18:6-18; 20:10-21; Deut. 27:20-23 |
|
195 |
Exod. 21:15 |
|
196ff |
Exod. 21:23-25; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21 |
|
209 |
Exod. 21:22-25 |
|
250 |
Exod. 21:28-36 |
|
266 |
Exod. 22:10ff |
Note that only 16 out of 282 of Hammurabi’s laws bear resemblance to the biblical laws and these are usually quite general. Why are there similarities? Common institutions: marriage, government, private ownership, etc. Common problems: death, murder, theft, slavery, etc. It should be extremely unusual if there were not many points of similarity. Why are there differences? There is no need here even to discuss a common heritage as in the case of the flood. The Mosaic Law was divinely instituted. It was theocratic government as opposed to civil government in the other nations. There was no doubt utilization of many things already practiced by the people, but there is no borrowing from Mesopotamia here.21
The origin and explanation of the sacrificial system in the Bible are very vague. Animal sacrifice appears to be taken for granted in Chapter 4 of Genesis, but its origin and significance are simply assumed. Animal sacrifice is part of all the ancient religious systems. (At Ugarit the Shelem [peace] and Asham [guilt] offerings have been identified)22 We can assume from Genesis 4 that God instituted animal sacrifices and explained to Adam their significance. This information was preserved by Noah but perverted and misunderstood by his descendants. The instruction to Moses, then, is taking at least some things which are familiar to the people and placing them in their true perspective.
Many have argued and some still do, that the tabernacle is nothing but the later temple anachronistically placed in the time of Moses. Few would hold that today even though the antiquity of the details would be denied.23
Some link the ark with a portable shrine as used by the Arabs.24 This illustrates the attempt by many to find every possible link with identifiable objects in history, however tenuous, based on a philosophy of no supernatural revelations.25
The term Canaanite is historically, geographically and culturally synonymous with the Phoenicians. Canaanite refers to a northwest Semitic people and culture of western Syria and Palestine before the 12th century B.C., and the term Phoenician refers to the same people and culture after that.
The Canaanites played an important part in history of civilization. In 3-2 millennium, they bridged the gap between Egypt and Mesopotamia, and to them we no doubt owe much of the slow, but constant transfusion of culture which we find in the ancient near east.
Forced out of Palestine and most of Syria in the 13th and 12th centuries, the Phoenicians turned their energies seaward and became the great mariners and traders of all time.
The Greeks attribute their achievements in the arts of peace to them (cf. also writing).
Renan--1860-61 cf. Pritchard.
Byblos--Montet--Dunand (1921- )
Ugarit--Schaeffer (1929- )
Khadattu (Arslan Tash) Thureau Dangin (1928)
Hamath (Orontes) Ingholt (1931-38)
Plains of Antioch (McEwan) (1932-37) (Around Orontes)
Mari--Parrot (1933- )
Alalakh-Wooley (1936-39)
Schaeffer, Excavation; C. H. Gordon--Texts.27 There were at least two consonantal alphabetic scripts which had been devised by the Canaanites. The cuneiform alphabet was used at Ugarit. The other was a direct progenitor of later Phoenician. They were also familiar with Akkadian, Egyptian hieroglyphics and Byblian syllabic characters (this is a hieroglyphic form syllabary in use toward the end of the third millennium B.C.--used to write a very early form of Canaanite).
Among other reasons it did not reach a greater height was that it had a low religious level. The Canaanites had a primitive mythology. Their religion contained the most demoralizing cultic practices then existing in the near east. Human sacrifice, sacred prostitution, eunuch priests, serpent worship, brutal mythology.
The relation of Ugaritic to the Old Testament has been demonstrated but over-extended by Dahood especially. For a more conservative treatment, see Craige in Word Biblical Commentary Psalms.
They spread the Canaanite culture, religion, language and alphabet all over the Mediterranean area.28 They established colonies as far as Spain.29 They founded Carthage (Qart-hadasht—new town, hence, several names like this). Tarshish—Smelting plant (several), Moloch--idol. Child sacrifice. For example, a stele (55 x 12 cm.) was found in a field of stelae and Urns with offering remains mostly of children in Carthage. Donner & Rollig #79. “To the Lady, to Tanat the face of Baal and to the Lords to Baal Hamon; This is what Canami slave of Eshmunamas son of Baalyatan vowed--his flesh . . .” (My translation, 3rd century, B.C.). The rest concerns warnings to those who would disturb the stone.30 Albright agrees with O. Eissfeldt that “molek was a sacrificial term and not the name of a Canaanite divinity. Punic molk and Heb. molek (vocalized correctly by MT) are in fact the same word, and both refer to a sacrifice which was, for Phoenicians and Hebrews alike, the most awe-inspiring of all possible sacred acts--whether it was considered as holy or as an abomination.”31
In the Canaanite religion El is the head of the pantheon. He has been displaced by Baal as Chronos was by Zeus. He probably declined in relative prominence during the period 2500-1500 B.C. He was still worshipped, however, at local shrines and his name is retained in El Elyon and El Olam. His wife seems to be Asherah (Ashirat in Ugaritic literature). Her longer name is “the Lady who treads on the Sea (dragon).” She is the foe of Baal and his wife/sister Anath. The word Asherah is usually translated grove (Judges 3:7) in KJV since the symbol of her presence was a sacred tree or pole.32 Mot killed Baal and took him to the underworld. Anath freed him after a violent struggle with Mot. Anath was also called the Queen of Heaven. These gods were sadistic and sexual.33 Amos and Hosea inveigh against this religious system which had completely permeated the northern kingdom.
The most important offspring of this “couple” is Baal. Baal is really a title. The names of Baal include Zabul (the exalted), Lord of Earth, Rider of the Clouds, Lord of Heaven. Baal-zebul (not zebub) in Ekron. Beelzebub is a title for Satan in the New Testament. He is also called Hadad (cf. Ben-Hadad in Scripture). The idea of Yahweh being Baal was once accepted and people named their children thusly. However, this is later looked on with disfavor because of Baal worship and these names are changed, e.g., Ishbaal = Ishbosheth (bosheth--shame).34
Ashtoreth (Astarte) is mentioned quite frequently in the Old Testament. It is not clear whether she is the wife of Baal. In any event she is the goddess of love and the Egyptians called her and Anath, goddesses who conceive but do not bear (cf. Deut. 28:4 where ashtaroth means fruit of flocks). In Phoenician Palestine Astarte grew in importance while Anath became hidden under various appellations. Her name was later fused in Aramaic as Atargatis. The Queen of Heaven, Venus, Diana, Aphrodite and Mary are all part of the virgin cult originating in the earliest days of man’s apostasy.
Dagon is a grain god who is the son of El and father of Baal in Ugaritic literature. References in Judges: Baalim, 2:11; Baal, 2:13; 10:6; Ashtoreth, 2:13; 10:6; Groves, 3:7; Altar of Baal and Grove by it, 6:25; Ephod, 8:27; Baal-berith, 8:33; house of Baal-berith, 9:4; Men of Hamor? 9:28; house of their god, 9:27; Gods of Syria, Sidon, Moab, Ammon, Philistines, 10:6; Chemosh, 11:24; Dagon, 16:23; ephod, teraphim, graven image, molten image, 18:14.
The Baal cycle portrayed in ANET, pp. 129-142 is the seasonal cycle in which Baal breeds, dies and is later revived. The sexual activity pictured in the literature was carried out in practice by the people. Small wonder God condemned the religion of the Canaanites and the later prophets inveighed against it. This kind of culture can only degrade.35
1As indicated above, an important work on this subject is John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.
2F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, p. viii.
3Ibid., is it possible that this discussion has bearing on the current debate about contextualization of the Gospel in the missions? Does one not need to be able to distinguish between culture as a neutral issue and culture that is antithetical to the biblical revelation?
4J. Kelso, Archaeology and Our Old Testament Contemporaries, p. 19.
5C. J. Mullo Weir, “Nuzi” in AOTS, p. 73. The following discussion is based primarily on this essay.
6K. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World. See Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel, p. 115 for a recent discussion of Nuzi and the Patriarchs.
7Ibid., p. 70 and Weir, “Nuzi,” p. 73.
8Ibid.
9C. H. Gordon, “Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets,” Biblical Archaeologist 3.1 (1940): 1-12.
10K. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World, p. 70.
11Weir, “Nuzi,” p. 76.
12Ibid., pp. 76-77.
13Kitchen, The Bible in Its World, p. 76.
14Weir, “Nuzi,” p. 83.
15Ibid., see J. Van Seters, “The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel,” JBL 87 (1968): 401-8 (See f.n. 2 for a list of Nuzi text publications); Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975.
16W. F. Albright, SATC.
17K. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World, p.47.
18Cf. Segal, Pentateuch, only the meaning is revealed, not the name at this time. Cf. also John Day “Religion of Canaan” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:834, who agrees with me on the Qal form.
19Albright, SATC, p. 272. Albright’s point of view, of course, has been completely rejected by modern secular writers. The data has not changed; only the interpretation.
20Cf. Albright’s own views on the evolution of religion, Ibid., pp. 170ff. He quotes with favor anthropologist Fr. Schmidt (Ursprung der Gottsidee) who argues that the existence of “high” gods among present primitive peoples points to monotheism. At least, he says, Schmidt has disproved the fetishism-polytheism-monotheism approach.
21See Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, p. 293 for a comparison.
22W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 59.
23See Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel.
24See Wright, BA, chapter 7.
25For further reading from a critical point of view see Eissfeldt, The Old Testament an Introduction, Wright, Biblical Archaeology, Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, and SATC, DeVaux, History of Israel. From an evangelical point of view, see Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.
26See W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Also “The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civilization” in BANE. See also F. M Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. More recently J. Van Seters, In Search of History and Jonathan N. Tubb, Canaanites in Peoples of the Past.
27See ANET.
28For a further discussion, see A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, pp. 356-57.
29See J. G. Scheuer, “Searching for the Phoenicians in Sardinia,” BAR 16:1 (1990) 53-60.
30Carthage was traditionally founded in 814 B.C., although nothing prior to 750 B.C. has been found archaeologically (time of Uzziah). The Carthaginians became famous in history through the Punic (corruption of Phoenician) Wars (264-241, 218-201, 149-146). Carthage was destroyed during the final war.
31W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, p. 236. But see also Diana Edelman, “Biblical Molek Reassessed,” JAOS 107 (1987) 727-31. For child sacrifice at Carthage see Stager and Wolf, “Child Sacrifice at Carthage, BAR 10/1 (1984) 37-51 and Patricia Smith, “Infants Sacrificed? The Tale Teeth Tell,” BAR 40/4 (2014) 54-56, 68.
32See “Queries & Comments,” BAR 40:3 (2014) 8 for the debate on this meaning between Dever and Lipinski.
33ANET, p. 139, h.I AB.
34Cf. Hosea 2:16, “You will call me Ishi (my man) and you will no longer call me Baali (my husband).
35Source for this discussion: Ernest. R Lacheman, Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians.
Around the middle of the 2nd millennium, a new people movement begins to take place. This time it is the Indo-Europeans. Between 2000 and 1750 B.C., not a single non-Semitic name appears south of Carchemish; they are either Canaanite or Amorite. In the period 1500-1300 B.C., Syria and Palestine swarm with non-Semitic names1 These Indo-Europeans spill into the Middle East arena from the northwest (Hittites), north (Hurrians) and east (Kassites). These groups have in common (1) an origin in the mountains surrounding the Fertile Crescent, (2) a common Indo-European stock and (3) the possession of horses and chariots which gave them the edge in their encounters with the residents of the valley.
The attack on Babylon by the Hittites in 1595 B.C. brought the first dynasty of Babylon to a conclusion and allowed the intrusion of an Indo-European people from the Zagros mountains.
The Kassites completely adopted the culture and writing of the conquered people. They never put their own language into writing. For about 400 years they controlled southern Mesopotamia. So little is recorded about them that scholars have tended to dismiss them as a mediocre people. But they must have been able to bring about peace and stability. They apparently had a military state and feudal organization.2
The movement of the Amorites from the Syrian steppes observed in Unit V was countered by the penetration of the Hurrians from the northeast out of the mountains surrounding the Fertile Crescent. The Amorites controlled the Mesopotamian valley, but Hurrian influence was being felt as early as the first dynasty of Babylon in some of the northern areas.3
This long period of infiltration is followed by settlement and conquest of the “hill country” north of the Euphrates permitted by the fall of Mari and the failure of Hammurabi to extend his control into that area. Finally, the regrouping of these petty states resulted in the establishment of Mitanni, a kingdom which would play a vital role in Middle East history for 150 years.
There appears to have been an Indo-Aryan segment of Hurrian society which, as a special class who were noted for training of horses and chariotry warfare, dominated the Hurrians. These were called mariyanna.
Mitanni was at first hostile to Egypt, but the common threat of the Hittites brought them together. Under Amenhotep III, extensive correspondence and trade were carried on. Mitannian princesses joined the Pharaoh’s harem.
The Mitannian Kingdom is brought to a conclusion by the Hittites around the middle of the 14th century B.C.
A. H. Sayce wrote in 1902: “We are told in the Second Book of Kings (vii. 6) that when the Syrians were encamped about Samaria and the Lord had sent a panic upon them, ‘they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us.’ About the year 1843 a distinguished scholar selected this passage for his criticism. Its ‘unhistorical tone,’ he declared, ‘is too manifest to allow of our easy belief in it.’ ‘No Hittite kings can have compared in power with the king of Judah, the real and near ally, who is not named at all…nor is there a single mark of acquaintance with the contemporaneous history.”4
The Hittites are referred to as Heth in the Table of Nations and descendants of Ham. Hittite, properly speaking, should, therefore, be applied only to the original inhabitants of the Anatolian plateau.5 The Hittite texts reveal that Anatolia in the middle and late bronze ages was populated by a mixture of peoples. The Indo-European peoples must have entered Anatolia sometime during the third millennium, B.C., either by way of the Caucasus or across the Bosporus, since the homeland of these peoples is known to have been to the north of the Black Sea.6
The period immediately preceding the old kingdom had Assyrian trading colonies which were interested in exploiting the mineral-rich Anatolian plateau. These colonies came to an end about 1940 B.C. (ANE 1 #56), possibly by the increasingly influential Hurrians in northern Mesopotamia. An early Hittite prince, Hattusilis, “man of Hattushash” rebuilt the ruined Hattushash and made it his capital. The need for tin caused him to be interested in the Euphrates trade route. He, therefore, began to look to the East. His grandson and successor, Mursillis I, defeated Aleppo, proceeded down the Euphrates and overthrew Babylon itself, bringing to an end the First Dynasty of Babylon in 1595 B.C., (the Kassites then had a free hand). However, the pressure of the Hurrians and other circumstances reduced the Hittite Kingdom once more to a small area in central Anatolia.
The Hittites began to assert themselves again under Tudhaliyas. Thutmose III had begun to penetrate Syrian territory, and the Hurrians had become established as the Kingdom of Mitanni. The Hittites were able to conquer Syria, including Mitanni. When in 1286 B.C., the ambitious Ramases II once again challenged the Hittites by leading an army up from the coast into the interior of Syria, he suffered a surprise attack beneath the walls of Kadesh and was forced, despite great personal valor, to retreat. During the following years, the tense relations between the two great powers gradually improved, and in 1284 B.C., Hattushilish III and Ramases II concluded a treaty of peace by which the demarcation line between the Hittite and Egyptian spheres of influence was fixed just south of Damascus.7
The empire came to a sudden conclusion about 1200 B.C. partly because of the pressure of the “Sea People.” These invaders, about which little is yet known, must have been made up of both Aegean and Anatolian peoples. They cut off the trade routes of the Hittites in the west, were barely beaten off by the Egyptians, and made their way up the coast of the Levant thereby cutting off the east trade routes. As a result, the Hittites, now completely vulnerable, fell prey to the attacks of the north and succumbed to oblivion. After that, evidence of the Phrygian civilization abounds. The Hittites continued in various cities, now affected by the newly emerging Arameans. Hamath of the Bible is a Hittite city. It is the Assyrians who, after three centuries of penetration of the west, eventually bring all of Syria and the Hittite city-states under their control.
The early excavations of Hattushash (modern Bogazkoy) about 1906 brought to light a wealth of clay tablets (some 10,000). These were composed in at least six languages. Akkadian as the international language of commerce and diplomacy was present. Hittite hieroglyphics were the medium of monumental inscriptions.
Gurney has problems with the early biblical references to the Hittites (e.g., Gen. 15:23) since there is no extra-biblical evidence of penetration into Egyptian territory (Palestine) by the Hittites at that time.8 It seems to me, however, that the mobility of the people at that time could easily permit this kind of contact even of Hittite people who may not have been under the suzerainty of Hattushash. Cf. also K. Kitchen, who argues that Hittite penetration into Syria in the 19th and 18th centuries B.C. establishes such a precedent.9
1See Albright, SATC, p. 205.
2See BANE, p. 288; Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, 161ff.; CAH, 2,1: 437-444.
3CAH, 2,1: 23.
4A. H. Sayce, The Hittites. The Story of a Forgotten Empire, London: The Religious Tract Society, 1903, p. 7.
5Cf. CAH, 2,1:229-231.
6Cf. Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, p. 162.
7A cuneiform copy of this treaty can be observed in the Ankara museum.
8O. R. Gurney, The Hittites, also in CAH 2, 1.
9The Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, 52. Hogarth, CAH 3:133, says that the Old Testament references that Palestine was once the home of the “children of Heth” must have foundation in fact.
The wars of liberation were successful in driving out the dreaded Hyksos under the XVIIth dynasty (see Unit 6). The XVIIIth dynasty proceeded with a vengeance (1) to exterminate every vestige of Hyksos influence and (2) to reestablish Egyptian control of Palestine.
The XVIIIth dynasty acquired an empire in Syro-Palestine and became the most powerful state in the Middle East.
He conquered Syria in twenty years of fighting. He crossed the Euphrates and defeated the Mesopotamian states. He was the most powerful of all Pharaohs. His son, Thutmose IV, married a Mitannian princess.1
He brought the kingdom into decline. He broke with the Amon priesthood at Thebes, established a new capital (Akhetaten--Tell-el-Amarna), a new religion (worship of Aten, the sun disc), changed his name (Akhenaton--pleasing to Aten) and introduced a naturalistic art style.2 The religion was, at best, henotheism not monotheism. Because of this new direction of energy, the kingdom began to decline.
A cache of cuneiform correspondence in Akkadian was discovered at Akhenaton’s capital. These letters contain pleas to the Pharaoh as their suzerain for help against the invading Habiru.3
After Akhenaton, names from a new dynasty feature gods from the north, Re, Seth, Ptah (Ramases, Setis, Mer-ne-Ptahs). They also moved the capital to Tanis/Zoan on the delta while maintaining Thebes as a regional and seasonal capital.4
He was the greatest Pharaoh of the XIXth dynasty. He tended to take past glories to himself and to erect colossal statues of himself. The Ramaside dynasty began in obscurity. Ramases II fought the Hittites at Kadesh in 1286 with a resultant peace treaty.5
This problem will be taken up in more detail in the next unit. Scholars (if they even hold to an Exodus) who hold the late date will see Ramases II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus because of the name of the city in Exod. 1:11 as well as the location of the biblical events in northern Egypt. Unger argues that Ramases II merely took credit for the city and the biblical reference was modernized.6 Wood,7 following Albright’s identification of the Ramasides with the Hyksos, believes that it was the Hyksos who oppressed Israel and that the city had been called Ramases in their time.8
The eruption of Anatolians which terminated the Hittite Empire also had a devastating effect on Egypt. The Egyptians were barely able to beat them off and were never again able to regain their influence in Palestine-Syria (see the unit on Philistia).9
This dynasty began with Setnakht whose relationship with his predecessors (if any) is unknown. His son Ramases III strengthened Egypt militarily and was able to repel three invaders--Libyans, Sea Peoples (including the Philistines) and later the Libyans again. Both he and his predecessors forcibly settled captured Libyans in the south-east Delta. This allowed the Libyan groups who became so important later to develop. Ramases IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X,XI: most of these were short, insignificant reigns (1166-1069). There was a decline in royal power and control until Ramases XI who ruled for 29 years. In the nineteenth year of Ramases XI there was a “renaissance” and the dates are from that era. There were two strong men ruling under the weak king. “So from the 19th year of Ramesses XI (c. 1080 B.C.), all of Egypt and Nubia were divided into two great provinces, each under a chief whose common link and sole superior was the pharaoh. The boundary point was El Hibeh which became the northern base of the Theban ruler. Thus, under the last Ramesses a basic political pattern was established that was to last for over three centuries, through the 21st Dynasty and down to Prince Osorkon and the final collapse of the fractured unity of the post-imperial Egypt.”10 The story of Wenamun takes place in the fifth year of this era (1076 B.C.).11
Dates come from Campbell in BANE; cf. also Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs. These dates are tentative, and, therefore, any efforts to fit the biblical data into Egyptian events must remain tentative. The dates that follow are principally from K. A. Kitchen. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.). See also H. R. Hall, in CAH, “The Eclipse of Egypt,” 3:251-269 (1929).12
THE NEW KINGDOM |
||
The Eighteenth Dynasty 1570-1304 |
||
Date |
Pharaoh |
Data |
1525-1508 |
Thutmose I |
Moses Born 1520 |
1508-1490 |
Thutmose II |
Hatshepsut was Thutmose I’s only child by his official wife. Thutmose II, of a lesser wife, was married to her. Their only child was a girl. Thutmose III was from a minor wife of Thutmose II. |
1490-1469 |
Hatshepsut |
Could she be the princess who reared Moses? |
1490-1436 |
Thutmose III |
He chafed as co-regent with his stepmother until her death. Moses became 40 in 1480. The Exodus would be 1441. |
1436-1410 |
Amenhotep II |
His mummy has been found. Some argue that he was the Pharaoh of the Exodus (The Bible does not say he drowned. He led the battle to the water’s edge. The Psalm description is a general figurative statement). |
1410-1402 |
Thutmose IV |
His dream inscription may indicate that he was not originally intended to be Pharaoh. (Therefore, his brother would have died in the plagues).13 |
1402-1364 |
Amenhotep III |
Conquest 1400-1393 (?). |
1364-1347 |
Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton) |
Amarna letters 1347-1346 |
|
Semenkhkere |
Son-in-law of Amenhotep IV |
1346-1337 |
Tutankhamun |
Son-in-law of Amenhotep IV. But he may have been a son of Amenhotep III or a son of Amenhotep IV. He died young.14 |
1337-1333 |
Ay |
|
1333-1304 |
Haremhab |
|
The Nineteenth Dynasty c. 1304-1200 |
||
1304-1303 |
Ramases I |
|
1303-1290 |
Seti I |
|
1290-1224 |
Ramases II |
The greatest name in the nineteenth dynasty was Ramases II who reigned 67 years (half of which was probably coregency). He took much glory to himself. He confronted the Hittites and concluded a treaty with them. |
1223-1211 |
Merenptah |
His first successor was Merenptah who accomplished significant things, but he was older and therefore his reign was relatively short. His “stela” listing the kings of the Levant whom he allegedly defeated includes the only reference to “Israel” in all known Egyptian writing.15 The successors of Merenptah were weak and inefficient. The power of the throne swiftly declined under princes who followed. |
1CAH, 2,2:83. The god Aten, the religion that absorbed Amenhotep IV, began to come into prominence probably as early as Thutmose III (CAH 2,1:343). Mitanni was an Indo-European power from c. 1500-1350 B.C.
2Note samples in ANEP #’s 402ff. ANET, 108, 109, 110.
3C. Pfeiffer, The Tell El Amarna Tablets, p. 52 and ANET, pp. 483-90.
4Wilson, The Burden of Egypt, p. 239.
5See Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, p. 114.
6Archaeology and the Old Testament, p. 149.
7Leon Wood, Survey of Israel’s History, p. 93.
8See SATC, p. 223. CAH 2,1:312, “A fragment of an alabaster vessel found in the tomb of doubtful ownership, bears the name of Auserre Apophis and of a princess named Herit. Its discovery has prompted the suggestion that the royal house of the 18th dynasty was linked by marriage to the Hyksos house.”
9For a discussion in a Greek context, see CAH 3:633ff. And see the delightful piece about Wenamon in ANE, pp. 16-24.
10Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 250-51.
11ANET, 25-29.
12For a good summary of Egyptology and the Old Testament, see DeVries in New Perspectives on the Old Testament.
13Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament, 142-143; ANET, 449. CAH 2,1:321, “This fanciful tale …suggests that Thutmose IV was not his father’s heir apparent, but had obtained the throne through an unforeseen turn of fate, such as the premature death of an elder brother.”
14Cf. Montet, Egypt and the Bible, 148.
15ANEP, #343.
Palestine has a five finger grip on the seas. It forms the strategic land bridge of the Middle East.1
The “two Israel” theory propounded by Albright and others (especially his students, such as Wright, BA, p. 77) is that there were Israelites in Canaan while other Israelites were in Egypt. These two linked up through a gradual infiltration into Palestine by the Egyptian Israelites. This would explain some of the diverse traditions which have become interwoven into the biblical documents. The only problem with this is that there is not one shred of evidence for this either in the biblical text or in history or in archaeology. It should be dismissed out of hand (Cf. Albright’s own admission in SATC, p. 279 “The Hebrews [Canaanites] coalesced so rapidly with their Israelite kindred that hardly any references to this distinction have survived in biblical literature and the few apparent allusions are doubtful.”).
Modern Old Testament scholarship no longer even discusses an Exodus. Dever was quoted earlier saying that in spite of Albright’s arguments that there was a 13th century Moses who was a monotheist, “the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure, that Yahwism was highly syncretistic from the very beginning; and that true monotheism developed only late in Israel’s history, probably not until the Exile and Return (see the state-of-the-art studies gathered in Miller, Hanson, and McBride 1987).”2
For those who believe in the biblical Exodus, its date continues to be a vexing problem from the point of view of relating the biblical data (and date) to the extra-biblical material (archaeological and historical).
The biblical chronology based on 1 Kings 6:1 has already been presented. The date for the Exodus is usually given as 1441 (the variations result from some uncertainty as to the date of Solomon’s accession). Some critical scholars hold to an Exodus of some sort (certainly on a much more limited scale than that indicated in the Bible) in the 13th century. Albright set the stage for this date with his conquest model and his understanding of the archaeology of the cities. Recent scholarship seems to be denying any sort of Exodus. Evangelical scholarship may be moving back to a Late Bronze date (mid 1500’s).3
The issues with we must grapple are:
1. The archaeological data.
2. The cities in Exodus 1:11.
3. Hebrews and Hyksos.
4. Hebrews and Habiru.
5. Egyptian chronology.
6.Trans-Jordan occupation (no structures at Heshban. See also C. Krahmalkov, “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence,” BAR 20:5 (1994), 54-62+).4
Albright gives an apologetic for the destruction of the Canaanites.5 This is quite a strong contrast to a prominent Methodist bishop of a few years ago who referred to the God of the Old Testament as a Bully. Albright argues first that contemporary “civilizations” have little right to sit in judgment on others with regard to total warfare. Secondly, he says, “It was fortunate for the future of monotheism that the Israelites of the Conquest were a wild folk, endowed with primitive energy and ruthless will to exist, since the resulting decimation of the Canaanites prevented the complete fusion of the two kindred folk which would almost inevitably have depressed Yahwistic standards to a point where recovery was impossible.” This issue will be taken up further in the next lecture on Canaanite religion.
Albright believed in a conquest, but he thought it was in the thirteenth century. The discussion that follows is based on his view. Provan says, “Today, most scholars regard Albright’s conquest model as a failure, which is not surprising since, as L. Younger observes, ‘the [conquest] model was doomed from the beginning because of its literal, simplistic reading of Joshua.’ It might be more accurate to speak of a simplistic misreading of Joshua, for the conquest model assumes massive destruction of property as well as population, whereas the book of Joshua suggests no such thing. Joshua speaks of cities being taken and kings being killed, but only three cities—Jericho, Ai, and Hazor—are said to have been burned.”6
As to the archaeological evidence for settlement in the land, Provan, et al., say “Thus, on the basis of the archaeological evidence alone, we know that (1) at the beginning of the Iron Age hundreds of new villages sprang up in the central hill country; (2) those who settled these villages apparently eschewed pig consumption, in contradistinction to their Canaanite neighbors on all sides; and (3) the new settlers may have been new arrivals from elsewhere, or (if we follow Finkelstein’s studies that find evidence of large number of pastoralists in the area throughout the crisis years of the Late Bronze Age) they may have already been in the area for several hundred years. As Hoffmeier succinctly remarks, ‘the villages do not tell us how long the settlers had been pastoralists in the area before settling, or whether they had moved about inside or outside of Canaan, or both, before becoming sedentary.’”7
The Amarna tablets coming from the 15th and 14th centuries should not be lightly dismissed as having a possible bearing on the entry of the Israelites. They report an incursion of Habiru (Hapiru and now Khapiru) and appeal to the Egyptian court for help (But see Bruce in Archaeo1ogy and Old Testament Study: The Hebrews were part of a broad group. At Ugarit it was pronounced as a ע not a h). Provan, et al., say, “Na’aman notes that after a century of discussion, ‘a scholarly consensus has still not been reached.’ Obviously, a straight equation of the two terms is out of the question. Not all ‘apiru could possibly have been Israelites; the geographical and temporal distribution is simply too great. But could the Israelites as they are described in the books of Joshua, Judges, and even Samuel have been viewed as ‘apiru by their Canaanite opponents, whatever may have been their own self-perception?” This would fit an earlier date for the exodus.8
Jericho. This is a key city in which to look for archaeological help on the biblical data. Garstang (Digging up Jericho) in his excavations from 1930‑36 identified a set of burned walls as belonging to the late bronze age or the time of Joshua. K. Kenyon (“Jericho,” AOTS) says that “This was…a completely erroneous identification, for the defenses in question belonged to the Early Bronze Age” (3000‑2300 by her reckoning). Archer, in a series on biblical archaeology in Bib Sac (1970), quotes Garstang (in 1948) as saying his position has not been refuted. Archer argues that this is a case in point where the prejudgment of one’s position (in this case a late date for the Exodus) controls the interpretation of the data. However, Miss Kenyon argues that “…it is impossible to associate the destruction of Jericho with such a date [late date]. The town may have been destroyed by one of the other Hebrew groups, the history of whose infiltrations is, as generally recognized, complex. Alternatively, the placing at Jericho of a dramatic siege and capture may be an aetiological explanation of a ruined city [Wright, in BA denies this (see my opening lecture)]. Archaeology cannot provide the answer.”9 Wood’s discussion is promising, but most archaeologists do not agree with him. Provan, et al., summarize the situation: Jericho: what do we know? Data: Collapsed city walls; burning; spring time (indicated by a presence of grain); presence of grain (so must have fallen quickly and not a lengthy siege). A quick fall points to a supernatural fall (not his words). The stoppage of the Jordan correlates with historically known stoppages. “Taken together, all these factors would seem to encourage confidence in the compatibility of the archaeological and textual evidence relating to the fall of Jericho. The problem of Jericho has to do not so much with the material finds as with the dates assigned to these findings.” Garstang> Kenyon> Wood.10
It would be better to accept the biblical account including the date of 1 Kings 6:1, which is not disproved by archaeology, and wait for further information.11
Ai. “And Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Bethaven, on the east side of Beth‑el…they are but few.” (Josh. 7:2‑3). Ha’ai means “the heap” as does Et-Tell, the modern name for this site (see BASOR, #198, April, 1970).
According to Wright, Ai’s excavation indicates a small, flourishing town, heavily fortified, between the 33rd and 24th centuries B.C. The chief structure within was a fine temple, beautifully built and the huge walls were its protection.12
The city is said to have been destroyed about 2400 B.C. and not reoccupied until c. 1000 B.C. Attempts to answer this are:
Etiological explanation.
People from Bethel temporarily occupying the city.
Albright: Story in Joshua concerns Bethel but later it was identified with Ai.
Excavation shows a violent destruction of Bethel in the 13th century (Albright and Kelso—1934, 1955‑60). It is more probable that this is the destruction of Bethel referred to in Judges 1 at a later date.
Since the biblical account is quite explicit, we can only assume:
The occupation was so light as to leave no trace, or the mound excavated (et Tell) is not Ai.13 Bryant Wood is currently excavating at Tell el Maqatir, believing it to be a good candidate for Ai.14
The Gibeonites made a league with Joshua (chapter 9) and became “hewers of wood” and “drawers of water.”
Gibeon was excavated by Pritchard (Gibeon, Where the Sun Stood Still) from 1956‑1962 (It is not all finished). The most outstanding thing there is the huge water cistern 37 feet in diameter and 82 feet deep (ANE 1 # 179, 180). In addition there was a winery with a capacity of 25,000 gallons.
There is evidence of continuous habitation without destruction in accord with the biblical account (Gibeon not attacked).15
The defeat of these outpost cities was necessary to open up the hill country. When Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah centuries later, they followed the same strategy. All the cities mentioned in Joshua can today be located with a high degree of probability except Makkedah.16
Lachish was excavated by Starkey beginning in 1933. It was finished in 1957.
A jar was found with hieratic script of a receipt dated in the year of some Pharaoh. Which one? There is no real way of knowing, but Ramases II or Merneptah is usually chosen for obvious reasons (see chronology). It is the stele of Merneptah (c. 1220 B.C.) which contains the only mention of Israel and refers to them as a people in Palestine.17
Lachish letters—Jeremiah’s time.
Albright’s own discussion of the archaeological data in AOTS does not sound as conclusive as Wright indicates in BA. One phase of the city was destroyed about the middle of the 14th century although an earlier or later date is possible.
The destruction of another level “must have been quite late in the 13th century B.C.”
I do not feel that Albright’s discussion is dogmatic enough to warrant a 1250 date for Israel to have defeated Debir.
“And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms.” Joshua 11:10.
See BAXXII, 1959, and Yadin in AOTS for a discussion. Hazor is mentioned in the execration texts and the Mari tablets. There was caravan travel between Hazor and Babylon. It was a huge city of 40,000 people.
Hazor was destroyed in the middle of the 13th century B.C. Wood says Hazor was burned but the evidence of destruction in the 13th century is not burning. But Stratum XVI (3) dated by Yadin in 16th‑15th centuries was burned. This may be the one Joshua burned, and it was rebuilt and strong during the time of Deborah.18
We conclude our study of the conquest as we began. Archaeology is not as conclusive for a late date theory as is often presented, but neither does it prove an earlier date. We will simply have to wait (perhaps in vain) for further interpretation and correlation which will help. The evidence does show violent disruption of many of the cities in the general period of the 13th century. In the meantime, we should hold to the biblical chronology as given in 1 Kings 6:1. As Provan, et al., say, “We recognize that some knotty problems remain: Has Ai been correctly located? Has Jericho’s destruction been correctly dated? What’s that on Mt. Ebal? Finally, we recognize that how we read the evidence is in some measure related to larger issues of how we see the world. All in all, we believe that such archaeological evidence as is known to us in no way invalidates the biblical testimony (provided that both text and artifact are properly read) and that at least some promising ‘convergences’ exist.”19
1See D. Baly, Geography of the Bible.
2W. Dever, “What Remains of the House that Albright Built,” BA 56 (1993) pp. 32-33.
3See Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel, pp. 131-32.
4Thiele (Zondervan Bible Dictionary, p. 167) quotes G. L. Harding (PEQ Jan-Jun, 1958, 10-12) for sedentary occupation in the MB age (1550) to LB (1200).
5Albright, SATC , pp. 280ff
6Provan, et. al., A Biblical History of Israel, p. 140.
7Ibid., pp. 188-89.
8Ian Provan, et al., p. 171-72.
9K. Kenyon, AOTS, p. 273. Bryant G. Wood (“Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look” BAR 16:2 (1990), 44-58) has taken up the issue again and argues that Kenyon misinterpreted some of the data. See Provan, et al., for a good summary of Wood’s position (A Biblical History of Israel, 175-76).
10Ian Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel, pp. 174-75.
11See Kitchen in OROT, pp. 187-88, for a discussion of the vast erosion of the tell. He holds to a mid-thirteenth century conquest. Albright (The Biblical period from Abraham to Ezra, p. 28), says there must have been a city from 19-13 c. since pottery shows up at the base of the mound in the 10th c. stratum. It must have eroded away (see further, Wright, BA, pp. 79, 80, Wood in New Perspectives on Old Testament Studies, and Waltke, Bib Sac, J‑M, 1972).
12G. E. Wright, BA, p. 80.
13See Livingston, WTJ, 33, Nov., 1970, p. 20f. He argues that Bethel is really modern Bireh and Ai an unnamed mound nearby. But see Rainey, “Bethel is Still Beitin,” WTJ 33 (1971).
14See also Callaway, “New Evidence on the Conquest of `Ai [*]”JBL 88 (1968) 312-20.
15See Reed, in AOTS. See also Lapp, Biblical Archaeology and History and “The Conquest of Palestine in the Light of Archaeology, CTM 38 (1967).
16Wright, BA, p. 81.
17ANE p. 231, fig. 96.
18See L. Wood, “The Date of the Exodus,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, pp. 74 and Y. Yadin, “Hazor and the Battle of Joshua—is Joshua 11 Wrong,” BAR 21(1976) pp. 3-4, 44.
19Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel, p. 192.
Critics argue that Joshua depicts a complete destruction of the people of Canaan, while Judges shows a more accurate picture of a long fight for control of the area. Kitchen responds, “Thus, to sum up, the book of Joshua in reality simply records the Hebrew entry into Canaan, their base camp at Gilgal by the Jordan, their initial raids (without occupation!) against local rulers and subjects in south and north Canaan, followed by localized occupation (a) north from Gilgal as far as Shechem and Tirzah and (b) south to Hebron/Debir, and very little more. This is not the sweeping, instant conquest-with-occupation that some hasty scholars would foist upon the text of Joshua, without any factual justification.
“Insofar as only Jericho Ai, and Hazor were explicitly allowed to have been burned into nonoccupation, it is also pointless going looking for extensive conflagration level as at any other Late Bronze sites (of any phase) to identify them with any Israelite impact. Onto this initial picture Judges follows directly and easily, with no inherent contradiction: it contradicts only the bogus and superficial construction that some modern commentators have willfully thrust upon the biblical text of Joshua without adequate reason. The fact is that biblical scholars have allowed themselves to be swept away by the upbeat, rhetorical element present in Joshua, a persistent feature of most war reports in ancient Near Eastern sources that they are not accustomed to understand and properly handle.”1
There was a period of dormancy in Egypt during the 13th century. Ramases III was restoring it to power, but the invasions from the west (Libya) and the sea people called Tjeker, revealed in the story of Wen Amon (ANE, p. 16), damaged Egypt. The Hittite empire in the north was also under pressure.
The sea people were repulsed by the Egyptians and settled along the coast--Ugarit, Sidon, Tyre. The Pelast seized territory from Joppa to Gaza (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath). Many Canaanites moved and established their capital at Tyre and are called Phoenicians from that time on (cf. the last lecture).
The Merenptah stela (13th century) gives us a date of 1210 for an Egyptian invasion that encountered a group called Israel. The period from 1210 to 1042 (almost 170 years) would be the period of the judges. “The latest setting of the book of Joshua (if granted even minimal credence) would then in principle lie immediately in the decade or so before 1210, along with any Israelite entry into Canaan from the outside.”2
Excavations suggest a time of anarchy. Bethel had four destructions by fire in two centuries. Megiddo had repeated troubles between its rebuilding and Solomon.
The surrounding nations were well organized, but Israel had no central government. Noth developed the idea of an amphictyonic organization on the order of some of the Greek states where a central sanctuary formed the focal point of the whole group.3
The tabernacle was set up at Shiloh. Joshua 18:1; 1 Sam. 1:3; 3:12; 4:3, Judges 18:31 (cf. 1 Sam. 6:1 on the ark). The Tabernacle was also at Nob, 1 Sam. 21; at Gibeon, 1 Chron. 16:39 (see Jer. 7:12ff, 26:6ff for the destruction of Shiloh). The ark was at Bethel (Judges 20:27).
During the 12th century eastern Syria was inundated by Arameans. The capital was later at Damascus.4
The iron industry was controlled by the Philistines (1 Sam. 13:19-22). The Hittites held the secret of Iron, and it may have been brought to Palestine by the sea people. Hence, the Philistines controlled it. The Iron Age begins at this time. Iron, as indicated, is of Anatolian origin (Heb.: Berzel = Pherrus the “l” is intensive as in Carm-el, rich vineyard). Israel must have had a low profile during this time.
The first oppression is from Chushan-rishathaim of Syria (Heb.: Aram). Chushan is a place name in the second millennium. It appears on a list of Ramases III (13-12 centuries B.C.)
The period of the Judges is not a very high point in the Israelite history. The two appendixes in particular show Israel at the nadir of her existence. The bright spots are the various places where individual faith breaks forth. The book of Ruth, in particular, is a bright ray in an otherwise dark corner.
The Judges. |
|
||
Oppression under Chushan-Rishathaim |
3:8 |
8 years |
|
Othniel, rest |
3:11 |
40 |
|
Oppression under Eglon of Moab |
3:14 |
18 |
|
Deliverance, Ehud, rest |
3:30 |
80 |
|
Oppression, Jabin of Hazor |
4:3 |
20 |
|
Deborah, rest |
5:31 |
40 |
|
Oppression, Midian |
6:1 |
7 |
|
Deliverance, Gideon, rest |
8:28 |
40 |
|
Reign of Abimelech |
9:22 |
3 |
|
Judgeship of Tola |
10:2 |
23 |
|
Oppression of Gilead by Ammon |
10:8 |
18 |
|
Judgeship of Jair |
10:3 |
22 |
|
Judges 11:26 Israel had land 300 years: |
|
319 |
|
Judgeship of Jephthah |
12:7 |
6 |
|
Judgeship of Ibzan |
12:9 |
7 |
|
Judgeship of Elon |
12:11 |
10 |
|
Judgeship of Abdon |
12:14 |
8 |
|
Oppression of Philistines |
13:1 |
40 |
|
Judgeship of Samson |
15:20, 16:31 |
20 |
|
Judgeship of Eli |
1 Sam. 4:18 |
40 |
|
|
|
450 years |
|
Judgeship of Samuel |
|
? |
|
Saul (mentioned only in Acts 13) |
|
40 |
|
David |
|
40 |
|
Solomon |
1 Kgs. 11:42 |
40 |
This section presents one of the most difficult aspects of Old Testament Chronology. The first point of contact must be the 480 years between the Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon (1 Kgs. 6:1). The problem comes with the 450 year total of the data in Judges from the first oppression to Eli. If these years be taken consecutively, there are too many. Josephus, whose handling of biblical chronology leaves much to be desired, takes them consecutively and comes up with 592 years for the same period covered by 1 Kgs. 6:1 (by adding 111 years of servitude). The 450 years in Acts 13:19-20 is placed during the judges by some MSS and during the Egyptian period by others. Some people drop the periods of servitude to reduce the years in Judges, but the best solution is probably to assume that the years are not intended to be sequential, i.e., the various judgeships overlap since none of them is intended to indicate control over the entire 12 tribes.5
The clue to the period is Caleb’s age. At Kadesh-Barnea, he is 40. At the end of the settlement, he is 85. This gives 45 years from Kadesh-Barnea to the settlement. We already have 38 years as the period of wandering. Thus 7 years is left for the period of the conquest.
1Kitchen, OROT, p. 163. See also Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel, pp. 166-67.
2 Kitchen, OROT, p. 159.
3M. Noth, Old Testament World, and Das System der Zwolf Stamme Israels (1930) but this has largely been repudiated.
4Cf. Unger, Israel and the Aramaens of Damascus.
5Cf. Thiele, “Chronology,” Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary. See also L. Wood, “The Date of the Exodus,” pp. 66-87.
Israel’s greatest height was reached around the beginning of the first millennium B.C. Under David and Solomon, Israel became a prominent power in the Middle East. This was the heroic age in Greece (Homer). Rome was founded about 700 B.C.
Saul’s greatest service was in beginning to thrust out of the Philistines. Iron comes of age in Israel (cf. 1 Chron. 22:3. David prepared iron nails), and since the Philistines controlled the industry, they had a great advantage over Israel. Gibea was Saul’s home. Excavation shows that it was destroyed, probably with the internecine warfare with Benjamin. Saul built his “palace” on these ruins. It was about 169 feet by 114 feet. It was rural, simple, and two-story.
David had a personal army which was a foreign contingent. These were Pelethites and Cherethites (Philistines and Cretans?) and 600 warriors from Gath under Ittai (2 Sam. 15:18).
He conquered Beth-Shan (an old Egyptian outpost), Jerusalem, and then the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and finally the Syrians (since the Syrians were beginning to make incursions into Assyria, David may have prevented the fall of the latter). This left Israel the strongest state between the Euphrates and Egypt.
DeVaux has shown that this was probably patterned after the Egyptian system.
Not a single discovery has been made in Jerusalem from the time of David and Solomon. Apparently, the city was dug off as in Hasmonean times and thrown over the hill. Excavation by Miss Kenyon has uncovered part of the Jebusite wall. After the 1967 war, the Israelis were able to excavate in the Jewish Quarter with marvelous results.3
Some of the walls of this tell (identified with Sha’araim) have stones that are estimated to weigh from 3-5 tons. A project this massive would require a central authority with enough resources to carry it out. This is another argument for a Davidic kingdom.
“The discovery of an ostracon in the stratum of Iron Age IIA at Khirbet Qeyafa (Sha’araym) at the north-western end of the Terebinth Valley is very important for dating paleography in South Canaan, but also for its content, once completely deciphered. It is the earliest witness of the institution of the monarchy by the people in Ancient Israel.”4
This ostracon may contain the oldest Hebrew inscription extant. There is some debate about the partial inscription.5 Puech provides the following proposal:
Do not oppress, and serve God : | : The cheater
The judge and the weeping widow; he has power
over the resident stranger and over the child, he cuts them off together.
The men and the heads/officers have set up a king.
He marked [sixty] servants among the communities/habitations/generations.6
Solomon’s reign provided glamour to the kingdom.7 He carried on extensive commercial activity. First Kings 10:8-9 records that he bought horses and chariots from Cilicia and sold them to the Arameans. He controlled the Arabian trade by Ezion Geber (1 Kings 9:26; 20:22). He was a copper and iron baron. The bath (bronze sea) must have weighed 25 to 30 tons.
Northern Israel was divided into administrative districts (1 Kgs. 4:7ff--store cities). David may already have organized the south. Megiddo had stables for 400 horses8 and Hazor was fortified for northern protection.
Glueck has repudiated his identification of this site as the great smelting plant (The Other Side of the Jordan; repudiated in AOTS).
There would have been some influence on the temple by the artisans of Tyre and Sidon. Consequently, modern models of the temple differ radically from the older ones.
Prosperity brought decadence. Through political alliances, Solomon acquired a large harem with all the attendant problems, not the least of which was the introduction and sanctioning of other religions.
For a summary of cities excavated during this time, see,
D. W. Thomas, AOTS, and BAR, #1 and #2
G. E. Wright, BA
K. Kenyon, Royal Cities of the Old Testament
1This discussion is based on Wright, BA.
2R. DeVaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East.
3N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem. But now see the work of Eilat Mazar who believes she has found David’s citadel: “Excavate King David’s Palace,” BAR 23:01 (1997). Her later discussion is found in, “Did I Find King David’s Palace,” BAR 38:1 (2006). See a rebuttal by A. Faust, “Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace?” BAR 38 (2012) pp. 47-52, 70.
4Émile Puech, “The Ostracon of Khirbet Qeyafa and the Beginning of the Kingdom in Israel,” RB 117:2 (2010) pp. 162-184 See also, Y. Garfunkel, M. Hasel and M. Klingbell, “An Ending and a Beginning,” BAR 36:6 (2013) pp. 44-51.
5See also, A. Millard, “The New Jerusalem Inscription—So What?” BAR (2014) 40:3, pp 49-53.
6Ibid., p. 171.
7A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE, 368-402 for the period of the monarchy.
8Cf. the archaeological work done in both places in Wright, BA. Yadin discusses subsequent work at Megiddo in “In Defense of Stables at Megiddo,” BAR 2:3 (1976). He concludes that the stables belong perhaps to Ahab’s time. Megiddo is going to be revisited (I. Finkelstein and D. Ussishkin, “Back to Megiddo,” BAR 20 [1993] 26-43), and G. I. Davies (“King Solomon’s Stables Still at Megiddo?” BAR 20 [1993] 45-49) believes (after studying the original reports again) that an earlier stratum will reveal Solomon’s stables.
We cannot begin to speak of absolute chronology until we come to this period, that is, it is only here that we can begin to synchronize the events of the various countries of the Middle East. The framework of a chronology for this period is four dates synchronized with extra-biblical data.1
This date is based on the synchronism in Josephus, Antiquities, VIII, #62ff. He there relates Solomon’s fourth year and Hiram.2
Shalmaneser III of Assyria mentions Ahab in the battle of Qarqar (853) and Jehu (on the black obelisk) as paying tribute in 842/41. Since Jehoram and Ahaziah are given twelve years in the Bible, Ahab must have died in 853 (but not at Qarqar, see the biblical account in 1 Kings 22), and Jehu have taken the throne in 842/41. This is the most corroborated date in the chronology of this period.3
This date is derived from the annals of Sargon II.4
This date comes from the annals of Nebuchadnezzar (see Historical Chronology of the last days of Judah from this period on p. 164 of this outline). Additional corroboration comes from Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah in 701 which is dated in the 14th year of Hezekiah (2 Kings18:13; Isa. 36:1, ANE, 199-200). Hezekiah’s reign is 715/14 + 29 year reign = 687/686 for his terminus.
The first main problem to be wrestled with is the method used in reckoning the date of the accession of the king to the throne. During the era of the kingdom, there were two systems in current use. One was the accession or postdating method. This dictated beginning the reign on the first day of the following year. The other was non-accession or ante-accession. Of the two, the former is the more accurate for determining the actual period of the reign. Thus it may be seen that as much as a whole year’s difference may result in the synchronizing of two kings reigning simultaneously.
The Jews employed two years in their calendar: the religious and the civil. The religious year began in March/April and the civil in September/ October. The second problem arises in trying to determine the year the king used for dating his reign. Thiele has adopted the system of giving both years, i.e., 931/30.
Finally, the most elusive problem is that there were several co-regencies among the kings. This must be determined by a process of elimination. Finding a ten-year excess from the time of Hezekiah to the captivity, for instance, Thiele shows that Manasseh is the only likely king to have had coregency. Since Hezekiah was given fifteen years to live, it is only logical to conclude that he began to train his son for the throne. The period of training was included in Manasseh’s fifty-five years total reign.
The Assyrians had an interesting way of computing dates called the eponymic cycle (epi—upon, onoma—name). On the first day of each year, a man was appointed to an office, and the year was named after him. A fairly complete list of these names has been found engraved on a wall. Elsewhere, in the city of Khorsabad, a more complete list has been found which was copied from the former list. To further supplement this, Ptolemy, an Alexandrian astronomer, developed a canon of kings based upon the movement of the heavens. It is from this that we are able to arrive at a relatively absolute date, compare that with the few dates given in the Assyrian king list, and come up with a very definite date with which to work. Thus, when Shalmaneser III says that he came up against a coalition of kings, including Ahab of Israel, we are able to give that as the last year of Ahab’s reign or 853 B.C. (see Freedman and the accompanying chart). For details, see CAH 1,2:740ff.
The period of the judges is a computation of biblical data (cf. also Josephus). The dates of the kings and the information concerning them is based on Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. The Assyrian dates are from E. G. Campbell, BANE, (some discrepancies will be noted between different sources). The exile and restoration are from ISBE (supplemented from BANE). See also, Albright, SATC; Freedman, “Old Testament Chronology,” BANE; and the chart at the back of D. W. Thomas, AOTS.
1D. N. Freedman, BANE, pp. 274-79.
2Loeb series on Josephus has this editorial note: “Justinius, in his Epitome of Trogus Pompeius, xviii, 3.5, says that Tyre was founded a year before the fall of Troy. This, in turn, is dated by the Parian Marble…in the year comparable to 1209/8 B.C.”
3See Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 53; Freedman, BANE, p. 274, ANE, 190-92.
4See ANE, p. 195.
The Arameans are an ancient people. Aram appears in the table of nations as a son of Shem, and the same name is given to a grandson of Nahor, Abraham’s brother. Bethuel, the father of Laban, is called “the Aramean.” Deut. 26:5 seems to be a liturgical formula: “Arami obed abi,” “My father was a wandering Aramean.” Balaam gives Aram as his home (Num. 23:7). Abraham was principally, therefore, identified with the Aramean people from Haran. (He was not, of course, a descendant of Aram).1
The Aramaic language is likewise ancient. The Arameans adopted the Phoenician script and adapted it to the square letters now used by the Hebrews. Written Aramaic is found from the 10th century B.C. in the Phoenician script.2 Aramaic became so widespread it was used as a trade language by the major empires until Greek predominated. The language branched into east and west dialects, and West Aramaic was spoken by the common people of Palestine at the time of Christ. From New Testament times on, it had a Christian heritage and is called Syriac. A prolific literature extends to the 13th century A.D. It is still used as a liturgical language in the Mar Toma Church of India and by the Jacobite Churches of Syria and Iraq.
Semitic speaking people probably occupied the area called Syria as early as 3000 B.C.3 The Arameans, however, began to penetrate the settled countries of the Fertile Crescent en masse in the 11th century. The major powers were in decline (Egypt, Hittites, Assyria and Babylon). Israel, the Arameans and the Phoenicians were on the rise at the beginning of the first millennium B.C.
A federated kingdom called Aram-zobah is encountered early. Hadadezer ben Rehob is the king (2 Sam. 8:3; 10:16; 1 Chron. 19:10). The expansionist ideas of this king were frustrated by David who put governors in Aram-Damascus (2 Sam. 8:6).
Hittite Hamath was an adversary of Aram-zobah and formed an alliance with David (2 Sam. 8:9-11; 2 Chron. 18:9-11).
As Solomon’s government became weak, and Egypt began to assert herself, Aram-Damascus rebelled and becomes the most important Aramean state. The unified Arameans under the Ben Hadad’s (Hadadezer?) become a constant threat to the northern kingdom for 150 years until their defeat by Assyria.4
References to Syria in James D. Newsome, Jr., A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.
This monument comes from the middle of the 10th century B.C. It was found in 1929. Its measurements are 35 by 70 by 45 cm. Now it is located in the Beirut national museum. It contains further the remains of an inscription in “Byblian hieroglyphics”5 (ANET, p. 653).
This inscription is Phoenician-Hittite, bilingual. It comes from about 720 B.C., and was found in 1946 in Keratepe. Uriku, according to Donner and Rollig was a king of Que, and hence Azitawadda was a vassal king. (ANET, p. 653.)
This inscription comes from about 825 B.C. It was found in 1902 in Zinjirli. It contains an interesting description of a small state hiring Assyria (cheaply) to protect itself. These people are apparently MSHKBM as opposed to the Danunites of Azitawadda above. (ANET, p. 654.)
This monument is from 733/2-727. It was found in 1891 in Zinjirli. This king was established on his throne at the behest of Tiglath-Pileser. (See ANEP, #281; ANET, p. 655).6
This inscription, dated about 860 B.C., was found in 1939. It confirms his mention in 1 Kings 15:18 (Asa bribes Ben Hadad against Baasha) (ANEP, # 499; ANET, p. 655).
This inscription contains a reference to something gold. (ANET, p. 655.)
This Sefire inscription is very important.7 It was found in 1903 about 30 miles SW of Aleppo. It comes from the early 8th century B.C. and contains a good example of a coalition of kings against a small king. (ANET, p. 655-56.)
This inscription is not pertinent to the Aramean states (4-5th centuries B.C.). The Zakir inscription shows a lasting independence and an outlook limited to local problems. This holds true of the entire Syrian area. Only the petty states of Phoenicia broaden their horizons and this is through overseas expansion.8 With the beginning of the eighth century, the Syrian political scene changes. Assyrian pressure intensified and finally takes the form of permanent annexation (see Bar Rakib). The petty Syrian states begin to succumb during the second half of the eighth century (see the map on page 144). (ANET, p. 656.)
1 For the Arameans farther east who eventually created the Neo-Babylonian Empire, see p. 63.
2 See ANEP, pp. 270-286 and p. 105 in this outline.
3 See Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, p. 207 (because of the names of the mountains and rivers).
4 NB: Coele Syria (koila Syria or hollow of Syria) is probably a corruption of the title “kol Syria” (all Syria) found on the monuments.
5H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, 2:6.
6Ibid., pp. 232-34.
7Ibid., pp. 204-11. See for other Sefîre texts and commentaries: J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre.
8Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, p. 215.
The homeland of Assyria was in the northeast corner of the Fertile Crescent where the Tigris River flows southward across the plains, and the mountains of Kurdistan loom up in the background. The city which gave its name to the country and empire, even as it took its own name from the national god, was Ashur. It was located strategically on a low bluff on the right bank of the Tigris at a place now called Qalat Sharqat (cf. Gen. 10, Nimrod).1
Assyria first appeared historically after the time of the Kingdom of Accad to whose sphere of influence it had belonged (2300-2100 B.C., but this early period is vague). The Assyrians had colonies in Asia Minor where they carried on extensive trade (see the Cappadocian Tablets and the unit on the Hittites—see the tablet at ANE #56). These were interrupted by the rise of the Hittite state. There is a governor from the neo-Sumerian period ruling in Assyria (2000-1900 B.C.).
The Old Kingdom centers on the person of Shamshi-Adad I (1813-1781 B.C.).2 He had inherited a territory near Mari with which he came into conflict. He may have moved against Babylon. At any rate, he captured a town on the Tigris River which opened up Assyria to him. Assyria had just regained her independence from the south. From his Assyrian throne, he moved west and eventually conquered Mari. The whole of upper Mesopotamia was now in his control and the Cappadocian colonies began to show renewed activity. His son, Ishme-Dagon, was able to retain only Assyria. Mari fell back to the original Amorite dynasty through Zimrilim.
Hammurabi conquered Mari and perhaps Assyria and began the Old Babylonian Empire.
During this period, Assyria was dominated by others. Mitanni seems to have controlled Assyria (see Unit 9 for Mitanni). Mitanni was defeated by the Hittites (1380-1340 B.C.), and thus the Assyrians were free to resume their expansion.
The Middle Assyrian Kingdom arose in the 14th and 13th centuries. It was reconstituted about 1100 B.C. Names appear here which are better known in the New Assyrian Kingdom: Ashur-uballit (I), Adad-nirari (I), Shalmaneser (I), Tiglath-Pileser (I). There was a decline from 1100 to 900 B.C.3
Assyria rose to the height of its power at the time of the New Kingdom. The Assyrians subjugated all of Mesopotamia, including Babylonia, and the border regions. They also extended their rule over a part of Asia Minor, all Syria, and, for a while, even over Egypt.
The rise of the New Assyrian Kingdom began in the 9th century under the kings Ashurnasirpal II (884-859 B.C.) and Shalmaneser III (859-824 B.C.) who energetically advanced as far as middle Syria without being able to establish lasting control there.
Then the succession of the great Assyrian conquerors began with Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B.C.). They conquered Syria and Palestine, as well as other lands, and undertook frequent campaigns there. They include Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C.), Sargon II (722-705 B.C.), Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.), and Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C.ANE#121) who undertook several campaigns against Egypt and occupied the Delta and the old royal city of Memphis.
The last goal of Assyrian expansion, the overthrow of Egypt, was brought very close. Esarhaddon’s son and successor, Ashurbanipal (669-631 B.C.), could indeed still garrison the upper Egyptian royal city of Thebes, but, under him, the Egyptian adventure soon came to an end, and the decline of the Assyrian might began.
This decline came about swiftly under his successors. In 612 B.C., the Assyrian capital city of Nineveh fell to a combined attack of the Medes and Neo-Babylonians. In Mesopotamia, and in Syro-Palestine, the Neo-Babylonian Empire then succeeded the Assyrian Kingdom.
He established a ferocious reputation. His capital was at Calneh (Nimrud).4 Layard excavated simultaneously at Calneh and Nineveh. Most of his work was done at the acropolis. The outstanding discovery was the palace of Ashur-nasir-pal II. It contained huge winged bulls and human figures. The black obelisk of Shalmaneser III was discovered here in December, 1846. (It was almost lost at sea in a storm.)
Sixth year (853 B.C.). “In the year of (the eponym) Daian-Ashur, in the month Aiaru, the 14th day, I departed from Nineveh. I crossed the Tigris and approached the towns of Giammu on the river Balih…I departed from Aleppo and approached the two towns of Irhuleni from Hamath. I departed from Argana and approached the city of Karkara. I destroyed, tore down and burned down Karkara, his royal residence. He brought along to help him 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalrymen, 20,000 foot soldiers of Hadad-ezer of Damascus, 700 chariots, 700 cavalrymen, 10,000 foot soldiers of Irhulei from Hamath, 2,000 chariots, 10,000 foot soldiers of Ahab, the Israelite, 500 soldiers from Que, 1,000 soldiers from Musri, 1000 chariots, 10,000 soldiers from Irqanata, 200 soldiers of Matinu-ba’lu from Arvad, 200 soldiers from Usanata, 30 chariots, 10,000 soldiers of Adunu-ba’lu from Shian, 1,000 camel-(rider)s of Gindibu’, from Arabia [. . .],000 soldiers of Ba’sa, son of Ruhub, from Ammon‑-(all together) these were twelve kings. They rose against me [for a] decisive battle. I fought with them with (the support of) the mighty forces of Ashur, which Ashur, my lord, has given to me, and the strong weapons which Nergal, my leader, has presented to me, (and) I did inflict a defeat upon them between the towns Karkara and Gilzau. I slew 14,000 of their soldiers with the sword, descending upon them like Adad when he makes a rainstorm pour down. I spread their corpses (everywhere), filling the entire plain with their widely scattered (fleeing) soldiers. During the battle I made their blood flow down the hur-pa-lu of the district.”5
This battle is not mentioned in the Bible. These twelve kings decided that they needed to put a stop to the westward expansion of the Assyrians. Ahab of Israel and Hadad-ezer of Damascus, normally bitter enemies, joined the coalition as allies. Shalmaneser claimed complete victory, but it was several years before he returned.6 Kitchen believes the “Musri” are Egyptians.7 This would be a token force in support of Byblos, an ally of Egypt. Since Ahab’s two sons ruled 12 years (parts of years combined), and Jehu paid tribute in 841 B.C. to Shalmaneser, Ahab must have died in 853.8 His death occurred when he resumed hostilities with Damascus over Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kings 22).
On Shalmaneser’s black obelisk is a depiction of Jehu bowing down to Shalmaneser to pay his tribute (ANE 1 #100A, B). “The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri; I received from him silver, gold, a golden saplu-bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king, (and) wooden puruhtu”9 Since Jehu’s payment of tribute can be dated by Assyrian chronology to 841 B.C., these two dates become the last year of Ahab and the first of Jehu.
Jehoahaz was ruling in the north and Joash in the south. “In the fifth year (of my official rule) I sat down solemnly on my royal throne and called up the country (for war). I ordered the numerous army of Assyria to march against Palestine. I crossed the Euphrates at its flood. As to the numerous hostile kings who had rebelled in the time of my father Shamshi-Adad (V) and had wi[th held] their regular (tributes)…I received all the tributes […] which they brought to Assyria. I (then) ordered [to march] against the country Damascus. I invested Mari’ in Damascus [and he surrendered]. One hundred talents of gold (corresponding to) one thousand talents of [silver], 60 talents…[I received as his tribute].”10
This battle, likewise, is not recorded in the Bible, but it has far-reaching effects on the future of both Judah and Israel. We read in 2 Kings 13:7, during Jehu’s son Jehoahaz’ rule, ‘For he left to Jehoahaz of the army not more than fifty horsemen and ten chariots and 10,000 footmen, for the king of Aram had destroyed them and made them like the dust at threshing.”
The crushing of Damascus by Adad Nirari removed the dreaded Aramean oppression and allowed a renascence of Israel and Judah. Under Jeroboam II in the North and Uzziah (Azariah) in the south (both with long reigns) there was great prosperity.11 During this period of prosperity, Hosea and Amos preached against the violations of the covenant and promised that God’s punishment would be the captivity.
This monarch brought Assyria to new life. Isaiah, in chapter 1, uses language to describe the state of Judah that sounds as though they have undergone a siege. “Your land is desolate, your cities are burned with fire, your fields—strangers are devouring them in your presence; it is desolation as overthrown by strangers” (Isaiah 1:7). Isaiah began his ministry in the last days of Uzziah (Isaiah 6 may be inaugural; in which case, the call would have come in the same year Uzziah/Azariah died. 2 Chron. 26:22 says that Isaiah wrote “Acts of Uzziah.” This could have been done after Uzziah’s death, but more likely would have come during some of the life of Uzziah. Thus, I would say “in the last days of Uzziah.”). The question is of what devastation does this speak? Tadmor argues that the reference in Tiglath-pileser’s annals to a certain Azirau from Juda can only refer to our Azariah/Uzziah.12 Some scholars reject the equation, but Tadmor’s arguments are cogent. How could there be two Judah’s and two Azariah’s from the very same period?
Tiglath-pileser says “[In] the (subsequent) course of my campaign [I received] the tribute of the kin[gs…A]zriau from Iuda in…countless, (reaching) sky high…eyes, like from heaven…by means of an attack with foot soldiers…He heard [about the approach of the] massed [armies of] Ashur and was afraid…. I tore down, destroyed and burnt [down …for Azr]iau they had annexed, they (thus) had reinforced him…like vine/trunks…was very difficult…was barred and high …was situated and its exit…I made deep…I surrounded his garrisons [with earthwork], against…I made them carry [the corvee-basket] and…his great…like a pot [I did crush…] (lacuna of three lines)…Azriau…a royal palace of my own [I built in his city…] tribute like that [for Assyrian citizens I imposed upon them . . .] the city Kul[lani…] his ally…the cities…19 districts belonging to Hamath and the cities in their vicinity which are (situated) at the coast of the Western Sea and which they had (unlawfully) taken away for Azariau, I restored to the territory of Assyria. An officer of mine I installed as governor over them. [I deported] 30,300 inhabitants from their cities and settled them in the province of the town Ku[…]; 1,223 inhabitants I settled in the province of the Ullaba country.”13
Of King Menahem of Israel, the Bible says, “There came against the land Pul [Tiglath-Pileser III],14 the King of Assyria, and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand” (2 Kings 15:19). Tiglath-Pileser III’s annals say, “[As for Menahem, I ov]erwhelmed him [like a snowstorm] and he…fled like a bird, alone, [and bowed to my feet (?)]. I returned him to his place [and imposed tribute upon him, to wit:] gold, silver, etc. Israel [Omri land], all its inhabitants (and) their possessions I led to Assyria.”15
Ahaz was attacked by Syria and Ephraim, probably around 735, when he first came to the throne. This coalition first began to threaten Judah in the latter days of Jotham, Ahaz’ father. The usual interpretation is that Syria and Ephraim are forming an anti-Assyrian coalition and do not dare leave their southern flank uncommitted. Consequently, they planned to put a certain “Ben Tabel” on the throne.16
The chronology is difficult. Kings (2 Kings 16:5) tells us that Rezin and Pekah waged war on Jerusalem, but could not conquer him. Chronicles (2 Chron. 28:5-15) tells us that there was a tremendous slaughter of Jews and that 200,000 were taken captive. They were subsequently released under the prophecy of a certain Oded. Further, Isaiah 7:1-3 tells us that word has come back to Ahaz that “Syria is resting on Ephraim.” This indicates a coalition and apparently further action against Jerusalem. It was at this point that Isaiah confronted Ahaz and challenged him to trust in Yahweh, but Ahaz has already made up his mind to go to Assyria (2 Kings 16:7-9). This meant that Ahaz and Judah became vassals of Assyria and also subordinated themselves to the gods of Assyria. The sequence of events must have been something like this: a major attack was made against the fortified cities of Judah with devastating results (much as when Sennacherib came west in 701 B.C.). However, the goal of defeating Jerusalem and Ahaz directly so as to put an anti-Assyrian on the throne failed. Consequently, Syria and Ephraim had decided to come back later to complete the task. This was what frightened Ahaz and his advisers so badly that they sent to Tiglath-pileser for help.17
Tiglath-pileser gladly responded. He says, “I laid siege to and conquered the town Hadara the inherited property of Rezon of Damascus [the place where] he was born. I brought away as prisoners 800 (of its) inhabitants with their possessions…their large (and) small cattle…of the 16 districts of the country of Damascus I destroyed (making them look) like hills of (ruined cities over which) the flood (had swept)…Israel…all its inhabitants (and) their possessions I led to Assyria. They overthrew their king Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, 1000(?) talents of silver as their [tri]bute and brought them to Assyria.”18 This took place after his ninth year or after 736 B.C.
The Bible says (2 Kings 15:29-30), “In the days of Pekah king of Israel Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Jaoah, Kedesh, Haor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria. Then Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah ad struck him down, and slew him and reigned in his stead.”
Hoshea sat on the Israelite throne at the pleasure of Assyria. Under Tiglath-pileser’s successor (Shalmaneser V), Hoshea foolishly refused to send tribute to Assyria and turned to a certain “So” of Egypt (2 Kings 17:1-4). “And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and offered no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year” (2 Kings 17:3-4). “And it came to pass…that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took it…and the king of Assyria carried Israel away unto Assyria, and put them in Halah…and in the cities of the Medes” (2 Kings 18:9-11).
There is much debate about the identity of this Egyptian, but see my notes on Osorkon where Kitchen believes that “So” is an abbreviation for Osorkon. Whoever he was, he was in no position to oppose Assyria, and Hoshea was left twisting in the wind. Shalmaneser apparently began the siege, and Sargon II finished it when Shalmaneser died.
Sargon says, “(Property of Sargon, etc., king of Assyria, etc.) conqueror of Samaria and of the entire (country of) Israel who despoiled Ashdod (and) Shinuhti, who caught the Greeks who (live on islands) in the sea, like fish, who exterminated Kasku, all Tabali and Cilicia, who chased away Midas king of Musku, who defeated Musur in Rapihu, who declared Hanno, king of Gaza, as booty, who subdued the seven kings of the country Ia’, a district on Cyprus, (who) dwell (on an island) in the sea, at (a distance of) a seven-day journey.” “I besieged and conquered Samaria, led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it. I formed from among them a contingent of 50 chariots and made remaining (inhabitants) assume their (social) positions. I installed over them an officer of mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king. Hanno, king of Gaza and also Sib’e, the turtan of Egypt set out from Rapihu against me to deliver a decisive battle. I defeated them; Sib’e ran away, afraid when he (only) heard the noise of my (approaching) army, and has not been seen again. Hanno, I captured personally.”19 Sargon’s claim to have defeated Samaria agrees with neither the biblical data nor Shalmaneser V’s annals. As Finegan suggests, Sargon may have come to the throne on the heels of the defeat of Samaria and carried out the deportation begun by Shalmaneser V.20
In 711 B.C. Sargon put down a rebellion in Ashdod. Shabako, the Nubian, was ruling Egypt at that time. Isaiah used this incident to show Judah the utter futility of expecting Egypt to give them help against Assyria. “Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and a token against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. Then they shall be dismayed and ashamed because of Cush their hope and Egypt their boast. So the inhabitants of this coastland will say in that day, ‘Behold, such is our hope, where we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria; and we, how shall we escape?’” (Isaiah 20:3-6). Sargon’s description is quite vivid and shows that Judah was conspiring (under Hezekiah) to throw off the Assyrian yoke.21
Sennacherib ruled at the end of the eighth century and beginning of the seventh. The northern kingdom exists no more and Hezekiah is on the throne in Judah as an unwilling vassal of Sennacherib. (2 Kings 18, ANEP. 200; for Lachish, see ANE 1 #101). Isaiah has been trying to get the Judeans to trust in Yahweh for deliverance, and that is what happened in 701 B.C. when Sennacherib came west to put down a concerted rebellion.
“In my third campaign I marched against Hatti, Luli, king of Sidon, whom the terror‑inspiring glamor of my lordship had overwhelmed, fled far overseas and perished. The awe‑inspiring splendor of the ‘Weapon’ of Ashur, my lord, overwhelmed his strong cities (such as) Great Sidon, Little Sidon, Bit Zitti, Zaribru, Mahalliba, Ushu (i.e. the mainland settlement of Tyre), Akzib (and) Akko, (all) his fortress cities, walled (and well) provided with feed and water for his garrisons, and they bowed in submission to my feet. I installed Ethba’al upon the throne to be their king and imposed upon him tribute (due) to me (as his) overlord (to be paid) annually without interruption.
“As to all the kings of Amurru—Menahem from Samsimuruna, Tuba’lu from Sidon, Abdili’ti from Arvad, Urumilki from Byblos, Mitinti from Ashdod, Buduili from Beth‑Ammon, Kammusunadbi from Moab (and) Aiarammu from Edom, they brought sumptuous gifts and—fourfold—their heavy ( ) presents to me and kissed my feet. Sidqia, however, king of Ashkelon, who did not bow to my yoke, I deported and sent to Assyria, his family‑gods, himself, his wife, his children, his brothers, all the male descendants of his family. I set Sharruludari, son of Rukibtu, their former king, over the inhabitants of Ashkelon and imposed upon him the payment of tribute (and of) ( ) presents (due) to me (as) overlord—and he (now) pulls the straps (of my yoke)!
“In the continuation of my campaign I besieged Beth‑Dagon, Joppa, Banai‑Barka, Azuru, cities belonging to Sidqia who did not bow to my feet quickly (enough); I conquered (them) and carried their spoils away. The officials, the patricians and the (common) people of Ekron—who had thrown Padi, their king, into fetters (because he was) loyal to (his) solemn oath (sworn) by the god Ashur, and had handed him over to Hezekiah, the Jew—
(and) he (Hezekiah) held him in prison, unlawfully, as if he (Padi) be an enemy—had become afraid and had called (for help) upon the kings of Egypt (and) the bowmen, the chariot(‑corps) and the cavalry of the king of Ethiopia, an army beyond counting—and they (actually) had come to their assistance. In the plain of Eltekah, their battle lines were drawn up against me and they sharpened their weapons. Upon a trust(‑inspiring) oracle (given) by Ashur, my lord, I fought with them and inflicted a defeat upon them. In the melee of the battle, I personally captured alive the Egyptian charioteers with the(ir) princes and (also) the charioteers of the king of Ethiopia. I besieged Eltekah (and) Timnah, conquered (them) and carried their spoils away. I assaulted Ekron and killed the officials and patricians who had committed the crime and hung their bodies on poles surrounding the city. The (common) citizens who were guilty of minor crimes, I considered prisoners of war. The rest of them, those who were not accused of crimes and misbehavior, I released. I made Padi, their king, come from Jerusalem and set him as their lord on the throne, imposing upon him the tribute (due) to me (as) overlord. [See map of Battle of Eltekah, p. 132].
“As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) by means of well‑stamped (earth‑) ramps, and battering‑rams brought (thus) near (to the walls) (combined with) the attack by foot soldiers, (using) mines, breeches as well as sapper work. I drove out (of them) 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and considered (them) booty. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthwork in order to molest those who were leaving his city’s gate. His towns which I had plundered, I took away from his country and gave them (over) to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Sillibel, king of Gaza. Thus I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the katru‑presents (due) to me (as his) overlord which I imposed (later) upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually. Hezekiah himself, whom the terror‑inspiring splendor of my lordship had overwhelmed and whose irregular and elite troops which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal residence, in order to strengthen (it), had deserted him, did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly city together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone, couches (inlaid) with ivory, nimedu‑chairs (inlaid) with ivory, elephant-hides, ebony‑wood, box‑wood (and) all kinds of valuable treasures, his (own) daughters, concubines, male and female musicians. In order to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance as a slave he sent his (personal) messenger.”22
There was a battle between Egypt and Sennacherib at Eltekah (see map p. 132.23 The Egyptians were routed under Taharqa, then a prince not a king, but God routed the Assyrian army supernaturally.
In spite of the evidence of God’s divine deliverance of the city of Jerusalem, Hezekiah decided he must look elsewhere for help. Consequently, he turned to the rising Chaldean group in southern Mesopotamia. They were a part of the Assyrian empire, but these “Bit Yakin” as the Assyrians called them, kept revolting against their overlords. In 702 Merodach-baladan sent messengers to Hezekiah apparently to encourage him to join an anti-Assyrian coalition in the west. (The date is debated. If it is 702, then Hezekiah received the ambassadors prior to Sennacherib’s invasion. Further, the placement of Isaiah 38-39 would point to the Babylonian emphasis of 40-66). Isaiah warns Hezekiah of the futility of his move and speaks of the fall of Babylon in 13-14. I believe, with S. Erlandson that the fall of Babylon in Chapters 13-14 refers to Sennacherib’s attack on Babylon in 689, just about a decade after the visit of the ambassadors.24 Isaiah is showing that leaning on Babylon for help against Assyria will not work, for Assyria will defeat Babylon.25 Sennacherib finally became fed up with this constant rebellion and went south to raze the city. He says, “In my second campaign I advanced swiftly against Babylon, upon whose conquest I had determined, like the oncoming of a storm I broke loose, and I overwhelmed it like a hurricane. I completely invested that city, with mines and engines my hands (took the city), the plunder…his powerful…whether small or great, I left none. With their corpses I filled the city squares (wide places). Shuzubu, king of Babylonia, together with his family and his (nobles) I carried off alive into my land. The wealth of that city,—silver, gold, precious stones, property and goods, I doled out to my people and they made it their own…The city and (its) houses,—foundation and walls, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. The wall and outer wall, temples and gods, temple-tower of brick and earth, as many as there were, I razed and dumped them into the Arahtu-canal. Through the midst of that city I dug canals; I flooded its site with water, and the very foundations thereof I destroyed. I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood. That in days to come, the site of that city, and (its) temples and gods, might not be remembered, I completely blotted it out with (floods) of water and made it like a meadow.”26
Esarhaddon became king as a younger brother and had to fight for the throne.27 It would appear that Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son, became a vassal of Assyria. Esarhaddon says, “Ba’lu, king of Tyre, Manasseh, king of Judah…together 22 kings of Hatti, the seashore and the islands; all these I sent out and made them transport under terrible difficulties, to Nineveh, the town (where I exercise) my rulership, as building material for my palace: big logs, etc.”28 Ashurbanipal (668-633) also lists Manasseh as a supporter in his Egyptian war: “Ba’al, king of Tyre, Manasseh, king of Judah…servants who belong to me, brought heavy gifts to me and kissed my feet. I made these kings accompany my army over the land…”29
This vassalage would also include submission to the Assyrian deities which Manasseh did with a passion. His was a long and wicked rule. The Chronicler says, “Therefore, the Lord brought upon them the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks and bound him with fetters of bronze and brought him to Babylon. And when he was in distress he entreated the favor of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. He prayed to him, and God received his entreaty and heard his supplication and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God” (2 Chron. 33:11-13).
Even though this is not recorded in Kings nor in the Assyrian records, as Bright says, “it is quite reasonable to suppose that it rests on a historical basispossibly in connection with the revolt of Shamash-shum-ukin (652-648)…Whether Manasseh was found innocent or was pardoned, as the Egyptian prince Neco had been, we cannot say. But it is quite possible that he was no more loyal to Assyria than he had to be, and would gladly have asserted his independence had he been able.”30
Esarhaddon invaded Egypt in 674 and was defeated. He invaded again in 671 and defeated Taharqa. “From the town of Ishhupri as far as Memphis, his royal residence, a distance of 15 days (march), I fought daily, without interruption, very bloody battles against Tirhakha, king of Egypt and Ethiopia, the one accursed by all the great gods. Five times I hit him with the point of (my) arrows (inflicting) wounds (from which he should) not recover, and (then) I led [sic] siege to Memphis, his royal residence, and conquered it in half a day by means of mines, breaches and assault ladders.”31 He set out again in 669 but died on the way.
This king may well have been trained as a scholar rather than a king because of his constant boasts about his education. It is that which has produced so much archaeologically, for he gathered the greatest collection of texts known from that period of history. At his palace in Nineveh were found thousands of tablets containing information from many areas of study. It was here that the Gilgamesh epic was found.
Ashurbanipal defeated Egypt and forced a number of kings, including Manasseh, “to accompany my army over the land” in his attack on Egypt. The Assyrians now ruled Egypt completely. Taharqa fled to his Nubian capital, Napata, and Assyria appointed Necho I as a subordinate king. Taharqa’s son Tantamani returned north and reconquered Egypt. Ashurbanipal sent his army back (663) and again routed the Nubians, driving Tantamani back to Napata. They looted Thebes completely (Nahum refers to the fate of No-Amun or Thebes in 3:8-10).
The letter in Ezra 4:10 says, “then wrote Rehum the commander and Shimshaia the scribe and the rest of their colleagues, the judges and the lesser governors, the officials, the secretaries, the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is the Elamites, and the rest of the nations which the great and honorable Osnappar deported and settled in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the region beyond the River” (Ezra 4:9-10). Most commentators identify this Osnappar with Ashurbanipal.32 This deportation is otherwise unknown, but his defeat of 22 kings in the west is known.33 Furthermore, Isaiah 7:8 mentions a mysterious 65 year period during which “Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people.” If the Syro-Ephraimite attack was in 735/34, then 65 years would bring us to 670/69 or the first year of Ashurbanipal.
“It is quite possible that Judah suffered during the Assyria invasions of Egypt (675, 671, 667 and 663 B.C.), and, on the strength of Is. vii, 8, it has often been calculated that there was some fresh deportation of Ephraim, perhaps in connection with a pro-Egyptian revolt. Be that as it may, for some reason Manasseh was carried off in chains to Babylon (2 Chron. xxxiii, 11), and fresh colonists settled in Samaria by Esarhaddon and, apparently, by Ashurbanipal (Ezr. iv, 2, 10). Necho of Egypt, who had been removed by Ashurbanipal, had been sent back with every mark of royal favour--it was Assyrian policy to conciliate the Deltaand therefore the Chronicler’s statement that Manasseh was captured and afterwards allowed to return is not to be regarded as incredible. It is only natural that before Manasseh returned he must have been able to assure Assyria of his loyalty.”34
Continued revolt by the Egyptian princes apparently convinced Ashurbanipal that he could not hold Egypt without larger garrisons than he could spare. Consequently, he quietly let go of Egypt and, for all practical purposes, Egypt and Assyria became allies.
Ashurbanipal ruled from Nineveh, but his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, had been installed in Babylon by Esarhaddon. This diarchite proved to be a source of friction. No one could rule Babylon without the approval of the Chaldeans who had infiltrated the cities and exercised much control. Shamash-shum-ukin decided to rebel against his brother, and a protracted civil war followed. It was concluded by a siege of Babylon resulting in the suicide of Shamash-shum-ukin. Ashurbanipal installed another Assyrian governor in Babylon and continued the previous practice.
In spite of the strength of Ashurbanipal’s rule, his latter days were beset by physical illness and disruption in his family. His son and successor, Ashur-etil-ilani (631-619), had to fight for the throne. This struggle was long and left Assyria weak. In the south, Nabopolassar, the Chaldean prince, broke away from Assyria and began hostilities. Palestine, under Josiah, broke away from Assyria during this time. Josiah was able to extend his reform to the north and may even have established some political control as well.
Sin-shar-ishkun succeeded Ashur-etil-ilani. He was a good ruler, but he faced the combined armies of the Chaldeans and the Medes and his army had been weakened in the previous two decades. Nabopolassar was able to defeat the Assyrians in 616. Cyaxares, the Median general, marched on the Assyrians in 614 sacked the ancient Assyrian capital of Ashur for the first time in Assyrian history. Nabopolassar joined in the looting, and the Chaldeans and Medes became fast allies.
Sin-shar-ishkun depended on the Scythians to help him, but they betrayed him, perhaps in the expectation of great booty. As a result, Nineveh fell in 612 to the combined forces of the Medes, Babylonians, and Scythians. The Babylonian chronicle says, “On that day Sin-sar-iskun, the Assyrian king…The great spoil of the city and temple they carried off and [turned] the city into a ruin-mound and heaps of debri[s…”35
Nahum (3:8-15) says, “Are you better than No-amon [Thebes], which was situated by the waters of the Nile, with water surrounding her, whose rampart was the sea, whose wall consisted of the sea? Ethiopia was her might, and Egypt too without limits, Put and Lubim were among her helpers. Yet she became an exile, she went into captivity; also her small children were dashed to pieces at the head of every street; they cast lots for her honorable men, and all her great men were bound with fetters. You too will become drunk, you will be hidden. You too will search for a refuge from the enemy. All your fortifications are fig trees with ripe fruit--when shaken, they fall into the eater’s mouth. Behold, your people are women in your midst! The gates of your land are opened wide to your enemies; Fire consumes your gate bars. Draw for yourself water for the siege! Strengthen your fortifications! Go into the clay and tread the mortar! Take hold of the brick mold! There fire will consume you, the sword will cut you down; it will consume you as the locust does.”
The Assyrians refused to quit. Under Ashur-ubalit, perhaps a brother of Ashurbanipal, they regrouped at Haran. Nabopolassar was unwilling to attack Haran alone. He was finally joined by the Medes and Scythians once more. Egypt had come to Assyria’s side and joined with them outside the city of Haran. Haran was captured by Babylon and sacked. The Assyrians and Egyptians were defeated in 609, but the struggle against Egypt continued until 605 when Necho was defeated at Carchemish. Nebuchadnezzar probably set up his command post in Riblah to which Jehoiakim would have come to offer fealty. Daniel and others were taken hostage at that time. Jeremiah (46:1-2) mentions the defeat of Necho at Carchemish in 605.
Assyria was completely despoiled and enslaved. Very little evidence of Assyrian culture is left from that time on.36
1See Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past.
2CAH 2,1:178 says that Shamshi-Adad died in the tenth year of Hammurabi (1792-1750).
3There was pressure from the young and powerful Aramean states that damaged Assyria until the new kingdom (CAH 3:5-6).
4See M. E. L. Mallowan, “Nimrud” in AOTS, 57-72.
5ANET, pp. 278-79. Note Ahab in the underlined section.
6So Olmstead, History of Assyria, p. 137, and Sidney Smith, CAH 3:22.
7The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.).
8See Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings.
9See ANEP, 351-55, ANET, pp. 280.
10ANET, p. 282.
11See 2 Kings 14:22-29.
12Tadmor, “Azarijau of Yaudi” Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961): 232-271. However, Israelite and Judaean History, Old Testament Library, edited by John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller. London: SCM Press, 1977 says, “Recently, Na’aman [Nadav Na’aman. “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His Campaign to Judah,” BASOR CCXIV (1974) 25-39] has argued that the fragment presumably mentioning Azriau king of Yaudi actually belongs to the time of Sennacherib and refers not to Azariah but to Hezekiah. In Tiglath-Pileser’s annals there are two references to an Azariah (in line 123 as Az-ri-a-[u] and in line 131 as Az-r-ja-a-í) but neither of these make any reference to his country. Thus the Azriau of Tiglath-pileser’s annals and Azariah of the Bible should be regarded as two different individuals. Azriau’s country cannot, at the present, be determined.” Na’aman separates the country (Yaudi) from the name Azriau (p. 36). Also p. 28 on line 5 where the original transcription was “[I]zri-ja-u mat Ja-u-di” he reads “ina birit misrija u mat Jaudi.” However, Kitchen, OROT, p. 18, is less dogmatic. He says “Hence we cannot certainly assert that this Azriau (without a named territory!) is Azariah of Judah; the matter remains open and undecided for the present and probably unlikely.” See Also CAH, 3:35-36.
13ANET, 282,83.
14CAH 3:32 says the Pul may be the original name or the one used in Babylon.
15ANET, p. 283-84.
16Albright argues that this was a descendent of David through an east Jordan woman (W. F. Albright, “The Son of Tabeel [Isaiah 7:6],” BASOR 140 [1955] 34-35).
17See E. J. Young, Isaiah in NICOT, loc. cit.
18ANET, pp. 283-84.
19ANET, pp. 284-85.
20Light from the Ancient Past, p. 210. But see Thiele, Mysterious Numbers, p. 168, who argues that Sargon merely claimed credit, but was only involved in later suppression.
21ANET, p. 287.
22ANET, pp. 287‑288.
23See discussion under Taharqa of Egypt, p. 115.
24Seth Erlandsson, Burden of Babylon, pp. 65-108.
25For an excellent discussion, see D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, pp. 9-19
26Luckenbill, Annals of Sennacherib, p. 17.
27ANET, pp. 289-90.
28ANET, p. 291.
29ANET, p. 294.
30J. Bright, History of Israel, p. 290. See also p. 122.
31ANET, p. 293.
32Cf. Williamson, Ezra/Nehemiah in the Word Commentary, p. 55 where he says, “The confusion of l and r at the end of the word may reflect Persian influence, but the loss of medial rb cannot be explained on such philological grounds.”
33ANET, p. 294.
34S.A. Cook, CAH 3:393.
35D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, p. 61; see his discussion pp. 15-16.
36This discussion on the last days of Assyria comes from S. Smith, CAH 3:113-131 and Wiseman, Chronicles, pp. 5-27. See also M. Noth, The Old Testament World, Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, W. W. Hallo, “From Qarqar to Carchemish.” BAR #2, and Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, pp. 264-85.
He was the powerful ruler of the north under Ramases XI. When the latter died without heirs, he became the pharaoh.
He became co-regent in Thebes during the final decade of Smendes I’s life. The reasons are not clear. When Smendes died Pinudjem was old and Nefferkare Amenemnsu became king in Tanis (1043-1039).
Amenemnsu’s half-brother, Psusennes I, also a son of Smendes, became king (1039-991 B.C.) while Pinudjem I was still alive. He was in the prime of life and very active. (David: 1011-970)
Psusennes I’s son was probably co-regent till his father’s death. Smendes II became high priest and king in Thebes but died soon and was succeeded by his brother, Pinudjem II. He ruled barely a decade leaving few traces. He ruled in Tanis as Pharaoh and high priest of Amun. In Thebes he was undisputed.
Brief reign (six years). Virtually nothing known.
He was the most active and best attested king of this dynasty rivaling Psusennes I (1 Kings 9:16). Some pharaoh had destroyed Gezer and given it to Solomon as a dowry along with his daughter. If it were early (as it probably was) in Solomon’s reign, the Pharaoh would have been Siamun. The attack on Gezer was probably commercial rather than political. He became an ally of Solomon rather than an enemy. Siamun had crushed a commercial rival; Solomon had direct access to Egypt and had put down the Philistine enemies. Never in Old/Middle Kingdom would a daughter have been given to a foreigner.2
Bible: “…it is known that not long after this time the breeding of horses was actually carried on in a large scale in Egypt and horses were among the most valued possessions of the Delta-princes. Also the strength of Egypt was in her chariots and horsemen (1 Kings 10:28; 2 Kings 18:24).”3 Solomon derived much of his power by controlling the trade-routes from Egypt to Babylonia and from the Red Sea to Syria.
The Philistines may have gone to Egypt for help which would have been honored by David and Solomon. Gezer was chastised by Pharaoh and given later to Solomon. Gaza likewise may have been given by Egypt.4 Solomon was also married to Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kings 9:16).
His identity is uncertain. He may have been a son or high priest (but even so he was a descendent of Psusennes I). Little is recorded about him. Midway between Tanis and Memphis was the city of Bubastis where a line of Libyan chiefs had by this time been settled for six generations and so reached back to Ramasside period.5 Ramases III settled his captives there.
Details for this period are skimpy. “At his death, Psusennes II left no male heir; some time either before or after his death, his daughter Maatkare B was married to the young Osorkon, son of Sheshonk B, the leading man in the kingdom.”
“It was this man who now ascended the throne as Sheshonk I. The new ruler was no brazen usurper or mere parvenu especially if the marriage of Maatkare had preceded Psusennes’ death.”6
Sheshonk, the founder of the 22nd dynasty, was half Libyan, half royal prince of Bubastis on the Delta. Under Merenptah and Ramases III there was a great movement of Libyans into Egypt. Though defeated, many of them stayed. Some were wealthy and gained positions and power. Shishak was from a marriage into the royal house. After about five years, he was able to assert authority over the Theban priesthood and claim upper and lower Egypt.
Hadad II (Edom) and Jeroboam I both fled to Egypt. Sheshonk probably feared to attack Solomon, but with the split of the kingdom (possibly in collusion with Jeroboam I) he was able to defeat Rehoboam in 930 (1 Kings 14:25-28). This event was recorded at Karnak.7
Hall believes that Hebrew Zerah, the Ethiopian (2 Chron. 14:9-15), is a corruption of Osorkon who was defeated by Asa in 895,8 but Kitchen says that they are not to be identified. Osorkon is a Libyan whereas Zerah is not called a king and is a Nubian.9 Consequently, he believes that Osorkon, now an old man, sent a general of Nubian extraction. There are no notable events recorded in Osorkon’s reign except this one (unrecorded in Egyptian history for obvious reasons). Sheshonk II ruled as co-regent only (c. 890).
This pharaoh is the least-known king of the entire Libyan epoch. His brothers ruled as priests and probably chose to ignore him.
Egyptian policy toward Palestine and Syria is more conciliatory. An alabaster vase with Osorkon’s cartouche partly evident shows that a gift was sent to Ahab. The battle of Qarqar took place in 853. The Assyrians were met by a coalition of kings including Ahab from Israel. The Assyrians also mention “a thousand men of Musri.” The contribution of this small force to the battle was the result of Egyptian support of Byblos. This was portentous of a rising Assyria. Assyria claimed victory but it was twelve years later before Jehu paid tribute (841 B.C.).
As Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser III, so the Egyptians sent gifts, showing that they were willing to play along with the efforts to pay off the Assyrians.
(Dynasty 23 begins here at Thebes). The Thebans had been operating under virtual kings for some time, and in spite of efforts from the north to control them, were able to maintain their independence. At this point, however, a descendent of a Harsiesi who had been a “king” at Thebes became a genuine pharaoh even setting up a capital on the Delta. Pedubaste I (818-793 B.C.) was his name.
Sheshonk V and Osorkon IV, last of the Bubastites (767-715).
This era is poorly attested. Basically only the names of the kings are known. This is essentially a rival dynasty at Thebes.
Pedubaste I (818-793) was the founder of the twenty-third dynasty. His rule was contemporaneous with Sheshonk III.
Iuput I (c. 804-783) and Sheshonk IV (783-777) are not well known.
Osorkon III (777-749).
Takeloti III (757-734). He was co-ruler till 749.
The Nubians had long and extensive contact with the Egyptians, the latter removing great wealth to the north. These contacts led to a fair amount of “Egyptianizing,” and bi-lingualism.
A certain Kashta, worshipper of Amun, donned the regalia of a pharaoh and even styled himself, the king of upper and lower Egypt. His penetration was at least to Aswan.
In the eighth year of Takeloti III, Piankhy (Nubian) became the king and extended his influence as far north as Thebes and even laid claim to being the protector and in effect ruler of Thebes.10
Rudamun (734-731). Brother of Takeloti III.
“With the division of powers between two senior pharaohs in the Delta (22nd Dynasty, Tanis-Bubastis; 23rd, Leontopolis) and two lesser pharaohs in Middle Egypt (Heracleopolis, Hermopolis), an ‘Hereditary Prince’ of the senior line in Athribis-with-Heliopolis, a whole series of local chiefs of the Ma in the Delta cities, plus a Princedom of the West covering the west Delta, and Nubia ruling from Thebes southwards, the whole former pharaonic dominion in the Nile Valley lay in fragments by the year 730 B.C. Only two of these were of substance--Nubia and the Princedom of the West--and from their contest, a new Egypt was gradually to be born.”11
The western part of the Delta was ruled by a Libyan “Chief of the Ma” named Tefnakht. He was more powerful than the pharaohs on the east Delta and even subdued chiefs south toward Thebes.
The new Nubian king was called Piankhy (747-716). Because of the threat of Tefnakht, in a series of campaigns, Piankhy forced the submission of all of Egypt to his control. He then went back to Napata and never returned to Egypt.
A vacuum was left in the north, since Piankhy did not set up an administration nor seek to rule. Consequently, Tefnakht was the most powerful of the weak monarchs. Osorkon IV of the Twenty-second Dynasty continued as a shadow king contemporary with Tefnakht. He was also the northeastern most king and thus exposed to contacts with Western Asia. Consequently, Kitchen believes the “So” to whom Hoshea sent gifts in an effort to thwart Assyrian control (2 Kings 17:4), is Osorkon IV, the last of the Bubastite kings.12 Isaiah (19:11, 13;30:2,4) denounces the Egyptian kings at Zoan (Tanis--east Delta) as fools. The situation in Egypt certainly deserves the epithet.
Sargon II defeated Samaria in 722 B.C. In 720, the year of the death of Tefnakht and the accession of Bakenranef, his son, in Sais, Sargon crushed a revolt in Syria and subdued Philistia as far as Gaza. The Egyptians sent out help but they were routed.13 Osorkon IV sent him a gift. Thereafter both the Twenty-second and Twenty-third Dynasties fade out.
Bakenranef, son of Tefnakht, of the Twenty-fourth Dynasty, became king, but the brother of Piankhy became pharaoh in Napata and soon ruled all Egypt.
By his second year, Shabako was in charge of Memphis and soon became the true pharaoh of all Egypt. Sargon sent his army commander to deal with a rebellious Ashdod (Isaiah 20) in 712/11. The rebel, Iamani, had fled to Egypt, but he was turned over to the Assyrians. Thus Shabako was at least neutral toward Assyria.
He was the son of Shabako and nephew of Piankhy. He brought his sons to Thebes and to the Delta. Among them was Taharqa who was then twenty years old. In 702/1 Hezekiah and others opened negotiations with the new Nubian king to rebel against Assyria. Sennacherib came west in 701 to put down the rebellion. He defeated the allies, including the first force of Taharqa, at Eltekah, proceeded to demolish the fortified cities of Judah, and sent his officer to demand the surrender of Jerusalem by Hezekiah. However, upon hearing a report that Taharqa was going to attack with his second force, he withdrew Jerusalem to reunite his forces. The Egyptians withdrew, but God miraculously destroyed most of the Assyrian army. Taharqa was not pharaoh at this time, but was referred to as such in 681 when the account was written. Thus it is used proleptically and is not a dual account of Sennacherib’s invasion.14
Esarhaddon of Assyria perceived Egypt to be the reason for rebellion among his western provinces. Consequently, he invaded Egypt in 674 but was defeated. He invaded again in 671 and defeated Taharqa. He set out again in 669 to attack Egypt but died on the way.
Under Ashurbanipal the Assyrians ruled Egypt. Taharqa fled to Thebes and then to Napata. The Assyrians appointed Necho I of Sais as a subordinate king (he may have been a Libyan).
Tantamani was urged by the Egyptians to return north. He did so and conquered all the territories and killed Necho I. Ashurbanipal sent his army back (663) and again routed the Nubians, driving Tantamani back to Napata. They looted Thebes completely (Nahum refers to the fate of No-Amun or Thebes in 3:8-10. For the text see CAH 3:285). The northern territories continued to be fiefdoms with the Saites and Bubastites permitted by the Nubians some measure of independence.
This son of Necho I of Sais and an Assyrian vassal was able by 656 B.C. to extend his rule over the entire Delta, Middle Egypt, and finally south to Thebes. Greeks begin to appear in Egypt as warriors and traders. They no doubt assisted Psammetichus in gaining control and formed a colony at Naucratis.
“The union of Egypt as a solid fact gave the king enough confidence to cease paying tribute to Assyria and to form an alliance with Gyges of Lydia by 655 or 654 B.C. However, he may have mollified the Assyrians by remaining their ally (not an opponent) while they struggled with a rising tide of troubles in the east and south-east. The alliance of Egypt and Assyria was certainly in force at the end of the reign of Psammentichus I (610 B.C.) in the momentous years of the fall of Nineveh (612 B.C.).”15
Psammetichus staved off the Scythian invasion that affected all of Asia. He also besieged Ashdod (perhaps while it was controlled by the Scythians) and controlled Gaza. He did not push into the hill country controlled by Josiah (640-609).
With the Scythians and other hill people daily attacking the Assyrians, the efforts of Cyaxares the Mede to defeat Assyria and with Nabopolassar in Babylon rebelling, the Assyrians were in serious trouble. Egypt remained an ally.
Nineveh fell in 612 and under Ashur-uballit the army regrouped in Haran. Necho went to her side in 609. Josiah tried to stop him and was killed at Megiddo. Necho on his way back to Egypt deposed Jehoahaz and enthroned Jehoiakim. The Egyptians were defeated by crown prince Nebuchadnezzar in 605. In that same year Nabopolassar died and Nebuchadnezzar became king. He forced Jehoiakim to submit to Babylonian rule.
Jeremiah predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would invade Egypt (Jer. 43). Hall refers to the fragmentary inscription “in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon [568-67] (the troops) of Egypt to do battle came …(Ama)su, King of Egypt his troops (levied)…Ku of the city of Putu-yawan …a distant land which is in the midst of the sea…many…which were in Egypt…arms, horses, and…he levied for his assistance…before him…to do battle.” He goes on to say Marduk encouraged troops and enemy mercenaries were defeated and fled. He does not believe this gives warrant for assuming that Nebuchadnezzar, now old, would have major battles or enter Egypt personally.16
Apries was essentially in the hands of his Greek mercenaries (much to the resentment of the population). He supported King Zedekiah in his revolt against Babylon and attacked Phoenicia from the sea. The army revolted and put an officer, Amasis (d. 526), in as co-regent. Apries tried to reestablish himself, but was defeated and slain by his own men.
The Persians conquered Egypt in 525 B.C
1This material is based on K. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Kingdom and H. R. Hall, “The Eclipse of Egypt,” CAH 3:251-269.
2Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, p. 281.
3CAH 3:256.
4CAH 3:257.
5Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, p. 285.
6Ibid., p. 286
7CAH 3:258.
8CAH 3:361.
9Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, p. 309.
10Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, p. 359. See “Sudan’s Kingdom of Kush,” National Geographic, 178 (1990) 96-125.
11Ibid., p. 361. C. DeVries, “The Bearing of Current Egyptian Studies on the Old Testament,” pp. 33-34.
12Ibid., p. 373-75.
13ANET, p. 285.
14Kitchen ably defends this explanation in The Third Intermediate Period (p. 384-85) and in The Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (pp. 82-83).
15Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, p. 406.
16See CAH 3:304.
“The name Philistia refers to the part of Palestine which was dominated by the Philistines in the period of the Israelite monarchy. This was the area of the coastal plain lying roughly between Jaffa in the north and the region some fifty miles to the south, beyond Gaza, where the desert which separates Palestine from Egypt begins. The eastern boundary may be most conveniently defined as the junction between the alluvial coast plain and the limestone plateau called the Shephelah, which formed a buffer zone to the hill country of Judah.”1
Ashkelon, Ashdod and Gaza are well identified in archaeology. Gath is not. Recently, Trudy Dothan and Seymour Gitin have identified Tel Miqne as Ekron.2
The earliest biblical references to Philistia are in Genesis 21:34; 26:1, 8. These are usually considered anachronisms, but it is quite probable that earlier Mediterranean movements took place on which the later Philistines piggy-backed. Mitchell says, “The Philistines of this later period are known, however, to have been of Aegean origin, and it is possible that the name was used in Genesis to refer to earlier people with Aegean affiliations.”3
There were movements of “Sea People” in the 14th. c. Ugaritic texts mention Ashdod and Ashkelon as trading centers. Mitchell argues for Indo-European names indicating earlier migrations.4 The later “Sea People” bear such names as Shardana (mercenaries in Egypt from N. Syria), Shekelesh (Sicily), Teresh (western Anatolia [Lydia or Troas]), Ekwesh (Perhaps = Ahhiyawa [Hittite texts] = Achaeans, if so from western Anatolia), Denyen (Darwana), Tjeker, Pelest, Weshesh were farmers who attacked by land and sea.5
These “Sea People” attacked Egypt and Ramases III was able to beat them off, but their onslaught left Egypt weak and gave breathing room in Palestine for the rise of the monarchy. “During the twelfth and eleventh centuries, the period of the Judges, the Philistines, having settled, and possibly been settled as garrison troops by the Egyptians, in the area of Philistia, expanded inland and threatened the Israelites in the hill country.”6 The Sea People/Philistines, according to Noth, “may also have advanced into the Plain of Jezreel and the plain of the River Jalud (Isr., Harodh) and settled there. Clear finds from the twelfth century B.C. in the excavations at Beth-Shan, as well as the historical role of Beth-Shan in the final battle of the Philistines against Saul (I Sam. 31:10,12), speak for this fact.”7
The Philistine political and social situation surrounded the organization of five cities (pentapolis). Their principal god was Dagon (known from Ugarit as the Semitic grain god) at Ashdod. Most consider the ruler title, seren, to be equivalent to Greek tyrannos.
The books of Judges and 1 Samuel indicate the dominance held by the Philistines over the Israelites since they controlled the iron industry (the Iron Age begins in Palestine in the 12th century). A devastating blow was struck with the attack in 1 Samuel 4. The ark was captured and Jeremiah 7 indicates that Shiloh was destroyed as well.8
Under Samuel, Saul and most of all, David, the Philistines were subdued, but never brought into Israelite control. David used Philistines in his personal army (2 Sam. 8:18; 20:23). 2 Samuel 8 is a synopsis of David’s wars and victories.
“The narratives in Samuel suggest that by the time of the struggle with Israel the culture of the Philistines had become very much assimilated to that of the Canaanites. Three of their gods are mentioned, Dagon, Baal-zebub, and Ashtaroth with a temple at Beth-shan. These all have Semitic names and may have been adopted by the Philistines as the equivalents of some of their own deities. It is probable that Ashtaroth was a well-established deity in pre-Philistine Beth-shan, where the Philistines are unlikely to have been in more than garrison occupation. Dagon was known, under the form Dagan, with weather and fertility aspects, from the third millennium in the Near East, and Baal-zebub, whether the name is taken as it stands as ‘Lord-Fly’ or as a corruption of Baal-zebul ‘Baal-Prince’, which has support in Ugaritic zbl.b’l, has nothing that is not Near Eastern about it.”9
On Beth-Shan, Wright says, “Philistines in 12th century Beth-shan were most probably there because they were or had been in the employ of Ramases III as mercenaries. Stratum VI of the city…was controlled, in all probability, by that pharaoh, just as his predecessors of the 19th Egyptian dynasty had been in control of the city represented by the preceding Stratum VII. An official of his left an inscription on a door lintel and a statue of the pharaoh in the city. Hence we can only conclude that after his defeat of the Sea Peoples early in his reign, he proceeded to hire them to protect his interests in Beth-shan. They were still in possession of the city at the time of the death of Saul…”10
Some of the Philistine cities may have been taken by Sheshonq (Shishak) at the end of the tenth century. Philistia seemed to maintain a form of independence during Assyrian domination as did Judah. “They are, however, frequently mentioned as suffering from the campaigns of the Assyrians.”11
Egypt moved back in with the decline of Assyria and Psammetichus I took Ashdod and Necho II took Gaza. Nebuchadnezzar pushed his control south after Carchemish in 605 and became master of all Syria-Palestine.
In 539 Cyrus took over the Babylonian territories. Babylon, Syria, Phoenicia and Palestine became the province of Babylon and the “Cross River” satrap.
The territory of Edom extended for about 160 km. (100 mi.) from the Wadi Zered to the Gulf of Aqaba and encompassed the Wilderness of Edom. A rugged area with mountain peaks rising to 1616 m. (5,300 ft.) it nevertheless possessed good areas for cultivating crops (cf. Num. 20:17,19). In the Middle Bronze Age the King’s Highway passed along the eastern plateau (Num. 20:14-18).12
Early Period. Historically, the Edomites are descendants of the brother of Jacob (Gen. 36:1-17). By the time the Israelites entered Canaan, the Edomites were well-established under tribal chiefs (Gen. 36:15-19). The pharaohs Merenptah and Ramases III claimed to have subjugated Edom.13 The Edomites refused passage to Israel when they came from Egypt (Num. 20:14-21) and ever after there was implacable hatred between the two countries. As a matter of fact, Edom becomes an archetypical enemy of God’s people (cf. Isaiah 34, 63). In the conquest of Canaan, the Israelites did not disturb the Edomite borders (Josh. 15:1, 21).
Middle Period. Saul fought the Edomites (1 Sam. 14:47); David conquered them, stationing troops to control and govern (2 Sam. 8:13-14). Solomon built a port at Ezion-geber “which is near Eloth on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom” (1 Kings 9:26). “Edom was ruled by a deputy (1 King 22:47), who joined with Israel and Judah in a campaign against Moab (2 Kings 3:4-27).”14 “Under Jehoram (848-841 B.C.), Edom remained independent for half a century, but Amaziah of Judah partially recaptured Edomite territory (2 Kings 14:7). For a brief time the Edomites gained revenge on Judah (2 Chron. 28:17) when Ahaz (732-716 B.C.) was ruling, but about 736 B.C. Tiglath-Pileser III made Edom a vassal.”15
Later Period. Edom is the butt of aggressive oracles from both Obadiah and Jeremiah. Both these prophecies are probably adaptations of a previous prophecy. Obadiah as well as Jeremiah should probably be dated in the 586 vicinity. The Edomites took advantage of Judah’s vulnerability after the Babylonian debacle and began to move into the Negev and take over Judean territory. Eventually they come under Arab control. The Arabs are Aramaic-speaking Nabateans. In the third century B.C. the Nabateans overran Edom and begin to control the caravan trade through Petra. The Edomites were subjugated by the Hasmoneans (John Hyrcanus in the second century) and forced to become Jewish proselytes. A certain Antipater was appointed governor by Alexander Jannaeus (102-76 B.C.). He was the grandfather of Herod the Great. Herod married the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas.
1T. C. Mitchell, “Philistia” in AOTS, p. 405.
2T. Dothan and S. Gitin, “Ekron of the Philistines,” BAR 16 (1990) 21-36.
3Mitchell, “Philistia,” p. 409. See also M. H. Segal, The Pentateuch, p. 34.
4Ibid., p. 410.
5N. K. Sanders, The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, 1250-1150.
6Mitchell, “Philistia,” p. 413.
7M. Noth, The Old Testament World, p. 78.
8See R. A. Pierce, “Shiloh and Jer. VII 12, 14, & 15,” VT 23:1 (1973): 105-108 who follows a reevaluation of the archaeological evidence and argues that Shiloh was not destroyed until Jeremiah’s time. He says that Jeremiah links 1 Samuel 4 (the ark/glory departed) and the destruction (recently) of the city. But see “Did the Philistines Destroy the Israelite Sanctuary at Shiloh?—the Archaeological Evidence,” BAR 1:2 (1975):3-5 where the archaeologist Y. Shiloh is quoted in refutation of the revised evaluation. Shiloh (the place) was indeed destroyed about 1050 B.C. and later reoccupied as evidenced by the name “the Shilonite” in 1 Kings 11:29).
9Mitchell, “Philistia,” p. 415.
10G. E. Wright, “Philistine Coffins and Mercenaries,” BA 22:3 (1959):53-66.
11Ibid.
12R. K. Harrison, “Edom; Edomites,” NIDBA.
13Ibid.
14Ibid., see also S. Horn, “Why the Moabite Stone Was Blown to Pieces,” BAR 12:3 (1986): 53-61.
15Ibid., see ANET, p. 281 (for Adad Nirari III), p. 282 for Tiglath-Pileser, p. 287 for Sennacherib, p. 291 for Esarhaddon, pp. 294, 298, 301 for Ashurbanipal.
The Chaldeans (Kaldu to the Assyrians) are a sub-grouping of the Arameans who settled in the northwest (later capital at Damascus) and east (on the Assyrian border), southeast (Babylonia) and further southeast in the marshlands of the head of the Persian Gulf. (The Aramaic language of the Bible is somewhat different from Chaldean, but in earlier times, it was thought to be Chaldean. Now it is identified with the more broadly dispersed Aramaic dialect.)
Strictly speaking, the word Chaldean should be limited to the area called by the Assyrians “land of the sea,” the extent of which is unknown. “When these tribes migrated to Babylonia is uncertain, as is also their original home; but as they are closely related to the Aramaeans, it is possible that their first settlements lay in the neighborhood of the Aramean states bordering on the Holy Land.”1 Pinches indicates that Sennacherib refers to 75 strong cities and fortresses of Chaldea, and 420 smaller towns which were around them. There were also Chaldeans (and Arameans) in Erech, Nippur (Calneh), Kis, Hursag-kalama, Cuthah, and probably Babylon.2 The Chaldeans in the Persian Gulf area were known as Bit Yakin (Merodach Baladan’s tribe), Bit Dakkuri and Bit Amukkani.3
The Aramaic tribes were showing interest in settling in the rich lands of the middle Euphrates. Tiglath-Pileser I (beginning of the first millennium) was forced to confront the pressing hordes of Arameans. They controlled the caravan trade around the Habur and settled along the eastern, western borders of the Assyrian country. Ironically, David’s reduction of the Arameans of Damascus probably took pressure from the Assyrians and allowed the Neo-Assyrian Empire to develop.
For three hundred years there was constant interaction between the Assyrians and surrounding peoples, including the Arameans. In the eighth century, the mighty Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727) set out to establish Assyrian control. One of his major tasks was to establish order in Babylonia so as to secure his southern border. The Chaldeans around the marsh land of the Persian Gulf recognized only their own authority. The Aramean tribes on the east bank of the Tigris were likewise not submitting to a central authority, the Arameans around Cuthah, Sippar and Babylon were becoming restless.4 He began by attacking the Arameans on the Assyrian border, then crossed the Tigris to the east, then attacked the Arameans around Nippur.
The Babylonian king was presumably Nabu-nasir who was left on the throne and proved a faithful vassal until his death in 734.5 When Nabu-nasir died, confusion reigned, culminating in the usurpation of the throne by a Chaldean of the Bit-Amukkani tribe. Tiglath-Pileser violently suppressed the revolt, and the Chaldean areas were severely reduced. Merodach-Baladan of Bit-Yakin paid homage and tribute to him. This is the same man who sent messengers to Hezekiah (Isaiah 39). Tiglath-Pileser took the throne himself (he took the hands of Marduk), and adopted the name Pul (as used in the Bible).
It became Merodach-Baladan’s task to unite the disparate and divided Chaldean tribes. He apparently was eventually able to do so. He also formed an alliance with the Elamites, the only people who might be able to stand against the Assyrians. In 721 he threw off the Assyrian yoke, entered Babylon and “took the hands of Bel.”
Sargon set out in 720 to confront the combined armies, but Merodach-Baladan failed to join up with the Elamites in time. The battle was indecisive, but apparently the Assyrians withdrew and Merodach-Baladan was left to rule in peace. However, after a decade, Sargon moved south and Merodach-Baladan was forced to flee. Sargon allowed him to remain chief of the Bit Yakin, perhaps as a conciliatory move.
When Sennacherib became king in 705, Merodach-Baladan resumed his intrigue against Assyria. He could entice the Arameans to the north and east to join him, but he had trouble with the Babylonians who had a lingering resentment of his previous rule. He enlisted the aid of Elam again and sent messengers west to induce the rulers of that area to rise up against Assyria, probably to be timed with his invasion of Babylon. Hezekiah gladly received the messengers and was soundly rebuked by Isaiah.
The plans of Merodach-Baladan were frustrated when the Babylonians appointed their own king, forcing him to march on the city earlier than he had planned and take the throne once more. This was in 703 B.C. Sennacherib put his troops in the field and soundly defeated the Elamites and their allies. Only the Elamites proved a worthy fighting force. Merodach-Baladan fled, and Sennacherib marched on Babylon, where he was gladly received by the inhabitants. Sennacherib dealt a severe blow to the entire Chaldean district. He placed a certain Bel-Ibni on the throne in Babylon. Sennacherib made another punitive raid against the Chaldeans in 700 and deported many from Bit Yakin, while Merodach-Baladan fled once more to the Elamites. (N.B. it would appear to me that Merodach-Baladan appealed to Hezekiah prior to the 701 invasion by Sennacherib. If so, Isaiah 38-39 took place before 36-37. Their placement in that order by Isaiah would indicate the Babylonian emphasis of 40-66.)
Merodach-Baladan died, and after a period of time, a certain Chaldean by the name of Mushezib-Marduk proclaimed himself king of Babylon. Sennacherib, after an arduous battle, laid siege to Babylon and defeated it in 689. “The sack of Babylon marks a turning point in Sennacherib’s policy. For some sixteen years he had endeavoured to refound a separate kingdom in Babylonia, and his endeavours had ended in complete failure. The capital city itself, always previously well disposed to Assyria, had finally become a stronghold of the Chaldaean party. The force of circumstances alone was sufficient to cause any man of ability to take severe measures…The damage to the city during the siege and the sack was reparable, and it is known that Sennacherib himself commenced the work of rebuilding the city.”6
Sennacherib placed his son, Esarhaddon, on the throne in Babylon. When Esarhaddon became king, there was a decade of relative peace in Babylonia. His two sons, Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin, ruled after him in Nineveh and Babylon. The Chaldeans were so well ensconced in Babylonia that no one could rule without their cooperation. The result was an anti-Assyrian feeling that forced Shamash-shum-ukin to rebel against his brother, the king of Assyria in 652. Ashurbanipal, after a bloody war, defeated his brother, who committed suicide.
Southern Babylonia broke away from Assyria after Ashurbanipal’s death under Nabopolassar, the chosen leader of the Chaldeans in 626 and began hostilities in 625 B.C.
This political entity is called Neo-Babylonian to contrast it with the Old Babylonian Empire lasting from about 1800 to 1500 B.C. As indicated above, the rulers of this new empire are interlopers from the point of view of the native population. Though the Chaldeans had been making their presence felt for generations and no doubt had intermarried and intermixed, there apparently was still a distinction to be made between them and the “Babylonians.”8
The biblical material needs to be discussed before the Neo-Babylonian Empire is taken up. The most remarkable Judean monarch of the century was Manasseh’s grandson, Josiah, who reigned from about 640-609 B.C. Recent studies of Assyrian chronology make it possible to correlate Judah’s movement toward independence rather precisely with events in Assyria.
In 2 Chronicles 34:3 we are told that Josiah began to seek the God of David his father in the 8th year of his reign. This would be 633-632 or about the time of the death of Ashurbanipal. The death of Ashurbanipal’s successor, Asshuretelilani, about 629 was immediately followed by disorders in Assyria and Babylonia.
In the twelfth year (629/628 B.C.) of Josiah’s reign there was a thoroughgoing religious reform. Such a purge assumes military control over the Assyrian provinces of Samaria and Megiddo.
In 628-627 B.C., during Josiah’s thirteenth year, Jeremiah received his call as God’s prophet (Jer. 1:2).
The finding of the old law book in the temple during the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign (623-622 B.C.) resulted in a still more thoroughgoing religious reform, in which all sacrificial worship was confined to the Jerusalem temple (2 Kings 22-23). On Josiah’s part, the reform probably signaled the final break with Assyria. We know that by 623 B.C., Assyrian control over Babylonia had ceased entirely, and that a Babylonian king, Nabopolassar, had consolidated his position and was preparing to attack Assyria itself.9
Josiah was killed trying to protect Babylon from Egypt. In 2 Kings 23:29, the Hebrew ‘al, must mean “in behalf of,” since we know from the Babylonian Chronicle10 that Egypt was supporting Assyria. Josiah wanted no assistance to go to Assyria. Later the Babylonians defeated Necho at Carchemish. Apparently Egypt wanted a weak Assyria as a buffer state against Babylon and so went to Assyria’s assistance (so in the Babylonian Chronicle). Josiah did not want Egypt to reassert control over Syria and so went against Necho at the cost of his own life.11
Properly speaking, the Neo-Babylonian Empire begins with Nabopolassar who became king of Babylon in 626 B.C. and began hostilities against his overlord Assyria in 625 B.C. With his allies, the Medes and Scythians, he defeated Assyria, driving her to the west. He defeated the Assyrians and Egyptians in Haran in 609 B.C. and the Egyptians again in 605 B.C., giving him undisputed control of Syria and Palestine.
The officer who led these campaigns was the oldest son of Nabopolassar and crown prince Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar, becoming king at his father’s death in 605, was the most illustrious of the rulers of this era. The name is more properly Nebuchadrezzar (Nabu-kudurri-usur). The name, according to Wiseman, means “O Nabu, protect my offspring” rather than “O Nabu, protect my boundary.”12 The name was used by a middle kingdom Babylonian (1124-1103) and thus has ancient connections. The spelling with an “n” may be merely an inaccuracy, though some would argue it represents an Aramaic spelling. Jeremiah and Ezekiel use the more correct form.
Nabopolassar is generally identified as a Chaldean from the Sea Lands of the Bit Yakin group.13 However, Wiseman argues that the evidence for this identification is not clear and that all that Nabopolassar says is that he was not a member of the royal house.14 Nebuchadnezzar has for a wife, Amyitis, the daughter of Astyages, the Mede. This would accord with the practice of the Chaldeans to ally with the Medes. For the family tree see p. 150.
Thompson argues that the priesthood at Babylon was so strong that Nabopolassar was virtually under their control. At least he shows considerable deference to them in his building projects and constant self-abnegation. He says that the same policy of deference was carried on by Nebuchadnezzar.15
Nebuchadnezzar was in sole control of the army at Carchemish. There, having routed the Egyptians and taken over the area of “Hatti land” or Syro-Palestine, he heard of his father’s death in Babylon. He made the five hundred mile plus journey back in twelve to fifteen days and was crowned king.16
Egypt apparently exercised temporary control of Palestine. Jehoahaz succeeded his father but was deposed by Necho within three months. Necho put up Eliakim (Jehoiakim) who paid tribute to Necho but later was forced to submit to Babylon (2 Kings 24:1). Jeremiah was busy at this time. Jehoiakim burned his scroll (Jer. 36).
The Chronicle says, “In the first year of Nebuchadrezzar in the month of Sivan he mustered his army and went to the Hatti-territory, he marched about unopposed in the Hatti-territory until the month of Kislev. All the kings of the Hatti-land came before him and he received their heavy tribute. He marched to the city of Askelon and captured it in the month of Kislev. He captured its king and plundered it and carried off [spoil from it…] He turned the city into a mound and heaps of ruins and then in the month of Sebat he marched back to Babylon.”17 Note that the Chronicle does not mention any city but Ashkelon. Jerusalem is not mentioned. Daniel 1:1 says that Nebuchadnezzar besieged it, but this phrase can mean “treated it as an enemy.” 2 Kings 25:1 says, “In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him.” 2 Chron. 36:6 says, “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against him and bound him with bronze chains to take him to Babylon.” Wiseman believes the removal of Jehoiakim would have been within the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule.18
There is some debate about the time, but Nebuchadnezzar at some point besieged Tyre. Thompson says: “Tyre, safeguarded by the sea, appears always to have clung to her independence, both against Egyptian and Babylonian. Josephus says that a few years after the battle of Carchemish Tyre led a Phoenician revolt; according to Menander, Nebuchadrezzar besieged the city for thirteen years in the reign of Ithobalus (Ethbaal), and Ezekiel (ch. xxix) refers to the great difficulty of the operations: ‘Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, caused his army to serve a great service against Tyre: every head was made bald and every shoulder was peeled: yet he had no wages, nor his army, from Tyre, for the service that he had served against.’ Presumably Nebuchadrezzar was compelled to recognize that he must ‘contain’ it only, which he could do with a small force.”19
How are we to reconcile the account of Ezekiel 26 attributing the disastrous fall to Nebuchadnezzar with Ezekiel 29:17‑20 and the non‑biblical accounts that indicate Babylon’s apparent inability to capture Tyre?20 Jerome says that the Tyrians carried off all wealth when it became apparent the city would fall.21
Some would argue that the destruction of Tyre refers to a mainland city with that name, while the failure to gain pay (Ezekiel 29) refers to the island fortress. A reference in ANET, p. 477, from the thirteenth century B.C. indicates two cities: “Let me tell you of another strange city, named Byblos. What was it like? And its goddess? Once again--[thou] hast not trodden it. Pray instruct me about Beirut, about Sidon and Sarepta. Where is the stream of the Litani? What is Uzu [ed. Note “old Tyre on the mainland”] like? They say another town is in the sea, named Tyre-the-port. Water is taken (to) it by the boats, and it is richer in fish than the sands.”
More likely, however, the prophecy has both specific and general implications. Having begun in a generalized way: nations (1‑6), he becomes particular with Babylon (7‑11), but he becomes general again in v. 12. “They” (the nations) will despoil her. At this point we are looking to the subsequent devastating calamity under Alexander the Great.
In his fourth year (601 B.C.) Nebuchadnezzar began further law enforcement in “Hatti land.” At that time, he decided to invade Egypt. He was met by the Saite king, Necho II, and the battle was fiercely fought. Egypt had reorganized and re-provisioned her army after the Carchemish debacle and the battle was a standoff. The Chronicle says, “In open battle they smote the breast (of) each other and inflicted great havoc on each other. The king of Akkad [Nebuchadnezzar] and his troops turned back and returned to Babylon. In the fifth year the king of Akkad (stayed) in his own land and gathered together his chariots and horses in great numbers.”22
Jehoiakim apparently thought this battle indicated Egyptian superiority and shifted his allegiance from Babylon to Egypt. He rebelled after three years (2 Kings 24:1-2), and Nebuchadnezzar dealt with him by encouraging bands of brigands until he could deal with him himself. Jehoiakim died mysteriously (Jer. 22:19), possibly murdered to placate Nebuchadnezzar. In any event, “in the seventh year [598], the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against (i.e. besieged) the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king [Jehoiachin]. He appointed there a king of his own choice (lit. heart) [Zedekiah], received its heavy tribute and sent (them) to Babylon.”23
An internal rebellion took place 595/4. The text is fairly cryptic: “In the tenth year the king of Akkad (was) in his own land; from the month of Kislev to the month of Tebet there was rebellion in Akkad…with arms he slew many of his own army [Wiseman reads in Nebuchadrezzar, p. 34, “his numerous leading persons/officials”]. His own hand captured his enemy.”24 Wiseman also links this event with Jeremiah 29 (written shortly after 597) were Jeremiah says that the King of Babylon roasted a certain Zedekiah and Ahab in fire.25
Zedekiah, refusing to learn from the mistake of Jehoiakim and to listen to Jeremiah’s warnings, rebelled against Babylon (Jer. 27:1-11). The data of the last days of Zedekiah come from the Bible (the Chronicle is missing at this point). Zedekiah rebelled in 588 and Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city with the intent of starving it into submission. Apries, the new Egyptian king responded to Zedekiah’s appeals, probably with a limited force (Ezek. 17:15 for the appeal). The city fell in 586.
Jeremiah predicted Babylonian attacks on Egypt (43:8-13), but there is little evidence in the Babylonian records for it.26 Ezekiel’s prophecy (29:17-20) seems to contradict what is known of Egyptian history during the Babylonian period. The usual point made is that Nebuchadnezzar did not invade Egypt, but Persia did.27 During the Babylonian period, it is said, Egypt prospered. For an excellent presentation of an alternate view, see J. B. Reilly, “The Historicity of Nebuchadnezzar’s Invasion of Egypt,” Th.M. thesis, DTS. He argues three basic points:
(1) Amasis (Egyptian ruler during Nebuchadnezzar’s time) was confined to the western part of the delta with Greek mercenaries. Any discussion of prosperity for Egypt should be confined to that area.
(2) Cambyses (the Persian ruler who invaded Egypt) did not go south of the Delta and did not destroy Egypt. The Elephantine papyri should read, “They [Babylon] had destroyed the temples of Egypt, but not the temple of Yaho.”28
(3) The period from 567 B.C. (Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion) to 525 B.C. is the forty years of destruction spoken of by Ezekiel. After Persia’s entrance, Egypt began to prosper.
“Nebuchadnezzar died about August-September, 562 B.C., and was succeeded by his son Amel-Marduk (562-560 B.C.), whom Jeremiah calls Evil-Merodach.”29
Josephus quotes Berosus who says of Amel-Marduk: “After beginning the wall of which I have spoken, Nabuchodonosor fell sick and died, after a reign of forty-three years, and the realm passed to his son Evil-maraduch. This prince, whose government was arbitrary and licentious, fell a victim to a plot, being assassinated by his sister’s husband, Neriglisar, after a reign of two years.”30
Amel-Marduk ruled only two years. From Jeremiah 52:31-34 we learn: “Now it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah (560 B.C.), in the twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth of the month, that Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, showed favor to Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him out of prison. Then he spoke kindly to him and set his throne above the thrones of the kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin changed his prison clothes, and had his meals in the king’s presence regularly all the days of his life. And for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king of Babylon, a daily portion all the days of his life until the day of his death” (see also 2 Kings 25:27-30). “10 (sila) to Ia-ku-u-ki-nu, the son of the king of Ia-ku-du (i.e. Judah). 2 1/2 sila for the 5 sons of the king of Judah.”31 This tablet actually comes from Nebuchadnezzar’s time, and so Amel-Marduk increased the ration established by his father. Thompson says, “He was given little time to prove his worth; the two years of his brief reign are merely enough to show that political conditions were again hostile to the royal house.”32
Whether there was a revolution or Amel-Marduk died in 559 is not clear, but Neriglissar succeeded him to the throne.33 He was married to a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and may have been next in line after Amel-Marduk. “He is probably to be identified with Nergal-sharezer who held the office of rab mag at the siege of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. If, as seems likely, the Neriglissar is also the same man, he was already middle-aged on his accession.”34 Little is known about this man except that he restored temples in Babylon and Borsippa. Wiseman translates a tablet that for the first time reveals an extensive military campaign in Cilicia.35
The six or so years of the reign of these two kings are passed over in silence in the Bible, except for the elevation of Jehoiachin. Daniel is involved through 539 when Cyrus comes to Babylon, but no mention is made of Amel-Marduk or Neriglissar. Ezekiel’s prophecies do not extend beyond 571 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar was still ruling.
Neriglissar died in 556 B.C. of unknown causes. His son Labashi-Marduk attempted to assume the throne but was opposed. After just three months of rule, he was overthrown by officers of the state. They placed Nabu-na’id (Nabonidus) on the throne.
Nabonidus usurped the throne though he was not a direct descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. Wiseman suggests that he may have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar which would make Belshazzar a grandson (and hence a “son”) of the sacker of Jerusalem.36
Nabonidus was probably rather old when he ascended the throne. He had connections with the city of Haran (the last stronghold of the Assyrians in 609 B.C.). Either his father or mother was a priest(ess) of the Moon God at Haran.37
Nabonidus took his army west, but withdrew from Palestine in 553. The excuse he gives is to rebuild the temple in Haran. This homage to a foreign deity (to the Babylonians) apparently created hostility in the priests of Babylon.
There follows a very mysterious time in Nabonidus’ life. “He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him and, himself, he started out for a long journey, the (military) forces of Akkad marching with him; he turned towards Tema (deep) in the west. He started out the expedition on a path (leading) to a distant (region). When he arrived there, he killed in battle the prince of Tema, slaughtered the flocks of those who dwell in the city (as well as) in the countryside, and he, himself, took his residence in [Te]ma, the forces of Akkad [were also stationed] there.”38
Nabonidus spent his declining years in this pleasant oasis for unknown reasons. Perhaps he was unwelcome in Babylon or perhaps Haran was not safe from the Medes.39 “Seventh year [549 B.C.]: The king (i.e. Nabonidus, stayed) in Tema; the crown prince, his officials and his army (were) in Akkad…Eighth year: (blank of two lines)…Ninth year: Nabonidus, the king, (stayed) in Tema; the crown prince, the officials and the army (were) in Akkad…Tenth year: The king (stayed) in Tema; the crown prince, his officials and his army (were) in Akkad…Eleventh year [545 B.C.]: The king (stayed) in Tema; the crown prince, the officials and his army (were) in Akkad.”40 By 547 Cyrus was already putting pressure on Babylon. An Elamite governor was apparently appointed in Erech. This would mean that Cyrus had a pincer movement on Babylon ten years before conquering it.41
During Nabonidus’ stay in Tema his son and crown prince, Belshazzar was ruling in Babylon. Until recent times, the existence of this man was unknown outside the Bible and provoked much skepticism as to his authenticity. With the publication of the Babylonian materials, he is now well-known as the “vice-regent” in Babylon in the absence of his aged father.
“[Seventeenth year:]…Nebo [went] from Borsippa for the procession of [Bel…] [the king (Nabonidus)] entered the temple…In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. In the 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there)…In the month of Arahshamnu, the 3rd day, Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him--the state of ‘Peace’ was imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, installed (sub-) governors in Babylon.”42 Oates says, “The reasons for the king’s return to Babylon are as obscure as those which led to his departure. After 10 years, and now certainly approaching 70 years of age, he left Taima.”43 He came back, for whatever reason, and resumed the religious ritual. After the defeat at Opis mentioned above, he fled to Babylon. There Herodotus tells us, while the Babylonians were reveling (“Belshazzar the King made a great feast to a thousand of his lords and drank wine before the thousand”), the Persians broke into the city unopposed. Herodotus preserves the story (doubted by some) that Cyrus diverted the Euphrates River (flowing through Babylon) and was able thus to enter the city.44 Belshazzar was killed that night (Dan. 5:30), but “The old king Nabonidus was given Carmania to rule, or much more probably as a place of abode in a new land.”45
The key issues in Daniel are:
The captivity of Daniel (fourth year/third year) and whether there was a deportation.
The identity of Darius the Mede (perhaps the most knotty of all the problems).
The historicity of Belshazzar (now proven).
The identity of the Chaldeans as a special religious class.
These issues have all been confronted by Evangelicals. Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel; Wiseman and Kitchen (see bibliography); J. Whitcomb, Darius the Mede. G. Archer, Daniel in EBC.
Is there anything in the extra‑biblical record to support the biblical statements on Nebuchadnezzar’s madness? Thompson says: “The name of Nebuchadrezzar became the centre of much romance, notably the story of his madness in the book of Daniel. ‘His own inscriptions speak only of a four‑year‑long suspension of interest in public affairs, which may not be a reference to his malady, though tradition of something of the kind may have lent verisimilitude to the account of it in Daniel’ (C.H.W. Johns, E.Bi. col. 3371). His religious character is illustrated above; like Ashurbanipal he may have suffered some mysterious affliction (p. 127), and this might have been ascribed to a divine visitation.”46
Because of Nabonidus’ long stint in Tema, the hostility of the Bab-ylonian priesthood to him, and a fragment from Qumran attributing a sickness of seven years to Nabonidus through which he was instructed by a Jewish soothsayer, some want the Nebuchadnezzar story to be transferred to Nabonidus.47 However, there is no reason why the problem could not have happened to Nebuchadnezzar, and one surely would not expect to find a record of it in the accounts. If Nebuchadnezzar “withdrew from public life for four years,” a seven year hiatus should not be considered improbable.
Was Nebuchadnezzar a believer in the sense of an OT saint? Certainly, he acknowledges the existence, position and power of the Most High God. However, the acknowledgement of the person of God in Daniel two does not prevent him from trying to kill the three Jewish men for worshipping the same God in chapter three. Furthermore, in chapter four the same lesson has to be learned again. It seems unlikely to me that he was ever more than a polytheist.
Ezekiel prophesies entirely during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The symbolism, metaphors and parables can only be understood with the backdrop of the historical happenings in Babylonia, Egypt and Judah over a ten year period. (Only one prophecy is beyond that era. It is against Tyre and refers to events in 571 B.C.)
Genesis 10:10; 11:9.
Joshua 7:21 (Babylonish garment).
2 Kings 17-25 = 31 x’s
1 Chronicles = 1
2 Chronicles 32-36 = 9 x’s
Ezra = 15.
Nehemiah = 2
Esther 2:6.
Ps. 87:4; 137:1,8.
Isaiah 13; 14; 21; 39; 43; 47; 48 = 13 x’s.
Jeremiah 20-52 = 168 x’s! (70 x’s in 50-52).
Ezekiel = 20 x’s.
Daniel = 17 x’s.
Micah 45:10
Zech. 2:7; 6:10.
Matt. 4 x’s (genealogy).
Acts 7:43 (Stephen’s sermon).
1 Peter 5:13.
Rev. 14; 8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10,21 = 6 x’s.
Total: 370
Gen. 11:28, 31; 15:7 = 4 x’s.
Job 1:17
2 Kings 24:2; 25 = 8 x’s.
Ezra 5:12.
Isaiah 13; 23; 43; 47:1, 5; 48:14,20 = 7 x’s.
Jeremiah = 42 x’s.
Ezekiel = 8 x’s.
Daniel = 12 x’s.
Hab. 1:6
Acts 7:4.
Total: 85
|
Chaldee(a/n) |
Babylon(ia/n) |
Total |
Early: |
5 |
3 |
8 |
Eighth century: (Isaiah/Mic) |
7 |
20 |
27 |
Seventh century: (Jer/Kg/Ch) |
50 |
203 |
253 |
Sixth century: (Ez/Dan/Hab) |
21 |
37 |
58 |
Fifth century: |
1 |
23 |
24 |
New Testament: |
1 |
12 |
13 |
All Occurrences |
85 |
298 |
383 |
The very early occurrences have to do primarily with the Table of Nations and Abraham.
The eighth century contacts are primarily in Isaiah and have to do with the contacts with Hezekiah and prophetically to the Babylonian exile.
The seventh century contacts are found in Jeremiah, Kings and Chronicles. This of course is the height of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and so we find the most frequent mentions here.
The sixth century contacts are in Ezekiel and Daniel.
The references are diminishing in the following period, because such references are usually to the past.
The beginning of civilization is in Mesopotamia. Babel along with Erech, Accad and Calneh are attributed to the building enterprises of Nimrod. The Babylonian word Babilu means “Gate of God.” The reference to Babel with the meaning of “confusion of language” is a play on that word. Here originates writing, astrology, languages, pagan religion, mathematics, etc. It is Ur of the Chaldees from which Abraham comes as well. The flood account of Genesis has much in common with the Babylonian account.
Babylon becomes sort of an archetype of evil and seems to be used somewhat that way in Isaiah 13/14. The same seems to be true in Zechariah 5 when “evil” is taken to Shinar and a temple is set up for her. Isaiah castigates Babylon for her idolatry (Isa. 47:11-15).
Babylon in Jeremiah’s time was looked upon as a scourge in God’s hand which took credit for what she did to Israel and in turn was punished for it (Isa. 47:6; Jer. 25; Zech. 1:15).
Babylon’s downfall is predicted in drastic terms in Isaiah 13 and 21, but this probably refers to the fall to Sennacherib in 689 B.C. Jeremiah’s prediction (using much of Isaiah’s terminology) has to refer to 539 B.C., since he is prophesying fifty years later (Jer. 25:12; 50-51). The language of Jeremiah is “destruction language” and refers to the fact that the empire was utterly defeated by the Persians. The city continued for another two hundred years and only gradually fell into the ruin we now see. It was last mentioned on a clay tablet in 10 B.C. (R. K Harrison in Zondervan Bible Dictionary).
Most commentators take the reference to Babylon in Revelation 17-18 as symbolic, referring actually to Rome. Peter’s reference, in my opinion, is probably to be taken literally: there was a Jewish community near Babylon on into the fifth century A.D. The Rabbis used Babylon to refer to Rome, saying that Babylon destroyed the temple twice, 586 B.C. and 70 A.D.48
The city of Babylon was one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Herodotus says it was 200 square miles and located on both sides of the river. It had eight access gates, the most famous of which was Ishtar. There were over 50 temples. The hanging gardens were on huge arches and were watered by mechanical devices. At the center was ziggurat which was 300 feet square and 300 feet high.
Josiah reigned in Judah. He began reform in his 12th year (628/7) and extended it further in his 18th year (623/2) after the weakness of Assyria became apparent when they were driven from Babylon by Nabopolassar (626/5). Egypt also felt free to begin to move into Canaan. Jeremiah began his ministry in the 13th year of Josiah (Jer. 1:2).
Tablet #25127 (British Museum).
Nabopolassar defeated the Assyrian army at the gates of Babylon and was crowned king of Babylon on November 23, 626. He was not yet strong enough to attack Nineveh.
Tablet #21901
A gap covering 622-617 exists. Medes were the head of an Anti-Assyrian group. Egypt had allied herself with Assyria.
The Medes defeated Asshur in 614. Nabopolassar joined them and defeated Nineveh in 612 B.C.
A remnant of the Assyrian army fled to Haran under Assurballit II who tried to reconstitute the kingdom. They were forced out of Haran by Babylon in spite of extensive Egyptian help in 609.
The Egyptians joined Assyria in an effort to retake the garrison in 609 but failed. Josiah tried to interdict the Egyptian army at Megiddo and was killed (2 Kings 23:28-30; 2 Chron. 35:20-27).
The Egyptians at this point took over control of Syria after the defeat of the Assyrians.49 Pharaoh Necho, on his way back, deposed Jehoahaz who had ruled only three months after the death of Josiah, his father, and put Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah, on the throne.
Tablet #22047
Babylonian armies under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar battled against mountain people and tried to control the Egyptians in Syria. The latter were entrenched at Carchemish. Nabopolassar returned to Babylon in 606/5 where he died.
Tablet #21946
Nebuchadnezzar, in sole command of the army, marched against the Egyptians at Carchemish and defeated them. Jer. 46:2 places this in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (cf. also Jer. 25:1, which relates the fourth year of Jehoiakim to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar).
Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem and Jehoiakim became his vassal. (2 Kings 24:1). Dan. 1:1 says that in Jehoiakim’s third year Nebuchadnezzar carried off captives.50 Daniel must be using the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar which was not counted as his first year in Babylon. Cf. also 2 Chron. 36:6 where Jehoiakim was bound but apparently not carried off, or was taken temporarily as a hostage of war and returned.
In December Nebuchadnezzar marched against Egypt. Judah was probably still a vassal of Babylon (he would not likely have left his rear exposed to a hostile army). The battle was fierce and Babylon suffered heavy losses. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to regroup his army. (ANET sup. p. 564).
While Nebuchadnezzar was refurbishing his troops, Judah enjoyed a measure of independence but Nebuchadnezzar probably was involved in encouraging other of his vassals against Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:2).
In December Nebuchadnezzar came west again to put an end to the rebellion. Jehoiachin, son of the now dead Jehoiakim, was on the throne. On March 16, 597, Jerusalem was surrendered, Jehoiachin and others were deported to Babylon, and Zedekiah, another son of Josiah, was put on the throne.
A local rebellion in Babylon led Zedekiah’s advisors to believe they could throw off Babylon’s yoke. This was in direct opposition to the word of the Lord (cf. Jer. 28:1ff).
The final destruction of the city and temple were absent from the Babylonian Chronicle due to a gap. The data for that final destruction and deportation are found in 2 Kings 25 and 2 Chron. 36.
Thirty-seven years after the first attack on Jerusalem, Jehoiachin was elevated by Evil-Merodach (Ewal-Marduk) (2 Kings 25:2-30). He seems to be regarded as the official king even in exile (c. Ezek. 1:2).
Sources:
W. F. Albright, “King Jehoiachin in Exile,” B. A. Reader #1.
D. N. Freedman, “The Babylonian Chronicle,” B. A. Reader #1.
The Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 303-312.
F. F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations.
On Nabonidus’ prolonged absence in Tema, see ANET, p. 306.
On mention of Belshazzar, see ANET, p. 310, footnote.
1T. G. Pinches, “Chaldea” in International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1:589, 1929 edition.
2Ibid.
3S. Smith, CAH 3:33.
4Smith, CAH 3:33.
5Ibid.
6Ibid., p. 69.
7See CAH 3:40 on origins of the rulers of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
8When Merodach Baladan sent emissaries to Judah (Isa. 38-39; 2 Kings 20) he was the head of the Chaldean grouping in southern Mesopotamia. He made himself head of Babylon but was unwelcome by the people who received Sennacherib with open arms (CAH 3:63-65).
9See: F. M. Cross, Jr. & D. N. Freedman, “Josiah’s Revolt against Assyria,” JNES, XII (1953), pp. 56-58, and Wright, BA.
10D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings.
11D. N. Freedman, “The Babylonian Chronicle,” BAR #1, pp. 113-127.
12D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, p. 2-3.
13W. W. Hallo, The Ancient Near East: A History, 1971, p. 145.
14Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar, pp. 5-6.
15Thompson, “The New Babylonian Empire,” CAH 3:206ff.
16Ibid., p. 18.
17Wiseman, Chronicles, p. 69.
18Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar, pp. 24-25.
19CAH 3:214.
20See A. S. Lawhead, “A Problem of Unfulfilled Prophecy in Ezekiel: a Response,” WTJ 16 (1981): 15-19 and J. Bright, History of Israel, p. 333 (he says they were obliged to acknowledge Babylonian suzerainty). See also Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar, pp. 27ff, who shows Babylonian control of Tyre. Lawhead was responding to D. L. Thompson, “A Problem of Unfulfilled Prophecy in Ezekiel,” WTJ 16 (1981): 93-106 who argues for a general interpretation of Scripture (Tyre will fall) and not a specific fulfillment. For an overall discussion, see John C. Beck, The Fall of Tyre According to Ezekiel’s Prophecy, Th.M. Thesis, DTS.
21Keil, Ezekiel, 1:421-22.
22Wiseman, Chronicle, p. 71.
23Ibid., p. 73.
24Ibid.
25Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar, p. 35.
26Ibid, p. 39f. Bright, History of Israel, p. 333, is much more sanguine about the idea of an invasion.
27Thompson, CAH 3:215, says, “The small fragment of a Babylonian Chronicle first published by Pinches shows that Nebuchadrezzar launched an expedition against Egypt in his thirty-seventh year, i.e. about 567 B.C. Whether Pinches’ ingenious restoration (Ama)su, ‘Amasis,’ for the lost king’s name is correct, or whether Nebuchadrezzar marched against Egypt with any aim other than conquest, we cannot say; the very distance to which he penetrated is a matter of dispute. One tradition says he made Egypt a Babylonian province, another that he invaded Libya, while Jeremiah ‘foretold’ that he would set up his throne in Tahpanhes, but there is no proof that he did so. We might almost assume from the tradition that certain Babylonian deserters built a ‘Babylon’ in Egypt near the Pyramids, which appears to have existed as an important fort in the time of Augustus, that his army at all events left some mark there.”
28ANET, 492: “Now, our forefathers built this temple in the fortress of Elephantine back in the days of the kingdom of Egypt, and when Cambyses came to Egypt he found it built. They [Babylon] [had] knocked down all the temples of the gods of Egypt, but no one did any damage to this temple.”
29Thompson, CAH 3:217.
30Josephus, Contra Apionem, I, 20 (147).
31ANET, p. 308.
32R. C. Thompson, CAH 3:217. See also Joan Oates, Babylon, p. 131.
33Wiseman leaves it vague (Chronicles, p. 38), but Thompson (CAH 3:218) argues for a revolution.
34Wiseman, Chronicles, p. 38. Joan Oates, Babylon, 131.
35Wiseman, Chronicles, pp. 39-42.
36Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar, p. 12.
37For a personal account of his remarkable mother, Adad-guppi’, see ANET, pp 560-62. She lived to be either 102 or 104. Her life spanned most of the neo-Babylonian period.
38ANET, p. 313.
39For the literature on this issue, see ANET, p. 306, n. 5. (J. Lewy, “The Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and Its Culmination at the Time of Nabonidus,” HUCA 19 [1946]: 434ff; R. P. Dougherty, “Tema’s Place in the Egypto-Babylonian World of the Sixth Century B.C.” Mizraim 1 [1933]: 140-43; R. P. Dougherty, “Ancient Teima and Babylonia,” JAOS 41 [1922]: 458-59; W. F. Albright, “The Conquests of Nabonidus in Arabia,” JRAS [1925]: 293ff.).
40ANET, p. 306.
41CAH 3:223.
42ANET, p. 306.
43Oates, Babylon, p 134.
44A. de Sélincourt, The World of Herodotus, pp. 211ff.
45CAH 3:224-225.
46CAH 3:217, f.n. 1. Also p. 425, note.
47Oates, Babylon, p. 133.
48See for the reference and translation Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, 3:816. For the text see S. Buber, ed., Midrasch Tanchuma, Vilna, 1885. The reference is found in the commentary on Leviticus 12 (tazria’) 16.
49CAH 3:130: The struggle continued from 609-605 when Necho was defeated at Carchemish.
50Wilson argues for a foray against Jerusalem before Carchemish in Jehoiakim’s third year. Or we could assume that Jeremiah (46:2) is using Palestinian system and Daniel the Babylonian system.
“When Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C., the world was old. More significant, it knew its antiquity.”1
“The story of the ancient Orient is drawing to its close. And yet, by a strange contrast, on the very eve of the final crisis it achieves its maximum extension, unification and power. Up to and beyond its boundaries, from India to Libya, a single empire is built up from diverse peoples, and the synthesis which had existed momentarily under the Assyrians now becomes a stable condition, reinforced by an enlightened policy of liberality and tolerance.”2
The chief actors in this new phase of history are Indo-Europeans, known to be present long since on the Iranian plateau, but who form strong political organisms only during the first millennium.
The prologue to the new chapter of history is provided by the empire of the Medes, who are of Iranian stock and closely related to the Persians. In the seventh century B.C., they established a powerful state and, under king Cyaxares, defeated Assyria and penetrated into Armenia and Anatolia, checked only at the river Halys by the resistance of the Lydians (along with Nabopolassar).3 The empire disappeared soon after its rise. In the middle of the following century, Cyrus’ Persians threw off its yoke, took over the power and set out along the open road of expansion (note maps for Median expansion alongside the Neo-Babylonian Empire). The ancient name Hakhamanish or Achaemenes becomes the dynastic title and the Persian rulers are henceforth known as the Achaemenids.
The story of Astyages, king of the Medes who married his daughter to an unimportant Persian (Cambyses I--a king but under Median thumb) is recounted by Herodotus.4 Of this marriage was born Cyrus who was destined to death by Astyages (because of a dream that his daughter gave birth to water which flooded the world) but was kept alive by a herdsman. Harpagus had been assigned the task of killing the child, and when Cyrus grew up, Astyages discovered him, cooked Harpagus’ son, and fed him to him.
Cyrus became king of Anshan in 560 or 559 B.C.,5 made his move against the Medes in 550 B.C., and Harpagus deserted to his side. “Ecbatana was captured, and its wealth of gold, silver, and precious objects was carried off to Anshan.”6
Cyrus became the ruler of the Medes and the Persians and conquered an empire that stretched to India in the East and to the western edge of Anatolia. This vast empire, with its disparate peoples could only have come about through a policy of the Persians that differed immensely from their predecessors. Cyrus allowed a measure of local autonomy and allowed the return of various gods, the rebuilding of temples, and the recognition of local cultures. Isaiah (40-45) tells us that God raised him up as his anointed (Isaiah 45:1-2). The Jews benefited from the policy in that they were allowed to return to their land, rebuild their temple, and restore their worship system.
The decree of Cyrus, found on the Cyrus Cylinder is as follows: “All the kings of the entire world from the Upper to the Lower Sea, those who are seated in throne rooms, (those who) live in other [types of buildings as well as] all the kings of the West land living in tents, brought their heavy tributes and kissed my feet in Babylon. (As to the region) from…as far as Ashur and Susa, Agade, Eshnunna, the towns Zamban, Me-Turnu, Der as well as the region of the Gutians, I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought into Babylon to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their (former) chapels, the places which make them happy.”7
Three major military expeditions (in addition to the many minor ones) were necessary to bring this about (note the three ribs in the Bear in Daniel’s vision--ch. 7). The Lydian campaign began in 547 B.C. when Croesus moved to take over the part of the empire left by the now defunct Medes. Cyrus moved west to interrupt this action and forced the old Assyrian/Median groupings to submit to him. He defeated Croesus in the winter of 547 even though he had called on his allies the Babylonians and the Egyptians to help him. Cyrus also began the process of forcing the Ionian Greeks to submit to him as well.8
The capture of Babylon took place some eight years later. The reason for the delay is not clear. Since the Greek sources talk about his developing a number of canals north of Babylon (with which Herodotus says he diverted the Euphrates river to allow him to invade Babylon), some argue that he was developing irrigation projects while waiting for Babylon to fall into his hands.9 Sippar fell on 10 October and Nabonidus fled to Babylon where he was captured when the Persian forces entered the city. Cyrus himself entered on 29 October, 539 B.C., and the Babylonian territories became Persian thereafter. These territories comprised the “Abarnaharia” satrap including Syria and Palestine and thus the Jews. Cyrus’ son Cambyses was appointed the king of Babylon. Cyrus was killed in a campaign of 530 B.C., and his son Cambyses became king in his place.
Some identify him with Darius the Mede (Dan. 5:31ff), since he ruled Babylon under his father, but that is not likely.10 Cambyses as the King’s son “took the hands of Marduk” in 538 B.C. and was called king of Babylon.11 Cook believes that Cambyses irritated the priests at Babylon and that he was not king again until 530 when his father went to the battle in which he was killed.12 But Olmstead says he ruled as governor the entire time.13
Cambyses began the Egypt campaign in 526 B.C. (the third major thrust) and conquered all Egypt in 525 B.C. Darius was a spear bearer in Cambyses’ army, and Cook argues that he may have been moving in the highest circles at that time.14 Amasis the resourceful pharaoh died as Cambyses began his campaigns and the Greek mercenaries deserted to Cambyses. The new pharaoh was defeated in the delta and at Memphis. Cambyses became the king of upper and lower Egypt. He campaigned further south, but it is difficult to sort out malicious rumor and legend from the truth.
In Cambyses’ long absence, there was usurpation back home. The details are conflicting and confused. Cambyses’ manner of death is disputed. He died in Syria in 522, some of the Greek sources say due to a wound suffered when he fell on his dagger. There is confusion in the empire during this time, and the details are hard to determine. Darius, whose vested interested in the story clouds his reliability, claims that a usurper had pretended to be Cambyses’ brother, Bardyia (the Greeks called him Smerdis), had taken over the throne and was killed by Darius and/or the nobles. It may be that Bardyia had indeed taken over the throne in the extended absence of Cambyses and was killed by Darius who was an officer in the army.15
Darius called Bardyia, Gaumata. He held brief royal authority until put down by Darius, 522-521 B.C.
Darius the Great was the great imperialist, noted for the Behistun inscription.16 He is mentioned by Ezra (he was not a direct descendant of Cyrus but of royal blood). Darius immediately faced rebellion in the empire. After much bloody fighting, he succeeded in establishing his rule. This was accomplished by 520 B.C. He claims that he fought nineteen battles and took captive nine kings in one and the same year.17 It was in this year that Zechariah began his ministry (Zech. 1:1). The entire world was at peace, but Israel was unhappy. Work on the temple was resumed in 520 B.C., and the Cyrus decree was found in Ecbatana (they first looked in Babylon--Ezra 6:1-2), the temple was finished in 516 B.C. twenty years after it had been started. The Persian wars against the Greeks began in 492 and continued under Xerxes. Darius was defeated by the Greeks at Marathon in 490 B.C. Egypt revolted four years later and Darius died as he was setting out to put down the revolt.
This is the mad king who in a mighty combined operation sought to avenge Marathon, and whom the Greeks defeated at Salamis (480 B.C.) and Plataea (479 B.C.). The feast and assembly of Esther 1:3 is plausibly equated with Herodotus 7:8 (the king pays attention to his harem), while Esther 2:16 may be a reference to the events of Herodotus 9:108, 109, according to Blaiklock. [Xerxes wanted the wife of a friend but refrained from taking her. He brought her daughter to the palace and married her to his son, but took liberties with her himself. Through a series of events, his wife learned of it and mutilated the mother of the girl (Herodotus).]
It was this monarch who permitted Ezra to go to Jerusalem to restore the affairs of the Jewish community (Ezra 7, 8) and who promoted the mission of his cup-bearer Nehemiah thirteen years later.18
Persian roads: one from Susa to Sardis. 1500 miles. Mile posts (3.4) with inns, etc., every 4th post. Persepolis’ audience hall was 100,000 square feet.
Zoroastrianism: Zarathustra (Zoroaster) was the prophet of the god Ahura-Mazda. Replaced by Mithra (divine youth with solar halo) and Anita (Persian Aphrodite).
1Olmstead, The History of Persia, p. 1. Cyrus’ total rule is from 560-529, but from the biblical point of view the Persian Empire begins in 539.
2Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, p. 285.
3ANET, 304-305.
4A. de Sélincourt, The World of Herodotus, pp. 207-10 and Herodotus, The Persian Wars, Clio 1:101ff, Translated by George Rawlinson, available on line at http://www.pars times.com/history/Herodotus/persian_wars/clio.html
5Cook, The Persian Empire, p. 24.
6Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, p. 37.
7ANET, p. 316.
8See Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, pp. 39-40.
9Ibid., p. 31.
10Wiseman, et al., Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel.
11So Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, pp. 86-87, and Cook, The Persian Empire, pp. 32, 37. But Wiseman, Notes on Some Problems, says that Cambyses was never called “king.”
12Cook, The Persian Empire, p. 32.
13Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, pp. 86-87.
14Cook, The Persian Empire, p. 46.
15See Cook, The Persian Empire, pp. 50-55.
16The Behistun inscription in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian, is an “autobiography” of Darius. For a discussion on the inscription and bibliography, see Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, pp. 116-18.
17Cook, The Persian Empire, p 56.
18See E. M. Blaiklock, “Persia” in Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary.
19On this period see Cross, “Papyri of the 4th Century B.C. from Dâliyeh,” New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed., Freedman and Greenfield, and Cross, “A reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975) 4-18.
The Assyrians had effectively destroyed independent entities in Syria-Palestine except for Tyre, Sidon and Judah. The native dynasts were replaced by Assyrian governors. Judah also lost her independence to Babylon. When Cyrus took over the Babylonian territory these provinces submitted to Persia and were incorporated into the structure of the empire.1
“For the government of this wide-extending territory, he [Cyrus] adopted in principle the organization first devised by the Assyrians, who replaced the states they had conquered by formal provinces. Each was ruled by a governor with a full staff of subordinates, and all kept in close touch with the central power through frequent exchange of orders and reports.”2 The word Satrap means “protector of the Kingdom.” The hereditary position of the Satrap created problems of loyalty which was handled by making the military directly responsible to the King.
The large region west of the Euphrates River was called “Cross-River Satrap” (Abar-Nahara). The Satrap seat was in Damascus. The satrapy was divided up into provinces (see map 2, p. 171). Judah was one of those provinces. Avi-Yonah argues for the separate Jewish province in spite of the interference of the Samaritans in the Book of Ezra. He says that the loose Persian rule lent itself to disputes among the provinces.3 Stern summarizes his discussion on the organization of the Palestinian states as follows: “In summary, Palestine in the Persian period was apparently organized into a number of provinces or ‘states’ (medinoth). Each unit was ruled by a dynasty of governors, generally of a local family: Samaritans in Samaria (according to the Wadi Daliyeh papyri) and Arabs in the south (according to the Tell el-Maskhuta inscriptions), and possibly also in Judah (as is suggested by stamp impressions, bullae, and coins of Jehezekiah). These governors had small courts, imitating those of the satraps, and they stood at the head of small administrative organizations…They were probably in charge of small military garrisons and were allowed to keep official stamps of the ‘state’ in their possession, one of the most frequent finds of that period at sites excavated in the province. The governors also seem to have been permitted to strike the small silver coins, which are now known as ‘Palestinian’ coins. Thus far the inscriptions of four of the provinces are clearly legible: Samaria, Judah, Ashdod, and Gaza. The provinces were subdivided into ‘parts’ (pelek; Neh. 3:9, 17).”4
Avi-Yonah lists six known governors of Judah during the two hundred years of Persian rule (there may even have been times when there was no governor): Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Bigoai or Bagohi, Yehoezer, Ahio.5 Cross shows that there were a series of Sanballats who ruled as governor of Samaria.6
There is some confusion about the relationship of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. Some will argue that Zerubbabel did not come as governor until 520 or so, and that the “Chronicler” has telescoped his life with Sheshbazzar’s.7 The reconstruction of the temple was begun by Jeshua and Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:1-14). Jeshua was the grandson of the last officiating high priest before the exile (cf. 2 Kings 25:18 and 1 Chron. 6:15). Jeshua himself soon assumed that office and was prominent in Zechariah 1‑8. Zerubbabel was a descendant of the Davidic family. 1 Chron. 3:19 lists him as a son of Pedaiah, a younger son of Jeconiah rather than Shealtiel. Shealtiel could have had a levirate adoption of this son, but the text does not explain what happened. The altar of burnt offering was erected and offerings began to be made.
Ezra 5:16 indicates that Sheshbazzar was the one who laid the original foundation whereas Ezra 3:8 indicates that it was Zerubbabel. Either the two are to be equated or Sheshbazzar was the real governor while Zerubbabel worked under him. Williamson argues that 3:7‑4:5 are a “recapitulation” of the events that actually only began under Darius. This, however, assumes chronological inaccuracies in Ch. 3 which is unacceptable.
Return under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel to build the temple (538 B.C.)--Ezra 1‑6.
Return of Ezra for spiritual reform (458 B.C.)--Ezra 7‑10.
Return of Nehemiah to rebuild the walls (445--433 B.C.)--Neh. 1‑7.
Revival of the people--Neh. 8‑12.
Nehemiah’s second return--Neh. 13.
Edict issued returning people and temple contents—538.
Temple foundation laid--536.
Cambyses, Cyrus’ son, was installed for a short time in Babylon. After he became king he invaded Egypt. The circumstances surrounding his death and his successors are shrouded in mystery. He is said to have died when he learned that his brother had usurped the throne in his absence. His most notable success was the defeat of Egypt. No biblical events. Cambyses is referred to in the Elephantine papyri.
The person who took the throne in Cambyses’ absence was his brother Bardiya whom Darius calls Gaumata and Herodotus calls Smerdis. Scholars believe that Darius’ story about a man pretending to be Gaumata/Bardiya who had been killed already by Cambyses is a concoction to defend Darius’ rise to the throne.8
Darius defeats Gaumata and struggles to put down rebellions (done by 518).
Zechariah begins his ministry in second year of Darius.
The temple was completed in 516.
Darius was defeated at Marathon by Greeks in 490.
Xerxes was defeated at Salamis in 480.
The events of Esther may have taken place after his return.
Ezra’s return to promote religious reform--458 B.C. Fensham says Egypt revolted in 460 and was suppressed in 456. Artaxerxes needed loyal people in Judah and may have sent Ezra for this purpose (Ezra 7:8).9
Nehemiah’s first return--445 (Neh. 5:14).
Fensham says the Persian general who defeated Egypt became angry at Artaxerxes and revolted against him. Later he declared loyalty and was restored, but again Artaxerxes would want loyal leaders in the west and so may have sent Nehemiah.
Ezra apparently came back a second time early in Nehemiah’s period (Neh. 8‑10; 12:36).
Nehemiah returns a second time--432 (Neh. 13:6).
Xerxes II (Promptly murdered by half-brother, Sogdianus)
Sogdianus (Murdered after a few months by half-brother, Ochus)
Ochus known as Darius II (423-404)
Arsaces known as Artaxerxes II (404-358)
Ochus known as Artaxerxes III (358-338)
Arses (338-336) murdered by Darius III
Darius III (336-330)
The last one hundred years of Persian rule were chaotic. The kings tended to weaknesses, were often dominated by their women, and were filled with cruelty. The Satraps often revolted and declared independence.
The work of the temple construction was interrupted by the opposition of the surrounding peoples. A letter in Aramaic (Ezra 4) was sent back to Cyrus asking that the work be stopped. They were successful.
A number of historical problems exist in the identification of this letter.
The older commentaries link Ahasuerus with Cambyses (this would then place the letter in 529 B.C). They also link Artaxerxes with Gaumata (as Darius called him) who struggled for the throne after the death of Cambyses in 522 B.C. Working from A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, and J.M. Cook, The Persian Empire, Cambyses ruled from 529 to 522 and left for Egypt in 526 never to return to Mesopotamia (he died near Mt. Carmel). If he is indeed Ahasuerus, he would also be the Persian king of Esther. This is not impossible, but Cook says that Cambyses was in Babylonia at Abanu near Uruk in 528. The setting for Esther is Susa in the Satrap of Elam. He could have returned to Susa for the events of Esther during the two years before he left for Egypt.
The Artaxerxes/Gaumata/Smerdis/Bardiya equation is more difficult since it is made nowhere else that I know of, and it would require the introduction of an otherwise unknown Artaxerxes. Furthermore, this was a time of great disturbance with Bardiya (Cambyses’ brother) taking over the throne. He only ruled about six months. It is more difficult to suppose that the leaders of Samaria would write to Bardiya/Gaumata while Cambyses was in their area or that the time would permit a letter and a response as in Ezra 4.
The letter does not speak of the temple (the situation in question), but it does speak of the walls—a situation apropos to Nehemiah’s time (the historical situation underlying the accusation in Ahasuerus’ [Xerxes’] time and the aborted attempt to build a wall in Artaxerxes’ time are otherwise unknown).
The temple was completed according to the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes (6:14). The order is important. It is not Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius as in Chapter 4, but Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes. Ezra, the writer of this book, is functioning under the decree of Artaxerxes (458 B.C.). That decree mentions the temple in 7:11, 15, 16, 23 and even says the temple is to be adorned in 7:27. Ezra, therefore, views Artaxerxes’ decree as having a vital function in relation to the temple.
Williamson10 citing others argues that 4:5 and 4:24 are literary markers (referring to Darius) that indicate the insertion of material in between.
I therefore would concur with Keil and now Fensham11 that this chapter contains a collage of letter writing used to illustrate the continuous opposition the Jews encountered.
“To judge from the Ezra material, it appears fairly clear that the great religious leader was concerned primarily with the reorganization of the cult on the basis of the Pentateuchal legislation…it is becoming increasingly certain that Ezra did not function as governor. What he came to do was more significant in the long run—laying the foundations of Judaism that was to make an incalculable impact upon the world in the following centuries…It is perhaps not too much to say that what Nehemiah did for the body of Judaism, Ezra did for its soul.”12
The idea of a scribe is an old one, but the only early biblical reference to the word (sopher) is in the poetic section of Judges 5. Under the monarchy they served as court secretaries. Baruch was a scribe to Jeremiah. However, it is with Ezra that the New Testament type of scribe emerges. He is one who is trained in the law of Moses--to copy it and to interpret it. (KJV has “ready scribe”; NASB has “a scribe skilled.” The Hebrew phrase sopher maher means first a fast writer and then a skilled writer and then a competent interpreter). As Samuel was to the prophetic movement, so Ezra was to the scribal movement13 Ezra’s purpose was to study the law to practice it and to teach the statutes and ordinances to Israel (7:10). Williamson says, “The scribe, we should note, was not only a student of Scripture, but explicitly a practitioner and especially a teacher of its requirements. And these qualities we find exemplified in Ezra’s ministry.”14
Artaxerxes had sent a special decree with Ezra (7:11‑26). Fensham says that the “Jewishness” of the letter is to be explained by the fact that Ezra probably drafted the letter that went out in the name of the king15 He permitted people to go with Ezra, and permitted him to collect money for the undertaking. Ezra was to take utensils to be used in the temple back with him. Artaxerxes gave him an expense voucher and freed certain temple workers from taxes. He commissioned Ezra to appoint officers to enforce the Mosaic Law.16
Williamson17 says, “It has been widely accepted since Schaeder’s work that ‘the scribe of the law of the God of heaven’ was an official Persian title, so that some have gone so far as to translate ‘minister/secretary of state for Jewish affairs.’”
Ezra’s purpose in coming to Jerusalem was two‑fold: (1) He was to “inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of your God which is in your hand” (7:14). Williamson suggests that this facet of the commission took three directions. First it would investigate how closely the temple worship related to the Mosaic Law. Second, the concern with mixed marriages may have in part been concerned with who legitimately came under this law. Third, it may have involved checking up on the use of state aid for the temple worship. (2) The second purpose is more difficult to understand (7:25). He was to appoint “magistrates and judges.” This was no doubt designed to regulate the lives of those in the Abar-Nahara Satrap who considered themselves to be Jews.
Much debate surrounds the chronological relationship between Ezra and Nehemiah. Some will argue that Ezra actually came to Jerusalem after Nehemiah in spite of the statements to the contrary in the books themselves. Some will rearrange the material between the two books.18
Hanani (shortened form for Hananiah) is referred to as Nehemiah’s brother. This reference should be understood in a literal sense because of 7:2. There is another Hananiah connected with the Elephantine community, but whether they are the same man is not clear. The breaking down of the walls is debated. Some believe a recent attempt to build the walls has been frustrated, but it seems more likely that the reference is to the destruction of 586 B.C. The walls continue to lie in ruins even though the temple has been built. The people are vulnerable to attacks from all those around them.
Sanballat the Horonite is known from the Elephantine Papyri as the governor of Samaria. The date of that papyrus is 408 B.C. There he was older, and his sons were representing him. The Nehemiah context is over thirty years earlier. The reference to him as a Horonite is not clear. It may refer to the town of lower Beth-Horon or it may refer to a deity.
A letter from a Jewish mercenary colony in Egypt:
“To our lord Bagoas, governor of Judah [one of six known governors, cf. Avi Yonah, The Holy Land, 14], your servants Yedoniah and his colleagues, the priests who are in the fortress of Elephantine…[they then tell how their temple to Yaho was torn down in some kind of a pogrom]. We have also sent a letter before now, when this evil was done to us, [to] our lord and to the high priest Johanan and his colleagues the priests in Jerusalem and to Ostanes the brother of Hanani and the nobles of the Jews. Never a letter have they sent to us…We have also set the whole matter forth in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat the governor of Samaria…On the 20th of Marheshwan, year 17 of King Darius [II, 408 B.C.]”19
A later letter indicates that Governor Bagohi encouraged the rebuilding.
Tobiah the Ammonite is an obscure figure. Quite a bit is known about the Tobiads of the third century. Josephus tells us that they played an important part in the events leading up to the Maccabean revolt. “The great man of the family was Joseph, the son of Tobiah, who was active under Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-221 B.C.).”20 A tomb inscription, Tobiah, is dated by Mazar in the sixth or fifth centuries. He concludes that, “This Tobiah [in Nehemiah] was not only a Jew (not half-Ammonite and half-Jew, or even pure Ammonite, as some scholars hold to this day), but one of the heads of the Jews and a relative of the high priest, exactly like Tobiah the father of Joseph a hundred and fifty years later. Nehemiah states expressly (vi, 18) that ‘there were many in Judah sworn unto him.’”21 The use of the phrase in Nehemiah “the Ammonite servant” is for Mazar to be equated with “servant of the king,” i.e., of the king of Persia, and thus concludes that Tobiah may have been the governor of Ammon.22 Williamson argues that he was probably an associate of Sanballat and may have had some temporary responsibility in Judah in the absence of a governor.23 “Ammonite” is certainly a pejorative term. Nehemiah recorded a past event in which Eliashib had become related by marriage to Tobiah. Eliashib had prepared a special room for him in the temple when he visited (Neh. 13:5). Fensham argues that this is not the same Eliashib as the high priest since this one is over the chamber.24
An additional adversary appears in 2:19 by the name of Geshem the Arab. This man is well‑known as a powerful Arabian operating within the Persian Empire with a fair amount of independence. There is no way of knowing why he is hostile to Nehemiah, who could have posed little threat to him, unless he simply does not want any strengthening of the Persian influence in a neighboring province.
The wall was finished in 52 days. This was a phenomenal achievement! It may be that the walls were not entirely destroyed by the Babylonians, or that the quality of his work was of the highest nature, but even so Nehemiah accomplished a gigantic task. As a result, the enemies were discouraged. Communication had been going on between the enemies and certain Jews in the city. As a matter of fact Jehohanan was the offspring of Tobiah who had married a Jewish girl. He seems to be excluded from the Jewish community by Nehemiah, so he was treated as foreigner.
Nehemiah speaks for the first time of the fact that he had been gone from Jerusalem for much of this time (Keil says several years) (13:6). When he returned to Jerusalem, he threw Tobiah’s stuff out and cleansed the room (13:7‑8).
1M. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land: From the Persia to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640); a Historical Geography, p. 11.
2Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, p. 59.
3Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, p. 13.
4Ephraim Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p 81. See Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land from the Persian Period to the Arab Conquest, for a map of the provinces.
5Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, pp. 13-14.
6F. M. Cross, “Papyri from the Fourth Century B.C. from Dâliyeh,” New Directions in Biblical Archaeology. D.N. Freedman and J. Greenfield, eds., 41-62.
7See N. H. Snaith, The Jews from Cyrus to Herod, pp. 16-18, for his reconstruction of Sheshbazzar (no foundation of temple laid in spite of Chronicler’s statement), Zerubbabel, who was urged to revolt from Persia by Haggai and Zechariah, Nehemiah and finally Ezra. See Bright, History of Israel pp. 344-45, for a more biblical perspective.
8See Cook, The Persian Empire, 49ff.
9F. C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 100. See also B. Porten, Archives of Elephantine, p. 26.
10H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah in Word Biblical Commentary, p. 59.
11Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. 68ff.
12Myers, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. lxii.
13Ibid., pp. lvii-lxii.
14Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah in Word, p. 93.
15Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 103. See also Myers, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 62.
16On Persian interest in local religions, see B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, p. 23: “Darius’ effect on religious matters in his empire is also worth noting. In Asia Minor he ordered the satrap Gadates to respect certain rights and privileges of the sacred gardeners of Apollo. In Judah he ordered the pehah Tattenai to supply whatever material was necessary for the building of the Temple there to provide sacrifices to be offered in the name of the royal family (Ez. 5:17‑6:12). In Egypt he restored the House of Life of the goddess Neith at Sais, contributed to temples at Edfu and Abusir, and displayed his liberality toward other sanctuaries as well. It was probably he who constructed the temple to Amon‑Re in the oasis of Kargeh.”
17Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 100.
18E.g., Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah. See Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, for a good discussion that is also somewhat conservative.
19ANET, p. 492.
20B. Mazar, “The Tobiads,” IEJ 7(1957):137-145; 229-238.
21Ibid., p. 144.
22Ibid.
23H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah in Word Biblical Commentary, pp. 182-183.
24F. C. Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. 260.
Ackroyd says, “This glimpse of Jewish life elsewhere [Elephantine], and the rather tantalizing indications of its contacts with Jerusalem and Samaria, emphasize the importance of realizing how, in the whole period, the life of the Jewish community was not concentrated in one place.”1
Jeremiah advised the members of the golah about 594 B.C. to settle down in their new land, plant vineyards, marry off their children, pray for the peace of the city and otherwise decide that they will be in Babylon for a long time (Jeremiah 29:4-7). We get brief glimpses of the community in Ezekiel when the Elders come to him to inquire of the Lord, and other things. This indicates that the Jews were allowed to stay, perhaps in settlements, and to maintain Jewish leadership of some sort.
From the next century (under Artaxerxes I [464-424 B.C.] and Darius II [424-404]), comes a marvelous cache of some 730 tablets (presumed to be from Nippur according to Stolper).2 These are known as the Murashu documents, named after the head of a financial firm that was itself Babylonian. They are written in Akkadian cuneiform, often with Aramaic ink inscriptions. They come from the town of Nippur just south of Babylon. The names in the documents indicate that there were Persians, Medes, Egyptians and West Semites in this cosmopolitan town. The West Semites included Jews with such names as Hanani, Shabbatai and Jonathan. Several other Jewish names show up in the contracts.
There is no evidence of any discrimination against the Jews: they are charged the same interest rates, have the same type of careers, and some hold important positions. There was a tendency to take Babylonian names (perhaps as second names). This holds true for the royal family especially (cf. Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Mordecai, Esther). There may have been a tendency to use Hebrew names that fit into the Babylonian culture (e.g., theophoric names with “el”).
These Jews had become fully integrated into Babylonian society and, perhaps too well, fulfilled Jeremiah’s orders.3 These records constitute the most information we have on the period of Artaxerxes I and following.
The island of Elephantine lies at the southernmost part of the old Egyptian kingdom. It is situated opposite of the village of Aswan or Syene which is on the river bank. “The latter name [Syene] appears in Ezek. 29:10, 30:6 as indicating the southern border of Egypt; it probably should also be read in Isa. 49:12. The name Elephantine, translated from the Egyptian Yeb, probably refers to the importance of this area for the ivory trade, and the position of the island and of Syene are of great significance both for trade and for frontier control.”4 I am more inclined to think that the name Elephantine comes from the large black rock formations around the island that look much like elephants.
There are two major collections of papyri owing their provenance to this island: one became part of a private collection at the end of the nineteenth century that was only published in 1953. The other collection came from various sources and was published at an earlier date.5
In their letter to governor Bagohi of Judah, they indicate that their temple was in existence when Cambyses entered Egypt in 525 B.C. Their community could be much older since they are merely making their point that their temple was not torn down at that time.6 They describe their island home as a “garrison” (birtha, see Ezra 6:2). They were evidently employed as a foreign mercenary troop on the southern border of Egypt. They could have come to Egypt after the debacle on 586 B.C.; they could have come from one of the settlements such as came to Egypt with Jeremiah or they could have been an earlier movement.7
Perhaps one of the most interesting items to come from the Elephantine correspondence and records is the existence of a Jewish temple to the god Yaho. They also used Biblical terms for Yahweh: “the God of Heaven,” “Lord of hosts” (not in papyri, but on ostraca), and the one “who dwells (in Elephantine).” The temple was served by priests and offered sacrifice: “meal offering, incense, and holocaust.”
In discussing the question of why a temple would exist at Elephantine, Porten argues that there were two and perhaps three Jewish temples outside Jerusalem. The temple of Onias outside Leontopolis which was built by a disaffected Onias IV after the Maccabees had regained control of Jerusalem and rejected Onias from the priesthood. He fled to Egypt, and entered the service of Ptolemy VI. “He was placed in charge of a Jewish military contingent, established in the fortress of Leontopolis, and granted permission to erect there a Temple to the Lord wherein priests and Levites officiated.”8 Josephus says that Onias was motivated by Isaiah’s prophecy that an altar to Yahweh would be erected in Egypt (Isaiah 19:19).9 The second one is at Elephantine, which Porten argues, was built during the troubling times of Manasseh about 650 B.C. He even suggests that the Jews who fled Manasseh’s persecution would have gone because of his paganization of the temple in Jerusalem. The Samaritan temple (which Porten refers to as Jewish) was built during the transition from Persia to Alexander.10 He also believes the Tobiads had a temple as well. In each case there was a time of dissension, and the temple was connected with a fortress.
The people of Elephantine mixed with the local population, though the local people became Jews rather than vice versa. As one might expect, there was probably a fair amount of syncretism as indicated in the use of the pagan gods in vows.
The temple was torn down in 410 B.C. A letter was sent to Jerusalem appealing for help, but this letter was not answered according to a subsequent letter. The priests at Jerusalem failed to respond to the request for help (as one might expect from the new Jewish community in Jerusalem). However, subsequently, the civil governor (Bagohi) did grant permission to rebuild the temple but did not mention the holocaust offering which may be a compromise to which the Elephantine community acceded. No documents have been found dated after 399 B.C. Was the temple rebuilt? Did the priests of Knum, who had been hostile to them originally, tear it down later? Porten thinks it was rebuilt, but is not willing to assume a subsequent destruction.11
“To our lord Bagoas, governor of Judah, your servants Yedoniah and his colleagues, the priests who are in the fortress of Elephantine…Now your servants Yedoniah, and his colleagues, and the Jews, the citizens of Elephantine, all say thus: If it please our lord, take thought of this temple to rebuild it, since they do not let us rebuild it…And you shall have a merit before Yaho the God of Heaven more than a man who offers to him burnt offering and sacrifices worth a thousand talents of silver and (because of) gold. Because of this we have written to inform you. We have also set the whole matter forth in a letter in our name to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat the governor of Samaria.”12
1P. R. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia, p. 181.
2Matthew Stolper, Entrepreneurs and Empire. The book does not have much about the Jews, but it is a definitive work.
3M. D. Coogan, “Life in the Diaspora,” BA 37(1974):7-12. This summary of Murashu tablets comes from this article. For the original publication see H. V. Hilprecht and A. T. Clay, Business Documents of Murashu Sons of Nippur Dated in the Reign of Artaxerxes I (464-424 B.C.). See also Samuel Daiches (The Jews in Babylonia in the Times of Ezra and Nehemiah according to Babylonian Inscriptions, pp. 29-36) for a religious study of the proper Jewish names. His work is old but still helpful. According to him, Nippur in the Talmud represents Calneh. The River Kebar (Ezekiel) is at Nippur (p. 11).
4P. R. Ackroyd, Israel under the Babylonians and Persians, p. 279.
5Ibid., p. 279. For the Aramaic texts see F. Rosenthal, ed., An Aramaic Handbook, pp. 10 ff. See ANET, pp. 491 ff. for translation and see A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri.
6See my discussion above of O’Reilly’s thesis that it was the Babylonians who tore down the other temples, not the Persians.
7P. R. Ackroyd, Israel under the Babylonians and Persians, p. 280. For an excellent discussion of the various contacts between the Jewish people and Egypt, see B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, pp. 3-19 and “Did the Ark Stop at Elephantine,” BAR 21 (1995) 55-67, 76-77.
8Ibid., p. 118.
9Josephus, Antiquities., XIII.3.1, 62ff.
10Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 116-122.
11Ibid., 294-298.
12ANET, p. 492.
The Conquest of Persia
334 Battle of Granicus
334-3 Conquest of Lycia, Pamphylia and Western Pisidia
333 Conquest of Cilicia, Battle of Issus
332 Siege and capture of Tyre; conquest of Egypt
331 Foundation of Alexandria; submission of Cyrene; settlement of Syria; Battle of Gaugamela; occupation of Babylon, Susa and Persepolis
330 At Ecbatana (Darius dies)
328 Conquest of Bactria and Sogdiana
327 Invasion of India
324 Returns to Susa
323 Alexander dies at Babylon
Greek culture is divided into two phases: Hellenic (c. 750-338 B.C.) and Hellenistic (338-31 B.C.). The internecine strife of the Greek city states weakened them so that a Macedonian could conquer them. The Macedonians were considered to be barbarians (but they were Greek and Greek speaking). Philip of Macedon was taught at Thebes. Philip in 338 B.C. defeated the Athenians and Thebans.
Alexander the Great inherited a great mind and militarism. He was tutored by Aristotle. Contrary to his tutor, Alexander believed that there was nobility to be found in the “barbarians.” Consequently, he determined not to rule Persia as a Macedonian king, but as a king he would rule Macedonia and Persia. He believed in mixing the races and promoted intermarriage. He held to a Greek ideal. He took over at age 21. He then marched east with battles at Isus, Tyre, Egypt, Persia, and India. He returned to Babylon where he died. His armies covered 11,000 miles in twelve years, fighting all the way. The spread of the Greek culture paved the way for Christianity.1
Alexander had no heir. Roxanne, a Bactrian princess, was pregnant at the time of his death. Her son, Alexander IV, was kept alive as the possible next king and became a pawn in the power struggle that was to last for thirty years. He was murdered by Cassander in 310. Names that figure prominently (among others) are Lysimachus (Thrace), Antigonus (Greece), Cassander, Ptolemy, Seleucid. The two dynasties with which the Bible is concerned are Ptolemy (Egypt) and Seleucid (Syria and east). These successors were never able to unite and were constantly fighting. They finally crumbled before Rome.
Uniform coinage was established and trade routes made more expanded commercial activity possible. As a result there was a wide extension of trade.
Alexandria was the commercial and Hellenistic capital of the Mediterranean world. It was the melting pot of people. She boasted the greatest library in the world. From Alexandria came the Septuagint, Philo, Origen and the subsequent extensive influence on Christianity.
Epicureanism. At first their stress on pleasure was primarily intellectual. Later they promoted pleasure for its own sake. This is known as hedonism.
Stoicism. The stoics strove for freedom from desires of life. Some pursued it through asceticism: others through debauchery.
Skeptics. They believed that nothing was knowable for certain.
Josephus’ material for the period prior to the Hasmonean era is very thin. He includes the long story about the translation of the Septuagint, most of which is considered spurious by scholars who work in this area. However, he has considerable detail once he comes to the Maccabean period. (The following notes are based on the 1973 edition of Schürer’s, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ.)2
Palestine was tossed back and forth by the Ptolemies and Seleucids until Antiochus III was able to gain permanent control at the beginning of the second century. The government of Judah under the Persians and Greeks was in the hands of the high priest who was not only in charge of religious affairs, but also ruled the political arena with the assistance of elders. This situation prevailed so long as the taxes were paid.
There were two distinct movements within Judaism: the Hellenistic party, more cooperative with the ruling culture; and the “devout” or Hasidim. During most of this period, the Hellenists appear to have had the upper hand. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.) set in motion a movement that was to change the political landscape as well as the religious situation for decades to come. By virtue of his efforts to impose Hellenism on the general Jewish population, he opened a Pandora’s Box of conservative rebellion.
The high priest at the beginning of Antiochus IV’s rule was Onias III who was apparently from the conservative party. His brother Jason (Jesus) was a Hellenist. Jason bribed Antiochus to make him high priest (174-171?). However, he was outbid by another Hellenist, Menelaus (perhaps a Benjamite), who probably caused the murder of Onias III when he was enticed from his refuge in Daphne.
Jason in turn overthrew Menelaus and so prompted Antiochus to attack Jerusalem as a rebellious city when he returned from Egypt in 169. He looted the temple treasures, caused a bloodbath, and left the city to Menelaus and a Phrygian named Philip.
The next year (168) Antiochus conducted another campaign against Egypt but was stopped by Popillius Laenas (a Roman general). Antiochus sent a tax collector to Jerusalem in 167 (Apollonius?). There was a massacre, pillaging, destruction and many Jews were sold into slavery. The Acra was built in the old city of David (not the Antonia) and occupied by pagan forces. In 167 a heathen altar was built in Jerusalem and on 25 Kislev the first offering was made to Zeus.
Mattathias, a priest from Modin, led the resistance against Antiochus’ efforts to Hellenize the Jews. He killed apostate Jews, circumcised boys, etc. He died in 166.
His son Judas (the hammer = Maccabee) led the movement after his father’s death. He won the first battle against Apollonius, and a second at Beth-Horon. Lysias, the Syrian general, sent three generals with a large force to Judea in 165. In spite of the uneven odds, Judas defeated them. In 164 Lysias himself led an army. Judas apparently defeated this army as well. He was then able to take Jerusalem and restore and purify the altar, but he was unable to take the Akra (Kislev 164). Judas then attacked and conquered many of the small territories round about. Meanwhile, Antiochus IV died while campaigning in the east. Lysias seized power through Antiochus’s son, Antiochus V (164-162).
Jews who had escaped from the Akra fled to Antiochus V and pled for intervention against the conservatives. Lysias returned to attack Judas. Although he won, trouble in Syria forced him to make concessions to the Jews that gave them religious freedom. Those concessions were not removed by subsequent rulers. Henceforth, the struggle was not over religious freedom, but over whether orthodox or Hellenists would control the leadership.
Alcimus (Yakim), a Hellenist, appealed to the new king Demetrius I Soter (162-150) who installed him as high priest. Many people, including some of the orthodox, accepted him, but Judas did not. Alcimus executed sixty of the “devout,” and thus exacerbated the situation. Judas began to gain the upper hand, and Alcimus sent to Demetrius for help. Demetrius sent General Nicanor, but he was soundly defeated by Judas. Schürer questions whether Judas ever became high priest, but says he was for all practical purposes, the ruler of the Jewish community (1:171). Judas appealed to Rome for help. The senate made a treaty with him and ordered Demetrius to let the Jews alone. However, Demetrius had already attacked. Judas’ army was defeated, and he was killed (161).
The Maccabean party was no longer effective. General Bacchides fortified various cities, reinforced the Acra, and took prominent Jewish hostages. The Hellenists were in power again under Alcimus. Jonathan was not able to assert much influence until later, and the Syrians made peace with him. The subsequent squabbles of the Syrians led their factions to cater to the Maccabees for support and thus assured the continuing position of Jonathan.
Alexander Balas challenged Demetrius for the throne of Syria and offered Jonathan the high priesthood, which he accepted. Alexander became king and honored his promises to Jonathan, but he was deposed by Demetrius II. Because of Seleucid weakness, Jonathan demanded and received concessions from Demetrius. Samaria was ceded and taxation was lifted. Jonathan continued to exploit the internal struggles of the Syrians and thus expand his power and his borders. Demetrius’ son Antiochus V arose against his father under Tryphon. Tryphon enticed Jonathan to Ptolemais where he arrested him and eventually murdered him.
Under Simon the movement that began simply to give the Jews religious freedom provided the independence of the Jewish people politically (Simon actually was more politically than spiritually motivated). Tryphon assassinated Antiochus V and took the crown. Simon turned to Demetrius II who was continuing to carry on the struggle. Demetrius granted a remission of back taxes and dropped the requirement for any future tribute. Judah thus gained her independence. Simon defeated Gazera (Gezer) and expelled the Gentiles. He was able also to defeat the Akra and thus released Jerusalem from Gentile domination.
Demetrius was captured by the Parthians and Antiochus VII carried on the struggle with Antiochus V. He at first supported the Jews, but later demanded their submission to him. When Simon refused, he sent an army which Simon’s two sons routed. Simon was assassinated along with two of his sons by an ambitious son-in-law named Ptolemy. The last of the Maccabee brothers was dead. From Mattathias’ death in 166 to Simon’s death in 135, the Jews had moved from an oppressed minority within the Seleucid Empire to an independent state with expanded borders. The Hellenistic party had been shoved aside and the conservatives were in the position of leadership. All this happened in thirty years.
Simon had the titles Prince and High Priest declared hereditary, and so his son John Hyrcanus became the next ruler of the Jewish community. Antiochus VII laid siege to John in Jerusalem and forced his capitulation and the return of Gezer and Joppa. So John lost what Simon had gained.
However, Antiochus VII was killed by the Parthians who released Demetrius II, and he again became involved in the politics of Syria (129-126 B.C.). Because of his preoccupation, he was unable to attend to the Jews, and John began to press for control of more territory. He forced the Idumeans to become circumcised. Antiochus VIII defeated and killed Alexander Zebinas and became undisputed ruler of Syria (123-113). Antiochus did not become involved in Judea, and so John Hyrcanus was left to his own. He expanded the territory further, defeating and razing the town of Samaria.
We learn for the first time the names Pharisee and Sadducees. John broke with the Pharisees and sided with the Sadducees. The Pharisees probably were nothing more than the “devout” or Hasidim. The sons of Zadok (Zadokites and Sadducees) were Hellenistic. They cooperated with Antiochus IV, accepted only the Pentateuch (not oral law) (but see p. 208), and were oriented to this life. The Maccabees were originally more in line with the Pharisees. They were the preservers of the law. The later Maccabees were more willing to cooperate with the Sadducees and John actually broke with the Pharisees, because he became increasingly more interested in the political over the spiritual.
Aristobulus reigned only one year. Josephus says that he incarcerated or killed his mother and all his brothers. Schürer wonders if this cruelty might have been invented by his Pharisee enemies.3 He forced the Itureans (living in Lebanon) to be circumcised as his father had the Edomites. He apparently should be credited with Judaizing Galilee which was predominantly Gentile.
Aristobulus’ widow, Salome Alexandra, released the three brothers from prison, elevated Alexander Jannaeus (Heb = Jonathan) to the leadership position, and married him. Jannaeus loved war and kept the country embroiled in it. He almost lost the country at one time to a Ptolemy who had left Egypt. This Ptolemy’s mother Cleopatra kept her son at bay and so preserved Judea for Alexander.
He had a running war with the Pharisees who even fought battles against him. They invited the Syrian army in and Alexander was defeated and had to sue for peace. At one point he is said to have crucified eight hundred Pharisees. Some identify him with the “wicked priest” of Qumran, although Schürer believes the founding of Qumran is too early for this. He does believe that he is represented in the Nahum Pesher as a wicked person.
Alexander’s widow became the queen at age 70 and nominated her son Hyrcanus II to be high priest. Salome (Schürer: Shalomzion) Alexandra was quite different from her husband. She sided fully with the Pharisees and reinstituted the Pharisees’ laws rescinded by her husband. She ruled well and was highly respected by all the people. The Pharisees were the de facto rulers and were reined in only under pressure from the Sadducees who were joined by Alexandra’s son Aristobulus II. Hyrcanus II was expected to succeed to the throne, but Aristobulus II was preparing to resist him. Alexandra died with the issue unresolved.
Aristobulus began to fight Hyrcanus upon the death of their mother. Hyrcanus was defeated and allowed to “go into retirement” to live off his stipends. Enter the Edomite (Idumean) Antipater. Antipater’s father, also Antipater, had been appointed governor of Idumaea by Alexander Jannaeus (remember that Hyrcanus I had subjugated the Idumeans and forced them to become circumcised). Antipater convinced Hyrcanus that he should try to regain his throne. Antipater also talked the Nabataean king, Aretas, into supporting the effort by promising asylum to Hyrcanus. Consequently, the Nabataeans and the Idumeans began to arbitrate the fate of the Jews. Aretas came after Aristobulus with an army and besieged him in the temple mount.
Pompey, a Roman general, interfered and sided with Hyrcanus. Thus Antipater and his sons, Herod and Phasael, were ensconced in Palestine.4
**********
There are virtually no details on the organization and structure of the Jewish community in the exile. From Ezekiel, we learn that there were communities of Jews which seemed to have considerable latitude. The elder rule seems to have continued in exile with false prophets and priests continuing to exercise influence.
The community that returned under Zerubbabel (later affected so dramatically by Ezra and Nehemiah) was a spiritually chastened group. They
1Little is known about this Philip except that he was the first husband of Herodias (Matt. 14:3).
2Antipas ruled Galilee and Perea (Luke 3:1; 13:32). He divorced his Nabataean wife to marry Herodias who was married to his brother Philip #1. He was banished by Caligula.
3Herod’s will had to be confirmed by Augustus. Archelaus, called an Ethnarch, was given Judea, Samaria and Idumaea (Matt. 2:22). He was later banished to Gaul, and Judea was ruled by Procurators (6-37 A.D.)
4Philip ruled Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, Panias and Iturea (Luke 3).
5Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great, eventually came into control of all the territory of Herod. He received Philip’s4 territory in 37 A.D., Antipas’2 in 39 A.D., and finally Judea and Samaria in 40 A. D. He is mentioned in Acts 12:19. His daughter Drucilla married the Roman governor Felix (Acts 24:24). He died in 44 A.D.
6During the minority of Agrippa II, Judea was again ruled by procurators.
7Agrippa II (Acts 25:13; 26:32) eventually received control of the old territory. He carried on an incestuous relationship with his sister Bernice. His kingdom went down in 70 A.D. He sided with Rome and retired in 70 A.D.5
had for the most part, learned their lesson about idolatry. The community, to which they returned, however, was a different matter. These Jews left in the land (of the poorer sort and probably uneducated) had continued the syncretistic practices so prevalent in the days of Jeremiah. The threat to the returning group was that they would quickly revert to the old practices under the influences of the people who had remained in Palestine. This threat had to be met directly and this is what is going on in the confrontations between them and Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
Certain practices (some of which may have been instituted during the exile) set in motion by Ezra and Nehemiah became the official norm for Judaism and provided the base for the development during Hellenistic times for issues that are full-blown when the gospels open.
The origin of the synagogue is obscure. Psalm 74:8 may be an early reference to synagogues (mo’de-el) from the Persian period. It is supposed that the synagogue had its precursor in the spontaneous gatherings of the Jewish people in the lands of the exile on their day of rest and also on special feast days.6
The synagogue became the stronghold of the Pharisees as opposed to the Sadducees who controlled the temple. Acts 15:11 shows that the synagogue was considered an ancient institution. Its primary purpose was one of instruction. Education became very important during Hellenistic times. Academies were begun. The “schools” of Hillel and Shammai were the most famous.
The synagogue became the means for preserving Judaism particularly in the diaspora even in the midst of pagan influence. It formed the nucleus for the Church in the propagation of the Gospel.
Because of the need to maintain the purity of worship and to avoid syncretism, a strong separatism was established. This, in many ways, seems unfair, since many of the Jews who had stayed in the land would have been of pure Jewish descent. However, the deep seated syncretism in the People of the land required that drastic action be taken.7 (I would have to assume that any “non-exiled” Jew would have been allowed to come into the community, had he pronounced himself absolutely and only loyal to Yahweh.) The extent of the separatism is indicated in the divorce decree issued by Ezra and the elders. The logical extension of this separatism is to be seen in the development of separatist sects and their rivals.8
Josephus says that there were three schools of philosophy among the Jews: Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes (Wars, II 118ff). He goes into considerable detail in describing the latter, presumably because of their uniqueness.
Josephus says that the Pharisees are considered the most accurate interpreters of the law and hold the position of the leading sect. They teach a union of providence (fate) and the free will, the immortality of the soul, but only the soul of the good passes into another body (Acts 23:6-9).
Their name in Hebrew refers to separation. They are also apparently referred to as Hasidim (the pious ones).
The Pharisees had a number of commendable attitudes. They were avid students of the Scripture, and many sought true holiness. Their problem as a group was the stress on oral tradition and their legalistic concern with minutiae. They were the implacable foes of the Sadducees. Pharisaism continued at Jabneh (Jamnia) after the destruction of the temple.
The name Sadducee is probably related to Hebrew sedeq or righteous, but it is also the name of a famous priestly family, Sadok.9
The Sadducees are priests, but not all priests are Sadducees. They form an aristocracy among the Jews, and Josephus says the common people had no use for them.
Some argue that they accept only the Pentateuch, but Josephus does not mention this. They deny providence and argue that man determines his own life. They deny the resurrection of the body, but not necessarily the immortality of the soul, although Josephus says, “They hold the soul perishes along with the body.”10
They were strictly conservative, denying any oral law and cooperating with whoever was in power. They appear only occasionally in the Gospels disputing with Jesus about the resurrection. The high priest, of course, was a Sadducee.
The Sadducees disappeared with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.
Thackeray says that the name is probably from Aramaic ḥasa, pious. Philo connects it with Greek hosios, pious.11 Josephus presents them as a strict, celibate people who must pass through four stages of initiation to be fully admitted to membership. He says that another group practiced marriage.
The relation of these Essenes to the Qumran community is generally accepted, but it seems to me that Josephus’ statement, “They occupy no one city, but settle in large numbers in every town,”12 is still puzzling.13 They held to strict providence.14
Josephus speaks of a fourth philosophy which is similar to that of the Pharisees but has a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable (cf. Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).15 Thackeray denies the equation of this group with the Zealots (note the above citation). Josephus does not call them Zealots.
They are mentioned in the New Testament twice (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:13, 3:6). Nothing is known about them. Riesner argues that they are Essenes.16 Apparently they supported Herod and hence Rome.
The returning community put great emphasis upon the law. The section in Nehemiah 8 illustrates several things and raises a number of questions. First is the place of the public reading of the Law (note the pulpit or dais). Secondly, the law was explained (interpreted?). Does this latter indicate the beginning of the Targums?17 In any event, Ezra the “Ready Scribe’’ was very much involved in the text of the OT.
The scribes were a class of learned men who made the systematic study of the law and its exposition their profession. They were similar to the Pharisees but they are not to be equated. Ezra was the first scribe in the New Testament sense. The Hebrew word is sopherim. They bitterly opposed Jesus.
1A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, pp. 51-54, says Attic koine preceded koine which in turn was influenced by other dialects. Alexander’s army was made up of diverse dialects. Thus the koine probably developed on its own rather than by official decree.
2See also Daniel 11 for a rather cryptic presentation of these events.
3Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, p. 218.
4See also, C. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1959.
5See chart in S. Perowne, The Life and Times of Herod the Great, p. 6.
6See G. F. Moore, Judaism, Vol. I, pp. 281-301.
7P. R. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia, p. 278.
8N. H. Snaith, The Jews from Cyrus to Herod, pp. 71ff.
9Josephus Antiquities XVIII, pp. 1-4.
10Ibid., p. 4.
11Josephus, Wars II, p. 119 note. See also Cross, Ancient Library of Qumran (ALQ), p. 51N.
12Wars II, p. 124.
13Cross, however (ALQ), argues extensively and cogently for a general identification. See also Todd S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
14See for more identifying marks, Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
15Antiquities, XVIII, p. 23.
16R. Riesner, “Jesus, the Primitive Community, and the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
17Targums are Aramaic paraphrases of the Scripture.
The general background on the finding of the scrolls in 1947 can be read in any introductory work. J. C. Trevor, who photographed the large Isaiah scroll in 1948 tells his version of the story in The Untold Story of Qumran, Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1965.
The initial discoveries took place in the caves of Wadi Qumran (a wadi is a dry gulch through which water runs as a torrent during the rainy season). Khirbet Qumran (Khirbet means “ruin”) is the site of a settlement which was excavated by the archaeologist after the scroll finds.
The scrolls were found in the following areas: The Eleven Qumran caves, Wadi Murabba’at (2nd c. A.D.), Desert caves south of Ein Gedi, Masada. Excavated by Yadin and published with that title (Masada), Khirbet Mird (Christian monastery at this place). If anything is New Testament it will be here (c. 500 A.D.).
There are two distinct aspects of Qumran to be considered: (1) The Essene sect and NT backgrounds and (2) the biblical text as represented at Qumran.
Who are the Qumran sectaries?
The people at Qumran are to be linked with the Essenes mentioned in Josephus (thirteen times in three works, three of which are significant: Life 1.2 #10-12; Wars, 2.8,1-3 #119-61; Antiquities. 18.1,2,5 #11,18-22), Philo, and Pliny (Natural History).1
The reasons for the linkage are (1) Josephus mentions three major groups within Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes). If these people are not Essenes, there is another major, unidentified group. (2) The similarities between Josephus’ description and what is found in the writings is too striking to be coincidental.
Josephus first mentions the Essenes in the period of Jonathan Maccabaeus around 150 B.C. He refers specifically to an Essene called Judas in the time of Aristobulus I (105-104 B.C.). His last mention is of a certain John the Essene who joined the war against Rome.2
The reconstruction of their history varies with the scholars. Part of it depends on how one is to interpret “Damascus.” Dupont-Sommer believes it is to be interpreted literally, and that the group fled to Damascus to avoid persecution by the hostile priesthood in Jerusalem linked with the Hasmoneans.3 Cross, on the other hand, leans toward a view that “Damascus” is a “prophetic name” given to Qumran based on Amos 5:25-27.4
While there continue to be many differences of opinion on the reconstruction of the history of the sect at Qumran, Dupont-Sommer’s hypothesis is as follows:
The basic events described in the Commentary on Habakkuk and The Damascus Document took place in the first century B.C.
The Teacher of Righteousness began his ministry towards the end of the second century B.C.
This ministry continued during the whole of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.) and during the reign of Alexandra (76-67 B.C.).
In the conflict between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II (67-63 B.C.), persecution was directed against the sect.
In that persecution, the Teacher of Righteousness was condemned and executed and the sectaries, shortly before the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey (63 B.C.), fled to the land of Damascus.
This Damascus exile lasted during the whole of the priestly rule of Hyrcanus II (63-40 B.C.).
The sect then resettled in Judaea and in particular in Qumran.
After about a hundred years, at the time of the great Jewish War (A.D. 66-70), the Essenes again left their home in Qumran after hiding their sacred books in the nearby caves.
The “Kittim” in the writings refer to the Romans. The Wicked Priest is John Hyrcanus II, who eventually was backed by the Romans, but was led into captivity by the Parthians.5
There was a priest messiah and a king messiah (1QS 9:11; 1QSannexe 2:11-22). This reflects a similar idea in the Old Testament of Moses/Aaron; Zerubbabel/Jeshua. 1QS 9:11 speaks of the messiahs of Aaron and Israel. This is similar to the theology of the Testament of the Twelve where the priestly messiah is from Levi (Levi 18; Judah 24; cf Sim. 7:2; Levi 2:11 and especially Judah 21:2-5).
According to 1QS 9:11 a “prophet” was to come. This may have connections with Elijah in Mal 4:5 (cf also 1 Mac. 4:46), but it should be primarily linked to Deuteronomy 18:18-19 (cf. John 1:21).6
A fragment containing teaching about Melchizedek (11QMelch) sheds light on the community’s views about this Old Testament personage.7 The Melchizedek of Qumran is a chief of sons of heaven and is referred to as אלהים and אל (Elohim and El). Some link him with Michael the archangel (Schürer) but others are less positive (de Jonge and van der Woude). See the latter two authors in the article referred to in the footnote for a very stimulating discussion about the identification of this individual and the relationship of that teaching to the New Testament. See also Fitzmyer’s bibliography on this fragment (two pages).
“The Qumran sect was not a small ephemeral group. Its substantial community at Qumran persisted some two centuries or more. Moreover, it was not restricted to Qumran, but, as we know from its documents, counted its camps and settlements in the villages of Judah. Its own sectarian literature is enormous, and of profound and direct influence on Jewish Christian and Christian movements of the first century A.D. and later.”8
Dupont-Sommer’s statement on this issue bears quoting. “It should be said at once that for the historian who considers the subject with the necessary broad-mindedness and serenity, this sect is undoubtedly representative of one of the most lofty and fruitful mystical movements of the ancient world, and is certainly one of the glories of ancient Judaism. On the other hand, although the Essenes, more than any other Jewish movement, were privileged to prepare the way for the institution of Christianity, the latter’s originality remains impregnable despite the affinities and borrowings which the new texts reveal.”9
He later points out that John the Baptist had his origins in the desert; that Jesus was linked with John and also was tempted in the desert. He also believes that the Teacher of Righteousness linked himself with the servant songs as did Jesus. He argues that, in spite of the originality of the new Messiah, “…the primitive Christian Church was rooted in the Jewish sect of the New Covenant, the Essene sect, to a degree none would have suspected, and that it borrowed from it a large part of its organization, rites, doctrines, ‘patterns of thought’ and its mystical and ethical ideals.”10
At the same time he points out six differences between Jesus Christ and the Teacher of Righteousness that prevent any confusion between the two men.
The TR was a priest of the tribe of Levi.
The TR was revered as the Priest-Messiah, the Messiah of Aaron; Jesus was recognized as the Messiah of Israel, the King-Messiah, son of David.
The TR exercised his ministry essentially in Judaea.
The TR was so superstitiously venerated that the disciples would not utter his name.
The TR was a severe ascetic, charitable no doubt, but hard on himself and others. Regarded all contact with sinners as defilement.
The TR was the exponent of a mysterious Gnosis elaborated with the help of the highest wisdom then circulating in the world and reserved for initiates; Jesus was a popular preacher, sprung from humble people and expressing himself in simple language with comparisons full of freshness and life.11
A quote from Beckwith is appropriate here in connection with references to pseudepigrapha by the NT writers: “If however, one links Christianity, not narrowly with Essenism, but more broadly with the apocalyptic and prophetic movements active in the first century (of which Essenism was an important example), one comes near to an answer…”12 “But though the Epistle of Jude may at first have played a part in popularizing the Pseudepigraphy, was it the author’s intention to do so? One may reasonably doubt whether it was. For, though his book has strong links with other New Testament books, his is the only one to make distinct reference to this kind of literature. There was evidently no general desire among the leaders and writers of the apostolic church to popularize such literature. Even the Revelation, which is itself an apocalypse, owes only very intangible debts to the pseudonymous apocalypses.”13 Beckwith rejects the idea that where the NT writer quotes a pseudepigraph that quote is an indication of the historicity of the item. He prefers to argue for a use of haggadic material to make a point.14
The customary sigla are based on the source of the piece (Cave 1, Qumran, e.g.) and the contents. 1QIsaa, e.g., means the first scroll of Isaiah from cave 1 at the site of Qumran.
No impressive finds.
The most important find was a copper scroll published in DJD. It listed over 200 tons of treasure.
This is the most important of all the caves. Tens of thousands of fragments were found. 382 MSS have been identified. About one-fourth are biblical. All the books of the Hebrew canon except Esther are represented.
There were significant but minor fragments from biblical books (see DJD, III).
Practically nothing was left because of collapse and erosion.
Here was found the beautiful 28 column MS with two thirds of the height of each column preserved (11QPsa). It comes from the early first century A.D. and contains parts of 35 canonical Psalms and eight other compositions. It was published by J. A. Sanders in DJD, IV.
New Testament materials from later Christian era were found here.
The principle find here was a copy of a Hebrew Ecclesiasticus.
The Damascus Document (CD).
Fragments of this work were found many years ago in a Cairo geniza. They have now been linked through other fragments at Qumran with the Essenes. “This Jewish sect of the Covenant which, driven out of Judaea by Persecution, sought refuge in the region of Damascus and remained there for a certain time before returning to its own country. Convinced that the Teacher of Righteousness, whom the High Priest had put to death, would return at the end of time, his disciples regrouped and reorganized themselves, and settled in their land of exile to await the great Day of God’s supreme Visitation.”20
1Todd S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
2Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 2:555-574, and 2:585-593.
3A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, pp. 339-340.
4F. M. Cross, Jr., ALQ. p. 81, n. 46.
5Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, pp. 339-357.
6See Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 2:550ff for a discussion of these issues.
7The editio princeps was published by A. S. Van Der Woude as “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI,” 354-73. For an English version of the fragment, see M. de Jonge and A. S. Van Der Woude, “1Q Melchizedek and the New Testament,” NTS 12 (1966): 301-26.
8Cross, ALQ, p. 72, n. 33.
9Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, p. 15.
10Ibid., p. 373.
11Ibid., pp. 372-373. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
12R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, p. 399.
13Ibid., 401.
14Ibid., p. 403.
15Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, p. 208.
16Ibid., pp. 222-23.
17Cross, ALQ, p. 43. N.B., if Daniel was composed in the 6th century B.C., as evangelicals believe, this statement would not be required.
18Emmanuel Tov has written extensively on the OT text, Qumran and Greek LXX. See especially, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.
19D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila, p. 168, places it in the middle of the first century A.D; plates on pp. 169-70.
20Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, p. 114.
Archaeology has not made so great a contribution to New Testament studies as it has to the Old Testament. Part of the reason for this is that Greek and Roman history are so well attested that New Testament finds do not stand out as sharply in contrast. In addition, the period under discussion is too brief to leave much in the way of archaeological evidence.
Bethlehem may be mentioned in Amarna letters.1 It has a 2500ʹ elevation. Three and one half miles south is the Herodium, a stronghold of Herod the Great (he is thought to have been buried there, though his body has never been found).2 Southeast on the west side of the Dead Sea is Masada (stronghold, 1 Sam. 23). It was fortified anew by Herod and burned by the Romans in A.D.
Jerusalem. Since the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, the Jewish quarter and the south temple area have been excavated. See for example N. Avigad’s discussion in Discovering Jerusalem. Much of the city, of course, cannot be excavated because of continuous habitation. The description of the fortification of the walls including the various towers and the beautiful temple all constructed by Herod are amply described in Josephus.3
Ossuaries (bone boxes) were discovered at Talpioth (1945) a suburb of Jerusalem. There was found a coin of Agrippa I and pottery of late Hellenistic and early Roman style from about the middle of the first century A.D. before A.D. 70. Three have Hebrew inscriptions: Simeon Barsaba, Miriam daughter of Simeon and Mattathias. Two have Greek inscriptions: Ιησου ιου Ιησου Αλωθ, on the last is a cross. Αλωθ may mean “to wail,” or עלות ‘aloth (“taken up [to Jesus]”?), or a proper name. The James ossuary (“James the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”) has provoked intensive and ongoing controversy as to its legitimacy in the last decade.
Tombs on the Mount of Olives from the first century A.D. contained 36 ossuaries. The names Jairus, Martha, Mary, Salome, Simon bar Jonah were inscribed. On one is a “Judah proselyte of Tyre” (With a Constantine monograph standing for “Jesus Christ, King). Another has the same monograph and a plus sign which probably refers to the cross.
Excavations at Capernaum produced an octagonal Byzantine church. The theory is that it covered a “sacred” site and therefore the house beneath it may have been Peter’s house.5
The fate of Jewish Christianity was sealed with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.6 Stephen was stoned, James (Zebedee) was beheaded (Acts 12:2), James (the brother of the Lord) was thrown from the temple and stoned (Eusebius). Eusebius also says that at the time of the Jewish war there was a revelation to leave the city and go to Pella on the east side of the Jordan. Christian bishops of Pella are mentioned as late as the fifth and sixth centuries A.D.
This was a kind of confederacy of ten Hellenistic towns. These towns were set free from Jewish control by Pompey. Gerasa (modern Jerash) has been excavated and was one of the most brilliant cities of the Trans-Jordan.
The ancient city of Samaria was a Hellenistic rather than a Samaritan city in the time of Christ. Alexander the Great had planted colonists there. Herod rebuilt the city, changed its name to Sebaste (Augustus), and dedicated the temple to him.
Aretas IV (2 Cor. 11:32) was a Nabatean King.
Underwater excavation has shown the accuracy of Josephus’ description of this harbor city build by Herod the Great.7
There were several Antiochs. The one (mentioned in Acts 13) was located on the Orontes River 20 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. The Romans made it a free city and the capital of Syria. There were good relations between the Jews and Gentiles. Josephus called it the third city in the empire.8 It was very cosmopolitan (see the list of names in Acts 13:1), and was therefore open to the new ideas of Paul about the universality of the church.
1ANET, p. 489, N. 21.
2See H. Shanks, “Was Herod’s Tomb Really Found?” BAR 40:3 (2014), pp. 41-48.
3Wars V, Antiquities XV, XI.
4See Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past.
5“Issue 200: Ten Top Discoveries,” BAR 35:4/5 (2009) pp. 74-96
6See B. Pixner, “Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion,” BAR 16:03 (1990) for a discussion of a Jewish Christian synagogue in Jerusalem.
7See R. Hohlfelder, “Caesarea Beneath the Sea,” BAR 8:3 (1982) and Josephus, Wars I, 408ff.
8Wars, III, (4) 29ff.
The route from the Euphrates and Antioch converged and entered the city of Tarsus. The road then ran north to the Taurus Mountains thirty miles away. The Cilician Gates were an engineered pass through the mountains 100 yards in length. The city of Tarsus was located on a navigable river. It was important as a land and sea port. It is mentioned on the Black Obelisk (c. 841 B.C.). It became Hellenized and Pompey made Cilicia a Roman province in 64 B.C. and Tarsus the residence of the Roman governor. Tarsus was then made a free city. There was a university there.1
The island was captured by Thutmose III of Egypt (c. 1500 B.C.). It was colonized by Phoenicians and Greeks. Rome took it from Ptolemy Auletes c. 58 B.C. and made it a province. It was transferred to the Senate in 22 B.C. The governor had the title of Pro-consul. An inscription of the year A.D. 55 names Paulus as Pro-consul. This is an anchor date in New Testament chronology. The date of the inscription (A.D. 55) is not the same as the date of Paulus (A.D. 46-48?), but it describes an event of Paulus’ period. The tenure of a Pro-consul was one year.2
Antioch of Pisidia was founded by Hellenists and named after Antiochus. It was a fortress against Pisidia highlanders and an island of Hellenism amidst Phrygian Asiatics. There are scant references to Jews, but there was an inscription of Debbora. She was married to a well-to-do man. There are several generations of a ruling family. These Jews were receptive and less narrow than Palestinian Jews. The Greeks were imported Magnesians (members of the Greek family), but the Phrygians were different from the people in the city. There must have been some in the city, but it was primarily Greek. Antioch was made a Roman colony in 25 B.C. The chief god was Men (not moon). There was also a female goddess exalted by the Phrygians. The religion was similar to that of the Canaanites. When Paul was at Antioch, the people who were not responsive were the aristocracy (cf. 13:50). There were important women there. The inhabitants, according to Ramsay, spoke Latin. The Coloni were against Paul.
Iconium is very similar to Damascus; it is high, has a river to its door, and mountains around it. It became famous under the Seljuks: “See all the world but see Conia.”
There was a flood tradition there. The name given after the flood was eikones (Greek: images). Ramsay gives the tradition as follows: King Nannakos lived before the flood to 300 years. He learned from an oracle that when he died, all men should perish. He called the people together for great weeping. “The weeping in the time of Nannakos” appears as a proverb in 270 B.C. and antedates Jewish influence which does not come into play until much later. (The Jews first settled in Iconium c. 280 B.C. under the Seleucids.) The gods made eikones from mud after the flood, hence, the name. Ramsay says it was an old Phrygian legend which was perhaps influenced by later Judaism but not originated by it. (The Gilgamesh Epic was known to the Hittites.)
Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54) paid attention to the organization of Lycaonia. Three cities were named after him: Claudiconium, Claudio-Derbe, Claudio-Laodicea. These were not colonies. Paul spent more time here. It was not ruled by an oligarchy. It became an important center for Christianity in Asia Minor. Christian cults were still in existence in the time of Ramsay.
Derbe lies at the foot of the Taurus Mountains. A conspicuous mountain rises to 8,000 feet in the south. The various mountain names were changed to Christian ones, but pagan belief survived. Derbe was the rudest of the Pauline cities and evidenced little progress. It made no strong impression on Asia Minor Christianity. It was located on the “Imperial Road.” There was considerable western influence in this town.
Lystra was beautiful and productive but off the main road. Berea and Lystra were more alike: rustic not cosmopolitan. Travelers may have used it as a rest place to return to Iconium. Both Lystra and Derbe were cities of Lycaonia and ranked as villages under the Anatolian system. Acts 14:6 means that they were in Roman Lycaonia (Galati Lycaonia). Lystra was a colony but a young one compared to Antioch.
Summary: Tarsus was the most oriental; Antioch was a Hellenistic city or colony. All were mixed.3
Paul spent three years here (Acts 19:1, 8-10; 20:31) the longest in any city. Ephesus was Asiatic and Greek, going through the usual changing of hands. According to Wright, the population was about 250,000. It was on a river three miles from the sea, and its location caused it to rank with Antioch in Syria and Alexandria in Egypt. However, the river had to be dredged.
Diana (Roman name) or Artimus (Greek name) represented the mother goddess who was Asiatic and similar to the goddesses in the Canaanite pantheon (fertility cult). Her temple was one of the seven wonders of the world. Excavations go back to the strata of the eighth century B.C. There was a greater temple in 550 B.C. which was burned in 356 B.C. The Hellenistic temple was built in 350 B.C. and paid for by Alexander the Great. The city was sacked in 262 A.D. and the temple destroyed. The platform was 239 feet by 418 and the temple itself was 160 feet by 340. There were 100 columns over 55 feet high. Some were sculptured to twenty feet. The statue may have been sculptured from a meteorite (fallen from Jupiter, Acts 19:35). The month Artimision (March-April) brought tourists and pilgrims. Perhaps this was why Paul tarried (Acts 19:26).
The theater held about 25,000 people and the finest street was called the Arkadiane. It extended 1735 feet from the theater to the harbor and was paved with marble.4
1See Ramsay, The Cities of Saint Paul, p. 228. Most of the discussion that follows is from this source.
2See Wright, BA, p. 252, Zahn, New Testament Introduction, III, 464ff.
3Outline from Ramsay, Cities of Saint Paul.
4This Ephesus summary is from Parvis, BAR #2 (1945).
The Egnatian Way was once the main thoroughfare of Philippi. Pieces of the curb stone are still visible. A small river flows about a mile from the town and must have been the one in Acts 16 (if no synagogue was available, Jews were to meet by a flowing stream).
Excavations were carried out by the French École Francaise d’Athènes (1914-1938). The Roman forum was 300 feet by 150 feet. There were temples overlooking it on each side. There was a raised platform for orators and magistrates. It was probably to this that Paul and Silas were dragged. The current ruins date from the second century A.D.
The plain of Philippi was the site of the battle for the control of the Roman Empire after the death of Julius Caesar. In 42 B.C., Antony and Octavian there defeated Caesar’s murders, Brutus and Cassius. To celebrate the victory the conquerors made the city a Roman colony, and veterans of the battle were among the first citizens (coloni, cf. πολιτεύσθε in Phil. 1:27 and πολίτευμα in 3:20). Women seemed to be prominent in the church. There was no synagogue, yet the Judaizers came in.1
This city was founded by Cassander (315 B.C.) and named after the sister of Alexander the Great. It was made a free city because of its support of Antony and Octavian. It was the most populous city of Macedonia and today is a modern, important sea port. There is an arch in Thessalonica with the inscription “In the time of the politarchs…” a word that is found only in Luke (it was on the Varder gate, now removed for modern construction).
This town was quiet and off the beaten track. There was a better class of people here, and both Jews and Gentiles were saved.
The city of Athens has been very well excavated. The acropolis is 512 feet high and comes from the golden age of Pericles. After the sacred precincts of the acropolis, ranks the agora. Areopagus (Hill of Ares, god of war, hence, Mars hill in Latin) is a bare rocky hill 377 feet high. Northwest of the acropolis was Pericles’ criminal court. Paul spoke before the city officials. Unknown gods were common. Paul viewed Athens, not in her aesthetic splendor, but as a city in raw heathenism. His sermon was appropriate and forceful, but not successful. Here were the Stoics, Epicureans, and much sophistry.
Going to Corinth involves moving from the intellectual to the commercial center of the world. Shipping went from Corinth to Cenchreae. The Corinthian Canal, built in 1881, is four miles long and allows sailors to avoid a 200 mile trip. Corinth became famous because of its port facilities. The religion of Aphrodite was practiced here. Archaeological work has uncovered the forum and an inscription mentioning Erastus, a chamberlain who was an important person (see Rom 16:23). There is an inscription “Synagogue of the Hebrews” from c. 100 B.C. to 200 A.D. Gallio was Proconsul during Paul’s time there. His name appears on an inscription at Delphi dated c. July, 51. The Isthmian Games were held between the Olympian games.2
The town of Herculaneum, 15 miles east of Puteoli, was destroyed in 79 A.D. It has an upper room with a cross. Paul spent seven days here (Acts 28:14). Pompeii has a strange inscription which may be Aramaic in Latin characters. (Perhaps: “A strange mind has driven A., and he has pressed in among the Christians who make a man a prisoner as a laughing stock.”)
The streets of Rome were nine feet wide to allow for balconies. There were 60 miles of streets which were cluttered with refuse and people. Finegan discusses the living conditions.3 The population was about 4,100,000 (quadruple today’s population).
1The above comes from Wright, BA.
2See O. Broneer, “The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games,” BAR #2, pp. 393-420.
3Finnegan, Light from the Ancient Past, p. 368.
ALQ Ancient Library of Qumran (Cross)
ANE condensation of ANEP/ANET (Pritchard)
ANEP Ancient Near East in Pictures (Pritchard)
ANET Ancient Near East Texts (Pritchard)
AOTS Archaeology and Old Testament Studies
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BA Wright’s Biblical Archaeology
BANE The Bible and the Ancient Near East
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
BibSac Bibliotheca Sacra
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CTM Concordia Theological Monthly
DTS Dallas Theological Seminary
EBC Expositors Bible Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIDBA The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology
NTS New Testament Studies
OROT On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Kitchen)
RB Revue Biblique
SATC From Stone Age to Christianity (Albright)
TrinJ Trinity Journal
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
ZBD Zondervan Bible Dictionary
Ackroyd, P. R. Israel under Babylon and Persia. Oxford: Univ. Press, 1970.
Adams, J. M. (Rev. J. A. Calloway) Biblical Backgrounds, Nashville: Broadman, 1965.
Albright, W. F. From Stone Age to Christianity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1957.
_____. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1967.
_____. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1969.
_____. “The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civilization” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961.
Anstey, A. Chronology of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1973.
Archer, Gleason. Daniel in Expositors Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
Avigad, N. Discovering Jerusalem. Israel: Shikmona Pub. Co., 1980.
Avi-Yonah, M. The Holy Land: From Persia to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640); a Historical Geography, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966.
Barthélemy, D. Les Devanciers d’Aquila. Sup. to VT. Leiden: Brill, 1963.
Beall, Todd S. Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series 58, Cambridge, University Press, 1988.
Beck, John C. The Fall of Tyre According to Ezekiel’s Prophecy, Th.M. Thesis, DTS.
Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985).
Bittel, Kurt. Hattusha, The Capital of the Hittites. NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1970.
Blaiklock, E. M. Archaeology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.
_____. and R. K. Harrison. The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959.
_____. “Has Archaeology Found Evidence for the Flood?” Biblical Archaeologist Reader I, 32-40. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1961.
Brinkman, J. A. “Merodach-Baladan II” in Studies Presented to Leo Oppenheim, Chicago: Oriental Institute of University of Chicago, 1964.
Buber, S., ed., Midrasch Tanchuma, Vilna, 1885.
Cambridge Ancient History, Vols. 1-2.
Campbell, E. F. and D. N. Freedman. The Biblical Archaeologist Reader II. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1970.
_____. The Biblical Archaeologist Reader III. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1970.
_____. The Biblical Archaeologist Reader IV. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1973.
Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1978.
Charlesworth, James H. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Doubleday, 1995.
Childe, V. G. New Light on the Most Ancient East. NY: Knopf, 1929. Fourth ed. NY: F. A. Praeger, 1953.
Contenau, Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria. NY: W. W. Norton, 1966.
Conybeare, W. J. and J. S. Howson. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976 (reprint).
Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire, NY: Schocken Books, 1983.
Cowley, A. Aramaic Papyri. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923.
Crockett, W. D. A Harmony of Samuel Kings and Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959.
Cross, F. M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
_____. Ancient Library of Qumran. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961.
Curtis, Adrian. Ugarit, Ras Shamra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
Custance, A. The Three Sons of Noah. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.
Daiches, Samuel. The Jews in Babylonia in the Times of Ezra and Nehemiah according to Babylonian Inscriptions, London: Jews’ College, 1910.
Davies, P. R. In Search of “Ancient Israel,” Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.
Day, John. “Religion of Canaan” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:834
de Sélincourt, A. The World of Herodotus. Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1962.
Deuel, Leo. The Treasures of Time. NY: World, 1961.
DeVaux, R. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971.
_____. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
_____. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
DeVries, C. E. “The Bearing of Current Egyptian Studies on the Old Testament” in New Perspectives on Old Testament Study. Waco, TX: Word Publisher, 1970.
Donner, H. and W. Rollig. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. 2:6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968.
Driver, S.R. The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen & Co., 1905.
Dupont-Sommer, A. The Essene Writings from Qumran, G. Vermes, trans. (Glouchester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973).
Durant, W. Our Oriental Heritage. Vol. 1 of History of Civilization, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1935.
Edwards, I. E. S., Ed. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3. Cambridge: University Press, 1970.
Eisenman, R. and Michael Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. Rockport, MA: Element, 1992.
Eissfeldt, O. Introduction to the Old Testament. Tr. P. Ackroyd. NY: Harper & Row, 1965.
Erlandsson, Seth. Burden of Babylon. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, n.d.
Fensham, F. C. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah in NICOT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Finegan, Jack. Light from the Ancient Past. Princeton: University Press, 1946.
_____. In the Beginning. NY: Harper & Brothers, 1962.
Finkelstein, Israel and N. A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, NY: Free Press, 2000.
Fitzmyer, J. A. The Dead Sea Scrolls—Major Publications and Tools for Study, Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975,77.
_____. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967.
Freedman, D. N. and Jonas Greenfield. New Directions in Biblical Archaeology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1969.
Gadd, C. J. “Ur” in AOTS. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
Gardiner, A. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: University Press, 1961.
Gardiner, A. H. and Thomas Eric Peet. The Inscriptions of Sinai. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1952-55.
Gaster, T. The Dead Sea Scriptures. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.
Gelb, I. J. The Study of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952.
Glueck, Nelson. Rivers in the Desert. NY: Farrar, Strauss, Cudahy, 1959.
_____. The River Jordan. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1968.
Gordon, Cyrus. “Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets.” BA3:1 (1940) 1-12.
Gurney, O. R. The Hittites. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1954.
Hall, H. R. “The Eclipse of Egypt,” in The Cambridge Ancient History 3:251-269 (1929).
Hallo, W. W. The Ancient Near East: A History, 1971, p. 145.
Harris, Zellig. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1936.
Harrison, R. K. “Edom; Edomites,” The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, eds., Blaiklock and Harrison, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
Hilprecht, H. V. and A. T. Clay, Business Documents of Murashu Sons of Nippur Dated in the Reign of Artaxerxes I (464-424 B.C.), Babylonian Expedition 9. Phila: University of PA, 1898.
Hindson, E. E. The Philistines and the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971.
Hoerth, Alfred J. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Josephus. Against Apion. Loeb. T. E. Page, ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Kelso, J. Archaeology and Our Old Testament Contemporaries. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1966.
K. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land. 1979. Rep. Nashville: Nelson, 1985.
_____. Digging Up Jericho. London: Ernest Benn, Ltd., 1957.
_____. Royal Cities of the Old Testament. London: Barris and Jenkins, 1971.
Kitchen, K. The Ancient Orient and the Old Testament. Chicago: Intervarsity Press, 1966.
_____. The Bible in its World; the Bible and Archaeology Today. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1977.
_____. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.), Warminster, Eng.: Aris & Phillips, ltd., 1986.
_____. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Kramer, History Begins at Sumer. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959.
Lacheman, E. R. Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Laughlin, John C. Archaeology and the Bible, NY: Routledge, 2000.
Lapp, P. Biblical Archaeology and History. NY: World Publishing, 1969.
Lemche, Niels Peter. The Israelites in History and Tradition, Louisville: Westminster: John Knox, 1998.
Luckenbill, D. D. Annals of Sennacherib. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924.
Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE. NY: Doubleday, 1990.
Macqueen, J. G. The Hittites and their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1975.
Mallowan, M. E. L. “Nimrud” in AOTS. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
Matthiae, Paolo. Ebla, an Empire Rediscovered, Tr. C. Holme. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.
Mazar, Amahai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE. Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1992.
McCullough, W. Stewart. The History and Literature of the Palestinian Jews from Cyrus to Herod (550 B.C. to 4 B.C.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975.
Milik, J. T. ed. Discoveries in the Judean Desert. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.
Miller, J. Maxwell and John H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.
Mitchell, T. C. “Philistia” in AOTS. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
Montet, P. Lives of the Pharaohs. Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1968.
_____. Egypt and the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.
Moore, George F. Judaism in the First Century of the Christian Era. NY: Schocken Books, 1958. Vol. 1.
Moscati, S. The Face of the Ancient Orient. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1962.
Myers, J. M. Ezra and Nehemiah in the Anchor Bible. NY: Doubleday, 1965.
Newsome, J. D., Jr., A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.
Noth, M. The Old Testament World, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962.
_____. Das System der Zwolf Stamme Israels. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1930.
Oates, Joan. Babylon, London: Thames & Hudson, 1979, rev. ed., 1986.
Olmstead, A. T. History of Palestine and Syria to the Macedonian Conquest. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.
_____. The History of Persia, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948.
Oppenheim, Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University Press, 1964.
Oswalt, John N. The Bible among the Myths. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Payne, J. Barton, ed. New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970.
Perowne, S. The Life and Times of Herod the Great, NY: Abingdon Press, 1956
Pettinato, G. The Archives of Ebla, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.
Petrie, W. M. F. Researches in Sinai, London: J. Murray, 1906.
Pfeiffer, C. F. Old Testament History. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973.
_____. Tell El Amarna and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963.
_____. Ras Shamra and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962.
Pinches, T. G. “Chaldea” in International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1:589, 1929 edition.
Porten, B. Archives of Elephantine. Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1968.
Pritchard, J. B. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Princeton: University Press, 1958.
_____. Ancient Near East. Vol 1. Princeton: University Press, 1958.
_____. Ancient Near East. Vol 2. Princeton: University Press, 1975.
_____. The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Princeton: University Press, 1969.
_____. The Ancient Near East in Texts. Princeton: University Press, 1969.
_____. Gibeon Where the Sun Stood Still. Princeton: University Press, 1962.
Provan, Ian, V. Philips Long, Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
Ramsey, Wm. M. The Cities of Saint Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960 (reprint from 1907 edition by Hodder and Stoughton, London).
_____. St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960 (reprint from 1897 edition by Hodder and Stoughton, London).
Rawlinson, G. The Origin of Nations. NY: Scribners, 1881.
Redford, D. B. Akhenaten, the Heretic King. Princeton: University Press, 1984.
Riesner, R. “Jesus, the Primitive Community, and the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. NY: Doubleday, 1992.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.
Rosenthal, F. ed., An Aramaic Handbook, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967.
Sanders, J. A. The Dead Sea Psalm Scroll. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Press, 1967.
Sanders, N. K. The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, 1250-1150, London: Thames & Hudson, 1978.
Sayce, A. H. The Hittites; the Story of a Forgotten Empire. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1903.
Scheuer, J. G. “Searching for the Phoenicians in Sardinia.” BAR 16:1 (1990) 53-60.
Schmidt, W. Der Ursprung der Gottsidee. 12 vols. Münster: Aschendorffsche, 1931.
Schoville, Keith. Biblical Archaeology in Focus, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978.
Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. 4 vols. Rev. and Ed. By G. Vermes and F. Millar. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973.
Segal, M. H. The Pentateuch. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.
Smick, Elmer B. Archaeology of the Jordan Valley. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973.
Snaith, N. H. The Jews from Cyrus to Herod, Nashville: Abingdon, 1956.
Speiser, E. A. Genesis in The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.
Stern, Ephraim (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, p. 75-87. Simon & Schuster, 1993.
Stolper, Matthew. Entrepreneurs and Empire. Leiden [Netherlands]: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1985.
Strack, Hermann and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. Munich: Beck, 1922-61.
E. Thiele. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Chicago: University press, 1951.
Tov, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Augsburg: Fortress. 1992, 2001.
Thompson, Thomas L. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel, NY: Basic, 1999.
Trevor, J. C. The Untold Story of Qumran, Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1965.
Tubb, Jonathan. Canaanites. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1998.
Unger, Merrill. Israel and the Arameans of Damascus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957.
Van Der Woude, A. S. “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI,” Oud Testamentische Studien, 14 (Leiden, 1965).
van Seters, John. In Search of History, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
_____. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.
Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
Weir, C. J. M. “Nuzi” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. Winton Thomas, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
Webb, Barry G. The Book of Judges, NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Whitcomb, John C., Jr. Darius the Mede, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1975.
Whitelam, Keith W. The invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History. NY: Routledge, 1996.
Williamson, H.G.M. Ezra/Nehemiah in the Word Commentary, Waco: Word, 1985.
Wilson, John A. The Burden of Egypt. Chicago: University Press, 1951.
Wilson, Robert D. Studies in the Book of Daniel. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2 vols., 1972.
Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1956.
_____. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. London: Oxford University Press, 1985.
_____. Illustrations from Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.
_____ et al. Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: The Tyndale Press, 1965.
_____. Ed. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.
Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel’s History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.
_____. “The Date of the Exodus.” In New Perspectives on Old Testament Study. Waco, TX: Word Publisher, 1970.
_____ and D. N. Freedman. BAR #1. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1961.
_____. Ed. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. NY: Doubleday, 1961.
Young, E. J. Isaiah in NICOT. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.
Zahn, T. Introduction to the New Testament. Tr. J. LM. Trout, et alia. 3 vols. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1953.