EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Yairah Amit: Judges Shimon Bar-Efrat: First and Second Samuel [revised by Marc Zvi Brettlerj

Amitai Baruchi- Unna: Geography ofBiblical Land ofIsrael Ehud Ben Zvi: Introduction to The Twelve and The Twelve Minor Prophets

Adele Berlin: Editor; Introduction: What Is the Jewish Study Bible? [with Marc Zvi Brettler]' Psalms [with Marc Zvi Brettlerj, Introduction to The Five Megillot [with Marc Zvi Brettlerj, Lamentations, Esther,

Introduction to the Essays [with Marc Zvi Brettlerj, Reading Biblical Poetry Oded Borowski: Daily Life in Biblical Times

Marc Zvi Brettler: Editor; Introduction: What is the Jewish Study Bible? [with Adele Berlin], Introduction to Torah, Introduction to Nevi'im, Introduction to Kethuvim, Psalms [with Adele Berlin], Introduction to

The Five Megillot [with Adele Berlin], Introduction to the Essays [with Adele Berlin], Modern Jewish Interpretation, The Canonization ofthe Bible, Gender in the Bible

Edward Breuer: Jewish Biblical Scholarship from the 17th to the 19th Centur'es Yaakov Elman: Classical Rabbinic Interpretation

Esther Eshel: The Bible in the Dead Sea Scrolls Steven E. Fassberg: Languages rj the Bible Michael Fishbane: The Bible in the Jewish Mystical Tradition

~ichael V Fox: Proverbs Nili S. Fox: Numbers Tova Ganzel: Ezekid Stephen A. Geller: The Religion ofthe Bible Leonard J. Greenspoon: Jewish Translatilns ofthe Bible

Edward L. Greenstein: Job Shalom E. Holtz: Reading Biblical Law Victor Avigdor Hurowitz: The Temple [edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi BretJer]

Jonathan Klawans: Concepts ofPurity in the Bible Ruth Langer: The Bible in thtLiturgy Jacob Lassner: The Hebrew Bible and Biblical Exegesis in the Qur'an and Muslim Tadition

Jon D. Levenson: Genesis Amy-Jill Levine: Use ofthe Hebrew Bible in the New TlStament Baruch A. Levine: Biblical Festivals and Fast Days Bernard M. Levinson: Deute-onomy Oded Lipschits: The History ofIsrael in the Biblical Period Peter Machinist: Eccesiastes

Aren M. Maeir: Archeology and the Hebrew Bible Hindy Najman: Ezra, Nehemiah, Early Nonrabbinic Interpretation

Jordan S. Penkower: The Development ofthe Masoretic Bible Adele Reinhartz: Ruth, Jewish Women's Scholarly Writings on the Bible

Dalit Rom-Shiloni: Jeremiah David Rothstein: First and Second Chronicle. Jonathan D. Sarna: The Jewish Bible in America

Jack M. Sasson: On the Bible and the Ancient Near East Baruch J. Schwartz: Levticus Avigdor Shinan: The Bible in the Synagogue Uriel Simon: The Bible in Israeli life

Benjamin D. Sommer: Isaiah, Inner-biblical Interpretation Daniel Sperber: Jewish~'ustoms David Stern: Midrash and Jewish Exegesis Elsie Stern: The Song ofSongs

Sacha Stern: Biblical Calendars Marvin A. Sweeney: Historical and Ideal Davidic Kingship, The Modern Study ofthe3ible

Jeffrey H. Tigay: Exodus Hava Tirosh-Samuelson: The Bible in the Jewish Philosophica Tradition Emanuel Tov: Textual Criticism Barry D. Walfish: Medieval Jewish [nterpretatm

Nili Wazana: Joshua Lawrence M. Wills: Daniel Jacob 1. Wright: War and Peace i, the Bible Yair Zakovitch: Reading Biblical Narrative Ziony Zevit: First and Second Kin§

THE JEWISH STUDY BIBLE

Second Edition

Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler EDITORS

Jewish Publication Society

TANAKH Translation

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

"2-0 I ~

j; I:)

Ht :l

~ I.i. ~ . ..!•. '~

It!:t '.III.... ; ..

I; j.

fl~.~I.....~r.o'

I* ;

' ',- ~

" i' , • i ~

I " ;i' , J~\ - H,

'Ji 'J

i1;j';

:/1 :

'; 'ji.. ,~·.'.1 ::' ,

:"1 f

:~ I

BACKGROUNDS FOR READING THE BIBLE

"hidden;' possibly hinting at the part of the sky which the sun never visits; the term for south, darom, not impossibly derived from dur "circle" referring to the route the sun takes from east to west through the southern sky. The most primitive (and probably old­est) set of geographical designations follows the human body, in which panim (face) or qedem (front) designate the east. Thus, facing the rising sun, the back or behind Cal:zor) is west, yamin (right) is south, and smol (left) is north. (Thus the phrase liphne [derived from panim, "face"]-lit. "before the face of, in front of" should be rendered "to the east of" much more frequently than reflected in translations.) The first two components of this set are used to describe the timeline as well; thus "face" and "front" designate the past time, whereas "behind" refers to the (un­seen) future. Finally, a parallel set ofterms for cardinal directions uses the map of the land: Negev is south; yam (sea) is west; and zaphon is north, possibly after Mt. Zaphon, by the northern part of the eastern Mediterranean

ESSAYS

coast. (No term for east is certain for this set, although it may be qedem after "the sons of Qedem" ["Kedemites;' Judg. 8.10].) Thus Gen. 28.14 states:

Your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread out to the west [lit. "toward the sea"] and to the east [lit. "toward the front;' or "toward the land of the sons of Qedem"]' to the north [lit. "toward the hiding place" or "toward Mt. Zaphon"] and to the south [lit. "toward the Negev"]. All the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you and your descendants.

Though probably of different historical and geographical origins, the components of these three sets are sporadically used in the Bible, with no apparent pattern or distribution. They all share the notion that there are four basic compass points, an idea first attested in Mesopotamia that continues to this very day.

[AMITAI BARUCHI-UNNA]

Archeology and the Hebrew Bible

Hand-in-hand with the development of the modern study of the Hebrew Bible, from the mid-19th c. CE onwards, archeology has been recognized as a crucial tool for the study of the Bible and its cultural and material backgrounds. While earlier research placed a strong emphasis on using the archeologi­cal finds to illustrate the historical veracity of events described in the Bible-at times based on rather tenuous connections-in more recent times, a more judiciOUS use of archeological remains has become the domi­nant approach of most scholars of "Biblical Archeology:'

In the following discussion, archeological dating corresponds to the following standard terminology. Archeologists use a system of dating that relies on the technological level

of the society. The time from 3600 BCE to 586 BCE is divided as follows:

Bronze Age: 3600 BCE -1200 BCE

Early Bronze Age: 3600-2000 Middle Bronze Age: 2000-1550 Late Bronze Age: 1550-1200

Iron Age: 1200-586 BCE

Iron Age I: 1200-1000 Iron Age II: 1000-586

After 586 BCE, time periods are based on his­torical and political factors, as follows:

Babylonian Period: 586-539 Persian Period: 539-332 Hellenistic Period: Begins in 332

ESSAYS

Nowadays, the study of Biblical Archeol­ogy, which some scholars prefer to call the Archeology of Syro-Palestine, involves the excavation and study of material remains of the periods, cultures, and regions in which the biblical texts were formed and relate to. This ranges from the appearance of early vil­lages and city states in the Levant (from the late Prehistoric periods, ca. 10,000 BCE) and until the advent of Hellenism (ca. 4th c. BCE),

and from the Southern Levant (the Land of Israel and its surroundings),-tgypt, Mesopo­tamia, Syria, Anatolia (modern Turkey), and to a certain extent, even the Aegean region, Persia, and Sudan. While the archeological evidence can, at times, provide direct evi­dence for events, processes, and on occasion even people mentioned in the biblical text, first and foremost the archeological evidence should be used to provide a broad-based cultural background for the understanding of the biblical texts, enabling correlations between suggested periods of the formation and development of the biblical text and the material culture which are reflected in the texts, and if possible, assisting in determin­ing the dating and cultural background of particular texts.

The field of Biblical Archeology covers an enormous range of topics. The following es­say presents major biblical places and events that are (or in some cases, are not) reflected in the archeological record, major archeolog­ical sites in the Land of Israel, various topics on which archeology sheds light (including daily life in ancient Israel, social structure, and the Heb language), and some of the ma­jor issues and debates in current research.

Places and Events

In the earliest days of Biblical Archeology, ex­cavators searched for material evidence that corroborates the biblical text. Although there is archeological and historical evidence (from extra biblical documents) supporting vari­ous events of the monarchical period (esp. the later period) recorded in the Bible, there

ARCHEOLOGY AND THE HEBREW BIBLE

is little, if any evidence corroborating the biblical depiction of early Israelite or Judean history. Thus, although attempts have been made to identify an early, pre-Iron Age (ca. pre-1200 BCE) Sitz im Leben (Le., historical context or "life-Situation") for the patriarchal narratives, the many anachronisms in these narratives (e.g., mention ofthe domesticated camel and of the Philistines) preclude a pre­Iron Age date, and the overall setting of these stories fits an Iron Age background at the earliest.

Similarly, attempts to identify archeologi­cal evidence for the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the exodus have been unsuccessful. Mainstream archeological research has not succeeded in identifying concrete, specific remains that verify any of the details of these biblical narratives, though these narratives may recall, in a broad sense, cultural memo­ries of connections between Egypt and the Southern Levant during the late Bronze and early Iron Ages.

For close to a century, scholars have debated if the archeological record in Israel reflects the conquest and settlement stories in Tosh. and Judg., and have deliberated more generally concerning the processes relating to the appearance of the early Israelites in the early Iron Age (ca. 1200-1000 BCE). While at first many scholars proposed archeologi­cal evidence for a large-scale destruction of Canaanite sites at the end of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1200 BCE), save for a small number of sites (which may have been destroyed at different times and by different groups-e.g., Hazor, Lachish, Yarmuth [NTPS: Tarmuth]), there is no evidence for wide-scale destruc­tion at the end of the Late Bronze Age; this contradicts the main story in Josh.

Others have suggested that a slow pro­cess of infiltration from outside of Canaan occurred at this time, but once again, this may be seen only in a small number of sites, and the very strong connections of the early Israelite culture to the preceding Canaanite culture speak against this model. There­fore, many scholars have suggested, most

l';r. - 2124- - 2125­1.:\ : I

t,

ii .~ ; i~

;"

i~ I ,

I, I'

',/:,'II,,I j }

i 'Ir, ~ -l­

'i ,~; "!,

"

fi

IiI','rl

I

I ,~

r iFII: r

I:

it IHI:,I,

I ; i 1

IIIi I'I!

II, I

I

BACKGROUNDS FOR READING THE BIBLE

plausibly, that significant components of the early Israelite tribes in fact originated within Canaan. Perhaps the genesis ofIsrael should be seen in relation to social dislocation from urban Canaanite culture, or, as many pres­ently agree, within the ongoing oscillation be­tween nomadic, rural, and urban subsistence patterns ofthe autochthonous population of highland Canaan.

While it is clear that the early Israelites shared many features with Canaanite culture, differences existed as well. The very differ­ent characters of their subsistence, level of technological sophistication, socioeconomic development and other factors, make it pos­sible to speak of Israelites as distinct from Canaanites by the end of the second millen­nium. Various early sites from the Israelite period (1000-600 BCE) have been identified, such as Giloh, Izbet Sartah (a site between Aphek and Shiloh), Khirbet Raddana (close to Ai), Shiloh, Mt. Ebal and perhaps sev­eral "sandal sites," so-called based on their shape, resembling a giant footprint or sandal. These early Israelite sites are characterized by simple architecture without fortifications, evidence of animal pens and silos, and a very basic material culture lacking wealth and prestige items,

Several early Israelite cultic sites have been identified as well, such as at Shiloh, Mt. Ebal and the "Bull Site" near Dothan in northern Samaria. These sites and their material as­semblage represent a change from the Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture, but, once again it is unknown if they represent new populations, for example, Israel.

From the same period, a much clearer picture of Philistine culture is emerging from the southern coastal plain ("Philistia"). The appearance and character of the Philistine culture mirrors the biblical description of a largely foreign group that often conflicted with the Israelites and Judeans. While for­merly it was assumed that the Philistines represented a relatively uniform group of more or less single origin, one of a so-called "Sea Peoples" who each captured and settled

ESSAYS

along different parts of the eastern Mediter­ranean littoral, current archeological evi­dence indicates that they were comprised of groups of various origins, non-Levantine and Levantine, who combined together to form a unique, "entangled" (that is, composite) culture, Contemporary scholarship does point to one Sea Peoples group that settled in the Arnuq region in Southern Turkey, per­haps called the Palistin-possibly a "northern Philistine" entity. The Philistines in Philis­tia underwent a process of cultural change throughout the early Iron Age (continuing into later phases of the Iron Age as well), re­taining some aspects of their unique culture, while shedding others.

The Early Monarchy

Archeological evidence for the early stages of the monarchy is minimal at best. The at­tempts to identify the formation of a polity in the region north of Jerusalem in the late Iron I1early IIA (ca. 11th /loth c. BCE), per­haps mirroring the biblical tradition of the kingdom of Saul, are tenuous. The question of the existence of archeological evidence for the "united monarchy" of David and Solo­mon is extensively debated in contemporary scholarship. Most scholars in the mid-to-Iate 20th c. CE believed that concrete evidence of the "united monarchy" could be identified (such as the so-called "Solomonic gates" at Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo); at present, this is a highly contested topic, dependent on complex stratigraphic-chronological issues. Some scholars continue to believe that the united monarchy was a large and prosper­ous kingdom, mirroring to a large extent the image portrayed in the biblical text; others suggest that there was a kingdom of David and Solomon but of a minor scale; still others question the very existence of this early kingdom and see it instead as a literary creation of the later Judean kingdom, or even post-Iron Age times, after the 6th c. BCE. This debate is connected to whether, in the eyes of various scholars, there was an initial "united

'"1 I I ESSAYS ~

monarchy" followed by a divided northern and southern kingdom, or whether the Northern Kingdom was the first substantial polity, and only later, with its weakening and destruction in the 8th c. BCE, did the southern Judean kingdom create a narrative claiming primacy. In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials from this early stage of the Iron Age II (after 1000 BCE), and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early unitej monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic com­p�exity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests. The mention of the "House of David" in the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the mid/late 9th c. BCE, does not prove the existence of an extensive Davidic kingdom in the early 10th c. BCE, but does indicate a Judean polity during the 9th c. that even then associated its origin with David. In addition, the archeological record indicates that Judah was becoming more powerful by the late 9th c. Some scholars see the Tel Dan inscription as evidence for a historical David, and find a royal palace in the City of David in Jerusalem, and find Khirbet Qeiyafa (an ancient city overlooking the Elah Valley) in the Shephelah, to have been at one time an important Davidic city, but their evidence is inconclusive,

The Sheshonq/Shishaq campaign of ca. 925 BCE, in which this Egyptian Pharaoh of the 22nd Dynasty (Sheshonq I) campaigned to the Levant, may offer the first interface between the archeological remains, and biblical (see 1 Kings 14.25-26) and nonbibli­cal records. Some scholars have identified specific destruction layers from this period at sites in the Levant, even identifying finds relating to the campaign (such as the frag­ment of the Sheshonq stela at Megiddo, and most recently, a Sheshonq scarab at Faynan), or attempting to explain changes in settle­ment patterns as reflecting this event. Some scholars believe that the supposedly clear cut archeological evidence reflects an Egyptian attempt to curtail the geopolitical status of the "united monarchy" and its successor.

ARCHEOLOGY AND THE HEBREW BIBLE

Other scholars, however, have dated the vari­ous destruction levels that supposedly relate to this campaign differently; the very dating of specific archeological strata to the late 10th c. BCE is highly contested (see below).

Remains from the 9th c. BCE northern Is­raelite kingdom provide ample archeological evidence of a substantial rise in the level of sociopolitical complexity. Signs of developed urbanism-including fortifications, palaces, water systems, stables, socioeconomic hier­archy-along with evidence of international trade and the beginning of more extensive literacy, indicate that substantial change occurred during this period. This evidence accords well with Assyrian documents and inscriptions on the role that the kingdom of Israel, and the Omride Dynasty in particular, played in Levantine region politics, and is mirrored as well in the regional role of this kingdom in the biblical text. At this time, the kingdom of Israel was embroiled in a geopo­litical struggle with the Arameans, in particu­lar under the reign of Hazael of Damascus. Various destruction layers at sites in the north and south of the Levant have been related to these events (e.g., Re\:lov [ca. 5 km south of Beth-shean], Jezreel, Gath, Beit Zayit [a mod­ern village in Israel 7 Ian west ofJerusaleml and others).

During the 8th c. BCE, and in particular during its second half, both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah became much more visible, from an archeological and historical perspec­tive. By then, both kingdoms had reached a higher level of sociopolitical complexity, as shown by the unambiguous archeological evidence in many urban and rural contexts. In addition, their expanding role in regional geopolitics is reflected in various Neo-Assyri­an texts.

Several noteworthy events and processes are reflected in the archeological record. During the early 8th c. both Israel and Judah show evidence of expanded cities with various manifestations of socioeconomic complexity, such as foreign trade. Exam­ples can be seen for the l'.'orthern Kingdom

-2126- -2127 ­

I j

1'1

,IIi

j ! I ~

~

i ,

lF:t !

,:1 !

i \

;~:~

1 ;!

ii J .;~

lj! "

r.lr~ ,.,r

t

t r il ~-

" ,

'I'iJ )

!'I

II ,','

"

j i ,! i~

~:I 11 :,,

'/ ~

f l t i

BACKGROUNDS FOR READING THE BIBLE

at sites such as Samaria, Megiddo, Hazar and Dor, and for the Southern Kingdom in Jerusalem, Beth-shemesh, Lachish and Tel Sheva (biblical Beer-sheba). The earth­quake mentioned in Amos 1.1, dating to ca. 760 BCE, left a clear archeological imprint at several sites such as Hazor, Gezer and Tel es-Safi/Gath (35 km/22 mi northwest of Hebron; possibly the Philistine city of Gath). The archeological record clearly reflects the encroachment of the Neo-Assyrian empire into this region. Destructions relating to the 733 BCE campaign of Tiglath-pileser III are seen at various sites (e.g., Dan, Hazor, Tel Kinrot [biblical town of Chinnereth on the northwestern shore ofthe Sea of Chin­nerethj), and the final destruction of the Northern Kingdom in 722/20 is evidenced at Samaria. The fall of Samaria had a direct influence on the southern kingdom of Judah as well, due to the influx of refugees from the Northern Kingdom,

In the south, the Assyrian campaigns are evident in Philistia (such as the destruction of Ashdod relating to Sargon II's campaign of 713 BCE), especially the campaign of Sen­nacherib in 701. Archeological evidence of this campaign is seen at several sites, most impressively at Lachish, Level III, where there is conclusive evidence ofthe Assyrian siege and conquest of the city. This dovetails nicely with the Assyrian reliefs in the palace of Sennacherib, and the biblical and Assyrian textual evidence.

Although the Assyrian and biblical texts inform us of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, very little, if any, archeological evidence corroborates this. Prior though to this campaign, Jerusalem was expanded, and the "Western Hill" was settled, In addition, the hinterland of Jerusalem and also in the Judean Hills and the Judean Shephelah saw a substantial expansion ofthe urban and rural settlement, and material evidence indicates that various sites and regions (such as the western Shephelah and eastern Philistia, in­cluding sites such as Tel es-Safi/Gath), were taken over by the Judeans, These processes

ESSAYs

are related both to the expansionist poli­cies of King Hezekiah of Judah (late 8th to early 7th c.), and, perhaps, to the overflow ofrefugees from the Northern Kingdom to the south after the conquest of Samaria in 722/720.

Important evidence of the Judean prepa­rations for the Siege in 701 is seen in the evidence of fortification and supplies sent out before the campaign. The latter are reflected in the jars stamped with LMLK, "of/belong­ing to the king;' which begin to appear in this period. As a result of the defeat in 701, the Judean settlements in the Shephelah and per­haps in other regions as well, were severely curtailed, and many of the sites that were oc­cupied before the campaign were abandoned subsequently.

In the late 8th c., and throughout much of the 7th c., the Assyrian control in the Southern Levant in general, especially in the regions of Phoenicia, Israel, Judah, and Philistia, is strongly felt. Assyrian textual evidence celebrates their strong presence and influence in the region, and archeologi­cal sites attest directly to Assyrian presence, in the form of palaces and forts of the As­syrian administration, such as at Samaria, Ashdod, Jemmeh (a site 12 km / 7 mi due south of Gaza), and Tel Sera (Ziklag?). Simi­larly, economic developments in Phoenicia and Philistia, most clearly seen at Philistine Ekron, confirm the strong Assyrian economic and political influence in the region.

In the 7th c. (in particular in the second half) the Judean kingdom flourished, even if its expansion to the west was stopped by the Assyrians. Both in the heartland of Judah, in and around Jerusalem, but also in the northern Negev and the Judean desert, extensive settlement activities can be seen. Large-scale building in Jerusalem, along with that at many rural sites, indicates this prosperity, mirroring the Assyrian evidence that the Judean kingdom was a loyal Assyrian vassal at the time. This evidence that Judah flourished during the 7th c. BCE concurs with the commonly held view that this period, in

ESSAYS

particular the second half of this century, was a time of cultural "renaissance" -a time to which many scholars would date various biblical texts (in particular, those related to the "Deuteronomist"),

Only towards the end ofthe 7th c. BCE,

when the Assyrian control of the Levant waned, and the Babylonians and Egyptians vied for control of this region, is this growth and flourishing curtailed. This is blatantly indicated in the Bible both by the death of King Josiah of Judah at Megiddo in 609 BCE,

and the following period of political instabil­ity andJapid changes in the Judean king­dom. The 7th c. BCE, in contrast to earlier periods, reflects more extensive evidence of writing and literacy in the Judean kingdom, including the Arad Letters, the Lachish Let­ters, and many inscribed bulla (seal-ring impressions)-including several which mention names found in the Bible. The Heb language used in these extrabiblical inscrip­tions is virtually identical to the "Classical Biblical Hebrew," the dialect of Heb found in large sections of the Torah, and most of the Former Prophets, and some ofthe classical prophets such as Amos and the first part of Isa. These inscriptions thus contain, accord­ing to most scholars, important circumstan­tial evidence for the dating ofthese biblical texts,

The Assyrian, Babylonian and biblical sources inform us that during the late 7th and early 6th c. BeE, the Judean kingdom was caught in a maelstrom of geopolitical interests, particularly those of the Babyloni­ans and the Egyptians. While there is little archeological evidence of the dramatic political events depicted in the Bible, as various Judean kings decided whether they wanted to ally with Egypt or Babylonia, clear-cut evidence of the final destruction of the kingdom at the hands of the Babylonians ca. 586 BCE is seen at many sites, such as at Jerusalem and Lachish, and at other small sites throughout the kingdom. The fate of the Philistine cities was Similarly sealed, and there is am pIe archeological evidence of the

ARCHEOLOGY AND THE HEBREW HIBLE

604 BeE campaign of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia which destroyed the remaining Philistine cities (Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gaza), and exiled the surviving popUla­tion to Babylonia.

Following the Babylonian destructions, clear evidence points to a change in the character of the settlement patterns in Judah, Philistia and the surrounding regions. While scholars hotly debate whether or not the entire land of Judah was deserted and only repopulated decades later during the period of Persian rule (late 6th c. BeE), it is evident that major changes did occur which set the stage for the development of early Second Temple Judaism in the Persian province of Yehud, and in parallel, the development of other regional cultures, such as the Phoeni­cians along the coast and the Samaritans in the highlands north of Jerusalem.

Major Archeological Sites in the Land of Israel

Jerusalem

Early Jerusalem was concentrated on the southeastern ridge (the "City of David") with finds commencing from the late fourth millennium. The evidence for Iron Age Jerusalem is quite complex. The city of David contains some early Iron Age mate­rial, followed by, according to some scholars, evidence of 10th c. development. The City of David shows a continuous sequence of Iron Age settlement and construction, ending with impressive evidence of the fiery Babylonian destruction of 586. From the 8th c, through the end of the Iron Age, Jerusalem expanded to the west and north, with striking finds, in­cluding fortifications and houses and tombs, as well as the so-called "Broad Wall" in the Jewish Quarter of modern day Jerusalem, and various tombs-including those at Ketef Hin­nom to the west of the city in which two silver scrolls containing a version of Kum. 6.24-25 (the "priestly blessing") were found. The royal quarters and Temple area for the most part

- 2128- - 2129­

j

BACKGROUNDS FOR READING THE BIBLE

are located under the later remains of the It~,

present day Temple Mount, so they cannot

~ ;

be excavated. While it is very likely that the it First Temple-possibly built already by Solo­"··'11:,

;: .!

mon as claimed in the Bible-was originally i located in the same place as the Dome of the

Rock, later building activities have obliterated i1· all evidence for this structure. ~ I;

! .,. Megiddo! I This is one of the most important sites for

:! biblical archeology; extensive excavations ~: .

:~ have uncovered remains of a more or less continuous settlement from late prehistoric through Classical periods. The Iron Age remains reflect various stages of the pre-mo­narchic and monarchic periods, particularly in relationship to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The dating and historical relationships of various levels and features at the site have been debated for many years; scholars disa­gree on whether its fortifications and gates are to be dated to the time of Solomon, Ahab or Jeroboam II. The fortifications, palaces, houses, stables and water systems offer evi­dence of the rich culture of this kingdom.

Dan

The Iron Age I may show evidence of an early Israelite settlement, possibly connected with southern parts of the country, perhaps reflecting in some manner the biblical story of the southern origins of the Danites (see esp. Judg. chs 17-18). During Iron Age II, Dan became an important urban site, which was settled until late in the Iron Age. During the Iron llA and lIB the site was fortified, and included an important cultic center (once again apparently referred to in the biblical texts as well-see e.g., 1 Kings 12.29), and was the focus of ongoing conflicts between Israel and the Arameans. This is reflected in the royal Aramean inscription (the so-called "Beth David" inscription), mostly likely set up at the site by Hazael ofAram-Damascus after conquering the site.

ESSAYS Hazar Settled initially in the early Iron Age by people of apparent Israelite affiliation, dur­ing the Iron Age II it becomes a central City of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, with substantial evidence of fortifications, public and private architecture, a water system and other features. The site most likely served as a regional government center throughout the time of the monarchy. The site was destroyed by Tiglath-pileser III.

Rel:wv Excavations here provide one of the most complete archeological pictures ofthe Iron Age IIA in northern Israel, even though this site, in the Beth Shean Valley, is not men­tioned in the Bible. This Late Bronze Age city continued without interruption through Iron Age I. The Iron Age IIA (10th-9th c. BCE)

remains testify to a thriving urban environ­ment. Various aspects ofthe material culture of this site indicate differences from other northern, Israelite material culture, suggest­ing a slightly different origin of its inhabitants (Canaanite? Aramean?). One of several small inscriptions from the 10th and 9th centuries BCE mentions the name Nimshi, the father! grandfather of biblical Jehu (1 Kings 19.16; 2 Kings 9.2). A large-scale honey and bees­wax facility, unique in the ancient Near East, suggests that the honey was used in religious contexts there; this may explain the biblical prohibition of the use of honey in sacrificial offerings (e.g., Lev. 2.11).

Samaria

This site was founded in the Iron IIA, and soon became the capital of the Northern Kingdom. Although much of the Iron Age city was covered or destroyed by later levels, impressive evidence of the royal palace com­pound on the site's acropolis remains. The finds from this compound include a collec­tion of ivory inlays, evidence of the riches of the Israelite monarchy (see e.g., Amos 3.15),

f - 2130 ­

ESSAYS

with important cultural connections with Phoenicia, and the collection of ostraca (writ­ing on broken pieces of pottery) recording taxation sent to the royal coffers, from various places and clans around the capital. These contain a wide variety of names, providing an excellent window to the language and onomastics of the Israelite kingdom in Iroy II. Most agree that these ostraca date to the first half of the 8th c.

Shiloh

Identified in the Bible as the location of the Tabernacle after the Israelites enter Canaan, archeological evidence points to a substantial Iron I settlement, and hints of sacrificial activ­ity have been found on the site. The Iron I set­tlement was destroyed in the late nth c. BCE.

Jezreel

Poorly preserved remains of a royal palace of the Northern Kingdom were found on the site, apparently the same palace mentioned in biblical narratives on the Omride Dynasty and its aftermath.

Dar

This site was a large Canaanite city. Accord­ing to some, it turned into a Sea Peoples (Sikil) site in the Iron Age I, while others have suggested that the Canaanite culture contin­ued at the site, with some influences from new peoples and cultures in the early Iron Age. During Iron Age II, the site came under the rule of the Israelite kingdom, as identified by its fortifications.

Gezer

A central site on the southwestern edges ofthe Israelite (northern) kingdom, with remains representing the various stages of the Iron Age. As with Hazor and Megiddo, the dating of the Iron IIA levels, and in particular, the fortifications, are debated.

ARCHEOl.OGY AND THE HEBREW BIBl.E

Jericho Despite numerous excavations conducted on the site in the last century and a half, there are very few Iron Age finds at Jericho, contrary to the central role it has in the bibli­cal narrative of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. This raises serious questions about the account of the conquest in Josh.

Mt. Ebal

An ongoing and very thorough surface survey of the Northern Central Highlands (the "Ma­nasseh Survey") has uncovered numerous sites, including many dating to the early Iron Age. Several of these were excavated, several "sandal sites;' so called because they look like sandals or footprints. Only a small minority of scholars see any connection between the archeological evidence at Mt. Ebal and Deut. ch 27 and Josh. ch 8.

Ai

The site of et-Tell to the east of modern-day Ramallah is identified by most historical geographers as the location of biblical Ai. As with Jericho, despite the fact that this site plays a major role in the conquest narrative in the book of Josh., no Late Bronze, Ca­naanite remains were found on the site, and a small early Iron Age Israelite village was found there, indicating that the traditions of the destruction of this site do not reflect an actual event relating to the early Israelites. Suggestions to resolve this discrepancy by placing biblical Ai at another location (e.g., Khirbet Maqqatir) have not been accepted by most scholars.

Beth She mesh

An important site located in the northwestern Shephelah (Judean foothills); according to the excavators it continued to be a Canaanite city into the Iron Age I. Iron IIA (10th-9th c. BCE) shows evidence of public building, perhaps pointing to Judean control of the site.

-2131­

.I..... i i I

:1· , ~

:~

:t

I I I I

BACKGROUNDS FOR READING THE BIBLE

The site continues to have Judean cultural character until the end ofthe 8th c. BCE,

when it was destroyed, and subsequently abandoned in the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE.

Khirbet Qeiyafa

Located southeast of Beth Shemesh in the Elah Valley, this site was fortified during the late Iron II early Iron IIA (late 11th/ early 10th c. BCE), and soon afterwards destroyed. The excavator identifies this as a Judean site, with typical fortifications, pottery, diet, cult, and even inscriptions, and sees it as proof of the existence of a Judean state in the 10th c. BCE.

Others have questioned the cultural/ethnic affiliation of the site, and its dating.

Hebron

Limited excavations at Tel Rumeida, biblical Hebron, have revealed evidence of both Iron I and Iron II levels, with typical Judean finds. While it is clear that this site was an impor­tant Judean site during the Iron Age II, little else is known.

Lachish

One of the most important tels in the South­ern Levant, it was settled from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian period. The large Late Bronze Age Canaanite city was destroyed at the end of the 13th c. or the beginning of the 12th c. BCE, but was not subsequently settled during the Iron 1. The site was reoc­cupied in the Iron Age IIA (10th and/or 9th c. BCE), and became a central site in the Judean kingdom, second only to Jerusalem. Impres­sive remains of fortifications, a series of forts/ palaces, public and private buildings, a water system and other remains, illustrate the importance of the site. The destruction levels in Level III (701; Sennacherib) and Level II (586; Nebuchadnezzar), the impressive remains of the Assyrian Siege of 701, fit well with several biblical accounts of this event;

ESSAYS

and the "Lachish Letters" -a collection of administrative ostraca found in the city gate of Level II, dating to the eve of the Babylonian destruction, offer an important picture of the Heb language at the end of the First Temple period, and reflect the impending destruc­tion of Jerusalem.

Tel Sheva

A site to the west of modern-day Beer-sheba with a series of levels dating from the late Iron Age I until the end of the 8th c. BCE.

Following a late Iron IIearly Iron Age lIA vil­lage, a small fortified city was built, including various elements typical of Israelite/Judean urbanism, including a gate, a "casemate" (double) wall, a water system, public and private buildings, and perhaps even the remains of a temple. The site most likely served as an administrative and trade center for the kingdom of Judah and was apparently destroyed in Sennacherib's campaign of 701 BCE.

Kuntillet Ajrud

This was a caravanserai (roadside inn) in the eastern Sinai desert, on the route be­tween the north Sinai coast and the Gulf of Aqaba. Despite its location south of Judah, the cultural affiliation of the site seems to be mostly Israelite (Northern Kingdom) and it most likely dates to the late 9th / early 8th c. BCE. Excavations here uncovered, in addition to the caravanserai building itself, important inscriptions written on pottery and plaster, including reference to the YHVH ofTeiman and YHVH of Samaria, and to Asherah (a god­dess' consort ofYHVH, or a sacred pole).

Arad

A site occupied from the late Iron I until the end ofthe Iron Age; during Iron II it served as a fort ofthe kingdom ofJudah. Important finds include a temple, which apparently went out of use in the late 8th c. BCE, perhaps

ESSAYS

as part of the religious reform during the time of Hezekiah. In addition, an important collection of letters written on ostraca was found there, relating the administration of the fortress in the late Iron Age.

Negev

Throughout the northern Negev, settlements and forts from various stages of the Iron Age II have been found. Some of these sites date to the Iron Age IIA, and some scholars see them as evidence of the activities of the united monarchy in this region, while others believe they reflect activities of either earlier or later periods. Later stages of the Iron Age reveal forts and sites related to the activities of the Judean kingdom in this region, but also of the encroachment of the Edomites during the end of the Iron Age. An Edomite shrine was found at Qitmit, and an Edomite cultic area found at the fort at Hazeva.

Gath

A multi-period site~occupied during the Bronze Age and onwards, it was one of the important Late Bronze Age Canaanite cities. During the Iron Age, from the 12th c. until the late 9th c. BCE, it was one of the five central cities of the Philistines (the "Penta polis"), and during the 10th and 9th centuries may have been the largest city in Philistia and in the Southern Levant in general. Gath most likely was the capital of one or more important regional polities in the Iron Age IIA, and most likely dominated, or at least overshadowed, the Judean kingdom up until the destruction of Gath ca. 830 BCE. Evidence of the Siege and massive destruction of Gath, most likely by Hazael of Aram Damascus (an event mentioned in 2 Kings 12.17-18), marks the end of this important Philistine city, and the shifting ofits role to nearby Philistine Ek­ron. During the late 8th c. BCE, as part of the Judean expansion to the west, the Judeans occupied the city, until the Assyrian cam­paign of 701 BCE.

ARCIlEOLOGY AND THE HEBREW BIBLE

Ashkelon It was one of the largest and most continu­ously settled sites in the Land ofIsrael. During the Iron Age it was one of the five important Philistine cities, with impressive remains from all stages of the Philistine culture, from the early Iron I until the city's final destruction, by Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian, in 604 BCE.

Abundant remains of the thriving 7th c. BCE

city have been excavated, reflecting robust commerce, international trade (with various parts of the Mediterranean), daily life, various inscriptions, and religious practices. Follow­ing its destruction at the end of the Iron Age, the city continued to be important in the Per­sian and Hellenistic period, but with a strong Phoenician cultural leaning.

Ashdod

An important Late Bronze Age city which may have been partially destroyed with the arrival of the Philistines; it, subsequently became one of the five cities of the Philistine Pentapolis. Archeological remains represent all phases of the Philistine culture, from the earliest stages with so-called "Mycenaean I1Ie" pottery and other finds, through the Babylonian conquest of Philistia in 604 BCE.

Evidence, induding mass tombs, reflects the destruction ofthe city by Sargon II of As­syria in 713 BCE. Following the late Iron Age destruction, the city was only resettled in the late 6th c. BCE in the Persian period, with Phoenician-oriented cultural remains.

Ekron

This site was settled in the Middle and Late Bronze Age. In the latter it is a small settle­ment, but during the Iron Age it became one of the five cities ofthe Philistine Pentapolis. Rich evidence of all stages of the Philistine culture has been found, including fortifica­tions, temples in several stages, public and private buildings, industrial activities, and more. Of particular Significance is the Iron IIC temple (7th c. BCE), built with strong

-2132- - 2133 ­

,~

j

BACKGROUNDS FOR READING THE BIBLE ESSAYs ESSAYS ARClIEOLOGY AND THE HEBREW BIBLE

Assyrian architectural influence, in which a production. While it has often been stressed existence of state and local level administra­ in Jerusalem, may be gleaned from compari­royal inscription, mentioning five of Ekron's that an abstinence from pork was typical of tive structures alongside various levels of a sons to architectural features of other Levan­

'\ kings, including Padi and Achish known from Iron Age Israel and Judah, recent studies have religious hierarchy. Ancient Israel and Judah tine temples, from earlier periods (such as I,ll the Bible and Assyrian inscriptions, and the shown that this, by and large, does not hold was strongly androcentric, with sharp gender at Hazor, Megiddo and Shechem) and from 'J

;~ name of the Goddess of Ekron - Patgaya-of true for Israel, but does seem to be the case distinctions, like most ancient Near Eastern various Iron Age sites (e.g., the Iron II temple'i ;t apparent Aegean origin. The site contains the in Iron II Judah. Ceramics, stone implements, societies. While examples of women who at­ at Ayn Dara in northern Syria). Overall, the

i1a' largest olive oil production center in the an­ and metal objects, in small quantities and of tained high levels are known from the textual, archeological evidence indicates that duringl'; " cient Near East, reflecting the economic and simple design have been discovered in vari­ epigraphic, and even archeological evidence, the Iron Age, Israelite and Judean religion

~'I political prosperity and stability in the early ous excavations, and very few imported items this is by far the exception rather than the was not of the aniconic and monotheistic '" 7th c. BCE (the "PaxAssyriaca"). are found. norm. As in most ancient societies, the public character that the biblical texts, including the ,I

,ad Evidence of mortuary customs is particu- space and functions were dominated by Decalogue, might suggest. 1arly well-represented for Iron II Judah. The males, while in the private, domestic realm

Edam and Faynan most common burial was in a cave, with a women had a central, and even de facto Inscriptions, Literacy, Language, and

The Edomite cultural remains are closely shape carved out that may imitate the Four dominant role. 'fI': Dating ojBiblical Hebrew " connected to the cultures west of the Jordan. Room House, with rather simple burial of­".

Copper mining activities were carried out ferings. A small number of more sumptuous While the number of inscriptions from theReligion and Religious ReJorms

I 11 ! ~ during the Iron I and Iron IIA at Faynan. burial caves, most probably of the elites, have region of the Southern Levant pales in com­'r I been unearthed in Jerusalem and in Samaria While there is no unambiguous archeologi­ parison with those from Egypt and Meso­:,t as well. cal evidence for the centralization ofwor­ potamia, nevertheless, over the last century

Topics'"t ship reflected in Deut. (see esp. ch 12), there and a half, a significant corpus of inscriptions is much data on religious practices both dating to the Iron Age has been discovered.

I ,~t Daily Life Social Structure in Israel and Judah, including remains of This includes finds from across the Iron Age :I~I t, Excavations at urban and rural sites have As the case with most other societies in the religious sites from the early Iron Age Israel­ Levant, and although it does not include , revealed a wide array of the facets of daily ancient Near East, the majority of the Israelite ite sites, such as at Shiloh, the "Bull Site" (in libraries or archives, it represents a broad

life in Israel and Judah. While, by and large, and Judean population were relatively poor northeastern Samaria), Hazor, and Mt. Ebal range of genres.I~'t much of it is quite similar to that of other Iron and belonged to a low social strata. 'There is (see above). Several important temples have It is clear that while there was some literacy II! Age eastern Mediterranean cultures, some some minimal evidence, particularly in the been found in the Iron II kingdom of Judah; in Iron Age Israel and Judah, it was limited,

I aspects were unique. large cities, and perhaps in some rural forts the most noteworthy is at Arad, and temples particularly prior to the later Iron Age. Only ,:;

A prime example of this is the so-called and farms, of more elevated and well-off por­ have been unearthed at Mosa (near Jeru­ from the 9th c. BCE, and in particular the 8th "Four Room House" (or Pillared house), tions of society, with more access to prestige salem) and possibly at Khirbet Qeiyafa and c. BCE, is there some evidence of the spread found in numerous Israelite and Judean sites. items, sophisticated technology, imported Tel Sheva. Smaller Iron II worship structures of literacy in Israel and Judah.

"ii' Various explanations of the function of this goods, and other resources. In Iron II Jerusa­ and cultic sites are known from quite a few The development of many of the local type of house have been suggested, and its lem, in particular, elaborate burial complexes sites in Israel and Judah, such as at Megiddo, languages in the Iron Age Levant is well-illus­prevalence indicates that it did have spe- reflect elite status. Some hints concerning Ta'anakh (an area south ofthe Jezreel Valley), trated through inscriptions. The development cific significance within the Israelite/Judean the tax structures may be gleaned from the Lachish, Kuntillet Ajrud, and perhaps even ofHeb from a Canaanite-based language is ethos. Yet, claims that these houses are a de­ lists appearing in the Samaria ostraca, and Jerusalem. Knowledge of religions from the well-documented, as is the gradual influence finitive marker of Israelite/Judean ethnicity, hints of inequality can also be seen in the surrounding cultures sheds important light of Aram., Gk and Persian, in the late Iron Age sine qua non, cannot be accepted, as there Mesad I:Iashavyahu ostracon, in which a poor on IsraelitelJudean religious practices. For and the Persian and Hellenistic periods. This are Israelite/Judean sites without them, and laborer complains of unjust treatment at the example, while Philistine practice is different is important, inter alia, when considering these houses also appear in non- Israelite/ hand of an employer or master, Indications of in many ways, their horned altars are very questions relating to the dating of various Judean regions. state and temple-related bureaucracy include reminiscent ofIsraelite religious practices. portions of the biblical texts based on linguis­

Most Israelites and Judeans, both in rural seals and stamps of various officials, official Various aspects ofIsraelite/Judean religious tic criteria, suggesting that most Heb texts and urban settings, led a relatively simple life, "supplies" given out by the kingdom's admin­ iconography, as seen on figurines, cultic likely precede the Persian period. at subsistence level, with very little evidence istration (such as the LMLK and "Rosette" stands, and other objects, demonstrate strong As expected few inscriptions relate to of wealth. Evidence of typical Mediterranean jars in Iron II Judah), possible depictions of connections with Canaanite practices. Im­ specific events, processes and even figures agricultural practices is common, as are royalty (at Kuntillet Ajrud and Ramat Rachel), portant insights concerning Israelite religious mentioned in the biblical texts. Rather, the household activities such as baking, cook­ and apparent evidence of vessels designated architecture, in particular those shedding inscriptions provide general cultural and ing, weaving, and rudimentary household for religious offerings. These indicate the light on the depiction in 1 Kings ofthe Temple material background for the Bible.

- 2134- - 2135­

~

BACKGROUNDS ('OR READING THE BIBLE ESSAYS

Current Issues and Debates the last several decades, an intense debate The field of Biblical Archeology in general, has developed between the "High;' "Modified On the Bible and the Ancient Near East and the study of Iron Age Judah and Israel in particular, is very dynamic and changes quickly. Much of what was accepted just a few decades ago is being revised, and new methods and theories are constantly being applied-so much so that Biblical Archeology of the early 21st c. CE is quite different from that of the mid-to-late 20th c. The conclusion of this essay discusses some of these newer debates and issues.

Biblical interface: One of the ongoing and pressing issues in Biblical Archeology is the interface between archeological and biblical research. Time and again, practitioners in one or the other of these two fields justifiably at­tempt to utilize the research of the other field. While this is laudable, much too often the biblical scholar is not up-to-date with archeo­logical research, and the archeologist is not up-to-date with the biblical research. Some archeologists continue to read biblical texts in a simplistic and straightforward manner­and look for the archeological evidence for this reading-without realizing that biblical scholarship has demonstrated the complexity and date of composition of a given text. It is crucial that biblical scholars and archeolo­gists work more closely with each other.

Chronology: The dating of various archeo­logical sites, strata and features is a cardinal component of all archeological research, and is particularly important in connecting spe­cific finds to biblical events, persons, or peri­ods. For example, until recently it was widely accepted that the similar gates at Gezer, Hazor and Megiddo are related to Solomon and the united kingdom of the 10th c. BCE. In

High" and "Low" chronologies of the Iron Age (the two central figures in this debate are A. Mazar and I. Finkelstein), and the dating of the various levels between the early 12th c. and the beginning of the 8th c. BCE has been the subject of intense disputes. (With the beginning of the substantial Assyrian involve­ment in the Levant in the 8th c. BCE, the lack of chronological clarity is resolved.) Perhaps additional scientific tools will resolve this fundamental debate.

Historicity: The earliest practitioners of Bib­lical Archeology used archeological remains to prove the historicity of the Bible, especially of specific events, stories and processes depicted in the biblical text. As is clear from the evidence presented above in this essay, the archeological evidence does not support the historicity of a straightforward reading of much of the Bible. Only toward the end of the Iron Age is there significant correspond­ence between biblical texts and archeological evidence.

Israel/Judah: While the existence of two separate polities, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel are well-documented in the Bible, until recently most scholars have stressed the simi­larities between Israel and Judah, and lump them together as reflecting "Israelite culture:' This obscures clear differences in language, material culture, diet, cult, and other ele­ments between the two. In the coming years archeology may help clarify the differences and similarities between Israel and Judah, and how they influenced each other in vari­ous periods.

[AREN M. MAEIRJ

Reconnecting with the Ancient World Ancient Near Eastern inscriptions, monu­ments, and artifacts (with the exception of the Egyptian pyramids), and the knowledge ofthe ancient cultures that they revealed, were largely unknown to Western culture throughout the Middle Ages and the Early Modem period. At the close of the 19th c. as the Ottoman empire was breathing its last, European powers posted many missions to the Middle East that included archeologists. At first, essentially they were looters who took back monuments, many with hieroglyphics and cuneiform writings. When these scripts were deciphered in the mid-19th c., the inscriptions told an eager public about the world in which Israel was formed.

Mesopotamia

From Nineveh (present day Mosul) in As­syria, a cavalcade of rulers mentioned in the Bible-among them Sargon II, Sennacherib, and Ashurbanipal-took flesh to validate ele­ments of the biblical accounts of the Assyrian devastation of Israel and Judah. Yet nothing was as sensational as the presentation George Smith made to the British Society of Biblical Archaeology on December 3, 1872. Reading from a Nineveh tablet, Smith revealed how a Mesopotamian hero (Utnapishtim, then read as Hasisadra for Atral].asis) survived a flood the gods had sent to destroy humanity. The news stunned: Could the account of God's command to Noah have been cribbed from Babylonian antecedents?

There were other jolts: abandoned as a baby, Sargon of Agade was shown (in 1870) to have survived in a reed basket, eventually to earn divine favor. The god Marduk (in some versions Assur) conquered Tiamat (possibly cognate to Gen. tehom, "the deep") and rear­ranged its corpse in terms reminiscent of the

creation in Gen. ch 1 (1876). From Susa (1905) came Hammurabi of Babylon's imposing law code stela that questioned the distinctive­ness of biblical divine legislation. With all these antecedents to biblical lore, the hot topic around the First World War was which to credit, the Bible or Babylon, for stimulating our culture? Some of the debate (pressed by the German Friedrich Delitzsch, and labeled Babel und Bibel in contemporaneous journal­ism) degenerated into anti-Semitic diatribes; but it did stimulate scholarship (e.g., Form Criticism, best associated with Hermann Gunkel) that interpreted biblical traditions though comparison with Near Eastern, especially Mesopotamian, lore. The aim was to illuminate the contexts for the produc­tion, application, adaptation, and diffusion of themes and motifs that excited the mind in antiquity. In this enterprise, the focus came to be less on when, where and by whom Hebraic traditions were created (the facus of the earlier Documentary Hypothesis), but on how, why, and under which circumstances ideas commonly shared in antiquity came ta have their particular inflection among the Hebrews. In effect, the Bible had come ta be one more source from the ancient Near East, and a latecomer at that.

An industry soon came to the fore in the late 19th and early 20th c. in which special­ized compilations "paralleled" the Bible, book by book, through excerpts from mostly cuneiform documents. In this way, a treasure trove of ancient material came to the atten­tion of a wider public, with mythological (Enuma Elish, Atravasis), epic (Gilgamesh), cultic (hymns and rituals), wisdom, juridical, annalistic, and divinatory contents. These publications are precursors to more recent reference sets such as J. B. Pritchard's An­cient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed., 1969) and W. W. Hallo

- 2137­- 2136­