Petra and Qadesh

SVENSK EXEGETISK 76 ÅRSBOK På uppdrag av Svenska Exegetiska Sällskapet utgiven av Stig Norin

Uppsala 2011

Svenska Exegetiska Sällskapet Box 511 S-751 20 UPPSALA, Sverige WWW: http://www2.teol.uu.se/homepage/SES/ Utgivare: Stig Norin ([email protected]) Redaktionssekreterare: Thomas Kazen ([email protected]) Recensionsansvarig: Cecilia Wassén ([email protected]) Redaktionskommitté: Stig Norin ([email protected]) Samuel Byrskog ([email protected]) Göran Eidevall ([email protected]) Dag Oredsson ([email protected]) James Starr ([email protected]) Prenumerationspriser: Sverige: SEK 200 (studenter SEK 100) Övriga världen: SEK 300 SEÅ beställs hos Svenska Exegetiska Sällskapet via hemsidan eller postadress ovan, eller hos Bokrondellen (www.bokrondellen.se). Anvisningar för medverkande åter-finns på hemsidan eller erhålls från redaktionssekreteraren. Manusstopp är 1 mars. Utgiven med bidrag från Vetenskapsrådet. Tidskriften är indexerad i Libris databas (www.kb.se/libris/). SEÅ may be ordered from Svenska Exegetiska Sällskapet either through the home-page or at the postal address above. In North America, however, SEÅ should be or-dered from Eisenbrauns (www.eisenbrauns.com). Search under the title “Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok.” Instructions for contributors are found on the homepage or may be requested from the editorial secretary ([email protected]). This periodical is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database®, published by the Ameri-can Theological Library Association, 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606; E-mail: [email protected]; WWW: http://www.atla.com/. © SEÅ och respektive författare ISSN 1100-2298 Uppsala 2011 Tryck: Elanders, Vällingby

iii

Innehåll

Exegetiska dagen 2010 / Exegetical Day 2010

John J. Collins Apocalypse and Empire .......................................... 1

Adela Yarbro Collins The Reception of Paul’s Apocalyptic

Eschatology in the Letter to the Colossians .......... 21

Cecilia Wassén Visions of the Temple: Conflicting Images of

the Eschaton ......................................................... 41

Övriga artiklar / Other Articles

Nils Aksel Røsæg Myth in Plutarch and Paul: Painting with

Words and Other Metaphorical Terms.................. 61

Torsten Löfstedt Satan’s Fall and the Mission of the Seventy-

two ........................................................................ 95

Jan Retsö Petra and Qadesh................................................. 115

Tobias Hägerland Retoriska övningar vid den sista måltiden

(Luk 22:14–38) ................................................... 137

Samuel Byrskog The Apostolate in the early Church: From

Luke-Acts to the Pauline Tradition ..................... 161

Recensionsartiklar / Review Articles

Magnus Ottosson Världsarvet Hasor under sen bronsålder ............. 179

Torleif Elgvin Mystiske tekster i tidlig jødisk og kristen

tradisjon .............................................................. 193

Recensioner / Book Reviews

Bertil Albrektson Text, Translation, Theology: Selected Essays

on the Hebrew Bible (Göran Eidevall)................ 211

Richard Bauckham The Jewish World around the New Testament:

Collected Essays I (Agneta Enermalm Tsiparis). 213

Steven L. Bridge Getting the Old Testament: What It Meant to

Them, What It Means for Us (Stig Norin)........... 215

Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim och Beverly Roberts Gaventa (red.)

The Child in the Bible (Mikael Larsson)............. 217

iv

R.A. Clements and D.R. Schwartz (eds.) Text, Thought, and Practice in Qum-

ran and Early Christianity (Torleif Elgvin) ......... 218

John J. Collins Beyond the Qumran Community: The

Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls

(Hanne von Weissenberg) ................................... 221

C.L. Crouch War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East:

Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and

History (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) ........................... 223

Jan Dietrich Kollektive Schuld und Haftung: Religions- und

rechtsgeschichtliche Studien zum

Sündenkuhritus des Deuteronomiums und zu

verwandten Texten (Göran Eidevall) .................. 226

Göran Eidevall Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of

Enemies in the Book of Isaiah (Anne Moore) ..... 229

Anders Gerdmar Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German

Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from

Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann

(LarsOlov Eriksson)............................................ 232

J. Harold Greenlee The Text of the New Testament: From Manu-

script to Modern Edition (Anders Ekenberg)...... 234

Anders Hultgård and Stig Norin (eds.) Le Jour de Die/ Der Tag Gottes

(Regine Hunziker-Rodewald, Göran Eidevall) ... 236

Edith M. Humphrey And I Turned to See the Voice: The Rhetoric of

Vision in the New Testament (Torsten Löfstedt) .. 238

Anders-Christian Jacobsen (red.) The Discursive Fight Over Religious

Texts in Antiquity.

Kirsten Nielsen (red.) Receptions and Transformations of the Bible

Peter Lodberg (red.) Religion, Politics and Law (Mikael Larsson)...... 240

Petri Kasari Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel 7 and Related

Texts (Stig Norin)................................................ 244

Yung Suk Kim Christ’s Body in Corinth: The Politics of a

Metaphor (Mikael Tellbe)................................... 246

Anja Klein Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch:

Redaktions-geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu

Ez 34–39 (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) ........................ 248

Anders Klostergaard Petersen, Torleif Elgvin, Cecilia Wassen, Hanne Von

Weissenberg, Mikael Winninge (eds.) Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network

2003–2006 (Sidnie White Crawford).................. 251

v

Douglas A. Knight Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel (Stig Norin).................................................................. 253

Hans Kvalbein Jesus – hva ville han? Hvem var han? En innföring i de tre förste evangelienes budskap (Tord Fornberg) .................................................. 256

Maria König Det odelade livet: Jakobsbrevet (Tord Fornberg) ............................................................ 258

Dan Lioy Axis of Glory: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Temple Motif in Scripture (Stefan Green)..................................................... 260

Michael A. Lyons From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer)................ 262

Daniel A. Machiela The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17 (Torleif Elgvin) ................................................................ 265

Dale B. Martin Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal (Carl-Magnus Carlstein)...................... 267

Frank J. Matera New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity (Tord Fornberg).................................. 269

Tyler D. Mayfield Literary Structure and Setting in Ezekiel (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer)........................................ 271

Lee Martin McDonald The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (LarsOlov Eriksson)..................... 274

Jurrien Mol Collective and Individual Responsibility: A Description of Corporate Personality in Ezekiel 18 and 20 (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) .......... 275

Martti Nissinen and Charles E. Carter (eds.) Images and Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer)............................................................ 278

Aage Pilgaard Kommentar til Markusevangeliet (LarsOlov Eriksson) ............................................................. 281

Jason Radine The Book of Amos in Emergent Judah (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer) .................................................. 282

Williams A. Simmons Peoples of the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide (Lars-Göran Alm) ................... 285

Yaakov Y. Teppler Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in Conflict in the Ancient World (Birger Olsson).... 288

vi

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood (Blaženka Scheuer) ............................................. 290

Daniel J. Treier Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Anders Ekenberg) .............................................. 292

Eugene Ulrich The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (Torleif Elgvin)................. 294

Heiko Wenzel Reading Zechariah with Zechariah 1:1–6 as the Introduction to the Book (Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer)............................................................ 297

Till redaktionen insänd litteratur ...................................................................... 300 ***********

Medarbetare i denna årgång/Contributors in this issue:

Samuel Byrskog [email protected] John J. Collins [email protected] Adela Yarbro Collins [email protected] Torleif Elgvin [email protected] Tobias Hägerland [email protected] Torsten Löfstedt [email protected] Magnus Ottosson [email protected] Jan Retsö [email protected] Nils Aksel Røsæg [email protected] Cecilia Wassén [email protected]

Petra and Qadesh

JAN RETSÖ (UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG)

The two “Petras” In two early Greek texts we hear about a “rock” which is said to be a stronghold held by the Arabs south of Palestine. The first one goes back to Hieronymus of Cardia who was the prime minister of Antigonus Mo-nophthalmus, the successor of Alexander the Great. The text, which was originally written by Hieronymus himself in the 280s BCE, is not pre-served in its original shape but is known through a digest by Diodorus Siculus written perhaps around 50 BCE. The relevant section deals with a military expedition undertaken by the Greeks in the year 312 BCE against the Arabs on their rock said to be located 55 km from the Dead Sea.1 A thorough analysis of the text shows that the rock is situated in the Negev desert south of Palestine ca 55 km southwest of the southernmost tip of Dead Sea.2 A similar location is given in a text written around 140 BCE by Agatharchides from Cnidus, containing a description of the Red Sea based on data collected during an expedition launched by Ptolemy II Philadelphus in 280 BCE. Neither in this case is the original text pre-served but we have three different digests of it in later authors: Diodorus, Strabo and Photius.3 All three versions mention a rock belonging to the Arabs located on a line drawn from the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula to Philistaea, thus somewhere in the Negev or Sinai.4

The same site is referred to in a few passages in Josephus’ writings. In 65 BCE, Herod’s father Antipatros sought refuge at the rock where “the royal residence of the Arabs” was.5 His son Herod later told in his mem-oirs how he had to flee from the Parthians during the invasion in 40–39 BCE seeking refuge on the “Arabian Rock.” From the distances and 1 Diodorus, Bibliotheca 19.94.2–95.2. 2 For a detailed analysis and argumentation, see Retsö, Arabs, 283–289. 3 Diodorus, Bibliotheca 3.42–47; Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.18–19; Photius, Bibliotheca 7.134–189; cf. Burstyn, Agatharchides 147–148. 4 Retsö, Arabs, 296–297. 5 Josephus, J.W. 1.125–126; Ant. 14.14.

SEÅ 76, 2011 116

routes indicated by Herod it is obvious that this rock is also located in the Negev and most likely is identical to the one mentioned by Hieronymus and Agatharchides.6

This Arabian Rock in the Negev is probably referred to sporadically in some other passages as well. Thus the Greek version of a passage in 2 Chronicles, describing the activities of the Judaean king Uzzia south of Judaea, speaks about action against “the Arabs who live on the rock.”7 The Gur Baʿal of the masoretic text is obviously interpreted by the LXX translators as referring to the mountain of the Arabs in the south. Josephus in his retelling of this story identifies these Arabs with “those who live on the border to Egypt” which must indicate somewhere in the Negev.8 It seems reasonable to identify this rock with the one mentioned by the other Greek writers9. The author of the medical book De materia medica, Dio-scurides, writing in the first century CE, refers to a petra, i.e., a rock, kata Ioudaian, “below Judaea.”10 This could well be the one in the Negev.

The geographer Strabo, writing during the first decade of our era, de-scribes a journey made by his friend Athenodorus to “the metropolis of the Nabataeans, the so-called ‘rock’.”11 From the description it is clear that the site described must be present-day Petra, “the Pink City,” in southern Jordan, thus not a rock in the Negev. A similar description is found in Pliny’s Natural History stating that the nabataei inhabit the town of Petra, a notice which probably is founded on Athenodorus’ account.12 When Josephus tells the story about the war with Midian in the days of Moses, enumerating the five defeated kings, one of whom is Reqem, this latter is identified with the founder of the city Reqem “which is called Petra by the Greeks.”13 From the Old Testament subtext there is no doubt that we are east of the Arabah. Ptolemy’s Geography from the second century CE locates Petra east of the Arabah.14 The famous Peutinger map, which is based on an archetype from the Roman imperial period, likewise indicates Petrae (plural!) east of the Arabah.

6 Retsö, Arabs, 373–375. 7 2 Chron 26:6–8. Cf. Retsö, Arabs, 289. 8 Josephus, Ant. 9.217. The original text probably dealt with the Arabs east of the Arabah, cf. Retsö, Arabs, 136–144. 9 Cf. also the Moschion Inscription, Retsö, Arabs, 337. 10 Dioscorides Pedanius, Mat. med. 3.157.1. 11 Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.21, 26; Retsö, Arabs, 377. 12 Pliny, Nat. 6.144. 13 Josephus, Ant. 4.161. 14 Claudius Ptolemy, Geographia 5.16.4 (p. 996).

Retsö: Petra and Qadesh

117

The Byzantine writer Stephanus, in his Ethnika, mentions Gea, “a city near ‘Rocks’ (petrai) in Arabia.” This notice comes from an earlier source, Glaucus’ arabikē archaiologia.15 The dating of this lost work is uncertain but the latest suggestion dates it to the first century CE.16 The name al-Ǧī still today designates the valley at Petra.

In Eusebius’ Onomastikon a site by the name Gaia is located east of the Dead Sea and is said to be near Petra.17 In another passage Eusebius says that Petra, a city in the land of Edom, earlier was called Iechthoel.18 The name Gaia is said to refer to the place called Iyyê ʿAbarim in the Hebrew text of Num 33:44. That site is situated between Punon-Obot and Dibon Gad and is said to be “on the border of Moab,” thus east of the Dead Sea where we, according to Eusebius, should look for Petra as well. But this note about Petra clearly reflects the Biblical story about king Amasiah who is reported to have beaten the Edomites/the sons of Seʿir in the gê ha-melaḥ, “the Valley of Salt,” and then conquered the “rock,” ha-selaʿ, which is then called Yoqṯeʾēl “until the present day.”19 The passage about Amasiah most likely refers to events at a place west of the Arabah some-where in the eastern Negev.20 The geography is thus somewhat confused in Eusebius, first since there is a considerable distance between the (southern) border of Moab at present-day Wādi Ḥaṣā, and Petra and sec-ondly, and more importantly, the confusion between the sites east and west of the Arabah appears clearly here.

We are thus faced with a problem. There seems to be two places called “the rock,” petra, one west of the Arabah in the Negev, and one east of the Arabah in the land of Edom. When in Ptolemy’s Geography we find the term Arabia petraia as a designation for parts of the former Nabataean

15 Stephanus Byzantinus, Ethnica 200; cf. Retsö, Arabs, 493. 16 Bowersock, Fragments (177–178), somewhat hesitatingly, dates Glaucus to the early empire (first century AD). 17 Eusebius, Onom. 63. 18 Eusebius, Onom. 142. 19 2 Kgs 14:7; 2 Chron 25:11. The new name is rendered Kathoēl in LXX of 2 Kgs. 20 In spite of the objections by Gray (Kings, 605) the location in the Negev should be maintained. The Wādī Milḥ identified with the Biblical site by Musil (Arabia petraea II. 1:21) is still found east of Beer Sheva. The parallel text in Chronicles mentions the sons of Seʿir as the enemy which should not be rejected as pure stylistic variation (so Japhet, Chronicles 864–865) but instead as indicating a western location. The Chronicler has preserved the memory of an action against Seʿir, i.e., the inhabitants of the mountains in the eastern Negev. Cf. also Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 155 who correctly reject the identification with modern Petra.

SEÅ 76, 2011 118

kingdom that name could be derived both from the rock in the Negev and the Pink City even if the latter is more probable.21 Both “petras” are de-scribed as the stronghold of the Arabs. It is the latter which is known by the name today. The other one is forgotten and its location is not immedi-ately retrievable. We observe that Petra of the Negev is mentioned in the earlier sources whereas the other one makes its definite appearance in sources from the beginning of our era and onwards. We should now try to find out the exact relation between the two sites.

The three Reqem We have seen that one of the names of Petra in southern Jordan is Reqem, a name also known to the Arabic tradition: Raqīm.22 The Old Testament mentions several entities associated with this name of which three are relevant to our problem. There is one Reqem said to be “the son of Heb-ron” and “the brother of Qoraḥ.”23 This indicates a location south of Judaea, probably in the Negev. The second is the name of the Midianite king, which points to southern Jordan/North-Western Arabia.24 The third is a site in northern Transjordan in the land of Makir.25 The first two ones are presented as personal names, but at least the first one most likely indi-cates a group of people.26

In the description of the borders of the Holy Land in the mosaic from the synagogue in Bet Reḥov in Lower Galilee, laid out in the third century CE, the names marking the eastern and southern borders are of interest for our subject.27 A similar list is also found in three rabbinical texts, Tosefta, Talmud Yerushalmi and Sifre Devarim.28 These latter versions of the de-

21 Claudius Ptolemy, Geographia 5.14.4. 22 The word occurs in the Qu’ran sūra 18:9 where The Seven Sleepers, the ʾahl al-kahf, are called ʾaṣḥāb al-kahf wa-r-raqīm. According to one tradition adduced by Yāqūt (Muʿǧam 2.804) it is a site in al-Balqāʿ, i.e., Moab. The meaning of the word raqīm, is, however, debated and its association with Petra/Reqem may be secondary, due to the similarity of sounds. 23 1 Chron 2:43. 24 Num 31:8; Josh 13:21. 25 1 Chron 7:16. 26 Cf. Knauf, Rekem. 27 For the text itself see Mosaic Inscription published by the Israel Museum with a facsim-ile of the text itself. Further, Sussman, Ktovet; idem, Barayta. The relevant part of the text are lines 17–18. 28 t. Šeb. 4.11; y. Šeb.16a, Sifre Devarim ʿEqev 11:51 end. These texts were studied by Hildesheimer, Geographie and Klein, Grenzverzeichnis long before the synagogue inscrip-


119

scription, transmitted in manuscripts, show several deviations from the mosaic text and may be seen as corruptions of it. In the latter, which must be seen as the primary source, the eastern border from QNT, most likely identifiable with present-day Qanawāt in the Ǧabal ad-durūz in southern Syria, is indicated by the following names from the north to the south: RQM ṬRKWN – ZYMRH DMTḤM BWṢRH – YBQH – ḤŠBWN – NḤLT ZRD. We recognize Boṣra, Yabboq, Ḥeshbon and the river Zered, present-day Wādī l-Ḥasā, as the main stations along the eastern border. RQM ṬRKWN is likely to be situated in Trachonitis and could thus be identical with the Reqem in Makir.29

After ZRD we find the following names: ʾYGR SHDWTH – NYMRYN – MLḤ DZYZH – RQM DGYʾH – GNYYH DʾŠQLWN.30 Of these the last one means “the gardens of Ashqalon” and thus refers to the western end of the border at the shore of the Mediterranean. The second to last looks as if it refers to Nabataean Petra near the valley of al-Ǧī.31 But this raises a problem. If RQM DGYʾH is identical with Nabataean Petra, the list of border marks has no name at all between southern Transjordan and Ashqalon by the Mediterranean which is strange. According to this read-ing all the names from QNT to RQM DGYʾH would represent a line north - south. There are, however, problems with such a reading. Between the river Zered and RQM DGYʾH there are names which do not seem to be-long there. ʾYGR SHDWTH is undoubtedly the Yegar Sahadûtā of Gen 31:47 which, according to the context, is found in Gilead, thus north of Ḥeshbon. The Old Testament also reports a site called Nimrîm in the land

tion was found. Many of their attempts at reconstructing an original text are now outdated and the comparison between these early studies and the mosaic text is most instructive. 29 The words following RQM ṬRKWN are interpreted by Sussmann as a closer description of that site: ‘ZYMRH which is in the region of Bosra’ (Sussmann, Barayta, 234, note 146). Of the literary variants, only the Sifre version has the word ZYMRʾ. Already Klein (Grenzverzeichnis, 206) associated it with Zamaris who according to Josephus (Ant. 17.29) was the leader of the Jews settled in the region of Trachonitis by Herod the Great (ibid. 17.23 ff.). His name may be reflected in the name of the village Zimrīn southwest of aṣ-Ṣanamēn. Sussmann’s suggestion seems plausible and it could perhaps be a doublet similar to the following three/six names. 30 The word DZYZH is transliterated RZYZH in the publication but the difference between D an R is small in the square script and the reading with D gives a better sense, cf. note 29 and the analysis below. 31 Thus Klein, Grenzverzeichnis, 213, Sussmann, Barayta, 239. Hildesheimer (Beiträge, 69–72) identified it with ʿAyn Qudays.

SEÅ 76, 2011 120

of Moab.32 There are thus at least two names which seem to be mis-placed.33 MLḤ DZYZH could refer to the southern end of the Dead Sea, Yam ha-melaḥ.34 If so, this would indicate the point where the border turns westward. Sussmann’s suggestion offers a plausible solution: the list gives an alternative series of names for three points on the eastern border. Thus ʾYGR SHDWTH = YBQH, NMRYN = ḤŠBWN, and MLḤ D-ZYZH [MLTH D-ZYZH] = NḤLT ZRD.35 But the inclusion of the Pink City in the far southeast among the border stations is awkward - unless there is something wrong with RQM DGYʾH as well.36

In the Mishnah there is a halakic passage where the borders of the Holy Land are discussed. We learn that Reqem is a site representing the eastern border or its easternmost point which most probably makes it identical with Reqem in Trachonitis.37 The southern point is represented by a place called Ḥeger.38 In the Targum Onqelos we learn that Bered in the story of Hagar and Ishmael, which takes place in the Negev, is Ḥegrā.39 Also Shur, the area in the Negev where Abraham settles, is identified with Ḥegrā by the targumist.40 The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum identifies Bered with Ḥaluṣah and Shur with Ḥegrā.41 There is thus no doubt about the localisa-tion of Ḥeger/Ḥegrā south of Judaea and west of the Arabah. From these

32 Jeremiah 15:6, 48:35. 33 Reflexes of a similar arrangement are also found in all three literary versions of the list which all have some names between ZRD and RQM. Thus, Yerushalmi has: YGR ŠHDTʾ only, Tosefta has YGR SHDWTʾ – NMRYN – MLY ḤZRWʾY, Sifre Devarim has SKWTʾ – NYMRYN – MLYH ZYRZʾ. 34 Sussmann (Barayta, note 184) reads MLḤ or MLTH D-ZYZH, “the castle of Ziza.” If read MLḤ one could associate it with ʿîr ha-melaḥ, “The city of salt,” in the territory of Judah (Josh 15:62), a place possibly located at the Dead Sea (cf. Noth, Josua, 100). 35 Sussmann, Barayta, 237–239. Klein’s analysis of the list (Grenzverzeichnis, 238 ff.) indicating the possibility that the three names could have been added later reflecting dif-ferent settlement patterns (perhaps visible in other sections of the list) becomes less likely for this section. Klein’s general claim (Grenzverzeichnis, 208–213) that all names on the eastern border (except RQM DGYʾH) should be located in the Ḥawrān must now be dis-carded. 36 This problem was noted by Hildesheimer (Beiträge, 69–72) who opted for ʿAyn Qudays in the Wādī l-ʿArīsh. As will be apparent later he was on the right track although he missed the exact site. 37 Not with Nabataean Petra as is assumed by e.g. Danby (m. Giṭ. 1.1–2) and Albeck (Šišā sidrê ibid.). Reqem stands for the land east of Palestine which is explicitly stated by the Mishnaic text which hardly fits Nabataean Petra. The description of the border from Bet Reḥov leaves no doubt. 38 m. Giṭ. 1.1–2. 39 Gen 16:14 and Targum Onqelos ad. loc. 40 Gen 20:1 and Targum Onqelos ad loc. 41 Targums to Gen 16:14; 20:1.


121

texts together with the description of the border from Bet Reḥov we learn that Reqem in the Trachonitis was a border town representing the eastern border of the Land. The identification of Ḥeger with Shur confirms that this location stands for the southernmost point of the Promised Land.42

In the Sifre- and Tosefta-versions of the description of the border, Reqem in Trachonitis is called RQM DḤGRʾ.43 If we put together the Old Testament hints of the existence of a Reqem south of Judaea and the men-tioning of a Ḥeger as the southernmost point on the border in the Mishnah and the targums, RQM DḤGRʾ looks very much as if it should belong to the south, not the east, being connected with Ḥeger in the Mishnaic de-scription of the border.44 A strong indication that this is the case is the fact that the Targum renders Qadesh in the Ishmael-Hagar story by Reqem and Bered, as we have seen, with Ḥegrā. And Abraham settles in the Negev between Ḥegrā and Reqem according to the Targum Onqelos to Genesis 20:1. These two sites were thus thought to be quite close to each other. The word ḤGR does not have a Hebrew or Aramaic etymology. But in Arabic ḥaǧar means “stone” and it is tempting to associate it not only with ḥeger/ḥegrā but also with petra.

There was definitely one Reqem in Trachonitis and one in Edom east of the Arabah. But obviously there also was one south of Judaea, as indi-cated both by the Old Testament and the targumic rendering of the name Qadesh in contexts dealing with the Negev. The early rabbinic traditions call this place Ḥeger/Ḥegrā which obviously appears as Rqem d-ḥegrā in the targums dealing with the Negev. The list of border sites has a RQM DGYʾH, a name that appears in Eusebius’ Gaia associated with Petra east of the Arabah but which in our list would suit far better as indicating the southernmost point of the southern border, thus identical with Ḥeger. This is where it is located in the description of the border which must be seen as the primary source. These two are distinguished from Reqem in Tra-chonitis. A conclusion from all this so far is that there seems to have been a confusion between the three Reqem in the literary sources and that at least the epithet ḤGRʾ, originally belonging to Reqem south of Judaea, in 42 In the Mishna-passage there is a discussion whether Ashqalon or Ḥeger represents the southernmost point. 43 t. Šeb. 4.11 (Zuckermandel 66 ll. 10–11), Sifre Devarim ʿEqev 51 (Finkelstein, 117–118). 44 Klein (Grenzverzeichnis, 206–208) argued in favour of a ḤGR in Trachonitis based on the occurrence of this epithet in the Sifre- and Tosefta-versions. The Bet Reḥov text, how-ever, leaves no doubt that the epithet ḤGR does not belong to the RQM in Trachonitis.

SEÅ 76, 2011 122

later literary transmission of the list of border towns has been applied to a Reqem to which it originally did not belong, i.e., to a place in Trachonitis. There remains the problematic GYʾH which is applied both to Reqem east of the Arabah, i.e., in Edom, where it is still found, and to a Reqem west of the Arabah in the Negev, which also has the epithet ḤGRʾ. The eastern location is found in Eusebius and, possibly, earlier in Glaucus, the western one in the oldest list of border towns. What is the connection?

Reqem and Qadesh Barneaʿ When describing the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness Josephus mentions the metropolis of the Arabs “earlier called Arkē, nowadays Petra (Rock),” as the place where Aaron died.45 From the context in Josephus it is clear that this Petra is east of the Arabah, i.e., present-day Petra. Aaron’s tomb is, in fact, still shown there today. From the quotations from Josephus by Eusebius it is clear that the original reading was arkēm, i.e. Reqem.46

Turning to the rabbinical literature we find that the site called Qadesh Barneaʿ in the Old Testament is consistently translated RQM DGYʾH (Onqelos), RQM DGYʿʾ (Ps.-Jonathan) or RQM DGYʿH (the Fragment Targum, Neophyti I) in the Targums. The Syriac Peshitta, which origi-nally might have been a Jewish targum, does the same: RQM DGYʾ. That Qadesh Barneaʿ is identified with Nabataean Petra goes well with the tradition by Josephus quoted above which makes the same identification, showing that it is fairly early. But this presents a problem. There is no doubt that Qadesh Barneaʿ in the Old Testament is thought to be located west of the Arabah somewhere in the Negev or northern Sinai. We have already seen that Qadesh is translated by Rqem by the targums in passages which explicitly refer to the Negev. The identification of Qadesh Barneaʿ with present-day Petra goes against the Old Testament evidence. The fact that both Josephus and the Aramaic Bible tradition identify the rock/Petra/the metropolis of the Arabs with Nabataean Petra but at the same time with Qadesh Barneaʿ in the story of the wilderness has to be explained.

As we have seen, the sources from before the beginning of our era lo-cate the rock of the Arabs south of Judaea and west of the Arabah. This fits much better with the testimony in the Old Testament texts about the 45 Josephus, Ant. 4.82. 46 Eusebius, Onom. 36.


123

wandering in the wilderness and the location of Qadesh Barneaʿ. The very term “the metropolis of the Arabs” in Josephus, identified by him as Qadesh Barneaʿ, fits the rock in the Negev much better since that was the place originally known as their main centre. It thus looks as if the identifi-cation of Qadesh Barneaʿ has been transferred from a site west of the Arabah, viz. RQM DḤGRʾ or RQM DGYʾH to Petra in Edom, i.e., on the eastern side of the Arabah. This is a transfer which would have been made before the time of Josephus. If there has been a transfer of both names and traditions from RQM DḤGRʾ/RQM DGYʾH in the Negev to RQM in Edom this would explain why the Targums and Josephus identify Qadesh Barneaʿ with the latter, i.e. present-day Petra. But it could also explain why the name of Reqem in Edom has the epithet GYʾH which might have been transferred from Reqem in the Negev, where it, according to the descriptions of the border as well as the targumic tradition, originally be-longs. The earliest certain mentioning of the Edomitic Reqem by the name Petra is found in documents going back to the 50s BCE in connection with the Roman operations in the aftermath of the conquest of Palestine by Pompey in 63 BCE.47 The name was then obviously in use for the site in Edom originally named Reqem. The very name Petra might, in fact, re-flect the Semitic word ḤGR, “stone.” The identification of it with Qadesh Barneaʿ was probably made sometime between the 50s BCE and the 90s CE when Josephus wrote his book. The Aramaic terminology in the tar-gums including the Peshitta can thus be dated to this period.

The reason for this transfer of names from the rock in the Negev/Sinai to southern Transjordan is probably connected with political develop-ments in the Arabo-Nabataean kingdom.48 The rock in the Negev was still a royal residence in the time of Antipatros and Herod but in Athenodorus’ time the king resided in Edomitic Petra.49 It may indicate a change of po-litical centre in the kingdom in connection with the Roman conquest of Palestine.

There was thus a site south of Judaea known as “the rock,” Ḥeger/Ḥegrā. It also had another name: Reqem. Another Reqem was situ-ated east of the Arabah in the land of Edom. For some reason this latter

47 Josephus, J.W. 1.159; Ant. 14.80–81; Retsö, Arabs 364–365, 370. 48 Retsö, Arabs 376–377. 49 As a matter of fact, the king seems to be absent from the residence in the Negev when Herod was there in 40–39 since it is said that Herod did not meet the king in person. The transfer of the residence might thus have occurred earlier.

SEÅ 76, 2011 124

was at a certain time, probably shortly before 63 BCE, called “The rock” as well. It was then known by two names: Petra, the Greek translation of “rock,” and RQM DGYʾH. Its modern name, Petra, is thus a borrowing. The original Petra, Ḥeger in Hebrew and Ḥegrā in Aramaic, lies some-where west of the Arabah. But it also looks as if the epithet DGYʾH origi-nally belongs to the RQM west of the Arabah.50

The result of this investigation is that there are good arguments favour-ing the identification of the stronghold of the Arabs, mentioned by Hiero-nymus/Diodorus, Agatharchides and Josephus west of the Arabah, with the Ḥeger/ Ḥegrā known in the rabbinic Jewish tradition. But another new important insight is the fact that Jewish tradition most probably originally identified this rock, ḤGR or Petra, with Qadesh Barneaʿ, one of the most important sites during the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness. Does this identification have any support in the Old Testament tradition and are there any indications of a more exact location of this Petra/Qadesh Ba-rneaʿ?

The location of Qadesh Barneaʿ Qadesh (Barneaʿ) was identified with the source ʿAyn Qadīs/Qudays in one of the eastern tributaries to the Wādī l-ʿArīsh system by Rowlands in the 1840s. The identification was repeated by Trumbull in 1884 and fi-nally settled by Woolley and Lawrence in 1911.51 It has become a basic truth in Old Testament scholarship and every textbook until this day dis-cussing the exodus route or the southern borders of the Promised land marks that oasis as Qadesh Barneaʿ.52 There are, in fact, three wells in that area: ʿAyn Qudays, ʿAyn Qudayrāt and ʿAyn Qusayma.53 Trumbull fa-voured the second of these as the real Qadesh, a view which has been

50 Pace Davies, Hagar 160–163. 51 See the surveys by Guthe, Kadesh Barnea; N. Schmidt, Kadesch Barnea; Wol-ley/Lawrence, Wilderness, 86–88; Gray, Numbers, 144; Glueck, Explorations, 119; de Vaux/Savignac, Recherches, 97; Aharoni, Kadesh-Barnea; Noth, Vierte Buch, 94–95; idem, Josua, 87; de Vaux, Histoire, 396; Soggin, Joshua, 172; Davies, Hagar, 162; de Geus, Kadesh Barnea; Na’aman, Brook, 78; Kallai, Geography, 114; Aharoni, Land, 64–65, 184; Axelsson, Lord, 28–29; Ottosson, Josuaboken, 196. 52 Kallai, Geography, 118: “Kadesh-barnea’s relation to the region of ʿEn Qŭdēs and Wādi ʿel-Qŭdērāt is not disputed.” 53 The exact linguistic forms of these names remain unclear. Musil, Arabia Petraea II.1: 178 ff., gives ʿAyn Qdeys, ʿAyn Quṣeyme, ʿAyn Qdērāt, none of which can reflect the local pronunciation. One would expect a g instead of q and a diphthong ey also in the third name. The vowel reduction is also inconsistent and the medial consonant is unclear (s or ṣ?).


125

followed by most commentators ever since. The arguments in favour were, and still tend to be, two: (1) the similarity of the names Qadesh and Qadīs/Qudays, both meaning “holy,” and (2) the nature of the site itself which seemed apt to serve as a camp for the two million Israelites coming out of Egypt.54 It does not put too heavy a demand on the ability to think critically to realize that none of these arguments are really tenable. The second one need not be discussed today. The similarity of names does not mean anything in this case. Even if the modern and ancient names could be proved to be dependent on each other it might well be that the identifi-cation was made by Christian pilgrims and/or their guides knowing their Bible well when following a plausible route of the exodus. The name Qadīs would reflect a station on an early pilgrim route identified as Qadesh. Even the name ʿAyn Qudayrāt, “the well of judgements,” could have a similar explanation. The spiritual affinities between the ancient Christian pilgrims and modern western Bible romantics should not be overlooked.

A closer look at the Old Testament evidence gives another picture. There is a definite association between Qadesh and the people called ʿAmāleq in Gen 14:7. The story about the war against ʿAmāleq in Exod 17:8–16 is told as a continuation of the episode with Moses producing water from the rock Ḥoreb, an act which he also performs at Qadesh. That Ḥoreb is situated at Qadesh is the meaning of Deut 1:1–2.55 In Num 13:39 ʿAmāleq is said to dwell in the Negev. In Num 14 it is told how the Israel-ites are defeated by the Canaanites and the Amalekites when trying to conquer Judaea and they flee to a place called Ḥormah. In Num 21:1–3 this place is located near Arad in the eastern Negev.56 The base for the failed attack is Qadesh.57 Also in Josephus we hear that ʿAmāleq is lo-cated immediately west of the Arabah.58 According to Eusebius the region called Amalekitis is in the desert south of Judaea above or beyond the city 54 Woolley/Lawrence still argue as if the Pentateuch were a documentary report of the wandering. This means that their argument like all the preceding ones cannot be taken seriously until the nature of this account has been analysed. Such a view of the text is still found with many later writers, e.g. Aharoni, Kadesh-Barnea, etc. 55 Thus also Mowinckel, Israel, 229, note 4. Verse 2 describes the route from Ḥoreb to the Plains of Moab. This is thus in contradiction to verse 19 where Ḥoreb and Qadesh Barneaʿ are separated. The geographical notes in Deut 1:1–2 seem quite confused and are probably the work of redactors different from the voice in the following speech of Moses. 56 Cf. also Judg 1:16–17. 57 Num 13:27. 58 Josephus, Ant. 2.5.

SEÅ 76, 2011 126

called Petra on the way to Aila.59 This somewhat confused statement be-comes crystal clear if by Petra here originally is meant Rqem d-ḥegrā, i.e., the one west of the Arabah. All this evidence points to a location of Qadesh somewhere on the south-eastern border of the promised land, i.e., in the southeastern Negev highlands. In Num 20 the death of Aaron is told as the continuation of these same events. There is no reasonable doubt that all the places mentioned in these stories are close to or identical with each other.

This rock might, in fact, be mentioned in other places in Israel’s tradi-tions as well. According to the descriptions of the borders in the book of Numbers, the promised Land was limited in the north and in the south by two mountains, both named Hor.60 The southern one, on which Aaron was buried, is said to be situated on the border of Edom and it should be iden-tified with the rock mentioned in Judg 1:36.61 In Num 20 we find the scene where Moses, by speaking to “the rock” and hitting it with his stick, makes water, the “water of strife” (merîbā), come forth. This event takes place at Qadesh which is on the border to Edom.62 The Israelites sent a message from there to the Edomite king asking for a transit permit.63 As punishment for his disbelief, Aaron must die at this point of the border to the Promised Land and is buried on Mount Hor. According to Josephus, Aaron is buried in Petra which was earlier called Arkē(m). Josephus says that this rock is at the border of Arabia which would suit well with the border between Roman Judaea and Nabataea in the first century CE, which followed the ancient southern border of Judaea rather closely.64 When Josephus renders the story of the Judaean king Amasiah, he also says that the rock was on the border of Arabia, i.e., the Arabo-Nabataean kingdom. The capital of that kingdom, Petra, however, was situated in its centre, not at its border.65 The rock mentioned by Josephus in these pas-

59 Eusebius, Onom. 17. 60 Num 34:7–8; 20:22; 33:36–39; cf. Deut 32:50. 61 The verse describes the territory of the Amorites mimmaalē ʿaqrabbîm mehaselaʿ wamaʿlā, “from the scorpion ascent, from the rock upwards.” The phrase “from the rock” is rendered by the LXX epi tēs petras “until the rock,” which actually gives a better mean-ing and indicates that the MT could have a dittography: the me- is copied from the final m in the preceding word (cf. the apparatus ad loc. in the BHS). The meaning of the passage would then be: The territory of the Amorites extended from the Scorpion Ascent [in the northern sector of the eastern Negev] to the rock [in the southern sector] and further on. 62 Num 20:1. 63 Num 20:14–21. 64 Josephus, Ant. 9.188–192. 65 Josephus, Ant. 9.188–192.


127

sages fits the Negev far better. The location of the rock indicated in the Old Testament was obviously still remembered by the tradition used by Josephus and later on by the rabbis. The place was obviously well known and identified down into Roman times. Jewish tradition did not originally identify this “rock” with Nabataean Petra in Edom.

There are some other passages in the Old Testament that probably refer to the same rock in the Negev and not to the later Nabataean capital. Deu-tero-Isaiah in the sixth century BCE puts Qedar as parallel to “the inhabi-tants of the rock.”66 We have no indications that Qedar ever possessed Petra but we are pretty certain that they were in the Negev at this time. In the violent oracles against Edom found in Jeremiah and Obadiah they are said to dwell “in the cracks of the rock.”67 If this oracle is directed against Edom in the sixth century BCE the rock might well be a place in the east-ern Negev since by then the Edomites had penetrated into it.68

Qadesh and the southern border According to the two descriptions of the southern border of the Promised land in the Old Testament, Qadesh Barneaʿ is situated just north of the border line. In the description in Num 34:4–5 the points of the border are the following:

MT: The end of the Dead Sea – the Scorpion Ascent – Ṣin – south of Qadesh Barneaʿ – Ḥaṣar-ʾAddar – ʿAṣmon – the Brook of Miṣrayim – the Sea.

LXX: From the Dead Sea – ascent of Akrabin – Senna – south of Kadēs of Barnē – the epaulis of Arad – Asemōna – the Brook of Egypt – the Sea.

The list in Joshua 15:2–4 shows some variation:

MT: The end of the Dead Sea – the Scorpion Ascent – Ṣin – south of Qadesh Barneaʿ – Ḥeṣron – ʾAddar – ha-Qarqaʿ – ʿAṣmon – the Brook of Miṣrayim – the Sea.

66 Isa 42:11. 67 Jer 49:16; Obad v. 3. 68 Bartlett, Land of Seir, 13, idem, Edom, 41–44, 88.

SEÅ 76, 2011 128

LXX: From the Dead Sea – ascent of Akrabin – Senna – to Kadēs barnē – Asō-rōn – Addara – south of Kadēs – Asemōna – the canyon (pharanx) of Egypt – the Sea.

The double mention of Kadēs in LXX in Joshua as well as the occurrence of Arad in LXX in Numbers is probably due to the existence of the two forms of the name: Qadesh and Qadesh Barneaʿ as well as the varying traditions of the name(s) of the station(s) between Qadesh and ʿAṣmon. The Peshitta follows the MT but, in accordance with the Aramaic tradi-tion, replaces Qadesh Barneaʿ with Rqem d-gayyā which goes quite well with the description of the border in the Bet Reḥov text. We notice that all versions agree on the four first stations. In Numbers the description is introduced by the following: “You shall have the edge of the Negev from the wilderness of Ṣin beside (ʿal yedê) Edom. Your southern border shall be from the end of the Dead Sea in the east.” In the Fragment Targum to the description of the border in Num 34 the Hebrew pʾat Negeb, “the edge of the Negev,” is translated “the wilderness of RQM.”69 The Book of Joshua has the following: “The border of the tribe of the bnê Yehudah according to their mišpeḥot was unto the border of Edom, the wilderness of Ṣin southwards, to the extremity of (miqṣê) Têman.” It is clear from this that at least part of the border from the Dead Sea to Qadesh followed the border of Edom which is also the scenario in the account of the death of Aaron and the refused permission to enter the territory of Edom. Qadesh could thus be situated at a point where the border of Edom begins seen from the south. There is no indication anywhere that the Edomites controlled an area far westwards into the basin of Wādī l-ʿArīsh. Instead they are often identified with Seʿir, which is the area south-east of Judaea along the escarpment of the Arabah, an area of which they took control at a certain time.70

It is worth pointing out that there is a formula describing the ideal ex-tension of the Promised Land which is a parallel to the one mentioning the two mountains of Hor. When summing up the conquests by Joshua the author describes the conquered land as stretching “from Baʿal Gad in the Lebanon valley until the Mountain of Ḥalaq rising towards Seʿir.”71 The name Ḥalaq is probably preserved in the Arabic Ǧabal Ḥalāq which was

69 Frg. Targ. to Numbers 34:3 = Klein I:208. 70 Bartlett, op. cit. 71 Josh 11:17 and 12:7.


129

pointed out to Alois Musil in 1897 and is situated a few kilometres north of the ruins of Avdat.72

As far as the western extension of the border is concerned it is said that it nāsaḇ, “turned off,” towards the Brook of Egypt. The Brook of Egypt must be Wādī Ġazzā/Naḥal Beṣor, reaching the Mediterranean just south of Gaza. This is confirmed by indications in Assyrian documents from the time of Esarhaddon. In these it is said that the Assyrians took the city of Arza which was pâṭi naẖal Muṣur, “along the brook of Muṣur.”73 Arza can with a high degree of certainty be identified with present-day Tell el-Jemmeh (Tall al-Ǧamma), a prominent site on the southern bank of the Wādī Ġazzā/Naḥal Beṣor.74 Esarhaddon further says that he took the town Rapih̠a, present-day Rafāḥ, which is ana itê naẖal Muṣur, “on the bank of

72 Musil, Arabia Petraea II.1: 170; cf. Noth, Josua, 69; Kallai, Southern Border, 443–445 who points out the interesting wordplay in Gen 27:11. The mountain mentioned in Joshua is on many maps located to the northeast of present-day Sde Boqer which does not fit the description by Musil. 73 Nineveh A III:39, B I:55 = Borger, Inschriften, 50. 74 Maisler, Yurza; Na’aman, Brook, 74–80; idem, Borders, 246f.; idem, Province System, 111; Svensson, Towns, 33 and map; Verreth, Border, 200; Levine, Numbers, 534. The identification of the Brook of Egypt with Naḥal Beṣor/Wādī Ġazzā was rejected by Rainey (Problems). The first argument was that the Akkadian expression adi Rapih̠i ana itê nah̠al Muṣur must mean “to Raphia up to the Brook of Egypt,” referring to two different sites, indicating that the Brook is beyond Raphiah. The second was that the LXX identifies the Brook of Egypt in Isa 27:12 with Rhinocorura which should be present-day al-ʿArīsh. Rainey is probably right in pointing out that ana itê must mean “to/unto the shore,” not “across the shore,” but this hardly proves that the Brook must be situated beyond Raphiah. Rather the two expressions could be seen more or less as synonyms like in the passage quoted about Yamani flying “to the border of Egypt, to the border region of Nubia.” Also the passage in Ezek 29:10, mimmigdol sûnah w-ʿad gbûl kûš, should rather be rendered “from Migdol towards Assuan, that is up to the border of Nubia”. The passages in Gen 10:19, 1 Kgs 5:1 and 2 Chron 9:26 could be read in the same way. Since Assuan actually marked the border to Nubia the passage consists of two synonymic expressions. The LXX rendering of naḥal miṣrayim (Isa 27:12) with Rhinocorura only shows that possibly to these translators this was the current identification of the border of Egypt. As a matter of fact, the passage in Herodotus 3.5 adduced by Rainey clearly shows that to Herodotus the border between the land of the “Syrians” and Egypt was located at the western end of Lake Sirbonis, thus not at Rhinocorura. This also seems to have been the case in the time of Alexander the Great who reached Egypt at Pelusium (Arrian, Anabasis 3.1.1–2). The same indication of the border is found in Pseudo-Scylax from the fourth century BCE (Müller, Geographie, 79–80) as well as in Strabo where it is completely clear that Rhinocorura is not in Egypt or even at the border (16.31, 33). Contrary to Rainey’s claim, evidence shows that the border between Egypt and Syria/Phoenicia/Arabia changed during the ages (cf. Verreth, Border). The identification in LXX is the earliest evidence for its location to Wādī l-ʿArīsh but this was far from being commonly accepted.

SEÅ 76, 2011 130

the brook of Muṣur.”75 If the border went from ʿAyn Qudayrāt along Wādī l-ʿArīsh to the Mediterranean it is difficult to understand how it can be said to turn towards the Brook of Egypt. But if Qadesh is situated farther in the northeast in the southeastern Negev and constituted the southern-most point of the border it becomes fully comprehensible. The commonly accepted identification of Qadesh Barneaʿ with the wells around ʿAyn Qudayrāt and the Brook of Egypt with Wādī l-ʿArīsh must be wrong.76 The border went farther north, probably from the Dead Sea down to the high-lands of Avdat/ʿAbdeh and from there turned towards Gaza following Naḥal Beṣor/Wādī Ġazza.77 This is also in full agreement with the later rabbinic definition of the southern border of the Promised Land docu-mented in the text from Bet Reḥov.

The sacred geography of the regions south of Palestine proper accord-ing to the Old Testament remembered into the rabbinical times thus looks as follows: the promised land of the Israelites was limited in the south by a border line which constituted a vast more or less isosceles triangle with its top pointing southwards. Its eastern line was the border towards Edom, running along the land of Seʿir.78 East of it was the wilderness of Ṣin. Its western line ran along Naḥal Beṣor which starts in the highlands near Avdat and reaches the Mediterranean between Gaza and Rafāḥ. There are some good arguments favouring the location of the wilderness of Shur west of this border.79 According to this picture, Qadesh Barneaʿ would be

75 Esarhaddon Frt A vs. 17 = Borger, Inschriften, 112. Na’aman, Brook, 74 translates “which is beyond the border of the brook of Egypt,” i.e., on the other side seen from the Canaanite side. 76 Na’aman, Brook, and idem, Shihor, still adheres to the traditional location of Qadesh which forces him to some strained geographical arguments, cf. his map in Borders, 71 (cf. also Svensson, Towns, 33 and map). His identification of Naḥal Miṣrayim/Naẖal Muṣur with Wādī Ġazza/Naḥal Beṣor, must be considered decisive and becomes even more likely if Qadesh is moved northeastwards which gives the border line a much more acceptable design. Because of the awkward location of Qadesh in the Wādī l-ʿArīsh-basin, Na’aman has to assume that the presence of Qadesh in the list of border stations is secondary and the result of a temporary incorporation of the “Qadesh-triangle” into David’s kingdom stretch-ing unto the three wells. 77 There are several passages in the Old Testament mentioning Gaza as the border of the land, e.g. Gen 10:19; Josh 10:41; Judg 6:4; 1 Kgs 4:21–24; cf. Na’aman, Brook, 76. 78 It seems that Seʿir was within the border, belonging to the territory of Judah. This ex-plains the inclusion of several groups in the southeast, like Qenaz, Zeraḥ, Qoraḥ and others in Judah which in other passages appear as Edomites, Midianites etc. See Meyer, Israel-iten, 299 ff., 442–446. Their inclusion in Judah as well as in Edom reflects the alternating domination of these two larger entities over the Negev. 79 See Na’aman, Shihor, for a quite convincing argument. According to him, Shur is the name of a town, probably identical with Tall al-Farʿa on the Naḥal Beṣor between Ḥaluṣa


131

close to the top of this inverted triangle where we should also look for the wilderness of Paran and, perhaps, even the wilderness of Sinai with its legendary mountain.80

The rock of the Arabs according to Hieronymus of Cardia was located c. 55 km southwest of the Dead Sea. This leads us to Avdat and its sur-roundings, the most spectacular archaeological and natural site in the Negev.81 From there Naḥal Beṣor/Wādī Ġazzā flows towards the north-west. The discussion above about Rqem d-ḥegrā and Qadesh points in the same direction and since Rqem d-ḥegrā and the rock of the Arabs seem to be identical it thus looks as if the Jewish interpreters of the Bible around the end of the pre-Christian era favoured Avdat, or the region around it, as the site of one of the most important stations on the wandering from Egypt to the Promised Land, viz. Qadesh Barneaʿ. The Old Testament seems to indicate the same area.

and Tell Jemmeh. The wilderness of Shur would then be identical with the regions west of Shur (thus including the wells Qudays and Qudayrāt!). The arguments against posited by Rainey (Problems, 132–133) are not convincing. Their starting point is Exod 15:22 but this verse contains many problems which will be discussed in a forthcoming study and should not be taken as the basis for geographical jugdements. 80 Hakohen (Mahûtam) argues that Qadesh and Qadesh Barneaʿ are two separate sites, the first identical with Edomite Petra, the other one with the wells in Wādī l-ʿArīsh. The foun-dation of the argument is Josephus’ identification of Reqem with Edomite Petra, the cur-rent location of many of the traditions of the desert wandering to the sites in Wādī l-ʿArīsh and the location of the mountain of Seʿir east of the ʿArabah. He correctly points out the different contexts of the two forms of the name: Qadesh is connected with the waters of Merîbā, the border of Edom, the tomb of Aaron and the wilderness of Ṣin, Qadesh Barneaʿ on the other hand with the story of the spies, the descriptions of the border, the encamp-ments during the wandering and the wilderness of Paran. It should, however, be added that these differences are connected with the fact that the name Qadesh Barneaʿ belongs to the Deuteronomistic layer. The differences thus reflect different views according to different traditions, not necessarily different geographical sites. It is also doubtful whether the ren-dering of the two names in the Targums reflects any geographical ambition or knowledge by the targumists. It is rather a testimony of their ambition to give an accurate translation of all distinctive features in the original text. It is, however, not impossible that the two names indicate some kind of geographical difference; Qadesh may well stand for a region which included different sites: Barneaʿ, Hor ha-har etc. But it is highly unlikely to say the least, that already the Pentateuchal tradition would contain a memory of Israelites sojourn-ing in Edomite Petra during the wanderings in the wilderness. And it should be undisputa-ble that Qadesh [Barneaʿ] cannot be located to Wādī l-ʿArīsh. 81 See the discussion in Retsö, Arabs, 286–287. Davies, Hagar, 162, realizes that Ḥegra must be in the southeastern Negev, “perhaps in the Miktash Raman.” We are then quite close to the region of Avdat. Davies does not make the identification with Qadesh since he follows the common opinion about the identity of Qadesh and ʿAyn Qudays.

SEÅ 76, 2011 132

The visible remains at the present-day site of Avdat are mainly from late antiquity but under the Christian acropolis lies a pagan cult place, parts of which are still visible in the form of bare rock with incisions.82 Spolia of a pagan temple are found in the walls of the ecclesiastical build-ings on the acropolis.83 An unexcavated pagan cult place difficult to inter-pret is found further southwards on the hill, probably connected with a monumental rock-cut tomb on the slope west of it.84 The pagan structures cannot be later than the third century CE and are probably much older. The earliest building activities which can be traced today on the site started in the beginning of the third century BCE according to the ar-chaeological investigations, which makes it the earliest “Nabataean” ur-ban centre in the Negev.85 But also the region around the ancient city should be noticed, especially the spectacular gorge nearby where we have a perennial source of water, unique in the Negev, the waters of which are mixed with the water from a wādī originating at the foot of the hill where the acropolis is situated, forming an impressive waterfall during heavy rains in the winter. The water system at the well is quite unique and it would be strange indeed if this site had not drawn the attention of ancient inhabitants of the Negev and adjacent regions. The temptation is great to link this natural feature with the epithet GYʾH, “valley” or, rather, “gorge,” connected with RQM in the Negev both in the targums and the descriptions of the borders.86 The occurrence of GYʾH as an epithet of RQM in the latter is a strong indication that it originally belongs to the site in the Negev, not in Edom. The definite location of the Biblical rock at Edomitic Petra is found for the first time in Eusebius in the beginning of the fourth century CE.87 With this relocation, also the tomb of Aaron was

82 The description of the site by Jaussen/Savignac/Vincent (‘Abdeh) who visited it in Feb-ruary 1904 is still indispensable as a testimony of what it looked like before the modern excavations and restorations. 83 Szigat, Spolia (= Negev, Avdat, 181–191). 84 See the map in Jaussen et al., ‘Abdeh I, opp. p. 404. For the tomb see ibid. II: 82–89. For the cult place ibid. III: 235–237. 85 Wenning, Nabatäer, 159–172; Negev, Avdat, 1–9. 86 The word gayʾ is only found in the Hebrew Bible and its occurrence in the Aramaic Bible texts is due to borrowing from Hebrew. In Zech 14:4 it clearly means “gorge,” “can-yon,” not “valley” for which Hebrew uses ʿemeq. Also in Psalm 23:4 the meaning “can-yon” suits the context. The gayʾ of Hinnom in Jerusalem is also a quite canyon-like forma-tion. Cf. also the name gê ha-melaḥ, “the canyon of salt,” located somewhere in the Negev (2 Sam. 8:13; 2 Kgs 14:7; 2 Chron 25:11; 1 Chron 18:12; Psalm 60:2). 87 Cf. Starcky, Pétra, 898–900.


133

automatically transferred to the vicinity of Petra where it has been pointed out ever since.

These geographical insights raise several questions. It is obvious that they may shed some light on the narrative of the wandering in the wilder-ness and its geography in general. If Qadesh Barneaʿ, the rock of the Ar-abs, RQM DḤGRʾ, RQM DGYʾH, Ḥoreb, even Mount Sinai all can be located at Avdat or the region around it, one may start to wonder what really took place at this site and why it had such a prominent status. An-other question is: is there any connection between the early Arabs and the events told about Qadesh in the Old Testament? These questions will be tackled in a forthcoming monograph by this author.

Bibliography

Sources

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Ed. by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart 1967/77.

Borger, R., Die Inschriften Esarhaddons Königs von Assyrien. Osnabrück, 1967 (Neudruck der Ausgabe 1956).

Diodorus = Diodorus of Sicily with an English translation by C. H. Oldfather. Vols. I–XII. LCL. London/New York/Cambridge, MA, 1933–1967.

Dioscurides = De materia medica libri quinque. Vols. I–III. Ed. by M. Wellmann. Berlin, 1906.

Eusebius Onomastikon = Eusebius Werke: das Onomastikon. Hrsg. E. Kloster-mann. GCS 11.1. Leipzig 1904.

The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to the Extant Sources. Vols. I–II. Ed. by M. L. Klein. Analecta Biblica 76. Rome, 1986.

Geographi Graeci Minores I. Ed. by C. Müllerus. Paris, 1955. Pseudo-Jonathan (Targum Jonathan ben Usiël zum Pentateuch). Hrsg. M. Gins-

burger. Berlin, 1903. Josephus with an English Translation by H. St. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wik-

gren, and L. H. Feldman. Vols. V–IX: Jewish Antiquities, LCL. Lon-don/Cambridge MA, 1961–1981.

The Mosaic Inscription from the Synagogue of Rehov. Cat. no. 176. The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, 1978.

Neophyti I: Targum palestinense MS. De la Bibliotheca Vaticana. Vols. I–VI. Ed. by A. Díez Macho. Madrid/Barcelona, 1968–1979.

The Old Testament in Syriac. Peshiṭta Version. Part 1–2.1b: Preface – Genesis – Exodus – Leviticus – Numbers – Deuteronomy – Joshua. Leiden 1977–1991.

The Peutinger map = Miller, K., Die Peutingersche Karte oder Weltkarte des Castorius. Stuttgart 1916 [repr, 1962].

SEÅ 76, 2011 134

Photius: Bibliothèque I–VII. Ed. and trans. by R. Henry. Paris, 1959–1974. Pliny: Natural History in Ten Volumes with an English Translation by H. Rack-

ham, W. H. S. Jones, and D. E. Eichholz. LCL. Cambridge, MA/London, 1949–1958.

Ptolemaeus = Claudii Ptolemaei Geographica. Ed. by C. F. A. Nobbe. Leipzig, 1843–1845. Repr. Hildesheim, 1966.

Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Ed. by A. Rahlfs. Vol. I–II. Stuttgart, 1935.

Sifrê ʿal sefer Devarîm. Ed. by E. A. Finkelstein. Corpus Tannaiticum: Sectio Textus P. III: Siphre d’be Rab, fasc. II: Siphre ad Deuteronomium. Berlin, 1939. Repr. New York, 1969.

Šišā sidrê Mišnā mefûrašîm bîdê Ḥ. Albeq ûmenûqad bîdê Ḥ. Yalôn. Jerusalem, 1959. Repr. ibid. 1973.

Stephanus = Stephan von Byzanz, Ethnika: Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae supersunt. Ed. by A. Meineke. Berlin, 1849. Repr. Graz, 1958.

Strabo = The Geography of Strabo with an English Translation by H. L. Jones. LCL. London/Cambridge, MA., 1960–1969.

Targum Onkelos. Hrsg. A. Berliner. Berlin, 1884. Talmûd Bavlî ʿim kol ha-mefarešîm kaʾašer nidpas mi-qedem. Yerûšalayyim,

TWBBʾʾA. Talmûd Yerûšalmî. Krotoshin, 1866. Tosephta. Ed. by M. S. Zuckermandel. With Supplement to the Tosephta by S.

Liebermann. New edn. Jerusalem, 1970. Yāqūt, Muʿǧam = Jacut’s geographisches Wörterbuch. Kitāb muʿǧam al-buldān,

1–6. Hrsg. F. Wüstenfeld. Leipzig 1866–1873. Repr. Leipzig, 1924.

Secondary literature

Aharoni, Y., The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. London, 1967. Aharoni, Y., “Kadesh-Barnea and Mount Sinai.” In B. Rothenberg (ed.), God’s

Wilderness: Discoveries in the Sinai. London, 1961. Axelsson, L. A., The Lord rose up from Seir: Studies in the History and Tradi-

tions of the Negev and Southern Judah. Lund, 1987. Bartlett, J. R., Edom and the Edomites. JSOTSup, 77. Sheffield, 1989. Bartlett, J. R., “The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom.” Journal of

Theological Studies N.S. 20 (1969): 1–20. Bowersock, G., “Jacoby’s Fragments and Two Greek Historians of Pre-Islamic

Arabia.” In G. W. Most (ed.), Collecting Fragments – Fragmente sammeln. Aporemata. Kritische Studien zur Philologiegeschichte, Bd. 1. Göttingen, 1997, 173–185.

Burstein, Agatharchides = Agatharchides of Cnidus, On the Erythraean Sea. Translated from the Greek and edited by S. M. Burstein. The Hakluyt Soci-ety, 2 ser., 172. London, 1989.

Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, 11. Garden City, NY, 1988.

Danby, H., The Mishnah. Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanantions and Notes. Oxford, 1933.


135

Davies, G. I., “Hagar, el-Heǧra and the Location of Mount Sinai.” Vetus Testa-mentum 22 (1972): 152–163.

de Geus, C. H. J., “Kadesh Barnea: Some Geographical and Historical Remarks.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 20 (1977): 56–66.

Glueck, N., “Explorations in Eastern Palestine II.” Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 15 (1934–35).

Gray, G. B., Numbers. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh, 1903. Gray, J., I and II Kings: A Commentary. 3rd edn. Old Testament Library. London,

1977. Guthe, H., “Clay Trumbull’s Kadesh Barnea.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästi-

navereins 8 (1884): 183–232. Hakohen, D. B., “Mahûtam šel Qadeš we-Reqem le-ʿûmat Qadeš Barneaʿ we-

Reqem Gîā.” Judea and Samaria Research Studies 11 (2002): 27–40. Hildesheimer, H., Beiträge zur Geographie Palästinas. Berlin, 1996. Japhet, S., I and II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London,

1993. Jaussen, A., R. Savignac, and H. Vincent, “‘Abdéh (4–9 février 1904).” Revue

Biblique 13 (1904): 403–424; 14 (1905): 74–89, 233–298. Kallai, Z., Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel.

Jerusalem/Leiden, 1986. Kallai, Z., “The Southern Border of the Land of Israel – Pattern and Application.”

Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987): 438–445. Klein, S., “Das tannaitische Grenzverzeichnis Palästinas.” Hebrew Union College

Annual 5 (1928): 197–259. Knauf, E. A., “Rekem.” In D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6

vols. New York, 1992, 5: 665. Levine, B. A., Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Com-

mentary. Anchor Bible. New York, 2000. Maisler, B., “Ha-Reqem we-ha-Ḥeger.” Tarbiz 20 (1949): 316–319. Maisler, B., “Yurza: The Identification of Tell Jemmeh.” Palestine Exploration

Quarterly 84 (1952): 48–51. Meyer, E., Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme: Alttestamentliche Untersu-

chungen. Halle a.S., 1906. Mowinckel, S. P., Israels opphav og eldste historie. Oslo, 1967. Musil, A., Arabia Petraea II: Edom. Topographischer Reisebericht 1–2. Wien,

1907. Na’aman, N., Borders and Districts in Biblical Geography. Jerusalem Biblical

Studies, 4. Jerusalem, 1986. Na’aman, N., “The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt.”

Tel-Aviv 6 (1979): 68–90. Na’aman, N., “Province System and Settlement Patterns in South Syria and Pales-

tine in the Neo-Assyrian Period.” In M. Liverani (ed.), Neo-Assyrian Geog-raphy. Roma, 1995, 103–115.

Na’aman, N., “The Shihor of Egypt and Shur That Is Before Egypt.” Tel-Aviv 7 (1980): 95–109.

SEÅ 76, 2011 136

Negev, A., The Architecture of Oboda: The Final Report. Qedem, 36. Jerusalem, 1997.

Noth, M., Das Buch Josua. 3rd edn. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1, Reihe 7. Tübingen, 1971.

Noth, M., Das vierte Buch Mose Numeri übersetzt und erklärt. Das Alte Testa-ment Deutsch, 7. Göttingen, 1966.

Ottosson, M., Josuaboken – en programskrift för davidisk restauration. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Biblica Upsaliensia, 1. Uppsala, 1991.

Rainey, A., “Toponymic Problems (cont.).” Tel Aviv 9 (1982): 130–136. Retsö, J., The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umay-

yads. London, 2003. Schmidt, N., “Kadesch Barnea.” Journal of Biblical Literature 29 (1910) : 61–71. Soggin, J. A., Joshua. Old Testament Library. London, 1972. Starcky, J., “Petra et la Nabatène.” Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 6

(1966): 886–1071. Sussmann, Y., “Baraytaʾ de-tḥûmê ʾereṣ Yisraʾel.” Tarbiz 45 (1976): 212–256. Sussmann, Y., “Ktôvet halakhtît meʿemeq Bêt-Sheʾan.” Tarbiz 43 (1973): 90–

158. Svensson, J., Towns and Toponyms in the Old Testament with Special Emphasis

on Joshua 14–21. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series, 38. Stockholm, 1994.

de Vaux, R., Histoire ancienne d’Israël des origines à l’istallation en Canaan. Paris, 1971.

de Vaux, R., and R. Savignac, “Nouvelles recherches dans la région de Cadès.” Revue Biblique 47 (1938): 97.

Verreth, H., “The Border between Egypt and Syria from the 7th century B.C. until the 7th Century A.D.” In P. van Nuffelen (ed.), Faces of Hellenism: Studies in the History of the Eastern Mediterranean (4th Century B.C.–5th Century A.D.). Leuven, 2009, 199–216.

Wenning, R., Die Nabatäer – Denkmäler und Geschichte. Freiburg/Göttingen, 1987.

Woolley, C. L., and T. E. Lawrence, The Wilderness of Zin. London, 1915. New edn 1936.

Petra and Qadesh

Documents

Transcript of Petra and Qadesh