State Formation, Religion and Collective Identity in the Southern Levant

e-offprint of the author with publisher‘s permission.

Mohr Siebeck

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel

1Volume 4215

Commonalities and Differences: Religion(s) of Iron Age II Israel and Judah in Context

Christoph UehlingerDistinctive or diverse? Conceptualizing ancient Israelite religion in its southern Levantine setting 1–24

Amihai MazarReligious Practices and Cult Objects during the Iron Age IIA at Tel Reh. ov and their Implications regarding Religion in Northern Israel 25–55

Omer SergiState Formation, Religion and “Collective Identity” in the Southern Levant 56–77

Seth L. SandersWhen the Personal Became Political: An Onomastic Perspective on the Rise of Yahwism 78–15

Terje StordalenHorse Statues in Seventh Century Jerusalem: Ancient Social Formations and the Evaluation of Religious Diversity 16–132

New Projects

Oded Lipschits, Manfred Oeming, Yuval Gadot, Interdisciplinary Research of Assyrian Siege Ramps – The Case of Tel Azekah 135–143


Hebrew Bible and Ancient IsraelHerausgegeben von Gary N. Knoppers (Notre Dame IN), Oded Lipschits (Tel Aviv), Carol A. Newsom (Atlanta GA) und Konrad Schmid (Zürich)Redaktion: Phillip Michael Lasater (Zürich)

Die Annahme zur Veröffentlichung erfolgt schriftlich und unter dem Vor -behalt, dass das Manuskript nicht anderweitig zur Veröffentlichung angeboten wurde. Mit der Annahme zur Veröffentlichung überträgt der Autor dem Verlag das ausschließliche Verlagsrecht für die Publikation in gedruckter und elektro-nischer Form. Weitere Informationen dazu und zu den beim Autor verbleibenden Rechten finden Sie unter www.mohr.de/hebai. Ohne Erlaubnis des Verlags ist eine Vervielfältigung oder Verbreitung der ganzen Zeitschrift oder von Teilen daraus in gedruckter oder elektronischer Form nicht gestattet.Bitte wenden Sie sich an [email protected].

RedaktionsadresseProfessor Dr. Konrad SchmidTheologische Fakultät der Universität ZürichKirchgasse CH- ZürichSwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Online-VolltextIm Abonnement für Institutionen und Privatpersonen ist der freie Zugang zum Online-Volltext enthalten. Institutionen mit mehr als . Nutzern bitten wir um Einholung eines Preisangebots direkt beim Verlag. Kontakt: [email protected]. Um den Online-Zugang für Institutionen/Bibliotheken einzurichten, gehen Sie bitte zur Seite: www.ingentaconnect.com/register/ institutional. Um den Online-Zugang für Privatpersonen einzurichten, gehen Sie bitte zur Seite: www.ingentaconnect.com/register/personal

Verlag: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Postfach , TübingenVertrieb erfolgt über den Buchhandel.

© Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, TübingenDie Zeitschrift und alle in ihr enthaltenen einzelnen Beiträge und Abbildungen sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlags unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Über-setzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Satz: Martin Fischer, Tübingen.Druck: Gulde-Druck, Tübingen.

ISSN - (Gedruckte Ausgabe)ISSN - (Online-Ausgabe)

Hebrew Bible and Ancient IsraelEdited by Gary N. Knoppers (Notre Dame IN), Oded Lipschits (Tel Aviv), Carol A. Newsom (Atlanta GA), and Konrad Schmid (Zürich)Redaction: Phillip Michael Lasater (Zürich)

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel publishes only invited articles. Submission of a paper will be held to imply that it contains original unpublished work and is not being submitted for publication elsewhere. All articles are refereed by specialists. Acceptance for publication will be given in writing. When an article is accepted for publication, the exclusive copyright is granted to Mohr Siebeck for publication in a print and an electronic version. Further information on this and the rights retained by the author can be found at www.mohr.de/hebai. No one may reproduce or distribute the entire journal or parts of it in a print or an electronic version without the publisher’s permission. Please contact [email protected].

Please do not send any unsolicited review copies. The publisher and the editors reserve the right to keep unsolicited books.

Contact address:Professor Dr. Konrad SchmidTheologische Fakultät der Universität ZürichKirchgasse CH- ZürichSwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Full Text OnlineFree access to the full text online is included in a subscription. We ask institu-tions with more than , users to obtain a price quote directly from the publisher. Contact: [email protected]. In order to set up online access for institutions/libraries, please go to: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/register/institutional. In order to set up online access for private persons, please go to:http://www.ingentaconnect.com/register/personal

Publisher: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Postfach , TübingenCan be purchased at bookstores.

© Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, TübingenThe journal and all the individual articles and illustrations contained in it are protected by copyright. Any utilization beyond the narrow confines of copy-right law without the publisher’s consent is punishable by law. This applies in particular to copying, translations, microfilming and storage and processing in electronic systems.

Printed in Germany.Typeset by Martin Fischer, Tübingen.Printed by Gulde-Druck, Tübingen.

ISSN - (Print Edition)ISSN - (Online Edition)

HeBAI 4 (2015), 56–77 DOI 10.1628/219222715X14343676549188 ISSN 2192-2276 © 2015 Mohr Siebeck


Omer Sergi

State Formation, Religion and “Collective Identity” in the Southern Levant

This study examines the role of textual production and scribal schools in the process of state formation, demonstrating that historiographic literature was used in order to constitute a collective identity. I argue that the accounts of David’s battles with the Philistines (1 Sam 23:1–5; 2 Sam 5:17–25; 8:1) should be considered as early Judahite historiography, and I compare them with the accounts of Mesha battles with the Omrides (Mesha Inscription, lines 4–21), which may also be considered as an histo-riographical text related to state formation. I demonstrate that both texts share simi-lar structure, content and narration and consequently both use similar strategies to reconstruct identity in a newly formed political entity. Furthermore, they both reflect the earliest stages of the development of the royal cult in Judah and Moab.

Introduction

The demise of the Late Bronze Age imperial powers and the city state system (13th–12th centuries b.c.e.) resulted in the reformation of political organi-zation in the Levant. The Iron Age territorial kingdoms that emerged on the scene (12th–9th centuries b.c.e.) were independent, kin-based political entities ruled by local dynasties whose capitals served as the administrative center of the kingdom, and to which other urban centers were subjugat-ed.1 The emergence of the Levantine territorial kingdoms reflects not only a political but also a social change: the demise of former (i. e., Late Bronze Age) political hierarchy allowed the rise of new elite among local rural set-tlers who clustered around it.2 After establishing their authority and politi-

1 T. Bryce, The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms: A Political and Military History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 202–204. For state formation and the emer-gence of the Luwian and Aramaean territorial kingdoms in the Levant see Bryce, The World, 279–294; H. Sader, “History,” in The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria (ed. H. Niehr; HdO 1/106; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 11–36, with further literature.

2 G. Bunnens, “Syria in the Iron Age: Problems and Definitions,” in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (ed. G. Bunnens; Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 3–19; B. Sass, The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West

State Formation, Religion and “Collective Identity” in the Southern Levant 57


cal hegemony over the territory they settled, the new elites were constantly involved in an attempt to expand their territory for strategic and economic purposes. Thus, state formation in the first millennium b.c.e. Levant may be described as a process of extending political power by integrating differ-ent territories, communities and political formations under centralized rule.

While the political and social aspects of state formation in the Levant have received much scholarly attention, insufficient attention has been devoted to literary texts as its intellectual products.3 In the following study I would like to focus on this aspect of Levantine state formation by examining two historiographic texts that were composed in the same period and may be considered as intellectual products of state formation in two neighboring south-Levantine territorial kingdoms: Judah and Moab. I shall demonstrate that the two share similar structures, content and narration and thus reflect similar strategies to reconstruct a “collective identity.” In other words, they both narrate the events of the past in order to reconstruct a shared memory that conveys socio-political claims. Within this framework, both texts bring to the fore new religious concepts in an attempt to establish the royal cult as the official religious practice throughout the newly formed territorial kingdom. Thus, they allow us a glimpse not only at the socio-political for-mation of territorial kingdoms but also at the early phases of their religious development.

State Formation and Literary Production

Consolidation of political power and emergence of new political entities in the ancient Near East was usually accompanied by an increase of text pro-duction, and especially by compositions of historiographical literature or, at the very least, literature that in many different respects and genres refers to the past, be it imagined or more historically accurate. Indeed, writing goes hand in hand with the invention of the state. Writing was needed as means of storage, “record keeping,” in order to organize, control and plan a large, complex economy.4 The need for bureaucracy and administrative systems

Semitic Alphabet CA. 1150–850 BCE, The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets (Occasional Papers 4; Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv Univer-sity, 2005), 63; Sader, “History,” 17–20.

3 On intellectual products of state formation, see B. Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology (Archaeology, Culture, and Society; Philadelphia: Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 37–38.

4 See J. Assmann, Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies (trans. R. Livingstone; Stan-ford: Stanford University Press, 2006), 85; H. Wang, Writing and the Ancient State: Early

Omer Sergi58


resulted in the establishment of the infrastructure supporting literacy as a whole: a literate class of scribes serving as state officials and bureaucrats that were trained and educated in scribal schools.

At the same time, state formation – as an act of extending political power that could integrate different ethnic, cultural, and political units – gave rise to the need for reconstructing a collective identity based on shared knowl-edge and shared memory.5 Hence, alongside the practical texts for daily communication, we see the gradual composition of literary texts referring to the past as a means of self-definition.6 It is for this reason that in ancient Near Eastern courts royal interest in the past increased in periods of politi-cal consolidation and territorial growth.7 Since the political nature of the ancient Near East tended towards fragmentation, the royal interest in the past was mainly occupied with providing legitimacy not only to a reigning king (and dynasty) but also to dynastic monarchy and a centralized political power as stable institutions enduring throughout history.8 This is also true for the formation of Levantine territorial states, in which local dynasties ris-ing from kin-based groups had to establish their authority on an ever grow-

China in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 1–6, with further literature.

5 On “collective identity,” see J. Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilizations: Writ-ing, Remembrance and Political Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 24–28, 111–141. In addition, see Assmann’s discussion of “collective memory” in Assmann, Religion, 7–16.

6 Assmann concluded that “The imagined national community is based on an imagined continuity that reaches back into the depth of time.” See further Assmann, Cultural Memory, 114. On historiographic text production accompanying political centraliza-tion, see also P. Machinist, “Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible,” CBQ 38 (1976): 455–482; D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 31–32, 68–71; Ass-mann, Religion, 40–41, 87, 94.

7 E. g., D. B. Redford, Pharaonic King Lists, Annals and Day Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History (Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Pub-lication 4; Mississauga: Benben Publications, 1986), 165–168; P. Michalowski, “Cha-risma and Control: On Continuity and Change in Early Mesopotamian Bureaucratic Systems,” in The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Gibson and R. Biggs; Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46; Chicago: Ori-ental Institute of Chicago, 1991), 45–58; S. Yamada, “The Editorial History of the Assyr-ian King List,” ZA 84 (1994): 11–37; J. J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles (Writings from the Ancient World 19; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 4–6, 95–99; Assmann, Religion, 90–93.

8 E. g., P. Michalowski, “History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List,” JAOS 103 (1983): 237–248; S. N. Kramer, “The Sage in the Sumerian Literature: A Composite Portrait,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. J. G. Gam-mie and L. G. Perdue; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 31–44, here 40–43; Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 56, 89, 95–99; O. Sergi, “The Alleged Judahite King List: Its Historical Setting and Possible Date,” Semitica 56 (2014): 233–247.



ing territory that contained smaller units of political power (family, village, tribe, secondary cities). In this sense, historiographic texts may be consid-ered as intellectual products of state formation that were aiming to establish collective identity as instruments to reinforce hegemony.

Cultural knowledge reinforcing hegemony had to be transmitted and institutionalized. This role was filled by the scribal schools, where scribes were educated to serve in the mechanism of the state as bureaucrats and state officials or as literate personnel for a scholarly career in the palace and the temple.9 The best way to learn to write was to practice the kind of text that should be learned by heart. Scribes were trained to memorize and recite texts, by which they acquired a common stock of ideas and phrases that could be used for further text production. By doing so they acquired not just the skill itself but also the cultural knowledge that made them not just copyists but intellectuals.10 Thus, establishing a collective identity is not only about integrating but also about differentiating: creating social classification between those who rule and those who are ruled. Education was therefore an act of socialization meant to form a small upper class considered intel-lectually superior.11 P. Michalowski wrote that the scribal school was “an ideological molder of minds”12 that created a cohort class of administrators united by similar political, religious, ethical and legal ideas that served as the mortar binding together an emergent political entity.13 In other words, scribal education was the mechanism by which the intellectual products of state formation were not only produced but also utilized in order to form political and social unity.

To conclude these points, we may present three kinds of links between the centralization of political entities and the production of literary texts: (1) bureaucratic – the forming of an administrative apparatus needed to maintain a political and economic complex; (2) ideological – establishing collective identity and promoting kingship as the sole legitimate political

9 Kramer, “The Sage,” 31–40; R. J. Williams, “The Sages in Egyptian Literature,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. J. G. Gammie and L. G. Perdue; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 19–30; K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 59–62.

10 Carr, Writing, 3–14, 27–47, 34–37, 71–75, 127–142; Assmann, Religion, 91; van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 56–57.

11 Michalowski, “Charisma and Control,” 51–56; Assmann, Religion, 111–112; Assmann, Cultural Memory, 124–129; van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 56–73.

12 Michalowski, “Charisma and Control,” 51–53, wrote that “the scribal school was an ide-ological molder of minds, the place where future members of bureaucracy were social-ized, where they received a common stock of ideas and attitudes which bound them together as a class and in many ways separated them from their original background.”

13 Kramer, “The Sage,” 37; Carr, Writing, 83.

Omer Sergi60


structure; and (3) educational – serving the goal of centralization by form-ing and maintaining a coherent, literate ruling elite.

State Formation and Scribal Schools in Moab and Judah

It is commonly believed that the kingdom of Moab emerged during the 9th century b.c.e., specifically during the reign of Mesha in the second half of the century.14 The Mesha Inscription (henceforth MI), summarizing the reign of Mesha, was inscribed sometime during the second half of the 9th century b.c.e. It is therefore clear that, not long after the formation of Moab as a territorial kingdom, a scribal school capable of producing complex lit-erary texts had already become established under royal authority. Studies of the rhetorical, literary and ideological nature of the MI have emphasized its role of legitimizing dynastic kingship.15 In addition, it has frequently been suggested that the MI portrays pre-Mesha Moab as a fragmented political landscape; hence it is not only about legitimizing kingship, but also about constituting a Moabite political identity: the MI presents the concept of Moab as a politically unified territory under the dynastic rule of Mesha and his god, Kemosh.16 B. Routledge summarized it thus: “The MI is about his-

14 For the archaeological perspective, see Routledge, Moab, 58–113, 161–178; T. P. Har-rison, “The Land Medebaʼ and Early Iron Age Mādabā,” in Studies of Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau (ed. P. Bienkowski; Ancient Near Eastern Studies 29; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 27–45. For different models regarding state formation in Moab, see E. A. Knauf, “The Cultural Impact of Secondary State Forma-tion: The Cases of Edomites and Moabites,” in Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of Iron Age in Southern Jordan (ed. P. Bienkowski; Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7; Sheffield: Equinox, 1992), 47–54; Ø. LaBianca and R. Younker, “The Kingdom of Ammon, Moab, and Edom: The Archaeology of Society in Late Bronze/Iron Age Trans-jordan (1400–500 BCE),” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (ed. T. E. Levy; New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 1995), 399–415; N. Naʾaman, “King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy,” IEJ 47 (1997): 83–92; Routledge, Moab, 114–132, 147–153; P. Bienkowski, “‘Tribalism’ and ‘Segmentary Society’ in Iron Age Transjor-dan,” in Studies of Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau (ed. P. Bienkowski; Ancient Near Eastern Studies 29; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 7–26.

15 M. Miller, “The Moabite Stone as a Memorial Stela,” PEQ 106 (1974): 9–18; J. Drinkard, “The Literary Genre of the Meshaʽ Inscription,” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (ed. A. Dearman; ASOR-SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2; Atlanta: SBL, 1989), 131–154; K. A. D. Smelik, “King Mesha’s Inscription between History and Fic-tion,” in Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography (Oudtestamentische Studien 28; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 59–92; A. Niccacci, “The Stela of Mesha and the Bible: Verbal System and Narrativity,” Orientalia 63 (1994): 226–248.

16 Knauf, “The Cultural Impact,” 49–50; Routledge, Moab, 139–150; E. van der Steen and K. A. D. Smelik, “King Mesha and the Tribe of Dibon,” JSOT 32 (2007): 139–162;



tory making; bringing into being a certain understanding of the world by the context and manner in which it recounts events.”17 Before I discuss the MI as an intellectual product of state formation, I would like to make the case for a similar text in Judah. In order to do so, I will briefly review the question of state formation and scribal schools in Judah.

Many scholars agree that the territorial expansion of Judah occurred dur-ing the late Iron IIA (ca. early 9th–early 8th centuries b.c.e.),18 and not before the beginning of the 9th century b.c.e.19 To be sure, centralization of politi-cal power in Judah probably began much earlier. The best indication for that comes from the construction of at least the lower component of the “stepped stone structure” in the city of David – sometime during the 10th century b.c.e.20 Though much disputed, this building, which is a monumental pub-lic structure, is the earliest manifestation of centralized political rule in Iron Age Jerusalem. Yet, during the 10th and much of the 9th centuries b.c.e., the political power of Jerusalem was limited to the Judahite hill country and for

U. Worschech, “Environment and Settlement in the Ard Al-Karak: Remarks on the Socio-Ecological and Socio-Economic Conditions in the Iron Age,” in Studies of Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau (ed. P. Bienkowski; Ancient Near Eastern Studies 29; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 47–70.

17 Routledge, Moab, 141.18 For the current state of research regarding the Iron Age chronology, see I. Finkelstein

and E. Piasetzky, “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing?,” NEA 74 (2011): 50–54; A. Mazar, “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint,” NEA 74 (2011): 105–110.

19 E. g., Z. Herzog and L. Singer-Avitz, “Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah,” Tel Aviv 31 (2004): 209–244; A. Fantalkin and I. Finkelstein, “The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th-Century-BCE Earthquake – More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron Age I-IIA,” Tel Aviv 33 (2006): 18–42; A. Fantalkin, “The Appearance of Rock-Cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation,” in Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honor of Israel Finkelstein (ed. A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur-Landau; Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 31; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 17–44; I. Koch, “The Geopolitical Organization of the Judean Shephelah in the Iron Age I–IIA (1150–800 BCE),” Cathedra 143 (2012): 45–64 [Hebrew].

20 A smashed in-situ collared rim jar that was found on a floor below the lower component of the stepped stone structure provides the terminus post quem in late Iron I or early Iron IIA, which, by absolute chronology, is in the 10th century b.c.e. And see M. L. Steiner, Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Volume III: The Settle-ment in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Copenhagen International Series 9; London: Shef-field Academic Press, 2001), 24–36. For further discussion, see A. Mazar, “Jerusalem in 10th Century BCE: The Glass Half Full,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʾaman (ed. Y. Amit et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 255–272; I. Finkelstein, “The ‘Large Stone Structure in Jerusalem’–Reality versus Yearning,” ZDPV 127 (2011): 1–10; N. Naʾaman, “Biblical and Historical Jerusalem in the Tenth and Fifth–Fourth Centuries BCE,” Biblica 93 (2012): 21–42.

Omer Sergi62


the most part, also to the eastern Shephelah (and see further below).21 Only during the 9th century b.c.e., and particularly during the second half of that century, did the Judahite hegemony from Jerusalem gradually extend into the territories west and south of the Judahite hill country.

I have recently discussed in detail the date and historical background of the expansion of Judahite sovereignty from the southern hill country of Canaan to the Shephelah and to the Beersheba and Arad Valleys.22 My conclusion is that during most of the 9th century b.c.e. and as long as the city of Gath was the most powerful urban center in southern Canaan,23 the western expansion of Judah was probably limited to the eastern parts of the Shephelah (east of the Azekah–Goded ridge in the south and up to Beth-Shemesh in the north). Others have suggested a somewhat earlier date.24 But no matter how one dates the expansion of Judah within the 9th century b.c.e., the Shephelah could not have been fully integrated into the Judahite territorial sovereignty before the destruction of Gath (ca. 830 b.c.e.) by Haz-ael King of Aram-Damascus (2 Kgs 12:18).25

The earliest indication of literacy in Judah comes from an enigmatic inscription incised on a jar found in the Ophel in Jerusalem.26 The inscrip-tion was written in a developed form of the proto-Canaanite script (also known as “Phoenician script”),27 which certainly precedes the Hebrew script. To judge from that and from the jar’s typology, it should not be dated

21 Scholars noted that during most of the Iron IIA the eastern part of the Shephelah, east of the Azekah-Goded ridge, was more rural and local in nature, while the western Shephelah manifested a highly developed urban culture with links to other Mediter-ranean cultures. See further N. Naʾaman, “Khirbet Qeiyafa in Context,” UF 42 (2010): 497–526; G. Lehmann and H. M. Niemmann, “When Did the Shephelah Became Juda-hite?,” Tel Aviv 41 (2014): 77–94. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Judah could have established authority at least over the eastern Shephelah already in the late 10th–early 9th centuries b.c.e. (and see further below).

22 O. Sergi, “Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context,” Tel Aviv 40 (2013): 226–246.23 On Gath in the ninth century b.c.e., see: A. M. Maeir, “The Tell eṣ-Ṣafi /Gath Archaeo-

logical Project 1996–2010: Introduction, Overview and Synopsis of Results,” in Tell eṣ-Ṣafi /Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons, Part 1, Text (ed. A. M. Maeir; Ägypten und Altes Testament 69; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012), 26–43, with further literature.

24 N. Naʾaman, “The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th century BCE: Text Analysis versus Archaeological Research,” Tel Aviv 40 (2013): 247–276.

25 For Gath’s destruction see Maeir, “The Tell eṣ-Ṣafi /Gath,” 44–49.26 E. Mazar et al., “An Inscribed Pithos from the Ophel, Jerusalem,” IEJ 63 (2013): 39–49.27 On the “Phoenician Script,” see C. A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of

Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 11; Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 19–46. For a different view regarding the origin of the standard-ized script tradition see, I. Finkelstein and B. Sass, “The West Semitic Alphabet Inscrip-tions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archaeological Context, Distribution and Chronol-ogy,” HeBAI 2 (2013): 149–220.



earlier than the late 10th–early 9th century b.c.e.28 The use of proto-Canaan-ite script was quite common west of Judah, especially in the territory of Gath, as early as the early 10th century b.c.e.29 Taking that into account, and considering the fact that a centralized regime had already formed in Jerusa-lem in the 10th century b.c.e., it should come as no surprise that the knowl-edge of alphabetic writing was introduced in Judah sometime during the early Iron Age IIA. However, while the ability to write or read a very simple message was probably not rare, written text of poetry or literary prose had a reading audience confined to the highly educated.30 The one enigmatic inscribed sherd from 10th or early 9th century b.c.e. Jerusalem, written in proto-Canaanite script, can hardly be taken as evidence for the existence of a well-developed scribal education, also capable of complex literary products.

Evidence of a more elaborate administrative system in Judah does not occur before the late Iron IIA, and probably not before the second half of the 9th century b.c.e.: the earliest indication of this appears in Jerusalem in the form of bullae used to seal documents (and goods) found in the rock-cut pool in the city of David.31 The earliest stratified Hebrew inscription from Judah – an ink inscription on a pottery sherd – is dated to the late Iron IIA, probably not before the second half of the 9th century b.c.e.32 Not surpris-

28 The form of the jar on which the inscription was incised is known from the late Iron IIA (Mazar et al., “An Inscribed Pithos,” 41–43). The inscribed jar sherd was found in a fill below the floor (and not in a secure archaeological context) together with sherds of pithoi that are usually known from the early Iron IIA. Thus, contra E. Mazar’s conclu-sions, an accurate date of the inscription could not be given and, judging from the jar’s typology and script tradition, it should not be dated before the late 10th century b.c.e.

29 I. Finkelstein and B. Sass, “The West Semitic Alphabet Inscriptions,” 176–191.30 See, S. Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Library of

Ancient Israel; Westminster: John Knox Press, 1998), 41–42; On literacy in Ancient Israel, see also Carr, Writing, 119–122.

31 For the bullae found in the City of David, see R. Reich et al., “Recent Discoveries in the City of David, Jerusalem,” IEJ 57 (2007): 153–169; O. Keel, “Paraphernalia of Jerusalem Sanctuaries and Their Relations to Deities Worshipped Therein during the Iron Age IIA–C,” in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant, 2.–I. Mill. B. C. E. (ed. J. Kamlah; ADPV 41; Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz, 2012), 317–342. For the date of these findings, see: A. De Groot and A. Fadida, “The Pottery Assemblage from the Rock Cut Pool near the Gihon Spring,” Tel Aviv 38 (2011): 158–166. For a somewhat later date (but less plausible and, in any case, no later than the first half of the 8th century b.c.e.), see L. Singer-Avitz, “The Date of the Pottery from the Rock-Cut Pool near the Gihon Spring in the City of David, Jerusalem,” ZDPV 128 (2012): 10–14.

32 I. Finkelstein and B. Sass, “The West Semitic,” 169. Many scholars agree that both the abecedary from Tel Zayit and the Ostracon from Kh. Qeiyafa were not written in the Hebrew script tradition (e. g., C. A. Rollston, “The Phoenician Script of the Tel Zayit Abecedary and the Putative Evidence for Israelite Literacy,” in Literate Culture and Tenth Century Canaan: The Tel Zayit Abecedary in Context (ed. R. E. Tappy and P. K. McCa-

Omer Sergi64


ingly, all of this evidence is concurrent with the expansion of Judah. It seems therefore that only during the 9th century b.c.e., and probably even in the second half of that century, an administrative apparatus that was operated by a literate elite emerged in Judah, hand in hand with its emergence as a fully blown territorial kingdom. It is therefore reasonable to assume that no later than the late 9th century b.c.e. there was a scribal school in Jerusalem capable of composing complex literature.

The Accounts of David’s Battles with the Philistines (1 Sam 23:1–5; 2 Sam 5:17–25, 8:1) as an Example of Early Judahite Historiography

Since N. Naʼaman’s groundbreaking studies, a growing number of scholars agree that the books of Samuel contain some of the oldest historiographic narratives in the Hebrew Bible, and that these narratives reflect the geo-political setting of the 9th century b.c.e.33 Since the 9th century b.c.e. is also the period in which Judah emerged as a territorial kingdom, it seems that its formation was accompanied by the production of historiographic texts. In light of this, I would like to argue that the accounts of David’s battles with the

rter; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 61–96; idem., “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostra-con: Methodological Musings and Caveats,” Tel Aviv 38 [2011]: 67–82). Furthermore, the question of whether Tel Zayit or Kh. Qeiyafa were affiliated with Judah already in the 10th century b.c.e. is highly debated. See also I. Finkelstein et al., “Writing in Iron Age IIA Philistia in Light of the Tēl Zayit /Zētā Abecedary,” ZDPV 124 (2008): 1–14; Naʾaman, “Khirbet Qeiyafa,” 497–526. For further discussion of Judahite expansion to the lowlands of the Shephelah, see above.

33 N. Naʾaman, “Sources and Composition in the History of David,” in The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (ed. V. Fritz and P. R. Davies; JSOTSup 228; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996), 170–186; idem. “In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbours,” IEJ 52 (2002): 200–224. Following Naʾaman, see for instance S. Isser, The Sword of Goliath: David in Heroic Literature (Studies in Biblical Literature 6; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 67–71; I. Finkelstein, “Geographical and Historical Realities behind the Earliest Layer in the David Story,” SJOT 27 (2013): 131–150; K. L. Noll, Canaan and Ancient Israel in Antiquity: A Textbook on History and Religion (London: T&T Clark; 2013), 219, 256–257. For a similar approach, see also J. Hutzli, “The Distinctness of the Samuel Narrative Tradition,” in Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in the Deuteronomistic History (ed. C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala; Ancient Israel and its Literature 16; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 171–205, here 171. See also the reservations of J. van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 97–99, who more or less agrees with Naʾaman’s interpretation of the early historiography in the book of Samuel, but rejects the date that Naʾaman suggests.



Philistines in 2 Sam 5:17–25+8:1 (but also 1 Sam 23:1–5, see below)34 should be seen as an example of early Judahite historiographic compositions and, as such, they may be considered intellectual products of state formation. In order to do so, I will first discuss their date and place.

According to 2 Sam 5:17–25+8:1 David fought two decisive battles against the Philistines in the Judahite hill country: the first (vv. 18–21) was launched in the Valley of Rephaim, south of Jerusalem, and David won by a frontal attack. It is not clear whether the second battle (vv. 22–25) took place north or south of Jerusalem, but it seems that David launched a surprise night attack and smote the Philistines “from Geba/Gibeon to Gezer,” namely from the Benjamin Plateau, north of Jerusalem and down to the northern Shephelah in the west.35 Both battle accounts are narrated in a “simple” and almost factual manner that is characterized by short sentences contain-ing series of imperfect verbs, and by the lack of theological speeches that characterize many other narrative episodes of David’s early career (e. g., 1 Sam 24–26). Each battle account contains a threefold structure centered on David’s direct inquiry of Yhwh. They begin with a short exposition, describing what seems to be a Philistine invasion/raid in the Judahite hill country (vv. 18, 22);36 the exposition is followed by David’s inquiry regard-

34 Ever since A. Alt’s article, “Mitteilungen zu II Sam 8:1,” ZAW 13 (1936): 149–152, it is commonly held that the second battle account (2 Sam 5:22–25) originally ended with a note about the booty David took from his defeated Philistine enemies in 2 Sam 8:1. According to that suggestion, chapters 6–7 were inserted between the note about David’s victory (2 Sam 5:25) and the note about the booty he took (2 Sam 8:1). This conclusion is reasonable in light of the fact that first battle account also concludes with a note about the booty that David took (2 Sam 7:21) and so does the account about his battle with the Philistines in Qeilah (1 Sam 23:5).

35 On the location of the two battles and the identification of the “Valley of Rephaim” and “Baal Perazim,” see O. Procksch, “Der Schauplatz der Geschichte Davids,” PJB 5 (1909): 70; H. W. Herzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1964), 273–274; P. K. McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 9; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 153–157; H. J. Stoebe, Das Zweite Buch Samuelis (Kommentar Zum Alten Testament VIII 2; Gütersloh: Güter-sloher Verlagshaus, 1994), 180–181; O. Lipschits and N. Naʼaman, “From ‘Baal Perazim’ to ‘Bet Hakerem’ – on the Evolution of the Early Name of Ramat Rahel,” Bet-Mikra 56 (2011): 65–86 [Hebrew].

36 Many scholars agree that the original battle account began with a note about the Philis-tine invasion in vs. 18, while vs. 17 was secondary, having been inserted in order to link the whole battle account with the former account of David’s coronation as king of Israel. See also N. L. Tidwell, “The Philistine Incursion into the Valley of Rephaim (2 Sam. v 17 ff.),” in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 206–208; Stoebe, Das Zweite Buch Samuelis, 179–180; A. A. Fis-cher, Von Hebron nach Jerusalem: eine redaktiongeschichtliche Studie zur Erzählung von König David in II Sam 1–5 (BZAW 335; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 263.

Omer Sergi66


ing the offensive he should launch (vv. 19, 23–24); and it concludes with a short notation of David’s victory (vv. 20, 25) and the booty he took from his defeated enemies (v. 21; 8:1).

Three characteristics attest to the antiquity of these battle accounts as a royal Judahite historiography:

(1) The first account provides the etiology for “Baal Perazim,” which was the name David gave to the place where Yhwh defeated his enemies (v. 20).37 The toponym, which includes the theophoric element “Baal,” was probably related to some local Baal cult.38 The very fact that David named a place after the deity “Baal” is sufficient to imply the early date of the composition of this battle account. That scribes in later periods were ill at ease with this etiology is clear from the omission of the element Baal in later commemo-ration of it (Isaiah 28: 21).39

(2) The first battle account reports that, after defeating the Philistines, David took their idols as booty (2 Sam 5:21). Carrying booty is a typical con-clusion for battle accounts (cf. 1 Sam 23:5).40 It is even reasonable to assume that the cultic booty taken by David from the Philistines was meant to be dedicated to David’s patron deity, Yhwh (cf. 2 Sam 8:7–11). Nevertheless, the fact that David took the idols of foreign deities reflects an early compo-sition, certainly pre-Deuteronomistic.41 This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that later scribes “corrected” the impression, as if David looted idols of foreign deities by claiming that he actually burnt them (1 Chr 14:12) in accordance with Deuteronomic law (Deut 7:5, 25).42

(3) David’s direct inquiry of Yhwh is probably another indication of the early date of the composition of these battle accounts. Such a direct inquiry is also performed by David before the battle in Qeilah (1 Sam 23: 2, 4), before the pursuit of the Amalekites (1 Sam 30:8), and before his rise to kingship in Hebron (2 Sam 2:1). These inquiries are phrased with the verb šʼl and it is commonly held that they were enacted by a priest using some tools to per-

37 See, Herzberg, I & II Samuel, 273–274; McCarter, II Samuel, 154; Fischer, Von Hebron, 263.

38 See, Stoebe, Das Zweite Buch Samuelis, 181; Lipschits and Naʼaman, “From ‘Baal Pera-zim,’” 77–78.

39 Lipschits and Naʼaman, “From ‘Baal Perazim,’” 76; Fischer, Von Hebron, 263, with fur-ther literature. For the possibility that also the second battle account mentioned foreign deities (i. e., Ashera), see McCarter, II Samuel, 152, 155–157.

40 Tidwell, “The Philistine Incursion,” 210–211.41 Fischer, Von Hebron, 264.42 H. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (ICC; Edin-

burgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 290–291; Stoebe, Das Zweite Buch Samuelis, 177.



form a kind of a lottery.43 This interpretation is certainly reasonable, since in other cases both the performer of the inquiry (the priest) and the tool used for it (ephod) are explicitly mentioned (cf. 1 Sam 23:9–12). However, in all the inquiries mentioned above, the means by which they were held are only implied, so the actual narration – mentioning no other mediator (priest or tools) – emphasizes the close relationship between David and Yhwh. Furthermore, David is the only king in the Hebrew Bible who was directly addressed by Yhwh. The direct inquiry is missing as a whole from the book of Kings, where David’s successors in Israel and in Judah had to inquire through the mediation of a prophet, an inquiry phrased with the verb drš and not šʼl (e. g., 1 Kgs 22:5–28; 2 Kgs 22:15–20). The prophetic inquiry, so common in the book of Kings, probably represents a more institutionalized religious practice (cf. Deut 18:9–22), and thus David’s direct inquiry may be considered as stemming from an older tradition.44

These observations demonstrate that the battle accounts in 2 Sam 5:17–25+8:1 contain old traditions, originating in a period prior to the institu-tionalization of the royal Judahite Yahwistic cult. Considering that the geo-political reality reflected by these battle accounts precedes that of the early Iron Age IIB (small, armed groups operating on the fringes of the settled land, among rural communities; see further below), it seems safe to assume that they were among the earliest historiographic texts composed in Judah, probably no later than the late 9th or the early 8th centuries b.c.e.

Scholarly discussion of these accounts was primarily occupied with the chronological order of the events and the role they played in David’s rise to kingship. The present order of the text places David’s encounter with the Philistines after his conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:5–9), but since J. Well-hausen scholars agree that at least one of the battles with the Philistines must have occurred before Jerusalem was conquered, when David reigned in Hebron.45 One of the main arguments supporting this reconstruction

43 C. Westermann, “Die Begriffe für Fragen und Suchen im Alten Testament,” in Forschung am Alten Testament: Gesammelte Studien II zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 7. Oktober 1974 (ed. R. Albertz and E. Ruprecht; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974), 162–190; T. Veijola, “David in Keila: Tradition und Interpretation in 1 Sam 23, 1–13,” in David: Gesammelte Studien zu den Davidüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments (Schriften der Finischen Exe-getischen Gesellschaft 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 5–42; Fischer, Von Hebron, 50–56.

44 For a detailed discussion on the antiquity of the direct inquiry with the verb šʼl as opposed to the prophetic inquiry with the verb drš, see Westermann, “Die Begriffe,” 187–188.

45 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Reimer, 1889), 256; but see Fischer, Von Hebron, 259–260.

Omer Sergi68


is to be found in the comment that, in response to the Philistine invasion, David “went down to the měṣudâ” (v. 17), which makes better sense with reference to Adullam (cf. 2 Sam 23:13–14) in the eastern Shephelah or some other of David’s Hebron period hideouts than to Jerusalem.46 Accordingly, it was often suggested that David’s battles with the Philistines near Jerusa-lem should be placed together with other similar accounts about David’s (or David’s men’s) wars with the Philistines – such as his battles in Qeilah (1 Sam 23:1–5; see further below), near Bethlehem (2 Sam 23:13–18) and in the eastern Shephelah (2 Sam 21:18–22).47 All these accounts share a similar narration (short, factual stories that lack theological speeches), and reflect a similar geographical and political situation: David and his men fighting the Philistines on the fringes of the Philistine’s own territory.

In this regard, I would like to focus specifically on the account of David’s battle with the Philistines in Qeilah (2 Sam 23:1–5) which uses the same structure as the accounts of the battles with the Philistines near Jerusalem: a short exposition, describing what seems to be a Philistine invasion/raid (1 Sam 23:1; 2 Sam 5:18, 22) is followed by David’s direct inquiry of Yhwh (1 Sam 23:2, 4; 2 Sam 5:19, 23–24) and concludes with a note about David’s victory and the booty he took from the Philistines (1 Sam 23: 5; 2 Sam 5:21; 8:1). This similarity not only supports the claim made by some scholars that 1 Sam 23:1–5 is a self-contained battle account,48 but also provides it with a literary context: it belongs with the other accounts about David’s battles against the Philistines (2 Sam 5:17–25+8:1 and probably also 2 Sam 21:18–22; 23:13–18).

Scholars have often wondered whether these accounts are misplaced, since they do not fully concur with the wider narrative of David’s early career. Furthermore, since the present position of 2 Sam 5:17–25 implies the decisive nature of the battles near Jerusalem (after a lengthy conflict with the Philistines), scholars have wondered why the accounts do not indicate any

46 For a detailed discussion and further arguments, see Smith, A Critical and Exegeti-cal, 290–291; Alt, “Mitteilungen,” 149–152; Herzberg, I & II Samuel, 273; McCarter, II Samuel, 153, 157–159; Stoebe, Das Zweite Buch Samuelis, 178–180.

47 Tidwell, “The Philistine Incursion,” 198–204; McCarter, II Samuel, 157–158; Stoebe, Das Zweite Buch Samuelis, 182; Isser, The Sword, 23–25, 153–154; Fischer, Von Hebron, 263.

48 Accordingly, the continuation of the Qeilah affair in 1 Sam 23:6–13 should be consid-ered as a secondary addition. For further arguments, see J. H. Grøbank, Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (Copenhagen: Prostant Apud Munksgaard, 1971), 154–155; Vei-jola, “David,” 28–35; P. K. McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction Notes and Commentary (AB 8; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 371–372.



change of “power balance” in the entire land.49 In light of that, the accounts about David’s battles with the Philistines near Jerusalem were often treated as self-contained “literary fragments” that were taken up by a later editor who embedded them in a larger narrative of David’s history.50 It was even suggested that the decisive nature of the battles with the Philistines was the result of placing these “fragments” in their current position.51

The problem of the short, self-contained accounts that were embedded in the larger narrative blocks in the books of Samuel, despite their hav-ing no additional importance or carry-over in the book, was addressed by R. Rendtorff.52 Rendtorff argued (contra Alt) that these narratives were not taken from official royal annals,53 but rather that they represent a different form of writing history. Yet because he believed that these accounts were composed in the time of David himself, he had to conclude that they were probably written by the same scribes responsible for the larger narrative blocks in the books of Samuel.54 A more diachronic approach to the prob-lem was suggested when the gradual development of state formation and literacy in Judah was recognized. W. Dietrich, for instance, argued that in the 10th–9th centuries b.c.e. a large scale intellectual and literate activity had not yet developed in Judah, attributing to this period only various collec-tions of short texts (i. e., lists, contracts, letters, reports on political and mili-tary activities).55 However, Dietrich’s criteria for distinguishing the “earlier” texts were based mainly on the texts’ length. Thus, he concluded that the accounts in 2 Sam 5:17–25 form part of “larger narratives” composed over a longer period of time. N. Naʼaman, on the other hand, discussed various texts relating to David’s wars with Israel’s neighbor and demonstrated that

49 E. g., Alt, “Mitteilungen,” 152; Herzberg, I & II Samuel, 273; Isser, The Sword, 72–75.50 R. A. Carlson, David the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second

Book of Samuel (Uppsala: Almkvist & Wiksell, 1964), 52–57; Grøbank, Die Geschichte, 246–249; Tidwell, “The Philistine Incursion,” 191–192; Isser, The Sword, 22–25, 72–75.

51 Tidwell, “The Philistine Incursion,” 198–202, 205.52 R. Rendtorff, “Beobachtungen zur altisraelitischen Geschichtschreibung anhand der

Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. W. Wolff; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971), 428–439.

53 Rendtorff argued contra Alt, “Mitteilungen,” 149–152.54 Among these short textual sources, Rendtorff included 1 Sam 18:17–18 (David’s mar-

riage to Saul eldest daughter); 1 Sam 22:1–5 (the traditions about David in Adulam); 1 Sam 27:1–7 (David’s service for the king of Gath); 2 Sam 2:1–4 (David’s coronation in Hebron); 2 Sam 5:1–10 (David’s coronation as king over Israel and the conquest of Jerusalem). He did not include the battle accounts in 2 Sam 5:17–25 in his discussion, however, in light of the discussion above his conclusions fit this text as well.

55 W. Dietrich, The Early Monarchy in Israel–The Tenth Century BCE (Biblical Encyclope-dia 3, Atlanta: SBL, 2007), 263. For a similar approach, see also Isser, The Sword, 22–25, 72–75.

Omer Sergi70


they reflect the historical reality of the 9th century b.c.e. He therefore argued that these texts – among which are the battle accounts with the Philistines (2 Sam 5:17–25+ 8:1), David’s coronation in Hebron (2 Sam 2:1–4) and the conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:5–9) – were taken from a chronicle com-posed in the early 8th century b.c.e. (“chronicle of the early kings of Judah”). Naʼaman further argued that this chronicle was used together with some lists and other short accounts for scribal education in Judah.56

In light of what we know about scribal schools and scribal education in the ancient Near East, it is only reasonable to assume that the short and simple narratives about David’s wars with the Philistines (and probably also the narrative about his coronation in Hebron) were educational texts. There is no need, however, to reconstruct an “early chronicle,” since these texts lack any chronological character.57 Rather, they form short narratives that contain a theological message (i. e., David’s inquiry of Yhwh). It should therefore be concluded that a collection of various short texts and accounts about David’s rise to kingship, among them self-contained stories as well as lists and administrative texts (e. g., 2 Sam 3:2–5; 5:14–16; 8:16–18), were among the earliest historiographic compositions in Judah. These texts were composed in the scribal school of Jerusalem as early as the 9th–early 8th cen-turies b.c.e. and were used to educate and train scribes: they were studied, memorized and copied for centuries before they were finally integrated into the larger narrative blocks of the books of Samuel. In this case, the accounts of David’s battles with the Philistines may be considered – like the MI dis-cussed above – an intellectual product of Judahite state formation.

David, Mesha and the Establishment of Collective Identity

Saying something productive about the similarities and differences of bib-lical narratives vis-à-vis narratives of their ancient Near Eastern context requires that the following two conditions be met (following S. B. Parker):58 first, the biblical narrative should be examined on its own terms as a large or small scale literary creation (and not in its final, canonical form); and sec-ond, prose narrative should be compared with other prose narratives and, as

56 Naʾaman, “Sources,” 170–186; See also van Seters, The Biblical Saga, 97–99.57 Rendtorff, “Beobachtungen,” 433.58 For a detailed discussion, see S. B. Parker, Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Com-

parative Study on Narratives in North-West Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 3–8, and see further below.



much as possible, should be compared with material from the same general period or cultural milieu and genre or type.59

In fact, the MI has been subjected more than any other text to analogies with biblical historiography. Scholars have noted that the MI shares royal ideology, theological concepts and even similar phrasing with many dif-ferent historiographical texts in the Hebrew Bible. In light of the fact that some of these theological and ideological concepts also occur in other royal inscriptions from the Iron Age Levant, it has often been suggested that all these kingdoms shared a common royal ideology.60 Yet in none of these studies was the MI juxtaposed specifically to a biblical text that originated in a similar historical and cultural context, namely that of state formation. In what follows, I would like to point out important analogies between the battle accounts of Mesha with Omri/Israel narrated in the MI (lines 4–21),61 and the accounts of David’s battles with the Philistines discussed above. Since both texts form the same type of literature (battle accounts) and stem from a similar chronological, geographical and cultural context, there are grounds for examining them side by side. To be sure, drawing analogies between these texts is not meant to be used as a tool to date them or to recon-struct their literary growth, but simply to shed light on historiography as a product of state formation.

What makes this specific case so special is the fact that the accounts of David’s battles with the Philistines are strikingly similar to those of Mesha’s

59 Discussing biblical literature vis-à-vis ancient Near Eastern texts is a common meth-odology in the field of biblical studies, as the inscribed texts allow us to examine the cultural as well as the literary context of the Hebrew Bible. This is especially true when we examine biblical literature attributed to royal scribes from Israel or Judah in its immediate spatial and chronological context, namely, the Iron Age Levantine territorial kingdoms, from which we have mainly royal inscriptions. E. g., M. Liverani, “L’histoire de Joas,” VT 24 (1974): 438–453; Machinist, “Literature,” 455–482; P. K. McCarter, “The Apology of David,” JBL 99 (1980): 489–504; Parker, “Stories.”

60 E. g., G. L. Mattingly, “Moabite Religion and the Meshaʽ Inscription,” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (ed. J. A. Dearman; ASOR-SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2; Atlanta: SBL, 1989), 211–238; Parker, “Stories,” 44–60; S. Kreuzer, “ ‘… und der Herr half David in allem, was er unternahm’. Die Davidgeschichte in ihrem inneren Zusammenhang und im Licht der westsemitischen Königsinschriften,” in Verbindungs-linien: Festschrift für Werner H. Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. A. Graupner et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 187–205; Routledge, Moab, 155–159; C. Molke, Der Text der Mescha-Stele und die biblische Geschichtschreibung (Beiträge zur Erforschung der antiken Moabitis (Ard el-Kerak) 5; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006), 56–64.

61 In terms of language and content alike, the battle accounts in the MI (lines 4–21) form a separate narrative within the overall text. For discussion, see Smelik, “King Mesha’s Inscription,” 60–71; Niccacci, “The Stela,” 226–248.

Omer Sergi72


battles with Omri/Israel in the MI. The similarity between these texts is visible in their narration, structure and content. They both share the same threefold structure centered on the deity’s speech/act: an exposition that tells of an invasion/raid of the Philistines/Omri in the land reclaimed by David/Mesha (MI lines 5–6, 7–8, 10, 18–19; 1 Sam 23:1; 2 Sam 5:18, 22) is followed by Yhwh’s/ Kemosh’s direct speech/act (MI lines 9, 14, 19; 1 Sam 23:2, 4; 2 Sam 5:19, 23–24), and the account concludes with a note about David’s/Mesha’s triumph (MI lines 11, 15–16, 20–21; and 1 Sam 25:5; 2 Sam 5:20–21,25). Within this structure, both texts also share a similar nar-ration constructed of short, simple sentences that contain series of imper-fect verbs. In regard to their content, both Mesha and David fight an enemy who is accused of invading/raiding a foreign land; they both act according to instructions given them directly by the deity (Kemosh/Yhwh); and they both take the cultic objects from their defeated enemies in order to dedicate them to their own deities (MI lines 12–13; 2 Sam 5:21). These similarities are especially interesting considering that David is the only king in the Hebrew Bible who took the cultic object of his enemies and who is addressed directly by Yhwh.62 They are therefore indicative of a point beyond mere common royal ideology. If we take into account that both texts are intellectual prod-ucts of state formation, then they also demonstrate similar strategies of establishing a collective identity.

To begin, one should note the limited geographical scope of the battle accounts in both texts: Mesha’s battles are conducted north and south of the Arnon River and David’s in the Judahite hill country north and south of Jerusalem and in the eastern Shephelah. The territory reclaimed by the protagonist in both texts is therefore limited in size and reflects the exten-sion of hegemony in both Moab and Judah during the 9th century b.c.e. In the case of Judah, it certainly reflects the territorial-political reality prior to the destruction of Gath and the further Judahite expansion to the western Shephelah. This point, however, is not a mere reflection of territorial-polit-ical reality: just as Mesha’s battles against Omri bring together different ter-ritories and groups under his rule, thus constituting the concept of “Moab” as a political unit,63 so David’s battles with the Philistines join together the Judahite hill country, the Benjamin Plateau and the eastern Shephelah, thus

62 Direct address by the deity occurs in other Levantine royal inscriptions (Routledge, Moab, 158), but only in the cases of Mesha and David do the deities direct the kings’ offensives.

63 E. g., Knauf, “The Cultural Impact,” 49–50; Routledge, Moab, 143–147; Worschech, “Environment,” 48–49.



creating the notion of a unified “Judah.”64 Taking into account other short episodes about David’s early career that may be considered concurrent with the accounts of his battles with the Philistines (e. g., 2 Sam 2:1–3; 21:18–22; 23:13–17, and see above) it seems that the figure of David brings together Hebron, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Geba/Gibeon, Adullam and Qeilah. All represent different communities, social groups and geographical regions. David’s very activity among these groups – whether in fighting the enemy, leading his men or conquering a new town – manifests the Davidic political hegemony and thus reconstructs the concept of politically unified territory under Davidic rule. In other words, it creates the territorial concept of early monarchic Judah.

This is also the light in which the role of the Philistines/Omri in these texts should be examined. Their accusation of invasion/raiding presents the battles against them as an act of liberation rather than as conquest. Thus it establishes the notion of territorial-political unity not as an innovation, but as an old historical structure. This point is more clearly made in the MI, where Mesha claims that the land of Moab was taken by Omri in the days of his father, who was also a king (MI lines 1–7). In the case of David, this argument is rather implicit as the narrative acknowledges that David did not inherit his political power. Yet the claim that the Philistines invaded the land in which David acts portrays Philistines as “the foreigners,” while presenting David as one who acts among his kinsman. Thus, the accounts of David’s battles with the Philistines establish the notion of a socially and culturally unified community in the Judahite hill country and the eastern Shephelah, a community that through David’s deeds is also politically unified against a common enemy.

This brings us to the second role of the Philistines/Omri in these texts: they not only constitute the sense of a reclaimed rather than an innovated territorial unit, but also contribute to the constitution of a Judahite/Moabite identity. As J. Assmann has demonstrated, the integration of communities merging as larger-scale ethno-political groups also produces alienation. To imagine the “we” demands a definition of “them.”65 In the battle accounts discussed here, the Philistines/Omri have this function. Indeed, the Phil-istines/Omri are given no specific cultural identity, except of their being foreigners. Yet by identifying them as the complete “other” that comes from the “outside,” a collective identity is reconstructed for the different commu-

64 This is not to argue that there was no concept – whether geographic or even ethnic – of “Moab” and “Judah” before. Rather, it manifests Moab and Judah as politically unified territories (Routledge, Moab, 150–151).

65 Assmann, Cultural Memory, 114–119, with further literature.

Omer Sergi74


nities and groups that inhabit the territories in which David/Mesha fought their enemies. It is by opposition to the Philistines/Israel that a Judahite or Moabite identity emerges as a “national-political” identity.

The deity plays an important role in the construction of collective political identity. The important role of Kemosh as the driving force behind Mesha’s success has been exhaustively discussed.66 A similar case may be argued for the accounts about David’s battles with the Philistines: Yhwh directs David’s offensive and wins the battles for him, and thus the figure of Yhwh, like Kemosh in the MI, provides divine legitimacy for the king’s actions. However, it does more than that: the fact that Yhwh and Kemosh directly address David and Mesha reinforces the close relationship between deity and king, presenting the king as the agent of the deity. In other words, if the king conquers (or “liberates”) territories in the name of a deity, he is actually reclaiming the deity’s land.67 The concept of the “deity’s land” – a territory in which the deity is worshipped and where the deity is revealed to be powerful, is another means of reconstructing a sense of cultural unity.

This aspect reflects yet another feature of state formation – the institu-tionalization of a “national deity.” The study of texts from Levantine territo-rial kingdoms suggests that most of these kingdoms had a national, official deity who normally figured in the literature produced by the royal scribes in the capital city. This does not indicate monotheism in any form, since other deities, at least on the local level, were recognized as well. Rather, scholars define the theological concept of a “national” deity as “henotheism” or as “monolatry.”68 The primary role of Kemosh and Yhwh in the battle accounts of both Mesha and David attest to this kind of religious percep-tion. The concept of the “deity’s land” is presented not only by the victory over the invading enemies but also by overriding local religious traditions with the introduction of Yhwh and Kemosh in their stead. Thus, Mesha’s battles against the Omrides conclude with the introduction of Kemosh in the cult places formerly dedicated to Yhwh (MI lines 12, 17).69 A similar case is made in David’s battle accounts by the etiology given to Baal Pera-zim (2 Sam 5:20). The toponym clearly preserves the memory of a local Baal

66 E. g., Mattingly, “Moabite Religion, 44–60; Smelik, “King Mesha’s Inscription,” 67–71; Parker, “Stories,” 47–53; Molke, Der Text, 26–28, 35, 48–49.

67 Indeed, this point is made more explicitly in the MI (and see lines 4–5), but it can cer-tainly also be concluded from the role of Yhwh in the accounts about David’s battle with the Philistines.

68 See H. P. Müller, “König Mêša‘ von Moab und der Gott der Geschichte,” UF 26 (1994): 373–395; Parker, “Stories,” 140.

69 On this subject, see also Worschech, “Environment,” 49.



cult, but the etiology given to it commemorates Yhwh’s victory over David’s enemies. Thus, the text introduced Yhwh into a local cult place originally dedicated to another deity. Looting the enemy’s cult objects and dedicating them to the protagonist’s deity – both in the MI (lines 12–13, 17–18) and in the accounts of David’s battle (2 Sam 5:21) – serve in the same way to over-ride local religious traditions with the superiority of a new “national” deity. In this way, both the MI and the accounts of David’s battles with the Philis-tines transform a local deity (Yhwh/Kemosh) related to the royal dynasty into a “national” or rather inter-regional deity, representing the king and his kingdom. This shift allowed the crown to appropriate temple estates in the name of a new deity, thus scaling down the influence of local traditions and at the same time binding local elites to the new order.70

To conclude these points, both battle accounts (of Mesha with Omri/Israel and of David with the Philistines) use similar strategies in order to reconstruct a shared memory of the past that confirm and legitimize the newly formed territorial-political entity. Through the figure of the king vis-à-vis his enemies, and by institutionalizing the royal cult and install-ing a “national” deity, the accounts establish the concept of politically and culturally unified territories, thus overcoming local centers of power and competitive traditions.

These strategies should be explained against the background of a shared geographical, chronological and geo-political context in which the texts were written. One should also note that these texts were committed to writ-ing in the same script tradition – the old Hebrew script.71 It might be far-fetched to argue that the scribes of the MI and the early Judahite historiogra-phy were trained in the same scribal school,72 but, given the many analogies between the MI and the Hebrew Bible, some of which have no other paral-lels in ancient Near Eastern texts, the possibility should be considered that the educational system and perhaps some curriculum were similar in Judah and Moab.

70 Michalowski, “Charisma and Control,” 53–56.71 And see Sass, The Alphabet, 57–58; Rollston, Writing, 42, 52–55; See also recently,

D. S. Vanderhooft, “Iron Age Moabite, Hebrew, and Edomite Scripts,” in An Eye for Form: Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. J. A. Hackett and W. E. Aufrecht; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 107–126, with further literature.

72 Molke, Der Text, 51–52.

Omer Sergi76


Conclusions

In this article I have argued the following:(1) The accounts of David’s battles with the Philistines (1 Sam 23:1–5; 2

Sam 5:17–25+8:1) together with some other self-contained short accounts about David’s early career (i. e., 2 Sam 2:1–3; 21:18–22; 23:13–17) formed a collection of historiographic narratives that were composed in conjunction with the emergence of Judah as a territorial kingdom no later than the late 9th–early 8th centuries b.c.e.

(2) In terms of content, structure and narration, these accounts are strik-ingly similar to the accounts of Mesha’s battles with Israel narrated in the MI (lines 4–21).

(3) The similarity between these battle accounts reveals similar strategies intended to shape a collective memory and, accordingly, to establish a col-lective identity needed to knit together an emerging political entity.

Therefore, both texts may be seen as “formative texts” that produced a sense of unity and particularity among members of a group by transmit-ting the group’s identity-confirming knowledge through narrations of sto-ries from the past.73 The group consisted of members of the rising Judahite and Moabite intellectual elite, who ultimately served as scribes and scholars in the kingdoms’ bureaucratic, religious and political institutions. These scribes studied, memorized, recited and copied the “formative texts,” acquir-ing a common sense of collective identity that served to establish, integrate and maintain the newly emergent territorial kingdoms.

One of the important elements in reconstructing collective identity was the installation of a “national” deity: the patron deity of the king was elevated to the status of the main deity worshipped in the kingdom’s institutions. The texts at hand allow us a glimpse into the earliest phases of this religious development. Legitimizing the king’s actions, overriding locally competing religious traditions, and creating the concept of the “deity’s land” where its power is revealed altogether serves to institutionalize the deity’s new role as the focal point for religious and cultural identity in the newly emergent king-dom. In this respect, centralizing the cult and religious practice would later follow as a means to achieving centralized political power and hegemony.

73 On “formative texts” see Assmann, Religion, 37–39, 104–105; Assmann, Cultural Mem-ory, 119–123.



Acknowledgement

This article is the result of the fruitful discussion held at the Zürich work-shop about Diversities and Commonalities in Ancient Israelite Religion. I would like to thank Christoph Uehlinger for organizing the workshop and to thank its participants, Amihai Mazar, Seth Sanders and Terje Stordalen, for their valuable comments on this paper.

Dr. Omer Sergi Ancient Israel Studies The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University, POB 39040 Tel Aviv 6997801 Israel


Hebrew Bible and Ancient IsraelHerausgegeben von Gary N. Knoppers (Notre Dame IN), Oded Lipschits (Tel Aviv), Carol A. Newsom (Atlanta GA) und Konrad Schmid (Zürich)Redaktion: Phillip Michael Lasater (Zürich)

Die Annahme zur Veröffentlichung erfolgt schriftlich und unter dem Vor -behalt, dass das Manuskript nicht anderweitig zur Veröffentlichung angeboten wurde. Mit der Annahme zur Veröffentlichung überträgt der Autor dem Verlag das ausschließliche Verlagsrecht für die Publikation in gedruckter und elektro-nischer Form. Weitere Informationen dazu und zu den beim Autor verbleibenden Rechten finden Sie unter www.mohr.de/hebai. Ohne Erlaubnis des Verlags ist eine Vervielfältigung oder Verbreitung der ganzen Zeitschrift oder von Teilen daraus in gedruckter oder elektronischer Form nicht gestattet.Bitte wenden Sie sich an [email protected].

RedaktionsadresseProfessor Dr. Konrad SchmidTheologische Fakultät der Universität ZürichKirchgasse CH- ZürichSwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Online-VolltextIm Abonnement für Institutionen und Privatpersonen ist der freie Zugang zum Online-Volltext enthalten. Institutionen mit mehr als . Nutzern bitten wir um Einholung eines Preisangebots direkt beim Verlag. Kontakt: [email protected]. Um den Online-Zugang für Institutionen/Bibliotheken einzurichten, gehen Sie bitte zur Seite: www.ingentaconnect.com/register/ institutional. Um den Online-Zugang für Privatpersonen einzurichten, gehen Sie bitte zur Seite: www.ingentaconnect.com/register/personal

Verlag: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Postfach , TübingenVertrieb erfolgt über den Buchhandel.

© Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, TübingenDie Zeitschrift und alle in ihr enthaltenen einzelnen Beiträge und Abbildungen sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlags unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Über-setzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Satz: Martin Fischer, Tübingen.Druck: Gulde-Druck, Tübingen.

ISSN - (Gedruckte Ausgabe)ISSN - (Online-Ausgabe)

Hebrew Bible and Ancient IsraelEdited by Gary N. Knoppers (Notre Dame IN), Oded Lipschits (Tel Aviv), Carol A. Newsom (Atlanta GA), and Konrad Schmid (Zürich)Redaction: Phillip Michael Lasater (Zürich)

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel publishes only invited articles. Submission of a paper will be held to imply that it contains original unpublished work and is not being submitted for publication elsewhere. All articles are refereed by specialists. Acceptance for publication will be given in writing. When an article is accepted for publication, the exclusive copyright is granted to Mohr Siebeck for publication in a print and an electronic version. Further information on this and the rights retained by the author can be found at www.mohr.de/hebai. No one may reproduce or distribute the entire journal or parts of it in a print or an electronic version without the publisher’s permission. Please contact [email protected].

Please do not send any unsolicited review copies. The publisher and the editors reserve the right to keep unsolicited books.

Contact address:Professor Dr. Konrad SchmidTheologische Fakultät der Universität ZürichKirchgasse CH- ZürichSwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Full Text OnlineFree access to the full text online is included in a subscription. We ask institu-tions with more than , users to obtain a price quote directly from the publisher. Contact: [email protected]. In order to set up online access for institutions/libraries, please go to: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/register/institutional. In order to set up online access for private persons, please go to:http://www.ingentaconnect.com/register/personal

Publisher: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, Postfach , TübingenCan be purchased at bookstores.

© Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG, TübingenThe journal and all the individual articles and illustrations contained in it are protected by copyright. Any utilization beyond the narrow confines of copy-right law without the publisher’s consent is punishable by law. This applies in particular to copying, translations, microfilming and storage and processing in electronic systems.

Printed in Germany.Typeset by Martin Fischer, Tübingen.Printed by Gulde-Druck, Tübingen.

ISSN - (Print Edition)ISSN - (Online Edition)


Mohr Siebeck www.mohr.de

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel volume 4 (215), no. 1

Edited byGary N. Knoppers (Notre Dame IN), Oded Lipschits (Tel Aviv),Carol A. Newsom (Atlanta GA), and Konrad Schmid (Zürich)

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel is a new, peer-reviewed, quarterly journal focusing primarily on the biblical texts in their ancient historical contexts, but also on the history of Israel in its own right. Each issue has a topical focus. The primary language is English, but articles may also be published in German and French. A specific goal of the new journal is to foster discussion among different academic cultures within a larger international context pertaining to the study of the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israel in the first millennium b.c.e.

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel ist eine neue Zeitschrift, die vierteljährlich erscheint und deren Beiträge durch einen Peerreview-Prozess evaluiert werden. Ihr Thema sind die Texte der hebräischen und aramäischen Bibel in ihren historischen Kontexten, aber auch die Geschichte Israels selbst. Jedes Heft wird einen thematischen Fokus haben. Die meisten Beiträge werden in Englisch verfasst sein, Artikel können aber auch auf Deutsch oder Französisch erscheinen. Ein besonderes Ziel der Zeitschrift besteht in der Vermittlung der unterschiedlichen akademischen Kulturen im globalen Kontext, die sich mit der Hebräischen Bibel und dem antiken Israel im . Jahrtausend v. Chr. beschäftigen.

Associate Editors (212–215)Erhard Blum, Tübingen; John Day, Oxford; Louis Jonker, Stellenbosch; John Kessler, Toronto; Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Princeton; Martti Nissinen, Helsinki; Thomas Römer, Paris/Lausanne; Christoph Uehlinger, Zürich; David Vanderhooft, Boston; Nili Wazana, Jerusalem

2192-2276(201503)4:1;1-Z

State Formation, Religion and Collective Identity in the Southern Levant

Documents

Transcript of State Formation, Religion and Collective Identity in the Southern Levant