The Comparative Use of Ancient Near Eastern Texts
in the Study of the Hebrew Bible
Abstract
This present research is intended as a synthesis of the current state of research in the comparative study of ancient Near Eastern texts and the Hebrew Bible. This will involve a discussion of new texts that have been discovered, as well as the many re-evaluations of texts found in previous decades. Beginning with a brief study of the nature of comparative research, this study will then survey textual material from each of the traditional ancient Near Eastern regions: Syro-Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, and Syro-Canaan, emphasizing documents that come from the 6th century BCE or earlier. One can conclude that new ancient Near Eastern discoveries continue to supply important material for furthering our historical understanding of the Hebrew Bible.
INTRODUCTION
In this study, I will attempt to trace some of the major developments in the comparative study of ancient Near Eastern texts and the Hebrew Bible in the past twenty years (for other surveys, see Hallo et al., 1990, Younger et al., 1991, Hoffmeier et al., 1994, Chavalas, 2002, and Holloway, 2007). Not only have there been numerous re-evaluations of texts found in previous decades, many new texts have been discovered (for editions of texts see, Hallo and Younger, Jr., 1997-2001). For the sake of convenience, I will survey each of the traditional ancient Near Eastern regions, Syro-Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, and Syria/Canaan.
Those who have engaged in comparative research have often taken an ‘inventorial’ approach to comparisons, listing various parallel phenomena without realizing their significance. Although it is certainly legitimate to look for parallels, the methodological criteria for studying ancient Near Eastern texts and the Hebrew Bible have not always been adequately articulated. Most would agree that the biblical scholar must examine the immediate and wider biblical context before resorting to searching for external evidences from the Near East. One must also ask whether or not the phenomenon in question existed outside the stream of the ancient Near Eastern tradition, of which both the biblical and Mesopotamian cultures were a part (Sparks, 2005:4-5). It must be remembered that the texts from the Near East and Israel were radically different in terms of their literary genres. For example, many scholars will indiscriminately compare Mesopotamian archival texts with theological (and perhaps redacted) texts from Israel (see Sasson, 1998). Thus, one needs to look at the corpus of Mesopotamian sources in their entirety, rather than selectively (Geller, 2007:229). Some scholars have employed the use of ‘Intertextuality’, a method which considers the availability of a source for contact, how explicit the connection is, how often the text in question is alluded to, the purpose of the borrowing, and other allusions to the same text (Fewell, 1992 and Hays, 2008:20-43).
SYRO-MESOPOTAMIA
Because of the obvious cultural, historical, and linguistic connections, Mesopotamia and inland Syria have long been considered breeding grounds for biblical comparative analysis
(Muller, 1991, Kuan, 1995, Hallo, 1996, Lambert, 2004, Cogan, 2008). Here, we can only survey a sampling of literary genres, as well as documents from a variety of sites.
Scholars have studied the relationship of music (Braun, 2003) epic traditions (Hallo, 2004), social justice (Weinfeld, 1995), sages (Gammie and Perdue, 1994), ancestor worship (Hallo, 1992, Schmidt, 1994, and Izre’el, 2001), oaths, (Hess, 1993), symbolism (Keel, 1997), grants (Knoppers, 1996), temple building (Hurowitz, 1992b, and Ellis, 2010), fictional autobiography (Longmann, 1991), wisdom literature (Day, 1995, Clifford, 2007), divination (Cryer, 1994, 2001), comic literature (Noegel, 2000), family religion (Toorn, 1990, 1996, 1997), storm god motifs (Green, 2003), creation accounts (Clifford, 1994), and women (Toorn, 1994b), all emphasizing the importance of genre. More particularly, Bonnet has compared some of the stereotypical literary forms of Neo-Assyrian prophetic oracles to biblical salvation oracles (Bonnet and Merlo, 2002:85-6, also Haak and Grabbe, 2001, and Jong, 2007). Ferris (1992) has studied about forty biblical psalms, concluding they were communal laments based upon Sumerian and Akkadian precursors. Lambert (1995) has studied unpublished Sumerian wisdom poems which are additions from a collection of unpublished fragments from the British Museum originating at Nippur (and in later copies at Ugarit and Emar), arguing that they are similar to passages in Ecclesiastes. Halpern has concluded that pre-Socratic thinkers were in dialogue with Israelite prophets of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., perhaps through travel (2002 and 2003a, and 2003b). Comparative work on the Song of Songs and Mesopotamian love songs (especially the first millennium B.C. work, Love Lyrics of Nabu and Tashmetu) has been done by Lapinkivi (pp. 91-8) and Nissenen (1998:585-634).
Though numerous studies have been done on the relationship between ancient Near Eastern law codes and the Mosaic Code (Malul, 1990, Paul, 1990, Matthews et. al., 1998, Otto, 1999, and Rothenbusch, 2000), Wright has revisited the issue (1993, 2003, 2006, and 2009). Contrary to traditional interpretations of an indirect correlation between the Mesopotamian and Covenant Codes, he argues that Hebrew legal tradition was directly dependent upon the Mesopotamian codes, though he admits this is somewhat speculative. In fact, he thinks the biblical writer had direct access to the Hammurabi Code, which had been copied as late as the Neo-Assyrian period (2009). Even if Wright exaggerates the relationship, he has furthered our understanding of literary borrowing from a socio-cultural perspective (Wells, 2006, 2008). It just so happens that two fragments of Old Babylonian period Akkadian tablets were found at Hazor that apparently contain legal matters concerning slavery, reminiscent of the Hammurabi Code (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/138788).
Other documents have either been excavated in the field or ‘rediscovered’ in the British Museum. In 2007, Michael Jursa found the name of a Babylonian officer, Nebo-Sarsekim (Akkadian, Nabu-sharrussu-ukin) in a Neo-Babylonian economic text housed in the British Museum (presumably from Sippar), dated to the 10th year of Nebuchadnezzar II (595 BC). Nebo-Sarsekim is mentioned in Jeremiah 39 as being present at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC. (http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/news_and_press_releases/press_releases/2007/biblical_archaeology_find.aspx). Moreover, Irving Finkel has translated an Old Babylonian tablet concerning the flood which describes the ark as round in shape http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/01/noahs-ark-was-circular). Dalley has observed that some of the personal names from a late 8th century Assyrian tomb at Kalhu of queens are biblical Hebrew, namely Yaba and Atalya (Dalley, 2004, 2008; Younger, 2002).
Even with new publications of Nuzi texts, there continues to be a lack of consensus as to the relative importance of the Nuzi material for biblical studies, although most will conclude that they are a source of documentation for the socio-economic practices in Mesopotamia, shedding light on biblical customs and law (Toorn, 1994 and Maidman, 2010). Specific comparisons, however, are difficult to ascertain because of the difficulty of dating the Patriarchal narratives and the different literary genres involved in the two traditions (biblical: literary narratives and laws; Nuzi material: contracts and court records). For example, Taggar-Cohen argues that the Levites as ‘God’s acquisition from the sons of Israel’ is similar in nature to aspects of the Nuzi tidennutu institutions in terms of legal terminology of inheritance allotted to the community (1998:93).
The Bronze Age site of Emar along the Middle Euphrates provides a rich corpus of comparative material, especially in the religious sphere (Hoskisson, 1990, Fleming 1995, 1999, Klingbeil, 1998). For example, the concept of anointing is found with the NIN.DINGER priestess. Moreover, the Emar festivals and calendars have various requirements that are to be compared to the Levitical regulations. Emar also has the prophetic office of nabu, already well known at Mari. B. Schmidt has recognized connections concerning the care of the dead at Emar and Israel (1996:141-63). Fleming concludes that Emar’s mixed urban and small-town Syrian communal life offers a closer social comparison for Israel that even Ugarit (2002:242-44).
There are still many major studies on the relationship of the Old Babylonian period site of Mari and the Bible, although many recognize the fundamental chronological difference between the two traditions, as well as the drastically different literary genres and textual makeup of the two (e.g., Hurowitz, 1992a, 1994, Malamat, 1995, Durand, 1998, Sasson, 1998, and Fleming, 1998, 2000, 2008, and Bodi, 2005). Of late, the concepts of biblical and Mari prophetic traditions have been re-evaluated (Gordon, 1993, Nissinen, 2000, and Lemaire, 2001). In fact, Bonnet posits that one should not evaluate isolated elements in the two prophetic traditions but compare cultural systems in order to avoid errors in conclusions (Bonnet and Merlo, 2002:81).
EGYPT
There are a variety of reasons why the comparative study of Egyptian texts to the Hebrew Bible has lagged behind other disciplines. Though Egypt played a major role in the early parts of the Bible (especially Genesis 30-50 and Exodus 1-14), Egyptologists have found comparatively little direct evidence of connections. Though Flinders Petrie found the Israel Stela late in the nineteenth century, the field of Egyptology for the most part has co-existed quite independent of biblical studies (although see Redford, 1992, Currid, 1997, Hoffmeier, 1997, 2005, Ash, 1999, Otto, 2000, Kitchen, 2003, and Knoppers, 2004). The past decade, however, has seen a rise in comparative research, as more and more scholars are becoming proficient in Egyptology and biblical studies (Hoffmeier, 2002:xxii). In fact, many Egyptian texts found in previous generations are now being reevaluated for their importance to biblical studies (e.g., Hasel, 1994). Interactions between Canaan and Egypt in regards to economy, administrative texts, royal hymns, and even influences on the narratives in Gen. 1-11 have been the subjects of many studies (see the works by Strange, 2004, van Seters, 2004, and Shupak, 2004). For example, for over eighty years it has for been recognized that Hebrew wisdom literature was part of a larger ancient Near Eastern wisdom tradition (e.g., Shupak, 1989-90, Schneider, 1992, Hoch, 1994, Overland, 1996, Rösel, 2000, and Emerton, 2001), especially the book of Proverbs (see 22:17-24:22) and its Egyptian counterpart, the Instruction of Amememope (Washington, 1994:4-5). Though previous studies have seen the contact between these two texts from the standpoint of their literary history, Washington has viewed them from their socio-historical background, especially in regards to wealth and poverty. He sees both texts as advocates for the poor, showing the book of Proverbs as culturally influenced by Egyptian wisdom literature (pp. 205-6). In addition, Kitchen (2003:134-6) has argued that both Egyptian and Hebrew wisdom literature employ similar literary patterns that were common throughout the ancient Near East, rather than a conscious borrowing from Egypt. In fact, new studies have concentrated on viewing the style and terminology of Egyptian and Hebrew literature, rather than simply content and ideas (see, Shupak, 1993:1-11). Thus the topics of style and vocabulary are now being investigated, while Shupak’s research has been devoted primarily to looking at the terminology of Hebrew wisdom and its relationship to Egyptian literature. She has also done a comparative inquiry into Hebrew and Egyptian wisdom vocabulary, arguing that a number of Hebrew terms in Proverbs show ‘… affinity with forms of speech and expressions found in the Egyptian literature’ (p. 339), both in literal translations and other adaptations. She thus rightly concludes that there were points of contact between Egypt and Israel in regards to wisdom literature, perhaps during the expansion of bureaucracy during the reign of Solomon (pp. 352-4).
Though it has been fashionable to view the Joshua material as late Deuteronomistic sixth century B.C. material, some scholars have recognized the similarities in particular to the annals of Thutmose III (c. 1479-1453 B.C.; Younger, 1990, and Hoffmeier, 1994:165-79, and 2002:xxi-xxvii). It is well known that the Joshua account of the conquest of Canaan is a mixture of lengthy battle accounts (e.g., Jericho) with terse reports (see. Josh 10:28-42). A similar approach is found in Thutmose III’s annals, where there are lengthy reports about the battle of Megiddo, and brief notes of other clashes. In addition, the Egyptian annals summarize their reports, similar to material in Joshua 10-12 (Younger, 1990:231-2, 251-3.). Hyperbolic exaggeration and divine manifestations before campaigns are common to both.
Providing a larger context for the Sinuhe story and possible biblical connections is Barta’s work (2003), where he presents a larger cultural and historical context for the work in terms of Egyptian autobiography. Thus, Barta uses the story to understand Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom period, employing comparisons with numerous Egyptian autobiographical tomb inscriptions, biblical narratives, and ethnographic data. Unlike Kitchen (1996) Barta the story as a fictional account to extol the virtues of Egyptian culture over others. However, he sees it as brilliant historical fiction which is useful to understand Egypt and Palestine during the putative period of the Patriarchs.
ANATOLIA
Perhaps because of the relative geographic distance of Palestine and because of a relative unfamiliarity with biblical material, Hittite scholars have spent comparatively little time in drawing parallels with their textual material and the Hebrew Bible (although see Hoffner, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2008, 2009, and Singer, 2006). Conversely, biblical scholars have avoided the study of Hittite, an Indo-European language, more akin to Greek (though Classical scholars have often studied Hittite, only to discover the rigors of the cuneiform writing system!). However, the few in the past generation who have engaged in comparative studies (and are thus qualified in both areas), have found much of value for research. Over the past fifty years scholars have recognized similarities in the biblical covenantal forms in Deuteronomy and the Hittite vassal treaties of the 14th and 13th centuries B.C., in biblical and Hittite law, and in Hittite and Israelite historiographic forms (e.g, Wright, 473-506). Other areas of contact have been discussed, including necromancy, ritual purity, scapegoats, ‘apology’ texts, and even lexical forms (Hoffner, xxxi, these were some of the foci of the Hamburg Symposim in 1990; Jankowski, 1993). In particular, Weinfeld (1993) noted a significant amount of examples of Hittite influences in the biblical description of the Israelite cult. However, not all Hittite scholars have shared his enthusiasm for the comparisons. Although Weinfeld’s study of the similarities of Hittite and Israelite birth and house purification rituals appears to be valid, the Hittite corpus, however, is quite small and thus the samples may not reflect regular Hittite practice (Hoffner, xxxi and xxxii). Weinfeld has also seen connections between Hittite priests and seers (1993:463-4) and cultic processions, which he believes shows that the Hittite religious festivals influenced the Israelite cult (465-70). In addition, he has studied two Hittite cultic ceremonial texts (including the KI.LAM and Telepinu festivals) which are reminiscent of the Ark Narratives in II Sam. 6, where the god is transported on a cart while musical performances are done. Moreover, the king removes his linen clothes, much like David in 2 Sam. 6:5. The scapegoat ritual (Lev. 16) has been the focus of many studies over the past decades. Jankowski and Wilhelm (1993) have argued that the term Azazel comes from a Hurrian offering term, azazhiya denoting the central element of the offering or the benefit received from it.
New Hittite texts, however, have been found that may shed light on biblical texts. A Late Bronze bilingual Hittite-Hurrian text, The Song of Release, describes a series of fables, one of which is about a coppersmith who makes a cup which ends up cursing him, similar to the biblical genre of the potter and his clay creation in Isaiah 29:16, 45:9 and Jeremiah 18:6 (Hoffner, 1998:65-80). Moreover, the discovery of a significant corpus of letters from Masat Hoyuk (ancient Tapikka), a Hittite provincial center, sheds light on the biblical story of Samson. There are at least two letters from this site that note a list of blind captives who are used in mill houses, much like how the Philistines used the Israelite hero in Judges 16:21 (Hoffner, 2009:207-10). Hoffner has also connected biblical komer, a term for idolatrous priests (2 Kings 23:5, Hosea 10:5, and Zephaniah 1:4) with Hittite kumra (Old Assyrian kumrum), one of the main classes of male priests in the Hittite temple personnel (Hoffner, 1996:154-6). Hoffner (1997; also 2008) has also published a new edition of the Hittite laws, long seen to have interesting parallels with Mosaic law, especially Exodus 21-22 and Deuteronomy 21-24.
The textual material from the Bronze Age site of Alalakh (in present day southeastern Turkey) has been considered a valuable source of comparative (and contrastive) material for the Hebrew Bible. Like Nuzi, the customs (e.g., marriage contracts) at Alalakh have often been compared to the biblical Patriarchal periods, most recently by R. Hess (1993, 1997, and 2008). He argues that the cumulative weight of comparisons with the Bible shows a common cultural milieu for both. For example, he has evaluated an Alalakh legal agreement (AT 456) with the slaughter of animals in Gen. 15 (Hess, 1993:55-65). Furthermore, he has studied a variety of texts from Alalakh, Ugarit, and elsewhere to shed light on the biblical text of Joshua, which he interprets in part as a land grant (Hess, 1997, 2002, and Knoppers, 1996). In addition, Fink (2007) has reassessed the stratigraphy of Alalakh and dates the Idrimi statue (considered similar to the Apology narratives of David in 2 Samuel) to the early 14th century B.C., contemporary to the Idrimi dynasty at Alalakh, rather than a century later.
Iron Age Luwian and Northwest Semitic texts from southeast Anatolia and Syria have continued to be discovered, some of which have shed light on the Hebrew Bible. The Luwian material is now accessible, since hundreds of Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions have been published by J.D. Hawkins (2000), providing material that may be indirectly relevant to the period of the Judges, I-II Samuel and I Kings (Hess, 2008). Furthermore, Neo-Assyrian texts have been found at Tell Ta’yinat in 2009, which include an Assyrian treaty between Esarhaddon and a local ruler of Patina to secure succession of his son Ashurbanipal. Harrison (2010) argues that this text has parallels with the treaties in Deuteronomy. A New Aramaic mortuary stele of KTMW (perhaps vocalized as Kuttamuwa, see Schloen and Fink, 2009:10), servant of king Panamuwa (II), found in 2008 at Zincirli (ancient Sam’al) from the late eighth century BC, provides important information concerning Sam’alian Aramaic, and indirect connections with biblical Hebrew (see the commentary by Pardee 2009:58-66; also Kaufman, 2007, Schloen and Fink, 2009, and Struble and Hermann, 2009). The thirteen line inscription includes a relief scene of a figure seated at a banquet table (presumably for the deceased). A trilingual inscription from Incirli, a small village in south central Turkey in the Karamanmarash Valley, was discovered in 1993. Though terribly weathered by erosion, and overwritten in Greek later in antiquity, scholars have been able to piece together three languages in the inscription; Phoenician, hieroglyphic Luwian (an Indo-European language related to Hittite) and Neo-Assyrian (Kaufmann, 2007). Unfortunately, the Luwian and most of the Neo-Assyrian is unreadable. The author of the inscription (seen from the readable Phoenician text) is a previously unknown king of the Danunites, Awarikku, who commemorates a land grant from Tiglath-Pileser III (also mentioned as Pu’/wal, reminiscent of biblical Pul; 2 Kings 15:19; and Assyrian Pulu). This is one of the few inscriptions that has confirmed the connection of Pul and Tiglath-Pileser. Moreover, the text mentions a king of Arpad who sacrificed a royal offspring to Hadad-Melek (or for a molk offering to Hadad), a practice mentioned of the Moabite king, Mesha, in 2 Kings 3:27.
SYRIA AND CANAAN
Coastal Syria (and Lebanon) and the region of Israel (ancient Canaan) have produced numerous documents that are useful for comparative purposes with the Hebrew Bible.
Arguably, over the past seventy years there has been more written concerning the relationship of Ugarit and the Bible than any other single Near Eastern site. Massive overviews have been done (Loretz, 1990, Brooke, et al., 1994, Pope, 1994, Watson and Wyatt, 1998, de Moor, 1998, Pardee, 2000, Smith, 2001b, Michaud, 2005, Younger Jr., 2007) as well as studies on various aspects of Ugaritic culture (magic; Jeffers, 1996, religion; Korpel, 1990, de Moor and Sanders, 1991, Dietrich and Loretz, 1992, Peterson, 1998, Day, 2000, Smith, 2001a, Pardee, 2002, Ortlund, 2006, Cho, 2007, Cornelius et al., 2008; literature; Parker, 1997, and women, Marsman, 2003).
Of special interest is the discovery of approximately three hundred sixty new Ugaritic and Akkadian texts during the 1994 excavation season in the thirteenth-century B.C. house of Urtenu. Bourdrueil’s study of these new texts has provided new data about the Rephaim and some other Hebrew roots. Korpel’s work on the tablets written by the high priest Ilimilku of Ugarit has forced a reevaluation of the editorial process of biblical texts (2001:86-111). Though there are differences in style in the myriad of texts edited (or perhaps authored) by this Ugaritic scribe, he was most certainly an exegete of his own work, thus providing an example of an ‘editing’ author who made substantial editorial (grammatical and even theological) changes to at least three major Ugaritic works. Korpel believes this shows the possibility that the various Hebrew Bible editorial traditions were not necessarily done by different authors and editors, but by the same individual.
Excavations at Qatna on the Orontes River in Syria have also shown the extent of the cuneiform tradition in Syria in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (see Novak, 2004 and Morandi, 2007). The headless basalt statue of presumably a king of Qatna was found in the acropolis, approximately dating to the seventeenth century B.C. In addition, excavations at Qatna in 2002 exposed palatial texts that were legal, and administrative in nature. Moreover, royal letters have been found, dated to the fourteenth century B.C., roughly contemporary with the Amarna letters. Destruction of certain cities of Syria is mentioned, and it appears that the fall of Mitanni is also noted. There are also about thirty administrative texts and fragments that contain lists regarding the distribution of grain to workers, servants, and animals. A royal tomb has been found with a set of underground chambers guarded by two seated male statues. Scholars believe that a royal cult of the dead is mentioned in the texts from Qatna.
In 1997, the Cuneiform in Canaan project was launched in order to publish all of the known cuneiform sources found in the region (culminating in Hurowitz and Oshima, 2006). It was an enormous undertaking to track down, collate, edit, and photograph these nearly one hundred tablets, dispersed throughout the whole world. Thus, we now have a modern edition of the Taanach, Hazor, Megiddo (see Goren et al., 2009) and Aphek (Goren et al, 2007) tablets, as well as isolated finds from Beth Shean, Gezer, Jericho, Hebron, Shechem, and now Jerusalem. The finds are mostly from the Late Bronze Age. Interestingly, the Iron Age material is a smaller corpus, and contains no scribal texts, perhaps showing the increase in importance of the alphabet (which diminished the significance of cuneiform). Though the authors are skeptical, there is little reason to doubt scribal activity in some of these cities, as they are in close proximity to the scribal territories of Ugarit and Emar (a number of studies on cuneiform scribal influence on biblical writers are also available; cf. Otto, 1999, and Morrow, 2005). One can add to this is a Late Bronze tablet (c. 1400 B.C.E.) found in a monumental building at Sidon in Lebanon. The fragmented text appears to be an inventory of wooden luxury objects. Interestingly, the text appears to have been produced with local clay, perhaps implying that cuneiform writing was commonly used in the region (Briquel-Chatonner, 2004:65-71).
Recently, two Neo-Assyrian contracts have been found at Tel Hadid in the northern Shephelah. Na’aman and Zadok (2000:179-80) argue that cuneiform writing came back to Palestine only after the Assyrian annexation and deportations, with the establishment of Assyrian administration in the provinces (although much appears to have been done in Aramaic) and perhaps from deportees from main urban centers in Babylonia who continued in the cuneiform tradition. In fact, some of the personal names on the two tablets are Akkadian.
In addition, a small fragment of a cuneiform tablet dating to the 13th century B.C. was found in July 2010 by Hebrew University archaeologists (led by Eilat Mazar) outside of Jerusalem’s old city walls beneath a Solomonic period tower. Hurowitz argues that it is like other royal archival texts, roughly contemporary with the Amarna cuneiform archive from Egypt (Mazar et al, 2010; for the excavations, see Mazar, 2009).
The prose narratives of West Semitic inscriptions have been studied for comparative analysis by Parker (1997, 1999; also see Drinkard, 2008, and Lambert, 2007). He argues that these texts were literary works and are of paramount importance for studying historical narratives in the Bible. Thus, better informed conclusions about Hebrew narratology can be made, not simply through looking at Assyrian annals, but these west Semitic texts. Though they have been studied in detail, rarely have they been studied for comparative analysis, primarily because of the differences in literary genre with the Bible. The Deir ‘Alla inscription has been reevaluated by a series of scholars (Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, 1991). A comparative study of stylistic patterns and literary forms of certain biblical texts and Phoenician inscriptions (burial inscriptions from Sidon and Byblos, display inscriptions from Southeastern Anatolia, and incantations from Arslan Tash) has been the subject of study by Avishur (2000). Similarly, new editions of Hebrew inscriptions from Canaan have come out (Davies, 1991-2004, Deutsch/Heltzer, 1994, Dobbs-Allsopp, 2005, and Ahituv, 2006, Lemaire, 2007:279-303, Ahituv and Rainey, 2008, and Na’aman, 2003). Ahituv includes cognate inscriptions, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, and so-called ‘Philistine’ inscriptions. A damaged Moabite inscription published in 2003 by Ahituv has forced a re-evaluation of l. 25-6 of the Moabite stone (2003:3-10), where Emerton argues that the new text refers to the making of a reservoir by Ammonite prisoners, and thus the Moabite stone probably refers to Israelite prisoners (2002, and 2005:293-303; also see Niccacci 1994).
Twenty years ago it could be said that very few West Semitic inscriptions had been found in Jordan, but this has recently changed. For example, a smattering of over two hundred mostly unprovenanced inscriptions from Jordan have been found Tell al-‘Umayri and Tell Hesban, and Tell el-Mazar (Aufrecht, 1999). They are mostly seals and ostraca, but a few monumental inscriptions have been found, all from the Iron Age. The ostraca from ‘Umeryi are still undeciphered, though. The material from Hesban is being prepared to evaluate its connections with the Bible (Geraty et al, forth). In addition, a Moabite temple has just been found near Dhiban in Jordan, offering the possibility of more textual discoveries in Moabite (http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=29730).
In Israel, numerous fragments of texts have been found and studied, including the Tel Dan inscriptions, which have caused a great deal of academic discussions (Biran and Naveh, 1993, Schniedewind, 1996, Emerton, 2000, Athas, 2003). The Tel Zayit abecedary, a tenth century B.C. alphabetic text found in 2005, has provided much food for thought about the nature of scribal education in Palestine (Tappey et al, 2007). Tappy argues that the site was most likely dependent upon Judahite authority, but that Philistine presence is evidenced. The question is whether or not this single inscription has shown evidence of a national Hebrew scribal tradition (making a full break with Old Canaanite), or whether the text displays features similar to the Phoenician script known from the ninth and eighth centuries. At any rate, the text provides some evidence of a scribal tradition in the Solomonic age. A five-line inscription in ink written in the Proto-Canaanite alphabet was found on an ostracon at Khirbet Qeiyafa (perhaps biblical Sha’arayim, a provincial town) in the Elah Valley in 2008, dating to the 10th century B.C., the period of the United Monarchy (Garfinkel and Ganor, 2008). The text is written in a Northwest Semitic language, but is too brief to be certain whether it is Hebrew or a cognate language. The text, perhaps describing social elements found in the Hebrew Bible (pleading for those who are downtrodden, slave, widow, orphan, stranger, poor), still defies a facile translation. In fact, in an earlier rendition some have argued that the name Gaza, Gath, a Philistine king, YSD, and the Philistine term for king (seren) were found. However, it appears that it shows evidence of scribal activity in Israel at a much earlier date than had been previously believed. A 7th century B.C. Philistine dedication inscription found at Tel Miqne in 1996 mentions a certain Akish (the same name mentioned in David’s time; 1 Sam. 21:11-15; 27), and also found in two Syrian inscriptions. The script is similar to Hebrew of the same time period (8th to 6th centuries B.C.). The site is now confirmed as biblical Ekron (Gitin, 1997 and 1998). It is the most complete Philistine inscription known, having both Phoenician and Hebrew linguistic features
Still more texts and fragments have been located. The Temple Mount Sifting Project, under the supervision of Gabriel Barkay and others, has found, among other things, a seal with a fragment of a name (‘yehu’), dated to the late 7th century B.C. In 2005, an Old Canaanite incised inscription was located on a sherd in an Early Iron Age (mid 11th to early 9th century B.C.) context at Tell es-Safi (biblical Gath; see Maeir et al., 2008), the earliest known alphabetic inscription from an Iron Age Philistine site with a well defined context. The writers have tentatively interpreted the eight letters that have been found to be (‘lwt/wlt{…}), which is not enough to determine the language of the text (Semitic or otherwise), although other suggestions have been given (Mycenaean Greek, or early Anatolian {i.e., Carian Lydian or Luwian} (see Cross, Stager, 2006). The identification of the text with the name Goliath (or Lydian Alyattes), appears to be unfounded (p. 57), although the possibility of it being a non-Semitic word (at least the lwt name) is taken seriously. The text may show that the Philistine immigrants may well have abandoned their non-alphabetic writing system for an alphabet at a very early date.
Prospect
As one can see through this admittedly brief survey, new readings and interpretations of previously known texts from the ancient Near East continue to revolutionize and deepen our understanding of the Hebrew Bible. This, along with new discoveries of cuneiform texts in and coastal Syria and Palestine, as well as West Semitic texts (including Biblical Hebrew) in Israel and Jordan, provide evidence for the continuation of the fruitful dialogue between ancient Near Eastern texts and the Hebrew Bible.