The Mesha Stele as an Archaeological Artifact and Historical Document

This upcoming semester I will be researching and preparing for my Master's thesis. My planned topic is "The Geopolitical Climate of the Reign of King Jehoshaphat of Judah." The following short paper that I finished last semester was instrumental in helping me decide on this topic. The reign of king Jehoshaphat is a fascinating period in the kingdom of Judah that connects all of the small nations of the Levant (present-day Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and part of Turkey) I will probably be blogging on this topic more in the future.

Physical Description

The Mesha Stele (or the Moabite Stone) is a three feet tall by two feet wide basalt stone from biblical Dibon incised with 34 lines of alphabetic writing on one side of the stele with a raised frame surrounding it on both sides and on its rounded top. Its length makes it the longest monumental inscription ever found in Palestine.[1] The writing is in Moabite, which is very close to Hebrew.

Discovery

It was first discovered on August 19, 1868 by a French Anglican minister named, F.A. Klein, in Dhiban, Jordan, about three miles north of the Arnon River. [2] Klein discovered it while visiting a Bedouin tribe at Dhiban, when he saw it he understood it to be an importance artifact and tried to purchase it from the Bedouin. After some ensuing bargaining the Bedouin agreed to sell it for 120 napoleons (about $480) with the backing of the Prussian government. Despite the agreement local Bedouin politics would not allow the stone to be shipped out of Dhiban. Over a year later 21-year old Charles Clermont-Ganneau would send an Arab friend to Dhiban to establish its importance who would return with a hand copy of seven lines of the stone. Once Clermont-Ganneau received this he dispatched another Arab friend, named Karavaca, to take a paper squeeze and to offer a much higher sum than had been offered previously. The Bedouin of Dhiban agreed to this so Karavaca began to make the paper squeeze. Meanwhile, a fight broke out among the Bedouin and Karavaca feared for his life so he jumped on his horse and ran away. During the quarrel Sheik Jamil had the wherewithal to tear off the wet impression before scurrying away from the scene. Finally after numerous attempts to take the stone by the Turkish government and the Prussian government the Bedouin destroyed the stele. They broke it into countless pieces by pouring cold water on it after it had been heated in a fire. The fragments were then distributed among the Bedouin who put it in their granaries to be used as a talisman. After its destruction Clermont-Ganneau and Charles Warren were able to obtain 57 pieces of the stele, approximately 2/3’s of the stele. With the paper squeeze Clermont-Ganneau was able to fully reconstruct the stele. When it was translated it turned out to be a victory stele erected by Mesha, king of Moab in the ninth century BCE.[3]

[4]

[5]

Restoration

The line of “house of David” in the famous Tel Dan inscription was accepted by the majority of the scholarly community to be a reference to the dynastic kingdom of Judah and the person of David. This monumental discovery was hailed as being the first mention of the name of David in an inscription. However, two years prior to its discovery Andre Leimare had already come to believe that the dynastic term “house of David” was on the Mesha Stele, another stele from the 9^th century BCE. He came to this conclusion by studying the paper squeeze that had not been published previously.[6] On the evidence for coming to his conclusion Lemaire writes,

“One of the damaged lines has long posed an intriguing challenge to scholars. Line 31 on the stela begins by saying, “And as for Horonen, dwelt there … ,” but a break has partially obliterated the subject of the sentence. With the help of the squeeze, scholars had previously restored the broken subject of the sentence as bt[-]wd. Now, for the first time, Professor Lemaire proposes to reconstruct the missing letter as d, yielding bt[d]wd, “House of David,” referring to the king of Judah. This not only fits the context of the inscription, but the sentence structure parallels an earlier reference in the inscription to the “king of Israel.” In the Bible, “House of David” often refers to the king of Judah (2 Samuel 7:26; 1 Kings 2:24, etc.).”[7]

This groundbreaking restoration gives another mention of the name “David” and improves the understanding of the context on the Mesha Stele.[8]

Historical and Geographical Significance

Besides the obvious historical significance of the mentioning of the name of David, the Mesha Stele provides detailed data regarding the relations between Judah, Israel, and Moab.[9] The opening line of the stele identifies the inscription’s author as it says, “I am Mesha the son of Chemosh king of Moab, the Daibonite. My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I reigned after my father…”[10] 1 Kings 3:4-5 mentions this Mesha king of Moab who rebelled against Israel who had previously required from Moab “100,000 lams and the wool of 100,000 rams.” The Mesha Stele goes on to describe Mesha’s military successes against Judah and Israel. He mentions that his father was under the dominion of Omri and “his son” for forty years. Their holding of the “land of Medeba” (the plateau situated between Moab, Ammon, and Israel) evidenced this. Mesha goes on to say that during his days Chemosh had returned Medeba to Moab and he rebuilt Baal-maon and Kiriaten.. Mesha then proceeds to discuss his military exploits these include the following:

Northern Campaign

1. Conquering of Ataroth from the men of the tribe of Gad, and the confiscating of the Davidic altar hearth there.

2. Seizing and slaughtering of Nebo, and the confiscating of the altar hearth of YHWH.

3. Conquering of the recently Israelite fortified city of Yahaz (which he added to the kingdom of Daibon).

Building Projects

1. Fortification of Dibon, which included: “the wall of the forests,” “the wall of the rampart,” gates, towers, a royal palace, a water system (with Israelite POWs), and cisterns in every home.

2. Rebuilding of Aroer, the highways in the Arnon, Beth-bamoth, Bezer, the temple of Medeba, the temple of Diblaten, and the temple of Baal-maon.

Southern Campaign

1. Conquering of Hawronen from the “House of David.”[11]

There is has been quite a bit of debate regarding the mentioning of the tribe of Gad and the two altar hearths ascribed to David and Yahweh. Even so a straightforward reading of the text seems to indicate that there were altars at Ataroth and Nebo devoted to the worship of Yahweh of which one of these was built by David or his line and that the tribe of Gad still had a remnant in Transjordan in the time of Mesha (9^th cent.).[12] Regardless of one’s view of its particular contents it is impossible for anyone to deny its importance as a historical and geographical source. On the importance and nature of the Mesha Stele Ahituv writes,

“The Mesha Stele is important for the abundant of multifaceted details it preserves. It elucidates in relatively large measure the details of the military actions of Mesha king of Moab, contemporary with Ahab king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, kings of Judah, as well as his building projects over an extensive period of time. It would appear that the inscription is a summary of Mesha’s actions up to the date of its writing. It addition to the historical data provided, it is the main witness to the Moabite language. It also gives important insights into the religion and religious attitudes of the Moabites in that period. This includes many points of similarity between the Moabites and their neighbors, the Israelites: the ritual devotion to destruction, the belief that the deity is angry with his people when things go wrong, or that he fights on behalf of his people. The stela also casts light on the world of the Israelites, e.g. we learn about a sanctuary to YHWH at Nebo”[13]

Much ink has been spent on trying to correlate the events described in the Mesha Stele (particularly line 31 ff.) and the events described in 2 Kings 3:4 ff. However, it seems best to see the war between Moab and the coalition of Judah, Israel, and Edom and Mesha’s account as two sides of the same coin. Joram of Israel could not stand for Mesha’s insubordination and outright rebellion as show in 2 Kings 3:4-5 and the Mesha Stele, so he had to take drastic measures. Likewise Jehoshaphat and the “ruler of Edom” could not afford rebellion from Mesha, who had already earlier tried to invade Judah with the help of Ammon (2 Chr. 20). At first the allies were successful in their invasion of Moab (2 Kings 3:24-25), but eventually they were repelled and Mesha counter-attacked and re-conquered Hawronen (Horonaim). This would fit both the biblical account Mesha’s account while leaving out details that were not relevant to the respective audiences of Mesha and the writer of Kings.[14] Rainey defends this position this way,

“There is no contradiction between the biblical and the Moabite narratives: they simply represents different sides of the same event. Naturally, Mesha has conveniently skipped over his abortive attempt to launch a joint invasion of Judah (2 Chron. 20). That ill-fated campaign followed the death of Ahab at Ramoth-gilead (before Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah launched their nautical enterprise) and preceded the war described in 2 Kings 3 (when Joram had succeeded his deceased brother Ahaziah).”[15]

---

[1] Andre Lemaire, “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription.” BAR vol. 20 num. 3 (1994): 30-37.

[2] Siegfried Horn, “Why the Moabite Stone was Blown to Pieces,” BAR (1986): 50-61.

[3] Adapted from Horn, 50-61 and Leimare, 30-37.

[4] Reconstructed Mesha Stele from the Louvre Museum Ibid, 51.

[5] Paper squeeze from the Louvre Museum Ibid, 36.

[6] Adapted from Lemaire, 30-37.

[7] Ibid, 36.

[8] Ibid, 30-37.

[9] For a translation and discussion of the Moabite in the Mesha Stele see Shmuel Ahituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period, (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008). 389-418.

[10] Translation taken from Anson Rainey and Steve Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006): 203. Transliteration and other marks are not included.

[11] Adapted from Ibid, 211-212.

[12] For a discussion and in depth analyses on these very important issues see Anson Rainey, “Syntax, Hermeneutics and History,” IEJ 48 (1998), 244-251. Rainey summarily defends this position like this, “In summary, the reference to bt dwd in line 31 of the Mesha stele certainly refers to the kingdom of Judah. The ‘altar hearth’ taken as booty from Ataroth had beed donated to the Israelites from the tribe of Gad by David, or at least by the government of the United Monarchy. That these assertions shed positive light on the biblical sources for the tenth and ninth centuries BCE makes them automatically suspect in some circles. Nevertheless, these interpretations can all be supported by syntactical and rhetorical criticism of the text. They represent sound linguistic analysis, proper rhetorical hermeneutics and historical common sense.”

[13] Ibid, 389.

[14] Ibid, 250.

[15] Ibid, 251.

Death

"Without death - would we know that death could die?"

Related: song (note the last verse lyrics) and sermon

Cultural Relevance pt. 6 (Polygamy)

Polygamy is one of the most troubling problems modern interpreters face when they approach the Hebrew Old Testament. It is almost unfathomable in the modern west for evangelicals to accept polygamy as a legitimate form of a family structure in the biblical text. Yet the evidence from Scripture shows that polygamy was frequently practiced in ancient Israel. The typical evangelical response to polygamy in Scripture sounds something like this, “Yes, its true that polygamy existed in the Old Testament and God never said that it was a sin, however, every case of polygamy in Scripture is portrayed in a negative light.” The principle behind this thinking is commendable, clearly, polygamy was obviously never God’s ideal design (Gen. 2:24 “becoming one flesh” is exclusive of everyone else). However is that statement and others like it fair to the evidence of Scripture and its world? If so, then how should the Song of Solomon be read? Is the Song of Solomon negative? Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and yet it exemplifies the holy intimacy of biblical sexuality in marriage. Moreover, Isaac, Joseph, Samuel, and Solomon all come out of polygamous marriages. Were their lives portrayed as negative? On the one hand, there is solid truth behind the statement above and in fact all of the polygamous marriages in Scripture, save the Song of Solomon, express the inherent difficulties of having multiple wives. On the other hand, polygamy is not explicitly condemned in Scripture as being an iniquity.

It seems that the typical diagnosis of biblical polygamy has not been looking in the right location for a proper identification of the problem. The source of the issue lies within the culture of the ancient Near East. As a rule polygamy was a rampant practice among all of the nations of the ancient Levant. Israel and her neighbors were no exception to this rule; the fathers of Israel (Jacob) (Gen. 29), Edom (Esau) (Gen. 26:34), Ammon (Lot) and Moab (Lot) (Gen. 19:31-38) all had polygamous marriages. Torah does not expressly condemn nor commend these polygamous actions. When subsequent generations of Israelites practiced polygamy they did so with no thought of wrongdoing. They acted out of an ideal that was completely embedded within their culture and heritage.

The polygamous relationships in ancient Israel can be broken down into two different categories, regular polygamy and royal polygamy. The difference between the two categories is purpose. Most royal polygamous marriages were for the advantage of the state (e.g. 1 Kings 9:16; 1 Kings 16:31; 1 Chr. 3:1-2), whereas regular polygamy was mainly for the pro-creational and/or recreational advantage of the patriarch of the beit av (e.g. Gen. 16:1-4; Judg. 19:1¹; Gen. 38:9²). Although admittedly there is some overlap between the two categories. For instance it is unlikely that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines only for the benefit of the United Monarchy (1 Kings 11:13).

A thorough examination of the evidence shows that Yahweh did not outright condemn polygamy. Instead of condemnations for the practice, Scripture tries to conform/sanctify polygamy (of the regular type) within the Yahwistic theocracy (Leviticus 18:8³; Deuteronomy 21:10-17). These attempts at conformation in Torah show that Yahweh did not choose the total condemnation of polygamy as a proverbial “hill to die on” (as say the making of “graven images” (Ex. 20:4)) in his shaping of Israel as a peculiar people (Exodus 19:5-6). In addition Scripture also gives instruction for royal polygamy that instructs the king to “not acquire many wives lest his heart turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:16). Once again this instruction does not expressly forbid the acquiring of more than one wife, but warns of the consequences of having many wives. It is impossible this side of Heaven (and maybe there also) to know Yahweh’s complete reasoning behind not condemning polygamy. Moreover, it is difficult and even exegetically dangerous to find reasons why something was or was not written. However, some humble suggestions may be made regarding the nature of polygamy in Yahweh’s theocracy.

Torah was counter-culture, but was not anti-culture. Torah operated within the culture of the ancient Near East not outside of it. There are many examples of a complete break from Levantine culture in Torah (e.g. commands against making “graven images” (Ex. 20:4), eating unclean animals (Lev. 5), circumcision on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3)). However there are also examples of a reforming of Levantine culture (e.g. “an eye for an eye” ends continual, vengeful bloodshed (Ex. 21:24), proper treatment of slaves (Ex. 21:20-27)). Polygamy would fall into the latter category. Yahweh in his infinite knowledge and wisdom established Torah for his people both to be distinguished from and to operate within the nations. It would seem that a total break from polygamous relationships would have drastic effects on the second purpose. Polygamous relationships were used effectively in ancient Israel, particularly in the case of royal polygamy. The United Kingdom of David and Solomon would not have reached its lofty state had it not used political marriages. Likewise, regular polygamy produced the twelve tribes of Israel through Rachel and Leah.

In conclusion, ancient Near Eastern polygamy as refined by Torah should not be seen as ontologically moral or immoral, but as amoral. The Israelites operated within a culture that accepted polygamy as a legitimate form of a family structure and Torah reformed this culture to Yahweh’s standard. Certainly a case can be made that these reforms eventually transformed the culture, which led to recognizing the insufficiency of polygamy, but that does not change the fact that polygamy was not condemned in Torah. It was therefore not immoral to be polygamous in ancient Israel. However, since the New Testament clearly defines monogamy as the ideal (1 Tim. 3:2), modern polygamy is thus completely immoral.⁴

Footnotes:

¹ In this general framework the having of concubines is to be considered polygamous.
² This is an example of Levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10), but it is still an example of polygamy since Onan was “saving” his seed for his own line, although it is unclear from Genesis 38 if Onan had a wife at that time.
³ In Lev. 18:7 the command is not to uncover the nakedness of your mother. Lev. 18:8 gives the same command, but applies it to “your father’s wife,” which is general enough to cover polygamous marriages and remarriages.
⁴ Modern western culture subsequently rejects polygamy as a legitimate family structure.

The Travels of a Short-Term Bedouin

Over the past week I returned to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This time I went with a class focused on understanding the cultural background of the biblical world. Specifically this trip was directed at experiencing the day to day life of Bedouin and poor villagers. The idea behind doing a trip like this is to gain some experiential knowledge by looking at the ethnographic present of the Old Testament past. What that basically means is that the lifestyles of the present-day Bedouin and poor villagers resemble the lifestyles of the Israelites in the Old Testament. This can only be seen in places where there is little to know advancement in technology (including electricity and plumbing). Since the technology (or the ability to have technology) has not changed and the geographical, climactic factors remain unchanged there must be similarity between the two groups. After experiencing about a week among them (which is nowhere near enough to make a definitive statement - but enough to know that I am glad I live in the modern world) there is no question that there is a good deal of similarity between the modern Bedouin and the ancient patriarchal world.
Here are some pics from my journey.

The Bedouin tent is made up of goat skins, rope, and wooden poles. The goat skin provides
a barrier from the brutally hot sun and insulation from the cold night. Much of the patriarchal
story in Genesis occurs within the confines of the Bedouin tent.

Dinner - the bloody world of the patriarchs. We ate this sheep about 6 hours after it was killed.
It provided good insight into the connection between life (food) and death (the food)
in the biblical world and how that developed into a redemptive work. "Indeed, under the law
almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is
no forgiveness of sins." (Heb. 9:22)

Camels - the ships of the desert. In antiquity people groups like the Edomites and Nabateans
used camels as their vessels - shipping off from one port to the next. Taking their cargo from
as far as India to the ports of Gaza and Caesarea.

My favorite part of the desert was the sunset. Unbelievable.

(For more pics - look at my Facebook page)

Cultural Relevance pt. 5 (Torah as Law)

As part of my take home final exam for one of my classes this semester - I had to answer the following question.

It is mid-summer of the eighteenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat, our good and just king (may he live and grant us shalom!). You are a 20-year old vinedresser from the village of Eincerem, still single (although you have made certain discrete inquiries from the daughter of your neighbor, the son of the brother of your father’s brother.) Unfortunately, a hungry ox belonging to this very neighbor has broken the stonewall surrounding your vineyard and trampled a good portion of your vines. This ox-owner has a reputation in Eincerem (as well as in surrounding villages) for being a very hard man (you are hoping that this characteristic has not been passed on genetically), but he also enjoys the support of many of the leading men of the village who have deferred to him on a variety of matters in the past. What do you do?

My name is Yochanan son of Zecharyahu, son of Zecharyahu of the tribe of Levi. King Jehoshaphat my king is in his mid-fifties (53 according to 1 Kings 22:42) and Ahaziah the son of Ahab has just ascended to the throne of Israel a year ago (1 Kings 22:51). My grapes were due to be exceptional this year (as they are every year – well except for those three years of drought during the days of my father (1 Kings 17:1) – praise Yahweh that King Jehoshaphat did not marry a Phoenician!) What else would you expect from a vineyard in a town called “the spring of the vineyard?” However, my neighbor, Shaul, has proven that he cannot control his oxen. Shaul’s irresponsibility has caused severe damage to my family’s livelihood. This is especially egregious when you consider that my father’s father, Zecharyahu, built those terraces and my beit av has been maintaining them for the last thirty years! Luckily, my father, Zecharyahu, was diligent to the mizva (command) of Moshe (Deut. 11:19) and taught me Torah all the days of his life until his death at Ramoth-Gilead at the hands of Syria three years ago (May Yahweh bash their little ones against a stone! (Ps. 137:9). On this specific matter Torah is as clear as the waters of En Gedi (Exodus 22:5). Shaul should give me the choice vintage of his vineyard, which is not as good as the vintage of Zecharyahu, but .90 cents on the shekel is still better than letting my mother, Elisheba, and my sisters, Rivka and Miriam, starve. The problem is that Shaul is very influential over the elders of Eincerem, and although he is a Levite like myself his father neglected to teach him the mizvaot of Moshe. Another problem is Shaul’s 14-year-old daughter, Yehudit, (whose hips seem wide enough to bear many sons and whose “dibs” (grape honey) is the best in Judah) is my best option for a wife.

Because of my affinity for Yehudit it seems better to deal with Shaul directly rather then to go before the elders at the gate (Deut. 21:19) and present my case (even though my neighbors, Uriyahu and Baal-zephon (he is a proselyte, cut him a brit (circumcision)) saw the dreaded ox trample my vines to pieces (Deut. 17:6)). After all I am not a young man any more and the beit av (father's house) of Yochanan should not die with me! Maybe Shaul out of respect for my father’s memory and my knowledge of Torah will follow Moshe’s mizva. Who knows maybe we can close two deals at the same time – half-a-year’s crop and a wife – that would be a good day’s work. May Yahweh let it be so! Besides if he does not concede to the mizva of Moshe I can always appeal to the elders at the gate and if they let their respect of Shaul cloud their judgment I can appeal to King Jehoshaphat’s appointed judges in Jerusalem (2 Chr. 19:8) (he’s named “Yahweh judges” for a reason). Enough thinking, it is time to go to Shaul and present my complaint – I will have Miriam prepare some cakes for our inevitably lengthy discussion. “Vindicate me, O LORD, for I have walked in my integrity, and I have trusted in the LORD without wavering.” (Psalm 26:1)

12 hours later…

Praise be to Adoneinu Eloheinu (Our Lord, Our God)! Shaul, despite driving a hard bargain, heeded the mizva of Moshe and promised to give me the best of his vintage (luckily for him he has many vines – his beit av will come out even this year). More than that Yahweh has seen it fit to bless me with a wife! Hopefully all of the arrangements will be finished before the harvest so that my beloved and I may spend our first night under the succa (tents for Feast of Booths festival.) The marriage timing is perfect since it looks like that pesky Mesha of Moab is stirring up trouble again (2 Chr. 20). It will only be a matter of time before King Jehoshaphat invades the sheep-breeders (2 Kings 3 and Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone). War is most assuredly on the horizon, but not for my Yehudit and I for this year at least, that is if the village elders will respect the mizva of Moshe (Deut. 24:5).

Random Thoughts

Is the stem cell debate dead? Listen to this doctor. Very interesting.

John Piper always has thoughtful things to say, but I found this particularly thoughtful and amusing.

I would not consider myself a fan of rap, but I have never heard rap like this. This song makes my skin feel like a goose's.



"Reformed" Rappers like Shai Linne and LeCrae are creating songs that are both rich in theology and sound. Their music is being noticed by some heavy hitters in reformed evangelicalism. Desiring God has teamed up with LeCrae on a tour called, "Don't Waste Your Life" based on Piper's popular book - with the purpose of spreading the Gospel in inner city America.

We are going to play..."Name that reference!"

Without looking at a bible, using bible software, or google. Where does this quote come from?

Who are you to put God to the test today, and to set yourselves up in the place of God in human affairs? You are putting the Lord Almighty to the test, but you will never learn anything! You cannot plumb the depths of the human heart or understand the workings of the human mind; how do you expect to search out God, who made all these things, and find out his mind or comprehend his thought? No, my brothers, do not anger the Lord our God. For if he does not choose to help us within these five days, he has power to protect us within any time he pleases, or even to destroy us in the presence of our enemies. Do not try to bind the purposes of the Lord our God; for God is not like a human being, to be threatened, or like a mere mortal, to be won over by pleading. Therefore, while we wait for his deliverance, let us call upon him to help us, and he will hear our voice, if it pleases him.

(my labels might give it away)