Difference between revisions of "The Moabite Rebellion and the Mesha Stele/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Relationship to the Biblical text | <category>Relationship to the Biblical text | ||
| − | + | <ul> | |
| − | + | <li>According to the first part of Mesha's words it would seem that the rebellion occurred in the middle of Achav's reign ("half the days of his son").  On the other hand, the phrase "forty years" suggests that the revolt occurred about 6 years after Achav's death, since Omri and Achav reigned for only 34 years between them.<fn>Omri reigned for 12 years and Achav for twenty-two.</fn>  The internal discrepancy suggests that at least one of the two phrases needs to be reinterpreted.</li> | |
| − | <li>According to the first part of Mesha's words it would seem that the rebellion occurred in the middle of Achav's reign ("half the days of his son").  | + | <li>Many, thus, suggest that the number forty should be understood as "generation," in which case the inscription has the revolt begin midway through Achav's reign. It is possible that Tanakh presents it as taking place after his death, since that is when it first succeeded.</li> |
| − | < | + | <li>Others have suggested that "בנה" means descendant rather than son, and posit that the inscription is saying that Israel dominated Moav during the reigns of Omri, Achav, Achazyah and halfway through the reign of Yehoram, which would amount to about 42 years.  The number forty mentioned in the inscription would then be a round number.<fn>Alternatively, "half his days" is not meant literally, but is rather a way of saying that the revolt took place partway through his reign, in which case forty could be an exact number.  Additionally, if the numbers of the king's reigns include partial years, it is also possible that the forty is meant literally.</fn> As Melakhim presents Yehoram as retaliating soon after the revolt began, this reconstruction also fits the description in Tanakh.  It might suggest that Tanakh dates the revolt to the death of Achav, since that was what spurred the rebellion, even if it not gain full strength and lead to retaliation until a few years later.<fn>In addition,</fn> </li> |
| + | </ul><p><b>Outcome of the War</b> – Sefer Melakhim gives the impression that Moav was almost decimated, and includes no accounts of any Moabite victories. The Mesha Stele, in contrast, says nothing of its near-defeat , while instead reporting the capture of Israelite territory and the slaughter of thousands of Israelites.</p><ul> | ||
| + | <li>As such, scholars debate whether the events described in the stele occurred during, before, or after those described in Tanakh.  According to -- the Moabite campaign described in the stone preceded the battle with the three kings, and constituted the revolt which prompted their attack. If so, Moav's rebellion was marked not only by his ceasing to pay tribute, but by his embarking on a military campaign in which he managed to conquer both Israelite territory and citizens.</li> | ||
| + | <li>S. Horn, in contrast, suggests that the military victories described in the stele took place after the events described in Tanakh. Moav emerged from the battle with the three kings ravaged, but still independent, and he quickly went from the defensive to the offensive. The mention of the rebuilding of destroyed cities (line 27) might refer to a correcting of the devastation wreaked by the Israelite alliance.  The fortifications described likely took years<fn>Since Tanakh portrays Yehoram as retaliating soon after the revolt began,</fn> and were meant to ensure that hsi independence was preserved in the future.</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
Version as of 01:15, 17 January 2018
The Moabite Rebellion and the Mesha Stele
Biblical Sources
Melakhim II 3 tells how Mesha, the King of Moav, had originally paid tribute to Israel, but rebelled after the death of Achav. As a result, Achav's descendant, Yehoram, makes an alliance with Yehoshafat, the king of Judah, and with Edom to retaliate. With Hashem's aid, Israel is able to smite Moav, but despite the initial success, the battle ends without a clear victor. The verses are ambiguous but suggest that, in desperation, the King of Moav had offered his son as a sacrifice,1 leading to "great wrath on Israel." Though the nature and reason for this "wrath" is unclear, it led to the premature end of the battle and the return of the troops to Israel.
Extra-Biblical Sources: The Mesha Stele
The Moabite rebellion is attested to outside of Tanakh, as it is discussed in detail in an inscription known as the Mesha Stele or the Moabite Stone, a victory monument erected by Mesha, King of Moav. The monument was discovered by a missionary named Frederick Klein in 1868 in Dhiban (Biblical Dibon)2 and is presently in the Louvre Museum in Paris.3
The inscription opens by describing Moav's servitude to Israel, declaring that Omri, King of Israel had "humbled Moav many years, for Chemosh4 was angry at his land". Mesha then tells how, in the days of Omri's son, he was able to triumph over Israel and end their oppression. The rest of the stele discusses Mesha's various victories, the expansion of his borders, and his building projects.
Relationship to the Biblical text
- According to the first part of Mesha's words it would seem that the rebellion occurred in the middle of Achav's reign ("half the days of his son"). On the other hand, the phrase "forty years" suggests that the revolt occurred about 6 years after Achav's death, since Omri and Achav reigned for only 34 years between them.5 The internal discrepancy suggests that at least one of the two phrases needs to be reinterpreted.
- Many, thus, suggest that the number forty should be understood as "generation," in which case the inscription has the revolt begin midway through Achav's reign. It is possible that Tanakh presents it as taking place after his death, since that is when it first succeeded.
- Others have suggested that "בנה" means descendant rather than son, and posit that the inscription is saying that Israel dominated Moav during the reigns of Omri, Achav, Achazyah and halfway through the reign of Yehoram, which would amount to about 42 years. The number forty mentioned in the inscription would then be a round number.6 As Melakhim presents Yehoram as retaliating soon after the revolt began, this reconstruction also fits the description in Tanakh. It might suggest that Tanakh dates the revolt to the death of Achav, since that was what spurred the rebellion, even if it not gain full strength and lead to retaliation until a few years later.7
Outcome of the War – Sefer Melakhim gives the impression that Moav was almost decimated, and includes no accounts of any Moabite victories. The Mesha Stele, in contrast, says nothing of its near-defeat , while instead reporting the capture of Israelite territory and the slaughter of thousands of Israelites.
- As such, scholars debate whether the events described in the stele occurred during, before, or after those described in Tanakh. According to -- the Moabite campaign described in the stone preceded the battle with the three kings, and constituted the revolt which prompted their attack. If so, Moav's rebellion was marked not only by his ceasing to pay tribute, but by his embarking on a military campaign in which he managed to conquer both Israelite territory and citizens.
- S. Horn, in contrast, suggests that the military victories described in the stele took place after the events described in Tanakh. Moav emerged from the battle with the three kings ravaged, but still independent, and he quickly went from the defensive to the offensive. The mention of the rebuilding of destroyed cities (line 27) might refer to a correcting of the devastation wreaked by the Israelite alliance. The fortifications described likely took years8 and were meant to ensure that hsi independence was preserved in the future.
Additional Significance of the Stele
- Earliest extra-Biblical reference to Hashem -– The inscription bears the earliest extra-Biblical reference to Hashem, with lines 17-18 reading: "ואקח. משמ. א[ת כ]לי יהו-ה "
