The Moabite Rebellion and the Mesha Stele/0

The Moabite Rebellion and the Mesha Stele

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Biblical Sources

Melakhim II 3 tells how Mesha, the King of Moav, had originally paid tribute to the Israel, but rebelled after the death of Achav. As a result, Yehoram made an alliance with Yehoshafat, the king of Judah, and with Edom to retaliate. With Hashem's aid,  Israel was able to smite Moav, but despite the initial success, the battle ended 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, claiming: "Israel has perished forever".  The rest of the stele discusses both Mesha's victories (including his defeat of Medeba, Atarot, Yahaz, and Nevo, cities north of the Arnon River) and his fortifications and building projects. It ends with a description of his attack against the Horanim, in the south.⁵

Relationship Between the Sources: The War

The Biblical and Moabite accounts of the war differ drastically. Sefer Melakhim gives the impression that Moav was almost decimated, and includes no account of any Moabite victories. The Mesha Stele, in contrast, says nothing of Moav's near-defeat, and, instead, reports the capture of Israelite territory and the slaughter of its citizens. As such, scholars debate the relationship between the sources and whether the campaign described in the stele occurred during, before, or after the events mentioned in Tanakh:

I. Mesha's campaign preceded the battle described in Tanakh

• Suggested reconstruction of events – According to Y. Liver,⁶ the Moabite campaign described on the stele preceded the battle with the three kings, and constituted the revolt which prompted their attack.⁷ 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 significant Israelite territory.  Liver suggests that the Moabite conquests began towards the end of Achav's reign⁸ when he was preoccupied with Aram, and unable to retaliate. Mesha took advantage of the situation to re-occupy land previously held by Moav, and conquer several new areas.⁹ He then fortified the region to prevent the anticipated counter-attack by Israel. The attack on Horanim, described at the end of the stele, might have been slightly distinct, as the city, lying on the border with Edom, was likely conquered from them rather than from Israel.¹⁰

• Impact on understanding Tanakh – This reconstruction might shed light on several aspects of the Biblical account:

• Attack from south – Y. Liver explains that Yehoram's seemingly odd decision to attack from the south was likely prompted by Mesha's newly built fortifications in the north, and the desire to avoid the drawn out sieges which would be needed to conquer them.¹¹
• Edom's participation –  The Edomites joined the alliance not only because they were vassals of Yehoshafat,¹² but because they had a personal interest in fighting Moav, as their land, too, had been taken by Mesha.
• Yehoshafat's participation – R"E Samet¹³ suggests that Yehoshafat viewed the battle as a religious war.¹⁴ According to the stele, Mesha had taken the "vessels of Hashem" from what was apparently some holy site in Nevo, and placed them before his god, Chemosh. Yehoshafat joined Yehoram mainly in order to rectify this desecration of Hashem's name.¹⁵ 
• Harshness of attack – If Moav's revolt was military in nature, and included both the slaughter of many Israelites and a desecration of Hashem's name, this could explain why Yehoram did not suffice with conquest, but also took harsh punitive measures to ruin Moav's land, destroy its trees and close up their wells.¹⁶
• Moav maintains independence – Y. Liver suggests that the decision to attack from the south meant that the outcome of the battle needed to be "all or nothing".  Israel had managed to subdue the southern region of Moav, but never reached the northern areas which Moav had re-occupied. As such, despite the initial victories, there was no contiguous Israelite territory, and thus, no way to hold on to the defeated towns.¹⁷

II. Mesha's campaign followed the battle described in Tanakh 

• Suggested reconstruction of events – In contrast to the reading proposed above, S. Horn¹⁸ and N. Na'aman¹⁹ suggest that the military victories described in the stele took place after the events described in Tanakh. According to Horn, Moav emerged from the battle against Israel ravaged, but still independent, and quickly went from the defensive to the offensive.²⁰ Na'aman suggests instead, that some of the events mentioned in the stele might have first occurred during the reign of Yehu, when Mesha allied with Chazael of Aram as he attacked Israel.²¹  To support this reconstruction, Horn argues that the fortifications described in the stele must have taken many years to build, and this could not have been accomplished in the short time span between Achav's death and Yehoram's attack. It is more likely that they were built after the battle to ensure that Israel did not attempt a second attack. The stone's descriptions of the rebuilding of destroyed cities also suggest that the events took place in the aftermath of the war, as the need to rebuild was a direct result of the devastation wreaked by the Israelite alliance. Similarly, Mesha's building of water reservoirs and cisterns might have stemmed from Yehoram's having plugged the Moabite springs ("וְכׇל מַעְיַן מַיִם יִסְתֹּמוּ").
• Impact on understanding Tanakh – As this reconstruction suggests that the events of Tanakh preceded those described by Mesha, the stele does not contribute much to a deeper understanding of the events of Melakhim 3.²² 

Relationship Between the Sources: Chronology

According to Sefer Melakhim, Moav rebelled after the death of Achav, and the Israelites attempted to re-subjugate them in the time of Yehoram. The Mesha Inscription, on the other hand, records that Omri dominated Moav "in his days and half the days of his son: 40 years," at which point Chemosh returned it to Moav's hands.  How is the stele's dating to be understood; does it correlate with the chronology laid forth in Tanakh, or is the stele presenting a different version of the events?

• At first glance, the stele's dating appears to contradict itself.  According to the first part of Mesha's words, 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.²³  The discrepancy suggests that at least one of the two phrases needs to be reinterpreted.
• Many,²⁴ thus, suggest that the number forty should be understood metaphorically to mean "generation." In addition, the phrase "half the days of his son" could express the length of an incomplete reign, rather than literally half of it.²⁵  If so, the inscription might set the revolt towards the end of Achav's reign (as per Y. Liver above).²⁶ This is quite close to Tanakh's dating, especially since it might have taken a couple of years before the revolt was at full strength.
• Others²⁷ have suggested that the word "son" (בנה) means descendant,²⁸ 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.]²⁹  This would match the second approach above which suggests that Mesha's campaign took place only after Yehoram's battle. If so, Mesha's statement refers not to the date in which he ceased to pay tribute (which occurred, as Tanakh states, with the death of Achav) but only to his military feats which successfully returned the occupied Moabite lands to his nation.

Relationship to Later Prophecies Against Moav

Prof. Elitzur suggests that the prophecies of Yeshayahu³⁰ and Yirmeyahu³¹ against Moav should be understood in light of Mesha's stele.  Yeshayahu himself claims that his words are based on earlier prophecies: זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה' אֶל מוֹאָב מֵאָז,‎³²  leading Prof. Elitzur to suggest that they were originally said by a prophet living in the time of Mesha,³³ and as a direct reaction to Mesha's inscription.³⁴

• Rebuking Moav's arrogance – Yeshayahu and Yirmeyahu's prophecies highlight Moav's arrogance³⁵ and even suggest that Moav saw itself as greater than Hashem: "כִּי עַל י"י הִגְדִּיל".  Prof. Elitzur claims that this rebuke of Moav's hubris is likely a reaction to both the self glorification of Mesha in his stele,³⁶ and to his desecration of Hashem's name in recording that he took Hashem's vessels from Nevo and placed them before Chemosh.
• Mocking Moav's victories – The prophecies further mention numerous places discussed in the stele, including: נבו, קריתים, חורונים, ערוער, דיבון, יהצה, בית דבלתים  בית מעון, קריות.  These serve to mock Mesha's boasts: while Mesha bragged of his victories and the building of these areas, Yeshayahu and Yirmeyahu prophesy that each of the sites are to be a source of mourning as Moav is destroyed.³⁷
• "אָבַד עַם כְּמוֹשׁ" – Similarly, in response to Mesha's hyperbolic declaration that "Israel has perished forever," Yirmeyahu emphasizes: "אוֹי לְךָ מוֹאָב אָבַד עַם כְּמוֹשׁ".  It is Moav, not Israel, who is to perish.

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 "

• Earliest extra-Biblical reference to the House of David – According to the reconstruction of Andre Lemaire,³⁸ line 31 contains a reference to the House of David.³⁹  If he is correct, this is the earliest extra-Biblical reference to the Davidic dynasty.
• Moabite theology – The stone sheds some light on Moabite theology, which, in certain aspects, closely resembles Israelite thought. 
• Mesha invokes his god, Chemosh, throughout the stele, understanding both his defeats and victories to stem from him.  Thus, he explains the initial subjugation as being due to Chemosh's anger at his people, much like Sefer Shofetim depicts Israel's servitude to foreign nations as stemming from Hashem's wrath at their idolatry. His victories, too, are attributed to the god, as he says, "Chemosh drove him out before me."
• The stele presents Mesha as attacking certain cities because his god told him to do so, similar to the many Israelite kings who seek and follow Hashem's guidance before going to war. 
• The concept that a defeated town could have "חרם" status (like the defeated Yericho) is suggested by the stone, as the inhabitants of Nevo are "consecrated" to Chemosh (כי. לעשתר. כמש. החרמתה).

¹ See RashiMelakhim II 3:27About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki who explains the story in this manner.  R"Y KaraMelakhim II 3:27About R. Yosef Kara and RadakMelakhim II 3:27About R. David Kimchi (in the name of his father), however, suggest that Mesha sacrificed the heir to the throne of Edom, which caused Edom to get angry at his allies and the alliance to break up.

² F. Klein saw the stone intact, but was, unfortunately, one of the last Europeans to do so. Before it was purchased, the stele was smashed into many fragments by local Bedouin. Eventually many of the fragments (amounting to more than 600 of the original 1000 words) were recovered and pieced together, and the missing sections were largely reconstructed based on a freeze (a papier-mâché impression) done of the inscription before it was broken.  For a full discussion of the story behind the discovery, attempts to purchase, and breaking of the stone, see S.H Horn, "The Discovery of the Moabite Stone", The Word of the Lord Shall Go  Forth, Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (Indianna, 1983): 497-505.

³ The stele is made of basalt stone and stands about four feet high and two feet wide and dates to c. 840 BCE. [However, see the discussion regarding the timing of the events and erection of the monument below.]  According to most scholars, the inscription is written in Moabite (a language very similar to Biblical Hebrew), using the Old Hebrew / Phoenician alphabet. According to the stele, the reason for its composition was the erection of a sanctuary for the Moabite god, Chemosh, who had made Mesha victorious over his enemies.  The inscription is the longest monumental inscription as of yet found in Israel.

⁴ Chemosh is the Moabite god.

⁵ Since the last couple of lines of the stele have not survived, it is not clear if the inscription originally contained some type of festive ending after describing this last victory.

⁶ Y. Liver, "מלחמותיו של מישע מלך ממואב עם ישראל", in היסטוריה צבאית של ארץ ישראל בימי המקרא, ed. Y. Liver (Tel Aviv, 1964): 221-244.  See also A. Olmstead, History of Palestine and Syria to the Macedonian Conquest (New York, 1931): 389–393.

⁷ In other words it provides the background for Tanakh's statement, "וַיִּפְשַׁע מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב בְּמֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל". Liver even suggests that the stele might have been erected before the retaliatory attack by Israel.

⁸ See the discussion regarding the dating of the revolt below.

⁹ He points that the stele does not actually describe active battles, and never depicts an enemy king or his army.  This might suggest that Mesha's actions were directed at individual cities which did not have the protection of Israel's armed forces (which were preoccupied elsewhere) and that none of them required drawn out battles. As such, he was able to accomplish all that is described in the stele fairly quickly, in the span of a few years.

¹⁰ This would explain why this victory is not listed together with the others, but only after Mesha's building projects. According to A. Lemaire, "“House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review 20:3 (1994):30-37, the text reads that the "House of David" dwelled in Horanim.  If so, Horanim officially belonged to the Judean Kingdom, perhaps because at this point in history, it controlled Edom.

¹¹ P. Stern, "Of Kings and Moabites: History and Theology in 2 Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription",  Hebrew Union College Annual 64 (1993): 1-14, questions that if the Gadites had been subjugated by Mesha in Atarot, in the north, as suggested by the stele, would not Yehoram have wanted to enter via a northern route so as to save his compatriots as quickly as possible? According to Liver, however, the Gadites were likely captured several years before, during the reign of Achav, so Yehoram's attack was not aimed at saving his endangered brothers but at re-occupying taken territories.

¹² See, for example, MalbimMelakhim II 3:8About R. Meir Leibush Weiser who explains his participation in this manner.

¹³ See his article,"המלחמה במואב" and in more detail, his book פרקי אלישע, (Tel Aviv, 2009): 85-118.

¹⁴ R. Samet suggests that, in contrast to Yehoshafat, Yehoram himself acted out of purely military and political reasons, caring nothing about the desecration of Hashem's name and only about the restoration of his lands and glory.  Hashem, though, did not think of Yehoram as deserving of his territory and found his motives for war problematic. Thus, while Hashem approved of Yehoshafat's actions, He did not approve of Yehoram's. This explains Hashem's ambivalent attitude towards the war.  While He wanted Moav punished, He did not want Yehoram to be the victor. As such, He aided the nation in taking vengeance, but stopped short of providing a full victory.

¹⁵ Alternatively, it is possible that he viewed the attack on Horanim as an attack on his kingdom, since Edom was his vassal.

¹⁶ See Y. Elitzur, "עולת מישע" in "ישראל והמקרא" (Ramat Gan, 2000): 162, n. 26, who writes, "לאחר שבזז מישע את כל כלי הקודש ממקדש ה' בנבו וסחבם לפני כמוש, ולאחר שטבח את יושביהם של ערי ישראל מאיש עד אשה ואת יושבי ערים אחרות שבה העביד בפרך, אפשר להבין טעמה של אותה הוראת שעה חמורה הנוגדת את מצוות התורה"

¹⁷ Had they, instead, attacked from the north, whatever land they conquered could have stayed in their hands, so even if they had not totally defeated Moav, they would have at least made some territorial gains.

¹⁸ See S.H. Horn, "Why the Moabite Stone Was Blown to Pieces,"  BAR 12:3 (1986): 50-61.

¹⁹ See N. Na'aman, "בין כתובת מלכותית לסיפור נבואי: מרד מישע מלך מואב בהארה היסטורית," Zion 66:1 (2001): 5-40.

²⁰ According to such a hypothesis, the events described in the stele constitute the "קֶצֶף גָּדוֹל עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל" described at the end of the account in Melakhim.

²¹ There is no direct evidence that the two were allies, but it would have been a logical choice.He claims that the line "וישראל. אבד. אבד. עלמ", though hyperbolic, could refer to the status of Israel in the time of Yehu, when much of the eastern bank of the Jordan was in the hands of Aram.

²² However, they might shed light on a second incident involving Judah, Moav and Edom described in Divrei HaYamim II 20. The chapter tells how Moav, together with Amon and Seir, attacked Yehoshafat and his kingdom, who were miraculously saved after praying for salvation.

• It is possible that this battle was one of the attempts by Moav to expand its territory, as part of the campaign described in the stele. Though Edom had previously fought with Yehoshafat (having little choice since they were subservient to Yehoshafat), they now switched sides, hoping that together with Moav, they could overthrow Judah's yoke.
• Tanakh shares that Yehoshafat was saved since Moav and his allies turned on one another. If the Horanim mentioned in the stele was in Edomite territory, then it is possible that it was attacked in the aftermath of this failed alliance.
• As Mesha was not victorious, it is not surprising that the war does not get mentioned in the stele. Only victories over Israel are listed, as their idolatrous ways did not merit them miraculous salvation.

²³ Omri reigned for twelve years and Achav for twenty-two.

²⁴ See, for example, L. Liver cited above, N. Na'aman cited above, and B. Bonder "Mesha's Rebellion Against Israel" JANES 3 (1970-71): 83-88. 

²⁵ See Y. Liver.  R"E Samet compares it to the same phrase in Yirmeyahu 17 "עֹשֶׂה עֹשֶׁר וְלֹא בְמִשְׁפָּט בַּחֲצִי יָמָו יַעַזְבֶנּוּ" which does not mean that a person will necessarily lose his wealth at exactly the midpoint of his life, but that the money will not last until his death.  See also Tehillim 102:25, "אַל תַּעֲלֵנִי בַּחֲצִי יָמָי".  This, too, does not refer specifically to the middle of one's life, but is rather a request not to die early.

²⁶ See above that he suggests that Moav took the opportunity to revolt when Achav was involved with his wars against Aram.

²⁷ See sources cited by N. Na'aman, ibid. p.14-15.

²⁸ Such usage is found in Tanakh as well. Thus, the phrases אֵלֶּה בְנֵי שֵׁם  or אֵלֶּה בְנֵי חָם conclude a list of their descendants. See also Tehillim 105:6, "זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם עַבְדּוֹ בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב בְּחִירָיו".

²⁹ Alternatively, as above, "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 forty is meant literally.

³⁰ See chapters 15-16.

³¹ See chapter 48.

³² Though Yirmeyahu does not make the same claim, since some of his prophecy is directly parallel to that of Yeshayahu (see Yirmeyahu 48:5, 29-38), it is likely that he, too, was working off the same original prophecy.

³³ He suggests that it is even possible that they were said by Elisha or another prophet in his circle who were eye-witnesses to the events described in the stele and who would have been familiar with the inscription.

³⁴ He also points to the fact that the two prophecies are distinct in their style, not matching the regular style of Yeshayahu and Yirmeyahu.

³⁵ See, for instance, Yeshayahu 16:6 and Yirmeyahu 48:26, 29, and 42.

³⁶ Prof. Elitzur points out that the word "אנכי" appears 14 times in the inscription, highlighting the hubris of the king.

³⁷ Thus, for example, Yeshayahu states, "עָלָה הַבַּיִת וְדִיבֹן הַבָּמוֹת לְבֶכִי... בְּכׇל רֹאשָׁיו קׇרְחָה", echoing and parodying Mesha's words "ואעש הבמת זאת לכמש בקרחה ב[מת י]שע". The "bamot of slavation" built by Mesha will become "bamot of lamentation", and the glorified city of Karchoh (קרחה) will turn into the hair-tearing (קׇרְחָה) of mourning.

³⁸ See A. Lemaire, "“House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review 20:3 (1994):30-37.

³⁹ Not all agree.  See, for instance, N. Neeman, "בין כתובת מלכותית לסיפור נבואי: מרד מישע מלך מואב בהארה היסטורית", Zion 66 (2011): 5- 40, who questions the reconstruction and raises an alternative possibility, that the phrase should read "בתדודה" (the House of Doda).