Difference between revisions of "The Moabite Rebellion and the Mesha Stele/0"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 15: Line 15:
 
<p>There are two main points of discrepancy between the account of the rebellion in Tanakh and in the Mesha Stone:</p>
 
<p>There are two main points of discrepancy between the account of the rebellion in Tanakh and in the Mesha Stone:</p>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li><b>Dating of the Rebellion</b> – 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 Moab "in his days and half the days of his son: 40 years," after which point Mesha rebelled.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").&#160; Yet,&#160; the phrase "forty years" suggest that it occurred several years after Achav's death (since Omri and Achav reigned for only 34 years between them).<fn>This internal discrepancy already suggests that at least one of the two phrases might need to be reinterpreted.</fn>&#160; </li>
+
<li><b>Dating of the Rebellion</b> – 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 Moab "in his days and half the days of his son: 40 years," after which point Mesha rebelled.</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").&#160; Yet,&#160; the phrase "forty years" suggests that it occurred several years after Achav's death (since Omri and Achav reigned for only 34 years between them).<fn>This internal discrepancy already suggests that at least one of the two phrases might need to be reinterpreted.</fn>&#160; This internal discrepancy suggests that at least one of the two phrases might need to be reinterpreted. &#160; </li>
 
<li><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.</li>
 
<li><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.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
Line 22: Line 23:
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><b>Earliest extra-Biblical reference to Hashem</b> -– The inscription bears the earliest extra-Biblical reference to Hashem, with lines 17-18 reading: "ואקח. משמ. א[ת כ]לי יהו-ה "</li>
 
<li><b>Earliest extra-Biblical reference to Hashem</b> -– The inscription bears the earliest extra-Biblical reference to Hashem, with lines 17-18 reading: "ואקח. משמ. א[ת כ]לי יהו-ה "</li>
</ul><ul>
+
</ul>
 +
<ul>
 
<li><b>Earliest extra-Biblical reference to the House of David</b> – According to the reconstruction of Andre Lemaire,<fn>See A. Lemaire, "“House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review 20:3 (1994):30-37.</fn> line 31 contains a reference to the House of David.<fn>Not all agree.&#160; 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).</fn>&#160; If he is correct, this is the earliest extra-Biblical reference to the Davidic dynasty.</li>
 
<li><b>Earliest extra-Biblical reference to the House of David</b> – According to the reconstruction of Andre Lemaire,<fn>See A. Lemaire, "“House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review 20:3 (1994):30-37.</fn> line 31 contains a reference to the House of David.<fn>Not all agree.&#160; 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).</fn>&#160; If he is correct, this is the earliest extra-Biblical reference to the Davidic dynasty.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>

Version as of 13:04, 16 January 2018

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 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

There are two main points of discrepancy between the account of the rebellion in Tanakh and in the Mesha Stone:

  • Dating of the Rebellion – 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 Moab "in his days and half the days of his son: 40 years," after which point Mesha rebelled.
  • 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").  Yet,  the phrase "forty years" suggests that it occurred several years after Achav's death (since Omri and Achav reigned for only 34 years between them).5  This internal discrepancy suggests that at least one of the two phrases might need to be reinterpreted.  
  • 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.

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,6 line 31 contains a reference to the House of David.7  If he is correct, this is the earliest extra-Biblical reference to the Davidic dynasty.