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 Israel, but rebelled after the death of Achav. Achav's descendant, Yehoram, makes an alliance with Yehoshafat, the King of Yehuda, and with Edom to retaliate. They plan an attack from the south, but en route find themselves without water. Hashem intervenes by bringing a flash flood, taking care of their thirst.  The Moabites mistake the reddish hue of the water as blood and erroneously conclude that the allies have turned on each other, leading them to rush into the Israelite camp to plunder.  Israel is thus able to smite them, 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 marked the end of battle and the return of the troops to Israel.

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, dictated by Mesha himself. The monument was discovered by a missionary named Frederick Klein in 1868 in Dibon² and is presently in the Louvre Museum in Paris.³

The stele opens by describing how Omri, king of Israel, had enslaved Moav, since Kemosh (the Moabite god) was angry at his people.  However, in the days of Omri's son, Mesha was able to triumph over Israel and end their oppression.  Mesha then describes his various victories, expansion of his borders, and various building projects

Significance of the Stone

• Corroboration of Biblical account – Though Tanakh and the stele differ in their accounts, the inscription corroborates the fact of Moav's original submission to Israel and its subsequent rebellion. It also mentions figures known from Tanakh, such as Omri,  King of Israel, Kemosh, the Moabite god, place names such as Dibon, Nevo, Gad and Atarot.  [For a fuller discussion of the relationship to the Biblical text, see below.]
• Earliest reference to Hashem -– The inscription bears the earliest extra-Biblical reference to Hashem, with lines 17-18 reading: "[ת כ] ואקח. משמ. א ...
   לי. יהוה. "
• Earliest reference to House of David – According to the reconstruction of Andre Lemaire,⁴ line 31 contains a reference to the House of David.⁵  If he is correct, correct, this is the earliest extra-Biblical reference to the Davidic dynasty.

Relationship to the Biblical text

¹ See Rashi.  Others suggest that he sacrificed the heir to the throne of Edom, which caused Edom to get angry at his allies and the alliance to break up.

² Although Klein saw the stone intact, unfortunately before it was purchased it was smashed into many fragments by local Bedouin. Many of these (amounting to about 600 of the original 1000 words) were later recovered and pieced together, and the missing sections were reconstructed based on a freeze (a paper 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" in The Word of the Lord Shall Go  Forth, Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (Indianna, 1983):497-505.

³ It is made of basalt stone and stands about four feet high and two feet wide and dates to c. 840 BCE.  According to most scholars, it 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, Kemosh, who had made Mesha victorious over his enemies.

⁴ See A. Lemaire, "“House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription", Biblical Archaeology Review 20:3 (1994):30-37.

⁵ Not all agree.  See, for instance, N. Neeman, "בין כתובת מלכותית לסיפור נבואי: מרד מישע מלך מואב בהארה היסטורית", Zion66  (2011):5- 40, who questions the reconstruction and raises an alternative possibility, that the phrase should read "בתדודה" (the House of Doda).