Bible and Beyond
Click here to view the original article.
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East
Jack M. Sasson, John Baines, Gary Beckman, Karen S. Rubinson, eds.
(New York- Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995) 4 vols., $449
Superlatives are inadequate to describe this magnificent library of information on the ancient Near East. Here, at last, is a panoramic view of the world of the Bible along with in-depth analyses of various aspects of Assyrian, Egyptian, Hittite and Palestinian civilizations—all presented in non-technical, comprehensible prose by specialists in each field.
The series begins by trying to gain some perspective on this immense amount of information. The nine essays in its opening section discuss the role of the ancient Near East in Western thought- How have these ancient civilizations been discovered, and how have the discoveries been absorbed and digested? Not only are these issues fundamental to the work of historians and archaeologists, but they help reveal our own culture to us by showing how we and our immediate ancestors have viewed the ancient Near East. This section should be required reading for every concerned reader of the Bible.
Since a reviewer is expected to take issue with something, I must express surprise that Peter T. Daniels, in his chapter on deciphering ancient scripts, doubts that we have unlocked the proto-Sinaitic script. The initial clue was A.H. Gardiner’s insight that the first letters of the Semitic words for the five signs on a sphinx-like statue with the head of Hathor—namely ox goad, house, eye, ox goad, cross mark—spell out the phrase LB‘LT, meaning “for the Lady” or “for [the goddess] Ba‘altu.” This statue with Hathor’s head was obviously a votive object; it was found at the turquoise mines of Seraµbît\ el-Khâdem in Sinai, and Hathor was the Egyptian goddess of turquoise. In the Levant, moreover, Hathor was commonly equated with the “Lady of Byblos” (Ba‘alat Gubla). All this provides evidence for Gardiner’s reading.
Further work on the proto-Sinaitic script enabled Frank Moore Cross to decipher a similar script, called proto-Canaanite, on a ewer from Lachish. It has also led to the decipherment of other proto-Canaanite inscriptions. Although many of the proto-Sinaitic and proto-Canaanite inscriptions remain enigmatic in some respects, there is no reason to deny the validity of the basic decipherment.
The volumes’ section on the environment of the ancient Near East is indicative of modern approaches to human cultures. Today archaeologists and historians need to consider more than dates and political and military events; they must make use of the natural sciences to analyze the ecological aspects of the ancient world. This is essential information for understanding how our predecessors earned their livelihood.
Especially of interest for the Bible student is the chapter by Christopher J. Eyre, “The Agricultural Cycle, Farming, and Water Management in the Ancient Near East.” Eyre examines ancient seasonal patterns in relation to the everyday life of peoples in Egypt and Mesopotamia. It would have been helpful, however, to have more data on Syria-Palestine. Eyre contents himself with citing the Gezer calendar, which would have been more helpful if he had not chosen the translation of J.C.L. Gibson. Unfortunately, Gibson has a penchant for rendering the least likely linguistic interpretation of ancient inscriptions. The Gezer calendar, in contrast to Gibson’s reading, is precise in listing a 12-month year; those months are designated by appropriate agricultural activities throughout the annual cycle. Where Gibson simply reads “months,” one must translate “Its two months, namely of ingathering,” or “Its two months, namely of late sowing.” The forms are distinct duals plus a possessive suffix, not just plurals.
The section on ancient Near Eastern history and culture (volume 2) consists of monographs on specific topics rather than a chronological history. Nevertheless, most chapters include surveys of the succession of events in each of the main cultural areas, so that the unfolding of the historical drama is clear. It is this historical volume that holds special interest for the Biblical archaeology public. Instead of having to be content with “Albright thinks such and such,” the reader is given up-to-date, first-hand knowledge about places like Mari, Nuzi and Ugarit. In the past, various scholars sought to find the world of the patriarchs in inscriptions from those three ancient cities. Thankfully, conjectures of that nature are absent from the chapters in this new book. Each scholar deals only with the evidence, not with what he hopes to have confirmed. It is true that information on pastoralists in the Mari kingdom may be helpful in elucidating the patriarchal way of life, and that the Biblical personal name Nahor (see Genesis 11-22–29) seems to be the same as the geographical name NahEur at Mari. But there is no evidence of any direct connection between Mari and any of the figures in Genesis. The same holds true for Nuzi, Ugarit and Amarna.
The ancient kingdom of Israel gets much less attention than one might have expected. Joseph Blenkinsopp provides a useful historical background for the recently discovered allusions to the “House of David” in Aramaic inscriptions on the Tel Dan stela and the Moabite Stone, both dating to the ninth century B.C.E.a These “House of David” references prove that the ruling dynasty in Jerusalem was named after its traditional founder, David. Therefore, it is no longer credible to deny that there was such a dynasty. The account in the Book of Kings that David’s kingdom split into two kingdoms at the beginning of the reign of David’s grandson is thoroughly credible today.
Nonetheless, Niels Peter Lemche, in his chapter, writes that “some research has questioned the very existence of the Judean empire. A growing number of Biblical scholars doubts whether there was an empire ruled by David and Solomon.” This statement is extremely misleading- Recent research—that is, the analysis of solid evidence—does not lead most scholars to doubt the existence of the Davidic monarchy. What other chapters in this volume clearly show is that the “big powers,” Mesopotamia and Egypt, were both suffering a period of political decline. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the resulting vacuum in Syria could have been filled for a time by a newly established territorial state in Judah. Whether this kingdom and its sphere of influence over the area between the Euphrates and the Nile should be called an empire is something else. More likely, the Israelite monarchy was simply the strongest of several emerging states in the region.
The pastoralist origins of Israel’s neighbors the Amorites and the Aramean tribes—both located in southern Syria and both mentioned in the Bible—are emphasized in chapters by Robert M. Whiting and Paul E. Dion. These scholars flatly contradict Lemche, who seems determined to deny that pastoralists have ever originated in a non-sedentary society. Lemche writes- “The development of the civilization of the Arameans may be another example of the process of retribalization [italics added], leading at first to the dissolution of settled life in centralized states, then to new emerging states with ruling dynasties.” In the case of the Amorites, on the contrary, it is well known that they did not speak the language of the sedentary, civilized population in Babylonia (where Akkadian was spoken) or in Syria (where Eblaite was spoken). Their origin was in the Jebel Bishri steppe lands, the northern extension of the ante-Lebanon mountain range. Likewise, the Arameans of the Iron Age did not speak the “Amorite” language spoken by the population of Syria in the Middle Bronze Age; rather, they seem to have been living mainly in the steppe lands of the Syrian desert. In each case a pastoralist people showed up with a new language unlike that of the sedentary population.
In other words, the true story of the ancient Near East is one of periodic penetrations by new ethnic groups, some of which become sedentary and blossom into powerful states. One suspects that the reason Lemche hesitates to admit that the Amorites, the Arameans and others were originally pastoralists who later sedentarized is that we might then suspect that the Israelites, too, were originally pastoralists. Of course, that is what Biblical tradition claims, but Lemche gives little credit to Biblical tradition, which he ascribes to Hellenistic invention.
The section on religion and science includes fascinating discussions of mathematics, medicine and astronomy, among other topics. Those interested in Biblical religion will also find plenty of comparative material discussing religion and ritual in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Canaan and ancient Israel. But one reservation must be expressed concerning Karel van der Toorn’s essay, “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Canaan and Ancient Israel.” It is incorrect to define Syro-Palestinian cult as “the care and feeding of the gods,” a phrase used by Leo Oppenheim to describe the rituals of Mesopotamia. This suggests that cultic practices were largely uniform throughout the ancient Near East. But that is not so- Ritual in the eastern Mediterranean littoral is sharply distinguished from Mesopotamian and Egyptian ritual by the use of animal sacrifice. The offering of animals for propitiation, consecration and communion is typical of both Ugaritic and Israelite ritual; it is also apparently the basis of Phoenician cult, and it is well documented in Greek civilization. In short, animal sacrifice is a Mediterranean feature, not a Mesopotamian or Egyptian one.
Perhaps van der Toorn sees the ritual system in the Book of Leviticus as a late concoction. But similar terminology of sacrifice is found in Ugaritic texts (except for h\at\a‘t, or sin offering, and perhaps ‘asáam, or guilt offering). For the Israelites, moreover, the ritual approach to God is more complex than van der Toorn allows. Sacrifice has, for example, strong ethical-moral implications, as seen in the strict ordering of sacrifices in dedications of the priesthood, of the tabernacle and of Hezekiah’s refurbished Temple- namely the sin offering (for expiation and propitiation), followed by the whole burnt offering and the meal offering (for consecration), followed last of all by the peace offering or well-being offering (for fellowship with God and man). Although there are similarities between various ritual systems, the distinctive features are of crucial importance if we are really to understand a particular culture.
This leads me to lodge one general complaint, particularly evident in chapters dealing with Ugaritic literature. Too often Ugaritic literature is presented as illustrative of Canaanite literature, ritual and religion in general. The trouble is, in spite of the scholarly “consensus,” Ugarit was never a part of Canaan, and its people were not Canaanites. Although the Ugaritic language is Northwest Semitic—like Phoenician, Hebrew, Moabite and Aramaic—it has as many similarities to Aramaic as to the “Canaanite” Phoenician and Hebrew. Therefore, Ugaritic stands apart both from the Canaanite dialects and from Aramaic. Furthermore, according to a Greek source, Philo of Byblos, Phoenician mythological themes are only vaguely similar to those of Ugarit. Thus Ugaritic tradition, Phoenician tradition and Israelite tradition, though sharing a common world of imagery, are not the same. The Phoenician tradition has a legitimate claim to be called Canaanite. Ugaritic does not.
Unfortunately, the space restrictions of a review prevent me from addressing most of the fascinating material in these four volumes- essays on population movements, travel, technology, languages, artistic production, trade—and on and on. Begun only in 1989, this project is a minor miracle of scholarship. Now everyone with an interest in the origins of modern culture, especially those with a deep love for the Bible, can have at hand the riches of knowledge from the ancient world prior to Alexander the Great.
a. See the following BAR articles- “‘David’ Found at Dan,” BAR 20-02; André Lemaire, “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription,” BAR 20-03; Philip R. Davies, “‘House of David’ Built on Sand,” BAR 20-04; Anson F. Rainey, “The ‘House of David’ and the House of the Deconstructionists,” BAR 20-06; and David Noel Freedman and Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, “‘House of David’ Is There!” BAR 21-02.