Oded Lipschits

Judah in the Biblical Period

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft

Edited by
John Barton, Reinhard G. Kratz, Nathan MacDonald,
Sara Milstein, and Markus Witte

Volume 497
Oded Lipschits

Judah in the
Biblical Period

Historical, Archaeological, and Biblical Studies

Selected Essays
ISBN 978-3-11-048423-6
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-048744-2
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-048652-0
ISSN 0934-2575

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023943698

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at
http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck

www.degruyter.com
This book of collected essays
is dedicated to my four kids –
Or, Tal, Na‘amah and Ido,
the collected treasures of my life
Preface
The history of Judah in the first millennium BCE is usually divided by scholars
into two main periods: the First Temple period (“the pre-exilic period,” ca. 10th–
7th centuries BCE), when Judah was a kingdom with its capital and temple in
Jerusalem and the Davidic dynasty at its head, and the Second Temple period
(“the post-exilic period,” ca. 5th–2nd centuries BCE), when Judah was a province
under the consecutive rule of the Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, with
its temple in Jerusalem but with no independent kings until the revolt of the
Maccabees and the establishment of the Hasmonaean kingdom. Between these
two periods there is a “gap”, often described as the “exilic period,” during the
6th century BCE, or, more precisely, between the destruction of Jerusalem and the
deportation of (some of ) the Judeans to Babylon in 586 BCE and the beginning of
the return of (some of ) the deportees to Jerusalem in 539 BCE.
This description is justified in many respects, especially when dealing with
the history of Jerusalem, the temple and the Davidic dynasty, and it follows the
sequence of the Biblical historiography. It is in line with the political, religious
and economic interests of the Judean elite, the people who were exiled from
Jerusalem and became the Judean “Gollah” and its representatives who returned
to Judah in the early Persian period. This group had a vested interest in this
depiction of the history of Judah and the Judeans – they wished to establish and
emphasize their status, their right and their rule over the land, in contrast to
other groups, other claims and other historical perspectives. These other voices
did not accept the claim of those Judean “returnees” to the land of Judah and to
Jerusalem as its center and made a claim for their continued presence in the
land, without an “exilic break”. They saw themselves as the true successor of pre-
exilic Judah.
There is, however, another possible narrative of the history of Judah – one
that stands in contrast to the historical and political perspective presented above.
This alternative narrative, which is based on administrative and economic per-
spectives, as well as on the continuity that is evident in most aspects of the
material culture in Judah, even during the supposed “exilic gap”, makes a division
into three separate periods:
1. The formative period of the establishment of the kingdom, which lasted about
200 years – from the 10th century BCE until 734 BCE, when Judah was subju-
gated to Assyrian rule and became a vassal kingdom. During this period
Judah gradually became a well-established kingdom, its borders demarcated
with a line of cities and fortresses. Jerusalem established its status as a capital
and became the largest, most central and developed urban center in the hill
country. The Davidic dynasty consolidated its rule over the kingdom, and the

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-202
viii Preface

temple in Jerusalem became the king’s temple and the main and central cultic
site in Judah. The economy and administration developed a scribal tradition
under the Davidic leadership, especially in Jerusalem, long-distance trade was
conducted, and the leaders of the kingdom exerted tight control over all the
Judean territories.
2. The second period in the history of Judah, which lasted some 600 years,
beginning when Judah lost its independence and became an Assyrian vassal
kingdom in the early days of King Ahaz (734 BCE). Judah was forced to make
an abrupt change to its economy and administration and to become part of
the Assyrian empire, monitored closely by the imperial administration. This
status continued for 100 years, until the rapid collapse of the Assyrian empire
in the 620s, during the rule of Josiah. The king’s 622 BCE cultic reform marks
the ensuing period of freedom and optimism experienced by Judah. This
freedom, however, was short-lived. Only few years later Judah became a vas-
sal Egyptian kingdom and Josiah was killed in Megiddo by Pharaoh Nechoh
(609 BCE). Five years later, in 604 BCE, the Babylonians completed the con-
quest of all the territories of the former Assyrian empire, and the last Judean
kings were Babylonian vassals. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple
in 586 BCE and the deportation of the house of David and the Jerusalem elite
to Babylon ended the history of Jerusalem as a capital of the Davidic dynasty
and brought about a temporary break in the history of the temple. It also led
to a demographic crisis, to the destruction of the main urban centers and to
a change in the settlement pattern, with a more rural settlement characteriz-
ing Judah until the Hasmonaean period in the 2nd century BCE. In many other
respects, however, the catastrophic events of 586 BCE did not mark a change:
the material culture remained the same to the north and south of Jerusalem:
the same pottery continued to be manufactured, the same rural settlement
continued to exist and the same agricultural products continued to be pro-
duced. The same population continued to live in and work the land and was
not deported. The same pattern continues to characterize Judah in the Per-
sian period, even if the cult in Jerusalem was renewed and a new temple
was built there. Jerusalem did not establish its new status and become an
urban center until the establishment of the Hasmonaean kingdom in the
second half of the 2nd century BCE. This status continued even after the fall
of the Persian empire to Alexander the Great and during the Ptolemaic and
early Seleucid periods.
3. The third stage in the history of Judah began in the days of the Maccabees
and with the renewed establishment of the Hasmonaean State. In this period
not only did Jerusalem once again become the main urban and demographic
center of the land, but all the characteristics of the material culture, the
 Preface ix

economy and the administration that had developed when Judah was a vassal
kingdom and a province under the rule of the various empires – the Assyrian,
Babylonian, Persian and Ptolemaic empires – underwent a drastic change in
a very sharp and short process, very clear from an archaeological perspec-
tive.

This book focuses on the second of these three stages in the history of Judah –
the period that might be called the “Age of Empires”, when Judah was a vassal
kingdom and a province under the rule of great empires. This 600-year-long peri-
od was the longest and the most influential in Judean history and historiography.
The administration that was shaped and developed during this period, the rural
economy, the settlement pattern and the place of Jerusalem as a small temple,
surrounded by a small settlement of (mainly) priests, Levites and other temple
servants, characterize Judah during most of its history.
This is the formative period when most of the Hebrew Bible was written and
edited, when the main features of Judaism were shaped and when Judean cult
and theology were created and developed.

* * *
The collection of essays in this book represents more than twenty years of re-
search on the history and archeology of Judah, as well as the study of the Biblical
literature written in and about this period of time. The 36 papers contained in
this volume were published in various journals and books. Some of them were
previously published only in Hebrew or German and were translated into English
for this book. The compilation of all these papers in one book presents a broad
picture of the Hebrew Bible against the background of the Biblical history and
the archeology of Judah throughout the six centuries of the “Age of Empires”.

The papers are arranged in six parts:

Part A contains five papers dealing with the history, archaeology, administration
and economy of Judah under Assyrian rule. The first two papers present the
broader historical and archaeological picture of the Pax Assyriaca, while the
other three discuss two of the most unique symbols of the period: the monumen-
tal architecture (as represented by the volute capitals) and the new administra-
tion that developed in Judah during this period (as represented by the system of
stamped jar handles).

Part B includes seven papers dealing with Judah and its environs under Babyloni-
an rule. Some of the papers deal with the broader historical picture of this period,
and others are concerned with the archaeology and demography of this “exilic
x Preface

period”, as well as with the status of Jerusalem and the temple between the
586 BCE destruction and the time of the “return”. One paper deals with the history
of Ammon under Babylonian rule, while another deals with En-Gedi as a royal
estate.

Part C consists of six papers, all dealing with Judah in the Persian period: the
broader Achaemenid imperial policy, the history of Judah in the Persian period,
the rural economy, the settlement history, the district system and the role of
Jerusalem. The final paper in this part deals with regional processes in Judah
during the transition between the Persian and the early Hellenistic periods.

Part D includes three papers that focus on the history and archaeology of Jerusa-
lem. The first deals with the broader picture of Jerusalem as a symbol and in
reality, both in ancient times and in modern research. The other two papers
discuss the size, status and development processes of Jerusalem in the Babyloni-
an, Persian and early Hellenistic periods.

Part E contains four papers, three of them dealing with the region of Benjamin.
The first paper provides a broad reconstruction of the historical stages of the
creation of the territory and identity of the tribe of Benjamin, the second is con-
cerned with the archaeology of the region of Benjamin under Babylonian rule,
and the third discusses the place of Bethel. The final paper in this part deals with
the origins of the Jewish population in Modi‘in and its surroundings, connecting
this area with the people of Benjamin in the Persian period.

The final part of this book, Part F, includes 11 papers, all concerned with Biblical
studies, mainly written and edited in the Persian period and reflecting the ideolo-
gies and polemics of this period. The presentation of these papers against the
background of the history and archaeology of the “Age of Empires” presented in
the previous parts of the volume creates a unique background for the under-
standing of these polemics and ideologies and offers a deeper understanding of
the various groups behind them.

All the articles in this book are presented here as they were originally published,
with the exception of technical adjustments made to ensure the unity of the
references and the bibliography. All the bibliographic references were combined
into a single list presented at the end of the book. In cases where the original
papers referenced a forthcoming publication, an updated reference, including
page numbers, was provided. In each part of the book, the order is according to
the topic and the progress of the chronology and history, and not necessarily
according to the year of publication of the original paper.

* * *
 Preface xi

I would like to thank Daria Leibin-Graiver – the driving force behind the work
on this book – for her meticulous and painstaking work unifying the bibliography
and footnotes, organizing the articles and supporting the long process of collect-
ing the material and preparing it for publication. My gratitude is extended to
Alice Meroz, Acquisitions Editor, Theology and Jewish Studies, Walter de Gruyter
Publishing House, for her patience and continued encouragement to proceed in
the process of collecting, processing and working on the book. Thanks go to Alex-
andra Wrathall, John Will Rice, Yuval Amir and Tsipi Kuper-Blau for the English
translation and editing of some of the papers that were originally published in
German and Hebrew. Thanks to Itamar Ben-Ezra from the Sonia and Marco
Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, for the maps he draw for
each one of the main parts of this book.
I am grateful to the following publishers for allowing me to reprint the arti-
cles that appear in this collection: Eisenbrauns (an imprint of Penn State Universi-
ty Press); Mohr Siebeck; Ugarit-Verlag; SBL Press; Taylor & Francis (on behalf of
the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University); Uni-
versity of Chicago Press (on behalf of the American Society of Overseas Research);
Marburger Beiträge zur Archäologie; T&T Clark International (an imprint of
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc); Brill Publishers; LIT Verlag; Révue Biblique; and
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. All papers are published with permission.

Oded Lipschits
Alon Ha-Galil and Tel Aviv, June 2023
Contents

Preface vii

Sources of the Papers xvii

Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule 3

The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical

Perspectives 21

The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab

and Ammon 47

Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar
Handles 71

The lmlk and ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Tel Beth-Shemesh:

An Added Dimension to the Late 8th and Early 7th Century BCE History
of the Site 87

Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period”: New Studies,
Further Elucidation, and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah
as an “Empty Land” 95

Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom

of Judah 117

Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE) 135

Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth

Centuries BCE 147
xiv Contents

The “Riddle of Ramat Raḥel” and the Problem of Identifying the Material
Culture of the Babylonian and Early Persian Periods 189

Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province 195

Was there a ‘Royal Estate’ at En-Gedi during the Late Iron Age
and the Persian Period? 211

Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 223

Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes in Palestine,

and the Status of Jerusalem in the Middle of the Fifth Century BCE 243

Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations 265

The Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the Settlement
History of the District System 283

Material Culture, Administration and Economy in Judah during the Persian

Period: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 305

Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic
Periods: Regional Processes 329

Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

Jerusalem as a Symbol and in Reality 357

Between Archaeology and Text: A Reevaluation of the Development Process

of Jerusalem in the Persian Period 369

Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of the City
in the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 385
 Contents xv

Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its

Surroundings

Benjamin in Retrospective: Stages in the Creation of the Territory

of the Benjamin Tribe 399

The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 421

Bethel Revisited 451

The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 465

Part F: Biblical Studies

Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem 493

Sukkot in the Pentateuch and in Ezra 3 and Nehemiah 8 511

On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books: Jehoash’s and Josiah’s

Decisions to Repair the Temple 525

“Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He? 539

On the Titles ʿbd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) and ʿbd hmlk (‘servant
of the King’) 555

Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 569

Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11 591

From Geba to Beersheba: A Further Consideration 609

The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” of the Family of Barzillai

the Gileadite in Jerusalem 621

“Here is a Man Whose Name is Ṣēmaḥ” (Zechariah 6:12) 635

‫י‬ (ʿibrî, Hebrew) in Diachronic Perspective as a Linkage Term

between the ‘Diaspora Novellas’ of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses 645
xvi Contents

Abbreviations 653

Bibliography 657

Index of Sources 731

Index of Modern Authors 749

Sources of the Papers
The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule
Lipschits, O. 2018. The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule. in: Gianto, A.
and Dubovský, P. (eds.). Changing Faces of Kingship in Syria-Palestine 1500–500 BCE (AOAT 459).
Münster: 115–138.
The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives
Lipschits, O. 2019. The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives.
In: Čapek, F. and Lipschits, O. (ed.). The Last Century in the History of Judah: The 7th Century BCE
in Archaeological, Historical and Biblical Perspectives. Atlanta: 7–41.
The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon
Lipschits, O. 2011. The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon.
in: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. 2011. The Fire Signals of Lachish − Studies on the Late
Bronze and Iron Ages: Text and Artifacts Relating to Ancient Israel, Offered in Honor of David Ussish-
kin. Winona Lake: IN (Eisenbrauns): 203–225.
Published also in Hebrew in: Cathedra 131 (2009): 5–24.
Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles
Lipschits, O. 2018. Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles. in:
Wright, J. and Farber, Z. (eds.). Archaeology and History of Eighth-Century Judah (Borowski volume).
Atlanta: 337–355.
The lmlk and ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Tel Beth-Shemesh: An Added Dimension to the
Late 8th and Early 7th Century BCE History of the Site
Lipschits, O. 2019. The lmlk and ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Tel Beth-Shemesh: An Added
Dimension to the Late 8th and Early 7th Century BCE History of the Site. Tel Aviv 46(1): 102–107.
Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period”: New Studies, Further Elucidation,
and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an “Empty Land”
Lipschits, O. 2011. Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period”: New Studies,
Further Elucidation, and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an “Empty
Land”. In: Kelle, B., Ames, F. R., and Wright, J. L. (eds.). Interpreting Exile: Interdisciplinary Studies
of Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts. SBL’s Ancient Israel and Its Litera-
ture series. Atlanta: 57–90.
Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah
Lipschits, O. 1999. Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah.
Ugarit-Forschungen 30: 467–487.
Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE)
Lipschits, O. 2001. Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE). Transeuphraténe 22: 129–142.
Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE
Lipschits, O. 2003. Demographic Changes in Judah between the 7th and the 5th Centuries BCE.
in: Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. (eds.). Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period.
Winona-Lake: 323–376.
The “Riddle of Ramat Raḥel” and the Problem of Identifying the Material Culture of the Babylo-
nian and Early Persian Periods
Lipschits, O. 2021. “The Riddle of Ramat Raḥel” and the Problem of Identifying the Material
Culture of the Babylonian and the Early Persian Periods. in: Lipschits, O., Freud, L., Oeming, M.,
and Gadot, Y. Ramat Raḥel VI − The Renewed Excavations by the Tel Aviv–Heidelberg Expedition
(2005–2010): The Babylonian-Persian Pit − Pottery Assemblage, Stamp Impressions and Other Finds
(The Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology − Monograph Series of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA: 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-204
xviii Sources of the Papers

Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province

Lipschits, O. 2004. Ammon in Transition from Vassal kingdom to Babylonian Province. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 335: 37–52.
Was there a ‘Royal Estate’ at En-Gedi during the Late Iron Age and the Persian Period?
Lipschits, O. 2000. Was there a ‘Royal Estate’ at En-Gedi during the Late Iron Age and the Persian
Period? in: Schwartz, J., Amar, Z. and Ziffer, I. (eds.). Jerusalem and Eretz Israel (Arie Kindler Volume).
Tel Aviv: 31–42. (Hebrew).
Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective
Lipschits, O. 2011. Persian Period Judah – A New Perspective. in: Jonker, L. (ed.). Texts, Contexts
and Readings in Postexilic Literature – Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation
in Hebrew Bible and Related Texts (Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 53). Tübingen: 187–212.
Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes in Palestine, and the Status of Jerusalem in
the Middle of the Fifth Century BCE
Lipschits, O. 2006. Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes in Palestine, and the Status
of Jerusalem in the Middle of the Fifth Century BCE. in: Lipschits, O. and Oeming, M. (eds.).
Judah and the Judeans in the Persian (Achaemenid) Period. Winona-Lake: 19–52.
Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations
Lipschits, O. 2009. Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations. Journal of
Hebrew Scriptures 9: 2–30 (Article 20). http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_122.pdf
The Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the Settlement History of the
District System
Lipschits, O. 2015. The Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the Settlement
History of the District System. In: Miller, M. L., Ben Zvi, E., and Knoppers, G. N. (eds.). The Economy
of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context. Winona Lake: 237–264.
Material Culture, Administration and Economy in Judah during the Persian Period: The Role of
the Jerusalem Temple
Lipschits, O. 2019. Materialkultur, Verwaltung und Wirtschaft in Juda während der Perserzeit und
die Rolle des Jerusalemer Tempels. In: Achenbach, R. (ed.). Persische Reichspolitik und lokale
Heiligtümer (Beiträge einer Tagung des Exzellenzclusters «Religion und Politik in Vormoderne
und Moderne» vom 24.–26. Februar 2016 in Münster). BZAR 25, Wiesbaden: 185–208.
Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Regional Pro-
cesses
Shalom, N., and Lipschits, O. 2020. Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early
Hellenistic Periods: Regional Processes. in: Held, W. (ed.). The Transition from the Achaemenid to the
Hellenistic Period in the Levant, Cyprus and Cilicia: Cultural Interruption or Continuity? (Proceedings
of the Symposium at Philipps Universität Marburg October 12–15, 2017). Marburger Beiträge zur
Archäologie 6. Marburg: 7–26.
Jerusalem as a Symbol and in Reality
Lipschits, O. 2023. Jerusalem as a Symbol and in Reality. HeBAI 12: 69–84.
In German: Lipschits, O. forthcoming. Jerusalem als Symbol und als Realität. In: Oeming, M.,
Aulepp, H., and Wind, C. (eds.). Jerusalem in archäologischer, historischer und theologischer Perspek-
tive. Übersicht über die Beiträge und Korrekturgänge.
Between Archaeology and Text: A Reevaluation of the Development Process of Jerusalem in
the Persian Period
Lipschits, O. 2012. Between Archaeology and Text: A Reevaluation of the Development Process
of Jerusalem in the Persian Period. in: Nissinen, M. (ed.). Congress Volume, Helsinki 2010 (Supple-
ments to Vetus Testamentum). Leiden: 145–165.
 Sources of the Papers xix

Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of the City in the Babylonian,
Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods
Lipschits, O. 2011. Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of Jerusalem
in the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods. in: Lipschits, O. and Grabbe, L.L. Judah
between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE), The Library of
Second Temple Studies, T&T Clark International: 163–175.
Benjamin in Retrospective: Stages in the Creation of the Territory of the Benjamin Tribe
Lipschits, O. 2020. Benjamin in Retrospective: Stages in the Creation of the Territory of the
Benjamin Tribe (7th–5th Centuries BCE). in: Krause, J., Sergi, O. and Weingart, K. (eds.). Saul,
Benjamin and the Emergence of Monarchy in Israel – Biblical and Archaeological Perspectives (Ancient
Israel and its Literature, 40). Atlanta: 161–200.
The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule
Lipschits, O. 1999. The History of the Benjaminite Region under Babylonian Rule. Tel-Aviv 26:
155–190.
Bethel Revisited
Lipschits, O. 2017. Bethel Revisited. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., and Adams, M. J. (eds). Rethinking
Israel – Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein. Winona
Lake: 233–246.
The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modi’in and its Surroundings
Lipschits, O. 1997. The Origins of the Jewish Population of Modi’in and its Vicinity. Cathedra 85:
7–32 (Hebrew).
Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem
Lipschits, O. 2017. Abraham Traditions between Mamre and Jerusalem. Beth-Miqra 62: 222–253.
(Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 2018. Abraham zwischen Mamre und Jerusalem. in: Brett, M., and Wöhrle, J. (eds.).
The Politics of the Ancestors. Exegetical and Historical Perspectives on Genesis 12–36 (FAT). Tübingen:
187–209.
Sukkot in the Pentateuch and in Ezra 3 and Nehemiah 8
Lipschits, O. 2019. The Date, Development Processes, and Formation of Sukkot Feast Customs
during the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Period. Beth-Miqra 64: 286–310. [Hebrew]
On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books: Jehoash’s and Josiah’s Decisions to Repair
the Temple
Lipschits, O. 2006. On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books: Jehoash’s and Josiah’s
Decision to Repair the Temple. in: Amit, Y. et al. (eds.). Essays on Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern
Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman. Winona Lake: 239–254.
“Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers…” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He?
Lipschits, O. 2001. “Jehoiakim Slept with his Father…” (II Kings 24: 6) – Did He? Journal of Hebrew
Scriptures 4: 1–27.
On the Titles ‘bd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) and ‘bd hmlk (‘servant of the King’)
Lipschits, O. 2002. On the Titles ‘bd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) and ‘bd hmlk (‘servant of the King’).
in: Japhet, S. (ed.). Shnaton – An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies XIII: 157–
172. (Hebrew).
Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose
Lipschits, O. 2012. Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition and Purpose. in: Kalimi, I. (ed.). A New
Perspective on Ezra-Nehemiah Story and History, Literature and Interpretation. Winona Lake: 73–99.
Published also in Hebrew:
Lipschits, O. 2007. Who Financed and Who Arranged the Building of Jerusalem’s Walls? The
Sources of the List of the Builders of the Walls (Nehemiah 3: 1–32) and the Purposes of its
xx Sources of the Papers

Literary Placement within Nehemiah’s Memoirs. in: Bar-Asher, M, Rom-Shiloni, D., Tov, E. and
Wazana, N. (eds.). Shai le-Sara Japhet, Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its Language. Jerusalem:
73–90. (Hebrew).
Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11
Lipschits, O. 2002. Literary and Ideological Aspects in Nehemiah 11. Journal of Biblical Litera-
ture 121: 423–440.
From Geba to Beersheba: A Further Consideration
Lipschits, O. 2004. From Geba to Beersheba – A Further Discussion. Revue Biblique 111–3: 345–
361.
The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” of the Family of Barzillai the Gileadite in Jerusalem
Lipschits, O. 2020. The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” of the Family of Barzillai the Gilead-
ite in Jerusalem. In: Čapek, F. and Sláma, P. (eds.). “And God Saw That It Was Good” (Gen 1: 12):
Concept of Quality in Archaeology, Philology, and Theology. Münster: 85–97.
Published also in German:
Lipschits, O. 2018. Was ist falsch an einer Ehe mit der Tochter von Barsillai, dem Gileaditer? Eine
Studie zur Polemik gegen die Familie von Hakkoz in Esra und Nehemia. in: Oeming, M. (ed.).
Ahavah – Die Liebe Gottes im Alten Testament. Heidelberg: 195–212.
“Here is a Man Whose Name is Ṣēmaḥ” (Zechariah 6:12)
Lipschits, O. 2011. “Here is a man whose name is Ṣēmaḥ” (Zechariah 6: 12). in: Davies, P. and
Edelman, D. (eds.). 2010. The Historian and the Bible: Essays in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe (LHBOTS
series 530). T&T Clark International, London: 124–136.
Published also in Hebrew:
Lipschits, O. 2011. “Here is a man whose name is Ṣēmaḥ” (Zechariah 6: 12). Eretz Israel 30 (Ben
Tor volum): 283–289.
‫י‬ (ʿibrî, Hebrew) in Diachronic Perspective as a Linkage Term between the ‘Diaspora Novel-
las’ of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses
Lipschits, O. 2022. Vom despektierlicher Schimpfwort zum Ausdruck stolzen Elitebewusstseins in
den „Diaspora-Novellen“ über Abraham, Joseph und Moses: ‫י‬ (ʿibrî, Hebräer) in diachroner
Perspektive. in: Maskow, L. and Robker, J. (eds.) Kritische Schriftgelehrsamkeit in priesterlichen und
prophetischen Diskursen. Festschrift für Reinhard Achenbach zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: 425–
432.
Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule
The Kingdom of Judah under Assyrian Rule.
The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah
under Assyrian Rule
By accepting Assyrian rule and changing its status from independent monarchy
to vassal kingdom, Judah became one of only a handful of small kingdoms to
survive the Assyrian conquest of Syria and the Levant in the second half of the
eighth century BCE. Shortly after Ahaz ascended the throne in 732 BCE, he trav-
eled to Damascus in order to surrender to Tiglath-pileser III. As was the case in
other kingdoms in the peripheral regions of the empire that submitted to Assyri-
an demands, the ruling Judean elite were allowed to remain in power and were
granted autonomy. In exchange, the Assyrians imposed vassal obligations on Ju-
dah, including the payment of an annual tribute (not only in material goods but
in labor as well), sending intelligence reports and information about political and
military matters in the area, taking part in Assyrian military campaigns, and
supplying the Assyrian army during its battles. These obligations were monitored
by an Assyrian official and had immediate consequences on Judah’s material
culture, as well as its local administration and economy.
In this paper I claim that the subjection of Judah to Assyria in the early days
of King Ahaz and the change in its status from independent state to vassal king-
dom was the most significant and influential event in its entire history – economi-
cally as well as administratively. It marked the beginning of a roughly six-hun-
dred-year period during which Judah remained under the rule of great empires,
first as an Assyrian, Egyptian, and Babylonian vassal kingdom (from 732 to
586 BCE), and then as a Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid province
(from 586 to the middle of the second century BCE, when the Hasmonaean State
was established). The administrative and economic arrangements that were es-
tablished by the Assyrians and developed by the local Judean leadership re-
mained in effect and continued to develop during the following centuries, and
they gave rise to some of the most typical and well-known characteristics of the
Judean economy, administration, and material culture.
The persistence of these characteristics over such a long span of time in the
economy, administration, and material culture of Judah stands as the best indica-
tion of just how well-suited they were to the Judean elite and ruling classes, and
just how much a part they were of an inner development that reflects not only
what this elite could and would accept and agree to, but also what it would pay
to the ruling empires in order to protect national and cultic independence inside
Jerusalem and thus enable Judean political, spiritual, and religious life to
blossom in the shadow of the empires.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-001
4 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

The Subordination of Judah to Assyria in the Days

of King Ahaz and His Policy as a Loyal Vassal

Ahaz ruled in Judah between 734–715/14 BCE.1 In historical perspective, he was

one of the strong and determined leaders of the kingdom. He led Judah through
stormy years and steered clear of the strong powers in Judah and its environs,
including the anti-Assyrian coalitions, that attempted to tug the kingdom in op-
posing directions. In the shadows of his early rule stood Tiglath-pileser III, with
his swift and systematic conquest of all the mighty kingdoms in Syria and the
Levant (Naʾaman 1991a: 93–94; 1995a: 45–48; 1995c: 106–107, 110–111; 1995d: 258–
268; Dubovský 2006: 153–170).2 Probably already in 737–736 BCE, before Ahaz had
ascended the throne, Rezin, king of Aram Damascus, and Pekah, king of Israel,
attempted to consolidate an anti-Assyrian coalition, and in 734 BCE they tried to
force young King Ahaz to join their alliance. According to Isa 7:6, when Ahaz
refused, Jerusalem was besieged in an attempt to force him to join the anti-
Assyrian coalition or to replace him with the son of Tobel.3 Ahaz stood firm in
his policies of caution and his evaluation that the “Syro-Ephraimite coalition”4
would not be able to withstand the Assyrian army; he fully understood the dan-
gers involved in joining the coalition. He succeeded in resisting the siege and the
military threat, and indeed, in a series of three campaigns (734–732 BCE) Tiglath-
pileser III defeated Aram and Israel, annexed Damascus in its entirety, as well as
most of the territory of the kingdom of Israel and punished all the kingdoms that
had participated in the coalition. The price that Judah had to pay is clear: it
became an Assyrian vassal kingdom (Naʾaman 1994c: 235). The story that symbol-
izes Judah’s subjugation to Assyria is Ahaz’s call to Tiglath-pileser III for assis-

1 On the chronology of Ahaz and Hezekiah, see below, n. 8.

2 Following his campaigns to the west in the years 743–740 and 738 BCE, Tiglath-pileser III
conquered and annexed vast territories in northern and central Syria and established four new
provinces: Arpad, Kullani-Calneh, Hatarikka-Hadrach, and Ṣimirra. He conducted two-way depor-
tations, replacing large groups from the local populations with other population groups from
faraway districts of the empire. Governors and officials were appointed in each province, and
the local population was forced to pay tribute and perform forced labor. See Naʾaman 1995c:
103–104, and fig. 1, p. 105.
3 The son of Tobel was probably a member of another branch of the House of David who was
willing to become the king of Judah with the support of Aram Damascus and Israel, in exchange
for joining the anti-Assyrian coalition (Naʾaman 1994c: 247–248; 1995d: 269–271, and see there for
different suggestions raised in previous studies, as well as Hayes and Hooker 1988: 59; Irvine
1990).
4 On the “Syro-Ephraimite coalition,” see the reviews in Naʾaman 1991a: 91–94; 2008a: 62–67;
Dubovský 2006: 154–157, with further literature.
 The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule 5

tance (2 Kgs 16:8).5 Setting aside the tone of the description, the negative evalua-
tion of Ahaz, and the deliberate use of negative expressions (see below), from a
historical perspective the important issue is that according to the description in
2 Kings, Ahaz’s appeal to Tiglath-pileser III marks the beginning of the subjuga-
tion of Judah to Assyria.
From the beginning of his rule and throughout his reign, Ahaz was a loyal
Assyrian vassal. His success in maintaining Judean independence and preserving
the kingdom’s territory intact during a tumultuous period when all the larger
kingdoms were being conquered and annexed, and when Judah’s western neigh-
bors (Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod) were being overrun and plundered, should
be attributed to his strong leadership and to his realistic political understanding,
as well as to his ability to enforce, when necessary, his view that Judah should
surrender to Assyria, despite opposition from many of the kingdom’s elite.
In an inscription dated to 717 BCE, Sargon II is termed “the subduer of the
land of Judah which lies far away” (Winckler 1889: 188, lines 28, 36; Tadmor 1958:
38 n. 146). This appellation should be connected to the rebellion of 720 BCE, when,
according to Sargon II’s inscriptions, he conducted a large-scale campaign to the
west, captured Samaria, deported many of its inhabitants, and annexed it to As-
syria (compare 2 Kgs 17:5–6), and also conquered the entire coast of Philistia. The
phrase “which lies far away” and the fact that Judah is not mentioned in any
inscription relating the events of 720 BCE indicates that Judah did not take part
in this revolt (Naʾaman 1994c: 235–250, with further literature).6
It is important to mention that after the events of 720 and 711 BCE the Assyri-
an empire bordered Judah on the north and on the west. A shared border with
the Assyrian provinces and the proximity of Assyrian rule may have put constant
pressure on Judah,7 but the vassal kingdom remained loyal to Assyria for a full

5 On the sources and purposes of the story of Ahaz’s visit to Damascus, see Naʾaman 1998a: 344–
349.
6 Judah is mentioned a second time in an Assyrian inscription from the days of Sargon II among
those paying tax to Assyria, in connection with the revolt of Ashdod, which began in 713 BCE
(Winckler 1889: 188, lines 28, 36; Luckenbill 1927: §195; Oppenheim 1969: 287).
7 Most scholars agree that the silence of the sources is an indication that Sargon did not clash
with the kingdom of Judah. The main controversy in research is over the interpretation of the
“Azekah Inscription” (BM 82-3-23,131), published by Winckler (1899: 570–574) and discussed in
detail by Tadmor (1958, 80–84), who dated it to 712 BCE (Ginsberg 1968: 48–49). Some scholars
still maintain that the inscription should be attributed to Sargon II and that it refers to the king’s
punitive campaign against Judah in 712 BCE (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 261–262 n. 6; Galil 1992;
cf. Borger 1979: 134), but this suggestion was abandoned by most scholars after Naʾaman’s discov-
ery that the “Azekah Inscription” should be combined with another tablet (K 6205), and his
arguments that the combined inscription describes Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah in
701 BCE (Naʾaman 1974: 25–31; 1979b: 61–63 and n. 4; 1994c: 245–247).
6 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

ten years after Ahaz’s death. Hezekiah, who inherited the kingdom from his fa-
ther, ascended the throne in 715 BCE.8 He rebelled against Assyria only after
Sargon’s sudden death (705 BCE), twenty-seven years after Judah became a vassal
kingdom. Bearing in mind the disastrous results of Sennacherib’s retaliatory
701 BCE campaign against Judah – the destruction of large districts; the transfer
of most of the Shephelah, the most important agricultural territory in Judah, to
Judah’s western neighbors; the deportation of tens of thousands of people; and a
drastic reduction in settlement in the kingdom in the seventh century BCE –
Hezekiah’s rebellion is a good measure of the validity and success of Ahaz’s poli-
cies. There is no doubt that the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign against Hezekiah was
the greatest disaster in Judah’s history, and that even in the late seventh century,
following one hundred years of recovery, the kingdom’s settled areas, population,
and economy were considerably smaller than they had been before the campaign.
As part of submission to Assyria, Hezekiah had to pay a heavy tribute in addition
to the yearly tribute, and Judah would remain a tribute-paying Assyrian vassal
kingdom for the next seventy years or so, until the final Assyrian withdrawal
from the region in the last third of the seventh century BCE (Naʾaman 1991b: 33–
55).

Economy and Administration in Assyrian Vassal Kingdoms

Mario Liverani (1979: 297–317, here, p. 313) posited that even if the Assyrian em-
pire acted with self-interest, its subjects benefited from its ideological principles;
in return for consistent taxes and tribute to Assyria, the vassal states received
“law, order, and protection”. He suggested that Assyria functioned as a “Network
Empire.” Assyrian military and administrative officials were stationed throughout
its imperial periphery. Trade routes and highways were connected to the empire’s
tributary zones (vassal states) but were controlled by its core “nucleus” in Assyria
(Liverani 1988: 81–95).

8 There are two main views in modern research regarding Hezekiah’s twenty-nine-year reign.
According to one view (see, e.g., Goncalves 1986: 52–54; Miller and Hayes 1986: 350–351; Hayes
and Hooker 1988: 64–80; Becking 1992: 47–56, and others), based on the synchronism in 2 Kgs
18:1.9–10, Hezekiah ascended the throne in the third year of Hoshea, the son of Elah, and thus
reigned between 727 and 698 BCE. According to the other view (see, e.g., Thiele 1965: 118–161;
Goncalves 1986: 54–58; Naʾaman 1994c: 236–239), based on the text of 2 Kgs 18:13 (and Isa 36:1),
according to which Sennacherib conducted his campaign in Hezekiah’s fourteenth regnal year
(701 BCE), Hezekiah ruled between 715/4 and 686 BCE. See the arguments in Naʾaman (1994c:
236–239) in favor of the late dating of Hezekiah’s rule.
 The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule 7

Combining archaeological finds from different regions in the Assyrian empire

with Assyrian written sources concerning the system of Assyrian rule in vassal
kingdoms and provinces, scholars have reconstructed the systems of government
that Assyria adopted in various regions, as well as the Assyrian administrative
system (e.g., Postgate 1974; 1979; Pećirková 1987; Lamprichs 1995; Parker 2001:
249–263; Holloway 2002: 320–424; Bagg 2013), some with special attention to the
Levant (e.g., Ephʿal 1979; Otzen 1979; Grayson 1995; Gittin 1997; Fales 2008; Berle-
jung 2012; Younger 2015).9 From the Assyrian sources it is clear that the Assyrian
policy of imperial expansion was carried out with great proficiency, and that it
took into account the special circumstances of each region. Decisions concerning
the direction of imperial expansion, in addition to the nature of Assyrian rule in
each of the regions it reached, were examined in light of considerations of cost
versus profit.
The system of Assyrian governance that allowed maximum utilization of impe-
rial expansion was direct rule, expressed through the establishment of provinces
annexed to Assyria. The process of annexing an area to Assyria – its conversion
into a province and its integration into the Assyrian imperial system – included
three principal stages, each of which can be identified in the archaeological record.
The first stage was the use of military force, in an attempt to neutralize local
resistance and exhibit the strength of Assyrian rule through fear. The second stage
included building operations, the foundation of forts that were used as power cen-
ters, and the establishment of central Assyrian administrative centers for the man-
agement of the province. The building projects were not limited to the provincial
capitals (which contained the provincial palace, offices of various governmental
departments, industrial installations, and storage facilities); they included the foun-
dation of fortresses and roadside stations whose purpose was to integrate vast
territories within the Assyrian system of knowledge transmission and economy.10
Control over these territories was achieved through a hierarchical system of pro-
vincial officials, from the governor, who was directly responsible to the king, to a
number of deputies, and a larger number of officials, bureaucrats, scribes, and
accountants, down to village managers, who were the lowest-ranking provincial
officials. The third stage included deportation and resettlement, which had three

9 Tadmor (1966: 86–102) suggested that some countries, while under occupation, were able to
remain independent of direct imperial policies, and some vassal entities were able to intensify
their commercial activities, which, to a certain degree, were encouraged by Assyrian expansion-
ism.
10 On the two systems of the merchant-based kâru (Radner 1999; Lanfranchi 2003), and the
dûrus that functioned as military outposts, and the Assyrians’ use of various strategies in differ-
ent parts of the empire to enhance their commercial interests, see Naʾaman 2001.
8 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

purposes: to weaken the conquered kingdoms and secure Assyrian rule by breaking
down local resistance, to maximize the agricultural exploitation of the regions an-
nexed to the empire, and to create population groups that were dependent upon
imperial authority (Oded 1979: 41–74; Naʾaman 1993; Kuhrt 1995, 2.533; Parker 2001:
249–263).
In the peripheral regions of the empire, where it was more profitable for the
Assyrians not to destroy existing political entities, they were satisfied with hegem-
ony, maintained by enforcing vassal loyalty among their subjects. The consolida-
tion of Assyrian hegemony through the subordination of kingdoms yielded politi-
cal, military, and economic benefits with minimal investment. These steps taken
by the Assyrians are harder to identify using archaeological tools (Ephʿal 1979;
Otzen 1979; Grayson 1995; Gittin 1997; Fales 2008; Berlejung 2012; Younger 2015).
In general, if a polity submitted peacefully to Assyrian demands, the ruling
elite were allowed to remain in power and maintain control over the territory,
preserving a relatively autonomous status. Asymmetrical peace treaties existed
wherein the local rulers committed to complete loyalty to Assyria, and in return,
the Assyrian empire committed to providing security and protection; these were
the standard means to bind existing political structures to the empire. The coer-
cion of loyalty to Assyria was carried out by using military force, and when a
king’s loyalty ceased (as in the case of rebellion), the Assyrians did not hesitate
to replace the current ruling dynasty with a new one appointed by them. The
Assyrian hegemony was protected by means of an Assyrian qīpu-official placed
in the vassal kingdom, who had a garrison force at his disposal. “His office was
a mixture of diplomatic agency, place of transshipment of tribute and intelligence
service” (Berlejung 2012: 23), and he reported to the provincial governor on his
daily activities (Parker 2001: 249–263, with further literature). Naʾaman (2001: 275)
claimed that “the presence of Assyrian officials in vassal kingdoms is known, or
may be inferred, for Arvad, Byblos, Tyre, Ashdod, Gaza, Edom and Judah.”
As mentioned above, the vassal kings were obliged to send regular intelli-
gence reports on the movements of Assyria’s enemies, pay annual taxes to the
Assyrian throne (not only in material goods but also in labor, both for military
operations and construction projects), and participate in Assyrian campaigns. As
for the Assyrians, they enjoyed absolute military freedom within the vassal king-
doms, and were free to take advantage of their natural and human resources.
Accordingly, the vassal treaties were the most economically efficient way to
spread Assyrian imperial rule. However, imperial rule became an economic bur-
den on the local political units, making it necessary for the empire to convince
them of their cost effectiveness. Therefore, Assyrian hegemony relied on threats
of force and the prestige of the empire (Parker 2001: 249–263).
Even without direct historical documents, from all of the above we can con-
clude that like any other kingdom in the peripheral regions of the empire that
 The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule 9

submitted to Assyrian demands, the ruling elite in Jerusalem and the royal David-
ic family were allowed to remain in power and maintain their autonomy. How-
ever, the Assyrians imposed vassal obligations on Judah, such as paying tribute,
reporting on political and military matters in the area, taking part in Assyrian
military campaigns, and sending supplies to the Assyrian army during these cam-
paigns. These obligations were monitored by an Assyrian qīpu-official, placed in
Judah.
If indeed this is the case, what can the archaeological record, beginning with
the moment when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom, tell us about the
local development of the administration and economy? What was the impact of
Assyrian control over Judah, the Assyrian presence in Judah, and the demand for
high yearly tribute payments on the administration and economy of Judah?

Changes in the Economy and Administration of Judah

Following Its Subjugation to the Assyrian Empire

The kingdom of Judah developed slowly during the ninth and eighth centu-
ries BCE. It seems that the definition of the economy in Judah in this period as
“non-centralized, kinship-based” (as summarized by Maeir and Shai 2016) is justi-
fied, and can also be applied to the kingdom’s administration.11 Many aspects of
this “non-centralized” economy and administration continued to exist in Judah
during the late eighth and seventh centuries BCE, but beside a few fiscal bullae
that probably represent a system of regional taxation (Avigad 1990; Millard 2008:
32–33; Barkay 2015), we have no clear indication about the kinship-based temple
economy in Judah. Furthermore, even in its agricultural and industrial aspects,
during the eighth century BCE Judah was still in its “noncentralized, kinship
based” mode, and although in the ninth–eighth centuries BCE the Northern King-
dom specialized in the olive oil industry, there is no archaeological evidence of

11 Already Lemche (e.g., 1994, 1996; 2014), followed by others (e.g., Hobbs 1997; Simkins 1999;
2004; Pfoh 2009a; 2009b; 2014; Chaney 2014; Boer 2015; Lemos 2016), assumed that the Judahite
kingdom was a less centralized polity than historical reconstructions usually suggest. Primarily
based on the analysis of biblical sources and anthropological parallels, these scholars have sug-
gested viewing the Judahite kingdom as a patronage kingdom. In a very similar fashion, with a
more pronounced emphasis on the archaeological materials, Stager (1985; 1998; 2003), Schloen
(2001; 2016), and Master (2001) have defined the Judahite and Israelite states as “patrimonial
kingdoms.” Other suggestions have emphasized the importance of kinship structures (Halpern
1991; 1996; Bendor 1996; Levine 2003; Lehmann 2004; Lehmann and Niemann 2006; Vanderhooft
2009; Faust 2012a) and the existence of large local estates (e.g., Bardtke 1971; Dearman 1988;
Premnath 1988; Stansell 1988).
10 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

mass manufacture of olive oil in Judah before the mid- and late eighth cen-
tury BCE (Finkelstein and Silberman 2006b: 263).
As part of the dramatic changes that occurred in the Judean administration
and economy already in the last decades of the eighth century BCE, probably
immediately after the subjugation of Judah to Assyria, one should mention the
appearance of a new system of marked shekel weights (Kletter 1998: 145–147;
Katz 2008: 77–79, with further literature; Berlejung 2012: 44–45).12 This is a clear
indication of the maturing of the economy and the beginning of a process of
standardization. The adaptation of an Egyptian system and the use of hieratic
numbers (Kletter 1998: 148–149) indicate that it was a Judahite development from
known sources and close and familiar systems. Although the Assyrians probably
pressured Judah to adopt this system, they did not impose an Assyrian system on
the kingdom.13 To this period one should also assign various technological
changes in agricultural production installations (Faust and Weiss 2005; Katz 2008:
55–59) and the development of the state-organized olive oil industry that flour-
ished in Judah during the last quarter of the eighth century BCE (Finkelstein and
Naʾaman 2004: 74), when Judah had already become an Assyrian vassal kingdom.
At the same time, a significant change occurred in all aspects of the ceramic
culture of Judah, which evolved from unstandardized, small-scale production in
local workshops to a standardized mass production industry with a broad range
of distribution and a limited variety of shapes (Mazar 1990: 509; Zimhoni 1997:
171–172; 2004: 1705–1707; Katz 2008: 52–53), including the construction of larger
storage jars than had previously been fashioned (Zimhoni 2004a: 1706). The
changes in agriculture and the pottery industry are a clear sign of a centralized
royal economy, which improved agricultural production and facilitated the trans-
portation of goods under the guidance of a central authority.
The best example of this change can be found in the study of the local produc-
tion of storage jars and the change in their production in the late eighth cen-
tury BCE (Sergi et al. 2012, with further literature). Marking a shift from the oval
storage jars dated to the late ninth and the early eighth century BCE, which
appeared mainly in the lowland and were characterized by the manufacture of
nonstandardized subtypes, standardized jars became more common in the early
mid-eighth century BCE; in the late eighth century BCE, one type of jar was adopt-

12 Kletter demonstrated that only 3 percent of the shekel weights were discovered in pre-sev-
enth-century BCE contexts (1998: 43). This indicates that the system of weights was introduced
during the late eighth century and that it was integrated into the economy and became fully
operational in the period of the pax Assyriaca in the seventh century BCE.
13 Assyrian weights are rarely attested in the Levant. See Kletter 1998: 125–127; Berlejung 2012:
44, and n. 105.
 The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule 11

ed for use by the royal administrative system of Judah, as indicated by the appear-
ance of stamp impressions on handles of jars from this type. This royal adminis-
trative system expanded the distribution of these standardized jars and brought
them to all the different geographic regions in the kingdom of Judah. However,
it is clear that all jars continued to be manufactured in the same place, and
this production center became integrated into the royal administrative system
connected with the stamped jar handles, which dictated their main function.
In addition, the rural settlement patterns that so characterized Judah in the
Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods, down to the establishment of the
Hasmonean state in the late second century BCE, are rooted in the era when
Judah became a vassal Assyrian kingdom and especially in the decades after
Sennacherib’s campaign (701 BCE) and the loss of the Shephelah (Koch and Lip-
schits 2013: 66–67). The area of Benjamin became an important element of the
Judean economy and administration in the first half of the seventh century BCE,
probably after the Shephelah was lost.14 The area of the Northern Judean Hills,
to the south of Jerusalem, with Ramat Raḥel at its center, probably experienced
the same fate as the Benjamin region (Lipschits 2005: 250–258; Lipschits and Ga-
dot 2008; Gadot 2015). The mounting archaeological data from this area, under-
scored by the many agricultural installations and small farmsteads found in and
around the valley, confirms that the periods during which the Rephaim Valley
flourished agriculturally coincided with construction at Ramat Raḥel, i.e., from
the late eighth century to the second century BCE, with no signs of a hiatus
(Lipschits and Gadot 2008: 88–96; Gadot 2015: 13–22). There is clear evidence to
associate the development of the Rephaim basin and the agricultural area to the
south of Jerusalem, especially in the seventh century BCE,15 with the emergence
of Ramat Raḥel as a Judahite administrative center in the region under Assyrian
rule and the organization of royal estates in the kingdom of Judah (probably after
the period when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom), and even more so
after the loss of the Shephelah. The Rephaim basin and the rural settlements
around Jerusalem flourished in the seventh century BCE more than in any other
period in the history of Judah (Lipschits and Gadot 2008: 88–96; Gadot 2015: 13–
18), and this settlement phenomenon fits the centralized processing demonstrated
by the concentration of winepresses not associated with village infrastructure,

14 Later on, in 586 BCE, the area of Benjamin was not destroyed together with Jerusalem, and
it may be assumed that even before the fall of Jerusalem the Babylonians had chosen Mizpah
(Tell en-Naṣbeh) as the alternative capital of the Babylonian province and had already appointed
Gedaliah as its first governor (Lipschits 1999; 2005: 68–125, 237–249).
15 For the dating of the establishment of the rural settlements around Jerusalem to the seventh
century BCE, see Gadot 2015: 7–8, 13–18.
12 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

the organized decanting and shipping of wine, and the function of Ramat Raḥel
in all of the periods in question as an administrative center in the region (Lip-
schits and Gadot 2008: 88–96; Lipschits et al. 2017: 28–74).
The study of the site of ʿAin Joweizeh in the Rephaim Valley, eight kilometers
southeast of Jerusalem, may shed light on the nature of these estates (Ein Mor
and Ron 2013; 2016). The site includes a rock-cut tunnel aimed at increasing the
yield of the spring and a spring house decorated with a carved monolith (proba-
bly one of a pair of carved pillar-monoliths) with a Ramat Raḥel–like model of a
stone capital on top of it. The evidence from ʿAin Joweizeh indicates that the
technique of cutting deep tunnels into the rock, in order to collect more under-
ground water, was well known in the late-eighth–seventh century BCE, and hence
many if not most of these spring systems around the Rephaim Valley may date
to this period. All of them were used and expanded in later periods (Ein Mor and
Ron 2013: 102, 106, 140). The estates’ output (mainly wine and olive oil), their
location in an area that was not populated until the late eighth century BCE, the
dominancy of Ramat Raḥel in this region, and the continuity of the settlement in
this region down to the sixth, fifth, and fourth centuries BCE (Gadot 2015) are all
a clear indication that the agricultural products from this region were used to
pay taxes to the Assyrian overlords.
The large number of stone-lined silos unearthed at Qaluniya (Tel Moza) seems
to indicate that the site served as a royal granary – a major collection and distri-
bution center for agricultural products. It served mainly for the collection and
redistribution of grain, probably primarily in the small valley in Nahal Soreq to
the east of the site (Finkelstein and Gadot 2015: 231; cf. Greenhut and De Groot
2009: 219; 225–227), in the same periods when Ramat Raḥel served as the main
collection center for wine and oil jars in the nearby Rephaim Valley. The mwṣh
stamp impressions should apparently be dated to the sixth century BCE (Avigad
1958; Naveh 1970: 58–59; Zorn et al. 1994; Lipschits 2021: 75–78), and since most
of the mwṣh stamped handles were found at Mizpah, the administrative center
of the province of Judah during the Babylonian period, the letters engraved on
the seals have been understood as the toponym Mozah and as a reference to an
estate that served the local and possibly imperial administration after the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem.
Beginning with the moment when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom,
the Judahite tradition of stamping or incising jar handles continued for six hun-
dred years while Judah was under the rule of large empires. It began with the
early lmlk stamp impressions at the end of the eighth century BCE. These were
followed by the late lmlk stamp impressions in the early seventh century, incised
concentric circles in the mid-seventh century, and rosette stamp impressions at
the end of the seventh and the early sixth century BCE (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch
 The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule 13

2010; 2011; Lipschits 2012a; Koch and Lipschits 2013; Lipschits 2021: 35–67, 103–
121). The continuity in the manufacture of royal storage jars (Vaughn 1999: 148–
150; Shai and Maeir 2003; Gitin 2006; Sergi et al. 2012), as well as the use of royal
emblems stamped on their handles (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 7–10), indi-
cate that the different seals are all part of the same administrative system, which
probably had the same function for about one hundred and forty years (from the
late eighth century to the early sixth century BCE). The same administrative sys-
tem continued after the 586 BCE Babylonian destruction for an additional four
hundred and fifty years, during the Babylonian period (the mwṣh and lion
stamped handles; see Lipschits 2010; 2021: 35–67), the Persian and the Early Helle-
nistic periods (the early and middle types of the yhwd stamped handles; see Lip-
schits and Vanderhooft 2011), and the Late Hellenistic period (the late yhwd stamp
impressions; ibid.).16
Understanding the foundation for an agricultural economy and administra-
tion is essential to understanding the history of the region under the rule of the
Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires and the central role of Ramat Raḥel
in this system. The corpus of stamped and incised jar handles found in Judah
and especially in and around Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel is a key to such an
understanding. About three thousand stamped jar handles were discovered in
Judah during archaeological excavations and surveys covering the six hundred
years when the kingdom and then the province of Judah were under the rule of
the empires (Lipschits 2021). This is precisely the period when Ramat Raḥel exist-
ed as the region’s administrative center and main depot for agricultural prod-
ucts – primarily wine and oil stored in jars. No other Judahite site, not even
Jerusalem, can challenge Ramat Raḥel’s record: over three hundred stamped han-
dles from the late Iron Age were found there (Lipschits et al. 2011: 16–17; 2017:
34–39, 64), including lmlk and “private” stamp impressions dated to the late
eighth and early seventh centuries BCE (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 3–32);
concentric circle incisions dated to the mid-seventh century BCE (Lipschits 2021:
56–60), and rosette stamp impressions dated to the late seventh–early sixth centu-
ries BCE (Koch and Lipschits 2013: 60–61). In the Babylonian, Persian, and Helle-
nistic periods Ramat Raḥel was the main center of stamped jar handles, with
about 77 lion stamped handles dated to the sixth century BCE (Lipschits 2010, 17–
19), more than 300 yhwd stamp impressions dated to the late sixth to mid-second
century BCE (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 107–110), and 33 yršlm stamp im-
pressions dated to the second century BCE (Bocher and Lipschits 2013a: 103–104).
All in all, the phenomenon of stamped jar handles collected and stored at Ramat

16 For a recent paleomagnetic verification of the chronological order of the different types of
stamp impressions, see Ben-Yosef et al. 2017.
14 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Raḥel continued for more than half a millennium as part of a continuous, system-
ized administrative system.17
Just as the administrative and economic system represented by the stamped
jars endured throughout the six hundred years of Judah’s existence under the
rule of the empires, so too did Ramat Raḥel function as the center of this system
for the same period. The earliest building phase at Ramat Raḥel should be dated
to the late eighth or early seventh century BCE. The “Western Tower” is the main
architectural structure assigned to this early phase.18 To the east of the tower
some other structures were built, but they were later integrated into the complex
of buildings that composed the edifice of the second building phase or were
dismantled to their foundations. The pottery and stamp impressions from the
earliest building phase represent the entire chronological span from the end of
the eighth at least until the middle, or even until the last third of the seventh
century BCE. Several architectural features are unique to Ramat Raḥel, indicating
that already in this early phase, parallel to the Assyrian period of control in
Judah, the site served as an administrative and governmental center. The many
volute capitals (the so-called Proto-Aeolic capitals), as well as a series of small
carved stone columns with tiny palmette capitals that had been part of a window
balustrade, similar to those that appear in the reliefs known as “the woman in
the window,” should all be assigned to the same architectural assemblage (Lip-
schits 2011; Lipschits et al. 2017: 30–43). Even at this initial stage, the edifice at
Ramat Raḥel was unparalleled in its might, beauty, and architectural technique
by any other in the kingdom of Judah. The profusion of stamp impressions on
jar handles found at the site testifies to its role as the Judahite administrative
center for the collection of agricultural produce, probably paid as tax to the Assyr-
ian empire. This administrative role would grow in importance during subse-
quent stages of its existence.
The changes in the Judean administration and economy were all part of a
rapid and intensive process of development in a global and imperial economy;
there was the stress of constant inspection in order to meet the Assyrians’ de-
mand for tribute and taxes and at the same time an emphasis on maintaining
standards of living as a driving force.19

17 The renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel (Lipschits et al. 2011: 16–17; Lipschits 2017: 22–26)
and the final publication of the architecture and finds from Aharoni’s excavations (Lipschits,
Gadot, and Freud 2016) have made it possible to re-evaluate the archaeology of the site and its
significance vis-á-vis the political history of Judah as a province in the Achaemenid empire.
18 This structure probably functioned as a tower fortress, situated at the top of the hill for all
to see, controlling the main roads leading to Jerusalem.
19 On this see already Bedford 2005: 72–73; Sherratt and Sherratt 1993: 370; Frankenstein 1979:
273
 The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule 15

A Note on the Development of Ekron as an Assyrian Vassal

Kingdom

In light of all the above, one can understand the development of another Assyrian
vassal kingdom, Ekron, which was the main beneficiary of the Assyrian arrange-
ments after Sennacherib’s campaign.20 According to the annals of Sennacherib,
“His [Hezekiah’s] towns which I had plundered, I took away from his country
and gave them [over] to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Sillibel,
king of Gaza.” It seems that due to the kingdom’s establishment as an Assyrian
vassal state and its prosperous political and socioeconomic relationship within
the empire at the beginning of the seventh century BCE, Ekron solidified itself as
one of the most important olive-oil production centers in the ancient Near East
at the time (Mackay et al. 1995: xv; Gitin 1997: 77–103). In addition, Schloen (2001:
141–147) suggested that Ekron’s olive-oil industry developed as a result of popula-
tion movements from Judah to Philistia, as an indirect consequence of Sennacher-
ib’s destruction of the Shephelah. Fales (2013: 59) emphasized the place of Judah,
as well as the Phoenicians, in the attempt to make Ekron a prosperous interna-
tional commercial center, “presumably directed westwards to Egypt and North
Africa.” One can only agree with the conclusions of Gitin (1995: 61–62), who attrib-
uted the significant increase in olive-oil production to the mercantile interests of
the Neo-Assyrian kings that formed “a new super-national system of political
control in the eastern Mediterranean basin which produced the pax Assyriaca,
70 years of unparalleled growth and development, and an international trading
network which spanned the Mediterranean, stimulating Phoenician trade and
colonization in the west.”21
Against the background of these developments, it is difficult to accept Schloen’s
(2001: 146–147) statement:

20 Gitin claimed that there is no evidence of oil production at Ekron prior to the seventh century
(1995: 69), but Naʾaman (2003: 81–91) and Ussishkin (2005: 35–65) suggested that Ekron’s economic
growth began in the second half of the eighth century BCE, before Assyrian imperial policies
were enforced in Philistia. Assyrian texts record Ekron’s tax payments to Assyria before Sennach-
erib’s campaign, indicating that it had become wealthy before 701 BCE (Saggs 2001: 150–151).
21 In contrast to these suggestions, Stager (1996a: 70–71) and Master (2001: 213–215) argued that
economic development at Ekron arose during the Egyptian hegemony in the second half of the
seventh century BCE, especially since Egypt was the greatest consumer of Levantine olive oil
(but see Gitin 2003 for an opposing position). James (2006: 85–97) argued for a harmonization of
Gitin’s opinion with that of Stager and Master, and suggested that the olive oil industry began
in the second quarter of the seventh century BCE, during Assyria’s hegemony over Ekron, and
continued into the last quarter of the seventh century BCE, during the period of Egyptian domi-
nation in the land.
16 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

There is no evidence that the Assyrians understood or were concerned with the economic
development of the territory they ruled, except in the most rudimentary sense of making
it easy for themselves to tax or confiscate its wealth. And it is anachronistic to credit them
with understanding the economics of how this wealth was produced. Indeed, their readiness
to resort to punitive scorched-earth tactics, including the destruction of long-term capital
investments in fruit trees, which take generations to replace, betrays an overriding concern
not with trade and profits but with the militaristic political and religious values that moti-
vated their conquest in the first place.

It is also difficult to accept Faust’s statement (2011; 78; and cf. to Faust and Weiss
2005) that “the areas that were annexed by the Assyrians (and later by the Babylo-
nians) became or remained poor and desolate. The prosperity, as seen in the olive
oil industry, was always outside of the borders of the empire.”
It seems to me that one of the main problems in Schloen’s and Faust’s views
is the methodological failure to differentiate between provinces and vassal king-
doms, to consider how Assyria treated its vassal kingdoms, and to recognize that
especially in the seventh century BCE, in the period of the pax Assyriaca, Assyria’s
control and economic interests were absolute. It is also hard to accept Faust’s
problematic conclusion, which confuses the characteristics of the Assyrian and
Babylonian empires (see Younger 2015: 180, n. 2) and misunderstands the geopoli-
tical organization of the Assyrian empire, since seventh-century BCE Ekron was
not “outside the border of the empire,” and even if it was “only” a vassal king-
dom, it was nevertheless in Assyria’s interests to develop it in order to garner
additional tribute and taxes, as well as to gain more benefits from international
trade (188–190). Indeed, aside from making territorial decisions and maintaining
Assyrian rule, and possibly increasing demands for taxes, the Assyrian empire
took no active part in the inner relations of each of its vassal kingdoms. There-
fore, it is difficult to accept Faust’s (2011: 78) total separation of the growth of the
olive-oil industry from Assyrian involvement, and to connect it mainly with the
Mediterranean economy and the Phoenician maritime international trade. Faust
and Weiss (2005) have suggested that “the prosperity of Philistia and Judah result-
ed from the prosperous Phoenician maritime trade, which ‘consumed’ all the
surpluses produced in these polities.” However, as well summarized by Younger
(2015: 189–193), the Assyrians controlled the economy of all the vassal kingdoms
very well, especially the rich Phoenician city-states, and were deeply involved in
all aspects of commerce and the economy (ibid., 197).
Regarding the development of Ekron, it is important to note that with the
exception of the development of olive-oil production sites in the hill country
(especially in Benjamin and in the northern Judean Hills, probably during the
first half of the seventh century BCE; see Koch and Lipschits 2013; Gadot 2015),
the archaeological evidence suggests that the Judean olive-oil industry did not
continue to exist in the Shephelah after 701 BCE (Aharoni and Aharoni 1976: 73–
 The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule 17

90; Zimhoni 1985: 83; Bunimovitz and Lederman 1992: 252; Finkelstein and Naʾa-
man 2004: 75).

Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule

and Its Historiographical Evaluation

In 2 Kings, Ahaz is condemned because of his submission to Assyria. The episode

of the siege of Jerusalem and the deliverance of the city (16:5–9) is depicted in a
negative manner (Cogan and Tadmor 1978: 58–61; Tadmor and Cogan 1979; Naʾa-
man 1995a, 41–48). The Syro-Ephraimite attack on Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:5–6) is
presented as the punishment of Ahaz for his idolatrous sins (vv. 2b–4), and the
text deliberately emphasizes that the siege was directed against the king (“and
they besieged Ahaz,” v. 5ba), rather than against the city. But the text immediately
notes that “[t]hey could not make war” (v. 5bb), emphasizing that there was no
real danger to Ahaz and to the city and there was no real reason for Ahaz to call
upon Tiglath-pileser III for assistance.22 The use of the word ‫ד‬‫שׂ‬, meaning
“bribe” (2 Kgs 16:8), to describe the transfer of the temple and palace treasures
to the king of Assyria makes the negative view of Ahaz very clear.
From the historical perspective, the important issue is that according to the
description in 2 Kings, Ahaz’s appeal to Tiglath-pileser III marks the beginning of
the subjugation of Judah to Assyria. From the ideological and historiographical
perspectives, this description was probably not written before the days of King
Josiah, after the withdrawal of the Assyrians from the Levant and the collapse of
the empire, when the memory of the one hundred years of Assyrian rule over
Judah was already old and irrelevant to the people who lived in the early days
of Josiah. It is uncertain to what degree the Egyptians had succeeded in establish-
ing their rule in Judah by the beginning of his reign, and the Babylonian conquest
of the Levant was still far in the future, so a kind of “national” spirit could have
arisen in Jerusalem. As well demonstrated by Naʾaman (1991a; 1994c; 1995a; 2008a,
with further literature), Ahaz was portrayed as one of the most sinful kings of
Judah, whereas Hezekiah, the king who rebelled against the Assyrian empire,
became the hero: “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. He trusted
in the Lord the God of Israel; so that there was none like him among all the kings
of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him. And the Lord was
with him; wherever he went forth, he prospered. He rebelled against the king of
Assyria, and would not serve him” (2 Kgs 18:3.5.7). The rebellion against Assyria

22 All translations of biblical texts are my own.

18 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

is mentioned in an extremely positive context just after the description of the

comprehensive and unprecedented cultic reform that Hezekiah carried out in his
kingdom (2 Kgs 18:5–7), and along the same line, Hezekiah’s revolt is presented
as though it ended in total success, with the retreat of the Assyrian army from
Judah and the murder of the Assyrian king by his sons. In contrast to Ahaz,
Hezekiah did not surrender despite the siege and the heavy pressure of his ene-
my; rather, he called on Yhwh for help and succeeded in freeing Judah from the
Assyrian yoke. Indeed, the Assyrians are not mentioned again in 2 Kings, in order
to give the impression that Hezekiah won the battle.
After Hezekiah, King Manasseh ruled in Judah for fifty-five years, during
most of the period of the pax Assyriaca. This is probably the reason why, accord-
ing to 2 Kings, he was the most sinful of all the kings of Judah. Only Josiah, who
ruled after the Assyrian empire had withdrawn from the Levant, could become
a king who “did what was right in the eyes of the Yhwh, and walked in all the
way of David his father, and … did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left”
(2 Kgs 22:2).
In light of the known history of Judah under Assyrian rule, we should view
the Judean kings who ruled in Jerusalem under Assyrian rule, and who were all
formally Assyrian vassal kings (Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, and probably
also Josiah in his early regnal years), through different eyes. It should be clear
that they were not free to do as they wished but were obligated to do the will of
the Assyrian kings and acted under constant pressure to obey and to pay. The
Assyrians were always very close to Jerusalem, always keeping one eye on what
was going on in the city, inspecting, demanding, and pressuring. The unique ar-
chitecture of Ramat Raḥel and its abundance of administrative finds marks this
site as the local Judahite center for collecting taxes, the place where the Assyrian
qīpu-officials were billeted, and the place that in essence represented the empire
in Judah. The discovery of what were interpreted as ritual deposits that were
intentionally placed below the floor of the central courtyard of the palatial admin-
istrative structure as favissae, and as evidence of diacritical feasting that took
place at the administrative center of Ramat Raḥel, demonstrates the connections
that existed between the representatives of the empire and the local elite; these
feasts provided a venue for exhibiting the power and the glory of the empire and
communicating demands for obeisance and cooperation (Fulton et al. 2015).
The administrative and economic arrangements established by the Assyrian
authorities and developed by the local Judean leadership remained operative and
continued to develop over the course of the coming centuries, until they came to
be some of the most typical and well-known characteristics of the Judean econo-
my, administration, and material culture. Their very persistence remains the best
indication of how suitable they were for the Judean elite and ruling classes; they
 The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule 19

were the product of an inner development and reflected to what degree this elite
would accommodate the ruling empires in order to protect national and cultic
independence inside Jerusalem. All this was done in order to enable Judean spiri-
tual and religious life to develop, albeit in the shadow of the empire, and in very
close proximity to the heart of the nation.
As expressed in 2 Kings, the people of Jerusalem knew the history and the
changing faces of kingship in Judah in the days of Ahaz quite well. However, the
main point of the historiographic account of Judah during the one hundred years
that elapsed between the days of Ahaz and the days of Josiah was not to rehearse
the well-known facts of that period, but to provide a message to the people who
lived under Josiah’s rule, during that very short and optimistic twilight period
between the rule of empires in Judah, which was the only period in the history
of the kingdom when such a clear anti-Assyrian political orientation could exist.
The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological
and Historical Perspectives
The final century of the kingdom of Judah, the seventh century BCE, is considered
a well-understood period in the history of this small and hilly kingdom and is
possibly even the most notable century in its history.1 In contrast to every other
century in the four hundred years of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, from an
archaeological perspective, the seventh century BCE is considered a well-defined
period. The region was devastated by military events, which subsequently caused
several destruction levels at the turn of the century (the Assyrian campaign of
Sennacherib, 701 BCE) and generated an additional series of destruction levels at
its end (the Babylonian campaign of Nebuchadnezzar, 588–586 BCE). Since several
of these destruction levels were identified at the same sites, especially in the
lowland (Shephelah) sites (with Lachish Levels III and II considered the most
indicative of the late Iron Age II material culture in Judah), such layers became
the chronological framework for the seventh century in Judah. From an archaeo-
logical perspective, the material culture of the late eighth century BCE (Lachish
Level III) and the late seventh–early sixth century BCE (Lachish Level II) are now
considered to be familiar to research and easy to identify.2
Furthermore, there are historical sources from, and related to, the seventh
century BCE. These sources are primarily Assyrian and Babylonian and mention
kingdoms, places, events, and people that are well known from archaeological
research and biblical descriptions of the history of the kingdoms of Israel and
Judah in the second half of the eighth and seventh century BCE (Berlejung 2012).
The kingdom of Israel’s confrontation with the Assyrian Empire during this
period triggered a series of events during which (1) the kingdom was conquered
and its territory annexed, (2) three different provinces were established on the
former territory of the kingdom, and (3) a large portion of the population was
deported elsewhere and replaced with large groups of resettled deportees (See,
e.g., Naʾaman 1995c; Finkelstein 2013: 119–140). During this same time (already
during the days of King Ahaz), the kingdom of Judah became an Assyrian vassal

1 See, e.g., the detailed reconstruction of the second half of the seventh century BCE by Naʾaman
(1991b), and the collected essays edited by Grabbe (2005), dealing especially with the first half of
this century. Even according to Liverani (2005: 143–199), translated from the 2003 Italian original
publication, this part of the history can be reconstructed, as against the “invented history” of
the periods before and after.
2 On the material culture of Lachish Levels III and II, see Zimhoni 1990; 2004b; Ussishkin 2004b:
92. For a modern and detailed evaluation of the pottery assemblages from the late Iron Age II,
see Freud 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-002
22 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

kingdom and continued to exist as such for the next century.3 Only after one
hundred years and following the quick collapse and withdrawal of Assyria from
all of its holdings in the Levant did Judah become (for a short period) an Egyptian
vassal kingdom and later, after the Babylonian conquest of the region, a Babyloni-
an vassal kingdom (Naʾaman 1991b: 34–41; Lipschits 2005: 3–67). The outcome of
this history is that Judah was under the direct rule of great empires for approxi-
mately 150 years (732–586 BCE) before the Babylonians destruction of Jerusalem
and the demotion of its status to a province (Lipschits 2018b: 237–272). During
this period the small kingdom of Judah was integrated into the economy and
administration of the Assyrian, and later Babylonian, Empire. This is likely also
the reason why, starting with this period, there are numerous Judahite ostraca,
seals, weights, stamp impressions, bullae, and other administrative finds. Such
material remains render the seventh century BCE the most documented and well-
known era in the history of Judah (Lipschits 2018c: 116–128).
Further to this, the seventh century BCE is the period when, according to a
multitude of scholars, the biblical historiographers (“the Deuteronomistic school”)
wrote and edited large parts of the biblical historiographic books. Such work
described the history of Israel and Judah from the time of Joshua to the time of
Josiah, when prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel lived in Jerusalem,
side by side, along with other minor prophets and prophetesses. In their stead,
they are understood to have left behind a rich library of scrolls that contained a
wealth of historical, theological, political, and social information.4
From all these perspectives, the information and knowledge of the seventh
century BCE is incomparable with any other century in the history of the king-
doms of Israel and Judah. In spite of that, the aims of this paper are to demon-
strate how every definition of the seventh century BCE is problematic and flexible
and how this century can be defined in several different ways, based on archaeo-
logical material, historical sources, and the biblical historiography. I will further
demonstrate how every definition of the seventh century BCE must consider the
geographical region, be it the coastal area, the territory of the (former) kingdom
of Israel, or different regions from within the territory of the kingdom of Judah.

3 For this during the time of King Ahaz, see Lipschits 2018c. For a discussion of the policies that
the Assyrians employed to rule and administer their external regions, both the annexed provin-
ces and the semiautonomous vassal kingdoms, see Parker 2001. See also Berlejung 2012: 28; Bagg
2013; Lipschits 2018c: 119–121.
4 See the summary in Lipschits (2005: 272–289). For a balanced discussion on the time and the
process of development of the Deuteronomistic literature, see Römer (2007), and see also his
recent discussion: Römer (2017: 329–340). Finkelstein and Silberman (2001: 275), described the
late seventh century, especially the days of King Josiah as “the climax of Israel’s monarchic
history.”
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 23

Furthermore, I will demonstrate more generally how little we actually know

about the history, archaeology, and geopolitical situation of the region and in
particular the history of Judah during the seventh century BCE. I will expand
upon this and note how critical it is that scholars remain careful when adopting
this period for the study of cultic and theological developments, the history of
Judah, and biblical historiography and prophecy. Rather, I will suggest an alter-
nate solution to the current understanding of the seventh century BCE, based on
a geopolitical analysis of the history of the land, its administrative and economic
development, and a different perspective on the development of its material cul-
ture. Such an approach will expand the limits of this seventh century, both back-
ward for thirty-four years (734 BCE) and forward about fourteen years (586 BCE),
effectively creating “the long seventh century.”
Since, according to my view, every definition of a period in his-tory is a
reflection of historiographical perspectives and only after such a definition can
one examine the characteristics of the material culture in different regions and
see how the geopolitical and historiographical observations are reflected in it, I
will suggest a new chronological frame for the Iron Age IIB–IIC and within it also
to the long seventh century. Following previous suggestions that were based on
a careful examination of the material culture of Judah and in the former kingdom
of Israel, I will suggest that we define the long seventh century as a part of the
Iron IIB–IIC and split this archaeological/historical period into two subphases,
each one approximately one hundred years: the Iron IIB (734–630 BCE) and the
Iron IIC (630–539 BCE).5
Based on archaeological and historical considerations, I will further suggest
that each one of these periods be further categorized into two sub-phases, em-
ploying the destruction levels as a spotlight on the middle of a chronological
phase in the development of the material culture, rather than as a marker for
the end of the archaeological period. In the late Iron IIB (734–630 BCE) one can
differentiate between the Iron IIB1 (734–701 BCE) and the Iron IIB2 (701–630 BCE),
when the Sennacherib campaign places the spotlight on the material culture of
this period and facilitates a historical separation between these two phases. Dur-
ing the Iron IIC one can differentiate between the Iron IIC1 (630–586 BCE) and
the Iron IIC2 (586–539 BCE), when the Babylonian destruction shifts the spotlight
onto the material culture of this period and historically separates these two pha-
ses.

5 For the material culture of Judah, see Ofer 1993, 2: 44–50. For the material culture of the
former kingdom of Israel, see Singer-Avitz 2014 (esp. pp. 138–140).
24 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Traditional Definitions of the Seventh Century BCE

From the simplest numerical perspective, the seventh century BCE is the one
hundred years between the first day of the year 700 and the last day of the year
601 BCE. Yet besides this numerical perspective, defining the seventh century in
such a way is meaningless from any other standpoint. Therefore, to define this
century from a more historical perspective, the seventh century BCE should be
defined according to alternate criteria.
The standard relative chronological-archaeological framework applied to the
seventh century BCE (and up until the Babylonian destruction of 586 BCE) is de-
fined as the “Iron IIC” and, for example, is presented as such in the New Encyclo-
pedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (NEAEHL) and in numerous
other archaeological publications.6 This definition is centrally based on the history
and archaeology of Judah and concerns the period between the Assyrian military
campaign of Sennacherib (701 BCE) and the Babylonian military campaign of Nebu-
chadnezzar (586 BCE). On the one hand, the intense trauma inflicted on Judah by
the Assyrians had disastrous consequences for all matters (especially in relation
to the Shephelah) and led to a grave weakening of its military might and human
resources (Lipschits 2018b: 243–253). The destruction of this event was clearly de-
tected in several sites, especially in the Shephelah and at Lachish (Level III). These
remains were thus applied as a clear marker for the separation between the mate-
rial culture of the late eighth and the material culture of the seventh century BCE.
The destruction of Jerusalem and other urban centers (among them Lachish
Level II) during the Babylonian campaign of 588–586 BCE was the main indication
for the end of the material culture of the seventh and the early sixth century BCE
(Ussishkin 2004b: 92).

Problems with the Definition of the Seventh Century BCE

as Iron IIC

The core problem with this definition of the seventh century BCE as Iron IIC is
that these two very distinct assemblages of pottery and associated finds are repre-
sentative of the material culture that characterized Judah during the long period
prior to and immediately after 701 BCE and later prior to and immediately after

6 It is not clear why Langgut et al. (2015), employs the date of 680 BCE as the beginning of the
Iron IIC. It may be because of the date presented by Lipschits, Sergi and Koch (2010; 2011) for
the transition between the late lmlk and the concentric circle incision, but in any case, there is
no explanation for this date.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 25

586 BCE (Tatum 2003). These destructions provide an important spotlight on the
material culture that existed during the destruction of the sites at the moment that
they were destroyed. It is clear that these assemblages existed prior to the destruc-
tion, but it is not clear how much time before such destructions that this material
culture existed, when the characteristics of this material culture were developed,
and until when they continued to develop afterward in areas and sites that were
not destroyed. Even if there are clear destructions and a settlement gap in Lachish
and other sites that were destroyed during one or even in both of these military
campaigns, the characteristics of the material culture discovered from within these
destruction levels are only spotlights on a certain point in a long process of ongoing
change in the material culture. Neither in Lachish nor in any other site in Judah
can one find further evidence for the gradual development of the material culture
during the late eighth century (before 701 BCE), the gradual change and transition
of distinctive assemblages from the late eighth to the late seventh century BCE,
and the further development of the material culture after the 586 BCE destruction.
There is no reason to assume that the Lachish III repertoire, which characterizes
the material culture in Judah just prior to 701 BCE, ceased to exist as a result of
the events of 701 BCE, particularly in the many sites that were not destroyed during
this event, such as Jerusalem and the hill country around it. Furthermore, it is
reasonable to assume that this same material culture continued to exist in this
region during the early seventh century BCE and changed gradually through a slow
process during the first half of the seventh century BCE.7 There are no destruction
levels in Judah from this period, when the mid-seventh century material culture
could have been recovered and clearly defined. Yet a careful study of the develop-
ment of building phases in sites such as Ramat Raḥel and other hill country sites,
reveals a separation between different building phases in Jerusalem (Strata 12–10),
and a clear definition of the differences between fills below the floor of structures
from the late seventh and early sixth century BCE and the finds above it (especially
finds that were sealed by the 586 destruction of these phases) can aid the identifica-
tion of the main characteristics of the material culture of these phases from within
the seventh century BCE.8 Developing upon this further, the use of the stamped jar

7 On the understanding that the material culture that characterizes Lachish Level III continued
in places that did not suffer a destruction of 701 BCE and (even if not identified) continued
during the early seventh century BCE until the crystallization of the typical pottery types of
Lachish Level II, see already Naʾaman 2007; Finkelstein 2012a: 204–205; De Groot 2012: 162; Gadot
2015I: 8; Freud 2017.
8 In area E of the City of David, the transitional Stratum 11 was identified as dated to the first
half of the seventh century BCE, with a gradual change and few new vessel types, as compared
with Stratum 12 (similar to Lachish Level III) and Stratum 10 (similar to Lachish Level II). See
Shiloh 1984a: 3; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012: 100–101; Freud 2011; 2017; 2018.
26 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

handles for dating different phases in the late eighth, early to mid-seventh, and
late seventh century, alongside further development in the sixth century BCE, can
assist in refining the dates assigned to the different phases of the material culture
from this period and the changes in material culture during these chronological
phases (Lipschits 2018b: 123–165).9
The conclusion here is that there is no reason to argue that the entire corpus
of material culture that characterizes Lachish Level III is limited to the end of
the eighth century BCE or that the known material culture from Lachish Level II
is limited to the late seventh and early sixth century BCE. Nor is there cause to
argue that there is a gap between these two corpora of pottery, architecture,
stamp impressions, and other finds. On the contrary, transitions in pottery tradi-
tions were always gradual and may take a significant amount of time. Hence the
fact that Lachish Level III pottery vessels were found in sites that were not de-
stroyed in 701 BCE does not mean that the date of these sites should be limited
to the late eighth century BCE. Even in sites that have been established in the
early seventh century BCE and continued to exist with no disturbance until the
end of the seventh century BCE, the pottery would likely include both Lachish III
and Lachish II forms.
Throughout this period, in the first two-thirds of the seventh century BCE,
Judah enjoyed the economic prosperity of the entire region under Assyrian rule.10
The eastern and southern border areas (in particular the Negev) integrated into
the Assyrian and international commercial system and flourished both demo-
graphically and economically.11 In the Judean highland and the Benjamin region,
a gradual process of rehabilitation took place, and the status of Jerusalem was
established as the central city (Gadot 2015I). All of these data add a great deal
to existing perceptions of the “dark era” between the luminous historical and
archaeological points of 701 and BCE.
The same conclusions as expressed in relation to the material culture discov-
ered in the destruction levels from 701 BCE can also be aligned with the material
culture that characterizes the end of the First Temple period, as discovered in
the 586 BCE destruction levels. There is no reason to assume that this pottery
repertoire, which characterizes the material culture in Judah just before 586 BCE,
ceased to exist as a result of the events of 586 BCE (Lipschits 2005: 192–206).

9 See already Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010; 2011.

10 For a summary of the archaeological finds and historical reconstruction of this period, see
Lipschits 2018b: 243–253; see also Finkelstein 1994.
11 For the Negev, see Langgut and Lipschits 2017, with further literature. See also Naʾaman
1987b; 1995c: 113–114; Finkelstein 1992a: 161; Beit-Arieh 1999: 1–3. For the Jordan Valley, see Stern
1993; Lipschits 2000.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 27

Several rural sites continued to exist in Judah after 586 BCE (mainly to the north
and to the south of Jerusalem), the remains of which indicate that there was a
continuation of the well-known and familiar material culture (Lipschits 2011c).
This means that the transition from this Iron Age II ceramic repertoire to the
assemblage of pottery types that characterize the Persian period took place some-
time in the middle or even toward the end of the sixth century BCE (Freud 2018).
There is no reason to argue that the entire corpus of material culture that charac-
terize Lachish (Level II) and Jerusalem (Stratum 10) at the beginning of the sixth
century BCE was immediately and uniformly replaced by the known material
culture of the Persian period. The fact that these typical and well-known pottery
vessels were recovered from sites that were not destroyed in 586 BCE does not
mean that these sites should be dated to events that predate the 586 BCE destruc-
tion.12 Even in sites that were established in the sixth or even in the early fifth
century BCE (and continued to exist with no disturbance during the Persian and
even the early Hellenistic period), the pottery would include both Late Iron Age
II and Persian period forms (Freud 2018, and see also Lipschits et al. 2014a).

Defining the Higher Border of the Long Seventh Century

From a broader historical and archaeological perspective, the beginning of the

seventh century BCE should be defined by the appearance of the Assyrian Empire
and its effect on the local kingdoms. On the one hand, there are a series of
destructions caused by the Assyrian army, all of which are well dated and clearly
defined, mainly in the territory of the former kingdom of Israel. These destruc-
tions terminated the prosperous settlements of the Iron IIB in northern Israel,
including its prosperous olive oil production centers and economy.13 In the north-

12 This hypothesis is opposed to that expressed by Finkelstein (Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 27).
Finkelstein hypothesized that in the early sixth century BCE, parallel to the destruction of Jerusa-
lem, a severe crisis beset the settlement in the Benjamin region, and the picture was even
grimmer than that reflected in the archaeological survey. In the fifth and fourth centuries BCE,
by comparison, a certain recovery took place, which is the historical situation that the survey
reflects. In my opinion, this is a general historical assessment with no archaeological evidence.
The only possible point of comparison is to the sites that were excavated in the region of Benja-
min, which indicate the opposite picture. In the sixth century BCE, the settlement in Benjamin
continued to flourish and prosper, and the dwindling of the settlement began in the late sixth
and early fifth centuries BCE. The historical centrality of Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh) and the indica-
tions for the centrality of Gibeon at this time (as a wine-producing center) also warrant an
exploration of the notion that there was a strong agricultural hinterland in the region.
13 For the termination of settlements, see Singer-Avitz 2014: 137. For the olive oil centers and
economy, see Faust 2015.
28 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

ern and west-ern regions of this kingdom there are major destructions from the
732 BCE campaign, and in the Samaria hills such destructions are dated to 722–
720 BCE (Singer-Avitz 2014).
From this perspective, the seventh century BCE begins in the northern vicini-
ty of the region in 732 BCE, when the material culture of this phase, for example,
as it was defined in Megiddo Stratum III, is characterized by a continuation from
the Iron IIB, alongside the emergence of new forms and pottery types that appear
only in the post-732 BCE destruction horizon (Singer-Avitz 2014). The arrange-
ments made by Tiglath-pileser III in the former areas of the kingdom of Israel
existed without any marked change until the Babylonian, Persian, and even the
early Hellenistic periods. These arrangements included establishing two provin-
ces in the lands wrested from the kingdom as early as 732 BCE: the province of
Dūʾru (Dôr) extended through the narrow expanse of the Carmel coast and
reached to the Yarkon River in the south, while the province of Magidû encom-
passed the upper and lower Galilee, Beth Shean Valley, and the Jezreʿel Plain.14
Following the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, Sargon II annexed the remain-
der of the territory to Assyria in 720 BCE and established a third province, the
province of Sāmerīna.15 The lands of this province consisted of the entire Samari-
an hills, as well as the eastern part of the Sharon and the northern coastal plain,
including Apqu (Tel Aphēk) and Gazru (Gezer/Gazra) (Naʾaman 1995c: 106–107,
and fig. 1, p. 105; Stern 2001: 49–51; Lipschits 2005: 7–9).
The success of the Assyrian arrangement in the northern and central parts
of the land of the kingdom of Israel, as well as in Syria, is well reflected archaeo-
logically. It is noteworthy that following the Assyrian retreat, there are no docu-
mented changes in the geopolitical situation, no known major destructions have
been uncovered by archaeological excavations, and no clearly defined change
can be discerned in the material culture.
These regions continued to develop in a slow and gradual process (with no
clear archaeological anchor) until the Hellenistic period. With this in mind, from
an archaeological perspective, the seventh century BCE in the northern regions
of the former kingdom of Israel has no clearly defined lower border. The clear
upper border of the seventh century BCE in the kingdom of Israel applies to the
northern and western areas in 732 and in the hill country in 722–720 BCE. The
lack of a lower border that can separate the seventh from the sixth century BCE
in these regions is a phenomenon unique to the area of the former kingdom of

14 For the province of Dôr, see Stern 1990a 1990b; 2001: 12, 385–407; Naʾaman 1995c: 106; Gilboa
1996: 122–135; Thareani-Sussely and Naʾaman 2006. For Magidû, see Naʾaman 1995c: 107; Stern
2001: 46–49.
15 On this subject, see Tadmor 1973. For additional literature see Naʾaman 1993: 107 n. 3.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 29

Israel and is very distinct from what is known about areas that did not undergo
such destruction during the first wave of the Assyrian takeover of this region,
that is, the coastal area, Transjordan, and Judah.
In Philistia, no such border can be detected at the beginning, or at the end,
of the seventh century BCE. Instead, it appears that from all aspects of the materi-
al culture there is a continuation from the eighth to the seventh and early sixth
centuries BCE. The Assyrian arrangement in this region had already been estab-
lished in the late eighth century BCE during the reign of Sargon II and Sennacher-
ib. These arrangements remained in effect until the death of Assurbanipal and
the outbreak of the revolt in Babylonia in 627 BCE (Lipschits 2005: 7–9).
Asdūdu (Ashdod) was an isolated Assyrian province among the vassal city-
states in the region. The head of the province was a local vassal king alongside
an official Assyrian governor.16 North and south of Ashdod, the vassal city-states
of Isqalūna (Ashkelon), Anqarrūna (Ekron), and Ḥ azzat (Gaza) continued to main-
tain their existence.17 These city-states were strengthened territorially and eco-

16 An inscription of Sargon II notes that an Assyrian governor was stationed in Asdūdu (appar-
ently in 712 BCE), and a governor of the city is mentioned as the eponym of the year 669 BCE.
The province of Asdūdu continued to exist in the Persian period and apparently even before
under Babylonian rule. Thus, it would seem that Assyrian arrangements remained throughout
the Assyrian rule and were the territorial and administrative basis for the arrangements of the
Babylonian and Persian rule. In contrast, we know that in the days of Sennacherib a king gov-
erned in the city. For an explanation of this special and extraordinary duality, see Tadmor 1964:
272–276. For a critique of Tadmor’s proposal, see Naʾaman 1979a: 72; 1994b, with further literature.
17 Isqalūna (Ašqelôn/Ashkelon) was an important port and central commercial hub, wherein a
vast wine production industry thrived. At the end of the eighth century BCE, prior to the campaign
of Sennacherib, the territory of this kingdom included the enclave near Iappû (Yafo/Jaffa). See
Stager 1996a; Gitin 1997: 84; Naʾaman 1998c: 222–223. There is no evidence that the territorial
situation in this region changed at any stage under Assyrian rule, although one may accept the
premise that at some stage, the enclave was transferred to the administration of neighboring
Ekron. See Naʾaman 1998c: 223–225. Ekron was an important center for the production of oil, and
apparently of textiles as well. See Gitin 1997: 87–93. Ekron was the main party to profit from the
harsh blow dealt to Judah during the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign. Its growth during the seventh
century BCE, under Assyrian rule, is directly connected to the weakening of the kingdom of Judah
and the harsh damage to the territories of the kingdom in the coastal plain. On this subject, see
Dothan and Gitin 1994: 18–25; Gitin 1998: 274–278; Mazar 1994: 260–263. It is hard to accept, though
one cannot totally rule out, the suggestion by Stager (1996a: *70–*71) and Vanderhooft (1999: 75),
who prefer to link the growth of Ekron with the Egyptian period of rule, after the withdrawal of
Assyria from the region. Ḥ azzat (Gaza) was the southernmost of the Philistine kingdoms and
served as the major outlet port for merchandise that arrived from Arabian trade. During the
reign of Tiglath-pileser III and the early days of Sargon II, major Assyrian effort was focused
toward Gaza and its surroundings, as a direct result of their importance. Accordingly, it is not
surprising that Gaza remained a loyal Assyrian vassal kingdom from the days of Sargon II until
the collapse of the Assyrian rule in this region. See Tadmor 1964: 271; Katzenstein 1994: 37–38.
30 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

nomically under the reign of Assyrian kings, seemingly because they recognized
Philistia’s strategic importance as the gateway to Egypt, as well as its economic
importance.18
To the south of the former kingdom of Israel and to the east of Phi-listia,
Judah operated as a small, peripheral, and mountainous kingdom within the re-
gion’s seventh century BCE political, economic, and military systems. There is no
evidence to indicate that the traumatic events that the kingdom of Israel under-
went in any way affected the kingdom of Judah. The events of 732 BCE, and later
of 722–720 BCE, are not visible in the material culture of Judah (in the sense of
clear destruction levels).

The Implications of the Beginning of

the Long Seventh Century on Judah and Its Existence
in the Shadow of the Empire

From the historical perspective, the greatest difference between the seventh cen-
tury and the former, the eighth century BCE, is the destruction and disappearance
of the kingdom of Israel after the destructions of 732 and 720 BCE. As such, from
this historical perspective, the beginning of the seventh century BCE is the “post-
kingdom of Israel” period, when Judah was left alone in the hill country. Develop-
ing from this perspective is the notion that, for Judah also, the seventh century
had begun already in 732 BCE.
From a Judean perspective this date is also justified as the historical begin-
ning of the seventh century, since in 734 BCE Judah became an Assyrian vassal
kingdom (Naʾaman 1994c: 235; Lipschits 2018c: 116–128). The story that symbolizes
the subjugation to Assyria is Ahaz’s call to Tiglath-pileser for assistance (2 Kgs
16:8).19 Without dealing with the tone of the description or the negative evaluation
of Ahaz and the deliberate use of negative expressions, from a historical perspec-
tive the narrative relays an important issue, that Ahaz’s appeal to Tiglath-pileser
marks the beginning of the subjugation of Judah to Assyria.

18 In the days of Sennacherib, territory was wrested from Judah and awarded to three Philistine
kingdoms, so as to establish them more firmly. The Assyrian gain was twofold as it was able to
both strengthen its rule in the southwestern border of its empire near the Egyptian border and
increase economic gain as a result of the prosperity of these kingdoms and the integration of
their ports into the Arabian trade. For further literature on this subject, see Gitin 1997: 99–100.
For Philistia’s economic importance, see Elat 1978: 30–34; 1990.
19 On the story of Ahaz’s visit to Damascus, its sources, and goal, see Naʾaman 1998a.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 31

By accepting Assyrian rule and changing its status from independent state to
vassal kingdom, Judah was one of only a handful of small kingdoms to survive
the Assyrian conquest of Syria and the Levant in the second half of the eighth
century BCE.20 Similarly to other kingdoms in the peripheral regions of the em-
pire that submitted to Assyrian demands, the ruling Judean elite were allowed to
remain in power and granted autonomy. In exchange, the Assyrians imposed
vassal obligations on Judah, including the payment of an annual tribute (not only
in material goods but in labor as well), submission of intelligence reports and
information related to political and military matters in the area, participation in
Assyrian military campaigns, and provision of supplies for the Assyrian army
during battles. These obligations were monitored by an Assyrian official and had
immediate consequences on Judah’s material culture and on its local administra-
tion and economy.
The subjection of Judah to Assyria in the early days of King Ahaz and the
change in its status from independent state to vassal kingdom was the most sig-
nificant and influential economic and administrative event in its entire history
(Lipschits 2018c). It marked the beginning of a roughly six-hundred-year period
during which Judah remained under the rule of great empires, first as an Assyri-
an, Egyptian, and Babylonian vassal kingdom (734 to 586 BCE) and then as a
Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid province (586 to the middle of the
second century BCE, when the Hasmonaean state was established). The adminis-
trative and economic arrangements established by the Assyrians and developed
by local Judean leadership remained in effect and continued to develop during
the following centuries. Such practices evolved into some of the most typical and
well-known characteristics of the Judean economy, administration, and material
culture (Lipschits 2005: 48–124).

Characteristics of Judah as a Vassal Kingdom during

the Long Seventh Century BCE

The administrative and economic arrangements that were established by the As-
syrians and developed by the local Judean leadership continued to be in effect
and develop during the coming centuries as they became some of the most typical
and well-known characteristics of the Judean economy, administration, and mate-
rial culture. The existence of these characteristics in the Judean economy, admin-

20 For a comprehensive review of the dynamic expansion of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the
economic and ideological strategies behind such expansion, see Parpola 2003: 100.
32 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

istration, and material culture over so long a timespan is a clear indication of

how well suited such systems were to the Judean elite and ruling classes. Further-
more, such characteristics reflect just how critical they were to an internal devel-
opment of the region, one that reflects what its elite could and would accept,
agree to, and pay the ruling empires in order to protect the national and cultic
independence inside Jerusalem. Such independence was essential in enabling Ju-
dean political, spiritual, and religious life to blossom in the shadow of the empires
(Lipschits 2018c).
From an agricultural and industrial aspect, Judah was still in its “non-central-
ized, kinship based” mode during the eighth century BCE, and there is no archaeo-
logical evidence of mass manufacture of olive oil in Judah before the mid- and
late eighth century BCE (Maeir and Shai 2016).21 As part of the dramatic change
that occurred in the Judean administration and economy (already in the last
decades of the eighth century BCE, probably immediately after the subjugation
of Judah to Assyria), one should mention the appearance of a new system of
marked shekel weights (Kletter 1998: 145–147; Katz 2008: 77–79, with further lit-
erature; Berlejung 2012: 44–45).22 Such finds are a clear indication of the maturing
of the economy and evolving process of standardization. The adaptation of an
Egyptian system as well as the use of hieratic numbers, when Judah was under
Assyrian rule, indicate that the system likely emerged under Assyrian pressure
but was not an Assyrian decision or forced by an Assyrian system, as a Judahite
development, derived from known sources as well as close and familiar systems.23
To this period one should also assign the technological changes in the agricultural
production installations and the development of the state-organized olive oil in-
dustry that flourished in Judah during the last quarter of the eighth century BCE,
a time when Judah had already become an Assyrian vassal kingdom.24
At the same time, a significant change occurred in all aspects of the ceramic
repertoire of Judah, which evolved from unstandardized, small-scale production
in local workshops to a standardized mass-production industry, with a broad
range of distribution and a limited variety of shapes (Mazar 1990: 509; Zimhoni

21 For the manufacture of olive oil, see Faust 2015: 778–783; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006a:
263.
22 Kletter (1998: 43) demonstrated that only 4 percent of the shekel weights were discovered in
pre-seventh century BCE. The meaning of it is that the system of weights was introduced during
the late eighth century BCE, and the system was integrated and became fully operational in the
period of the pax Assyriaca in the seventh century BCE.
23 For hieratic numbers, see Kletter 1998: 148–149. Assyrian weights are rarely attested in the
Levant; see Kletter 1998: 125–127; Berlejung 2012: 44 and n. 105.
24 For the technological changes, see Faust and Weiss 2005; Katz 2008: 55–59. For the olive oil
industry, see Finkelstein and Naʾaman 2004: 74.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 33

1997: 171–172; Zimhoni 2004a: 1705–1707; Katz 2008: 52–53). The development of
ceramic industry included the construction of storage jars that were larger than
had previously been fashioned (Zimhoni 1990: 1706). Such vessels are a clear sign
of a centralized royal economy, which improved agricultural production and its
mobility under the guidance of a central authority.
The best example of this change can be found in the study of the local produc-
tion of storage jars and their change in production in the late eighth century BCE
(Sergi et al. 2012, with further literature). From the oval storage jars dated to the
late ninth and the early eighth centuries BCE (which appeared mainly in the
Shephelah and were characterized by the manufacturing of nonstandardized sub-
types), the standardized jars became more common in the early mid-eighth cen-
tury BCE and in the late eighth century BCE. One jar type in particular was
adopted for use by the royal administrative system of Judah, as can be demon-
strated by the appearance of stamp impressions on the handles of jars from this
type. This royal administrative system expanded the distribution of these stan-
dardized jars and transported them to the various geographic regions in the king-
dom of Judah. However, it is clear that all jars continued to be manufactured in
the same place and that this one main production center was ultimately inte-
grated into the royal administrative system connected with the stamped jar han-
dles, which effectively dictated their main function.
The same progression was observed in the development in the system of the
stamped jar handles. This system began in the last third of the eighth cen-
tury BCE, when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom, and developed
throughout the six hundred years that Judah was under the rule of the great
empires. About three thousand stamped jar handles were discovered in Judah
during archaeological excavations and surveys covering these six hundred years
(Lipschits 2018b: 237–265). This is precisely the period when Ramat Raḥel existed
as the region’s administrative center and main depot for agricultural products,
primarily wine and oil stored in jars. No other Judahite site, not even Jerusalem,
can challenge Ramat Raḥel’s record: over three hundred stamped handles from
the late Iron Age II were recovered there, including lmlk- and private-stamp im-
pressions dated to the late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE, concentric
circle incisions dated to the mid-seventh century BCE, and rosette-stamp impres-
sions dated to the late seventh–early sixth centuries BCE.25 In the Babylonian,
Persian, and Hellenistic periods Ramat Raḥel was the main center of stamped

25 For Iron II, see Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2011: 16–17; Lipschits et al. 2017: 34–39, 64. For late
eighth and early seventh centuries, see Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010. For mid-seventh century,
see Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 7–8. For late seventh–early sixth centuries, see Koch and
Lipschits 2013: 60–61.
34 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

jar handles, with about seventy-seven lion-stamped handles dated to the sixth
century BCE, more than three hundred yhwd-stamp impressions dated to the late
sixth–mid-second centuries BCE, and thirty-three yršlm-stamp impressions dated
to the second century BCE.26 All in all, the phenomenon of stamped jar handles
collected and stored at Ramat Raḥel continued for more than half a millennium
as part of a continuous, systemized administrative system.27
Just as the administrative and economic system represented by the stamped
jars endured throughout the six hundred years of Judah’s existence under the
rule of the empires, so too did Ramat Raḥel’s function as the center of this system.
The earliest building phase at Ramat Raḥel should be dated to the late eighth or
early seventh century BCE.28 The pottery and stamp impressions from the earliest
building phase represent the entire chronological span from the end of the eighth
at least until the middle or even until the last third of the seventh century BCE.
Several architectural features are unique to Ramat Raḥel, indicating that already
in this early phase (parallel to the Assyrian period of control in Judah) the site
served as an administrative and governmental center. The numerous volute capi-
tals (the so-called Proto-Aeolic capitals), as well as a series of small, carved stone
columns with tiny palmette capitals (that had been part of a window balustrade,
similar to those that appear in the reliefs known as “the woman in the window”),
should all be assigned to the same architectural assemblage (Lipschits et al. 2017:
30–43). Even at this initial stage, the edifice at Ramat Raḥel was unparalleled in
its might, beauty, and architectural technique by any other in the kingdom of
Judah. The abundance of stamp impressions on jar handles found at the site
testifies to its role as the Judahite administrative center for the collection of agri-
cultural produce, probably exchanged for silver and gold and paid as tax to the
Assyrian Empire. This administrative role would continue to grow in importance
during the subsequent stages of its existence.

26 For lion-stamped handles, see Lipschits 2018b: 91–98. For yhwd-stamp impressions, see Lip-
schits and Vanderhooft 2011: 107–110. For yršlm-stamp impressions, see Bocher and Lipschits
2013: 103–104.
27 The renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel and the final publication of the architecture and
finds from Aharoni’s excavations have made it possible to reevaluate the archaeology of the site
and its significance vis-á-vis the political history of Judah as a province in the Achaemenid
Empire. See Lipschits et al. 2017: 22–26; Lipschits, Gadot and Freud 2016.
28 The Western Tower is the main architectural structure assigned to this early phase. This
structure probably functioned as a tower fortress, situated at the top of the hill for all to see,
effectively controlling the main roads leading to Jerusalem. Additional structures were built to
the east of the tower, though they were later integrated into the complex of buildings that
composed the edifice of the second building phase or were dismantled to their foundations.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 35

From Late Iron IIB to Iron IIC: Judah in the Transition

from Assyrian to Egyptian and Babylonian Rule

The geopolitical and administrative character of the Levant only slightly changed
under the Egyptian rule during the last third of the seventh century BCE (Lip-
schits 2005: 20–35). In the short period of the Egyptian rule (for which there is
scant historical documentation), it seems that the Egyptian economic and strategic
interests were primarily concentrated in the coastal region, from Philistia to
Phoenicia.29 It is not clear to what extent Egypt was interested in the hill country
or what effort it invested in establishing its rule there. However, it appears as
though Egypt established its rule throughout the entire area and that Judah was
enslaved by Egypt and was subsequently unable to conduct an independent for-
eign policy of its own, certainly not in the Shephelah, the coastal region, or the
Jezreel Valley.30 The Egyptians were unhindered in establishing their rule on the
former Assyrian provinces in Syria and up to the western bank of the Euphrates.
Yet as the Euphrates became the most important border with Babylon, Egypt had
to turn it into its first line of defense in a bid to prevent the establishment of
Babylonian outposts on the western side of the Euphrates and its use as a spring-
board for future attacks beyond the Euphrates.31 The ease with which Syria fell
into the hands of the Babylonians (summer 605 BCE) and the ease with which
the Babylonians conquered the remainder of the Egyptian-controlled Asian terri-
tories (up to the border of Egypt) is evidence that the Egyptians were not success-

29 At a fairly early stage in the Egyptian rule of the region, Egypt established itself up to the
borders of Phoenicia, subjugating Tyre, and apparently also Arwad. It seems that Tyre was
restored at this point to its status as a vassal kingdom. It is also possible that upon the Assyrian’s
retreat, the Egyptians immediately established their foothold in Philistia. The establishment of
Egyptian rule in this overland gate to Egypt was rapid, and apparently the Egyptians fought only
against Ashdod. One may conjecture that already, during the long years of the pax Assyriaca,
the Philistine coastal cities maintained close ties with Egypt, as they were the first to recognize
its status as a successor state. In any case, the Philistine city-states continued to pledge fealty to
Egypt, even in the early years of Babylonian rule in the region. See Redford 1992: 435–442;
Vanderhooft 1999: 70–71, 92–99. For a summary and further bibliography see Schipper 2011;
Fantalkin 2015.
30 Neco’s presence in Megiddo and the killing of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:29), then later deposing Jehoa-
haz from the throne (v. 33) and appointing Eliakim-Jehoiakim (v. 34), attest to Egypt’s intention
of establishing its rule over Judah. For a summary of this subject, see Lipschits 2005: 36–67.
31 The military ventures that the Egyptians initiated along the Euphrates, especially in 608–
605 BCE, are evidence of the great importance that they attributed to this region. It seems that
besides the chief Egyptian stronghold in Carchemish (on the banks of the Euphrates), the main
Egyptian center in Syria was at Riblah (cf. 2 Kgs 23:33). For a summary of this subject, see
Lipschits 2005: 32–35.
36 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

ful in truly establishing their rule there. Rather, Egyptian control had largely
relied on filling the power vacuum that remained once the Assyrians withdrew.
In the military campaign conducted between June 604 and January/February
603 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of the Levant up to Gaza. None of the
local kings dared stand up to Nebuchadnezzar, except for the king of Ashkelon.
The Babylonian response was decisive, and the fate of the city served as an exam-
ple to the other kingdoms in the region.32 Judah became a Babylonian vassal
kingdom at this stage, after about a generation of Egyptian rule, which probably
lasted during most of Josiah’s rule (640–609 BCE) and during the first years of
Jehoiakim’s rule (609–598 BCE).
Some scholars claimed that the recovery of Judah from the Assyrian 701 BCE
destruction (mainly in the Shephelah, the southern Judean hills, and the Negev
area) had already begun during the first half of the seventh century BCE. They
have described this process as a part of the glorious days of King Manassaeh,
when Judah, as a loyal Assyrian vassal kingdom, used the quiet days of the Assyri-
an dominancy in the Levant (the so-called pax Assyriaca era) to integrate the
empire’s economy and administration.33 Writing in opposition to such descrip-
tions, Ido Koch and Oded Lipschits demonstrated that during the first half of the
seventh century BCE Judah did not recover from the harsh blow of the 701 BCE
Assyrian campaign. This delayed recovery related to the Assyrian geopolitical and
administrative arrangements that were still valid until the complete Assyrian
withdrawal from the Levant, as during the days of King Manasseh, Judah was
left as a small and damaged kingdom. Rather, it was only during the days of
Josiah (after the withdrawal of the Assyrians from the Levant) that the post-
701 BCE arrangements were canceled, and Judah was able to begin repopulating
the Shephelah and the Negev areas and rebuild border fortresses. This period
most clearly represents distinctive historical change and is when, from an archaeo-
logical perspective, one can describe the point of change from the late Iron IIB to
the Iron IIC (Koch and Lipschits 2013).

32 It may have been at this time that the territory of Ashkelon was annexed to Ashdod. If this
is the case, it could be considered as evidence of the single change that the Babylonians made
in the geopolitical and administrative character of the Levant during the first phase of their
rule. During this time, there is no reason to ascribe any other destruction to the Babylonian
army. Most of the country was still arranged in a line of provinces as dictated during the Assyrian
period, and it appears as though the Egyptian retreat left the country unopposed to the rule of
Nebuchadnezzar. On the background to the Babylonian military campaign, its main events and
consequences, see Lipschits 2005: 36–67.
33 See Beit-Arieh 1987; Biran 1987; Naʾaman 1987b; Finkelstein 1994; Stern 2001: 161; Thareani-
Sussely 2007; Knauf 2005: 170–171; Faust 2008.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 37

The stamped jar handles are the key to a greater understanding of this pivot-
al point of change in the history of Judah. While hundreds of early lmlk-stamped
handles (dated to the late eighth century BCE) were found in lowland sites, only
six late lmlk-stamped handles (dated to the early seventh century BCE) and eight
handles bearing concentric circle incisions (dated to the middle of the seventh
century BCE) were found there (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010; 2011). This stands
in clear contrast to the hill country, where 370 late lmlk-stamped handles, and
240 incised handles were found. Furthermore, about half of the total corpus of
each system was recovered in the environs of Jerusalem and 25 percent at Ramat
Raḥel, which was already an administrative center for the storing and distribu-
tion of commodities, which likely originated from royal estates (Lipschits, Sergi,
and Koch 2011: 10–20).
The administrative picture drawn from the late seventh century BCE is simi-
lar. The majority of the rosette-stamped handles (well dated to the late seventh
and the early sixth century BCE)34 were found in the hill country, whereas 37 per-
cent were discovered in Jerusalem and 20 percent at Ramat Raḥel. The Benjamin
Plateau (situated to the north and west of Jerusalem) prospered during the sev-
enth century BCE.35 Almost a quarter of the late lmlk-stamped handles and the
concentric incised handles (dated to the first two-thirds of the seventh cen-
tury BCE) were found in this region, mainly at el-Jib (biblical Gibeon) and Khirbet
el-Burj (biblical Beeroth).36 This vast amount of stamped handles renders the
Benjamin Plateau the third most important region of the Judahite administration
in the early and middle seventh century BCE. The centrality of the region proba-
bly came as a result of the loss of the Shephelah, wherein Judah had to refocus
its economic goals toward substitute areas that still remained within its bounda-
ries, such as Benjamin and the Rephaim Valley, which evolved during the early
seventh century BCE (Lipschits and Gadot 2008: 88–96; Gadot 2015). During the
final phase of the seventh century BCE, there is a clear change in the history of
the region of Benjamin, with only fifteen rosette-stamped handles (approximately
7 percent of the corpus) unearthed at Benjamin sites. As the demographic land-
scape indicates that this was a prosperous period, it seems that the reason for
such change may lie elsewhere, namely, in the Shephelah. Due to the renewed
Judahite activity in the Shephelah, there was a lesser need for the royal estates

34 Analyses of the new archaeological data and the distribution of the rosette stamped handles
all indicate that this administrative system be dated to the last third of the seventh century BCE.
See Koch and Lipschits 2013: 342–355; Lipschits 2018b: 253–265.
35 Alongside important sites such as Tell en-Naṣbeh and el-Jib, there was Tell el-Fûl; and Nebi-
Samwil, in which the main activity took place in that period.
36 See Lipschits 2005: 141–165, 243–253; Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 21.
38 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

located in Benjamin. Thus, the region lost its importance to the administrative
system. The main shift in Judahite administration during the seventh century BCE
is the renewed appearance of lowland sites as part of the Judahite administration.
The twenty-four rosette-stamped handles recovered from Lachish (11 percent of
the corpus) render this site the third most important center of the system (after
Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel). In the new excavations in Azekah, eight additional
rosette-stamped handles have been found, bringing the number of handles recov-
ered from this site to seventeen. The number of impressions recovered at Azekah
classifies this site as the fourth most important center of this system (Lipschits
2005: 124, and personal information from the 2018 excavation season at the site).
It seems that Lachish Level II and the settlement at Azekah were each founded
during the same period that the rosette system was introduced or even used.37
These archaeological data from the Shephelah strengthen the conventional
historical reconstruction regarding the date of the region’s recovery (Naʾaman
1994c: 235; 2007: 25–27; Finkelstein 1994; Finkelstein and Naʾaman 2004: 84; Ussish-
kin 2004b: 90–91; Faust 2008: 173). While during the first half of the seventh
century BCE the Shephelah (excluding its easternmost part, and Tel Socoh) re-
mained largely outside of the Judahite administration, it was reintegrated during
the second half of the same century. During this period this region was without
doubt one of critical importance for the kingdom, but its character was weaker
and diminished in scale when compared to what it had been during the late
eighth century BCE (Lipschits and Amit 2011: 179–198, with English Summary on
pp. 54*–55*). In the late seventh century the area was sparsely settled, less urban
and fortified, without the economic importance that it had previously maintained.
As with the Shephelah, during the early seventh century BCE there was a
decrease in the administrative involvement of the central regime in the Beershe-
ba-Arad Valley, as only four late lmlk-stamped handles and two concentric incised
handles were unearthed in the region, all at the site of Arad (Lipschits, Sergi, and
Koch 2011, table 1; Lipschits 2005: 124). Yet some scholars argue for complete
Judahite control of the region, already established during the first half of the
seventh century.38 At the very least, when the administrative system based on
stamped jar handles is evaluated, it is clear that it did not reach the region until

37 Despite some indications for a resettlement immediately after the 701 BCE destruction, most
scholars concur that Level II was founded in the second half of the seventh century BCE. See
Ussishkin 2004b :90–93; Naʾaman 1991b: 33–41.
38 According to this view, King Manasseh opted for a degree of compensation for Judah (post-
701 BCE) in the eastern fringe and the Beersheba-Arad Valley, under Assyrian auspices. See Beit-
Arieh 1999: 25; Biran 1987: 32; Naʾaman 1987b: 11; Finkelstein 1994: 165; Stern 2001: 161; Thareani-
Sussely 2007; Knauf 2008: 171–180; Faust 2008.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 39

the late seventh century BCE, and only then did Judah return to the Beersheba-
Arad Valley.39 Thus, it may be that the Judahite population did return to the
Beersheba-Arad Valley following the Sennacherib campaign, though there is no
evidence for royal administrative involvement until the late seventh century BCE.
Just as with the Beersheba-Arad Valley sites, the establishment of the eastern
fringe sites has also been dated by some scholars to the first half of the seventh
century BCE (Finkelstein 1994: 177–178; Faust 2008: 181). Indeed, it might be that
several farmsteads already existed during the early seventh century but were
probably already founded during the eighth century BCE (Faust 2008: 174–175).
However, not a single rosette-stamped handle was found below the floors of Stra-
tum V at En-Gedi, and the three concentric incised handles recovered were un-
earthed in mixed contexts (Stern 2007: 145, and pls. 4.7.2.1:1–6). It seems, there-
fore, that the eastern fringe centers and the array of fortresses and their adjunct
sites were mainly founded during the administrative phase of the rosette-stamped
handles, toward the end of the seventh century BCE, and not before the Assyrian
withdrawal from the Levant. In any case, it appears that Judah was not capable
of expansion into the vicinity of Jericho prior to this period (Naʾaman 1991b: 23,
with further literature; Stern 1993).
When evaluated, the above data suggest that around the beginning of the
last third of the seventh century BCE, a new era began in the history and archae-
ology of Judah. During this period a new administrative system was established,
with the rosette-stamp impressions in its center. The distribution of the rosette-
stamped handle system reflects the expansion of the Judahite administration into
regions that, as long as Assyria dominated the Levant, were out of its reach. The
recovery of the Shephelah began with the rebuilding of the administrative centers
at Lachish and possibly also Azekah. In the Beersheba-Arad Valley the Judahite
administration was renewed by the founding of the administrative center at Tel
ʿIra and the array of fortresses situated along the valley. In the eastern fringe, the
natural resources of the Dead Sea were exploited by the industrial site at En-
Gedi, which was protected by an array of fortresses and parking sites. Thus, a
new settlement pattern was established, likely as the outcome of the Assyrian
withdrawal from the Levant and the cancellation of territorial and geopolitical
arrangements that had remained in place since the last third of the eighth cen-
tury BCE. This is also the period when Ramat Raḥel underwent a second building
phase, and it became the center of the new administrative system of the rosette-
stamped handles. The renewed archaeological excavations at Ramat Raḥel dem-

39 Four stratified rosette stamped handles were excavated in the Judahite administrative center
at Tel ʿIra Stratum VI. Three more stamped handles were unearthed at Arad Strata VII–VI, and
four rosette-stamped handles unearthed at Tel Malḥata Stratum III. See Lipschits 2005: 124.
40 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

onstrated that during the late seventh century BCE – just before or during the
period when the rosette system was introduced – the second and monumental
phase at the site was erected. The natural hill was reshaped and a fortified edifice
was built with a vast garden and central courtyard (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch
2011: 20–34; Lipschits et al. 2017: 57–75). As a result of these changes, archaeologi-
cal research is able to date the introduction of the pottery assemblages and prac-
tices that characterize Judah in the late seventh and early sixth century BCE.
As such, the term “the archaeology of the days of Manasseh,” coined by Fin-
kelstein to describe the expansion of Judah during the first half of the seventh
century BCE, should be abandoned (Finkelstein 2014). Instead, the term “the
archaeology of the days of Josiah” of the last third of the seventh century BCE
should take its place, when the changing geopolitical conditions of the late sev-
enth century BCE resulted in a significant shift in Judah’s positioning and status.
The reconfiguration of Judah was enabled by the withdrawal of Assyria from the
Levant, the change in the policies of Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, and Judah’s successful
attempt to reconsolidate its control over territories beyond the highlands (Naʾa-
man 1991b: 34–41; Lipschits 2005: 20–29).40

The Former Territories of the Kingdom of Israel in Transition

from Late Iron IIB to Iron IIC

The same transition process from late Iron IIB to Iron IIC, following the Assyrian
withdrawal from the Levant, can be detected in the northern parts of the land.
As observed by Lily Singer-Avitz, Megiddo Strata III and II represent these two
periods, as both follow the 732 BCE Assyrian conquest (Singer-Avitz 2014). The
late Iron IIB is represented by Megiddo Stratum III, when the city was established
as the capital of the Assyrian province; aside from Megiddo, the remains were
located only in Kinnereth (Stratum I) and probably also in Taʿanach (period V).
At both Megiddo and Kinnereth, the fortifications of the earlier stratum were
reused.
It may be that during the days of Assurbanipal, the Assyrians deported new
groups into the region of the Megiddo province and resettled them (Naʾaman

40 Following the Egyptian expansion and under their auspices, it is plausible to assume that
under Egyptian hegemony, the role of Judah in international trade included the production of
grain in the fertile lands of the Shephelah, the pro-duction of olive oil and wine, as well as
monitoring the trade routes from the Medi-terranean to the Arabian Peninsula. Ashkelon grew
and became the most important trade center in the region. See Stager 1996a; Master 2009: 305–
317; Fantalkin 2011.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 41

1993: 116; Singer-Avitz 2014: 139). This process triggered an increase in the number
of settlements in the region, likely a process that continued long after the Assyri-
an withdrawal from the Levant, and may explain the resettlement of sites that
parallel the building of Megiddo Stratum II, that is, Dan (Stratum I), Yoqneʿam
(Stratum XI), and possibly Beth Shean (Stratum P-6) (Singer-Avitz 2014: 138). The
organization of the Assyrian province of Tyre, which took place either in the late
years of Esarhaddon or in the early years of Assurbanipal, could be the starting
point for the establishment of sites in the territory of this province, for example,
Kabri (Stratum E2) and Tell Keisan (Stratum 5).41 It might be that following the
Assyrian withdrawal from the region, during the early last third of the seventh
century BCE, this settlement wave continued on throughout the period of Egyp-
tian domination in the region, when the connections between Greece and the East
were renewed under Egyptian domination.42 This phase in the material culture
in the north continued until the Babylonian campaigns of the late seventh cen-
tury BCE, and thus, this marks the end of the early Iron IIC horizon in this region
(Singer-Avitz 2014: 138).

The Effect of the 586 Events on the Judean Economy,

Administration, and the Chronological Frame of the Iron IIC

Already Gabriel Barkay (1998: 25) has noted:

The date of the destruction 587/586 BCE is not at all relevant to the history of most parts of
the Land of Israel – the Galilee, the Samarian Hills, the coastal plain, the Negev, and eastern
Transjordan…. It seems that the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem influ-
enced modern scholarship which fixed the date of the end of the Iron Age according to a
historical fact and not on the basis of the archaeological picture.

After the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and other main urban and military
Judahite centers at the beginning of the sixth century BCE, “the people who were
left in the land of Judah” (2 Kgs 25:22) continued to live in close proximity to the
north and south of Jerusalem, maintain a rural economy, pay the annual tribute
in the same way as before, produce pottery in the same Iron Age tradition (includ-
ing stamped jars used for the taxation system), and serve under the same admin-
istration (See Lipschits 2011c). The administrative center at Ramat Raḥel contin-

41 For the organization of Tyre, see Naʾaman 1994b: 7–8. For Kabri and Tell Keisan, see Naʾaman
1994b; Lehmann 2002: 85; Singer-Avitz 2014: 139–140.
42 For the Assyrian withdrawal, see Naʾaman 1991b: 34–41. For the renewal of connections be-
tween the East and Greece, see Fantalkin 2008.
42 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

ued to function as the collection center of taxes, mainly in the form of jars filled
with wine and oil. This continuation included no marked change aside from the
introduction of new lion-stamp impressions on the handles of jars, which re-
placed the rosette-stamp impressions on the same type of jars (Lipschits 2005: 91–
98). The capital of the newly established province of Yehud moved to Tell en-
Naṣbeh (Mizpah), which served as the Bîrāh for 141 years (from 586 BCE, through
the Neo-Babylonian period, until the time of Nehemiah) (Lipschits 2011b, with
further literature). These observations confirm the conclusion that in many as-
pects, the Babylonian Empire continued the Assyrian ideology and administra-
tion, took over the Assyrian provincial system, and only made minimal and neces-
sary adjustments.43
The most conspicuous and significant archaeological phenomenon of sixth-
century BCE Judah (after the destruction of Jerusalem) was the sharp decline in
urban life. Such a decline rests in contrast to the continuity of the rural settle-
ments in the region of Benjamin and in the area between Bethlehem and Beth-
Zur (Lipschits 2011c). This settlement pattern also continued throughout the Per-
sian period when, despite the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of its
status as the temple city of Yehud and later on also as the capital of the province,
there was no strengthening of urban life in this area, and the settlement in Judah
remained largely based on the rural population (Lipschits 2003: 326–355; 2005:
206–207; 2011b).
The sharp decline in urban life had wider implications on the material cul-
ture, for example, the disappearance of the typical family burial caves, usually
associated with urban and other elite social classes (Barkay 2004: 96–104). This
shift is a reflection of deep religious and social change. Since there is a continued
use of some of the burial caves in the area of Benjamin, in Jerusalem, and other
sites, there is no need to connect the phenomenon to the isolated crisis of 586 BCE
(Faust 2009: 341, with further literature). Instead, such processes may be better
understood as a broader and gradual change in religion and society, which oc-
curred during the sixth century BCE and possibly mainly at the beginning of the
Persian period, when other changes, such as the disappearance of iconography
in the stamp impressions on jar handles (e.g., the change from the lion to the
yhwd-stamp impressions), occurred. Other elements that emphasize the change
in material culture from the Iron Age II to the Persian period, for example, the
disappearance of the typical Judahite house, are probably a part of a gradual
change that had already begun during the seventh century BCE and continued

43 See, e.g., Sack 2003: 229. A similar opinion was expressed by Stern (1994: 51–62), as against
later statements (see, e.g., Stern 2001: 307–308). An alternate view was expressed by Vanderhooft
1999: 90–114. Against his views, see Sack 2003: 226–227.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 43

for hundreds of years afterward, with some typical four-room houses still built
during the sixth century BCE (Zorn 1997: 34–35). In this regard one should remem-
ber that, aside from the monumental building at Ramat Raḥel and the industrial
site at En-Gedi, there are scanty architectural remains in Judah dated to the Per-
sian period.44
The implication of the above is that as with the analysis of the 701 BCE
destruction and its impact on the characteristics of local material culture, so too
must scholarship resist employing the 586 BCE destruction as a marker for the
end of the Iron IIC. The harsh blow delivered to urban settlements, especially the
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the deportation of the Judahite elite
and the House of David, were of major importance to the existence of Judahite
national and cultic life. Further to this, such historical realities impacted social
unity and the national memory and historiography. That said, from many differ-
ent aspects of the material culture, life continued as before: local pottery produc-
tion, agricultural economy and the stamped jar handles administration, the pat-
tern of the rural settlement in the Judean hill country to the north and to the
south of Jerusalem, imperial rule, and the existence of Ramat Raḥel as a central
administrative center.
The central difference in the material culture between the periods of pre-
586 BCE destruction and post-586 destruction is primarily the outcome of the
Babylonian deportation of “all the men of valor, seven thousand, and the crafts-
men and the smiths, one thousand, all strong and fit for war” (2 Kgs 24:16). The
lack of skilled artisans during the Babylonian and the Persian periods in every
field of the economy, administration, and daily life is one of the prominent char-
acteristics of these periods. The situation also did not improve in the Persian
period, and the poor province (with its nominated governors) did not acquire the
means, ability, and perhaps not even the permission to undertake building pro-
jects in Jerusalem or in any other urban center in the land. The inferior building
techniques and shabby quality of the pottery and the seals (probably also a result
of the scarcity of raw materials and need to reuse existing resources, i.e., building
stones and metals, or inexpensive substitutes) are all an expression of this situa-
tion during the Babylonian and Persian periods. It seems to me that this is one
more explanation for the lack of architectural remains and other finds from the
Babylonian and Persian periods and for the relatively easy way in which Persian-
period building remains and additional finds could have been removed and lost
during the Hellenistic period and later on.

44 For more on the reason for the absence of architectural remains in Judah from the Persian
period, see Lipschits 2006a: 24–30. For a first suggestion to differentiate between these two
periods, see Singer-Avitz 2014.
44 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Summary

The first point in the summary of this paper is the understanding that destruc-
tions provide an important and crucial spotlight on existing mate-rial culture and
do not represent the end of it. The Assyrian destruction of 701 BCE effectively
froze the material culture that had been developed by the first generation of
Judeans under Assyrian rule and was included in the administration and econo-
my of Judah after it became an Assyrian vassal kingdom in 734 BCE. This material
culture continued to develop in the early seventh century, although it is difficult
to locate. This difficulty is due to the absence of destruction levels during the pax
Assyriaca period. It seems, however, that modern archaeological research, which
has included a careful study of the development of the pottery assemblages of
this period and exploration of the importance of the stamped jar handles to the
study of the development processes during this period, enable a separation be-
tween early and late seventh century material culture.
The material culture of the early seventh century BCE is the further develop-
ment of the local material culture of the late eighth century BCE and is different
from the well-defined pottery assemblages of the end of the seventh and the early
sixth century BCE, which can be clearly located within the 586 BCE destruction
levels. Characteristics of this later material culture represent the continued devel-
opments under Egyptian and Babylonian rule in the latter part of the seventh
century BCE.
The two destructions are not two ends of development processes, and the
seventh century BCE is not a period that should be defined in between them.
Every destruction symbolizes the creation of a frozen state in history and archae-
ology, but in reality, this material culture developed before such events and con-
tinued to develop immediately afterward in other areas that were not impacted
by the outcome of the military campaigns. One should view the 701 and 586 BCE
destructions as a milestone and not as the endline.

Chronological Implications

Based on the preceding discussion and suggestions, I suggest an alternate defini-

tion to the long seventh century, the expansion of the chronological frame of this
archaeological/historical Iron IIB–IIC period to the time between the Assyrian
occupation of the Levant (734 BCE) and the Persian period (539 BCE), and a split
of the periodical divisions into two subphases, each one approximately one hun-
dred years: the late Iron IIB (734–630 BCE) and the Iron IIC (630–539 BCE).45

45 For a first suggestion to differentiate between these two periods, see Singer-Avitz 2014.
 The Long Seventh Century BCE: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives 45

The beginning of this period is marked by destructions of the northern parts

of the kingdom of Israel (a process well attested in the archaeological research)
and the subjugation of Judah to Assyria, which caused many changes in its econo-
my, administration, and material culture. The transition between these two peri-
ods is centrally based on historical grounds, as the disappearance of the Assyrian
Empire caused quick changes in settlement patterns in the northern parts of the
land, in the Shephelah, and in the southern and eastern parts of Judah. This
period is marked by slow changes in material culture, the building of the second
building phase in Ramat Raḥel, the rebuilding of Level II in Lachish, possibly the
late Iron Age II settlement in Azekah, and the beginning of the rosette-stamp
impression phase.46
Based on archaeological and historical considerations, I also suggest defining
two subphases for each of these periods. In the late Iron IIB (734–630 BCE) one
can distinguish between the late Iron IIB1 (734–701 BCE) and the late Iron IIB2
(701–630 BCE), when the Sennacherib campaign spotlights the material culture of
this period and can historically separate between these two phases. The loss of
the Shephelah and changes in the settlement pattern of the hill country (especial-
ly the growth of the importance of the region of Benjamin) are the main markers
for this change, as well as the transition from the early to the late lmlk-stamp
impressions. In the Iron IIC one can distinguish between the Iron IIC1 (630–
586 BCE) and the Iron IIC2 (586–539 BCE), when the Babylonian destruction spot-
lights the material culture of this period and enables the historical separation
between these two phases, as well as the change from the rosette to the lion-
stamp impressions and other more gradual changes, such as the disappearance
of the traditional four-room house and the family burial caves. The end of this
stage in the material culture is marked by the transition from Babylonian to
Persian rule with the change from lion to yhwd-stamp impressions, the third
building phase in Ramat Raḥel, and the early appearance of the Persian period
local pottery forms, a process that probably further crystalized into a more devel-
oped stage in the middle of the fifth century BCE.

46 In this suggestion, I in part follow Ofer, who distinguishes between the Iron IIC, which corre-
sponds mainly to the seventh century BCE, and the period that he calls Iron IID, which corre-
sponds to the late seventh and early sixth century BCE. See Ofer 1993 2: 44–50. For a critique of
Ofer’s conclusions regarding the ceramic finds, see Finkelstein 1994: 174–175.
The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals
from Judah, Moab and Ammon
The Iron Age volute capitals (the so-called “Proto-Aeolic” or “Proto-Ionian” capi-
tals) are among the most impressive and special finds discovered in archaeologi-
cal excavations in Israel and Jordan.1 The size of the capitals, their weight, the
quality of their carving, and their impressive design provide an indication of
their function in the gates and palaces of the ancient kingdoms of Israel, Judah,
Moab, and Ammon. I dedicate this paper to my teacher and colleague, Prof. David
Ussishkin, who wrote one of his shortest papers on the question of the location
of two of the capitals discovered at Megiddo (Ussishkin 1970). I wish to thank him
for the many lectures and seminars that enlightened my student years, for my
first (and shortest!) paper, which I wrote under his guidance (Lipschits 1992), and
for the good advice and incisive criticism of my work and ideas he has so gener-
ously offered over the years.
The volute capitals were first unearthed by Schumacher at Megiddo in 1903,
and until the 1940s and 1950s they were referred to as “Proto-Ionian capitals.”
Since then they have also been referred to as “Proto-Aeolic capitals” (for a thor-
ough summary of the various names see Betancourt 1977: 4). The two names are
borrowed from ancient Greek architecture, with the addition of “proto” to indi-
cate that the capitals discovered in the East were antecedents of the Aeolic and
Ionian ones, and that in this case the East influenced the West (Shiloh 1979c: 90–
91; Reich 1992b: 212; Drinkard 2003). Shiloh, however, was convinced that no actu-
al connection could be found between the two types of capitals in the two regions.
The volute capitals that were found within the boundaries of the Kingdom of
Israel are nearly two centuries earlier than the earliest ones that appeared in the
classical world, and there are distinct differences in style between the two artistic
and architectural worlds (Shiloh 1979c: 88–91, and cf. Wesenberg 1971: 63–68;
Mazar 1990: 474).
The volute capitals found in the Kingdom of Israel are also earlier than the
ones found in the Phoenician world, and it is difficult to discern the origin of this
architectural element in Phoenicia (as against a common view in research, e.g.,
Stern and Magen 2002: 50–52 with further literature). No volute capitals from the
Iron Age have ever been found on the Phoenician coast, and most of the finds in
the Phoenician world are dated to the Persian, Hellenistic, and later periods. It

1 The term “capital” used in this paper means both the free (on columns) when both sides of
the capital were carved, and the capitals that were integrated in the upper part of the walls,
usually along the entrances, when only the outer phase of the capital was carved.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-003
48 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Fig. 1: Schematic drawing of a volute capital.

has been suggested that there were originally wooden capitals and that the ap-
pearance of capitals on clay and stone facades of sanctuary models, of the motif
of “the lady in the window,” and of the many small objects (made of stone, shell,
ivory, and metal) with the palmetto motif all indicate that the “tree of life” and
palmetto were well-known artistic and architectural motifs (Stern 1995b: 319–34).
But this is insufficient to sustain the assumption that volute capitals were actually
architectural elements in Phoenician palaces, gates, and open spaces, and it is
certainly insufficient evidence for basing the claim that the Israelite capitals de-
rived from the Phoenician coast (Betancourt 1977: 46–49, with further literature).
Shiloh (1979c: 90, and cf. Betancourt 1977: 17–23) defined the capitals from ancient
Israel as a local development of an early artistic tradition that was widespread
in the region, and Finkelstein (2000: 127) saw these capitals as the main original
feature that evolved in the Northern Kingdom during the Omride dynasty, along-
side the adoption of northern elements as well as elements that had existed in
Palestine even earlier.
Shiloh (1979c: 90–91) suggested naming the volute capitals “Palmetto” or “Isra-
elite capitals,” but both these names are problematic. The palmetto (Heb. tīmōrāh)
is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible 19 times, usually in reference to engravings or
plaits on straight surfaces (e.g., on walls or doors), and always in relation to the
Temple. However, the volute capitals have consistently been found in archaeologi-
cal contexts of city gates or palaces. It can be agreed that the palm tree motif is
the main artistic inspiration for the decoration on the capitals (Stern and Magen
2002: 50–52), but it seems that the biblical palmetto/tīmōrāh has no connection to
the volute capitals. The name “Israelite capitals” might have been appropriate as
long as scholars connected it with the reign of Solomon in the 10th century BCE.
But because it is clear today that the volute capitals were first made during the
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 49

Omride dynasty in the 9th century BCE and continued in use in the Kingdoms of
Judah, Moab, and Ammon (see below), even after the fall of the Kingdom of
Israel, the neutral term “volute capital,” suggested by Ciaska (1961: 189–197), is
preferable. This term describes the typical decoration of the capitals and their
esthetic uniqueness (see also Wesenberg 1971: 65–68; Betancourt 1977: 4).

The Finds

Israel

Twenty-seven volute capitals have been unearthed in five cities of the Kingdom
of Israel. Twelve capitals were found at Megiddo, seven at Samaria, three at Dan,
two at Hazor, and three on Mount Gerizim.2 Although some scholars still date the
initial appearance of these capitals to the 10th century BCE, it seems today that
they should be dated to the middle of the 9th, probably as part of widespread
construction projects in the Kingdom of Israel at the time of the Omrides.3
The first volute capital found in Palestine was unearthed by Schumacher’s
excavations at Megiddo in 1903 (Schumacher 1908: 119, Fig. 178, and cf. Watzinger
1929: 78). Shiloh included in his corpus information concerning 11 additional capi-
tals found at Megiddo.4 Two of them were found by Fisher in Structure 338, and

2 This number differs from the total number of capitals presented by Shiloh (22 capitals that
were found within the boundaries of the Kingdom of Israel) and quoted in later publications.
The difference is due to the omission of Capital M-11 from Megiddo, which is not a capital at all
(see below, n. 4), and the addition of three capitals found at Tel Dan and three capitals discovered
on Mount Gerizim after Shiloh had published his corpus. Shiloh disregarded the possibility of
another existing capital, which is described in Macalister’s report on the excavations at Gezer.
Hints indicating that a capital had been uncovered in the gate area can be found in Macalister’s
preliminary reports and in his final reports, although no photo or drawing has been found.
Brandl (1984: 173–76), however, suggested the possibility that Gezer is another Israelite city in
which these capitals were present.
3 Shiloh (1979c: 20–21) attributed four of the capitals found at Megiddo to Solomon’s palace from
the 10th century BCE and other scholars followed suit (see, e.g., Reich 1992b: 180; Stern 1992b:
258). Nevertheless, it seems today that these capitals should be seen as part of the widespread
building projects that took place in the Kingdom of Israel during the 9th century BCE (see already
Finkelstein 2000: 120–21, and cf. Stern and Magen 2002: 50).
4 I do not take into account the “miniature” found at Megiddo; see Lamon and Shipton 1939: 55,
n. 37; Loud 1948: Pl. 270: 1. This capital was included in Shiloh’s corpus (1979c: 4) as number
M-11, although he was aware that it differs from the others in the type of stone, and especially
in size – less than a third of the average height of the other capitals and less than a quarter of
their average width.
50 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

according to the description they are identical (Fisher 1929: 71, Fig. 50; May 1935:
Pl. X; Lamon and Shipton 1939: 55, Fig. 67).5 Two additional volute capitals were
found in the southern part of the site, in secondary use in structures associated
with Stratum III (May 1935: Pl. XI; Lamon and Shipton 1939: 15, Figs. 17, 122; Ussish-
kin 1970: 213–15),6 and two more capitals (Shiloh’s M-8 and M-9)7 and a fragment
of a third (M-6), which includes a little more than its left half, were found near
Structure 338, in an architectural and stratigraphical context similar to that of
the previous capitals (Lamon and Shipton 1939: 55, n. 37; Shiloh 1979c: 3).8 A large
fragment of a bifacial volute capital (M-10) was published by Shiloh (1976: 67–68;
1979c: 3). Its provenance is unknown. Shiloh (1976: 68, Pl. 2; 1979c: 4) also pub-
lished another fragment (M-13) of a different volute capital found next to it. An
additional fragment (M-12 according to Shiloh 1979c: 4), the provenance of which
is unknown, is mentioned in the University of Chicago archives.9 The last volute
capital from Megiddo was purchased in 1932 by the Rockefeller Museum (M-7
according to Shiloh 1979c: 3).
In the Samaria excavations three almost identical volute capitals were un-
earthed near the southeastern part of the acropolis, which is associated with
Strata II–I (Crowfoot et al. 1942: 14–15, Pl. XXIX:2, Fig. 6); all were in secondary
use. Four fragments of three additional capitals were found in secondary use
embedded in walls and structures from the Persian, pre-Hellenistic, and Hellenis-
tic periods north-east of the acropolis (Crowfoot et al. 1942: 14, 16, Pl. XXXVII:1;
Shiloh 1976: 69–70, Pl. 3; Betancourt 1977: 34–35). Shiloh traced an additional frag-
ment of a volute capital belonging to the same type embedded in the Roman
theater (Shiloh 1976: 69–70, Pls. 4–5).
At Hazor two nearly identical volute capitals were discovered (Yadin et al.
1961, Pl. 48:1, 49:1–3; 362; 363).10 They were found in secondary use in Area B,
Room 3264, which is associated with Stratum VII, and it is thought that they were
in primary use in the fort of Stratum VIII (3090) (Betancourt 1977: 27–29; Shiloh
1979c: 1–2).

5 One of the two capitals is complete and is kept at the Rockefeller Museum (No. 36.2189), while
the second, fragmentary capital is kept at the site. Both capitals are bifacial.
6 The two capitals are very similar, and they are the widest found in the territory of the North-
ern Kingdom, although they are identical to the others in terms of height and depth (Shiloh
1979c: 3, 15, Table 2).
7 The second volute capital (Shiloh’s M-9) is bifacial.
8 These volute capitals are significantly smaller and closer to the average width of most capitals
discovered in the Kingdom of Israel.
9 This capital was also found in secondary use, in Structure 1052 in Locus 1051 in the northern
part of Area AA, associated with Stratum II.
10 The one difference between the two capitals is that one is carved only on one side (Shiloh’s
H-1), while the other is bifacial (Shiloh’s H-2).
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 51

Three volute capitals are known from Tel Dan; they were found after Shiloh
had published his catalogue and were thus not included in it.11 In the 1984 excava-
tion season a fragment of a capital was found in secondary use embedded in the
upper gate at the site (Biran 1985a: 186, Pl. 24:D; 1994: 241–242, Fig. 201).12 In addi-
tion, a complete volute capital was unearthed in the 1992 excavation season, em-
bedded in the floor south of the entrance to the gateway (Area A, Locus 5133)
(Biran 1994: 241–242, Photo 201).13 In the same location, a fragment of another
capital was found, which was not published and is kept today at the Hebrew
Union College, Jerusalem. The complete volute capital and the two fragments
found at Tel Dan are similar, even if not identical, to Shiloh’s type C, of which a
capital was also found at Megiddo (Shiloh’s M-10). This type differs from most of
the other capitals found at Samaria, Hazor, and Megiddo (Shiloh 1979c: 3, 18–19).
Two almost complete volute capitals and a small fragment of a third were
discovered on Mount Gerizim. They were found on the eastern slope of the site,
below the flight of steps that led into the temple (Loci 7019 and 7035), amid a
large concentration of fallen stones, together with pottery dated mainly to the
Persian and Hellenistic periods (Stern and Magen 2002: 49–50). Stern and Magen
correctly classified these volute capitals with the Iron Age capitals, even though
they represent a unique type unlike the other capitals known from the Omride
kingdom. All the Gerizim capitals lack the typical central triangle, have numerous
spiraling volutes (more than all the other capitals), and have some other addition-
al stylistic features (Stern and Magen 2002: 50–52). Since the earliest structure on
Mount Gerizim was established in the Persian period, and we have no informa-
tion about the production of volute capitals in Samaria during this period (Stern
2001: 18–31), we can accept Stern and Magen’s hypothesis that these capitals were
brought to Mount Gerizim from a public building (not necessarily a temple, as
they speculated) in Shechem that was destroyed by the Assyrians at the end of
the 8th century BCE (Stern and Magen 2002: 55–56). We may speculate that this
structure was built in the well-known architectural style typical of the Omrides
of the 9th century BCE, similar to Samaria, Megiddo, Hazor, and Dan.
To sum up, it is possible that the volute capitals were a central feature in
the grand architecture of the Kingdom of Israel starting from the middle of the

11 I would like to thank Dr. David Ilan for this information, which has been only partially
published by Biran (see below).
12 This fragment was embedded in Wall 6033 (B. 18451) and can be found today at the main
entrance to the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, the Hebrew Union College, Jerusa-
lem.
13 In the publications there is only a reference to this capital and a photograph of it, with no
further discussion. This volute capital can be found today in the official residence of the Presi-
dent of Israel.
52 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Fig. 2: The different types of Omride volute capitals.

 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 53

9th century BCE. It is reasonable to assume that all 27 known capitals were in use
from this period until the destruction of the kingdom by the Assyrians in the last
third of the 8th century BCE.
Despite the similarities between the volute capitals found in these cities, each
urban center had a different style with unique and distinctive elements (Betan-
court 1977: 44–48). The two capitals found at Hazor are unique in their appear-
ance (and were defined by Shiloh as type D). The capitals from Samaria resemble
those found at Megiddo, but still differ from them (Shiloh’s type A3), with greater
emphasis on the central circle of the volute, and without the abacus. The capitals
found at Megiddo present three unique types which have no parallel at other
sites (Shiloh’s types A1, A2, and B), and the capitals discovered at Tel Dan belong
to type C, of which one fragment is known also from Megiddo, while the capitals
from Gerizim represent a different and unique type.
In this context, we should mention the assemblage of bullae discovered re-
cently at the City of David (Reich, Shukron, and Lernau 2007: 156–57). These bullae
are well dated to the end of the 9th century BCE, and some of them bear patterns
of volute capitals. Architectural motifs are rarely found on Semitic seals, and
although there are some known seals which bear palmetto motifs, and there is
even one bulla with a detailed motif of a column with a volute capital, there are
very few parallels for detailed volute capital designs (Sass 1993: 208–9, and
Figs. 53–57, on p. 207; see also Uehlinger 1993: note on p. 275). It may be assumed
that the bullae found in the City of David date from the period in which the
Kingdoms of Judah and Israel were closely connected. This would indicate an
acquaintance with the capitals that were common in the Northern Kingdom at
that time. We may add the pattern of the volute capitals on the bullae to the well-
known depiction of capitals on three engraved ivories from Megiddo and Samaria
(Guy 1938, Pl. 172:1; Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938, Pl. XX: II: 1), and from ʿAroer
(Biran 1992: 1274).

Judah

Ramat Raḥel
Ten volute capitals were unearthed in Aharoni’s excavations at Ramat Raḥel. Two
complete capitals were found in the palace courtyard of Stratum VA, near the
southern casemate wall. The first (Shiloh’s RR-1) was uncovered in Locus 229 (Aha-
roni 1956: 141, Pl. 22: B, 27: B; Moscati, Ciaska, and Garbini 1960: Pl. 6; Shiloh 1979c:
8). The second (Shiloh’s RR-2) was discovered nearby, embedded in a wall dated
to the Persian period (Aharoni 1956: 142; Shiloh 1979c: 8). An additional complete
capital (Shiloh’s RR-8) was found in the eastern part of the palace courtyard, near
54 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Gate 375 (Aharoni 1962a: 28–29, Pl. 42:1; Shiloh 1979c: 9). The last complete capital
(Shiloh’s RR-10) was found in secondary use in Columbarium 800 (Aharoni 1964a:
54, 66, Fig. 3, Pl. 16:1; Shiloh 1979c: 9).14 Fragments of five additional capitals were
found in the palace courtyard: One fragment (Shiloh’s RR-3) was unearthed near
the casemate wall in the southern part of the courtyard, next to the two complete
capitals that were found there (Aharoni 1964a: 142; Shiloh 1979c: 8). Another frag-
ment (Shiloh’s RR-4) was discovered in Square V16 in the northern part of the
courtyard, south of Locus 281 (Aharoni 1962a: 14–15, Fig. 13:2, Pl. 11:1; Shiloh 1979c:
8). Three other fragments (Shiloh’s RR-6, RR-7 and RR-9) were excavated in the
eastern part of the palace courtyard, one of them embedded in a wall of the
Roman bathhouse, and another embedded in a wall associated with Stratum IVA,
near Gate 375 in Locus 396 (Aharoni 1964a: 28–29, Pl. 42:2; Shiloh 1979c: 8–9). An
additional fragment of a volute capital (Shiloh’s RR-5) was discovered by Yehudah
Dayan, embedded in an old fence at the western slope of the site (Aharoni 1960:
95, Fig. 1, 11, Pl. 8:1; 1962a: 14–15, Fig. 13:1, Pl. 11:1; Shiloh 1979c: 8).
Three more fragments of volute capitals were found during the renewed
excavations at Ramat Raḥel. One fragment was discovered on the surface during
the 2005 excavation season (Area B1, Square B157, registration no. 2022/50). This
is a small fragment, 17.5 cm long and 12.5 cm wide. It includes part of the upper
capital, which is a typical component of the capitals from Ramat Raḥel (Type E
according to Shiloh), and the right concentric circle. Another fragment was found
under a stone collapse during the 2007 excavation season (Area C1 south, Locus
824, registration no. 3508/50). This collapse was composed of large stones, which
were part of a destruction level dated to the end of the Persian or the beginning
of the Hellenistic period. The maximum length of this fragment is 25 cm and its
maximum width is 20 cm. It is a part of the lower left leaf at the base of the
capital, and the lower part of the volute. A third fragment was discovered during
the 2008 excavation season (Area B2, Locus 10064, registration no. 2482/50). It is
part of the upper left corner of a capital, and includes the left side of the abacus,
the complete upper leaf, and part of the upper side of the volute.
These three fragments can be added to some of the fragments discovered by
Aharoni, and until a detailed study is made of all the fragments discovered at
Ramat Raḥel, there is no way to determine whether there are more than 10 volute
capitals at the site.
Two other architectural elements discovered at Ramat Raḥel are noteworthy.
The first is a set of window balustrades carved in limestone, discovered by Aharo-
ni in a pile of well-carved, smooth ashlar stones near the northwest corner of the

14 This volute capital, too, can be found today in the official residence of the President of Israel.
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 55

Fig. 3: Reconstruction of the location of the three new fragments of volute capitals discovered at
Ramat Raḥel.

palace. Three small, round columns were discovered there (15 cm in diameter
and 23 cm high), with a “falling leaves” pattern sculpted on them. The small
columns were topped with beautifully sculpted, joined capitals, each with two
falling palmettos flanking an egg-shaped central design. The capitals were at-
tached to the columns by metal fittings, and they have holes on their upper part
for attaching them to the windowsill.15 The second item is a carved frieze decorat-
ed with small columns with elegant capitals, excavated in 1931 by Maisler and
Stekelis (Maisler 1934: 14–15; Stekelis 1934: 27–29, and Pl. C). A similar frieze was
discovered in secondary use during the renewed excavations, and there is no
doubt that these items belong to the same building complex in which the volute
capitals were found.
Shiloh (1979c: 10, 21) based his dating of the Ramat Raḥel volute capitals on
Aharoni’s suggestion to date the beginning of Stratum VB at the site to the second
half of the 9th century BCE,16 and on Yadin’s suggestion (1962: 108, n. 90; 1973:

15 The data on the window balustrade was discovered in Aharoni’s documents from the 1959–
1962 excavation seasons (and cf. Aharoni 1964a: Pl. 44–48). According to these registrations, more
fragments of balustrade columns were discovered in the northeastern part of the palace, indicat-
ing that there were several such windows. The restored window balustrade is on display at the
Israel Museum in Jerusalem. A fragment of a window balustrade similar to the one found at
Ramat Raḥel was found in Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David (see below). Additional
fragments were discovered in the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel, and will be published
in the final report of these excavations.
16 From the outset of excavations at Ramat Raḥel, Aharoni noted the similarity between the
plan and architectural details of the Ramat Raḥel palace and the royal acropolis of the kings of
Israel at Samaria. He further stressed that the two sites were built on hills that had not been
previously inhabited (Aharoni 1956: 139–40, 151). In the early stages of the excavation, it was
56 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

59–66) to date the palace even earlier, to the time of Queen Athaliah, who reigned
over Judah in the mid-9th century BCE.17 Contrary to Aharoni, who dated all the
capitals to Stratum VA and ruled out the possibility of their secondary use (from
Stratum VB), Shiloh suggested that their state of preservation indicated that they
might have originated as part of the building complex of Stratum VB, and like
many of the building stones of this stratum, had the same fate of secondary use
in Stratum VA. In his opinion, these stone capitals appeared parallel to their use
in the Kingdom of Israel (Shiloh 1979c: 21).
We can no longer accept this view (and cf. Stern 2001: 167). At Ramat Raḥel
not a single pottery sherd was found that could be dated to the 9th century BCE,
or even to a pottery horizon earlier than that which characterizes Judah at the
end of the 8th century BCE. Aharoni already dated the earlier stratum, VB, to the
late 8th century BCE. He associated few architectural remains with this stratum,
and reconstructed a small fort surrounded by a casemate wall and near it a
private dwelling, agricultural terraces, and a stone quarry. Most of the finds asso-
ciated with this stratum were discovered in the fill that was part of the construc-
tion of Stratum VA, and in it were many lmlk and “private” stamp impressions.
Aharoni dated Stratum VA to the end of the 7th century BCE and reconstructed
a royal fort and near it a courtyard surrounded by a wall. He associated the
volute capitals with this splendid, ashlar-built fort (1964a: 59–66).
The detailed study of the data from Aharoni’s excavations (Lipschits, Gadot
and Freud 2016), and the renewed four seasons of excavations at the site (for
preliminary publications of the 2005–2007 seasons see Lipschits, Oeming, Gadot,
and Arubas 2006b; 2009b), may support Aharoni’s position, which was followed
by Barkay (2006: 34–44; see also the additional editorial note in Aharoni 1992:
1484, and Stern 2001: 69). There were clearly two Iron Age strata at Ramat Raḥel.
The earlier one (Aharoni’s Vb) included a small fort in the western part of the
site with some structures attached to it on the east. The white floor of the palace,
where most of the capitals were discovered, as well as many of the structures
attached to the floor and the casemate wall, including the northwestern corner
of the palace where the window balustrades and remains of one fragment of a

suggested that the palace at Ramat Raḥel was erected in the 8th century BCE, and Aharoni even
tried to identify it with Uzziah’s (Azariah’s) ‫( בית החפשית‬bêt haḤopšît) mentioned in 2 Kings
15:5 (1960: 24, and cf. Aharoni 1962a: 15, 50, 60; 1964a: 30, 38, 119, 122). Aharoni changed his mind
after the lmlk stamp impressions and pottery dated to the late 8th century were discovered
under the palace floors (1962a: 60).
17 Yigael Yadin also based his opinion on the close resemblance between the plan and architec-
tural details of the Ramat Raḥel palace and the royal acropolis of the kings of Israel at Samaria
and suggested dating the palace of Ramat Raḥel to the time of Queen Athaliah, because of her
origins in the House of Omri, which ruled the Northern Kingdom of Israel from Samaria.
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 57

volute capital were discovered, are all part of the second phase of the site (Aharo-
ni’s Va), dated to the 7th century BCE.
That being the case, we may conclude that some time passed, perhaps even
a decade or two or longer, from the destruction of the Israelite cities, in which
the volute capitals were first created (some 150 years earlier) as a central architec-
tural element, until the palace at Ramat Raḥel was built. In other words, the
typological differences between the volute capitals found in the Kingdom of Israel
and those found at Ramat Raḥel also indicate a chronological gap (Stern 2001:
258, and see below).

The City of David

Two fragments of one volute capital were discovered by Kenyon during her exca-
vations in the City of David (Kenyon 1963: 16, Pl. VIII: B; 1967b: 59, Pl. 20; 46). They
were found out of context in an accumulation of ashlar stones (Area P, Square A
XVIII). Although not identical in proportions and quality, this capital is in many
ways similar to the ones found at Ramat Raḥel (for a description of the capital,
see Prag 1987: 121–122; Betancourt 1977: 38; Shiloh noted that the quality of this
capital was the highest of all the capitals found in Palestine). The ashlar accumu-
lation in which the capital fragments were discovered was uncovered below a
level dated by Kenyon to the 5th–3rd centuries BCE. The conclusion was that in
any case this accumulation was part of a secondary use context, and hence could
not be used to pinpoint the date of the volute capital or the structure it was used
in (Prag 1987: 122; on the possibility that this volute capital originated from a
structure recently unearthed on top of the eastern slopes of the City of David, see
Mazar 2007c: 13–18). The date of the capital could be determined only by a typo-
logical comparison to the other capitals known from Judah, in the nearby site of
Ramat Raḥel. Surprisingly, Kenyon compared the City of David volute capital with
those found in Samaria and Megiddo and did not even mention the items found
at Ramat Raḥel, although they were already known by the time of her publica-
tions.18 On the basis of the typological comparison to the volute capitals found in
Samaria and Megiddo, Kenyon dated the capital found by her to the reign of
Solomon. Although the northern capitals and the capital found in Jerusalem bear
the same main features, the latter is nevertheless very different and reflects a
different stage in the development of the volute capitals. The concentric circles
(oculi) on both sides of the central triangle carved in three parallel lines under
the abacus are the main characteristics of this typological phase in the develop-

18 In addition to the literature mentioned above, see also Kenyon’s later publication: 1968: 97–
111. Cf. Shiloh 1979c: 10–11.
58 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

ment process of the volute capitals; they do not appear on the 9th century BCE
capitals from the Kingdom of Israel.
Betancourt and Shiloh already noticed the fact that the closest parallels to
the capital from the City of David are the ones found at Ramat Raḥel and Khirbet
el-Mudeibiʿ in Moab. Betancourt (1977: 38) argued that the volute capital from
Jerusalem should be dated to the middle of the 7th century BCE, while Shiloh
(1979c: 11) argued that it should be dated to the 9th century BCE. Since a date of
the Ramat Raḥel volute capitals in the late 8th or early 7th century BCE is now
well founded, there is no justification for the early dating of the capital from the
City of David. In view of the typological parallels, the volute capital from Jerusa-
lem should also be dated to the late 8th or early 7th century BCE.
Weippert (1985: 22–26) attempted to identify among the finds of Crowfoot and
Fitzgerald’s excavation another capital (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929, Pl. XVIII:4),
but Prag (1987: 121) emphasized that this capital was a late and different type.
However, Prag quoted Vincent’s description (1911: 29) of the accumulation of ash-
lars that was collected for building by people from Silwan, and in it a stone
capital of the Greek type, and possibly fragments of a window balustrade. Three
photos from the archive of the École Biblique show two capitals, described by
Prag as “incomplete,” in an accumulation of stones near the monument of “Zecha-
riah’s Tomb” (Prag 1987: 122). These capitals are, however, of a late style, and
should be dated to the 1st century BCE (Prag 1987: 121). Apart from this, Prag
(based on Shiloh 1985: 135–36) identified in Shiloh’s finds in Area E1 the bottom
part of a decorated column, which was in her opinion part of a window balus-
trade of the style known from Ramat Raḥel. This object was attributed to Strata
10–11, and dated to the 7th century BCE; however, in her opinion it might have
originated in an earlier stratum (Level 12?), probably in the 8th century BCE. To
the same assemblage Prag suggested attributing four small incense altars found
in the “Bullae House” in Area G, which were dated to the 7th century BCE (Shiloh
1984a: 18–19, Pl. 34: 2). In her opinion (Prag 1987: 122), it is reasonable to assume
that these are column bases, and the hole in the center of their upper part was
used to adjoin a higher element in a window balustrade, of a less advanced type
than that found in Area E1. This assumption of Prag is difficult to accept; the
finishing quality of these stone columns does not resemble other stone window
balustrades, and they are not decorated.

Moab

Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ
The citadel at Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ is located about 21 km southeast of el-Kerak,
between the “Kings Highway” and the desert road, at a point dominating a central
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 59

wadi (Fajj al-ʿUsaykir), which connects these two main routes (Mattingly and Pace
2007: 155, and Map 3 on p. 156). Since the time of Glueck’s surveys, one volute
capital, found on the surface, has been known from Mudeibiʿ (Glueck 1933: 13,
Fig. 2; 1934: 67–68, Fig. 26).19 Until a few years ago, it was still in the same location
in the site (Negueruela 1982: 395), but recently it was removed and stored in the
storages of the Jordanian antiquities department. Shiloh pointed out that this
capital is the tallest of all those found in Palestine and the second longest after
capital M5 from Megiddo. It has slightly different proportions from those later
found at Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem, but since its characteristics are very similar
to the Judahite capitals, Shiloh categorized it as belonging to the same type (Shiloh
1979c: 11, 19; see Negueruela’s remark [1982: 395] concerning the photo published
by Shiloh).
Three additional fragments of volute capitals were found in August 1982,
during a tour conducted by Negueruela at the site.20 Another complete capital
was discovered in 1997, during excavations carried out at the outer gate of the
citadel (Square N-9 in Area B) (Drinkard 1997: 249–50; Mattingly and Pace 2007:
157). Two of the volute capitals that were discovered and described by Negueruela
in 1982 were fully exposed during the excavation season conducted in 2001 (for
a detailed description of the excavations see Mattingly and Pace 2007: 155–58).21
The citadel at Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ was built of basalt stones, although both
the outer and inner gates were made of limestone, and so were the five volute
capitals that probably formed part of the entrance complex. Since the last capital
found at this site was discovered face down under the supporting wall of the
four-chamber gate and as its width (1.65 m) is identical to that of the supporting
wall, Drinkard reconstructed its original position at the top of this wall; in his
opinion it supported a wooden beam. He attributed the collapse of the gates to
an earthquake (Drinkard 1997: 249; Wade and Mattingly 2003: 73–74).22
Negueruela (1982: 399–401) already described the main characteristics of the
five volute capitals discovered at Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ, as well as the differences

19 Glueck described the location of the capital inside the eastern gate of the fort, and published
its exact measurements. He saw this capital as a parallel of the ones he knew from Samaria and
Megiddo, as well as the relief from Ramat Raḥel published by Maisler.
20 According to Negueruela (1982: 395–396, and Fig. 1), the first fragment was found about a
meter to the west of Glueck’s volute capital, the second one was found about two meters west
of the first one, and the third fragment was found in secondary use in a late reparation of the
inner wall, about a meter west of the second one.
21 For a detailed description of the excavations at the site, see Mattingly and Pace 2007: 155–
158.
22 For the original position of the volute capitals, see Drinkard’s reconstruction in his internet
site (http://www.vkrp.org/studies/historical/capitals/info/location-function.asp), Photo 8 and Fig-
ure 4.
60 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Fig. 4: The different types of volute capitals from the Kingdoms of Judah, Moab, and Ammon.
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 61

between them and the ones from Ramat Raḥel and the City of David: The central
triangle of the Mudeibiʿ capitals is made up of two parallel lines and not three as
in Ramat Raḥel and the City of David, and the upper and lower leaves flanking
the volutes are missing. There is also the noticeable difference in the proportions
of the different parts of the capitals. In the Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ capitals the central
triangle is much wider and takes up more space than in the Ramat Raḥel and
City of David capitals. The volutes in the Mudeibiʿ capitals are smaller and pushed
to the sides. However, the similarities in style between the capitals found at Khir-
bet el-Mudeibiʿ and the ones found at Ramat Raḥel and the City of David are
obvious: All display the main concept of an upper and lower frame (the abacus
and the base), a triangle in the middle of the capital, volutes on either side of the
triangle, and oculi on both sides of the upper part of it. These similarities indicate
that the stonecutters chiseled three different interpretations with the same con-
cept, the same outlines, or even following the same basic model.
The date of the fortress at Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ is not certain. Glueck dated
the pottery which he gathered at the site to the 8th century BCE but assumed
that it was established earlier (1934: 68). Shiloh accepted this assumption and
dated the Mudeibiʿ fortress to the 9th century BCE, similarly to his dating of the
volute capitals from Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem (1979c: 11, 13 n. 83, 21). Stern
accepted the 8th century BCE dating and interpreted the site as a fortress on the
eastern border of Moab before the Assyrian takeover of this area (Stern 2001:
263–264). Naʾaman also accepted the dating of the site to the 8th century BCE, and
added the possibility that it was part of an alignment of fortresses constructed
by the Assyrians along this strategic path connecting the northern and southern
parts of Moab (Naʾaman 2001: 270, n. 5), while Finkelstein suggested that it should
be dated to the end of the Iron Age II (Finkelstein 2000: 126, 127 n. 12).
In my opinion, there is insufficient evidence, even in the latest publications,
for a discussion on the date of the Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ fortress. And even though
the wooden beams found in the gate area provided a radiocarbon date of 760 BCE
(± 40 years), it is doubtful if this dating of the beams can support the establishment
of the site to the 8th century BCE. From Mattingly and Pace’s summary it is clear
that the charcoal found in Area D supplied a dating of Iron Age II up to the Persian
period. Despite all of the above data, it seems that there is no conclusive archaeo-
logical evidence to indicate the date when the gate was erected. The typological
parallels of the capitals and the architectural parallels of the fortress indicate a
date no earlier than the late 8th or the beginning of the 7th century BCE. The layout
of the fortress, the vast and unusual investment in the quality of the construction,
and the appearance of the volute capitals indicate the unusual nature of this site
in the Moabite architectural world. It therefore allows the connection between the
construction of this site and the appearance of the Assyrians in the area and their
activity on the frontier of Palestine and Transjordan (see below).
62 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

ʿAin-Sara
An additional volute capital was located in 1983 in secondary use embedded in a
modern outdoor garden wall of the ʿAin-Sara park and restaurant, west of el-
Kerak (Donner and Knauf 1985: 429–430; Herr 1997b: 173). The capital was inspect-
ed by the members of the el-Kerak research expedition, and according to their
publication, this capital, aside from a double line at its base, is very similar to
the ones found at Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ. The provenance of this capital is unknown,
but it appears to have been found in the area.23
The great similarity of this volute capital to the ones found at Mudeibiʿ (the
sides of the triangle have a double outline, its base is separated from the sides,
and the abacus has no apparent notch), and the local characteristics that each
type of capital displays in each location where it was found in Israel, Judah, and
Moab supports the assumption that it originated in el-Kerak and not in Khirbet
el-Mudeibiʿ. It is logical to assume that as in the case of Ramat Raḥel and Jerusa-
lem, in Moab, too, there were great similarities between the volute capitals locat-
ed at the fortress and in the capital city; at the same time they are not identical.

Ammon
Drinkard reported the identification of a fragment of a volute capital in secondary
use in the lower citadel of Amman, east of the remains of the Roman temple.
This fragment was discovered during Najjar’s excavations at the citadel in 1993.
It was embedded in a wall dating to the Ummayad period (Najjar 1999: 109).
According to Drinkard (cited above), this fragment is of the same type as that
found at Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ and ʿAin-Sara. The fragment preserves most of the
left volute, and is unique in that it is bifacial.
A second fragment of a volute capital was displayed in 2001 in the parking
lot of the Amman Fort museum, having been uncovered on an unknown occasion
in excavations inside the citadel. This fragment is of a different type from the
others found at Ammon and Moab. The central triangle here is much narrower
and has only one outline, and the volute as a whole is much wider. This type of
capital lacks oculi, and has features more comparable to Shiloh’s type A (Drink-
ard, cited above). It is difficult to suggest the date and origin of this fragment.
Prag attempted to identify elements of window balustrades at Ammon, and
connected them to the architectural style of the phase of the decorated capitals
with an image of a woman’s head chiseled in limestone. The woman’s head was
found in secondary use embedded in the Hellenistic construction of the citadel

23 See Drinkard’s detailed description in http://www.vkrp.org/studies/historical/capitals/info/

capitals-recently-found.asp.
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 63

of Amman, and was dated to the 8th or 7th century BCE (Zayadine 1973: 27, 33–
35, Pl. XVIII:1; Bordreuil 1973: 37–39; Prag 1987: 122–123). In Prag’s opinion, objects
such as this were used in a similar way to the stone columns which supported
the window balustrades. The fact that they are similar in height in her opinion,
reinforces this proposal (Prag 1987: 123; Stern 2001: 245). This reconstruction is
highly hypothetical, as there are no known parallels of window balustrades with
chiseled heads of women instead of supporting columns.

The Appearance of the Volute Capitals in Ammon, Moab,

and Judah

Prag (1987: 126) observed the artistic and decorative similarities that existed be-
tween Judah, Ammon, and Moab at the end of the Iron Age, especially in the
royal architecture, which integrated influences from the royal Assyrian style. She
noted, however, that despite many similarities that characterize the area as a
whole, the architectural and sculptural style in Ammon differs from that which
was customary in Moab and Judah.
In seven of the eight Ammonite and Moabite volute capitals, the similarity in
style to the Judahite capitals is obvious; only one fragment from the Ammon
citadel has parallels in the types that characterize the volute capitals from the
Kingdom of Israel, which are dated to an earlier period. Yet there are a few
stylistic similarities that are unique to the volute capitals from Moab and Ammon
and distinguish them from the Judahite capitals: the sides of the central triangle
have a double rather than triple outline; it has a clear base line separated from
the sides (and in the stone capital from ʿAin Sara there are two base lines); in
most cases the abacus is thin or absent and in any case has no apparent notch;
the volutes were made of three lines; and it seems that the most significant differ-
ence is in the proportions between the central triangle and the volutes.
Drinkard’s reasonable assumption is that the unique characteristics that dis-
tinguish between the Judahite and the Ammonite and Moabite volute capitals
indicate different local manufacturing traditions. In view of the uniqueness of
each city in the Kingdom of Israel and the differences between the Judahite and
the Israelite capitals, we can agree with this assumption, even though the similar-
ities between most of the Judahite, Moabite, and Ammonite capitals indicate a
closeness in style and chronology, with local variants which can be explained by
the existence of two principal workshops.24

24 Stern (2001: 264) explained these similarities as an indication to the powerful Judahite influ-
ence over Moab before the appearance of the Assyrians. I question this theory from both the
chronological and the historical perspectives. See below.
64 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

There are distinct typological differences between the volute capitals found
in the Kingdom of Israel and the ones found in the Kingdoms of Judah, Moab,
and Ammon, and we may assume that there is also a chronological difference
between them. The southern capitals appeared only sometime after the main
cities of Israel had been destroyed. Scholars have commented on the typological
differences between the “northern” volute capitals and the “southern” group.25
However, these scholars did not sufficiently stress the chronological differences
and the question of the relationship between the two groups. This is an essential
issue that needs to be clarified.
The appearance of the volute capitals in Judah could be interpreted as a
phenomenon introduced by Israelite refugees.26 Yet aside from the fundamental
difficulty in assuming the transfer of Israelite traditions from the Assyrian prov-
ince of Samaria to Judah, which was at this time an Assyrian vassal kingdom,
this explanation is problematic when applied to the same phenomenon which
also took place in the Kingdoms of Moab and Ammon.
Prag suggested the possibility of Israelite influence in Moab and Ammon dur-
ing the 8th century BCE, and from there to Judah (1987: 126). This assumption is
possible, although unlikely, because there is no evidence that the volute capitals
in Ammon and Moab predate the ones from Judah.27 In any case, the fortress at
Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ is unusual in character, does not reflect the local architectural
and artistic characteristics, is far from the Moabite capital, and represents – like
the palace/citadel at Ramat Raḥel – a unique phenomenon in the kingdom.
In the two explanations given above for the appearance of the volute capitals
in Judah, Ammon and Moab, no attention has been drawn to the fact that they
are uncharacteristic of the local architecture in these kingdoms. Their appearance
has neither precedent nor permanence. These stone capitals appeared mainly in
two structures that can be interpreted as fortresses or administrative or govern-
mental centers, and their appearance is insignificant in the capital cities of these
kingdoms (one stone capital from Jerusalem, probably one from el-Kerak, and
two fragments from the citadel of Amman).

25 In addition to the bibliography listed above, see Betancourt 1977: 44–48; Shiloh 1979c: 14–25;
Stern and Magen 2002: 50.
26 This was the explanation offered by Barkay (2006: 39), who accepted Aharoni’s division into
two Iron-Age Strata (VB and VA) at Ramat Raḥel, and argued that the architectural similarities
between the stone capitals from Ramat Raḥel and those from the Omride kingdom was due to
Israelite refugees who arrived in Judah after the destruction of Samaria and brought with them
this architectural tradition.
27 Also, only one of the volute capitals from the citadel of Amman can point to direct Israeli
influence, while all the other capitals are closer to the Judahite style.
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 65

Fig. 5: Illustration based on the 12th slab of the hunting scene in Room 7
of the northwestern palace at Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad).

An additional aspect that has not been sufficiently examined is that of a chrono-
logical relationship between the appearance of these volute capitals and the ap-
pearance of the Assyrians in the Levant, and the possibility that at the same time,
the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th centuries BCE, there was a specific
and limited influence of the volute capitals on the royal Assyrian architecture as
well.
In view of the foregoing, I would like to propose another explanation for the
volute capitals from Judah, Moab, and Ammon. I suggest that these capitals gained
prestige with the Assyrian destruction of the Kingdom of Israel. In fact, the Assyri-
an encounter with this unique architectural feature in Israel had begun more
than a hundred years earlier. The distinctive style of these capitals, their location
in the gates and the entrances to the palaces, their size, esthetics, and quality,
attracted the attention of the Assyrian rulers who were known for their adoption
of artistic and architectural elements, and for incorporating them in the local
Assyrian tradition. The Assyrians adopted the volute capitals for a limited time
and scope. They were installed in Sargon’s palace, which was constructed in his
new city, Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad), as well as in Sennacherib’s palace in Nine-
veh (below). The volute capitals were also placed in a few citadels and other official
structures established during that period and were used by the local or Assyrian
administration in the vassal kingdoms of Judah, Moab, and Ammon, which sur-
rounded the province of Samaria, probably as a result of Assyrian encourage-
ment, approval, or sponsorship.
66 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Columns and Capitals in Assyrian Architecture

In Assyrian architecture the use of stone columns was alien and unusual in pri-
vate and administrative structures, as well as in palaces.28 The columns in Meso-
potamian architecture were made of wood or bricks, and were less common in
the north than in the south. Most of the non-inscribed stone columns discovered
in excavations in Assyria were probably spoils of war or tributes from western
kingdoms (see: Luckenbill 1926/1927: 27; Winter 1982: 359; Postgate 1992: 187–190;
Miglus 2004: 421–423).29 Even at the height of the Assyrian empire in the 9th to
the 7th centuries BCE, the column architecture did not become an essential part
in the Assyrian style and remained foreign. It was used mainly as a decorative
element in parts of structures that had symbolic significance, usually without any
function, or, as suggested by Winter (1982: 359), as part of the second story struc-
ture in palaces (see summary by Sinopoli 2005: 40, with further literature).
The use of columns penetrated Assyria mainly in the second half of the 8th cen-
tury BCE, parallel to the influence of the plan of the bīt ḥilāni structures in Calah,

Fig. 6: Illustration based on part of the 8th slab of the left part of Panel WA124939
in Room H of Ashurbanipal’s palace at Nineveh.

28 Indeed, there are examples of the use of columns even in earlier times in Mesopotamia, but
they seemed to disappear later (Collon 1969: 1–18; Winter 1982: 359; Miglus 1996: 421–422).
29 The relief kept at the British Museum (BM 124938), whose origin is in room H in the northern
palace at Ninveh, depicts a row of columns resting on lions’ heads and crowned with volute
capitals. See Weidhaas 1939: 132, Fig. 2, and cf. p. 142; Sinopoli 2005: 40–41, with a better drawing
of this relief, in Fig. 6.
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 67

Khorsabad, and Nineveh (Winter 1982: 358; Fritz 1983: 43–58; Miglus 1996: 308; 2004:
423–425).30 It was, however, limited to a few architectural elements, maybe because
of the lack of resources (Miglus 2004: 425–426). Side by side with a limited adoption
of such elements as the columns in the entrance and in the entrance hall of Assyri-
an structures, there is a clear continuation of the old Assyrian traditions. The em-
phasis in Assyrian architecture, and its uniqueness, is in bronze and also stone
column bases, while there is hardly any use of monoliths, and even less use of
capitals. Miglus’ suggestion, to interpret the use of stone columns as a symbolic
element, symbolizing the occupation of the west, is acceptable (Miglus 2004: 428).31
With this background, the stone relief found at Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad), which
was built precisely in the period between the destruction of the Israelite cities
where the volute capitals were a prominent characteristic, and the appearance of
the capitals at Ramat Raḥel (and perhaps also at Moab and Ammon), stands out.
In this relief, located in Room 7 of the northwestern palace, in the 12th slab of the
hunting scene, there is a depiction of a square structure on a high podium, with
an entrance decorated with two columns. The columns stand on circular bases, are
round and smooth, and at the top of each one there is a decoration of three stand-
ing rings crowned with a volute capital. Above the upper frame at the top of the
capital is another block of stone. Its narrower part lies on the capital and its wider
part supports a lintel, which in turn supports the roof of the structure, which is
decorated with crenellations. A stream flows at the foot of this structure, which is
situated on the edge of a royal garden and above it is a large wooded hill, topped
by another structure that looks like an altar (on this relief see Albenda 1986: 79,
Pl. 89; Weidhaas 1939: 142; Winter 1982: 362; Sinopoli 2005: 41, Pl. 10–12, Fig. 8).
Another relief of interest for our study (Slab 8, on the left part of Panel WA124939)
comes from Room H of Ashurbanipal’s palace at Nineveh (Rassam 1897: 355; see
also Winter 1982: 362–363; Dalley 1994: 50–56; Reade 1998: 86; Sinopoli 2005: 39). A
large forest and a garden are depicted on a hill. An aqueduct draws water near
the garden and channels course water from it throughout the garden. On top of
the hill stands a structure and beside it a royal stele and an altar, situated on the
slope. The structure is supported by four columns and looks like an attempt to
represent three dimensions by showing two front columns and two back ones. All
four columns are round and smooth, and the back ones rest on decorated bases.
The columns are crowned with volute capitals which support the roof beams,

30 The influence of the bīt ḥilāni structures did not entail a complete adoption of its components,
and only the main elements – notably the way of organizing the different rooms in the struc-
tures – were widely adopted (Winter 1982: 360–361).
31 The use of columns reached the private architecture in Assyria only during the 7th cen-
tury BCE, and they can be interpreted as a status symbol (Miglus 2004: 428).
68 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

which are decorated with crenellations. On top of the two back columns rests an
additional block of stone, its narrower part on the capitals and its wider part
supporting a lintel.
The extraordinary appearance of stone columns crowned with volute capi-
tals32 permits the assumption that they are part of an Israelite architectural influ-
ence in Assyria, and may indicate a local imitation, spoils of war, tributes, or the
incorporation of Israelite architects in Assyrian construction projects.33 In any
case, this phenomenon has no parallel in Assyrian architecture, so it seems that
it was limited in scope and time.
Significantly, in both cases in which the volute capitals appear in Assyrian
reliefs they are shown in the context of a royal garden located near Assyrian
palaces. Furthermore, it is logical to assume that when the edifice was erected at
Ramat Raḥel as an administrative and economic center in Judah under Assyrian
rule (this may also be the reason for constructing the Khirbet el-Mudeibiʿ fortress
and possibly also the Amman citadel),34 it was done under Assyrian architectural
influence; up until then these vassal kingdoms (as well as afterwards) did not
have these elements in their architectural repertoire.35 These fortresses, which
do not represent local building traditions, neither in quality nor in characteristics
nor in the overall layout, were probably in use by the local administration under
imperial rule, and perhaps even housed small forces which were positioned in
strategically important locations.
The architecture of these structures is a one-time mixture of local and for-
eign, old and new characteristics. This mixture has no precedent in the local
architecture and it may be seen as an additional characteristic of this unique and
fundamental period of time in the history of Palestine, at the beginning of the
Pax Assyriaca in the ancient Near East.

32 Additional crowned columns appear in Relief 4 of Room XXII, dating to the days of Sennacher-
ib, probably depicting the palace. See Russell 1991: 151, Fig. 76; Dalley 1994: 51–52.
33 Though it is doubtful if it is possible to connect the appearance of the capitals to the presence
of individuals from Samaria and Megiddo in the construction of Dur-Sharrukin’s city wall; see
Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990: 206, number 291, line 16 and rev. line 1; Fales and Postgate 1995:
19–20, number 19, rev. line 3.
34 This assumption was already suggested by Naʾaman 2001, who discusses the Assyrian policy
and the other examples of such Assyrian administrative centers.
35 Assyrian influences can be seen in a few other elements in the local art, and they were well
defined by Stern (2001: 34–36).
 The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon 69

Summary

In this article I presented the 27 volute capitals discovered in five of the major
cities within the boundaries of the Kingdom of Israel as one of the main original
architectural features that evolved in ancient Israel during the time of the Omride
dynasty. This was a unique architectural phenomenon, with no known parallels
from that time (9th century BCE) in the entire region. The distinct style of these
capitals, their location in gates and entrances to palaces, their size, esthetics, and
quality attracted the attention of the Assyrian rulers when they conquered the
Kingdom of Israel (732–722/720 BCE), and they were highly regarded by them. The
Assyrians, renowned for their ability to embrace artistic and architectural el-
ements and incorporate them into the local Assyrian tradition, adopted the volute
capitals for a limited period of time and scope. They were placed in Sargon’s
palace, constructed in his new city Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad), as well as in Sen-
nacherib’s palace in Nineveh. Volute capitals were also placed in a few citadels
and other official structures established during that period, serving the local or
Assyrian administration in the vassal kingdoms of Judah, Moab, and Ammon,
probably as a result of Assyrian encouragement, approval, or sponsorship. In my
opinion this is the explanation for the unusual appearance of these capitals in
two exceptional – and in many aspects not well understood – sites in relation to
their function, unique architecture, and finds: Ramat Raḥel in Judah and Khirbet
el-Mudeibiʿ in Moab.
Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase
of Stamping Jar Handles
Oval storage jars with lmlk impressions stamped on their handles are among the
most important and well-known finds of late Iron Age Judah. These jars were
already common in the Shephelah in the ninth century BCE, but stamp impres-
sions appear on some handles as early as the late eighth century BCE. They all
have the word lmlk (meaning “belongs to the King”) stamped in paleo-Hebrew
script on their handles.
The word lmlk usually appears in the upper section of the stamp impression,
while two additional features appear beneath it: (1) a royal symbol that sits in the
center and that comes in two forms: either a four-winged scarab, probably reflect-
ing Egyptian influence, or a winged sun-disk, similar to the sun-disk that appears
in ancient Near Eastern cultures in general, and in the Assyrian culture in particu-
lar;1 (2) a place name, which usually appears at the bottom of the stamp impression,
under the royal symbol, and is one of the following four sites: Ḥebron, Ziph, Socoh
and mmšt. Socoh is identified at the Ellah Valley in the Judean Shephelah; Ḥebron
and Ziph are located in the southern Judean Hills; and mmšt (apparently Mamshit),
the identity of which is unknown, and could have been located anywhere in the
kingdom.2 Scholars have suggested various explanations for the appearance of
these four particular sites (Fox 2000: 224–225, with further literature), but the main
reason seems that they were royal estates in which agricultural products, mainly
grapes and olives, were grown and wine and oil produced.
These royal estates were the points of origin of the agricultural products with
which the jars were filled and whence they were shipped to a central collection
center.3 About 1,400 lmlk handles have been found in provenanced archaeological
excavations and surveys. Currently we know of more than 2,000 handles, most
of which were found within the borders of the kingdom of Judah.4

1 It seems that these late First Temple period symbols represented the local god or the local
king, and were influenced by similar symbols in neighboring cultures. On these symbols, see
Ward 1968; Tushingham 1970; 1971; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 256–259, 272–277; Fox 2000: 220–
223; Avigad and Barkay 2000: 243a; Ornan 2005: 231–234; Hudon 2010: 31–32; Naʾaman 2016:
114–116.
2 On the location of these sites in general and of that of mmšt in particular, see Ginsberg 1948:
20–22 (and cf. to Barkay 2006: 43); Naʾaman 1986c: 170–171; Fox 2000: 224–225; Kletter 2002: 137–
138; Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010: 21; Lipschits 2021: 138–142.
3 On the interpretation of the place names and their function in the jar administration, see
Naʾaman 2016: 114–116; Lipschits 2021: 138–142.
4 For a list of the provenanced lmlk stamped handles, see Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010. Vaughn
(1999: 185–197) mentioned 1716 stamped handles, but the origin of 355 of them is unknown. Over

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-004
72 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Fig. 1: lmlk-type storage jar from Lachish.

the years, many more stamped handles have been discovered and published, mainly from Ramat
Raḥel. Grena published 2251 stamped handles on his website (http://www.lmlk.com/research/
index.html), but 725 of them are from private collections or of unknown origin.
 Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles 73

Fig. 2: Four-winged lmlk stamp impression.

Fig. 3: Two-winged lmlk stamp impression.

Typology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions

Most scholars founded their basic typology of the lmlk stamp impressions on two
main groups, based on the royal symbol located at the center of each seal: the
four-winged scarab or the winged sun-disk. The sub-division of these two main
74 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

groups follows the inscribed words above and below the symbol.5 The acknowl-
edged typology of the lmlk stamp impressions was suggested in 1981 by the French
scholar André Lemaire. According to Lemaire, there are five main types of lmlk
stamp impressions. Two types are of the four-winged icon: Ia contains cursory
writing, with lmlk in the upper register and place name in the lower register; Ib
is the same but contains lapidary writing. Three types are of the winged sun-disk
icon: IIa contains lmlk in the upper register and place name in the lower register;
IIb is similar, but the place name in the lower register is divided (usually two
letters on each side); IIc has the place name in the upper register, without the
word lmlk.
Lemaire defined four variants in each of the five main types, according to
the first letter of each place name that appears on them (H – for ḥbrn = Ḥebron;
S – for śwkh = Socoh; Z – for zyp = Ziph; M – for mmšt = ?), and classified one
additional type, with no place name, which he designated XII.6
Altogether, there are 19 subtypes of the lmlk stamp impressions, which means
that 19 seals were in use. Seven of the subtypes (= seals) used the four-winged
scarab at the center: HIa and HIb are four-winged scarab types where the name
ḥbrn (= Ḥebron) appears under the royal symbol and the word lmlk appears
above it, one in cursory and the other in lapidaric writing; ZIa and ZIb are four-
winged scarab types where the name zyp (= Ziph) appears under the royal symbol
and the word lmlk above it, one in cursory and the other in lapidaric writing;
MIa and MIb are four-winged scarab types where the name mmšt (= ?) appears
under the royal symbol and the word lmlk above it, one in cursory and the other
in lapidaric writing; SIb is the only four-winged scarab type where the name
śwkh (= Socoh) appears under the royal symbol and the word lmlk above it, all
in lapidaric writing. There is no similar subtype (= no such seal) with cursory
writing, so type SIa does not exist.
The meaning of the above typology is that there are two sets of four-winged
scarab type seals. One set (Ib) includes four seals with the four-winged scarabs
in the center of all of them, with lapidary script. The size of the seal is exception-
al: while its width is similar to all the other lmlk seals (about 22 mm), it is 35–

5 Scholars have offered a variety of suggestions for the typology, and see, e.g., Diringer 1941: 91–
101; Lapp 1960: 15 and fig. 1; Welten 1969: 36–44; Grena 2004: 59–72.
6 Lemaire (1981) identified another type of lmlk stamped handle, which he termed, Type OII,
and which bears only the winged sun-disk with no inscription. He based this typology on one
example from Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962: pl. 29: 9). However, a careful study of this handle
demonstrated that it actually bears a stamp impression of Type XII. The same is true regarding
another handle from the Jewish Quarter Excavations in Jerusalem (Avigad and Barkay 2000: 261)
which also had been classified as Type OII but is undoubtedly another exemplar of Type XII.
 Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles 75

36 mm long (ca. 20 percent longer than the other lmlk seals). The similarities and
unity of the Ib type indicate that it was produced as a series, probably by the
same artisan, and at the same time.
Only three seals have been found for the other set of four-winged scarab
types (Ia), which contained the four-winged scarab at the center, cursory script,
and the place names – ḥbrn (= Ḥebron); zyp (= Ziph) and mmšt (= ?); the seal
with the place name śwkh (= Socoh) is missing (not even one handle with this
stamp impression has as yet been discovered). The size of the Ia set of stamp
impressions is smaller than the Ib set, and closer to all the other sets of lmlk
stamp impressions. This is one of the reasons for the claim that the Ib set is
earlier than the Ia, and see further below.
In addition to the seven subtypes of the four-winged scarabs (= 7 seals that
were used in this system), there were 12 subtypes (= 12 seals) of the winged sun-
disk icon. One set (IIa) included four seals. At the center of every seal was the
winged sun-disk, the word lmlk in the upper register above the symbol, split in
two at the two sides, and the place name in the lower register, written in one
complete word below the lower part of the icon: HIIa for the seal with the place
name ḥbrn (= Ḥebron); SIIa for the seal with the place name śwkh (= Socoh); ZIIa
for the seal with the place name zyp (= Ziph); MIIa for the seal with the place
name mmšt (= ?).
Another set (IIb) also includes four seals in a similar size and quality, but
just as the word lmlk was split above at two sides of the winged sun-disk, here
the place name in the lower register is divided into two on the sides of the lower
part of the icon: HIIb for the seal with the place name ḥbrn (= Ḥebron); SIIb for
the seal with the place name śwkh (= Socoh); ZIIb for the seal with the place
name zp (= Ziph) with only two letters; MIIb for the seal with the place name
mmšt (= ?).
A third set of winged sun-disks includes only three seals; in all of them the
place name rather than the word lmlk is written above the icon: HIIc for the seal
with the place name ḥbrn (= Ḥebron) with two letters above the right wing and
two letters above the upper part of the icon; MIIc for the seal with the place
name mmšt (= ?) above the icon in one word, with two letters above the right
wing of the symbol, one letter above the upper part of it and one letter above its
left wing; ZIIc for the seal with the place name zp (= Ziph) with only two letters
above the right wing of the winged sun-disk. Also in the case of the IIc set of
seals there is no seal with the place name śwkh (= Socoh), just as in the case of
the Ib set of seals.
The fourth and last set of winged sun-disks includes only one seal, on which
only the word lmlk was written above the symbol; below it there is no place
name. According to Lemaire’s typology this is Type XII.
76 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Typology, Stratigraphy and Chronology of the lmlk Stamped

Handles: Distinguishing between “Early” and “Late” Types

More than 400 lmlk stamped handles were discovered in the excavations conduct-
ed at Lachish, many of which were clearly assigned to Level III. During the 1940s
and 1950s several British and American scholars accepted John Starkey’s opinion
(1936) to associate the destruction of Level III at Lachish with the 597 Babylonian
campaign and the destruction of Level II with the 587/6 campaign. Consequently,
they continued to support Diringer’s classification (1941; 1949) of the lmlk stamp
impressions and Albright’s chronology (1943), and dated all of the four-winged
types to the time of Hezekiah and Manasseh, while assigning the two-winged
types to the time of Josiah. However, after Olga Tufnell’s (1953) suggestion that
the destruction of Level III at Lachish be associated with the Sennacherib cam-
paign of 701 BCE, most scholars in Israel accepted the new idea that the lmlk jars
be linked to the period of Hezekiah’s rule in Judah. David Ussishkin’s excavations
at Lachish (1973–1994) established the date of the destruction of Lachish Level III
to the Sennacherib campaign in 701 BCE.
From the methodological point of view, the date of the destruction of Level
III was a key point in the dating of the lmlk stamp impressions, especially when
Lemaire’s detailed typology was published in 1981. Surprisingly, nearly 30 years
passed before a careful and precise study of the exact location of each type, its
stratigraphy and distribution was published (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010).
Even if scholars in the early phase of research, were careful not to fix a rigid
terminus post quem and terminus ad quem for the production and use of the
lmlk stamped jar handles (Ussishkin 1977: 56–57), after an attractive historical
suggestion by Nadav Naʾaman (1979b) to connect the system of the lmlk stamp
impressions to Hezekiah’s revolt and to the preparations in Judah before the
Assyrian attack of 701 BCE, many researchers accepted the idea that the entire
system of jars and stamp impressions should be limited to a very short three-
year period – between 704 and 701 BCE (Ussishkin 2004d: 2141–2142, and see
further literature in Vaughn 1999: 88–89, 136–137).
From the methodological point of view, it should be stressed that while the
interpretation of the many lmlk stamped handles sealed under destruction Level
III at Lachish as the terminus ad quem of the system is an archaeological fact, it
is historical conjecture that the production of the jars and the system of stamping
jar handles had begun only three years previously, as part of Hezekiah’s revolt.
Moreover, concluding that 701 BCE is the terminus ad quem of the entire lmlk
system (Ussishkin 1977: 56–57), without carefully examining the typology of the
actual finds, can only be considered a general, untidy and poorly based assump-
tion.
 Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles 77

A careful and precise study of the exact location, stratigraphy, and distribu-
tion of each type shows that some types of the winged sun-disk stamp impressions
(Types IIb, IIc, XII) were found unsealed by the 701 BCE destruction debris at
Lachish or by any destruction layer assigned to the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign
in all the many sites excavated in Judah (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010).7 This
study isolated the four-winged scarab Type Ia and Ib and the winged sun-disk
Type IIa as those found sealed under the destruction level of Lachish III and
contemporaneous strata. Accordingly, these types were defined as the “early
types,” used before the 701 Assyrian attack on Judah (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch
2010: 11 and fig. 1).
By contrast, the three types of winged sun-disk lmlk stamp impressions (Le-
maire’s IIb, IIc, and XII) appear only in hill-country sites not destroyed in 701 BCE,
or in strata attributed to the seventh century BCE with not even one stamped
handle of these types found in a clear 701 BCE destruction level. Therefore, these
types were produced after the 701 campaign, and should be defined as “late
types,” dated to the beginning of the seventh century BCE (Lipschits, Sergi and
Koch 2010: 11, 13–17).8
Furthermore, when it became evident that the lmlk stamped jars were not
part of a short term system of preparation for the Assyrian attack, it also became
obvious that (1) they were part of an administrative system that began before
Hezekiah’s revolt against the Assyrian empire, and (2) they were followed by
many other systems of stamping and incising jar handles, mainly the incised
concentric circles and the rosette stamp impressions (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch
2010, 8–9; Koch and Lipschits 2010, and cf. Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007; 2011;
Bocher and Lipschits 2013). The continuity in the manufacturing of royal storage
jars (Vaughn 1999: 148–150; Shai and Maeir 2003; Gitin 2006) and the use of royal

7 In a later paper, Ussishkin (2011: 237) acknowledged for the first time that, indeed, this is the
archaeological situation in Lachish Level III and in all other contemporary destruction layers in
Judah. For a critique on Ussishkin’s methodological and archaeological conclusions, see Finkel-
stein 2012: 203–206; Lipschits 2012a; Naʾaman 2016: 112–113.
8 The first scholar who wrote about this chronological separation between the different lmlk
types is Chang-Ho Ji (2001), who reconstructed four stages in the evolution of the Judahite royal
stamp impressions. According to Ji, the four-winged scarab and the two-winged disc were used
concurrently before Sennacherib’s 701 BCE campaign, and only the two-winged emblem was used
during the seventh century BCE. Prior to the early or mid-seventh century BCE, King Manasseh
introduced the concentric incision, which was employed alongside the two-winged disc. It is not
clear on what ground Ji suggests that the two-winged symbol alone continued to be used until
the last third of the seventh century BCE, when the rosette symbol replaced it. On the separation
between “pre-Sennacherib” and “post-Sennacherib” lmlk stamp impressions, see also Grena
(2004).
78 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

emblems stamped on their handles (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 7–10) indicate
that the different stamp impressions are all part of the same administrative sys-
tem that probably had a constant function for about 140 years.
Moreover, the same administrative system continued after the 586 BCE de-
struction of the kingdom of Judah for an additional 450 years – during the Babylo-
nian period (the mwṣh and lion stamped handles; see Lipschits 2010), during the
Persian and the Early Hellenistic periods (the yhwd stamped handles; see Lip-
schits and Vanderhooft 2011), and until the Late Hellenistic period (the late yhwd
and the yršlm stamped handles; see Ariel and Shoham 2000: 159–163; Vanderhooft
and Lipschits 2007; Bocher and Lipschits 2011). Throughout this long period, Judah
(and then Yehud and Judea) was under the hegemony of great empires, and the
stamped jars were part of the Judahite administrative system that had already
been established when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom. They contin-
ued to be in use as long as Judah was a vassal kingdom and later, when it became
a province under the rule of the Babylonian, Persian, and Ptolemaic empires.

When Was the lmlk System Initiated? The Early Phase

of Stamping Jar Handles in the Kingdom of Judah

It is obvious that all jars stamped by early lmlk seals and discovered beneath the
destruction debris of Level III at Lachish and other destruction levels from the
same 701 BCE event, should be dated to the period before this event. But archaeol-
ogy cannot tell us how much earlier and exactly when this system was initiated.
Just how long before 701 BCE these jars were in use and when their production
began must remain in the realm of historical assumption with no clear-cut
archaeological evidence to back it up.
Level III at Lachish was probably founded in the mid-eighth century BCE
(Ussishkin 2004a: 82–83) and unstamped jars of the type bearing the lmlk stamp
impressions had already appeared in the late ninth–early eighth centuries BCE
(Shai and Maeir 2003; Gitin 2006; Sergi et al. 2012). There is no archaeological
answer to the question of precisely when and why stamping of some of the han-
dles of these jars began. However, the fact that the same type of jars with different
kinds of stamp impressions on their handles continued to be in use during the
seventh century BCE and later, when the Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, and
Seleucid empires ruled in Judah, does not support the idea that the lmlk adminis-
trative system was an ad hoc operation. Furthermore, if the production of all the
lmlk jars had been limited to a short three-year period, it is difficult to understand
how, during a revolt against the Assyrian empire, such a sophisticated system
could have been developed – one with such an abundance of seals and such a
 Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles 79

profusion of symbols; with so many stamped handles, and such a wide distribu-
tion of jars, many at sites that were not part of Judah’s preparations for the
Assyrian attack, most of which would not be destroyed in 701 BCE and which
would continue to develop in the seventh century BCE (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch
2010: 6–7; see already Vaughn 1999: 136–52). A much more tenable historical re-
construction of the lmlk system is that it represents the first stage in a long-
enduring administrative and economic system that was established when Judah
became an Assyrian vassal kingdom (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010: 7, with fur-
ther details and literature; Lipschits 2021). From the historical perspective, it is
more reasonable to reconstruct the idea, hypothetical though it may be, that the
system of stamped jars was initiated in the early stages of Judah’s subjugation to
the Assyrian empire, and continued for about 600 years, disappearing only after
the Hasmonean Revolt. This system functioned as part of the Judahite administra-
tion under imperial rule, probably for collecting agricultural products at one
main collection center. It seems that the first collection center was Lachish, and
this role can explain the fate of this site and the fate of the Shephelah during the
Assyrian 701 BCE campaign. It can be assumed that Ramat Raḥel was initially
founded as a Judahite administrative center under the supervision and guidance
of imperial forces, probably after the destruction of Lachish in 701 BCE (Naʾaman
2001: 270–274; Lipschits and Gadot 2008; Lipschits et al. 2009b; 2011; 2016; Lip-
schits 2021: 143–153).
As a historical assumption, we may then date the beginning of the lmlk stamp
impression system to the beginning of the last third of the eighth century BCE,
the period when Judah became a vassal kingdom, probably in the final years of
King Ahaz’ rule in Judah (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 17; 26–28; 2011: 6–7;
Lipschits 2012a: 8–9). During this period many other changes occurred in Judah’s
economy and administration, such as the technological changes in the agricultural
production installations (Faust and Weiss 2005; Katz 2008: 55–59), the change in
Judahite pottery from non-standardized, small-scale production in local work-
shops to a standardized mass-production industry with a limited variety of
shapes, and a broad distribution network (Mazar 1990: 509; Zimhoni 1997: 171–
172; 2004: 1705–1707; Katz 2008: 52–53), and the appearance of the new system of
marked weights (Kletter 1998: 145–147; Katz 2008: 77–79, with further literature).

Was There a Gradual Development Within the Early lmlk

Stamp Impressions?

As stated above, the archaeological fact is that jar handles bearing all the differ-
ent Ia and Ib four-winged scarab types and IIa winged sun-disk types, were all
80 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

discovered sealed under the destruction debris of Level III at Lachish and other
parallel destruction levels at other sites in the Shephelah. The question is whether
one can find any indication of different stages in the development of these pre-
701 BCE lmlk types.
Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch (2010: 17–18) suggested that the different four-
winged scarab types preceded the winged sun-disk types, since the two-winged
symbol continued to exist after 701, while production of the four-winged scarab
ceased after this date. Furthermore, the number of stamped handles with the
four-winged scarab symbols from the different types discovered in the 701 BCE
destruction levels is much larger than the number of stamped handles bearing
the winged sun-disk types.9 Based on this data, it can be reconstructed that the
use of the four-winged scarab symbol preceded the use of the winged sun-disk
symbol, that it went out of use before the 701 Assyrian campaign, and that it was
replaced by the winged sun-disk symbol sometime before this date. At the differ-
ent sites that were destroyed by the Assyrian army there were still many stamped
jars bearing the four-winged scarab stamp impressions, but together with them
there were already some jars that were stamped with the winged sun-disk seals.
These early winged sun-disk types came into use a short time before the Assyrian
campaign, which explains the small number of stamped jars. However, after
701 BCE, the use of this symbol on the late types continued, and all the late types
bear the winged sun-disk symbol.
Only now, after “early” and “late” types of the lmlk stamp impressions have
been separated, (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010; 2011; Finkelstein 2012; Naʾaman
2016), is it possible to measure this assumption against the old concept that all
the different types were in use together, in the short three-year period before the
Sennacherib Campaign (Ussishkin 1976; 1977; 2004d; Naʾaman 1979b; 1986c) and
show its advantages.
Scholars previously had suggested the similar assumption, dominant in the
research of the mid-twentieth century, when many dated the entire lmlk system
to the seventh century BCE and assumed that the four-winged symbol, Egyptian
in origin, was replaced by the “flying scroll” as part of the new religious reform
in Judah. Already Diringer (1949: 75–76; 85–86), followed by Lapp (1960: 21) and
Cross (1969: 20–22), connected this change to the Josianic reform, and also claimed
that from the paleographic perspective the script in the four-winged scarab seals
preceded the script in the winged sun-disk seals. This observation was abandoned
in the 1970s with the idea that all the different types of lmlk stamp impressions

9 For example, 348 handles stamped with the four-winged scarab types were discovered in the
Lachish III destruction level, as against 30 handles stamped with the different types of the winged
sun-disk symbol. For a detailed summary see Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010: 17; Lipschits 2012a: 9.
 Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles 81

were discovered sealed under the destruction of Lachish level III, and the hypoth-
esis that this entire system was created and was in use for a very short period
of only three years, as part of Hezekiah’s preparations for the Assyrian 701 cam-
paign (and see above).
Now, in light of the renewed typological and chronological discussion, and
the separation between the “early” and the “late” types, this idea has been resur-
rected by new research and has returned to the agenda of modern research. The
circumstantial evidence for the early date of the four-winged scarab symbol
which can be supported by glyptic research, demonstrated that this symbol was
already known and common in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE, that its origin
can be detected in Egypt, that its culture and influence over the Levant in general,
and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in particular, were well established before
the Assyrian conquest of the Levant in the second half of the eighth cen-
tury BCE.10
Another indication for the early date of the four-winged symbol can be found
in the connection between the two-winged lmlk and the so called “private” stamp
impressions on jar handles (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 22–27; Lipschits 2012a:
8–9).11 It is clear that all the “private” stamp impressions pre-date Sennacherib’s
campaign of 701 BCE,12 and the geographical distribution of the “private” stamped

10 See, e.g., Sass (1993: 214); Keel and Uhlinger (1998: 276); Ornan (2005: 231–234).
11 More than 250 “private” stamp impressions are known today, of which 185 were found in
provenanced archaeological excavations. The “private” stamp impression usually includes two
written rows with two private names. Often the Hebrew letter lamed (‫)ל‬, a sign of belonging,
appears before the first name; and sometimes it is absent. Occasionally the word “son” (‫)בן‬
appears in between the two names, but generally not. This term generally means that the second
name is the father of the first person. Thus, in most cases, the impression should be interpreted
as follows: “(Belongs to) <personal name>, (the son of ) <personal name>.” Occasionally a title is
added. It should be noticed that one handle with “private” stamp impression placed next to lmlk
stamp impression was found in Aharoni’s excavations in Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962: 16), while
in the Lachish excavations some jars had both the lmlk and the “private” stamp impressions,
impressed on different handles (Ussishkin 2004d: 2143). It is also clear that the jars stamped by
lmlk and “private” seals came from the same workshop (Mommsen, Perlman and Yellin 1984).
12 Of the 43 “private” impression types, it is certain that 40 are dated to the late eighth cen-
tury BCE: 35 types were found in the Assyrian campaign destruction layers of 701 BCE, and five
others were discovered in the undestroyed sites, with personal names that also appear on the
35 found at the sites destroyed by the Assyrians. Only three names – Hoshʿam (son of ) Hagay,
Hashi (son of ) Elshema, and Zemach (son of ) Elshema – were found only in Jerusalem and in
Ramat Raḥel, without any equivalent in Lachish Stratum III or at any other Judahite site. As they
are only three out of 43 known types, it seems that they are an exception which does not prove
the general rule. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that unlike the lmlk stamp impressions,
not one handle with a “private” impression was found in an archaeological context securely
dated to the seventh century BCE.
82 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

Fig. 4: “Private” stamp impression together with lmlk stamp impression on the same jar handle.

handles is smaller than that of the lmlk stamped handles, found mainly in the
Judean Shephelah, and usually at sites that were destroyed in that campaign.13 It
is, therefore, reasonable to assume that this small scale and limited time-use
system represents an adaptation of the royal administration system of the lmlk
stamp impressions in preparation for Judah’s revolt against Assyria (Lipschits,
Sergi, and Koch 2010: 26).
A logical historical explanation for the “private” system of stamp impressions
can be that for a short while it replaced the lmlk system. The people whose
personal names appear in the seals were probably either responsible for the
collection, or for receiving and distributing supplies, in conjunction with the war
effort. Following the Assyrian campaign, the “private” stamp impression system
disappeared, while the lmlk system continued to develop, with the necessary
changes caused by the massive Assyrian destruction, especially in the Lowland
agricultural region, now destroyed.
Based on this chronological “key,” Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch (2010: 17) suggest-
ed seeing the connection between the “private” and the winged sun-disk lmlk
stamp impressions as the main clue for the earlier date of the four-winged scarab
stamp impressions of Types Ia and Ib, and for the later change to the winged
sun-disk stamp impressions of Type IIa, which continued after 701 BCE and devel-
oped into the late lmlk winged sun-disk types (IIb and XII). Ussishkin (1976: 12;

13 Of the 185 “private” stamped handles found in archaeological excavations, only 51 were found
in the Hill region, out of which 19 came from Ramat Raḥel. All the personal names on the Hill
area handles are identical to those found in the Shephelah and in the settlement layers destroyed
in Sennacherib’s Campaign.
 Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles 83

2004d: 2142–2143) noted that in all the cases known to him where “private” stamp
impressions were stamped on the same handle or the same jar as lmlk impres-
sions, the lmlk type was always the winged sun-disk. This observation can now
be updated, since all the cases mentioned by Ussishkin are indeed of the winged
sun-disk types, and furthermore they are all “early types” (IIa), except for one
case of a “private” stamp impression stamped on the same handle of a four-
winged scarab impression (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 201: 26; and n. 45; and cf.
Avigad and Barkai 2000: 248–249, no. 54).
The conclusion is that there is a chronological overlapping between the last
phase of the four-winged scarab types and the “early” winged sun-disk types,
probably in the final years before the Sennacherib campaign. In light of this data,
it can be assumed that when the “private” impressions were stamped, probably
as part of the adaptation of the lmlk system to the preparations in Judah for
the Assyrian attack, four-winged scarab lmlk stamp impressions were no longer
stamped on new jars, and only old jars stamped by seals of these types were
recycled in large numbers. The main archaeological argument in support of this
suggested dating is that within all the early types discovered at Lachish, many
more four-winged scarab handles of Types Ia and Ib were found than the winged
sun-disk handles of Type IIa. This may also indicate that storage jars bearing a
four-winged scarab emblem were in use for a longer period of time than those
bearing a winged sun-disk emblem.
New data, based on paleomagnetic research, indicate an inner chronology of
the four-winged scarab types and on the processes of development of Types Ia
and Ib.14 The paleomagnetic graph shows no overlapping between the four-
winged Ia and Ib types, and it seems that Type Ib is earlier than Type Ia. The
meaning of this observation is that the system of stamp impressions with the
lapidary writing is the first ever system of stamp impressions on jar handles.
This system was produced by a skilled artisan in a unified way, and was replaced
by the Ia system with cursory writing. Only three seals were produced; the place
name śwkh = Socoh is absent. The size of the new set of seals is similar to the
other types that were in use after the 701 Assyrian campaign. The change proba-

14 The Paleomagnetic research is conducted by Erez Ben-Yosef of the Department of Archaeology

and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Ron
Shaar of the Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Lisa Tauxe of
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego. As part of this re-
search, Michael Millman wrote an MA thesis, under the supervision of Lipschits and Ben-Yosef,
on paleomagnetic research of a series of stamped handles of all the different types. The conclu-
sions cited here are based on the results of this study (Millman 2014), as well as on a paper
published by all the above scholars (Ben-Yosef, Millman, Shaar, Tauxe, and Lipschits 2017).
84 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

bly took place after many years of use of the old Ib system, and the new Ia system
was also replaced by a similar system of seals, with a similar size and script, but
with a new symbol of winged sun-disk, which replaced the symbol of the four-
winged scarab.

Synthesis and Reconstruction

Beginning with the rule of King Ahaz, no later than 732 BCE, until the sudden
death of Sargon II in 705 BCE, Judah was a loyal vassal kingdom of the Assyrian
empire (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010: 6–7; 2011: 6; Lipschits 2018). As part of its
obligations, Judah paid an annual tribute to the empire. The lmlk jar system
would have been one of the main means by which the kingdom accomplished
this. It collected agricultural products such as olive oil and wine, exchanged it
for silver and gold, and with this paid its annual taxes (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch
2010: 17, 26–28; 2011: 6–7; Lipschits 2012a: 8–9; 2021: 123–153). The development of
the lmlk system of estates and transportation of agricultural products was an
administrative scheme initiated by King Ahaz a few years after 732 BCE, and
which continued until his death in 715 BCE.15
In this case it can be suggested that 715 BCE is the transition point between
Types Ib and Ia, and if so, Type Ib was in use between approximately 730 and
715 BCE. It may be that the changeover from the four-winged scarab to the winged
sun-disk occurred following the unexpected death of Sargon II in 705 BCE, and if
so, Type Ia was in use between approximately 715 and 705 BCE, and the winged
sun-disk Type IIa was in use, together with the “private” stamp impressions, be-
tween 705 and 701 BCE.16

15 On the chronology of King Hezekiah see Naʾaman 1994c: 236–239; 2016: 118, with further
literature.
16 One must remember that the relative chronology between the “early types” is well based but
the exact chronology is based only on historical assumptions. In this case, the fact that no lmlk
jar handles have thus far been found at Tel ʿEton late eighth century destruction layer (Katz and
Faust 2012: 44–48) should come as no surprise, and should not be regarded as an indication
either of a destruction prior to Sennacherib’s 701 BCE campaign (Katz and Faust 2012; and cf.
Finkelstein 2012: 204) or of the date of the lmlk system of stamp impressions (Naʾaman 2016: 118–
119). As against general conclusions, like “Tel ʿEton is located 11 km southeast of Lachish, in a
region where all the large late eighth century sites excavated so far produced lmlk stamped
handles” (Naʾaman 2016: 118), it should be remembered that in all the area south of Lachish, the
finds of lmlk stamped handles is very rare, and includes four handles in Tell Beit Mirsim, two
in Khirbet Qeilah and one in Tel Halif. It should come as no surprise that no lmlk handles were
discovered at Tel ʿEton and no chronological or other conclusions can be deduced based on it.
 Judah under Assyrian Rule and the Early Phase of Stamping Jar Handles 85

After Judah’s recovery from the harsh blows levelled on the kingdom during
the Assyrian military campaign, and still under Hezekiah’s rule, the system con-
tinued to function. The winged sun-disk Types IIb, IIc and XII were in use proba-
bly until the end of the first quarter of the seventh century BCE, and since the
Shephelah was lost to the kingdom, as part of the punishment and the new order
of the Assyrian empire in the region, new agricultural areas were developed in
the Judean Hills, and a new central collection center for the agricultural products
was built close to Jerusalem – at Ramat Raḥel (biblical Beth-hakkerem) (Lipschits,
Gadot, Arubas, and Oeming 2016; Lipschits 2019).
The lmlk and ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions
from Tel Beth-Shemesh: An Added Dimension
to the Late 8th and Early 7th Century BCE
History of the Site
Duncan Mackenzie (1912–1913: 10–11), the early excavator of Tel Beth-Shemesh,
was the first to suggest that the city had been destroyed during Sennacherib’s
campaign to Judah in 701 BCE. He further proposed that soon after this destruc-
tion, a small group of refugees built a short-lived ‘reoccupation’ in the southern
part of the mound, which they subsequently abandoned (ibid.: 30, 99–100). Mac-
kenzie’s first conclusion is in agreement with the results of the new excavations
at the site: In all excavation areas the uppermost layer (Level 2) contained pottery
and other finds dated to the late 8th century BCE, sealed under remains of a
fierce destruction. No evidence of a later Iron Age settlement was recovered,
aside from a short period of reuse of the water reservoir, likely in the middle or
in the third quarter of the 7th century BCE (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2003;
2009: 139–140; 2011: 49–50; 2016: 143–146, 151–153). The corpus of lmlk and ‘private’
stamp impressions from Beth-Shemesh (Vaughn 2016), when studied according to
the new chronological scheme for the Judahite stamp impressions (Lipschits, Ser-
gi and Koch 2010, 2011), provides further support for this historical reconstruction.

lmlk and ‘private’ Stamp Impressions from Beth-Shemesh –

The Updated Corpus

A total of 39 lmlk stamped jar handles from previous excavations at Beth-Shemesh

were collected and summarized by Vaughn (2016: 488–494), some published by him
for the first time.1 To these stamp impressions, Vaughn added 18 lmlk stamped jar
handles from the current Tel Aviv University excavations at the site (ibid.: 482–
488), bringing the total number of lmlk stamped handles unearthed at Tel Beth-
Shemesh to 57. This renders Beth-Shemesh the second most important site of lmlk
stamped handles in the Shephelah (after Lachish), and sixth in Judah (after La-
chish, Jerusalem, Ramat Raḥel, Tell en-Naṣbeh and Gibeon – Lipschits 2018b: 124).
In both his discussion and summarizing table, Vaughn (2016: 492–493, Ta-
ble 14.1) identified each of the stamp impressions according to the well-known

1 Four stamp impressions from Duncan Mackenzie’s excavation and an additional 35 stamp
impressions from the Haverford excavations.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-005
88 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

typology developed by Lemaire (1981). Even so, he conducted his concluding dis-
cussion in accordance with only two categories, following the old method of lmlk
stamp impression publications: (1) by separating the stamp impressions into
either four winged scarabs or winged sun-disks, and (2) by summarizing the
stamp impressions according to the four toponyms that appear below the emblem
(Vaughn 2016: 496).2 This treatment of the finds is meaningless from chronological
and historical perspectives: According to the new chronological scheme for the
Judahite stamp impressions (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010; 2011), all the four-
winged scarab lmlk types (Lemaire’s Types Ia and Ib) and some of the two winged
sun-disk lmlk types (IIa) indeed date before the Sennacherib destructions (late
8th century BCE). Yet, two other winged sun disk types (IIb, IIc, XII) are well-dated
to the period following the Sennacherib destructions (the early 7th century BCE).3

lmlk Stamp Impressions from Tel Beth-Shemesh

in Typological Context

Table 1 summarises the data on the lmlk stamp impressions from Tel Beth-She-
mesh according to Lemaire’s (1981) typology, and Lipschits, Sergi and Koch’s (2010)
chronology for the early and late types. The numbers are presented according to
Vaughn’s publication (2016: 492–493).4

2 According to this summary, 31 stamp impressions are of the four-winged scarab (66 %), 16 are
of the winged sun-disk (34 %), and 10 are with uncertain emblem. In total, 31 stamp impressions
include the toponym Ḥebron, three include the name Ziph, six present the name mmšt, one cites
the name Socoh and 16 are uncertain.
3 To the publication of the lmlk stamp impressions from Beth-Shemesh Vaughn added an adden-
dum on the lmlk stamp impressions debate (2016: 498–501; published later as an article – Vaughn
2018), in which he suggested that “a handful of isolated jars remained in use into the 7th century,
but the manufacture of jars ceased shortly after Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 BCE” (ibid.: 351).
Vaughn erroneously argued that the new chronological scheme for the lmlk jars, as suggested
by Lipschits, Sergi and Koch (2010), is based on the items uncovered at Ramat Raḥel; also, he
does not deal with the careful study of the distribution of the lmlk stamped handles according
to the detailed typology set out by Lemaire (1981). Note that a recent paleomagnetic study also
indicates that the jars stamped with lmlk impressions had a long history, including the slow
development of the different early types, with continuous development after 701 BCE (Ben-Yosef
et al. 2017). Furthermore, Vaughn limits his research and critique to the lmlk types and the
‘private’ stamp impressions, disregarding other types of Judahite stamp impressions dated from
the 7th to the 2nd centuries BCE (see in detail in Lipschits 2018b).
4 As far as I could glean from the photos and drawings (Vaughn 2016: 483, 485, 487, 489–490),
Vaughn’s identification of the types of the stamp impressions is correct.
Tab. 1: Typology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions from Tel Beth-Shemesh.

Early types Late types ?

Four winged scarab lmlk types Two winged sun-disk lmlk types

HIa MIa ZIa HIb MIb ZIb SIb I(?) HIIa MIIa ZIIa SIIa HIIb MIIb ZIIb SIIb HIIc MIIc ZIIc XII II(?)

2-2? 48-9 8-4 55-16 1-1 5-1? 13-9 7-3 45-6 6-2 16-12
50-11 9-5 3-3 30-26 35-31 23-19 17-13
10-6? 4-4 34-30 41-2 42-3 20-16
11-7? 18-14 43-4 53-14 21-17
12-8? 19-15 56-17 54-15 24-20
14-10 22-18 57-18 25-21
15-11 33-29 26-22
29-25 36-32 27-23
32-28 38-34 28-24
37-33 40-1 31-27
39-35 44-5
46-7 49-10
47-8 51-12
52-13

1 0 2 13 0 0 1 14 6 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10
The lmlk and ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Tel Beth-Shemesh
89
90 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

All four stamp impressions from Mackenzie’s excavations (Nos. 1-1 to 4-4) are of
the four-winged scarab (Type I), and in one of them (No. 2-2) Type HI can be
assigned, with the reading of the name ḥbrn (= Ḥebron) below the emblem (ibid.:
492). Of the 35 stamp impressions from the Haverford excavations (Nos. 5-1 to
39-35), 17 are of the four-winged scarab Type I, and five are of the winged sun-
disk Type IIa. All the others cannot be assigned to a clear type. A total of 17 of
the new published stamp impressions from the Tel Aviv University Excavations
(Nos. 40-1 to 57-18) are of the early types: 10 are of the different four-winged
scarab Type I, and seven are from the different winged sun-disk Type IIa.
This means that 43 of the 44 typologically classifiable stamp impressions are
of the early types, well dated to the days before the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign.
To this we should add the 18 ‘private’ stamp impressions, dated to the same
period (Vaughn 2016: 480–482, and cf. to Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010, 2011;
Lipschits 2018b: 138–141). Only one stamp impression is of a winged sun-disk late
type (Type MIIb). This stamped handle was recovered from Locus 252, which was
assigned to Level 2 (Area E, Square U46) – a very large pit composed of mostly
loose, dark gray, ashy soil, with many animal bones (probably a refuse pit). It
seems that attribution of Locus 252 to Level 2 is far from being clear; in fact, it
may represent one of the later disturbances/intrusions of the mid-7th century BCE
(Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016: 85–153, and see, e.g., the description of the
archaeological remains on pp. 422, 425–427, 711).5

Discussion

Beth-Shemesh presents a unique phenomenon, not only in the number of lmlk

and ‘private’ stamp impressions, but also as a site with no other stamped handles
from the later phase of the Iron Age (7th and early 6th century BCE); I refer to
concentric circle incisions and rosette stamp impressions. The 43 early lmlk
stamped handles, dating to the late 8th century BCE, make this the fourth most
important site for these types after Lachish, Jerusalem, and Ramat Raḥel. The 18
‘private’ stamped handles place it as the third most significant site for these
stamp impressions (after Lachish and Ramat Raḥel), with more items than Jerusa-
lem (13 ‘private’ stamped handles; Lipschits 2018b: 124).

5 The relation between Locus 252 and Loci 247 and 268 is not clear. Locus 252 is located below
Locus 247, once the remains of red bricks (described as part of the destruction of the ‘Scoop’
stratum) disappeared. It seems as though the same situation occurs in Locus 268, which was also
described as an occupation layer located below the same ‘Scoop’ stratum, but was assigned to
Level 3.
 The lmlk and ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Tel Beth-Shemesh 91

Even before the publication of the new finds (Vaughn 2016), Beth-Shemesh
was described by Lipschits, Sergi and Koch (2011: 11, and cf. to Lipschits 2018:
237–265) as a local administrative centre in the northern lowland during the late
8th century BCE. The city seems to have controlled the agricultural area of the
Soreq Valley (see Bunimovitz and Lederman 2009: 136–139, for the detailed de-
scription of Level 2, idem. 2016: 419–468). The lack of late lmlk stamped handles
as well as concentric incisions at Beth-Shemesh shows that the site was not inhab-
ited in the first half of the 7th century BCE (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2011: 17),
contra Fantalkin (2004: 255), who argued that the reuse of the reservoir of Beth-
Shemesh during the early 7th century BCE reflected cooperation between Judah
and Ekron under the Pax Assyriaca. These conclusions support the detailed his-
torical reconstruction presented by Bunimovitz and Lederman (2016: 143–146,
152–153) concerning the resettlement of Beth-Shemesh in the 3rd quarter of the
7th century BCE and its abandonment after a short period (and cf. to Finkelstein
and Naʾaman 2004: 75). Though farmsteads around Beth-Shemesh could have ex-
isted in the early 7th century BCE, there is no evidence of royal Judahite involve-
ment in their establishment. It seems that the hinterland of the Soreq Valley, with
the area of Beth-Shemesh within it, was transferred in the early 7th century BCE
to the Kingdom of Ekron. The fact that during the 7th century BCE the inhabitants
of this region had Judahite material culture (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2003: 22
n. 14, and see Fantalkin 2004: 253–254) has no bearing on their territorial, political,
or administrative affiliation (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2011: 17). The renewed
presence of the Kingdom of Judah in the Shephelah during the late 7th cen-
tury BCE likely did not include Tel Beth-Shemesh; but the new excavations to the
east of the mound may attest to the existence of a (late) 7th century BCE Judahite
village immediately outside the boundary of the Iron II city.

Summary

The newly published Beth-Shemesh stamp impressions further emphasize the

unique history of the town as a major Judahite centre in the Soreq Valley in the
late 8th century BCE. The fact that neither concentric circle incisions from the
mid-7th century BCE, nor rosette stamp impressions from the late 7th and early
6th century BCE were discovered at the site indicates a habitation gap during the
7th century BCE. The single late lmlk stamp impression found at Beth-Shemesh
does not change this conclusion as it might be part of the mid-7th century BCE
short-term presence of the ‘water drawers’ at the site (Bunimovitz and Lederman
2016: 85–153). Following Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 BCE the Soreq Valley, as
well as the entire Shephelah, was transferred to the Kingdom of Ekron, and was
92 Part A: Judah under Assyrian Rule

under its rule at least until the Assyrian withdrawal from the Levant ca. 630 BCE.
Even then, and in contrast to the situation at Lachish, Azekah and other sites,
activity at the mound of Beth-Shemesh was not renewed and the site never re-
turned to its days of prosperity in the earlier centuries of Judahite history. Possi-
bly, the destruction of the fortified city in 701 BCE was so devastating, and the
blocking of the water reservoir so grave (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2016: 129–
149; 466–467) that the renewed settlement of the (late?) 7th century BCE was
located to the east of the city, closer to the spring. We must await publication of
the results of the new excavations to see if they support this assumption.
Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under
Babylonian Rule
The Province of Judah under Babylonian Rule.
Shedding New Light on the Dark Years
of the “Exilic Period”: New Studies, Further
Elucidation, and Some Questions Regarding
the Archaeology of Judah as an “Empty Land”

Introduction

The Babylonian attack on the kingdom of Judah at the beginning of the sixth
century BCE brought about the desolation and utter destruction of Jerusalem and
its immediate environs. The house of David ceased to reign; the temple was left
in ruins; “the foxes walk upon it” (Lam 5:18). Furthermore, the western border
of Judah was destroyed as part of the Babylonian military campaign, and the
urban and administrative centers, the military forts, as well as many of the rural
settlements in the region were crushed and deserted. In what was probably a
longer, more complex process, the peripheral regions of the kingdom in the Negev
to the south and in the Judean Desert, the Jordan Valley, and the western shore
of the Dead Sea to the east all collapsed, with ruinous consequences. Many of the
Judahites were exiled to Babylon, while many others escaped or were forced to
leave their land and homes, or perished from the harsh penalties of the long war
and the presence of the Babylonian forces in Judah. The small kingdom, which
had existed for hundreds of years, turned into a province. A new period in the
history of Judah had begun, its borders shrunk and its population sharply deplet-
ed. The social, theological and historical center of its gravity shifted to the com-
munity of deportees in Babylon. This is, at least, the gloomy, depressing picture
that scholars have painted for decades of the “exilic period” of Babylonian rule
over Judah (604–539 BCE).
In recent years, new finds from the sixth century BCE, as well as new studies
concerning the archaeology of Judah between the seventh and the fifth centu-
ries BCE, have shed new light on our understanding of this period. Despite its
harshness, the sixty-five-year interval has shown itself to be a period of adminis-
trative, economic, and cultural continuity, especially in the close peripheral circle
to the north and south of Jerusalem. The dreary picture was not quite so bleak
after all.
In this essay I will briefly present these new studies and new finds, and will
discuss their meaning and implications for our understanding of the history of
Judah in the sixth century BCE, and for our understanding of the biblical descrip-
tions of the Babylonian destruction. This will be provide us with the basis for
discussing and clarifying the problematic nature of the current methodologies for

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-006
96 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

understanding the archaeological research of this period, the limitation of histori-

cal research based on archaeological material, and the motivation and “hidden
polemics” of scholars studying the “empty land” in Judah.

New Studies and New Finds That Shed New Light

on the Archaeology of the sixth Century BCE in Judah

The Continuation of the Judahite Administrative Center at Ramat Raḥel

from the Late Iron Age to the Persian Period

The site of Ramat Raḥel provides a first case in point. The earliest building level
at Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni’s Stratum Vb) was settled in the late eighth, more proba-
bly in the early seventh century BCE (Aharoni 1964a: 61–63, 119–120; Lipschits
et al. 2009: 61–63; Aharoni and Aharoni 1976: 73–90; Lipschits et al. 2009: 61–64;
2011: 10–14; Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010: 3–32; 2011: 5–41).1 Few architectural
remains belong to this phase, but a large quantity of pottery and about 225 lmlk
stamped jar handles, most of which originated in fills under the second building
level (Aharoni’s Stratum VA), are a clear indication that already in this early
phase the site served as a Judahite administrative center. The site was built near
Jerusalem at the time when Judah was a vassal kingdom under Assyrian auspices,
probably in order to collect goods in kind, mainly jars of wine and oil (Lipschits
and Gadot 2008: 88–96; Lipschits 2011: 16–20).
In the second building phase (Aharoni’s Stratum VA), dated to the last third
of the seventh century BCE,2 an imposing edifice stood atop the mound (Lipschits
2009b: 64–70; 2011: 20–34). This is one of the most impressive structures discov-
ered in Judah, and it is no wonder that scholars have described it as either a
palace for Judean kings (Aharoni 1964a: 119–120; Stern 2001b: 69, 162; Barkay
2006: 39–42, or an Assyrian (Naʾaman 2001: 271–273) or Judahite administrative
center (Lipschits 2005: 213–216; Lipschits and Gadot 2008; Lipschits et al. 2011: 20–

1 Aharoni (1964a: 119) dated this early level to the late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE
(see also Aharoni and Aharoni 1976: 73–90). The renewed excavations at the site (2005–2010)
confirmed this date and demonstrated that this early building phase, which probably began only
after the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign to Judah, continued to exist without any breakthrough the
seventh century BCE. See Lipschits et al. 2009: 61–64; Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010; 2011.
2 See Aharoni (1962a: 51–53; 1964a: 119–120), which dated this palace to the time of Jehoiakim
(609–598 BCE). But the renewed excavations proved that the date of this phase extends from the
last third of the seventh century into the sixth century without any indication of destruction at
the beginning of the sixth century BCE.
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 97

34). Its walls were of ashlar blocks, unique in Judahite architecture, and it was
decorated with volute (proto-Aeolic) capitals (Lipschits 2009b), magnificent win-
dow balustrades, small limestone stepped, pyramid-shaped stones (probably part
of the crenellation that topped the edifice wall), and other stone ornaments. Yo-
hanan Aharoni assumed that the palace was surrounded by a wide, fortified
courtyard extending over an area of about 2 hectares (Aharoni 1964a: 199). How-
ever, the renewed excavation project revealed that the edifice was surrounded
on the south, west, and north by a magnificent garden, well built on artificially
flattened bedrock. In and around this area large pools with high quality ashlars
were built, surrounded by tunnels, channels, and other water installations cov-
ered with thick layers of plaster. This garden, as well as the edifice to its east,
continued to exist until the Persian period, when the edifice was expanded on its
northwestern corner. Of about 235 rosette stamp impressions known today, which
date to the last decades of the Judean monarchy, forty-three were excavated at
Ramat Raḥel, all of them above the floors of the second building phase, none of
them below it (Naʾaman 1991b: 31–33, 42–43, 57; 2001: 291–293; Koch and Lipschits
2010). This is a clear indication that the site continued to function as an important
administrative center in Judah during the period when the large edifice and gar-
dens were built.
Contrary to Aharoni’s interpretation, there is no evidence for the destruction
of Ramat Raḥel at the beginning of the sixth century BCE, or for a long occupa-
tional gap at the site (Aharoni 1964a: 120). The renewed excavations clearly dem-
onstrated that the site continued to exist during the sixth century BCE, when
Jerusalem was in ruins and Mizpah/Tell en-Naṣbeh was the capital of Judah (Lip-
schits 1999c: 473–476; Lipschits et al. 2009: 70; 2011: 34–37). Throughout this peri-
od, the second building phase at the site persisted without marked change.
Aharoni dated his next stratum, IVB, to the long period covering the Persian
and Hasmonean eras (Aharoni 1964a: 120–121; cf. Stern 2001b: 34–37). Numerous
small artifacts from these periods have been found, but only fragmented architec-
tural remains. The renewed excavations at the site have uncovered valuable new
evidence that illuminates Persian period Ramat Raḥel and emphasizes the contin-
uum between the second and the third building phases, dated from the late sixth
to the late fourth century BCE, with two main subphases. The remains of a new
building, both sturdy and large, were exposed. Rectangular in shape, it was built
on the northwestern side of the second-phase edifice complex, covers an area of
about six hundred square meters, and comprises a new wing added to the exist-
ing complex, surrounding the largest pool of the second building phase. In the
southeastern corner of the site, a huge pit was excavated that contained hundreds
of pottery vessels, among them more than ten restorable jars, some of them bear-
ing stamp impressions from the early yhwd types, and some with sixth century
98 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

“private” stamp impressions together with lion stamp impressions on body sherds.
These finds, together with hundreds of stamp impressions on jar handles dated to
the Persian and Hellenistic occupation periods at the site, are the best indication
that Ramat Raḥel was the main center of the yhwd system in which the jars circu-
lated. The possible involvement of the central Achaemenid government may be
indicated by the intensive construction at the site and in the unusual creation of
the additional wing on the northwestern side of the existing edifice, the style and
strength of which are unparalleled by any other finds in the area in the same
period (Lipschits 2009b: 70–72; 2011: 34–37). As for the history of the site during
the sixth century BCE, it seems that the continuous function of Ramat Raḥel as an
administrative site is best attested by the continuity of use of the system of stamped
jar handles, as indicated below.

The Continuation of the System of Stamped Jar Handles

during the Sixth Century BCE

The unique administrative nature of Ramat Raḥel is best reflected in its profusion
of stamped jar handles. Over three hundred stamped handles from the late Iron
Age have been found at the site, including lmlk and “private” stamp impressions
(late 8th and early seventh centuries BCE); concentric circle incisions (mid-sev-
enth century BCE), and rosette stamp impressions (late seventh to early sixth
centuries BCE). In the Persian and Hellenistic periods, too, Ramat Raḥel was the
main center of stamped jar handles, with more than three hundred yhwd stamp
impressions dated to the late sixth to mid-second centuries BCE, and yršlm stamp
impressions (second century BCE). All in all, this phenomenon takes in more than
half a millennium of continuous, systemized administration of the collecting of
jars of wine and oil. During long periods of this half millennium, Ramat Raḥel
functioned as the main Judahite administration and collection center – as is evi-
denced by the presence at this small site of the large number of most of the
different types of stamped handles excavated in Judah. No other Judahite site,
not even Jerusalem, can challenge Ramat Raḥel’s record.

The Lion Stamped Jar Handles and the sixth-Century BCE Administration
in Judah

Wedged between the two systems of stamped jar handles – that from the Iron
Age and that from the Persian and Hellenistic periods – another system existed
in Judah, and mainly at Ramat Raḥel: the lion stamp impressions on the body or
the handles of jars. Seventy-seven lion stamped jar handles were excavated at
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 99

Ramat Raḥel, out of a total of about 110 stamped handles known to us to date. A
modified typological classification demonstrates that two out of ten types were
found solely at Ramat Raḥel, that one additional type was found at Ramat Raḥel
and Nebi Samwil only, and that all the other types are represented mainly at
Ramat Raḥel. Until recently, scholars dated the lion stamp impressions to the very
beginning of the Persian period (Stern 1982: 209–210; 2001b: 541; cf. Ariel and
Shoham 2000: 141; or Williamson 1988: 60–64). The reason is the absence of these
stamped handles from the “classic” Persian period strata, and the historical as-
sumption that they cannot be dated to the pre-Persian period (i.e., to the “exilic
period”). In addition, Ephraim Stern interpreted the “object” (Aharoni 1964a: 45)
or “indistinct signs” (Pritchard 1961, opposite of fig. 46) forming part of a scene
depicting a lion standing on his hind legs, with the two front legs stretched out
wide, as an Achaemenid “fire altar.” However, a new study of the iconography of
this type hints at the connection of these objects with the Assyrian-Babylonian
world (Sass 2010: 13–14). Furthermore, petrographic analysis of the lion stamped
handles made by Boaz Gross and Yuval Goren shows a resemblance to Iron Age
patterns of the rosette jar handles (pottery production in the Shephelah of Judah
and in the area of Jerusalem) rather than to Persian-period patterns of the yhwd
jars (pottery production solely in the area of Jerusalem) (Gross and Goren 2010:
11–12).
The conclusion is that the lion stamp impression system belongs to an earlier
and wider sixth-century BCE administrative system and that it should be placed
in the Babylonian period. This is the “missing link” in administrative continuity
in Judah; it was part of the Babylonian administration that lasted until the begin-
ning of the Persian period, at which point it was replaced by the yhwd stamp
impression system.
The prominence of the lion stamp impressions is another indication that
Ramat Raḥel continued to have a major administrative role during the sixth cen-
tury BCE, while its second building phase continued to exist. Only one mwṣh
stamp impression – which probably also dates to the mid-sixth century BCE (Zorn,
Yellin and Hayes 1994) – came from Ramat Raḥel, whereas thirty mws ̣h stamp
impressions were excavated at Tell en-Naṣbeh, the new capital of Judah after
the destruction of Jerusalem (Lipschits 2005: 179–181). This fact suggests that the
administrative center that continued to exist at Ramat Raḥel had a different role
and status from those of the capitals, whether Jerusalem or Mizpah.

The Continuation in Pottery Production in Judah between the End

of the Iron Age and the Persian Period

New discoveries at Ramat Raḥel have proven the theory that characteristics of
the well-known local pottery assemblages dating to the end of the Iron Age and
100 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

to the Persian period exhibit continuity, and therefore attest to the existence of
an unbroken tradition of pottery production in Judah from the end of the seventh
to the fifth and fourth centuries BCE (Lipschits 2005: 192–205, with further litera-
ture; Lipschits et al. 2019). There is a time gap of 150 years between the well-
known pottery assemblages from the late Iron Age, as discovered at Lachish
Level II, City of David Stratum 10, Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum 3A, Tel Arad Strata VII–
VI; Tel ʿIra Stratum VI; En-gedi (Tell Goren) Stratum V, and building levels 1 and
2 at Ramat Raḥel (Lipschits 2005: 192–193, with further literature), and the typical
pottery assemblages from the Persian period, as known from En-gedi Stratum IV,
Stratum 9 of Area G in the City of David, Jabel Nimra Stage II, building level 3 at
Ramat Raḥel, and sites in the region of Benjamin (see e.g. Lipschits 2005: 193,
with further literature). The new pottery assemblage from Ramat Raḥel is the
only one thus far that clearly fills this gap, and thus supports the theoretical
assumption that the local traditions of pottery production continued throughout
the sixth century BCE.
The best examples of this continuity are the store jars from the Persian peri-
od, characterized by an ovoid- or sack-shaped body, convex base, narrow neck,
rounded shoulder, thick, everted rim and four loop handles that extend from the
shoulder to the body (Type A, according to Stern) (Stern 1982: 103; Lipschits 2005:
199). These jars exhibit the features of those jars characteristic of the end of
the Iron Age in Judah (known also as “rosette jars”), continued the tradition of
production, and were widespread only within the province of Judah (Stern 1982:
103). The fact that exactly this type of jar was recently discovered at Ramat Raḥel
with sixth century “private” and lion stamp impressions on the body of the jars,
with the same type of jars bearing the early types of yhwd stamp impressions on
their handles, all of them very similar in shape and proportion to the “rosette
jars” from the late Iron Age, is a clear indication that jars of this kind continued
to appear in Judah in the sixth century BCE. Later, in the Persian period, the jars
with a more pronounced globular, sack-shaped body and those with two to four
handles or with no handles at all (Types B and C, according to Stern) (Stern 1982:
103–104) gradually replaced this type of jar. On many of the handles of these jars,
middle and late types of yhwd stamp impressions were discovered.
This is also the case with many other pottery vessels from the Persian period
that continued to be produced from the late Iron Age into the sixth and early
fifth centuries BCE. During the fifth century BCE they began to demonstrate new
features in terms of shape, processing technique, and material, probably due to
influences of internal slow and gradual developments and interaction with both
neighboring regions and cultures as well as with the culture of the Babylonian
and Persian empires, and later on with the Hellenistic civilization. The character-
istics common to almost all of the Persian-period vessels are the thickened, evert-
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 101

ed rim, trumpet base or raised disc base, globular sack-shaped body, and raised
or “suspended” handles. These “classic” characteristics appear only in the fifth
century BCE, and it seems that the sixth century BCE serves, to some extent, as a
transition period between the cylindrical-elliptical shape characteristic of the Iron
Age and the shape characteristic of the Persian period. One main feature of the
changes in the technique of pottery production is the disappearance of the polish-
ing, especially of the bowls.3
This “intermediate” culture of the sixth century BCE was not identified until
now and did not get its typological and chronological definition because of its
close similarity to the pottery assemblages that preceded and followed it. As will
be discussed below, it was also not identified because scholars assumed that life
ceased to exist in Judah during the “exilic period,” and that pottery production
and all other expressions of economy and administration could not be developed
in Judah during this period. This assumption caused archaeologists to identify
the “intermediate” material culture of the sixth century BCE as representing the
late Iron Age (late seventh to early sixth centuries BCE). This is so even in areas
where there is a scholarly consensus that life continued in Judah in the sixth
century BCE.4
The newly discovered, and not yet published, pottery assemblage from Ramat
Raḥel stands as the clear marker for this group of sixth century BCE pottery
assemblage. Similar pottery assemblages can be found at a number of central
sites, primarily in the Benjamin region, such as Tell el-Fûl (Stratum IIIb), several
defined loci in Stratum I at Tell en-Naṣbeh, as well as well-defined pottery assem-
blages at Beitin and el-Jib (Lipschits 2005: 193–194, with further literature).

Continuation in the Rural Settlements to the North

and South of Jerusalem

During the Babylonian period, a marked change took place in the characteristics
of the settled areas. The settlement center of gravity moved from Jerusalem to
the close periphery, and a new pattern of settlement was created in which the
core was depleted and the nearby periphery continued to exist almost un-
changed.5

3 See Sinclair (1968: 71) and Lapp (1981: 84–85), who dated this change to the first half of the
sixth century BCE.
4 See, e.g., the assumption of Finkelstein (1993: 27).
5 There are two main changes in settlement pattern and characteristics in Judah following the
Babylonian 586 BCE campaign. Since the beginning of the 1950s, many scholars have noted the
different fate that befell the Benjamin region and the archaeological reality that prevailed there
102 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

The lack of definition of the sixth-century material culture and the continua-
tion of the familiar late Iron Age material culture to the “exilic period” of the
sixth century BCE caused a phenomenon in which, at sites lacking archaeological
evidence of the Babylonian destruction, especially in the small and rural sites, no
distinction was made between strata from the end of the Iron Age and strata
from the Babylonian and Persian periods. Even at sites where archaeological
evidence of late Iron Age destruction was found, but life continued and another
building level was located, the exact time of the destruction and settlement resto-
ration could not be archaeologically located, and historical interpretation was
used and presented as archaeological conclusion. This is the case mainly with the
destruction of many sites in the Negev, the Southern Shephelah, the southern
part of the Judean Hills, the Jordan Valley, and the Dead Sea area. On the basis
of historical assumption, the destruction of many Iron Age sites in these areas
was ascribed to Babylonian activity at the beginning of the sixth century BCE;
other options such as a gradual collapse before and after the fall of Jerusalem
were never considered.6 Furthermore, at many sites the finds from the Babyloni-
an, Persian, and sometimes even Hellenistic periods were not separated, mainly
because settlement continuity prevailed in the transition from Babylonian to Per-
sian rule as well as in the transition to the Ptolemaic and Selucid periods, and
there was difficulty in distinguishing between these periods.7
During this time, the Judahite population that continued to subsist in the
northern Judean highlands and in the Benjamin region preserved its material
culture. There lies the great difficulty posed to archaeological research in discern-
ing this culture and defining it. Many scholars have discerned the different fate
of the Benjamin region and the archaeological reality in it after the destruction of
Jerusalem (See Malamat 1950: 227; Wright 1957: 199; Lapp 1981: 82; Stern 2000: 229;

after the destruction of Jerusalem. See, e.g., Malamat 1950: 227; Wright 1957: 199; Lapp 1965: 6;
Weinberg 1970: 206; 1972: 47–50; Stern 1982: 229; 2000: 51; 2001b: 321–323; Barstad 1996: 47–48;
2003: 6–9; Milevski 1996–1997; Lipschits 1999b; 2001a: 131–135; 2003: 346–351; 2005: 237–249; Oded
2003: 71. It is probable that the same archaeological picture existed also in the area south of
Jerusalem, between Bethlehem and Tekoa, and to a lesser extent in the area more to the south,
as far as Beth-zur (Lipschits 2003: 351–355; 2005: 250–258; Lipschits and Gadot 2008).
6 On the archaeological data and its interpretation, see Lipschits 2005: 224–237, with further
literature.
7 See, e.g., the broad definition given to the “Persian-Hellenistic period” in Gezer (500 BCE to
100 c.e.); to the “late Judahite period” in Jericho; to the “Hellenistic period” in Beth-zur (between
the destruction of the First Temple and the Roman period); to the far-ranging characterization
in Gibeon of all of the meager remnants between the sixth century BCE and the first century
CE; to the preliminary dating of Stratum IV at Ramat Raḥel between the fifth century BCE and
the first century CE, etc. of Stratum IV at Ramat Raḥel between the fifth century BCE and the
first century CE, etc.
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 103

2004: 273; Lipschits 1999b: 155–190; 2005: 98–112). The biblical description regard-
ing the fate of this region during the Babylonian campaign against Jerusalem and
after the destruction of the city, together with excavation data of the main sites
explored in the Benjamin region and the data of surveys conducted there, attest
that the region was not destroyed with Jerusalem. As a historical interpretation of
this data, one may assume that already before the fall of Jerusalem the Babylo-
nians had chosen Mizpah as the alternative capital of the Babylonian province,
and appointed Gedaliah as the first governor (Lipschits 2005: 98–112).
The area to the south of Jerusalem, with the Rephaim Valley in its center,
probably had the same fate as the Benjamin region. The Rephaim Valley, with its
rich alluvial soil and moderately terraced slopes, has historically been one of the
prosperous agricultural districts in the environs of Jerusalem, vital to the econo-
my of the city. The mounting archaeological data from this area, underscored by
the many agricultural installations and small farmsteads found in and around the
valley, confirms that those periods during which the Rephaim Valley flourished
agriculturally are the same periods during which there was construction at Ramat
Raḥel, that is, from the late Iron Age to the Persian period, with no sign of a hiatus
(including, e.g., storage jars stamped with lion stamp impressions discovered at
Khirbet er-Ras (Gadot 2015: 8–13).
The site of Rogem Ganim was the main production center in the Rephaim
basin (Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 229–243). It is located at the western edge
of the upper part of the Rephaim catchment, about seven kilometers west of
Ramat Raḥel. In addition to a large tumulus (9 m high and 40 m across), Raphael
Greenberg and Gilad Cinamon uncovered winepresses, storage caves, and plas-
tered cisterns, but no architecture evidence of a site of agricultural industry and
storage. The pottery discovered at the site included mostly jars, and most of the
repertoire dates to the late Iron Age and to the Persian period (Greenberg and
Cinamon 2006: 229). According to the new assumptions concerning the lion stamp
impressions and the sixth century BCE, the site may have continued to exist
during the Babylonian period as well.8
All in all, it seems that Rogem Ganim was the main economic-agricultural
site in the Rephaim basin, functioning in tandem with the administrative center

8 Four lmlk stamped jar handles, four other handles with concentric circles, and three rosette
stamped handles were discovered from the late Iron Age. Three lion stamp impressions were
discovered from the sixth century BCE. From the Persian period two yhwd stamp impressions
of the early types dated to the late sixth and fifth centuries BCE and five yhwd stamp impressions
from the middle types dated to the fourth and third centuries BCE (see Greenberg and Cinamon
2006: 231–233, 234 fig. 3, 240; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011). No Hellenistic remains come from
the site, which dovetails with the absence of yhwd stamp impressions of the late types.
104 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

at Ramat Raḥel (Cinamon 2004; Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 229, 233–235; Lip-
schits and Gadot 2008: 88–96; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011). Khirbet er-Ras,
located on the slopes of a spur just above the riverbed of the Rephaim Valley, is
the only site in the valley where private houses were discovered beside agricul-
tural installations. During the surveys and the excavations, different structures
and agricultural installations were discovered with pottery and other finds from
the late Iron Age, with some scant remains from the Middle Bronze and Early
Roman periods (Feig 2000). A lmlk stamped jar handle was discovered (Feig and
abed-Rabo 1995: 65–66), dated to the early seventh century BCE (Lipschits, Sergi
and Koch 2010), and two lion stamp impressions were discovered at the site and
at the slopes above it (not yet published), indicating the continued use of the site
during the sixth century BCE. No yhwd stamped jar handles were discovered at
Khirbet er-Ras, but according to the surveys Persian-period pottery is present at
the site (Kloner 2000: 29).
These sites may also have functioned together with other small hamlets,
farms, and agricultural installations in the area, all of them with late Iron Age
and Persian-period pottery (Greenberg and Cinamon 2006: 233), and probably
attached to wine-presses. These include, beside the farm at er-Ras (Feig 1996;
Edelstein 2000), a farm (?) and winepresses at Beit Safafa (Feig 2003); a cave site
excavated near the Holyland Hotel in Jerusalem (Ben-Arieh 2000); and probably
also the sites at Manaḥat, Givʿat Massuah, and some other small sites.9
Although no continuous stratigraphic sequence exists at such small sites,
Greenberg and Cinamon hypothesize, on the basis of the chronological distribu-
tion of the jar stamp impressions, that the area served as Jerusalem’s southwest-
ern wine country from the late eighth to the fifth centuries BCE (Greenberg and
Cinamon 2006: 236–238). Following other scholars, they connected the develop-
ment of the Rephaim basin in the latter part of the eighth century BCE with the
development of Jerusalem during the same period. Following Nadav Naʾaman’s
(2001: 260–280) suggestion and based on the detailed discussion by Oded Lipschits
and Yuval Gadot (2008), Lipschits and David Vanderhooft (2011) hypothesize that
the development of the Rephaim basin was connected to the emergence of Ramat
Raḥel as an administrative center in the region under Assyrian rule, and not as

9 Greenberg and Cinamon (2006: 234–236 and Table 2) mentioned thirty-five winepresses (eight
wine presses at Rogem Ganim, sixteen at the nearby site of Manaḥat, five at Givʿat Massuah,
four at Beit Safafa, and two at Khirbet er-Ras), together with numerous other installations con-
nected to wine production such as plastered tanks and storage caves. The absence of silos like
those discovered at the nearby site of Moza (Greenhut and De Groot 2002; Greenhut 2006: 195–
281), and of animal pens or corrals so common in other areas of the hill country also point to
wine production as the raison d’etre for these sites. On this subject, see Faust 2003.
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 105

part of the development in Jerusalem. It follows logically that the development

in the Rephaim basin in the hinterland of Jerusalem was connected with the
organization of royal estates in the kingdom of Judah during the late eighth and
seventh centuries BCE (Finkelstein 1994: 174, 177–178; Fox 2000), probably after
the period when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom. The Rephaim basin
appears to have been developed as a royal estate to supply local administrators,
probably with wine. This explanation fits the centralized processing demonstrat-
ed by the concentration of winepresses not associated with village infrastructure,
the process of organized decanting and shipping of the wine, and the function of
Ramat Raḥel in all of the periods in question as an administrative center in the
region. As with the Benjamin area to the north of Jerusalem, the administrative
and economic nature of this area, its connection to the administrative center at
Ramat Raḥel, and the archaeological evidence for its continuous use until the
early Hellenistic period are clear indications of its existence under Babylonian
rule as well.10
In contrast with the settlement continuity in the northern area of the Judean
Hills, the main and prominent change in the settlement, demography, and borders
of Judah is the creation of the Idumaean province in the southern Judean hills,
the southern Shephelah, and the Negev, previously parts of the kingdom of Judah
(Stern 2000: 274). It was probably a long and gradual change, set in motion by
Sennacherib and the harsh Assyrian conquest of the region. The northern and
southern Judean hills transformed into diverse settlement units. The northern
unit was clearly allied with the areas north of it, and one must draw parallels
between the settlement processes taking place there and those taking place in
the Benjamin region. The southern unit was linked with settlement processes
taking place in the Negev and the southern part of the Shephelah, and was sepa-
rate from the settlement processes that took place in the northern highland (Lip-
schits 1997: 298–299). In view of this settlement picture, one can understand why,
when the array of border fortresses in the Beersheba-Arad Valleys collapsed
(whether as part of the Babylonian attack or a gradual process that began before
the final Babylonian attack and continued afterwards), the vast, relatively empty
areas of the southern highlands of Judah became a lodestone for the Arab and
Edomite tribes that had begun to invade from the south (Lipschits 2003: 334–338;
2005: 140–146, 181–184). In any case, this region went through a different geopoliti-

10 It is not clear to me why, in a series of papers, Avraham Faust insisted that the sites in this
region did not continue to exist in the sixth century and during the Persian period, and even
built a theory on the crisis of the rural settlement in Judah based on this data (Faust 2002: 83–
89; 2003: 37–53; 2004: 157–176; 2007: 23–51; 2009: 339–347).
106 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

cal and demographical process that cannot be compared with that which took
place in the northern Judean hills and the region of Benjamin.

The Significance of the New Finds and the New Studies

for Understanding the Historical Reality
of the sixth Century BCE and the Biblical Description
of the “Exilic Period” in Judah

The meaning of the new finds from the sixth century BCE and the new observa-
tions concerning the “exilic period” in Judah is that after the destruction of Jeru-
salem and the other main urban and military Judahite centers by the Babylonians
at the beginning of the sixth century BCE, “the people who were left in the land
of Judah” (2 Kgs 25:22) continued to live in close proximity to the north and south
of Jerusalem, continued to maintain a rural economy, continued to pay taxes in
wine and oil and other agricultural products in the same way and in similar
stamped jars as they had previously, continued to produce pottery in the same
Iron Age tradition, and continued to serve under the same administration. The
administrative center at Ramat Raḥel continued to function as the collection cen-
ter of the taxes, mainly in the form of jars filled with wine and oil, with no
marked change, except for the new lion stamp impressions on the handles of the
jars, which replaced the rosette stamp impressions on the same type of jars, even
when the capital of the newly established province of Yehud moved to Tell en-
Naṣbeh (Mizpah), which served as the bîrah for 141 years, from 586 BCE (Lipschits
2001a: 129–142), through the Neo-Babylonian period (Lemaire 2003), until the time
of Nehemiah (445 BCE) (Blenkinsopp 1998: 42 n. 48; cf. Lemaire 1990: 30–40; 2003:
292). These observations confirm the conclusion that in many aspects the Babylo-
nian empire continued the Assyrian ideology and administration, took over the
Assyrian provincial system, and made only the minimal and necessary adjust-
ments.11
The major and most conspicuous archaeological phenomenon in sixth cen-
tury BCE Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem was the sharp decline in urban
life, which is in contrast to the continuity of the rural settlements in the region

11 See, e.g., Sack 2003: 229. A similar opinion was expressed by Stern (1994a: 51–62), as against
later statements (see, e.g., Stern 2001b: 307–308). See, in this line, also Blenkinsopp (2002: 179–
180). A different view was expressed by Vanderhooft (1999: 90–114), but see against his views
Sack (2003: 226–227).
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 107

of Benjamin and in the area between Bethlehem and Beth-zur.12 This settlement
pattern also continued throughout the Persian period when, despite the rebuild-
ing of Jerusalem and the restoration of its status as the capital of the province,
there was no strengthening of urban life in this area, and settlement in Judah
remained largely based on the rural population (Lipschits 2003: 326–355; 2005:
206–271).
This sharp decline in urban life has other implications for the material cul-
ture, such as the disappearance of the typical family burial caves usually associat-
ed with urban and other elite classes in society (Barkay 1994a). This is a reflection
of deep religious and social change. Since there is continued use of some of the
burial caves in the area of Benjamin, in Jerusalem and other sites (Faust 2009:
341), there is no need to connect it to the isolated crisis of 586 BCE, but rather to
a broader and graduated change in religion and society that occurred during the
sixth century BCE and perhaps mainly at the beginning of the Persian period,
when other changes, such as the disappearance of iconography in the stamp
impressions on jar handles (the well dated change from the lion to the yhwd
stamp impressions) occurred.
Other elements that emphasize the change in material culture from the Iron
Age to the Persian period, such as the disappearance of the typical Judahite house,
are probably part of a gradual change that had already begun during the seventh
century BCE and continued for hundreds of years afterwards, with some typical
four-room houses still built during the sixth century BCE (Zorn 1997: 29–38, 66).
One should remember in this regard that, aside from the monumental building at
Ramat Raḥel and the industrial site at En-gedi, there are only scanty architectural
remains in Judah dated to the Persian period. The domestic architecture that can
be compared with Iron Age Judahite architecture came from the Hellenistic peri-
od. From an archaeological perspective it is difficult to date the disappearance of
the typical Judahite house and to connect it to a specific period when a sharp
decline in urban life occurred but other aspects in the material culture continued
to exist.
These new observations concerning sixth century BCE Judah fit well with the
biblical account of this period – both with the description of the destruction of
Jerusalem and with the description of the days of Gedaliah in the short period
afterwards. There are some clear clues in the biblical description about the de-
struction of the border fortresses and cities in the Shephelah (Jer 34:7), and this
information fits well with the archaeological data concerning the destruction of
these sites, as well as of many small towns, villages, and hamlets in the region

12 On this subject, see Carter 1994; Milevski 1996–1997; Lipschits 1997: 171–336; 1999b: 155–190;
2003: 326–355; 2005: 250–258; Naʾaman 2000b: 43.
108 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

(Lipschits 2005: 218–223), and the mention of Azekah in Ostracon 4 from Lachish
(Torczyner 1938: 76). The biblical description of the period of the Babylonian de-
struction focuses, however, on the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the
centers of government and religious ritual in the city (2 Kgs 25; Jer 37; 52), as well
as the burning of “all of the houses of Jerusalem,” and “every large house” (2 Kgs
25:9), and the total destruction of the city walls (25:10). This description accords
with the archeological finds that were revealed in the excavations at the City of
David, the Ophel, and the southwestern hill of Jerusalem (Lipschits 2005: 210–213).
It seems that the beginning of the systematic destruction of Jerusalem, about a
month after the king’s flight and the surrender of the city, is evidence that this was
not a spontaneous deed. It was a considered and conscious political act attesting
to a strategic decision: to obliterate the center of rebellion and to prevent its future
rebuilding, so as to eradicate, once and for all, the seeds of ferment and instability
in Judah. Along the same lines, the biblical description of the destruction of the
kingdom of Judah mentions only the deportation of the populace of Jerusalem
(2 Kgs 25:11; Jer 39:9; 52:15), and does not mention deportations from other areas
in Judah. This description accords with accounts given in 2 Kgs 25:12, Jer 39:10,
and Jer 52:16, mentioning “the poorest people of the land” who were left by Nabu-
zaradan, the commander of the guard (2 Kgs 25:12; Jer 42:16), to be vinedressers
and tillers of the soil.13 This is a description deriving from the qualitative, econom-
ic, and class-oriented judgment of the elite deported to Babylon toward those who
remained in the land, pronounced also in the tendentious summary generaliza-
tion, “So Judah was carried away captive out of his land” (2 Kgs 25:21b; Jer 52:27b).
There is only a semantic gap between this attitude toward the question of how
many were deported and from where, and how many remained and where, and
the attitude toward the same questions in the two versions describing the days of
Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25:22–26; Jer 40:7–41:18). According to these verses those who re-
mained in Judah were not “the poorest people of the land,” but rather “the people
who remained in the land of Judah” (2 Kgs 25:22a); “men, women from those who
were not deported to Babylon” (Jer 40:7),14 or even “a remnant for Judah” (40:11).
They were left under the leadership of Gedaliah to continue the national life of
the people in its land (2 Kgs 25:22b, 24b; Jer 40:7aβ–b; 10). Nebuchadrezzar, king
of Babylon, is the one who left them (2 Kgs 25: 22a).

13 See a detailed discussion of these descriptions and expressions in Lipschits 2005: 102.
14 In the Septuagint version, which at this point seems more reliable, “children and some of
the poorest people of the land” are missing from the text. Thus, the text refers only to “men and
women who were not deported from Judah.” See Janzen 1973: 53; and Lipschits 2005: 118–122,
with further literature.
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 109

There are no details in the biblical description regarding how many people
remained in Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem. Since the focus of the de-
scription is the deportation of the people from Jerusalem, it is reasonable to
assume that the “remnant” was part of the rural population, especially in the
regions around the city. Gedaliah was officially appointed over “those who re-
mained in Judah” (2 Kgs 25:22b, 23aβ; Jer 40:7),15 and this population had a well-
defined status and place, probably in the region of Benjamin and the environs of
Jerusalem (Lipschits 2005: 339–344, with further literature). The events described
in the story of Gedaliah’s period of rule in Judah are restricted, geographically,
to a specific area around Mizpah, where “the land of Judah” (2 Kgs 25:22) or “the
land” (v. 24) were mentioned. In the version in Jer 40–41, there are “the cities”
around Mizpah (40:10) “in the land of Judah” (40:12). These cities include Gibeon
(41:12, 16), and there is reference to the people living “in Geruth-Kimham, near
Bethlehem” (41:17).16 This is the reason for and the background to the description
of the days of Gedaliah’s rule in Mizpah. Gedaliah commanded the people left in
the land and the refugees “who were in Moab, in Ammon, in Edom, and in all
the countries” (Jer 40:11), who had returned “out of all the places to which they
had been scattered” (v. 12a), to join the people that were left in Judah and “stay
in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall go well with you” (2 Kgs
25:24; Jer 40: 9–10).17
The conclusion from all the above is that there is agreement between the
biblical description of the days of the destruction and the archaeological finds.
The Babylonians dealt a harsh blow to the kingdom of Judah, the harshest blow
in the history of the kingdom. They destroyed Jerusalem, as well as many of the
urban, military, economic, and administrative centers. They deported the king
and all the religious, economic, social, and political elite, and Judah lost its inde-
pendence (Lipschits 1998a: 467–487). From the demographic point of view, based
on all the available archaeological data, one can estimate that, as a result of the
long war and as part of its effect and outcome, there was approximately a 60 per-
cent decline in population, from about 110,000 people to about 40,000 (Lipschits
2003: 323–379; 2005: 267–271 cf. Carter 1999: 246–248).

15 After Machinist 1992: 79, there is nothing to support the assumption that Gedaliah was ap-
pointed as a king. See Lipschits 2005: 88–92, contra Maxwell Miller and Hayes 1986: 421–425; cf.
Bianchi 1991: 133–150; 1994: 153–165; Lemaire 1996a: 48–57. Cf. also Albertz 2003: 92–93 n. 166.
16 For the meaning of the name “Geruth-Kimham,” see Hoffman 2000: 117–118 n. 29; 2001: 724.
17 The silence of the Bible on events that occurred in Judah after the murder of Gedaliah cannot
be interpreted as evidence of the view that life in Judah ceased. On this subject, see Lipschits
1998a: 467–487; 1999b: 161–165; Middlemas 2005: 36–37.
110 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Ammon in the sixth Century BCE: What Can We Learn

about the Fate of Judah under Babylonian Rule?

The new finds and recent studies presented above support and strengthen the
“middle path” presented by the current author elsewhere (Lipschits 1999b: 155–
190; 2004d: 99–107; 2005; 2007a: 39–47). They offer the option of focusing on the
search for the “half full cup.” In this case, the comparison of the archaeological
situation in Judah with that in Ammon enables us to view the processes in a
neighboring country without benefit of biblical descriptions and without theologi-
cal influence or any historical interpretation.
Rabbath-Ammon during the Babylonian period is an archaeological and his-
torical blank. We have no information about the fate of this capital city. However,
in contrast to the continuation of the settlement in the area immediately south
and north of Rabbath-Ammon, we can reconstruct a deliberate destruction of the
main sites on the western border of the kingdom and along the main road from
the west to Rabbath-Ammon (Tell Mazar, Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, and Tel Nimrin) (Lip-
schits 2004d: 41). Similar to what happened in Judah (the Babylonian destruction
of the western borders and cities in the Shephelah), this archaeological situation
in the western border sites of the kingdom of Ammon can be interpreted as part
of the “opening of the door” to the heart of the kingdom by the Babylonian army.
As in Judah, in Ammon too there was a continuation of the rural settlement from
the end of the Iron Age to the Persian period. From the results of Tell el-ʿUmeiri
excavations and the survey conducted as part of the Madaba plains project, schol-
ars have demonstrated that a large area south of the capital of Rabbath-Ammon
was not destroyed by the Babylonians and even flourished throughout the Babylo-
nian and the Persian periods (ibid., 41, with further literature). In Ammon, as in
Judah, one can discern different geopolitical and demographic processes in the
different areas of the kingdom. One can reconstruct a continuation of the rural
settlement in the area around ʿUmeiri and Ḥ esban, south of Rabbath-Ammon and
perhaps also in the Baqʿah region, north of Ammon. Farms and small villages
continued to exist in those areas, characterized by diverse agricultural installa-
tions, mainly winepresses (Herr 1997c: 16). As at Mizpah in Benjamin, at about
580 BCE, after the Babylonian expedition against Ammon and under Babylonian
rule, Tell el-ʿUmeiri was built as the new administrative center of the Madaba
plains region (Herr 1991: 8–14). Furthermore, the size of the settlement in ʿUmeiri
was diminished, and it appears that the smaller settlement took on a highly spe-
cialized administrative and political function (Herr 1991: 12–13) very similar to
that assumed for Mizpah (Zorn 1993: 151–183; 2003: 418–433). The one Neo-Babylo-
nian style seal that was found in ʿUmeiri (Herr 1999: 231) can be interpreted as a
reflection of the Babylonian influence on this administrative center, if not as
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 111

evidence of actual presence at the site, and it can be compared with the abun-
dance of Babylonian material in Tell en-Naṣbeh (Zorn 2003: 433–440). In addition,
the seventy-five seals and seal impressions that were found at Tell el-ʿUmeiri,
emphasizing its administrative nature (Herr 1989: 269; 1991: 12), are similar in
function and number to the m(w)s ̣h and gbʿn gdr stamp impressions, which date
to the sixth century BCE and reflect organized economic and administra-
tive activity in the Babylonian province of Judah (Lipschits 2003: 179–183; 2005:
174–181).
Thus, the destruction of the main cities and administrative, urban, and mili-
tary centers was parallel in Judah and Ammon, and should not be understood as
an indication of a total destruction and demographic gap. Both destructions
should be interpreted as focused and intentional, according to the interests and
intents of the empire, albeit with many diverse and even difficult consequences.
One must take care nonetheless to differentiate very cautiously between varying
regions in the kingdom, and not to draw conclusions from one region to another,
and especially not to generalize when it comes to the rural settlements and to
indications of administrative, economical, and cultural continuity existing in
some regions and not in others.18
Both from the situation in Ammon and from the new finds and recent studies
of the material culture, administration, and economy in sixth-century BCE Judah,
it is clear that continuity in material culture can be well attested in the rural
areas that continued to survive after the destruction of the urban, military, and
administrative centers, and that these regions functioned as the places where
many aspects of the material culture were preserved and continued through the
“dark ages.” The general agreement on the settlement continuum in the area of
Benjamin during the sixth century BCE (Stern 2000: 273), and the new data on
the similar continuum in the Rephaim Valley and the area south of Jerusalem,
are the best indications for the place where the “people that remained in the
land” continued to live, with the same pottery and other indications for the mate-
rial culture that are well known from the period before the destruction of Jerusa-
lem in 586 BCE.
In light of the above, the question is, what can we learn from the new discov-
eries and the new studies on Judah in the sixth century BCE about the role of
archaeological research in biblical studies and historical reconstructions?

18 See, for example, the discussions of Stern (2004), which combine in his survey different
regions, including Assyrian provinces in the northern part of the land, with different regions in
Judah. Compare this to Vanderhooft’s discussion (1999: 106).
112 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

What Is Behind the Archaeological Reconstructions

of the “Babylonian Gap” and the “Empty Land”?

The archaeological study of the end of the kingdom of Judah has usually been
based on destruction layers, especially in Jerusalem, but also in other cities such
as Lachish, military fortresses such as Arad, industrial villages (kinds of royal
estates) such as En-gedi, and other large and medium-sized towns and agricultur-
al settlements. The results of these excavations and surveys have usually been
interpreted as clearly affirming that Judah was almost entirely destroyed and
that its population disappeared from most of the kingdom’s territory.
A direct line can be drawn from William Foxwell Albright’s 1949 statement
“There is not a single known case where a town of Judah was continuously occu-
pied through the exilic period” (Albright 1949a: 142) to the assessments of David
Jamieson-Drake (1991: 75, 146) of a “complete societal collapse” and “almost com-
plete dissolution” and to the title of Stern’s 2004 essay, “The Babylonian Gap: The
Archaeological Reality,” and the conclusion in the chapter on the Babylonian peri-
od in his 2001 book: “A review of the archaeological evidence from sixth-cen-
tury BCE Judah clearly reflects the literary (i.e., biblical) evidence for the com-
plete destruction of all the settlements and fortified towns by Nebuchadnezzar II’s
armies in 586 BCE” (Stern 2001b: 178).
Archaeologists have claimed that “this view is based upon purely archaeologi-
cal considerations and is not motivated by hidden ideological considerations,”
(Stern 2000: 273) and have usually used these archaeological “facts” as a basis for
a historical reconstruction of the “Babylonian gap” and the “empty land” during
the sixth century BCE, until the time of the return from the exile at the beginning
of the Persian period. Are these, however, “purely archaeological considerations”?
Can archaeology really differentiate between the material culture from the end
of the First Temple period and material culture that was used by “the people who
remained in Judah” in the years afterwards, especially at sites that were not
destroyed by the Babylonians?
It seems to me that this archaeological “fact” of a total destruction at the
beginning of the sixth century BCE is merely an outcome of historical preconcep-
tions about this period based on a traditional interpretation of the biblical de-
scription (Stern 2001b: 59–66). Bustenay Oded was right to claim that scholars
supporting the “myth of the empty land” as a by-product of the thesis about
“mythical ancient Israel” have common presumptions, especially regarding the
reliability of the biblical description concerning the destruction and deportation,
which is part of a late myth, invented as a political claim (Oded 2003: 57–58). He
is right in his attempt to demonstrate how much their thesis of the creation of
the “myth” is unacceptable and not well founded on archaeological grounds, and
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 113

even not on biblical grounds. However, it seems to me that just as in the case of
the different emphases in 2 Kgs 25:12, 22, the “school” of scholars supporting the
“Babylonian gap” and reconstructing a “real” empty land in Judah during the
“exilic period” are likewise studying the archaeological finds and interpreting
the texts with common presumptions, focusing on general impressions from the
statements made by exiles and returnees in order to substantiate their right to
the land, rather than using the more delicate research on the different voices
and descriptions of this period.
It seems to me that the fundamental problem with the archaeological recon-
struction of the “empty land” is that until now there has been no archaeological
way to differentiate between the material culture of the early or middle sixth
century BCE in Judah and the material culture of the last generations before the
destruction. In many respects, since archaeologists have not expected to find the
material culture from the sixth century BCE, this material culture was not discov-
ered, located, or identified. Gabriel Barkay (1998: 25) was right when he claimed
that “it seems that the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem influ-
enced modern scholarship, which fixed the date of the end of the Iron Age accord-
ing to a historical fact and not on the basis of the archaeological picture.” Indeed,
it would appear that historical considerations are what stand behind the general-
ized dating of the destruction layers in all sites in Judah in approximately 587/
6 BCE, and that these considerations have caused a lack of appropriate attention
to the possibility that a large population continued to exist in Judah even after
the destruction of Jerusalem. Even in the analysis of the finds from the survey in
Benjamin (Magen and Finkelstein 1993), where there is general consensus among
scholars that during the sixth century BCE many settlements continued to exist,
the pottery dated to the late First Temple period was considered as representing
only the period before 586 BCE, and the decline in settlement was considered as
“undoubtedly related to the destruction of Judah in the early sixth century BCE”
(Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 27).19 Paradoxically, these archaeological assertions
have provided material for historical studies, which are based on dating the strata
of destruction to create a historical profile of the Babylonian destruction through-
out the land of Israel (Vanderhooft 1999: 106–107).
Furthermore, no archaeologist could or has even tried to demonstrate from
the archaeological perspective any kind of “mass return” at the beginning of the
Persian period, as described in the introductory section to Ezra-Nehemiah. This
“mass return” had to be well attested in any case of “mass deportation” and
“empty land,” as indicated in Ezra 1–6, according to which some 50,000 immi-

19 For a critique of these conclusions and a renewed discussion of the finds of the survey, see
Lipschits 1999b: 180–184; 2005: 245–249.
114 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

grants returned to Judah at the very beginning of the Persian period with the
support of the imperial authorities.
The current indications, as presented above, for the continuity in material
culture, economy, and administration, not only from the late Iron Age to the
“exilic period,” but also to the Persian period, force us to see the sixth cen-
tury BCE as a period when despite the destructions and deportations, despite the
gap in the history of Jerusalem and the temple, despite the move of the social
and religious center of gravity from Judah to Babylon, Judahite life continued in
Judah, and in many aspects continued in a way very similar to what we know
about Judah before the 586 BCE destruction.
It seems to me that while studying the Babylonian period a very detailed and
careful examination of different regions is essential from the methodological
point of view. By studying archaeological material in this way, even the most
enthusiastic supporters of the “empty land” and the “Babylonian gap” theses
could not assume that Judah was a truly vacant area (Vanderhooft 1999: 104–110,
206; Stern 2000: 51; 2001b: 321–326; 2004: 276; Oded 2003: 66–71). Stern explicitly
emphasized that by the term “empty,” he refers “to a land that was virtually
depopulated” (Stern 2004: 274).20

Conclusions

Putting aside unacceptable theories that deny the destruction of Jerusalem and
its consequences, what then is the essential difference between the scholars who
belong to the “empty land” and “Babylonian gap” school and the way I have
presented the situation in Babylonian Judah in this essay?

20 From this aspect, the “ultra-conservative thesis” presented by Faust in a series of papers (e.g.,
2003: 37–53; 2004; 2007; 2009) carries many problems and does not stand the test of the historical,
archaeological, and biblical critiques. Faust presented the most extreme theory regarding the
“empty land” in Judah, ignoring the data presented above on rural settlement in the Rephaim
Valley and its surroundings, discussing mainly sites that were explored in salvage excavations
without Cultural Changes (2004; 2007; 2009) carries many problems and does not stand the test
of the historical, archaeological, and biblical critiques. Faust presented the most extreme theory
regarding the “empty land” in Judah, ignoring the data presented above on rural settlement in
the Rephaim Valley and its surroundings, discussing mainly sites that were explored in salvage
excavations without separating the Negev, Southern Judean hills, and the southern Shephelah –
which undoubtedly suffered from a demographic crisis at the beginning of the sixth century BCE,
and became very soon after part of a different province of Idumaea – from the northern Judean
hills and the region of Benjamin. He ignored the vast data on the fate of the area of Benjamin,
hypothesizing without any basis that although the urban settlement in this region continued
uninterrupted, the rural settlement suffered from the events.
 Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period” 115

I believe that like the two voices that can be found in the biblical description
of this period – on the one hand agreeing that Judah was not entirely void of
population, but on the other hand at odds about where the “true Judah” actually
was – so, too, the problem with the interpretation of the archaeological finds is
the question of focus and scope. Is the cup half full or half empty? Scholars
concur that the Babylonians caused major destruction in Judah, deported part of
the population, turned the vassal kingdom into a province, and moved its capital
from Jerusalem to Mizpah. The problem is the scope of the destruction caused by
the Babylonians, the scope of the deportation, and the scope of the population
that was left behind.
I hope that the “middle path” I have suggested here again – this time backed
up by additional archaeological data discovered in recent years, especially at
Ramat Raḥel and with some further studies that shed new light on the history,
administration, economy, and material culture of Judah in the sixth century BCE –
will open the way for further refined observations both in biblical and archaeo-
logical research, and will give this important period in the history of Judah and
its land the place in the sun it rightly deserves.
Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’
and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah
Nebuchadrezzar conquered the southern Levant by storm. Within two years
(605–604 BCE) He seized the whole region, which is called ‘Ḫattu-land’ in the
Babylonian chronicles, and a Babylonian hegemony was established there for a
period of 65 years. Egypt, which ruled in the region for more than 20 years
(Naʾaman 1991b: 33–41), was the only power, which could endanger the rule of
the Babylonians. It was clear to Nebuchadrezzar that he could not stabilize his
rule over the region, which was under the permanent threat of invasion from
the south, until the power of the Egyptians was restrained.
During the struggles between the two empires, the kingdom of Judah was a
key geographical. The small kingdom was not powerful enough to threaten either
of the two empires, but its location near the Egyptian border forced the Babyloni-
ans to take it into consideration. The main purpose of this article is to examine
the objects of the Babylonians in Judah during the reign of Nebuchadrezzar, with-
in the framework of their policy in ‘Ḫattu-land’.

The Babylonian Rule in ‘Ḫattu-land’ (605–588 BCE)

and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah
on the Eve of the Destruction of Jerusalem

In the last year of the reign of Nabopolassar (605/604 BCE), the Babylonians
crossed the Euphrates river, defeated the Egyptian army in Carchemish, and pur-
sued the escaping Egyptian army up to Hamath (Grayson 1975, 99 [B.M. 21946,
L. 1–8]).1 In the first year of his reign (604/603 BCE) Nebuchadrezzar undertook
an expedition to ‘Ḫattu-land’ during which he received the tributes of all the
kings of the region (Grayson 1975: 100 [L. 15–20]; Wiseman 1985: 22–24). No king
dared oppose him except the king of Ashkelon. Nebuchadrezzar’s response was
severe: the city was conquered and looted, its king was taken prisoner, captives
were carried off, and then it was destroyed (Grayson 1975: 100 [L. 18–20]; Stager
1996b: 56–59, 77, n. 3). Presumably Jehoiakim, king of Judah, was also among “all
the kings of the Ḫattu-land” who surrendered to Nebuchadrezzar and this was

1 Regarding the events of the year 605/604 BCE, see Wiseman 1956: 23–28; 66–69; 1985: 14–17.
For the amended reading of row no. 8 in the chronicle, see Oded 1966: 104. The prophecies of
Jeremiah (25: 1–14; 46: 1–12) can be dated to this year. See also the words of the prophet at 36:9
regarding the emergency meeting of the people and the call from Jerusalem for a day fasting.
For the possibility of a different dating of these events, see Galil 1996: 116.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-007
118 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

the occasion when, according to 2 Kgs 24:1, the kingdom of Judah was subdued
by Babylon (Miller and Hayes 1986: 406; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 308).2
After an interval of one year from the expeditions to the southern Levant
(603/602 BCE) (Naʾaman 1992b), in 602/601 BCE the Babylonian army undertook
an expedition preparatory to the planned invasion of Egypt (Grayson 1975: 101
[Rev. L. 1–4]). The conquest of Egypt would assure continued Babylonian rule
over ‘Ḫattu-land’ for many years. However, in the month of Kislev (Nov./Dec.
601 BCE), the Babylonian army didn’t succeed to conquest Egypt. According to the
Babylonian Chronicles “They fought one another in the battlefield and both sides
suffered severe losses” (Grayson 1975: 101 [Rev. L. 7]). This failure emphasized the
limits of their power and restrained their ambition to eliminate their great enemy
for a long time. Nebuchadrezzar, recognizing the difficulty of conquering Egypt
on the one hand and the absence of an immediate Egyptian threat to conquer
the southern Levant on the other, apparently decided that at this stage he could
not gain more than he already had.
Considering Babylonian policy in Ḫattu-land during the years of the conquest
and the first consolidation, it may be assumed that Nebuchadrezzar tried to rule
the region with minimal involvement. He retained the province system that he
inherited from the Egyptians and from the Assyrians, and whenever possible he
preferred to accept the surrender of the vassal kingdoms and permitted them to
continue their independent government.
In the light of this general policy, we can understand why the Babylonians
allowed Jehoiakim to remain on his throne even though he had been appointed
by the Egyptians. They were seemingly confident that anyone who accepted the
Egyptian yoke would also accept the Babylonian one. The status of Judah as tribu-
tary vassal kingdom did not change after the replacement of Egyptian by Babylo-
nian rule (Wiseman 1985: 22–26) and apparently also its borders remained the
same (Lipschits 1997b: 337–394).

* * *
Nebuchadrezzar spent the year after the ill-fated battle in Egypt (600/599 BCE) on
the re-organization of his army, mainly re-equipping it with chariots and horses
(Wiseman 1985: 29). After this year of rest he started to re-establish his status in
the southern Levant (599/598 BCE) by expanding his rule over the desert tribes
(Grayson 1975: 101 [Rev. L. 8–10] Wiseman 1985: 30, and no. 206).3 From 2 Kgs 24:2

2 It is difficult to accept the attempts by Pavlovsky and Vogt (1946: 345–346), Oded (1966: 103–
104), and Malamat (1968: 141–142) to date the submission of Judah to Babylon later, to 603/
602 BCE. For criticism of this suggestion see Naʾaman 1992b: 41–43.
3 With respect to the Babylonians’ forays against the nomads in the desert, see Malamat 1956;
Ephʿal 1982: 170–172.
 Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah 119

(cf. Jeremiah 35:1–11) it seems that the Babylonian auxiliary troops and the garri-
sons stationed in the region were also sent against a rebellious Judah as prepara-
tion for an expedition the following year.
In Kislev of the seventh year of his reign (Dec. 598/ Jan. 597 BCE), Nebuchad-
rezzar marched against the kingdom of Judah at the head of his army. According
to the Babylonian chronicles “… He encamped against the city of Judah and on
the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king”
(Grayson 1975: 102 [Rev. L. 12]). This attestation to the three-month expedition to
‘Ḫattu-land’ matches the biblical description according to which Jehoiakim re-
belled against Nebuchadrezzar after three years of enslavement (2 Kgs. 24:1) (604–
601 BCE). Jehoiakim apparently rebelled during the temporary weakening of Bab-
ylonia after its failed attempt to conquer Egypt, and he had expectations of an
Egyptian offensive to restore Egyptian power.4 His hopes were disappointed. The
Babylonians did not conquer Egypt, but the Egyptians were unable to break Baby-
lonian rule in the southern Levant (Miller and Hayes 1986: 407). In retrospect,
the policy of the leaders of the Judean kingdom clearly resulted from their incor-
rect reading of the map and their mistaken assessment of the relative strengths
of Babylonia and Egypt (Wiseman 1985: 29–30).
Jehoiakim died soon after Nebuchadrezzar left Babylon on his expedition to
Judah5, and was succeeded by Jehoiachin, his son. The young king reigned only
for the three months of the Babylonian expedition (2 Kgs 24:8) until the surrender
of Jerusalem on the second day of Adar (15/16 March 597 BCE) (Wiseman 1985:
32). Jehoiachin’s surrender afforded Judah easy terms and an additional eleven
years of self-rule (Ahlström 1993: 786).6 The Babylonian chronicle tells us: “A king
of his own choice he appointed in the city, taking the vast tribute he brought it
into Babylon” (Grayson 1975: 102 [Rev. L. 13]). The book of Kings (2 Kgs 24: 15–17)
describes the size and composition of the exile which left the city and the name
of the new king, Zedekiah.
From the Babylonian perspective the expedition to Jerusalem in 598/597 BCE
was comparable to the Ashkelon expedition in 604 BCE. In both cases the aim
was to demonstrate fate of a kingdom which did not surrender to them. This

4 Information on this period is sketchy, but it seems that after 601 BCE a vacuum was created,
which the Egyptians hoped to fill. See Freedy and Redford 1970: 475, no. 57; Lipinski 1972: 240,
and no. 33; Oded 1977: 470.
5 Against this background Bright (1959: 327) assumed that Jehoiakim was murdered. On the
different presumptions concerning the circumstances of his death, see Green 1982; Miller and
Hayes 1986: 408. Cf. the prophecy of Jeremiah (22: 18–19) with this subject.
6 For different historical reconstruction of the surrender of Jehoiachin, see Noth 1960: 136–139;
Wiseman 1956: 32; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 311.
120 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

assumption is supported by the parallelisms in the descriptions in the Babylonian

chronicles of the military expeditions during the first and seventh year of Nebu-
chadrezzar’s reign (Grayson 1975: 100; 102 [L. 15–20; Rev. L. 11–13]). In both cases
an expedition to ‘Ḫattu-land’ is described (L. 15–16; Rev. L. 11) during which the
Babylonian army camped at the capital of a kingdom − Ashkelon (604 BCE) and
Jerusalem (598/597 BCE) (L. 18–19; Rev. L. 12–13). The decision of the author of the
chronicles to highlight these events especially is evidence of the essential point
of the Babylonian expeditions and their central target. They did not concentrate
on kingdoms located near the Egyptian border without reason.
The death of Jehoiakim and the surrender of his son Jehoiachin were fortunate
for Judah. The Babylonians allowed the House of David to retain the crown in
Judah, but they extirpated the ‘pro-Egyptian’ party (or at least the ‘anti-Babylonian’
one) among the sons of Josiah by deporting the rebellious Jehoiachin and designat-
ing Zedekiah as his successor. According to 1 Chr 3:15, Zedekiah was the son of
Josiah (who, according to 2 Kgs 23:29 was murdered by the Egyptians), and accord-
ing to 2 Kgs 23:31, 24:18 he was the full brother (same mother) of Jehoahaz, who
was deported by the Egyptians (2 Kgs. 23:33–34) and apparently died in exile
(Jer 22:11–12). According to Ezekiel 17:12–14, a personal alliance was made between
Zedekiah and Nebuchadrezzar (Blenkinsopp 1990: 80–81; Duguid 1994: 24; 32–34),
and his rule was under constant threat by Jehoiachin, the exiled king.
The Babylonians also left the heads of administration in place at Zedekiah’s
side in Judah. His courtiers and his officers are mentioned among the people who
surrendered to the Babylonians together with the king Jehoiachin (2 Kgs. 24:12),
but unlike him they are not mentioned among the people who left for exile (2 Kgs.
24: 15–16; Jer. 29:2). Political considerations seemingly induced the Babylonians to
take such calculated step.7 They hoped that the combination of measures they
took, including the deportation of Jehoiachin and his followers in the social, reli-
gious, and economic elite of the people, as well as the appointment of Zedekiah
as a king loyal to Babylon and the leaving the heads of administration beside
him, would stabilize the situation on the fringes of the empire and ensure the
fealty of the rebellious kingdom.

* * *
Nebuchadrezzar’s hopes for relaxation and stabilization in ‘Ḫattu-land’ were dis-
appointed. Although he had to tackle problems on the border with Elam (596/

7 Considering the appointment of Zedekiah and the government remaining in Jerusalem, one
can understand the severe suppression of their rebellion about eleven years later. Here too lies
the source of Jeremiah’s accusations against these ‘ministers’ as those responsible for the acts,
which led to the destruction (Jer 37: 12–15; 38: 24–27).
 Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah 121

595 BCE) and put down a rebellion inside Babylon itself (595/594 BCE), he con-
tinued the expeditions to ‘Ḫattu-land’. The first one was in January 596, when
“… The King of Akkad (marched) towards Ḫattu-Land as far as Carchemish …”.
The second expedition to Ḫattu land was after the rebellion inside Babylon,
around February-March 594 BCE, and the third one was around December 594/
January 593 BCE (Grayson 1975, 102 [Rev. L. 14–15; 23–24; 25–26]). The reason was
continuous unrest in the entire region, apparently because of the gathering
strength of Egypt and its renewed interest in the region in the time of Psammeti-
chus II (595–589 BCE) and Apries (Ḥofra) (589–570 BCE). The expedition of Psam-
metichus II to Kush in the third year of his reign (593–592 BCE) was described as
a great military success (Freedy and Redford 1970: 474–475; Redford 1992: 404,
462–463). His expedition to Byblos and to the Phoenician coast a year later (592–
591 BCE).8 No doubt impressed the kingdoms of the region and raised the hopes
of liberation from the Babylonian enslavement (Spalinger 1977: 232; Redford 1992:
464–465).
The contacts between Judah and Egypt in this period consolidate the assump-
tion regarding the Egyptian’s role in the subversion of Babylonian rule in the
region. According to Ezekiel 17:15, the exiled prophet felt angry with Zedekiah
who “… rebelled against him [Nebuchadrezzar] in sending his ambassadors into
Egypt that they might give him horses and much people” (Tsevat 1959). This can
be connected to the description in Jeremiah 27 of the arrival of the emissaries
from the kingdoms of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon at the court of Zede-
kiah, king of Judah. The background to their visit, the exact date of their meeting,
and its outcome are not entirely clear. However, Jeremiah’s reaction and his
words to Zedekiah and the representatives of the kingdoms of the region indicate
that the goal of the meeting was to organize a rebellion against Babylon (Miller
and Hayes 1986: 409–410). Such an alliance could hardly have taken place without
Egyptian support and the promise of military backing. Proof of the military con-
nection between Egypt and Judah can be found in Lachish Ostracon no. III, de-
scribing the arrival of “the commander of the host, Coniah son of Elnathan” on
his way to Egypt (ANET: 322). The estimated dating of the ostracon to the ninth
year of Zedekiah’s rule has great importance, as that was the year when the
rebellion of Judah against Babylon was declared (Tur-Sinai 1987: 97). Evidence for
the continuation of this military connection is found in Jeremiah 37:5–16, which
mentions an Egyptian expedition to Judah during the Babylonian siege of Jerusa-
lem. This expedition seems to have been the fulfillment of the Egyptian promise
of support for its rebellious protege. The failure of the Egyptians and the renewed

8 On the evidence about this expedition and the problem of historical reconstruction of the expedi-
tion, see Spalinger 1976; 1977: 228–244; 1978; Redford 1992: 464–465; Katzenstein 1994: 44–45.
122 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

siege of Jerusalem showed how dangerous was of the gamble of Zedekiah and his
ministers, who decided to rebel against Babylon and to rely on Egyptian backing.
The continued troubles in ‘Ḫattu-land’, the Egyptian actions which threatened
the Babylonian hegemony in the region, and the possibility of an arrangement
between the anti-Babylonian alliance in the region and the attempted rebellion
in Elam9 apparently caused a gradual change in Nebuchadrezzar’s policy. He
realized that he could no longer rely on the loyalty of the kingdoms of the region
and that the ‘power demonstrations’ of his expeditions were inadequate. The
shift to an aggressive policy with greater intervention in the affairs of the vassal
kingdoms is already evident in the consecutive expeditions of the years 596, 594,
and 594/3 BCE. Likewise the comments in Jeremiah 51:59 on the arrival of Zedeki-
ah (or one of his ministers) in Babylon in the fourth year of his reign (594/3 BCE)
can be associated with this.10 The establishment in Babylon seemingly needed a
renewed show of loyalty, and may also have wanted information about events in
the region and the background to Egyptian involvement in it.
The fact that the Babylonian chronicles break off after the eleventh year of
Nebuchadrezzar (594/3 BCE) complicates the reconstruction of Nebuchadrezzar’s
actions in this period. Only a few historical descriptions are available to us, some
of them written in later periods. Nevertheless, twenty years of slow and calculat-
ed activity can be reconstructed in the course of which the Babylonians destroyed
Jerusalem; attacked Tyre and Sidon and besieged Tyre for thirteen years (Katzen-
stein 1973: 330; Redford 1992: 465–466); executed expeditions against Ammon and
Moab (Spalinger 1977: 236; Bartlett 1989: 157–161); and apparently also acted
against most of the cities in the coastal plain (Lipschits 1997b: 118–119). As result
of these actions, the Babylonians extended their control up to the borders of
Egypt and eliminated the danger of the Egyptian incursions into ‘Ḫattu-land’.
Against this background one can understand the destruction of Jerusalem as
one of a series of more determined and dynamic measures by the Babylonians
after they received the danger to their rule in the southern Levant from the
Egyptian threat. The continued troubles in Judah and Zedekiah’s rebellion made
it clear to Nebuchadrezzar that he had to act aggressively. The major role of

9 Jeremiah’s prophecy (49: 34–39) made in the beginning of the of Zedekiah’s reign, points to
the knowledge of the people in Judah of the attempted rebellion of Elam in 596/5 BCE. Nebuchad-
rezzar’s expedition to ‘Ḫattu-land’ that year supports the possibility of early coordination be-
tween the kingdoms of the region and Elam. See Miller and Hayes 1986: 410; Hayes and Hooker
1988: 96.
10 According to the Masoretic text Zedekiah went to Babylon and according to the LXX text one
of his ministers was sent there (Bright 1965: 216). Regarding the historical context of this event,
see Greenberg 1957: 305–306; Redford 1992: 463–464. This was also the year when Ezekiel re-
ceived his call to prophesy (Ezekiel 1:2) (Hayes and Hooker 1988: 96–97).
 Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah 123

Judah in events near the Egyptian border proved that Babylon could no longer
rely on the existing government in Judah and that it had to be replaced. The
Babylonians were apparently disappointed by the rule of Zedekiah and his minis-
ters, but also were disturbed by the religious-national fanaticism in Jerusalem
and the prophets who supported the rebellion in a belief that God would protect
the city (Bright 1959: 176; Miller and Hayes 1986: 409).
The destruction of Jerusalem was no impulsive revenge or punishment for
the rebellion. This was a calculated act with political goals: to remove the House
of David from government after they had disloyal proven, and to destroy Jerusa-
lem which had proven again and again to be the center of resistance to Babyloni-
an rule. As the alternative to the kingdom of Judah with its capital in Jerusalem
and its king from the House of David, the Babylonians established a province
with its center in Mizpah and appointed a governor from one of the privileged
families in Judah (Lipschits 1997b: 128–170; 1999b).

The Historical Significance of the Archaeological Excavations

and the New Surveys

Extensive archaeological surveys were recently conducted in the Benjamin region

(Magen and Finkelstein 1993), in Jerusalem and its surroundings (Kloner 2000),
in the Judean hills (Ofer 1993) and in the Shephelah (Dagan 1992). The data of the
surveys combined with finds from the excavations at main sites of this region
make possible a discussion of the history of the region between the 7th and the
5th centuries BCE.
The most important finds for the Babylonian destruction were discovered in
Jerusalem (Barstad 1996: 53–54). They indicate that the city wall was razed and
buildings located within the city were burned down (Avigad 1980: 52–53; Geva
1983: 56–58; Shiloh 1984a: 12, 23; 1989: 103–105; 1992: 709). The survey findings
show that all the close surroundings of the city also suffered heavy destruction,
and apparently the region was deserted after the crushing Babylonian assault.11
Some recovery can be detected only during the Persian period, but even at the

11 The evidence discovered by Barkay (1984) for the continued burial of Jewish families near
Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE is exceptional and must not be considered as proof for the
continuation of life in Jerusalem in the time of the exile. A family exiled from Jerusalem to the
Bethlehem area or the Benjamin region could continue to bury their dead in the family grave
near Jerusalem.
124 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

peak of this period the number of settlements around Jerusalem reached only
about 15 percent of the figure before the Babylonian destruction (Kloner 2000).12
En-Gedi and Jericho were also destroyed during this period, but we do not
know if this happened after the military expedition or because of the collapse of
the military, economic, and administrative structure of the Judean kingdom,
which destroyed the soil and basis of subsistence of the settlements of this region
(Lipschits 2000). The fate of the border regions in the southern Judean hills and
the Shephelah was similar. These regions, which had sustained a fatal blow dur-
ing Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah about 115 years before (Naʾaman 1995c: 107–
113), were almost completely deserted (Dagan 1993: 262; Ofer 1993: 127–135; Lip-
schits 1997a). This was apparently the result of the destruction of the key locations
by the Babylonian army and of gradual collapse due to the destruction of the
administrative and military structure in the area.
Malamat (1950: 226–228) noted the different fate of the Benjamin region dur-
ing the destruction of Jerusalem. Finds from the surveys and the excavations
carried out in this region support this assumption (Lipschits 1999b). Hardly any
evidence of destruction was found, and most of the excavated sites evidence
continuity from the end of the 7th into the 6th Century BCE: Bethel; Tell el-Fiil
and probably also Gibeon (Lipschits 1999b). The most important site in Judah at
the time of the destruction and exile to Babylon was Mizpah, located in Tell en-
Naṣbeh (Zorn 1992: 1101–1102; 1997: 30–31). The excavations at this site prove that
the settlement was not destroyed during the Babylonian conquest at the end of
the Iron age (stratum III), but it was evacuated and leveled as subsoil for new
building activities (Zorn 1993b: 161–162; 1997: 31–35). The layer from the Babyloni-
an period (stratum II) was erected on the leveled region. This is why its outline
is not similar to that of the previous layer except for the continued existence of
the city wall (without the internal gate and the part of the wall connected to it).
This layer contained several warehouses, one or two buildings in the style of the
Mesopotamian ‘open court building’, and next to them several buildings in the
style of the local ‘four room house’ (Zorn 1993b: 163–185; 1997: 31–35). The find of
fragments of a Mesopotamian-style ceramic coffin and fragments of a bronze
circlet bearing a cuneiform inscription (Zorn 1993a; 1997: 66) is also very impor-
tant.
The exact date when Mizpah, the former bustling and well-planned Benja-
minite border city, became a Babylonian administrative center cannot be deter-
mined. The assumption of Zorn (1993b: 162) that the Babylonian layer in Mizpah

12 I would like to thank Prof. A. Kloner for his permission to study the data from the archaeo-
logical survey conducted in Jerusalem and its surroundings. For a summary of the results see
Lipschits 1997a: 257–274.
 Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah 125

was built during the siege of Jerusalem may be accepted. The Babylonians settled
at this site and made it their administrative center in the knowledge that the
siege would be long and out of recognition of the economic importance of the
Benjamin region (Lipschits 1997a: 21). The archaeological finds at this site allow
the assumption that the Babylonian authorities that were in charge beside the
Judean executives resided at this place.
Continued settlement in the Benjamin region after the destruction of Jerusa-
lem is evident from the survey conducted there (Magen and Finkelstein 1993).
Around Mizpah and Gibeon a large rural structure continued to exist, including
ample agricultural devices (oil and winepresses, agricultural terraces). Finds of
excavations in this region, attesting that the main sites continued to exist in the
sixth century BCE, permit the assumption that rural settlements also continued
to exist and provide the raw materials for the wine and oil industry during this
period (Lipschits 1999b). The assumption that the sharp decline in the number of
settlements in the Benjamin region was linked to the Babylonian destruction (Ma-
gen and Finkelstein 1993: 27) has no foundation. Historical evidence and finds of
excavations at the main sites in this region show that the number of settlements
in the Benjamin region declined only towards the end of the sixth and in the
beginning of the fifth century BCE.13
The jar handles inscribed gbʿn gdr should be ascribed to the period of Babylo-
nian rule,14 and they bear witness to the importance of Gibeon and its produce
for this administrative district. The stamp impressions m(w)ṣh, which also date
from this period (Avigad 1972c: 1–9), prove that the agricultural regions west of
Gibeon were also connected to this administrative district and that there was a
steady flow of products, mainly to the center in Mizpah, where most of the im-
pressions were found (Zorn, Yellin and Hayes 1994; Zorn 1997: 37).
Similar continuity between the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period is
evident around Bethlehem. Because of the small number of sites excavated in
this region the archaeological picture is less clear. But the survey indicates that
the region was not destroyed during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem and that
most of the settlements continued to exist until the Persian period (Ofer 1993:
127–135; Lipschits 1997b: 282–298).
The conclusion from these archaeological data is that the Babylonians con-
ducted a focused and defined military operation against Jerusalem. The city and
its surroundings were totally destroyed and deserted by the inhabitants. Parallel

13 On the reasons and historical meaning of this decline, see Lipschits 1997a: 20–32; 1999b.
14 See the opinions of Albright 1960b: 37; Cross 1962; Wright 1963 and Amiran 1975; 129–132,
against the opinions of Pritchard 1959a: 15; Avigad 1959: 131 and Demsky 1971: 23. See Barstad
(1996: 49–50) for further bibliography.
126 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

to this the Babylonians were also active in the border region and destroyed main-
ly the big cities and the fortresses. In contrast, the settlements in the regions near
Jerusalem, such as the Benjamin region in the north and Bethlehem area in the
south, continued to exist in their previous form, and even to prosper economical-
ly in comparison with the period before the destruction of the temple.

The Change of the Kingdom of Judah from Monarchy

to Babylonian Province

The main source for the Babylonian siege and the destruction of Jerusalem can
be found in three nearly parallel versions (2 Kgs 25:1–21; Jer 39: 1–10; 52: 1–30),
and it concentrates on the fate of the king, the capital city, and its inhabitants.
Details in the different versions seem precise and reliable, as borne out by com-
parison with the archaeological findings and the information given in the pro-
phetic literature and the elegies on the destruction of the temple (Jer 34: 7; 37: 5–
11; Ezek 17: 15–18; 21: 23–32; 30: 20–26; 33: 21; Hab 1: 10; Lam 1: 11; 4: 17, 20 etc.).
From this description the Babylonian military expedition, with Jerusalem as
its main objective, may be reconstructed. The siege lasted 18 months, during
which time the Babylonians attacked also other parts of the kingdom, apparently
on its southern and western borders (Ahlström 1993: 796–797).15 Starvation in the
city near the end of the siege is described as the main factor behind its surrender
(2 Kgs 25:3; Jer 39:2; 52:6).16 Zedekiah tried to escape in direction to the Arabah
(2 Kgs. 25:4; Jer. 52:7), but after a chase he was caught near Jericho (2 Kgs 25:5;
Jer 39:5; 52:8).17 The Babylonians punished his violation of the treaty cruelly: his
sons were slaughtered before his eyes and his own eyes were then blinded. He
was bound in fetters and brought to Babylon (2 Kgs 25:6–7; Jer 39: 5; 52: 8–11).18

15 On the different opinions in scholarship about the dates of the Babylonian siege, see Wiseman
1985: 36–37; Hayes and Hooker 1988: 97–98; Barstad 1996: 13–14, n. 1; Galil 1996: 108–118.
16 On the descriptions of the starvation, cf. also Jeremiah 32:24; 37:21; 38:9. For a summary of
this matter, see Ephʿal 1996: 57–63. Note that except for the short description ‘Thus the city was
breached’ (2 Kgs 25:4), the sources of this time do not include additional comments about the
war, the Babylonians’ entry into the city, or of the breach of the city wall.
17 The king and part of his army apparently tried to escape to the eastern side of the Jordan
River. This presumption is supported by the description of the capture of the king near Jericho
(2 Kgs 25:5), evidence on Judean refugees living in the kingdoms across the Jordan after the
destruction of Judah (Jer 40:11–12), and evidence of the connections of Baʿalis, king of the Am-
monites, with Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, son of Elishama, of the royal family (Jer 40:14; 41:15).
On Baʿalis see Deutsch 1999, 46–49; 66 (with further bibliography).
18 On Zedekiah’s punishment, see also Jer 32:4–5; 34:2–3; Ezek 12:13. This is the punishment of
a vassal king who violated the alliance with his master and betrayed his oath to him (Cogan and
Tadmor 1988: 318).
 Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah 127

According to the Biblical description Jerusalem too was shown no mercy by

the Babylonians. About a month after the surrender of the city, on the seventh,
ninth or tenth of Ab,19 they began the systematic destruction of the city. The
interval from the surrender of the city to its destruction indicates the calculation
of the Babylonians and their strategic decision to destroy the center of the rebel-
lion and to prevent its reconstruction in the future. The series of actions against
the city and its inhabitants emphasizes the resolve of the Babylonians. The temple
and the king’s palace were burned down by the soldiers of Nebuzaradan, as were
all the other palaces and houses of the city (2 Kgs 25:9–10; Jer 39:8; 52:13–14). The
walls were razed and the city was emptied of all its inhabitants, who were exiled
to Babylon (2 Kgs 25:11; Jer 39:9; 52:15) (Barstad 1988: 30–31; Smith 1989: 31–32).
Additional information about this period is given in the ‘biographical’ chap-
ters of Jeremiah, describing the history of the prophet on the eve of destruction
and the time afterwards (Jer 37–44 passim).20 The description of the prophet’s
life during this period includes many details as background to his deeds and
prophecies, so the time of the destruction is described from a different point of
view. In the ‘biography’ we find the only evidence for the arrival of the Egyptian
army at the borders of Judah and the resulting interlude in the Babylonian siege
of Jerusalem (Jer 37:5, 7–8, 11).21 This evidence serves as background for the at-
tempt by some Jerusalem inhabitants to take the opportunity of the interlude in
the siege to escape to the Benjamin region; according to Jer 37: 12 Jeremiah tried
to escape with them (Ephʿal 1996: 144–145). He was caught at the Benjamin gate
and accused of deserting the city and absconding to the Babylonians (verse 13).
His response was that he only tried to escape from the city and the suffering
during the siege (verse 14) and had no intention of turning himself over to the
Babylonians.
The evidence of Jeremiah’s attempt to escape from Jerusalem and reach the
Benjamin region during the Babylonian siege, before the conquest of Jerusalem,

19 Three different traditions exist for this date: the MT version of 2 Kgs 25:8, the Luc. version
of this verse, and Jer 52: 12. In the Jewish tradition the ninth of Ab is considered the day of the
destruction of the temple, but this date may have originated in an attempt at harmonization
according to which the destruction of the city began exactly one month after its conquest. In
any case, it seems that this was not a spontaneous act, and that the destruction began only after
a break necessary for handling the booty taken from the city and deporting its inhabitants.
20 For a general discussion of the ‘biography of Jeremiah’ see Wanke 1971: 110; Pohlmann 1978:
108–122; Thiel 1981: 52–61; Rofe 1988: 208–213; Seitz 1989: 273–279; Becking 1997: 71–73; Lipschits
1997b: 80–90.
21 According to Jer 34:7 and according to the Lachish Ostracon no. 4 (lines 10–13), the arrival of
the Egyptian forces at the border of Judah did not meet the expectations of the anti-Babylonian
faction, and the western border of Judah was overrun by the Babylonians even before the
conquest of Jerusalem (Malamat 1968: 152).
128 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

may be combined with additional testimony. According to Jer 38:19, in answer to

Jeremiah’s plea to surrender and save Jerusalem on the eve of the destruction,
Zedekiah said: “I am anxious about the Jews who have deserted to the Chaldeans,
that I might be given into their hand and they mistreat me”. The reference was
to a group of Jews who had surrendered to the Babylonians and who enjoyed
some autonomy and freedom of action under their protection. His statement
could also mean that the Babylonians might hand the king of Judah over to this
group, if he would surrender.22
Additional evidence of the existence of this group on the eve of the destruction
of Jerusalem can be found in two versions regarding the transfer of Jeremiah to
Mizpah after the conquest of the city (Jer 39: 11–18; 40: 1–6). Despite different details
in the two versions, the essence is similar: Jeremiah was released from prison
(Jerusalem or Ramah) by senior Babylonian authorities (Nebuzaradan or other
Babylonian ministers), transferred to Mizpah, and handed over to Gedaliah. Both
stories emphasize that his release from prison occurred immediately after the con-
quest of Jerusalem, when Gedaliah was already in Mizpah (Wanke 1971: 110).
The two accounts of Gedaliah’s rulership in Mizpah (2 Kgs 25:22–26; Jer 40:7–
41:18) give the main information about events in Judah following the destruc-
tion.23 The chief importance of the description is its focus on the people remain-
ing in Judah and facts about their life. In both versions Gedaliah is described as
holding an official position on behalf of the Babylonians after they sent him to
Mizpah as head of the Jews who remained in their land (Barstad 1988: 29; 1996:
28). According to Jer 41:3, 10, there was a Jewish and Babylonian administration
in Mizpah, and apparently also a garrison. In addition, the joining of small bands

22 This interpretation regarding the Jewish group captured by the Babylonians differs from that
given by Ephʿal (1996: 144, n. 32).
23 The account of the time of Gedaliah reflects a perception of ‘the people left in the land of
Judah’ different from that in the three versions depicting the time of the destruction. The descrip-
tion of the period of the destruction, refers to the people staying in Judah as ‘the poor of the
land’, whom Nebuzaradan left behind to be ‘vine dressers and field workers’ (2 Kgs 25:12;
Jer 39:10; 52:16). This view seems to express the qualitative and economic point of view of the
exiled Jewish elite in Babylon, as also expressed in the tendentious summarizing remark “Thus
Judah was exiled from its land” (2 Kgs 25:21; Jer 52:27). In the account of the time of Gedaliah,
however, the people staying in Judah are ‘the people left in the land of Judah’ (2 Kgs 25:22), from
‘those who were not deported to Babylon’ (Jer 40:7), and it refers to them as ‘remnant of Judah’
(40:11). Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, is he who left them in the country (2 Kgs 25:22), not
Nebuzaradan (2 Kgs 25:12; Jer 52:16), and they were put under the leadership of Gedaliah in
order to continue the national existence of the Jewish people in their country (Jer 40: 7,10). This
view seems to represent the perception of the people remaining in the country, according to
which their settlement extended the life of the Judean kingdom and offered hope for the future
(Lipschits 1997b, 58–66; 95–97). For a different view see Becking 1997: 69–73.
 Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah 129

of soldiers of the Judean army is reported, apparently after they had escaped to
the border regions during the siege of Jerusalem or after its destruction (2 Kgs
25:23–24; Jer 40:8–10,13).24
According to 2 Kgs 25:24; Jer 40:9–10, the authority of Gedaliah was defined:
he could promise the Jews protection from the Babylonians, he could represent
them before Babylonian officials, distribute land and houses to the Jews remain-
ing in Judah, and attend to their sustenance. His instruction to the Jewish refugees
who returned to Judah, to store the agricultural produce “and store them in your
utensils” (Jer 40:10), indicates his authority to collect taxes from the inhabitants
of the region. In the light of this expression, he seems to have exempted the
newcomers from taxation in order to facilitate their rehabilitation, as Nehemiah
was to do about one hundred and forty years later (Neh 5:14–19).
From the Babylonian viewpoint the appointment of Gedaliah, son of Ahikam,
son of Shafan the scribe, as first governor of the province established in Judah
was an astute move. His family’s political and social opinions were moderate,
and it was known for a long tradition of service in senior positions (2 Kgs 22:3–
14; Jer 29:3; 36:10–13; Ezek 8:11) (Miller and Hayes 1986: 403–406; 423). On condi-
tion that the name on the seal impression lgdlyhw ʾšr ʿl hbyt (Belonging to Ge-
dalyahu who is over the house), and perhaps also that on the seal impression
lgdlyhw ʿbd hmlk (Belonging to Gedalyahu servant of the king), may be identified
with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, he seems to have held the office of senior
minister of the Judean kingdom towards the end of its existence (Avigad and Sass
1997: 172–173, n. 405, 409).25 He was gifted with administrative and authoritative
qualities, and could be expected to restore the country, to re-organize the govern-
ment, to bring stability to the region, and to remain loyal to the imperial Babylo-
nian government.
From this evidence the Babylonians’ goal was apparently to appoint a loyal
person with administrative experience, who could stabilize and quickly restore
the country. We know of no parallels from the time of Babylonian rule, but this
appointment may be compared to the appointment of local notables in the upper
Euphrates region by the Assyrian government in the ninth and eighth centu-
ries BCE (Labat 1967: 37–50). Other examples can be found in the bilingual inscrip-
tion at Tell Fakhariyeh, according to which people with Aramaic names, who

24 Historical analogies with the destruction of the second temple give the impression that it was
important for the central government to establish its mastery over these groups because huge
forces and much effort over a prolonged period were necessary to control them. At the same
time, these groups might cause instability and disturb the restoration efforts after the destruction
of the kingdom.
25 For different views and further bibliography on these seals see Becking 1997: 75–78.
130 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

were apparently local notables or members of the local royal family, served as
vassal rulers under the Assyrian government (Abou-Assaf, Bordreuil and Millard
1982: 98–113, with further bibliography). The inscriptions at Sugu (Dion 1995, with
further bibliography), as well as the finds relating to the status of the princes of
the Nile delta in the time of Esarhaddon (680–669 BCE) and Ashurbanipal (668–
631 BCE) (Cogan and Tadmor 1985: 327, with further literature), lead to a similar
conclusion. This custom continued into the Persian period, and among others
Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah were appointed Jewish rulers in the Ye-
hud province (Hag 1:1; 2:21; Ezra 1:8; 5:14; Neh 8:9; 10:2; 12:26).26
The conclusion from these historical data is that when the Babylonians con-
ducted their expedition to Judah, they made the strategic decision to destroy
Jerusalem and the temple and to abolish the rule of the House of David. They
had no reason to destroy all the regions of the kingdom, because the creation of
a vacuum on the border with Egypt might have endangered Babylonian rule in
the region and given rise to instability with the penetration of nomadic groups.
The logical solution to this situation was the establishment of an alternative, loyal
government, which was not connected to the House of David and whose seat was
not in Jerusalem.27
The Babylonians established a province in Judah instead of the rebellious
vassal kingdom. The settlement of the remaining Jews had a defined status within
the administrative structure of the Babylonian Empire. In the description of the
time of Gedaliah a region is mentioned which is called ‘the land of Judah’ (2 Kgs
25:22; Jer 40:12) or ‘the land’ (2 Kgs 25:24). Mizpah was located in its center and
around it were ‘the cities’ (Jer 40:10), among them Gibeon (41:12, 16) and the
settlements around Bethlehem (41:17). Note that the distribution of the 42 m(w)ṣh
Stamp Impressions was over an area similar to this region (30 Stamp Impressions
at Mizpah; 4 at Jerusalem; 4 at Gibeon; 2 at Jericho and one at Tzubah-Belmont)
(Zorn, Yellin and Hayes 1994: 166; 168–169).

26 The opinion of Miller and Hayes (1986: 421–423), according to which Gedaliah was appointed
by the Babylonians as vassal king, cannot be accepted (Barstad: 1996, 68–69). There is no evi-
dence for such policy in the Assyrian, Babylonian or Persian Periods, and there was no reason
for such a drastic action, when Jehoiachin is still in prison. Against the opinion of Miller and
Hayes (1986), the title of ‘Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the royal de-
scendants’ (Jer 41: 1), and the mention of ‘the king’s daughters’ (41: 10) should be understood as
the last remnants of the Davidic kingdom.
27 From the fate of Jerusalem one may learn about the fate of Ashkelon and Ekron. These two
cities were destroyed by the Babylonians and only in the Persian period were they repopulated
(Stager 1996b: 76). In this period the territory of these two cities was included into the district
of Ashdod, and it is possible that the situation during the Persian period was a legacy from the
Babylonian arrangements in this region.
 Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah 131

The start of the establishment of the Babylonian province in Judah with its
center in Mizpah seems to have been at the time of the Babylonian siege, before
the destruction of Jerusalem. The same Jews who, according to Jer 37:12; 38:19,
organized in the Benjamin region during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem and
received autonomous authority from the Babylonians, must be connected to Ge-
daliah and the group of Jews who were with him in Mizpah immediately after
the destruction. The crucial period for this group was the interlude during the
Babylonian siege, when the Babylonian army marched against the Egyptian army
(Jer 37: 7–16). Some of the people trapped in Jerusalem used this interlude to
escape to the Benjamin region. Only those who believed in the righteousness of
the rebellion and its chances of success remained in the city. People who favored
surrender to the Babylonians and life under their rule, gathered in Benjamin.
From these facts Jeremiah’s attempt to join this group maybe seen as a clear
political statement of the failure of the rebellion and an indication of his readi-
ness to accept Babylonian rule in Judah. The objection of the ministers in Jerusa-
lem to the prophet’s departure for the land of Benjamin is also understandable.
A person as important as Jeremiah joining the people gathering in Benjamin
would strengthen and support them with religious legitimization and would
strengthen the belief in the turning away of God’s grace from Jerusalem.
Additional support for assumption of the establishment of the center at Miz-
pah as early as the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, can be found in the difference
between Gedaliah’s instruction to the people who went to Mizpah, “as for you,
gather wine and fruit and oil and put it in your vessels” (Jer 40:10), and their
actions: “and they gathered wine and fruit in great abundance” (verse 12). The
most logical time for the Gedaliah’s instruction was Tammuz and Ab, the months
of the summer fruit harvesting (mainly figs). Assuming that the olive harvest falls
after the vintage, we can understand why the murder of Gedaliah, at the begin-
ning of Tishri (according to the Jewish tradition, and see 2 Kgs 25: 25; Jer 41: 1;
Zech 7: 5; 8: 18–19), cut the restoration process short and why the people who
lived in Mizpah did not manage to harvest the olives. In addition, Gedaliah could
hardly have organized the administrative structure for the Jews who were not
exiled to Babylon in so short period as the time between the conquest of the city
on the ninth of Tammuz and his murder in the beginning of Tishri.28 Word of

28 The assumption of Miller and Hayes (1986: 421–423) and others, that Gedaliah ruled in Mizpah
for several years, has no foundation. It is based mainly on the description of Jer 40:11–12a, which
was written with specific literal goal: to pinpoint Ishmael son of Nethaniah as the only party
guilty of the murder of Gedaliah. Nor are there sources for the attempt by Thompson (1980: 657)
and Seitz (1989, 276) to connect the murder of Gedaliah with the third deportation mentioned in
Jer 52:30. See Davidson 1985: 137; Holladay 1989, 296. The logical and simple chronological line,
as described in 2 Kgs and in Jer, begins with the end of the Babylonian’s siege, on the ninth day
132 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

the establishment of this center had already reached the Jewish refugees from
Judah, and some of them even managed to return from their hiding-places (Jer 40:
11–12).
The economic, military, and political interests of the Babylonians also support
the assumption of the establishment of the alternative center at Mizpah during
their siege of Jerusalem. The surrender of the Benjamin region, and perhaps of
other regions around Jerusalem, enabled them to become established in these
regions and to use them to supply essential products during the siege (Barstad
1996: 67–76). The Benjamin region was especially important after the destruction
of the leading economic centers for the production of oil (Ekron) and wine (Ash-
kelon) (Stager 1996b: 65–66). The crops that could be cultivated in the Benjamin
region, mainly wine and oil, freed the Babylonian army commanders from the
need for long supply lines for these essential products. This fact was apparently
the cause of the settlement of the ‘remaining people’ in Judah to fill the economic
functions of ‘vine dressers and field workers’ (2 Kgs 25:12; Jer 39: 10; 52: 16).

Judah after Gedaliah’s Murder

The murder of Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25:25; Jer 41:1–3) is described as the major attempt
to curtail the restoration process which began in Judah after the destruction
of Jerusalem. According to Jer 40:13–15, the ‘remaining people’ feared that this
assassination would take place, perhaps because of information, which had ar-
rived in Judah. The warning addressed to Gedaliah stresses the personal responsi-
bility of “Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishamaʿ of the royal family” (Jer 41:1)
for the planned murder and describes him as an exceptional character who was
opposed to the restoration process and who was determined to halt it.29 The fact
that Ishmael traveled to Mizpah from abroad and that Baʿalis, king of the Ammon-
ites backed him (Jer 40:14; 41:15),30 also supports this charge.
Presumptions about Ishmael’s motivation for the murder are mentioned in
research.31 But on the basis of the description of his relation to the royal family

of the fourth month (Tammuz), when “the city was breached” (2 Kgs 25:2–3; Jer 39: 2; 52: 5–6). It
continues with the seventh (or the tenth) day of the fifth month (Ab), when Nebuzaradan came
to Jerusalem, in order to burn the city and exile the people (2 Kgs 25: 8–10; Jer 52: 12–15). The
end of this chronological line is less than two months later, on the beginning of the seventh
month (Tishri), when Ishmael killed Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25: 25; Jer 41: 1).
29 Cf. the seal impression ‘Belonging to Elišamaʿ son of the King’ (Avigad and Sass 1997, 53,
no. 11). For further bibliography and different view see Becking 1997: 78–80.
30 On Ba’alis see Deutch 1999, with further literature. See also Becking 1997: 80–82.
31 For a review of various opinions about the murder of Gedaliah, see Miller and Hayes 1986:
424; Holladay 1989: 197–198; Ahlström 1993: 800–801.
 Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah 133

we can assume that his immediate motive was his hatred for Gedaliah, who was
considered a collaborator with the Babylonians, and possibly also his objection
to an appointment of a person not from the House of David to the highest office
in the province (Miller and Hayes 1986: 424–425; Seitz 1989: 275–276). The coopera-
tion of Baʿalis can be understood as attempt to loosen the Babylonian foothold in
the conquered neighboring kingdom, and according to Ezek 21:23–28, perhaps
also as part of the rebellion of Ammon against Babylon at that time. In any event,
the murder would prevent the continuation of the restoration process of Judah
under Babylonian rule and would be attributed to the opponents of the govern-
ment. The description of the great fear of the rulers among the ‘remaining people’
is major proof for this. Their decision to escape from Judah is directly connected
with their fear of the Babylonian reaction (2 Kgs 25:26; Jer 41:16–18), and their
escape to Egypt attests to their hope of shelter outside the region of Babylonian
rule.
Despite the assassination, it is difficult to assume that the restoration process
of Judah after the destruction depended on one person, however important.32 The
description of the journey to Egypt and the desertion of the country after the
murder (2 Kgs 25:26; Jer 41:16–18) is tendentious and does not match the details
given in the description itself.33 According to Jer 41:16, Johanan son of Kareah
and “all the officers of the army units who were with him” went to Egypt. The
reference is apparently to the officers who, according to 2 Kgs 25:23; Jer 40:8, met
Gedaliah together with several soldiers. They were accompanied by a group of
people captured by Ishmael son of Nethaniah and ten of his people in Mizpah,
and released by Johanan son of Kareah and his people. This was a small band,
consisting mainly of people who had reason to fear the Babylonian reaction to
the murder (Ackroyd 1968: 20–31; Oded 1977: 477–479).
An indication for this may lie in the fact that Jeremiah tried to convince the
group of emigrants to Egypt to stay in Judah (42:7–22). The prophet mentions fear
of the Babylonians as the main factor behind the emigration to Egypt; he speaks
of the restoration of the country in the way promised by Gedaliah, spells out the
settlement conditions to the emigrants, and promises them compensation: stabili-
ty and protection from the Babylonians (verses 10–11). These words, spoken after
the murder of Gedaliah, show that most of the people remained in the country
and that the restoration process was not over.

32 This view contradicts the common opinions in Scholarship (see, for example Bright 1965, 256;
Miller and Hayes 1986: 425), namely that the murder of Gedaliah halted the restoration attempts
in Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem.
33 On the linguistic problems in these verses and the three additional expressions of the ‘biogra-
phy’ of Jeremiah (42:1, 8; 43: 4–5) see Janzen 1973: 54, 182–183; Thompson 1980: 662–669; Holladay
1989: 276, 298–301.
134 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

On the basis of the Archaeological evidence for settlement continuity in the

Benjamin region and possibly also around Bethlehem, we can assume that local
governors were presumably appointed in the sixth century BCE (Barstad 1996:
41–43), and in direct continuation of this governors were appointed after the
transition to Persian rule. The great change, which occurred in the Persian period,
was the appointment of governors from among the people who were exiled to
Babylon and from among members of the royal family. This change marked the
start of a new era in the history of the people: renewal of the rule of the old
elite over the people who remained in Judah, restitution of the political status of
Jerusalem, and restoration of the status of the temple after it had been rebuilt
with the authorization of the rulers.
Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE)
Echoes of the events of Sennacherib’s campaign and the memory of the salvation
of Jerusalem from the Assyrians were after several generations interpreted as
irrefutable proof of the realization of God’s power on earth and gave rise to a
sense of perfect confidence in God’s protection of his city. Among the military,
political, and religious leadership in Jerusalem, faith abounded that Jerusalem
would dwell in safety and would never fall to the oppressor and the enemy.
This perception led to the lifting of some of the restrictions characteristic of the
leadership of the small kingdom throughout most of its years of existence, and
allowed a large degree of political and military freedom, precisely at that period
of time when such caution was vital. Jeremiah’s attempt to combat this percep-
tion, and his appeal, “Do not trust in these deceptive words: “This is the temple
of Yhwh, the temple of Yhwh, the temple of Yhwh… Go now to my place that was
in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the
wickedness of my people Israel” (Jer. 7: 4, 12), are one of the testimonies to the
centrality of this idea on the eve of the destruction of the Jerusalem.
In this article I shall try to show that the complex of archaeological and
historical evidence attests that the Babylonians understood what the roots of the
insurgency in Judah were: the ceaseless religious ferment around the temple, the
belief in God’s protection of his city, his temple, and the House of David, and the
weakness of the political leadership in Jerusalem. In light of this, they were re-
solved to lay all of Jerusalem waste, the temple in particular, and to terminate
the unfaithful rule of the Davidic dynasty in Judah. The Babylonian expedition,
which departed in 588 BCE, was set on the reduction of Jerusalem. About a month
after the surrender of the city it was razed in a calculated and methodical opera-
tion, intended to annihilate its existence as a political and religious center. In this
setting, presumably, certain arrangements were made intended to leave the city
in its ruins and the temple in its ravages. Still, the Babylonians had no interest
in finishing life altogether in Judah. Even before the destruction of the city they
began activities meant to annex the territories of the kingdom and to establish a
province in it. They made Mizpah the capital and placed a leadership over the
province unconnected to the House of David. Limited ritual activity, chiefly the
recitation of laments and prayers, was started at the leveled site of the temple
shortly after its destruction, and apparently was conducted throughout Babyloni-
an rule. No evidence exists that the Babylonians ever modified the policy towards
Jerusalem, and the great renewal and the legal significance that the Returners to
Zion attributed to the decree of Cyrus should be understood in this light.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-008
136 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in “Ḫattu-Land” (605–588 BCE)

As Nebuchadrezzar consolidated his rule in “Ḫattu-Land” (605–604 BCE)1 he pre-

ferred to retain the arrangements that had crystallized during the rule of Assyria
and Egypt in the region, and allowed the continued existence of the vassal king-
doms on the Phoenician coast and the Philistia lowland, in Judah, and in Transjor-
dan.2 Only at the time of Psammetichus II (595–589 BCE) and still more of Apris
(Ḥofra) (589–570 BCE), when Egypt began to grow stronger and actually threaten
Babylonian dominion in the region, did Nebuchadrezzar decide to amend his
policy and shift to a tighter control and full rule of the entire area. He began
with the conquest of all the vassal kingdoms, which he annexed to Babylon, con-
verting them into provinces. Historical sources on this period are few, but about
twenty years of slow, considered, and determined Babylonian activity can be
reconstructed. In this period the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, attacked Tyre
and Sidon, and laid siege to Tyre for thirteen years; they conducted campaigns
against Ammon and Moab, and apparently also mounted operations against most
of the coastal cities.
No historical information exists about the features of Babylonian policy in
the territories that were annexed, chiefly because unlike the Assyrians, the Baby-
lonians were not in the habit of describing it in their inscriptions. Seemingly, in
contrast to Assyrian policy the Babylonians did not attempt to develop the provin-
ces under their rule or to defend the marchers against nomad marauders (Naʾa-
man 1995c: 114–115). Their purpose was to introduce arrangements that would
afford them stability and complete control particularly along the land routes to
Egypt. The result of this policy was a drastic decline of settlement in Transjordan,
the Jordan valley, the Negev, and the southern Shephelah (Naʾaman 1995c: 114–
115; Lipschits 2000).3 By contrast, historical and archaeological evident from the
early 6th century to the 4th century BCE attests that the coastal region continued
to develop throughout the era of Babylonian rule (Stern 1982: 238–240; 1990: 148,
153–154). The fate of the province of Samaria seems to have been more similar
to that of the coastal region, and a continuation of settlement patterns between
the time of the Assyrian and the Persian rule can be discerned (Zertal 1990).

1 For a comprehensive discussion and bibliography see Lipschits 1999c.

2 If there was any change in Babylonian policy as against the Assyrians and the Egyptians, it
was along the ‘road of the sea’ on the main way to Egypt. Already at this stage Ashkelon was
destroyed. Ekron might also have been razed at this stage. For a discussion and bibliography,
see Lipschits 1999c: 468–469.
3 Against this background the dwindling of the eastern parts of the Samaria province may be
understood, as emerges from Zertal’s survey. For a summary of data see Zertal 1990.
 Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE) 137

The Fate of the Kingdom of Judah and the Fate of Jerusalem

(588–586 BCE)

Judah was the first target against which the Babylonians acted within the new
policy they formulated after the Egyptian threat to their rule in the region intensi-
fied. Nebuchadrezzar understood that he had to replace the unstable and head-
strong leadership of the kingdom of Judah, to destroy its ‘eternal capital’, and to
demolish the temple, which was an everlasting focus of hopes for salvation.4
Because he had no interest laying waste to the entire area, turning it into a
vacuum over which rule would be difficult or even impossible, he annexed most
of the territories of the kingdom and established a province. He installed a moder-
ate leadership, which was not connected to the House of David, and he deter-
mined its capital as Mizpah in the Benjamin territory. Moves towards the estab-
lishment of this province began as early as the time of the siege of Jerusalem,
and it existed under the rule of Babylon until the creation of the Persian Yehud
province (Lipschits 1999b).5
The archaeological finds yield a clear-cut picture of the time of the Babyloni-
an destruction, in which the Babylonians dealt the major blow to Jerusalem and
its close vicinity. The destruction of Jerusalem at the beginning of the 6th cen-
tury BCE is one of the prominent archaeological finds to appear in the many
years of excavation of the city, and evidence of it has been unearthed all over
the city at the twilight of the First Temple period. The excavations led by Avigad
in the Jewish Quarter from 1969 to 1978 disclosed adjacent to the late Iron age
tower the remains of a fire, arrowheads, and a Scythian bronze triple-winged
arrowhead, which was in use by the Mesopotamian armies in that period (Avigad
1983: 52–54). In the excavations conducted by Kenyon on the eastern slope of the
City of David in the 1960s, evidence was found of destruction of the wall from
the end of the Iron age (phase 9) (Kenyon 1967a: 170 171; Franken and Steiner
1990: 57), and excavations led by Yigal Shiloh in the City of David between 1978

4 On this subject see, for example, Bright 1959: 176; Miller and Hayes: 1986: 409; Renkema: 1998:
114–115.
5 Many scholars assume today that after the destruction of Jerusalem, Judah became a Babyloni-
an province, and that Gedaliah was appointed as its governor. This status of Judah did not change
throughout the time of Babylonian rule, and it continued even through Persian rule, when
Sheshbazar and Zerubabel were made governors. See Barstad 1996: 68–69, with further bibliogra-
phy. A different view was expressed by Liver in 1958, namely that throughout Babylonian rule
Judah remained in the status of a vassal state, and this continued until the time of Darius I. See
Liver 1958: 116. In the last decade this position has reappeared in the research literature. See
Sacchi 1989; Bianchi 1991; 1994. On this subject see the more moderate view of Lemaire 1996b,
See also the review and criticism of Niehr 1999: 229–231.
138 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

and 1982 produced evidence of the destruction of all the buildings (including the
wall) and of a fierce fire that sealed stratum X in areas D, E, and G (Shiloh
1984a: 14, 18–19, 29). Remains of the Babylonian destruction were also found in
excavations in the Citadel (Johns 1950: 130 and fig. 7, no. 1; Geva 1983: 56–58), and
in part of the structures excavated by Eilat Mazar in the Ophel (Mazar 1993).
The finds of the archaeological survey that has been going on for many years
now within the confines of the city of Jerusalem and its environs indicate the
force of the destruction and the degree of demographic decline in and around
the city.6 Even at the zenith of the Persian period the settlement in Jerusalem
was limited to a narrow extension of the historic City of David; settlement in the
city and its surroundings amounted to about fifteen percent of what it had been
on the eve of the destruction. The slight continuity reflected in the settlement
patterns in this area indicates the absence of continuity of settlement, and calls
for the assumption that previously, during the sixth century BCE, the condition
of settlement and demography had been even worse. The conclusion is that Jeru-
salem and its environs took a heavy blow from the Babylonians at the beginning
of the sixth century BCE and they were almost entirely depleted of their inhabi-
tants.7
With Jerusalem, the fortified cities on the western borders of the kingdom of
Judah were destroyed also. The main evidence for this is from excavations of
stratum II at Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir),8 but a similar fate seems to have befallen
other sites such as Azekah (Tell ez-Zakariyeh),9 Tell Goded (Tell el-Judeideh) (Da-
gan 1992: 41–45), and perhaps also Maresha (Tell Sandahannah) (Kloner and Eshel
1999: 150). The findings of the archaeological survey carried out in the region also
attest that most of the settlements that existed in the Shephelah in the second
half of the seventh and beginning of the sixth century BCE were laid waste during
the Babylonian campaign against Jerusalem (Dagan 1992: 259–263). At this stage
the Shephelah became a border region in settlement terms and a marginal zone
in geopolitical terms.
One can assume that after the severe injury caused to the army and the
central government during the Babylonian military expeditions, in particular af-

6 I wish to thank Prof. Amos Kloner who was kind enough to let me study the findings of the
archaeological survey of the map of Jerusalem before it was published.
7 Barstad (1996: 54–53), expresses a different view, but it is not clear to me on what he bases
his statement that the destruction of the city by the Babylonians was “… enormous and probably
impossible”.
8 For a description of the characteristics of stratum II at Lachish see Ussishkin (1978: 53–54, 64–
67; 1983; 134–136, 146).
9 Compare Jeremiah 34: 7 and ostracon 4 from Lachish, and see the evaluation of Albright 1960a:
30–31.
 Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE) 139

ter they ceased to exist, the settlement array along the eastern border of the
kingdom, in the Negev, and in the south of the Shephelah collapsed too.10 By
contrast, in the Benjamin district, and apparently also in the area of Bethlehem,
no evidence of destruction has been found. At most of the excavated sites in the
Benjaminite region, such as Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah), Beitin (Bethel), Tell el-Fûl
(Gibeah), and probably also El-Jib (Gibeon), the settlement evidently continued to
exist, and perhaps even to flourish, until the end of the sixth century BCE. Such
a picture emerges from the archaeological surveys conducted in the region.11
Mizpah became the central settlement of the entire region under the patronage
of the Babylonian rule, and around it a large rural array arose containing many
agricultural installations.12
The archaeological data match the biblical accounts of the time of the destruc-
tion and attest that the details conveyed in them are reliable and accurate. Accord-
ing to the biblical narrative, the Babylonian military campaign centered on Jerusa-
lem, and took an uncompromising stand on the city and the temple. About a
month after its conquest,13 Nebuzaradan arrived in Jerusalem and began methodi-
cally to raze it. The interval between the time of the king’s flight and the surrender
of the city indicates that Jerusalem was not destroyed in the throes of war but as
a consequence of a strategic decision. The Babylonians assailed the centers of
government and ritual in the city (v 9a); they burned “all the houses of Jerusalem”
and “every great house” (2 Kings 25: 9b), and they smashed down the walls
“around Jerusalem”.14 Babylonian policy on Jerusalem was also expressed in the
deportation of its inhabitants. From the descriptions in 2 Kings 25: 11 (and compare
Jeremiah 39: 9; 52: 15), the deportation of the citizens can be reconstructed, when
apart from a few exceptions, selected with great care, the Babylonians did not
permit any significant population to remain.15

10 This is not the place to discuss the settlement processes that took place in the border zones
of the kingdom of Judah, but it may be assumed that the onset of the collapse of settlement in
these regions began with the weakening of the central government, before the destruction of
Jerusalem. On the collapse of the array of settlements of the kingdom of Judah see Lipschits
2000. On the settlement process in the Negev see Beit Arieh 1995: 310–315; 1999a: 3, with further
bibliography. On the fate of the settlement in the area between the Negev and the surroundings
of Ḥebron, see Ofer 1993: 127–135.
11 On the different fate of the Benjamin district see Lipschits 1999b.
12 For a summary of the archaeological picture at Tell en-Naṣbeh see Zorn 1993b: 103–162; 312–
336; 1997: 28–38, 66; Lipschits 1999b, and there also a summary of data of the surveys conducted
throughout the region.
13 On the tradition concerning the date of the destruction of the city, see Bloch 1978: 245–246.
14 A description of the smashing of the walls matches the actual condition that Nehemiah saw
before him during his tour around the walls about 130 years later (Neh 2: 13–15).
15 Compare the account of the unusual fate of Jeremiah (Jer 39: 11–14; 40: 1). It is hard to assume
that the city and its surroundings were emptied entirely, and remained thus for a lengthy period.
140 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Jerusalem and the Temple 586–539 BCE

The central place of Jerusalem as the hotbed of ceaseless religious and political
turbulence motivated the Babylonians to raze it to its very foundations.16 The city
remained desolate and deserted. The laments that “the roads to Zion mourn, for
none come to the appointed feasts” (Lam 1: 4) and “all who pass along the way
clap their hands at you; they hiss and wag their heads at the daughter of Jerusa-
lem: “Is this the city which was called the perfection of beauty, the joy of all the
earth?” (Lam 2: 15) faithfully reflect this historical reality. Nor is Jerusalem men-
tioned in the account of the rule of Gedaliah at Mizpah (2 Kings 25: 22–26; Jer 40:
7–41: 18).17 The disregard for Jerusalem is particularly significant considering that
the events described in this account encircle the city to the north (Mizpah and
Gibeon) and to the south (around Bethlehem). In light of this, and in light of the
archaeological picture, it may be assumed that the systematic acts of destruction
by Nebuzaradan, about four weeks after the conquest of the city, were accompa-
nied by political instructions that created this situation and made it permanent.18
This was the sight that met the earliest Returners to Zion (compare Zechariah 1:
12; 2: 5–9), as well as the later (compare Nehemiah 2: 13–17; 7: 6). The recovery
of Jerusalem, and its being made a great and important urban center came about
only during the Hellenistic period.
A more difficult question concerns the status of the temple after the destruc-
tion. Archaeological finds cannot help here, and the description in 2 Kings 25: 9a
is general, permitting various interpretations and reconstructions. No doubt need
be cast on the assumption that the temple was destroyed and ceased to exist, and
was rebuilt after a break of about seventy years (compare Haggai 2: 3; Ezra 3: 12),
but it is uncertain if the Babylonians wished to prevent, or could have prevented,
pilgrimage to the site of the ruined temple. Perhaps the pilgrimages even served

But the historiographic descriptions, as well as those in the prophetic literature and the laments
on the destruction of the temple, seem to accord with the archaeological reality and Babylonian
policy, whose aim was to turn all of the Benjamin region, and Mizpah particularly, into an
alternative center of the new political entity that was being created at that time. See Lipschits
1999a.
16 On this subject see also the comments of Bickerman (1979–1980).
17 On the account in Jeremiah 41: 5 see the discussion below.
18 By this definition I refer to the fundamental Babylonian policy, which is also reflected in a
mass of historical and archaeological evidence. On this subject see also Cogan and Tadmor 1988:
319. It cannot be assumed that in realty the city was completely empty; restricted and sparse
urban life undoubtedly continued. The view of Barkay, that an established population continued
to exist in Jerusalem even after its destruction was founded only on the findings of one grave
on the Hinnom slope. See Barkay 1984; 1992b.
 Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE) 141

their purpose, in that the pilgrims saw before them the fate of the rebellious city
and the punishment of those who relied on the eternal protection of their God.
Many researchers have hypothesized that the absence of specific reference to
the destruction of the altar by the Babylonians may hint at its continued existence.19
This reconstruction is hard to accept, being based on the silence of the sources and
on the assumption that the altar was a massive structure whose demolition would
have required a planned operation. The account in 2 Kings 25: 9 is succinct and
general, while the list in verses 13–17 centers on the copper, silver, and gold vessels.
Still, the impression from these descriptions is distinct, and it accords with the
absence of reference to any ritual activity at the site of the destroyed temple also
in the other sources that treat this period. The general picture is “As to Mount Zion
which lies desolate, the jackals prowl over it” (Lam 5: 18). There is even an express
statement about the desertion of the altar: “Yhwh has scorned his altar, disowned
his sanctuary” (Lam 2: 7) (Hillers 1972: 44; Renkema 1998: 245–246).20
The only testimony about the fate of the temple after the destruction of
Jerusalem is an account of the arrival of eighty pilgrims from Shechem, Shiloh
and Samaria “… with their beards shaved and their clothes torn, and their bod-
ies gashed, bringing cereal offering and incense to present at the temple of
Yhwh” (Jer 41: 5).21 The account refers to a large group of pilgrims from the
Samaria province, behaving as if to display customs of mourning, apparently
over the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Holladay 1989: 297).22 The
destination of the pilgrims is indeed not stated explicitly, but research generally
assumes that it was the ruins of the temple,23 about two months after the de-

19 See, for example, Janssen 1956: 46–47, 94–104; Bright 1959: 325; Myers 1965: XX, 26–27; Miller
and Hayes, op. cit. (n. 7), pp. 426; Smith 1989: 34–35; Berquist 1995: 17–18; Niehr 1999: 234, with
further bibliography.
20 Great importance lies in the actual circumstances that gave rise to the recital of the lament
in Lamentations 2: 7–9. The fate of the altar is the great innovation that appears in this passage,
apparently because of its importance and the sense of its loss. The mention of the other el-
ements is parallel to the information that exists in the description of the destruction in 2 Kings
and Jeremiah. On this subject see Jones 1963: 12. But see the response of Ackroyd 1968: 26, n. 39.
On this subject, see the important note of Blenkinsopp (1998: 26), according to “Even if the altar
had survived, it would have been corpse-contaminated (Lam 2:20), and therefore rendered
inaccessible”.
21 On the text see Keown, Scalise and Smothers 1995: 238–239; Holladay 1989: 272, with transla-
tion and further bibliography. For a summary of the research posture that sees the literary unit
in Jeremiah 40:7–41:18 as an original tradition, see Seitz 1989: 274–279.
22 On the attachment of the northern population to the temple in Jerusalem see Noth 1966: 263–
264; Coggins 1975: 28–37.
23 On this subject see, for example, Welch 1935: 67–68; Rudolph 1947: 160; Noth 1954 (English
edition, New York 1958): 291; Jones 1963: 14–15; Galling 1964: 129; Bright 1965: 254; Oded 1977: 478;
Ackroyd 1968: 25; 1970: 17; Japhet 1983: 107; Holladay 1989: 297; Seitz 1989: 273. As an exception,
142 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

struction.24 They brought cereal offering and frankincense, which many re-
searchers interpret as evidence of nonanimal sacrifice.25 Ishmael the son of
Nethaniah enticed the pilgrims to veer from their route to Mizpah, and on their
arrival at the city he slaughtered seventy of them, and let the remaining ten
live in return for “treasures in the field” (Jer 41: 7–8).
Although many researchers have pointed out the tendentiousness of the tale,
which was intended to blacken Ishmael’s name, hardly anyone doubts the as-
sumption that it is based on an event that occurred after the murder of Gedaliah
(Keown, Scalise and Smothers 1995: 241).26 At the same time, one cannot ignore
the story’s connection to Jeremiah’s prophecies in chapter 7 (mainly vv. 4, 12) and
in 31: 1–13, from which it transpires that the events were associated with the
prophecies and were interpreted through them. The connection to chapter 7 was
chiefly meant to convey a political and theological message and to close the cycle
of Jeremiah’s prophecies on the fate of the temple in Jerusalem. The prophet’s
call to “all you men of Judah who enter these gates to worship Yhwh” (7: 2) not
to depend on the eternity of the temple, and to learn from the destiny of the
ruined Shiloh (compare 26: 6, 9), is directly linked to the arrival of the pilgrims
from Shiloh at the ruins of the temple in Jerusalem. According to this prophecy,
past and present meet: the people of the destroyed northern kingdom, whose fate
and the fate of their temple served the prophet as an example for the future of
Judah and the temple in Jerusalem, have come to mourn the destroyed temple of
Jerusalem.
The association with chapter 31 is intended to add still more to the tendency
to besmirch Ishmael’s character, this time in a theological direction. One cannot

one may mention the researchers listed in Ackroyd 1968: 25, n. 22, and add also: Klausner 1949:
57–58; Miller and Hayes 1986: 426, who assumed that the reference was to some ritual site that
existed at Mizpah. On this subject see also the detailed discussion of Blenkinsopp (1998: 34), who
claims “… that Mizpah served as both the political and the religious center of the province in
the early period of Babylonian rule, down to the attempted coup d’état of Ishmael, and that
Bethel, for reasons unknown, then took over as the imperially designated center of worship”.
24 Such was the assumption of most scholars, and see Keown, Scalise and Smothers 1995: 241;
Lipschits 1999b, with further bibliography. Reservations about this view were expressed by Bright
1965: 254; Thompson 1980: 657. An exceptional view was expressed by Hyatt (1956a: 778, 1087),
who assumes that the episode occurred in 582 BCE, but it is doubtful that any basis can be found
for this opinion.
25 On this subject see Rendtorff 1967: 191; Ackroyd 1968: 25–26, and n. 42. For a comprehensive
discussion on frankincense see Nielsen 1986: 80, 87, with further bibliography.
26 Exceptional in this context was Skinner 1961: 304–305. In his view this episode does not
contain a description of a historical event but a vision of the future, and in it people from Israel
will see Jerusalem as their capital and will make the pilgrimage to it. Naʾaman (1993: 23, n. 52),
argues that the tendency of this story was to show that after the destruction the central status
of Jerusalem in the ritual was preserved.
 Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE) 143

ignore the connection of the prophecy “For there shall be a day when watchmen
will call in the hill country of Ephraim: “Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to Yhwh
our God” (31:6 [5]), which according to verses 8–9 [7–8] “Behold I will bring them
from the north country … With weeping they shall come, and with consolations
I will lead them back … for I am a father to Israel and Ephraim is my first-born”
to the account of the arrival of the pilgrims in Jerusalem in 41: 5.27 This prophecy
(and compare also 50: 4) may explain the naming of the pilgrims’ places of origin
as the three important historical centers that existed in the destroyed kingdom
of Israel. These places had a major role in the history of the people as early as
the epoch of the Patriarchs and the conquest of the land (Shechem), the pre-
monarchial era (Shiloh), and the glorious age of the kingdom of Israel (Samaria).
But the prophecy in Jeremiah, that the pilgrims will arrive “… in a straight path
in which they shall not stumble” (31: 9 [8]), was not fulfilled. Seventy of them
were murdered by Ishmael. The condemnation of Ishmael’s acts in this setting
appears fiercer than ever, and goes beyond the act of grim and merciless mass
murder. Ishmael’s deed is perceived as an attempt to halt the continuation of the
ritual in Jerusalem and the renewal of the temple’s status, in addition to his
attempt to block the rehabilitation of the country under the rule of Babylon after
the destruction of Jerusalem.
In terms of historical reconstruction, most researchers have conjectured that
soon after its destruction by the Babylonians the site of the temple became a
focal point for pilgrimage, with many coming to pray, to recite laments, and to
bring offerings to God.28 No evidence exists of formal Babylonian sanction for
the holding of any kind of ritual. The pilgrimages to the site of the ruined temple
appear to have been made by small groups or by individuals, and the ritual
conducted there was popular and spontaneous. The Babylonian government did
not bother to ban or prevent it, apparently because it suited its interest to demon-
strate to all the fate of whoever rebelled against it (Jones 1963; Ackroyd 1970: 17).
Support for this reconstruction may be found in the report that Seraiah the chief
priest, Zephaniah the second priest and the three keepers of the threshold were
put to death by Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah (2 Kings 25: 18–21; Jer 52: 24–27). Just
as the execution of Zedekiah and his sons was intended to terminate the rule of
the House of David in Judah, the elimination of the priests seems to have been

27 Also compare the account of the “stores” in in 41: 8 with the prophecy in 31: 12.
28 See, for example, Welch 1935: 68; Janssen 1956: 46–56, 101–102; Noth 1966: 264. Exceptional in
this context was Hyatt 1956a: 1088, who claimed that “… by this time the temple in Jerusalem
had been sufficiently restored so that some offerings could be made there”. On this subject see
the comments of Ackroyd (1970: 17–18), and see also the fine remarks of Ahlström (1971: 114–
115).
144 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

intended to terminate their status and their influence on the center in Jerusalem.
But in contrast to information on the appointment of an alternative leadership,
not from the Davidic dynasty, nothing is known of the appointment of priests
from a different family.29 This point reinforces the assumption that formal ritual
practices were not laid down in Jerusalem, and that with the introduction of such
practices the family of Zadok re-established its position.
If the narrative in Jeremiah 41: 5 reflects actual history, a central theme is
the bringing of cereal offering and frankincense and the lack of evidence of bring-
ing animal sacrifices. The parallel in the terminology and in the historical pro-
cesses to the circumstances that emerge from the Elephantine papyri has been
conspicuous to many scholars, for the Elephantine temple too was destroyed
(410 BCE) and lay in ruins for some time. The grief over the destruction of the
temple was heavy, and continued long, together with the submission of petitions
for license to restore the temple. Eventually, in 407 BCE, instructions were re-
ceived from Begavahya the governor of Judah and Delaiah the governor of Sama-
ria that the Jews could rebuild their temple and resume there the bringing of the
cereal offering and frankincense. This license did not include permission to offer
animal sacrifices, which apparently was restricted to the temple in Jerusalem.30
Despite the interval in time between the two destructions, the different cir-
cumstances of the two cases, and the apparent difference in the reasons why the
imperial authority prohibited animal sacrifices, the inferiority of the status of the
temple where cereal offering and frankincense were allowed to that where ani-
mal sacrifice was allowed becomes clear. A later author, working apparently at
the time of Nehemiah or even later, understood this, and was responsible for the
addition of the passage in Jeremiah 16: 19–27.31 Beyond the subject of the sabbath,
which is the core of this passage, it emphasizes the prophet’s vision of the future,
when pilgrims from all over Judah are “bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices,
cereal offerings and frankincense, and bringing thank offerings to the house of
Yhwh” (v. 26).
No information exists on events in Jerusalem between the time immediately
after the destruction and the restoration period. In fact, the lacuna in knowledge
is still wider, as great doubt exists as to what the composer of the description in
Ezra 1–6 knew about the actual reality in this time span (Williamson 1983; Japhet
1991; 1994). Nevertheless, the perception that the status of the ritual in Jerusalem

29 On this subject see, for example, the comments of Welch 1935: 68–69; Bright 1959: 325.
30 On the correspondence between the Jews in Elephantine and the Persian government see
letters 30–33 in Cowley 1923: 108–126, and compare with the translation and discussion in Porten
1996: 139–151 (letters B19–B22).
31 On this subject see Holladay 1986: 508–511.
 Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE) 145

was a result of Babylonian policy requires that assumption that any change in
this status would have to be connected with a change in policy. No evidence exists
of such a change, and support for its absence is found in the situations reflected
in the Psalms that are generally held to date to the period of Babylonian rule.32
Considering the assumption that the temple in Jerusalem was not restored in
the period of Babylonian rule, and that limited ritual activity continued at its
ruined site, we may understand the great innovation and the legal importance
attributed by the Returners to Zion to the decree of Cyrus. Unconnected to the
question of historical veracity of the decree as an original document or as a
reworking of such a document (Williamson 1985: 3; Japhet 1991: 179–180), and
unconnected to the attitude of the Returners to those who remained, the different
policy of the Persians was grasped as the legal basis for the building of the temple
and renewal of offering sacrifices in it: “In the first year of Cyrus the king, Cyrus
the king issued a decree: Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house
be rebuilt on the place where they used to offer sacrifices …” (or, “as a place
where sacrifices are offered”) (Ez 6: 3).33 From the account in Ezra 3: 1–5, the
building of the altar and the renewal of the offering of sacrifices there were also
the first acts accomplished by the Returners to Zion: “From the first day of the
seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to Yhwh. But the foundation
of the temple of Yhwh was not yet laid” (Ez 3: 6) (Myers 1965: 23, and compare
also with Williamson 1985: 40, 47; Blenkinsopp 1998: 94, 98).

32 On Psalms xliv, lxxiv, lxxix, lxxxix and cii see Janssen 1956: 19, and on Psalms xl, li, lxix and
cii see the discussion of Jones 1963: 24–31.
33 Compare the translations and commentaries for this verse in Rudolph 1949: 54; Blenkinsopp
1988: 123; Grabbe 1998: 25, with those in Myers 1965: 47–52, and Williamson 1985: 71.
Demographic Changes in Judah between
the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE
Most of the major sites in the land of Israel were excavated during the last cen-
tury. Despite problems with some of the publications and the need to adapt many
of the old conclusions to more modern ceramic, historiographical, and chronologi-
cal approaches, a fairly reasonable picture of the history of settlement can be
drawn from them for most of the historical periods.
Since the end of the 1960s, large areas have been surveyed, including almost
all of the territory of the kingdom of Judah, Surveys of the Benjamin region, the
Judean hill country, and the Shephelah were conducted, for the most part, during
the 1980s; the majority of these surveys were published in the early 1990s. In
addition, Jerusalem and its surroundings have been surveyed for many years, and
the two volumes of the survey were published in 2000–2001. These survey data
make it possible to draw periodic settlement maps and to distinguish the changes
that occurred in the history of settlements in various regions. The combination of
excavation data and surveys allows an examination of the history of the country
from a varied array of standpoints: from the material culture, and from the social,
political, economic, and religious aspects well. All these may be studied in parallel
with historical data generally and biblical accounts in particular.
The possibility of formulating an independent historical picture (not reliant
on the Bible and as unfettered as possible by prior historiographical and theologi-
cal perceptions) is a privilege of modem research and is of prime importance
regarding even the examination of the biblical descriptions themselves. In this
paper, I intend to examine the demographic state of the kingdom of Judah at the
end of the Iron Age (the second half of the seventh and the beginning of the
6th centuries BCE) and compare it with the demographic situation of the province
of Yehud at the height of the Persian period (mid-fifth century BCE), using archeo-
logical tools. The material culture of these two time periods was well defined,
and the periods themselves are also well defined chronologically. By presenting
the solidly based data of these two time periods, we can show a long, complex
settlement and demographic process, at the center of which are the changes that
occurred during the Babylonian rule (mainly the first half of the 6th century BCE).
The methods of estimating population size on the basis of the archaeological
finds, as controversial as they may be, have become better established in recent
years, both in terms of the theoretical discussion and in terms of the data base
by which populations may be estimated at given periods of time.1 Among the

1 This is not the place to discuss models and the theoretical background of the demographic
studies. There are references to these in a large number of the articles mentioned below that

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-009
148 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

major essays in which the population of the land of Israel was examined, the
work of Gophna and Portugali (1988) on the population of the coastal area be-
tween the Chalcolithic period and the Middle Bronze Age must be noted, as well
as that of Broshi and Gophna (1984; 1986), Finkelstein and Gophna (1993), and
Gophna (1995) on the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age; of Finkelstein
(1989) on the Intermediate Bronze Age; of Finkelstein (1984) and Sharon (1994) on
the Israelite population during Iron Age I; of Shiloh (1980) on the Iron Age; and
of Broshi and Finkelstein (1990; 1992) on the population of the land of Israel in
the 8th century BCE. To these, one must add Broshi’s work (1974; 1978) on evaluat-
ing the size of population in Jerusalem during the Iron Age, additional studies
that dealt with various aspects of the demographic situation during the Bronze
and Iron Ages,2 and many studies completed on the population of the land of
Israel in later periods.3
Most scholars based the population estimate on a combination of excavations
and survey finds in a given region from a specified period, from which they tried
to establish an estimate of total settled dunams. This estimate is largely specula-
tive, because the vast majority of the sites (especially the small- and medium-
sized sites) have not been excavated. Thus, the figures are based on the general
impression of the surveyors and an estimate of the overall area of a site, weighted
against the relative quantity of pottery shards from the various periods.4 Despite

deal with the Bronze and Iron Ages. On this subject see also Portugali 1988; 1989. For literature
on the various methods of estimating population, see Finkelstein 1990; Esse 1991:131 n.18; Zorn
1994: 32–35; and Carter 1999: 195. For a theoretical discussion and review of the literature on the
Bronze and Iron Ages, see London 1992: 71–79. For a summary of the preliminary discussion of
population density per dunams, see Carter 1999: 195–199, with further literature.
2 See, e.g., the references in London 1992: 75, and nn. 27–29 on p. 78.
3 See, e.g., the literature compiled in Zorn 1994; Carter 1999: 195–205.
4 The publication of the surveys excludes many facts, and this exclusion makes it difficult to
evaluate the reliability of the surveys. Among the missing data, one must mention the size of
the area relative to the number of surveyors (the overall area of the site, extent of the area
surveyed, number of surveyors, the number of times they went over the area and the pace at
which they walked, the dexterity of the surveyors, etc.); visibility data and an evaluation of the
ability to make finds while conducting the survey (the season in which the survey was conducted,
the weather on the day it was conducted, the vegetation above the site, and evidence of human
activity in later periods); general data on the survey’s finds (number of pottery shards collected;
their size, color, and density; the relative number of identified pieces of pottery; the relationship
among the various historic periods; and the manner of documenting the finds and the degree
of precision in registering the items); and so forth. The need to unify the data also makes it
difficult to collect and process it, because there are large time gaps among the various survey
reports and a conspicuous absence of uniformity, which is reflected even in the terminology
given to the periods that were surveyed and the subchronological divisions that were made. The
lack of uniformity in the survey data is partly the result of differences in the type of the area
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 149

this deficiency, the estimate of total settled dunams is of great importance. The
estimate serves as a fixed number that allows for a comparison among various
periods for the purpose of defining the processes of change that took place during
those periods in terms of settlement pattern and population size.
Converting the number of settled dunams into estimates of population size
is a derivative of the estimate of the number of settled dunams and is dependent
on the coefficient of the number of people per dunams.5 In the latest studies,
support has stabilized around the figure of 25 people per dunams.6 Although
this seems quite high for the population of small villages, and quite low for the
populations of walled cities, it seems to be the average and is appropriate for
estimating the total population in specified regions, at least as a maximum evalu-
ation of the settled area.7

being surveyed. However, for our purposes, the main problem is the different world views of
the surveyors, which are reflected primarily in the quantification of the data and basing it on
precise statistics lo make estimates of the area and strength of the settlement. This is not the
place for a discussion of the worldview of the survey or for judging the different survey tech-
niques. However, as much as these estimates are, ultimately, one of the purposes of the discus-
sion, it is important to note that there are serious methodological problems hampering our
ability to estimate the relative size of settlements in any given period on the basis of survey
data alone. In my opinion, using the present survey methods, there is no way to arrive at precise
estimates of the area of most types of sites. Any attempt to make use of evaluations based on
mathematical calculations or the use of fixed formulas is based on data that is itself the survey-
or’s estimate. Accordingly, it is better to be aware of the limitations of the information garnered
by the survey and to make do with a general evaluation of the characteristics of the site: classifi-
cation into the main types of settlement sites, estimate of the area of the site at its peak size,
and as precise a calculation as possible of the quantities of pottery indicative of each period.
This information can serve as the basis of an evaluation of the intensity of human activity on
the site throughout the different eras. It is preferable to state in advance that this is only an
estimate and to be aware that such an estimate contains elements of speculation. On this subject,
see also London 1992: 71 and Zorn 1994: 32, with further literature, as well as Broshi and Finkel-
stein’s words (1991: 5) in favor of “the educated guess.”
5 On the problems related to this subject, see the review by London 1992: 74–77, with further
literature.
6 The figure of 25 persons per dunams is based primarily on ethnoarchaeological studies in
traditional societies and the data of rural Arab villages during the British Mandate. This is the
coefficient used by Shiloh and most of the researchers whose studies were cited above, and to
which many more can be added (see the reference in London 1992: 75, and nn. 27–30 on p. 78).
On this subject, see also Zorn 1994: 32–35, and the comparative table on p. 34; Carter 1999: 194–
199, with further literature.
7 For the main references to these methods and discussions of various coefficients for calculat-
ing population size, see the prefaces to all of the demographic studies cited previously, as well
as Portugali 1988: 4–38; London 1992: 74–77; Zorn 1994: 31–48; Carter 1999: 195–198, with exten-
sive further literature. All of the comparisons that researchers bring to the demographic situation
in the Arab villages during the British Mandate are evidence that the coefficient of 25 people
150 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Fig. 1: The Kingdom of Judah in the Late Seventh Century BCE.

Fig. 2: Judah in the Fifth Century BCE.

per dunams is quite high. This was also the main criticism voiced by London 1992: 74–75; and
Biger and Grossman 1992: 108–121. However, because most of the sites were not excavated for
the periods with which this study deals, and because the estimates of settled area size are only
general, one should make do with an estimate of population based on a fixed coefficient of
25 people per dunams. The use of th.is coefficient will make it possible to compare the demo-
graphic data from the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period with the data from other
periods in the history of the land of Israel.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 151

The Archaeological Data: Processes of Destruction

and Continuity in Judah between
the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE

Processes of Destruction and Rehabilitation in Jerusalem and Its Environs

The combination of the data from the extensive excavations and surveys that
were conducted in the city limits of modern-day Jerusalem and its immediate
environs has vast importance in the establishment of a settlement profile of Jeru-
salem and its environs at the end of the Iron Age.8 In the 8th and seventh centu-
ries BCE, Jerusalem expanded,9 its population grew, and a large settlement bloc
was created around the city. Unfortified neighborhoods were built north of the
city walls,10 10 and agricultural farms lay in the area around it.11 Large villages
were found in the more remote ring and apparently delineated the territory
known as “the environs of Jerusalem.”12 A well-planned array of fortresses, which
were within these limits, was built in a wide circle around the city.13

8 I would like to thank Amos Kloner for kindly enabling me to study the finds of the archaeologi-
cal survey of the map of Jerusalem before its publication. The profile of settlement in the Jerusa-
lem region at the end of the Iron Age has been discussed at length in the literature. On this
subject, see, for example, discussion by Gibson and Edelstein 1985; Barkay 1985b; Lipschits 1997b:
246–275; 2001: 132–134; Feig 2000.
9 One may learn about the boundary of the fortified part of the city principally from the many
tombs that encircled it. Barkay collected data on approximately 115 burial caves in the various
parts of the necropolis (and see, e.g., 1985b: 472; 1991: 103). There are roughly 50 burial caves in
the eastern burial ground in the village of Silwan, approximately 15 north of the Shechem Cate,
about 38 throughout the Ben-Hinnom Valley, and 12 in the neighborhoods outside of the city wall
and in the villages and farms that were around the city.
10 The neighborhoods outside the city wall in the hills north of the city apparently began at the
end of the 8th century BCE and reached their highest development in the seventh century BCE
(Barkay 1985b: 161–165, 500, with further literature).
11 The accepted hypothesis is that the entire area of the new city was the agricultural hinterland
of Jerusalem. This area reached up to 10 km west of the city that was enclosed by a wall at th.at
time, some 5 km north, 3.5 km south, and much less of it to the east. ln this context, see Barkay
(1985b: 367–71), who also attributes to the farms several burial caves that are located in the
wider sphere within the limits of the modern city of Jerusalem. On this subject, see also Feig
2000: 388–394, 398–409.
12 This array of villages surrounded the Jerusalem territory in which there were only farms
(between Mozah in the west, el-ʿAzariyah in the east, (ʿAnata in the north and Ramat Raḥel in
the south).
13 Fortresses were found on French Hill and in Giloh, Kh. el-Burj(?), and Abu-Dis (Mazar 1981:
246–248; Barkay 1985b: 371–373). There is a fine parallel to this in Samaria. Around the capital,
152 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

On the basis of this compilation of data, Barkay hypothesized that the built-
up area of Jerusalem at the end of the seventh and the beginning of the 6th centu-
ries BCE, including the fortresses and neighborhoods outside of the city wall (and
in my opinion, also including the farms that were scattered all over the area of
“the environs of Jerusalem”), reached a size of approximately 900–1,000 dunams
(Barkay 1985b: xiv, 165, 487).14
From the finds at the excavations in Jerusalem, a clear picture emerges of
the Babylonian destruction in all the different parts of the city from the end of
the time of the First Temple: in the City of David (Kenyon 1967a: 170–171; Shiloh
1984a: 3–22; Franken and Steiner 1990: 57); in the Ophel (E. Mazar 1991: 139; 1993:
25–32); in the modem-day Jewish Quarter (Avigad 1980: 52–54); and in the citadel
Johns 1950: 130, and fig. 7, no. l; Geva 1983: 56–58). In contrast to Kenyon and
Barkay’s opinion,15 it seems that the inevitable explanation for the finds is that
Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians and was emptied of most of its
population (Lipschits 2001a: 132–134).
One of the major sites near Jerusalem at the end of the seventh and the
beginning of the 6th centuries BCE was Ramat Raḥel (ancient Beth-hakkerem).
Naʾaman suggested interpreting the early edifice of Stratum Vb as the seat of an
Assyrian official, built either in the late years of Tiglath-pileser III or in the early
years of Sargon, who was nominated to supervise the affairs of the kingdom of

three known fortresses were built, and they continued to exist during Assyrian and Babylonian
rule (Zertal 1990: 9–30). Barkay (1985b: xi, 373) compares these to the fortresses that existed
around Rabbath-Ammon. On this subject, see Kletter 1991: 33–51.
14 ln my opinion, an estimate of this entire settled area must include all of the small farms that
were included in the archaeological survey in the territory of “the environs of Jerusalem.” The
estimates accepted in the scholarship for the limits of Jerusalem at the end of the Iron Age reach
approximately 600 dunams (Broshi 1974: 21–26; 1991: 66; Geva 979; 1991; Finkelstein 1994: 175).
See also the estimate made by Shiloh (1980: 272–282) of the limits of the fortified city, and in this
context, see also the doubts raised by Tushingham (1987: 137–143).
15 Based on her excavations in the City of David, Kenyon (1963: 15; 1966: 81–83; 1967b: 105–111)
hypothesized that the Babylonians did not destroy all sections of the city. In her opinion, some
of the residents continued to live there after the destruction and even continued to maintain
some of the Temple rituals. Barkay (1985b: 266–282, 301–205; 1994: 85–106) expanded on Kenyon’s
opinion. Basing his opinion on the finds of his excavations at Ketef Hinnom, he determined
that families of the nation’s elite continued to Jive in Jerusalem after the destruction. Barkay’s
archaeological conclusions seem reasonable and well grounded, but it is difficult to accept his
opinion, using these scant remnants, to reconstruct evidence for continued life in Jerusalem
after the destruction. This surely cannot be proof of continued residence in Jerusalem of people
from the elite of the nation. Subsequently, one must reject outright the view expressed by Laper-
rousaz (1989: 56) that 12,000 people lived in Jerusalem during the period of exile, even before
the return to Zion. A population of this size should have been living on 500–600 dunams, and
the figures available to us even from the peak of the Persian period are only 20 % of that number.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 153

Judah and, in particular, the city of Jerusalem (Naʾaman 2001: 273).16 After the
suppression of Hezekiah’s rebellion, the new residence of Stratum Va was rebuilt
on a larger scale and with a quality that befitted the seat of an imperial repre-
sentative, together with his staff and guard.17 The stores of the palace were made
to supply the tribute that the vassal kingdom was required to pay; hence, one
can understand the many stamped handles at the site, most of them dated to the
seventh century BCE (Naʾaman 2001: 273–274).
In contrast to the information concerning the end of Jerusalem, clear evi-
dence on the time and circumstances of the destruction of the late edifice of
Stratum Va at Ramat Raḥel is lacking. It was either destroyed or abandoned after
the Assyrian retreat from the land of Israel during the last quarter of the seventh
century BCE (Naʾaman 2001: 274).18 However, it is possible that a diminished settle-
ment continued to exist at Ramat Raḥel during the 6th century BCE, when Jerusa-
lem was in ruins.19
The City of David excavations showed that there was a settlement gap after
the destruction. Pottery was found in only a few excavations conducted on the
western hill. This pottery is parallel to the pottery found at Ketef Hinnom and
can be dated to the 6th century BCE.20 This is significant because there is no clear-
cut archaeological evidence of the settlement in Jerusalem between the Babyloni-
an destruction and the mid-fifth century BCE. It would appear that, with regard
to Jerusalem, the interpretation given by Weinberg to the finds of Kenyon’s exca-
vations remains unchanged: Jerusalem was wretchedly poor, not just in the peri-

16 This early edifice either was destroyed or abandoned as a result of Hezekiahʾs rebellion
against Assyria (Na’aman 2001: 274).
17 According to Naʾaman (2001: 273), the Assyrians imposed the task of rebuilding the site on
Hezekiah (and, hence, the similarity between the architectonic elements in Jerusalem and Ramal
Raḥel.
18 Compare with Naʾaman 1991b: 33–41.
19 Barkay (1993: 108) argued that pottery from the 6th century BCE could be identified within
the Stratum IV finds.
20 From the finds in the Ketef Hinnom repository (Barkay 1993: 107), one cannot draw any
unequivocal conclusions regarding the continued presence of any elite society in Jerusalem. The
finds are exceptional and unusual. In addition, one may postulate that, before the destruction,
those buried in this tomb Jived in Jerusalem, and, after the destruction, they lived in the area
surrounding the city (perhaps in the Benjamin region or Bethlehem environs) and continued to
bury their dead in the family burial plots. Even if we accept Barkay’s ceramic distinctions and
treat the scant and scattered finds that he identified in the western hill as belonging to the
6th century BCE, these finds can, at most, attest to the existence of a limited, indigent population
that lived around the historical City of David and the Temple Mount, within the limits of the
devastated city at the end of the Iron Age.
154 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

od after the destruction, but also at the height of the time of the return to Zion
(Kenyon 1967b: 105; Weinberg 1970: 204).21
The settlement that was reestablished in Jerusalem at the beginning of the
Persian period was small. The Temple Mount was an area of religious ritual, and
the settled area was concentrated on the narrow ridge of the City of David, where
most of the finds from the Persian period were also unearthed.22 In this area, too,
the evidence from the Persian period is meager and poor, and the fact that hardly
any architectonic evidence has been uncovered reinforces the hypothesis that Jeru-
salem did not manage to establish itself as a large urban center during the Persian
period.23 In light of the scant finds from the Persian period uncovered outside of
the limits of the narrow range of the historic City of David, it appears that the
built-up part of the city at the height of the period did not exceed 60 dunams,24
and the western hill was abandoned entirely until the beginning of the Hellenistic

21 On this subject, see the summary in Lipschits 2001. See also Ackroyd 1968: 25–29; Miller and
Hayes 1986: 426; Naʾaman 2000b: 43. Barstad had a different view (1996: 53–54), but it is not clear
to me on what basis he says that the destruction of Jerusalem was “enormous and probably
impossible.”
22 Most of the finds from the Persian period excavated at the City of David at the beginning of
the twentieth century were not uncovered in a clear stratigraphic context (Macalister and Dun-
can 1926: 188–201; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 67–68; Duncan 1931–1932: 1939–1942). Additional
finds from the Persian period were also found in Kenyon’s excavations in the northern section
of the eastern slope of the City of David, and naturally, in Shiloh’s excavations. lt was only in
the excavations held on the eastern side of the City of David that, for the first time, a clearly
defined settlement layer from the Persian period was found (Stratum 9; Shiloh 1979a: 168; 1984a:
20; Shiloh and Kaplan 1979: 45). Apart from “clean” ceramic material from the Persian period
found east of the fortification line, two thin walls were also found in this section that are
attributed to this period and that may have been used as supporting walls. Supporting walls and
layers of landfill were also uncovered in Areas E-1, D1–2, and B. In area D, an additional section
of the city wall was unearthed and corroborated evidence for its course along the top of the
ridge’s slope, greatly reducing the size of the city limits (Shiloh 1979b: 16; 1983: 130; Ariel 2000:
97–98). Although Shiloh’s excavations uncovered the major proof of the Persian period, the
stratum from this period is meager, and the main find attributed to it was from outside the new
line of fortification (Kenyon 1967a: 182–185; Shiloh 1984a: 14, 29; 1984b: 57). The dating of the
stratum was made primarily on the basis of the pottery shards and seal impressions typical of
that period, as well as a small silver coin dated to the first half of the fifth century BCE (Ariel
1990a: 99–100, 111–113).
23 On this subject, also see the estimates of Weinberg 1970: 204; and Stern 1982: 34.
24 The accepted estimates of Jerusalem’s size during the Persian period range in the rea of 130–
40 dunams, of which 80 are on the Temple Mount and some 50–60 are at the Ophel and in the
City of David. On this subject, see Tsafrir 1977b: 34; Kenyon 1967a: 182–185; Broshi 1978; William-
son 1984; Ofer 1993: 2.204–205; Carter 1991: 109–120; 1999: 148, 201–202. 2. In my opinion, it is a
mistake to include the Temple Mount in calculating the settled area of the city. Carter (1991: 150,
table 2; 1999: 190, 201–202) rightly estimated the settled area in the city at some 60 dunams.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 155

period.25 It seems that the proper way to define the city at this period is as a
Temple, alongside of which there was a settlement both for those who served in
the Temple and for a small number of additional residents.
During the fifth century BCE, after Jerusalem again established its status as
the center of the Province of Yehud, the Persian authorities rebuilt and resettled
Ramat Raḥel (Stratum IVb), making it their center of government, which was
nominated to supervise the affairs of the province, particularly the city of Jerusa-
lem (Naʾaman 2001: 274–275).26 They transferred their center of government there
from Mizpah, as indicated by the relative number of mwṣh and yhwd seal impres-
sions at Tell en-Naṣbeh and Ramat Raḥel.27 In spite of the importance of Ramat
Raḥel as the administrative center of the province, the architectonic finds from
Stratum IVb, as in other sites of the period, is remarkably poor, and there is
almost no information about its plan and characteristics.28
When settlement in Jerusalem and its environs was reestablished at the end
of the 6th or first half of the fifth century BCE, a completely different settlement
pattern was created. Most of the population was concentrated in the historic City
of David, which did not exceed 60 dunams of settled area. Around the city, a very
small number of small farms appeared, mainly characterized by the small number
of structures (from a single building to three or four buildings), and agricultural
installations and terraces were situated alongside these farms. Approximately half
of these settlements were established south of Jerusalem, in the area west of Ra-

25 On this subject, see the summary of the finds from the western hill, together with a discus-
sion, in Lipschits 2005: 210–218.
26 The finds from the Persian period were uncovered mostly in the fills and dispersed across
the tell; the main concentration was discovered on the eastern side of the fortress and in the
courtyard of the earlier Israelite fortress. ln most cases, the find was mingled with other pottery
shards and finds from the Hellenistic and Herodian periods (Aharoni 1955: 165–174; 1960: 28–41;
1964a: 19–23, 42–48). Aharoni dated all this material, which he assigned to Stratum Vb, to the
end of the Persian period and the transition to the Hellenistic period (NEAEHL 4: 1482–1483).
Stern objected to this and argued that some of the pottery and seal impressions should be dated
to the fifth century BCE. He found further support for this view in the fragment of Attic pottery
(Stem 1982a: 35–36).
27 From a total of 42 mwṣh seal impressions, dated to the 6th century BCE, 30 were unearthed
al Tell en-Naṣbeh and only one at Ramat Raḥel. From a total of 412 yhwd seal impressions, dated
to the fifth through fourth centuries BCE, 194 (47.1 %) were unearthed at Ramat Raḥel and only
19 (4.6 %) at Tell en-Naṣbeh. On this subject, see Naʾaman 2001: 274–275; see also Lipschits 1997b:
362.
28 The remains of the few rooms in this stratum were found some 2–3 m south of the Israelite
fortress wall (Aharoni 1964a: 17–19, Figs. 2, 11–15; pl. 17). Besides these rooms, a massive wall
was discovered on the eastern side of the excavation area, dated by Aharoni (1964a: 18–19) to
the fifth through third centuries BCE.
156 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

mat Raḥel and Bethlehem, and their presence can be connected both to the admin-
istrative center that was situated in Ramat Raḥel and to the growth that character-
ized the entire region of the northern highland of Judah.29 North and east of
Jerusalem proper, in the area between Pisgat Zeʾev/French Hill and el-ʿAzariyah,
there were 14 farms, compared with more than 60 farms that had been there
during the Late Iron Age. All of the area northwest and west of Jerusalem, which
had been settled in a mosaic of small farms in the Late Iron Age, remained deso-
late of settlement activity throughout the Persian period. The overall area of settle-
ment sites that had existed around Jerusalem may be estimated at approximately
50 dunams at most, so that the total of the settled area in Jerusalem and its envi-
rons at the height of the Persian period did not exceed 110 dunams. In comparing
the data between the Iron Age and the Persian period, we find a decline of 83.5 %
in the number of settlements, from 170 in Iron Age II30 to 28 in the Persian peri-
od.31 The region close to Jerusalem, at a range of up to 3 km from the city, saw an
even sharper drop, a decline of 89 % of the number of settlements.32 A parallel
decrease is also noted in the estimated total settled area (from approximately
1,000 dunams at the end of the Iron Age to approximately 110 dunams in the
Persian period). These data reinforce the evidence of the discontinuation in use
of the family tombs around Jerusalem and the sharp decline in the amount of
pottery from the Persian period found at the various sites. Together, these data
confirm a very low level of human activity during this period.33
The first conclusion that arises from the survey data is that, between the
Iron Age and the Persian period, there was a sharp decline in settlement, the
demographic significance of which, for the “environs of Jerusalem,” was more
than 90 %. If we assume (based on the data from the excavations in Jerusalem)
that the finds from the Persian period reflect a demographic recovery that began
at the end of the 6th century BCE and continued during the fifth century BCE,

29 See more on this in the discussion below.

30 In the survey data, 197 sites from the Iron Age are listed. Of these, 27 sites are registered as
burial caves. These sites were not taken into account here.
31 In this region, 30 sites from the Persian period were listed (except, of course, for the city
itself ). One site was classified as a burial cave, and pottery from the 6th century BCE was found
there (Ketef Hinnom). Two sites are doubtful, because the pottery assemblage discovered in them
was not clearly classified. For the purpose of calculation, 28 sites are classified here as Persian
period.
32 In this area, 134 Iron Age sites were surveyed (not including the burial caves). Only 15 sites
were classified as being from the Persian period (not including the tomb at Ketef Hinnom and
another site, in which the pottery assemblage discovered there was not classified clearly).
33 These two points arose in a conversation that I had with Prof. Kloner and Mr. Alon de Groot.
I wish to thank them for this.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 157

we may safely conclude that in the 6th century BCE the drop in settlement was
even more drastic and that Jerusalem and its environs experienced a veritable
settlement vacuum. This would mean that the region closest to Jerusalem suffered
a mortal blow at the end of the Iron Age, causing the evacuation of most of its
population. This drop must be related to the Babylonian onslaught on Jerusalem
and the blow probably suffered by the immediate environment of the city during
the long months of the siege.34 This region was not settled again until the Persian
period, and even then, recovered only partially and in limited fashion, another
indication of the extent of the damage. All of this supports my previous hypoth-
esis that Jerusalem remained desolate through the period of Babylonian rule (Lip-
schits 1997b: 272–275; 2001a: 129–142). As long as the city had not recovered, there
was no economic basis for villages and farms in Jerusalem’s immediate environs;
the villages and farms that were maintained were located in the Benjamin region,
north of the city, and in the Bethlehem district in the south.
In light of these finds, the possibility may also be raised that, similar to Hadri-
an’s policy toward the Jews after the Ben-Kusbah revolt (135 C.E.), the Babylonians
prohibited Jews from settling in Jerusalem. If this were not the case, it would be
difficult to understand why at least some of the refugees did not return to the
city and why the city did not experience any recovery until the beginning of the
Persian period.

Processes of Collapse and Destruction in the Southern Part

of the Judean Hills and in the Beersheba – Arad Valleys

The unprecedented flourishing of settlement experienced in the Beersheba – Arad

Valleys in the course of the seventh century BCE was short-lived.35 Aside from
the settlement sites and the fortresses that were excavated in this area, in the
surveys conducted by Beit-Arieh and Govrin pottery shards from the end of the
Iron Age were uncovered at 37 sites, most of them quite small.36 The overall
settled area in the Beersheba – Arad Valleys at the end of the Iron Age is estimat-
ed at 116 dunams.37 Taking into account the characteristics of the settlement, the

34 On this subject, see the summary by Lipschits 1997b: 272–275; 2001. See also Ackroyd 1968:
25–28; Miller and Hayes 1986: 426; Naʾaman 2000b: 43.
35 On this subject, sec, e.g., Beit-Arieh 1985: 17–24; 1995: 310–15; 1999: 1–3; Naʾaman 1987b: 4–15;
1991b: 48–49; Halpern 1991: 62; Finkelstein 1994: 176–178; Meshel 1995: 173–174.
36 In the survey conducted by Beit-Arieh, pottery shards from the end of the Iron Age were
uncovered in 30 settlement sites (Beit-Arieh, personal communication), and, in the survey con-
ducted by Govrin (1992), 7 additional sites were found (nos. 3, 10, 11, 63, 162, 216, 271).
37 The overall settled area of the 30 sites surveyed by Beit-Arieh can be estimated at 15 dunams
at most (Beit-Arieh, personal communication). The overall settled area of the 7 sites surveyed by
158 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

alignment of the area, and the areas not yet surveyed, one must be satisfied with
a summary evaluation of approximately 120 dunams.38
In most of the Negev fortresses, one can detect clear evidence of destruction
that took place at the end of the Iron Age: in the fort at Horvat Uza and in the
small settlement that existed nearby,39 in Stratum VI of the tell of the fortresses
in Arad,40 as well as at Ḥorvat Ṭov (Khirbet Tov),41 and Ḥorvat ʿAnim (Khirbet
ʿUweina et-Taḥta).42 In at least one of the five fortresses in the Negev (Ḥorvat
Radum), it may be hypothesized that there was an orderly abandonment before
the place was destroyed.43

Govrin can be estimated at 8 dunams at most. An additional site, a bit larger in area, apparently
existed at Bir es-Sabaʿ, in the area of the Bedou.in market of modem-day Beersheba can be
estimated at approximately 10 dunams (Gophna and Yisraeli, in Aharoni 1973: 115–119).
38 The Tel ʿIra excavations (Beit-Arieh 1999: 173) indicate that the construction in the fortified
settlements was not dense, and many areas remained available for processing agricultural pro-
duce, storing grain (including many granaries), and additional uses. It appears that this was the
situation in the unfortified settlements as well, and one must consider this fact in making demo-
graphic estimates.
39 The fortress in Stratum IV was built during the seventh century BCE. It is 42 × 51 m, with an
area of 2.1 dunams. A settlement of 7 dunams was built north of it. On the major evidence of
the destruction of the fortress in the beginning of the 6th century BCE, see Beit-Arieh 1986: 37–
39; 1994: 34–40; Beit-Arieh and Cresson 1991: 129–133; NEAEHL 3: 1157.
40 The fortress at Stratum VI dated to the end of the seventh and beginning of the 6th centu-
ries BCE. It was 50 × 55 m, and its area may be estimated at 2.75 dunams. One must add to these
figures the few structures found outside of the fortress whose total area may be approximated
at 2 dunams (Beit-Arieh, personal communication). It is probable that the fortress existed for
only a short time, in direct continuation of Stratum VII (Herzog 1997: 172–179). On the destruction
of Stratum VI, see also Herzog et al. 1984: 29.
41 Very little data is available about the excavations at this fortress, but the information reveals
that the plan of the fortress was similar to that of the fortress at Arad. It was 38 x 38 m and had
an area of approximately 1.5 dunams. This fortress, too, was destroyed, parallel to the destruction
of the fortress at Arad (Cohen 1995: 115–116; cf. Cohen 1988: 56–57).
42 Ḥorvat ʿAnim (Khirbet ʿUweina et-Taḥta), located on the southern slopes of the Ḥebron Hills,
is close to the borderline with the Beersheba – Arad Valleys. Cohen excavated the fortress, whose
dimensions are 21.5 × 21.5 m. The fortress’s external walls are very thick (approximately 5 m), and
its interior area is approximately 11 × 11 m. The built-up area of the fortress may be estimated
at 120 m sq. (Cohen 1995: 118). The settlement around the fortress during the Late Iron Age was
relatively poor, and a limited amount of pottery shards was discovered on the site (Ofer 1993:
vol. 2, appendix 2A, 62, no. 8; Pl. 27: c). The excavation itself revealed a few vestiges of walls and
floors from the Late Iron Age in limited areas, so it would be difficult to believe that the area
of the settlement after this time ever reached more than a few dunams.
43 Excavators at this site detected three different strata of the same fortress that were all dated
to the seventh and early 6th centuries BCE. The area belonging to the fortress has been estimated
at approximately 0.6 dunams (Beit-Arieh 1991: 88; 1992: 107, 111).
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 159

Evidence of the destruction at the beginning of the 6th century BCE was also
found in the settlement sites that existed in the center of the region, close to the
junction of the Beersheba and Arad Valleys: Stratum VI of Tel ʿlra44 and Stra-
tum III of Tel Malḥata.45 No clear traces of destruction were found at Tel ʿAroer,
apparently because Stratum II from the Iron Age was badly damaged in the con-
struction activity that occurred during the Herodian Age.46 In area G close to Tel
Masos (Khlrbet el Mšāš) as well, there is no clear evidence of the destruction of
the site at the end of the Iron Age, but one may accept Beit-Arieh’s hypothesis
that eventually the site was abandoned and its inhabitants gathered together in
the fortified zone of ʿIra before it also was destroyed.47
It seems that the gradual collapse of fortresses and settlements in the Beer-
sheba – Arad Valleys is the best explanation for the archaeological finds and the
historical, demographic, and geopolitical processes,48 even though it cannot be
proved either archaeologically or historically. The existence of the settlement in
this region was contingent upon the ability of the kingdom of Judah to defend it,
and when Judah was no longer able to do so (whether on the eve of the destruc-
tion of the kingdom or in a process that continued after the destruction), the
border fortresses collapsed and, with them, the entire array of settlements. After
the destruction, there was a marked process of evacuation of the area, which
continued for most of the 6th century BCE, and a diminished settlement began to
reestablish itself only in the fifth century BCE. Nonetheless, a sparse Judean popu-
lation lived in the Beersheba – Arad Valleys in the Persian period, together with
an Arab and Edomite population,49 allowing the speculation that the area was

44 Stratum VI was built in the first half of the seventh century BCE and is a continuation of
Stratum VII, which was destroyed at the end of the 8th century BCE. The built-up area at the end
of the Iron Age is estimated at 25 dunams (Biran 1985b: 25–28; 1987: 26–29; Beit-Arieh 1985; 1987:
34–38; 1999: 176–177, with further literature). On the evidence of the destruction of the site, see
Beit-Arieh 1999: 45–49, 76–77, 115.
45 Stratum III at Tel Mahata revealed two stages dated to the seventh century BCE (Beit-Arieh
1998: 34–35). It seems that this stratum continues the contour of Stratum IV, which was destroyed
at the end of the 8th century BCE (1998: 35). On the evidence of the destruction in the beginning
of the 6th century BCE, see Beit-Arieh 1998: 34–35.
46 The area of the settlement during this period may be estimated at 20 dunams (Biran 1987:
29–33; Biran and Cohen 1981: 253, 264; NEAEHL 4: 1274–1275).
47 Remnants from the second half of the seventh century BCE were uncovered in limited excava-
tions performed at a small tell (4 dunams) in an area located approximately 200 m west of a
settlement from Iron Age I (area G). On the various hypotheses regarding the end of the small
settlement at Tel Masos, see Kempinksi et al. 1981: 167–168; Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 1.124–127,
and see also remarks by Zimhoni, in Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 1.130; NEAEHL 3: 1025.
48 See on this the discussion in Lipschits 2005: 224–232.
49 Evidence for the presence of people bearing Judahite names is found in the Aramaic ostraca
from the Persian period, which also shows the great diversity of the population in this region.
160 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

not totally abandoned during the 6th century BCE and that, while the tribes from
the south were making their incursion, a sparse Judean population continued to
subsist in the region.
A process parallel to the one taking place in the Negev also occurred in the
southern highland of Judah (in the entire region between Ḥebron and the Beer-
sheba – Arad Valleys). Only two major excavations were conducted in this area.
In the stratum from the seventh and the beginning of the 6th century BCE uncov-
ered at Debir (Tell Rabud),50 there were traces of a fire, but there is no tangible
proof of destruction. Neither the circumstances of the abandonment of the site
nor the period of the settlement gap are clear.51 Similarly, at Ḥebron (Tell er-
Rumeida), the circumstances of the demise of the settlement at the end of the
Iron Age were not clarified, but it seems that the Tell was abandoned in the
6th century BCE, and there was a settlement gap throughout the Persian period
(Ofer 1989: 91; 1993: 2.59–60, 132; 1994: 194; NEAEHL 2: 478).52
At most of the sites in the Beersheba – Arad Valleys there was a settlement
gap as well, and the next stratum may be dated to the Persian period. There was
a settlement gap in Arad, after the destruction of the fortress from Stratum VI,
and the next stratum of the site (Stratum V) was dated to the fifth and fourth
centuries BCE.53 Also at Tel ʿIra, there are remains of pits and buildings (Stratum V)
from a new settlement site that was established during the Persian period.54 A
diminished settlement was also rebuilt at Tel Masos at some stage during the

50 On the site and its history, see Kochavi 1973: 49–54; NEAEHL 4: 1440. On the characteristics
of the settlement from the seventh and early 6th centuries BCE, including the 5–7-dunams “sub-
urb” on the western step of the hill, see Kochavi 1973: 53 n. 18, 55–57; NEAEHL 4: 1440.
51 On the evidence from the Persian period, see Kochavi 1973: 55, 59, 61; see also NEAEHL 4:
1440. Kochavi tried to learn about the destruction of the settlement at the beginning of the
6th century BCE from the settlement gap; however, there is no clear-cut archaeological evidence
of this.
52 There is no evidence that the settlement had migrated to its new site in the valley at the foot
of the tell in the Persian period, and it seems that the settlement activity there began only in
the Hellenistic period,
53 This stratum yielded mostly pits, in which many ostraca were discovered (Aharoni 1975a: 5).
On the basis of the ostraca find, Aharoni hypothesized that there had been a fortress in Arad
during the Persian period as well. This is a reasonable assumption and accepted in the scholar-
ship, but there is no archaeological evidence to support it (and see Cohen 1995a: 114, with further
literature). On this stratum in the tell, see also Herzog 1997: 245–249. The ostraca from this
stratum were published by Naveh (1975: 175–214), and they mainly contain instructions for sup-
plying foodstuffs to the animals and people, evidence of Arad’s major role as the central adminis-
trative city that must have served as part of the Persian imperial system.
54 It seems that the site of Stratum V was an unfortified settlement that only existed at the edge
of the tel and was abandoned at the end of the Persian period (Beit-Arieh 1999: 177–178).
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 161

Persian period.55 An even larger settlement gap (up to the Hellenistic period) can
be noticed in Tel Malḥata (Beil-Arieh 1998: 38; NEAEHL 3: 949–950).
From the surveys, one can detect only 11 additional sites that existed in the
Beersheba – Arad Valleys during the Persian period (a decline of more than 75 %
from the number of sites at the end of the Iron Age).56 The overall area of these
sites may be estimated at a maximum of 30 dunams (a decline of approximately
75 %). There is a parallel decline between the end of the Iron Age and the Persian
period in the sou them highland of Judah. In this area there is a marked drop (of
about 60 %) in the number of sites between the end of the Iron Age and the
Persian period (Ofer 1993: 2.131; 1998: 46–48) and an even sharper decline (of
more than 70 %) in the overall size of the settled area (from about 300 dunams
to about 85 dunams).57 The meaning of these changes is that, practically speaking,
the northern and southern Judean Hills became different settlement units. The
northern unit was dearly connected with the areas north of it, and one must
draw parallels between the settlement processes taking place there and those
taking place in the Benjamin region (and see below). The southern unit was clear-
ly connected with settlement processes taking place in the Negev and the south-
ern part of the Shephelah and was discrete from the settlement processes that
took place in the northern highland (Ofer 1998b: 46–48; Lipschits 1997b: 298–299).

Processes of Collapse and Destruction in the Jordan Valley, the Judean Desert,
and along the Western Littorals of the Dead Sea

At the end of the Iron Age, an unprecedented flowering took place in the eastern
regions of the kingdom of Judah (Stern 1993: 192–197; 2001: 134–138; Lipschits 2000:
31–41). Jericho and En-gedi were agricultural and industrial centers that supported
a whole array of settlements, particularly along the routes that connected them

55 Only a scant quantity of pottery shards was found from this period; and see Fritz and Kem-
pinski 1983: 1.127.
56 In the survey, small amounts of pottery shards were found at several sites (Govrin 1992: sites
nos. 3, 63, 87, 162, 174, 205). Apart from the fortress (site no. 205), whose area is 150 × 300 m
(4.5 dunams), all of the other sites consisted of isolated structures and small amounts of pottery
shards.
57 These estimates are based on data collected in the Judean highland survey conducted by Ofer
(1994 [only in the Hebrew version, 1990: 203); 1993: 2.127–131; 1998: 47–48). Nonetheless, Ofer’s
overall estimates seem extravagant (Finkelstein 1994: 174–175) and are not uniform in the various
publications. The raw data reported by Ofer (1993: vol. 2, appendix 2/a) and a cautious estimate
of the area produce a much more modest estimate than the one reached by him.
162 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

with the economic and political centers on the mountain ridge.58 The most promi-
nent find from this period was uncovered at En-gedi (Tel Goren).59 The beginning
of settlement at the Tel (Stratum V) should be fixed at the second half of the
seventh century BCE.60 An industrial type settlement was located on this site, on
an area of roughly 2.5 dunams, and at the foot of the Tel there may have been a
lower city whose size is unclear.61 The settlement at Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) also
gradually expanded in the second half of the seventh century BCE, and extensive
agricultural activity developed in the site’s immediate environs, thanks to the es-
tablishment of irrigation systems, agricultural farms, and fortresses (Magen 1983:
57; Stem 1993: 192; 2001: 134; NEAEHL 2: 738). On the basis of the rich finds excavat-
ed on the slopes of the tell, including a four-room house unearthed on the eastern
slope, one may assume that the settlement at this period extended over the entire
area of the tell (approximately 40 dunams).
The data from the surveys conducted in this region give conclusive evidence
of the intensity of settlement activity at the end of the seventh–early 6th cen-
tury BCE.62 At the end of the Iron Age, there was a relatively densely populated
settlement in the area between Jericho and En-Gedi. A large part of the 59 sites
included small settlements with few buildings. Several forts were located at stra-
tegic sites, and many encampment sites stood alongside.
The entire array of settlements in the eastern hinterland of the kingdom of
Judah was destroyed at the end of the Iron Age,63 apparently as a result of the

58 On the importance and significance of this region, see Lipschits (2000: 31–41), with a recon-
struction of the trade routes and maps of the settlement (with further literature).
59 For a review of the history of the excavations at Tel Goren, see NEAEHL 3: 1189.
60 For a summary of the various opinions in the scholarship about the time that Stratum V was
established, and a discussion of the finds from this stratum and their significance, see Lipschits
2000: 31–33; Stern 2001: 136–137.
61 This settlement is remarkable for its many unique finds-buildings with a uniform plan, indus-
trial installations (particularly ovens and large clay containers), and pottery vessels-which attest
to a special industry, apparently for the manufacture of perfumes (Mazar, Dothan, and Dunayev-
sky 1963: 24–58; NEAEHL 3: 1191–1192). On the unique products produced at En-gedi and their
importance for the Judean economy at the end of the seventh and beginning of the 6th centu-
ries BCE, see Lipschits 2000.
62 The most important and comprehensive survey in this region was conducted by Bar-Adon
(Kochavi 1972). Despite the difficult conditions of the terrain, the survey was conducted rigorous-
ly, as evidenced by the discovery of only a few additional sites up to the present time. For a
summary of the settlement picture in the Jordan Valley and along the western littorals of the
Dead Sea, see Lipschits 2000: 38–39, with further literature in p. 40, n. 5.
63 There are no data to connect the destruction of the sites in the Jordan Valley and along the
Dead Sea western littorals with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem (contrary to the view of
Stem 2001: 137–38). On the date of the settlement of Jericho at the end of the Iron Age, see Stern
1993: 192, and n. 9 on p. 196, with further literature. See also Stern’s description in NEAEHL 2:
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 163

collapse of the military and economic system after Jerusalem was destroyed.64
After a certain period of an absolute lack of settlement activity in the entire
region, settlement at Jericho and En-Gedi was renewed during the fifth cen-
tury BCE. The industrial site established at Tel Goren at the end of the 6th or
beginning of the fifth century BCE spread over the entire area of the Tel (which
is only 2 dunams in size). The buildings overflowed down the slope as well, so
that the settlement’s total size may be placed at approximately 4 dunams.65 There
is almost no information about the small settlement that existed during that same
time period in Tell es-Sultan. The pottery finds reveal that it was a small settle-
ment, whose remains were discovered in only part of the Tel, making it doubtful
that it was larger than a few dunams.66
The data from the surveys conducted in this region provide conclusive evi-
dence of the severity of the collapse of settlement at the end of the Iron Age. The
drop in settlement between the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period is
estimated at 95 %, a rate without parallel in other regions in Judah at that time. In
contrast to 59 sites in the entire region between En-Gedi and Jericho at the end of
the Iron Age, only 3 sites were occupied in this region Jericho, Ketef Jericho, and
En-Gedi) during the Persian period. The rate of decline in the total number of
settled dunams was approximately 89 % (from approximately 90 dunams at the
end of the Iron Age to about 10 dunams during the Persian period). However,
assuming that there was a settlement gap during the 6th century BCE in the 3 sites
in evidence during the Persian period, we can assume that the collapse of settle-

738. On the date of the destruction of the settlement at Tel Goren, see Lipschits 2000: 32, with
further literature.
64 One could conceivably assume that the total devastation of all of the sites in the eastern part
of the kingdom of Judah was the result of a well-planned military offensive mounted by the
Babylonian army or auxiliary forces sent to the region. Nonetheless, in some of the sites in the
region, one can detect an orderly process of abandonment and a gradual destruction (see, for
example, the conclusion reached by Mazar, Amit, and Ilan 1984: 236–250 regarding the circum-
stances of the destruction of Ḥorvat Shilḥa), This orderly process, together with the lack of logic
in any organized military campaign to the border areas, reinforces the possibility that the entire
settlement array in this region collapsed after the destruction of Jerusalem, in a process that
may have begun during the Babylonian siege.
65 On the date this site was built, see Mazar 1986: 86; in contrast, see Stern 1982: 38–39. On the
structure, design, and characteristics of the settlement of this period, see the summary in Lip-
schits 1997b: 312–315; 2000: 36–37, with further literature.
66 The remains of this settlement had been uncovered in the excavation by Sellin and Watzinger
(1913: 79–82, fig. 186; pls. 1, 3, 42), and they correctly dated it to the fifth and fourth centuries BCE.
On this subject, see also Stern 1982: 38. In Garstang’s excavations (1930–1936), as well as in
Kenyon’s (1952–1958), only scant information was added about the Persian period (Kenyon 1964a:
201).
164 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

ments in this region at the beginning of the 6th century BCE was categorical and
that the area was depleted of its entire population.

Processes of Destruction and Rehabilitation in the Shephelah

It is possible to establish a comprehensive history of the settlement in this region

through the combination of data from the excavations conducted in the Shephe-
lah since the end of the nineteenth century and the archaeological survey con-
ducted in the same area since 1979.67 Accordingly, we find that, in the ninth and
8th centuries BCE, the Shephelah experienced a massive flowering of settlement
activity.68 Then, as a result of Sennacherib’s campaign (701 BCE), the area was
dealt a severe blow from which it did not recover.69 The decline in the settlement
is marked in the smaller sites, and it seems that, as the seventh century BCE
progressed, the settlement gathered itself into the eastern parts of the Shephelah,
with most of the population concentrated in the major cities (Dagan 1992: 261–
262; Finkelstein 1994: 173). These cities were refortified and again became the
western border fortresses of the kingdom. The total built-up area in this region

67 The data from the Shephelah survey, based primarily on Dagan’s M.A. thesis, 1992: 259–263;
see also 1996: 136–146. It must be emphasized that the survey published from this region is only
partial, and many data collected since the early 1990s have not yet been published. In his thesis,
Dagan focused mainly on the Iron Age, and the data from the Persian period was pushed aside.
He does not even include all of the data on the Persian period as presented, for example, in the
emergency survey (Kochavi 1972).
68 The quantity of pottery vessels parallel to Stratum at Lachish is significant at almost every
one of the Shephelah sites and constitutes evidence of the intensity of human activity, particular-
ly in the 8th century BCE.
69 As of the early 1990s, a bit more than 50 % of the entire Shephelah had been surveyed. ln
the survey, 276 sites were identified that contained pottery from the end of the 8th century BCE.
The overall area of these sites is estimated at 4,651 dunams. In contrast, pottery from the seventh
century BCE was found only in 38 sites. The overall area of these sites is estimated at 1,124 du-
nams. These data reflect a decline of 86.2 % in the number of sites and 75.8 %, in the total size
of the settled area. The significance of the survey data lies in the agreement between the data
and the number of exiles mentioned in Assyrian sources about the Sennacherib campaign. It is
probable that the problematic economic, political, and security conditions in the region as the
seventh century BCE advanced (the rending of territory from Judah, the presence of the Assyrian
army, the destruction of fortresses on Judah’s border, and the flourishing of the kingdom of
Ekron) continued to the dwindling of the population. It is reasonable to assume that after the
grave blow that the Shephelah suffered during the Sennacherib campaign (especially during the
siege of Lachish), there was not enough manpower to populate the settlements and rebuild them.
On this subject, see Dagan 1992: 259–263; Naʾaman 1993: 112–115; Finkelstein 1994: 173, 176.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 165

in the second half of the seventh century BCE may be placed at approximately
900 dunams.70
The dwindling of the settlement in the Shephelah continued in the 6th cen-
tury BCE, when the Shephelah became a settlement and geopolitical frontier.71
Evidence of the destruction of the fortified cities in the Shephelah in the early
6th century BCE may be seen as the “opening of the door” to the heart of the
kingdom of Judah by the Babylonian army.72 The major evidence of the Babylonian
destruction comes from excavations in Level II of Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir).73 The
intensity of the devastation in this stratum was apparent to the excavators and
included traces of a raging fire, arrowheads, evidence of breaches in the city wall,
and overall destruction of the buildings (Tufnell 1953: 56–58). The site contains no
evidence of settlement renewal until the mid-fifth century BCE (1953: 48). Nonethe-
less, it is difficult to accept the view that links the renewal of settlement at the
site with the activity of the people who returned to Zion form exile during the
beginning of the Persian period.74 Lachish never reverted to being a part of Judah;
the plan of the palace built in the center of the site and the characteristics of its
construction and the finds uncovered there demonstrate that it was built by the
Persian ruler, apparently as the center of the province known in later periods as
Idumea.75
No conclusive archaeological connection can be made between the destruction
of the other cities of the Shephelah and the Babylonian military campaign. Never-
theless, this region contains evidence of a drastically dwindling population and,

70 This estimate is lower than Dagan’s estimate (1992: 259–260), in which the maximum settled
area was 1,124 dunams. Dagan himself (1992: 260) admits that he calculated the entire area of
the tells, despite the uncertainty of whether it was totally settled. For a lower estimate than the
one given here, where the entire settled area of the Shephelah in the period consisted of 800 du-
nams, see Finkelstein 1994: 173.
71 In studying the change that took place in the settlement pattern between the Late Iron Age
and the Persian period, I found that the borders of Judah had shrunk, and extensive areas of
the Shephelah were no longer included within its boundaries. On this subject, see the detailed
discussion in Lipschits forthcoming.
72 Military logic dictates that the conquest of these cities was essential for the army’s thrust
into the mountain region; control of this area and the major supply routes that connect the coast
with the mountain ridge were necessary for the continued siege of Jerusalem.
73 In addition to Tufnell’s theory (1953: 56–58), see the characteristics of Level II at Lachish in
Ussishkin 1978: 53–54, 64–67; 1983: 134–136, 146; NEAEHL 3: 863; Barkay 1993: 108
74 See Tufnell’s judgment (1953: 48), and compare it with the opinion accepted by many scholars
(NEAEHL 3: 864).
75 For discussions that no longer meet the standards of modem research regarding the construc-
tion characteristics of the palace at Lachish and its parallels, see Amiran and Dunayevsky 1958;
Aharoni 1967; 1975b: 33–40. For a critique of these discussions, see Reich 1987: 182, 185.
166 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

at most of the sites, there are indications of a gap that lasted at least until the
beginning of the Persian period. One can connect these two archaeological facts
to both the contents of several of the Lachish Letters76 and the evidence in Jer 34:7:
“… when the army of the king of Babylon fought against Jerusalem, and against
all of the cities of Judah that were left – against Lachish and against Azekah – for
these were the only fortified cities that remained of the cities of Judah.”
No clear-cut evidence was uncovered of the destruction of Azekah (Tel Zakari-
ya).77 There are only scant remains from the Persian period, but conspicuous
among these is a rare Athenian coin dated to 526–430 BCE (Bliss 1900a: 7–16; Bliss
and Macalister 1902: 26, pl. 56: 44). Thus, it can be assumed that settlement activity
resumed in Azekah at the end of the 6th century or the beginning of the fifth
century BCE. Settlement activity also resumed at Tel Safi (Tell es-Safi) as early as
the fifth century BCE, apparently after a gap of approximately 100 years, which
began with the destruction of the Iron Age settlement. An analysis of the find
reveals that, along with pottery vessels from the end of the Iron Age, there are
additional remains (among them figurines) dated to the fifth and fourth centu-
ries BCE.78 At Tell Goded (Tell Judeideh), the gap apparently lasted longer, through-
out the entire Persian period.79 At Mareshah (Tell Sandahannah), there was a
large gap between the destruction of the city at the end of the Iron Age and the
Hellenistic city, and finds from the 6th-fifth centuries BCE are very sparse.80
Except for evidence of a settlement gap in the sites that were excavated, the
archaeological survey shows that, during the Persian period, an entirely new
settlement pattern began in the region. At the end of the Iron Age, the settled
area was concentrated in the eastern parts of the Shephelah, in the area at the

76 See especially ostracon no. 4 in Tur-Sinai [Torczyner] 1940: 106–125.

77 For a review of the history of excavations on the site and the major finds, see NEAEHL 3:
1165–1167; Dagan 1992: 27–34. On the fate of Azekah, compare with Jer 34:7 and ostracon no. 4 at
Lachish, and see Albright’s appraisal, 1960a: 30–31. One may accept Dagan’s analysis (1992: 33–
34) indicating the ability to distinguish between two main stages that existed in the fort at the
top of the tell. The earlier phase can be dated to the ninth and 8th centuries BCE and ended
with the Sennacherib campaign, parallel to Strata ID at Lachish. The later phase existed in the
seventh and early 6th centuries BCE. Thus, the fort was destroyed at the same time as the destruc-
tion of Level II at Lachish.
78 For an analysis of the finds at Tell es-Safi, see NEAEHL 4: 1336–1338; Dagan 1992: 34–40. On
the finds at the site, see also Aharoni and Amiran 1956: 222.
79 For a general review of the excavation finds, see NEAEHL 1: 273–275; see also the analysis by
Dagan 1992: 41–45, with further literature. Prominent at the site were pottery assemblages paral-
lel to the one found at Levels III and II at Lachish. In addition, there is evidence of a small
Hellenistic settlement.
80 For a summary of the excavation finds, see NEAEHL 3: 1015–1017; Dagan 1992: 45–47; Kloner
1991; see also Kloner and Eshel 1999: 150.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 167

foot of the western slopes of the mountain ridge. The settled area extended along
the mouths of the large wadis, making use of the silt deposits and water sources
of the region. In contrast, during the Persian period, the settled area was concen-
trated in two major locations:
1. In the area north and northeast of Mareshah and Beth-govrin, there was a
fairly dense bloc of nine sites. It is probable that these sites are part of the
rural zone of Mareshah, about which there are accounts from the Hellenistic
period.81
2. ln the area between Beth-shemesh and W. Ha-Elah are four “clusters” of small
sites that create a settlement bloc bounded by W. Zanoaḥ and W. Nativ on
the east, W. Ha-Elah on the south, and the road between Beth-shemesh and
Ha-Elah junction on the west.82

It may be assumed that this array of settlements that sprang up in the Shephelah
during the Persian period and continued to develop during the Hellenistic period
was the result of a settlement vacuum that was created in the region during the
6th century BCE. This vacuum enabled new people – Arabs and Edomites – gradu-
ally to penetrate into the region from the south up to the area north of Mareshah.
This incursion was halted only with the reestablishment of the Judean settle-
ment in the northeastern Shephelah during the Persian period.83 The distribution
of the sites during this period evinces an ingathering into the area between Beth-
shemesh and W. Ha-Elah. If all of the sites in this area did indeed belong to the
Judahite province, this is evidence of the western boundary of the province on
the Beth-shemesh – Azekah line, up to W. Ha-Elah. The Judahite settlement at this
time was concentrated in large- and medium-sized villages, and the central tells

81 This find is only partial, and one may assume that a complete publication of the survey data
will allow a comprehensive reconstruction of the geopolitical and settlement processes that
caused the development and shaped the borders and character of Idumea in the Hellenistic
period. In the light of this, it is possible to conclude that the border of Yehud province ran west
and north from this area; see below.
82 These settlement “dusters” consist of three-to-four sites each: the area of Zanoaḥ, the meeting
of W. Sansan and W. Nativ, Tell Yamut and its environs, and the W. Ha-Elah region. In the
distribution of settlements, there are three other salient sites, located on the Tarkumiya-Adullam
line, mainly on the upper part of W. Ha-Elah. Noticeable among these is the Persian fortress at
Kh. er-Rasm, which could have been part of the line of Persian fortresses in the hill region and
may be viewed as the fortress established opposite Mareshah and the rural area that crystallized
around it. Alongside it is Qeʿilah (Kh. Qeile), which historical sources place at the center of the
southwestern district of the province of Yehud.
83 More than 70 % of the Persian period sites in the Shephelah (23 out of 32) were established
in places where there were no settlements at the end of the Iron Age. This constitutes evidence
of a settlement gap in the 6th century BCE and the creation of a new array of settlements.
168 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

of the Iron Age did not yield any evidence of settlement strata from the Persian
period.84
There was, overall, a very insignificant presence within the limits of the Ye-
hud province in the Shephelah. According to the finds of the survey, a total of
22 sites may be assigned to Judah within this area. At most of the sites, very few
pottery shards were found from the Persian period, testimony to a very low
level of human activity. Even allowing a large margin of error and taking into
consideration the regions not included in the survey, the sum total of settled area
in the entire region never exceeds 150 dunams. There was a similar-sized settled
area at Mareshah and its environs, outside of the limits of the province of Yehud.

Processes of Continuity between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE
in the Benjaminite Region and in the Northem Part of the Judean Highland

Many scholars have noted the different fate that befell the region of Benjamin
and the archaeological reality that prevailed there after the destruction of Jerusa-
lem.85 This region, according to the biblical accounts, was the center of Judah in
the period following the destruction of Jerusalem. The region had four important,
central settlements that were not destroyed by the Babylonians and, indeed, even
flourished during the 6th century BCE.86
The central, most-important settlement in Judah at this time was Mizpah (Tell
en-Naṣbeh).87 The excavations at this site have produced finds indicating full

84 Considering this state of settlement, the establishment of the Persian palace in Lachish is
even more remarkable.
85 See, e.g., Malamat 1950: 227; Wright 1957: 199; Lapp 1965: 6; Weinberg 1970: 206; Avigad 1972b:
10; Weinberg 1972: 47–50; Stem 1982a: 229; 2000: 51; Barstad 1996: 47–48; Milevski 1996–97; Lip-
schits 1999b; 2001: 131–135. This view was adopted by most of the summary works that deal with
this period, and see, e.g., in Miller and Hayes 1986: 416–417; Ahlstrom 1993: 795; Stern 2001: 321–
323.
86 For a detailed discussion of the excavation sites and the resulting archaeological profile, see
Lipschits 1999b: 155–190.
87 For a review of the history of geographical and historical scholarship, including the fierce
controversies surrounding the identification of the site, see McCown 1947a: 13–49; Muilenberg
1954: 25–42; Diringer 1967: 329–330; and see also the summary in Lipschits 1997b: 203. I reject
the attempt recently made (Magen and Daddon 2000: 62) to return to Albright’s proposal (1923b:
110–112), which identified Mizpah as Nebi Samwil. At Tell en-Naṣbeh, there were five excavation
seasons, (1926, 1927, 1929, 1932, 1935) directed by Bade. McCown and Wampler, who published the
summary reports of the excavation on the site, were unable to present a clear stratigraphic
picture. Additionally, because of the way the reports were published and the data presented,
the.re were only a few repeat studies that dealt with the excavation finds. In this light, Zorn’s
doctoral thesis (1993b) is of marked importance, because of both the processing of the raw
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 169

settlement continuity throughout the Iron Age and the Babylonian period.88 In
Stratum 2, apparently at the beginning of the 6th century BCE, the plan of the
city and the fortification system underwent a significant change (Zorn 1993b: 151,
161–163, 175–176; Lipschits 1999b: 167–168). Mizpah had ceased to be a Judean
border city with a diversified Judean population and had become a governmental
and administrative center, noteworthy for its storehouses and the number of rela-
tively large residential buildings (Zorn 1993b: 167–183; 2003: 413–447; Lipschits
1999b: 167–170).
There is also marked settlement continuity at Gibeah (Tell el-Fûl),89 and in
most of the settled area there is full settlement continuity.90 One may even as-
sume that, in the first half of the 6th century BCE, the built-up area extended
beyond the city wall, and the local population grew (Lipschits 1999b: 178). Like-
wise, at Bethel (identified in the village of Beitin),91 no evidence of Babylonian
destruction was found, and Albright contends that the settlement continued to
exist until a later stage in the 6th century BCE.92 This view is supported by the
summary reports in which the destruction of the last Iron Age Stratum is dated
to the last third of the 6th century BCE (Sinclair 1964: 62; Lapp 1965: 6; Kelso et al.
1968: 37, 75–76). Another site apparently not destroyed at the beginning of the
6th century BCE was Gibeon (identified in the village of el-Jib).93 An analysis of

material left by Bade and the attempt at presenting a well-formulated stratigraphic profile of its
history. For a detailed discussion, see Zorn 2003: 413–447.
88 McCown (1947a: 181–203), followed by Zorn (1993b: 103–162, 312–336), emphasized the continu-
ity of settlement at Mizpah throughout the entire Iron Age.
89 For a summary of the subject of identifying the Gibeah at Tell el-Fûl, see Arnold (1990: 39–
60, with further literature), but it is hard to accept his historical reconstruction of the Gebaʿ-
Gibeah transformation. Four excavation seasons were conducted at Tell el-Fûl, directed by Al-
bright (1922–1923; 1933) and Lapp (1964). For a discussion of the excavation finds on the site in
the time span between the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period, see Lipschits 1999b: 177–
178.
90 Lapp (1976: 25; 1981: 39) showed that the Babylonian destruction on the site was selective,
and except for the destruction of the fortress and one of the buildings in the northeast part of
the site, the settlement continued in the 6th century BCE. She demonstrated that this 6th-cen-
tury BCE stratum (IIIb) represents a direct continuation of the settlement stratum from the end
of the Iron Age (Stratum IIIa; l981: 59).
91 On the identification of Bethel, see Albright 1928: 9–11 and Kelso 1968: 1–2. There were 4 exca-
vation seasons held at Beitin, with a gap of 20 years between the first season, conducted by
Albright (1934), and the next 3, conducted by Kelso (1954, 1957, and 1960).
92 In this claim, Albright (1949b: 142) based himself largely on the dating of pottery vessels to
the 6th century BCE and seeing them as intermediate types between the late Iron Age pottery
and the Persian period pottery.
93 On the identification of the site, see Albright 1924a: 94; Abel 1938: 347–373; Pritchard 1960a:
1–2. Five major excavation seasons were held al Gibeon under the direction of Pritchard (1956–
170 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

the excavation finds reveals that1 at this time, Gibeon even thrived and increased
in prominence, and there is no archaeological evidence of destruction of the city
wall or the various structures at the end of the Iron Age.94 An analysis of the
pottery assemblage and mwṣh seal impressions found in the winepresses and pits
in the northwest part of the tell give evidence of the continued existence of the
settlement in the 6th century BCE.95 This dating should also be applied to the
large cemetery unearthed at the foot of the tell (Eshel 1987b: 51).96
At the end of the 6th century BCE and during the Persian period, the Benja-
minite region went through a process of depopulation and settlement decline.
The settlement at Tell el-Fûl was deserted at the end of the sixth century BCE and
the beginning of the fifth century BCE; the settlement remained desolate until the
beginning of the Hellenistic period (Lapp 1981: 39, 59).97 At Bethel, the remains
from the beginning of the Persian period are scant. It seems that during the fifth
century BCE, the settlement at this site recovered, and the major evidence of this
recovery was found in the central section (Area II, which contains remains of
structures that continued to exist until the Hellenistic period (Kelso et al. 1968:
37–38, 52, pl. 7).98 At Mizpah, the circumstances surrounding the end of Stratum 2
are unclear, but it seems that the transition to Stratum I was unaccompanied by
destruction. Presumably, the settlement at Mizpah existed at least until the mid-
fifth century BCE. There is even a small number of finds that show continued
existence throughout the Persian period, with a prolonged process of desertion

1957, 1959–1960, 1962), but the method of excavation and publication do not allow for clear
stratigraphic distinctions (Lapp 1968b: 391–393).
94 Pritchard (1956: 73–75; 1964: 27, 35–40) claimed that Gibeon was destroyed at the beginning
of the 6th century BCE and that there is a settlement gap until the first century BCE. It seems
that his opinion is based on historical considerations and has not been established archaeologi-
cally (de Vaux 1966: 130–135), and see the criticism of Albright 1966: 32–33; Barag 1967: 143; Lapp
1968b: 391–393. An analysis of the finds shows the opposite picture: the settlement on the site
continued in the 6th century BCE and, during this period, flourished even more than previously.
For an extensive discussion of the finds for this period and its significance, see Lipschits 1999:
172–176. See also Edelman 2003: 153–167.
95 The uninterrupted existence of a settlement at Gibeon at this time is supported by the finds
dated to the 6th century BCE in the “Israelite” structures in Area 17 (which include pottery
vessels decorated with wedge-shaped and reed impressions, and mwṣh seal impressions), and in
the 56 gbʿn gdr engravements on pilgrim flask handles, which were discovered in the filling of
the large pool. For a discussion of this subject, see Lipschits 1999: 174–176, with further literature.
96 On the finds in some of the tombs, see Dajani 1953: 66–69, and compare with Eshel and
Kloner 1991: 39.
97 On this subject, see also Stern 2001: 321–322.
98 This conclusion is problematic, because, at least according to Lapp’s analysis (in Kelso et al.
1968: 77), the pottery vessels from this stratum do not belong to the fourth century BCE. On this
subject, see also Dever 1971: 466.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 171

that lasted until the beginning of the Hellenistic period (McCown 1947a: 62–63,
185–186, 202; 225–227; Zorn 1993: 184–185).
The unique fate of the Benjaminite region during Babylonian rule requires
particular caution with respect to the survey’s finds.99 One may assume that,
because of the settlement continuity in the region of Benjamin during the transi-
tion from the Iron Age to the Babylonian and Persian periods, the finds from the
6th century BCE are included in the survey data as part of the broad definition
of Iron Age II.100 One must also assume that the picture that emerges from the
survey regarding the Persian period largely reflects the fifth century BCE, when
the Benjaminite region was in the middle of a process of depopulation and settle-
ment decline. If these assumptions are correct, the finds of the Persian period
discovered in the survey reflect this low point, rather than a peak in settlement
activity or a stage of rebuilding, such as took place in Jerusalem during this same
period.101
The first fact that emerges from the survey is the sharp drop (60 %) in the
number of sites (from 146 during Iron Age II to 59 in the Persian period). A
parallel drop of 56.5 % is estimated in the number of settled dunams (from 1150
in Iron Age II to approximately 500 in the Persian period; Lipschits 1999b: 180–
184). An analysis of the excavations generates the premise that, for both param-
eters (number of settlement sites and estimate of total size of settled area), the
state of settlement in the 6th century BCE was better then that of the Persian
period.102

99 The survey’s finds must be interpreted on the basis of the data from the excavations in the
main sites. These data show that the central settlement sites in the Benjamin region continued
to exist uninterrupted throughout the years of Babylonian rule and dwindled gradually, begin-
ning at the end of the 6th century BCE and continuing throughout the filth century BCE.
100 This is significant, because the 6th century BCE is not recognizable from the survey data
and, thus, did not exist there (not even as a period of settlement gap). The result is that the Iron
Age II encompassed a period of more than 500 years. On this subject, see the remarks by the
surveyors in Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 138, 346.
101 On this subject, see the comment by Finkelstein (in Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 27). The
paucity of pottery vessels from the Persian period at the sites where this pottery was found
demonstrates a lower level of activity than that which had existed at those sites during the Iron
Age. This subject must be taken into account when comparing estimates of the size of the settle-
ment in both periods.
102 This hypothesis is opposed to the one expressed by Finkelstein (in Magen and Finkelstein
1993: 27). Finkelstein hypothesized that in the early 6th century BCE, parallel to the destruction
of Jerusalem, a severe crisis beset the settlement in the Benjamin region, and the picture was
even grimmer than what is reflected in the survey. In the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, by
comparison, a certain recovery took place, which is the situation that the survey reflects. In my
opinion, this is a general historical assessment with no archaeological evidence. There is no
doubt that the settlement in Benjamin underwent a settlement crisis. However, as stated, the
172 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

The sharpest drop in the number of sites occurred in the eastern part of the
Benjaminite region, especially the northeastern sector.103 A marked reduction in
the scope of settlement was also noted in the northern part of the region of
Benjamin (the area of today’s Ramallah).104 These data agree with what we al-
ready know about the complete cessation of settlement that took place through-
out the Jordan Valley and the western littoral of the Dead Sea. It seems that this,
too, was related to the collapse of the economic, military, and political system of
the kingdom of Judah.105 One may conclude from these data that in Benjamin,
apparently by the 6th century BCE, the people had withdrawn to the core of the
region. Most of the surviving settlements were concentrated around the main
economic and administrative centers in the region, along the mountain ridge and
the upper mountain slopes (in the central and western Benjamin region).106 The
relative prosperity of this area must be attributed to the political centrality as-
signed to Mizpah and the economic importance of Gibeon and Mozah. The agri-
cultural hinterland surrounded and based itself on these centers.
The gradual impoverishment of the settlement in the region of Benjamin took
place at the end of the 6th and the beginning of the fifth centuries BCE, possibly
because of the transfer of the provincial center to Jerusalem and the reduced
status of Mizpah, as well as the change in economic and security conditions in
the region during the Persian period (Lipschits 1997a: 17–31; 1999b: 182–185).
These changes undermined the economic base of the settlements in the region,

only possible point of comparison here is to the sites that were excavated in Benjamin, which
indicate the opposite picture. In the 6th century BCE, the settlement in Benjamin continued to
flourish and prosper, and the dwindling of the settlement began in the late 6th and early fifth
centuries BCE. The testimonies of the centrality of Gibeon at this time as a wine-producing center
also oblige us to postulate that there was a strong agricultural hinterland in the region.
103 East of the line of Bethel-Michmash-Gibeah-Anathoth, approximately 71 sites from Iron
Age II were surveyed, compared with only 14 sites from the Persian period (a drop of approxi-
mately 80 %). The major decline in number of sites is registered in the area between Michmash
and the slope running down toward Jericho. Jn this area, 27 sites from the Iron Age were sur-
veyed, as compared with only one site from the Persian period, which was located in the north-
ern part of the area. On this subject, see also Milevski 1996–1997: 18–19; Lipschits 1999b: 181–182.
104 During Iron Age II there were about 12 sites, most of them west of the watershed, compared
with only 2 sites during the Persian period.
105 One must also remember that the northern region of Benjamin bordered the province of
Samaria. It is doubtful that the leaders of the province of Yehud or representatives of the Babylo-
nian/Persian imperialist regime were able to guarantee safe living conditions to the residents of
the border areas. This may have been another reason for the sharp decline in the settlement in
northern Benjamin and the abandonment of pasture areas in the eastern part.
106 See on this subject the description and model presented by Magen and Finkelstein (1993:
20–21), and see the assessment of the surveyors as cited there (1993: 138).
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 173

resulting in a marked demographic decline for the Benjaminite region. This de-
cline may be estimated at about 60 %: from approximately 1150 settled dunams
at the end of Iron Age II107 to about 500 settled dunams in the Persian period.
In the northern part of the Judean Hills, the settlement and historical process-
es between the seventh and the fifth centuries BCE were similar to those of the
region of Benjamin. Only one major site was excavated in this area, Beth-Zur (Kh.
eṭ-Ṭabaqa),108 where there is no tangible evidence of a destruction at the end of
the seventh and the beginning of the 6th centuries BCE.109 However, many schol-
ars believe that there was a settlement gap that lasted until the beginning of the
fifth century BCE (Sellers and Albright 1931: 9; Sellers 1933: 43).110
This is a problematic premise in terms of the archaeological data and does
not seem to be based on finds of any kind.111 Aside from Beth-Zur, there have
been no major excavations in this area and, because of the unclear settlement
and historical processes at this site together with the fact that the site is in the

107 Compare with the estimate by Broshi and Finkelstein (1991: 10; see also Finkelstein 1994:
175), who estimated the total settled area at the end of the Iron Age at approximately 900 dunams.
However, Broshi and Finkelstein only related to 100 of the 146 settlement sites.
108 On the identification of the site and the history of its excavation, see NEAEHL 1: 196–198;
Ofer 1993: 2.65–73.
109 On the finds from the late Iron Age, see Sellers et al. 1968: 13–24; see also Albright 1943: 8,
and n. 9; Funk 1958: 14; Ofer 1993: 70–72. After the first excavation season, the excavators decided
that the site had been destroyed by the Babylonians and not resettled until the late Persian
period. This argument is rooted in the historical perception that the Babylonians totally devastat-
ed Judah, but this claim has no archaeological evidence.
110 Beth-Zur did not yield the seal impressions that were widespread in Yehud province in the
fifth and fourth centuries BCE, and only one fragment of an Attic pottery vessel was found,
which was dated to the early fifth century BCE. The chief pieces of evidence from this time
period were found in the first excavation season, at Loci 58–62, especially in Room 59 (Sellers
1933: 15, fig. 5, pl. 14: 1). Sellers found corroboration for his hypothesis about the gap during the
6th century BCE in the excavations held in the second season, especially in Area II, where a
large gap was noticed between the 6th century BCE and the second century BCE (Sellers et al.
1968: 29, 54–69). It was further stressed that very few pottery shards from the Persian period
were found in Areas I and III (and see the discussion by Lapp in Sellers et al. 1968: 70–71). Stern
agrees with this view (1982a: 36–38; 2001: 437–438), as does Funk (NEAEHL 1: 197).
111 From an archaeological perspective, one may cast doubt on the hypothesis of a gap between
the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period. As stated previously, there is no evidence whatsoev-
er of a destruction. In addition, pottery vessels that can be dated to either the 6th century BCE or
the early Persian period were found on the site in mixed assemblages with pottery from the end
of the Iron Age. Thus, for example, a carrot-shaped Persian bottle was found in Room 146, south
of the fortress in a complex of rooms where most of the pottery vessels can be dated to the Late
Iron Age (Sellers 1933: 20–35), ln the water reservoir found in the southern part of the site, many
pottery vessels from the Persian period were also discovered in mixed assemblages, together with
pottery vessels from the Late Iron Age (Sellers 1933: 27–31; Sellers et al. 1968: 69–70).
174 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

margin of the area of Judah, one must base his or her discussion on the data
from the surveys.
The data of the survey conducted on the highland of Judah indicate a con-
stant increase in the number of settlements and in the overall settled area in the
entire mountain region from the eleventh century to the 8th century BCE.112 It
seems that the entire region was dealt a severe blow during Sennacherib’s cam-
paign (701 BCE), but in contrast to the rapid recovery made by the region north
of Ḥebron (and primarily in the area around Bethlehem), it seems that the area
south of Ḥebron recovered only partially during the seventh century BCE, with
settlement there remaining sparse.113
The area north of Ḥebron continued to be within the limits of Judah during
the Persian period. There is a marked dwindling in this area as one goes farther
south from Bethlehem to Beth-Zur. At the end of the Iron Age, there were 63 sites
in this area, most of them either near the major road that passes over the
watershed line or close to the roads that split from it eastward and westward.114
One may estimate the overall settled area of these sites at about 305 settled
dunams.115

112 For a summary of the settlement picture in the Judean highland at the end of the Iron Age
and the Persian period, see Ofer 1993: 4.16–18; 1998: 46–48. Between the eleventh and 8th centu-
ries BCE, almost total continuity may be noted in all of the sites; there is expansion into the
border areas and a sharp rise in the importance of small settlements (small farms and sites of
less than 5 dunams). For a discussion on this subject, see Ofer 1993: 2.121–126. See also the
summary by Finkelstein 1994: 174–175.
113 On this subject, see the data presented by Ofer 1993: 2.125–134, 138–142, 413–418; 1998: 46–
48; see also the critique of Ofer’s conclusions by Finkelstein 1994: 174–175.
114 In most sites, there is no evidence of any emphasis on a topographical location that is
convenient for defense purposes, and there is no evidence of fortification. The sites are scattered
at distances of 1–2 km from each other (except for “blocs” of settlements of 2–3 small sites) and
are located in areas relatively convenient for settlement and agriculture. The dwindling of the
number and size of the sites is noticeable as one moves farther east or west from the watershed
(Ofer 1993: 2.125–134, 138–142).
115 Of these 63 sites, 6 sites are particularly central: 3 in the northwest (Kh. Zakandaḥ – 21 du-
nams; Kh. Ḥubeilah – 20 dunams; Kh. Judūr – 19 dunams) and 3 in the southeast (Kh. et-Tuqūʿ –
28 dunams; Kh. ez-Zāwiyye – 18.4 dunams; Kh. Rās eṭ-Ṭawil – 40 dunams). The overall area of
these sites is 146 dunams, which is 48 % of the total settled area in the region. To these central
sits, one may add 10 more whose area is greater than 5 dunams and whose total settled area is
approximately 96 dunams (approximately 31.5 % of the settled area in this region). Most of the
sites (47, which is approximately 75 % of the number of sites in this region) are defined as farms
or small agricultural settlements, and their total overall settled area is 63.4 dunams (approxi-
mately 20.5 % of the total settled area in this region).
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 175

The characteristics of settlement in this area show a clear continuity in the

Persian period.116 There was an 11.5 % drop in the number of settlement sites
(56 sites in the Persian period as opposed to 63 at the end of the Iron Age). How-
ever, there was hardly any change in the scope of settled area (299 dunams in the
Persian period, as compared with 305 dunams at the end of the Iron Age, a drop
of less than 2 %). No settlement larger than 5 dunams in size was abandoned, and
the main difference is in the distribution and nature of the settlements. One may
define three major changes that took place in the characteristics of the settlement
in the transition from the Iron Age to the Persian period:
1. A drastic decline in the importance of the larger sites.117
2. A marked increase in the importance of the medium-sized sites, which were
larger than 5 dunams.118
3. A significant increase in the location and importance of the sites smaller than
5 dunams.119

In my opinion, these changes in the characteristics of settlement between the

Iron Age and the Persian period reflect a prolonged period of quiet, a time when
the population was able to develop in small settlements. The dispersal of the
settlement sites and their continued existence over an extended period of time
can attest to the respite in the preoccupation with defense during the Persian
period and the internal stability that prevailed in the land at this time.
But the settlement and historical processes in the region between Bethlehem
and Beth-Zur were not homogeneous. In the region close to Bethlehem one can
see the same number of sites, the same number of settled areas, and the same
settlement pattern at the end of the Iron Age and during the Persian period.

116 Ofer studied this phenomenon (Ofer 1993: 2.131); see also my discussion, in Lipschits 1997b:
291–299.
117 This decline is reflected in the number of large sites (from 6 to 3) and the estimated size of
the settled area they contained (from 146 dunams to 69 dunams, a drop of about 53 %). Before
the destruction of Jerusalem, the large sites represented 48 % of the total settled area in the
Judean highland; in the Persian period they represented only 23 %.
118 There is a sharp rise (60 %) in the number of these sites (from 10 sites at the end of the
Iron Age to 16 during the Persian period). There is also an increase of 50 % in the total settled
area of these sites (from 96 dunams at the end of the Iron Age to 145 dunams during the Persian
period). This is also reflected in the proportion of these sites in the sum total of settled dunams,
which increases from 31.5 % at the end of the Iron Age to 48.5 % during the Persian period.
119 There is no change in the number of sites that belong in this category (37 sites in both
periods), but there is an increase of 36 % in the total estimated area of settled dunams (from
61.9 dunams at the end of the Iron Age to 85.2 dunams during the Persian period). This is also
reflected in the relative weight of the sites of this type in all the settled area, which increases
from 20.5 % at the end of the Iron Age to 29 % during the Persian period.
176 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Nevertheless, there was a marked change in the area around Tekoa. Many sites
that existed in this region during the Iron Age no longer existed during the Per-
sian period.120 It is probable that this settlement reflected the economic and secu-
rity situation that prevailed at the end of the Iron Age, during which a settlement
could expand more effectively to the edge of the desert near Tekoa, especially
along the main roads leading from the mountain ridge eastward.121 It may well
be that this settlement array collapsed due to changing economic, military, and
political conditions, thus eliminating the economic base on which most of the
settlements surrounding Tekoa relied. It is likely that, bereft of both security in
those frontier regions and possibilities for a livelihood, the local populace aban-
doned most of these settlements during the 6th century BCE.
During the Persian period, this area saw renewed settlement activity and a
totally new pattern of settlement.122 The settlement array in the area of Tekoa,
which had spread to the eastern frontier too diffusely at the end of the Iron Age,
“moved” westward during the Persian period and settled in more densely-packed
concentrations near the watershed line.123 Most of the settlement sites were estab-
lished where there were more reliable water resources and more diversified
possibilities for a livelihood based on agriculture. This region is the heart of the
Pelekh of Tekoa, known from the days of Nehemiah, whose importance in terms
of settlement in the fifth century is significant.
South of the area of Tekoa, mainly in the watershed line around the 3 large
settlement sites that existed during the last phase of the Iron Age (Kh. Zakandaḥ;
Kh. Ḥubeilah; Kh. Judūr), the total number of sites increased from 16 at the end
of the Iron Age to 21 in the Persian period. The total settled area in this region
increased from 81 dunams at the end of the Iron Age to 104 dunams in the
Persian period. The settled area south of Tekoa in the Persian period reached
approximately 35 % (compared with 26.5 % at the end of the Iron Age) of the total
settled area between Beth-Zur and Bethlehem.

120 Almost all of these sites are located east of the watershed, and most of them may be circum-
scribed within a radius of about 4 km around Tekoa.
121 The thriving of the desert frontier at the end of the Iron Age parallels the flourishing of the
desert frontier in Benjamin at that same time. Th.is situation may be related to the establishment
of En-Gedi, the growth of Jericho, and the establishment of the array of settlement sites in the
Jordan Valley and along the western littoral of the Dead Sea (Amit 1992: 347).
122 The survey data indicate that in 21 sites, pottery shards from the Persian period were
uncovered, without any evidence of Iron Age pottery shards (or at least not from the end of the
period).
123 Apparently, the lack of brisk commercial traffic over the roads that led toward the Judean
Desert and the Jordan Valley made it impossible to maintain a densely populated array of settle-
ments east of the watershed line.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 177

This increase was at the expense of the area south of it, toward Beth-Zur,
whose importance shrank considerably. The total number of sites decreased from
13 at the end of the Iron Age to 11 in the Persian period, and the total settled area
in this region decreased from 102 dunams at the end of the Iron Age124 to 77 du-
nams in the Persian period. It may be hypothesized that the area of Beth-Zur
declined because it was a frontier area opposite the southern Judean highland
and the Negev.125

Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh

and Fifth Centuries BCE

Table 1 contains a summary of the estimated total number of settled dunams,

according to the excavation data and surveys conducted in Judah (based on the
discussion above).
The main conclusion that emerges from the data is that between the end of
the Iron Age and the Persian period there was a decline of approximately 70 %
in the size of settled area. Even if the figures presented for one or more regions
in either of these periods is not exact, the final figures are enough to show the
general trend: Between the end of the Iron Age and the Persian Period there was
a demographic and settlement crisis. It probably took place during the Babylonian
rule over the region, and it centered on the campaign against Jerusalem (588–
586 BCE). It is not surprising that the sharpest decline occurred in Jerusalem and
its environs (89 %), which were the focus of Babylonian activities (Lipschits 2001a:
129–142). A similar rate of decline also took place in the Judaean Desert, Jordan

124 Almost half of the settled area at the end of the Iron Age is at Kh. Rās eṭ-Ṭawil (40 dunams);
there are 5 sites of medium size, whose overall area should be placed at 48 dunams.
125 Apparently, during the Persian period, the area of Beth-Zur was characterized by instability
because of the population that made incursions from the south. This hypothesis is supported by
the fact that, south of Beth-Zur (which had probably been an imperial Persian fortress), there
are no known Persian fortresses. ln contrast, there are 4 known fortresses north of Beth-Zur
that lay along the two major longitudinal roads: Kh. ez-Zāwiyye and Kh. Shanah are located on
the southeastern road, coming from W, Siʿir, and Kh. el-Qatt lies on the main mountain road,
about 2 km north of Kh. eṭ-Ṭabaqa. Kh. Umm eṭ-Ṭalaʿ is situated at the vertex of the “triangle of
fortresses” and also controls the road running eastward toward Tekoa. ln my opinion, these
fortresses indicate the course of the southern boundary line of the province of Yehud; this line
was established as protection against the population that lived south of it. In this light, it is
reasonable to conjecture that the area of W. Siʿir from the west and the Beth-Zur line in the east
were the certain southern settlement points of the province, and the area south of them was
outside of the province limits.
178 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Tab. 1: A Comparison of Settled Areas in Judah at the End of the Iron Age and in the
Persian Period, by Regional Distribution.

Region Settled dunams, Settled dunams, % decrease in

end of Iron Age Persian Period settled area

Benjamin 1,150 500 56.5 %

Jerusalem environs 1,000 110 89.0 %
Northern Judaean hills[a] 306 300 2.0 %
Southern Judaean hills[b] 300 85 71.7 %
The Shephelah 900 300/150[c] 83.3 %
Beersheba-Arad Valleys 120 30[d] 75.0 %
Eastern strip 90 10 88.9 %

Total 3,866 1,185 69.3 %

a. As defined above, this refers to the entire region between Jerusalem and Beth-Zur.
b. As defined above, this refers to the entire region between Ḥebron and the Beersheba-Arad
Valleys (outside of the borders of the province of Yehud) and was not included in the count of
the total settled area during the Persian period.
c. The settled area of this region only includes the northern limit (consisting of 150 settled dunams),
which was included in the border of the Yehud province during the Persian period. An area
parallel in size lies near Maresha and south of it and was not included in the total settled area
during the Persian period.
d. This region was not included in the borders of the Yehud province during the Persian period,
and thus, it was not included in the totals for the settled area during this period.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 179

Valley, and western littoral of the Dead Sea; one may assume that there was
a rapid process of collapse in these regions from the moment the kingdom’s
administration and army ceased to exist (Lipschits 2000: 31–42). The heavy devas-
tation in the Shephelah (83 %) may be explained by the concentrated Babylonian
campaign against the fortresses on the western border of the kingdom of Judah
and the rapid process of collapse that took place, particularly in the southern
part of the Shephelah, after the destruction and in the subsequent years of Baby-
lonian rule. The southern border of Judah also capitulated rapidly, and the no-
mads who had inhabited the area south of the Judean border for many years
quickly invaded the empty expanses of the southern Judean Hills and the south-
ern part of the Shephelah. During the Persian period, these areas were not consid-
ered part of the province of Yehud.
In the region of Benjamin, there was a more moderate decrease (approxi-
mately 55 %) in the size of the settled area. From an analysis of the central sites
in the region, one may assume that this decrease occurred gradually at the end
of the 6th and the beginning of the fifth centuries BCE (Lipschits 1997a; 1997b:
196–245; 1999b). In contrast, throughout the region between Jerusalem and Beth-
Zur, there is marked full settlement continuity, with an impressive increase in the
number of small sites, evidence of a prolonged period of stability and security
(Lipschits 1997b: 276–299).

* * *
The data presented above are significantly different from the data that have been
presented previously in the research, and several words should be offered in
explanation. Apart from Finkelstein’s summary article (1994) on the archaeologi-
cal situation in the days of Manassah, almost no other studies have been pub-
lished on the demographic situation of Judah during the seventh and the begin-
ning of the 6th centuries BCE.126 Historical evaluations that were based on lists
and descriptions in the Bible resulted in exaggerated and farfetched numbers,
double or more than the most “generous” archaeological estimates.127
A comparison with the data collected by Finkelstein shows a striking differ-
ence in the overall conclusion: 3,866 settled dunams estimated in this essay com-

126 On the difficulty in estimating the population of Judah at the end of the Iron Age, see Meyers
and Meyers 1994: 281–282.
127 See, for example, the view of Weinberg (1972: 45–50) who, using the biblical accounts and
general appraisals as a basis, estimated the population of Judah at 220,000–250,000 people. This
is further evidence of the caution one must exercise in population estimates that are based
either on historical accounts or lists that were preserved in secondary sources that underwent
reworking and adaptation for the purposes of the historiographer.
180 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

pared with 2,250 dunams in Finkelstein’s work (1994: 173, 176–177). The major
reason for this difference is the settled area in the Shephelah (according to Finkel-
stein, 800 dunams, close to the estimate made in this study), which Finkelstein
omitted in his calculations. In my opinion, this omission is without either archaeo-
logical or historical justification. Finkelstein himself (1994: 173) is aware that,
despite the harsh blow the Shephelah was dealt in Sennacherib’s campaign, the
settlement in the region did recover to some extent during the seventh cen-
tury BCE. Additional differences in estimates of the settled area are the result of
the Jerusalem survey’s new data, which attest to the strength of the settlement
in the periphery close to the city (an overall estimate of approximately 1,000
settled dunams, in contrast to Finkelstein’s estimate (1994: 175), which focuses
only on the area within the city limits, according to the accepted estimate of
600 dunams of settled area). In addition, Finkelstein does not take into account
the total settled area in the Jordan Valley, Judean Desert, and along the western
littoral of the Dead Sea (approximately 90 dunams).128 The estimated total settled
area in the Negev (1994: 175–176) is also missing 20 dunams of settled area, which
must be added, on the basis of the new survey data.
Past estimates of population size in the province of Yehud during the Persian
period were based only on biblical accounts, especially the list of people who
returned to Zion (repeated in both Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7). This is because most
scholars speculated that this list reflected multiple waves of immigration to the
province during the days of Cyrus and his descendants, even as late as the days
of Nehemiah.129 Up to this point, Carter (1991: 2.150–165; 1999: 195–213) is the only
one who has tried to estimate the population of Yehud on the basis of archaeologi-
cal data,130 but one must reject his archaeological method regarding the Persian
period. My criticism of Carter’s work chiefly relates to his classification of the

128 Finkelstein (1994: 175–176) mentions this region in the discussion, but neither defines the
total number of settled dunams or calculates it in the overall total.
129 It should be noted that the list in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 contains the only historical count
of all the inhabitants of the province. The total given at the end of the list is 42,360 (Ezra 2:64;
Neh 7:66; 1 Esd 5:41), but the total does not correspond with a sum of the various numbers given
in the list itself (Which, if added up is 29,818 in Ezra 2; 31,089 in Nehemiah 7; and 30,143 in
1 Esdras 5). For the various explanations offered in the literature for these numerical discrepancies,
see Zer-kavod 1949: 39–40; Myers 1965: 20–21; Blenkinsopp 1988: 93; 1991: 44. On the basis of these
lists, the various estimates of the province’s inhabitants ranged around 50,000. On this estimate,
see, for example, Albright 1949b: 87–88, 110–111; Bright 1959: 376–377; Blenkinsopp 1988: 83; Smith
1989: 31–35. Weinberg (1972: 46–50) offered an exceptional estimate of about 200,000 people, and
following this came his interpretation of the meaning of the list in Nehemiah 7 (= Ezra 2), but see
the criticism by Blenkinsopp 1991: 42.
130 Meyers and Meyers (1994) followed the direction taken in Carter’s dissertation.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 181

Persian period archaeological finds into two subdivisions: Persian period A (from
539/538 to the mid-fifth century BCE) and Persian period B (from the mid-fifth
century to 332 BCE). This division is problematic from almost every angle but
especially so in its attempt to define a material culture using historical data. The
view that a change in the local material culture can be defined in parallelism
with historical information about changes in imperial rule (which is largely the
thesis of Hoglund 1992: 202–205) does not stand the test of reality. Carter does not
even try to establish the model that he presents: clearly defined assemblages of
pottery that are distinguished definitively from a stratigraphic perspective and
dated decisively from a chronological perspective. To a large extent, these ideas
remain a theoretical model that should not be adopted. Accordingly, his final
figures are significantly lower than the figures presented here.
A comparison of the summary data from the Persian period with Carter’s
data (1991, 1994, 1999) shows striking differences, most of which stem from his
methodological approach to the archaeological data and from the distinction he
makes between the two segments of the Persian period.131 The figures obtained
from the archaeological surveys do not enable more than a general dating for
the Persian period, and even this has great limitations in identification of the
pottery indicative of the period. The division of the data between the two differ-
ent “phases” of the Persian period requires mathematical speculation with the
figures.132
Furthermore, because he is unable to provide a well-established archaeologi-
cal profile in Judah for both phases of the Persian period, Carter projects the
settlement picture in Benjamin onto Judah (although he is conscious of the risky
and speculative nature of this measure) and creates a general picture that raises
doubts about its compliance with the archaeological data (Carter 1999: 200–201).133

131 Thus, for example, Carter’s conclusion (1999: 199–201) is that the total settled area during
the Babylonian and Persian periods (including an error coefficient that he adds to his figures)
is approximately 868 dunams (about 75 % of the estimate of the total number of settled dunams
given above). At the same time, the distinction he tries to make between the two different phases
of the Persian period requires a manipulation of the data-injecting various error coefficients for
each of the periods and adding general estimates of the size of Jerusalem at these two stages on
the basis of the biblical descriptions in Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah.
132 Carter himself (1999: 199–200) acknowledges this. Based on his assumption that many sites
were abandoned in the first third of the fifth century BCE, he decides on a lower error coefficient
for the first “phase” (10 %) than the one he uses for the second “phase” (20 %).
133 Thus, Carter decides (I think without justification) that 25 % of the sites in Benjamin existed
in “Persian Period B.” Consequently, he projects this relativity onto all of the sites in Judah, while
omitting from the discussion the Persian fortresses, whose date he fixes independently. It is,
therefore, not dear why he determines that 41 out of 55 sites in Judah were in existence in
‘Persian Period N’ or how he divides the total settled area on this basis.
182 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

An additional problem with Carter’s study (1999: 103–113, 202) is his regional
division, which is based on an analysis of ecological niches rather than on the
historical and geographical evidence from Judah during the days of the kingdom
and the Persian period. As a result, it is impossible to understand either the
historical or the archaeological significance of the division he makes or to com-
pare it with the division made here.

The Demographic Meaning of the Archaeological Data

In an attempt to give the archaeological data a demographic meaning, one must

take into account a reasonable range of deviation in order to allow for the known
gaps in the archaeological surveys. Some scholars have added a fixed deviation
of 20 % to the final figures;134 other scholars have tried to estimate the amount
of deviation for each region separately.135 The second method seems preferable,
because it offers the option of considering the deviation, while taking into ac-
count the extent of coverage and quality of the survey, the characteristics of the
area surveyed, and the characteristics of the settlement pattern that existed in
each region. Likewise, one must remember that the coefficients are added to
speculative evaluations and not to objective measurements; these may change
periodically as the archaeological picture becomes more clear and the amount of
data from each region increases.
In the Benjamin region, all of the central sites have been excavated, and a
comprehensive survey was conducted in most of the region. The area not yet
surveyed includes primarily the western slopes of the mountain ridge, an area
with almost no water resources and only a few settlement sites throughout histo-
ry (Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 19–21). The estimate of settled area at the end of
the Iron Age also seems quite realistic. Eighty percent of the total settled area
comprised two sections: one section contained 14 settlement sites, with an area
of more than 30 dunams; the second section contained 32 settlement sites, with
an area greater than 10 dunams. It would be unlikely that sites of such size did
not come to light in the archaeological survey; furthermore, even if some of
the smaller sites were not uncovered by the survey, their overall area would be
insignificant in relation to the total settled area.136 There was a scarcity of pottery
finds from the Persian period in most of the sites where pottery shards of the

134 See, for example, the range of deviation used by Broshi and Gophna 1984: 41–42; 1986: 73–74.
135 A similar method was employed by Broshi and Finkelstein 1990; 1992; Finkelstein 1994; Ofer
1993: 2.135–137, 216–221.
136 Compare this with Finkelstein 1994: 176.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 183

period have been found, which attests to a lower level of activity than the activity
in the same sites during the Iron Age. Thus, the estimate for this period seems to
be realistic and, perhaps, even too high.
In Jerusalem and its environs, the surveyors encountered great difficulty, be-
cause a large part of the survey was conducted in a built-up area. It must be
assumed that the surveys coverage was low, and the discovery of a site in this
region is often casual. There were many small villages and farms surrounding
the city, particularly at the end of the Iron Age, which seems to mean that a high
error coefficient should be added. Still, about 90 % of the total settled area in
this region was included within the limits of Jerusalem’s fortified walls, which is
evidence that the importance of the small farms was not great within the overall
estimate of the settled area in this region. The overall evaluation of settled area
in the Iron Age is one of the highest given in the research, and it seems unneces-
sary to add any error coefficient whatsoever. The quantity of pottery in most sites
from the Persian period is very small, which attests to a much lower level of
activity than in parallel sites from the Iron Age. In this period, too, most of the
settled area was within the city limits that are encircled by the city wall. This
allows the assumption that, in this case as well, there is no need for any error
coefficient.
In the Judean Hills, there are great gaps in our knowledge (Ofer 1993: 2.218).
About one-third of the area has not been surveyed, including large sections south
of Jerusalem that may be assumed to have been settled in a relatively dense
manner. However, it is unlikely that large, central sites did not come to light in
the archaeological survey, and therefore, the major gaps in information must
relate to the small sites in the region. It seems sufficient to add an error coeffi-
cient of 30 % for both periods, which were settled with similar intensity.137
In the Shephelah, there are great gaps in our knowledge. The only publication
of the data has been Dagan’s M.A. thesis, and this included less than half of the
total area of the region and focused primarily on data from the Iron Age.138
However, most of the central sites in this region are well known, which is evi-
dence that the major gap in our information relates only to the medium-sized
and small sites. Likewise, Dagan’s estimates of settled area define the maximum
area of each site, and his ceramic estimates are only general, which shows that
we are probably overestimating the total settled area in the Shephelah. Conse-
quently, a 30 % error coefficient for the two periods seems realistic for this region.

137 See on this also Broshi and Finkelstein 1990: 11–12; 1992: 52.
138 See the data presented by Dagan (1992) and my discussion (1997: 302–310) on their signifi-
cance for the periods under discussion.
184 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Tab. 2: A Comparison of Settled Area in the Iron Age and the Persian Period, by Region Plus Error
Coefficients.

Region Added error coefficient Settled dunams, Settled dunams,

end of Iron Age Persian Period

Benjamin None 1,150 500

Jerusalem environs None 1,000 110
Northern Judaean hills error coefficient of 30 % 400 390
Southern Judaean hills error coefficient of 30 % 390 110
The Shephelah error coefficient of 30 % 1,170 390/195
Beersheba-Arad Valleys None 120 30
Eastern strip None 90 10

Total 4,320 1,345

In the Beersheba – Arad Valleys, Jordan Valley, Judean Desert, and western littoral
of the Dead Sea, almost all of the central sites have been excavated, and the
conditions of the terrain and quality of surveys are evidence that most of the
settlement sites that existed in these regions are well known and familiar.139 The
gaps in these surveys do not appear to be significant; thus, it would seem unnec-
essary to add any error coefficient.140
The corrected figures, including the error coefficients proposed above, are
presented in Table 2.141 As discussed above, the accepted density coefficient in
the demographic research is an average of 25 people per settled dunams. Table 3
assesses the total population for both periods, on the basis of estimates of the
settled area multiplied by the accepted coefficient.
On the basis of these figures, and rounding off the numbers, we estimate that
the number of inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah as it came to an end was
approximately 110,000, and the population of the province of Yehud was approxi-
mately 30,000.

139 For an evaluation of the survey conducted in the Judean Desert, Jordan Valley, and along
the western littoral of the Dead Sea, see Lipschits 2000. Regarding the survey conducted in the
Beersheba-Arad Valleys, it appears that the data cited above, including those reported by Beit-
Arieh (personal communication), reflect the settlement picture in the periods in question. The
main question mark in this region concerns the size of the site under the city of modern-day
Beersheba (the area of the Bedouin marketplace).
140 See also a similar assessment by Broshi and Finkelstein 1990: 12–15; 1992: 53.
141 See the notes in Table 1 above.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 185

Tab. 3: Estimate of Total Population of Judah at the End of the Iron Age and in the Persian Period
by Regional distribution.

Region Estimated population, Estimated population,

end of Iron Age Persian Period

Benjamin 28,750 12,500

Jerusalem environs 25,000 2,750
Northern Judaean hills 10,000 9,750
Southern Judaean hills 9,750 not included in province
The Shephelah 29,250 4,875*
Beersheba-Arad Valleys 3,000 not included in province
Eastern strip 2,250 250

Total 108,000 30,125

* In the Shephelah, only the settlement sites within the limits of the Yehud province during
the Persian Period were taken into account.

The Significance of the Demographic Assessments

These demographic assessments have great significance in our reconstruction of

the historical processes that transpired in Judah between the seventh and fifth
centuries BCE, because they allow a different perspective of the biblical descrip-
tions that, until now, have served almost exclusively as a source for all historical
discussions. Thus, for example, it seems that the destruction of Jerusalem and the
end of the kingdom of Judah brought about the gravest demographic crisis in the
history of the kingdom of Judah-much more severe than that of the Sennacherib
campaign (701 BCE).142
The data on settlement and demography may lend support to the historical
premise that most of the exiles to Babylon had been residents of Jerusalem. It is
also reasonable to assume that the Babylonians dealt a major military blow to
the inhabitants of the Shephelah. However, there is no evidence of a deportation
from either the region of Benjamin or the northern Judean Hills. It seems that, if
there was such an exile, it was limited and demographically insignificant.

* * *

142 These data do not leave any room for various theories of “the myth of the empty land” and
further attest unequivocally that the destruction and exile were indeed historical events, de-
scribed in their full harshness in the biblical historiography and also reflected in the lamenta-
tions and prophecies of this period.
186 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

In view of the discussion here, and taking into account the comparison of data
from the end of the Tron Age and the Persian period, we are able to estimate the
size of the settled area in Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem and throughout
most of the 6th century BCE Jerusalem and its environs were thoroughly razed
by the Babylonians, and there is no evidence of any settlement there whatsoever
until the Persian period. In contrast to the settlement picture in Jerusalem, settle-
ment in Benjamin declined only at the beginning of the Persian period, a fact
for which the archaeological data provide unequivocal evidence. It appears that
settlement in this area continued unabated throughout the 6th century BCE, and
it is even probable that population density was greater than it had been just prior
to the destruction of Jerusalem. The total settled area during the 6th century BCE
may be estimated at approximately 1,600 dunams (a decline of about 60 % when
compared with the size of the settled area at the end of the Iron Age). The dwin-
dling population in the Benjamin region at the beginning of the Persian period
led to an additional drop in the size of settled area, a drop of approximately 25 %;
the resettling in Jerusalem is of almost no demographic significance.
The evidence shows that the “return to Zion” did not leave its imprint on the
archaeological data, nor is there any demographic testimony of it. At the end of
the 6th and beginning of the fifth centuries BCE, there was a marked dwindling
of settlement (particularly in the Benjamin region), and there is no indication
whatsoever of either a demographic increase or any change in settlement pattern,
apart from the resettlement of Jerusalem and its environs. The demographic fig-
ures from the Jerusalem region also attest that even at the height of the Persian
period, the city’s population was only 3,000, which is about 12 % of the population
of the city and its environs on the eve of the destruction. Even if all of the
residents of the region were among the exiles who made the return to Zion, the
returnees only amounted to several thousand.
Thus, at the beginning of the Persian period, it is probable that a few thou-
sand of the nation’s elite, especially of the priestly caste, returned to Judah and
settled in Jerusalem and its near environs. Nonetheless, the city remained poor,
and the returnees found it difficult to recruit the resources and manpower re-
quired to build the Temple. Parallel to this, with the shift of the political and
religious hub to Jerusalem, a rapid dwindling in population took place in the
Benjaminite region. Apparently, part of the region’s inhabitants migrated out of
the province, either to the Ono-Lod area or to other parts of the Shephelah, most
likely the eastern sectors.143
In spite of this, the demographic figures indicate that, at the height of the
Persian period, the region of Benjamin and the Judean Hills continued to serve

143 On this subject, see the detailed discussion in Lipschits 1997a: 8–32.
 Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE 187

as a habitat for most of the population of the province (75 % of the total popula-
tion). Less than 15 % of the populace of the province lived in the Shephelah, and
approximately 10 % lived in Jerusalem and its environs. This demonstrates the
significance of the blow that Jerusalem suffered at the hands of the Babylonians
at the time of the city’s destruction and the extent to which Jerusalem’s recovery
and move toward becoming a large, demographically significant urban center up
to the beginning of the Hellenistic period was unsuccessful. This accords with
descriptions in the book of Nehemiah, in which Jerusalem was bereft of populace.
The figure given in Nehemiah, which states that the city was populated by a
tenth of the province’s inhabitants (approximately 3,000 people), accords with
our estimate of the total population at that time (Lipschits 2002b).
The “Riddle of Ramat Raḥel” and the Problem
of Identifying the Material Culture
of the Babylonian and Early Persian Periods
From the very Ramat Raḥel there was a contradiction between the dating of the
palatial compound to the Iron Age, with its destruction in 586 beginning of the
excavations at BCE, and the presence of hundreds of lion- and yhwd-stamped jar
handles, together with many other finds, dated mainly to the 6th–3rd centu-
ries BCE, with no apparent architectural context. This is the well-known “Riddle
of Ramat Raḥel” (Lipschits, Gadot and Langgut 2012).
Yohanan Aharoni, the first excavator at Ramat Raḥel, noted the many finds
from the Persian period but expressed frustration at his inability to relate them
to any notable architecture (Aharoni 1962a: 4–10, 27–34; 1964a: 17–23, 42–48). In
his final conclusions he stated (1964a: 120):

This latter citadel and its date are still extremely problematic. The main evidence for its
existence is the unusually high number of seal-impressions from this period, including
stamps of the governors of the province of Yehud. It is clear that the original inner citadel
was left in ruins and was apparently used as a dump for the refuse from the Persian citadel.
This seems to have been built further to the south, but we were not able to come to any
certain conclusions about it.

Thus, from the very first excavations at Ramat Raḥel and from the earliest publi-
cations written about the site, the “riddle of Ramat Raḥel” was lurking in the
background. No one, however, verbalized this riddle, and consequently, no solu-
tions were ever posited. It was only with the study and republication of Aharoni’s
excavations and the Renewed Excavations project at the site that this question
was made explicit.
The renewed excavations, conducted by Tel Aviv University and the Universi-
ty of Heidelberg, and the final publication of the architecture and finds from
Aharoni’s excavations have made it possible to reevaluate the archaeology of the
site and its significance vis-a-vis the political history of Judah for the roughly six
centuries during which it was under the rule of great empires-first as an Assyrian,
then Egyptian and later Babylonian vassal kingdom (from 732 to 586 BCE), and
following that as a Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid province succes-
sively (from 586 until the mid-2nd century BCE, when the Hasmonaean state was
established) (Lipschits 2011b; 2011c; 2018c). Research has demonstrated how Ra-
mat Raḥel reached its zenith during the Persian period, serving as an imperial
administrative center and probably also as the residence of the governor of the
province (Lipschits 2015: 248–250, 257–258; Lipschits et al. 2017: 98–117).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-010
190 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Furthermore, the characteristics of the pottery from the end of the Iron Age
in Judah are well known and clearly defined, having been recovered at Lachish
Level II, City of David Stratum 10, Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum A3, Tel Arad Strata VII–
VI, Tel ʿIra Stratum VI and En-Gedi (Tel Goren) Stratum V, and usually dated to
the period between the mid-7th and the early 6th centuries BCE. The Judahite
pottery assemblage from the Persian period – as known from En-Gedi Stratum IV,
the City of David Area E Stratum 9, Jabel Nimra and sites in the region of Benja-
min – is also well known and defined, and most scholars agree that the distinctive
shapes and characteristics of the Persian period were already present by the mid-
5th century BCE (Lipschits 2005: 192–206). There is a gap of 150 years between
the destruction levels from which the typical pottery vessels of the late Iron Age
were excavated and the appearance of the pottery vessels typical of the Persian
period. The material culture from this intermediate period-which, from the his-
torical perspective, includes the “Babylonian exile” and the first decades of the
“return to Judah” – has never been defined or recognized as a distinct episode –
even if scholars discerned an uninterrupted tradition of pottery production in
Judah from the end of the 7th to the 5th and 4th centuries BCE (Stern 1982: 103;
1994a; Lipschits 2005: 192–206, with further literature). Until now, there has been
no clear-cut definition of the characteristics of the “post-586 BCE” material cul-
ture, its connection to the preceding late Iron Age material culture, or the devel-
opment of the pottery types, stamp impressions and other aspects of material
culture that are so familiar in the Persian period.1 In my 1997 Ph.D. dissertation,
as well as in my 2004 (Hebrew) and 2005 (English) books titled The Fall and Rise
of Jerusalem, I claimed that following the 586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem, a
large rural Judean population remained in the north Judean highlands and in the
Benjamin region in the close periphery to the north and south of Jerusalem. This
population continued to preserve the nature of its material culture-and therein
lies the great difficulty posed to archaeological research in discerning this culture
and defining it. I have argued for continuity between the pottery assemblages
familiar to us from the end of the Iron Age and those of the Persian period and
have demonstrated that most vessel types characteristic of local manufacture in
Judah during the Persian period are in fact a development of typical Iron Age
forms. Furthermore, I have suggested that this theoretical discussion could be
harnessed to support the continued existence of pottery traditions between the
end of the Iron Age and the Persian period.2

1 The first description and analysis of this material culture in Judah was conducted by Freud
(2018); see also Freud 2021.
2 Other scholars, such as Stern (2001: 516), Lapp (2008: 29–30), Berlin (2012: 7) and Bar-Nathan
(2002: 22–23) have demonstrated this continuity (and see Freud 2021), but none have character-
ized or defined the material culture of this intermediate period.
 The “Riddle of Ramat Raḥel” 191

This notion has remained a theoretical one since no clear stratified assem-
blage of pottery could be used to prove it; until now there has been no archaeo-
logical means to differentiate between the pre-586 BCE and post-586 BCE material
culture in Judah. In many respects, since archaeologists never expected to find
material culture from the 6th century BCE, this material culture was not discov-
ered, located, or identified. To a certain extent, this stems from its close similarity
to the pottery assemblages that preceded and followed it. Another factor, however,
may be that scholars assumed that life ceased to exist in Judah during the “exilic
period” and hence that pottery production and other manifestations of economy
and administration could not have developed in Judah during this period (Lip-
schits 2011c: 64–66). This underlying assumption led archaeologists to identify the
“intermediate” material culture of the 6th century BCE as representing the late
Iron Age, even in places where there was a scholarly consensus that life contin-
ued in Judah in the 6th century BCE (Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 27).
Barkay (1998) was right to claim that “it seems that the destruction of the
Temple and the fall of Jerusalem influenced modern scholarship, which fixed the
date of the end of the Iron Age according to a historical fact and not on the basis
of the archaeological picture.” Indeed, it would appear that scholars in general
and archaeologists in particular adopted the clear-cut biblical description of the
“Empty Land” after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the
notion of a “Mass Return” during the early Persian period. Consequently, they
viewed the material culture of these two periods as disconnected, while dismiss-
ing the possibility of a strong and well-established culture in Judah during the
6th century BCE.
A direct link can be drawn from Albright’s 1949 statement that “there is not
a single known case where a town of Judah was continuously occupied through
the exilic period” (1949a: 142) to the assessments of Jamieson-Drake (1991: 75, 146)
concerning “a complete societal collapse” and “almost complete dissolution” and
to the title of Stern’s 2000 and 2004 papers, dealing with “the Babylonian Gap,”
and the title of Faust’s 2012b book dealing with the “archaeology of desolation.”
Further evidence of this approach can be seen in Stern’s conclusion in the chapter
on the Babylonian period in his 2001 book: “A review of the archaeological evi-
dence from sixth-century BCE Judah clearly reflects the literary (i.e., biblical)
evidence for the complete destruction of all the settlements and fortified towns
by Nebuchadnezzar II’s armies in 586 BCE” (Stern 2001: 323).
Archaeologists have claimed that “this view is based upon purely archaeologi-
cal considerations and is not motivated by hidden ideological considerations”
(Stern 2004: 273) and commonly used these archaeological “facts” as grounds for
a historical reconstruction of the “Babylonian Gap” and the “Empty Land” during
the 6th century BCE (cf. Faust 2012b). It seems to me, however, that the archaeo-
192 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

logical “fact” of total destruction at the beginning of the 6th century BCE is in fact
the outcome of historical preconceptions about this period, based on a traditional
interpretation of the biblical description.3 Furthermore, no archaeologist has
been able to, or even tried to, demonstrate from the archaeological perspective
any kind of “Mass Return” at the beginning of the Persian period, as described
in the first chapters of the book of Ezra. One would expect this “Mass Return” to
be well attested in the archaeological record in the event of a “Mass Deportation”
and an “Empty Land,” as suggested by the claim made in Ezra 1–6 for the return
of some 40,000 exiles to Judah at the very beginning of the Persian period with
the support of the imperial authorities.
The indications of continuity in material culture, economy and administration,
not only from the late Iron Age to the “exilic period” but to the Persian period as
well (Lipschits 2016), compel us to view the 6th century BCE as a period when
Judahite life continued in Judah, and in many aspects continued in a manner very
similar to prior to the 586 BCE destruction-despite the destructions and deporta-
tions, despite the gap in the history of Jerusalem and the Temple, and despite the
move of the social and religious center of gravity from Judah to Babylon.
Formulating an historical picture that is independent of the Bible and is as
unfettered as possible by historiographical and theological preconceptions is a
privilege of modern research and is of prime importance even for an examination
of the biblical descriptions themselves. The archaeological record may release us
from religious, political and ideological conceptions that characterize the research
of the biblical period in general and the exilic and post-exilic periods in particular,
and may pave the way for new questions and put us on a firm footing for under-
standing this period in a much more neutral way. The archaeological finds from
the Babylonian-Persian Pit at Ramat Raḥel are of major importance in the histori-
cal, administrative, economic and even biblical perspectives of this formative
period in the history of the land.

3 See, e.g., Stern 1994a: 56–58; 2001: 353, 581; Oded 2003: 59–66. Oded was correct in claiming that
scholars supporting the “Myth of the Empty Land” as a byproduct of the thesis of “mythical ancient
Israel” have common presumptions, especially regarding the reliability of the biblical description
concerning the destruction and deportation, which is part of a late myth, invented as a political
claim (2003: 57–58). He is right in his attempt to demonstrate to what extent their thesis on the
creation of the “myth” is unacceptable and ill founded-both on archaeological grounds and even
on biblical grounds. However, it seems to me that just as in the case of the different emphases in
2 Kings 25:12 and 22 on the “empty land” and on the “people who remained,” the “school” of
scholars supporting the “Babylonian Gap” and reconstructing a “real” empty land in Judah during
the “exilic period” are doing the same thing-they are studying the archaeological finds and inter-
preting the texts with common presuppositions, focusing on the general political-theological-polem-
ic statements made by exiles and returnees in order to base their right on the land, rather than
using the more nuanced research on the various voices and descriptions of this period.
 The “Riddle of Ramat Raḥel” 193

Fig. 1: Three-dimensional reconstruction of the second building phase complex at Ramat Raḥel,
view from the southwest. Imaging: Roy Albag.

Fig. 2: Three-dimensional reconstruction of the second building phase complex at Ramat Raḥel,
view from the northwest. Imaging: Roy Albag.
194 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Fig. 3: Reconstruction of the palace and garden of the second building phase complex at Ramat
Raḥel, view to the east. Imaging: Roy Albag.

Fig. 4: Reconstruction of the inner courtyard of the second building phase complex at Ramat
Raḥel, view to the west. Imaging: Roy Albag.
Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom
to Babylonian Province
Introduction

In recent years, much new archaeological and epigraphic data from the territory
of the kingdom of Ammon has been published and summarized. Among the abun-
dant material, there is data concerning the almost unknown stormy and changing
decades at the end of the Assyrian period, the Egyptian interlude (end of the
seventh century BCE), the short-lived Babylonian rule in the Levant (605/604–
539 BCE), and the beginnings of the 200 years (539–333 BCE) of the Persian (Achae-
menid) period.
Our knowledge concerning the history of Ammon during this time is limited
to the starting (Ammon was an Assyrian vassal kingdom at least until the middle
of the seventh century BCE) and concluding points (Ammon was most likely a
Persian province in the middle of the fifth century BCE). However, we do not
know if and when Ammon became an independent kingdom after the long period
of subjugation to Assyria; if and when its status was changed by the Babylonians
to a vassal kingdom and/or to a province; if there was a deportation and destruc-
tion in Ammon during the Babylonian period; and if there was any change in the
status of Ammon under Persian rule.
In light of the dearth of written sources, one must rely on archaeological
evidence as the main source. In this paper I will examine the archaeological
data from Ammon during the seventh-fifth centuries BCE, while considering the
broader historical picture of the Babylonian period. I will demonstrate that there
are many parallels between the archaeological finds in Ammon and Judah. Those
parallels can perhaps help us to understand the historical and geopolitical pro-
cesses that occurred in Ammon, especially during the Babylonian period. In turn,
the new understandings will help shed light on the framework and basics of
Babylonian policy in Ḫatti-Land during the long years of Nebuchadrezzar’s rule.

The Iron Age IIC / Persian Period at Tall Al-ʿUmayri

Based on his survey work, Nelson Glueck claimed that the Ammonites ceased to
exist in the beginning of the sixth century BCE, and that in the entire region there
was a gap in the history of permanent settlement until the third century BCE
(Glueck 1940: 149). With few variations this view has been followed by many and
became the standard explanation for the region’s fate during the Babylonian and

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-011
196 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Persian periods (e.g., Landes 1961: 85; Bennett 1983: 17; de Tarragon 1992: 195;
Ahlström 1993: 801–802).
Surveys and excavations conducted in the Ammonite region during the last
20 years have demonstrated that this region flourished in the sixth through the
fourth centuries BCE (Sauer 1985: 213–214; 1986: 18; McGovern 1989: 40–42; Herr
1995b: 121; 1997d: 244–246; 1999: 227; 2000: 15–17; LaBianca and Younker 1995: 411;
Bienkowski 2001a: 270). This conclusion rests mainly on the results of the excava-
tions at Tall al-ʿUmayri and the archaeological surveys conducted in this area by
the Madaba Plains Project.
Excavations conducted on the western part of the acropolis of ʿUmayri uncov-
ered three large public buildings and one domestic complex which were dated to
ca. 580–560 BCE (Geraty, Herr, and LaBianca 1987: 149; 1989: 188–92; Herr, Geraty,
LaBianca, and Younker 1991: 156–58; 1994: 150–151; Herr 1995b; 1999: 228–232;
2000: 15–17).1 Seventy-five seals and seal impressions found in and around this
part of the tell emphasize its administrative function (Eggler, Herr, and Root 2002).
Most important among them is the early sixth century BCE seal impression bear-
ing the inscription lmlkmʾwr ʿbd bʿlyšʿ (belonging to Milkomʾûr, the servant of Baʿal-
yašaʿ, or Baʿalyišʿa, see: Hendel 1996), that was discovered in topsoil, above one
of the public buildings (Building C) (Herr 1989: 369; 1991: 12).2 On paleographic
grounds, the seal that made this impression is dated to the early sixth cen-
tury BCE, and, if this is correct, an identification can be made between this Baʿal-
yašaʿ (or Baʿalyišaʿ) and king Baʿalis, who is mentioned in Jer 40:14 (Herr 1985:
171–172; 1989: 373; 1999: 230; Weippert 1987:101). The large corpus of seals, together
with the architectural finds, led the excavators to conclude that Tall al-ʿUmayri
probably served as the administrative center of the hill country south of the
capital city of Rabbat-Ammon (Herr 1999: 232). This conclusion is augmented by
the archaeological survey of the region.
Around Tall al-ʿUmayri, within five kilometers, there were many small villa-
ges and farms, almost all with winepresses and other agricultural installations in

1 For a detailed discussion on the results of the excavations of this area, see: Lawlor (1989; 1991;
1997; 2000). For an up to-date bibliography, see: Herr, Clark, and Trenchard (2001: 238–239, 246).
See there also (idem. 247–248) on the results from the 2000 excavation season. On another
building from the same period and the same dimension and possibly also function, which was
exposed in Field L, see Herr, Clark, Geraty, and LaBianca 1999: 111; Herr, Clark, and Trenchard
2001: 249–250.
2 In the middle of the seal impression, there is a four-winged scarab beetle pushing a small
solar disk, flanked on both sides by standards, each with a lunar crescent and a single letter
above (Herr 1985; 1989; 1999: 229–30; Geraty 1985: 98–99; Younker 1985; 1989b). For another seal
impression, with the same name and with the title “king of Ammon” (but from an unknown
origin), see Deutsch 1999: 46–49, 66.
 Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province 197

their immediate environs. The pottery and other finds that characterize these
agricultural settlements are identical to those found at Tall al-ʿUmayri (Herr
1995b: 123–125; 1999: 231–232). The territorial relations of the small villages and
farms that encircled ʿUmayri are similar to the sites between Khirbat el-ʿAl and
Tall Hisbān, where another circle of small villages and farms within a 10 km
radius was detected around Tall Hisbān (Ibach 1987: 168, and fig. 3.6, p. 167, and
cf. Boling 1989; Christopherson 1997). The ceramic finds unearthed at Hisbān are
also comparable to ʿUmayri, both assemblages exhibiting continuity from the late
Iron Age to the Persian period (seventh to fifth centuries BCE) (Ibach 1987: 168;
Ray 2001: 57–61; Stern 2001: 330). The small town of Stratum 16 was the most
prosperous of the Iron Age settlements on the tell, heavily involved in wine pro-
duction (Ray 2001: 168). Like Stratum II at Tell en-Naṣbeh (Zorn 2003: 433–440; cf.
Lipschits 1999b: 167–168), the builders of this stratum completely removed what-
ever remained of the previous strata in preparation for the new settlement (Sauer
1978: 46). One explanation for it might be the occupation of the site by a different
people from that of the previous stratum (Ray 2001: 126), but another explanation
might be a change of function, when, just like in Tell en-Naṣbeh, the site had
become a local administrative center in the most southern part of the kingdom
(and afterwards the province) of Ammon.

The Babylonian Period at Tall Al-ʿUmayri: Problems

with the Current Historical Explanation

Herr has suggested that, after the Babylonian campaign against Ammon in
582 BCE, the Ammonite monarchy sponsored the construction of the administra-
tive center at ʿUmayri and the farmsteads around it to produce, collect, and trans-
port wine to the Babylonians as tribute (Herr 1995b: 124–125; 1997b: 170; 1999: 232;
2000: 15–16). He maintains that this administrative center belonged to the Am-
monite government in the late Iron Age and to the Persian province of Ammon
during the Persian period (Herr 1997c: 7).
However, this attractive historical solution is not free of problems. First, even
if the dating of the administrative structure and the domestic complex at ʿUmayri
to the first half of the sixth century BCE is correct, it is difficult to accept the
narrow chronological limits (580–560 BCE) he ascribes to the foundation of the
array of villages and farms around it. In the current state of our knowledge, it is
impossible to differentiate between the pottery of the late seventh − early sixth
century BCE, and the typical Ammonite pottery of the sixth-fourth centuries BCE
(Iron IIC/Persian period) (Herr 1995a: 618; 1997d: 245). Because of this Herr bases
his dating upon the palaeography of two inscriptions, the seal impression of Baʿal-
198 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

yashaʿ (which he dates to the early sixth century) and an ostracon found in a pit
beneath the foundations of the domestic buildings best dated palaeographically
to the mid sixth century (Sanders 1997). However, it does not appear likely that
one can so accurately date the changes in Ammonite writing at the very end of
the seventh century and the first half of the sixth century BCE (Naveh 1980). The
Ammonite material culture of this period (especially the ceramics) is character-
ized by a slow and gradual development, without major destructions and sharp
changes, and exhibits a continuity probably beginning in the seventh century and
culminating in the fourth century BCE.
Even further, it is difficult to believe that such a complex of farms, villages,
and the administrative center (or perhaps with Hisbān one should think in terms
of administrative and economic centers) could have developed in a relatively
empty area in the southern Ammonite hill country in such a short period, and
only because of the sudden need (according to Herr – post 582 BCE) to pay tribute
(or taxes, in the case of direct Babylonian rule).
From a historical point of view, one might question the assumption that trib-
ute of the vassal kingdoms would have been any different under Babylonian rule
than under Assyrian rule and whether it was the Babylonians who caused such
economic development in marginal areas (Bienkowski 2001a: 270). Furthermore,
from a broader historical perspective, it could be argued that Ammon was subju-
gated by the Babylonians already in 604 BCE and became a vassal kingdom paying
tribute and performing other tasks as required (Lipschits 1999c; in press; Stern
2001: 327).

Ammon as a Vassal Kingdom (604–582 BCE) and Babylonian

Province (582–539 BCE)

In the military campaign conducted in Ḫatti-Land between June 604 and January/
February 603 BCE, Nebuchadrezzar conquered all the territories of southern Syria
and the southern Levant up to Gaza (Lipschits 1999c: 467–470; 2005). “He marched
about victoriously … All the kings of Ḫatti-Land came before him and he received
their vast tribute” (Wiseman 1956: 28, 68–69; 1985: 21–22; Grayson 1975: 20, 100).
According to the Babylonian Chronicle, none of the local kings dared stand up to
Nebuchadrezzar, except the king of Ashkelon.3 The Babylonian response was deci-

3 The proximity of Ashkelon to the Egyptian border and the long years of Egyptian rule were
apparently the factors that led the king of this small kingdom to continue to rely on Egyptian
assistance. Not understanding the change that had taken place in the international balance of
power, he refused to capitulate to Babylon.
 Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province 199

sive, and the fate of that city served as an example to the other kingdoms of the
region (Stager 1996a; 1996b; Lipschits 1999c: 470–471).
At this time, most of the country was arranged in a line of provinces that
still existed from the Assyrian period, and it seems as though the Egyptian retreat
left the country unopposed to the rule of Nebuchadrezzar. The main interests of
the Babylonians were along the coast, towards the Egyptian border, and none of
the small kingdoms in the hill country, on both sides of the Jordan River, could
stand against them. Given the background of this historical process, one might
assume that Ammon, like all the other small kingdoms in the western part of the
Babylonian empire, became a vassal kingdom in 604 BCE. One could assume that
like Judah, where Nebuchadrezzar allowed king Jehoiakim to stay on his throne,
also in the other small vassal kingdoms there was likewise no marked change
during the first years of Babylonian rule.
However, the continued instability in Philistia, Judah, and the Transjordanian
kingdoms during the days of Psammetichus II (595–589 BCE) and, even more,
during the first years of Hophra (Apries) (589–570), as well as the increasing
threat by Egypt over the Babylonian rule in Ḫatti-Land, forced Nebuchadrezzar
to invest massive resources to maintain continued rule in the region. All this
caused Nebuchadrezzar to modify his policy (probably in 589 BCE). He decided
to conquer the small vassal kingdoms that remained close to the border with
Egypt and to annex and rule them directly, as Babylonian provinces.4 It seems
that Judah was the first goal of the Babylonians, who after a long siege destroyed
Jerusalem and deported the nation’s elite (586 BCE) (Lipschits 1999c; 2005: 36–97).
Later, apparently in 585 BCE, the Babylonians besieged Tyre for 13 years.5 During
this period, they also established their rule over Gaza, Ashdod, and Arwad.6
According to the account preserved by Josephus (Ant. 10, 9: 7 §181–182) during
the years of siege against Tyre, in the 23rd year of Nebuchadrezzar’s reign (582/
581 BCE), the Babylonians also attacked Ammon and Moab. However uncertain
this piece of information may be, it fits well with the other historical information
we have on the policy of Ammon between 593 and 582/581 BCE.

4 For a detailed reconstruction of this period, see Lipschits 1999c; 2005: 36–97.
5 Accounts of these activities have been preserved in Josephus (Contra Apion I. 19. 156; Ant. 10,
228), and in Ezek 29:18. The siege came to an end in 572 BCE, when the king of Tyre, probably
Ethbaʿal III, was deported to Babylon, together with some of the kingdom’s elite (Weidner 1939:
923). On this subject, see also Katzenstein 1973: 330; 1993: 186; Redford 1992: 465–466.
6 Some suburbs were established near Nippur, whose names were Ashkelon, Gaza, and Bît
Arṣâ. Apparently, these suburbs were built by exiles brought to Babylon during the days of
Nebuchadrezzar (Zadok 1978b: 61; Ephʿal 1978: 80, 83, with cited literature), shortly after the fall
of Jerusalem.
200 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

As was reported in the prophecy of Jeremiah (chap. 27),7 Ammon was part of
the anti-Babylonian pact of kings (Edom, Moab, Tyre, Sidon, and Judah), who
were gathered in Jerusalem, probably in 593 BCE. It was not a coincidental or a
one-time occasion, because, according to the vision of Ezekiel 21:23–28, when
Nebuchadrezzar came out against Jerusalem some weeks or months before the
beginning of the siege “in the ninth year of his (= Zedekiah’s) reign, in the tenth
month on the tenth day of the month” (2 Kings 25:1) (= December 588/January
587 BCE),8 he was hesitating about whether to attack Jerusalem or “Rabbah of
the Ammonites.” Because the Bible suggests the possibility of Judaeans escaping
to Transjordan (apparently including Ammon) during the Babylonian siege of
Jerusalem (Jer 40:11–12), and because of the biblically stated connections between
Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah, and Baʿalis, the king of Ammon (Jer 40:14), as well
as Ishmael’s flight to Ammon after the murder of Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam
(Jer 41:15), probably a few weeks after the destruction of Jerusalem, it is clear
that the biblical view asserts that the anti-Babylonian policy in Ammon was even
more apparent following the change of Babylonian policy in 589 BCE. The support
Baʿalis gave to Ishmael’s conspiracy to assassinate Gedaliah (mentioned in
Jer 40:14; 41:15) suggests an Ammonite political attitude against cooperation with
the Babylonians after the destruction of Jerusalem. Against this background, one
can understand the historical logic that stands behind Josephus’ description.9
One might assume that the outcome of the 582/581 BCE Babylonian expedition
was that Ammon became a Babylonian province (Ahlström 1993: 801; Bienkowski
2001a: 269–270). Judah suffered that fate under the same circumstances, and it
seems to have been the overall Babylonian policy towards the small kingdoms in
the region. Two other pieces of information combine to suggest this conclusion
is true.
1. Four store jar handles bearing stamped impressions were found in unstrati-
fied contexts in Fields A and B at Tall al-ʿUmayri (Eggler et al. 2002: Nos. 23,

7 The title of this prophecy is a mistake, and apart from the historical illogic of assigning it to
the days of Jehoiakim, it also does not accord with the contents of the prophecy (compare with
verse 3). The background of the arrival of these kings in the royal court of King Zedekiah is not
clear, but, from the words of the prophet, it would seem that the assembly was designed to
establish a pact that included rebellion against Babylon. On attempts to fix the date of the
assembly at 593 BCE, especially on the basis of the title of Jeremiah’s prophecy in chapter 28,
see Bright 1959: 329; 1965: 200; Janzen 1973: 14–19; Holladay 1989: 32, 114–116; Hoffman 2001: 530.
8 See Hayes and Hooker 1988: 97. For a different opinion, see Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 317, with
cited literature. A parallel date was reported in Ezek 24:1, which stated that was the day when
“the king of Babylon has this very day invested Jerusalem” (verse 2).
9 One should remember that even if many scholars reconstruct the events according to Jose-
phus’s description (see, e.g., Ahlström 1993: 801; but see Bienkowski 2001a: 269–70), this is only
one possible reconstruction (Weippert 1987: 102); there are other possibilities.
 Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province 201

36, 42, and 53). Two impressions (Nos. 36 and 42) display the same inscription
šbʾ//ʿmn (Shubaʾ ʿAmmon) on two lines, without a separating line between
them. They were probably stamped by two different seals. Two other impres-
sions were probably made by the same seal and read ʿmn//ʿyʾ (ʿAmmon ʿAyaʾ)
(Nos. 23 and 53). All four were written in an Aramaic script dating to the
second half of the sixth century BCE (Herr 1992; 1997a: 325–327; Eggler, Herr,
and Root 2002). We agree with Herr’s assumption that these impressions are
the first examples so far discovered of Persian provincial seals of the prov-
ince of Ammon, paralleling the yh(w)d seals and seal impressions from the
province of Judah. The significance of this assumption is that Ammon became
a province no later than the end of the sixth or the early fifth century BCE
(Herr 1992: 166; 1995b: 124–125; 1999: 233–234; Bienkowski 2001a: 270).
2. Two officials are mentioned in the Bible among the rulers of the neighboring
provinces: “the governor (paḥat) of Moab” in Ezra 2:6 and Tobiah, who ac-
cording to Nehemiahʿs memoirs (2:10, 19), was “the Ammonite ʿēbed,” one of
Nehemiah’s enemies. Most scholars interpret Tobiah’s title as “servant of the
(Persian) king” and understand it as a title for the Persian governor of the
province of Ammon in the days of Artaxerxes I, at the time when Nehemiah
was in Judah (445–444 BCE) (Alt 1931: 70–71; Mazar 1957: 143–145; Weippert
1987: 101–102; Lemaire 1990: 69–70, with earlier references).

From the above sources, it is clear that Ammon held the status of a province
during the very
beginning of the Persian period, but probably even earlier during the Babylo-
nian period. It is difficult to believe that Ammon was subjugated and turned into
a province by the Persians, when in the whole region, there was a continuation
of the same geopolitical arrangements of the Babylonian and the Persian periods.
Thus, one can conclude that Ammon was subjugated by the Babylonians, who
turned it into a province (Weippert 1987: 102; Ephʿal 1988: 142; Bienkowski 2001a:
270–269; Stern 2001: 327).
The broader archaeological picture in the territory of Ammon support this
conclusion, as does a comparison of the historical, demographical, and geopoliti-
cal processes in Judah. At least in some regions in Ammon, such as ʿUmayri, there
was no break in the settlement history and there was a continuity of the material
culture from the seventh to the sixth centuries BCE, when the Babylonians con-
quered this small vassal kingdom and turned it into a province. Thus, while Herr
suggested cultural/historical continuity between the Babylonian and Persian peri-
ods, I propose that that continuity was at least earlier, between the late seventh
century and the Babylonian period.
202 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Ammon between the End of the Seventh

and the Beginning of the Fifth Centuries BCE:
The Broader Archaeological Picture

By the seventh century BCE the southern border of the kingdom of Ammon may
have been as far south as Tall Jalul (perhaps running between Jalul and Madaba),
with the northwestern border including sites east of the Jordan, such as Tall as-
Saʿīdīya, Tall Mazār, and Tall Dayr ʿAlla. The southwestern border may have includ-
ed Tall Nimrin, and the border north of the capital may have extended beyond
Wadi az-Zarqa (Dornemann 1990: 158–59; Lemaire 1990: 71, and fig. 1, p. 74; Herr
1997b: 168–170; 1999: 221–222). Within this region there was a continuation of settle-
ment from the late Iron Age through the Persian period and, in some cases, even
to the Hellenistic period (Herr 1993: 29, 35; 1995a: 617–19; Sauer 1986: 18; Younker
1994: 314–15; Ray 2001: 61; Stern 2001: 257, 329, 457). Evidence might be found in
many of the round or rectangular “tower” structures10 such as Jabal Akhdar (Zay-
adine 1985), Rujm al-Malfuf North (Yassine 1988: 17, contra Boraas 1971); Khirbat
Salama (Lenzen and McQuitty 1987: 203; 1989: 544, contra Bikai 1993: 521–522); and
Rujm al-Henu and Rujm al Hawi in the Baqʿa Valley (McGovern 1983: 136; 1989: 40–
42; Clark 1983). The same continuity can be detected at the well-known “Ammonite
tombs,” which, as K. Yassine has shown, continued to be used throughout the entire
Babylonian period and at least into the beginning of the Persian period (Yassine
1999; Stern 2001: 328–329).11 This is also the situation at Tall Jalul near the southeast-
ern border (Herr et al., 1996: 72, 74; 1997: 154–157; Younker, Geraty, LaBianca, Herr
and Clark 1996: 72–73; 1997: 232–233; Younker and Merling 2000: 49–50, and cf.
Younker 1993: 226–227; Herr et al., 1994: 162–163), at Tall Nimrin near the southwest-
ern border (Flanagan, McCreery and Yassine 1992: 95; 1994: 216, contra Flanagan
and McCreery 1990: 143; Stern 2001: 455–456), and at other excavations such as Abu
Nusayr (Abu Ghanimeh 1984; Stern 2001: 457), Umm Uthania (Yassine 1988: 11); Tall
Safut (Wimmer 1989: 514); Khirbat Um ad-Dananir (McGovern 1989: 41–42), and
probably at Rujm Umm Udhayna (Hadidi 1987: 101–102).

10 For summaries on the “tower” structures see Yassine 1988: 16–19; Kletter 1991; Younker 1989a;
1991; Bikai 1993: 524–527; Najjar 1999, with additional literature.
11 Albright believed that the al-Muqabalayn tomb was later than the other Ammonite tombs
(which were dated to the seventh century BCE) and dated it to the Persian period (Stern 2001:
328). Two other tombs (Khirbat Umm Udhayna and Khildah) have the same plan and similar
contents to the tombs at Muqabalayn (Hadidi 1987). As attested from a few Attic sherds, those
tombs remained in use throughout the sixth century BCE until the Persian period (Clark 1983;
Yassine 1988: 11–14; McGovern 1993: 146; Stern 2001: 328). Also, from the finds from the two tombs
in Khilda, 75 m southwest of Khilda fortress A, it appears that there was a renewal of the settle-
ment in the Persian period by the original local population (Yassine 1988: 14–16; Stern 2001: 457).
 Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province 203

As mentioned above, the best example for the continuity of settlement from
the seventh through the fifth centuries BCE can be found in the ʿUmayri-Ḫesbān
region. However, some of the “tower” sites, do not exhibit finds from the Persian
period (or exhibit finds only from the late Persian/ early Hellenistic period): Rujm
al-Malfuf South (Thompson 1973: 45, 49, but see Najjar 1999: 105); Rujm al-Me-
khayzin (Thompson 1975; 1984); Abu Nusayr (Abu Ghanimeh 1984); Tall ad-Drayjat
(contra Stern 2001: 456, there was only late Persian/early Hellenistic pottery, and
cf. Ibach 1987: 28–29; Younker, Geraty, Herr and LaBianca 1990: 13, 34, pl. 7; Younk-
er 1991: 341; Herr, Geraty, LaBianca and Younker 1991: 171–172; LaBianca et. al.
1995: 113, and see also Fohrer 1961: 60), and Khirbat al-Hajjār.12 This is also the
case with some other sites, such as Sahāb (Ibrahim 1989: 519–520), and Tall Abu
al-Kharaz (Fischer, in de Vries and Bikai 1993: 477–478).
Although we cannot say for certain whether some of the sites continued to
exist in the beginning of the sixth century BCE, the period of Babylonian rule in
the Ammonite region should be seen as a time of change. The archaeological
data emerging from Ammon between the seventh and the fifth centuries BCE is
apparently more complex than the clear-cut picture presented by Herr for the
ʿUmayri-Hisbān region.
The absence of material culture of the sixth century BCE in the northwest
part of the kingdom of Ammon, in the area next to the Jordan Valley, around
Tall Mazār, is of great importance. A large structure (Building 400), possibly an
administrative center, stood at the middle of the mound (Stratum IV). It was dated
to the seventh century BCE (Yassine 1988: 89–90). In the following stratum (III)
Building 400 was replaced by a larger and more massively built structure (Build-
ing 300 [the “Palace Fort”]). It was erected in the same orientation and reused
some of the walls of Building 400 (Yassine 1988: 89). Stratum III was dated by the
excavator to the seventh-sixth centuries BCE, and Building 300 was attributed to
the Ammonite king Hiṣṣalʾel, who ruled in the second half of the seventh cen-
tury BCE, and whose name was also written on one of the ostraca discovered in
this building (Yassine and Taixidor 1986: 49, fig. 9; Yassine 1988: 84–88).13 That
Tall Mazār was probably an administrative center for this part of the Jordan

12 Sauer, followed by Stern (2001: 456; and cf. Yassine 1988: 11), claimed that there was a period
of reuse of Khirbat al-Hajjar in the Persian period, as indicated by a Tyrian coin dated to 400 BCE
found in it. However, this coin was found above the outer wall and was interpreted as a relic of
a passing “traveler,” not connected to the date of the rujm itself (Thompson 1972: 63; 1987: 101;
Kletter 1991: 35, n. 4, p. 45).
13 This name was once known only from the Tall Siran Bottle (Thompson and Zayadine 1973;
Zayadine and Thompson 1989), but after it was also discovered in the Tall Mazar ostracon it was
found as well on an ostracon discovered in 1989 at Tall al-ʿUmayri (Herr 1993: 32; Sanders 1997:
333, 335).
204 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Valley is evident from the ostraca (Yassine 1988: 137–142) and the seals and seal
impressions (Yassine 1988: 143–155) discovered in both Strata IV and III (as well
as from Stratum II during the Persian period). Building 300 of Stratum III was
destroyed and burned to the ground, probably during the first half of the sixth
century BCE (Yassine 1988: 88; 1989: 382). There was a settlement gap and a sharp
change in the site plan between Strata III and II, where, during the latter stratum,
a Mesopotamian-style open-court building (Building 200) and many private hous-
es and installations were built on top of the summit of the mound (Yassine 1988:
79–84).14
At Tall as-Saʿīdīya, another Iron Age town in the vicinity, there was an even
longer settlement gap extending from the end of the seventh to the end of the
fifth centuries BCE (Pritchard 1985: 79–80).15 No remains dating to the Persian
period were exposed in the nearby cemetery (Pritchard 1980), and the new exca-
vations at the site (1985–1987) do not seem to alter this picture (Tubb 1988: 73;
1989: 541; 1991: 67). In contrast to the finds at Tall Mazār and Tall as-Saʿīdīya,
excavations at Tall Dayr ʿAlla have revealed a village that was occupied continual-
ly during the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian periods and exhibited continuity
in material culture throughout Phases VI, V, IV, III, and perhaps also Phase II
(Franken and Ibrahim 1977–1978: 73–74; van der Kooij and Ibrahim 1989: 88–90;
van der Kooij 2001: 301–302). A comparable settlement pattern may be noted at
Tall al-Hammah, a small site two km east of Dayr ʿAlla (van der Steen 1998; van
der Kooij 2001: 298).
It is thus clear that contrary to the continuity of settlement in ʿUmayri-Hisbān
region, there was a break in the sixth century BCE in the northwestern border
area and in some sites in the area close to Rabbat-Ammon. The situation at the
capital itself is not clear, and until we have further archaeological data, we cannot
know if there was a destruction and deportation during the beginning of the
sixth century BCE, or if the city continued to exist without any change during the
period of Babylonian rule.
The significance of the above data is that the settlement processes in Ammon
between the end of the seventh and the beginning of the fifth centuries BCE, is
very complex, and different regions had different fates. The parallels between
the settlement processes in Judah and Ammon during this period can be of some
help in trying to understand these processes.

14 The finds from Strata IV, III, and II are identical to those from the nearby cemetery (ceme-
tery A), of which the larger part is dated to the sixth–fourth centuries BCE (with emphasis on
the middle of the fifth century BCE) (Yassine 1984: 12–14).
15 Only two samples of grain from a floor of a building directly below Stratum III, with dates of
620–410 BCE (or 640–420 BCE), caused Pritchard to raise the option of another stratum, which he
placed between Strata IV and III and called “below Stratum III” (Pritchard 1985: 65–66, 79–80).
 Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province 205

Geopolitical, Settlement, and Demographic Processes

in Ammon Under Babylonian Rule: The Judean Analogy

The geopolitical, demographic and settlement processes that occurred in Judah

between the seventh and the fifth centuries BCE seem to be analogous to the
processes that occurred in Ammon during the same period and under the same
rule. The similarities are too striking to be ignored, though I stress that, as with
any analogical comparison, the evidence must be understood as circumstantial
and the conclusions can only be tentative. However, in this case the circumstan-
tial evidence appears to be very strong. The analogous evidence is summarized
and applied to Ammon below in nine major points.
1. The centrality of the capital and the prosperity of the settlement array
around it during the seventh-early sixth centuries: At the end of the eighth century
and especially during the seventh century BCE unfortified neighborhoods were
built outside Jerusalem’s city walls, and agricultural farms lay in the area around
it. Large villages were found in a more remote ring and apparently delineated the
territory known as “the environs of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 17:26). A well-planned
array of fortresses within these limits were built in a wide circle around the city
(Feig 2000; Lipschits 2001a: 132–134). A similar settlement picture existed during
the seventh century BCE in Ammon: The capital city of Rabbat-Ammon was sur-
rounded by scattered towns, fortresses and rural farmsteads (Herr 1997I: 170).
Jerusalem and Rabbat-Ammon were the undisputed urban, religious, economic,
political, and cultural centers in both kingdoms.
2. Development of the peripheral areas in the second half of the seventh cen-
tury BCE: The eastern and southern border areas of the kingdom of Judah, partic-
ularly the Beersheba-Arad Valleys (Naʾaman 1987b: 4–15; Finkelstein 1992b: 161;
Beit-Arieh 1999b: 1–3; Lipschits 2005), the Jordan Valley, and the western littorals
of the Dead-Sea (Naʾaman 1991b: 42; Stern 1993: 192–197; 2001: 134–138; Lipschits
2000) were integrated into the Assyrian and international commercial system and
flourished both demographically and economically.16 Also the close periphery –
the northern part of the Judaean hills south of Jerusalem, the Shephelah to the
west side of Jerusalem and the region of Benjamin to the north – flourished
during this period (Lipschits 2003: 346–355). One may assume that a similar situa-
tion occurred in Ammon. This is the period when most of the small sites, as well
as the urban, administrative, and economic centers in the Jordan Valley, the Baqʿa
Valley and the Madaba plains were established.

16 I accept the arguments of Singer-Avitz (1999) that the beginning of prosperity in the Beersheba-
Arad valleys occurred by the eighth century BCE.
206 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

3. The Babylonian destruction of the fortified cities near the kingdom’s border
and on the main roads to the capital: The destruction of the fortified cities in the
Shephelah in the early sixth century BCE may be seen as opening the door to the
heart of the kingdom of Judah by the Babylonian army. The conquest of these
cities was essential for the army’s thrust into the mountain region; control of this
area and the major supply routes that connect the coast with the mountain ridge
were necessary for the continued siege of Jerusalem. The same military logic
might be seen in the suggested Babylonian destruction of the main sites on the
north-western border of the kingdom of Ammon (Tall Mazār and Tall as-Saʿīdīya)
and perhaps also along the main road to Rabbat-Ammon.
4. Destruction of the capital city: Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians
and the city was emptied of most of its population (Lipschits 2001a: 132–134; 2003:
326–334). The city was left in ruins and abandoned during the entire Babylonian
period, and was wretchedly poor even after it was resettled during the Persian
period and became an important urban center again only during the Hellenistic
period (Lipschits 2001a: 135; 2003: 331–334).
The fate of Rabbat-Ammon is not clear, but due to its centrality, one should
not reject the possibility that this was also the city’s fate in 582/581 BCE, and like
Jerusalem, the Babylonians did not permit the existence of the capital and the
political leadership that had led the rebellious small kingdom. If the destruction
of the sites in the Jordan Valley was the result of a Babylonian military expedition,
it reinforces Josephus’ description of the Babylonian expedition against Ammon
and Moab in 582/581 BCE. In this case Baʿalyašaʿ (or Baʿalyišaʿ) was the last king
of Ammon, and after the Babylonian conquest of the kingdom they turned it into
a province. However, this historical reconstruction is only one possibility, and we
should remember that, apart from the analogy to the process in Judah, there
is no archaeological or historical indication for it. One can still accept Herr’s
reconstruction: “the Babylonians did not remove Ammonite royalty as a result of
the rebellion in 582 BCE. Instead, it is assumed that Baalyasha was retained by
Babylon as a subject king” (2000: 16).
5. Establishment of a new capital in a local center not far from the old capital:
It is likely that during the siege of Jerusalem, the Babylonians established a new
capital in the region of Benjamin only a few kilometers north of Jerusalem. Miz-
pah’s status was changed from a Judaean border town, very well organized and
fortified, into the capital of the new province. Most of the city’s houses were
leveled and, inside the city walls, storage and administrative buildings, along with
a few residential complexes (a few in “open court building” [Mesopotamian style],
and a few in “four-room type” [Judaean style]) of a much higher quality than in
the previous strata were built (Zorn 2003, with further literature).
With the current lack of historical and archaeological data, it is not possible
to reconstruct the Babylonian policy in Ammon. But the similarity between the
 Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province 207

processes at Tall al-ʿUmayri and Tell en-Naṣbeh is striking. Before 582/581 BCE,
ʿUmayri served as a local administrative center, or as one of the bigger and more
important sites in the region south of Rabbat-Ammon (together with Hisbān).
Around 580 BCE, after the Babylonian campaign against Ammon and under Baby-
lonian rule, ʿUmayri became an important administrative and economic center,
similar to Mizpah. “The settlement of IP 8 was thus most likely made up of Am-
monite royal administrative structures and houses of the officials and their imme-
diate support personnel (servants)” (Herr 2000: 16). Moreover, the size of the
settlement in ʿUmayri diminished, and a major construction project occurred at
the western edge of the acropolis. “The settlement, even at its smallest size, seems
now to have taken on a highly specialized social (political) function reflecting the
activities of a centralized government” (Herr 1991: 12–13). In addition, at ʿUmayri,
there is the possibility that the population was vacated, as part of the process of
turning the site into an administrative center. Just as at Mizpah, there is at least
one seal in Neo-Babylonian style at ʿUmayri (Herr 1999: 231), a reflection of the
Babylonian influence on this administrative center, if not to an actual presence
at the site.17 One can also compare the many seals and seal-impressions found in
ʿUmayri, dated to the sixth century BCE, With the seal impressions at Mizpah (the
m(w)ṣh seal impressions) and Gibeon (the gbʿn gdr seal impressions), also dated
to the sixth century BCE, reflecting the organized economic and administrative
activity in the province (Lipschits 1999b: 178–183).
6. Continued development of the rural areas under Babylonian rule: In contrast
to the destiny of the capital and the collapse of the peripheral areas, the rural
area of Benjamin, as well as the area south of Jerusalem – around Bethlehem,
Tekoa, and as far as Beth-Zur in the south – continued to develop during the
Babylonian period. Many small villages and farms arose around the new adminis-
trative and economic centers (Mizpah and Gibeon), and numerous wine presses
and other agricultural installations were discovered in the area (most of them
continuing in existence from the seventh century BCE). It seems that the Babyloni-
an interest was to preserve the rural settlements in those areas to obtain wine,
olive oil, grain, and other agriculture products, as well as to gain stability in the
region (Lipschits 1999b; 1999c: 481–482; 2003: 346–351).
One can compare this settlement and demographic process with those that
occurred around ʿUmayri and Hisbān, and especially the many farms and small
villages, characterized by numerous wine presses and other agricultural installa-
tions. The continuity of the material culture makes it difficult to date these finds,

17 Compare this with the abundance of Babylonian material at Tell en-Naṣbeh (Zorn 2003: 433–
440).
208 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

especially in terms of survey and the excavation of the small sites.18 The analogy
of the settlement processes in the Jordan Valley, the Judaean desert, and the
Beersheba-Arad valleys in the seventh century BCE is an argument in favor of
dating the establishment and prosperity of the many small sites south of Rabbat-
Ammon to the same time, along with sites in the Baqʿa Valley and in the Jordan
Valley (around Tall Mazār, Tall as-Saʿīdīya, and Tall Nimrin). In the region of ʿUmay-
ri, just as in the region of Benjamin, there are no signs of destruction at the begin-
ning of the sixth century BCE. If anything, there was a slight intensification of
activity during the Babylonian period and into the Persian period (Herr 1997c: 16).
7. Production of wine for paying tribute: According to Jer. 40:10 the first order
of Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to the army officers who came to Mizpah after
the destruction of Jerusalem was: “gather wine and summer fruits and oil and
put it in your vessels.” Indeed, from the archaeological finds, mainly at Gibeon
and at the many farms and villages in the region of Benjamin, it seems that this
area was a very good source of wine and oil production. This is also the case
with the villages and farms around Tall al-ʿUmayri and Tall Hisbān, where one
of the major finds are winepresses and other agricultural installations (Herr
1995b: 123–125; 1999: 231–332; Ray 2001: 168). On the basis of these finds, as well
as the administrative function of the center at ʿUmayri itself, Herr hypothesized
that this complex was erected in order to produce, collect, and transport wine to
the Babylonians as tribute (Herr 1995b: 124–125; 1997b: 170; 1999: 232). From the
parallels between the two regions one can reconstruct an economic process orga-
nized by the Babylonians, who encouraged the development of these agricultural
areas, where the production of voluble products could have taken place. In both
Benjamin and the ʿUmayri − Hisbān area the specialized wine (and in Benjamin
also the oil) production was primarily controlled by the administration of the
province, and was probably used mainly for the paying of taxes.
8. Continuity of local pottery: Especially in the region of Benjamin, but probably
also in the northern part of the Judaean highlands, there was a marked continuity
in the production of local pottery from the end of the seventh to the middle of the
fifth centuries BCE. Also in Ammon, as well as in the territory of Edom, there is a
marked continuity in the local material culture from Iron Age II into the Persian
period (Herr 1997c: 16; 1997d; 1999: 227–228; Bienkowski 2001a: 270; Bienkowski and
van der Steen 2001: 23). In both cases, this would seem to be the best indication
for the continuity of the local population. It might also be emphasized that the
basic political organization and the unit of subsistence in both areas was probably
the tribe, not the state (Knauf 1992: 52; Bienkowski 2001a: 267).

18 See the critique on the historical and chronological conclusions of the survey of Benjamin in
Lipschits (1999b: 173; 2003: 349).
 Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province 209

9. Collapse of the peripheral areas during the last phase of the existence of the
kingdom after the destruction of the capital: The Babylonians did not have a policy
of developing and protecting the peripheral areas. Thus, many changes occurred,
especially in the regions bordering the semi-nomadic areas, apparently as a side
effect of the collapse of the central military and economic system after the de-
struction of Jerusalem and the infiltration of semi-nomadic groups into populated
areas. This might also have been the situation in the peripheral areas of the
kingdom of Ammon, especially in the eastern and southern areas.

Can We Define a System of Babylonian Rule and Exploitation

of Hilly Conquered Territories in the Southern Levant?

We know very little about Babylonian rule in the western part of the empire, the
imperial administration, nor the system of economical exploitation. Many schol-
ars claim continuity in the Assyrian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Persian provincial
system and their methods of rule in the west (Alt 1925a: 108–116; 1934: 317–321;
1935: 94–97; Avi-Yonah 1949: 17, 20; Noth 1954: 324; Stern 1982: 238–239; Hoglund
1992: 5–6; Naʾaman 1994a: 11; Lipschits 1999c: 470).
One can agree with Vanderhooft’s assumption, according to which, “the Baby-
lonians did not pursue a policy of systematic, bureaucratic economic exploitation
of conquered territories in the west” (1999: 112). However, if the reconstruction
suggested above, based on historical, demographic, and geopolitical processes in
Judah and, by analogy, Ammon during the sixth century BCE is correct, some
patterns in the Babylonian methods of ruling and exploitation of the hilly con-
quered territories in Ḫatti-Land can be understood as follows:
1. Focused attacks on the capitals of the small, revolting kingdoms (Ashkelon,
Jerusalem, Ekron, Gaza, Tyre, and perhaps Rabbat-Ammon).
2. The establishment of a new capital at a site not far from the ancient capital
and where government of the province was based on a local elite, with the
assistance and backup of the Babylonian administration and stationary forces.
3. The continued existence of the rural settlement in areas that could produce
agricultural products. It is assumed that rural settlement in the highland
areas became a place of specialized wine and oil production, used mainly
for paying the taxes and supplying the basic products for the Babylonian
administration and forces stationed in the area.
Was there a ‘Royal Estate’ at En-Gedi during
the Late Iron Age and the Persian Period?
En-Gedi as a ‘Royal Estate’ during the Hellenistic and Roman
Periods

The first survey of Tel Goren (Tell el-Jurn), identified as ancient En-Gedi, was
conducted in 1949, and a test excavation was thereafter carried out on the site
(Mazar 1949: 25–28). Additional surveys were conducted in the area by Aharoni
(1958: 27–45) and Naveh (1958: 1–14), followed by five seasons of excavation on
the tel between 1961–1965, under the supervision of B. Mazar, I. Dunayewski,
T. Dothan and E. Stern (Mazar 1986: 79–80; 1992: 1189). The later periods uncov-
ered at the site date to the Hellenistic period (Str. 3), the Early Roman period
(Str. 2) and the Late Roman period (Str. 1) (Mazar 1992: 1193–1197).
By combining the archaeological finds with the existing historical knowledge
of En-Gedi during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the site appears to have
served as a ‘royal estate’ for the Hasmonean Dynasty and later for King Herod
and the Roman Empire (before and after the destruction of Jerusalem and the
end of the Second Temple Period).1 The estate produced raw materials unique to
the area, including lumps of bitumen gathered or mined from the Dead Sea and
its vicinity (Mazar 1963: 12; Harel 1971: 76–77; Ilan 1971: 32–35; Rosenson 1990: 37–
43) and salt produced on-site (Mazar, Dothan and Dunayewski 1963: 12; Rosenson
1990: 30–36). The cultivation of cash-crops was also of high importance, given the
hot weather prevailing in the area and the relative abundance of fresh water.
The climatic conditions enabled the early ripening of crops common in Israel,
thus granting local inhabitants a considerable economic advantage (Mazar 1963:
6–11; Porat 1985: 133–141). These conditions also aided in the cultivation of unique
crops originating from subtropical climate zones, including perfume and medici-
nal plants.2 The date palm was also of great significance (Porat 1985: 136–137):

1 The term ‘royal estate’ refers to lands that were directly owned by the ruling power, whether
by acquisition, conquest or expropriation of the property from its legal owner. Most ‘royal estates’
have deep roots in the history of the land. On the continuity of existence of ‘royal estates’ in the
Jezreel Valley, see Naʾaman 1981: 140–144, and further literature therein. On the historical back-
ground of the ‘King’s Lands’ organization in the Hellenistic period, see Schalit 1960: 135; Tcheri-
kover 1961: 62–64, 125; Hengel 1974: 56–57. On the ‘King’s Lands’ during the Roman period, see
Schalit 1962: 70–71, 135; Stern 1982: 14; Smallwood 1976: 340. On the ‘King’s Lands’ following the
destruction of the Second Temple, see Isaac 1986: 91, and note 16.
2 The ‫ר‬ (kōp̱er) plant, is mentioned in Song 1:14, 4:13 and in Sheviʿit tractate 7:6. Apparently,
the reference is to Ḥenna, Lawsonia alba, which is used for medicinal and cosmetic purposes

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-012
212 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

Apart from its fruit, which was likely a breed of dry dates (Ayalon 1987a: 35–36),
the palm tree was also used for construction purposes and its leaves and fibers
for the production of baskets, mats and ropes (Mazar 1963: 11–12; Mazar, Dothan
and Dunayewski 1963: 12; Mazar and Dunayewski 1964: 146–149; 1966: 183–190,
and Fig. 1; Avitsur 1976: 157–166; Ayalon 1987b: 36–72; Rosenson 1987: 94–104).

Was there a ‘Royal Estate’ at En-Gedi during the Late Iron

Age and Persian Period?

Excavations of Strata IV–V at Tel Goren present a settlement based around indus-
trial agriculture active from the late Iron Age to the Persian period. It can be
assumed that the products typical to the En-Gedi area were already produced
during these periods and that the uniqueness of the place – as well as its econom-
ic potential – did not elude the attention of the last kings of Judah and the rulers
of the Babylonian and Persian empires. Evidence for this is the large quantity of
jar handles stamped with rosette seal impressions from Stratum V and various
types of the yhwd stamp impressions from Stratum IV (Mazar 1992: 1191–1193). It
should also be taken into account that a settlement of such economic significance,
located in a relatively remote and isolated area can only exist and develop under
the auspices of a centralized government (Mazar 1963: 11; Stager 1976: 145–158;
Stern 1993: 195–196). Such oversight was mostly required for investment in the
construction of agricultural terraces and irrigation systems, which were used for
water utilization and necessary for the agricultural and industrial development
of the region. Equally important was the protection of not only the settlement
and its surroundings but also the trade routes to the urban centers in the high-
lands and the ports on the coastal plain. In light of this, it is possible to hypothe-
size that from its establishment, the settlement at Tel Goren held the status of a
‘royal estate’3 – an hypothesis that is reinforced by the archaeological evidence.

(dying fingernails, hands, hair, etc.; see Zohary 1962: 230–231; Mazar 1963: 12; Mazar, Dothan and
Dunayewski 1963: 13, and n. 25; Avitsur 1976: 182–183). In Greek and Latin, the persimmon is
named βάλσαμον/balsamum (balsam), while it has additional Hebrew names such as nataf, tzori
and kataf. It is apparently to be identified as Commiphora opobalsamum, which today grows in
the region of Mecca. The importance of the persimmon plant is evident in the writings of Plinius
(Naturalis Historia, XII, 113), who stated that during the occupation of Judaea by the Romans,
“The Jews vented out their wrath upon this plant…but the Romans protected it against them. On
the mentions of the persimmon in the primary sources of the period, and on its cultivation,
harvest and marketing, see Patrich 1997: 139–148; Porat 1985: 138–140, as well as Felix 1957: 256;
1982b: 432; Mazar 1963: 12–13; Avitsur 1976: 182–183; Patrich and Arubas 1989: 321–329.
3 For assumptions regarding the state initiative for the foundation of the settlement in En-Gedi,
see Mazar 1963: 12–14; Stern 1993: 195–196. For more explicit assumptions concerning the status
 Was there a ‘Royal Estate’ at En-Gedi? 213

The Characteristics and Status of the Late Iron Age

Settlement in En-Gedi

The beginning of the settlement at Tel Goren (Stratum V) should most likely be
dated to the middle of the seventh century BCE (Mazar 1986: 79).4 Prominent
features of this stratum include buildings constructed in a uniform plan (a court-
yard with two adjacent rooms to its side), industrial installations (mostly cooking
ovens and large clay barrels), pottery vessels (mostly for storing liquids) and a
variety of special finds, including weights, lumps of bitumen, and an iron mortar
(Mazar 1992: 1191–1192). Such finds are evident of an industrial site producing
oils and perfumes and exploiting the raw materials abundant in the area (Mazar
1992: 1191–1192; Mazar, Dothan and Dunayewski 1963: 24–58; Mazar and Dunayew-
ski 1964: 145–147).
From an archaeological standpoint, one cannot determine with certainty the
date in which the Iron Age settlement in the site was destroyed. However, it is
not impossible that En-Gedi settlement activity continued under Babylonian rule
following the destruction of Jerusalem (Mazar 1963: 5; 1986: 83–84). Support for
this can be found in 2 Kings 25:12 (see also Jer 39:10; 52:16), which reads: “But the
captain of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to be vinedressers
and fieldworkers”. The title ‘fieldworker’ (Heb. ‫ )יוגב‬appears in the Hebrew Bible
only in this instance, and its meaning has been debated both by the sages and
modern researchers (Rosenson 1991: 47–49). The title ‘vinedresser’ (Heb. ‫)כורם‬
appears three more times (Isa 61:5; Joel 1:11; 2 Chron 26:10), where it pertains to
a farmer owning vineyards or olive groves (Graham 1984: 56; Rosenson 1991: 47).

of En-Gedi as a ‘royal estate’ during the late First Temple period, see Mettinger 1971: 97 and
references in n. 42. For a summary of the term ‘royal estate’ during the biblical period, see
Mettinger 1971: 80–101 (esp. pp. 98–101). For additional summaries, see Lahav 1968: 207–245; De
Vaux 1969: 136–138. It should be noted regarding the last three references that the writing of the
descriptions in Deuteronomistic literature is currently dated to late First Temple period, the
period of the Babylonian exile and the Restoration period – which should be taken into account
when discussing the historical background of the rise of ‘royal estates’. For more general summa-
ries on the rise of the ‘estates’ in the second half of the eighth century BCE in Judah, see Bradtke
1971: 235–254; Premanth 1988: 49–60.
4 Cf. Aharoni (1962b: 272), who argued for dating the foundation of the settlement in En-Gedi to
an earlier period, the late eighth century BCE. Barkay (1985a: 197–200; 1995: 41–47) reinforced
this opinion due to the lmlk and other stamp impressions found at the site. Contrary to Barkay,
see the dating of this type of lmlk stamp impressions in Mazar, Amit and Ilan (1983: 247–248).
Support for the later dating is also found with the foundation of the Israelite citadel above the
tel (Mitzpe En-Gedi), which was also dated to the second half of the seventh century BCE (Ofer
and Meshel 1986: 30; Amit 1992: 361, note 15).
214 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

However, in Baraita (Shab. 26a), it is said: “… to vinedressers, Rav Yosef taught:

these poorest of the land were the balsam collectors in the south of Eretz Yisrael,
in the expanse from En-Gedi to Ramata”. Although Klein (1939: 9) claimed that
these passages in Baraita refer to the Second Temple period, this information
should be combined with another tradition (Keritot 5b; Sotah 8, 3), according to
which Josiah hid the anointing oil and, from this time onward, the kings were
anointed with persimmon oil (Mazar 1963: 12–13). In light of these traditions, it is
possible to assume that following the destruction of Jerusalem, the Babylonians
permitted the persimmon oil industry in En-Gedi to continue, most likely due to it
being an expensive and profitable luxury product for the empire’s foreign trade.
Simultaneously and for similar reasons, the Babylonians also permitted the exis-
tence of the oil and wine industry, which was beneficial for the Babylonian forces
encamped in the region. By combining the data from the archaeological surveys
with the (scant) historical data available on this period, this industry seems to
have been active mostly in the region of Benjamin and perhaps in the surround-
ings of Bethlehem (Lipschits 1997b: 140–170, 203–245; 1998: 16–24; 1999a).
The archaeological surveys conducted in the Judaean Desert and along the
western shores of the Dead Sea strengthens the conclusions derived from the
excavations of Tel Goren Stratum V.5 These surveys show the existence of a main
road connecting En-Gedi to the settlement centers in the highlands (Lipschits
2005: 235, Map 10). Approximately twenty sites existed during the late Iron Age
along this road. Most of these sites can be labeled as encampment sites, but
several are defined as citadels, situated in strategic locations. From analyzing this
site distribution, the main road to En-Gedi appears to descend from Tekoa to the
direction of Rujm en-Naqa and Nahal Arugot (Amit 1992: 345–362). Thirteen sites
are known to have existed along this road during the later phases of the Iron II
(Lipschits 2000, sites 38, 40, 46, 49–51, and 53–59 in Table 1 and see there, Fig. 2).
A section of the road descended through Wadi Ḥaṣṣaṣon, along which four sites
are known to have existed during this period (Lipschits 2000, sites 41–44 in Ta-
ble 1, and see there, Fig. 2).6 Another road connected these two roads and the
longitudinal road that crossed into the Horkania Valley and Jericho. There were
three sites along these roads that existed during the late Iron Age (Lipschits 2000,
sites 45, 47, 48 in Table 1, and see there, Fig. 2). The existence of this road during
the late Iron Age and the abundance of sites established along it support the

5 The significant, comprehensive survey in this area was conducted by Bar-Adon (1972: 92–152)
as part of the “emergency survey”. On the additional sites discovered, mostly during later sur-
veys, see Cross and Milik 1956: 5–17; Eitan 1983: 43–44; Mazar, Amit and Ilan 1983: 36–50; Stager
1976: 145–158; Ofer and Meshel 1986: 30; Sion 1995: 80–81.
6 Cf. to Lipschits 2005: 235–236.
 Was there a ‘Royal Estate’ at En-Gedi? 215

assumption of En-Gedi’s importance during this period as an industrial and agri-

cultural hub.
Further reinforcement of the importance of the region can be found in the
accelerated development in Jericho and its environs during this period (Stern
1993: 192, with further literature in note 6). During the seventh century BCE, the
settlement in Tell es-Sultan (ancient Jericho) grew and expanded, while its close
environs saw extensive developments in agricultural activity through the estab-
lishment of irrigation systems, farmsteads and the construction of forths (Avi-
Yonah 1962: 119; Magen 1983: 57). Seven sites that date to this period were identi-
fied in the archaeological surveys, established no farther than 3 kilometers from
the tel.7 Many sites were also established along the five main roads leading to
this area from the highlands, the Judaean Desert and the Dead Sea (Lipschits
2000: 33, Fig. 1): From the northwest, a road ran down to Jericho from Mt. Baʿal
Ḥaṣor. There were six Iron II sites located along the upper part of this road, in
the northeastern part of the region of Benjamin (Lipschits 1997b: 226–245; 2005:
245–249). Eighteen additional sites existed along this road, surveyed in the Judae-
an Desert, the Jericho Valley survey (Bar-Adon 1972: 111–113) and following sur-
veys (Mazar, Amit and Ilan 1983: 236–250). Two other roads descended towards
Jericho from the west. One started from Bethel and Ai and the other from Rama
and Michmash, with parallel trajectories. Approximately twenty-five Iron II sites
are known along these roads (Lipschits 1997b: 282–299; 2000: 35, and Table 1;
2005: 234–235). From the south-southwest, a road descended to Jericho from the
Bethlehem – Tekoa region, through the Horkania Valley. Seventeen Iron II sites
were surveyed along this road (Lipschits 1997b: 282–299; 2000: 35, and Table 1;
2005: 234–235, Map 10, and n. 184). Another road led to Jericho from the south,
along the western littoral of the Dead Sea, connected Jericho and En-Gedi. About
fifteen Iron II sites – designated as encampments and citadels – were surveyed
along this road (Lipschits 1997b: 317–322; 2000: 35, and Table 1; 2005: 234–235, and
Map 10).
The existence of an industrial and agricultural center in Jericho bearing simi-
larities to its counterpart in En-Gedi attests to the economic significance attribut-
ed to this area in the late Iron Age. It is likely that the agricultural and industrial
produce from both sites was in demand in Judah itself, and it is possible that
some of the produce was exported through the coastal cities.
Apart from the economic aspect, another aspect should be emphasized: The
establishment of the settlement array in this region also served the military, secu-
rity and strategic interests of the kingdom, following the loosening of Assyrian

7 Stern 1993: 192–197; see also Lipschits 2000, sites 1–7 in Table 1 and Fig. 2.
216 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

control in the area, especially against the kingdoms of Transjordan (Stern 1993:
196). The fact that the array of citadels in both the Beersheva – Arad valleys was
reinforced during the same period (Naʾaman 1989b: 61–62; Beit-Arieh 1995: 310–
315; 1996: 28–36) can confirm this conclusion regarding the development of the
southern and eastern frontiers in order to strengthen and protect the borders of
the kingdom.
The existence of important production centers in Jericho and En-Gedi en-
abled the existence of a whole array of settlements in the Judaean Desert, the
Jordan Valley and along the western littoral of the Dead Sea. Some of these sites
are tied to the state apparatus (citadels and perhaps some of the encampment
sites), and they were established in order to safeguard the roads and maintain
the security required for the area’s prosperity. However, it is likely that most of
the small sites were founded by those who were able to profit from this new
situation in the area – the safety conditions, the movement of convoys and the
trade of valuable luxury goods.
In light of the characteristics of the sites at En-Gedi and Jericho as well as
the growth of the settlement array around them and along the roads connecting
them to the highlands, two possibilities may be offered regarding the status of
the area: First, the production centers were not controlled directly by the king
but rather developed with the encouragement of the administrative system, while
the king enjoyed a portion of their profits through taxation (Mettinger 1971: 97);
second, the production centers were originally established under royal decree as
‘royal estates’ and were controlled by the king. The status of the region during
the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods may support the second possibility.
With the destruction of both main and central settlements, whether at the
same time as the destruction of Jerusalem or later in the sixth century BCE, the
entire settlement array collapsed. It is possible to assume that the collapse was
gradual, but in light of the scale of destruction, a planned military attack on the
settlements in the Judaean Desert, Jordan Valley and along the Dead Sea is also
a possibility. Such a campaign could have been carried out by the Babylonian
army or by the various auxiliary forces sent to the area, such as those active in
the suppression of Jehoiakim’s rebellion (2 Kings 24:2).

The Persian-Period Settlement at En-Gedi:

Was It a ‘Royal Estate’?

The excavators of Tel Goren dated Stratum IV to the Persian period. Mazar (1986:
86) dated the foundation of the structures assigned to this stratum to the first
half of the fifth century BCE, whereas Stern (1973: 42) proposed an earlier date,
 Was there a ‘Royal Estate’ at En-Gedi? 217

at the end of the sixth century BCE, based on a sherd of Eastern Greek pottery
and a sherd of a local imitation of the same vessel, unearthed at the site. During
the third and fourth seasons of excavation at Tel Goren, segmented remains of
buildings were uncovered on the southern slope of the site, while the remains of
pools were uncovered in the western slope. Both areas yielded very rich finds,
including stampl impressions, typical Persian-period pottery and imported Attic
ware (Mazar, Dothan and Dunayewski 1963: 59, and Pls. 4:2, 5:2, 7:1–2; Mazar and
Dunayewski 1966: 187–188; Mazar 1992: 1192–1193). During the fifth season, the
excavation focused on the northern slope of the tel, where the main structure of
Stratum IV was uncovered (Building 234). The building is very large (approx.
550 sqm) and includes 23 rooms, courtyards, storage spaces and towers. It is divid-
ed into three wings (western, eastern and northern), some of which were two
stories high. It seems that it developed gradually over a long period due to func-
tional needs rather than according to a master plan, and from its plan and the
findings uncovered within it, the building appears to be industrial in nature (Ma-
zar and Dunayweski 1964: 146–149; 1966: 183–190; Stern 1973: 42). Apparently, this
is why no buildings of a similar plan are known from the region.
Excavations from around the building showed that, during this period, the
settlement occupied the entirety of the upper tel and even expanded beyond it
(Mazar 1986: 86). Furthermore, the plan of the entire settlement became clear:
Additional structures were built around Building 234, with only narrow alleys
separating the different buildings (Mazar 1986: 86). It is safe to assume that much
like the main structure, the settlement as a whole developed gradually due to
functional needs rather than having been planned in advance (Mazar and Duna-
yewski 1964: 146–149; 1966: 183–190, and Fig. 1). The site was destroyed either in
the late fifth or during the early fourth century BCE. Following the destruction,
the western wing of Building 234 was restored (Mazar and Dunayewski 1966: 188–
189; Mazar 1986: 86–88), while a relatively meager settlement continued to exist
in the site until the mid-fourth century BCE (Mazar 1992: 1193).
The industrial complex at Tel Goren and the settlement around it are unique
among the architectural finds of Persian-period Yehud and in particular in the
Jordan Valley and the area of the Dead Sea.8 The few sites that existed during the
Persian period in these areas are rather poor and show little to no construction
remains. The only buildings uncovered may be interpreted as citadels or Persian
governing and administrative centers.9 Against this background, it may be as-

8 The archaeological finds at Tell es-Sultan dated to the Persian-period are scarce in comparison
to those at En-Gedi (Stern 1973: 40; 1993: 196, note 6). Therefore, it may be assumed that a small
and scattered agricultural site existed also in Jericho during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE.
9 For discussion of the characteristics of architecture in the province of Judah and their signifi-
cance, see Lipschits 1997b: 190–195.
218 Part B: Judah and Its Surroundings under Babylonian Rule

sumed that the settlement at En-Gedi was initiated by the Persians out of econom-
ic interests in the region. Support for this assumption may be found in the results
from the survey, which showed that unlike the Iron Age II, no settlement existed
in the entire area between En-Gedi and Jericho during the Persian period (Lip-
schits 2000: 37, Table 2, and Fig. 3). In light of this, it is possible to assume that
the Persians saw no need to establish a network of citadels in the Jordan Valley
like those in the highlands (Hoglund 1992: 86–154). The borders of the province
of Judah were relatively stable, and no threat was posed from Transjordan, at
least until the formation of the Nabataean kingdom in the second century BCE.10
The results of the archaeological surveys conducted in Transjordan support this
proposal (Finkelstein 1996: 244–251).
The complete absence of encampment sites and citadels in the Judaean
Desert, the Jordan Valley and along the western littoral of the Dead Sea indicates
that the local population did not participate in the transportation or trade of the
locally produced goods. It seems that the restoration of the settlement at En-Gedi
in the Persian priod was carried out by the rulers of the province. The relative
proximity of the site to the highlands allowed for concentrated transportation of
the En-Gedi luxurious produce to the power centers without the need for interme-
diate stops and without enabling the local population to participate in the trade.
It seems reasonable that the majority of the produce could have been exported,
perhaps via the coastal cities, or moved to the centers of imperial government.
In light of this, Persian-period En-Gedi may be seen as a ‘royal estate’ subject to
the Persian provincial administration.11

Summary

In the history of the land of Israel, there are many known examples for continuity
in territorial borderlands as well as in the status attributed to certain areas over

10 Evident throughout the entire area between Jericho and En-Gedi are certain signs of settle-
ment recovery during the Hellenistic period and an unprecedented development occured during
the Roman period. The same conclusion can be also based on the results of the “emergency
survey” conducted by Bar-Adon (1972: 94). On the region of Jericho, see also Sion 1995: 80–81. On
the Nabataean formation in Transjordan and its significance, see Roche 1994: 35–46; Sapin 1996:
45–61.
11 On this topic, see also Hengel 1974: 22. Another ‘royal estate’, which most likely existed during
the Persian period, was in the area of Moza. This is indicated by 42 moza-type stamp impressions,
most of which (30) were found at Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah). It may be assumed that the status of
Moza (Roman Kolonya) during the Persian period was the basis for several traditions relating to
its status during the Second Temple period and following the destruction of Jerusalem. For a
summary discussion on this subject, with further literature, see Lipschits 1997b: 355–357.
 Was there a ‘Royal Estate’ at En-Gedi? 219

many centuries and despite frequent changes in the ruling authority. The case of
En-Gedi is one such example, and the source for the site’s status as a ‘royal estate’
during the Second Temple period is rooted in the final days of the kingdom of
Judah and the period of Persian rule.
Despite all this, the settlement pattern in and around En-Gedi was also dictat-
ed by other factors, including the security conditions in the immediate surround-
ings as well as governmental policies (local or imperial) regarding the inclusion
of the local population in the profits gained from production and transport. This
is how the difference between the ‘Judahite royal estate’ (or the settlement that
was founded with the encouragement of the royal house during the final days of
the First Temple period) and the Persian-period ‘royal estate’ should be inter-
preted.
Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian
Period
The Borders of the Province of Judah in the Persian Period and the Districts System.
Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective
Introduction

From the historical point of view, the 205 years between 539/538 and 333 BCE, the
so-called Persian period, constitute a well-defined phase. There is a clear starting
point – when Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon – and there is a defined end –
when the Persian empire fell into the hands of Alexander the Great’s army. The
dates were also significant in the history of the western provinces of the Assyrian
and Babylonian empires, along the Mediterranean coast and in the inland areas,
and mark the chronological borderlines of the period of Achaemenide rule of the
region. For Judah, the beginning of the Persian-Achaemenid period is marked by
the “Return to Zion” after 50 years of exile in Babylon. The history of Judah in this
period is marked by three major events: the return of Judahites from Babylon,
the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wall.
These events are rooted in biblical description, as well as in many historical
reconstructions of the history of Judah and the Judeans. Scholars have empha-
sized that the time when Judah and the Judeans were under Persian rule was the
single most important period in the development of Jewish thought and practice.
Bearing in mind the importance, uniqueness and many different processes
that took place during this period, and taking into account the many biblical texts
that were written and edited in Judah, probably as a part of spiritual, religious,
cultic, social and national developments and evolutions that transpired during
this 200-year period, I would like to raise three basic questions regarding the
understanding of the material culture of this period:
– Are there indications in the material culture of the changes that took place
in the transition from Babylonian to Persian-Achaemenid rule?
– Are there any reasons, from the archaeological perspective, to define the
200 years of the Persian-Achaemenid rule over Judah as a separate period?
– Can archaeological research identify sub-periods within the Persian period?

Most of these questions have never been raised in studies of Persian period
archaeology. The reason for this is that scholars who dealt with this period, partic-
ularly in Judah but also in the neighbouring provinces, had clear views of the
historical processes that the region experienced between the 6th and the 3rd cen-
turies BCE regarding (a) the nature of the “Exilic” and “Post-Exilic” periods; (b) the
“Empty Land” before the Persian period and the “Mass return” at the beginning
of this period; (c) the history of the land with its peak in the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah (even if it was reconstructed by some scholars as the time of Nehemiah
and Ezra, or only as the time of Nehemiah); and (d) the clear continuity from the

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-013
224 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

5th to the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE – the early Hellenistic period. It seems that
the reflection of this period in the different biblical descriptions, as much as this
reflection was understood as segmented, led scholars to basing their reconstruc-
tions on the biblical text, and to studying the Persian period in Judah with differ-
ent methods and standards from those accepted for other periods in the history
of the land.
In this essay I will present some answers to these questions as part of a
general new perspective on the archaeology of Persian-period Judah.1

What Do We Know About, and What Kind of Archaeological

Material Do We Have from the Persian Period in Judah?

Besides the new finds from Ramat Raḥel that will be discussed below, in most of
the sites in Judah there is no distinct stratum with a well-defined pottery assem-
blage from the Persian period. One of the best preserved Persian-period settle-
ments is that of Stratum IV at En-Gedi (Stern 2007: 193–270). The Persian period
settlement was dated by Mazar and Dunayevsky to the time between the end of
the 6th or the beginning of the 5th century and the end of the 5th or beginning
of the 4th century BCE, i.e., the early part of the Persian period (Mazar and
Dunayevsky 1966: 188–189; 1967: 137–138; Stern 1982: 38–39), but it is clear now,
at least from the study of the Attic pottery, that the settlement continued to exist
until the middle of the 4th century BCE (Stern 2007: 230). A remarkably rich find
has been attributed to this stratum, which includes seal impressions, local pottery
characteristic of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, and imported Attic vessels (Mazar
and Dunayevsky 1964a: 59, Pl. D: 2, E: 2, G: 1–2.).2
The vestiges of a small village, dated to the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, had
already been uncovered at Tell es-Sultan (Jericho) by Sellin and Watzinger. The
pottery finds consisted of imported Attic vessels and fragments of vessels decorat-
ed with wedge-shaped and reed impressions, and additional finds include 10 yhwd-
and one lion-stamped jar handles (Sellin and Watzinger 1913: 9–82, 147–148,
Fig. 186, Pl. 1, 3, 42).3 The excavations, conducted by Garstang (1930–1936), as in

1 A detailed discussion of the different sites in Judah in the Persian period, as well as a separate
study of the different aspects of the material culture in Judah in this period, are the subject of
an on-going study, to be published in the future.
2 New studies of the yhwd stamp impressions can support the continued existence of the site to
the 4th century BCE, and see below.
3 See the assessment made by Stern 1982: 38, as to the correct dating by Sellin and Watzinger
of pottery vessels of this period.
 Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 225

those by Kenyon (1952–1958), add only scant information about the Persian period
(Kenyon 1964a: 201). The major find uncovered in these excavations was the yhwd/
ʾwryw stamp impression (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007: 16–17). Following Stern
(1982a: 38), it should be assumed that a settlement existed at this site in the 5th
and 4th centuries BCE, but from the limited pottery assemblages it is hard to
garner much information about the characteristics of the pottery vessels of this
era in Judah.
Even in Jerusalem the main finds from the Persian period are scattered pot-
tery sherds and other small finds (especially stamp impressions) typical of this
period (Lipschits 2009b: 2–30). Regarding the Western Hill of Jerusalem, Avigad
concluded that the entire area had been abandoned between the end of the Iron
Age and the beginning of the Hellenistic period (Avigad (1983: 61–63) and cf. to
Geva (2000: 24; 2003a: 208; 2003b: 524).4 Only a few pottery sherds and other
small finds from the Persian period have been found, in most cases in unclear
stratigraphic landfills from the Hellenistic and especially the Roman period (Lip-
schits 2009b: 2–30, with detailed discussion and literature). It seems that, in the
City of David, the presumed narrow inhabited area of the Persian and early
Hellenistic periods was limited to the upper part of the hill, and most of the
excavated areas were outside it.5 However, even in areas within the limits of the
inhabited area, as in Macalister and Duncan’s excavations, just above and to the
west of Area G of Shiloh’s excavations, and E. Mazar’s excavations, many pottery
sherds from the Persian period as well as many stamp impressions were discov-
ered – but again, they were all part of a fill and with no clear stratigraphy or
architecture.6 It seems that the northern part of the City of David contains a
significant number of Persian-period finds in fills that probably originated from
the Ophel, just above this area to the north, and were laid before the late Hellenis-
tic and Roman periods.
In the publication of Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David, Stratum 9 was
dated to the Persian period, but it does not appear in all the excavated areas.7

4 This is the common view among scholars, and see, for instance, Kenyon 1967a: 188–255; Tsafrir
1977a: 36; Geva, Reich and Avigad 2000: 42; Shiloh 1984a: 23; Tushingham 1985: 85; Broshi and
Gibson 1994; Finkielstijn 1999: 28*; Lipschits 2005: 212–213; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a: 108–
112.
5 This includes Kenyon’s Areas A, F, O, W, K, N (not to mention Areas B, D, E along the eastern
slopes of the Western Hill), Shiloh’s Areas B, D, E and G, and Areas A and B excavated by Reich
and Shukron. See details in Lipschits 2009b: 12–13.
6 Lipschits 2009b: 12, and see there (pp. 12–15) a discussion on the different possibilities of
interpretations of the remains of “Nehemiah’s Wall.”
7 See Shiloh 1984a: Table 2. For details, see Lipschits 2009b: 15. Finds attributed to this stratum
appeared in Area D1, D2 and G. Shiloh’s finds from the Persian period were also partially repre-
sented in Area E1, and in the fills of Area H, to the east of the Siloam Pool, on the eastern slopes
226 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

According to De Groot (2001: 77; 2004: 15), the most significant finds from the
Persian period were excavated in Area E, where three different stages were at-
tributed to the Persian period Stratum 9. In the early stage (9c), dated to the end
of the 6th and first half of the 5th century BCE (De Groot 2001: 78; 2004: 15), there
is evidence of the reuse of a large Iron Age building that was destroyed along
with the rest of the city in 586 BCE (De Groot 2001: 77–78). A sloping level of
quarrying refuse was ascribed to the second stage (9b), dated to 5th century BCE.8
A few terrace walls and some floors with ovens were attributed to the third stage
(9a) of the Persian period.
There are pottery assemblages well dated to the Persian period at most of the
other sites in Judah, but these are mainly from pits and fills not in clear archaeo-
logical context. One of the most important of these Persian-period sites in Judah
is Tell en-Naṣbeh (Stratum I). A variety of finds from the Persian period were
excavated here,9 most of them in pits scattered across the site. Among these, there
are two pits that contained a more homogenous assemblage (Stern 1982: 31–32):
Pit 304, dated to between 600–450 BCE,10 and Pit 361, dated to the late 5th and
early 4th centuries BCE.11 Two additional pits, Pit 183, whose second stage was

of Mount Zion. Persian period sherds and seal impressions were discovered in Reich and Shuk-
ron’s Areas A and B, above the Kidron Valley, ca. 200–250 m south of the Gihon Spring, and see
Reich and Shukron 1998; 2007.
8 De Groot and Ariel have suggested dating this second phase to the reconstruction of the city
undertaken by Nehemiah in the middle of the 5th century BCE. See De Groot 2001: 78; 2004: 15;
2005: 82. The fact that the same level of quarrying refuse also appeared in Area D1, 500 m to the
south, and was dated to Stratum 9 (see Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59; Shiloh 1984a: 7; De
Groot 2001: 78), and that the quarrying activities above the eastern slope were documented in
the excavations by Bliss and Dickie (1898), Weill (1920), and in Area K of the City of David
excavations (see Ariel and Magness 1992), are clear indications of wide building activity during
the 5th century in Jerusalem.
9 Among the finds one can mention a bronze coin that Albright and Boyse dated to 406–393 BCE
(McCown 1947b: 229), and Bellinger fixed the date at the 5th and 4th centuries BCE (Stern 1982:
32); stamp impressions from various prototypes (including various yhwd stamp impressions);
and a fragment of an incense altar made of limestone. See McCown 1947b: 154–155, 164–172, 174,
227, 236–237, 259, 275, and Pl. 1: 102, 14: 56–57, 84, and cf. Stern 1982: 31–32; 2001: 432–433.
10 On the finds from this pit, see Wampler 1941: 31–36; McCown 1947b: 135. In the middle of this
pit an ostracon with six letters was discovered. The suggested dating offered by Albright and
Torrey is the 8th or 7th century BCE (in McCown 1947b: 31–32, n. 9), whereas Wampler tends to
date it to the 7th century BCE (Wampler 1941: 31). An additional find in this pit is an amphora
dated to 540–520 BCE, and two fragments of kylix dated to 490–420 BCE (Wampler 1941: 31).
11 On the finds in the second pit, see Wampler 1941: 36–43; McCown 1947b: 137. The few frag-
ments of Greek pottery found in this pit were dated to ca. 530 or 500 BCE (Stern, Material culture,
206). Additional finds include the mwṣh stamp impressions, and another stamp impression whose
content was not reported. See Wampler 1941: 36.
 Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 227

between 450–200 BCE (McCown 1947b: 132–133), and Pit 191, which contained finds
that were dated by the excavators to no later than the end of the 6th century BCE
(McCown 1947b: 133–134), also contained finds dated to the Persian period.12 Since
there are many Attic sherds of different types, dated to 540–420 BCE, and a bronze
coin, which is an imitation of an Athenian tetradrachma, dating to 406–393 BCE
(Stern 2001: 432), together with many yhwd stamp impressions of the middle type
(Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011), it seems that the site continued to exist through-
out the Persian period, but there was probably a long period of decline (Lipschits
1999b: 156–170). At Bethany, unlike at Mizpah, pottery vessels and seal impressions
dating to the Persian period were not associated with specific architectural el-
ements or with any archaeological context, and they were found mainly in the fill
level that was apparently created in the Middle Ages (Locus 65).13
Besides those mentioned above, the Persian period is hardly represented at
most other sites in Judah. At Beth-Zur no clear stratum from the Persian period
was uncovered or defined, and since the site is located on terraces, most of the
pottery vessels were found in unclear stratigraphic contexts (Sellers and Albright
1931: 4; Sellers 1933: 10, 32). In contrast to Sellers and Albright (1931: 8–9; cf. also
Sellers et al., 1968: 28, 54), who maintained that there was a gap between the 6th
and 2nd centuries BCE, P. W. Lapp dated the pottery vessels that were uncovered
at Reservoir 44 to the last quarter of the 6th century BCE (Lapp 1970: 185), and
this date was also established in the discussion by N. L. Lapp (1981: 86–87). Reich
(1992a) suggested that the citadel at Beth-Zur was the residence of a Persian-
period provincial governor. It is difficult to accept the hypothesis that settlement
at the site was renewed at the end of the 6th century BCE, and that the gap
between the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period is shorter than the
excavators had estimated, since it was based on a very small pottery assemblage
not represented in other areas of the site (Carter 1999: 154–155). At el-Jib (Gibeon),
too, there are indications of 6th century BCE activity (Stern 1982: 32–33; 2001: 433;
Lipschits 1999b: 287–291; cf. Edelman 2003: 157), but no typical Persian-period
pottery and no yhwd stamped handles were found (Lipschits and Vanderhooft
2011; Finkelstein 2008: 503). Pritchard claimed that at Gibeon there is “only scant
evidence of occupation from the end of the 6th century until the beginning of
the first century BCE” (Pritchard 1992: 513), but suggested that some kind of scat-
tered and sporadic settlement did exist there during the Persian and Hellenistic

12 Conspicuous among these finds are the fragments of Attic pottery vessels dated between 500
and 420 BCE, as well as a fragment of a Clazomenaen vessel dated ca. 540–530 BCE. See McCown
1947b: 175–179, 304, and tables 59–60.
13 On this subject see, e.g., the conclusions drawn by Saller 1957: 222, 237, and cf. the critique
by Barkay 1985b: 303.
228 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

periods (Pritchard 1962: 163). In the light of the actual finds, it seems that one
should accept Stern’s interpretation as evidence of 6th century BCE and possibly
early Persian-period activity (Stern 1982: 32–33; 2001: 433, cf. to Edelman 2003:
163–164; Lipschits 2005: 243–245). The site at Tell el-Fûl was also probably deserted
at the end of the 6th or at the beginning of the 5th century BCE (Lipschits 1999b:
177–178), and it remained desolate until the beginning of the Hellenistic period
(Lapp 1981: 39, 59).14 Bethel, or at least part of the site, probably continued to be
inhabited during the 6th century BCE (Stern 2001: 432), as indicated by a wedge-
shaped and reed-impressed sherd found at the site (Kelso et al. 1968: Pl. 67, 8), as
well as by a Babylonian seal bought from the villagers of Beitin (Kelso et al. 1968:
37; Stern 1982: 31). Kelso suggested that the town was destroyed in the second
half of the 6th century BCE (Kelso et al. 1968: 37, 38, and cf. Lipschits 1999b: 171–
172; Stern 2001: 432). No yhwd stamp impressions and no other clear evidence for
a Persian-period occupation level were found at Bethel, and the only possibility
is that a Persian-period settlement may have been located under the built-up area
of the village, near the spring, in the southern part of the site (Kelso et al. 1968:
38), but see, however, the claims of Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz that are contrary
to this explanation (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009: 42).
The conclusion to be drawn from this short survey is that the actual Persian-
period finds are meagre and that most are out of any archaeological context; they
can only be interpreted as evidence of minor settlements that had once been Iron
Age villages, some of them important urban centres. This conclusion is not a new
one; both Albright and Kenyon claimed that the archaeological data reflect the
cessation of town life in the Persian period and the concentration of the popula-
tion in villages.15 Aharoni and Kelso argued that during the Persian period private
houses had been built outside the defined areas of the towns that had existed
during the Iron Age, and this is why they were not found by the excavators
(Aharoni 1956: 108; 1964a: 120; Kelso et al. 1968: 38). Stern offered another explana-
tion, more appropriate to the sites where scattered Persian-period remains were
discovered (Stern 2001: 461–462). According to his scenario, the scarcity of Per-
sian-period building remains was not always a reflection of the actual situation.
Rather, he maintained, it was the outcome of incomplete archaeological data
caused by the fact that many sites were abandoned after the Persian period and
never resettled, which left the uppermost strata unprotected and exposed to dam-
age (mainly by erosion). In addition, one should add that at many sites, the Per-
sian-period occupation level was severely damaged by intensive Hellenistic/Ro-

14 Lapp connected the abandonment with the move of the residents to Jerusalem at the begin-
ning of the Persian period. On this subject see also Stern, Archaeology, 321–322.
15 Cf. to Kenyon 1979: 310–311.
 Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 229

man-period building activities; large palaces, forts or administrative buildings

were constructed on the mounds at some sites, with residential areas relegated
to the edges of the site, completely destroying the Persian-period remains.
In any case, from the archaeological material dated to the Persian period in
Judah, one clear conclusion should be stated: during the Persian period, as a
continuation of the Assyrian and Babylonian periods that preceded it, there is a
marked process of attenuation in urban life in Judah. This phenomenon stands
in contrast to the continuation of the rural settlements in the northern part of
the Judean Hills and in the region of Benjamin (Carter 1994; 1999: 137–166; Lip-
schits 1999b; 2003: 326–355; 2005: 240–261; Milevski 1996–1997) and in this rural
settlement the pottery and other finds from the Persian period can be located,
even if in a very small quantity and usually not in clean assemblages.

The Problem of Chronological Borderlines Around and Within

the Archaeology of the “Post-Exilic” Period

Leaving biblical material aside, are there clear lines separating the material cul-
tures of the 6th century BCE from that of the 5th and 4th centuries – lines that
differentiate the “Exilic” from the “Post-Exilic” periods, and that distinguish be-
tween the “Pre-Ezra-Nehemiah” and the “Post Ezra-Nehemiah” periods? It seems
to me that many of the archaeological studies of this period have been conscious-
ly or unconsciously affected by the biblical description.16 They have dealt with
this period as a distinctive period, because this is how it is described in the
book(s) of Ezra and Nehemiah. Based on this description, scholars described three
different phases in the Persian period:17
– The first generation of returnees that came in order to build the temple;
– The generation of Ezra and Nehemiah, who experienced Jerusalem spiritual-
ly, socially and morally, and built the walls of Jerusalem and repopulated the
city;
– The later part of the Persian period after Ezra and Nehemiah.18

16 See, e.g., the introduction to Stern’s archaeological summary of the Persian period in the
various provinces, which contains an introduction in which he reconstructs the history of this
period according to the description in Ezra-Nehemiah (Stern 2001: 353–356).
17 See e.g., Grabbe 2004: 263–349.
18 This period was usually ignored by scholars because it did not exist as a separate period in
the history of the Province of Yehud, and it was usually described as “late Persian,” or was even
combined with the late 4th and early 3rd centuries, and described as “the late Persian-early
Hellenistic period.”
230 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

However, no clear chronological foothold for any historical or archaeological as-

pect of the study of Judah in the Persian period has been found in or around the
200-year slot between 539 and 333 BCE. There is also no apparent indication of
any variation between this period and the preceding one (the so called “Babyloni-
an” or “Exilic period” of the 6th century BCE) nor with the subsequent period
(the early Hellenistic period in the late 4th and 3rd centuries BCE). This is a long
period with only minor and gradual changes in the material culture, with not
even one clear destruction level after 586 BCE that can be used as an archaeologi-
cal and chronological anchor and as a historical tool for reconstructing actual
events described in biblical and extra-biblical texts.
On one side of this period stands the Babylonian destruction of the early
6th century BCE. Even without the biblical description – and only on the basis
of the archaeological evidence – the archaeological research could easily have
reconstructed that the destruction levels, the demographic crisis and the changes
in many aspects of the material culture were all part of one crisis at the beginning
of the 6th century BCE (Lipschits 2005: 185–191). This destruction could easily
have been connected to the Babylonian empire and could be compared with
parallel processes in neighbouring areas such as Ammon and Ashkelon, where a
similar fate can be noted (Lipschits 2004a; Fantalkin 2011). Many fundamental
features of the material culture that developed over the hundreds of years pre-
ceding the 586 BCE event disappeared, the Judahite urban centres were destroyed,
and the settlement pattern was changed to a rural pattern, typical of Judah until
the 2nd century BCE (Lipschits 2011c).
There are only minor changes in the material culture at the end of the
6th century BCE, and the beginning of the post-Exilic period does not exist from
the archaeological point of view. No demographic change can be detected, no
change in settlement pattern, no change in administration or economy, no change
in pottery production or any other aspect of the material culture, probably aside
from a marked change in glyptic traditions and the disappearance of icons in
stamps used for stamping jar handles (Ornan 2010; Ornan and Lipschits 2020).
There are only small and gradual changes in all aspects of the material culture
(from script to pottery) that slowly brought new shapes and characteristics, and
created the “classic” Persian-period shapes and features that crystallized and
characterized the second half of the 5th and the early 4th centuries BCE (Lipschits
2011c, and see discussion below). Later, there are further slow and gradual
changes that created the so-called “late Persian-early Hellenistic” material culture
of the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BCE – again, with no one clear chronologi-
cal and historical foothold for the date of the change.
The outcome of this situation is that there are no clear archaeological, chron-
ological or historical anchors between the events of 586 and the 2nd cen-
tury BCE – both before and after the 200 year interlude of the Persian period.
 Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 231

The Problems with Historical Reconstructions based

on Archaeological Material from Persian-period Judah

The problematic nature of historical reconstructions of the Persian period based

on archaeology can best be understood when compared to historical reconstruc-
tions of the Iron Age IIB and IIC (between ca. 800 or 775 and 586 BCE), that is,
the final 200 years of the first temple period. During these 200 years there are
two well-dated destruction levels that split this period into two well-defined sub-
phases and give it a clear lower borderline. The Assyrian campaign of Sennacher-
ib in 701 BCE is a clear marker, defining the borderline between the material
culture of the late 8th century and that of the 7th century BCE. The Babylonian
campaign and the destruction levels dated to 586 BCE are a second clear marker
defining the border between the material culture of the 7th and that of the
6th centuries BCE. The 7th century is thus “trapped” between two well-defined
destructions and it is therefore quite simple to identify its characteristic material
culture. Based on these clear markers, archaeologists and historians could recon-
struct the processes of the gradual growth and emergence of the Kingdom of
Judah during the 8th century BCE, the destructive effects of the Assyrian cam-
paign in 701 BCE, and the processes of the kingdom’s recovery during the 7th cen-
tury BCE, whether that be the time of Kings Manasseh or Josiah (Lipschits, Sergi
and Koch 2011); scholars could also learn about the geopolitical changes and their
effects on the borders of the kingdom, and the many different cultural, religious
and historical processes that Judah underwent during the long period before the
Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.
In contrast with this clear archaeological situation of the late Iron Age, there
are no clear destruction levels or indications of sharp changes in Judah in a time
line of about 400 years between the early 6th century and the 2nd century BCE.
This fact, which was probably a calming factor for the people of Judah, is a
disturbance for modern archaeologists, because there is no clear foothold for the
archaeological material and finds, and the consequences are that there is no
baseline for clear dating within the Persian period, and no way to differentiate
between various periods or to make any sub-divisions during and around this
long period. From the archaeological perspective there is one long, continuing
process of development in the material culture dated to the Babylonian, Persian
and early Hellenistic periods, and this situation has a great effect on attempts to
reconstruct the history of these 400 years.
The conclusion of the above discussion is that any attempt to draw clear lines
between or within the “Babylonian,” “Persian” and “early Hellenistic” periods
was part of historical interpretation based on traditional understanding of the
biblical material; it was an attempt to separate the Exilic and Post-Exilic periods,
232 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

and within the Post-Exilic, an attempt to establish borderlines between the period
preceding and following Ezra and Nehemiah in the mid-5th century BCE.
The outcome of this situation is that historical and archaeological studies of
the Persian period – whether consciously or unconsciously – were originally
based on interpretations of the biblical material; the return from the Babylonian
exile and recovery of the land was seen as a quick or as a slow process, with the
Book of Ezra-Nehemiah cited as evidence for the peak of the Post-Exilic period in
the middle of the 5th century BCE, when Nehemiah served as a governor. In most
studies of the Persian period there are usually no reconstructions of the period
in the next 100 years or more after the middle of the 5th century BCE and until
the end of the 4th century BCE, unless they place the Ezra traditions in the early
4th century BCE and find clear and reliable historical sources in this description.19

New Finds from the Persian Period and the Marked

Continuity from the “Exilic Period” to the “Post-Exilic Period”
in the Archaeology of Judah

Recent finds and studies in the last few years have shed new light on the contin-
ued existence of the Judahite material culture from the 6th to the 5th and 4th cen-
turies BCE.20
The site of Ramat Raḥel provides a first hcase in point. The earliest building
level at Ramat Raḥel, dated to the late 8th, or better, to the early 7th century BCE,

19 For example, the updated, widely accepted, and very common and careful historical synthesis
of L. L. Grabbe, as stated in his 2004 book, A History of the Jews. After summarizing the archaeo-
logical material from the Persian period, and discussing all the historical and biblical sources,
Grabbe reconstructs a century-by-century history of Yehud. The early Persian period (the late
6th century BCE) is summarized as the period of the “return.” The edict of Cyrus, the first return
and the building of the Temple are the main events, and Sheshbazzar, Joshua and Zerubbabel
are the main historical characters. The relations between returnees and those who had remained
in the land are the main social and ideological issues of this period. Although other matters are
discussed, the central historical issue in Grabbe’s treatment of the 5th century concerns Nehemi-
ah and his activities (probably 445–433 BCE). The study of the latter is based on his understand-
ing of the “Nehemiah Memorial” and his characterization of the work as providing a “good deal
of usable information” (325). As Grabbe turns to a synthesis of the 4th century BCE, the centre of
attention is taken by Ezra and his activities. In contrast to his position concerning the “Nehemiah
Memorial,” Grabbe is very uncertain about the knowledge of the 4th century that we may draw
from the Ezra tradition (Ezra 7–10; Neh. 8). But this is his main source, and in addition, he seems
to indicate to his readers that the events surrounding Ezra in the 4th century played a central
role in the development of the concept of authoritative writings.
20 On this subject, see a detailed discussion in Lipschits 2011, with further literature.
 Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 233

was built as a Judahite administrative centre near Jerusalem at the time when
Judah was a vassal kingdom under Assyrian hegemony (Lipschits et al. 2011: 10–
14). It probably functioned as a collection centre for goods in kind, mainly agricul-
tural products such as wine and oil (Gadot and Lipschits 2008; Lipschits et al.
2011: 16–20), as indicated by the 225 lmlk stamped jar handles dated to this period
that were found there (Lipschits, Sergi and Koch 2010; 2011). In the second build-
ing phase, dated to the last third of the 7th and to the 6th centuries BCE, an
imposing edifice stood atop the mound (Lipschits et al. 2011: 20–34). It was one of
the most impressive structures in Judah, built of ashlar blocks, decorated with
volute (“proto-Aeolic”) capitals (Lipschits 2011a), with magnificent window balus-
trades, small limestone stepped, pyramid-shaped stones, and other stone orna-
ments. It was surrounded by a magnificent garden, well built on artificially flat-
tened bedrock, with large pools, tunnels, channels and other water installations
(Lipschits et al. 2011: 20–34).
There is no evidence of destruction at the beginning of the 6th century BCE,
or of a long occupational gap at the site. The imposing edifice and the magnificent
garden continued to exist in the 6th century BCE, and during the Persian period
the edifice was even expanded, when a rectangular addition was built on the
north-western side of the edifice complex, covering an area of about 600 m2
(about 20 × 30 m), surrounding the largest pool of the second building phase. It
appears that the new addition was not planned as an independent structure, but
rather that it was planned and built as a new wing added to the existing com-
plex – an expansion northward of the fortress tower that extends west of the
line of the palace. The building was constructed on a level lower than the tower,
and would have been as high as the tower, which explains a digging of foundation
trenches to an extensive depth, reaching to about 2.5 to 3 m, with an average
width of about 2.5 m. Inside the foundation trenches sturdy walls of the structure
were built, first as supporting walls against the inner rock face of the foundation
trench and then as a free-standing super-structure.
The sections of the walls preserved at the bottom of the foundation trenches
show a unique building technique, heretofore unknown in the region. In this
building technique, that could be called “half casting,” the large nari stones were
placed in front of the wall in high and equal courses. The face of the stone was
cut smoothly while the rest of the stone was turned toward the inside of the wall.
The mass of masonry inside of the wall turned into a strong, solid unit onto
which a grey bonding mixture, rich with ash and quick-lime, was poured, giving
it an unusual strength and the qualities of concrete casting. Thus far, only a
section of the floor has been uncovered. The floor, too, is unique in its construc-
tion; it is built on a thick coating of up to 15 cm of grey cement over an infrastruc-
ture of thick-cut nari slabs.
234 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

There is clear evidence for the date of this building phase – from the late 6th
to the late 4th centuries BCE, with two main sub-phases (Lipschits et al. 2011: 34–
37). The possible involvement of the central Achaemenid government may be
indicated by the intensive construction at the site and in the unusual creation of
the additional wing to the existing edifice, the style and strength of which are
unparalleled by any finds in the area in the same period (Lipschits et al. 2011: 34–
37).
In the south-eastern corner of the site, a huge pit was excavated that con-
tained hundreds of pottery vessels, among them more than 10 restorable jars,
some of them bearing stamp impressions from the early yhwd types, and some
with 6th-century “private” stamp impressions together with lion stamp impres-
sions on body sherds. These finds, together with hundreds of stamp impressions
on jar handles dated to the Persian and Hellenistic occupation periods at the site,
are the best indication that Ramat Raḥel was the main centre of the yhwd system
in which the jars circulated. This Persian-period system of stamping jar handles
continued the lmlk and rosette systems of stamped handles from the late Iron
Age and the lion stamped handles from the Babylonian period (Lipschits 2011c,
and see the discussion below).
The pottery in this pit indicates continuity between the 6th and the 5th centu-
ries BCE, and the fact that there was no clear and sharp change at the end of the
“Exilic period” and the beginning of the Persian period. On the contrary, the
pottery from this pit has proven the theory that characteristics of the well-known
local pottery assemblages dating to the end of the Iron Age and to the Persian
period exhibit continuity, and therefore attest to the existence of an unbroken
tradition of pottery production in Judah from the end of the 7th to the 5th and
4th centuries BCE (Lipschits 2005: 192–205, with further literature). The new pot-
tery assemblage from Ramat Raḥel is the only one thus far that clearly fills the
150-year gap between the well-known pottery assemblages from the late Iron Age
and the typical pottery assemblages from the Persian period, and thus supports
the (thus far only) theoretical assumption that the local traditions of pottery pro-
duction continued throughout the 6th century BCE (Lipschits 2011c). It includes
the store jars from the Persian period (Type A according to Stern 1982: 103, and
cf. to Lipschits 2005: 199), and exhibits the features of those jars’ characteristic of
the end of the Iron Age in Judah (known also as “rosette jars”). The fact that
exactly this type of jar was recently discovered at Ramat Raḥel with 6th-century
“private” and lion stamp impressions on the body of the jars, with the same type
of jars bearing the early types of yhwd stamp impressions on their handles, all
of them very similar in shape and proportion to the “rosette jars” from the late
Iron Age, is a clear indication that jars of this kind continued to appear in Judah
in the 6th century BCE, continued to be produced at the end of the 6th and during
 Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 235

the early 5th century BCE, and later, during the 5th–4th centuries BCE developed
into the “classic” Persian-period jars (Types B and C, according to Stern 1982: 103–
104). On many of the handles of these jars, middle and late types of yhwd stamp
impressions were discovered.
This is also the case with many other pottery vessels from the Persian peri-
od that continued to be produced from the late Iron Age into the 6th and early
5th centuries BCE. During the 5th century BCE they began to demonstrate new
features in terms of shape, processing technique and material, probably as a
result of influences of internal slow and gradual developments, interaction with
both neighbouring regions and cultures, as well as with the cultures of the Baby-
lonian and Persian empires, and later on with the Hellenistic civilization. The
characteristics common to almost all of the Persian-period vessels (thickened,
everted rim, trumpet base or raised disc base, globular sack-shaped body, and
raised or “suspended” handles, and see Lipschits 2005: 192–206), appear only in
the 5th century BCE.
In the southern part of the late Iron Age garden, a layer of destruction debris
was exposed that had sealed a pottery assemblage of three restorable jars, a jug
and some other pottery vessels on the floor. This assemblage shows that the build-
ing was destroyed and abandoned in the late Persian period (4th century BCE),
thus supplying a small but clear and well-dated late Persian-early Hellenistic pot-
tery assemblage that supplements the one from the Babylonian and early Persian
assemblages.
These new pottery assemblages from Ramat Raḥel complete our knowledge
of Persian-period pottery from the chronological as well as from the typological
perspective. There is a clear developmental process from the early Persian period
of the late 6th and early 5th centuries BCE to the “classic” Persian pottery of the
mid-5th century BCE and further to the well-known “late Persian-early Hellenis-
tic” pottery of the 4th century BCE. The fact that these pottery assemblages come
along with well-dated and sorted stamped jar handles can base the dates of these
pottery groups and make it easier to identify them in other sites, even small and
rural sites, that contain only small amounts of pottery from the Persian period.
This is the basis for a better dating of the different sites, as well as for the creation
of better periodical maps of sites dated to the different parts of the Persian pe-
riod.

A New Chronological Tool for Studying the Persian Period:

The Stamped Jar Handles

In recent years a new archaeological tool for dating Persian-period strata and
finds was developed: the stamp impressions on jar handles. This new archaeologi-
236 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

cal tool is not only a key to dating different chronological stages between the 6th
and the 2nd centuries BCE, but it is also a major tool for understanding the
economic and administrative mechanisms of these periods. It even demonstrates
the different aspects of continuity from the late Iron Age to the Hellenistic period.
The many different types of yhwd stamp impressions, usually stamped on jar
handles, were well grouped and sorted (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007; Lipschits
and Vanderhooft 2011), and the new addition of the lion stamp impressions on
the same type of jars as the late Iron Age rosette and the early Persian period
yhwd stamp impressions is not only a clear reflection of the continuity, but also
a clear indication of the chronological order and the dates of each group.
Ramat Raḥel is the key site for this phenomenon, and over 750 Iron Age,
Babylonian and Persian period stamped jar handles have been excavated at the
site. Over 300 stamped handles from the late Iron Age have been found at the
site as well (Lipschits et al. 2011: 15–18), including lmlk and “private” stamp im-
pressions (late 8th and early 7th centuries BCE, and see Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch
2011); concentric circle incisions (mid-7th century BCE, and see Lipschits, Sergi,
and Koch 2010; 2011), and rosette stamp impressions (late 7th–early 6th centu-
ries BCE, and see Koch and Lipschits 2010). In the Babylonian, Persian and Helle-
nistic periods, too, Ramat Raḥel was the main centre of stamped jar handles, with
about 77 lion stamped handles dated to the 6th century BCE (Lipschits 2011c;
Ornan and Lipschits 2020), more than 300 yhwd stamp impressions dated to the
late 6th to mid-2nd centuries BCE (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007), and 31 yršlm
stamp impressions dated to the 2nd century BCE. All in all, this phenomenon
takes in more than half a millennium of continuous, systemized administration
of collection of (probably) wine and oil in jars. During long periods of this half
millennium, Ramat Raḥel functioned as the main Judahite administration and
collection centre – as is evidenced by the presence at this small site of the large
number of most of the different types of stamped handles excavated in Judah.
No other Judahite site, not even Jerusalem, can challenge Ramat Raḥel’s record
in this regard.
Wedged between the Iron Age system of stamped jar handles and the Persian-
and Hellenistic-period system in 6th century BCE Judah was the lion stamp sys-
tem. Seventy-seven lion stamps, out of a total of about 110 stamp impressions
known to us to date, impressed either on the body or the handles of jars, were
excavated at Ramat Raḥel.21 Stern was the first to observe the terminus ad quem
of these stamp impressions (Stern 1982: 209–210; 2001), which are absent from

21 A modified typological classification demonstrates that 2 out of 10 types were found solely at
Ramat Raḥel, one additional type was found at Ramat Raḥel and Nebi Samwil only, and that all
the other types are represented mainly at Ramat Raḥel.
 Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 237

the “classic” Persian-period strata. Since according to Stern’s historical assump-

tion these stamp impressions cannot be dated to the “Exilic period,” and since he
interpreted the “object” (Aharoni 1964a: 45), or “indistinct sign” (Pritchard 1961,
opposite Fig. 46), which is part of a scene depicting a lion standing on his hind
legs, with the two front legs stretched out wide, as an Achaemenid “fire altar,” he
dated the entire lion stamp impression system to the very beginning of the Per-
sian period.22 However, new studies and new finds indicate an earlier date of the
lion stamp impressions in the 6th century BCE, continuing the late Iron Age ro-
sette and preceding the yhwd stamp impressions, probably as part of the Judahite
province of the 6th century BCE under Babylonian rule. A new study of the ico-
nography of the “object” in the standing lion stamp impressions hints at the
connection of these objects with the Assyrian-Babylonian world (Sass 2010). This
observation complemented the new discoveries at Ramat Raḥel of two lion stamp
impressions near 6th-century BCE “private” stamp impressions on the body of
jars similar to the rosette jars. In addition, a petrographic analysis of the lion-
stamped handles shows a resemblance to Iron Age patterns of the rosette jar
handles rather than to Persian-period patterns of the yhwd jars (Gross and Goren
2010). The conclusion is that the lion stamp impression system belongs to an
earlier and wider 6th century BCE administrative system, and that it should be
placed in the Babylonian period. This is the “missing link” in the administrative
continuity in Judah; it was part of the Babylonian administration that lasted until
the beginning of the Persian period, at which point it was replaced by the yhwd
stamp impression system.23
The publication of a full catalogue of all the published and unpublished yhwd
stamp impressions, together with complete archaeological data for each stamp
impression, the revised typology and the option to date the different types of
stamp impressions, form the foundation for using it as a chronological and
archaeological tool, as well as discussing the function and role the impressions
played in the provincial administration and economy. When a specific type of
stamp impression was discovered or was absent from a specific site, from a spe-
cific stratum, or, for example, was discovered only in the City of David and not
in the south-western hill of Jerusalem, or vice versa, it means a great deal from
the archaeological, chronological, and administrative points of view, taking into
account the large number of stamped handles discovered at the main sites in
Judah. Thus, more than 80 % of the stamp impressions were discovered at Ramat

22 Cf. Ariel and Shoham 2000: 141, but see, however, Williamson 1988: 60–64.
23 The prominence of the lion stamp impressions is another indication that Ramat Raḥel contin-
ued to play a prominent administrative role during the 6th century BCE, while its second building
phase continued.
238 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Raḥel and the greater Jerusalem region, with another 12 % originating at four
other key centres in Yehud: Tell en-Naṣbeh, Jericho, Nabi Samwil and En-Gedi.
These six sites thus produced about 92 % of the total exemplars.
The yhwd stamp impressions from the Persian and early Hellenistic period
are well sorted into 17 main types of stamp impressions according to three main
chronological periods: early (late 6th through 5th centuries BCE); middle (4th and
3rd centuries BCE); and late (2nd century BCE). One hundred twenty-eight stamp
impressions may be assigned to the early types, 312 to the middle types, and 142
to the late types.
Ramat Raḥel produced the largest number of stamp impressions with about
53 % of the total number (307 stamped handles, not including the finds from the
last season of excavations, July–August 2010). It is important to note, however,
that 71 % of the early types came from this site, very similar to the 70 % of the
total number of the lion stamp impressions. 60 % of the total number of the
middle types were discovered at Ramat Raḥel, and only 22 % of the late types.
The meaning of these numbers is clear for any understanding of the status of
Ramat Raḥel during the Babylonian and Persian periods, with a major change in
the Hellenistic period.
Jerusalem was not the main administrative centre represented in the corpus
of the yehud stamp impressions, especially among the early and middle types.
The various excavated areas throughout the city produced 163 yehud stamp im-
pressions, or about 28 % of the total corpus. Of these, 83.5 % were discovered in
the City of David and 16.5 % of the finds from elsewhere in Jerusalem (27 stamp
impressions, all of them of the late types). Only 17 stamp impressions from Jerusa-
lem belong to the early types, dated to the late 6th and 5th centuries BCE, all
discovered in the City of David. Only 13 % of the total number are of the early
types, most of them (nine) of one type and only one or two stamp impressions of
six other types. The 59 stamp impressions that belong to the middle types dated
to the 4th–3rd centuries BCE were also only found in the City of David. This
number represents 19 % of the total number, most of them (40) from one type. Of
the 87 stamp impressions that belong to the late types, dated to the 2nd cen-
tury BCE, 27 appear for the first time in the Western Hill and its surroundings.
The number of stamp impressions discovered in the City of David and the West-
ern Hill represent 61 % of the 142 late types, and together with the large number
of yršlm stamp impressions discovered in all the different parts of the city, this
number represents the renewed administrative status of Jerusalem in the
2nd century BCE, especially under Hasmonian rule.
Ramat Raḥel together with Jerusalem produced 81 % of the 582 yhwd stamp
impressions known to us before summer 2010. Thirteen additional yhwd stamped
handles have no provenance. This means that 17 % (99) of all stamp impressions
 Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 239

derive from other sites. In most sites where excavators recovered a significant
number of stamp impressions, they belong to the early and middle types. This
fact can be combined with the changes that occurred in Judah in the early Helle-
nistic period and especially in the 2nd century BCE. But the study of the yhwd
stamp impressions at the various sites can provide a key to understanding
changes in the material culture in different areas in Judah during the 200 years
of the Persian period. It is significant that at all major sites of yhwd stamp impres-
sions in Judah, only few belong to the early types and the vast majority belong
to the middle types. At all these sites, without exception, no stamped handles
from the late types have been discovered (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011).24
The historical and administrative meaning of the data presented above is
that the system of lion stamp impressions continued into the early Persian period
with no change: one main collection centre (Ramat Rael, with 70 % of the finds),
some jars that probably were sent to the City of David (13 % of the finds), and
only a few stamped handles that were discovered in other places in Judah.25
The main change in material culture occurred later in the Persian period,
probably during the late 5th or even the early 4th century BCE, when a funda-
mental modification in the form, style, paleography and orthography occurred,
probably a result of the growing importance of the southern Levant for the Per-
sian empire, when it lost its hegemony over Egypt (Lipschits and Vanderhooft
2007a). The consolidation in stamping practices in Yehud is apparently one of
numerous other changes that occurred in the southern Levant after the Achaeme-
nid loss of control over Egypt. Achaemenid authority over populations in the
border region was probably tightened, as highlighted by the Aramaic ostraca

24 From the 19 yhwd stamped handles discovered at Tell en-Naṣbeh (about 3 % of the total),
only one belongs to the early types and 18 to the middle types. No late yhwd stamp impressions
come from the site. Of 16 yhwd stamped handles discovered at Nebi-Samwil (about 3 % of the
total finds), only three belong to the early types and 13 to the middle types. There are no late
types from this site. Of the 18 yhwd stamped handles excavated in Jericho (about 3 % of the
total), only two stamp impressions belong to the early types and 16 to the middle types. Jericho
has yielded no late types. Of the 10 yhwd stamped handles found at En-Gedi (about 1.7 % of the
total finds), three stamp impressions belong to the early types and seven to the middle types.
No late types have been found at this site. Also at Rogem Gannim, one of the major small
production centres in the Rephaim Valley, in the close vicinity of Ramat Rael, where seven yhwd
stamped handles were excavated (about 1 % of the total finds), two belong to the early types and
five to the middle types. No late types have appeared. A slightly different distribution may be
noticed in Gezer, far from the borders of Judah, where eight yhwd stamped handles were discov-
ered. Two of these belong to the early types, one to the middle types, and 5 to the late types.
25 Twenty-one yhwd stamped handles were discovered at 12 other sites: three each at Nebi-
Samwil and En-Gedi; 2 each at Tell en-Naṣbeh, Jericho, Gezer, Rogem Gannim, and Tel Ḥarasim;
and one at each of four other sites. The origin of one stamp impression is unknown.
240 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

from the southern Shephelah, as well as the date of the establishment of the
edifice at Lachish, and probably some other forts in the Judean Hills, the Shephe-
lah, and the Negev area. The need for agricultural products such as grain, wine
and oil became important for the Persian army only during this period, probably
because of the presence of large numbers of Persian troops and administrators,
as part of the frequent expeditions to Egypt or as part of the defensive battles
against Egyptian and allied assaults (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a).
The changes that occurred in the system of yhwd stamp impressions of the
middle period were probably a result of a tighter Persian control in the adminis-
tration of the distribution system which the stamps reflect, when the name of the
province, or its abbreviated form, became the only necessary piece of information
on the stamps. The names of local administrators were no longer relevant for the
system, and only the source of the product – the name of the province – was
significant. As part of this change some other secondary administrative centres
assumed a much more important role in the system, and aside from the
186 stamped handles of the middle types discovered at Ramat Raḥel and the 59
discovered in the City of David, 67 additional stamp impressions were discovered
at nine other sites: 18 at Tell en-Naṣbeh; 16 at Jericho; 13 at Nebi-Samwil; seven
at En-Gedi; and five at Rogem Gannim.26
The system represented by the middle types of the yhwd stamp impressions
was quite durable and evidently persisted through the first quarter of the
2nd century BCE, when it underwent additional modification during the Hasmo-
nean period. Even then, however, continuity with the middle types is discernible,
since only the name of the province appears in the late stamps, either abbreviat-
ed in the yh symbol, or in Paleo-Hebrew with the ṭet symbol. However, the other
secondary administrative centres that were represented in the system of the mid-
dle types disappeared in the late types.27 Jerusalem now became almost the sole
administrative centre with more than 60 % of the total finds; Ramat Raḥel was
deserted during this period, and aside from Gezer, with five stamped handles
from the late types, no other site yielded more than one or two handles of these
types.

26 One stamp impression was discovered at each of four other sites outside the borders of Judah
(Gezer, Khirbet Nisya, Kadesh Barnea and Tell Jemmeh), while the origin of four additional
stamped handles is unknown.
27 In addition to the 31 stamped handles from Ramat Rael and 87 from Jerusalem (including
the City of David, the Western Hill and immediate vicinity), only 16 more stamp impressions were
discovered at 11 sites. Of these, 5 come from Gezer, 2 from Bethany, while nine sites produced
one each; 8 other stamp impressions have no provenance.
 Persian-Period Judah − A New Perspective 241

Summary: A New Perspective on the Archaeology

of Persian-period Judah

The new finds from Persian period Judah, especially from Ramat Raḥel, and some
new studies on the material culture of this period, especially on the stamped jar
handles, brought to light new directions and new options to the understanding
of this period.
Unlike most of the studies on the archaeological material in second temple
Judah, which start the description at the beginning of the Persian period, as it is
an obvious fact, it became clear that despite the hard blow caused by the Babylo-
nians to the Judahite urban and military centres, all the different aspects of the
material culture of the Persian period continued from the late Iron Age through
the 6th century BCE, with only marginal changes in the material culture in the
transition from Babylonian to Persian-Achaemenid rule. Most of the characteris-
tics of the Babylonian and early Persian period material culture (like the script,
stamp impressions and pottery) can be defined as intermediate Iron Age-Persian-
period material.
Furthermore, unlike most studies on the material culture in the early Second
Temple period, which describes the Persian period as a marked and defined peri-
od from the archaeological point of view, there are three distinctive periods with-
in the 200 years of Persian rule in Judah, with a marked continuity and develop-
ment between them.
The early Persian period in the late 6th and early 5th centuries BCE is a
transitional period from the Babylonian period, with no marked change in the
material culture, and besides the disappearance of the use of icons in stamps
used for stamping jar handles, all other aspects of material culture (including
pottery and script) look like a clear continuation. To this period one should add
the early yhwd stamp impressions on jar handles.
The typical, “classic” and well-known material culture of the Persian period
can be dated to the second half of the 5th century BCE and the first half of the
4th century BCE. The main change in the form, style, paleography and orthogra-
phy of the yhwd stamp system occurred during the late 5th or even the early
4th century BCE, probably as a result of tighter Persian control in the administra-
tion. As part of this change, some secondary administrative centres took on a
much more important role in the system, and at these sites the most important
Persian-period pottery and other finds were discovered.
The late Persian-early Hellenistic material culture is well dated to the late
4th and early 3rd centuries BCE. The changes in the material culture (especially
the script and pottery) was probably slow and gradual, and as can be seen from
the yhwd stamp impressions there is a clear continuity in administration and
242 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

economy from the late Persian to the early Hellenistic period from nearly every
aspect. The marked changes in nearly every facet of the material culture occurred
in the middle of the second century BCE, but examining this change is beyond
the scope of this essay.
The meager finds from the Persian period at all the main sites is a basic fact
that all scholars excavating sites, surveying areas or studying the history of Judah
during this period have had to deal with and to explain. It is clear that during
this period there was a cessation of urban life and a concentration of the popula-
tion in rural settlements, and as part of that, it might be that in some former
Iron Age settlements the Persian-period private dwellings were built outside the
defined areas of the former towns. Undoubtedly, in some cases the Persian-period
occupation levels were damaged by intensive building activities conducted during
the Hellenistic-Roman periods.
However, one more perspective on this phenomenon should be considered.
The Babylonian, Persian and early Hellenistic periods represent a unique era in
the history of Judah, when it was a small province under the rule of great em-
pires. This whole period was an “interlude” between two periods of greatness
and political independence, when kings and priests had the motivation and the
means to build Jerusalem and other urban centres in Judah, and to hire artists,
architects, craftsmen and specialists in any and every field.
This situation changed totally in the Babylonian period. All of the Jerusalemi-
te elite was deported to Babylon, including “all the men of valor, seven thousand,
and the craftsmen and the smiths, one thousand, all strong and fit for war” (2 Kgs.
24:16). The situation did not improve in the Persian period, and the poor province
with its nominated governors did not acquire the means, the ability and perhaps
not even the permission to undertake building projects in Jerusalem or in any
other urban centre in the land. The lack of skilled artisans during the Persian
period in every field of the economy, administration and daily life is one of its
prominent characteristics. The inferior building techniques, the shabby quality of
the pottery, and the seals that probably were also a result of the lack of raw
materials and the need to reuse existing resources such as building stones and
metals, or to use inexpensive substitutes, are all expressions of this situation of
the Persian-period material culture. It seems to me that this is one more explana-
tion for the lack of architectural and other finds from this period, and for the
relatively easy way in which Persian-period building remains and other finds
could have been removed and lost during the Hellenistic period and later on.
Achaemenid Imperial Policy,
Settlement Processes in Palestine,
and the Status of Jerusalem in
the Middle of the Fifth Century BCE
Palestine in the Pre-Persian Period: The Geopolitical
and Administrative Organization

Tiglath-pileser III’s (745–727 BCE) conquest of the Levant shaped its geopolitical
and administrative character for generations to come. Tiglath-pileser conquered
the strongest and largest kingdoms in the region, inflicting heavy damage. He
deported large parts of the populations, replacing them with exiles from remote
regions, and annexed their territory to Assyria, turning them into Assyrian prov-
inces.1 The extent of Tiglath-pileser’s success in annihilating the power of the
Syrian kingdoms and abolishing the national distinctions of their populations is
revealed by the fact that no independent political entity developed in the con-
quered Assyrian areas in the following centuries, nor was there any military
threat to Egyptian, Babylonian, or Persian imperial rule from them. This state of
affairs enabled the succeeding empires, and even the Seleucid dynasty, to control
these regions and exploit their economic, commercial, and strategic potential.2

1 Five provinces were established by Tiglath-pileser III in northern Syria and on the Syrian
coast after he conquered the region in the early years of his reign (740–738 BCE, Weippert 1982:
395–408; Hawkins 1995: 95–97; Naʾaman 1995c: 105; and see the summary in Lipschits 2005: 4–
5): Arpad (Arpadda); Kullanīa-Kalnē/Kinalūa; Ḥatarikka/Ḫadrāk; Ṣimirra (Ṣumur); and Manṣuāti.
Three more provinces were established by Tiglath-pileser in central and southern Syria in the
territories of Aram-Damascus, after it was conquered in 732 BCE: Qarnīna (Qarnaim); Dimašqa
(Damascus); and ṣūbat/ṣūbite (ṣôbā). At the same time, the Assyrian king established two provin-
ces in the former kingdom of Israel: Dūʾru (Dôr) and Magidû, (Megiddo). Many scholars assumed,
with Emil Forrer (1920: 61) and Albrecht Alt (1929a: 203–205), that another province existed in
the northern part of Transjordan during the time of Tiglath-pileser: the province of Galʿad (Gilʿad/
Gilead). However, there is no textual support for this assumption, and there is no concrete
evidence regarding the Assyrian provincial system in the northern part of Transjordan. On this
subject, see Oded 1970b; Naʾaman 1995c: 107, with further literature. For a different option. see
Ephʿal 1984; Stern 2001: 11–12, 43.
2 On this subject, from the Persian-Period perspective, see the review of Briant 2002: 1014–1015,
with further bibliography. On the persistence of the Assyrian geopolitical and administrative
system at least until the third century BCE, see Limet 2000. See also Naʾaman 2000b: 41–42.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-014
244 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

During the next 60 years, five more provinces were added to the array of
provinces founded by Tiglath-pileser,3 extending Assyrian direct rule over all the
Levant. In addition to the provinces, a line of city-states was allowed to remain
along the Phoenician and Palestinian coast, probably because they served the
Assyrian interest, especially its maritime commerce, better as they were.4 In the
hill country east and west of the Jordan River, four small territorial kingdoms
continued their existence under the Assyrian rule: Udūmu (Edom); Bīt-Ammān
(Ammon); Māʾab (Moab), and laʾūdu (Judah). From the Assyrian point of view,
these kingdoms were too small and too weak to be a threat, not to mention the
fact that they served the Assyrian interests by supplying agricultural products
and taking part in overland commerce, especially the Arab trade.
During the last third of the seventh century BCE, the geopolitical and adminis-
trative situation of the Levant was totally different from the situation at the be-
ginning of Tiglath-pileser’s rule. Besides the geopolitical and administrative
changes, the Assyrian conquest wreaked destruction in most of the urban centers
and deported large parts of the population. We can assume that Assyrian policy
was to retain fortifications only in provincial capitals (Stern 2001: 50) and to build
forts and Assyrian economic and military centers in strategic places all over the
country. In the former territories of the Israelite Kingdom, for example, except
for the three capitals of the provinces,5 there is not even one fortified settlement

3 Three of the new provinces were founded by Sargon ll: Sāmerīna (720 BCE; see Naʾaman 1995c:
106–107; and Fig. 1, p. 105; Stern 2001: 49–51); Ḫamāt (Amattu) (720 BCE; see Hawkins 1995: 97;
Naʾaman 1995c: 107); Asdūdu (Ashdod; no later than 712 BCE; see Tadmor 1964: 272–276; for a
critique of Tadmor’s proposal, see Naʾaman 1994a: 9–11, with further literature). During the early
days of Esarhaddon (680–669 BCE), probably in 677/6 BCE, a new province was established south
of Gubla (Byblos). Its capital was Kār-Esarhaddon, which had been built close to Ṣūdūnu (Ṣidôn;
Tadmor 1966: 98; Grayson 1991: 125; Redford 1992: 358; Naʾaman 1995c: 17–19, and fig. 3 p. 108).
The province of Ṣurru/Ṣūr (Tyre) was established in the last days of Esarhaddon or in the early
days of Ashurbanipal (669–627 BCE; see Grayson 1991: 126, 144–145; Naʾaman 1995c: 107–109 and
fig. 3).
4 Along the Phoenician coast, south of the two provinces created by Tiglath-pileser III (Kullanīa/
Kalnē and Ṣimirra/Ṣumur), Gubla (Byblos) remained a vassal kingdom, apparently throughout
the period of Assyrian rule (Parpola 1970: 135; Elat 1991: 26; Naʾaman 1994a: 7). Neither the island
of Tyre nor Samsimurūna or Arwāda, which extended to the north, were annexed. In Philistia,
three small kingdoms survived: Isqalūna (Ašqelôn/Ashkelon; Naʾaman 1998c: 222–225); Anqarrūna
(Ekron; Dothan and Gitin 1994: 18–25; Gitin 1997; 1998: 274–278; Mazar 1994: 260–263); and Ḫazzat
(Gaza; Tadmor 1964: 271; Katzenstein 1994: 37–38; Naʾaman 2004a: 55–60).
5 On Megiddo, see Lemon and Shipton 1939: 62, and see also figs. 71–73, 89; Naʾaman 1993: 109–
112; Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000: 601; Peersmann 2000: 525–527, 532–533; Tappy 2001: 242–244.
On Dor, see Stern 1990a; 2001: 19, and on Samaria, see against the conclusions reached by Kenyon
1957: 199 (Crowfoot 1942; 1957a; Hoglund 1992: 85, 211, but see, however Kenyon 1942: 116, 117),
the opinions of Tappy (2001: 223–226, 579) and Stern (1982a: 50–51; 2001: 19–20).
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 245

that can be dated to the seventh century BCE (Tadmor 1973: 70–71).6 Most of the
major towns in this area were abandoned or only poorly rebuilt, and the total
settled area in all cities was much smaller than before the Assyrian conquest.
This archaeological phenomenon is discernible by the fact that most of the popu-
lation in the Assyrian provinces, especially in the interior areas, lived on farms
and in villages; there was a marked decline in urban life.
The geopolitical and administrative character of the Levant changed only
slightly under Egyptian rule during the last third of the seventh century BCE.7
During the short period of Egyptian rule, for which there is scant historical docu-
mentation, Egyptian economic and strategic interests were apparently concentrat-
ed primarily along the coast (from Philistia to Phoenicia).8 It is not clear to what
extent Egypt was interested in the hill country or what effort it invested in estab-
lishing its authority there. However, it seems that Egypt ruled the entire area and
that Judah was subject to Egypt and unable to conduct its own foreign affairs,
certainly not along the coast or in the Jezreel Valley.9
The Egyptians had no problem assuming control of the former Assyrian prov-
inces in Syria and as far as the west bank of the Euphrates. However, the ease
with which Syria fell into the hands of the Babylonians (summer 605 BCE) and
with which the Babylonians conquered all the rest of the Egyptian holdings to
the Egyptian border in the following year is evidence that the Egyptians had not
truly succeeded in establishing their control of the region and that they held the
region more in the sense of filling the vacuum left behind by the Assyrian with-
drawal (Lipschits 2005: 31–35).

6 See also the data from Zertal’s survey (1990) and see the summary of Stern (2001: 49–50).
7 This is against the view expressed by Hoglund (1992: 16–17) that during the Egyptian imperial
domination of the Levant there was a break with the previous Assyrian imperial system of
administration, and as a result the Neo-Babylonians and Achaemenids could not maintain the
previous Assyrian administrative patterns in the Levant. Aside from Tyre (perhaps; see below),
there is no historical basis for Hoglund’s conclusion that the various Levantine territories revert-
ed to their own patterns of hereditary rule during Egyptian domination and that Egyptian overse-
ers collaborated with these local rulers.
8 At a fairly early stage of Egyptian rule of the region, Egypt established its control all the way
to Phoenicia, subjugating Tyre and apparently Arwad as well (Katzenstein 1973: 299 n. 24; 313
n. 100; Redford 1992: 442). It seems that Tyre was restored at this time to its status as a vassal
kingdom and that the Egyptians established their foothold in Philistia immediately following the
Assyrian retreat (Lipschits 2005: 28–29). The establishment of Egyptian dominion in this overland
passageway to Egypt was rapid (Redford 1992: 442); apparently, the Egyptians were required to
fight only against Ashdod (Naʾaman 1991b: 39–40; James 1991: 714; Redford 1992: 441–442).
9 Necho’s presence in Megiddo, the killing of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:29), the later deposing of Jehoahaz
from the throne (v. 33), and the appointment of Eliakim-Jehoiakim (v. 34) all attest to Egypt’s
intention of ruling Judah.
246 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

ln his military campaign conducted in Ḫatti-Land between June 604 and Janu-
ary/February 603, Nabuchadrezzar conquered all of the Levant as far as Gaza.10
According to the Babylonian Chronicle, none of the local kings dared to resist
Nebuchadrezzar except for the king of Ashkelon. The Babylonian response was
decisive, and the fate of that city served as an example to the other kingdoms in
the region.11 During this time, there is no reason to ascribe any other destruction
layer in the archaeological record to the Babylonian army: most of the country
was organized into provinces that dated back to the Assyrian Period. It appears
that the Egyptian retreat left the country to the rule of Nebuchadrezzar, unop-
posed.
Babylonian policy in the region did not change even following Nebuchadrez-
zar’s failed attempt to conquer Egypt and the subsequent temporary weakening
of Babylonian rule in the region (Lipschits 1998b: 472–480; 2005: 49–52). However,
continued instability during the days of Psammetichus II (595–589 BCE), and even
more during the first years of Hophra (589–570), and the increasing threat from
Egypt caused Nebuchadrezzar to modify his policy (589 BCE): during the following
years he conquered the remaining small vassal kingdoms near the border with
Egypt, annexed them, and turned them into provinces (Lipschits 1998b: 482–487;
2005: 62–68). Judah was the first target of the Babylonians. Afterward, apparently
in 585 BCE, they attacked Tyre and Sidon, setting up a siege on Tyre that lasted
for 13 years (until 572 BCE; Katzenstein 1973: 330; 1994: 186; Wiseman 1991: 235;
Redford 1992: 465–466; Vanderhooft 1999: 100–102). Apparently during the years
of the siege, the Babylonians also attacked Ammon and Moab (Lipschits 2004b)
and established their control also over Gaza, Arwad, and Ashdod. It is very likely
that the successful takeover of northern Arabia by Nabonidus and his move to
Tema (553–543 BCE) resulted in the disappearance of the kingdom of Edom and
probably the integration of its territory with greater Arabia (Lemaire 2003: 290;
and see also Briant 2002: 45).
During this phase of Babylonian rule in the Levant, the Babylonians displayed
an attitude toward the kingdoms of Philistia and those on the Phoenician coast
that differed from their Assyrian predecessors. The former were conquered and

10 On the background to the Babylonian military campaign, its main events, and consequences,
see Lipschits 2005: 37–42, with further literature.
11 On the description of the destruction of Ashkelon in the Babylonian Chronicle (BM 21946,
lines 18–20), See Wiseman 1956: 28, 68–69; Grayson 1975a: 20, 100. On the archaeological evidence
for this destruction, see Stager 1996a. It might have been at this time that the territory of Ashke-
lon was annexed to Ashdod. If this is the case, it is the single change that the Babylonians made
in the geopolitical and administrative organization of the Levant during the first phase of their
rule.
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 247

turned into Babylonian provinces. Although the fate of the latter is unclear, it
appears that during most of the Babylonian rule, certainly during the Persian
Period, they were ruled by kings (Katzenstein 1994: 46–48).12 The new Babylonian
policy was destructive to the southern part of Palestine as well as to the Transjor-
danian kingdoms13 as Nebuchadrezzar went about creating a buffer zone be-
tween Babylon and Egypt out of devastated, diminished provinces.14 There is no
evidence that the Babylonians invested any kind of effort in economic develop-
ment in this region; furthermore, it seems that Nebuchadrezzar used the destruc-
tion of the region as a lever for rebuilding the parts of Babylonia that had been
damaged during the long years of war, devastation, and deportation inflicted by
the Assyrians. Large groups of exiles from the ruling, economic, and religious
elite of the local kingdoms were sent to Babylon and settled in the devastated
areas to develop them. However, total devastation of the land was contrary to
Babylonian interests, because the rural population was needed as the human
nucleus for the new provinces they had established. The rural settlements all
over the land survived, even if on a much smaller scale. The Babylonians had no
reason to create a settlement vacuum, which would only have undermined stabil-
ity in the region, making it more difficult to rule and exploit its economical poten-
tial. I would even surmise that it was in the Babylonians’ interest to preserve the
rural settlements in those areas in order to receive their wine, olive oil, grain,
and other agricultural produce as taxes (Lipschits 2004a; 2004b; 2005: 212–261).
However, because the Babylonians did not have a specific policy for developing

12 It seems that the explanation for this change is Philistia’s strategic importance as the gateway
to Egypt and the necessity for Babylon to maintain control over the region. Likewise, the contin-
ued instability in Philistia, their close ties with and loyalty to Egypt, as well as intensive Egyptian
activity that continued in the region throughout this period all requited the Babylonians to
tighten their control by conquering and subjugating the region. In contrast, Egypt was less of a
threat to the Babylonians on the Phoenician coast, although Babylon’s economic interests there
were considerable. A generous measure of political and military autonomy was essential to
maintaining commerce in the region, including trade with Egypt. A fine account dating to the
fifth and sixth years of Nabonidus (551–550 BCE) has been preserved regarding the commerce
between Egypt and Babylon; see Oppenheim 1967; Brown 1969: 101; Katzenstein 1994: 48.
13 The Babylonians brought a harsh blow to all the urban centers in Judah and Philistia. How-
ever, contrary to the opinion of Stern (summarized in 2000; 2004), we have no archaeological or
historical basis for the idea that all or even some of the former Assyrian and Egyptian provincial
centers were also destroyed.
14 We have no information about any intended change to the borders of the old Assyrian array
of provinces or to the former small kingdoms that became Babylonian provinces during the first
half of the sixth century BCE. It appears that the former system of borders remained the same
(Aharoni 1962b: 313; Garelli and Nikiprowetzky 1974: 157–159; Hoglund 1992: 5–6. Naʾaman 2000b:
41–42; Lipschits 2005: 135–186).
248 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

and protecting the settlements, especially in the peripheral regions of the south,
many changes occurred there, apparently as a side effect of the collapse of the
central systems and the infiltration of seminomadic groups.15
This was the situation encountered by the Achaemenids when they inherited
the Babylonian Empire. From that time on, settlement developed according to
Achaemenid interests and needs.

The Geopolitical and Administrative Situation in Palestine

during the Persian Period

When Cyrus II conquered Babylon (539 BCE), he inherited a huge empire that
included all of Mesopotamia, as well as the area Across the River.16 During his
time and at least from March 535 BCE on, the territories of the Neo-Babylonian
Empire were included in one satrapy under the rule of Gūbaru, Governor of
Babylonia and Across the River (Ebir Nāri) (Leuze 1935: 25–36; Rainey 1969: 52;
Briant 2002: 64, 71, 74–75).17 We can conclude that the former administrative sys-
tem proceeded without any marked change, even after the conquest of Egypt by
Cambyses II (525 BCE),18 when it was added to the Empire as a separate adminis-
trative unit (Olmstead 1948: 70–85; Graf 1993: 151; Hoglund 1992: 23; Briant 2002:
48–49). The first changes in the administrative system for the province Across
the River followed the suppression of the wide-ranging revolts in various parts
of the Empire following the accession of Darius I (522/521 BCE). At this point, the
Persians established a subdistrict named Across the River.19 The province Babylo-
nia and Across the River continued to function as a unit, and in March 520 a new
governor, Uštānu, was installed (Rainey 1969: 52–53; Stolper 1989: 289; Briant 2002:

15 On this historical process, see the summary by Lipschits 2005: 140–147; 227–240.
16 On the importance of this historical event, see Olmstead 1948: 59: Cook 1981: 32–33; 1985· 212;
Frye 1984: 95; Briant 2002: 44–45. In light of this rapid change and the administrative continuity
between Babylonian and Persian rule, we can understand why there is no marked change in
the material culture in the area Across the River.
17 It is interesting to note that all of the texts mentioning this title came from Uruk, except for
one that came from the area of Babylon. For the list of the texts and further bibliography, see
Stolper 1989: 290, and note c; 292.
18 On the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses II, see Briant 2002: 55–61; Cruz-Uribe 2003, with further
literature.
19 On the administrative system that was organized by Darius I, see Tuplin (1987: 111–113) and
the more cautious reconstruction of Briant (2002: 487–490). On the extent of the satrapy and its
inner structure, see Rainey 1969: 51–78.
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 249

484).20 More than 30 years later, in October 486, just two months before the death
of Darius I and the accession of Xerxes, another governor with the same title
appears in a Babylonian legal text (BM 74554), and this is the last time we hear
of this large satrapy (Stolper 1989). It was not until after Xerxes suppressed the
revolt in Babylon (482 BCE; see Olmstead 1948: 237 n. 23), that the subdistrict of
Across the River was separated from the province of Babylon and given independ-
ent and equal status (Olmstead 1948: 112, 115; Rainey 1969: 55–58; Ephʿal 1998:
109).21 This independent status was retained until the end of the Persian Period.
This is also the picture reflected in Herodotus’s description of the middle of the
fifth century BCE (Briant 2002: 951, with further literature).22

Urbanization along the Coast and Ruralism in the Hill

Country in the Beginning of the Persian Period

During the long years of Persian rule in Palestine, many geopolitical changes
occurred, along with administrative reorganization, particularly on the coast but
also in the hill country and in the southern areas of Cis- and Transjordan. We
can assume that, like the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Babylonians, the Achaemenids
also tried to shape the political, social, and demographic systems in Palestine
according to their own military, economic, and governmental interests. The main
evidence for this can be found in the large, wealthy urban and commercial cen-
ters that were established at the very beginning of the Achaemenid period along
the Mediterranean coast, most of them well built and planned, some according
to the Hippodamian plan (Kenyon 1960: 311–312; Stern 1990a; 2001: 461–464).23

20 Most scholars have based their reconstruction on the appearance of “Tattenai, the governor
(satrap) of the province Across the River” in Jerusalem in the second year of Darius (Ezra 5:3. 6;
6: 13) and his appearance with the same title in a tablet dated lo 502 BCE. They interpret the
data as if the region Across the River was at this time a subdivision of the larger satrapy and
Tattenai (Tattannu) a subordinate of Uštānu (Olmstead 1948: 78–81; Rainey 1969: 52–55; Cook
1983: 42–43; Frye 1984: 114–115; Stolper 1989: 289–290, 293, and n. 7, n; Petit 1990: 189–190; Briant
2002: 487–488, 951, with further literature).
21 However, see the reservations raised by Stolper 1989: 293–303 (with further literature and
various opinions on pp. 292–293, and nn. 9–12).
22 Many scholars have reconstructed the historical event according to the description of Herodo-
tus in 3.88–95 (Leuze 1935: 226–229; for more literature, see Stolper 1989: 292 n. 9). However,
Herodotus’s list describes the Persian administrative organization during the time of Xerxes I or
later., certainly not during the time of Darius I (Calmeyer 1990; Stern 2001: 368; Stolper 1989: 293
and n. 13).
23 For a detailed list or the cities along the Palestinian coast and for further literature, see Stern
2001: 380–407; Lipschits 2002c: 47.
250 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Each of these cities was surrounded by smaller sites, and between them were
many forts and Achaemenid administrative centers.24
The Achaemenid regime had governmental, military, and economic reasons
for establishing its base along the Mediterranean coast, stabilizing the political
situation in this area, and encouraging maritime and overland trade. One of the
major goals of the Persians was to secure the Via Maris, as well as the roads in
southern Palestine, as part of the military, administrative, and economic effort to
control the route to Egypt (Ephʿal 1998: 117; Stern 2001: 371). Another need was to
establish a strong political, military, and economic coalition vis-a-vis the Greeks.
From the economic point of view, the Persian regime tried to develop and encour-
age the maritime trade that had been dominated by the Phoenicians (Briant 2002:
383, 489–490).25
Development of maritime trade was probably the main reason that the
Achaemenids granted authority over all of the coastal area of Palestine (to the
border of the province of Ashdod) to the kings of Tyre and Sidon at the end of
the sixth or the very beginning of the fifth century BCE.26 It appears that (under
their patronage and under Phoenician rule) the Achaemenids allowed the coastal
population a great degree of independence, at least in regard to internal, commer-
cial, and economic affairs (Elayi 1980: 25; 1982; Stern 1990a: 155 and n. 25; 1995a:
433).27 Many of the positions of authority on the local economic and political level

24 On this settlement pattern along the coast, see Stern 2001· 380–407. On the settlement pattern
along the Sharon Plain, see Tal 200: 115–122.
25 This may explain why the Persians appointed a governor (who bore a Babylonian name) in
Tyre already during the time or Darius (Dandamaev 1995: 29–31; but see Briant 2002: 952). Cruz-
Uribe (2003: 16) has argued (in contrast to Wallinga 1987) that it may be that the Persians devel-
oped a sizable navy after the invasion or Egypt, when they gained control over significant
numbers of ships.
26 The main source for this reconstruction is the inscription on the sarcophagus of Eshmunazor,
king of Sidon, which says “the Lord of the Kings granted us Dor and Jaffa, the mighty lands of
Dagan which are in the plain of Sharon” (Donner and Röllig 1962: no. 14, lines 18–19; 1964:
no. 14, pp. 19–23. For an English translation, see Gibson 1982: 108). Despite many difficulties with
reconstructing the chronology of the Sidonian kings and identifying the Persian king who is
mentioned only as the “Lord of the Kings” (see Briant 2002: 490, and further literature on p. 952),
it now appears that we can accept the chronological reconstruction of Elayi (2004) and date the
delivery of the coastal area to the Phoenician kings to the end of the sixth or to the beginning
of the 6fth century BCE. According to Pseudo-Scylax, in the Periplus, neither the Tyrian nor the
Sidonian territories were consolidated into a single large domain; instead, their territories were
comprised of loosely associated smaller areas (Katzenstein 1979: 30–31; Elayi 1980: 17; 1987: 81–
83; Gardiner 1991: 20; Stern 2001: 379–380, 386–387, 418). We may also accept the idea that in the
early fifth century BCE the Achaemenids granted Upper Galilee and the area east of Tyre to the
Tyrians (Herbert and Berlin 2003: 46–48).
27 Compare with Lund’s conclusion (1990: 32) about the northern coast of Syria: “if the ancient
literary sources had not been preserved, forcing us to rely on the archaeological material alone,
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 251

had been filled by the Phoenicians after the deportations of locals by the Assyri-
ans and the Babylonians, some as early as the end of the eighth century, and
some only two generations previously.
From the archaeological point of view, there is a remarkable amount of Phoe-
nician influence in evidence along the coast of Palestine from the beginning of
the fifth century BCE.28 The establishment of most settlements occurred during a
period of less than 50 years, which implies that this was the result of some sort
of official decision (Tal 2000: 121, and fig. 3, p. 125). Settlement activity culminated
during the second half of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth centuries. By
then many Phoenicians had already infiltrated the region (Lemaire 1990: 58–59;
Tal 2000: 120–121, with further literature).
In contrast to the rich, well-developed cities found along the coast, very few
building remains dating to the Persian Period have been uncovered in the hill
country-that is, within the province of Yehud or the province of Samaria (Lipschits
2002c). This is the case even at sites where an abundance of pottery vessels, seal
impressions, and other typical Persian-Period finds have been found (Stern 2001:
424–427, 461–462; Lipschits 2002c: 45–46).
Albright and Kenyon claimed that the archaeological data reflect the cessa-
tion of town life in the Persian Period and the concentration of population in
villages. Along the same lines, Aharoni and Kelso argued that the archaeological
data reflect the fact that Persian-Period residences were built outside the limits
of Iron Age cities, which is why they were not found in the excavations (Aharoni
1956: 108; 1964a: 120; Kelso et al. 1968: 38). Stern, on the other hand (2001: 461–
462), has claimed that the scarcity of building remains from this period does not
reflect the reality of that time but is the outcome of incomplete archaeological
data caused by three characteristic features of the Persian Period strata: (1) many
sites were abandoned after the Persian Period and never resettled, so the upper-
most stratum was damaged (mainly by erosion); (2) at many sites, the Persian-
Period occupation level was severely damaged by extensive building activities
during the Hellenistic and Roman periods; (3) some sites were occupied by large
palaces, forts, or administrative buildings, and the residential area was located
at the edge of the site.
I agree with Stern’s archaeological assessments in many respects. However,
he does not distinguish between the coast and the hill country, and the situation
in the coastal area is significantly different from the situation in the hill country.

few would probably have dared to suggest that the northern coastline of Syria had ever been
controlled by the Persians.”
28 See Elgavish 1968: 42; 1994: 93–94; Stem 1984: 80–81; 2001: 379–407; Roll and Ayalon 1989: 34;
Tal 2000: 120–122.
252 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

There, the absence of architectural remains is clear on both sides of the Jordan;
furthermore, the contrast between the hill country and the coastal area is so
sharp that one conclusion is clear: during the Persian Period, as in the Assyrian
and Babylonian periods that preceded it, there was a marked process of attenua-
tion of urban life in Judah, and to a lesser degree also in Samaria. This phenom-
enon contrasts with the continuation of rural settlements in Judah (especially in
the northern part of the Judean Hills and in the region of Benjamin)29 and Sama-
ria.30 The situation in Ammon and Edom is comparable.31 Exactly the same settle-
ment pattern characterizes the northern coastline of Syria (Lund 1990)32 and the
western part of Galilee, areas that served as the agricultural hinterland for the
large coastal towns between Achzib and the Acco plain (Stern 2001: 385).
The settlement pattern of the Persian Period was a continuation of the pro-
cess that began during the Babylonian Period, after the harsh blow that the Baby-
lonians dealt to the small kingdoms in the hill country west and east of the
Jordan.33 Neither the Babylonians nor the Persians had any interest in encourag-
ing and developing urban centers in the rural hilly regions on both sides of the
Jordan. The function of those regions as agricultural areas was much more impor-
tant and as such they were probably also easier to control.

29 See Carter 1994; 1999: 137–166; Lipschits 1999b; 2003: 326–355; 2005: 240–261; Milevski 1996–
1997: 7–29; Naʾaman 2000b; 43.
30 See Finkelstein 1978: 64–74; 1981; Zertal 1990; Stern 2001: 424–428. The survey of Samaria
revealed a large rural array, which means that during the Persian Period Samaria functioned as
a center for production of olive oil and wine (Zertal 1990: 13–14; 1999). Excavations in this area
have revealed Persian-Period strata (without building remains) only at Samaria and Shechem,
while at Tell el-Farʿah (N) there were only scanty remains of a small village and at Tel Dothan
there was no Persian-Period level at all. On this subject, sec the comprehensive review by Stern
2001: 424–428.
31 On Ammon, see Sauer 1985: 213–214; 1986: 18; Herr 1995: 121; 1999: 227; LaBianca and Younker
1995: 411; Lipschits 2004b. On Edom, see Bienkowski 2001a: 270.
32 Most of the important sites were near the coast, many with sheltered harbors, and should
be regarded as commercial centers of the coastal trade, while the small agricultural sites in the
inner plains and the mountain areas served as the agricultural hinterland (Lund 1990: 28). Strabo
(7, 16.2.9 [751–752]) described this situation with regard to the Latakia region: “Then one comes
to Laodiacea situated on the sea … Its surrounding region … abounds in wine. Now this city
furnishes most of the wine to the Alexandrians, because the whole of the mountain that lies
above the city is covered with vines almost as far as the summits.”
33 On the “rural perspective of sixth-century Judah, see Lipschits (2004a), in contrast to the
opinion of Faust (2003: 37–53). In this regard, Hoglund’s theory of a “Persian policy” of ruraliza-
tion (1991: 57–60) is debatable. Hoglund himself has admitted that his argument is speculative,
and that the data can be explained in other ways. The problem is that he was using very
problematic archaeological data (Carter 1999: 247–248). In fact, there is no archaeological evi-
dence of demographic change or of any change in settlement pattern at the beginning of the
Persian period (Lipschits 2003: 365).
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 253

Achaemenid Interests in the Hill Country and Patterns

of Settlement

As demonstrated above, the lack of local power structures (i.e., the local dynasts,
priesthood, the landed aristocracy, etc.) in Palestine at the end of the sixth century
was the result of the Assyrian and Babylonian onslaught and deportations. Along
the coastal area, the Achaemenids allowed the Phoenicians to govern and develop
the area in a very early stage of their rule there; hence the rapid urbanization
of the area. And, of course, increased commerce enables new social and economic
elites to develop quickly.
In the hill country, the economy was agricultural, and the social, political,
and demographic conditions were substantially different. Furthermore, the area’s
importance to the Achaemenid regime was not as great (Briant 2002: 976).34 The
Achaemenids, like the Babylonians that preceded them, were interested in main-
taining the existing rural settlements in the hill country, which were an important
source of agricultural goods, which were probably collected as tax. Exactly the
same situation obtained in the Negev and the southern Shephelah, as we ascer-
tain from the many ostraca from this region, most of them published in recent
years and dating to the fourth century BCE.35
Thus, the Achaemenids apparently had no interest in establishing urban cen-
ters in the hill country or in developing new social, political, and economic power
structures on the local level. Their rule over the hill country was different from
their rule in the urban centers on the coast: along the main roads and at strategic
points, Achaemenid forts and administrative centers were built. Garrison forces,
mainly mercenaries, were stationed in the forts, and various economic and ad-
ministrative functionaries were seated in the administrative centers, where they
managed the affairs of the province and were responsible for collecting the taxes,
preparing the Achaemenid expeditions, and executing the orders of the central
government. Even when the Achaemenids had a specific commercial interest in
the hill country, such as in the unique products from En-Gedi, they developed
an isolated imperial production center, without any cooperation from the local
population.36

34 As an example of the difference between the coastal area and the hill regions, compare the
distributions of Greek pottery, as summarized in Lehmann 2000.
35 From the ostraca connected with taxes and tax collectors, we learn about the agricultural
economy and understand the importance of this economy to the Persian regime. See Lemaire
(2006: 413–456) for further literature and discussion.
36 The archaeological picture is very clear in this case: in contrast to the end of the seventh
century, when there were dozens of small Judahite settlement sites around En-Gedi and between
it and the hill country, during the entire Achaemenid period the area was empty and En-Gedi
254 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Samaria and Jerusalem: When Did Jerusalem Become

the Capital of Yehud?

Unlike Jerusalem, Samaria continued to exist without interruption from the sev-
enth to the fourth centuries as the political and administrative center of the
province of Samaria. The city was able to develop as an urban center long before
Jerusalem (see Knoppers 2006). The fortifications from the eighth century proba-
bly survived until the end of the Persian Period and even into the Hellenistic and
Roman periods (see above, n. 5). We know for certain that at the end of the fifth
and during the fourth centuries there were local social and economic elites in
this region, as the finds from Shechem and Wadi ed-Daliya and the Samarian
coins may attest (see the summary of Stern 2001: 424–428). Some of the finds at
Samaria dated to the Persian Period may point in the same direction: the import-
ed Persian clay cup (Crowfoot 1957b: 216); the Attic ware (dated from the end of
the sixth to the end of the fourth centuries; see Crowfoot 1957b: 213–216); three
bronze fragments of an Achaemenid throne (Tadmor 1974: 37–43); the clay mold
(dated to the Persian Period; see Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924: 24, pl. 64m; and
cf. Tadmor 1974: 42 and n. 17); and the ostraca (especially in Paleo-Hebrew; see
Birnbaum 1957: 11–25). Basing his conclusion on this material, Stern claimed that
Samaria was one of the biggest urban centers in Palestine (2001: 424). Zertal has
claimed that it was the biggest and most important city in Palestine (2003: 380).
The very early date (the middle of the fifth century) of the first phase of the
temple on Mt. Gerizim37 may complete the picture. We can assume that the pro-
cess of social and religious crystallization in Samaria took place much earlier
than heretofore assumed, and it could be that the status of Samaria was enhanced
as part of this process.38

was an isolated economic center. It may even have been a royal estate. The absence of sites in
the area of En-Gedi and along the roads that connected it with the hill area is a clear sign of the
imperial monopoly on the production and transportation of goods that were produced there
(Lipschits 2000b: 37, and see also the list of sites from the end of the Iron Age and from the
Persian Period on pp. 40–42).
37 See Magen 1993: 104–108; 2000; personal communication; Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004:
6; Stern and Magen 2000a; 2002; Stern, personal communication.
38 This is not the subject of this paper (and cf. Knoppers’ 2006 discussion, but if this is the case,
then the term “Samarians,” usually used for the pre-Mt. Gerizim Temple inhabitants of Samaria
and thought to be an appropriate designation throughout the late Assyrian-Babylonian and early
Achaemenid Periods (parallel to Bickerman’s “Proto-Samaritans”), no longer should be extended
quite so late, and we can start using the term “Samaritans” (Bickerman’s “Samarians”) for the
population of the area following the foundation of the temple at a much earlier period than we
heretofore thought. On these labels, see Macdonald 1972: 143–144. For further literature, see
Bedford 2001: 13 n. 23.
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 255

There are no architectural or other finds that attest to Jerusalem as an urban

center during the Persian Period.39 Furthermore, there are no traces of rich tombs
around the city during this period and no signs of rich material culture in or
around the city. The absence of architectural remains may mean that Jerusalem
was wretchedly poor, not just in the period after the Babylonian. destruction but
also at the height of the Persian Period (Kenyon 1967b: 105; Weinberg 1970: 204;
Lipschits 2003: 326–334).
In light of this clear archaeological evidence, we should interpret the “Return
to Zion” as a gradual process that did not leave its imprint on the archaeological
data. After nearly a century of Persian rule, Jerusalem was small; the city itself
was not larger than 60 dunams. According to the accepted demographic ratio, we
should estimate the total number of Jerusalem residents at about 1,500,40 proba-
bly the nation’s elite – that is, priests and other temple servants, landed aristocra-
cy, ruling social classes, and so on. There is no longer any room for theories
regarding a “mass return” at the beginning of the Persian Period.41
Based on the interpretation of the archaeological material and the historical
circumstances (Lipschits 2003; 2005: 123–126, 155–186, 261–274), we can reconstruct
a very small return at the beginning of the Persian Period (probably accompanied
by the temple vessels) and several small waves of return during the first hundred
years of Persian rule (in the time of Cyrus II, Cambyses II, Darius I, Xerxes, and
Artaxerxes I),42 probably according to families.43 If this is the case, we should
also presume that most of the returnees were settled in Jerusalem and its sur-
roundings.
We may compare this slow process to the biblical description of the three
main “waves” of emigration from Babylon to Judah: the first at the very beginning
of the Persian Period, after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus (described in Ezra

39 Sec the summary of the archaeological evidence in Lipschits 2005: 214–216.

40 See Lipschits 2003: 364–365; 2005: 261–274; and cf. Carter 1999: 201; Becking 2006. Compare
also Noth 1954: 308.
41 The very few, very late clues that we have regarding the first stage or the return to Zion
attest to this limited immigration, both in number or people and in ability to found an urban
center or even a cultic center. The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah describe precisely these
difficulties and economic problems (Meyers and Meyers 1987: xxxvii). The lack of Levites and
Ezra’s effort; to coerce some lo join him on his way to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:15–20) may support this
thesis.
42 See Hoglund 1992: 23; Knauf 1994: 167; Carter 1999: 199–201; Kinet 2001: 190–202; Lipschits,
2005: 159–169.
43 On the importance of the family as the primary social entity in the exilic period, see Albertz
1992: 407–411; 2001: 135–136. Note also the evidence of the Neirab archive (Ephʿal 1978: 84–87;
see also Timm 1995). See, however, the remarks and reservations of Briant (2002: 885, with
further literature).
256 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

1:9–11; 5:14–16 – headed by Sheshbazzar); the second in the first days of Darius,
after the death of Cambyses II (described in Ezra 2:1–2; cf. Hag 1:1; 2:2, 21 – headed
by Zerubbabel); and the third during the days of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7–8).44 The
“list of returnees” in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 745 also points in this direction.46 It
appears that the list is composed of two major sections, and it is plausible that
these lists determined the affiliation of the residents of the province (“the whole
community together,” Ezra 2:64 and Neh 7:66), who, for the author/editor, are
identical with “the people of the province who came up from among the captive
exiles,” that is, the legitimate continuation of the nation of Israel.47
We may conclude that there were no restrictions on Judeans who wished to
return to Judah after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus II. However, it is hard to

44 In this essay, I will not deal with the chronological problem of Ezra and Nehemiah but merely
state that I agree with the traditional chronology, accepted by most modern scholars. According
to this chronology, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in 458 (seventh year of Artaxerxes I, Ezra 7:7) and
Nehemiah in 445 (twentieth year of the same Persian king, Neh 2:1).
45 For a thorough comparison of the lists, see Batten 1913: 71–103; Galling 1951: 149–158; Allrik
1954. Modern scholarship has accepted the conclusion that the list in Ezra is later and secondary
to the list in Nehemiah (Japhet 1982: 84; 1993b: 112; Williamson 1983; Blenkinsopp 1988: 43–44;
86–87). For further literature, see Williamson 1985: 29–30.
46 Despite the fact that some scholars believe that the list reflects the waves or immigration
that reached the province of Yehud at the beginning or the Return to Zion (cf. Galling 1951: 150–
151; Myers 1965: 15–16), and despite the clear tendency among some scholars to assume that this
was a summary list of several waves of immigration that had arrived before Nehemiah’s time,
I find it difficult to accept the idea that this was the list or those who actually returned from
Babylon, whether at once or in several waves of immigration (Lipschits 2005: 159–169). Batten
(1913: 72–73, 74–75), for example, proposed dating the list to the time of Ezra primarily on the
basis of parallels between the names of those who immigrated with Ezra and the families of
immigrants who appear on the list of the Returnees. Liver (1959: 117–119, and n. 40) attempted
to establish this hypothesis on a historical basis, claiming it was during the early days of the
Return to Zion that the major waves of immigration arrived and that they were joined by new
waves at the beginning of Darius’s reign, when the situation in Babylon worsened. On this
subject, see also Myers 1965: 15–16; Schult 1980; Williamson 1985: 31. Rudolph proposed seeing
the list as a summary of immigration that took place within a relatively short period during the
reign of Cyrus and the beginning of Darius’s rule (1949: 17). This is, to a certain extent, an
extension of Alt’s proposal (1934: 24–25); Alt had postulated that this list was intended to regulate
the rights of the returnees over the land. Williamson limits the date of the list to the time of
Cyrus and Cambyses (1985: xxxiv, 31–32, with further literature). On this subject, see also Blenkin-
sopp 1988: 83. However, there is no supporting evidence in the archaeological and historical
record for demographic changes to the extent or this list, either at the end of the sixth and
beginning of the fifth centuries, or even during the course of the fifth century. Consequently, it
is likely that the list of the returnees is a literary construction based on various lists, perhaps a
census of all residents or the province made at various intervals.
47 See Gunneweg 1985: 53–66; Blenkinsopp 1988: 83; Albertz 2001: 127–28, and see in this direc-
tion the various ideas of Albright 1949b: 87–88, 110–111; 1950: 64 n. 122; Bright 1959: 376–377.
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 257

believe that the Persian regime ordered or even encouraged Judeans to do so

(Kuhrt 1983; van der Spek 1982; Hoglund 1992: 23) The existence of the temple
was the main reason for priestly and Levitical families or other temple functiona-
ries to come to Judah. The situation in Babylon may have been an important
motivation for a few Judean families to move to Judah, especially the consequen-
ces of the revolts after the death of Cambyses II (522–521 BCE; see Albertz 1992:
444) and after the death of Darius I (486–484; 483 BCE; see Liver 1959: 117–119 and
n. 40).48 The unstable economic situation in Babylonia may have been another
motivation for small groups of Judeans to move to Judah, while the developing
coastal area in Palestine provided many possibilities for commerce and for inte-
grating agricultural trade from the hill country with the coastal commerce. The
stable situation in Samaria and Judah was a good foundation for developing agri-
culture and commerce in the area (Meyers 1987: 509–510).

The Status of Jerusalem during the Achaemenid Period:

From Cultic Center to bîrâ

The real change in the history of Jerusalem occurred in the middle of the fifth
century BCE, when the fortifications of Jerusalem were rebuilt. Along with scanty
archaeological evidence,49 we have a clear description of this event in the Nehem-
iah narrative.50 The list of the builders of the wall (Nehemiah 3) that was com-
bined with Nehemiah’s Memoirs by a later editor (Lipschits 2007b; 2012c) is anoth-
er testimony to this event. Furthermore, the impression of this event as one of
the most conspicuous, important events of the time led to enormous expectations
for the renewed status of Jerusalem in the mind of the writer(s) of Nehemiah 11
(Lipschits 2002b; 2005: 423–440, with further literature).

48 Following Kuhrt and Sherwin-White (1987), we should be skeptical with regard to the various
accounts of the harsh blow caused to Babylon by Xerxes. See also the very critical approach of
Briant (2002: 114–116, 543–545) regarding the revolts in Babylon and the Achaemenid reaction.
See Briant’s survey of various scholars’ opinions, with further literature on pp. 899–900, 962–
963.
49 On the archaeological finds of the Persian Period city wall, as well as the other material from
this period in Jerusalem, see the summary by Lipschits 2001; Stern 2001: 434–436; but see also
the opinion of Ussishkin 2006.
50 On the Nehemiah source, see the summary of Reinmuth (2002: 335–336), who, in many re-
spects following Williamson, argues that the story of the construction of the city wall (“Mauer-
bau-Erzählung”) was composed during the governorship of Nehemiah and that it is a reliable
contemporary source.
258 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

The significance of this change in Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century
can only be interpreted in one way: Jerusalem became the capital of the province
(bîrâ), replacing Mizpah. For the many scholars who have accepted All’s theory
(1931; 1934) that Judah was part of the province of Samaria until the days of
Nehemiah, this conclusion is not new (and see in this direction the views of
McEvenue 1981 and Bedford 2001: 45). However, Alt’s hypothesis has no serious
foundation, and most contemporary scholars do not support it.51 Mizpah was
probably the capital of Judah during the 141 years from the time of Gedaliah, the
son of Ahikam (586 BCE; Lipschits 2001) to the end of the Neo-Babylonian Period
(Lemaire 2003: 292) and probably until the time of Nehemiah (445 BCE; Blenkin-
sopp 1998: 42 n. 48; cf. Lemaire 1990: 39–40; 2003: 292).
As has been demonstrated very well by Lemaire and Lozachmeur (1987; 1995),
in the Persian Period a provincial capital was called a birtâ (Akk. birtū, Heb. bîrâ),
and the meaning was ‘a fortified town’, usually with a garrison in it (Neh 2:8; 7:2;
cf. Hoglund 1992: 208–210; Fried 2002: 11–13). Because the fortifications of Jerusa-
lem were destroyed by the Babylonians (cf. 2 Kgs 25:10), and because the first
attempt to rebuild them without the permission of the Achaemenid authorities
failed (as reported in Ezra 4; cf. Neh 1:3), it seems that, even if the temple had
already been rebuilt in Jerusalem and even if the city had already been reestab-
lished as the cultic center of the Judeans, it could not serve as a capital.
The main question remains: What changed in the middle of the fifth cen-
tury BCE? Why did Jerusalem become the capital of Yehud?

Why did Jerusalem Become the Capital of Yehud

in the Middle of the Fifth Century BCE?

Assuming that the fortifications of Jerusalem were actually built during the first
period of Nehemiah as governor in Yehud (Grabbe 2004: 301–302), the main ques-
tion that may be asked is: What happened during the time when Artaxerxes I
allowed the Judeans to build fortifications in Jerusalem? What was the reason
for this change in Persian policy?
Most scholars have explained the building of Jerusalem’s fortifications as the
result of a Persian decision: it was a reward or perhaps even resulted from Per-
sian interests or need. The emphasis has been placed on the active role of the
Achaemenids. Most scholars have connected Achaemenid permission to build the

51 See, e.g., Lemaire 1990: 32–36; Blenkinsopp 1998: 37; Lipschits 1998b: 483; Mittmann 2000: 12–
28, with further literature.
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 259

fortifications of Jerusalem to political and military developments in the region:

the pressure of the Delian League on the Mediterranean coast after 476; the revolt
in Egypt (from winter 461/460 to 454); the unrest all along the coastal area of
Palestine (including the reference to Dor in the Athenian tribute list from 454);
and the revolt of Megabyzus (448). We do not have to go as far as the theories of
Morgenstern (1956; 1957; 1960) or Morton Smith (1971: 127–129, 391–392);52 suffi-
cient rationales may be found in the explanation put forward by Galling as the
reason for the fundamental change in the Persian policy in the Levant and the
mission of Nehemiah (1937: 45–47); the many explanations by scholars for the
building of the fortifications in Jerusalem as an Achaemenid inducement to loyal-
ty;53 or the theory that the Persian efforts to fortify Jerusalem, as well as the
other actions of Nehemiah, were part of a much larger imperial effort to control
and integrate extensive areas into the imperial system (Meyers 1987: 516; Hoglund
1992: 165–169, 207–212, 220–225; Fried 2002).
Most scholars reached their conclusions on this active Achaemenid policy
toward Judah on the basis of the Greek sources on the history of this period, the
book of Ezra-Nehemiah on the history of Judah and the Judeans during this peri-
od, and a basic assumption regarding the strategic importance of Judah.54 How-
ever, it is questionable that there was real danger to the rule of Artaxerxes I in
the western part of his empire as a result of the revolt in Egypt,55 the pressure
of the Delian League,56 and the alleged revolt of Megabyzus.57 Did the Achaeme-

52 On the various theories of “the alleged disturbances at the end of the first quarter of the
fifth century,” see Hoglund 1992: 61–64, 127–128 (and also add to these theories the problematic
suggestion made by Sowers 1996). See Hoglund’s (1992: 64–69) appropriate answer to these theo-
ries, and compare with Briant 2002: 960.
53 See Olmstead 1948: 313–317; Rowley 1963: 237–238; Myers 1965: xxii–xxiii; Ackroyd 1968: 141;
19170: 175–176; Widengren 1977: 528–529; Bodi 2001: 69–86. On the various theories, see the
review of Hoglund 1992: 86–92.
54 In addition to the basic studies by Hoglund and Carter and the literature cited there, see also
Meyers 1987: 511 and n. 13; Albertz 1992: 445–446; Yamauchi 2004: 9.1 will not treat here the
various claims about the special benevolence of the Achaemenid kings toward the Judeans and
Judaism. See, against this, the note of Dandamaev and Lukonin 1989: 249.
55 See, for example, the historical reconstructions by Olmstead 1948: 289–290; Burn 1962: 5–16;
and Cook 1983: 127; and compare the discussion of Bigwood 1976: 1–25 and the discussion and
concerns raised by Briant (2002: 573–578; 973–974, with further literature). It seems that the
revolt was confined to the Delta and did not threaten Achaemenid control in other parts of the
Empire.
56 Many historical reconstructions have been proposed, for example, on the basis of the mention
of Dor in the Athenian tribute list from 454 BCE; but see, against this, the note of Lemaire (1990:
56, n. 135).
57 There is good reason to doubt the reliability of the description of this revolt (it is mentioned
only by Ctesias, Pers. 68–70); compare Bigwood 1976; Hoglund 1992: 162–163; Briant 1992: 577–
579.
260 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

nids sense real danger? Was there any genuine change in the way the Achaeme-
nids ruled the Levant?
Attempting to understand the segmented, literary-theological description in
the Bible of the events in Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century by using
Greek literary sources, but without recourse to archaeological or any other evi-
dence (such as Achaemenid sources), to explain Persian policy and action is, to
say the least, methodologically problematic. The ubiquity of this problematic
methodology was the reason for Hoglund’s (1992) research into the efforts by the
Achaemenid regime to control and integrate various areas into the imperial sys-
tem. However, aside from the very problematic methodology58 the utilized and
problems with his archaeological data and conclusions,59 the more basic problem
of his widely cited thesis is the conclusion that the middle of the fifth century
was the period when the Achaemenids expended much effort on controlling and
integrating large territories of the Levant into the imperial system-and that Judah
was an important objective of this effort.60
On this last point, I can easily agree with Briant’s ironic amazement at the
perceived importance of Judah for resolution of the Achaemenid problems along
the coast and on the border with Egypt: “I have never understood what decisive
strategic advantage against Egypt the small land of Judah could have had in the
eyes of the Achaemenid central authority” (2002: 976, and see pp. 578–579, 974).

58 This is not the place for a full criticism of the methodology al the base of Hoglund’s thesis.
However, aside from his decision to focus on the middle of the fifth century (pp. 163–164, 168–
169, and see below), it is methodologically unacceptable to use architectural typology as an
analytical tool for assessing possible increases in the garrisoning of imperial forces in the Levant
as part of integrating large areas into the imperial system (pp. 165–205, and see esp. pp. 168–
169), especially after nearly 300 years of Mesopotamian (Assyrian, Babylonian, and, later, Persian)
rule in Palestine; there are many examples of Mesopotamian architecture and Persian reuse of
Assyrian structures.
59 This is not the place to discuss the archaeological data presented by Hoglund, but in my
opinion most (if not all) of Hoglund’s fortresses are not to be dated to the middle of the fifth
century. See the critique by Bienkowski (2001b: 358) regarding the date that Hoglund (1992: 172–
175) assigned to Persian-Period structures at Tell es-Saʿidiyeh; see also Lemaire 1994. Compare
this with Tuplin’s explanation for the Achaemenid fortresses (1987).
60 Based on Hoglund’s work, Carter (1999) suggests a new subdivision of the Persian Period:
Persian Period A (from 539/8 to the mid-fifth century 8.C.E.) and Persian Period B (from the mid-
fifth century to 332). This division is problematic from almost every angle but especially in its
attempt to define a material culture using (very problematic!) historical data (see the critique in
Lipschits 2003: 359). The classification of the archaeological evidence into these two subdivisions
does not stand the test of reality. Carter does not even try to substantiate the model that he
presents. He lacks clearly defined assemblages of pottery that are stratigraphically distinguished
and dated decisively in terms of chronology. To a large extent, his ideas remain a theoretical
model that should not be adopted.
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 261

Even more (in contrast to Hoglund’s thesis), I doubt the relevance of a fortified
city in the hill country for the Achaemenid military during the fifth and the
fourth centuries; I doubt the importance of fortifications or even a garrison in
Jerusalem for the continued conflict between the Persians and the Egyptians; and
I doubt the need for such a substantial change in modus operandi in the middle
of the fifth century. I also find no military motivation for strengthening the Per-
sian holdings along the roads in the hill country and the Negev area during this
period; however, the fact that Judah was situated between Persia and Egypt may
explain the social, economic, and military processes that were at work at the end
of the fifth and beginning of the fourth century, when the Egyptians freed them-
selves from the Persian yoke (preserving their independence until 343 BCE). Dur-
ing this time, the Achaemenids may have thought that Palestine, especially the
southern parts of it, had become a very important border area, making it a battle-
field for the Persian army and many of its enemies. It may be that this period
was the most important one in the history of this region after the Babylonian
conquest and destruction at the end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth
century BCE (Briant 2002: 646–655, 663–666, with further literature on pp. 991–
992), and this probably was the time when the Achaemenids established their
control and reorganized their administration and security along the roads in the
southern parts of Palestine (the southern part of the coast area, the southern
Shephelah, and along the Beersheba – Arad valleys). This is probably when the
main administrative center at Lachish (Stratum I) was built (Tal and Fantalkin
2006: 167–197); it was the period when most of the forts and administrative cen-
ters along the roads in the Negev area were built (Stern 2001: 420–421, 577–579);
and it is the time from which come many unprovenanced Aramaic ostraca, as
well as the ostraca from the Beersheba – Arad valleys. From all of these ostraca
we learn about the importance of the southern Shephelah and this region to the
Persian economy, military, and administration (see Lemaire 2006: 413–456).
The answer to the question why Jerusalem became the capital of Yehud in
the middle of the fifth century is found, in my opinion, in the internal Judean
(or Jerusalemite) social, economic, political, and demographic process, which the
Persians did not prevent, although they probably were aware of the risks they
were taking and the fact that the process was to some extent not in their best
interest.61 At the center of this long process was the temple, not only as a cultic,
Literary, and theological center, but as a center for gathering taxes and carrying
out other important fiscal tasks.62

61 See the warnings in the letters cited in Ezra 4. For this case, it is not important if the Aramaic
documents are authentic or not; see Williamson 1985: 62–63, as well as the discussion below.
62 On the importance of the temple as an instrument of Achaemenid fiscal administration, see
Schaper 1995; cf. Schaper 1997.
262 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

This slow, gradual reestablishment of the local social, religious, and economic
power around the temple personnel in Jerusalem occurred about two generations
after the reestablishment of the city as the cultic center of Yehud. We cannot
detect this process with archaeological tools, because the changes were too slow
and too small. It is clear, however, that by the middle of the fifth century Jerusa-
lem had arrived at a point of a change.63
If we accept the thesis that the Aramaic letters that were inserted into Ezra
4:7–24 reflect an attempt to build fortifications around Jerusalem during the reign
of Artaxerxes I, before the arrival of Nehemiah,64 we can see this as an attempt
by local social powers to fortify Jerusalem without dependence on Achaemenid
interests and even without the permission from the Achaemenid regime (vv. 12–
16; cf. Williamson 1984: 82).65 This attempt may explain the news that reached
Nehemiah through Hanani, “one of my brothers” (Neh 1:2), who came from Judah
and “said to me, ‘Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are
in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its
gates have been burned with fire’” (vv. 1, 3; Williamson 1984: 82; 1985: 56–57, 171;
Blenkinsopp 1988: 113–114, 204). The news from Jerusalem stirred Nehemiah to
seek permission from the king: “send me to the city in Judah where my fathers
are buried so that I may rebuild it” (2:5). This may also explain the description
of the wall that Nehemiah inspected (Neh 2:13, 17; cf. 1:3) and the rapid completion
of the building project, which focused on blocking the breaches in the wall and
erecting gates (Williamson 1984: 82).
When Nehemiah arrived as the governor of the province, he found these
local powers already established in Jerusalem. This is the first time that we have
any reference to the problems of various social classes: commercial relations with
the Phoenicians (Neh 13:16; see Williamson 1985: 395, and the discussion of Edel-
man 2006: 207–246); the economic, social, and family relations with the upper
classes and leaders in the neighboring provinces (Neh 6:17–19; 13:4, 23–28); the

63 Stern (2001: 581–582) worked with the same assumption, basing his view on the archaeologi-
cal material, but he interpreted the cause and the results differently.
64 On the possible authenticity of the letters, see Stolper (1989: 300), as against the linguistic
and stylistic arguments of Schwiderski (2000: 344–351; 354–380). However, the possibility that
they are original documents that were edited and adapted to fit the frame of the editor’s pur-
poses should be considered (Williamson 1985: 59–60), as presented by Grabbe (2006), even if he
is skeptical about the two documents discussed here. On the wall building, see Williamson 1984:
81–82; Yamauchi 1990: 270.
65 Blenkinsopp (1988: 113) has connected it with the mention of the ‫ גדר‬in Ezra’s confessional
prayer (Ezra 9:9). It is interesting to note, even if it is difficult to accept, the thesis of Morton
Smith (1971: 122–124), who argued that with this event Ezra’s mission ended in disgrace and he
was recalled to the imperial court.
 Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes and the Status of Jerusalem 263

problem of marriage with foreign women (Ezra 9–10; Neh 13:27); and social con-
flicts between the rich families, nobles, and landowners and the poor families
who had to sell their land and houses in order to pay their debts and heavy taxes
(Neh 5:1–13; see Albertz 1992: 495–497, with further literature).
The agreement of the Persians to build fortifications in Jerusalem and to alter
the status of the city to the capital of the province was the most dramatic change
in the history of the city after the Babylonian destruction in 586. However, we
know nothing about the reasons for this change. The most logical explanation is
that the Persian authorities agreed to the request (of the Judeans/Jerusalemites/
some representatives of the Judeans/Nehemiah?) when they realized that, besides
its status as the ideological and literary center, Jerusalem had already become
the fiscal center of the province (given the usual role of the temple in gathering
taxes; see Schaper 1995; cf. Schaper 1997). It might be that the real Persian interest
was in the fact that the governor of the province would as a result be as close as
possible to the temple.
The importance of this change was understood by the compiler of the Nehe-
miah Memoirs and the editor of the book of Nehemiah as the beginning of a new
period (Lipschits 2007b; 2012c), with high expectations and national aspirations
that the city would be renewed as of old, its military, material, and governing
powers reestablished, and its status restored (Lipschits 2002b). However, in spite
of attempts to repopulate the city, the poor archaeological remains in Jerusalem
(at least in the narrow area of the city of David) show us that, even after the city
wall had been rebuilt, the actual demographic and architectural situation in the
city did not change dramatically. In fact, Jerusalem did not become a real urban
center until the Hellenistic Period.
Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem:
Facts and Interpretations
Introduction

In the last few years, there has been a drastic decline in scholarly estimates of
Jerusalem’s population in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods. Ryle’s popula-
tion estimate of about 100,000 returnees from Babylon to Judah, and a similar
number of population in Jerusalem and its neighboring towns and villages (1907:
xxxii), was cut in half to the more acceptable estimates of the middle of the
20th century when Albright (1949b: 87) wrote, “The total population of Judah was
over 42,000 freeborn Jews, besides over 7,000 slaves and menials, approximately
50,000 in all, of whom between 10,000 and 15,000 may have lived in and around
the capital”. Many scholars accepted this estimate through the second half of that
century (cf. Bright 1959: 376–377, 383; Mazar 1975: 200; Berquist 1995: 83, n. 43).
Even Weinberg (1972; 1992: 42–43; 2000: 316), who had a very high estimate for
the population of Judah (150,000), estimated the population of Jerusalem within
that ‘consensus’ (3,044 men and 12,000 or 15,000 inhabitants).1
During the 1970’s changes started to affect demographic estimates in general
and those of Jerusalem in particular. Population estimates of Jerusalem in the
Persian and early Hellenistic period dropped to half or less than half of the previ-
ous numbers, especially when more archaeological material came to light, and it
became clear that between the 5th and the 3rd centuries BCE the city was concen-
trated only in the Southeastern Hill (the so called ‘City of David’). Broshi (1977:
68, and table p. 71) estimated that the population in Persian period Jerusalem was
approximately 4,800 inhabitants; Oeming (1987: 193–194) about 4,800–6,000 peo-
ple or more; Avigad (1993: 720) “a few thousand” inhabitants; Levine (2002: 33)
about 4,000–5,000 inhabitants; and Blenkinsopp (1988: 320–327) and Grabbe (1998:
59) about 3,000.
These numbers continued to drop when the estimates were made with great-
er attention to the results of archaeological excavations and surveys. Based on
the archaeological data, Carter (1994: 134–135; 1999: 148, 288; cf. Miller and Hayes
1986: 522–523) and Lipschits (2003: 330–331; 2005: 212; 2006a: 32) estimated ca.
1,500 inhabitants in Jerusalem during the 5th century BCE,2 while Geva’s (2007b:
56–57) estimation of the population in Jerusalem was about 1,000 people.

1 See, however, Blenkinsopp (1991: 40–44) and Carter’s (1999: 279–299) critiques of Weinberg’s
estimates.
2 Carter, based on textual evidence from Nehemiah, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, estimated Jerusa-
lem’s population before the time of Nehemiah was 625 to 750 inhabitants (1999: 200, and cf.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-015
266 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Recently, two ‘ultra-minimalistic’ views have been proposed. On the one

hand, Zwickel (2008: 216–217), mainly on the basis of the descriptions and lists in
Nehemiah, estimated that the population of the city before the days of Nehemiah
was about 200 people and afterwards about 400 or 600 people.3 Finkelstein (2008:
501–507), on the other hand, expressed a similar view, though rooted in the
archaeological data. According to Finkelstein, only some parts of the Southeastern
Hill of Jerusalem were populated in this period, leading him to conclude that
the settled area consisted of c. 20–25 dunams. According to his calculations, the
population in the city during Nehemiah’s period was about 400 people, including
women and children (i.e., about 100 men).
The purpose of this paper is to present the archaeological finds from the
Persian and Early Hellenistic periods in Jerusalem, assess the scope of the built-
up area of the city, and provide – on the basis of this archaeological data – an
estimate of the city’s population.

Some Methodological Notes

The Babylonian, Persian and early Hellenistic periods are a unique era in the
history of Judah. From 586 to 167 BCE, Judah was a small province under the rule
of great empires. According to both biblical and archaeological evidence, Jerusa-
lem was destroyed and left deserted by the Babylonians for a period of nearly
50 years (Lipschits 2005: 210–218, with further literature). Biblical accounts assert
that the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt at the beginning of the Persian Period,
and that, during this period, the city once again became the center of the Judean
cult. According to an account in Nehemiah, the fortifications of Jerusalem were
rebuilt in the middle of the 5th century BCE. If this was actually the case, than
as a result, Jerusalem became a Bîrāh, probably replacing Mizpah, which had
served as the capital of the newly established province of Yehud for 141 years,
from 586 BCE (Lipschits 2001a), through the Neo-Babylonian period (Lemaire

Meyers and Meyers 1994: 282). Halligan (2002: 146) assumed on the basis of Carter’s formula that
at the beginning of the Persian Period there were 977 to 1080 inhabitants in Jerusalem. These
estimates all follow those of Smith (1971: 141–144) and Weinberg (1992: 43; 2000: 308–309, 313–
316), in their textual-historical reconstruction of the synoikismos policy of Nehemiah, parallel to
the policies of Greek tyrants. Weinberg (2000: 308–309), hypothesized that before the synoikismos
there were only 50–150 men in Jerusalem (200–600 people) and after it there were 3,044 men or
more (about 12,000 or 15,000 people).
3 Zwickel based his estimations mainly on the descriptions and lists in the book of Nehemiah.
Since this paper deals mainly with the archaeological finds from Jerusalem, I will not deal here
with Zwickel arguments. On this subject see: Lipschits 2005: 154–174.
 Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations 267

2003: 292), until the time of Nehemiah (445 BCE, Blenkinsopp 1998: 42, n. 48; cf.
Lemaire 1990: 39–40; 2003: 292). Unfortunately though, the available archaeologi-
cal data for the Persian period that might corroborate this biblical evidence is
minimal and, so generally, scholars have assumed that the city did not become a
large and important urban and administrative center before the middle of the
second century BCE.
The history of Jerusalem between 586 and 167 BCE is an “interlude” between
two periods of greatness and political independence: the end of the first temple
period on the one hand and the period of the Hasmoneans on the other (Lipschits
2011a). Before 586 and after 167 BCE Judah, and especially Jerusalem, were the
focus of scribal literature that promoted the centrality of the city, its temple, and
the leaders of the nation (be it the house of David or the Hasmonean family).4
Jerusalem and its ongoing expansion played an important role in this literature
and, in some ways, developed as a result of it. In both periods, the built-up area
of the city expanded, over a short time period, to the Western Hill of Jerusalem
(the area of the modern day Jewish and Armenian Quarters and the so-called
Mount Zion) and was enclosed by strong fortifications. The Southeastern Hill (the
‘City of David’) was rebuilt and refortified as well. The borders of Judah, its army,
and its administration also underwent dramatic changes, all of which make the
late 8th and 7th centuries BCE as well as the second half of the 2nd century BCE
well defined and easily recognizable periods in the historical and archaeological
research of Judah.
In contrast to the rich and well recognized architectural remains from the
late 8th to 7th and the 2nd to 1st centuries BCE, not many building remains from
the intervening period, i.e., the Babylonian, Persian and early Hellenistic periods,
have been uncovered in Judah. This is the case even at sites where an abundance
of pottery sherds, stamp impressions, figurines and other typical Persian period
finds have been uncovered (Stern 2001: 424–427, 461–462). In other places, I have
claimed that under the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian rule there was a marked
process of attenuation in urban life in Judah (and to a lesser degree also in
Samaria, see Lipschits 2006a: 26–30, with further literature). The administrative
and urban centers that survived the catastrophes of those periods were small
and weak compared with their 6th century or 2nd century BCE counterparts.
However, this scarcity of building remains from the Persian period does not fully

4 The Biblical literature from the Persian and Early Hellenistic period was written during a
period when Jerusalem was small and weak, and Judah was a small province under the rule of
huge empires. The memories of Jerusalem and the temple from the period before the Babylonian
destruction, side by side with the expectations and hopes that the city will renew its glorious
days, were the main force behind the Biblical literature during this period.
268 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

reflect the actual, admittedly poor, situation at that time. Rather, it is the outcome
of incomplete archaeological data (Stern 2001: 461–462), especially in the case of
Jerusalem.
Contrary to views that take the negative finds, especially in Jerusalem, as
reflecting the actual situation in the city (“the negative is as important as the
positive”, Finkelstein 2008: 505), I will suggest that the Persian and early Hellenis-
tic period occupation levels were severely damaged by intensive building activi-
ties conducted in the late Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and even later periods.
The situation in Jerusalem is not unique or exceptional, especially when dealing
with hilltop sites where all structures – private and public – had to be based on
the bedrock,5 but it is much more dramatic because of the scope and grandeur
of the subsequent building efforts, as well as the frequent destruction of the site.
The religious, cultic, and political status of Jerusalem likely motivated not only
frequent political upheavals and destruction, but also a desire to remove previous
political and religious structures, and to reshape the city. It seems to me that the
main destructive force in Jerusalem was the efforts, along many different periods,
to build new structures and the need to clear the debris from earlier periods.
Additionally, the topographical nature of the Southeastern Hill, which is very
steep and narrow at the top, requires that buildings, especially the more promi-
nent ones, be built on bedrock. This may explain why the remains from the
intervening 6th to 3rd centuries BCE were discovered mainly in ‘pockets’ between
the late complexes, or in the dumps down in the valleys to the east and to the
west of the hill. When discussing the meaning of the archaeological remains dated
to the Persian and early Hellenistic periods discovered in the city, one should be
very careful about concluding that the city was empty or nearly empty through-
out these periods. In this case, it is more difficult to assert that the absence of
finds means that there was nothing there; explanations dealing with the negative
finds must be taken seriously.
The above assumption is not merely a theoretical one. The Southeastern Hill
(the ‘city of David’) was rebuilt and refortified in the Late Hellenistic, Roman,
and later periods, undergoing particularly dramatic changes when huge public
and private buildings were built on top of the ridge. In most cases, like at other
hilltop sites, the new buildings were based on the natural rock or on very strong
existing structures (like the Middle Bronze and Iron Age II fortifications). These
structures functioned just like the natural bedrock, especially in the Ophel region,
along the eastern slope of the ridge, and in the area surrounding the Gihon

5 Even the late second temple private houses in the upper city of Jerusalem, which is not so
steep as the City of David, were based on the bedrock, and their storerooms, cellars, ritual
bathes, and water pits were all carved in the rock.
 Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations 269

Spring. The late builders, who wanted a strong foundation for large private and
public structures, removed all the small and unstable remains from the periods
between the late Iron Age and the Hasmonean period. Only in cases when there
were remains from the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods that could have
been combined in later building project, either because they changed the natural
rock or they were leveling Iron Age structures that could have been incorporated
in later building remains, the Persian period material was left in place. The same
situation can be detected along the southern edge of the hill. All the pre-Hellenis-
tic remains in the southern part of the City of David were removed and the area
was cleaned to the bedrock in the Hellenistic Period.6
As a matter of fact, mapping the main structures from the late Hellenistic,
Roman, Byzantine, and later periods in the City of David creates a kind of a ‘nega-
tive image’ of the places where Persian and early Hellenistic periods sherds, stamp
impressions, and other indicative artifacts can be found. The finds from these
periods survived only between the later buildings, in fills, or along the slopes to
the east and west of the ridge. This is the reason why, for example, the earliest
remains in Shiloh’s Area K, located on the ridge, about 100 m to the north of Area
A are dated to the early Roman period, even though this area was excavated to
bedrock. This area went through a large-scale clearing operation, which destroyed
the earlier remains. Another example of the absence of Persian or early Hellenistic
finds can be observed in Shiloh’s Area A, on the southern top of the ridge. This
area experienced dramatic changes during the Roman Period with the construc-
tion of part of the reservoirs (Birket el-Ḫamra) and the fortification of the mouth
of the Central Valley, which formed part of the ‘First Wall’ of Jerusalem (Shiloh
1984a: 5). Shiloh noticed the reuse of stones from earlier periods as part of the
Late Hellenistic and Early Roman building projects, and De Groot, Cohen and Caspi
(1992) noticed that the Early Roman remains were discovered over Iron II remains.
The same situation obtained in E. Mazar’s excavations just above Area G (2006),
where a building from the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods was uncov-
ered superimposed over remains of a large building dated to the Iron IIA.
The absence of finds from the Persian Period in the large area of the Ophel
is also not surprising. The heavy destruction caused to this area by the Babyloni-
ans and the probable after-effects of further collapse and crumbling processes –
well indicated in Area G of Shiloh’s excavations, just under the Ophel, at the
northeastern side of the City of David, and the huge stone collapse and ruins as

6 Shiloh (1984a: 17) assumed that it was part of the building of Aelia Capitolina, Barkay (2008a:
48; 2008b: 49–57) assumed that it was part of the destruction of the Seleucid Hakrah (141 BCE),
and Reich claimed that it was part of the building of the Church near the Siloam Pool (oral
communication).
270 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

discovered in the excavations – made it very hard to develop future settlements.

The slopes of the ridge were cleaned to bedrock in the Herodian, as well as in
the Umayyad, period (Mazar 1986: 64). Especially in the Herodian period, the
topography of the Ophel area was changed and large buildings and ritual baths
were built, founded on and cut into the natural bedrock (Mazar 1986: 41–46). The
best example of such a structure is the stairway leading to the Huldah Gates,
which covered a very large area and was built solely on the bedrock. No building
remains from the period before Herod’s time were discovered in the Ophel area,
with the exception of the so called ‘Building A’ (‘the corner turret’ or ‘the extra
tower’) which was part of the Ophel’s fortifications in the Iron Age II and provid-
ed a sturdy foundation for the later construction above it (Mazar and Mazar 1989:
8); Building C (the gate), which is a massive structure, composed of a stone plinth,
foundation walls and earth fills, built in a place where the bedrock descends
sharply, and which served as a base for later buildings and fortifications, especial-
ly in the Roman Period (idem: 13–28); and, some remains of Building D (idem: 29–
48). All these structures were strong and massive enough to be treated by the
architects of the Roman period as part of the bedrock, so that the buildings from
the Roman period were built on the foundation they provided (see, for instance,
idem: 25–26; 31–32; 36–37; 41–42). Besides these structures, only some architectural
remains can be dated to the period between the Iron Age and the early Roman
Period (see, for instance, W. 51, in Mazar and Mazar 1989: 33; 47). There are,
however, many Iron Age pottery sherds, especially in the fills (together with Helle-
nistic and Roman pottery and other finds, see: Kenyon 1967b: 104; Mazar and
Mazar 1989: 9–12; 46–47), in contrast with only a few sherds from the Persian
period (and only one yehud stamp impression, see: Mazar and Mazar 1989: XV–
XVI).
One more methodological point should be raised in this connection. The Per-
sian period in Jerusalem did not end suddenly with a violent destruction. One
can assume that had this not been the case, we could have detected many more
finds in the destruction level. However, when archaeologists are dealing with a
period that ended in a long transition bridging the Persian and Hellenistic period
(the 4th-3rd centuries BCE), and adding the nature of this calm end to the nature
of the poor and small settlement throughout the 6th to 3rd centuries BCE, and
the nature of the later periods (late Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine), character-
ized by huge building projects founded on the bedrock, we have a reasonable
explanation for the absence of Persian period building remains in Jerusalem
without taking this absence as a proof for the actual situation in the city through-
out this period.
The next sections will discuss the actual Persian period and early Hellenistic
finds in Jerusalem in order to assess the scope of the settled area in the city
during these periods, the size of the city, and the number of its inhabitants.
 Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations 271

Persian Period Finds in Jerusalem: The Facts

Few architectural finds discovered in Jerusalem attest to its existence as an urban

center during the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods. Additionally, there are
no traces of rich tombs around the city during this period,7 and no signs of rich
material culture in or around the city. The main finds from Jerusalem that are
clearly assigned to the Persian period are pottery sherds and other small finds
(especially stamp impressions) typical of this period. I will first present the finds
discovered on the Western Hill of Jerusalem (the modern day Jewish and Armeni-
an Quarters and the area of Mount Zion) and then the finds discovered on the
Southeastern Hill (the City of David).

Persian Period Finds in the Western Hill

In the many excavations in the Western Hill of Jerusalem, only a few pottery
sherds and other small finds from the Persian Period have been found, in most
cases, in landfills from the Hellenistic and especially from the Roman Period and
with no clear stratigraphic context (Stern 2001: 434–436).
Within the area of the Armenian Garden, several pottery sherds from the
Persian Period and six yehud stamp impressions were uncovered in the layers of
silt that overlay the remnant of the Babylonian destruction (Kenyon 1967b: 105–
112; Tushingham 1967: 72; 1985: 38, 72, but see, for instance, the critique by Barkay
1985b: 181). Gibson (1987) and Geva (2003a: 524–525) describe similar results. Bro-
shi’s excavations on Mt. Zion uncovered two yehud stamp impressions and a
small silver coin of the yehud type, similar to that found by Negbi on the French
Hill (Broshi 1972: 105; 1976: 82–83; Barkay, Tal and Fantalkin 2002: 66). In Bliss
and Dickey’s excavations at the southwestern part of Mt. Zion (1894–1897) one
yehud stamp impression was discovered (1898: Pl. 27: 47), and in the excavations
conducted in the same place in 2007–2008, a Hellenistic 2nd century BCE fortifica-
tion was discovered (part of it was already exposed in Bliss and Dickey’s excava-
tions), together with pottery and other finds from the late Iron Age and Hellenistic
period.8 No Persian period finds were reported from Zelinger’s excavations.
In the excavations conducted by Lux at the Church of the Redeemer at the
northwest section of the Muristan, mixed pottery sherds were found in the land-

7 On the burial caves in Mamilla and Ketef Hinnom see: Reich 1994; Barkay 1994, and see further
below.
8 Zelinger, in IAA announcement to the media: http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_item_ido.
asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1423.
272 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

fill underneath the wall, which was dated to the late Roman Period. Among these
sherds were many sherds from Iron Age II, and alongside these, a few pottery
sherds from the Persian Period.9 Within the citadel (the Tower of David), a yršlm
stamp impression, dated to the 2nd century BCE was discovered, together with
one late yehud stamp impression dated to the same period. No earlier material
was reported in this area (Amiran and Eitan 1970a: 13, and cf. Avigad 1976a: 25,
n. 77). Avigad identified only a small number of seal impressions of the yršlm and
yehud types in all of the extensive excavations of the Jewish Quarter and so
concluded that the entire area was abandoned between the end of the Iron Age
and the beginning of the Hellenistic period (Avigad 1972a: 95; 1983: 61–63). In a
similar way, Geva summarized the finds dated to the Persian period that were
discovered in the Jewish quarter during Avigad’s excavations (1969–1982) (Geva
2000b: 24; 2003a: 208; 2003b: 524).
One yehud stamp impression was found in the Western Wall of the Temple
Mount excavations, under the floors of the Herodian Period (Mazar 1969, Pl. 46: 3).
South of the Temple Mount, a few pottery sherds from the Persian period were
found in Hellenistic period fills, together with two Attic sherds and one yehud
stamp impression (Mazar 1972: 88; 1980: 49). Ben-Dov adds to these a clay figurine
from the Persian period, and otherwise emphasized the nearly complete absence
of finds from the Persian period (1982: 63–64).
In Barkay’s description of the salvage excavations conducted by Kloner and
Bahat on Ha-Gai Street (1985b: 43), he notes that within the line of the wall, with
its north-south orientation, pottery sherds were found from the Second Temple
period, and at the foot of the wall, on the natural rock, some pottery sherds from
the seventh century BCE were discovered, together with a large bowl dated to
the Persian Period.
The unavoidable conclusion from the above summary is that throughout the
Persian and early Hellenistic periods, the Western Hill was entirely abandoned,
and the area was only resettled in the 2nd century BCE.10 There are no signs for
burials in the Western Hill throughout the period that it was abandoned, proba-
bly because of the memories of the importance of this area, the marked remains
of the houses and the Iron Age city wall, and probably the existence of some

9 Among these finds one should mention a rim of a holemouth jar with wedge-shaped impres-
sions (Lux 1972: 191–195, and cf. Stern 1982: 133–136).
10 This is the common view among scholars, and see, for instance, Kenyon 1967a: 188–255;
Tsafrir 1977: 36; Avigad 1983: 61–63; Geva 1983; 1994; 2000a: 158; 2000b: 24; 2003a: 113–114; 2003b:
524–526; Geva and Reich 2000: 42; Geva and Avigad 2000b: 218; Shiloh 1984a: 23; Tushingham
1985: 85; Broshi and Gibson 1994; Chen, Margalit and Pixner 1994; Sivan and Solar 1994; Finkiel-
stijn 1999: 28*; De Groot and Ariel 2005: 67–68; Lipschits 2005: 212–213; Lipschits and Vanderhooft
2007a: 108–112.
 Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations 273

scattered houses and tilled pieces of land. Even if there are signs in three tombs
from the rich late Iron Age burial field that surrounded the Western Hill to the
north, west and south before the 586 BCE destruction, for continued use in the
Persian period (Barkay 1994; Reich 1994), the reasonable interpretation is that it
belonged to families that lived in Jerusalem before the destruction and in the
area of Jerusalem or even in the City of David during the Persian period.
This fact stands in agreement with the finds of yehud stamp impressions,
since according to the new typology developed by Vanderhooft and Lipschits
(2007), no stamp impressions belonging to the early (late 6th and 5th century BCE)
or middle types (4th and 3rd centuries BCE) were discovered in any of the exca-
vated areas outside the limits of the City of David (Lipschits and Vanderhooft
2007a: 108–112). All the stamp impressions discovered in the Western Hill belong
to the two latest types (dated to the 2nd century BCE, maybe even to the middle
or second half of this century), and some of them came from clear Hasmonean
archaeological contexts, in some cases together with yršlm stamp impressions
and other material dated to this period (Geva 2007a, with further literature; Lip-
schits and Vanderhooft, 2007a: 111–112).
Of the ten stamp impressions belonging to late types discovered in the Jewish
Quarter excavations (Reich 2003a; Eshel 2006: 404), five were excavated in a well
stratified context, dated to the second century BCE. One stamp impression was
excavated in Area W and four more in Area C, all of them in loci consisting of
homogenous earth fill of the second century BCE, and in an identical stratigraphic
sequence: above eighth–sixth century BCE remains, and under remains of the
first century BCE–first century CE (Geva 2007a). Other stamp impressions discov-
ered on the Western Hill of Jerusalem came from post-Hellenistic stratigraphic
contexts. Some were found in fills under buildings from the Herodian period,11
and others in fills from later periods.
The 27 yehud stamp impressions discovered in various areas of the Western
Hill represent more than 30 % of the total finds of the late group of yehud stamp
impressions discovered in Jerusalem (59 more stamp impressions from the late
group were discovered in the City of David). This proportion is much higher than
the Rhodian stamp impressions, of which only 5 % were discovered in the West-
ern Hill, while most of the rest were discovered in the City of David (Ariel 1990b;
2003). The difference in the proportion of the two types of stamp impressions
discovered in the Western Hill and in the City of David probably does not point

11 See, for example, the six stamp impressions discovered in the Kenyon-Tushingham excavations
in the Armenian Garden, all were excavated in a fill connected to the podium of Herod’s palace,
which includes a mixture of pottery from the First and Second Temple periods (Tushingham 1985:
37, Fig. 17: 18–23). Also in Amiran and Eitan’s excavations in the Citadel, a stamp impression was
discovered in the fill of the podium of Herod’s palace (Amiran and Eitan 1970a: 13).
274 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

to different population groups in these areas before the destruction of the Hakra
in 141 BCE by Simeon (I Mac. 13, 49–51), as assumed by Finkielsztejn (1999: 28*–
31* with further literature, and see against this idea Ariel 1990b: 25; 2000: 269,
276–280). Instead, this fact likely indicates that the settlement on the Western Hill
did not start before the beginning of the second half of the 2nd century BCE
(Geva 1985: 30; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a: 112), a period in which there
was a sharp decline in the importation of wine from Rhodes (Ariel 1990b: 21–25;
2000: 267–269). We can also assume that the settlement process of the Western
Hill during the 2nd century BCE was a much slower and gradual process than
described by some scholars (see, for instance, Finkielsztejn 1999: 28*).

Persian Period Finds in the City of David

Most of the excavated areas in the City of David since the 1960’s, including Ken-
yon’s Areas A, F, O, W, K, N (not to mention Areas B, D, E along the Eastern slopes
of the Western Hill), Shiloh’s Areas B, D, E and G, and Areas A and B excavated
by Reich and Shukron, were outside the presumed narrow inhabited area of the
Persian and Hellenistic periods that was limited to the upper part of the hill. This
is probably the reason why most of the important finds from the Persian period
in the City of David were discovered in Macalister and Duncan’s excavations
(1923–1925), just above and to the west of Area G of Shiloh’s excavations, and
E. Mazar’s current excavations. Many pottery sherds from the Persian period
were discovered, as well as 54 yehud and 6 lion stamp impressions dated to the
Persian period (Duncan 1931: 143). This is the largest number of Persian period
stamp impressions discovered in one area in the City of David, and the most
important Persian period concentration of finds. The location of this area at the
center of the ridge of the Southeastern Hill, at the northern area of the City of
David and just below the Ophel, attests to its administrative importance in the
Persian Period. We may assume that these finds, probably part of a large fill that
included Iron Age Pottery and other Iron Age finds, were purposely taken from
the Ophel area no earlier than the middle of the Persian period as part of a
construction project just below the Ophel, at the northern and highest part of the
City of David.
In Kenyon’s square AXVIII, which was excavated to the north of the tower
that had already been exposed by Macalister and Duncan (1926: 49–51) and dated
by them to the Persian period, she observed that the tower was attached to an
earlier wall, which was built of large stones on a rock scarp about 7–8 meters
high. She dated the wall to the Persian period, assigned its construction to Nehe-
miah, and dated the tower to the Hasmonean fortification (Kenyon 1963: 15; 1974:
183–184, 191–192, Pl. 77; cf. idem. 1966: 83–84; 1967a: 69).
 Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations 275

In 2005, Eilat Mazar renewed the excavations in the same area, and identified
this wall (her wall 20, and see Mazar 2007b: 49–60; 2007c: 17–21) as part of the
northern Iron Age IIA fortification of what she called ‘David’s Palace’. The Hasmo-
nean tower was attached to this wall, with no signs of Persian period building
remains (Mazar 200b: 64). In 2007, as part of the conservation project of the
Hasmonean northern tower, Mazar excavated the fill under the tower, and discov-
ered the same Persian period material previously exposed by Kenyon and Shiloh.
According to Kenyon, this fill was connected to the tower that was built on the
bedrock, and this is why she attempted to date it to the Persian period. Franken,
however, presented the drawing of the cut of Kenyon’s Square XVIII and demon-
strated that this fill was not connected to the wall, as Macalister and Duncan had
earlier presumed. Eilat Mazar (2007b: 49–60; 2007c: 17–21; 2008b: 31–37) suggested
dating the tower and the wall attached to it (wall 27) to the 5th century BCE and
identified it as a part of Nehemiah’s wall, but the reasons for this decision and
the question of the connection of this fill to the wall itself are not clear. Shiloh
connected this tower to the 1st century BCE glacis that was already excavated by
Kenyon. Its connection to Macalister’s northern tower was well demonstrated
(Shiloh 1984a: 20–21, and figs. 27, 28; cf. the photo in Mazar 2007b: 64). This north-
ern tower was not built on the bedrock and, consequently, it collapsed, making
it possible for Eilat Mazar to excavate the fill under it. The fill contains finds only
from the 6th–5th centuries BCE, which seems to indicate that it was part of the
cleaning of the area above it (in the northern edge of the city of David, just under
the Ophel), which in turn indicates that that area was populated in the Persian
period. The date of the fill, where there are no indications for late Persian materi-
al (including yehud stamp impressions) may indicate that it was laid before the
fill above it, discovered by Macalister and Duncan, but it is certainly not sufficient
grounds to date the northern tower to the 5th century BCE or to identify it as
part of Nehemiah’s wall.
Some more Persian period finds, including one yehud stamp impression, were
discovered, though not in-situ, in Crowfoot and Fitzgerald’s excavations at the
‘western gate’ of the City of David (1927–1928) (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929: 67).
Pottery sherds dated to the Persian period, as well as another stamp impression,
were excavated by Reich and Shukron, just a few meters to the north, in the
Givati parking place (even though they did not reach the Persian period Stratum
when the excavation was stopped, and see Shukron and Reich 2005: 8).12 These
finds provide further evidence that the hill above this area (probably to its east

12 The excavations in this area were renewed by the Israel Antiquity Authority under the super-
vision of D. Ben-Ami and Y. Tchehanovetz (from Reich and Shukron’s excavations to the north),
but no Persian period finds have been yet reported (2009).
276 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

and north-east) was occupied during the Persian period. This is another indica-
tion that the Ophel and the northern part of the City of David were settled during
the Persian period.
In sum, the northern part of the City of David, just below the Ophel, contains
a significant number of Persian period finds. The fills in which these finds were
found seem to have originated from the Ophel, just above this area to the north,
and were laid before the late Hellenistic and Roman periods.
Most of the Persian period pottery sherds and stamp impressions from the
central and southern parts of the City of David were discovered in Kenyon’s
excavations along the eastern slope of the ridge, in Shiloh’s Areas G, E, and D,
and in the excavations of Reich and Shukron south of Shiloh’s Area D. In the
publication of Shiloh’s excavations at the City of David, three Strata were ob-
served and dated to the period between the late 6th or early 5th and the 2nd cen-
tury BCE: Stratum 9 was dated to the Persian period, Stratum 8 to the early
Hellenistic period, and Stratum 7 to the 2nd century BCE (Hasmonean Period).
Stratum 9, however, does not appear in all the excavated areas (Shiloh 1984a: 4,
Table 2). Finds attributed to this Stratum appeared in Area D1 (Ariel, Hirschfeld
and Savir 2000: 59–62; De Groot 2001: 77), Area D2 (Shiloh 1984a: 8–9),13 and in
Area G (Shiloh 1984a: 20).14 Shiloh’s finds from the Persian Period were also par-
tially represented in Area E1 (Shiloh 1984a: 14; De Groot 2001: 77; 2004: 15), and
included some chalk vessels (Cahill 1992: 191–198, fig. 14). Sherds dated to the
Persian period were discovered in the fills in Area H, to the east of the Siloam
Pool, on the eastern slopes of Mount Zion (De Groot and Michaeli 1992: 50–51; De
Groot 2001: 78).15 Persian period sherds and seal impressions were discovered in
Reich and Shukron’s Areas A and B, above the Kidron Valley, ca. 200–250 m south
of the Gihon Spring (Reich and Shukron 1998; 2007). The finds from these areas
probably come from the settlement on the ridge above.
According to De Groot (2001: 77; 2004: 15, and cf. Cahill 1992: 191–198, fig. 14),
the most significant finds from the Persian period were excavated in Area E,
especially in four squares (N-M \ 1–20). In this area the excavators could differen-
tiate between three different stages that they attributed to the Persian period
Stratum 9. At the early stage (9c), there is evidence for the reuse of a large Iron

13 The finds assigned to Stratum 9 at Area D2 include a Lycian coin dated to 500–440 BCE (Ariel
1990b: C1) and an ostracon (Naveh 2000: 16).
14 In this area Kenyon also discovered Persian Period finds (dated by her to the 5th–3rd centu-
ries BCE) in the fill adjacent to the Northern tower, and this is the reason why she assigned this
wall to Nehemiah’s fortifications. See, however, the critique of De Groot 2001: 78.
15 De Groot’s assumed that the finds from the Persian period are a proof that the Siloam pool
was fortified during the Persian Period.
 Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations 277

Age building that was destroyed along with the rest of the city in 586 BCE (and
cf. De Groot 2001: 77–78). De Groot and Ariel have suggested dating this early
Persian period stage to the end of the 6th and first half of the 5th century BCE
(De Groot 2001: 78; 2004: 15), i.e., to the ‘pre-Nehemiah’ phase of the described
‘return’ of the exiles. A sloping level of quarrying refuse (composed of limestone
chips with very little interspersed earth or pottery) was ascribed to the second
stage (9b). The refuse covers the large house of the previous stage. The same level
of quarrying refuse appeared also in Area D1, 500 m to the south, and was dated
to Stratum 9 (Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59, and cf. Shiloh 1984a: 7; De
Groot 2001: 78). In some cases the levels of these chips were separated by thin
layers of earth, without any coherent pattern. The quarrying activities above the
eastern slope were documented in the excavations by Bliss and Dickie (1898),
Weill (1920) and in Area K of the City of David excavations (Ariel and Magness
1992). It should be emphasized that the existence of such levels of quarrying
refuse is an indication that the areas where it was discovered were outside the
limits of the city (Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59), but it also indicates that
immediately above this area significant construction activity was undertaken. De
Groot and Ariel have suggested dating this second phase to the reconstruction of
the city undertaken by Nehemiah in the middle of the 5th century BCE (De Groot
2001: 78; 2004: 15; 2005: 82). The fact that signs of this phase were discovered in
a few other parts of the eastern slope (in all of them there is reuse in the Roman
period) may support the assumption that it is a part of quarrying works conduct-
ed along the upper part of the eastern slope of the ridge. The Persian period date,
the location of the works, and the long line along the eastern slope of the ridge,
are all indications of the “missing” wall of the Persian period. It can be assumed
that the heavy destruction of the city in 586 BCE and its later aftermath, forced
the late 6th and 5th century BCE settlers to move the wall to the upper part of
the ridge, where there was a need for preparation-quarrying activity.
A few terrace walls and some floors with ovens were attributed to the third
stage (9C) of the Persian period. De Groot and Ariel have suggested this phase
reflects activities at the margins of the city, outside the limits of the fortified walls.
It seems, however, that the use of the quarries on the upper part of the ridge of
the City of David continued over a long period of time, as at least one of the
limestone chip layers belongs to Stratum 7 (Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59).
These Persian period finds may be combined with the observations of Ariel
and Shoham (2000: 138) and Reich and Shukron (2007: 64) that most of the yehud
stamp impressions from Shiloh’s excavations originated in Areas B, D, and E. Of
the eight stamp impressions discovered by Reich and Shukron on the eastern
slope of the City of David, five originated in Area A, located in the Kidron Valley,
some 200–250 m south of the Gihon spring, two in Area B, at the mid-slope of the
278 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

hill, above Area A, and next to Shiloh’s Areas B and D1. Only one yehud stamp
impression was retrieved in the areas excavated around the Gihon spring, where
vast amounts of late Second Temple debris were excavated above a huge fill
containing late Iron Age II pottery. The fact that no Persian period sherds were
discovered in this area and no yehud stamp impressions, was interpreted by them
as an indication that the Persian and early Hellenistic settlement was restricted
to the top of the ridge, to the south of Area G (cf. Finkelstein 2008: 506). The
problem with this assumption is that this area is outside the narrow ridge on the
hill. On the ridge itself, above the Gihon spring and Area G of Shiloh’s excava-
tions, there were many more yehud stamp impressions that were excavated by
Macalister and Duncan (1926: 49–51; cf. Cook 1925). The significance of the distri-
bution of the Persian period finds in this area is that, as in the Byzantine period,
the Gihon Spring was not in use since the water flowed in Hezekiah’s tunnel to
the southern part of the City of David, and the spring itself was far below the
limits of the city (Reich and Shukron 2004). The finds in Area G and its surround-
ings, as well as the finds in Shiloh’s Areas E1, E2, E3, D1, B, and all the way south
to Area A are indications for a poor, but extant settlement along the narrow ridge
of the City of David.
According to Shiloh (1984a: 4, Table 2; De Groot 2004: 67–69) Stratum 8 is
fully represented only in Area E2 (Shiloh 1984a: 10). This Stratum is also partially
represented in Areas E1 (idem.: 14–15) and E3 (idem.: 10–11),16 and scarcely repre-
sented in Areas D1 (idem.: 7–8) and D2 (idem.: 8–9). In this case, too, the finds that
can safely be attributed to this Stratum are meager, and mainly consist of three
columbaria (De Groot 2004: 67–68; 2005: 84, with further details) and a structure
(in Area E1) that yielded a rich corpus of pottery dating to the 3rd century BCE,
the only assemblage of a pre-Hasmonean phase in the City of David (Shiloh 1984a:
15). The excavators did not find yehud stamp impressions of the late types, dated
to the 2nd century BCE, in either of these strata (Stratum 9 and 8). Most of the
late types were discovered in Stratum 7 (Ariel and Shoham 2000, Table 1, and see
also Reich 2003a: 258–259 and Tables 7.1–7.2). A cemetery assigned to this Stratum
and dated to the first half of the 2nd century BCE was exposed to the east of the
City Wall, on the slopes of the central part of the hill (De Groot 2004: 68–69).

16 See also the finds of some vessels made of hard stone discovered in this area (Cahill 1992:
191–198, fig. 14). Reich (2003c: 264–265), however, while publishing the same type of vessels dis-
covered in the Jewish Quarter Excavations, clearly demonstrated that its date is the late 2nd or
early 1st century BCE.
 Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations 279

Persian Period Finds in Jerusalem: Possible Interpretations

The meager finds from the Persian and early Hellenistic periods can only be
interpreted as evidence of a meager settlement in the City of David between the
late Iron Age and the Hasmonean period (early 6th to 2nd centuries BCE). This is
an observation shared by all scholars dealing with Persian period finds in Jerusa-
lem (Kenyon 1963: 15; Carter 1999: 285; Eshel 2000: 341; Lipschits 2003: 330–331;
2005: 212; 2006a: 32; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007Y; Schniedewind 2003; 2004:
165–178; Grabbe 2004: 25; Geva 2007b: 56–57; Finkelstein 2008: 501–504).
Finkelstein (2008) interpreted the finds from Persian period Jerusalem as
evidence that the city was very small during this period. In light of the observa-
tions of Ariel and Shoham (2000: 138) and Reich and Shukron (2007: 64), he
claimed that throughout the Persian and early Hellenistic periods activity on the
Temple Mount was minimal, the northern as well as the southern parts of the
ridge of the City of David were uninhabited, and the settlement was confined to
the central part of the ridge, between Shiloh’s Area G in the north and Areas D
and E in the south. On this basis, he reconstructed a settlement of ca. 20–25 du-
nams, with a population of 400–500 people. This is the lowest archaeological
estimate of the population of Jerusalem during the Persian and early Hellenistic
period, far less than the estimates of Carter (1999: 288) and Lipschits (2005: 271;
2006a: 32), of about 60 dunams and 1,250–1,500 people (based on a coefficient of
20–25 people per one built-up dunams), or the view of Geva of a settled area of
60 dunams, but with an even lower coefficient of people per one built-up dunams,
and an estimate of about 1,000 people (Geva 2007b: 56–57).
The reason for the ultra-minimalistic view set forth by Finkelstein (2008: 506–
507) stems from both the very limited area he reconstructs as the maximal size
of the Persian and Early Hellenistic settlement in Jerusalem (c. 240 meters from
North to South and 120 meters from East to West, that is, about 20–25 dunams)
and his low coefficient of 20 people per one built-up dunams.17 In arriving at his
interpretation of the total settled area, Finkelstein seems to have misunderstood
Reich and Shukron’s data on the one hand, and on the other hand, did not take

17 In this estimation Finkelstein is far from being in accord with the actual finds as presented
above and as will be summarized below, and this is aside from the miscalculation of the numbers
he is giving. In fact, c. 240 meters from North to South and 120 meters from East to West should
give an area of 28.8 dunams and not 20–25 dunams. This area should be populated with nearly
600 people according to his low coefficient of 20 people per one built-up dunams and not 400–
500 people as he is stating. Using a coefficient of 25 people per one built-up dunams (and cf. the
review of Geva 2007b: 51) will give a number of 720 people living in Jerusalem, and this is before
one deals with Finkelstein’s estimation of the settled area in the City of David.
280 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

into account the full significance of Shiloh’s finds, those of Reich and Shukron,
as well as those of Macalister and Duncan in their excavations above Shiloh’s
Area G.
Reich and Shukron (2007: 64) included their Area A, located along the Kidron
Road, some 200–250 meters south of the spring, under the southeastern edge of
the City of David, in their observation of the area where yehud stamp impressions
were discovered along the eastern slopes of the City of David. They assumed that
the five stamp impressions discovered in this area originated from houses that
were located somewhat higher up on the southern part of the hill, concluding
that “in the Persian period, settlement on the Southeastern Hill was confined to
the southern part of the hill only”. There is a distance of about 300 meters be-
tween Reich and Shukron’s Areas A in the south and Shilo’s Area G in the north,
with 10 more yehud stamp impressions and a lot more Persian and Early Hellenis-
tic material discovered in Shiloh’s Areas D and E. The only area where Persian
and Early Hellenistic material was not discovered was, as emphasized by Reich
and Shukron, the area of the Gihon spring (and see the explanation for it above).
All in all, The Persian and Early Hellenistic finds were discovered in a much
broader area than that reconstructed by Finkelstein, in almost all of the excavated
areas along and under the eastern slopes of the City of David.

Synthesis

The archeological data from the different excavations conducted along the City
of David ridge indicates that the settlement in the Persian and early Hellenistic
periods concentrated on the upper part of the ridge, in a very narrow north to
south strip, above the eastern line of the Iron Age fortification. The average width
of this topographical line (from east to west) is not more than 80–100 meters.
However, except for the area of the spring well below the inhabited area, Persian
period finds were unearthed in all other excavated areas along the eastern side
of the ridge, which means that about 350 meters of north to south settlement
along this line can be reconstructed, with a settled area of about 28–30 dunams.
The area north of it, on the upper part of the City of David, just below the
Ophel, contains a significant number of Persian period finds. The area which
includes Shiloh’s Area G, Eilat Mazar’s and Macalister and Duncan’s excavations
is the richest with Persian period finds. The finds in this area were mostly discov-
ered in earth fills that probably originated from the area above it, namely, the
Ophel hill. They were laid there before the late Hellenistic and Roman periods.
The importance of the Ophel hill as the main built-up area in the Persian and
Early Hellenistic periods was never discussed in the archaeological and historical
 Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations 281

research. The reason was the scarcity of finds in this area, of about 20 dunams,
between the ascension of the hill towards the Temple Mount and the northern
part of the City of David. This is the only flat, easy-to-settle area in the city. Its
proximity to the Temple Mount on the one hand and the easy option to fortify it
(between the Kidron valley to the east, the Tyropoeon in the west, the Temple
Mount to the north and the City of David to the south), made it the preferred
option for settlement in the Persian period. In spite of the scarcity of finds in this
area, the relative abundance of Persian finds along its southern slope, its proximi-
ty to the temple mount, its geographical characteristics and its importance in the
Iron Age and post-Persian periods – all these facts indicate that this area should
be considered part of the settled area of Jerusalem during the Persian and Early
Hellenistic periods. The absence of Persian period finds in the Ophel hill, and the
at-tempts of scholars not to include this area as part of the city is an indication
of the limitations of archaeological research, and for the need to reconsider, in
some cases, the meaning of the absence of evidence.
The settled area of Jerusalem during the Persian period included the 28–
30 dunams of the City of David plus the 20 dunams of the Ophel, which altogether
amounts to about 50 dunams. Even if parts of the Ophel hill were built up with
public buildings, and only part of it was settled with private houses, this area
should be included in the settled area of Jerusalem during the Persian and Early
Hellenistic periods. Calculating the population of Jerusalem according to the low-
er coefficient of 20 people per one built-up dunams brings the population esti-
mate to about 1000 people; and according to the higher coefficient of 25 people
per one built-up dunams to about 1,250 people. This population estimate is very
close to the accepted estimations in research in the last years – those of Carter
(1999: 288) and Lipschits (2005: 271; 2006a: 32) – of about 60 dunams and 1,250–
1,500 people respectively, or that of Geva (2007b: 56–57) of a settled area of 60 du-
nams and population estimate of about 1,000 people.
Jerusalem was no doubt a small city, but the ultra-minimalistic views ex-
pressed by Zwickel and Finkelstein should be rejected along with their implica-
tions for the study of the Biblical, archaeological and historical research of the
Persian period.
The Rural Economy of Judah during
the Persian Period and the Settlement History
of the District System
Introduction

The most conspicuous phenomenon that took place in Judah following the de-
struction of Jerusalem was the sharp deterioration of urban life as contrasted
with the stability of the rural settlements north of the capital, in the region of
Benjamin, as well as in the area south of the city between Bethlehem and Beth-
zur.1 The settlement center of gravity moved from Jerusalem to its close periphery,
and a new pattern of settlement was created; the old core became depleted, and
the nearby periphery continued its existence almost unchanged, even if in much
lower numbers. The more remote peripheral regions of the kingdom in the south-
ern Shephelah to the southwest, in the Negev to the south, as well as in the
Judean Desert, the Jordan Valley, and on the western shore of the Dead Sea to
the east collapsed – probably in a longer, more complex process, with ruinous
consequences. The Negev and the southern Shephelah became cut off from the
Persian period province of Judah, and in a slow progression the new province of
Idumea emerged (Lipschits 2005: 149–184, 206–257; 2011b: 188–194; 2011c: 66–72,
with additional bibliographical sources; cf. Kloner and Stern 2007).2
Throughout the Persian period, the rural settlement in the close periphery
around Jerusalem continued to characterize the province of Yehud. Despite the
rebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of its status as the cultic center of
the province, at least until the 2nd century BCE, the settlement in Judah remained
static; there was no strengthening of urban life (Lipschits 2003: 323–376; 2005:
206–271; 2011b: 188–194).

The Origin and History of the Persian Period

Rural Settlement in Judah

The rural settlement and the related economy that existed in Judah in the Persian
and Hellenistic periods characterized that of the land as a whole until the estab-

1 On this subject, see: Hoglund 1991: 57–60; Carter 1994; 1999: 137–166; Lipschits 1999b; 2003:
326–355; 2005: 240–261; Milevski 1996–1997: 7–29; Faust 2007; and see the summary in Lipschits
2011b: 188–194; 2011c: 66–72.
2 On the creation of the Idumean province, see: Lipschits, Shalom, Shatil, and Gadot 2014a: 147–
149.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-016
284 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

lishment of the Hasmonean Kingdom in the late 2nd century BCE. Both settlement
and economy were rooted in the settlement, economy, and administration of Ju-
dah after it became a vassal Assyrian kingdom; and especially in the history of
the land after Sennacherib’s campaign (701 BCE) and the loss of the Shephelah
(Koch and Lipschits 2013: 66–67; and see further below); as well as the consequen-
ces of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in the early 6th century BCE and the
transition of Judah from a vassal kingdom to a Babylonian province. During this
period, the Judahite population that continued to subsist in the northern Judean
highlands, as well as in the Benjamin region, continued to preserve its economy,
ways of life, administration, and material culture.
The area of Benjamin had become an important element of the Judean econo-
my and administration in the 7th century BCE, probably after the Shephelah
was lost. The biblical description of the Benjamin region during the Babylonian
campaign against Jerusalem and following the destruction of the city, along with
survey and excavation data of the main sites explored in this area attest that the
region was not destroyed with Jerusalem. We may surmise that even before the
fall of Jerusalem the Babylonians had chosen Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh) as the
alternative capital of the Babylonian province and had already appointed Gedali-
ah as its first governor (Lipschits 1999b; 2005: 68–125, 237–249).
The area to the south of Jerusalem, with Ramat Raḥel at its center, probably
had the same fate as the Benjamin region (Lipschits 2005: 250–258). The Rephaim
Valley, with its rich alluvial soil and moderately terraced slopes has historically
been one of the prosperous agricultural districts in the environs of Jerusalem,
vital to the economy of the city. The mounting archaeological data from this area,
underscored by the many agricultural installations and small farmsteads found
in and around the valley confirm that the periods during which the Rephaim
Valley flourished agriculturally are the same periods during which there was
construction at Ramat Raḥel – that is, from the late Iron Age to the Persian period,
with no signs of a hiatus (Lipschits and Gadot 2008: 88–96). There is clear evi-
dence to associate the development of the Rephaim basin and the agricultural
area to the south of Jerusalem, especially in the 7th century BCE,3 to the emer-
gence of Ramat Raḥel as an administrative center in the region under Assyrian
rule and with the organization of royal estates in the Kingdom of Judah – proba-
bly after the period when Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom – and even
more so after the loss of the Shephelah. The Rephaim basin and the rural settle-
ment around Jerusalem flourished in the 7th century BCE more than in any other
period in the history of Judah (Gadot 2015: 3–26), and this settlement phenomenon

3 For the date of the establishment of the rural settlement around Jerusalem to the 7th cen-
tury BCE, see Gadot 2015: 3–26.
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 285

fits the centralized processing demonstrated by the concentration of winepresses

not associated with village infrastructure, the process of organized decanting and
shipping of the wine, and the function of Ramat Raḥel in all of the periods in
question as an administrative center in the region (Lipschits and Gadot 2008: 88–
96; Lipschits, Gadot, Arubas, and Oeming 2014b: 28–74; Gadot 2015).
The archaeological data are clear: Judah continued to exist as a rural society
when it became a Babylonian vassal kingdom and then a province. Its economy
was based on agriculture and the production of agricultural products, just as it
had been during the 7th century BCE when it was an Assyrian vassal kingdom.
Understanding the foundation for an agricultural-based economy and administra-
tion are essential to understanding the history of the region under the rule of
the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires and the central role of Ramat
Raḥel to this system.
The corpus of stamped and incised jar handles found in Judah and especially
in and around Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel is a key to such an understanding.
About 3,000 stamped jar handles were discovered in Judah during archaeological
excavations and surveys of the 600 years when the kingdom and then the prov-
ince of Judah were under the rule of the empires (Lipschits 2021a). This is precise-
ly the period when Ramat Raḥel existed as the region’s administrative and main
collection center for agricultural products – primarily wine and oil stored in jars.
No other Judahite site, not even Jerusalem, can challenge Ramat Raḥel’s record:
Over 300 stamped handles from the late Iron Age were found at the site (Lipschits,
Gadot, Arubas, and Oeming 2011: 16–17; 2014b: 34–37, 39, 64), including lmlk and
“private” stamp impressions (late 8th and early 7th centuries BCE, see Lipschits,
Sergi, and Koch 2010: 3–32); concentric-circle incisions (mid-7th century BCE, see:
Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2011: 7–8), and rosette stamp impressions (late 7th–
early 6th centuries BCE, see Koch and Lipschits 2013: 60–61). In the Babylonian,
Persian, and Hellenistic periods, Ramat Raḥel was the main center of stamped
jar handles, with about 77 lion-stamped handles dated to the 6th century BCE
(Lipschits 2010: 17–19), more than 300 yhwd stamp impressions dated to the late
6th to mid-2nd centuries BCE (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 107–110), and
33 yršlm stamp impressions dated to the 2nd century BCE (Bocher and Lipschits
2013: 103–104). All in all, the phenomenon of stamped jar handles collected and
stored at Ramat Raḥel continued for more than half a millennium in this steady
administrative system.4

4 The renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel (Lipschits, Gadot, Arubas, and Oeming 2011: 16–17;
2014b: 22–26) and the final publication of the architecture and finds from Aharoni’s excavations
(Lipschits, Gadot and Freud 2016) have made it possible to reevaluate the archaeology of the site
and its significance vis-á-vis the political history of Judah as a province in the Achaemenid
empire.
286 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Just as the stamped-jar administrative and economic system endured through-

out the 600 years of Judah’s existence under the rule of the empires, we can also
assume that the system of agricultural settlements, royal estates, administrative
centers, and districts in Judah (as is known from the Persian period) was the
product of an already well-established system and that its roots were in the late
8th and mainly the 7th century BCE. It can also be assumed that the system of
districts has a long history, when it also adapted to the circumstances of the exis-
tence of Judah as a province under Babylonian and Persian rule.

The Origin and History of the Persian Period Districts

in Judah

The term  appears eight times in the Old Testament, all of them in Nehemiah
3 (vv. 9, 12, 14–18). Most scholars understand this term as “district,” basically after
the primary meaning of the Akkadian pilku (von Soden 1965: 863).5 If this is the
case, of the 41 people and groups who assumed responsibility for rebuilding each
of the 41 segments of the walls of Jerusalem,6 7 segments were built under the
responsibility and with the support of official functionaries who were in charge
of districts or subdistricts: “Rephaiah, son of Hur, the official of half the district
of Jerusalem” (v. 9); “Shallum, son of Hallohesh, the official of half the district of
Jerusalem” (v. 12a); “Malchijah, son of Rechab, the official of the district of Beth-
hakkerem” (v. 14); “Shallun, son of Col-hozeh, the official of the district of Mizpah”
(v. 15); “Nehemiah, son of Azbuk, the official of half the district of Beth-zur” (v. 16);
“Hashabiah, the official of half the district of Qeʿilah – for his district” (‫ֹוֹ‬;
v. 17b, and see below); Bavvai, the son of Henadad, the official of half the district
of Qeʿilah” (v. 18).
Five half-districts are mentioned in this list: two half-districts of Jerusalem,
two half-districts of Qeʿilah, and only one half-district of Beth-zur (Naʾaman 1995b:

5 Williamson (1985: 206); Blenkinsopp (1988: 235–236); Weinfeld (2000: 249); Lipschits (2005: 170–
171, and n. 125). Demsky (1983: 242–244), followed by Graham (1984: 57) maintain that this is an
administrative term that describes a group of laborers who have been conscripted for work
duty. Bowman already commented on this subject (1954: 267) and was supported by Carter (1999:
80) but see the critique by Williamson (1985: 206), Naʾaman (1995b: 21 n. 39), Weinfeld (2000: 249–
250), and Cogan (2006: 89 n. 10). Only seven sections of the wall were built by this kind of “tax
payer,” while all the other 34 sections were built by volunteers. It also necessitates the premise
that there was a complex administrative system in which every district had supervisors for the
conscripted work, and this indicates that in Persian period Judah there should have been a great
deal of similar building projects.
6 For a summary discussion of the list, see Lipschits 2012c.
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 287

21).7 Two other complete districts are mentioned: Beth-hakkerem and Mizpah. In
addition to the above districts and half districts, various cities that were within
the borders of the districts were mentioned, among them Jericho (v. 2), Tekoa
(vv. 5, 27), Gibeon and Mizpah (v. 7), and Zanoah (v. 13). One section of the wall
was even built under the responsibility of Ezer the son of Jeshua who was “the
official of Mizpah” (the city itself; v. 19).
Overall, 11 of 41 sections of the wall were built by people and groups affiliated
with a specific place or region within the province. This makes it difficult to see
the list as a representative sampling of the settlements that existed at that time
or to draw from it any clear-cut geographical and geopolitical conclusions.8 In
this light, it seems that only a few officials of the province are mentioned in this
list and probably other officials, administrators, and leaders of the nation did not
take part in the endeavor.9
This has led to a dispute among scholars concerning the internal divisions
of the province, the borders of each district, and which districts should be added
to the list. Thus, for example, Klein (1939: 34), Avi-Yonah (1984: 21), Blenkinsopp
(1988: 232–233), and other scholars added one district (Jericho), and Stern (1982a:
248–249) added 2 (Jericho and Gezer), extending the limits of the province west-
ward.10 Aharoni (1962b: 338) divided the district of Mizpah into 2 and postulated
that only the Beth-hakkerem district had not been divided. Blenkinsopp (1988:
232–233), in contrast, proposed that there were 6 districts, each one in turn divid-
ed into 2 (12 half-districts). However, the only geographical conclusion that may
be drawn from the list is that there were 5 districts in Judah (Naʾaman 1995b:
21). There is no evidence of additional districts, and methodologically, one may
certainly not add districts on the pretext of “filling in gaps” or with the precon-
ceived notion of the limits of the province or of the limits of the districts within

7 Kallai’s deliberation (1960: 93) on the possibility that there was only one half-district of Beth-
zur is surprising.
8 Understanding the list in this way, one should not accept the attempt by various scholars (Klein
1939: 3–4; Demsky 1983: 242; Ofer 1993: 1.37–38) to emphasize the list’s geographical significance,
assuming that it is a representative sampling of the settlements that existed at the time of Nehemi-
ah, and assembling the names of all the settlements that appeared on the list, without distinguish-
ing among the various categories presented in the text (districts, settlements of origin for specific
people, and settlements from which groups of builders came).
9 This sheds light on the emphasis placed on the Tekoites and the gap between them and “their
nobles” (3:5), especially considering that the Tekoites managed to finance “another section”
(v. 27). In the same context, one may understand that the reference to the priests as “the men of
the plain” (v. 22) is an allusion to the other groups of priests who did not support the project.
10 See Carter 1999: 90 n. 48, against Stern’s idea to include Gezer in the boundaries of the
province.
288 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

it.11 There is certainly no place for the assumption that the limits of the province
extended beyond the boundaries of the preexilic Kingdom of Judah, particularly
to the west and north,12 and any reconstruction must assume that the borders
remained stable throughout the Babylonian and Persian periods.13

The Location and Borders of the Persian Period Districts

in Judah

The above basic positions, combined with the geographical analysis of the region,
the information about the borders of Judah at the end of the Iron Age, and knowl-
edge of the historical events in the Babylonian and Persian periods enable the
following reconstruction of the districts that existed in the province of Yehud,
their location, borders, and agricultural and economic potential (Lipschits 2005:
149–184).
The Mizpah District was largely congruent with the First Temple region of
Benjamin and reflected the continuity of the region’s boundaries between the 7th
and 5th centuries BCE. The people of Jericho and Senaʾah probably also belonged
to this district,14 but the attempt to include the Ono-Lod region or parts of Sama-
ria in this area should be dismissed.15 Mizpah was probably the major city in the
district.16
The historical boundary between the Benjamin region / Mizpah District and
“the environs of Jerusalem” / Jerusalem District (see below) is the line created by
connecting the southern settlements in the Benjamin tribal inheritance. Mozah

11 On this subject, see Abel 1938: 120–122; Kallai 1960: 87–94, and see the summary by Stern
(1982a: 245–249) and his criticism of the attempt by scholars to solve the problems raised by the
list in this way (1982a: 247–248).
12 See, e.g., Stern 1982: 245–249. In contrast, see Schwartz 1988: 4–5; Naʾaman 1995b: 19–23.
13 There are exceptions to this view at various points, where scholars try to account for the
geographical difficulty and to explain it by a temporary change in the borders. On the Lod-Ono
region, see Bright 1959: 384; on the area of Gezer, see Kochman in Heltzer and Kochman 1985:
113. On this area in the Persian period, see Lipschits 1997a.
14 This premise is opposed to the attempt by Klein (1939: 3–4), Avi-Yonah (1984: 21), and Blenkin-
sopp (1988: 232–233) to add the Jericho District as the sixth district in the province of Yehud, as
well as Stern’s attempt (1982a: 247–248) to add Gezer as another district in addition to Jericho.
On Senaʾah, see: Lipschits 2005: 157.
15 See, e.g., Kallai’s proposal, 1960: 87–94; and in contrast, see Naʾaman 1995b: 20–24; and Lip-
schits 1997a, with additional bibliography.
16 On the status of the Mizpah during the Babylonian and Persian periods, see: Lipschits 2005:
237–240.
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 289

and Kiriath-jearim are mentioned in the list of the cities of Benjamin (Josh 18:26,
28).17 Gibeah of Saul and Anathoth are added to the list of cities of Benjamin that
appear in Isa 10:28–32.18 These cities create a line that lies 5 km from Jerusalem,
in a northeast–northwest direction, and geographical logic would have it that this
area was bounded on the northeast by Wadi Og and on the northwest by Wadi
Soreq.
The Jerusalem District lay south of the Mizpah District and probably included
the city limits and its close environs. Taking into account the surrounding dis-
tricts, we may surmise that the Jerusalem District extended eastward to the edge
of the desert and to Mount Scopus in the north. To the south, the Jerusalem
District did not extend beyond the Rephaim Valley, so its borders were very close
(ca. 2–3 km) to the city itself.
The Beth-hakkerem District lay south of Jerusalem, with the Rephaim Valley
at its core and Ramat Raḥel as its main administrative center.19 The people of
Tekoa were probably included in this district, which like the two districts north
of it, also reached the edge of the mountainous region on the west and was
bordered by the Qeʿilah District (Kallai 1960: 92–93, with additional sources).20
The two districts of Jerusalem and Beth-hakkerem probably evolved from
and were a split off the geographical unit known in the First Temple period as
“the environs of Jerusalem.” This unit may be connected to the growth of towns,
villages, hamlets, and agricultural installations to the west and south of Jerusalem
during the late 8th and especially during the 7th century BCE (Barkay 1985b: 399–
401, 466–467; Naʾaman 1991b: 9, 13–14; and see recently Faust 2013: 13–14, with
additional sources),21 which is the same period when similar growth can be seen

17 On the repetitive mention of Kiriath-jearim (Josh 15:60; 18:28) in the list of cities of Judah
and Benjamin, see the explanation offered by Naʾaman 1991b: 8–10. The place, in any case, was
considered part of Benjamin (Josh 9:17; 18:28; Ezra 2:25; Neh 7:29).
18 On Josh 18:28, see Naʾaman 1991b: 8–10; and on the part of the list that was apparently
omitted from the book of Joshua, see Naʾaman 1986: 229 n. 45; 1991b: 25–26. The affiliation of
Anathoth, Jeremiah’s birthplace, with the Benjamin tribal legacy is also highlighted at the height
of the Babylonian siege, preceding the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 32:7–15).
19 On the identification of Ramat Raḥel as the biblical Beth-hakkerem, see Lipschits and Naʾa-
man 2011: 65–86; Lipschits, Gadot, Arubas, and Oeming 2014b: 12–14.
20 One must dismiss Avi-Yonah’s suggestion (1984: 21) of including the Emmaus and Chephira
regions in this district. These two regions were historically part of the Mizpah District. Similarly,
Kallai’s proposal (1960: 94) to include the northeastern Shephelah (the region of Gezer and
Ekron) in this region should be rejected (Carter 1999: 90 n. 48).
21 Gadot’s study (2015) makes it clear and strengthens previous similar opinions (see, e.g., Naʾa-
man 2007: 42; Faust 2013: 22) that the main development of this area was during the 7th century
and not in the late 8th century BCE, as was previously assumed. This conclusion has many
important historical implications; see further below.
290 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

in the region of Benjamin. This is probably the source of the distinction made by
Jeremiah (17:26; 32:44; 33:13) between “the cities of Judah” and “the cities of the
mountain” in the division of the areas of the kingdom into 6 regions (Barkay
1985b: 399–401; Ofer 1993: 1.42). In agreement with Alt (1934: 324–328; cf. Naʾaman
1991b: 15–16), “the cities of Judah” can be identified with the area to the south
and west of Jerusalem, down to the Bethlehem region and seen as evidence of
the distinction between the area surrounding Jerusalem and the area south of it.
The region known as “the environs of Jerusalem” is also described in Jeremiah
40–42 as the area where Gedaliah the son of Ahikam was active after the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (Lipschits 2005: 152–154).
It can be assumed that this geographical unit known as “the environs of Jeru-
salem” was divided by the Babylonians into two administrative units after the
destruction of Jerusalem, when the main devastation was in the city and in its
close periphery, and when the areas to the north of the city (the area of Benjamin)
and to the south of it (the area to the west and to the south of Ramat Raḥel)
continued to exist as before (Lipschits 2005: 206–218, 237–258). It was the historical
period when the area around Jerusalem was separated and became an indepen-
dent district (the District of Jerusalem), and the area to the south of it became the
District of Beth-hakkerem as indicated in the list of Nehemiah 3 and as mentioned
again at the beginning of the list of “the sons of the singers” (Neh 12:28–29).
The Beth-zur District is the southernmost area in the Judean Hills. On the east
is En-gedi, and it is bounded on the west by the Qeʿilah District. It is reasonable
to assume that the border between these two districts ran east of the Adulam-
Zanoah line. The southern border probably ran in the narrow strip between Beth-
zur and Ḥebron, where it remained until the days of the Hasmoneans (Lipschits
2005: 146–149).22
The three districts in the Judean Hills, from the area north of Ḥebron to the
area of Benjamin, reinstated the historical situation of the distinction between
the southern Judean Hills, the center of which is Ḥebron, and the north-central
Judean Hills, the center of which is Jerusalem, as can be reconstructed by histori-
cal and archaeological sources, perhaps even from the beginning of the second
millennium BCE. There are deep economic, political, and social differences be-
tween these two areas, and these can be reconstructed from the archaeological
data from the Late Bronze Age as well as from information on the settlement
patterns of recent generations. The parallel settlement and social orientation of
recent times supports the premise that the Ḥebron region is related to the south-
ern region as far as the Beersheba–Arad valleys and that the area from Beth-zur

22 I cannot accept Carter’s suggestion (1999: 98–99) that Ḥebron be included within the borders
of the province.
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 291

northward is linked to the central mountain area (Naʾaman 1991b: 361–380; Ofer
1993: 1.103–104, with additional bibliography).
The Qeʿilah District was the only stronghold that the province of Yehud had
in the Shephelah, with the Valley of Elah and the city of Azekah in its southwest-
ern corner. This district was bounded on the west by Ashdod, and to the south it
was bounded by the region controlled from Maresha. On the north, the boundary
did not extend beyond Gezer, which lies outside the limits of the province (Naʾa-
man 1995b: 16–24; Carter 1999: 90 n. 48; Lipschits 2005: 147–148).

Agricultural and Economic Potential of the Districts in Judah

in Light of the Topographic and Environmental Conditions,
the Archaeological Data, and the History of the Region

The District of Mizpah

It is reasonable to assume that the growth of Jerusalem in the late 8th and
7th centuries BCE brought about a strengthening of economic relations between
Jerusalem and the region of Benjamin, in as much as “greater Jerusalem” needed
a regular supply of agricultural produce. The grains that grew in the plains of
the Benjamin region and the olive orchards and vineyards nearby were an impor-
tant source of this supply. At the same time, the dissimilar fate of the area and
the political features that made it distinctive on the eve of and subsequent to the
destruction of Jerusalem attest to the fact that the residents of this region pre-
served their distinction within the Kingdom of Judah, and, perhaps because of
this, the Benjamin region became the center of the new province under Babyloni-
an rule (Lipschits 2005: 72–112). This is probably the historical background for the
prosperity of the Benjamin plateau during the 7th century BCE. Alongside the
main sites in the region, such as Tell en-Naṣbeh (Zorn 1993: 1099–1101), el-Jib
(Pritchard 1962: 162–163), Tell el-Fûl (Lapp 1981: 39–46; Finkelstein 2011: 111–113),
Khirbet el-Burj (De Groot and Winberger-Stern 2013: 95–102) and Nebi-Samwil
(Magen and Dadon 2000: 62–63), the survey of this region also demonstrated a
growth in the rural settlement in this area in the late Iron Age.23
From the administrative point of view, almost a quarter of the late lmlk-
stamped jar handles and the concentric-circle-incised handles were found in the
Benjamin region, mainly at el-Jib, Tell en-Naṣbeh, and Khirbet el-Burj (Lipschits,

23 For the survey’s data, see Magen and Finkelstein 1993. For analyses of the survey finds, see
Milevski 1996–1997: 7–29; Lipschits 1999b: 180–184; 2005: 245–249.
292 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Sergi, and Koch 2010: 21; Lipschits 2018b). This vast number of 7th-century BCE
stamped handles leads to the conclusion that the Benjamin region was, for the
first time, part of the Judahite administration. Furthermore, after Jerusalem and
the area around Ramat Raḥel, it can now be said that the area of Benjamin was
the third-most-important region of the Judahite administration. The centrality of
the region probably resulted from the loss of the Shephelah after the Sennacherib
campaign (701 BCE): Judah had to focus its aims on substitute areas that remained
within its boundaries, such as Benjamin to the north of Jerusalem and the north-
ern Judean Hills to the south of the city, that evolved during the early 7th cen-
tury BCE (Lipschits and Gadot 2008: 88–96; Gadot 2015: 3–26). However, it was
only for a short time, since during the last phase of the 7th century BCE the area
of Benjamin lost its administrative centrality; only 15 rosette-stamped handles
(about 7 % of the corpus), were unearthed at the Benjamin sites (Koch and Lip-
schits 2013: 59, 66–67). Since there was no change in the settlement history of this
region at the end of the First Temple period and the demographic picture points
to continuous prosperity in this area, it seems that the reason may lie elsewhere –
in the Shephelah – and one can assume that, because of the renewed Judahite
activity in that area, there was less need for agricultural supply from Benjamin.
Thus, the region lost its importance to the administrative system, and its new
dimensions resembled those of the early lmlk system, before the loss of the
Shephelah.24
The main conclusion from the archaeological excavations and surveys is that
there was a continuation of settlement in this region during the 6th and 5th centu-
ries BCE – that is, from the late Iron Age to the Babylonian and then to the early
Persian periods (Lipschits 1999b: 180–184; 2005: 245–249).25 The relative prosperity
of this area must be attributed to the political centrality assigned to Mizpah and

24 As for the reflection of this process in the biblical historiography, Naʾaman (2009a: 116) con-
nected the decrease in the status of Gibeon and Benjamin with Josiah’s reform (2 Kings 23). In
his opinion, Josiah cancelled the sanctuary of Gibeon, and the local population was labeled
“Gibeonite” in the royal historiography (Joshua 9) and therefore foreigners.
25 It may be that by the 6th century BCE the settlement in Benjamin had withdrawn to the core
of the region, the narrow zone along either side of the watershed, while settlements in the
northern and eastern zones almost entirely ceased to exist. This assumption accords with existing
information about the complete cessation of settlement that took place throughout the Jordan
Valley and the western littoral of the Dead Sea. It would seem that this, too, was related to the
collapse of the economic, military, and political system of the Kingdom of Judah. Most of the
surviving settlements in Benjamin were concentrated along the mountain ridge and the upper
mountain slopes (in the central and western Benjamin region), around the main economic and
administrative centers that continued to exist in the region. On this subject, see the description
and model presented by Magen and Finkelstein (1993: 20–21) and the assessment of the surveyors
as cited there (Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 138).
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 293

the economic importance of Gibeon and Moza. It was probably around these
settlements that the agricultural hinterland was based, and the settlement pattern
was shaped. The fact that 30 out of 43 mwṣh stamp impressions found in Tell en-
Naṣbeh were all well dated to the 6th century BCE (Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994:
166–168),26 and probably part of the local administration of the Babylonian prov-
ince of Judah should be interpreted as part of the local supply to the governor of
the province, whose seat was in Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh).
That during this same period a different and much larger system of lion-
stamped jar handles existed, with 71 stamped handles discovered in Ramat Raḥel,
29 in Jerusalem, and only 19 in the Benjamin area (12 in Nebi-Samwil, 5 at Tell
en-Naṣbeh, and 2 at Gibeon), is a clear indication that the main and separate
administrative system of jar handles continued to exist just as it had in the system
that was present before the destruction of Jerusalem. As with the rosette system
at the end of the 7th century BCE, also in the lion system from the 6th cen-
tury BCE, the area of Benjamin did not play a major role. During the Persian
period, Nebi-Samwil became the main administrative place, together with Miz-
pah, while Gibeon and Khirbet el-Burj lost the major role they had in the system
of the stamped jar handles during the 7th century BCE.

The Jerusalem District and the District of Beth-hakkerem

The land in the immediate environment of Jerusalem has a very low carrying
capacity, the result of a steep and rocky terrain with poor soil coverage and very
limited water sources. The result of these conditions was that the agricultural
settlement connected to the city was not located in its immediate sphere but in
an area concentrated around the Rephaim and Soreq Valleys with their many
tributaries, about 2–4 km to the north, west, and southwest of the city (Gadot
2015: 3–26, with additional bibliography). Naḥal (= Wadi) Rephaim begins just
west of the Old City, and from there it flows southward until it curves to the
southwest just below Ramat Raḥel, creating the widest valley in the region. The
mouth of Naḥal Soreq is located 4 km north of Jerusalem, and from there it
flows westward, making a wide curve at the ancient site of Moza and continuing
southward. In these valleys as well as in the rocky terrain between are rich
alluvial soil and many small springs. This area was used for growing grain while

26 Four more mwṣh-stamped handles were discovered in Gibeon, 4 in Jerusalem, 2 in Jericho, 1

each in Ramat Raḥel and Tsubah, and the origin of another stamped handle is unknown. See
Lipschits 2018b.
294 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

the slopes of the ravines were usually used for cultivating vines (Gadot 2015: 3–
26, with additional bibliography).
It is not surprising that these periods of mounting human activities along the
Rephaim and the Soreq Valleys correspond well to the periods of Jerusalem at its
zenith: Middle Bronze II and Iron Age IIB–C (Gadot 2015). By focusing not only
on surveys but especially on the many salvage excavations around Jerusalem,
Gadot demonstrated that most of the sites in this area were settled for the first
time during the 7th and not the 8th century BCE, as was previously suggested.
He showed that, as against 11 sites that were built and existed in the 8th century,
62 sites existed in the 7th century BCE. It is important to note, however, that the
growth in the number of sites is not an indication of dramatic growth in popula-
tion but, rather, of specialized agricultural activities (Gadot 2015).27 The change in
the 7th-century BCE settlement pattern is mainly in the number of sites related
to agricultural activities.28 It was the first time in the history of the Jerusalem
periphery – to the northwest, west, south-west, and south – that so many different
rural sites existed.
It is not sufficient to connect this dramatic growth in the rural settlement
around Jerusalem to the growth of the city itself, which had already begun to
grow during the 8th century BCE. In concurrence with the opinions of Greenberg
and Cinamon (2006), Faust (2007; 2013), Gadot (2015), and others, I consider it
reasonable that this growth was partly the outcome of the 701 Assyrian campaign
and the loss of the Shephelah. However, as stated above, Lipschits (2011b: 198–
201; 2011c: 58–63; see also Lipschits and Gadot 2008: 88–96) also connected this
growth to the development of the royal estates in the hill country (during the
period after Judah became an Assyrian vassal kingdom) and the need to pay taxes
to the Assyrian Empire, especially after the loss of the Shephelah. The growth of
rural settlements to the west and south of Jerusalem should thus be associated
with the existence of Ramat Raḥel and the development of the system of stamped
jar handles during this same period, as part of the system that was developed in
Judah to acquire more agricultural products, especially wine and oil, which could
then be exchanged for metals (especially silver) that were paid as taxes to the
ruling empire (Lipschits 2021a).
The transition of the rural settlement around Jerusalem from the late Iron
Age through the Babylonian period and into the Persian period is marked by a

27 All 11 of the sites in existence during the 8th century BCE continued well into the 7th century;
two new forts were added to the existing one in Giloh, and to the villages of el-Burj and Ras el-
ʿAmud. New villages were added at er-Ras and possibly at Manahat and Binyanei Haummah.
28 Thirty-two of the new sites are single-building farmsteads, as compared with only one single
farmhouse built in the 8th century BCE. Ten more sites were isolated agricultural installations
(Gadot, 2015: 3–26, and table 1 there).
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 295

smaller decline in the number of settlements than previously perceived (Lipschits

2005: 250–258, 261–271; Gadot 2015: 3–26; and see further below). Based on these
observations, and, as mentioned above, according to the historical understanding
of the processes in this region, the historical and settlement roots of the Persian
period Jerusalem District together with the Beth-hakkerem District were the out-
come of the development and dividing of the geographical unit known in the
First Temple period as “the environs of Jerusalem.” During the 7th century BCE,
there was a well-defined growth in the number of rural settlements around Jeru-
salem, especially in the Rephaim and Soreq Valleys, not in the immediate sphere
of the city. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, when the main
destruction was in the city and in its close periphery, “the environs of Jerusalem”
were divided into two different administrative units. The city and its close periph-
ery ceased to exist, and it became (possibly already during the Babylonian period
but certainly during the Persian period) “the district of Jerusalem.” It was cut off
from its agricultural surroundings to the west and south of the city; these were
still in existence but as a separate region that was administratively connected to
Ramat Raḥel. This area became the District of Beth-hakkerem (the ancient name
of Ramat Raḥel), which flourished in the coming centuries as a rural area, just
like the area to the north of the city (the area of Benjamin/District of Mizpah;
Lipschits 2005: 118–126, 152–153).
The importance and central status of the area around Jerusalem to the system
of stamped jars is clear. About 65 % of the stamped handles from the late lmlk
system dated to the early 7th century BCE were discovered in this area.29 About
70 % of the concentric-circle incisions dated to the middle of the 7th century BCE
were discovered in this region.30 In the late 7th and early 6th century BCE, when
there was slow restoration in the settlement of the Shephelah, the number of
rosette-stamp impressions discovered in the area around Jerusalem went back to
about 65 %.31 After Jerusalem was destroyed and the territory of Judah was re-
duced mainly to the northern hill country, the number of stamped jar handles
discovered mainly at Ramat Raḥel (but also in Jerusalem and the area around it)

29 Of 486 stamped handles found in and around Jerusalem, 319 were found in the area around
Jerusalem, 180 in Jerusalem, and 133 at Ramat Raḥel. See Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2011: 30–35,
and table 2; Lipschits 2021a.
30 Of 282 incised handles found in and around Jerusalem, 197 were found in the area around
Jerusalem, 146 were found in Jerusalem, and 40 at Ramat Raḥel. See Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch
2011: 31, 35, and table 3; Lipschits 2021a.
31 Of 247 rosette-stamped handles found in and around Jerusalem, 155 were found in the area
around Jerusalem, 87 of them in Jerusalem, and 57 at Ramat Raḥel. See Koch and Lipschits 2013:
57–58; Lipschits 2021a.
296 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

totaled 80 % of the lion system32 and 87 % of the early yhwd system.33 These
statistics underscore the importance of the rural settlement and the administra-
tive role of the area around Jerusalem during the Persian period after it was
divided into two districts – the Jerusalem District and the Beth-hakkerem District.

The Beth-zur District

The area to the south of the Beth-hakkerem District was never an important part
of the economy and administration of the Kingdom (and then the province) of
Judah. It was the least populated area in the hill country (Ofer 1993: 1.110–111).
Its economic potential was much more limited, when the large areas on the desert
fringe were used for pastoral economy, and the higher areas facing the central
hills and the western slopes were used mainly for growing grain by dry farming
(Finkelstein 1986: 121–126; Ofer 1993: 1.111–113). The conclusion is that the econo-
my of the central and southern hill country was based mainly on pasture and
dry farming. The economic output of the vineyard areas and olive orchards was
limited, much more so than in the areas of the two districts to the north.
The limited agricultural and economic potential of this area may explain why
it is nearly absent from the stamped-jar system. Only 2 early lmlk-stamped han-
dles from the late 8th century BCE were found in this region (one of them in
Ḥebron), and only 14 late lmlk-stamped handles from the early 7th century BCE
(6 in Ḥebron and 8 in Beth-zur), and 2 incised handles from the middle of the
7th century BCE were discovered in this region (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2011:
30–35).34 From the late 7th and the early 6th century BCE, 6 rosette-stamped
handles were discovered in this area (5 of them in Beth-zur; see Koch and Lip-
schits 2013: 59) and from all the other systems of stamped handles, dated to the
6th century BCE and on, not even one stamped handle was discovered.
This is the background against which we begin to understand the settlement
history of this region. Even though the archaeological data from the excavations
and surveys are minor and limited,35 they seem to bolster the premise of a sub-

32 Of 130 lion-stamped handles found in and around Jerusalem, 104 were found in the area
around Jerusalem, 29 in Jerusalem, and 71 at Ramat Raḥel. See Lipschits 2010: 17–19; 2018b.
33 Of the 128 early yhwd-stamped handles found in the area in and around Jerusalem, 111 were
in the area around Jerusalem, 17 in Jerusalem, and 90 in Ramat Raḥel. See Lipschits and Vander-
hooft 2011: 11–15, 19; Lipschits 2021a.
34 Six more unidentified lmlk-stamped handles were discovered in Ḥebron, and 3 in Beth-zur
(Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2011: 30–35).
35 For a summary of the settlement picture in the Judean highlands at the end of the Iron Age
and the Persian period, see Ofer 1993: 4.16–18; 1998: 46–48; Lipschits 1997b: 291–299; 2005: 224–
232.
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 297

stantial difference between the settlement and demographic processes that tran-
spired at the beginning of the 7th century BCE in the southern Judean highlands
and those that transpired to the north (Lipschits 2005: 224–232, with additional
bibliography). These facts seem to indicate a constant increase in the number of
settlements and in the overall settled area in the entire mountain region until
the late 8th century BCE (Ofer 1993: 2.121–126; and see the summary by Finkelstein
1994: 174–175). Apparently, the entire region was dealt a severe blow during Sen-
nacherib’s campaign. In contrast to the rapid recovery of the region north of
Ḥebron (and primarily in the northern Judean highlands), the area south of Ḥe-
bron was slow to mend; it recovered only partially during the 7th century BCE,
and settlement in all this area remained sparse.36
The major sites excavated in this area did not yield any tangible evidence of
an early 6th-century BCE destruction, but at least some of them indicated a settle-
ment gap throughout the 6th century BCE and even in the early Persian period.37
The results of surveys show what was apparently marked settlement dwindling
farther south, from Bethlehem to Beth-zur (Lipschits 2005: 224–232).
From the geopolitical and historical perspectives, it is likely that, after the
destruction of Jerusalem, the status of the southern hills of Judah and the south-
ern Shephelah was not defined, and these areas remained sparsely populated
and relatively desolate. At this stage, a growing distinction was created between
the area south of Ḥebron and Maresha, which remained stricken and relatively
uninhabited, and the area north of them, which was less affected and where a

36 See Ofer 1993: 2.125–134, 138–142; 4.13–18; 1998: 46–48; however, see also the critique by Finkel-
stein 1994: 174–175.
37 At Ḥebron (Tell er-Rumeida), the circumstances of the demise of the settlement at the end of
the Iron Age were not clarified, but it seems that the tell was abandoned in the 6th century BCE,
and there was a settlement gap throughout the Persian period (Ofer 1989: 91; 1993: 2.59–60, 132;
NEAEHL 2.478). There is no evidence that the settlement had migrated in the Persian period to
its new site in the valley at the foot of the tell, and it seems that the settlement activity there
began only in the Hellenistic period. At Tell Rabud (Debir), a settlement stratum was uncovered
that was dated to the 7th and the beginning of the 6th century BCE (Kochavi 1973: 55–57). This
stratum may have been associated with traces of a fire, but there is no tangible proof of destruc-
tion, and the circumstances of its abandonment are not clear. Nonetheless, it seems that there
was a settlement gap at the site that lasted until the early Persian period (Kochavi 1973: 55, 59,
61; and see also NEAEHL 4.1440). Remnants of a settlement from the end of the 7th and beginning
of the 6th century BCE were excavated at Beth-zur (Sellers et al. 1968: 2–13; and see also Albright
1943: 8 and n. 9; Funk 1958: 14; Ofer 1993: 70–72). Here, too, there was no tangible evidence of a
destruction at the beginning of the 6th century BCE (Funk 1958: 14; NEAEHL 1.197), but many
scholars believe that there was a settlement gap that lasted until the beginning of the 5th cen-
tury BCE (Sellers and Albright 1931: 9; Sellers 1933: 43). Stern agrees with this view (Stern 1982:
36–38; 2001: 437–438), as does Funk (1992: 1.197).
298 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

large share of the settlements carried on as they had before. As mentioned above,
the beginning of the separation process between these two regions took place
during the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign, when settlement in the southern hills of
Judah and the Shephelah dwindled noticeably and was never rehabilitated. In
the Judean highlands, a clear distinction was created between the areas north and
south of Ḥebron. North of Ḥebron, the settlement had returned to its previous
dimensions by the mid-7th century BCE. South of Ḥebron, the process of rebuild-
ing was slower, and the size of the settlement never reverted to what it had been
before the Assyrian campaign (Ofer 1993: 4.51–61; Lipschits 2005: 224–232). In the
Shephelah, the settled area was concentrated at the foot of the mountain, and
there was a marked ebbing of the population that steadily persisted through the
western and southern parts of the region (Lipschits 2005: 218–223, with additional
bibliography).
The “collapse of systems” in the Beersheba and Arad Valleys probably began
during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem and ended with the fall of the city
(Lipschits 2005: 228–232). Following the destruction, pastoral groups – especially
Edomites and Arabs – from the south began to invade the Negev. In a process
that was partially an explosive and partially a gradual and quiet incursion, these
groups began to advance northward toward the Shephelah and the Ḥebron high-
lands. This migration may be linked to the noticeable devastation of the settle-
ments as well as the decreased population in the Negev, the southern Judean
highlands, and the southern and central Shephelah.38
The population flow toward the north was curbed only in the late Persian
period. At some stage during that period, the boundaries of the provinces in the
region were redefined, apparently on the basis of the marked borders that had
previously existed, with pinpoint adjustments to fit the demographic situation.
Thus, the southern and south-western borders of the province of Yehud were
shaped. This border continued to exist until the Hellenistic period, with the begin-
ning of Hasmonean expansion. The information available on the regions occupied
by the Hasmoneans, or those granted to them, supports the information on the
borders that existed until this period. Archaeological evidence shows settlement
in the central mountain region, indicating that a new settlement prototype, differ-
ent from that during the Iron Age, had developed. One can assume that in the
mid-5th century BCE the southern boundary of Yehud had already been charted,
and the settlement in this area had been established.

38 Based on literary sources contemporary with the Persian period as well as later sources, one
should assume that at least part of the Judean population remained to inhabit these areas (Lip-
schits 2005: 149–180, 228–232).
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 299

The Qeʿilah District

The Shephelah is the best area in Judah for cultivating olive trees, and it was
traditionally the center of olive-oil production, as indicated from the history of
this region in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. This is why the majority of the lmlk
jar handles of the early types, dated to the late 8th century BCE, were found in
the Shephelah, mostly at Lachish (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2011: 30–34, with
additional bibliography). However, it seems that this area had never recovered
and never regained its importance after the 701 Assyrian blow. Only 20 late lmlk-
stamped handles were found in the Shephelah, 11 of them in Tell Socoh, which
was probably the main production center of the lmlk jars and which was still in
existence and producing jars in the early 7th century BCE (Lipschits, Sergi, and
Koch 2011: 30–34; Lipschits and Amit 2011: 182). The number of incised handles
with concentric circles, dated to the middle of the 7th century BCE is even lower,
and includes only 8 handles (4 of them were discovered at Lachish and 2 at
Azekah; and see Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2011: 31, 35).
However, a change occurred in the late 7th century BCE, when the Shephelah
sites yielded 51 stamped handles, which is about 21.5 % of the corpus.39 This distri-
bution indicates that, in addition to the prominent position of Jerusalem and
Ramat Raḥel in this system, the Judean Shephelah again became an important
part of it, and Lachish once again found itself the center of the Shephelah (Ussish-
kin 2004: 90–92; Naʾaman 2005: 232). Apparently, Lachish Level II was founded in
the same period when the rosette system was introduced, but this city was just
a faint shadow of its predecessor, and the number of stamped handles is only
one more indication of its status and the status of the Shephelah in the system
of stamped handles (Koch and Lipschits 2013: 59).
This change in the status of the Shephelah and its return to the stamped-jar
system was short lived. The heavy destruction of all the major cities in this area
is a clear archaeological fact (Lipschits 2005: 218–223), and from the surveys con-
ducted in the region it seems that, during the 6th century BCE, there was a great
settlement vacuum in the Shephelah, and an entirely new settlement pattern
arose in the region during the Persian period. In any case, the area was no longer
part of the provincial administrative system of the stamped jar handles. Only a
few random yhwd-stamped jar handles were discovered in this region, mostly at
sites that were beyond the borders of the province, and especially at Gezer (2 early,

39 Of the 51 stamped handles, 24 were retrieved at Lachish (10.5 % of the corpus), 10 at Azekah
(4 %), 6 at Tell Batash (3 %), 5 at Socoh, and 6 at other sites in that region. See Koch and Lipschits
2013: 59.
300 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

1 middle, and 5 late yhwd-stamped handles; and see Lipschits and Vanderhooft
2011: 11–22).40
As the only stronghold that the province of Yehud had in the Shephelah dur-
ing the Persian period, this district was in proximity to the flourishing coastal
area. The important roads leading from Judah westward also passed through this
area, crossing the important border towns, including Azekah. The functions of
the Qeʿilah District probably made it one of the more strategically important areas
in the province, even though its economic potential was far from fully utilized
and though its population was very small. In addition, the pottery production
center in Socoh was abandoned at this point, and the center of production of the
Yehud jars moved to the environs of Jerusalem (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011:
59–61). Apparently, the province of Yehud could not exploit the economic potential
of this region because of the lack of human resources or because of the strong
neighbors who resided to the west (Ashdod), to the north (Samaria), and to the
south (expanding Idumea). Beyond all this, it seems that the weakness of the
Qeʿilah District is a clear sign of the traditional settlement and economy of Judah,
which continued to preserve the 7th-century BCE model of the post-Sennacherib
period and could not restore the glorious days of the Shephelah after the heavy
destructions and the appropriation of the southern part of this region.

The Size and Role of the Districts in the Persian Period

A total of 238 sites have been found that were located in the various districts of
Judah during the Persian period, nearly all of them small and rural.41 Seventy-
six of these (32 % of the total number) were located in Benjamin, in the District
of Mizpah; 62 (26 % of the total number), in Jerusalem and its surroundings (the
District of Jerusalem and the District of Beth-hakkerem; 49 (20.5 %) in the north-
ern Shephelah; and 51 (21.5 %) in the Judean hills. The total number of sites and
the number of sites in each district reflect the catastrophe set in motion by the
Babylonian campaign in the early 6th century BCE. However, of this number, only
28 % are new sites that were built in a new place in the Persian period, while
72 % are carry-overs from the Iron Age. The rate of continuity in the different

40 On the geopolitical processes that shaped the borders and created the provincial system of
the late Persian and Hellenistic periods in this region, see above, as well as in Lipschits, Shalom,
Shatil, and Gadot 2014a.
41 These numbers were collected already in Lipschits 1997b. An updated database of the Persian
and early Hellenistic periods is being gathered as part of Nitsan Shalom’s research for her M.A.
thesis at Tel Aviv University.
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 301

regions is quite similar – about 70–75 %. Although it is possible that some sites
were reestablished after a settlement gap in the 6th century BCE, this figure
strengthens the argument toward continuity of the rural settlement all across
Judah after the Babylonian destruction despite the destruction of Jerusalem and
the military and urban system of Judah, the exile of the elite to Babylon, and the
transforming of the kingdom into a province (Lipschits 2011b, with additional
bibliography).
The conclusion from these statistics, as well as from the above discussion is
that the rural economy and the district system in the Persian period were the
outcome of a long process of development in Judah, especially during the time it
became an Assyrian vassal kingdom in the late 8th century BCE. The main events
that influenced the rural economy and the history of the Persian period districts
were the 701 BCE Assyrian campaign and the 586 Babylonian destruction of Jeru-
salem. The weakening of the southern and southwestern areas of the kingdom in
701 BCE, especially the southern Shephelah, the Negev area, and the southern
Judean Hills, and the final excision of these areas from the Babylonian and Per-
sian province of Yehud shaped the drastic changes that influenced especially the
southern and southwestern districts – Beth-zur and Qeʿilah.

Conclusions and Hypothesis about the Rural Economy,

District System, and Role and Location of the Persian
Governor

In light of the data discussed above, I suggest that during the Persian period
each district in the Yehud province had its own center and an economic and
administrative position and role in the overall provincial system. At the center of
the Beth-zur District was a military fort that bordered Idumea. The region had
low economic potential, and its primary role was probably to guard the southern
zone against the nomadic tribes that had begun to establish themselves in this
region and who by the end of the Persian and the early Hellenistic periods be-
came part of the new province of Idumea.
The Qeʿilah District also probably served a protective role, controlling the
main roads leading south and west from the province, and facing the border to
the west, toward the province of Ashdod and toward the area of Maresha in the
south. At the end of the Persian era and during the early Hellenistic period, this
area became the center of the Idumean province (Lipschits, Shalom, Shatil, and
Gadot 2014a: 146–149).
In the years following the crisis of the Babylonian destruction, there was
stability and continuity in the rural settlement and economy in the central areas
302 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

of the province. Apparently, with no dramatic external events, this rural settle-
ment could survive and maintain its existence. This stability was also in the inter-
est of the ruling empires, which preserved the local system of collecting agricul-
tural products, especially wine and oil, in one main administrative center – Ramat
Raḥel – that existed throughout the entire period that Judah was under the he-
gemony of foreign empires.
During the entire Persian period, Jerusalem was only a small city, nothing
more than a temple with a few hundreds priests and other temple servants living
around it (Lipschits 2011b: 189–190, with additional bibliography). This is why all
of the agricultural sites and their locations in the central and northern hill coun-
try are an indication that the source and reason for them were not the city or
the temple but the administrative and economic system that survived in Judah,
with its center at Ramat Raḥel.
Three different districts existed in this area in the Persian period, with a
specific role for each: Jerusalem was the cultic center of the province, where the
temple and the center of the district around it were located. Mizpah became the
political center of the province after the destruction of Jerusalem and already in
the Babylonian period became the seat of the local governor, as well as the center
of the district around it. Ramat Raḥel continued to function as the main adminis-
trative collection center for agricultural produce, and after the destruction of
Jerusalem also became the center of the district that included most of the rural
settlements to the west and south of Jerusalem. Each site – Jerusalem, Mizpah,
and Beth-hakkerem – had its specific function, and each site also functioned as
the center of its district.
However, interesting changes occurred during the Persian period in this sys-
tem of three centers and three districts with three different functions: Jerusalem’s
status strengthened as the central and only cult place, and Mizpah lost its status
as the seat of the governor. Ramat Raḥel’s status and position changed as well:
besides being the collection center for agricultural produce, it also became the
seat of the local governor.
Ramat Raḥel was built under Assyrian rule as an administrative center and
possibly also as the place where the Assyrian qīpu-official could inspect the vassal
kingdom and supervise its loyalty and the payment of taxes. Its magnificence,
location, unique architectural items, and many stamped jar handles are a clear
indication of the role of this site during the 7th and early 6th century BCE (Lip-
schits, Gadot, Arubas, and Oeming 2014b: 30–44). The site continued to function
in the same way and with no change or gap under Babylonian rule. It seems that,
during this period, when Judah became a province instead of a kingdom, the
duality between the imperial inspection and presence (at Ramat Raḥel) and the
local leadership (the king) and priesthood (in Jerusalem) became a kind of three-
 The Rural Economy and the Settlement History of the District System 303

fold system: Ramat Raḥel continued to symbolize the imperial presence and func-
tioned as the main collection center for agricultural products; the local leader-
ship, now the governor, was seated in Mizpah;42 and the main cult place was
probably Jerusalem, even though it may be that during the 6th century BCE the
Jerusalem monopoly was not very strong, and other cult places existed (Bethel?
Gibeon? Mizpah? Shechem?). The two different administrative systems – the local
system of the governor in Mizpah and the imperial system that continued to
function at Ramat Raḥel – are reflected in the duality of the mwṣh-stamped jar
handles, most of them discovered in Mizpah, probably marking agricultural prod-
ucts from the governor’s estate in mwṣh; and the lion-stamped handles, most of
them discovered in Ramat Raḥel, probably serving as part of the province’s taxes,
continuing the same system and method as they had previously, in the 7th cen-
tury BCE.
The archaeological data from the renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel dem-
onstrate that the edifice that stood on the top of the hill in the center of the Beth-
hakkerem District reached the zenith of its activity during the 5th–4th centu-
ries BCE (Lipschits, Gadot, Arubas, and Oeming 2014b: 77–88; Lipschits, Gadot,
and Langgut 2012). It was the only structure in the province of Yehud with royal
architecture and grandeur and was surrounded by a well-watered imperial gar-
den, with unique flora that originated in the Persian homeland and surrounding
areas. The structure unquestionably symbolized the power and affluence of the
local rulers who represented the Persian Empire. It seems that, with this combina-
tion of magnificent building and luxurious garden, there is no reason to doubt
that during the Persian period Ramat Raḥel served as the edifice of the imperial
governor in the province. Only during the Persian period, when Jerusalem re-
newed its status as the lone cultic site, the location of the temple, and the seat of
the priests did Mizpah lose its status as the seat of the local governor, it was
partially deserted, and Ramat Raḥel became both the seat of the governor and
the main administrative center for collecting taxes.
The District of Mizpah was the demographic center of Judah during the
6th century and at least until the middle of the 5th century BCE, with about one-
third of all sites in Judah (76 of 238). The system of mwṣh-stamped jar handles
and the absence of the lion- and yhwd-stamped jars from this region indicate that
the agricultural economy of this area was aimed at maintaining the governor in
Mizpah. In light of this, one can understand the relative prosperity of the region
and the establishment of many new rural settlements in it. The gradual impover-
ishment of the settlement in Benjamin took place in the 5th century BCE (Lipschits

42 See Blenkinsopp 1988: 42 and n. 48; Lemaire 1990: 39–40; 2003: 292; Lipschits 2006a: 34–37.
304 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

1997a: 17–31; 1999b: 182–185), probably after the period when Jerusalem based
itself as the central and only cultic center in Judah, and the seat of the governor
moved to Ramat Raḥel. These changes undermined the economic base of the
settlements in the region, resulting in a marked demographic decline. It is likely
that the decline in the Benjamin region holds the explanation to the strengthening
of the settlement in the northeastern part of the Shephelah (the area between
Lod-Ono and Modiʾin) during the Persian period (Lipschits 1997a: 8–32). The politi-
cal stability, particularly the enhanced economic activity in the coastal area dur-
ing the Persian period attracted many inhabitants of the hill country to settle
nearby. This was in addition to the agricultural potential of the area and its
proximity to the major coastal trade routes and the major roads to the Benjamin
region and to the area of Jerusalem. Aside from this, one cannot preclude the
possibility that this migration had ideological motivation against the new ruling
elite in Jerusalem, which forced its religious, ritual, social, and national views on
the residents of the province. This, in turn, could have propelled some of the
inhabitants of Benjamin to migrate beyond the administrative limits of the prov-
ince and to settle close to the border.
This is the key to understanding 1 Chr 8:12–13, according to which the families
of Elpaal and Beriah, whose origins were in Benjamin, “built Ono and Lod” and
“were heads of the fathers of the inhabitants of Aijalon.” Historical sources from
the Persian period contain several accounts that lend support to this demographic
phenomenon. Particularly striking are the marital connections of “the people of
Israel” with the foreign women who came from among the “people of the lands”
(Ezra 9:1–2, 12–15; 10:2–3, 10–15; Neh 10:31). This also provides a framework for
understanding the proposition made by Sanballat, the Horonite, and Geshem, the
Arab, to meet with Nehemiah “in one of the villages in the plain of Ono” (Neh 6:2),
where a Judean settlement whose political allegiance was not clear was located.
This is apparently the source of the Jewish population that lived in this area
during the Hellenistic period (Lipschits 1997b: 10–11, 28–31).
Material Culture, Administration and Economy
in Judah during the Persian Period: The Role
of the Jerusalem Temple
In 1 Kings 8, King Solomon states, “I have built you an exalted house, a place for
you to dwell forever” (v. 13), and then goes on to say “and I have built the house
for the name of LORD, the God of Israel” (v. 20). In the book of Kings, it is clear
that the maintenance of the temple was the duty of the Judean kings, as demon-
strated in 2 Kings 12:10–17 [9–16]; 22:4–6.1 This obligation also included the Bethel
temple (considered to be a royal temple) as described in 1 Kings 12:28–33 and
clearly stated in Amos 7:13: “for it is a sanctuary of the king and a royal residence.”
In this paper, I would like to claim that from the time of its establishment,
and even more so from Judah’s subjugation as a vassal of the Assyrian empire at
the end of the eighth century BCE, the temple in Jerusalem played no role in the
economic and administrative system of the kingdom. The temple was small, with
no meaningful source of economic income, and as such its sustained existence
was entirely dependent on the financial support of the royal house in Jerusalem.
Within this system, the ongoing maintenance of the temple was dependent on
the budget set by the royal palace, and the offerings made towards it were re-
ceived under the close inspection of the king and his administration, i.e., the
collection of gifts, tithes and other offerings and donations (Lipschits 2006b; Bed-
ford 2015: 336–350).
This status quo continued when the Temple was rebuilt at the end of the sixth
century BCE. Yet this time, the temple was wholly dependent on the Persian king
and his administration for the regulation of its construction and maintenance,2 as
well as on the offerings and donations by the Judeans in Judah and especially
by the Judahite community in Babylon through gifts, tithes, first fruits, etc.3 This

1 See: Ahlström 1982; Meyers 1998: 256–264; Miller 2000: 87–89, 189–197; Lux 2002: 99–122; Lip-
schits 2006b; Stevens 2006: 93–96, 108–113, 116–118; Jericke 2010: 37–47, 182–185; Bedford 2015:
336–350.
2 On the text in Ezra-Nehemiah, see Karrer 2001. On Cyrus as temple builder in Deutero-Isaiah,
see Kratz 1991: 183–191; Laato 1992: 177–187; Fried 2002a. For different models regarding the
relationships between the Achaemenid imperial administration and the Jerusalem temple, see,
e.g., Meyers and Meyers 1987; Blenkinsopp 1991: 22–53; Schaper 1995: 528–539; 1997: 200–206;
2000; Stevens 2006: 108–118; Lee 2010: 177–195.
3 In Ezra-Nehemiah, there is a clear indication about the role of the Judahite community in the
supporting and financing of the temple, be it the community in Babylon (Ezr 1:6, 2:68–69, 3:7,
7:16, 8:25; cf. Hag 1:1, 12, 2:2, 4; Zech 6:10–11, 15) or the community in Judah (Neh 10:1–40; cf.
Hag 1:8), alongside the support of the Persian king. See Bedford 2001: 140–152, 237–254.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-017
306 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple may also explain the extended length of
time that it took to rebuild it, as well as why it was in such poor condition (until
the establishment of the Hasmonean state) (Bedford 1995: 71–94; Kessler 2002: 243–
256).4 Due to the problematic nature of the local agricultural economy and the dire
economic status of Judah during most of the Persian period (Langgut and Lipschits
2017: 135–162), the Jerusalem temple was even more dependent on gifts and support
from the Persian king and the Babylonian Golah. Reinforcing the nature of the
city’s dependency is the observation that Jerusalem did not become an urban cen-
ter until the Hasmonean period, in the second half of the second century BCE.
Throughout this period (approx. 350 years), the temple was a small and rather
isolated structure, surrounded by a sparse settlement of priests, Levites and other
temple servants. Jerusalem remained a small settlement, with a non-elite material
culture and with no markers of a developed temple-economy or temple-administra-
tion (Lipschits 2001a: 129–142; 2009b; 2011a; 2012b; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a:
106–115).

Historical and Geopolitical Background

Judah was a small and marginal province in the satrapy ‘Babylonia and Across
the River (Ebir Nāri)’ (Leuze 1935: 25, 36; Rainey 1969: 52; Briant 2002: 64, 71, 74–
75).5 The former administrative system continued without marked change even
after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses II (525 BCE),6 when it was included
within the empire as a separate administrative unit (Olmstead 1948: 70–85; Graf
1993: 151; Hoglund 1992: 23; Briant 2002: 48–49, 64, 71, 74–75). The first changes in
the administrative system of the province ‘Across the River’ followed the imperial
suppression of the wide-ranging revolts that arose in different parts of the empire
following the accession of Darius I (522/521 BCE). These results prompted the Per-
sians to formally establish a sub-district titled ‘Across the River’.7 The province
‘Babylonia and Across the River’ continued to exist without any real change, and

4 On modes of funding for the temple in the Persian period, see Knowles 2006: 105–120; Niehr
2007: 141–157.
5 It is interesting to note that all the texts mentioning this title came from Uruk except for one,
which came from the area of Babylon. For the list of the texts and further bibliography, see
Stolper 1989: 290, 292, note c.
6 On the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses II, see Briant 2002: 55–61; Cruz-Uribe 2003: 9–60, with
further literature therein.
7 On the administrative system that was organized by Darius I, see Tuplin 1987: 109–166: 111–
113; cf. the more cautious reconstruction by Briant (2002: 487–490). On the extent of the satrapy
and its inner structure, see Rainey 1969: 51–78.
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 307

a new governor, Uštānu, was installed in March of 520 BCE (Rainey 1969: 52–53;
Stolper 1989: 289; Briant 2002: 484).8
More than 30 years later, in October of 486 BCE – just two months before the
death of Darius I and the accession of Xerxes – another governor with the same
title appears in a Babylonian legal text (BM 74554), and with it comes the final
reference of this large satrapy (Stolper 1989: 283–305). Only after suppressing the
revolt in Babylon in 482 BCE (Olmstead 1948: 237, n. 23) was Xerxes able to sepa-
rate the subdistrict ‘Across the River’ from the province of Babylon and award it
with independent and equal status (Olmstead 1948: 112, 115; Rainey 1969: 55–58;
Ephʿal 1998: 109).9 This marked the first time in history that the Judeans in Judah
and in Babylonia were not a part of the same administrative unit – a status that
lasted until the end of the Persian period. This is also the image reflected in the
descriptions of Herodotus in the middle of the fifth century BCE (Briant 2002: 951
with further literature).10
The satrapy Ebir Nāri included all the land on the west side of the Euphrates
as far as Egypt. The imperial changes did not affect the province of Yehud, which
continued to maintain the same status and borders as established by the Babylo-
nians after the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the kingdom of Judah in
the early sixth century BCE (Lipschits 2015: 237–264). As there are no clear indica-
tions of the ways in which the province of Yehud was organized, administered
and ruled, multiple theories have been developed regarding this situation. These
theories are principally based on comparisons with other provinces in the Persian
period (for which there is more information), or on the interpretation of biblical
material, especially biblical books considered to have been written in the Persian
period and therefore seen as reflective of its history, economy and administration
(Grabbe 2004: 132–166). In these books, especially Ezra-Nehemiah, Haggai and
Zachariah, and – of course – the book of Chronicles, Jerusalem and the temple

8 Most scholars based their reconstruction on the appearance of “Tattenai, the governor [satrap]
of the province across the river” in Jerusalem in the second year of Darius (Ezra 5:3, 6; 6:13) and
his appearance with the same title in a tablet dated to 502 BCE. They interpret it as if the region
‘Across the River’ was at this time a subdivision of the larger satrapy, and that Tattenai (Tattannu)
was subordinate to Uštānu. See Olmstead 1948: 78–81; Rainey 1969: 52–55; Cook 1983: 42–43; Frey
1984: 114–115; Stolper 1989: 289–290, 293, note 7; Petit 1990: 189–190; Briant 2002: 487–488, 951,
with further literature therein.
9 See, however, the reservations raised by Stolper (1989: 293–303, with further literature on
pp. 292–293, notes 9–12).
10 Many scholars reconstructed the historical events according to the description of Herodotus
(3.88–95; cf. Leuze 1935: 226–229). For further literature, see Stolper 1989: 292, n. 9. However,
Herodotus’s list describes the Persian administrative organization from the time of Xerxes I or
later and certainly not from the time of Darius I (Calmeyer 1990: 109–129; Stern 2001: 368; Stolper
1989: 293, n. 13).
308 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

are described as the center of the land and the nation, a concept that for many
scholars was a clear representation of historical reality. The problem with these
observations and reconstructions of the Jerusalem temple and its central role in
the administration and economy of the province is that most hypotheses have no
support beyond the interpretation of the biblical descriptions. Several scholars
proposed frameworks neglect to include evidence based on the historical geogra-
phy of the land and on the physical material culture. This is moreover a failure
to integrate the basic understanding that, in many aspects, the province of Yehud
continued to be based on the same rural economy, and within the same adminis-
tration, that had been formally developed over the hundreds of years when Judah
was under the rule of Mesopotamian empires (Lipschits 2018b).
The basic economy and administration of the kingdom of Judah was estab-
lished already at the end of the eighth century BCE, when Judah (like other vassal
kingdoms) was obliged to send regular intelligence reports on the movements of
Assyria’s enemies, pay annual taxes to the Assyrian throne and participate in
Assyrian military campaigns (Lipschits 2018b). The settlement pattern, economy
and administration were transformed and adapted to the realities of this new
political and geopolitical situation, especially during the seventh century BCE fol-
lowing Sennacherib’s campaign (701 BCE) and the loss of the Shephelah (Koch
and Lipschits 2013: 66–67). It can be assumed that Ramat Raḥel was the center of
this rural administration and that the main developments occurred to the north
of Jerusalem, in the Benjamin region, and to Jerusalem’s south (Lipschits and
Gadot 2008: 88–96; Gadot 2015).
The local economy and administration continued to exist in the same format
after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, when Judah was downgraded
from a Babylonian vassal kingdom to a Babylonian province. Yet, the Judahite
population continued to subsist in the northern Judean highlands and the Benja-
min region and preserved its economy and administration, ways of life, and mate-
rial culture (Lipschits 2015, with further literature). During this phase, the temple
no longer existed, and Jerusalem likely played only a marginal role in the regional
economic and administrative system, which was intended for the payment of
annual taxes to the ruling empire. The clear continuation of Ramat Raḥel and the
stamped jar handle administration before and after the destruction of Jerusalem
is a clear indication of the marginality of the city and its temple in the economy
and administration of the vassal kingdom, and of the province under the rule of
the Mesopotamian empires (Lipschits 2001a; 2015; 2018b).
The same settlement pattern, economy and administration continued into the
Persian period, when the Jerusalemite temple was rebuilt, although the status
and role of the temple within the administrative and economic system of Judah
under the Persians are not clear (Lipschits 2011b; 2012b; 2015: 237–264). In any
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 309

case, from the archaeological perspectives of demography, economy and adminis-

tration, there is no change in Judah during the early and mid-Persian period, nor
is there change in the archaeology of Jerusalem. Without the textual descriptions
from Ezra-Nehemiah and those from the prophetic literature, there is no way to
reconstruct any transformation in the status, demography and history of Jerusa-
lem during this period (Lipschits 2003: 323–376; 2005: 258–271).
This ‘state of the field’ stands in contrast to the reconstructions of scholars
who, based on the biblical descriptions, reconstruct a mass migration of Judahites
from Babylon to Judah, especially Jerusalem, in the early Persian period (see
further below). These scholars have not accounted for archaeological evidence or
the historical reconstruction, as according to them there is no change in Yehud
during the 205 years of the Persian period – neither at the beginning of this
period nor towards its end, and neither for a mass migration nor even for a
small one. Compounding upon this, there are archaeological and demographic
indications that during the Persian period, the population of Yehud withered by
approximately 25 % (Lipschits 2005: 258–271). Furthermore, there is no change
(whether small or great) in Jerusalem’s settlement and demography in the late
sixth and the fifth centuries BCE, or from any other aspect of the material cul-
ture – as Jerusalem remained small and poor until the Hasmonaean period in
the second century BCE (Lipschits 2011a, with further literature).
From the Persian perspective, the justification for all of this is quite clear:
During the long years of the Persian rule in Ebir Nāri, numerous geopolitical
changes and administrative reorganizations were executed (especially along the
coast).11 The Achaemenid regime had political, military and economic interests in
establishing its rule along the Mediterranean coast, stabilizing the political situa-
tion in the area, and encouraging maritime and continental trade.12 In light of
the consideration given to the coast, no such development in the hill country can
be observed throughout the entirety of the Persian and early Hellenistic periods.
The settlement pattern in the Persian period is a continuation of the processes

11 The main evidence for this can be found in the large and wealthy urban and commercial
centers that were established at the very beginning of the Achaemenid period along the Mediter-
ranean coast, most of which were well built and intentionally planned, some according to the
Hippodamian plan. See Kenyon 1960: 311–312; Stern 1990a: 147–155; 2001: 380–401; 461–464; Lip-
schits 2001b: 47; 2006a: 19–52.
12 One of the major goals of the Persians was to secure the Via Maris as well as the roads in
the southern part of the southern Levant as part of the military, administrative and economic
effort to keep the route to Egypt open. See Ephʿal 1998: 117; Stern 2001: 371. Another interest was
the establishment of a strong political, military and economic coalition against the Greeks. From
the economic point of view, the Persian regime tried to develop and encourage the maritime
trade that was previously dominated by the Phoenicians. See Briant 2002: 383, 489–490.
310 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

that were established during the Babylonian period, a consequence dealt out by
the Babylonians to the small kingdoms of the hill country west and east of the
Jordan. Neither the Babylonians nor the Persians had any interest in encouraging
or developing urban centers in the rural hilly regions on either side of the Jordan
(Lipschits 2004a: 37–52). The Achaemenids, like the Babylonians, were interested
in the continued existence of the rural settlement in the hill country, as it was an
important source for agricultural supply (likely collected as tax). Yet they had no
interest in establishing urban centers in the hill country and in creating new
social, political and economic local power structures (Lipschits 2006a: 19–52).

Theories Regarding the Centrality of Jerusalem

and the Temple in the Economy and Administration of Judah
during the Persian Period

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that the administration and economy
of Judah in the Persian period was well grounded in the local routines and norms
established in previous periods. The various scholarly reconstructions regarding
the centrality of Jerusalem and the temple in the economy and administration of
Judah during the Persian period should consider the poor and limited material
culture of the period, the demographic situation in Judah and in Jerusalem and
settlement patterns. However, in the past two or three generations of research,
various theories have been developed that stand in conflict with this view. Several
of these new theories are well based in theoretical models, others are based on
comparative evidence from better-attested temples within the Achaemenid em-
pire (most notably Babylonian temples),13 while some base their theories exclu-
sively on biblical material. However, all of these proposals lack any real founda-
tion in the geography, material culture, economy and administration of the land
during the Persian period. Furthermore, there are no grounds for the reconstruc-
tion of temples in the Persian period (outside Babylonia) as institutions that con-
trolled land and commerce, or for their scholarly treatment as institutions that
served the fiscal administration of the Persian empire.14

13 Unlike the Jerusalem temple, Babylonian temples were never dependent on royal gifts, so
they were able to maintain their long-standing funding models even while under foreign political
control. These were based on agriculture and manufacturing, connections of leading urban fami-
lies to the temples through land allotments, and different modes of payment. See Waerzeggers
2010; cf. Bedford 2015: 340–341.
14 See the detailed summary and critique of these theories in Bedford 2007.
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 311

I do not deal here with notable models such as Roland Boer’s “sacred econo-
my” of ancient Israel (Boer 2015)15 but instead engage with some representative
theories that are focused on the role of the temple in the economy of Persian-
period Yehud. The arguments and rationale of these theories (which concern the
centrality and function of Jerusalem and the temple in the core of the administra-
tion and economy of Yehud) are heavily based on theoretical social models (Wein-
berg), on historical assumptions and comparative studies (Schaper) and on the
interpretation of the biblical texts (Kim).
A central aspect to these theories is the Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde of Joel Wein-
berg (which has been highly influential since the 1970s), for scholarly expla-
nations of the social, economic and administrative organization of Yehud as a
semi-autonomous and self-governing polity. This framework economically and
administratively integrated the inhabitants of Judah with the local temple as the
center of the community, giving rise to a community of free, fully enfranchised
members who had a right to property and a landed estate (Weinberg 1972: 45–
59; 1974: 473–486, and cf. to idem., 1992: 34–48; 92–104). According to Weinberg,
the land was in the possession of the bêt ʾābôt, ‘(extended) family’, yet rights to
land were dependent on the connection of community members to the temple,
since land belonged to the local deity (Weinberg 1973: 400–414; 1992: 49–61; Schar-
bert 1982: 213–237). Unlike most temples in the Persian empire that were de facto
owners of the land and leased it to community members, the temple in Jerusalem
held no land and therefore had no temple economy. Most land was community-
owned by the bāttê ʾābôt, which kept it as a non-transferable family inheritance
rather than as a private property for individuals (Weinberg 1974).16 Weinberger’s
hypothesis argues that the income of the Jerusalem temple was related to Cyrus’s
need to control a secure and trusted place near the border of Egypt as a part of
his plans to invade and conquer it (Weinberg 1977: 25–43; 1992: 110–112). Accord-
ing to Weinberg, at first, Judah was under the administration of Samaria,17 with

15 It should suffice to quote Boer’s views regarding the Persian empire (Boer 2015: 151), which
“lasted barely two centuries. This is hardly an endorsement for its economic credentials”.
16 It might be that the Jerusalem temple owned land through dedication, as can be deduced
from Lev 27:14–29. See Blenkinsopp 1991: 50. However, it was certainly not enough land to meet
the temple’s financial needs, as can be seen in Neh 10. Besides, priests and Levites also held land
through priestly bāttē ʾābôt, but in this case they were private lands and not temple lands. See
Weinberg 1992: 61, 100; Bedford 2007: *6.
17 This means that figures like Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were only unofficial leaders of the
emerging community that became the basis for what followed in the mid-fifth century BCE.
According to Weinberg, even Nehemiah (despite his title) was not the governor of the province
but rather the leader of the Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde. The Judean Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde did
not officially come into existence until 458/457 BCE with the edict of Artaxerxes.
312 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

the first returnees receiving aid from the central government who ordered and
financed the rebuilding of the temple.
Weinberg’s reconstruction was based on the number of returnees (42,000
according to Ezra 2 // Neh. 7) coming to Judah from the beginning of the Persian
period until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah ca. 458/457 BCE (Weinberg 1972: 52–
53; 1992: 34–48). Using such statistics, he calculated that this number was about
20 % of the overall population of Judah (250,000–350,000 people).18 In his recon-
struction, only the returnees were part of the community, while the descendants
of those not taken captive in 587/586 BCE were mostly excluded. However, after
458/457 BCE, the number of citizens increased to about 150,000 (as Weinberg
deduced from his interpretation of the lists in Neh. 3 and 11:25–36), after the
arrival of new immigrants and a natural increase in population. At this time,
about 70 % (or 50–60 %) of the population were members of the citizen communi-
ty (Weinberg 1972: 52–53, and cf. to idem. 1992: 34–48; 132–133).19 Weinberg recon-
structed that toward the end of Persian rule, the role and status of the ‘governor’
of the province of Yehud was transferred to the Jerusalem high priest (Weinberg
1992: 123–126).
In my opinion, Weinberg’s thesis received so much attention and attained
such popularity because it was the only comprehensive theoretical model that
sought to explain significant aspects of society, i.e., the administration and history
of Yehud. It subsequently took time (at least until the 1990s) until enough impor-
tant critiques of the Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde hypothesis came to light.20 The main
criticism was related to the unrealistic/constructed numbers that Weinberg used
in his estimations of the general population and the waves of immigrants to
(particularly) Judah – since all estimations since the 1990s have been around
10 % of Weinberg’s numbers (Carter 1999: 190–213; Lipschits 2003; 2006a: 19–40;
Finkelstein 2010b; Faust 2013b). Another important part of Weinberg’s model is
his claim (following Alt) that Judah was under the administration of Samaria
until the mid-fifth century BCE, which has been severely undermined. Most schol-
ars now accept that Judah was an autonomous province in the satrapy of Ebir-
nari already in the Babylonian period as well as from the beginning of Persian
rule. Connected to this is the critique of Weinberg’s refusal to accept that peḥāh
in Haggai and Ezra-Nehemiah means ‘governor of the province of Yehud’. Finally,
Weinberg’s reconstruction that the Jerusalem temple was the only example in the

18 Or 13–15 % in Weinberg 1992: 132.

19 According to Weinberg (1992: 132), the proportion of those who were temple personnel in-
creased from only about 15 % to over 50 %.
20 See, e.g., Blenkinsopp 1991: 22–53; Williamson 1998: 145–163; Carter 1999: 294–307; Bedford
1991: 154–162; 2001: 207–230; Grabbe 2004: 143–145.
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 313

entire Persian empire that was totally dependent on gifts and the empire’s assist-
ance has no grounds and no other parallel. The same sentiment can be extended
to his statement that the Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde was tax exempt, something that
is not known in other areas of the Persian empire.
Similar to this, Schaper also developed a school of thought that was close to
Weinberg’s theory and applied the parallels he attributed to the temples in Baby-
lonia. Schaper proposed that the Jerusalem temple incorporated foundries that
were a crucial instrument for the Achaemenid fiscal administration, since both
temple and state taxes were paid in precious metals collected at the temple. He
claimed that no other institution in Judah besides the temple would have received
permission from the Persians to collect and administrate the different kinds of
taxes (Schaper 1995: 528–539; 1997: 200–206; 2000: 137–150).21 Carroll claimed simi-
larly that the temple was a storehouse and treasury of the empire and was more
of an imperial taxation center than a holy house (Carroll 1994: 41–43; cf. Clines
1994: 66).
Against these theories, Bedford (2007) demonstrated that there is no clear
evidence that all temples in the Persian empire operated as repositories for impe-
rial taxes. He compared the situation in Judah not only to neighboring provinces
such as Samaria and Idumea (where there were no temples to act as a repository
or for imperial tax collection and storage) but also to temples that ostensibly did
not collect imperial taxes, such as the Jewish temple at Elephantine. Through this,
he suggested that these cases would better serve the understanding of the eco-
nomic role of the Jerusalem temple in the Persian period rather than the large,
land-owning, economically significant Babylonian temples. Based on this perspec-
tive as well as on a detailed comparison between what is known of the Jerusalem
temple (and its functionaries) and of the temples in Babylonia, he emphasized
the many distinctions between the two systems (Bedford 2007: *20):

Given the differences in scale, range of activities, control of land, modes of extracting in-
come, economic importance, and close interaction with the crown, Babylonian temples may
not offer the most pertinent parallels to the economic role of the Jerusalem Temple.

From a completely different direction, and only on the basis of interpretation of

the book of Chronicles, Yeong Seon Kim claimed that the reference to the temple,
its organization, and its funding in Chronicles represents the reality of the late
Persian and the early Hellenistic periods (Kim 2014). He regarded the book of

21 Schaper also claimed that the Jerusalem temple didn’t collect only the taxes payable to the
Persian administration but also the taxes payable to the temple itself, differentiating between
‘imperial’ taxes payable through sanctuaries and ‘religious’ taxes payable to sanctuaries.
314 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Chronicles as a central resource for the reconstruction of the administration of

the Jerusalem temple during the Achaemenid period. By focusing on the Levitical
involvement in temple administration as described in Chronicles, he reconstruct-
ed the administration of the temple as a crucial part of the economy and adminis-
tration of the province. Kim also focused on texts relating to gatekeepers, treasur-
ers and tax collectors,22 all of whom are described as Levites, and who are all
(according to Kim) part of the Chronicler’s plan to establish a legitimate temple
administration. As Kim states, “the Levites, either as members of the temple trea-
sury committee (1 Chr 28:12; 2 Chr 31:12–16) or as the head of that committee
(1 Chr 26:24, 29) are deeply engaged in the in-and-out flow of Temple revenue”
(Kim 2014: 17–18).
Unlike other scholars of Chronicles (Willi, Mosis, Throntveit, Welten and
others) who have interpreted this attitude in Chronicles as a later expansion of the
book by Levitical protagonists, Kim (2014: 169) interpreted this attitude against the
background of the economic viability of the temple’s administrative personnel:

By emphasizing the eligibility of the Levites to perform various cultic duties, and by provid-
ing the non-priestly cultic personnel with Levitical lineage, the Chronicler formulates the
legal basis for the payment of the cultic personnel of the Jerusalem Temple, which was, in
the Persian period, without royal sponsorship… the Chronicler’s legal interpretations and
historical revisionism with regard to the Levites have a practical purpose, namely, to make
the non-priestly cultic personnel eligible to be paid out of the Temple’s coffers.

Across each of the three very different theories described above, Jerusalem is a
particularly important city in the Persian empire because it was the center of the
province with a seated governor, had a well-developed economy and administra-
tion, was positioned to manage commodities that come in and go out and had
entrenched connections with other important cities in the land. None of these
aspects are reflected in the material culture. Archaeologically, Jerusalem was very
small with an especially poor material culture throughout the Persian and early
Hellenistic periods, as there are no signs of commerce, administration or a well-
developed economy.

Reconstructing the Administrative and Economic Status

of Jerusalem and the Temple in the Persian Period

Against the theories described above, careful study of the geographic history and
archaeological material of Judah and Jerusalem in the Persian period supports

22 See 1 Chr 9:17–32; 26:1–19 (gatekeepers), 9:26–28; 26:20–32 (treasurers), and 24:5–11; 34:9–13
(tax collectors).
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 315

an entirely different reconstruction of the role of Jerusalem and the temple in

the economy and administration of the province of Yehud. The point of departure
is that the origin and history of the Persian-period rural economy and administra-
tion in Judah – which characterized the region until the establishment of the
Hasmonaean kingdom in the late second century BCE – is rooted in the adapta-
tions and changes of all aspects of local economy and administration after Judah
became a vassal kingdom of the Assyrian empire. This is particularly true of the
history of the land after Sennacherib’s campaign (701 BCE) and the loss of the
Shephelah (Koch and Lipschits 2013: 66–67). Furthermore, the later reorganization
of the region is also the outcome of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in the
early sixth century BCE and Judah’s transition from an Assyrian vassal kingdom
to a Babylonian province. During this period, the Judahite population who contin-
ued to subsist in the northern Judean highlands, as well as in the Benjamin re-
gion, maintained its previous economy, ways of life, administration and material
culture.
The area of Benjamin developed into an important element of the Judean
economy and administration in the seventh century BCE, likely after the loss of
the Shephelah. The region was not destroyed with Jerusalem in 586 BCE, and it
may be assumed that even before the fall of Jerusalem, the Babylonians had cho-
sen Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh) as the alternative capital of the Babylonian province
and had already appointed Gedaliah son of Ahikam as its first governor (Lipschits
1999b: 155–190; 2005: 68–125, 237–249).
The area to the south of Jerusalem, with Ramat Raḥel at its center, probably
shared the same fate as the Benjamin region. There is clear evidence for associat-
ing the development of the Rephaim basin and the agricultural area to the south
of Jerusalem especially in the seventh century BCE with the emergence of Ramat-
Raḥel as an administrative center in the region under Assyrian rule (Lipschits
2005: 250–258; Lipschits and Gadot 2008),23 as well as the organization of royal
estates in the kingdom of Judah – probably after Judah became an Assyrian vassal
kingdom and even more so after the loss of the Shephelah.24

23 For the dating of the establishment of the rural settlement around Jerusalem to the seventh
century BCE, see Gadot 2015.
24 The Rephaim basin and the rural settlement around Jerusalem flourished in the seventh
century BCE more so than in any other period in the history of Judah (Gadot 2015). This settle-
ment phenomenon aligns with the centralized processing demonstrated by the concentration of
winepresses that are not associated with village infrastructure, the process of organized decant-
ing and shipping of the wine and the function of Ramat Raḥel in all of the periods in question
as an administrative center in the region. See Lipschits and Gadot 2008; Lipschits, Gadot, Arubas
and Oeming 2017: 28–74; Gadot 2015: 22.
316 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

The archaeological data is clear: Judah continued to exist as a rural society

when it became a Babylonian vassal kingdom and then a province. Its economy
was based on agriculture and the production of agricultural products, just as it
had been in the seventh century BCE when it was an Assyrian vassal kingdom.
Understanding the foundation of an agriculturally based economy and adminis-
tration is essential for understanding the history of the region under the rule of
the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian empires and the central role of Ramat-
Raḥel within this system.
The corpus of stamped and incised jar handles found in Judah and especially
in and around Ramat-Raḥel is key to such an understanding. During archaeologi-
cal excavations and surveys, about 3,000 stamped jar handles have been discov-
ered in Judah spanning the six hundred years in which the kingdom (and later
province) of Judah was under imperial rule (Lipschits 2018b). This is precisely
the period in which Ramat-Raḥel existed as the region’s administrative center
and primary collection center for agricultural products – principally wine and
oil stored in jars. All in all, the phenomenon of stamped jar handles collected and
stored at Ramat Raḥel continued for more than half a millennium in a constant
and systemized administrative system.25
Just as the stamped jar administrative and economic system persisted through-
out the six hundred years of Judah’s existence under the rule of the empires,
it can also be assumed that the system of agricultural settlements, royal estates,
administrative centers and the system of districts in Judah (as is known from the
Persian period) is also the product of a well-established system whose roots lie in
the late eighth and mainly the seventh century BCE. It can also be assumed that
this system had a long history, as it was also adapted to the circumstances of
Judah’s existence as a province under Babylonian and Persian rule.
Based on these assumptions, considered in tandem with the geographic
analysis of the region, the information about the borders of Judah at the end of
the Iron Age and knowledge of the historical events in the Babylonian and Persian

25 Over three hundred stamped handles from the late Iron Age were found at Ramat Raḥel
(Lipschits, Gadot, Arubas and Oeming 2011: 16–17; 2017: 34–37, 39, 64), including lmlk and “pri-
vate” stamp impressions (late eighth and early seventh centuries BCE; see Lipschits, Sergi and
Koch 2010); concentric circle incisions (mid-seventh century BCE, see Lipschits, Sergi and Koch
2011: 7–8), and rosette stamp impressions (late seventh to early sixth centuries BCE, see Koch
and Lipschits 2013: 60–61). In the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic periods, Ramat Raḥel was
the main center of stamped jar handles, with about 77 lion stamped handles dated to the sixth
century BCE (Ornan and Lipschits 2020), more than 300 yhwd stamp impressions dated to the
late sixth to mid-second centuries BCE (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 107–110), and 33 yršlm
stamp impressions dated to the second century BCE (Bocher and Lipschits 2013a: 103–104).
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 317

periods,26 one can reconstruct the existence of five districts that existed in the
province of Yehud. The following is a summary of their locations, borders and
agricultural and economic potential:

The Mizpah District is largely congruent with the region of Benjamin in the First
Temple period and reflects the continuity of the region’s boundaries between the
seventh and fifth centuries BCE.27 Mizpah was likely the major city of the dis-
trict.28 The historical boundary between the Benjamin region/Mizpah District and
“the environs of Jerusalem” / Jerusalem District is the line created through con-
nection of the southern settlements in the Benjamin tribal inheritance, i.e., Moza
and Kiriath-jearim,29 Gibeah of Saul and Anathoth.30 These cities create a line
that lies 5 km from Jerusalem, and geographical logic would suggest that this area
was bound to the northeast by Naḥal Og and on the northwest by Naḥal Soreq.
The grains that grew in the plain of the Benjamin region and the olive orchards
and vineyards nearby were an important source of agricultural supply. The area
flourished during the seventh century BCE. Alongside the main sites in the region,
i.e., Tell en-Naṣbeh (Zorn 1993b: 1099–1101), el-Jib (Pritchard 1962: 162–163), Tell
el-Fûl (Lapp 1981: 39–46; Finkelstein 2011c: 111–113), Khirbet el-Burj (De Groot and
Winberger-Stern 2013: 95–102) and Nebi Samwil (Magen and Dadon 2003). Also
the survey of this region demonstrated a growth in the rural settlement of this
area in the late Iron Age.31 There was a continuity of settlement in this region

26 See the detailed discussion in Lipschits 2005: 149–184.

27 The people of Jericho and Senaʾah likely also belonged to this district. This premise is opposed
to the attempt by Klein, Avi-Yonah and Blenkinsopp to add the Jericho District as the sixth district
in the province of Yehud, as well as Stern’s attempt (1982a: 247–248) to add Gezer as another
district in addition to Jericho. See Klein 1939: 3–4; Avi-Yonah 1949: 21 (citations from the 4th
Hebrew ed., 1984); Blenkinsopp 1988: 232–233. On this subject see further in Lipschits 2005: 157.
The attempt to include the Ono-Lod region or parts of Samaria within this area should be
dismissed. See, e.g., Kallai’s proposal (1960: 87–94) and in contrast, see Naʾaman 1995b: 20–24;
Lipschits 1997a, with further literature therein.
28 On the status of Mizpah during the Babylonian and Persian periods, see Lipschits 2005: 237–
240.
29 Moza and Kiriath-jearim are mentioned in the list of the cities of Benjamin (Josh 18:26, 28).
On the repetitive mentions of Kiriath-jearim (Josh 15:60; 18:28) in the list of cities of Judah and
Benjamin, see the explanation offered by Na’aman 1991b. The place, in any case, was considered
part of Benjamin (Josh 9:17; 18:28; Ezra 2:25; Neh 7:29).
30 Gibeah of Saul and Anathoth are added to the list of cities of Benjamin that appears in Isa
10:28–32. On the text in Josh 18: 28, and on the part of the list that was apparently omitted from
the book of Joshua, see Naʾaman 1991b: 25–26. The affiliation of Anathoth (Jeremiah’s birthplace)
with the Benjamin tribal legacy is also highlighted at the height of the Babylonian siege, preced-
ing the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 32:7–15).
31 For the survey data, see Magen and Finkelstein 1993. For the analysis of the survey finds, see
Milevski 1996–1997; Lipschits 1999b: 180–184; 2005: 245–249.
318 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

during the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, i.e., from the late Iron Age through the
Babylonian period and then into the early Persian period (Lipschits 1999b: 180–
184; 2005: 245–249).32 The relative prosperity of this area during the sixth cen-
tury BCE can only be attributed to the political centrality assigned to Mizpah and
the economic importance of Gibeon and Moza. It is probable that the agricultural
hinterland was based in the area around these settlements, and the settlement
pattern was shaped around this area as well.

The Jerusalem District lies south of the Mizpah District and probably included
the very small area around the city limits and its close environs. With considera-
tion to the surrounding districts, it may be assumed that the Jerusalem District
extended eastward to the edge of the desert and until Mount Scopus in the north.
To the south, the Jerusalem District did not extend beyond the Rephaim Valley,
so its borders were especially close (about 2–3 km) to the city itself.
The immediate environment of Jerusalem is characterized by an especially
low agricultural carrying capacity – a result of its steep and rocky terrain with
poor soil coverage and very limited water sources. The result of these conditions
was that the agricultural settlement connected to the city was not located in its
immediate sphere. Instead, it was located in an area concentrated around the
Rephaim and Soreq valleys, with their many tributaries, about 2–4 km to the
north, west and southwest of the city (Gadot 2015, with further literature therein).
These areas were, however, outside of the borders of the Jerusalem District and
lay in the adjacent districts to the north (Benjamin/Mizpah) and to the south
(Beth-hakkerem), along the border fringes between these three districts.
Naḥal Rephaim begins just west of the Old City, and from there it flows
southward until it curves to the southwest just below Ramat-Raḥel, creating the
widest valley in the region. The mouth of Nahal Soreq is located 4 km north of
Jerusalem and from there it flows westward, making a wide curve at the ancient
site of Moza before continuing southward. In these valleys, as well as in the rocky

32 It might be that by the sixth century BCE, the settlement in Benjamin had withdrawn to the
core of the region (the narrow zone along either side of the watershed), while settlements in
the northern and eastern zones almost ceased to exist. This assumption accords with existing
information about the complete cessation of settlement that took place throughout the Jordan
Valley and the western littoral of the Dead Sea. It would seem that this too was related to the
collapse of the economic, military and political system of the kingdom of Judah. Most of the
surviving settlements were concentrated along the mountain ridge and the upper mountain
slopes (in the central and western Benjamin region), around the main economic and administra-
tive centers that continued to exist in the region. On this subject, see the description and model
presented by Finkelstein (Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 20–21), and see also the assessment of the
surveyors as cited there (p. 138).
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 319

terrain in between, there is rich alluvium soil and many small springs. This area
was used for growing grains, while the slopes of the valleys were usually used
for cultivating vines (Gadot 2015).

The Beth-hakkerem District lay south of Jerusalem, with the Rephaim Valley at
its core, Bethlehem and its area to the south and Ramat-Raḥel as its main adminis-
trative center.33
The two districts, Jerusalem and Beth-hakkerem, are likely an evolution and
a ‘splitting’ of the geographical unit known in the First Temple period as “the
environs of Jerusalem.” This unit may be connected to the growth of towns, villa-
ges, hamlets and agricultural installations to the west and south of Jerusalem
during the late eighth and especially during the seventh century BCE – the same
period in which similar growth can be seen in the region of Benjamin.34 This is
probably the source for the distinction made by Jeremiah (17: 26; 32: 44; 33: 13)
between “the cities of Judah” and “the cities of the mountain” in the division of
the areas of the kingdom into six regions.35 The region known as “the environs
of Jerusalem” is also described in Jer 40–42 as the area in which Gedaliah son of
Ahikam was active after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem (Lipschits 2005:
152–154).
Most of the sites in the area to the west of Jerusalem were settled for the
first time during the seventh century BCE rather than the eighth century, as was
previously suggested. It is important to note, however, that the growth in the
number of sites is not indicative of dramatic growth in population but rather of
specialized agricultural activities (Gadot 2015). The change in the seventh-century

33 On the identification of Ramat Rahel as biblical Beth Hakkerem, see Lipschits and Naʾaman
2011; Lipschits et al., 2014b: 12–14. The people of Tekoa were probably included in this district,
which, like the two districts north of it, also reached the edge of the mountainous region to the
west and was bordered by the Qeʿilah District (Kallai 1960: 92–93). One must dismiss Avi-Yonah’s
suggestion (1949: 21) to include the Emmaus and Chephira regions in this district. These two
regions were historically part of the Mizpah District. Similarly, Kallai’s proposal (1960: 94) to
include the northeastern Shephelah (the region of Gezer and Ekron) in this region should be
rejected. See Carter 1999: 90, n. 48.
34 See Barkay 1985b: 399–401; 466–467; Naʾaman 1991b: 9, 13–14; Faust 2013b: 113–114, with fur-
ther literature therein. Gadot’s study (2015) makes it clear (and strengthens similar previous
opinions) that the main development of this area occurred during the seventh century and not
in the late eighth century BCE, as was previously assumed (see, e.g., Naʾaman 2007: 42; Faust
2013b: 22). This conclusion has many important historical implications; see further below.
35 See Barkay 1985b: 399–401; Ofer 1993: 1.42. Following Alt (1934: 324–328, and cf. to Naʾaman
1991b: 15–16), “the cities of Judah” can be identified with the area to the south and west of
Jerusalem, down to the Bethlehem region. This can be seen as evidence of the distinction be-
tween the area surrounding Jerusalem and the area south of it.
320 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

settlement pattern is principally in the number of sites related to agricultural

activities (Gadot 2015 and Table 1 therein). This period was the first time in the
history of the Jerusalem periphery that so many different rural sites existed –
not only to the south and southwest of the city but also to the northwest and
west.
It is not sufficient to connect this dramatic growth in the rural settlement
around Jerusalem to the growth of the city itself, which had already begun during
the eighth century BCE (Gadot 2015).36 This growth should instead be connected
to the development of the royal estates in the hill country during the period after
Judah had become an Assyrian vassal kingdom, and to the new need to pay taxes
to the Assyrian empire (a particular challenge after the loss of the Shephelah in
701 BCE).37
The growth of the rural settlement to the west and south of Jerusalem should
be associated with the existence of Ramat-Raḥel and the development of the sys-
tem of stamped jar handles during this same period. Both aspects were part of
the system that was developed in Judah to support the collection of agricultural
products (especially wine and oil), which could then be exchanged for metals
(particularly silver) that were paid as taxes to the ruling empire (Lipschits 2018b).
It can be assumed that the geographic unit known as “the environs of Jerusa-
lem” was divided by the Babylonians into two administrative units after the de-
struction of Jerusalem. These units include the main devastation in the city and
in its close periphery and the areas to the north of the city (the area of Benjamin)
and to the south of it (the area to the west and to the south of Ramat-Raḥel),
which continued to exist as before (Lipschits 2005: 206–218, 237–258).
This was the historical period in which the area around Jerusalem was sepa-
rated and became an independent district (the ‘Jerusalem District’) and the area
to the south of it became the ‘Beth-hakkerem District’, as indicated in the list of
Nehemiah 3 and as mentioned again at the beginning of the list of “the sons of the
singers” (Neh 12:28–29). The destroyed Jerusalem was cut off from its agricultural
surroundings to the west and south of the city and remained disconnected from
the agricultural sites in the district of Benjamin.
The agricultural sites in the Beth-hakkerem District continued to exist but as
a separate region that was administratively connected to Ramat-Raḥel. This area
became the Beth-hakkerem District (after the ancient name of Ramat-Raḥel),
which flourished in the ensuing centuries as a rural area, just like the area to

36 It is reasonable to assume that this growth was partly the outcome of the 701 BCE Assyrian
campaign and the loss of the Shephelah. This view runs against the opinions of Greenberg and
Cinamon 2006: 229–243; Faust 2007; 2013b.
37 Lipschits 2011a: 163–165; 2011b: 198–201. Cf. also Lipschits and Gadot 2008: 88–96.
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 321

the north of the city (the region of Benjamin/the Mizpah District; Lipschits 2005:
118–126, 152–153). The transformation of the rural settlement in this area from
the late Iron Age throughout the Babylonian period and into the Persian period
is evident in a smaller decline in the number of settlements than previously
thought (Lipschits 2005: 250–258, 261–271; Gadot 2015, and see further below).

The Beth Zur District is the southernmost in the Judean hill country. To the east
is En-Gedi, while the Qeʿilah District bound it the west.38 This area was never an
important part of the economy and administration of the kingdom (and later
province) of Judah. The district was the least populated area in the hill country
(Ofer 1993: 1:110–111), and its economic potential was far more limited.39
The three districts in the Judean hill country, from the area north of Ḥebron
to the area of Benjamin, emphasize the historical reality of the distinction be-
tween the southern Judean hill country (with its center in Ḥebron) and the cen-
tral-northern Judean hill country (with its center in Jerusalem). This landscape
can be reconstructed through historical and archaeological sources, perhaps even
from the beginning of the second millennium BCE. There are deep economic,
political and social differences between these two areas, and these can be recon-
structed from the archaeological data from the Late Bronze Age, as well as from
information on the settlement patterns of recent generations.40

The Qeʿilah District was the only stronghold that the province of Yehud had in
the Shephelah, with the Elah Valley and the city of Azekah in its southwestern
corner.41 This was the most productive area in Judah for the cultivation of olive

38 It is reasonable to assume that the border between these two districts ran east of the Adulam-
Zanoah line. The southern border probably ran in the narrow strip between Beth Zur and
Ḥebron, where it remained until the days of the Hasmoneans (Lipschits 2005: 146–149). One
cannot accept Carter’s suggestion (1999: 98–99) that Ḥebron should be included within the bor-
ders of the province. See on this further below.
39 The large areas on the desert fringe were used for pastoral economy, and the higher-altitude
areas facing the central hills and the western slopes were used mainly for the growing of grain
via dry farming. See Finkelstein 1986: 121–126; Ofer 1993: 1.111–113. The conclusion is that the
economy of the central and southern hill country was mainly based on pastoralism and dry
farming. The economic output of the vineyard areas and olive orchards were limited, much
more so than in the areas of the two districts to the north.
40 The parallel settlement and social orientation of recent times supports the premise that the
Ḥebron region is related to the southern region as far as the Beersheba–Arad valleys, and that
the area from Beth Zur northward is linked to the central mountain area (Naʾaman 1991b: 361–
380; Ofer 1993: 1.103–104, with further literature therein).
41 This district was bounded to the west by Ashdod and to the south by the region controlled
from Maresha. To the north, the boundary did not extend beyond Gezer, which lies outside the
limits of the province. See Naʾaman 1995b: 16–24; Carter 1999: 90, 190–213; Lipschits 2005: 147–148.
322 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

trees and was traditionally the center of olive oil production, as indicated by the
history of this region in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. As the only strong-
hold that the province of Yehud had in the Shephelah during the Persian period,
this district was near the flourishing coastal plain. The crucial roads that led from
Judah westward also passed through this area and crossed important border
towns, including Azekah.
The functions of the Qeʿilah District probably made it one of the more strate-
gically important areas in the province, even though its economic potential was
far from fully utilized and its population was especially small. Apparently, the
province of Yehud could not utilize the economic potential of this region, either
from a lack of human resources or due to the absence of the imperial authority,
which instead supported their strong neighbors to the west (Ashdod), to the north
(Samaria) and to the south (expanding Idumea). Beyond all of this, it seems that
the weakness of the Qeʿilah District is a clear sign of the traditional settlement
and economy of Judah. This tradition maintained the seventh-century model of
the post-Sennacherib period, as the heavy destructions and the appropriation of
the southern part of this region meant that it was unable to restore itself to the
earlier potential of the glorious days of the Shephelah.
So, with all the above considered, what is the importance of such an analysis
for the understanding of the economy and administration of Yehud in the Persian
period, and the role of Jerusalem and the temple in all of this? In a previous
paper (Lipschits 2015), I claimed that during the Persian period, each district in
the Yehud province had its own center and its own economic and administrative
existence and role in the overall provincial system. At the center of the Beth Zur
District was a military fort that bordered Idumea. The region held minimal eco-
nomic potential and its primary role was probably to guard the southern zone
against the nomadic tribes that had begun to establish themselves in the region.
These same tribes, by the end of the Persian period and the early Hellenistic
period, later became part of the new province of Idumea. The Qeʿilah District
likely served a protective role too, in controlling the main roads that led south
and west from the province and faced the border to the west, towards the prov-
ince of Ashdod, and towards the area of Maresha in the south. At the end of the
Persian period and in the early Hellenistic period, this area became the center of
the province of Idumea (Lipschits et al., 2014a, esp. pp. 146–149).
In the years following the crisis of the Babylonian destruction, there was
stability and continuity in the rural settlement and economy of the central areas
of the province. Apparently, when spared any dramatic external events, this rural
settlement could survive and maintain its existence. This stability was also in the
interest of the ruling empires, who preserved the local system for the collection
of agricultural products but streamlined it into one main administrative center –
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 323

Ramat-Raḥel – which continued to exist throughout the entire period when Judah
was under the hegemony of foreign empires.
From an archaeological perspective, Jerusalem was only a small settlement
throughout the Persian period, nothing more than a temple with no more than
two or three hundred priests and other temple servants living around it (Lipschits
2011b: 189–190, with further literature). No more than 1,200–1,500 people (300–
400 families) could have lived in Jerusalem. It is for this reason that the number
of agricultural sites and their locations in the central and northern hill country
are viewed as an indication of the greater agencies that influenced this develop-
ment. Such data reveals that the source and the reason for the agricultural inten-
sification was not Jerusalem or the temple but rather the administrative and
economic system that continued to exist in Judah under the auspices of the em-
pire, with its center at Ramat-Raḥel.
Three different districts existed in this area during the Persian period, each
with a specific role: Jerusalem was likely the cultic center of the province, with
the temple at the center and the area around it (the ‘Jerusalem District’) quite
empty. Perhaps two small villages and four or five farmsteads existed in a close
circle around the city. Mizpah became the political center of the Yehud province
after the destruction of Jerusalem and already in the Babylonian period became
the seat of the local governor as well as the center of the district around it – the
Mizpah District. Ramat-Raḥel functioned in the seventh century BCE as the main
administrative imperial collection center for agricultural produce and following
the destruction of Jerusalem also became the center of the district that included
most of the rural settlement to the west and south of Jerusalem.
Each site, Jerusalem, Mizpah and Beth-hakkerem, had its own specific func-
tion during the Babylonian and early Persian periods, and each also functioned
as the center of its district. Yet interesting changes occurred during the Persian
period in this system of three centers, in three districts, with three different
functions. Jerusalem’s status probably strengthened during the Persian period
as the central and only cult place, while Mizpah lost its status as the seat of
the governor. Ramat-Raḥel’s status and position also changed; besides being the
collection center for agricultural produce, it also became the seat of the local
governor. This site was originally constructed under Assyrian rule as an adminis-
trative center, and it was possibly also as the place where the Assyrian qīpu-
official inspected the vassal kingdom and supervised its loyalty and the payment
of taxes. Its magnificence, location, unique architectural items and the many
stamped jar handles recovered there are all a clear indication of the role of this
site during the seventh and early sixth centuries BCE (Lipschits, Gadot, Arubas
and Oeming 2017: 30–44). The site continued to function in the same way, with
no change or gap, under Babylonian rule.
324 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

It seems that during this period, when Judah had become a province instead
of a kingdom, the duality between the imperial inspection and presence (at Ra-
mat-Raḥel) and the local leadership (the king) and priesthood (in Jerusalem) be-
came a kind of threefold system. Ramat-Raḥel continued to symbolize the imperi-
al presence and functioned as the primary collection center for agricultural
products. The local leadership, now the governor, was seated in Mizpah.42 The
main cult place was likely in Jerusalem, even though it may be that during the
sixth century BCE, the Jerusalem monopoly was not yet strong and other cult
places still existed (Bethel? Gibeon? Mizpah? Shechem?).
The archaeological data from the renewed excavations at Ramat-Raḥel demon-
strate that the edifice that stood atop the hill at the center of the Beth-hakkerem
District reached its zenith during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE (Lipschits,
Gadot, Arubas and Oeming 2017: 77–88; Lipschits, Gadot, and Langgut 2012: 57–
79). It was the only structure in the province of Yehud with royal architecture
and grandeur, and it was surrounded by a well-watered imperial garden with
unique flora that originated in the Persian homeland and surrounding areas
(Langgut, Gadot, Porat and Lipschits 2013: 115–129; Gross, Gadot and Lipschits
2014: 93–114).
The structure unquestionably symbolized the power and affluence of the lo-
cal rulers who represented the Persian empire. With this combination of a mag-
nificent edifice and a luxurious garden, there seems to be no reason to doubt that
during the Persian period, Ramat-Raḥel served as the residence of the imperial
provincial governor.
Only during the Persian period did transformations occur, as Jerusalem re-
newed its status as the only cultic site, host to the temple and the seat of the
priests. Mizpah lost its status as the seat of the local governor and was partially
deserted, and Ramat Raḥel became both the seat of the governor and the main
administrative center for the collection of taxes. The Mizpah District was the
demographic center of Judah during the sixth century BCE and at least until the
mid-fifth century BCE, with approximately one third of all sites in Judah (76 of
238). The system of mwṣh stamped jar handles and the absence of the lion and
the yhwd stamped jars from this region indicate that the agricultural economy of
this area was aimed at maintaining the governor in Mizpah. In light of this, one
can understand the relative prosperity of the region and the establishment of
many new rural settlements within it.
The gradual impoverishment of the settlement in Benjamin took place through-
out the fifth century BCE (Lipschits 1997a: 17–31; 1999b: 182–185), likely following

42 See Blenkinsopp 1988: 42; Carter 1999: 190–213; Lipschits 2003; 2005: 19–40; Finkelstein 2010b;
Faust 2013b; Lemaire 1990: 39–40; 2003: 292; Lipschits 2006a: 34–37.
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 325

Jerusalem establishing itself as the central and only cultic center in Judah and
the seat of the governor moving to Ramat-Raḥel. These changes undermined the
economic foundation of the settlements in the region, resulting in a marked dem-
ographic decline. The decline in the Benjamin region is likely an explanation for
the strengthening of the settlement in the northeastern part of the Shephelah
(the area between the Lod-Ono Valley and Modiʿin) during the Persian period
(Lipschits 1997a: 7–32). The political stability, particularly the enhanced economic
activity in the coastal area during the Persian period, attracted many inhabitants
of the hill country to settle nearby. This was in addition to the agricultural poten-
tial of the area and its proximity to the major coastal trade routes and the major
roads that led to the Benjamin region and the area of Jerusalem. Aside from
this, one cannot preclude the possibility that this migration had an ideological
motivation. This would have been targeted against the new ruling elite in Jerusa-
lem, who forced their religious, ritual, social and national views upon the resi-
dents of the province. This, in turn, could have provoked some of the inhabitants
of Benjamin to migrate beyond the administrative limits of the province and to
settle close to the border.
Within this landscape, what was the situation in Jerusalem? What could the
financial sources of the temple and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem have been?
There is no archaeological indication of any financial, administrative or economic
central activity in Jerusalem until the second century BCE. Most of the biblical
texts clearly claim that funding for the temple came via voluntary donation and
not formal taxation. In Haggai and Malachi, the community was encouraged to
donate. In Nehemiah 10:33–40, all examples emphasize the moral obligation to
support the temple rather than the administrative obligation. There are no indica-
tions in the text that the Jerusalem priesthood possessed any authority to support
the extraction of formal payments from the community in support of the temple
(Bedford 2015: 341–342). Even the minting of the early Yehud coins probably hap-
pened in Philistia, as recent studies have demonstrated.43 In any case, this system
was aimed not at assisting or supporting the temple or the province but at the
establishment of imperial control over taxes imposed on the city as well as sec-
tions of its local communities.
Yet, allegedly, the empire was able to order the local governor at Ramat Raḥel
to provide some financial aid to the temple in Jerusalem and assist the economy
of its priests and other temple servants. This assumption can be tested, as today,

43 If indeed by the end of the Persian period, the high priest in Jerusalem obtained the authority
to mint coins, one could say that the temple was assuming an administrative role. On this, see
Machinist 1994 (esp. p. 376). See also Bedford 2001: 204–206. However, see against this view
Hendin 2001: 92, no. 435; Gitler and Tal 2009: 21–37, and fig. 12; Gitler 2011: 169–178.
326 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

after many years of data collection from the stamped Persian-period jars and the
development of a nuanced typology alongside a well-anchored chronology of the
different types, it is possible to assess how many jars actually arrived in Jerusa-
lem:44
Early Types of yehud Stamp Impressions (late sixth and fifth centuries BCE):
A total of 17 stamped jar handles were discovered in the City of David (out of
108 stamp impressions, i.e., 16 %), all confined to the area of the City of David.
Middle Types of yehud Stamp Impressions (fourth and third centuries BCE): A
total of 60 stamped jar handles were discovered in the City of David (out of
283 stamp impressions, i.e., 21 %), all confined to the area of the City of David.
Late Types of yehud Stamp Impressions (second century BCE): 60 stamped jar
handles were also discovered at the City of David (out of 139 stamped jars, i.e.,
43 %), but 23 additional stamped jar handles were discovered on the Western Hill
(about 16 % of the total finds). In total, 59 % of all the stamped jar handles from
this period were discovered in Jerusalem. This data also brings to light that from
the perspective of the stamped jar system, Jerusalem did not become a central
part of the administrative system before the second century BCE.
There is one more option regarding the imperial economic support of the
temple, which is the granting of land to the temple for supply purposes. Recent
surveys in the Soreq Valley have discovered multiple agricultural installations
from the Persian period that have no villages surrounding them. Could this be
an indication for temple–hinterland connections in the Persian period? Regard-
less, what can be said is that the temple lacked any other financial support (be-
sides of course the gifts and tithes that might have come with pilgrims).

Summary

The basic conclusion is that there is a large and unbridgeable gap between the
image of the city as presented in the different biblical descriptions and the simple
reality of the actual situation in Jerusalem during this period. In my opinion, the
outcome of this is that Jerusalem remained a small and poor city throughout the
Persian period and that the temple was not the economic and administrative
center of the province. Rather, it was totally dependent on the gifts, tithes and
first fruits given to it by the small number of pilgrims who came to Jerusalem in

44 This data is based on Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007. Cf. Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 23–
30. There are no grounds to Fantalkin and Tal’s claim against Lipschits and Vanderhooft that the
“most logical assumption” is that these stamps are connected to the Jerusalem temple, providing
for “cultic needs and method of income”. See Fantalkin and Tal 2012: 17, n. 49.
 Material Culture, Administration and Economy: The Role of the Jerusalem Temple 327

order to take part in the worship of god. The province was especially small, and
I doubt that the temple was the center of religious life for all of the approximately
30,000 people in the province (about 6,000–7,500 men and their families) – cer-
tainly not at the beginning of the Persian period, when the community could not
even manage to rebuild the temple. It could be that throughout the Persian peri-
od, the temple and the community in Jerusalem were dependent on the Golah
community in Babylon and the support that they sent – financially as well as in
terms of human resources (additional members for the community). Biblical
scholars who seek to evaluate the image of the city and temple across different
biblical sources should be mindful of this reconstruction and apply its core per-
spectives. Such scholars may perhaps even employ the reality of the great gap
between the biblical image and the actual historical reality (as shown in the
material culture) to develop a greater understanding of the text.
Judah during the Transition between the Persian
and Early Hellenistic Periods: Regional Processes

Introduction

The transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods in Judah is
marked by the change in rule from the Achaemenid administration to that of
Alexander the Great and his successors. These events are well-documented in
historical sources1. Their local archaeological footprints, however, are not easy to
distinguish. The material culture of the preceding and following periods is clearly
identifiable in the destruction layers dated to the end of the Iron Age and the
monumental constructions of the Hasmonean (Late Hellenistic) phase. However,
no destruction layers exist for the nearly five centuries of the Persian and Early
Hellenistic periods, that would help identify and differentiate between their mate-
rial cultures (Lipschits et al. 2014: 134). Consequently, relatively few researchers
have focused on the archaeological reality of these periods and in particular on
the transition between them.
The publication of surveys and excavation results over the past few decades
has led to increased interest in the research of the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE.2
The uncovering and ongoing research of new archaeological contexts and assem-
blages from the Persian and Hellenistic periods3 led to the decision to undertake
a research project to reevaluate the archaeological knowledge of this transitional
phase with a focus on the question of continuity versus change. This paper
presents the data gathered during this research project and discusses its analysis
and classification by regions. It also suggests historical and geopolitical processes
that relate to and may explain the settlement trends identified.

1 For reviews of the historical events of the Persian and Hellenistic periods, see Bosworth 1994;
Kuhrt 2001; Briant 2002; Wheatley 2009 and Kosmin 2014.
2 Examples of this can be seen in the publication of the following works: Smith 1990; Harrison
1994; Berlin 1997; Lipschits 2006a; Lipschits 2011c; Lipschits and Tal 2007; Tal 2007; Lipschits et al.
2014. For a full history of archaeological research, see Shalom 2017: 8–14.
3 Among these are the assemblages from Ramat Raḥel (Freud 2018), Tel Azekah (Shatil 2016),
Khirbet Qeiyafa (Sandhaus and Kreimerman 2015), the Ramat Beth Shemesh sites (Kogan-Zehavi
2014), and other sites.

Note: This paper was written together with my students Nitsan Shalom.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-018
330 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

The Districts of Judah

In order to reconstruct the settlement pattern of Judah’s districts in the Persian

and Early Hellenistic periods, the first order at hand is to determine the borders
and the internal administrative divisions of Judah. The Iron Age Kingdom of
Judah may be divided into four geographic units: the Highlands (including Benja-
min, Jerusalem and its environs, and the southern Judean hills), the Shephelah
(meaning «lowlands»), the Negev and the Desert (Finkelstein 1994: 172). The Baby-
lonian destruction of 586 BCE caused major demographic and territorial changes.4
Judah became a province under Babylonian hegemony and remained as such
until the Hasmonean Revolt. The borders of Judah and its administrative divisions
at this time are not detailed in any historical source and must be deduced from
archaeological data, historical considerations and biblical sources (Lipschits 2005:
154; Langgut and Lipschits 2017).
The archaeological data includes evidence for administration, such as stamp
impressions on storage jars handles – a uniquely Judahite system for marking
agricultural produce (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011). It may be suggested that
the dispersion of these stamped handles may indicate the borders of Judah, but
this notion is problematic.5
Only a single stamp impression was found at many sites, and methodologically
this cannot indicate the political affiliation of a site.6 The dispersion of stamp impres-
sions shows they were mainly concentrated around Ramat Raḥel, Jerusalem and
only few other secondary administrative centers around these sites, and this does
not indicate the borders of a province (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011: 23–30).
The biblical sources which may shed light on the borders and administrative
division of Judah are the lists in the Book of Ezra and Nehemiah.7 The most
instructive list for the reconstruction of the administrative structure of Persian
period Judah is the list of builders of the city wall in Nehemiah 3: 1–32. The list
details who were in charge of the construction of each segment of the wall.

4 For different approaches to the scope of these changes, see Carter 1994; Lipschits 2005; Faust 2007.
5 For examples of problematic suggestions to reconstructing the borders of Judah based on
stamp impressions, see Lipschits 2005: 174–181.
6 Very few stamped jar handles were found in Tel Jemmeh and Kadesh Barne‛a, which in all
likelihood did not belong to Judah. One stamped handle was even found in Babylon (Lipschits
and Vanderhooft 2011: 19, 21).
7 These are the list of the returnees to Zion (Ezra 2: 1–67; Nehemiah 7: 6–68), list of the builders
of the wall (Nehemiah 3: 1–32), list of Hazerim (Nehemiah 11: 25–36) and list of origins of the
sons of the singers (Nehemiah 12: 28–29). For a detailed survey of these lists, their reliability and
whether they may assist us in the reconstruction of the historical reality of Judah, see: Lipschits
2005: 154–174.
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 331

Among these the heads of districts (Pelekh) and sub-districts (half of Pelekh) are
mentioned. This list is perceived as an authentic, reliable list, and therefore, it
indicates the existence of a system of districts in Judah (Lipschits 2005: 171, n. 129
and further references there). According to the list, five districts – with each
district known as a Pelekh – existed in Judah: Pelekh Miẓpah, Pelekh Jerusalem,
Pelekh Beth-hakkerem, Pelekh Beth Zur and Pelekh Qeʿilah.8 No major changes in
the borders of Judah are known until the Hasmonean period.9 Therefore, we
assume that the borders of Early Hellenistic Judah were very much the same as
those of the Persian period.
In order to be able to identify changes in Judah’s settlement pattern on a
regional level (assuming each area had a slightly different settlement history),
the above-mentioned district system is used as a guideline regional division, and
the archaeological data is analyzed according to it.10 The districts will be treated
throughout this paper as follows (Fig. 1).
Pelekh Miẓpah: equal to the region of Benjamin – north of Wadi Og − Soreq
Valley and south of Bethel (and including it), as well as the area of Jericho.
Pelekh Jerusalem and Pelekh Beth-hakkerem – south of Wadi Og − Soreq
Valley and including the area of the Rephaim Valley, Bethlehem and the area
around it, including Tekoʿa in the east. These two districts will be treated together,
due to their small size and proximity.
Pelekh Beth Zur: Central Judean Hills – south of Bethlehem and north of Ḥebron
and the Southern Judean hills, as well as the western shore of the Dead Sea.
Pelekh Qeʿilah: the northern Shephelah – from the Ayalon Valley in the north
to the Elah Valley in the south.

8 However, it must be kept in mind that the goal of the list was not to provide a full picture of
the settlement in Judah, but only of the construction of the wall. Therefore, the list alone does not
enable us to reconstruct the scope of the settlement (Naʾaman 1995b: 21), and the administrative
reconstruction based on it might be incomplete as well. That is why some have suggested recon-
structing additional districts which were not mentioned in the list. Avi-Yonah (1949: 21), Blenkin-
sopp (1988: 232–233), and others have suggested adding Pelekh Jericho, while Stern (1973: 244;
1982a: 248–249) suggested adding both Pelekh Jericho and Pelekh Gezer. However, these are all
tentative estimations, and the only thing the list indicates with relative certainty is the existence
of the above-mentioned five districts (Lipschits 2005: 172–174).
9 There is no reason to assume the borders or administrative divisions of Judah changed signifi-
cantly in the transition from the Persian to the Early Hellenistic period. The Pelekh system probably
continued into the Hellenistic period with the division to Hyparchies. The area of Ono-Lod Valley,
which is sometimes considered as part of Judah in the Hellenistic period, was probably added to
it only in the time of Jonathan Apphus (Stern 1981: 97). To the south of Judah, the new administra-
tive unit of Idumea was established, probably already during the Persian period (Kloner 2015: 369,
and see further below). For discussion and references, see Lipschits 2005: 146–149.
10 For a full summary of the geography, topography, economy, main sites and evidence for
administration in each district, see Shalom 2017: 24–32.
332 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Fig. 1: Map of Persian and Early Hellenistic Judah. The different districts are marked as follows:
Pelekh Mizpah (Benjamin) = Purple; Pelekh Jerusalem and Pelekh Beth-hakkerem = Yellow;
Pelekh Beth Zur = Blue; Pelekh Qeʿilah (the northern Shephelah) = Red.

Methodological Guidelines and Limitations

The reconstruction of settlement patterns relies on data from archaeological exca-

vations alongside data from surveys. The results of excavations are, by their na-
ture, much more reliable than the results of surveys.11 Analyzing data from sur-
veys posits many methodological difficulties. Diverse criteria influence the results
of surveys, such as the intensity of the survey, time spent at the site, knowledge

11 Many test cases have demonstrated this. For example, the information from the excavations
in Khirbet Qeiyafa in comparison to the information from a survey conducted at the site have
demonstrated just how limited the survey is as a tool to reconstruct the history of the settlement
and date its different phases (Garfinkel and Ganor 2010: 77). The same conclusion became clear
from the excavations of Tel Azekah, when compared to the preliminary survey, in particular in
regard to the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. Only 1.7 % of sherds collected in the survey
were dated to the Persian-Hellenistic period, while later excavations revealed a large settlement
from this phase at the site (Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2017).
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 333

of the surveyors regarding the pottery of different periods and many other factors
(Zelinger 2009: 8).
Pottery sherds are the main datable item found during surveys. The nature
of locally produced pottery in Judah is quite conservative – changing gradually
and slowly over the centuries. This makes it difficult to distinguish between Per-
sian and Early Hellenistic pottery (Lipschits and Tal 2007: 36; Shatil 2016: 1). As a
result, in many of the surveys we find general and vague dates attributed to sites,
such as »the Persian-Hellenistic period«, or even »Second Temple period«. The
Early Hellenistic period posits a particular problem, since in most surveys it was
not differentiated from the Late Hellenistic period (the Hasmonean phase), hin-
dering our ability to focus on the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. In order to focus on
the Early Hellenistic period, sites that were identified as belonging to the Hasmo-
nean phase based on their finds, were sifted out of the database. Naturally the
exact date of all sites could not be determined, and it is highly likely that many
of the sites presented as Hellenistic in this paper are in fact Hasmonean.
Surveys are problematic not only in determining the dates of sites, but also
in establishing their nature. Dagan and Sharon (2010) have shown how the lack
of a formal definition of what constitutes a ›site‹ leads to variability in the num-
ber of sites identified by each surveyor for the same area. They suggested a
methodology that sees surveys not as a tool for mapping sites, but rather as one
for mapping and characterizing human activity in the landscape (Dagan and
Sharon 2010: 21). In accordance with this approach,12 we chose to define any site
where an installation, a burial or a find-spot was identified as a ›human activity
point‹. The definition “settlement” was reserved for sites that were inhabited by
people over longer periods of time – forts, farmsteads, villages or towns. We
defined a site as a settlement from a certain period if living surfaces from this
period were identified there in an excavation, or if architecture identified in a
survey could clearly be related to finds from one period only. This methodology
means that survey data is not used to indicate the dispersal of settlements in the
region, but only the dispersal of human activity in the landscape in relation to
well-recognized settlements. In other words, for the most part, the use of surveys
was to supplement information from excavations.
Cities were usually inhabited throughout the different periods in the same
place as a result of desirable conditions – proximity to water sources and main
routes, geographic advantages, existing fortifications and even traditions related
to the location. On the other hand, small agricultural sites were often dispersed
in the landscape, resettled in nearby places after periods of settlement gaps, and

12 And following its implementation by Koch 2015.

334 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

not in the exact same spot. Therefore, when we recognize continuity in the loca-
tion of a rural settlement, this would often imply consecutive occupation, or at
least a return to the site after a short occupational gap. It is not possible to rule
out the option of reuse of ancient remains, thus resettling in the same spot. How-
ever, when we examine a large sample of sites and their settlement pattern over
a wide area, it is less likely that the results would be influenced by these excep-
tions (Faust 2009: 340).

The Archaeological Data

In what follows we present the archaeological data regarding the Persian and
Hellenistic periods in Judah, divided according to the four regions mentioned
above.

Benjamin (Pelekh Miẓpah)

This region includes the area north of Jerusalem and up to Bethel, and consists
of a few different types of landscape; the main one is a towering plateau, with
an average high annual rainfall and fertile lands, which facilitated agriculture
(Feldstein et al. 1993: 135). The region was fully surveyed and most of its survey
maps were published.13 64 sites were dated to the Persian period (Fig. 2).14 59 %
of these had been inhabited in the Iron Age as well. Of the 64 sites, seven were
classified as settlements.15 Miẓpah continued to be settled from the Iron Age
through the Babylonian period, when it became the political capital of the prov-
ince, and into the Persian period, when it seems to have been abandoned around
the end of the 5th century BCE (Zorn 1993b: 184). One settlement apparently con-
tinued to be settled from the Iron Age and throughout the entire Persian period
(Nebi Samwil; Bocher and Freud 2017: 152), while four were only settled in the
second half of the period, or even towards its end (Ḥorvat Zimri, Har Adar, Ḥorvat

13 For references to the published survey maps of the region and a detailed analysis of the data
divided according to maps, see Shalom 2017: Table 2.
14 For graphic representation of the data relating to the settlement in each area divided accord-
ing to survey maps, see Shalom 2017: Figs. 3, 7, 11, 15.
15 Miẓpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh; McCown 1947a; Zorn 1993b; 2014), Nebi Samwil (Magen and Dadon
2000; 2003), Ḥorvat Zimri (Nadelman 1993: 54–56; see also Bocher and Freud 2017 for discussion
of yet unpublished material from the site), Har Adar (Dadon 1997: 63–79), Ḥorvat ʿEres (Mazar and
Wachtel 2015), Ḥorvat ʿAgalgal (Elisha 2015) and Jericho (Watzinger 1935; Kenyon 1993; Netzer 1992).
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 335

Fig. 2: Settlement map of Benjamin (Pelekh Mizpah) in the Persian period.

ʿEres and Ḥorvat ʿAgalgal). Jericho was also resettled in the Persian period, after
a settlement gap following the Babylonian destruction (Stern 1982: 38).
In comparison to the activity points dated to the Iron Age, there was a clear
drop in the Persian period in the number of sites in this region, especially in the
eastern areas of the desert fringe (Goldfus and Golani 1993: 279; Dinur and Feig
1993: 346), but also in the hilly region (Feldstein et al. 1993: 138; Finkelstein 1993b:
27). The Persian period activity points are concentrated mostly around the routes
leading to Jerusalem from the northwest, and there are very few sites east of the
watershed divide. In the western edge of this region, towards the Ayalon Valley,
most of the activity points identified were newly established in the Persian period.
171 sites were identified and dated to the Hellenistic period (Fig. 3). Of the
64 Persian period sites, 45 sites (70 %) were active in the Hellenistic period as
well – meaning they very likely continued to be settled consecutively in the tran-
sition between the periods, or at least were resettled after a short settlement gap.
126 Hellenistic sites, however, were newly established, meaning that only 26 % of
Hellenistic sites (45 out of 171) had their roots in the Persian period.16

16 These are two different ways to measure continuity, which give very different results, demon-
strating that it is methodologically problematic to try and give a final number as a measure of
continuity between two consecutive periods. For graphic representation of new vs. continuing
sites in the Hellenistic period, see Shalom 2017: Figs. 4, 8, 12, 16.
336 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Fig. 3: Settlement map of Benjamin (Pelekh Mizpah) in the Hellenistic period.

Of the 171 sites, seven were classified as settlements.17 In the transition to the
Hellenistic period, the settlements at Har Adar (identified by the excavators as a
fort), Nebi Samwil and Ḥorvat Zimri continued to be settled (as opposed to the
abandonment of the fort at Ḥorvat ʿEres, and see Mazar and Wachtel 2015: 239),
and they apparently continued to be settled throughout the period. Gibeon,
Miẓpah and Bethel were resettled after a settlement gap at each site. The farm-
stead at Qalandiya was established in the 3rd century BCE and continued into
the Hasmonean period. The settlement at Jericho ceased to exist towards the end
of the Persian period and was only renewed with the construction of the Hasmo-
nean palaces at nearby Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq.
The data shows a major increase in the number of sites in all parts of this
region. There was an increase of activity points in the eastern area of the desert
fringe, mostly along the routes leading from the Bethel mountain to Jericho. The
most significant rise was in the area around Ramallah and Qalandiya, and further
south, towards Jerusalem. Further west, in the area of Beth Ḥoron, another sub-
stantial increase could be observed. In the westernmost part of Benjamin, to-
wards the Ayalon Valley, the Persian period settlement system continued into the
Early Hellenistic period, and the increase in the number of sites was insignificant.
The settlement trends which may be identified from this data include a cer-
tain decline in the settlement in Benjamin in the beginning of the Persian period.

17 These are: Miẓpah, Nebi Samwil, Ḥorvat Zimri, Har Adar, Gibeon, Bethel, and Qalandiya.
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 337

It seems that through most of the Persian period the settlement was quite sparse.
In the second half of the period there was a phenomenon of establishment of
new sites, characterized as forts, in the southern part of Benjamin, on the routes
leading to Jerusalem. It seems that these forts had little influence on the general
settlement pattern, and that they were no longer used after the Persian period.18
With the transition to the Early Hellenistic period, the core of Persian period
settlements continued to exist uninterrupted, and we can identify a high measure
of continuity. The data from excavated sites indicates a certain rise and renewal
already in the 3rd century BCE, with the establishment of new sites (such as
Qalandiya), and the return to sites that were abandoned for a long period (such
as Miẓpah, Gibeon and Bethel). However, the dramatic rise in the number of sites
(a rise of 167 % in the number of sites compared to the Persian period), should
at least in part be attributed to the later phase of the Hellenistic period. A clear
case is that of the sites on the desert fringe, on the route to Jericho, where the
settlement recommenced only in the Hasmonean period, as mentioned above.
The numerous sites established in the southern part of Benjamin, north of Jerusa-
lem, very likely relate to the growth of the city in the later part of the Hellenistic
period. The nature of settlement is different between the periods. The Persian
period forts disappeared, and in their stead new farmsteads were established;
many points of activity can be identified, which probably indicate intensified
agricultural exploitation of the landscape.19

Pelekh Jerusalem and Pelekh Beth-hakkerem

This region includes Jerusalem and its surroundings, and the area to its south as
far as the area around the Rephaim valley and Bethlehem. Jerusalem and its
immediate environment have a very low carrying capacity, due to its steep and
rocky terrain and limited water sources. This is the reason why the agricultural
hinterland of the city was not in its immediate sphere, but in the area of the

18 This phenomenon of Persian period forts in Judah has been discussed by K. G. Hoglund
(1992), who dated them to the 5th century BCE. However, Fantalkin and Tal (2006) and Lipschits
and Vanderhooft (2007: 86–90) dated their establishment to the 4th century BCE. They tied it to
the stage when the Persians lost their control over Egypt, and the southern Levant became the
southern border of the empire. Mazar and Wachtel (2015: 241), on the other hand, suggested that
it is unlikely that small forts inside Judah (and not at its borders) were built by the empire.
Rather they saw their construction as a local initiative of the province.
19 The surveyors of Benjamin mention that many of the new sites were not located at strategic
points, guarding the routes from the coast to the mountain, but in areas which enable agricultur-
al activity (Feldstein et al. 1993: 139).
338 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Rephaʾim and Soreq Valleys to the north, west and southwest of the city (Gadot
2015: 3–4).
The region was partially surveyed and some of its maps were published.20
52 sites were dated to the Persian period (Fig. 4). 75 % of them were inhabited in
the Iron Age as well. Of the 52 sites, seven were classified as settlements.21 Jerusa-
lem was destroyed at the end of the Iron Age, but life in the city was renewed
on a small scale and it continued to act as the religious and cultic center of
Judah throughout the Persian period (Lipschits 2015: 256).22 Ramat Raḥel was
not destroyed at the end of the Iron Age and the site continued to serve as an
administrative center (Lipschits et al. 2011: 34–37; Gadot and Lipschits 2016: 719–
720). The village in Khirbet er-Ras also carried over from the Iron Age into the
Persian period (Gadot, Bocher and Emmanuilov 2016) as did the village in Binya-
nei Haʾuma.23 Kiryat Yovel, Khirbet Kabar (identified as a fort; Kochavi 1972: 40)
and Naḥal HaMeʿara were all newly established in the Persian period.
It is clear that Persian period settlement was sparse, especially compared to
the settlement peak in the region at the end of the Iron Age (Kloner 2003: 20–21;
and see Gadot 2015). A concentration of agricultural activity points was identified
west and northwest of Ramat Raḥel, in the Rephaʾim Valley, and northeast of
Jerusalem. Several sites were also identified in the drainage basin of Naḥal Soreq,
in the western part of the Jerusalem Hills, close to its border with the Shephelah.
86 sites were identified and dated to the Hellenistic period (Fig. 5). Only 28 %
of them (24 sites) existed in the Persian period as well, while most of them (62)
were new. This means that 24 of the 52 Persian period sites (46 %) continued to
be settled consecutively in the transition between the periods, or at least were
resettled after a short settlement gap.
Of the 86 sites, eight were classified as settlements.24 Jerusalem continued to
function as the political center, unlike Ramat Raḥel, which experienced a certain

20 For references to the published survey maps of the region and a detailed analysis of the data
divided according to maps, see Shalom 2017: Table 3.
21 Jerusalem (Kenyon 1967; 1984; De Groot and Ariel 1992; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg 2012;
Gadot 2014: 279–292; and many other publications. For further references see Shiloh 1992: 615–
626; Shalom 2017, nos. 58–66), Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962; 1964a; Lipschits, Gadot and Freud
2016), Khirbet er-Ras (Gadot 2011), Binyanei Haʾuma (Arubas and Goldfus 2005), Kiryat Yovel
(D. Ein-Mor, personal communication), Khirbet Kabar (Baruch 2006) and Naḥal HaMeʿara (Weiss
2004).
22 For a detailed description of all Persian period finds from Jerusalem, see Shalom 2017: 41–
42, with references there.
23 Although the nature is not entirely clear due to the fragmentary architectural remains, proba-
bly damaged by later construction (Arubas and Goldfus 2005: 14; Lehmann 2005: 24).
24 Jerusalem, Khirbet er-Ras, Binyanei Haʾuma, Kiryat Yovel, Khirbet Kabar (see references
above), Bait VeGan (Zilberbod 2012), el-Mughri (Weiss 2004: 67) and Dhahr el-Muntar (ibid., 60).
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 339

Fig. 4: Settlement map of Pelekh Jerusalem and Pelekh Beth-hakkerem in the Persian period.

Fig. 5: Settlement map of Pelekh Jerusalem and Pelekh Beth-hakkerem in the Hellenistic period.

hiatus at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and apparently regained its
administrative role only at the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, until its destruc-
tion in the Hasmonean phase (Lipschits et al., 2011: 37–38). Khirbet Er-Ras, Binya-
nei Haʾuma, Kiryat Yovel and Khirbet Kabar continued to be settled in the transi-
tion between the periods. Bait VeGan, el-Mughri and Dhahr el-Muntar were all
newly established farmsteads.
340 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

The Hellenistic period data shows a rise of 65 % in the number of sites in

comparison to the number of Persian period sites. We may identify an increase
in activity around Jerusalem and in the hills immediately to the east. In Rephaʾim
Valley and its tributaries west of Ramat Raḥel, the number of activity points did
not change significantly, but their arrangement did. A significant rise was ob-
served in the western ranges of the Jerusalem Hills, and especially around the
various rivulets extending from Naḥal Soreq.
The settlement trends that can be identified from the above data show that
regardless of the damage inflicted upon the area by the Babylonian destruction,
the administrative and political systems recovered. During the Persian period,
Jerusalem was a small town centered at the narrow spur of the City of David.
The city was cut off from its rural hinterland and according to some, became
isolated as a temple city (Lipschits 2015: 249, 256). Yet, most secondary sites car-
ried on or resumed their roles as settlements. The surveys support this by show-
ing that most Persian sites have their roots in the Iron Age. It seems that the
agricultural sites in Jerusalem’s environs continued to supply agricultural goods,
which served the tax system centered at Ramat Raḥel (Gadot 2015: 21). Settlement
in this region survived as it was necessary to maintain the existence of the agri-
cultural and administrative systems.
With the dawn of the Hellenistic period a drastic change occurred, as indicat-
ed by the decline of Ramat Raḥel and the change in the arrangement of the
settlements which relate to it in the Rephaʾim Valley. However, the continuity
of many secondary settlements in the proximity of Jerusalem shows that the
agricultural-administrative system continued. 54 percent of Persian period sites
were abandoned in the transition between the periods. This is the highest aban-
donment rate observed in all four regions of Judah, and it too strengthens the
idea of a systematic change. Some of the administrative activity might have trans-
ferred at this stage to Jerusalem, to which we may link the rise in activity points
in Jerusalem’s immediate vicinity. The increase in the number of sites in the
Naḥal Soreq Basin, farther west, would appear to relate to an agricultural boom;
some of these sites were characterized in the survey as farmsteads or small villa-
ges; agricultural installations were identified in other sites (Weiss 2004). Since
none of these sites has been excavated, this phenomenon cannot be dated with
precision, but we may postulate that it relates to a time – in the later part of
the Hellenistic period – when Jerusalem grew and recovered, and again needed
extensive agricultural land.

Pelekh Beth Zur

This region encompasses the area south of Bethlehem and north of Ḥebron, and
the western shore of the Dead Sea. Most of this region is arid with large parts
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 341

Fig. 6: Settlement map of Pelekh Beth Zur in the Persian period.

located on the desert fringe. Due to its climate, the region was best suited for
livestock farming rather than for growing agricultural crops. Therefore, it was
never an important part of the economy and administration of Judah, and it was
the least densely populated area (Ofer 1993: 1: 111–113; Lipschits 2015: 250).
Some of the survey maps of this region have not been published as complete
maps.25 Therefore, the settlement picture created is somewhat sporadic. 37 sites
were dated to the Persian period (Fig. 6). 70 percent of the Persian period sites
were inhabited in the Iron Age as well. Of the 37 sites, four were classified as
settlements.26
The settlement at En-Gedi ceased to exist in the Iron Age and was resettled in
the Persian period (Stern 2007: 361–363). Khirbet Abu Twein, Khirbet Umm et-Talʿa
and Beth Zur were recognized as forts, newly established in the Persian period.27
This is a relatively large number of sites for this remote region, and it seems
that settlement here flourished at this stage (Ofer 1993: 4, 17). Most sites were
concentrated in the northern part of the region, with the largest concentration

25 For references to the published survey maps of the region and a detailed analysis of the data
divided according to maps, see Shalom 2017, Table 4.
26 En-Gedi (Stern 2007), Khirbet Abu Twein (Kalai and Mazar 1974: 26–27), Khirbet Umm et-Talʿa
(Ofer 1984: 51–52) and Beth Zur (Sellers 1933; Sellers et al., 1968).
27 Although it was suggested that Khirbet Abu Twein was already established in the Iron Age
(Kalai and Mazar 1974).
342 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Fig. 7: Settlement map of Pelekh Beth Zur in the Hellenistic period.

north of Khirbet Umm et-Talʿa, and their number diminished farther south. On
the western shore of the Dead Sea not all survey maps were surveyed and pub-
lished, but those that were indicate very sparse settlement, with few activity
points centered around En-Gedi.
49 sites were identified and dated to the Hellenistic period (Fig. 7); 23 of them
(47 %) were carry-overs from the Persian period, while 26 sites were new. In other
words, 23 of 37 Persian period sites (62 %) continued to be settled in the transition
between the periods, or at least, were resettled after a short settlement gap.
Of the 49 sites, two were classified as settlements. The fort in Beth Zur contin-
ued to serve in the Hellenistic period until its abandonment towards the end of
the 2nd century BCE (Sellers 1933: 10–12). Settlement at En-Gedi probably contin-
ued during the transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, al-
though the scarcity of architectural finds that can be dated clearly to the Early
Hellenistic phase indicates a possible decline in activity until it was fortified in
the Hasmonean period (Stern 2007: 363).
The data indicates that the increase in the number of sites in this region
during the transition period was only 32 % compared to the Persian period – the
most moderate of all regions. In the northern sector of the region, which was the
most densely inhabited area during the Persian period, there was a very slight
decrease in the number of sites. In the southern sector of the region, on the other
hand, there was a slight increase. A significant increase was identified only in
the eastern sector, near the Dead Sea: Many new activity points were identified
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 343

around En-Gedi; a new settlement cluster developed in the Hyrcania Valley, near
the north-western shore of the Dead Sea.
The settlement trends that may be identified from this data include a flour-
ishing of the settlement at Pelekh Beth Zur in the Persian period with the estab-
lishment of forts and the renewal of activity at sites that were abandoned at the
end of the Iron Age. The number of sites was particularly high in the northern
part of the region. The settlement pattern changed with the transition to the Early
Hellenistic period. While 62 % of the sites probably continued to exist, most of
the forts, excluding Beth Zur, were abandoned,28 and other settlements (En-Gedi,
see above) show a decline until the Hasmonean period. There was a movement
of the settlements southward, with a decrease in the northern sectors and an
increase in the southern. It seems likely that this was a natural movement and
not a sudden change, and we suggest that it occurred gradually and from the
early part of the period. The relative proliferation in the eastern sectors was in
all likelihood related to the Hasmonean activity in the region in the later part of
the Hellenistic period. If we omit the sites from the eastern region, in which the
developments seem to be later and unrelated to the processes in the hill region,
it becomes apparent that there was actually a slight decline in the settlement in
this region in the transition to the Early Hellenistic period – as opposed to the
situation in all other regions.

Northern Shephelah (Pelekh Qeʿilah)

Pelekh Qeʿilah includes the area between the Ayalon Valley in the north and the
Elah Valley in the south. It is a region of low hills and fertile valleys, which had
good potential for agriculture. It was the center of olive-oil production and Ju-
dah’s bread basket in the late 9th and 8th centuries BCE, until its destruction in
701 BCE by the Assyrian army, from which it never fully recovered. The Babyloni-
an destruction of the area led to the removal of the southern part of the Shephe-
lah from the control of Jerusalem, leaving only the northern Shephelah as part
of the province (Lipschits 2015: 252; Langgut and Lipschits 2017).
Some parts of this region were thoroughly surveyed and given adequate pub-
lication, for example the surroundings of Beth Shemesh and the Elah Valley (Da-
gan 2010), while for other areas less information is available.29 39 sites were dated

28 But see Sandhaus and Kreimerman’s suggestion that the forts at Ḥorvat ʿEres and Har Adar
were perhaps established only in the Early Hellenistic period, and not in the Persian period
(Sandhaus and Kreimerman 2017: 210).
29 For references to the published survey maps of the region and a detailed analysis of the data
divided according to maps, see Shalom 2017: Table 5.
344 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Fig. 8: Settlement map of the northern Shephelah (Pelekh Qeʿilah) in the Persian period.

to the Persian period (Fig. 8). 79 % of the Persian period sites were inhabited in
the Iron Age as well. Of the 39 sites, nine were classified as settlements.30 Tel
Batash and Ḥorvat Avimor were settled in the early part of the Persian period,
reusing, or continuing to use, Iron Age structures. Khirbet el-Keikh and Khirbet
Shumeila were Persian period villages that were also active in the Iron Age.
Khirbet er-Rasm apparently was already settled in the Persian period.31 Naḥal
Yar-mut was newly established in the Persian or Early Hellenistic period. Khirbet
Qeiyafa, Tel Azekah and Khirbet ʿEtri were settled in the later part of the Persian
period, starting in the 4th century BCE.32
Considering that most survey maps of this region have not yet been pub-
lished, the data is partial and can-not teach us much about the settlement pattern.
However, in the parts that have been surveyed and published, a few trends can
be identified. In the Ramat Beth Shemesh hills, north of the Elah Valley, the vast

30 Ḥorvat Avimor (Golani 2005), Tel Batash (Mazar 1997), Khirbet er-Rasm (Faust and Erlich
2011), Khirbet Qeiyafa (Garfinkel and Ganor 2009; Garfinkel, Ganor and Hasel 2014), Tel Azekah
(Lipschits, Gadot and Oeming 2012; 2017), Khirbet ʿEtri (Zissu and Ganor 2001), Khirbet el-Keikh
(Kogan-Zehavi 2014), Khirbet Shumeila (ibid.) and Naḥal Yarmut (Eisenberg 2000).
31 Activity at the site at this stage was characterized by the use of old Iron Age structures (Faust
and Erlich 2011: 3, 256).
32 Tel Azekah was settled in the early part of the Persian period as well, but the early settlement
seems to have been on a smaller scale: a burial was dated to the 5th century or first half of the
4th century BCE; no structures could be dated to this stage (Shatil 2016: 111).
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 345

Fig. 9: Settlement map of the northern Shephelah (Pelekh Qeʿilah) in the Hellenistic period.

majority of Persian sites were settled in the Iron Age as well. According to the
idea of continuity of the rural settlement, this would indicate that the rural settle-
ments of the region were not harmed during the Babylonian destruction, or that
they quickly recovered.
77 sites were identified and dated to the Hellenistic period (Fig. 9); 26 of them
(34 %) existed in the Persian period as well, while 51 sites were new. This means
that 26 of the 39 Persian period sites (66 %) very likely continued to be settled
during the transition between the periods, or at least were resettled after a short
gap.
Of the 77 sites, ten were classified as settlements.33 The settlements at Tel
Azekah and Khirbet Qeiyafa, that were active in the transitional phase, were
abandoned during the first half of the 3rd century BCE and resettled in the Has-
monean period. The settlements at Khirbet ʿEtri, Khirbet el-Keikh and Khirbet
Shumeila also continued to exist in the transitional phase. Khirbet Shumeila was
abandoned at some point during the Hellenistic period, while Khirbet el-Keikh
continued to be settled until the Roman period. Khirbet er-Rasm was resettled
at the beginning of the Hellenistic period and was destroyed at the end of the
2nd century BCE. The settlement at Naḥal Yarmut also continued to be settled

33 Khirbet er-Rasm, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tel Azekah, Khirbet ʿEtri, Khirbet el-Keikh, Khirbet Shumei-
la, Naḥal Yarmut, Aderet (Yogev 1982), Khirbet Burgin (Ganor and Klein 2011) and Rogelit (Avner
2006).
346 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

during the Hasmonean period. New settlements were established at Aderet (a

farmstead dated from the 3rd century BCE onwards), Khirbet Burgin and Roge-
lit.34
The data from the Hellenistic period shows a rise of 97 % in comparison to
the number of Persian period sites. This is especially clear in the Ramat Beth
Shemesh Hills, north of Naḥal Yarmut, where the number of sites tripled. Since
these are all activity points, and no new settlements were identified in the area,
this rise probably does not indicate a drastic change, such as demographic
growth, but rather possibly, a change in the manner and intensity of the agricul-
tural exploitation of the area.
The data from the northern Shephelah (Pelekh Qeʿilah) shows that while the
region was affected by the Babylonian destruction, there was a certain measure
of continuity in the rural settlement system, observed in the continuity of activity
points and a few settlements in the northern and central parts of the region.
Towards the end of the Persian period a new settlement system was established
in the western Elah Valley, characterized by large villages. In the transition to the
Early Hellenistic period there were no drastic changes. However, in the 3rd cen-
tury BCE there was perhaps a local crisis or change when the large villages were
abandoned. Numerous new activity points appeared in the central part of the
region, but the lack of identified newly established settlements in the area makes
it harder to date this growth within the Hellenistic period with precision. Another
major growth can be discerned in the southern part of the region, with the ap-
pearance of new settlements, some of which may be dated to the 3rd century BCE.

The Archaeological Data: An Interim Summary

Persian period Judah included 192 sites: 64 (34 %) in Benjamin (Pelekh Miẓpah),
52 (27 %) in Pelekh Jerusalem and Pelekh Beth-hakkerem, 37 (19 %) in Pelekh Beth
Zur and 39 (20 %) in the northern Shephelah (Pelekh Qeʿilah) (Fig. 10). The prov-
ince was characterized by two main centers, in Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel, and
around them many activity points, which constituted the agricultural hinterland.
A prominent phenomenon in the mountain region was the forts, which were built
along two main axes: along the main ridge route and along the route leading to
Jerusalem from the northwest.
In the Hellenistic period, Judah included 383 sites (double the number of
Persian period sites): 171 (45 %) in Benjamin (Pelekh Miẓpah), 86 (22 %) in Pelekh

34 See above references to all these sites.

 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 347

Fig. 10: Settlement map of Persian period Judah.

Fig. 11: Settlement map of Hellenistic period Judah.

Jerusalem and Pelekh Beth-hakkerem, 49 (13 %) in Pelekh Beth Zur and 77 (20 %)
in the northern Shephelah (Pelekh Qeʿilah) (Fig. 11). The Hellenistic settlement was
characterized by a large number of sites and their wide dispersion throughout
Judah, in comparison to the Persian period settlement. The sharpest rise in the
number of sites was observed in Benjamin – southwest of Ramallah, and between
348 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Beth Horon and Modiʿin. The settlement was also dense in the region north and
northwest of Jerusalem. In the southern parts of Pelekh Qeʿilah and Pelekh Beth
Zur there was a rise in the number of sites, while in the northern part of Pelekh
Beth Zur there was a slight decline. In the eastern parts of Judah there was a rise
near the centers at Jericho and En-Gedi. As for the nature of the sites, many
agricultural activity points and farmsteads were identified in Pelekh Jerusalem
and Pelekh Beth-hakkerem, in Benjamin (Pelekh Miẓpah) and in the northern
Shephelah (Pelekh Qeʿilah).
A few main trends were observed in the transition between the periods. On
the one hand, most Persian period sites continued to exist in Pelekh Miẓpah,
Pelekh Beth Zur and Pelekh Qeʿilah. On the other hand, some clear changes were
discerned. The relative importance of Pelekh Miẓpah increased, while that of
Pelekh Beth Zur decreased. The diminishing of the system of forts and the decline
of the administrative center at Ramat Raḥel, are changes that must be seen as
the result of administrative decisions, and not as natural developments.
The rise in the number of sites in Jerusalem’s immediate environment might
also relate to this stage, when Jerusalem perhaps took over Ramat Raḥel’s admin-
istrative roles. The establishment of farmsteads and agricultural sites in the
southwest of Benjamin and in the Naḥal Soreq Basin seem to relate to an intensi-
fied exploitation of the landscape, which possibly occurred in the later part of
the Hellenistic period. The same date should be attributed to the sites near the
centers at En-Gedi and Jericho. In contrast, the thickening of the settlement in
the southern parts of Pelekh Beth Zur and Pelekh Qeʿilah apparently took place
gradually, starting already in the early part of the Hellenistic period. In Pelekh
Qeʿilah an interesting local change was observed with the abandonment of settle-
ments around the middle of the 3rd century BCE.

Historical and Archaeological Processes

Climate and Demographic Changes in the Southern Regions

The settlement trends from the southern and western regions – Pelekh Beth Zur
and Pelekh Qeʿilah are similar and indicate a rise in the settlement in the north-
ern parts of the regions early in the Persian period, and an increase in their
southern parts towards the end of the Persian period and even more so in the
Hellenistic period. At Pelekh Beth Zur a relatively large number of sites was iden-
tified in the Persian period compared to the area’s potential, and especially when
compared to the area south of Ḥebron (which no longer belonged to Judah at
this point), which was almost completely depleted of its inhabitants (Ofer 1993:
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 349

4: 17). On the other hand, in the transition to the Hellenistic period, as opposed
to most regions of Judah, the northern part of Pelekh Beth Zur experienced a
very slight decline in its settlements, while the southern part saw a slight in-
crease. Similarly, in the northern part of Pelekh Qeʿilah a slight recovery was
identified in the early part of the Persian period, while most sites in the central
and southern parts were settled only towards the end of the Persian period. With
the transition to the Early Hellenistic period, new sites appeared in the southern
part of Pelekh Qeʿilah, as well as farther south, in areas that no longer belonged
to Judah.35 We may link this settlement trend to two related processes: climate
change and population movement.
Climate changes have a direct effect on settlement patterns. A decrease in
rainfall could cause aridity, leading to a degradation of food supplies and as a
result to the movement of population in search for better sources. On the other
hand, an increase in rainfall for a long period could help the recovery of farming
and grazing, thus enabling the exploitation of larger areas, leading to a flourish-
ing of the settlement (Langgut, Finkelstein and Litt 2013: 164–166). The three cli-
matic regions of the Land of Israel are Mediterranean, semi-arid and desert cli-
mate. The semi-arid region, stretching across the southern Judean Hills, the
northern Negev and the southern Shephelah, with an average annual rainfall of
200–400 mm, is the most sensitive to the effects of climate changes. A new re-
search analyzed climate changes in the Land of Israel from the Late Bronze Age
to the beginning of the Hellenistic period, based on pollen samples from the Dead
Sea and the Sea of Galilee (Langgut, Finkelstein and Litt 2013; Langgut and Lip-
schits 2017). The results indicated a dry period during the first half of the Persian
period (approximately 520–450 BCE), and a period of relative humidity and wet
climate conditions in the second half of the Persian period. Langgut and Lipschits
tied these changes to the changes in the southern border of Judah from the end
of the Iron Age to the Hellenistic period, including the establishment of Idumea
(Langgut and Lipschits 2017).
In the 6th–3rd centuries BCE, a demographic and political change took place
south of Judah. Following the Babylonian destruction, Judah lost control of its
southern border in the Beersheba-Arad Valley and the settlement system in this
region collapsed. With the border collapse, there was nothing left to hold back
desert nomads from expanding northward, and Edomite and Arab tribes began
to settle the uninhabited Negev Desert, and later also the southern Judean Hills
and the southern Shephelah. This probably occurred gradually, throughout the

35 For the data from the southern Shephelah, see Lipschits et al. 2014: 141, Table 3; Langgut and
Lipschits 2017.
350 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

Babylonian and the Early Persian periods. The province of Idumea was the result
of this process.36
The term “Idumea” is known from the Xenon Papyri and other sources (Klo-
ner 2015: 359) as a territorial-administrative unit that existed in the southern
Judean Hills and the southern Shephelah at the beginning of the Hellenistic peri-
od. However, this political unit probably existed already during the 4th cen-
tury BCE and maybe even before. Idumea is not mentioned by name in Persian
period sources, but many finds indicate Edomite presence in the region in this
period and earlier. Fourth century BCE ostraca from Arad and Beersheba (Naveh
1996) and many more unprovenanced ostraca from the antiquities market (Ephʿal
and Naveh 1996), document agricultural economic activity, conducted by people
with Edomite and Arab names, indicating the existence of Edomite and Arab
population in the region with a developed local administrative system (Ephʿal
2003). One may assume this system took decades to develop, meaning that already
in the 5th or early 4th century BCE the area south of Judah belonged to the
province of Idumea (Kloner 2015: 366).
The settlement trends in Pelekh Beth Zur and Pelekh Qeʿilah relate to this
process. As mentioned above, the depletion of the southern parts of Judah follow-
ing the Babylonian destruction enabled the entrance of Edomite and Arab tribes.
The dry conditions in the early Persian period very likely led to the movement
of population northward in order to settle the more cultivable regions and ham-
pered the recovery of the dryer southern areas. As a result, the northern part of
Pelekh Beth Zur actually had a relatively large number of sites at this stage. The
improved climate conditions towards the end of the 5th and the 4th century BCE
enabled the recovery of the settlements in the southern parts as well, as seen in
the central and southern parts of the Shephelah. From the 3rd century BCE on-
wards a tangible flourishing of the settlement can be observed in these areas. In
Pelekh Beth Zur the situation is slightly different: in the transition to the Early
Hellenistic period the rise in the number of sites is the lowest of all regions. This
may be explained by the fact that the number of Persian period sites was already
high in comparison to the natural carrying capacity of the region. The improved
climate conditions facilitated the prosperity of Edomite settlement in the south,
as seen by the thriving settlement system centered around the city of Maresha in
the southern Shephelah in the 3rd century BCE.

Continuity of the Rural Settlement as an Imperial Interest

The archaeological trends identified in this study show a certain measure of conti-
nuity of the settlement in the transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic

36 See already Lipschits 2005: 182; see also Kloner 2015.

 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 351

periods. In most regions, the majority of Persian period sites continued to exist
(70 % of sites in Pelekh Miẓpah, 66 % of sites in Pelekh Qeʿilah and 62 % in Pelekh
Beth Zur).
The continuity of the administrative and economic systems of Judah through
the centuries is best expressed in the continued existence and even the develop-
ment of the administrative center at Ramat Raḥel and the agricultural hinter-
land that related to it, in the continuity of the stamp impressions system37 and
of local pottery traditions.38 This continuity can be explained as the outcome of
an imperial interest to enable the continued functioning of the agricultural, eco-
nomic and administrative systems in a way that best facilitated the collection of
tax revenues. The transformation of Judah from a kingdom to a province during
the early 6th century BCE was accompanied by a violent destruction and a sig-
nificant demographic drop.39 However, the complete obliteration of Judah would
have been contrary to Babylonian interests. Their interests were the destruction
of the rebellious city and the removal of the insubordinate dynasty, but also the
continuity of agricultural manufacturing in the land. Therefore, in certain re-
gions there was a great measure of continuity: in the immediate periphery of
Jerusalem, in Benjamin and in the northern Judean Hills, south of Jerusalem
(Lipschits 2011c: 66).
This historical process in the Iron Age–Persian period transition – that in
certain regions and social strata of Judah, life continued unharmed by the change
of imperial rule – is also true for the Persian to Hellenistic period transition,
according to our data. This is especially clear in the region of Benjamin (Pelekh
Miẓpah). This region, with its fertile agricultural lands, had the economic poten-

37 The stamp impressions system on jar handles, linked to the main administration of the King-
dom of Judah, first appeared with the lmlk stamp impressions at the end of the 8th century BCE.
It continued with the concentric circle incisions in the 7th century BCE and the Rosette stamp
impressions at the end of the 7th to beginning of the 6th century BCE. But even after the destruc-
tion of the kingdom, this administrative system prevailed. Lion stamp impressions were dated
to the 6th century BCE and related to the Babylonian administration; they were described as the
›missing link‹ between the Iron Age stamp impressions and the yehud and yršlm stamp impres-
sions of the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods (Lipschits and Koch 2011: 34). The different
stamp impressions were part of a continuous administrative system that lasted for centuries.
Their use in the Babylonian period is evidence of the continuity of administrative and economic
systems in c see Lipschits 2021.
38 The pottery assemblage uncovered in a pit in Ramat Raḥel was dated to the 6th and 5th centu-
ries BCE. The characteristics of the storage jars from the pit exhibit great continuity between
the ceramic traditions of the end of the Iron Age and that of the Persian period (Freud 2018).
39 A drop of around 60 % of the general population, according to some estimates (from
110,000 people at the end of the Iron Age to 40,000 people after the destruction; Lipschits 2005:
258–271; Lipschits 2011c: 78).
352 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

tial to supply Jerusalem with agricultural produce through its vineyards, orchards
and vast, grainrich plains. The area was not destroyed in the Babylonian destruc-
tion and Miẓpah became the political capital of the province until some point in
the Persian period, when Jerusalem possibly regained some of its authority.
In the Persian to Hellenistic period transition as well, this region demonstrat-
ed the highest rate of continuity. In other regions too, a core of rural settlements
continued to exist regardless of the political changes. This continuity was part of
an imperial interest to keep making maximal profit from occupied territories.
Both sides had an interest in encouraging the natural continuity of the agricultur-
al system.

The Dramatic Settlement Increase and the Rise of the Hasmonean State

The most prominent settlement trend in the Hellenistic period is the dramatic
increase in the number of sites in the province compared to their number in the
Persian period: an increase of 167 % in Benjamin (Pelekh Miẓpah), 97 % in Pelekh
Qeʿilah, 65 % in Pelekh Jerusalem and Pelekh Beth-hakkerem and only 32 % in
Pelekh Beth Zur.
Methodologically, it is not possible to determine in which part of the Hellenis-
tic period the numerous new sites appeared. Historically, it is highly probable
that many of them belonged to the Hasmonean phase. The establishment of the
Hasmonean state with its battles and annexation of new territories, very likely
influenced the settlement. Revolts against the imperial rule were not unheard of.
However, the success of the Hasmonean revolt and its results – the consolidation
of a semi-independent Jewish rule – made it an important turning point in the
history of Judah, with implications on the demography and settlement of the
province.
According to the narrative of the Books of Maccabees, oppression inflicted
by Antiochus IV led to the eruption of the Hasmonean revolt in the year 167 BCE.40
After three years of battles, the Hasmoneans managed to conquer Jerusalem and
purify its Temple (Levin 1995). The Hasmoneans did not stop there and continued
to take military and political actions until, around two decades after the revolt
began, the Seleucids acknowledged their rule and the Hasmonean state was estab-
lished. The Hasmoneans were recognized as kings and high priests and began to
expand their territory.

40 This is according to the traditional approach, which suffices for the purposes of the current
discussion. For a more realistic and critical approach that takes into account political and social
realities of the decades leading to the revolt, see Honigman 2014.
 Judah during the Transition between the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods 353

In time they conquered large areas of the Coastal Plain, including the harbors
of Jaffa and Gaza, and territories in Transjordan. This meant that the Hasmonean
state’s economy could take part in the trade that traversed the Land of Israel
towards its ports. Alongside this, it is likely that the expansion of the borders
of the state and its growth increased the demand for agricultural produce and
accelerated the development of different agricultural industries (Schwartz 1995).
It is highly likely that the settlement peak in Benjamin, nearest to Modiʿin –
the Hasmonean heartland, should be dated to the later stage of the Hellenistic
period, and related to the rise of this new political power. The rise in the number
of sites around Jerusalem, especially northwest of Jerusalem, towards Benjamin,
may also relate to this phase. The rise of the Hasmonean rule also had to do with
the dramatic changes in the political centers: the violent destruction of the center
at Ramat Raḥel – the site that for centuries symbolized foreign imperial rule
(Lipschits et al. 2011: 37), and the expansion of Jerusalem, which returned to settle
the Western Hill for the first time since the end of the Iron Age (Gadot 2015: 6).

Conclusions and Further Lines of Investigation

In this paper, we have presented the settlement trends recognized in the transi-
tion from the Persian to the Early Hellenistic period, and have tried to explain
them against the background of historical, political and climatic processes that
occurred during this period. However, not all archaeological data has been ac-
counted for, and further research is required in order to explain some of the
phenomena observed.
The hiatus in the activity of the center in Ramat Raḥel in the 3rd century BCE
seems to be the result of an administrative decision. It could possibly indicate a
new administrative policy exercised by the Ptolemies, perhaps reinstalling Jerusa-
lem as the administrative center, thus diverging from the policies of previous
imperial rulers, who used Ramat Raḥel as their main center for tax collection
and for overseeing the local population (Lipschits et al. 2011; Gadot and Lipschits
2016).
Another interesting phenomenon is the line of for-tresses observed in Pelekh
Beth Zur in the Persian period, which does not continue into the Early Hellenistic
period. This should be related to the role of the region as the southern border
with the semi-nomadic tribes and later with the province of Idumea. It is reason-
able to assume that once the province of Idumea was consolidated and stabilized,
there was less of a need for forts guarding the southern border of Judah.
The data from Pelekh Qeʿilah indicates prosperity in the Early Hellenistic
period with the establishment of large villages in the 4th century BCE, and their
354 Part C: Judah and Its Surroundings in the Persian Period

sudden abandonment in the middle of the 3rd century BCE. The abandonment of
Tel Azekah and Khirbet Qeiyafa – strategically located in the Elah Valley on one
of the main routes connecting the Coastal Plain with the Judean Hills – can be
dated with great precision to 260 BCE.41 One may link these abandonments to
instability caused by the Syrian wars, perhaps having an effect on the settlements
which lie close to important routes. However, the focal point of the second Syrian
war, which took place precisely in those years, was not in proximity to the Land
of Israel (Kosmin 2014: 18). Therefore, we must keep searching for the reason
for this abandonment. This posits an enigma, especially taking into account the
continued prosperity of nearby Khirbet er-Rasm, only one kilometer south-west
of Tel Azekah (Faust and Erlich 2011: 196–201). Perhaps these abandonments
should rather be linked to intentional changes in the arrangement of the rural
settlements of the region.
The picture that emerges from the data is complex and proves that there
were indeed different processes taking place in each region. It also strengthens
the idea that changes in settlement patterns are affected by local processes no
less than by imperial decisions. Although a great measure of continuity was iden-
tified in most regions, it is clear that the transition between the Persian and
Early Hellenistic period was not uneventful. The change of the settlement pattern
around Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel (including the hiatus or decline of the admin-
istrative center), the disappearance of the forts and the appearance of a new
system of settlements to the south of Judah, are changes that belong to the early
part of the Hellenistic period, whereas the great eruption of new sites in the
northwestern and eastern parts of Ju-dah primarily belonged to the later phase
of the period.
The changes in the early part of the Hellenistic period are probably the result
of long-term, natural demographic processes that ripened at this stage on the one
hand, and of administrative-economic imperial decisions made by the new rule
on the other. Both factors combined mean that the Early Hellenistic period cannot
be seen as a period of stagnation, characterized solely by settlement continuity.

41 Based on the numerous numismatic finds retrieved during excavations at these sites (Farhi
2021).
Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology
of Jerusalem
Jerusalem as a Symbol and in Reality
In this paper, I would like to discuss two gaps that relate to the dichotomy be-
tween Jerusalem as a symbolic concept and as a physical reality.
The first gap is between the reality of the First and (mainly) Second Temple
(i.e., pre-Roman Period) city of Jerusalem, as is evidenced by the archaeological
remains of this extended period, and between the images of Jerusalem as reflect-
ed in the Biblical descriptions. Most of these descriptions were composed in peri-
ods when Jerusalem was small and poor, and thus such imagery describes a
mythical city that never physically existed. These descriptions were fueled by the
longing of scribes for the legendary ancient past, and broadly ignore their present
(rather poor) status of the city during the Persian and early Hellenistic Periods.
These depictions of Jerusalem thus reflect a hope for the renewal of this mythical
past in the future, and are not a reflection of the reality of Jerusalem in any
period of its existence.
The second gap is between the actual archaeological finds from the First and
(mainly) Second Temple periods in Jerusalem and the modern scholarly historical
interpretations and reconstructions of these finds. Such scholarly perspectives
can be problematic as they are centrally based on the Biblical, late, and imagined
descriptions of the mythical city of Jerusalem. These modern interpretations of
ancient Jerusalem were also influenced and inspired by the development and
reorganization of Jerusalem during the late Roman period. In many cases scholars
have used this late reality of the city to anchor the reconstruction of earlier
periods in its history.
The integration of the reality of the “glorious Jerusalem” of the Roman period
with the Biblical mythical descriptions of the city, lead to the scholarly reconstruc-
tion of a city that never existed. This re-imagined Jerusalem is one that exists far
from the clear data– both Biblical and archaeological. It seems to me that most
scholars who studied pre-Herodian Jerusalem – whether consciously or uncon-
sciously – followed the (mainly Persian and Early Hellenistic) Biblical image of
the city, and subsequently created a reconstruction that stands in stark contrast
to the actual facts on the ground.
In the following, I will try to demonstrate the gap between the two sides of
this dichotomy. In doing so I also seek to re-contextualize Jerusalem as framed by
the historiographical descriptions, with consideration to the implications that Bib-
lical “mythical” descriptions of Jerusalem have had on scholars who in turn sought
to reconstruct the “real Jerusalem” through their interpretation of archaeological
finds. I will claim that these two “Jerusalem’s” – both the symbolic and the real –
were never meant to meet – not when most of the Biblical descriptions were

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-019
358 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

written when the city was small and poor, nor when modern reconstructions
regarding the city were created, in most cases based on these Biblical descriptions.
A central point must be clarified: in reality, pre-Roman Jerusalem was never
as large and magnificent as the ancient capitals of the great empires, and was
not even as grand as the capitals of the great and important territorial kingdoms
in the region around Judah.1 The city offered public and even monumental archi-
tecture from early periods, starting already in the early second Millennium BCE,
and was thus far above all other rural sites, satellite cities, and administrative
and military centers in the small hilly kingdom of Judah. The First Temple, as
well as the Second (built in the early Persian period) were ideologically impor-
tant, central, and the place where many Biblical events took place. Yet the bronze
shields that stood in-use throughout the existence of the First Temple (1 Kgs 14:
27) were faint duplicates that maintained the memory of the “golden age” and
the golden shields of Solomon (1 Kgs 10: 17), which in any case, according to the
story in 1 Kgs 14: 26 were taken during the time of Shishak.2 Most of the gold,
silver and other Temple and palace treasures were repeatedly taken in the mythi-
cal past by stronger kingdoms and empires (1 Kgs 14: 26; 15:18; 2 Kgs 12: 19; 14:
14; 16: 8; 18: 15; 24: 13; 25: 13–17).3 The Jerusalem of the scriptures constantly
moves between the yearning and longing for the past glorious days of David and
Solomon (that never existed as described in the books of Samuel and Kings), and
the expectations for a great and glorious future that may one day come.
The ‘Jerusalem’ of the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods (when many of
the Biblical texts were written and edited) was a small and poor settlement, no
more than a small town or a village of ca. 1000–1500 people (i.e., 250–400 men?)
with a few dozen priests and other temple servants, who lived around the small
temple with their families.4 In this case the comparison to the Temple in Geri-

1 For a summary of the size and demography of Jerusalem across the different periods, see
Geva 2007b.
2 Most commentators interpret the very short statement in this verse as implying that Pharaoh
Shoshenq (Biblical Shishak) went up towards Jerusalem, but because Rehoboam paid him a
heavy tribute (taken from the treasures of the Temple and of the royal palace) he did not enter
the city. See, e.g., Fritz 1996: 150. See, however, as against this idea: Lemaire 2009. Cf. to Naʾaman
1998a.
3 On the foreign policy of the Kings of Judah in the 9th-8th centuries BCE, see Naʾaman 2008a.
4 There are different estimations regarding the size and demography of Jerusalem in the Persian
Period as understood through the archaeological finds. For the more “maximalist” estimations
of ca. 1,500 inhabitants, see Carter 1994: 134–135; 1999: 148, 288. Cf. to Miller and Hayes 1986:
522–523; Lipschits 2003: 330–331; 2005: 212; 2006a. For an estimation of about 1,000 people in
Persian period Jerusalem, see Geva 2007b: 56–57, and for the two ‘ultra-minimalistic’ views see
Zwickel 2008: 216–217, that mainly on the basis of the descriptions and lists in Nehemiah, estimat-
ed that the population of the city before the days of Nehemiah was about 200 people and after-
 Jerusalem as a Symbol and in Reality 359

zim,5 the possible temple in Bethel,6 the cult site at Mamre,7 and perhaps also to
the developing traditions regarding Mount Sinai(?)8 are especially meaningful. It
is this comparison to an isolated temple on the top of a mountain, with only a
small settlement of priests and temple servants around it, that offers a potential-
ly accurate parallel to the reality of the settlement around the temple in Jerusa-
lem during the Persian and early Hellenistic (i.e., pre-Hasmonean) period.

The Gap between “Earthly Jerusalem” and “Heavenly

Jerusalem” in the Old Testament

The name of the city “Jerusalem” appears in the Old Testament (from Joshua to
Chronicles) a total of 667 times.9 The name “Jebus” appears 41 times, in 25 cases
as one of the ancient people of Canaan, but in 16 instances also as the ancient
name of Jerusalem or as the name of the people who dwelt there before David
conquered it.10 The name “City of David” (ʿîr dāwīd) is mentioned a further
44 times.11 As such, all in all (aside from the many other unique names and titles

wards about 400 or 600 people. Finkelstein (2008: 501–507) expressed a similar view, though
based on the archaeological data.
5 On the date and characteristics of the first phase of the temple in Mount Gerizim, see Magen,
Misgav and Tsfania 2004; Magen 2007. Cf. to the summary of Hensel 2016: 39–46; 2018. See also:
Knoppers 2006; Zangenberg 2012.
6 On the possible reconstruction of the Bethel temple as an isolated temple on the top of the
mountain, above a rather small village, see Lipschits 2017. On the study of the hill above the
village of Bethel, at E.P. 914, see Tavgar 2015. See, however, the different reconstruction: Tavgar
2021.
7 See Lipschits 2017; Lipschits, Römer, and Gonzalez 2017: 283–284. For a summary of the
archaeological picture, and for the results of the excavations that were conducted in this place
in 1984–1986, see Magen 1991; 2003. For the Mader 1926–1928 excavations see Mader 1918; 1957.
See also: Zwickel 2000.
8 On the idea of “divine mountain tradition” see Schmid 2018: 413–422, with further literature.
9 On the question why does the Pentateuch speak so little (if at all) on Jerusalem, see Amit 2000:
130–168; 2003: 143–146; Ska 2016. Cf. to Otto 2016; 2017.
10 In Joshua 15:8 and 18:6 Jebus was mentioned instead of Jerusalem as the place on the border
between Judah and Benjamin, in 18:28 the place “the Jebusite (that is, Jerusalem)” was mentioned
as a city in the territory of Benjamin, while in Joshua 15:63, Judges 1:21 it mentions that “the
Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem”, similarly to Judges 19:11 which stated
that the name of the city was Jebus, and that it was the city of the Jebusites. Also in 2 Sam 5: 6,
8, the Jebusites describe as the people who are living in Jerusalem, something that can explain
the presence of Araunah the Jebusite (in 2 Sam. 24: 16, 18). Cf. to the similar descriptions in 1 Chr
11: 4, 6, 15, 18, 28; 2 Chr 3:1. See Naʾaman 2014c. Cf. to Hübner 2002.
11 On the Meaning of the Term ʿîr dāwīd in Samuel and Kings, see Hutzli 2011b.
360 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

of the city, among them the 154 references to the name “Zion”, mostly in the
prophetic literature, Psalms, and only four times in the Deuteronomistic litera-
ture; see: Körting 2006; 2017), Jerusalem appears in the Old Testament 711 times.
Out of this number, 157 times are in the Deuteronomistic literature and de-
scribe the Jerusalem of the First Temple Period, and a further 186 times in Isaiah,
Jeramiah and Ezekiel, are in connection to the same period of the city’s existence.
This means that Jerusalem is mentioned a total of 343 times in connection with
the First Temple period. This total can also be considered alongside the 169 times
in Chronicles, most of which are in parallel to Samuel and Kings. All of the above
brings the number of references to Jerusalem in connection with the First Temple
period to a total of 512 references out of the 711 instances that it was mentioned
in the Old Testament – nearly 75 %. Most of the other references to Jerusalem are
sourced from Zachariah (41), and Ezra and Nehemiah (86), which is nearly 20 %
of the total references to Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Most of the other refer-
ences of Jerusalem in the Old Testament are in Psalms.
The question however is, beyond the ideological-theological usage, the myth
of ancient Jerusalem in its pre-Davidic times, and the longing for the glorious
days of David and Solomon and the descriptions of the temple, its structures and
the different cultic items and ceremonies that were conducted there, what ar-
chaeo-historical information can actually be found in all these references to Jeru-
salem in the Old Testament? What actual information exists in the Old-Testament
descriptions on Jerusalem?
There are several references that provide clearly contextually-accurate infor-
mation related to the geography of Jerusalem and its very close vicinity, such as
the cities positioning above the Gihon spring (1 Kgs 1: 32),12 and the role of the
Kidron as the eastern border of the city (2 Kgs 2: 36–37). There is also information
about the Millo, probably meant in reference to a stone foundation for a palace
or fort in the upper part of the city (maybe from the Assyrian tamulu, and see
also in 2 Sam 5: 9).13
The building of the palace, temple and fortifications around the city was
assigned to Solomon (1 Kgs 3: 1; 9: 15).14 These structures were probably a well-
known phenomenon in the view of anyone who lived in and visited the city.

12 On the history of the Gihon spring in light of archaeology, see Reich and Shukron 2004. On
the date of the fortifications, see the alternative view of Regev, Uziel, Szanton and Boaretto 2017.
13 On the Biblical Millo, see the explanation of Steiner 1989. Cf. to Naʾaman 2014a. The unclear
“House of the Millo” where King Joash was murdered, is another indication for the existence of
this place (2 Kgs 12: 21). On the identification of the “House of Millo” see Cogan and Tadmor
1988: 139.
14 See Ussishkin 2003; Roberts 2003. Cf. to Mazar 2006; 2020; Finkelstein 2011a; 2018; Sergi 2017a.
 Jerusalem as a Symbol and in Reality 361

There is also information about the existence of the ‘Palace of David’ within the
city (2 Sam 5: 11; 20: 3; see Naʾaman 2014a and Cf. to Mazar 2006; 2009),15 and in
regards to ‘Solomon’s Palace’ and the ‘House of the Forest of Lebanon’ (1 Kgs 7:
1–2).16 The detailed description of the building of these structures in the book of
Kings is the only reference where some details can be sourced in the Old Testa-
ment, aside from a few additional clues scattered throughout (such as in Is 22: 8
and Jer 36: 32).
Many of the gates and towers located within the wall that surrounded the
city of Jerusalem and the temple are mentioned, even if in most cases without
further details that can assist in their specific identification or aid an assessment
of their function (2 Kgs 14:13; 25:4 [= Jer 39: 4]; Jer 17: 19; 19: 2; 31: 37; 37: 13; 39:
3).17 Some of these structures are also mentioned in descriptions regarding Second
Temple Jerusalem (Neh 2: 13–15; 3: 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13–16, 19–32; see Lipschits 2007b;
2009b; 2011a; 2012b; 2012c. Cf. to Finkelstein 2008). There are some unclear de-
scriptions regarding various activities that occurred in the history of Jerusalem’s
fortifications (2 Kgs 15: 35; Is 22: 10), and there are certain areas in Jerusalem
where their location is not clear but can be speculated, such as the mishneh (2 Kgs
22: 14; see, e.g., Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 283), or the parwarim (2 Kgs 23: 11; see:
Taylor 1993: 176; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 288, and cf. to Mendel-Geberovich et al.
2019: 163–164). The existence of the ‘Garden of the King’ and the ‘Garden of Uz-
zah’, which became the burial place of the kings of Judah in the 7th century BCE
(2 Kgs 21: 18, 26), are also clear, even if its exact location is not described.18 Yet
aside from all these locations, it is also clear that there were several other key
places that we know little to nothing about i.e., “the conduit of the upper pool,
which is on the highway of the Fuller’s Field” (2 Kgs 18:17; Is 36: 2).19
All these descriptions related to locations and structures were composed
across an extended period by Jerusalemite scribes, for an audience of Jerusalemi-
te people and others located in Judah – all of whom probably knew these places
very well. However, what in all this is it that makes the city of Jerusalem so
special? We should remember that these descriptions reflect the actual city of
Jerusalem of the First Temple period, and that in the Persian and the Early Helle-

15 See Finkelstein et al. 2007 against Mazar’s identification.

16 On the Biblical description, see Mulder 1976; Olley 2003.
17 On the People’s Gate in Jeremiah 17:19 see, e.g., Gilmour 2018. On Benjamin Gate see Cohn
1986. On the location of the gate of Ephraim and the corner gate, see Cogan and Tadmor 1988:
157.
18 See Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 270–271; Schmidt 1994: 250–254; Lipschits 2002a; Naʾaman 2004b:
252–253; Stavrakopoulou 2006; Becking 2008; Suriano 2010: 108–114; Edelman 2014: 130–138, with
further literature.
19 On the identification of “the conduit of the upper pool” see Amit 2011, with further literature.
362 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

nistic periods the situation was much harsher: the city was poorer and smaller,
and most of the public structures from the First Temple period, such as the rich
houses of the elite and the city gates, towers, and wall – no longer existed, and
at the very least not as they were before (Lipschits 2009b; 2011a; 2012b).
The people who lived in Jerusalem during the Persian and Early Hellenistic
periods occupied a city that still included large areas that remained in ruins.20
This is probably the reason why at least some of these structures from the First
Temple period, their function and location, were well remembered. In the de-
scription of Nehemiah’s night-journey (as described in Neh 2: 13–14) the ‘Valley
Gate’, ‘Jackal’s Well’, ‘Dung Gate’, ‘Fountain Gate’ and the ‘King’s Pool’ are men-
tioned (Japhet 2019: 271–273),21 and in the list of “the builders of the wall” (Neh 3,
particularly verses 1, 3, 6, 11,13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32),22 nine gates were
mentioned (‘Sheep Gate’, ‘Fish Gate’, ‘Old Gate’, ‘Valley Gate’, ‘Dung Gate’, ‘Foun-
tain Gate’, ‘Horse Gate’, ‘East Gate’ and ‘Hammiphkad Gate’), as well as four tow-
ers (‘the Tower of Hammeah’, ‘the Tower of Hananel’, ‘the Tower of the Furnaces’
and “the great tower that standeth out”). Alongside references to some of the
important houses that existed in the Persian period (the ‘House of Eliashib the
high priest’ and the ‘House of the Nethinim and of the merchants’), together with
some prominent structures in the general view of the city (“the stairs that go
down from the city of David”, “the pool that was made” and “the wall of Ophel”),
there are additional elements clearly connected to the First Temple city that are
mentioned. Some of these elements perhaps continued to exist, even if in ruins,
or maybe preserved in part as a memory of their prominent location in the city:
“the broad wall” (v. 9), “the wall of the pool of Shelah by the king’s garden” (v. 15),
“the sepulchres of David”, “the house of the mighty men” (v. 16), and even “the
tower that standeth out from the upper house of the king, which is by the court
of the guard” (v. 25).
The conclusion from all this is that the details that we actually have available
on Jerusalem in the Biblical descriptions are reflective of the earthly Jerusalem
as it was: the center of the small hilly kingdom of Judah, well-fortified (at least
in the later part of the First Temple Period), with the temple at its top, located

20 The excavations in the Givati Parking Lot in the western side of the City of David well
demonstrate how structures in the Persian period were built between the ruins of the First
Temple Period. See Shalev et al. 2020: 160–161.
21 On the symbolic meaning of the night journey, see Heckl 2018: 163. While Kratz attributes
Neh 2:11‐18 to Nehemiah’s original report, Wright attributes only 2:11, 15* (without “I came
through the Valley Gate and returned”), 16a, 17, 18b to the Nehemiah Memoir. See Kratz 2005:
66; Wright 2004: 340.
22 On Nehemiah 3, see Lipschits 2012c: 73–78; Japhet 2019: 279–286, with further literature.
 Jerusalem as a Symbol and in Reality 363

next to the palace of the Davidic Kings and the houses of the nation’s elite. As
much as the city of Jerusalem of the 8th–7th centuries BCE was at its peak in
terms of size, grandeur and importance, it stood in no comparison to the same
aspects of the rich and developed urban centers of the Empires and the larger
territorial kingdoms of that period. The historiographical descriptions reflect the
image of the city as it was, and it is for this reason that there is nearly no tether
between this “earthly Jerusalem” and the much later images of it in the prophetic
literature, Psalms and the laments. Much of this literature was written in the
Persian and early Hellenistic periods, when Jerusalem was a faint shadow of its
glorious past. The priests, Levites and other temple servants of the Second Temple
Period lived in a ruined city, and out of these ruins they developed the image of
the past glorious Jerusalem. For the people who lived in Jerusalem during the
Persian and early Hellenistic period these ruins were a testament to the greatness
of the city in ancient times and the source of their hope for the glorious future.
The image of the city in the prophetical literature, in the Zion Psalms and in
the Lamentations has no connection to “earthly Jerusalem”.23 The images of Jeru-
salem seem to have been increasingly glorified by the authors of the Psalms and
of the prophetic literature, with no connection to the reality of the time of their
writing, or of the time they refer to. Rather these descriptions were, on the one
hand the ‘source of’ − and on the hand the ‘fuel for’ − the glorification of Jerusa-
lem, which shaped and integrated the image of the city within the memory of
the nation.
Can historians and archaeologists use these late images of “glorious Jerusa-
lem” in their research? Can such references form the base for the reconstruction
of the actual image and the real history of Jerusalem in the First and early Second
Temple periods? Should these late images of Jerusalem be combined with the
actual archaeological finds from Jerusalem in the historical reconstructions?
In my opinion, the theological uniqueness and the special religious place that
Jerusalem holds for scholars of all religions, has made a great impact. In fact,
such aspects have also directed archaeological research towards an unrealistic
reconstruction of the city, both in terms of size, power, splendor and characteris-
tics over long periods; and as shown below, even in terms of interpreting the
location of the city’s ancient core and of its main structures throughout large
parts of its history. In the case of Jerusalem, the Biblical images of the city actually
shape the modern scholarly myth of ancient Jerusalem, even today.

23 On the city-lament genre see, e.g., Dobbs-Allsopp 1993. On the Zion Psalms, see, e.g., Seybold
1996; Körting 2006; 2017; On Jerusalem in the Book of Lamentations see, e.g., Mandolfo 2007. On
Jerusalem in the Prophetical literature, see, e.g., Gertz et al. 2012: 416; Schmid 2011; 2013; Tiemeyer
2010. Cf. also to Roncace 2005.
364 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

The Gap between “Earthly Jerusalem” and “Heavenly

Jerusalem” in Archaeological and Historical Studies

Jerusalem is the most excavated city in the world, especially the ca. 6 hectares
ridge called “the City of David”,24 which most scholars regard as the original
mound of Jerusalem. This reconstruction is based on the post-Herodian city-plan,
with a sacred structure/temple on the top of the hill, a monumental platform
around it with substantial open areas, somewhat similar to the situation today.
Added to this were the other buildings i.e., official, administrative and private,
built on the south-eastern ridge (“the City of David” ridge) and on the south-
western hill (where the modern day Armenian and Jewish quarters are located).
Yet the multitude of excavations across all of these areas has proven that between
the Middle Bronze Age and Roman times, they were only fully occupied in two
relatively short periods: the Iron Age IIB-C (between ca. the mid-8th century and
586 BCE),25 and the late Hellenistic period (ca. second half of the 2nd century BCE).
Other periods of occupation in the “City of David” were partial and sparse, and
mainly concentrated in the central sector of the ridge, near and above the Gihon
spring.
This archaeological fact presented scholars with a problem regarding periods
such as the Late Bronze Age, the Iron IIA and the Persian and early Hellenistic
periods, for which there is either textual documentation or circumstantial evi-
dence for the significant occupation of Jerusalem. Scholars attempted to address
this problem in regards to a specific period,26 but in a paper published by Finkel-
stein, Koch and Lipschits (2011), following the suggestion of Knauf regarding the

24 This assessment is mainly related to the ridge located to the south of the temple mount, with
over 150 years of intensive field research. See Reich 2011. The use of the term “City of David” in
this paper is in reference to its common archaeological meaning, that is: the ridge located to the
south of the Temple Mount and west of the Kidron Valley, also known as the ‘South-Eastern Hill’.
For the biblical term “City of David” see Hutzli 2011b.
25 I accept the view of Gadot and Uziel, that the Monumentality of the “City of David” ridge
began in the early 8th Century BCE, and it was a much longer process than it was previously
accepted. See Gadot and Uziel 2017.
26 Naʾaman argued that the Late Bronze city-states are underrepresented in the archaeological
record also in other places. See Naʾaman 2010b; 2011. A. Mazar advocated the “glass half full”
approach, according to which with all difficulties, the fragmentary evidence in the City of David
is enough to attest to a meaningful settlement even in periods of weak activity. See Mazar 2006;
2010. Lipschits (2009b) argued for enough spots with Persian Period finds on the ridge, and
Finkelstein (2008) maintained that the weak archaeological signal from the late Iron I – early
Iron IIA (the 10th century BCE) and the Persian and early Hellenistic periods reflects the actual
situation in Jerusalem – which was only sparsely populated in these periods.
 Jerusalem as a Symbol and in Reality 365

Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I (Knauf 2000), another possibility was raised,
according to and similar to other hilly sites, the mound of Jerusalem was located
on the summit of the ridge, in the center of the Temple Mount area, which was
later “boxed-in” under the Herodian platform in the late first century BCE.27
Already Knauf argued that from the strategic point of view a town covering
the south-eastern hill would have been indefensible without commanding the top
of the ridge – the Temple Mount (Knauf 2000). All the Bronze Age city-states in
the Levant (that later became the hubs of Iron Age territorial kingdoms) were
located on relatively small mounds, always on the top of the mound, where a
palace, temple/s, other official buildings, as well as residential quarters were lo-
cated. The main water source of all these cities was always far from the city and
down the hill, and in all cases, great effort was placed into fortifying the spring
area, hiding it, as well as arranging hidden and protected access-ways from the
city to a point where the water could be reached during siege and war. As argued
by Finkelstein, Koch and Lipschits (2011), Jerusalem likely looked the same, and
on the hill that hundreds of years later became the Temple Mount, a palace, a
temple and other official buildings, as well as residential quarters were located.
This city covered an area of ca. 5 hectares,28 on a hill that was topographically
well defensible on almost all sides.
According to this proposal, from the second and early first millennium BCE
until the great territorial expansion of Jerusalem (in a slow and gradual process)
during the 8th century BCE (and see above), as well as during most of the second
half of the first millennium (after the 586 BCE destruction and until the late
Hellenistic period) – Jerusalem was located on a mound that was later leveled,
completely “trapped”, and “boxed-in” under the Herodian platform. The settle-
ment was a typical hilly center in the Judean hills, built like all other cities in the
region, managing the same challenges as all other cities (e.g. – defense vs. dis-
tance from the water source) and likely solving these problems in a similar way
to all the other cities in the ancient southern Levant.
If this reconstruction of the place and size of Jerusalem can be accepted (even
if it is hypothetical since there is no way to prove it by way of excavations inside
the sacred area of the Herodian Temple Mount and today Haram el-Sharif ), and
in light of the intensive archaeological work in the City of David over the last

27 The theory of “the mound on the Mount” cannot be proven without excavations on the
Temple Mount or its eastern slope – something that is not feasible in the foreseen future. Against
this idea, see De-Groot and Geva 2015; Gadot and Uziel 2017.
28 Shechem (Tell Balata) and Ḥebron (Tell er-Rumeideh) covered an area of 4–4.5 hectares each;
the mound of Bethel covers an area of ca. 3 hectares and most other mounds are smaller. See
Finkelstein, Koch and Lipschits 2011, with further literature.
366 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

century (which renders the “absence of evidence is not evidence for absence”
argument irrelevant in this case) then the main question that should be asked is;
why have most scholars who studied pre-Herodian Jerusalem followed the Bibli-
cal descriptions, and described the city of Jerusalem in a different location and
in an entirely manner than the actual facts on, or rather within, the ground? This
identification of the location of the city and of its main characteristics began with
the first scholars who studied the material culture of the city some 150 years ago,
and continued onwards to modern scholars who continue to investigate this place
with modern methods, with the foundation of the results of 150 years of excava-
tions.
There is a clear gap between the actual finds from the First, and mainly
Second Temple (i.e., pre-Roman Period) periods in Jerusalem and the modern
scholarly historical and archaeological interpretations and reconstructions of
these finds. It seems to me that the main reason for this is that scholars have
been influenced by the late and ‘unreal’ Biblical descriptions of the legendary
city of Jerusalem. The combination of these Biblical mythical descriptions of the
city with the actual existence of “glorious Jerusalem” in the Roman period (which
actually reshaped the natural look and the ancient appearance of the place)
caused scholars to reconstruct a city that never existed, a Jerusalem that is far
away from the clear facts – both Biblical and archaeological.

Summary

For hundreds of years, during the Babylonian, Persian and early Hellenistic Peri-
ods, people lived among the ruins of the Iron Age II City of Jerusalem. The few
hundred people who lived around the small temple (built on the top of the
mound), especially priests, Levites and other Temple servants, could not ignore
the size and strength of the remains on the Western hill, the ridge of the “City of
David” and perhaps also in and around the Temple Mount itself. This is probably
the source for the descriptions of “Heavenly Jerusalem”, the longings for its past
glory, and for the hopes for the days to come. The tension between the very poor
and small settlement in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods and the remains
of the large, destroyed Iron II city, must be understood as the driving power
behind the longing to return to “the great old days in the history of Jerusalem”,
as especially reflected in the Psalms, Prophetic literature and in the Lamentations
over the city.
This image of Jerusalem has affected generations of scholars who saw the
city when the most dominant structure in view was (and still is) the Herodian
complex, which “boxes in” the hill of ancient Jerusalem and effectively shapes
 Jerusalem as a Symbol and in Reality 367

the view of the city and its surrounds. The impact of the image of the imagined
“glorious city” in the Old Testament Prophetic literature, the Psalms and the Lam-
entations, together with the impact of the Herodian temple on the actual physical
view of Jerusalem, subsequently shaped the reconstructions of archaeologists and
historians, and influenced their interpretations of the facts on the ground. This
perspective caused scholars to reconstruct a city that never existed, a Jerusalem
that is far away from the clear data – both Biblical and archaeological. Unlike
any other city in the Levant, the research surrounding Jerusalem, of its size and
accurate reconstructions, is deeply affected by the Biblical image of the city. It is
also this same conceptual image that continues to protect the “symbolic Jerusa-
lem” from the reality-based reconstructions of its past.
Between Archaeology and Text: A Reevaluation
of the Development Process of Jerusalem
in the Persian Period
Jerusalem at the End of the First temple Period as a Starting
Point

For years scholars have debated the size and nature of the settlement in Jerusa-
lem and its surroundings at the end of the First temple period; a general consen-
sus has now emerged that gives a picture of the place and time (See, e.g., Gibson
and Edelstein 1985, 139–155; Barkay 1985b; Lipschits 1997b: 246–275; 2001: 132–134;
Feig 2000: 387–409; Geva 2007b: 55–56). At the end of the eighth century BCE the
built-up area of the city expanded from the 5 hectare Southeastern Hill (the “City
of David”) to the 45 hectare Southwestern Hill (the area of the modern day jewish
and Armenian Quarters and the so-called “Mount Zion”) (Avigad 1980: 31–60;
Geva 2003b).1 A new fortified neighborhood also developed on the eastern slope
of the City of David (Reich and Shukron 2004), so that the total built-up area of
the city in this period can be estimated at 65 hectares (Geva 2007b: 55). The
boundaries of this area are well marked by the tombs that encircled it (Barkay
1985b: 472; 1991: 103), and unfortified neighborhoods arose to the north of the
city walls, bringing the total settled area to about 100 hectares (Barkay 1985b: 161–
165, 500). A large and complex set of agricultural settlements was built around
the city, including farms, hamlets and agricultural installations (Lipschits and
Gadot 2008, with further literature), and large villages in the more remote circle,
between Moza in the west, el-ʾAzariyah in the east, ʿAnate in the north and Ramat-
Raḥel in the south, apparently delineating the territory known as “the environs
of Jerusalem” (Lipschits 2005: 209, 215). A well-planned array of fortresses, which
were within these boundaries, were built in a wide ring around the city in the
French Hill, Giloh, Zur Baher, Kh. el-Burj(?) and Abu-Dis (Mazar 1981: 246–248;
Barkay 1985b: 371–373; Eisenberg and De Groot 2006; Lipschits and Gadot 2008,
89–94).
Based on this data, scholars have suggested different estimates of the popula-
tion of Jerusalem at the end of the First temple period. The higher estimates are
between 20,000 and 25,000 people (Broshi 1974: 23; Shiloh 1981: 279; Faust 2005:
112). These estimates are based on the accepted calculation of the above number

1 On the process of this expansion, see the different reconstructions of Naʾaman (2007) and
Finkelstein (2007).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-020
370 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

of settled hectares multiplied by a coefficient of 200–250 people per hectare.2 The

main problem with these estimates is that they seem to overestimate the actual
settled area in Jerusalem, not paying sufficient attention to the large areas in the
Ophel and the temple Mount area that were occupied by cultic, administrative
and royal buildings. Besides, the archaeological data from the Southwestern Hill
shows that it was sparsely populated, with large, unsettled areas and even agri-
cultural areas between houses (Geva 2007b: 56).
The low population estimates for Jerusalem in this period suggest that there
were between 6,000 and 10,000 residents (Wilkinson 1974: 50, table 1; Auld and
Steiner 1996: 40–41; Steiner 2001: 109, 114; Geva 2007b: 56). These figures are
calculated with an awareness of the different purposes of the built-up areas with-
in the city walls, but probably underestimate the number of private dwellings
and settled areas in the city that would have been restricted as a result of water
resources in the city and natural limitations of food supply in the area around it.
Flanking these high and low estimates are the suggestions of other scholars
that the population of Jerusalem was between 15,000 and 20,000 people (Kloner
2003: 21); 15,000 (Finkelstein 2001: 243; Lipschits 2005: 270, table 4.3); or 12,000
(Finkelstein and Silberman 2006a: 122). These estimates seem to be more balanced
in their differentiation between the settled areas in the city and the areas that
were occupied with cultic, administrative and royal buildings. They are based
on more careful attention to the development of the agricultural areas around
Jerusalem, especially the Rephaim Valley to the south, the area of Benjamin to
the north and the area between Binyaney Haʾummah and Moza to the west. These
large agricultural areas developed at the end of the eighth century BCE, at the
same time that the settled area in Jerusalem expanded and its population in-
creased. They served as the agricultural hinterland of the city, and could supply
the needs of the large population that once lived in the capital of the kingdom
(Lipschits and Gadot 2008).
Scholars agree that at the beginning of the seventh century BCE the popula-
tion of Jerusalem declined (Geva 2003b: 519–523), but it seems that the general
estimates of the population in the city (around 15,000) and in the area around it
(10,000) remained stable and can be estimated at about 25,000 people.

2 On the different methods for calculating the number of people based on estimates of settled
hectares, see Geva 2007b: 52–54.
 Between Archaeology and Text: Jerusalem in the Persian Period 371

The Destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians

and “The Myth of the Empty Land”

According to the biblical description, the Babylonians showed Jerusalem no mer-

cy; about one month after the city’s surrender, Nebuzaradan, the chief cook,
reached the city and began to destroy it systematically.3 As depicted in the Bible,
the Babylonians burned “the house of the Lord,” “the house of the king (= the
palace),” “all of the houses of Jerusalem,” and “every large house,” and “tore
down the walls of Jerusalem all about” (2 Kgs 25:9–10). The purpose of this de-
scription was to generalize, stating that the Babylonians destroyed all of the cultic,
administrative and royal structures, as well as all the residences in Jerusalem.
This description accords with the account by Nehemiah (2:13–15) in his survey of
the city walls some 130 years later, as well as with the archaeological finds that
were revealed in the excavations in various parts of the city.
A clear picture emerges from the archaeological finds.4 The significance of
these finds is that the Babylonian destruction is well documented by archaeologi-
cal research, and even more – there is no evidence of human activity of any kind
in Jerusalem between the time of the Babylonian destruction in 586 BCE and the
beginning of the Persian period. It would seem that the inevitable explanation
for this is that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians and was emptied of
most of its population.
Also according to the biblical description, the destruction of Jerusalem was
followed by the deportation of the city’s inhabitants. In addition to the exile of
many of the nation’s elite 10 years before,5 in 2 Kgs 25:11 (and cf. Jer 39:9; 52:15)
there is a description of the deportation of three groups to Babylon (Lipschits
2005: 82–83): “the rest of the people that were left in the city” are apparently
the military forces that remained in Jerusalem after its surrender, including the

3 Regarding the date of the destruction of the city, and the meaning of the gap of one month
between its surrender and the beginning of its destruction, see Lipschits 2005: 79–80.
4 For a summary of the archaeological picture of the area of Jerusalem at the end of the 7th
and during the 6th centuries BCE, see: Lipschits 2001: 129–142; 2005: 210–218.
5 The biblical description of this deportation is complex (Lipschits 2005: 299–304, with further
literature), but even if it left no archaeological remains there is no room to doubt its actual
historicity. There are clear parallels between the biblical description and the Babylonian Chroni-
cles from that period, which stated that Nebuchadnezzar “– encamped against the city of Judah
and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city [and] seized [its] king” (Grayson
1975: 102 [Rev. L. 12]). On the history of the events conducted during these months, see Lipschits
2005: 70–84. The presence of King Jehoiachin in Babylon, together with some high-profile captives
or hostages has been well-known ever since the Weidner Tablets were discovered in the southern
palace of Babylon; it mentions the king among other dignitaries (Weidner 1939: 925–926).
372 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

defenders who were not killed during the long siege of the city or after its surren-
der, and did not escape the city with Zedekiah and “all the men of war” (2 Kgs
25:4–5; Jer 39:4; 52:7). “Those who had deserted to the king of Babylon” consisted
of those who surrendered themselves to the Babylonians during the siege; some
of them were military men and some were civilians who, in light of the situation,
decided to flee (and cf. Jer 37:12; 38:19). “The rest of the multitude” probably
included the remainder of the populace of Jerusalem, who were trapped in the
city following the siege.
The conclusion from this description is that the Babylonian intention was to
define a total deportation of the residents of Jerusalem, with no reference to
other parts of the kingdom. Since the economic, political, and religious elite had
already been in Babylon for more than 10 years, this deportation was probably
a focused and well-considered act, initiated by the Babylonians, who probably
carefully winnowed the exiles taken from the city, in order to remove those el-
ements that were likely to interfere with the establishment of the new arrange-
ments they planned for Judah.
The Babylonians brought about an utter and deliberate destruction of Jerusa-
lem and its immediate environs, and the region was almost completely emptied
of its population. As part of the military activity, the Babylonians destroyed the
main cities and fortresses of Judah’s western border in the Shephelah. It seems
that the hinterland areas in the south and east of the kingdom toppled in a
longer, more complex process with ruinous consequences. The thriving array of
settlements that had existed in the Judean Desert, Jordan Valley, and Dead Sea
environs disappeared completely and the border fortresses of the Judean king-
dom in the Beersheba–Arad Valleys collapsed, together with the settlements that
had existed alongside them. However, the area of Benjamin, north of Jerusalem,
and the area south of the city, between Ramat Raḥel and Beth-Zur, were left
nearly untouched, and their populations continued to live in the same way, in
the same place, and with the same material culture, as they had before the de-
struction of Jerusalem (Lipschits 2005: 206–257).

“The Myth of the Mass Return”

According to the description in Ezra 1, “In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia”
the community of the exiled Judahites in Babylon was allowed to return to Jerusa-
lem and its vicinity. The list of returnees in Ezra 2 makes the impression of a
massive return from exile, and according to Ezra 3:1 soon after “the people gath-
ered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem,” in order to start building the
temple.
 Between Archaeology and Text: Jerusalem in the Persian Period 373

Although many scholars have questioned the reliability of this description

(Grabbe 2004: 271–276, with further literature), as well as the reliability of Cyrus’
decree as cited in Ezra 1:2–4 (Hebrew) and 6:2–5 (Aramaic),6 this description be-
came the base for the accepted view among scholars that there was a major event
of return at the beginning of the Persian period.7 In modern research, however,
it became clear that “the Myth of the Mass Return” as a theological, social, and
political idea continued “the Myth of the Empty Land” (see, e.g., Barstad 1988;
1996; Knauf 1994: 167; Becking 2006: 7; Lipschits 2003: 355–66; 2005: 348–78; Grab-
be 2004: 275). There is no hint in any Persian document that refers to such a mass
return, and the claimed return of divine images and people in the Persian empire
actually refers to measures taken on a local scale, and has nothing to do with the
return of Judahites from Babylon to Jerusalem (Kuhrt 1983: 87–88; Wiesehöfer
1994: 71–88; Albertz 2001: 98–100), while the “Cyrus cylinder” represents the prop-
aganda and worldview of the Marduk priests of the Esagila temple at Babylon
(Kuhrt 1983). The very few and very late clues within the biblical texts regarding
the beginning of the Persian period attest to a very limited presence of people in
Jerusalem, both in number and in its ability to found Jerusalem as a cultic center,
not to mention its strength to build Jerusalem as an urban center (Lipschits 2006a:
32).
As many biblical scholars have observed, there is no room for theories re-
garding a “mass return” at the beginning of the Persian period (Becking 2006: 3–
18, with further literature). From the archaeological perspective, the return of
Judahites to Judah did not leave its imprint on the material culture, and no demo-
graphic change can be perceived (Lipschits 2003: 365). As a historical assumption,
based only on the biblical texts, one may reconstruct some small waves of return
that lasted for over a century (Hoglund 1992b; Knauf 1994: 167; Carter 1999; Kinet
2001: 190–202; Lipschits 2005: 122–126, 267–271; 2006a: 30–34; Becking 2006: 8–10).
It seems that only three historical assumptions, based on the understanding
of the biblical texts and, as will be discussed below, with no clear archaeological
support, may be used as a base for reconstructing a slow and gradual process
(Lipschits 2006a):
During the early years of the Persian period, the temple in Jerusalem was
rebuilt and the cult was renewed. According to Ezra 6:15, “The temple was com-
pleted on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King

6 See, e.g., Galling 1964, 61–77; Smith 1971, 78, 186 n. 16; Blenkinsopp 1988, 74–76; Grabbe 2004,
271–276.
7 See the description of the theories in Grabbe 2004: 443, with further literature, and cf., recently
expressed views by: Zevit 2009: 130–131, 134; Mazar 2009: 72.
374 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

Darius.”8 There are, of course, no archaeological traces of this event, but the
different attempts to redate it to a much later period (Edelman 2005: 151–208,
332–351) cannot be accepted.
The existence of the temple was the main reason for the actual “return.” It
was, however, a slow and gradual process that lasted into the late sixth and
through the early fifth century BCE, during which the Judahite community in
Babylon re-established its social, religious, and fiscal power around the temple in
Jerusalem. One cannot detect this process with archaeological tools, since the
changes were too slow and too small, and because, as will be discussed below,
there are only scanty remains from the Persian period in Jerusalem.
The slow development of Jerusalem neither formed nor crystallized before
the middle of the fifth century BCE, when a wall was built around the City of
David, and the city again became the capital (bîrāh) of the province, replacing
Mizpah. Also in this case, one cannot detect the building of the wall with archaeo-
logical tools. However, this is the most important event, the one that stands at
the core of the Book of Nehemiah, and the impression that it gives is one of the
most conspicuous and most important at that time, and the one that led to enor-
mous expectations for the renewed status of Jerusalem (Lipschits 2007b). This
impression was emphasized by the editing of the list of “the builders of the wall”
(Nehemiah 3) in Nehemiah memoirs, and it stands behind the story of the repopu-
lation of the city (Nehemiah 7) and the composition of Nehemiah 11 (Lipschits
2002b). It is part of the idea emphasized by the editing of this book, that in this
period, one historical circle was closed: Jerusalem’s status was renewed. A temple,
fortifications, and a status of a central political city were restored in Jerusalem.
As said previously, there are only questionable and scanty archaeological
remains of this wall. The remains from Persian period Jerusalem are scarce and
can only indicate the size of the settlement in Jerusalem during the Persian peri-
od, with no indication of any process of development.

The Scarce Archaeological Finds from Persian Period

Jerusalem

The lack of Persian period archaeological finds in Jerusalem is not a mere coinci-
dence. It is the outcome of a unique period in the history of the city, when it was
not a capital of a kingdom, and there were no kings in the city to invest the

8 These dates and this reconstruction have major chronological problems (see, e.g., the survey
of Edelman 2005: 3–9), but it seems that most scholars still agree with this basic assumption.
 Between Archaeology and Text: Jerusalem in the Persian Period 375

means and the manpower in order to glorify and fortify it. This period occurred
during the middle of a long “interlude” between two periods of greatness in the
history of Judah, since at the end of the First Temple period on the one hand (the
late eighth and seventh century BCE), and the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman
periods on the other hand (the second half of the second century and the first
century BCE) Judah, and especially Jerusalem, went through short periods of ex-
pansion, building projects, and fortification.
In both periods, the Southeastern Hill was rebuilt and refortified, and the
built-up area of the city expanded for a short time to the Southwestern Hill, and
all this area was enclosed by strong fortifications (Lipschits 2009b: 4–5).
The outcome of the long intermediate period, when Judah came under the
rule of the Mesopotamian empires, and especially the destruction of the urban
and administrative centers under Assyrian and Babylonian rule, was a marked
process of attenuation in urban life in Judah (Lipschits 2006a: 26–30, with further
literature). The administrative and urban centers that survived the catastrophes
of those periods were intentionally left small and weak, probably as part of the
empire’s interest to leave Judah as a rural area, with a small and feeble economi-
cal and urban elite living in the province. This is a period when one should not
expect, therefore, to find magnificent palaces, huge public buildings, or strong
fortifications in Jerusalem (contra Finkelstein 2009: 10–11).
The scarcity of building remains from the Persian period does not, however,
fully reflect the actual, admittedly poor, situation at that time. Rather, it is the
outcome of incomplete archaeological data (Stern 2001: 461–462), especially in the
case of Jerusalem (Lipschits 2009b: 4–6). The Persian and early Hellenistic period
occupation levels were severely damaged by intensive building activities conduct-
ed in the late Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and later periods, especially because
in very steep and narrow hilltop sites like Jerusalem, all structures – private and
public – had to be based on the bedrock. In the case of Jerusalem, it is much
more dramatic, because of the scope and grandeur of the subsequent building
efforts, as well as the frequent destructions of the site. Furthermore, the religious,
cultic, and political status of Jerusalem likely motivated not only frequent political
upheavals and destruction, but also a desire to remove previous political and
religious structures, and to reshape the city (Lipschits 2009b: 6–9, with further
details and literature). This may explain why there are nearly no architectural
finds from the sixth to third centuries BCE, and the small finds from this period
were usually excavated in fills under structures from later periods, in small spa-
ces that were left between them, or in the dumps down in the valleys to the east
and to the west of the small ridge of the City of David. To the above one can add
the fact that the Persian period did not end suddenly; there was a long transition-
al period to the Hellenistic period, and there is no destruction level assigned to
376 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

this period in Judah in general and in Jerusalem in particular (Lipschits 2009b:

6–9).
The conclusion is that, contrary to views that regard the negative finds, espe-
cially in Jerusalem, as reflecting the actual situation in the city (see, for example,
Finkelstein 2008: 505; 2009: 10–11), one should not rely on the absence of architec-
tural finds and the scarcity of other finds as a realistic reflection of the situation
in the city during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Explanations dealing
with negative finds should be taken seriously, but in archaeology they cannot be
the basis for the reconstruction of the development and contemporary situation
in Jerusalem during most of the Second Temple period.

What Can Be Deduced Concerning the History of the City

from the Persian Period Archaeological Finds in Jerusalem?

Many excavations were conducted in the various parts of the Southwestern Hill
of Jerusalem, but only a few Persian period sherds and other small finds have
been found, mainly in landfills from the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Stern
2001: 434–436; Lipschits 2009b: 9–12, with further details and literature).9 The
unavoidable conclusion is that throughout the Persian and early Hellenistic peri-
ods, this area was abandoned.10 The fact that there are no Persian period burials
in this area is probably the outcome of marked remains of the Iron Age houses
and the destroyed city wall in the Southwestern Hill, side by side with some
scattered houses and tilled pieces of land. The area was resettled only in the
second century BCE (Geva 2003a; 2003b).
The most important administrative finds from the Persian period in Jerusa-
lem were discovered in the northern area of the City of David, just below the
Ophel, including many Persian period pottery sherds and dozens of yehud stamp
impressions. All of the finds were discovered in fills that were brought to the
area sometime before the late Hellenistic and Roman periods (Lipschits 2009b:
12–14). It seems reasonable to assume that the soil and debris laid as this fill was

9 For a detailed discussion and comprehensive literature, see Lipschits 2009b: 9–18.
10 This is the common view among scholars, and see, for instance, Kenyon 1967a: 188–255;
Tsafrir 1977b: 36; Avigad 1980: 61–63; Geva 1983; 1991; 2000a, 158; 2000b, 24; 2003a: 113–114; 2003b,
524–526; Geva and Reich 2000: 42; Shiloh 1984a: 23; Tushingham 1985: 85; Finkielsztejn 1999: 28*;
Lipschits 2005: 212–213; 2009b: 9–12; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a: 108–112. Some lion and
mwṣh stamped jar handles might indicate towards limited activity in the upper part of the City
of David, but the isolated and limited finds are not enough for any conclusion regarding any
kind of activity in this region during the 6th century BCE.
 Between Archaeology and Text: Jerusalem in the Persian Period 377

brought down from the Ophel Hill just above it. This is a wide area of about
2 hectares, between the ascension of the hill towards the Temple Mount and the
northern part of the City of David. This is the only relatively wide, easy-to-settle
area in the city. Its proximity to the Temple Mount on the one hand and the easy
option to fortify it on the other probably made it the preferred option for settle-
ment in the Persian period. There are, however, nearly no Persian period finds
in this area, probably because of the many huge building projects conducted
there from the Hellenistic period onwards (Lipschits 2009b: 19–20).
Most of the other excavated areas in the City of David were outside the
presumed narrow inhabited area of the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods,
which was limited to the upper part of the hill.11 Finds from the Persian period,
even if not in large quantities, were discovered in all the different areas along
the eastern ridge of the City of David – a clear indication that the Persian period
settlement was spread all along the narrow area at the top of the ridge. In all
cases, however, it is a combination of small finds that were probably washed
away, eroded down the slope, or cleaned and pushed down as part of building
projects in later periods; and there are no indications of stratigraphy or any clues
hinting at different chronological stages within the Persian period. Three differ-
ent phases of the Persian period (Shiloh Stratum 9) were discovered in this central
part of the ridge alone (Area E, especially in four squares, N–M \ 1–20). The early
phase (9a) included the reuse of a large Iron Age building that was destroyed
along with the rest of the city in 586 BCE, and was dated to the end of the sixth
and first half of the fifth century BCE, that is, to the “pre-Nehemiah” period (De
Groot 2001: 77–78; 2004: 15). A sloping level of quarrying refuse, the same as
excavated in Area D1, 500 m to the south, and in some other locations along the
eastern slope,12 was ascribed to the second stage (9b), dated to the middle of the
fifth century BCE and assigned to the reconstruction of the city wall during this
period all along the eastern ridge (Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59, and cf.
Shiloh 1984a: 7; De Groot 2001: 78; 2004: 15; 2005: 82). A few terrace walls and
some floors with ovens were attributed to the third stage (9c) of the Late Persian
period (Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59).
The Persian period finds from the City of David can only be interpreted as
an indication for a meager settlement that existed in the city sometime between
the early sixth and the second centuries BCE.13 However, as against suggestions

11 For a detailed summary of these finds and schematic maps, see Lipschits 2009b: 15–18.
12 The quarrying activities above the eastern slope were documented in the excavations by
Bliss and Dickie (1898), Weill (1920) and in Area K of the City of David excavations (Ariel and
Magness 1992).
13 This is an observation shared by all scholars dealing with Persian period finds in Jerusalem,
and see: Kenyon 1963: 15; Carter 1999: 285; Eshel 2000: 341; Lipschits 2003: 330–331; 2005: 212;
378 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

aimed towards minimizing the settled area in the city during all this period (Fin-
kelstein 2008; 2009: 7–11, and cf. Ariel and Shoham 2000: 138; Reich and Shukron
2007: 64), the Persian and Early Hellenistic finds were discovered in almost all of
the excavated areas along and under the eastern slopes of the City of David. This
is about 350 meters north to south, with an average width of about 80–100 meters,
and a settled area of about 2.8–3 hectares. To this area one should add the area
of the Ophel, which included about 2 additional hectares.14 Altogether the total
settled area in Jerusalem during the Persian period was about 5 hectares. Even
if parts of the Ophel Hill were built up with public buildings, and only part of it
was settled with private houses, this area should be included in the settled area
of Jerusalem during the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. The population of
the city should be estimated at about 1,000 to 1,250 people (Lipschits 2009b: 19–
20).15
What was the situation in Jerusalem during the 350 years of the Persian and
Early Hellenistic period? Can archaeology indicate any process of development or
change? The only archaeological tool that can supply an answer to this question
is the study of the most important epigraphic and administrative find from Per-
sian period Judah – the yehud stamp impressions.

The Slow Development of Jerusalem in the Persian Period –

the Evidence of the Yehud Stamp Impressions

The yehud stamp impressions were most often stamped on the handles of jars,
and only in a few cases on the upper part of the bodies of the same types of jars.
This is the most important source of information concerning the administration
in Judah in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. In the last five years this
author, together with David S. Vanderhooft, collected and published a comprehen-
sive catalogue of these stamp impressions, including a new typology, a new study
of the distribution of the different types, and their implications towards our un-

2006: 32; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a; Schniedewind 2003; 2004: 165–178; Grabbe 2004, 25;
Geva 2007b: 56–57; Finkelstein 2008: 501–504.
14 As against this assumption, see Finkelstein 2009: 10–11.
15 This population estimate is very close to the accepted estimations in research in recent
years – those of Carter (1999: 288) and Lipschits (2005: 271; 2006a: 32) – of about 6 hectares and
1,250–1,500 people respectively, or that of Geva (2007b: 56–57) of a settled area of 6 hectares and
population estimate of about 1,000 people. One cannot accept the super maximalist suggestion
of Barkay (2008) of about 12 hectares, as well as the “ultra-minimalistic” views of Finkelstein
(2008: 501–507) and Zwickel (2008: 216–217), and see the critique of Lipschits (2009b).
 Between Archaeology and Text: Jerusalem in the Persian Period 379

derstanding of the administration in Judah during the Persian and Early Hellenis-
tic periods (Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2011).
Seventeen main types of stamp impressions were classified, which belong to
three main chronological groups: early (late sixth through fifth centuries BCE);
middle (fourth and third centuries BCE); and late (second century BCE). The data-
base used for the current paper includes 582 stamp impressions.16
Three hundred and seven yehud stamp impressions were found in Ramat
Raḥel (53 % of the total number). One hundred sixty-three stamp impressions
(28 % of the total) were found in Jerusalem; of these, 136 are from the City of
David and the area of the Ophel, and 27 were discovered in different areas of the
Southwestern Hill and its immediate vicinity. Beside these two main centers,
71 yehud stamp impressions were found in five secondary centers (12 % of the
total number): 19 were discovered in Tell en-Naṣbeh; 16 in Nebi Samwil; eight in
Gezer; 10 in En-Gedi; and 18 in Jericho. Seven more stamped handles were exca-
vated in et-Ṭârŭd Tumulus in the modern Ir-Ganim neighborhood of West Jerusa-
lem, just above the Rephaim Valley (Greenberg and Cinamon 2006), which proba-
bly was an important production center for the wine and oil stored in the jars,
and 21 more stamp impressions (about 3.5 % of the total number) were found at
16 small sites. The source of 13 stamped handles is not known.
These data shows that about 80 % of the yehud stamp impressions were found
in Ramat Raḥel and Jerusalem. About 92 % of the entire corpus was found in a
small ring between Tell en-Naṣbeh to the north of Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel to
its south. Only about 7 % of the stamped jar handles from known origin were
found outside of this ring, including at Gezer and Tel Ḥ arasim in the West, En-
Gedi and Jericho in the East, and a few that were found farther afield, including
one each in Tel Jemmeh, Kadesh Barnea, Tel Nimrin (East of the Jordan), and in
the city of Babylon.
The distribution of stamp impressions in the different parts of Jerusalem,
according to the different types as classified by Vanderhooft and Lipschits (2007),
is the key to understanding the changes that occurred in the status and popula-
tion of the city during the late sixth and fifth centuries BCE (the Early Types of
the stamp impressions), the fourth–third centuries (the Middle Types), and the
second century BCE (the Late Types).

16 This number was updated in May 2009, and it includes all known yehud stamp impressions –
published and unpublished up to this date. It does not include the finds discovered later, includ-
ing 28 stamp impressions discovered in the 2009 excavation season at Ramat Raḥel (Lipschits
et al., 2009), 29 that were discovered in the 2010 excavation season at the site, and at least five
more that were discovered during the restoration process of the Persian period finds from the
site.
380 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

From 128 stamp impressions assigned to the Early Types, only 17 were discov-
ered in Jerusalem (13 % of the finds). Nine out of the 17 came from the same seal
(Type 1 according to Vanderhooft and Lipschits 2007), and only seven out of the
12 Early Types are represented in the finds from Jerusalem, usually with one or
two stamped handles for every type. Fourteen of them in the central and southern
parts of the City of David (the Southeastern Hill) and only three in Area G, close
to the northern part of the ridge, are Type 1 and were discovered out of clear
context. Not even one handle bearing a yehud stamp impression of the Early
Types was discovered in the excavations on the upper part of the ridge (especially
those of Bliss and Dickie, where plenty of stamped handles of the Middle Type
were excavated, and see below).
The conclusions from this data are that during the early Persian period, Jeru-
salem played only a minor role in the administration of the jars, and was not the
main collection or distribution site of the products. The fact that in the northern
parts of the Southeastern Hill the presence of this early group is very minor may
indicate that in this period the concentration of the settlement and the adminis-
tration was mainly in the southern parts of the hill. The probable reason may be
that it was close to the source of the water from Hezekiah’s Tunnel. It may also
be that the northern part, with all the ruins from the Babylonian destruction of
the city, the steep slopes, and the many collapsed terraces, as can be seen in the
excavations conducted in this area, was difficult to settle. The Temple on top of
the ridge was probably far away from the few people that could have lived in
the small city, and the description of the city in Nehemiah (2:12–15) suits the
archaeological situation of this period. The gap between the settled area and the
Temple might be more than symbolic, and the built Temple was not part of the
city and was not a reason for people to come and settle nearby. In this period,
no more than 2 hectares were settled, and the population could not have been
far more than 400–500 people. The Southwestern Hill was left totally empty.
The 312 stamp impressions assigned by Vanderhooft and Lipschits (2007) as
the Middle Types, are all dated to the fourth and third centuries BCE, and repre-
sent the administrative continuation from the Persian to the Hellenistic (Ptolema-
ic) rule. Fifty-nine stamped jar handles identified and classified as belonging to
the Middle Types were discovered in Jerusalem (19 % of the Middle Types). These
stamped jar handles were excavated in various parts of the Southeastern Hill,
mainly in the northern part. This is a sharp change from the earlier period,
indicating that the center of demographic and administrative activity moved to
the northern parts of the ridge. It seems that during the late fifth and fourth
centuries BCE the Ophel became much more important from the administrative
point of view, the settled area expanded and included also the northern part of
the ridge and probably also the Ophel area became an integral part of the city.
 Between Archaeology and Text: Jerusalem in the Persian Period 381

In this period, the Southeastern Hill was settled in all its parts, and the population
can be estimated at about 1,000–1,250 people. Not even one stamped handle as-
signed to the Middle Types was discovered in the Southwestern Hill.
The 142 stamp impressions assigned by Vanderhooft and Lipschits (2007) as
the Late Types, are all well dated to the second century BCE, and probably repre-
sent the administrative continuation from the Ptolemaic to the Seleucid rule until
the establishment of the independent Hasmonean rule in Judah, when the system
of local stamping jar handles disappeared. Eighty-seven stamped jar handles iden-
tified and classified as belonging to the Late Types were discovered in Jerusalem
(61 % of the Late Types). Sixty jar handles were excavated in the different parts
of the Southeastern Hill, especially in its northern parts, and 27 additional jar
handles were discovered in the Southwestern Hill (Lipschits and Vanderhooft
2007a: 108–112). Some of the yehud stamped handles were discovered in clear
Hasmonean archaeological contexts, in some cases together with yršlm stamp
impressions and other material dated to this period (Geva 2007b, with further
literature; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a: 111–112).17
These finds well demonstrate the expansion of the settled area of Jerusalem
to the Southwestern Hill. The 27 yehud stamp impressions discovered in various
areas of the Western Hill represent more than 30 % of the total finds of the late
group of yehud stamp impressions discovered in Jerusalem.
This proportion is much higher than the Rhodian stamp impressions, of
which only 5 % were discovered in the Western Hill, while most of the rest were
discovered in the City of David (Ariel 1990b; 2003). The difference in the propor-
tion of the two types of stamp impressions discovered in the Western Hill and in
the City of David probably does not point to different population groups in these
areas before the destruction of the Hakra in 141 BCE by Simeon (1 Macc 13, 49–
51), as assumed by Finkielsztejn.18 Instead, this fact likely indicates that the settle-
ment on the Western Hill did not start before the beginning of the second half of
the second century BCE (Geva 1985: 30; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a: 112), a
period in which there was a sharp decline in the importation of wine from
Rhodes (Ariel 1990b: 21–25; 2000: 267–269). We can also assume that the settlement
process of the Western Hill during the second century BCE was a much slower

17 Five stamp impressions belonging to the Late Types discovered in the Jewish Quarter excava-
tions were excavated in a well stratified context, dated to the 2nd century BCE (Reich 2003; Eshel
2006: 404; Geva 2007). Other stamp impressions discovered on the Western Hill of Jerusalem
came from post-Hellenistic stratigraphic contexts. Some were found in fills under buildings from
the Herodian period, and others in fills from later periods.
18 See Finkielsztejn 1999: 28*–31* with further literature, and see contra this idea Ariel 1990b:
25; 2000: 269, 276–280.
382 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

and more gradual process than described by some scholars – very similar to the
process of the expansion of the settlement during the eighth century BCE (and cf.
Naʾaman 2007).

Summary and Synthesis – The Slow Development

of Jerusalem in the Persian Period: Archaeological,
Historical and Paleographic Perspectives

From the Persian period finds, especially the pottery sherds, it is clear that during
the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods Jerusalem did not become a real city,
and was poor and small. The population of Jerusalem was no more than 10 % of
what it had been at the end of the First Temple period. However, based on this
data, there are no possibilities to learn more precisely about the historical, demo-
graphic, and settlement processes that took place during this long period.
The new research of the yehud stamp impressions provides an archaeological
tool that enables us to study in a much more accurate way the periods during
which the gradual development of Jerusalem took place. According to the distri-
bution of the three main groups of stamped jar handles in the Southeastern and
Southwestern Hills – the Early, Middle and Late Types – one can detect the mea-
sure of human activity in the different periods and where exactly this activity
took place.
The very few early types, dated to the late sixth and fifth century BCE, con-
centrate on the central and southern parts of the Southeastern Hill, close to the
outfall of the water from Hezekiah’s Tunnel and far from the Temple Mount. It
seems that during this period the northern part of the ridge had nearly no inhab-
itants. It was marginal from the administrative point of view, and not more than
400–500 people lived in the area of about 2 hectares in the lower areas of the
hill, far from the Temple on the top of the ridge. This situation supports the
description in Nehemiah (2:12–15), and in any case, the Temple itself was not an
integral part of the city.
Not before the second half of the fifth and especially during the fourth cen-
tury BCE the settlement in Jerusalem expanded to the northern part of the ridge,
and probably also further north – to the Ophel area just between the City of
David and the Temple Mount. This is the period when the population reached its
maximum size between the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple in Jerusa-
lem and the Hasmonian expanded city of the Second Temple period. It is interest-
ing to mention that exactly at the beginning of this period of expansion, a letter
was sent from Elephantine, addressed by Jedaniah the priest and the Jews of
Elephantine, to Bagavahya, the governor of Judah (Weippert 2010: 481–484, with
 Between Archaeology and Text: Jerusalem in the Persian Period 383

further literature). This is the only epigraphic find that actually describes Jerusa-
lem as a city with a High Priest and priests and some “nobles of the Jews.”
A further stage of slow expansion of the settlement to the South-western Hill
occurred during the second century BCE, quite similar to the process that oc-
curred during the eighth century BCE. The settlement in this period probably
expanded to the same size and extent.
More than 400 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians,
the city recovered to its full extent and size. It was, however, a long and slow
process, much different from what is described in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah –
and less dramatic; it is certainly much more complicated than what is usually
described by historians.
Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness:
The Size and Status of the City in the Babylonian,
Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods
The history of Jerusalem between 586 and 167 BCE is an ‘interlude’ between two
periods of greatness and political independence: the end of the first temple period
on the one hand and the period of the Hasmoneans on the other. Between these
two periods Jerusalem was a very small city and Judah was a small province
under the rule of great empires.
According to both biblical and archaeological evidence, Jerusalem was de-
stroyed in 586 BCE and left deserted by the Babylonians for a period of nearly
50 years (Lipschits 2005: 210–218, with further literature). Biblical accounts assert
that the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt at the beginning of the Persian Period.
During this period, the city once again became the center of the Judahite cult.
According to an account in Nehemiah, the fortifications of Jerusalem were rebuilt
in the middle of the fifth century BCE. As a result, Jerusalem became a Bîrāh,
replacing Mizpah, which had served as the capital of the newly established prov-
ince of Yehud for 141 years, from 586 BCE (Lipschits 2001a), through the Neo-
Babylonian period (Lemaire 2003: 292), until the time of Nehemiah (445 BCE,
Blenkinsopp 1998: 42, n. 48; cf. Lemaire 1990: 39–40; 2003: 292).1 The available
archaeological data for the Persian period that might corroborate this biblical
evidence is minimal, and scholars have assumed that the city did not become a
large and important urban and administrative centre before the middle of the
second century BCE.
The aim of this paper is to present the archaeological material from Jerusa-
lem, dating between these two periods of greatness, and to consider its size and
status in the sixth century BCE (‘the period of the Babylonian Exile’), in the fifth
to fourth centuries BCE (‘the period of the return’ and the time when Judah was
a Persian province), and to add some observations regarding the history of the
city in the Early Hellenistic period (third century BCE).

1 On the word Bîrāh and its optional interpretations, see Grabbe 2009: 133–134, who suggested
the option (p. 135) that Jerusalem became the central city of the province later than the time of
Nehemiah.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-021
386 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

Jerusalem in the Babylonian, Persian and early Hellenistic

periods – Some Methodological Notes

During the late eighth and seventh, as well as during the second century BCE,
the built-up area of Jerusalem expanded to the Western Hill of Jerusalem (the
area of the modern-day Jewish and Armenian Quarters and the so-called Mount
Zion) and was enclosed by strong fortifications.2 The Southeastern Hill (the ‘City
of David’) was rebuilt and fortified as well. These two periods, together with the
later Herodian period, became the most defined and easily recognizable in the
historical and archaeological research of Jerusalem in the First and Second Tem-
ple Periods. In contrast, not many building remains from the intervening period,
i.e. the Babylonian, Persian and early Hellenistic periods, have been uncovered
in Jerusalem. It is not a unique phenomenon to Jerusalem, but a well-known
phenomenon in Judah and Samaria. Under the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian
rule, there was a marked process of attenuation in urban life in Judah (Lipschits
2006a: 26–30, with further literature). No new cities were built, and the adminis-
trative and urban centres that survived the catastrophes of those periods were
small and weak compared to their late eighth to seventh century or second-
century BCE counterparts. However, this scarcity of building remains from the
Persian and Early Hellenistic periods does not fully reflect the actual, admittedly
poor, situation at that time. Rather, it is the outcome of incomplete archaeological
data (Stern 2001: 461–462), especially in the case of Jerusalem (Lipschits 2009b).
Contrary to views that take the negative finds, especially in Jerusalem, as
reflecting the actual situation in the city (‘the negative is as important as the
positive’, Finkelstein 2008: 505), I have suggested that the Persian and early Helle-
nistic period occupation levels, which were not as strong, imposing and big as in
the glorious periods of independence before and after them, were severely dam-
aged by intensive building activities conducted in the late Hellenistic, Roman,
Byzantine, and even later periods (Lipschits 2009b). The situation in Jerusalem is
not unique or exceptional, especially when dealing with hilltop sites, but it is
much more dramatic because of the scope and grandeur of the subsequent build-
ing efforts, as well as the frequent destruction of the site. The religious, cultic,
and political status of Jerusalem likely motivated not only frequent political up-
heavals and destruction, but also a desire to remove previous political and reli-
gious structures, and to reshape the city. It seems that the main destructive force
in Jerusalem is the efforts of people in later periods to build new buildings and

2 For a detailed discussion on the methodological subject of the finds in Jerusalem from the
Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods see Lipschits 2009b.
 Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness 387

leave their own impression in the city. Additionally, the topographical nature of
the Southeastern Hill, which is very steep and narrow at the top, requires that
buildings, especially the more prominent ones, be built on bedrock. This may
explain why the remains from the intervening sixth to third centuries BCE were
discovered mainly in ‘pockets’ between the late complexes, or in the dumps down
in the valleys to the east and to the west of the hill. When discussing the meaning
of the archaeological remains dated to the Babylonian, Persian and early Hellenis-
tic periods discovered in the city, one should be very careful about concluding
that the city was empty or nearly empty throughout these periods. In this case,
it is more difficult to assert that the absence of finds means that there was noth-
ing there; explanations regarding the negative finds must be taken seriously.

Jerusalem in the ‘Exilic’ Period – Between Destruction

and Restoration

The Assyrian’s conquest of the Levant during the last third of the eighth cen-
tury BCE caused heavy destructions upon most of the urban centres and a depor-
tation of large parts of the population. We may assume that the Assyrian policy
was to retain fortifications only in provincial capitals (Stern 2001: 50) and to build
forts and Assyrian economic and military centres in strategic places all over the
country (Lipschits 2006a: 19–21). Most of the major towns were abandoned or only
poorly rebuilt and most of the population in the Assyrian provinces, especially
in the interior areas, used to live in farms and villages; there was a marked
decline in the urban life.
The geopolitical and administrative character of the Levant did not change
under Egyptian rule, during the last third of the seventh century BCE (Lipschits
2005: 31–35; 2006a: 21–22), nor during the beginning of Babylonian rule which
started with the military campaign conducted by Nebuchadrezzar in Ḫattu-Land
between June 604 and January/February 603 BCE (Lipschits 2005: 37–42). Besides
Ekron and Ashkelon, there is no reason to ascribe any other destruction to the
Babylonian army during the first years of the Babylonian rule in Palestine: most
of the country was arranged in a line of provinces that dated back to the Assyrian
period. It seems that the Egyptian retreat left the country unopposed to the rule
of Nebuchadrezzar.
The Babylonian policy in the region did not change even following Nebucha-
drezzar’s failed attempt to conquer Egypt, and the subsequent temporary weaken-
ing of Babylonian rule in the region (Lipschits 1999c: 472–480; 2005: 49–52). How-
ever, the continued instability during the days of Psammetichus II (595–89 BCE),
even more during the first years of Hophra (589–70), and the increasing threat
388 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

by Egypt over the Babylonian rule in this region, caused Nebuchadrezzar to modi-
fy his policy (589 BCE): during the next years he conquered the small vassal
kingdoms that remained close to the border with Egypt, annexed them and
turned them into provinces (Lipschits 1999c: 482–487; 2005: 62–68).3
The 586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem is one of the prominent archaeological
finds to appear in the many years of excavations in the different parts of it. The
excavations led by Avigad in the Jewish Quarter from 1969 to 1978 disclosed,
adjacent to the late Iron age tower, the remains of a fire, and Scythian bronze
triple-winged arrowheads (Avigad 1980: 52–54). In the excavations conducted by
Kenyon on the eastern slope of the City of David in the 1960s, evidence was found
of destruction of the wall from the end of the Iron age (phase 9) (Kenyon 1967a:
170–171; Franken and Steiner 1990: 57). Excavations led by Yigal Shiloh in the City
of David between 1978 and 1982 produced evidence of the destruction of all the
buildings (including the wall) and of a fierce fire that sealed stratum X in areas D,
E, and G (Shiloh 1984: 14, 18–19, 29). Remains of the Babylonian destruction were
also found in excavations in the Citadel (Johns 1950: 130, Fig. 7, No. 1; Geva 1983:
56–8), and in part of the structures excavated by Eilat Mazar in the Ophel (Mazar
1993: 25–32).
The finds of the archaeological survey within the confines of the city of Jeru-
salem and its environs indicate the force of the destruction and the degree of
demographic decline in and around the city (Lipschits 2003: 326–334; 2005: 210–
218). Even at the zenith of the Persian period the settlement in Jerusalem was
limited to a narrow extension of the historic City of David; settlement in the city
and its surroundings amounted to about 15 % of what it had been on the eve of
the destruction. The slight continuity reflected in the settlement patterns in this
area calls for the assumption that previously, during the sixth century BCE, the
condition of settlement and demography had been even worse (Lipschits 2003:
330–332; 2005: 215–218). The conclusion is that Jerusalem and its environs took a
heavy blow from the Babylonians at the beginning of the sixth century BCE, and
they were almost entirely depleted of their inhabitants.
The city remained desolate and deserted throughout the next 50 years (Lip-
schits 1999c: 447; 2001a: 129–142; 2005: 215–218). The laments that ‘the roads to

3 Judah was the first goal of the Babylonians. Afterwards, apparently in 585 BCE, they attacked
Tyre and Sidon, putting a closure on Tyre that lasted for 13 years (until 572 BCE) (Katzenstein
1973: 330; 1994: 186; Weisman 1991: 235; Redford 1992: 465–466; Vanderhooft 1999: 100–102). Appar-
ently during the years of siege against Tyre, the Babylonians also attacked Ammon and Moab
(Lipschits 2004a), and established their rule also over Gaza, Arwad, and Ashdod. One may accept
the idea, that the successful takeover of north Arabia by Nabunidus and his move to Tema (553–
543 BCE) caused the disappearance of the kingdom of Edom and probably the integration of its
territory within greater Arabia (Lemaire 2003: 290, and see also Briant 2002: 45).
 Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness 389

Zion mourn, for none come to the appointed feasts’ (Lam. 1: 4) and ‘all who pass
along the way clap their hands at you; they hiss and wag their heads at the
daughter of Jerusalem: “Is this the city which was called the perfection of beauty,
the joy of all the earth?”’ (Lam. 2: 15) faithfully reflect this historical reality. Nor
is Jerusalem mentioned in the account of the rule of Gedaliah at Mizpah (2 Kings
25: 22–26; Jer. 40: 7–41: 18) (Lipschits 2005: 304–347), and the events described
encircle the city to the north (Mizpah and Gibeon) and to the south (around
Bethlehem). In light of this, and in light of the archaeological data, it may be
assumed that the systematic acts of destruction by Nebuzaradan, about four
weeks after the conquest of the city, were accompanied by political instructions
that created this situation and made it permanent (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 319).
This was the sight that met the earliest Returners to Zion (compare Zech. 1: 12; 2:
5–9), as well as the later (compare Neh. 2: 13–17; 7: 6).
No information exists on events in Jerusalem between the time immediately
after the destruction and the restoration period. Nevertheless, the perception that
the status of ritual in Jerusalem was a result of Babylonian policy requires the
assumption that any change in this status would have to be connected with a
change in policy.
The fate of Jerusalem was not exceptional. Unlike the fate of the political
entities along the Phoenician coast, the consequence of the new Babylonian policy
was destructive of the southern part of Palestine as well as of the Transjordanian
kingdoms.4 In all this area, Nebuchadrezzar created a buffer zone between Baby-
lon and Egypt that consisted of devastated, diminished provinces (Lipschits 2006a:
22–24). There is no evidence that the Babylonians invested any kind of effort in
economic development in this region, and it seems that Nebuchadrezzar used the
destruction of the region as a lever for rebuilding those parts of Babylonia that
had been damaged during the long years of war, devastation, and deportation
caused by the Assyrians.5

4 The Babylonians evinced a different attitude towards the kingdoms of Philistia and those on
the Phoenician coast. The former were conquered and turned into Babylonian provinces. Al-
though the fate of the latter is unclear, it appears that during most years of Babylonian rule,
certainly during the Persian Period, they were ruled by kings (Katzenstein 1994: 46–48). For an
explanation for this different attitude, see Oppenheim 1967; Brown 1969: 101; Katzenstein 1994:
48; Lipschits 2006a: 26–29.
5 Total devastation of the southern part of Palestine was, however, against Babylonian interests,
and the rural settlements all over the land continued to exist, even if on a much smaller scale
(Lipschits 2004a: 42–43; 2005: 212–261; 2006a: 29–30). Since the Babylonians didn’t have any direct
policy of developing and protecting such areas, especially in the peripheral regions of the south,
many changes occurred there, apparently as a side effect of the collapse of the central systems
and the infiltration of semi-nomadic groups (Lipschits 2005: 140–147; 227–240).
390 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

Jerusalem in the Persian Period – The Geopolitical

Background

During the long years of the Persian rule in Palestine many geopolitical changes
and administrative reorganizations were made, especially along the coast, but also
in the hill country and in the southern areas of Cis- and Transjordan. The main
evidence for this can be found in the rich and big urban and commercial centres
that were established at the very beginning of the Achaemenid period along the
Mediterranean coast, most of them well built and planned, some according to the
Hippodamian plan (Kenyon 1960: 311–312; Stern 1990; 2001: 380–401; 461–464; Lip-
schits 2003: 347; 2006a: 34).6 In contrast with the rich and well-developed cities
along the coast, not many Persian period building-remains have been uncovered
within the borders of the province of Yehud, as well as within the borders of the
province of Samaria (Lipschits 2001b; 2005: 214–216; 2006a: 29–34). This settlement
pattern is a continuation of the process that began during the Babylonian period,
after the harsh blow the Babylonians dealt to the small kingdoms in the hill country
west and east of the Jordan. Neither the Babylonians, nor the Persians had any
interest in encouraging and developing urban centres in the rural hilly regions on
both sides of the Jordan. The Achaemenids, like the Babylonians, were interested
in the continued existence of the rural settlement in the hill country. It was an
important source for agricultural supply, which was probably collected as tax. They
had no interest in establishing urban centres in the hill country and in creating
new social, political and economic local power structures.

Persian Period and Early Hellenistic Finds in the Western Hill

of Jerusalem

Only few pottery sherds and other small finds from the Persian Period have been
found in the many excavations conducted in the Western Hill of Jerusalem. In
most cases, these finds were excavated in landfills from the Late Hellenistic and

6 The Achaemenid regime had governmental, military and economic interests in basing its rule
along the Mediterranean coast, stabilizing the political situation in this area and encouraging
the maritime and continental trade. One of the major goals of the Persians was to secure the
Via-Maris, as well as the roads in southern Palestine, as part of the military, administrative and
economic effort to keep the way to Egypt open (Ephʿal 1998: 117; Stern 2001: 371). Another interest
was to establish a strong political, military and economic coalition against the Greeks. From the
economic point of view, the Persian regime tried to develop and encourage the maritime trade,
dominated by the Phoenicians (Briant 2002: 383, 489–490).
 Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness 391

especially from the Roman Period and with no clear stratigraphic context.7 The
unavoidable conclusion is that throughout the Persian and early Hellenistic peri-
ods, the Western Hill was entirely abandoned, and the area was only first reset-
tled in the second century BCE.8 This fact stands in agreement with the finds
of yehud stamp impressions, since according to the new typology developed by
Vanderhooft and Lipschits (2007), no stamp impressions belonging to the early
(late sixth and fifth century BCE) or middle types (fourth and third centuries BCE)
were discovered in any of the excavated areas outside the limits of the City of
David (Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a: 108–112). All the stamp impressions dis-
covered on the Western Hill belong to the two late types (dated to the second
century BCE, maybe even to the middle or second half of this century), and some
of them came from clear Hasmonaean archaeological contexts, in some cases
together with yršlm stamp impressions and other material dated to this period
(Geva 2007a; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a: 111–112).9

Persian Period Finds in the City of David

The northern part of the City of David, just below the Ophel, contains a significant
number of Persian period finds. The fills in which these finds were found seem
to have originated from the Ophel, just above this area to the north, and were
laid before the late Hellenistic and Roman periods (Lipschits 2009b).
The most important area where finds from the Persian period were discov-
ered is the one excavated by Macalister and Duncan (1923–25), at the northern
area of the City of David and just below the Ophel (Macalister and Duncan 1926:
49–51; Duncan 1931: 143).10 Persian period finds were discovered a bit to the north
of the Macalister and Duncan’s Persian tower where Kenyon excavated her square

7 For a detailed discussion of all Persian Period archaeological finds from the Western Hill, see:
Lipschits 2009b.
8 This is the common view among scholars, and see, e.g., Kenyon 1967a: 188–255; Tsafrir 1977:
36; Avigad 1983: 61–63; Geva 1983; 1994; 2000a: 24; 2000b: 158; 2003a: 113–114; 2003b: 524–526;
Geva and Reich 2000: 42; Geva and Avigad 2000b: 218; Shiloh 1984a: 23; Tushingham 1985: 85;
Broshi and Gibson 1994; Chen, Margalit and Pixner 1994; Sivan and Solar 1994; Finkielstejn 1999:
28*; Lipschits 2005: 212–213; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a: 108–112.
9 See, for example, the six stamp impressions discovered in the Kenyon-Tushingham excavations
in the Armenian Garden; all were excavated in a fill connected to the podium of Herod’s palace,
which includes a mixture of pottery from the First and Second Temple periods (Tushingham
1985: 37, Fig. 17: 18–23). Also in Amiran and Eitan’s excavations in the Citadel a stamp impression
was discovered in the fill of the podium of Herod’s palace (Amiran and Eitana 1970: 13).
10 The Persian period finds from this area include a lot of Persian period pottery sherds, as
well as 54 yehud and 6 lion stamp impressions.
392 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

AXVIII, and identified there part of ‘Nehemiah’s wall’.11 Shiloh continued the exca-
vations in this area as part of his Area G,12 and Eilat Mazar renewed the excava-
tions in the same area in 2005.13 In 2007, as part of the conservation project of the
Hasmonaean northern tower, Mazar excavated the landfill under the tower, and
discovered the same Persian period material previously exposed by Kenyon and
Shiloh.14 The fill in this spot contains finds only from the sixth–fifth centuries BCE,
which seems to indicate that it was part of the cleaning of the area above it (in
the northern edge of the city of David, just under the Ophel), which in turn indi-
cates that that area was populated in the Persian period. E. Mazar suggested dating
the tower and the wall attached to it (wall 27) to the fifth century BCE and identi-
fied it as a part of Nehemiah’s wall (2007a: 49–60; 2007b: 17–21; 2008: 31–37).15
On the same line of the upper part of the City of David, but on its western
slopes towards the Tyropoeon, some more Persian period finds, including one ye-
hud stamp impression, were discovered in Crowfoot and Fitzgerald’s excavations
(1927–1928) at the ‘western gate’ of the City of David (Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929:
67). Pottery sherds dated to the Persian period, as well as another stamp impres-
sion, were excavated by Shukron and Reich, just a few metres to the north, in the
Givati parking place (Shukron and Reich 2005: 8). These finds provide further evi-
dence that the hill above this area – the Ophel and the northern part of the City
of David – were settled during the Persian period.
Beside the upper part of the City of David, most of the Persian period pottery
sherds and stamp impressions from the central and southern parts of the City of
David were discovered in Shiloh’s excavations along the eastern slope of the ridge,
where three Strata were observed and dated to the period between the late sixth

11 Kenyon (1963: 15; 1974: 183–184, 191–192, Pl. 77; cf. 1966: 83–84; 1967a: 69) observed that the
tower was attached to an earlier wall that was built of large stones on a rock scarp about 7–
8 metres high, dated the wall to the Persian period, and assigned its construction to Nehemiah.
She dated the tower as part of the Hasmonaean fortification.
12 Shiloh (1984a: 20–21, and figs. 27, 28; cf. the photo in Mazar 2007a: 64) connected the northern
tower to the first century BCE glacis that was already excavated by Kenyon. Its connection to
Macalister’s northern tower was well demonstrated.
13 Mazar (2007a: 49–60; 2007b: 17–21) identified Kenyon’s Persian wall as part of the northern
Iron Age IIA fortification of what she called ‘David’s Palace’.
14 According to Kenyon, this fill was connected to the tower that was built on the bedrock, and
this is why she attempted to date it to the Persian period. Franken (Franken and Steiner 1990),
however, presented the drawing of the cut of Kenyon’s Square XVIII and demonstrated that this
fill was not connected to the wall, as Macalister and Duncan had earlier presumed.
15 The date of the landfill, where there are no indications for a late Persian material (including
yehud stamp impressions) may indicate that it was laid before the landfill above it, discovered
by Macalister and Duncan, but it is certainly not sufficient grounds to date the northern tower
to the fifth century BCE or identify it as part of Nehemiah’s wall.
 Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness 393

or early fifth and the second century BCE: Stratum 9 was dated to the Persian
period, Stratum 8 to the early Hellenistic period, and Stratum 7 to the second
century BCE (Hasmonaean Period). Stratum 9, however, does not appear in all the
excavated areas (Shiloh 1984a: 4, Table 2). Finds attributed to this Stratum appeared
in Area D1 (Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59–62; De Groot 2001: 77), Area D2
(Shiloh 1984a: 8–9),16 and in Area G (Shiloh 1984a: 20).17 Shiloh’s finds from the
Persian Period were also partially represented in Area E1 (Shiloh 1984a: 14;
De Groot 2001: 77), and included some chalk vessels (Cahill 1992: 191–198, fig. 14).
Sherds dated to the Persian period were discovered in the fills in Area H, to the
east of the Siloam Pool, on the eastern slopes of Mount Zion (De Groot and Michaeli
1992: 50–51; De Groot 2001: 78).18 Persian period sherds and seal impressions were
discovered in Reich and Shukron’s Areas A and B, above the Kidron Valley, ca. 200–
250 m south of the Gihon Spring (Reich and Shukron 1998; 2007). The finds from
these areas probably come from the settlement on the ridge above.
The most significant finds from the Persian period were excavated in Area E,
where three different stages from the Persian period Stratum 9 were distin-
guished (De Groot 2001: 77, and cf. Cahill 1992: 191–198, fig. 14). The early stage
(9C) is a reuse of a large Iron Age building that was destroyed along with the rest
of the city in 586 BCE, and should be dated to the end of the sixth and first half
of the fifth century BCE (De Groot 2001: 77–78). A sloping level of quarrying refuse
(composed of limestone chips with very little interspersed earth or pottery) was
ascribed to the second stage (9b), and can be dated to the reconstruction of the
city undertaken by Nehemiah in the middle of the fifth century BCE (De Groot
2001: 78; 2005: 82).19 The Persian period date, the location of the works, and the
long line along the eastern slope of the ridge, are all indications of the ‘missing’

16 The finds assigned to Stratum 9 at Area D2 include a Lycian coin dated to 500–440 BCE (Ariel
1990b: C1) and an ostracon (Naveh 2000: 16).
17 In this area Kenyon also discovered Persian Period finds (dated by her to the fifth–third
centuries BCE) in the fill adjacent to the Northern tower, and this is the reason why she assigned
this wall to Nehemiah’s fortifications. See, however, the critique of De Groot 2001: 78.
18 De Groot assumed that the finds from the Persian period are a proof that the Siloam pool
was fortified during the Persian Period.
19 The same level of quarrying refuse appeared also in Area D1, 500 m to the south, and was
dated to Stratum 9 (Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59, and cf. Shiloh 1984a: 7; De Groot 2001:
78). In some cases, the levels of those chips were separated by thin layers of earth, without any
coherent pattern. The quarrying activities above the eastern slope were documented in the
excavations by Bliss and Dickie (1898), Weill (1920) and in Area K of the City of David excavations
(Ariel and Magness 1992). It should be emphasized that the existence of such levels of quarrying
refuse is an indication that the areas where it was discovered were outside the limits of the city
(Ariel, Hirschfeld and Savir 2000: 59), but it also indicates that immediately above this area
significant construction activity was undertaken.
394 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

wall of the Persian period.20 A few terrace walls and some floors with ovens were
attributed to the third stage (9C) of the late Persian period (Ariel, Hirschfeld and
Savir 2000: 59).
These Persian period finds may be combined with the observations of Ariel
and Shoham (2000: 138) and Reich and Shukron (2007: 64) concerning the location
of the yehud stamp impressions,21 and the conclusion that Persian and early Helle-
nistic settlement was restricted to the top of the ridge, to the south of Area G (cf.
Finkelstein 2008: 506). The problem with this assumption is that it relates to the
area down the slopes of the settled area on the ridge, where above the Gihon
spring and Area G of Shiloh’s excavations, there were many more Persian period
sherds and yehud stamp impressions that were excavated by Macalister and Dun-
can (1926: 49–51; cf. Cook 1925). The actual significance of the distribution of the
Persian period finds in this area is that the Gihon Spring was not in use since
the water flow in Hezekiah tunnel to the southern part of the City of David, and
the spring itself, was blocked and covered, far below the limits of the city. The
finds on the ridge of the City of David, as well as on the slopes of the hill are
indications for a poor but existing settlement all along the narrow ridge of the
City of David (Lipschits 2009b).

Early Hellenistic Finds in the City of David,

yehud Stamp Impressions, and Settlement Processes
in Jerusalem During the Fourth–Third Centuries BCE

The Early Hellenistic Stratum 8 is fully represented in the City of David only in
Area E2 (Shiloh 1984a: 4, Table 2 and cf. to p. 10; De Groot 2004: 67–69). This
Stratum is also partially represented in Areas E1 (Shiloh 1984a: 14–15) and E3 (cf.
to pp. 10–11), and scarcely represented in Areas D1 (cf. to pp. 7–8) and D2 (cf. to
pp. 8–9). In this case, too, the finds that can safely be attributed to this Stratum

20 It can be assumed that the heavy destruction of the city in 586 BCE forced the late sixth and
fifth century BCE settlers to move the wall to the upper part of the ridge, where there was a
need for preparation-quarrying activity.
21 Most of the yehud stamp impressions from Shiloh’s excavations originated in Areas B, D, and
E. Of the eight stamp impressions discovered by Reich and Shukron on the eastern slope of the
Southeastern Hill of Jerusalem, five originated in Area A, located in the Kidron Valley, some 200–
250 metres south of the Gihon spring, two in Area B, at the mid-slope of the hill, above Area A,
and next to Shiloh’s Areas B and D1. Only one yehud stamp impression was retrieved in the
areas excavated around the Gihon spring, where vast amounts of late Second Temple debris
were excavated above a huge fill containing late Iron Age II pottery.
 Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness 395

are meagre, and mainly consist of three columbaria (De Groot 2004: 67–68; 2005:
84) and a structure (in Area E1) that yielded a rich corpus of pottery dating to
the third century BCE.22 The excavators did not find yehud stamp impressions of
the late types, dated to the second century BCE, in either of these strata (Stratum 9
and 8). Most of the late types were discovered in Stratum 7 (Ariel and Shoham
2000, Table 1, and see also Reich 2003: 258–259 and Tables 7.1–7.2).
The 27 yehud stamp impressions discovered in different areas of the Western
Hill are more than 30 % of the total finds of the late group of yehud stamp impres-
sions discovered in Jerusalem (59 more stamp impressions from the late group
were discovered in the City of David). This proportion is much higher than the
Rhodian stamp impressions, of which only 5 % of the finds were discovered on
the Western Hill, and most of the rest were discovered in the City of David. The
difference in the proportion of the two types of stamp impressions discovered on
the Western Hill and in the City of David probably does not point to different
population groups in these areas before the destruction of the Akra in 141 BCE
by Simeon (1 Macc. 13. 49–51), as assumed by Finkielsztejn (1999: 28*–31* with
further literature, and see against this idea Ariel 1990b: 25; 2000: 269, 276–280).
Instead, this fact likely indicates that the settlement on the Western Hill did not
start before the beginning of the second half of the second century BCE (Geva
1985: 30; Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a: 112), a period in which there was a
sharp decline in the importation of wine from Rhodes (Ariel 1990b: 21–25; 2000:
267–269). We can also assume that the settlement process of the Western Hill was
a much slower and gradual process than described by some scholars (see, e.g.,
Finkielsztejn 1999: 28*).

Archaeological Finds, Demographical Processes

and the History of Jerusalem between the Sixth
and Second Centuries BCE

The archaeological finds from Jerusalem can only be interpreted as evidence of

a meagre settlement, confined to the City of David, between the late Iron Age and
the Hasmonaean period (early sixth to second centuries BCE).23 The settlement in

22 This is the only pottery assemblage of a pre-Hasmonaean phase in the City of David (Shiloh
1984a: 15).
23 This is an observation shared by all scholars dealing with Persian period finds in Jerusalem
(Kenyon 1963: 15; Carter 1999: 285; Eshel 2000: 341; Lipschits 2003: 330–331; 2005: 212; 2006a: 32;
Lipschits and Vanderhooft 2007a; Schniedewind 2003; 2004: 165–178; Grabbe 2004: 25; Geva 2007b:
56–57; Finkelstein 2008: 501–504).
396 Part D: Studies on the History and Archeology of Jerusalem

the Persian and early Hellenistic periods concentrated on the upper part of the
ridge, in a very narrow north to south strip, with an average width of no more
than 80–100 metres, and along the edge of the ridge, about 350 metres from north
to south (Lipschits 2009b). The settlement on the ridge included a settled area of
about 28–30 dunams. However, since the area in the northern part of the ridge
of the City of David is the richest with Persian period finds (with more than 75 %
of the finds from this period), and the finds in this area were mostly discovered
in earth fills that probably originated from the area above it; namely, the Ophel
hill, this area should be considered as an important settled area during this peri-
od (Lipschits 2009b). The importance of the 20 dunams of the Ophel hill, between
the ascension of the hill towards the Temple Mount and the northern part of the
City of David, as the main built-up area in the Persian period, was never discussed
in the archaeological and historical research. However, this is the only flat, easy
to settle area in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Jerusalem. Its closeness to the
Temple Mount on the one hand and the easy option to fortify it on the other,
made it the preferable option for settlement in the Persian and Early Hellenistic
periods.
The settled area of Jerusalem during the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods
included an area of about 50 dunams. The population of Jerusalem did not in-
clude more than 1000 to 1250 people.24 In light of this clear archaeological evi-
dence, we should interpret the ‘Return to Zion’ as a slow and gradual process,
that did not leave its imprint on the archaeological data. Even if a real change in
the history of Jerusalem occurred in the middle of the fifth century BCE, with the
rebuild of the fortifications of Jerusalem, with all its dramatic implication on its
status, it did not change the actual demographic situation of the city. Jerusalem
did not become a real urban centre until the Hellenistic period.

24 This population estimate is very close to the accepted estimations in research in the last
years – these of Carter (1999: 288) and Lipschits (2005: 271; 2006a: 32) – of about 60 dunams and
1250–1500 people respectively, or that of Geva (2007b: 56–57) of a settled area of 60 dunams and
population estimate of about 1000 people.
Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin
and Its Surroundings
Benjamin in Retrospective: Stages in the Creation
of the Territory of the Benjamin Tribe
There is a longstanding scholarly debate about the affiliation of the territory of
Benjamin and its relations with the kingdom of Israel to its north and the king-
dom of Judah to its south. Because the material culture of this territory in the
Iron Age I–IIA cannot be used for this purpose and since Benjamin’s connections
to Judah in the Iron Age IIB are clear, the main debate has focused on the inter-
pretation of the biblical text.1 According to Nadav Naʾaman and Omer Sergi, fol-
lowing historians and biblical scholars, Jerusalem ruled over almost all the land
of Benjamin throughout the First Temple period, with the exception of the Jeri-
cho-Gilgal-Michmash area, and the line between Jericho, Bethel, Beth-horon, and
Gezer served as the border between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Naʾaman
1992a: 286; 1996b: 20; 2011J: 41; 2009: 218–219).2 Israel Finkelstein, on the other
hand, argues that throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages the Benjamin
plateau was affiliated with the territory of Shechem in the northern hill country,
and that in the early Iron Age (eleventh–tenth centuries BCE), the area was part
of a highland polity that preceded the kingdom of Israel. According to Finkelstein,
it continued to be ruled by the Israelite kingdom in the ninth–eighth centu-
ries BCE and only in the second half of the eighth century BCE, after the fall of
Samaria, was it annexed to Judah (Finkelstein 1996b: 234–235; 2006; 2011b: 351–
352; 2013: 37–61). Philip Davies also claimed that the district of Benjamin was part
of the territory of Israel from the ninth century BCE and that Sargon II handed
it over to Judah following his conquest and annexation of Samaria in 720 BCE
(Davies 2006; 2007a: 105–126; 2007b: esp. p. 103).3 Ernst A. Knauf has similarly
suggested that the territory of Benjamin, including the city of Bethel, was handed
over to Judah during the reign of Manasseh as a reward for his longstanding
loyalty to Assyria (Knauf 2006: 295–297, 314–316).4
In this paper I make the claim that the biblical territory of the tribe of Benja-
min is a late and artificial aggregation of two distinct historical and geopolitical
units, which throughout the second and first millennia – until the late seventh

1 For Iron I–IIA, see Finkelstein 2011S: 360; Sergi 2017a: 8–12, with further literature. For Iron IIB,
see Naʾaman 2009: 216–217, with further literature; Finkelstein 2011: 350–351. On the role of
Benjamin in the stamped jar administration of the late eighth and seventh centuries BCE, see
Lipschits 2018b, with further literature (and see below).
2 See also Sergi 2013; 2015; 2017a: 11–12; 2017b; 2017c: 344–347. For historians and biblical schol-
ars, see, e.g., Schunck 1963: 139–169; Eissfeldt 1963; Brinker 1946.
3 Against this theory, see Naʾaman 2009: 339; 2010b: 165–183.
4 Against this idea, see Naʾaman 2009: 339; 2010b.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-022
400 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

and early sixth centuries BCE – were never part of the same geopolitical region.
The original territory of the Benjamin tribe was the territory of the southern
tribe of the northern entity (Shechem in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and
the kingdom of Israel in the Iron Age II). The nucleus territory of this tribe includ-
ed the hilly region of the southeastern Ephraim hills, the Bethel Mountain and
the area to its east, all the way down to the environs of Jericho.5 This area has
always been connected to the Samaria hills to its north and was geographically
disconnected from the plateau to its south and southwest.
The wide plains to the north and west of Jerusalem are the immediate agri-
cultural hinterland of the city, with Nebi Samwil and Khirbet el-Burj (biblical
Beeroth) in the west, el-Jib (biblical Gibeon) and Tell en-Naṣbeh (biblical Mizpah)
in the north, and the area on either side of the watershed to the east. This area
was always an essential part of the polity in the central hill country (the MB and
LB kingdom of Jerusalem and the Iron Age kingdom of Judah), since it is unique
in its geographical characteristics, with fertile land in the midst of the Judean
hills (Naʾaman 1992a, and cf. to Sergi 2015; 2017a). The grain cultivated in these
plains and the olive groves and vineyards nearby were an important source of
agricultural supply and an essential part of the city’s close hinterland throughout
its existence.
This northern agricultural hinterland of Jerusalem could not have been unit-
ed with the original territory of the Benjamin tribe to its north-east before the
very late Iron Age and probably mainly during the sixth and early fifth centu-
ries BCE (the exilic and early postexilic periods), when this area became a unified
administrative region, the “district of Mizpah” (Neh 3:7, 15, 19).6 The 720 BCE
destruction of the kingdom of Israel was the historical point of departure for a
long process, during which the original territory of the Benjamin tribe could be
severed from the north. It was the first time in the history of the hill country
that the north was weaker than the south and the first point in history when the
leaders of Jerusalem could unite the northern agricultural hinterland of Jerusa-
lem with the region between Bethel and Jericho to its north and northeast. During
this period, after the loss of the Shephelah due to the post-701 BCE Assyrian
arrangements, the Gibeon plain became much more important for the Judahite
economy, as is evident from the stamped storage-jar handles uncovered (and see
below) (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 21; Lipschits 2018b: 124, 243–253).

5 In Judg 1:22–26 Bethel was assigned to Ephraim, and see, e.g., Zobel (1965: 108–112), who dates
this passage to the time of the judges, shortly after the composition of the Song of Deborah. See,
however, Blenkinsopp 2003. Bethel was in the territory of Benjamin according to Josh 18:22, and
in the territory of Ephraim according to 1 Chr 7:28, and was situated on the southern boundary
between Ephraim and Benjamin according to Josh 16:1–2; 18:13.
6 Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine.
 Benjamin in Retrospective 401

The unification of the agricultural hinterland of the Gibeon-Mizpah plain and

the original territory of the Benjamin tribe was probably completed during the
620s, in the days of Josiah and after the Assyrian withdrawal from the Levant and
the cancellation of all the Assyrian geopolitical measures, including the borders
between the province of Samaria and the vassal Judahite kingdom. It was only
during this period that Josiah could establish his rule over the Jericho-Bethel line
and expand his northern border.7 It was the first time in history that these two
regions united under a single political power and one administrative unit. From
the perspective of Jerusalem, however, the two regions maintained their separate
identities, as portrayed in the book of Joshua: the Jericho-Bethel region was de-
scribed as Canaanite territory conquered by the Israelites (Josh 6:8), while the
Gibeon plain was called “Gibeonite” in the royal historiography (Josh 9) and the
people living there labeled foreigners.8 In this period the status of the area de-
clined, along with its importance to the Judahite economy: the renewed activity
of Judah in the Shephelah led to a diminished need for agricultural supply from
the area of Gibeon. Naʾaman associated the decline in the status of Gibeon and
Benjamin with Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs 23), in which he abolished the sanctuary of
Gibeon (Naʾaman 2009: 116). It was probably the first period in the history of
Jerusalem when hostile attitudes were directed against the agricultural hinter-
land north of the city.
The Babylonian designation of Mizpah as capital of the province of Judah
following the 586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem made it, for the first time in
the history of the region north of Jerusalem, of greater political and economic
importance than Jerusalem (Lipschits 2005: 97–126; 2015). During this period and
probably within the framework of the new Babylonian arrangements, Jerusalem
was completely isolated from its agricultural hinterland, with the establishment
of the district of Beth-hakkerem to the south and southwest of Jerusalem (with
Ramat Raḥel in its center) and the district of Mizpah to the north and northwest
of the city. It was the first time that the entire region of greater Benjamin could
be united as an administrative unit, with Jerusalem serving a marginal role on
its southern border. This is the region whose borders were delineated in the tribal
allotments (Josh 18:11–20; cf. Josh 15:6–10; 16:1–3, 5), a description that cannot
reflect any period in the history of the region prior to 620 BCE or after the renew-
al of the status of Jerusalem in the early Persian period.

7 As already claimed by Alt (1925a: 106–112); see Naʾaman 1991b: 33–60. See also Fleming 2012:
159–161.
8 It is noteworthy that in Isa 10:28–32, too, all the sites mentioned lie in the region of the
Jerusalemite agricultural hinterland (= the border of the kingdom of Judah).
402 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

The conclusion to be derived from the above is that the biblical territory of
the tribe of Benjamin is an artificial construct, combining the original territory
of the Benjamin tribe with the agricultural hinterland of Jerusalem to the north
and west of the city. This newly established unified territory gained its independ-
ent existence after the destruction of Jerusalem. Mizpah became the capital of
the province under Babylonian rule, probably until the mid-fifth century BCE
(Lipschits 2006a: 34–35).

Geopolitical Considerations: The Borders between

the Geopolitical Entities in the Hill Country in the Second
and First Millennia BCE

Three main geopolitical centers existed in the hill country in the second millenni-
um BCE (Naʾaman 1992a: 280–288; Lipschits, Römer, and Gonzalez 2017; Lipschits
2018a: 189–194). 15 The historical and archaeological data points to the kingdom
of Shechem as the larger and more densely populated entity, with more fertile
agricultural lands and greater proximity to the rich valleys and prominent cities
and roads. It controlled the northern hill country, extended north as far as the
Jezreel Valley, east to the Gilead, and south-west to Gezer. These are precisely the
borders of the kingdom of Israel prior to its expansion in the days of the Omride
dynasty. In many ways, the kingdom of Israel of the first millennium BCE is the
direct consequence and continuation of the Labaya kingdom of Shechem in the
Late Bronze Age (Finkelstein 2006: 171–177; 1993a; 1996b). The natural southern
border of the northern geopolitical units – both of Shechem of the second millen-
nium and Israel of the first millennium – lay in the southern Ephraim hills,
including the hilly region of Mount Baal Hazor, the area of Bethel, and eastward
as far as Jericho. It was probably also the border of the kingdom of Israel until
its destruction by the Assyrians in 720 BCE.
The kingdom of Jerusalem was much smaller and less active, and the main
scholarly debate concerns the territory ruled by this hilly fortress during the
second millennium BCE (Naʾaman, 1992a; Finkelstein 1993a). It is difficult to accept
the reconstruction of Zechariah Kallai and Haim Tadmor, followed by Finkelstein,
who suggested that Jerusalem ruled the entire southern hill country, as far as
the Beersheba–Arad Valley, including the Ḥebron hills (Kallai and Tadmor 1969;
followed by Finkelstein 1993a; 1996b: 228–229, 234–235, 255). Naʾaman, following
Albrecht Alt, reconstructed a very small city-state that ruled its immediate territo-
ry only, from the Gibeon plateau in the north to the Rephaim Valley and the
Bethlehem area in the south (Naʾaman 1992a; 1996b; 2011; Alt 1925b; 1959). Follow-
ing this reconstruction, it seems quite clear that the traditional borders of the
 Benjamin in Retrospective 403

kingdom of Jerusalem were small and that Jerusalem itself was an isolated fort
that controlled a sparsely populated area, probably with only a few Ḫabiru/ʿapiru
groups and seminomadic clans roaming its territory (Naʾaman 1992a: 280–288;
Lipschits, Römer, and Gonzalez 2017: 275–283; Lipschits 2018a: 189–194). The close
hinterland around the city was its only source of agricultural supply, and indeed,
the city could not exist without close ties and control over the relatively limited
agricultural and human resources of these areas.
The history of Jerusalem in the tenth–ninth centuries BCE, for example, can-
not be understood without considering its rule over the nearby areas to its north,
west, and south (Naʾaman 2009: 217–218; Sergi 2015; 2017a). In this period Jerusa-
lem was the most developed urban center in the region, with well-built fortifi-
cations and structures, demonstrating that it was a well-organized political enti-
ty (even on a small scale), and the agricultural hinterland around it must have
provided support in the form of necessities and manpower (Sergi 2015; 2017a).9
From this perspective, the dating of the establishment of the border between
Israel and Judah as described in 1 Kgs 15:16–22 and as suggested by the conven-
tional interpretation of the archaeological finds in Tell en-Naṣbeh (biblical Miz-
pah) seems to be reasonable (Zorn 1994: 34–46; Cogan 2001: 399–404; Sergi 2015;
2017a).10
In the Middle Bronze Age, Ḥebron was the main urban center in the southern
hill country. The site was destroyed at some unknown point and was probably
abandoned during the Late Bronze Age, when the main urban center of the south
was at Khirbet Rabûd, identified as biblical Debir. This area was the heart of local
clans that later developed into the tribe of Judah.11 According to archaeological
surveys conducted in the Judean hills, during the Late Bronze Age II, the area
between Jerusalem and Khirbet Rabûd (some 40 km apart) was uninhabited and
the two fortified towns in the mountains were geographically set apart. Biblical
traditions of the early history of Israel also consistently separated Jerusalem from
the southern hill country of Judah (see, e.g., Niemann 2016: 175–176). The integra-
tion of the southern territory into the kingdom of Jerusalem, the establishment of

9 It is hard to accept Finkelstein’s (2018) attempt to underestimate the archaeological finds in

the City of David, as part of his general conception of Judah, its material culture, history, and
scribing traditions in the period before the late eighth century BCE, when “waves” of Israelite
refugees came to Jerusalem with their memories and texts, high culture, traditions, skills, and
wide knowledge.
10 It is hard to see the biblical description as a simple anachronism, as claimed by Davies 2007a:
93–111, or to see it as an etiological story reinforced by events in the eighth century BCE, as
claimed by Finkelstein (2012). Cf. Naʾaman 2009: 217–218.
11 See summary and further literature in Lipschits, Römer, and Gonzalez 2017: 275–283; Lipschits
2018a: 189–194.
404 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

the kingdom of Judah, and the later integration of the lowland into that kingdom,
probably in the second half of the ninth century BCE, were the most important
achievements of the Davidic kings (Lipschits, Römer, and Gonzalez 2017: 275–283;
Lipschits 2018a: 189–194).12
From the establishment of the kingdom of Judah until the Babylonian exile,
the city of Jerusalem was the center of a kingdom that spanned a tremendous
area, stretching far beyond the Judean hills. In the kingdom’s administrative
framework, however, Jerusalem was the center of a small district (described as
“the environs of Jerusalem” ‫סביבות ירושלים‬/‫ סביבי‬while the hill country of
Judah was a large separate district termed “the mountain” (‫( )ההר‬Naʾaman 1991b:
13–16).13 The former may be associated with the growth of towns, villages, ham-
lets, and agricultural installations to the north, west, and south of Jerusalem in
the late eighth and especially the seventh century BCE (Lipschits 2015: 242–245,
with further literature).14 It may be assumed that the “environs of Jerusalem”
were divided by the Babylonians into three administrative units after the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem: the main devastation occurred in and near the city, whereas
the areas to its north (Benjamin, the district of Mizpah) and south (to the west
and south of Ramat Raḥel, the district of Beth-hakkerem) continued to exist as
before (Lipschits 2005: 206–218, 237–258).15 This was the historical period when
the area around Jerusalem severed from it and became an independent district
(the district of Jerusalem) and the area to its south became the district of Beth-
hakkerem, with the Rephaim Valley at its core and Ramat Raḥel as its main
administrative center.16

12 Geographically, this unification was not natural to this region. Note that the unification of
these two territories is described in the books of Samuel as a conquest of Jerusalem by the tribal
leader of Judah from his center in Ḥebron, and this conquest was only part of David’s long
struggle against the leading families of the region around Jerusalem and to the north of the city.
13 This is probably the source for the distinction drawn by Jeremiah (17:26; 32:44; 33:13) between
“the cities of Judah” and “the cities of the mountain” in the division of the areas of the kingdom
into six regions.
14 Gadot (2015) makes it clear that the main development of this area was during the seventh
century and not in the eighth century BCE, as previously assumed. Following Alt 1953: 324–328
(and also Naʾaman 1991b: 15–16), the “cities of Judah” can be identified with the area to the south
and west of Jerusalem, down to the Bethlehem region and should be viewed as evidence of the
distinction between the area surrounding Jerusalem and the area to its south. The region known
as “the environs of Jerusalem” is also described in Jer 40–42 as the area where Gedaliah the son
of Ahiqam was active after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (Lipschits 2005: 152–
154).
15 As indicated in the list of Neh 3, and as mentioned again at the beginning of the list of “the
sons of the singers” (Neh 12:28–29), the area around Jerusalem was separated and became an
independent district (the district of Jerusalem).
16 On the identification of Ramat Raḥel as the biblical Beth-hakkerem, see Lipschits and Naʾa-
man 2011; Lipschits et al., 2017: 15–18.
 Benjamin in Retrospective 405

This geopolitical situation might have preserved the pre-Davidic nature of this
area. In biblical traditions on the early history of Israel, Jerusalem (Jebus) is consist-
ently disconnected from the hill country of Judah. It should be borne in mind that
according to the biblical record, David’s family lived within the territory of the
kingdom of Jerusalem, in close proximity to the city itself – far from the tribal
territory of Judah in the Ḥebron hills. From the stories on his early career, however,
it is clear that David understood that the clans of Judah could give him the support
he needed against Saul and the elite of the kingdom of Jerusalem. He continued to
send them gifts and assist them (see, e.g., 1 Sam 30:26). The support of the elders
of Judah led them to ask David to become their leader prior to the conquest of
Jerusalem and the establishment of the Davidic kingdom.17
According to the biblical tradition, the territory of Saul had been in the north-
ern agricultural hinterland of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Following his death, the
areas of the kingdom of Jerusalem and that of Ḥebron/Debir were united under
the leadership of David, whose center of power was at Ḥebron. Jerusalem is
presented in the narrative of David’s rise to power as a town with a foreign
population – the Jebusites – just as the agricultural hinterland to the north of the
city was portrayed as foreign Hivite territory (Josh 9) (Naʾaman 2014c).
The above description shows that the Davidic dynasty managed to unite the
two southern regions of the hill country and to establish a single kingdom there,
named after the southern part of its territory. We should assume that the agricul-
tural land lying to the north and west of Jerusalem was also part of it. However,
shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, the deportation of
the Jerusalemite elite, and the removal of the Davidic kings from all their hold-
ings, these regions became two separate geopolitical units again. The former land
of the kingdom of Jerusalem now became the Babylonian-Persian province of
Yehud, and the former land of the tribe of Judah became part of the province of
Idumaea.

Benjamin as a Northern Tribe

The name Benjamin (“the son of the south”) must have originated as a tribal name,
when the Benjaminites were the southernmost tribe that settled in the central hill

17 See the historical reconstruction of Naʾaman (2010a). In this case, the stories of David as the
leader of a Ḫabiru/ʿapiru group who became the leader of a tribal territory is similar to that of
Jephthah in the book of Judges. According to this reconstruction, it is hard to accept the definition
of Naʾaman (2009: 342) that Saul was a Benjaminite and David was a Judahite. It is also hard to
accept the understanding of the term “Israel” in these stories, as suggested by Sergi (2017a), even
if his reconstruction of the events is justified. On this subject, see further below.
406 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

country (Schunck 1963: 15; Thompson 1974: 59–60; Naʾaman 2009: 337). In the bibli-
cal genealogy, Joseph (Gen 30:22–24) and Benjamin (35:16–18) are presented as sons
of Jacob, maternal brothers (Neef 1995, with further literature).18 As described in
old sources originating from the Northern Kingdom, as long as the kingdom of
Israel existed, it included the “core territory of Benjamin” located in the southeast-
ern periphery of the kingdom, on its border with Judah, with Bethel in its center
and Jericho as its southeastern border.19 This is the territory of Benjamin as de-
scribed in the story of “Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjaminite” (Judg 3:12–30) (Naʾa-
man 2009: 219–220, with further literature). It is probably also “the land of the
Benjaminites” mentioned in Saul’s search for the asses (1 Sam 9:4), the land of
“Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite who was from Bahurim” (2 Sam 19:17; cf.
16:5; 1 Kgs 2:8), and the reason that the Benjaminite Shimei ben Gera presented
himself to David as “the first of all the house of Joseph” (2 Sam 19:21) – namely,
belonging to Israel.20 This is the background for the appearance of Benjamin among
the northern tribes in the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:14), and as part of Ishbaal’s
kingdom (2 Sam 2:8–9).21 The understanding of the location of the “original territory
of the Benjamin tribe” is also key to an understanding of the story of Sheba son of
Bichri (2 Sam 20). In 20:1 Sheba is described as a Benjaminite, but in 20:21 Joab
describes him as one who originated from Mount Ephraim. Scholars generally de-
scribe it as two separate regions, but if the territory of Benjamin included Mount
Bethel and parts of Mount Ephraim, this text could be interpreted in the same way
as the description regarding Ehud, another Benjaminite, who, after killing Eglon in
Jericho, escaped to Seir on Mount Ephraim (Judg 3:26–27).22 This text may also
account for Jer 4:15, which places Bethel on Mount Ephraim.23 The “original territo-
ry of the Benjamin tribe” also refers to the Benjamin of the pre-Priestly Jacob story
(Gen 28:10–22; 35:18–20) and the territory that, according to Josh 6:8, was conquered
by Joshua and the tribes of Israel (probably reflecting the actual conquest in the

18 It is hard to accept views such as Yigal Levin’s (2004b), who claims that the Joseph narrative
in Genesis received its final form sometime after the split of the monarchy, in an effort to explain
the continued inclusion of the formerly northern tribe of Benjamin within the kingdom of Judah.
19 Cf. the story of the conquest of Bethel in Judg 1:22–26.
20 On the identification of the region in 1 Sam 9:4, see already Ehrlich 1985: 50–51. For Shimei,
see Naʾaman 2009: 336–337, with further literature. See also Weingart 2014: 186–187. It is hard,
however, to accept Weingart’s opinion that already in the early monarchical period, the name
Israel was used for both the Northern Kingdom and for the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah
(and see below).
21 On the period of the insertion of Judg 5:14–17, see Caquot 1986: 54–55; Naʾaman 1990b: 426.
22 For it as two separate regions, see Naʾaman 1986b: 283–284; 2018b: 343–344.
23 In contrast to how Naʾaman (2018b: 344, 352) understood it.
 Benjamin in Retrospective 407

days of Josiah; see below).24 This territory was essential for the Omrides and later
for the Nimshides, as reflected in the description on Hiel of Bethel, who fortified
the city of Jericho (1 Kgs 16:34), and this is also the region described in the northern
prophetic literature as part of the kingdom of Israel (Gilgal, Jericho, and Bethel in
the Elisha story in 2 Kgs 2:1–2, 4, 5, 15, 18; 4:38; Bethel and Gilgal in Amos 4:4; 5:5
and in Hosea 4:15; 9:15; 12:5).25
As described above, this area belonged to the kingdom of Israel until the
720 BCE destruction and it could not be annexed by Judah before the withdrawal
of the Assyrian Empire from the region “across the river,” some one hundred
years later. Only then could Judah establish its rule and expand to include the
original nucleus of the tribe of Benjamin, conquering the territory up to the
Jericho-Bethel line. This historical reconstruction was suggested by Alt, who estab-
lished the dating of the town list of the four southern tribes of Judah, Benjamin,
Simeon, and Dan (Josh 15:21–62; 18:21–28; 19:2–8, 40–46) to the reign of Josiah.
According to Alt, in addition to the group of towns that had belonged to Judah
for many years (18:25–28), another group (18:21–24) consists of towns that were
previously Israelite, such as Bethel, Zemaraim, Ophrah, and Jericho, which had
become part of Judah only after the conquest of the region in the reign of Josiah
(and see 2 Kgs 23:15–16a; Alt 1925a: 106–112).26

The History of the Core Region of Benjamin

and the Agricultural Hinterland of Jerusalem
after the Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel

The destruction of the kingdom of Israel marked the beginning of a new period
in the hill country: for the first time, the small, hilly southern entity did not have

24 On the pre-Priestly Jacob story, see Blum 1984: 207–208; on Gen 28:10–22 as a foundational
text for Blum’s work, see pp. 7–65. On Blum’s “three-level model” as applied to this story, see
Blum 2000. Cf. also Blum 2012: 208–209; Carr 1996: 260–261; 1999. See also Hong 2011: 430–436,
with further literature. See, however, the different date and origin of this story as claimed by
Van Seters and Naʾaman. See Van Seters 1992: 293–294; 1998; see also Naʾaman 2014b.
25 See the scholarly attempt to describe 1 Kgs 16:34 as a redactional gloss or a later editorial
interpolation, and see, e.g., Timm 1982: 55; Otto 2003: 503; Conroy 1996: 217–218. For the northern
prophetic literature, see, e.g., the discussion and conclusions of Naʾaman (2009: 220–221) in
Hos 5:8–10, with further literature. I find it difficult to accept the exilic or even postexilic date
for these verses, and see, e.g., Bos 2013: 53–56, 92–96; Schütte 2016: 44–62, with further literature.
26 For additional arguments for the dating of the list and for further literature, see Naʾaman
1991b: 33–60; 2005: 210–233; 2006: 131–142; 2009: 338; 2010c: 5, 18–20. It is hard to accept attempts
to date the lists to the sixth–fifth centuries BCE, and see, e.g., Vos 2003.
408 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

a larger and stronger neighbor on its northern border. For this reason, most
scholars concur that during the seventh century BCE the land of Benjamin be-
came part of Judah (and see above for references).
It is reasonable to assume that the loss of the Shephelah after the 701 BCE
Assyrian campaign, along with the growth of Jerusalem in the late eighth and
the seventh centuries BCE, led to a strengthening of economic relations between
Jerusalem and the region around Gibeon, since greater Jerusalem would have
required a regular supply of agricultural produce (Lipschits and Gadot 2008; Ga-
dot 2015). The grains that grew in the plain, just a few kilometers to the north of
Jerusalem, and the nearby olive orchards and vineyards were an important
source of this supply. The survey of this region revealed that alongside the main
sites in the region, such as Tell en-Naṣbeh, el-Jib, Tell el-Fûl, Khirbet el-Burj, and
Nebi Samwil, the rural settlement also demonstrated growth in the late Iron
Age.27
In terms of the Judahite administration, almost a quarter of the eight hun-
dred storage-jar handles stamped with late lmlk impressions and the handles
incised with concentric circles were found in the region to the north of Jerusalem,
mainly at el-Jib, Tell en-Naṣbeh, and Khirbet el-Burj (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch
2010: 21; Lipschits 2018b: 124). This vast number of early and mid-seventh-cen-
tury BCE stamped handles leads to the conclusion that during this period the area
of Gibeon and Mizpah became, probably for the first time, part of the Judahite
administration. Furthermore, the Gibeon plateau was the third most important
region of the Judahite administration (after Jerusalem and the Ramat Raḥel area)
in the first half of the seventh century BCE (the reign of Manasseh) and perhaps
even slightly later, during the 630s and 620s (the early regnal years of Josiah).
The importance of Benjamin in the Judahite administration was fleeting,
however: the area lost its centrality in the last phase of the seventh century BCE,
as is evident from the discovery of only fifteen rosette-stamped handles (about
7 percent of the corpus) in sites of Benjamin (Koch and Lipschits 2013: 59, 66–67;
Lipschits 2018b: 124). Since there was no change in the settlement history of this
region at the end of the First Temple period and the demographic picture points
to continued prosperity, the reason may lie elsewhere. The renewed Judahite
activity in the Shephelah probably meant that there was less need for agricultural
supply from the area of Gibeon. Thus, the region became less important for the

27 For Tell en-Naṣbeh, see Zorn 1993b: 1099–1101. For el-Jib, see Pritchard 1962: 162–163. For Tell
el-Fûl, see Lapp 1981: 39–46; see also Finkelstein 2011b: 111–113; 2011c: 106–118. For Khirbet el-
Burj, see De Groot and Winberger-Stern 2013. For Nebi Samwil, see Magen and Dadon 2003. For
the Neb Samwil’s survey data, see Magen and Finkelstein 1993a. For analyses of the survey finds,
see Milevski 1996–1997; Lipschits 1999b: 180–184; 2018: 245–249.
 Benjamin in Retrospective 409

administrative system, and the number of stamped handles resembled the system
of early lmlk stamp impressions, before the Assyrian military campaign of 701 BCE
and the loss of the Shephelah.
This may be the first period in the history of Jerusalem when hostile attitudes
were directed against this territory. Naʾaman (2009: 116) associated the decline in
the status of Gibeon and Benjamin with Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs 23). In his opinion,
Josiah canceled the sanctuary of Gibeon, and the local population was labeled
“Gibeonite” in the royal historiography (Josh 9).28
The economic focus of King Manasseh on the Gibeon plateau in the early and
mid-seventh century BCE was replaced with his grandson Josiah’s cultic focus
upon the area of Bethel and probably also the region of Jericho, areas that, as
previously claimed, constituted the original core of the Israelite tribe of Benjamin.
Until this point in the history of the original Benjaminite territory, it could not
become part of Judah as long as the Assyrians ruled in the region. Only after
their withdrawal, in the early last third of the seventh century BCE, a few years
after Josiah came to power in Judah, could he transfer his administrative and
economic attention from the Gibeon plateau back to the Shephelah and, at the
same time, annex this territory of the original Benjamin to Judah to move the
borders of his kingdom several kilometers north to include Jericho and Bethel in
his kingdom (Alt 1925a: 106–112; Naʾaman 1991b: 33–60). By doing so, Josiah estab-
lished, for the first time in history, the territory of greater Benjamin.
This annexation is reflected in the narratives of the book of Joshua, demon-
strating precisely how the Deuteronomist described the conquest of the territory
of Benjamin in the days of King Josiah – from Jericho to Ai, near Bethel – drawing
a distinction between this area and the territory of the four cities of the Gibeon-
ites in the western side of the plateau, the area that was always part of the
kingdom of Jerusalem and became important mainly as a source of agricultural
produce: Gibeon, Hakephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim. These two areas, which
were never part of the same geopolitical unit, thus became a single territory, re-
flecting the border of the kingdom of Judah in the days of Josiah. The description
of this area as belonging to foreigners reflects the polemic attitude toward this
region, an attitude that became stronger in the early Persian period (see below).
At the same time, the different fate of the area and the political features that
made it distinctive on the eve of and subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem
attest to the fact that the inhabitants of this region preserved their distinctive
character within the kingdom of Judah. It was perhaps for this reason that the

28 For scholars who supported the historicity of 2 Kgs 23 events, see, e.g., Gray 1970: 663; Barrick
2002: 107–111; Sweeney 2007: 178–179; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 299. See, however, e.g., Pakkala
2010; Monroe 2011: 23–44.
410 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

Benjamin region became the center of the new province under Babylonian rule
(Lipschits 2005: 72–112; Lipschits 2015). It seems that the Babylonian siege on Jeru-
salem and destruction of the city and – even more importantly – the return of
some of the Jerusalem elite to the city in the early Persian period shaped the
relations between the people of this new region with this elite, as reflected mainly
in historiographical texts from the exilic and postexilic periods.

The History of the Core Region of Benjamin

under Babylonian and Persian Rule

The core territory of Benjamin continued to differ from the agricultural hinter-
land of Jerusalem in its settlement pattern, demographic character, and history
during and after the destruction of Jerusalem. In contrast to the demographic
and settlement stability enjoyed by the region around Mizpah, Gibeon, and Nebi
Samwil in the Babylonian and Persian periods and the slow decline toward the
end of the Persian period (and see below on the history of the district of Mizpah),
the core territory of Benjamin, which had only begun to be densely settled at the
end of the Iron Age, completely disappeared from the settlement and demograph-
ic maps, probably already in the sixth century BCE.29
The main conclusion is that apparently by the sixth century BCE the rural
settlement north of Jerusalem had withdrawn to the original agricultural hinter-
land of Jerusalem, while the northern and eastern zones, previously part of the
Northern Kingdom and the province of Samaria, were almost entirely devoid of
settlement and almost completely depopulated (Lipschits 1999b: 180–184; Lipschits

29 For the stability of the Mizpah, Gibeon, and Nebi Samwil areas, see Lipschits 1999b. East
of Bethel-Michmash-Gibeah-Anathoth, approximately seventy-one sites from Iron Age II were
surveyed, as compared with only fourteen sites from the Persian period (a drop of about 80 per-
cent). The major decline in number of sites is in the area between Michmash and the slope
running down toward Jericho. In this area, twenty-seven sites from the Iron Age were surveyed,
as compared with only one site from the Persian period, which was located in the northern part
of the area. It should be noted that the existence of an isolated site in the Persian period is not
certain, and its size (0.5 dunams) does not materially change the picture. See Magen and Finkel-
stein 1993: 279. On this archaeological picture, see Lipschits 1999b. This point has also been well
defined by Milevski (1996–1997: 18–19). On the survey in this region, see also Mazar, Amit, and
Ilan 1984, with further literature. On the settlement pattern of this region at the end of the Iron
Age, see also the comments of the surveyors in Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 279, 346. A marked
reduction in the scope of settlement was also noted in the area of today’s city of Ramallah, on
the hilly region to the north of the plateau, where twelve Iron II sites were surveyed, most of
them west of the watershed, compared to only two sites from the Persian period.
 Benjamin in Retrospective 411

2005: 245–249).30 Most of the settlements that remained in the area north of Jerusa-
lem were concentrated along the mountain ridge and the upper mountain slopes,
around the main economic and administrative centers that continued to exist in
the region.31 The relative prosperity of the agricultural hinterland of Jerusalem
must be attributed to the political centrality assigned to Mizpah and the economic
importance of Gibeon and Moza; it was probably around these settlements that the
agricultural hinterland was based and its settlement pattern shaped. During the
exilic and postexilic periods, the agricultural hinterland to the north of Jerusalem
became the center of the province, with Mizpah as its capital. It seems that the
identity of this greater Benjamin became centered around Bethel and its temple,
and the change in the status of Mizpah after the destruction of Jerusalem turned
the district of Mizpah into an even stronger separate administrative unit.32 This, in
turn, probably contributed to the shaping of the separate identity of Benjamin and
its relations to Jerusalem (Lipschits 2015: 242–247).

The Creation of the District of Mizpah and Its Borders,

Function, and Status

On the basis of the archaeological data and the descriptions in 2 Kgs 25:22–26 and
Jer 39–43, we may surmise that, even before the fall of Jerusalem, the Babylonians
had selected Mizpah to be the capital of the Babylonian province and had ap-
pointed Gedaliah as its first governor (Lipschits 1999b; Lipschits 2005: 68–125,
237–249). This is the historical background for the creation of the district of Miz-
pah that continued to exist in the Persian period (as indicated in Neh 3). This
district coincided with the Josianic region of greater Benjamin, reflecting the con-
tinuity of the region’s boundaries in the seventh–fifth centuries BCE and includ-
ing Jericho in the east.33 Mizpah was the main city in the district, at least until
the late fifth or even the early fourth century BCE.34

30 This assumption accords with existing information about the complete cessation of settlement
that took place throughout the Jordan Valley and the western littoral of the Dead Sea. It would
seem that this, too, was related to the collapse of the economic, military, and political system of
the kingdom of Judah.
31 On this subject, see the description and model presented by Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 20–21.
32 On the status of Bethel in the sixth century BCE see Naʾaman 2010b; Lipschits 2017, as against
the views expressed by Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2009).
33 This premise is opposed to the attempt of some scholars to add the Jericho district as the
sixth district in the province of Yehud, or to add Gezer as another district in addition to Jericho.
The attempt to include the Ono-Lod region or parts of Samaria in this area should be dismissed
as well, see Lipschits 2005: 148–149, 157–158, 248–249, with additional bibliography.
34 On the status of the Mizpah during the Babylonian and Persian periods, see Lipschits 2005:
237–240.
412 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

The historical boundary between the Benjamin region / Mizpah district and
the environs of Jerusalem/Jerusalem district is probably the line formed by con-
necting the southern settlements of the agricultural hinterland to the north and
west of Jerusalem. Moza and Kiriath-jearim are mentioned in the town list of
Benjamin (Josh 18:26, 28).35 Gibeah and Anathoth are added to the list of these
towns that appears in Isa 10:28–32 (Blenkinsopp 2000: 260–262). The line formed
by these towns lies five kilometers from Jerusalem, in a northeast–northwest
direction, an area bounded by Naḥal Og in the northeast and by Naḥal Soreq in
the northwest. The Jerusalem district lay south of the district of Mizpah and
probably included the city and its close environs.36 It is thus clear that Jerusalem
was totally cut off from its entire agricultural hinterland. The most likely histori-
cal explanation for this state of affairs is that it was the outcome of a Babylonian
decision after the 586 BCE destruction.
The relative prosperity of the Mizpah district must be attributed to the politi-
cal centrality assigned to Mizpah and the economic importance of Gibeon and
Moza. It was probably around these settlements that the agricultural hinterland
was based and the settlement pattern was shaped. Of the forty-three storage-jar
handles uncovered with mws ̣h stamp impressions, securely dated to the sixth
century BCE, thirty were found at Tell en-Naṣbeh (Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994:
166–168; Lipschits 2018b: 98–104).37 These mws ̣h-stamped jars were presumably
part of the local administration of the Babylonian province of Judah and should
probably be interpreted as part of the local supply to the governor of the prov-
ince, whose seat was in Mizpah (Lipschits 2018b: 287–290).
A concurrent system of lion stamp impressions on jar handles existed along-
side the stamp impressions, with seventy-three stamped jars discovered at Ramat
Raḥel, twenty-nine in Jerusalem, and only nineteen in the Benjamin area (twelve

35 On the repetitive mention of Kiriath-jearim (Josh 15:60; 18:28) in the list of cities of Judah
and Benjamin, see the explanation offered by Naʾaman 1991b: 8–10. The place, in any case, was
considered part of Benjamin (Josh 9:17; 18:28; Ezra 2:25; Neh 7:29). On Josh 18:28, see Naʾaman
1991b: 8–10; and on the part of the list that was apparently omitted from the book of Joshua, see
Naʾaman 1986a: 229 n. 45; 1991b: 25–26. The affiliation of Anathoth, Jeremiah’s birthplace, with
the Benjamin tribal legacy is also highlighted at the height of the Babylonian siege, preceding
the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 32:7–15).
36 Taking into account the surrounding districts, we may surmise that the Jerusalem district
extended eastward to the edge of the desert and to Mount Scopus in the north. To the south, the
Jerusalem district did not extend beyond the Rephaim Valley, so its borders were very close (ca.
2–3 km) to the city itself.
37 Four more mws ̣h-stamped handles were discovered in Gibeon, four in Jerusalem, two in
Jericho, one each in Ramat Raḥel and Tzubah, and the origin of another stamped handle is
unknown. See Lipschits 2018b: 98–104, 124.
 Benjamin in Retrospective 413

in Nebi Samwil, five at Tell en-Naṣbeh, and two at Gibeon) (Lipschits 2018b: 91–
98, 124). This is a clear indication that the main administrative system of stamped
storage jars, which was probably connected to the imperial system of taxation,
continued in the same manner as prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. As was
the case with the system of rosette stamp impressions on storage jars, which
operated at the end of the seventh century BCE, the area of Benjamin did not
play a major role in the lion stamp-impression system of the sixth century BCE.38

The Historical and Historiographical Rise and Decline

of Benjamin in the Babylonian and Persian Periods

With the events of 586 BCE and the new status of Mizpah as the capital of the
province of Yehud, this city became the center of the province for the first time
in its history, even more important politically than Jerusalem and Judah. This
new status had a great impact on the literary claims and polemics in favor of
this region and its people (pro-Benjamin, pro-Mizpah, and pro-Saul stories) and
against Jerusalem and its history, its status, and its leaders, especially with regard
to the premonarchic and pre-Davidic period. As such, 1 Sam 7 is the most pro-
Benjamin and pro-Mizpah story in the Old Testament, along with the story on the
assembling of the people at Mizpah and the election there of Saul as the first
king of Israel in 1 Sam 10:17–27 (Edelman 2001: 69–91).
In the years following the Babylonian destruction, there was stability and
continuity in the rural settlement and economy in the central areas of the prov-
ince, which, in the absence of any dramatic external events, could apparently
survive and maintain its existence. This stability was also in the interest of the
ruling empires, which preserved the local system of collecting agricultural prod-
ucts, especially wine and oil, at a single administrative center – Ramat Raḥel,
which existed throughout the period that Judah was under the hegemony of for-
eign empires.
Interesting changes took place during the Persian period, however: Nebi Sam-
wil became the main administrative site, together with Mizpah, while Gibeon and
Khirbet el-Burj lost the prominent role they played in the system of stamping
storage jars during the seventh and probably the sixth century BCE (Lipschits
2018b: 243–265). The area between Nebi Samwil, Gibeon, and Mizpah continued

38 The special status of Benjamin and Mizpah in this period is likely the background to some
polemical stories that were intended to reflect the right of this region to lead the province. These
stories were added to Judges and Samuel, reflecting the pre-Monarchic/pre-Davidic period. See
further below.
414 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

to be the demographic and economic center of the province in the early Persian
period. Even though the district of Mizpah was Judah’s demographic center dur-
ing the sixth century, at least until the mid-fifth century BCE, with around a third
of all Judahite sites located there (76 out of 238 sites), during that time Mizpah
lost its status as the seat of the governor (who probably moved to Ramat Raḥel)
and the settlement and its environs gradually declined in the fifth century BCE,
probably after Jerusalem had established itself as the sole cultic center in Judah
(Lipschits 1999b: 182–185; and see also Lipschits 2005: 36–126; 2015: 242–247). Con-
sequently, there was a marked gradual demographic decline in the Benjamin
region from the end of the sixth century and reaching its peak in the fifth and
fourth centuries BCE, with a loss of over 50 percent of its population. This demo-
graphic decline may have been due to the strengthening of the settlement in the
Modiʿin area and the northern Shephelah during the Persian period (Lipschits
1997a). The political stability in this period, and in particular, the enhanced eco-
nomic activity that developed in the coastal area, attracted many of the inhabit-
ants of the region to settle there. The agricultural potential of the area and its
proximity to the coastal trade routes and the major roads to the Benjamin region
and to the Jerusalem environs served as additional incentives. In addition, one
cannot rule out the possibility that the migration out of Benjamin’s administrative
borders was ideologically driven by animosity toward the new ruling elite in
Jerusalem, which was imposing its religious and ritual practices and its social
and national views upon the province.
This is the key to an understanding of the account in 1 Chr 8:12–13, which
relates that the sons of Elpaal and Beriah, who hailed from Benjamin, “built Ono
and Lod” and “were heads of the fathers of the inhabitants of Aijalon” (Lipschits
1997a, and cf. to Schmitt 1980: 80–92). A note added to the account of Ishbaal’s
assassination by two Benjaminites informs us that the people of Beeroth, one of
four Gibeonite cities, fled to Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3), a place listed as a Benjaminite
settlement in Neh 11:33. If this place is synonymous with the Gath of 1 Chr 8:13,
whose inhabitants were driven out by Benjaminites, this may point to Benjamin-
ite expansion westward in the Persian period (and see already Blenkinsopp 2006:
643–644).
Historical sources from the Persian period contain several accounts that lend
support to this demographic phenomenon. Particularly striking are the Israelites’
marital ties with the foreign women from among the “people of the land” (Ezra
9:1–2, 12–15; 10:2–3, 10–15; Neh 10:31). This also provides a framework for an
understanding of the proposition made by Sanballat, the Horonite, and Geshem,
the Arab, to meet with Nehemiah “in one of the villages in the plain of Ono”
(Neh 6:2), where a Judean settlement of unclear political allegiance was located.
This is apparently the source of the Jewish population that lived in this area
during the Hellenistic period (Lipschits 1997a: 10–11, 28–31).
 Benjamin in Retrospective 415

The Rise of Anti-Benjamin Polemics in Jerusalem

in the Persian Period

Already in the early Persian period, when the returnees from Babylon started to
renew the status of Jerusalem, the polemic claims against Benjamin and Mizpah
and in favor of Jerusalem and Judah could be written, especially in texts dealing
with the premonarchic period.39
Throughout the Persian period, Jerusalem was no more than a small town –
nothing but a temple with a few hundred priests and other temple servants living
in its vicinity (Lipschits 2011b: 189–190, with further bibliography).40 The isolation
of Jerusalem from its agricultural hinterland and its impoverishment throughout
the Persian period are the backdrop for an understanding of many of the polemic
texts that were written at this time in reaction against the status of Mizpah and
Benjamin.
The economy of Jerusalem was totally dependent upon gifts, tithes, and the
goodwill of the Persian governor in Mizpah (before Ramat Raḥel became the seat
of the governor) (Lipschits 2015: 243, 248–250). This is the underlying reason for
the hatred toward Mizpah, Benjamin, and the people there, who were described
as foreigners in the story about the Gibeonites in the book of Joshua and as a
tribe that should be distinct in the story in Judg 19–21.41
The change in the reference of the name “Benjamin” from a very small local
territory in the southern part of the kingdom of Israel to a large region in the
northern part of Judah and the later change to the phrase “Judah and Benjamin,”
parallels the change and expansion of the original inheritance of the tribe of
Judah from the area of Ḥebron to that of Jerusalem.42 The latter change probably

39 I can only agree with Blenkinsopp (2006) that Judean-Benjaminite hostility had developed
already during the sixth century BCE, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of
the Jerusalem elite to Babylon. The question is in which texts this hostility can be located and
what is the date of these texts. On this, see the discussion of Knauf 2006: 326–329. On the anti-
Gibeonite polemic, see already Kearney 1973; Blenkinsopp 1974. On this subject, see Edelman
2001: 69–91; 2003.
40 This is why all of the agricultural sites and their locations in the central and northern hill
country are an indication that the source and reason for them were not the city or the temple
but the administrative and economic system that survived in Judah, with its center at Ramat
Raḥel, and with its aim to pay taxes to the ruling empire.
41 On Judg 19–21, see Amit 1994; 2000: 179–184; 2003: 146; Edenburg 2003; Blenkinsopp 2006:
638–643; Naʾaman 2009: 223. For extensive literature on these chapters, see Edenburg 2016. On
Judg 20:29–48, see Naʾaman 2018, with further literature.
42 As clearly demonstrated by Blenkinsopp (2006: 630 and n. 3), the designation “Judah and
Benjamin” appeared in the early Persian period and is otherwise restricted to Chronicles (2 Chr
11:1, 3, 10, 12, 23; 14:7; 15:2, 8–9; 25:5; 31:1; 34:9, 32). The expression in 1 Kgs 12:21, 23 – “all the
416 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

took place in the same period and in the same scribal sources as the names
“Samaria” and “Israel,” which underwent a long process of transformation from
a separate kingdom and a hostile province to an inclusive title for the entire
nation and the name of the past and future kingdom of both the historical king-
doms of Israel and Judah (Davies 1992: 11–74; 2006; 2007; Naʾaman 2010c, with
further literature).43
The name Benjamin was chosen as the name of the administrative region of
the district of Mizpah only at a later stage, probably not before the early Persian
period, as part of the rivalry that was created between Jerusalem and the territo-
ry to its north and as part of the separation between the two units. This is also
why the Benjaminites (in the territory of greater Benjamin) were pushed in the
historiographical descriptions to be part of the northern kingdom, as is evident
in the early Saul traditions (1 Sam 9–14; 31; and see below), in the story of the
Gibeonites (Josh 9), and in the anti-Benjaminite story in Judg 19–21.44 At the same
time, the takeover of the tradition of Rachel’s burial place (Gen 35:16–21; cf. 48:7)
from the area north of Jerusalem (and see, e.g., 1 Sam 10:2; Jer 31:15) to the area
south of Jerusalem – in Bethlehem – may be interpreted as one aspect of the
process whereby Jerusalem hegemony over the Benjaminites was reflected during
the early Persian period.45
Unlike the original region of the northern tribe of Benjamin, which, according
to Josh 6 and 8, was conquered by Joshua and the people of Israel, the Benjamin
plateau was not part of this conquest story, and in the polemic story against the
Benjamin territory of the Gibeonites (as described in Josh 9), this territory was
portrayed as an area with foreign people, whose existence in the land is as “hew-
ers of wood and drawers of water.” This story, which could not have been written
before the Persian period, is a clear description of the unification of the two
regions that had formed the territory of Benjamin – with a clear polemical atti-
tude against the people living there, an attitude that can be well connected to

house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin” and “all the house of Judah and Benjamin” – is
similar but not identical. See also Lipschits, Römer, and Gonzalez 2017: 275–283; Lipschits 2018a:
189–194.
43 For a much earlier date of this “Israel” as the “United Monarchy,” see, e.g., Blum 2010.
44 The Persian period date of this story is also manifest in the nature of the description: the
account of military expeditions contains religious exercises, weeping, and lamenting, which are
all part of a theocratic scribe who, as stated by George F. Moore, had never handled a more
dangerous weapon than an imaginative pen. See Moore 1895: 431, and cf. 421–422.
45 See Cox and Ackerman 2009: 136. Cf. 1 Sam 17:12; Ruth 1:2; 4:11; Micah 5:1; 1 Chr 2:24, 50–52;
4:4–5. See Ritter 2003: 29–32; Naʾaman 2014d. See, e.g., Blenkinsopp 2006: 630–633. Cf. the argu-
ments of Naʾaman 2014b: 107–108, regarding the Judean origin of this story.
 Benjamin in Retrospective 417

other hostile descriptions of this region.46 In this regard, the story of David and
the Gibeonites, too (2 Sam 21:1–14), should be considered an anti-Benjaminite and
anti-Gibeonite story from the Persian period (Hutzli 2011a; Edenburg 2014, with
earlier literature).

Implications of the Proposed Stages in the Creation

of the Territory of the Benjamin Tribe
in the Seventh–Fifth Centuries BCE for the Early History
of Israel and Early Benjamin

As described above, “Benjamin” was an artificial amalgamation of the original

territory of Benjamin with the agricultural hinterland of Jerusalem to the north
and west of the city, which took place only after the unification of these areas in
the days of Josiah, and to a greater degree after this territory obtained its inde-
pendence and augmented status after the destruction of Jerusalem, with the
transformation of the district of Mizpah into the tribe of Benjamin. Given these
proposed stages, we should exercise caution when examining the use of this gen-
eral “Benjamin” label in the historiographical descriptions.
While in the early stories that originated in the Northern Kingdom, the title
Benjaminite referred to people and groups who did in fact hail from the original
territory of Benjamin, and while it is reasonable that the borders of greater Benja-
min could be delineated already in the days of Josiah, when the town list of the
two Benjamins still contained two separate groups, the use of the labels Benjamin
and Benjaminite (as well as other labels such as Israel, Israelite, Judah, and Judah-
ite) in biblical historiography to refer to individuals and groups from this com-
bined Benjaminite territory, should be viewed as part of the editing process of
early oral and written sources and as part of the efforts of the Deuteronomistic
and later editors to be as precise as possible in their use of geographical terms.
In this case, these late scribes and editors used the geographical labels as they
knew them and at the same time, used them as a polemic and ideological tool
that served their purposes, especially concerning the pre-Davidic periods, as de-
scribed in the books of Judges and Samuel.47
As such, it is important to set aside duplications, exaggerations, and addition-
al Benjaminite/Israelite/Judahite labels in the stories on early Israel, including the

46 On the postexilic anti-Benjaminite compositions, see Blenkinsopp 2006; Amit 2006, with earli-
er literature.
47 On this aspect, see Finkelstein and Lipschits 2016.
418 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

history of Saul’s rise to power, the history of David’s rise to power, the Succession
Narrative, and the Saul-David narrative, and not to assign them to any theoretical
early source from before the seventh century BCE and to learn from these labels
about the history of Israel in these early periods.48 With regard to Benjamin, the
most prominent subject is the story cycle of Saul.49
According to this long and complex story, Saul’s activities took place in the
combined Benjaminite territory and never extended northward to the central
highlands, beyond the southernmost margins of Mount Ephraim (Naʾaman 2009:
346). It is clear, however, that, just like the attempt to connect Saul to the non-
Israelite city Gibeon, the use of the label Benjaminite is dubious and is intended
to place Saul in a setting far from Jerusalem, to label him as Israelite and to
distance him from the Judahite house of David.50
In the current Deuteronomistic historiography, the use of the Benjaminite
label may help to identify the pre-Deuteronomistic story cycles and identify the
different use of the term Benjamin – when it has a much narrower reference,
limited to the geographical borders of the original territory of the Benjamin tribe
(as in 1 Sam 13; and see below). It seems to me that in many studies dealing
with the date of the pre-Deuteronomistic story cycles of Saul and David, scholars
identified the Deuteronomistic insertions as well as post-Deuteronomistic addi-
tions, but did not give the question of the Benjamin label sufficient consideration
in their source analysis of the original narratives before drawing their conclu-
sions on the historicity of these stories and reconstructing the historical reality
and geographical background underlying them (Naʾaman 1990c Cf. Bezzel 2015:
208–228, 250–254, with earlier literature).
With regard to Saul, within the supposed early material embedded in 1 Sam
9:1–10:16; 11; 13–14; 31, the Benjamin label appears only once in the editorial title

48 In these definitions I use the terms and story cycles as defined by Rost (1926). For recent
discussions and further literature, see Dietrich 2012. See, e.g., Fleming 2012: 153. Already Naʾaman,
however, pointed in this direction, when he argued against scholars that reconstructed Saul’s
kingdom on the basis of the description of Ishbaal’s kingdom (2 Sam 2:8–9), and claimed that
this latter system was written by the Deuteronomist on the basis of his understanding of the
early reality and his concept of the Israelite borders in the premonarchical period. See Naʾaman
1990a. Cf. Neef 1995: 273–277. On the late date and secondary nature of the Benjaminite episodes
embedded in the narrative of David’s flight and return, see Langlamet 1979; Kratz 2005: 174–176.
See however the date assigned to these stories by Sergi 2017c, with further literature, or the
attribution of Saul’s original story to Benjamin by Fleming (2012: 151).
49 Van Seters already emphasized the role of the Deuteronomistic Historian as the author of
the Saul and David stories. See John Van Seters 1983: 250–264; 2009: 128–129.
50 It is difficult, however, to accept views that presuppose that Saul was Israelite and David was
Judahite. See, e.g., Bezzel 2015: 235–237.
 Benjamin in Retrospective 419

depicting Saul as the hero of the story (9:1; cf. the two other cases in which Saul
was presented as Benjaminite in the later additions of 9:16, 21) (Naʾaman 1990c:
640, with further literature). In chapter 13 the story is mostly set within the origi-
nal territory of Benjamin “in Michmash and in Mount Bethel” (1 Sam 13:2), and
the location of Geba/Gibeah of Benjamin (13:2, 15, 16; 14:16) and its relation to this
territory may help us situate it in modern Jebaʿ, southwest of Michmash (Naʾaman
1990c: 652). The connection between this Gibeah and Gilgal, as set in 1 Sam 13:15,
may support the geographical setting of the two places in the original territory
of Benjamin. On these very unclear grounds, it seems difficult to draw any clear
conclusion on the original relation of Saul to Benjamin and on the original identi-
ty of his supporters and opponents.

Summary

In this paper I have suggested that the biblical territory of the tribe of Benjamin
is a late artificial aggregation of two distinct historical and geopolitical units that
were never part of the same geopolitical region: Benjamin (= “the son of the
south”) was a small tribe around Bethel, the southern Ephraim hills and Jericho,
connected to the northern hill country, whereas the Gibeon plateau was part of
the agricultural hinterland of Jerusalem. The destruction of the kingdom of Israel
was the point of departure for a new period in the hill country, when, for the
first time, the small, hilly southern entity did not have a larger and stronger
northern neighbor. It was only in the days of Josiah, however, that Judah could
conquer the area of Bethel and Jericho and extend its border up to this line. After
the 586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem, the city was severed from its agricultural
hinterland and the Babylonians created the district of Mizpah to the north of
Jerusalem. Greater Benjamin became a unified administrative region, with Jerusa-
lem as a marginal component at its southern border. It was the first time in the
history of the region that Benjamin became central, with even greater political
and economic importance than Jerusalem.
The 586 BCE events and the new status of Mizpah as the capital of the prov-
ince of Yehud had an important effect on the literary claims and polemics in
favor of this region and its people (pro-Benjaminite, pro-Mizpah, and pro-Saul
stories) and against Jerusalem and its history, its status and its leaders, especially
regarding the premonarchic and pre-Davidic period. However, it was already in
the early Persian period, when the exiles began to return from Babylon and to
restore the status of Jerusalem, that the anti-Benjaminite and polemic claims
against Benjamin and Mizpah and in favor of Jerusalem and Judah could be
written, also in this case, especially in texts dealing with the premonarchic period.
420 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

This could have driven some of the inhabitants of the region around Mizpah and
Gibeon to settle beyond the administrative limits of the province, close to the
border, in the Ono-Lod and Modiʿin region.
This understanding of the historical process should be adopted by biblical
scholars in their interpretation of historiographical texts that use this Benjamin
label, probably written by late scribes and editors who used the geographical
labels as a polemic and ideological tool, mainly in the pre-Davidic periods, as
described in Judges and Samuel. With regard to Benjamin, the most prominent
subject is the story cycle of Saul. The first monarch of the kingdom of Jerusalem,
who came from the agricultural hinterland to the north of the city, was killed
and his kingdom taken by David, originally from the agricultural hinterland to
the south of Jerusalem. He succeeded in conquering Jerusalem and uniting it
with the Judahite territory in the southern Judean hills, around Ḥebron. In the
Jerusalemite historiography Saul was connected with the non-Israelite city of Gib-
eon and was pushed to the north. The late use of the label “Benjaminite” also
had deceptive intentions: it was aimed at distancing Saul from Jerusalem, labeling
him as “Israelite” and setting him apart from the Judahite house of David.
The History of the Benjamin Region Under
Babylonian Rule
Introduction

The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (586 BCE) is the most traumatic
event described in biblical historiography, and in its shadow the history of the
people of Israel was reshaped.1 The harsh impression of the destruction left its
mark on the prophetic literature also, and particular force is retained in the
laments over the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in its midst. The spiri-
tual and religious crisis was particularly great because “the kings of the earth
did not believe, or any of the inhabitants of the world, that foe or enemy could
enter the gates of Jerusalem” (Lam. 4: 12). Faith in the eternity of the capital of
the kingdom, “… the perfection of beauty, the joy of all the earth” (Lam. 2:15) and
the Temple, which were the political and ritual centre of the kingdom of Judah
throughout the years of its existence, had increasingly flourished, particularly
since the expedition of Sennacherib to Judah (701 BCE). The chief testimony to
the centrality of this belief on the eve of the destruction lies in the desperate
efforts of the prophet Jeremiah to contend with it: “… Do not trust in these decep-
tive words: ‘This is the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple
of the Lord’ … Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name
dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel …
Therefore I will do to the house which is called by my name, and in which you
trust, and to the place which I gave to you and your fathers as I did to Shiloh”
(Jer. 7:4, 12, 14; and cf. 26:1–6).
The religious crisis was augmented by a sharp political crisis, which grew
out of the abolition of the independence of the kingdom of Judah and the exile
of the royal dynasty that had led the people for four centuries. To this must be
added the social and economic crisis, which stemmed from the deportation of
the elite to Babylonia. This exile, in the eyes of the elite, together with the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the removal of the House of David from
power, signified the end of the existence of Judah in its own land.
This elite could summarize the history of Judah thus: “And Judah was taken
into exile out of its land” (2 Kgs. 25: 21). This is also the impression that arises
from the lamentations over the destruction of the Temple: “Judah has gone into

1 This opinion continues the thesis proposed by Cross (1973: 274–289), with various updates
added to it over the years (see Lipschits 1997b: 10–25).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-023
422 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

exile because of affliction and hard servitude; she dwells now among the nations,
but finds no resting place” (Lam. 1:3).
These portrayals, which mainly reflect the feeling of their authors, influenced
historical and archaeological research for many years (Barstad 1996: 15). Despite
their general nature and their being a declarative summary, which does not
match the detailed account dealing mainly with the fate of Jerusalem, they were
taken as a faithful reflection of the historical reality. Analysis of the biblical testi-
mony and of archaeological finds, and their combination with what is known of
the tendencies of Babylonian rule in Syria and the Land of Israel (‘Ḫattu-Land’),
produces a different historical picture, in which most of Judah’s inhabitants re-
mained there after the destruction of Jerusalem. They concentrated chiefly in the
Benjamin region and the northern Judean hill country. This area was hardly
affected by the destruction, and became the centre of the Babylonian province
with its capital at Mizpah.
This article presents a reconstruction of the history of the Benjamin region.
The centrality of this area in the period following the destruction of Jerusalem is
reflected in biblical accounts of the time of Gedaliah. The major sites that have
been excavated in the region and the comprehensive archaeological survey con-
ducted there form a relatively wide database for a period that is practically un-
known in historical research.

Babylonian Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate

of the kingdom of Judah

When Babylonia took control of the entire territory of ‘Ḫattu-Land’, Judah became
one of the empire’s border points facing Egypt.2 Nebuchadnezzar did not ascribe
particular importance to the small kingdoms in the region, among them Judah,
as he was aware that the only factor that could endanger Babylonian rule was
Egypt. As Egypt posed no real threat in the first decade of his rule (ca. 605–
595 BCE), Nebuchadnezzar chose not to intervene in the internal government of
the kingdoms that succumbed to him, and he allowed them to retain their existing
political systems (Lipschits 1997b: 104–127). As part of this policy, Nebuchadnezzar
left Jehoiakim on the throne (604 BCE). Even after Jehoiakim’s uprising, Nebu-
chadnezzar kept the Davidic dynasty in government. He exiled Jehoiachin, Jehoi-
akim’s son, together with part of the Jerusalem elite, and in his place enthroned

2 For a comprehensive reconstruction of the historical picture see Lipschits 1997b: 102–169;
1999c.
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 423

Zedekiah, the last of the sons of Josiah (Wiseman 1985: 22–32; Lipschits 1997b:
104–117).
Babylonian policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ changed only after the danger to Babyloni-
an rule increased, in consequence of the strengthening of Egypt and the growing
interest in the region shown by Psammetichus II (595–589 BCE) and Apries (Hofra)
(589–570 BCE) (Spalinger 1976: 133–147; 1977: 228–244; Redford 1992: 462–465).3
Evidence of increasingly firm ties between Judah and Egypt, and of the undermin-
ing of stability in the entire region, is preserved in the Bible (Jer. 27:2–12; Ezek.
17: 15), and in Lachish Ostracon No. III (lines 14 ff.). In this light it is not surprising
that at the height of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem the Egyptian army ap-
peared (Jer. 37:5–11), apparently in partial realization of the promise of help to
its rebellious protege. The failure of the Egyptians and the renewal of the Babylo-
nian siege of Jerusalem attest how dangerous was the chance taken by Zedekiah
and his ministers in deciding to rise up against Babylonia (Lipschits 1997b: 116–
117).
The conclusion arising from the foregoing is that information in the Babyloni-
an Chronicles on the renewal of the Babylonian expeditions to ‘Ḫattu-Land’ in
596, 595, and 594 BCE is to be interpreted against the background of Nebuchadnez-
zar’s deepening concern over events in the region (Wiseman 1956: 16–22, 72).4
The gathering insurgency and the peril to the continuation of his rule in the
territory caused him to alter his policy. Instead of relying on the loyalty of semi-
independent vassal kingdoms, which paid an annual tax and enjoyed home rule,
he moved to a policy of close supervision and full control of the area, by subjugat-
ing the kingdoms and making them provinces. Historical sources of this period
are few, but twenty years of slow and deliberate Babylonian activity can be recon-
structed, in which time Nebuchadnezzar razed Jerusalem, attacked Tyre and Si-
don, laying siege to the former for 13 years (Katzenstein 1973: 330; Redford 1992:
465–466), conducted campaigns against Amnon and Moab (Spalinger 1977: 236;

3 The expedition of Psammetichus II to Kush in the third year of his reign (593–592 BCE) was
presented as a great military triumph. It may be assumed that his expedition to Byblos and the
Phoenician coast a year later (592–591) impressed the kingdoms of the region and raised hopes
of liberation from the Babylonian yoke. Reinforcement of this hope lay in the problems facing
Nebuchadnezzar on the border with Elam (596–595) and the revolt that erupted in Babylonia
(595–594) (Wiseman 1956: 35–37; Miller and Hayes 1986: 410).
4 This period may be connected to evidence of the journey of Zedekiah or one of his ministers
to Babylon in the fourth year of his reign (594–593) (Jer. 51:59). Presumably, the presence in
Babylon was required for the purpose of renewing the oath of loyalty, and perhaps also for
supplying information about what was taking place along the Egyptian border. See Greenberg
1957: 304–309, and on the differences in versions between the Mss. and LXX see Bright 1965: 216.
424 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

Bartlett 1989: 157–161), and apparently also took military action against most of
the coastal cities (Lipschits 1997b: 118–119).
Judah was the Babylonians’ first target, seemingly because of its important
position in the spreading unrest in the area. The foolhardy and unstable leader-
ship of the kingdom of Judah, together with the messianic ferment mounting up
within, which fanned the flames of revolt (Bright 1972: 176; Miller and Hayes 1986:
409) made it plain to Nebuchadnezzar that he could no longer depend on the
existing leadership. Still, he had no interest in destroying the entire kingdom and
creating a vacuum in which rule would be difficult if not impossible. Therefore,
he chose to lay waste the kingdom’s capital and temple, and to exile the royal
house together with the elite of the nation.
The bitter fate of Jerusalem becomes evident from archaeological finds com-
bined with biblical accounts of the time of the destruction. The biblical descrip-
tions (2 Kgs. 25:1–25; Jer. 39:1–10; 52:1–30) centre on the Babylonian expedition to
Jerusalem, without reference to the actions undertaken in other parts of the king-
dom.5 From these accounts it transpires that the city was destroyed about a
month after it fell, and concurrently with the deportation of its residents (2 Kgs.
25:9–11; Jer. 39:8–9; 52:13–15). The archaeological data reinforce the biblical ac-
count, and they indicate that Jerusalem and its close environs suffered a severe
blow. Most of the small settlements near the city were destroyed, the city wall
was demolished, and the buildings within were put to the torch.6 Excavation and
survey data show that the western border of the kingdom also sustained a grave
onslaught, seemingly at the time when the Babylonians went to besiege Jerusa-
lem. However, it cannot be determined if the destruction of the array of outlying
settlements to the east and the south of the kingdom of Judah took place at that
time, or if it was a slow and gradual process, which took place after the elimina-
tion of the military force and the administrative system of the kingdom.7
From the evidence preserved in the Bible concerning the region of Benjamin
and the north of the Mount Judah area, and from the archaeological finds in
these areas, it emerges that their fate was different.8 It may be assumed that in

5 Cf. the texts of Jer. 34:7 and Lachish Ostracon NO.4 (lines 10–13). For discussion and the litera-
ture see Lipschits 1997b: 119–121.
6 For assembly of data of excavations conducted in Jerusalem and discussions of the finds of
the survey undertaken in the city and its surroundings see Lipschits 1997b: 246–271. On the fate
of Jerusalem after its destruction see Lipschits 1998b: 27–39. I wish to thank A. Kloner for kindly
agreeing to make available to me data of the survey that have not yet been published.
7 On the fate of the eastern borderland of the kingdom of Judah see Lipschits 2000. On the fate
of territories in the southern Judean hill country and the lowland plain see Dagan 1992: 262;
Ofer 1993: 127–135. On the fate of the Negev region see Lipschits 1997b: 344–349.
8 The fate of the Bethlehem area was presumably similar to that of the Benjamin region, al-
though the survey data in this region are less clear, particularly owing to the small number of
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 425

these areas the Judean inhabitants who did not go into exile were concentrated
and amongst them the existence of ‘the people that remained in the land of Judah’
continued.

The Biblical Evidence for Babylonian Rule

of the Benjamin Region

The biblical evidence of the time of the destruction of the First Temple indicates
that the Benjamin region became the centre of the ‘people who remained in the
land of Judah’ and did not go into exile. Appointed to govern them was Gedaliah,
son of Ahikam, son of Shafan (2 Kgs. 25:22; cf. Jer. 40:6),9 whose seat was at Mizpah
(2 Kgs. 25:23, 25; Jer. 40:6, 10, 12, 13, 15; 41:1, 3). From the descriptions of the period
of Gedaliah’s leadership,10 it appears that he held an official position. He was
invested with authority to administer the territory where those who had not gone
into exile dwelt, and his task was to act as a mediator between them and the
Babylonian rulers (Jer. 40:10). He also had powers to distribute land and houses
to ensure opportunities for a livelihood for all who would settle in the ‘land of
Judah’ (Jer. 40:10–12) (Lipschits 1997b: 132–134).11 Apparently in consequence of
such assurances, and in view of the stabilization of the alternative regime in
Judah, a process began after the destruction of Jerusalem of assembly of Judaean
refugees in the Benjamin region. Under Gedaliah’s leadership they began to settle
around Mizpah (Jer. 40:11–12).

excavated sites in the area. From analysis of the archaeological finds and comparison of the
spread of sites in the Iron Age and the Persian period, it may be assumed that the area was not
destroyed at the time of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, and that most of the settlements,
especially on the mountain ridge, continued to exist until the Persian period (Ofer 1993: 127–135;
Lipschits 1997b: 282–299).
9 For updated literature on the question of the historicity of Gedaliah and the seal/seal impres-
sions with that name see Becking 1997: 75–78.
10 On the two versions of the biblical story (Jer. 40:7–41:15 and 2 Kgs. 25:22–26) see Becking 1997:
69–72 (with additional bibliography).
11 One cannot accept the view of Miller and Hayes (1986: 421–423) that Gedaliah was made a
vassal king by the Babylonians. This idea is chiefly based on the description of Ishmael the son
of Nethaniah as ‘of the royal family’ (Jer. 41:1), on the mention of the ‘king’s daughters’ (v. 10),
and on the possibility that a later editor deleted the accounts in which Gedaliah was attributed
the status of king. No textual basis exists for any conjecture about the deletion of royal titles of
Gedaliah; the titles attributed to Ishmael and the king’s daughters should rather be linked to the
era of the existence of the House of David in the time before the destruction. It is doubtful that
the short period of Gedaliah’s government would have allowed him to establish a palace, and it
is doubtful that a man of the royal family of Gedaliah could be responsible for his assassination.
426 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

From analysis of bits of information embedded in the chapters of Jeremiah’s

‘biography’ (mainly in 37–44),12 it may be assumed that the Babylonians had al-
ready established the centre at Mizpah at the time of the siege of Jerusalem. The
chief indication of this, from which we also learn of the existence of an organized
Judaean group possessing rights on the eve of the destruction of Jerusalem, is
found in the account of the last attempts by Jeremiah to persuade King Zedekiah
to leave the city and surrender to the Babylonians, with the aim of preventing
the destruction (Jer. 38:14–26).13 In response to the prophet’s words (vv. 17–18) the
king says (v. 19), “I am afraid of the Jews who have deserted to the Chaldeans,
lest I be handed over to them and they abuse me”. The emphasis in this statement
is on a group of Jews who had surrendered to the Babylonians, were allowed to
remain in the land, and perhaps even obtained some measure of autonomy from
the Babylonians. The king’s fears may attest that the Babylonians sought to inte-
grate those Jews into the frame of the new province that they wished to establish
in Judah, and that Zedekiah, like Jeremiah, knew of it. These matters also reveal
the existence of two groups with conflicting political orientation: the supporters
of the rebellion, besieged in Jerusalem, and its opponents, outside the city The
enmity between the two groups is highlighted in the harsh treatment meted out
by the ‘ministers’, the leaders of the rebellion in Jerusalem, to Jeremiah; after
preventing him from joining that group they imprisoned him, and even tried to
harm him physically (Jer. 37:12–16; 38:1–13).
In trying to follow the process of formation of these two groups, we observe
a distinct turning point: the moment when the Egyptians went to the aid of be-
sieged Jerusalem (Jer. 37:11–15). A lull occurred in the Babylonian siege when the
Babylonian army withdrew to fight the Egyptian army, and it is in this setting
that Jeremiah’s attempt to leave the city is described (v. 12).14 The evidence in
verses 12–13 about the prophet’s purpose (‘to go to the land of Benjamin’) leads
to the conclusion that the destination of those who fled Jerusalem was the Benja-
min region. As Jeremiah’s action is not depicted as extraordinary, it may be as-
sumed that the Judahites who left Jerusalem were those who did not believe that
the rebellion stood any chance of success. They gathered in the Benjamin region,
joining inhabitants of the area who had surrendered earlier (Malamat 1950: 226),

12 For a detailed analysis of these chapters and a discussion of the features of the ‘biography’
see Wanke 1971: 91–133; Holladay 1989: 282 ff.; Seitz 1989: 236–281; Becking 1997: 70–73; Lipschits
1997b: 38–90.
13 For a summary of views in scholarship about the meaning of these verses and the linguistic
and literary problems in them, see Holladay 1989: 290.
14 On the meaning of the root ḥlq in the sense of flight from or desertion of a besieged city see
Eph’al (1993: 19 and n. 22, 23). See also there his criticism of various interpretations proposed for
this root.
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 427

and facilitated the establishment of an alternative centre to Jerusalem under

Babylonian protection. At this centre all the preparations were made for the con-
tinuation of Judaean existence after the destruction of Jerusalem. The central
condition set by the Babylonians to all who wished to enter it was acceptance of
the yoke of Babylonian rule (2 Kgs. 25:24; Jer. 40:9) (Lipschits 1997a: 135–139). The
arrest of Jeremiah at the Benjamin Gate is described as unusual; presumably the
leadership of the revolt in Jerusalem did not wish to allow a spiritual authority
of Jeremiah’s stature to join those who had set up the alternative centre in the
land of Benjamin, thereby strengthening them.
Two different versions exist in the ‘biography’ chapters (Jer. 39: 11–14; 40: 1–
6) of the prophet’s joining the centre at Mizpah (Wanke 1971: 110; Rore 1988: 208–
213; Lipschits 1997b: 80–90). According to both, Jeremiah was taken under the
protection of Gedaliah immediately following the destruction, when the centre at
Mizpah was already in existence. Gedaliah’s presence at Mizpah is related as if
taken for granted; he is described as being in authority, so that Jeremiah could
be entrusted to his charge in order to dwell ‘among the people’ (39:14; 40:5) or
‘among the people who were left in the land’ (40:6). This information accords
with the Babylonian inclination to establish an alternative regime in Judah for
the destroyed kingdom, based on people whose loyalty to Babylonia was well
known and who were capable of restoring the country in the shortest possible
time (Graham 1984: 55–58; Lipschits 1997b: 137–138). No information is found
about other appointments of local notables during the Babylonian Empire, appar-
ently because the Babylonians avoided describing their methods of rule in their
inscriptions. However, Gedaliah’s appointment may be compared to the appoint-
ment of local officials in the upper Euphrates region by the Assyrian government
in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE, mainly at times when the central govern-
ment became weak According to the bilingual epitaph found at Tell Fakhariyeh,
people with Aramaic names who were local notables or even members of the
royal family were appointed vassal rulers under the Assyrian government. A
similar conclusion arises from the inscriptions found at Suḥu, on the lower Eu-
phrates, and from evidence of the appointment of the princes who ruled in the
Nile delta region under Esarhaddon (680–669 BCE) and Ashurbanipal (668–
631 BCE). This practice of appointing local officials to governorships continued
into the Persian period, and men such as Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah
were made governors of the Yehud province.15
Scholars dispute the time relationship between the destruction of Jerusalem
and the assassination of Gedaliah. The main problem is that while the date of the

15 For the literature on this subject see Lipschits 1997b: 133–134. See also Oded’s conjecture
(Oded 1977: 475–476).
428 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

destruction is stated precisely “in the fifth month on the seventh of the month,
which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon” (2 Kgs.
25:8; and cf. Luc. version of this verse which renders ‘on the ninth of the month’;
and also Jer. 52:12 ‘on the tenth of the month’), the only datum transmitted regard-
ing the date of Gedaliah’s assassination is the time of arrival of Ishmael the son
of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama at Mizpah, near the time of the crime ‘in the
seventh month’ (2 Kgs. 25:25; Jer. 41: 1).16 The fact that the year of the assassination
of Gedaliah is not noted has allowed scholars to suggest that Gedaliah governed
at Mizpah for a long period.17 It seems, however, that the noting of the month
without its year is part of the author’s tendency to create a close continuity of
times between Gedaliah’s murder and the destruction of Jerusalem, and that his
purpose is to say that Gedaliah’s governorship at Mizpah lasted only a short time.
This was about two months, from the date of the destruction on the seventh,
ninth, or tenth of the month of Av, and the beginning of the month of Tishri
(apparently the third of Tishri, which is the accepted date in Jewish tradition)
(Lindsay 1976: 27, n. 30).
Many researchers accept the accounts in 2 Kgs. 25:26 and Jer. 41:16–18 at face
value, and surmise that the assassination of Gedaliah put an end to attempts to
restore Judah under Babylonian rule.18 Their historical reconstruction follows the
later editors of the book of Kings and of Jeremiah’s ‘biography’. But these two
descriptions offer a tendentious and partial picture. On the one hand, the purpose
of the account in Kings is to explain the deportation and the destruction of Jerusa-
lem to the community of the exiles, despite the fact that the land had not been
emptied of its inhabitants after these events. On the other hand, the purpose
of the Jeremiah’s ‘biography’ was to explain the circumstances of the prophet’s
departure for Egypt with the group of escapees after the assassination of Geda-
liah; to this account were added later editorial verses, which created the general
impression of the land being deserted.

16 For updated bibliography on Ishmael and Ba’alis see Becking 1997: 78–82.
17 Some scholars ascribe to Gedaliah several years’ rule at Mizpah (Ahlstrom 1993: 799; Cogan
and Tadmor 1988: 327; Harrison 1973: 161; Lindsay 1976: 27, n. 30; Miller and Hayes 1986: 421–
423; Seitz 1989: 276). All of these scholars were apparently influenced by the accounts in the
book of Jeremiah, especially by the detailing in 40:11–12, which has a literary and ideological
purpose, and whose concern is to isolate Ishmael the son of Nethaniah as exclusively guilty for
the assassination of Gedaliah. On this expansion see Lipschits 1997b: 58–67.
18 Miller and Hayes (1986: 425) believed that the assassination of Gedaliah was the event that
caused Judah to be turned into a province in the Babylonian administrative framework. Noth
(1954: 286–288) and following him Myers (1965: xx–xxi) and others surmised that after the assassi-
nation of Gedaliah, Judah lost its administrative independence within the Babylonian empire,
and was annexed to the province of Samaria as a sub-province.
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 429

Analysis of the description of events after the assassination of Gedaliah shows

a disparity between the overall impression of depopulation of the land and infor-
mation indicating that a small group of those who had remained in Judah left for
Egypt. According to Jer. 41:16, Johanan son of Kareah was accompanied by two
groups. The first consisted of “all the leaders of the forces with him”. At first sight,
this account refers to those same ‘leaders’ who had gone to Gedaliah (2 Kgs. 25:23b;
Jer. 40:8b) with a handful of soldiers. The second group consisted of “all the rest of
the people whom Ishmael the son of Nethaniah had carried away captive from
Mizpah after he had slain Gedaliah the son of Ahikam − soldiers, women, children,
and eunuchs whom Johanan brought back from Gibeon” (Jer. 41:16). As it stands,
the account refers to the group of people who had been captured at Mizpah by
Ishmael the son of Nethaniah and his ten men, and who were freed by Johanan
and the ‘leaders of the forces’ together with their personnel. This appears to be
the tiny remnant of people who had somehow survived the massacre at Mizpah
(Jer. 41:3, 10). This group was so small that the ten soldiers of Ishmael (v. 2) could
capture them and take them from place to place (v. 10). The conclusion seems to
be that no massive departure of Judaeans and desertion of the land occurred (Hol-
laday 1989: 298, 301). This also accords with the report in Jer. 43:5–6 (Thompson
1980: 669), assuming that 43:5b is a later addition; it does not appear in LXX or in
the text of 4QJerb (Janzen 1973: 54, 182–183; Holladay 1989: 276). The depiction of
the ‘departures’ for Egypt as “all the people both small and great” appears only in
the account in 2 Kgs. 25:26a. It is thrice repeated as an idiom in the continuation
of the Jeremiah’s ‘biography’ (42:1, 8; 43:4–5).19 The phrase was apparently added
to the text with the goal of magnifying the importance of the appeal to Jeremiah
and enlarging the audience to whom the prophecies were addressed.20

19 On the linguistic problems in these verses and the insertion and meaning in them of ‘all the
people small and great’, see Holladay 1989: 298–301; Thompson 1980: 663, and the bibliography
there. It seems that the intention of this expression is the inclusion of the activity of the people
as one group. Presumably, Jeremiah’s original words are in 42:9–12 (Seitz 1989: 277), and these
insertions are the result of later editing. On the full list of verses that should be seen as part of
the editing of this unit, see Wanke 1971: 116–131; Pohlmann 1978: 140–141; Thiel 1981: 62; Seitz
1989: 277–278. There are disagreements among these scholars, but these are not significant for
the verses under discussion here.
20 This tendency is evident also in the open confrontation that develops between Jeremiah and
Baruch and the crowd to whom the prophecies are spoken. This confrontation is expressed in
the particular address to ‘your God’ (42:2–3, twice in the singular!), and in Jeremiah’s response
stated in the second person plural (42:4). It reaches its climax in the generalization of the crowd
as ‘all the insolent men’ (43:2), apparently by Baruch (?) who is accused in 43:3 as responsible
for inciting the prophet to say the things that people did not wish to hear. On the tendency of
these passages see Thompson 1980: 662–664; Holladay 1989: 298–299; Seitz 1989: 275.
430 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

This enlargement is emphasized in the language of the appeal in 42:2 (which

also contains a paraphrase of Zedekiah’s words at 37:3b), and in the text of 43:5b
(a verse added for the purpose of parallelism with the words of the account at
40:12a).21
The conclusion arising from these accounts is that the group that left for
Egypt was numerically small. It consisted primarily of the ‘leaders of the forces’
and those who had been released from Ishmael’s hands. The latter were the main
element that feared a Babylonian reprisal for the assassination (Jer. 42:14–22)
(Janssen 1956: 39–42; Ackroyd 1968: 20–31; Oded 1977: 477–479). No hint exists that
this group included any more people, whether from the Benjamin region or from
the Judean hill country, and it seems that the generalization of this group to ‘all
the people’ was an act of later redaction of the episode (Wanke 1971: 129; Seitz
1989: 278–279). Presumably, many inhabitants still remained within the bounda-
ries of the province, and the Babylonians had to appoint an alternative leadership
to that of Gedaliah and all those who fled to Egypt.
For all Gedaliah’s importance and centrality to the process of restoration, one
cannot assume that the establishment of the Babylonian province depended on
him alone. Archaeological finds from the Benjamin region, which will be consid-
ered in the next section, as well as the finds from the northern Judean hill coun-
try (Ofer 1993: 127–135; Lipschits 1997b: 276–306), indicate continuous settlement
in these parts in the sixth century BCE. The account in Jer. 52:30, in which 745 Jews
were exiled in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar (582–581 BCE), shows that Judae-
an settlement persisted in the area (Miller and Hayes 1986: 425). There is no
intimation as to the reasons why the Babylonians conducted this deportation, but,
as stated, it was unconnected with the assassination of Gedaliah (ibid.).
Support for this conclusion may be found in the prophet’s address to the
group about to leave for Egypt and the attempts to persuade them to remain in
Judah (42:7–12). Jeremiah reminds them of the reason for the departure: “Do not
fear the king of Babylon, of whom you are afraid; do not fear him, says the
Lord” (v. 11). He speaks of the rehabilitation of the land in the spirit of Gedaliah’s
assurances, and sets out before those wishing to depart the terms of their ‘remain-
ing in the land’ (v. 10), promising them stability and protection against the Babylo-
nians (vv. 10–11). These words, spoken after the assassination of Gedaliah, are
evidence that the process of restoration had not yet ended. Furthermore, the
prophet’s warning of the catastrophe that would befall those who left for Egypt
is directed at them alone, and does not apply to those who have chosen to stay
in Judah.

21 On this subject see Janzen 1973: 54, 182–183; Holladay 1989: 276, and also compare the parallel
text of 4QJerb.
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 431

In sum, the tendentious account of the departure for Egypt found many ad-
herents among researchers, who see it as a reflection of historical reality. A simi-
lar description written with similar intent mentions the depopulation of the land
even before the time of Gedaliah (2 Kgs. 25:22). It may be assumed that the real
situation in Judah generally, and the Benjamin region in particular was different,
and that a considerable segment of the people remained to dwell on their land.
Support for this conclusion, based on the historical data, is found in an analysis
of the archaeological picture.

Finds from Archaeological Excavations in the Benjamin

Region

Many scholars have discerned the different fate of the Benjamin region and the
archaeological reality in it after the destruction of Jerusalem (Malamat 1950: 227;
Wright 1957: 199; Lapp 1965: 6; Weinberg 1970: 82; Avigad 1972: 10; Stern 1982:
229). In this section the finds discovered at the chief sites in the Benjamin region
that have been dated to the time between the Babylonian destruction and the
Return to Zion will be examined.

Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah)

At Mizpah, which is identified at Tell en-Naṣbeh, five archaeological seasons were

held (1926, 1927, 1929, 1932, and 1935), led by Badè.22 McCown and Wampler, who
published the summary reports of the digs at the site, were unable to show a
clear stratigraphy (Wright 1947: 70; Albright, 1948: 202; McClellan 1984: 53–54).
Due to the form of publication of the reports and the presentation of the data
only a few repeat studies have been done on the archaeological finds (Zorn 1993b:
26–32; and see literature and criticism there). The importance of Zorn’s doctoral
work (1993b) is conspicuous in this setting. He processed the raw material left by
the site’s excavator Badè in an effort to draw a clear stratigraphic picture of its
history (Zorn 1993b: 88–93).

22 For a review of the history of the geographic-historical research, including the fierce disputes
that arose over identification of the site, see Muilenburg (in McCown 1947a: 13–49, esp. 13–22);
and also Diringer 1967: 329–342; Muilenburg 1954–1955: 25–42. For a summary of the excavations
see McCown (1947a) in the archaeological and historical volume and Wampler (1947) in the
volume on the ceramic finds. Below I focus only on data relevant to the end of the Iron Age and
the time span up to the Hellenistic period. For a full survey see Zorn (1993).
432 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

In his report of the excavations McCown defined two principal Iron Age stra-
ta. The earlier, Stratum II, was dated to between the eleventh and the seventh
centuries BCE (1947: 181–183, 186). In McCown’s view, this stratum was covered
over by mounds of fallen debris for which he could find no clear historical expla-
nation (1947a: 183).23 He divided the later stratum, Stratum I, into two stages. The
first stage, ‘early 1’, was dated to the seventh and early sixth centuries, and fea-
tured construction with large undressed stones (Wampler in McCown 1947a: 183,
Pl. 62: 4–5). McCown characterized the second stage of Stratum I (‘late 1’) as a
scattered and sparse settlement, with low-quality building. On the basis of histori-
cal considerations, and without archaeological proof, he dated this stage to the
period after the Babylonian destruction. The scant remains of these walls found
over various parts of the Iron Age city wall (mainly in the middle of its western
section and in the eastern part of the north wall), he dated to the Persian period
(1947: 202–203).
Like Wampler and McCown, Zorn too stressed the continuity of settlement at
Mizpah throughout the Iron Age, on the grounds of absence of remains of destruc-
tion during the entire period (1993: 114). Following the limiting of McCown’s Stra-
tum II (Zorn’s Stratum 4) to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Zorn dated the
start of the earlier stage of Stratum I (‘early 1’) back to the tenth century. He then
expanded its chronological range to the end of the Iron Age, and divided it into
three secondary stages: Stratum 3C, dated to the tenth century, Stratum 3B, dated
to the first half of the ninth century, and Stratum 3A, dated to between 850 and
586 (Zorn 1993b: 114–162, 312–336).
Zorn divided the later stage of Stratum I (‘late 1’) into two secondary stages.
One part was termed ‘Stratum 2’ and dated to the Babylonian and Persian period,
while the other part was termed ‘Stratum 1’, and dated to the Hellenistic period
(1993: 163–185). In Zorn’s view, McCown’s opinion of the building quality of these
two periods was correct only for Stratum 1; the quality of construction in Stra-
tum 2 was better than that of Stratum 3, with its various stages. This was attested
by the manner in which the walls were built (Zorn 1993b: 167–169, 183), the stone
flooring which was more extensive in this layer (ibid.: 169, 183), the exclusive use
of monoliths as building columns,24 and the larger area of the ‘four-room houses’

23 McCown defined several secondary stages, which he believed belonged to this stratum. But
even before the appearance of Zorn’s thesis it was clear that he exaggerated its length and scope.
The restriction of this stage (Zorn’s Stratum 4) to the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE seems logical
and convincing. See Zorn 1993b: 103–113.
24 While in Stratum 3 there was much use of constructed columns, in Stratum 2 only monoliths
were used. Zorn interprets this as evidence of the improved building quality, but he adds a rider
to this (1993: 170–171). A further reservation stems from the abundance of building materials
that the builders of Stratum II got from the ruins of Stratum III.
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 433

(ibid.: 173–174).25 These data may attest to the status of those who lived in these
houses and their affluence. At the same time, the uniformity in size of buildings in
this stratum testifies to the similar status of their residents (ibid.: 179). Furthermore,
the predominance in the unearthed residential structures of the ‘three-room house’
and the ‘four-room house’ design, known from the Iron Age, indicates that at least
some of those who lived in this place were Judeans who continued the local build-
ing tradition (1993: 181–182).26
The main change in the city plan and the system of fortifications occurred at
the end of Stratum 3A, at the start of the sixth century. The inner gate and the
west wall that connected the two gates fell completely into disuse, and the form
of circumference settlement typical of the city plan at the start of the Iron Age
disappeared (Zorn 1993b: 151, 175–176). Despite the sharp change, Zorn estimates
that the transition from Stratum 3 to Stratum 2 did not result from the capture
and destruction of the city (Zorn 1993b: 161–163). He grounds this determination
on the lack of archaeological evidence of a destruction layer, the absence of pot-
tery finds on the building floors, the height to which the walls are preserved, and
the finding of many columns in situ. These four proofs indicate, he believes, that
the residents were allowed to leave their homes with their belongings. Only after
the city was deserted was the area within the walls leveled and the buildings of
Stratum 2 erected (Zorn 1993b: 151, 161–163, 175–176). As McCown had already
noticed, several building belonging to this stratum were constructed on the re-
mains of the gate and on the remains of the west wall (McCown 1947a: 198, 202;
see also Zorn 1993b: 154).27
The general plan of the Stratum 2 city is different in orientation from that
which characterizes the city from the start of the Iron Age (Zorn 1993b: 155, 167,
172; 1997: 29–38, 66), even though the earlier walls, recesses and outer gate con-
structed in Stratum 3B continued to be used (Zorn 1993b: 336–337).
Some of the structures in this stratum were based on the walls of buildings
in Stratum 3, and between the two strata continuity exists in the form of pottery
utensils (ibid.: 163–164). The plan of the new city is notable for the absence of an

25 According to Zorn, the average area of these buildings was tens of percent or even twice
larger than the average area of the buildings of Stratum 3.
26 In Zorn’s estimation the change in function of the city also expresses the total number of
inhabitants who lived in it. In Stratum 3 he estimates the total of all inhabitants at 800–1000,
and in Stratum 2 he gives the figure of 400–500 (1993b: 44).
27 The change in the system of the city’s entrance gates presumably stemmed from a different
conception of the form of its defense, but it might equally have expressed a different evaluation
of the external danger that the city might expect (Zorn 1993b: 336). At a later stage, when the
external danger to the city apparently increased, the width of the outer gate was reduced. Zorn
connects this to the location of Mizpah on the northern border of the province, and interprets
it against the background of imperial disputes (ibid.: 176).
434 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

overall ‘master plan’, evinced above all in the lack of connection between the lay
of the buildings plus the wall and the natural topography of the site (ibid.: 176,
179, 183). This presumable stems from the filling and leveling of large parts of
Stratum 3, which caused the natural contours on which the early layers were
based to be obliterated (ibid.: 168). Also noticeable is the dearth of dwellings,
which occupied the major part of the plan of Stratum 3. Instead, several large
and central structures were built, testifying that Mizpah ceased to be a place of
crowded settlement and became a centre of government in which storehouses
and a few relatively large residences (ibid.: 182–183) predominated.
It appears that Stratum 2 was divided into five main areas (see Fig. 1).
a.) The main residential area of the city was apparently built on its eastern
and southern side, close to the wall. Zorn’s plan (Fig. 1) shows a dense cluster of
buildings between the city gate of Stratum 3 (which continued to exist in Stra-
tum 2) and the area of the inner gate that was destroyed and had fallen into
disuse. In this area there were five three- and four-room buildings, besides others
whose plan is not clear. South of this, in the area of the granaries excavated
between the outer wall and the old inner wall, two more structures were built.
The remains of walls, some of which Zorn associated with Stratum 3, attest to
additional buildings along the southeastern side of the city. Next to these resi-
dences there were buildings that seemed to be large storehouses, e.g., Building
128.01 or 144.01, and also buildings with thinner walls, which in Zorn’s view
served as workshops (Zorn 1993b: 175, 177).
b.) In the north of the city Building 74.01, the ‘palace’, is prominent. Most of
the structure was not unearthed, but the large courtyard (about 60 m2.) enclosed
by rooms on the two sides that were excavated, suggests that this was a building
of about 270 m2 in area, in the Mesopotamian style of open-court building (ibid.:
173–174, 182; and see discussion of architectural comparisons and bibliography).
c.) In the south of the city there was, in my view, a parallel or even larger
complex. The combination of Buildings 159.07, 177.06, and 177.07 produces another
‘palace’ in the open-court building style. If indeed the space between these build-
ings was an open court, this structure was still larger than Building 74.01. Even
if this assumption is not accepted, it is still reasonable to suppose that a complex
so large, consisting of rows of rooms at right angles to the wall, had an adminis-
trative function. This assumption is supported by the proximity of the building
to the storehouse area.
d.) The centre of the site, especially its southern part, was apparently the
storehouse area. This reconstruction is based chiefly on the remains of Build-
ing 160.10, which is notable for its size (even though only a small part of it was
exposed in the excavations). The two long spaces that are evident in the building
plan allow the assumption that originally this was a large storehouse (Zorn 1993b:
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 435

Bldg. 74.01

Bldg. 93.04

Bldg. 93.03

Bldg. 110.01

Bldg. 127.01

Bldg. 128.01
Bldg. 127.05
Bldg. 125.01

Bldg. 124.01
Bldg. 127.03

Bldg. 142.00

Bldg. 144.01

Bldg. 145.02
Bldg. 160.10
Bldg. 159.07

Bldg. 177.07

Bldg. 177.06

Bldg. 194.01

Bldg. 195.02

0 20 40
m

Fig. 1: Tell en-Naṣbeh Stratum 2. Courtesy of J. R. Zorn.

436 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

174). On the basis of several remains of structures seen in the plan to the north-
west and northeast of Building 160.01, one may conjecture that the south-central
part of the site was wholly an area of storehouses. These could have served the
bureaucracy, the army, and the imperial logistical array encamped in the area.
The long wall lying north-south, located east of this sector, might have been the
eastern perimeter of this storage area. The plan shows sections of the northern
part of this wall, including the northeastern corner of the enclosure.
e.) In the middle and the west of the site remains were excavated of several
major buildings notable for their size (especially 124.01, 125.01, 142.00). Their plan
is not clear, nor is their purpose. Zorn’s suggestion that this area was for dwellings
may be accepted (1993b: 175, 178).
Reconstruction of the plan of Stratum 2 at Mizpah produces a settlement site
with particularly well-appointed buildings and storehouses. There is hardly any
evidence of usual dwellings, and a marked change is seen from the Israelite
border city of the end of the Iron Age.
The circumstances of the cessation of Stratum 2 are not clear, but the transi-
tion to Stratum 1, like the previous transition, was apparently not associated with
destruction. Zorn (1993b: 184) finds support for this view in the height of part of
the walls that were preserved, the columns that remained standing in situ, and
the absence of pottery finds on the floors (except in three rooms). Note that
McCown (1947a: 62–63) did not find evidence of razing or destruction of this
stratum either, and he assumed that the settlement was abandoned as its strategic
status and political importance fell into decline. From the Attic pottery finds it
seems that the settlement in Stratum 2 continued to exist at least until the middle
of the fifth century (Zorn 1993b: 184–185). According to the few later finds, it
maybe assumed that the settlement existed throughout the Persian period, and
became deserted in the course of a long process lasting until the Hellenistic peri-
od (McCown 1947a: 63, 202).28

Beitin (Bethel)

At Bethel, which is identified in the village of Beitin (Albright 1928: 9–11; Kelso
1968: 1–2), there were four excavation seasons with a gap of twenty years between
the first, led by Albright (1934), and the other three, led by Kelso (1954, 1957, 1960).
Albright hardly mentions a settlement at the site during the time between the

28 This determination was accepted in principle in research, when Albright and Wright dated
the end of this stratum later, and attributed some of the finds to the fourth century. See McCown
1947a: 185–186; 225–227.
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 437

end of the Iron Age and the Hellenistic period (1934a: 25);29 nor does Kelso in
his provisional reports.30 Yet Albright did not accurately define the time of the
destruction at the site, and stated that it occurred in the early sixth century
(1934b: 14) or later in that century (1949b: 142). On the basis of dating the pottery
to the sixth century, and regarding it as an intermediary type between the pottery
of the end of the Iron Age and that of the Persian period, Sinclair took it that this
settlement continued to exist until the middle of the sixth century, or even until
the beginning of its last third (1964: 62; 1968: 75–76).31

29 Albright’s excavations yielded hardly any pottery from the Persian period, and in some of
the excavation area there was a Hellenistic stratum on the remains from the end of the Iron
Age (Kelso 1968: 5–6). Albright mentions the Babylonian destruction only in two short notes,
referring the presence of a modest settlement that had existed at the beginning of the Persian
period (1934b: 14; 1935b: 198). But he did not reject the possibility that the site was destroyed at
a later time in the course of the sixth century and subsequently abandoned. The first evidence
of resettlement after the Iron Age destruction being a wall found in Area I. The wall was built
roughly of large stones taken, he believed, from the wall of the Iron Age settlement (1934b: 14).
Let us bear in mind that apart from the fact that these remains were found on the stratum of
the Iron Age destruction, there is no evidence for dating them. In the summary report of the
excavation too, only pottery that could be dated to later stages of the Persian period appears in
this stratum (Kelso 1968: 5–7, and Pl. 28).
30 The provisional report for the 1954 season describes two damaged column bases found in
the eastern part of the hill (1955: 9–10, Fig. 3). Albright in a note (Kelso 1955: 10, n. 5) suggests
the possibility that these bases were parallel to the bases of Achaemenide columns found at
Persepolis. Although many opposed this idea (ibid.) and this parallel seems far-fetched, their
attribution to the fifth century has been accepted in research (Stern 1982: 31), as has the possibili-
ty that this is part of a monumental structure that existed in that period (Kelso 1955: 9–10). In
his summary report Kelso makes no mention of these column bases, but notes the presence of
building remains from the Hellenistic or Persian period in the northwest of the tell (where the
1934 excavation campsite was situated). Southeast of this were also a few potsherds and scant
remains of walls, also dated to the Persian-Hellenistic period (1968: 7, and PI. 7). The provisional
report of the 1957 season makes no mention of finds from the Persian period (Kelso 1958: 8). The
1960 season did not yield pottery from the Persian period at any of the excavation sites either
(Kelso 1961: 8).
31 Support for the continued existence of the settlement at this place during the sixth century
is found in N. Lapp’s discussion of the Attic pottery from Shechem (in Wright 1965: 137; 238–241,
and Fig. 113). In her view, Stratum V should be dated to 525–475 BCE. On the basis of this study,
Wright (1965: 167, and see also Lapp 1965: 6) compared the local pottery of this stratum with that
found at Bethel, Gibeon, and Gibeah, and dated the destruction of these sites to the mid-sixth
century at the earliest. Sinclair (apud Kelso 1968: 37) pinpointed an even more specific dating:
between the third year of the reign of Nabonidus (533 BCE) and the beginning of that of Darius
(521 BCE). This was based on consideration of the pottery in the material from the burnt Iron
Age II buildings, and the fact that this material, in his opinion, was later than the pottery discov-
ered in the destruction layer of Tell Beit Mirsim, Beth-Shemesh, Lachish and other sites destroyed
by the Babylonians. Dever (1971: 468–469, n. 15–16) criticized Sinclair’s conclusion, in particular
438 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

In the summary report of the excavations at the site Kelso (1968: 75–76) adopt-
ed Sinclair’s conclusions and suggested dating the destruction of the last Israelite
stratum to the beginning of the final third of the sixth century.32 Owing to the
absence of architectural finds at the site from the Persian period, Kelso (ibid.: 37–
38) assumed that the settlement of that period did not lie on the tell but lower
down, near the springs to the south of the main dig. He assumed that at a later
stage, perhaps during the fifth century, the settlement at the site recovered. The
chief sign of this recovery is found in the central part (Area II), where there are
building remains whose existence continued to the Hellenistic period (Albright
1934b: 14; 1935b: 198; Kelso 1968: 37–38, 51, PI. 7).33

el-Jib (Gibeon)

At Gibeon, which is identified with the village of el-Jib (Albright 1924a: 94; Pritchard
1960a: 1–2), there were five major excavation seasons led by Pritchard (1956–1957,
1959–1960, and 1962). The stratigraphy of the tell is not clear, and it is not possible
to date the buildings and the finds belonging to different settlement stages satisfac-
torily (see Lapp 1968b). In 1964 a report was published on the winepresses and the
fortifications excavated in the 1959–1960 seasons. A discussion could be held on
the stages of existence of the site at the end of the Iron Age and in the Persian
period. Pritchard (1964: 27) argued that Gibeon was destroyed at the beginning of
the sixth century, and a settlement interval ensued at the site until the first cen-
tury BCE. He based his position on three main points:

1 Finds in the wine-presses and the pits in the northwest of the tell
Pritchard (1964: 12–16) argued that analysis of the finds indicated an interval of
about five centuries, from the beginning of the sixth to the first century BCE. His
basis for this was the fact that above the main Iron Age II finds (dating to the
eighth-seventh centuries) there were Roman and Byzantine finds, without any

the pottery comparisons he made. He actually stressed pottery parallels to the eighth-seventh
centuries, and argued against Sinclair’s generalizations. But he made it clear that this criticism
was not rejection of the possibility that Bethel was destroyed after the destruction of Jerusalem.
32 Despite agreement among most scholars on the continued existence of the settlement at
Beitin in the sixth century, after the destruction of Jerusalem, we should keep in mind that this
period is not a distinct settlement stratum, and most reconstructions are based on the dating of
a handful of sherds out of the accumulation of Iron Age pottery.
33 This determination is problematic, as Lapp’s analysis indicates that the pottery finds from
this stratum do not belong to the fourth century BCE (Kelso 1968: 77; Dever 1971: 468).
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 439

evidence of settlement in between. Pritchard determined that the site was de-
stroyed at the beginning of the sixth century and uses this as the starting point
in several different contexts (1964: 27, continuation of the argument in 1960a: 25).
This seems to be more a historical than an archaeological determination, and
from it the stratigraphic and ceramic array of the site was fixed, with startling
disregard for later finds (de Vaux 1966: 130–135). For among the finds (e.g., in Loci
137, 141, 211, 212) dated by Pritchard to the eighth and seventh centuries are later
pottery utensils (Pritchard 1964: 20–23), as well as some mwṣh stamp impressions
(Loc. 136 in Pritchard 1964: 20, Fig. 50:4, 7; cf. Pritchard 1959a: 27; see also Stern
1982: 33; Zorn, Yellin and Hayes 1994: 161–183). Contrary to Pritchard’s argument,
the finds in the winepresses and pits in the northeast of the tell do indeed contain
evidence of settlement during the sixth century, and apparently even later (in the
Persian period).

2 Dating the Iron Age city wall and buildings, and the connection
between the fortifications and the water project
Pritchard (1964: 35–39) felt that the early city wall belonged to Iron Age I and was
parallel with the first water project (the pool) and the columned building exposed
in the northwest of the tell which was located under the later inner-city wall. In
his view, this latter city wall was built at the end of the tenth century, at the same
time as the second water project (the tunnel) (Pritchard 1956: 73–75; 1964: 38–39).
He held that the city flourished at the end of the seventh century and was de-
stroyed at the beginning of the sixth, and judged that sixth-century finds were
limited and did not attest to a real settlement layer. Accordingly, Pritchard assumed
that between the sixth and the first century BCE there was a gap in settlement
(1964: 40). In his criticism of the summary report, Albright rejected the dating of
the early city wall to the time of the beginning of the kingdom. He stated that the
pottery on which Pritchard had based his opinion could serve only as a terminus
post quem, and that it was difficult to imagine that such a massive fortification
could have been constructed earlier than the tenth century (1966: 32–33). In addi-
tion, Albright held that there were no archaeological grounds for fixing the time
of the destruction at the beginning of the sixth century; it might well have hap-
pened at a later stage (ibid.: 33).
In light of this, it seems that Pritchard’s dating of the city wall and the Iron
Age structure, like his assumption about the relation of the fortifications to the
water project, relied on a historical view and not on stratigraphic and archaeo-
logical criteria.
440 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

3 Epigraphic evidence
Pritchard’s first fully-published report (1959) was devoted to the epigraphic mate-
rial. He included 56 decanter handles inscribed gbʿn gdr,34 about 80 stamp impres-
sions of various kinds, and 80 personal seals (1959a: V). All the finds (apart from
five stamp impressions) were found in the fillings of the large pool, which came,
Pritchard believed, from the area south of the pool (ibid.: VI). For our purposes,
the discussion on the inscription gbʿn gdr on the decanter handles is important.
In Pritchard’s view, these vessels were filled with wine or oil, and the product
was intended for export, as only this could explain the inclusion of the name of
the place (ibid.: 15–16).35 In his attempt to date the inscription on the decanter
handles Pritchard used four criteria:
1) From the stratigraphic aspect Pritchard observed that apart from two in-
scriptions found on a higher level, all were in the pool filling, at heights between
4.60 and 7.60 m. below the rim of the pool. This level was more or less parallel
to the level of the lmlk impressions (found between 3.50 and 10.30 m. below the
rim of the pool), a fact that formed a central argument in dating the inscriptions
to the eighth-seventh centuries (1959a: 12; 1959b: 25). The date determined by
Pritchard is based on the assumption that the pool filled up with earth gradually,
in a process lasting from the sixth century until after the destruction and deser-
tion of the site. But this assumption is not proven.
On the one hand, it may be assumed that the destruction was later than the
stage of abandonment of the pool. On the other hand, it cannot be known when
it was filled in, where the filling material came from, or what the relationship
was between the place whence the lmlk stamp impressions were taken and the

34 This definition of the vessels as ‘decanters’ follows the definitions of Amiran (1975: 129–132)
and Stern (1982a: 32, 115–118).
35 In Pritchard’s opinion, the name of the place and of the name of the producer were inscribed
on the containers to ensure their return after delivery of their content. This explains the absence
of the appearance of inscriptions at other sites in Judah and Benjamin (Pritchard 1959a: 16;
1960b: 2). Alternatively, he suggested regarding the inscriptions as a mark attesting to the quality
of the content at the place where the wine was sent, on the assumption that Gibeon enjoyed a
good reputation as a producer of fine wine and the persons whose names appeared on the
handles were well known (ibid.). See also a separate article by Pritchard on the wine industry
in which he expands on the function of the vessels on which the inscriptions were found and
uses they were put to (1959b: 22–24). A major innovation in the understanding of the meaning
and times of the inscriptions was made in Demsky’s article (1971: 16–23), which to some extent
continues the idea raised by Albright (1960: 37), that the inscriptions should be divided into two
groups, which represent two families that produced wine in villages near Gibeon. The wine was
sent to the production and trading centre at Gibeon. Each family wrote its name on the container
for its return, and the vessels found at Gibeon are those that were broken and discarded.
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 441

place whence the inscriptions were taken.36 Therefore, in stratigraphic terms the
inscriptions cannot be dated, and the chronological connection between the gbʿn
gdr inscriptions and the lmlk stamp impressions must be rejected. The only con-
clusion that may be drawn from the proximity between them is that in the area
from where the earth was taken to fill the pool there was a continuity of settle-
ment strata from the end of the eighth to the sixth century.
2) From the ceramic aspect Pritchard noted that most of the vessels on which
the inscriptions were made were decanters of a single type (1959a: 3, 12–13;
Fig. 6:2). Because Pritchard did not find exact parallels to this vessel, he suggested
that it be regarded as a special type, which was made for a definite purpose and
was not common at other sites. Amiran (1975: 129–132) set forth a thorough discus-
sion of pottery parallels to the decanter on which the inscriptions were made.
She found such parallels at Megiddo, at Beth Shemesh, and in late Iron Age tombs
at Beth Shean, which, in her view, were the closest parallels to the Gibeon decant-
er (ibid.: PI. 1:4, and Table XI). From these data Amiran assumed that the vessels
should be dated to the Babylonian period, between the destruction of the First
Temple and the Persian rule (ibid.: 129).37
3) From the paleographic aspect Pritchard encountered the problem of the
absence of comparable material as grounds for determining the dating. An addi-
tional problem was the great variety of inscriptions, some of which were done
beautifully and with great care, others carelessly and with mistakes; the latter,
Pritchard felt, attested to copying of the script without the copier understanding
the content. Pritchard’s paleographic conclusion was that most of the inscriptions
belonged to the seventh or early sixth century (1959a: 15).38
4) Further, from the aspect of distribution of names, Pritchard found support
for dating to the seventh century. He based this primarily on the first appearance
of the name ḥnnyh in the course of that century, and from the only parallel there
was to the name nryh in the book of Jeremiah (which he took as parallel to the
name nrʾ that appears in the inscriptions). Pritchard’s conclusion from all this
was that the upper limit for dating the inscriptions was the beginning of the

36 In a footnote Pritchard raises the possibility that the pool was filled with earth in the first
century BCE (1960a: 11). The length of time from the seventh-sixth centuries allows the conjecture
that the earth was taken from the place where there was continuity between the two periods.
37 Amiran assumed that this was the last link in the chain of development of the decanters,
whose beginning was in the tenth-ninth centuries, and their development could be traced in the
eighth-seventh centuries also (ibid., 129, 132, and PI. 2:1–5). Another vessel of the same kind was
found at Tel Batash and published by A. Mazar (1985: 319, and Fig. 11:3).
38 In this connection Pritchard voiced reservation only regarding the impression dml’ (Nos. 21,
26–29).
442 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

seventh century, and the lower limit was the period of the Exile (1959a: 15).39
Criticisms written about these conclusions evinced two main themes. There were
scholars who placed the inscriptions earlier, in the seventh century (Avigad 1959:
131; Demsky 1971: 23) and in contrast, those who placed them later, to the time of
the Exile and the beginning of the Persian period (Albright 1960a: 37; Cross 1962:
18–23; Wright 1963: 210–211). In my opinion, the dates should indeed be placed
later, to the sixth century, primarily by reason of the pottery (Amiran), the paleog-
raphy (Cross) and the stratigraphy (Wright). Support for the continued existence
of Gibeon in this period may arise from finds from the sixth century in the
‘Israelite’ buildings in Area 17,40 in addition to the findings that Pritchard himself
ascribed to this period. Further reinforcement may be drawn from two impres-
sions found at a considerable depth in the water cistern, which manifestly belong
to the Persian period (see Avigad 1959: 130–133; Pritchard 1960b: 2–6; 1964: Pl. 46:
533, 556) and reflect local imitations of widespread Achaemenid motifs (see Stern
1982: 209–213). An additional factor is the mwṣh impression published by Prit-
chard (1959a: 27; Zorn, Yellin, and Hayes 1994: 161–183; Zorn 1997: 37) among the
personal seal impressions, which is parallel to 28 impressions found at Tell en-
Naṣbeh and to the one found at Jericho. Four more seals were found in the 1959
season, and Pritchard assigned them all to the Persian period, together with a
gold ring and a silver ring, on which was an indistinct inscription (1959b: 25;
1960a: 11). The large cemetery, which apparently belongs to the period after the
destruction (EsheI 1987b: 1–7), may also bolster the assumption that Gibeon was
not destroyed at the beginning of the sixth century, and in this period its impor-
tance actually increased.

Tell el-Fûl (Gibeah)

At Gibeah, which is identified at Tell el-Fûl (see Arnold 1990: 39–60), excavations
were conducted under the direction of Albright (1922–1923, 1933) and Lapp (‘emer-
gency excavations’ 1964). Albright (1924a: 20; 1933: 10) discerned several stages of

39 Pritchard set the lower limit of the inscriptions on the grounds of the name dml’. He assumed
that inscriptions Nos. 21–22 were joined, and inferred from this that dml’ was the grandson of
hnnya nr’, and he lived in the time of the Exile. He thereby also explained the special nature of
this inscription in terms of its different writing of the letter aleph (Pritchard 1959a: 16–17). I do
not believe these arguments to be well founded, and at most the inscriptions may serve as a
terminus post quem, without rejecting the possibility of dating them to the sixth century.
40 The sixth-century finds include pottery decorated with reed impressions and with stamp
impressions of the m(w)ṣh kind (Pritchard 1964: 20, 21, 23, Figs 32:7; 33:13; 34:14; 48:17, 22;
PI. 50:1,4,7; 51:6).
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 443

Iron Age fortresses: he dated Fortresses I–II to the end of the eleventh and begin-
ning of the tenth centuries; Fortress IIIa was dated to the beginning of the seventh
century; Fortress IIIb was dated to the second half of the seventh century, with
its destruction occurring at the beginning of the sixth century (Sinclair 1960:33;
Lapp 1981: 39, 59). Although in the first season a great many finds dating to the
Persian period had been unearthed, Albright did not signify a defined stratum of
this period. He believed that after the Babylonian destruction the site was aban-
doned, and it was renewed only in the fourth century (Stratum IV) (Albright
1924a: 25–27; see also Sinclair 1960: 34–35). These conclusions were greeted with
fierce criticism, directed against the stratigraphic determinations, the chronologi-
cal definitions, and the historical interpretation (Franken 1961: 471–472; Amiran
1962: 263–264; Finkelstein 1988: 56–60). In consequence of some of the earlier
criticism, Sinclair published another article (1964) which surveyed the history of
Albright’s three seasons. He suggested dividing Stratum IV into two stages, and
shortened the interval in which the site was deserted (1964: 60). On the grounds
of updated pottery determinations he surmised that the site was resettled as early
as the end of the sixth century (Stratum IVa).41
In this framework the fortress was rebuilt, as were the houses on the eastern
side of the site.42 Well-constructed buildings of unusual design were exposed on
this side. Beside them were various cuttings in the rock. Sinclair assumed that

41 Sinclair (1964: 60–62) considered the pottery of this stratum to be parallel to that of Stratum V
at Shechem and to the content of the pits at Gibeon (a problematic matter methodologically). He
inferred from this that Stratum IVa should be dated to the end of the sixth and beginning of the
fifth century. In making this comparison he principally used pottery found in the pits, among
which Pit 15 was conspicuous (ibid.: 62). Compare also the content of Pit 12 (Sinclair 1960: 36).
Note in this context that Lapp (1965: 6) opposed this dating of the pits, and divided them into
two groups belonging to Iron Age I and Iron Age II. He rejected placing them in the Hellenistic
period, and also their similarity to those at Gibeon, and took it that they belonged to a private
storage setup in the houses of those periods. He thought that only the two plastered pits should
be dated to the sixth century, and they continued in use still later, in the Hellenistic period (ibid.:
9–10). The finds in these pits included handles with the inscriptions yršlm, yhd, lmlk, and also
two later inscriptions belonging to the second century. Further to this, N. Lapp (1981: 59) argued
that the pits could not be characterized chronologically or divided into any categories at all. In
her view, most of them belonged to Iron Age II, and they continued to exist in the following
periods. Note that the main grounds for the dating to the end of the sixth century are the view
of Sinclair and Lapp that the pottery is later than that of Bethel, which was dated to the first
half of the sixth century (ibid.). In light of this dating, Sinclair could place the second stage of
the stratum (lVb) forward to the third century, and assume that there was a settlement interval
of about two centuries (Sinclair 1964: 62).
42 Note that in N. Lapp’s summary report (1981) a different number is given to this stratum
(IIIb) because of her opinion that it is the direct continuation of the stratum of the end of the
Iron Age (III).
444 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

some of these were alike in shape and measurements to the pits at Gibeon, which
in Pritchard’s view had served for storing the wine flasks. Lapp’s finds from the
emergency excavation (1964) reinforced Sinclair’s conclusions about the destruc-
tion of the last Israelite stratum (IIIb) by the Babylonians and the renewal of the
settlement at the end of the sixth century (1965: 2–10).43 Lapp was of the opinion
that this settlement was abandoned in about 450 BCE, the same time as the aban-
donment of the other sites of Gibeon, Bethel and Shechem, and from this it tran-
spired that the site was not settled in the Persian period (1965: 6–10). Lapp’s
deductions are not based on historical information, and it is not clear why he
adopted this dating or on what grounds.
In her summary report on the last season at the site (1964) N. Lapp substanti-
ated the datings her predecessors had suggested for the construction and destruc-
tion of the fortresses of the end of the Iron Age (1976: 25; 1981: 39; see P. Lapp
1965:4).44 Nevertheless, she showed that the Babylonian destruction at the site
was selective, and despite the razing of the fortress and one of the buildings in
the northeast of the site, the settlement continued to exist in the sixth century.
In part of the excavated area loci were found that were dated convincingly to
the time of Babylonian rule of the site (Lapp 1981: 40–46; and see discussion of
the pottery on pp. 88–101). In Lapp’s view it could be assumed that the population
at the site indeed expanded in the period, and settlement extended beyond the
boundaries of the Iron Age settlement (1981: 39, 59). The site was abandoned only
at the end of the sixth century or even at the beginning of the fifth, and remained
desolate until the beginning of the Hellenistic period (ibid.).45

Summary of archaeological evidence from the Benjamin region

From the foregoing no evidence emerges of destruction at the beginning of the

sixth century, apart from the razing of parts of Tell el-Fûl. At all the excavated

43 These findings chiefly consisted of a large quantity of sherds dating to the beginning of the
Persian period, many finds from this period unearthed in the northwest of the tell, and architec-
tural remains found west of the fortress and outside the area of the Iron Age II wall. In Lapp’s
view, this attests to a time of quiet, which allowed the settlement to spread (1965: 6).
44 For criticism of the dating of the city wall see Finkelstein 1988: 59.
45 N. Lapp linked the abandonment to the movement of the inhabitants to Jerusalem from 538,
and explained thereby the absence of finds from the last stage of its existence. The main evidence
for this is the lack of finds of the ‘classic’ pottery of the Persian period. However, it is doubtful
that the ceramic change on which Lapp based her opinion occurred as early as the first days of
the Return. For criticism on this subject see Hübner 1987: 228. I believe that there is nothing to
prevent the assumption that this change occurred only at the beginning of the fifth century or
even later, and that the site was deserted for about 150 years.
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 445

sites evidence of continuity of settlement exists between the seventh and sixth
centuries, and of their existence throughout the time of Babylonian rule, until
the last third of the sixth century. Two major sites existed in the Benjamin region
in the period following the destruction of Jerusalem: at Mizpah the administrative
centre was apparently located. Finds discovered there attest to a Babylonian pres-
ence, together with evidence of the continued existence of local traditions. It
remained fortified, and in it were homes of well-to-do people as well as buildings
that may be interpreted as storehouses. Gibeon apparently continued to be a
wine-producing centre; its activity might even have expanded, and the city inte-
grated into the framework of the provincial administration. The place had great
economic importance for the Benjamin region, and it might have served as an
industrial centre for the wine-making activity in the region. From the end of the
sixth century and during the fifth and the fourth, settlement in the Benjamin
region gradually dwindled. This process may be associated with the shift of the
centre of settlement to the Jerusalem area after the Return from the Exile and
the decline of the status of Mizpah, together with that of the Benjamin region as
a whole.
The historical and archaeological reconstruction proposed here is of great
importance for understanding the material culture of the period after the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem. The population that remained in Benjamin after the destruction
may be presumed to have continued to make the same pottery vessels as it had
before, to live in similar buildings, and to preserve most of its cultural features.
There was a slow and gradual development, which occurred in the time of the
exile and in the early days of the Return. The definition of the pottery types
present in Judah in the interval from the destruction of Jerusalem to the Return
from the Exile is a complex matter, which goes beyond the scope of this paper
(see Milevski 1996–1997: 10–11; Lipschits 1998b). Still, recognition of the continuity
of settlement in the Benjamin region after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the
finding of settlement remains in this area, may be the key to defining this ‘inter-
mediary’ culture, which so far has not won definition as an independent division
in archaeological research.46

46 The appearance of pottery typical of the end of the kingdom of Judah began sometime after
the beginning of the seventh century, perhaps around the middle of the century (Zimhoni 1990:
3–52). The appearance of the ‘classic’ Persian pottery, and the establishment of other characteris-
tics of this period’s culture, was not before the middle of the fifth century (Stern 1997: 69–72).
Between the beginning of the appearance of these two pottery accumulations, well known and
defined in archaeological research, was an interval amounting to about two centuries. This is
not long in terms of cultural and ceramic changes, particularly since the same population contin-
ued to live in the area. The evident conclusion is that if there were changes in the tradition of
pottery manufacture, these were slow and gradual.
446 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

The chief reason for this is the similarity between the culture of this period
and the cultures that existed before it and after it, plus the fact that it is an
‘intermediary culture’. As most of the sites in Benjamin have continuity of settle-
ment and the stratigraphy is not sufficiently clear, and because many of the settle-
ments of the period were at small sites known only from surveys and not excavat-
ed, archaeological research has been unable to isolate the features of the pottery
or define them distinctly.47 However, recognition of the continued existence of a
large population in Benjamin after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the under-
standing that this population continued to maintain the material culture that had
existed in Judah before the destruction of Jerusalem, is significant for the analysis
of the findings of the survey conducted in Benjamin.

The archaeological survey of the Benjamin region

In the 1980’s an archaeological survey was conducted over most of the area of
the Benjamin region (Finkelstein and Magen 1993; see also Kallai 1972: 151–193).48
The survey data make for a broad settlement picture of the region, complementa-
ry to the picture obtained from the excavation data. For in contrast to information
accruing from the excavations of the main settlements in the Benjamin region,
the survey data show the varied settlement array that existed throughout this
terrain.49

47 The lack of familiarity with the material culture in Judah between the destruction of Jerusa-
lem and the Return is presumably temporary, and will last only until the publication of more
precise and refined studies, mainly on the pottery discovered at Tell el-Fûl and Tell en-Naṣbeh.
The specification of pottery types characteristic of this period at these two sites may serve as
the key for identifying these types at other sites, as may the archaeological surveys conducted
in the territory of Judah and Benjamin.
48 The accepted boundaries for demarcating the territory of the Benjamin region are the follow-
ing: in the north, the boundary runs along the line from Jericho to Beitin and Bet ‘Ur et-Taḥta
in the south it passes along the Sorek and Og streams; in the east it reaches the steep descent
from the highland down towards Jericho, and it includes the large wadis dropping from the
highland range eastward to the Jordan valley; in the west the region is bounded by the steep
decline towards the Judaean plain. Note that a large segment of this region, about 30 square
kilometers, was not covered by the Benjamin survey. Still, in terms of settlement this was not of
great significance as there are hardly any water sources in that part, and the number of settle-
ments there throughout history is small (Finkelstein and Magen 1993: 19–21).
49 On the limitations and problems entailed in the data of the archaeological survey of the
Benjamin region see Milevski 1996–1997: 10–18, and there also criticism of previous research,
particularly the studies of Carter (1991: 150–165; 344–365; 1994: 106–145).
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 447

A problem of methodology that has to be considered in a discussion of the

survey findings is that the publication of the data did not account for the finds
of excavations conducted in the region. The surveyors presented a schematic
chronological picture, according to which the Iron Age ended at the beginning of
the sixth century, while the Persian period, which is mainly reflected at the height
of the period in the fifth and fourth centuries, began after an interval lasting
approximately a century at least (Finkelstein and Magen 1993: 27). In our analysis
of the excavation data we learned that settlement in the Benjamin region contin-
ued after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the large remaining population con-
tinued to sustain the culture known from the end of the Iron Age. Therefore, the
period defined in the survey as Iron Age II has to be prolonged to include most
of the sixth century also.50 Furthermore, we learned that settlement in the Benja-
min region was steadily declining at the end of the sixth century, but the popula-
tion continued to exist until the fourth century. Therefore, the beginning of the
period defined in the survey as the Persian period has to be moved back, and it
should be taken that the decline reflected in it began as early as the last third of
the sixth century (see Finkelstein and Magen 1993: 27).
The first fact that emerges from the surveys is the sharp fall (about 60 %) in
the number of sites (from 146 in Iron Age II to 59 in the Persian period).51 A
parallel fall is observed in the estimate of the number of settled dunams (from
1150 to about 500) (ibid.). The steepest and most conspicuous drop was in the
eastern zone of the Benjamin region, principally its northeastern part. East of the
Beitin-ʿAnata line (see Fig. 2) about 71 Iron Age II sites were surveyed (Mazar,
Amit, and Ilan 1984: 236–250; Milevski 1996–1997: 19). In the Persian period, by
contrast, only 14 sites were surveyed in this area (a fall of about 80 %).
A still sharper drop (about 86 %) is found in the comparison of estimates of
settled areas in this part. The largest fall in number of settlements occurred in
the zone between Michmash and the slope running down towards Jericho. In this
area about 27 Iron Age II sites were surveyed, as compared to only one site from

50 This assumption runs counter to that of Finkelstein (in Finkelstein and Magen 1993: 27),
namely that at the start of the sixth century, contemporaneously with the destruction of Jerusa-
lem, the settlement of the Benjamin region underwent a grave crisis, and the settlement picture
was even more severe than that evinced by the survey.
51 For a different evaluation, namely that the drop in the number of sites was about 75 %, see
Milevski 1996–1997: 18. The core of this difference in evaluations is that Milevski included in the
Benjamin region the area near Jerusalem, to which historically an entirely different fate can be
ascribed than that of Benjamin. The result of the inclusion of the Jerusalem area is a significant
rise in the number of late Iron Age sites and an enlargement of the measure of destruction in
the transition to the Persian period. On this issue see Lipschits 1997b: 246–275; 1998b: 27–39.
448 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

the Persian period.52 This figure attests to the absolute disappearance of settle-
ment from this area, which had begun at the end of the Iron Age (Finkelstein
and Magen 1993: 279, 346). A considerable reduction in the scope of settlement
was evident in the north of the Benjamin region also, where about 12 sites were
located from Iron Age II, most of them west of the watershed, as compared to
only two sites that existed there in the Persian period.
The major conclusion arising from these facts is that in the Persian period
the settlements in Benjamin withdrew towards the centre of the region, to the
narrow sector on either side of the watershed, while the northern and eastern
zones became almost entirely devoid of their settlements. This fact accords with
existing information about the complete cessation of settlement that occurred
throughout the region of the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea shore (Lipschits
2000).
The marked deterioration of the eastern borderland of the Benjamin region
presumably began immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem and the col-
lapse of the economic, military, and political systems of the kingdom of Judah.
The eastern settlements of the kingdom (the desert marches in Benjamin and
Judah, the Judaean Desert, the Jordan Valley, and the western littoral of the Dead
Sea) depended on state support and defense, and also on trade in goods produced
at En Gedi and Jericho. The downfall of the military system of the kingdom of
Judah and the destruction of those two production centres did not permit the
continued existence of the peripheral settlements of Judah. The drastic fall in
scope of settlement, as reflected in the survey data, cannot be ascribed to military
activity. It was more likely the combined result of military action against particu-
lar strongholds (the array of fortresses across the region’s road network) and the
economic collapse of the region, in consequence of which there was a rapid pro-
cess of population thinning, desertion, and migration. To all this must be added
the effect of the proximity of the north of Benjamin to the southern border of
the province of Samaria. It is doubtful that the local governors in Judah, or the
bureaucracy and the military garrison posted by the Babylonian rulers, were able
to secure safe living conditions for the residents of this border area, far from the
provincial centre.
This was perhaps a further reason for the diminution of the settlement in
the northern Benjamin region and the abandonment of pasturelands in the east
of the province. Most of the settlements that continued to exist in Benjamin after
the sixth century were concentrated along the mountain ridge and on the upper

52 The existence of this isolated site in the Persian period is not certain, nor does its size
(0.5 dunams) change the picture qualitatively (Goldfus and Golani 1993: 279). See also the com-
ments of the surveyors (ibid.: 138).
 The History of the Benjamin Region Under Babylonian Rule 449

mountain slopes. In these parts lay the economic and administrative centres of
the province during the years of Babylonian rule, and these permitted the inhabi-
tants of the region greater safety and livelihood (see Finkelstein and Magen 1993:
20–21). The intensification of security problems and limited opportunities for live-
lihood may also have been factors in the change that occurred in the settlement
pattern: the almost complete disappearance of small sites, both those defined as
farms or isolated buildings (a fall of 95 %) and those of areas estimated at 1–
3 dunams (a fall of about 66 %). The probable result was the concentration of the
population into larger settlements.53 This change evinced no regional variation,
but seems characteristic of all of Benjamin, apparently owing to the undermining
of the security situation in the region.

Conclusion: The Benjamin region under Babylonian rule

and the aftermath

In 1950 Malamat suggested that “perhaps there is ground for the assumption that
the territory of Benjamin surrendered to the Babylonian army soon after the
invasion and thus escaped the ravages of war visited on other parts of the coun-
try” (1950: 227).
The combination of all the historical evidence, together with excavation data
of the main sites and the survey data, strengthens Malamat’s view. It attests that
the region was not destroyed when Jerusalem was, apparently because its resi-
dents submitted to the Babylonians when they mounted their siege of Jerusalem.
The Babylonians had a clear interest in preserving this region and basing their
administrative and economic centre in it. Its wine, oil, and cereal production was
vital for current supplies to their military forces, administration, and bureaucra-
cy. In this setting may be understood the choice of Mizpah as the alternative
capital of the Babylonian province and the appointment of Gedaliah, apparently
even before the fall of Jerusalem.
Presumably during the sixth century BCE most of the inhabitants moved into
the central part of the region, around Mizpah, Gibeon, and Gibeah. Eastern Benja-
min became almost entirely empty of settlement, and in the north the number and
size of settlements were considerably reduced. The relative prosperity of settle-
ments in the region’s centre and west may be attributed to the political centrality

53 In the Iron Age the proportion of settlements larger than three dunams (87 settlements) was
about 60 % of the total settlements in the region (146 settlements). In the Persian period their
proportion (50 settlements) was about 85 % of the total (59 settlements).
450 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

of Mizpah and the economic importance of Gibeon and Mozah. Evidence for this
is mostly from the sixth century, when the agricultural hinterland of the region
became established and a pattern of settlement took shape. The gradual diminu-
tion in settlement occurred after the beginning of the Persian period, at the end
of the sixth century, and it continued into the fifth and fourth centuries BCE.
The reduction of settlement during the Persian period may be explained by
the transfer of the regional centre to Jerusalem and the decline in the status of
Mizpah. The reduction of the settlements on the periphery may also be ascribed
to changes in the economic and security conditions of the region during the Per-
sian period, for the Persians based their rule on the local population there and
did not maintain a large army or civil service. As a result, the demand for agricul-
tural produce fell off, and the economic foundation for the existence of the settle-
ments in the region withered.
The consequence was that by a gradual process, starting from the end of the
sixth century and reaching its peak in the fifth and fourth centuries, a marked
demographic decline occurred in the Benjamin region, which may be estimated
at over fifty percent. Part of the inhabitants of the territory apparently moved to
Jerusalem and its environs, but it is also possible that the decline was due to the
strengthening of the settlement in the Modiʿin area during the Persian period
(Lipschits 1997a). The political stability and more especially the enhanced eco-
nomic activity that developed in the coastal area during the Persian period drew
many of the inhabitants of the region to settle in those parts. This attraction was
augmented by the agricultural potential of the area, and its proximity to the main
trade routes on the coast, and also to one of the major highways that climbed
towards Benjamin. This is the key for understanding the account in 1 Chr. 8:12–13,
relating that the sons of Elpaʿal and Beriaʿh, who hailed from Benjamin, founded
settlements in the area of Lod and Modiʿin. This was apparently the origin of the
Jewish population present in the region during the Hellenistic period.
Bethel Revisited
Bethel, identified with the modern village of Beitin,1 was one of the most impor-
tant sites in the central hill country of Bronze and Iron Age Israel. Albright,
assisted by Kelso, excavated it in 1934, and 20 years later, Kelso excavated there
for an additional three seasons (1954, 1957, and 1960).2 According to their conclu-
sions, accepted by most scholars, the site flourished in the Middle Bronze Age
and continued to thrive in the Late Bronze II, until its final destruction, attributed
to the invading Israelites, dated by Kelso (1968: 31–49) to 1240–1235 BCE, slightly
earlier than the mention of Israel in the Merneptah Stele.3 The site continued to
exist during the Iron I and II (Kelso 1968: xiv), and the date of its destruction at
the end of this period is uncertain (1968: 51–52). Kelso claimed that “Bethel was
destroyed in a great conflagration either at the hands of the Babylonian Naboni-
dus or shortly afterward at the hands of the Persians, perhaps in the chaotic
period preceding Darius” (1968: 37). According to Sinclair, who analyzed the pot-
tery unearthed at the site, Bethel continued to exist until the middle or even until
the beginning of the last third of the 6th century BCE (Sinclair 1964: 62; and in
Kelso 1968: 75–76).4 There are no clear finds from the Persian period at the site
(but see Kelso 1968: 80, pl. 37:10),5 and Kelso thought that the Persian period

1 See: Robinson 1841 (vol. 2): 125–128; Noth 1935; Abel 1938: 270; Albright 1968: 1–2; Rainey 2006;
Tavgar 2015: 54. Attempts to locate Bethel at el-Bireh and to identify Beitin with Beit Aven (Living-
ston 1970; 1971; 1994; Wood 2008) were already rejected, and see contra these attempts, Rainey
2006.
2 For the reports from these excavation seasons, see Albright 1934; Kelso 1955; 1958; 1961, and
the final report (Kelso 1968).
3 Albright (1935a: 17) dated the stele to between 1235 and 1231 BCE.
4 On the characteristics of the pottery assemblage from this period, see Lapp (1970: 181, and
n. 13); Kelso (1968: 70–76); N. Lapp (1981: 84). For a critique, see the note of Holladay (in Dever
1971: 469), who examined the pottery that was published from the site and concluded that there
is no pottery from the 6th century BCE and that the site was deserted during that time. See also
Stern (1982a: 31); Carter (1999: 124–126); Lipschits (1999b: 171–72).
5 Albright mentions the Babylonian destruction only in two short notes, describing the presence
of a modest settlement that had existed at the beginning of the Persian period (1934b: 14; 1935a:
198). Indeed, Albright’s excavations yielded hardly any pottery from the Persian period, and in
some of the excavation areas, there was a Hellenistic stratum with remains from the end of the
Iron Age (Kelso 1968: 5–6). However, Albright did not reject the possibility that the site was
destroyed in the course of the 6th century BCE and subsequently abandoned. The provisional
report for the 1954 season describes two damaged column bases found in the eastern part of the
hill (1955: 9–10, fig. 3). Albright, in a note (in Kelso 1955: 10 n. 5), suggests the possibility that
these bases were similar to the bases of Achaemenid columns found at Persepolis. Although this
parallel seems far-fetched to many scholars, their attribution to the 5th century BCE has been
accepted by some (Stern 1982: 31), and so has the possibility that these bases were part of a

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-024
452 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

remains might lie in the southern part of the mound, under the modern village,
near the spring (Kelso 1968: 38).6 Based on this assumption, the general agreement
among scholars was that the site recovered in the 5th century BCE and continued
to exist until the Hellenistic period (Kelso 1968: 37–38, 52, Pl. 7).
Bethel is not mentioned in any second-millennium document, but it is men-
tioned 70 times in the Hebrew Bible,7 suggesting that it was the most important
sanctuary of the Northern Kingdom, the place where “the king’s sanctuary” was
located (Amos 7:13), where Jeroboam I placed one of the two golden calves (1 Kgs
12:29), and the place that was the main objective of Josiah’s cult reform (2 Kgs
23:15–16). Only on seven occasions – describing the premonarchic period and the
post-exilic period – is Bethel mentioned as a village or town (Josh 18:22; Ezra 2:28;
Neh 7:32; 11:31; 1 Chr 7:28; 2 Chr 13:19) or even as a (Canaanite) city with a king at
its head (Josh 12:16; Judg 1:22–26). In 15 cases, the nature of the site is obscure
(Gen 12:8 (2×); 13:3 (2×); Josh 7:2; 8:9, 12, 17; 12:9; 16: 1, 2; 18:13; Judg 4:5; 1 Sam 13:2;
30:27), but in most instances (48 out of 70) Bethel is mentioned as a cult place
where there was an altar or a temple. This is the situation in the Jacob story
(Gen 28:19; 31:13; 35:1, 3, 6, 8, 15, 16), in the account of the war of the tribes of Israel
against Benjamin (Judg 20–21), of Samuel’s visit among the cult places (1 Sam 7:16),
and of the temple where Jeroboam installed one of the two golden calves (1 Kgs
12–13; 2 Kgs 2:2–3, 23; 10:29; 17:28; 23:4, 15, 17, 19). Reflections on the Jacob story and
on the Jeroboam temple in Bethel can be found in Hosea and in Amos, and perhaps

monumental structure that existed in that period (Kelso 1955: 9–10). In his summary report,
Kelso (1968: 7) makes no mention of these column bases but notes the presence of building
remains from the Hellenistic or Persian period in the northwest part of the tell (where the
1934 excavation campsite was situated). Here, a few potsherds and scant remains of walls were
discovered, also dated to the Persian-Hellenistic period (Kelso 1968: pl. 7).
6 This conclusion is problematic, because, at least according to Lapp’s analysis (1970: 77), the
pottery vessels from this stratum do not belong to the 4th century BCE. On this subject, see
Holladay (in Dever 1971: 468–469), who claimed that there is no 6th-century BCE pottery at the
site. Even in the summary report of the excavation, only pottery vessels that can be dated late
in the Persian period appear. See Albright (1934a: 25; 1934b: 14; 1935a: 198); Kelso (1955: 9–10;
1968: 5–7, and pls. 7, 28).
7 Of the 70 times that Bethel is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, it is mentioned 12 times in
Genesis (Gen 12:8 (twice); 13:3 (2×); 28:19; 31:13; 35:1, 3, 6, 8, 15, 16); ten times in Joshua (Josh 7:2;
8:9, 12, 17; 12:9, 16; 16:1, 2; 18:13, 22); nine times in Judges (Judg 1:22, 23; 4:5; 20:18, 26, 31; 21:2, 19
(2×); three times in 1 Samuel (1 Sam 7:16; 13:2; 30:27); 20 times in Kings (1 Kgs 12:29, 32 (2×); 33;
13:1, 4, 10, 11 (twice), 32; 2 Kgs 2:2 (twice), 3, 23; 10:29; 17:28; 23:4, 15, 17, 19), once in Jeremiah
(Jer 48:13 – as a divine name?), twice in Hosea (Hos 10:15; 12:5), seven times in Amos (Amos 3:14;
4:4; 5:5 (2×), 6; 7:10, 13); once in Zechariah (Zech 7:2), one in Ezra (2:28), twice in Nehemiah
(Neh 7:32; 11:31), twice in Chronicles (1 Chr 7:28; 2 Chr 13:19). Once more, Bethel is mentioned as
the place of origin of Hiel the Bethelite (= Hiel of Bethel), who built Jericho in the days of King
Ahab (1 Kgs 16:34).
 Bethel Revisited 453

there is also a basis for understanding Bethel in Zechariah (Hos 10:15; 12:5; Amos
3:14; 4:4; 5:5 (2×), 6; 7:10, 13; Zech 7:2. On Zech 7:2, see Naʾaman 2010b: 176–77 n. 26).
The site’s importance according to the Hebrew Bible, on the one hand, and
its lack of major archaeological consequence, on the other, has caught the atten-
tion of numerous scholars.8 In 2009, Finkelstein published a paper (together with
Singer-Avitz), titled “Reevaluating Bethel.” The aim of that paper was to reconsider
the archaeology of Bethel between the Iron Age and the Hellenistic period, based
on published material as well as on a new examination of unpublished material
stored at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and the W. F. Albright Institute of
Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. From the methodological perspective, Finkel-
stein and Singer-Avitz (2009: 35) criticized the interpretation of the finds at Bethel
according to the “Albrightian biblical archaeology of the early to mid-20th century,”
and suggested inverting the method: “establishing the archaeological sequence first
and only then, and accordingly, dealing with the biblical material” (2009: 36), thus
putting archaeology in the place of “high court” regarding the interpretation of
biblical descriptions.9

Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz’s Reanalysis of the Excavations

at Bethel

Since it was impossible for Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz to restore the pottery
vessels and other finds to their original context, mainly because of the method
of registration and publication of the old excavations, the sole option remaining
was to examine the pottery typologically, and to attempt to determine which
periods were represented in the assemblage and at what frequency (2009: 36).
Based on this archaeological study, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz claimed that their
analysis and conclusions represent the settlement history of the site.
According to them (2009: 37), the end of the LB II at Bethel should be dated
to the late 13th or early 12th century BCE, quite similar to but later than the
“historical” date given to this destruction level by Kelso (1968: 31–49), who dated
it to 1240–1235 BCE. According to their analysis (2009: 38), the Iron I pottery indi-
cated a lengthy time-span. Based on comparison to other sites such as Shiloh,
Khirbet et-Tell, and Khirbet Raddana, but with no support from the actual finds
at Bethel, they hypothesized that Bethel had been abandoned or declined gradual-

8 See, e.g., Pfeiffer 1999; Blenkinsopp 2003; Koenen 2003; Gomes 2006; Knauf 2006; Köhlmoos
2006; Smith 2007; Berlejung 2009.
9 Contra this method, see Naʾaman 2010b and see below. See also Finkelstein’s response (2010a).
454 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

ly over the last half of the 11th century and continued to exist in the mid-to-late
10th century BCE. In addition, based on only a very limited number of vessels
from the Iron IIA, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2009: 39) claimed that there was
evidence for some activity at Bethel in the later phase of this period, which,
according to their chronology, was the 9th century BCE, and that the settlement
of this period must have been small and probably sparse. Regarding the Iron IIB–
C, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2009: 39–41) concluded that most of the pottery
belonged to the 8th century BCE, and only a few sherds were diagnostic of the
late 7th or early 6th centuries BCE. They maintained that, in the late 7th cen-
tury BCE, Bethel was small and sparingly settled, but since the date of transition
from the pottery assemblages of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE was indistinct,
they could not establish the date of its decline. In clear support of this conclusion,
Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2009: 42) identified only a few sherds dated to the
Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic periods and argued that the site either
did not exist or was very small during this period.
Contrary to the accepted reconstruction – that the site continued to exist
during the Iron Age – Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2009: 42–43) claimed that their
reconstruction showed that Bethel’s life during this period was characterized by
oscillations: two periods of strong activity in the Iron I and Iron IIB, and two
periods of decline in late Iron IIA and in Iron IIC; and two periods of possible
abandonment in the early Iron IIA and the Babylonian through Persian periods.
In light of this reconstruction, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz reviewed the bibli-
cal description regarding Bethel. The story in 1 Kgs 12:29 that tells of the establish-
ment of the cult site at Bethel by Jeroboam I was considered historically problem-
atic (2009: 43–44), since Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz dated the historical events
it describes to the transition from the late Iron I to the Early Iron IIA or the early
days of the Iron IIA – periods during which the site was no more than a small,
meager settlement. The prosperity of Bethel in Iron IIB was considered by Finkel-
stein and Singer-Avitz (2009: 44), following many other scholars, to be the back-
ground for the presence of Bethel in the biblical texts (including the book of Kings
and the prophetic literature), until the fall of the Northern Kingdom. According
to Finkel-stein and Singer-Avitz, Bethel declined in the late 8th century or some-
time during the first decades of the 7th century BCE, and in view of the weak
activity in the late 7th/early 6th centuries and the lack of evidence for meaningful
activity in the Babylonian and Persian periods, they claimed that there was no
room to associate Bethel with scribal activity during this period and suggested
that this activity should be assigned to the period of the site’s prosperity in the
Iron IIB, either before or after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. They
argued that historical considerations may favor a time before the destruction.
Furthermore, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2009: 45) argued that, contrary to the
 Bethel Revisited 455

description in 2 Kgs 23, Josiah’s actions were not carried out in a prosperous city;
during his time, Bethel was already in decline. In addition, based on the meager
evidence for activity at Bethel in the Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic
periods, Bethel cannot have served as a prominent cult place during these periods
(2009: 45). Finally, the appearance of Bethel in the list of returnees (Ezra 2:28 and
Neh 7:32) cannot reflect historical reality; according to Finkelstein (2008), the
reality behind the list should be sought in the late Hellenistic period.

Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz’s Archaeological and Historical

Conclusions in Later Studies

The archaeological and historical conclusions reached by Finkelstein and Singer-

Avitz have received little support from biblical scholars and historians, either
because they were not deemed sufficiently clear from the archaeological perspec-
tive or because the archaeological analysis did not garner adequate support when
it was compared with the textual evidence.10 Thomas Römer (2015a: 178), for ex-
ample, claimed that the sanctuary at Bethel continued to play an important role
even after 722 BCE. Phillippe Guillaume (2012: 227) claimed that “there is enough
leeway between ‘probably uninhabited’ and ‘almost deserted’ to leave open the
possibility of some cultic and scribal activity either at Bethel or at nearby Miz-
pah…[T]he evidence in favor of Bethel remains overwhelming, despite Finkel-
stein’s doubts.” And Giffone (2016: 216) claimed that “Bethel and Gibeon seem to
have been active sites during the Babylonian and early Persian periods.” Bos
(2013: 89–90), on the other hand, claimed that “Bethel plays a prominent role in
many Biblical texts. It is unlikely that all of these date to the early seventh century
or earlier. In fact, several must post-date that period (e.g., the narrative about
Josiah)… Because Bethel plays such an important role in the Josiah narrative of
2 Kgs 23, it is very difficult to state that Bethel was not a significant location
in the late seventh century or some point thereafter when this narrative was
composed.” 11

10 Among the scholars who accepted Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz’s historical and archaeological
reconstructions and used it in their biblical research, see Berlejung 2009, esp. pp. 21–24; Fleming
2012: 318–319. See also van Bekkum 2011: 497; Faust 2012b: 214, 219.
11 On this reconstruction, see already Pakkala (2002: 91–92), who argued that 2 Kgs 23:15a and
1 Kgs 12 are incompatible with the archaeological evidence and can be the basis for the recon-
struction of a flourishing Bethel from the end of the 7th until the end of the 6th century BCE;
he notes that this is also the time of the creation of the Deuteronomistic history.
456 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

It was primarily Naʾaman (2010b) who argued against the methodology used
by Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz, disputing archaeology’s role as “High Court” in
the study of biblical texts. Regarding Bethel in the Babylonian and Persian period,
Naʾaman (2010b: 178) sided with many scholars who have suggested that, after
the destruction of Jerusalem, Bethel became the central cult place of either the
Babylonian province of Yehud or the southern district of the province of Samaria.
According to biblical analysis, it continued to be inhabited and may even have
been the site where some historiographical descriptions were written during the
Babylonian period. It served as the bridge for Israelite literary traditions, and
only when the Jerusalem Temple established itself during the Persian period were
scrolls that had been produced at Bethel transferred to the new Judahite center
and integrated into the literary production there (Naʾaman 2010b: 178 and n. 34,
with further literature; and compare Knauf 2006: 318–330). Naʾaman (2010b: 181–
182) assumed that, like other temples in the Mesopotamian world (and like the
Temple in Jerusalem in the Persian and Early Hellenistic period, and see below),
the temple at Bethel continued to exist in the Babylonian and Persian periods,
with only a scant settlement around it, when its priests composed literary works
that emphasized its place in history. This temple, which was the most important
sanctuary in the Kingdom of Israel, kept its elevated status under the Assyrian
Empire. After the decline of the city, following Josiah’s conquest, the temple was
restored and formed the nucleus of the city, supported by the government of the
province. The base for Naʾaman’s (2010b: 179–180) historical reconstruction is the
story of Jacob’s dream (Gen 28:10–22) and its Babylonian comparisons, especially
Hurowitz’s (2006) comparison of this story with the well-known Babylonian text
about Nabopolassar’s construction of the wall Imgur Enlil at Babylon and the
fifth tablet of the Babylonian Epic of Creation (Enūma Eliš), and his conclusion
(Hurowitz 2006: 443) that the Bethel tradition is a clear example of appropriating
traditions of one city and applying them to another. Based on this, Naʾaman’s
(2010b: 180; 2014b: 100) historical conclusion is that “[t]he transfer of the literary
motifs from Babylon to Bethel indicates its importance at that time, and should
be seen as decisive evidence of the importance of the place and its temple in the
sixth century BCE.” This is the reason for Bethel’s religious significance “as a
bond between heaven and earth – parallel to the status of Esagil in Babylon”
(2010b: 182).

Finkelstein/Singer-Avitz’s Archaeological Research on Bethel:

Methodological Problems

Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz’s main goal, as clearly stated in their paper, was to
establish the archaeological sequence first “and only then, and accordingly, [to
 Bethel Revisited 457

deal] with the biblical material” (2009: 36). They thus placed archaeology in the
role of “high court,” interpreter of biblical descriptions. Aside from the methodo-
logical problem of this attitude, as argued by Naʾaman (and see above), there is
a deeper problem in Finkelstein’s archaeological methodology. To support this
attitude as a scholar requires supreme confidence in one’s ability to snap the
reliable archaeological picture and to develop from it an independent and de-
pendable historical representation. This independent picture must be so well
founded and accurate that all other methods (and especially analysis of the bibli-
cal text) must adapt to its conclusions (and cf. Finkelstein 2010a).12
It seems that the Bethel example can be used as a major test case of this
methodology (and indeed Naʾaman 2010b did this, together with some other test
cases), and it is worth mentioning that, with the same data, Blenkinsopp (2003:
93), for example, expressed the inverse methodology and claimed that “For the
history of Bethel in the Iron Age, including its last phase, we have to depend
almost exclusively on the Biblical texts.”
Accordingly, in this section I wish to expand the critique against this method-
ology, especially against the excessive confidence involved in achieving a clear
archaeological picture based on the data collected from the Bethel excavations,
but also against the pretension in this case, as well as in others, of using the
archaeological picture as the basis for the study of biblical material and as the
main source for reconstructing biblical history. In the following section, I will
claim that Finkelstein’s archaeological-historical analysis in the case of Bethel is
meaningless, since even if it is correct, it represents the history of the site and
not the history of the cult place – the temple – that was located outside of the
town.
When Albright first investigated the site of Bethel in 1927 (Albright 1934a;
1934b) and in 1934 (Albright 1935a; 1939), most of the houses in the Arab village
were concentrated in the southeastern side of the ancient site, and four acres
(about 16 dunams) were available for soundings. Most of the excavations of the
1954, 1957, and 1960 seasons were conducted in the northern and southwestern
parts of the site, many of the areas being in uncultivated parts of the mound and
others between the houses of the village (Kelso 1955; 1958; 1961). Most of the
excavation areas in these parts of the site yielded mixed finds from the Bronze
and Iron Ages, while in the eastern areas (Area IV from the 1934 season and in

12 See especially Finkelstein’s concluding remark (2010a: 7): “As in every discipline, archaeologi-
cal evidence can be fragmentary and may be misinterpreted. Yet, when solid data from well
excavated sites is compared to assumptions regarding the nature of biblical texts and their date
of compilation, the former should prevail, at least until tested by new archaeological evidence
or extra-biblical texts.”
458 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

the large areas excavated in the 1957 and 1960 seasons), located inside the area
of the modern village and probably outside the boundaries of the Bronze and
Iron Age site, the Byzantine gateway and main street were found. Some test pits
were dug in this area to bedrock, which yielded no clear information on previous
periods. The north-west corner of the city wall and the gate of the complex,
probably from the Middle Bronze Age, were excavated in the 1960 season (Kelso
1960: pls. 101, 102), and the line of the western wall is in agreement with the finds
from Albright’s Area III from the 1934 season and with two other sections of the
wall that were excavated on this line to the south in Kelso’s 1957 and 1960 seasons
(Kelso 1968: pls. 94, 102). The south wall was probably found not far from the
mosque area, where the 1934 campsite was located (Kelso 1968: pl. 87).
Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2009: 36) are correct in claiming that in 1927
about half of the area of the mound was available for excavation and that “the
area excavated at Bethel was more significant than the average dig in other bibli-
cal mounds.” However, in making this point, they ignore the small areas that
actually were excavated within the borders of the Bronze and Iron Age site, and
they ignore the fact that the center of the site was not excavated at all (and see
Kelso 1968: pl. 120). They ignore the fact that the area of the spring, where Kelso
(1968: 38) thought that a Persian-period settlement may have been located, was
not excavated because of the built-up area of the village, and they ignore the fact
that the site of the temple was never located (and see below).
Furthermore, since Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz did not have the option of
restoring the pottery vessels and other finds to their original context, the sole
option left to them was to examine the pottery typologically and to attempt to
determine which periods were represented in the assemblage and at what fre-
quency. Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz were well aware of this problematic method-
ology (2009: 36), but they still relied on it in their archaeological and historical
conclusions, claiming that if a settlement had existed, it would have left a clear
ceramic imprint on the site (2009: 42).
The fundamental methodological problem becomes apparent when we com-
pare the relationship between the part of the village that was excavated and the
very limited amount of published pottery and other finds – which mirrors the
small number of finds stored at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and at the
W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. The limited number of finds
in proportion to so major an operation means that the research was focused on
the material that the excavators decided to keep (usually the more indicative and
interesting pieces of pottery and other indicative finds) while most of the more
“usual” material was thrown away – and there is no way to include anything
discarded in the research. It might be that periods with a low number of import-
ed, “nice,” and indicative material (such as the Babylonian, Persian, and Early
 Bethel Revisited 459

Hellenistic periods, for example) were thrown away in larger quantities and are
underestimated in the study of the finds from this site. Furthermore, the fact that
there is no way to restore the pottery vessels and the other finds to their original
context means that there is no way to differentiate between areas within the
excavated parts of the site and to locate concentrations of pottery and finds from
specific periods or to estimate the settlement area in the different periods.
Regarding the Iron IIA, for example, Finkelstein and Singer-Aviz’s conclusion
is that “settlement must have been small and probably sparsely built” (2009: 39).
They are well aware of the fact that the settlement from this period could have
been restricted to the sector of the mound under the modern village, which has
not been excavated, but in this case, they claim that, if indeed there was a pros-
perous Iron IIA settlement at Bethel, more pottery representing this period should
have been found. They do not mention the small amount of pottery that was
retained from the excavations and was available for research, and the nature of
local pottery production that could have caused the excavators not to keep and
not to publish it.
Even more problematic is the discussion and conclusions regarding the
Iron IIB–C (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009: 39–41). It is clear indeed that most
of the pottery from this phase is similar to the repertoire known from Lachish
Level III, Tell es-Sebaʿ Strata III–II, Arad Strata X–VIII, and Tell Beit Mirsim Stra-
tum A, but unlike Lachish and the sites that were destroyed in the Assyrian
campaign of 701 BCE, in the hill country this pottery continued to be in use in
the first half of the 7th century BCE, when a slow change occurred in local pottery
production in the middle of this century, preceding the appearance of the “classic”
shapes of the late 7th and early 6th century BCE pottery. I agree that only a few
sherds are diagnostic for the Iron IIC, but based on this same set of data I can
support the reconstruction of the continued existence of Bethel in the 7th cen-
tury BCE and its decline only in the late 7th century (the days of Josiah?), when
the site continued to exist as a small and probably sparsely inhabited settlement.
This methodological aspect is missing completely from Finkelstein and Singer-
Avitz’s archaeological discussion, and they brought this consideration forward
only in the historical discussion (2009: 44).
In addition, regarding the Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic periods,
Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2009: 42) identified only a few sherds characteristic
of this period and concluded that the site did not exist or was very small during
this entire period. They did not accept the excavators’ idea that a Persian-period
settlement may have been located near the spring, under the built-up area of the
village, and did not consider the fact that aside from the unique sherds of the
Greek lekythos, dated to the 5th century BCE (Kelso 1968: 80, pl. 37:10), the two
wedge-shaped sherds at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and at the Albright
460 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

Institute, dated to the Babylonian or early Persian period, and a rim of a mortari-
um bowl at the Albright Institute, dated to the Persian period, most of the local
pottery from this period was not retained (Finkelstein and Singer Avitz 2009: 42).
They did not consider the possibility that much or most of the local pottery from
this period that may have been thrown out might have been identified by the
excavators as Late Iron Age.
Even if we put Finkelstein’s confidence in reconstructing a clear archaeological
picture aside for a moment, it has become increasingly clear in recent years that
if excavation of sites such as Bethel can be used to determine periods of heavy
occupation by dint of their international links, imported vessels, and clearly indica-
tive pottery, there are still vast problems in locating periods of decline, when there
is less import and when the local pottery (especially from the Babylonian, Persian,
and Early Hellenistic periods) is less clear and indicative. Tel Azekah can serve as
a genuine “case study” for this problematic situation (Lipschits, Gadot, and Oeming
2017). After five seasons of excavation at this site, we are able to demonstrate that
there are artifacts from periods we were actually looking for; these finds were
unearthed based on archaeological surveys and careful study of Bliss and Mac-
alister’s old excavations, which gave us very strong and clear indications especially
for periods like the Early Bronze, the Late Bronze, and Iron IIB. Based on the
location of the finds in the surveys and field and excavation plans, we were even
able to estimate the size of the settlement during these periods. However, the ab-
sence of finds in surveys and in the old excavations means nothing, and the finds
from the Persian–Early Hellenistic periods are a good example of that. With nearly
nothing from these periods in the old excavations and in our survey, we were quite
astonished by the fact that in most excavated areas of the renewed project, the
upper stratum was dated to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Our excavations
exposed a relatively large village or town dating to the 4th–3rd centuries BCE, and
remains from this settlement were found all over the upper tell.
To summarize this section, it seems to me that we should adopt Dever’s (1971)
careful interpretation of the finds published from the excavations at Bethel, ac-
cording to which little beyond a skeleton of the archaeological history of the site
can be certified. Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz’s claim that the results of these
excavations represent the settlement history of the site, the creation of a detailed
picture of the history of the site, and their claim that this picture is so well
founded that it can be used as the basis of an analysis of the biblical text must
be received with caution, especially regarding to the Babylonian, Persian, and
Early Hellenistic periods.
Methodological problems aside, if archaeological research is to achieve a
clear and secure picture of the history of Bethel, there is a more fundamental
issue that must be raised – one that Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz did not broach –
 Bethel Revisited 461

and that is the existence of a temple that existed perhaps even at some slight
distance from the site itself, and existed in some periods (like the Babylonian and
Persian periods) with only a very small settlement alongside it. Since in most
cases in the biblical descriptions, Bethel is mentioned as a temple and not as a
city, so in this case it might be that there is no relevance at all to the archaeologi-
cal study of the site of Bethel (very similar to the question of the relations be-
tween Shechem and the cult site on Mount Gerizim in the Persian, Hellenistic,
and later periods).

The Bethel Temple and the Town of Bethel: The Need

for a Revised Consideration

The idea that the Bethel sanctuary was located outside the town has been sug-
gested by various scholars, based on biblical descriptions that mention the loca-
tion of the cult place. In Genesis 12:8 and 13:3, the location of the place outside
Bethel on the mountain to the east of the town is stated very clearly, and this is
also the way it should be understood in the description of the northern border
of Benjamin (or the southern border of Ephraim; Josh 16:2; 18:13; and see Naʾa-
man 1985a: 17–22, with further literature). Naʾaman (2010b: 180–82; 2014b: 101)
also claimed that the temple of Bethel and the settlement surrounding it must
have been located in another part of the mound or near it. He also gave some
clear examples of large, prosperous Mesopotamian cities that were laid in ruins,
whereas their temples formed a nucleus with a small settlement around it, and
due to their sanctity, enjoyed the support of the governing power and received
contributions from worshipers. Naʾaman claimed that 6th-century Bethel might
have been a kind of temple-city, not unlike Jerusalem of the late 6th–early
5th centuries. As mentioned above, one should also remember the situation in
the Persian period and the presence of a Hellenistic temple on Mount Gerizim,
just above the city of Shechem.
Based on these examples, scholars have suggested identifying the cult place
of Bethel at Burj-Beitin, located less than 1 km southeast of the village of Beitin
(Naʾaman 1985a: 17–22, with further literature). Elitzur found the remains of a
church at Burj-Beitin and claimed that there is a Christian tradition identifying
it as the place of Jacob’s dream (1991). Finkelstein, however, rejected this identifi-
cation, based on intensive archaeological surveys that were conducted in the area
(Kallai 1972: 178; Magen and Finkelstein 1993: 82; Finkelstein, Bunimovitz, and
Lederman 1997: 522). He claimed that the surveys did not reveal any evidence for
an Iron II site, let alone a cult site (Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2009: 43 n. 122).
In this case, Finkelstein was right: no pottery earlier than the Byzantine period
462 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

was found, and the architectural items recorded there are all part of the Byzan-
tine church.13 This church was excavated in 2013 (Taha and Sogimoto 2013), and
it should probably be dated to the 4th–5th centuries CE.
However, another site that was only surveyed by Finkelstein and, according
to the results, was disqualified by him from being identified as the cult place of
Bethel is E.P. 914, only a few hundred meters to the east of the village. It is the
highest hill in the area around Bethel and was surveyed and described as “re-
mains of a structure covered by a pile of stones” (Magen and Finkelstein 1993:
84) or as “piles of stones with some scattered pottery” (Finkelstein, Bunimovitz,
and Lederman 1997: 527). In both cases, the size of the site was estimated to be
about 3 dunams and the pottery was dated to the Middle Bronze Age, with only
a few sherds from the Iron II and some Byzantine sherds. Based on the results
of these surveys, Finkelstein made the sweeping statement that “The idea that
the Bethel sanctuary was located outside of the town, to the east…is baseless in
view of the intensive archaeological surveys which did not reveal the slightest
clue for an Iron Age II site, let alone cult site, in this area” (Finkelstein and Singer-
Avitz 2009: 43 n. 122).
However, a new survey and a fresh study of the site at E.P. 914 (Tavgar 2015),
shows a different picture, one that should give historians and Bible scholars a
different perspective on the possible location of Bethel’s cult place and the ques-
tion of the relevancy of the archaeological material found in the village of Bethel.
Tavgar and his team surveyed the site and found a set of structures on the top
of the hill. It has well-built walls and much more Iron II pottery than described
by the previous surveyors (Tavgar 2015). In the first season of excavations (sum-
mer 2016), hundreds of indicative pottery sherds were found, most of them well
dated to the Iron II (9th–8th centuries BCE), with some earlier pottery that might
be dated to the Iron IIA (Tavgar, personal communication).14 We must now wait
for further excavations at the site, but as things look at the present, this site is
the best candidate to be identified as the cult place of Bethel, much like the
location of the temple on Mount Gerizim, on the highest hill, just above Shechem.

Summary and Conclusions

The main conclusion of this paper is that the methodology that grants primacy
for understanding biblical texts to archaeological research and the historical pic-

13 According to Tavgar (2015: 57), in the renewed survey, some pottery from the Persian period
was collected at that site, but it is also true that in this survey no pottery from the Iron Age was
found.
14 I would like to thank Aharon Tavgar for his kindness and his willingness to share with me
these preliminary results.
 Bethel Revisited 463

ture that emerges from it should be dismissed, in general, and cannot be accepted
in the case of Bethel. Even experienced archaeologists cannot achieve a reliable
archaeological picture of the history of the site based on the archaeological evi-
dence from Bethel; on this basis alone, we cannot achieve an independent, de-
pendable historical picture. The main problem with the archaeological material
concerns the periods that are also problematic from the historical perspective,
and in the case of the Babylonian, Persian, and Early Hellenistic periods, it seems
that the textual evidence is essential for illuminating the historical reality in a
better way than simply to base it on the interpretation of the archaeological
material. This is another example of the limitation of the archaeological discipline
and an example of the need to carefully combine biblical textual study and histor-
ical research, together with archaeological material, and not to prefer one disci-
pline over the other, or to base our conclusions on a single source of information,
treating one source as the “High Court.”
In the case of Bethel’s material culture, the archaeological-historical picture
might even be less meaningful, since it may represent only the history of the site
and not the history of the sanctuary, which was probably located outside the
town. If the alternate identification of the cult place of Bethel at E.P. 914, just a
few hundred meters east of the village of Beitin, is correct, the implication is that
the study of the material culture of the site of Beitin itself is less important for
the creation of the historical picture and for the analysis of the biblical text. The
site could be sparsely populated during long periods while the temple existed
nearby, with priests, scribes, and temple servants living in and around it. This
was probably the situation in the much more central and important Temple of
Jerusalem during the centuries of the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, when
the population of Jerusalem included no more than 1,000–1,500 people, among
them 200–300 men.15

15 See: Lipschits 2005: 271; 2006a: 32; 2009b: 19–20; 2012b: 155. This estimate is very close to that
of Carter (1999: 288) and Geva (2007b: 56–57). One cannot accept the “ultra-minimalistic” view of
Finkelstein (2008: 501–507) and Zwickel (2008: 216–217) and see the critique of Lipschits (2009b).
The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin
and its Surroundings
Preface

This article deals with the history of a defined area in the north of the Shephelah.
Its northern border crosses through the Natuf-Modiʿim streams, while its south-
ern and western border crosses the hills on both banks of the Ayalon and Beit
Horon streams. From the east, the area is bounded by the western slopes of
mount Bethel, passing east of the Kfar Ruth-Maccabim-Reʿut line. Hereafter, this
area shall be referred to as the ‘Lod-Modiʿin Plain’ and for the purpose of discus-
sion will be delimited between the 140°–156° longitudes and the 140°–153° lati-
tudes.1
An east-west section of the area shows a descent from a height of about
300 meters in the area of Kfar Ruth and Maccabim-Reut, to about 50–100 meters
in the area of Ben Shemen and Lod. The topography of the area is relatively

Map 1: The Lod-Modiʿin Plain: Main Roads, Streams and Settlements.

1 For geological, soil and climatic reviews of the Ayalon stream basin, see the collection of
articles in Merton 1970: 1–74; cf. Schwartz 1991: 19–30.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-025
466 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

moderate. Its eastern part is characterized by spurs with a general east-west ori-
entation, and in the west, the Ayalon stream flows from south to north, draining
all the streams in the area. The Natuf (which also drains the Modiʿim stream),
Gimzo, Anava and Beit Horon streams flow to it from the east, while the Nahshon
and Gezer streams drain into it from the south.
Two of the most important latitudinal roads in the land pass through this
area, connecting the coastal plain, through which the Via Maris pass, to the Ju-
dean highlands: the Lod-Beit Horon-Benjamin Region road, and the Lod-Shaʿar
HaGai-Jerusalem road.2 Although reliable water sources are scarce in the area,
there are still various possibilities for agricultural cultivation, especially for farm-
ing and grazing pastures. Favorable areas for grain crops are found in the valleys,
riverbeds and plains west of the Ayalon stream.
The importance of the Lod-Modiʿin Plain in Jewish history stems from the
area being the place where Mattathias and his sons raised the banner of rebellion
against Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 2:1). By this period, the Jewish popula-
tion residing in the area presumably carried considerable weight,3 which ulti-
mately allowed for the annexation of the entire area to the territory of Judah.
Given that even in earlier periods, this area was always outside the borders
of Judah – it was part of the tribe of Ephraim’s allotment, belonged to the king-
dom of Israel and some of its inhabitants were exiled by the Assyrian army –
the main question discussed in this article is: When, and under what political
circumstances, did the Judahite population migrate to the area and settled in it?
Most scholars have postulated that the main period in which inhabitants of
the kingdom of Judah settled in the Lod-Modiʿin Plain is the late First Temple
period in general and the reign of King Josiah in particular.4 This convention is
based on several common assumptions, the first of which is the theory regarding
the great kingdom of Josiah. In recent years, these assumptions have been called
into question, and in light of this, a re-examination has become appropriate.

2 On the area’s strategic importance, the roads passing through it, and the history of the wars
that took place in its proximity, see Gihon 1970. On the roads traversing this area in later periods,
see Roll 1987; 1996: 508.
3 Some of the terms I use from here onward require a brief explanation. ‘Judahites’ refers to
the population of the kingdom of Judah at the eve of the First Temple’s destruction and those
living in the province of Yehud in the Babylonian and Persian periods. The ‘returnees’ are the
descendants of the Judahites exiled after the Babylonian destruction who returned to Judah
during the Persian period. I use the term ‘Jewish’ to refer to the population living in and around
the Hasmonean state of Judah.
4 See, e.g., Mazar (Maisler) 1940; Kallai 1960: 87–94; Aharoni 1962: 336–338; Gophna 1969: 84;
E. Stern 1973: 241–244; 1994: 399; M. Stern 1973: 53–54; Safrai 1980; Har-El 1977: 77. For additional
literature on this subject, see Schwartz 1988: 3–4; Naʾaman 1995b: 22, n. 14.
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 467

Below I attempt to demonstrate that the Persian period is the decisive time
period in which the Judahite population was able to consolidate in the area, and
that the region of Benjamin was the primary source of this population.5 The
historical and geographical-historical sources will be examined within the longue
durée:6 The end of the formational process of the Judahite population in the
region is defined below using data from the Hellenistic period, while the begin-
ning of the process will be defined by examining sources from the late First
Temple period. Against this backdrop, the data relating to the Persian period will
also be discussed. Finally, a distinction is made between the discussion of the
data relating to the political borders that traversed the area and the discussion
relating to the origins of the population and the locations of its settlements.7

The Status of the Lod-Modiʿin Plain during the Hellenistic

Period and the Evidence for Its Population

The evidence for control over the region of Ekron being handed over to Jonathan
the Hasmonean in 147 BCE (1 Maccabees 10:89; Antiquities 13, 4:4 [= 102])assists with
defining the western border of Judah.8 In this light, it is possible to attest to Juda-
hite presence in the Ekron area prior to its annexation, and it furthermore seems
that its transfer to Judah was also done with ethnic consideration in mind.9 It
appears that the region of Lod also lay outside of Judah’s domain,10 the same as

5 A similar hypothesis was briefly expressed by Naʾaman (1995: 23–24) based on analysis of
biblical sources.
6 In the view of the longue durée, historical data is reviewed within as long of a time period as
possible, in an effort to complete the evidence on a given period whose data do not allow for a
sufficiently comprehensive picture. In this way, it is possible to access continuous processes of
change that occurred in the history of a region, to relate them to different crises or, alternatively,
to aspects of stability and continuity. For literature on the importance of the longue durée in
research on the historical geography of Judah in the late Iron Age and the Babylonian and
Persian periods, see Lipschits 1997b: 339, and n. 3.
7 Scholars have too often failed to distinguish properly between the data relating to the outline
of the borders and the data concerning the origins of the population and its settlements. See,
e.g., Avi-Yonah 1949: 17–25; Schalit 1960: 101–110; Schwartz 1988: 3–12.
8 Assistance for defining Judah’s western border is found in 1 Macc 14:34, according to which
this area was not included in the province of Ashdod.
9 On the possibility of a Judahite presence in the Ekron area during this period, see Kasher
1988: 92, with further literature therein.
10 Data attesting to the toparchy of Lod are scarce and postdate the beginning of the Hasmonean
Revolt. For a review of this subject, see Schwartz 1991: 49. This has sparked many debates
concerning the status of this area in the late First Temple period and during the Persian and
Hellenistic periods, until its official transfer to the domain of Judah (see further below). In any
468 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

the toparchies of Haramatha and Aphaerema to its north-west and north, respec-
tively.11 The Judahite presence in these toparchies might have been the cause for
their inhabitants joining the Hasmoneans (Avi-Yonah 1949: 38; Klein 1939: 38–39;
M. Stern 1979: 97, 110; Naʾaman 1995b: 23), and the official granting of the region to
Judah came only in retrospect (1 Maccabees 10:30; 11:28; 34:67; Antiquities 13, 5:4
[= 145]; Schwartz 1991: 57–58, with further literature in n. 16). Until the transfer of
these regions to Judah, its border passed through the area of Beit Horon,12 and
despite the prominent Judahite presence in the Lod-Modiʿin Plain, the area was not
included within Judah’s domain until that point in time.13 Further support for this
comes from the information concerning Hadid, since apart from its mention in the
census of those returning to Yehud and the knowledge of its fortification, there is
no data concerning its conquest by the Hasmoneans (1 Maccabees 12:38; 13:13; Antiq-
uities 13, 5:10 [= 180]; 6:5 [= 230]; Kasher 1988: 98–99 and nn. 149, 150; Schwartz 1991:
51, 58, n. 29). The status of Gezer in unclear. According to the information provided
in 1 Maccabees (4:15; 7:45; 15:28–29, 35) Gezer was outside of Judahite control 14 until
its conquest by Simon (1 Maccabees 13:43–54; 14:34; 16:1, 19–22). Support for this
assumption is evident in the Roman senate’s refusal to recognize Judah’s claim to
Gezer and Jaffa (Antiquities 13, 9:2 [= 261]; cf. 14, 10:5 [= 208]).15 The conclusion rising
from this data is that the Lod Plain had a large Judahite population. However, the
area did not belong to Judah until the Hasmonean period, apart from temporary
changes to the borders occurring between the time of Alexander the Great and the

case, the toparchy of Lod includes the entire area between Hadid-Modiʿin and the western part
of the ‘historical’ region of Benjamin in the area of Beit-Horon (M. Stern 1973: 53–54, 109–110;
Schwartz 1991: 49–50; 1988: 3). There is no evidence for the division of this toparchy into two
distinguishable districts, and I believe that Schwartz is repeating the attempts of scholars project-
ing the demographic aspects of the area onto its status and geopolitical association, while using
the same sources he himself deemed to be too late.
11 Contra Kallai 1960: 99–105; 1983: 73. For a comprehensive discussion, see Schwartz 1991: 49–
60, nn. 9–12, 56–57.
12 See 1 Macc 3:16 onwards. On this subject, see Kallai 1960: 96; 1983: 73. Scholars attempting to
prove the Lod area’s association with Judah only discuss sources from the Persian period (the
census of immigrants in Ezra 2 and Neh 7, the invitation of Sanballat in Neh 6:2, etc.). See also,
e.g., Kallai 1960: 101–102. This opinion also relates to the assumption that the strengthening of
the Hasmoneans in the Modiʿin area was inside Judah’s borders. See Stern 1973: 109 and n. 44.
13 On the Judahite presence in the Lod-Gezer area, see Naʾaman 1995b: 23–24.
14 Roll presumed that the Gezer of the Bacchides fortifications (1 Macc 9:62) should be identified
with Tell Ghaza (Tel Yaʿoz) on the banks of Naḥal Soreq, where impressive Hellenistic remains
were uncovered. In his opinion, the same city is also mentioned in 1 Macc 14:34. See Roll 1981:
8; 1987: 511.
15 See, e.g., Stern 1973: 119–120; Kasher 1988: 104–105, 113–114 and n. 4; Schwartz 1991: 51. For a
different opinion, see Kallai 1960: 97–99.
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 469

late Ptolemaic period.16 It was only during the period of Hasmonean rule, and
following their actions, that the borders of Judahite dominion were expanded to
include the area of Ekron, Lod, Haramatha and Aphaerema.

The Status of the Lod-Modiʿin Plain before the Babylonian

Destruction of Jerusalem (586 BCE) and the Evidence
for its Judahite Population

The area west of Lower Beit Horon, including the enclave of Gezer, belonged to
the kingdom of Israel until its destruction.17 Following the destruction and the
annexation of Samaria to Assyria, the area was part of the Assyrian province of
Samaria.18 With the conquest of Ashdod by Sargon II in 712 BCE (Naʾaman 1994:
9–14; 1995c: 107–109), the annexation of the land and the establishment of the
province of Ashdod, this region became the border of three geopolitical units:
two Assyrian provinces (Ashdod and Samaria) and the kingdom of Judah. Taking
into account the information provided in the annals of Sennacherib, according
to which Bene-berak, Azor and Beth Dagan were the cities of the king of Ashkelon

16 Several scholars established arguments concerning temporary border changes that occurred
between the time of Alexander the Great and the Ptolemaic period. See primarily Kasher 1975:
204–208; 1993: 31–35; 1996: 330–334, with further literature therein; Mor 1980: 76–81. For a differ-
ing opinion, see Tcherikover 1962: 37, 333, n. 23; 1982: 44; M. Stern 1981: 97. I accept Goldstein’s
argument (1976: 410–411) that Judean claims for ownership over the toparchies of Lod, Harama-
tha and Aphaerema were founded in their being granted during the time of Alexander the Great.
In any case, even if border changes such as these did occur, they were merely temporary. For
present purposes, the significance of these border changes is their contribution to understanding
the borders of the kingdom of Judah during the late Iron Age and afterwards in the Babylonian
and Persian periods.
17 For a summary on the place and status of Gezer see Naʾaman 1985b: 211; 1995b: 16–18, with
further literature therein; Becking 1992: 9–10. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III had already
conquered Gezer by 733/732 BCE. For a description of the conquest see Barnett and Falkner 1962:
112. See also: Reich and Brandl 1985: 41, with references therein for literature on identifying the
city there. It may be assumed that Gezer was annexed into Assyria along with the Samaria and
that it became an Assyrian administrative center at a later phase. It is difficult to accept Galil’s
(1984: 13) opinion that the area was annexed to the province of Samaria only during the days of
Manasseh.
18 According to Esarhaddon Inscription, this province included Aphek along with the eastern
Sharon Plain, and bordered the province of Dor, which stretched along the coast, from the
Carmel in the north to the Yarkon in the south. See Naʾaman 1995b: 17; 1995c: 107. This territory
may be compared with borders of the province of Lod during the Hellenistic and Roman periods,
based on the assumption that even then Aphek was included in this province. See Avi-Yonah
1949: 128–129.
470 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

(Borger 1979: 107), the situation becomes even more complicated, pointing to an
‘Ashkelonian’ enclave at the meeting point between the provinces of Samaria and
Ashdod, at least during this period.19
Following Sennacherib’s campaign, some of the Judahite territories in the
Shephelah were torn from its control (Alt 1930: 80–82; Noth 1960: 268–269; cf.
Naʾaman 1995b: 18–19), and handed over to the cities of Philistia (Rainey 1983: 16;
Naʾaman 1979: 83; 1986c: 17; Galil 1984: 13; 1988: 11; Mittmann 1990: 104). Apparent-
ly, the main beneficiary of this was Ekron (Naʾaman 1989b: 62, 170–171, with fur-
ther literature therein).20 Within the province of Samaria, including Gezer, no
changes are visible from this time.21 It is likely that in the period of the Pax
Assyriaca, during most of the 7th century BCE, there were no changes to the
borders in the region.22 The main question is whether such changes occurred
after Assyrian withdrawal, during the second half of the 7th century. Many schol-
ars have assumed that during the reign of Josiah, the kingdom of Judah expanded
its territory and included most of the coastal plain.23 The arguments for the theo-
ry of the ‘great kingdom of Josiah’ can be summarized in the following points:
1) The historical perception by which an empty void was left in the region
following the Assyrian retreat, in which Josiah could operate (Malamat 1983:
228–234; Naʾaman 1989: 46, with further literature in n. 100).
2) Attribution of credibility to the description of Josiah’s reign in the book of
Chronicles (Naʾaman 1989: 54–56).
3) The estimation that the list of towns of Judah (Josh 15:21–62), Benjamin (18:21–
28), Simeon (19:2–8) and Dan (19:40–46) are original and credible,24 and re-

19 Aharoni (1962: 297–298) argued that Ashkelon’s takeover of this area was part of the general
instability that prevailed in the region, during the preparations for the rebellion against Assyria.
It is common to assume that Hezekiah brought Ashkelon into the rebellion against Assyria,
including the enclave in the area of Jaffa. On this subject, see Mittmann 1990, who surmised that
Hezekiah took over Ekron as well and annexed territories belonging to Ashdod. However it is
safe to assume that some Philistine cities participated in the rebellion free of Judahite coercion.
For a review of the different opinions on this subject, as well as further literature, see Oded
1970a; Naʾaman 1986c: 11–21; 1995b: 18 (with further literature).
20 On the flourishing oil production industry in Ekron, see Dothan and Gitin 1994: 19–23.
21 Apart from the possibility of temporary changes occurring in the area on the eve of Sennach-
erib’s campaign, there is no evidence for territorial changes in the province of Samaria. On this
subject, see Naʾaman 1995: 18–19.
22 For the definition of the Pax Assyriaca and its characteristics, see Naʾaman 1987b: 7–11. The
scholarly proposals (e.g., Finkelstein 1994) that territories were returned to Judahite control
during the reigns of Manasseh or Josiah should not be accepted.
23 This view also influenced the reconstruction of the settlement situation and the establishment
of the borders of the province of Yehud during the Persian and Babylonian periods. For a review
of the arguments, see Naʾaman 1989: 45, 54–63. For additional literature, see Ahlström 1993: 764.
24 For a representative expression of this approach, see Galil 1987, with further literature there-
in. For criticism of this approach and a summary about the author of the book of Joshua’s place
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 471

flect the historical reality of Josiah’s reign or earlier (Naʾaman 1989: 34–45,
with further literature therein).
4) The finds from Meṣad Hashavyahu, which is seen as conclusive proof for
Josiah’s rule over the entire region, including the coastal plain.25
5) The lists of the returnees to Judah, according to which some of whom settled
in the Ono-Lod area.
6) the assumption that the area was inhabited by Benjaminite families as early
as the end of the First Temple period.26

Contrary to the perception of Judah’s greatness and strength following the Assyri-
an retreat from the region, Naʾaman has suggested the opposite scenario: The
borders of the kingdom of Judah during the days of Josiah reflect the sharp
population decline following Sennacherib’s campaign and were smaller in com-
parison with those of Hezekiah’s reign;27 the power vacuum in the region result-
ing from Assyrian withdrawal was filled by Egypt, and thus no void was left in
which Josiah could operate. Both the northern Shephelah and the coastal plain
were of high strategic importance as an access route to the north, and it seems
unlikely that the Egyptians would have allowed Judah to take control over these
areas (Naʾaman 1989: 59–62, with further literature therein). With this in mind, it
is far more reasonable to assume that Meṣad Hashavyahu was an Egyptian citadel
housing mercenaries of Greek, Judaean and Phoenician origin (Naʾaman 1987: 12–

in processing and adapting the lists for compositional needs, see Naʾaman 1989: 21–24. As a
starting point for a discussion on these lists, it is accepted that the town lists of Judah and
Benjamin were edited, processed and designed by the author of the book of Joshua. Originally,
there was one list of towns for the whole kingdom of Judah, while the author separated between
the town lists of Judah (Josh 15:21–62) and Benjamin (18:21–28) and attributed it to the period of
tribal regime during the days of Joshua. For the list of towns in Simeon, see Naʾaman 1983: 121–
126; 1986: 62–73. For the list of towns in Dan, see Naʾaman 1989: 17–18, with further discussion
and references therein.
25 On the excavations in the site see Naveh 1992: 557–558, with further references therein. For
the typical historical interpretation of these finds as evidence for Judahite rule in the region,
see, e.g., column 557, and literature in column 558; Galil 1984: 14. For additional literature, see
Ahlström 1993: 767–769.
26 This argument is based on the assumption of Alt (1925a: 110–111). It was accepted by many
scholars, and see the literature mentioned in Schwartz 1988: 3–4; Naʾaman 1995b: 22, n. 14.
27 This opinion is becoming more and more substantiated as the archaeological data grows,
mostly from the Shephelah area and the southern Judean mountains. On the circumstances
surrounding the Deuteronomist’s description of Josiah as one who was not subject to external
dictates, see Naʾaman 1989: 53. For archaeological substantiation of this approach, see Finkelstein
1994; Mazar 1994: 259–262.
472 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

14; 1989: 56–60).28 Even the lists of the returnees are not sufficient proof for
settlement in the Lod-Modiʿin Plain in the late First Temple period. Residents of
the kingdom of Judah inhabited the northern Shephelah prior to the destruction,
but their settlements did not extend westward beyond the traditional borders of
Judah, south and east of Gezer (Naʾaman 1987: 12–14; 1995b: 18, 23). The survey
and excavations conducted in the Shephelah and its main sites reveal the magni-
tude of the destruction that Sennacherib left in his wake, as well as Judah’s weak-
ening grasp over the region. This is the background for the kingdom of Ekron’s
rise to prominence, which not long ago was considered a small and weak city-
state (Naʾaman 1989: 62; Mazar 1994: 260–263). The conclusion arising from this
is that evidence for the return of some exiles to the northern Shephelah should
not necessarily be tied to Judah’s borders before the destruction. However, one
can assume that the settlement in the area bordering Judah and the kingdom of
Ekron began as early as the 7th century BCE (Naʾaman 1989: 62–63; 1995b: 22, 24,
with further literature in nn. 40, 43, 53). Nevertheless, due to the considerably
scarce population in the Judahite Shephelah during the 7th century BCE, it is
doubtful that there were any large-scale migrations into the Assyrian provinces
of Samaria or Ashdod. Under such circumstances, there is no escaping the as-
sumption that the main migration to the area occurred only at a later phase.
It is unclear whether, and if so, to what extent Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest
of Ashkelon in 604 BCE affected the status of the northern Shephelah.29 It can
be assumed that arrangements were made in the city similar to those that the
Babylonians made in Jerusalem seventeen years later: destruction of the capital
and the temple and the relocation of the new administrative center to the alterna-
tive capital, all while relying on a new, loyal system of governance (Lipschits
1997b: 104–127). If so, then the Babylonian arrangements are the ones at the base
of the reality known from the Persian period in which the area of Ashkelon was
included within the province of Ashdod.
It may be assumed that the reorganization of the southern coastal plain was
due to its proximity to the Egyptian border as well as the Babylonian need to
establish dominion along the empire’s southern border. That being said, the ar-

28 Determining the period of activity for the citadel was based mostly on the Greek pottery.
Worthy of attention is Wenning’s (1989) opinion that Meṣad Hashavyahu was established only
after Josiah (ca. 600 BCE). It is difficult to accept Wenning’s dating as well as his interpretation
of the citadel as a Judean stronghold that was founded during Jehoiakim’s reign yet hosted
mostly Greek mercenaries. In this context, see also Dion 1992: 86–88, n. 103; Waldbaum 1994: 59.
29 As described in tablet B.M. 21946, lines 15–20. See Wiseman 1956: 28, 68–69, during the first
year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar journeyed to the land of Hatti, during which he received
tribute from all of the kings in the region. Not one of the kings dared oppose him except the
king of Ashkelon. The city was destroyed, supposedly due to its refusal to surrender.
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 473

rangements that were made in the coastal plain, the Babylonian leniency towards
Judah30 and perhaps also partial evidence of restoration work conducted in the
lower city of Ekron31 evince a Babylonian desire to maintain the existing arrange-
ments from the periods of Assyrian and Egyptian rule and to invest as little effort
as possible in managing and organizing the region. Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that the transition from Assyrian to Babylonian rule did not precipitate
any border changes in the Lod-Modiʿin Plain and that the arrangements made
after Sennacherib’s campaign remained intact until the Persian period.
The question regarding the population of the Lod-Modiʿin Plain during this
period should be discussed separately from that regarding the political borders
that ran throughout the region and separately from the question of geopolitical
affiliation for its respective subunits. It may be assumed that a mixed population
inhabited the region on the eve of the destruction of the kingdom of Judah. Parts
of the Israelite population were exiled by the Assyrian armies, but apparently a
significant portion of the Israelite population continued living in the area. Fur-
thermore, different local cores originating from the coastal plain continued to
exist in the Lod-Modiʿin Plain, including a growing number of Phoenicians. Apart
from this, the Assyrians brought exiled communities from other parts of the em-
pire to the region.32 Evidence for the existence of these exiles in the Lod-Modiʿin
Plain is found on two tablets from Gezer, sealed in the years 651 and 649 BCE
(Galling 1935: 82–84; Beking 1981; 1992: 114–118; Reich and Brandl 1962: 41–42).
These tablets mention a total of 21 names, with only one (Netanyahu) being Israel-
ite (Zadok 1985: 567–569; Becking 1992: 118, and n. 35). Twelve of the names are
identified as Babylonian, and it is commonly assumed that they were brought to
the region during the reign of Sargon II or Ashurbanipal (Zadok 1985: 568–569,
with further literature therein; Naʾaman 1989; 1995c: 111). In addition to the two
tablets from Gezer, another tablet found at Tel Hadid attests to deportees from

30 Even though Jehoiakim was an Egyptian appointment, the Babylonians allowed him to re-
main on the throne (2 Kgs 24:1). After the rebellion, the Babylonians were content with selective
exile (Jehoiakim’s Exile) and left the royal house intact (v. 17). It may be assumed that Zedekiah’s
appointment was based on certain clear considerations, including Babylon’s desire not to stir up
the kingdom and instead to allow this peripheral area, on the border with Egypt, to continue to
exist. Only with Zedekiah’s rebellion and the resurgence of Egyptian threat was the capital
destroyed and the royal house abolished. For a reconstruction of the events in this period, see
Lipschits 1997b: 104–127.
31 The first destruction in Ekron is dated by the excavators to the year 603 BCE. The lower city
was restored, and in it a ‘open courtyard’-style house was possibly erected. See further Dothan
and Gitin 1994: 25.
32 On the exiles brought to and from the region see Naʾaman and Zadok 1988; Naʾaman 1989a,
and references to additional literature therein.
474 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

Babylon living at the site, supposedly brought in by Sargon (Naʾaman 1996a: 12).
Further evidence for the existence of foreign population in the area may be found
in the name of Sanballat the Horonite, the Persian official in Samaria during the
days of Nehemiah. According to Zadok (1985: 569–570), Sanballat was descendant
of a family of Assyrian officials in the province of Samaria, and his name indi-
cates that his family hails from Beit Horon.
The result from this data is that we do not know of any changes in the south-
western border of the kingdom of Israel. These borders remained intact for the
Assyrian province of Samaria, and apparently during the period of Babylonian
rule as well. In contrast to this territorial stasis, considerable demographic
changes occurred during the years of Assyrian rule. These changes resulted in a
diverse population living within the Lod-Modiʿin Plain during the early 6th cen-
tury BCE. This population included Israelites, apparently mainly Ephraimites, lo-
cal cores originating from the coastal plain, including a growing number of Phoe-
nicians and exiles who were brought to the region by the Assyrians starting with
the reign of Sargon II.

The Status of the Lod-Modiʿin Plain during the Persian Period

and the Evidence for Its Population

Based on Tobiah and Geshem’s proposal to Nehemiah, ‘Come and let us meet
together in one of the villages in the plain of Ono’ (Neh 6:2), Alt (1931: 71, n. 2)
suggested that during the Persian period, the Ono Plain was used as an intermedi-
ate zone between the provinces of Yehud, Samaria and Ashdod, and that a mixed
population of Jews and non-Jews lived in it.33 It is reasonable to assume that this
verse indeed contains testimony to a mixed population living in the Lod-Modiʿin
Plain, a population that came into being over a long process that occurred as a
result of the geopolitical developments in the region.34 However, there is no basis

33 Several scholars followed Alt; see Mazar 1950: 150–151; Schwartz 1991: 44–45; 1988: 7–12. Accord-
ing to Bright (1972: 84) temporary border changes took place during the days of Nehemiah, causing
the area to belong briefly to the province of Yehud. It is difficult to accept this, being harmonistic
and completely unfounded. Contrary to such opinions, see Naʾaman’s stance (1995a: 23–24). For
additional scholarly opinions pertaining to the status of the area, see Schwartz (1988: 9, with
further literature in nn. 32–37).
34 As mentioned, the political/administrative and demographic realities should not be confused
with each other. It is therefore difficult to accept the starting point suggested by Schwartz (1988:
3, and cf. to 1991: 43) that “the administrative division of the land into provinces during the
Persian period mostly reflected the ethnic-demographic reality. Determining that Lod belonged
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 475

for assuming that the area was disconnected from the province of Samaria, and
it is reasonable to assume that it remained within its domain even after the
transition from Babylonian to Persian rule (Naʾaman 1995b: 23–24, with further
literature in n. 51). The proposal made by Sanballat the Horonite and Geshem the
Arabian to Nehemiah to meet ‘in one of the villages in the plain of Ono’ should
be understood against this backdrop,35 as should Nehemiah’s subsequent evasion
of the summons (vv. 3–14). The meeting was to take place in an area under San-
ballat’s control yet inhabited by a substantial Judahite population,36 which was
meant to provide Nehemiah with some sort of security if not proper protection.
This point reinforces the main question raised at the beginning of the present
discussion: What were the origins of the Judahite population living in the Lod-
Modiʿin Plain area during the Hasmonean Period, and when did the process of
its formation occur? An answer to these may be obtained by combining the
archaeological data with the historical testimony.
Several archaeological surveys were conducted on the Lod-Modiʿin Plain in
the 1970s and 1980s. Partial data on the eastern part of the region were published
by Ram Gophna and Yosef Porat as part of the emergency survey (Gophna and
Porat 1972) and by Israel Finkelstein as part of the Benjamin survey (Finkelstein
1993b; 1993c). Additional data, mostly from the northern part of the region, were
published in Finkelstein’s M.A. thesis (Finkelstein 1978: 8–30), and the bulk of the
data was gathered as part of the survey conducted in the Ayalon Valley and its
surroundings and was partially published in Alon Shavit’s M.A. thesis (Shavit
1993: 74–107).
Based on the data from these surveys, it appears that the Lod-Modiʿin Plain
experienced a settlement decline of approximately 35 % from the Iron Age to
the Persian period (from 38 settlements to 25). This phenomenon is particularly
prominent in the region’s central and western parts (west of the Modiʿin-Gezer
line), which at the time saw a 55 % decrease in settlements (from 33 settlements
to 15). This change is significant since it indicates a shift of the population hub
from the center in the west of the region to its east (east of the Modiʿin-Shaʿalbim
line). The 33 sites that existed in the western part during the Iron Age comprised
87 % of the total sites active in the Lod-Modiʿin Plain during the Iron Age. The
15 sites that existed in the area during the Persian period comprised 60 % of the
all the active sites in the Persian period. All the region’s Persian-period settle-

to the Province of Yehud indicates a large Judahite settlement in the region during the Persian
Period; attributing Lod to the Province of Samaria will indicate a gentile population there.”
35 On the meaning of ‘villages’, see the literature collected in Schwartz 1991: 48, n. 33.
36 It is difficult to accept Galil’s opinion (1984: 14) that this affair attests to the province of
Yehud’s dominion over the Ono Plain.
476 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

ments existed at sites that were also inhabited during the Iron Age; the region
thus demonstrates continuity in settlement patterns with a noticeable decrease
in the site numbers.
The picture in the eastern part of the region is completely different. Com-
pared to the 5 sites in the Iron Age (approximately 13 % of all active Iron Age
sites in the region), there were 10 sites in the Persian period (some 40 % of all
existing sites in the region at this time). The number of settlements in the region
had therefore more than doubled, with six new settlements having been founded.
The table below presents the data of the sites that existed from the Modiʿin-
Shaʿalbim line eastwards. All of these sites were surveyed as part of the Benjamin
survey,37 and they are divided into two groups according to the historical periods
in question: Table 1 contains the sites active during the Iron Age, while Table 2
contains the Persian-period sites. The sites are sorted in each table from north to
south.

Tab. 1: Iron Age II Sites.

Survey Site Site Name Coordinates Area in Ceramic

Number Dunams Finds

1 08/1 er-Ras 15075 14890 25 52 %

2 32/2 Kh. Badd ʿIsa 15415 14820 4 Scarce

3 25/1 Horvat Titora 15210 14550 60(?) 36 %

4 84/1 Beit Ur al-Tahta 15825 14465 30(?) 27 %

5 42/1 Kh. Dhanb el-Kalb 15405 14200 30 Few

The phenomenon of founding new settlements, most of which were agricultural

farms, was not unique to the Lod-Modiʿin Plain, and Persian-period farms are
known along the western margins of the Samarian hills and the eastern coastal
plain, at least until Nahal Qana.38 The uniqueness of the process that took place

37 See Finkelstein 1978: 8–30; 1993b; 1993c; Shavit 1993: 74–107. It should be mentioned that sites
dating to the late Persian or early Hellenistic periods were excluded from the provided data
with the intention of focusing the discussion in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. In the area
evaluation data, the reference is to the maximum size of the site and not the estimated area of
the settlement in a given period.
38 See, e.g., Finkelstein 1978: 35–41, 70–73; Dar 1982. The strengthening of the settlement during
the Persian period is also evident in the western slopes of the Benjamin hills, the area of Upper
Beit Horon and in the survey conducted on the map of Rosh Haʿayin. For example, see sites
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 477

Tab. 2: Persian Period Sites.

Survey Site Site Name Coordinates Area in Ceramic

Number Dunams Find

1 08/1 er-Ras 15075 14890 25 5%

2 37/1 Kh. Karikur 15350 14750 3.5 (?)

3 27/1 Shilta 15205 14725 (?) 14 %

4 25/1 Horvat Titora 15210 14550 60(?) 13 %

5 45/2 Kh. Nijmat el-Hadli 15455 14530 4 Scarce

6 84/1 Beit Ur al-Tahta 15825 14465 30(?) 3%

7 22/1 Kh. ʿAjanjayil 15230 14205 10 38 %

8 42/1 Kh. Dhanb el-Kalb 15405 14200 30 56 %

9 21/1 Kh. Sheikh Suleiman 15205 14185 10 Single

10 50/1 Kh. Shibli 15585 14020 5 (?)

in the area of Modiʿin is rooted in the origins of the population that settled and
formed in it up until the familiar image of the Judahite settlement in the region
during the Hellenistic period.
In my opinion, the demographic processes in the Lod-Modiʿin Plain are best
understood in relation to the demographic processes in 6th-century Benjamin.
Analysis of the main excavations conducted in the region shows it avoided devas-
tation during the destruction of Jerusalem and continued to exist throughout the
entirety of the sixth century BCE. It was only at the end of this century, apparently
during the transition from Babylonian to Persian rule, that a gradual process of
decline began in the settlements of the region (Lipschits 1997b: 203–245, with
further references). This process is evident in Mizpah, which was the capital of
the province during the Babylonian rule in Judah,39 as well as in Bethel, Gibeon
and Gibeah (Lipschits 1997b: 211–225, with further discussion and literature
therein).
The settlement continuity in Benjamin is best explained through the Babylo-
nian interest in preserving the region and relying on it as an economic and
administrative center. The production of wine, oil and grain was vital for regular-

nos. 25, 32, 34, 136, 141 in the Benjamin survey (Finkelstein 1993b; 1993c). See also see Kochavi
and Beit-Arieh 1994: 10.
39 On the status of Mizpah as the capital of the province of Yehud during Babylonian rule, see
Zorn 1993: 147–151, 316–336; Lipschits 1997b: 159, 164–166, 203–210.
478 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

ly supplying the military forces, administration and officials active in the land.
The destruction of Ekron and the main concentration of the Babylonian forces in
Benjamin during the siege of Jerusalem could support the assumption that they
established themselves in this region and made it their center of power in the
province.
The decrease in the scope of settlements in the region occurred only at the
end of the 6th century BCE, after the beginning of the Persian period. The de-
crease may be tied to the transition of the political center from Mizpah to Jerusa-
lem, and apparently also to a change in Persian policy, opting not to maintain
large military forces and administration in the region and to base their control
mainly on those who were deemed loyal among the returnees (Lipschits 1997b:
128–170, with further literature therein). Other than this, the possibility cannot
be ruled out that the religious, social and political implications of returning the
rule of Judah to the returnees were also a factor for the migration of some of the
‘people who remained in Judah’ to the area of Modiʿin. The rupture between the
‘returnees’ and those who remained is well reflected in the book of Ezra-Nehe-
miah and is mainly expressed in the returnees’ opposition to mixed marriages.
Therefore, it may be assumed that there were those who preferred to reside
outside the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Judah, although still
geographically adjacent to it and while still maintaining strict affinity to the ‘state’
and the temple. It is possible that this is the population whom Nehemiah refer-
enced when mentioning the ‘Jews who lived near them’ (Neh 4:12) and that this
is the core from which the Judahite population in the area of Modiʿin evolved.
The data from the archaeological survey conducted in Benjamin in the 1980s
should be examined in light of the settlement situation arising from the analysis
of the excavations carried out in this area. In this context, two decisions made
by the surveyors should be taken into account:
1) Due to the continuity in settlements and ceramic culture in the region of
Benjamin in the transition from the Iron Age to the Babylonian and Persian
periods, the surveyors included the 6th century BCE within the Iron Age II.
2) The picture emerging from the survey regarding the Persian period is reflec-
tive of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE.

Comparing the settlement situation in Benjamin during the Iron Age with that in
the Persian period shows a decrease of roughly 60 % in the number of sites (from
146 in the Iron Age II to 59 in the Persian period). A parallel decrease, at a rate
of approximately 56.5 %, is reflected in the amount of inhabited dunams (from
1150 dunams in the Iron Age II to roughly 500 dunams in the Persian period).40

40 See Finkelstein 1993: 27. For a summary and comparison of the data relating to the late Iron
Age and the Persian period, see Lipschits 1997b: 238–243.
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 479

The scarcity of the Persian pottery at most sites where it is found attests to a lower
degree of activity than that of the same respective sites during in Iron Age. It is
therefore probable that the settlement decrease is even more significant that what
the data shows. Examining the settlement layout shows that during the Persian
period, the settlements in Benjamin converged towards the center of the region, to
the narrow strip of land on both sides of the watershed line, and their existence
in the north and east nearly ceased completely. This figure is consistent with the
knowledge of the settlements in the Jordan Valley and along the coast of the Dead
Sea, which almost ceased to exist during the Persian period.41 Based on three meas-
urable parameters (number of settlements, total inhabited area and settlement lay-
out), one might assume that the settlement situation in Benjamin during the
6th century BCE was similar to that of the late Iron Age.42 The major change oc-
curred in the late 6th and early 5th centuries BCE. If any settlement changes took
place earlier, during the period of Babylonian rule, it was mainly in two areas:
1) In the desert frontier areas of Benjamin and Judah, the Judean Desert, the
Jordan Valley and along the western coast of the Dead Sea, there was a settle-
ment system dependent on state backing and security, as well as a trade of
goods produced in En-Gedi and Jericho. Settlements in the area did not sur-
vive the collapse of the kingdom of Judah’s military alignment and the de-
struction of En-Gedi and Jericho, and the area was likely emptied shortly
after the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah.
2) A noticeable decrease in the scope of settlements occurred in the northern
part of Benjamin, along the border with the province of Samaria, including
the abandonment of pastures in the north-eastern area of the region. The
surviving settlement was concentrated in the mountain ridge or the upper
part of its slopes, where the settlement and administration centers of the
province were, which provided security and allowed for a decent income.
It remains doubtful whether the leaders of the province of Yehud or the

41 On the settlement in this area during the late Iron Age and the Babylonian and Persian
periods, see Lipschits 1997b: 312–326.
42 My stance runs contrary to Finkelstein’s (1993: 27) position, which is that at the beginning of
the 6th century BCE, parallel to the Jerusalem’s destruction, the settlement in the Benjamin
region experienced a major crisis. In his opinion, the conditions there were even harsher than
the survey reflects, while the 5th and 4th centuries BCE saw the beginning of some recovery. In
my opinion this is a general historical assessment lacking archaeological evidence. There is no
doubt that the settlement in Benjamin went through a settlement crisis. However, the only pos-
sible point of comparison in this context is to sites excavated in Benjamin, which paints the
opposite picture: The settlement in Benjamin continued to grow and flourish during the 6th cen-
tury BCE, while the settlement decline began in the latter days of the 6th century or the early
5th century BCE.
480 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

representatives of the imperial Babylonian/Persian rule could guarantee the

inhabitants of the region such living conditions.43

Based on this data, which exhibits steep settlement decline in Benjamin from the
late Iron Age and the Babylonian Exile to the Persian period, the strengthening
of the settlement in the area east of the Modiʿin-Shaʿalbim line is even more
noticeable. While Benjamin saw a roughly 60 % decrease in settlement numbers
and the amount of settled dunams, the number of sites in the Modiʿin area dou-
bled during the same period, and a seemingly similar picture emerges from the
estimation of settled dunams.
It is therefore possible that some of the inhabitants of the region of Benjamin
moved to the Lod-Modiʿin Plain area at the end of the 6th century BCE. This
process was not only the result of what took place in Benjamin during the Persian
period but can also be explained mainly through the changes in economic condi-
tions around the coastal area in the early Persian period (Finkelstein 1993a: 27;
see also Hizmi 1993: 100).
Archaeological research of the sites scattered along the coast show that a
new settlement array was created in the region during the Persian period.44 Over
an accelerated process of settlement, many port cities began to flourish in this
period, most of which are fortified, planned and well built (Stern 1973: 51–64;
1990a: 147–155). These include: Tell Abu Hawam (Stern 1973: 51–52, 56–57; Ger-
shuny 1992: 3), Shikmona (Elgavish 1968: 42–48; 1992: 1556; 1994), Tel Megadim
(Broshi 1992: 891–892, with further references; Stern 1973: 51–54, 56–59), Tel Dor
(Stern 1992a: 397–399, 404, 407, with further literature therein; 1990a: 147–155;
1991: 77–81), Mikhmoret (?) (Porat, Dar and Applebaum 1985: 126–132, with further
literature therein), Tel Poleg (?),45 Tel Michal (Herzog 1989; 1992: 937, 939–940,
with further literature therein), Tel Qudadi (Avigad 1992: 769, with further litera-
ture therein), Jaffa (?)46 and Ashkelon (Stager 1992, with further literature on

43 In this context, see the description and model presented by Finkelstein 1993b: 20–21.
44 For summaries of this subject, see Stern 1990a; Lemaire 1990. It should be mentioned that
this image of the settlement has almost no attestations in historical sources, which provide
information on only a few settlements in the area. On this subject, see Avi-Yonah 1949: 24; Stern
and Tadmor 1990: 234–237.
45 This site was only partially excavated, making it difficult to get a complete picture. However,
it seems that the architectural remains are spread across roughly 15 dunams, with several satel-
lite sites scattered around it. On the ceramic finds at the site, see Singer-Avitz 1989: 377–380. On
the satellite sites, see Roll and Ayalon 1989: 119–124.
46 The dating of the Persian-period strata in Jaffa is unclear. See Kaplan 1992, and references to
further literature therein. It is difficult to accept Hopkins’s (1980: 22) attempt to deduce the status
of Jaffa during the Persian period from its status under Roman rule. See also Schwartz 1988: 11.
The attempt to include Lod within the boundaries of Jaffa is not sufficiently grounded.
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 481

p. 108). Apparently, the Persians permitted the coastal cities to operate with a
great deal of independence, much like in the periods of Assyrian and Babylonian
rule. They had a clear economic interest in the continued operation of the mari-
time trade and permitted its existence under the supervision of governors resid-
ing in Sidon (where a royal Persian palace was uncovered; see Kelly 1987: 39–56;
Stern 1990a: 155, n. 25), and surely in other centers as well.
It may be assumed that the political stability that prevailed in the land at the
beginning of the Persian period as well as the economic boom of the coastal plain
attracted many of the hill country settlers and returnees to inhabit this region
and its surroundings (Stern 1973: 239–240; 1992a: 63–70). Another factor in this
was probably the agricultural potential of the Lod-Ono Plain (mainly after the
destruction of Ekron’s industrial system), and its proximity to the main trade
routes along the coast and the major roads leading up to Jerusalem and Benjamin
(Finkelstein 1981: 341). However, the archaeological data does not indicate a
change in the administrative status of the region, and there is no basis to the
assumption it was once included within the province of Yehud.
The distribution data of the Persian-period Yehud stamp impressions47 were
often used as evidence for the borders of the Yehud province.48 Many scholars
relied on the perception from initial stamp-impression research, that they served
as official impressions of the provincial administration, mostly related to tax af-
fairs.49 In my opinion, the geographical-historical discourse should be detached

47 The most complete corpus of the yehud stamp impressions appears in the English version of
E. Stern’s book (Stern 1973), published in 1982 (see pp. 202–207 therein). However, while 342 stamp
impressions are documented in Stern’s book, there are now 412 stamp impressions currently
known to exist – some of which lack any data, aside from a note about their find context or a
general description of them. Dedicated to this subject, Christoph’s Ph.D. (Christoph 1993) disserta-
tion is based on the complete corpus (p. 121), although the source of publication of much of the
subject matter discussed there remains unclear. For further information on the Yehud stamp
impressions and further literature on this subject, see also Bianchi 1993: 3.
48 As already hypothesized by Klein 1939: 30; Aharoni 1982: 334; E. Stern 1973: 243, map on p. 245
and table on p. 286, and others. Most later research was based on this opinion expressed by
Stern. See, e.g., Kochman 1982: 17; Kallai 1960: 75.
49 For a summary of this subject see E. Stern 1973: 200–212. It should be mentioned that, given
absence of Yehud stamp impressions in the hinterlands of the Yehud province, Christoph (1993:
194) discarded the idea that the stamped handles were used for the taxation purposes. In my
opinion, since the majority of the stamped handles were found in four distinct centers, mainly
in Jerusalem and Ramat Raḥel, they can be seen as evidence for tax collection of sorts. By analogy
with jars of both the lmlk and rosette types, it can be assumed that all jars were impressed with
seals at one production center, distributed to the settlements of the province and once full,
brought to the provincial tax collection centers. The fact that the use of these stamp impressions
continued in the Hellenistic period is of some significance. On this matter, see also Lipschits
1997b: 358–363.
482 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

from the findings of the stamp-impressions, since these finds are scarce in the
periphery of the province, and thus cannot sufficiently attest to its borders. Of
the 412 yehud stamp impressions known today, 399 (approx. 97 %) were excavated
in four main centers: Ramat Raḥel (194 impressions; ~ 47 %), Jerusalem (170;
~ 41.5 %), Mizpah (19; ~ 4.5 %) and Jericho (16; ~ 4 %). Several stamp-seal impressions
were found at other sites, such as En-Gedi and Gezer, but these should not be relied
upon for setting the route of a political border (Naʾaman 1988: 75; 1995: 22).
The historical sources of the period also reflect a situation in which the Lod-
Modiʿin Plain was not part of the Yehud province, although there was still a Judah-
ite settlement of considerable size. This realty is expressed in the duplicate ver-
sions of the census list of returnees found in Ezra 2:1–67 and Neh 7:5–68.50 The
majority of scholars have assumed that this list is historically credible and con-
tains a summary of several waves of migration lasting from the early days of the
‘return’ until the time of Nehemiah.51 To the contrary, it must be emphasized that
the list was written in retrospect, when the ‘immigrants’ were already in Judah,
and thus it should be seen as a combination of several lists that were made at
different occasions throughout this period.52 The list was combined for literary
purposes, and the author/editor of the book of Nehemiah intently edited it in
order to fit it to the literary context. Within this sequence, the list serves as a
basis for Nehemiah’s cleromancy for settling every tenth family of the returnees
in Jerusalem (11:1).53 In any case, the list does not refer to the status of the Lod-

50 The two lists of returnees in Ezra 2:1–67 and Neh 7:5–68 are quite similar to each other. For
comparison of the two lists, see Batten 1913: 71–103; Galling 1951. For up-to-date discussion and
literature, see Lipschits 1997b: 369–378. The main dispute revolved around which of the two
version is the original. The prevailing assumption in modern scholarship is that the unit in Ezra
1–6 is both later than the two other units in Ezra-Nehemiah and secondary to them, and it was
integrated with the evidence for the superiority of the list in Neh 7 over the list in Ezra 2. For
conclusions on this subject and further literature, see Williamson 1983; 1985: 29–30; Blenkinsopp
1988: 43–44; Japhet 1993.
51 Several scholars have speculated that these immigration waves arrived in the Yehud province
in the early Persian period, while others assumed that they arrived later, in the days of Ezra
and Nehemiah. For a review of the different scholarly opinions and for literature references,
see Williamson 1983: 31–32; Blenkinsopp 1988: 83; Schwartz 1991: 46, n. 3.
52 For a summary of the different opinions and further literature on this subject, see Lipschits
1997b: 369–375. One testimony to the diverse composition of the list is the difference between
the numbers given in the two versions of the list of ‘the people of Israel’, contrary to the few
differences in the list of priests, Levites and the other temple servants. Even the mention of the
Persian name ‘Bigvai’ was utilized as an argument for the later dating of the list. See also
Hölscher 1923b: 32. For criticism of Hölscher’s proposition, see Blenkinsopp 1988: 83.
53 Most scholars insisted on disruption caused to the literary sequence of Nehemiah’s memories
between chs. 7–11 due to the insertion of chs. 8–10. See Batten 1913: 266–267; Myers 1965: 186;
Fensham 1982: 242.
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 483

Modiʿin Plain or its affiliation with the province of Yehud.54 Assuming that the
area did not belong to the kingdom of Judah prior to the destruction, or to the
province of Yehud, it appears that Judahites could have settled in it and exploited
all of its inherent economic advantages without being included within the bor-
ders of the province.
This is also the main conclusion arising from the mention of seven settle-
ments on the Lod Plain in the list of ‫ים‬ (Ḫaṣērîm) in Nehemiah 11:25–36. This
list is uniquely noticeable among the geographic lists in Ezra-Nehemiah and has
close ties to the lists of cities in Joshua. It includes 33 settlements, 20 of which
are not otherwise mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah, and most of them are located in
clearly remote places beyond the province borders (the Beersheba Valley, the
southern Judaean hill country and the southern plain). It is safe to assume this
list is of a distinct conceptual-literary nature (Williamson 1985: 350–352; cf.
Shwartz 1988: 5–7). It appears to express a deliberate blurring of the provincial
borders and the places of Judean settlements during the Persian period, out of
national aspirations arising after the walls of Jerusalem were reconstructed and
the city was repopulated.55
A similar conclusion also arises from the fact that the area of the Lod-Modiʿin
Plain is never mentioned in the list of wall-builders in Nehemiah 3. Most scholars
have assumed that the list is original and reliable and therefore argued for it as
evidence of the construction of the entirety of the city walls.56 Since it is rather
simple to determine the dating of the list and the setting for its conception, and
due to its technical nature, the relatively extensive domain mentioned in it and
the fact that it inherently reflects the settlement situation, it was regarded highly
important for understanding the administrative division within the province as
well as its territory and borders.57

54 For literature, see Schwartz 1988: 3–4, notes 3–4.

55 High significance should be attributed to the place of the list in Neh 11:25–36, in direct contin-
uation to the description of the populating of the city (vv. 1–24). Chapter 11 is a sequel to the
story about completing the construction of the city walls (Neh 7:1–3) and the recognition of the
need to populate it (vv. 4–73). Evident in it is a tone of national exaltation, which arose following
the construction of the walls. This tone is related to the hope of Judah being able quickly to
return to its borders from bygone days. Thus, the author has intentionally blurred the realistic
lines of the Yehud provincial border and mixed the reality of his own time with the domain of
the lost kingdom of Judah.
56 This assumption has mainly consolidated within historical and geographical-historical schol-
arship, despite the linguistic and technical issues in the list, and despite the textual evidence of
it being edited. On this subject, see Myers 1965: 112–116; Heltzer and Kochman 1985: 110–114;
Williamson 1985: 195–202; Blenkinsopp 1988: 231–232.
57 On this subject, see Meyer 1896: 107–111; see also Kallai 1960: 87–94; E. Stern 1973: 242–245.
For additional literature, see Shwartz 1991: 46, nn. 4–7.
484 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

However, the list of wall builders is administrative rather than geographic

and it includes those who bore the responsibility for building each of the 41
sections of the wall of Jerusalem (Williamson 1985: 195–202; Naʾaman 1995: 20–21;
cf. Carter 1991: 56–57). The inhabitants of the Lod-Modiʿin Plain, who were not
administratively part of the Yehud province, are not exceptional for being exclud-
ed from the list, which does not even include every administrative region in the
province. Aside from the mention of the Beth-hakkerem District (Neh 3:14) and
the Mizpah District (v. 15), and aside from the reference to both halves of the
Jerusalem District (vv. 9, 12) and both halves of the Keilah District (vv. 17, 18), only
half of the Beth-Zur District is mentioned (v. 16).58 Others absent from the list are
some of the wealthiest among the nation and its leaders who refused to partici-
pate in the enterprise to reconstruct the wall. The list’s emphasis on the people
of Tekoa and the gap between them and their ‘nobles’ (Neh 3:5), may be best
understood against this backdrop; moreover, the Tekoites managed to finance the
repairs of ‘another piece’ (v. 27). In the same context, the mention of the ‘priests,
the men of the surrounding area’ (v. 22) may be understood as a criticism of those
who did not arrive from the same region. The considerations underpinning the
compilation of the list or the volunteering of people to help finance the construc-
tion enterprise remains unknown, whether out of free will, a sense of national
obligation, private-economic interest or imposition of duty on behalf of the au-
thorities. In any case, the assumption that the list didn’t mention all of the na-
tion’s dignitaries as well as the officials in charge of the districts, half-districts
and settlements must be the basis of the additions that were made, in order for
one to understand the division and scope of the Yehud province (Kallai 1960: 85;
Williamson 1985: 255).59
There has been scholarly debate regarding the districts that should be added
to the list,60 the internal division of the province61 and the borders of each district

58 Kallai’s hesitation regarding the possible existence of merely a half-district in Beth-Zur is

puzzling. See Kallai 1960: 93.
59 For a different opinion regarding the obligation of the district/half-district officials to partici-
pate in the building operation, see Naʾaman 1995: 20–21.
60 Klein and Avi-Yonah added another district (Jericho), while Stern added two (Jericho and
Gezer) and thereby extended the domain of the province westwards. See Klein 1939: 3–4; E. Stern
1973: 244.
61 Aharoni also divided the Mizpah District into two halves and assumed that only the Beth-
hakkerem District remained intact. Kallai also tried to include the Mizpah District within the
region of Lod, while Stern suggested to the contrary that it should be included the region as part
of the Beth-hakkerem District. See Aharoni 1982: 338; Kallai 1960: 92; Stern 1973: 244. On this
subject, see also Schwartz’s criticism (1988: 4).
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 485

(Kallai 1960: 87–94; Heltzer and Kochman 1985: 114–115).62 The difference of opin-
ions between scholars on these questions attests to the scarcity of clear geograph-
ic and administrative information found in the list, and it also indicates that
scholars have tried to find in the list things that were never there. It should be
kept in mind that 30 of the 41 sections of the wall were built by people of un-
known origin, and only 11 sections of the wall were built by people tied to a
defined place or region within the province. Therefore, it is difficult to see the
list as a representative sample of the settlements in this period, and to infer from
it unequivocal conclusions regarding the settlements map of the Yehud province.
Thus, attempts made by different scholars to understand the geographic meaning
of the list by reviewing all the settlements mentioned in it, with no distinction
between the different categories presented in the text (districts, places of origin
of defined persons or settlements from which groups of builders came), should
not be accepted (Klein 1939: 3–4; cf. Demsky 1983).
Considering the nature of the list and based on the information that it contains,
there is no place for assuming that the territory of the Yehud province exceeded
the borders of the kingdom of Judah prior to the 586 BCE destruction – and most
certainly not westwards.63 Presumably there was stability along the border system
throughout the entire period, and the burden of proof falls on anyone wanting to
claim otherwise.64 However, there is no basis within this list for determining the
quantity of the Judahite population in the region of the Lod-Modiʿin Plain, or evalu-
ating the nature of its relationship with provincial authorities.
Further data that may attest to the existence of an established Judahite popu-
lation in the Lod Plain during the Persian period is the relative abundance of
references to the region in biblical literature from the Persian period. It should
be emphasized that apart from these references there is almost no trace of settle-
ments on the Lod Plain in the Hebrew Bible. Consequentially, the emphasis on
the Judahite inhabitants in the region was intended to establish Judahite owner-
ship over it, mostly that of the Benjaminite population.65

62 See also the summary in Stern 1973: 242–246 as well as his criticism of scholarly attempts to
solve the problems arising from the list.
63 See, e.g., Stern 1973: 242–246. To the contrary, see Schwartz 1988: 4; Naʾaman 1995: 21–22, with
further literature therein.
64 In many cases, scholars attempted to explain a geographic difficulty by temporary changes
in the borders. On the Lod-Ono area, see Bright 1972: 384; on the area of Gezer, see Heltzer and
Kochman 1985: 113.
65 See Curtis and Madsen 1910: 160–161. Simultaneously, Rothstein and Hänel (1927: 117–118)
assumed that the attribution of the settlement in the Ayalon area to Ephraim and Benjamin
stems from Benjaminite families settling in the region during the Second Temple period. For a
contrary opinion, according to which these verses depict hostility between Israelites and Canaan-
ites during ancient times, see Myers 1965: 55, 60–61; Mazar 1954b; Kallai 1986.
486 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

1 Chronicles 8:12–13 reads, “The sons of Elpaal: Eber, Misham, and Shemed,
who built Ono and Lod with its towns, and Beriah and Shema (they were heads
of ancestral houses of the inhabitants of Aijalon who put to fight the inhabitants
of Gath).”66 Elpaal was the head of a family in the tribe of Benjamin,67 and accord-
ing to the biblical text, Beriah was also head of a family in Benjamin. Although,
the relation between this Beriah and the Beriah son of Ephraim (1 Chr 7:21–24),
whose family was active in the region of Gath and also part in the construction
of Upper Beit Horon, Lower Beit Horon and Gezer, among other endeavors.68
Similarly, 1 Chr 6:69 reports that Ayalon and its surroundings belonged to the
tribe of Ephraim, 1 Chr 8:13 claims that Benjaminite families had settled there.69
If these texts can indeed be seen as evidence for an Ephraimite population set-
tling the Lod-Modiʿin Plain during the monarchic period,70 then the presence of
a Benjaminite population in the region should be understood against the back-
drop of this Persian-period reality.
Apparently, this historical reality, and alongside it the same historiographical
tendency, also arise from examining the information in the Hebrew Bible regard-
ing the main sites that existed in the region: Ono is mentioned four times in the
biblical texts as a settlement (Ezra 2:33 (= Neh 7:37); 11:35; 1 Chr 8:12) and once as
a region called the ‘Ono Valley’ (Neh 6:2). The place is identified with Kafr ʿAna,
roughly 9 kilometers northwest of Lod, based mainly on references in Talmudic
literature.71 Ono is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible prior to literature from
the Persian period, despite later traditions indicating that it was one of the walled

66 For a detailed review of the different scholarly opinions on this verse, see Schwartz 1991: 41–
42, n. 12.
67 Mazar (1975: 88–91) links this family to Jediael and a number of households, also including
Hisham (1 Chr 7:10–11). In his opinion, this is the origin of the Hasmonean family name. On this
list, its parallels and Jediael’s place in it, see Japhet 1993: 172–174.
68 For different suggestions in this context, see Loewenstamm 1954: 346–347; Japhet 1977: 317,
n. 372; 319–320, with further literature therein; 1993: 182–183, 185–186. On Beriah’s place in these
lists, see Galil 1991: 141; Mazor 1988: 14–23; Naʾaman 1991: 109.
69 The city of Ayalon was included within the domain of the kingdom of Israel since its establish-
ment, and it can be the reason for its capture by Shoshenq (no. 26 on the list). On the two
Benjaminite families inhabiting the place, see Japhet 1993: 193–195.
70 Additional attestations to the Ephraimite settlement in the area between Beit Horon and
Gezer are present in Josh 16:10 (in addition to the description of the Ephraimite border there in
v. 3) and in Jud 1:29, 35. However, the reliability of the description in 2 Chr 28:18, according to
which the Philistines conquered the area from Ahaz, should be doubted, and it appears that it
too reflects the geographical-historical reality known from the Persian period. See Naʾaman 1995:
19–26.
71 For discussion of these identifications, and references to the Talmudic sources, see Mazar
1950: 150; Schwartz 1988: 8, and n. 22.
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 487

cities from the time of Joshua son of Nun (Mazar 1950: 150). Mazar assumed that
1 Chr 8:12 attests to a migration of Benjaminite families to the Judahite Shephelah
during the reign of Josiah (ibid.). Based on the analysis above, however, it remains
doubtful whether this would have been geopolitically possible, and as mentioned
above, it is more likely to suppose a beginning of Benjaminite settlement in the
region during the Persian period (Naʾaman 1995: 23–24).
Lod is mentioned four times in the Hebrew Bible, only in texts relating to
the Persian period (Ezra 2:33 (= Neh 7:37); 11:35; 1 Chr 8:12).72 This is the backdrop
for the scholarly opinion that the place was uninhabited until the late Iron Age
(Kallai 1962: 430–431). However, similar to the case of Ono, there is no basis for
assuming that it was settled by Judeans prior to the Persian period, and further-
more, there is no archaeological or historical basis to the Talmudic tradition refer-
ring to Lod as one of the walled cities from the time of Joshua (ibid.: 431).
Hadid is mentioned three times in the Hebrew Bible, only in Ezra-Nehemiah
(Ezra 2:33 [= Neh 7:37]; 11:34). The city is commonly identified with Tel Hadid,
approximately six kilometers east of Lod, on the border with the Shephelah (Loe-
wenstamm 1958: 28–29). There is no basis for speculating that settlement in this
place began during the First Temple period (ibid.; Gophna 1969: 83–84), and contra
Gophna, there are also no references supporting the assumption that during the
Persian period the place served as a regional center instead of Gezer.
Ayalon is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible as a city in the territory
of Dan (Josh 10:12; 19:42; 21:22; Judg 1:35; 1 Sam 14:31; 1 Chr 6:54; 8:13; 2 Chr 11:10;
28:18). The place is identified with Yalo, east of Emmaus (Mazar 1950: 265–266;
Galil 1984: 2) and relates to some different traditions in the Joshua and Samuel,
perhaps due to the importance of its location on the border of the hill country
and the Shephelah. Supposedly, this is also the reason why the city appears in
two of the Amarna letters (273, 287) and in Shoshenq list at Karnak (no. 26, and
see Naʾaman 1995: 17, with further literature in n. 23).
In addition to Gath of the Philisitnes, there was another city named ‘Gath’ in
the northern Shephelah, along Judah’s western border (Mazar 1940: 351–356; 1959:
10; Naʾaman 1974: 34–35; 1977: 175; 1986: 113–114, with further literature in n. 61).73
Traditions about this Gath relate it to families from Ephraim and Benjamin (1 Chr
7:21; 8:12–13),74 and it apparently should be identified with Gittaim, mentioned in

72 On the scholarly history of the site and its identification, see Kaplan 1992: 847.
73 There have been proposals for identifying this Gath/Gittaim with Ras Abu Hamid; see Klein
1939: 27; Mazar 1940: 355–356; Kallai 1960: 87; Galil 1984: 5–6. For the arguments against this and
a proposal to identify the site with Gibbethon, see Naʾaman 1986a: 114, n. 62; 1995c: 16, and n. 19.
74 For linguistic and literary analysis of these verses, see Curtis and Madsen 1910: 153–154, 160–
161; Japhet 1993: 181–182, 193–195.
488 Part E: Studies on the Region of Benjamin and Its Surroundings

2 Sam 4:1–3 and in the list of ‫ים‬ (Ḫaṣērîm) in Nehemiah 11 (v. 33) (Mazar
1940: 353–354; Galil 1992: 115–116, n. 34; Japhet 1993: 194).
A settlement named ‘Gai Ḫarashim’ (‘the Valley of Craftsmen’) is mentioned
in the Hebrew Bible only in the list of ‫ים‬ (Ḫaṣērîm, i.e., small farms or villa-
ges, supported by a major city and belonging to a defined territory) in Nehemi-
ah 11,75 although there were later traditions about the place in Talmudic literature
(Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 1:1; Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 4, p. 1). There are
no common scholarly suggestions for identifying it, and it remains doubtful
whether the reference is to a defined settlement in the region.76 Two additional
settlements in the region are mentioned only in the list of ‫ים‬ (Ḫaṣērîm) in
Nehemiah 11: Zeboim and Neballat. Zeboim had previously been identified with
Khirbet Sabia, to the north of Lod, but it seems that this identification is no longer
acceptable (Klein 1939: 146–147; Avi-Yonah 1949: 102; Kallai 1960: 77; Ahituv 1971:
672–673; Schwartz 1991: 47, with further literature in n. 26). Neballat is commonly
identified with Beit Nabala, despite the lack of correlation between the archaeo-
logical finds at the site and the historical information available about the place
(Kallai 1960: 87; 1968: 748).

Summary

From the dataset presented above, it appears that an early core of Judahite popu-
lation began to establish itself in the Lod-Modiʿin Plain in the early Persian period.
Although the region belonged to the province of Samaria until the Hasmonean
period, economic, social and political processes that occurred in region of Benja-
min propelled the migration process of Benjaminite families to it. The transition
of the political center from Mizpah to Jerusalem, as well as the change in the
form of governance in the province with the shift from Assyrian to Persian rule,
were among the main factors for the migration. These changes led to a decline
in the status of the Benjamin region and thus decreased the forms of income
available in it. The noticeable decrease of settlements in Benjamin from the late
6th century BCE should be understood against this backdrop. Apart from this, it
cannot be ruled out that the transfer of power in Judah to the returnees led
some inhabitants of the Benjamin region to migrate outside of the administrative
jurisdiction of the province and settle adjacent to its borders.

75 A place of that name (‘Gai Harashim’) is also mentioned in 1 Chr 4:14. However, it seems that
this is referring to a different place. For literature on this subject, see Har-El 1977: 75–80; Shwartz
1988: 8, and note 27.
76 For proposals of assumed identification, see Mazar 1954b: 479; Har-El 1977: 77–79.
 The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modiʿin and its Surroundings 489

The migration to the Lod-Modiʿin Plain arose from the region’s located be-
tween the coastal cities and the Via Maris on the one hand and the population
centers in the hill country on the other. The economic potential of the region and
its proximity to the province of Yehud enabled those ‘Jews who lived near them’
(Neh 4:12) to live under the rule of the Samarian governor but in the near vicinity
to the Judean settlements concentrated around Jerusalem. The link between the
Judahite settlement in the Lod-Modiʿin Plain and the province of Yehud remained,
and there is a direct line running from the first settlers during the Persian period
through to their successors who raised the banner of revolt during the Hasmone-
an Period.
As a final note: At the end of the convoluted discussion on the history of the
Judahite settlement around the Lod-Modiʿin Plain, and after this article had al-
ready been written, I was informed that some 114 years ago, these words had
already been accurately written with vigorous brevity and poetic language. Thus
wrote Yehiel Zvi Hirschensohn, in his book ‘Seven Wisdoms’ (Lvov, 1883: 46), with-
in discussion of Mishnah, Sheviʿit 9:2:

,‫…ויכול להיות עוד כי נצרכה המשנה לפרש ושפלת לוד שהיא כשפלת יהודה הדרומית‬
‫ הייתה לוד בארץ עשרת השבטים‬,(‫בעבור שכפי המבואר בספר א׳ של החשמונים )י״א ל״ז‬
‫מארצות שומרון בימי בית הראשון ובימי בית שני התיישבו בני בנימין כמבואר בנחמיה י״א‬
77
.‫והמלכים מלכי מצרים הבתלמיים השיבוה ויספחוה ליהודה‬

77 ‘And it may also be that the Mishna was needed to interpret that the lowland of Lod, is the
same as the southern lowland of Judah, because, as explained in 1 Maccabees (11:37), Lod was
in the land of the ten tribes from the lands of Samaria in the days of the First Temple, and in
the days of the Second Temple the sons of Benjamin were settled there as explained in Nehemiah
11, and the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt, returned it and annexed it to Judah.’
Part F: Biblical Studies
Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem
Introduction

The core of the tribal territory of Judah included the area around Ḥebron – as
far south as the Negev and as far north as the area of Beth-Zur. When viewed
from geographical, historical, and geopolitical perspectives, it is clear the region
was a separate territory from that of Jerusalem. Located in the central hill coun-
try, the Jerusalemite region included a small territory to its north (the Benjamin-
ite plateau), west (the Soreq and Rephaim valleys), and south (the area of Bethle-
hem). During the second millennium BCE, these two territories were separate
geopolitical units.
This was also the case at the beginning of the first millennium BCE. David
and his dynasty were not part of the Judahite clans. Rather, he came from an
Ephrathite family who lived in Bethlehem (1 Sam 17:12), just within the territory
of Jerusalem and far from the core of the Judahite territory around Ḥebron.
From this perspective, the conflict between David (from the family of Jesse from
Bethlehem) and Saul (from the family of Kish from Gibeah) was a conflict be-
tween two families from the countryside of the kingdom of Jerusalem.
The Davidic dynasty succeeded in uniting the two separate geopolitical re-
gions of Ḥebron and Jerusalem and establishing a single kingdom that was named
after the southern component of this united territory. This kingdom existed for
approximately 350 years, during which the status of Jerusalem (as a capital) and
of the Davidic family (as the ruling dynasty), alongside the Jerusalem temple (as
the central cult place in the kingdom), was well founded, established, and broadly
accepted. Yet very soon after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians
(586 BCE), the deportation of the Jerusalemite elite, and the removal of the David-
ic dynasty from its status and holdings, there was a redivision of the territory.
The Jerusalemite and the Ḥebronite geopolitical units were separated, just as
they had been in the pre-Davidic period. The former territory of the kingdom of
Jerusalem now became the Babylonian-Persian province of Yehud, and the former
territory of the tribe of Judah (including the Ḥebron hills, the southern Shephelah
and the Negev) became the province of Idumaea.
In light of the background of this historical and geopolitical reconstruction,
it is necessary to reassess where, when and why the Abraham traditions were
developed, and when and why they became prominent and important. In this
paper, I claim that Abraham was an autochthonous Judahite-Ḥebronite mythologi-
cal figure who was significant for the southern clans around Ḥebron. His memory
was maintained in the Ḥebronite cult place at Mamre, probably around a sacred
oak tree or in an oak grove called “The Oak(s) of Mamre.” The period that the

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-026
494 Part F: Biblical Studies

Abraham traditions were first created in the Ḥebronite hill country is unclear,
but it seems that, for centuries, he was completely ignored by the Jerusalem elite,
never mentioned in the Deuteronomistic History1 or in the book of Jeremiah.2
This is likely an indication that from the perspective of the Jerusalemite elite,
their history began during the time of David, and they did not need these stories
for their historical reconstruction of Israel and Judah.
It was only after the destruction of Jerusalem and the loss of the Jerusalemite
monopoly over the kingdom’s cult, tradition, and historiography that the Abra-
ham traditions began to emerge as a central element for a wider circle of commu-
nities who remained in the land. They used these traditions to establish and to
claim their right over the southern territories, as is also indicated in Ezekiel
(33:24). It is unclear how and when these traditions arrived in Jerusalem, but it
seems that this happened in the Persian period, following the loss of the southern
part of Judah to Arabian-Edomite tribes. The original Abraham traditions were
expanded and employed as the primary claim over the southern territories that
were lost. This was done as a form of proof of Judah’s ownership over Ḥebron
and its surrounding area, as also indicated in Ezra-Nehemiah.3 These traditions
were connected to the Jacob stories (presumably by Priestly circles) and became
an essential part of the new claim by the Jerusalemite elite over the ‘new Israel’.
This agenda sought to integrate the northern Israelite/Samaritan territories and
lands under the sovereignty of Jerusalem. During the Persian period, Abraham’s
status had turned into that of the patriarch for ‘all Israel’, far from his original
position as the ancestor of the cult place of Mamre.

Between Ḥebron and Jerusalem

In the second millennium BCE, there were three main geopolitical centers in the
hill country. The historical and archaeological data indicates that the kingdom of
Shechem was the largest and most populated center, with greater areas for agri-
culture and a close proximity to the rich valleys and important cities and roads
that existed during the Middle Bronze and the Late Bronze Ages. Shechem con-
trolled the northern hill country and reached as far north as the Jezreel Valley,
as far east as the Gilead, and as far to the southwest as Tel Gezer. These are

1 The few references to the patriarchs in Joshua, Samuel, and Kings, are post-Dtr inserts (Römer
1990a).
2 The only appearance of Abraham in the MT of Jeremiah (33:26) is probably part of a late
addition (vv. 14–26 are lacking in LXX).
3 On the location Ḥebron in Nehemiah 11, see Lipschits 2002b: 429–431.
 Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem 495

precisely the historical borders of the kingdom of Israel prior to its expansion,
during the days of the Omrides. From several perspectives, the first millenni-
um BCE kingdom of Israel is the direct consequence and continuation of the
kingdom of Shechem under the rule of Labaya and his successors in the Late
Bronze Age (Finkelstein 2006).
The kingdom of Jerusalem was much smaller and less active, and the main
debate between scholars concerns the territory ruled by this hilltop fortress dur-
ing the second millennium BCE. It is difficult to accept the reconstruction by
Kallai and Tadmor (1969), followed by Finkelstein (1993: 110–131; 1996: 228–229,
234–235, 255), who claim that Jerusalem ruled over all the southern hill country,
as far as the Beersheba–Arad Valleys, including the Ḥebron hills. Alt (1925: 107–
108), followed by Naʾaman (1992a; 1996; 2011), reconstructed a very small city-
state that ruled solely over its immediate territory. Following this reconstruction,
it seems that the traditional borders of the kingdom of Jerusalem were small and
never included the southern Judean hills – i.e., the area of Ḥebron. During the
Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages, Jerusalem was an isolated fort that con-
trolled a sparsely populated area, with what was likely a very small number of
Ḫabiru/ʿapiru groups and semi-nomadic clans who roamed the territory to the
south and west (Naʾaman 1992a: 280–288).
In the Middle Bronze Age, Ḥebron was the main urban center in the southern
hill country and a center of local clans who later developed into the tribe of
Judah. Tell er-Rumeideh (the location of ancient Ḥebron) was well fortified, with
a well-built wall that surrounded an area of ca. 24–30 dunams (Chadwick 1992:
56–76, 131–133; Ofer 1994: 95–96, 100, 110; Naʾaman 1992a: 280–288). A cuneiform
text was discovered at the site, dated to the seventeenth century BCE (Ofer 1989:
91–93; Anbar and Naʾaman 1986–1987). The frequent mention of the word ‘king’
in this clay tablet indicates that it originally belonged to the local king’s archive.
Sheep are mentioned and they – either partly or entirely – served as sacrifices,
an indication that a cult place existed either in the city or nearby (Naʾaman 1992a:
280–288). During the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries BCE, Ḥebron was the
political and military center of the southern hill country, during the same period
in which Jerusalem was the center of the central hill country. Ḥebron was de-
stroyed in an unknown period and was probably abandoned during the Late
Bronze Age. During the same period in which Ḥebron was the main urban center
of the south, Beth-Zur existed to its north. Also fortified with a strong wall and
surrounding an area of ca. 8–15 dunams, Beth-Zur was destroyed at the end of
the Middle Bronze Age and was left deserted during the Late Bronze Age.
During the Late Bronze Age, the main urban center of the south was Khirbet
Rabûd (identified as biblical Debir), southwest of Ḥebron (Kochavi 1974; Ofer
1994: 96, 110). This ca. 50 dunams site was well-fortified by a strong wall, with
496 Part F: Biblical Studies

four Late Bronze Age strata unearthed during archaeological excavations. The
archaeological surveys conducted in the Judean hill country indicate that during
the Late Bronze II, the area between Jerusalem and Khirbet Rabûd (about 40 km)
was uninhabited. The two towns, fortified and located in the hill country, were
territorially disconnected from each other.
The location of Debir in the southern Judean hill country in the Late Bronze II
is similar to that of Ḥebron in the Middle Bronze II, i.e., a major city within a
partly or entirely non-sedentary area. Just as Ḥebron was an independent city-
state in the Middle Bronze Age, so too was Debir in the Late Bronze Age. All
textual and archaeological data suggest that the independent city-state of Debir
dominated the southern hill country of Judah in the Late Bronze II. Just like
Ḥebron, Debir was a fortified stronghold in the middle of an unpopulated and
unsettled area. The territories of the kingdoms of Middle Bronze II Ḥebron and
Late Bronze II Debir probably included the Beersheba–Arad Valleys. The sites of
Tel Masos and Tel Malhata in the south and Beth-Zur in the north were secondary
towns within the Middle Bronze II kingdom of Ḥebron. On the other hand, the
territory of Debir was almost entirely uninhabited. Its economy was based on
agriculture and animal husbandry, and it maintained close relations with the
pastoral groups located in its highland and Negebite territories. Its close neigh-
bors were the city-states of Jerusalem in the north and Lachish in the west (Naʾa-
man 1997; 2011). Whether there were other small city-states on its western border
remains unknown. This situation also corresponds with local Judahite traditions,
according to which the Calebite clan was settled in the Ḥebron area (cf. Num 13–
14 and Josh 14), while another clan – of Othniel – was settled in and around
Debir (Josh 15:15–17).
This historical reality was well understood in German scholarship, leading
many scholars to postulate the existence of a ‘greater Judah’ in the pre-monarchic
period. According to Alt (1929b: 53–54), Noth (1930: 107–108), Zobel (1975) and
others, a confederation of six small clans existed in the pre-monarchic period,
i.e., the Judahites, Simeonites, Calebites, Kenazites, Jerachmeelites and Kenites.
Other scholars, such as Mowinckel (1958: 137–138), de Vaux (1971: 509–510) and
Ishida (1977: 65–66), claimed that the tribe of Judah did not exist before the time
of David and that the uniting of the clans in the hill country of Ḥebron only
occurred under David’s leadership in Ḥebron. Recently, Niemann (2016) has gone
one step further to argue that there was never a ‘historical tribe of Judah’ but
instead several different clans who lived in Judahite territory. According to Nie-
mann, the tribe of Judah was invented in the eighth or seventh century BCE in
order to legitimize the Davidic dynasty. This date seems a bit too late to me, with
regard to the crystallization of the Judean kingdom in the second half of the ninth
century BCE. However, archaeology is able to contribute to this debate, since it is
 Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem 497

now clear that the Judean hill country was sparsely populated in the Late Bronze
Age and in the Iron Age I. In light of this data, it is reasonable to assume that the
crystallization of a territorial-tribal entity around Ḥebron, with the name ‘Judah’,
only followed the rise of a strong and distinct leader in Ḥebron, and that a figure
like David may have played a major role in this process.4
In biblical traditions of both the early history of Israel and of the early Iron
Age II, Jerusalem (Jebus) is consistently disconnected from the Judean hill country.
It should be remembered that according to the biblical record, the family of David
lived inside the territory of the kingdom of Jerusalem, in close proximity to the
city itself – far from the tribal territory of Judah in the Ḥebronite hill country.
However, from the stories of his early career, it is clear that David understood
that the clans of Judah could give him the support that he needed against Saul
and the elites of the kingdom of Jerusalem. This is exemplified by his continued
delivery of gifts and assistance to them (1 Sam 30:26, etc.). The support of the
elders of Judah led them to ask David to become their leader prior to the conquest
of Jerusalem and the establishment of the Davidic kingdom.5 In this case, the
stories of David as the leader of a Ḫabiru/ʿapiru group who became the leader of
a tribal territory is similar to that of Jephthah in the book of Judges.
According to the biblical tradition, the territory of Saul was in the region
of Benjamin, the northern agricultural hinterland of the kingdom of Jerusalem.
Following his death, the areas of the ‘kingdom of Jerusalem’ and that of Ḥebron/
Debir were united under the leadership of David, whose center was in Ḥebron.
In the narrative of David’s rise, Jerusalem is presented as a town with a foreign
population – the Jebusites – just like the western area of Benjamin, which was
portrayed as foreign territory of the Hivites (Josh 9).
This short overview shows that the biblical traditions of the early history of
Israel consistently separated Jerusalem from the southern Judean hill country
(Niemann 2016: 175–176). The integration of the southern territory into the king-
dom of Jerusalem, the establishment of the totality of the territorial kingdom of
Judah, and the later integration of the lowland into that kingdom – all during the
second half of the ninth century BCE – was one of the most important achieve-
ments of the Davidic kings. Geographically, such a societal and network reorienta-
tion was not natural to the region. Attention must be paid to the fact that this
unification of the two territories is described in the books of Samuel as the con-
quest of Jerusalem by the tribal leader of Judah from his center in Ḥebron, and

4 See, however, the skeptical remarks by Niemann 2016, who thinks that the biblical texts do
not reflect a historical reality but should instead be taken as an ideological reconstruction.
5 See the historical reconstruction in Naʾaman 2010a.
498 Part F: Biblical Studies

that this conquest was only part of David’s long struggle against the elite families
of the Benjaminite region.
From the very moment of the creation of the kingdom of Judah, and until
the Babylonian exile, the city of Jerusalem was the center of a kingdom that
encompassed enormous territory, one that was vastly larger than the Judean hill
country. Yet, in the kingdom’s administrative framework, Jerusalem was the cen-
ter of a small district (described as ‘the environs of Jerusalem’), whereas the hill
country of Judah was a large, separate district called ‘the Mountain’ (Naʾaman
1991b: 13–16).6 This unit of ‘the environs of Jerusalem’ may be connected to the
growth of towns, villages, hamlets and agricultural installations to the west and
south of Jerusalem during the late eighth and especially the seventh century BCE,7
during the same period when a similar growth can be seen in the region of
Benjamin.8 It can be assumed that this geographic unit known as ‘the environs
of Jerusalem’ was divided by the Babylonians into two administrative units after
the destruction of Jerusalem. During this time, the main areas of devastation
were in the city and in its close periphery, while the areas to the north of the
city (the area of Benjamin) and to the south of it (the area to the west and to the
south of Ramat Raḫel) continued to exist as before (Lipschits 2005: 206–218, 237–
258).9
The unification of the two regions of Jerusalem and Ḥebron was a one-time
occurrence. Such connectivity had never happened before, and it ceased with the
end of the Davidic dynasty and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.
The geopolitical outcome of this destruction was the renewed separation of the
two regions. The province of Yehud included exactly the territory of the former
Middle and Late Bronze Age kingdom of Jerusalem, while the traditional area of

6 This is probably the source for the distinction made by Jeremiah (17:26; 32:44; 33:13) between
‘the cities of Judah’ and ‘the cities of the mountain’ in the division of the areas of the kingdom
into six regions.
7 See Lipschits 2015: 242–245, with further literature therein. The study by Gadot 2015 makes it
clear that the main development of this area was during the seventh century BCE and not in
the eighth century, as was previously assumed.
8 Following Alt (1934: 324–328; cf. Naʾaman 1991b: 15–16), ‘the cities of Judah’ can be identified
with the area to the south and west of Jerusalem, down to the region of Bethlehem; this can be
taken as evidence of the distinction between the area surrounding Jerusalem and the area south
of it. The region known as ‘the environs of Jerusalem’ is also described in Jer 40–42 as the area
where Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, was active after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylo-
nians. See Lipschits 2005: 152–154.
9 It was probably the historical period when the area around Jerusalem was separated and
became an independent district (the district of Jerusalem) and the area to the south became the
district of Beth-Hakkerem, as indicated in the list of Nehemiah 3 and as mentioned again at the
beginning of the list of ‘the sons of the singers’ (Neh 12:28–29).
 Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem 499

the tribe of Judah was cut off from Jerusalem and very soon after became part
of the province of Idumaea. The northern border of Idumaea was south of Beth-
Zur, while the Negev and the southern Shephelah were also included in this terri-
tory. This border system survived throughout the Persian and early Hellenistic
periods. It was only during the time of John Hyrcanus (134–105 BCE) that this
area was conquered by the kings of Jerusalem and annexed as a separate admin-
istrative district into the Hasmonean kingdom. This administrative division re-
mained in force until the destruction of the Second Temple. However, not even
the Hasmonean and Roman conquests of the region were able to change the role
and regional orientation of this area within the overall administrative division of
the hill country and the Shephelah. For over a thousand years – from the destruc-
tion of the First Temple until the end of the Byzantine period – Jerusalem and
the southern Judean hill country were part of separate administrative districts.
This administrative detachment of Jerusalem and the area of Ḥebron persisted
in later periods into the early Ottoman period (Naʾaman 1992a: 282–283, with
further literature).

* * *
Examination of the longue durée geopolitical situation in the hill country indicates
that for thousands of years, in various historical situations and under different
political powers, Jerusalem and Ḥebron were part of different (at first political
and later administrative) entities. 2 Samuel 5:3 hints at the existence of a cult
place in Ḥebron, and the same cultic place appears in the excuse of Absalom
when he planned to revolt against David his father (2 Sam 15:7). This cult place,
which is otherwise completely ignored by the Deuteronomist, can be identified
with the Ḥebronite cult place that is attributed to the Abraham traditions. It may
be that these traditions grew inside the southern territory of Judah, around the
site of Ḥebron. Integrating all the indications of such a process into one holistic
picture may reveal that the cult site in Mamre can be identified as the place
where these traditions were transmitted and developed.

Mamre as a Cult Site of the Ḥebronite-Judahite Clans

Mamre is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Bible outside of Genesis (13:18;
18:1; 23:17, 19; 25:9; 49:30 and 50:13, as well as a personal name in Genesis 14:13,
24).10 The original location of Mamre remains obscure, but since according to

10 This observation brought R. de Vaux (1957) to conclude that later editors did not recognize
the existence of the cult site at Mamre and its importance.
500 Part F: Biblical Studies

Genesis 13:18 Mamre is located in/near Ḥebron, therefore, it could have been a
sanctuary connected to the city. Mamre’s identification with Ḥaram Ramet el-
Khalil, located about three kilometers north of Ḥebron, probably goes back to the
time of King Herod, when an impressive cultic site was built there.11 This building
must have preserved a cultic tradition whose origins lay far back in time and
were probably linked to the Abraham stories. The possibility that the origin of
these traditions shifted during the Roman period to the site of Ḥaram Ramet el-
Khalil from the nearby site of Khirbet Nimra (as suggested by Jericke 2003: 35–
52, 234–235, 301) is possible, especially in light of the similarity of the names
‘Mamre’ and ‘Nimra’. However, since the large administrative structure excavated
at Khirbet Nimra (dated to the Persian period) was not a cultic place (Hizmi and
Shabtai 1993), it is difficult to accept Jericke’s date of the story of Abraham at
Mamre to the Persian period, based on archaeological arguments. This adminis-
trative structure probably has no connection to the Abraham traditions, and its
date to the sixth to fourth centuries BCE is insufficient evidence for the claim
that the Mamre-Abraham tradition should be attributed to the Persian period.12
The biblical text mentions a sacred oak grove with an open-air altar. Archaeology
is especially limited in its ability to detect open-air cultic sites, and as such, even
if structures were built around it, one cannot determine the date of biblical tradi-
tions based on such limited (and accidental) finds. The date of the administrative
structure at Khirbet Nimra is unrelated to the date of the Abraham traditions,
and in this case the textual analysis – as complicated and uncertain as it is –
should form the foundation of such a discussion.

Literary Phases in the Abraham Traditions

Following the collapse of the classical Documentary Hypothesis in the mid-1970s,

research of the patriarchal stories began to focus on the reconstruction of the
stages through which the narrative cycles of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were
formed. Most scholars who deal with the Abraham cycle from this new literary-
critical perspective assume that some fragmentary, relatively short stories were
developed already in the pre-exilic period, probably already in some written

11 The history of the site at Ḥaram Ramet el Khalil in its pre-Roman phases is not clear. For a
summary of the archaeological picture and for the results of the excavations that were conducted
there between 1984 and 1986, see Magen 1991b; 2003. For Mader’s 1926–1928 excavations, see
Mader 1918; 1957. See also Zwickel 2000.
12 Pace Jericke 2003: 234–235, 301. See also Naʾaman 2015b: 175.
 Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem 501

form.13 Several scholars have even gone so far as to assume that these stories
developed before the fall of the Northern Kingdom,14 while other scholars have
not committed to a particular date and are open to a pre-exilic or exilic dating.15
In any case, most scholars agree that these pre-Priestly Abraham stories were
edited and expanded by an exilic author/editor who created the pre-Priestly Abra-
ham cycle.
These pre-Priestly traditions can be identified in Genesis 12:10–20; 13*; 16*;
18–19* (excluding 18:18–19, 22–23*); 21:1–7.16 These mainly include the Abraham-
Lot narrative, which is connected to the promise of a son to Abraham, and to the

13 Already Van Seters (1975: 311–313; 1992: 246–247) identified two ‘pre-Yahwistic’ strata within
Abraham cycle. He claimed that these strata include the stories of Abraham in Egypt (Gen 12:10–
20), Hagar’s flight (16:1–12), and the birth of Isaac (18:10–14; 21:2, 6–7), with an introduction in
12:1, 4a, 6a, 7 and an expansion of the early story in 20:1–17; 21:25–26, 28–31a. Van Seters (1975:
171–175, 183–185) dates these texts to the pre-exilic period. In his early work, Erhard Blum (1984:
273–297) dated the early combination of the Abraham and Jacob stories (Vätergeschichte 1) to
the pre-exilic period. In his opinion, the early phase of the Abraham story included Gen 13*;
18:1–16, 20–22a; 19, with ch. 13 as an exposition to chs. 18–19. Later, however, Blum (1998: 71–73)
changed his mind and retracted his ‘Vätergeschichte 1’ stage and instead dated the composition
of the pre-Priestly patriarchal story to the exilic period. Konrad Schmid (2012: 85–87) has followed
Blum in the reconstruction of the early stratum and also in the pre-exilic date he assigned to
the narrative. Matthias Köckert also follows Blum in the scope of the early Abraham stories but
differs considerably in how he dates it. In an earlier publication, Köckert (2006: 122–123) dated
the combination of the Abraham and Jacob stories to the exilic period. In more recent work,
however, Köckert (2014: 64–65) suggested that the combination of the two cycles was made only
during the postexilic period. Reinhard G. Kratz (2000: 265–267, 274) has suggested that the Abra-
ham tradition was added in the exilic period to the Jacob, Bethel, and Isaac-Esau stories, which
themselves were composed between the years 720 and 586 BCE. According to Thomas Römer
(2001: 189–193; 2011: 161–173, 178–179), the references to Abraham in Ezek 33:24 and Isa 51:1–3 as
an ancestor indicate a pre-exilic date of the early stratum of the Abraham tradition, which
includes Gen 12:10–20; 13*; 16*; 18:1–16; 19; 21*). For the same date, see also Finkelstein and
Römer 2014: 12–15.
14 Fischer (1994: 339–343) suggested that the early stratum of the Abraham narratives, which
included Gen 12:10–20; 16*; 18:1–15; 21:1–7, as well as Gen 13* and 19*, developed before the
downfall of the Northern Kingdom. Already in the pre-exilic period, the narratives were com-
bined with the Jacob cycle by way of the addition of the Isaac story (ibid., 343–356). Hence, the
combined story of the three patriarchs and matriarchs, which included the Abraham-Sarah and
Isaac-Rebecca stories, was written in the late monarchic period.
15 Carr (1996: 227, 236) speaks of a ‘proto-Genesis’ and dates this work to ‘sometime in the pre-
exilic or (more likely) early exilic periods. Naʾaman (2015b: 172) dates all the patriarchal stories
to the sixth century BCE.
16 As recently summarized by Lipschits, Römer and Gonzalez 2017: 414–420, with further litera-
ture therein; cf. Naʾaman 2015b: 157–161.
502 Part F: Biblical Studies

birth of Isaac.17 According to Lipschits, Römer and Gonzalez (2017), the story of
Abraham and Sarah in Egypt (12:10–20) and the birth of Ishmael (Genesis 16*)
were added during the exilic period to the old Abraham traditions attested to
in Genesis 13* and 18–19* (which already existed in the monarchic period).18
These two exilic additions were probably written by the same author as an
addition to the Lot-Abraham tradition, aimed as a critique of the Jerusalemite
exodus theology (Lipschits, Römer and Gonzalez 2017: 442–445). In addition to
this, there is general agreement among many scholars that P (even if with multi-
ple layers) produced a coherent Abraham and Sarah narrative. Here, P used
older sources, working over them and adding to them. This P source can be
found in Genesis 11:27–28a, 29–32; 12:4b–5; 13:6, 11*, 12b; 16:3, 15–16; 17*; 19:29;
21:1b–7*; 23*; 25:7–10.19 Post-Priestly traditions can be identified in Genesis 12:1–
4a; 14, 15, 20–22*, 24.20
In what follows, I base my analysis on the textual conclusions presented by
Lipschits, Römer and Gonzalez (2017) and discuss the historical and geographical
setting for each of these literary phases, through which the Abraham traditions
arrived from Mamre and were established in Jerusalem.

Pre-Priestly Abraham Traditions in Mamre during

the Late Monarchic Period

Based on literary and historical observations, although the pre-Priestly passages

cannot be combined to present a cohesive narrative, it seems that Abraham was

17 See already Gunkel 1901: 159–160. According to Blum (1984: 273–289; 461–462; 1998: 71–72),
Genesis 13 (which relates the episode of the rift between the shepherds of Abraham and Lot) is
an exposition of the episodes in chs. 18–19. The themes that hold together the early story are
the birth of the promised heir and the genesis of the peoples of Israel, Ammon and Moab. Köckert
(2006: 120–121; 2014: 69–70) followed Blum in suggesting that the earliest stratum included the
Abraham-Lot narratives (Gen 13*, 18–19 and 21:1a, 2*, 7). He further posited that ch. 16 was also
part of this pre-Priestly stratum.
18 See Lipschits, Römer and Gonzalez 2017: 442–445. Already Knauf (1985: 33–35), followed by
Naʾaman (2015b: 163), claimed that the stories about Hagar and Ishmael in Genesis 16 and 21:8–
20 are not old sagas but rather legends that the exilic or post-exilic author composed as part of
his cycle of the patriarchal narratives. Köckert (2006: 120–121; 2014: 59–60) claimed that ch. 16
was written in the pre-exilic period, but that the date of its integration into the early narrative
cycle is uncertain.
19 See, e.g., de Pury 2009: 224–225. See also the summary discussion in Lipschits, Römer and
Gonzalez 2017: 412–414.
20 See the summarizing discussion in Lipschits, Römer and Gonzales 2017: 414–420. On Genesis
12:1–4a, see Ska 2009, but see also Köckert 2014: 63). On Genesis 14, see Glissman 2009; Granerød
 Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem 503

a local figure from the southern Judean hill country and was not an immigrant
who came to the land from Ur or from Haran.21 Unlike Jacob, who according to
Genesis 32:23–32 received his new name ‘Israel’ and became the ‘national’ patri-
arch of the kingdom of Israel, Abraham was never an ‘official’ patriarch of the
kingdom of Judah. He was never presented as the ancestor of the different tribes
or clans from Judah and was never connected to the early history of the tribe or
the kingdom.
This is probably the reason why Abraham never appears in Deuteronomistic
texts22 nor is referenced by Jeremiah.23 Such a reality is the best proof for the
fact that the Jerusalem elite did not need these stories for their historiographic
reconstruction of the history of Israel and could therefore completely ignore it.
The Abraham story is connected to the cult place of Mamre, i.e., the cult place of
Ḥebron – the center of Judahite (and other) clans. He was far from the heart and
eyes of the Jerusalem elite.24
The geography of the early Abraham stories primarily includes his arrival to
the oak of Mamre (in singular, following the Greek translation),25 ‘which is at
Ḥebron’, where he built an altar to Yhwh. (Gen 13:18). The story in ch. 18 begins
at the same place, when Yhwh appears to Abram by the oak of Mamre, ‘as he sat

2010; Wagner 2014. On the date of Genesis 15, see Gertz 2002; Levin 2004; Römer 1990a; 2011:
103–118. On chapters 20–22*, see Köckert 2015. On Gen 24, see Rofé, 1990; 1995.
21 According to Genesis 12:1–3, which is a later addition, Abraham’s father had already left Ur,
so Abraham had to leave only from Harran. The author of the post-Priestly text in Genesis 15
wanted to correct this idea and turned the family of Abraham into immigrants, migrating to
Canaan from Ur in the land of the Chaldeans (Lipschits, Römer and Gonzalez 2017: 421–423). In
the P and post-P shape of the Abraham narrative, Abraham crossed from Mesopotamia into
Egypt, through regions in which Judean diasporas were located. The P text made Abraham an
example for the Babylonian Golah. On this subject, see de Pury 2000: 163–181.
22 The few mentions of the patriarchs in Joshua, Samuel and Kings are post-dtr inserts. See
Römer 1990a.
23 Jeremiah 33:14–26 is absent in the LXX, and the only appearance of Abraham in Jeremiah at
the end of this text (33:26) is probably a very late addition to the problematic, original, late-First
Temple separation between the seed of Jacob (Israel) and the seed of David (Judah). In my
opinion, this is the way that this separation was presented in Judah in the late First Temple
period.
24 Jacob and Abraham do appear together in few prophetic texts in which Jacob symbolizes the
north (Israel) and Abraham symbolizes the south (Judah): Isaiah 29:22; 41:8; 63:16 (Abraham and
Israel); Micah 7:20; Psalm 105:6. These texts are, however, few and exceptional and are likely
part of a post-exilic development.
25 Scholars have noticed the fact that the MT in Gen 13:18; 14:13; 18:1 uses the plural while the
LXX keeps the singular. Finkelstein and Römer (2014: 9) have suggested that the LXX reflects the
original wording and that the change in the MT was done in order to downplay the cultic aspect
of the holy tree.
504 Part F: Biblical Studies

at the entrance of his tent’ (Gen 18:1). I agree with Schmid’s conclusion that the
story in Genesis 18 was derived from the hieros logos of the holy oak in Mamre
and that this cult place was the Haftpunkt of the pre-exilic original traditions
regarding Abraham.26 I would also agree with the suggestion that there was a
burial tradition about Abraham in the area of Ḥebron, perhaps near the cult
place at Mamre, especially if one considers that the ‘place of memory’ of an
ancestor is in many cases a shrine related to their grave.27 It can also be assumed
that the ‘promise of a son’ that was connected to the sanctuary characterized this
cult site as a place relating to progeny. This is exactly the kind of story that could
have been developed around the Mamre sanctuary, as it engaged with the local
founder of the cult place and the legend of this founder’s progeny – as a miracle
and as proof for the actual presence of Yhwh in this place.28 Such a cult place
could have also served as the place where the stories of Abraham were preserved,
either orally or in written form (at least beginning in the eighth or seventh cen-
tury BCE).
The Abraham-Lot-narrative (which was a basic component of the old Abra-
ham tradition) was based on the well-known story of the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorra in the distant past.29 Lot was probably known as the patriarch of
the Moabites and the Ammonites, and just like Abraham, so too was Lot connect-
ed to three basic literary ideas: land (Abraham allows Lot to choose his territory,
and Lot chooses the Jordan Valley), hospitality (Abraham’s hospitality in Genesis
18 parallels Lot’s behavior in Genesis 19, where Lot is depicted in a positive light)
and offspring (in parallel to the promise to Abraham of a son, the narrative of
the birth of Lot’s sons explains how he came to be the patriarch of the Moabites
and Ammonites) (Lipschits, Römer and Gonzalez 2017: 434–441). In any case, this

26 See Schmid 2012: 85–86; cf. Finkelstein and Römer 2014: 9. See, however, the critique by
Naʾaman (2015b: 174–175).
27 See Finkelstein and Römer 2014: 9. The identification of the cult and the burial place
(Gen 23:17, 19; 25:9, 49:30; 50:13) is a late Priestly invention and only occurs in Priestly or even
post‑Priestly texts, probably as part of the debate on the ownership over the land. Cf. Van Seters
1975: 293–295; Finkelstein and Römer 2014: 9–10.
28 Naʾaman (2015b: 174) argued against this interpretation since according to biblical tradition
(Josh 14:6–14; 15:13–14; Judg 1:20), it was Caleb – and not Abraham – who was the eponymous
ancestor of Ḥebron. However, as discussed above, these stem from two completely different
areas of tradition: Abraham is completely ignored in Deuteronomistic literature while Caleb is
not mentioned in the patriarchal stories. Furthermore, in the story in Genesis, Abraham is not
described as a clan or eponymous ancestor of Ḥebron but as the ancestor of the cult place of
Mamre.
29 Several biblical texts mention the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra but do not mention
Lot (Deut 29:22; 32:32; Isa 1:9–10; 3:9; 13:19; Jer 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Ezek 16:44–48, Am 4:11; Zeph 2:9).
See Lipschits, Römer and Gonzalez 2017: 434.
 Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem 505

story presents a peaceful approach towards the neighbors to the east, typified by
Abraham’s peaceful approach towards Lot, and his acceptance of Lot’s territorial
choices.30
The mention of Abraham in Ezekiel 33:24 (with an emphasis on the land), as
well as the mention of him in Isaiah 51:2 (with an emphasis on progeny), are the
oldest references to Abraham outside of the book of Genesis (Römer 2001: 189–193;
2011: 161–173, 178–179; Finkelstein and Römer 2014: 11–12). They lend support to the
notion that the oldest Abraham traditions originated in the Iron Age and that they
included stories of an autochthonous hero. Such stories dealt with two main sub-
jects, i.e., issues related to the land, and the birth of one or two sons (Fischer 1994:
93; Gosse 1997: 93; Finkelstein and Römer 2014: 19). Lipschits, Römer and Gonzales
(2017: 422) have assumed that this citation shows that Abraham served as an exam-
ple for the population that remained in the land. Such a reference may have pre-
served the local tradition of Abraham for the local, rural, multi-ethnic population
that used to live around Ḥebron for an extended period of time.31

Abraham Traditions of the Exilic Period and Those Who

Remained in the Land

The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the deportation of the Davidic
house and the Jerusalem elite fractured the Jerusalemite monopoly over the econ-

30 Naʾaman (2015b: 161–162) claimed that Genesis 13 cannot be dated to the pre-exilic period
since Ammon and Moab were not neighbors of Judah but of Israel in the time of the monarchy.
This tradition implies a ‘pan-Israelite’ understanding of Abraham that, per Naʾaman, would date
to the earliest within the sixth century BCE. Jericke (2003: 232) has argued that Ammon and
Moab were neighbors of Judah only after the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians. Therefore,
586 BCE should be the terminus post quem for the dating of Genesis 13 and 18–19. The question,
however, is how such a story emerged in a period when the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab
were destroyed. Yet, against these views, it should be clarified that there is no need for ‘official’
borders between clans, tribes and rural populations who live in such proximity. On a clear day,
the land of Moab can be seen from the Judean hill country, and Ammon is only a two-day walk
from Jerusalem. If Abraham was the ancestor of rural and semi-nomadic groups in the Ḥebron
area, and this tradition was concerned with the relationship of the Ḥebronite clans to the Trans-
jordanian (as well as the Negebite) population, then an Iron Age origin for this tradition is
particularly plausible.
31 The more recent oracle in Isa 51:1–3 presents a much more positive attitude towards the
‘inhabitants of these ruins’. Contrary to Ezekiel, Isa 51:1–3 does not deal with the land but instead
focuses on the offspring of Abraham. This explains why the mention of Sarah here is her only
appearance in the Hebrew Bible outside the book of Genesis. According to Köckert (2006: 206),
it may be that the prophecy was already familiar with a written Priestly version of the Abraham
story.
506 Part F: Biblical Studies

omy, administration, cult and national historiography and opened the way for a
new elite, the local cult places and local traditions of ancient heroes in places
such as Mizpah, Bethel, Gibeon, and Ḥebron. This is the period in which stories
related to the rights of these places to serve as cult places or as national and
local centers could emerge and find a central place – far away from the control
of Jerusalem and free of the Jerusalemite elite and Davidic rule. In light of this
general observation, it is also likely that the Abraham traditions became a central
narrative among the wider circle of the people who remained in the land of
Judah, not only around Ḥebron. These pre-Priestly Abraham traditions served
during the Babylonian period as a source of legitimization for the rural popula-
tion that remained to live in the land after the destruction of Jerusalem. The
traditions linked to Abraham revolve not only around progeny and hospitality,
but also about possession of the land and its belonging to those who live in the
area (Gosse 1997: 92–94; Finkelstein and Römer 2014: 19). These themes were
important in the ancient Near East, and appear in the pre-Priestly Abraham-
narratives.
The mentions of Abraham in Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah clearly point to Ju-
dah as the place that these traditions originated. The citation in Ezekiel 33:24
attributed to a population that remained in the land shows that Abraham served
as an example for this group. It seems that this was, for the most part, intended
for a rural population and not for the exiled Jerusalemite elite. This saying, which
should probably be dated to the first half of the sixth century BCE, shows that
Abraham must have been an older figure, as it is implied that the addressees
know him. The close relationship between the ‘one’ Abraham and the land is
not justified here by a promise of the land [Landverheißung] but by Abraham’s
possession of the land, and this served as a model and an example for those who
continued to live in this area following him.32
The placement of Genesis 12:10–20 before Genesis 13 can be understood as a
message that Abraham should not live in Egypt but instead in the land that Yhwh
promised to him (Blum 1984: 311; Wörhle 2011: 23–46). The narrative may then be
understood as a polemic against the Egyptian diaspora, which, according to Jere-
miah 41–42, was founded on their own accord, similar to Abraham’s self-initiative
in Genesis 12:10 (Lipschits, Römer and Gonzales 2017: 443). This text reflects a
very similar ideology to other texts that were likely produced around the same
time and place, such as the addition of the story of Gedaliah to the ‘biography of

32 It is interesting that in this exilic text, Abraham is not correlated with Jacob, even though
the latter also appears in Ezekiel 37:25 and 28:25 in relation to the land. At least in Ezekiel 37,
David is the one who is mentioned in relation to Judah, and even in relation to the idea of the
land of “all Israel”.
 Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem 507

Jeremiah’ and other stories added to the ‘biographical’ text (Jer 38:1–13; 40:2–3a,
4–5). Furthermore, the redaction of the Abraham tradition can be compared to
the redaction of the ‘biographical’ text, including the source text, additional sto-
ries, and various supplements (Jer 37:1–10; 39:1–2, 4–12, 15–18; 40:1, 3b, 6; 52 [based
on 2 Kgs 25]) (Lipschits 2005: 349–358, with a detailed discussion and further
literature on pp. 344–348).
The addition of Genesis 16, which was probably made at the same place
(Mamre) and in the same period (sixth century BCE), should be understood in
the same way. The author of this story was probably well aware of the coexistence
of Judeans together with nomadic groups in Ḥebron and perhaps even of the
mutual use of the sanctuary at Mamre. The author probably wanted to emphasize
the superiority of the Judahites over the ‘Ishmaelites’. This term was used as an
exonym in order to include all the semi-nomadic tribes to the south and east of
Ḥebron, and perhaps even the nomadic tribes who lived in the desert regions
between Judah, Egypt, and North Arabia.33 In order to create this exonym, the
author used a well-known and familiar term Shumuʾil, which also appears in
two Neo-Assyrian texts attributed to Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal (Knauf 1985;
2016).34 According to this story, the Arabian tribes became the inferior brothers
of the Judean groups of Ḥebron, as both groups have the same patriarch while
the mother of these Ishmaelites was an ‘Egyptian maid’, whose name ‘Hagar’ was
clearly chosen quite carefully.35 These groups also became theologically related
to the Judeans, likely due to their shared cult place, and the story that presents
the origin of the name Ishmael: ‘because Yhwh has listened to your misery’ (16:11).
The equation ‫אל‬ = ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ע‬ shows that the narrator sought to identify El
with Yhwh, who is not only the god of Abraham and Isaac but also the god of
Hagar and Ishmael. The author wanted to legitimize the coexistence of semi-
sedentary Judean groups and the nomadic groups in Ḥebron and perhaps even
wanted to justify the mutual use of the sanctuary at Mamre (Lipschits, Römer and
Gonzalez 2017: 443–445), while still emphasizing the superiority of the Judeans.

33 On this use of the name, see Naʾaman 2015b: 162–163. The distribution of the Arabian tribes
in all these regions appeared in Neo-Assyrian sources of the mid-eighth to seventh centuries BCE.
See further Eph’al 1976: 225–229; 1982: 233–240; Knauf 1985: 5–81.
34 According to Knauf’s most recent publication, there is no reason to reconstruct a large-scale
Arabian confederacy. This is probably a literary development by the sixth-century biblical author
in Mamre, who probably wanted to describe all the West Semitic tribal groups who wandered
all over the North Arabian desert regions, as Naʾaman (2015b: 163) claimed. See also the argu-
ments in Zadok 1990: 223–224.
35 Like the selection of the West Semitic name ‘Ishmael’, the author of the Abraham narratives
selected the name ‘Hagar’, which is either a tribal name or a personal one, to play the role of
Ishmael’s mother. See Knauf 1985: 49–55; Naʾaman 2015b: 163.
508 Part F: Biblical Studies

During this period, Abraham not only became a local figure associated with
the existence of the Mamre cult place but was also viewed as the father of differ-
ent local groups and tribes that existed in the southern part of the former king-
dom of Judah. The exilic additions to the pre-Priestly texts clearly indicate that
Abraham’s two sons do not belong to the same ethnic group (Lipschits, Römer
and Gonzalez 2017: 424–425). Thus, he became a person of reference for certain
Judean (as well as non-Judean) semi-nomadic groups. These groups were settled
and remained in contact with each other in the Negev, the southern Ḥebronite
hill country, and the southern Shephelah, and maybe, as de Pury (2009: 233) as-
sumed, also to far neighbors from Transjordan, Arabia, and Sinai.

Summary and Some Further Thoughts: Abraham between

Mamre and Jerusalem

In the late monarchic period, traditions about Abraham existed in Mamre, near
Ḥebron. He was considered to be a local figure from the southern Judean hill
country and, unlike Jacob/Israel, he never became an ‘official’ patriarch of the
kingdom of Judah. The Abraham traditions were never accepted by the Jerusalem-
ite elite, and it is for this reason that Abraham never appeared in Jerusalemite
historiographic and prophetic texts. It seems that the Jerusalem elite did not need
these stories for their historiographic reconstruction of the history of the king-
dom, and as such, the figure of Abraham was able to remain a local figure who
belonged to the cult place of Mamre, the center of Judahite (and other) clans. It
is likely that this place preserved stories of Abraham during the late monarchic
period in either oral or written form. Traditions about progeny were at the center
of the cult site of Mamre, as proof for the actual presence of Yhwh in this place.
The Abraham-Lot-narrative was a basic component of the old Abraham tradition
and Lot was probably known as the patriarch of the Moabites and Ammonites.
Like Abraham, Lot was connected to the land, hospitality, and progeny. In these
traditions, there is a peaceful attitude towards the neighbors in the east.
During the Babylonian period, these pre-Priestly Abraham traditions served
as a source of legitimization for the rural and non-deported population. The tradi-
tions linked to Abraham revolve not only around progeny but also to the posses-
sion of the land. Such traditions were also used as a polemic against the Egyptian
diaspora and as a call of support for the people who remained in the land during
the sixth century BCE, between the elite living in Babylon and the small communi-
ty who lived in Egypt.
The use of the sanctuary at Mamre by different groups (including the Arab-
Edomite semi-nomadic tribes who invaded in the region after the collapse of the
 Abraham between Mamre and Jerusalem 509

Judean kingdom and its southern line of fortresses) prompted the author of the
Abraham tradition to also add Genesis 16. This addition was made in order to
emphasize the superiority of the Judahites over the ‘Ishmaelites’, a term created
by the sixth-century author in order to encompass all the semi-nomadic tribes to
the south and east of Ḥebron. The Arab and Edomite tribes became the inferior
brothers of the Judean groups of Ḥebron, the sons of an ‘Egyptian maid’. In the
sixth century BCE, Abraham became (for the first time) the father of different
local clans who did not belong to the same ethnic group. However, by using the
Abraham traditions to create one father for the Judean and Arab/Edomite popula-
tion in the south, the exilic author/editor went one step further in the way of
transferring Abraham from a local hero into a patriarch. This was expanded in
the early post-exilic period, when the Abraham narratives were used as the south-
ern answer to the Jacob/Israel cycle. After the integration of this story with the
Jacob traditions, Abraham became the patriarch of all Israel.
In my opinion, the creation of the patriarchal story and the combination of
the Abraham-Jacob stories could not have occurred prior to the early Persian
period. Such efforts by the returning Jerusalemite elite were part of the creation
of a new post-Davidic foundation story for the history of Israel. No one can know
if families from Ḥebron brought their stories with them when they were forced
to leave the south, which was under intense pressure of semi-nomadic tribes who
soon turned it into part of Idumaea (Langgut and Lipschits 2017). In any case, the
tradition was used as the southern answer to the well-known story of Jacob/Israel
and was adopted during the Persian period by the Jerusalemite elite, particularly
in response to the need to claim ownership over the lost south.
The longer the province of Idumaea existed, the greater the need was to use
Abraham as proof of the Judean possession over the land. The Priestly additions
to the text are the clearest indication of this historiographic and national need.
Yet, during this period, the status of Abraham as the patriarch of Israel was
already strong and clear, already far removed from his original place as the local
founder of the cult place of Mamre.36
The Jerusalem elite also adapted the original story in a way that presented
the rights of Judah over the land as dependent on the observance of the Torah.
Hence, they reshaped the figure of Abraham and depicted him as a faithful ob-
server of the laws of the Torah. Furthermore, the integration of the original Mam-
re traditions within the new foundation story of the history of Israel was also a

36 Ska (2001: 176–177) has demonstrated that the central motivation behind the work of the
Priestly editors was the adaptation of the early image of Abraham towards the ideology of those
who came back from Babylon. The literary elements they inserted to the pre-Priestly narrative
were aimed at depicting the figure of Abraham as a faithful observer of the laws of the Torah.
510 Part F: Biblical Studies

targeted effort to expand the cultic hegemony of Jerusalem over the cult places
in Mamre, as well as in other parts of the land, ultimately emphasizing the superi-
ority of Jerusalem over all of these places.
Sukkot in the Pentateuch and in Ezra 3
and Nehemiah 8
There are many parallels and similarities between the stages and processes of
the creation of the Pentateuch and the book of Ezra-Nehemiah. Both literary
compositions were written and edited in the Persian period by small circles of
priests, in some stages probably even the same circles, and they represent the
ideologies of these circles and their development during the postexilic period.
Both compositions used older sources and traditions, edited them and added
to them, and in both cases Jerusalem, the temple, the cult and the Torah stand in
the center of the composition, side by side with the returnees’ right on the land,
the relations of these returnees with other groups in the same land, the status of
Jerusalem as the only center and cult place and the place of priests and Levites
among the people. Furthermore, in both literary compositions, the place of the
“Holiness Code” (“H”) as a later addition to the Priestly text is particularly impor-
tant, and there are clear connections between the legal material in Leviticus 17–
26 and the rest of the texts belonging to H and the final redactional phase of
Ezra-Nehemiah. In a way quite similar to the interpretation of the activity of the
Holiness School in the Pentateuch, there are several late additions in Ezra-Nehem-
iah across different parts of the text that reflect its ideological concerns, distinct
laws and interpretations, not only as later additions to the text but also in shaping
its final form. Furthermore, in line with the observations by Otto (1994; 1999;
2009), Nihan (2007; 2008) and Wöhrle (2021), it is clear that the Holiness School
consistently drew upon Deuteronomy and based its ideas and laws upon the
wider text of the already existing precursor Pentateuch, in which the Priestly
Writing and the book of Deuteronomy had already been compiled. The aim of
the Holiness Code was to balance and harmonize the different traditions of the
older legal material.1
If Ezra-Nehemiah was indeed produced by circles connected to the Babyloni-
an Golah in the early fourth century BCE, then the latest phase of this book,
which emphasizes the place of Priestly and Levitical circles not connected to the
Jerusalemite temple, was not interested in the cult and the sacrifices and put the
Torah and the laws of Moses at the center of the Judean existence both in Babylon

1 As discussed below, it therefore seems problematic to accept the proposals by both Römer
(2002: 220–224) and Albertz (2012: 21–23) that the Holiness Code should be seen as a kind of
alternative concept to the book of Deuteronomy, restricted to a still-independent version of the
Priestly Triteuch ranging from Gen 1 to Lev 26.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-027
512 Part F: Biblical Studies

and in Judah. This would have been a production of an editorial circle that was
active in the very late Persian period or even in the early Hellenistic period.
This circle represents conflicts between different Priestly families about
whom we already know, including their place and role in Jerusalem during the
Second Temple period (like the family of Hakkoz; see Lipschits 2018d; 2021b). The
laws that it emphasizes are very close to those of the Holiness Code. At least in
the present case, an extant early version of these laws points to the final stage
of this school coming not before the Ptolemaic period.
The case of the Festival of Sukkot (“Tabernacles” in Leviticus and Deuterono-
my), also named the “Festival of Ingathering” in Exodus (with no explicit name
for this feast in Numbers),2 is a very good case study for the developmental
process of Ezra-Nehemiah, its parallels and similarities between the stages and
processes of the creation of the Pentateuch, as well as the role of the Holiness
Code in all of this.

The Festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles) / Ingathering

The Festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles) / Ingathering is mentioned in the four lists

of holy days in the Pentateuch (Exod 23:14–17; 34:18–24; Lev 23 [vv. 33–43]; Num
28–29 [29:12–38]; Deut 16 [vv. 13–17]). The date of the Festival of Tabernacles is
“in the end of the year” (Exod 23:16), “at the turn of the year” (Exod 34:22) and “on
the fifteenth of this seventh month” (Lev 23:34; Num 29:12),3 and the command to
celebrate it for seven (or eight) days is mentioned in Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy. The first and eighth days are days of holy convocation, when “you
shall not work at your occupations” (Lev 23:35–36; cf. Num 29:12, 35), or requiring
“a complete rest day on the first day and a complete rest day on the eighth day”
(Lev 23:39). During the seven days, the instructions command a daily offering by
fire, burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and libations (Lev 23:36; cf.
Num 29:12–38, and see also below).
Outside of the four lists of holy days in the Pentateuch, the Festival of Sukkot
(Tabernacles) / Ingathering appears only a few times. There is no explicit men-

2 The name “Festival of Tabernacles” probably came from the agricultural context, referencing
the field huts in the period prior to the festival (see further literature in Gesundheit 2012: 155,
n. 142). On the absence of the name in Numbers, see Nihan 2008: 182.
3 Gese (1957: 81) connected the dates of both the Festival of Tabernacles as well as Pesach to the
night in which the full moon appears. Cf. the dates in Ezra 3:1 and Neh 8:14, as discussed below.
 Sukkot in the Pentateuch and in Ezra 3 and Nehemiah 8 513

tion of Sukkot in Deuteronomistic literature, and it seems that its main impor-
tance was in its connection with the dedication of the temple in the days of
Solomon. According to the late addition to the description in 1 Kings (8:1–2), the
date when “Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the
tribes, the leaders of the ancestral houses of the Israelites… to bring up the ark
of the covenant of Yhwh out of the city of David”, was “in the month Ethanim,
which is the seventh month”.4 According to v. 66, Solomon sends the people
away on the eighth day,5 so it seems that in this case (as well as in the descrip-
tion in Ezekiel; see below), the holiday lasted seven days. One can connect the
Festival of Tabernacles on the fifteenth day of the seventh month to the festival
that Jeroboam “appointed… for the people of Israel” when he instituted it “on
the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival that was in Judah” (1 Kgs
12:32–33). Besides the repetition on that date for the dedication of the First Tem-
ple (2 Chr 5:3) and the mention of that celebration (2 Chr 7:8–10), there is no
other mention of the Festival of Tabernacles in the historiographic books, and
it is impossible to know what its place and importance were, if any, during the
First Temple period.
Likewise, in the prophetic literature, Sukkot is mentioned only in two cases.
There is no explicit mention of Sukkot in Ezekiel, but in 45:25, “the festival” is
mentioned that takes place “in the seventh month, on the fifteenth day of the
month”. Also, from this brief description, it is difficult to come to any conclusions
about the place and importance of the Sukkot holiday outside of the priestly
circles in the temple in Jerusalem, and it is not clear when or if it was customary
to hold the holy convocation on the eighth day. The only explicit mention of the
Festival of Tabernacles is in Zech 14:16–19, in what appears to be a very late
description that combines an apocalyptic vision of the end of days with the Suk-
kot holiday. Those who do not go up to Jerusalem are threatened with a drought
(v. 17), and it seems that the connection to the exodus is expressed in this prophe-
cy in an explicit way by reversing the reality (v. 18–19): The Sukkot holiday is not
connected to the exodus, but God will punish Egypt and all the Gentiles if they
themselves do not go up to Jerusalem to celebrate Sukkot.
There is a paucity of mentions of the Festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles) / In-
gathering – or simply “the holiday” – in the Hebrew Bible as well as an ambigu-

4 See already Morgenstern 1924: 36–38. On the dating of this addition and its connection to the
Priestly edition, see Hurowitz 1992: 263–270; Van Seters 1997: 52–53; Naʾaman 1999: 44–46. On the
place of this chapter in the Deuteronomistic description and the way it was shaped, see Knoppers
2000.
5 Scholars have assumed that this is an indication for a holy day that followed the Deuterono-
mistic law before the eighth day became holy convocation. See already Grey 1964: 219.
514 Part F: Biblical Studies

ity regarding the place of this holiday in the lives of the people, its centrality
and its customs. In light of this, the doubled, explicit mention of the Sukkot
holiday and its customs in Ezra 3 and Nehemiah 8 are of great importance, as
are the clear difference between the description of the holiday and its customs
in these two chapters and the parallel that exists between these two different
descriptions of the Sukkot holiday and the Pentateuchal laws. The fact that most
of the references to the holiday in the Pentateuchal laws correspond to the short
description in Ezra 3 while the different, unique law regarding Sukkot in Lev
23:39–43 parallels Nehemiah 8 indicates, in my opinion, a unique and unparal-
leled development of the customs of the Sukkot holiday. Since I argue below
that Nehemiah 8 is part of a late layer added to the book of Ezra-Nehemiah, this
reinforces the lateness and uniqueness of the Pentateuchal laws regarding Suk-
kot customs.
The development of the Pentateuchal laws concerning Sukkot and the special
connection between Nehemiah 8 and the unique laws in Lev 23:39–43 are the
focus of the discussion below, particularly the time, place and reasons for their
development.

The Pentateuchal Laws of the Sukkot Festival and the Laws

in Leviticus 23:39–43

The Festival of Tabernacles is one of the three important pilgrimage festivals

according to the Pentateuchal laws, but the unique customs of this feast are men-
tioned only in Lev 23:39–43 and nowhere else (besides similar, but not identical,
customs described in Neh 8; see discussion below). Furthermore, the mention of
this festival is nearly completely absent in the historiographic descriptions and
in the prophetic literature. Therefore, it can be assumed that the original laws
concerning the feast in the temple reflect the traditions, ceremonies and cultic
practices that took place in the temple of Jerusalem already in the First Temple
period as well as in the early Second Temple period (Albertz and Schmitt 2012:
402–403). This is true especially for the detailed descriptions of the daily sacrifices
in Lev 23:33–38 and Num 29:12–38,6 as well as for the more, quite general laws
in Exod 23:16; 34:22 and Deut 16:13–17. The agricultural roots of this festival are

6 Many scholars see Lev 23:33–38 as part of the Holiness Code; see, e.g., Milgrom 2001: 2056;
Weyde 2004: 27–29, 79–84. Num 29:12–38 was usually treated as part of the Priestly Writing, but
in my opinion, it was compiled later than, and as a supplement for, Lev 23. See below.
 Sukkot in the Pentateuch and in Ezra 3 and Nehemiah 8 515

not clear,7 and the main emphasis is on its place as one of the three pilgrimage
events to the temple in Jerusalem. The laws of the sacrifices were probably estab-
lished as part of the Priestly source, and it developed during the early Persian
period into a cultic feast in the temple with detailed laws concerning the sacrifi-
ces, as can be seen in Numbers 28–29 (and Lev 23:34–38) and as also reflected in
Ezra 3 (see also below).
The close relationship between the festival calendars of Leviticus 23 and
Numbers 28–29 have long held scholarly attention. Seebass (2007: 251), for exam-
ple, explained it through the notion that both texts were produced by priestly
circles who were related to each other. Many scholars have assumed that Num-
bers 28–29 presupposes the legislation in Leviticus 23,8 while others believe that
Leviticus 23 is part of the Holiness Code and argue that it reflects an attempt to
unify and harmonize the formulation of Numbers 28–29 (Milgrom 2001: 1979;
Knohl 1987).
I agree with the detailed discussion by Nihan (2008: 186–187, with further
literature in n. 25 therein) that Leviticus 23 (except vv. 4 and 39–43) is earlier than
Numbers 28–29, which was written as a supplement to specify the nature and
quantity of offerings and was never meant to be read without Leviticus 23. The
literary unity of Numbers 28–29 is well accepted among scholars, but there are
many disputes concerning Leviticus 23, particularly (and especially for the cur-
rent discussion) concerning vv. 39–43, which follow the subscript in vv. 37–38 with
the additional laws regarding the Festival of Tabernacles (Nihan 2008: 188, with
further literature in n. 26).
These verses (and only these!) provide very different, unique, detailed in-
structions for the Festival of Tabernacles – to live in booths for seven days (v. 42)
in order to remember that the Israelites lived in booths when Yhwh brought them
out from Egypt (v. 43). The uniqueness of this feast is in the so-called “four spe-
cies” of Sukkot: According to v. 40, each of the people are to “take the fruit of
majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the
brook, and… rejoice before Yhwh your God for seven days”.
Leviticus 23:39–43, together with vv. 9–22, is usually regarded as part of the
H calendar, edited by a Priestly redactor. Already Noth (1962: 175) understood

7 Gesundheit (2012: 155) demonstrated that “the Deuteronomic Festival of Tabernacles takes
place only after the threshing of the grain in the threshing-floor and the preparation of the wine
in the winepress. Consequently, celebrating the festival gives thanks to Yhwh for blessing the
farmer not only ‘with all your crops’, but also ‘with all that your hands produced’ (v. 15), namely,
the farmer’s processed products.”
8 See especially Gray 1903: 403; Körting 1999: 213–215; Grünwald 1999: 297; Achenbach 2003: 602–
604; Wagenaar 2005: 146–155; Nihan 2008: 195–212.
516 Part F: Biblical Studies

that this cannot be anything other than a literary addition, and Elliger (1966:
305–306, 311) identified it as his Ph4 redactor.9 Knohl (1987; 1995) regarded these
verses (together with vv. 1–4, 28aβ–32, 38), as part of the work of the Holiness
School that were added at a later stage, during the process of editing. Against
this suggestion, I would agree with the suggestion by Nihan (2008: 190–194) that
assigning all of these verses to the same hand is very problematic and that
vv. 9–22 are a heavy reworking of an earlier law, probably also done by H.
However, in my opinion, it is mainly vv. 3, 39–43 that can be defined as an H
addition. Although Nihan (2008: 180–181) described this section as an appendix
with further instructions for the celebration of Sukkot (after the basic instruc-
tions in vv. 33–36), it seems to me that the lack of any parallel to it in the other
laws concerning festivals in the Pentateuch, the absence of any description of
the importance and uniqueness of this festival in the Pentateuchal, historio-
graphic and prophetic books, the unique and very problematic connection of
this festival to the exodus and the fact that even Nehemiah 8 has no exact
parallel to these laws are all indications that the special rules and customs of
this feast are very late. The connection of Lev 23:39–43 to the reading of the
Torah in Nehemiah 8 and its content (like the combination of key admonitions
with the reference to the exodus, which is one of the distinctive features of H
within the legal collections of the Pentateuch),10 can connect this part to the
Holiness Code and point to the same or a similar editorial process also in Ezra-
Nehemiah.

Ezra 3:4–5 and Nehemiah 8:13–18 and Their Connection

to the Pentateuchal Laws concerning the Festival of Sukkot

The Festival of Tabernacles is mentioned in Ezra 3:4 (only once in the description
of the first generation of the returnees) and in Nehemiah 8:13–19 (four times,
only in this section of the book, and nowhere else in the description of the fourth
generation of the returnees). These two very different literary units are parts of
very different literary and historical sections of Ezra-Nehemiah: Ezra 3 is an im-
portant part of the ongoing story in the unit of Ezra 1–6, when just after the long
list of returnees in Ezra 2, the emphasis is on the date “When the seventh month
came …” The story centers on the gathering of the people to Jerusalem (Ezra 3:1),

9 Many scholars have accepted and developed this view; see Nihan 2008: 189, n. 34, with further
literature therein.
10 See Nihan 2013: 116 and n. 27; cf. Lev 23:43 and Lev 19:36; 22:33; 23:43; 25:38, 42, 55; 26:13, 45.
 Sukkot in the Pentateuch and in Ezra 3 and Nehemiah 8 517

the construction of the altar and the renewal of the sacrifices in Jerusalem (v. 2),
including those of the Festival of Tabernacles: “And they did [‫֛שׂוּ‬] the Festival
of Tabernacles, as prescribed, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number
according to the ordinance, as required for each day” (v. 4).11
There is a clear connection between the description of the Festival of Taber-
nacles in Ezra 3 and the written laws in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 29, which are
the only places that command a daily sacrifice during Sukkot. The connection
between Ezra 3 and Lev 23:37 is clear from the expression ‫וֹ‬‫יוֹ‬ ‫וֹם‬‫ר־‬,12 as
well as the connection to Numbers 29, where the expression ‫ט‬ ‫ם‬
appears six times (29:18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 37) and is unique only to this law and to
Ezra 3:4. It does not appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible.

‫וֹ‬‫יוֹ‬ ‫וֹם‬‫ר־‬ ‫ט‬ ‫ר‬ ‫יוֹ‬ ‫וֹם‬ ‫ת‬ ‫וּב‬ ‫ֻסּ֖כּוֹת‬ ‫ג‬‫ת־‬ ‫֛שׂוּ‬ :Ezra 3:4
‫וֹ׃‬‫יוֹ‬ ‫וֹם‬‫ר־‬ ‫ים‬‫ח וּ‬ ‫ה‬‫ה וּ‬ ‫ה‬‫יה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יב‬… :Lev 23:37

‫וֹ‬‫יוֹ‬ ‫וֹם‬‫ר־‬ ‫ט‬ ‫ר‬ ‫יוֹ‬ ‫וֹם‬ ‫ת‬ ‫וּב‬ ‫ֻסּ֖כּוֹת‬ ‫ג‬‫ת־‬ ‫֛שׂוּ‬ :Ezra 3:4
‫ט‬ ‫ם‬ :(37 ,30 ,27 ,24 ,21 ,18) Num 29

The emphasis on the place of the sacrifices in the Festival of Tabernacles and the
relationship between the law and the description in Ezra 3 indicates the scribe’s
familiarity with these laws and the desire to describe the renewal of the ancient
law immediately upon the dedication of the altar, as part of the main purpose of
the description.
Nehemiah 8 is part of the unit of chapters that includes Nehemiah 8–10 and
stands at the center of scholarly debate concerning its unity and placement. It
seems that most scholars agree that these chapters are not part of the Ezra
Memoir and are certainly not part of the Nehemiah Memoir (Kellermann 1967:
26), having instead been inserted into the narrative that ran from Nehemiah 7
to Nehemiah 11 (Williamson 1985: xxxii; 275–276, 283). Williamson (1985: 283)
claimed that the original setting of Nehemiah 8 was with Ezra 7–10. Some schol-
ars have followed Torrey (1896: 29–34; 1910: 252–284), who believed that Nehemi-
ah 8 was originally placed between Ezra 8 and 9 (so also Williamson 1985: 284–
286). Others have followed Mowinckel (1964: 7–61; 1965: 7–11) and Pohlmann
(1970: 127–148), claiming that, like in 1 Esdra, Nehemiah 8 originally followed
Ezra 10. From a totally different angle, Kapelrud (1944) and Kellermann (1967:

11 Nehemiah 8 also has an emphasis on the verb ‫עשה‬, but in this case, it is in the sense of
building the tabernacles – and the verb ‫ עשה‬is used in its actual meaning.
12 On this expression, see also Exod 5:13, 19; 16:4; 1 Kgs 8:59; 2 Kgs 25:30; Jer 52:34; Dan 1:5;
Neh 11:23; 12:47; 1 Chr 16:37; 2 Chr 8:14.
518 Part F: Biblical Studies

32) claimed that the Chronicler composed the material about Ezra and edited
the Nehemiah material, meaning that there would be no other source for this
story and that it is in its original location.
As this unit of Nehemiah 8 currently stands, following the list in Nehemiah 7
(which is nearly identical to Ezra 2), the story is focused again, just like Ezra 3,
on the same date, “on the first day of the seventh month” (Neh 8:2; cf. 7:73; 8:14),
and on the assembly of the people in Jerusalem. There is no clear continuity
from the end of this part in v. 12 to the second assembly in v. 13 and the descrip-
tion of Sukkot. Already Galling (1954: 234), Kratz (2000: 89) and Wright (2004:
317–318) claimed that this literary unit of vv. 13–18 is secondary and late, belong-
ing to the latest strata of Ezra-Nehemiah. This is the first mention of the Penta-
teuchal law concerning the Festival of Tabernacles, but this time, it is clearly
referring to the additional commandments in Lev 23:39–43, where there are no
sacrifices and instead some very different, probably new laws. According to
v. 14, “they found it written in the law that Yhwh had commanded by Moses that
the Israelites should live in booths during the festival of the seventh month”.
According to this description, the priests, Levites, and chiefs of the fathers of all
the people, who all “came together to Ezra” (Neh 8:13), “proclaim[ed] in all their
towns and in Jerusalem as follows, ‘Go out to the hills and bring branches of
olive, wild olive, myrtle, palm, and other leafy trees to make booths, as it is
written’” (8:15).
Indeed, this is what the people do, as they “went out and brought them and
made booths for themselves, each on the roofs of their houses, and in their courts
and in the courts of the house of God, and in the square at the Water Gate and
in the square at the Gate of Ephraim” (8:16). According to the law, “all the assem-
bly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in them”
(8:17), and “day by day, from the first day to the last day, he read from the book
of the law of God. They kept the festival seven days, and on the eighth day there
was a solemn assembly, according to the ordinance” (8:18).
The two literary units described above, which are the only two places where
the Festival of Tabernacles is mentioned, have much more in common than can
be observed upon the first reading of the text. Wright (2004: 315–319; 2007: 20)
has already discussed the place of Nehemiah 8 within Ezra-Nehemiah and empha-
sized the place of these lengthy and detailed lists in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 as
an indication for an intentional literary structure, a kind of inclusio with Ezra 2–
3 on the one hand and Nehemiah 7–8 on the other, but with two very different
goals: It is clear that in Ezra 3, the first generation of returnees from Babylon
under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua seek to renew the cult in Jerusa-
lem and the sacrificial ordinances of the Festival of Tabernacles. However, it is
the Torah laws that stand at the center of Nehemiah 8, including the new laws
 Sukkot in the Pentateuch and in Ezra 3 and Nehemiah 8 519

of the Festival of Tabernacles, which focus on Jerusalem but do not mention any
sacrifices.13
The transition from the list in Ezra 2 (probably a late insertion by the final
editor of the book) to the following story (Ezra 2:70–3:1, with probably the same
later addition of vv. 1a, 4a and 6a; see Wright 2004: 302–303) is much more prob-
lematic than the transition from the list in Nehemiah 7 to its following story
(Neh 7:72–8:1).14 The order of the different groups seems less logical and hierarch-
ical, and the addition of ‫ם‬‫י‬ complicates the matter, since the idea of this
passage is to differentiate between the priests, Levites and the other groups who
lived in Jerusalem versus all of Israel, who lived in their cities. Moreover, the
unnecessary repetition in Ezra 3:1 concerning ‫ים‬ ‫ל‬ ‫י‬‫ וּ‬is problematic
and likely a Wiederaufnahme, indicating that the date of the story was added
here: ‫י‬‫י‬ ‫שׁ‬ , something that is clear from the text in Ezra 3:4 and
comes in Neh 8:14 in its more logical place (Wright 2004: 302–303, with further
literature).
It is clear that the main idea in Ezra 3 is to prepare the narrative for the
cultic activities describing how Jeshua and Zerubbabel set up an altar in order
to inaugurate it with abundant sacrifices. According to v. 6, they begin on the first
day of the seventh month, and here, they continue until the fifteenth of the
month, when they celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. In Nehemiah 8, this tran-
sition from the list to the story is smoother. Nevertheless, although the “the people
gathered together as one in Jerusalem” in Ezra 3:1 before the story focuses on the
altar, Neh 8:1 tells of the people being gathered “together into the square before
the Water Gate”,15 and instead of sacrificing in the temple that was built three
generations before, the people asked Ezra the scribe “to bring the book of the
law of Moses, which Yhwh had given to Israel”.
That same day, the Torah was both read and explained, and according to
v. 12, the people were happy at the end of the day because they understood what

13 Already Willi (1995: 116) claimed that Neh 8 describes not a cultic event but the political
approval of the Torah as the legal constitution of the province of Yehud.
14 On the relationship between Ezra 2:70–3:1 and Neh 7:72–8:1, see Pakkala 2004: 137–140,
165–167; Wright 2004: 301–303. I will not deal here with the connection between Neh 7:72b–
8:12 and 1 Esdras (or Esdras α′) 9:37–55. This book, which overlaps with the end of Chronicles
and all of Ezra, contains only this one small section in Nehemiah but lacks the celebration of
Sukkot found in Neh 8:13–18. Interestingly, it is worth mentioning that Josephus (Ant. 11.1–158)
even employed 1 Esdras as his major source for retelling the history of the early Persian period
and followed the order of 1 Esdras, included the celebration of Sukkot as described in
Neh 8:13–18.
15 In 1 Esdras (9:38), with its clear Priestly orientation, the gathering took place in the square
before the East Gate of the temple.
520 Part F: Biblical Studies

they had heard. In this event, the book replaced the cult, and when Ezra opened
it, “all the people answered, ‘Amen, Amen,’ lifting up their hands. Then they
bowed their heads and worshiped Yhwh with their faces to the ground” (Neh 8:6).
The temple, altar, priests and cult are totally missing from this story, and in v. 13,
a new assembly begins “on the second day” in which “the heads of ancestral
houses of all the people, with the priests and the Levites, came together to Ezra
the scribe” in an unknown location but with the same intention: “in order to
study the words of the law”. This is the beginning of the second story about the
Festival of Tabernacles.
The description of the Festival of Tabernacles in Nehemiah 8 is quite differ-
ent from that in Ezra 3:4, and the reading of the Torah replaces the sacrifices.
In Neh 8:18, “day by day, from the first day to the last day, he read from the
book of the law of God. They kept the festival seven days, and on the eighth
day there was a solemn assembly, according to the ordinance”. The fourfold
repetition of ‫“( יום‬day”) in Ezra 3:4 – ‫וֹם‬‫ר־‬ ‫ט‬ ‫ר‬ ‫יוֹ‬ ‫וֹם‬ ‫ת‬
‫וֹ‬‫יוֹ‬ – is also found in Neh 8:18 with the emphasis on the reading of the Torah
with a fivefold repetition of ‫“( יום‬day”) – ‫וֹם‬ ‫וֹם‬ ‫י‬ ‫ת‬‫ר תּוֹ‬ ‫א‬
‫ ת‬  ‫ י‬‫י‬  ‫ וֹם‬ ‫ ים וּ‬ ‫ת‬   ‫ שׂוּ־‬  ‫וֹ ן‬  ‫ וֹם‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ וֹן‬‫א‬   ‫ יּוֹ‬‫ן ־‬
‫ט׃‬.
It is difficult to accept the idea that the Festival of Tabernacles as described
in Nehemiah 8 is connected to Deut 31:9–13, which requires an assembly and
reading of the book of the Torah during Sukkot every seventh year, even though
these directions for the septennial haqhel share some features with Nehemiah 8
(Wright 2007: 23).
The description of the Festival of Tabernacles in Nehemiah 8 is not identical
to the laws in Lev 23:39–43, but the resemblance is clear and there is a kind of
similar logic and spirit between the story in Nehemiah 8 and the Pentateuchal
laws, with some fundamental differences regarding the place of the temple,
priests and sacrifices over against the place of the written law – the Torah (Pakal-
la 2011: 202–203).
The literary connection between the two texts is clear, and there are also
some fundamental similarities in the details of the two descriptions: The focus
on the fulfilment of the laws of Moses (Neh 8:14 // Lev 23:33), on the living (‫)ישב‬
in the booths (seven days) in the seventh month (Neh 8:14 // Lev 23:42), on the
order to take (‫ )לקח‬or to bring (‫ )בוא‬the four species (in Lev 23:40) or five species
of leaves and branches (in Neh 8:15). The similarities between the law and the
narrative are only in two of the species: ‫ת‬‫ץ־‬ ‫ף‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ת‬ (in Lev) and
‫ת‬ ‫ץ‬ ‫י‬ ‫ים‬ ‫י‬ (in Neh), but against  ‫ץ‬ ‫י‬ and ‫ל‬‫י־‬ (in
Lev), there are three other species of trees in Nehemiah: ‫ן‬ ‫ץ‬‫י־‬ ֙ ‫י־‬
 ‫י‬.
 Sukkot in the Pentateuch and in Ezra 3 and Nehemiah 8 521

Nehemiah 8:14–18 Leviticus 23:33–43

14
‫ה‬‫ד־‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫וּב‬ ‫וּ‬ ‫ר׃‬‫א‬ ‫ה‬‫ל־‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ר‬

‫שׁ‬ ‫ג‬ ‫סֻּ֛כּוֹת‬ ‫ל‬‫י־‬ ‫וּ‬  ‫ל‬ ‫ל־‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ת‬ ‫וּ‬ ‫ת‬‫ֻסּ‬42
‫י׃‬‫י‬ ‫ת׃‬‫ֻסּ‬ ‫וּ‬

‫֘ם‬‫י‬‫ל־‬ ‫וֹל‬ ‫ירוּ‬ ‫יעוּ‬ ‫ר‬15

‫ר‬ ‫וּ‬ ‫א‬ ‫ם‬‫ירוּ‬‫וּ‬
‫י ִא‬ ‫א֗שׁוֹן‬ ‫וֹם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ּ 40

 ‫י‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ץ‬‫י־‬  ֙‫י־‬  ‫ץ‬ ‫י‬

‫ת‬ ‫ץ‬ ‫י‬ ‫ים‬ ‫י‬ ‫ם‬‫ל וּ‬‫י־‬ ‫ת‬‫ץ־‬ ‫ף‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ת‬
‫וּב׃‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ים׃‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ם‬‫י‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫י‬
‫ ֙ם‬ ‫שׂ ֩וּ‬ ‫יא ֒וּ‬ ‫֘ם‬ ‫וּ‬16 ‫ל‬ ‫ל־‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ת‬ ‫וּ‬ ‫ת‬‫ֻסּ‬42
‫ית‬ ‫וֹת‬‫ם וּ‬‫י‬‫ וּ‬‫גּ‬‫ל־‬ ‫ ֤ישׁ‬ ‫֜כּוֹת‬ ‫ת׃‬‫ֻסּ‬ ‫וּ‬
‫וֹב‬‫ם וּ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫חוֹ‬‫ים וּ‬
‫ם׃‬ ‫ר‬

‫וּ‬ ‫כּוֹ‬ ‫י׀‬‫ן־‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ל‬‫ל־‬ ‫וּ‬17 ‫ל‬ ‫ל־‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ת‬ ‫וּ‬ ‫ת‬‫ֻסּ‬42
‫י‬  ‫וּן‬‫ן־‬ ‫וּ‬ ֩‫י‬‫י‬ ‫וּ‬‫־‬ ‫י‬ ‫ֻסּכּוֹ‬ ‫ת׃‬‫ֻסּ‬ ‫וּ‬
‫ד׃‬ ‫ה‬‫דוֹ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ‫וּא‬ ‫וֹם‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ל‬

‫יּוֹ‬‫ן־‬ ‫וֹם‬ ‫וֹם׀‬ ‫י‬ ‫ת‬‫ר תּוֹ‬ ‫א‬18

‫וֹן‬ ‫וֹם‬ ‫ד‬ ‫וֹן‬‫א‬
‫ים‬ ‫ת‬ ‫שׂוּ־‬ ‫ה‬‫יה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יבוּ‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ת‬36
‫ט׃‬ ‫ת‬ ‫י‬‫י‬ ‫וֹם‬‫וּ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫א־‬ ‫י‬‫י‬ ‫וֹם‬
‫ת‬‫א‬‫ל־‬ ‫וא‬ ‫ת‬ ‫יה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬
‫ֽשׂוּ׃‬  ‫ה‬

It is clear that there are fundamental differences between the law in Nehemiah
and the Pentateuchal laws,16 and besides the four species in Leviticus versus the
five species in Nehemiah, it might be that the meaning of the law as understood
from Nehemiah 8 is that the flora was meant to cover the booths, while the
laws concerning the four species, including the missing species from Nehemiah,
developed only later in the Judean laws and tradition (so also Blenkinsopp 1988:
292–293). In any case, the emphasis on the statement that “from the days of Jeshua
son of Nun to that day the Israelites had not done so. And there was very great
rejoicing” (Neh 8:17; cf. 2 Kgs 23:22; 2 Chr 35:18) may indicate that it was the first
time that the Torah stood at the center of this festival, and it was compared to

16 See further Mowinckel 1965: 166–175; Houtman 1981: 104–105, 109–109; Fishbane 1985: 109–
110; Blenkinsopp 1988: 291–293; Duggan 1996: 130–132.
522 Part F: Biblical Studies

the renewal of the covenant by Joshua at Shechem (Blenkinsopp 1988: 292–293;

cf. Gunneweg 1987: 117). Indeed, it was the first time that this Festival of Taberna-
cles was connected to the exodus, with the booths becoming one of its symbols
(Myers 1965: 157; Williamson 1985: 296).

The Formation of Sukkot Customs as Part of the Further

Development of Judaism at the End of the Persian Period
and the Beginning of the Hellenistic Period

Based on the conclusions above and on the connection between the story in
Nehemiah 8 and the law in the late Pentateuchal addition of Lev 23:39–43, the
following questions remain: What is the reason for these unique and very differ-
ent new customs not known to any other festival in the Hebrew Bible? What was
the background for it? When did it develop?
The very late addition to both Leviticus and the Holiness Code must predate
the final editorial layer in Ezra-Nehemiah, since the ideas and laws in them are
quite similar, but Nehemiah attests to a less definite development and at a prelim-
inary stage of sorts for what had already crystalized and been formulated in
Leviticus.17
This is not the only case where late additions to Ezra-Nehemiah followed
literary and ideological processes attested also in the Pentateuch. The growth of
Torah study in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods was accompanied
by a critical stance vis-à-vis cosmopolitan, aristocratic circles around the temple
(Wright 2007: 23). Within the composition history of Ezra-Nehemiah, this critical
view is expressed in the composition of the temple-oriented accounts in Ezra 1–
6 and 7–8, until it ultimately placed Torah at the center of Judean society (begin-
ning in Ezra 9–10 and then in Neh 8–10). Thus, it is probably no coincidence that
the passages highlighting the Torah in Nehemiah 8–10 are found in the middle of
Nehemiah’s account of the construction of the wall, between passages criticizing
the aristocracy (6:17–19) and the Jerusalemite priesthood (13:4–31). In contrast to
the Sukkot celebration in Ezra 3, in which the priests stand in the center, in the
story in Nehemiah, it is the Levites and the scribes who stand at the head of the
people and lead the people, while the temple, the high priest and the offering of
the sacrifices lose their centrality. In addition, the account of Neh 13:10–14 also
refers to the way of distributing the tithe that was brought to the temple among

17 This is also the idea expressed by Pakkala (2004: 158–164; 2011: 204–206), but see, e.g., the
reservation by Nihan (2004: 88–89; 2007: 548, n. 602) regarding the date of the law in Leviticus.
 Sukkot in the Pentateuch and in Ezra 3 and Nehemiah 8 523

the Levites. However, there is no clear indication for whether this account already
presupposes the law of Num 18:20–32. According to some scholars, Neh 13:10–14
contains the first attestation of a practice that was later codified in the legislation
of Numbers 18.18
I would connect this to additional evidence of the struggle between priestly
families in Jerusalem, the high priest’s family and other circles of priests and
Levites, and other families from among the Jerusalem elite (like the polemic addi-
tions against the family of Hakkoz and the Tobiads, and see Lipschits 2018d).19 If
indeed Ezra-Nehemiah was produced by circles of scribes and priests connected
to the Babylonian Golah in the early fourth century BCE, then the latest phase of
this book, which emphasized the place of priestly and Levitical circles not con-
nected to the Jerusalemite temple, was not interested in the cult and the sacrifices
and instead set the Torah and the laws of Moses at the center of the Judean
existence in both Babylon and Judah. This latest phase would have been the
product of an editorial circle active in the very late Persian period or even the
early Hellenistic period. If indeed the laws it emphasizes are very close to those
of the Holiness Code but nevertheless predate these laws as a kind of “prototype”,
this could indicate that the final stages of this school should not be dated before
the Ptolemaic period.20
An echo of these struggles between the priests of the temple in Jerusalem
and other families of priests in and around Jerusalem as well as families of Lev-
ites and scribes at the end of the Persian period and in the Ptolemaic period can
be found in later texts and additions that were added to familiar texts, such as
in the editing of the Korah narrative in Numbers 16 or in Ezekiel 44:9–14 (Jeon
2015; 2017; 2018a; 2018b). If indeed the change in the format of Feast of Tabernac-
les is also linked to the struggle of various circles in Jerusalem against the monop-
oly of the temple and the centrality of the sacrifices, while calling for the Torah
to be placed at the center of life and leadership to be transferred to circles of
scribes and priests, then this was an expression of customs that developed and
spread in Judah outside the small group of priests who lived around the temple
in Jerusalem, concentrated on worship in the temple and saw it as the center of
the nation’s life. Presumably, this can be seen as evidence of the customs that

18 See, e.g., Schmidt 2004: 81–82. A very similar process was defined by Reinmuth (2001), who
demonstrated that the account in Neh 10:31–40 was revised after the completion of the Penta-
teuch with the addition of, e.g., vv. 38b–39.
19 Cf. Min 2004.
20 Of course, on the basis of the data presented above, it can also be argued that the laws upon
which Ezra-Nehemiah was constructed were not at all the one known to us from the Pentateuch
(Houtman 1981: 104–106).
524 Part F: Biblical Studies

developed in Babylon after the destruction of Jerusalem and during the exilic
period, out of a desire to adapt religious life and worship to life without a temple
(Laird 2016). However, it is difficult for me to accept this assumption, since it
seems to me that the community in Jerusalem, which represented the community
of the exiles and expressed a certain ideology accordingly, was interested in re-
newing worship in Jerusalem and was based around the temple. It was rather
the population of those who remained in Judah, who lived a short distance to the
north and south of Jerusalem and adapted to life without a temple during the
period after the destruction of Jerusalem. These were the ones who were able to
develop customs that were not centered on Jerusalem and the temple. It is pos-
sible that the Sukkot custom preserves and reflects Jewish customs that were
prevalent outside of Jerusalem and were not reflected in the biblical laws until
the end of the Persian period and the beginning of the Hellenistic period, as part
of the same struggle between elite families inside and outside of Jerusalem.21
In any case, the next stage in the process of the development of the laws and
customs related to the Festival of Tabernacles probably took place in the Ptolema-
ic and Seleucid periods, during the third and second centuries BCE. Thus, for
example, during this period, the practice of the four species was formed and
established, and the ‫ר‬ ‫ץ‬ ‫י‬ (“fruit of the beautiful tree”) became the cit-
ron.22

21 Many scholars have focused on the tensions and struggles in Judahite society in the Persian
and early Hellenistic periods. See, e.g., Schultz 1980: 221–243; Berquist 1995: 133–140; Grabbe 1995:
406; Min 2004.
22 See further on this subject Langgut, Gadot, Porat and Lipschits 2013; Lipschits, Gadot and
Langgut 2012.
On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books:
Jehoash’s and Josiah’s Decisions to Repair
the Temple
Josiah’s Commands about the Temple Renovation
and the Finding of the Book of the Law

One of the main events in the history of the religion and cult of Judah, hence
also in the shaping of the national consciousness and historical memory, took
place in the 18th year of Josiah’s reign. The Book of the Law was discovered in
the course of renovations in the temple of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 22:8–10).1 According
to 2 Kings 22, which describes the main events that led to the discovery, Josiah
initiated the process when he sent Shaphan the scribe to the temple with three
simple instructions:
1. go to the temple to “count the silver that has been brought into the house of
Yhwh, which the keepers of the threshold have collected from the people”
(v. 4);2
2. give the silver to the overseers who are responsible for the maintenance of
the temple (“and let them deliver it into the hand of the workmen in charge
of the house of the Yhwh,” v. 5a; see Gray 1964: 587; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:
277, 282);
3. deliver the silver to the skilled craftsmen who will carry out the repairs in
the temple and buy the timber and hewn stone needed for the work (“and
let them give it to the workmen of the house of Yhwh, who are to repair the
breaches of the house; to the carpenters, builders, and masons to buy timber
and hewn stone to repair the house,” vv. 5b–6).

The king added one final command: “Note that the silver delivered to them is not
to be accounted for, because they deal honestly” (v. 7).
The readers of the story do not know which if any of the king’s instructions
were carried out, because immediately after these instructions the story moves
on to what Hilkiah said to Shaphan the scribe: “I have found the Book of the Law
in the house of Yhwh” (v. 8a). Then “Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he

1 This book was also called The Book of the Covenant (2 Kgs 23:2), This Book of the Covenant
(23:21), and simply The Book (22:8, 16; 23:24) or This Book (22:13; 23:3). See further below.
2 On the verb ‫יתם‬, see the conclusion of Gray 1964: 657; and see the summary in Cogan and
Tadmor 1988: 281, with bibliography.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-028
526 Part F: Biblical Studies

read it” (v. 8b), after which Shaphan left to report to the king. According to his
report, the king’s first two instructions were followed just as he had ordered:
“Your servants have melted down the silver that was found in the house, and
they have delivered it into the hands of the workmen in charge of the house of
Yhwh” (v. 9). Shaphan does not mention the implementation of the king’s third
command, and from the literary point of view the author/editor of the book of
Kings (Dtr1)3 uses this literary device of command and implementation to empha-
size the fact that the Book of the Law was found before any work in the temple
actually began. The officials responsible for the work already had the silver, but
they had not yet delivered it to the craftsmen, and they had not yet bought the
timber and hewn stone.

The report of Shaphan to the King The instructions of the King

according to 2 Kgs 22:9 according to 2 Kgs 22:4–6

‫י‬ ‫יכוּ‬ ‫ם‬

‫ת־‬ ‫ף‬֔ ‫ת־‬
‫א‬ ‫א‬‫מּוּ‬
‫ת‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬
‫ם׃‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ף‬ ‫י‬ ‫֛פוּ‬ ‫ר‬
‫הוּ‬ ‫הוּ‬
‫ה‬‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫ל־‬ ‫ה‬‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫ל־‬
‫ים‬ ‫ים‬
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬
‫ית‬  ‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫֗תוֹ‬ ‫וּ‬
‫ים‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ת׃‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬
‫ב‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫ ֤נוֹת‬ ‫ים‬
‫ם‬ ‫ב‬‫־‬‫ ל‬ 7 ‫ת׃‬‫ת־‬ ‫ק‬
‫ם‬ ‫ה‬‫מוּ‬ ‫י‬ ‫ם‬‫ל־‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ף‬
‫ים׃‬

Thus, the Book of the Law was not found during the repairs to the temple but
during the preparations for the repairs, which the king had ordered. We know
nothing about the actual renovation of the temple (Dietrich 1977: 22; Cogan and
Tadmor 1988: 293), because the story moves on to describe the king’s reaction to
the contents of the book that was found in the temple: “When the king heard the
words of the Book of the Law, he tore his clothes” (v. 11). At this point, the narra-
tive proceeds very quickly to the cultic reform that was conducted in Judah and

3 The term Dtr1 is not wholly satisfactory, but I will use it here to refer to the author/editor of
the Josianic version of the Deuteronomistic History (Cross’s Dtr 1 ).
 On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books 527

makes no further reference to the temple repairs. We assume that they were
carried out as the king had ordered, but from the literary standpoint they were
a device used by the Dtr as the starting point of this story (O’Brien 1989: 240–241;
Brueggemann 2000: 544), which depicts the king as the person whose orders set
off the process of renovation, the discovery of the book, and the cultic reform
(Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 293; Nelson 1991: 145; O’Brien 1989: 238–239; Knoppers
1994: 132–133).

The Book That Was Found during the Temple Repairs

The book that was found in the temple is mentioned 11 times in 2 Kings 22–23.
Its name in chap. 22 is the Book of the Law,4 and the emphasis is on its discovery
in the temple. In chap. 23 the same book is called The Book of the Covenant,5
although the emphasis is likewise on its discovery in the temple, and it is clearly
the same book. The unequivocal connection between the two different names can
be found in 2 Kgs 23:24, which states that the purpose of Josiah’s reform was “to
fulfill the words of the law that were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest
had found in the house of Yhwh.”

‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫י‬‫א‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ :22:8

‫ר‬
‫ר‬ :22:10
‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ :22:11
‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ר‬ :22:13
‫ה‬ ‫ר‬
‫ר‬ :22:16
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫א‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ר‬ :23:2
‫ל‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ת‬‫זּ‬ ‫ית‬ ‫י‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ :23:3
‫ה‬ ‫ר‬
‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ר‬‫ו‬ :23:21
‫ל‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ :23:24
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ן‬ ‫הוּ‬ ‫א‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ר‬

This book as an actual ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ is mentioned in the Deuteronomistic literature

only 15 other times (in one form with a few variations), and these 15 appearances

4 See O’Brien (1989: 204) for discussion of this title as coined by Dtr1.
5 I accept Knoppers’s suggestion that the term ‫“ הברית‬reflects Dtr1’s attempt to link Josiah’s
covenant and Passover with Sinaitic covenant” (Knoppers 1994: 131, n. 20).
528 Part F: Biblical Studies

are only in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua (not including the late addition
in 2 Kgs 14:6; compare 1 Kgs 2:3).6

‫ר‬-‫ל‬ ‫ת‬‫זּ‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ב לוֹ‬ :Deut 17:18

‫ת‬‫זּ‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫י‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ר‬ :Deut 17:19
‫ת‬‫זּ‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫י‬ ‫ל‬ :Deut 28:58
‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ים‬
‫ת‬‫זּ‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ :Deut 28:61
‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬‫תוּ‬ :Deut 29:19
‫ה‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬‫תוּ‬ :Deut 29:20
‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬‫תוּ‬ :Deut 29:26
‫ה‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬‫תוּ‬ :Deut 30:10
‫ם‬‫ד תּ‬ ‫ר‬‫ל־‬ ‫ת‬‫זּ‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫י‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ב‬ :Deut 31:24
‫ה‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ת‬  :Deut 31:26
‫ ה‬ ‫ת‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫תוּב‬ :Josh 8:31
‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫תוּב‬ :Josh 8:34
‫ ה‬ ‫ת‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫תוּב‬ :Josh 23:6
‫ים‬ ‫ת‬‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ :Josh 24:26

The connection between the time of Josiah and the time of Moses and Joshua is
stressed in 2 Kgs 23:22: “No such passover had been kept since the days of the
judges who judged Israel, even during all the days of the kings of Israel and of
the kings of Judah.” I will not discuss in this essay the view held by scholars since
de Wette’s Dissertatio Critica (Jena, 1805), that the book found in the temple dur-
ing Josiah’s reign was the book of Deuteronomy or an early form of it.7 It is clear,
however, that from Dtr1’s point of view this book had been hidden since the time
of Moses and Joshua and was discovered in the temple after a very long time
(Lohfink 1987; Römer 1990b: 319; 1997: 6–7). This was an ancient book that laid
down the precepts that the people should obey. Its discovery frightened Josiah
and prompted his decision to reform the cult. This passage led scholars to ask

6 On the late addition of 2 Kgs 14:6 and its function in the Dtr History, see Noth 1943: 92. On
1 Kgs 2:3, see von Rad 1966: 268. See also the late insertions in: 1 Kgs 8:9; cf. 8:56; 2 Kgs 10:31;
17:34, 37; 21:8.
7 This assumption was so pervasive among scholars that Noth (1943: 92 n. 1) accepted it and
decided not to deal with it again. Rowley (1963: 161) wrote: “That Josiah’s Law Book was Deuter-
onomy in some form, though not wholly identified with the present book of Deuteronomy, seems
to be one of the most firmly established results of Old Testament scholarship.” For a summary
of the various opinions before the 1960s, see Nicholson 1967: 1–7; see also Preuss 1982: 4–5;
Würthwein 1984: 447; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 294; Naʾaman 2002: 59–60. See also the recent
volume on Josiah’s (and Manasseh’s) reigns: Grabbe 2005.
 On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books 529

many questions, especially regarding the authenticity of “the book that was
found,” its early form, its later additions, and the stages of its editing; the social
classes, priests, scribes, and prophets who were behind the new reforms; and the
ideological, social, political, and economic aims of the people and the connection
between them and the king. But the focus of this essay is different; it deals with
a very specific historiographical question: why, according to Dtr1, was the Book
of the Law not discovered during the temple repairs that were undertaken in the
time of Jehoash?
There is no doubt that the author of the book of Kings was well aware of
the great gap between the time when the Book of the Law was written and well
known (that is, the days of Moses and Joshua, in his own story) and the time of
its finding (the reign of Josiah), yet he simply avoided any reference to it during
the intervening centuries. The discovery of ancient scrolls and documents in
the course of temple renovations was a well-known phenomenon in the ancient
Near East (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 294; Römer 1997: 7–9, with bibliography),
and it was also a common literary motif (Speyer 1970). But one problem troub-
led Dtr1 from the historiographical point of view. Two hundred years before
Josiah, Jehoash had ordered repairs to the temple. The author of the Josianic
Deuteronomistic History (Dtr1) was well aware of the connection between the
two renovations. In fact, he created, used, and emphasized it for his purposes.
Because of this, he could not avoid the question of how it was possible that the
Book of the Law was not discovered during similar repairs in Jehoash’s days.
To address this question, we first must deal with a few aspects of Jehoash’s
repairs and the sorts of data that Dtr1 used as the basis of his report about them
in the Josianic DH.

The Temple Repairs during the Reigns of Jehoash and Josiah

The preparations for the temple repairs under Jehoash, the method of collecting
the silver, counting it, and distributing it to the officials and the craftsmen (ac-
cording to 2 Kgs 12:10–17[9–16]), are identical to the orders given by Josiah to
Shaphan the scribe (according to 22:3–7). The book of Kings, as it stands, leads us
to believe that during the reign of Jehoash the old system of maintenance in
the temple no longer worked (Montgomery 1951: 427–428; Wright 1989: 442–443);
consequently, the king had to order a new system, which was still in effect during
the reign of Josiah. In the 23rd year of his reign,8 Jehoash saw that the orders

8 I believe that this date was used by Dtr for historiographical reasons because of the need to
link the temple repair with the military campaign of Hazael, king of Aram. See more on this
below.
530 Part F: Biblical Studies

were not being carried out and that the priests had failed to “repair the breaches
of the house, wherever a breach [was] found” (2 Kgs 12:6[5]).9 The king’s solution
was to devise a new system for collecting silver to repair the temple that would
not be dependent on the priests from the fiscal and administrative standpoint
but would be overseen by other officials. “The priests agreed not to take silver
from the people or to make repairs to the house” (12:9[8]).
The new system, developed by Jehoiada the priest, following Jehoash’s orders,
comprised four stages:
1. collecting the silver in a chest that was set beside the altar (12:10[9]);10
2. the counting (and probably also smelting) of the silver by the king’s scribe
and the high priest (12:11[10]);11
3. giving the silver to temple functionaries who were responsible for the main-
tenance of the temple (12:12a[11a]);12
4. delivering the silver to the skilled craftsmen who would actually carry out
the renovation (12:12b–13aα[11b–12aα]) and pay for the timber and hewn
stone needed for the work (12:13aβ–b[12aβ–b]).

To these instructions, the king attached only one condition: that none of the silver
should be spent on ritual vessels (12:14[13]), “for that was given to the workmen
who were repairing the house of Yhwh with it” (12:15[14]).
This was the system still in use during the days of Josiah, as we see in
the table below, which reveals the literary similarities between 2 Kings 12 and
2 Kings 22:

9 On the structure of the story (with bibliography), see the discussion in Dutcher-Walls 1996: 52–
54; and compare with Raviv 1983: 321; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 140; Brueggemann 2000: 420–
421.
10 On the function of this chest for collecting contributions from the general population, see
Torrey 1936: 247–260; 1943: 295–301; Eissfeldt 1937: 163–164; Oppenheim 1947: 116–118; Hurowitz
1986: 289. On alternative solutions for the place of the chest, based on the LXX versions, see
Burney 1903a: 314–315; Montgomery 1951: 429, 432; Gray 1964: 528, note e; see also the solution
suggested by Cogan and Tadmor (1988: 138), who note that the MT is attested by all versions;
they reconstruct a system in which the worshipers gave donations to the doorkeepers, who
placed it in the chest, near the altar. See also Dutcher-Walls 1996: 55–56. In Babylonian temples,
the collection box was placed near the gate (Oppenheim 1947: 117–118).
11 On the possibility of the existence of a smelter in the temple, see Oppenheim 1947: 117 (with
regard to temples in the Neo-Babylonian period); see Eissfeldt (1937: 163–164) and Delcor (1962:
372–377) on the possibility of the same practice in the temple of Jerusalem. See also Joachin
Schaper 1995.
12 Compare with Gray 1964: 587; Dutcher-Walls 1996: 57.
 On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books 531

The System during the Time of Josiah The System during the Time of Jehoash
(2 Kings 22: 3–8) (2 Kings 12: 10–16 [9–15])

‫תּוֹ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ ַרוֹן‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ע‬‫הוֹ‬ ‫ח‬

-‫בוֹא‬ (‫ין‬) ‫ בימין‬ ‫ל‬ ‫תוֹ‬ ‫ן‬
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ישׁ‬
‫ף‬ ‫י‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ה‬-‫נוּ‬
.‫ה‬‫ה‬-‫ית‬ ‫א‬‫מּוּ‬ ‫ף‬-‫ל‬-‫ת‬
‫רוֹן‬ ‫ף‬ ‫ב‬-‫י‬ ‫ם‬‫אוֹ‬ ‫י‬
‫ח‬ ‫הוּ‬‫ י‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ַ
‫ם‬-‫ן‬ ‫הוּ‬-‫ן‬ ‫ן‬-‫ת‬ 
‫ל‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬‫א‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ר‬  ‫ר‬ ‫ל‬
‫דוֹל‬ ‫ן‬ ‫הוּ‬ ‫דוֹל‬ ‫ן‬
‫ם‬ ‫נוּ‬ ‫ֻצרוּ‬
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫א‬‫מּוּ‬ ‫ף‬-‫ת‬ .‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫א‬ ‫ף‬-‫ת‬
.‫ם‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ף‬ ‫י‬ ‫פוּ‬ ‫ר‬
‫נוּהוּ‬ְ ‫ו‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ף‬-‫ת‬ ‫נוּ‬
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ה‬‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫ד‬-‫ל‬ ;‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ה‬‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬-‫ל‬
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫תוֹ‬ ‫נוּ‬ ‫הוּ‬‫י‬‫יּוֹ‬
‫ת‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬
‫ים‬ ‫ים‬ .‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ץ‬ ‫י‬ ְ‫ל‬
‫ים‬ ‫ן‬ ‫י‬‫ים וּ‬
‫ב‬ ‫י‬ ‫ים‬ ‫נוֹת‬ ‫ב‬ ‫י‬ ‫ים‬ ‫נוֹת‬
.‫ת‬-‫ת‬ ‫ק‬ ;‫ה‬‫ה‬-‫ית‬ ‫ק‬-‫ת‬ ‫ק‬
.‫ה‬ ‫ת‬-‫ל‬ ‫א‬-‫ר‬ ‫ל‬‫וּ‬
‫רוֹת‬ ‫ף‬ ‫פּוֹת‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ל‬
-‫ן‬ ‫ף‬-‫י‬‫ב וּ‬ ‫י‬-‫ל‬ ‫רוֹת‬ ‫קוֹת‬
.‫ה‬‫ה‬-‫ית‬ ‫א‬‫מּוּ‬ ‫ף‬
‫נוּ‬ ‫ה‬‫א‬ ‫י‬-‫י‬
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫תוֹ‬ ‫הוּ‬
‫ת‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ .‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬-‫ת‬ ‫בוֹ‬-‫ְזּקוּ‬
‫ם‬ ‫ב‬-‫ ל‬ַ  ‫ים‬-‫ת‬ ‫בוּ‬ ‫ל‬
‫ם‬-‫ל‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ף‬ ‫י‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ם‬-‫ל‬ ‫ף‬ -‫ת‬ ‫נוּ‬ ‫ר‬
‫ה‬‫א‬
.‫ים‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬‫מוּ‬ ‫י‬ .‫ים‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫י‬
532 Part F: Biblical Studies

There are conflicting opinions on the origin of this description and the connection
between the two versions of it.13 Most scholars have not accepted the positions
of Hoffmann (1980: 122–123) and Würthwein (1984: 354–357), who ascribed the
two passages to the early Second Temple Period, because of the presence of late
expressions and titles, especially ‫ים‬ ‫ף‬֨  (12:5[4]), ‫֔דוֹל‬ ‫ן‬ (v. 11[10]; see
Morgenstern 1938; however, see Gabriel 1933: 2–3), the list of cultic utensils
(v. 14[13]), and the description of offerings (v. 17[16]; compare with O’Brien 1989:
241–242). Late expressions and titles are usually understood to be late additions
to the text and are explained in terms of an editorial process (compare with
Montgomery 1951: 429–430; Spieckermann 1982: 180 n. 49, 183 n. 56, 415; Gray 1964:
587). Most scholars consider 2 Kings 12 and 22 to be an authentic testimony to the
ancient administrative and economic reality in the temple from the reign of Je-
hoash through the reign of Josiah.14
The description of the temple repairs in Josiah’s reign has the ring of original-
ity (see the claims of Stade 1885: 290–295) according to Burney (1903a: 355–356),
Gray (1964: 531, 650, 656), Spieckermann (1982: 48–53, 179–182), Levin (1984: 355
n. 14), and Eissfeldt (1987: 473 n. 29). But what about the temple repairs in the
days of Jehoash? Spieckermann has maintained that the verses in chap. 12 that
parallel the verses in chap. 22 (12:5aβ–b, 10, 12–13, 16) were the work of later Dtr
redaction. This view is unconvincing (see O’Brien 1989: 241), and in fact most
scholars support the opposite position. According to them, the description of the
temple repairs under Josiah was based on the description of the renovation under
Jehoash (Dietrich 1977: 22–25; Hoffmann 1980: 192–197; Würthwein 1984: 357–358;
O’Brien 1989: 241; Fritz 2003: 397–398; Minette de Tillesse 1993: 355–359; Barrick
2002: 121), or at least was influenced by it (Montgomery 1951: 427). These scholars
assume that 2 Kings 12 was originally based on a history of the temple (Wellhaus-
en 1878b: 257–258; Benzinger 1899: 158–159; Pfeiffer 1941: 401–402) or The Book
of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (Noth 1943: 65–66; Eissfeldt 1965: 50, 298–
299) or documents from the temple archive that were edited by a court historian
and integrated into the text by Dtr (Sanda 1912: 148–149; Montgomery 1951: 37–
38; Hobbs 1985: 148). Knoppers (1994: 132–133; in some respects, based on Stade
1885; 1886) has argued that Jehoash’s commands regarding temple repairs were
copied into the description of Josiah’s reign as support for its primary theme,
which was the discovery of the book and the reform that followed.

13 I am not dealing here with the various assumptions about the history of each description.
There are many different views on this (especially about chap. 22); see, e.g., Dietrich 1977: 18–27;
Spieckermann 1982: 46–71; Levin 1984: 363; Würthwein 1984: 445–466; O’Brien 1989: 238–243;
McKenzie 1991: 110–112.
14 For bibliography, see Eynikel 1996: 188–191. However, see the reservations brought up by
Hurowitz 1986: 290–291 n. 5.
 On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books 533

Naʾaman’s position (1998a: 337–340; 2002: 94–95) continues in this direction

in some respects. He proposes that the detailed description of the temple repairs
under Jehoash and the shorter description of the repairs under Josiah were writ-
ten by the same author at the same time, with the first serving as background for
the second, abridged account. According to him, from a historiographical point
of view Jehoash’s regulations were conceived as being in force until the time of
Josiah, and the author was not repeating but was continuing from that point,
assuming that the readers had the account of Jehoash in mind.
According to Naʾaman, these descriptions, especially the more detailed ac-
count in chap. 12, are exceptional in three ways: (1) they concentrate on a building
project, (2) they contain unique expressions, and (3) they disclose specific dates.
He concludes that these features support the notion that the author composed
this section on the basis of an original royal building inscription.15 In his view,
the detailed description of the reign of Jehoash is the background for renovation
under Josiah. Thus, the book of Kings reflects a historical reality, in which the
system for repairs put in place during the reign of Jehoash was still the standard
system under Josiah. Chapter 22 was not a copy of chap. 12; however, the descrip-
tions of the renovations are similar because the systems were the same.
I agree with Naʾaman’s basic assumptions. I believe that the Deuteronomist
and his readers in the time of Josiah (Dtr1)16 knew that the administrative system
of collecting silver for temple repairs was established by Jehoash. I find it harder
to accept that the description of Jehoash’s repairs in 2 Kings 12 was based on a
royal building inscription, considering that there is no reference to building activ-
ities (which was surely an essential element in any building inscription). The
description of the temple repairs under Jehoash focuses only on the administra-
tive and fiscal system: how to collect the silver for the renovations; who was
responsible for it; how to count the silver; and how to use it. These matters
are not included in royal building inscriptions. Many scholars assume that this
description was based on a history of the temple or on documents from the
temple archive (see above; their assumption is based on this very pericope). Fur-
thermore, according to 2 Kings 12, the king gave only a general order; it was
Jehoiada, the priest, who actually devised the system.17 A careful reading of this

15 See Parker 2000 for a general criticism of the idea that the authors of Kings used royal
inscriptions. See also below.
16 It is hard to accept the attempt of Barrick (2002: 126–129) to date the writing of this story to
the time of Jehoiakim’s regime. There are no real grounds for this dating.
17 On the place of this description in the Deuteronomistic History and the emphasis on the
cooperation between the king and the priest, see Nelson 1991: 145–147. On the parallel manage-
ment of temples in Assyria and Babylonia by royal and clerical authorities together, see Hurowitz
1986.
534 Part F: Biblical Studies

passage suggests that there were no additional details – beyond the existence of
the chest, its location, the system it was part of, and the connection of this system
with Jehoash – that had been lost or forgotten in the time of Josiah, when the
same system was still in place.
Thus, it seems that the chest that stood beside the altar, “on the right side as
one enters the house of Yhwh” (2 Kgs 12:10[9]),18 was the basis of the description
and the reason for familiarity with the system established by Jehoash. The chest
was the only tangible item connected to Jehoash’s system that was still in use in
the reign of Josiah. There is no need to speculate about a royal building inscrip-
tion. The existence and significance of the chest (as in the temples of Babylonia),
its ongoing use, the continuous presence of temple officials who operated this
system, and the actual knowledge about it during the reign of Josiah are sufficient
as a source for the unique description and expressions used by Dtr.
Moreover, the chest was known to Dtr1 and his readers in Jerusalem at the
end of the First Temple Period. All the people who came to Jerusalem regularly
knew this chest, as well as its function, where it was kept, who the officials were
who collected the silver, and the procedure for counting, smelting, and reusing
the silver for ongoing repairs at the temple. A similar distinctive “collection box”
is described in Babylonian and Assyrian documents (see Hurowitz 1986), which
note its prominence, easily visible to people who came to the temple, and that
fiscal procedures ascribed to the remote past were connected with it. Another
reason that the Josianic Dtr emphasizes Jehoash’s role and links Jehoash with
Josiah is that Jehoash was the king in whose time the collections-for-renovation
system was first put in place; because of this system, eventually the Book of the
Law was discovered. This way of describing the events served two purposes:
(1) this was the history that Dtr1 and all his readers knew, and it was supported
by administrative and fiscal precedent; and (2) it created historiographical sup-
port for his description of Josiah’s reform.
Historiographical support is also the reason that a few expressions are
unique to 2 Kings 12 and 22. Some of these unique expressions are found only in
2 Kings 12 and do not appear elsewhere, even in Ch. 22 (‫֣רוֹן‬ in the sense of ‘cash
box’ or ‘collection box’; see Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 138); some appear in a differ-
ent, more-common phrase in chap. 22 (‫וּ‬ ‫ר‬ in 12:11[10] as compared with
‫ם‬ in 22:4; and the unique use of the verb ‫הוּ‬‫י‬‫יּוֹ‬ in 12:12[11] in the sense of
‘paying’, as opposed to the more common use of the verb ‫וּ‬ in 22:5; see Cogan

18 For alternative views about the location of this chest, see above, n. 10. On parallel uses of a
donation box of this sort (Babylonian quppu or arannu) in Babylonian temples for collecting
contributions for the maintenance of the temple, see Oppenheim 1947: 117–118; Hurowitz 1986:
291–293.
 On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books 535

and Tadmor 1988: 139); and some appear exclusively in these two passages
(‫ף‬ ‫י‬ ‫ים‬ see Jer 52:24; see Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 138 with further
literature).19

Why the Book of the Law Was Not Discovered

during the Temple Repairs Conducted by King Jehoash

Dtr1 was responsible for the two descriptions of the temple repairs, under Jehoash
and under Josiah. According to Dtr1, both kings gave the same orders, and the
same system was operational during both reigns (Naʾaman 1998a: 339). The way
he wrote his descriptions of the repairs suggests that he was aware of a problem
they created. Readers were bound to ask why the Book of the Law was not found
during the temple renovations under Jehoash. Dtr1 therefore ensured that the
answer to this problem was embedded in the texts, by making a clear distinction
between the two periods.
The focus of the description of Jehoash’s reign is the creation of the system,
the formation of new procedures, and nothing more. This passage deals only with
the fiscal system: how to collect the silver, how to weigh it, how to deliver it to
the officials and then to the craftsmen. Significantly, it goes no further, especially
not to actual temple repairs. This narrow portrayal suited Dtr1’s literary and ideo-
logical objectives but conflicted with the historical reality of Jehoash’s days, which
probably entailed a building and renovation project launched by the king as the
new fiscal system was being established (or perhaps, after the new fiscal system
was established).
Grammatical and linguistic considerations support this understanding. There
is a clear contrast between the description of the actions taken by Jehoiada (2 Kgs
12:10a[9a], “then Jehoiada the priest took a chest, bored a hole in the lid, and set
it beside the altar on the right side as one entered the house of Yhwh”) and the
list of verbs in infinitive-construct form that immediately follow (vv. 10b–11[9b–
10], “and the priests who were keepers of the threshold would put all the silver
in it that was brought into the house of Yhwh. Whenever they saw that there was
a great deal of silver in the chest, the king’s scribe and the high priest would
come up and count the silver found in the house of Yhwh and would tie it up in
bags”). One describes only the formation of the new system, and the other de-
scribes repeated or customary action (Long 1991: 159; Nelson 1991: 145; Dutcher-

19 On the unique expressions in 12:5–9 and in the parallel verses in chap. 22, see also Long 1991:
162; Naʾaman 1998a: 339 (with further literature).
536 Part F: Biblical Studies

Walls 1996: 56). This contrast was Dtr1’s principal literary device for linking the
reigns of Jehoash and Josiah, while stressing that no actual restoration had been
done under Jehoash. There is only a description of the system; we are told nothing
about actual repairs carried out in the temple. The passage tells us only how the
system was meant to work and did work from that time on.
The historical sequence that arises from the narrative is as follows: the chest
was installed in the temple in the 23rd year of Jehoash, and the system of collect-
ing silver for temple repairs was established. Nothing more was done at that time.
During the reign of Josiah, the system was widely known, and the association
with the reign of Jehoash was clear. Dtr1 needed only to refer briefly to the fiscal
aspect of the system to provide a context for Josiah’s orders, and then he could
focus on the resulting event. This was the background for the finding of the book.
The fact that there was a gap in time of nearly 200 years between the forma-
tion of the system and its actual implementation during the reign of Josiah was
not relevant. This was Dtr1’s literary and historiographical device, as we all know.
It enabled him to focus on one year or even one event or issue (a sin, or its
opposite, a cultic reform) out of the many other events that must have occurred
in the intervening years. In some cases, Dtr simply ignored events that were not
compatible with his religious and national ideology or with his historiographical
purposes.
To stress the fact that nothing was done in the temple in Joash’s reign except
to create a fiscal system, Dtr1 used another established literary technique, which
was to create a suggestive juxtaposition. Thus, he interpolated the military cam-
paign of Hazael, king of Aram, into the very year in which Jehoash initiated the
new system to pay for repairs in the temple. Hazael “fought against Gath, and
took it … set his face to go up against Jerusalem” (2 Kgs 12:18[17]). Rabinowitz
(1984: 62; in contrast, Long 1991: 159) concluded that the editorial conjunction ‫ז‬
was meant to link the collection of the silver for the temple repairs with the fact
that “Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, Jeho-
ram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, as well as his own
hallowed things and all the gold found in the treasuries of the house of Yhwh
and in the king’s house and sent (them) to Hazael, king of Aram. Then he with-
drew from Jerusalem” (2 Kgs 12:19[18]). Although Dtr did not mention the silver
that was collected for the temple repair as being part of the payment to Hazael,
by combining the two stories and assigning them to the same year he established
that in Jehoash’s time no actual work was done besides creating a system for
collecting silver. This is another reason why the Book of the Law was not found
at that time.
 On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books 537

Summary

The hypothesis of this essay is that Dtr1 knew about the administrative, fiscal
system of collecting silver for the temple repairs, not from a written source but
from the presence of the commonly known chest that stood in the temple beside
the altar. The presence and the importance of the chest, its permanence, and the
existence of temple officials responsible for its use were common knowledge
during Josiah’s reign and were the source of Dtr1’s description of the events dur-
ing Jehoash’s reign. Dtr1 used the contemporary practice of his day to project into
the past, probably because tradition connected this chest and its finances with
the reign of Jehoash. It also appears that Dtr knew no additional details.
For historiographical reasons, Dtr1 needed to ascribe the chest to Jehoash, so
that he could use the story as a point of departure for the finding of the book
and the ensuing cultic reform. This is another reason that the tradition of the
origins of the system is probably reliable. I find it hard to believe that Dtr1 would
have dared to base his story on anything but a well-known, familiar fact. In any
case, his aim was not to describe temple repairs; indeed, there is no explicit
reference anywhere in the book of Kings to actual repairs or renovations in the
temple. The subject does not seem to have interested Dtr1 except as a literary
hook to the story of the finding of the book and the ensuing cultic reform. For
this reason, the timing of the book’s discovery was after the royal commands and
early preparations but before any work in the temple actually began.
The final point of this essay is that Dtr1 was the one who created the link
between the commands and preparations of Jehoash and Josiah prior to begin-
ning any actual temple repairs. Apparently, however, he was concerned that this
close connection between the two descriptions would prompt the audience to
question how it was possible that the Book of the Law was not found under
Jehoash. He therefore incorporated the answer by means of grammatical, linguis-
tic, historical, and literary subtleties.
“Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …”
(II Kings 24:6) – Did He?
Introduction

The variety of reports about the circumstances of the death and burial of Jehoia-
kim, along with the striking contradictions that exist among them, has no parallel
in the history of Judah. According to 2 Kgs 24:5–6, the king died peacefully and
“slept with his fathers …”. A similar description appears in the LXX version of the
parallel account in 2 Chr 36:8. There a comment is added, “he was buried in the
garden of ʿUzza”.1 The Luc. version of 2 Chr 36:8 seems to carry the same meaning
but expands yet further, adding that Jehoiakim was buried “with his fathers …”.
The MT 2 Chr 36:8 does not contain any of these comments about Jehoiakim’s
death and burial place. Moreover, the impression from MT 2 Chr 36:6 is that the
king met an entirely different fate. He did not die in Jerusalem at all but was
exiled from it (“… and he [Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in fetters to carry him
to Babylon”).2
In contrast to all these traditions, Jeremiah prophesies (22:18–19) that no one
will lament for the king, and that “with the burial of an ass he shall be buried,
dragged and dumped beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (cf. 36:30). Josephus in
Ant. X, 97 advances an echo of Jeremiah’s prophecy, along with an attempt to
reconcile it with a description of the Babylonian siege in 2 Kings. According to
this text, the Babylonians put Jehoiakim to death, and his body was cast in front
of the walls of Jerusalem, with no burial.
The existence of multiple and contradictory reports about Jehoiakim’s death
and burial place has led to a considerable scholarly controversy on the matter of
how to reconstruct the historical circumstances surrounding his death and burial.
This situation is actually exacerbated by the description of the Babylonian cam-
paign and the precise chronological data about this period in the Babylonian chron-
icles, despite the fact that they allow us to reconstruct the chronology of the cam-
paign to suppress Jehoiakim’s revolt, define quite precisely the time of his death,
and raise various hypotheses regarding the circumstances that led up to it.

1 The place is mentioned as the burial place of kings Manasseh and Amon in 2 Kgs 21:18, 26,
respectively). On the identification of this place, see the comprehensive discussion in Barkay
1977: 75–92.
2 The absence of any comment about Jehoiakim’s death and burial in the MT version makes the
impression that the king died in exile, while according to the LXX version one can understand
that he was held in Babylon awhile and then released and permitted to reign again in Jerusalem.
See: Curtis and Madsen 1910: 520–521.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-029
540 Part F: Biblical Studies

The purpose of this article is to reconstruct the historical circumstances perti-

nent to the end of Jehoiakim’s rule. To that goal, I will analyze the various descrip-
tions of the king’s death. This analysis leads to the conclusion that he died a
natural death even before the Babylonian army reached Jerusalem and that he
was buried in his forefathers’ burial tomb. Moreover, I will contend that the
omission of any reference to his place of burial in the book of Kings was deliber-
ate and stemmed from the author’s historiographic distress that resulted from
the curses against the king that Jeremiah uttered prior to Jehoiakim’s death. Later
writers were forced to cope with the absence of a description of the king’s burial
and tried to explain it in various ways, according to their own conceptual atti-
tudes and historical worldviews.

Eleven Years of Jehoiakim’s Rule: Historical Background

Jehoiakim was appointed king by Necho II, King of Egypt, upon the latter’s return
from the battle in Haran, three months after he had killed Josiah at Megiddo
(August/September 609 BCE).3 Necho’s action rendered null and void the rule of
the younger brother Shallum/Jehoahaz,4 who was anointed king after the death
of their father Josiah (2 Kgs 23:30).5 Nothing is known of events in Judah during
the first four years of Jehoiakim’s rule. During these years the Egyptians firmly
established their rule over Syria and Palestine, in preparation for the decisive
struggle with the Babylonians over control of the Euphrates region. The proximity
of the Kingdom of Judah to Egypt and the latter’s control of the entire region did
not allow the tiny kingdom any leeway for either political or military maneuver-
ing. One may assume that Jehoiakim had no choice, but to remain loyal to Egypt.6

3 The short Biblical description of the three months of Jehoahaz’ rule and the appointment of
Jehoiakim by the Egyptians corresponds with the information in the Babylonian Chronicle from
the year 17 of Nabopolassar (B.M. 21901, Rev. l. 66–75). According to this source, the Egyptian
army fought alongside the Assyrians over the city of Haran in Tammuz 609 BCE. The war ended
after three months (Elul 609 BCE) without results, and when the Babylonians arrived to assist
the city, the Assyrians and Egyptians retreated. See: Wiseman 1956: 19–20, 62–63; Grayson 1975:
19, 96, 140–141.
4 Cf. 2 Kgs. 23:31 to verse 36 and to 1 Chr 3:15, and see the suggestions made by Albright 1932:
92; Malamat 1950: 220; 1968: 140–141; Liver 1959: 6–7; Rudolph 1955:28; Miller and Hayes 1986:
402; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 305; Seitz 1989: 72–73, 87, n. 95; Ahlström 1993: 767.
5 See on this subject: Liver 1959: 51–53; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 291, and compare: 2 Sam. 5:3,
17; 12:7; 19:11; 1 Kgs. 1:4, 39, 45; 5:15; 19:15,16; 2 Kgs 9:3, 6, 12.
6 For a reconstruction of the historical proceedings of this period, see Lipschits 1999c: 467–487,
with further literature.
 “Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He? 541

The great upheaval of 605 BCE had an impact on Judah.7 The armies of Nebu-
chadrezzar defeated the Egyptian legions at Carchemish and broke through into
Syria. Egypt’s rule over other territories in Syria and Palestine was challenged. One
must assume, however, that the actual subjugation of Judah to Babylon took place
during the Babylonian campaign into Syria and Palestine (‘Ḫattu-Land’ in the Baby-
lonian chronicles) in the second half of 604 BCE, after five years of Jehoiakim’s
reign as an Egyptian vassal (Wiseman 1956: 28; 1985: 23; Miller and Hayes 1986:406;
Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 308; Ahlström 1993: 781; Lipschits 1999c: 467–469).8
Nebuchadrezzar’s policy was to maintain the geopolitical arrangements that
he found before him when he conquered the area.9 He allowed Jehoiakim to
remain as king of Judah, even though King Necho II of Egypt had appointed him.
This measure reflected the premise that a king who had accepted the Egyptian
yoke was probably clever enough to accept the Babylonian yoke too. It is conceiv-
able that the Babylonians hoped that these actions would preserve the stability
of the region. Moreover, they could have anticipated that the kings whose rule
they confirmed would feel gratitude towards the Babylonian king, and that such
gratitude would lead to loyalty towards the new sovereign.
The rapid takeover of Ḫattu-Land by the Babylonians, and the Egyptian re-
treat from the region, left the small kingdoms along the coast and the interior
regions with no room for maneuvering. One may assume that the first three
years of Babylonian rule were quiet. Although there is no information about
events in Judah during that time, it seems that Jehoiakim remained loyal to Nebu-
chadrezzar (“and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years…” see 2 Kgs 24:1)
(Lipschits 1999a: 115–116; 1999c: 469–470). Only the failure of the Babylonian inva-
sion into Egypt in the month of Kislev (November/December 601 BCE),10 under-

7 Jeremiah’s prophecy (46:1–12) dated to that year expresses the strong impression made by the
Egyptian defeat of Babylon. For a general discussion and different opinions as to the sources of
the prophecy and its time, see Holladay 1989: 312–313. For a discussion on the time of the prophe-
cy and its historical background, see ibid: 316–318, with further literature.
8 Worschech’s attempt (1987: 57–63), and see also Hyatt’s opinion (1956b: 280), to predate the
subjugation of Judah to 605 BCE should not be accepted. This opinion is based on an inconclusive
agreement between later accounts, whose reliability is doubtful and does not comply with the
historical reconstruction of events that took place in this period of time. The scholars’ attempt
to date the subjugation later to 603 BCE is not sufficiently substantiated. This suggestion was
supported by Pavlovsky and Vogt (1964: 345–346); Oded (1966: 103–104); and Malamat (1968: 141–
142). For a critique of this, see Naʾaman 1992b: 41–43.
9 On Nebuchadrezzar’s policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land.’, see Lipschits 1999a: 115–123; 1999c: 468–473.
10 One can suppose that Nebuchadrezzar’s army suffered a sharp defeat in a face-to-face battle
conducted against the army of Necho II army, and retreated to Babylon. A brief description of
this battle is given in Chronicle B.M. 21946 Rev. l. 7, and see: Wiseman 1956: 28, 70–71; Grayson
1975: 20, 101.
542 Part F: Biblical Studies

mined the Babylonian control of the area. At that time, Necho II had an opportu-
nity to renew his influence on the region. Against this background, one may
understand the brief report about Jehoiakim’s rebellion against Nebuchadrezzar
in 2 Kgs 24:1 (“Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and
rebelled against him”). It is hard to imagine that Jehoikaim’s revolt have taken
place without the support of Egypt. Moreover, although we have no information
about the historical circumstances of the period, it is clear that if Egypt did return
to a position of influence in the region, then Jehoiakim, most likely, had no choice,
but to offer his loyalty to his former master.11
Only after three more years, in the month of Kislev (between mid-December
598 and mid-January 597 BCE) Nebuchadrezzar set out to re-establish his rule in
the Ḫattu-Land.12 The conquest of ‘the city of Judah’ (i.e., Jerusalem) stood at
the center of this Babylonian campaign. According to the Babylonian chronicle,
Jerusalem surrendered to the Babylonians on the 2nd of Adar (March 16th/17th,
597 BCE).13 At that time, the three-month reign by Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim
came to an end.14 The young king went into exile, and Nebuchadrezzar appointed
in Jerusalem a new king “of his own choice (lit. – heart),” namely, Zedekiah.15
Nebuchadrezzar also levied a heavy tax on the city and returned to Babylon.16

11 This historical situation was understood well by Josephus (Antiq. X, 88).

12 See the description in Chronicle B.M 21946, Rev. l. 11 (Wiseman 1956: 32–33, 72–73; Grayson
1975: 20, 102).
13 See the description in Chronicle B.M 21946, Rev. l. 12 (Wiseman 1956: 33–35, 72–73; Grayson
1975: 20, 102). The mention of the date when Jerusalem was conquered attests to the importance
the event had for the writers of the Babylonian Chronicle (Wiseman 1991: 232).
14 The name of the Judean king who surrendered to Nebuchadrezzar is not mentioned in the
Babylonian Chronicle (B.M. 21946, Rev. l. 13, and see Wiseman 1956: 33–35, 72–73; Grayson 1975:
20, 102) however, according to 2 Kgs 24:12, it was Jehoiachin, and he is also the one who was
taken into exile.
15 Cf. the Babylon Chronicle, B.M. 21946, Rev. l. 13, and see Wiseman 1956: 33–35; 72–73; Grayson
1975: 20, 102. The description in the Babylonian Chronicle corresponds to the description in 2 Kgs
24:17, according to which “And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his uncle king in his place,
and he changed his name to Zedekiah.”. This comment is parallel in language and content to 23:34,
where the coronation of Eliakim by the Egyptians is described and the changing of his name to
Jehoiakim. This parallel is not coincidental, as will be discussed in following. The author of the
Book of Kings wishes to use it to connect the two events, just as he linked the exile of Jehoahaz to
Egypt with the exile of Jehoiachin to Babylon. In this way he also creates a cross reference where
both kings who were crowned in Judah without the approval of the foreign rulers (Jehoahaz and
Jehoiachin) were taken into exile after a three-month reign, and the two kings who were appointed
in their place by the foreign rulers (Jehoiakim and Zedekiah) ruled for eleven years, rebelled against
the sovereign ruler, and brought about the greatest catastrophes in the history of Judah: Jehoiakim
brought about the exile of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah brought about the destruction of the Temple.
16 Compare the Babylonian Chronicles, B.M. 21946, Rev. l. 13, and see Wiseman 1956: 33–35, 72–
73; Grayson 1975: 20, 102.
 “Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He? 543

The Babylonian chronicle shows that from the beginning of the Babylonian
campaign, at some stage in the month of Kislev, until the city surrendered on the
2nd of Adar, three months at most had passed. In light of this information, one
may assume that the Babylonian campaign was initially intended to suppress the
revolt by Jehoiakim. If we accept the chronological delineation of the three
months of Jehoiachin’s rule,17 then Jehoiakim was still alive when the Babylonians
planned their campaign and he died close to its beginning, or immediately after
the Babylonian force set out.18
The Hebrew Bible does not offer any clear-cut information about the circum-
stances leading to the death of Jehoiakim. It is hard to ignore, however, the chrono-
logical juxtaposition of events. One must remember that since the king of Judah
violated his vassal’s oath to Nebuchadrezzar, his death was one of the only resolu-
tions that could have brought about the salvation of Jerusalem.19 Against this back-
ground, one may wonder whether Jehoiakim’s death was due to natural causes,

17 The description in 2 Chr 36:9 should not be accepted whereby Jehoiachin ruled for three
months and ten days, as this is apparently a textual error (Green 1982: 105; Redford 1992: 459;
and literature in n. 140.) In light of this, the attempt by Thiele (1956: 22, 168, and see also Horn
1967: 15; Green 1982: 103) to set the date of Jehoiachin’s ascent to the throne on the 22nd of
Marheshvan (December 8th, 598 BCE) should not be accepted. It is also hard to accept the opinion
of Green (ibid: 106) whereby the first two days of the month of Adar, prior to the surrender of
Jerusalem, were considered the third month of Jehoiachin’s reign, which means that Jehoiakim
died during the month of Tevet. We do not have enough information to determine that the
beginning of the month was counted like the whole month in the kingdom of Judah. If Jehoiachin
did indeed ascend the throne immediately after the death of his father and reigned for three
months, it is preferable to assume that the meaning of this information is that Jehoiakim died
in the beginning of Kislev, and it is doubtful if one can date it more precisely.
18 On this subject, see: Wiseman 1956: 33. One should not accept the hypothesis whereby Nebu-
chadrezzar set out on his campaign after the death of Jehoiakim, with the aim of crowning a
king in Judah accountable to him (Noth 1958: 138: and see in contrast Wiseman 1985: 32). The
Babylonians would not have been able to deploy themselves for such an extended and complex
campaign within such a short period of several days, and it is doubtful whether the death of the
rebellious king would have provided an excuse for the foray by Nebuchadrezzar and his army
from Babylon. The chronological and historical reconstruction made by Seitz (1989: 118–119) are
also problematic, since they have no support in the text.
19 The conjecture by Albright (1932: 90–91) and Bright (1959: 327; 1965: xlix) whereby Jehoiakim
was murdered in order to save the city from destruction is based on this reasoning, although it is
speculative and has no basis in the historical facts, nor does this hypothesis contain any explana-
tion of why the author did not mention the matter of murder nor why he chose, of all things, to
omit the description of the burial. On this subject see also the discussion in following. Green (1982:
107–108) went one step further and raised the possibility that the murder had been committed
when the Babylonians besieged the city, and that the king’s body had been thrown over the city
walls. The difficulty with this theory is similar, and in addition – it offers no explanation for the
three months that Jehoiachin ruled before he surrendered and was sent into exile.
544 Part F: Biblical Studies

and its timing – just as the Babylonian army set out on its Jerusalem campaign –
was a mere coincidence, a testimony to historical fate. Or did those who understood
that his death was the only way that would allow Jerusalem to be spared destruc-
tion murder the king? Or, alternatively, did Jehoiakim take his own life? There is
no unequivocal answer to these questions but an analysis of the Biblical descrip-
tions shows that there is no evidence supporting the latter alternatives. Jehoiakim’s
death may have, and most likely, died of natural causes, as it will be shown below.

Biblical Descriptions of the Death of Jehoiakim

Do the curses of Jeremiah (22:18–19; 36:30) reflect historical reality?

Jer. 22:13–17 contains a report of the prophet’s sermon of exhortation for the
injustices practiced by Jehoiakim. Following this admonition, Jeremiah prophesiz-
es about the retribution that is to befall the king. Verses 18–19, with supplementa-
ry text based on the LXX version,20 read: “Therefore thus Yahweh has said of
Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah: [Woe to this man!] They shall not lament
for him, “Alas, my brother, and alas, my sister!” They shall not [burn spices] for
him, “Alas, lord, and alas [lady!] With the burial of an ass he shall be buried,
dragged and dumped beyond the gates of Jerusalem”. Similar words were said of
the king also in 36:30, namely, “therefore thus Yahweh has said concerning Jehoi-
akim king of Judah: He shall not have anyone sitting on the throne of David and
his corpse shall be thrown out to the heat by day and to the frost by night”. At
least the first part of the curse did not materialize, for Jehoiachin ascended the
throne upon the death of his father.21 The lack of fulfillment of these words proves
that they were uttered before the king’s death, and perhaps during the first five
years of Jehoiakim’s rule, even before the subjugation to Babylon.22 They certainly

20 Following the LXX version, many scholars add at the beginning of the prophecy: “Woe to this
man!” and correct the repetition of the ‘lament’ to “burn” (compare to MT version and the LXX
version in 34:5). See: Dahood 1961: 462–464; Bright 1965: 137–138; Rudolph 1968: 86; Thompson
1980: 477, 480; McKane 1986: 532–533; Holladay 1986: 592, 597–598, and ibid. additional sugges-
tions for emendation and a bibliography. Cf. also to the abridged version of the eulogy on the
man of God in 1 Kgs 13:30.
21 Perhaps that is the reason that a parallel prophecy was pronounced also about Jehoiachin
(Jer. 22:30).
22 This point was summarized well by Holladay (1986: 594; 1989: 254), but in contrast to this
opinion there are scholars that dates these curses much later, and see, e.g., Carroll 1986: 265–
266. On this subject see also Wessels 1989: 232–249. The prophecy cannot be connected to the
revolt by Jehoiakim, which took place after the failure of the Babylonian invasion of Egypt
(countering Seitz 1989: 117; Ahlström 1993: 790–791).
 “Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He? 545

do not reflect the events as they actually occurred.23 The prophet was not describ-
ing an actual reality that he personally witnessed, but was cursing the king and
prophesying the punishment that is destined to befall him.
Jeremiah’s words and the language of his curses correspond to those in the
Deuteronomic law, namely those who do not heed the word of God “to obey to
all of his commandments and statutes” (Deut. 28:15) are cursed with “your dead
body shall be food for all of the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and
there shall be no one to frighten them away” (verse 26). Threats of this kind are
quite common in Deuteronomistic historiography,24 in the prophetic literature,25
and in Psalms.26 There is, however, a close connection between the words of
Jeremiah and the punishment as defined by the Deuteronomic law.27 The curse
against Jehoiakim also corresponds to well-known images in Neo-Assyrian litera-
ture of the ultimate fate of rebels and treaty violators.28

What were the circumstances of Jehoiakim’s death according to 2 Kgs 24:6?

Does the absence of a description of his burial reflect the historical reality?

The description of the last years of the kingdom of Judah in 2 Kgs 23:26–25:21
expresses the idea that the process of deterioration that led to the destruction of
the kingdom accelerated since the death of Josiah. Because the composition of
this work was written ex post facto, and with knowledge of the outcome of events,
a worldview was shaped in which the die had already been cast in the time of
Manasseh and even the righteous king Josiah was unable to change the fate of
the kingdom.29

23 It is hard to accept a historical reconstruction that was made only on the basis of this prophe-
cy by Jeremiah (Albright 1942: 50; Weiser 1969: 191; Green 1982: 108). It is no less difficult to
accept the attempt by Malamat (1950: 221; 1968: 141) to combine the prophecy by Jeremiah and
the LXX vers. and the Luc. vers. with 2 Chr 36:8, and to reconstruct a burial that took place
under harsh siege conditions in the garden of ʿUzza outside the walls of Jerusalem. On this
subject, see the critique by Seitz 1989: 114.
24 1 Sam 17:44, 46; 1 Kgs. 14:11; 16:4; 21:24; 2 Kgs. 9:10, 36. Cf. also to 2 Sam 21:10.
25 This appears mainly in the words of Jeremiah (7:33; 8:2; 9:21; 14:16; 16:4, 6; 19:7; 22:19; 25:33;
34:20; 36:30, and cf. also to 15:3) with a faint allusion in Is. 5:25 and with a detailed image in
Ezek 39:17–20.
26 Ps. 79:2–3; 83:13.
27 On this, see Hillers 1964: 69.
28 On this subject see: Hillers 1964: 68–69; Cogan 1971: 29–34; Oded 1992: 93. For the modern-
day parallel see Joüon 1937: 335–336. Cf. to the prophecy of Ezekiel (17: 16–18, 19–20) on the fate
of Zedekiah after he violated his treaty with Nebuchadrezzar.
29 Blaming Manasseh for the destruction is one of the central salient characteristics of the Dtr2
and may also be compared with the explicit blame directed at Manasseh in Jer. 15:4 (Smelik 1992:
546 Part F: Biblical Studies

According to the viewpoint of the author of the book of Kings, the last four
kings of Judah were wrongdoers. All of them are given negative evaluation in the
introductory formulas of their respective reigns (2 Kgs 23:32, 37; 24:9, 19). Nonethe-
less, there is no doubt that to the author, Jehoiakim was the worst offender of all
these kings. He was the link that connected the sins of Manasseh, i.e., the reason
for God’s decision to put an end to the kingdom of Judah – and the destruction
that took place at the end of the days of Zedekiah. The author created the textual
link by adding theological explanatory notes that connected the sins of Manasseh
(21:1–9) with the decision of God to destroy Judah (verses 10–16), and with the
sins of Jehoiakim (24:2–4).30 In addition, a second theological explanatory com-
ment that associated the sins of Jehoiakim with the revolt of Zedekiah, which
was the last step on the path to the destruction,31 was added in 24:20.
The guilt of Manasseh and Jehoiakim and the desire to absolve Josiah of all
blame is also reflected in the introductory formulas of the last four kings of
Judah.32 In the introductory formula of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, collective blame
is directed at the kings of Judah who preceded them, rather than at their father
Josiah (.“and he did evil in the sight of Yahweh according to all that his fathers
had done,” see 2 Kgs 23:32, 37). In contrast, the blame in the introductory formula
of Jehoiachin is directed at Jehoiakim, his father (“and he did evil in the sight of
Yahweh according to all that his father had done,.” see 2 Kgs 24:9).33 This is even
more striking in the introductory formula of Zedekiah. Here Jehoiakim, his broth-
er, is accused directly (“and he did evil in the sight of Yahweh according to all
that Jehoiakim had done,” see 2 Kgs 24:19).34

166–168). For a summary discussion on the connection between the Dtr2 and 2 Kgs 17, see Lowery
1991: 172, and n. 1. On the connection to 21:8–16, see McKenzie 1984: 126–144. Van Keulen’s book
(1996) focuses on this idea.
30 This is not the place for a linguistic and conceptual discussion of the theological explanatory
comments on the sins of Jehoiakim, but except for an explicit mention of the sins of Manasseh
(24:3), the principal connection to the sins of Manasseh is the sending of the ‘bands’ (raiding
parties) against Jehoiakim, with the objective of “destroy them according to the word of Yahweh,
which he spoke through his servants the prophets” (24:2, and cf. to the title of the destruction
prophecy in 21:10) and in the reference to the sin “for the innocent blood which he shed and
filled Jerusalem with innocent blood.” (24:4 and cf. to 21:16). On the connection between 24: 2–4
and 21:10–16, see Cross 1973: 286; Nelson 1981a: 88; O’Brien 1989: 270; Van Keulen 1996: 183–189.
31 For an explanation of Zedekiah’s rebellion and God’s decision to destroy Judah, the author
inserted a short comment “for this came about because of the anger of Yahweh upon Jerusalem
and Judah, until he rid himself of them …” (24:20).
32 See Nelson (1981a: 36–41); Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991: 209–210), and contrast with Provan
(1988: 48–49).
33 This is the only standard formula in the description of the reign of the last four kings of
Judah. See: Nelson 1981a: 39; Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 209.
34 This is the only time that the king’s brother is mentioned in the introductory formula of one
of the kings of Judah.
 “Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He? 547

Jeremiah also came out against the sins of Jehoiakim (22:13–17). He blamed
the king and stated: “But you eyes and a mind for nothing but gain, for shedding
innocent blood, for oppression and the cruel misuse of power” (v. 17). Never-
theless, it seems that the major problem confronting the author of the Book of
Kings was that Jehoiakim was the only king of all the last four kings of Judah
who did not meet his punishment at the hands of a foreign king through exile
and death on foreign soil.35
In historiographic terms, the author solved this problem through his report
of the attack of the ‘bands.’ against Jehoiakim. This attack was an attempt to
suppress the rebellion, before the arrival of the main Babylonian forces headed
by Nebuchadrezzar. One may then assume that even before the arrival of the
main Babylonian forces, auxiliary forces were sent against Judah. According to
2 Kgs 24:2 these forces included bands of Chaldeans,36 Aramaeans,37 Moabites and
Ammonites.38 These auxiliary forces compelled some of the residents of Judah to
flee from the border areas to Jerusalem.39 Only at a later stage did the main
Babylonian army arrive, as stated “and Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came
against the city when his officers were besieging it.” (2 Kgs 24:11).

35 Jehoahaz was exiled to Egypt and apparently died there (2 Kgs 23:33–34; Jer. 22: 10–12); Jehoia-
chin was exiled to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:11–12, 15–16), and lived there many years (2 Kgs 25:27), but
never returned to Judah; Zedekiah was punished by the Babylonians in the harshest way; after
his sons were murdered before his eyes, his eyes were plucked out and he was exiled to Babylon
(2 Kgs 25: 6–7).
36 On the appearance of the name in the Bible and Mesopotamian sources, see Cogan and
Tadmor 1988: 306, with further bibliography.
37 In some versions, the names appear as ‘Edom’ rather than ‘Aram’. This would seemingly
complete the mention of all the Trans–Jordan kingdoms. Although some of the scholars prefer
to accept the correction (Stade, Closterman, Benziger, etc. and see also: Burney 1903b: 365; Mont-
gomery 1951: 554), the parallel combination of the army of the Chaldeans and the army of Aram
in Jer. 35:11, in the prophecy that is connected with the days of the suppression of Jehoiakim’s
rebellion, reinforces specifically the Massoretic Text. Aramaic tribes dwelled close to Babylon
and therefore it is no wonder that the armies of Aram fought together with the Babylonian
army. A similar reference to the forces of Chaldeans and Arameans is found in Assyrian texts.
On this subject see: Montgomery 1951: 552 (although in my opinion his historical reconstruction
should not be accepted); Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 306.
38 Cf. to Jer. 35:1, 11. One should be very doubtful about the premise that the words of Zefaniah
(2: 8–11) were spoken during this period. On the complex composition of this section and alterna-
tive dates for the time of its parts, see Vlaardingerbroek 1999: 142–145, and for a detailed analysis
of these verses, see Ben Zvi 1991: 164–176.
39 This is the background of the prophecy of Jeremiah 35, according to whose title was said in
the days of Jehoiakim. The prophecy and the story (esp. v. 11) correspond well, both linguistically
and in terms of the historical background to the description in 2 Kgs 24:2.
548 Part F: Biblical Studies

The story, however, portrays the actions if the ‘bands.’ not as the prelude to
the conquest of Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiachin, but as Jehoiakim’s punish-
ment and as that which led him to his death.40 For that reason the report in
Kings claims that Yahweh is the one who sent the bands against Jehoiakim (“And
Yahweh sent against him…”).41 Moreover, these bands were sent to Judah with
the aim of “destroy them.” (24:2). Verses of theological explanation (vv. 2–4) were
added to the basic account of this punishment. They connected the punishment,
linguistically and conceptually, to the divine judgement against Judah that is pre-
sented as a consequence of the sins of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:11–16), and the contin-
ued wrath of the LORD (23: 26–27). These verses lead directly to the description
of Jehoiakim’s death.42 Thus, the death of Jehoiakim is presented as a result of
divine retribution.
This characterization of his death reinforces the assumption that Jehoiakim
did indeed die in Jerusalem, and from the author’s viewpoint, a ‘natural’ death.
For one may assume that if he had information on other, special historical circum-
stances that attended the king’s death, it would have been described here as
conclusive evidence of his sins and the punishment that befell him.
Moreover, the author’s awareness of the place and circumstances of Jehoiak-
im’s death explains why the description of the years of his reign ends with the
same standard closing formula, like most of the Judean kings, and unlike the
other three among the four last kings of Judah. Nonetheless, despite the uniform
nature of most parts of the formula in Jehoiakim’s case,43 there is a conspicuous

40 The invasion of the ‘bands’ is described again together with the ascent of Nebuchadrezzar
(24:10–11) after the closing formulaic of Jehoiakim (verses 5–6), a comment on the changed
geopolitical situation in the region (verse 7), and the introductory formula of Jehoiachin (8–9).
In light of this, it seems that one must draw a parallel between the invasion of the bands
according to the description in 24:2 and the invasion of the servants of Nebuchadrezzar and the
beginning of the siege of Jerusalem according to the description in verse 10, before the arrival
of Nebuchadrezzar in the city, when ‘his officers were besieging it’ (verse 11). On this subject see
also Van Keulen (1996: 186).
41 Based on the LXX vers. Gray (1964: 757) and Würthwein (1977: 468, n. 2) contended that the word
‘God.’ was added in verse 2 and that the subject of the verse is Nebuchadrezzar, continuing verse 1.
Beyond the linguistic problematics with this assertion (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 306), it ignores the
conceptual message of the text that connects it to 21: 10–16; see the discussion in Barthélemy (1982:
421–422) and also: Dietrich 1972: 60; O.’Brien 1989: 270, n. 144; Van Keulen 1996: 186–188.
42 See: Dietrich 1972: 22–26; Cross 1973: 286; Nelson 1981a: 88; O’Brien 1989: 270; Seitz 1989: 176;
Cortese 1990: 189; McKenzie 1991: 125–126; Van Keulen 1996: 148–149, 183–191. I am not relating
here to the disputes over the uniformity of the text. In my opinion verses 2–4 all belong to Dtr2,
however, this is not the place to argue against the opinion summarized in Van Keulen’s essay
(ibid.) whereby verse 4 is a later addition.
43 The first part in the closing formula “And as for the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim and all that
he did.” (24:5a) is standard, and is similarly to most of the closing formulas in the book of Kings
 “Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He? 549

change in the fourth part of it, i.e., at the point in which the king’s death is
reported 44 along with his burial in a definite site, usually with his fathers.45 The
usual formula is only partially cited. His death is reported (“and Jehoiakim slept
with his fathers”, 2 Kgs 24:6a), but any reference to the burial or the site of his
grave is omitted. There are also no additional comments about any events that
may have been associated with his death.46 These facts reinforces the position
that, from the author’s point of view and insofar as he knew the circumstances

(cf. e.g., to the formula of Amon in 21:25–26 and that of Josiah in 23:28–30). There is no such
additions as in the closing formulas of Hezekiah (20:20–21) and Manasseh (21:17–18). The second
part of the formula – “are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.”
(24:5b) is also standard, and this book is mentioned for the last time in the Book of Kings (Nelson
1981a: 85–86, and further literature in n. 151; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 307, with further litera-
ture). The third part of the formula is missing, and it is not unusual, for similar to a large part
of the closing formulas, the author chose not to add details here about the last fate of the king
(cf. e.g., to the extensive description of the circumstances of Joaiah’s death (23: 29–30a) at this
part specifically). The fifth part (.“And Jehoiachin his son became king in his place.” verse 24:6b),
is also standard, except for the comments in 2 Kgs 1:18, 10:36, which were brought together at
this point for editing reasons, and except for the comment added in the closing formula on
Josiah (23: 30b), which is testimony to the great importance that the author assigned to the
circumstances of Jehoahaz’ ascent to the throne.
44 On the expression “And he slept with his fathers.” see the comprehensive discussion of Al-
frink 1943: 106–118. On the significance of this expression, see also Tromp 1969: 168–171.
45 The burial of the kings is almost always mentioned in the closing formula. In the case of
kings who were murdered and not brought to burial, the fourth part of the formula is totally
missing, and in the case of the murder of sons of the king and the end of the dynasty, the fifth
section is also missing. Almost in every case of the murder of a king of Israel, there is some
treatment of the circumstance of their death. Cf. e.g., the fate of the following kings and the
closing formula on them: Nadab (1 Kgs 15: 31–32;) Elah (16:14), Zimri (16:20), Zechariah (2 Kgs 15:
11–12); Shallum (15:15); Pekahiah (15: 26); Pekah (15: 31). Exceptional in this context is the closing
formula on Ahaziah, and apparently the omission of a description of the death and burial in the
closing formula (2 Kgs 1:18) is connected to Elijah’s prophecy “From the bed upon which you
have gone up you shall not come down, but you shall certainly die” (verses 4, 16). Because of
the exiling of Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah it is clear why the description was omitted
regarding their death and burial; however, one must note that the closest parallel to the closing
formula of Jehoiakim is that of Hezekiah, of whom no description of burial is given either.
46 As mentioned previously and to be discussed in following, a partial description appears in
the LXX vers. to 2 Chr 36:8, and the complete formula appears in the Luc. version on this verse.
In this light one can understand why scholars raised the possibility that the description of the
burial in 2 Kgs was omitted as a result of homoioteleuton or even purposely deleted under the
influence of Jeremiah’s words (22: 19) (Stade, Wolhausen, Benziger, and see in Burney 1903b: 365;
Nelson 1981a: 86; and literature in n. 152, p. 144). However, it seems that the LXX vers. here is
secondary, and certainly one may not rely on the Luc. version (Montgomery 1951: 553; Cogan
and Tadmor 1988: 307). On this subject, see also the suggestion by Seitz (1989: 116–120), and also
see the discussion below.
550 Part F: Biblical Studies

of Jehoiakim’s death, the king died a natural death, which was not associated
with any unusual circumstances.47 One may assume that if his death had not
been of natural causes – that is, if he had met a fate similar to those of his father
Josiah and his grandfather Amon. – then a report about the circumstances of his
death would have been included in the closing formula of the account of his
reign in Kings.48
There is no explanation, however, for the lack of reference to his burial and
his gravesite in the closing formula. The omission may be a reflection of the
historical reality and relate it to the events that were taking place in the Jerusa-
lem area at that time, when various bands of mercenaries were preparing the
way for the onslaught of the Babylonian army.49 However, even if we accept this
explanation, it is still unclear why the reference to the burial is missing from the
account, and particularly so since such a reference could have served the theo-
logical inclinations of the author towards Jehoiakim, by demonstrating the fulfill-
ment of Jeremiah’s prophecy and highlighting the punishment that the king in-
curred because of his sins.
Some scholars have explained the omission of the reference to the king’s
burial by maintaining that the details were unknown to the author when he
wrote of these events in Babylon, after being sent into exile with the exile of
Jehoiachin.50 This explanation seems forced and somewhat problematic. It is
doubtful whether methodologically it would be correct to explain gaps in infor-
mation and missing details in this case to the lack of sources available to the
author and his lack of knowledge. Even if we accept the premise that the book
was written by one of the exiles sent to Babylon with the exile of Jehoiachin, it
is still hard to accept his lack of knowledge of the matter. For these events oc-

47 O’Brien 1989: 201–202, and n. 95, as against the opinion of Seitz 1989: 109–110. The circumstan-
tial arguments raised by Seitz in supporting the theory of an unnatural death (the fact that
Jehoiakim was only 36 years old and the timing of his death three months before the city fell to
the Babylonians) could serve the author as cogent evidence of the punishment of Jehoiakim for
his sins. The fact that there is no treatment of any kind attests to the exact opposite, and to the
problem that the author had because Jehoiakim died peacefully in his own bed.
48 Cf. e.g., the closing formula on Amon (21:25–26) and on Josiah (23:28–30).
49 Montgomery (1951: 553) accepted the version of the description on 2 Kgs and conjecture that
because of the siege laid by Babylon, Jehoiakim could not have been given a proper burial
outside of the city walls. However, if this was indeed the case, then according to this theory it is
not clear why the author ignored the subject, especially considering the fact that it corresponded
to his theological evaluation of Jehoiakim and to Jeremiah’s curse.
50 This is claimed by Gray (1964: 753–754), after other scholars (see literature there). Seitz (1989:
117–118) also supported this solution and even expanded upon it and used it to explain additional
lacunae in the description of Jehoiakim’s revolt and the Babylonian siege that preceded the exile
of Jehoiachin.
 “Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He? 551

curred only a few months before the city surrendered to the Babylonians and
the people went into exile. The author should have had knowledge of, even from
what he had personally witnessed or heard.51
If the lack of reference is not the result of a copyist’s error or an omission,
it is preferable to explain it in terms of the historiographer’s aim. It is hard not
to draw a parallel between the omission of a description of Jehoiakim’s burial
and the author’s inclination to depict him as a sinner who is justly punished by
God, and to further connect these themes with Jeremiah’s grim prophecy, accord-
ing to which “with the burial of an ass he shall be buried, dragged and dumped
beyond the gates of Jerusalem.” (22:19, also cf. 36:30). This is the place where the
author could emphasize the punishment of the sinful king. He could not describe
it in his closing formula because insofar as he knew the details of the burial, it
simply was not so. However, omitting a description of the burial from the formu-
laic ending leaves a gaping vacuum in the description, which the readers could
not ignore or avoid connecting with the words of Jeremiah. Furthermore, it would
seem that from the author’s viewpoint he could not have acted differently, for if
he had described Jehoiakim’s burial and thus contradicted Jeremiah’s curse, he
would also have had to explain why the prophecy was not fulfilled.

The Sources for the Reference to Jehoiakim’s Exile

(2 Chr 36:6), and to His Burial in the Garden of ʿUzza
(LXX version of 2 Chr 36:8)

According to the description in 2 Chr 36:6–7, Nebuchadrezzar exiled Jehoiakim.

The text states: “[Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon.
And Nebuchadrezzar carried some of the vessels of the house of the LORD to
Babylon…”.52 Various scholars have claimed that this account provides reliable
historical information that supplements the information in 2 Kings 24.53 They

51 I find unacceptable the attempt by Seitz (1989: 117–118) to solve the problem by historical
speculations about the various reasons why the author did not have knowledge of what fate the
king met. The burial of a king is an event of great importance, especially if it carried out at the
height of a siege, and when the death of the king brought about the surrender of his heir and
the rescue of the city from destruction.
52 See the comparison made by Willi (1972: 106. n. 118; 212, n. 29) between this description and
that in 2 Chr 33:11, and his contention that the source of both descriptions is in 2 Kgs 25:7. On
this see also Green 1987: 82–83.
53 See: Baumgartner 1926: 51–55; Yeivin 1948: 30–48; Green 1982: 108; Mercer 1989: 179–192; For
additional literature, see Japhet 1977: 311, n. 355; and see also the various reconstructions present-
ed by Seitz (1989: 106). In contrast, see Begg (1987: 82–83) and the arguments made by Japhet
552 Part F: Biblical Studies

found such corroboration for their position in Dan. 1:1–2. The text there states:
.“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadrezzar came
to Jerusalem and besieged it. And Yahweh gave Jehoiakim the king of Judah into
his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God…”
It seems, however, that the description in the book of Daniel relies on that in
2 Chronicles. Moreover, the date reported in Daniel does not correspond to the
well-grounded historical reconstruction of the days of Jehoiakim. One may as-
sume it was taken from 2 Kgs 24:1, and certainly it cannot be used as the basis
for any historical reconstruction.54
The description in Chronicles is brief, slightly contradicting the information
available from the other biblical sources. It should be treated as a secondary
description that its only source is the account in Kings, and which designed to
express historiographic and ideological aims that belong to a time much later
than that of the events themselves (Curtis and Madsen 1910: 521; Japhet 1977: 311–
315; 1993a: 1062, 1064–1066); Williamson 1982: 412). Many scholars have noted that
the Chronicler made extensive use of descriptions of the death and burial of kings
and fashioned them to comply with his own worldview, and to serve as a testimo-
ny to direct divine retribution for the deeds of the kings (Rudolph 1955: xx; Japhet
1977: 314–315).55 Not only he wished to shape the description of the last kings of
Judah to fit the basic principles of his doctrine of reward and punishment, but
also wished to draw a parallel between the fate of Jehoiakim and that of Jehoahaz,
Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah (Mosis 1973: 205–208, 213; Williamson 1982; 412–418, and
see the critique in Begg 1987: 80–81). According to the picture he presented, Jehoa-
haz, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin were exiled from their land (2 Chr 36:4; 6; 10). One
should assume that in spite of the general description of the punishment of Zede-
kiah in collective terms (verses 17–20), his fate was well known to the Chronicler

(1993a: 1065–1066), which deny the historical reliability and emphasize the ideological back-
ground and its historiographic tendentiousness.
54 In the third year of Jehoiakim (606 BCE) Nebuchadrezzar was still heir apparent, and his
father Nabopolassar was king of Babylon. This was one year before the decisive battle between
Babylon and Egypt, only after which Babylon began to firmly establish its rule in Syria (605 BCE),
so that it is not logical that already at this stage, Nebuchadrezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. More-
over, in Jer. 36 the presence of Jehoiakim in Jerusalem is reported in the fourth and fifth years
of his reign, so that it is not possible that he had been exiled earlier. On the difficulties in dating
‘the third year.’ see Efron 1974: 311. On suggestions for emendation and explanation on the source
of this number, see Young 1949: 268; Noth 1954: 282, n. 2; Delcor 1971: 59–60; Clines 1972: 20–21;
Porteous 1979: 32.
55 On this subject, see Ackroyd 1967: 510–515. This point was summarized well in Begg 1987: 81–
82; and Seitz 1989: 112–113.
 “Jehoiakim Slept with his Fathers …” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He? 553

and to his readers.56 Because of this, there is also no description of the death and
burial of the last four kings of Judah. It seems that the Chronicler wished to leave
the fate of the House of David as an open question (Begg 1987: 79, 81; Japhet
1993a: 1072). According to his doctrine, as soon as these kings were exiled from
their land, there is no longer any reason to be preoccupied with their fate.57
It is not clear what is the source of the tradition in the Luc. version on
2 Chronicles regarding the burial of the king in the garden of ʿUzza and of its
reliability. Some scholars assigned great reliability to the tradition, particularly
in view of the fact that it contradicts Jeremiah’s prophecy.58 However, it seems
that it should be seen instead as the later addition by someone who was trying
to create a correspondence between the description of Jehoiakim’s burial and
Jeremiah’s prophecy, according to which the king was given an ass’ burial outside
of the walls of Jerusalem.59 The additional comment in the Luc. Version according
to which Jehoiakim was buried “with his fathers” was written by someone who
was trying to integrate the secondary tradition with the information stating that
Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:18) and Amon (21:26) were buried in the garden of ʿUzza.

Summary

An attempt to synthesize all of the accounts of the death and burial of King
Jehoiakim, together with the chronological manipulations regarding the date of
his death, can serve as a basis for fascinating historical reconstruction. However,
an independent investigation of every source, together with an evaluation of its
time, the purpose for which it was written, and the level of historical reliability,
are a precondition for any reconstruction, and at times can take the sting out of
such reconstruction.
In the case of the death of Jehoiakim, it seems that the simplest and least
speculative reconstruction of all that is the most likely and most appropriate for
the complex of historical data that have been preserved. Insofar as the author of
the description in the Book of Kings knew about events in Judah in the last years
of the kingdom, the king’s death was not attended by any unusual circumstances.
He died after an eleven-year reign and was buried in Jerusalem, exactly on the

56 I agree to the assumption that the punishment of the last Davidic king described by the
Chronicler in collective terms because of the importance of the expectation of the renewal of
the Davidic monarchy in his ideology (Japhet 1993a: 1071–1072).
57 See: Japhet 1977: 314–315; 1993a: 1066.
58 For a summing up of this position see Nelson 1981a: 86, and ibid. previous literature.
59 See, for instance, Gray 1964: 753.
554 Part F: Biblical Studies

eve of Nebuchadrezzar’s campaign, which was aimed at suppressing the revolt

and destroying the city. His death saved the city from destruction and enabled
the small kingdom an additional eleven years of rule.
Did secret events take place in the royal palace that were unknown to the
residents of the city? Was Jehoiakim’s death the result of a sophisticated conspira-
cy whose perpetrators or circumstances were not revealed and not known to his
contemporaries? This may be the case, but it is better to remember that there is
no contemporary information of that kind, and later accounts of it are filling in
the gaps and try to create harmony between the lacunae in the Book of Kings
and the curses of the prophet Jeremiah as to the fate of the sinner king.
On the Titles ʿbd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’)
and ʿbd hmlk (‘servant of the King’)
ʿbd yhwh

Apart from its mentions in the Hebrew Bible, the title ʿbd yhwh appears on a
bifacial Hebrew-inscribed stamp-seal which reads ‘Miqneyau, servant of Yhwh /
(Belonging) to Miqneyau, servant of Yhwh’ (Avigad and Sass 1997: 59, no. 27). One
side of the seal (‘Miqneyau, servant of Yhwh’) is written in the positive and is
thus readable, while the other side (‘to Miqneyau, servant of Yhwh’) is written in
the negative and was intended for stamping an impression. Frank Moore Cross
dated the writing on this seal to the early or mid-eighth century BCE (Cross 1983:
56–60); he paralleled the title ʿbd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) to those of officials
from temples throughout the West Semitic world,1 and assumed that the title was
specified for a high ranking official in the Jerusalem temple. Since the name
‘Mikneiah’ appears in the list of singers and musicians in 1 Chronicles (15:18, 21),
and given the mentions of the title ‘servants of Yhwh’ in the opening of several
psalms (134; 135; etc.), Cross (1983: 62–63) suggested connecting the title to the
temple singers and musicians.2
Cross’s interpretation for the title ʿbd yhwh is not based on the examination
of the appearance of the title across the Hebrew Bible. It is one of the titles that
characterize and distinguish Deuteronomistic composition.3 In almost all of the

1 See, e.g., an Aramaic seal dated to the eighth century BCE, which reads ‘seal of brk, servant
of ʿtršmn’ (Avigad and Sass 1997: 610); a Hebrew/Aramaic seal dated to the late eighth or early
seventh century BCE that reads ‘Belonging to Shamashʿazar/servant of Śahr’ (Avigad and Sass
1997: 404–405, no. 1075), and similarly a seal that reads ‘Belonging to Beʿazarʾel servant of the
Baʿal’ (Avigad and Sass 1997: 390–391, no. 1052). The title ʿbd (‘servant of’) alongside the name of
a deity, which is found in cuneiform texts and on cylinder seals, is used in the sense of a
ritualistic title and also as a general title; titles of officials in Carthaginian temples are formatted
as ‘servant of a temple’ + ‘name of deity’ (Eshmun / Reshef / Melqart / Ashtarte / Shamash etc.;
see Cross 1983: 61–62 with further references therein).
2 Cross (1983: 60–63) rejected the assumption that the reference is to members of the royal
family or to a priest of the temple who most likely bore the title ‘priest’. Support for Cross in
this regard is found in the inscription of the seal ‘[Belonging to Ze]kharyahu priest of Dor’, on
which see Avigad 1975b. This interpretation by Cross was accepted in scholarship, as exemplified
by Avigad and Sass (1997: 25–26), who also saw ʿbd yhwh as a technical term that they equated
with the title ʿbd hmlk.
3 The title ʿbd yhwh appears overall twenty times in the Hebrew Bible. Apart from two instances
in 2 Chron (1:3; 24:6), where it is mentioned only marginally, the title appears fifteen times in
Josh (1:1, 13, 15; 8:31, 33; 11:12; 12:6 [twice]; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:4, 5; 24:29) and once each in Deut
(34:5), Judg (2:8) and 2 Kgs (18:12).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-030
556 Part F: Biblical Studies

instances in which ʿbd yhwh is mentioned in Deuteronomistic literature, it is con-

nected to Moses (16 of 18). It is only in the two other verses, which describe his
death, that Joshua is the one called by this title (Josh 24:29; Judg 2:8), paralleling
the verses describing the death of Moses:

‫ה‬‫ה‬‫ד־‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ת‬֨  Deut 34:5

‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫וֹת‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ Josh 1:1
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ד‬ ‫וּן‬‫ן־‬ ‫הוֹ‬ ‫ת‬ Josh 24:29
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ד‬ ‫וּן‬‫ן־‬ ‫הוֹ‬ ‫ת‬ Judg 2:8

The title ʿbd yhwh is mentioned in fixed formulae, with little to no change,
throughout the rest of its appearances in the Deuteronomistic literature. One
such formula is mentioned six times, and it relates to instances in which the
commandments, deeds and laws commanded by Moses to the people were given:

‫ר‬‫א‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬‫ד־‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ Josh 1:13

‫י‬‫ת־‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬‫ד־‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ָוּ‬ ‫ר‬ Josh 8:31
‫ה‬ ‫ת‬‫ תּוֹ‬ ‫תוּ‬ ‫ל‬
 ‫ה‬‫ה‬‫ד־‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ Josh 8:33
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ Josh 11:12
‫֒ה‬‫ה‬‫ד־‬ ‫ה‬ ‫֮ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ Josh 22:5
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬‫ל־‬ 2 Kgs 18:12
‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬‫ר־‬ 2 Kgs 21:8

The other formula is also mentioned six times, and is integrated into references
of the granting of lands in eastern Transjordan:

‫שׁ‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ד‬  ‫ם‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ר‬ Josh 1:15
‫ה‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬‫ד־‬ ‫ה‬ ‫הּ‬ Josh 12:6
‫ה‬  ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ן‬  Josh 13:8
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ן‬ 
‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ן‬  Josh 18:7
‫ן‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ד‬  ‫ם‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ר‬ Josh 22:4

Additionally, Moses is twice referred to as ʿbdi (‘my servant’) in divine speeches

(Josh 1:2, 7; see also Num 12:7–8; Mal 3:22). Similarly (in the possessive, and with
third-person pronouns), other people are also called by this title. David is referred
to as such in divine speeches in not only Deuteronomistic literature but also in
 On the Titles ʿbd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) and ʿbd hmlk (‘servant of the King’) 557

prophetic texts and psalms.4 The title is also used in reference to two of the
patriarchs of the nation: Abraham (Gen 26:24) and Jacob (Isa 45:4; Ezek 37:25), as
well as Caleb son of Jephunneh (Num 14:24). In the prophecies of Isaiah, two
additional persons are presented as servants of Yhwh: the prophet himself (Isa
20:3) and Eliakim son of Hilkiah (Isa 22:20). In Jeremiah’s prophecies, there are
three instances in which King Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned as the servant of
Yhwh (Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). In Haggai, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel is mentioned
by this title (Hag 2:23; see also Zech 3:8[?]). In the book of Job, the suffering
righteous man is called by this title on four occasions (Job 1:8; 2:3; 42:7–8).5 In
this regard, one should mention the parallel ‘my servant Jacob’, applied five times
to the people of Israel (Jer 30:10; 46:27–28; Ezek 28:25; 37:25), and its variation in
2 Chronicles 32:16 relating to Hezekiah.
The complete title ʿbd yhwh and the title ʿbdi in the mouth of God always
intend to indicate that a certain person was loyal to Yhwh and faithfully carried
out the mission assigned to them.6 The use of this title is intended to distinguish
between the subject of the title and a different person, a defined group or entire
peoples,7 and in some cases, to attest to the subject as the one intended to lead
the people on the deity’s behalf.8

4 See: 2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8; 1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 33, 36, 38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 19:34, 20:16; Jer 33:21, 22, 26; Ezek
34:23, 24; 37:24, 25; Ps 89:4, 21. On some of the verses that relate to Deuteronomistic composition,
see McCarter 1984: 116.
5 Eliakim son of Hilkiah is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (2 Kgs 18:18, 26, 37; 19:2;
Isa 22:20; 36:3, 11, 22; 37:2). In all instances, the reference is to the senior minister in Judah (‘who
is over the house’) during Sennacherib’s campaign (701 BCE). Most notable is the prophet Isaiah’s
high appreciation for this Eliakim, which is expressed in Isa 22:20–25, where he is also referred
to by Yhwh as ‘my servant’. Presumably, this title is meant to differentiate Eliakim from Shebna
the scribe (v. 15), where he is also referred to by the title ‘who is over the house’, and whom
Isaiah goes against his pursuit of honor (Isa 22:16–19). On this title as referring to Nebuchadnez-
zar in the prophecies of Jeremiah, see Lemke 1966.
6 Compare, e.g., the title of Isaiah (20:3) after he fulfilled God’s directive and wandered barefoot
and nude for three years. Nebuchadnezzar’s title in Jer (25:9; 27:6; 43:10), and the attitude to-
wards Job (1:8; 2:3; 42:7–8), should be seen in light of this.
7 In this context, see the distinction in the words of Isa (22:15–25) between Shebna and Eliakim
son of Hilkiah. See also the explicit statements in Num 12:7–8; 2 Sam 3:18; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:23–
24; the shifts between ‘Jacob my servant’ and ‘Israel my chosen’ (Isa 45:4) and between ‘I have
made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant’ (Ps 89:3); the distinction
between the loyalty of Caleb son of Jephunneh and his fate, and the loyalty of all ‘the people
who […] have tested me now these ten times and have not obeyed my voice’ and their fate
(Num 14:22–25); the distinction between Israel and ‘all the nations among which I have banished
you’ (Jer 46:27–28), or ‘the peoples among whom they are scattered’ (Ezek 28:25–26).
8 See, e.g., the descriptions of David in Ezek 37:24–25 and the description of Zerubabbel son of
Shealtiel in Hag 2:23.
558 Part F: Biblical Studies

Support for this interpretation of the title ʿbd yhwh is found in the title ʿbdei
yhwh (‘servants of Yhwh’). This title usually refers to the devout and loyal follow-
ers of the deity, in comparison to the followers of foreign deities (see also, for
example, the term ‘all servants of images’ in Ps 97:7). In Deuteronomistic litera-
ture, this title is specific to the prophets. For example, in the anointment of Jehu
as king of Israel, the prophet says: ‘so that I may avenge on Jezebel the blood of
my servants the prophets and the blood of all the servants of Yhwh’ (2 Kgs 9:7),
alluding to the deeds of Jezebel in 1 Kings 18:4, ‘when Jezebel was killing off the
prophets of Yhwh’. The ‘servants of Yhwh’ (ʿbdei yhwh) are mentioned in a similar
sense in the description of Jehu’s elimination of the Baal cult (2 Kgs 10:18–29). In
the climax of the affair, during the eve of the murder of ‘all the prophets of Baal,
all his servants, and all his priests’ (v. 19), Jehu and Jehonadab son of Rechab
instruct all the worshippers in the house of Baal to ‘search and see that there is
no servant of Yhwh here among you but only servants of Baal’ (v. 23). Against
this background, it may be assumed that the mention of ‘all you servants of Yhwh,
who by night stand in the house of Yhwh’ in the opening verse of Psalm 134 is
also aimed at those devout and loyal followers of the God of Israel. A similar
intention is reflected in the opening of Psalm 135, with the description of the
servants of Yhwh that ‘stand in the house of Yhwh, in the courts of the house of
our God’.
The conclusion from all this is that the title ʿbd yhwh was used during the
eighth and seventh centuries BCE and that it corresponded with titles prevalent
in the surrounding Semitic world. The subjects given this title were likely part of
the congregation of devout believers who saw themselves as close to God, i.e.,
officials in the temple or prophets. However, the title ʿbd yhwh was not an official
title and did not indicate a defined role. The use of the title was intended to
express loyalty to the God of Israel and to attest to a closeness to him.

ʿbd hmlk

The title ʿbd hmlk (‘servant of the king’) is only mentioned six times in the Hebrew
Bible, where it refers to David, Joab, Jeroboam, Asaiah and Nebuzaradan.9 How-
ever, it may be assumed that it was a common title, as attested by its appearance

9 The title ʿbd hmlk (singular) is mentioned twice in the book of Samuel (1 Sam 29:3; 2 Sam
18:29), three times in the book of Kings (1 Kgs 11:26; 2 Kgs 22:12; 25:8) and once in 2 Chronicles
(34:20, in parallel to 2 Kgs 22:12). This is not the place to discuss the personal name of Ebed-
Melech the Cushite, who is mentioned five times in the book of Jeremiah. On names with the
underlying form ʿEbed in Aramaic and other Semitic languages, see Silverman 1981.
 On the Titles ʿbd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) and ʿbd hmlk (‘servant of the King’) 559

in the Lachish letters (ostracon 3, line 19), sixteen Hebrew inscribed seals and
stamp impressions,10 four Aramaic seals,11 one Ammonite seal impression and
four seals,12 Edomite seal impressions13 and one Philistine seal.14 The prevalence
of the title ʿbd hmlk on seals stands out in comparison to the number of seals and
stamp impressions inscribed with other official titles.15
The prevailing assumption is that ʿbd hmlk was a general title not aimed at
a specific position but attested that its subject was a high-ranking official among
those close to the king.16 An examination of the biblical quotations and mentions
of the title in the epigraphic finds serves to support the assumption concerning
the meaning of the title. Nevertheless, it was not a defined position or role. The
use of the title intended to express loyalty to the king and to emphasize seniority
among the top echelon of ministers and officials, namely, who is the most signifi-
cant among them – or, at least, who is the closest and most faithful to the king.

10 See below in tables 1 and 2 the list of Hebrew seals and seal impressions where the title ʿbd
hmlk is mentioned.
11 On three of the Aramaic seals, inscribed with ‘Belonging to Haddrĕqi servant of Haddbiʿdi’,
‘Belonging to hkl servant of Abiram’, and ‘Belonging to Nuršî servant of Atarsumki’, see the
summary in Avigad and Sass 1997: 281–282, nos. 751–753, and further references therein; for the
publication of an additional seal, inscribed with ‘Belonging to Ozbaal servant of Barṣūr’, see
Deutsch and Heltzer 1995: 75–76.
12 On the four Ammonite seals and the seal impression inscribed with ‘Belonging to Beyadʾel
servant of Padaʾel’, ‘Belonging to Adonipilleṭ servant of Amminadab’, ‘Belonging to Adoninur
servant of Amminadab’, ‘Belonging to Menaḥem son of Samak servant of (the) king’, and ‘Belong-
ing to Milkomur servant of Baalyisha’, see the summary in Avigad and Sass 1997: 321–323, nos.
857–861.
13 On the Edomite seal impression inscribed with ‘Belonging to mlklb’ servant of the king’, and
on the 22 or 25 seal impressions bearing the inscription ‘Belonging to Qausʿanali servant of the
king’, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 388–390, nos. 1050–1051.
14 On the Philistine seal bearing the inscription ‘Belonging to 'Abdʾeliʾab son of Shibʿat servant
of Mittitti son of Ṣidqâ’, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 399–400, no. 1066.
15 Compared to the 28 seals and stamp impressions bearing the title ʿbd hmlk (without taking
into account the 22 or 25 seal impressions found at Tell el-Kheleifeh): 16 seals and seal impres-
sions are inscribed with the title ‘son of the king’; nine seals and seal impressions are inscribed
with the title ‘scribe’; five seals and seal impressions bear the title ‘who is over the house’; two
seals are inscribed with the title ʾmh; two seals and seal impressions are inscribed with the title
‘priest’; one seal or seal impression each for the following titles: ‘who was over the tribute’,
‘ruler of the city’, ‘recorder’, ‘eunuch’.
16 On the prevailing assumption in scholarship, see, e.g., Tur-Sinai 1940: 85; de Vaux 1969: 132–
133; Hestrin and Dayagi 1974; Avigad 1986: 23–24; Ahituv 1992a: 206; Lemaire 1977: 105; Smelik
1991: 142; Ahlström 1993: 209; McCarter 1996: 146–147.
560 Part F: Biblical Studies

ʿbd hmlk in the Hebrew Bible

According to the narrative in 1 Samuel 29:3, Achish of Gath presented David to

the princes of the Philistines as ‘the servant of King Saul of Israel, who has been
with me now for days and years’. The purpose of this speech was to convince the
rest of the Philistine commanders of David’s military capability and his loyalty,
which is why Achish also mentioned the admiration David earned following his
victory over Goliath (29:5). The description of David as ‘servant of Saul’ relates to
his previous role in the kingdom of Israel: ‘Saul set him over the army. And all
the people, even the servants of Saul, approved’ (1 Sam 18:5). This was prior to
his status being revoked (‘So Saul removed him from his presence’) and him
being removed from his high office and becoming one of the captains over a
thousand (18:13).
In a similar manner, the biblical author uses the title ʿbd hmlk for Joab, com-
mander of David’s army, immediately following the suppression of Absalom’s
rebellion (2 Sam 18:29). At the beginning of this story, Joab is presented as com-
manding only a third of the army, alongside his brother Abishai and Ittai the
Gittite (18:2; see also vv. 5, 12), where they and their army are referred to as
‘servants of David’ (vv. 7, 9).17 It was only after Joab had decided to kill Absalom
(18:14–15), thus ending the rebellion (‘and the troops came back from pursuing
Israel, for Joab restrained the troops’; v. 16) that Ahimaaz son of Zadok called him
‘servant of the king’ (v. 29) in order to emphasize his loyalty.
This interpretation of the title ʿbd hmlk may shed light on its literary use in
the story of Jeroboam’s rebellion against Solomon (1 Kgs 11:26). Narratively speak-
ing, the title is redundant in this verse. According to v. 28, Jeroboam was at the
time ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph, and therefore the addition
of his title as servant of Solomon changes nothing from a practical standpoint. It
was intended to emphasize his high status and closeness to the king, and through
this, to highlight the severity of his treason in the rebellion against Solomon. This
title is unusual both literarily and conceptually, since Jeroboam appears in this
chapter as one of three ‘adversaries’ whom Yhwh stirs up against Solomon.18 He
is presented in a dry and purposeful manner (v. 26), similar to how the back-
ground to his rebellion (vv. 27–28) and his escape to Egypt (vv. 40) are described.
The only instance in the narrative in which a specific attitude is expressed to-
wards Jeroboam is in his definition as servant of Solomon.

17 See also the discussion of the title ʿbdei hmlk below.

18 The first ‘adversary’ stirred up against Solomon is Hadad the Edomite (1 Kgs 11:14–22), the
second is Rezon son of Eliadah (vv. 23–25), and sequentially Jeroboam son of Nebat is the third
(vv. 26 ff.), even though the title ‘adversary’ is not explicitly used for him.
 On the Titles ʿbd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) and ʿbd hmlk (‘servant of the King’) 561

In the description of the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25:8), the author uses
this title to emphasize the loyalty of Nebuzaradan to Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon. The title ‘servant of the king of Babylon’ is given to Nebuzaradan only
in this verse. It comes after the definition of his position as ‘captain of the guard’
and is adjacent to the mention of Nebuchadnezzar’s name. This verse is of great
significance, since it is the opening to the section about Jerusalem’s destruction
(vv. 9–10), the exile of its people (v. 11) and temple paraphernalia (vv. 13–17), and
the killing of several of its leaders (vv. 18–21). The emphasis in the opening of the
section (v. 8) and in its end (v. 21) is on Nebuchadnezzar’s direct responsibility,
whereas Nebuzaradan is merely the operating factor.
In 2 Kings 22:12 (see also 2 Chron 34:20), Asaiah, servant of the king, is men-
tioned among the most important and high-ranking officials in the kingdom of
Judah during the reign of King Josiah: the priest and the scribe, and the two
persons operating aside them, Ahikam son of Shaphan and Achbor son of Michai-
ah, whose official roles were unknown even if their status was high (see also
Jer 26:24). These people were near to the king, while Shaphan the scribe read to
him from the book that was found in the temple, and they were the ones of
whom he commanded: ‘Go, inquire of Yhwh for me, for the people, and for all
Judah’ (2 Kgs 22:13). Asaiah’s exact role remains unknown, but his status and
closeness to the king become much clearer from these verses, much like the
closeness between David and Saul, Joab and David, Nebuzaradan and Nebuchad-
nezzar, and according to the interpretation presented here, also between Jero-
boam and Solomon.
It is apparent that the people presented in the Hebrew Bible with the title ʿbd
hmlk were among the highest-ranking persons and officials in the kingdom, yet
every reference to them by this title served a literary purpose: to emphasize their
special position, their special kinship with the king and their total devotion to him.
Further support for the suggested interpretation of the title ʿbd hmlk is found
through examining the meaning of the title ʿbdei hmlk. This title is mentioned
12 times in the Hebrew Bible, mostly within Deuteronomistic literature.19 It appears
to lack a formal meaning, and its uses within different parables are diverse, in
accordance with literary needs. In all of these instances, the title refers to some of
the senior officials, the king’s associates and those surrounding him.20 A similar

19 The title ʿbdei hmlk is mentioned three times in the book of Samuel (1 Sam 22:17; 2 Sam 15:15;
16:6); five times in the book of Kings (1 Kgs 1:9, 47; 2 Kgs 19:5; 21:23; 24:10); once in Isaiah (37:5);
and three times in Esther (3:2, 13; 4:11).
20 According to 2 Kgs 19:2, 5 (see also Isa 37:2, 5), the ‘servants of the king’ are Eliakim, ‘who was
over the house’, Shebna the scribe and the elders among the priests. The ‘servants of the king’
mentioned in 1 Kgs 1:47 as those who come to praise David after Solomon’s anointment are the
prophet Nathan and Benaiah son of Jehoiada (along with the regiments of the Cherethites and
562 Part F: Biblical Studies

meaning emerges in many additional instances, and in a variety of literary genres,

in which the title ʿbdei (‘servants of’) relates to the name of a king.21 The closeness
of the servants of the king to the king himself is manifested in their presence in
events in which he took part and in the words and advice that they offered him
(Exod 9:20–21; 10:7; 1 Sam 16:15; 22:6–9; 2 Sam 12:18; 1 Kgs 20:23; 2 Kgs 3:11). In some
of the descriptions, their high status is expressed by the amount of property they
own (Exod 9:20–21) and influence they have (1 Sam 18:5, 22–24, 30).22

ʿbd hmlk in the Epigraphic Finds

The title ʿbd hmlk is also used with a similar meaning in the Lachish letters,
where it is attributed to a person named Tobiah (ostracon 3, line 19). The same

Pelethites), who, according to vv. 44–45, are sent by David to anoint Solomon; in 1 Kgs 1:19, 25,
the ‘servants of the king’ mentioned are Joab son of Zeruiah and Abiathar the priest, who support
Adonijah in the succession struggles against Solomon. The ‘servants of the king’ mentioned in
the description of David’s flight from Jerusalem during Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam 15:15), are ‘all
his servants who were with him at Jerusalem’ (2 Sam 15:14), ‘all his household’ (2 Sam 15:16) and
all those who ‘passed on beside him’ (2 Sam 15:18), while not including the Cherethites, Pelethites
and Gittites, Zadok the priest and the Levites bearing the ark of the covenant (2 Sam 15:24).
According to 2 Sam 16:6, the ‘servants of the king’ are those who stand by David while Shimei
son of Gera casts stones upon them, when ‘all the people and all the warriors were on his right
and on his left’. Similarly, in 1 Sam 22:17, the servants of King Saul are ‘the guard who stood
around him’. If we transfer this interpretation of ʿbdei hmlk over to what is written in 2 Kgs
21:23, we might suppose that those who conspire against Amon and slay him in his own house
are his highest officials, and those nearest to him are from his closest circle. With regard to this
meaning of the title, the emphasis on the murder of the king taking place in his own house is
clear. In light of this, it may be presumed that in the description of ‘servants of Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon’, who came up against Jerusalem and besieged it (2 Kgs 24:10), the biblical author
wished to state that Nebuchadnezzar’s most senior officials had come before the king and had
already begun the siege, and when the king arrived, the city was already under siege from his
servants (2 Kgs 24:11). This fits the description given in the Babylonian Chronicles, according to
which three months at most would have passed between Nebuchadnezzar departure from Baby-
lon and the surrender of Jerusalem. See Wiseman 1959: 32–35, 72–73.
21 ‘Servants of Pharaoh’ (Gen 50:7; Exod 9:20; 10:7; 11:3); ‘servants of Saul’ (1 Sam 16:15; 18:5, 22–
24, 30; 21:8; 22:6–9); ‘servants of Achish king of Gath’ (1 Sam 21:12); ‘servants of Ishbosheth son
of Saul’ (2 Sam 2:12); ‘servants of David’ (2 Sam 13:15, 17; 10:2, 4; 11:17, 24; 12:18; 18:7–9); ‘servants
of Hadadezer’ (2 Sam 8:7); ‘servants of Hiram’ (1 Kgs 8:20; 9:27); ‘servants of Solomon’ (1 Kgs
9:27); ‘servants of [Ben-Hadad] king of Aram’ (1 Kgs 20:23); ‘servants of [Jehoram] king of Israel’
(2 Kgs 3:11).
22 Members of this group are mentioned explicitly on two occasions: According to Genesis 50:7,
‘the servants of Pharaoh’ who went up with Joseph to bury Jacob his father were ‘elders of his
household, and all the elders of the land of Egypt’. In 1 Sam 21:7, Doeg the Edomite was a ‘man
 On the Titles ʿbd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) and ʿbd hmlk (‘servant of the King’) 563

Tobiah is also mentioned in ostracon 5 (line 10), with the words zeraʿ hmlk (‘seed
of the king’) next to his name. Many scholars have debated the correct reading
of these words and have offered different meanings connected to word zeraʿ (as
in ‘seed’, ‘grain’).23 However, in my opinion, following the proposal put forward
by Tur-Sinai and contrary to what is currently accepted in scholarship, the words
should be read as zroʿ lmlk (‘hand to the king’) and thus be understood as an
expression meaning ‘special servant to the king,’ his assistant and right-hand
man.24 Similar expressions meaning ‘special aid’, ‘pillar of strength’ and ‘security’
are known in biblical literature (Isa 33:2; Jer 17:5; Ps 83:9).
The title ‘servant of the king’, or the title ‘servant’ adjacent to the name of
one of the kings of Israel or Judah, appears also on stamp-seal impressions and
seals. Based on the meaning of this title in the Hebrew Bible and in the Lachish
letters, it can be assumed that an official in the king’s court, one who gave himself
the title of ‘servant of the king’ and wore on his finger or neck a seal bearing his
name and the title ʿbd hmlk, did so in order to express his unreserved loyalty and
closeness to his master, with whom he held special status. In doing so, he em-
ployed the literary technique used by biblical authors but attributed it to himself.
This interpretation also explains the relatively high quantity of seals and seal
impressions bearing this title, since ministers, officials and members of the royal
families, who all bore different official titles, could also have used the title ‘ser-
vant of the king’. It may be assumed that some of these people (and perhaps all
of them) had an additional seal in their possession that noted the position they
held.25 ‘Elishamaʿ servant of the king’ (no. 1 in table 1 below) could also have been

of the servants of Saul’ and his title was ‘the chief of Saul’s shepherds’, and in 1 Sam 22:9, he is
described as ‘in charge of Saul’s servants’.
23 See, e.g., Lemaire’s suggestion (1977: 117–118), as well as Michaud 1957: 48–49; Pardee 1982:
95–96. To my mind, it is difficult to accept the meaning and logic presented in these readings of
the text. See, for instance, Ahituv’s (1992: 46, 48) deliberation on this matter and the claims put
forward by Tur-Sinai (1940: 134) against this reading; later research has yet to properly respond
to these claims.
24 For a discussion on the meaning of the zroʿa in the Bible and in external letters, see Tur-
Sinai 1940: 133–135; Conrad 1976: 111–119.
25 Many scholars have already supported the existence of different seals relating to the same
individual; see Avigad 1986: 15; Garfinkel 1985: 113–114; Barkay 1992a: 123; Deutsch and Heltzer
1994: 51. The identification of persons mentioned on different seals and seal impressions, or that
of a person who appears on seals and seal impressions alongside the names of persons which
are mentioned in the biblical texts, requires caution and an examination of defined criteria. For
said criteria, see Avigad 1987: 235–237. I do not accept the automatic rejection of identifying
persons mentioned by the ‘servant of the king’ title with persons of the same name who bore
different titles.
564 Part F: Biblical Studies

‘son of the king’,26 grandfather of Ishmael son of Nethaniah ‘of the royal seed’
(2 Kgs 25:25; Jer 41:1), or Elishamaʿ the scribe who is mentioned in Jeremiah 36:12,
20–21. ‘Gedalyahu servant of the king’ (no. 2 in table 1) could also have been ‘who
is over the house’.27 ʾElyaqim servant of the king’ (no. 6 in table 1) could also have
been ‘who is over the house’,28 and with great reservation perhaps also ‘steward
of Yokin’.29 ‘Geʾalyahu servant of the king’ (no. 7 in table 1) could also have been
‘son of the king’ or son of ʿAdayahu the scribe.30 ‘Yaʾazanyahu servant of the king’
(no. 8 in table 1), whose seal was found during the excavations in Tell en-Naṣbeh,
may be identified with Jaazaniah, one of the army captains who approached
Gedaliah son of Ahikam after the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25:23; Jer 40:8),31
or with Jaazaniah son of Shaphan, who was in exile in Babylon among seventy
of the elders of Israel (Ezek 8:11), or with Jaazaniah son of Azzur, who was one
of the ‘princes of the people’ (Ezek 11:1). ‘Shemaʿ servant of the king’ (no. 10 in
table 1) could also have been ‘servant of Jeroboam’ (no. 1 in table 2). ʿAsayahu
servant of the king’ can be identified with Asaiah, who is mentioned by this title
in 2 Kings 22:12, 14; 2 Chronicles 34:20; however, he could also have been the
‘keeper of the door’, whose chambers are mentioned in Jeremiah 35:4. ‘Sheba-
nyau, servant of Uzziyau’ (no. 2 in table 2) could also have been Shebanyau, ‘son
of the king’.32

26 On the ‘Elishamaʿ son of the king’ seal, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 53, no. 11.
27 On the ‘belonging to Gedalyahu who is over the house’ seal impression, see Avigad and Sass:
172, no. 405. On the possibility of identifying the owner of this seal impression with Gedaliah
son of Ahikam son of Shaphan, whom the Babylonians trusted in Judah following the destruction
of Jerusalem, see Lipschits 1997b: 129–130 and further references therein.
28 ‘Eliakim son of Hilkiah who is over the house’ is mentioned in 2 Kgs 18:18, 26, 37; 19:2; Isa
22:20; 36:3, 11, 22; 37:2. It should be noted that this Eliakim is attributed with the title ‘my servant’
once, in the prophecies of Isaiah (in the sense of ‘servant of Yhwh’). See also footnote 7 above.
29 On the ‘belonging to Elyaqim steward of Yokin’ seal, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 243–244,
no. 663. On identifying ‘Yokin’ and the dating of these seal impressions, see Ussishkin 1976: 1–13;
Garfinkel 1990: 74–79.
30 On the ‘Geʾalyahu servant of the king’ seal impression, see: Avigad and Sass 1997: 174, nos.
412, 413. On the ‘Gaʾalyahu son of ʿAdayahu the scribe’ seal, see ibid., 57, no. 21.
31 On the ‘Yaazanyahu servant of the king’ seal, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 52, no. 8. On this
subject, see also Smelik 1991: 142–143; Lipschits 1997b: 129–131. Ahituv (1992a: 126–127) rejected
this identification, stating what he believed to be an earlier paleographic dating for the seals.
32 On the ‘belonging to Shebanyahu son of the king’ seal impression, see Avigad and Sass 1997:
243, no. 662. See also ibid., 175, no. 416.
 On the Titles ʿbd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) and ʿbd hmlk (‘servant of the King’) 565

Summary

The linguistic, conceptual and practical connections between the titles ʿbd yhwh
and ʿbd hmlk are striking, and it is possible to assume that they were employed
in parallel, under similar meanings. In both cases, there is a supreme authority
with a large public of subordinate officials; the attribution of the title ‘servant’
indicates the closeness of the title bearer to said authority and attests his loyalty
and importance among the other subordinates. The use of the titles ‘servant of
the king’ and ‘servant of Yhwh’ within Deuteronomistic literature attests to the
way in which the authors utilized the titles, which were customary in their peri-
od, for historiographic aims; through them, they clarified their relationships to
the persons with whom they would engage.
Yet, it should be remembered that the use of the titles ʿbd yhwh and ʿbd hmlk
was limited in time. The first evidence of the titles being used comes from the
eighth century BCE, and the majority of uses date to the seventh century BCE.
However, changes were already forced upon the vocabulary of Judahite leader-
ship during the Babylonian exile and the time of the return to Zion, with the
disappearance of both the monarchy in Judah and the title ‘servant of the king’.
Simultaneously, the term ‘servant of Yhwh’ lost its original meaning. In the litera-
ture dated to the Persian period, a different perception formed concerning the
essence of ʿbd yhwh that manifested mostly in several paragraphs and verses
preserved in Deutero-Isaiah (chs. 40–56).33 Within these paragraphs, the image of
the ‘servant of Yhwh’ as one chosen by God even prior to birth was shaped and
formed in order to fulfill his mission of spreading the word of God among the
people and convicting them of their sins. Many scholars have suggested the possi-
bility that the author was thinking of Jeremiah when shaping the image of the
suffering righteous man some two generations later.34 The great change in the
meaning of the term ʿbd yhwh is part of the large amount of evidence for the
extensive changes in the Hebrew language, as well as in Jewish culture and reli-
gion, that occurred during the period of the Babylonian exile.

33 Duhm (1922: 311) was the first to notice the existence of defined paragraphs in which ‘the
servant of Yhwh poems’ [Die Dichtungen vom Ebed-Jahwe] can be found. Following this statement
by Duhm, a long, arduous debate erupted on the exact number of these paragraphs, their scope,
origin, and the way they were edited and integrated in the book of Isaiah. For a review of the
history of research on this subject, see Langdon 1980: 20–41.
34 For the linguistic, literary and conceptual justifications for the resemblance between the
image of ʿbd yhwh as it is shaped in the later Isaiah chapters and those of Jeremiah, see Landon
1980: 42–155.
566 Part F: Biblical Studies

A Comment on the Meaning of the Title naʿar

In light of the above interpretation of the title ʿbd hmlk, the accepted interpretation
of the title naʿar (‘servant’, ‘steward’, ‘young man’) can be expanded.35 Several
persons bearing this title are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, in relation to their
personal name.36 From the description of deeds attributed to these ‘young men’, it
seems that they served as private attendants or servants who were close to their
masters and ready to follow the simplest and most personal of instructions.37 How-
ever, some of these ‘young men’ served in more important, respectable and respon-
sible roles and most likely played a part in managing their masters’ estates, even
being placed in charge of cultivating the lands.38 The title naʿar should be under-
stood in this meaning for four Hebrew seals,39 two Ammonite seals,40 four identical
stamp impressions on jar handles which read ‘Belonging to Eliakim steward of
Yokin’,41 and two names mentioned on an ostracon from Arad.42 Similar to the

35 For concluding discussions on this matter, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 29–30; Deutsch and
Heltzer 1994: 51–53; Avigad 1976b: 294–300; Stähl 1978: 147–170.
36 See the following titles: ‘priest’s servant’ (1 Sam 2:13, 15); ‘Jonathan’s young man’ (1 Sam 14:1,
6; 20:35–40); Ziba, ‘Saul’s servant’ (2 Sam 9:9), who was also ‘servant of Mephibosheth’ (2 Sam
16:1) and ‘servant of the house of Saul’ (2 Sam 19:17); servant of Elijah (1 Kgs 18:43); Gehazi,
‘servant of Elisha’ (2 Kgs 5:20) or ‘servant of the man of God’ (2 Kgs 8:4); servant of Boaz ‘who
in charge of the reapers’ (Ruth 2:5–6), who most likely was also one of the ‘young men’ of Boaz,
mentioned later (Ruth 2: 15).
37 The ‘priest’s servant’ made sure to fetch meat for his master and roast it (1 Sam 2:13–17), and
according to v. 16, there were several of these servants (most likely the sons of Eli); the young
man of Jonathan was also his armor bearer (1 Sam 14:1, 6) and ran through the field to gather
the arrows he shot (1 Sam 20:35–38). This is not the place to discuss the meaning of the title in
plural form (naʿarei in proximity to a personal name), however it appears to have been a military
title. Compare, for instance, the titles ‘servants of Absalom’ (2 Sam 13:29); ‘ten young men, Joab’s
armor-bearers’ (2 Sam 18:15); ‘young men who serve the district governors’ (1 Kgs 20:14, 17, 19);
‘servants of the king of Assyria’ (2 Kgs 19:6); the servants of Nehemiah (Neh 4:16, 23). See also
2 Samuel 2:14–15.
38 Ziba, ‘Saul’s servant’, cultivated Saul’s lands for Mephibosheth ‘your master’s son’, and he
himself had fifteen sons and twenty slaves, suggesting he was no longer a ‘young man’ (2 Sam
9:9–10). Also, the ‘servant’ of Boaz ‘was in charge of the reapers’ in the lands of his master (Ruth
2:5–6).
39 The seals bearing the title naʿar: ‘Belonging to Benayahu steward of Haggi’ (Avigas and Sass
1997: 58, no. 24; ‘Belonging to Malkiyahu steward of Shapat’ (ibid., 58, no. 25); ‘Belonging to Netib-
yahu steward of Mattan’ (ibid., 59, no. 26); ‘Belonging to Adonmelek steward of Parosh’ (Deutsch
and Heltzer 1994: no. 22).
40 On the two Ammonite seals, inscribed with: ‘Belonging to btš steward of Barkel’ and ‘Belong-
ing to Abdâ steward of Eliram’, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 324, nos. 863–864.
41 See footnote 30 above.
42 The names in the Arad letters are: ‘Shemiah (son of ) Meshullam, steward of Elnatha[n]’ and
‘Machi, steward of Gedaliah K[…]’. See Rainey 1977: 126–127, text 110 (Hebrew).
 On the Titles ʿbd yhwh (‘servant of Yhwh’) and ʿbd hmlk (‘servant of the King’) 567

definition of ʿbd hmlk as the one closest and most loyal to his liege, regardless of
the specific position he filled, it may be surmised that also the bearers of the title
naʿar were the servants closest and most faithful to their masters, and some even
held substantial authority in managing their master’s possessions.

Tab. 1: Bullae and seals bearing personal names and the title ʿbd hmlk.

Inscription Properties Dating References*

1 Belonging to Elishama Bulla. Two inscribed lines, Late IA (?) Avigad 1986, no. 4;
servant of the king unclear border, triple Avigad and Sass 1997,
separating line no. 408

2 Belonging to Gedalyahu Bulla. Two inscribed lines, Late IA (?) Avigad 1986, no. 5;
servant of the king double-lined border, Avigad and Sass 1997,
double separating line no. 409

3 Belonging to Bulla. Two inscribed lines, ? Deutsch and Helzer

Mibtahyahu servant of single-lined border, double 1994, no. 13; Avigad
the king separating line and Sass 1997,
no. 410

4 Belonging to ʿzr… Bulla. Two inscribed lines, ? Avigad and Sass 1997,
servant of the king single-lined border, double no. 411
separating line

5 Belonging to Bulla. Two inscribed lines, Late IA (?) Deutsch and Helzer
Shemayahu servant of triple-lined border, double 1994, no. 12
the king separating line

6 Belonging to Elyaqim Seal. Two inscribed lines, ? Avigad and Sass 1997,
servant of the king double-lined border, no. 6
double separating line

7 Belonging to Gealyahu Seal. Two inscribed lines, Late Fulco 1979: 107–108;
servant of the king single-lined border, double 7th century BCE Avigad and Sass 1997,
separating line no. 7

8 Belonging to Seal. Two inscribed lines, c. 600 BCE (?) Avigad and Sass 1997,
Yaazanyahu servant of double-lined border, no. 8
the king double separating line,
rooster representation in
the bottom register

9 Belonging to Obadyahu Seal. Two inscribed lines, Late 8th or Avigad and Sass 1997,
servant of the king single-lined border (?), 7th century BCE no. 9
double separating line (?)

10 Belonging to Shema Seal. Two inscribed lines, 8th–7th Avigad and Sass 1997,
servant of the king single-lined border, double centuries BCE no. 10
separating line (?)
568 Part F: Biblical Studies

Tab. 1 (continued)

Inscription Properties Dating References*

11 Belonging to Asiyah Seal. Two inscribed lines, 2nd half of the Deutsch and Helzer
servant of the king single-lined border, 7th century BCE 1994, no. 21
representation of a (?)
galloping horse in the
center of the seal, between
the two inscribed lines

Tab. 2: The bullae and seals bearing personal names and the title ʿbd and a name of a king.

Inscription Properties Dating References

1 Belonging to Shema Seal. Two inscribed lines, Jeroboam I Avigad and Sass 1997,
servant of Yarobam single-lined border, single (928–907 BCE) no. 12; Ahlström 1993:
separating line under a or Jeroboam II 208–215; Ussishkin
representation of a lion (784–748 BCE) 1994: 419–423

2 Belonging to Shebanyau Double-faced seal. Single- 769–733 BCE Avigad and Sass 1997,
servant of Uzziyau lined dotted border on no. 3
both faces. One side shows
a ritualistic figure with the
inscription behind it. The
other side shows two
inscribed lines with
separating lines. Winged
sun at the top and bottom
registers

3 Belonging to Abiyau Seal. Two vertical inscribed 769–733 BCE Avigad and Sass 1997,
servant of Uzziyau lines, single-lined border, no. 4
representations horned
Horus, disc and papyrus
plants

4 Belonging to Ushnâ Seal. Two inscribed lines, 733–727 BCE Avigad and Sass 1997,
servant of Ahaz double-lined border, no. 5
double separating line.
Above: representations of a
horned disc and additional
Egyptian motifs

5 Belonging to Yehozarah Bulla. Four inscribed lines, 727–698 BCE Avigad and Sass 1997,
son of Hilqiyahu servant single-lined border, no (?) no. 407
of Hizqiyahu separating lines (?)
Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose
Introduction

This essay explores the sources of the list of the builders of Jerusalem’s wall and
seeks to detect the stages and aims of the list’s composition and its insertion into
the “Nehemiah Memoir.”1 After considering the list of the builders of the wall, I
examine the formulas used in this list in order to differentiate between the sour-
ces and the additions and editing strata of the list. Focusing on the use of the
verbs in the list and their meaning, especially the verb ‫החזיק‬, I argue that this
verb means “support” and “finance” rather than “build” or “reconstruct”. The use
of this verb in the list shows that the list includes people who financed and
organized the building of various parts of the wall, as well as those who were
involved in the preparation before (or during) the construction process. An ex-
amination of the names and the functions of some of the people shows that those
mentioned were residents of Jerusalem with a direct interest in the construction.
Similar methods of building city walls can be found in reports of the wall of
Dur-Šarrukin (Khorsabad). The parallels between the two sources and the two
methods explain why the name Nehemiah, who, as governor of the province, was
responsible for the construction work carried out in Jerusalem, does not appear
in the list. It names all the officials and other people and groups that were respon-
sible for financing and organizing the different sections of the wall. Each of them
was assigned a particular section of the wall, and the sections are simply listed
in order. The source of this list in the Nehemiah Memoir might have been a
similar report on the progress of the work, compiled during the preparations for
the project or even during the work itself. Discussing all the above could shed
more light on the purpose of inserting the list into the Nehemiah Memoir and its
place in the ideology of the book of Ezra–Nehemiah.

The List of the Builders of the Wall and Its Place

in the Nehemiah Memoir

The list of the builders of the wall (Neh 3:1–32) is not part of the Nehemiah
Memoir,2 despite its skillful incorporation into the narrative. After Nehemiah’s

1 For convenience, in this essay, the first-person account in the book of Nehemiah is called the
Nehemiah Memoir.
2 This is a common assumption among scholars, mentioned already by J. Wellhausen (1958: 168,
n. 1), and see, e.g., Torrey 1896: 37–38; Batten 191: 206–207; Hölscher 1923a: 529–530; Mowinckel
1964: 109–110; Gunneweg 1987: 75–76; Blenkinsopp 1988: 231; Wright 2004: 118–120.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-031
570 Part F: Biblical Studies

arrival in Jerusalem (2:11) and his nocturnal inspection of the ruined walls (2:12–
16), he gathered the leaders of the people and urged them: “Come and let us
rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, so that we will be a reproach no more” (2:17). The
leaders respond with “‘Let us rise up and rebuild.’ So they strengthened their
hands for the good” (2:18),3 which parallels Nehemiah’s response to the scornful
taunts of “Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the Ammonite servant, and Geshem
the Arabian” (2:19) and his declaration: “The God of heaven will give us success;
therefore we, his servants, will rise up and rebuild” (2:20). This also connects to
the beginning of rebuilding of the wall, namely: “Then Eliashib the high priest
rose up with his brethren the priests and they built the sheep gate” (3:1).4 The
reiteration of the taunts (3:33–35) and Nehemiah’s prayer that follows immediate-
ly after (3:36–37) can be seen as a linking repetition that stresses Nehemiah’s part
in the building project, the urgent need to build the wall, and the dangers faced
by the workers from Judah’s neighbors’ continuous opposition to building the
wall (see table 1).5 This linking repetition, which centers on the verb ‫ שמע‬or
‫ וישמע‬and Sanballat (or Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem) as oposed to Nehemiah,
is the literary device used by the redactor to join the various documents and lists
he employs, which create the storyline in chapters 2–6, and it appears seven
times in these chapters (Wright’s “‫שמע‬-schema”).6

3 It is hard to accept Wright’s suggestion (2004: 114–18), based on Blenkinsopp’s remark (1988:
220), to understand the expression ‫ה‬‫טּוֹ‬ ‫ם‬‫י‬ ‫וּ‬ְ ‫זּ‬ (v. 18) as indicating the actual start of work
and to connect it to the list in Ch. 3 by omitting vv. 19–20 (or even just v. 20). I can find no reason
for this translation, or for deleting vv. 19–20 or seeing these verses (or part of them) as later
additions (with Batten 1913: 224–225; Galling 2000: 72). See, however, Kellermann 1967: 13, n. 28.
4 Many scholars emphasize the connection between ‫ינוּ‬‫ק ֣וּם וּ‬ in Neh 2:18, 20 and ‫נ‬ … ‫ם‬֡ 
in the opening of Ch. 3. See Reinmuth 2002: 82, 83; Wright 2004: 112–114.
5 This supposition follows Wellhausen 1958: 168; Batten 1913: 224–225; Burrows (1933–1934: 115–
124); and Galling 1954: 220; cf. Kratz 2000: 70–73, which stressed the coinciding repetition in 2:19
and 3:33–35. These scholars saw it as an addition connected either to the list of the builders of
the wall in Ch. 3 or as a late editorial insertion (in their view, it was an addition of the Chroni-
cler). Wright (Rebuilding Identity, 119–120; and cf. Kratz 2000: 72) went even further and saw it
as evidence of the late addition of the list of the builders, suggesting that it was drafted specifical-
ly for the context of 2:18b and 3:38. Against this view, see Kellermann 1967: 17; and the commen-
taries of H. G. M. Williamson 1985: 215–216; and Blenkinsopp 1988: 243.
6 See Wright 2004: 27–29, 110, 112–14; 2007: 333–348, esp. p. 336; Batten 1913: 224–225; and for
another point of view, see Williamson 1985: 251–252; Blenkinsopp 1988: 231; 1994: 204. This literary
device, in which the verb ‫ע‬ is central and that accentuates the scornful reaction of Sanballat,
Tobiah, and Geshem, is enclosed by another repetition, one that emphasizes their growing anger
(2:10, 3:33, 4:1–2) and introduces the description of attempts to sabotage the building project.
Later, this verb is used twice in general references (4:9, 6:16) to stress God’s place in discovering
the conspiracy to disrupt the building project. In 6:1, this verb appears once more as an introduc-
tion to the attempt at harming Nehemiah.
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 571

Linking Repetition in the Nehemiah Memoir.

Nehemiah 2:19–20 Nehemiah 3:33–38

‫ר‬ ‫י‬
‫י‬ ‫ט‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ט‬ ‫ע‬
‫י‬ ‫ם‬ ‫י‬‫מּוֹ‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬
‫ה‬ ‫ס‬ ‫ר לוֹ‬ ‫ה‬‫חוֹ‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ים‬‫נוּ בוֹ‬ ‫י‬
‫נוּ‬ ‫גוּ‬ ‫ים‬‫הוּ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ג‬
‫ינוּ‬ ‫זוּ‬
‫רוּ‬‫א‬ … ‫ר‬‫א‬
… ‫ים‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬ … ;‫ים‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ים‬‫הוּ‬ ‫ה‬
… ‫ינוּ‬‫קוּם וּ‬ ‫יו‬ ‫נוּ‬ … ‫ה‬‫חוֹ‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ה‬

Most scholars considered the list of the builders of the wall (3:1–32) to be original,
written in Nehemiah’s time under priestly influence, kept in the temple archive,
and inserted into its present position in the narrative by a late editor.7

7 The obvious exception to scholars’ accepting the originality of the list was Torrey (1896: 37–
38; 1970: 225, 249), who considered it to be the work of the Chronicler. Wright (2004: 119) claimed
that it was a later document composed to balance Nehemiah’s contribution with that of the high
priesthood. Later, he claimed that the list should be dated to an even later phase (Wright 2007:
337 and n. 11). On the other hand, most scholars saw the list as an original document of local
administration, which was inserted into the Nehemiah Memoir by Nehemiah himself. See, e.g.,
Rudolph 1949: 113; Galling 1954: 222; Myers 1965: 112; Kellermann 1967: 14–15; Smith 1971: 257;
Coggins 1976: 81; Fensham 1982: 172; Clines 1984: 149; Williamson 1985: 201; 2004: 202–203; Gun-
neweg 1987: 74–76; Blenkinsopp 1988: 231; Grabbe 1998: 43; Karrer 2001: 134 and n. 21; Albertz
2006: 199–206, esp. p. 200. Few scholars also saw the list as an original document of local adminis-
tration but hypothesize that it was inserted into the Nehemiah Memoir by a later editor. See,
e.g., Blenkinsopp 1988: 231; Gunneweg 1987: 75. On the basis of Burrows’ observations (1933–1934:
116–119), Galling (1954: 222) divided the list into two parts: vv. 1–15, characterized by the expres-
sions ‫ ועל ידו‬and ‫ועל ידם‬, and vv. 16–32, characterized by the expression ‫ אחריו‬and ‫ואחריו‬. In
contrast, several scholars have suggested that the list is composed of two separate lists that
represent the two different stages of building the city wall. See, e.g., Batten 1913: 207; Kellermann
1967: 14. Burrows himself (1933–1934: 119) opposed this view and saw the two parts of the list as
a literary device, stressing its uniformity; see also Williamson (1985: 200), who opposed the
“theory of two stages” and suggested seeing the first part of the list as the stage when the
workers built up the already-existing wall and the second part as when the workers built new
walls that were higher than the First Temple Period wall. In continuity with this, see Gunneweg
1987: 71; Blenkinsopp 1988: 232; Grabbe 1998: 44, 157–159; Bailey 1990. Reinmuth (2002: 84–86)
suggests dividing the list into three parts and differentiates from Burrows’s two parts of vv. 13–
15 as a third and separate part. The main evidence for the historical reliability of the list and
that it is not a tendentious literary source is the full description of the extent of the wall in
contrast to the incomplete and limited description of the builders’ origins. To this, scholars have
572 Part F: Biblical Studies

Having accepted the list as original, most scholars assign it an important

place in Jerusalem’s reexpansion and the position of its walls in the Persian peri-
od.8 The list even illuminates the internal administrative division of the Province,
as well as its extent and borders.9

Building the Walls and Constructing the Gates? −

Verbs and Their Meanings

As it appears in the MT, there are 56 verbs in the list of the builders of the wall,
and all of them are either third-person singular or plural. Of these, the verb
‫ החזיק‬appears 35 times (65 % of the verbs in the list), 27 in the singular and 8 in
the plural. The verb ‫ בנה‬appears 7 times (3 in the singular and 4 in the plural),
the verb ‫ ויעמיד‬appears 6 times, (once singular and 5 times plural), the verb
‫ קרוהו‬twice, both plural. These six verbs appear once each: ,‫ ויעזבו‬,‫החרה יטללנו‬
,‫ ויקם‬,‫ קדשוהו‬,‫הביאו‬.

added the use of unique technical terms for administration and the geographical picture that
arises. See Kochman 1980: 119–121; Williamson 1985: 201; Blenkinsopp 1988: 231–232.
The view that the list was kept in the temple archive was held by many scholars: see Rudolph
1949: 113; Mowinckel 1964: 109–110; Myers 1965: 112; Kellermann 1967: 14–15; Smith 1971: 257;
Williamson 1985: 201; Blenkinsopp 1988: 231; Grabbe 1998: 43. See also, however, the remark of
Cogan (2006: 91). Some scholars consider the current placement of the list to be a very late
editorial development in the book’s formation. See, e.g., Batten 1913: 207; Hölscher 1923a: 521;
and Mowinckel (1964:109–116, with further literature in n. 8). Mowinckel (1964: 110) and Rudolph
1949: 75–76, even claim that the list disrupts the continuity between 2:20 and 3:33. Against this
view, most scholars maintain that the list was inserted at the outset as part of Nehemiah’s
Memoir (some even attributed it to Nehemiah himself ) to justify the literary and ideological
purposes of this literary unit. See especially Noth 1960: 127; Rudolph 1949: 113; Galling 1954: 221–
222; Kellermann 1967: 14–17; Clines 1984: 149; Williamson 1985: 200–202; Kaiser 1992: 139. This is
not the place to discuss this subject, but in my view both proposals are problematic, and it seems
to me that the most plausible solution is that the list of builders was integrated into the Nehemi-
ah Memoir as part of the process of merging and editing the separate literary units and other
literary components into the continuous story line from Ezra 7 to Nehemiah 13.
8 For the various discussions on the size of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah and on the line
of its walls see; Burrows 1933–1934: 115–140; Avi-Yonah 1954; 1971; Tuland 1967; Blenkinsopp 1988:
232–239; Eshel 2000, with further literature cited there.
9 The list has been accepted by most scholars as the main geographical historical evidence for
Persian-period Judah. This is primarily because of the relatively clear date and time extent of
the list, as well as the background for its composition, its technical character, and its wide scope
and because it mentions the settlement boundaries only incidentally. See, e.g., Meyer: 1896: 107–
111; R. Kittel 1929: 49–53; Kallai 1960: 87–94; Stern 1973: 242–245; Williamson 2004: 14–15.
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 573

Apart from the verb ‫החזיק‬, which is discussed below, and three other verbs
(‫ הביאו‬,‫ ויעזבו‬,‫ )החרה‬that are not important in this discussion, the other 18 verbs
all appear in the six verses (vv. 1–3, 13–15) that describe the building of five of
the six gates in Jerusalem’s city walls. The building of the sixth gate, named ‫שער‬
(‫המשנה )שער הישנה‬,10 is described in v. 6 and in the same formula as vv. 13–
15.11 These verses differ from the formula that usually describes the building of
the wall, and they are unique in their sentence structure, which fronts the direct
object after the preposition ‫( את‬or ‫)ואת‬, continues with the verb, and ends with
the subject.

V. 3 ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ‫נוּ‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ת‬

V. 6 ‫ה‬‫סוֹ‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ם‬‫ וּ‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ע‬‫יוֹ‬ ‫יקוּ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ת‬
V. 13 ‫נוֹ‬ ‫י‬ ‫נוּן‬ ‫יק‬ ‫א‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ת‬
V. 14 ‫ם‬ ‫ית‬  ‫ר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫פּוֹת‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ת‬
V. 15 ‫ה‬  ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ן‬ ‫לּוּן‬ ‫יק‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ת‬

The verb ‫“( בנה‬build”) is associated with the gates in five of its seven appearances
in the list (vv. 1, 3, 13, 14, 15). In two additional cases mentioned in v. 2, it is not
clear what was built: “And next to him built the men of Jericho. And next to them
built Zaccur the son of Imri.” This verse is the only deviation from the usual
formula of the building of the wall. In the other cases, the verb ‫ בנה‬is applied
only to the gates. Where the verb ‫ בנה‬refers to the priests in v. 1, it should be
seen as mainly symbolic and meant to stress the priests’ support and the part
they played in the building.12 It is possible to assume that the work done in v. 2
refers to the building of the sheep gate. Similarly, as the sons of Hassenaah in
v. 3 built the fish gate, the men of Jericho and Zaccur the son of Imri could have
built the sheep gate, and the priests were those who sanctified the gate (‫ה‬
‫דּשׁוּהוּ‬) and put the doors in place (‫יו‬ ‫יד‬ ) (Batten 1913: 208). If this is
the case, then it is also possible to assume that in a fashion similar to v. 13,
where there is a separation between Hanun, who ‫יק‬ the valley gate, and the

10 On the correction in the MT, see Williamson 1985: 204–205; 2004: 68; Blenkinsopp 1988: 234;
Lipschits 2004c: 360–361.
11 Reinmuth (2002: 84) noticed the unique pattern of vv. 13–15, their connection to v. 6, and a
similarity with v. 3, and suggested that these verses were a separate source inserted into the two
parts of the list (in his opinion, vv. 1–12 and vv. 16–32).
12 It is doubtful if this was the historical truth. The fact that the list opens by mentioning
Eliashib the high priest first is one of the main indications that this list is not part of the
Nehemiah Memoir. On the connections between Nehemiah and Eliashib the high priest and on
the particular problems between these two characters, see Blenkinsopp 1988: 233.
574 Part F: Biblical Studies

inhabitants of Zanoah who built it, in the case of the sheep gate, “Eliashib the
high priest with his brethren the priests” were those who ‫רוּהוּ‬, while the men
of Jericho and Zaccur the son of Imri were those who built it. It is also possible
that the men of Jericho and Zaccur the son of Imri were those who built the part
of the wall described in v. 1: “to the tower of Hammeah they sanctified it, to the
tower of Hananel.”13
In contrast to the nonuniform formula of the verb ‫בנה‬, which essentially char-
acterizes vv. 1–3, the second part, which describes the building of the six gates, is
distinguished by a uniform style. This formulaic style is connected to the first part
of the description of the building of the gate by means of an anaphoric pronoun
(they or he) and adds to the name of the builder (or builders) and the description
of the building process two additional actions: one action is described with the
verbs ‫רוּהוּ‬ or ִ(‫נוּהוּ‬)‫נּוּ‬‫י‬, and this pertains to the completion of the building
activity. The second action is described by the use of ‫י‬ (according to the
Kethib – once in the third-person singular and five times in third-person plural –
‫ידוּ‬), this is directed or pertains to the placing of the doors, locks, and bolts.
14
v. 1 “‫יו‬ ‫ידוּ‬ ‫שׁוּהוּ‬ ‫ה‬”
15
v. 3 “‫יו‬‫י‬‫וּ‬ ‫יו‬‫עוּ‬ ‫יו‬ ‫ידוּ‬ ‫רוּהוּ‬ ‫ה‬”
v. 6 “‫יו‬‫י‬‫יו וּ‬ ‫יו‬ ‫ידוּ‬ ‫רוּהוּ‬ ‫ה‬”
v. 13 “‫יו‬‫י‬‫יו וּ‬ ‫יו‬ ‫ידוּ‬ ‫נוּהוּ‬ ‫ה‬”
16
v. 14 “‫יו‬‫י‬‫יו וּ‬ ‫יו‬ ‫יד‬ ‫נּוּ‬ ‫”הוּא‬
17
v. 15 “‫יו‬‫י‬‫יו וּ‬ ‫יו‬ ‫ידוּ‬ ‫נּוּ‬‫י‬ ‫נּוּ‬ ‫”הוּא‬

13 See, in opposition to this suggestion, Williamson’s reconstruction (1985: 195–96) of the words
omitted from v. 1 in the original list. In my view, this suggestion is reasonable, but this omitting
of the missing words seems to be not incidental but part of the redaction’s tendency.
14 Kittel (1929: 134), followed by others, corrected the verb ‫ קדשוהו‬to ‫ קרוהו‬and added here
“and locks and bolts” as in the other verses that describe the construction of the gates. In my
opinion, it is doubtful that this suggestion should be accepted (and see Batten 1913: 208), as well
as the suggestion of A. B. Ehrlich (1914: 188) to correct the verb to ‫( קרשוהו‬and see, following
him, Williamson 1985: 195). In any event, placing the priests at the beginning of the list is symbol-
ic, and therefore it is unlikely that it should be corrected according to the usual formula like the
other examples. On this, see Blenkinsopp 1988: 229.
15 After the LXX, this verse (as also in vv. 13, 14, and 15) should be corrected to ‫יו‬‫ וּ‬as in
v. 6 (Batten 1913: 221).
16 The form of the verb here is irregular. Even so, it is hard to accept the proposed two correc-
tions that are based on the LXX (Batten 1913: 222).
17 Following the LXX and the subject of the verse, the form of the verb should be changed to
‫יד‬.
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 575

The style of the list of gate builders indicates that this part of the list was written
after the completion of the building project. The list refers to the final phase of
building, which included roofing the gates and installing the doors, locks, and
bolts. According to 3:38[4:6] the building project was only half finished “and all
the wall was joined together to the half of it.”18 According to 4:1[7], the work had
just begun closing the “breaches,” and the continuation of Ch. 4 describes how
the construction proceeded under the enemy’s threats. Even according to 6:1, the
building of the wall was completed except for the doors, locks, and bolts, but
“Sanballat, and Tobiah, and Geshem the Arabian, and the rest of our enemies
heard that I had built the wall and that there was no breach left in it (though at
that time I had not set up the doors upon the gates).” Clearly, then, this part of
the formula could only have been written in this form after the period described
in 7:1, “Now when the wall had been built and I had set up the doors,” because
this is the completion. At this stage, Nehemiah could command, “Let not the gates
of Jerusalem be opened until the sun is hot” (v. 3).
This additional formula for the completion of the work is exceptional in the
list because it reports minute details about the doors, their bolts, and their locks
and even uses verbs that are unusual and are not repeated in the uniform for-
mula for the building of the gates. From the linguistic and literary point of view,
it is possible to assume that this part of the list was added to the uniform style
found in 3:1b, 3, 6, 13–15, apparently together with the additional remarks in 6:1
and 7:1.19 It is probably part of the redaction of the list, along with v. 3:1a, added
to open the list. If my explanation of v. 2 is correct, then that verse is also part
of this redaction.
We can assume that this addition to the list was intended to stress the cere-
monial and religious aspects of the project, along with the editorial decision to
locate the list here in the Nehemiah Memoir, which highlights Nehemiah’s role
in the building. This was the reason for the linking repetition in 3:33–38, the
emphasis on the scorn and ridicule of Sanballat and his companion, and Nehemi-
ah’s answer (2:19–20).20

18 See the suggestion of Wright (2004: 118–125; 2007: 337–338) that 3:38 is reworked and original-
ly reported the completion of the building, connected to 6:15. On the connection between the
two verses from another angle, see Hurowitz 1992: 122–123.
19 As stated above, Reinmuth (2002: 84) pointed out the different sources of vv. 3, 6, 13–15. In
my opinion, the first part of these verses is from the original list, with stylistic changes made by
the author to stress the gates’ great importance to the building, while the second part was added
by the redactor who inserted the list into this part of the narrative.
20 Most scholars maintain that the list was written after the completion of building the walls,
mainly because they have translated the verb ‫ החזיק‬as “build” and they have not differentiated
between the formula for organizing and financing wall and gate building and the later additions
576 Part F: Biblical Studies

Unlike the formula used to describe the building of the gates, the formula
used to describe the construction of the various parts of the wall is more uniform,
but shorter and less clear, because the direct object (the specific part of the wall
built by a particular person or group) is missing and may only be inferred from
the general context of the list. In each case, the description of the building of a
different section of the wall opens with a preposition connected to the preceding
part of the list.21 Following this comes the verb ‫החזיק‬, in the third-person singular
or plural, the name (or names) or the title of the person (or group) listed, and
occasionally a remark about them or the part of the wall they are building. This
form indicates that the subject matter was drawn up as a list from the outset,
though it is noticeable that in most cases there is no description of the object
built: the size of the part constructed, its exact location, the route or direction of
the wall, or if it had any special characteristics. This may be because the parts of
the wall were listed one after the other as part of the whole description of the
construction of the walls. Even so, this formula indicates that what is important
in the list is the people and their roles in the wall’s construction, not the parts of
the wall (see the table below, in p. 578–579).22

The Verb ‫ החזיק‬in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah

and Chronicles

A central element in the uniform formula of the list of the wall builders is the
verb ‫יק‬ (third-person singular) or ‫יקוּ‬ (third-person plural). This verb ap-
pears alone in almost all parts of the list, without additional verbs, with few
adjectives and no conjunctions. For this reason, scholars have found it difficult
to understand its precise meaning, and it was generally accepted as having a
technical connotation associated with the reconstruction, repairs, or the rein-
forcement of the walls (See, e.g., Zer-Kavod 1949: 95). Myers (1965: 107) translated
it as “reconstructed,” and other scholars translated it as “repaired” (Ryle 1907:
174; Williamson 1985: 200; Blenkinsopp 1988: 227; Cogan 2006: 84). Blenkisopp
(1988: 233) suggested translating it as “reinforced,” while Rudolph (1949: 114) trans-

of the formula dealing with completing the gates and placing the doors. On this subject, see for
example Rudolph 1949: 113; Williamson 1985: 200; Reinmuth 2002: 86.
21 As stated above, until v. 12 (or not until v. 15, as Burrows suggested) the description opened
with the expression ‫( ועל ידו‬or ‫ )ועל ידם‬and continued from v. 16 (with one exception) with
‫( אחריו‬or ‫)ואחריו‬.
22 The table in p. 578–579 is based on the Hebrew Bible. The problems in this version and the
proposed corrections put forward in research are not dealt with here.
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 577

lated it as “ausbessern”. Nevertheless, examining the function and place of this

verb in the list of the wall builders reveals a different meaning and usage of this
verb – namely, “support” or “finance,” meaning funding and organizing the build-
ing of particular parts of the wall, as well as responsibility for their construction.
In all parts of biblical literature, the verb ‫ חזק‬in the Piel and the Hiphil has
expected and clear meanings in the semantic range “renew,” “repair,” “support,”
“make strong,” “fortify,” “fasten,” “upgrade,” “build.” But another meaning was
added, especially in Chronicles – “support and (financially) maintain the temple”
with silver and gold, or even with the spoils of war.23 The description in 1 Chr
26:27 (‫ )מן המלחמות ומן השלל הקדישו לחזק לבית יהוה‬does not concern building
or repairing the temple (which had not yet been built) and is the most obvious
example that it cannot be interpreted here in the usual sense of repairing or
renewing the temple. The two verbs ‫ק‬ ‫דּישׁוּ‬ should be understood with
the general meaning “wealth dedicated to the temple treasury,” even if it was to
be reserved for a certain time. This meaning is even more obvious in the expres-
sions in Chronicles that are analogous to the expression ʹ ‫ לחזק את בדק בית ה‬in
the book of Kings. Opposite the clear connection in Kings between the collection
of silver for the house of God and the act of building and repairing the temple,
the parallel passages in Chronicles suggest a broader connotation of “financial
support for the maintenance of the house of God,” meaning, among other things,
support for the reconstruction and repairs of the temple.24 When the verb ‫חזק‬

23 A direct parallel between ‫ החזיק‬and ‫ תמך‬is found only in Prov 3:18

24 2 Kgs 12:6 shows clearly the usual meaning of this expression: Jehoash the king ordered the
priests to collect silver for repairing the temple, in order to conduct the reconstructions (“‫ ֗ם‬
‫ק‬ ‫ם‬ ‫א‬‫ר־‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ק‬‫ת־‬ ‫ְזּק‬”). In the parallel version in 2 Chr 24:4–5 it is
reported that after the decision of Joash “to repair the house of the Lord”, he ordered the priests
and Levites to collect the silver in order to conduct “annual repairs to the Temple of Yahweh”
(“‫ם‬‫י‬ ‫ית‬-‫ת‬ ‫ק‬”). There are no actual works in Chronicles, but only creating the finan-
cial support for the reparations. Also in 2 Kgs 12:8 there is a clear reference to the actual repairs
in the temple: “Then King Jehoash summoned Jehoiada the priest and the other priests and said
to them, ‘Why are you not repairing the house?’” (‫ים‬  ‫ע‬‫יהוֹ‬ ‫שׁ‬‫הוֹ‬  
‫ת‬ ‫ק‬‫ת־‬ ‫ים‬‫ְזּ‬ ‫ם‬‫י‬ ‫וּ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ר‬). In this case too, the parallel in 2 Chr 24:6–7
stresses that the silver is collected for the empty temple treasury, and there is no mention of
repairs in the temple. In the same vein, it is also stated in 2 Chr 34:8 that the aim of the delegation
Josiah sent was to collect silver from all Israel in order to ‫יו‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬‫ת־‬ ‫ק‬. All transla-
tions and interpretations stated that the aim of this act was “to repair the house of the LORD.”
Indeed, this is the case in 2 Kgs (22:5–6), which states that the silver was collected to build and
repair the temple: “and let it be given into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of
the house of the LORD; and let them give it to the workmen who are at the house of the LORD,
repairing the house, that is, to the carpenters, and to the builders, and to the masons, as well as
for buying timber and quarried stone to repair the house.” In 2 Chr 34:10–11, in contrast, there
is a separation between the silver given “in the hand of the workmen that had the oversight of
578 Part F: Biblical Studies

appears in Chronicles in connection with building and reconstructing projects, it

suggests a physical strengthening of the temple (with iron and copper).25

Further Remarks Basic Formula Verse

‫קּוֹץ‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬‫אוּ‬-‫ן‬ ‫מוֹת‬ ‫יק‬ ‫ם‬-‫ל‬ :4

‫ל‬‫י‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ם‬ ‫יק‬ ‫ם‬-‫ל‬ -"-
‫א‬-‫ן‬ ‫דוֹק‬ ‫יק‬ ‫ם‬-‫ל‬ -"-
‫ת‬ ‫ם‬‫ָוּ‬ ‫יאוּ‬ ‫ם ל‬‫י‬‫י‬ ‫ים‬‫קוֹ‬ ‫יקוּ‬ ‫ם‬-‫ל‬ :5
‫ם‬‫י‬
‫ר‬ ‫ת‬ ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫עוֹן‬ ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫ם‬-‫ל‬ :7
‫ר‬ ‫י‬ ‫דוֹן‬
‫ים‬‫צוֹ‬ ‫ה‬-‫ן‬ ‫ל‬‫י‬ ‫יק‬ ‫דוֹ‬-‫ל‬ :8
‫ה‬ ‫ה‬‫חוֹ‬ ‫ד‬ ‫רוּ‬ ‫בוּ‬ ‫ים‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫דוֹ‬-‫ל‬ -"-
‫רוּ‬  ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ ‫חוּר‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫ם‬-‫ל‬ :9
‫יתוֹ‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ף‬‫רוּ‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫ם‬-‫ל‬ :10
‫ה‬-‫ן‬ ‫טּוּשׁ‬ ‫יק‬ ‫דוֹ‬-‫ל‬ -"-
‫ית‬ ‫ה‬ = ** ‫ם‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ** :11
‫ב‬‫ת מוֹ‬-‫ן‬ ‫שּׁוּב‬
‫יו‬‫נוֹ‬‫ הוּא וּ‬‫רוּ‬  ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ ‫שׁ‬‫לּוֹ‬-‫ן‬ ‫לּוּם‬ ‫יק‬ ‫דוֹ‬-‫ל‬ :12
‫צוּר‬-‫ית‬  ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ ‫בּוּק‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫יו‬ :16
‫ה‬-‫ד‬ ‫יד‬ ‫י‬ ‫ד‬-‫ד‬
‫ים‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬‫שׂוּ‬
‫י‬-‫ן‬ ‫חוּם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫יקוּ‬ ‫יו‬ :17
‫כּוֹ‬ ‫ה‬‫י‬ -‫י‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫דוֹ‬-‫ל‬ -"-
‫ה‬‫י‬  ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ד‬-‫ן‬ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ם‬‫י‬ ‫יקוּ‬ ‫יו‬ :18
‫ת‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ‫שׁוּ‬-‫ן‬ ‫ר‬ ‫דוֹ‬-‫ל‬ ‫ק‬ :19
 ‫ק‬

the house of the LORD,” who are “doing in the house of the LORD, in order to check and
strengthen the house” (‫ת‬ ‫ק‬‫֥דּוֹק וּ‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫י‬ ‫ר‬) and the next phase, where
the silver was given to the works in the temple (“the carpenters and the builders to buy quarried
stone and timber for binders and beams for the buildings which the kings of Judah had let go
to ruin”).
25 According to 2 Kgs 12:13, the collected silver is to be used to “repair the breaches of the house
of the LORD, and for all that was laid out for the house to repair it.” 2 Chr 24:12 (parallel to
vv. 4–5) differentiates between the payment to “masons and carpenters [who] set about repairing
the Temple of Yahweh” and the payment to “iron workers and bronze workers [who] labored to
strengthen the Temple of Yahweh.” This is probably the reason for the separation between the
building of “towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate and at the valley gate and at the angle” by
Uzziah and the additional verb at the end of this verse, stating that he ‫צהוּ‬ ֻ ‫ ְי‬ (“strengthen
them”). This should also be the meaning of this verb in 2 Chr 29:3 (where the subject of the
sentence is the doors of the temple) and in 32:5, where Hezekiah “strengthened the Millo in the
city of David” (‫יד‬ ‫יר‬ ‫וֹא‬‫ת־‬ ‫ק‬), again, not in the context of building the wall.
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 579

(continued)

Further Remarks Basic Formula Verse

‫ית‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ד‬ ‫צוֹ‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ה‬ ‫זבי‬-‫ן‬ ‫רוּ‬ ‫יק‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יו‬ :20
‫דוֹל‬ ‫ן‬ ‫יב‬
-‫ד‬ ‫יב‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ה‬ ‫קּוֹץ‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬‫אוּ‬-‫ן‬ ‫מוֹת‬ ‫יק‬ ‫יו‬ :21
‫יב‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ית‬
‫ר‬ ‫י‬ ‫ים‬ ‫יקוּ‬ ‫יו‬ :22
‫ם‬‫י‬ ‫ד‬ ‫שּׁוּב‬ ‫ן‬ ‫יק‬ ‫יו‬ :23
‫יתוֹ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ה‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫יו‬ -"-
‫צוֹ‬-‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ד‬-‫ן‬ ‫נּוּי‬ ‫יק‬ ‫יו‬ :24
‫ה‬-‫ד‬
‫ית‬ ‫א‬‫יּוֹ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫צוֹ‬ ‫ד‬ ‫י‬‫אוּ‬-‫ן‬ ‫ל‬ :25
‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ר‬ ‫יוֹן‬ 
‫שׁ‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יו‬ -"-
‫ד‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ים‬ ‫יוּ‬ ‫ים‬‫י‬ :26
‫א‬‫יּוֹ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ר‬
‫א‬‫יּוֹ‬ ‫דוֹל‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ים‬ ‫יקוּ‬ ‫יו‬ :27
‫ל‬ ‫ת‬‫ד חוֹ‬
‫יתוֹ‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ר‬-‫ן‬ ‫דוֹק‬ ‫יק‬ ‫יו‬ :29
‫ד‬ ‫ישׁ‬ ‫ים‬‫סּוּ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ל‬ = ** ‫ים‬ ‫יקוּ‬ ** :28
‫יתוֹ‬
‫ח‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫יו‬ -"-
‫י‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫אחרי‬ :30
‫י‬ ‫ף‬-‫ן‬ ‫נוּן‬
‫תוֹ‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬-‫ן‬ ‫ם‬ ‫יק‬ ‫יו‬ -"-
‫ר‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ים‬‫י‬ ‫ית‬-‫ד‬ ‫י‬-‫ן‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יק‬ ‫אחרי‬ :31
‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ד‬
‫אן‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ין‬‫** = וּ‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ים‬ ‫יקוּ‬ ** :32

Most scholars link the Chronicles descriptions of the annual collection of silver for
the temple with the commandment in Exod 30:11–16 (see also 38:25–26) to donate
the half-shekel to the temple ‫ד‬‫ל מוֹ‬ ‫ת‬‫ל־‬ ‫וֹ‬ .26 The stress is on the
fact that the silver was collected to finance numerous works in the temple, similar
to Neh 10:33, which states ‫ה‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ינוּ‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ינ‬ ‫נוּ‬
‫ינוּ‬ ‫ית‬ ‫ת‬. It seems that on this basis the translation of the verb ‫ חזק‬in
the Piel and Hiphil should be understood as it is elsewhere in Nehemiah.
A good example of this meaning of the verb in connection with the building
of the wall is found in Neh 5:16. In v. 14, Nehemiah declares that, since serving as
governor (‫ה‬), he and his brothers “have not eaten the bread of the governor,”

26 See the views of Rudolph 1949: 177–179; Myers 1965: 137–138; Williamson 1985: 335–336; Blen-
kinsopp 1988: 316, with further literature there.
580 Part F: Biblical Studies

whereas those who preceded him “laid heavy burdens upon the people, and took
from them food and wine, besides forty shekels of silver.” He emphasizes that he
not only avoided acting as previous governors did but he also ‫ה‬‫חוֹ‬ ‫ת‬‫א‬ ‫ם‬
‫י‬ ‫זּ‬ (5:16). Most scholars understand the verb ‫ החזקתי‬here as referring
to Nehemiah’s part in the building of the wall but have difficulty pinpointing the
exact meaning.27 But this verse, which is a late insertion in the text,28 is meant to
lay additional stress on the difference between Nehemiah and the governors prior
to him. It seems that the late redactor wished to emphasize that Nehemiah did not
merely refrain from taking silver from the people; he actually supported (financed,
paid for) the building of the wall with his own silver. Nehemiah used the silver not
to enlarge his estate but to support public works.
This unique meaning of the verb ‫ החזיק‬in the Piel and the Hiphil characteriz-
es late Biblical Hebrew, which meets the “three conditions” defined by Hurvitz.
Despite the enormous distance in time, it seems possible to connect the meaning
of this verb as “support,” “finance,” or “donate” with the use of the root ‫ חזק‬in
the local Aramaic Itpael (Naveh 1978: 10). This verb appears in the expressions
‫ אתחזק ועבד‬and ‫( אתחזק ויהב‬meaning “donated and made,” “donated and gave”)
in the dedicatory inscription at ʿIbelin and Navaran and in the meanings “dona-
tion to” or “support for” in the inscriptions from Beit Shean and Navaran.29

On the Place and the Meaning of the Verb ‫החזיק‬

in Nehemiah 3

Examining the list of the builders of the wall in light of the translation of the verb
‫ החזיק‬suggested above shows that a distinction must be made between two groups
of people: those who were responsible for the construction project, who financed
and organized the work, and those who actually built the wall of Jerusalem. The
exceptions in the list are “Malchijah the son of Rechab, the head of the district of
Beth-hakkerem” and “Shallum the son of Colhozeh, the head of the district of Miz-
pah,” who were the only people among the financiers and organizers who also took
part in building the gates. According to v. 14, Malchijah built the dung gate and
even installed the doors, locks, and bolts. Shallum, according to v. 15, financed and
organized the building of the fountain gate and also “built it, and roofed it and set

27 See, for example, Rudolph 1949: 132; Myers 1965: 132; Williamson 1985: 232; Blenkinsopp 1988:
261.
28 As maintained by Williamson 1985: 244.
29 See Naveh 1978, 21, 46, 60, 64, 65, and 69, and compare to the dedicatory inscription no. 76
from Khirbet Susya which states […] ‫זכורין לטובה ולב]רכה…[ שהחזיקו ועשו‬.
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 581

up its doors, bolts and bars.” Not content to have done this, “he also built the wall
of the Pool of Shelah of the king’s garden, as far as the stairs that go down from
the City of David.” On the other hand, Joiada the son of Paseah and Meshullam the
son of Besodeiah financed and organized the building of the Mishneh Gate (3:6),
and although it is not said that they built this gate, they “laid the beams, set up the
doors, their bolts and their bars.” These people are in sharp contrast to those who
financed and organized the various parts of the walls and their gates and even
added ‫ית‬ ‫ה‬ (“a second section”; see vv. 11, 19) but did not take part in the
actual construction. The distinction between those who financed and organized the
building of the valley gate and those who built it is described in v. 13: ‫ר‬ 
 ‫ף‬ ‫יו‬‫י‬‫יו וּ‬ ‫יו‬ ‫יד‬ ‫וּהוּ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫נוֹ‬ ‫י‬ ‫נוּ‬ ‫יק‬ ‫א‬
‫וֹת‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬‫חוֹ‬. This verse should be translated as follows: “Hanun financed
and organized the building of the valley gate and the inhabitants of Zanoah built
it; they set its doors, its bolts, and its bars, and built a thousand cubits of the
wall, as far as the dung gate.” It is therefore impossible to accept the opinion of
commentators and scholars who improperly altered the verb ‫יק‬ from the third-
person singular to the third-person plural, because this change would mean that
Hanun as well as the inhabitants of Zenoah built the Valley Gate together.30 This
change has no practical or grammatical justification, and there is no textual evi-
dence for it. It seems that in this verse there is the usual use of the formula for
building the gates, but with a clear distinction between the two actions: Hanun
organized and financed the building project, and the people of Zanoah built the
gate and furthermore “set its doors, its bolts, and its bars” and built “a thousand
cubits of the wall, as far as the dung gate.” It should be emphasized that in the
entire list, the verb ‫( החזיקו‬third-person plural) appears eight times, and in each
case, it refers to a group: the Tekoites (vv. 5 and 27), the Levites (v. 17), the priests
from the surrounding region (v. 22),31 the priests (v. 28), and the goldsmiths and the
merchants (v. 32). Only once are two persons, “Joiada the son of Paseah and Meshul-
lam the son of Besodeiah” (v. 6), referred to with this verb in third-person plural,
while in v. 18 it is unclear to whom “their brethren, Bavvai the son of Henadad”
refers. But never is there any mention of a particular person together with a specific
group, and in all cases is the distinction maintained between the particular group
of those who actually built the wall and the people who financed and organized it.

30 Myers (1965: 108); Williamson (1985: 197), Blenkinsopp (1988: 228), and others translated the
verb ‫ החזיק‬in the plural and understood it as the plural of “Hanun and the inhabitants of
Zanoah.” On the other hand, see, for example, the translation and commentary of Rudolph (1949:
116–117).
31 See Williamson 1985: 195, 198.
582 Part F: Biblical Studies

Against this background, it is possible to distinguish the unique linguistic

composition of 3:3, the only verse that describes the construction of the gates but
does not mention who financed and organized the building and states that 
‫יו‬‫י‬‫יו וּ‬‫עוּ‬ ‫יו‬ ‫יד‬ ‫וּהוּ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ‫וּ‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ר‬. Accord-
ing to the above reconstruction, the editor’s desire to stress the role of Eliashib
the High Priest and his fellow priests produced the changes in v. 1, as well as the
identification of the priests as the builders of the sheep gate, leaving the men of
Jericho and Zaccur the son of Imri as two exceptions in the list without mention
of what they built. It is possible to assume that originally vv. 1–2 were part of the
same formula, where Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brother priests
and organized and financed the building project, while the men of Jericho and
Zaccur the son of Imri actually built the sheep gate.
The above proposed translation clarifies v. 5, according to which ‫ם‬‫ל־‬
‫ם‬‫י‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ם‬‫ָוּ‬ ‫יאוּ‬‫־‬‫ ל‬‫י‬‫י‬ ‫ים‬‫קוֹ‬ ‫יקוּ‬. This in itself accentu-
ates the verb ‫ החזיק‬as meaning administrative and financial support. This back-
ground highlights the excellent example of the Tekoites, who were able both to
finance and to take part in building and even to contribute financially to another
section, while ‫י‬‫י‬ are criticized for not taking part in building the walls of
Jerusalem.

Who Financed and Organized the Building of the Different

Sections of Jerusalem’s City Walls?

Given the above interpretations of the verb ‫ החזיק‬and of v. 5, it is possible to define

more accurately the identity of the people who financed and organized the building
of various sections of the wall. Excepting a few people who worked on two sections,
the list is segmented into well-defined groups or persons each responsible for orga-
nizing and financially supporting a particular section: twenty sections of the wall
were built with the financial support and organization of individuals mentioned
only by name; eight sections were organized and financially supported by persons
in official positions or heads of districts, subdistricts, or settlements.32 Five sections

32 Individuals mentioned by name: Zaccur the son of Imri (v. 2); Meremoth the son of Uriah,
the son of Hakkoz (two sections, vv. 4, 21); Meshullam the son of Berechiah, the son of Meshezabel
(two sections, vv. 4, 30); Zadok the son of Baana (v. 4); Joiada the son of Paseah and Meshullam,
the son of Besodeiah (v. 6); Melatiah the Gibeonite and Jadon the Meronothite (v. 7); Uzziel the
son of Harhaiah (v. 8); Jedaiah the son of Harumaph (v. 10); Hattush the son of Hashabneiah
(v. 10); Malchijah the son of Harim and Hasshub the son of Pahath-moab (v. 11); Hanun (v. 13);
Baruch the son of Zaccai (a correction from Zabbai; v. 20); Benjamin and Hasshub (v. 23); Azariah
the son of Maaseiah, the son of Ananiah (v. 23); Binnui the son of Henadad (v. 24); Palal the son
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 583

are mentioned as organized and financially supported by persons in cultic posi-

tions, such as priests, Levites, and temple servants.33 Another section of the wall
was financed and organized by Shemaiah the son of Shecaniah, who held another
official position in Jerusalem – “the keeper of the east gate” (v. 29). Four sections
were financed and organized by settlements from outlying areas of the province.34
One part of the wall was financed and organized by “the goldsmiths and the mer-
chants,” two groups referred to only by their professions,35 another section by
(probably) a member of this group, ‫י‬‫ן־‬  (“Malchijah, one of the gold-
smiths,” v. 31), and another by a member of another professional group ‫ה‬
‫ים‬‫ן־‬ (“Hananiah, one of the perfumers,” v. 8).
The great variety of persons and groups mentioned in the list proves that
there was no direct connection between the function, status, and position of the
individuals and groups and the organization and financial support of the sections
of Jerusalem’s wall.36 It is therefore possible to assume that persons in the list

of Uzai (v. 25); Pedaiah the son of Parosh (v. 25); Zadok the son of Immer (v. 29); Shem'aiah the
son of Shecaniah (v. 29); Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, (v. 30); Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph
(v. 30); and Meshullam the son of Berechiah (v. 30).
Persons in official positions and heads of districts, subdistricts, or settlements: Rephaiah the
son of Hur, the head of half the district of Jerusalem (v. 9); Shallum the son of Hallohesh, the
head of half the district of Jerusalem (v. 12); Malchijah the son of Rechab, the head of the district
of Beth-hakkerem (v. 14); Shallun the son of Colhozeh, the head of the district of Mizpah (v. 15);
Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the head of half the district of Beth-zur (v. 15); Hashabiah, the head
of half the district of Keilah (v. 17); Bavvai the son of Henadad, the head of half the district of
Keilah (v. 18); Ezer the son of Jeshua, the head of Mizpah (v. 19).
33 Priests: Eliashib the high priest with his brothers the priests (v. 1); the priests from the sur-
rounding region (v. 22; and see Williamson (1985: 195, 198); the priests as a group built “everyone
over against his own house” (v. 28). Levites: One section of the wall was financed and organized
by a Levite family headed by Rehum the son of Bani (v. 17). Temple servants: One section of the
wall was organized and financed by temple servants who “dwelled in Ophel” (v. 26).
34 Out of the four sections of the wall that were financed and organized by the groups named
after the settlements from which they came, two sections were built by the Tekoites, and, as
stated above, it is possible to assume that this is the reason for stressing that they bore the
burden, ‫ם‬‫י‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ם‬‫ָוּ‬ ‫יאוּ‬‫־‬‫ ל‬‫י‬‫י‬ (v. 5), and they were not satisfied with one
section and ‫ית‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ים‬ ‫יקוּ‬ (v. 27). The men of Jericho built next to them (v. 2a), and
another section was built by the sons of Hassenaah (v. 3). The inhabitants of Zanoah (v. 13) are
not part of this category because they were partners with Hanun, who seems to have financed
a comparatively large section of the wall.
35 See v. 32. It is possible to assume that they were part of the merchants of Jerusalem who had
a definite financial interest in the building of the wall. Compare also with the professions in
vv. 8 and 31, and see Smith 1971: 119.
36 It is not known why certain tasks were given to those specifically mentioned in the list,
because there are other important persons not mentioned in the list, nor is there any indication
of whether tasks were assigned or chosen, based on the workers’ personal understanding of the
584 Part F: Biblical Studies

designated without any title were inhabitants of Jerusalem who could afford to
organize the building of a section of the wall and undertake the financial burden
of the enterprise.37 From this, we may deduce that those who held official posts
in the administration of the province, who bore the title ‫ שר‬and were the heads
of districts,38 half districts, and settlements, did not contribute as part of their
official obligations but because they could bear the cost of the building project
they themselves funded and organized.39 The text does not say that these persons
lived in the areas assigned to them, or that they built the section of the wall with
the assistance of people from that area. It seems that the difference between the
people who served in the administration of the province and those mentioned by
name and not by title lies in the fact that the officials were subordinate to the
governor, who could require them to pay the expenses.
It is possible to assume that most of the organizers of the building of the
various sections were residents of Jerusalem, who had a direct interest in the
construction. Among them, nine were responsible for the part of the wall near
their houses: four sections of the wall were financed and organized by persons
who lived ‫ד‬ (“in front of”) part of the wall (vv. 10, 23, 28, 29). One section of the
wall was ‫תו‬ ‫ד‬ (“in front of his room”) regarding Meshullam the son of

need for the construction or their connections with the leaders of the people or with the gover-
nor, or for any other reason. Against the common assumption that all the important people of
that time were mentioned in the list see, e.g., Wright 2004: 91.
37 Smith (1971: 129) has already understood the role of the individuals and the groups mentioned
in the list in a similar way, and see in this vein Blenkinsopp’s note (1988: 129).
38 Most scholars have understood the term ‫פלך‬, mentioned only in Nehemiah 3 (eight times in
vv. 9, 12, 14–18), as district ‫מחוז‬. See, e.g., Meyer 1896: 166–167; Noth 1960: 325; S. Herrmann 1975:
315; Aharoni 1979: 418; Fensham 1982: 175; Clines 1984: 150; Miller and Hayes 1986: 642; Ahlström
1993: 843. See E. A. Speiser’s fundamental discussion on the term pilku (1956: 161–162), and cf.
the explanations of Williamson (1985: 206), Blenkinsopp (1988: 232, 235–236) and Weinfeld (2000:
249). Demsky (1983a: 53; 1983b) claimed that ‫ פלך‬was an administrative term for a group of
workers drafted for labor. Demsky was followed by Graham (1984: 57); Carter 1999: 80; Hoglund
2002: 16; and Edelman 2005: 213–216. This is the direction already taken by Bowman (1954: 267).
However, apart from the method problem of the sources on which Demsky had based his work
(and see §F, below), this contention cannot be accepted because only seven segments of the wall
were built by “group leaders” of this kind. This would also demand that Judah had an extremely
complicated if well-developed administrative system in which each district had supervisors for
conscripted workers, which would indicate many of these undertakings. For criticism on this
interpretation, see Williamson 1985: 206; Carter 1991: 75–76 and n. 71; Naʾaman 1995b: 21, n. 39;
Weinfeld 2000 Cogan 2006: 89, n. 10.
39 It is not surprising that those who organized and financed the building of the various sections
of the wall are denoted by a variety of official titles and personal names according their places
of residence. This combination strengthens the supposition that the official titles were not con-
nected to the specified assignments of the building project.
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 585

Berechiah (v. 30), and another section was ‫יתוֹ‬ ‫ל‬ (“next to his house”) regard-
ing Azariah the son of Maaseiah the son of Ananiah (v. 23). The goldsmiths and
the merchants organized and financed the section of the wall adjacent to their
house, and they are mentioned directly after Malchijah, one of the goldsmiths
responsible for the section ‫ים‬ ‫ים‬‫י‬ ‫ית‬‫ד־‬ (“as far as the house of the
temple servants and the merchants,” vv. 31–32). So it is possible to assume that
the temple servants who resided in the Ophel were responsible for financing and
organizing the section of the wall “as far as the place opposite the water gate
toward the east, and the projecting tower” (v. 26) and that continuing from there
“Shemaiah the son of Shecaniah the keeper of the east gate” (v. 29) financed and
organized the section of the wall by that gate.
There is hardly any connection between the names in the list of the “return-
ees” (Nehemiah 7 = Ezra 2) and the names mentioned in Nehemiah 3 and the fact
that several of the persons named in Nehemiah 3 are mentioned elsewhere in
the book of Nehemiah (especially in the Memoir) as being among his opponents40
All these facts reinforce the assumption that the list is a separate source, incorpo-
rated in the Nehemiah Memoir for literary and ideological purposes.

Similar Methods of Building City Walls

Cogan already noted the similarities between the list in Nehemiah 3 and Nehemi-
ah’s role in the building project, on the one hand, and the reports about and the
building of the wall of Dur-Šarrukin (present-day Khorsabad) in the reign of
Sargon II of Assyria (between 717 and 706 BCE), on the other (Cogan 2006). Much
can be learned from the royal inscriptions carved on the walls and other parts
of the palaces and temples and from the reliefs of the royal palace, but the main
source of information on the building process in Dur-Šarrukin and the way the
work was conducted, supervised, registered, and reported, is the administrative
correspondence and other documents from the Assyrian state archives, written

40 Note especially Eliashib the high priest (Neh 13:4–8, 28; however, see Rudolph (1949: 203–204)
and Blenkinsopp (1988: 353–354), who think that vv. 4–8 refer to a different Eliashib); Meshullam
the son of Berechiah (Neh 6:18–19); Meremoth the son of Uriah, the son of Hakkoz (cf. Ezra 8:33
to Neh 7:61–65 [= Ezra 2:59–63]); and Shemaiah the son of Shecaniah (Neh 3:29, if this is indeed
the son of the same Shecaniah, the son of Araú, who, according to Neh 6:18, was the son in law
of Tobiah; and see Edelman 2005: 23–24; Knoppers 2007, esp. p. 323 n. 52. This point was one of
the main issues argued by Fried, that Nehemiah was completely isolated in Judah. See Fried
2004: 156–212). But see, however, Knoppers’s comment (2007: 322 n. 50) and the overview of
Grabbe 2004: 294–313.
586 Part F: Biblical Studies

in the course of the building project (Parpola 1987; Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990;
Fales and Postgate 1992; 1995).41 Of special interest are the “Building Progress
Reports” (Fales and Postgate 1995: nos. 15–21).
From the king’s royal inscriptions we know that the massive building effort
was administered directly by the ruler (Fales and Postgate 1995: xv). However, the
main conclusion arising from the “Building Progress Reports” (probably periodic
reports prepared at the site to update the king and the central administration) is
that officials and provincial governors were responsible for providing the labor
force for specific sections of the city wall. The work consisted mainly of laying
courses of bricks, installing beams and drainpipes, and building towers and gates.
There is a clear separation between the supply of the labor force (mainly depor-
tees, including deportees from Samaria) and the supply of building materials
(Parpola 1995: 54–55, 64–65). In some cases, the king contributed, and the building
materials were supplied to the workers (Fales and Postgate 1995: xvi, and see
esp. no. 21), and it seems that the regular-sized bricks were produced in local
centers that received the raw materials from the central government and distrib-
uted them to the builders of the sections (Fales and Postgate 1995: xviii; Parpola
1995: 57). The portion of work assigned to each provincial governor (pilku) was
carefully planned, and each sector was well defined (Parpola 1995: 51):42 “from
[brick-course] 850 to the edge of the gate of the tower of the people.”
Based on the above, and assuming that the same principal methods were in
use during the Persian period, we may conclude that Nehemiah, as governor of
the province, was responsible for the construction work carried out in Jerusalem
(Cogan 2006: 90). That is why, even if the list was compiled in Nehemiah’s time,
we should not expect to find his name in it. The governor supervised and admin-
istered the work, and the list names all the officials, heads of districts, and other
functionaries in the province who were individually responsible for financing
and organizing the sections of the wall. Each of them was assigned a particular
part of the wall, described in detail in the list, and, as in the building progress
reports from Dur-Šarrukin, in some cases the location of the section is missing,
and the sections are simply mentioned one after the other (Cogan 2006: 88). The
source of this list might have been a similar report on the progress of the work,
compiled during the preparation for the project or even during the work itself,

41 See a description of the documents and a summary of their content and implications on our
understanding of the project, as summarized by Parpola 1995. See also the summary of the
relevant texts for comparison with the building of Nehemiah’s wall as made by Cogan 2006: 86–
90, with further literature.
42 See, e.g., Parpola 1987: no. 64; cf. also Cogan 2006: 88–90. Definition of each section: e.g., the
description of Parpola 1987: no. 64, rev. 5–7; cf. Fales and Postgate 1995: xvi.
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 587

describing the exact section of the wall that each person was responsible to fi-
nance and organize.43
Another interesting parallel to the restoration of Jerusalem’s wall, much clos-
er in time but distant from the geographical and geopolitical viewpoint, is found
in the renovation of the long walls from Athens to its port of Piraeus.44 These
walls were destroyed in the year 404 BCE, after Athens’s surrender to Sparta, and
were rebuilt by Konon in the ruling year of Eubolides (between July 16th 394 and
July 5th 393 BCE). An inscription that describes the building of one of the sections
of the wall describes its exact place and length (790 feet) and stresses that Demos-
thenes the Beotian was responsible for its construction and for the transportation
of the stones (Kirchner 1927: 290, inscription no. 1657).45

Conclusions: The Source of the List and the Purpose

of Its Insertion

The first conclusion from the above discussion is that the list of the “builders of
the wall” comprises both those who organized and financed the construction of
the various sections of the wall and those who organized and financed the build-
ing of the six gates. As it stands, the list was composed of two basic and similar
lists: of those who financed and organized the building of the gates and of those
who financed and organized the building of the different sections of the wall.
The different formulas used in reference to sections of wall as opposed to the
gates suggests that the author of the list placed great importance on the gates.
Nonetheless, it can be assumed that the two formulas were written by the same
author, because their use of grammar and language is the same and they are
expertly interwoven. It can be assumed that the editor who inserted the list along
with other sources and with the Nehemiah Memoir laid further stress on the
gates by adding the second part of the building formula, describing the placing
of the doors, the locks, and the bolts, while at the same time clearly hinting at
the editorial comments in Neh 6:1 and 7:1. As part of the same editorial process,
v. 3:1a was added to open the list, and if the proposed explanation to v. 2 is cor-
rect, then it is part of the same process.

43 As opposed to the conclusions of Cogan (2006: 90–91), who hypothesizing that the list was
drawn up toward the conclusion of the project.
44 Smith (1971: 129–130) and Blenkinsopp (1988: 232–233) have mentioned the connection of this
inscription to the system of building the wall of Jerusalem at the time of Nehemiah.
45 The translation here is based on Foucart (1887). I would like to thank Prof. Ran Zadok for his
assistance in interpreting and understanding this inscription.
588 Part F: Biblical Studies

This list was not originally part of the Nehemiah Memoir. It was apparently
written in order to document the persons who financed and organized the build-
ing of the gates and the various sections of the walls. Just like in Dur-Šarrukin,
the governor of the province, whether Nehemiah or one of his predecessors, was
responsible for conducting the project. As we learn from the “Building Progress
Reports,” we must not expect to find the governor’s name in the list of officials,
heads of districts, and other functionaries in the province, recorded in the order
of the sections for which they were responsible, rather than in the order of their
importance. The source of this was probably compiled in the preparation stage
of the project and might have been used during the work itself, describing the
exact wall section each person was responsible for financing and organizing. The
list was inserted by the editor of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in the right
place, namely, in the beginning of preparation to build the walls and the com-
mencement of the work.46 The editor’s aim was to emphasize the role and impor-
tance of Nehemiah as the one who instigated the building project, led it, dealt
with the difficulties that arose throughout the duration of the work, and finally
brought the project to a swift and successful conclusion. To this end, the editor
added the uniform formula of placing the doors and connected it to the editorial
comments of Neh 6:1 and 7:1. This was part of the wider purpose to create an
affinity between the actions of Nehemiah and the building of the walls, with the
emphasis on this project as the most important event in the restoration of Jerusa-
lem as the religious and political center of the province and undisputed center
for all the Judeans.
This editing created a direct association between the contents of the Nehemi-
ah Memoir and the building of the walls and repopulating Jerusalem. It placed
the list at the center of the process while highlighting Nehemiah’s actions. Thus,
according to the Nehemiah Memoir, the information about the state of the walls
and gates (“the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates are destroyed by
fire”) was the main reason for Nehemiah’s arrival (1:3), and his appeal to the
king shows his intention of restoring the city and rebuilding it (2:3, 5). Nehemiah’s
main petition to the king is to provide him with “a letter to Asaph, the keeper of
the king’s garden, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of
the fortress of the temple, and for the wall of the city, and for the house which I
shall occupy” (2:8). The first thing Nehemiah does after arriving at the city is to
walk around and inspect the destroyed walls (vv. 12–16), and the description the

46 As opposed to the assumption of many scholars and commentators; cf. to Wright (2004: 110–
111, 119–120; 2007: 336–337) and Cogan (2006: 85, 91), who understood the list as describing the
actual building of the wall. Much of Wright’s thesis was grounded in this assumption, which is,
in my opinion, not well founded enough.
 Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose 589

state of the walls says that they “had breaches there and [their] gates had been
destroyed by fire” (v. 13). Immediately afterwards, Nehemiah rouses the leaders
of the people and encourages them “Come, let us build the wall of Jerusalem”
(v. 17). The list in Nehemiah 3 demonstrates the support that Nehemiah received
from all who engaged in financing and building the walls despite the difficulties
(4:1–2 and so on), while chaps. 4 and 5 conspicuously stress Nehemiah’s role and
how he functioned despite danger to himself (Ch. 6). The Nehemiah Memoir is
directed toward the time when it would be possible to move on to the next stage –
populating Jerusalem and its demographic strengthening. Only when “the wall
had been built and I had set up the doors” (7:1), when Nehemiah could command
“Let not the gates of Jerusalem be opened until the sun is hot,” could he also
begin to repopulate the city, and the book he found, “the book of the genealogy
of those who came up at the first” (7:5) was the starting point of this process.
The above discussion shows that from the editorial point of view it was high-
ly important to make the connection between Nehemiah and the whole project
of the building of the walls – from the decision to the preparations and on to the
final stage, placing the gates and posting guards on the walls. With this aim, the
significance of the list in Ch. 3 goes beyond the comments inserted by the editor
into the Nehemiah Memoir, because it emphasizes Nehemiah’s role in the process
and the widespread support he got for building. The fact that the list was not
originally connected to Nehemiah did not concern the editor – to him, the impor-
tant point was to insert the list exactly where it belonged and thus to portray this
period as the outcome of the community’s decision to organize its way of life
according to God’s intention for his people, under the leadership of Nehemiah
and as part of the wide national consensus.47

47 In the same way and from the same intention, the same editor inserted the list in Nehe-
miah 11; see Lipschits 2002b.
Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11
Most scholars have argued for a literary connection between ch. 7 and ch. 11 of
Nehemiah.1 After building the wall (Neh 7:1) and making arrangements for guard-
ing the city (7:2–3), Nehemiah ponders the problem of populating Jerusalem: “The
city was wide and large, but the people within it were few and no houses had
been built” (7:4). In his search for a solution, Nehemiah came upon a list of those
who had come up out of captivity, “the book of the genealogy of those who came
up at the first” (7:6–73a), parallel to the list of returnees found in Ezra 2:1–70. The
account, beginning in Neh 7:73b, carries the narrative line through three chapters
(8, 9, 10), concerned with the assembly of the people for reading the Torah, cele-
brating the festival of Tabernacles, and sealing the covenant. Immediately after-
wards, the opening of ch. 11 returns to the problem of populating Jerusalem. The
leaders of the people who lived in Jerusalem and the rest of the people, who
lived in their towns (7:73a), decide to cast lots “to bring one out of ten to live in
Jerusalem the holy city while nine-tenths remained in the other towns” (Neh 11:1).
In this literary context, ch. 11 seems to encompass the fortification of Jerusa-
lem’s physical, human, and governmental strength. The aim of this article is to
demonstrate that this chapter is particularly solemn and tendentious, intending
to emphasize the renewed centrality of the holy city, the ancient capital of the
nation. The emphasis here is on the utopian and ideological aspects of the au-
thor’s perceptions. The fortification and repopulating of the city are both de-
scribed as the initial stages in the process of the city’s restoration to the fame
and glory known during the monarchic period.

The Structure and Composition of Nehemiah 11

This chapter is composed of three lists (or parts of lists) and of three passages
written or reworked by the author/editor meant to connect the lists, with the aim
of highlighting the ideological message.2

1 In modern research the connection between these chapters is generally regarded as the fruit
of later redaction. Japhet’s opinion (1994: 120, n.14) is exceptional, because, as part of her objec-
tion to the usual reconstruction of the multistage formulation of the literary corpus of Ezra and
Nehemiah, she also negates the link between Ch. 7 and Ch. 11. In her view, “the attachment of
Nehemiah 11:1–2 to Nehemiah 7:5 or 72a creates a continuity of subject matter, but not of text,
and the narrative seems to lack some connecting link”.
2 There is no agreement among interpreters on the subdivision of the chapter; see, e.g., Batten
1913: 267–272; Myers 1965: 181–192; Fensham 1982: 243–248; Eskenazi 1988: 111; Grabbe: 1998: 59–
60.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-032
592 Part F: Biblical Studies

Verses 1–2: The literary opening, linking ch. 11 to ch. 7 and presenting the
main theme of the chapter: the repopulation of the city.3
Verse 3: A verse authored by the editor, with two statements in the form
of headings, appearing consecutively, without any lists following.4
One is the heading of the list of the heads of the people who
lived in Jerusalem, apparently still prior to its repopulation, who
undoubtedly continued to live there afterwards.5 The other is the
heading of the list of the rest of the people, who lived in their
towns, apparently before the repopulating of Jerusalem.6

3 Williamson (1985: xxxii–xxxiii, 345; 1999: 283 n. 17) assumes that these verses, which create the
literary tie with ch. 7, are at most a reworking of the Nehemiah Memoir. On this subject, see also
Clines 1984: 211; Gunneweg 1987: 140–141; Blenkinsopp: 322–323. For our purposes, and with the
focus on the final form of this chapter, the question whether these two verses are a citation from
the Nehemiah Memoir, a reworking of another source, or the composition of the author/editor is
of no importance. Eskenazi’s discernment (1988: 111–115) of a connection of these two verses to
10:35–40 is of great importance; there the casting of lots and the submission of the tithe to the
temple are mentioned. On this subject, see also Williamson 1999: 284, and see further below.
4 Batten (1913: 266–267) regards the first part of the verse as the heading of a list (without a
list) and the second part as a misplaced fragment that should be attached to v. 20. Myers (1965:
186) considers the entire verse a preliminary comment by the editor, based on 1 Chr 9:2. Fensham
(1982: 244) sees this verse as a description of a given situation. Williamson (1985: 348) regards
vv. 3–4a as a later addition to the list that follows them, apparently the work of the editor.
Blenkinsopp (1988: 322–324) is of the same mind, also associating with this stage the adding of
the entire list of ‫ים‬ (vv. 25–36).
5 The structure of the heading, “These are the chiefs of the province who lived in Jerusalem”
(Neh 11:3), is based on a known formula for lists that appear in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah,
as well as in Chronicles. The formula has three parts: (1) the opening word “” (“and these
are”); (2) the title of those enumerated in the list or definition of their status; and (3) a description
of the event or historical situation on which the list is based or from which its particularity
arises, by means of a conjunctive letter or word (…‫)ה…אשר…ש‬, a verb referring to the main
subject of the list, a definition of the place, and usually also a definition of the time to which
the list refers. Compare Ezra 2:1; 8:1; Neh 7:6; 12:1; 1 Chr 1:34; 2:1; 3:1, 5; etc. Additionally, compare
this structure with the list in Gen 36:31. For a similar opinion on this heading, see Blenkinsopp
1988: 323.
6 Verse 3, “but in the towns of Judah everyone lived on his property in their towns: Israel, the
priests, the Levites, the temple servants, and the descendants of Solomon’s servants,” recalls
headings of secondary lists within large lists, which were intended to distinguish subgroups
within the list. Compare, e.g., Ezra 2:61; 1 Chr 3:10, 22; 4:13, 15, 19; etc. Note that the definitions
mentioned in this heading include all sections of the people detailed later in the list in vv. 4–24.
Some hold that this verse is not a heading but a note by the editor, and Blenkinsopp (1988: 323–
324) believes that it is an expansion of the heading to the list in 1 Chr 9:2–3. As will be shown
below, the entire opening of the chapter (vv. 1–3) seems to be an editorial composition meant to
stress the ideological message in this chapter.
 Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11 593

Verses 4–19: A list of the settlers in Jerusalem. The structure and names of
many of the persons recorded in the list coincide with those in
the list in 1 Chr 9:2–17.7
Verse 20: A summary, mentioning the rest of the population who continued
to live outside Jerusalem.8
Verses 21–24: A list of governmental and ritual officeholders who lived in Jeru-
salem (apparently still before the repopulation process, and cer-
tainly after it).9
Verses 25–36: A list of the ‫ים‬10

On the face of it, the structure of the main units constituting ch. 11 seems logical.11
Still, most scholars have not been able to follow the method of organization and
structure of all its components, and they emphasize the difficult editorial prob-
lems that produced its final form. Many researchers have argued that the text in
this chapter is not homogeneous and that its final form is the outcome of diverse
sources and of different stages of editing (Rudolph 1949: xxii–xxiii, 186–187; Fen-
sham 1982: 248; Williamson 1985: 349; Blenkinsopp 1988: 327; Grabbe 1998: 59–60).
Beyond these textual problems, researchers and commentators have paused over
two principal questions: (1) the nature of the connection between Ch. 11 and the
Nehemiah Memoir generally and Ch. 7 in particular; and (2) the source and histor-
ical reliability of the lists embedded in the chapter. We shall briefly clarify the
answers given by scholars to these questions, summarize the literary features of
the chapter and its composition, and use this as a basis for elucidation of its
ideological tendencies.

7 On this subject, see below. Here I do not treat the important arguments made by Kellermann
(1966) about the nature of the list, although criticism should be directed at the dating given to
it. On this subject, see Williamson 1985: 347–348.
8 Williamson (1985: 349–350) largely went according to the possibility argued earlier by Fensham
(1982: 248). In Williamson’s view, this verse matches the literary opening in vv. 1–2, and the
parallel to 1 Chr 9:9, which ends at this point, strengthens the assumption that this is the end of
the original list. It is hard to accept the views of W. Rudolph (1949: 186–187), Myers (1965: 188),
and Blenkinsopp (1988: 326–328) that v. 20 originally served as a heading for the list of ‫ים‬
and became separated from it when vv. 21–24 were added, and that an additional tendentious
heading was inserted in v. 25a. Against this view, see the arguments of Williamson 185: 344, 349.
9 Many scholars hold that this truncated list is a later addition, perhaps an addition written in
several different stages (Williamson 1985: 349).
10 On this list, see below.
11 After the opening (w. 1–2) there follows a list of settlers and those living in Jerusalem (w. 3–
24), after which is a list of places of settlement of the rest of the inhabitants of the province
(w. 25–36). See Clines 1984: 211; Japhet, “Composition and Chronology” 1994: 120, n.17.
594 Part F: Biblical Studies

The Nature of the Connection between Chapter 11

and the Nehemiah Memoir

Almost complete agreement exists regarding the continuity of subject matter and
the literary link between ch. 7 and ch. 11.12 An exception is Kellermann (1967: 41–
44, 103–105), who sees the continuation of ch. 7 as 12:27–43, chiefly based on the
literary features of the Nehemiah Memoir.13 Despite the difficulty with this opin-
ion, his main argument, namely, the difference between the writing styles of ch. 7
and ch. 11, is a fact that no modem scholar can ignore (Kellermann 1967: 43;
Mowinkel 1964: 48–49; Japhet 1994: 120 n. 14).14 In this light, it is usual nowadays
to assume that the narrative continuity and the link between these two chapters
are the work of a later editor.15 This editor reworked the sources at his disposal,
among them the Nehemiah Memoir and the various lists, and he was responsible
for the literary continuity and the connection between these sources. His chief
purpose was to place his own interpretive stamp on these materials and to stress
to his readers the messages he wished to convey to them.16

12 On the connection between Ch. 7 and Ch. 11, see Meyer 1896: 94–102; Batten 1913: 266–267;
Rudolph 1949: 181; Myers 1965: 186; Fensham 1982: 242; Clines 1984: 211; McConville 1985: 136;
Grabbe 1998: 59–60, 168. R. J. Coggins (1976: 127) doubted the continuity of Ch. 7 and Ch. 11, but
the alternative he proposed seems even less adequate (on this subject, see also n. 3 above).
13 Against Kellermann, see the arguments of Williamson 1985: 268–269; Blenkinsopp 1988: 343
348; Grabbe 1998: 62, 168.
14 For an assembly of examples of the different styles of the Nehemiah Memoir and of Ch. 11,
see Williamson 1985: 344–345. Another consideration is the change from a description in the first
person, which is typical of the Nehemiah Memoir, to the third person singular, the chief literary
characteristic distinguishing the two literary units. This literary difference is particularly impor-
tant in the account of the population of Jerusalem; the active factor here is the people, and
Nehemiah is not mentioned in the episode. On this subject, see also Eskenazi 1988: 111–116.
15 See Williamson 1985: 344–346; Holmgren 1987: 141; Eskenazi, 1988: 112–113; Blenkinsopp 1988:
343; Throntveit 1989: 111; Grabbe 1998: 168. See also Williamson and Tollefson 1992: 63. Japhet
(1994) is exceptional in this respect, in that she reconstructs a different literary process.
16 It is hard to accept the theory of Williamson (1985: 345–346) that the editor had before him
a double account of the episode of the repopulation, once as the activity of the people and once
as the activity of Nehemiah. In his view, a later editor preferred the first account because it
suited better the description of the casting of lots in 10:34–35; there too the behavior of the
people as a community engaged in organizing its own life in light of their perception of God’s
will for them is portrayed.
 Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11 595

The Source and Historical Reliability of the Lists Embedded

in the Chapter

List of Settlers in Jerusalem

Almost all the commentators believe that the list of settlers in Jerusalem (vv. 4–
19) reflects actual historical circumstances of the period after the rebuilding of
Jerusalem’s walls.17 Most of them take the list literally as containing the names
of the Jews who settled in Jerusalem after the city’s fortification.18 Still, the source
of the list and its connection with the parallel list in 1 Chr 9:2–17 remain contro-
versial.19 The differences between the lists are great, even in places where the
texts are parallel; each contains a great amount of material missing from the
other; and even the numerical totals in the two lists are different. A further
difficulty is the significant difference between the MT version of the list in Ne-
hemiah and the Septuagint version, which from v. 12 is far shorter. In the view
of some scholars, the LXX version is actually the one that retains the original list
or an earlier edition of it (Tov 1981: 301).20
Some have posited the existence of a common ancient source (an archival
document preserved in the temple?) from which the versions in Neh 11 and
1 Chr 9 were drawn, in keeping with the literary concepts of each author.21 Con-
trary to this view, most researchers consider the Nehemiah list to be the source

17 Among the exceptions, note, on the one hand, Kellermann (1967: 209–227), who largely fol-
lowed Junge (1937: 42) and dated the list to the end of the time of Josiah. On the other hand,
note Mowinkel (1964: 1: 149–150), who dated the list to a generation after the time of Nehemiah.
For arguments against Kellermann’s earlier dating, see Williamson 1985: 347–348; and against
Mowinkel’s later dating, see ibid.: 347.
18 Most scholars base their view on details conveyed in the list that are without parallels else-
where, names not mentioned again in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, precise numbers men-
tioned in it, and so on. See, e.g., Batten 1913: 267; McConville 1985: 136; Williamson 1985: 346–
349; Holmgren 1987: 142–143; and Grabbe 1998: 59–60. An important datum added and affirmed
by Williamson (1985: 347) is the match of the list to its time in terms of the ritual functions
mentioned in it between the situation typical of the first days of the return to Zion and the
situation at the close of the period. Nevertheless, scholars are cautious about the degree of
historical reliability of the list. A comparison with the Septuagint version attests to changes that
occurred in certain details, whether in the course of editing or in the transmission of the text.
See Batten 1913: 267; Williamson 1985: 346–347.
19 For a precise comparison of the lists, see Meyer 1896: 184–190.
20 On the preference for the LXX version to the MT, see also Rudolph 1949: xx; and McCarter
1986: 93–94.
21 See, e.g., Smend 1881: 7; Noth 1943: 130–131; Schneider 1959: 42–43, 231; Myers 1965: 185–186;
1965: 66–73; Fensham 1982: 244; Clines 1984: 213. In the same direction, see Ackroyd 1973: 43.
596 Part F: Biblical Studies

later expanded by the Chronicler, who at times included additions belonging to

the later editing of Nehemiah.22 This question is hard to settle, but the clear idea
that seems to underlie the list in ch. 11, and its evident tendentiousness (which I
will demonstrate below), strengthen the assumption of Gary N. Knoppers (2000)
that the list in this chapter is not the source used by the Chronicler. It too is a
reworking and adaptation of some source at the disposal of the author/editor
when he chose to make use of it for his own purposes.

The list of ‫ים‬

Many scholars have treated the list of ‫ים‬23 (vv. 25–36) as reflecting the reality
of history and of settlement at the time of the return to Zion. This perception has
become entrenched in research despite the recognition of a connection between
this list and the list of the towns of Judah in Josh 15;24 despite the knowledge that
a large portion of the settlements in the list are not mentioned in other lists in
the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and are located in regions not within the bound-
aries of Judean rule throughout the Persian era;25 and despite the fact that the
list opens ceremoniously, with denotation of the earlier name of Ḥebron, ‫קרית‬
‫( הארבע‬Kiriath-arba).26
A few researchers take the caption of the list as it stands, and, despite the
historical and textual problems, regard the list as marking the places where
Jews lived in the time of the return to Zion (Batten 1913: 266–267; Klein 1939: 5–6,

22 See, e.g., Curtis and Madsen 1910: 168; Batten 1913: 267; Rudolph 1949: 183–184; Mowinkel
1964: 1: 146–147; Kellermann 1967: 209–227; Japhet 1968: 351–354; 1989: 299; Brockington 1969: 187;
Coggins 1976: 127; Williamson 1985: 348–349; Braun 1986: 132–136; Blenkinsopp 1988: 323–324. See
the opposite opinion of Holscher 1923: 551–555.
23 Williamson (1985: xxxiii, 349–350) argued that this list is a later addition, but this is not our
concern here.
24 In the past, several elaborate theories were developed on the connections among the various
geographic lists; today, however, most scholars hold that the list in Nehemiah is a late reworking
of the list in Josh 15. For a summary, see Blenkinsopp 1988: 329–330.
25 The list of ‫ים‬ enumerates thirty-three settlements. Of these, twenty are not mentioned
again in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and most of them are at locations far from the border
of the province (mainly in the Negev and the southern Shephelah). For a detailed discussion of
the boundaries of the province, see Lipschits 2005: 134–184.
26 The name Kiriath-arba (Gen 35:27; Neh 11:25) appears ten times in the Bible: six times in
Joshua, twice in Genesis, once in Judges, and once in Nehemiah. As indicated in Josh 14:15, this
is the earlier name of Ḥebron, and apart from Neh 11, whenever the name Kiriath-arba is
mentioned, it is followed by an explanation and its parallel to the well-known name Ḥebron. On
the characteristics of the heading of the list and its intention, see below.
 Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11 597

29–30; Kallai 1950: 86–87; Brockington 1969: 153). Others, considering the geo-
graphic and historical limitations, chiefly in knowledge of the area of the prov-
ince of Yehud, assume that this list represents settlements where Jews dwelt
before the exile, and whither they returned in significant numbers at the time
of the return to Zion, even though some parts of the region were no longer
within the boundaries of the province (Albright 1924b; Myers 1965: 191–192; Cog-
gins 1976: 128; Fensham 1982: 249–250). Some even conjecture that these are the
settlements that were not destroyed by the Babylonians and continued to be
settled by Jews, although they were subjected to Arab-Edomite influence (Kallai
1950: 86; Aharoni 1967: 314; Clines 1984: 219).27 Nevertheless, certain scholars
recognize that the list does not reflect the geographic and historical reality of
the time of the return to Zion, and they associate the list with the time for which
this reality is appropriate, either the end of the First Temple period,28 or the
Hasmonean period.29
Gerhard von Rad, and many other scholars following him, established the
view that is developed here, and that could be expanded to the entire message
of Ch. 11 (von-Rad 1930: 21–25).30 According to this opinion, the list of ‫ים‬ is
an ideal vision, not an actual reflection of the borders of Judah. It is a utopian
outlook, based on perceptions of the remote past and on hopes for the future,
after the building of the walls of Jerusalem. In addition, this list covers the
settlement in Judah around the fortified Jerusalem, akin to the encampment of
the tribes around the altar in the time of the wanderings in the wilderness.31

27 The picture presented by Alt (1951) is more complex and is contingent entirely on a recon-
struction of the dependency of the province of Yehud on the province of Samaria until the time
of Nehemiah. This view is no longer accepted today by most scholars.
28 See, e.g., Kellermann (1967: 209–227), who thinks that the list expresses the area of the fortifi-
cations of the kingdom toward its termination. See also Williamson 1985: 350.
29 The view that this list reflects the circumstances of the time of the Hasmoneans was put
forth principally by Meyer (1896: 105–108) and Kittel (1929a: 47–49), and it has not won support
in modern research. See Williamson 1985: 350.
30 With sundry variations and different levels of depth and detail, many other scholars contin-
ued the course charted by von Rad. Among them are Vogt 1966: 68; Coggins 1976: 127; Stern 1977:
19–20; Williamson 1985: xxxiii, 350; McConville 1985: 136; Eskenazi 1988: 115; Blenkinsopp 1988:
327–330; Throntveit 1989: 113; Grabbe 1998: 60.
31 This idea, whose roots are found already in the Deuteronomistic literature, developed in-
creasingly in the Persian period. See also the short review by Blenkinsopp (1988: 330), with
further literature.
598 Part F: Biblical Studies

Aims of the Composition and Editing of Nehemiah 11

The discussion of the literary and structural questions of Сh. 11 and of the rela-
tionship between it and the Nehemiah Memoir has produced two main conclu-
sions, the first of which concerns the importance of the editing of the sources
from which the book of Nehemiah is composed. This editing created the connec-
tion between Сh. 7 and Сh. 11, with the purpose of highlighting the ideological
message. The result is that Ch. 11 is wholly in the shadow of the building of the
walls of Jerusalem, which continued during the repopulation of the city, and the
great excitement aroused by the process of the reestablishment and rebuilding
of the ancient capital. The second conclusion is that the two main sources of
which the chapter is composed, the list of settlers in Jerusalem and the list of the
‫ים‬, are essentially different. The first list apparently reflects (or is intended
to reflect) the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah; the second,
however, is not the actual state of affairs, but mirrors the national ambitions of
some of the province’s inhabitants that after the fortification of Jerusalem the
city would consolidate its status and its rule over all the regions of the ancient
kingdom of Judah. The combination of the actual with the utopian, of reality with
aspirations for the future, appears as a salient feature of the editing of this chap-
ter, and its tendency is to substantiate the author/editor’s perception regarding
the speedy realization of the vision. The building of Jerusalem’s walls and the
repopulation of the city are just the first stages in the process of restoring the
past glory of Jerusalem and the people dwelling around it.

The Number of Settlers in Jerusalem and the Connection with the List
in Nehemiah 7

Chapter 11 opens with a statement that at face value seems unrealistic, that only
“the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem” (v. 1), while the rest of the people
lived outside it. The decision “to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem” sets up
the model of settlement that the chapter’s author/editor wishes to stress: precisely
one tenth of the people move to reside in the city. To consolidate this point, he
had to correlate the numbers in the list in Ch. 7, which is the basis for the casting
of lots, with the list of settlers in Jerusalem. This matching created the following
results:32

32 Comparison of the first twenty-four verses in Neh 11 with 1 Chr 9:2–17 shows more sharply
the tendentiousness of the author/editor and his intention to stress the accuracy of execution of
the repopulation project.
 Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11 599

– Total settlers in Jerusalem according to the figures in Neh 11:4–19: 3,044

– Total of those who “went up out of the captivity” according to the
list in Neh 7:6–71 (without slaves and without the priests who could
not prove their lineage, and who in any event were not included
among the settlers in Jerusalem):33 30,447

Most of the alterations and adaptations were done, therefore, in the numerical
totals of the list,34 and in any case, the numerical accuracy is an additional aspect
in the ideological array laid out in this chapter.35

The Circular Structure of the First Part of the Chapter (vv. 3–24)
and Its Purpose

We have pointed out that most researchers have not been able to present a satis-
factory explanation for the place of the fragments of verses, the captions, and the
editor’s notes that make up the unit of vv. 3–24 around the main list of settlers
in Jerusalem (vv. 4–19). In my opinion, the approach to understanding the struc-
ture of this unit and the message implanted in it should be structural-hierarchical,
whereby the order in which matters are set forth is important. The editor
“wrapped” the list of settlers in Jerusalem in a mantle meant to stress its impor-
tance and to highlight its content. This mantle contains two circles enclosing the

33 Note the disparity between the total figure of returnees in Neh 7:66, namely, 42,360, and the
total of the numerical sections that make up the list, namely, 38,671. The difference of seven
persons between the total number (30,447) and the tenth part that came to settle in Jerusalem
(3,044) may be explained arithmetically (the exact tenth part is 3,044.7!). To this may be added
the leaders of the people listed in Neh 7:7.
34 Compare Neh 11:6, which gives the total of “all the descendants of Perez who settled in
Jerusalem” (468 altogether), with 1 Chr 9:6, which has the same function and counts 690 “among
the descendants of Zerah: Jeuel and their kinsmen.” Compare also Neh 11:8, which gives the total
number of the Benjaminites (928 all told), with the total in 1 Chr 9:9, which is 956. Compare the
total figures for the priests in Nehemiah (w. 12–14), amounting to 822; 242; 128 priests all told,
with the one figure given in 1 Chr 9:13, which is 1,760. In addition, in 1 Chronicles the numerical
totals of the Levites and the gatekeepers are missing, but they are given in Neh 11:18–19 (284
and 172, respectively).
35 One should pay attention to the sum total actually stated in all the different versions of the
list (Ezra 2:64; Neh 7:66; 1 Esd 5:41): 42,360. The number itself does not correspond to the sum of
the subtotals in the list (29,818 in Ezra; 31,089 in Nehemiah, and 31,850 in 1 Esdras), but it might
be the sum total of the original list (Williamson 1985: 37–38). The difference between this number
and the actual number in the list in Nehemiah is the main point for discovering the ideological
goals of the editor.
600 Part F: Biblical Studies

main list. (1) The first circle is the outside “wrapping,” describing the settlement
of the leaders of the people in Jerusalem before and after its repopulation. This
circle opens in v. 3a and closes with the list in vv. 21–24. The purpose of the
outside “wrapping” is to stress the continuity of rule in Jerusalem, and perhaps
also its strengthening with the city’s repopulation (the leaders of the people lived
in Jerusalem prior to the repopulation enterprise).36 (2) The second circle is the
inside “wrapping,” which lists the facts of the settlement: “Israelites, priests, Lev-
ites, temple servants, and the descendants of Solomon’s slaves,” who lived
throughout the province before the repopulation (v. 3b), and the continuation of
the settlement of those who did not dwell in Jerusalem after the repopulation.
These are “the rest of Israel, and of the Levitical priests,” who continued to live
“in all the towns of Judah, each in his own ancestral plot” (v. 20).37
The following is a graphic depiction to clarify the relationship between the
various parts of the literary structure designed by the editor:

36 Batten saw the guards and the gatekeepers (v. 19) as belonging to the list of the leaders of
the people (w. 21–24) and accordingly determined v. 20 to be detached from its context (1913:
271–272). Against this opinion, the list of the leaders of the people signifies governmental posi-
tions only, whether in the ritual or the civil domain. The work of the guards and the gatekeepers
is closer to the function of the Levites in that both were involved with occupations around the
temple. Hence, v. 19 should be attached to the list of Levites in vv. 15–18, and v. 20 is in its proper
place between the two lists.
37 According to the MT. This wrapping complements the information about the place of settle-
ment of the priests, the Levites, and the temple servants (vv. 21–23) in Jerusalem, as distinct from
those who continued to live in the other regions of the province (vv. 3b, 20).
 Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11 601

Genealogies of the Settlers in Jerusalem

The list of settlers in Jerusalem is the first that may be called a “genealogy,” in
which the lineage of a family to the eighth generation is recorded (Rudolph 1949:
181; Eskenazi 1988: 113–114).38 The attention to the genealogy of the residents of
Jerusalem is evidence of the importance the author/editor of ch. 11 attached to
the purity and legitimacy of the inhabitants of the holy city, as the attention to the
genealogy of the priests in the temple is evidence of concern for their legitimacy
(Eskenazi 1988: 114–115).

Use of Special Terms and Their Significance

The epithet for Jerusalem, ‫שׁ‬ ‫יר‬ (“the city of holiness”; 11:1, 18), is mentioned
here for the only time in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the entire
Hebrew Bible there are only three other occurrences (Isa 48:2; 52:l; Dan 9:24 [“the
city of your holiness,” cf. 9:26]) (Rudolph 1949: 181; Myers 1965: 184; Fensham 1982:
242; Eskenazi 1988: 114).39 The significance of this name is that holiness stretched
out over the entire city. This is a kind of extension of the holiness that prevails
over the Holy of Holies (compare 1 Kgs 8:10; Ezek 42:13–14; etc.), or, instead of
over the entire sanctuary (compare Isa 27:13; 56:7; 65:11; Ezek 20:40; 28:14; 43:12),
over the entire city.40 At this stage, all Jerusalem becomes the house of God (Eske-
nazi 1988: 114).
The account of the repopulation by means of casting lots and the description
of the settlers as volunteers are also intended to stress the centrality of Jerusalem.
Casting lots is associated with the repopulation and the divine decision and fits
the model of the settlement of the land in the time of Joshua.41 The lot as a divine

38 Despite Fensham’s statement that this is a typical list for the period of the return (1982: 244),
prior to this list there is no such extensive treatment of the genealogy of the inhabitants of the
province (except for the genealogy of Ezra in 7:1–5).
39 Most scholars understand the title “city of holiness” to be linked to the hopes of the time of
the return; see Franke 1994: 175–176; and also Koole 1997: 558.
40 In Joel 2:1; 4:17; Zech 8:3; many times in Psalms; and in Dan 9:16, 20, the expression “my holy
mountain” or “the holy mountain” appears in parallel to Zion and Jerusalem. In Isa 57:13 (and
also 65:25; Jer 31:22[?]) a further extension of holiness appears, covering all the land by virtue of
the expression “my holy mountain.” Parallel to this is the expression “holy land,” which refers
to Judah (Zech 3:16).
41 On the use of lots for the distribution of estates, compare Num 26:55–56; 33:54; 34:13; Josh
14:2; 18:6, 8, 10. On casting of lots in the Bible, compare Isa 34:17; Ezek 24:6; Jonah 1:7; Ps 22:19;
Prov 1:14; Ezra 3:7; 9:24; Neh 10:35; 1 Chr 24:31; 25:8; 26:13–14. On the settlement model described
in Joshua, which underlies this method of repopulation in Jerusalem, see Eskenazi 1988: 113. The
602 Part F: Biblical Studies

command also underlies the precision of the repopulation, as described above.

The definition of the settlers in Jerusalem as “volunteers” emphasizes the collec-
tive will of the entire people to settle in Jerusalem, and explains the casting of
the lot not as an imposition but as a choice of God.42 The emphasis on the role
of God in choosing the settlers in Jerusalem is linked to the sanctity of the city
and explains the emphasis on its appellation “the holy city.”43

Ideology and Reality in the List of ‫ים‬

The list of ‫ים‬ (vv. 25–36) should be considered a later addition, written by the
author/editor of the chapter (Williamson 1985: 349–350). In my view, he compiled
the list to stress even more the ideological message that forms the basis of the
entire chapter, to expand and throw into relief the hopes that Jerusalem would
renew her days as of old and would extend her rule over all parts of the land.
One clear piece of evidence that the list was composed after the description of
the settlers in Jerusalem already existed lies in the subheadings to the list of
settlements where the Judahites and the Benjaminites lived.
The list of settlements belonging to the tribe of Judah opens with the sub-
heading …  ‫֞בוּ‬ ‫ה‬‫הוּ‬ ‫י‬ (“Some of the Judahites lived in …”) (v. 25). The
preposition ‫ן‬ appears frequently in Ch. 11, and it is intended primarily to signify
a part out of something larger. The phrase ‫י‬ is also found in this chapter, and
it serves to define a part of the members of a family or a tribe.44 The parallelism
of the heading in v. 25 with the heading in v. 4 (‫י‬‫ה וּ‬‫הוּ‬ ‫י‬ ‫֔בוּ‬ ‫ירוּ‬‫וּ‬
…‫ה‬‫הוּ‬ ‫י‬ ‫ן‬) indicates that the author/editor intended not to refer to the
entire tribe but to complement the account of some of the members of Judah
who did not go to take up residence in Jerusalem.

implied connection with the act of settlement in the time of Nehemiah is supported in terms of
the link between the list of ‫ים‬ and Josh 15, as well as by what is stated in Neh 8:17, where
Joshua is mentioned explicitly.
42 Myers (1985: 186), Fensham (1982: 242), and others wrestle with the question of whether the
settlers in Jerusalem consisted of two different sections – those who volunteered to live in
Jerusalem and those who were compelled to reside in the city because of the divine lottery – or
whether there was one group only, which accepted God’s will joyfully. In light of the conspicuous
tendentiousness of the description, there appears no need to deliberate over “actual” historical
reconstructions of this kind.
43 Another central idea present in this chapter is the emphasis on the activity of the people as
a collective. In my view, this is an additional and separate layer, unconnected to the status of
Jerusalem but parallel to it. On the significance of this idea in chs. 11–12, see Eskenazi 1988: 112–
114.
44 Compare  ‫י‬ (v. 22), ‫הוּ‬‫ן־‬ ‫ח‬‫י־‬ (v. 24), etc.
 Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11 603

The list of settlements belonging to the tribe of Benjamin opens with the
subheading … ‫ן‬ ‫י‬‫( וּ‬v. 31). There seems to be an error in this heading: the
verb is missing and the preposition ‫ן‬ is not in its proper place (Williamson 1985:
344). As in the subheading of the tribe of Judah, the preposition ‫ן‬ should perhaps
have been at the beginning here also ‫ן‬ ‫י‬‫“( וּ‬and some of the Benjamin-
ites …”). The intention in both places was probably the same.
The conclusion is that the list of ‫ים‬ is intended to complete the picture
presented in Ch. 11 and to define the places of settlement of the Judaites and the
Benjaminites who did not go to live in Jerusalem. At the same time, in drawing
up the list of settlements, the author/editor of the chapter made astute use of
sources, conflating the list of the towns of Judah known from Josh 15 with the
actual list of settlements from his day. The purpose was to blend the real with
the utopian and to create a composite picture of the areas of the land over which
Jerusalem was to rule in the future.

The Heading of the List

From the heading ‫ם‬ ‫ים‬‫ל־‬,45 the author/editor seems to have intend-
ed to define all the settlements in Judah as the ‫ים‬ of Jerusalem.46 Many
scholars have understood the heading to mean the form of settlement, namely,

45 The heading of the list opens with the word ‫ל‬ (“and to”), which apparently should be
emended to  (“and these”). The word ‫ל‬ appears in a few biblical passages in the sense of
‫“( על‬about,” “concerning”), but it does not appear in the opening or closing of lists. By contrast,
the word  or  (“and these,” “these”) appears at the heading of 215 lists in the Bible, most
of them in Genesis (49), Chronicles (46), and Numbers (41). In light of this, the letter ‫ ה‬presumably
was lost from the end of the word because it is similar to the first letter in the following word
(assimilation). In this connection, it is hard to accept the solution of Rudolph (1949: 186–187),
that of Clines (1984: 220) following him, or that of Williamson (1985: 344).
46 Central to this heading is the word ‫ים‬, which appears altogether forty-five times in the
Bible, mostly in lists. This word is chiefly characteristic of the lists in Joshua (thirty times), but
it also occurs six times in 1 Chronicles, four times in Nehemiah, and occasionally in Genesis,
Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Psalms. The word almost always appears in the construct state and
in the plural, and its three main forms are ‫ חצריהן‬,‫ חצריהם‬,‫חצרים‬. In some cases, the word
describes a settlement attached to the tribal territory. Usually this attachment is accompanied
by a definition of the geographic area in which the inhabitants of the ‫ים‬ are dispersed (Gen
25:16; Deut 2:23; 1 Chr 4:32–33). The reference seems to be to an unwalled settlement (Lev 22:31),
which in many cases depended on a central town to which it belonged legally and territorially
(1 Chr 4:33). Because of the distance of the ‫ים‬ from the centers of settlement and government,
they were vulnerable to attacks and raids and less subject to the attention of the government
(Isa 42:11; Ps 10:8).
604 Part F: Biblical Studies

unwalled or a village.47 Yet a broader view of the intention of the list may indicate
that the author’s reference was not to the form of settlement but to its essence,
a settlement supported by a major city and belonging to a defined territory. This
interpretation emphasizes the central settlement, which is not mentioned in the
list, namely, Jerusalem, which extends its area of jurisdiction over the entire
domain that is noted around the city. Also stressed is the fortification of the city
and its renewed status as the country’s capital, on which depend all the other
settlements. This view is reinforced by the word that ends the heading ‫ם‬
(“in their fields”). Usually, this word appears in an agricultural context in the
sense of a plot of land meant for pasture, plowing, or sowing, but here it could
be a wild place, far from the reach of the central government (cf. Gen 25:27;
Jer 40:7) or an area belonging to a political framework and under its rule (cf.
Gen 36:35; 1 Sam 27:1). The plural form and the construct state support the as-
sumption that the author/editor intended to define the areas belonging to the
tribes of Judah and Benjamin, in the sense of “their fields,” and this complements
his intention through the heading as a whole, which is meant to define the settle-
ments located around Jerusalem, dependent on it, and situated on tracts of land
belonging to the two tribes.

The Connection between the List of ‫ים‬ of the Tribe of Judah and the List
of Towns in Joshua 15

The connection between these lists is symbolic and clear, as noted by von Rad,
followed by many others.48 Of the eighty-five towns appearing in the list in Josh-
ua, seventeen appear here (exactly one-fifth)49 among the towns situated ‫וּל‬‫ל־‬
‫ה‬ ‫וֹם‬ (Josh 15:21) and ‫ה‬ (v. 33). All, apart from Kiriath-arba, are listed
in the same order.50 These areas, in the time that had elapsed since the destruc-

47 See, e.g., the interpretations and translations of Batten 1913: 273; Klein 1939: 5, 6, 66; Brocking-
ton 1969: 195; Fensham 1982: 248; Clines 1984: 220; Williamson 1985: 344; McConville 1985: 135.
Unacceptable is Malamat’s of the ‫ים‬ with Bible (see also Orlinski 1939).
48 See Rad 19130: 21–25; and the references in n. 35 above.
49 The number seventeen may have additional significance, for this is precisely the number of
families of the Judeans enumerated in the list of returnees (Ezra 2; Neh 7). Similarly, the sixteen
‫ים‬ of the Benjaminites parallel the sixteen settlements to which the returnees on this list
went back from exile.
50 This is not the place to enter into a detailed discussion of the list of towns, but note that
because of the great disparity between the number of settlements listed in Nehemiah and those
listed in Joshua, it seems that the author/editor of the list in Nehemiah chose some of the settle-
ments listed in Josh 15:21–39. Usually, he moves forward in leaps according to the order of the
towns in Joshua, but there are three crossovers (between Dibon/Dimonah and Jekabzeel/Kabzeel,
 Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11 605

tion of the temple, had been steadily taken over by elements that, during the
Persian and early Hellenistic periods, took shape in the framework of “Idumea”
(Lipschits 1997b: 337–385).
The list of the towns of the tribe of Simeon (Josh 19:1–9) contains settlements
that appear also in the list of towns of the tribe of Judah, but in a different order.
It seems that there was no fixed formula for the presentation of the names. This
supports a connection between the list in Nehemiah and that in Josh 15. Further
support derives from the summing up in v. 30b ‫ם‬‫יא־‬‫ד־‬ ‫ע‬‫ר־‬ ‫וּ‬
(“They encamped from Beersheba to the Valley of Hinnom”).51 This geographical
definition, which appears nowhere else in the Bible, was used by the author/
editor to denote the northernmost point of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah
(Josh 15:8; 18:16) together with one of the southern towns in the tribe of Judah,
which is often defined as the southernmost boundary of the territories of the
United Kingdom and of the kingdom of Judah.52 In this manner, he devised an
original demarcation of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah, which together with
the territory of Benjamin coincides with the domains of the kingdom of Judah
and reflects a utopian territorial ambition. The utopia is expressed mainly in the
fact that most of the settlements in the list are in areas that were not within the
boundaries of the province at the time of the return, while the actual areas of
settlement are hardly represented.53

The Sources of the List of ‫ים‬ of the Tribe of Benjamin and Its Historical
Reliability

Only two out of the sixteen towns of Benjamin in the list of ‫ים‬ are also
mentioned in the list of towns of the Benjaminite tribe in Josh 18:21–28, which is

between Jarmuth and Zanoah, and between Lachish and Azeqah), and there is one obvious
corruption (between Jeshua and Shema).
51 Many researchers have pondered the verb ‫וּ‬ (see the summary of Williamson 1985: 353).
In my opinion, one should compare the use of this verb, denoting temporary settlement, perhaps
similar to the encampment of the tribes in the wilderness, to the verb ‫֞בוּ‬ denoting those who
went to live in Jerusalem. This is an additional element intended to highlight the special nature
and supremacy of Jerusalem.
52 Compare Josh 19:2; 2 Sam 17:11; 24:2, 15; 1 Kgs 5:5; 2 Kgs 23:8; 2 Chr 18:4.
53 Note that in all the foregoing, there is no dismissal of the possibility that the Jews continued
to live in the towns of the Negev and the Shephelah during the sixth and the fifth centuries (and
see below).
606 Part F: Biblical Studies

evidence of the absence of a connection between the two lists.54 By contrast, nine
of the sixteen settlements on the list, in the terrain of the “historical” Benjamin
inheritance, are also mentioned in the list of “returnees to Zion” (Ezra 2; Neh 7).
This is testimony to the reliability of the list and its match with the historical
reality at the end of the sixth and during the fifth century BCE.55 Of special
interest in the list of the tribe of Benjamin are the seven settlements situated in
the Ono-Lod valley, outside the domain of the province of Yehud; three of them
(Lod, Hadid, and Ono) are also mentioned in the list of “returnees to Zion” (Ezra
2:33; Neh 7:37). The beginning of the settlement of Jews in this district may be
dated to the time of the return, and apparently families from Benjamin went to
live there during the Persian period (Lipschits 1997a). Yet the fact that the author/
editor treats the Ono-Lod valley as part of the territory of Benjamin attests that
here, too, he fused the actual with the nonactual, thereby expressing his hope for
the spread of Jerusalem’s aegis over the entire surrounding area where Jews
were living.

Ideology and Reality in the List of ‫ים‬

The possibility should not be excluded that, in the course of the Persian period,
Jews lived in all the settlements noted in the list of ‫ים‬. However, the intention-
al blurring of the boundaries of the province and the areas of settlement outside
it expresses the particular tendentiousness of the list. In it the author/editor delib-
erately blended the real with the utopian and thereby was able to detach the list
from any actual context. He created a picture in which Jerusalem spread its wings
over all regions of the kingdom of Judah before the destruction and, even more,
over all the Jewish settlement areas in the Persian period. Historically, the prob-
lematic areas in the list – the Negev, the southern Shephelah, and the Ono-Lod
valley – were presumably regions where attention was focused in the period
when the list was compiled (between the second half of the fifth century BCE and
the fourth century BCE).56 On the one hand, the division between Judah and
Idumea in the southern terrains became steadily more entrenched, and on the
other, the Jewish settlement became increasingly firmly based in the environs of
Modiʿin and the Ono-Lod valley (Lipschits 1997a; 1997b: 350–351).

54 Even if we add to these two settlements the identification of Aijah (Neh 11:31) with Avim
(Josh 18:23), the different order in which the settlements are listed shows the absence of a
connection.
55 On the Benjamin territory in the Persian period, see Lipschits 1999b.
56 Compare to Williamson’s estimation (1985: xxxvi).
 Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11 607

Conclusion

Chapter 11 in Nehemiah was written at the end of a lengthy period in the history
of Jerusalem, its three peaks being the building of the temple, the building of the
walls, and the city’s repopulation. The contents of this chapter are presented not
only as the continuation of the process but as the climax of the period as a whole.
This is the point at which it is possible to express the desire that the city would
be renewed as of old, would reestablish its physical, human, and governmental
power, and would have its status restored in terms of nationality and population.
The manner in which these ambitions are expressed is unique. The chapter
is not what it seems to be, and under the “dry” facade of lists, headings, and
few narrative connective passages hide a great number of symbolic expressions,
numerological clues, and special literary structures. Jerusalem’s past is linked to
its future, and the repopulation of the city by the people allows the author/editor
to part company with any actual political and geographical context. He paints a
utopian picture in which the invigorated Jerusalem spreads it wings over the
entire domain of the kingdom of Judah before the destruction, and, even more,
over all the areas of settlement of Jews at that time.
From Geba to Beersheba: A Further
Consideration
2 Kings 23:8 defines the region in which Josiah implemented the centralization of
the cult, as part of his cultic reform: “Josiah brought all the priests from the
towns of Judah and desecrated the high places, from Geba to Beersheba”. Since
the 19th century, most of the scholars identified this Geba with Geba-Benjamon
(Jabaʿ).1 Benjamin Mazar (1940) was opposed to this identification.2 He assumed
that the definition “from Geba to Beersheba” did not refer to the boundaries of
Josiah’s reform, and was just meant to define the extreme points of the northern
and southern borders of the Kingdom of Judah in the time of king Josiah. On the
basis of this assumption, Mazar argued that since during this period, as well as
in the Persian period, the northern border of Judah ran far north of the region
of Benjamin, it is illogical that this Geba should mark the border of the country.
In order to determine the northern border of Judah in the days of Josiah,
Mazar relied on the mention of Bethel, which is located north to Geba, as included
in the region of the reform (2 Kings 23:4, 15). He also relied on the assumption
that before the days of Josiah, the border of Judah reached to the surroundings
of Ophrah and Bethel. In order to delineate the border of the province of Yehud
in the Persian period, Mazar relied on his interpretation to Zechariah 14:10, men-
tioning the pattern “form Geba to Rimmon”. According to Mazar, this verse gives
the two extreme points of the northern and southrem borders of Judah at the
early Second Temple period: he identified Rimmon with En Rimmon in the Neg-
ev,3 and mistakenly identified it with Kh. Umm er-Rammamin, about 16 kilome-
ters north-east of Beersheba.4 Following its theory, Mazar expected to find Geba
at the northernmost point of the Kingdom of Judah, far north of the towns of
Benjamin. He found corroborating evidence as to the border’s course in Samaria

1 The identification was already made after Robinson’s expedition in Palestine in 1838; and see
Robinson 1841 (vol. 3): 80–81. On the same subject, see also discussions of Abel 1938: 328–329;
Arnold 1992: 921–922; 1990: 24, 34, 109–110, with further literature.
2 Mazar’s opinion was published again in 1984, at the entry “Geba” (Encyclopaedia Biblica,
Vol. II, column 412) (Hebrew). A revised version of the article was published in Mazar’s book
(1975a: 84–87).
3 A town named En-Rimmon is mentioned in Joshua 15:32, 19:7; Nehemiah 11:29, and I Chronicles
4:32; however, according to MT Joshua 15:32, it is mistakenly mentioned as two distinct towns:
ʿAin and Rimmon.
4 The excavations conducted by Kloner in Kh. Umm er-Rammamin have shown that the site
was not occupied during the biblical period (Kloner 1983: 71). On the alternative identification
of Rimmon with Tel Ḫalif, one km. to the north, see Galil 1985; Borowski 1988; Kloner 1992.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-033
610 Part F: Biblical Studies

at the end of the First Temple period – as well as in the Persian period – in the
fact that one of the gates of Jerusalem, from which the main road to the north
started, is called “the Gate of Jeshanah” (Nehemiah 3:6; 12:39). In his view, this
gate was named after the town Jeshanah, which is identified with Burj el-Isāneh,
not far from Bethel.5
On the basis of these suppositions, Mazar looked for Geba in the north, far
off the Benjamin region, at the southern border of Samaria, and proposed to
identify Geba at Kh. et-Tell, close to Wadi Jib, 4.5 km. Southwest of Shiloh, on the
main way between Jerusalem and Shechem (Elitzur 1987: 3–5).6 Following Delman
(1913: 40), Mazar based this identification mainly on Eusebius’ Onomasticon (num-
ber 356), where a town by the name of Γηβα is mentioned “five miles from Goph-
na as you go toward Neapolis”. Eusebus proposed to identify this town with Ge-
bim (Γηβείν), mentioned in Isaiah 10:31, but Mazar, after Alt (1927: 50), suggested
that this is the place of a village named Geba, located on Mount Ephraim.7 How-
ever, contrary to Alt, who claimed that this Geba is not mentioned in the Bible
(Alt 1927: 50), Mazar contended that this is Geba mentioned in 2 Kings, 23:8, as
well as in Zechariah 14:10.
Mazar’s proposal was supported by many scholars, mainly Israelis, including
Zmirin (1952: 91), Liver (1958: 420), Aharoni (1962: 106–107), Tadmor (1969; 149),8
Malamat (1975: 86, n. 15; 1983: 230), Raviv (1982: 246, n. 35) and Galil (1991),9 but
was rejected by most scholars, including most commentaries on the books of
Joshua and Kings.10 Following Mazar’s proposal, and in the dating framework

5 This town is mentioned in 2 Chr 13:19, and Albright (1922: 125–126; 1923a: 7–8) identified it
with this Arab village, which is near Bethel, 27 km. north of Jerusalem.
6 For this identification, Mazar and all the other scholars made use of the finds of the archaeoco-
logical survey, in which pottery sherds from different periods, among them the Iron Age I and
II and the Byzantine period, were found at the site. See Kallai 1972: 170, site no. 51; Finkelstein
and Lederman 1997: 578–579, site no. 17–15/48/01. According to this survey, the main settlement
periods at this site were the Iron Age II, the Hellenistic and the Byzantine periods. One has to
note that these finds contradict the finds of the previous surveys, according to in the site were
found only three pottery sherds from the Iron Age, large quantity of Roman and Byzantine
pottery sherds, and only few Middle Age sherds. See Kuschke 1965. On the finds of see also Alt
1927: 50.
7 For the arguments against the identification of Geba of Eusebius with Gebim mentioned in
the book of Isaiah, see Elitzur 1987: 3 and n. 2.
8 See also Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 286. Despite the opinion of Cogan and Tadmor, who believe
that the region between Geba and Beersheba reflects the boundaries of Josiah’s reform, they
proposed to understand it as “the New Judah”, making an analogy with the definition “from Dan
to Beersheba”, that depicted the borders of the United Monarchy (I King 5:5). According to them,
these bounds reflect the incursion of the reform deep in the Assyrian province of Samaria.
9 In this paper I will refer to the 1993 English version.
10 See for example the literature mentioned by Galil 1993: 359, n. 6.
 From Geba to Beersheba: A Further Consideration 611

that he proposed for the list of the towns of Benjamin, Kallai claimed that the
Geba located on Mount Ephraim is also mentioned in the list of the towns of
Benjamin (Joshua 18:24) (Kallai-Kleinmann 1958; 1960: 33–34, 75–78; 1967: 336;
1972: 157–158; 1986: 399). According to him, this list reflects an intermediate phase
that occurred after the victory of Abijah over Jeroboam (related in 2 Chr 13:19,
and see Myers 1965: 81; Japhet 1993: 687),11 when the northern border of Judah
was broadened, after the capture of Bethel, Jeshanah and Ephron/Ophrah.12 In
his opinion, this Geba was included in the group of towns located in the north,
beyond the previous boundaries of Judah, whereas the region of Geba Benjamin
was part of another list of towns, which included a whole region that was omitted
by a scribe’s mistake (Kallai 1958: 138–140; 1960: 336–337).
Reviewing Mazar’s theory, and examining the arguments of its supporters,
show that the identification of Geba on Mount Ephraim is based on a logical
structure of three arguments. The first and basic argument is the broadening of
the northern border of Judah in the days of Josiah, as well as during the Persian
period, beyond the region of Bethel. This provides the base for the second argu-
ment: if the northern border of Judah moved far north of the Bethel region,
then Geba Benjamin cannot possibly be mentioned as the northern landmark.
Consequently, one must locate a site where the conservation of the name as well
as the archaeological data uphold its identification as Geba. This leads to Kh. et-
Tell.
In this article, I intend to examine the logical structure on which the identifi-
cation of Geba on Mount Ephraim is based. First, I will show that during the First
Temple period, the northern border of Judah never extended beyond the region
of Bethel, and that only at the height of Judah’s expansion, during Josiah’s reign,
did the border of Judah reach the line of Bethel – Ophrah. This was also the
borderline during the whole Persian period. On this basis, I will show that during
the days of Josiah, the description “from Geba to Beersheba” was used as a land-
mark for the northern border of the territory in which the cult was concentrated,
in order to differentiate the reform initiated inside this region from the one took
place in Bethel. With these as background, I intend to show that every reference
to Geba in the Bible relates to Geba Benjamin. As for the town of Geb – Γηβα –
el-Jib, on Mount Ephraim, which is mentioned in the sources from the fourth

11 For a critique on the historical reliability of the description in 2 Chronicles 13:19, see Klein
1983.
12 Kallai’s opinion was followed by Aharoni 1962: 326–327; however, note that he presented
previously a different opinion (Kallai 1985). An additional support to the opinion of Kallai can
be found in Galil’s articles, and see a summary in Galil 1993: 359–360, and n. 7. For a concluding
critique on Kallai’s proposition, see Naʾaman 1991b: 7, 23–25.
612 Part F: Biblical Studies

century AD and until the end of the 17th century, there is no evidence of it from
earlier Geba on Mount Ephraim at any period (Elitzur 1987: 7–8).13

The Northern Border of Judah at the End of the First Temple

Period and Geba in the Time of Josiah’s Reform

The debate concerning the borders of the kingdom of Judah at the end of the
7th century and the beginning of the 6th centuries BCE is based principally on
information obtained from the lists of the towns of Judah (Josh 15:21–62), Benja-
min (Josh 18:21–28), Simeon (Josh 19:2–8), and Dan (Josh 19:40–46). Most scholars
have accepted Alt’s opinion (Alt 1925), concerning the nature14 and dating of the
lists,15 as well as the reality they reflect.16 Many scholars have regarded the lists
as authentic and reliable,17 and combined the information emanating from them

13 Elitzur’s linguistic arguments were confirmed during a discussion with Prof. Ran Zadok, and
it stands contrary to Galil’s opinion (1993: 362–363). I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Zadok
for his help in clarifying this point.
14 For an evaluation of the sources of the lists and the history of research, see Naʾaman 1991b:
3–33, with further literature. As a point of departure for the discussion of these lists, the accepted
assumption is that the towns lists of Judah and Benjamin were prepared, adapted, and shaped
by the author of the book of Joshua. Initially, there was one towns list of the entire kingdom of
Judah, and the separation between the list of the towns of the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:21–62) and
the towns of the tribe of Benjamin (Josh. 18:21–28) was made by the author, who attributed it to
the days of the tribal administration in Joshua’s time (Naʾaman 1991b: 11–13). On the towns list
of Simeon, see Naʾaman 1983: 121–126; 1986a: 62–73. For the towns list of Dan, see Naʾaman 1991b:
5–7, with detailed discussion and further literature.
15 For a discussion on this subject, see Naʾaman 1991b: 23–33. For a review of the history of
research, see idem., pp. 34–35.
16 According to Naʾaman 1991b: 13–16, The system of districts reflected by this list shows a
division into five major geographical districts that cover a broad area (the districts of the Negev,
the Judaean hills, the Shephelah, the environs of Jerusalem, and the region of Benjamin). It is
possible that alongside of these there was also a sixth district, who includes the Judaean desert.
Contrary to Galil’s opinion, it is difficult to postulate that these lists reflect any evidence of sub-
divisions that existed within the districts of the kingdom. For Galil’s main arguments, see Galil
1987. For supplementary literature and a critique on Galil’s arguments, see Naʾaman 1991b: 13–
16. For a partial answer of Galil to this critique, see Galil 1991: 12, n. 37. On the other hand, one
must also reject Garfinkel’s attempt to challenge the basic perception that the towns lists give a
picture of the districts of the kingdom of Judah. See Garfinkel 1987. For a critique of Garfinkel’s
opinion, see Ephʿal and Naveh 1988.
17 For a representative expression of this approach, see Galil 1987. For a critique on this view,
and a summary of the role of the author of the book of Joshua in adapting the lists to the needs
of the composition, see Naʾaman 1991b: 8–13.
 From Geba to Beersheba: A Further Consideration 613

with the concept according to which Josiah acted in a political vacuum, created
after the Assyrian withdrawal from the area “across the river.”18 This formed the
basis for the development of the theory of “the great kingdom of Josiah” and the
perception that Josiah took advantage of the political vacuum to expand the bor-
ders of his kingdom in all directions.19
Confronting this conception of greatness and strength of the kingdom of Ju-
dah during Josiah’s rule, Naʾaman established an opposing theory, claiming that
the borders of the kingdom of Judah in the beginning, as well as at the end of
Josiah’s rule, reflect the sharp decline in settlement after Sennacherib’s campaign
and were more limited than during Hezekiah’s times (Naʾaman 1991b).20 The
claims that were raised in the research as to Josiahs’s expansion to the east,21 to
the west,22 as well as the claims regarding his expansion in the Galilee (Naʾaman
1991b: 41–44),23 do not hold up under criticism.24 In contrast, there is even less
certainty regarding Josiah’s expansion into the Assyrian province of Samaria.25 It
is reasonable to assume that Josiah had room to maneuver in the central moun-
tain region, because Egypt’s major interest lay in the coastal region, and the

18 For a collection of arguments on this subject, see Malamat 1983: 228–234. For additional
literature, see Naʾaman 1991b: 33–35.
19 For an expression of this perception in the modern research, See Galil 1993: 358–367; Weinfeld
1992: 146; Latto 1992: 76; Suzuki 1992: 32–37; Stern 1993. For a review of the arguments that were
raised in the research on this subject, see Naʾaman 1991b: 33–34; 41–51. For additional literature,
see Ahlström 1993: 764.
20 This opinion is reinforced by the growing archaeological data, especially from the Shephelah
and the southern part of the Judaean hills. On the circumstances of the Deuteronomists’ descrip-
tion of Josiah as someone who was not subject to dictates from outside, see Naʾaman 1991b: 41.
21 As opposed to the opinion of Ginsberg, Weinfeld and others, and see the literature used by
Naʾaman 1991b: 41–42. On the archaeological finding in the eastern border of Judah in this
period, see Stern 1993: 192–197; Lipschits 2000.
22 For a review of the research, critique of the common arguments raised by scholars, and for
further literature see Naʾaman 1991b: 44–51. On the Jewish population settled near the western
border of Judah during the 7th–5th centuries BCE, see Lipschits 1997a.
23 For an alternative explanation to Josiah’s ‘expansion’ in the Galilee, see Ahlström 1993: 764–
765.
24 For a compilation of the arguments against these suppositions, see Naʾaman 1991b: 41–51.
25 Josiah’s seizure of all or at least most of Samaria was described in the scholarship on the
basis of the description of Josiah’s death at Megiddo, the short comment in 2 Kgs 23: 19 and,
particularly, on the basis of the description in 2 Ch 34: 6, 7, 33, For arguments supporting this
assumption, see Mazar 1940: 84–87; Zimrin 1952: 63–64; 88–97; Kallai 1960: 75–79; Milgrom 1971;
Malamat 1983: 229–230. One cannot accept the view established by Moriatry and Nicholson,
according to which Josiah’s reform, like Hezekiah’s one, was meant from the beginning to unify
Israel and Judah and redeem the glorious days of the United Kingdom. See Moriatry 1965; Nichol-
son 1967: 1–17; 1969.
614 Part F: Biblical Studies

population of Samaria had not yet consolidated within any permanent political
framework (Naʾaman 1991b: 42–43, 57; Ahlström 1993: 764–765). However, even if
Josiah’s reform had reached the central of Samaria hills region, some major ques-
tion remains: Was it followed by a change in the kingdom’s boundaries, and was
it possible for Judah to have annexed territory from an existing Assyrian province
without obtaining permission from the Egyptian imperial ruler?
The description of the reform in 2 Kings 23 is the base for all geographical-
historical discussions of Josiah’s activity in Samaria.26 This description, as it was
written, indicates that Josiah took action in three geographical regions:27 the
southernmost was Jerusalem and Judah (2 Kgs 23:4–14);28 north of that was Bethel
(verses 15–18 and compare also to verse 4);29 and further north, Samaria (verses
19–20).30 In any way we explain this episode, if we accept the premise that verses
16–20 (or at least, 19–20) are later additions, or if we accept the premise that they
are part of the sequence revised by the Deuteronomist (Knoppers 1994: 200–202),
the text reveals clear geographical distinctions among these three geographical

26 On the structure of the literary unit in 2 Kgs 23: 4–20, on the textual problems it contains,
and on the range of solutions proposed in the scholarship, see especially: Hollenstein 1977; Mayes
1978: 42–43; Hoffmann 1980: 218–253; Würthwein 1984: 455; Lohfink 1987. See also Long’s discus-
sion and conclusion (1991: 273–277, with further literature).
27 Cf. to: Peres: 1952: 138, n. 1, and see also Demsky (1991: 101–102), according to whom the word
‘‫ ’וגם‬in verses 15 and 19 was meant to highlight the division between the different geographical
stages in implementing the reform. This article is the enhanced and revised version of the
English one: Demsky 1973: 26–31. Demsky’s opinion was later accepted by Aharoni (1974: 78, 102;
1987: 245, 310; 1985: 321–330, and cf. to Aharoni 1962). See the discussion and logical division
made by Long (1991: 272, 273–275) in the geographical organization and the literary structure of
vv. 4–14. By defining these three geographical regions, I am not referring to the ‘theory of the
three phases’ of the Josianic reform, as established by Cross and Freedman, or alternately by
Jepsen. See Cross and Freedman 1953; Jepsen 1959. Against these theories, see the argumentation
and literature in: Lowery 1991: 191–193. Miller and Hayes defined the three geographical stages
of the reform differently: Jerusalem, Judah, and beyond the limits of Judah (Bethel?). See Miller
and Hayes 1986: 398–401. It is hard to accept this definition, which is based largely on the ideas
of Alt (1953), regarding the distinction between Jerusalem and its environs and the rest of the
limits of Judah, because it requires Miller and Hayes to make an artificial separation within the
unit in Joshua 23: 4–14, and posit that the author\editor combined these two chronological/
geographical stages.
28 On the literary features of this literary unit, the textual problems it contains, and the various
opinions in the scholarship, see Knoppers 1994: 175–196.
29 The prevailing view in the scholarship should be accepted: vv. 16–18 are either a later expan-
sion or a source based on the account in 1 Kgs 13. For extensive literature on this subject, see
Knoppers 1994: 198–199.
30 Many scholars have hypothesized that vv. 19–20 are part of the later expansion of vv. 16–18.
See Naʾaman 1991b: 42, with further literature; Knoppers 1994: 199 (with further literature in
n. 37).
 From Geba to Beersheba: A Further Consideration 615

areas. These areas differ in features of ritual activity, evidence of the geopolitical
difference among them and the conceptual approaches towards them.
Geba lies unquestionably within the limits of the first unit – within the bor-
ders of Judah before the possible expansion toward Bethel, which took place in
Josiah’s time. It is clear, therefore, why the author defines the limits of the reform
in Judah by using the expression “from Geba to Beersheba”: This definition high-
lights the difference between the limits of Judah and the area beyond it, which
includes Bethel.31 Furthermore, even if there was Judean activity in Samaria dur-
ing Josiah’s times, it was of a ritual nature and was not followed by any changes
in the borders of the kingdom. It is doubtful that, during this period, it was at all
possible to make any substantial change in the system of boundaries that had
been fixed during the Assyrian rule, because the Egyptian empire, as well as the
Babylon and Persian empires, which were later established in this region, must
surely have refused to recognize any such changes.32 Consequently, the most rea-
sonable assumption is that during Josiah’s rule the northern border of Judah was
pushed out northward form the Geba-Mizpah line and at most, reached the Beth-
el-Ophrah line (Aharoni 1962: 309; Naʾaman 1987b: 11–12; 1991b: 25; Ahlström 1993:
765).
In this context, one has to comment on Kallai’s suggestion (Kallai 1958: 134–
160, and cf. to Galil 1991: 2–4), according to which Geba mentioned in Joshua 18:24
must as well be identified with Geba Ephraim. This identification relies entirely
on the earlier discussed assumption made by Mazar, and it has no corroboration
in the towns list of Benjamin (Josh 18:21–28), which contains only one identified
town (Ophrah, probably et-Tayyibeh), north-east of Bethel (Hamilton 1992, with
further literature). One can’t accept Galil’s view on the subject (1993: 3–4), when

31 In the Hebrew version of his paper, Galil 1991: 4, cogently summarized the definition of these
boundaries when he wrote that “there is no doubt that according to the author of the book of
Kings the territorial model ‘from Geba to Beersheba’ did not include Bethel, certainly not the
regions north of Bethel.” Therefore, his subsequent statement is somewhat unclear when he
writes (ibid.) “his [= the author-editor, O. L.] viewpoint cannot show the exact location of Geba’,
for the model ‘from Geba to Beersheba’ was not written by him but rather copied from his
sources.” Later on, it is unclear why, according to Galil 1991: 4–5), the accepted viewpoint in
scholarship, according to Josiah annexed Bethel to Judah, supports his decision that one cannot
identify this Geba as Geba of Benjamin; and instead, it should be sought in the Ephraim hills,
north of Bethel. Galil himself (1991: 5, n. 15) is aware that the expression “from Geba to Beer-
sheba” refers to two centers that controlled the border region. In this light, it seems that there
is no need to range far to seek Geba far from the northern border of Judah.
32 Kallai (1960: 76) writes: “This rule was probably of a temporary nature, and was only possible
in the time of political instability that was caused by the fall of Assyria. This domination contin-
ued up until the rise of a new power, that fixed the political agenda in this part of the Kingdom.”
On this subject, see also Miller and Hayes 1986: 401; Ahlström 1993: 763–765.
616 Part F: Biblical Studies

he tries to identify also the rest of the towns in verse 23 (Kefar-ammoni / haamona
and Ophni) north of Bethel, without even one geographical-historical argument
to support this identification.33 Just as, directly preceding Ophrah, there is men-
tion of a town called Parah – commonly identified with Kh. en-Farah (Tell el-
Farah) (Kallai 1967: 337–338), so the natural identification of Geba should be with
Geba Benjamin. This conclusion reduces geographically the group of places miss-
ing in the list of Benjamin, as Kallai defined it (1967: 337–338). It seems that it is
not a whole district that is missing in the center of Benjamin region, but a group
of towns situated north-east of Jerusalem (including, Anathoth, Alemeth, Mich-
mash, Nob and perhaps also Gibeah of Benjamin) (Naʾaman 1991b: 25–26; 1986a:
229; 1987: 11–12; 1991: 25; Aharoni 1962: 309; Ahlström 1993: 765). It could have
been that due to homoioteleuton, the names between Geba and Gibeon (verse 25)
were omitted.34

The Northern Border of the Yehud Province, And Geba

Mentioned in Zechariah 14:10 and Nehemiah 11:31

Most studies on the borders of the provinces of Yehud during the Persian period
relied on the five lists in Ezra and Nehemiah, that have also geographical implica-
tion,35 and on the distribution of the yhwd seal impressions.36 Most of this data
have no relevancy to the course of the northern border.
Beyond the discussions about the date and function of the yhwd seal impres-
sions, the study of their distribution data shows that we cannot rely on them for
the geographical-historical research. Form 412 seal impressions, known today,37

33 Compare, for example, to Kallai’s (1967: 335, 337) prudence concerning these towns.
34 Naʾaman (1991b) believes that due to the homoioteleuton the names between Gibeah (of
Benjamin) and Gibeah (of Kiriath-Jearim) were omitted. See also Aharoni’s opinion (1987: 276).
35 In Ezra and Nehemiah, there are five lists that have geographical implication, two of which
are almost identical (the list of the “returnees to Zion” in Ezra 2:1–67, Neh 7:6–68). The third is
the list of the ‘builders of the wall’ and the districts and towns mentioned within (Neh 3:1–32);
the fourth is the list of the towns, defined as ‫( חצרים‬Neh 11:25–35), and the last is the list of the
places from which the sons of the singers were brought together (Neh 12:28–29).
36 For a discussion, literature compilation and a review of the history of the research, see
Christoph 1993: 8–16, 37–74; Lipschits 1997b: 358–363; 2005; Carter 1999: 88–90.
37 It must be noted that even today we do not have the full corpus of yhwd seal impressions.
The most complete corpus appears in the English edition of Stern’s book. See Stern 1982: 202–
207. The book includes more than the list brought in the original Hebrew edition (published in
1973), and the bullae published by Avigad (1976a) were added to this later edition. Nevertheless,
the corpus published by Stern, is missing the seal impressions discovered in excavations in
Jerusalem and Tell el-Fûll, as well as in the surveys and excavations conducted in the 1980s. We
 From Geba to Beersheba: A Further Consideration 617

399 (about 96.9 % of all impressions) were found in four principal centers: Ramat-
Raḥel (194 seal impressions, which is 47.1 % of those found); Jerusalem (170 seal
impressions, which is 41.3 % of those found); Mizpah (19 seal impressions, which
is 4.6 % of those found); Jericho (16 seal impressions, which is 3.9 % of those
found).38 Isolated yhwd seal impressions were found in sites clearly far from the
boundaries of the province, like Kadesh Barnea, Tel Ḫarasim and Gezer.39 It is
thus doubtful if one can rely on their mere existence as testimony to the site
being part of the province’s territory.40 Likewise, the lack of such a finding in
Bethel should not be accepted as unequivocal evidence of the boundaries of the
province.41 Anyhow, since the northernmost site on which seal impressions were
uncovered in Tell en-Naṣbeh (biblical Mizpah), there is no possibility, even in
theory, to use the distribution data of these seal impressions to determine the
northern border of the province.
The idealistic-utopian side of the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah has been pointed
out by some scholars (and see, e.g., Stern 1977; Blenkinsopp: 1988: 83–84; Lipschits
2002a), but this is not in contrary to the fact that some of them representing a

now know of about 408 seal impressions, as compared with the 342 brought by Stern. There is
no information on some of them, beyond the fact of their discovery or a general description.
The discussion in Christoph’s Ph.D. dissertation, which is devoted to this topic (1993: 121), is based
on a corpus of 412 stamp impressions, but the publication source of many of the stamp impres-
sions in question is not clear.
38 The information is based on data presented by Christoph (1993: 132). Inasmuch as most of
the seal impressions were found close to Jerusalem, these sites may be seen as collection centers
for the taxes that were sent to the Judaean center in Jerusalem and to the Persian center in
Ramat-Raḥel. Analogous to the lmlk and rosette jars, all of the jars were apparently cast in one
manufacturing center, distributed to the towns in the province, and gathered at the province tax
collection centers when the jars were full. We have to note that the lmlk and rosette jars were
found principally in the northern parts of the hill country and the Shephelah.
39 Cohen stated that the single stamp that was found at Kadesh Barnea is evidence that the
southern border of the province ran through the line of fortresses unearthed in the Negev. See
Cohen 1986. For a critique on Cohen’s view see Carter 1990: 88–89.
40 Most of the maps used as the basis of the geographical-historical research mark the sites
where many seal impressions have been found, along with sites where only one seal impression
has been found, and see, e.g.: Stern 1973b: 245; 1982a: 202–203 and n. 32; Kochman 1982: 17. The
distribution of the yhwd seal impressions was used for the purpose of analyzing the information
available in the geographical lists embedded in Ezra and Nehemiah and for evaluating their
reliability. A somewhat marginal piece of archaeological information (e.g., a single seal impres-
sion or a few) should neither be used to evaluate the reliability of a Biblical list, nor to determine
the course of a political boundary. On this subject, see also Stern 1982: 246–249.
41 See, e.g., McCown 1947a: 171–172, who states that because there are no yhwd stamp impres-
sions from Bethel, the site was not within the borders of Yehud province.
618 Part F: Biblical Studies

realistic geographical situation.42 In all of the lists together, a total of 50 towns

are mentioned. Approximately 30 of those towns are mentioned only in one list,
without any comparable reference in the other lists. Approximately 30 of those
towns are mentioned only in one list, without any comparable reference in the
other lists. Approximately 15 towns (most in the region of Benjamin) are men-
tioned in two lists; Geba Benjamin is mentioned in three lists; and only Jerusalem
is mentioned in all the lists; and only Jerusalem is mentioned in all the lists (or
their titles). The most distinctive of the lists is the list of ‫ים‬ (Ḫaṣērîm, i.e.,
small farms or villages, supported by a major city and belonging to a defined
territory) (Neh. 11:25–36) (Lipschits 2002a). This is a utopian list of a pronounced
literary and ideological nature, closely related to the towns lists in the book of
Joshua.43 It consists of 33 place names, 20 of which are not mentioned again in
the book of Ezra and Nehemiah, and most are located far from the borders of the
province (the Beersheba – Arad Valleys, the Shephelah, and the coastal region).44
If we omit the names of towns that are mentioned only in this list,45 there
will be a total of 28 town names in the four remaining lists. Approximately 20
are mentioned in the lists of the “Returnees”, and more than half of them lie
within the limits of Benjamin (12 towns). The other towns are located in the
nearby region south of Jerusalem (three), in the Ono-Lod Valley (three), and in
the Jordan Valley (two). The list of the builders of the city-wall completes the
picture in Judah and adds other, more southerly towns (Beth-hakkerem, Tekoa
and Beth-Zur) and two in the southern Shephelah (Zanoah and Keilah). This list
is also parallel to the lists of the “Returnees” in mentioning the two towns in the
Jordan Valley, and there is mention of only two towns in the region of Benjamin:
Gibeon (repeated) and Mizpah (added). In the list of the Sons of the singers, there
is a parallel to the lists of “Returnees” in the Jerusalem area (Netophah) and in
the Benjamin region (Azmavet and Geba); the list adds another town in this re-
gion: Beth-Hagilgal.
The similarities between the four geographical lists enable us to conclude
that they reflect the realistic geopolitical situation of the province of Yehud during

42 For a comprehensive discussion of the geographical aspect in those lists, for further literature
and a review of the history of the research, see Lipschits 1997b: 364–385; 2005.
43 There is a widespread assumption in the research, according to which this list bears a clear
literal-ideological character, and has to be discussed separately from the other lists. For a discus-
sion and further literature on this subject, see Blenkinsopp 1982: 83–84; 1991: 44; Lipschits 2002a,
with further literature.
44 An analysis of the list shows that it does not realistically reflect the actual reality of any
period within the Persian Period and should not be relied upon to reconstruct the borders of
the province or the settlement situation that prevailed there. On this subject, see Lipschits 2002a.
45 Avi-Yonah (1949: 18) also used to reconstitute it this way.
 From Geba to Beersheba: A Further Consideration 619

the Persian period.46 Except for the list of ‫ים‬ these lists mention no town
north to Bethel, so it may be assumed that it was the northernmost town of the
province (and cf. to Avi-Yonah 1949: 19). The attempt to widen the province’s
boundaries more to the north,47 so as to include Hazor must be rejected, since
the only argument supporting it is its being mentioned in the list of ‫ים‬ (Ne-
hemiah 11:33). It’s doubtful as well whether this Hazor is to be identified with
Baal Hazor that is mentioned in 2 Samuel 13:23, that is usually identified with
Jabel el-ʿAṣûr, seven kilometers north-east of Bethel (Simons 1959: 390; Naʾaman
1995: 274–275, with further literature).
There is a tight connection between the understanding of the geopolitical
situation in Judah during the Persian period, as well as the ideological and utopi-
an role of the list of ‫ים‬ in Nehemiah 11, and the mentioning of Geba in
Zechariah 14:10.48 The description of the north-south direction (verse 10αβ): “from
Geba to Rimmon, south [Negeb] of Jerusalem” is connected to the list in Nehemiah
11, and looks secondary to it. The author of this passage in Zechariah took the
last southern town mentioned in the towns list of the tribe of Judah (Neh 11:29,
just before six more towns in the Shephelah), and the first town mentioned in
the towns list of the tribe of Benjamin (verse 31). He even used the expression
(“from Geba”) as it is in verse 31 and the common pattern (“from… to…”) that
was used also in the summarizing remark in verse 30b. there is no reason to
identify here another town but this of Geba Benjamin, just like in Neh 11:29;
12:29.49

46 Regarding the fact that in all the lists, the regions of Benjamin, Jerusalem and the Jordan
Valley (the region of Jericho) are mentioned, we can assume that these regions were settled
during all the Persian period, and were included in the boundaries of the province. The region
of Ono-Lod is only mentioned in the list of the ‘Returnees’, and probably was not included within
the boundaries of the province. see Lipschits 1997b; 2005.
47 See for example: Stern 1973b: 245.
48 This verse is part of a passage (verses 6–11), which describes a dramatic natural upheaval
that is bound to occur in the region of Jerusalem. On this subject, see Mitchell, Smith and Bewer
1912: 347–348; Unger 1963: 258–259. For a general discussion on this paragraph and a special
attention on the apocalyptical and eschatological characteristics that it presents, see Otzen 1964:
199–212; Hanson 1975: 369; Larkin 1994: 180–220, and see there a discussion on verses 8–11. The
main problem with verse 10 is that the verb that opens it (yissôb) is masculine and its subject
‘land’ is a feminine noun. For the various proposals in research concerning the translation and
understanding of verse 10aα and for further literature, see Meyers and Meyers 1993: 441. How-
ever, I can’t accept the translation offered in this commentary (ibid.: 408, 441). See the unique
suggestion of Saeboe (1969: 116–122; 300–305).
49 This is the natural and conventional identification in research, and see, e.g.: Mitchell, Smith
and Bewer 1912: 348; Unger 1963: 259; Otzen 1964: 208–209; Meyers and Meyers 1993: 442–443;
Petersen 1995: 150–152; Redditt 1995: 142.
620 Part F: Biblical Studies

As said, Mazar (1940: 84–87) found further support for delineating the north-
ern border in the name of the gate mentioned in Nehemiah 3:6; 12:39 (according
to him – “the Gate of Jeshanah”, and see also Rudolph 1949: 116; Myers 1965: 110).
This argument is totally unacceptable (Williamson 1985: 196). First, because by
reconstituting the construction process of Jerusalem’s wall, this gate was found
at the north-west of the city, and not at the north (Tsafrir 1977b: 41; 1982: 68, 70).
Moreover, it’s hard to assume a connection between this gate and a town so much
north of Jerusalem, while there is no mention of its importance apart from that
in 2 Chr 13:19 (Rudolph 1949: 116; Myers 1965: 110; Blenkinsopp 1988: 234; Ahlström
1993: 764–765). This verse is part of an obscure and tendentious episode (2 Chr
13:4–20), whose historicity is controversial.50 Furthermore, there’s a linguistic
problem with the name of the gate in Nehemiah 3:6, which makes the correction
into the “Mishneh Gate”, an acceptable suggestion (Batten 1913: 222; Williamson
1985: 196; Blenkinsopp 1988: 234). The “Mishneh Gate” should be interpreted as
entrance (Gate) to the ancient part of the city, or else, as the gate which, towards
the end of the First Temple period, connected the city to the Mishne quarter on
the western hill of the city, across the Tyropoeon (2 Kings 22:14; Zephaniah 1:10)
(Ryle 1907: 175–176).51

Conclusion

Mazar’s theory concerning the location of Geba on Mount Ephraim has been
accepted and still is in the Israeli research since dozens of years. And yet, a
thorough analysis of the “cornerstones” upon which the theory is based, reveals
that the Hebrew Bible provides no evidence whatsoever to the existence of a
town named “Geba” on Mount Ephraim. The logical structure Mazar built for his
theory lacks substantive evidence. It seems that after dozens of years of research,
we should restore the worthy honor of Geba Benjamin. This conclusion completes
with that reached by Elitzur (1987: 3–18), and confirms it also for the period
preceding the fourth century BCE. One cannot avoid restating the opening sen-
tence in the conclusion to Elitzur’s article (1987: 18): “There is no evidence of any
town named “Geba” existing on Mount Ephraim at any period.”

50 On the theological messages in this episode, see Rudolph 1955: 32–33; Japhet 1989: 309–310,
404–405; Ackroyd 1991: 287–288.
51 The expression ‘The Gate of Jeshanah’ (i.e. − ‘the Mishneh Gate’) in Nehemiah 12: 39 does not
appear in the LXX version (Codex Vaticanus) and in the Vulgata. About the character and the
purposes of this verse, see Blenkinsopp 1988: 346–347; Cohn-Eskenazi 1988: 85–86. On this subject,
see Avigad 1980: 54–60; Tsafrir 1982: 70.
The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights”
of the Family of Barzillai the Gileadite
in Jerusalem
Barzillai the Gileadite is mentioned 11 times in the Old Testament.1 At the end of
the story that depicts David’s flight from Jerusalem to Mahanim during Absalom’s
revolt (2 Sam 15:14–17:29),2 there is a short literary unit (17:27–29),3 describing
three dignitaries from Transjordan who come towards David, bringing supplies
to him and his people. Barzillai the Gileadite from Rogelim appears in this de-
scription, together with Shobi son of Nahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites, and
Machir son of Ammiel from Lo-debar [Lidebir].
Barzillai is the only one of the three dignitaries who also appears in the
closing unit of the story (2 Sam 19:10–44), when David is leaving Mahanaim, on
his way back to Jerusalem. In an additional unit (19:32–39, 40b, 41aβ) to this
closing frame of the story of the Absalom revolt (which is very homogenous and
unified from the literary perspective) Barzillai is the focus.4 He is described as a
very old and wealthy man, and according to this description, (contrary to the
description in 17:27–29) Barzillai is the only one who gave the king everything he
needed while he was at Mahanaim. He came down from Rogelim, and according
to the story, is the one who is supposed to take the king across the Jordan. The

1 Barzillai is mentioned six times in the story of the Absalom revolt (2 Sam 17:27; 19:32, 33, 34,
35, 40) and once more in 1 Kings 2:7, in a clear literary connection to the story in 2 Samuel 19.
Four more times the family of Barzillai was mentioned in a late addition to the “List of Return-
ees” (Ezra 2:61; Nehemiah 7:63). On this addition, see Lipschits 2018d. In the Old Testament there
is a different Barzillai – “the Meholathite,” who according to 1 Samuel 21:8 was the father of
Adriel. This Adriel became a relative of Saul’s family, “when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have
been given to David, she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife” (1 Sam 18:19). It is hard
to accept the idea, that Barzillai the meholathite and Barzillai the Gileadite from Rogelim are
the same person, and that his seat under the patronage of the Davidic family was a way to keep
him under supervision because of his connections with the House of Saul (see e.g., Lowenstam
1954: 342, and cf. also to McCarter 1984: 394). This reconstruction also contradicts 2 Sam 21:8–9,
which describes the five sons of Michal (and not Merab) and Adriel the son of Barzillai the
Meholathite, who were given to the Gibeonites and were later killed together with the two sons
of Ritzpah (born to King Saul).
2 On the structure of the story, see Sergi 2017c: 329–334, with further literature.
3 Already Kratz (2005: 174–176) considered this unit, together with 19:17–41 (and 2 Sam 9; 16:1–
14) as part of the later expansion of the narrative (originally in 2 Sam 15:1–6, 13; 18:1–19:9) and
considered it as part of the “Benjaminite episodes” (see further below).
4 This unit is probably the oldest that describes Barzillai. See: Caquot and de Robert 1994: 560–
563; Rudnig 2006: 315; Wright 2014: 135–138; and see the discussion below.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-034
622 Part F: Biblical Studies

king asks Barzillai to join him on his way to Jerusalem, dwell with him there as
a protégé, and enjoy the constant support of the royal house. Barzillai however,
in a long speech (vv. 35–38), which rests at the center of this literary unit, politely
refuses due to his old age and asks the king to instead take his son (?) Chimham
with him to Jerusalem.5 The king agrees and promises Barzillai “Chimham shall
cross over with me, and I will do for him what is good in your sight” (2 Sam
19:38). The end of this unit was combined with the end of the Absalom story,
“And all the people went over the Jordan, and the king went over: and the king
kissed Barzillai and blessed him; and he returned unto his own place” (v. 40).
Following this, “the king went over to Gilgal, and Chimham went over with him”
(v. 41). According to 1 Kings 2:7, David ordered his son Solomon to keep this prom-
ise, and let “the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite” (Chimham and his family?) to be
“among those who eat at your table,” since: “they came to me when I fled from
Absalom thy brother.”6
The conclusion is that Chimham – the son (?) of Barzillai the Gileadite – and
his family (“the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite”) were seated in Jerusalem or in a
nearby royal estate, as a protégé of the royal family. The historical background
of the seat of the family of Chimham in or near Jerusalem, could explain the
name of a place or a royal estate near Bethlehem, mentioned in Jeremiah 41:17
as “Geruth Chimham.”7 The name of this place could be interpreted from the
word ‫גר‬,8 intended to indicate that Chimham was a stranger in the land. Further
to this, its location near Bethlehem could imply that it was part of the royal
estates of the Davidic family, situated near its hometown, in the area of the Re-
phaim Valley. This area indeed became a central part of the royal estates around
Jerusalem, evidenced by archaeological material well dated to the 7th cen-
tury BCE, and continued to exist until the early Hellenistic period.9 This date

5 Nowhere in this text is Chimham presented as Barzillai’s son. Only in the later addition in
1 Kings 2:7 there is a mention (in plural) of “the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite.” See for example,
Hertzberg 1956: 298. Wright (2014: 135; 246, n. 7) suggested that Chimaham was Barzillai’s servant,
but it is not clear what reasoning framed this suggestion.
6 On 1 Kings 2:7, within the unit of 2:5–9, see Provan (1995: 108–116) and see in the discussion
below.
7 Already Ryle (1907: 31) suspected a connection between the two stories. On the various propos-
als for an interpretation of the verse and identification of the place, see Thompson 1980: 662;
Holladay 1989: 298; McKane 1996: 1022.
8 Most translations understood it in the opposite meaning, as a place of habitation, a lodging
place.
9 On the royal estates to the south of Jerusalem in the 7th century BCE, see: Lipschits and Gadot
2008; Gadot 2015; for the name of the “Valley of the King” during this period, see: Lipschits and
Naʾaman 2011.
 The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” of the Family of Barzillai the Gileadite 623

could provide the terminus post quem for the story, exactly the same date of the
story of Absalom, who “when Absalom was still alive, he erected for himself
(‫ֶצּב־֤לוֹ‬) a monument (‫ת־‬), which is in the Valley of the King; … It is
called Absalom’s monument unto this day” (2 Sam 18:18).
In this paper I would like to claim that within the “living text” of the Deuter-
onomistic history (which across hundreds of years was the platform for changing
messages, claims and polemics), during the Persian Period the text of 2 Sam 19:32–
39, 40b, 41aβ (together with 1 Kings 2:7) was added to the story of Absalom and
Sheba’s revolts as a kind of “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” for the Family
of Barzillai in Jerusalem.10 As a marker against this story, a polemic note was later
added, (probably during the Ptolemaic period) to Ezra 2 / Nehemiah 7, against
the family of Barzillai and the family of Hakkoz.11 At the same time (and with
the same attitude) 2 Sam 17:27–29 was inserted into the same story so as to add
two other foreign people from the Transjordanian region to Barzillai, as people
who also assisted David during his stay in Mahanaim, i.e. Shobi son of Nahash
from Rabbah of the Ammonites and Machir son of Ammiel from Lo-debar [Lide-
bir]. Both individuals are foreigners, pro-Saulides (or even anti-Davidides) and
unlike the family of Barzillai, were not rewarded for helping David and had no
real role in the history of Israel. The message in this short addition to the text is
that Barzillai was not unique in his assistance to the king, and like the two others
who received nothing in return for the supply they brought to the king, so too
are Barzillai’s family not entitled to claim any benefits for the aid they afforded
the king.

The Literary Nature, Content, and Composition of the Story

of Absalom and Sheba’s Revolts (2 Sam 15–20)

Numerous scholars follow the assumption that the Absalom and Sheba’s revolts
story in 2 Sam 15–20 is a largely unified literary work (Dietrich 2000: 59–66; 2011:
244–248; Blum 2010a: 63–64; Sergi 2017c: 339–341). In the center of the story stands
the account of the battle between David’s followers and the Israelites in the forest
of Ephraim (2 Sam 18:1–19:9). This account is framed with a narrative that de-

10 This is in line with the observation of other scholars (Caquot and de Robert 1994: 560–563;
Rudnig 2006: 315; Wright 2014: 135–138) that Barzillai’s meeting with David before his return
predates the account of the three Transjordanian figures who come to welcome him. It is also
in line with Wright’s claim: “It stands to reason, then, the Judah-centric Book of Ezra-Nehemiah
would have given rise to supplements in the book of Samuel.”
11 On this addition, see Lipschits 2018d, and see the discussion below.
624 Part F: Biblical Studies

scribes David’s flight from Jerusalem to Mahanaim before the beginning of the
battle (2 Sam 15:14–17:29) and a narrative that describes his return to Jerusalem
after the Israelite revolt was suppressed and Absalom’s death (2 Sam 19:10–44)
(Cornoy 1978: 89–101; but cf. to Fischer 2006: 44–48).
It was Kratz (2005: 174–176), followed by other scholars (cf. to Fischer 2006:
49–55; Aurelius 2004: 396–402; Hutton 2009: 201–222),12 who demonstrated that
the entire narrative of David’s flight and return story was based on a core, which
contains the beginning of Absalom’s revolt (2 Sam 15:1–6, 13) and the account of
the battle in the forest of Ephraim (2 Sam 18:1–19:9a). Two main literary layers
later expanded this core story: the first expansion layer included the flight and
return narrative (2 Sam 15:14–23, 30–37; 16:20–17:26; 19:9b–15, 16, 41b), and the
second layer includes “the Benjaminite episode” (2 Sam 9; 16:1–14; 17:27–29; 19:17–
41).13
This view became particularly prominent in research, and a central debate
emerged among scholars as to the extent of the original core narrative and the
expansion layers.14 Most scholars assumed that the flight and return narrative
reflected the exile from Jerusalem and the return to the city, assigned it to a late
Deuteronomistic editor, and dated this text to the early Persian Period (ca. late
6th or 5th century BCE) (Rudnig 2006: 315–316, with further literature).15 Most
scholars dated the second layer of expansion (which includes “the Benjaminite
episode”) to the Persian period.16

12 Against these theories see arguments raised by Blum 2010a: 63–67.

13 Already Langlamet (1976; 1979; 1980; 1981; 1983) suggested that the Benjaminite episodes em-
bedded in the narrative of David’s flight and return were secondary. Wright (2014: 134–135)
suggested that the emphasis on David’s flight to Mahanaim, and the emphasis on the Gilead and
the Gileadites who assisted David and gave him supply, played an important role in the story.
14 See: Adam 2006: 199–200; Fischer 2006: 49–55; Rudnig 2006: 255–280; Wright 2014: 99–101;
Sergi 2017c: 334–335, with further literature. Following the analysis of Kratz (and cf. to Aurelius
2004: 396–400 and Fischer 2006: 43–69), Hutton (2009: 201, 222), for example, claimed that the
original core of the revolt and the battle in the forest of Ephraim includes 2 Sam 15:1–6, 13; 18:1–
2a, 4b, 6–9, and 15b–18bα; the first expansion includes 15:1–37*; 16:15–19:16*; and the addition of
the so-called “Benjaminite episodes” includes 16:1–14*; 19:17–41*.
15 There are, however, strong arguments against the dating of David’s flight from Jerusalem,
portrayed as a “mourning procession,” to the exile from Jerusalem, see e.g. Fischer 2006: 61–65;
Sergi 2017c: 334–335; 2020: 294–299. Also Hutton (2009: 201–227) and Leonard-Fleckman (2015:
412–413; 2016: 117–132) agreed that the flight and return narrative is secondary to the original
story, but rejected its dating to the exilic or post-exilic periods. Hutton (2009: 221–222) even
follows Vermeylen (2000: 349–351) and claimed that this addition (which according to him in-
cludes 2 Sam 15:1–37 and 16:15–19:16) is pre-Deuteronomistic and includes several layers of com-
position that can be located as early as the 10th–9th centuries BCE (and cf. to Leonard-Fleckman
2016: 131).
16 Blum (2010a: 66–67) suggested that the “Benjaminite episodes” reflect the early 9th cen-
tury BCE struggle over Benjamin between Israel and Judah, but see the critique of Sergi (2017c:
 The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” of the Family of Barzillai the Gileadite 625

With a focus on this last additional layer of “the Benjaminite episode,” I

would like to claim that the development process of this layer of text is much
more complex than usually claimed in research. The “Barzillai additional layer”
(2 Sam 19:32–39, 40b, 41aβ) was added in the Persian period to the original text
of this layer (2 Sam 9; 16:1–14, addresses David’s relations to the house of Saul),
when this text was already an integral part of the larger story of the Absalom
and Sheba’s revolts in 2 Sam 15–20. The text of 2 Sam 17:27–29 was added much
later (probably in the Ptolemaic period) as part of the polemic answer to the
“Barzillai additional layer,” and reflects a later phase in the development of the
story.

The “Founding Story” and the “Bill of Rights” of the Family

of Barzillai in Jerusalem (2 Sam 19:32–39, 40b, 41aβ)
as a Late Insertion to the Story of Absalom’s Revolt

In the story of David’s arrival to the Jordan (2 Sam 19:9b–41), before his return
to Jerusalem, there are three meetings with people who “came down” to meet
the king:17 Shimei son of Gera (19:17–24), Mephibosheth (19:25–31), and Barzillai
(19:32–39, 40b, 41a). In the opening description of every meeting the emphasis is
on the description ‫את‬ ‫ד‬, in the sense of “came down, towards the King, to
meet him.” In the case of Shimei it is expressed as (17b): ‫ה‬‫הוּ‬ ‫ישׁ‬‫ם־‬ 
‫ד‬  ‫את‬ (when the words ‫ה‬‫הוּ‬ ‫ישׁ‬‫ם־‬ can be a later addition) and
in the case of Mephibosheth as (25aβ):  ‫את‬ ‫ד‬. In both cases, Shimei
and Mephibosheth are fierce opponents of David, who attempt to come to terms
with him when it is understood that the rebellion was unsuccessful, and that
David had returned to establish his status in Jerusalem. In these two cases, the
meetings are reminiscent of David’s encounters on his outward journey, i.e., the
meeting with Shimei (16:5–13), and the meeting with Ziba the servant of Mephib-
osheth (16:1–4).18 The description of these meetings is probably part of the origi-
nal text that described Absalom’s revolt.

342–344; 2020: 294–299) and his suggestion to date these stories against the historical background
of the 8th–7th centuries BCE (and cf. to Adam 2006: 188–192).
17 On the literary idea of how these three meetings are reminiscent of David’s encounters
during his outward journey, see: Conroy 1978: 89; Gunn 1980: 109–113; Fokkelman 1981: 339, 415.
Already Wellhausen (1878a: 256) observed the symmetry between the account of David’s flight
from Jerusalem and his return, and this observation is common among all scholars of the book
of Samuel.
18 See McCarter (1984: 421, 424) regarding the assumption that this meeting took place later in
Jerusalem and is placed here, to provide the logical resolution for the issues raised by the
mention of Mephibosheth’s presence among the reception party.
626 Part F: Biblical Studies

In light of these cases the meeting with Barzillai is exceptional (Rudnig 2006:
354–355), and it appears to me that this meeting was shaped in parallel to the
meeting of David with his friend Hushai (2 Sam 15:32–37), when he escaped from
Jerusalem (Gunn 1980: 113). Barzillai is the only one whom David seems to treat
as an equal, and the supplies Barzillai brought to him during his sojourn in
Transjordan established a patrimonial-style relationship of “benefactor and bene-
ficiary” between the two of them. The use of the verb ‫ד‬ is applied with a
different meaning than it is in the other two meetings described in this text. The
description is that Barzillai indeed ‫ים‬ ‫ד‬ (had come down from Rogelim)
but it is not  ‫את‬ in the sense of “to meet the king” but in order to ‫ר‬
‫ן‬ ‫ת־‬, and to ‫ן‬‫ת־ה‬ ‫וֹ‬ meant to the assist the king to cross
the Jordan and to escort him.19 Unlike Shimei and Mephibosheth, Barzillai comes
to the meeting from a strong position and with no fear for his fate. Unlike the
two other meetings of the king with Shimei (16:5–13), and with Ziba (the servant
of Mephibosheth, 16:1–4), while the second meeting is arranged in a symmetric
order (reminiscent of the meetings with David on the outward journey), the first
meeting of Barzillai and the king (17:27–29) breaks this symmetry of the original
story, and is not ordered as the other two are.
It is clear though that the description in 19:32–39, 40b, 41aβ is a later insertion
to the original text of Absalom and Sheba’s revolts. It is also the oldest description
of Barzillai, and it is for this reason, unlike the meeting in chapter 17, that the
text in chapter 19 introduces him as “a very old man – eighty years old… a very
great man” (‫ד‬ ‫וּא‬ ‫וֹל‬ ‫ישׁ‬) (Caquot and de Robert 1994: 560–563; Rudnig 2006:
167, 315; Wright 2014: 135–138). The main point in the description of this meeting is
the loyalty of Barzillai to David, and the support that he gave David during his stay
in Mahanaim. The textual emphasis is clear, and in parallel to the description on
Barzillai support of the king (19:33b: ‫ם‬ ‫וֹ‬‫י‬ ‫ת־‬ ‫ל‬‫וּא־‬) the
king repeats the same words when he suggests that Barzillai join him on his way
back to Jerusalem (19:34b: ‫ירוּ‬ ‫י‬  ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ ).20
If Barzillai’s support of David during his sojourn in Transjordan established a
patrimonial-style relationship of “benefactor and beneficiary” with David, in turn,
David’s invitation for Barzillai to join him in Jerusalem and become part of the

19 McCarter’s translation here (1984: 413) seems tidy and correct: “He went along with the King
to see him off from the Jordan.”
20 It is interesting to note that as against the later addition in 17:27–29, emphasizing the people
that were with David and the supply given to them, since “the people are hungry, and weary,
and thirsty, in the wilderness” in chapter 19 there is nothing about the people who accompanied
David. See Wright 2014: 135 also on the connection between the description in chapter 17 and
the Exodus tradition.
 The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” of the Family of Barzillai the Gileadite 627

royal court was intended to reverse this benefactor-beneficiary relationship. This

effectively allowed for the repositioning of David as the more empowered partner
in the relationship, even if it included an explicit recognition of the importance of
Barzillai’s assistance to the king during his hard times (Hutton 2009: 23).
This is exactly the reason for such a late insertion.21 The importance of this
text is that it connects the presence of the family of Barzillai in Jerusalem to the
promise of the founder of the Kingdom of Judah, as a reward for the family’s
loyalty during the challenging times of the king and when he most needed this
support. The text in 1 Kings 2:7 is likely part of this addition, as David delivers a
clear order to Solomon his son to keep this promise, and allow Chimham and his
family (“the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite”) to be “among those who eat at your
table,” since: “they came to me when I fled from Absalom thy brother.”22
The historical background for such a story could have developed already in
the ca. 7th century BCE, when royal estates developed in the area around Ramat
Raḥel and the Rephaim Valley (“the Valley of the King”). This is also the back-
ground to the name of a place or a royal estate near Bethlehem, mentioned in
Jeremiah 41:17 as “Geruth Chimham.”
Yet questions remain, when did the need for such a story arise? and why? In
my opinion, the need for such a story and its insertion into the larger story about
the revolts of Absalom and Sheba (2 Samuel) arises in the Persian period, when
questions arose regarding the affiliation of the Barzillai family with Israel (Wright
2014: 135–138). It probably began when this family grew in strength and impor-
tance, after it established marriage connections with the family of Hakkotz in
Jerusalem. As indicated from the text in Ezra-Nehemiah (and see below), strong
voices from opponents in Jerusalem began to question this family’s “belonging”
to Judah and their right to sit in or near Jerusalem. The story about Barzillai and
David was intended to protect the family’s eligibility and preserve their inheri-
tance. The story is intended to link the legendary patronym of the family (who
gave the family his name), with the founder of the kingdom who conquered
Jerusalem and founded the capital and the dynasty. For if King David gave this
family the right to cross the Jordan with him, and ordered his son Solomon that
“the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite” will be “among those who eat at your table,”
who could claim that the family did not have the right to sit in Jerusalem and be
considered as part of the people of Judah?

21 Already Rudnig (2006: 315) envisions the “artful” insertion of vv. 39, 40b around v. 40a. See,
however, against this observation the remark of Hutton (2009: 202, n. 98) and cf. to Langlamet
1983: 154–158.
22 On 1 Kings 2:7 within the unit of 2:5–9, see Provan 1995: 108–116. Rudnig (2006: 166–167, 254–
255) claimed that this verse is later than 2 Sam 17:27–29 and 19:32–40, but this is hard to accept,
and in my opinion, it is part of the original story of Barzillai in 2 Sam 19:32–40.
628 Part F: Biblical Studies

2 Sam 17:27–29 as a Late Polemic Addition to the Barzillai

Story in 19:32–39, 40b, 41aβ

2 sam 17:27a (‫ה‬ ‫ד‬ ‫וֹא‬ ‫י‬) repeats the information of v. 24a (‫א‬ ‫ד‬
‫ה‬). V. 27b introduces three local dignitaries who came towards David,
bringing supplies to him and his people: Shobi son of Nahash from Rabbah of
the Ammonites, Machir son of Ammiel from Lo-debar [Lidebir], and Barzillai the
Gileadite from Rogelim.23 Shobi son of Nahash does not appear in any other place
in the Old Testament.24 Machir son of Ammiel appears twice more in the Old
Testament (2 Sam 9:4–5) as the one who hosts Mephibosheth until David called
him back to Jerusalem. The king gave him “all the land which was Saul’s” (9:7)
and a place at the king’s table “at all times” (9:10) “so Mephibosheth went on
living in Jerusalem; for he took all his meals at the king’s table” (9:13).
Shobi and Machir were presented together with the name of their patronym
and their hometown but only Barzillai was mentioned as “Gileadite” together
with the name of his home town. The content of the description in 17:27–29, in
regards to Barzillai, is well-known and well summarized in 19:33bα: “and he had
provided the king with sustenance while he lay at Mahanaim,” while Shobi and
Machir are not mentioned in any other place. The detailed description of the
supply in 17:2825 is likely also an indication for a very late addition (McCarter
1984: 394–395). The connection of 17:29b to 17:22b is clear and probably another
such indicator, as well as an explanation as to why the 14 items brought to David
included more than only food (Rudnig 2006: 252–253).
Already Langlamet (1976: 355; 1983: 154–158) noticed that 2 Sam 17:27–29 dis-
rupted the continuity between 17:24, 26 and 18:1. Rundig (2006: 167, n. 334, 253),

23 According to Finkelstein, Koch and Lipschits (2013: 153) these three cities: Rabbah of the
Ammonites, Lo-debar [Lidebir], and Rogelim, should be considered as non-Israelite, but sur-
rounding the Israelite territories of the Land of Gilead. This is the territory described as the place
where Absalom and Israel were encamped: Rabbah of the Ammonites is self-evident, Lidebir
was not an Israelite town also according to Amos 6:13, and (if the list goes from south to north)
Rogelim should be sought further north, probably in el-Husn, on the southwestern edge of the
Irbid plateau. Abel’s identification of Rogelim (1938: 427) in Tell Barsina near Wadi Rujeileh
southwest of Irbid (based on the similarity Rujeileh = Roglim and Barsina = Barzillai) is far from
secure.
24 Isser (2003: 163) claimed that the name of his father does not have to be associated with the
name of the Ammonite king (and cf. to Rudnig 2006: 253).
25 See comments on the text (including the omissions in the MT) in McCarter 1984: 392, with
further literature. The problems were solved in the LXX by the addition of “they had brought”
in the beginning of v. 28. On this text, see also the comment of McCarter 1984: 392; Lundbom
1986: 13–14; Rudnig 2006: 252–253.
 The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” of the Family of Barzillai the Gileadite 629

followed by Wright (2014: 134–138), claimed that 17:27–29 is a later phase in the
development of the text.26 I agree with this conclusion, and suggest that it was
the place chosen to balance the “Founding Story” and the “Bill of Rights” of the
Family of Barzillai in Jerusalem (as was known from 2 Sam 19:32–39, 40b, 41aβ).
The commentary was a polemic insertion into the wider text, at the exact point
of this symmetric story of David’s encounters on his way from Jerusalem to Maha-
naim during Absalom’s revolt. The insertion effectively balanced and facilitated
a dialogue in the meetings between these two people on David’s return to Jerusa-
lem (Gunn 1980: 109–113). The main idea was to add two other foreign people
from the Transjordanian region to the Barzillai story, as people who also assisted
David during his stay in Mahanaim, to demonstrate that Barzillai was not unique
in his assistance to the king. These two Transjordanian individuals are foreigners,
pro-Saulides (or even anti-Davidides) and unlike the family of Barzillai, were not
rewarded for helping David and had no real role in the history of Israel. The
message is that like the two others, who received nothing in return for the sup-
plies they brought the king, so too are Barzillai’s family not entitled to claim any
benefits for the aid they too once submitted to the king.
Exactly the same polemic idea can be found in the late insertion in Ezra 2 /
Nehemiah 7, and this text also aides in the dating of the insertion in 2 Samuel
17:27–29 to the Ptolemaic period.

The Polemic Insertion Against the Priestly Family of Hakkotz

and the Family of Barzillai in Ezra and Nehemiah

The family of Hakkotz was a well-known priestly family in the temple of Jerusa-
lem.27 Only in the double list in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 (and in no other place in
the Old Testament) is a priest from the family of Hakkotz who “took a wife of
the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite” (Ezra 2:61; Nehemiah 7:63) accused of
taking his family name after the family of his wife – the Gileadites – the sons of
Barzillai. Many scholars agreed that this is the reason why this family was exclud-
ed from the priesthood, at least for a certain period (Williamson 1985: 31, 37;
Blenkinsopp 1987: 82; and cf. to Japhet 2019: 107). The accusation that this priestly
family was named after the Gileadites does not fit, however, to the location of
this description in the “list of returnees” in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. There, it is

26 Cf. to Vermeylen 2000: 374, 381, and to Eissfeldt (1931: 42–43) who claimed for parallel stories.
27 On this subject see the discussion of Lipschits 2018d. A summary of this discussion presented
below.
630 Part F: Biblical Studies

the only priestly family that was listed among those who “could not show their
father’s house, nor their seed, whether they were of Israel” (Ezra 2:59; Nehemiah
7:61), nor that “these sought their registration among those enrolled in the geneal-
ogies, but it was not found there, so they were excluded from the priesthood as
unclean” (Ezra 2:62; Nehemiah 7:64) (Lipschits 2018d).
The problem is that this information regarding the family of Hakkotz contra-
dicts all that is known about the family, who according to all other sources, con-
tinued to function as a priestly family during the second temple period (at least
until the 2nd century BCE),28 and a priest named Meremoth (from the family of
Hakkotz), even held a major role in the Jerusalem temple.29 Even if it is reason-
able to assume that the note in Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63 reflect a historical
memory, and that at some stage there were marriage connections between a
member from the family of Hakkotz and a woman from the Chimaham branch
of the Barzillai family (who lived in or near Jerusalem), the main question is:
why is this information only mentioned in one place – the list in Ezra 2 and
Nehemiah 7 (Ezra 2:62; Nehemiah 7:64)? What was the intention of this reference?
What is the meaning of the note? And why is there an allusion that the family of
Barzillai was considered (only here) as not among the Israelites?
In my opinion,30 this note on the family of Hakkotz is a late literary-ideologi-
cal insertion to the “List of Returnees,” as part of a rivalry between differing
ideological groups and priestly families in Jerusalem. This is together with, or
only after the two ideological additions of the “foreign wives” were added to

28 On the one hand, according to 1 Chronicles 24:10 the family of Hakkotz was seventh amongst
the priestly families. On the other hand, in the First book of Maccabees (8:17) we know about
two representatives from two priestly families, Eupolemus the son of John the son of Hakkotz,
and Yason the son of Elazar, who were the ambassadors of Judas Maccabaeus to Rome (ca.
161 BCE), sent to request the aid of the Romans against Demetrius. Priests from exactly these
two families cooperated in Jerusalem according to Ezra (8:33). We know about a priest named
Meremoth the son Uriah the son of Hakkotz, who was mentioned twice in the list of the builders
of the wall in Nehemiah 3 (once in v. 4 and once again in v. 21). A priest named Meremoth was
also mentioned among the sons of the priests who had married foreign wives according to the
list in Ezra 10 (v. 36) and among the people who signed the covenant according to Nehemiah 10
(v. 6). Yet in these two lists it is not clear if it is the same Meremoth from the family of Hakkotz.
Scholars have tried to explain this problem in a variety of ways (see e.g., Williamson 1985: 37;
Eskenazi 1992: 38; Kidner 1979: 76) but all explanations tend to harmonize between the contra-
dicting sources, and do not address the polemic nature of the sources embedded in Ezra 2 /
Nehemiah 7.
29 In his 1992 paper on Ezra and Meremoth, Koch even claimed that this Meremoth was the
high priest when Ezra arrived to Jerusalem and Ezra moved him from that role since he was
not a member of the Aharonides.
30 See the detailed discussion in Lipschits 2018d.
 The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” of the Family of Barzillai the Gileadite 631

the book, as there is a close literary and ideological connection between these
additions.
The original “List of Returnees” is not an independent source that was used
by the editor of Ezra and Nehemiah. Rather, it is a combination of several differ-
ent lists that were carefully joined together by the editor for its pre-destined
location in Nehemiah 7.31 The goal of this was to total the number of people living
in Judah – all of whom are described as coming from the Babylonian Golah.
According to Chapter 11, exactly 10 % of the people included in this list came to
live in Jerusalem after the building of the wall around Jerusalem was completed
(Lipschits 2002b). The editor of the list summarized the immigration according to
a classification system.32 The last group on the list was not calculated in the
general number of “returnees” that was later employed as the base for Nehemi-
ah’s casting lots (Nehemiah 11:1), as it includes Israelites who came from known
places in Babylon (Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer, all these
places appear only here), “… but they could not identify their father’s house nor
their lineage, whether they were of Israel” (Nehemiah 7:61–64). This part of the
list includes three families: the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Nekoda, and the sons
of Tobiah (7:62). It stands to reason that we know nothing about families that
could not prove “whether they were of Israel,” since these families were not in a
central social, political, or economic position.33 Yet the inclusion here of the Tobi-
ads, a family that became one of the main opponents to Nehemiah, is more than
suspicious.

31 On this subject, see the discussion by Japhet 2019: 68–82, and cf. to Williamson 1983: 1–30;
Blenkinsopp 1987: 43–44, 86–87. For a summary of the literary reasons to prefer the version in
Nehemiah over that in Ezra, see Williamson 1985: 29–30, with further literature. For a different
opinion on the subject, see Batten 1913: 71–72; Noth 1943: 128–129; Allrik 1954: 21–27; Mowinckel
1964: (I) 30–31; Pohlmann 1970: 60–61. For a detailed critique of these opinions, see Williamson
1983: 29–30; 1985: 2–7.
32 First are those who are included in the general category of “the people of Israel” (Ezra 2:3–
35 = Neh 7:8–38). Following them are the priests (Ezra 2:36–39 = Neh 7:39–42) and other Temple
functionaries: The Levites, the singers and the sons of the gate-kippers (Ezra 2:40–42 = Neh 7:43–
45). Closing the list are the “temple servants” and “the children of the servants of Solomon” (Ezra
2:43–58 = Neh 7:46–60), as well as those who came “who could not tell their father’s house and
their seed, whether they were of Israel” and the priests “who sought their register among them
who were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found, and therefore they were excluded
from the priesthood as unfit” (Ezra 2:59–63 = Neh 7:61–65).
33 This is probably the reason why we know nothing about the sons of Delaiah from any other
source. There was a person named Shemaiah the son of Delaiah the son of Mehetabel, mentioned
in Nehemiah 6:10, but it seems like a personal name of someone from the family of Mehetabel.
It is interesting to note that the sons of Nekoda mentioned in this list as one of the families that
“could not identify their father’s house nor their lineage,” are listed again in the same list in
Ezra 2:48 and Nehemiah 7:50 as a family who is one of the temple servants.
632 Part F: Biblical Studies

This family of Tobiah was wealthy and well established, with clear connec-
tions in Jerusalem and established marriage relations with an important Judean
family situated there.34 Especially similar to the family of Barzillai (the Gileadite),
it might be that the origin of the Tobiah family and their connections in the
Transjordan meant they were included in the attempt by later editors to exclude
them as part of Israel. Regardless, this is the only other case in Ezra and Nehemi-
ah that is distinctly similar to the note about the family of Barzillai, where a
member of the family “took” a daughter (in singular) for a wife (Lipschits 2018d).
The attitude towards the Tobiad’s as a family who “could not prove their fathers’
houses nor their descent, whether they belonged to Israel” (Nehemiah 7:61), to-
gether with the accusation against the family of Hakkotz – who is the only family
who “sought their registration among those enrolled in the genealogies, but it
was not found there, so they were excluded from the priesthood as unclean”
(Nehemiah 7:64) – seems to me to be part of a late polemic against these two
families.
The meaning behind this view is that the textual unit in Nehemiah 7:63–65
(= Ezra 2:61–63) is a late addition to the list, together with the polemic addition
against the Tobiads.35 The family of Barzillai are accused of being a non-Judean
family, and the family of Hakkotz are accused of being unfit to serve as priests,
for they sold their status for material benefit. This is exactly the sense of “blame”
that can be found in the additional layer of the foreign women in Ezra and
Nehemiah. Here the emphasis is that the marriage is not the problem, but rather
the issue lies in the legal rights that these women and their families receive in
Judah, once the Judahite people bring and settle them in the land. According to
this polemic accusation, due to this marriage with the family of Hakkotz, the
threat is that the family of Barzillai could achieve a “priestly family status” in
Jerusalem. Just like the demand to remove and dismiss the foreign women from
Judah, the message in this short statement was inserted to Nehemiah 7 (and
Ezra 2) to emphasise that so too should the family of Hakkotz be deprived of its
priestly status.

34 See: Mazar 1957, and cf. to Edelman 2006, who suggested to differentiate between two differ-
ent historical figures named Tobiah who lived some 200 years apart: One was an important and
central member of the Jerusalem community in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, while the other
was the head of a member of a family originated in Ammon, whose son served as a tax collector
in Yehud on behalf of the Ptolemaic rulers.
35 Already Mazar (1957: 230) suggested that this part of the list in Ezra 2:61–62; Nehemiah 7:63–
64 is a later addition, and cf. to Edelman 2006.
 The “Founding Story” and “Bill of Rights” of the Family of Barzillai the Gileadite 633

Conclusions and Some Further Thoughts

The main goal of this paper was to claim that the text of 2 Sam 19:32–39, 40b,
41aβ (together with 1 Kings 2:7) was inserted during the Persian Period (ca. late
6th and 5th century BCE) into the story of Absalom and Sheba’s revolts, in order
to serve as a “Founding Story” and a “Bill of Rights” for the Family of Barzillai of
Jerusalem. This text connects the presence of the family of Barzillai in Jerusalem
to the promises made by the founder of the Kingdom of Judah as a reward for
the loyalty of this family during the challenging times endured by king, when he
needed this support the most. The text in 1 Kings 2:7 is probably an original part
of this addition, since David delivers a clear order to Solomon to keep this prom-
ise, and allow Chimham and the family of Barzillai the Gileadite to be “among
those who eat at your table.”
The historical background for such a story could have developed already in
the 7th century BCE (and cf. also to the mention of “Geruth Chimham” in Jeremiah
41:17), but the actual need to use such a story arises in the Persian period, when
questions arose regarding the affiliation of the Barzillai family with Israel. The
reason for this was likely developed when this family became stronger and more
important, after it established marriage connections with the family of Hakkotz
in Jerusalem. As can be seen in Ezra-Nehemiah, strong voices of opponents began
to question the families “belonging” to Judah and their right to sit in or near
Jerusalem.
Further to this, 2 Sam 17:27–29 was inserted into the same story of David’s
flight from Jerusalem to Mahanaim (2 Sam 15:14–17:29). This insertion is posi-
tioned before the narrative that describes his meeting with Barzillai, as part of
the king’s return to Jerusalem following the suppression of Israelite revolt and
Absalom’s death (2 Sam 19:10–44), in order to accompany Barzillai with two other
foreign people from the Transjordanian region who also assisted David during
his stay in Mahanaim. This effectively frames Barzillai as unexceptional in his
assistance to the king, and like the two others who received nothing in return
for the supplies they brought to the king, so too is Barzillai’s family unentitled to
any claim of benefits for the aid they submitted to the king.
This exact same polemic idea was added to the late textual unit in Nehemiah
7:63–65 (= Ezra 2:61–63) against the family of Barzillai, the family of Hakkoz, and
the family of Tobiah, likely at the same time during the Ptolemaic period – and
with the same attitude. The family of Barzillai are accused of being a non-Judean
family, and the family of Hakkotz are accused of being unfit to serve as priests,
for they sold their status for material benefit. Here once again, status and territo-
ry stand at the centre, and the polemic accusation argues that due to this mar-
riage with the family of Hakkotz, the family of Barzillai are able to achieve a
“priestly family status” in Jerusalem.
634 Part F: Biblical Studies

The case of the family of Barzillai is one more example of the extent to which
the Deuteronomistic history was a “living text,” that was used across hundreds
of years as a platform for changing messages, claims, and polemics. The ancient
history of the nation was repeatedly used as a mode of “delivery” for political and
theological messages, as well as on occasion, conflicting ideologies. This should
be remembered in any historical reconstruction that considers these descriptions
as reflective of the events as they actually transpired.
“Here is a Man Whose Name is Ṣēmaḥ”
(Zechariah 6:12)
Introduction

During the 2008 excavation season at Ramat Raḥel (July–August 2008), a very small,
heretofore unknown, type of private stamp impression on a jar handle was discov-
ered. The find itself came as no surprise: to date, over 600 stamp impressions on
jar handles from the Late Iron Age and the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods
have been unearthed at Ramat Raḥel, making it one of the richest sites in Judah.
Stamped handles discovered at the site include a variety of known types from
the late eighth and seventh centuries BCE (such as the lmlk and rosette stamp
impressions, as well as the so-called “private” or “official” stamp impressions),1 types
from the Persian period (such as the different kinds of yehud and lion stamp
impressions), and types from the early Hellenistic period (such as the late yehud
and the yršlm stamp impressions). Reading the very small stamp impression we

Fig. 1: Jar Handle with "Private" Stamp Impression.

1 On “private” and “official” stamp impression, see Vaughn 1999: 110–117.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-035
636 Part F: Biblical Studies

Fig. 2: Enlarged Photo of the Stamp Impression.

Fig. 3: Illustration of the Stamp Impression.

found in 2008 was not easy, and after we deciphered it, I was surprised to find
that it bore Ṣēmaḥ as a private name.
In this essay, I would like to present this stamp impression, and to discuss my
understanding of how the personal name Ṣēmaḥ developed into a messianic title.
 “Here is a Man Whose Name is Ṣēmaḥ” (Zechariah 6:12) 637

The Stamped Handle

The renewed excavations at Ramat Raḥel began in 2004, and we have now com-
pleted six seasons of active digging (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010).2 The stamp
impression on the jar handle was discovered in a level of white crushed limestone
that comprises the floor of the courtyard.3 This floor is part of the second phase
of the edifice, dated not earlier than the late seventh century BCE (Lipschits et al.
2009b).
A pit with pottery from the end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth
century BCE was found in the same square, sealed by the level of white crushed
limestone. Even if this pit is not directly below the floor where the stamped
handle under discussion was discovered, it should be understood as being later
than the pit. Since the stamped handle probably dates to the late eighth cen-
tury BCE (Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 22–27) – it is classic lmlk type pottery,
which is now safely dated to the late eighth to early seventh centuries (Ussishkin
2004d; Zimhoni 2004) – we may conclude that it was discovered out of its original
context.
The stamp was impressed on a large storage jar handle (ca. 35 wide × 16 mm
thick) equidistant between the two ridges along the handle. The pottery is pink-
ish-brown with grey core and many small and some large white inclusions.

Characteristics of the Stamp Impression

The impression is on the upper part of the handle, with the top of the seal facing
the left side of the handle. The seal that made the impression was oval, and the
impression is deeper on the left, upper and lower right sides, where the bezel of
the seal can clearly be seen. The upper right side of the impression is much
shallower, and the bezel, as well as the upper part of the lamed, are barely visible.
The seal itself may have been slightly concave, which would account for the
impression being poorly impressed at the centre and the letters, as well as the
single field divider in this part, being shallow and faint.

2 The excavation project is directed by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming, under the auspices
of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, and the Theological Seminary (Wissen-
schaftlich-Theologisches Seminar) and the Faculty for Jewish Studies (Hochschule für jüdische
Studien) at Heidelberg University. The staff of the excavations includes Yuval Gadot (field direc-
tor), Benni Arubas (Architecture), and Liora Freud (Registration). For first summaries of the
excavations, see Lipschits et al. 2006a, 2006b, 2010.
3 Area D–6, Square D146, Locus 14012, Registration Number 7125/1.
638 Part F: Biblical Studies

The preserved dimensions of the stamp impression are 9 mm high and 10 mm

thick. There are two inscribed registers with a single field divider between them
and a single border line around the entire circumference (where the bezel im-
pression remains). There are four letters in the upper register and five in the
lower register; not all of them are complete, but all are legible. The quality of the
seal was poor; some letters were not formed in the standard manner, but they
are consistent and well organized in terms of space and size.
The four letters in the upper inscribed register are: lamed, tsade, mem, and
ḥet (‫לצמח‬, lṣmḥ). Only the upper part of the lamed is slightly damaged, but it is
entirely legible. The five letters in the lower inscribed register are: aleph, lamed,
shin, mem, and ayin (‫אלשמע‬, ʾlšmʿ). The first and last letters in both registers
touch the border of the stamp impression: the lamed on the upper part, the ḥet
on the upper left side, the aleph in two places – the lower part of the vertical
downstroke and the right side of the lower oblique strokes, and the lower left
side of the ayin. The tops of four of the letters of the lower inscribed register
touch the single field divider (only the upper part of the ayin is a bit lower).
The mem in both the upper and lower registers is not standard; its top is
formed with a stroke at the far left that is detached from the letter itself. Exam-
ples of a similar mem appear in two identical stamp impressions, usually read as
‫ יהובנה‬/ ‫ ;מנחם‬one was excavated at Bet Shemesh (Grant and Wright 1939: 81–
82, no. 1263) and the other one at Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1956: 145, no. 5103).4
The tsade seems to be inscribed in reverse. A similar phenomenon was ob-
served in other cases (see, e.g., Avigad and Sass 1997: 251, no. 682 [very different
from no. 681]; 256, no. 694 and 695). It may be that in all these cases the tsade is
an indication of the same (poor quality) craftsmanship, wherein the engraver
inscribed one letter, and always the same one, in reverse.
In the lower inscribed register, the aleph, which is not standard, is character-
ized by a long vertical downstroke that reaches the border of the impression.
This unusual type of aleph is known as late as the late seventh or early sixth
century BCE (see, e.g., Shoham 2000a: 46, bulla 34). The very high oblique strokes
of the aleph meet well to the left of the downstroke, reaching over the lamed,
similar to another stamp impression excavated at Ramat Raḥel where the same

4 On this stamp impression, cf. Avigad and Sass 1997: 249, no. 677; Barkay 1985: 414, no. 10;
Vaughn 1999: 203, nos. 56–57. It is interesting to note that in two other types of stamp impressions
on jar handles with the same name, one with two exemplars discovered in Jerusalem and Tel
Goded (Avigad and Barkay 2000: 249–250; Bliss 1900: 220–221, no. 6, Pl. 7, 6; Bliss and Macalister
1902: 120, n. 24, Pl. 56, 24), and the other one with eight exemplars discovered in Lachish (4),
Gibeon, Ramat Raḥel, Khirbet ʿAbbad and Adulam (Diringer 1953: 341; Pritchard 1959: 28, Fig. 19,
7, Pl. 11, 7; Vaughn 1999: 204, nn. 60, 62), the mem is of the more common type.
 “Here is a Man Whose Name is Ṣēmaḥ” (Zechariah 6:12) 639

name ʾlšmʿ (‫ )אלשמע‬appears as well (and see below). Therefore, the stamp im-
pression should be read: lṣmḥ / ʾlšmʿ (‫ אלשמע‬/ ‫)לצמח‬, and should be interpreted
as (belonging to) Ṣēmaḥ (son of ) ʾElišamaʿ.

The Date of the Stamp Impressions

The script is characteristic of the late eighth to mid-seventh centuries BCE, with
many parallels in the seal script that is usually dated until the late seventh and
early sixth centuries. It is difficult to assign a narrower date based on paleogra-
phy, but the time frame of the “private” stamped jar handles as a phenomenon,
and the current jar handle as part of it, can be limited archaeologically to the
very late eighth century. From 43 types of “private” stamp impressions on jar
handles known to us,5 35 types were clearly discovered in destruction levels well
dated to 701 BCE, and can be dated with high probability to the late eighth century
(Lipschits, Sergi, and Koch 2010: 22–27). The remaining eight types were discov-
ered only at sites located in the hill country which continued to exist after 701 BCE
with no destruction level. However, five of these eight types containing names
(both personal and patronymic) also appear on stamp impressions discovered at
Lachish Level III. This may mean that the same person had two different seals
that were in use in different geographical locations – but in any case we should
date both to the same pre-Sennacherib period.
Only three types of stamp impressions on jar handles (hwšʾm / ḥgy, ḥšy / ʾlšmʿ,
and the stamp impression discussed here, lṣmḥ / ʾlšmʿ) with no parallel from
Lachish or another site in the Judean Shephelah have been discovered in Jerusa-
lem or at Ramat Raḥel. Yet, since they are only three out of 43 types, we may
assume that they should also be dated to the late eighth century BCE, and that
they survived to be discovered at sites that were not destroyed during the Assyri-
an campaign in 701 BCE. No “private” stamp impressions on jar handles have
been discovered in a clear seventh-century archaeological context, and it seems
that this phenomenon should be limited to the late eighth century (Lipschits,
Sergi, and Koch 2010: 22–27).
We may conclude, then, that at the end of the eighth century BCE a man with
the name Ṣēmaḥ (son of ) ʾElîšāmaʿ held an administrative position in Judah.

5 The term “type” in relation to stamp impression is used here in order to indicate a specific
seal. There can be two or even three types (= seals) bearing the same name, where different
indications (e.g. size of the stamp impression, the orientation of the letters, and other characteris-
tics) clearly demonstrate that different seals were used.
640 Part F: Biblical Studies

The Name ʾElîšāmaʿ

The name ʾElîšāmaʿ (“God has heard”; cf. Zadok 1988: 23) is well known in both
biblical and epigraphic Hebrew texts. In the Bible it occurs 17 times, mainly in
post-exilic texts. It is mentioned five times as the name of the chief of Ephraim
in the days of Moses (Num 1:10; 2:18; 7:48, 53; 10:22); as a priest in the days of
Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17:8); as one of the offsprings of the daughter of Sheshan
(1 Chr 2:41); as one of the sons of David (2 Sam 5:16; 1 Chr 3:6, 8; 14:6); as a scribe
in the days of Jehoiakim (Jer 36:12, 20, 21); and as the grandfather of Ishmael, the
son of Nethaniah (2 Kgs 25:25; Jer 41:1). In this last case, we can note a unique
papponymic phenomenon where the two components of the name were inverted:
from ‫אל‬ (yišmāʿēl) to ‫ע‬‫י‬ (ʾElîšāmaʿ).6
The name appears on a stamp impression on jar handle discovered in the
City of David, reading: [‫ אלשמ]ע‬/ ‫( חשי‬ḥšy / ʾlšm[ʿ ] = Ḥushai (son of ) ʾElishama[ʾ])
(Shoham 2000b: 82, no. 2). The name appears in the lower inscribed register of a
stamp impression on jar handle discovered at Ramat Raḥel (Aharoni 1962: 18–19,
Fig. 14, 4; Pl. 6.1, and cf. Vaughn 1999: 202, no. 39). The paleography of this stamp
impression is very similar to the new stamp impression from Ramat Raḥel, but
the shape of the impression and its size indicate a different seal.7 The name
appears also on bullae from the City of David (Shoham 2000a: 36, 40, 43, 46–47; cf.
Avigad and Sass 1997: nn. 447, 588 with an alternative reading), and on numerous
unprovenanced seals and bullae located in private collections.

Ṣēmaḥ as a Personal Name

The meaning of Ṣēmaḥ (‫ )צמח‬is ‘branch’ or ‘scion’. In epigraphic Hebrew it ap-

pears as a personal name only in the stamp impression discussed above and once
more in Arad inscription number 49 (Aharoni 1981: 80–82, and cf. Ahituv 1992:
91; Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 2005: 77–80; Naʾaman 2008: 195–196, and n. 81). This in-
scription was deciphered after combining several fragments of a bowl. There was
an inscription inside the bowl (now illegible) and around the outside, probably
around the entire circumference, with lines separating various sections of the
inscription. It seems, after Aharoni, that the lines on the outside of these bowls
were written while the still intact bowls faced downwards. In Aharoni’s section

6 On the papponymic principle among the ruling families in Judea and Samaria in the Persian
period, see Cross 1983: 89–91.
7 A renewed examination of Aharoni’s stamp impression has yet to be made, and the above
conclusion is based on his report as well as on the excavation’s original registrations and photos.
 “Here is a Man Whose Name is Ṣēmaḥ” (Zechariah 6:12) 641

4, line 11, he read [b]n.ṣmḥ\ ([so]n of Ṣemaḥ 1). From the photo and drawing
(Aharoni 1981: 80) it seems that the reading of the name is well established, while
the reading of the nun in the first word, before the separating dot, is only a
reconstruction, as is the word [b]n ([so]n) (Naʾaman 2008: 195–196, and n. 81).
Aharoni interpreted the name Ṣēmaḥ as a personal name, just as in all the
other 15 lines of the inscription on the bowl, where there is either a private name
or a name following “son of” (‫ )בן‬or “sons of” (‫)בני‬. Dobbs-Allsopp et al. (2005:
79, 617), however, interpreted Ṣēmaḥ as a hypocoristicon (“scion”), probably ab-
breviated from yṣmḥ-DN or the like. They also claimed that in the Hebrew Bible
(Zech 3:6, 8, 12; Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; 33:15, and see below) Ṣēmaḥ occurs only as a
messianic title, but already Zadok (1988: 77, 282) claimed that its appearance in
the Arad ostraca as well as the Neo-Assyrian toponym Ṣa-ma-ḥi, Ṣa-ma-ḥa-a refer-
ring to an important settlement in the eastern Jezirah (Zadok 1982: 171, with
further literature) proves that the name was not merely symbolic. To this we may
add the name of the Jewish village Kefar Ṣēmaḥ in the territory of Hippus during
the second and third centuries C.E.8

Ṣēmaḥ: between Personal Name and Eschatological Title

The root ṣ-m-ḥ appears in the Hebrew Bible 33 times as a verb (mainly in the Qal
and Hiphil – 15 and 14 times respectively – but also four times in the Piel).
Usually, the verb is connected to the growth of plants (see, e.g., Gen 2:5, 9; 3:18;
41:6, 23; Exod 10:5; Deut 29:22; Isa 61:11; Ps 104:14), but also to the growth of hair
(Lev 13:27; Judg 16:22; 2 Sam 10:5 [= 1 Chr 19:5]; Ezek 16:7). In one case the verb
was used to symbolize the healing of the skin (Isa 58:8), in another as a metaphor
for the birth (or rebirth) of a child (Job 9:19, and cf. Ben Sira 14:18), and in still
another as a metaphor for the birth (or rebirth) of the nation (Isa 44:4).
In this symbolic way, too, we find “Truth shall spring out of the earth”
(Ps 85:12), “salvation spring up” (Isa 45:8), and, in contrast, “trouble will not sprout
from the ground” (Job 5:6). In two cases the verb in the Hiphil was connected to
‫“( קרן‬horn”). In Ps 132:17 it seems that the horn is a symbol for the growing
power and eternity of the king, while in Ezek 29:21 it symbolizes the growing
power (and eternity?) of Israel.
The substantive Ṣēmaḥ appeared in the Hebrew Bible 12 times, usually in
reference to plants, or even in a wider reference to anything that sprouts from

8 See Avi-Yonah 1976: 73; Reeg 1989: 368, with further literature. See there also on the location
of Kefar Ṣēmaḥ in the southern part of the Sea of Galilee.
642 Part F: Biblical Studies

and grows on the land (and cf. Gen 19:25; Isa 61:11; Ezek 16:7; Hos 8:7; Ps 65:11
[10]). In Jer 23:5; 33:15–16 and in Zech 3:8; 6:12–13 (and cf. also Isa 4:2) Ṣēmaḥ
became a messianic title, probably as part of a textual and ideological process
between the texts.
According to Jer 23:5, the Lord will raise up to David Ṣēmaḥ ṣaddîq (a right-
eous branch,” or perhaps, after Swetnam (1965: 29–40), and parallel to Ugaritic
texts and a fourth-or third-century BCE. Phoenician inscription from Lapethos
and Idalion in Cyprus: “legitimate scion”), “who will reign wisely and do what is
just and right in the land.”9 According to v. 6, his name will be yhwh ṣidqenû
(yhwh is our righteousness), with a clear allusion to King Zedekiah by a deliberate
reversal of the meaning of his name.10 In 33:15–16 this oracle is reinterpreted and
the name yhwh ṣidqenû is transferred to Jerusalem (Thompson 1980: 601).11 It
seems that Ṣēmaḥ ṣaddîq is the pledge of the nomination of a scion from the
Davidic dynasty, and the best parallel for it is weyaṣa ḥoter miggezaʿ yišāy (“A
shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse,” Isa 11:1) (Bright 1965: 143). The
Ṣēmaḥ connects to the image of the dynasty as a tree (cf. to Ezek 17:3), and Ṣēmaḥ
ṣaddîq is the legal heir – the one who rightly sits on the throne (Hoffman 2001:
471). We can conclude that the Ṣēmaḥ ṣaddîq in Jeremiah was a title that devel-
oped as a promise to the future, when the legal heir of Zedekiah – the last king
of the Davidic dynasty – will sit on the throne.12
The same word was used in Zech 3:8, in a clear connection to Jer 23:5: “I am
going to bring my servant, the branch” (‫ח‬ ‫י‬‫ת־‬ ‫יא‬ ‫י‬‫י־‬). The future
Davidic king is the subject of this promise, and he is the Ṣēmaḥ that “will come
up from the stump of Jesse.”
It is not clear here if Ṣēmaḥ is a personal name, a symbolic name, or a title.
Contrary to Mitchell (1912: 186–187), Noth (1966: 10), Ohana and Heltzer (1978:

9 On the similar expression Ṣēmaḥ ṣaddîq in the Phoenician text, see Honeyman 1941; Donner
and Röllig 1968, no. 43, 1, 11; Cross 1994: 98–99. These inscriptions can be compared with another
Phoenician inscription from Sidon, dated to the fifth century BCE (Donner and Röllig 1968, 16),
where the expression bn ṣdq was used in connection with the legitimate heir of the dynasty (cf.
Meyers and Meyers 1987: 202).
10 On the question of whether or not these two verses are genuine utterances of the prophet,
see the review by Lundbom 2004: 170–171, with further literature.
11 Verses 14–16 (within the unit of the four oracles invoking the name of David, vv. 14–26) are
missing from the LXX and are usually interpreted by scholars as a late post-exilic addition. See
Lust 1994, and, in addition, Ferry 1998; Lundbom 2004: 537. However, see opposing view of
Lundbom 2004: 537–539.
12 Mowinckel (1959: 15–20) assigns these verses, as well as Amos 9; 11, and Mic 5:1 (2) to the
post-exilic period, and claims they were dependent on Zech 3:8 and 6:12. See the opposing view
of Lundbom 2004: 172
 “Here is a Man Whose Name is Ṣēmaḥ” (Zechariah 6:12) 643

140), Meyers and Meyers (1987: 37), and others, who interpret Ṣēmaḥ as a symbolic
name, Zadok (1988: 77) claimed that ṣēmaḥ should be interpreted as a personal
and not merely a symbolic name. Lemaire (1977: 210; 1996b, after the suggestions
of others; see, e.g., Mowinckel 1959: 120, 160) was even more explicit in his state-
ment that both in Zech 3 and 6 ṣēmaḥ is a personal name, the Hebrew name of
Zerubbabel (but see, however, the claims raised by Rose 2000: 140–141; 2003; Cur-
tis 2006: 144–148, and see below).
Contrary to these suggestions, however, referring to one or two eighth-cen-
tury BCE epigraphic finds (see above) in order to interpret a biblical text which
is late by at least 200 years, is, in my opinion, problematic from the methodologi-
cal point of view. It would be preferable to assume that there was a textual
process that began with the prophecy of Jeremiah (23:5) with its promise of a
scion from the Davidic dynasty as Ṣēmaḥ ṣaddîq (in continuation to the weyaṣa
ḥoter miggezaʿ yišāy [‫י‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ר‬ ‫א‬] in Isa 11:1). It was understood as a title
for the future king, when the legal heir of Zedekiah – the last king of the Davidic
line – would sit on the thrown. This very important prophecy set the base for its
use as a name for the future Davidic king in Zech 3:8, ʿabdî ṣēmaḥ (‫ח‬ ‫י‬).
The use of the term ṣēmaḥ applied to the royal heir, in parallel with the identical
use of the word in fourth-to third-century BCE. Phoenician inscriptions discov-
ered in Cyprus, makes it clear that we are dealing with a terminus technicus
(Cross 1994: 98).
This title was further developed in Zech 6:12, when it was clearly stated that
ṣēmaḥ is a personal name: “Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall
branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of Yhwh.” The statement
‫מ‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ישׁ‬‫ה־‬ connects to 3:8 and to Jer 23:5 (and also to 33:15; cf. Mitchell
1912: 186; Meyers and Meyers 1987: 371), and was probably connected with the
Davidic aspirations of the future royal figure (Rose 2000: 140–141; 2003; Curtis
2006: 136), even if in the final, very corrupted and problematic text of Zech 6:9–
14, and especially following v. 11, it can be understood as directed towards the
high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak.13

13 See: Mitchell 1912: 185–186; Meyers and Meyers 1987: 371–372; Blenkinsopp 1988, 238; Redditt
199: 42, but see, however, the claims of Ackroyd 1968: 196; Petersen 1984: 279–280; Curtis 2006:
144–145. See Albertz’s claims (2003: 326 n. 19) against Lemaire’s reconstructions (1996b: 48–57),
based on his interpretation for these verses.
644 Part F: Biblical Studies

Summary

The name ʾelišāmaʿ was well known during the pre- and post-exilic periods. The
name Ṣēmaḥ was a personal name at the end of the eighth century BCE, as attest-
ed in the inscription on the bowl from Arad and in the stamp impression on the
jar handle published in the present study. There is no mention of this name in
any biblical text dated to the First Temple period, and it seems that the prophecy
of Jeremiah (Jer 23:5), with its promise of a scion from the Davidic dynasty, with
the title Ṣēmaḥ ṣaddîq (in continuation to the ḥoter miggezaʿ yišāy in Isa 11:1) as
a title that developed as a pledge to the future, when the legal heir of Zedekiah –
the last king of the Davidic dynasty – will sit on the thrown, set the base for its
use as ʿabdî ṣēmaḥ in Zech 3:8, as a title for the future Davidic king. This title was
further developed in Zech 6:12, when it was stated that ṣēmaḥ is a personal name,
but with clear connection to the Davidic aspirations. Afterward, in late second
temple Judaism, this title was further developed as a clear Messianic title – and
a straight line was crossed from the various texts in Qumran to the setting of the
daily ʿAmidah (“Shmoneh Esreh”) prayer.
‫י‬ (ʿibrî, Hebrew) in Diachronic Perspective
as a Linkage Term between the ‘Diaspora
Novellas’ of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses
The term ʿibrî appears 34 times in the Hebrew Bible,1 mostly (18 times) in the
plural masculine form (ʿibrîm), but also in four instances in the plural feminine
(ʿibriyyôt). It again appears ten times in the singular masculine (ʿibrî) and twice
in the singular feminine (ʿibriyyâ). The term is always used to characterize the
‘nation of Israel’ or the ‘people belonging to this nation’ during the pre-Davidic
period, and it is traditionally translated as ‘Hebrew(s)’. Only once (Gen 40:15) is
the term ‫ים‬ ‫ץ‬ (Land of the ʿibrîm) used in relation to the land of Israel,
likely as a reflection of a late ethnic association for the term ʿibrî (Monroe 2021:
71–72, n. 46).2
About 40 % (14 times) of its appearances the term ʿibrî appears in the book
of Exodus, mainly in the description of Moses and the exodus story (Exod 1:15,
16, 19; 2:6, 7, 11, 13; 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3). Yet, it is also used once within the
laws of the ‘Hebrew slave’ (21:2), in direct connection with the three appearances
of this title in Jeremiah (34:9 [twice], 14) and in Deuteronomy (15:12 [twice]). In
Genesis, the term appears six times, mainly (five times) in the Joseph story (39:14,
17; 40:15; 41:12; 43:32) and once in Gen 14:13, where Abraham is called ʾabrām
hāʿibrî. Finally, the term also appears eight times in 1 Samuel (4:6, 9; 13:3, 7, 19;
14:11, 21; 29:3),3 and once more in Jonah (1:9).
An assessment of the distribution of the term ʿibrî in the Hebrew Bible reveals
that it primarily appears in the descriptions of two pre-Davidic historical periods,
during a period when Israel was under the rule of other nations, i.e., Egypt and
the Philistines. As the term was always used alongside the typical term ‘(children
of ) Israel’, it usually appears in unfavorable contexts (Naʿaman 1986b: 278–280;
Beattie and Davies 2011: 76; Berner 2015: 676). Furthermore, this term is typically

1 This number does not includ the one occasion in which ʿibrî appears as a personal name for
one of the sons of Merari (1 Chr 24:27). One should add an additional appearance in the LXX
and the Sam P of Exod 1:22; cf. also Koch 1969: 40. In addition, LXX Num 24:24 reads Ἐβραίους
for Eber.
2 Already Stade, Wellhausen and others have explained this term as signifying those who came
from ‘the other side’ of the Jordan, assuming that it was first given to the Israelites by the
Canaanites after they had entered the land of Israel. See, e.g., Driver 1913: 138.
3 The text of 1 Sam 13:3 should be amended in accordance with the LXX. See Driver 1913: 98.
The text in 13:7 should be treated as a corruption. See Driver 1913: 99–100, but see also Gottwald
1979: 423.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-036
646 Part F: Biblical Studies

used by either the Egyptians (Gen 39:14, 17; 41:12; Exod 1:16; 2:6), the Philistines
(1 Sam 4:6, 9; 13:3, 19; 14:11; 29:3), or by the narrator when referring to Israelites
in the context of Egyptians and Philistines vis‑à‑vis the Israelites (Gen 40:15;
Exod 1:19; 2:7; 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3).
Most scholars have agreed that ‫י‬ (ʿibrî) derives from (or was influenced
by) the late third and second millennium BCE term Ḫabiru/ʿapiru. This term is
mainly known from the archives of Ugarit, Alalakh, and el-Amarna, where they
usually aim at negatively describing an entity of ‘a landless social class’ of ‘out-
laws’.4 As such, even if this term was used in the Hebrew Bible as an ethnic
term for the people of Israel, it was generally used as a description by foreigners
(whether Egyptians or Philistines). Many scholars followed this line of thinking
and interpreted ʿibrî as an appellative rather than as a gentilic, or as a designa-
tion of legal or social status (Childs 1974: 468; Lemche 1975: 136, 138; Jackson
1988: 92).5
As very clearly demonstrated by Beattie and Davies (2011: 76–77), the prob-
lem is that this assumption must be dependent on an etymological relationship
between the second millennium term (Ḫabiru/ʿapiru) and the biblical term ʿibrî
(Fleming 2012: 264–269; 2016: 23–26; Monroe 2021: 71–72; cf. to Weippert 1971:
74–82; Naʾaman 1986b: 278). Although there are vast differences in the usage of
these two terms,6 they are emphasized all the more by the significant chronolog-
ical gap between the time that these two terms were used by Mesopotamian
and Egyptian scribes in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and its later use by
the biblical scribes (in most cases) hundreds of years later. All scholars who
identified the two terms with each other had to assume that it survived for
hundreds of years without any indication of its known use, and that at the end
of this process, the term was transformed from a social appellation into an
ethnic term.
Naʾaman (1986b: 279–281; 2000a: 622–623) very clearly demonstrated that the
Hebrew Bible preserved several memories of the Ḫabiru/ʿapiru phenomenon in
the stories of David’s rise to power, through several highly-similar uses of the

4 See discussion and vast bibliography in Westermann 1985: 97–98; Naʾaman 1986b: 271–272;
2000a: 622; Fleming 2012: 264–269; 2016: 23–26. See also, e.g., Freedman and Willoughby 1994:
430–445; Albertz 1994: 45, and 258, n. 26.
5 Lipiński (1976: 120–124), for example, interpreted ebed ibrî as a designation for an Israelite of
inferior social status who had become a slave. Against this interpretation, see Beattie and Davies
2011: 76, who claimed that in this context, ‘Hebrew is not the same as Israelite’. For recent
discussion see Monroe 2021: 71–72.
6 Already in his discussion of the Ḫabiru‑Hebrew problem, Greenberg (1955: 198) correctly noted
that ‘no scriptural passage gives explicit ground for extending the scope of ʿibrî beyond Israelites’;
сf. Naʾaman 1986b: 278.
 ‫י‬ (ʿibrî, Hebrew) in Diachronic Perspective 647

term ‘Hebrew(s)’ in this sense. This phenomenon also occurs in select biblical
texts that were based on early memories referencing what appear to be authentic
memories and accurate descriptions of ‘Ḫabiru-like’ bands (especially in the Jeph-
thah story in Judges 11). Here, such groups are recalled with details that refer to
the background of ‘the flight’ of these people, the emergence of Ḫabiru bands,
their methods of survival, and the manner by which they were reintegrated into
Israelite society.
Naʾaman (1986b: 287) claimed that in this first stage (when the phenomenon
of migration was still common across the growing Israelite society), the appella-
tion ‘Hebrew’ was still used as a social ethnonym – a designation for the uprooted
Israelites who were obliged to leave their homes and families. On a literary level,
it became a derogatory term, used by the Philistines as a descriptor of the Israel-
ites. When the Philistines employ this term in direct speech, it is part of a general-
ization of all Israelites, in parallel with ‘Israel’ and even with ‘all Israel’ (1 Sam
4:5–6, 9; 13:19; 14:11; 29:1–3). Yet, despite this, when the narrator uses this term in
1 Samuel (14:21), it emerges from a different context (cf. to Beattie and Davies
2011: 76).
Based on the LXX version of 1 Samuel 14, Naʾaman (1986b: 279) has recon-
structed the text in a way that is unlike the generalization of the ‘quotes’ pre-
sented in the text of 1 Samuel by the Philistines. This passage (which presents
the message of the narrator) relates to two different groups: the Hebrews who
served in the Philistine camp, and the Israelites who, according to 1 Sam 13:6,
hid themselves upon Mount Ephraim (this is the source for the later error of
the Philistines in 14:11, once again shifting between ‘Israel’ and ‘Hebrews’). As
Naʾaman clearly puts it, ‘the narrator precisely defined the two groups, making
it clear that the difference was not merely literary’. This stands in clear contrast
with the description of the Philistine scorn towards the Israelite uprisings –
where the Philistines mockingly call the entire Israelite enemy ‘Hebrew’, as it is
only the Philistines who would use this degrading name to denigrate their Israel-
ite rivals.
I agree with Naʾaman that this usage of the term ‘Hebrew’ (when restricted
to individual groups of the Israelites as either migrants or slaves) is comparatively
late. This usage is reflective of a time after the scribes and social elite had ceased
to be familiar with the phenomenon of the Ḫabiru/ʿapiru in their daily lives. This
usage not only explains its meaning in 1 Samuel 14:21 but can also illuminate the
term’s few appearances in the frame of the biblical law, when the ‘Hebrew slave’
designates Israelites (‘Jewish brother’ in Jer 34:9) who were enslaved (Exod 21:2;
Deut 15:12; Jer 34:9, 14) (Van Seters 2006: 485–504, with further literature).
However, in my opinion, the next phase of use of the term ‘Hebrew’ in bibli-
cal literature (which includes about 20 of the 34 occurrences of this term in the
648 Part F: Biblical Studies

Hebrew Bible) developed later,7 during the Persian period.8 I would suggest that
during this Persian phase, the term was used as part of a late editorial layer. It
was added to three different ‘diaspora novellas’9 that dealt with three distinct
figures in the history of the nation: Abraham, Joseph, and Moses.10 The term
‘Hebrew’ is one more connecting element between these historical characters,
who served as figures of identification for different groups (Römer 2020: 99–109).
Such figures represent some of the most important and meaningful events in the
history of the nation between Egypt and the land of Israel, as well as ‘before’ the
children of Israel could establish themselves in their homeland. Abraham, who
went out from Egypt (Gen 13:1) and was the first ‘Hebrew’ to live in Ḥebron,
established the ‘Hebrew’ presence in the land and their opposition to foreign
powers. Joseph, who later became the symbol of success, wealth and leadership
in exile, also represents the dangers of being a successful figure and of depending
on the goodwill of foreign leaders when away from his brothers and family.
Finally, there is Moses, who grew up in Pharaoh’s palace away from his people,
yet he found his way back to his people and led Israel’s exodus out from Egypt
and back into its homeland.11
The description of Abraham in Gen 14:13 as ʾabrām hāʿibrî is unique (Wenham
1987: 313) and has no other parallel in the Abraham story.12 This very distinct and

7 I cannot accept the suggestion by Naʾaman (1986b: 271–286) that according to the books of
Samuel, the appellation ‘Hebrew’ was used as a social ethnonym and designation for the uproot-
ed Israelites who were obliged to leave their families and seek their fortunes elsewhere, but
later (when the phenomenon of the Ḫabiru/ʿapiru / Hebrews entirely disappeared from daily
reality), the term ‘Hebrew’ continued to survive in the literary texts and was restricted to individ-
ual Israelites who were either migrants or slaves. According to Naʾaman, the term was further
transformed within the literary tradition and became a general designation for groups of Israel-
ites who were outside their homeland, that is to say, living in oppression in foreign lands.
8 This assumption is in line with the proposal by Beattie and Davies 2011: 71–83, and the claim
by Berner 2015: 679 that the usage of the word ʿibrî peaks in the final redactional stages of the
Pentateuch and the books of Samuel.
9 On the definition of this literary genre, see Humphreys 1985: 85. See also Glissman 2009: 35–39.
10 Regarding Jonah 1:9 as a ‘reversed diaspora novella’, see Syren 1993.
11 During this time (and as part of this late editorial layer), the term ‫י‬ (ʿibrî, Hebrew) could
be associated with the name of the satrapy ‫ר‬ ‫ר‬ (ʿēber hannāhār/Eber-nāri, ‘Across the
River’). See Beattie and Davies (2011: 79). On the Persian satrapy Eber-nāri, see Wiesehöfer 2001:
59–62. The same idea can be found in Ezra 7:25–26, when Ezra receives permission to ‘appoint
magistrates and judges who may judge all the people that are beyond the River’ (= ‫י‬ ‫ל־‬
‫ה‬ ‫ר‬). Etymologically, the Hebrew word ʿibrî is a derivation of the Semitic word ʿēber, ‘one
of two opposing sides’, which was used in the satrapy name Eber-nāri.
12 On the place of Gen 14 in the Abraham cycle, see Emerton 1990: 73–102; Soggin 1995: 283–
291. For more literature, see Naʾaman 2015a: 74, 83. Regarding v. 13, see in particular von Rad
1961: 174.
 ‫י‬ (ʿibrî, Hebrew) in Diachronic Perspective 649

late story (Wenham 1987: 304–307)13 has caused difficulties for scholars, who
could not decide on how best to assign it to ‘any known source’ (Westermann
1985: 188). The character of this story as a ‘diaspora novella’ (and see Glissman
2009: 37–38; Gunkel 1966: 289–290) incorporates the encounter between Abraham
and the priest-king of Shalem – a Judean addition that sought to place a reference
to Jerusalem within the patriarchal tradition and likely also legitimize a theocrat-
ic ideal (Granerød 2010; Lipschits, Römer, and Gonzalez 2017: 264). The title ‘He-
brew’ marks Abraham, who had just come up from Egypt and established himself
in Ḥebron, as still a foreigner in his land (supported by foreigners living in Ḥe-
bron, according to Gen 14:13). The text attempts to connect this ‘novella’ to the
‘novellas’ of Joseph and Moses in order to complete a literary cycle of three
important figures from the history of the nation between Egypt and Israel.
The use of the term ʿibrî is important and essential in the Joseph story
(Gen 39:14, 17; 40:15; 41:12; 43:32) as part of this ‘diaspora novella’,14 which con-
structs a post-exilic Jewish identity15 and focuses on ‘the powerful rivalry between
the brothers for firstborn status’ (Clifford 2012: 214).16 In my opinion, this indi-
cates that the aim of the author was to reverse the meaning of ‘Hebrews’ from
the marginal groups in society to the local elite groups of Israel in exile.17 The
author of this ‘novella’ sought to show that the diaspora elite (whether in Babylon
or Egypt) were associated with the local imperial government, well-integrated
into the culture, administration, and economy of the local empires, and perceived
by themselves and by others as superior to the rest of the population. This can
be identified with the ‘Hebrews’, who, in all other descriptions, are trapped by
social marginalization.
The five occurrences of the term ‘Hebrew’ in the Joseph diaspora novella all
relate to the great potential for an elite (living in exile) to rise to greatness and
reach great achievement and success. Yet it is also a warning about the danger
that awaits anyone whose success depends on their ties with the rulers of the
empires – as it can be lost at once. The first two quotations (39:14, 17) could be

13 For the date of Gen 14 in the Persian period, see Glissman 2009: 34–45; Wagner 2014.
14 On the definition of Gen 39–40 as a ‘diaspora novella’, see Meinhold 1975: 306–324; 1976: 72–
79; Seebass 2000: 29; Yassif 2000: 27; Schmid 2002: 111; 2021: 103, n. 1; Kratz 2005: 279; Schipper
2018: 79–80; 2021: 160. See, however, the critique by Glissman 2009: 37, n. 18.
15 See Römer 2007: 177 n. 29; 2015b: 192; Lang 2008: 103. See recently Ede 2021: 5–22; Kratz 2021:
23–34; Arnet 2021: 75–84; Marzouk 2021: 85–102, with further literature. For a different approach,
see Blum and Weingart 2017: 501–521 with further literature.
16 On the central place of the conflict between Joseph and his brothers in this story, see also
Humphreys 1988: 32–67.
17 On the ancient Near Eastern background for this interpretation, see also Monroe 2021: 72
with further literature.
650 Part F: Biblical Studies

indicative of situational ‘helplessness’ of the exiled elite, whose close connections

to imperial rulers can lead to the exiles rising to greatness or to the loss of all
their achievements, the danger of imprisonment, and loss of life. The description
of Joseph as ‫ים‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ד‬ ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ (41:12) before his rise to greatness to
become the most important figure in Egypt (after the king), his marriage to a
local noble woman, his attainment of wealth, and the birth of his two sons by
age 30 testifies to the complete opposite. Instead, Joseph represents the ability of
the Hebrew elite to live and grow in exile and to accomplish the greatest achieve-
ments in life. Joseph’s lamentation in prison (40:15) is the only instance in Genesis
39–41 where his experience in Egypt is tied to notions of coercion and dejection.
Furthermore, the reference to ‫ים‬ ‫ץ‬ (‘land of the Hebrews’) is unique in
the Hebrew Bible and is likely a reflection of a later ethnic association for the
term ‘Hebrew’ (see also above). At the same time, the passive construction of
‫י‬‫ב ֻגּ‬‫ ֻגּ‬may reflect a diasporic interest in Joseph’s movement to Egypt being
independent of the agency of his brothers in Canaan (even after Joseph’s integra-
tion into Jacob’s family (Monroe 2021: 71–72, and n. 46). The situation described
in Gen 43:32 reflects the reality of the diaspora: Joseph (as representative of the
diaspora) finds himself caught between his brothers and the Egyptians. These
verses may therefore reflect the fact that the social integration of one culture
into another has its limits (see Römer 2021: 44, with further literature).
From the 13 uses of the term ‘Hebrew’ in the exodus story (Albertz 2012: 50),
four of the first five occurrences are in the plural feminine (ʿibriyyôt; Exod 1:15,
16, 19; 2:7). Following Römer (2014: 73–86), it seems that a later redactor inserted
the story into Exod 1:15–19, 21 (and 2:1–10; 4:24–26) in order to create a prologue
to Moses’s birth narrative. In doing so, the redactor stressed the role of foreign
women in rescuing the Hebrew people.18 In this story, the term ‘Hebrew’ appears
only once in the singular masculine (ʿibrî), when Moses sees an Egyptian smiting
one of his brethren (Exod 2:11). The role of this quote is to connect Moses (who
lives in Pharaoh’s palace) to his brothers, whose names throughout the story are
only ‘the children of Israel’. It is unclear how Moses knew that they were his
brothers, but the connection between them was formed when he killed the Egyp-
tian who beat a ‘Hebrew man’ (i.e., one of his brothers) and buried his body in
the sand.
Besides the two instances in which the term ‘Hebrew’ is in the plural mascu-
line (ʿibrîm), where its intention is to frame Moses as one of the Hebrew children
(Exod 2:6) as well as the two Hebrew people (v. 13), on six additional occasions
when the term ‘Hebrew’ is in plural masculine, it is used to describe Yhwh as the

18 On the structure and purpose of this section, including the identification of the midwives as
Egyptian women, see Albertz 2012: 40–52; Römer 2014: 73–86.
 ‫י‬ (ʿibrî, Hebrew) in Diachronic Perspective 651

god of this people – the God of the Hebrews: ‫ים‬ ‫י‬ ‫ה‬ or ‫י‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬
‫י‬ (Exod 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3).19 The people themselves are called ‘the
children of Israel’. In forming this connection, I accept Jeon’s (2013) suggestion,
that these verses are part of a wider later redactional layer intended to connect
the initial ‘Call Narrative of Moses’ with the confrontation with Pharaoh in Exo-
dus 5 (3:18; 5:3) and to introduce the motif of despoiling Egypt (3:21 f.; 11:1–3;
12:35 f.). At the end of the exodus process, this layer proscribes the ‘Festival of
Unleavened Bread’ and the ‘Firstborn Offering Laws’ (13:3–16).20
To summarize, it appears to me that the first (and probably very early) use
of the term ‘Hebrew(s)’ was based on actual memories of the Ḫabiru/ʿapiru phe-
nomenon. Yet, the next phase of this term’s use in biblical literature developed
only in the Persian period. During this time, it was used as part of a late editorial
layer that was added to the three different ‘diaspora novellas’ that dealt with
three distinct figures in the history of the nation: Abraham, Joseph, and Moses.
The term served as a literary device for the late editor, who employed it as a
means to connect these three figures and mark a ‘literary circle’ of the two ‘exo-
dus’ events. It is during this latter stage that the term ‘Hebrew’ was disconnected
from its original meaning, and its new application linked itself to the continued
use of the ethnic designation of ‘Hebrew’ in post-biblical periods, during which
all traces of the original meaning of the appellation disappeared.

19 Van Seters (1994: 49) noted that the appearance of a new divine epithet ‘God of the Hebrews’
was only in conjunction with Pharaoh. See also the note by Jeon 2013: 211.
20 On the gradual process of literary development of the first part of the Moses story, see Jeon
2013. Following the suggestion by Koch (1969: 54) and Schmid (2010: 123–124), I also agree that
the appearance of the expression ‫י‬ (ʿibrî) in Exodus reflects the consciousness of the narrator
and his attempt to express that the entity that departed from Egypt was not simply identical
with ‘Israel’. Likewise, the statement in Exod 12:38 that during the exodus, ‫ה‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ב‬‫ם־‬
‫ם‬ (with the meaning that, together with the ‘children of Israel’, also ‘many mixed people’
went up with them) is intended as a wordplay between ‫ב‬ ‫ב‬ and ‫י‬.
Abbreviations
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
ABD Freedman, D. N. (ed.). Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York, 1992.
ABR Australian Biblical Review
AcOr Acta Orientalia
ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
AION Annali dell’Instituto orientali di Napoli
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology
AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute
AJSL The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies (formerly Abr-Nahrain)
ANET Pritchard, J. B. 1969. (ed.). Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 3d ed. Princeton/
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen
ArOr Archiv Orientální
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BaghM Baghdader Mitteilungen
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDB Brown, F.; Driver S. R.; and Briggs, C. A. 1907. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Oxford.
Bib Biblica
BibOr Biblica et Orientalia
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BN Biblische Notizen
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CdÉ Chronique d’Égypte
CHJ Cambridge History of Judaism
CTM Concordia Theological Monthly
EBR Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception
EI Eretz-Israel
EncMiq Encyclopedia Miqraʾit
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
EvT Evangelische Theologie
ExpTim Expository Times
GAG von-Soden, A. 1969. Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. Rome
HA Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel [Hebrew]
HeBAI Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-037
654 Abbreviations

HTR Harvard Theological Review

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IB Interpreter’s Bible
IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
INJ Israel Numismatic Journal
Int Interpretation
JAEI Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JARCE Journal of the Archaeological Research Center in Egypt
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBR Journal of Bible and Religion
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JEThS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Literature
JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
MRS Mission de Ras Shamra
NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires
NCBC New Century Bible Commentary
NEAEHL Stern, E. (ed.). The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land.
Jerusalem, 1992
OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
Or Orientalia
OTS Old Testament Studies
OtSt Oudtestamentische
PEF(QS) Palestine Exploration Fund (Quarterly Statement)
PEFA Palestine Exploration Fund, Annual of
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PJB Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des
Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem
PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine
RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale
RB Revue Biblique
RGG4 Betz, H. G. 19698. Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 4 Online. Tübingen
RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
Sem Semitica
 Secondary Sources 655

SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan

Shnaton Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
ST Studia theologica
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
TA Tel-Aviv
TRANS Transeuphratène
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
WO Die Welt des Orients
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
Yediʿot Yediʿot Bahaqirat Eretz-Israel Weatiqoteha, Continuing the Bulletin of the Israel Exploration
Society (New Series) [Hebrew and English]
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
ZAR Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte
ZÄS Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina Vereins
Zion Zion: A Quarterly for Research in Jewish History [Hebrew]
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Secondary Sources

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Historia ecclesiastica

Herodotus Herodotus. Histories. Trans. Godley, A. D. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1920
Josephus, Ant. Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Trans. Thackeray, H. St. J. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1937
Josephus, Ag. Ap. Josephus. Against Apion. Trans. Thackeray, H. St. J. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1926
Josephus, J. W. Josephus. The Jewish War. Trans. Thackeray, H. St. J. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1927
Bibliography
Abel, F. M. 1933–1938. Géographie de la Palestine. 2 vols. Paris.
Abou-Assaf, A., Bordreuil, P. and Millard, A. R. 1982. La Statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription
bilingue assyro-araméenne. Paris.
Abu Ghanimeh, Kh. 1984. Abu Nseir Excavation. ADAJ 28: 305–310.
Achenbach, R. 2003. Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im
Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZAR 3). Wiesbaden
Ackroyd, P. R. 1967. History and Theology in the Writings of the Chronicler. Concordia Theological
Monthly 38: 510–515.
Ackroyd, P. R. 1968. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC. London.
Ackroyd, P. R. 1970. Israel Under Babylon and Persia. Oxford.
Ackroyd, P. R. 1973. Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (TBC). London.
Ackroyd, P. R. 1991. The Chronichler in His Age (JSOT.S 101) Sheffield.
Adam, K. A. 2006. Motivik, Figuren und Konzeption der Erzählung vom Absalomaufstand. In: Witte,
M., Schmid, K., Prechel, D. and Gertz, J. C. eds. Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke:
Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur „Deuteronomismus“ – Diskussion in
Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW 365). Berlin: 183–211.
Aharoni, Y. 1955. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel. Yediʿot 19: 147–174. (Hebrew).
Aharoni, Y. 1956. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel, 1954: Preliminary Report. IEJ 6: 102–111, 137–157.
Aharoni, Y. 1958. Archaeological survey of En Gedi. Yediʿot 22: 27–45. (Hebrew).
Aharoni, Y. 1960a. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel (Second Session, 1959). Yediʿot 24: 1–47. (Hebrew).
Aharoni, Y. 1960b. The Second Excavation Season at Ramat Raḥel (Second Season, 1959). Yediʿot 24:
73–119. (Hebrew).
Aharoni, Y. 1962a. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel I: Seasons 1959 and 1960 (Serie Archaeologica 2).
Rome.
Aharoni, Y. 1962b. The Land of Israel in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Aharoni, Y. 1964. Excavations at Ramat Raḥel: Seasons 1961 and 1962 (Serie Archeologica 6). Rome.
Aharoni, Y. 1967a. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (2d ed.). London.
Aharoni, Y. 1967b. The “Persian Fortress” at Lachish – An Assyrian Palace? Yediʿot 31: 80–91.
(Hebrew).
Aharoni, Y. 1973. Beer-Sheba I – Excavations at Tel Beer-Sheba, Seasons 1969–1971. Tel-Aviv.
Aharoni, Y. 1975a. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem (Hebrew; English version 1981).
Aharoni, Y. 1975b. Investigations at Lachish – The Sanctuary and the Residency. (Lachish V)
(Publications of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 4). Tel Aviv.
Aharoni. Y. 1979. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (2nd ed. Edited and translated by
Rainey). Philadelphia.
Aharoni, Y. 1981. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem.
Aharoni, Y. 1992. Ramat Raḥel. NEAEHL 4: 1479–1484. (Hebrew).
Aharoni, M. and Aharoni, Y. 1976. The Stratification of Judahite Sites in the 8th and 7th
Centuries BCE. BASOR 224: 73–90.
Aharoni, Y. and Amiran, R. 1955. A Tour of the City-Mounds of the Shephelah of Judea. Yediʿot 19:
222–225. (Hebrew).
Ahituv, S. 1971. Zeboim. EncMiq 6: 672–673. (Hebrew).
Ahituv, S. 1992a. Assemblage of Hebrew Inscriptions. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Ahituv, S. 1992b. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions from the Period of the First Commonwealth
and the Beginning of the Second Commonwealth. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Ahlström. G. W. 1971. Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem. Leiden.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-038
658 Bibliography

Ahlström, G. W. 1993. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s
Conquest (JSOT.S 146). Sheffield.
Albenda, P. 1986. The Palace of Sargon King of Assyria. Paris.
Albertz, R. 1992. Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Göttingen (2 vols.). References
are to the English 1994 edition: A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period.
London.
Albertz, R. 1994. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Vol I: From the Beginnings
to the End of the Monarchy. Louisville.
Albertz, R. 2001. Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr (Biblische Enzyklopädie 7). Stuttgart.
Albertz, R. 2003a. Geschichte und Theologie – Studien zur Exegese des Alten Testaments und zur
Religionsgeschichte Israels. (BZAW 326). Berlin.
Albertz, R. 2003b. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (SBL-Studies in
Ninlical Literature 3). Atlanta.
Albertz, R. 2006. Purity Strategies and the Political Interests in the Policy of Nehemiah. In: Gitin, S.,
Wright, J. E., Dessel, J. P. eds. Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on
Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake: 199–206.
Albertz, R. 2012. Exodus, Band I: Ex 1–18. Zürich.
Albright, W. F. 1922. Ophrah and Ephraim. AASOR 4: 124–133.
Albright, W. F. 1923a. New Identifications of Ancient Towns. BASOR 9: 5–14.
Albright, W. F. 1923b. The Site of Mizpah in Benjamin. JPOS 3: 110–121.
Albright, W. F. 1924a. Excavations and Results at Tell el-Full (Gibeah of Saul). Winona Lake.
Albright, W. F. 1924b. The Topography of Simeon. JPOS 4: 149–161
Albright, W. F. 1928. A Trial Excavation in The Mound of Bethel. BASOR 29: 9–11.
Albright, W. F. 1932. The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of Judah. JBL 51: 77–106.
Albright, W. F. 1933. A New Campaign of Excavation at Gibeah of Saul. BASOR 52: 6–12.
Albright, W. F. 1934a. The First Month of Excavation of Bethel. BASOR 55: 23–25.
Albright, W. F. 1934b. The Kyle Memorial Excavation at Bethel. BASOR 56: 2–15.
Albright, W. F. 1935a. Archaeology and the Date of the Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BASOR 58:
10–18.
Albright, W. F. 1935b. Beitin. QDAP 4: 196–198.
Albright, W. F. 1939. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology. BASOR 74: 11–23.
Albright, W. F. 1942. King Joiachin in Exile. BA 5/4: 49–55.
Albright, W. F. 1943. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, Vol. 3: The Iron Age (AASOR 21–22). New
Haven.
Albright, W. F. 1948. Book Reviews. JNES 7: 202–205.
Albright, W. F. 1949a. The Archaeology of Palestine. Baltimore.
Albright, W. F. 1949b. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra: An Historical Survey. New York.
Albright, W. F. 1950. The Biblical Period. Pittsburgh.
Albright, W. F. 1960a. The Archaeology of Palestine (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth.
Albright, W. F. 1960b. Reports on Excavations in the Near East and Middle East. BASOR 159: 37–39.
Albright, W. F. 1966. Some Recent Reports and Publications. BASOR 183: 32–34.
Albright, W. F. 1968. The Site of Bethel and Its Identification. In: Kelso, J. L. ed. The Excavation of
Bethel (1934–1960) (AASOR 39). Cambridge: 1–3.
Alfrink, B. 1943. L’Expression šākab ʿim ʾābŏtāyw. Oudtestamentische Studiën 2: 106–118.
Allrik, H. L. 1954. The Lists of Zerubbabel (Neh. 7 and Ezr. 2) and the Hebrew Numerical Notation.
BASOR 136: 21–27.
Alt, A. 1925a. Judas Gaue unter Josia. PJB 21: 100–116. (Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte
des Volkes Israel, Vol. 1. Munich: 279–284).
 Bibliography 659

Alt, A. 1925b. Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina – territorialgeschichtliche Studien. Leipzig.
Alt, A. 1927. Das Institut im Jahre 1926. PJB 23: 5–51.
Alt, A. 1928. Das Taltor von Jerusalem. PJB 24: 74–98.
Alt, A. 1929a. Das System der assyrische Provinzen auf dem Boden des Reiches Israel. ZDPV 52:
220–242.
Alt, A. 1929b. Der Gott der Väter: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der israelitischen Religion, Stuttgart.
(Citations from the English translation: The God of the Fathers. Essays on Old Testament History
and Religion. Oxford).
Alt, A. 1930. Die Territorialgeschichtliche Bedeutung von Sanheribs Eingriff in Palästine. PJB 25: 80–
82.
Alt, A. 1931. Judas Nachbarn zur zeit Nehemias. PJB 27: 66–74. (Reprinted in KS (1953): 338–345.
Alt, A. 1934. Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums. in: Deichert, A. und Hinrichs,
J. C. eds. Festschrift Otto Procksch zum 60. Geburtstag. Leipzig: 5–28. (Reprinted in KS II (1953):
316–337).
Alt, A. 1935. Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judäa und Samaria. PJB 31: 94–111.
Alt, A. 1951. Bemerkungen zu einigen judäischen Ortlisten des Alten Testaments. Beiträge zur
biblischen Landes und Altertumskunde 68: 193–210.
Alt, A. 1959. Der Stadtstaat Samaria. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. Munich:
258–302
Amiran, R. 1962. Review on Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 34–35. Bibliotheca
Orientalis 19/6: 263–264.
Amiran, R. 1975. A Note on the ‘Gibeon Jar’. PEQ 107: 129–132.
Amiran, R. and Dunayevsky, I. 1958. The Assyrian Open-Court Building and its Palestinian
Derivatives. BASOR 149: 25–32.
Amiran, R. and Eitan, A. 1970a. Excavations in the Courtyard of the Citadel, Jerusalem, 1968–1969
(Preliminary Report). IEJ 20: 9–17.
Amiran, R. and Eitan, A. 1970b. Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel. Qadmoniot 10: 64–66.
(Hebrew).
Amit, D. 1992. Hebron-ʿEin Gedi, Survey of Ancient Road. EI 23: 345–362. (Hebrew).
Amit, D. 2011. First and Second Temple Period Discoveries near the Mamilla Pool in Jerusalem
Qadmoniot 141: 29–34. (Hebrew).
Amit, Y. 1994. Literature in the Service of Politics: Studies in Judges 19–21. In: Reventlow, H. G.,
Hoffman, Y. and Uffenheimer, B. eds. Politics and Theopolitical Literature (JSOT.S 171). Sheffield:
28–40.
Amit, Y. 2000. Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narratives. Leiden.
Amit, Y. 2003. Epoch and Genre: The Sixth Century and the Growth of Hidden Polemics. In:
Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period.
Winona Lake: 135–151.
Amit, Y. 2006. The Saul polemic in the Persian period. In: Lipschits, O. and Oeming, M. eds. Judah
and the Judeans in the Persian period. Winona Lake: 647–661.
Anbar, M. and Naʾaman, N. 1986–1987. An Account Tablet of Sheep from Ancient Hebron. TA 13–14:
3–12.
Ariel, D. T. 1990a. ed. Excavations at the City of David II 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Imported
Stamped Amphora, Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem.
Ariel, D. T. 1990b. Imported Stamped Amphora Handles. In: Ariel, D. T. ed. Excavations at the City of
David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins,
Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem: 13–98.
Ariel, D. T. 2000. ed. City of David Excavations: Final Report V (Qedem 40). Jerusalem.
660 Bibliography

Ariel, D. T. 2003. Imported Greek Stamped Amphora Handles. In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish Quarter
Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. I:
Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem: 267–283.
Ariel, D. T. and Magness, J. 1992. Area K. In: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D. T. eds. Excavations at the City
of David 1978–1985, Vol. III: Stratigraphic, Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33).
Jerusalem: 63–97.
Ariel, D. T. and Shoham, Y. 2000. Locally Stamped Handles and Associated Body Fragments of the
Persian and Hellenistic Periods. In: Ariel, D. T. ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 VI:
Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 137–171.
Ariel, D. T., Hirschfeld, H. and Savir, N. 2000. Area D1: Stratigraphic Report. In: Ariel, D. T. ed.
Excavations at the City of David V: Extramural Areas (Qedem 40). Jerusalem: 33–72.
Arnet, S. 2021. Aspects of Jewish Identity in the Joseph Story. In: Römer, T., Schmid, K. and Bühler,
A. eds. The Joseph Story between Egypt and Israel. Tübingen: 75–84.
Arnold, P. M. 1990. Gibeah − The Search for a Biblical City (JSOT.S 79). Sheffield.
Arnold, P. M. 1992. Gibea. ABD 2: 1007–1009.
Arubas B. and Goldfus, H. eds. 2005. Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Convention
Center (Binyanei Haʾuma): The Pottery and Other Small Finds. Portsmouth.
Auld, G. and Steiner, M. 1996. Jerusalem, 1: From the Bronze Age to the Maccabees. Cambridge.
Aurelius, E. 2004. David’s Unschuld: Die Hofgeschichte und Palm 7. In: Witte, M. ed. Gott und
Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (BZAW 345). Berlin: 391–412.
Avigad, N. 1958. New Light on the mwṣh Seal Impressions. Yediʿot 22: 126–133.
Avigad, N. 1959. Some Notes on the Hebrew Inscriptions from Gibeon. IEJ 9: 130–133.
Avigad, N. 1972a. Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1971. IEJ 22: 193–
200.
Avigad, N. 1972b. Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. Qadmoniot 19–20: 91–101.
(Hebrew).
Avigad, N. 1972c. Two Hebrew Inscriptions on Wine-Jars. IEJ 22: 1–9.
Avigad, N. 1974. More Evidence on the Judean Post-Exilic Stamps. IEJ 24: 52–58.
Avigad, N. 1975a. Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, 1969–1971. In: Yadin, Y. ed.
Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968–1974. Jerusalem: 38–49.
Avigad, N. 1975b. The Priest of Dor. IEJ 25: 101–105.
Avigad, N. 1976a. Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judean Archive (Qedem 4). Jerusalem.
Avigad, N. 1976b. New Light on the Naʿar Seals. In: Cross, F. M., Lemke, W. E. and Miller, P. D. eds.
Magnalia Dei, The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest
Wright. New York: 294–300.
Avigad, N. 1980. The Upper City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville.
Avigad, N. 1986. Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Avigad, N. 1987. On the Identification of Persons Mentioned in the Hebrew Epigraphic Sources.
EI 19: 235–237
Avigad, N. 1990. Two Hebrew ‘Fiscal’ Bullae. IEJ 40: 262–266.
Avigad, N. 1992. Qudadi, Tel. NEAEHL 2: 769.
Avigad, N. 2000. Area X-2 – stratigraphy and architecture. In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish Quarter
Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, 1. Jerusalem:
199–240.
Avigad, N. and G. Barkay. 2000a. The lmlk and Related Seal Impressions. In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish
Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Vol. 1: Architecture and Stratigraphy, Areas A, W
and X-2. Jerusalem: 243–257.
 Bibliography 661

Avigad, N. and Barkay, G. 2000b. The lmlk and Related Seal Impressions. In: Geva. H. eds. Jewish
Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. 1,
Architecture and Stratigraphy: Area A, W and X – 2-Final Report. Jerusalem: 243–266.
Avigad, N. and Sass, B. 1997. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem.
Avitsur, S. 1976. Man and his work: historical atlas of tools and workshops in the Holy Land. Jerusalem.
(Hebrew).
Avi-Yonah, M. 1949. Geographical-History of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem. (Citations from the
4th Hebrew edition, 1984).
Avi-Yonah, M. 1954. The Walls of Nehemiah: A Minimalist View. IEJ 4: 239–248.
Avi-Yonah, M. 1971. The Newly Found Wall of Jerusalem and its Topographical Significance. IEJ 21:
168–169.
Avi-Yonah, M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Qedem 5). Jerusalem.
Avner, R. 2006. Rogelit. HA 118.
Ayalon, E. 1988a. The Date Palm, Its Characteristics and Growth. In: Ayalon, E. ed. The Date Palm −
Tree of Life. Tel Aviv: 6–35. (Hebrew).
Ayalon, E. 1988b. The Uses of Palm in the Land of Israel. In: Ayalon, E. ed. The Date Palm − Tree of
Life. Tel Aviv: 36–72. (Hebrew).
Bagg, A. M. 2013. Palestine under Assyrian Rule: A New Look at the Assyrian Imperial Policy in the
West. JAOS 133: 119–144
Bailey, N. A. 1990. Nehemiah 3, 1–32: An Intersection of the Text and the Topography. PEQ 122/1:
34–40.
Bar-Adon, P. 1972. The Judaean Desert and Plain of Jericho. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judea Samaria and
the Golan, Archaeological Survey (1967–1968). Jerusalem: 91–149. (Hebrew).
Barag, D. 1967. Book Review on Pritchard 1964. JNES 26: 142–143.
Bardtke, H. 1971. Die Latifundien in Juda während der zweiten Hälfe des achten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.
(zum Verständis von Jes 5, 8–10). In: Caquot, A. and Philonenko, M. eds. Hommages à André
Dupont-Sommer. Paris: 235–254.
Barkay, G. 1977. On the Problem of the Burial Place of the Last Davidic Kings. In: Broshi, M. ed.
Between Hermon and Sinai – Yad Le Amnon. Jerusalem: 75–92. (Hebrew).
Barkay, G. 1984. Excavations on the Slope of the Hinnom Valley in Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 17: 94–
108. (Hebrew).
Barkay, G. 1985a. “Galloping Horse Seal Impressions” – Another Type of the “Identical Seal
Impressions”. Cathedra 36: 197–200. (Hebrew).
Barkay, G. 1985b. Northern and Western Jerusalem in the End of the Iron Age (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel
Aviv University). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Barkay, G. 1991. Jerusalem Burials of the First Temple Period. In: Amit, D. and Gonen, R. eds.
Jerusalem during the First Temple Period. Jerusalem: 102–123. (Hebrew).
Barkay, G. 1992a. A Group of Stamped Handles from Judah. EI 23: 113–128. (Hebrew).
Barkay, G. 1992b. The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaque from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem. TA 19:
139–192.
Barkay, G. 1993. The Redefining of Archaeological Periods: Does the Date 588/586 BCE Indeed
mark the End of the Iron Age Culture? In: Biran, A. and Aviram, J. eds. Biblical Archaeology
Today II. Jerusalem: 106–109.
Barkay, G. 1994a. Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age. In: Singer, I. ed.
Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period. Jerusalem: 96–104.
Barkay, G. 1994b. Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem. In: Geva, H. ed. Ancient Jerusalem
Revealed. Jerusalem: 85–106.
Barkay, G. 1995. The King of Babylonia or a Judaean Official? IEJ 45: 41–47.
662 Bibliography

Barkay, G. 1998. The Iron Age III: The Babylonian Period. In: Lipschits, O. ed. ls It Possible to Define
the Pottery of the Sixth Century BCE in Judea? (Booklet of summaries of lectures from the
conference held at Tel Aviv University, Oct. 21, 1998). Tel Aviv: 25. (Hebrew).
Barkay, G. 2004. Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age. In: Singer, I. ed. Graves
and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period. Jerusalem: 96–104.
Barkay, G. 2006. Royal Palace, Royal Portrait? The Tantalizing Possibilities of Ramat Raḥel. BAR 32/
5: 34–44.
Barkay, G. 2008a. Additional View of Jerusalem in Nehemiah Days. In: Amit, D. and Stiebel, G. D.
eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region (Collected Papers), Vol. 2.
Jerusalem: 48–54. (Hebrew).
Barkay, G. 2008b. The City of David. In: Meiron, E. ed. City of David – Studies of Ancient Jerusalem,
Vol. 3. Jerusalem: 44–59. (Hebrew).
Barkay, G. 2015. Evidence of the Taxation System of the Judean Kingdom – A Fiscal Bulla from the
Slopes of the Temple Mount and the Phenomenon of Fiscal Bullae. In: Lubetski, M. and
Lubetski, E. eds. Recording New Epigraphic Evidence: Essays in Honor of Robert Deutsch.
Jerusalem: 17–50.
Barkay, G. and Zweig, Z. 2007. New data in the Sifting Project of Soil from the Temple Mount:
Second Preliminary Report. In: Meiron, E. ed. City of David – Studies of Ancient Jerusalem
(Vol. 2). Jerusalem: 27–66.
Barkay, G., Tal, O. and Fantalkin, A. 2002. A Late Iron Age Fortress North of Jerusalem. BASOR 328:
49–71.
Bar-Nathan, R. 2002. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Vol. 3: The Pottery. Jerusalem.
Barnett, R. D. and Falkner, M. 1962. The Sculptures of Aššur-Nashir-apli II (883–859 B.C.) Tiglath-
Pileser III (745–727 B.C.) Esarhaddon (681–669 B.C.) from the Central and South-West Palace at
Nimrud. London.
Barrick, W. B. 2002. The King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of Josiah’s Reform
(VT.S 88). Leiden.
Barstad, H. M. 1988. On the History and Archaeology of Judah During the Exilic Period. A
Reminder. OLP 19: 25–36.
Barstad, H. M. 1996. The Myth of the empty Land − A Study in the History and Archaeolgy of Judah
During the “Exilic” Period (Symbolae Osloenses Fasc. Suppl. 28). Oslo.
Barstad, H. M. 2003. After the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’: Major Challenges in the Study of Neo-
Babylonian Judah. In Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-
Babylonian Period. Winona Lake: 3–20
Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois,
Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO 50/1). Fribourg.
Bartlett, J. R. 1989. Edom and the Edomites (JSOT.S 77). Sheffield.
Baruch, Y. 2006. Buildings of the Persian, Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods at Khirbat Kabar, in
the Northern Hebron Hills. Atiqot 52: 205–207
Batten, L. W. 1913. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Edinburgh.
Baumgartner, W. 1926. Neues keilschriftliches Material zum Buche Daniel. ZAW 44: 38–56.
Beattie, D. R. G. and Davies, P. R. 2011. What Does Hebrew Mean? JSS 56: 71–83.
Becking, B. 1981. The Two Neo-Assyrian Documents from Gezer in Their Historical Context.
Jaarbericht ran het vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschop ‘Ex oriënt lux’. 27: 76–89.
Becking, B. 1992. The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study. Leiden.
Becking, B. 1997. Inscribed Seals as Evidence for Biblical Israel? Jeremiah 40.7–41.15 PAR EXEMPLE.
In: Grabbe, L. L. ed. Can a “History of Israel” Be Written? Sheffield: 64–84.
 Bibliography 663

Becking, B. 2006. We All Returned as One: Critical Notes on The Myth of the Mass Return. In:
Lipschits, O. and Oeming, M. eds. Judah and the Judaeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake:
3–18.
Becking, B. 2008. The enigmatic garden of Uzza. A religio-historical footnote to 2 Kings 21:18,26. In:
Kottsieper, I., Schmitt, R. and Wöhrle, J. eds. Berührungspunkte. Studien zur Sozial- und
Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65.
Geburtstag (AOAT 350). Münster: 383–391
Bedford, P. R. 1991. On Models and Texts: A Response to Blenkinsopp and Petersen. In: Davies,
P. R. ed. Second Temple Studies. I. Persian Period (JSOT.S117). Sheffield: 154–162.
Bedford, P. R. 1995. Discerning the Time: Haggai, Zechariah and the “Delay” in the Rebuilding of
the Jerusalem Temple. In: Holloway, S. W. and Handy, L. K. eds. The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial
Essays for G. W. Ahlström (JSOT.S 190). Sheffield: 71–94.
Bedford, P. R. 2001. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. Leiden.
Bedford, P. R. 2005. The Economy of the Near East in the First Millennium BC. In: Manning, J. G.
and Morris, I. eds. The Ancient Economy: Evidence and Models. Stanford: 58–83.
Bedford, P. R. 2007. The Economic Role of the Jerusalem Temple in Achaemenid Judah:
Comparative Perspectives. In: Bar-Asher, M., Rom-Shiloni, D., Tov, E. and Wazana, N. eds. Shai
le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and Language. Jerusalem: 3*–20*.
Bedford, P. R. 2015. Temple Funding and Priestly Authority in Achaemenid Judah. In: Stökl, J. and
Waerzeggers, C. eds. Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context. Berlin and Boston: 336–350.
Begg, C. 1987. The Fate of Judah’s Four Last Kings in the Book of Chronicles. OLP 18: 79–85.
Beit-Arieh, I. 1985. Tel ʿIra – Afortified City of the Kingdom of Judah. Qadmoniot 69–70: 17–24.
(Hebrew).
Beit-Arieh, I. 1986. Horvat ʿUzza – A Border Fortress in the Eastern Negev. Qadmoniot 73–74: 31–40.
(Hebrew).
Beit-Arieh, I. 1987. Tel-ʿIra and Horvat ʿUza: Negev Sites in the Late Israelite Period. Cathedra 42:
34–38. (Hebrew).
Beit-Arieh, I. 1991. A Small Frontier Citadel at Horvat Radum in the Judean Negev. Qadmoniot 95–
96: 86–89. (Hebrew).
Beit-Arieh, I. 1992. Horvat Radum. EI 23: 106–112. (Hebrew).
Beit-Arieh, I. 1994. An Inscribed Jar from Horvat ʿUza. EI 24: 34–40. (Hebrew).
Beit-Arieh, I. 1995. Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev (Monograph of the Institute
of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 11). Tel-Aviv.
Beit-Arieh, I. 1996. Edomite Advance into Judah. BAR 2/6: 28–36
Beit-Arieh I. 1998. The Excavations in Tel Malḥatah – A Preliminary Report. Qadmoniot 115: 30–39.
(Hebrew).
Beit-Arieh, I. 1999a. Settlement in the Eastern Negev. In: Tel ʿIra – A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev
(Monograph of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15). Tel Aviv: 1–8.
Beit-Arieh, I. 1999b. Tel ʿIra – A Stronghold in the Biblical Negev (Monograph of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 15). Tel Aviv.
Beit-Arieh, I. and Cresson, B. 1991. Horvat ʿUza. A Fortified Outpost on the Eastern Negev Border.
BA 54: 126–135.
Ben Ami, D. and Tchehanovetz, Y. 2008. Jerusalem, Givʿati Parking Lot. HA 121.
Ben Zvi, E. 1991. A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah. Berlin and New York.
Ben-Arieh, S. 2000. Salvage Excavations near the Holyland Hotel, Jerusalem. Atiqot 40: 1–24.
Bendor, S. 1996. The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit Ab) from the
Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7). Jerusalem.
Ben-Dov, M. 1982. The Dig at the Temple Mount. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
664 Bibliography

Bennett, C.-M. 1983. Excavations at Buseirah (Biblical Bozrah). In: Sawyer, J. F. A. and Clines D. J. A.
eds. Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan
and North-West Arabia (JSOT.S 24). Sheffield: 9–17.
Ben-Yosef, E., M. Millman, R. Shaar, L. Tauxe and Lipschits, O. 2017. Six centuries of geomagnetic
intensity variations recorded by royal Judean stamped jar handles. PNAS 114(9): 2160–2165.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1615797114.
Benzinger, I. 1899. Die Bücher der Könige (KHAT 9). Leipzig and Tübingen.
Berlejung, A. 2009. Twisting Traditions: Programmatic Absence-Theology for the Northern Kingdom
in 1 Kgs 12:26–33* (the “Sin of Jeroboam”). JNSL 35/2: 1–42
Berlejung, A. 2012. The Assyrians in the West: Assyrianization, Colonialism, Indifference, or
Development Policy? In: Nissinen, M. ed. Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (VT.S 148). Leiden: 21–
60.
Berlin, A. M. 1997. Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine. Between Large Forces:
Palestine in the Hellenistic Period. BA 60: 3–51.
Berlin, A. M. 2012. The Pottery of Strata 8-7, the Hellenistic Period. In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-
Greenberg, H. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, VIIB: Area E:
The Finds (Qedem 54). Jerusalem: 5–29.
Berner, C. 2015. Hebrew, Hebrews. EBR 11: 675–680.
Berquist, J. L. 1995. Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis.
Betancourt, P. P. 1977. The Aeolic Style in Architecture – A Survey of Its Development in Palestine, the
Halikarnassos Peninsula, and Greece, 1000–500 b.c. Princeton.
Bezzel, H. 2015. Saul. Israels König in Tradition, Redaktion und früher Rezeption (FAT 97). Tübingen.
Bianchi, F. 1991. Zorobabele re di Giuda. Henoch 13: 133–150.
Bianchi, F. 1993. I superstiti della deportazione sono là nella provincia’ (Neemia 1,3): Ricerche
epigrafiche sulla storia della Giudea in eta neobabilonese e achemenide (586 a.C.–442 a.C.)
(Supplemento no. 76 agli Annali 53/3). Napoli.
Bianchi, F. 1994. Le rôle de Zorobabel et de la dynastie davidique en Judée du VIe Siècle au IIe
Siècle av.J.-C. Thranseuphratene 7: 153–165.
Bickerman, E. J. 1979–1980. Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem. PAAJR 46–47: 69–85.
Bienkowski, P. 2001a. The Iron Age and Persian Periods in Jordan. SHAJ 7: 265–274.
Bienkowski, P. 2001b. The Persian Period. In: MacDonald, B., Adams, R. and Bienkowski P. eds. The
Archaeology of Jordan. Sheffield: 347–366.
Bienkowski, P. and Steen, E. van der. 2001. Tribes, Trade, and Towns: A New Framework for the
Late Iron Age in Southern Jordan and the Negev. BASOR 323: 21–47.
Biger, G. and Grossman, D. 1992. Population Density in the Traditional Village of Palestine.
Cathedra 63: 108–121. (Hebrew).
Bigwood, J. M. 1976. Ctesias’ Account of the Revolt of Inarus. Phoenix 30: 1–25.
Bikai, P. M. Khirbet Salameh 1992. ADAJ 37: 521–529.
Biran, A. 1985a. Notes and News: Tel Dan, 1984. IEJ 35: 186–189.
Biran, A. 1985b. Tel ʿIra. Qadmoniot 69–70: 25–28. (Hebrew).
Biran, A. 1987. Tel-ʿIra and ʿAroʿer towards the End of the Judean Monarchy. Cathedra 42: 26–33.
(Hebrew).
Biran, A. 1993. Aroer (in Judah). NEAEHL 4: 1272–1276.
Biran, A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem.
Biran, A. and Cohen, R. 1981. Aroer in the Negev. EI 15: 250–273. (Hebrew).
Birnbaum, S. A. 1957. Inscriptions: Ostraca. In: Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M. and Kenyon, K. M.
eds. The Objects from Samaria – Samaria-Sebaste Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in
1931–1933 and the British Expedition in 1935 (No. 3). London: 9–32.
 Bibliography 665

Blenkinsopp, J. 1974. Did Saul Make Gibeon his Capital? VT 24: 1–7.
Blenkinsopp, J. 1987. The Mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah. JBL 106/3:
409–421.
Blenkinsopp, J. 1988. Ezra, Nehemiah (OTL). Philadelphia.
Blenkinsopp, J. 1990. Ezekiel (Interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching).
Louisville.
Blenkinsopp, J. 1991. Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah. In: Davies, P. R. ed. Second Temple
Studies, Vol. 1: Persian Period (JSOT Supplementary Series 117). Sheffield: 22–53.
Blenkinsopp, J. 1994. The Nehemiah Autobiographical Memoir. In: Balentine, S. E. and Barton, J.
eds. Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr. Oxford: 199–212.
Blenkinsopp, J. 1998. The Judean Priesthood during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods:
A Hypothetical Reconstruction. CBQ 60: 25–43.
Blenkinsopp, J. 2000. Isaiah 1–39 (AB 19A). New York.
Blenkinsopp, J. 2002. The Bible, Archaeology and Politics; or the Empty Land Revisited. JSOT 27:
169–187.
Blenkinsopp, J. 2003. Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period. In: Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. eds.
Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake: 93–107.
Blenkinsopp, J. 2006. Benjamin Traditions Read in the Early Persian Period. In: Lipschits, O. and
Oeming, M. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Persian period. Winona Lake: 629–645
Bliss, F. J. 1900. Fourth Report on the Excavations at Tell Zakariya. PEFQS: 7–16.
Bliss, F. J. 1900. Second Report on the Excavations at Tell ej-Judeideh. PEFQS 32: 199–222.
Bliss, F. G. and Dickie, A. C. 1898. Excavation at Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London.
Bliss, F. J. and Macalister, R. A. S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine During the Years 1898–1900. London.
Bloch, A. P. 1978. The Biblical and Historical Background of the Jewish Holy Days. New York.
Blum, E. 1984. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57). Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Blum, E. 1998. Abraham I. Altes Testament. RGG4, vol. 1: 70–74.
Blum, E. 2000. Noch einmal: Jakobs Traum in Bethel – Genesis 28,10–22. In: McKenzie, S. L. and
Römer, T. eds. Rethinking the Foundations − Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible.
Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (BZAW 294). Berlin: 33–54.
Blum, E. 2010a. Solomon and the United Monarchy: Some Textual Evidence. In: Kratz, R. G. and
Spieckermann, H. eds., One God – One Cult – One Nation (BZAW 405). Berlin and New York:
59–78.
Blum, E. 2010b. Textgestalt und Komposition. Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten
(FAT 69). Tübingen: 21–41.
Blum, E. 2012. The Jacob Tradition. In: Evans, C. A., Lohr, J. N. and Petersen, D. L. eds. The Book of
Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VT.S 152). Leiden: 181–211.
Blum, E. and Weingart, K. 2017. The Joseph Story: Diaspora Novella or North Israelite Narrative?
ZAW 129: 501–521.
Bocher, E. and Freud, L. 2017. Phases during the Persian Period in the Rural Settlement around
Jerusalem. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Twenty
Second Conference. Ramat Gan: 147–158
Bocher, E. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The Corpus of yršlm Stamp Impressions – The Final Link. TA 40:
99–116.
Bodi, D. 2001. La clémence des Perses envers Néhémie et ses compatriotes: faveur ou
opportunism politique? TRANS 21: 69–86.
Boer, R. 2015. The Sacred Economy of Ancient Israel. Louisville.
Boling, R. G. 1989. Site Survey in the el-ʿUmeiri Region. In: Geraty, L. T., Herr, L. G., LaBianca, Ø. S.
and Younker, R. W. eds. Madaba Plains Project 1: The 1984 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity
and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 98–188.
666 Bibliography

Boraas, R. S. 1971. A Preliminary Sounding at Rujm El-Malfuf, 1969. ADAJ 16: 31–45.
Bordreuil, P. 1973. Inscriptions des Têtes à Double Face. ADAJ 18: 37–39.
Bordreuil, P. and Lemaire, A. 1982. Nouveaux sceaux hébreux et araméens. Semitica 32: 21–34.
Borger, R. 1979. Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestucke (2nd ed.). Rome.
Borowski, O. 1988. The Biblical Identity of Tel Halif. BA 51: 21–27.
Bos, J. M. 2013. Reconsidering the Date and Provenance of the Book of Hosea: The Case for Persian
Period Yehud. London.
Bosworth, A. B. 1994. Alexander the Great Part I. The Events of the Reign. In: Lewis, D., Boardman,
J., Hornblower, S. and Ostwald, M. eds. The Cambridge Ancient History VI: The Fourth Century BC.
Cambridge: 791–845.
Bowman, R. A. 1954. Ezra and Nehemiah. New York and Nashville.
Brandl, B. 1984. A Proto-Aeolic Capital from Gezer. IEJ 34: 173–176.
Braun, R. 1986. I Chronicles (WBC 14) Waco.
Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake (English
translation of Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre: Volumes I–II. Achaemenid
History 10. Leiden, 1996).
Bright, J. 1959. A History of Israel (1st ed.). London and Philadelphia.
Bright, J. 1965. Jeremiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Garden City.
Brinker, R. 1946. The Influence of Sanctuaries in Early Israel. Manchester.
Brockington, L. H. 1969. Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (NBC). London.
Broshi, M. 1972. Excavations in the House of Caiaphas, Mount Zion. Qadmoniot 19–20: 104–107.
(Hebrew).
Broshi, M. 1974. The expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh. IEJ 24:
21–26.
Broshi, M. 1976. Excavations on Mount Zion, 1971–1972, Preliminary Report. IEJ 26: 81–88.
Broshi, M. 1977. The Number of Inhabitants in Ancient Jerusalem. In: Broshi, M. ed. Between
Hermon and Sinai − YAD LEAMNON. Jerusalem: 65–74.
Broshi, M. 1978. Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem. BAR 4/2: 10–15.
Broshi, M. 1991. The Inhabitants of Jerusalem during the First Temple Period. In: Amit, D. and
Gonen, R. eds. Jerusalem during the First Temple Period. Jerusalem: 63–67. (Hebrew).
Broshi, M. 1992. Megadim, Tel. NEAEHL 3: 891.
Broshi, M. and Finkelstein, I. 1990. The Population of Palestine in 734 BCE. Cathedra 58: 3–24.
(Hebrew).
Broshi, M. and Gibson, S. 1994. Excavations along the Western and Southern Walls of the Old City
of Jerusalem. In: Geva, H. ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: 147–155.
Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1984. The Settlement and Population of Palestine during the Early
Bronze Age II–III. BASOR 253: 41–53.
Broshi, M. and Gophna, R. 1986. Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: It’s Settlements and Population.
BASOR 261: 73–90.
Brown, J. P. 1969. The Lebanon and Phoenicia I. Beirut.
Brueggemann, W. 2000. 1 and 2 Kings (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary). Macon, GA.
Bunimovitz, S. and Z. Lederman. 1992. Beth-Shemesh. NEAEHL 1: 249–253.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2003. The Final Destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax
Assyriaca in the Judean Shephelah. TA 30: 3–26.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2009. The Archaeology of Border Communities. Renewed
Excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh, Part 1: The Iron Age. NEA 72: 114–142.
Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2011. Close Yet Apart: Diverse Cultural Dynamics at Iron Age Beth-
Shemesh and Lachish. In: Finkelstein, I. and Naʾaman, N. eds. The Fire Signals of Lachish:
Studies in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake: 33–53.
 Bibliography 667

Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 2016. Tel Beth-Shemesh, A Border Community in Judah: Renewed
Excavations 1990–2000: The Iron Age (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel
Aviv University 34). Winona Lake.
Burn, A. R. 1962. Persia and the Greeks: The Defense of the West 546–478 B.C. New-York.
Burney, C. F. 1903a. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix.
Oxford.
Burney, C. F. 1903b. The Book of Judges and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. New-
York.
Burrows, M. 1933. Nehemiah 3:1–32 as a Source for the Topography of Ancient Jerusalem (AASOR 14):
115–140.
Cahill, J. M. 1992. The Chalk Assemblages of the Persian/Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. in:
De Groot, A. and Ariel D. T. eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Vol. 3: Stratigraphic,
Environmental, and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 190–274.
Cahill, J. M. and Tarler, D. 1994. Excavations Directed by Yigal Shiloh at the City of David, 1978–
1985. In: Geva, H. ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: 31–45.
Calmeyer, P. 1990. Die sogennante Fünfte Satrapie bei Herodot. TRANS 3: 109–129.
Campbell, A. F. 1986. Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel–2 Kings 10).
Washington, D.C.
Caquot, A. 1986. Les tribus d’Israël dans le cantique de Débora (Juges 5, 13–17). Semitica 36: 47–70.
Caquot, A. and de Robert, P. 1994. Samuel, Les Livres de Samuel (CAT 6). Genf.
Carr, D. M. 1996. Reading the Fractures of Genesis. Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville.
Carr, D. M. 1999. Genesis 28,10–22 and Transmission-Historical Method: A Reply to John Van Seters.
ZAW 111: 399–403.
Carroll, R. P. 1986. Jeremiah, a Commentary. London.
Carroll, R. P. 1994. So What Do We Know about the Temple? The Temple in the Prophets. In:
Eskenazi, T. C. and Richards, K. H. eds. Second Temple Studies, Vol. 2: Temple and Community in
the Persian Period. (JSOT Supplements 175). Sheffield: 41–43.
Carter, C. E. 1991. A Social and Demographic Study of the Post-Exilic Jodah, (Ph.D. thesis, Duke
University). Durham, NC.
Carter, C. E. 1994. The Province of Yehud in the Post-Exilic Period: Soundings in Site Distribution
and Demography. In: Eskenazi, T. C. and Richards K. H. eds. Second Temple Studies, Vol. 2:
Temple and Community in the Persian Period (JSOT.S 175). Sheffield: 106–145.
Carter, C. E. 1999. The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study
(JSOT.S 294). Sheffield.
Chadwick, J. R. 1992. The Archaeology of Biblical Hebron in the Bronze and Iron Ages: An
Examination of the Discoveries of the American Expedition of Hebron (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Utah). Salt Lake City.
Chaney, M. L. 2014. The Political Economy of Peasant Poverty: What the Eighth-Century Prophets
Presumed but Did Not State. In: Sinkins, R. A. and Kelly, T. M. eds. The Bible, the Economy, and
the Poor (Journal of Religion and Society Supplement Series 10). Omaha, NE: 34–60
Chen, D., Margalit, S. and Pixner, B. 1994. Mount Zion: Discovery of Iron Age Fortifications below
the Gate of the Essens. In: Geva, H. ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: 76–81.
Childs, B. S. 1974. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia.
Christoph, J. R. 1993. The Yehud Stamped Jar Handle Corpus: Implications for the History of
Postexilic Palestine (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University). Durham.
Christopherson, G. L. 1997. Madaba Plains Project: Regional Survey Sites, 1989. In: Herr, L. G.,
Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S., Younker, R. W. and Clark, D. R. eds. Madaba Plains Project 3: The
1989 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 291–302.
668 Bibliography

Ciasca, A. 1961. I capitelli a volute in Palestina. Rivista degli studi orientali 36: 189–197.
Cinamon, G. 2004. The Tumuli South-West of Jerusalem and Their Significance to the
Understanding of Jerusalem’s Countryside in the Iron Age II (M.A. thesis. Tel Aviv University).
Tel Aviv (Hebrew, with English abstract).
Clark, V. A. 1983. The Iron IIC/Persian Pottery from Rujm al-Óenu. ADAJ 27: 143–163.
Clifford, R. J. 2012. Genesis 37–50: Joseph Story or Jacob Story. In: Evans, C. A., Lohr, J. N. and
Petersen, D. L. eds. The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Leiden: 213–
222.
Clines, D. J. A. 1972. Regnal Year Reckoning in the Last Years of the Kingdom of Judah. AJBA 5: 9–
34.
Clines, D. J. A. 1984. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Grand Rapids.
Clines, A. 1994. Haggai’s Temple, Constructed, Deconstructed and Reconstructed. In: Eskenazi, T. C.
and Richards, K. H. eds. Second Temple Studies, Vol. 2: Temple and Community in the Persian
Period (JSOT.S 175). Sheffield: 51–77.
Cogan, M. 1971. A Note on Disinterment in Jeremiah. In: Passow, I. D. and Lachs, S. T. eds. Gratz
College, Anniversary Volume: On the Occasion of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Founding of
the College, 1895–1970. Philadelphia: 29–34.
Cogan, M. 2001. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 10). New York.
Cogan, M. 2006. Raising the Walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3: 1–32): The View from Dur-Sharrukin.
IEJ 56: 84–95.
Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 1978. Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Books of Kings: Historiographical
Considerations. EI 14: 55–61.
Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 1988. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB 11). New York.
Coggins, R. J. 1975. Samaritans and Jews, The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Oxford.
Coggins, R. J. 1976. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Cambridge.
Cohen, R. 1988. Ḥorvat Ṭov. HA 92: 56–57. (Hebrew).
Cohen, R. 1995. Fortresses and Roads in the Negev during the First Temple Period. In: Eilat –
Studies in the Archaeology, History and Geography of Eilat and the Aravah. Jerusalem: 80–126.
(Hebrew).
Cohn, E. W. 1986. The History of Jerusalem’s Benjamin Gate. PEQ 118: 138–143.
Collon, D. 1969. Mesopotamian Columns. JNES 2: 1–18.
Conrad, D. 1976. On ‫“ – זרוע‬Forces, Troops, Armies” in Biblical Hebrew. TA 3: 111–119.
Conroy, C. 1978. Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13–20 (Analecta biblica 81).
Rome.
Conroy, C. 1996. Hiel between Ahab and Elijah-Elisha; 1 Kgs 16,34 in its Immediate Literary Context.
Biblica 77: 210–218.
Cook, J. M. 1983. The Persian Empire. London.
Cook, J. M. 1985. The Rise of the Achaemenides and Establishment of their Empire. In: Gershevitch,
I. ed. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods. Cambridge:
200–291.
Cook, S. A. 1925, Inscribed Jar Handel. PEFQST 57: 91–95.
Cortese, E. 1990. Theories concerning Dtr: A Possible Rapprochement. In: Brekelmans, C. and Lust,
J. eds. Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies, Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress,
Leuven 1989. Leuven: 179–190.
Cowley, A. 1923. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford.
Cox, B. D. and Ackerman, S. 2009. Rachel’s Grave. JBL 128: 135–148.
 Bibliography 669

Cross, F. M. 1962. Epigraphical Notes on Hebrew Documents of the Eight − Sixth Centuries B.C: III.
The Inscribed Jar Handles from Gibeon. BASOR 168: 18–23.
Cross, F. M. 1969. Judean Stamps. EI 9: 20–27.
Cross, F. M. 1973. Canaanite myth and Hebrew epic: essays in the history of the religion of Israel.
Cambridge, MA.
Cross, F. M. 1983. Shomron and Jerusalem. In: Tadmor, H. (ed.). The Restoration: The Persian Period.
Jerusalem: 81–94. (Hebrew).
Cross, F. M. 1994. A Phoenician Inscription from Idalion: Some Old and New Texts Relating to Child
Sacrifice. In: Coogan, M. D., Exum, J. C. and Stager, L. E. eds. Scripture and Other Artifacts:
Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville, KY: 93–107.
Cross, F. M. and Milik, J. T. 1956. Explorations in the Judaean Buqeʿah. BASOR 142: 5–17.
Crowfoot, J. W. 1942. Buildings round and below the Sammit. in: Crowfoot, G. M., Kenyon, K. M.
and Sukenik, E. L. eds. The Buildings at Samaria. London: 5–20.
Crowfoot, J. W. 1957a. Introduction. In: Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M. and Kenyon, K. M. eds. The
Objects from Samaria – Samaria-Sebaste Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931–1933
and the British Expedition in 1935 (No. 3). London: 1–8.
Crowfoot, J. W. 1957b. Pottery: Imported Wares. in: Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M. and Kenyon,
K. M. eds. The Objects from Samaria – Samaria-Sebaste Reports of the Work of the Joint
Expedition in 1931–1933 and the British Expedition in 1935. (No. 3). London: 210–216.
Crowfoot, J. W. and Crowfoot, G. M. 1938. Samaria-Sebate II: Early Ivories from Samaria. London.
Crowfoot, J. W. and Fitzgerald, G. M. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem 1927 (PEF
Annual 7). London.
Crowfoot, J. W., Kenyon, K. M. and Sukenik, E. L. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria. London.
Cruz-Uribe, E. 2003. The Invasion of Egypt by Cambyses. TRANS 25: 9–60.
Curtis, E. L. and Madsen, A. A. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles.
Edinburgh.
Curtis, G. B. 2006. Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Trajectory
Analysis (SBL Academia Biblica 25). Leiden.
Dadon, M. 1994. Har Adar. HA 101–102: 7. (Hebrew).
Dadon, M. 1997. Har Adar. ʿAtiqot 32: 63–79.
Dagan, Y. 1992. The Shephelah during the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological
Excavations and Survey (M. A. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University), Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English
abstract).
Dagan, Y. 1996. Cities of the Judean Shephelah and their Division into Districts Based on Joshua 16.
EI 25: 136–146. (Hebrew).
Dagan, Y. 2010. The Ramat Bet Shemesh Regional Project. The Gazeeteer (IAA Reports 46). Jerusalem.
Dagan, Y. and Sharon, I. 2010. Perspectives and Methodology. In: Dagan, Y. ed. The Ramat Bet
Shemesh Regional Project. Jerusalem: 21–45.
Dahhod, M. 1961. Two Textual Notes on Jeremiah. CBQ 23: 462–464.
Dajani, A. 1953. An Iron Age Tomb at el-Jib. ADAJ 2: 66–74.
Dalley, S. 1994. Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens: Cuneiform and Classical Sources
Reconciled. Iraq 56: 45–58.
Dandamaev, M. A. 1995. A Governor of Byblos in Sippar. In: van-Lerberghe, K and Schoors, A. eds.
Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East (Fest. E. Lipinski). Leuven: 29–31.
Dandamaev, M. A. and Lukonin, V. G. 1989. The Culture and Social Institution of Ancient Iran.
Cambridge, U.K.
Dar, S. 1982. Ancient Farms in the Nahal Beit Arif Area. Nofim 16: 47–60. (Hebrew).
Davidson, R. 1985. Jeremiah and Lamentations, Vol. 2. Edinburgh.
670 Bibliography

Davies, P. R. 1992. In Search of Ancient Israel (JSOT Supplements 148). Sheffield.

Davies, P. R. 2006. The Origin of Biblical Israel. In: Amit, Y., Ben Zvi, E., Finkelstein, I. and Lipschits,
O. eds. Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context. A Tribute to Nadav Naʾaman. Winona
Lake: 141–148.
Davies, P. R. 2007a. The Origins of Biblical Israel. (LHBOTS 485). London.
Davies, P. R. 2007b. The Trouble with Benjamin. In: Rezetko, R., Lim, T., Aucker, B. W. eds. Reflection
and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (VT.S 113). Leiden:
93–111.
De Groot, A. 2001. Jerusalem during the Persian Period. In: Faust, A. and Baruch, E. eds. New
Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Seventh Conference. Ramat Gan: 77–82. (Hebrew).
De Groot, A. 2004. Jerusalem in the Early Hellenistic Period. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds. New
Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Tenth Conference. Ramat Gan: 67–70. (Hebrew).
De Groot, A. 2005. Excavations in the South of the City of David: Reinterpretation of Former
Excavations. Qadmoniot 130: 81–86. (Hebrew).
De Groot, A. 2012. Discussion and Conclusions. In: De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. eds.
Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh Vol. VIIA. Area E: Stratigraphy
and Architecture (Qedem 53). Jerusalem: 141–184.
De Groot, A. and Ariel, D. T. 1992. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh
III. Stratigraphical, Environmental and Other Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem.
De Groot, A. and Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2012. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Directed by
Yigal Shiloh, Vol. 7B. Area E: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Qedem 53). Jerusalem.
De Groot, A., Cohen, D. and Caspi, A. 1992. Area A1. In: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D. T. eds.,
Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 Vol. III: Stratigraphic, Environmental, and Other Reports
(Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 1–29.
De Groot, A. and H. Geva, H. 2015. Nonetheless – The City of David is Not on the Temple Mount.
In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Twenty First
Conference. Ramat Gan: 7–24. (Hebrew).
De Groot, A. and Michaeli, D. 1992. Area H – Stratigraphic Report. In: De Groot, A. and Ariel, D. T.
eds. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Vol. III: Stratigraphic, Environmental, and Other
Reports (Qedem 33). Jerusalem: 35–53.
De Groot, A. and Winberger-Stern, M. 2013. Wine, Oil and Gibeonites: Iron Age II–III at Kh. el-Burj,
Northern Jerusalem. In: Baruch, E., and Faust, A. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of
the Nineteenth Conference. Ramat-Gan: 95–102. (Hebrew)
De Pury, A. 2000. Abraham: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Ecumenical’ Ancestor. In: Mckenzie, S. L., Römer,
T. eds. Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in
Honour of John Van Seters (BZAW 294). Berlin and New York: 163–181.
De Pury, A. 2009. Genèse 12–36. In: Römer, T., Macchi, J. D., Nihan, C. eds., Introduction à l’Ancien
Testament (Le Monde de la Bible 49; 2nd ed.). Genève: 217–238.
de Vaux, R. 1957. Mambre. Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément V: 753–758.
de Vaux, R. 1966. Recensions. RB 73: 130–135.
de Vaux, R. 1969. Everyday Life in Biblical Israel. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
de Vaux, R. 1971. Histoire ancienne d’Israel. Des origines à l’installation en Canaan (Etudes Bibliques).
Paris.
de Vaux, R. 1992. Qumran, Khirbet – Ain Feshkha. NEAEHL 4: 1357–1364. (Hebrew).
De Vos, J. C. 2003. Das Los Judas: Über Entstehung und Ziele der Landbeschreibung in Josua 15
(VT.S 95). Leiden.
De Vries, B. and Bikai, P. 1993. Archaeology in Jordan. AJA 97: 457–520.
 Bibliography 671

Dearman, S. A. 1988. Property Rights in the Eighth-Century Prophets: The Conflict and Its Background
(SBL Dissertation Series 106). Atlanta.
Delcor, M. 1962. Le trésor de la maison du Yahweh des origines à l’Exil. VT 12: 353–377.
Delcor, M. 1971. Le livre de Daniel. Paris.
Demsky, A. 1971. The Genealogy of Gibeon (I Chronicles 9: 35–44): Biblical and Epigrapic
Considerations. BASOR 202: 16–23.
Demsky, A. 1983a. The Days of Ezra and Nehemiah. In: Tadmor, H. ed. The History of the People of
Israel, Vol. 5: The Return to Zion: The Period of Persian Rule. Jerusalem: 40–65.
Demsky, A. 1983b. Pelekh in Nehemiah 2. IEJ 33: 242–244.
Dequeker, L. 1985. The City of David and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem. In: Lipinski, E. ed. The
Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations (Orientalia Lovaniesia Analecta 19). Leuven: 193–210.
Deutsch, R. 1999. Seal of Baʿalis Surfaces − Ammonite King Plotted Murder of Judahite Governor.
BAR 25/2: 46–49; 66.
Deutsch, R. and Heltzer, M. 1994. Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv.
Deutsch, R. and Heltzer, M. 1995. New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv.
Dever, W. G. 1971. Archaeological Methods and Results: A Review of Two Recent Publications.
Orientalia 40: 459–471.
Dietrich, W. 1972. Prophetie und Geschichte Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum
deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Göttingen.
Dietrich, W. 1977. Josia und das Gesetzbuch (2 Reg. 22). VT 27: 13–35.
Dietrich, W. 2000. Das Ende der Thronfolgegeschichte. In: de Pury, A., and Römer, T. eds. Die
sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: neue Ansichten und Anfragen (OBO 176). Freiburg: 38–
69.
Dietrich, W. 2011. Davids Fünfte Kolonne beim Abschalom Aufstand. In: Dietrich, W. ed., Die
Samuelbücher im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Studien zu den Geschichtsüberlieferungen
des Alten Testament II. Stuttgart: 227–253.
Dietrich, W. 2012. Von der ersten Königen Israels. Forschung an den Samuelbüchern im Neuen
Jahrtausend. Theologiche Rundschau 77: 135–170, 263–316, 401–425.
Dietrich, W. 2015. Samuel. BKAT VIII/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Dietrich, W. 2017. Samuel. BKAT VIII/3. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Dinur, U. and Feig, N. 1993. Eastern Part of the Map of Jerusalem. In: Finkelstein, I. and Y. Magen,
Y. eds. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: 346. (Hebrew).
Dion, P. E. 1992. Le KTYM de Tel Arad: Grecs ou Phéniciens? RB 99: 70–97.
Dion, P. E. 1995. Les Arameens du Moyen-Euphrate au VIIIe siecle a la lumiere des inscriptions des
maitres de Suhu et Mari (VT.S 61): 53–73.
Diringer, D. 1941. On Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions from Tell ed-Duweir (Lachish – I, II). PEQ 73: 38–
56, 89–108.
Diringer, D. 1949. The Royal Jar Handles of Ancient Judah. BA 12: 70–86.
Diringer, D. 1953. Early Hebrew Inscriptions. In: Tufnell, O. eds. Lachish III (Tell Ed-Duweir) – The Iron
Age. London: 331–359.
Diringer, D. 1967. Mizpah. In: Thomas, W. ed. Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Oxford: 329–342.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 1993. Weep, o Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the
Hebrew Bible (BibOr 44). Rome.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 2005. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with
Concordance. New Haven and London.
Donner, H. 1987. Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen (GAT 4). Göttingen.
Donner, H., and Knauf E. A. 1985. Chronique Archeologique: Ghor eṣ-Ṣāfī et Wadi el-Kerak (1983).
RB 92: 429–430.
672 Bibliography

Donner, H. and Röllig, W. 1964. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften Mit einem Beitrag von
O. Rössler, Band II (Kommentar). Wiesbaden.
Dornemann, R. H. 1990. Preliminary Comments on the Pottery Traditions at Tell Nimrin, Illustrated
from the 1989 Season of Excavations. ADAJ 34: 153–181.
Dothan, T. and Gitin, S. 1994. Tel Miqne / Ekron – The Rise and Fall of a Philistine City. Qadmoniot
27 105–106: 2–28. (Hebrew).
Drinkard, J. F. 1997. New Volute Capital Discovered. BA 60/4: 249–250.
Drinkard, J. F. 2003. The Volute Capital of Israel and Jordan: A New Look at an Ancient Architectural
Feature. Website of the Mudaybiʿ Project (http://www.vkrp.org/studies/historical/capitals/).
Driver, S. R. 1904. The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes. London.
Driver, S. R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (2nd revised ed.). Oxford.
Dubovský, P. 2006. Tiglath-Pileser III’s Campaigns in 734–732 B.C.: Historical Background of Isa 7;
2 Kgs 15–16 and 2 Chr 27–28. Biblica 87: 153–170.
Duggan, M. W. 1996. The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah, (Neh 7:72b-10:40): An Exegetical,
Literary, and Theological Study. Atlanta.
Duguid, I. M. 1994. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel (VT.S 56). New-York.
Duhm, B. 1922. Das Buch Jesaia. Göttingen.
Duncan, J. G. 1931. Digging up Biblical Histoty I–II. London.
Dutcher-Walls, P. 1996. Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash (JSOT.S 209).
Sheffield.
Ede, F. 2021. The Joseph Story: Diaspora Novella – Patriarchal Story – Exodus Narrative. Part I. In:
Römer, T., Schmid, K., and Bühler, A. eds. The Joseph Story between Egypt and Israel. Tübingen:
5–22.
Edelman, D. V. 2001. Did Saulide-Davidic Rivalry resurface in early Persian Yehud? In: Dearman,
A. J. and Graham, P. M. eds. The Land That I Will Show You. Essays on the History and
Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller. Sheffield: 69–91.
Edelman, D. V. 2003. Gibeon and the Gibeonites Revisited. In: Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. eds.
Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake: 153–167.
Edelman, D. V. 2005. The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of
Jerusalem. London.
Edelman, D. V. 2006. Seeing double: Tobiah the Ammonite as an encrypted character. RB 113: 570–
584.
Edelman, D. V. 2014. City Gardens and Parks in Biblical Social Memory. In: Edeman, D. V. and Ben
Zvi, E. eds. Memory and the City in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake: 115–156.
Edelstein, G. 2000. A Terraced Farm at Er-Ras. ʿAtiqot 40: 39–63.
Edenburg, C. 2003. The Story of the Outrage at Gibeah (Jdg. 19–21): Composition, Sources and
Historical Context (Ph.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Edenburg, C. 2014. II Sam 21,1–14 and II Sam 23,1–7 as Post-Chr Additions to the Samuel Scroll. In:
Becker, U. and Bezzel, H. eds. Rereading the Relecture? The Question of (Post)chronistic Influence
in the Latest Redactions of the Books of Samuel (FAT 66). Tübingen: 167–182.
Edenburg, C. 2016. Dismembering the Whole. Composition and Purpose of Judges 19–21 (Ancient Israel
and its Literature 24). Atlanta.
Eggler, J. Herr, L. G., and Root, R. 2002. Seals and Seal Impressions from Excavation Seasons 1984–
2000. In: Herr, L. G., Clark, D. R., Geraty, L. T., Younker, R. W. and LaBianca, Ø. S. eds. Madaba
Plains Project 5: The 1994 Season at Tall al- ʿUmayri and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI:
234–304.
Ehrlich, A. B. 1914. Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel. Leipzig.
 Bibliography 673

Ein Mor, D., and Ron, Z. 2013. An Iron Age Royal Tunnel Spring in the Region of Nahal Rephaim.
In: Stiebel, G. D., Peleg-Barkay, O., Ben-Ami, D., Wexler-Bdolach, S., and Gadot, Y. (eds.). New
Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region (Collected Papers), Vol. 7: 85–109.
(Hebrew).
Ein Mor, D., and Ron, Z. 2016. ʿAin Joweizeh: An Iron Age Royal Rock-Cut Spring System in the
Naḥal Refaʾim Valley, near Jerusalem. TA 43: 127–146.
Eisenberg, E. 2000. Nahal Yarmut. HA 112: 115–117. (Hebrew).
Eisenberg, E., and De-Groot, A. 2006. A Tower from the Iron Age near Ramat Raḥel. In: Baruch, E.
and Faust, A. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference. Ramat Gan:
129–133 (Hebrew with English summary).
Eissfeldt, O. 1931. Die Komposition der Samuelisbücher. Leipzig.
Eissfeldt, O. 1937. Eine Einschmelzstelle am Tempel zu Jerusalem. Forschungen und Fortschritte 13:
163–164.
Eissfeldt, O. 1963. Der geschichtliche Hintergrund der Erzählung von Gibeas Schandtat (Richter 19–
21). In Kleine Schriften II. Tübingen: 64–80.
Eissfeldt, O. 1965. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Oxford.
Eitan, A. 1983. Vered Jericho. HA 82: 43–44. (Hebrew).
Elat, M. 1978. The Economic Relations of the Neo-Assyrian Empire with Egypt. JAOS 98: 20–34
Elat, M. 1990. International Commerce in Palestine under the Assyrian Rule. In: Kedar, B. Z.,
Dothan, T., and Safrai, S. eds. Commerce in Palestine throughout the Ages. Jerusalem: 67–88.
Elat, M. 1991. Phoenician Overland Trade within the Mesopotamian Empires. In: Cogan, M., and
Eph’al, I. eds. Ah, Assyria…, Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography
Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Jerusalem: 21–35.
Elayi, J. 1980. The Phoenician Cities in the Persian Period. JANES 12: 13–28.
Elayi, J. 1982. Studies in Phoenician Geography during the Persian Period. JNES 41: 83–110.
Elayi, J. 1987. Recherches sur les cités phéniciennes à l’époque perse (Annali Instituto Universitario
Orientale, Supp. 51). Napoli.
Elayi, J. 2004. La chronologie de la dynastie sidonienne d’Ešmunʿazor. TRANS 27: 9–27.
Elgavish, Y. 1968. Shiqmonah – The Strata from the Persian Period, Seasons 1963–1965. Haifa.
(Hebrew).
Elgavish, J. 1993. Shiqmona. NEAEHL 4: 1373–1378.
Elgavish, Y. 1994. Shiqmonah – by the Coast of Carmel. Tel-Aviv.
Elisha, Y. 2015. Horvat ʿAgalgal. HA 127.
Elitzur, Y. 1987. “Geb” on Mount Ephraim. Cathedra 45: 3–18.
Elitzur, Y. 1991. Burj-Beitin: A Tradition and Its Source. Shomron and Binyamin 2: 103–111.
Elliger, K. 1966. Leviticus. Tübingen.
Emerton, J. A. 1990. Some Problems in Genesis XIV. In: Emerton, J. A. ed. Studies in the Pentateuch
(VT.S XLI). Leiden: 73–102.
Ephʿal, I. 1976. ‘Ishmael’ and ‘Arab(s)’: A Transformation of Ethnological Terms. JNES 35: 225–235.
Ephʿal, I. 1978. The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th–5th Centuries b.c: Maintenance and
Cohesion. Orientalia 47: 74–90.
Ephʿal, I. 1979. Assyrian Dominion in Palestine. In: Malamat, A. ed. The World History of the Jewish
People, Vol. 4.1, 276–289, 364–368. Jerusalem.
Ephʿal, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B.C.
Jerusalem.
Ephʿal, I. 1984. Transjordan under Assyrian Rule. IEJ 4: 168–186.
Ephʿal, I. 1988. Syria-Palestine under Achaemenid Rule. In: Boardman, J., Hammond, N. G. L., Lewis,
D. M., and Ostwald, M. eds. Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 4: Persia, Greece and the Western
Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 b.c. (2nd ed.). London: 139–164.
674 Bibliography

Ephʿal, I. 1993. ‘You Are Defecting to the Chaldeans’ (Jer. 37: 13). EI 24: 18–22 (Hebrew with English
Summary).
Ephʿal, I. 1996. Siege and it’s Ancient Near Eastern Manifestations. Jerusalem.
Ephʿal, I. 1998. Changes in Palestine During the Persian Period in Light of Epigraphic Sources.
IEJ 38: 106–119.
Ephʿal, I. 2003. The Origins of Idumaea. Qadmoniot 126: 77–79. (Hebrew).
Ephʿal, I. and Naveh, J. 1996. Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea. Jerusalem.
Ehrlich, Z. H. 1985. The Land of Benjamin. In: Ehrlich, Z. H. ed. Before Ephraim and Benjamin and
Manasseh, Studies and Discoveries in Historical Geography. Jerusalem: 47–53.
Eshel E. 2006. Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions, In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish quarter excavations in the
old city of Jerusalem, Vol. 3. Jerusalem, 389–407.
Eshel, H. 1987a. Ketef Jericho. HA 89: 36–37. (Hebrew).
Eshel, H. 1987b. The Late Iron Age Cemetery of Gibeon. IEJ 37: 1–17.
Eshel, H. 2000. Jerusalem under Persian Rule: The City’s Layout and the Historical Background. In:
Ahituv, S. and Mazar, A. eds. The History of Jerusalem, The Biblical Period. Jerusalem: 327–344.
Eshel, H. and Kloner, A. 1990. A late Iron Age Tomb Between Bet Hanina and Nebi Samwil, and the
Identification of Hazor in Nehemia 11:33. EI 21: 37–40.
Eskenazi, T. C. 1988. In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBLMS 36). Atlanta.
Eskenazi, T. C. 1992. Out from the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Postexilic Era. JSOT 54: 25–43.
Esse, D. L. 1991. Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age. Chicago.
Eynikel, E. 1996. The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History
(Oudtestamentische studien 33). Leiden.
Farhi, Y. 2021. Coin Circulation in Judea during the Transition Period from the Persian to Hellenistic
Eras. A View from the Ella Valley, In: Honigmann, S., Nihan, C., and Lipschits, O. eds. Time of
Transition. Judea in the Early Hellenistic Period. Tel Aviv and University Park: 103–118.
Fales, F. M. 2008. On Pax Assyriaca in the Eighth–Seventh Centuries BCE and Its Implications. In:
Cohen, R., and Westbrook, R. eds. Isaiah’s Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern International
Relations: Swords into Plowshares. New York: 17–35.
Fales, F. M. 2013. Ethnicity in the Assyrian Empire: A View from the Nisbe. (I): Foreigners and
‘Special’ Inner Communities. In: Vanderhooft, D. S. and Winitzer, A. eds. Literature as Politics,
Politics as Literature: Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist. Winona Lake:
47–73.
Fales, F. M. and Postgate, J. N. 1992. Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple
Administration (SAA 7). Helsinki.
Fales, F. M. and Postgate, J. N. 1995. Imperial Administrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military
Administration (State Archives of Assyria XI). Helsinki.
Fantalkin, A. 2004. The Final Destruction of Beth Shemesh and the Pax Assyriaca in the Judahite
Shephelah: An Alternative View. TA 31: 245–261.
Fantalkin, A. 2008. Contacts between the Greek World and the Southern Levant during the
Seventh–Sixth Centuries BCE (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv.
Fantalkin, A. 2011. Why Did Nebuchadnezzar II Destroy Ashkelon in Kislev 604 B.C.E.? In:
Finkelstein, I. and Naʾaman, N. eds. The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and
History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin.
Winona Lake: 87–112.
Fantalkin, A. 2015. Coarse Kitchen and Household Pottery as an Indicator for Egyptian Presence in
the Southern Levant: A Diachronic Perspective. In: Spataro, M. and Villing, A. eds. Ceramics,
Cuisine and Culture: The Archaeology and Science of Kitchen Pottery in the Ancient Mediterranean
World. Oxford: 233–241.
 Bibliography 675

Fantalkin, A. and Tal, O. 2006. Redating Lachish Level I. Identifying Achaemenid Imperial Policy at
the Southern Frontier of the Fifth Satrapy. In: Lipschits, O. and Oeming, M. eds. Judah and
the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake: 186–189.
Fantalkin, A. and Tal, O. 2012. The Canonization of the Pentateuch: When and Why? ZAW 124: 1–18,
201–212.
Faust, A. 2002. Jerusalem’s Countryside during the Iron Age II – Persian Period Transition. In:
Faust, A. and Baruch, E. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Seventh Conference.
Bar Ilan: 83–90. (Hebrew).
Faust, A. 2003. Judah in the sixth century B.C.E.: A rural perspective. PEQ 135/1: 37–53.
Faust, A. 2004. Social and Cultural Changes in Judah during the 6th century BCE and their
Implications for Our Understanding of the Nature of the Neo-Babylonian Period. UF 36: 157–
176
Faust, A. 2005. The Settlement of Jerusalem’s Western Hill and the City’s Status in the Iron Age II
Revisited. ZDPV 121: 97–118.
Faust, A. 2007. Settlement dynamics and demographic fluctuations in Judah from the late Iron Age
to the Hellenistic period and the archaeology of Persian-period “Yehud”. In: Levin, Y. ed. A
Time of Change: Judah and its neighbours in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. London:
23–51.
Faust, A. 2008. Settlement and Demography in Seventh-Century Judah and the Extent and Intensity
of Sennacherib’s Campaign. PEQ 140: 168–194.
Faust, A. 2009. Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: Continuity or Crisis. EI 29: 339–347. (Hebrew).
Faust, A. 2011. The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West: Olive Oil Production as a Test-
Case. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 54: 62–86.
Faust, A. 2012a. The Archaeology of Israelite Society in Iron Age II. Winona Lake.
Faust, A. 2012b. Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation. Atlanta.
Faust, A. 2013a. The Demographic and Territorial Expansion of Jerusalem during the Iron Age:
When, How Much and Why? In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds., New Studies on Jerusalem,
Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference. Ramat-Gan: 7–38. (Hebrew).
Faust, A. 2013b. Social, Cultural and Demographic Changes in Judah during the Transition from the
Iron Age to the Persian Period and the Nature of the Society During the Persian Period. In:
Ro, U. J. ed. From Judah to Judaea. Socio-economic Structures and Processes in the Persian Period.
Sheffield: 108–126.
Faust, A. 2015. Settlement, Economy, and Demography under Assyrian Rule in the West: The
Territories of the Former Kingdom of Israel as a Test Case. JAOS 135: 765–789.
Faust, A. and Erlich, A. 2011. eds. The Excavations at Khirbet er-Rasm, Israel: The Changing Face of the
Countryside. Oxford.
Faust, A. and Weiss, E. 2005. Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean World: Reconstructing the
Economic System of the Seventh Century BCE. BASOR 338: 71–92.
Feig, N. 1996. New Discoveries in the Rephaim Valley, Jerusalem. PEQ 128/1: 3–7.
Feig, G. 2000. The Environs of Jerusalem in the Iron Age II. In: Ahituv, S. and Mazar, A. eds., The
History of Jerusalem – The Biblical Period. Jerusalem: 387–409. (Hebrew).
Feig, N. 2003. Excavations at Beit Safafa: Iron Age II and Byzantine Agricultural Installations South
of Jerusalem. ʿAtiqot 44: 191–238.
Feig, N. and Abed-Rabo, O. 1995. Khirbet er-Ras. HA 103: 65–66. (Hebrew).
Feldstein, A., Qidron, G., Hannin, N., Kameiski, Y. and Eitam, D. 1993. Archaeological Survey of the
Maps of South Ramallah and el-Bireh and North En-Kerem Map. In: Magen, I. and Finkelstein,
I. eds. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: 133–264. (Hebrew)
Felix, Y. 1957. The Plants of the Bible. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
676 Bibliography

Felix, Y. 1982. The Jewish Agriculture in Eretz Israel in the Period of the Mishnah and the Talmud.
In: Baras, Z., Safrai, S., Stern, M. and Tsafrir, Y. eds. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the
Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest – Volume One: Political, Social and Cultural History.
Jerusalem: 419–441. (Hebrew).
Fensham, F. C. 1982. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Grand Rapids.
Ferry, J. 1998. “Je restaurerai Juda et Israël” (Jr 33, 7.9.26). L’écriture de Jérémie 33. TRANS 15: 69–
82.
Finkelstein, I. 1978. The Pattern of Settlement in the Yarkon Basin and the Mountain Area Border in the
Israelite to Hellenistic Periods (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Finkelstein, I. 1981. Israelite and Hellenistic Farms in the Foothills and the Yarkon Basin. EI 15: 331–
348. (Hebrew).
Finkelstein, I. 1984. The Israelite Population in the Iron Age I. Cathedra 32: 3–22. (Hebrew).
Finkelstein, I. 1986. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem.
Finkelstein, I. 1992a. Edom in the Iron I. Levant 24: 159–166.
Finkelstein, I. 1992b. Ḫorvat Qitmit and the Southern Trade in the Late Iron Age II. ZDPV 108: 156–
170.
Finkelstein, I. 1993a. The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second
Millennium BCE. In: Biran, A. and Naveh, J. eds. Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990 – Proceedings
of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Supplement. Jerusalem: 110–131.
Finkelstein, I. 1993b. The Survey of the North of the Map Beit-Sira, Ramallah and el-Bireh. In:
Finkelstein, I. and Magen, Y. eds. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin.
Jerusalem: 15–95. (Hebrew).
Finkelstein, I. 1993c. The Survey in the South of the Map Beit-Sira. In: Magen, Y. and Finkelstein, I.
eds. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: 99–132.
Finkelstein, I. 1994. The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh. In: Coogan, M. D., Exum J. C. and
Stager, L. E. eds. Scripture and Other Artifacts, Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of
Philip J. King. Louisville: 169–187.
Finkelstein, I. 1996a. The Settlement History of the Transjordan Plateau in Light of Survey Data.
EI 25: 244–251. (Hebrew).
Finkelstein, I. 1996b. The Territorial-Political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. UF 28: 221–
255.
Finkelstein, I. 2000. Omride Architecture. ZDPV 116/2: 114–138.
Finkelstein, I. 2001. The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link. Levant 33: 105–115.
Finkelstein, I. 2006. The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite
Territorial Entity. In: Amit, Y., Ben Zvi, E., Finkelstein, I. and Lipschits, O. eds., Essays on
Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʾaman. Winona Lake: 171–
187.
Finkelstein, I. 2007. Jerusalem in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BCE: A Reply to Nadav
Naʾaman. Zion 72: 325–337.
Finkelstein, I. 2008. Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of
Nehemiah. JSOT 32: 501–520.
Finkelstein, I. 2009. Persian Period Jerusalem and Yehud: A Rejoinder. JHS 9: 2–13.
Finkelstein, I. 2010a. Archaeology as High Court in Ancient Israelite History: A Reply to Nadav
Naʾaman. JHS 10: Article 19.
Finkelstein, I. 2010b. The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and
Early Hellenistic Periods. RB 117: 39–54.
 Bibliography 677

Finkelstein, I. 2011a. The “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem. Reality versus Yearning. ZDPV 127:
1–10.
Finkelstein, I. 2011b. Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of «Biblical Israel»: An Alternative View.
ZAW 123/3: 348–367.
Finkelstein, I. 2011c. Tell el-Ful Revisited: The Assyrian and Hellenistic Periods (With a New
Identification). PEQ 143: 106–118.
Finkelstein, I. 2012a. Comments on the Date of Late-Monarchic Judahite Seal-Impressions. TA 39:
203–211.
Finkelstein, I. 2012b. The Great Wall of Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah), the First Fortifications in Judah,
and 1 Kings 15:16–22. VT 62: 14–28.
Finkelstein, I. 2013. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel
(SBLANEM 5). Atlanta.
Finkelstein, I. 2018. Jerusalem and the Benjamin Plateau in the Early Phases of the Iron Age: A
Different Scenario. ZDPV 134/2: 190–195.
Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures: The Southern
Samaria Survey (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 14).
Tel Aviv.
Finkelstein, I. and Gadot, Y. 2015. “Mozah, Nephtoah and royal estates in the Jerusalem highlands.”
Semitica et Classica 8: 227–234.
Finkelstein, I., Herzog, Z., Singer-Avitz, L. and Ussishkin, D. 2007. Has the Palace of King David in
Jerusalem been Found? TA 34: 142–164.
Finkelstein, I., Koch, I. and Lipschits, O. 2011. The Mound on the Mount: A Solution to the
“Problem with Jerusalem.” JHS 11: 2–24.
Finkelstein, I., Koch, I. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The Biblical Gilead: Observations on Identifications,
Geographic Divisions and Territorial History. UF 43: 131–159.
Finkelstein, I. and Lederman, Z. 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures: The Southern Samaria Survey
(Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 14). Tel Aviv.
Finkelstein, I. and Lipschits, O. 2016. Geographical and Historical Observations on the Old North
Israelite Gideon Tale in Judges. ZAW 129/1: 66–83.
Finkelstein, I. and Magen, Y. 1993. eds. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin.
Jerusalem (Hebrew with English Summary).
Finkelstein, I. and N. Naʾaman. 2004. The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and Early
7th Centuries BCE. TA 31: 60–79.
Finkelstein, I. and Römer, T. 2014. Comments on the Historical Background of the Abraham
Narrative. Between “Realia” and “Exegetica”. HeBAI 3/1: 3–23.
Finkelstein, I. and Silberman, N. A. 2001. The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient
Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. London.
Finkelstein, I. and Silberman, N. A. 2006a. David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings
and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York.
Finkelstein, I. and Silberman, N. A. 2006b. Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of
Jerusalem and the Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology. JSOT 30: 259–285.
Finkelstein, I. and Singer-Avitz, L. 2009. Reevaluating Bethel. ZDPV 125/1: 33–48.
Finkelstein, I. and Ussishkin, D. 2000. Archaeological and Historical Conclusions. In: Finkelstein, I.,
Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. eds. Megiddo III – The 1992–1996 Seasons. Jerusalem: 576–605.
Finkielsztejn, G. 1999. Hellenistic Jerusalem: The Evidence of the Rhodian Amphora Stamps. in:
Faust, A. and Baruch, E. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference.
Ramat Gan: 21*–36*.
678 Bibliography

Finkielsztejn, G. and Gibson, S. 2007. The Retrograde-F-Shaped yh(d) Monogram: Epigraphy and
Dating. TA 34: 104–113.
Fischer, A. A. 2006. Flucht und Heimkehr Davids als integraler Rahmen der Abschalomerzählung.
In: Lux, R. ed. Ideales Königtum: Studien zu David und Solomon (ABG 16). Leipzig: 43–69.
Fischer, I. 1994. Die Erzeltern Israels. Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Genesis 12–36 (BZAW 222).
Berlin.
Fisher, C. S. 1929. The Excavation of Armageddon. Chicago.
Flanagan, J. W. and McCreery, D. W. 1990. First Preliminary Report of the 1989 Tell Nimrin Project.
ADAJ 34: 131–152.
Flanagan, J. W., McCreery, D. W. and Yassine, K. N. 1992. Preliminary Report of the 1990 Excavation
at Tell Nimrin. ADAJ 36: 89–111.
Flanagan, J. W., McCreery, D. W. and Yassine, K. N. 1994. Tell Nimrin: Preliminary Report on the
1993 Season. ADAJ 38: 205–244.
Fleming, D. E. 2012. The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of
Tradition. Cambridge, N.Y.
Fleming, D. 2016. The Amorites. In: Arnold, B. T. and Strawn, B. A. eds. The World Around the Old
Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: 1–30.
Fohrer, G. 1961. Eisenzeitliche Anlagen im Raume südliche von naºur und die Südwestgrenze von
Ammon. ZDPV 77: 56–71.
Fokkelman, J. P. 1981. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on
Stylistic and Structural Analyses, vol. 1: King David (II Sam. 9–20 & I Kings 1–2) (SSN 20). Assen.
Forrer, E. 1920. Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrichen Reiches. Leipzig.
Foucart, P. 1887. Les fortifications du Pirée. BCH 11: 129–144.
Fox, N. S. 2000. In the Service of the King – Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah (Monographs of
the Hebrew Union College 23). Cincinnati.
Franke, C. 1994. Isaiah 46, 47 and 48-A New Literary-Critical Reading (Biblical and Judaic Studies 3).
Winona Lake.
Franken, H. J. 1961. Review on Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 34–35. VT 11:
471–474.
Franken, H. J. and Ibrahim, M. M. 1977–1978. Two Seasons of Excavations at Tell Deir ʿAlla, 1976–
1978. ADAJ 22: 57–80.
Franken, H. J. and Steiner, M. L. eds. 1990. Jerusalem II: Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967. Vol. 2:
The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South West Hill. Oxford.
Frankenstein, S. 1979. The Phoenicians in the Far West: A Function of Neo-Assyrian Imperialism. In:
Larsen, M. T. ed. Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Copenhagen: 204–
263.
Freedman D. N. and Willoughby, B. E. 1999. “‫י‬ ʿibrî.” TDOT 10: 430–445.
Freedy, K. S. and Redford, D. B. 1970. The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and
Egyptian Sources. JAOS 90: 462–485.
Freud, L. 2011. The Longue Durée of the Seventh Century BCE: A Study of the Iron Age Pottery
Vessels from Ramat Raḥel (MA thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Freud, L. 2017. Production and Widespread Use of Holemouth Vessels in Jerusalem and Its Environs
in the Iron Age II: Typology, Chronology, and Distribution. In: Gadot, Y., et al. eds. New Studies
in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region (Collected Papers), Vol. 11. Jerusalem: 93–97.
(Hebrew).
Freud, L. 2018. Judahite Pottery in the Transitional Phase between the Iron Age and Persian Period:
Jerusalem and Its Environs (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv.
(Hebrew).
 Bibliography 679

Frey, R. N. 1984. The History of Ancient Iran. Munich.

Fried, L. S. 2002a. Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1. HTR 95: 373–393.
Fried, L. S. 2002b. The Political Struggle of Fifth Century Judah. TRANS 24: 9–21.
Fried, L. S. 2004. The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire. Winona
Lake.
Fritz, V. 1983. Die syrische Bauform des Hilani und die Frage seiner Verbreitung. Damaszener
Mitteilungen 1: 43–58.
Fritz, V. 1996. Das erste Buch der Könige (Zurcher Bibelkommentare AT 10/1). Zürich.
Fritz, V. 2003. 1 and 2 Kings. Minneapolis. (Originally published as: Das Erste Buch Könige. Zurich,
1996; and Das Zweite Buch Könige. Zurich, 1998).
Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A. 1983. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el Mšāš (Tel Māśōś),
1972–1975. Vols. I–III. Wiesbaden.
Fulton, D. N., Gadot, Y., Kleiman, A., Freud, L., Lernau, O. and Lipschits, O. 2015. Feasting in
Paradise: Feast Remains from the Iron Age Palace of Ramat Raḥel and Their Implications.
BASOR 374: 29–48.
Funk, R. W. 1958. The 1957 Campaign at Beth-Zur. BASOR 150: 8–20.
Gabriel, J. 1933. Untersuchungen über das alttestamentliche Hohepriestertum, mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung des hohepriesterlichen Ornates. Vienna.
Gadot, Y. 2011. The Rural Settlement along Nahal Rephaim from the Middle Bronze Age until the
Hellenistic Period: A Fresh Look from Khirbet Er Ras. In: Baruch, E. and Faust, A. eds. New
Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference. Ramat Gan: 43–61 (Hebrew
with English Abstract).
Gadot, Y. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Jerusalem’s Southeastern Hill, Area D3,
HeBAI 2–3: 279–292.
Gadot, Y. 2015. In the Valley of the King: Jerusalem’s Rural Hinterland in the 8th–4th
Centuries BCE. TA 42: 3–26.
Gadot, Y., Bocher, E. and Emmanuilov, S. 2016. The “Open Court House” during the Iron Age and
Persian Period in Light of the Excavations at Khirbet er-Ras (Naḥal Refaʼim). In: Patrich, J.,
Peleg-Barkat, O. and Ben-Yosef, E. eds. Arise, Walk through the Land. Studies in the Archaeology
and History of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem: 197–210. (Hebrew).
Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2008. Ramat Raḥel and the Emeq Rephaim Sites – Links and
Interpretations. In: Amit, D. and Stiebel, G. D. eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem
and its Region (Collected Papers), Vol. 2. Jerusalem: 88–96. (Hebrew).
Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2016. Summary and Conclusions, In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud,
L. eds. Ramat Raḥel III. Final Publication of Aharoni’s Excavations at Ramat Raḥel (1954, 1959–
1962). Tel Aviv: 715–724.
Gadot, Y. and Uziel, J. 2017. The Monumentality of Iron Age Jerusalem Prior to the 8th
Century BCE. TA 44: 123–140.
Galil, G. 1985. The Administrative Division of the Shephelah. Shnaton 9: 55–71. (Hebrew).
Galil, G. 1987. The Administrative Division of the Kingdom of Judah in the Light of the Epigraphic
Data. Zion 52: 495–509. (Hebrew).
Galil, G. 1988. Sennacherib Versus Hezekiah: A New Look at the Assyrian Campaign to the West in
701 BC. Zion 53: 1–12. (Hebrew).
Galil, G. 1991. Notes on the Ephraim Genealogy Scrolls. Beit-Mikra 36/2: 139–143. (Hebrew).
Galil, G. 1992. Judah and Assyria in the Sargonid Period. Zion 57: 111–133. (Hebrew).
Galil, G. 1993. Geba-Ephraim and the Northern Boundary of Judah in the Days of Josiah. RB 100:
358–367.
Galil, G. 1996. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. New York.
680 Bibliography

Galling, K. 1935. Assyrische und persische Präfekten in Gezer. PJB 31: 81–86.
Galling, K. 1937. ed. Biblisches Reallexikon. Tübingen.
Galling, K. 1951. The “Gola-List” according to Ezra 2//Nehemiah 7. JBL 70: 149–158
Galling, K. 1954. Die Bücher der Chronik, Ezra, Nehemia. Göttingen.
Galling, K. 1964. Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter. Tübingen.
Ganor, A. and Klein, A. 2011. Ḫorbat Burgin. HA 123.
Gardiner, J. D. 1991. Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford.
Garelli, P. and Nikiprowetzky, V. 1974. Le Proche-orient asiatique: Les empires Mésopotamiens, Israel.
Paris.
Garfinkel, Y. 1985. A Hierarchic Pattern in the Private Seal-Impressions on the “LMLK” Jar-Handles.
EI 18: 108–115. (Hebrew).
Garfinkel, Y. 1987. The City-List, Epigraphic Evidence and the Administrative Division in the
Kingdom of Judah. Zion 52: 489–494.
Garfinkel, Y. 1990. The Elyakim Naʿar Yokan Seal Impressions. BA 53: 74–79.
Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S. 2009. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 1. Excavation Report 2007–2008. Jerusalem.
Garfinkel, Y. and Ganor, S. 2010. Khirbet Qeiyafa in Survey and in Excavations: A Response to
Y. Dagan. TA 37: 67–78.
Garfinkel, Y., Ganor, S. and Hasel, M. G. 2014. Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 2. Excavation Report 2009–2013.
Stratigraphy and Architecture (Areas B, C, D, E). Jerusalem.
Geraty, L. T. 1985. The Andrews University Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report on the First
Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri. AUSS 23: 85–110.
Geraty, L. T., Herr, L. G. and LaBianca, Ø. S. 1987. The Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report
on the First Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity. ADAJ 31: 187–199.
Geraty, L. T., Herr, L. G., LaBianca, Ø. S., Battenfield, J. R., Christopherson, G. L., Clark, D. R., Cole, J.
A., Daviau, P. M., Hubbard, L. E., Lawlor, J. L., Low, R. and Younker, R. W. 1989. Madaba Plains
Project: The 1987 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity. ADAJ 33: 145–176.
Gershuny, L. 1992. Abu Hawam, Tell. NEAEHL 1: 1–4. (Hebrew).
Gertz, J. C. 2002. Abraham, Mose und der Exodus. Beobachtungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte von
Genesis 15, In: Gertz, J. C., Schmid, K. and Witte, M. eds. Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die
Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315). Berlin and New York: 63–81.
Gertz, J. C., Berlejung, A., Schmid, K. and Witte, M. 2012. T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament:
An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament. New York.
Gese, H. 1957. Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48): Traditionsgeschichtlich Untersucht
(BZHT 25). Tübingen.
Gesundheit, S. 2012. Three times a year. Studies on festival 2012 legislation in the Pentateuch (FAT 82).
Tübingen.
Geva, H. 1979. The Western Boundary of Jerusalem at the End of the Monarchy. IEJ 29: 84–91.
Geva, H. 1983. Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1979–1980: Preliminary Report. IEJ 33: 55–
71.
Geva, H. 1985. The “First Wall” of Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period. An Architectural-
Chronological Note. EI 18: 21–39. (Hebrew).
Geva, H. 1991. Jerusalem at the End of the First Temple Period – The Archaeological Aspect. In:
Amit, D. and Gonen, R. eds. Jerusalem during the First Temple Period. Jerusalem: 165–176.
(Hebrew).
Geva, H. 2000a. Excavations at the Citadel of Jerusalem. In: Geva, H. ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed
(Reprinted and Expanded Edition). Jerusalem: 156–167.
Geva, H. 2000b. General Introduction to the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter. In: Geva, H. ed.
Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982,
Vol. I: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem: 1–31.
 Bibliography 681

Geva, H. 2003a. Hellenistic Pottery from Areas W and X-2. In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish Quarter
Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. II: The
Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem: 113–175.
Geva, H. 2003b. Summary and Discussion of Findings from Areas A, W and X-2. In: Geva, H. ed.
Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982,
Vol. II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem: 501–552.
Geva, H. 2007a. A Chronological Re-evaluation of yehud Stamp Impressions in Paleo-Hebrew Script,
Based Upon Findings from the Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. TA 34:
92–103.
Geva, H. 2007b. Estimating Jerusalem’s Population in Antiquity: A Minimalist View. EI 28: 50–65.
(Hebrew).
Geva, H. and Avigad, N. 2000a. Area W – Stratigraphy and Architecture. In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish
Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Vol. I:
Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem: 131–186.
Geva, H. and Avigad, N. 2000b. Area X2 – Stratigraphy and Architecture. In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish
Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. I:
Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem: 199–240.
Geva, H. and Reich, R. 2000. Area A – Stratigraphy and Architecture IIa: Introduction. In: Geva, H.
ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–
1982, Vol. I: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem: 37–43.
Geva, H., Reich, R. and Avigad, N. 2000. Area A – Stratigraphy and Architecture. In: Geva, H. eds.
Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982,
Vol. I: Architecture and Stratigraphy: Areas A, W and X-2. Final Report. Jerusalem: 37–130.
Gibson, J. C. L. 1982. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Vol. III: Phoenician Inscriptions. Oxford.
Gibson, S. 1987. The 1961–67 Excavations in the Armenian Garden, Jerusalem. PEQ 119: 81–96.
Gibson, S. and Edelstein, G. 1985. Investigating Jerusalem‘s Rural Landscape. Levant 17: 139–155.
Giffone, B. D. 2016. “Sit at My Right Hand”: The Chronicler’s Portrait of the Tribe of Benjamin in the
Social Context of Yehud. London and New York.
Gihon, M. 1970. The Ayyalon Basin as a Military Arena in Historical Perspective. In: Merton, S.
ed. The Western Nahal Ayyalon Basin: The Region and its Rural Settlement. Tel Aviv: 104–122.
Gilboa, A. 1996. Assyrian Pottery in Dor and Notes on the Status of the City During the Period of
Assyrian Rule. EI 25: 122–135. (Hebrew).
Gilmour, R. 2018. Jeremiah at the gate: Identifying the People’s Gate in Jeremiah 17:19. BN 177: 75–
82.
Ginsberg, H. L. 1948. MMŠT and MṢH. BASOR 109: 20–22.
Ginsberg, H. L. 1968. Reflexes of Sargon in Isaiah after 715 B.C.E. In: Hallo, W. W. ed. Essays in
Memory of E. A. Speiser. New Haven: 47–53.
Gitin, S. 1995. Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century BCE: The Impact of Economic Innovation and
Foreign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City-State. In: Gitin, S. ed. Recent
Excavations in Israel: A View to the West. Dubuque, IA: 61–79.
Gitin, S. 1997. The Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Western Periphery: The Levant, with a Focus on
Philistine Ekron. In: Parpola, S. and Whiting, R. M. eds. Assyria 1995: Helsinki: 77–103.
Gitin, S. 1998. The Philistines in the Prophetic Texts: An Archaeological Perspective. In: Magness, J.
and Gitin, S. eds. Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs (Brown Judaic Studies
320). Atlanta: 273–290.
Gitin, S. 2003. Neo-Assyrian and Egyptian Hegemony over Ekron in the Seventh Century BCE: A
Response to Lawrence E. Stager. EI 27: 55*–61*.
682 Bibliography

Gitin, S. 2006. The lmlk Jar-Form Redefined: A New Class of Iron Age II Oval Shaped Storage Jar. In:
Maeir, A. M. and Miroschedji, de. P. eds. “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”:
Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth
Birthday. Winona Lake: 505–524.
Gitler, H. and Tal, O. 2009. More Evidence on the Collective Mint of Philistia. Israel Numismatic
Review 4: 21–37.
Glissman, V. 2009. Genesis 14: A Diaspora Novella? JSOT 34: 33–45.
Glueck, N. 1933. Further Explorations in Eastern Palestine. BASOR 51: 9–18.
Glueck, N. 1934. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, I. (AASOR 14): 1–114.
Glueck, N. 1940. The Other Side of the Jordan. New Haven.
Golani, A. 2005. Ḫorbat Avimor. HA 117. (Hebrew).
Goldfus, H. and Golani, A. 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Map of Wadi el-Makukh. In: Magen,
I. and Finkelstein, I. eds. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: 267–
338. (Hebrew).
Goldstein, J. A. 1976. Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York.
Gomes, J. F. 2006. The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity (BZAW 368).
Berlin.
Goncalves, F. J. 1986. L’expedition de Sennacherib en Palestine dans la litterature hebraique ancienne.
Louvain-la-Neuve.
Gophna. R. 1969. The Settlement in the Biblical Period. In: Merton, S. ed. The Western Nahal Ayalon
Basin: The Region and its Rural Settlement. Tel Aviv: 75–89.
Gophna, R. and Porat, Y. 1972. The Land of Ephraim and Manasseh. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judea
Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey (1967–1968). Jerusalem: 195–241. (Hebrew).
Gophna, R. and Portugali, J. 1988. Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel’s Coastal Plain
from the Chalcolithic to the Middle Bronze Age. BASOR 269: 11–28.
Gosse, B. 1997. Structuration des grands ensembles bibliques et intertextualité à l’époque perse
(BZAW 246), Berlin and New York.
Gottwald, N. K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–
1050 B.C.E. New York.
Govrin, Y. 1992. Archaeological Survey of Israel – Map of Yatir (139). Jerusalem.
Grabbe, L. L. 1995. Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of Religious Specialists in
Ancient Israel. Valley Forge.
Grabbe, L. L. 1998. Ezra-Nehemiah. London and New York.
Grabbe, L. L. 2004. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume I: Yehud: A
History of the Persian Province of Judah. London and New York.
Grabbe, L. L. 2005. ed. Good Kings and Bad Kings: The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century (JSOT
Supplements/LHBOTS 393; ESHM 5). London.
Grabbe, L. L. 2009. Was Jerusalem a Persian Fortress? In: Knoppers, G. N., Grabbe, L. L. and Fulton,
D. N. eds. Exile and Restoration Revisited – Essays on the Babylonian and Persian Periods in
Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd. New York: 128–137.
Graf, D. F. 1993. The Persian Royal Road System in Syria-Palestine. TRANS 6: 149–168.
Graham, J. N. 1984. “Vinedressers and Plowmen” 2 Kings 25: 12 and Jeremiah 52: 16. BA 47/1: 55–
58.
Granerød, G. 2010. Abraham and Melchizedek. Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times in Genesis 14
and Psalm 110 (BZAW 406). Berlin and New York.
Grant, E. and Wright, G. E. 1939. Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), Vol. 4: Pottery (Biblical and
Kindred Studies 7). Baltimore.
Gray, J. 1964. I and II Kings: A Commentary. OTL. London.
 Bibliography 683

Grayson, A. K. 1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5). Locust
Valley, NY.
Grayson, A. K. 1991. Assyria: Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (704–669 B.C.). In: The Assyrian and
Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C.
(CAH III/2, 2nd ed.). Cambridge: 103–141.
Grayson, A. K. 1995. Assyrian Rule of Conquered Territory in Ancient Western Asia. In: Sasson, J. M.
ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Peabody, MA: 959–968
Green A. R. 1982. The Fate of King Yehoiakim. AUSS 20: 103–109.
Greenberg, M. 1955. The Ḫab/piru. New Haven.
Greenberg, M. 1957. Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psammetichus II. JBL 76: 304–309.
Greenberg, R. and Cinamon, G. 2006. Stamped and Incised Jar Handles from Rogem Gannim and
their Implication for the Political Economy of Jerusalem, Late 8th–Early 4th Centuries BCE.
TA 33: 229–243.
Greenhut, Z. 2006. Production, Storage and Distribution of Grain during the Iron Age and Their Linkage
to the Socio-Economic Organization of the Settlement in Israel (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv
University). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Greenhut, Z. and De Groot, A. 2002. Moẓa – A Bronze and Iron Age Village West of Jerusalem.
Qadmoniot 123: 12–17 (Hebrew with English Abstract).
Greenhut, Z. and De Groot, A. 2009. Salvage Excavations at Tel Moẓa: The Bronze and Iron Age
Settlement and Later Occupations. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 39. Jerusalem.
Grena, G. M. 2004. LMLK – A Mystery Belonging to the King. Vol. 1. Redondo Beach, CA.
Griffith, F. L. 1909. Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library (3 vols). Manchester.
Grønbӕk, H. J. 1965. Benjamin und Juda. Erwägungen zu 1Kön xii 21–24. VT 15: 421–436.
Gröndahl, F. 1967. Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Rome.
Gross, B. and Goren, Y. 2010. Technological Study of the Lion Stamp Impressions: Preliminary
Results. In: Lipschits, O. and Koch, I. eds. New Studies on the Lion Stamp Impressions. Tel
Aviv: 11–12. (Hebrew).
Gross, B., Gadot, Y. and Lipschits, O. 2014. The Ancient Garden at Ramat Raḥel and its water
installations. In: Ohlig, C. and Tsuk, T. eds. Cura Aquarum in Israel II: Proceedings of the
International Conference on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the
Mediterranean Region. Siegburg: 93–114.
Guillaume, P. 2012. Land, Credit and Crisis: Agrarian Finance in the Hebrew Bible. New York.
Gunkel, H. 1901. Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (Nowacks Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1).
Göttingen.
Gunkel, H. 1966. Genesis (7th ed.). Göttingen.
Gunn, D. M. 1978. The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (JSOT.S 6). Sheffield.
Gunn, D. M. 1980. From Jerusalem to the Jordan and Back: Symmetry in 2 Samuel XV–XX. VT 30:
109–113.
Gunneweg, A. H. J. 1985. Esra (KAT 9/1). Gütersloh.
Gunneweg, A. H. J. 1987. Nehemia (KAT 2/19). Gütersloh.
Guy, P. L. O. 1938. Megiddo Tombs (Oriental Institute Publications 33). Chicago.
Hadidi, A. 1987. An Ammonite Tomb at Amman. Levant 19: 101–120.
Halligan, J. 2002. Unsolved Mysteries: The Second Temple. In: Hunter, A. G. and Davies, P. R. eds.
Sense and Sensitivity – Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll. Sheffield: 142–
158.
Halpern, B. 1991. Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of
Individual Moral Liability. In: Halpern, B. and Hobson, D. W. eds. Law and Ideology in
Monarchic Israel. Sheffield: 11–107.
684 Bibliography

Halpern, B. 1996. Sybil, or the Two Nations? Archaism, Kinship, Alienation, and the Elite
Redefinition of Traditional Culture in Judah in the 8th–7th Centuries B.C.E. In: Cooper, J. S. and
Schwartz, G. M. eds. The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William
Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference. Winona Lake: 291–338
Halpern, B. and Vanderhooft, D. S. 1991. The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6th Centuries B.C.E.
HUCA 62: 179–244.
Handy, L. K. 1995. Historical Probability and the Narrative of Josiah’s Reform in 2 Kings. In:
Holloway, S. W. and Handy, L. K. eds. The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W.
Ahlström (JSOT Supplements 190). Sheffield: 252–275.
Har-El, M. 1971. Judean Desert and Dead Sea Journeys. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Har-El, M. 1977. The Valley of the Craftsmen (Geʾ Haharašim). PEQ 109: 75–86. (Hebrew).
Harrison, R. K. 1973. Jeremiah and Lamentations. London.
Harrison, R. K. 1994. Hellenization in Syria-Palestine: The Case of Judea in the Third Century BCE.
BA 57: 98–108.
Hawkins, J. D. 1995. The Political Geography of North Syria and South-East Anatolia in the Neo-
Assyrian Period. In: Liverani, M. ed. Neo-Assyrian Geography. Rome: 87–101.
Hayes, J. H. and Hooker, P. K. 1988. A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah and Its
Implications for Biblical History and Literature. Atlanta.
Heckl, R. 2018. Von der Teilautomonie der Tempelstadt zur heiligen Stadt Jerusalem. In: Häusl, M.
ed. Denkt nicht mehr an das Frühere! Begründungsressourcen in Esra /Nehemia und Jes 40–66 im
Vergleich. Göttingen: 159–182.
Heltzer, M. and Kochman, M. eds. 1985. Encyclopedia of the World of the Bible – Ezra and Nehemiah.
Jerusalem and Ramat Gan. (Hebrew).
Hendel, R. S. 1996. Sibilants and Sibbolet (Judges 12:6). BASOR 301: 69–75.
Hendin, D. 2001. Guide to Biblical Coins (4th ed.). New York.
Hengel, M. 1974. Judaism and Hellenism (English edition). Philadelphia.
Hensel, B. 2016. Juda und Samaria. Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-exilischer Jahwismen (FAT 110).
Tübingen.
Hensel, B. 2018. Das JHWH-Heiligtum am Garizim: ein archäologischer Befund und seine literar-
und theologiegeschichtliche Einordnung. VT 68/1: 73–93.
Herbert, S. C. and Berlin, A. M. 2003. A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic
Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/ University of Minnesota Excavations
at Kedesh. BASOR 329: 13–59.
Herr, L. G. 1967. Jerusalem, Excavating 3000 Years of History. London.
Herr, L. G. 1968. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1967. PEQ 100: 97–111.
Herr, L. G. 1985. The Servant of Baalis. BA 48: 169–172.
Herr, L. G. 1989. The Inscribed Seal Impression. In: Geraty, L. T., Herr, L. G., LaBianca, Ø. S. and
Younker, R. W. eds. Madaba Plains Project 1: The 1984 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and
Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 369–374.
Herr, L. G. 1992. Two Stamped Jar Impressions of the Persian Province of Ammon from Tell el-
ʿUmeiri. ADAJ 36: 163–166.
Herr, L. G. 1993. What Ever Happened to the Ammonites? BAR 19/6: 26–35, 68.
Herr, L. G. 1995a. The Late Iron II–Persian Ceramic Horizon at Tall al-ʿUmayri. SHAJ 5: 617–619
Herr, L. G. 1995b. Wine Production in the Hills of Southern Ammon and the Founding of Tall al-
ʿUmayri in the Sixth Century BC. ADAJ 39: 121–125.
Herr, L. G. 1997a. Epigraphic Finds from Tall al-ʿUmayri during the 1989 Season. In: Herr, L. G.,
Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S., Younker, R. W. and Clark, D. R. eds. Madaba Plains Project 3: The
1989 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs: 323–330.
 Bibliography 685

Herr, L. G. 1997b. The Iron Age II Period: Emerging Nations. BA 60: 154–186.
Herr, L. G. 1997c. Organization of Excavation and Summary of Results at Tall al-ʿUmayri. In: Herr, L.
G., Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S., Younker, R. W. and Clark, D. R. eds. Madaba Plains Project 3:
The 1989 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs: 7–20.
Herr, L. G. 1997d. The Pottery. In: Herr, L. G., Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S., Younker, R. W. and Clark,
D. R. eds. Madaba Plains Project 3: The 1989 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent
Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 228–249.
Herr, L. G. 1999. The Ammonites in the Late Iron Age and Persian Period. In: MacDonald, B. and
Younker, R. W. eds. Ancient Ammon (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near
East 17). Leiden: 219–237.
Herr, L. G. 2000. Excavation and Cumulative Results at Tall al-ʿUmayri. In: Herr, L. G., Clark, D. R.,
Geraty, L. T., Younker, R. W. and LaBianca, Ø. S. eds. Madaba Plains Project 4: The 1992 Season
at Tall al-ʿUmayri and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 7–20.
Herr, L. G., Clark, D. R., Geraty, L. T. and LaBianca, Ø. S. 1999. Madaba Plains Project: Excavations at
Tall al-ʿUmayri, 1998. ADAJ 43: 99–114.
Herr, L. G., Clark, D. R. and Trenchard, W. C. 2001. Madaba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al
ʿUmayri, 2000. ADAJ 45: 237–252.
Herr, L. G., Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S. and Younker, R. W. 1991. Madaba Plains Project: The 1989
Excavations at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity. ADAJ 35: 155–179.
Herr, L. G., Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S. and Younker, R. W. 1994. Madaba Plains Project: The 1992
Excavations at Tell el-ʿUmeiri, Tell Jalul, and Vicinity. ADAJ 38: 147–172.
Herr, L. G., Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S., Younker, R. W. and Clark, D. R. 1996. Madaba Plains Project
1994: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayri, Tall Jalul and Vicinity. ADAJ 40: 63–81.
Herr, L. G., Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S., Younker, R. W. and Clark, D. R. 1997. Madaba Plains Project
1996: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayri, Tall Jalul and Vicinity. ADAJ 41: 145–167.
Herrmann, S. 1975. A History of Israel in Old Testament Times. London.
Hertzberg, H. W. 1956. Die Samuelbücher. Göttingen.
Herzog, Z. 1989. Persian Period Stratigraphy and Architecture (Strata VI–XI). In: Herzog, Z., Rapp, G.
Jr., Negbi, O. eds., Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Minneapolis and Tel Aviv: 88–114.
Herzog, Z. 1992. Michal, Tel. NEAEHL 3: 935–940.
Herzog, Z. 1997. The Arad Fortress. In: Amiran, R., Ilan, O., Saban, M. and Herzog, Z. eds. Canaanite
Arad – City Gate to the Desert. Tel Aviv: 111–292. (Hebrew).
Herzog, Z., Aharoni, M., Rainey, A. F. and Moshkovitz, S. 1984. The Israelite Fortress at Arad.
BASOR 254: 1–34.
Hestrin, R. and Dayagi, M. 1974. A Seal-Impression of a “Servant (ʿEbed) of King Hezekiah”.
Qadmonniot 7: 104–105. (Hebrew).
Hillers, D. R. 1964. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Rome.
Hillers, D. R. 1972. Lamentations – Introduction, Translation and Notes. Garden City.
Ḥizmi, H. 1993. The Survey in the South of the Map of Beit Sira. In: Finkelstein, I. and Magen, Y.
eds. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem: 97–131. (Hebrew).
Ḥizmi, H. and Shabtai, Z. 1993. A Public Building from the Persian Period at Jabel Nimra. In: Erlich,
Z. H. and Eshel, Y. eds. Judea and Samaria Research Studies (Proceedings of the 3rd Annual
Meeting). Kedumim-Ariel: 65–86. (Hebrew).
Hobbs, T. R. 1985. 2 Kings (World Biblical Commentary 13). Waco, TX.
Hobbs, T. R. 1997. Reflections on Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations. JBL 116: 501–503.
Hoffman, Y. 2000. Literature and Ideology in Jeremiah 40:1–43:7. In: Garsiel, M., Vargon, S., Frisch,
A. and Kugel, J. eds. Studies in Bible and Exegesis, Vol. V: Presented to Uriel Simon. Ramat Gan:
103–125. (Hebrew).
686 Bibliography

Hoffman, Y. 2001. Jeremiah – Introduction and Commentary. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).

Hoffmann, H.-D. 1985. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema des
deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66). Zurich.
Hoglund, K. G. 1991. The Achaemenid Context. In: Davies, P. R. ed. Second Temple Studies, 1: Persian
Period. Sheffield: 22–53.
Hoglund, K. G. 1992. Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra
and Nehemiah (SBL Dissertation Series 125). Atlanta.
Hoglund, K. G. 2002. The Material Culture of the Persian Period and the Society of the Second
Temple Period. In: Davies, P. R. and Halligen, J. M. eds. Second Temple Studies, Vol. 3: Studies in
Politics, Class and Material Culture (JSOT.S 340). Sheffield.
Holladay, W. L. 1986. Jeremiah 1, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25.
Minneapolis.
Holladay, W. L. 1989. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52.
Minneapolis.
Holloway, S. W. 2002. Aššur is King! Aššur is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian
Empire. Leiden.
Holmgren, F. C. 1987. Israel Alive Again: A Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Grand
Rapids.
Hölscher, G. 1923a. Die Bucher Esra und Nehemia (HSAT; 4th ed.). Tübingen.
Hölscher, G. 1923b. Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion. In: Schmidt, H. ed. In
Eucharisterion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten un Neuen Testament – Herman Gunkel
zum 60. Geburtstag. Göttingen: 158–213.
Honeyman, A. M. 1941. Observations on a Phoenician Inscription of Ptolemaic Date. JEA 26/1: 57–
67.
Hong, K. P. 2011. The Deceptive Pen of Scribes: Judean Reworking of the Bethel Tradition as a
Program for Assuming Israelite Identity. Biblica 92: 427–441.
Honigman, S. 2014. Tales of High Priests and Taxes. The Books of Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion
against Antiochos IV. Berkeley.
Hopkins, I. W. J. 1980. The City Region in Roman Palestine. PEQ 112: 19–32.
Horn, S. H. 1967. The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah.
AUSS 3: 12–27.
Houtman, C. 1981. Ezra and the Law: Observations on the Supposed Relation between Ezra and the
Pentateuch. In: Alberktson, B. ed. Remembering All the Way – A Collection of Old Testament
Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkge.
Leiden: 91–115.
Hübner, U. 1987. Bücherbesprechungen. ZDPV 103: 226–230.
Hübner, U. 2002. Jerusalem und die Jebusiter. In: Hübner, U. and Knauf, E. A. eds. Kein Land für sich
allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel / Palästina und Ebirnari für Manfred Weippert
zum 65. Geburtstag (OBO 186). Freiburg: 31–42.
Hudon, J. P. 2010. The lmlk Storage Jars and the Reign of Uzziah: Towards a Mid-Eighth
Century B.C. terminus a quo for the Royal Jars of the Kingdom of Judah. Near East
Archaeological Society Bulletin 55: 27–44.
Humphreys, W. L. 1985. Novella. In: Coats, G. W. ed. Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative
Forms in Old Testament Literature (JSOT.S 85). Sheffield: 82–113.
Humphreys, W. L. 1988. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study. Columbia, SC.
Hurowitz, V. A. 1986. Another Fiscal Practice in the Ancient Near East: 2 Kings 12:5–17 and a Letter
to Esarhaddon (LAS 277). JNES 45: 289–294.
 Bibliography 687

Hurowitz, V. A. 1992. I have Built you an Exalted House. Temple Building in the Bible in Light of
Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOT.S 115). Sheffield.
Hurowitz, V. A. 2006. Babylon in Bethel: New Light on Jacob’s Dream. Orientalism, Assyriology and
the Bible. In: Holloway, S. W. ed. Orientalism, Assyriology and the Bible. Sheffield: 436–448.
Hutton, J. M. 2009. The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The Overwritten Texts of Personal Exile and
Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 396). Berlin.
Hutzli, J. 2011a. Lʼexécution de sept descendants de Säul par les Gabaonites (2 S 21,1–14): place et
function du récit dans les livres de Samuel. TRANS 40: 83–96.
Hutzli, J. 2011b. The Meaning of the Expression ʿir dawid in Samuel and Kings. TA 38: 167–178.
Hyatt, J. P. 1956a. Introduction and Exegesis, Jeremiah (Interpreters Bible 5). New York and Nashville.
Hyatt, J. P. 1956b. New Light on Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History. JBL 75: 277–284.
Ibach, R. D. 1987. Archaeological Survey of the Hesban Region: Catalogue of Sites and Characterization
of Periods (Hesban 5). Berrien Springs, MI.
Ibrahim, M. 1989. Sahab. In: Homès-Fredericq, D. and Hennessy, J. B. eds., Archaeology of Jordan,
Vol. II-2. Field Reports: Sites L–Z (Akkadica Supplementum 8). Leuven: 516–520.
Ilan, Z. 1971. The Dead Sea and its shores. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Irvine, S. A. 1990. Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimite Crisis. Atlanta.
Isaac, B. 1986. Judaea after 70 AD. In: Kasher, A., Oppenheimer, A., Rappaport, A. eds. Man and
Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity. Jerusalem: 87–94. (Hebrew).
Ishida, T. 1977. The Royal dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of
Royal-dynastic Ideology (BZAW 142). Berlin and New York.
Isser, S. 2003. The Sword of Goliath: David in Heroic Literature (SBL 6). Atlanta.
Jackson, B. S. 1988. Biblical Laws of Slavery: A Comparative Approach. In: Archer L. J. ed. Slavery
and Other Forms of Unfree Labour. London and New York: 86–101.
James. T. G. H. 1991. Egypt: The Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Sixth Dynasties. Cambridge Ancient History,
Vol. 3/2: 677–747.
James, P. 2006. Dating Late Iron Age Ekron (Tel Miqne). PEQ 138/2: 85–97.
Jamieson-Drake, D. W. 1991. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach
(JSOT Supplements 109). Sheffield.
Janssen, E. 1956. Juda in der Exilszeit, Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums (FRLANT 69).
Göttingen.
Janzen, J. G. 1973. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (Harvard Semitic Monographs 6). Cambridge, M.A.
Japhet, S. 1968. The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated
Anew. VT 18: 330–371.
Japhet, S. 1977. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought. Jerusalem.
(Hebrew).
Japhet, S. 1982. Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. ZAW 94: 66–98.
Japhet, S. 1983. People and Land in the Restoration Period. In: Strecker, G. ed. Das Land Israel in
biblischer Zeit. Göttingen: 103–125.
Japhet, S. 1989. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9).
Frankfurt a. M.
Japhet, S. 1993a. I & II Chronicles, A Commentary. London.
Japhet, S. 1993b. Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah. EI 24: 111–121.
(Hebrew).
Japhet, S. 2019. Ezra-Nehemia − Introduction and Commentary (Mikra Leyisraʾel − A Bible
Commentary for Israel). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Jeon, J. 2013. The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story − A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and
5–13 (FAT 2) Tübingen.
688 Bibliography

Jeon, J. 2015. The Zadokites in the Wilderness: The Rebellion of Korach (Num 16) and the Zadokite
Redaction. ZAW 127: 381–411.
Jeon, J. 2017. The Visit of Jethro (Exodus 18): Its Composition and Levitical Reworking. JBL 136/2:
289–306.
Jeon, J. 2018a. The Priestly Tent of Meeting in Chronicles Pro-Priestly or Anti-Priestly? JHS 18.
Article 7.
Jeon, J. 2018b. The Zadokite and Levite Scribal Conflicts and Hegemonic Struggles. In: T. Klutzet,
et al. (eds.), Scripture as Social Discourse: Social-Scientific Perspectives on Early Jewish and
Christian Writings. New York: 97–110.
Jericke, D. 2003. Abraham in Mamre. Historische und exegetische Studien zur Region von Hebron und zu
Genesis 11,27–19,38 (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 17). Leiden and Boston.
Jericke, D. 2010. Regionaler Kult und lokaler Kult: Studien zur Kult − und Religionsgeschichte lsraels und
Judas im 9. und 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (ADPV 39). Wiesbaden.
Ji, C.-H. 2001. Judean Jar Handles Bearing Concentric Circles. Near East Archaeological Society
Bulletin 46: 11–24.
Johns, C. N. 1950. The Citadel, Jerusalem (A Summary of Work Since 1934). QDAP 14: 121–190.
Jones, D. 1963. The Cessation of Sacrifice after the Destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C. JTS 14: 12–
31.
Joüon, P. 1937. Un Parallèle à la ‘Sépulture d’un Âne’ de Jérémie (XXII, 19) en arabe moderne de
Palmyre. Recherches de science religieuse 27: 335–336.
Junge, E. 1937. (Der Wiederaujbau des Heerwesens des Reiches Juda unter Josia (BWANT 4/23).
Stuttgart.
Kaiser, O. 1992. Grundriss der Einleitung die kanonische und deuterokanonische Schriften des Alten
Testaments, Vol. 1: Die erzählenden Werke. Gütersloh.
Kallai, Z. 1960. The Northern Borders of Judah: From the Settlement Period to the Early Hasmonean
Period. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Kallai, Z. 1962. Lod. EncMiq 4: 430–431. (Hebrew).
Kallai, Z. 1967. The Tribes of Israel − A Study in the Historical Geography of the Bible. Jerusalem.
Kalai, Z. 1968. Neballat. EncMiq 5: 748. (Hebrew).
Kallai, Z. 1972. The Land of Benjamin and Mt. Ephraim. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judaea, Samaria and the
Golan: Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 153–195 (Hebrew).
Kallai, Z. 1983. Yehud and the Areas of Jewish Settlement under Persian Rule. In: Tadmor, H. ed.
The History of the People of Israel, First Series: From the Beginning until the Bar-Kochva Revolt,
Return to Zion – Days of Persian Rule. Jerusalem: 16–87. (Hebrew).
Kallai, Z. 1985. From Geba to Beersheba. In: Luriah, B. Z. ed. Studies on the Books of Kings, Vol. I.
Jerusalem: 321–330 (Hebrew).
Kallai, Z. 1986. The Settlement Traditions of Ephraim. ZDPV 102: 68–74.
Kallai, Z. and Mazar, A. 1974. Khirbet Abu et-Tuwein. HA 51–52: 26–27. (Hebrew).
Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bit-Ninurta = Beth-Horon: On the History of the Kingdom of
Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. EI 9: 138–147 (Hebrew).
Kaplan, J. 1992. Jaffa. NEAEHL 2: 582–592.
Karrer, C. 2001. Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologisch-politischen
Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (BZAW 308). Berlin and New York.
Kasher, A. 1975. Some Suggestions and Comments Concerning Alexander Macedon’s Campaign in
Palestine. Beit-Mikra 20, 2 (61): 187–208. (Hebrew).
Kasher, A. 1988. Canaan, Philistia, Greece and Israel: Jews and Hellenistic Cities during the Second
Temple Period. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
 Bibliography 689

Kasher, A. 1993. Some Suggestions Concerning Alexander Macedon’s Campaign in Palestine (An
update to the 1975 article). In: Rappaport, U. and Ronen, I. eds. The Hasmonean Kingdom
throughout its History during the Hellenistic Period. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: 31–35. (Hebrew).
Kasher, A. 1996. Flavius Josephus, Against Apion (Translation, Introduction and Notes). Jerusalem.
Katz, H. 2008. “A Land of Grain and Wine… A Land of Olive Oil and Honey”: The Economy of the
Kingdom of Judah. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Katz, H. and Faust. A. 2012. The Assyrian Destruction Layer at Tel ʿEton. IEJ 62: 22–53.
Katz, H. and Faust. A. 2014. Tel ʿEton/Tell ʿEtun and Its Interregional Contacts from the Late Bronze
Age to the Persian-Hellenistic Period: Between Highlands and Lowlands. ZDPV 130: 43–76.
Katzenstein, H. J. 1973. A History of Tyre: From the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the
Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Jerusalem.
Katzenstein, H. J. 1979. Tyre in the Early Persian Period (539–486 B.C.E.). BA 42: 23–3-4.
Katzenstein, H. J. 1994. Gaza in the Neo-Babylonian Period (626–539 B.C.E.). TRANS 7: 35–49.
Kearney, P. J. 1973. The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomistic History. CBQ 35: 1–19.
Keel, O. and C. Uehlinger. 1998. Gods, Goddesses and Images of Gods in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis.
Kellermann, U. 1966. Die Listen in Nehemia 11 eine Dokumentation aus den letzten Jahren des
Reiches Juda? ZDPV 82: 209–227.
Kellermann, U. 1967. Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferungen und Geschichte (BZAW 102). Berlin.
Kelly, T. 1987. Herodotus and the /chronology of the Kings of Sidon. BASOR 268: 39–56.
Kelso, J. L. 1955. The Second Campaign at Bethel. BASOR 137: 5–10.
Kelso, J. L. 1958. The Third Campaign at Bethel. BASOR 151: 3–8.
Kelso, J. L. 1961. The Fourth Campaign at Bethel. BASOR 164: 5–19.
Kelso, J. L. 1968. The Excavation of Bethel (1934–1960) (AASOR 39). Cambridge, MA.
Kelso, J. L. 1992. Bethel. NEAEHL 1: 162–165 (Hebrew).
Kempinski, A., Zimhoni, O., Gilboa, A. and Rösel, N. 1981. Excavations at Tel Masos: 1972, 1974,
1975. EI 15: 154–180. (Hebrew).
Kenyon, K. M. 1942. The Summit Buildings and Constructions. In: Crowfoot, G. M., Kenyon, K. M.
and Sukenik, E. L. eds. The Buildings at Samaria. London: 91–120.
Kenyon, K. M. 1957. Pottery: Early Bronze and Israelite. in: Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M. and
Kenyon, K. M. eds. The Objects from Samaria – Samaria-Sebaste Reports of the Work of the Joint
Expedition in 1931–1933 and the British Expedition in 1935, No. 3. London: 91–209.
Kenyon, K. M. 1960. Archaeology in the Holy Land. (Citations from the 4th ed., 1979). London.
Kenyon, K. M. 1963. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1962. PEQ 95: 7–21.
Kenyon, K. M. 1964a. Digging Up Jericho. London.
Kenyon, K. M. 1964b. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1963. PEQ 96: 7–18.
Kenyon, K. M. 1966. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1965. PEQ 98: 73–88.
Kenyon, K. M. 1967a. Digging Up Jerusalem. London.
Kenyon, K. M. 1967b. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1966. PEQ 99: 65–71.
Kenyon, K. M. 1967c. Jerusalem, Excavating 3000 Years of History. London.
Kenyon, K. M. 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land. London.
Kenyon, K. M. 1993. Jericho: Tell es-Sultan. NEAEHL 2: 674–681.
Keown, G. L., Scalise, P. J. and Smothers, T. G. 1995. Jeremiah 26–52 (World Biblical Commentary 27).
Dallas.
Kessler, J. 2002. Building the Second Temple: Questions of Time, Text, and History in Haggai 1.1–15.
JSOT 27/2: 243–256.
Kidner, D. 1979. Ezra and Nehemiah (The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries). Leicester.
Kienitz, F. K. 1953. Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. Bis zum 4. Jarhundert von der
Zeitwende. Berlin.
690 Bibliography

Kim, Y. S. 2014. The Temple Administration and the Levites in Chronicles (Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Monograph Series 51). Washington.
Kinet, D. 2001. Geschichte Israels (Die Neue Echter Bibel Ergänzungsband zum Alten Testament 2).
Würzburg.
Kittel, R. 1929a. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Vol. 1: Quellenkunde und Geschichte der Zeit bis zum Tode
Josuas. Stuttgart.
Kittel, R. 1929b. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Vol. 3: Die Zeit der Wegführung und die Aufrichtung der
neuen Gemeinde. Stuttgart.
Klein, S. 1939. The Land of Judah from the Days of the Return from Babylon to the Sealing of the
Talmud. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Kletter, R. 1991. The Rujm El-Malfuf Buildings and the Assyrian Vassal State of Ammon. BASOR 284:
33–50.
Kletter, R. 1998. Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah (JSOT.S 276).
Sheffield.
Kletter, R. 2002. Temptation to Identify: Jerusalem, mmšt, and the lmlk Jar Stamps. ZDPV 118/2: 136–
149.
Kloner, A. 1983. The Synagogue of Horvat Rimmon. Qadmoniot 16/2–3: 65–71. (Hebrew).
Kloner, A. 1991. Maresha. Qadmoniot 95–96: 70–85. (Hebrew).
Kloner, A. 1992. Rimmon, Horvat. ABD 5: 774.
Kloner, A. 2000. Survey of Jerusalem: The Southern Sector. Jerusalem (Hebrew and English).
Kloner, A. 2003. Survey of Jerusalem: The Northwestern Sector, Introduction and Indices. Jerusalem.
Kloner, A. 2015. Idumea in the Persian and early Hellenistic Periods: The Territory and the
Commerce Pathways. EI 31: 359–373. (Hebrew).
Kloner, A. and Eshel, E. 1999. A Seventh-Century BCE List of Names from Maresha. EI 26: 147–150
(Hebrew).
Kloner, A. and Stern, I. 2007. Idumea in the Late Persian Period (Forth Century B.C.E.). In: Lipschits,
O., Knoppers, G. N. and Albertz, R. eds. Judah and The Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E.
Winona Lake: 139–144.
Knauf, E. A. 1985. Ismael. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im
1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (ADPV), Wiesbaden.
Knauf, E. A. 1992. The Cultural Impact of Secondary State Formation: The Cases of the Edomites
and Moabites. In: Bienkowski, P. ed. Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in
Southern Jordan (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7). Sheffield: 47–54.
Knauf, E. A. 1994. Die Umwelt des Alten Testaments (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar AT 29). Stuttgart.
Knauf, E. A. 2000. Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Proposal. TA 27: 75–90.
Knauf, E. A. 2006. Bethel: The Israelite Impact on Judean Language and Literature. In: Lipschits, O.
and Oeming, M. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake: 291–349.
Knauf, E. A. 2007. The Glorious Days of Manasseh. In: Grabbe, L. L. ed. Good Kings and Bad Kings:
The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
Studies 393). London: 164–188.
Knauf, E. A. 2016. Ishmael (Son of Abraham and Hagar). I. Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. EBR 13:
352–355.
Knohl, I. 1987. The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals. HUCA 58:
65–118.
Knohl, I. 1995. The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis.
Knoppers, G. N. 1994. Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual
Monarchies, Vol. 2: The Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah (HSM 53).
Atlanta.
 Bibliography 691

Knoppers, G. N. 2000a. Prayer and Propoganda – Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple and the
Deuteronomist’s Program. In: Knoppers, G. N. and McConville, J. G. eds. Reconsidering Israel
and Judah – Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Winona Lake: 370–396.
Knoppers, G. N. 2000b. Sources, Revisions and Editions: The Lists of Jerusalem’s Residents in MT
and LXX Nehemiah 11 and 1 Chronicles 9. Textus 20: 141–168.
Knoppers, G. N. 2006. Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period. In: Lipschits, O. and
Oeming, M. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona-Lake: 265–289.
Knoppers, G. N. 2007. Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within? In: Lipschits, O.,
Knoppers, G. N. and Albertz, R. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE. Winona
Lake, IN: 305–332.
Knowles, M. D. 2006. Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud and the Diaspora
in the Persian Period (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 16). Atlanta.
Koch, K. 1969. Die Hebräer vom Auszug aus Ägypten bis zum Grossreich Davids. VT 19: 37–81.
Koch, K. 1992. Ezra and Meremoth: Remarks on the History of the High Priesthood. In: Fishbane,
M. and Tov, E. eds. “Shaʿarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East
Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Winona Lake: 105–110.
Koch, I. 2008. Rosette Stamp Impressions of Jar Handles from Ancient Judah (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv
University). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Koch, I. 2015. Southwestern Canaan during the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age. Empire,
Elites and Colonial Encounters (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv.
Koch, I. and Lipschits, O. 2010. The Final Days of the Kingdom of Judah in Light of the Rosette-
Stamped Jar Handles. Cathedra 137: 7–26. (Hebrew).
Koch, I. and Lipschits, O. 2013. The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah
at the End of the First Temple Period. ZDPV 129: 55–78.
Kochavi, M. 1972. Judea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey, 1967–1968. Jerusalem
(Hebrew).
Kochavi, M. 1973. Khirbet Rabud – Ancient Debir. In: Aharoni, Y. ed. Excavations and Studies – Essays
in Honour of Professor Shmuel Yeivin. Tel Aviv: 49–76. (Hebrew).
Kochavi, M. 1974. Khirbet Rabûd = Debir. TA 1: 2–33.
Kochavi, M. and Beit-Arieh, I. 1994. Archaeological Survey of Israel: Map of Rosh Ha-ʿAyin (78).
Jerusalem.
Kochman, M. 1980. The Status and Extent of Judah in the Persian Period (Ph.D. dissertation,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Kochman, M. 1982. ‘Yehud Medinta’ in the Light of the Seal-Impressions YHWD-PHW. Cathedra 24:
3–30. (Hebrew).
Köckert, M. 2006. Die Geschichte der Abrahamüberlieferung. In: Lemaire, A. ed. Congress Volume
Leiden 2004 (VT.S 109). Leiden and Boston: 103–128.
Köckert, M. 2014. Wie wurden Abraham- und Jakobüberlieferung zu einer ‘Vätergeschichte’
Verbunden? HeBAI 3: 43–66.
Köckert, M. 2015. Gen 20–22 als nachpriesterliche Erweiterung der Vätergeschichteю. In: Giuontoli,
F. and Schmid, K. eds. The Post-Priestly Pentateuch. New Perspectives on its Redactional
Development and Theological Profiles (FAT 101). Tübingen: 157–176.
Koenen, K. 2003. Bethel: Geschichte, Kult und Theologie (OBO 192). Freiburg and Göttingen.
Kogan-Zehavi, E. 2014. The Rural Settlement in the Judaean Foothills in the Persian and Early
Hellenistic Periods in Light of the Excavations in Ramat Bet Shemesh. In: Stiebel, G. D., Peleg-
Barkat, O., Ben-Ami, D. and Gadot, Y. eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its
Region (Collected Papers), Vol. 8. Jerusalem: 120–133.
692 Bibliography

Köhlmoos, M. 2006. Bet-El: Erinnerungen an eine Stadt. Perspektiven der alttestamentlichen Bet-El-
Überlieferung (FAT 49). Tübingen.
Kon, M. 1947. The Stone Capitals from Ramat Raḥel. Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration
Society 13/3–4: 83–86. (Hebrew).
Kooij, G. van der, and Ibrahim, M. M. 1989. Picking Up the Threads … A Continuing Review of
Excavations at Deir ʿAlla, Jordan. Leiden.
Kooij, G. van der. 2001. The Vicissitudes of Life at Deir ʿAlla during the First Millennium bc, Seen in
a Wider Context. SHAJ 7: 295–303.
Koole, J. L. 1997. Isaiah III, Vol. 1: Isaiah 40–48 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament).
Kampen.
Körting, C. 2006. Zion in den Psalmen (FAT 48). Tübingen.
Körting, C. 2017. Zion zwischen Psalmen und Jesaja. In: Hossfeld, F. L., Bremmer, J. and Steiner,
T. M. eds. Trägerkreise in den Psalmen (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 178). Bonn: 161–179.
Kosmin, J. 2014. The Land of the Elephant Kings. Space, Territory and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire.
Cambridge, M.A.
Kratz, R. G. 1991. Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung
und Theologie von Jes 40–55 (FAT 1). Tübingen.
Kratz, R. G. 2000. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der
Bibelkritik. Göttingen.
Kratz, R. G. 2005. The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. London and New
York.
Kratz, R. G. 2021. The Joseph Story: Diaspora Novella – Patriarchal Story – Exodus Narrative Part II:
Historical Reflections. In: Römer, T., Schmid, K. and Bühler, A. eds. The Joseph Story between
Egypt and Israel. Tübingen: 23–34.
Kreissig, H. 1973. Die Sozialökonomische situation in Juda zur Achämenidenzeit. Berlin.
Kuhrt, A. 1983. The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy. JSOT 25: 83–97.
Kuhrt, A. 1995. The Ancient Near East, c. 3000–330 BCE. London.
Kuhrt, A. 2001. The Achaemenid Persian Empire (c. 550–c. 330 BCE): Continuities, Adaptations,
Transformations. In: S. A. Alcock et al. (eds.), Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History.
Cambridge: 93–123.
Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. 1987. Xerxes’ Destruction of Babylonian Temples. In: Sancisi-
Weerdenburg, H. and Kuhrt, A. eds. The Greek Sources II. Leiden: 69–78.
Kuschke, A. 1965. Historisch-topographische Josua. In: Reventlow, H. G. ed. Gottes Wort und Gottes
Land: Festchrift Hertzberg zum 70. Geburstag. Göttingen: 90–109.
Laato, A. 1992. The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exilic Messianic Programme
(CBOTS 35). Stockholm.
Labat, R. 1967. Assyrien und seine Nachbarländer (Babylonien, Elam, Iran) von 1000 bis 617 v. Chr./
Das neubabylonische Reich bis 539 v. Chr. In: Cassin, E., Botteró, J. and Vercoutter, J. eds.
Fischer Weltgeschichte 4: Die Altorientalischen Reiche III. Die erste Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausend.
Frankfurt a/M.: 9–111.
LaBianca, Ø. S. and Younker, R. W. 1995. The kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom: The
archaeology of society in late Bronze/Iron age Transjordan (ca. 1400−500 B.C.E.). In: Levy, T. E.
ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London: 399–411.
LaBianca, Ø. S., Herr, L. G., Younker, R. W., Geraty, L. T., Clark, D. R., Christopherson, G., Cole, J. A.,
Daviau, P. M. M., Fisher, J. R., Lawlor, J. I., Harrison, T. P., Hubbard, L. E., London, G. A., Low, R.
and Schnurrenberger, D. 1995. Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report on the 1989
Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Hinterland. In: Dever W. G. ed. Preliminary Excavation Reports:
 Bibliography 693

Sardis, Bir Umm Fawakhir, Tell el-ʿUmeiri, The Combined Caesarea Expeditions, and Tell Dothan
(AASOR 52). Atlanta: 93–119.
Lahav, M. 1968. The Royal Estates in Israel. In: Gvaryahu, H. et al. (eds.). Zer Kavod Book. Jerusalem:
207–245. (Hebrew).
Laird, D. 2016. Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah. Atlanta.
Lamon, R. S. and Shipton, G. M. 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34 Strata I–V. Chicago.
Lamprichs, R. 1995. Die Westexpansion des neuassyrisches Reiches: Eine Strukturanalyse (AOAT 239).
Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Landes, G. M. 1961. The Material Civilization of the Ammonites. BA 24: 66–86.
Lanfranchi, G. B. 2003. The Assyrian Expansion in the Zagros and the Local Ruling Elites. In:
Lanfranchi, G. B., Roaf, M. and R. Rollinger, R. eds. Continuity of Empire(?): Assyria, Media,
Persia. Padua: 79–118.
Lanfranchi, G. B. and Parpola, S. 1990. The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II – Letters from the
Northern and Northeastern Provinces (SAA 5). Helsinki.
Lang, B. 2008. Joseph the Diviner: Careers of a Biblical Hero. In: Lang, B. ed. Hebrew Life and
Culture: Selected Essays of Bernhard Lang. Oxford: 93–109.
Langdon, R. W. 1980. The ʿebed Yahweh and Jeremiah (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary). Louisville.
Langgut, D., Finkelstein, I. and Litt, T. 2013. Climate and the Late Bronze Collapse. New Evidence
from the Southern Levant. TA 40: 149–175.
Langgut, D., Finkelstein, I., Litt, T., Harald Neumann, F. and Stein, M. 2015. Vegetation and Climate
Changes during the Bronze and Iron Ages (~ 3600–600 BCE) in the Southern Levant Based on
Palynological Records. Radiocarbon 57: 217–235.
Langgut D., Gadot Y., Porat N. and Lipschits O. 2013. Trapped Pollen Reveals the Secrets of Royal
Persian Garden at Ramat Raḥel (Jerusalem). Palynology 37/1: 115–129. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/0191612 2.2012.736418
Langgut, D. and Lipschits, O. 2017. Dry Climate during the Early Persian Period and Its Impact on
the Establishment of Idumea. Transeuphratѐne 49: 135–162
Langlamet, F. 1976. Pour ou contre Salomon? La rćdaction prosalomonienne de 1 Rois, I–II. RB 83:
321–379, 481–529.
Langlamet, F. 1979. David et la maison de Saül: Les épisodes ‘benjaminites’ des II Sam. IX; XVI, 1–
14; XIX, 17–31; I Rois, II, 36–46. RB 86: 194–213, 385–436, 481–513.
Langlamet, F. 1980. David et la maison de Saül: Les épisodes ‘benjaminites’ des II Sam. IX; XVI, 1–
14; XIX, 17–31; I Rois, II, 36–46. RB 87: 161–210.
Langlamet, F. 1981. David et la maison de Saül: Les épisodes ‘benjaminites’ des II Sam. IX; XVI, 1–
14; XIX, 17–31; I Rois, II, 36–46. RB 88: 321–332.
Langlamet, F. 1983. David et Barzillaï. 2 Samuel 19:32–41a: le récit primitif et sa ‘forme’. In: Rofé, A.
and Zakovitch, Y. eds. Isac Leo Seeligman Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World
(Vol. 3). Jerusalem: 149–169.
Laperrousaz, E. M. 1981. Jérusalem à l’époque perse (étendu et statut). Transeuphratѐne 1: 55–65.
Lapp, N. L. 1976. Casemate Walls in Palestine and the Late Iron II Casemate at Tell el-Ful. (Gibeah).
BASOR 223: 25–42.
Lapp, N. L. 1981. ed. The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful: The Excavations of 1964 (AASOR 45).
Cambridge.
Lapp, N. L. 2008. Shechem IV: The Persian-Hellenistic Pottery of Shechem/Tell Balafah (AASOR 11).
Boston.
Lapp, P. W. 1960. The Royal Seals from Judah. BASOR 158: 11–22.
Lapp, P. W. 1965. Tell el-Full. BA 28: 2–10.
694 Bibliography

Lapp, P. W. 1968a. Bethel Pottery of the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. In: Kelso, J. L.,
ed. The Excavation of Bethel (1934–1960) (AASOR 39). Cambridge: 77–80.
Lapp, P. W. 1968b. Review of Gibeon. AJA 72: 391–393.
Lapp, P. W. 1970. The Pottery of Palestine in the Persian Period. In: Kutsch, E. and Kuschke, D. A.
eds. Archäologie und Altes Testament. Festschrift für Kurt Galling. Tübingen: 179–197.
Lawlor, J. I. 1989. Field A: The Ammonite Citadel. In: Geraty, L. T., Herr, L. G., Labianca, O. and
Younker, R. W. eds. Madaba Plains Project 1: The 1984 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and
Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 233–243
Lawlor, J. I. 1991. Field A: The Ammonite Citadel. In: Geraty, L. T., Herr, L. G., Labianca, O. and
Younker, R. W. eds. Madaba Plains Project 2: The 1987 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and
Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 15–52.
Lawlor, J. I. 1997. The Amonite Citadel. In: Geraty, L. T., Herr, L. G., Labianca, O. and Younker, R. W.
eds. Madaba Plains Project 3: The 1989 Season at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent
Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 21–52.
Lawlor, J. I. 2000. Field A: The Administrative Complex. In: Herr, L. G., Clark, D. R., Geraty, L. T.,
Younker, R. W. and LaBianca Ø. S. eds. Madaba Plains Project 4: The 1992 Season at Tall al-
ʿUmayri and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 21–58.
Lee, K. J. 2010. The Authority and Authorization of the Torah in the Persian Period (CBET 64). Leuven.
Lehmann, G. 2000. East Greek or Levantine? Band-Decorated Pottery in the Levant during the
Achaemenid Period. TRANS 19: 83–113.
Lehmann, G. 2002. Area E. In: Kempinski, A. ed. Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons (Sonia
and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 20). Tel Aviv: 73–90.
Lehmann, G. 2004. Reconstructing the Social Landscape of Early Israel: Rural Marriage Alliances in
the Central Hill Country. TA 31: 141–193.
Lehmann, G. and Niemann, H. M. 2006. Klanstruktur und charismatische Herrschaft: Juda und
Jerusalem 1200–900 v. Chr. Theologische Quartalschrift 186(2): 134–159.
Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions Hébraïques. Vol. 1: Les ostraca. Paris.
Lemaire, A. 1981. Classification des estampilles royale Judéennes. EI 15: 54*–60*.
Lemaire, A. 1990. Populations et territoires de la Palestine à l’époque perse. TRANS 3: 31–74.
Lemaire, A. 1991. Le royaume de Tyre dans le second moitie du IV av. J. C. Atti del II Congresso
Internationale di Studi Fenici e Punici: Roma, 9–14 novembre 1987, Vol. 1 (Collezione di studi
fenici 30). Rome: 132–149.
Lemaire, A. 1994. Review of K. G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine
and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah. TRANS 8: 167–169.
Lemaire, A. 1996a. Nouvelles inscriptions araméennes d’Idumée au musée d’Israël (Transeuphratène
Supplements 3). Paris.
Lemaire, A. 1996b. Zorobabel et la Judée à la lumière de l’épigraphie (fin du VIe s. av. J.-C.). RB 103:
48–57.
Lemaire, A. 2000. L’économie de l’Idumée d’apres les nouveaux ostraca araméens. TRANS 19: 131–
143.
Lemaire, A. 2003. Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period. In: Lipschits, O.
and Blenkinsopp, J. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona-Lake:
285–298.
Lemaire, A. 2009. Tribute or Looting in Samaria and Jerusalem: Shoshenq in Jerusalem? In: Galil,
G., Geller, M. and Millard, A. eds. Homeland and Exile. Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
in Honour of Bustenay Oded (VT.S 130). Leiden: 167–177.
Lemaire, A. and Lozachmeur, H. 1987. Bîrāh/Birtāh en araméen. Syria 64: 261–266.
Lemaire, A. and Lozachmeur, H. 1995. La birta en Méditerranée orientale. Semitica 43/44: 75–78.
 Bibliography 695

Lemche, N. P. 1975. The “Hebrew Slave”. Comments on the Slave Law Ex. XXI 2–11. VT 25: 129–144.
Lemche, N. P. 1992. Ḫabiru, Ḫapiru. ABD 3: 6–10.
Lemche, N. P. 1994. Kings and Clients: On Loyalty between the Ruler and the Ruled in Ancient
“Israel.” Semeia 66: 119–132.
Lemche, N. P. 1996. From Patronage Society to Patronage Society. In: Fritz, V. and Davies, P. eds.
The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Supplements 228). Sheffield: 106–120.
Lemche, N. P. 2014. Biblical Studies and the Failure of History. Changing Perspectives 3. London.
Lemke, W. E. 1966. Nebuchadnezzar, My Servant. CBQ 28: 45–50.
Lemos, T. M. 2016. Kinship, Community, and Society. In: Niditch, S. ed. The Wiley Blackwell
Companion to Ancient Israel. Chichester: 379–395.
Lenzen, C. J. and McQuitty, A. M. 1987. The Site of Khirbet Salameh. ADAJ 31: 201–204.
Lenzen, C. J. and McQuitty, A. M. 1989. Salameh (Khirbet). In: Homès-Fredericq, D. and Hennessy,
J. B. eds. Archaeology of Jordan, Vol. II-2: Field Reports: Sites L–Z (Akkadica Supplementum 8).
Leuven: 543–546.
Leonard-Fleckman, M. 2015. Judah Bookends − The Priority of Israel and Literary Revision in the
David Narrative. VT 65: 401–413.
Leonard-Fleckman, M. 2016. The House of David Between Political Formation and Literary Revision.
Minneapolis.
Leuze, E. 1935. Die Satrapieneinleitung in Syrien und im Zweistromlande von 520–320 (Schriften der
Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 11/4). Halle.
Levin, C. 1984. Joschija im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. ZAW 96: 351–371.
Levin, C. 2004. Jahwe und Abraham im Dialog: Genesis 15. In: Witte, M. ed. Gott und Mensch im
Dialog. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (BZAW 345). Berlin and New York: 237–
257.
Levin, I. 1995. The Background to the Religious Decrees and the Hasmonean Revolt. In: Amit, D.
and Eshel, H. eds. The Days of the Maccabees. Jerusalem: 16–19. (Hebrew).
Levin, Y. 2004. Joseph, Judah and the ‘Benjamin Conundrum’. ZAW 116: 223–241.
Levine, B. A. 2003. The Clan-Based Economy of Biblical Israel. In: Dever, W. G. and Gitin, S. eds.
Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from
the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina (Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium,
W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research,
May 29–31, 2000). Winona Lake: 445–453
Levine, L. I. 2002. Jerusalem, Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 BCE–70 CE).
Philadelphia.
Lindsay, J. 1976. The Babylonian Kings and Edom 605–550. PEQ 108: 23–39.
Lipiński, E. 1972. The Egypto-Babylonian War of the Winter 601–600 B.C. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale
di Napoli 32: 235–241.
Lipiński, E. 1976. L’“Esclave Hébreu”. VT 26: 120–124.
Lipschits, O. 1992. The Date of the ‘Assyrian Residence’ at Ayyelet Ha-Shahar. TA 17: 96–99.
Lipschits, O. 1997a. The Origins of the Jewish Population of Modiʿin and its Vicinity. Cathedra 85: 7–
32. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 1997b. The “Yehud” Province under Babylonian Rule (586–539 B.C.E): Historic Reality
and Historiographic Conceptions (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 1998a. ed. Can We Define the Material Culture of the Sixth Century in Judah? Abstracts
from the Conference Held in Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 1998b. Jerusalem and the Temple between the Destruction of the Second Temple and
the Days of the Return to Zion. In: Baruch, E. ed. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceeding of the
Fourth Conference. Ramat Gan: 27–39. (Hebrew).
696 Bibliography

Lipschits, O. 1999a. The Formation of the Babylonian Yehud Province. Proceedings of the Twelfth
World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Bible and Its World. Jerusalem: 115–123.
(Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 1999b. The History of the Benjaminite Region under Babylonian Rule. TA 26: 155–190.
Lipschits, O. 1999c. Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah.
UF 30: 467–487.
Lipschits, O. 2000. Was There a Royal Estate in Ein-Gedi by the End of the Iron Age and During the
Persian Period? In: Schwartz, J., Amar, Z. and Ziffer, I. eds. Jerusalem and Eretz Israel (Arie
Kindler Volume). Tel Aviv: 31–42. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 2001a. Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple (586–539 BCE). Transeuphraténe 22: 129–142.
Lipschits, O. 2001b. The Policy of the Persian Empire and the Meager Architectural Finds in the
Province of Yehud. In: Faust, A. and Baruch, E. eds. New Studies in Jerusalem, Proceedings of the
Seventh Conference. Ramat-Gan: 45–76. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 2002a. “Jehoiakim Slept with his Father…” (II Kings 24: 6) – Did He? JHS 4: 1–27.
Lipschits, O. 2002b. Literary and Ideological Aspects of Nehemiah 11. JBL 121: 423–440.
Lipschits, O. 2003. Demographic Changes in Judah between the 7th and the 5th Centuries BCE. In:
Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period.
Winona-Lake: 323–376.
Lipschits, O. 2004a. Ammon in Transition from Vassal kingdom to Babylonian Province. BASOR 335:
37–52.
Lipschits, O. 2004b. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: The History of Judah under Babylonian Rule.
Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 2004c. From Geba to Beersheba: A Further Discussion. RB 111/3: 345–361.
Lipschits, O. 2004d. The Rural Settlement in Judah in the Sixth Century B.C.E.: A Rejoinder. PEQ 136/
2: 99–107
Lipschits, O. 2005. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: The History of Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona
Lake.
Lipschits, O. 2006a. Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes in Palestine, and the Status
of Jerusalem in the Middle of the Fifth Century BCE. In: Lipschits, O. and Oeming, M. eds.
Judah and the Judeans in the Persian (Achaemenid) Period (Proceedings of the Conference held
in Heidelberg University, July 2003). Winona Lake: 19–52.
Lipschits, O. 2006b. On Cash-Boxes and Finding or Not Finding Books: Jehoash’s and Josiah’s
Decision to Repair the Temple. In: Amit, Y., Ben-Zvi, E., Finkelstein, I. and Lipschits, O. eds.
Essays on Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʾaman. Winona Lake:
239–254.
Lipschits, O. 2007a. The Babylonian Period in Judah: In Search of the Half Full Cup (A response to
the panel discussion: In Conversation with Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem).
JHS 7: 39–47.
Lipschits, O. 2007b. Who Financed and Who Arranged the Building of Jerusalem’s Walls? The
Sources of the List of The Builders of the Walls (Nehemiah 3:1–32) and the Purposes of its
Literary Placement within Nehemiah’s Memoirs. In: Bar-Asher, M., Rom-Shiloni, D., Tov, E. and
Wazana, N. eds. Shai le-Sara Japhet, Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its Language.
Jerusalem: 73–90. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 2009a. The 2006 and 2007 Excavation Seasons in Ramat Raḥel: Preliminary Report.
IEJ 59/1: 1–20.
Lipschits, O. 2009b. Persian Period Finds from Jerusalem: Facts and Interpretations. JHS 9: 2–30.
Lipschits, O. 2009c. The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon.
Cathedra 131: 5–24. (Hebrew).
 Bibliography 697

Lipschits, O. 2010. First Thought Following the Corpus of the Lion Stamp Impressions. In: Lipschits,
O. and Koch, I. eds. New Studies in the Research of the Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah. Tel
Aviv University. Tel Aviv: 17–19.
Lipschits, O. 2011a. Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of Jerusalem
in the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods. In: Lipschits, O. and Grabbe, L. L.
eds. Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE).
London: 163–175.
Lipschits, O. 2011b. Persian Period Judah – A New Perspective. in: Jonker, L. ed. Texts, Contexts and
Readings in Postexilic Literature – Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in
Hebrew Bible and Related Texts (FAT 2/53). Tübingen: 187–212.
Lipschits, O. 2011c. Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the “Exilic Period”: New Studies,
Further Elucidation, and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an “Empty
Land”. In: Kelle, B., Ames, F. R. and Wright, J. L. eds. Interpreting Exile: Interdisciplinary Studies
of Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts (SBL’s Ancient Israel and Its
Literature series). Atlanta: 57–90.
Lipschits, O. 2011d. The Time and Origin of the Volute-Capitals from Judah, Moab and Ammon. In:
Finkelstein, I. and Naʾaman, N. eds. The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies on the Late Bronze and
Iron Ages: Text and Artifacts Relating to Ancient Israel, Offered in Honor of David Ussishkin.
Winona Lake: 203–225.
Lipschits, O. 2012a. Archaeological Facts, Historical Speculations and the Date of the lmlk Storage
Jars: A Rejoinder to David Ussishkin. JHS 12: 1–15.
Lipschits, O. 2012b. Between Archaeology and Text: A Reevaluation of the Development Process of
Jerusalem in the Persian Period. In: Nissinen, M. ed. Congress Volume, Helsinki 2010 (VT.S 148).
Leiden: 145–165.
Lipschits, O. 2012c. Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition and Purpose. in: Kalimi, I. ed. A New
Perspective on Ezra-Nehemiah Story and History, Literature and Interpretation. Winona Lake: 73–
99.
Lipschits, O. 2015. The Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the Settlement
History of the District System. In: Miller, M. L., Ben Zvi, E. and Knoppers, G. N. eds. The
Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context. Winona Lake: 237–264.
Lipschits, O. 2017. Bethel Revisited. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Adams, M. J. eds. Rethinking
Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein.
Winona Lake, IN: 233–246.
Lipschits, O. 2018a. Abraham zwischen Mamre und Jerusalem. In: Brett, M. G. and Wöhrle, J. eds.
The Politics of the Ancestors. Exegetical and Historical Perspectives on Genesis 12–36 (FAT 124).
Tübingen: 187–209.
Lipschits, O. 2018b. The Age of Empires: History and Administration in Judah in Light of the Stamped Jar
Handles (between the 8th and the 2nd Centuries BCE). Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. 2018c. The Changing Faces of Kingship in Judah under Assyrian Rule. In: Gianto, A.
and Dubovský, P. Changing Faces of Kingship in Syria-Palestine 1500–500 BCE (AOAT 459).
Münster: 116–138.
Lipschits, O. 2018d. Was ist falsch an einer Ehe mit der Tochter von Barsillai, dem Gileaditer? Eine
Studie zur Polemik gegen die Familie von Hakkoz in Esra und Nehemia. in: Oeming, M. ed.
Ahavah – Die Liebe Gottes im Alten Testament. Leipzig: 195–212.
Lipschits, O. 2019. The lmlk and ‘Private’ Stamp Impressions from Tel Beth-Shemesh: An Added
Dimension to the Late 8th and Early 7th Century BCE History of the Site. TA 46: 102–107.
Lipschits, O. 2021a. Age of Empires: The History and Administration of Judah in the 8th–2nd
Centuries BCE in Light of the Storage-Jar Stamp Impressions (Mosaics: Studies on Ancient
Israel 2). Tel Aviv and University Park, PA.
698 Bibliography

Lipschits, O. 2021b. What is Wrong in Marrying the Daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite? The Polemic
against the Family of Hakkoz in the Book of Ezra and Nehemiah. In: Gropp, D., Grunert, V.
and Kloß, C. (eds.). Erotik und Ethik in der Bible. Festschrift für Manfred Oeming zum 65.
Geburtstag. Leipzig: 183–199.
Lipschits, O. and Amit, D. 2011. Eighteen Stamped Jar Handles Not Published So Far. In: Baruch, E.
and Faust, A. eds. New Studies in Jerusalem (Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference). Ramat
Gan: 179–198 (Hebrew, with English Summary on pp. 54*–55*).
Lipschits, O. and Gadot, Y. 2008. Ramat Raḥel and the Emeq Rephaim sites: Links and
Interpretations. In: Amit, D. and Stiebel, G. D. eds. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem
and its Religion, Collected Papers, Vol. 2. Jerusalem: 88–96. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. 2009. Ramat Raḥel and its Secrets. Qadmoniot
138: 58–77. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. 2011. Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion:
Unraveling the Riddles of Ramat Raḥel. NEA 74: 2–49.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. 2014. What the Stones Are Whispering? 3000 Years
of Forgotten History at Ramat Raḥel. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y., Arubas, B. and Oeming, M. 2017. What the Stones Are Whispering? 3000 Years
of Forgotten History at Ramat Raḥel. Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Freud, L. 2016. Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Aharoni’s Excavations
(1954, 1959–1962) (Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 35).
Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Langgut, D. 2012. The Riddle of Ramat Rabel: The Archaeology of a
Royal Persian Period Edifice. Transeuphraténe 41: 57–79.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and M. Oeming, M. 2012. Tel Azekah 113 Years After. Preliminary Evaluation
of the Renewed Excavations at the Site. NEA 75: 196–206.
Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2017. Tel Azekah after Four Seasons of Excavations:
Expected and (especially) Unexpected Results. In: Lipschits, O. and Maeir, A. M. eds. The
Shephelah during the Iron Age: Recent Archaeological Studies (…as plentiful as sycamore-fig trees
in the Shephelah” (I Kings 10: 27, 2 Chronicles 1: 15). Winona Lake: 1–25.
Lipschits, O. and Koch, I. 2011. Lion Stamp Impressions from Ramat Raḥel and the Babylonian
Period in Judah. NEA 74: 76–80.
Lipschits, O. and Naʾaman, N. 2011. From ‘Baal Perazim’ to ‘Beth-Haccherem’ – On the Ancient
Name of Ramat-Raḥel. Beth-Miqra 56/1: 65–86. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O., Oeming, M., Gadot, Y. and Arubas. B. 2006a. The 2005 Excavation Season in Ramat
Raḥel. HA 118.
Lipschits, O., Oeming, M., Gadot, Y. and Arubas, B. 2006b. Ramat Raḥel 2005. IEJ 56: 227–235.
Lipschits, O., Oeming, M., Gadot, Y. and Arubas, B. 2009. The 2006 and 2007 Excavation Seasons in
Ramat Rahel. IEJ 59: 1–20.
Lipschits, O., Römer, T. and Gonzales, H. 2017. The Pre-Priestly Abraham-Narratives from Monarchic
to Persian Times. Semitica 59: 261–296.
Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2010. Royal Judahite Jar Handles: Reconsidering the Chronology
of the lmlk Stamp Impressions. TA 37: 3–32.
Lipschits, O., Sergi, O. and Koch, I. 2011. Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for the
Study of the History of Late Monarchic Judah. TA 38: 5–41.
Lipschits, O., Shalom, N., Shatil, N. and Gadot, Y. 2014. Judah in “the Long Third Century” – an
Archaeological Perspective. In: Stiebel, G. D., Peleg-Barkat, O., Ben-Ami, D. and Gadot, Y. eds.
New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region (Collected Papers), Vol. 8. Jerusalem:
134–152. (Hebrew).
 Bibliography 699

Lipschits, O. and Tal, O. 2007. The Settlement Archaeology of the Province of Judah, In: Lipschits,
O., Knoppers, G. N. and Albertz, R. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE.
Winona Lake: 33–52.
Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D. S. 2007a. Jerusalem in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Light
of the Yehud Stamp Impressions. EI (Tedi Kolek’s volume). Jerusalem: 106–115. (Hebrew).
Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D. S. 2007b. A New Typology of the Yehud Stamp Impressions.
TA 34: 12–37.
Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D. S. 2007c. Yehud Stamp Impressions of the Fourth Century BCE: A
Time of Administrative Consolidation? In: Lipschits, O., Albertz, R. and Knoppers, G. Judah and
the Judeans in the Fourth Centuries B.C.E. Winona Lake: 75–94.
Lipschits, O. and Vanderhooft, D. S. 2011. Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Stamp
Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah. Winona Lake.
Lipschits, O., Vanderhooft, D. S., Gadot, Y. and Oeming, M. 2009. Twenty-Seven New Yehud Stamp
Impressions from the 2008 Excavation Season at Ramat-Raḥel. Maarav 16/1: 7–28.
Liver, J. 1958. The Return from Babylon, Its Time and Scope. EI 5: 114–119. (Hebrew).
Liver, J. 1959. The House of David from the Fall of the Kingdom of Judah to the Fall of the Second
Commonwealth and After. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Liverani, M. 1979. The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire. In: Larsen, M. T. ed. Power and Propaganda:
A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia 7). Copenhagen: 297–318.
Liverani, M. 1988. The Growth of the Assyrian Empire in the Habur/Middle Euphrates Area: A New
Paradigm. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 2: 81–98.
Liverani, M. 2005. Israel’s History and the History of Israel. London.
Livingston, D. P. 1970. Location of Biblical Bethel and Ai Reconsidered. WTJ 30: 20–44.
Livingston, D. P. 1971. Traditional Site of Bethel Questioned. WTJ 34: 39–50.
Livingston, D. P. 1994. Further Considerations on the Location of Bethel at El-Bireh. PEQ 126: 154–
159.
Loewenstamm, S. E. 1954. Beriah. EncMiq 2: 346–347. (Hebrew).
Loewenstamm, S. E. 1958. Hadid. EncMiq 3: 28–29. (Hebrew).
Lohfink, N. 1985. Zur neueren Diskussion über 2 Kön 22–23. In: Loflink, N. ed. Das Deuteronium:
Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Leuven: 24–48.
Lohfink, N. 1987. The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 23:22–23 as a Source for the History
of Israelite Religion. In: Miller, P. D., Hanson, P. D. and McBride, S. D. eds. Ancient Israelite
Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Philadelphia: 459–475.
London, G. A. 1992. Tells: City Center or Home? EI 23: 71*–79*.
Long, B. O. 1991. 2 Kings (FOTL 10). Grand Rapids.
Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–1939. Chicago.
Lowenstam, S. 1954. Barzillai. EncMiq 2: 342–343. (Hebrew).
Lowery, R. H. 1991. The Reforming Kings. Cult and Society in First Temple Judah (JSOT.S 120). Sheffield.
Luckenbill, D. D. 1926–1927. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Vol. 2: Historical records of
Assyria from Sargon to the end. Chicago.
Lund, J. 1990. The Northern Coastline of Syria in the Persian Period: A Survey of the Archaeological
Evidence. TRANS 2: 13–36.
Lundbom, J. R. 1986. Psalm 23: Song of Passage. Interpretation 40: 5–16.
Lundbom, J. R. 2004. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York.
Lust, J. 1994. The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing with Jer 33 as a Test Case.
JNSL 20/1: 31–48.
Lux, R. 2002. Der König als Tempelbauer: Anmerkungen zur sakralen Legitimation von Herrschaft
im Alten Testament. In: Erkens, F. R. ed. Die Sakralität von Herrschaft: Herrschaftslegitimierung
700 Bibliography

im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume (Fünfzehn interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu einem weltweiten und
epochenübergreifenden Phänomen). Berlin: 99–122.
Lux, U. 1972. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgraben unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan in der
Altstadt von Jerusalem in Jahren 1970 und 1971. ZDPV 88: 185–203.
Macalister, R. A. S. and Duncan, J. G. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem (PEFA 4).
London.
Macdonald, J. 1972. The Discovery of Samaritan Religion. Religion 2: 141–153.
Macdonald, J. 1976. The Status and Role of the Naʿar in Israelite Society. JNES 35: 147–170
Machinist, P. 1993. Palestine, Administration of (Assyro-Babylonian). ABD 5: 69–81.
Machinist, B. P. 1994. The First Coins of Judah and Samaria: Numismatics and History in the
Achaemenid and Early Hellenistic Periods. In: Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., Kuhrt, A. and Root,
M. C. eds. Achaemenid History VIII: Continuity and Change. Leiden: 365–379.
MacKay, D. B., Dothan, T. K. and Gitin, S. 1995. Tel Miqne-Ekron, Vol. 5: Report of the 1994 Spring
Excavations, Field IISW: The Olive Oil Industrial Zone of the Late Iron Age II: Text, Data Base, and
Plates. Jerusalem.
Mackenzie, D. 1912–1913. Excavations at Ain Shems (Beth Shemesh) (PEFA 2). London.
Mader, A. E. 1918. Altchristliche Basiliken und Lokaltraditionen in Südjudäa: archäologische und
topographische Untersuchungen (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums VIII/5–6).
Paderborn.
Mader, A. E. 1957. Mambre: die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im heiligen Bezirk Râmet el-Ḫalîl in
Südpalästina: 1926–1928. Freiburg im Breisgau.
Maeir, A. M. and I. Shai. 2016. Reassessing the Character of the Judahite Kingdom: Archaeological
Evidence for Non-Centralized, Kinship-Based Components. In: Ganor, S., Kreimerman, I.,
Streit, K. and Mumcuoglu, M. eds. From Shaʿar Hagolan to Shaaraim: Essays in Honor of Prof.
Yosef Garfinkel. Jerusalem: 323–340.
Magen, Y. 1983. The History of Jericho and its Sites in the Light of the Last Excavations. Kardum
28–30: 57–64. (Hebrew).
Magen, Y. 1991. Elonei Mamre − Herodian Cultic Site. Qadmoniot 24/93–94: 46–55. (Hebrew).
Magen, Y. 1993. Mount Gerizim and the Samaritans. In: Manns, F. and Alliata, E. eds. Early
Christianity in Context (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 38). Jerusalem: 89–148.
Magen, Y. 2000. Mt. Gerizim − A Temple City. Qadmoniot 33/2: 74–118. (Hebrew).
Magen, Y., 2003. Mamre. A Cultic Site from the Reign of Herod, in: Bottini, G. C., Segni, L.,
Churupcala, D. eds. One Land – Many Cultures. Archaeological Studies in Honor of Stanislo
Loffreda OFM. Jerusalem: 245–257.
Magen, Y. 2004. Qalandiya – A Second Temple-Period Viticulture and Wine-Manufacturing
Agricultural Settlement. In: Magen, I. eds. The Land of Benjamin (Judea and Samaria
Publications 3). Jerusalem: 29–144.
Magen, Y. 2007. The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light
of the Archaeological Evidence. In: Lipschits, O., Knoppers, G. N. and Albertz, R. eds. Judah
and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Winona Lake: 157–212.
Magen Y. and Dadon, M. 1999. Nebi Samwil (Shmuel Hanavi – Har Hasimha). Qadmoniot 118: 62–
77. (Hebrew).
Magen, Y. and Dadon, M. 2003. Nebi Samwil (Montjoie). In: Bottini, G. C., di Segni, L. and
Chrupcala, L. D. eds. One land, Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao
Loffreda OFM. Jerusalem: 123–138.
Magen, Y. and Finkelstein, I. eds. 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin.
Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
 Bibliography 701

Magen, Y., Misgav, H. and Tsfania, L. 2004. Mount Gerizim Excavations, Vol. I: The Aramaic, Hebrew
and Samaritan Inscriptions. Jerusalem.
Malamat, A. 1950. The Last Wars of the Kingdom of Judah. JNES 9: 218–228.
Malamat, A. 1956. A New Record of Nebuchadrezzar’s Palestinian Campaigns. IEJ 6: 246–256.
Malamat, A. 1963. Bible “Ḫaṣerim in the Bible and in Mari. Yediʿot 3: 181–184.
Malamat, A. 1968. The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem: An Historical-Chronological
Study. IEJ 18: 137–156.
Malamat, A. 1983. Israel in Biblical Times: Historical Essays. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Malamat, A. 1990. The Kingdom of Judah Between Egypt and Babylon. Studia Theologica 44: 65–77.
Mandolfo, C. 2007. Daughter Zion talks back to the prophets: A dialogic theology of the Book of
Lamentations (SBL Semeia Studies 58). Atlanta.
Marzouk, S. 2021. Forced Migration and Reconciliation in the Joseph Narrative. In: Römer, T.,
Schmid, K. and Bühler, A. eds. The Joseph Story between Egypt and Israel. Tübingen: 85–102.
Master, D. M. 2001. The Seaport of Ashkelon in the Seventh Century BCE: A Petrographic Study. (Ph. D.
dissertation, Harvard University). Cambridge.
Master, D. M. 2009. From the Buqeʿah to Ashkelon. In: Schloen, D. ed. Exploring the Longue Durée:
Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake: 305–317.
Mattingly, G. L. and Pace, J. H. 2007. By Way of the Karak Plateau. In: Levy, T. E., Daviau, M. P. M.,
Younker, R. W. eds. Crossing Jordan – North American Contributions to the Archaeology of
Jordan. London and Oakville: 153–159.
May, H. G. 1935. Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. Chicago.
Mazar, A. 1981. The Excavations at Khirbet Abu et-Twein and the system of Iron Age Fortresses in
Judah. EI 15: 222–249. (Hebrew).
Mazar, A. 1985. Between Judah and Philistia: Timnah (Tel Batash) in the Iron Age II. EI 18: 300–324.
(Hebrew with English Summary).
Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 BCE (AB Reference Library). New
York.
Mazar, A. 1994. The Northern Shephelah in the Iron Age: Some Issues in Biblical History and
Archaeology. in: Coogan, M. D., Exum, J. C. and Stager, L. E. eds. Scripture and Other Artifacts,
Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville: 247–267.
Mazar, A. 1997. Timnah (Tel Batash) I. Stratigraphy and Architecture (Qedem 37). Jerusalem.
Mazar, A. 2006. Jerusalem in the 10th Century B.C.E.: The Glass Half Full. In: Amit, Y., Ben Zvi, E.,
Finkelstein, I. and Lipschits, O. eds. Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute
to Nadav Naʾaman. Winona Lake: 255−272.
Mazar, A. 2010. Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy. In: Kratz,
R. G. and Spieckermann, H. eds. One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical
Perspectives. Berlin: 29–58.
Mazar. A. 2020. Jerusalem in the 10th Cent. B.C.E.: A Response. ZDPV 136: 139–151.
Mazar, A., Amit, D and Ilan, Z. 1984. The ‘Border Road’ between Michmash and Jericho and the
Excavations at Ḫorvat Shilḥah. EI 17: 236–250. (Hebrew). English version was published in:
Seger, J. D. 1996. ed. Retrieving the Past, Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in
Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Winona Lake: 193–211.
Mazar, A. and Wachtel, I. 2015. Hurvat ʿEres. A Fourth-Century BCE Fortress West of Jerusalem.
IEJ 65: 214–244.
Mazar (Maisler), B. 1934. Ramat Rachel and Khirbet Salih. Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration
Society 3: 4–18. (Hebrew).
Mazar (Maisler), B. 1940. Topographical Studies I. Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration
Society 8: 35–37. (Hebrew). Published also in: Cities and Regions in the Land of Israel:
Topographical-Historical Studies. Jerusalem (1975): 88–91. (Hebrew).
702 Bibliography

Mazar, B. 1950a. Ayalon. EncMiq 1: 265–266. (Hebrew).

Mazar, B. 1950b. Ono. EncMiq 1: 150–151. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1950c. Trial Excavations in En-Gedo. Yediʿot 15: 25–28. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1954a. Gath and Gittaim. IEJ 4: 227–235.
Mazar, B. 1954b. Geʾ Harashim. EncMiq 2: 479. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1957. The Tobiads. IEJ 7: 229–238.
Mazar, B. 1959. Topographical Studies: VI. The Cities in the Tribal Area of Dan. Yediʿot 24: 10.
(Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1963. Ein-Gadi desert landscape and its history. Yediʿot 27: 1–14. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1969. The Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Preliminary Report of the First Season
1968. Jerusalem.
Mazar, B. 1972. Excavations near the Temple Mount. Qadmoniot 19–20: 74–90. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1975a. Cities and Districts in Eretz-Israel. Jerusalem.
Mazar, B. 1975b. The Mountain of the Lord. New York.
Mazar, B. 1980. Excavations near Temple Mount Reveal Splendors of Herodian Jerusalem. BAR 6/4:
44–59.
Mazar, B. 1986a. Excavations and Discoveries. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1986b. Excavations in En-Gedi. In: Mazar, B. eds. Excavations and Discoveries. Jerusalem:
79–98. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. 1992. En-Gedi. NEAEHL 3: 1189–1197. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B., Dothan, T. and Dunayevsky, E. 1963. Ein-Gedi: Archaeological Excavations 1961–1962.
Yediʿot 22: 1–133. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. and Dunayevsky, I. 1964a. Ein-Gedi: The Third Season of Excavations (Preliminary Report).
IEJ 14: 121–130.
Mazar, B. and Dunayevsky, I. 1964b. Ein-Gedi: The Third Season of Excavations (Preliminary Report).
Yediʿot 28: 143–152. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. and Dunayevsky, I. 1966. The Fourth and Fifth Seasons of Excavations at Ein Gedi.
Yediʿot 30: 183–194. (Hebrew).
Mazar, B. and Dunayevsky, I. 1967. Ein-Gedi: The Fourth and Fifth Season of Excavations
(Preliminary Report). IEJ 17: 133–143.
Mazar, E. 1991. The Ophel in Jerusalem during the First Temple Period. In: Amit, D. and Gonen, R.
eds. Jerusalem during the First Temple Period. Jerusalem: 135–142. (Hebrew).
Mazar, E. 1993. Excavations in the Ophel – The Royal Quarter of Jerusalem during the First Temple
Period. Qadmoniot 101–102: 25–32. (Hebrew).
Mazar, E. 2006. Did I find king David’s palace? BAR 32/1: 16–27.
Mazar, E. 2007a. The Excavations in the City of David, 2005. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Mazar, E. 2007b. Excavations at the City of David 2005 – Visiting Center (Preliminary Publication).
Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Mazar, E. 2007c. Excavations at the City of David (2006–2007). In: Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A. and
Faust, A. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference. Ramat Gan: 7–
26. (Hebrew).
Mazar, E. 2008. The Stepped Stone Structure in the City of David in Light of the New Excavations in
Area G. In: Baruch, E., Levy-Reifer, A. and Faust, A. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings
of the Fourteenth Conference. Ramat Gan: 25–40. (Hebrew).
Mazar, E. 2009. The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David, Preliminary
Report of Seasons 2005–2007. Jerusalem and New York.
Mazar, E. and Mazar, B. 1989. Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount. The Ophel of Biblical
Jerusalem (Qedem 29). Jerusalem.
 Bibliography 703

Mazor, L. 1988. The Origin and Evolution of the Curse upon the Rebuilder of Jericho. Textus 14: 1–
26.
McCarter, P. K. 1984. II Samuel – A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 9).
New York.
McCarter, P. K. 1986. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (CBS). Philadelphia.
McCarter, P. K. 1996. Ancient Inscriptions: Voices from the Biblical World. Washington, D.C.
McClellan, T. L. 1984. Town Planning at Tell en-Nasbeh. ZDPV 100: 53–69.
McConville, J. C. 1985. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Philadelphia.
McCown, C. C. 1947a. Tell en-Nasbeh I: Archaeological and Historical Results. Berkley and New Haven.
McCown, C. C. 1947b. Tell en-Nasbeh: Excavated Under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè.
Berkeley and New Haven.
McEvenue, S. 1981. The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah. CBQ 43: 353–364.
McGovern, P. E. 1983. Test Soundings of Archaeological and Resistivity Survey Results at Rujm el-
Óenu. ADAJ 27: 105–141.
McGovern, P. E. 1989. Baqʿah Valley Project – Survey and Excavation. In: Homès-Fredericq, D. and
Hennesy, J. B. eds. Archaeology of Jordan, Vol. II–1: Field Reports: Surveys and Sites A–K (Akkadica
Supplementum 7). Leuven: 25–44.
McGovern, P. E. 1993. Baqʿah Valley. NEAEHL 1: 144–147.
McKane, W. 1996. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Edinburgh.
McKenzie, S. L. 1984. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta.
McKenzie, S. L. 1991. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the
Deuteronomistic History (VT.S 42). Leiden.
Meinhold, A. 1975. Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I.
ZAW 87: 306–324.
Meinhold, A. 1976. Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle II.
ZAW 88: 72–79.
Mendel-Geberovich, A., Shalev, Y., Bocher, E., Shalom, N., Gadot, Y. 2019. A Newly Discovered
Personal Seal and Bulla from the Excavations of the Givʿati Parking Lot, Jerusalem. IEJ 69:
154–174.
Mercer, M. K. 1989. Daniel 1:1 and Jehoiakim’s Three Years of Servitude. AUSS 27: 179–192.
Merton, S. 1970. ed. The Western Nahal Ayyalon Basin: The Region and its Rural Settlement. Tel Aviv.
Meshel, Z. 1995. Iron Age Negev Settlements as an Expression of Conflict between Edom, Judah,
and Israel, over Borders and Roads. in: Eilat – Studies in the Archaeology, History and
Geography of Eilat and the Aravah. Jerusalem: 169–180. (Hebrew).
Mettinger, T. N. D. 1971. Solomonic State Official, A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the
Israelite Monarchy. Lund.
Meyer, E. 1896. Die Entstehung des Judentums: eine historische Untersuchung. Halle.
Meyers, C. L. 1998. Kinship and Kingship: The Early Monarchy. In: Coogan, M. D. ed. The Oxford
History of the Biblical World. Oxford and New York: 256–264.
Meyers, C. L. and Meyers, E. M. 1987. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 – A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (AB 25B). Garden City.
Meyers, C. L. and Meyers, E. M. 1994. Demography and Diatribes: Yehud’s Population and the
Prophecy of Second Zecharia. In: Coogan, M. D., Exum, J. C. and Stager, L. E. eds. Scripture
and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville:
268–285.
Meyers, E. M. 1987. The Persian Period and the Judean Restoration: From Zerubbabel to
Nehemiah. In: Hanson, P. D., McBride, D. amd Miller, P. D. eds. Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays
in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Philadelphia: 509–521.
704 Bibliography

Michaud, H. 1957. Les ostraca de Lakiš conservés à Londres. Syria 34/1: 39–60.
Middlemas, J. A. 2005. The Troubles of Templeless Judah. New York.
Miglus, P. A. 1996. Das Wohngebiet von Assur. Stratigraphie und Architektur (WVDOG 93). Berlin.
Miglus, P. A. 2004. Die Säule in Assyrien. In: Dercksen, J. G. ed. Assyria and Beyond, Studies
Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen. Leiden: 421–434.
Milevski, I. 1996–1997. Settlement Patterns in Northern Judah during the Achaemenid Period,
according to the Hill Country of Benjamin and Jerusalem Surveys. BAIAS 15: 7–29.
Milgrom, J. 2001. Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3B). New
York.
Millard, A. 2008. Administration in Judah in the 8th and 7th Centuries B.C. In: Ramos, J. A., Davies,
P. R. and Travassos-Valdez, M. A. eds. From Antiquity to the Present: The 2008 European
Association of Biblical Studies, Lisbon Meeting. Lisbon: 29–37.
Miller, J. M. and Hayes, J. H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia. (Citations from
the 2nd ed., Louisville and London).
Miller, P. D. 2000. The Religion of Ancient lsrael. Louisville.
Min, K. J. 2004. The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah. London.
Minette de Tillesse, C. 1993. Joiaqim, Repoussoir de “Pieux” Josias: Parallélismes entre II Reg 22 et
Jer 36. ZAW 105: 355–359.
Mitchell, H. G. 1912. A Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah. In: Mitchell, H. G., Smith, J. M. P. and
Bewer, J. A. eds. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah.
Edinburgh: 1–362.
Mittmann, S. 1990. Hizkia und die Philister. JNSL 16: 91–106.
Mittmann, S. 2000. Tobia, Sanballat und die persische Provinz Juda. JNSL 26/2: 1–50.
Mommsen, H., Perlman, I. and Yellin, J. 1984. The Provenience of the lmlk Jars. IEJ 34: 89–113.
Monroe, L. 2011. Josiah’s Reform and the Dynamics of Defilement: Israelite Rites of Violence and the
Making of a Biblical Text. Oxford.
Monroe, L. 2021. Stripping off the Robe. New Light on “Joseph the Hebrew” and the bet-yosef. In:
Römer, T., Schmid, K. and Bühler, A. eds. The Joseph Story between Egypt and Israel. Tübingen:
55–73.
Montgomery, J. A. 1951. A critical and exegetical commentary on the books of Kings. Edinburgh.
Moore, G. F. 1985. Judges. Edinburgh.
Mor, M. 1980. The Samaritans and the Jews during the Ptolemaic Period and the Early Seleucid
Rule in Palestine. In: Oded, B. ed. Studies on the History of the Land and People of Israel
(Vol. 5). Haifa: 76–81. (Hebrew).
Morgenstern, J. 1924. The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel. HUCA 1: 13–78.
Morgenstern, J. 1938. A Chapter in the History of the High-Priesthood. AJSL 55: 1–24, 183–197, 360–
377.
Morgenstern, J. 1956. Jerusalem – 485 B.C. Hebrew Union College Annual 27: 101–179.
Morgenstern, J. 1957. Jerusalem – 485 B.C. Hebrew Union College Annual 28: 15–47.
Morgenstern, J. 1960. Jerusalem – 485 B.C. Hebrew Union College Annual 31: 1–29.
Moscati, S., Ciaska, A. and Garbini, G. 1960. Il Colle di Rachele (Ramat Raḥel). Rome.
Mosis, R. 1973. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes. Freiburg.
Mowinckel, S. 1958. ‘Rahelstämme’ und ‘Leastämme’. In: Hempel, J. and Lost, L. eds., Von Ugarit
nach Qumran. Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung, Otto Eissfeldt zum
1. September 1957 (BZAW 77). Berlin: 129–150.
Mowinckel, S. 1959. He that Cometh – The Messianic Conception in the Old Testament and Later
Judaism. Oxford.
 Bibliography 705

Mowinckel, S. 1964. Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia. I. Die nachchronische Redaktion des Buches:
Die Listen (SUNVAO 3). Oslo.
Muilenburg, J. 1954. Mizpah of Benjamin. ST 8: 25–42.
Mulder, M. J. 1976. Einige Bemerkungen zur Beschreibung des Libanonwaldhauses in Reg 7, 2 f.
ZAW 88/1: 99–105.
Myers, J. M. 1965a. Chronicles (AB 12). Garden City.
Myers, J. M. 1965b. Ezra–Nehemiah (AB 14). Garden City.
Naʾaman, N. 1974. Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on his Campaign to Judah. BASOR 214: 25–39.
Naʾaman, N. 1977. Campaigns of the Assyrian Kings to Judah in the Light of a New Assyrian
Document. Shnaton 2: 164–180. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1979a. The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt. TA 6: 68–90.
Naʾaman, N. 1979b. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the LMLK Stamps. VT 29:
61–86.
Naʾaman, N. 1981. Royal Estates in the Jezreel Valley in the Late Bronze Age and Under the Israelite
Monarchy. EI 15: 140–144. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1983. The Inheritance and Settlement of the Sons of Simeon in the South of Israel. In:
Zakovitch, Y. and Rofe, A. eds. The Itzhak Aries Seligman Book. Jerusalem: 121–126. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1985a. Bethel and Beth-aven: The Location of the Early Israelite Sanctuaries. Zion 50:
15–25. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1985b. The Historical Background of the Battle between Amaziah and Jehoash.
Shnaton 9: 211–217. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1986a. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical
Geographical Texts. Jerusalem.
Naʾaman, N. 1986b. Habiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere.
JNES 45: 271–288.
Naʾaman, N. 1986c. Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps. BASOR 261: 5–21.
Naʾaman, N. 1987a. Beth-Aven, Bethel and Early Israelite Sanctuaries. ZDPV 103: 13–21.
Naʾaman, N. 1987b. The Negev in the Last Century of the Kingdom of Judah. Cathedra 42: 3–15.
(Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1988. The Date of 2 Chronicles – A Reply to Y. Garfinkel. BASOR 271: 74–77.
Naʾaman, N. 1989a. Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportations. Cathedra 54:
43–62.
Naʾaman, N. 1989b. The Town-Lists of Judah and Benjamin and the Kingdom of Judah in the Days
of Josiah. Zion 54: 17–71. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1990a. The Kingdom of Ishbaal. BN 54: 33–37.
Naʾaman, N. 1990b. Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges iv–v). VT 40:
423–436.
Naʾaman, N. 1990c. The Pre-Deuteronomistic Story of King Saul and Its Historical Background.
CBQ 54: 638–658.
Naʾaman, N. 1991a. Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to
the West. In: Cogan, M. and Ephʿal, I. eds. Ah, Assyria… Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient
Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolymitana 33). Jerusalem:
80–98.
Naʾaman, N. 1991b. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel-Aviv 18: 3–71.
Naʾaman, N. 1991c. Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogies of Asher and Ephraim.
JSOT 49: 99–111.
Naʾaman, N. 1992a. Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors in the Second
Millennium B.C.E. UF 24: 257–291.
706 Bibliography

Naʾaman, N. 1992b. Nebuchadrezzar’s Campaign in Year 603 B.C.E. BN 62: 41–44.

Naʾaman, N. 1993. Population Changes in Palestine Following the Assyrian Deportations. TA 20:
104–124.
Naʾaman, N. 1994a. Ahaz’s and Hezekiah’s Policy toward Assyria in the Days of Sargon II and
Sennacherib’s Early Years. Zion 59: 5–30. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1994b. Esarhaddon’s Treaty with Baal and Assyrian Provinces along the Phoenician
Coast. Rivista degli Studi Fenici 22: 3–8.
Naʾaman, N. 1994c. Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria. TA 21: 235–254.
Naʾaman, N. 1995a. The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers. JSOT 65: 37–53.
Naʾaman, N. 1995b. The Historical Background of the Philistine Attack on Ahaz in 2 Chronicles
28:18. In: Kasher, A. and Oppenheimer, A. eds. Dor Le-Dor. Studies in Honor of Joshua Efron.
Jerusalem: 11–26. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1995c. Province System and Settlement Pattern in Southern Syria and Palestine in the
Neo-Assyrian Period. In: Liverani, M. ed. Neo-Assyrian Geography (Quaderni di geografia
storica 5). Rome: 103–115.
Naʾaman, N. 1995d. Tiglath-Pileser III’s Campaigns against Tyre and Israel (734–732 B.C.E.). TA 22:
268–278.
Naʾaman, N. 1996a. The Assyrian Deportations to Palestine: Historical and Cultural Aspects. The
22nd Annual Archaeological Congress in Israel: Lectures Abstracts. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1996b. The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political
Position in the Tenth Century BCE. BASOR 304: 17–27.
Naʾaman, N. 1998a. Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Jehoash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah. VT
48: 333–349.
Naʾaman, N. 1998b. Shishak’s Campaign to Palestine as Reflected by the Epigraphic, Biblical and
Archaeological Evidence. Zion 63: 247–276. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 1998c. Two Notes on the History of Ashkelon and Ekron in the Late Eighth-Seventh
Century BCE. TA 25: 219–227.
Naʾaman, N. 1999. On the Antiquity of the Regnal Years in the Book of Kings. Theologische
Zeitschrift 55: 44–46.
Naʾaman, N. 2000a. Ḫabiru-Like Bands in the Assyrian Empire and Bands in Biblical Historiography.
JAOS 120: 621–624.
Naʾaman, N. 2000b. Royal Vassals or Governors? On the Status of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in
the Persian Empire. Henoch 22: 35–44.
Naʾaman, N. 2001. An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Raḥel? TA 28: 260–280.
Naʾaman, N. 2002. The Past That Shapes the Present: The Creation of Biblical Historiography in the Late
First Temple Period and after the Downfall. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 2003. Ekron under the Assyrian and Egyptian Empires. BASOR 332: 81–91.
Naʾaman, N. 2004a. The Boundary System and Political Status of Gaza under the Assyrian Empire.
ZDPV 120/1: 55–72.
Naʾaman, N. 2004b. Death Formulae and the Burial Place of the Kings of the House of David.
Biblica 85: 245–254.
Naʾaman, N. 2005. Josiah and the Kingdom of Judah. In: Grabbe L. L. ed. Good Kings and Bad Kings:
The Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century BCE (JSOT Supplement 393). Sheffield: 189–247.
Naʾaman, N. 2006. The King Leading Cult Reforms in his Kingdom: Josiah and Other Kings in the
Ancient Near East. ZAR 12: 131–142.
Naʾaman, N. 2007. When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as
Judah’s Premier City in the 8th–7th centuries BCE. BASOR 347: 21–56.
 Bibliography 707

Naʾaman, N. 2008a. “Let Other Kingdoms Struggle with the Great Powers – You, Judah, Pay the
Tribute and Hope for the Best.” The Foreign Policy of the Kings of Judah in the Ninth–Eighth
Centuries. In: Cohen, R. and Westbrook, R. eds., Isaiah’s Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern
International Relations: Swords into Plowshares. New York: 55–73
Naʾaman, N. 2008b. Sojourners and Levites in the Kingdom of Judah in the Seventh Century B.C.E.
Tarbiz 77: 167–203. (Hebrew).
Naʾaman, N. 2009a. The Sanctuary of the Gibeonites Revisited. JANER 9: 101–124.
Naʾaman, N. 2009b. Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of “Biblical Israel.” ZAW 121/2–3: 211–224,
335–349.
Naʾaman, N. 2010a. David’s Sojourn in Keilah in Light of the Amarna Letters. VT 60: 87–97.
Naʾaman, N. 2010b. Does Archaeology Really Deserve the Status of a “High Court” in Biblical
Historical Research? In: Becking, B. E. J. H. and Grabbe, L. L. eds. Between Evidence and
Ideology (Oudtestamentische Studiën 59). Leiden: 165–183.
Naʾaman, N. 2010c. The Israelite-Judahite Struggle for the Patrimony of Ancient Israel. Biblica 91: 1–
23.
Naʾaman, N. 2011. Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. In: Arnould-Béha, C. and Lemaire, A. eds.
Jérusalem Antique et Médiévale: Mélanges En L’honneur d’Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz (CREJ 52).
Paris: 31–48.
Naʾaman, N. 2012. Biblical and Historical Jerusalem in the Tenth and Fifth-Fourth Centuries BCE.
Biblica 93: 21–42.
Naʾaman, N. 2014a. The Interchange between Bible and Archaeology: The Case of David’s Palace
and the Millo. BAR 40/1: 57–61, 68–69.
Naʾaman, N. 2014b. The Jacob Story and the Formation of Biblical Israel. TA 41: 95–125.
Naʾaman, N. 2014c. Jebusites and Jabeshites in the Saul and David Story-Cycles. Biblica 95: 481–497.
Naʾaman, N. 2014d. The Settlement of the Ephrathites in Bethlehem and the Location of Rachel’s
Grave. RB 121: 516–529.
Naʾaman, N. 2015a. Abraham’s Victory over the Kings of the Four Quadrants in Light of Darius I’s
Bisitun Inscription. TA 42: 72–88.
Naʾaman, N. 2015b. The Pre-Priestly Abraham Story as a Unified Exilic Work. JSOT 29/2: 157–181.
Naʾaman, N. 2016. The LMLK Seal Impressions Reconsidered. TA 43: 111–125.
Naʾaman, N. 2018a. The Battle of Gibeah Reconsidered (Judges 20:29–48). VT 68: 102–110.
Naʾaman, N. 2018b. Sources and Composition in the Story of Sheba’s Revolt (2 Samuel 20). RB 125:
340–352.
Naʾaman, N. and Zadok, R. 1988. Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716–708 B.C.).
JCS 40: 36–46
Nadelman, Y. 1993. Jerusalem, Pigat Zeʾev D (Ḥ Zimri). HA 12: 54–56. (Hebrew).
Najjar, M. 1999. “Ammonite” Monumental Architecture. In: Macdonald, B. and Younker, R. W. eds.
Ancient Ammon. Leiden: 103–112.
Naveh, J. 1958. The History of ʿEin-Gedi in Light of the Archaeological Survey. ʿEin Gedi. (Hebrew).
Naveh, J. 1970. The Development of the Aramaic Script. Jerusalem.
Naveh, J. 1975. The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Arad. In: Aharoni, Y. ed. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem:
167–204. (Hebrew).
Naveh, J. 1978. On Mosaic and Stone. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Naveh, J. 1979. The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Beer-Sheba (Seasons 1971–1976). TA 6: 182–198.
Naveh, J. 1980. Review of The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals, by L. G. Herr. BASOR 239:
75–76.
Naveh, J. 1992. Hashavyahu, Mesad. NEAEHL 2: 557–558.
Naveh, J. 1998. Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria. IEJ 48: 91–100.
708 Bibliography

Naveh, J. 2000. Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions. In: Ariel, D. T. ed. Excavations at the City of David,
1978–1985. Directed by Yigal Shiloh VI, Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 1–14.
Neef, H.-D. 1995. Ephraim. Studien zur Geschichte des Stammes Ephraim von der Landnahme bis zur
frühen Königszeit (BZAW 238). Berlin.
Negueruela, I. 1982. The Proto-Aeolic Capitals from Mudeibiʾa, in Moab. ADAJ 26: 395–401.
Nelson, R. D. 1981a. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield.
Nelson, R. D. 1981b. Josiah in the Book of Joshua. JBL 100: 531–540.
Nelson, R. D. 1991. The Role of the Priesthood in the Deuteronomistic History (VT.S 43). Leiden: 132–
147.
Netzer, E. 1993. Jericho: Tulul Abu el-ʿAlayiq, NEAEHL 2: 682–692.
Nicholson, E. W. 1967. Deuteronomy and Tradition. Oxford.
Niehr, H. 1999. Religio-Historical Aspects of the ‘Early Post-Exilic’ Period. In: Becking, B. and Korpel,
M. C. A. eds. The Crisis of Israelite Religion, Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and
Post-Exilic Times. Leiden, Boston and Köln: 228–244.
Niehr, H. 2007. Abgaben an den Tempel im Yehud der Achaimenidenzeit. In: Klinkott, H., Kubisch,
S. and Müller-Wollerman, R. eds. Geschenke und Steuern, Zölle und Tribute: Antike
Abgabenformen in Anspruch und Wirklichkeit (CHANE 29). Leiden and Boston: 141–157.
Niemann, H. M. 2016. Juda und Jerusalem. Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Stamm und Stadt
und zur Rolle Jerusalems in Juda. UF 47: 147–190.
Nihan, C. 2004. The Holiness Code between D and P. Some Comments on the Function and
Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah. In: Otto, E. and Achenbach, R.
eds. Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,
Göttingen: 81–122.
Nihan, C. 2007. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus
(FAT 2/25). Tübingen.
Nihan, C. 2008. Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28–29 and the Formation of
‘Priestly’ Literature. In: T. Römer, T. ed. The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (BETL 215), Leuven:
177–231.
Nihan, C. 2013. The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch. In:
Frevel, C., Pola, T. and Schart, A. eds. Torah and the Book of Numbers. Tübingen: 109–137.
Noth, M. 1930. Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (BWANT 4/1). Stuttgart.
Noth, A. 1935. Bethel and Ai. PJB 31: 7–29.
Noth, M. 1943. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden
Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft:
Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 18/2/1. Halle. [ET: The Deuteronomistic History, trans. D. J. A.
Clines. JSOT,S 15. Sheffield, 1981.]
Noth, M. 1954. Geschichte Israels (2nd ed.). Göttingen.
Noth, M. 1958. Die Einnahme von Jerusalem im Jahre 597 v. Chr. ZDPV 74: 133–157.
Noth, M. 1960. The History of Israel (2nd ed). New York.
Noth, M. 1962. Das dritte Buch Mose, Leviticus (ATD). Göttingen.
Noth, M. 1966. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung.
Hildesheim.
O’Brien, M. A. 1989. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92). Fribourg.
Oded, B. 1966. When did the Kingdom of Judah Become Subjected to Babylonian Rule? Tarbiz 35:
103–107. (Hebrew).
Oded, B. 1970a. Between Hezekiah and the Cities of Philistia. In: Ben-Shem, I. et al. eds. The Yosef
Braslevi Book: Studies in the Bible, the Language and the Geography of the Holy Land. Jerusalem:
87–88. (Hebrew).
 Bibliography 709

Oded, B. 1970b. Observations on Methods of Assyrian Rule in Transjordania after the Palestinian
Campaign of Tiglath-pileser III. JNES 29: 177–186.
Oded, B. 1977. Judah and the Exile. In: Hayes, J. H. and Miller, J. M. eds. Israelite and Judaean
History. London: 435–488.
Oded, B. 1979. Mass Deportation and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden.
Oded, B. 1992. War, Peace and Empire: Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Wiesbaden.
Oded, B. 2003. Where Is the “Myth of the Empty Land” to Be Found? History Versus Myth. In:
Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period.
Winona Lake: 55–74.
Oeming, M. 1987. Exkurs Zur Topographie und Archäologie Jerusalems. In: Gunneweg, A. H. J.
Nehemia (Kommentar zum Alten Testament 19/2). Gütersloh: 180–194.
Ofer, A. 1984. Khirbet Umm et-Tala. HA 84: 51–52. (Hebrew).
Ofer, A. 1989. Excavations at Biblical Hebron. Qadmoniot 87–88: 88–93. (Hebrew).
Ofer, A. 1993. The Highland of Judah During the Biblical Period (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv
University). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Ofer, A. 1994. “All the Hill Country of Judah”: from a Settlement Fringe to a Prosperous Monarchy.
In: Finkelstein, I. and Naʾaman, N. eds., From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and
Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 92–121.
Ofer, A. 1998. The Judean Hill in the Biblical Period. Qadmoniot 115: 40–52. (Hebrew).
Ofer, A. and Meshel, Z. 1986. ʿEin Gedi. HA 88: 30. (Hebrew).
Ohana, M. and Heltzer, M. 1978. The Extra-Biblical Tradition of Hebrew Personal Names (from the First
Temple Period to the End of the Talmudic Period). Haifa. (Hebrew).
Olley, J. W. 2003. Pharaoh’s daughter, Solomon’s palace, and the temple: Another look at the
structure of 1 Kings 1–11. JSOT 27/3: 355–369.
Olmstead, A. T. 1948. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago.
Oppenheim, A. L. 1947. A Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near East. JNES 6: 116–120.
Oppenheim, A. L. 1967. Essay on Overland Trade in the First Millennium B.C. JCS 21: 236–254.
Oppenheim, A. L. 1969. Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J. B. ed. Ancient Near
Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: 265–317.
Orlinski, H. M. 1939. Ḥaṣer in the O. T. JSOT 59: 22–32.
Ornan, T. 2005. A complex system of religious symbols: the case of the winged disc in Near
Eastern imagery of the first millennium BCE. In: Suter, C. E. and Uehlinger, C. eds. Crafts and
Images in Contact: Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE. (OBO 210).
Fribourg: 207–241.
Ornan, T. 2010. The Origins of the Lion in the Judahite Stamp Impression. In: Lipschits, O. and
Koch, I. eds. New Studies on the Lion Stamp Impressions. Tel Aviv: 15–16. (Hebrew).
Ornan, T. and Lipschits, O. 2020. The Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah: Typology, Distribution,
Iconography, and Historical Implications. A Preliminary Report. Semitica 62: 69–91.
Otto, E. 2016. Born out of ruins: The catastrophe of Jerusalem as Accoucheur to the Pentateuch in
the Book of Deuteronomy. In: Dubovskÿ, P. eds. The fall of Jerusalem and the rise of the Torah.
Tübingen: 155–168.
Otto, E. 2017. Pentateuch und Hexateuch jenseits von Jerusalem und Juda? Die ‘Endredaktion’ von
Pentateuch und Hexateuch in Samaria Diaspora: Zu einem Buch von Dany R. Nocquet.
ZAR 23: 303–309.
Otto, S. 2003. The Composition of the Elijah-Elisha Stories and the Deuteronomistic History.
JSOT 27: 487–508.
Otzen, B. 1964. Studien über Deuterosacharja (Acta Theologica Danica 6). Copenhagen.
710 Bibliography

Otzen, B. 1979. Israel under the Assyrians. In: Larsen, M. T. ed. Power and Propaganda: A
Symposium on Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia 7). Copenhagen: 251–261.
Pakkala, J. 2004. Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemia 8 (BZAW 347). Berlin and
New York.
Pakkala, J. 2010. Why the Cult Reforms in Judah Probably Did Not Happen. In: Kratz, R. and
Spieckermann, H. eds. One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives
(BZAW 405). Berlin: 201–235.
Pakkala, J. 2011. The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah. In:
Weissenberg, von. H., Pakkala, J. and Marttila, M. eds. Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and
Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Berlin: 192–221.
Pardee, D. and Sperling, S. 1982. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters (SBS 15). Chico.
Parker, S. 2000. Did the Authors of the Books of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscriptions? VT 50: 357–
378.
Parker, B. J. 2001. The Mechanics of Empire: The Northern Frontier of Assyria as a Case Study in
Imperial Dynamics. Helsinki.
Parpola, S. 1970. Neo-Asyyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6). Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Parpola, S. 1987. The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West (State
Archives of Assyria 1). Helsinki.
Parpola, S. 1995. The Construction of Dur-Šarrukin in the Assyrian Royal Correspondence. In:
Caubert, A. ed. Khorsabad, le palais de Sargon II, roi d’Assyrie (Actes du colloque organisé au
musée du Louvre par le Service cultural les 21 et 22 janvier 1994). Paris: 47–77.
Parpola, S. 2003. Assyria’s Expansion in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries and its Long-Term
Repercussions in the West. In: Dever, W. and Gitin, S. eds. Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power
of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman
Palaestina. Winona Lake.
Patrich, J. 1994. Qumran Caves. HA 100: 55. (Hebrew).
Patrich, J. 1997. Agricultural Development in Antiquity: Improvement in the Growing and
Manufacturing of Balsam. In: Safrai, Z., Friedman, I. and Schwartz, J. eds. Village Life in
Eretz Israel in Antiquity. Collected Essays in Honour of Y. Felix. Ramat Gan: 139–148. (Hebrew).
Patrich, J. and Arubas, B. 1989. A Juglet with (Balsam?) Oil From a Cave Near Qumran. EI 20 (Yadin
Volume): 321–329. (Hebrew).
Pavlovsky, V. and Vogt, E. 1964. Die Jahre der Könige von Juda und Israel. Biblica 45: 321–347.
Pećirková, J. 1987. The Administrative Methods of Assyrian Imperialism. Archiv Orientální 55: 162–
175.
Peersmann, J. 2000. Assyrian Megiddo: The Town Planning of Stratum III. In: Finkelstein, I.,
Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B. eds. Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons (Monograph Series of
the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 18). Jerusalem: 524–534.
Petersen, D. L. 1984. Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary. London.
Petit, T. 1990. Satrapes et Satrapiesdans l’Empire achéménidede Cyrus le Grand à Xerxès ler. Liège.
Pfeiffer, H. 1999. Das Heiligtum von Bethel im Spiegel des Hoseabuches (FRLANT 183). Göttingen.
Pfeiffer, R. H. 1941. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York.
Pfoh, E. 2009a. The Emergence of Israel in Ancient Palestine: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives.
Copenhagen International Seminar. London.
Pfoh, E. 2009b. Some Remarks on Patronage in Syria-Palestine during the Late Bronze Age.
JESHO 52: 363–381.
Pfoh, E. 2014. A Hebrew Mafioso: Reading 1 Samuel 25 Anthropologically. Semitica et Classica 7: 37–
43.
 Bibliography 711

Pohlmann, K. F. 1970. Studien zum dritten Esra. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglischen Schluss
des chronistischen Geschichtswerks (FRLANT 104). Göttingen.
Pohlmann, K. F. 1978. Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des
Jeremiabuches (FRLANT 118). Göttingen.
Porat, J. 1986. Aspects of the Development of Ancient Irrigation Agriculture in Jericho and Ein-Gedi.
In: Kasher, A., Oppenheimer, A., Rappaport, A. eds. Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity.
Jerusalem: 127–141. (Hebrew).
Porat, J., Dar, S. and Applebaum, S. 1985. Antiquities of the Hefer Valley. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Porten, B. 1996. The Elephantine Papyri in English, Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and
Change. Leiden, New York and Köln.
Porteous, N. 1979. Daniel (OTL). Philadelphia.
Portugali, Y. 1989. Demographic Speculations on Evolution, Settlement and Urbanization.
Archaeology 2: 8–18. (Hebrew).
Portugali, Y. 1998. Theories of Population and settlement and its importance to the Demographic
research in the Land of Israel. In: Bunimovitz, S., Kochavi, M. and Kasher, A. eds. Settlements,
Population and Economy in the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Tel Aviv: 4–38. (Hebrew).
Postgate, J. N. 1974. Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 3).
Rome.
Postgate, J. N. 1979. The Economic Structure of the Assyrian Empire. In: Larsen, M.T. ed. Power and
Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Copenhagen: 193–221.
Postgate, J. N. 1992a. The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur. World Archaeology 23: 247–263.
Postgate, J. N. 1992b. Trees and Timber in Assyrian Texts. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 6: 177–
192.
Prag, K. 1987. Decorative Architecture in Ammon, Moab and Judah. Levant 19: 121–127.
Premnath, D. N. 1988. Latifundialization and Isaiah 5.8–10. JSOT 40: 49–60.
Preuss, H. D. 1982. Deuteronomium. Darmstadt.
Pritchard, J. B. 1956. The Water System at Gibeon. BA 19: 66–75.
Pritchard, J. B. 1959a. Hebrew Inscriptions and Stamps from Gibeon. Philadelphia.
Pritchard, J. B. 1959b. The Wine Industry at Gibeon: 1959 Discoveries. Expedition 2/1: 17–25.
Pritchard, J. B. 1960a. Gibeon’s History in the Light of Excavation (VT.S 7): 1–12.
Pritchard, J. B. 1960b. More Inscribed Jar Handles from El-Jib. BASOR 160: 1–12.
Pritchard, J. B. 1961. The Water System of Gibeon. Philadelphia.
Pritchard, J. B. 1962. Gibeon, Where the Sun Stood Still: The Discovery of the Biblical City. Princeton.
Pritchard, J. B. 1964. Winery Defences and Soundings at Gibeon. Philadelphia.
Pritchard, J. B. 1980. The Cemetery at Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Jordan (University Museum Monograph 41).
Philadelphia.
Pritchard, J. B. 1985. Tell es-Saʿidiyeh: Excavations on the Tell, 1964–1966 (University Museum
Monograph 60). Philadelphia.
Pritchard, J. B. 1992. Gibeon. NEAEHL: 511–514.
Provan, I. W. 1995. Why Barzillai of Gilead (1 Kings 2:7)? Narrative Art and the Hermeneutics of
Suspicion in 1 Kings 1–2. TynBul 46/1: 103–116.
Provan, I. W. 2014. Hezekiah and the Books of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the
Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. Berlin and New York.
Rabinowitz, I. 1984. ʾāz Followed by Imperfect Verb-Form in Preterite Contexts: A Redational Device
in Biblical Hebrew. VT 34: 53–62.
Rad, G. von. 1966. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Edinburgh.
Radner, K. 1999. Traders in the Neo-Assyrian Period. In: Dercksen, J. G. ed. Trade and Finance in
Ancient Mesopotamia: Proceedings of the First MOS Symposium, Leiden 1997 (MOS Studies 1).
Leiden: 101–126.
712 Bibliography

Rainey, A. F. 1969. The Satrapy ‘Beyond the River’. AJBA 1: 51–78.

Rainey, A. F. 1977. Three Additional Hebrew Ostraca from Tel Arad. TA 4: 97–104.
Rainey, A. F. 1982. Wine from the Royal Vineyards. BASOR 245: 57–62.
Rainey, A. F. 1983. The Biblical Shephelah of Judah. BASOR 251: 1–22.
Rainey, A. F. 2006. Looking for Bethel: An Exercise in Historical Geography. In: Gitin, S., Wright, J. E.
and Dessel, J. P. eds. Confronting the Past. Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel
in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake: 269–273.
Rassam, H. 1897. Asshur and the Land of Nimrud. London.
Raviv, H. 1983. The Relations between the Priesthood and the Kingship in Judah as Reflected in
Biblical Historiography. In: Zakovitch, Y. and Rofé, A. eds. Sefer Yitshak Aryeh Zeligman (Vol. 3).
Jerusalem: 319–326. (Hebrew).
Ray, P. J., Jr. 2001. Tell Hesban and Vicinity in the Iron Age (Hesban 6). Berrien Springs, MI.
Reade, J. 1998. Assyrian Illustrations of Nineveh. Iranica Antiqua 33: 81–94.
Redditt, P. L. 1995. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: Based on the Revised Standard Version. London.
Redford, D. B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton.
Reeg, G. 1989. Die Ortnamen Israels nach der rabbinischen Literatur. Wiesbaden.
Regev, J., Uziel, J., Szanton, N. and Boaretto, E. 2017. Absolute Dating of the Gihon Spring
Fortifications, Jerusalem. Radiocarbon 59: 1171–1193.
Reich, R. 1987. Palaces and Residences in the Iron Age. In: Kempinski, A. and Reich, R. eds. The
Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: 173–188.
(Hebrew).
Reich, R. 1992a. The Beth-Zur Citadel II: A Persian Residency? EI 23: 247–252. (Hebrew).
Reich, R. 1992b. Palaces and Official Houses in the Iron Age. In: Kempisky, A. and Reich, R. eds. The
Architecture of Ancient Israel from Prehistoric Periods until the Person Periods. Jerusalem: 173–188
(Hebrew).
Reich, R. 1994. The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem. In: Geva, H.
ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: 111–118.
Reich, R. 2000. Hellenistic to Medieval Strata 6–1. In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the
Old City of Jerusalem – Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1696–1982 Vol. 2: Architecture and
Stratigraphy, Areas A, W and X-2; Final Report. Jerusalem: 83–112.
Reich, R. 2003a. Local Seal Impressions of the Hellenistic Period. In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish Quarter
Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 2: The
Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem: 256–262.
Reich, R. 2003b. On the Assyrian Presence at Ramat Raḥel. TA 30: 124–129.
Reich, R. 2003c. Stone Vessels, Weights and Architectural Fragments. In: Geva, H. ed. Jewish Quarter
Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, Vol. 2: The
Finds from Areas A, W and X-2, Final Report. Jerusalem: 263–291.
Reich, R. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem.
Reich, R. and Brandl, B. 1985. Gezer under Assyrian Rule. PEQ 117: 41–54.
Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 1998. Jerusalem, the City of David. HA 18: 91–92. (Hebrew).
Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2004. The History of the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem. Levant 36: 211–223.
Reich, R. and Shukron, E. 2007. The Yehud Stamp Impressions from the 1995–2005 City of David
Excavations. TA 34: 59–65.
Reich, R., Shukron E. and Lernau, O. 2007. Recent Discoveries in the City of David, Jerusalem.
IEJ 57: 153–169.
Reinmuth, T. 2001. Reform und Tora bei Nehemia. Neh 2001 10,31–40 und die Autorisierung der
Tora in der Perserzeit. ZAR 7: 287–317.
 Bibliography 713

Reinmuth, T. 2002. Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditionsgeschichtlichen Prägung
und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts Nehemias (OBO 183). Freiburg and Göttingen.
Renkema, J. 1998. Lamentations. Leuven.
Reisner, G. A., Fisher, C. S. and Lyon, D. G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910, Vol. 2:
Plans and Plates. Cambridge.
Ritter, C. 2003. Rachels Klage im antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum: eine
auslegungsgeschichtliche Studie (AGAJU 52). Leiden.
Roberts, J. M. 2003. Solomon’s Jerusalem and the Zion tradition. In: Vaughn, A. G. and Killebrew
A. E. eds. Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology. The First Temple period (SBL Symposium
Series 18). Atlanta: 163–170.
Robinson, E. 1841. Biblical Researchers in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of
Travels in the Year 1838. Boston.
Roche, M.-J. 1994. Les débuts de l’implantation nabatéenne à Pétra. TRANS 8: 35–46.
Rofé, A. 1988. The Prophetical Stories. Jerusalem.
Rofé, A. 1990. An Enquiry to the Betrothal of Rebekah. In: Blum, E. ed. Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre
zweifache Nachgeschichte. Neukirchen-Vluyn: 27–39.
Rofé, A. 1995. Promise and Covenant: The Promise to the Patriarchs in Late Biblical Literature. In:
Niccacci, A. ed. Divine Promises to the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic Religions. Proceedings of
a Symposium Held in Jerusalem March 24–25th, 1993 (ASBF 40). Jerusalem: 52–59.
Roll, I. 1981. Gezera – A Coastal City from the Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period in Israel. The
8th Annual Archaeological Congress in Israel: Lectures Abstracts. Jerusalem: 8. (Hebrew).
Roll, I. 1987. The Transportation Routes from Jaffa to Jerusalem in the Roman and Byzantine
Periods. In: Schieler, E. ed. The Zev Vilnay Book (vol. 2). Jerusalem: 120–128.
Roll, I. 1996. Bacchides’ Fortifications and the Arteries of Traffic to Jerusalem in the Hellenistic
Period. EI 25: 509–514.
Roll, I. and Ayalon, E. 1989. Apollonia and the Southern Sharon: A Model of a Coastal City and her
Settlement Hinterland. Tel Aviv: 119–124. (Hebrew).
Römer, T., 1990a. Gen 15 und Gen 17. Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem Dogma der
‘neueren’ und ‘neuesten’ Pentateuchkritik. DBAT 26: 32–47.
Römer, T. 1990b. Israels Väter. Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der
deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99). Göttingen.
Römer, T. 1997. Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On “Book-Finding”
and Other Literary Strategies. ZAW 109: 1–11.
Römer, T. 2001. Recherches actuelles sur le cycle d’Abraham. In: Wénin, A. ed. Studies in the Book of
Genesis, Literature, Redaction and History (BETL 155). Leuven: 179–211.
Römer, T. 2002. Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten: Anfragen zur ‘Quellenscheidung’ im
vierten Buch des Pentateuch. In: Gertz, J. C. Schmid. K. and M. Witte, M. eds. Abschied vom
Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315), Berlin: 215–231.
Römer, T. 2007. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary
Introduction. London and New York.
Römer, T. 2011. Abraham and the “Law and the Prophets.” In: Carstens, P. and Lemche, N. P. eds.
The Reception and Remembrance of Abraham (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its
Contexts 13). Piscataway, NJ: 103–118.
Römer, T. 2012. Abraham Traditions in the Hebrew Bible outside the Book of Genesis, In: Evans,
C. A., Lohr, J. N. and Petersen, D. L. eds. The Book of Genesis. Composition, Reception, and
Interpretation. Leiden and Boston: 159–180.
Römer, T. 2014. Mose und die Frauen in Exodus 1–4. In: Achenbach, R., Ebach, R. and Wöhrle, J.
eds. Wege der Freiheit: zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuches: die Beiträge eines
Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Rainer Albertz. Zürich: 73–86.
714 Bibliography

Römer, T. 2015a. The Invention of God (English translation from the 2014 French L’Invention de Dieu).
Cambridge, M.A. and London.
Römer, T. 2015b. The Joseph Story in the Book of Genesis: Pre-P or Post-P? In: Giuntoli, F. and
Schmid, K. eds. The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development
and Theological Profiles. Tübingen: 185–201.
Römer, T. 2017. The Rise and Fall of Josiah. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Adams, M. J. eds.
Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel
Finkelstein. Winona Lake: 329–430.
Römer, T. 2020. Abraham and Moses, a (not so) Friendly Competition. In: Čapek, F. and Sláma, P.
eds. And God Saw that It Was Good (Gen 1: 12) – The Concept of Quality in Archaeology, Philology
and Theology. Münster: 99–109.
Römer, T. 2021. How “Persian” or “Hellenistic” is the Joseph Narrative? In: Römer, T., Schmid, K.
and Bühler, A. eds. The Joseph Story between Egypt and Israel. Tübingen: 35–54.
Roncace, M. 2005. Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the fall of Jerusalem − A Study of Prophetic
Narrative (Library of Hebrew bible/Old Testament Studies 423). New York.
Rose, W. H. 2000. Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectation in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOT.S
304). Sheffield.
Rose, W. H. 2003. Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period. In: Albertz, R. and Becking,
B. eds. Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Assen: 168–
185.
Rosenson, I. 1988. Growing Date Palms in the Land of Israel in the Past According to Written
Sources. In: Ayalon, E. ed. The Date Palm − Tree of Life. Tel Aviv: 6–35. (Hebrew).
Rosenson, I. 1990. The Dead Sea – Man and Sea. Tel Aviv.
Rosenson, I. 1991. A Note about the Vinedressers and Plowmen. In: Erlich, Z. H. ed. Samaria and
Benjamin (Vol. 2). Jerusalem: 47–54. (Hebrew).
Rost, L. 1982. The Succession to the Throne of David. Sheffield. Translation from the German original
publication: Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom
Alten und Neuen Testament 42. Stuttgart (1926).
Rothstein, J. W. and Hänel, J. 1927. Das erste Buch der Chronic. Leipzig.
Rowley, H. H. 1963. Men of God: Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy. London.
Rudnig, T. A. 2006. Davids Thron: Redaktionskritische Studien zur Geschichte von der Thronnachfloge
Davids (BZAW 358). Berlin.
Rudolph, W. 1947. Jeremia. Tübingen.
Rudolph, W. 1949. Esra und Nehemia (HAT 20). Tübingen.
Rudolph, W. 1955. Chronikbücher (HAT 21), Tübingen.
Rudolph, W. 1968. Jeremia (3rd ed.). Tübingen.
Russell, J. M. 1991. Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago.
Ryle, H. E. 1907. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah with Introduction, Notes and Maps. Cambridge.
Sacchi, P. 1989. L’esilio e la fine della monarchia Davidica. Henoch 11: 131–148.
Sack, R. H. 2003. Nebuchadnezzar II and the Old Testament: History Versus Ideology. In: Lipschits,
O. and Blenkinsopp, J. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake:
221–234.
Safrai, Z. 1980. Borders and Rule in the Land of Israel during the Mishnah and Talmud Period. Tel Aviv.
(Hebrew).
Saggs, H. W. F. 2001. The Nimrud Letters, 1952. Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud. London.
Saller, S. J. 1957. Excavations at Bethany (1949–1953) (Publications of the Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum 12). Jerusalem.
 Bibliography 715

Sanda, A. 1912. Die Bücher der könige übersetzt und erklärt, Vol. 2: Das zweite Buch der Könige (EHAT).
Münster.
Sanders, T. K. 1997. An Ammonite Ostracon from Tall al-ʿUmayri. In: Herr, L. G., Geraty, L. T.,
LaBianca, Ø. S., Younker, R. W. and Clark, D. R. eds. Madaba Plains Project 3: The 1989 Season
at Tell el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: 331–336.
Sandhaus, D. and Kreimerman, I. 2015. The Late 4th/3rd Century BCE Transition in the Judean
Hinterland in Light of the Pottery of Khirbet Qeiyafa. TA 42: 251–271.
Sandhaus, D. and Kreimerman, I. 2017. The Hellenistic Conquest of Israel and its Influence on the
Settlement of the Hill Country and the Shephelah. In: Gadot, Y., et al. eds. New Studies in the
Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, Vol. 11. Jerusalem: 202–214.
Sapin, J. 1968. Le plateau central de Benjamin (M.A. thesis). École Biblique, Jerusalem.
Sapin, J. 1996. Réflexions sur les stratégies et les techniques d’adaptation dans la Transjordanie du
1er millénaire. TRANS 11: 45–62.
Sass, B. 1993. The Pre-Exilic Hebrew Seals: Iconism vs. Aniconism. In: Sass, B. and Uehlinger, C.
eds. Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (OBO 125). Fribourg and
Göttingen: 194–256.
Sass, B. 2010. Lion Stamps from Babylonia of the Sixth Century and their Relations to the Judahite
Lion Stamp Impressions. In: Lipschits, O. and Koch, I. eds. New Studies on the Lion Stamp
Impressions. Tel Aviv: 13–14. (Hebrew).
Sauer, J. A. 1978. Heshbon Expedition: The Fifth Campaign at Tell Hesban (1976): Area B and
Square D.4. AUSS 16: 31–49.
Sauer, J. A. 1985. Ammon, Moab and Edom. In: Biblical Archaeology Today, Proceedings of the
International Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem, April 1984. Jerusalem: 206–214.
Sauer, J. A. 1986. Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages: A Critique of Glueck’s Synthesis.
BASOR 263: 1–26.
Schalit, A. 1960. King Herod: The Man and his Work. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Schalit, A. 1962. King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Schaper, J. 1995. The Jerusalem Temple as an Instrument of the Achaemenid Fiscal Administration.
VT 45: 528–539.
Schaper, J. 1997. The Temple Treasury Committee in the Times of Nehemiah and Ezra. VT 47: 200–
206.
Schaper, J. 2000. Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda: Studien zur Kult- und Sozialgeschichte
Israels in persischer Zeit (FAT 31). Tübingen.
Scharbert, J. 1982. Bēyt ʾĀb als soziologische Grösse im Alten Testament. In: Delsman, W. C. et al.
eds., Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. J. P. M. van der Ploeg O. P. zur
Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979: überreicht von Kollegen, Freunden und
Schülern. Neukirchen-Vluyn: 213–237.
Schipper, B. U. 2011. Egyptian Imperialism after the New Kingdom: The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty and
the Southern Levant. In: Bar, S., Kahan, D. and Shirley, J. J. eds. Egypt, Canaan and Israel:
History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature; Proceedings of a Conference at the University of
Haifa, 3–7 May 2009 (CHANE 52). Leiden: 268–290.
Schipper, B. U. 2018. Joseph, Ahiqar, and Elephantine: The Joseph Story as Diaspora Novella. JAEI 18:
71–84.
Schipper, B. U. 2021. Joseph in Egypt. A Critical Evaluation of the Classical Parallels and a New
Interpretation. In: Römer, T., Schmid, K. and Bühler, A. eds. The Joseph Story between Egypt and
Israel. Tübingen: 139–163.
Schloen, J. D. 2001. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the
Ancient Near East. Winona Lake.
716 Bibliography

Schloen, J. D. 2016. Economy and Society in Iron Age Israel and Judah: An Archaeological
Perspective. In: Niditch, S. ed. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Israel. Chichester: 431–
451.
Schmid, K. 2002. Die Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch. In: Gertz, J. C., Schmid, K. and Witte, M.
eds. Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Berlin:
83–118
Schmid, K. 2010. Genesis and the Moses Story – Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible. Winona
Lake.
Schmid, K. 2011. Die Verheißung eines kommenden Davididen und die Heimkehr der Diaspora: Die
innerbiblische Ak-tualisierung von Jer 23,5f in Jer 33,14–26. In: Schmid, K. ed. Schriftgelehrte
Traditionsliteratur: Fallstudien zur innerbiblischen Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament (FAT 77).
Tübingen: 207–221.
Schmid, K. 2012. The Old Testament, A Literary History. Minneapolis.
Schmid, K. 2013. Zion bei Jesaja. In: Pilger, T. and Witte, M. eds. Zion – Symbol des Lebens in
Judentum und Christentum. Leipzig: 9–23.
Schmid, K. 2021. Sapiential Anthropology in the Joseph Story. In: Römer, T., Schmid, K. and Bühler,
A. eds. The Joseph Story between Egypt and Israel. Tübingen: 103–118.
Schmidt, B. B. 1994. Israel’s Beneficent Dead. Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion
and Tradition (FAT 11). Tübingen.
Schmidt, L. 2004. Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri. Kapitel 10: 11–36,13 (ATD 7/2), Göttingen.
Schmitt, G. 1980. Gat, Gittaim und Gitta. In: Cohen, R. and Schmitt, G. eds. Drei Studien zur
Archäologie und Topographie Altisraels. Wiesbaden: 77–138.
Schneider, H. 1959. Die Bucher Esra und Nehemia (HSAT 4/2). Bonn.
Schniedewind, W. M. 2003. Jerusalem, the Late Judaean Monarchy and the Composition of the
Biblical Texts. in: Vaughn, A. G. and Killebrew, A. E. eds. Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology:
The First Temple Period. Atlanta: 375–394.
Schniedewind, W. M. 2004. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel.
Cambridge.
Schniedewind, W. M. 2006. The search for Gibeah: Notes on the Historical Geography of Central
Benjamin. In: Maeir, A. M. and de Miroschedji. P. eds. “I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient
Times”. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his
Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake: 711–722.
Schultz, C. 1980. The Political Tensions Reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah. In: Evans, C. D., Hallo, L. L. and
White, J. B. eds. Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method. Pittsburg: 221–244.
Schumacher, G. 1908. Tell el Mutesallim, I. Leipzig.
Schunck, K.-D. 1963. Benjamin. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte eines israelitischen
Stammes. Berlin.
Schütte, W. 2016. Israels Exil in Juda: Untersuchungen Zur Entstehung Der Schriftprophetie (OBO 279).
Fribourg and Göttingen.
Schwartz, J. J. 1988. The History of Lod during the Persian Period. Cathedra 49: 3–12. (Hebrew).
Schwartz, J. J. 1991. Lod (Lydda), Israel: From its Origins through the Byzantine Period (5600 B.C.E–
640 C.E.). Oxford.
Schwartz, Y. 1995. The Economy of Judah in the Hasmonean Period. In: Amit. D. and Eshel, H. eds.
The Days of the Maccabees. Jerusalem: 125–131. (Hebrew).
Schwiderski, D. 2000. Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars − Ein Beitrag zur
Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches (BZAW 295). Berlin and New York.
Seebass, H. 2000. Zur Quellenentscheidung in der Josephsgeschichte. In: Golka, F. W. and Weiss,
W. eds. Joseph: Bibel und Literatur; Symposion Helsinki, Lathi 1999. Oldenburg: 59–84.
 Bibliography 717

Seebass, H. 2007. Numeri. 3. Teilband. Numeri 22, 2–36, 13. Neukirchen-Vluyn.

Seitz, C. R. 1989. Theology in conflict, Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. Berlin and New
York.
Sellers, O. R. 1933. The Citadel of Beth-Zur. A Preliminary Report of the First Excavation in 1931 at
Khirbat et Tubeiqa. Philadelphia.
Sellers, O. R. and Albright, W. F. 1931. The First Campaign of Excavation of Beth Zur. BASOR 43: 2–
13.
Sellers, O. R., Funk, R. W., McKenzie, J. L., Lapp, N. and Lapp, P. 1968. The 1957 Excavation at Beth-
zur (AASOR 38). Cambridge, MA.
Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C. 1913. Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig.
Sergi, O. 2013. Judah’s Expansion in Historical Context. TA 40: 226–246.
Sergi, O. 2015. State Formation, Religion and Collective Identity in the Southern Levant. HeBAI 4:
56–77.
Sergi, O. 2017a. The Emergence of Judah as a Political Entity between Jerusalem and Benjamin.
ZDPV 133: 1–23.
Sergi, O. 2017b. Rethinking Israel and the Kingdom of Saul. In: Lipschits, O., Gadot, Y. and Adams
M. J. eds. Rethinking Israel − Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of
Israel Finkelstein. Winona Lake: 371–388.
Sergi, O. 2017c. The United Monarchy and the Kingdom of Jeroboam II in the Story of Absalom
and Sheba’s Revolts (2 Samuel 15–20). HeBAI 6: 329–353.
Sergi, O. 2020. On Scribal Tradition in Israel and Judah and the Antiquity of the Historiographical
Narratives in the Hebrew Bible. In: Krause, J. J., Oswald, W. and Weingart, K. eds. Eigensinn
und Entstehung der Hebräischen Bibel − Erhard Blum zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Tübingen: 275–
299.
Sergi, O., Karasik, A., Gadot, Y. and Lipschits. O. 2012. The Royal Judahite Storage Jar: A Computer-
Generated Typology and Its Archaeological and Historical Implications. TA 39: 64–92.
Seybold, K. 1996. Jerusalem in the View of the Psalms. In: Poorthius, M. and Safrai, C. eds. The
centrality of Jerusalem: Historical perspectives. Kampen: 7–14.
Shai, I. and Maeir, A. M. 2003. Pre-LMLK Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars. TA 30: 108–
123.
Shalev, Y. et al., 2020. New Evidence on the Location and Nature of Iron Age, Persian and Early
Hellenistic Period Jerusalem. TA 47: 149–172.
Shalom, N. 2017. Changes in the Settlement Pattern in Judah between the Persian and Early
Hellenistic Periods (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv.
Shatil, N. 2016. The Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods Pottery from the Renewed Archaeological
Excavations at Tel Azekah: Typology, Chronology and Identity (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University).
Tel Aviv.
Shavit, A. 1993. The Ayalon Valley and its Surroundings during the Bronze and Iron Ages (M.A.
thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).
Sherratt, S. and Sherratt, A. 1993. The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early First
Millennium BC. World Archaeology 24(3): 361–378.
Shiloh, Y. 1976. New Proto-Aeolic Capitals Found in Israel. BASOR 222: 67–77.
Shiloh, Y. 1979a. City of David: Excavation 1978. BA 42: 165–171.
Shiloh, Y. 1979b. New Excavations in the City of David. Qadmoniot 45: 12–18. (Hebrew).
Shiloh, Y. 1979c. The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem 11). Jerusalem.
Shiloh, Y. 1981. The Population of Iron Age Palestine in Light of Urban Plans, Areas and Population
Density. EI 15: 274–282. (Hebrew).
Shiloh, Y. 1983. Notes and News – Jerusalem, City of David, 1982. IEJ 33: 129–131.
718 Bibliography

Shiloh, Y. 1984a. Excavations at the City of David I 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons
(Qedem 19). Jerusalem.
Shiloh, Y. 1984b. Notes and News – Jerusalem, City of David, 1983. IEJ 34: 57–58.
Shiloh, Y. 1985. The Material Culture of Judah and Jerusalem in Iron Age II: Origins and Influences.
In: Lipinski, E. ed. The Land of Israel: Cross Roads of Civilizations (Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 19). Leuven: 113–146.
Shiloh, Y. 1989. Judah and Jerusalem in the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B.C.E. In: Gitin, S. and Dever,
W. G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (AASOR 49). New
Heaven: 97–105.
Shiloh, Y. 1990. Stratigraphical Introduction to Parts I and II. In: Ariel, D. T. ed. Excavations at the
City of David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. II: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles,
Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory, and Glass (Qedem 30). Jerusalem: 1–12.
Shiloh, Y. 1992. The Early Periods and The First Temple Period. NEAEHL 2: 615–626.
Shiloh, Y. and Kaplan, M. 1979. Digging in the City of David. BAR 5/4: 36–49.
Shoham, Y. 2000a. Hebrew Bullae. In: Ariel, D. T. ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985
Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 29–57.
Shoham, Y. 2000b. A Hebrew Seal and Seal Impressions. In: Ariel, D. T. ed. Excavations at the City of
David 1978–1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol. VI: Inscriptions (Qedem 41). Jerusalem: 81–84.
Shukron, E., Reich, R. 2005. Jerusalem, City of David, the Givʿati Car Park. HA 117: 7–9. (Hebrew).
Silverman, M. 1981. Servant (ʿebed) Names in Aramaic and in the Other Semitic Languages.
AOS 101: 361–366.
Simkins, R. A. 1999. Patronage and the Political Economy of Monarchic Israel. Semeia 87: 123–144.
Simkins, R. A. 2004. Family in the Political Economy of Monarchic Judah. The Bible and Critical
Theory 1/1: 1–17.
Sinclair, L. A. 1960. An Archaeological Study of Gibeah (Tell el-Full) (AASOR 34–35). Baltimore: 1–52.
Sinclair, L. A. 1964. An Archaeological Study of Gibeah (Tell el-Full). BA 27: 52–64.
Sinclair, L. A. 1968. Bethel Pottery of the Sixth Century B.C. In: Kelso, J. L. and Albright, W. F. eds.
The Excavations of Bethel (1934–1960) (AASOR 39). Cambridge: 7–76.
Singer-Avitz, L. 1989. Iron Age and Persian Period Pottery from Tel Poleg. In: Herzog, Z., Rapp Jr.,
G. and Negbi, O. eds. Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Minneapolis and Tel Aviv: 375–380.
(Hebrew).
Singer-Avitz, L. 1999. Beersheba – A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade
in the Eighth Century BCE. TA 26: 3–75.
Singer-Avitz, L. 2014. The Pottery of Megiddo Strata III–II and a Proposed Subdivision of the
Iron IIC Period in Northern Israel. BASOR 372: 123–145.
Sinopoli, G. 2005. Il Re e il Palazzo – Studi sull’architecttura del vicino oriente: il bit hilani. Pisa.
Sion, O. 1996. The Survey of the Map of Kalya. HA 104: 80–81. (Hebrew).
Sivan, R. and Solar, G. 1994. Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980–1988. in: Geva, H. ed.
Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: 168–176.
Ska, J. L. 2001. Essai sur la nature et la signification du cycle d’Abraham. In: Wénin, A. ed. Studies
in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and History (BETL 155), Leuven: 153–177.
Ska, J. L. 2009. The Call of Abraham and Israel’s Birth-certificate (Gen 12:1–4a). In: Ska. J. L. ed. The
Exegesis of the Pentateuch (FAT 66), Tübingen: 46–66.
Ska, J. L. 2016. Why does the Pentateuch speak so much of Torah and so little of Jerusalem? In:
Dubovskÿ, P. ed. The fall of Jerusalem and the rise of the Torah. Tübingen: 113–128.
Skinner, J. 1961. Prophecy and Religion – Studies in the Life of Jeremiah. Cambridge.
Smallwood, E. M. 1976. The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Studies in Judaism in
Late Antiquity 20). Leiden.
 Bibliography 719

Smelik, K. A. D. 1991. Writings from Ancient Israel: A Handbook of Historical and Religious Documents.
Kentucky.
Smelik, K. A. D. 1992. Converting the Past − Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography.
Leiden.
Smend, R. 1881. Die Listen der Bucher Esra und Nehemia. Basel.
Smith, D. L. 1989. The Religion of the Landless. The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile.
Bloomington.
Smith, M. 1971. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (Lectures on the History
of Religions 9). New York.
Smith, M. S. 2007. Counting Calves at Bethel. In: Crawford, S. W. et al. eds. ”Up to the Gates of
Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour
Gitin. Jerusalem: 382–394.
Smith, R. H. 1990. The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period. Levant 22: 123–130.
Soggin, J. A. 1995. Abraham and the Eastern Kings: On Genesis 14. In: Zevit, Z., Gitin, S. and
Sokoloff, M. eds. Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in
Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Winona Lake: 283–291.
Sowers, S. G. 1996. Did Xerxes Wage War on Jerusalem? HUCA 67: 43–53.
Spalinger, A. 1976. Psammetichus, King of Egypt I. JARCE 13: 133–147.
Spalinger, A. 1977. Egypt and Babylonia: A Survey c. 620 B.C.–550 B.C. Studien zur altagyptischen
Kultur 5: 221–244.
Spalinger, A. 1978. The Foreign Policy of Egypt Preceding the Assyrian Conquest. JARCE 15: 49–57.
Speiser, E. A. 1955. Akkadian Documents from Ras Shamra. JAOS 75: 154–165.
Spek, R. J. van der, 1982. Did Cyrus the Great Introduce a New Policy Towards Subdued Nations?
Cyrus in Assyrian Perspective. Persica 10: 278–283.
Speyer, W. 1970. Bücherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike. Göttingen.
Spieckermann, H. 1982. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129). Göttingen.
Stade, B. 1885. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 10–14. ZAW 5: 275–297.
Stade, B. 1886. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15–21. ZAW 6: 156–189.
Stager, L. E. 1976. Farming in the Judaean Desert during the Iron Age. BASOR 221: 145–158.
Stager, L. E. 1985. The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. BASOR 260: 1–35.
Stager, L. E. 1992. Ashkelon. NEAEHL 1: 102–106.
Stager, L. E. 1996a. Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 BCE. EI 25: 61*–74*.
Stager, L. E. 1996b. The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction. BAR 22/1:
56–69, 76–77.
Stager, L. E. 1998. Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel. In: Coogan, M. ed. The
Oxford History of the Biblical World. New York: 123–175
Stager, L. E. 2003. The Patrimonial Kingdom of Solomon. In: Dever, W. G. and Gitin, S. eds.
Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from
the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina (Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F.
Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, May 29–
31, 2000). Winona Lake: 63–74.
Stähl, H. P. 1978. Knabe – Jüngling – Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff naʿar im Alten Testament
(Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie). Frankfurt.
Stansell, G. 1988. Micah and Isaiah: A Form and Tradition Historical Comparison (SBL Dissertation
Series 85). Atlanta, GA.
Starkey, J. L. 1936. Excavation at Tell el-Duweir 1935–1936. PEFQS 68: 178–189.
Stavrakopoulou, F. 2006. Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship.
Biblica 87: 1–21
720 Bibliography

Steen, E. J. van der. 1998. Archaeological Excavations at Tell el-Hammeh. Occident and Orient 3/1:
12–14.
Steiner, M. L. 2001. Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. 3: The Settlement in
the Bronze and the Iron Ages. Sheffield.
Steiner, R. C. 1989. New Light on the Biblical Millo from Hatran Inscriptions. BASOR 276: 15–23.
Stekelis, M. 1934. A Jewish Tomb-Cave at Ramat Rachel. Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration
Society 3: 19–40. (Hebrew).
Stern, E. 1973. The Material Culture in the Land of Israel during the Persian Period: 538–332 BCE.
Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Stern, E. 1977. The Province of Yehud: The Vision and the Reality. Cathedra: 13–25.
Stern, E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period (538–332 B.C.). Jerusalem
and Warminister.
Stern, E. 1984. The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of Palestine in the Persian
Period. In: Davies, W. D. and Finkelstein, L. eds. The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge
and New York: 70–87.
Stern, E. 1990a. The Dor Province in the Persian Period in the Light of the Recent Excavations at
Dor. TRANS 2: 147–155.
Stern, E. 1990b. Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time of Ahab and under Assyrian Rule. IEJ 40: 12–
30.
Stern, E. 1990c. The Beginning of the Greek Settlement in Palestine in Light of the Excavations at
Tel Dor. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W. G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel; Studies in Iron Age
Archaeology (AASOR 49): 107–124.
Stern, E. 1991. Dor: The Ruler of the Seas. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Stern, E. 1992a. Dor. NEAEHL 2: 393–407.
Stern, E. 1992b. The Phoenician Architectural Elements in Palestine during the Late Iron Age and
the Persian Period. In: Kempinski, A. and Reich, R. eds. The Architecture of Ancient Israel from
the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: 302–310. (Hebrew).
Stern, E. 1993. The Jericho Region and the Eastern Border of the Judean Kingdom in Its Last Days.
EI 24: 192–197. (Hebrew).
Stern, E. 1994a. Assyrian and Babylonian Elements in the Material Culture of Palestine in the
Persian Period. TRANS 7: 51–62.
Stern, E. 1994b. The Eastern Border of the Kingdom of Judah in Its Last Days. In: Coogan, M. D.,
Exum, J. C. and Stager, L. E. eds. Scripture and other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and
Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville.
Stern, E. 1995a. Between Persia and Greece: Trade, Administration and Warfare in the Persian and
Hellenistic Periods. In: Levy, T. E. ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London: 433–
445.
Stern, E. 1995b. Four Phoenician Finds from Israel. In: von Lerberghe, K. and Schoors, A. eds.
Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East (Festschrift E. Lipiński). Leuven: 319–334.
Stern, E. 1997. The Beginning of the Province of ‘Yehud’ in the Persian Period. In: Faust, A. and
Baruch, E. eds. New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Third Conference. Ramat Gan: 69–
72.
Stern, E. 2000. The Babylonian Gap. BAR 26/6: 45–51, 76.
Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol. 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian
Periods 732–332 BCE. New York.
Stern, E. 2003. The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.). In: Stern, E. The
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Vol. 2. New York: 7–76.
Stern, E. 2004. The Babylonian Gap: The Archaeological Reality. JSOT 28/3: 273–277.
 Bibliography 721

Stern, E. 2007. En-Gedi Excavations I: Final Report (1961–1965). Jerusalem.

Stern E. and Magen, Y. 2000. The First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim – New
Archaeological Evidence, Qadmoniot 33/2: 119–124. (Hebrew).
Stern E. and Magen, Y. 2002. Archaeological Evidence for the First Stage of the Samaritan Temple
on Mount Gerizim. IEJ 52: 49–57.
Stern, E. and Tadmor, H. 1990. Persian Rule (538–332 BCE). In: Ephʿal, I. ed. The History of the Land
of Israel, Vol. 2: Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period. Jerusalem: 234–237.
Stern, M. 1973. The Documents of the Hasmonean Rebellion. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew)
Stern, M. 1979. The Books of the Maccabees and the ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ as Sources for the
Period of Revolt and the Hasmonean State. In: Bar-Kochva, B. ed. The Seleucid Period in the
Land of Israel: Researches and Studies on the Religious Decrees and the Hasmonean Revolt. Tel
Aviv: 97–110. (Hebrew).
Stern, M. 1981. The Land of Israel during the Hellenistic Period (332–160 BCE). In: Stern, M. ed.
The History of the Land of Israel, Vol. 3: The Hellenistic Period and the Hasmonean State
(332–27 BCE). Jerusalem: 9–190. (Hebrew).
Stern, M. 1982. The Roman Rule in Province of Judea from the Destruction of the Second Temple
to the Muslim Conquest. In: Baras, Z., Safrai, S., Stern, M. and Tsafrir, Y. eds. Eretz Israel from
the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest – Volume One: Political, Social and
Cultural History. Jerusalem: 1–17. (Hebrew).
Stevens, M. E. 2006. Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of Ancient lsrael.
Peabody.
Stolper, M. W. 1989. The Governor of Babylon and Across-the River in 486 BCE. JNES 48: 283–305.
Suriano, M. J. 2010. The Politics of Dead Kings. Dynastic Ancestors in the Book of Kings and Ancient
Israel (FAT 2/48). Tübingen.
Sweeney, M. A. 2007. I & II Kings: A Commentary. Louisville.
Swetnam, L. 1965. Some Observations on the Background of Ṣaddîq in Jeremiah 23, 5a. Biblica 46:
29–40.
Syren, R. 1993. The Book of Jonah – A Reversed Diasporanovella? Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 58: 7–14.
Tadmor, H. 1958. The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study. JCS 12: 22–
40, 77–100.
Tadmor, H. 1964. The Assyrian Campaigns to Philistia. In: Liver, J. ed. The Military History of the Land
of Israel in Biblical Times. Tel Aviv: 261–285. (Hebrew).
Tadmor, H. 1966. Philistia under Assyrian Rule. BA 29: 86–102.
Tadmor, H. 1973. On the History of Samaria in the Biblical Period. In: Aviram, J. ed. Eretz Shomron:
the Thirtieth Archaeological Convention, September 1972. Jerusalem: 67–74. (Hebrew).
Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem.
Tadmor, H. and Cogan, M. 1979. Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic
Considerations. Biblica 60: 499–508.
Tadmor, H. and Yamada, S. 2011. The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and
Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria. Winona Lake.
Tadmor, M. 1974. Fragments of an Achaemenid Throne from Samaria. IEJ 24: 37–43.
Taha, H. and Sugimoto, D. 2013. Beitin: An Open Archaeological Park. This Week in Palestine 187
(www.thisweekinpalestine.com/i187/pdfs/article/beitin.pdf ).
Tal, O. 2000. Some Notes on the Settlement Patterns of the Persian Period Southern Sharon Plain
in Light of Recent Excavations at Apollonia-Arsuf. TRANS 19: 115–125.
Tal, O. 2007. The Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine. Between Tradition and Renewal. Jerusalem.
Tappy, R. 2001. The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria, Vol. 2: The Eighth Century BCE (Harvard Semitic
Studies 50). Winona Lake.
722 Bibliography

Tarragon, J.-M. de 1992. Ammon. ABD 1: 194–196.

Tatum, L. 2003. Jerusalem in Conflict: The Evidence for the Seventh-Century B.C.E. Religious
Struggle over Jerusalem. In: Vaughn, A. G. and Killebrew, A. E. eds. Jerusalem in Bible and
Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SymS 18). Atlanta: 291–306.
Tavgar, A. 2015. E. P. 914 East of Beitin and the Location of the Ancient Cult Site of Bethel. In the
Highland’s Depth: Ephraim Range and Binyamin Research Studies 5: 49–69. (Hebrew).
Tavgar, A. 2021. ‘And He Called the Name of that Place Bethel’ (Gen 28:19): Historical-Geography
and Archaeology of the Sanctuary of Bethel. In: Hensel, B. eds. The History of the Jacob Cycle
(Genesis 25–35): Recent Research on the Compilation, the Redaction, and the Reception of the
Biblical Narrative and Its Historical and Cultural Contexts. Tübingen: 201–221.
Taylor, G. 1993. Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient
Israel. Sheffield.
Tcherikover, V. A. 1961. Jews in the Greek and Roman World. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Tcherikover, V. A. 1962. Jews and Greeks during the Hellenistic Period (Revised Edition). Tel Aviv.
Tcherikover, V. A. 1982. The Hellenistic Land of Israel. In: Schalit, A. ed. The History of the People of
Israel, First Series: From the Beginning until the Bar-Kochva Revolt, the Hellenistic Period.
Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Thareani-Sussely, Y. 2007. The ‘Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh’ Reconsidered in the Light of
Evidence from the Beersheba Valley. PEQ 139: 69–77.
Thareani-Sussely, Y. and Naʾaman, N. 2006. Dating the Appearance of Imitations of Assyrian Ware
in Southern Palestine. TA 33: 61–82.
Thiel, W. 1981. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (WMANT 52). Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Thiele, E. R. 1956. New Evidence on the Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah. BASOR 143: 22–27.
Thiele, E. R. 1965. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids.
Thompson, H. O. 1972. The 1972 Excavation of Khirbet al-Hajjar. ADAJ 17: 47–72.
Thompson, H. O. 1973. Rujm al-Malfuf (South). ADAJ 18: 47–50.
Thompson, H. O. 1975. Rujm al-Malfuf sud et Rujm al-Makheizin (Transjordanie). RB 82: 97–100.
Thompson, H. O. 1984. The Excavation of Rujm el-Mekheizin. ADAJ 28: 31–38.
Thompson, H. O. 1987. A Tyrian Coin in Jordan. BA 50: 101–104.
Thompson, H. O. and Zayadine, F. 1973. The Tell Siran Inscription. BASOR 212: 5–11.
Thompson, J. A. 1980. The Book of Jeremiah. Michigan.
Thompson, T. L. 1974. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. The Quest for the Historical Abraham
(BZAW 133). Berlin and New York.
Throntveit, M. A. 1989. Ezra-Nehemiah. Louisville.
Tiemeyer, L. S. 2010. For the comfort of Zion: The geographical and theological location of Isaiah 40–55
(VT.S 139). Leiden.
Timm, S. 1982. Die Dynastie Omri: Quellen Und Untersuchungen Zur Geschichte Israels Im
9. Jahrhundert Vor Christus (FRLANT 124). Göttingen.
Timm, S. 1995. Die Bedeutung der spätbabylonischen Texte aus Nerab für die Rückkehr der Judäer
aus dem Exil. In: Weippert, M. and Timm, S. eds. Meilenstein: Festgabe für Herbert Donner.
Wiesbaden: 276–288.
Torczyner, H. 1938. Lachish I: The Lachish Letters. London.
Torrey C. C. 1896. The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra–Nehemiah (BZAW 2). Giessen.
Torrey, C. C. 1936. The Foundry of the Second Temple at Jerusalem. JBL 55: 247–260.
Torrey, C. C. 1943. The Evolution of a Financier in the Ancient Near East. JNES 2: 295–301.
Tov, E. 1981. The Text Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8).
Jerusalem.
Tromp, N. J. 1969. Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament. Rome.
 Bibliography 723

Tsafrir, Y. 1977a. Excavations at Zion Gate, Jerusalem. IEJ 27: 28–37.

Tsafrir, Y. 1977b. The Walls of Jerusalem in the Period of Nehemiah. Cathedra 4: 31–42. (Hebrew).
Tsafrir, Y. 1982. Jerusalem Scope and the Course of its Walls in the Days of Nehemiah. In: Tadmor,
H. ed. The History of the People of Israel, The Return to Zion − The Days of Persian Rule.
Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Tsevat, M. 1959. The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oath and the Prophet Ezekiel. JBL 78:
199–204.
Tubb, J. N. 1988. Tell es-Saʿidiyeh: Preliminary Report on the First Three Seasons of Renewed
Excavations. Levant 20: 23–88.
Tubb, J. N. 1989. Saʿidiyeh (Tell el). In: Homès-Fredericq, D. and Hennessy, J. B. eds. Archaeology of
Jordan, Vol. II-2: Field Reports: Sites L–Z (Akkadica Supplementum 8). Leuven: 521–542.
Tubb, J. N. 1991. Tell es-Saʿidiyeh: Interim Report on the Fifth (1990) Season of Excavations. Levant
23: 67–86.
Tufnell, O. 1953. Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) III: The Iron Age (The Wellcome-Marston Archaeological
Research Expedition to the Near East 3). London.
Tuland, C. G. 1967. ʿZB in Nehemiah 3:8: A Reconstruction of Maximalist and Minimalist Views.
AUSS 5: 158–180.
Tuplin, C. 1987. The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire. In: Carradice, I. ed. Coinage and
Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires (BAR Int. Series 343). Oxford: 109–166.
Tur-Sinai, N. H. 1940. The Lachish Ostraca: Letters of the Time of Jeremiah. Jerusalem (A New Enlarged
edition 1987). (Hebrew).
Tushingham, A. D. 1967. Armenian Garden. PEQ 99: 71–73.
Tushingham, A. D. 1970. A Royal Israelite Seal(?) and the Royal Jar Handle Stamps (Part One).
BASOR 200: 71–78.
Tushingham, A. D. 1971. A Royal Israelite Seal(?) and the Royal Jar Handle Stamps (Part Two).
BASOR 201: 23–35.
Tushingham, A. D. 1985. Excavations in the Armenian Garden on the Western Hill. In: Tushingham,
D. A. ed. Excavations in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol 1: Excavations in the Armenian Garden, on the
Western Hill. Toronto: 1–178.
Tushingham, A. D. 1987. The Western Hill of Jerusalem: A Critique of the “Maximalist” Position.
Levant 19: 137–143.
Uehlinger, C. 2003. Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Iconography and Syro-Palestine Religions of
Iron Age II: Some Afterthoughts and Conclusions. In: Sass, B. and Uehlinger, C. eds. Studies in
the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (OBO 125). Fribourg and Göttingen: 257–
288.
Ussishkin, D. 1970. On the Original Position of Two Proto-Ionic Capitals at Megiddo. IEJ 20: 213–
215.
Ussishkin, D. 1976. Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions. BASOR 223: 1–13.
Ussishkin, D. 1977. The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean
Storage Jars. TA 4: 28–60.
Ussishkin, D. 1978. Excavations at Tell Lachish 1973–1977, Preliminary Report. TA 5: 1–97.
Ussishkin, D. 1983. Excavations at Tell Lachish 1978–1983: Second Preliminary Report. TA 10: 97–185.
Ussishkin, D. 1994. Gate 1567 at Megiddo and the Seal of Shema, servant of Jerobaoam. In:
Coogan, M. D., Exum, J. C. and Stager, L. E. eds. Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the
Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville, KY: 410–428.
Ussishkin, D. 2003. Solomon’s Jerusalem: The text and the facts on the ground. In: Vaughn, A. G.
and Killebrew, A. E. eds. Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology. The First Temple period (SBL
Symposium Series 18). Atlanta: 103–115.
724 Bibliography

Ussishkin, D. 2004a. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Sonia and Marco
Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22). Tel Aviv.
Ussishkin, D. 2004b. The Outer City Gate. In: Ussishkin, D. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at
Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 22). Tel Aviv: 535–623.
Ussishkin, D. 2004c. The Royal Judean Storage Jars and Seal Impressions from the Renewed
Excavations. In: Ussishkin, D. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994)
(Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 22). Tel Aviv: 2133–2147.
Ussishkin, D. 2004d. A Synopsis of the Stratigraphical, Chronological and Historical Issues. In:
Ussishkin, D. ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology 22). Tel Aviv: 50–119.
Ussishkin, D. 2005. The Fortifications of Philistine Ekron. IEJ 55: 35–65.
Ussishkin, D. 2006. The Borders and De Facto Size of Jerusalem in the Persian Period. In: Lipschits,
O. and Oeming, M. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake: 147–166.
Ussishkin, D. 2011. The Dating of the lmlk Storage Jars and Its Implications: Rejoinder to Lipschits,
Sergi and Koch. TA 38: 220–240.
Van Bekkum, K. 2011. From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the
Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan. Leiden.
Van Keulen, P. S. F. 1996. Manasseh Through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account
(2 Kings 21:1–18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden, New York and
Köln.
Van Seters, J. 1975. Abraham in History and Tradition. London.
Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical
History. New Haven and London.
Van Seters, J. 1992. Prologue to History. The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville.
Van Seters, J. 1994. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers. Louisville.
Van Seters, J. 1997. Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern
Historiography. CBQ 59: 45–57.
Van Seters, J. 1998. Divine Encounter at Bethel (Gen 28,10–22) in Recent Literary-Critical Study of
Genesis. ZAW 110: 503–513.
Van Seters, J. 2006. Law of the Hebrew Slave: A Continuing Debate. ZAW 56: 485–504.
Van Seters, J. 2009. The Biblical Saga of King David. Winona Lake.
Vanderhooft, D. S. 1999. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (Harvard
Semitic Monographs 59). Atlanta.
Vanderhooft, D. S. 2009. The Israelite MIŠPĀḤÂ, the Priestly Writings, and Changing Valences in
Israel’s Kingship Terminology. In: Schloen J. D. ed. Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor
of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake: 485–496.
Vanderhooft, D. S. and Lipschits, O. 2007. A New Typology of the Yehud Stamp Impressions. TA 34:
12–37.
Vaughn, A. G. 1999. Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah (ABS 4).
Atlanta.
Vaughn, A. G. 2016. Lmlk and Official Seal Impressions. In: Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman Z. eds. Tel
Beth-Shemesh: A Border Community in Judah, Renewed Excavations 1990–2000: The Iron Age
(Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 34). Winona Lake: 480–501.
Vaughn, A. G. 2018. Should All of the LMLK Jars Still Be Attributed to Hezekiah? Yes! In: Wright, J.
and Farber, Z. eds. Eighth Century Judah: An Introduction (Borowski volume). Atlanta: 351–356.
Vermeylen, J. 2000. La loi du plus fort: Histoire de la rédaction des récits davidiques de 1 Samuel 8 à
1 Rois 2 (BETL 154). Leuven.
Vincent, L. H. 1911. Underground Jerusalem: Discoveries on the Hill of Ophel (1909–1911). London.
 Bibliography 725

Vlaardingerbroek, J. 1999. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament – Zephaniah. Leuven.

Vogt, H. C. M. 1966. Studie zur nachexilische Gemeinde in Esra-Nehemia. Werl.
Von Rad, G. 1930. Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT 54). Stuttgart.
Von Rad, G. 1961. Genesis – A Commentary. London.
Von Rad, G. 1966. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Edinburgh.
Von Soden, W. 1965. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Vol. II: M-S. Wiesbaden.
Wade, J. M. and Mattingly, G. L. 2003. Ancient Weavers at Iron Age Mudaybiʿ. NEA 65: 73–75.
Waerzeggers, C. 2010. The Ezida Temple of Borsippa: Priesthood, Cult, Archives (Achaemenid
History 15). Leiden.
Wagenaar, J. 2005. Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar (BZAR 6).
Wiesbaden.
Wagner, A. 2014. Genesis 14: Its Literary Growth, its Messages, and their Historical Contexts (M.A.
thesis, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv.
Waldbaum, J. C. 1994. Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, ca. 1000–600 BC: The
Eastern Perceptive. BASOR 293: 53–66.
Wallinga, H. 1987. The Ancient Persian Navy and its Predecessors. In: Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. ed.
Achaemenid History I: Structures and Synthesis. Leiden: 47–77.
Wampler, J. C. 1941. Three Cistern Groups from Tell En-Nasbeh. BASOR 82: 25–43.
Wampler, J. C. 1947. Tell en-Nasbeh II, The Pottery. Berkley and New Haven.
Wanke, G. 1971. Untersuchunger zur sogennaten Baruchschrift (BZAW 122). Berlin.
Ward, W. A. 1968. The Four-Winged Serpent on Hebrew Seals. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 43: 135–
143.
Watzinger, C. 1929. Tell el Mutesallim, I. Leipzig.
Watzinger, C. 1935. Denkmäler Palästinas. Eine Einführung in die Archäologie des Heiligen Landes.
Leipzig.
Weidhaas, H. 1939. Der bit hilani. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatischer Archäologie 45:
108–168.
Weidner, E. F. 1939. Jojachin, König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten. In: Mélanges
Syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud 2. Bibliothèque archéologiques et historique 30. Paris:
923–935.
Weill, R. 1920. La Cité de David. Paris.
Weinberg, J. P. 1972. Demographische Notizen zur Geschichte der nachexilischen Gemeinde in Juda.
Klio 54: 45–59.
Weinberg, J. P. 1973. Das Bēit ʾĀbōt im 6.–4. Jh. v. u. Z. VT 23: 400–414 (Published also in idem.
1992. The Citizen-Temple Community: 49–61).
Weinberg, J. P. 1974. Die Agrarverhältnisse in der Bürger-Tempel-Gemeinde der Achämenidenzeit,
Acta Antiqua 22: 473–486 (Published also in idem. 1992. The Citizen-Temple Community: 92–104).
Weinberg, J. P. 1977. Zentral- und Partikulargewalt im achämenidischen Reich. Klio 59: 25–43.
Weinberg, J. P. 1992. The Citizen-Temple Community. Sheffield.
Weinberg, J. P. 2000. Jerusalem in the Persian Period. In: Ahituv, S. and Mazar, A. eds. The History of
Jerusalem, The Biblical Period. Jerusalem: 307–326. (Hebrew).
Weinberg, S. S. 1970. Eretz Israel after the Destruction of the First Temple, Archaeological Report.
The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings, vol. 4, no. 5: 202–216. (Hebrew).
Weinfeld, M. 2000. Pelekh in Nehemiah 3. In: Galil, G. and Weinfeld, M. eds. Studies in Historical
Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai. Leiden, Boston and Köln:
249–250.
Weingart, K. 2014. Stämmevolk ― Staatsvolk ― Gottesvolk? Studien zur Verwendung des Israel-Namens
im Alten Testament. (FAT 2/68). Tübingen.
726 Bibliography

Weippert, H. 1985. Ein vergessenes Volutenkapitell aus Jerusalem? BN 26: 22–26.

Weippert, M. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: A critical survey of recent scholarly
debate. London.
Weippert, M. 1982. Zur Syrienpolitik Tiglathpileser III. In: Nissen, H.-J. and Renger, J. eds.
Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten
Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Vol. II). Berlin: 395–408.
Weippert, M. 1987. The Relations of the States East of the Jordan with the Mesopotamian Powers
during the First Millennium bc. SHAJ 3: 97–105.
Weippert, M. 2010. Historisches Textbuch zum Alten Testament. Göttingen.
Weiser, A. 1969. Das Buch Jeremia (ATD 20/21). Göttingen.
Welch, A. C. 1935. Post-Exilic Judaism. Edinburgh and London.
Wellhausen, J. 1878a. Einleitung in das Alte Testament (4th ed.). Berlin.
Wellhausen, J. 1878b. Geschichte Israels. Vol. I. Berlin.
Wellhausen, J. 1958. Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte (9th ed.). Berlin.
Welten, P. 1969. Die Königs-Stempel: Ein Beitrag zur Militärpolitik Judas unter Hiskia and Josia (ADPV 1).
Wiesbaden.
Wenham, G. J. 1987. Genesis 1–15. Dallas.
Wenning, R. 1989. Mesad Hashavyahu: Ein Stützpunkt des Jojakim? In: Hossfeld, F. L. ed. Vom Sinai
zum Horeb. Würtzburg: 169–196
Wesenberg, B. 1971. Kapitelle und Basen, Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher. Band 32. Düsseldorf.
Wessels, W. J. 1989. Jeremiah 22, 24–30: A Proposed Ideological Reading. ZAW 101: 232–249.
Westermann, C. 1985. Genesis 12–36 − A Commentary (English Translation from the 1981 German
version). Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Wheatley, P. 2014, The Diadochi, or Successors to Alexander. In: Heckel, W. and Tritle, L. A. eds.
Alexander the Great. A New History. Oxford: 53–68.
Widengren, G. 1977. The Persian Period. in: Hayes, J. H. and Miller, J. M. eds. Israelite and Judaean
History. London: 489–538.
Wiesehöfer, J. 1994. Das antike Persien von 550 v. Chr. bis 650 n. Chr. München and Zürich.
Wiesehöfer, J. 2001. Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD. London.
Wilkinson, J. 1974. Ancient Jerusalem, Its Water Supply and Population. PEQ 106: 33–51.
Willi, T. 1972. Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen
Überlieferung Israels. Göttingen.
Willi, T. 1995. Juda-Jehud-Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12).
Tübingen.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles (The New Century Biblical Commentary). London.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1983. The composition of Ezra i–vi. JTS 34: 1–30.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1984. Nehemiah’s Walls Revisited. PEQ 116: 81–88.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1985. Ezra, Nehemiah (Word Biblical Commentary 16). Waco, TX.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1988. The Governors of Judah under the Persians. TynBul 39: 59–82.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1998. Judah and the Jews. In: Brosius, M. and Kuhrt, A. eds. Studies in Persian
History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis. Leiden: 145–163.
Williamson, H. G. M. 1999. The Belief System of the Book of Nehemiah. In: Becking, B. and Karpel,
M. C. A. eds. The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and
Post-Exilic Times. Leiden, Boston and Cologne: 276–287.
Williamson, H. G. M. 2004. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography. Tübingen.
Williamson, H. G. M. and Tollefson, K. D. 1992. Nehemiah as Cultural Revitalization: An
Anthropological Perspective. JSOT 56: 41–68.
 Bibliography 727

Wimmer, D. H. 1989. Safut (Tell). In: Homès-Fredericq, D. and Hennessy, J. B. eds. Archaeology of
Jordan, Vol. II-2: Field Reports: Sites L–Z (Akkadica Supplementum 8). Leuven: 512–515.
Winckler, H. 1889. Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons nach den Papierabklatschen und Originalen neu
herausgegeben I–II. Leipzig.
Winter, I. 1982. Art as Evidence for Interaction: Relations between the Assyrian Empire and North
Syria. In: Nissen, H. J. and Renger, J. eds. Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn – Politische und
kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Berlin: 355–
382.
Wiseman, D. J. 1956. Chronicles of Chaldaean kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London.
Wiseman, D. J. 1985. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. Oxford.
Wiseman, D. J. 1991. Babylonia 605–539 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III, Part 2 (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: 229–251.
Wöhrle, J. 2011. Abraham und das Leben im Ausland. Zur Intention der Ahnfrau-Erzählung in
Genesis 12,10–20 und ihrer frühen inner- und außerbiblischen Rezeption. BN 151: 23–46.
Wöhrle, J. 2021. The Priestly Writing(s): Scope and Nature. In: Baden, J. and Stackert, J. eds. The
Oxford Handbook of the Pentateuch. Oxford: 255–275.
Wright, G. E. 1947. Tell en-Nasbea. BA 10: 69–77.
Wright, G. E. 1957. Biblical Archaeology. London and Philadelphia.
Wright, G. E. 1963. Book Reviews. JNES 22: 210–211.
Wright, G. E. 1965. Shechem, The Biography of a Biblical City. New York and Toronto.
Wright, J. L. 2004. Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348).
Berlin.
Wright, J. L. 2007. A New Model for the Composition of Ezra–Nehemiah. In: Lipschits, O., Knoppers,
G. N. and Albertz, R. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE. Winona Lake: 333–
348.
Wright, J. L. 2014. David, King of Israel and Caleb in Biblical Memory. Cambridge.
Wright, L. S. 1989. MKR in 2 Kings XII 5–17 and Deuteronomy XVIII 8. VT 34: 438–448.
Würthwein, E. 1977. Die Bücher der Könige. Band 1. 1. Kön. 1–16 (ATD 11,1). Göttingen.
Würthwein, E. 1984. Die Bücher der Könige. Band 2. 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 (ATD 11,2). Göttingen.
Yadin, Y. 1962. Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo in Solomon’s Times. In: Malamat, A. ed. The Kingdoms of
Israel and Judah. Jerusalem: 66–109. (Hebrew).
Yadin, Y. 1973. The “House of Baal” in Samaria and in Judah. In: Aviram, J. ed. Eretz Shomron. The
Thirtieth Archaeological Convention. Jerusalem: 52–66. (Hebrew).
Yadin, Y., et al. 1961. Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–
1958 [plates volume]. Jerusalem.
Yamauchi, E. M. 1990. Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids.
Yamauchi, E. M. 2004. The Reconstruction of Jewish Communities during the Persian Empire. The
Journal of the Historical Society 4/1: 1–25.
Yassif, E. 2000. The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre, Meaning. Bloomington, IN.
Yassine, K. 1984. Tell el Mazar I: Cemetery A. Amman.
Yassine, K. 1988. Archaeology of Jordan: Essays and Reports. Amman.
Yassine, K. 1989. Mazar (Tell el). In: Homès-Fredericq, D. and Hennessy, J. B. eds. Archaeology of
Jordan, Vol. II/2: Field Reports: Sites L–Z (Akkadica Supplementum 8). Leuven: 381–388.
Yassine, K. 1999. Burial Customs and Practices in Ancient Ammon. In: MacDonald, B. and Younker,
R. W. eds. Ancient Ammon (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 17).
Leiden: 137–151.
Yassine, K. and Teixidor, J. 1986. Ammonite and Aramaic Inscriptions from Tell el-Mazar in Jordan.
BASOR 264: 45–50.
728 Bibliography

Yeivin, S. 1948. The Sepulchers of the Kings of the House of David. JNES 7: 30–48.
Yogev, O. 1982. Aderet. HA 78–79: 81–82. (Hebrew).
Young, E. J. 1949. Daniel. London.
Younger, K. L. Jr. 2015. The Assyrian Economic Impact on the Southern Levant in the Light of
Recent Study. IEJ 65: 179–204.
Younker, R. W. 1985. Israel, Judah, and Amman and the Motifs on the Baʿalis Seal from Tell el-
ʿUmeiri. BA 48/3: 173–180.
Younker, R. W. 1989a. Historical Background and Motifs of a Royal Seal Impression. In: Geraty, L. T.,
Herr, L. G., LaBianca, Ø. S. and Younker, R. W. Madaba Plains Project 1: The 1984 Season at Tell
el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs: 375–380
Younker, R. W. 1989b. “Towers” in the Region Surrounding Tell el-ʿUmeiri. In: Geraty, L. T., Herr,
L. G., LaBianca, Ø. S. and Younker, R. W. eds. Madaba Plains Project 1: The 1984 Season at Tell
el-ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs: 195–198.
Younker, R. W. 1991. Architectural Remains from the Hinterland Survey. In: Herr, L. G., Geraty, L. T.,
LaBianca, Ø. S. and Younker, R. W. eds. Madaba Plains Project 2: The 1987 Season at Tell el-
ʿUmeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs: 335–342
Younker, R. W. 1993. The Joint Madaba Plains Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1992 Season,
including the Regional Survey and Excavations at Tell Jalul and Tell el-ʿUmeiri (June 16 to
July 31, 1992). AUSS 31: 205–238.
Younker, R. W. 1994. Ammonites. In: Hoerth, A. J., Mattingly, G. L. and Yamauchi, E. M. eds. Peoples
of the Old Testament World. Grand Rapids: 293–316.
Younker, R. W. and Merling, D. 2000. Madaba Plains Project: Tall Jalul, 1999. AUSS 38: 45–58.
Younker, R. W., Geraty, L. T., Herr, L. G., and LaBianca, Ø. S. 1990. The Joint Madaba Plains Project:
A Preliminary Report of the 1989 Season, including the Regional Survey and Excavations at el-
Dreijat, Tell Jawa and Tell el-ʿUmeiri (June 19 to August 8, 1989). AUSS 28: 5–52.
Younker, R. W., Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S., Herr, L. G., and Clark, D. R. 1996. Preliminary Report of
the 1994 Season of the Madaba Plains Project: Regional Survey, Tall el-ʿUmayri and Tall Jalul
Excavations (June 15 to July 30, 1994). AUSS 34: 65–92.
Younker, R. W., Geraty, L. T., LaBianca, Ø. S., Herr, L. G., and Clark, D. R. 1997. Preliminary Report of
the 1996 Season of the Madaba Plains Project: Regional Survey, Tall al-ºUmayri and Tall Jalul
Excavations (June 19 to July 31, 1996). AUSS 35: 227–240.
Zadok, R. 1976. Syro-Palestinian Parallels to Lebanese Toponyms. Bibliotheca Orientalis 33: 304–310.
Zadok, R. 1978a. On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaladean and Achaemenian Periods: An
Onomastic Study. Jerusalem.
Zadok, R. 1978b. Phoenicians, Philistines, and Moabites in Mesopotamia. BASOR 230: 57–65.
Zadok, R. 1982. Review of Michael Ohana and Michael Heltzer, The Biblical Tradition of Hebrew
Personal Names from the First Temple Period to the End of the Talmudic Period, 1978. WO 13:
168–172.
Zadok, R. 1988. The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography (Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 28). Leuven.
Zadok, R. 1990. On Early Arabians in the Fertile Crescent. TA 17: 223–231.
Zangenberg, J. 2012. The Sanctuary on Mount Gerizim. In: Kamlah, J. ed. Temple Building and
Temple Cult. Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.).
Wiesbaden: 399–420.
Zayadine, F. 1973. Recent Excavations on the Citadel of Amman. ADAJ 18: 17–35.
Zayadine, F. 1985. Amman et Environs: Fouilles de Djebel el-Akhdar (Amman). Syria 62: 152–153.
Zayadine, F. and Thompson, H. O. 1989. The Ammonite Inscription from Tell Siran. In: Thompson,
H. O. ed. Archaeology in Jordan (American University Studies Series VII, History 55). New York:
158–193.
 Bibliography 729

Zelinger, Y. 2009. The Rural Settlements in the Shephela of Lod (Lydia) during the Second Temple
Period (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan. (Hebrew).
Zer-Kavod, M. 1949. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
Zertal, A. 1990. The Pahwah of Samaria (Northern Israel) during the Persian Period. Types of
Settlement, Economy, History and New Discoveries. TRANS 3: 9–30.
Zertal, A. 1999. The Province of Samaria during the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. in: Avishur, Y.
and Deutsch, R. Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Professor
Michael Heltzer. Tel Aviv-Jaffa: 75–98. (Hebrew).
Zertal, A. 2003. The Province of Samaria (Assyrian Samerina) in the Late Iron Age (Iron Age III). In:
Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian
Periods. Winona Lake: 377–412.
Zevit, Z. 2009. Is there an Archaeological Case for Phantom Settlements in the Persian Period?
PEQ 141/2: 124–137.
Zilberbod, I. 2012. Jerusalem, Bayit Ve-Gan. HA 124.
Zimhoni, O. 1990. Two Ceramic Assemblages from Lachish Levels III and II. TA 17: 3–52.
Zimhoni, O. 1997. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery of Israel: Typological, Archaeological, and
Chronological Aspects (Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications 2).
Tel Aviv.
Zimhoni, O. 2004a. The Pottery of Levels V and IV and Its Archaeological and Chronological
Implications. In: Ussishkin, D. ed. The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–
1994), IV (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv:
1643–1710.
Zimhoni, O. 2004b. The Pottery of Levels III and II. In: Ussishkin, D. ed. The Renewed Archaeological
Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), IV (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel
Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: 1789–1899.
Zissu, B. and Ganor, A. 2001. Horbat ʿEtri. HA 113: 148–153. (Hebrew).
Zobel, H. J. 1965. Stammesspruch und Geschichte. Die Angaben der Stammessprüche von Gen 49,
Dtn 33 und Jdc 5 über die politischen und kultischen Zustände im damaligen “Israel” (BZAW 95).
Berlin.
Zobel, H. J. 1975. Beiträge zur Geschichte Groß-Judas in früh- und vordavidischer Zeit (VT.S 28). Leiden:
253–277.
Zohari, M. 1963. Village. EncMiq 4: 230–231. (Hebrew).
Zorn, J. R. 1988. William Frederic Badè. BA 51: 28–35.
Zorn, J. R. 1993a. Mesopotamian-style Ceramic ‘Bathtub’ Coffins from Tell en-Nasbeh. TA 20: 216–
224.
Zorn, J. R. 1993b. Tell en-Naṣbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early
Bronze Age, Iron Age and Latter Periods. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California).
Berkeley.
Zorn, J. R. 1994. Estimating the Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems,
Solutions and a Case Study. BASOR 295: 31–48.
Zorn, J. R. 1997. Mizpah: Newly Discovered Stratum Reveals Judah’s Other Capital. BAR 23: 28–38,
66.
Zorn, J. R. 2003. Tell en-Naṣbeh and the Problem of the Material Culture of the Sixth Century. In:
Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. eds. Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period.
Winona Lake: 413–447.
Zorn, J. R. 2014. Tell en-Nasbeh in the 20th and 21st Centuries. In: Zorn, J. R. and Brody, A. J. eds.
“As for me, I will dwell at Mizpah …”. The Tell en-Nasbeh Excavations after 85 Years. Piscataway:
1–21.
730 Bibliography

Zorn, J. R., Yellin, J. and Hayes, J. 1994. The M(W)ṢH Stamp Impressions and the Neo-Babylonian
Period. IEJ 44: 161–183.
Zwickel, W. 2000. Das Heiligtum von Mamre. BN 101: 27–28.
Zwickel, W. 2008. Jerusalem und Samaria zur Zeit Nehemias. Ein Vergleich. BZ 52/2: 201–222.
Index of Sources
Hebrew Bible

Genesis Gen 23 502

Gen 2:5 641 Gen 23:17 499, 504
Gen 2:9 641 Gen 23:19 499
Gen 3:18 641 Gen 24 502–503
Gen 11:27–28a 502 Gen 25:7–10 502
Gen 12:1–3 503 Gen 25:9 499, 504
Gen 12:1–4a 502 Gen 25:16 603
Gen 12:4b–5 502 Gen 25:27 604
Gen 12:8 452, 461 Gen 26:24 557
Gen 12:10 506 Gen 28:10–22 406–407, 456
Gen 12:10–20 501, 506 Gen 28:19 406
Gen 13 501–502, 505–506 Gen 29–32 502
Gen 13:1 648 Gen 30:22–24 406
Gen 13:3 452, 461 Gen 31:13 406
Gen 13:6 502 Gen 32:23–32 503
Gen 13:11 502 Gen 35:1 406
Gen 35:3 406
Gen 13:12b 502
Gen 35:6 406
Gen 13:18 499–500, 503
Gen 35:8 406
Gen 14 648–649, 502
Gen 35:15 406
Gen 14:13 499, 503, 645, 648–649
Gen 35:16 406
Gen 14:24 499
Gen 35:16–21 416
Gen 15 502–503
Gen 35:18–20 406
Gen 16 501–502, 507, 509
Gen 35:27 596
Gen 16:3 502
Gen 36:31 592
Gen 16:15–16 502
Gen 36:35 604
Gen 17 502
Gen 39–40 649
Gen 18 504 Gen 39–41 650
Gen 18–19 501–502, 505 Gen 39:14 645–646, 649
Gen 18:1 499, 503–504 Gen 39:17 645–646, 649
Gen 18:1–15 501 Gen 40:15 645 646, 649
Gen 18:1–16 501 Gen 41:12 645–646, 649
Gen 19 501, 504 Gen 41:6 641
Gen 19:25 642 Gen 41:23 641
Gen 19:29 502 Gen 43:32 645, 649–650
Gen 20–22 502 Gen 48:7 416
Gen 20–22a 501 Gen 49 623
Gen 21 501 Gen 49:30 499, 504
Gen 21:1–7 501 Gen 50:7 562
Gen 21:1a 502 Gen 50:13 499, 504
Gen 21:1b–7 502
Gen 21:2 502 Exodus
Gen 21:7 502 Exod 1:15 645, 650
Gen 21:8–20 502 Exod 1:15–19 650

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-039
732 Index of Sources

Exod 1:16 645–646, 650 Lev 23:40 520

Exod 1:19 645–646, 650 Lev 23:42 520
Exod 1:21 650 Lev 23:43 516
Exod 1:22 645 Lev 25:38 516
Exod 2:6 645–646, 650 Lev 25:42 516
Exod 2:7 645–646, 650 Lev 25:55 516
Exod 2:11 645, 650 Lev 26 511
Exod 2:13 645 Lev 26:13 516
Exod 3:18 645–646, 651 Lev 26:45 516
Exod 5 651 Lev 27:14–29 311
Exod 5:3 645–646, 651
Exod 5:13 517 Numbers
Exod 5:19 517 Num 1:10 640
Exod 7:16 645–646, 651 Num 2:18 640
Exod 9:1 645–646, 651 Num 7:48 640
Exod 9:13 645–646, 651 Num 7:53 640
Exod 9:20 562 Num 10:22 640
Exod 10:3 645–646, 651 Num 12:7–8 556–557
Exod 10:5 641 Num 13–14 496
Exod 10:7 562 Num 14:22–25 557
Exod 11:3 562 Num 14:24 557
Exod 12:38 651 Num 18:20–32 523
Exod 13:3–16 651 Num 24:24 645
Exod 16:4 517 Num 26:55–56 601
Exod 21:2 647 Num 28–29 512
Exod 23:14–17 512 Num 29 517
Exod 23:16 512, 514 Num 29:12 512
Exod 30:11–16 579 Num 29:12–38 512, 514
Exod 34:18–24 512 Num 29:35 512
Exod 34:22 512, 514 Num 33:54 601
Exod 38:25–26 579 Num 34:13 601

Leviticus Deuteronomy
Lev 13:27 641 Deut 2:23 603
Lev 17–26 511 Deut 15:12 645, 647
Lev 19:36 516 Deut 16 512
Lev 22:31 603 Deut 16:13–17 512, 514
Lev 22:33 516 Deut 17:18 528
Lev 23 512, 514–515, 517 Deut 17:19 528
Lev 23:33 520 Deut 28:15 545
Lev 23:33–43 512, 514, 521 Deut 28:26 545
Lev 23:34 512 Deut 28:58 528
Lev 23:34–38 515 Deut 28:61 528
Lev 23:35–36 512 Deut 29:19 528
Lev 23:36 512 Deut 29:20 528
Lev 23:37 517 Deut 29:22 504, 641
Lev 23:39 512 Deut 29:26 528
Lev 23:39–43 514, 516, 518, 520, 522 Deut 31:9–13 520
 Hebrew Bible 733

Deut 30:10 528 Josh 16:1–2 400

Deut 31:24 528 Josh 16:1–3 401
Deut 31:26 528 Josh 16:2 452, 461
Deut 32:32 504 Josh 16:5 401
Deut 34:5 555–556 Josh 16:10 486
Josh 18:6 359, 601, 605
Joshua Josh 18:7 555–556
Josh 1:1 555–556 Josh 18:8 601
Josh 1:2 556 Josh 18:10 601
Josh 1:7 556 Josh 18:11–20 401
Josh 1:13 555–556 Josh 18:13 400, 452, 461
Josh 1:15 555–556 Josh 18:21–24 407
Josh 6 416 Josh 18:21–28 407, 605, 612, 615
Josh 6:8 401, 406, 407 Josh 18:22 400, 452
Josh 7:2 452 Josh 18:23 606
Josh 8 416 Josh 18:24 611, 615
Josh 8:9 452 Josh 18:25–28 407
Josh 8:12 452 Josh 18:26 289, 317, 412
Josh 8:17 452 Josh 18:28 289, 317, 412
Josh 8:31 528, 555–556 Josh 19:1–9 605
Josh 8:33 555–556 Josh 19:2 605
Josh 8:34 528 Josh 19:2–8 407, 612
Josh 9 401, 405, 409, 416, 497 Josh 19:7 609
Josh 9:17 289, 317, 412 Josh 19:40–46 407, 612
Josh 10:12 487 Josh 19:42 487
Josh 11:12 555–556 Josh 21:22 487
Josh 12:6 555–556 Josh 22:4 555–556
Josh 12:9 452 Josh 22:5 555–556
Josh 12:16 452 Josh 23:4–14 614
Josh 13:8 555–556 Josh 23:6 528
Josh 14 496 Josh 24:26 528
Josh 14:2 601 Josh 24:29 555–556
Josh 14:6–14 504
Josh 14:7 555 Judges
Josh 14:15 596 Judg 1:20 504
Josh 15 596, 602–605 Judg 1:21 359
Josh 15:6–10 401 Judg 1:22 452
Josh 15:8 359, 605 Judg 1:22–26 400, 452
Josh 15:13–14 504 Judg 1:23 452
Josh 15:15–17 496 Judg 1:35 487
Josh 15:21 604 Judg 2:8 555–556
Josh 15:21–39 604 Judg 3:12–30 406
Josh 15:21–62 407, 470–471, 612 Judg 3:26–27 406
Josh 15:32 609 Judg 4:5 452
Josh 15:33 604 Judg 5:14 406
Josh 15:60 289, 317, 412 Judg 5:14–17 406
Josh 15:63 359 Judg 11 647
Josh 16:1 452 Judg 16:22 641
734 Index of Sources

Judg 19–21 415–416 1 Sam 20:35–40 566

Judg 19:11 359 1 Sam 21:7 562
Judg 20–21 452 1 Sam 21:8 562, 621
Judg 20:18 452 1 Sam 21:12 562
Judg 20:26 452 1 Sam 22:17 561–562
Judg 20:29–48 415 1 Sam 22:6–9 562
Judg 20:31 452 1 Sam 22:9 563
Judg 21:2 452 1 Sam 27:1 604
Judg 21:19 452 1 Sam 29:1–3 647
1 Sam 29:3 558, 560, 645–646
1 Samuel 1 Sam 30:26 405, 497
1 Sam 2:13 566 1 Sam 30:27 452
1 Sam 2:13–17 566 1 Sam 31 416, 418
1 Sam 2:15 566
1 Sam 4:5–6 647 2 Samuel
1 Sam 7 413 2 Sam 2:8–9 406, 418
1 Sam 7:16 452 2 Sam 2:12 562
1 Sam 9:1–10:16 418 2 Sam 2:14–15 566
1 Sam 9–14 416 2 Sam 20 406
1 Sam 9:4 406 2 Sam 20:1 406
1 Sam 13:3 645–646 2 Sam 20:3 361
1 Sam 13:7 645 2 Sam 21:1–14 417
1 Sam 13:19 645–647 2 Sam 21:8–9 621
1 Sam 14:11 645–647 2 Sam 21:10 545
1 Sam 14:21 645, 647 2 Sam 24:2 605
1 Sam 4:6 645–646 2 Sam 24:15 605
1 Sam 4:9 645–647 2 Sam 24:16 359
1 Sam 10:2 416 2 Sam 24:18 359
1 Sam 10:17–27 413 2 Sam 3:18 557
1 Sam 11 418 2 Sam 4:1–3 488
1 Sam 13 418 2 Sam 4:3 414
1 Sam 13–14 418 2 Sam 5:3 499
1 Sam 13:2 419, 452 2 Sam 5:3 540
1 Sam 13:6 647 2 Sam 5:6 359
1 Sam 13:15 419 2 Sam 5:8 359
1 Sam 14 647 2 Sam 5:9 360
1 Sam 14:1 566 2 Sam 5:11 361
1 Sam 14:6 566 2 Sam 5:17 540
1 Sam 14:31 487 2 Sam 7:5 557
1 Sam 16:15 562 2 Sam 7:8 557
1 Sam 17:12 416, 493 2 Sam 8:7 562
1 Sam 17:44 545 2 Sam 9 621, 624–625
1 Sam 17:46 545 2 Sam 9:4–5 628
1 Sam 18:19 621 2 Sam 9:7 628
1 Sam 18:22–24 562 2 Sam 9:9 566
1 Sam 18:30 562 2 Sam 9:9–10 566
1 Sam 18:5 560, 562 2 Sam 9:10 628
1 Sam 20:35–38 566 2 Sam 9:13 628
 Hebrew Bible 735

2 Sam 10:2 562 2 Sam 18:1–19:9 621

2 Sam 10:4 562 2 Sam 18:1–19:9a 624
2 Sam 10:5 641 2 Sam 18:2 560
2 Sam 11:17 562 2 Sam 18:4b 624
2 Sam 11:24 562 2 Sam 18:5 560
2 Sam 12:7 540 2 Sam 18:6–9 624
2 Sam 12:18 562 2 Sam 18:7 560
2 Sam 13:15 562 2 Sam 18:7–9 562
2 Sam 13:17 562 2 Sam 18:9 560
2 Sam 13:23 619 2 Sam 18:12 560
2 Sam 13:29 566 2 Sam 18:15b–18bα 624
2 Sam 15:1–37 624 2 Sam 18:14–15 560
2 Sam 15:1–6 621 2 Sam 18:15 566
2 Sam 15:1–6 624 2 Sam 18:16 560
2 Sam 15:7 499 2 Sam 18:18 623
2 Sam 15–20 623, 625 2 Sam 18:29 558, 560
2 Sam 15:13 621, 624 2 Sam 19 621, 626
2 Sam 15:14 562 2 Sam 19:10–44 621, 624, 633
2 Sam 15:14–17:29 621, 624, 633 2 Sam 19:11 540
2 Sam 15:14–23 624 2 Sam 19:16 624
2 Sam 15:15 561–562 2 Sam 19:17 406, 566
2 Sam 15:16 562, 640 2 Sam 19:17–24 625
2 Sam 15:18 562 2 Sam 19:17–41 624
2 Sam 15:24 562 2 Sam 19:21 406
2 Sam 15:30–37 624 2 Sam 19:25–31 625
2 Sam 15:32–37 626 2 Sam 19:25aβ 625
2 Sam 16:1 566 2 Sam 19:32 621
2 Sam 16:1–4 625 2 Sam 19:32–39 623, 625–626, 628–629, 633
2 Sam 16:1–14 621, 624–625 2 Sam 19:32–40 627
2 Sam 16:5 406 2 Sam 19:33 621
2 Sam 16:5–13 625–626 2 Sam 19:33b 626
2 Sam 16:6 561–562 2 Sam 19:33bα 628
2 Sam 16:15–19:16 624 2 Sam 19:34 621
2 Sam 16:20–17:26 624 2 Sam 19:34b 626
2 Sam 17 626 2 Sam 19:35 621
2 Sam 17:11 605 2 Sam 19:38 622
2 Sam 17:22b 628 2 Sam 19:40 621
2 Sam 17:24 628 2 Sam 19:40b 623, 625–626, 628–629
2 Sam 17:24a 628 2 Sam 19:41a 625
2 Sam 17:26 628 2 Sam 19:41aβ 623, 625–626, 628–629
2 Sam 17:27 621 2 Sam 19:41b 624
2 Sam 17:27–29 623–629, 633 2 Sam 19:9b–15 624
2 Sam 17:27a 628 2 Sam 19:9b–41 625
2 Sam 17:27b 628
2 Sam 17:28 628 1 Kings
2 Sam 17:29b 628 1 Kgs 1:4 540
2 Sam 18:1 628 1 Kgs 1:9 561
2 Sam 18:1–2a 624 1 Kgs 1:19 562
736 Index of Sources

1 Kgs 1:25 562 1 Kgs 14:8 557

1 Kgs 1:32 360 1 Kgs 14:11 545
1 Kgs 1:39 540 1 Kgs 14:26 358
1 Kgs 1:45 540 1 Kgs 14:27 358
1 Kgs 1:47 561 1 Kgs 15:16–22 403
1 Kgs 2:3 528 1 Kgs 15:18 358
1 Kgs 2:5–9 622, 627 1 Kgs 15:31–32 549
1 Kgs 2:7 621–623, 627, 633 1 Kgs 16:4 545
1 Kgs 2:8 406 1 Kgs 16:34 407, 452
1 Kgs 3:1 360 1 Kgs 18:4 558
1 Kgs 5:5 605 1 Kgs 18:43 566
1 Kgs 5:15 540 1 Kgs 19:15 540
1 Kgs 7:1–2 361 1 Kgs 19:16 540
1 Kgs 8 305 1 Kgs 20:14 566
1 Kgs 8:1–2 513 1 Kgs 20:17 566
1 Kgs 8:9 528 1 Kgs 20:19 566
1 Kgs 8:20 562 1 Kgs 20:23 532, 562
1 Kgs 8:56 528 1 Kgs 21:24 545
1 Kgs 8:59 517
1 Kgs 8:10 601 2 Kings
1 Kgs 9:15 360 2 Kgs 1:18 549
1 Kgs 9:27 562 2 Kgs 2:1–2 407
1 Kgs 10:17 358 2 Kgs 2:2 452
1 Kgs 11:13 557 2 Kgs 2:2–3 452
1 Kgs 11:14–22 560 2 Kgs 2:3 452
1 Kgs 11:26 558, 560 2 Kgs 2:4 407
1 Kgs 11:27–28 560 2 Kgs 2:5 407
1 Kgs 11:28 560 2 Kgs 2:15 407
1 Kgs 11:32 557 2 Kgs 2:18 407
1 Kgs 11:33 557 2 Kgs 2:23 452
1 Kgs 11:36 557 2 Kgs 2:36–37 360
1 Kgs 11:38 557 2 Kgs 3:11 562
1 Kgs 11:40 560 2 Kgs 4:38 407
1 Kgs 12 455 2 Kgs 5:20 566
1 Kgs 12–13 452 2 Kgs 8:4 566
1 Kgs 12:21 415 2 Kgs 9:3 540
1 Kgs 12:23 415 2 Kgs 9:6 540
1 Kgs 12:28–33 305 2 Kgs 9:7 558
1 Kgs 12:29 452, 454 2 Kgs 9:10 545
1 Kgs 12:32 452 2 Kgs 9:12 540
1 Kgs 12:32–33 513 2 Kgs 9:36 545
1 Kgs 12:33 452 2 Kgs 10:18–29 558
1 Kgs 13 614 2 Kgs 10:29 452
1 Kgs 13:1 452 2 Kgs 10:31 528
1 Kgs 13:4 452 2 Kgs 10:36 549
1 Kgs 13:10 452 2 Kgs 12 530, 532–534
1 Kgs 13:11 452 2 Kgs 12:6 530, 577
1 Kgs 13:30 544 2 Kgs 12:8 577
 Hebrew Bible 737

2 Kgs 12:9 530 2 Kgs 19:2 557, 561, 564

2 Kgs 12:10 530, 534 2 Kgs 19:5 561
2 Kgs 12:10–16 531 2 Kgs 19:6 566
2 Kgs 12:10–17 305, 529 2 Kgs 19:34 557
2 Kgs 12:10a 535 2 Kgs 20:16 557
2 Kgs 12:11 530, 534 2 Kgs 20:20–21 549
2 Kgs 12:12a 530 2 Kgs 21:8 528, 556
2 Kgs 12:12b–13aα 530 2 Kgs 21:11–16 548
2 Kgs 12:13 578 2 Kgs 21:17–18 549
2 Kgs 12:13aβ–b 530 2 Kgs 21:18 361, 539, 553
2 Kgs 12:14 530 2 Kgs 21:23 561–562
2 Kgs 12:15 530 2 Kgs 21:25–26 549
2 Kgs 12:18 536 2 Kgs 21:26 361, 539
2 Kgs 12:19 536 2 Kgs 22 525, 530, 532, 534
2 Kgs 12:21 360 2 Kgs 22–23 527
2 Kgs 14:6 528 2 Kgs 22:2 18
2 Kgs 14:13 361 2 Kgs 22:3–7 529
2 Kgs 14:14 358 2 Kgs 22:3–8 531
2 Kgs 15:5 56 2 Kgs 22:3–14 129
2 Kgs 15:11–12 549 2 Kgs 22:4 525, 534
2 Kgs 15:15 549 2 Kgs 22:4–6 305, 526
2 Kgs 15:26 549 2 Kgs 22:5 534
2 Kgs 15:31 549 2 Kgs 22:5–6 577
2 Kgs 15:35 361 2 Kgs 22:5b–6 525
2 Kgs 16:2b–4 17 2 Kgs 22:8–10 525
2 Kgs 16:5ba 17 2 Kgs 22:8 527
2 Kgs 16:5bb 17 2 Kgs 22:8a 525
2 Kgs 16:5–6 17 2 Kgs 22:8b 526
2 Kgs 16:5–9 17 2 Kgs 22:9 526
2 Kgs 16:8 5, 17, 30, 358 2 Kgs 22:10 527
2 Kgs 17 546 2 Kgs 22:11 526
2 Kgs 17:5–6 5, 17 2 Kgs 22:12 559, 561, 564
2 Kgs 17:28 452 2 Kgs 22:13 527, 561
2 Kgs 17:34 528 2 Kgs 22:14 361, 620
2 Kgs 17:37 528 2 Kgs 22:16 527
2 Kgs 18:1 6 2 Kgs 23 292, 401, 409, 455, 527, 614
2 Kgs 18:3 17 2 Kgs 23:2 525, 527
2 Kgs 18:5 17 2 Kgs 23:3 527
2 Kgs 18:5–7 18 2 Kgs 23:4 452, 609
2 Kgs 18:7 17 2 Kgs 23:4–14 614
2 Kgs 18:9–10 6 2 Kgs 23:4–20 614
2 Kgs 18:12 555–556 2 Kgs 23:8 605, 609–610
2 Kgs 18:13 6 2 Kgs 23:11 361, 527
2 Kgs 18:15 358 2 Kgs 23:15 452, 609
2 Kgs 18:17 361 2 Kgs 23:15a 455
2 Kgs 18:18 557, 564 2 Kgs 23:15–16 452
2 Kgs 18:26 557, 564 2 Kgs 23:15–16a 407
2 Kgs 18:37 557, 564 2 Kgs 23:17 452
738 Index of Sources

2 Kgs 23:19 452, 613 2 Kgs 25:7 551

2 Kgs 23:21 527 2 Kgs 25:8 127, 428, 559, 561
2 Kgs 23:22 528 2 Kgs 25:8–10 132
2 Kgs 23:24 527 2 Kgs 25:9 108, 141
2 Kgs 23:26–27 548 2 Kgs 25:9–10 127, 371
2 Kgs 23:29 35, 120, 245 2 Kgs 25:9–11 424
2 Kgs 23:29–30a 549 2 Kgs 25:9a 139–140
2 Kgs 23:22 521 2 Kgs 25:9b 139
2 Kgs 23:26–25:21 545 2 Kgs 25:10 108, 258
2 Kgs 23:30 540 2 Kgs 25:11 108, 127, 139, 371
2 Kgs 23:32 546 2 Kgs 25:12 108, 113, 128, 132, 192, 213
2 Kgs 23:31 120, 540 2 Kgs 25:13–17 141, 358
2 Kgs 23:33 35 2 Kgs 25:18–21 143
2 Kgs 23:33–34 120, 547 2 Kgs 25:21 128, 421
2 Kgs 23:34 35 2 Kgs 25:21b 108
2 Kgs 23:37 546 2 Kgs 25:22 41, 106, 109, 113, 128, 130, 192,
2 Kgs 24 551 425, 431
2 Kgs 24:1 118–119, 473, 541–542, 552 2 Kgs 25:22–26 128, 140, 389, 411, 425
2 Kgs 24:2 118, 216, 547 2 Kgs 25:22a 108–109
2 Kgs 24:5–6 539 2 Kgs 25:22b 108
2 Kgs 24:5a 548 2 Kgs 25:22–26 108
2 Kgs 24:5b 549 2 Kgs 25:23 133, 425, 564
2 Kgs 24:6 539, 545 2 Kgs 25:23–24 129
2 Kgs 24:6a 549 2 Kgs 25:23aβ 109
2 Kgs 24:6b 549 2 Kgs 25:23b 429
2 Kgs 24:8 119 2 Kgs 25:24 109, 129–130, 427
2 Kgs 24:9 546 2 Kgs 25:24b 108
2 Kgs 24:10 561–562 2 Kgs 25:25 131–132, 425, 428, 564, 640
2 Kgs 24:11 547, 562 2 Kgs 25:26 133, 428
2 Kgs 24:11–12 547 2 Kgs 25:26a 429
2 Kgs 24:12 120, 542 2 Kgs 25:27 547
2 Kgs 24:13 358 2 Kgs 25:30 517
2 Kgs 24:15–16 120, 547
2 Kgs 24:15–17 119 Isaiah
2 Kgs 24:16 43, 242 Isa 1:9–10 504
2 Kgs 24:17 473, 542 Isa 3:9 504
2 Kgs 24:18 120 Isa 4:2 641–642
2 Kgs 24:19 546 Isa 7:6 4
2 Kgs 25 108, 507 Isa 10:28–32 289, 317, 401, 412
2 Kgs 25:1 200 Isa 10:31 610
2 Kgs 25:1–21 126 Isa 11:1 642–644
2 Kgs 25:1–25 424 Isa 13:19 504
2 Kgs 25:2–3 132 Isa 20:3 557
2 Kgs 25:3 126 Isa 22:15–25 557
2 Kgs 25:4 126, 361 Isa 22:16–19 557
2 Kgs 25:4–5 372 Isa 22:20 557, 565
2 Kgs 25:5 126 Isa 22:20–25 557
2 Kgs 25:6–7 126, 547 Isa 27:13 601
 Hebrew Bible 739

Isa 29:22 503 Jer 19:7 545

Isa 33:2 563 Jer 22:10–12 547
Isa 34:17 601 Jer 22:11–12 120
Isa 36:1 6 Jer 22:13–17 544, 547
Isa 36:11 557, 565 Jer 22:17 547
Isa 36:22 557, 565 Jer 22:18–19 119, 539, 544
Isa 36:3 557, 565 Jer 22:19 549, 551
Isa 37:2 557, 561, 565 Jer 22:30 544
Isa 37:5 561 Jer 23:5 641–644
Isa 40–56 565 Jer 23:14 504
Isa 41:8 503 Jer 25:1–14 117
Isa 42:11 603 Jer 25:9 557
Isa 44:4 641 Jer 25:33 545
Isa 45:4 557 Jer 26:1–6 421
Isa 45:8 641 Jer 26:6 142
Isa 48:2 601 Jer 26:9 142
Isa 51:1–3 505 Jer 26:24 561
Isa 51:2 505 Jer 27 121, 200
Isa 52:1 601 Jer 27:2–12 423
Isa 56:7 601 Jer 27:6 557
Isa 57:13 601 Jer 28 200
Isa 58:8 641 Jer 29:2 120
Isa 61:5 213 Jer 29:3 129
Isa 61:11 641–642 Jer 30:10 557
Isa 63:16 503 Jer 31 142
Isa 65:11 601 Jer 31:6 143
Jer 31:8–9 143
Jeremiah Jer 31:9 143
Jer 4:15 406 Jer 31:15 416
Jer 7 142, 421 Jer 31:22 601
Jer 7:2 142 Jer 31:37 361
Jer 7:4 135, 142 Jer 32:4–5 126
Jer 7:12 135, 142, 421 Jer 32:7–15 289, 317, 412
Jer 7:14 421 Jer 32:24 126
Jer 7:33 545 Jer 32:44 290, 319, 404, 498
Jer 8:2 545 Jer 33:13 290, 319, 404, 498
Jer 9:21 545 Jer 33:14–26 503
Jer 14:16 545 Jer 33:15 641
Jer 15:4 545 Jer 33:15–16 642
Jer 16:4 545 Jer 33:21 557
Jer 16:6 545 Jer 33:22 557
Jer 16:19–27 144 Jer 33:26 494, 503, 557
Jer 16:26 144 Jer 34:2–3 126
Jer 17:5 563 Jer 34:7 107, 126–127, 138, 166, 424
Jer 17:6 205 Jer 34:9 645, 647
Jer 17:19 361 Jer 34:14 647
Jer 17:26 290, 319, 404, 498 Jer 34:20 545
Jer 19:2 361 Jer 35 547
740 Index of Sources

Jer 35:1 547 Jer 39:11–14 139, 427

Jer 35:1–11 119 Jer 39:11–18 128
Jer 35:4 564 Jer 39:14 427
Jer 35:11 547 Jer 39:15–18 507
Jer 36 552 Jer 40–41 109
Jer 36:9 117 Jer 40–42 319, 404, 498, 290, 319
Jer 36:10–13 129 Jer 40:1 139, 507
Jer 36:12 564, 640 Jer 40:1–6 128, 427
Jer 36:20 640 Jer 40:2–3a 507
Jer 36:20–21 564 Jer 40:3b 507
Jer 36:21 640 Jer 40:4–5 507
Jer 36:30 539, 544–545, 551 Jer 40:5 427
Jer 36:32 361 Jer 40:6 427, 507, 425
Jer 37 108 Jer 40:7 108–109, 128, 604
Jer 37–44 127 Jer 40:7–41:15 425
Jer 37:1–10 507 Jer 40:7–41:18 108, 128, 140–141, 389
Jer 37:5 127 Jer 40:7aβ–b 108
Jer 37:5–11 126, 423 Jer 40:8 133, 564
Jer 37:5–16 121 Jer 40:8b 429
Jer 37:7–8 127 Jer 40:8–10 129
Jer 37:7–16 131 Jer 40:9 427
Jer 37:11 127 Jer 40:9–10 109, 129
Jer 37:11–15 426 Jer 40:10 108–109, 128–131, 208, 425
Jer 37:12 127, 131, 372, 426 Jer 40:10–12 425
Jer 37:12–13 426 Jer 40:11 108–109, 128
Jer 37:12–15 120 Jer 40:11–12 126, 132, 200, 425, 428
Jer 37:12–16 426 Jer 40:11–12a 131
Jer 37:13 127, 361 Jer 40:12 109, 130–131, 425
Jer 37:14 127 Jer 40:12a 109, 430
Jer 37:21 126 Jer 40:13 129, 425
Jer 38:1–13 426, 507 Jer 40:13–15 132
Jer 38:9 126 Jer 40:14 126, 132, 196, 200
Jer 38:14–26 426 Jer 40:15 425
Jer 38:17–18 426 Jer 41–42 506
Jer 38:19 128, 131, 372, 426 Jer 41:1 130–132, 425, 428, 564, 640
Jer 38:24–27 120 Jer 41:1–3 132
Jer 39–43 411 Jer 41:3 128, 425, 429
Jer 39:1–2 507 Jer 41:5 140–141, 143–144
Jer 39:1–10 126, 424 Jer 41:7–8 142
Jer 39:2 126, 132 Jer 41:10 130, 429
Jer 39:3 361 Jer 41:12 109, 130
Jer 39:4 361, 372 Jer 41:15 126, 132, 200
Jer 39:4–12 507 Jer 41:16 109, 130, 133, 429
Jer 39:5 126 Jer 41:16–18 133, 428
Jer 39:8 127 Jer 41:17 109, 130, 622, 627, 633
Jer 39:8–9 424 Jer 42:1 133, 429
Jer 39:9 108, 127, 139, 371 Jer 42:2 430
Jer 39:10 108, 128, 132, 213 Jer 42:2–3 429
 Hebrew Bible 741

Jer 42:4 429 Ezek 16:7 641–642

Jer 42:7–12 430 Ezek 16:44–48 504
Jer 42:7–22 133 Ezek 17:3 642
Jer 42:8 133, 429 Ezek 17:12–14 120
Jer 42:9–12 429 Ezek 17:15 121, 423
Jer 42:10 430 Ezek 17:15–18 126
Jer 42:10–11 133, 430 Ezek 17:16–18 545
Jer 42:11 430 Ezek 17:19–20 545
Jer 42:14–22 430 Ezek 20:40 601
Jer 42:16 108 Ezek 21:23–28 133, 200
Jer 43:2 429 Ezek 21:23–32 126
Jer 43:3 429 Ezek 24:1 200
Jer 43:4–5 133, 429 Ezek 24:2 200
Jer 43:5–6 429 Ezek 24:6 601
Jer 43:5b 430 Ezek 28:14 601
Jer 43:10 557 Ezek 28:25 506, 557
Jer 46:1–12 117, 541 Ezek 28:25–26 557
Jer 46:27–28 557 Ezek 29:18 199
Jer 48:13 452 Ezek 29:21 641
Jer 49:18 504 Ezek 30:20–26 126
Jer 49:34–39 122 Ezek 33:21 126
Jer 50:4 143 Ezek 33:24 494, 501, 505–506
Jer 50:40 504 Ezek 34:23 557
Jer 51:59 122, 423 Ezek 34:23–24 557
Jer 52 108, 507 Ezek 34:24 557
Jer 52:1–30 126, 424 Ezek 37 506
Jer 52:5–6 132 Ezek 37:23–24 557
Jer 52:6 126 Ezek 37:24 557
Jer 52:7 126, 372 Ezek 37:24–25 557
Jer 52:8–11 126 Ezek 37:25 506, 557
Jer 52:12 127, 428 Ezek 39:17–20 545
Jer 52:12–15 132 Ezek 42:13–14 601
Jer 52:13–14 127 Ezek 43:12 601
Jer 52:13–15 424 Ezek 44:9–14 523
Jer 52:15 108, 127, 139, 371 Ezek 45:25 513
Jer 52:16 108, 128, 132, 213
Jer 52:24 535 Hosea
Jer 52:24–27 143 Hos 4:15 407
Jer 52:27 128 Hos 5:8–10 407
Jer 52:27b 108 Hos 8:7 642
Jer 52:30 131, 430 Hos 9:15 407
Jer 52:34 517 Hos 10:15 452–453
Hos 12:5 407, 452–453
Ezekiel
Ezek 1:2 122 Joel
Ezek 8:11 129, 564 Joel 1:11 213
Ezek 11:1 564 Joel 2:1 601
Ezek 12:13 126 Joel 4:17 601
742 Index of Sources

Amos Zech 6:10–11 305

Amos 3:14 453 Zech 6:12 635, 643–644
Amos 4:4 407, 453 Zech 6:12–13 642
Amos 4:11 504 Zech 6:15 305
Amos 5:5 407, 453 Zech 7:2 452–453
Amos 5:6 453 Zech 7:5 141
Amos 6:13 628 Zech 8:3 601
Amos 7:10 453 Zech 8:18–19 141
Amos 7:13 305, 452–453 Zech 14:10 609–610, 616, 619
Amos 9 642 Zech 14:16–19 513
Amos 11 642 Zech 14:17 513
Zech 14:18–19 513
Jonah
Jonah 1:7 601 Malachi
Jonah 1:9 645, 648 Mal 3:22 556

Micah Psalms
Micah 5:1 416 Ps 10:8 603
Micah 7:20 503 Ps 22:19 601
Ps 40 145
Ps 44 145
Habakkuk
Ps 51 145
Hab 1:10 126
Ps 65:11 642
Ps 69 145
Zephaniah
Ps 74 145
Zeph 2:9 504
Ps 79 145
Zeph 1:10 620
Ps 79:2–3 545
Ps 83:9 563
Haggai
Ps 83:13 545
Hag 1:1 130, 305 Ps 85:12 641
Hag 1:8 305 Ps 89 145
Hag 1:12 305 Ps 89:3 557
Hag 2:2 256, 305 Ps 89:4 557
Hag 2:4 305 Ps 89:21 557
Hag 2:3 140 Ps 97:7 558
Hag 2:21 130, 256 Ps 102 145
Hag 2:23 557 Ps 104:14 641
Ps 105:6 503
Zechariah Ps 132:17 641
Zech 1–8 260 Ps 134 555, 558
Zech 1:12 140, 389 Ps 135 555, 558
Zech 2:5–9 140, 389
Zech 3 643 Proverbs
Zech 3:6 641 Prov 1:14 601
Zech 3:8 557, 641–644 Prov 3:18 577
Zech 3:12 641
Zech 3:16 601 Job
Zech 6 643 Job 1:8 557
Zech 6:9–14 643 Job 2:3 557
 Hebrew Bible 743

Job 5:6 641 Ezra 2 180, 256, 312, 372, 468, 516, 518–519,
Job 9:19 641 585, 604, 606, 623, 629–630, 632
Job 42:7–8 557 Ezra 2–3 518
Ezra 2:1 592
Song of Songs Ezra 2:1–2 256
Song 1:14 211 Ezra 2:1–67 330, 468, 616
Song 4:13 211 Ezra 2:1–70 591
Ezra 2:3–35 631
Ruth Ezra 2:6 201
Ruth 1:2 416 Ezra 2:25 289, 317, 412
Ruth 2:5–6 566 Ezra 2:28 452, 455
Ruth 2:15 566 Ezra 2:33 486, 606
Ruth 4:11 416 Ezra 2:36–39 631
Ezra 2:40–42 631
Lamentations Ezra 2:48 631
Lam 1:3 422 Ezra 2:59 630
Lam 1:4 140, 389 Ezra 2:59–63 585, 631
Lam 1:11 126 Ezra 2:61 592, 621, 629–630
Lam 2:7 141 Ezra 2:61–62 632
Ezra 2:61–63 632–633
Lam 2:7–9 141
Ezra 2:62 630
Lam 2:15 140, 389, 421
Ezra 2:64 180, 256, 599
Lam 2:20 141
Ezra 2:68–69 305
Lam 4:12 421
Ezra 2:70–3:1 519
Lam 4:17 126
Ezra 3 510, 514–519, 522
Lam 4:20 126
Ezra 3:1 372, 512, 516, 519
Lam 5:18 95, 141
Ezra 3:1–5 145
Ezra 3:4 516–517, 519–520
Esther
Ezra 3:4–5 516
Esther 3:2 561
Ezra 3:7 305, 601
Esther 3:13 561
Ezra 3:12 140
Esther 4:11 561
Ezra 4 258, 261
Ezra 4:7–24 262
Daniel Ezra 5:3 249, 307
Dan 1:1–2 552 Ezra 5:6 249, 307
Dan 1:5 517 Ezra 5:14 130
Dan 9:16 601 Ezra 6:2–5 373
Dan 9:20 601 Ezra 6:13 249, 307
Dan 9:24 601 Ezra 6:15 373
Dan 9:26 601 Ezra 7 572
Dan 19:40–46 470 Ezra 7–8 256, 522
Ezra 7–10 232–517
Ezra Ezra 7:1–5 601
Ezra 1 372 Ezra 7:7 256
Ezra 1–6 113, 144, 192, 468, 516, 522 Ezra 7:16 305
Ezra 1:2–4 373 Ezra 7:25–26 648
Ezra 1:6 305 Ezra 8 517
Ezra 1:8 130 Ezra 8:1 592
744 Index of Sources

Ezra 8:25 305 Neh 3:1 –2 582

Ezra 8:33 585, 630 Neh 3:1 –3 573–574
Ezra 8:15–20 255 Neh 3:1–12 573
Ezra 9 517 Neh 3:1–15 571
Ezra 9–10 263, 522 Neh 3:1–32 330, 569, 571
Ezra 9:1–2 304, 414 Neh 3:1a 575
Ezra 9:9 262 Neh 3:1b 575
Ezra 9:12–15 304, 414 Neh 3:2 287, 573, 575, 582
Ezra 9:24 601 Neh 3:2a 583
Ezra 10 517, 630 Neh 3:3 361–362, 573–575, 582–583
Ezra 10:2–3 304, 414 Neh 3:4 578, 582, 630
Ezra 10:10–15 304, 414 Neh 3:5 287, 484, 578, 581–583
Ezra 10:36 630 Neh 3:6 361–362, 573–575, 581–582, 610, 620
Ezra 11:34 486 Neh 3:7 287, 400, 578, 582
Ezra 11:35 486 Neh 3:8 361, 578, 582–583
Neh 3:9 286, 484, 578, 583–584
Nehemiah Neh 3:10 578, 582, 584
Neh 1:2 262 Neh 3:11 361–362, 578, 581–582
Neh 1:3 258, 262, 588 Neh 3:12 286, 484, 576, 578, 583–584
Neh 2–6 570 Neh 3:12a 286
Neh 2:1 256 Neh 3:13 287, 362, 573–574, 581–583
Neh 2:3 588 Neh 3:13–15 571, 573, 575
Neh 2:5 588 Neh 3:13–16 361
Neh 2:8 258, 588 Neh 3:14 362, 286, 484, 573–574, 580, 583
Neh 2:9 362 Neh 3:14–18 286, 584
Neh 2:10 201, 570 Neh 3:15 362, 286, 400, 484, 573–574, 576,
Neh 2:11 362, 570 580, 583
Neh 2:11–18 362 Neh 3:16 362, 286, 576, 578
Neh 2:12–15 380, 382 Neh 3:16–32 571, 573
Neh 2:12–16 570, 588 Neh 3:17 484, 578, 581, 583
Neh 2:13 262, 589 Neh 3:17b 286
Neh 2:13–14 362 Neh 3:18 286, 484, 578, 581, 583
Neh 2:13–15 139, 361, 371 Neh 3:19 287, 400, 578, 581, 583
Neh 2:13–17 140, 389 Neh 3:19–32 361
Neh 2:15 362 Neh 3:20 362, 579, 582
Neh 2:16 362 Neh 3:21 579, 582, 630
Neh 2:16a 362 Neh 3:22 287, 484, 579, 581, 583
Neh 2:17 262, 570, 589 Neh 3:23 579, 582, 584–585
Neh 2:18 570 Neh 3:24 579, 582
Neh 2:18b 362, 570 Neh 3:25 579, 583
Neh 2:19 201, 570 Neh 3:26 579, 583, 585
Neh 2:19–20 570–571, 575 Neh 3:27 287, 362, 484, 579, 581, 583
Neh 2:20 570, 572 Neh 3:28 362, 579, 581, 583–584
Neh 2:25 362 Neh 3:29 362, 579, 583–585
Neh 3 257, 286, 290, 312, 320, 362, 374, 404, Neh 3:30 579, 582–583, 585
411, 483, 498, 569–570, 580, 584–585, , Neh 3:31 362, 579, 583
589–630 Neh 3:31–32 585
Neh 3:1 361–362, 570, 573–574, 582–583 Neh 3:32 362, 579, 581, 583
 Hebrew Bible 745

Neh 3:33 570, 572 Neh 7:46–60 631

Neh 3:33–35 570 Neh 7:50 631
Neh 3:33–38 571, 575 Neh 7:61 630–632
Neh 3:36–37 570 Neh 7:61–65 585, 631
Neh 3:38 570, 575 Neh 7:62 631
Neh 4 575, 589 Neh 7:63 621, 629–630
Neh 4:1 575 Neh 7:63–64 632
Neh 4:1–2 570, 589 Neh 7:63–65 632–633
Neh 4:9 570 Neh 7:64 630, 632
Neh 4:12 478, 489 Neh 7:66 180, 256, 599
Neh 4:16 566 Neh 7:72–8:1 519
Neh 4:23 566 Neh 7:72a 591
Neh 5 589 Neh 7:72b–8:12 519
Neh 5:1–13 263 Neh 7:73 518
Neh 5:14 579 Neh 7:73a 591
Neh 5:14–19 129 Neh 7:73b 591
Neh 5:16 579–580 Neh 8 232, 511, 514, 516–522, 591
Neh 6 589 Neh 8–10 517, 522
Neh 6:1 570, 575, 587 Neh 8:1 519
Neh 6:2 304, 414, 468, 474, 486 Neh 8:2 518
Neh 6:3–14 475 Neh 8:6 520
Neh 6:10 631 Neh 8:9 130
Neh 6:15 575 Neh 8:13 518, 520
Neh 6:16 570 Neh 8:13–18 516, 519, 521
Neh 6:17–19 262, 522 Neh 8:13–19 516
Neh 6:18 585 Neh 8:14 512, 518–519
Neh 6:18–19 585 Neh 8:15 520
Neh 7 180, 256, 312, 374, 468, 482, 519, 575, Neh 8:17 521, 602
585, 591–594, 598, 604, 606, 623, 629–632 Neh 8:18 520
Neh 7–8 518 Neh 9 591
Neh 7:1 575, 587–589, 591 Neh 10 311, 591, 630
Neh 7:1–3 483 Neh 10:1–40 305
Neh 7:2 258, 587–588 Neh 10:2 130
Neh 7:2–3 591 Neh 10:6 630
Neh 7:3:1a 575, 587 Neh 10:31 304, 414
Neh 7:4 591 Neh 10:31–40 523
Neh 7:5 589, 591 Neh 10:33 579, 604
Neh 7:5–68 482 Neh 10:33–40 325
Neh 7:6 140, 389, 592 Neh 10:34–35 594
Neh 7:6–68 616 Neh 10:35 601
Neh 7:6–71 599 Neh 10:35–40 592
Neh 7:6–73a 591 Neh 11 257, 374, 483, 488, 494, 517, 589, 591,
Neh 7:6–68 330 593–598, 601–603, 607, 619, 631
Neh 7:7 599 Neh 11–12 602
Neh 7:8–38 631 Neh 11:1 482, 591, 598, 601, 631
Neh 7:29 289, 317, 412 Neh 11:1–2 591–593
Neh 7:32 452, 455 Neh 11:1–3 592
Neh 7:37 486–487, 606 Neh 11:1–24 483
746 Index of Sources

Neh 11:3 592 1 Chr 2:41 640

Neh 11:3a 600 1 Chr 2:50–52 416
Neh 11:3b 600 1 Chr 3:1 592
Neh 11:3–24 593, 599 1 Chr 3:5 592
Neh 11:3–4a 592 1 Chr 3:6 640
Neh 11:4–19 593, 595, 599–600 1 Chr 3:8 640
Neh 11:6 599 1 Chr 3:10 592
Neh 11:8 599 1 Chr 3:15 120, 540
Neh 11:12 595 1 Chr 3:22 592
Neh 11:12–14 599 1 Chr 4:13 592
Neh 11:15–18 600 1 Chr 4:14 488
Neh 11:18 601 1 Chr 4:15 592
Neh 11:18–19 599 1 Chr 4:19 592
Neh 11:20 592–593, 600 1 Chr 4:4–5 416
Neh 11:21–23 600 1 Chr 4:32 609
Neh 11:21–24 593, 600 1 Chr 4:32–33 603
Neh 11:22 602 1 Chr 4:33 603
Neh 11:23 517 1 Chr 6:54 487
Neh 11:24 602 1 Chr 6:69 486
Neh 11:25 593, 595, 602 1 Chr 7:10–11 486
Neh 11:25–35 610 1 Chr 7:21 487
Neh 11:25–36 312, 330, 483, 593, 596, 602, 1 Chr 7:21–24 486
618 1 Chr 7:28 400, 452
Neh 11:29 609, 619 1 Chr 8:12 486–487
Neh 11:30b 604, 619 1 Chr 8:12–13 304, 414, 450, 486–487
Neh 11:31 452, 603, 606, 616, 619 1 Chr 8:13 414, 486–487
Neh 11:33 414, 488, 619 1 Chr 9 595
Neh 12:1 592 1 Chr 9:2 592
Neh 12:26 130 1 Chr 9:2–3 592
Neh 12:27–43 594 1 Chr 9:2–17 593, 595, 598
Neh 12:28–29 290, 320, 330, 404, 498, 616 1 Chr 9:6 599
Neh 12:29 619 1 Chr 9:9 593, 599
Neh 12:39 610, 620 1 Chr 9:13 599
Neh 12:47 517 1 Chr 9:17–32 314
Neh 13 572 1 Chr 9:26–28 314
Neh 13:4 262 1 Chr 11:4 359
Neh 13:4–8 585 1 Chr 11:6 359
Neh 13:4–31 522 1 Chr 11:15 359
Neh 13:10–14 522–523 1 Chr 11:18 359
Neh 13:16 262 1 Chr 11:28 359
Neh 13:23–28 262 1 Chr 14:6 640
Neh 13:27 263 1 Chr 15:18 555–556
Neh 13:28 585 1 Chr 15:21 555–556
1 Chr 16:37 517
1 Chronicles 1 Chr 19:5 641
1 Chr 1:34 592 1 Chr 24:5–11 314
1 Chr 2:1 592 1 Chr 24:10 630
1 Chr 2:24 416 1 Chr 24:27 645
 Hebrew Inscriptions and Ostraca 747

1 Chr 24:31 601 2 Chr 17:8 640

1 Chr 25:8 601 2 Chr 18:4 605
1 Chr 26:1–19 314 2 Chr 24:4–5 577
1 Chr 26:13–14 601 2 Chr 24:6 555
1 Chr 26:20–32 314 2 Chr 24:6–7 577
1 Chr 26:24 314 2 Chr 24:12 578
1 Chr 26:27 577 2 Chr 25:5 415
1 Chr 26:29 314 2 Chr 26:10 213
1 Chr 28:12 314 2 Chr 28:18 486–487
1 Chr 34:9–13 314 2 Chr 29:3 578
2 Chr 31:1 415
2 Chronicles 2 Chr 31:12–16 314
2 Chr 1:3 555 2 Chr 32:16 557
2 Chr 3:1 359 2 Chr 32:5 578
2 Chr 5:3 513 2 Chr 33:11 551
2 Chr 7:8–10 513 2 Chr 34:8 577
2 Chr 8:14 517 2 Chr 34:9 415
2 Chr 11:1 415 2 Chr 34:10–11 577
2 Chr 11:3 415 2 Chr 34:20 558, 561, 564
2 Chr 11:10 415 2 Chr 34:32 415
2 Chr 11:12 415 2 Chr 35:18 521
2 Chr 11:23 415 2 Chr 36:4 552
2 Chr 13:4–20 620 2 Chr 36:6 539, 552
2 Chr 13:19 452, 610–611, 620 2 Chr 36:6–7 551
2 Chr 14:7 415 2 Chr 36:8 539, 545, 549, 551
2 Chr 15:2 415 2 Chr 36:9 543
2 Chr 15:8–9 415 2 Chr 36:10 552

Non-Canonical Jewish Texts

Ben Sira 14:8 641 Josephus

1 Esdras 519, 599 Ant. 10, 9: 7 §181–182 199
1 Esdras 5 180 Ant. X, 88 542
1 Esdras 5:41 599 Ant. X, 97 539
1 Esdras 9:37–55 519 Ant. 10, 228 199
1 Esdras 9:38 519 Ant. 11.1–158 519
Ap. I. 19. 156 199

Hebrew Inscriptions and Ostraca

Azekah Inscription (BM 82–3-23,131) 5 Lachish Ostracon 4 127, 138, 166, 424
K 6205 5 Lachish Ostracon 5 563
Lachish Ostracon 3 121, 423, 559, 562
748 Index of Sources

Cuneiform Texts

Babylonian Chronicle
– B.M. 21901 540
– B.M. 21946 117, 246, 472, 541, 542
– B.M. 74554 249, 307
Index of Modern Authors
Ackerman, S. 103 Avigad, N. 9, 12, 71, 74, 83, 123, 125, 129, 132,
Abel, F. M. 169, 288, 451, 609, 628 137, 152, 168, 225, 265, 272, 369, 376, 388,
Abou-Assaf, A. 130 391, 431, 442, 480, 555, 559, 563–564,
Abu Ghanimeh, Kh. 202–203 566–568, 616, 620, 638, 640
Achenbach, R. 515 Avitsur, S. 212
Ackroyd, P. R. 133, 141–143, 154, 157, 259, 430, Avner, R. 345
552, 595, 620, 643 Ayalon, E. 212, 251, 480
Adam, K. A. 624–625
Aharoni, M. 16, 96 Bagg, A. M. 7, 22
Aharoni, Y. 14, 16, 34, 53–57, 64, 74, 81, 96–97, Bailey, N. A. 571
99, 155, 158, 160, 165–166, 189, 211, 213, Bar-Adon, P. 162, 214–215, 218
228, 237, 247, 251, 285, 287, 338, 466, 470, Bar-Nathan, R. 190
481, 484, 584, 597, 610–611, 614–616, 638, Barag, D. 170
640–641 Bardtke, H. 9
Ahituv, S. 488, 559, 563–564, 640 Barkay, G. 9, 41–42, 56, 64, 71, 74, 96, 107, 113,
Ahlström, G. W. 119, 126, 132, 143, 196, 200, 123, 140, 151–153, 165, 191, 213, 227, 269,
305, 470–471, 540–541, 544, 559, 568, 584, 271–273, 289–290, 319, 369, 378, 539, 563,
613–616, 620 638
Albenda, P. 67 Barnett, R. D. 469
Albertz, R. 109, 255–257, 259, 263, 373, 511, 514, Barrick, W. B. 409, 532–533
571, 643, 646, 650 Barstad, H. M. 102, 123, 125–128, 130, 132, 134,
Albright, W. F. 76, 112, 125, 138, 166, 168–170, 137–138, 154, 168, 373, 422
173, 180, 191, 202, 226–228, 251, 256, 265, Barthélemy, D. 548
297, 431, 436–440, 442–443, 451–453, Bartlett, J. R. 122, 424
457–460, 540, 543, 545, 597, 610 Baruch, Y. 338
Alfrink, B. 549 Batten, L. W. 256, 482, 569–574, 591–592, 594–
Allrik, H. L. 256, 631 596, 600, 604, 620, 631
Alt, A. 201, 209, 243, 256, 258, 290, 312, 319, Baumgartner, W. 551
401–402, 404, 407, 409, 470–471, 474, Beattie, D. R. G. 645–648
495–496, 498, 597, 610, 612, 614 Becking, B. 6, 127–129, 132, 255, 361, 373, 425–
Amiran, R. 125, 165–166, 272–273, 391, 440–443 426, 428, 469, 473
Amit, D. 38, 163, 176, 213–215, 299, 359, 361, Bedford, P. R. 14, 254, 258, 305–306, 310–313,
410, 447 325
Amit, Y. 415, 417 Begg, C. 551–553
Anbar, M. 495 Beit-Arieh, I. 26, 36, 157–160, 205, 216, 477
Applebaum, S. 480 Ben Zvi, E. 547
Ariel, D. T. 78, 99, 154, 226, 237, 272–274, 276– Ben-Arieh, S. 104
279, 338, 377–378, 381, 393–395 Ben-Dov, M. 272
Arnet, S. 649 Ben-Yosef, E. 13, 83, 88
Arubas 56, 85, 212, 285, 289, 302–303, 315–316, Bendor, S. 9
323–324, 338, 637 Bennett, C.-M. 196
Auld, G. 370 Benzinger, I. 532
Aurelius, E. 624 Berlejung, A. 7–8, 10, 21–22, 32, 453, 455
Avi-Yonah, M. 209, 287–289, 317, 319, 331, 467– Berlin, A. M. 190, 250, 329
469, 480, 484, 488, 572, 618–619, 641 Berner, C. 645, 648

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110487442-040
750 Index of Modern Authors

Bernick-Greenberg, H. 25, 338 Cahill, J. M. 276, 278, 393

Berquist, J. L. 141, 265, 524 Calmeyer, P. 249, 307
Betancourt, P. P. 47–50, 53, 57–58, 64 Caquot, A. 406, 621, 623, 626
Bezzel, H. 418 Carr, D. M. 407, 501
Bianchi, F. 109, 137, 481 Carroll, R. P. 313, 544
Bickerman, E. J. 140, 254 Carter, C. E. 107, 109, 148–149, 154, 180–182,
Bienkowski, P. 196, 198, 200–201, 208, 252, 260 227, 229, 252, 255, 259–260, 265–266, 279,
Biger, G. 150 281, 283, 286–287, 289–291, 312, 319, 321,
Bigwood, J. M. 259 324, 330, 358, 373, 377–378, 395–396, 446,
Bikai, P. M. 202–203 451, 463, 484, 584, 616–617
Biran, A. 36, 38, 51, 53, 159 Caspi, A. 269
Birnbaum, S. A. 254 Chadwick, J. R. 495
Blenkinsopp, J. 106, 120, 141–142, 145, 180, 256, Chaney, M. L. 9
258, 262, 265, 267, 286–288, 303, 305, Chen, D. 272, 391
311–312, 317, 324, 331, 373, 385, 400, 412, Childs, B. S. 646
414–417, 453, 457, 482–483, 521–522, 569– Christoph, J. R. 481, 616–617
574, 576, 579–581, 584–585, 587, 592–594, Christopherson, G. L. 197
596–597, 617–618, 620, 629, 631, 643 Ciaska, A. 49, 53
Bliss, F. J. 166, 226, 271, 277, 377, 380, 393, 460, Cinamon, G. 103–104, 294, 320, 379
638
Clark, V. A. 196, 202
Bloch, A. P. 139
Clifford, R. J. 649
Blum, E. 407, 416, 501–502, 506, 623–624, 649
Clines, D. J. A. 313, 552, 571–572, 584, 592–595,
Boaretto, E. 360
597, 603–604
Bocher, E. 13, 34, 77–78, 285, 316, 334, 338
Cogan, M. 5, 17, 118–119, 126, 130, 140, 200,
Bodi, D. 259
286, 360–361, 389, 403, 409, 428, 525–
Boer, R. 9, 311
530, 534–535, 540–541, 545, 547–549, 572,
Boling, R. G. 197
576, 584–588, 610
Boraas, R. S. 202
Coggins, R. J. 141, 571, 594, 596–597
Bordreuil, P. 63, 130
Cohen, R. 158–160, 269, 617
Borowski, O. 609
Cohn, E. W. 361, 620
Bosworth, A. B. 329
Collon, D. 66
Bowman, R. A. 286, 584
Conrad, D. 563
Brandl, B. 49, 469, 473
Braun, R. 596 Conroy, C. 407, 625
Briant, P. 243, 246, 248–250, 253, 255, 257, Cook, J. M. 248–249, 259, 278, 307, 394
259–261, 306–307, 309, 329, 388, 390 Cortese, E. 548
Bright, J. 119, 122–123, 133, 137, 141–142, 144, Cowley, A. 144
180, 200, 256, 265, 288, 423–424, 474, 485, Cox, B. D. 416
543–544, 642 Cross, F. M. 80, 125, 214, 421, 442, 526, 546,
Brinker, R. 399 548, 555, 614, 640, 642–643
Brockington, L. H. 596–597, 604 Crowfoot, J. W. 50, 53, 58, 154, 244, 254, 275,
Broshi, M. 148–149, 152, 154, 173, 182–184, 225, 392
265, 271–272, 369, 391, 480 Cruz-Uribe, E. 248, 306
Brown, J. P. 247, 389 Curtis, G. B. 485, 487, 539, 552, 596, 643
Brueggemann, W. 527, 530
Bunimovitz, S. 17, 87, 90–92, 461–462 Dadon, M. 291, 317, 334, 408
Burn, A. R. 259 Dagan, Y. 123–124, 138, 164–166, 183, 250, 333,
Burney, C. F. 530, 532, 547, 549 343, 424, 469
Burrows, M. 570–572, 576 Dajani, A. 170
 Index of Modern Authors 751

Dalley, S. 67–68 Eitan, A. 214, 272–273, 391

Dandamaev, M. A. 250, 259 Elat, M. 30, 244
Dar, S. 476, 480 Elayi, J. 250
Davidson, R. 131 Elgavish, Y. 251, 480
Davies, P. R. 399, 403, 416, 645–648 Elisha, Y. 334
Dayagi, M. 559 Elitzur, Y. 461, 610, 612, 620
De Groot, A. 12, 25, 104, 156, 226, 269, 272, Elliger, K. 516
276–278, 291, 317, 338, 365, 369, 377, 393– Emerton, J. A. 648
395, 408 Emmanuilov, S. 338
De Pury, A. 502–503, 508 Ephʿal, I. 7–8, 118, 126–128, 199, 201, 243, 249–
de Vaux, R. 170, 213, 439, 496, 499, 559 250, 255, 307, 309, 350, 390, 612
De Vries, B. 203 Erlich, A. 344, 354
Dearman, S. A. 9 Eshel, H. 138, 166, 170, 273, 279, 377, 381, 395,
Delcor, M. 530, 552 572
Demsky, A. 125, 286–287, 440, 442, 485, 584, Eskenazi, T. C. 591–592, 594, 597, 601–602, 620,
614 630
Deutsch, R. 126, 196, 559, 563, 566–568 Esse, D. L. 148
Dever, W. G. 170, 437–438, 451–452, 460 Eynikel, E. 532
Dickie, A. C. 226, 277, 377, 380, 393
Dietrich, W. 418, 526, 532, 548, 623 Fales, F. M. 7–8, 15, 68, 586
Dion, P. E. 130, 472 Falkner, M. 469
Diringer, D. 74, 76, 80, 168, 431, 638 Fantalkin, A. 35, 40–41, 91, 230, 261, 271, 326,
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 363, 640–641 337
Donner, H. 62, 250, 642 Farhi, Y. 354
Dornemann, R. 202 Faust, A. 9–10, 16, 27, 32, 36, 38–39, 42, 79, 84,
Dothan, T. 29, 162, 211–213, 217, 244, 252, 470, 104–105, 107, 114, 191, 252, 283, 289, 294,
473 312, 319–320, 324, 330, 334, 344, 354, 369,
Drinkard, J. F. 47, 59, 62–63 455
Driver, S. R. 645 Feig, N. 104, 151, 205, 335, 369
Dubovský, P. 4 Feldstein, A. 334–335, 337
Duggan, M. W. 521 Felix, Y. 212
Duguid, I. M. 120 Fensham, F. C. 482, 571, 584, 591–595, 597,
Duhm, B. 565 601–602, 604
Dunayevsky, I. 162, 165, 224 Ferry, J. 642
Duncan, J. G. 87, 154, 225, 274–275, 278, 280, Finkelstein, I. 10, 12, 17, 21–22, 25–27, 32, 36,
391–392, 394 38–40, 45, 48–49, 61, 77, 80, 84, 91, 101,
Dutcher-Walls, P. 530 105, 113, 123, 125, 148–149, 152, 157, 161,
164–165, 171–174, 179–180, 182–184, 191,
Ede, F. 649 205, 218, 227–228, 244, 252, 266, 268,
Edelman, D. V. 170, 227–228, 262, 361, 374, 413, 278–281, 291–292, 296–297, 312, 317–318,
415, 584–585, 632 321, 324, 330, 335, 349, 359–361, 364–365,
Edelstein, G. 104, 151, 369 369–370, 375–376, 378, 386, 394–395, 399,
Edenburg, C. 415, 417 402–403, 408, 410–411, 417, 443–444, 446–
Eggler, J. 196, 200–201 449, 453–463, 470–471, 475–481, 495, 501,
Ehrlich, A. B. 406, 574 503–506, 610, 628
Ein Mor, D. 12 Finkielsztejn, G. 274, 376, 381, 395
Eisenberg, E. 344, 369 Fischer, A. A. 624
Eissfeldt, O. 399, 530, 532, 629 Fischer, I. 203, 501, 505
752 Index of Modern Authors

Fisher, C. S. 49–50, 254 Giffone, B. D. 455

Fitzgerald, G. M. 58, 154, 275, 392 Gihon, M. 466
Flanagan, J. W. 202 Gilboa, A. 28
Fleming, D. E. 401, 418, 455, 646 Gilmour, R. 361
Fohrer, G. 203 Ginsberg, H. L. 5, 71, 613
Fokkelman, J. P. 625 Gitin, S. 13, 15, 29–30, 77–78, 244, 470, 473
Forrer, E. 243 Gitler, H. 325
Foucart, P. 587 Glissman, V. 502, 648–649
Fox, N. S. 71, 105 Glueck, N. 51, 59, 61, 195
Franke, C. 601 Golani, A. 335, 344, 448
Franken, H. J. 137, 152, 204, 275, 388, 392, 443 Goldfus, H. 335, 338, 448
Frankenstein, S. 14 Goldstein, J. A. 469
Freedman 614, 646 Gomes, J. F. 453
Freedy, K. S. 119, 121 Goncalves, F. J. 6
Freud, L. 14, 21, 25, 27, 34, 56, 190, 285, 329, Gonzales, H. 502, 505–506
334, 338, 351, 637 Gophna, R. 148, 158, 182, 466, 475, 487, 610
Frey, R. N. 307 Goren, Y. 99, 237
Fried, L. S. 258–259, 305, 585 Gosse, B. 505–506
Fritz, V. 67, 159, 161, 358, 532 Gottwald, N. K. 645
Fulton, D. N. 18 Govrin, Y. 157–158, 161, 167
Funk, R. W. 173, 297 Grabbe, L. L. 21, 145, 229, 232, 258, 262, 265,
279, 307, 312, 373, 378, 385, 395, 524, 528,
Gabriel, J. 41, 113, 532 571–572, 585, 591, 593–595, 597
Gadot, Y. 11–12, 14, 16, 25–26, 34, 37, 56, 79, Graf, D. F. 248, 306
85, 96, 102–104, 189, 233, 283–285, 289, Graham, J. N. 213, 286, 427, 584
292–295, 300–303, 308, 315–316, 318–321, Granerød, G. 502, 649
323–324, 332, 338, 340, 344, 353, 364– Grant, E. 638
365, 369–370, 404, 408, 460, 498, 524, Gray, J. 90, 409, 515, 525, 530, 532, 548, 550,
622, 637 553
Galil, G. 5, 117, 126, 469–471, 475, 486–488, Grayson, A. K. 7–8, 117–121, 198, 244, 246, 371,
609–613, 615 540–542
Galling, K. 141, 256, 259, 373, 473, 482, 518, Green, A. R. 119, 543, 545, 551
570–572 Greenberg, M. 122, 379, 423, 646
Ganor, A. 332, 344–345 Greenberg, R. 103–104, 294, 320, 379
Garbini, G. 53 Greenhut, Z. 12, 104
Gardiner, J. D. 250 Grena, G. M. 72, 74, 77
Garelli, P. 247 Gross, B. 99, 237, 324
Garfinkel, Y. 332, 344, 563–564, 612 Grossman, D. 150
Geraty, L. T. 196, 202–203 Guillaume, P. 455
Gershuny, L. 480 Gunkel, H. 502, 649
Gertz, J. C. 363, 503 Gunn, D. M. 625–626, 629
Gese, H. 512 Gunneweg, A. H. J. 256, 522, 569, 571, 592
Gesundheit, S. 512, 515 Guy, P. L. O. 53
Geva, H. 123, 138, 152, 225, 265, 271–274, 279,
281, 358, 365, 369–370, 376, 378, 381, 388, Hadidi, A. 202
391, 395–396, 463 Halligan, J. 266
Gibson, J. C. L. 250 Halpern, B. 9, 157, 546
Gibson, S. 151, 225, 271–272, 369, 391 Hänel, J. 485
 Index of Modern Authors 753

Har-El, M. 466, 488 Hutzli, J. 359, 364, 417

Harrison, R. K. 329, 428 Hyatt, J. P. 142–143, 541
Hasel 344
Hawkins, J. D. 243–244 Ibach, R. D. 197, 203
Hayes, J. H. 4, 6, 99, 109, 118–119, 121–123, 125– Ibrahim, M. 203–204
126, 129–133, 137, 141–142, 154, 157, 168, Ilan, Z. 51, 163, 211, 213–215, 410, 447
200, 265, 293, 358, 412, 423–425, 428, 430, Irvine, S. A. 4
439, 442, 540–541, 584, 614–615 Isaac, B. 211
Heckl, R. 362 Ishida, T. 496
Heltzer, M. 288, 483, 485, 559, 563, 566, 642 Isser, S. 628
Hendel, R. S. 196
Hendin, D. 325 Jackson, B. S. 646
Hengel 211, 218 James. T. G. H. 245
Hensel, M. 359 James, P. 15
Herbert, S. C. 250 Jamieson-Drake, D. W. 112, 191
Herr, L. G. 62, 110–111, 196–198, 201–203, 205– Janssen, E. 141, 143, 145, 430
208, 252 Janzen, J. G. 108, 133, 200, 429–430
Herrmann, S. 584 Japhet, S. 141, 144–145, 256, 362, 482, 486–488,
Hertzberg, H. W. 622 551–553, 591, 593–594, 596, 611, 620, 629,
Herzog, Z. 158, 160, 480 631
Jeon, J. 523, 651
Hestrin, R. 559
Jericke, D. 305, 500, 505
Hillers, D. R. 141, 545
Ji, C.-H. 77
Ḥizmi, H. 480–500
Johns, C. N. 138, 152, 388
Hirschfeld 226, 276–277, 377, 393–394
Jones, D. 141, 143, 145
Hobbs, T. R. 9, 532
Joüon, P. 545
Hoffman, Y. 109, 200, 642
Junge, E. 595
Hoffmann, H.-D. 532, 614
Hoglund, K. G. 181, 209, 218, 244–245, 247–
Kaiser, O. 572
248, 252, 255, 257–261, 283, 306, 337, 373,
Kallai, Z. 287–289, 317, 319, 402, 446, 461, 466,
584
468, 481, 483–485, 487–488, 495, 572, 597,
Holladay, W. L. 131–133, 141, 144, 200, 426,
610–611, 613, 615–616
429–430, 451–452, 541, 544, 622
Kaplan, J. 154, 480, 487
Holladay, W. L. 7
Karrer, C. 305, 571
Holmgren 594–595 Kasher, A. 467–469
Hölscher, G. 482, 569, 572 Katz, H. 10, 32–33, 79, 84
Honeyman, A. M. 642 Katzenstein, H. J. 29, 121–122, 199, 244–247,
Hong, K. P 407 250, 388–389, 423
Honigman, S. 352 Kearney, P. J. 415
Hooker, P. K. 4, 6, 122, 126, 200 Keel, O. 71, 81
Hopkins, I. W. J. 480 Kellermann, U. 517, 570–572, 593–597
Horn, S. H. 543 Kelly, T. 481
Houtman, C. 521, 523 Kelso, J. L. 169–170, 228, 251, 436–438, 451–
Hübner, U. 359, 444 453, 457–459
Hudon, J. P. 71 Kempinski, A. 159, 161
Humphreys, W. L. 648–649 Kenyon, K. M. 57, 137, 152–154, 163, 225, 228,
Hurowitz, V. A. 456, 513, 530, 532–534, 575 244, 249, 251, 255, 270–276, 279, 309, 334,
Hutton, J. M. 624, 627 338, 376–377, 388, 390–393, 395
754 Index of Modern Authors

Keown, G. L. 141–142 Lang, B. 649

Kessler, J. 306 Langdon, R. W. 565
Kidner, D. 630 Langgut, D. 24, 26, 189, 303, 306, 324, 330,
Kim, Y. S. 311, 313–314 343, 349, 509, 524
Kinet, D. 255, 373 Langlamet, F. 418, 624, 627–628
Kittel, R. 572, 574, 597 Laperrousaz, E. M. 152
Klein, S. 214, 287–288, 317, 345, 468, 481, 484– Lapp, N. L. 74, 80, 101–102, 168–170, 173, 190,
485, 487–488, 596, 604, 611 227–228, 291, 317, 408, 431, 437–438, 442–
Kletter, R. 10, 32, 71, 79, 152, 202–203 444, 451–452
Kloner, A. 104, 123–124, 138, 151, 156, 166, 170, Lawlor, J. I. 196
272, 283, 331, 338, 350, 370, 424, 609 Lederman, Z. 17, 87, 90–92, 461–462, 610
Knauf, E. A. 36, 38, 62, 208, 255, 364–365, 373, Lee, K. J. 305
399, 415, 453, 456, 502, 507 Lehmann, G. 9, 41, 253, 338
Knohl, I. 515–516 Lemaire, A. 74–77, 88, 106, 109, 137, 201–202,
Knoppers, G. N. 254, 359, 513, 527, 532, 585, 246, 251, 253, 258–261, 266–267, 303, 324,
596, 614 358, 385, 388, 480, 559, 563, 643
Knowles, M. D. 306 Lemche, N. P. 9, 646
Koch, K. 630, 645, 651 Lemke, W. E. 557
Koch, I. 11–13, 16, 24, 26, 33, 36–38, 40, 71, 76– Lemos, T. M. 9
84, 87–88, 90–91, 96–97, 104, 231, 233, Lenzen, C. J. 202
236, 284–285, 292, 295–296, 299, 308, Leonard-Fleckman, M. 624
315–316, 333, 351, 364–365, 400, 408, 628, Lernau, O. 53
637, 639 Leuze, E. 248–249, 306–307
Kochavi, M. 160, 162, 164, 297, 338, 477, 495 Levin, C. 352, 406, 503, 532
Kochman, M. 288, 481, 483, 485, 572, 617 Levine, B. A. 9
Köckert, M. 501–503, 505 Levine, L. I. 265
Koenen, K. 453 Lindsay, J. 428
Kogan-Zehavi, E. 329, 344 Lipiński, E. 646
Köhlmoos, M. 453 Lipschits, O. 11–14, 16, 22, 24, 26–43, 47, 56, 71,
Kooij, G. van der 204 76–85, 87–88, 90–91, 96–111, 113, 118, 122–
Koole, J. L. 601 125, 127–128, 136–137, 139–140, 142, 151–
Körting, C. 360, 363, 515 152, 154–155, 157, 159, 161–163, 165, 168–
Kosmin, J. 329, 354 172, 175, 177, 179, 184, 186–187, 189–192,
Kratz, R. G. 305, 362, 418, 501, 518, 570, 621, 197–199, 205–209, 214–215, 217–218, 225,
624, 649 227–236, 239–240, 243, 245–249, 251–252,
Kreimerman, I. 329, 343 254–258, 260, 263, 265–267, 272–274, 279,
Kuhrt, A. 8, 257, 329, 373 281, 283–286, 288–310, 312, 315–326, 329–
Kuschke, A. 610 333, 337–341, 343–344, 349–351, 353,
358–359, 361–362, 364–365, 369–381,
Laato, A. 305 385–391, 394–396, 399–404, 408, 410–417,
Labat, R. 129 421–428, 430, 445, 447–448, 450–451, 460,
LaBianca, Ø. S. 196, 202–203, 252 463, 467, 472–473, 477–479, 481–482, 494,
Lahav, M. 213 498, 501–509, 512, 523–524, 540–541, 564,
Laird, D. 524 573, 589, 596, 605–606, 613, 616–619, 621–
Lamon, R. S. 49–50 623, 628–632, 637, 639, 649
Lamprichs, R. 7 Litt, T. 349
Landes, G. M. 196 Liver, J. 137, 256–257, 540, 610
Lanfranchi, G. B. 7, 68, 586 Liverani, M. 6, 21
 Index of Modern Authors 755

Livingston, D. P. 451 McCarter, P. K. 557, 559, 595, 621, 625–626, 628

Loewenstamm, S. E. 486–487 McClellan, T. L. 431
Lohfink, N. 528, 614 McConville, J. C. 594–595, 597, 604
London, G. A. 148–150 McCown, C. C. 168–169, 171, 226–227, 334, 431–
Long, B. O. 535–536, 614 433, 436, 617
Loud, G. 49 McCreery, D. W. 202
Lowenstam, S. 621 McEvenue, S. 258
Lowery, R. H. 546, 614 McGovern, P. E. 196, 202
Lozachmeur, H. 258 McKane, W. 544, 622
Luckenbill, D. D. 5, 66 McKenzie, S. L. 532, 546, 548
Lukonin, V. G. 259 Meinhold, A. 649
Lund, J. 250, 252 Mendel-Geberovich, A. 361
Lundbom, J. R. 628, 642 Mercer, M. K. 551
Lust, J. 642 Merling, D. 202
Lux, R. 271–272, 305 Merton, S. 465
Lyon, D. G. 254 Meshel, Z. 157, 213–214
Mettinger, T. N. D. 213, 216
Macalister, R. A. S. 49, 154, 166, 225, 274–275, Meyer, E. 483
278, 280, 391–392, 394, 460, 638 Meyers, C. L. 179–180, 255, 257, 259, 266, 305,
MacDonald, B. 254 619, 642–643
Machinist, B. P 109, 325 Meyers, E. M. 179–180, 255, 266, 305, 619, 642–
MacKay, D. B. 15 643
Mackenzie, D. 87, 90 Michaeli, D. 276, 393
Mader, A. E. 359, 500 Michaud, H. 563
Madsen, A. A. 485, 487, 539, 552, 596 Middlemas, J. A. 109
Maeir, A. 9, 13, 32, 77–78 Miglus, P. A. 66–67
Magen, I. 27, 47–49, 51, 64, 113, 123, 125, 162, Milevski, I. 102, 107, 168, 172, 229, 252, 283,
168, 171–172, 182, 191, 215, 254, 291–292, 291, 317, 408, 410, 445–447
317–318, 334, 359, 408, 410–411, 446–449, Milgrom, J. 514–515, 613
461–462, 500 Milik, J. T. 214
Magness, J. 226, 277, 377, 393 Millard, A. 9, 130
Malamat, A. 102, 118, 124, 127, 168, 426, 431, Miller, M. L. 6, 109, 118–119, 121–123, 129–133,
449, 470, 540–541, 545, 604, 610, 613 137, 141–142, 154, 157, 168, 265, 305, 358,
Mandolfo, C. 363 423–425, 428, 430, 540–541, 584, 614–615
Margalit, S. 272, 391 Millman, R. 83
Marzouk, S. 649 Min, K. J. 523–524
Master, D. M. 9, 15, 40 Minette de Tillesse, C. 532
Mattingly, G. L. 59, 61 Misgav, H. 254, 359
May, H. G. 50 Mitchell, H. G. 619, 642–643
Mazar, A. 10, 29, 32, 47, 79, 151, 163, 244, 334, Mittmann, S. 258, 470
336–337, 344, 360–361, 364, 369, 441, 471– Mommsen, H. 81
472 Monroe, L. 409, 645–646, 649–650
Mazar (Maisler), B. 162, 201, 211–217, 224, 265, Montgomery, J. A. 529–530, 532, 547, 549–550
270, 272, 341, 410, 447, 466, 474, 485–488, Moore, G. F. 416, 555
609–611, 613, 615, 620, 632 Mor, M. 12, 338, 469
Mazar, E. 57, 138, 152, 225, 269–270, 274–275, Morgenstern, J. 259, 513, 532
280, 373, 388, 392 Moscati, S. 53
Mazor, L. 486 Mosis, R. 314, 552
756 Index of Modern Authors

Mowinckel, S. 496, 517, 521, 569, 572, 631, 642– Oppenheim, A. L. 5, 247, 389, 530, 534
643 Orlinski, H. M. 604
Muilenburg, J. 431 Ornan, T. 71, 81, 230, 236, 316
Mulder, M. J. 361 Otto, E. 359, 407, 511
Myers, J. M. 141, 145, 180, 256, 259, 428, 482– Otzen, B. 7–8, 619
483, 485, 522, 571–572, 576, 579–581, 591–
595, 597, 601–602, 611, 620 Pace, J. H. 59, 61, 148, 500
Pakkala, J. 409, 455, 519, 522
Nadelman, Y. 334 Pardee, D. 563
Najjar, M. 62, 202–203 Parker, B. J. 7–8, 22, 533
Naveh, J. 12, 160, 198, 211, 276, 350, 393, 471, Parpola, S. 31, 68, 244, 586
580, 612 Patrich, J. 212
Naʾaman, N. 4–8, 10, 15, 17, 21–22, 25–26, 28– Pavlovsky, V. 118, 541
30, 32, 36, 38–41, 61, 68, 71, 76–77, 79–80, Pećirková, J. 7
84, 91, 96–97, 104, 107, 117–118, 124, 136, Peersmann, J. 244
142, 152–155, 157, 164, 205, 209, 211, 216, Perlman, I. 81
243–245, 247, 252, 286–292, 299, 317, 319, Petersen, D. L. 619, 643
321, 331, 358–361, 364, 369, 382, 399–407, Petit, T. 249, 307
409, 411–412, 415–416, 418–419, 453, 456– Pfeiffer, H. 453
457, 461, 466–475, 482, 484–487, 495–502, Pfeiffer, R. H. 532
504–505, 507, 513, 528, 533, 535, 541, 584,
Pfoh, E. 9
611–616, 619, 622, 640–641, 646–648
Pixner, B. 272, 391
Neef, H.-D. 406, 418
Pohlmann, K. F. 127, 429, 517, 631
Negueruela, I. 59
Porat, J. 211–212, 324, 475, 480, 524
Nelson, R. D. 51, 195, 527, 533, 535, 546, 548–
Porten, B. 144
549, 553
Porteous, N. 552
Netzer, E. 334
Portugali, Y. 148–149
Nicholson, E. W. 528, 613
Postgate, J. N. 7, 66, 68, 586
Niehr, H. 137, 141, 306
Prag, K. 57–58, 62–64
Niemann, H. M. 9, 403, 496–497
Premnath, D. N. 9
Nihan, C. 511–512, 515–516, 522
Preuss, H. D. 528
Nikiprowetzky, V. 247
Pritchard, J. B. 99, 125, 169–170, 204, 227–228,
Noth, M. 119, 141, 143, 209, 255, 428, 451, 470,
496, 515, 528, 532, 543, 552, 572, 584, 595, 237, 291, 317, 408, 438–442, 444, 638
631, 642 Provan, I. W. 546, 622, 627

O’Brien, M. A. 527, 532, 546, 548, 550 Rabinowitz, I. 536

Oded, B. 8, 102, 112, 114, 117–119, 133, 141, 192, Radner, K. 7
243, 427, 430, 470, 541, 545 Rainey, A. F. 248–249, 306–307, 451, 470, 566
Oeming, M. 56, 85, 265, 285, 289, 302–303, Rassam, H. 67
315–316, 323–324, 332, 344, 460, 637 Raviv, H. 530, 610
Ofer, A. 23, 45, 123–125, 139, 154, 158, 160–161, Ray, P. J., Jr. 197, 202, 208
173–175, 182–183, 213–214, 287, 290–291, Reade, J. 67
296–298, 319, 321, 341, 348, 424–425, 430, Redditt, P. L. 619, 643
495 Redford, D. B. 35, 119, 121–122, 199, 244–246,
Ohana, M. 642 388, 423, 543
Olley, J. W. 361 Reeg, G. 641
Olmstead, A. T. 248–249, 259, 306–307 Regev, J. 360
 Index of Modern Authors 757

Reich, R. 47, 49, 53, 165, 225–227, 269, 271– Schmid, K. 359, 363, 501, 504, 649, 651
280, 360, 364, 369, 376, 378, 381, 391–395, Schmidt, B. B. 361, 523
469, 473 Schmitt, G. 414, 514
Reinmuth, T. 257, 523, 570–571, 573, 575–576 Schneider, H. 595
Reisner, G. A. 254 Schniedewind, W. M. 279, 378, 395
Renkema, J. 137, 141 Schultz, C. 524
Ritter 416 Schumacher, G. 47, 49
Roberts, J. M. 360 Schunck, K.-D. 399, 406
Robinson, E. 451, 609 Schütte, W. 407
Roche, M.-J. 218 Schwartz, J. J. 288, 353, 465–468, 471, 474–475,
Rofé, A. 503 480, 482–486, 488
Roll, I. 251, 466, 468, 480 Schwiderski, D. 262
Römer, T. 22, 359, 402–404, 416, 455, 494, 501– Seebass, H. 515, 649
508, 511, 528–529, 648–650 Seitz, C. R. 127, 131, 133, 141, 426, 428–430,
Ron, Z. 12, 83 540, 543–545, 548–552
Roncace, M. 363 Sellers, O. R. 173, 227, 297, 341–342
Root, M. 196, 201, 426, 580, 641 Sellin, E. 163, 224
Rose, W. H. 643 Sergi, O. 10, 12–13, 24, 26, 33, 37–38, 40, 71,
Rosenson, I. 211–213 76–84, 87–88, 90–91, 96, 104, 231, 233,
Rost, L. 418 236, 285, 292, 295–296, 299, 316, 360,
Rothstein, J. W. 485 399–400, 403, 405, 408, 418, 621, 623–624,
Rowley, H. H. 259, 528 637, 639
Rudnig, T. A. 621, 623–624, 626–628 Seybold, K. 363
Rudolph, W. 141, 145, 256, 540, 544, 552, 571– Shaar, L. 83
572, 576, 579–581, 585, 593–596, 601, 603, Shai, I. 9, 13, 32, 77–78
620 Shalev, Y. 362
Russell, J. M. 68 Shalom, N. 283, 300–301, 329, 331, 334–335,
Ryle, H. E. 265, 576, 620, 622 338, 341, 343
Sharon, I. 148, 333
Sacchi, P. 137 Shatil, N. 283, 300–301, 329, 333, 344
Sack, R. H. 42, 106 Shavit, A. 475–476
Safrai, Z. 466 Sherratt, A. 14
Saggs, H. W. F. 15 Sherratt, S. 14
Saller, S. J. 227 Shiloh, Y. 25, 47–51, 53–59, 61–62, 64, 123, 137–
Sanda, A. 532 138, 148–149, 152, 154, 225–226, 269, 272,
Sanders, T. K. 198, 203 274–280, 338, 369, 376–377, 388, 391–395,
Sandhaus, D. 329, 343 421, 453, 610
Sapin, J. 218 Shipton, G, M. 49–50, 244
Sass, B. 53, 81, 99, 129, 132, 237, 555, 559, 564, Shoham, Y. 78, 99, 237, 277–279, 378, 394–395,
566–568, 638, 640 638, 640
Sauer, J. A. 196–197, 202–203, 252 Shukron, E. 53, 225–226, 274–280, 360, 369,
Savir 226, 276–277, 377, 393–394 378, 392–394
Scalise 141–142 Silberman, N. A. 10, 22, 32, 370
Schalit, A. 211, 467 Silverman, M. 558
Schaper, J. 261, 263, 305, 311, 313, 530 Simkins, R. A. 9
Scharbert, J. 311 Sinclair, L. A. 101, 169, 437–438, 443–444, 451
Schipper, B. U. 35, 649 Singer-Avitz, L. 23, 27–28, 40–41, 43–44, 205,
Schloen, J. D. 9, 15–16 228, 411, 453–456, 458–461, 480
758 Index of Modern Authors

Sinopoli, G. 66–67 Suriano, M. J. 361

Sion, O. 214, 218 Sweeney, M. A. 409
Sivan, R. 272, 391 Swetnam, L. 642
Ska, J. L. 359, 502, 509 Syren, R. 648
Skinner, J. 142 Szanton, N. 360
Smallwood, E. M. 211
Smelik, K. A. D. 545, 559, 564 Tadmor, H. 5, 7, 17, 28–29, 118–119, 126, 130,
Smend, R. 595 140, 200, 244–245, 254, 360–361, 389, 402,
Smith, D. L. 127, 141, 180 409, 428, 480, 495, 525–530, 534–535,
Smith, J. M. P. 619 540–541, 547–549, 610
Smith, M. 259, 262, 266, 373, 571–572, 583– Taha, H. 462
584, 587 Tal, O. 250–251, 261, 271, 325–326, 329, 333, 337
Smith, M. S. 453 Tappy, R. 244
Smith, R. H. 329 Tarragon, J.-M. de 196
Smothers, T. G. 141–142 Tatum, L. 25
Soggin, J. A. 648 Tauxe, L. 83
Solar, G. 272, 391 Tavgar, A. 359, 451, 462
Sowers, S. G. 259 Taylor, G. 361
Spalinger, A. 121–122, 423 Tcherikover, V. A. 211, 469
Speiser, E. A. 584 Thareani-Sussely, Y. 28
Spek, R. J. van der 257 Thiel, W. 127, 429
Speyer, W. 529 Thiele, E. R. 6, 543
Spieckermann, H. 532 Thompson, H. O. 203
Stade, B. 532, 547, 549, 645 Thompson, J. A. 131, 133, 142, 429, 544, 622, 642
Stager, L. E. 9, 15, 29, 40, 117, 130, 132, 199, 212, Thompson, T. L. 406
214, 246, 480 Throntveit, M. A. 314, 594, 597
Stähl, H. P. 566 Tiemeyer, L. S. 363
Stansell, G. 9 Timm, S. 255, 407
Starkey, J. L. 76 Tollefson, K. D. 594
Stavrakopoulou, F. 361 Torczyner, H. 108, 166
Steen, E. J. van der 204, 208 Torrey C. C. 226, 517, 530, 569, 571
Stein, M. 454 Tov, E. 595
Steiner, M. L. 152, 360, 370, 388, 392 Tromp, N. J. 549
Stekelis, M. 55 Tsafrir, Y. 154, 225, 272, 376, 391, 620
Stern, E. 26, 28, 36, 38–39, 42, 47–49, 51, 56– Tsevat, M. 121
57, 61, 63–64, 68, 96–97, 99–100, 102, 105– Tsfania, L. 254, 359
106, 111–112, 114, 136, 154–155, 161–163, Tubb, J. N. 204
168, 170, 173, 190–192, 197–198, 201–203, Tufnell, O. 76, 165
205, 209, 211–212, 215–217, 224–229, 234– Tuland, C. G. 572
237, 243–245, 247, 249–252, 254, 257, 261– Tuplin, C. 248, 260, 306
262, 267–268, 271–272, 283, 287–288, 291, Tur-Sinai, N. H. 121, 166, 559, 563
297, 307, 309, 317, 331, 335, 341–342, 375– Tushingham, A. D. 71, 152, 225, 271–273, 376, 391
376, 386–387, 390, 408, 431, 437, 439–440,
442, 445, 451, 466, 468–469, 480–481, Uehlinger, C. 53, 71
483–485, 572, 597, 613, 616–617, 619 Ussishkin, D. 15, 21, 24, 38, 47, 50, 76–78, 80–
Stern, M. 331, 466, 468–469 83, 138, 165, 244, 257, 299, 360, 564, 568,
Stevens, M. E. 305 637
Stolper, M. W. 248–249, 262, 306–307 Uziel, J. 360, 364–365
 Index of Modern Authors 759

Van Bekkum, K. 455 Wiesehöfer, J. 373, 648

Van Keulen, P. S. F. 546, 548 Wilkinson, J. 370
Van Seters, J. 407, 418, 501, 504, 513, 647, 651 Willi, T. 314, 519, 551
Vanderhooft, D. S. 9, 13, 29, 34–35, 42, 77–78, Williamson, H. G. M. 99, 144–145, 154, 237, 256–
103–104, 106, 111, 113–114, 209, 225, 227, 257, 261–262, 286, 312, 482–484, 517, 522,
236, 239–240, 246, 272–274, 279, 285, 296, 552, 570–574, 576, 579–581, 583–584, 592–
300, 306, 316, 326, 330, 337, 376, 378–381, 597, 599, 602–606, 620, 629–631
388, 391, 395, 546 Wimmer, D. H. 202, 727
Vaughn, A. G. 13, 71, 76–77, 79, 87–88, 90–91, Winberger-Stern, M. 291, 317, 408
635, 638, 640 Winckler, H. 5
Vermeylen, J. 624, 629 Winter, I. 66–67, 259
Vincent, L. H. 58 Wiseman, D. J. 117–119, 126, 198, 246, 423, 472,
Vlaardingerbroek, J. 547 540–543, 562
Vogt, H. C. M. 118, 541, 597 Wöhrle, J. 511
Von Rad, G. 528, 597, 604, 648 Wright, G. E. 102, 125, 168, 431, 436–437, 442,
Von Soden, W. 286 638
Wright, J. L. 362, 518–520, 522, 569–571, 575,
Wade, J. M. 59 584, 588, 621–624, 626–627, 629
Waerzeggers, C. 310 Wright, L. S. 529
Würthwein, E. 528, 532, 548, 614
Wagenaar, J. 515
Wagner, A. 503, 649
Yadin, Y. 50, 55–56
Waldbaum, J. C. 472
Yamauchi, E. M. 259, 262
Wallinga, H. 250
Yassif, E. 649
Wampler, J. C. 168, 226, 431–432
Yassine, K. 202–204
Wanke, G. 127–128, 426–427, 429–430
Yeivin, S. 551
Ward, W. A. 71
Yellin, J. 81, 99, 125, 130, 293, 412, 439, 442
Watzinger, C. 49, 163, 224, 334
Yogev, O. 345
Weidhaas, H. 66–67
Young, E. J. 552
Weidner, E. F. 199, 371
Younger, K. L. Jr. 7–8, 16, 540
Weill, R. 226, 277, 377, 393
Younker, R. W. 196, 202–203, 252
Weinberg, J. P. 168, 179–180, 265–266, 311–313
Weinberg, S. S. 102, 153–154, 168, 255, 431
Zadok, R. 144, 199, 473–474, 507, 560, 562, 582–
Weinfeld, M. 286, 584, 613 583, 587, 612, 640–641, 643
Weingart, K. 406, 649 Zangenberg, J. 359
Weippert, H. 58 Zayadine, F. 63, 202–203
Weippert, M. 196, 200–201, 243, 382, 646 Zelinger, Y. 271, 333
Weiser, A. 545 Zer-Kavod, M. 180, 576
Weiss, E. 10, 16, 32, 79, 338, 340 Zertal, A. 136, 152, 245, 252, 254
Welch, A. C. 141, 143–144 Zevit, Z. 373
Wellhausen, J. 532, 569–570, 625, 645 Zilberbod, I. 338
Welten, P. 74, 314 Zimhoni, O. 10, 17, 21, 32–33, 79, 159, 445, 637
Wenham, G. J. 648–649 Zissu, B. 344
Wenning, R. 472 Zobel, H. J. 400, 496
Wesenberg, B. 47, 49 Zorn, J. R. 12, 43, 99, 107, 110–111, 124–125, 130,
Wessels, W. J. 544 139, 148–149, 168–169, 171, 197, 206–207,
Westermann, C. 646, 649 291, 293, 317, 334, 403, 408, 412, 431–436,
Wheatley, P. 329 439, 442, 477
Widengren, G. 259 Zwickel, W. 266, 281, 358–359, 378, 463, 500