In the New Testament, the underworld is envisioned as a place of moral dualism. Voracious flames in a desolate void of ceaseless sorrow cast away the wicked into a realm where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched; their fate sealed in separation from God. By contrast, the righteous are awarded a place of radiant splendor, heavenly courts where the promise of everlasting communion with the divine fulfills the deepest human desire. Opposing visions of torment and bliss profoundly shaped Western thought; yet, this Christian image of the afterlife did not emerge in isolation. It is the culmination of millennia of reflection, transformation, and adaptation. Across Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, cultures wrestled with the same fundamental question: What becomes of the human, of the soul after death?

From Dust to Dust

“For dust you are and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:19)

The dark and dreary world the Mesopotamians imagined, its dusty gates and palace of eternal grandeur, encapsulated a shadowy realm of neither pleasure nor pain. Offerings to the dead sustained their hungry bellies and sated their thirst. If only the murky puddles and masses of grit they were left with could do the same. So far beneath the earth, and distant from the heavens that housed the gods, there was little that awaited those who left the living. When Inanna made her way through the underworld, she was faced with its harshest reality: the order that comes in death is unwavering and unforgiving. The grief that the living endured as their loved ones passed, and the truth of their existence, only attested to their finality to return to whence they came, dust and ash. Living was all they had.

As the cradle of civilization, Mesopotamia’s reach extended far. It was a region in constant flux, the movement of people inevitable. Its dim reflection of the underworld cast a shadow over many civilizations thereafter. When the Hittites gained control of the greater region around 1400 BCE, they incorporated a vast pit to offer, sacrifice, purify, and beckon the gods of the dark abyss. Not long after, the Israelites were making their way into the Promised Land. Early conceptions of the underworld among the Israelites echo Mesopotamia’s sentiment as a cavernous house of bleak obscurity. The insatiable hunger that plagued the dead was seen in Sheol, its home and its devourer. Its mouth was like the Hittites’ enormous pits, opening up to swallow the dead with a hunger that only all of humanity could satisfy. Once in the realm of the dead, there was no escape. Like the Mesopotamians, Sheol was a cosmic opposite to the realm of God, the Promised Land. Its gates remained locked, windows to the outside forever closed, and death always stood guard, vigilant and unshaken.

The prince of this forsaken land was the accuser, the adversary, the first enemy of mankind, Satan. When the serpent that tricked Eve into eating the apple was caught by God, he banished him to the underworld, where he would spend all eternity feasting on the dirt of the grave, the same muddy feast the dead were granted. There were no punishments or rewards; it was the destiny of both the righteous and the wicked. No one could remember their God because here, he was forgotten and his praise absent. But God still had dominion over this place of lonesome souls. It was believed that one day, a messiah would come, one to strike down Sheol, and those who were lost would rise by the power of God. And with such hopes, Sheol became a liminal destination, remembered by God though he is forgotten. In some cases, God could save those as they faced the gates of their demise.

In due time, subtleties alluded to something more, communicating justice in the wake of what was long thought to be an empty and impartial afterlife, a compartmentalization of the promise of judgment. Different realms appeared: paradise, Abraham’s bosom, heaven, or the heavens for the righteous; Sheol, the Lake of Fire in Gehenna, Hades for the wicked, or Tartarus for the fallen among God. A shift began to take place, gradually moving away from the inevitable shadow in lives dedicated to and in the presence of the divine.

The Lifeless Dead

“Don’t try to reconcile me to my dying. I’d rather serve as another man’s labourer, as a poor peasant without land, and be alive on Earth, than be lord of all the lifeless dead.” (Words of Achilles. The Odyssey, Book XI. A.S. Klein)

When Homer wrote The Iliad and The Odyssey around 750 BCE, Greece was in its Dark Ages, brought on by the collapse of the Bronze Age. Worlds crumbled under the weight of catastrophe, and stories of the wonders of the past became legends. But Homer’s Odyssey did not bring about new definitions of the underworld. His was as bleak and uninviting as ever. As Odysseus, like the Hittites, dug a pit in the ground to make offerings to the dead to summon those passed on, he was met with despondency. Speaking to the great Achilles in an effort to find his way back to Ithaca and with praises of his likely place among the dead as ruler, Odysseus was only met with those woeful words.

Though Homer’s underworld was not so different than that which came before him, it would not always be that way. The greying world that Hades and Persephone reigned over would eventually evolve into differing domains based on one’s life and status. By the time of Plato, four centuries later, it was understood to contain four distinct realms. For those who lived a pleasant life and were remembered, they enjoyed the sunny meadows of the Asphodel. Warriors or those who died valiantly in battle went to Elysium. The purest of hearts found themselves in the Isle of the Blessed, and if wicked or forgotten, they roamed dolorously or in perpetual torture in Tartarus. These realms did exist during Homer’s time, but lacked clear boundaries. Rather, the souls of the dead were dependent on their remembrance, still aching for the life they once had and anguished by all that they had lost.

For the Greeks, the underworld became a place of responsibility and judgment. Through its melancholy caverns, rivers flowed: oath, woe, lamentation, forget, and fire. Their purposes guided the dead, cleansed them of their grief, or made them forget their mortal lives. They were consumed with a searing fury to keep the wicked tormented or to burn away the sins of the past. The living were held accountable to never forget the dead. Proper burial rituals were honored, food and drink offered, and memorials erected as immortal stelae depicting how they would have liked to be remembered. For the will to carry on in death or be given a second chance, memory was their savior, a glimmer of hope in the gloom of the abyss.

May My Soul Rest

“May I walk every day unceasing on the banks of my water, may my soul rest on the branches of the trees which I have planted, may I refresh myself in the shadow of my sycamore.” (Tomb inscription, 1400 BCE. Nardo, 10)

For the Egyptians, the underworld may have been like the world they once knew. In the Field of Reeds, there was no sickness, no sorrow, no death. It was the destination every Egyptian craved, one that could be granted to them by the Osiris. Tomb inscriptions and depictions reflect the dead flourishing amongst the things and activities they held close to their hearts. But to get there, one had to traverse a realm of peril. Their hearts could not be heavy with desire, jealousy, or self-pity. The heart was the most vital part of themselves that they could take with them. Adorned with amulets, it, along with their voice, carried them through the underworld. Met by the twelve gates of hours that Ra passes through during the night, each with its own named guardian, the dead could face numerous lurking monstrous beings of indescribable harm or a Lake of Fire that may purify or destroy them.

As the soul awoke from its destined slumber, its memories of its life were gone. A part of itself remained in the tomb, while other parts served different functions. The soul, as the Egyptians believed, was severed into five entities. The Ba could move about the world, taking flight like a bird. The Ka found itself in the underworld, alongside Ib, the seat of consciousness and emotion, the heart that would be weighed against the feather of Ma’at, order. Anubis met the dead upon their awakening; at times, it may have been Nephthys. Guided by their divine hands and with ample instructions, the dead opened their mouths and made their way to the west, land of the setting sun, and down into the Hall of Two Truths to stand before Osiris. Here, their immortal soul waited in line while being attended to by goddesses in preparation for their judgment. One by one, hearts were delicately placed on an imposing scale and weighed by Anubis. If the heart proved true to the bearer, light and full of gratitude, paradise was on the horizon. If not, a ravenous god would devour them, and they would cease to exist.

Left behind in their places of rest, offerings would be made to nourish the soul long after death: drinks, food, prayers to the gods, as well as amulets, priced trinkets, and dolls to act as servants in the afterlife. The things that were placed with the dead, whether in their tombs or burials, manifested themselves in the afterlife. A small boat built from wood could carry them across water, and games could entertain them. As such, funerary rituals, preserving the name, and the act of mummification were imperative in the survival of those passed on. Similar to the Mesopotamians, Israelites, and Greeks, death was fated, inescapable. However, the Egyptians did not envision it as desolation. They saw in death the continuation of existence, a path carefully traveled and just in every way.

The first inclination of the Egyptian underworld comes from the Pyramid Texts, dating around 2400 BCE, as one of the oldest conceptions of the underworld. Coffin Texts soon followed, and later, the Book of Coming Forth by Day, otherwise known as the Book of the Dead. These texts meticulously outlined the underworld and helped the dead to remember. Spells, incantations, directions, names of gods, and maps eased their uncertainties and gave them all the strength they needed to overcome their arduous journey. Rebirth, justice, and the divine order of the cosmos were their end and their beginning. For all the emptiness that lingered in other regions with the thought of death, the Egyptians lived their lives to honor themselves and those they loved, to live on in bliss, and to be rewarded for their gratitude.

No More Mourning or Sadness or Pain

“He will wipe away all tears from their eyes; there will be no more death, and no more mourning or sadness or pain. The world of the past has gone.” (Revelation 21:4)

By the time Virgil’s Aeneid was written, between 29 and 19 BCE, the underworld had transformed into a complex system of reward and punishment. The Romans had taken what the Greeks provided and infused it with their own societal values and laws. Cultural virtues enabled enteral glory, while strict punishments reflected moral obligations. It had become a practical and just continuation of life on earth. Similar to the Greeks, the Romans had compartmentalized their underworld. Limbo held the forgotten, infants, suicides, and those who died an untimely death or were not afforded proper rituals. The Fields of Mourning was something close to the original Hades, bleak with regret, loss, and unfulfilled dreams and aspirations. The Asphodel remained a place for the commoner, quaint and sufficient. Elysium and the Isle of the Blessed were reserved for the brave and virtuous, and Tartarus for the vilest of humanity, a place of damnation.

As the Roman Empire expanded, so too did Judaism and soon Christianity. By the mid-1^st century CE, messages had spread throughout the empire, and Christianity took root. Its underworld evolved into what it is envisioned today. As perfect opposites, heaven and hell house the good and the evil, separate realms that embody a justified continuation. Migration, expansion, and trade facilitated inventive ways to understand death and its place in the great cosmos of existence. Death became more than a resting place; it allowed for lasting worship, unlike its predecessors. Perhaps, it gave unbroken reason to worship, honor the dead, and act with morality. As a god who welcomes his people into his paradise rather than condemning them to emptiness, he, like Osiris, takes away their pain, their suffering, and gently guides them into his illumination.

In truth, ancient underworlds had always functioned as moral compasses, enforcing societal norms and beliefs, and gave structure and reason to the natural cycles of the world. The ways in which they were conceptualized related to their relationships to their god(s) and encouraged familial responsibilities to protect each other in death. For early civilizations, the most a person could expect was to live in the presence of divinity. Later understandings must have recognized the benefit in translating death as a continuation of life, a rebirth not in the literal sense, but as an outcome of the judgment processes that held their societies together.

The Immortal Soul

“I am fully convinced that the soul is indestructible, and that its activity will continue through eternity. It is like the sun, which, to our eyes, seems to set in night; but it has in reality only gone to diffuse its light elsewhere”. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832)

Undoubtedly, ancient civilizations gradually influenced one another, building upon preexisting foundations in unique ways that fostered loyalty. What is more intriguing, however, is the similarities they share not from influence alone but from the innate construction of underworld symbolic motifs. It is well-attested that early humans buried or burned their dead. The reasoning behind this may have more to do with sanitation and preventing animals from scavenging, yet it demonstrates symbolic representations of the underworld being deep below the earth and the concept of returning to dust, dirt.

As such, there are age-old associations with caves as entrances or abodes. The cavernous nature of the cave, its seemingly infinite passageways, as well as its absence of any natural light, allude to a transition between life and death, light and dark, as a sort of liminal space full of eerie and otherworldly sensations. In many cultures, caves are considered to be the Womb of Mother Earth, connected to fertility and rebirth, signified by Jesus rising from the dead in his cave-like tomb. Additionally, caves have long been used as a source of shelter, water, and agriculture. Archaeologists have, on a few occasions, also uncovered evidence that suggests the use of caves for burial rituals going back to Neolithic humans and distant relatives of Homo sapiens. Having such a multifaceted relationship with caves, it is no surprise that the underworlds of the early ancients, their pits of offering, and the tombs of later generations replicate the cave. The deeper one travels, the further away from life they become.

Much like caves, water also has symbolic significance to the underworld. The river that flowed through the entrance of Hades represented a boundary between the living and the dead. Other waters, like those of forget, woe, and lamentation, served purposes that reflect the death experience and the agreements made by the dead to their gods. The recurring motif of a lake of fire found in ancient Egyptian texts as well as biblical texts, as both a punishment and purification source, further reinforces the oath one takes in death and the duties of the living to protect themselves and others from an unfortunate fate through faith and obligation. Further, these waters were part of the mythical origin of the cosmos as an aquatic abyss, one that gave birth to all things, hence a passage into new beginnings, a new state of being. Agricultural cycles, like the cycles of Nile inundation that the Egyptians were so dependent on for their survival, were also intimately bound with life and death. And the vastness of the sea as a barrier between the known and unknown world was a treacherous obstacle in the lives of the ancients, effortlessly providing for and taking away life.

The underworld was a place of no return, where one goes and cannot be brought back. Although some have tried, there remains the reinforcing belief that death is eternal and rarely bends its will to anyone. They forget their past lives, are hidden away behind the gates of death’s kingdom, and knowledge is kept secret. Ereshkigal, the Queen of the Mesopotamian underworld, kept secret knowledge hidden from the dead. This idea, that there are mysteries within the underworld that neither the living nor the dead have access to, reveals how very little people truly knew of what happens after death. Understandably, there really is no way to know for certain, which gives the impression that there must be something hidden therein, something secret and unknowable, stored away and kept from humans by divinity. In this ambiguity, the living try to comfort the dead by providing them with earthly luxuries and sustenance to ease the uneasiness of themselves and those who had passed amongst an abstract transition that is both permanent and hazy.

Intrinsically, the underworld reflects human experience. The creatures that emerge from the ground become monsters, the scorching devastation of the sun upon crops, or the explosive power of the volcano becomes death’s foreboding hand over those who break the laws of the living. The waters of the sea or cavernous passageways become transitional points. And the life-giving rays that poke through billowing clouds or the limitless lights that guide and shine down at night become a paradise for the gods and those who abide by the laws of its people. Fears, famine, war, disaster, and glimmers of hope are perpetuated in visions of the underworld. It is simply within the act of observation that has shaped how the ancients perceived life and death, and the earth, in all its regenerative capabilities, provided the perfect canvas to do so. That is why the underworld holds its own strange beauty: it bestows upon mortals an immortal soul and a worthy place within the cosmos. As the sun moves across the heavens, so too does existence descend, transform, and rise anew, like a flower’s bloom breaking forth after a long, shadowy winter.

Featured image: Dante and Virgil in Hell, also known as The Barque of Dante by Eugène Delacroix ca. 1822 (Public Domain).

References

• Choksi, M. 2014. Ancient Mesopotamian Beliefs in the Afterlife. World History Encyclopedia. Available at: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/701/ancient-mesopotamian-beliefs-in-the-afterlife/

• Emerson, M. Y. 2020. What is Sheol? Exploring the Afterlife in the Old Testament. Desiring God. Available at: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-sheol

• Mark, J.J. 2012. The After-Life in Ancient Greece. World History Encyclopedia. Available at: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/29/the-after-life-in-ancient-greece/

• Homer, translated by Kline, A.S. 2004. Homer: The Odyssey Book XI. Poetry in Translation. Available at: https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/Odyssey11.php

• Virgil, translated by Kline, A.S. 2002. The Aeneid Book VI. Poetry in Translation. Available at: https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilAeneidVI.php

• Ngo-Trong, S. 2022. 6 Common Themes Found in Underworld Myths from Around the World. Chasing Gods. Available at: https://chasinggods.com/6-common-themes-found-in-underworld-myths/

• Old Testament and New Testament texts available at: https://www.catholic.org/bible/old_testament.php

Originally aired January 1, 2023 on the Digging Up The Past Podcast.

In this episode, host, Petros Koutoupis, sits down and interviews historical researcher and author, Dr. Peter Feinman. They discuss Feinman’s latest published research, The Exodus: An Egyptian Story. Can we find evidence of a Semitic exodus in the Egyptian record? Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus? When did it happen? Why did it happen? Tune in for the answers and more.

Featured image: The Israelites Leaving Egypt by David Roberts ca. 1830. (Public Domain)

One topic that many are intrigued by, myself included, is the creation of man and woman, and their purpose. There are two accounts of creation listed in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis. One can be found in chapters 1-2:4a, and the other from 2:4b to the end of the chapter. And they both seem to contradict one another. For instance, the first tells of how God first created the creatures of the deep on the fifth day, and all the other land animals on the sixth before man was created. [1]

1:21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
1:24 And God said: ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.’ And it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’
1:27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
1:31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

In the second, we read that man was created first (Genesis 2:7) and God created the animals afterwards (Genesis 2:19) to keep the man company and have the man name them. Also, the second story reveals a major clue to the reason behind the creation of man.

2:15 And YHWH took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Man was created out of soil to till the soil on which he was placed in Eden. There is a play on words here, ’adam was created from ha’adamah, where ha’adamah translates to ‘the earth, land or ground’; a major component of the story, on which I will elaborate further in this article. So in conclusion, man was supposed to serve God. These are motifs which strike many parallels to the creation of man myths found through the rest of the Mesopotamian world.

To start off with the story of Atrahasis, [2] man was created from clay or the soil to bear the load of the gods, [3] an idea and creation done at the hands of Enki.

The midwife of the gods, wise Mami,
‘You are the womb-goddess (to be the) creator of mankind!
Create primeval man, that he may bear the yoke!
Let him bear the yoke, the work of Ellil,
Let man bear the load of the gods!’
Nintu made her voice heard
And spoke to the great gods,
‘It is not proper for me to make him
The work is Enki’s;
He makes everything pure!
If he gives me clay, then I will do it.’

With the slaughter of another deity, clay was mixed with the flesh and blood of that deity, and man was formed. We can see the same themes in the sixth tablet of the Enuma Elish (the Babylonian creation story).

When Marduk heard the speech of the gods,
He made up his mind to perform miracles,
He spoke his utterance to Ea,
And communicated to him the plan that he was considering.
‘Let me put blood together, and make bones too.
Let me set up primeval man: Man shall be his name.
Let me create a primeval man.
The work of the gods shall be imposed (on him), and so they shall be at leisure…’
…Ea answered him and spoke a word of the gods.
‘Let one who is hostile to them be surrendered (up),
Let him be destroyed, and let people be created (from him).
Let the great gods assemble,
Let the culprit be given up, and let them convict him.’

It is fairly obvious that all these narratives of the creation of man closely resemble that of the same theme present in chapter 2 of Genesis.

A related piece of material comes to us from Neo-Assyrian fragments of text identified as K3364. As mentioned in earlier chapters, after the discoveries of the Neo-Assyrian literature found at the library of Asshurbanipal in Nineveh, George Smith (the man who discovered and first translated the Mesopotamian Flood story) was not only the first individual to supply translations to them, but also the first to attempt to piece them together in some form or order. Without any forms of these texts discovered or deciphered, the only tool Smith had was the Old Testament, and more specifically the Book of Genesis. Unfortunately, due to his lack of resources, Smith had mistakenly placed K3364 within the story of the Enuma Elish.

…lord of the noble lips, [4] saviour from death
Of the gods imprisoned, the accomplisher of restoration,
His pleasure he established he fixed upon the gods his enemies,
To fear them he made man,
The breath of life was in him.
May he be established, and may his will not fail
In the mouth of the dark races which his hand has made.
The god of noble lips with his five fingers sin may he cut off
Who with his noble charms removes the evil curse.
The god Libzu [5] wise among the gods, who had chosen his possession,
The doing of evil shall not come out of him,
Established in the company of the gods, he rejoices their heart…

A peculiarity stands out from this extract, and it is the mention of the dark race. What was this dark race, free of sin and as pure as both Adam and Eve were before they fell from God’s grace? According to Smith, two principal races have been identified by Sir Henry Rawlinson which the Assyro-Babylonians recognized. [6] These races were the Adamu, or dark race, and the Sarku, or light race. George Smith seemed to find a parallel between these and the sons of both Adam and God. Unfortunately, I have not found much information pertaining to the second race, and therefore cannot make any connections to our biblical sources.

What does strike me as the most interesting point and connection is the fact that Adamu, representing man or the ‘dark race,’ is a Semitic root of the same general meaning found in Hebrew literature regarding the first man, Adam. [7] More connections come from the original Mesopotamian idea of man being pure and free of sin, set out to serve the gods and make them happy or rejoice their heart. This is the same motif present in chapter 2 of Genesis, when both Adam and Eve were created free from sin and pure of all evil, until they had bitten from the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of both good and evil, their eyes then opening to see the truths of the world. More on the fall continues in the next segment. The last connection I see is a specific phrase, which strikes a close resemblance to one found in Genesis. This phrase is: the breath of life was in him. After YHWH had formed the man, the same breath of life animated him:

2:7 Then YHWH formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The Fall and Curse of Man

But what of the fall? Does this also show roots in Mesopotamian history? Coincidentally, on the reverse side of one of the fragments of K3364, Smith had identified such a fall and curse. This portion of the tablet has been too damaged, and the actual fall is not discussed, but rather what took place afterward.

Afterwards the people of remote ages
May she remove, [8] not destroy […] forever,
To the place he created, he made strong.
Lord of the earth his name called out, the father Elu [9]
In the ranks of the angels pronounced their (man’s) [10] curse.
The god Hea heard and his liver was angry
Because his man had corrupted his purity.
He like me also Hea may he punish him,
The course of my issue all of them may he remove, and all my seed may he destroy.
In the language of the fifty gods
By his fifty names he called, and turned away in anger from him:
May he be conquered, and at once cut off.
Wisdom and knowledge hostilely may they injure him.
May they put enmity also father and son and may they plunder.
To king, ruler, and governor, may they bend their ear.
May they cause anger also to the lord of the gods Merodach.
His land may it bring forth but he not touch it;
His desire shall be cut off, and his will be unanswered; the opening of this mouth
no god shall take notice of;
His back shall be broken and not be healed;
At his urgent trouble no god shall receive him;
His heart shall be poured out, and his mind shall be troubled;
To sin and wrong his face shall come […]

As mentioned in the paragraph before the above excerpt, it is apparent that this reading chronologically fits after the actual act to which resulted in the fall and curse of man. From Genesis:

3:16 Unto the woman He said: ‘I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’
3:17 And unto Adam He said: ‘Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.’

To this day, we have yet to find a narrative speaking of the actual sin committed and whether a serpent was involved in the Mesopotamian sources, but another narrative may shed more light. The only clue to a possible serpent and sacred tree being involved in the Assyro-Babylonian accounts comes from a cylinder seal, ‘The Temptation Seal.’

Notice the man and woman seated before the sacred tree. Could this be the sacred tree of knowledge of both good and evil, or the sacred tree of life? Also, pay close attention to the serpent beside the couple (which repeats itself in the continuation of the seal).

Scholars are still unable to decipher the true message behind this mysterious and yet intriguing seal. In the Hebrew account we know that it was knowledge that ended up banishing both man and woman from the paradisiacal Eden. Could this have been the same with the Assyrian account? ‘Wisdom and knowledge hostilely may they injure him.’ Was the depicted tree within the seal a tree of knowledge? Does the presence of the snake, a creature symbolizing wisdom, imply such a meaning? Some have interpreted it as being the one and the same. Its craftsmanship is of late Akkadian or Neo-Sumerian origin (ca. 2200-2100 BCE). The seal is currently located at the British Museum.

Featured image: The Temptation of Adam by Jacopo Tintoretto. (Public Domain)

[1] JPS translation.

[2] Old Babylonian Version or OBV.

[3] More specifically, the Igigi.

[4] An epithet of Ea.

[5] Yet another epithet of Ea.

[6] Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, 1^st Baronet (April 11, 1810 – March 5, 1895) was an English soldier, diplomat and orientalist. He is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Assyriology.”

[7] This Semitic word is derived out of the parent root dam meaning blood. Another Hebrew word derived from this root is ’adom meaning ‘red’ and is also another name for Esau, the son of Jacob (Gen.25:30).

[8] Tiamat? A suggestion by George Smith. The identification of this individual is unknown.

[9] Early reading of the name Ellil.

[10] Author’s note.

In the most distant and remote past, I went on a scholarly voyage out to identify the origin and identification of the biblical nachash or serpent found in chapter 3 of the Book of Genesis. This is the point at which I came across the myth of Adapa. I was directed towards the Mesopotamian fertility deity that went by the title of Ningishzida, and sometimes Gishzida. The name is believed to translate to ‘Lord of the Good Tree’ or ‘Lord of the Trusty Timber’; Gishzida translating to ‘Good Tree’ or ‘Trusty Timber.’ In the Sumerian poem The Death of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh meets Ningishzida along with Dumuzi in the Underworld. [1] Babylonian incantations have also named Ningishzida as a guardian over the demons that dwell in the Underworld. His name has also been mentioned in laments over the death of Dumuzi. In the myth of Adapa, Adapa encounters both Dumuzi and Gishzida guarding the gate to the Heaven of Anu, the highest heaven. [2] The story begins with Ea giving Adapa eternal wisdom but not eternal life. It is already clear to the reader that this wisdom was a feature reserved strictly for the gods. So one day, Adapa ventures off into the “broad sea” in his boat so he can go fishing for the house of his lord, Ea; and without a rudder, his boat went adrift. Adapa threatens the South Wind for sending him adrift and informs him that he will break its wing, and proceeds to do so. Angry, Anu discovers the actions taken by Adapa and calls for Adapa to stand before him in front of his council at heaven. Aware of “heaven’s ways”, Ea warned Adapa with the following instructions:

‘Adapa, you are to go before king Anu.
You will go up to heaven,
And when you go up to heaven,
When you approach the Gate of Anu,
Dumuzi and Gishzida will be standing in the Gate of Anu,
Will see you, will keep asking you questions,
“Young man, on whose behalf do you look like this?
On whose behalf do you wear mourning garb?”

(Adapa has to answer the following)

“Two gods have vanished from our country,
And that is why I am behaving like this.”

(The two will continue to ask)

“Who are the two gods that have vanished from the country?”

(Adapa has to answer the following)

“They are Dumuzi and Gishzida.”
They will look at each other and laugh a lot,
Will speak a word in your favor to Anu,
Will present you to Anu in a good mood.
When you stand before Anu
They will hold out for you bread of death, so you must not eat.
They will hold out for you water of death, so you must not drink.
They will hold out a garment for you; so put it on.
They will hold out oil for you; so anoint yourself.
You must not neglect the instructions I have given you.
Keep to the words that I have told you.’

The time came where Adapa went to heaven and stood before Anu. Everything was going according to what Ea had warned Adapa about. Adapa won favor with both Dumuzi and Gishzida, and Anu proceeded to ask him for the reason of his breaking of the South Wind’s wing. Adapa relates to Anu the entire story, while in the meantime both Dumuzi and Gishzida spoke in Adapa’s favor to Anu. After hearing Adapa’s response, Anu was not favorable to the idea that Ea had given mankind wisdom, “the ways of heaven and earth”, and asked himself, “What can we do for him?” because as mentioned before, wisdom was a quality for the gods to have and not mankind. The story finishes off with Anu requesting for someone to fetch him the bread and drink of eternal life, but Adapa did not eat or drink; also a garment which Adapa put on; and oil which Adapa used to anoint himself. Anu, watching and laughing at Adapa’s actions, asked him why he didn’t want to be immortal. Adapa answered:

‘(But) Ea my lord told me: “You mustn’t eat! You mustn’t drink!”

Adapa was then sent back to the earth, and the story ends with a few fragmentary lines. The story shows a lot of similarities to the Genesis account. First of all, in the Genesis story, YHWH forbids both Adam and Eve to eat from both the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, while in the Adapa narrative, Ea forbids Adapa to eat and drink the bread and water of life, giving Adapa the opportunity to be immortal like the gods. Second is the serpent figure in Genesis, while we have a similar deity in the story of Adapa involved with the offering of eternal life to Adapa. Last is the idea that wisdom was reserved for the gods, and no mortal shall have it. Both narratives stress the point that man can neither have nor handle this acquired knowledge.

Many scholars are still unclear about the exact meaning of this story. Did Ea deliberately trick Adapa out of immortality, or was he really trying to help him? Did Adapa defy (unwritten) laws of hospitality when he refused both the food and drink of life in heaven, which in turn caused Anu to punish him? [3] Another point of major interest with one of these deities resides in the fact that its symbol was the horned snake or dragon. An image of a cylinder seal impression has revealed that Gudea, the Sumerian ruler of Lagash, regarded Ningishzida as a personal protective deity and recorded a dream where he appeared to him. On this impression is also an image of Ningishzida, who has two horned serpents, sprouting one on each shoulder.

But what of the Sacred Trees?

Throughout the Levant and Mesopotamia, scattered, we find references to sacred trees in both imagery and literature. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the hero Gilgamesh is on his quest to find immortality in a plant of life in the far-off reaches of what may have been Dilmun. The Ugaritic-Canaanite Asherah and the later Phoenician/ Carthaginian equivalent Tanit were always represented in the form of trees, and symbolized both wisdom and life. Tanit translates to ‘Lady Serpent.’ In her imagery, she is seen represented as the tree of life while flanked by caducei on both sides. A caduceus is a representation of a staff with two entwined snakes. This may hint at a close relationship between the tree of life and snakes. Asherah was the consort of El and the principle goddess of both Sidon and Tyre. She is known to also be identified with the goddess Astarte. Asherah is the ‘Mother of the Gods’, and her name is thought to have originally been pronounced Athirat. [4] She is also called Elat (a feminine form of El). Asherah, the ‘creator of creatures’ and mother of the gods, was frequently seen in the position of the tree of life, giving sustenance to the animals at her sides.

In the Hebrew language and lore, the term ashara literally translated to ‘sacred tree.’ Expanding on this, the ashara was a small votive column or even a post of wood meant to evoke the sacred groves or wooded temple precincts that adjoined various fertility cults in the Near East, such as that of Astarte at Afqa. [5] Symbols such as this marked the site or presence of the divinity within that region.

Reliefs dating to the Neo-Assyrian period emphasized the great cultural importance of the sacred tree (or the Tree of Life). Actually, most of the images found today date to the Neo-Assyrian period, such as one found at Fort Shalmaneser (8^th century BCE), where a Phoenician-made ivory panel depicts the king in his role as protector of the Tree of Life. Many other reliefs date to the same period in time, some of which can be found at Kalhu at the palace of Asshurnasirpal II. Situated behind the king’s throne, the relief shows the king on both sides of the tree, above which, in the winged disc, is the Neo-Assyrian head deity, Ashur; and behind the king (once again on both sides) were winged sages. Could all of this have influenced later Hebrew tradition emphasizing the importance of the sacred trees in Genesis?

Feature image: Ashurnasirpal II flanking both sides of the Sacred Tree (close-up). (Nick Thompson / CC BY-SA 2.0)

Notes

[1] Dumuzi (biblical Tammuz) was a shepherd god. He had strong cults stationed throughout the Near Eastern world. Many narratives exist with him from Mesopotamia (i.e. Innana’s Descent to the Underworld, Adapa, etc.) to the Old Testament (i.e. Ezekiel).

[2] The apkallu are antediluvian sages who traveled to heaven. Adapa was the son of Ea, a priest in Eridu. Also known as Uan (Oannes of Berossos), the first of the Seven Sages, who brought the arts and skills of civilization to mankind.

[3] A piece of text known as Fragment D is thought to hold an alternate ending to the narrative concerning Adapa. It is followed by an incantation against disease, invoking Adapa. This ending is questionable.

[4] ’atrt—Athirat is the Ugaritic name for the Hebrew Asherah.

[5] Deu. 16:21.

Scholars tend to lean more on archaeology and ancient Egyptian inscriptions to seek the identities of the elusive Sea Peoples. This is not a simple endeavor, but in summary the Sea Peoples were an enigmatic confederacy of seafaring raiders from the central and eastern Mediterranean who sailed east and invaded Anatolia, Syria, Canaan, Cyprus, and Egypt toward the end of the Late Bronze Age Period. The term used to refer to these foreign migrants is derived from ancient Egyptian sources, providing numerous documented accounts of battles involving them.

It should be noted that not all of the Sea Peoples originated from the sea, but also from the land such as Anatolia (modern day Turkey). The Sea Peoples have been credited for devastating the region, bringing nations to a downfall and whole empires to an end. They pillaged and plundered and burned whole cities as they passed through. They were also looking for a new home and opportunities.

Working through Egyptian sources across a number of pharaohs’ reigns, scholars have isolated but not entirely identified a total of ten tribes or groups of Sea Peoples who were said to have wreaked havoc in Egypt. Why Egypt? It was the center of wealth, power and civilization in the then economic world. It would have been an attractive location for anyone looking for new opportunities.

The Danuna in the Armana Letters

One of those tribes were identified or named as the Danuna. The earliest reference to the Danuna (also referred to as Denyen, Danunites, Danaoi, Danaus, Danaids, Dene, Danai and Danaian in Egyptian, Hittite and Classical sources) come from the Amarna letters which date to the mid-14th century BC. The Amarna letters or Amarna tablets are an archive of clay tablets primarily consisting of diplomatic correspondence between the Egyptian administration and their representatives in the Levant. The letters are written in an Akkadian cuneiform script which was a common script and language used throughout both Mesopotamia and Canaan during the third and second millennium BC.

Read more

Originating from beyond the Black Sea, a mysterious group of Indo-Europeans known as the Hittites made their way into central Anatolia. Establishing a capital at Hattusa, they quickly expanded, eventually taking control of much of the region in northern Syria. They named this land the Land of Hatti. By 1340 BCE, they were a force to be reckoned with. They later successfully campaigned against competing territories, obliterating the Amorite dynasty that had once dominated Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine, and leaving the 3rd dynasty of Ur in ruin. At the height of their kingdom, between c. 1400 – 1200 BCE, their formidable armies and firm grasp on the land rivaled even those of Egypt and Assyria. But soon, that would all change.

During Egypt’s New Kingdom, under the reign of Seti I and Ramesses II, Egypt had its eyes focused on Hittite territory. In perhaps one of the most epic battles of the time, the Hittites faced the Egyptians head-on at the Battle of Kadesh on the Orontes River, which flowed into the Mediterranean southwest of the city of Homs in Syria. Ramesses II sought to control Canaan and parts of Syria and take back the city of Kadesh, then occupied by the Hittites. Thousands of men on horse and chariot surged their way into battle. The visceral clash of men and horses, of bronze blades and anguished cries, echoed over the churning waters until the river ran red. In a single day, five thousand faced death. By the end of it, there was no victor, only carnage of an unimaginable scale. In a fortuitous twist, the two powers came together in the first-ever recorded peace treaty of 1259 BCE.

This, however, was only the beginning of a series of events that would befall the Hittites. The demise of their empire was imminent. The remnants of what once was would be all that remained, and with it, an unexpected group would journey into the Promised Land, founding a great kingdom of their own.

Fall of Empires

It was not a single event that brought about the downfall of the Hittites. Over decades, the Mediterranean world crumbled under what is now known as the Bronze Age Collapse, c.1200 BCE. Droughts, famine, natural disasters, disruptions in trade, and marauders caused such an upheaval that it was nearly impossible to recover fully. At the time, the regions surrounding the Mediterranean had become increasingly interconnected and dependent on each other; the fall of one ultimately affected others. Powerful kingdoms cracked under the immense pressure of uncertainty and catastrophe.

The traditional explanation for the Bronze Age Collapse points to the arrival of the Sea Peoples, a group of foreign seafarers who moved from place to place, wreaking havoc. It is unknown what their motivations would have been, but perhaps, they were escaping the same devastation of a merciless era and were met with hostility. Yet, their reputation will always be synonymous with widespread panic and destruction.

The Egyptians fought the Sea Peoples off twice, relatively unaffected by their advances. The Hittites were not so lucky. Not only were they plagued by nature’s fury and the Sea Peoples, but the Kashka to the north also threatened their empire. It was all too much. The royal family began to turn on each other, and exile and dethronement followed. Before long, one kingdom became two: Hattusa and Tarhuntassa. Hattusa was evacuated, anticipating an attack. The once-thriving capital would soon be gone, reduced to nothing more than smoke and rubble. With the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Dark Ages of Iron, the Hittite empire was no more. What remained was a scatter of vice-kings out of Tarhuntassa and Carchemish, the foundation of the Neo-Hittite states.

A New Beginning

As Carchemish in the Upper Euphrates region of northern Syria lost control of its northern and western territories, more kingdom states began to form. Tarhuntassa in southern Anatolia would eventually completely dissolve into several kingdoms. The subsequent Neo-Hittite states quickly became a vast network of interconnected yet independent entities, with some having more influence than others but no clear coherence.

It is important to remember that the upheaval of the Bronze Age Collapse transformed the landscape, inviting new alliances and cultural connections. A large section of these newly formed states, those close to the Arameans and Assyrians, rapidly assimilated into Aramean society around 1000 BCE, adopting an Aramean identity and language while maintaining some Hittite traditions. This group would have been part of the Land of Aram, named after the Arameans. The other group, the northern and western states branching out of Carchemish and select southern states, may have continued to identify with the Land of Hatti.

Though many of these regions continued to preserve the empire through their traditions, religion, architecture, and royal legacies, it is difficult to discern precisely how the ever-evolving movement of people in the wider region and the introduction of new groups affected the Neo-Hittite population. Though many states would have expectedly consisted largely of refugees from the old empire, we also know the migrations of people, which may include the Sea Peoples, but most certainly includes the Phrygians from the southern Balkans and the Arameans, ultimately became part of the Neo-Hittite state structure as well.

Some of the more recognizable languages in the area were Aramaic, Phoenician, Assyrian, and Luwian. Luwian was of Indo-European origin and was used by the Hittites mainly for religious or administrative purposes, often seen in hieroglyphic form. The Neo-Hittites transformed this ancient dialect into their dominant language. Additionally, as an homage to the empire, many of their kings took the names of some of the great rulers of their past.

Their religion mostly reflected the old pantheon of the Hittites, but likely evolved to accommodate changes in the new kingdom states. Tarhunt was the chief god of Carchemish, of weather and storms, represented in the bull. Karhuhas was a protector, represented by the stag. Kubaba was seen as the queen; her cult endured throughout the kingdoms, and her sacred animal was the lion. Interestingly, the Hittite pantheon drew inspiration from the Hurrians of Mesopotamia. After removing the Assyrians who once ruled there, the Hurrians dominated large areas of Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia. As close neighbors with a complicated relationship, the Hurrians were eventually absorbed into the old Hittite Empire, and their gods were incorporated into Hittite epics.

The complexity of the region cannot be overstated; ultimately, it is what defines them as Neo-Hittites. Nevertheless, now that we have a general understanding of who they were, it is time to dive into their more prominent northern Luwian-speaking city-states.

Carchemish: Perhaps the most influential kingdom, Carchemish survived the Bronze Age Collapse and its dynasties, dating back to the empire, remained intact. As a wealthy city-state with exquisite monuments and a rich history, it set the tone for much of the surrounding region and kept the Neo-Assyrians at bay with extremely generous tributes, as did other states.

Malatya: Located north of Carchemish in a plateau overlooking the Tarsus Mountains, Malatya was second only to the great city in influence and wealth. As a lucrative trade center, their architecture and monuments were awe-inspiring: gateways flanked by stylized lions, opulent statuary of their ruler, and narrative wall reliefs. This city-state, much like Carchemish, dates back to the old empire and also miraculously survived its collapse.

Tabal: Directly west of Malatya, many impressive cities made up the state of Tabal, called the Tyanitis: Tuwana, Ishtunda, Shinukhtu, Hupisna, and Tyana.

Kummuh: Slightly south of Malatya, Kummuh, known for its diplomatic ties, had a close relationship with the powerful Egyptians and Babylonians.

Gurgum: Just northwest of Carchemish, the city of Margasi in Gurgum was a cultural hub and strong political entity in the greater region.

Que & Hilakku: Que, located in the coastal plains, and Hilakku in the mountains, were both close to the Arameans, eventually joining alongside them to resist invasion. Que, specifically, gives us a unique look at the religiopolitical atmosphere as well as the diversity of Neo-Hittite states. The Karatepe inscription, authored by King Azatiwada of Que, is a bilingual Luwian and Phoenician commemoration from the 8th century BCE, during a time of increased instability with the ever-encroaching Neo-Assyrians. It was discovered by archaeologists in Karatepe, a Neo-Hittite fortress in the Tarsus Mountains.

“I am really Azatiwada, Man of my Sun, the servant of Thunder God, Rendered superior by Awariku, and the ruler of Adanawa, Thunder God rendered me Mother and Father of Adanawa city…

When a king among the kings, a prince among the princes or a nobleman among the noblemen erases the name of Azatiwada from this gate, carves any other name; furthermore covets this city, destroys this gate built by Azatiwada, builds another gate in its place, and carves his own name on it, destroys this gate with the purpose of greed, hatred or insult then Sky deity, Nature deity and Sun of the universe and generations of all deities will wipe out this king, this prince or this nobleman from the earth, Only the name Azatiwada is eternal, forever like the name of the Sun and the Moon.” (Karatepe inscription)

As I mentioned earlier, many states were heavily occupied or completely assimilated into Aramean society. I will not go through the full list, but a few notable southern states that spoke Luwian as their dominant language are worth mentioning: Hamath on the Orontes River, Pattin, and Luash. It is also worth noting that sociopolitical structures were exceedingly intertwined with the Arameans in these states, which causes some confusion in differentiating rulers. Inscriptions from the Neo-Hittite kingdoms were often found to be bilingual or even trilingual, including Luwian, Aramaic, and Phoenician. As such, there is a shared aura of integrative and cooperative ethnic diversity among the Neo-Hittites, something that will come into play as we look into our new biblical arrivals.

The Sons and Daughters of Heth

According to the Old Testament, the clans of Noah’s descendants spread throughout the land. Of them, his grandson Canaan had a son, Heth. The land of Canaan was named after Noah’s grandson, and Hatti after Heth. The “sons and daughters of Heth” were his descendants, the Hittites from the land of Hatti.

Geographically, at the time when the Israelites began making their way into Canaan, the Neo-Hittites were situated to the north and northwest. The Israelites would have settled in areas to the south and southeast. The battle of Kadesh occurred just north of what would become Jerusalem, during the reign of Ramesses II, likely around the time of the great Exodus shortly before the Bronze Age Collapse. After the death of Moses, Joshua prepared his people to enter the Promised Land, a land the Lord had pledged to them.

“Moses my servant is dead; go now and cross this Jordan, you and this whole people, into the country which I am giving to them. Every place you tread with the soles of your feet I shall give you, as I declared to Moses that I would. From the desert and the Lebanon, to the Great River, the Euphrates (the entire country of the Hittites), and as far as the Great Sea to westward, is to be your territory.” (Joshua 1:2-4)

However, there was a catch. The Israelites needed to acquire this land on their own, some with the offer of peace and others by any means necessary.

“But as regards the towns of those peoples whom Yahweh your God is giving you as your heritage, you must not spare the life of any living thing. Instead, you must lay them under the curse of destruction: Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, as Yahweh your God has commanded…” (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

The Jebusites mentioned were connected to the land surrounding the location of Jerusalem. Canaanite was likely a term to differentiate all those living on the coastal plains of the southern Levant. The Amorites and the Hittites mentioned here were associated with the highlands. This is where it gets a bit confusing: historically, the Neo-Hittites would have been farther north in the northern Levant with Hamath being the closest state, but biblical texts place some of them in the Judean Highlands, specifically in the city of Hebron, and later in Beer-Sheba, Bethel, and even in Jerusalem. These Neo-Hittites were said to have had Semitic names, names generally linked to the people of Canaan.

It appears, then, that the Neo-Hittites that the newcomers had come into contact with may have been spared from extermination and perhaps, when considering the people of Hebron, were part of a group that had migrated south. The southern regions of the Neo-Hittite kingdom states were closely associated with the Arameans and Phoenicians, and their languages, specifically Aramaic, were one of the languages spoken in this region at this time, along with Hebrew. Additionally, all three of these languages are within the Semitic language group. Therefore, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the Neo-Hittites of the Judean Highlands and even a bit farther north, as we see in Que, spoke a Semitic language and may have had Semitic names.

It would also appear that the Israelites and the Neo-Hittites had a cordial if not amicable relationship. After living for an astounding 127 years, Abraham’s wife Sarah dies in Hebron. Kneeling in grief, bewailing beside his beloved’s lifeless body, Abraham managed enough strength to speak.

“Then rising from beside his dead, Abraham spoke to the Hittites, ‘I am a stranger resident here,’ he said. ‘Let me have a burial site of my own here, so that I can remove my dead for burial.’

The Hittites replied to Abraham, ‘Please listen to us, my lord, we regard you as a prince of God; bury your dead in the best of our tombs; not one of us would refuse you his tomb for you to bury your dead.’

At this, Abraham rose and bowed low to the local people, the Hittites…” (Genesis 23:3-7)

Abraham would go on to bury his wife in a cave that he purchased from Ephron, son of Zohar, in the field of Machpelah facing Hebron.

Moving on to the kingdoms of Israel and Judea, in Samuel 24:6, David’s kingdom was said to have reached as far north as Kadesh, nearing Hamath and Damascus. Under the reign of his dynasty, the Judaean Dynasty, these two kingdoms were unified for several centuries as a powerful empire. They amassed great wealth, fought battles, expanded their territory, rebuilt broken cities, and their borders remained secure and protected. Saul reigned from about 1047 BCE until he committed suicide during battle in 1000 BCE. David, who was believed to reign from about 1000 – 961 BCE, founded Judea and unified the tribes of Israel under one ruler. Solomon (c. 970 – 931 BCE), along with his son, Rehoboam, expanded the kingdom.

It was during this time that rulers had close ties with the neighboring Neo-Hittites. In one such story within the Book of Samuel, King David had an affair and impregnated the wife of one of his soldiers, a Neo-Hittite by the name of Uriah. Attempting to remedy the situation, he summoned Uriah to return home to his wife, but Uriah, a valiant soldier, refused. David then ordered his abandonment while he battled abroad. Uriah would soon perish, and David claimed his wife, Bathsheba, as his eighth wife. Though Uriah died a hapless death, the Neo-Hittites were known to be fierce warriors. In 2 Kings, the Aramaeans never stood a chance and fled their invasion of Damascus.

“So at dusk they set out and made for the Aramaean camp, but when they reached the confines of the camp there was not a soul there. For Yahweh had caused the Aramaeans in their camp to hear a noise of chariots and horses, the noise of a great army; and they had said to one another, 'Listen! The king of Israel has hired the Hittite and Egyptian kings against us, to attack us.'

So in the dusk they had made off and fled, abandoning their tents, their horses and their donkeys; leaving the camp just as it was, they had fled for their lives.” (2 Kings 7:5-7)

David’s son with Bathsheba, King Solomon, served as an intermediary between Syria, Hatti, and Egypt, purchasing and selling chariots to the Neo-Hittites and securing alliances. Solomon was also very fond of women of Hittite descent, having married one. Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah, was another who wed a Neo-Hittite woman. Perhaps, given Solomon's heritage, it may be to no surprise that distinct parallels exist between his temple design and Neo-Hittite temples; at least that is what many scholars have pointed out.

Be that as it may, and despite an intimidating pairing, the Assyrians proved far more powerful. During the 8^th century, the Neo-Assyrians descended on the Neo-Hittites, capturing one state at a time; the last stronghold, Malatya, fell to Sargon II in 708 BCE. All the kingdoms were forever lost and absorbed. A similar fate befell the Israelites shortly after the death of Solomon. Tension brewed between the northern tribes and the southern region, dominated by Jerusalem, under the reign of Rehoboam. The kingdom split, and around 772 BCE, the north was taken by the Neo-Assyrians. In 586 BCE, the Babylonians invaded the southern region; Jerusalem was destroyed, and its people were exiled. It was not until the fall of Babylon and a revolt (c. 160 – 134 BCE) that sparked religious freedom that the Israelites were finally able to return home.

A Land of Diversity

Scholars have often debated the extent to which the cultures in this area influenced each other. It is known that the Arameans, Phoenicians, Hurrians, and Assyrians influenced the Hittites and the Neo-Hittites. The Bronze Age Collapse caused quite a stir amongst the people, and shifts in movement occurred rather rapidly. When the Israelites came to Canaan, it would be expected that they, too, would be influenced by those around them.

It is possible that the Israelites adopted aspects of neighboring cultures into their own, as such, with the covenant between God and his people, like those found in the Book of Deuteronomy. From a biblical perspective, the covenant was a spiritual, binding agreement, a contract that established clear relationships and expectations. The Late Bronze Age Hittites followed a similar formula, one that can be seen in the Suzerainty Treaties, whereby the Hittites acted as suzerain (sovereign). This is just one brief example that remains a topic of debate but reveals the ever-present state of a familiar adaptability.

There is no doubt that the people of this vast land came from various backgrounds, political and social, and related to each other in various ways. The Israelites and the Neo-Hittites were able to coexist relatively peacefully and were spouses, trade partners, and even allies. If anything, their relationship reflects a dynamic flux of boundaries and people, of cross-cultural relations in an evolving region. Indeed, their Promised Land was theirs, but those they met along the way helped to define who they would become.

Featured image: The lion gate at the Hittite capital city of Hattusa. (Carole Raddato / CC BY-SA 2.0)

References

• Thuesen, I. 2019. The Neo-Hittite City-States. The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. Available at: http://publ.royalacademy.dk/backend/web/uploads/2019-07-23/AFL%202/SH_27_00_00_2002_1789/SH_27_03_00_2002_2195.pdf

• Kempinski, A. 1979. Hittites in the Bible: What Does Archaeology Say? Biblical Archaeology Society (5:5). Available at: https://cojs.org/hittites_in_the_bible-_what_does_archaeology_say-_aharon_kempinski-_bar_5-05-_sep-oct_1979/

• Mariottini, C. 2021. The Hittites: A Historical Perspective. Available at: https://claudemariottini.com/2021/09/01/the-hittites-a-historical-perspective/

• Roos, D. 2021. What Caused the Bronze Age Collapse? History. Available at: https://www.history.com/articles/bronze-age-collapse-causes

• Hopper, J. Deuteronomy and the Hittite Treaties. Bible League Trust. Available at: https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/deuteronomy-and-the-hittite-treaties/

• World Ancient Map: Syro-Hittite States. Maps of the World. Available at: https://www.mapsofworld.com/world-ancient-history/syro-hittite-states.html

• Karatepe inscription available at: https://www.hittitemonuments.com/karatepe/

• The Old Testament database used for this article is available at: https://www.catholic.org/bible/

They would be immortalized as ancient Israel’s worst enemy in the scriptures of the Old Testament. They are the Philistines. Much like the ancient Israelites, the Philistines were strangers to the foreign land of Canaan. Although to date, their origins still remain a mystery. From where did they originate prior to their settlement in Canaan?

The Old Testament may shed a bit of light on this question. It is recorded in both the books of Genesis and Amos that the Philistines were from Caphtor.

Gen. 10:14 ...the Pathrusim, the Casluhim, the Caphtorim, whence the Philistines came forth.

Amo. 9:7 ...But also the Philistines from Caphtor...

Caphtor, also known as Kaptaru or Kaptara in ancient Akkadian sources and Keftiu in ancient Egyptian sources has been generally accepted by modern scholars to be the island of Crete situated in the southern region of the Aegean Sea.[1] Despite these Biblical references providing us with an answer, it beckons the follow-up question: “How credible of an answer is it?”

Some of our earliest references to the Philistines can be traced as far back as the 12th century BCE in ancient Egypt. It is from an inscription located at a mortuary temple in Medinet Habu, situated on the western side of Thebes in Egypt. Dating to approximately 1150 BCE and commissioned by the Pharaoh Ramesses III, the inscription speaks of the battle and defeat of a confederation of Sea Peoples.

In the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, the inscription specifically identifies an ethnic group from within this confederation and in opposition to the Egyptians called the P-r-s-t which phonetically renders to the Peleset.[2] This is synonymous to the Hebrew ethnic term given to these same peoples of Pelishtim; that is, the Philistines. The inscription continues to state that after their defeat in the battle that took place in Nile delta region, the Egyptian Pharaoh resettled the Philistines in the land of Canaan to the East. The Philistines would then thrive in this region and establish their Pentapolis; that is, the five sites of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath.[3] The inscription of Ramesses III provides yet another valuable resource to these Philistines and that is, a clear image of their appearance.

Read more

It was very common for Neo-Assyria to absorb the deities of neighboring [and conquered] nations. For instance, after razing the kingdom of Urartu (Ararat) to the ground, the Neo-Assyrians carried the statue of their supreme deity, Haldi, back to their capital where now, the Neo-Assyrian god of gods, Ashur, commanded over him and the many others in the pantheon. But was YHWH, the god of the Israelites, part of that pantheon?

Well, before we answer that question, let us answer another one first: was YHWH worshipped by ANY other nation outside of Israel?

Clues within Semitic Theophorism and Archaeological Evidence

How does theophorism come into play? [1] With a study in proper names found within a region, we can see that there was a worship of that specific deity within that same region. For example, we know that the second ruler of the kingdom of Judah after the split of both kingdoms was named Abijam (‘my father is the sea’ or ‘my father is Yam’) [2], which indicates that there was a worship of the Canaanite god of the sea, Yam local to Judah. We can get the same results from Ishbaal (‘man of Baal’), where a deity that took the epithet of Baal was worshipped locally to the individual named. These theophoric names were commonly used by everyone, not just royalty and priestly types, but also the average layperson.

We find the same themes incorporating the name of YHWH throughout the ancient world, but let us first start with a few of many examples in the Israelite and Judahite King List. These kings display their names with theophoric themes in both the beginning or at the end. The name of the patriarch who founded the kingdom of Judah is a good start (i.e. Yehuda). Yehuda or ‘Yeh has praised’ incorporates the divine name of YHWH. Picking up names from the King List, we will observe kings who prefix the name of YHWH in their titles, such as Jehoshaphat, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoram, Jehoiakim and more. For example, Yehoshaphat translates to ‘Yeh has judged’ while Yehu means ‘Yeh is He.’ As for kings with the same name suffix, they come in two forms: yah or yahu. Example can be found in the name of Ahaziah. Ahaziyahu translates to ‘Yahu holds’ or ‘possesses.’

With the many kings taking the name of YHWH, it can easily be determined that at least in the earliest part of the split monarchy, YHWH was a very popular deity. But what if I told you that YHWH was never local to just Israel and Judah but instead worshipped throughout the Near East.

I was interested to find a couple of Phoenician kings theophorically linked with YHWH. We have royal inscriptions from a 10^th century BCE Yehimilk, and again a 5^th-4^th century BCE inscription from a Yehaumilk. [3] Not much is known about these kings. Another king found in the annals of Tiglathpileser II spoke of a Yahu-tarsi whose region of rule was unknown. [4] All we know is that Yahu-tarsi was located somewhere in the Anatolian or Levantine region.

How about in the Assyrian pantheon?

Now what if I told you that I have found an inscription commissioned by an Assyrian king that testifies to YHWH’s worship in Mesopotamia? That inscription belongs to Asshurnasirpal II who reigned between 883–859 BCE. [5]

[1.33] I am great and I am glorious, Assur-nasir-habal, a mighty King of Assyria, proclaimer of the Moon-god, worshipper of Anu, exalter of Yav, suppliant of the gods…

[ … ]

[1.76] Ahiyababa the son of Lamamana they brought from Bit-Adini and made him their King. By help of Assur and Yav
[1.77] the great gods who aggrandize my royalty, chariots, (and) an army, I collected…
[1.78] in abundance from Salman-haman-ilin of the city of Sadikannai and of Il-yav of the city of Sunai, silver, gold,…

[ … ]

[1.104] in honor of Assur, the Sun-god and Yav, the gods in whom I trust, my chariots and army I collected at the head of the river Zupnat,…

[ … ]

[2.22] of Ahiramu son of Yahiru of the land of Nilaai son of Bahiani of the land of the Hittites and of the Princes of the land of Hanirabi, silver, gold,
[2.23] tin, kam of copper, oxen, sheep, horses, as their tribute I received; in the eponym of Assuridin they brought me intelligence that
[2.24] Zab-yav Prince of the land of Dagara had revolted…

[ … ]

[2.30] their spoil, their youths, their oxen, and sheep I carried off; Zab-yav for the preservation of his life, a rugged mountain
[2.31] ascended…

[ … ]

[2.48] from the city of Tuklat-assur-azbat I withdrew; the land of Nispi accepted my yoke; I went down all night; to cities of remote site in the midst of Nispi
[2.49] which Zab-yav had established as his stronghold I went, took the city of Birutu and consigned it to the flames…

[ … ]

[2.106] I gave them battle; on two days before sunrise like Yav the inundator I rushed upon them; destruction upon them I rained with the might
[2.107] and prowess of my warriors…

[ … ]

[2.135] an altar to Ninip my Lord I therein consecrated: a temple for Beltis, Sin, and Gulanu, Hea-Manna and Yav great ruler of heaven and earth I founded.

[ … ]

[3.77] I imposed upon him; the chariots and warlike engines of the land of the Khatti I laid up in my magazines; their hostages I took. In those days (I received) the tribute of Guzi
[3.78] of the land of Yahanai, silver, gold, tin, … oxen, sheep, vestments of wool and linen I received: from Kunalua the capital of Lubarna I withdrew;
[3.79] of the land of the Khatti, crossed the Orontes, and after a halt left it, and to the borders
[3.80] of the land of Yaraki and of Yahturi I went round: the land . . . had rebelled: from the Sangura after a halt I withdrew;

[ … ]

[3.119] I destroyed the armies of the spacious land of Lulumi. In battle by weapons I smote them down. With the help of the Sun-god
[3.120] and Yav, the gods in whom I trust, I rushed upon the armies of Nairi, Kirkhi Subariya and Nirbi like Yav the inundator;

[ … ]

[3.129] to his yoke hath subdued, and the rebels against Assur, high and low, hath opposed and imposed on them impost and tribute - Assur-nasir-pal
[3.130] mighty King, glory of the Moon-god worshipper of Anu, related to Yav, suppliant of the gods, an unyielding servant, destroyer of the land of his foes…

From these excerpts we get a better idea of the extent of the worship of YHWH. As an example, we know that His worship even extended as far north as Anatolia [from column 2 and line 22 of Asshurnasirpal’s annals]. We read of an Ahiramu son of Yahiru of the land of Nilaai son of Bahiani of the land of the Hittites. Who is this Yahiru? Whoever he was, he existed during the Neo-Hittite period, which rose at ca. 1180 BCE and lasted roughly until ca. 700 BCE. The Neo-Hittites or Syro-Hittites were Luwian, Aramaic and Phoenician speaking peoples of Iron Age northern Syria and southern Anatolia.

What I found the most interesting, though, was the affiliation between the Assyrian YHWH and floods: like Yav the inundator I rushed upon them, written more than once on this inscription. To an individual who was not familiar with the Hebrew Bible, they would believe that this Yav (also transliterated as Yaw) was nothing more than a warlike flood god. I am quickly reminded of the link between Yam, the god of the sea in Canaanite myth and the epithet of Yaw given to him (see below). One thing that I would like to mention before moving onto the next section is scholars have speculated that this may in fact be the personal name of Yam, as opposed to the generic title of Yam or ‘sea.’ The title or name of Yaw has also been linked to the Greek Ieuō, who is in the account of Eusebius based on Sanchuniathon, [6] an ancient deity in Beirut who is equated with Poseidon. [7]

Located on the first tablet and fourth column (Ll. 12-15) of the myth of Baal and Yam, [8] we see this Ugaritic connected between Yam and Yaw: [9]

12: tgr.ỉl.bnh.tr [ ]
13: wy‛n.lṭ‹p›n.ỉl.dp [ỉd ]
14: šm.bny.yw.ỉlt [ .w ]
15: wp‛r.šm.ym [ .wỉlt.w ]
12: El …his son, the bull [ ]
13: and Latipan [kindly] god spoke [ ]
14: ‘the name of my son is Yaw, o Elat [and]
15: ‘so do you proclaim a (new) name for Yam.’ [And Elat and ]

The text reveals El calling Yam by the name or title of Yaw.

Orthographical Studies

Why do I claim that the Ugaritic Yaw and the Assyrian Yav are to be equated with YHWH? The answer is: orthography. I wish to begin by citing an excerpt taken from a book I treasure: [10]

…In Hebrew, the principle of phonetic consonantism was followed down to the 10^th century B.C., first through the use of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, then under the direct influence of Phoenician spelling. This circumstance, a logical inference from the history of the Israelites and their cultural and commercial relations in the 10^th century, is confirmed by the orthography of the Gezer Calendar.

…The first important modification in the Phoenician orthographic system was made, apparently by the Arameans, shortly after they borrowed the alphabet (ca. 11^th-10^th centuries B.C.). Besides adapting the alphabet to the representation of non-Phoenician phonemes (by their closest equivalents in the Phoenician alphabet), they radically altered the basic principles of spelling. A system was developed for the indication of final vowels by the signs for consonants, which were homogeneous with the vowel sounds: yodh for final ī, waw for final ū, and he for the remaining vowel sounds…

…The same system for the representation of final vowels was used in Moabite (with minor variations) and Hebrew from the 9^th century on. It is concluded that the center of radiation was Aram.

Evidence for the extension of the Aramaic system of vowel representation to indicate medial vowels comes from the Zinčirli inscriptions of the 8^th century. It is instructive that the earliest examples do not arise from the historical spelling of contracted diphthongs, but rather from the extension of final matres lectionis (yodh and waw) to the medial position with the same values. This process may have begun in Hebrew in the 6^th century, but very few cases occur, just as in the Aramaic of the 8^th-7^th centuries. Their occurrence is sporadic until the period of general diphthongal contraction in Aramaic and Hebrew.

It is imperative to know all of this because it will aid in the understanding of how the name of YHWH evolved. The problem is when modern day students of biblical Hebrew attempt to vocalize or determine the proper pronunciation of this name, they only apply their knowledge of biblical Hebrew as it is taught with a Masoretic background, utilizing all the matres lectiones. This understanding is also Judaean in origin, and it should be noted that Hebrew held different dialects, therefore making it simple to tell the difference between something written from Israel and something written from Judah. Unfortunately in modern studies, orthography rarely comes into play. Prior to this form, as is seen in earlier Israelite writings, the ending hey was not present, leaving us with YHW. As for pronunciation, this has not changed. There was an attempt by the scribes to preserve the original form in an evolving language, which forced them to add a hey at the end, indicating the terminating sound of an e or a. Ignoring the later established Masoretic rules and strictly following early orthography and the evolution of the matres lectiones which led to the Masoretic rules, will all forms of YHWH be linked together. Observing how yhw evolved into yhwh gives us four options in the pronunciation of the name: (1) YaHWe (2) YeHWe (3) YaHWa and (4) YeHWa. Studying Moabite orthography and the introduction of the final hey into their script, it has been determined by both Cross and Freedman that the hey indicates a terminating e sound, leaving us with YaHWe or YeHWe. [11] I am not necessarily trying to confirm the correct pronunciation, but attempting to move back in time to make some connections. Going even earlier to Bronze Age Ugaritic, which also derived from the consonantal only proto-Canaanite, much like the later dating Phoenician, we see similar habits. Matres lectiones were not used, the language was written in just consonants. Originally written in the Ugaritic cuneiform, we transliterate yw. Knowing what we know of the evolution of the matres lectiones, we know that vowel indicators were never inserted into any Ugaritic texts and can see how this yw would be pronounced YaWe or even YeWe. The same concept should apply to the Semitic language of Assyrian.

Some additional evidence to link the Canaanite Yam and YHWH may rest in the second king of Judah after the split of both kingdoms, Abijam. As mentioned earlier, Abijam theophorically links himself with Yam. Later on in history, the chronicler refers to Abijam as Abiah, which translates to ‘my father is Yah [12] (again, an abbreviated form of YHWH). Was this link known early on, and was the name changed to prevent any confusion?

Baal and Yam and YHWH Linked with Water

I had made a brief reference to the myth of Baal and Yam above. [13] The story begins with Kothar-and-Khasis, the craftsman of the gods, going to the source of the rivers and the two oceans to the tent of the supreme god El. [14] El then instructs Kothar-and-Khasis to build a palace for prince Yam (who is also called judge Nahar or ‘river’). On top of that, El wishes to bestow the kingship of the gods to Yam. It is apparent later on in the story that in order for Yam to secure his power and throne, he would have to drive his rival, Baal, from his throne and from the seat of his dominion. All this means is that Baal was already king, soon to be replaced by Yam. Eventually, Baal engages in battle with Yam and is having a difficult time defeating him, mainly because of Yam’s power and of the fierce sea creatures that move around him. Kothar-and-Khasis assists Baal by giving him two divine clubs/ maces to assist him in battle alongside instructions on how to use them so that he may deliver the final blow to Yam. Baal succeeds in killing Yam.

It is generally believed that this myth can be interpreted as a seasonal cycle to which every year, Baal kept at bay the unruly waters and storms by bringing forth the dry season of summer. Ugarit was a coastal city, and therefore relied on the Mediterranean as a source for food and a means of transportation in trade. By defeating Yam, Baal ensured that it was possible to sail in the spring. Some believe that this story is somewhat of a counterpart to the Babylonian Enuma Elish, where Marduk slays Tiamat. [15]

Coincidently, we do observe YHWH’s powers over water buried within the Old Testament. For instance, we read the following in Exodus 15 and 17:

15:20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
15:21 And Miriam sang unto them:
Sing ye to YHWH, for He is highly exalted:
The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea.

17:5 And YHWH said unto Moses: 'Pass on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thy hand, and go.
17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink.' And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

In Exodus 15:21 we are given the beginning of the song of Miriam and it is generally believed that this poem predates the prose of the surrounding text indicating an early version of our deity who is seen commanding the water of the seas.

Later traditions would go on to credit Him with other events such as the Flood of Noah. [16] Another thing of interest are YHWH’s acts of shaking the earth or ripping the surface open. [17] Sea gods were generally referred to as earth-shakers, bringing forth destruction (i.e. tidal waves or earthquakes); similar to the Greek mythological Poseidon. Addressed in Homeric hymns, Poseidon is “mover of the earth and barren sea, god of the deep.”

After all of this I am left with a couple of puzzling question: Is this the root of the Israelite/ Judahite polemics against Baalism? Does it all stem from Baal and Yam’s epic battle?

Featured image: A close up of a Lamassu head (human-head bull) from Khorsabad, Iraq. From the reign of Sargon II, 710-705 BC. ( Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP / CC BY-SA 4.0)

Notes

[1] Theophoric (Greek: theos = god + phoreo = to bear) names are derived from or include the name of a deity. For example eliyahu which translates to ‘my God is Yah.’

[2] Reference Appendix C for King Lists.

[3] Markoe, Glenn E. Phoenicians. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California P, 2000. 113-115.

[4] Smith, George. Assyrian Discoveries. New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co, 1875. 280.

[5] An inscription belonging to the Neo-Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar bears praises to the same deity: “To the god Yav, establisher of fertility in my land, Bit-Numkan as his temple in Babylon I built…” and “…to the god Yav who confers the fertilizing rain upon my land, his house (also) in Borsippa I strongly built.

[6] Sanchuniathon or Sanchoniathon or Sanchoniatho is the purported Phoenician author of three lost works originally in Phoenician, surviving only in partial paraphrase and summary of a Greek translation by Philo of Byblos, according to the Christian bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. These few fragments comprise the most extended literary source concerning Phoenician religion in either Greek or Latin.

[7] Gibson, John. Canaanite Myths and Legends. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1978. 4.

[8] In Ugaritic Yam (Yamu) means Ocean/ Sea. He is an actual son of El (God) and is sometimes referred to as Prince Sea and Judge River. When in conflict with Baal, Yam is identified as a seven-headed sea serpent or dragon. Many scholars have linked this creature with the biblical Leviathan and Rahab, a mythical monster personifying the watery chaos. Reference Psalm 89:5-10 and Job 7:12.

[9] CTA 2 (Corpus Tablettes Alphabetiques)

[10] Cross, Frank M., and David N. Freedman. Early Hebrew Orthography. Vol. 36. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952. 58-59.

[11] This can be hinted in later vocalizations of the divine name.

Greek renderings: Ιαώ (Iao), Ιαού (Iau), Ιευώ (Ievo), Ιαβέ (Iave), Ιαωουε (Iao-u-e), Ιαουαί (Ia-u-e), Ιαβαι (Iave), etc.

Latin renderings: IAHO, Jabe, IAUE, etc.

[12] Reference 1 Chr. 3:10.

[13] CTA 1 and 2.

[14] Does this sound familiar to the reader? Similar to Eden, the Ugaritic El is said to dwell in Mount Lel at the source of the two rivers at the spring of the two deeps, in a tent (which may explain why he had no temple at Ugarit).

[15] Gibson, John. Canaanite Myths and Legends. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1978. 6-8.

[16] Exo. 15:1b-18.

[17] Reference Exo. 15:20-21.

Who are the Nephilim and what do they represent? Are they biblical giants? What does the term literally translate to, and why does the brief mention of them in the Book of Genesis show resemblance to other mythologies? The Nephilim have been a topic of great controversy. Many scholars, both independent and accredited, have dedicated much of their lives to answer these questions. It wasn’t until the discovery and translation of the Book of 1Enoch that we were finally given a better understanding of these Nephilim, but is it a proper understanding?

This detailed analysis will incorporate the theology during the proposed time of writing for the verses, grammatical study in Hebrew and Aramaic word forms, and even external influences that would have played a role in the region.

Some Grammatical Clues

In the past century, many independent scholars have taken the opportunity to exploit the Nephilim to their advantage. Zecharia Sitchin was one of those individuals, who proposed that the Nephilim were nothing more than a god-like race with the knowledge and technology to navigate the heavens, who came to earth and created mankind as slave labor mining rare materials. Sitchin had jumped on the chance to translate the Nephilim as: (1) those who came down from above, (2) those who were cast down, and (3) people of the fiery rockets. These made-up epithets are clearly ridiculous and groundless. The Hebrew verb for ‘to go’ or ‘to come down, descend’ is yarad which shows no relation to the term in question. He then goes on to identify the Nephilim with the Sumerian deities, claiming that the Sumerians knew of their existence and that they came from a planet called Nibiru. According to Sitchin, Nibiru completed its rotation around our sun every 3600 or so earth years. The sources cited came from his mistranslated Mesopotamian inscriptions and cylinder seal impressions. Many others have tried to follow in Zecharia Sitchin’s footsteps, such as Alan Alford, but have quickly repealed their theories, claiming it was too outlandish of an idea. It was in his second book, The Phoenix Solution, that Alan Alford retracted his ancient astronaut theories. Apparently, this made such a powerful impact that Zecharia Sitchin threatened Alan Alford with a 50 million dollar lawsuit on the grounds that Alford’s comments discredited Sitchin’s theories and destroyed his reputation.

Then there was Andrew Collins, using the sons of God and the Nephilim to hint at a forgotten race. This race allegedly knew and shared all the forbidden arts and sciences with humanity, thus leading them to their corruption and the Flood of Noah. Much of what Collins proposes, it seems, may be based on earlier works, such as that belonging to Sitchin. For example, Collins uses translations similar to Sitchin’s for the noun Nephilim.

In his book, From the Ashes of Angels, Collin’s clearly displays his lack of knowledge in biblical Hebrew; confusing the Nephilim with the sons of God, when it was the sons of God who supposedly had fallen (unto the daughters of men) and not the Nephilim. It would seem that most of these authors attempt to link the root word for the plural Nephilim with the Hebrew singular word of naphal. naphal means ‘to fall’ or ‘to fall in battle, by the sword’, ‘to be killed’, ‘to be fallen’ and also ‘to fall unto/ upon.’ All of these definitions display characteristics not held by the Nephilim or, as I will point out later in this article, the sons of God.

We first read of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4. This is one of two verses to mention the Nephilim three times throughout the entire Pentateuch. Genesis 6:4 reads:

The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

The biggest clues to the identification of the Nephilim will come from Numbers 13:33:

And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Taking an interpretation of the Nephilim as the ‘people of the fiery rockets’ again holds no credibility when examining the term itself and the surrounding grammar of Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. The word was left untranslated by the Revisers, the name of one of the Canaanite tribes. The Revisors have, in fact, translated the Hebrew gibborim, in Genesis 6:4, as ‘mighty men,’ which will be a key point in the coming conclusions. When the Old Testament was first translated to the Greek language, the word for Nephilim read gigantes, the Greek word for giants. This is confirmed in Numbers 13:33 with the description of the Israelites when compared to the race of giants.

It is extremely important for the reader to understand that in Hebrew grammar, the singular naphal cannot form the plural Nephilim. If we were to follow grammatical rules within the language, we would end up with the plural nophelim. Clearly this is not the same as Nephilim, and we can now see that it is impossible for naphal to be the root word used. A detailed analysis of the characteristics held by the Nephilim will further prove this in the section below. One other area of concern is that nophelim is not in the plural passive (perfect) form, but instead a plural active (imperfect), indicating that these beings are ‘falling’ and have not ‘fallen’. Now what have the Nephilim fallen from? The answer is nothing. If a link were to be established for someone(s) falling from God’s grace it would have to go to the sons of God as is apparent in the post-Exilic and not in the pre-Exilic literature. The biggest clue to the identification of the word’s root can be found in Numbers 13:33. The word Nephilim is used twice in this verse, but oddly enough, is spelled differently. Many have wondered what this could mean. In the first occurrence we find:

NFYLYM

The spelling comes with the matres lectiones throwing in an extra y (yod) to give us a proper pronunciation of the word nef-ee-leem. This is the only instance of this spelling found throughout the entire Old Testament. The second spelling holds (which is consistent with Genesis 6:4):

NFLYM

This is without the extra yod. It is important to understand how these matres lectiones (or mother of words) work and Hebrew orthographical analysis to see the evolution of these matres lectiones. The purpose of the matres lectiones was to preserve the proper pronunciation of words in the consonant-only Hebrew language. Specific characters are used to act as vowels. For example, a yod, depending on the structure and form of the word, can be used to indicate an ‘ey’ or ‘ee’ sound. In this case we see the ‘ee’ forming the second syllable’s vowel. Orthographical analysis of the evolution of these matres lectiones show that the Israelite script, which evolved from the Phoenician, did not originally use some of their characters as vowel markers. We do not see this until the 9^th century BCE in the surrounding regions.[1] Literary evidence seems to indicate that the role of the matres lectiones originated from regions to the south of Phoenicia and Israel, more specifically Moab, Ammon and Judah. Our earliest examples of it come from the Mesha Stela. Scholars studying Hebrew orthography in the Old Testament have noted attempts by many scribes, when copying texts over time, to rewrite older words with newer spelling forms so that they may be able to preserve pronunciations for future readings. There have been cases where we have seen that scribes would overlook words to rewrite, and it would seem that the verses containing the Nephilim were no exception. This is why we see a modified spelling in Numbers 13:33. Oddly enough, all three occurrences of the Nephilim in the Samaritan Pentateuch preserve only the original form of spelling. This may hint at a revision of the spelling taking place during the post-Exilic period and after the Samaritan adoption of the Pentateuch; believed to have taken place ca. 400 BCE. On top of that, the Septuagint (hereafter, LXX) preserves none of this miniature genealogical tree. The Masoretic Texts (hereafter, MT) and Samaritan Pentateuch reading of Numbers 13:33 corresponds to Numbers 13:34 in the LXX, and the verse translates as follows:

And there we saw the giants; and we were before them as locust, yea even so were we before them.

Read more

In the 11^th century CE, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court physician of a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings that appears in Genesis 36 named kings who lived after Moses. This was quite an interesting observation, mainly because it challenges the traditional idea of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Note - This and all excerpts are taken from the 1917 JPS translation of the Hebrew Tanakh: Genesis 36.

36:31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
36:32 And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom; and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
36:33 And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead.
36:34 And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead.
36:35 And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead; and the name of his city was Avith.
36:36 And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead.
36:37 And Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth by the River reigned in his stead.
36:38 And Shaul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead.
36:39 And Baal-hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his stead; and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-zahab.
36:40 And these are the names of the chiefs that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names: the chief of Timna, the chief of Alvah, the chief of Jetheth;
36:41 the chief of Oholibamah, the chief of Elah, the chief of Pinon;
36:42 the chief of Kenaz, the chief of Teman, the chief of Mibzar;
36:43 the chief of Magdiel, the chief of Iram. These are the chiefs of Edom, according to their habitations in the land of their possession. This is Esau the father of the Edomites.

I wish to focus on an overlooked detail, specifically verse of Genesis 36:39. We read of a King Hadar. It is also very possible that we are observing another instance of scribal error (read below). Now before I continue, I wish to note that Hadar is an alternate form to Hadad, a very common Canaanite deity. For instance, in Late Bronze Age Ugaritic mythology, Baal Haddad was the fertility god of the Ugarits. Influence of his cult spread throughout the Near East. It was very common to see theophoric names incorporating this deity; many of which can be found in the Bible. We can view this alternate form for the same individual written in 1Chronicles 1:

1:50 And Baal-hanan died, and Hadad reigned in his stead; and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
1:51 And Hadad died.

Aside from Hadar’s name, also notice the name of the city is now spelled and pronounced Pai and not Pau, as seen in Genesis. [1] Before I start commenting on this verse, I wish to move ahead a bit to 1Kings 11:

11:14 And YHWH raised up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the king's seed in Edom.
11:15 For it came to pass, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, and had smitten every male in Edom--
11:16 for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom--
11:17 that Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father's servants with him, to go into Egypt; Hadad being yet a little child.
11:18 And they arose out of Midian, and came to Paran; and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave him a house, and appointed him victuals, and gave him land.
11:19 And Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen.
11:20 And the sister of Tahpenes bore him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh's house; and Genubath was in Pharaoh's house among the sons of Pharaoh.
11:21 And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh: 'Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country.'
11:22 Then Pharaoh said unto him: 'But what hast thou lacked with me, that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country?' And he answered: 'Nothing; howbeit let me depart in any wise.'
11:23 And God raised up another adversary unto him, Rezon the son of Eliada, who had fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah.
11:24 And he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a troop, when David slew them [of Zobah]; and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus.
11:25 And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did; and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Aram.

We read of a story in which a later-to-become king named Hadad and his family fled to Egypt to seek refuge against David and his army. It was in Egypt that Hadad won favor in the Pharaoh’s eyes and was given a daughter to marry. Eventually Hadad found a reason to head back to his homeland, where he could resume rule. The reason I point this out is the fact that an Edomite king named Hadad who went to Egypt and married an Egyptian can bring some vital clues as to the dating of the Edomite list of kings found in Genesis.

Going back to Genesis 36:39, it has been suggested that the name of the wife of Hadad and her mother may indicate some origins within Egypt. Unfortunately, I am unable to locate a reliable resource proving such a statement. It has also been suggested that the city Pau/ Pai to which Hadar/ Hadad ruled from is the Egyptian city of Pe, a suburb of Buto in Lower Egypt; a “royal residence of early Egyptian kings.” [2] If the Hadad in 1Kings 11 and the Hadar/ Hadad in Genesis 36:39 are one and the same, it would be safe to say that at a minimum, this chapter of Genesis was written deep into the Iron Age of the Levant, sometime after the during or after the 10th century BCE.

The story given to us in 1Kings 11 speaks of a child and his family fleeing to Egypt, where that child grew and after turning into an adult, gets married and hearing of David’s and Joab’s death, finally came back to rule Edom. Remember, Genesis 36:31 clearly states ‘these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.’ If the author wrote this chapter immediately after the split of both kingdoms, then he would have known that Hadar and at least a few rulers prior to him would have ruled during the time when kings reigned over Israel and Judah.

The Archaeological Record

For many years, archaeologists in the Levant maintained that there was no evidence ever indicating that Edom was an organized state or society prior to the 9^th and 8^th centuries BCE. Recent excavations at Khirbet an-Nahas in Jordan tell a different story. Archaeologists have unearthed artifacts and evidence of a settled state society no earlier than the 10^th century BCE. The evidence led experts to conclude that the site was involved in large copper production.

Featured image: An Edomite shrine in Metsad Hazeva (Biblical Tamar) ca. 7th-6th BCE. (Chamberi / CC BY-SA 3.0)

Notes

[1] A plausible explanation for the differences in the name of Hadar (rdh)/ Hadad (ddh) can be the transition of proto-Hebrew into the square script, whereas in proto-Hebrew the Hebrew d (dālet) and r (rêš) show striking similarities, as they do in the square script. Chances are that the differences could have been a scribal error, although this does not explain the differences between Pau and Pai.

[2] This identification for the city of Pau/ Pai has been suggested by David J. Gibson.

At the beginning of Egypt’s 12^th Dynasty, Pharaoh Amenemhat I established a settlement in the far northern region of the Delta, allowing ease of access to the Mediterranean as well as Semitic lands to the east. He called this place Avaris. Expectedly, the settlement flourished as a trading center, bringing in an influx of migrants. Those who had come to Avaris to start anew thrived, acquiring wealth and prestige throughout the 13^th Dynasty.

Nearing the end of the Middle Kingdom, power struggles arose, droughts and famine took hold, and new alliances were made. Suddenly, the people of Avaris were far more powerful than they had ever anticipated. For a little over 100 years, they ruled Egypt and, in that time, were given their name, the Hyksos or Heqau-Khasut, Rulers of Foreign Lands. Yet, for all they were known for, they remained a people long shrouded in mystery. Just as quickly as they arrived, they vanished, and those who came after them only deepened their enigmatic allure.

The Age of the Hyksos

The Second Intermediate Period, spanning roughly from 1782 to 1570 BCE, comprised the 15^th, 16^th, and 17^th Dynasties. Like all intermediate periods, this one is marked by a fragmented, decentralized kingdom: a transition of power in Lower Egypt to the Hyksos, native Egyptians at Thebes, and the Nubians in Upper Egypt. The reason this period is so centered on the Hyksos is due to swift changes in leadership that introduced a new group of people into the dominant political sphere, ones that inevitably set a precedent, altering the fabric of Egyptian life thereafter.

In all manners of custom, the Hyksos admired and adhered. They spoke the language of the people, added Egyptian names to their titulary, and honored native Egyptian tradition and religion. Their gods were identified with Egyptian deities, rather than replacing them. Notably, the Hyksos introduced new agricultural and military concepts that worked to Egypt’s advantage: the chariot and composite bow, just to name a few. The shifting powers of a divided Egypt also appeared to have maintained cordiality: trading and interacting between Avaris, Thebes, and Kush was frequent and saw little issue during this period.

Still, despite an outwardly amicable relationship between existing powers, history did not favor the Hyksos. Later historians, like Manetho, a 3rd-century Egyptian Priest, depicted the Hyksos as savage, invading oppressors who burned cities to ash, plundered, and desecrated holy temples. But archaeological evidence and records paint a very different picture. Sometime during the late 17^th Dynasty, the reigning Hyksos pharaoh Apepi sent word to Seqenenra Taa (Ta’O) of Thebes, a formal complaint about a hippopotamus pool located in the east of the city that kept him awake at all hours of the day and night. Taken as an insult, Ta’O attacked Avaris, but a blow to the head from a few axes sent him to an early grave.

Petty quarrels escalated into vengeful plots; Theban powers seized the opportunity to rid themselves of foreign leaders. Kamose, son of Ta’O, launched his warships up the Nile, devastating Avaris. For the next three years, he campaigned multiple attacks until he finally captured Memphis. His successor, Ahmose I, after numerous attempts, finally destroyed Avaris and Khamudi, the last Hyksos pharaoh, was overthrown. Ahmose reclaimed Egypt, driving out the alleged invaders, and thus marking the end of the Second Intermediate Period and the beginning of the New Kingdom. All those who survived the brutality of expulsion fled to Syria-Palestine.

Who Were the Hyksos?

Theories as to who the Hyksos truly were have never ceased to arouse intrigue. One such theory had suggested that they were refugees from an Aryan Invasion, but this has since been dismissed. What we do know is that the Egyptians referred to them as Asiatic, a term used for people located east of Egypt from the Levant to Mesopotamia. A widely accepted theory suggests that they traveled through land routes from Syria-Palestine to Avaris, and as history tells, established a prominent position of power.

Archaeological evidence at Avaris reveals a port city reminiscent of Near Eastern architecture, style, and artifacts. Additionally, the names and language of all the Hyksos rulers were Semitic, specifically Western Semitic or Canaanitic. The region of ancient Canaan was commonly known as the Levant, an area that spanned the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. More specifically, the area associated with West Semitic land was Syria-Palestine. On a 17^th Dynasty stela, Kamose refers to Apepi as Chieftain of Retjenu, a region later known as Khor, an area that encompassed most of Syria and home to Canaanites.

Aside from king’s lists and artifacts, much of what we have heard of the Hyksos comes from Manetho. However, his writings on the Hyksos, information he claimed to have received from New Kingdom scribes, are long gone, so everything we currently have available is based on 1^st century AD Jewish-Roman Historian Flavius Josephus’ work Contra Apionem (Against Apion). According to Josephus, Manetho referred to them as Phoenician, a Greek term used to describe the people of the Levant.

Indeed, Manetho was right about their place of origin, though his descriptions of their dominion over Egypt have been heavily criticized. There is no known evidence to suggest the Hyksos carried out any sort of unprovoked destructive campaigns. Further evidence of any assemblages of strongholds at Avaris or Memphis is also absent; in other words, the cities were ill-prepared for conflict. The likely reason the Hyksos were painted in such a negative light may have more to do with propaganda, a strategy aimed at preventing foreign power from taking over Egypt in the future.

All things considered, there are still many questions left unanswered. We do not know much about their previous statuses, whether they were rulers of their lands, or if all the people of Avaris migrated from the same location. We only know what little the Hyksos rulers and long-lost histories have provided. Perhaps their ambiguity gives reason for the asserted associations with biblical texts. After all, they are quite similar in origin and departure to the Israelites, and the internet has no shortage of theories as to whether or not the two are one and the same, much of which is inspired by Josephus himself.

A Lasting Relationship to Biblical Israelites

The apparent relationship between biblical Israelites and the Hyksos appears with the arrival of Jacob and his family into Egypt. After a drought had swept over Canaan, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt in search of grain, but soon ran into their estranged brother, Joseph, the same brother they had sold into slavery years prior. Joseph, despite what his brothers had done, was welcoming. Having since elevated his status through noble service, the Lord rewarded him. His impeccable talents drew the attention of the pharaoh, and not long after, he was appointed as Viceroy, second in command. Joseph invited the family to stay, helping them to find land to settle. That land, located in the eastern Nile Delta, was known as Goshen.

Several things about this story would seem to connect to the Hyksos. First being the location, Goshen. Both Goshen and Avaris were said to be located in or around the Wadi Tumilat, the area east of the Nile Delta, and both were said to have a predominant Semitic population. And, at least according to some biblical researchers, the specific details of Joseph’s life would potentially align with the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. Joseph was said to have shaved his beard upon meeting the pharaoh, which may suggest a native Egyptian pharaoh – unlike Semitic peoples, natural beards were unhygienic to the Egyptians; any beards worn were symbolic and false. It is also known that Joseph wed a native Egyptian woman who carried a name known to have existed during the Middle Kingdom, Asenath. What’s more, there were droughts and a great famine that occurred at the end of the Middle Kingdom.

In dating all of this, biblical researchers have used chronologies that work back from the Exodus to the arrival of Jacob and his family, placing Joseph during the late 12^th Dynasty, specifically during the reign of Amenemhat III and Sobekhotep I in the early 13^th Dynasty. Amenemhat just so happened to have a Vizier whose name, Anku (Ankh meaning life), may be a direct nod to Joseph’s given name, Zaphnathpaaneah, He Who is Called the One Who Lives. Similar to Joseph’s duties, this Vizier was an overseer of agricultural projects and grain. One of those projects was a canal appropriately named Bahr Jussef or Joseph Canal. In addition, parts of Avaris were later rebuilt upon and named Pi-Ramesses or Ramesses, after the 19^th Dynasty pharaoh Ramesses II, another purported name for Goshen.

When considering the famed Exodus, there are a few things worth exploring. Assuming the above timelines are correct, the Israelites may have settled in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, and were enslaved by a resentful pharaoh during the New Kingdom, thus leading to their passage to freedom across the Red Sea. Taking into account a modified, realistic approach to the generational gap between Solomon and Moses -12 generations with 25 years allotted to each generation - biblical researchers have been able to place the oppression of Israelites during the reign of Seti I and the Exodus during the reign of Ramesses II, supporting popular theories as to when the Exodus occurred.

So, how does any of this connect to the Hyksos? Well, the time of their estimated arrival seems to correlate with migrations to Avaris, though the name of each settlement varies. The Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, and the Israelites fled oppression and slavery. In both cases, the act of fleeing represents freedom and new beginnings. Josephus was adamant in his claims that the Hyksos were the Israelites, that they journeyed through the wilderness and founded Judea, and it was called Jerusalem. Modern scholars have also suggested that the expulsion of the Hyksos inspired the story of Exodus.

Going a bit further back, according to the Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology, the term Hyksos was first seen in the 12^th Dynasty, which, based on their chronologies, may coincide with Abraham’s pilgrimage across the Euphrates into Egypt. Though Jacob marks the beginning of the migration of Israelites into Egypt, Abraham arrived some 200 years prior. If Jacob arrived towards the end of the 12^th Dynasty, this timeline could work if Abraham were to arrive at the beginning of the dynasty – the 12^th Dynasty lasted between 190 to 213 years, depending on the source. As noted earlier, the Hyksos seemed to have arrived around this time as well, the 12^th to 13^th Dynasties. If plausible, there would be some overlap in the timeline of the Hyksos, Jacob, and Abraham.

Nevertheless, certain facts must be considered: the Hyksos and the Israelites did not have these names naturally. It is likely the Hyksos may have called themselves Canaanites or something similar, given their heritage. We do know that during their time in Egypt, the Israelites were known by the Egyptians as Hebrew, a word that appears during the New Kingdom and is derived from the Egyptian word Apiru (Habiru or Hapiru). Habiru was a name given as a designation for those who were outsiders, nomadic or other, who were low-status laborers, providing various services for pay. The obvious must also be considered: the Hyksos were rulers, the Israelites were said to be slaves, and the rebuilding of Avaris into Ramesses (possibly Goshen) puts the arrival of the Israelites at a later date, which is the generally accepted timeline. So, there is no easy way to connect the Hyksos to the Israelites, though something is compelling between their shared experiences.

Shepherd Kings of Egypt

Aside from Josephus’ assertions that the Hyksos were the Israelites, he also quoted Manetho in saying the name given to them had a very different meaning. According to Manetho, citing a sacred and ancient dialect, the syllable Hyc meant king, and Sos meant shepherd. Putting the two together, Manetho believed the term Hyksos meant Shepherd Kings or Captive Shepherds. Modern scholars often dismiss Josephus’ claim that the term meant something other than Ruler of Foreign Lands, attributing it to misinterpretation.

Yet, Josephus argued that the city of Avaris was a country of shepherds, and archaeological evidence may support this. We know, based on architecture and style, that Avaris had a predominantly Semitic population. Archaeology also tells us that Avaris had an abundance of food storage and silos, indicative of a self-sufficient agricultural community. To further support this, Hyksos rulers introduced agricultural techniques to the Egyptians that improved irrigation and crop yield. Let us not forget that these people came from regions of the Fertile Crescent, a region known as the Cradle of Civilization, strengthened by advanced agricultural techniques. Semitic peoples were well-versed in farming and pastoral lifestyles dating back to prehistory. The shears, a tool used to delicately remove wool from sheep, were invented in this very region.

Moreover, there is a rich history of shepherd symbolism amongst ancient Semitic populations. This is well-attested to in Old Testament texts as a representation of divine leadership, of gods and ordinary men. Pliny the Elder remarked on the people of the Near East utilizing sheep for their wool and not their meat. The wool supplied warmth to the human body, and in return, the shepherd cared for and protected the flock from predators. This is why the shepherd makes for an ideal leader; he protects and cares for his flock, essentially being responsible for their continued existence, much like a god to his followers. The divinity is found in its simple yet perfected symbiosis.

These references to the king as shepherd appear to go as far back as ancient Akkadian texts from the time of Uruk and Ur, hundreds of years before the Hyksos and the Israelites. Ancient Sumerian mythology spoke of Tammuz (Dumuzi), god of fertility and agriculture, otherwise known as the shepherd. In Babylonian mythology, the supreme god Marduk was, at times, also associated with the shepherd. In the Enuma Elish, written sometime during the 13^th century BCE, Marduk’s creation myth states, “Let him exercise shepherdship over mankind, his creatures.” As the star Nebiru, Marduk is described as “the star that shepherds the gods like sheep.” Hammurabi, a 1^st Dynasty king of ancient Babylon, often invoked this shepherd-like quality in Marduk, calling himself the salvation-bearing shepherd.

In ancient Egypt, rulers were not recognized as shepherd kings. However, there are traces of the shepherd if you know where to look. It was said that the reasoning behind Joseph advising his father to inform the pharaoh that he and his people were shepherds was to acquire land separate from the rest of Egypt because the shepherd was, for whatever reason, an abomination to the Egyptians. The irony in this is found in Egyptian symbolism that they evidently may not have even realized or cared to identify with the shepherd.

The timeless crook and the flail that can be seen resting in the hands of the images of pharaohs and the god king Osiris symbolized the king’s protective and giving nature as well as his ability to maintain order and defend his people. The flail, a deadly weapon, can be traced back to the 1^st Dynasty. As for the crook, a hooked stick traditionally used for shepherding, it can be traced back to the 2^nd Dynasty. Since the founding of a unified Egypt under Menes (Narmer), Egyptian pharaohs attempted to emulate him through pharaonic tradition and imagery. In this way, the shepherd as king is far more subtle, an artistic symbol rooted in a time long passed, one reflecting the lifestyles of prehistoric Egyptians and engrained into society, even as they advanced beyond the perceivably primitive.

It would come as no surprise, then, that the shepherd king imagery would find its way into the Bible. Jesus, David, Moses, Jacob, Abraham, and other prominent figures were said to be shepherds, embodying the shepherd king qualities. Many parallels exist between the transcendent character found in ancient biblical scripture and the lifestyles and mentality of ancient Semitic populations. The shepherd king was the epitome of strength, resilience, compassion, and justice. Stories, traditions, and myths carry over, despite their seemingly simplistic origin. As we have seen, it is not at all uncommon to see the remanence of prehistory, visualizing symbiotic mechanisms in the natural world and amongst groups of people and applying it to the divine, as part of the evolution of religious beliefs and ideologies.

A Shared Heritage

Without a doubt, there are a multitude of coincidental correlations between the Hyksos, the biblical Israelites, and the symbolism of the shepherd king. Though there is no consensus, it is blatantly obvious that these groups of people came from Semitic regions and were given or gave themselves identifiers at a later time. It is quite possible that the Israelites, or Hebrews as they would have been called, were at least in some part linked to the groups that migrated around the time of Avaris and may have remained after the Hyksos’ downfall.

Historically, people of Semitic regions were known to be nomadic. Therefore, there is a strong likelihood that all of those who arrived in Egypt, despite their later names, were from various locations, migrating at varying times in nomadic bands and found camaraderie among people of a shared heritage. It is equally likely, based on this heritage, that the Hyksos would have thought of themselves as shepherd kings. Egyptologists and scholars in the field may dismiss it, but that may be due to a lack of definitive evidence. From a sociological standpoint, migrating groups introduced into a new region tend to form distinctive cultures of their own, blending their heritage with their new environment.

We must also remember: ancient history was not written in the way it is today. Most ancient historians were essentially compilers, gathering information and accounts, not necessarily to prove anything, though there are a few exceptions. Perhaps the answers to the many unknowns surrounding the Hyksos and their relationship to the Bible are not found in theories and speculation, but in the commonalities of all their people in Egypt and the nature of belonging.

Featured Image: Hyksos sphinx. Created during the reign of Amenemhat III (12^th Dynasty), later reworked and reinscribed by Hyksos rulers, including Apepi. Cairo, Egypt. (art of line / Shutterstock)

References

• Mark, J. 2016. Second Intermediate Period of Egypt. World History Encyclopedia. Available at: https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/

• Eames, C. 2023. The Hyksos: Evidence of Jacob’s Family in Ancient Egypt? Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology. Available at: https://armstronginstitute.org/835-the-hyksos-evidence-of-jacobs-family-in-ancient-egypt

• Josephus, F. Translation by Whiston, W. 2008. Against Apion. The Project Gutenberg. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2849/2849-h/2849-h.htm

• Heidel, A. The Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation. The University of Chicago Press. Available at: https://archive.org/details/the-enuma-elish-the-babylon-genesis-the-story-of-creation.-by-alexander-heidel

• Ivy, J. 2010. Shepherd as King in the Ancient Near East. Academia. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/2603645/Shepherd_as_King_in_the_Ancient_Near_East

• The Biblical Timeline. Joseph. Available at: https://www.thebiblicaltimeline.org/joseph/

In the mythologies of the ancient world, the most supreme deity did not operate alone. Traditionally a male, he ruled over an entire pantheon of lesser deities, each with their own gifts or confined within their own dominions. This was especially the case in the old Canaanite tradition. So, it should come as no surprise if I were to say that some of that influence creeped into the thoughts and writings of early Biblical authors.

We have three major hints of a Divine Council present within the primeval portion of the Book of Genesis. It comes to us from the third and eleventh chapters of Genesis; more specifically, it is hinted at in the fall of man, when the human and his wife are banished from Eden, and the story of Babel, just before YHWH scatters mankind and confounds their languages.

3:22 And YHWH said: ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.’

6:4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

11:7 Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

Who was YHWH speaking to in Genesis 3:22 when man and woman were banished from Eden? What does he mean by ‘one of us’? Does us mean the gods? Or what if originally, YHWH was a son of God himself? I am referring to Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided the sons of men, he fixed their bounds according to the number of the sons of Israel; but YHWH’s portion was his people, Jacob his share of inheritance.

Let us open our minds for a moment. The Most High in this case would be Elohim [1], the Canaanite El or Mesopotamian Ellil or even possibly Anu, while YHWH is the son of Elohim [2], a son of God. Whether this is the case or not, we do not officially know, and we may never find evidence to either prove or disprove this theory.

Hints of Henotheism in Scripture

Now, before I continue on the subject of henotheism [3], I wish to address a very important topic: the bene ha-elohim or sons of God in Genesis 6:4. This phrase has often been mistranslated as the sons of the gods, leading to some outlandish theories but as I will show below, within its proper context, that is not the case.

Let us ask ourselves the following question: while Elohim is plural in form, does it always have to be plural in meaning? We need to focus on three key areas: (1) grammatical indications throughout the rest of the text would help to determine if there is a singular or plural meaning within the word, (2) grammatical rules in the Hebrew language, and (3) its historical/ logical context. The English language is put into comparison with the old Hebrew. A great example would be that we do not have any other way of saying deer, sheep, or fish. This can be represented as both plural and singular, but it is the way we phrase it in a sentence that gives meaning and purpose. If you are talking about catching one fish, you would not state how you have caught many fish. The point that is trying to be made here is that evidence does in fact exist in the Old Testament where both cases have been used. Below are just a few of many examples to display these cases.

And God (Elohim) spoke all these words saying: ‘I am YHWH thy God (Elohim) who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods (elohim) before me.’
Exodus 20:1-3

Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that YHWH, He is God (Elohim); there is none else beside Him.
Deuteronomy 4:35

…because that they have forsaken Me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess (elohey) [4] of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god (elohey) of Moab, and Milcom the god (elohey) of the children of Ammon;…
1Kings 11:33

God (Elohim) standeth in the congregation of God (El); in the midst of the gods (elohim) He judgeth.
Psalm 82:1

I said: Ye are godlike beings (elohim), and all of you sons of the Most High.
Psalm 82:6

Again, paying careful attention to the grammar in context tells us what form the noun Elohim has taken. The word means nothing until you observe the structure of the sentence in which it is used. This isn’t present in just the Hebrew grammar. Earlier Semitic languages such as Akkadian have shown evidence of this as well. In the Akkadian tongue, elohim translates to ilanu, also a plural form corresponding to the singular ilum. [5] One of the many cases of this term used in the plural form but holding a singular meaning comes from the Amarna Letters, which date to the 14^th century BCE. One of the lines reads as follows:

sharri belya shamsya ilanya [6]

“the king, my lord, my sungod, my god”

Another thing about Hebrew grammar is that if a word appears with or without the article ha in a certain context, it can still be read as either a common or proper noun. It also applies to this case, where the term in question would literally translate to ‘sons of the God’ and not ‘sons of the gods’; signifying there to be only ONE supreme God. [7]

Looking back at the previous examples of Exodus 20:1-3 and Psalm 82:1-6, one cannot help but wonder what all the pluralities mean. Many scholars believe that this refers to the deities of the surrounding nations. However, questions still arise as to whether Israelite belief was originally henotheistic, where the supreme deity created and / or ruled over an entire pantheon of lesser deities. Does this point to cult worship in early Israelite culture, where in most cases YHWH was the more favorable deity of choice? The Christians have taken these pluralities as an argument for Trinitarianism. During the rise of Christianity, censorship was starting to be seen within rabbinical writings, and to mention the pluralities was a heresy.

Let us revisit Deuteronomy 32:8-9. There is something quite different observed in the Septuagint (hereafter, LXX). The Masoretic Texts (hereafter, MT) of the Hebrew Bible claim that the sons of men were divided according to the number of the sons of Israel; but the LXX reads: ‘angels of God.’

Before we continue, I would like to give a brief background on the MT. The MT is the Hebrew text of the Tanakh approved for general use in Judaism and also widely used in translations of the Old Testament. This standard was originally compiled, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes approximately between the 7^th and 10^th centuries CE. Much of the work done by the Masoretes relies upon oral tradition, and differences are seen with the MT when compared to earlier sources such as the Greek, Samaritan [9] and Aramaic translations of biblical scriptures.

While the Samaritan Pentateuch (hereafter, SP) seems to agree with the MT, the Aramaic written 4QDeut^j,n (found at Qumran [10]) reads ‘sons of God.’ And it just makes the topic a bit more complicated.

Bronze Age Ugaritic mythology states that the head of the pantheon, El (who, like the God of the Bible, is also referred to as El Elyon or “the Most High”) fathered seventy sons, setting the number of the “sons of El”. Assuming that this tradition of seventy survived into the Iron Age of Old Testament literature, the reading of Deuteronomy 32:8 where God divided the earth according to the number of heavenly beings coupled with the oldest surviving copy of the verse discovered at Qumran, it would just make more sense that we are talking about the same sons of God.

This leaves us with the puzzling questions: (1) Was early Israelite belief truly henotheistic? (2) If so, why were all instances hinting at one omitted from scripture? (3) Why are modern scholars referring to the sons of God as just angels of the Lord and not the forgotten pantheon of lesser deities? Here is an excerpt from an issue of Archaeology Magazine, which may help provide a probable explanation to the rise of monotheism erasing/ omitting all other deities from the biblical canon: [11]

…toward the end of the monarchy, there may already have been recognition of the usefulness of monotheism in the same way that the emphasis on the worship of Amun in Egypt during the New Kingdom (circa 1540-1070 B.C.) and Marduk in Babylon during the Neo-Babylonian Empire (circa 629-539 B.C.) arose. That is, it enabled the development of a powerful priesthood in support of all state religion and divinely inspired monarchy. Then came the fall of Judah and exile in Babylonia from 586 to 538 B.C. “Priests didn’t want to be out of a job,” she [12] proposes. “It was easier during the exile to say ‘Our god has defeated us, he is punishing us’.”

The Archaeological Evidence

This is a very difficult topic to discuss, because while plenty of archaeological evidence has surfaced over the years attesting to the fact that the Israelites and Judahites both worshipped Canaanite deities alongside YHWH within the region, was YHWH worshipped side-by-side with these deities in a true hierarchal pantheon? The evidence for other deities being worshipped in the land comes from discoveries of idols and seals, among other assorted crafts, and the use of theophoric titles [13] embodying both the Canaanite El (i.e. Jezreel, Elishua, Elishama, Eliada, Eliphalet, etc.) and Ba`al (i.e. Jerubbaal, Meribaal, Eshbaal, etc.). In biblical literature, we also have the worship of the Tyrian Baal under the rule of Ahab and his Tyrian wife Jezebel, which seems very likely, as I will explain below. [14] It should come as no surprise to the reader that both Israelite and Judahite states were never identical in language and iconography. In fact, linguistic analysis has proven that the Israelite Semitic language had originated or evolved from the Phoenician, while the Judahite was common among the southern Semitic dialects (i.e. Ammonite and Moabite) differing from the northern. A lot of this evidence derives from orthographical analysis, which I will be discussing much later in this book. Craftsmanship and trade display that there were very close ties between Israel and Phoenicia. A lot of Phoenician-influenced artifacts have been found throughout the land of Israel, primarily at Samaria. In fact, it is very difficult for scholars to differentiate between Phoenician and Israelite craftsmanship. It is generally believed that because Israel shared borders with the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon and Aramean Damascus, it kept control of the major trade routes that passed through its country, allowing it to be exposed to external influences. Starting from the middle of the 9^th century BCE, Israel regularly joined with the Phoenician city-states along with the Arameans in anti-Assyrian coalitions. This is a clear indication that they shared common political and economic interests. [15] As a result of these close ties, specific religious themes were brought into the land, a lot of which was originally Egyptian. As time progressed into the first millennium BCE, these Egyptian influenced iconography evolved by adopting Syrian-Canaanite themes. So it would not be at all a stretch to assume that the Baal Shamem, or ‘Lord of Heaven,’ of the Phoenicians was the Tyrian Baal which Ahab adopted as his patriarchal deity ruling from his capital of Israel at Samaria.

Currently, the most convincing evidence that we have to display the worship of YHWH alongside a pantheon of other deities comes from a discovery, in the mid-1970s, at a remote spot in the northern Sinai Peninsula, Kunitillet `Ajrûd. This discovery led to a lot of controversy about YHWH having a consort. These archaeological findings consisted of two pithoi [16] dating from the 9^th or early 8^th century BCE, with inscriptions that read “YHWH and his Asherah.” It is still being argued whether this is a reference to the mother goddess of life in the ancient Canaanite religion.

Featured image: Adam’s Creation Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni. (Public Domain)

Notes

[1] Elohim is the Hebrew word used to denote the supreme God in the singular but because it is plural in form, it can also be used to describe multiple gods.

[2] Its morphologically singular form is Eloah, while another common singular word for God is El.

[3] Henotheism is defined as the belief in one deity without denying the existence of others. Henotheism has also been called inclusive monotheism or monarchial polytheism.

[4] This is also plural in form and used when directly applied to the subject, but in this case it is used in the singular.

[5] Another masculine plural form to ilum is ilu.

[6] This too is plural in form, but the suffix of ya adds possession, signifying that the speaker is referring to the listener as his/ her god.

[7] Ruling over the possible lesser gods, the sons of God.

[8] The Septuagint is a Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures redacted in the 3^rd and 2^nd centuries BCE.

[9] Tradition holds that the Samaritan Pentateuch comes to us from the Abisha Scroll, purported to be written by Aaron’s son, but this obviously cannot be substantiated. As a result of grammatical and historical analysis (even with the Documentary Hypothesis in mind), the Samaritan Pentateuch is generally believed to have been compiled ca. 400 BCE.

[10] Qumran is an ancient ruin on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea. In 1947 a Bedouin looking for his goats in caves stumbled upon several large jars, which contained ancient scrolls that have since become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls have become one of the most important finds in biblical history to this date.

[11] Scham, Sandra. “The Lost Goddess of Israel.” Archaeology Mar./Apr. 2005: 36-40.

[12] Diana Edelman; a biblical scholar.

[13] Theophoric (Greek: theos = god + phoreo = to bear) names are derived from or include the name of a deity. For example eliyahu which translates to ‘my God is Yah.’

[14] 1Kgs. 17-19.

[15] Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uelinger. Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Trans. Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress P, 1998. 179.

[16] A pithos is a large storage jar.

When we speak of the Temple of YHWH, the first thing that comes to mind is Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. This is what we read in the Hebrew Bible. It was THE place of worship for their cult deity and it was centered in Jerusalem. However, when sifting through the archaeological evidence, it immediately becomes apparennt that this was not always the case. In fact, throughout the ancient world, many cults of YHWH with their own temples have been built, ranging from the Levant all the way to Egypt.

To start off with Egypt, there was a temple to YHWH located in Elephantine, and YHWH was also worshiped alongside other deities: [1]

Labeled: Padua 1 (Museo Civico di Padova) ca. 475-450 BCE
שלם בית יהו ביב
Greetings to the temple of YHW in Elephantine! [2]

Labeled: O. Clermont-Ganneau 70 ca. 475 BCE
לך ברכתך ליהה ולחנב
I bless you by YHH and Khnum. [3]

We also read of a Queen of Heaven: [4]

Labeled: Hermopolis 4 ca. 6^th-5^th century BCE
שלם בית בתאל ובית מלכת סמין
Greetings to the temple of Bethel and the temple of the Queen of Heaven.

The very same Queen of Heaven we find in the Book of Jeremiah. [5] It is generally believed that this Queen of Heaven is the Canaanite Asherah or Astarte, and may have played as a consort to YHWH. Note that I will be speaking to the topic of God having a wife in a future post.

Also confirmed in the Samaritan Pentateuch [6], we have a YHWH of Samaria with His own place of worship:[7]

Labeled: Kuntillet `Ajrûd Pithos A ca. 9^th-8^th century BCE
ברכת אתכם ליהוה שמרן ולאשרתה
I bless you by YHWH of Samaria and his Asherah.

Labeled: Kuntillet `Ajrûd Pithos B ca. 9^th-8^th century BCE
ברכתך ליהוה תמן ולאשרתה
I bless you by YHWH of Teman and his Asherah.

It is still unknown as to where Teman is truly located. Scholars have assumed that this is the Edomite Teman mentioned in Jeremiah 49:7, 20; Ezekiel 25:13; Amos 1:13; and Obadiah 9. In fact, the Samaritan Pentateuch holds an additional commandment, which states that YHWH can only be worshiped at Mt. Gerizim, in the West Bank, and not at His temple in Jerusalem.

What I find most interesting of all materials relating to this topic is a reference to a temple in Jerusalem, existing prior to the date believed to be the construction of Solomon’s Temple. These references come from the El Amarna letters, correspondences between the Egyptian Pharaoh and various Canaanites discussing certain matters ranging from tribute to warfare. EA 290 reads [8]:

They have hired soldiers of Gazri [Gezer], soldiers of Gimti [Gath], and soldiers of Kilti [Keilah or Ekron?], they have conquered the land of the city of Rubute. The land of the king has fallen away to the Habiru; and now in additon to that a city of the land of Jerusalem, whose name is Bit-Ninib, a city of the king, has gone forth were the people of Kilti are. This (will be) the fate of the la[nd]. [L]et him [smi]te (?) the son of Milki[lu], [and l]et him sm[it]e (?) the so[n of Suardat]u ....Ginti, a[n]d let the king care for [his] land.

Dating to the 14^th century BCE, we read of Jerusalem holding a temple to the god Ninib (a.k.a. Ninurta, the Mesopotamian storm god of fertility). [9] There are two things that should strike the reader as odd and contradictory with the biblical texts. First things first, prior to the conquest of the Promised Land and taking over Jebus, the city-state within Judah was supposedly not known as Jerusalem. The name change occurred after the conquest of Jebus. This inscription predates the Israelite Conquest and calls out Jerusalem (actually Urusalim) as a major city of influence and power in the Levant. More references to Jerusalem in the Amarna letters can be found in EA 285-290. The second odd item is that a Temple to Ninurta exists within the city, and not a Temple to YHWH (Solomon’s Temple). Did the Temple of Ninurta mark the location of what was later to become the Temple of YHWH? If so, then how did a construction take place under the direction of Solomon? Or was it more of a remodeling?

Featured image: Herod's Temple as imagined in the Holyland Model of Jerusalem. (Public Domain)

Notes

[1] Lindenberger, James M. Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. 36-37, 49.

[2] Yeb was the ancient name Elephantine.

[3] Khnum was an ancient creator deity of Egypt. In the Hebrew text cited it is spelled Khnub. This should come as no surprise as names tend to get corrupted throughout time.

[4] Lindenberger, James M. Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. 32.

[5] Reference Jer. 7:18; 44:17-25.

[6] The Samaritan Pentateuch is the text of the Torah written in the Samaritan script and used by the Samaritans. It dates to the Second Temple period and is believed to be no older than the mid-5th century BCE.

[7] Lindenberger, James M. Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. 136.

[8] The cuneiform tablets discovered at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt are known as the Amarna Letters, and the "EA" designation stands for "El-Amarna".

[9] Bit-Ninip (Temple of Ninurta) is mentioned again in EA 74.

Some time ago, a fellow scholar and friend, Jeff A. Benner [1] had come across some “inconsistencies” in the linguistics of the Hebrew found in the Book of Exodus. Knowing that I tend to work with the Documentary Hypothesis [2], he e-mailed me some of his notes. Which is why the credit for this should go to Mr. Benner. One note that I would like to share is the difference in which a noun is treated in two verses of the book. That noun is the Hebrew word עם (`am or people). Found in the beginning of Exodus 5:12:

ויפץ העם

And the people were scattered [...]

With the use of the preceding verb, the noun for people is identified as a masculine singular. In Exodus 14:31, the same noun (as a result of the preceding verb) is identified as a masculine plural. See excerpt below.

וייראו עם

[...] and the people feared him [...]

Are these little literary details even important? Well, possibly. As individuals, we tend to write in specific styles and utilizing specific words in specific ways. And unless we are challenged to do otherwise, we are typically creatures of habit. That being said, do these two separate verses in the Book of Exodus imply two separate authors penned each down? Not necessarily but it is an interesting observation nonetheless.

Anyway, I will speak to the Documentary Hypothesis, alongside the other authorship theories, in a future article but for now, I will state that under the Documentary Hypothesis, verse 5:12 belongs to the Elohist (E) while 14:31 is credited to the Yahwist (J).

Featured Image: A scribe re-lettering a Torah Scroll. (Source)

Notes

[1] Creator and maintainer of The Ancient Hebrew Research Center.

[2] The Documentary Hypothesis (or Source Hypothesis) proposes that the Bible was written by separate authors, sometimes in historical stages and eventually all separate components were compiled together either during or after the Exilic period, that is during the 6th century BCE or after. These 4 separate sources (or authors) are commonly referred to as the Elohist or E, the Yahwist or J, the Priestly or P and finally the Deuteronomist or D.

The short answer: nobody.

The longer answer…

Ge. 10:4 The descendants of Javan: Elishah and Tarshish, the Kittim and the Dodanim.
Ge. 10:5a From these the maritime nations branched out…

Chapter 10 of the Book of Genesis lists a table of nations. Technically, it consists of a list highlighting the repopulation of the earth from the sons of Noah and their descendants. Most of the nations listed can be identified with nations or peoples present at the time of writing during the early centuries of the Iron Age. However, there is one curious nation which eludes identification: the Dodanim (דדנים). Who are they?

A little digging around has revealed that this seems to be a very old spelling mistake (i.e. a typo). One that seems to have been around for many centuries, if not longer. Now why do I say that it is a typo? The first clue comes from the book of 1 Chronicles:

1 Chr 1:7 The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim.

Isn’t that interesting? A complementary book, in the same Old Testament actually lists a nation we can easily identify: the Rodanim (רודנים). That is, the island of Rhodes in the Mediterranean. But how can we be sure that this is correct?

Clue number two can be observed in the Septuagint (LXX) [1]:

Ge. 10:4 And the sons of Jovan, Elisa, and Tharseis, Cetians, and Rhodians.

Yes, another source saying Rhodes, well, Rhodians (Ρόδιοι). Anything else? Yes! The third clue will be found in the Samaritan Pentateuch [2], where in the same Genesis verse we find the name Rodanim (רודנים); mirroring what is found in the Masoretic Texts (MT) [3] of 1 Chronicles.

Okay, we now know that it is meant to be read as the island nation of Rhodes but why is this important? Tradition has it that the Torah has been copied letter by letter with such precision that it isn’t possible for such an error to occur. And yet here we are.

How could such an error happen in the first place? This seems like a simple mistake of confusing two very similar Hebrew letters: the dalet (ד) and the resh (ר). If not cleanly legible, the two characters can indistinguishable from one another.

What this scribal error shows is that mistakes can be found in the scriptures and it is very likely that this isn’t the first and only error.

Featured image: The Colossus of Rhodes. (Aliv123 / CC BY-SA 4.0)

Notes

[1] The Septuagint (abbreviated as LXX and sometimes referred to as the Greek Old Testament) is the first translation of the Jewish Bible into the Greek language from the original Hebrew. It was translated in Egypt and at the request of Ptolemy II (3rd century BCE) by 72 Jewish translators.

[2] The Samaritan Pentateuch is the text of the Torah written in the Samaritan script and used by the Samaritans. It dates to the Second Temple period and is believed to be no older than the mid-5th century BCE.

[3] The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (or Tanakh) in Rabbinic Judaism. It was copied, edited and distributed by the Masoretes Jews between the 7th and 10th centuries CE.

The Book of Isaiah is one of the most influential of all Old Testament material. It also serves as a backbone to New Testament scripture, as it is constantly referenced. [1] The most quoted verse from the book can be found in chapter 7. It is believed by Christians that verse 14 makes a connection to the Christian messiah, Jesus (KJV):

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Did the prophet predict the birth of a messiah to a virgin? Well, to better understand the verse in questions, let us take a look at its other translations. According to the Masoretic Text (hereafter, MT) Hebrew Bible we read:

לכן יתן אדני הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל ‎

Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Look, a young woman is with child [2] and about to give birth to a son. And she/you will call his name Emanu-El.

Here we have the exact same verse from the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa) found at Qumrân (from the collection of Dead Sea Scrolls):

לכן יתן יחוח הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקרא שמו עמנואל ‎

Therefore, YHWH Himself will give you a sign. Look, a young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. And He will call his name Emanuel.

To date, the Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest preserved known copies of the Old Testament which we have at our disposal. We can observe a few differences between the MT and the Isaiah Scroll. For example, instead of referring to God as Lord (אדני‎‎‎‎ or adonai), we see what may have most likely been an original invocation of the supreme deity's name as YHWH (וה‎‎יה‎‎). Some other differences can be seen with the individual(s) involved in calling the name/title of the son to be born. The MT uses a form of “to call” which can be interpreted as either “she will call” or “you will call”; while the Isaiah Scroll uses the form “he will call.” In this case we can only assume that “he” may refer to YHWH. The last difference between the two versions is the name of the son. The MT reading treats it more as a title by separating the two words: “is with us” and “God.” The Isaiah Scroll joins the two words which usually signifies a name (“God is with us”) instead of a generic epithet.

Now let us take a look at the translation found in the Greek written Septuagint (hereafter, LXX):

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ λήψεται, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουήλ·

Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and you will call his name Emmanuel.

The term used to define the supreme deity is Κύριος (Kúrios) which the Greeks used in both translations of Lord (אדני‎‎‎‎) and YHWH (וה‎‎יה‎‎). This does not do much to confirm what the original text may have looked like, aside from the fact that the MT came later than the Dead Sea Scrolls. We do find confirmation of the MT structure of “you will call” in καλέσεις (kaléseis). In the Greek translation we also find through the transliteration of the Hebrew Emanuel, further confirmation that it was used as a proper noun in the form of a name and not a generic title to the son about to be born.

One thing does stick out from the LXX, which does not obtain any support from the other versions, is the description of the woman who is about to give birth. Both MT and the Isaiah Scroll use the Hebrew word for the young woman (העלמה‎ or ha-almah) and not virgin (παρθένος or parthénos). The Hebrew language has a different term to describe a female virgin; העלמה‎ is not that term. So then, why would the Greeks translate it to virgin? Is there some sort of significance to the female being a virgin?

In the ancient Greek (and later Roman) culture, it was customary to attribute anything female and her relationship to the divine as clean and pure. That included virginity. The goddess Athena was regarded as “the Virgin.” When Zeus would come unto the daughters of men, they were to be pure enough for him. Could this need for a virgin bearing a divine gift [3] stem from the ancient Greek interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 mixed with their preconceived ideas of divinity that were present within their culture? Note that the translation of the LXX was done in 3rd - 1st centuries BCE in Alexandria; a Greek colony located in the Egyptian delta. This was at a time when Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient Mediterranean world at around this period in history. The ancient Greek culture (religion, art, philosophy, etc.) had played a huge role in influencing the region.

If we try to reconstruct the text and attempt to identify its original form we would most likely obtain:

לכן יתן יחוח הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנואל ‎

Therefore, YHWH Himself will give you a sign. Look, a young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. And you will call his name Emanuel.

The apostles Matthew (1:18, 23) and Luke (1:26-28) reference this specific verse to help convince a Jewish audience that Christ is their messiah. How then, would this affect the overall message of the prophet Isaiah? It doesn't. Just because the original Hebrew text described the female as a young woman, does not necessarily mean that she was not a virgin.

Featured image: The prophet Isaiah by Antonio Balestra in the 18th century. (Public Domain)

Notes

[1] These references can be found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Peter, among other smaller references.

[2] ילדת (yldt) is a general term used to describe a woman in labor and about to give birth. Instead of writing all of that, I thought it was better to choose the JPS translation of that word.

[3] The son.

Be sure to catch the full interview over at Digging Up The Past:

Digging Up The Past

The Might and Influence of the Neo-Assyrians

In this episode, host, Petros Koutoupis, sits down with British Assyriologist and ancient Near Eastern scholar, Dr. Stephanie Dalley, to discuss the ancient Neo-Assyrians of Iron Age Mesopotamia. Who were the Neo-Assyrians and how did they influence the ancient Near Eastern world? How did they rise to power and under what circumstances did their empire …

Listen now

3 years ago · 9 likes · Petros Koutoupis

Ge 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Ge 10:11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and built Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Kālaḥ,
Ge 10:12 and Resen between Nineveh and Kālaḥ--the same is the great city.

Over the centuries, many have argued about the true location of the land of Shinar. I, along with the majority of scholars in the same field of study, have identified this to mean the land of Sumer. While the Sumerians themselves called their land ki-en-gir ("place of the civilized lords"), the name Sumer is derived from the Akkadian Shumer. Shinar is simply a Hebrew corruption of the Akkadian word. It literally translates to "country of two rivers" which could only mean the Tigris and Euphrates when taking into account the cities mentioned above. Erech/Uruk, Akkad/Agade, and Babylon [1] existed nowhere else but the land of Shinar. In times past, early rulers used to differentiate the lands between Sumer and Akkad when boasting of their achievements, making the one the southern kingdom (Sumer) and the other the northern kingdom (Akkad). Collectively this had evolved to one piece of land between the two rivers. Further evidence of its location, outside of Genesis 10:10-11 comes to us from the Book of Daniel:

Da 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
Da 1:2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his god, and the vessels he brought into the treasure-house of his god.

Nebuchadnezzar, a Neo-Babylonian king to whom Jerusalem fell under which also resulted in the Jewish Exile, was said to have come from the land of Shinar or Chaldea. Please reference the map below for the locations mentioned. [2]

Feature image: A reconstruction of ancient Babylon in Mesopotamia. (Image source)

Notes

[1] Erech has been identified with the Mesopotamian city of Uruk (Sumerian Unug); the home and kingdom of Gilgamesh. Akkad has been identified with Agade, the capital of the Akkadian Empire. Babel was the native name of the city the Greeks called Babylon, which literatally translates to "gate of god", corresponding to the Akkadian Bab-ili. As for the location of Calneh, modern day scholars have located this to be Nippur (modern day Niffer), which is situated in the marshes of east bank of the Euphrates; roughly 60 miles southeast of Babylon. Although this is still being disputed. I for one associate Calneh with Kulnia (near Aleppo) in Northern Syria. Although, I wouldn’t be the first.

[2] Akkad is missing from the map only because we have yet to discover its true location.

Related Articles

Originally published at Ancient Origins (17 July, 2014) but revised.

In the world of academia, it has always been the general consensus that some of the Bible’s poetry predates its prose literature. For instance, the poetry came first, whether it was preserved orally or otherwise and eventually the prose stories were built around it. The same theory has been applied to the Song of Deborah (i.e. Judges 5) which scholars date to ca. 1100 BCE. It is generally accepted that this poem preserves an Israelite battle against the Shardana (sometimes referred to as the Sherden), a war like group of Sea Peoples that occupied the area of the Levant from around the 14th century BCE and later. This connection was made when scholars studying some of the archives found at Ugarit, located to the North of the battleground at modern day Ras Shamra, discovered the name of a prince of a nearby Shardana colony dating to the 14th century BCE. His name was Zi-za-ru-wa or Si-sa-ru-wa; that is, Sisera. The very same name found in the poem of Judges 5, however, it should not be assumed that this is the same Sisera. The name could and would have been a common one.

The kings came and fought,
Then the kings of Canaan fought
In Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo;
They took no spoils of silver.
They fought from the heavens;
The stars from their courses fought against Sisera.
The torrent of Kishon swept them away,
That ancient torrent, the torrent of Kishon.
[From Judges 5 – Song of Deborah ]

Shifting back to the poem, it tells of a battle that occurred between Megiddo and Taanach. Archaeological Professor Adam Zertal had found evidence of a Shardana settlement just south of this location at el-Ahwat (Arabic for “the Walls”). This settlement dates to 1220-1170 BCE. After 1170 BCE, it had not been occupied since.

As mentioned earlier, the Shardana have been in and around the Levant for centuries and are also fairly well documented across multiple sources. While their exact origins are unknown, they are believed to have come from the general Aegean region. We see evidence of their occupation in the general Near East as early as the Amarna Letters (EA 81, EA 122, and EA 123) dating to the 14th century BCE. Here they served as part of an Egyptian garrison in Byblos, where they provided their services to the mayor, Rib Hadda. They served as personal guards for Ramesses II and fought alongside the Pharaoh in his most memorable battle against the Hittites at Qadesh in 1274 BCE. The inscriptions of Merneptah and Ramesses III, pit the Shardana against the Pharaohs as part of a coalition of seafarers invading Egypt. At approximately 1100 BCE, the Onomasticon of Amenemope, lists them as occupying the Phoenician coast. In almost every documented source, the Shardana were commonly depicted as hired mercenaries.

Did the Song of Deborah mark the defeat of the Shardana, led by Sisera and either force them to evacuate el-Ahwat or disappear completely from the region? If this did mark the defeat of the Shardana from el-Ahwat, then can we date this poem to 1170 BCE? The orthographical (i.e. spelling) studies of Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman to even the research of William Foxwell Albright place the style of poetry to no later than 1100 BCE and with a date of 1170 BCE for the actual battle, it would seem like a probable date of composition.

Featured image: The Defeat of Sisera by Luca Giordano (ca. 1692). (Public Domain)

Sources

• Cross, Frank M., and David N. Freedman. Early Hebrew Orthography . Vol. 36. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952. [Print]

• Cross, Frank M., and David N. Freedman. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids/Cambridge/Livonia: Wm, B. Eerdmans Co. / Dove Booksellers, 1997. [Print]

• JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh . Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003. [Print]

• Healy, Mark. Qadesh 1300 BC: Clash of the warrior kings . New York: Osprey P, 1993. [Print]

• Zertal, Adam. “Philistine Kin Found in Early Israel.” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/Jun 2002, 18+. [Print]

• The Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool [Online]
  Available at: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/eae.html (archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20140330091509/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/eae.html), [Accessed 14 July 2014].

Originally published on Ancient Origins (11 October, 2014; current publication date is inaccurate) and in Biblical Origins: An Adopted Legacy (2008) but revised.

The story of the fabled Tower of Babel from the Book of Genesis has come to inspire artists throughout history and to symbolize the idea of human ambition.

The Biblical Story of the Tower of Babel

The story of the construction of a tower in Babel, which resulted in the confounding of language, has perplexed modern scholars for decades. The Book of Genesis tells of a time in which all of the world’s population migrated eastward to the plain of Shinar. Shinar, the Hebrew for “[land of the] two rivers,” is considered by most to be what the Akkadians referred to as Shumer or Sumer, known today as Mesopotamia, or modern-day Iraq.

The Hebrew etymology for the word Shinar is most likely referring to the rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates. In fear of being scattered across the whole face of the earth, the inhabitants of the plain decided to build a city and also a tower to reach the heavens. This city would be referred to as Babel (Akkadian: bab-ili or “gate of God”) which was also a play on the Hebrew word balal or “to confuse” (i.e. the language). According to the Old Testament, man was then punished for building this Tower of Babel through the creation of multiple languages, designed to create division amongst mankind.

Tower of Babel Excerpt within Genesis

The following excerpt is from the Jewish Publication Society or JPS translation of Genesis 11:

“1 And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another: ‘Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.’ And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.
4 And they said: ‘Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said: ‘Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do; and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do.
7 Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.’
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth; and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

Searching for the Tower of Babel: Excavating at Nineveh

While most of us are familiar with the Hebrew account of the dispersal of peoples and the introduction of new languages, archaeology has shown that the concept of a spreading of tongues is not as unique as we believe. We must divert our attention to George Smith, the very same George Smith who first translated the Epic of Gilgamesh in the 19th century, and provided the world with the earliest documented reference to the great flood.

Following his translation of Gilgamesh, Smith was sent to the site of Nineveh where he was to continue excavations in the hopes of unearthing additional inscriptions that paralleled or showed some relation to the Old Testament stories. Archaeology at the time was a new science, founded on validating the writings of the Bible.

Discovery of Ancient Stories Which Inspired the Biblical Tower of Babel

Smith was fortunate, in that the excavation did yield additional tablets, from the Royal Library of Ashurbanipal, and upon further research he did actually discover a story likely to have inspired the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel. Cataloged and hidden in the inventory vaults of the British Museum, the fragmentary piece of text reads as follows:

“[…] them? The father […]
Of him, his heart was evil,
[…] against the father of all the gods was wicked,
[…] of him, his heart was evil,
[…] Babylon brought to subjection,
[small] and great he confounded their speech.
[…] Babylon brought to subjection,
[small] and great he confounded their speech.
Their strong place (tower) all the day they founded;
to their strong place in the night
entirely he made an end.

In his anger also word thus he poured out:
[to] scatter abroad he set his face
he gave this? command, their counsel was confused
[…] the course he broke
[…] fixed the sanctuary”

George Smith provided a commentary to his translation briefly summarizing what the inscription meant to him, along with highlighting key words that emphasize the type of construction that took place. [1]

“…we have the anger of the gods at the sin of the world, the place mentioned being Babylon. The building or work is called tazimat or tazimtu, a word meaning strong, and there is a curious relation, lines 9 to 11, that what they built in the day the god destroyed in the night.”

Key parallels are seen between the Biblical and Assyrian accounts, that is, that they both speak of mankind unified by a single language and building a tower, thus angering the gods, which resulted in the confusion of the language. The Assyrian account of the Tower of Babel, much like the other tablets found in the same collection, were most likely copies of older tablets. What inspired the Assyrian Babel and what was the original message conveyed? Much like its Hebrew counterpart, these questions continue to elude us.

Featured image: The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (ca. 1563). (Public Domain)

Notes

[1] On more than one occasion, I have reached out to the British Museum inquiring on this material and unfortunately, have never heard back.

Sources

• Davidson, Benjamin. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. 11th ed. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004. [Print]

• JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003. [Print]

• Koutoupis, Petros. Biblical Origins: An Adopted Legacy. College Station: Virtualbookworm.com P, 2008. [Print]

• Smith, George. The Chaldean Account of Genesis. London: Elibron Classics, 2005. [Print]

Related Articles