Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:28:36.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

James F. Ross
James F. Ross
Affiliation:
Virginia Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Virginia 22304
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In many respects the inscription of Zakir, king of Luʻash and Hamath, is quite typical of the northwest Semitic documents of the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. Like most of his royal counterparts, Zakir first introduces himself, indicating the extent of his domain; in this connection he claims that Baʻal-Shamayn stood by him and made him king. He then proceeds to the immediate occasion for the inscription, telling of a coalition of north Syrian and Anatolian kings united against him by Bar-Hadad of Aram, and the subsequent siege laid against his city of Ḥazrak. After an account of Zakir's appeal to Baʻal-Shamayn and the god's encouraging reply, which will be the main concern of this essay, the stele undoubtedly reported the raising of the siege (on the missing lower portion of Side A), for on Side B we find the king boasting of his building operations, again in the style of his time. The inscription closes with the traditional curses upon anyone who dares to damage the stele.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , January 1970 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The stele was discovered at Afis, twenty-five miles southwest of Aleppo, in 1903, and is usually ascribed to the end of the ninth or the first quarter of the eighth century. It was published by Pognon, H., Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la region de Mossoul (Paris, 1907/1908), 156–78Google Scholar, and is No. 202 in Donner, H. — Röllig, W., Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 3 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1962–64)Google Scholar; see Volume II, 204 of the same for a bibliography, and cf. Garbini, G., L'aramaico antico (Rome, 1956), 251Google Scholar, n. 1. Prof. Jonas Greenfield informs me that he is preparing an essay on the form-criticism of the inscription.

2 Side A, ll. 1–3 and the first word of l. 4. Compare Kilammuwa (KAI, No. 24), ll. 1, 9; Azitawadda (KAI, No. 26), A, I, ll. 1f.; Mesha (KAI, No. 181), ll. 1–3; Melqart (KAI, No. 201), ll. 1–3; Hadad (KAI, No. 214), I. 1; Bar-Rekub (KAI, No. 216), ll. 1–3; etc.

3 Side A, ll. 2f.; cf. Azitawadda, A, I, ll. 1–3; Melqart, 1. 4; Hadad, ll. 2f., 8; Bar-Rekub, ll. 4–7. See the excellent discussion of enthronization terminology by Euler, K., Königtum und Götterwelt in den altaramäischen Inschriften Nordsyriens, ZAW 56 (1938), 277–300.Google Scholar

4 Side A, ll. 4–10; similar military operations are described in Kilammuwa, ll. 5–8; Azitawadda, A, I, ll. 8f., 13–18; Mesha, ll. 4–21; Panammuwa (KAI, No. 215), ll. 2–5, 7f.; etc.

5 Side B, ll. 1–13; cf. Azitawadda, especially A, II, ll. 9ff.; Mesha, ll. 3, 9f., 21–30; Hadad, ll. 10, 13f.; etc.

6 Side B, ll. 14–28; for comparisons see S. Gevirtz, West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law, VT 11 (1961), 137–58.

7 Melqart, ll. 4f.: ה(5) [לק]ל עמשו. There is no doubt about the restoration; traces of the letters can be seen. Cf. W. F. Albright, A Votive Stele Erected by Ben-Hadad I of Damascus to the God Melcarth, BASOR 87 (Oct. 1942), 23–29.

8 KAI, No. 10, ll. 2f.

9 One of the most interesting passages is found in an inscription of Shalmaneser I in which the king raises his hands (našū qāta) to Ashur and the great gods when attacked by enemies (ARAB, I, paragraphs 114, 117). A common Akkadian term for “prayer” is nīš qāti, “lifting up the hand”; it became the rubric for a type of prayer composition. See W. von Soden, RLA, III.3 (1964), 161, 168f. Compare also CTCA 14.II.75f.; IV.167f., where Keret lifts up his hands (nšʼa yd) to heaven and sacrifices to Bull, his father, El. Philo Byblius, citing Sanchuniathon, tells us that Genos and Genea, the first inhabitants of Phoenicia, stretched out their hands to Beelsamēn on the occasion of a drought; Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica I.x.7 (ed. K. Mras; Berlin, 1954).

10 די אשנ: Ps. 28:2; 134:2; ףכ אשנ: Ps. 63:5; 141:2; Lam. 2:19; 3:41; ףכ שרפ: Ex. 9:29,33; 1 K. 8:22 / / 2 Chron. 6:12f.; 1 K. 8:38 / / 2 Chron. 6:29; Ps. 44:21; Job 11:13; Ezra 9:5. Cf. רי ץירה, lit. “cause the hand to run,” s. v. l., Ps. 68:32. Note especially the parallel of prayer (הלפח), supplication (הנחח), and spreading out the palm (ףכ שרפ) in 1 K. 8:54.

11 For the vocalization see Cross, F. M. Jr., and Freedman, D. N., Early Hebrew Orthography (New Haven, 1952), 26, no. 24Google Scholar; cf. Koopmans, J. J., Aramäische Chrestomathie, II (Leiden, 1962), 27.Google Scholar

12 Perhaps to be vocalized ʻādidīn, if the form is construed as a Peʻal participle; cf. Koopmans, loc. cit., and Garbini, L'aramaico antico, 255.

13 Halévy, J., Nouvelles remarques sur l'inscription de Zakir, Revue sémitique 16 (1908), 363Google Scholar: “une classe de devins”; M. Black in DOTT, 246: “foretellers”; F. Rosenthal in ANET 3, 655: “diviners”; Dupont-Sommer, A., Les Araméens (Paris, 1949), 46Google Scholar: “devins (?)”; but Aramaic Handbook, I/2, 5: “prophet”; H. Gressman in AOT, 444: “Wahrsager (?).”

14 This suggestion goes back to R. Dussaud, Le royaume de Hama et de Louʻouch au VIIIe siècle avant J. C., Rev. arch. (IVe Sér.) 11 (1908), 233, 234, n. 5: “astrologues.” Dussaud is followed by J. Montgomery, A New Aramaic Inscription of Biblical Interest, The Biblical World (N. S.) 33 (1909), 80, and Some Gleanings from Pognon's ZKR Inscription, JBL 28 (1909), 69; and, with reservations, Kraeling, E. G., Aram and Israel (New York, 1918), 100Google Scholar. Torrey, C. C., The Zakar and Kalamu Inscriptions, JAOS 35 (1915/1917), 356Google Scholar, vocalizes ʻaddādīn and translates “men expert in numbers.” Cf. also M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, III (Giessen, 1915), 8, who suggests another form of the Arabic root (ʻaddada) and translates “Bereiter.” Pognon himself (Inscriptions sémitiques, 167) posited an error for ןררע, and, assuming that Aramaic ר could stand for Hebrew ז, read ןרזע, “helpers”; he was followed by S. R. Driver, An Aramaic Inscription from Syria, The Expositer (7th Ser.) 10 (June, 1908), 488. But the phoneme ḏ is clearly represented by ז elsewhere in the inscription (לחז ;זלמ ;ךרזח ;הנז ;יז); see Nöldeke, Th., Aramäische Inschriften, ZA 21 (1908), 379Google Scholar. Recently B. Uffenheimer, rejecting the interpretations outlined above, has proposed ןררע “awakeners,” i.e., cultic officials who arouse a god to his task (The Awakeners — A Cultic Term from the Ancient Near East? Leshonenu 30 [1965/66; Heb.], 163–74). But on the Zakir inscription ר and ר are rather easily distinguished by the length of their “tails”; for convenience, note the following words on Pognon's facsimiles and plates (the former are reproduced in KAI, Vol. III, Tafeln XIII and XIV): דחוהו. ךרז[ח] (Side A, 1. 4); ררהרכ (Side A, ll. 4f.); ירי. רשא (Side B, l. 15). See also Starcky, J., Remarques épigraphiques, in A. Dupont-Sommer, Les inscriptions araméens de Sfiré (Stèles I et II) (Paris, 1958), 133–38Google Scholar, and Pl. XXIX. Uffenheimer's suggestion was entertained and (in my opinion) properly rejected by Lidzbarski in 1915: “Der Schaft beim ד ist kurz, daher darf man nicht etwa an ןררע ‘[Gottes]wecker’ denken” (Ephemeris, III, 8) ; cf. Montgomery, JBL 28 (1909), 66, n. 20, who rejects, for the same reason, the reading רולא on Side A, I. 1.

15 The Ugaritic Texts (Jerusalem, 1936; Heb.), 40 (on CTCA 4.VII.46); The Rebellion and Death of Baʻlu, Orientalia (N. S.) 5 (1936), 181f.; An Unrecognized Allusion to Kings Pekah and Hoshea of Israel, EI 5 (1958), 62*. The latter is cited, apparently with approval, by Ch.-F. Jean - J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémitiques de l'Ouest (Leiden, 1965) s. v. ררע. See also A. Haldar, Associations of Cult Prophets (Uppsala, 1945), 75, n. 1.

16 CTCA 2.I.22, 26, 28, 30, 40f., and 44, with some restorations; in line 11 of the same text we should perhaps read with Driver, G. R., Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh, 1956), 78Google Scholar, [m]l'akm yl'ak. ym. [ṯpṭ. nhr. tʻdt], “Yamm sent [m]essengers, [Judge Nahar an embassy]”; cf. CTCA ad loc. Ginsberg (El 5 [1958], 62*) finds this Ugaritic word in Isa. 8:16, 20, where he repoints teʻiddâ and translates “message.”

17 The particle ʼal is taken by some to be an asseverative in this passage (“I will indeed send…”); so Ginsberg, Orientalia (N. S.) 5 (1936), 181, with reservations; Driver, Canaanite Myths, 101. But this does not affect the present argument.

18 Albright, W. F., The North Canaanite Poems of Aleyân Baal and the “Gracious Gods,” JPOS 14 (1934), 130Google Scholar, comparing Arabic dalīl, “guide”; Ginsberg, Orientalia (N. S.) 5 (1936), 181f., with reservations (he translates “tribute” in ANET, 135); Driver, loc. cit.; J. A. Montgomery — Z. S. Harris, The Ras Shamra Mythological Texts (Philadelphia, 1935), s. v. ללר in the Glossary.

19 The parallelism requires a noun, as seen already by Ch. Virolleaud, Un nouveau chant du poème d'Aleïn-Baal, Syria 13 (1932), 157, followed by most interpreters against Ginsberg, El 5 (1958), 62*, and ANET, 135, who reads a verb. The verbal prefix is missing, however, and it is doubtful that one can appeal to dissimilation; see E. Hammerschaimb, Das Verbum im Dialekt von Ras Schamra (Copenhagen, 1941), 234, n. 1.

20 Virolleaud, Syria 13 (1932), 126, has no doubts about the reading, but Herdner, CTCA ad loc., regards y[ṯ]b as the most plausible reconstruction: “returned (a word).”

21 See above, note 16. For an attempt to support the traditional interpretation (“testimony”) see J. A. Thompson, Expansions of the רע Root, JSS 10 (1965), 255. Is Isaiah appealing to the “testimony” which Yahweh revealed by means of his “messengers” the prophets? On the latter see my The Prophet as Yahweh's Messenger, Israel's Prophetic Heritage, ed. Anderson, B. W. and Harrelson, W. (New York, 1962), 98–107.Google Scholar

22 Thompson, JSS 10 (1965), 225f.

23 Cf. also 2 Chron. 9:29, where an author of the “acts of Solomon” appears as ירעי in the Ketib and ורעי in the Qere, but as ורע in the Targum; he, too, is called a “seer.” Both Josephus (Antiquities VIII.viii.5) and the rabbinic tradition (Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, VI [Philadelphia, 1946], 211Google Scholar, n. 133) seem to identify the anonymous prophet of 1 K. 13:1–10 as Iddo.

24 Emending verse 8 with the versions, followed by RSV; MT implies that Oded himself was a prophet.

25 Cf. Noth, M., Ueberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tübingen, 1943), 134Google Scholar, n. 3, suggesting the root רוע “bear witness.” Apparently Halévy was the first to compare Zakir's ןררע and the biblical name ררע, which he regarded as an appellative; he was followed by Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, III, 8, and Jirku, A., Altorientalischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Leipzig, 1923), 248Google Scholar. See also Ginsberg, Orientalia (N. S.) 5 (1936), 182, and Albright, JPOS 14 (1934), 130. The appellative sense of ררע is rejected by W. Rudolph, Chronikbücker (Tübingen, 1955), 245, n. 1. It is interesting to note that ʻdd appears as a proper name in an Ugaritic text (CTCA 102.VI.3).

26 G. von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israe 2 (Göttingen, 1952), 9f.

27 Cf. also 2 K. 6:16; Isa. 35:4; Jer. 51:46; Joel 2:21; Zeph. 3:15f., and the passages cited below, p. 11, (b) and (c).

28 Begrich, J., Das priesterliche Heilsorakel, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich, 1964Google Scholar; original, 1936), 217–31, esp. 219.

29 2 Chron. 1:11f.; cf. 1 K. 3:7, where Solomon says to Yahweh, “… thou hast made thy servant king.”

30 See especially Mowinckel, S., Psalmenstudien III. Kultprophetie und prophetische Psalmen (Oslo, 1922)Google Scholar, and The Psalms in Israel's Worship (New York and Nashville, 1962), chap. 12.

31 Panammuwa, 1. 2. The preposition םע is missing, but there can be little doubt about its restoration.

32 Thus the text of Zakir, Side A, 1. 14 beginning, is probably to be restored to read an imperfect form: ם[קא[, following both KAI and Dupont-Sommer, Aramaic Handbook, I/1, 2. See especially Euler, ZAW 56 (1938), 292f. Two interesting late parallels to this construction may be cited: (a) in the Aramaic text of the Behistun inscription Darius mentions the men who “stood by me” (ווה ימע ןמק) until the usurper Gaumata was killed (A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. [Oxford, 1923], 254, 1. 59); (b) an author of a letter reminds his mother about a certain friend of theirs who has recently come to town, and tells her, “Go, stand by him” (המע ימוק ילזא), i.e., help him out (A. E. Cowley, Two Aramaic Ostraca, JRAS [1929], 108). Compare also the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon: in the case of a rebellion against the crown prince, Ashurbanipal, the vassals are to “stand with him” (issišu … tazazāni; Wiseman, D. J., The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon [London, 1958], llGoogle Scholar. 144f.; ANET 3, 536).

33 The Journey of Wen-Amon, translated by J. A. Wilson in ANET, 26. Akkadian texts containing revelations of a “prophetic” sort are too late to have had any influence on Zakir. Of these perhaps the most interesting is an account of a prayer of Ashurbanipal to Nabu in which it is said, “A ghost (zaqīqu) from Nabu his lord answered, ‘Do not fear, Ashurbanipal; I will give you long life’” (Craig, J. A., Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, I [Leipzig, 1895–97]Google Scholar, Plates 5f. [K. 1285], obv., ll. 23ff., recently translated by A. Falkenstein - W. von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebeten [Stuttgart, 1953], 292ff.; on the zaqīqu see CAD s. v.). Cf. also the texts from the time of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal translated by R. H. Pfeiffer in ANET, 449–51. For recent studies of the ancient Near Eastern background of Old Testament prophecy see J. Lindblom, Zur Frage des kanaanäische Ursprungs des altisraelitischen Prophetismus, Von Ugarit nach Qumran (BZAW 77; Berlin, 1958), 89–104; R. Rendtorff, Reflections on the Early History of Prophecy in Israel, Journal for Theology and Church 4 (1967), 14–34 (German original, 1962); F. Nötscher, Prophetie im Umkreis des alten Israel, BZ (N. F.) 10 (1966), 162–97.

34 For a convenient list of the relevant material see Huffmon, H., Prophecy in the Mari Letters, BA 31 (1968), 124Google Scholar, to which should be added A. 1121 — A. Lods and G. Dossin, Une tablette inédite de Mari intéressante pour l'histoire ancienne du prophétisme sémitique, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. H. H. Rowley (New York, 1950), 103–10 (edition without copy). I would like to take this opportunity to thank Prof. Huffmon for his kindness in providing me with his readings of the ARM X texts. The present essay deals largely with the content of the Mari letters; on the subject of form-criticism, see Westermann, C., Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Philadelphia, 1967Google Scholar; German original, 1960), 115–28, and his Die Mari-Briefe und die Prophetie in Israel, Forschung am Alten Testament (Munich, 1964), 171–88. By far the most extensive survey of the material is that of Ellermeier, F., Prophetie in Mari und Israel (Herzberg, 1968)Google Scholar, containing a transliteration and translation of all but the most fragmentary letters. For a few letters we have only a preliminary French translation by Dossin, but no copy or transliteration (see below, n. 39). In the following, references such as “I.1.1” are to the ARM (T) series (volume, number, and line), and “A. 15” etc. to letters outside the series, following Huffmon and Ellermeier. See Ellermeier, Prophetie, 21ff. for a comprehensive bibliography, and add Heintz, J.-G., Oracles prophétiques et “guerre sainte” selon les archives royales de Mari et l'Ancien Testament, SVT, XVII (1969), 112–38Google Scholar; W. L. Moran, New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy, Biblica 50 (1969), 15–56, and his translations of most of the texts in ANET 3, 623ff., 629–32. Heintz announces that he will publish all of the known prophetic letters in a forthcoming volume of ARMT.

35 See A. Finet, La place du devin dans la société de Mari, La divination en Mésopotamie ancienne (Paris, 1966), 87–93.

36 II.90.19; III.40.13; XIII.114.11; cf. X.6 10′f.; X.117.11; A. 15, ll. 32f. This is the main point of the early studies of the letters; see especially W. von Soden, Verkündigung des Gotteswillens durch prophetisches Wort in den altbabylonischen Briefe aus Mari, WdO, I (1950), 397–403, and M. Noth, History and the Word of God in the Old Testament, The Laws in the Pentateuch (Philadelphia, 1967; German original, ca. 1950), 179–93.

37 In the latter passage the subject is the phrase annitam awīlūmeš āpilū iqbû, “this (the foregoing message) is what the respondents said,” pace Ellermeier, Prophetie, 103, who suggests Zu-ḫatnim, a recipient of a message earlier in the letter, and Morgan, Biblica 50 (1969), 21, n. 2, who thinks that the subject is the God Adad or, if the verb is emended to a plural form, the āpilū. For such uses of annitam see A. 15, l. 40; II.90.24; III.40.19; III.78.27 and A. Finet, L'Accadien des lettres de Mari (Brussels, 1956), paragraphs 19b, 64a. The verb is apparently a Gtn of izuzzum; cf. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch s. v., who translates “dauernd hinzutreten.” Note also that an assinnu (eunuch?) gives a têrtum in X.80.4f.; unfortunately the content is not specified, but the author of the letter apparently regards it as an anticipation of a message concerning Eshnunna (on which see below, pp. 17f.). See also X.81.19ff., where the king is apparently encouraged to “check” the prophecy by “making” an omen. For a confirmation of a prophetic oracle by divination, see Moran, op. cit., 2 1ff., 37f.

38 On the šāʻilu (m) see J. Renger, Untersuchungen zum Priestertum der altbabylonischen Zeit, 2. Teil, ZA 59 (1969), 217f. In an eighth-century Phoenician inscription recently published by J. M. Solá-Solé (RStO 46 [1966], 97–108 and Tav. I–II), line 3, the expression לאש ינב may mean “askers.”

39 Note A. 455 and cf. A. Malamat, Prophetic Revelations in New Documents from Mari and the Bible, SVT, XV (1966), 215 and n. 1, who makes further suggestions on the relation of prophetic appearances and sacrifices. See also Schult, H., Vier weitere Mari-Briefe “prophetischen” Inhalts, ZDPV 82 (1966), 229Google Scholar, and, on the connections of the āpilum and the cult, G. Dossin, Sur le prophétisme à Mari, La divination, 86; Huffmon, BA 31 (1968), 109; Nötscher, BZ (N. F.) 10 (1966), 182.

40 Dossin, Un rituelle du culte d'Ištar provenant de Mari, RA 35 (1938), 1–13, II.22; IV.36.

41 Ellermeier, Prophetie, 79–82, concludes, on the basis of various combinations, that all kultgebundene Personen (muḫḫû, āpilū, etc.), as well as some laymen, received their revelations in temples. This seems to be pressing the evidence a bit far.

42 Note especially the Erra Epic, IV.55f., translated by A. I. Oppenheim, Akkadian “pul(u)ḫ(t)u” and “melammu,” JAOS 63 (1943), 32f., n. 5, as “the kurgarrû- (and) issinnu-priests who are dressed as women (lit.: who have changed their manliness to femininity) when acting (in cultural [sic] theatrical representations) before the worshipper of Ishtar.” See CAD s. v. assinnu for a somewhat different rendering of Erra, further references (including a lexical text in which muḫḫû and assinnū are mentioned in the same series), and summary.

43 This has been noted by A. Malamat, History and Prophetic Vision in a Mari Letter, EI 5 (1958; Heb.), 71ff., and SVT, XV (1966), 212ff., who makes interesting comparisons with “answering” terminology in the Old Testament.

44 Muḫḫûm and maḫḫûm are equated by J.-R. Kupper, ARMT, III, 116; von Soden, WdO, I (1950), 400, and Akkadisches Handwörterbuch s. v. maḫḫûm; and H. Schmökel, Gotteswort in Mari und Israel, ThLZ 76 (1951), col. 54; but distinguished by F. M. T. de Liagre Böhl, Prophetentum und stellvertretendes Leidens in Assyrien und Israel, Opera Minora (Groningen-Djakarta, 1953; Dutch original, 1950), 64f.; and Malamat, SVT, XV (1966), 210f. (following B. Landsberger). For a full survey see especially Nötscher, BZ (N. F.) 10 (1966), 173–78. There seems to be little doubt, however, that the spelling a-ap-lu-ú-um in XIII.23.6, 16 is merely an orthographic variant of a-pí-lum in the other texts.

45 See Von Soden's remarks in the works cited in the previous note, and Moran, Biblica 50 (1969), 27. The Akkadian verb maḫûm, which occurs in X.7.7 and X.8.7, seems to be denominative, as is אבנ in Hebrew. See Dossin, RA 35 (1938), 13, n. 2.

46 Cf. also mfqa-mo-tum ([š]a dD[a-gan] š[a T]er-qa kt), X.80.6f. Dossin, La divination, 83, and Ellermeier, Prophetie, 69, 83f., regard this as a technical term for a prophetess of some sort, while Huffmon, BA 31 (1968), 115 and n. 23, translates “the lady Qamatum.” Renger, J., ZA 59 (1969), 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 1044 reads qabbātum, “speaker(?),” a possibility also entertained by Moran, Biblica 50 (1969), 53.

47 The name of the sender is missing in A. 1121, but can be supplied from A. 2925.

48 Apparently identical with, or a manifestation of, Adad of Aleppo, on the basis of parallels between the two letters under discussion. Kallassu may be the temple quarter of Aleppo; see G. Dossin, Le royaume d'AIep au XVIIIe siècle avant notre ère d'aprés les “Archives de Mari,” Bulletin de l'Académie royale de Belgigue, Cl. des Lettres, 5e Sér., XXXVIII (Brussels, 1952), 234, n. 1, and cf. H. Klengel, Der Wettergott von Ḫalab, JCS 19 (1965), 89.

49 Dossin (Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, 106) takes this as a place name, but Malamat (El 5 [1958], 68, 70) interprets it as the West Semitic word found in Hebrew and Ugaritic meaning “hereditary property.” If this latter is the case, Adad seems to be demanding mastery over a piece of (sacral?) territory traditionally belonging to Aleppo, but now in the domain of Zimri-Lim. See also A. Malamat, Mari and the Bible: Some Patterns of Tribal Organization and Institutions, JAOS 82 (1962), 147ff.; Huffmon, BA 31 (1968), 106, n. 13; H. Klengel, Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z., I (Berlin, 1965), 129, n. 18; and Moran in ANET,2 625, n. 28.

50 On epirum see Wiseman, D. J., Alalakh, Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. Thomas, D. W. (Oxford, 1967), 129Google Scholar, and CAD s. v. epru, 8.

51 See the article by Dossin on Aleppo cited above, n. 48, p. 235, and Une lettre de Zimri-Lim à Iarim-Lim, roi d'Alep, Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge, 1954, 121–23. The relevant passage is translated by J. M. Munn-Rankin, Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium B.C., Iraq 18 (1956), 78. For a summary of Mari-Yamḫad relations see Malamat, EI 5 (1958), 70f.; F. M. Tocci, La Siria nellʼetà di Mari (Rome, 1960), Ch. III; and especially Klengel, Geschichte Syriens, I, 102–35.

52 Terqa was the “city of the fathers”; see A. Malamat, “Prophecy” in the Mari Documents, EI 4 (1956; Heb.), 76, who suggests that it was the burial place of the kings on the basis of III.40 (see below), in which a muḫḫûm urges that the proper sacrifices be made for the “spirit of Yaḫdun-Lim,” apparently at Terqa.

53 Böel, Opera Minora, 66, 481, n. 9, suggests that the same building operation is referred to in II.87; III.10; and III.11.

54 See Malamat, , SVT, XV (1966), 223f.Google Scholar, for an interpretation of this difficult text, including a discussion of the word ḫa-ri-PA-am, rendered “too soon (?)” above. A natural comparison is Nathan's dream-oracle to David discouraging him from building a “house” for Yahweh (2 Sam. 7:4–7).

55 The actual term muḫḫûm occurs only in III.40, but is restored by many between lines 15 and 16 of II.90, against Ellermeier, Prophetie, 84.

56 So Böhl, Opera Minora, 66, opposed by Malamat, EI 4 (1956), 78.

57 On the kispum at Mari see J. Bottéro, ARMT, VII, 199; M. Birot, ARMT, IX, 283–86; and M. Burke, ARMT, XI, 139.

58 On the reading of the name and the “Yaminite war” see M. Weippert, Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stämme (Göttingen, 1967), 110f., 120ff., and notes.

59 See above, n. 46.

60 G. Dossin, Les archives épistolaires du palais de Mari, Syria 19 (1938), 120. Presumably this was either the Babylonian victory in Hammurabi's 30th or 32nd year; the final destruction of Eshnunna did not take place until the 38th year, after the destruction of Mari. For the date formulae see Ungnad, A., RLA, II (1938), 180f.Google Scholar, and on Mari-Eshnunna relations, Munn-Rankin, Iraq 18 (1956), 691.; Kupper, CAH 2, Vol. II, Ch. I (Fasc. 14; 1963), 17; and C. J. Gadd, CAH 2, Vol. II, Ch. V (Fasc. 35; 1965), section I.

61 It is possible to reconstruct the situation from the following references: VI.33 refers to messages from Hammurabi of Babylon to Hammurabi of Kurda, Zaziya of Turukku, and Zimriya of Zurrâ; the message to Kurda is broken, but it is clear from the context that a request is being made for loyalty to Babylon against Eshnunna (and Mari?). Eshnunna also demanded that Kurda remain neutral and hold on to Subartu (VI.27.16′–19′, interpreting the “Hammurabi” of 1. 16′ as the king of Kurda); apparently Kurda refused, for she was eventually besieged (unsuccessfully) by Eshnunna (Ch.-F. Jean, Excerpta…, RÉS, 1938, 128).

62 See Hayes, J. H., The Usage of Oracles Against the Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel, JBL 87 (1968), 84f.Google Scholar

63 For this rendering of atḫû see CAD s. v.; Moran in ANET 3, 625, n. 35.

64 In both XIII.114.13f. and Isa. 28:16 we should perhaps translate “not be excited, worry”; see Driver, G. R., Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament. II, JTS 32 (1930/1931), 253f.Google Scholar; CAD s. v. ḫâšu A and B; Heintz, , SVT, XVII (1969), 122Google Scholar; Ellermeier, F., Das Verbum שוח in Koh 2:25, ZAW 75 (1963), 213–17Google Scholar. Neither Ellermeier's Qohelet 1/2, Einzelfrage Nr. 7, nor W. von Soden, Akkadisch ḥâšum I “sich sorgen” und hebräisch ḥūš II, Ugarit-Forschungen 1 (1969), which also discuss this verb, are available to me at the present time.

65 La divination, 82. See, however, Moran, Biblica 50 (1969), 36.

66 X.81.8f. also refers to enemies (perhaps the rebels of X.7; so Ellermeier, Prophetie, 149), and XIII.113 speaks of troops in the fortified cities of Mari, Terqa, and Sagarâtum (possibly in preparation for the “Yaminite war”). X.10 is a dream report in which two groups declare, antiphonally, that the kingship and its symbols are given to Zimri-Lim (an anticipation of a victory celebration?).

67 See especially O. Eissfeldt, Baʼalšamēm und Jahwe, Kleine Schriften, II (Tübingen, 1963; original, 1939), 171–98.

68 Probably Zakir did not sharply distinguish between רולא, “his lord” (the usual restoration at the end of Side A, l. 1) and Baʻal-Shamayn, his “rescuer”; if so, the latter would clearly play the rôle of the national god, leaving רולא as the king's personal deity (so Halévy, Revue sémitique 16 [1908], 359, against others who regard רולא as merely a local god, perhaps that of Afis: Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, III, 6; Donner in KAI, II, 206; M. Noth, Laʻash und Hazrak, ZDPV 52 [1929], 128, n. 2).

69 See especially Dhorme, P., Le dieu de Zakir, RA 8 (1911), 97f.Google Scholar, and E. Ebeling, רולא = i-lu-mi-ir, OLZ 16 (1913), col. 254. It is possible that the element ־לא is merely a spelling out of the Akkadian determinative il (u) (so A. Dupont-Sommer, L'ostracon araméen d'Assur, Syria 24 [1944/45], 35, comparing ירכחמ of the Assur letter = mātAkkadi; cf. also W. F. Albright, Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation, BASOR 163 [Oct. 1961], 45, n. 44, who compares the names Ib and ʼElʼeb); but since we actually have i-lu-me-ir, i-lu-we-ir (see below, n. 77), this is unlikely. For a thorough discussion see Schobies, H., Der akkadische Wettergott in Mesopotamia (Leipzig, 1925)Google Scholar, esp. 7f., and cf. Klengel, H., JCS 19 (1965), 87–93Google Scholar. “Mer” and “Wer” are apparently mere phonetic variants of each other (G. Dossin, Inscriptions de fondation provenant de Mari, Syria 21 [1940], 156 and n. 7), although at first there was a tendency to use “Mer” forms in Sargonic texts and “Wer” forms at Ur III (see Gelb, I., Glossary of Old Akkadian [Chicago, 1957], 180Google Scholars. v. MR?).

70 Respectively I. GELB, Two Assyrian King Lists, JNES 13 (1954), 210f.; ANET3, 564; and Dossin, Syria 21 (1940), 152ff. See also Thureau-Dangin, , RA 33 (1936), 178Google Scholar, for a possible reference to a “gate of Mer” in the Ur III period at Mari.

71 For names compounded with “Mer” alone see Dossin, ibid., 156, and Huffmon, H., Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Baltimore, 1965), 272Google Scholar; add [mY]a-ku-un-Me-er, XIII.143.7.

72 Dossm, G., Un “panthéon” d'Ur III à Mari, RA 61 (1967), 100Google Scholar; Edzaed, D. O., Pantheon und Kult in Mari, La civilisation de Mari (Paris, 1967), 70Google Scholar (both on T. 142); Dossin, Le panthéon de Mari, Studio Mariana, ed. A. Parrot (Leiden, 1950), 41ff. (Zimri-Lim list). Oath formulae: III.19.16; VIII.1.28; VIII.3.16; VIII.6.10′; VIII.85.3′; salutations: XIII.101.3; Dossin, Syria 21 (1940), 155; see also F. R. Kraus, Altbabylonische Briefe aus dem British Museum, I (Leiden, 1964), No. 29, 1. 4.

73 Dossin, Syria 21 (1940), 155; for a translation of this letter see W. F. Albright, IB, I, 249b.

74 Birot, ARMT, IX, 349; cf. CH.-F. Jean, Les noms propres de personnes dans les lettres de Mari, Studia Mariana, 85, and C. J. Gadd, CAH2, Vol. II, Ch. V (Fasc. 35; 1965), 36. The identification of Mer as the chief god of Mari was originally suggested by W. F. Albright, Notes on Early Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions, JPOS 6 (1926), 88, and references in n. 32. For a slightly different opinion see Recueil Édouard Dhorme (Paris, 1951), 759.

75 See Dossin, Syria 21 (1940), 155, n. 4. Itur-Mer is mentioned only in the triad “Shamash, Dagan, and Itur-Mer.” For a convenient list of the “Terqa” tablets and related materials, see A. Goetze, On the Chronology of the Second Millennium B.C., JCS 11 (1957), 63–68, and add J. Nougayrol, Documents du Habur. 1. Une nouvelle tablette du Ḫana, Syria 37 (1960), 205–09.

76 Th. Bauer, Neues Material zur “Amoriter”-Frage, MAOG, IV (1928/29), 1–6, line 7. Cf. the name “Idin-Mer” in line 2 of the same document, and “Tukulti-Mer, king of Ḫana, son of Ilu-iqiša” (T. G. Pinches, Babylonian Art, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, VIII [1885], 331ff., republished by F. Thureau-Dangin — P. Dhorme, Cinq jours de fouilles à ʻAshârah, Syria 5 [1924], 279f.). E. Weidner (Tukulti-Mer, Miscellanea A. Deimel [Rome, 1935], 336ff.) identifies him with the “Tukulti-Mer, king of M[ari]” of KAH, II, 77, and thinks he was an opponent of Ashurbelkala (1075–58 B.C.); see also Smith, S., Early History of Assyria (London, 1928), 308.Google Scholar

77 See the material gathered by Schobies and others in the works cited above, n. 69. Various forms of the name are found: i-lu-me-ir, i-lu-we-ir, me-ir-me-ir, etc. “Wer” is possibly to be read in the PN רןרפ of the Assur ostracon (KAI, No. 233), 1. I.

78 Against C. C. Torsey, JAOS 35 (1915/17), 356, at one time followed by Albright, , JPOS 6 (1926), 87.Google Scholar

79 For example, Halévy, , Revue sémitique 16 (1908), 256Google Scholar; R. Savignac, review of Pognon's Inscriptions sémitiques, in RB 17 (1908), 597; Dussaud, Rev. arch. (IVe Sér.) 11 (1908), 232 ; Növldeke, ZA 21 (1908), 381; W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Anchor edition; Garden City, 1957), 332 and n. 76; Cross and Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography, 24; Donner in KAI, II, 205f.; F. Rosenthal in ANET3, 564; Dupont-Sommer in Aramaic Handbook, I/i, 1, n. 2. Many of these compare passages such as Num. 12:3; Ps. 113:7, and assume that Zakir is saying, “(once) I was a humble man, but (then) Baʼal-Shamayn [raised (?)] me and stood with me….”

79a Cf. ילע “high” in Sifiré (KAI, No. 222), A, 1. 6; יכן “pure, innocent” in Ahiqar, line 46 (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 213); דיכע (pl.) “thick,” Cowley, ibid., No. 26, line 14; ימר “inferior (?)”, G. R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1954), Letter VI, line 3.

80 So Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, III, 6. There is an instructive syntactic parallel in the Yavneh-Yam ostracon (KAI, No. 200), 11. 1–8: “thy servant was harvesting (דרכע · היה · דצק) … and then Hoshiyahu came and took his garment away (חקיז … אכין).” See also Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, No. 13, 1. 4; No. 41, II. 3f.; Driver, Aramaic Documents, Letter III, 1. 2, and the editor's notes on same.

81 Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, III, 5f. Gressman in AOT, 443 and n. j, reads “ʻAna (?) … הכע am mittleren Euphrat, wo die Landschaft Maʼer lag”; cf. also M. Black in DOTT, 248, and J. Lewy, Studies in the Historic Geography of the Ancient Near East, Orientalia (N. S.) 21 (1952), 415.

82 Unger, E., RLA, II (1938), 104fGoogle Scholar. Unger identifies ʻAnat as the capital of the kingdom of Ḫana. But it now seems likely that that kingdom centered around Terqa (Tell ʻAshârah), where most of the documents referred to above, n. 75, were found. On this question see Thureau-Dangin and Dhorme, Syria 5 (1924), 268, n. 2; Goetze, JCS 11 (1957), 63, n. 105; and I. Gelb, The Early History of the West Semitic Peoples, JCS 15 (1961), 36f. The normal spelling of the city name in the Mari texts is dḪa-na-atkl (see ARMT, XV, s. v.; add VI.71.3, 2′; XIII.43.10, and cf. Bīt-dḪa-no-atkl in VIII.85.48), which leads to the conclusion that the city was named after a god, most likely Northwest Semitic ʻAnat (see Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, 200f.; W. F. Albright, The Evolution of the West-Semitic Divinity ʻAn-ʻAnat-ʻAttâ, AJSL 41 [1924/25], 87; and Edzard, La civilisation de Mari, 64). On the basis of the evidence summarized in this note, the suggestion of F. C. Fensham that Shamgar ben ʻAnat (Judg. 3:31; 5:6) was a Ḫanean (JNES 20 [1961], 197f.) must be rejected; see A. van Selms, Judge Shamgar, VT 14 (1964), 298f.

83 There can be no objection to the equation of ע and ḫ; perhaps the most familiar example is ḫa-BI-ru = Ug. ʻpr, if not also Heb. ירכע. For other examples see Lewy, Orientalia (N.S.) 21 (1952), 403f. (his discussion of Eluḫat/Luḫuti, etc. and Zakir's שעל).

84 See CAD s. v. amīlu, 4, d.

85 Mesha, 11. if.: יככי (2) רה · כאמ … עשמ · דכא “I am Mesha … king of Moab, the Daibonite.”

86 Kupper, J.-R., Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rots de Mari (Paris, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Ch. I. Other important studies by the same author are Le rôle des nomades dans l'histoire de la Mésopotamie ancienne, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 2 (1959), 113–27, and CAH2, Vol. II, Ch. I (Fasc. 14; 1963), 26–30. See also H. Klengel, Benjamiten und Ḫanäer, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Gesch.-Sprachwiss. Reihe, VIII (1958/59), 211–27; Halbnomaden am mittleren Euphrat, Das Altertum 5 (1959), 195–205; Zur einigen Problemen des altvorderasiatischen Nomadentums, ArOr 30 (1962), 585–96; Sesshafte und Nomaden in der alten Geschichte Mesopotamiens, Saeculum 17 (1966), 205–22; I. Gelb, JCS 15 (1961), 27–47; Luke, J. Tracy, Pastoralism and Politics in the Mari Period (Ann Arbor, 1965)Google Scholar; M. Weippert, Die Landnahme, 102–23.

87 J. J. Finkeistein, The Genealogy of the Hammurabi Dynasty, JCS 20 (1966), 95–118; Ḫanu also appears in the Khorsabad/SDAS king list (see above, n. 70), which is generally taken to be a production of Shamshi-Adad I's court historians. On these see Kupper, Les nomades, 41f.; F. R. Kraus, Könige, die in Zelten wohnten (Amsterdam, 1965), 5; and W. G. Lambert, Another Look at Hammurabi's Ancestors, JCS 22 (1968), 1ff.

88 F. Thureau-Dangin, Iaḫdunlim, roi de Ḫana, RA 33 (1936), 49–54 (“Disc Inscription”), I.16; G. Dossin, L'inscription de fondation de IaḪdun-Lim, roi de Maria, Syria 32 (1955), 1–28; ANET3, 556f. (“Foundation Inscription,” in several copies), III.29. In the former “fathers” are also called “seven kings” (VII šarrīmeš); in the latter, there is reference to a certain “city” (ālum) of Ḫaman which had been built by the Ḫaneans. Kupper (Les nomades, 32ff.) and others interpret these passages as references to YaḪdun-Lim's pacification of “West Semitic” tribes, but H. Lewy uses them as evidence that the “Lim” dynasty had its home in the land of Ḫana (the territory around Terqa) and, under Yaḫdun-Lim, expanded its boundaries to include Mari (The Historical Background of the Correspondence of Baḫdi-Lim, Orientalia [N. S.] 25 [1956], 351f.; Šubat-Šamaš and Tuttul, Orientalia [N. S.] 27 [1958], 7f., n. 3; and The Chronology of the Mari Tablets, La civilisation de Mari, 19f. and n. 3). On the “West Semitic” character of Ḫanean names see M. Birot, Trois textes économiques de Mari [III], RA 49 (1955). 19.

89 Yaḫdun-Lim: Disc Inscription, I.1–5; Foundation Inscription, I.17–19; Zimri-Lim: two seals published by Dossin in Le Palais de Mari, III (Paris, 1959), 253; seals on various letters in ARMT, IX (see pp. 250, 354); E. Herzfeld, Ḫana et Mari, RA 11 (1914), 134–39, a text to be restored as follows: mZimri-Lim mār Yaḫ[dun-Lim]šar Marikl u māt [Ḫana …].

90 H. Lewy, The Synchronism Assyria-Ešnunna-Babylon, WdO, II.5/6 (1959), 448; cf. Kupper, Les nomades, 38f. We are not concerned here with the post-Mari “kingdom of Ḫana” mentioned above.

91 VI.76.20–25. This passage has been the subject of a good deal of discussion; see especially Kupper, Les nomades, 31, 244; Gelb, , JCS 15 (1961), 37Google Scholar; Klengel, ArOr 30 (1962), 595; H. Lewy, Orientalia (N. S.) 25 (1956), 351; and M. Noth, Remarks on the Sixth Volume of Mari Texts, JSS 1 (1956), 331f. It is interesting to note that Ḫaneans sometimes appear as charioteers (M. Birot, Trois textes economiques de Mari [I], RA 47 [1953], 126, and RA 49 [1955], 17, VII.37).

92 For a general study of Ḫanean social patterns see Kupper, Les nomades, 12–21; Malamat, JAOS 82 (1962), 143–46; Aspects of Tribal Societies in Mari and Israel, La civilisation de Mari, esp. 133–36; and Luke, Pastoralism and Politics, 139–68. See also for (1) tribes: Edzard, D., Die “Zweite Zwischenzeit” Babyloniens (Wiesbaden, 1957), 37Google Scholar, n. 159; (2) “clans” (gâyū): Klengei, ArOr 30 (1962), 595 and n. 65; (3) “sheikhs” (suqāqū): Bottéro, ARMT, VII, 242; (4) “elders” (šībūtū): H. Klengel, Zu den šībūtum in altbabylonischen Zeit, Orientalia (N. S.) 29 (1960), 357–75; (5) “fathers” (abū): the Yaḫdun-Lim inscriptions cited above, n. 88; (6) “steppe” (nawûm): Edzard, D., Altbabylonisch nawûm, ZA 53 (1959), 168–73Google Scholar, against most scholars, who compare the word with Heb. HU, “field, steppe”; (7) “city” (ālum): J. C. L. Gibson, Light from Mari on the Patriarchs, JSS 7 (1962), 56f.

93 For further references see Kupper, Les nomades, 21ff., and Sasson, J., The Military Establishments at Mari (Rome, 1969), passim.Google Scholar

94 Edzard, “Zweite Zwischenzeit”, 37f.

95 See the passages listed in CAD s. v. Ḫanû adj., b, and, for general comments, Kupper, Les nomades, 44f.; I. Mendelsohn, New Light on the Ḫupšu, BASOR 139 (Oct. 1955), 9ff. An UGULA Ḫa-na “overseer of the Ḫaneans,” appears in A.T. *56:47 (Level VII; eighteenth century); see Luke, Pastoralism and Politics, 148f.

96 So CAD, loc. cit., c; von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch s. v. ḫanû (m), 4; Kupper, Les nomades, 45, n. 2.

97 This point was made early in the study of the inscription; see, for example, Nöldeke, ZA 21 (1908), 378, and Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, III, 5. A standard Akkadian expression for “usurper” is “son of a nobody” (mār lā mammāna); see ANET, 280 (Hazael) and, for further references, von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch s. v. mammāna, 4, b. On the importance of the dynasty in north Syrian inscriptions see Euler, , ZAW 56 (1938), 278f.Google Scholar

98 For the historical background of the Zakir stele see especially Noth, M., ZDPV 52 (1929), 124–41Google Scholar, and Tadmor, H., Azriyahu of Yaudi, Studies in the Bible, ed. Rabin, C. (Jerusalem, 1961), 239–48Google Scholar, with an excellent map. The most difficult problem is the identification of שעל. It is now generally agreed that this must be Amarna and Boghazköy Nuḫašše (thus the usual vocalization “Luʻash”), Ugaritic nǵṯ, and possibly Assyrian Eluḫat/Luḫuti: see Dussaud, Rev. arch. (IVe Sér.) 11 (1908), 225f., and J. Lewy, Orientalia (N. S.) 21 (1952), 403ff. On Nubasse see also Klengel, Geschichte Syriens, II (Berlin, 1969), 18ff. Both חמח and שעל appear on ivories found in the great “trophy room” at Nimrud; see A. R. Millard, Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud, Iraq 24 (1962), 42f.; R. D. Barnett, Hamath and Nimrud, Iraq 25 (1963), 81f.; and M. E. L. Mallowan, Nimrud and its Remains, II (New York, 1966), 582, 595, 596 (no. 578).

99 So Montgomery, The Biblical World (N. S.) 33 (1909), 83.

100 ANET, 278ff. For the spelling “Urḫilini” see Barnett, Iraq 25 (1963), 82.

101 Zakir's predecessor at Hamath may have been a certain Rudumu, probably identical with I(r)tamès, the son of “Urḫilini”; see Fugmann, E., L'architecture des périodes préhéllenistiques (Hama, II, 1; Copenhagen, 1958)Google Scholar, 171f., 190, citing Hrozny's readings of certain Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions.

102 The expression is from Ginsberg, H. L., Aramaic Dialect Problems [I], AJSL 50 (1933/1934), 5Google Scholar. See also M. Black, DOTT, 248ff.

103 Pace Kraeling, Aram and Israel, 98, 102; M. Unger, Israel and the Arameans of Damascus (London, 1957), 86f.; and Dupont-Sommer, Les Araméens, 47, all of whom are inclined to discount a close connection between Zakir and Assyria proper. Apparently Ḥazrak did not remain loyal to Assyria, for three līmu years are named after campaigns “to Ḫatarikka” (772, 765, and 755; see A. Ungnad, RLA, II [1938], 430). K. Elliger, Samʼal und Hamath in ihrem Verhältnis zu Hattina und Arpad, Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt, ed. J. Fück (Halle a. d. Saale, 1947). 90, suggests that at least the first of these campaigns was intended to free Zakir from his besiegers, but this is quite unlikely; see A. Malamat, Hadrach, Encyclopedia Miqraith, III (1958; Heb.), 34.