|
|
(JPEG's scanned from Dearman; see bibliography)
|
I am Mesha, son of Kemosh[-yatti], the king of Moab, the Dibonite. My father was king over Moab for thirty years, and I became king after my father. And I made this high-place for Kemosh in Qarcho bm[...]s' because he has delivered me from all kings, and because he has made me look down on all my enemies. Omri was the king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab for many days, for Kemosh was angry with his land. And his son reigned in his place; and he also said, "I will oppress Moab!" In my days he said so. But I looked down on him and on his house, and Israel has been defeated; it has been defeated forever! And Omri took possession of the whole land of Mehdeba, and he lived there in his days and half the days of his bnh (son): forty years. But Kemosh restored it in my days. And I built Baal Meon, and I built a water reservoir in it. And I built Qiriath-en. And the men of Gad lived in the land of Atarot from ancient times; and the king of Israel built Atarot for himself, and I fought against the city and captured it. And I killed all the people of the city as a ryt (satiation-offering?) for Kemosh and for Moab. And I brought back 'r'l dwdh from there; and I brought it before the face of Kemosh in the Qiriath, and I made the men of Sharon live there, as well as the men of Maharit. And Kemosh said to me, "Go, take Nebo from Israel." And I went in the night and fought against it from the daybreak until midday, and I took it and I killed the whole population: seven thousand male subjects and aliens, and female subjects, aliens, and servant girls. For I had put it to hrm (the ban) for Ashtar Kemosh. And from there I took 'r'ly (or 't kly, "vessels") of YHWH and I presented them before the face of Kemosh. And the king of Israel had built Yahaz, and he stayed there throughout his campaign against me; and Kemosh drove him away before my face. And I took two hundred men of Moab, all its division, and I led it up to Yahaz. And I have taken it in order to add it to Dibon. I have built Qarcho, the wall of the woods and the wall of the citadel; and I have built its gates; and I have built its towers; and I have built the house of the king; and I have made the double reservoir for the spring in the innermost part of the city. Now the innermost part of the city had no cistern, in Qarcho, and I said to all the people, "Each one of you shall make a cistern in his house." And I cut the moat for Qarcho by using Israelite prisoners. I have built Aroer, and I constructed the military road in Arnon. I have built Beth-Bamot, for it had been destroyed. I have built Bezer, for it lay in ruins. And the men of Dibon stood in battle formation, for all Dibon were in subjection. And I am the king over the hundreds in the towns which I have added to the land. And I have built [the house of Mehde]ba and the house of Diblat-en and the house of Baal-Meon, and I brought there [...]s'n ("flocks") of the land. And in Horon-en, there lived bt[d]wd[h?] (the House of David/Daudoh?) |
What follows is not a record of the Moabites, nor is it a list of the findings of archaeology in the region. It is merely an explication of one particular find, that of the Moabite Stone, also known as the Stele of Mesha. The aim is to cross-reference the ideas and terminology of the Stone to that of the Bible, and to show how each complement each other. There are many excellent sites and books on Moab, some of which I used in the course of this ongoing project. I have included a links section and a bibliography. Try them out !
I regret that I am unable to use Hebrew letters, nor to add that dot under the hard "h" in herem. Partly this is due to my lack of skill, partly because I don't want to add a feature which all browsers might not support. I know firsthand how IRRITATING it is when I'm viewing a page with all that geeky "< this>" and #*$@($ that, which my browsers won't translate. It's like the designers are saying, "I know computers better than you do, ya newbie". Anyway, just remember that the "h" in herem is to be pronounced like Hanukah or that "ch" in "loch".
I have some personal warnings for both the professional skeptic and the die-hard fundamentalist. Both will find here a striking confirmation of the facts, or if you like "claims", cited in the Jewish Tanakh / Christian Old Testament. However, anyone who takes that as a call to don their armour of Biblical Confirmation is enjoined not to boast as one who removes it. The facts in question pertain to the evils of the national dieties of the Iron Age. I will not shy away from comparisons of the atrocities here committed in the name of KMS to those committed in the name of YHWH.
On a similar note: when I say "Israel" here, I am referring to the Israel of the Iron Age. I am not referring to the modern state of Israel, nor to the Bible's mixed view of Israel.
As Joel Drinkard showed in his paper, The Literary Genre of the Mesha Inscription (Dearman), "the MI is the one inscription from Palestine of the period of the Israelite monarchy that can qualify with certainty as a royal inscription" (p. 152). Drinkard pointed out that, like other royal inscriptions from the time, it is written in the first person (e.g. the Azitawatas text - tranl. Matt. & Ben. p. 115). Also, the elements of the inscription are highly formulaic:
The Moabite Stone is therefore a royal dedicatory inscription - not a history. It follows that it is not the work of a historian; the events which it records are heavily slanted, "not exhaustive", and are unlikely even to follow chronological order. Drinkard insists that had historical accuracy been necessary, "a different genre would have been used".
Despite such caveats, "the Moabite Stone ... carries the longest and most important Iron Age inscription found on either side of the Jordan River" (Mazar p. 542). It is "most important" for a variety of reasons, not least because of the light it sheds upon Israelite history and culture.
Even disregarding its genre, the Moabite Stone is typical of the writings of the time in its imprecision with dates and its non-chronological groupings of events. Baruch Halpern noted the same phenomenon in the Deuteronomistic History (that is, the JE source, Deuteronomy, Judges, Joshua, and Kings): "The revolt of Hadad, in Edom, inspired by David's demise, is related at the end of Solomon's reign: news of David's death did not take 30 years to reach Egypt. Likewise, Rezin's revolt is tied to Solomon's senile apostasy, when in fact his career began at latest in the middle of David's reign, and must have concluded during the first half of Solomon's" (Fritz & Davies, p. 48). Once it is recognized that the achievements of Mesha will not follow a chronological order, it becomes possible to reconstruct events: I have proceeded by dicing up the boasts of Mesha, and comparing them to parallels in the Bible.
The Bible and the Moabite Stone agree that pre-Mesha Moab was a tributary of Israel. Unfortunately for the chronologist, they do not agree on dates. The Deuteronomist claims earlier that Saul, David, and Solomon had conquered Moab long before Omri was born, notably in 2 Sam 8, which appears to be quite archaic (c.f. Halpern). The Stone takes the start of the period of subjection to be "during [Omri's] days". If King David ever did conquer Moab, the strains of the Divided Monarchy must have loosed the bonds.
The length of the Omride reign of terror is even more problematic. The Moabite Stone claims it to be "forty years". The Biblical record, if taken as an absolute chronology based on the dates of known historical events, implies that Omri ruled from 885-874 BC. "After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel" (2 Kings 1:1, also 2 Chronicles 20:1), that is, during Ahaziah's reign, 853 BC. One cannot fit a forty year span into 885-853.
Having said that, I will have to address the contrary opinion of biblical conservatives. I will deal here with the methods of the Associates for Biblical Research, because they are perhaps the most reasoned of the bunch. I have included a link to their website at the appendix, so that the reader may check my claims against theirs.
The ABR chose to translate bnh, "son" in the singular. They further interpreted "son" to mean "successor", on the example of the Black Obelisk of Shalmanezer (it labelled Jehu the "son of Omri", which would have offended Omri's descendants no end - had Jehu left any alive). According to the Bible, the Israelite response was at first minimal; Ahaziah died after a year without any recorded action against Moab. In marked contrast, his brother Jehoram mustered "all Israel" (2 Kings 3:6) against Moab, and arranged a triple alliance not only with Judah, but with Edom as well. "Half the days of [Omri's] son", Jehoram, implies a date of 846 BCE for Jehoram's campaign. 846 BCE is exactly 40 years after Omri seized the throne.
But this assessment will not do. Jehoram finished his preparations and launched the invasion while in alliance with Jehoshaphat king of Judah. This could only have come about before Jehoshaphat died, before "the fifth year of Jehoram" according to the Masoretic text of 2 Kings 8:16. That date was 848 ... two years before 846.
So, if one assumes:
as the ABR do, then, yes, it was a 40-year span. However, given all the special pleading involved, I would advise taking the forty year oppression in the same light as the forty day voyage of Noah's Ark.