Aharoni claims Arad sherd bears a portion of a letter from King Jehoahaz to the military commander at Arad; Yadin disputes Aharoni’s interpretation.
052
Shortly before his untimely death in 1976 at the age of 56, Yohanan Aharoni, the director of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archeology, published in Hebrew the text of his long-awaited Arad Inscriptions.a
These inscriptions were painstakingly acquired from his Arad excavations by carefully washing and examining every sherd which might contain an inscription. In this way almost 90 ostracab dating from the tenth to the sixth centuries B.C. were recovered.
Even before it was published, Inscription No. 88 had raised a stir in archaeological circles. It had been found in the spring of 1974 after the volume of inscriptions had already gone to press. It was not found in the usual way by washing and examining sherds uncovered in the excavation. Instead, it was discovered by an archaeology student from a nearby field school who was collecting surface sherds in the Arad citadel. The student took his sherds back to the field school, washed them and found on one of them three lines of Hebrew text. Known as the “Royal Rescript,” the sherd was said to be a copy of a letter from a king of Israel!
From the find spot and the shape of the letters of the inscription, Aharoni had no difficulty in dating the ostracon to Stratum VII of the Arad excavations, which he associates with events that took place about 600 B.C. Although the inscription is fragmentary, the surviving part of the text is clear and the letters easily identifiable (the single letters in the translation below indicate Hebrew letters):
I reigned in k … Be strengthened v … King of Egypt l …
The first line appears to be an announcement of a new king: I ascend to the throne. This, says Aharoni, was probably a copy of an original document announcing the king’s assumption. At this time, Arad was an Israelite citadel, guarding the southern end of the kingdom. The second line of the inscription, says Aharoni, urges the commander of the citadel to prepare for a possible military encounter. The reference to the King of Egypt in the third line is apparently linked to the ascension of the new king and the need for military preparedness.
Aharoni believes this was originally a letter or a copy of a letter from a new Israelite king to the commander of the Arad citadel concerning the King of Egypt.c Aharoni contends that the letter is from an Israelite king because he reconstructs the first line of the inscription as follows:
“I reigned in a[ll the land] or a[ll the land of Israel]”
Based on the political situation at the end of the seventh century B.C., Aharoni identifies the Hebrew king who wrote this letter as Jehoahaz, who ruled over Judah for three months in 609 B.C.
The background of the political situation was this: more than 100 years had passed since the northern kingdom of Israel had fallen to the Assyrians in 721 B.C.; however, by the second half of the seventh century, Babylonia was emerging as the ancient world’s new superpower, and Assyrian rule in Palestine had disintegrated. This political vacuum in Palestine allowed King Josiah of Judah to assert authority not only in Judah, but, according to the Bible, in parts of 054the former northern kingdom of Israel as well (see 2 Kings 23:15, 19).
Egypt, too, eyed the political vacuum in Palestine left by the disintegration of Assyrian power. Memories of former glory still burned in Egyptian breasts, and she hoped to impress her own hegemony over Israel once again. In these circumstances, Egypt decided to cast her lot with a weakened Assyria (despite the fact that a few generations earlier Egypt had been the last great target of Assyrian conquest). Egypt now became Assyria’s ally, apparently in the belief that it was in her best interest to preserve a weakened and reduced Assyria rather than allow Assyria to succumb to the new superpower, Babylonia. In this way Egyptian sovereignty would remain unthreatened and Egypt could once again assert authority in Israel.
Josiah’s interests were directly opposed to those of Egypt. Josiah, whose reign as king of Judah began in 639 B.C., is best known for his religious reforms and the finding of a Book of the Law which scholars associate with the book of Deuteronomy (2 Kings 22:8). He also eliminated elements of Assyrian state religion from the Jerusalem Temple (2 Kings 23:4).
In 609 B.C., however, Josiah was killed by an Egyptian arrow. The Egyptian Pharaoh Necho had “set out for the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria” (2 Kings 23:29). To reach his destination he had to pass through Judah and the former kingdom of Israel. According to 2 Chronicles 35:21–24, Necho sent envoys to Josiah with a message from the Pharaoh:
What do you want with me king of Judah? I have no quarrel with you today, only with those with whom I am at war. God’s purpose is to speed me on my way, and God is on my side; do not stand in my way or he will destroy you.
Josiah would not let Necho pass though the land, however. Instead, he engaged Necho’s troops at the vale of Megiddo where he was severely wounded and never recovered.
Josiah’s sudden death no doubt caused uncertainty and fear in his kingdom. Would Josiah’s son Jehoahaz be able to maintain his father’s authority? Would he be a strong, reliable monarch?
It is in this context that Aharoni interprets the Arad ostracon. Aharoni claims that in this letter Jehoahaz is asserting his authority in the wake of his father’s unexpected death.
Jehoahaz’s letter is addressed to the commander of the Arad citadel—a man whom we know from other Arad inscriptions and from his seal which was found in the excavations. His name was Eliashiv son of Ashyahu.d Jehoahaz is writing to Eliashiv in this letter asserting his new authority as king, and demanding that Eliashiv make vigorous preparations to re-engage Necho when Necho returns from his campaign assisting Assyria.
The vigorous defensive preparations ordered by King Jehoahaz did not help, according to Aharoni. Arad Level VII ended in a terrible destruction which Aharoni associates with the Egyptians returning from 055their northern campaign. Necho then deposed Jehoahaz and carried him off to Egypt. In his place, Necho installed Jehoahaz’s brother, Eliakim, to rule over Judah (see 2 Kings 23:32–34 and 2 Chronicles 36:3–4).
The Arad ostracon thus not only fits neatly into the history of the period as recounted in the Bible, but also confirms Aharoni’s interpretation of the historical events surrounding the destruction of Arad Stratum VII. In addition, the Arad ostracon provides important extra-Biblical evidence for Josiah’s and Jehoahaz’s dominion as far south as Arad, perhaps also substantiating the exercise of their authority in the former northern kingdom of Israel as well. But all of this depends on the accuracy of Aharoni’s reconstruction of the first line of the ostracon (“I reigned in a[ll the land of Israel]”).
Aharoni has no doubt that his reconstruction is correct. It is “difficult”, he says, “to imagine … (any other reconstruction)”.
In support of his reconstruction, Aharoni calls our attention to 2 Chronicles 34:7 which describes King Josiah’s religious reforms and tells how he destroyed outlying altars and idols “in all the land of Israel.” In Hebrew, the Biblical phrase is identical to Aharoni’s reconstruction of the Arad inscription: b-kol eretz yisrael.
Yigael Yadin, however, thinks otherwise. Yadin, formerly director of Hebrew University’s Institute of Archaeology, is now Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister. According to Yadin, Aharoni makes improper use of the Hebrew letter kaf at the end of the first line by completing the phrase as kol ha-aretz. (“all the land”) or kol eretz yisrael (“all the land of Israel”).
Yadin believes that the completion of the first line of the letter as “the land of Israel” is linguistically impossible. The word for “in” in the Arad inscription is indicated by the Hebrew letter beth or b. The last two Hebrew letters of the first line in the inscription read “b-k … ”, that is “in (something that begins with k).”
According to Yadin, in Biblical Hebrew one would never use a beth or b for the word “in”, in the sense Aharoni wishes to interpret the phrase. “Aharoni’s interpretation of the phrase”, says Yadin, “is that the king in question announces he is ruler ‘over all the land of Israel’.” Such an expression is always indicated in the Bible with the Hebrew preposition al, not b, Yadin told BAR.
In the Biblical phrase from 2 Chronicles 34:7 on which Aharoni relies (describing how Josiah destroyed altars and idols “in all the land of Israel”), the beth or b meaning “in” is not used in the sense of “over”, as Aharoni uses the beth in reconstructing the Arad ostracon. In the passage from Chronicles, the beth means literally “in”.
According to Yadin, whenever the Bible speaks of a monarch ruling “in” (with a beth or b), it is followed by the capital city—where the monarch rules from. That is, he literally does his ruling “in” the capital city where he resides.
When the Bible wishes to indicate the territory over which the monarch rules, the Bible uses al, states Yadin. That is, al indicates that the monarch rules over the territory even though he resides in a particular city.
Thus Judges 4:1 speaks of “Jabin, the Canaanite king who ruled in (beth or b) Hazor”.
Several Biblical examples combine both usages:
David “ruled in (beth or b) Hebron over (al) Judah for seven and one-half years, and in (beth or b) Jerusalem he reigned over (al) Israel and Judah 33 years (2 Samuel 5:5; also 1 Kings 2:11).
Solomon ruled in (beth or b) Jerusalem over (al) all Israel (2 Chronicles 9:30).
In English it might be correct usage to say that “Queen Elizabeth reigns in Great Britain”, meaning that she rules “over” Great Britain. But in Biblical Hebrew, it would not be correct to use a beth or b in the sense of “over”.e In short, beth or b indicates the 056city where the king resides or rules from and al indicates the territory over which he rules. Since the Arad inscription begins with a beth or b, we must, according to Yadin, look for a city in which the king resided, not the designation of the territory over which he ruled.
Yadin can find only one acceptable city that begins with kaf or k, during the applicable time period: Carchemish. And if the king ruled in Carchemish, he would not be an Israelite king.
Yadin makes an attempt to place the Arad ostracon in an historical context, but admits that it is not easy and he claims no certainty. What he offers is “no more than a suggestion”.
After the Assyrian capital of Nineveh fell to the Babylonians in 612 B.C., the Assyrians established a new capital further to the west—in Haran. In 610 B.C., however, the Babylonians succeeded in driving the Assyrians out of Haran too. The Assyrian king then fled to the west bank of the Euphrates. We know these facts from Babylonian chronicles recorded on cuneiform tablets now in the British Museum. Yadin speculates that the last Assyrian king (Assur-Uballit), after being driven from Haran and crossing the Euphrates, established his new capital at Carchemish.
This, suggests Yadin, is the setting for the encounter between Necho and Josiah described in the Bible: Necho must have received an urgent request from Assur-Uballit to come to Carchemish for a joint counter-attack against Haran—now held by the Babylonians. Necho, apparently surprised to meet the forces of Josiah blocking his advance, made an attempt to explain that his intention was merely to cross through Josiah’s territory. Necho’s principle objective—to assist Assyria—was precisely what Josiah wished to prevent, or at least to delay.
According to this interpretation, the surviving part of the Arad ostracon is a letter from the last Assyrian King, Assur-Uballit, to Josiah. After being driven from Haran and establishing his new capital in Carchemish, Assur-Uballit informs Josiah of this fact. “I reigned in C(archemish).” However, the purpose of the message is not only to inform Josiah that he, Assur-Uballit, is still ruler, although expelled from Haran, but also to request Josiah’s permission for Necho to cross through his territory without interference so that he can come to Assur-Uballit’s assistance. Speed was obviously vital, as is indicated in the Biblical text. (Necho tells Josiah that God’s purpose is to “speed” him on his way (2 Chronicles 35:21)). The general content of the Arad letter was approximately this, according to Yadin:
I (Assur-Uballit) am now ruling in Carchemish. Do not be afraid (or: be strong) and let the king of Egypt cross your country and come to my help.
We do not know what Josiah’s answer was, but it is quite clear from the Biblical narrative that Necho was surprised at Josiah’s interference; it seems that Necho was led to believe that the Assyrian king had received Josiah’s permission for the passage.
In any event, Josiah refused to allow Necho to pass, and in the ensuing skirmish at Megiddof Josiah met his death.
What was this letter of an Assyrian king doing in Arad? Yadin thinks it may be a quote in a longer letter to the Arad commander from King Josiah, the Arad ostracon may itself have been a copy of the longer letter. Perhaps Josiah was relaying the Assyrian king’s message to the commander of the Arad fortress. Or perhaps the rest of the letter contained Josiah’s reaction to the Assyrian king’s letter.
BAR asked Anson F. Rainey, one of Aharoni’s disciples and a linguistic scholar in his own right, to comment: Could the beth or b have been used in the sense of “over”? “We’re always finding linguistic usages not documented in the Bible,” Rainey said. “This is simply another example.” According to Rainey, the beth is followed in this usage by the territory over which the king ruled rather than the city he ruled from. Accordingly, Aharoni’s reconstruction “in a(ll the land of Israel)” could well be correct.
Which scholar is right—Aharoni or Yadin? Perhaps some of our more scholarly readers will be able to make a contribution to the debate.
(For further details, see Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, Jerusalem, 1975, (in Hebrew); and Y. Yadin, “The Historical Significance of Inscription 88 from Arad: A Suggestion,” Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 26, p. 9 [1976].)
Shortly before his untimely death in 1976 at the age of 56, Yohanan Aharoni, the director of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archeology, published in Hebrew the text of his long-awaited Arad Inscriptions.a These inscriptions were painstakingly acquired from his Arad excavations by carefully washing and examining every sherd which might contain an inscription. In this way almost 90 ostracab dating from the tenth to the sixth centuries B.C. were recovered. Even before it was published, Inscription No. 88 had raised a stir in archaeological circles. It had been found in the spring of 1974 after the volume […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Jerusalem, 1975 (The Bialik Institute and Israel Exploration Society).
2.
An ostracon (pl. ostraca) is an inscribed potsherd. The ancients used broken pots as handy notepaper.
3.
The original message may have been delivered orally by a messenger and transcribed on the spot, or the message may have originally been written on the ostracon.
4.
Note the Yahwistic elements in this name (ya and yahu). Eliashiv, on the other hand, contains the divine element el, another name for God.
5.
Genesis 36:31 speaks of the kings who ruled “in the land of Edom,” using a beth for “in”, but here, says Yadin, the author is simply giving a list of kings who ruled there; he is not indicating that the kings ruled “over” their land (which of course goes without saying), but simply that the particular list of kings ruled in that place, namely Edom. Similarly in 1 Kings 14:21, which tells us that “Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, reigned in Judah”, the word “in” is a beth; but here again the author’s purpose is not to tell us that Rehoboam ruled over Judah, but that Rehoboam was the king who ruled in Judah in contrast to the king who ruled in Israel.
In both these instances the translation “in” is accurate and makes sense in English. Aharoni’s reconstruction of the Arad inscription, however, does not correctly convey even in English the meaning suggested by Aharoni. The meaning Aharoni wishes to convey by his reconstruction is “I ruled over all the land of Israel,” not “I ruled in all the land of Israel.” “In,” says Yadin, “is meaningless in the context presented by Aharoni.” This becomes even more clear, says Yadin, when Aharoni’s reconstruction is considered in the historical context in which Aharoni seeks to place the inscription—as an expression of the Judean king’s extension of his rule as far south as Arad.
6.
Yadin suggests that the battle may have been at a fortress in the vicinity of Ashdod rather than at Megiddo and that the Biblical reference to Megiddo is a corruption of “migdal” (fortress).
