Oded Lipschits

The history of Jerusalem between 586 and 167 BCE is an 'interlude' between two periods of greatness and political independence: the end of the fi rst temple period on the one hand and the period of the Hasmoneans on the other. Between these two periods Jerusalem was a very small city and Judah was a small province under the rule of great empires. According to both biblical and archaeological evidence, Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BCE and left deserted by the Babylonians for a period of nearly 50 years (Lipschits 2005: 210-18, with further literature). Biblical accounts assert that the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt at the beginning of the Persian Period. During this period, the city once again became the centre of the Judahite cult. According to an account in Nehemiah, the fortifi cations of Jerusalem were rebuilt in the middle of the fi fth century BCE. As a result, Jerusalem became a Bîrāh, replacing Mizpah, which had served as the capital of the newly established province

The yršlm stamp impressions are the final link in a long chain of a Judahite-Yehudite-Judean administrative tradition of stamping handles or bodies of storage jars. With its cessation, the system that functioned for 600 years under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule from the 8th century BCe through to the establishment of the Hasmonean kingdom, fell into obsolescence. This paper presents an updated corpus of the yršlm stamped jar handles. The authors discuss the following issues: distribution and chronology of the finds; their connection to the late yhwd stamp impressions; the reason why the administrative system in Judea began using iconographic symbols hundreds of years after employing only script on the stamped jar system; the meaning of the pentagram symbol utilized in these seals; and the function of the stamping system in the Hasmonean kingdom in the 2nd century BCe. The process of stamping jar handles was carried out in Judah-Yehud-Judea for over 600 years, from the end of the 8th century BCE through to the establishment of the Hasmonean kingdom. Although examples of jars stamped with seals are well known from different periods and regions, no comparable parallels exist in the ancient world. Examples that we do have are sporadic; were produced by individual seals, or by a few seals of a single type used in one area for a very short period; occur in small numbers; and exhibit no continuity from one case to the next. The Judahite tradition of stamping or incising jar handles began with the early lmlk stamp impressions at the end of the 8th century BCE. It was followed by the late lmlk stamp impressions in the early 7th century; the incised concentric circles in the mid-7th century; and the rosette stamp impressions at the end of the 7th and the early 6th centuries

An incomparable interdisciplinary study of the history of Judah

Experts from a variety of disciplines examine the history of Judah during the seventh century BCE, the last century of the kingdom’s existence. This important era is well defined historically and archaeologically beginning with the destruction layers left behind by Sennacherib’s Assyrian campaign (701 BCE) and ending with levels of destruction resulting from Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian campaign (588–586 BCE). Eleven essays develop the current ongoing discussion about Judah during this period and extend the debate to include further important insights in the fields of archaeology, history, cult, and the interpretation of Old Testament texts.

Features

A new chronological frame for the Iron Age IIB–IIC
Close examinations of archaeology, texts, and traditions related to the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah
An evaluation of the religious, cultic, and political landscape

קנקנים בגדלים שונים ובמגוון צורות היו בשימוש נרחב בכל רחבי העולם הקדום. לסוג זה של כלי חרס היה תפקיד חשוב בהובלת התוצרת החקלאית הנוזלית (כמו יין ושמן) ובאחסונה. לתוצרת זו היה מקום מרכזי בחקלאות, בכלכלה, בסחר ובתזונה של בני אדם במזרח הקדום. קנקני האגירה הסגלגלים, האופייניים ליהודה לאורך זמן, הם חלק ממשפחה גדולה וענפה זו של קנקנים. משלהי המאה הח' לפנה"ס הוטבעו טביעות חותם על רבות מידיות הקנקנים האלה: טביעות 'למלך' בשלהי המאה הח' ובראשית המאה הז' לפנה"ס, חרותות קונצנטריות וטביעות ורדה בהמשכה של המאה הז' לפנה"ס, טביעות אריה במאה הו' לפנה"ס, לאחר חורבן ירושלים, וטביעות 'יהוד' בתקופה הפרסית ובתקופת בית תלמי ובית סלווקוס (משלהי המאה הו' ועד שלהי המאה הב' לפנה"ס). בצד מערכת זו פעלו ביהודה מערכות 'אד-הוק' של טביעות חותם: הטביעות ה'פרטיות' ערב מסע סנחריב, טביעות 'מוצה' לאחר חורבן ירושלים וטביעות 'ירושלים' לאחר ראשית ביסוסה של המדינה החשמונאית.
מאפייניה של מערכת מנהל שבמרכזה קנקנים מוטבעים מוכרים במקומות רבים במזרח הקדום, ובפרקי זמן ארוכים. החידוש הוא בהיקף הגדול, בגיוון, בהמשכיות וברציפות של כ-600 שנה במנהל הקנקנים ביהודה. פרק זמן זה חופף את תקופת היותה של יהודה ממלכה וסאלית ופחווה בשלטון האימפריות הגדולות ששלטו במזרח הקדום. עובדה זו חשובה להבנת ההיסטוריה של ממלכת יהודה בעידן האימפריות האשורית, המצרית והבבלית, ולאחר מכן לתולדותיה של פחוות יהודה בשלטון בבל, פרס, בית תלמי ובית סלווקוס.
בספר זה נפרס מכלול הנתונים על מנהל הקנקנים ביהודה, מוצע הסבר לקיומו לאורך 600 שנות השיעבוד של יהודה לאימפריות הגדולות ומוצג שחזור מפורט של מערכת המנהל ביהודה בשלהי ימי הבית הראשון ובמרבית ימי הבית השני. על רקע דיון זה מציע המחבר בחינה מחודשת של תולדות יהודה בתקופה ארוכה זו, שפרקים מרכזיים בה מוארים באור חדש.

עודד ליפשיץ הוא פרופסור להיסטוריה של עם ישראל בתוכנית ללימודי 'ישראל הקדום', בחוג לארכאולוגיה ותרבויות המזרח הקדום באוניברסיטת תל אביב. הוא מופקד על קתדרת אוסטריה לארכאולוגיה של ארץ-ישראל בתקופת המקרא וראש המכון לארכאולוגיה ע"ש סוניה ומרקו נדלר. בין ספריו בעברית: 'ירושלים בין חורבן להתחדשות' (הוצאת יד יצחק בן-צבי, ירושלים תשס"ד); 'מה לוחשות האבנים? 3000 שנה של היסטוריה נשכחת ברמת רחל' (יחד עם י' גדות, ב' ארובס ומ' אומינג, הוצאת יד יצחק בן-צבי, ירושלים תשע"ד).

קנקנים בגדלים שונים ובמגוון צורות היו בשימוש נרחב בכל רחבי העולם הקדום. לסוג זה של כלי חרס היה תפקיד חשוב בהובלת התוצרת החקלאית הנוזלית (כמו יין ושמן) ובאחסונה. לתוצרת זו היה מקום מרכזי בחקלאות, בכלכלה, בסחר ובתזונה של בני אדם במזרח הקדום. קנקני האגירה הסגלגלים, האופייניים ליהודה לאורך זמן, הם חלק ממשפחה גדולה וענפה זו של קנקנים. משלהי המאה הח' לפנה"ס הוטבעו טביעות חותם על רבות מידיות הקנקנים האלה: טביעות 'למלך' בשלהי המאה הח' ובראשית המאה הז' לפנה"ס, חרותות קונצנטריות וטביעות ורדה בהמשכה של המאה הז' לפנה"ס, טביעות אריה במאה הו' לפנה"ס, לאחר חורבן ירושלים, וטביעות 'יהוד' בתקופה הפרסית ובתקופת בית תלמי ובית סלווקוס (משלהי המאה הו' ועד שלהי המאה הב' לפנה"ס). בצד מערכת זו פעלו ביהודה מערכות 'אד-הוק' של טביעות חותם: הטביעות ה'פרטיות' ערב מסע סנחריב, טביעות 'מוצה' לאחר חורבן ירושלים וטביעות 'ירושלים' לאחר ראשית ביסוסה של המדינה החשמונאית.
מאפייניה של מערכת מנהל שבמרכזה קנקנים מוטבעים מוכרים במקומות רבים במזרח הקדום, ובפרקי זמן ארוכים. החידוש הוא בהיקף הגדול, בגיוון, בהמשכיות וברציפות של כ-600 שנה במנהל הקנקנים ביהודה. פרק זמן זה חופף את תקופת היותה של יהודה ממלכה וסאלית ופחווה בשלטון האימפריות הגדולות ששלטו במזרח הקדום. עובדה זו חשובה להבנת ההיסטוריה של ממלכת יהודה בעידן האימפריות האשורית, המצרית והבבלית, ולאחר מכן לתולדותיה של פחוות יהודה בשלטון בבל, פרס, בית תלמי ובית סלווקוס.
בספר זה נפרס מכלול הנתונים על מנהל הקנקנים ביהודה, מוצע הסבר לקיומו לאורך 600 שנות השיעבוד של יהודה לאימפריות הגדולות ומוצג שחזור מפורט של מערכת המנהל ביהודה בשלהי ימי הבית הראשון ובמרבית ימי הבית השני. על רקע דיון זה מציע המחבר בחינה מחודשת של תולדות יהודה בתקופה ארוכה זו, שפרקים מרכזיים בה מוארים באור חדש.

עודד ליפשיץ הוא פרופסור להיסטוריה של עם ישראל בתוכנית ללימודי 'ישראל הקדום', בחוג לארכאולוגיה ותרבויות המזרח הקדום באוניברסיטת תל אביב. הוא מופקד על קתדרת אוסטריה לארכאולוגיה של ארץ-ישראל בתקופת המקרא וראש המכון לארכאולוגיה ע"ש סוניה ומרקו נדלר. בין ספריו בעברית: 'ירושלים בין חורבן להתחדשות' (הוצאת יד יצחק בן-צבי, ירושלים תשס"ד); 'מה לוחשות האבנים? 3000 שנה של היסטוריה נשכחת ברמת רחל' (יחד עם י' גדות, ב' ארובס ומ' אומינג, הוצאת יד יצחק בן-צבי, ירושלים תשע"ד).

This is a collection of essays by leading scholars examining the period of transition between Persian and Greek rule of Judah, ca. 400-200 BCE. Judah Between East and West is a collection of essays by leading scholars in the field, presenting the main findings of a recent conference of British and Israeli scholars at held at Tel Aviv University. The contributions focus on the period of transition between Persian and Greek rule of Judah, ca. 400-200 BCE, though some of the essays are extended outside these time limits. The volume aims to explore this period in all its complexity, as far as the limitations of a single publication allows! Subjects covered include the archaeology of Maresha/Marisa, Jewish identity, Hellenization/Hellenism, Ptolemaic administration in Judah, biblical and Jewish literature of the early Greek period, the size and status of Jerusalem, the Samaritans in the transition period, and Greek foundations in Palestine. The Library of Second Temple Studies is a premier book series that offers cutting-edge work for a readership of scholars, teachers, postgraduate students and advanced undergraduates in the field of Second Temple studies. All the many and diverse aspects of Second Temple study are represented and promoted, including innovative work from historical perspectives, studies using social-scientific and literary theory, and developing theological, cultural and contextual approaches.

In April, 2008, an international colloquium was held at the University of Heidelberg—the fourth convocation of a group of scholars (with some rotating members) who gathered to discuss the status of Judah and the Judeans in the exilic and postexilic periods. The goal of this gathering was specifically to address the question of national identity in the period when many now believe this very issue was in significant foment and development, the era of the Persian/Achaemenid domination of the ancient Near East.

This volume contains most of the papers delivered at the Heidelberg conference, considering the matter under two rubrics: (1) the biblical evidence (and the diversity of data from the Bible); and (2) the cultural, historical, social, and environmental factors affecting the formation of national identity.

Contributors: K. Schmid, J. Schaper, A. C. Hagedorn, C. Nihan, J. Middlemas, D. Rom-Shiloni, J. Wöhrle, Y. Dor, K. Southwood, D. N. Fulton, P.-A. Beaulieu, L. E. Pearce, D. Redford, A. Lemaire, J. F. Quack, B. Becking, R. G. Kratz, O. Tal, J. Blenkinsopp, R. Albertz, J. L. Wright, D. S. Vanderhooft, M. Oeming, and A. Kloner.

Earlier volumes in the series of conferences are: Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, and Judah and the Judeans in the in the Fourth Century B.C.E.

The period of the demise of the kingdom of Judah at the end of the 6th century B.C.E., the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, the exile of the elite to Babylon, and the reshaping of the territory of the new province of Judah, culminating at the end of the century with the first return of exiles--all have been subjects of intense scrutiny during the last decade. Lipschits takes into account the biblical textual evidence, the results of archaeological research, and the reports of Babylonian and Egyptian sources and provides a comprehensive survey and analysis of the evidence for the history of this 100-year-long era. He provides a lucid historical survey that will, no doubt, become the baseline for all future studies of this era.

In July 2003, a conference was held at the University of Heidelberg (Germany), focusing on the people and land of Judah during the 5th and early 4th centuries B.C.E.— the period when the Persian Empire held sway over the entire ancient Near East. This volume publishes the papers of the participants in the working group that attended the Heidelberg conference.

Participants whose contributions appear here include: Y. Amit, B. Becking, J. Berquist, J. Blenkinsopp, M. Dandamayev, D. Edelman, T. Eskenazi, A. Fantalkin and O. Tal, L. Fried, L. Grabbe, S. Japhet, J. Kessler, E. A. Knauf, G. Knoppers, R. Kratz, A. Lemaire, O. Lipschits, H. Liss, M. Oeming, L. Pearce, F. Polak, B. Porten and A. Yardeni, E. Stern, D. Ussishkin, D. Vanderhooft, and J. Wright.

The conference was the second of three meetings; the first, held at Tel Aviv in May 2001, was published as Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period by Eisenbrauns in 2003. A third conference focusing on Judah and the Judeans in the Hellenistic era was held in the summer of 2005, at Münster, Germany, and will also be published by Eisenbrauns.

A large number of lmlk (57) and 'private' (18) Judahite stamp impressions have been unearthed at Tel Beth-Shemesh. All but one are of the early types dated to the late 8th century BCE. The site has not yielded any lmlk stamp impressions of the late types dated to the early 7th century BCE, concentric-circle incision types from the middle of the 7th century or rosette stamp impressions from the late 7th and early 6th century BCE. This information helps in the reconstruction of the history of this significant lowland center during the period of 'Pax-Assyriaca' in the southern Levant.

Electronic open access edition (ISBN 978-0-88414-348-2) available at http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/Books_ANEmonographs.aspx Cover photo: Zev Radovan/BibleLandPictures.com Essays from an international group of experts on the ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible honor Oded Borowski's pioneering work in the archaeology and history of ancient Israel and Judah. Contributors approach the question of what we know of eighth-century Judah from multiple angles, including a survey of Judah's neighbors, the land of Judah and its cities, daily life and material culture, religious beliefs and practices, and early forms of what are now biblical texts. Contributors include Rami Arav,

In this paper I present two different methodologies and theories of understanding the stamped jar phenomenon that have recently come into dispute. Ussishkin (2011) has argued in favor of the 30-year-old scholarly consensus that claims that all lmlk jars were produced during the three years of Hezekiah's revolt and Judah’s preparations for the 701 BCE Assyrian attack. He has further claimed that all the concentric incised circles on jar handles should be dated to these three years, and that all the rosette stamped jars should be dated to the few years of Zedekiah's revolt against the Babylonians (588–586 BCE). Lipschits, Sergi and Koch (2010; 2011) have challenged this theory, claiming that this system of stamping jar handles endured for no less than about 600 years—maintaining that it was initiated at the beginning of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE with the early lmlk types, and perpetuated during the first quarter of the 7th century BCE with the late lmlk types, during the middle of the 7th century BCE with the incised concentric circles on jar handles, and during the last quarter of the 7th and early 6th century BCE with the rosette stamp impressions. They argue that this same administrative system of stamping jar handles continued in Judah after 586 BCE for an additional 450 years, when Judah was a Babylonian province (the mwṣh and lion stamped handles), as well as a Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid province (the yhwd and the yršlm stamped handles).
Explaining and dating the stamped jar handles using these two diverse methodologies raises points of dispute regarding the archaeological material and its historical interpretation. This is also a good theoretical case-study for discussing how to deal with and interpret archaeological material and is an example of the implication of this archaeological data on our understanding of the history of Judah. Therefore, in this paper I summarize the point of dispute and discuss its implications on the connections between archaeological facts and its interpretation, as well as the meaning of all this for our understanding of the history of Judah.

The ancient tell (mound) of Ramat Rahel sits on the outskirts of Jerusalem. It features an impressive residency and palatial garden that flourished during the seventh to fourth centuries BCE, when biblical Judah was under the hegemony of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian empires. Until recently, the garden's flora has been a mystery, as standard archaeological procedures were unable to retrieve secure archaeobotanical remains. A unique method of extracting fossil pollen from ancient plaster has now enabled researchers to reconstruct the exact vegetation components of this royal Persian garden and for the first time to shed light on the cultural world of the inhabitants of the residence. The plaster layers and garden are dated archaeologically and by Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) methods to the Persian period (fifth to fourth centuries BCE), and produced evidence of importation by the ruling Persian authorities of special and highly valued trees to the garden from remote parts of the empire. The most surprising find, and marking its earliest appearance in the southern Levant, was the citron (Citrus medica), which later acquired a symbolic-religious role in Judaism. Other imported trees found to have been grown in the garden are the cedar, birch and Persian walnut. The pollen evidence of these exotic trees in the Ramat Rahel palatial garden suggests that they were probably brought to flaunt the power of the imperial Persian administration. Native fruit trees and ornamentals that were also grown there include the fig, grape, olive, willow, poplar, myrtle and water lily. The identification of the ancient garden's plant life opens a course for future research into the symbolic role of flora in palatial gardens. It also offers new opportunities for studying the mechanism by which native flora was adopted in a particular geographical area and proliferated by humans across the world.

In this paper we suggest that the site of Ramat Rahel, which was a bare hill until the late 8th-early 7th century BCE, was formerly known the name "Baal-Perazim" (2 Sam 5:20; also called "Mount Perazim" in Isa 28:21). We further suggest that somewhere on the hill there was a cult place connected to the God Ba'al, and this may explain why the site remained empty until late in the Iron Age II.
In the wake of the Imperial decision to establish a Judahite administrative center close to Jerusalem, the hill of Ramat Rahel and the valleys surrounding it were chosen for development as royal estates. Vineyards and orchards were planted around the hill, giving rise to the
new name of the administrative center that was built on its crest - "Beth Haccerem" ("the House of the Vineyard"). The new name was a reversal of the previous one. No longer was this an undefended hill, open to the breaching winds. It was now a secured mound, magnificently built,
unlike any other structure in Judah, surrounded by a splendid garden, and with vineyards and orchards on its slopes.

This essay assesses changes in settlement archaeology in the " heart " of the province of Judah (Yehud) under Achaemenid and Ptolemaic rule. Using the results of archaeological excavations and surveys, we will try to reconstruct settlement changes between the end of the Per-sian period and the Hasmonean period (fourth to mid-second centuries b.c.e.), with a focus on the contribution of the fourth century to the process. Judah and especially Jerusalem, owing to their role in biblical literature and their religious impact on Western civilizations, have long been important in archaeological research. However, the research directed at the region's first-millennium b.c.e. history was mostly fo-cused on the periods that preceded and succeeded the one under dis-cussion—that is, it was mostly focused on the First Temple period and the latter part of the Second Temple period—times when the country was a small but independent political entity. In the last few years, there has been growing interest in the settlement archaeology of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian (Achaemenid) periods. The early Helle-nistic period, however, has largely been ignored, partly because of the methodological problems that we will discuss below and partly because of its intermediate nature as a transitional period between the domination of the region by Eastern and Western powers. The available data seem at first glance to be sufficient to tackle the problem at hand. However, they are actually quite problematic. In many of the large-scale excavations carried out in archaeological sites in Judah, the strata pertaining to the late Persian and early Hellenistic (Ptolemaic and Seleucid) periods were meager; some revealed few architectural remains with unclear building plans or pits (silos, refuse, etc.), while others yielded pottery at best, which was in some cases not classified by strata and did not represent proper occupation layers.

In this paper, I express again my thoughts, that like the two voices that can be found in the biblical description of the exilic period—on the one hand agreeing that Judah was not entirely void of population, but on the other hand at odds about where the “true Judah” actually was—so, too, the problem with the interpretation of the archaeological finds is the question of focus and scope. Is the cup half full or half empty? Scholars concur that the Babylonians caused major destruction in Judah, deported part of the population, turned the vassal kingdom into a province, and moved its capital from Jerusalem to Mizpah. The problem is the scope of the destruction caused by the Babylonians, the scope of the deportation, and the scope of the population that was left behind. I hope that the “middle path” I have suggested again in this paper—this time backed up by additional archaeological data discovered in recent years, especially at Ramat Raḥel and with some further studies that shed new light on the history, administration, economy, and material culture of Judah in the sixth century b.c.e.—will open the way for further refined observations both in biblical and archaeological research, and will give this important period in the history of Judah and its land the place in the sun it rightly deserves.

This essay assesses changes in settlement archaeology in the “heart” of the province of Judah (Yehud) under Achaemenid and Ptolemaic rule. Using the results of archaeological excavations and surveys, we will try to reconstruct settlement changes between the end of the Persian period and the Hasmonean period (fourth to mid-second centuries B.C.E.), with a focus on the contribution of the fourth century to the process. Judah and especially Jerusalem, owing to their role in biblical literature and their religious impact on Western civilizations, have long been important in archaeological research. However, the research directed at the region’s first-millennium b.c.e. history was mostly focused on the periods that preceded and succeeded the one under discussion—that is, it was mostly focused on the First Temple period and the latter part of the Second Temple period—times when the country was a small but independent political entity. In the last few years, there has been growing interest in the settlement archaeology of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian (Achaemenid) periods. The early Hellenistic period, however, has largely been ignored, partly because of the methodological problems that we will discuss below and partly because of its intermediate nature as a transitional period between the domination of the region by Eastern and Western powers.

A revival of an ultra-conservative thesis, supporting the reality of the 'empty land' biblical descriptions and the historicity of the 'Babylonian gap' in Judah, may be detected in recent research. The present paper claims that the major and most conspicuous archaeological phenomenon in Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem is the sharp decline in urban life, which is in contrast to the continuity of the rural settlements in the region of Benjamin and in the area between Bethlehem and Beth-Zur. These archaeological investigations demonstrate that a new pattern of settlement was created in Judah, in which the core settlements were destroyed or abandoned while, at the same time, the surrounding region continued to exist almost unchanged. The differences between the various regions of this small kingdom should be understood as the outcome of a planned Babylonian policy of using some of the rural highland areas as a source for agricultural products. The settlement in those areas became a place of specialized wine and oil production, and was used both for paying the taxes and supplying the basic products for the Babylonian administration and forces stationed in the area. A similar situation is detectable in the area south of Rabbath-Ammon, around Tell el 'Umeiri and Tell Hesbân, and perhaps also in the Baq'ah region, north of Rabbath-Ammon.

The main question discussed in the article is when and under what historical and political circumstances did Jews immigrate to the area of Modi'in and take root there. On the basis of a combination of historical and archaeological data, the author claims that Jewish settlement in the area began during the Restoration Period and that the district of Benjamin was its major source. Motivation to immigrate from the district of Benjamin resulted from political and economic changes that occurred due to the transition of rule from Babylon to Persia, which brought in its wake a decline in the status of the area in question. On the other hand, the flourishing coastal area attracted many of the inhabitants of the mountain regions and the returnees to settle in Modi'in and the surrounding region. Despite these changes, until the Hasmonean period the administrative status of this region remained unchanged, and it was included within the domain of the Pahwah of Samaria.

IN 2012, ARCHAEOLOGISTS from the Jerusalem District of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) made a jaw-dropping discovery that is still puzzling archaeologists and biblical scholars. They discovered a temple at Tel Moza, less than 4 miles northwest of Jerusalem. It apparently stood, operated, and welcomed worshipers throughout most of the Iron Age II, from its establishment around 900 B.C.E. until its demise sometime toward the end of the Iron Age (early sixth century B.C.E.). But what is a temple doing at Tel Moza during this period, when the Bible says the only temple in Judah was in Jerusalem?! Could a monumental temple really exist in the heart of Judah, right outside Jerusalem? Did
Jerusalem know about it? If so, could this other temple possibly have been part of the Judahite administrative system?

Cet article s'intéresse à Tell er-Rumeith en Jordanie septentrionale, l'un des sites identifiés à la ville biblique de Ramoth-de-Galaad. Le site préserve les vestiges d'un formidable fort des IX e –VIII e siècles comprenant une colline artificielle surélevée, un fossé et un rempart extérieur. Il est situé sur une colline stratégique qui domine la voie royale menant d'Amman à Damas et la route allant d'ouest en est d'Irbid au désert. Après avoir décrit le site, nous nous pencherons sur son identification et son histoire à la lumière des conflits entre Israël et Aram-Damas.

The article deals with two sites – Jahaz and Ataroth – both mentioned in the Mesha Inscription as having been built by the “king of Israel”. These sites feature characteristics of Omride architecture west of the Jordan, at places such as Samaria and Jezreel. The most obvious among these features are an elevated podium surrounded by a casemate wall and a moat. The article deals with the reasons for employing Omride architectural styles in Moab. It also suggests that building operations that seem to have been conducted by King Mesha were influenced by Omride architectural elements at the two Moabite sites.

In this paper I suggest that the biblical territory of the tribe of Benjamin is a late artificial aggregation of two distinct historical and geopolitical units that were never part of the same geopolitical region: Benjamin (= “the son of the south”) was a small tribe around Bethel, the southern Ephraim hills and Jericho, connected to the northern hill country, whereas
the Gibeon plateau was part of the agricultural hinterland of Jerusalem. The destruction of the kingdom of Israel was the point of departure for a new period in the hill country, when, for the first time, the small, hilly southern entity did not have a larger and stronger northern neighbor. It was only in the days of Josiah, however, that Judah could conquer the area of Bethel and Jericho and extend its border up to this line. After the 586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem, the city was severed from its agricultural hinterland and the Babylonians created the district of Mizpah to the north of Jerusalem. Greater Benjamin became a unified administrative region, with Jerusalem as a marginal component at its southern border. It was the first time in the history of the region that Benjamin became central, with even greater political and economic importance than Jerusalem.
The 586 BCE events and the new status of Mizpah as the capital of the province of Yehud had an important effect on the literary claims and polemics in favor of this region and its people (pro-Benjaminite, pro-Mizpah, and pro-Saul stories) and against Jerusalem and its history, its status and its leaders, especially regarding the premonarchic and pre-Davidic period. However, it was already in the early Persian period, when the exiles began to return from Babylon and to restore the status of Jerusalem, that the anti-Benjaminite and polemic claims against Benjamin and Mizpah and in favor of Jerusalem and Judah could be written, also in this case, especially in texts dealing with the premonarchic period. This could have
driven some of the inhabitants of the region around Mizpah and Gibeon to settle beyond the administrative limits of the province, close to the border, in the Ono-Lod and Modiʿin region.
This understanding of the historical process should be adopted by biblical scholars in their interpretation of historiographical texts that use this Benjamin label, probably written by late scribes and editors who used the geographical labels as a polemic and ideological tool, mainly in the pre-Davidic periods, as described in Judges and Samuel. With regard to
Benjamin, the most prominent subject is the story cycle of Saul. The first monarch of the kingdom of Jerusalem, who came from the agricultural hinterland to the north of the city, was killed and his kingdom taken by David, originally from the agricultural hinterland to the south of Jerusalem. He succeeded in conquering Jerusalem and uniting it with the Judahite territory in the southern Judean hills, around Hebron. In the Jerusalemite historiography Saul was connected with the non-Israelite city of Gibeon and was pushed to the north. The late use of the label “Benjaminite” also had deceptive intentions: it was aimed at distancing Saul from Jerusalem, labeling him as “Israelite” and setting him apart from the Judahite house of David.

במאמר זה אני מבקש לטעון שאברהם היה דמות מיתולוגית עבור הקבוצות שנמנו על שבט יהודה, ושמרכזן היה באזור חברון. המסורות אודותיו נשמרו, ככל הנראה, באתר פולחן פתוח ליד עץ אלון מקודש בממרא, שהיה אתר הפולחן המרכזי של קבוצות אלה, בסמוך למרכז הנחלה בחברון. לא ברור באיזו תקופה נוצרו לראשונה מסורות אברהם בהרי חברון, שנגעו בעיקר לנושאים של הקשר
לארץ, לפריון ולהכנסת אורחים, אך נראה שהעילית הירושלמית התעלמה מהן לחלוטין, שכן אברהם לא נזכר בהיסטוריוגרפיה המשנה־תורתית ולא בספר ירמיה. זוהי ככל הנראה עדות לכך שבניגוד לחשיבותם של הסיפורים על יעקב־ישראל בממלכת הצפון, ששימשו כמסורות המלכדות על האב הקדום של הממלכה, שבשמו נקשרו גם המסורות על אתרי הפולחן החשובים בממלכה )בית אל, שכם, פנואל, גלעד), לא נזקקה האליטה היהודאית לסיפורי אברהם לצורך ביסוס ראשית ההיסטוריה הקדומה של יהודה. מבחינתה של אליטה זו, ההיסטוריה של יהודה התחילה בימי דוד, וההיסטוריה של ירושלים ושל בית המקדש התחילה בכיבושה של ירושלים על ידי דוד ובבניית המקדש על ידי שלמה בנו. כל זאת, מבלי שהיה צורך היסטוריוגרפי בביסוס ההיסטוריה על דמויות יהודאיות קדומות לדוד ולראשית המלוכה בירושלים.
רק לאחר חורבן ירושלים ואיבוד השליטה הבלעדית של בית דוד, של הכהונה ושל האליטה הירושלמית על הפולחן, על המסורת ועל ההיסטוריוגרפיה, מסורות אברהם החלו להפוך לחשובות ולמרכזיות למעגלים רחבים יותר של היהודאים שנשארו ביהודה ולא יצאו לגלות בבבל. אלה השתמשו במסורות אברהם כדי לבסס את זכותם על שטחיה הדרומיים של הממלכה, כפי שעולה מהמכתב שמצטט יחזקאל (ל"ג 24). לא ברור איך ומתי הגיעו מסורות אברהם לירושלים במהלך ימי שיבת ציון, אך נראה שהיה זה לאחר אובדן שטחי הדרום וההתבססות של שבטים אדומיים וערבים בכל מרחבי הנגב, הר חברון ודרום השפלה. בשלב זה הורחבו מסורות אברהם והשימוש העיקרי שנעשה בהן היה לצורך ביסוס הטענה לבעלות על שטחי הדרום, ובעיקר על חברון, כהוכחה לשייכותם של שטחים אלה ליורשיה וממשיכיה של ממלכת יהודה. טענה דומה, ככל הנראה באותו פרק זמן של שלהי המאה החמישית או ראשית המאה הרביעית לפנה"ס מתבטאת גם בנחמיה יא. בתקופה זו נקשרו מסורות אברהם לסיפורי יעקב־ישראל, ככל הנראה על ידי חוגים כוהניים בירושלים. הם הפכו למרכיב מרכזי בטענה החדשה של האליטה הירושלמית על "ישראל החדש", שכולל את האיחוד של הממלכה הצפונית, ממלכת ישראל לשעבר והטריטוריה של פחוות שומרון בתקופה הפרסית, עם שטחיה של ממלכת יהודה לשעבר, והטריטוריות של פחוות יהודה ואדומאה של התקופה הפרסית. במהלך תקופה זו מעמדו של אברהם כבר התבסס והוא הפך לאב הקדום של "כלל ישראל", רחוק מדמותו המקורית וממעמדו כדמות שסביבה הוקם אתר הפולחן החברוני־יהודאי בממרא.

השחזור המוצע לעיל הוא משוער ומבוסס על נתונים מעטים ועל ניתוח ספרותי של מקורות שניתן לפרשם גם בצורה שונה. עם זאת, למרות הנתונים המעטים, יש לדעתי מקום להציג שחזור זה, אם גם לא לקבלו ככזה שמבוסס על עובדות מוצקות.

In this paper I claim that Abraham was an autochthonous Judahite-Hebronite
mythological figure, important for the southern clans around Hebron. His
memory was kept in the Hebronite cult place at Mamre, probably around a
sacred oak-tree, called “the Oak of Mamre”. It is not clear in what period
Abraham traditions were first created in the Hebron hills, but it is clear that
for centuries he was totally ignored by the Jerusalem elite, never mentioned
in the Deuteronomistic history, or in the Book of Jeremiah. It is probably an
indication that from the perspective of the Jerusalemite elite the history begun
in the time of David, and they did not need these stories for their reconstruction
of Israel’s and Judah’s history. Only after the destruction of Jerusalem and the
loss of the Jerusalem monopoly over the cult, tradition and historiography, the
Abraham traditions started to become central for a wider circle of the people
who remained in the land. They used these traditions to establish and claim
their right on the Southern territories, as is also indicated in Ezekiel (33: 24).
It is not clear how and when these traditions arrived in Jerusalem, but it seems
that it was already in the Persian period, after the loss of the southern part
of Judah to Arabian-Edomite tribes. The Abraham original traditions were
expanded and were used as the main claim over the southern parts that were
lost, a kind of a proof for the ownership of Judah over Hebron and its area.
They were connected to the Jacob Stories, probably by priestly circles, and
became an essential part of the new claim of the Jerusalemite elite on the ‘new Israel’. During the Persian period Abraham’s status had already turned to that
of patriarch of ‘all Israel’, far from his original position as the ancestor of the
cult place of Mamre.

In this paper I present an unknown type of private stamp-seal impression on a jar
handle. It was discovered during the 2008 excavation season at Ramat Raḥel, should
be read: lṣmḥ/’lšm‘ (אלשמע / לצמח), and should be interpreted as ‘(belonging to) Ṣemaḥ (son of) ’Élîšāmā‘. The stamped handle, which should be dated to the late eighth or early seventh centuries BCE, was discovered out of its original context, in a level of white crushed limestone that comprises the floor of the courtyard. This floor is part of the second phase of the edifice, dated not earlier than the late seventh century BCE. The name ’Élîšāmā‘ (אלישמע—“God has heard”) is well known in both biblical and
epigraphic Hebrew texts. The name Ṣemaḥ (צמח—“branch” or “scion”) appears in
epigraphic Hebrew only one other time: in Arad inscription number 49.
In this paper I maintain that this name was well known during the pre- and post-exilic periods. It seems that the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer 23:5), with its promise of a scion from the Davidic dynasty as ṣemaḥ ṣaddîq (in continuation of the ḥoter miggeza‘ yìšāy in Is 11:1), as a title that developed as a pledge to the future, when the legal heir of Zedekiah―the last king of the Davidic dynasty―will sit on the throne, preceded its use as ‘abdî ṣemaḥ in Zech 3: 8, as a title for the future Davidic king. This title was further developed in Zech 6:12, where ṣemaḥ is a personal name, but with clear connection to the Davidic aspirations. Afterward, in late Second Temple Judaism, this title was further developed as a clear Messianic title― and there is a direct link between this title and various texts from Qumran and the daily “Amidah (Shmoneh Esreh) prayer.”

The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem – the Movie (and its free!)

As part of the TAU Coursera project (https://www.coursera.org/telaviv), with the assistance of Ido Koch and with the participation of Pro. Yoram Cohen, Dr. Yuval Gadot, Prof. Konrad Schmid, Dr. Cynthia Edenburg , Prof. David Vanderhooft and Ido Koch, we have filmed during the last months (and finishing this summer) a course on: “The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem”.

You can watch the promo: https://www.coursera.org/course/jerusalem.

Registration for the Coursera course on "The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem" is now available online.
https://www.coursera.org/course/jerusalem
The course will take you through the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians, leading to one of the darkest periods of Judah, to the fate those deported and those who stayed behind and finally to the restoration of Jerusalem.

This volume of essays was published in honor of Professor Michèle Daviau on the occasion of her retirement from full-time teaching in the Department of Religion and Culture at Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario. Prof. Daviau has focused most of her professional attention ...

By accepting Assyrian rule and changing its status from independent monarchy to vassal kingdom, Judah became one of only a handful of small kingdoms to survive the Assyrian conquest of Syria and the Levant in the second half of the eighth century BCE. Shortly after Ahaz ascended the throne in 732 BCE, he traveled to Damascus in order to surrender to Tiglath-pileser III. As was the case in other kingdoms in the peripheral regions of the empire that submitted to Assyrian demands , the ruling Judean elite were allowed to remain in power and were granted autonomy. In exchange, the Assyrians imposed vassal obligations on Judah, including the payment of an annual tribute (not only in material goods but in labor as well), sending intelligence reports and information about political and military matters in the area, taking part in Assyrian military campaigns, and supplying the Assyrian army during its battles. These obligations were monitored by an Assyr-ian official and had immediate consequences on Judah's material culture, as well as its local administration and economy. In this paper I claim that the subjection of Judah to Assyria in the early days of King Ahaz and the change in its status from independent state to vassal kingdom was the most significant and influential event in its entire history-economically as well as administratively. It marked the beginning of a roughly six-hundred-year period during which Judah remained under the rule of great empires, first as an Assyrian, Egyptian, and Babylonian vassal kingdom (from 732 to 586 BCE), and then as a Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid province (from 586 to the middle of the second century BCE, when the Hasmonaean State was established). The administrative and economic arrangements that were established by the Assyrians and developed by the local Judean leadership remained in effect and continued to develop during the following centuries, and they gave rise to some of the most typical and well-known characteristics of the Judean economy, administration, and material culture. The persistence of these characteristics over such a long span of time in the economy, administration, and material culture of Judah stands as the best indication of just how well-suited they were to the Judean elite and ruling classes, and just how much a part they were of an inner development that reflects not only what this elite could and would accept and agree to, but also what it would pay to the ruling empires in order to protect national and cultic independence inside