Aerial view of Tel Megiddo. AVRAM GRAICER, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Although remembered in the Bible as one of Judah’s most pious rulers, King Josiah met a rather untimely death, slain at Megiddo by Pharaoh Necho II. While Josiah’s death is recorded in both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, no archaeological evidence has ever been found to corroborate the story, until now. Publishing in the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, archaeologists excavating at the site of Megiddo in northern Israel propose that new ceramic finds provide the first evidence for Egyptian forces stationed in the city at the time of Josiah’s end.

FREE ebook: Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries. Finds like the Pool of Siloam in Israel, where the Gospel of John says Jesus miraculously restored sight to a blind man.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

When Egypt Reigned at Megiddo

The death of pious King Josiah at the hands of Pharaoh Necho II at Megiddo (c. 609 BCE) was the beginning of the end for the biblical kingdom of Judah, which just a few decades later would finally fall at the hands of the Babylonians. Now, the discovery of massive amounts of Egyptian and Greek pottery has confirmed at least one major element of the story: that Egyptian forces and their Greek mercenaries had a significant presence at Megiddo at the end of the seventh century BCE.

In searching for traces of the biblical event, the archaeologists had little to go on, with much of the upper layers of the archaeological mound at Megiddo having been removed by prior excavations. Finally identifying a promising spot, known as Area X, the team hit pay dirt: a small area containing the remains of a mudbrick wall and two successive buildings with well-preserved layers dating from the eighth to sixth centuries BCE.

The earliest layers excavated in the area contained evidence of the Israelite occupation of the site and the fiery destruction that brought that occupation to its end at the hands of the Assyrian army under Tiglath-Pileser III (c. 732 BCE). Later layers showed evidence for the site’s Assyrian occupation, a period when it was the capital of the province of Magiddu and home to a mixed population of Israelites and deportees from around the Assyrian Empire. None of that was unexpected based on previous excavations. However, it was the latest layers of Area X that provided striking new evidence of the biblical story.

Although no destruction layer was identified at the end of Assyrian control over the site (mid- to late seventh century), there was a sudden change in ceramic remains, with the inclusion of a large amount of imported Egyptian and eastern Greek pottery. Dating to the late seventh century BCE, these ceramic finds perfectly matched the period of Josiah’s death. According to the excavators, no other site in the region has such a large amount of Egyptian pottery, and no non-coastal site has as much Greek pottery.

Considering the data, the archaeologists suggest that the most logical explanation for such a large and sudden presence of Egyptian and Greek pottery is the presence of a large garrison of Egyptian and Greek troops, the latter well known as mercenaries who served under the employ of Necho II. Besides fitting the biblical story, the evidence also fits with Assyrian history. Conquering the southern Levant in the latter half of the eighth century, the Assyrian Empire would slowly start to decline, and upon losing control of the Levant about a century later, it was Assyria’s Egyptian allies that filled the power vacuum. In the last two decades of the seventh century, Assyria was on the ropes, under attack by the Babylonians, the Medes, and the Persians. It was then that Pharaoh Necho rode out from Egypt to aid the Assyrians.

As recorded in 2 Kings 23:29, “In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him, and Pharaoh Necho killed him at Megiddo, as soon as he saw him.” Although 2 Chronicles 35:22–24 specifies that Josiah fought against Necho (an element of the story that is debated by scholars), it can no longer be doubted that the Egyptian army was stationed at Megiddo, exactly where and when the biblical narrative places them.

This article was first published in Bible History Daily on March 10, 2025.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

More of Megiddo’s Roman Legionary Camp Revealed

Twenty Years at Megiddo 

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Megiddo, Israel

The Megiddo Mosaic

King Solomon’s Stables—Still at Megiddo?

The post Necho and Josiah at Megiddo appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

At Carthage, child sacrifice is believed to have been practiced. Teeth and skeletal analysis of the remains at the Carthage Tophet demonstrates that infants of a specific age-range—under three months old—were most commonly cremated. Photo: ASOR, Punic Project/James Whitred.

The Bible speaks of Judahites who sacrificed their children to Molech in Jerusalem’s Ben Hinnom Valley; the practice was forbidden and considered abominable (Jeremiah 32:35; Leviticus 18:21; 2 Chronicles 28:3). While no evidence of child sacrifice has been uncovered in the Hinnom Valley, scholars today debate whether child sacrifice was practiced at Phoenician sites in the western Mediterranean. The debate is centered on the Carthage Tophet, or open-air enclosure containing the burials of infants, in modern-day Tunisia.

Was child sacrifice really practiced at ancient Carthage? In “Infants Sacrificed? The Tale Teeth Tell” in the July/August 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Patricia Smith discusses the research she and her team conducted on the cremated remains from the Carthage Tophet.

Several sources attest to the practice of child sacrifice at Carthage. Lawrence E. Stager and Joseph A. Greene describe the evidence in the November/December 2000 issue of Archaeology Odyssey:

Classical authors and Biblical prophets charge the Phoenicians with the practice. Stelae associated with burial urns found at Carthage bear decorations alluding to sacrifice and inscriptions expressing vows to Phoenician deities. Urns buried beneath these stelae contain remains of children (and sometimes of animals) who were cremated as described in the sources or implied by the inscriptions.

Despite the evidence suggesting that the Carthaginians really did practice child sacrifice, some researchers have contended that such rituals did not occur at Carthage—or at any other Phoenician site. The Carthage Tophet, according to one study, was merely an infant cemetery.

FREE eBook: Life in the Ancient World.
Craft centers in Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—through the Mediterranean world.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

BAR author Patricia Smith and her research team studied the incinerated remains in 342 urns from the Carthage Tophet. The majority of the remains belonged to infants, though some contained young animals, mostly sheep and goats. An analysis of the teeth and skeletal remains from these urns revealed that most of the infants were one to two months old, a result that does not correspond to the expected pattern of mortality rates in antiquity. The findings demonstrate that a specific age range—under three months old—of infant death was over-represented at Carthage, suggesting that children under the age of three months did not die from natural causes but from something else. That something else, as the literary and epigraphic evidence indicate, is likely the practice of child sacrifice at Carthage.

To learn more about the scientific analysis conducted by Patricia Smith and her research team, read the full article “Infants Sacrificed? The Tale Teeth Tell” by Patricia Smith in the July/August 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read “Infants Sacrificed? The Tale Teeth Tell” by Patricia Smith as it appeared in the July/August 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

This Bible History Daily article was originally published on July 25, 2014.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Did the Carthaginians Really Practice Infant Sacrifice?

Did the Ancient Israelites Think Children Were People?

What Does the Bible Say About Children—and What Does Archaeology Say?

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Were living Children Sacrificed to the Gods? Yes

Were living Children Sacrificed to the Gods? No

Child Sacrifice: Returning God’s Gift

The post At Carthage, Child Sacrifice? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

A section of the Assyrian siege ramp as seen on the Lachish relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh. Credit: Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg), CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Perhaps no event recorded in the Hebrew Bible is better supported by archaeology and external evidence than Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish in 701 B.C.E. The siege of Lachish is documented in multiple Assyrian texts and reliefs and is also clearly visible in the site’s archaeology. These various sources agree that Lachish eventually fell to the Assyrians, who built a massive siege ramp to reach the top of the city’s walls. The same tactic would later be used by the Romans in their siege of Masada. A study, published in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology, examines what went into the construction of the Lachish siege ramp and, in turn, argues for the accuracy of the biblical description of the event.

Plan and section drawings of the reconstructed siege ramp at Lachish, starting from the far end with a stone quarry nearby. Credit: Yosef Garfinkel et al.

In investigating the Assyrian siege ramp at Lachish, the team examined several questions, specifically how the construction material for the ramp was collected and transported, how the ramp was built, how the ramp’s builders were protected from the city’s defenders, and how the ramp was made usable for Assyria’s heavy siege engines. In answering these questions, the team relied on textual and archaeological information, as well as statistical and computer analyses of the efficiency of various ramp models.

The Assyrian siege ramp, constructed with three million stones. Credit: Yosef Garfinkel

The study showed that it would have taken hundreds of workers laboring 24 hours a day over three weeks to build the siege ramp. It was constructed from medium-sized stones, around 15 pounds each, that were quarried and gathered by the Assyrian army from a small hillside adjacent to the city. The stones were likely carried to the construction site by workers made up mostly of foreign prisoners taken by the Assyrians on their way to Judah. These workers would have been protected by large shields as they carried their stones to the site and dumped their stones to gradually build up the ramp. This is in line with the biblical description of the siege in 2 Kings 19:32, which mentions how the Assyrian army confronted the city with shields.

The ramp was constructed from its back end forward, not from the ground up. Thus, the stones would be dropped over the edge of the ramp to the open area between the city’s wall and the end of the ramp. This would in turn minimize the height advantage of the defenders on the wall. The study notes that this particular construction method was clearly known to the biblical authors, who used the Hebrew verb spk, meaning “to pour,” to describe the building of the ramp (2 Kings 19:32). Thus, in the same way that liquids are poured, stones were poured over the end of the ramp in its construction

FREE ebook: Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Finally, the upper surface of the ramp was constructed with a smoothed layer of dirt topped by wooden boards. This is seen in contemporary depictions of the siege including the famous Lachish relief from Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh. The smoothed surface allowed the heavy Assyrian battering rams to reach and then breach the city walls. These siege devices, which weighed up to a ton, were made up of a wooden frame and a heavy metal chain that held a log used to batter the city wall. Remarkably, one of these chains was uncovered from the excavations at Lachish.

According to the study, the siege ramp was roughly 260 feet long and would have required almost 20,000 tons of stones. Even if working 24 hours a day, it would have taken the Assyrian army between 20 and 25 days to construct the ramp. The Assyrian army was one of the most advanced of the day and easily conquered most of the smaller kingdoms and city-states in the southern Levant. During the reign of King Hezekiah, however, Judah posed a major threat and, as a relatively large kingdom, was likely more difficult to conquer. This also explains why Merodach-Baladan, the king of Babylon, as well as the kingdom of Cush would have allied with Judah in their attempt to overthrow the Assyrians.

Map of the Kingdom of Judah and the location of Lachish. Credit: Yosef Garfinkel et al.

Located southwest of Jerusalem in the Judean foothills, Lachish was the second most important city in Judah during the First Temple period. The city was conquered in 701 B.C.E. as part of the Assyrian advance to Jerusalem in response to King Hezekiah withholding Judah’s tribute and inciting a regional rebellion against Assyrian control. The events of the campaign are recorded in numerous royal Assyrian inscriptions as well as several letters from Assyrian and Judahite soldiers. The events are also described in several biblical texts, including Isaiah 36–37, 2 Kings 18, and 2 Chronicles 32. Although Sennacherib was successful in conquering Lachish and many other Judahite cities and towns, he did not conquer Jerusalem. The reasons for this are debated, but it is known that a short time later, Judah was once again paying tribute to the Assyrian Empire.

Read more in this special collection of seven seminal BAR articles on the Lachish excavations in the BAS Library.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Lachish Temple Sheds New Light on Canaanite Religion

Early Alphabetic Writing Found at Lachish

Ancient Latrine: A Peek into King Hezekiah’s Reforms in the Bible?

The post Sennacherib’s Siege of Lachish appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The TAU researchers analyzed multi-spectral images of 16 Hebrew inscriptions, which were written in ink on ostraca (broken pottery pieces), using a computer software program they developed. The ostraca, which date to 600 B.C.E., according to the researchers, were excavated from the Judahite fortress at Arad in southern Israel.

When was the Hebrew Bible written? Ostraca with Hebrew inscriptions excavated from the Iron Age fortress at Arad in Israel may provide clues, say researchers from Tel Aviv University. Photo: Michael Cordonsky, courtesy Tel Aviv University and the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The researchers say they were able to identify at least six different handwriting styles on the inscriptions, which contained instructions for the movement of troops and lists of food expenses. A TAU press release notes that “the tone and nature of the commands precluded the role of professional scribes.”

“The results indicate that in this remote fort, literacy had spread throughout the military hierarchy, down to the quartermaster and probably even below that rank,” state Faigenbaum-Golovina, Shausa and Sober in their paper.

“Now our job is to extrapolate from Arad to a broader area,” explained TAU Professor of Archaeology Israel Finkelstein, who heads the research project, in the TAU press release. “Adding what we know about Arad to other forts and administrative localities across ancient Judah, we can estimate that many people could read and write during the last phase of the First Temple period. We assume that in a kingdom of some 100,000 people, at least several hundred were literate.”

Israel Museum curators have called “Gabriel’s Revelation” the most important document found in the area since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Read the original English publication of “Gabriel’s Revelation” along with Israel Knohl’s BAR article that made scholars around the world reconsider links between ancient Jewish and Christian messianism in the free eBook Gabriel’s Revelation.

So when was the Hebrew Bible written? What does literacy in the Iron Age have to do with it?

Scholars have debated whether the texts of the Hebrew Bible were written before 586 B.C.E.—when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, razed the First Temple and exiled the Jews—or later on, in the Persian or Hellenistic period. If literacy in Iron Age Judah was more widespread than previously thought, does this suggest that Hebrew Bible texts could have been written before the Babylonian conquest?
The Tel Aviv University researchers think so, based on their study of the ostraca from Arad.

Not quite, says epigrapher Christopher Rollston, Associate Professor of Northwest Semitic languages and literatures at the George Washington University. In a lengthy blog post analyzing the TAU study, Rollston contends that there is not enough information from these ostraca to make estimates about the literacy of Iron Age Judah. Rollston points out that, according to a publication by Yohanan Aharoni, the original excavator at Arad, the 16 ostraca came from different strata dated across the seventh and early sixth centuries—and therefore do not all date to 600 B.C.E. Moreover, we cannot tell how many of these inscriptions were written at the Arad fortress and how many came from elsewhere.

Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission

This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.

If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:

“Rather than arguing on the basis of 16 ostraca (that ended up at Arad) that we have a ‘proliferation of literacy,’” Rollston says, “I would simply conclude that we have some readers and writers of inscriptions at Arad. That’s all we can say.”

Rollston notes that he and others have argued, however, that there is enough epigraphic evidence from ancient Israel to conclude that “already by 800 B.C.E. there was sufficient intellectual infrastructure, that is, well-trained scribes, able to produce sophisticated historical and literary texts.”

“Additional detailed, sophisticated and substantive scholarly arguments for the early dating of the Torah have been made by William Schniedewind, author of How the Bible Became a Book, and Seth Sanders, in The Invention of Hebrew,” observes Candida Moss, Professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame, in The Daily Beast.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on April 15, 2016.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Ancient Military Correspondence: Send Wine

Computer Program Learning to Read Paleo-Hebrew Letters

Three Takes on the Oldest Hebrew Inscription

Precursor to Paleo-Hebrew Script Discovered in Jerusalem

Ancient Aramaic Business Records

The Phoenician Alphabet in Archaeology

All-access members, read more in the BAS Library:

The Hebrew Bible Contains the Oldest Surviving History

Arad—An Ancient Israelite Fortress with a Temple to Yahweh

The Question of Israelite Literacy

The post When Was the Hebrew Bible Written? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Rembrandt, Moses with the Tablets of the Law, public domain.
Moses, pictured here in a painting by 17th-century Baroque artist Guido Reni, is one of the most iconic figures in the Hebrew Bible. Despite Moses’ obvious Semitic heritage, the name “Moses” is actually Egyptian, like that of other Biblical figures (Phinehas, Hophni, Hur, Merari). All of them are referred to in the Bible’s Levite sources (E, P and D of the Documentary Hypothesis). Levites like Moses fled Egypt to form a new nation of Israelites who were to “love your neighbor.”

It’s one of the most famous lines in the Bible: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).

Impressive. Fascinating. Inspiring. Capable of a thousand interpretations and raising 10,000 questions. A remarkable proposition coming out of ancient Judah, which was embedded in the Near Eastern world of wars, slavery, class and ethnic divisions and discriminations of all kinds.

One interpretation of this verse that has been making the rounds for years turns this grand idea on its head: The claim is that the verse means to love only one’s fellow Israelites as oneself. Instead of being inclusive, it’s actually exclusive. Is there anything to this claim?

We have to start by going all the way back to the Exodus, which the combination of archaeology and text has led me to argue was historical; it actually happened. Ninety percent of the arguments against its historicity are not about the event itself but about the size of the event: All of Israel! Two million people (as suggested by Exodus 12:37–38)! Impossible!

But the evidence of a real but smaller exodus is a different matter. The earliest Biblical sources—the very early Song of Miriam (Exodus 15) and the text known in critical Biblical scholarship as J—don’t mention any numbers.

Moreover, there is good evidence that only the Levites were in Egypt; it was they who left and then merged with the rest of Israel. Note that only Levites have numerous Egyptian names (e.g., Phinehas, Hophni, Hur, Merari, Moses). The Levites alone reflect Egyptian material culture: Their Tabernacle has parallels with the battle tent of Pharaoh Rameses II.¹ Their ark has parallels with Egyptian sacred barks.² The Levite sources alone require circumcision, which was practiced in Egypt. There is much more. For the whole picture, see my presentation at a recent conference titled Out of Egypt held last year at the University of California, San Diego, which BAR has put online at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/video-the-exodus-based-on-the-sources-themselves/.

FREE ebook: Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

One more mark of the Levite sources is crucial and will bring us back now to the interpretation of “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Is neighbor exclusive or inclusive?

Of the four sources of the Torah or Pentateuch that critical scholars refer to as J, E, P and D,^a three—E, P (the Priestly source) and D (the Deuteronomistic source)—are Levite sources. In these Levite sources, the command to treat aliens fairly comes up 52 times! (How many times does this come up in the non-Levite source, J? Answer: None.)

The first occurrence of the word torah in the Torah is: “There shall be one torah for the citizen and for the alien who resides among you” (Exodus 12:49, from the Levite source P).

Why this frequent concern for aliens? We might reasonably guess that it was a matter of geography. Israel lay at the point where Africa, Asia and Europe meet. People of all backgrounds regularly passed through. So we can imagine a nation at that fulcrum of ancient trade routes having a policy of welcome to all those valuable aliens. Still, not all countries that have desired the benefits of trade have emphasized this principle. Again and again, all three Levite sources of the text (E, P and D) rather give this reason:

And you shall not persecute an alien, and you shall not oppress him, because you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 22:20

And you shall not oppress an alien — since you know the alien’s soul, because you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 23:9

You shall not persecute him. The alien who resides with you shall be to you like a citizen of yours, and you shall love him as yourself, because you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:33–34

So you shall love the alien, because you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 10:19

You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land.

Deuteronomy 23:8

You shall not bend judgment of an alien … You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and YHWH, your God, redeemed you from there. On account of this I command you to do this thing.

Deuteronomy 24:17–18

Why should we be good to aliens? Because we know how it feels. We know the alien’s soul. So we won’t persecute foreigners; we won’t abhor them; we won’t oppress them; we won’t judge them unfairly; we’ll treat them the same as we treat ourselves; we’ll love them.

Indeed, one possible meaning of the word Levi in Hebrew is “alien.”³

It is certainly true that there are also some harsh passages toward foreigners in the Bible: Dispossess the Canaanites, destroy Jericho, etc. But the evidence in the ground, discussed and debated many times in BAR’s pages, indicates that most of that (the so-called Conquest of the land) never happened.^b Moreover in far more laws and instances, the principle of treatment of aliens is positive.

For example: Don’t rape a captured woman in war (Deuteronomy 21:10ff).

Don’t abhor an Edomite (Deuteronomy 23:8).

If you happen upon your enemy’s ox or donkey straying, bring it back to him.

If you see the donkey of someone who hates you sagging under its burden, and you would hold back from helping him: You shall help him (Exodus 23:4–5).

The Bible permits a violent response to those who threaten Israel’s existence, but it still forbids a massacre if they surrender.

The very fact that the Bible’s sources start off with the creation of the earth and all of humankind instead of starting with Israel itself is relevant here. If any of us were asked to write a history of the United States, would we start by saying, “Well, first there was the Big Bang, and then …”? The Biblical authors saw Israel’s destiny as being to bring good to all those foreign nations and peoples—to the earth. It is not a minor point. It appears in God’s first words to Abraham, in God’s first words to Isaac, and in God’s first words to Jacob: Your descendants’ purpose is to be that “all the nations/families of the earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3; 26:2–4; 28:10–14).

Which brings me back to the opening question: Is “Love your neighbor as yourself” meant exclusively or inclusively? Does this admonition refer only to your Israelite neighbor or to all humankind?

When the text already directs every Israelite to love aliens as oneself, what would be the point of saying to love only Israelites—in the very same chapter! Now my friend Jack Milgrom, of blessed memory, wrote that it is precisely because the love of the alien is specifically mentioned there that love of “neighbor” must mean only a fellow Israelite.⁴

I see his point, but his position would have been more likely if the verse about love of aliens had come first in the text and the love of neighbor had came later. But the instruction to love aliens comes after we’ve already had the instruction to love your neighbor as oneself. That is, if you tell people first to love their aliens and then give a second instruction to love their neighbors, that second instruction really does sound like an addition because the first group, aliens, obviously doesn’t include the second group, neighbors. But if you tell people first to love their neighbors, then a second instruction to love aliens a few verses later can make sense as a specification for anyone who would have thought that love of neighbor didn’t include loving others as well.

Watch full-length lectures from the Out of Egypt: Israel’s Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination conference, which addressed some of the most challenging issues in Exodus scholarship. The international conference was hosted by Calit2’s Qualcomm Institute at UC San Diego in San Diego, CA.

Did the Biblical authors think that the specifications referring to aliens were necessary? We know that they did because they said it 52 times in the Torah! And, in any case, Milgrom and I would both recognize that the bottom line is that one is supposed to love both, alien and neighbor, whether they overlap or not.

So from where did the idea come, that the Hebrew word for neighbor in this verse, re‘a, means only a member of one’s own group? We can get a better idea of what the Hebrew word for neighbor, re‘a, means by looking at other places in the Bible where this word is used.

The first occurrence of re‘a is in the story of the tower of Babel (Babylon). It is the Bible’s story of the origin of different nations and languages. It involves every person on earth: “And they said each to his re‘a …” (Genesis 11:3). That is, the term refers to every human, without any distinctions by group.

Now, one might say, though, that the word might still refer only to members of one’s own group because, at this point in the story, all humans are in fact still members of a single group. So let’s go to the next occurrence of the word. In the story of Judah and Tamar, Judah has a re‘a named Hirah the Adullamite (Genesis 38:12, 20). Hirah is a Canaanite! He comes from the (then) Canaanite city of Adullam. He cannot be a member of Judah’s clan because, at this point in the story, that clan, namely the Israelites, consists only of Jacob and his children and any grandchildren.

In Exodus 11:2 the word appears in both the masculine and feminine in the account of how the Israelites are instructed to ask their Egyptian neighbors for silver and gold items before their exodus from Egypt. The word there refers quite precisely to non-Israelites. In Exodus 2:13, on the other hand, in the story of Moses’ intervention between two “Hebrews” who are fighting, he says to the one at fault, “Why do you strike your re‘a?” So in that episode it refers to an Israelite.

Snark/Art Resource, NY
TEACHING THE LAW. In this ninth-century illustration from the Bible of Charles the Bald, Moses explains the law to the Israelites. Fifty-two occurrences in the Bible’s Levite texts (E, P and D) refer to the importance of treating foreigners fairly—no distinction between an Israelite and a non-Israelite. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is also from a Levite text. Considering this pervasive Levite stress on the fair treatment of the alien, why would a Levite text then say you only need to love an Israelite “neighbor”? Our author believes it doesn’t—“neighbor” includes all humankind.

In short, the word re‘a is used to refer to an Israelite, a Canaanite, an Egyptian, or to everyone on earth.

And still some people say that “Love your re‘a as yourself” means just your fellow Israelite. When the Ten Commandments include one that says: “You shall not bear false witness against your re‘a” (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:17), do they think that this meant that it was okay to lie in a trial if the defendant was a foreigner (even though elsewhere, as we saw, the law forbids Israel to “bend the judgment of an alien”)? When another of the Ten Commandments says not to covet your re‘a’s wife (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:18), do they think that this meant that it was okay to covet a Hittite’s wife (even though elsewhere the Bible condemns King David for doing just that)?

Those who contend that “neighbor” refers only to one’s neighbors of your own people frequently cite its context. They quote the sentence that precedes the sentence about loving one’s neighbor. Looking at the two together, it reads like this:

You shall not take revenge, and you shall not keep on at the children of your people.
And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Since the two sentences were put together into a single verse when verse numbers were added to the Bible, some interpreters have assumed that the “love your neighbor as yourself” line must also be just about “the children of your people.” Why? No reason at all. Read Leviticus 19, carefully. Coming near the very center of the Torah, it is a remarkable mixture of laws of all kinds. It goes back and forth between ethical laws and ritual laws: sacrifice, heresy, injustice, mixing seeds, wearing mixed fabrics (shaatnez), consulting the dead, gossip, robbing, molten idols, caring for the poor. It has everything! I tell my students that if you’re on a desert island and can have only one chapter of the Bible with you, make it Leviticus 19. And its laws all come mixed in between each other. No line can be judged by what comes before it or after it. And, remember, there are no verse numbers or periods or commas in the original.

For more on the Book of Leviticus, read “What Does the Bible Say About Tattoos?” and “Book of Leviticus Verses Recovered from Burnt Hebrew Bible Scroll.”

The much respected Bible scholar Harry Orlinsky made the context argument in 1974.⁵ Because of his scholarly standing, he was followed by others. Robert Wright cited him in The Evolution of God.⁶ Wright had consulted with me on the matter of loving the alien, but unfortunately we didn’t discuss the “neighbor” verse; if we had, I would have cautioned him. Hector Avalos also followed Orlinsky, saying “as Orlinsky has deftly noted …”⁷ The “deftly noted” remark has been used (and often quoted) over and over again in connection with the interpretation of this verse. It was not deft at all.

The same “context” mistake was made by John Hartung, an evolutionary anthropologist⁸ who was cited and followed by Richard Dawkins in his bestselling The God Delusion, saying, “‘Love thy neighbor’ didn’t mean what we now think it means. It meant only ‘Love another Jew.’”⁹ Hartung emphasized the importance of context, but he then used only the one verse (quoted above), seemingly unaware that the joining of its two statements was done by those who created numbered verses centuries after the Bible was written.

“Love your neighbor as yourself” remains: Famous. Impressive. Fascinating. Inspiring. You can accept or challenge it. And you can decide whether you will follow it in your own life. But don’t change what it means.

“Love Your Neighbor: Only Israelites or Everyone?” by Richard Elliott Friedman was originally published in the September/October 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. It was first republished in Bible History Daily on August 19, 2014.

Richard Elliott Friedman is the Ann and Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia and Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, and author of the classic Who Wrote the Bible? (1987). He was a visiting fellow at Cambridge and Oxford, a senior fellow of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, a visiting professor at the University of Haifa and participated in the City of David Project archaeological excavations of Jerusalem.

FREE ebook: Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Notes

a. Richard Elliott Friedman, “Taking the Biblical Text Apart,” Bible Review, Fall 2005.

b: Aharon Kempinski, “Israelite Conquest or Settlement? New Light from Tell Masos,” BAR, September 1976;

• Yigael Yadin, “Israel Comes to Canaan: Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?” BAR, March/April 1982;
• Ziony Zevit, “The Problem of Ai,” BAR, March/April 1985;
• David Ussishkin, “Lachish—Key to the Israelite Conquest of Canaan?” BAR, January/February 1987;
• Bryant G. Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” BAR, March/April 1990;
• Hershel Shanks, “When Did Ancient Israel Begin?” BAR, January/February 2012;
• Amnon Ben-Tor, “Who Destroyed Canaanite Hazor?” BAR, July/August 2013.

1. Michael Homan, To Your Tents O Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 111–115.

2. Scott Noegel demonstrated this in an impressive paper at the Out of Egypt conference: “The Ark of the Covenant and Egyptian Sacred Barks: A Comparative Study” (conference, San Diego, May 31–June 9, 2013).

3. William Propp, Exodus 1–18, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1999), p. 128.

4. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 1654; and see bibliography there.

5. Harry Orlinsky, Essays in Biblical Culture and Bible Translation (New York: Ktav, 1974), p. 83.

6. Wright cited him in The Evolution of God (New York: Little, 2009), pp. 235–236.

7. Hector Avalos, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005), p. 140.

8. John Hartung, “Love Thy Neighbor: The Evolution of In-Group Morality,” Struggles for Existence (blog), (strugglesforexistence.com/?p=article_p&id=13).

9. Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), p. 253.

The post Love Your Neighbor: Only Israelites or Everyone? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

“Yahweh and his Asherah” is written across the top of this eighth-century B.C. drawing on a ceramic pithos, or storage jar, from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the eastern Sinai. Some scholars have theorized that these figures resembling the Egyptian god Bes (on the left in the photo above) are in fact a drawing of God and his consort. Others, however, have interpreted both figures as male. The recently published Kuntillet ‘Ajrud excavation report sheds some light on this enigmatic fragment, but many questions remain. Photo courtesy Dr. Ze’ev Meshel and Avraham Hai/Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology.

Everything about it has been difficult. Located in the Sinai desert about 10 miles west of the ancient Gaza Road (Darb Ghazza, in Arabic) as it passes through Bedouin territory separating the Negev from Egypt, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud is remote and isolated from any other settlement. In 1975, Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze’ev Meshel and a band of nine volunteers, mostly from kibbutzim and a few colleagues as staff, decided to excavate at the site.

The finds from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud were fantastic. The zingers were two large pithoi, or storage jars, that weighed about 30 pounds each. The now-reconstructed pithoi are painted with deities, humans, animals and symbols, and feature a number of inscriptions, including three that refer to Yahweh and his asherah or Asherah, depending on your interpretation. Asherah is a pagan goddess. Was she God’s wife?

Below an inscription on one of the pithoi (referring to Yahweh and his asherah) are drawings of two figures easily and unquestionably identifiable as the Egyptian god Bes, in fact a collective name for a group of dwarf deities. Is this meant to be a drawing of God (i.e., Yahweh) with his consort Asherah? The scholar who published the chapter about the drawings doesn’t think so. She interprets it as two male deities—probably just the Egyptian god Bes—and not as a drawing of God and his goddess wife. Other scholars disagree, but this much is clear: The drawing was added to the pithos after the inscription was written, so the two may be completely unrelated.

FREE ebook: Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries. Finds like the Pool of Siloam in Israel, where the Gospel of John says Jesus miraculously restored sight to a blind man.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Why has it taken nearly four decades to publish this final report? One reason is that everything about Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and its finds is so darn difficult to interpret—or even to see. The recently published report is a superb volume, and the discussion and interpretation will surely continue far beyond its pages.

Subscribers: Learn more about the site and finds at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, including the fragment with the two figures of the Egyptian god Bes that may be a drawing of God labeled “Yahweh and his Asherah,” by reading BAR editor Hershel Shanks’s review article “The Persisting Uncertainties of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud” in the November/December 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol?

Judean Pillar Figurines

Israelite Kings Depicted in Ancient Art?

The History of the Tetragrammaton

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published in October 2012.

The post Puzzling Finds from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Looking out over the Elah Valley from on top of Tel Azekah. Courtesy Nathan Steinmeyer, BAS.

The Shephelah, also known as the Judean Foothills, is one of many geographic regions mentioned in the Bible. However, for those who have never visited the Holy Land, it is a place that can be hard to picture. So, what is the Shephelah?

FREE ebook: Frank Moore Cross: Conversations with a Bible Scholar. Download now.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Map of the Holy Land during the Iron Age, with the Shephelah marked in orange. Courtesy BAS

The Shephelah is a transition zone between the Judean Highlands in the east—the area of Jerusalem and Hebron—and the coastal plain in the west. Consisting of gently rolling hills, the fertile Shephelah includes important biblical cities and towns like Lachish, Beth Shemesh, Azekah, and Gezer. Within the Shephelah, there are also other important biblical places, like the Elah Valley, where David fought Goliath. Indeed, the entire area is divided by a series of valleys with seasonal streams.

With so many biblical sites, it would be easy to mistake the Shephelah for a large area, but in fact, it is only a small strip of land, roughly 35 miles long and 8 miles wide. Of the southern Levant’s main geographic zones, the Shephelah is one of the smallest. This did not stop it, however, from playing a critical role in the Bible, especially during the period of the Kingdom of Judah (c. 1000–586 BCE). From the establishment of David’s kingdom until the conquest of the region by the Assyrians and then Babylonians, the Shephelah was the border between the Kingdom of Judah and the Philistine city-states of the coastal plain. Many of the Shephelah’s biblical sites are located along the valleys through which people would have passed from the coastal plain to the Judean Highlands. Settling along these valleys served the dual purpose of giving the inhabitants access to fertile agricultural land, as well as the ability to control travel between regions. This was especially important for the defense of the young Judahite kingdom.

A bell cave, part of an underground cave network at the site of Maresha in the lower Shephelah. Courtesy Nathan Steinmeyer, BAS.

According to both the biblical account and various historical reconstructions, the Shephelah was also one of the first regions into which David’s kingdom expanded in the early tenth century BCE. Beginning in Hebron, where David reigned for several years, the kingdom soon grew to encompass Jerusalem and the eastern Shephelah, before expanding again to incorporate the northern Negev and other major cities in the Shephelah, including Lachish.

The ruins of the Byzantine church of Saint Anne in the lower Shephelah. Courtesy Nathan Steinmeyer, BAS.

The Shephelah is largely covered by grasses, shrubs, and low-lying trees, and it mostly consists of a Mediterranean climate. Although containing many fertile valleys, the area is too hilly for large-scale industrial agriculture, but today it still features many smaller fields as well as some of Israel’s most popular vineyards. It is also an ideal place for sheep herding.

Herd of sheep at Maresha in the lower Shephelah. Courtesy Nathan Steinmeyer, BAS.

The Valley of Elah

The lush Elah Valley is one of the best known and archaeologically rich valleys of the Shephelah. Named after the terebinth tree, the Elah is an exceptionally fertile region that was part of the breadbasket of ancient Judah. Along the valley’s edges are several important archaeological sites, including Azekah, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tel Socoh, and Tel Adullam.

FREE ebook, Recipes from the BAR Test Kitchen Make your own food from recipes handed down from biblical times. Download now.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

The nearly 4-mile-long valley, which extends in a broad arc from east to west, was an important corridor and borderland in antiquity. Serving as the backdrop to the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17), the valley forms a natural border between the territories of Philistia and Judah, separating the cities of the coastal plain from those of the hill country. According to the Bible, the Elah Valley was where the Philistine and Israelite armies made camp, and it was from the valley’s streambeds that David took his sling stones to slay the Philistine giant.

This article was first published in Bible History Daily on January 27, 2025.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

OnSite: Tel Gezer

Digging In: Tel Azekah

Sennacherib’s Siege of Lachish

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Memorandum Re: Restoring Gezer

The Last Days of Canaanite Azekah

Lachish Temple Sheds New Light on Canaanite Religion

World Wonders: The Valley of Elah

The post What Is the Shephelah? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Nearly a century ago, French archaeologist Raymond Weill excavated what he identified to be tombs in Jerusalem’s City of David—perhaps the royal necropolis of the earliest Old Testament kings. Some scholars have since disputed this claim, but an examination of the evidence by archaeologist Jeff Zorn suggests that Weill might well have been right.

Although King David’s tomb has been erroneously identified with a location on Jerusalem’s Mt. Zion since the days of the Jewish historian Josephus (first century C.E.), earlier Biblical references make it clear that David and many other Old Testament kings were buried near the southern end of the City of David in ancient Jerusalem. But where exactly? Jeff Zorn believes we may already know.

Archaeologist Jeff Zorn believes these two quarried-out tunnels in the City of David may have once held the remains of the earliest Old Testament kings of ancient Jerusalem.

Nineteenth-century diplomat and explorer Charles Clermont-Ganneau believed the circuitous path of Hezekiah’s Tunnel offered a major clue. Clermont-Ganneau suggested the looping semicircular path followed by Hezekiah’s Tunnel towards its southern end was dug to avoid disturbing the burial grounds of the ancient Jerusalem kings that lay above. Within a couple of decades, Baron Edmond de Rothschild had purchased land in this area of the City of David to test the hypothesis through excavation.

Weill directed excavations on Baron Rothschild’s City of David property in 1913–1914 and again in 1923–1924. Though the area was greatly disturbed by later quarrying, Weill discovered ancient walls, ritual pools, cisterns, a circular tower (now believed to be a columbarium) and, most remarkably, nine rock-cut features that he identified as “tombs.” Weill interpreted the three most prominent tombs (labeled T1–T3) to be part of the royal necropolis of the Old Testament kings of ancient Jerusalem.

FREE eBook: Life in the Ancient World.
Craft centers in Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—through the Mediterranean world.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

The parallel rock-cut tunnels Weill labeled T1 and T2 are still the most imposing of the “tombs.” T1 is about 54 feet long, 8 feet wide and 6 feet high. T2 is about 28 feet long, although evidence suggests it may originally have been much longer. While both tunnels are relatively simple and unadorned, T1 was divided into two levels, with the upper including a 6-foot-long rectangular depression at its far end that could have held the body or sarcophagus of the deceased.

So are these tunnels the remains of the royal Davidic necropolis of ancient Jerusalem?

Most scholar have remained unconvinced, pointing out that several features of the tunnels indicate they were more likely used as domestic cisterns or basements during the Second Temple period. But, as Jeff Zorn argues, even if these features were modified and reused during the Second Temple period (by which time any memory of where David and his descendants were buried had long since faded), this does not preclude the possibility of their original function as ancient Jerusalem royal tombs.

Those who reject Weill’s interpretation also point out that prominent Jerusalem families were able to commission much more elaborate First Temple period tombs, many of which have been found. Why then would Judah’s Old Testament kings have been buried in such simple, unadorned sepulchers?

Jeff Zorn argues that the plain tombs discovered by Weill are much more characteristic of the relatively simple royal tombs known from Late Bronze and early Iron Age sites throughout the Near East. As such, Weill’s tombs very well could be the tombs of Jerusalem’s earliest Old Testament kings, whose final resting places would have been made to look like the royal tombs of their contemporaries.

To continue learning about the ancient Jerusalem tombs discovered by Weill, read Jeffrey Zorn’s “Is T1 David’s Tomb?,” Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2012.

To view web-exclusive details of the site, visit “King David’s Tomb–A Closer Look”.

A version of this post first appeared in Bible History Daily in 2012.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Related reading in Bible History Daily

The Tomb of the Kings in Jerusalem

King David’s Tomb–A Closer Look

Have the Tombs of the Kings of Judah Been Found?: A Response

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Letter from a Hebrew King?

Who Built the Tomb of the Kings?

Mounds of Mystery

The post Where Were the Old Testament Kings of Ancient Jerusalem Buried? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Proposed reconstruction of the second Jerusalem temple. Illustration: Shalom Kveller, City of David.

Solomon’s Jerusalem Temple is easily one of the most central and important buildings in the Hebrew Bible. However, an archaeological discovery suggests that for much of the First Temple period (c. 1000–586 BCE), Solomon’s Temple was not the only place of worship in Jerusalem. On the eastern slopes of the City of David, just a few hundred yards away from the Temple Mount, archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority claim to have uncovered a second temple.

FREE ebook: Jerusalem Archaeology: Exposing the Biblical City Read about some of the city’s most groundbreaking excavations.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

A Shocking Discovery

At over 2,300 square feet and partly dug into the side of the hill, the cultic site is made up of eight rock-hewn rooms, each containing different installations, including an altar, a massebah (standing stone), an oil press, and a winepress. The oil and winepress were probably used for preparing offerings to the temple’s deity (represented by the massebah), and the altar, which included a drainage channel, might have been the site of sacrifices. According to the researchers, who published their results in the journal ‘Atiqot, the temple was most likely built in the 16th century BCE—at the very end of the Middle Bronze Age—and went out of use in the eighth century BCE, around the time of King Hezekiah.

A carved installation identified as an altar, with a channel for liquid drainage. Kobi Harati, City of David.

According to Eli Shukron, director of the excavation, “The structure ceased to function during the eighth century, possibly as part of King Hezekiah’s religious reform. According to the Bible, Hezekiah sought to centralize worship at the Temple in Jerusalem, abolishing the ritual sites scattered across the kingdom. The Bible describes how, during the First Temple period, additional ritual sites operated outside the Temple, and two kings of Judah—Hezekiah and Josiah—implemented reforms to eliminate these sites and concentrate worship at the Temple.”

Another room of the temple featured mysterious V-shaped carvings on the floor. According to the excavation team, the carvings may have been used for preparing liquids, or as the base for a loom or perhaps a tripod structure used for ritual activities. At one end of the room, a small cave was carved into the hill that contained a stash of objects dating to the eighth century. Among the objects were cooking pots, jars bearing fragments of Hebrew writing, loom weights, scarabs, stamp seals, and grinding stones. The inscriptions may have served magical purposes or had some other religious meaning. The cave was carefully sealed before the building went out of use, which may suggest it was used as a favissa, a cultic storage place.

The V-shaped floor carvings with the doorway to the favissa behind them. Courtesy Kobi Harati, City of David.

The temple itself is quite different from other Iron Age temples. “A key characteristic of this compound is its construction within rock-cut chambers,” Helena Roth, one of the report’s authors, told Bible History Daily. This is a “unique feature compared to other Iron Age cultic compounds in the region, which are typically stone-built. While some architectural elements, such as the small back chamber hosting the standing stone, align with known Iron Age temples, the lack of an apparent eastern wall raises questions about its function. It is possible that this was a ceremonial temple, open to the valley and the opposite slope.”

Despite clear differences with other Iron Age temples, such as the lack of a tripartite structure, the researchers are still quite confident in their assessment of it as a cultic site. “This is indicated by the discovery of a massebah and its platform, the carefully sealed favissa, and the unique and significant artifacts,” continued Roth. “While no in situ finds were located due to the rooms being sealed after their floors were cleared, the nature of these artifacts points towards a centralized institution, possibly a temple.”

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Illustration of the carved rooms discovered in the City of David. Illustration: Shalom Kveller, City of David.

If the researchers are correct in their interpretation, the discovery of this second temple is shocking, not only because it appears to run counter to the biblical impression that Solomon’s Temple was the sole place of worship in Jerusalem, but there are also very few known temples in the whole kingdom of Judah from this time. A few notable exceptions have been discovered at sites like Arad, Beer Sheva, Lachish, and Moza. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to determine which deity (or deities) was worshiped in this newly discovered temple. However, it seems unlikely that it was a place of worship for the Israelite god Yahweh, as it would be unusual to have two temples to the same deity within such proximity. Nonetheless, the careful way in which the temple appears to have been decommissioned, with its standing stone left upright, is reminiscent of the Arad temple, which is often believed to have been dedicated to Yahweh.

This article first appeared in Bible History Daily on January 20, 2025.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Searching for the Temple of King Solomon

The Doorways of Solomon’s Temple

Unearthing Jerusalem’s Millo

Mysterious Jerusalem Channels Confound Archaeologists

Jerusalem’s Iron Age Moat Discovered

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

The Missing Millennium in Jerusalem’s Archaeology

Jerusalem and the Holy Land(fill)

Jerusalem in David and Solomon’s Time

Jerusalem as Eden

The post A Second Temple in First Temple Jerusalem? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

This four-tiered cult stand found at Tanaach is thought to represent Yahweh and Asherah, with each deity being depicted on alternating tiers. Note that on tier two, which is dedicated to Asherah, is the image of a living tree, often thought to be how the asherim as a cult symbol was expressed. Photo: © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem/Israel Antiquities Authority (photograph by Avraham Hay).

Who is Asherah? Or, perhaps, what is asherah?¹ The Hebrew means “happy” or “upright” and some suggest “(sacred) place.” The term appears 40 times in the Hebrew Bible, usually in conjunction with the definite article “the.” The definite article in Hebrew is similar to English in that personal names do not take an article. For example, I am Ellen, not the Ellen. Thus it is clear that when the definite article is present that it is not a personal name, but this does not eliminate the possibility of it being a category of being (i.e., a type of goddess). There are only eight cases where the term appears without an article or a suffix—suffixes in Hebrew can be used to express possession, e.g., “his,” “their,” etc. Interestingly, the plural of the term, asherim, occurs in both masculine and feminine forms.

This diversity of grammar leads to the two questions at the beginning of this article: Who is Asherah? What is asherah? The reference may be to a particular goddess, a class of goddess or a cult symbol used to represent the goddess. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish what meaning is intended (cf. Judges 3:7).

This goddess is known from several other Ancient Near Eastern cultures.² Sometimes she is known as “Lady Asherah of the Sea” but could be taken as “She who walks on the sea.” As Athirat, a cognate name for Asherah, she is mother of 70 children (this relates to the Jewish idea of the 70 guardian angels of the nations). Arguments have been made that Asherah is a figure in Egyptian, Hittite, Philistine and Arabic texts. Egyptian representations of “Qudshu” (potentially the Egyptian name for Asherah) show her naked with snakes and flowers, sometimes standing on a lion. Whether this should be interpreted as Asherah is contested and thus should be viewed with caution. Another suggestion is Asherah is also the Hittite goddess Asertu, who is married to Elkunirsa, the storm god (she is often viewed in connection with the regional storm god).

As Athirat in Arabian inscriptions there is a possibility that she is seen as a sun goddess (this is perhaps a connection in Ugaritic literature as well). In Phoenician, she is the mother goddess, which is different from Astarte, the fertility goddess; there is some debate regarding a confusion of the two relating to 1 Kings 18:19. In Akkadian, she might be Asratum, the consort of Amurru (chief deity of early Babylon). The connection is made because the Akkadian kingship (early 14th century B.C.E.) takes the title “servant of Asherah.”

FREE eBook: Life in the Ancient World.
Craft centers in Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—through the Mediterranean world.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

The Ugaritic texts provide the most insight into the goddess. Ras Shamra (located on the Syrian coast) texts, discovered in 1929, portray her as Athirat, the wife of El. Their sexual encounter produces dusk (Shalim) and dawn (Shahar), among others. Her relationship with Baal is complicated, and it is suggested that Baal has killed large numbers of her children.³ In these texts, she intercedes with El to get Baal a palace, after Anat’s (his “sister” and her “daughter”) request is refused. She supplies a son to reign after Baal descends into the netherworld. The relationship is further complicated by debates as to whether she is the mother of Baal or his consort or both. The idea of her being a consort comes from later Phoenician sources, where scholars have associated Asherah with Tinnit. Yet, the connections are tentative, and many scholars question the association. A hypothesis also suggests that Baal usurped El’s position and also took his consort, Asherah, which would make the relationship very oedipal.

This inscription found on a pithos at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (similar to an inscription found at Khirbet el-Qom) refers to “Yahweh and his Asherah.” This has led some scholars to believe that in popular religion Asherah was understood to be the wife of Yahweh, much the same as she under her cognate Athirat was considered to be the wife of El. Photo: Courtesy Dr. Ze’ev Meshel and Avraham Hai/Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology.

Asherah or asherim refer to more than just the person of the deity. These terms are often, especially in the Biblical texts, used for consecrated poles. These poles represent living trees, with which the goddess is associated. Some scholars believe that asherim were not poles, but living trees (like the one depicted on the Tanaach Cult Stand). The poles were either carved to look like trees or to resemble the goddess (this could also be reflected in the numerous pillar figurines found throughout Israel). Remains of these poles are determined by postholes and rotted timber, which resulted in differently hued soil. There is great debate as to whether the cult symbol lost its ties to Asherah (and became a religious symbol on its own without the worshippers knowing anything about the goddess who originated it) or is seen as a representation of Asherah herself (similar to the way the cross is a representation of Jesus to Christians).

The relationship between Asherah and Israel is a complicated one.⁴ Does the text refer to the goddess or her symbol?⁵ Jeroboam and Rehoboam fostered Asherah worship (1 Kings 14:15, 23). Worship of Asherah was highly encouraged by Jezebel, with the presence of 400 prophets who held a place in the court of her husband King Ahab (1 Kings 18:19). Worship of Asherah is given as a reason for deportation (2 Kings 17:10,16). Attempts to eradicate the worship were made by Asa, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Gideon (Exodus 34:13-14; Deuteronomy 7:5; Judges 6:25-30; 1 Kings 15:13/2 Chronicles 15:16; 2 Kings 23:4,7/2 Chronicles 34:3,7; 2 Kings 21:7/2 Chronicles 33:3,19; 2 Chronicles 19:3; 2 Kings 18:4). However, devotion to the cult symbol remained (Isaiah 27:9; Jeremiah 17:1; Micah 5:14). It is particularly interesting that objections to Asherah are found mostly in Deuteronomistic literature, rather than in the prophets. In both cases, the authors are much more concerned about the worship of Baal rather than Asherah.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

This apparent lack of concern might be due to a popular connection between Yahweh and his Asherah. Inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (on a pithos; see image above) and Khirbet el-Qom (on walls) contain the phrase “Yahweh and his Asherah.”⁶ Some take this to mean it was believed that she was seen as the wife of Yahweh and represents the goddess herself. Yet, the presence of the suffix could suggest that it is not a personal name. This has led others to believe it is a reference to the cult symbol. A more obscure opinion claims it means a cella or chapel; this meaning is found in other Semitic languages, but not Hebrew. Because of the similarities between El and Yahweh, it is understandable that Asherah could have been linked to Yahweh. While some readers might find the idea that Yahweh had a wife disturbing, it was common in the ancient world to believe that gods married and even bore children. This popular connection between Yahweh and Asherah, and the eventual purging of Asherah from the Israelite cult, is likely a reflection of the emergence of monotheism from the Israelites’ previous polytheistic worldview.

Ellen White, Ph.D. (Hebrew Bible, University of St. Michael’s College), formerly the senior editor at the Biblical Archaeology Society, has taught at five universities across the U.S. and Canada and spent research leaves in Germany and Romania. She has also been actively involved in digs at various sites in Israel.

Notes

1. One of the most influential studies on Asherah is Saul M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Olyan’s study provides background for this piece.

2. For a detailed study of Asherah outside of the Biblical texts, see Walter A. Maier, Asherah: Extrabiblical Evidence, Harvard Semitic Monographs (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).

3. Olyan, Asherah, pp. 38–61.

4. For one of the best treatment of Asherah and Israel, see Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

5. For a really good analysis of the Biblical passages involving Asherah, see C. Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, Bonner biblische Beitrage (Weinheim: Belz Athenaum Verlag, 1995).

6. For more details, see William Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 176–251.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on November 4, 2014.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Puzzling Finds from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud

High Places, Altars and the Bamah

Judean Pillar Figurines

How Bad Was Jezebel?

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Did God Have a Wife?

Pagan Yahwism: The Folk Religion of Ancient Israel

Folk Religion in Early Israel: Did Yahweh Have a Consort?

Was Yahweh Worshiped as the Sun?

Understanding Asherah—Exploring Semitic Iconography

Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah?

Did Yahweh Have a Consort?

The post Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.