[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

orion Re: "BYTYHWH"

Dear Paul,
Judith did have one important point that we should all underline: 
Hershel Shanks certainly knows how to put the cat among the pigeons.

In fact, on this one, the lion can lie down with the lamb, or 
whatever other peaceful metaphor you prefer. The following is a 
"critical-maximalist" reading of the evidence (forgive me the 
1) According to Pardee at alii, in Semitica, the ostracon is "a receipt" but they 
offer no evidence. The text is not located geographically; but they date it 
to the late seventh century, bce without however a thoroughgoing 
comparative analysis. Their own authority and knowledge of scripts 
seems to be their reference. CNN reports that Cross et alii date it 
"about a century earlier" which I translate as late-eighth century. 
Shanks reports that McCarter (very diplomatically) dates the text to the 
9th.-7th. century, but without giving reasons. Shanks, as a good 
journalist, reports only what "experts" tell him. There is no real 
disagreement here, as we are unable to distinguish our paleography 
very well in this early period from the early Iron Age to the Persian 
period, especially when we do not discuss the paleography of the  script 
on the basis of evidence.
2. The inscription mentions a King Ashyahu, unknown from any 
inscriptions and not included in the stories of the bible as a king 
of any "kingdom" in Palestine: neither Israel, Judah or Edom. Similar 
names are found in the bible: namely, Yoash and Yehoash. Pardee et 
al. suggest that it might be possible to identify this name with 
Josiah. This of course stretches a bit. One is more likely to look 
elsewhere among the patronates of Palestine for King Ashyahu.
3. the writing bytyhwh is interesting as it lacks the dot of the 
byt.yhwh of Arad. A maximalist would certainly welcome this as 
evidence in the bytdwd debate to show that bytx and byt.x are merely 
variant script forms. A minimalist might also welcome it as evidence 
that bytx (without dot) signifies a place name: and hence, a temple. 
I find the coincidence with the bytdwd inscription overwhelming 
4. bytyhwh as the name of a temple or of a place where there is likely 
a temple seems inescapable.
5. But where? Evidence we have is considerable.
a) New Kingdom texts refer to a place name yhwh of the Shasu. 
Scholars have long speculated that this implicitly refers to a 
byt.yhwh in the Sinai.
b) Knauf et al., and Lemche and Thompson have argued independently 
that bytdwd from Tel Dan refers to a place where there is a temple of 
c) A similar argument has been made for the same name in the Mesha 
d) Kuntillat Ajrud very likely refers to two temples of Yhwh: one in 
Teman and the other in Samaria.
e) We have the Yhwh temple on Mt. Gerizim
f) e have Yhwh temples in traditional literature in the bible and 
other Hellenistic literature which place Yhwh temples in Jerusalem 
and Samaria. The Jerusalem temple has beenassociated with Moses, 
David, Solomon, Ezra Maccabees and Herod. The historicity of much of 
this traditional literature is doubtful.
And I think that is about the whole of it.

Thomas L. Thompson
professor, University of Copenhagen

> Dear Judith,
> I'm not sure I follow the point of this discussion but of course there are
> temples to Yahweh in Israel, even at the time that Josiah has supposedly
> gotten rid of all but the Jerusalem Temple.  Arad is one such temple, for
> example.
> Paul
> >>Dear Judith who thinks there is no evidence of temples to yahweh
> >>
> >>It is in fact the argument that  here was only a temple in Jerusalem in the
> >>Iron Age that is speculative. The book of Kings (whether reliably or not
> >>does not matter at all) reports Josiah (for example) as clearing away
> >>foreign places of worship and that would be in the 7th century, shortly
> >>before the end of the kingdom of Judah
> >>