Martin Heide: A new book can now be added to the series of writings which question the traditional chronology: A Est of Time (London, 1995), written by English Egyptologist David Rohl. It is a relief to observe that, contrary to many `mini- malists', Rohl does not begin with the assumption that the older the biblical accounts are, the more mythical and legendary they are to be viewed. A `maximalist' has taken the stage giving the biblical stories and chronology a fundamental trustworthiness. Under this premise, Rohl comes to the controversial conclusion that the traditional Egyptian chronology must undergo a radical shift. The dimension of this necessary change becomes clear in the identification of Shishak, the Egyptian conqueror ofJeru- salem - with Ramesses 11, and the (unnamed) pharaoh of King David's time - with Akhenaten. Now an Egyp- tologist might agree to a c. 50 year alteration in the currently accepted chronology, but certainly not the 300 plus years presented here. In the `New Chronology', the Amarna Period (traditionally mid-14th century BC) co- incides with the early Hebrew kingdom (1 l th century BC). Perhaps it is because of this alone that Rohl finds so little recognition in the academic world.' Rohl's New Chronology also offers a new explanation for the Sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, the date of the Exodus, and for the Conquest of Canaan. He identifies Labayu of the Amarna Period with Saul of the Old Testa- ment, Mutbaal with Ishbaal, Saul's son, and even finds David andJesse. Interestingly, David Rohl wants his New Chronology to undergo a test with these identifications: As we immerse ourselves in the extraordinary era of the Amarna heresy, . . . we find ourselves with an exceptional opportunity to test out the New Chronology . . . If the New Chronology is correct in placing Saul and David in the Amarna period, then the political situation in Palestine - as reflected in the Amarna Letters - should closely correspond to the history of Israel at the beginning of the Israelite Monarchy Period. With a little luck we might even be able to identify some of the main players of the books of Samuel in the Amarna correspondence. If we fail to do any of these things, then the chronological revision advocated in this book would begin to look rather shaky. (p. 195) With this argument, Rohl abandons the area of Egyptol- ogy and touches upon subjects such as Semitism and the theology of the Old Testament and even textual criticism. 3ide and Peter van der Veen Thus he comes to a number of misleading conclusions, which I wish to expose. The Habiru Problem The term ibriin the Old Testament is habitually found in the mouths of foreigners and describes Israel's specific ethnical status as well as that of its ancestors (cf. Genesis 39:14; 41:12). Rohl equates the biblical name Hebrew with the habiru of the Amarna Letters without hesitation, thus assigning the habiru to the early Hebrew Kingdom. But the etymological connection of the ibm`with the habiru (or more precisely cuneiform ab4iru; Ugaritic translitera- tion pmz; Egy. prw/ pr) is still questionable. The habiru, primarily mentioned in Mesopotamian sources, lived throughout the Near East during the second millennium BC, and were even mentioned in the Hittite archives. They are described as workers, social outcasts, refugees, and represent a social entity rather than an ethnic group. A possible meaning for the root pr or hpr is `dust', thus simply describing the low social status of these people. Another interpretation favours `br, which has the mean- ing `passing-by' or `moving-on' - describing the nomadic life-style of the habiru? However, even if a philological connection of the gentilic ibri with the habiru was to be accepted: it is still far from clear whether, and to what extent, a sociological or ethnic identity may also be inferred. Such a sociological or ethnic association is by no means apparent if we compare the Hebrews with the habiru of the Amarna Letters. Rohl puts it dramatically: The Amarna Habiru do not simply bear a striking resemblance to David's Hebrews -they are David's Hebrews! (p. 202) Peter van der Veen responds: To a certain extent Martin Heide's criticisms are helpful in that they raise a number of basic issues worthy of fur- ther discussion. On the other hand, they do not represent a serious challenge to the complete Amarna equation. This is due to the fact that Heide does not question the social-political, historical and topographical parallels which constitute the main part of the Amarna hypothesis. Heide only deals with a limited number of personal names discussed in the New Chronology theory. His view on the connection of Y~huya (EA 256) with Ykhy (= Jesse `[god] lives') and of Azim with [Hadad-]ezer (`Hadad is a helper') remains uncertain. Heide understands the Hebrew word ibri as a term JACF VOL. 8 31 for Israel's separate position as a people among the nations. It is a term mostly used by Egyptians and Philis- tines in the biblical narrative, as opposed to the Akkadian word habiru which is correctly understood as a socio- political designation. Heide, however, is not convinced that an etymological connection exists between ibri and habiru or whether a sociological and ethnic connection can be made. In Heide's opinion Rohl therefore over simplifies the equation of the biblical Hebrews with the Habiru of the Amarna Letters. However, David Rohl does not simply equate the two names. He bases his assertion on: (a) my own extensive research into the habiru problem (cf. D. M. Rohl: A Zst $Time, pp. 200 ff.); and (b) the arguments put forward in a previously published paper inJACF6 (1993), pp. 38-39. Rohl argues (in agreement with many biblical and lin- guistic scholars) that the word ibrim was not originally employed as a gentilic in Israel, but rather as a socio- political term for homeless and restless people living on the fringes of society.' The term habiru is not only used to describe the wandering and homeless ancestors in Canaan (cf. Genesis 14: 13; Deuteronomy 26:5; Joshua 24:2-4), but also the Israelites in Egypt (cf. Genesis 39: 17,41: 12; Exodus 2:7- 13,3: 18, etc.). This is also true of the Israelites in the late Judges and early Monarchy Period, living on the fringe of feudal Philistine society (1 Samuel 4:6-10, 13:20, etc.).2 If we compare the books of Samuel and the Amarna Letters, it becomes clear that the terms habiru and ibrim were always understood as socio-political terms. In both sources the words also have an extended meaning. They are also pejoratives, describing populations who have rebelled against the sovereignty of the land. The conduct of David and his men has often been compared with the typical habiru phenomenon, first living as freebooters in the hill-country and later on as mercenaries in the army of the Philistines.3 As to the etymological meaning of these two terms, it is to be noted that, despite those who take an opposing view (e.g. M. C. Astour, A. F. Rainey4), many prominent scholars (such as Manfred Weippert, Oswalt Loretz and Nadav Na'aman5) accept the connection. For example, Na'aman maintains that: The etymological relationship of the habiru of the ancient near eastern texts and the biblical term ibri can be established reasonably securely. Na'aman's thesis, in which he connects habiru with habaru (meaning to emigrate or wander about) appears very convincing. Documents from Mari support this link. The Hebrew word ibri(m) is linked to the Hebrew verb `abar (`to pass through'). This meaning does not only resemble closely the meaning of Akkadian habaru but also corresponds well with the status of the habiru of the Bronze Age and the ibrim of the Bible. Their status was that of men who were forced to leave their home country, due to financial need and political oppression, in search of a better existence in foreign lands.8 G. Mendenhall refers to a further meaning of Hebrew `abar which is compatible to that of habir~.~ 2bar can also mean to transgress against (the law), to rebel, or to desert (Numbers 22: 18; Deuteronomy 26: 13; 1 Samuel 15:24; etc.) This corresponds to the extended meaning of habiru in the Amarna Letters where it is used for traitor, reprobate and rebel. This use of `abar implies a breach of religious covenant as well as political loyalty. David's disloyalty when deserting Israel to join Achish (1 Samuel 27:2), and Abner's threat to give Saul's kingdom over to David (2 Samuel 3: 10) are both cases described with the word `abar. lo Similarly, the noun ibrim in 1 Samuel is used as a pejorative for disloyal Israelites (cf. 1 Samuel. 4:6-9; 13:21 & 14:ll). Weippert has demonstrated how the early term habiru could have developed in the Hebrew language into a segolate form of thefa`al orfa`il type. The development could have happened in the following manner: `abhbray to ibriwith the afformative -ay, ayuq i indicating a gentilic or membership of a social class. l1 A similar development might have occurred to the Akkadian noun hupm or in Ugaritic hb@t (peasantlfanner, but also soldiers recruited from the peasantry) which developed not only linguistically but also semantically into the Hebrew form holjsi (one freed of service).12 It is possible that the word habiru went through a similar literary development (though probably limited to the early Iron Age) in Babylon, where the word habiru was also written with a determinative for people in order to designate a descendant of an earlier habiru Martin Heide: Labayu and Saul If the New Chronology's synchronism of the Amarna period with the early Monarchy period is correct, then this Labayu must be none other than the first Israelite king - Saul. (A list $Time, p. 205) According to Rohl, `Saul' is a legendary name, as is Solomon: Neither name was given to the two kings at birth, nor probably during their lifetimes. We should not, therefore, expect the Amarna Letters to give Saul's 32 JACF VOL. 8 `legendary' name but rather his contemporary name. (p. 206; cf. 1 Samuel 9:2; 2 Samuel 12:24) Mer we have learnt that Saul's real name is Labayu (`Great Lion'), Rohl goes on to find biblical eviden~e:~ This is to be found in Psalm 57:5: I am in the midst of lions; I lie among the ravenous beasts - men whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongues are sharp swords. For Rohl it is clear from the latter text that Saul's body- guards were called `great lions' (Zebaim). For there are also arrowheads which could possibly have belonged to Saul's time and that are inscribed with /iy `bd Zb ' t - `arrow of the servant of the lioness'. Nevertheless, the verse mentions nothing about Saul's (or Labayu's) real name. Moreover, this verse is extracted from a poem and thus makes use of literary symbolism. In the Old Testament the lion is a symbol of majestic and threatening power. Because of the `lion-like faces' (1 Chronicle 12:8) of David's men, one could come to a very different conclusion. Yigael Yadin connected the arrowheads not with Saul's men but with David's.5 This also is hypothetical. Furthermore, another root for lion (Hebrew aryeh) is used here, not Hebrew labi. Peter van der Veen responds: Heide's second argument deals with the names Saul and Labayu - two kings who are considered to have been identical in the New Chronology. Of course, anyone who has read A Est ofTimeknows that the identification of Labayu as Saul does not depend solely on the discovery of an historical name for Saul, but on clear geographical and historical parallels between the two hill-country rulers. It is an interesting question as to whether the name Saul, which appears in 1 Samuel, should be considered merely as a literary (Rohl's legendary) or fictional name. Rohl understands the name as meaning `asked for' (by the people), However, the name is also attested in a num- ber of other ancient documents and biblical texts referring to individuals other than Israel's first king. l4 In the Bible, wholly invented names - those thought up by later generations to reflect the character of the historical person concerned - are indeed rare.I5 On the other hand, there are many slightly modified names which seem to be plays on words. Moshe Garsiel, an expert on `the name game' in the Bible, comments: At the same time, it is not impossible that in a few cmes a name is in fact an invention devised to suit a particular plot. It is with regard to the minor figures in the narrative that such an assessment may be arguable, but it is concomitantly difficult to prove; no tools are available to us to establish whether (for example) names like Nabal, Orpah, Mahlon and Chilion are authentic or invented.16 On the other hand, to date, all the names of Israelite kings discovered in extra-biblical sources have been shown to more or less correspond with their biblical However, it must not be overlooked that precisely this type of name game was played with Saul's name in the first book of Samuel. In a comparative structure based upon contrasts, the author sets King Saul against the former leader, the prophet Samuel. The root sh-'-Z is used four times to emphasise that it is the people who asked God for a king and that they have asked out and chosen Saul - Sh'uZ - for the purpose (1 Samuel 8: 10; 12: 13; 17: 19).18 Hebrew readers, ever alert to word-play, would naturally find an allusion to Saul in asking (sho- `aZim), which comes from the verb sha`al, the assumed base of Saul's name.'g Nevertheless, this does not imply that the name Saul of the books of Samuel was a late invention. It seems more plausible to consider the possibility that Saul had a second name, like many of the great personalities of antiquity. Jacob was also called Israel (Genesis 32:29; 2 Kings 17:34; etc.); Gideon the judge was known as Jerub-Baal (Judges 7: 1; 1 Samuel 12: 11); King Solomon also bore the name Jedidiah (2 Samuel 12:24-25); King Azariah was called Uziah (2 Kings 14:21; 2 Chronicles 26: 1); then we have King Mattaniah known also as Zedekiah (2 Kings 24: 17); King Piyashili of Carchemish as Sharri-Kushukh;20 and King Shalmaneser V as Ululayu."' A heroic name such as Labayu (`Lion [of deity]') would have been well suited for a strong military leader such as Saul. Saul and Jonathan - in life they were loved and gracious and in death they were not parted. They were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. (2 Samuel 1:23) Heide may be right in distinguishing the name Labayu from the inscriptions on the arrowheads of el-Khadr. The name of a warlike lion-goddess, Lab[]at (= Anat?), is more probable than the personal name Labayu."2 It is likely that the arrowheads belonged to a person with a name consisting of two elements: Abd(servant) + lab[]at (lion- ess), as can now be established on the basis of other known inscriptions on arrowheads from Lebanon and Israel. This same name is also found in Uga1it.2~ JACF VOL. 8 33 On the other hand, I am not so certain that the allusion to Saul's bodyguard as lebaimupon the heights of Engedi (Psalm 575) should be separated from the name Labayu. Without doubt, the lion was a well established symbol for military and majestic power in the Old Testament. Yet the word Zubi only appears once as a synonym for aryeh in the entire collection of the Psalms and in the entire Davidic period texts. In other words, it occurs on% in Psalm 57:5! The word is so rare that it's use must be significant. Martin Heide: Mutbaal and Ishbaal According to Rohl, Ishbaal: a son of Saul, can be iden- tified with Mutbaal of the Amama letter^.^ The name Ishboshet (`man of shame'), as he is mainly called in the books of Samuel: represents a demythologi~ation~ of the name Ishbaal (`man of Baal`) (cf. 2 Samuel 2:s with 1 Chronicles 8:33). Because Mutbaal also means `man of Baal', the identification seems perfect. Yet why should Ishbaal call himself Mutbaal here? Obviously these are not the same people, as the Canaanite-speaking scribe of the Amarna period would not simply have translated the name from ish into mut. Even if we accept the hypo- thesis that his name was translated for specific reasons, there are still the following difficulties to be considered: (1) When the books of Samuel were written, the name- element mut (meaning `man') in Hebrew (Ishbosheth's mother tongue) was not used and only appears twice in the Old Testament (Genesis 4 and 5).1° (2) Unlike mut, the name-element kih was known through- out the entire Canaanite-speaking area." The name Ishbaal was also possibly known in Ugarit.I2 Why, then, would the name Mutbaal be given instead of Ishbaal? Moreover, Mutbaal is the king of Pihilu (Pella in Trans- jordan), as is clear from Mutbaal's letter to the Egyptian commissary in Gaza: How can it have been said in your presence, `Mut- baal has fled. He has hidden Ayyab'? How can the king of Pihilu flee from the commissioner of the king, his lord? As the king my lord lives, as the king my lord lives, I swear Ayyab is not in Pihilu. (EA 256,l. 4-10). In his quote of this passage, Rohl leaves out the part, where it is shown that Mutbaal was king of Pella! Does he do this because Mutbaal, as king of Pella, does not fit well with the fact that Ishbaal was king of Mahanaim? Peter van der Veen responds: Heide asks why we find the name Mutbaal in letters 255 and 256 instead of Ishbaal, when the latter is the biblical name of Saul's surviving son. He does accept that both names have exactly the same meaning but he is right to point out that they are etymologically different. Mattitiahu Tsevat notes that: The above mentioned Amarna name Mutba'lu, Man, Yeoman, Worshipper of Baal is only one example of the type Man of the God NN on Palestinian soil. It is an older form of the Biblical 'mhba`al, the name of one of Saul's sons . . .24 Heide believes it is improbable that a Canaanite scribe of the Amarna period (or any other scribe in antiquity for that matter) would have translated a personal name. He argues that proper names were not translated but transcribed. This is correct in most cases - but it is not true in every case. A number of instances immediately come to mind from the ancient world. For example, the Hebrew name Ben-Hadad (`son of [the god] Hadad') is a biblical translation of the Aramaic name Bir-Hadad (1 Kings 20:l; 2 Kings 13:25; etc.); Hebrew Serayah (`Ya[hweh] is ruler', cf. 2 Samuel 8:17) is probably derived from Hurrian Shawu[shkal-Sha[rru] (`Shawushka is king', cf. 1 Chronicles 18: 17) 25 or Shewa (2 Samuel 20:25), where the name of the Israelite god Yahweh replaces that of the Hurrian The tendency to translate names is also known from in the Hellenistic period. In Ptolemaic Egypt, there are EA 256fiom Mutbaal to Enhamu, the EQptian commkioner. 34 JACF VOL. 8 examples of names from aristocratic families where both the Egyptian and Greek versions of names were handed down. For example, an Egyptian named Hathoriti (`Hat- hor has come') is called Aphrodisia in Greek. Another Egyptian is called Maatre (`divine truth' or `righteousness of Re') but Dikaios in Greek.27 There are also examples in the New Testament. Aramaic Cephas (`Rock' -John 1 :42) was called Petros (Peter) in Greek (Matthew 16: 18); and Thomas (`Twin' - John 11: 16; 20:24) was named Didymos in Greek. It is true that the name-element mut was not used in Hebrew at the time of the books of Samuel but it was in use throughout the entire period from Moses (c. 1450 BC) toJesus Sirah (c. 190 BC) as the plural nouns metim and metq (cf. Genesis 34:30; Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6; 26:5 & 28:62; Judges 20:48; Job 11: 11 & 22: 15; Psalms 26:5 [of David!]; Isaiah 3:15; Sir 7:16 & 15:7; etc.). But why should we expect Ishbaal to have been the king's original name? In the era of the Late Bronze Age, when we relocate Israel's United Monarchy, the name- element mutwas common currency. We are not asserting that Ishbaal's scribe simply translated Hebrew ish into Akkadian mut but that Saul's son may have been known as Mutbaal from the start (or perhaps from the time of his accession to the throne). Mut was certainly an archaic word employed in the Canaanite Akkadian of the Late Bronze metropolitan culture (cf. Taanach: m~-[ut]-[~IM] and Us 255 & 256).29 It was current in Late Bronze Age Ugarit (and even perhaps in Alalakh) as well as in Middle Bronze Age Mari. In Assyria and Babylon it remained in use even down into the first millennium BC. In Akkadian, as well as in Ugaritic, mut has another meaning. The only conclusion to be drawn from syllabic and cuneiform personal names containing the element mutumlmt (literary texts from Mesopotamia and mythical texts from Ugarit) is that mutum/mt not only signifies `man' or `husband', but is translated in other informative sources as `warrior' or `hero' and functions as an epithetfor kings.3O (my emphasis) It is tempting, therefore, to consider the name Mutbaal primarily as aroyal epithet or heroic title. Mutbaal would then not be a direct translation but rather a name suitable for the purposes of the international royal correspond- ence. Having dwelt for so many years in the shadow of the powerful general, Abner, and his own father - the `lion-hero', Saul - Ishbaal may have needed to gain the attention and respect of the city-state governors. It would therefore be understandable if he used an archaic heroic name in his letters to the Egyptian commissioner which was then only later translated into its Hebrew equivalent by the author of the books of Samuel. According to Heide, the word ish was known through- out the entire Canaanite-speaking world. But not all his colleagues share this view. In addition, Hebrew 'ish only occurs in Phoenician- Punic, Moabite (KAI 181:20) and Old Aramaic. Ugaritic does not use either the referent 'kh or 'it for `man' but instead employs the terms mt and gn to encompass the semantic range of Hebrew ,ish31 The name Ishbaal is attested in Ugaritic but it is not at all clear that it means `man of Baal'. Compare the Ugaritic name 'ishb `I (PRU V, 69.8; 117.2.35 =UT 2069.8; 2117.35) which cannot mean `Baal exists' at Ugarit, where the verb `exist' is 'it, and it is difficult to understand it as `man of Baal' owing to the apparent lack of 'ish, `man', in the Ugaritic lexicon.32 Having responded to Heide's linguistic point over the name, it is important to emphasise that the equation Mutbaal = Ishbaal (like Labayu = Saul) is not based primarily on the similarity of the names but on the following historical conclusions: (a) Both Ishbaal and Mutbaal were the sons and succes- sors of kings of the central hill-country of Palestine (Saul and Labayu). (b) Both fathers fought against an enemy located on the coastal plain. (c) In both cases there was a coalition of Indo-European city-state rulers rallied against them. The armies of this confederacy were supplemented by mercenary troops known as the Hebrews or Habiru. (c) Both fathers were killed near, or at, Mount Gilboa in a battle against an army led by the ruler of Gath. (d) After the death of their fathers, both sons ruled over a region on the east side of the Jordan, described in the Bible as the land of Gilead. (e) The area of their kingdoms stretched all the way up to Geshur/Ga[shu]ri, east of Lake Kir~nereth.~~ Heide points out that Mutbaal`s city was Pella (modem Khirbet Fahl) and that this conflicts with the biblical narrative where, according to 2 Samuel 2:8, the name of Ishbaal's capital was Mahanaim. In fact Pella is never mentioned in the Bible. This is an interesting point which we considered some time ago. JACF VOL. 8 35 The Jezreel Valley viewedfiom the heights of Gilboa (north side), the location where both Saul and Labayu met their death in battle. We began by discovering that the exact geographical location of Mahanaim (Heb. mahanayim - `double camp' or `twin companies') is disputed. Some scholars identify Mahanaim with Tell ed-Dhabab el-Gharbi on the north bank of the Wadi el-Ze~-ka.~~ We, on the other hand (along with Glueck and Eisfeldt), favour Khirbet Mahna (evi- dently conserving its old biblical name) which is located about 16 kilometres south-east of Pella.35 If our identifica- tion is correct, then Pella (which was inhabited during both the LBA and IA36) would certainly have been within Mahanaim's direct sphere of influence. Since Pella was strategically situated on an important trade route (the Jordan Valley road and the road connecting the Esdrae- lon with the King`s Highway37) it is highly likely that the city played an important administrative role in Ishbaal's kingdom - even though the Bible does not specifically mention Pella by name. This is true whether we place Israel's United Monarchy in the Late Bronze Age (New Chronology) or in the Iron Age (Conventional Chron- ology) as the city existed in both eras. It is important to note, however, that 2 Samuel 2: 10 does not explicitly state that Ishbaal resided only in Mahanaim during his two-year reign. The Bible tells us that the later kings of Israel and Judah had several head quarters. Jeroboam I seems to have ruled from Shechem, Penuel and Tirzah (1 Kings 12:25, 14:17). King Ahab resided at Samaria as well as at Jezreel (1 Kings 16:29, 21 : 1). Excavations at Ramat Rahel (Stratum VA), possibly ancient Beth-Hakherem, suggest that King Jehoiachim (608-597 BC) built a palace there.38 The pattern is the same with the Aramaean kings. They also built multiple royal cities - a fact confirmed by the annals of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser 111, recording the overthrow of Irhuleni, ruler of Hamath. I departed from Aleppo and approached the two towns of Irhuleni from Hamath (hat). I captured the towns Adennu, Barga (and) Argana his royal residences. I removed from them his booty (as well as) his personal possessions. I set his palaces on fire. I departed from Argana and approached Kar- kara. I destroyed, tore down and burned Karkara, his royal residence . . . 39 The Bible tells the same story. The Aramaean cities which David plundered - Tebakh (MT Betach), Berotai and Kun (2 Samuel 8:s; 1 Chronicles 1833) - appear to have been Hadadezer's royal cities.40 Just because we read in EA 256 that Mutbaal was king of Pella it should not imply that Pella was his only royal city. Martin Heide: Ayyab andJoab Reading Amarna Letter 256, Rohl comes across Ayyab and identifies him with biblical Joab, David's general. ROM believes that Ayyab is really Ya-ab, with the addition of a so-called `prosthetic aleph` (p. 222). He also gives 36 JACF VOL. 8 .- other examples from the Amarna Letters. However, a prosthetic aleph is not added arbitrarily in the Semitic languages but rather because of linguistic necessity. This stems from the need to reproduce Indo-European names in Semitic. Indo-European names often begin with a double consonant. Because the Canaanite language would rather avoid this at the beginning of a word, the scribes insert an aleph before the name, so as to make it easier to pronounce.13 Examples from the Amma Letters include Rtahmanya to Artahmanya and Rtahsamarati to Artash~hamarati.'~ But Joab is neither a foreign name, unfamiliar in a Semitic context, nor does it begin with a double conso- nant. Thus the aleph is simply not necessary. The correspondence between Amarna period Ayyab (a-ia-ab), ayab in Ugaritic, Hebrew iyyob (Job), and Assyrian a-a-bu or ia-a-b-ba is accepted by most scholars, and the translation `where is the father?', proposed by Semitist Hommel, is a far more probable s~lution.'~ David and Dadua In EA 256 Mutbaal, the author of the letter, continues: As the king, my lord, lives . . . I swear Ayyab is not in Pihilu. In fact, he h[as been in the fielld (' i.e. on campaign) for two months. Just ask Ben-Elima. Just ask Dadua. Just ask Yishuya . . .' (p. 228) Here Rohl even succeeds in finding King David of the Old Testament. However, in doing so, he tacitly modifies the syllable Ta of the Amarna name Tadua, into Da to obtain Dadua. Although just such a syllabic shift can be found between t and 4 this is not the case here. The syllable ta is clearly ta and cannot be read da.16 To write da the scribe would have used another cuneiform sign. Thus Rohl's equation is already undermined. Even if it was possible to read Dadua, we would still have to explain why the writer of EA 256 selected an Akkadian form of the name (Dadu - `favourite') rather than the Canaanite form. Again, I come back to the fact that ancient scribes did not translate names - they tran- scribed them.I7 In order to prove etymologically that Dadua corres- ponds with Hebrew dw4 Rohl argues that dwd was possibly pronounced Dud or Dad (p. 229). One of the earliest West-Semitic forms of the name Dwdcan be found on the Tell Dan stela and there we read bt dwdand not bt dd Furthermore, the earliest form of the name Dw4 com- parable to the West-Semitic Hebrew was found at Ebla where the cuneiform reads da-u-du.lS Strangely enough, the statement of Egyptologist(!) Rohl is correct - the Egyptian equivalent of Dwd identified by Kitchen in the name Twtw,lg was `perhaps pronounced Dadu'(p. 229). But here too the semi- vowel w cannot simply be ignored: it betrays its connection to Dwd As evidence for an early(!) reading of dadfor the consonantal sequence dw4 Rohl quotes the Septuagint: The Septuagint renders the name as Dad (see 1 Kings 2:33 [Alexandrinus copy] and Ecclesiasticus 47,l). (p. 229) Those were the only two instances which support Rohl's argument 2o as compared to more than a thousand other examples in the Septuagint where we find the name ren- dered as Dawid Interestingly, some of the Ecclesiasticus 47: 1 manuscripts write Dad with a flat line written over it, indicating that this is simply an abbreviated form of Dawid.2l The name Tadua, on the other hand, is of Hurrian origin and is composed of tad `to love' with the formative element wa. This hypocoristic name can be found in its longer form as E-a-du-he-e-ba (EAs 22-29):' Even if one could, without a doubt, prove that all the biblical names identified by David Rohl were extant in the Amarna Letters, caution is nevertheless required. Some years ago, historian Kamal Salibi tried to prove that the biblical stories took place not in Palestine but in south-west Saudi Arabia, in the `Country of To further his case he supplied astonishing name identifica- tions. However, the local Semitic vocabulary for topo- graphical and personal-names is limited, so coincidental matches are not convincing proof. Some of ROWS Egyptological observations may fire up new discussion around the dating of the Exodus, the Conquest, etc. And, indeed, Rohl is not the first to attempt a `rearrangement' of Egyptian chr~nology.'~ In this article, only the major identifications between the Amarna period and the early Hebrew Kingdom have been discussed. Rohl represents exactly these identifi- cations as his `test' for the New Chronology. However, I believe I have demonstrated that the results of this test are far from convincing. Peter van der Veen responds: In our article in JACF 6 on the Amarna Letters,4l we proposed that other names found in EA 256 might be identified with characters from the books of Samuel. These were; Ayyab = Joab (2 Samuel 2: 12); Ben-Enima = Bin-`Ana (Heb. Ba `anah, 2 Samuel 4:5); Yishuya= Jesse (1 Samuel 16:l); and Dadua = David (1 Samuel 16:13). Heide argues that the equations Ayyab =Joab and Dadua = David are linguistically incorrect. Ayyab andJoab Ayyab controlled cities in Bashan (EA 364) and, during a conflict in Ga[shu]ru or Geshur, one of his cities - JACF VOL. 8 37 Ashtarot - was taken and plundered (EA 256)."2 The king of Hazor is said to have conquered three other cities of Ayyab (EA 364). Mutbaal had given Ayyab military support and had offered him shelter in Pella. Of course, the names Ayyab and Joab need not be seen as identical - especially if one wants to take Ayyab as an Akkadian transcription of the biblical name `Job' (Heb. Iyyob - `where is the [divine] father?'), as indeed most scholars do.43 However, the point is that it could be read either way. If we interpret the first `A' in Ayyab as a prosthetic aleph, then an equivalence with the biblical Joab (`Ya is the [divine] father') is equally justified. Heide is right to say that, as a rule, the prosthetic aleph is not prefixed arbitrarily but as a result of linguistic neces- sity. But there are exceptions to the rule, as Heide himself correctly points Two of these exceptions come from the Amarna ono- masticon itself: Atahmaya (EA 364 from Ayyab!) and I~iyamhha~~ (EAs 130 & 370). Here the Egyptian divine names Tah (Ptah) and Riya (Re) have a prosthetic aleph added. In this case there is every reason to assume that the alephs are arbitrary, especially when one considers that these divine names are rarely written with such prosthetic alephs (even in It is our view that something similar has happened to the divine hypo- coristicon Ya (the abbreviated form of Yahweh) in Ayyab/ Joab (Ya-ab). We accept that this is a matter of opinion - but it is an opinion based on precedence. David and Dadua Heide is correct in saying that our proposed reading `Dadua' can no longer be sustained, due to the most up- to-date studies on the matter. Anson Rainey has recently shown that, in contrast to the languages of other countries such as northern Syria, the Canaanite symbol ta [ 1391 cannot be read as da.47 As a result, the name in EA 256 must be read as Tadua. Richard Hess interprets this as a Hurrian name with the identical meaning to Hebrew Dud/Dawd (i.e. David - `Beloved (of deity)'):' So who was this Tadua? Mutbaal's letter simply tells us that he could be consulted (byyanhamu, Pharaoh`s commissioner) as a witness to Ayyab's whereabouts. As we have suggested, the two other witnesses mentioned in EA 256, could be other personalities mentioned in the books of Samuel: Ben-Enima (Heb. Bi[n]ha, 2 Samuel 44, an officer in Ishbaal's army; and Yishuya (Heb. Yishay, 1 Samuel 16:1), the father of king David and a tribal elder in Judah. Given the `coincidences' of three names similar to those involved in the early years of David's reign, why should we not draw the conclusion that Tadua `the beloved' is none other than David `the beloved'? When Ishbaal was reigning in Transjordan, David was king of Hebron and a vassal of the Philistines. The name of his lord - Achish - could, as we have suggested, be a Hurrian hypocoristicon (with the meaning `[the sun] has given').49 This finds support in the Bible itself where David's captain, Ittai of Gath (2 Samuel 15:22), bears a Hurrian name. The Septuagint gives the name as Ethei, in other words Hurrian Eteia50 Moreover, David's royal scribe also bare a Hurrian name - Shawsha (1 Chronicle 18: 16) or Shewa (2 Samuel 20:25; the LXX has Sousa = Shawsha). This is an abbreviation of Hurrian Shaw[shka]- Sha[rr~y?~ Shawsha's son, a scribeduring Solomon's reign, bore a Mischname (mixed-name) : Eli-Horeph, that is West- Semitic Eli (`my god') + the Hurrian divine name Harpa;52 The links to Hurrians in David's entourage does not end there. The name of David's hero, Naharai (2 Samuel 23:37), seems also to be Hurrian (for example Hurrian Nihria[-E~hub])?~ Is it therefore quite conceivable that David may initially have been given a Hurrian throne name - Tadua - because he was a vassal of a Hurrian (biblical `Philistine') king? 54 It is also worth noting that King David may originally have had another name. The second book of Samuel calls him Elhanan (2 Samuel 21: 19). Joyce Baldwin argues that David may simply be Elhanan's throne name. Who then is this Elhanan? The most likely sugges- tion is that it is David under another name, his family`s name for him as opposed to his throne name ...55 Thus the new evidence for the Hurrian name of Tadua (as opposed to Dadua) is certainly not a devastating blow to the New Chronology. We could argue that David was initially given a Hurrian title and that the name `David' was simply the Hebrew variant of `Tadua' employed by the author of the books of Samuel. Martin Heide: Zion and Tianna According to Rohl, the rebel city of the Hebrewdhabiru - Zion = Tianna - is mentioned in EA 298. What can we make of the name Tianna? If this is the capital of the habiru kingdom then it must be identified with Jerusalem, following its capture by David. (p. 227) Rohl goes on to identify the name Tianna as Zion. We thus have a linguistic path of Zion = Eiyon = (Eian[-na]) = Tian[-na]. He explains this identification with a short linguistic comparison. 38 JACF VOL. 8 Zellig Harris25 and Wilhelm Gesenius,"! in their detailed studies of Canaanite dialects, have demon- strated that the Hebrew ts (tsade) is often inter- changed with a hard t (tet) in other West-Semitic languages such as Ugaritic, Phoenician and Ara- maic, and also in Indo-European Greek. (p. 227) Rohl gives a few examples for this phenomenon: (a) Heb. htsr `courtyard' = Ugaritic and Phoenician htr. (b) Heb. ntsr `to guard' = Phoenician ntr, (c) Heb. qts `summer` = qt in Ugaritic. (d) Heb. tsby `gazelle' = Aramaic tby. (e) Heb. tshr `to step forward' = Aramaic thr. (f) Heb. Tswr= Tyros (Tyre) in Greek. Of all these phonetic correspondences, only (d), (e) and (f) are correct; (a), (b) and (c) are wrong. Rohl misunder- stands Harris completely. Earlier on in his book, Harris presents the sound shifts of the Canaanite dialects which have developed though history, comparing them to the other Semitic languages. In this case, the Proto-Semitic sibilants have developed to such an extent that Proto- Semitic hg (or w) becomes htsr (ntsr) in Phoenician - not htr or ntr with Semitic tet ?7 The same process hap- pened in Hebrew. Only the Aramaic hardens the conso- nant .z into tet. Ugaritic has its own .z and only a few examples exist in the entire Ugaritic lexicon which show a shift from tet to tsade as in AramaicF8 Equation (f) reflects a later Greek transcription. Harris himself states that it is probably not a historical develop- ment of the name but rather a Greek transcription of a geographical name which was foreign to the Greek lan- g~age.~~ Here the Proto-Semitic consonant z becomes t in Greek - a similar practice to that in Aramaic (except that in Aramaic it would be transcribed with a tet). But the name Tyre, Hebrew Tsor, really derives from a Semitic word for `rock' - mr! 30 In contrast, Zion (Hebrew Tsiyon) contains no Proto- Semitic .z consonant. Probable etymological derivations for Tsiyonare: (a) From the root, tswn (verb `to protedguard'; noun `fortress') which survives in Arabic and Ethiopian. (b) From the root tshw, nominal tsahwa (`ridge', `mount' or `fortress') which also survives in Arabic. (c) From the root tswy which survives in Arabic and in the Hebrew adjective &iyah (`dry`), as well as the Hebrew noun tsayon (`drought')."' AU these suggestions begin with the consonant tsadewhich can effortlessly be transmitted into any Semitic language. There was therefore no reason for the scribe of the relevant Amarna Letters to write Eon or Tianna instead of Zion. Tellingly, Zion is written as Sion in Greek and not as Eon! Rohl ignores this fact. Above all, it is incomprehensible to me why Rohl argues that the name Zion should even be mentioned in the Amarna Letters. Jerusalem is the name given to Abdi- Heba's city - the name which was obviously current at that time. In 2 Samuel and 1 Kings - where Zion is first mentioned - it is always indicated that Zion and Jerusalem are identical (2 Samuel 5:7; 1 Kings 8:l). Most of the time the city is described as a mountain or fortress (cf. 2 Samuel 5:7; 2 Kings 19:21 & 19:31). In other words, in Solomon's time, the identification of Zion as Jerusalem was still unusual. How much more unusual would it have been in David's time or, as Rohl's chronology has it, in the time of the Amarna Letters. Finally, I must add that: (1) The Akkadian cuneiform is ambiguous. The ti in Ti- an-na (as transliterated by all Amarna Letters editors) can also be read tet."2 Rohl takes the latter interpretation. (2) Tianna is only mentioned three times in the Amarna Letters and, in every instance, the passages are difficult to decipher due to wear or damage. Because of this, Moran is no longer prepared to translate the city name as `Tianna' in EA 284. In EA 298, as well as EA 306, the reading is also ~ncertain.3~ (3) According to the Amarna Letters, Tianna is located near a city called Mukhazu. Scholars have placed both cities on the coast, somewhere between Gaza and Ashke10n.~~ Rohl's identification of Tianna with Zion is more than doubtful. Peter van der Veen responds: The suggestion that Zion and Tianna might be linked was first suggested by Bernard Newgrosh and then later supported by my own research. We based our arguments on the work of renowned Amarna Letters scholar William Moran (responsible for the most up-to-date translation of the letters, first published in 1987). It is only since the publication of his translations that scholars such as Rainey have argued against Moran's interpretation of Tianna (EAs 298 & 306).56 Either could be correct. It is simply a matter of opinion. However, Heide also raises linguistic issues relating to the proposed shift between tet (emphatic t) and tsade (equivalent to z) which I must address. Noticeably, he himself admits that there are examples of this interchange in Ugaritic (though admittedly few). Thus this interchange is attested and acceptable. Indeed, new examples have come to light since the publication of A Zst OfTime. For JACF VOL. 8 39 example, Ugaritic &Z(`shelter') was alternatively written mtZl More relevant, though, is the reverse shift from tet (as in Tianna) to tsude (as in Zion). Here too there are examples from Ugarit: Zpn (`compassionate') becomes @n and thmz (`pure ones') is replaced by &m57 In my opinion there is no real problem here. Hebrew Zion could well have derived from `Canaanite' Tianna on the grounds that (a) the original may have been modi- fied by local etiologies (as Heide himself admits in his note 30); and (b) because Heide's etymologies for Zion are only (in his own words - see note 30) `working hypo- theses'. So, again, it really does depend on whose view you accept. Martin Heide's contribution to the revisionist debate is very constructive in the way that it challenges some of the linguistic aspects of the Amarna LetterdUnited Monarchy hypothesis. However, I believe that I have been able to respond positively to most of his criticisms. In my view the AmarndSamuel synchronisms remain one of the strongest pillars of the New Chronology theory. Notes and References Martin Heide: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. See W. M. van Haarlem's devastating criticism in Bibliotheca Orientalis 54, No. 1/2 (January-April, 1997), pp. 166-68. N. P. Lemche: `Habiru, Hapiru' in Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. I11 (New York, 1992), pp. 6ff. As well as the Northwest Semitic evidence, the Egyptian evidence indicates a social identity and not a ethnic one for the Habiru; cf. J. E. Hoch: Semitic Words inEgyptian Ex& ofthe New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, 1994), p. 62. Given that in Egyptian texts the word apiru only appears with a phonetic p, the change from b to p is hardly justified by the inconsistent way by which the Egyptian texts write b/p. According to Hoch's study, the Semitic b is only transcribed twice (out of 46 times) into p during the entire time span of the Amama Period (Hoch, p. 431); the word Habiru was never written with bin Egypt or in Ugarit. None of the etymologies mentioned so far have been really convincing U. E. Hoch, p. 63). So for example M. Weippert: Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stamme in der neueren missmchnjlichen Diskussion, Forschungenzur Religion undliteratur des Alten und Neuen Zstaments, Vol. XCII (Tubingen, 1971); 0. Loretz: Ugarit und die Bibel (Darmstadt, 1990), p. 183. This is not entirely correct. The name means `[deity N is a] lion'; cf. L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner: Hebraisches und aramaischs Lexikon mm Altes Zstament (3rd edition), pp. 490/01. See also on that subject F. E. Gaebelein (ed.): TheExpositorkBible Commen- taly, Vol. V (Grand Rapids, 1991), p. 403. This name only appears as Eshbaal in 1 Chronicles 8:33 & 9:39. Etymo- logically speaking, Rohl interprets the name Eshbaal as a defective ren- dering for Ishbaal. This is probable but not absolutely sure; cf. W. Ge raisches undrlramdides Handworterbuch iiber ah Alte Estament ( 18 Berlin, 1987), p. 105. D. M. Rohl: A Est of Time (London, 1995), p. 219 & n. 36. In 2 Samuel 2:8, 10, 12, 15. In 1 Samuel 14:49 the nameYishwi is an abbreviated form of Vihyahu, in which the ment Baal is simply replaced by Yahu; cf. E. Tov: Zxtua Hebrew Bible (Assen/Minneapolis, 1992), p. 268; J. Mulder: `Un Euphmisme dans 2 Sam. XI1 14?' in W18 (1968), pp. 108ff. This term is found in C. McCarthy: The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other %olo&al Corrections in theMasoretic Zxt ofthe OT, 0rbisBiblicu.s et Orientalis 11. W. Gesenius, op. cit. [SI, p. 50 (to only a small extent - even in Ugaritic and Sabaic!); cf. J. Hoftijzer & K. Jongeling: Dictionaly of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Vol. XXI (Leiden, 1995), p. 115. 12. Thus C. H. Gordon: Ugaritic Extbook, Analecta Orientalia, Vol. XXXVIII (Rome, 1965), p. 367; F. Grondahl: Die Personennam der Exte aus Ugarit, Studia Pohl, Vol. I (Rome, 1967), p. 102; F. L. Benz: Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions, Studia Pohl, Vol. VI11 (Rome, 1972), p. 277; M. Maraqten: Die semitischm Personennamen in den alt- und reich- ararnaischen Inschriften aus Vorderasien, Exte und Studien mr Orientalistik, Vol. V (Hildesheim, 1988), p. 134. For a different position taken on the meaning of Ish in Ugarit, see M. Dahood: Ugaritic Lexicography, Mdanges U Eugene Tisserant W. 4 Studi e Zsti, Vol. CCXXXI (Rome, 1964), p. 85. 13. There are very few personal names whose prosthetic aleph (?) cannot be explained according to the liguistic rules mentioned here; cf. N. Avigad: Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seab (Jerusalem, 1997), p. 471; R Zadok % Re-Hellenistic Israelite Anthropony my and Prosopogaphy (Leuven, 1988), pp. 117-18; E. Lipinski: SemiticLanguages - Outline ofa Comparative Grammar (Leuven, 1997), 24.8; 27.16 & 17; Z. S. Harris: A Grammar ofthe Phoenician Language (New Haven, 1936), p. 33; F. L. Benz, op. cit. [12], p. 202; D. Sivan: A Grammar ofthe UgariticLanguage, Handbuch der Oriental- istik, Vol. XXVIII (Leiden, 1997), p. 33. 14. The same is to be observed in the Latin languages; e.g. Latin spiritus becomes Spanish esprituand French esprit. Rohl mentions another exam ple from the Amarna Letters: A-ad-du-mt meaning `it is [the god] Haddu' (the biblical Hadad). Yet this Ain the name A-ad-du-miis in this case an unusual Akkadian way of transcribing the Hof the name Haddumi(which is absent in the Akkadian alphabet); cf. S. Izreel: Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, Vol. I (Haward Semitic Studies Vol. XL), p. 40; H. B. Huffmon: Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Exts (Baltimore, 1965), p. 20; R. S. Hess: Amarna Personal Names (Winona Lake, 1993), p. 21. 15. See J. A. Knudtzon: Die El-Amarna-E$ln (Leipzig, 1915), p. 1318; W. Gesenius, op. cit. [6], p. 45; R. S. Hess, op. cit. [14], p. 23; R. Zadok, op. cit [13], p. 58. The Akkadian rendering A-ia-ab is based on the habit of transcribing the semi-vowel y of the name Iyyob into the sequence of a- ia or a-ya; cf. W. von Soden: Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (3rd Edition, Rome, 1995), p. 27. 16. The use of the ta syllable for writing da is only known from the non- Canaanite scribes and was never used for writing the Akkadian version of Da-du-. . . (Akkadian name element equivalent to the name David); cf. A. F. Rainey: Canaanite in the Amarna Table& Vol. I, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Vol. XXV (Leiden, 1996), p, 8; W. von Soden: Akkadisches Handworterbuch (Wiesbaden, 1985), p. 149; Chicago Asqrian Dictionaly, Vol. 111, (Chicago, 1959), p. 20. 17. It is known that during the Old Babylonian era, Elamite foreign workers took on Semitic names -but it is unsure whether they were translations or whether they were given new names; cf. R. Harris: `On Foreigners in Old Babylonian Sippar' in Rd'A 70 (1970), pp. 19ff.; K. van Leberghe: `Un Elamite a Sippar-Amnanum' in Fragments Historiae Elamicae, Milanges offeerts U M. J. Stme (Paris, 1986), pp. 151ff. 18. See C. H. Gordon: `Eblaite and Northwest Semitic' in C. H. Gordon & G. A. Rendsburg (eds.): Eblaitica, Vol. I1 (Winona Lake, 1990), p. 138. 19. The Tin Twtw must not be allowed to give the impression that the Tin Edua is a correct reproduction of the Din Dawid; the Egyptian language does not have the phoneme dand because of this had to transcribe the Semitic dwith f cf. 0. Rossler: `Das agyptische als semitische Sprache' in F. Altheim & R. Stiehl (eds.): Christentum am RotenMeer, Vol. I (Berlin, 1971), p. 272. 20. E. Hatch & H. Redpath: A Concordance to the Seftuagint, Vol. 111: Sup- plement (Oxford, 1897), p. 49. 21. H. B. Swete: An Introduction to the Old Estament in Greek (Cambridge, 1914), p. 126. 22. R. S. Hess, of. cit. [14], pp. 151-52. 23. K. Salibi: Die Bibel kam aus dem Lande Asir (Hamburg, 1985). 24. See J. Bimson: Redating theExodus and Conquest, Journalfor the Study of the Old Zstament, Supplement Series V (Sheffield Academic Press, 1978). 25. Z. Harris: Development of the Canaanite Dialects, American Oriental Series Vol. XVI (New Haven, 1939), pp. 35 & 40. 26. W. Gesenius, op. cit. [6], pp. 669-75. 27. Perhaps Rohl thought that two roots are represented in Hebrew - that Vol. kV1 (Freiburg, 1981), pp. 211ff. 10. See S. C. Kayton: ArchnicFeatures ofCanaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bibh, Harvard Semitic Studies, Vol. XLVII (Atlanta, 1990), p. 66: `The vocable mutu is a lexical item common to Akkadian and early West Semitic' in Amorite, ugaritic and in the dialect of the Amarna Letters). originally derived from m, i.e. the actual Hebrew root ntsrmeaning `to Pard' Or `to Protect' and that belonging to the Aramaic ban-word ntr. But the latter form reveals by way of its own semantic range (`to guard', `to protect' and `to be angry with') that it is not a Hebrew secondary form but quite clearly a loan-word; cf. L. Koehler & w. Baumgartner, op. cit. [4], p. 656; M. Wagner: Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen 40 JACF VOL. 8 Aramciismen im alttestamentlichen Hebraisch, Beihefte mr ZeitschriJi fir die alttestamentliche Wusenschaj?, Vol. XCVI (Berlin, 1966), p. 83; B. Halpem: `Dialect Distribution in Canaan and the Deir Ala Inscriptions' in D. M. Golomb (ed.): Working with no Data, Semitic andEgyptian Studiespresented to Thomas 1. Lambdin (Winona Lake, 1987), pp. 124-25. 28. But not in kat (according to Rohl) which is nearly always written as kin Ugaritic; cf. E. Lipinski, op. cit. [13], 13.6; Z. Harris, op. cit. [25], p. 40; D. Sivan, op. cit. [ 131, p. 24. 29. Z. Harris, op. cit. [25], p. 40. 30. Given, of course, that one is able safely to trace back the Semitic roots of Canaanite topographical names. Some original foreign names may well have radically changed because of local etiologies. Hence most of the etymologies that are listed here and in the Hebrew lexicon can only be working hypotheses; cf. W. von Soden: Einfihrung in die Altorientalistik (2nd Edition, Darmstadt, 1992), pp. 12-14. As to the meaning of Tps, see L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner, op. cit. [4], p. 985; A. F. L. Beeston et al.: Sabaic Dictionary (Louvain La-Neuve, 1982), p. 173. 31. L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner, op. cit. (41, p. 958; W. Leslau: A Comparative Dictionary of Ge`ez(Wiesbaden, 1987), pp. 565,567 & 575. 32. A. F. Rainey, op. cit. [16], p. 9. 33. W. L. Moran: The Amarna Letters (Baltimore, 1992), pp. 324,340 & 344. See also the cuneiform edition by C. Bezold and E. A. W. Budge: The Tell El-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum with Autotype Facsimiles (London, 1892). Regarding EA 284 (numbering Budge 67) Budge comments: `The characters on the reverse are much defaced; the reading is therefore doubtful` (p. 123). He gave no indication that line 31 contained Ti-an-nu. Mora comments on the same letter: `Lines 21ff, except for line 22 and an occasional phrase or word, are unintelligible'. In EA 298 (numbering Budge 50) Budge printed only the cuneiform signs -an-na; for EA 306 (numbering Budge 40) he only printed the signs -a-na Kl(ki = determinative for a location, city, country). Na'aman identifies the name Tianna with an equally unsure reading - t-E-ni - on an Egyptian hieratic papyrus (W. Helck: Bezjehungen mischen Agypten und Vorderarien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend U. Chr. (Wiesbaden, 1971), p. 166; N. Na'aman: `The Origin and Historical Background of Several Amarna Letters' in Kurt Bergerhof et al. (eds.): UF, Vol. XI (Neukirchen, 1979), p. 679. It becomes clear therefore that the geminated ending -anna of the word Ti-anna does not contain `the Akkadian termination -nu' (see D. M. Rohl, of. cit. [7], p. 227) but belongs to the word stem itself. 34. N. Na'aman, op. cit. 1331, p. 679. Peter van der Ken: 1. D. M. Rohl: A Test of Tim - The Biblejom Myth to History (London, 1995), p. 209: `_.. all Israelites were once Hebrews but not all Hebrews in the Old Testament are Israelites. The Hebrews who entered Egypt in the time ofJacob and Joseph became Israelites through their common heritage as they endured their prolonged slavery under the Pharaohs.. . When they finally settled in the Promised Land, other groups with similar ethnic origins and status to the Israelites were already populating the more barren parts of the Levant. These stateless peoples had remained `wanderers'and were thergore true HabiruIHebrews, . . . 'etc. (my emphasis) For example, N. Na'aman: `Habiru and Hebrews - The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere' inJNES45,4 (1986), pp. 278-79; cf. also W. Dietrich: Diefiiihe Konigszeit in Israel - 10. Jahrhundert U. Chr. (Stuttgart, 1997), p. 243. See B. Newgrosh et al.: `The el-Amarna Letters and Israelite History' in JACF6 (1992/93), p. 39. M. C. Astour: `Habiru' in K. Crim et al. (eds.): The Interpreter'sDictionary ofthe Bible(supp1ementary volume, Abington, 1976), p. 384; A. F. Rainey: `Unruly Elements in Late Bronze Canaanite Society' in D. P. Wright et al. (eds.): Pornegrates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, andliterature in Honor ofJacob Mibom (Winona Lake, 1995),pp. 481-96; idem,`WhoisaCanaanite?-AReviewoftheTexhal Evidence' in BASOR304 (1996), p. 3; R. S. Hess, personal communica- tion. M. Heide (note 2) refers to James Hoch`s observations on the spelling of apiru in Egyptian and argues that in Amarna Period Egypt there are only 2 out of 46 cases of Semitic b being transcribed into p. But there exist more examples of the b to p shift. For instance, Egyptian Tpn = W(est)S(emitic) Dibon (Moabite); Egyptian Kpn = WS Gubla (Byblos), Apirel (and variants) most likely = WS Abd-EI; and Egyptian h-r-pw in the PN p3-h-r-p-w (and variant name forms) = WS hereb (`sword'); see R. Borger, `Das Problem der `apiru (`Habiru')' in ZDPV74 (1958), pp. 126-27; Th. Schneider: Asiatische Personennamen in Agptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches, OrbisBiblicus et Orientalis, Vol. CXIV (Fribourg, 1992), pp. 2. 3. 4. 66 & 114; idem, `Die semitischen und agyptischen Namen der Synschen Sklaven des Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 Verso' in Ugarit-Forschungen 19 (1987), pp. 258-61; D. Sivan & Z. Cochavi: West-Semitic Vocabulary in Egptian Scryt ofthe 14th to the 10th century BCE (Beersheva, 1992), p. 91. M. Weippert: Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stamme in der neueren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion (Gottingen, 1967), p. 84; 0. Loretz: Habiru- Hebraer - Eine soziologische Studie iiber die Herkunft des Gent Appelatiuum habiru, Beihefiqr Zeitschr$fir die alttestamtliche Wusmcha$, Vol. CLX (Berlin, 1984), p. 246; idem.: Ugarit und die Bibel (Darmstadt, 1990), p. 192; N. Na'aman, op. cit. [2], p. 278. 6. N. Na'aman, op. cit. [2], p. 278. 7. N. Na'aman, op. cit [2], pp. 274-75; also 0. Loretz, op. cit. [5] (1990), p. 190, n. 653; M. Birot: Lettres de Yaqqim-Addu Gouverneur de Sagaratum, ArchivesRoyales deMari, Vol. XIV (Paris, 1974), p. 228 (also texts 50 and 72); J. Bottero: `Entres Nomades et SCdentaires: Les Habiru' in Dialogue d'Histoire Ancienne 6 (1980), pp. 204-05. Bottero translates habaru as `to have become a Habiru`. Na'aman however has shown that his translation `to (e)migrate' fits the context of the Mari Letters far better. For a more detailled discussion on the Habiru-Roblem see P. G. van der Veen: ZSamuel and the Habiru-Problem (unpublished M. Th. disserta- tion, Louvain, 1989), pp. 9-10 & 38-43. 9. G. E. Mendenhall: % Tenth Generation, i?e Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore, 1973), p. 140. 10. See also: A. M. Harman: `abar' in W. A. VanGemeren: New International Dictionary of Old Estament Theolog and Exegesis, Vol. V (Grand Rapids, 1997), p. 315, word no. 6296 `When used with the prep. `el, `br, denotes rejecting an existing regime and aligning with an opposing party, . . .'. 11. M. Weippert, op. cit [5], . 84. 12. 0. Loretz (1984), op. cit. i], pp. 252-63; also: N. Na'aman, op. cit. [Z], p. 288. For the meaning and use of the term hupsu see also M. L. Chaney: `Ancient Palestinian Peasant Movements and the Formation of Pre- monarchic Israel' in D. N. Freedman & D. F. Graf: Palestine in Transition - The Emergence ofAncient Israel, fie Social World ofBiblica1 Antiquity Series, Vol. I1 (Sheffield, 1983), pp. 39-90. For an entirely different view, see, for instance, R. S. Hess: `Alalakh Studies and the Bible: Obstacle or Contribution?' in M. D. Coogen et al.: Smipture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible andArchaeology in Honor ofPhilipJ. King(Louisville, 1994), pp. 208-09. 13. M. P. Gray: `The Habiru-Hebrew Problem in the Light of the Source Material Available at Present' in Hebrew Union College Annual29 (1958), p. 165, translates habirayaas `descendent' of a Habirugroup; I. J. Gelb et al. (eds.): The Assyrian Dictionary,Vol. IV (Chicago, 1964), p. 84, interprets habiraya as `a member of a Hapiru-class'. 14. See Genesis 36:37-38; 46:lO; 1 Chronicle 6:24; Acts 9:5 & 17; 13:9; cf. also the seal owned by a man called s'l (see A. Lemaire: `Criteres non- iconographiques de classification des sceaux nord-ouest semitiques inscrits'in B. Sass & Chr. Uehlinger: Studies in the Iconography ofNorthwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Vol. CXXV (Freiburg, 1993), pp. 4 & 23). See also names like se'alti'el 15. For example, the name Abel in Genesis 4:Zff. (Heb. hebel= `breath'): (See R. S. Hess: Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1-71, Alter Orient G3Altes Estament, Vol. CCXXXIV (1993), p. 114, where he states: `With the meaning of that what is ephemeral and transitory, the name Abel well describes a figure who remains on the scene only a brief time and then disappears with no descendants or other impact of note upon the human race.'); see also the PN Nabal (Heb. nabal= `fool') and how Nabal behaved like a fool towards David, the Lord's anointed in 1 Samuel 25:3ff, especially 25:25. 16. M. Garsiel: Biblical Names -A Literary Study ofMidmshic Derivations and Puns (hat Gan, 1991), p. 261. 1Z M. Garsiel, op. cit. [16], p. 260. Even the name Ash-Yahu on one of the S. Moussaieff ostraca may be a variation of either the name Joash or Josiah; cf. P. Bordreuil et al: `King's Command and Widow's Plea' in Near Eartern Archaeology (formerly BA) 61,l (1998), p. 4. 5. 8. 18. M. Garsiel, op. cit. [16], p. 245. 19. R. Gordon: I and ZZ Samuel - A Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1986), p. 110; cf. also: V. Philips Long: `Saul' in W. A. VanGemeren, op. cit. [lo], 20. F. Cornelius: Geschichte der Hethiter - mit hesonderer Beriichichtigung der geographischen krhdtnisse undderfichtvgeschichte (Darmstadt, 1973), p. 164. 21. J. Oates: Babylon - Stadt und Reich im Brennpunkt des Alten Orient (Herrsching, 1986), p. 243. 22. See J. T. Milik & F. M. Cross: `Inscribed Javelin-Heads from the Period of the Judges: A Recent Discovery in Palestine' in BASOR 134 (1954), pp. 8ff; B. Mazar: ne Early Israelite Period Uerusalem, 1986), p. 87; P. Kyle McCarter: Ancient Inscr@tions - Voices fiom the Biblical World (Washington D.C., 1996), pp. 78ff. Vol. 4, pp. 1178-80. JACF VOL. 8 41 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. As for the current formula found on the arrowheads: cf. F. M. Cross: `Newly Discovered Inscribed Arrowheads of the 11th Century B.C.E.' in A. Biran &J. Aviram: BiblicalArchaeology %day 1990uerusalem, 1993), pp. 533-42; P. Kyle McCarter: Ancient Zrncr@tiorn - Eices of the Biblical World (Biblical Archaeology Society,Washington D.C., 1996), p. 79; in the standard formula WS hz (`arrow') is followed by a PN, e.g. in bny (`arrow of Banaya'), hzysh'(`arr0w of Yisha'), &&b`l (`arrow of Zakar- Baal'), etc.; the name Abd-Lab[i]at is attested in the following Ugaritic Text: KTU 4,63 [=UT 3211 I11 38, also: Milik & Cross: op. cit. [23], p. 6; 0. Keel and Chr. Uehlinger: Gottimen, Gotter und Gottessymbole (Freiburg i. Br., 1995), pp. 144-46. M. Tsevat, `The Canaanite God Sal& in VT4 (1954), pp. 41-2 B. Mazar: ine Ear4 Biblical Period - Historical Studies (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 134ff. Apparently divine names were also sometimes translated from one language into another, e.g. Sumerian DUMU.ZI which became Tele- pinu in Hittite (pinu = `child`), cf. Cornelius, op. cit. [20], p. 303, n. 19; and Shumu (shu-um= `child' or `son') in bilingual texts from Ebla (MEE IV 1, Rev. vii: 6-7 & 9-11, Rev. xi: 6-7), cf. B. Becking, `Shem' in: K. van der Toren et al. (eds.): Dictionary $Deities andDemorn in theBible (Leiden, 1995), p. 1443. W. Clarysse: `Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic Army and Ad- ministration' in Aegptiaca 65 (1985), pp. 63 & 65. D. Sivan: GrammaticalAna4sis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Ecables in Akkadian Texts of the 75th- 73th C.B.C.3om Canaan andSyria, Alter Orient @Ah Tatamnt, Vol. 214 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984), p. 250. See R. S. Hess: Amarna Personal Names (Winona Lake, 1993), S. 115; idem., op. cit. [15], pp. 44-5; S. C. Layton: Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible, HarvardMonograph, Vol. 47 (Harvard, 1990), pp. 67-69. S. C. Layton, op. cit. (291, pp. 68-69. M. Dietrich & 0. Loretz: `mt "Mot, Tod" und mt "Krieger, Held" im Ugaritischen' in UF22 (1990), pp. 64-65; W. von Soden: Assyrisches Handworterbuch, Vol. 2 (Wiesbaden, 1965), p. 691; I. J. Gelb et al. (eds.): The Assyrian Dictionary, Part 2 (Chicago, 1964), pp. 313ff. V. P. Hamilton: `ish` in W. A. VanGemeren, op. cit. [lo], Vol. 1, word 408, p. 388; P. Kyle McCarter: ZZ Samuel - A New Earnlation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (Garden City), p. 86; J. Renz & W. Rollig: Handbuch der althebraischen Epigraphik, El. 211: Die althebraische Irnchriften (Dannstadt, 1995), p. 61. P. Kyle McCarter, op. cit. [32], p. 86. The MT (2 Samuel 2:9) calls one of the peoples ruled over by Ishbaal `the Ashurites', i.e. the Assyrians. However, the text seems to have been corrupted. Syrian manuscripts rather give gshwr or ­, i.e. `(the land of) Geshur' or `the Geshurites'. The land of Geshur is located east of Lake Kinnereth. It is almost certainly identical with the country called Ga[shu]ru mentioned by Mutbaal in EA 256. The reading Geshuri is also followed by McCarter, op. cit. [32], pp. 80 & 83. Concerning the equation of Ga(shu]ru with biblical Geshur, see B. Mazar: `Geshur and Maachah' in B. Mazar: The Biblical Period (Israel Exploration Society, Terusalem, 1986), pp. 113-125; also Y. Aharoni: The Land of the Bible -(London), p. 163. fi has been suggested that Mutbaal had ei&r recon- quered the Geshurite cities Hayyunu and Yabiluma, with the help of Ayab, or that Ayab had lost them in battle (EA 256), cf. W. L. Moran: Les Lettres d!ElAmama - Correspondawe d@lomatique du pharaon, Litthatures Anciennesdu Proche-Orient, Vol. 13 (Paris, l987), p. 485; also A. B. Knapp: Society and Politic at Bronze Age Pella -An Annals Perspective, Journalfor the Study of the Old Zstament/American Schools of Oriental Research Monograph Series6 (Sheffield, 1993), p. 45. 35. See Aharoni, op. cit. [34], p. 31; J. B. Pritchard: The Harper's Concise Ath ofthe Bible (New York, 1991), p. 147; R. A. Coughenour: `A Search for Mahanaim' in BASOR 273 (1979), pp. 60ff. 36. 0. Eissfeldt: `The Hebrew Kingdom' in cAHII:2 (1975), p. 579; R. A. Coughenour, op. cit. [35], p. 59. 37. R. H. Smith: `Pella' in E. Stem et al.: The New Encyclopedia of Archaeo- logicalficavatiorn in the Hob Land, Vol. 3 (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 1174-80. See also A. B. Knapp, op. cit. [34], p. 23. 38. A. B. Knapp, op. cit. [34], pp. 25-26; Y. Aharoni, op. cit. [34], p. 40; Y. Aharoni & M. Avi-Yonah: The MacMilhn Bible Ath (London, 1977), p. 17, map 10; J. Negenman: Een Geogra$e van Palestina, Palestina antiqua, Vol. 2, (Kampen, 1982), p. 126, etc. 39. For example Y. Aharoni: `Ramat Rahel' in E. Stem et al., op. cit. [37], 40. P. Kyle McCarter, op. cit. [32], p. 250. 41. ANEK p. 278; cf. also J. Kah-jin Kuan: Neo-Assyrian HistoricalZrnm$tiorn Vol. 4, pp. 1261-67. and Syria-Palestine, Jian Duo Dissertation Series 1 (Hong Kong, 1995), pp. 30-31. 41. See B. Newgrosh et aL, op. cit. [3], pp. 51-53. 42. For example A. F. Rainey: The el-Amarna Letters 359-379: Supplement to J. A. Knudtzon Die el-Amana Ejln, Alter Orient C? Altes Zstament Vol. 8 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978), p. 100; N. Na'aman: `Yen`oam' in El Aviv 4 (1977), pp. 168-69; R. S. Hess, op. cit. [29], p. 24. For example R S. Hess, op. cit. [29], p. 32. M. Heide, in this issue, p. 40, n. 13. Concerning this name see: D. B. Redford: Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom (Beersheva, 1990), p. 13 where he states: `Albright wished to postulate an *Zry-mi (`a companion is born') behind this transcription, but the form is unattested and would be strange if it were. In fact the name is clearly nothing more than R`-mi with a prothetic alefeupho- nicum' Redford identifies Ramose with the General Ramose, who is indeed attested at Tell el-Amama. Neither of the names starts with a double consonant. If the scribe had indeed written `Etmaya', the addition of a prothetic aleph would have been understandable. But, as can be deduced from EA 265 (from Tagi of Gath-Cannel), the same name (at1.9 & 1.11) is also elsewhere without a double consonant. In addition, the longer version of the name, Thh- mashshi (EA 303) appears to conh this. Outside the Amama onomasti- con the divine name Ptah appears to have been written without the intial aleph. The Akkadian transcription Iptihardeshu (which used to be understood as Egyptian Ptahirdis (ANET, p. 294) is now believed by Kitchen to be an Akkadian rendition of the name N$ertemirdis, i.e. without the theophoric element `Ptah' (K. A. Kitchen: % ThirdZntmdiate Period in Egpt (Warminster, 1996), p. 297 & n. 91 1); cf. also X. Fecht: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch&logischen Zrntituts, Abt. Kairo 16 (1958), pp. 113-14). Names with R`e as the initial element are also written withouta prothetic aleph. Some examples from the Amarna Letters are: Riyanapa, i.e. Egyptian Ranefer (EA 292; 315 & 326) and Riyamanu[. . .], i.e. Egyptian Raemniut (EA 347). The name `Ramesses' in the Hittite Treaty is tran- scribed Riyammhesha. Only in a sigle instance do we find the rendition: Ariammhesha mai-amana sharru rabu shar mat Misri (I lB, 1. 2a) - cf. E. Edel: Der Vmtrag Wischen Rames ZZ. von Agypten und Hattusili ZZZ. von Hatti (Berlin, 1997), p. 18. It is likely that this single rendition is a scribal error. However, if the initial aleph here is indeed a prothetic aleph, then this would only confirm that the prothetic aleph was employed quite arbitrarily. A. F. hney: Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets, Vol. 1 (Leiden, 1996), pp. 8-9, contrary to the conclusion reached by, for example, R. Labat & F. Malbran-Labat: Manuel dgpigraphie Akkadienne - Signes, Syllabaire, Idh- grammes (Paris, 1995/96), pp. 17 & 99, no. 139. In Hatti the value of TA 139 must have been very close to `da', since the name Tadu-Heba, is also written Dadu-Hepa or even Dudu-Hepa, cf. R. S. Hess, op. cit. [29], p. 153. . R. S. Hess, op. cit. [29], p. 152; see also p. 153 under `Tadu-Hepa'. 49. B. Newgrosh et al., op. cit. [3], p. 53. 50. B. Mazar, op. cit. [34], p. 129, n. 13. 51. Zdem, [34], pp. 133-35. 52. Zdem, [34], pp. 137-38. 53. Zdm, [34], p. 129 & n. 11. 54. At the time of the Conquest (Joshua 15: 14) Hebron (or Kiriat `Arba) was already governed by Human rulers such as Sheshi and Talmay - cf. the relevant discussion by R. Hess: `Non-Israelite Names inJoshua' in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996), pp. 210-12. Had Hebron been the seat of an old Hurrian Dynasty? If so, David could have sought to legitimise his royal status amongst the inhabitants of that city by chosing a Human name. 55. J. Baldwin: 7 and 2 Samuel (Leicester, 1988), p. 286; cf. also R. Gordon, op. cit. [19], pp. 303-04; B. Mazar: `The Military Elite of King David' in op. cit [34], p. 93, n. 41. It has been argued that the name of Elhanan's father - Jaare - may be a mispelling of the Hebrew name Yishay (Jesse). 56. See A. F. Rainey: `A New Translation of the Amama Letters - After 100 Years' in Archivfir Orientfrschung36 & 38 (1989/90), p. 72. 57. For the linguistic shift from z/s to t and vice versa, see D. Sivan: A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Leiden, 1997), pp. 24-25; also E. Lipinski: Semitic Languages - Outline of a Comparative Grammar (Leuven, 1997), p. 120. 42 JACF VOL. 8