The Merneptah Stele

The Merneptah Stele is an ancient record by an Egyptian pharaoh, Merneptah, documenting his war with the Libyans and the successes and/or failures from it.  Merneptah ruled from 1213 to 1203 BCE.  The stele that he had commissioned was inscribed on the back of an existing stele, and this contributed to why it was not discovered until 1896 AD[1].  The engraving of a stele or a relief was not an uncommon practice in ancient times, and defiantly not for the Egyptians; however, what sets this one apart from the others is that it contains a reference a little more than 100 lines in to some small territories in the land of Canaan, one of which is Isrir, or Israel.  This is commonly regarded as the first instance of Israel in recorded history, excluding the biblical sources. 

There has been and still is some debate over associating the reference to Israel in the Merneptah Stele with the biblical Israel.  This debate ranges from where to place the designated people, whether or not they can be regarded as a separate people, or if the scribe making the stele used an incorrect term designating Israel as a people instead of a location, or misspelled Israel altogether. 

Merneptah carried out several military campaigns during his reign, mostly concerned with the Libyans that were threatening Egypt from the west.  The stele in question is the record of one of these campaigns conducted against the Libyans[2].  The main relevant text of the stele is as follows:

            The princes are prostrate, saying “Peace!”

            Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows.

            Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti is pacified;

            plundered is Canaan with every evil;

            carried off is Ashkelon;

            seized upon is Gezer;

            Yeno`am is made as that which does not exist.

            Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;

            Kharu has become a widow because of Egypt!

            All lands together are pacified;

            Everyone who was restless has been bound

            By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt:

            Ba-en-Re Meri-Amon; the Son of Re:

             Mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, given life

             like Re every day.[3]

There have been many interpretations and much speculation both in and out of the academic community regarding just these few short lines of the Stele.  There are those that have understood the placement of the name of Israel in the text to be significant to the actual physical location of the people.  The essay by Gitten, Wright, and Dessel said “[i]n the stela, Israel is situated within the geographical confines of Canaan and Hurru, as are the city-states/kingdoms of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam.  The word ‘Israel’ in the stela is defined as a rural or tribal entity by the determinative for ‘people’”[4].  This can be compared and contrasted with what Sparks wrote regarding the wording, specifically the determinative used by the Egyptian scribe relative to the word that is translated as Israel.  “The Egyptian text provides a determinative before the name of each toponym, and in every case but one the same determinative is used.  The exception is Israel, which is proceeded by the determinative for people rather than land.  The scribe was consistent throughout the Stela, so we should conclude that he intentionally distinguished the People of Israel from other peoples.”[5]  According to Sparks, the determinative is designating that the people of Israel are separate and distinct from the other people in the surrounding areas of Canaan, as opposed to the view espoused by Gitten et al that it referred to a specific rural location. 

Another part of the Stele that should be looked at closely along with the translations of it is the specific line containing the word Israel.  Two reputable sources, Hasel and Ahlstrom, both provide translations that are the same except for the use of one pronoun.  In Hasel, the line is translated “Israel is laid waste, its seed is not.”[6], and in Ahlstrom it is translated as “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not”[7].  This small difference could also account for a large misunderstanding of what Israel is referring to as well.  Going with the translation that Hasel provides and using the pronoun ‘its’, this reflects back to a thing.  This thing in this instance would be most likely be a physical location; a section or area of land.  Due to the placement of the comma as punctuation, it can be interpreted as the land referred to as Israel is wasted and there is no more grain there, or, if the emphasis on the words changes slightly but still using the same punctuation, it can be interpreted as meaning that the land of Israel is wasted, but the grain is not wasted, it survived.  While it is possible to translate either way with this line, it is more likely that it is the first instance in this case; being that the land and grain both were destroyed.  Taking the second translation, however, and using the more commonly found pronoun of ‘his’, this brings to mind the connotation of a people or a nation.  Using this translation, it is more appropriate that the Israel that is referred to is a nation with an independent identity.  Indeed, this connotation of Israel lies more so in line with the traditional biblical account of Israel being a people that are all descended from Jacob, whose name was changed by God to Israel[8]. 

Interestingly, while Ahlstrom uses the translation with the pronoun ‘his’, he refers to the Stele as describing a both physical location and a national people.  “In light of the ABCD ring structure [of the layout of the nations and city-states in the Stele] mentioned, two possible conclusions can be drawn about Israel’s location, depending upon one’s assessment of the author’s knowledge of ancient Palestine and his precision in using terminology.  If Hatti is used in its usual sense to designate Asia Minor and Syria, then it is possible to conclude that the author intended them to be two complementary subregions which together comprised the larger region of Syria-Palestine.  In the same way, Canaan and Israel could be used here to subdivide the narrower area of Cisjordanian Palestine into two complementary sections which together would represent the whole.  It is possible that Israel then has been used to represent the hill country area.  It could represent an accurate association of the people of Israel with the hill country population, suggesting that the Egyptian scribe did not know of a specific term for the Palestinian hill country, such as Ephriam, but did know that a group of people called Israel lived there.”[9]

Regarding the actual name Israel used in the Merneptah Stele, Sparks has further comment.  “Israel is not an Egyptian term and therefore cannot be viewed as an Egyptian exonym.  It is clearly Western Semitic and must be either the name that Israel used for itself or that another Western Semetic culture applied to them.  Israel is recognised as being made up of a combination of El and and combination of sara and srr, or ysr / sr which means to rule or be upright.  Thus, it can be translated as Jacob struggles with El or El persists.  Due to this, it is most likely that we are dealing with an endonym, or a name that Israel gave themselves.”[10]  This would also support the biblical idea that Israel is a nation in and of themselves, separate from the Canaanites and the surrounding nations, and that they also had their own region that they occupied. 

There is another theory that has been proposed to the basis of the name Israel.  It has been proposed that Israel is constructed from the names of Isis, Ra, and El; the gods of the regional area from that time.  Isis was also known as Issa, (the wife of Ra), Ra was the Egyptian sun god, and El was the Israelite name for God.  When combined, the names Issa + Ra + El would form the word Israel[11].  While it is completely feasible that a cross pollination of deities occurred in this local region, and there is no reason that some of the religious beliefs could have been shared and adopted from culture to culture, the formation of the name Israel in this manner is reliant upon using the English translations of these names, and as such makes this point mute. 

There are also those who refute that Israel as taken from the Merneptah Stele refers to the biblical Israel.  When excluding the biblical sources and relying just on the extrabiblical sources, there is a gap of approximately four hundred years from when the Merneptah Stele was inscribed and the iteration of Israel in historic record[12].  It is feasible that this few hundred year gap could be explained by a number of things such as an expanding national identity by Israel so that it had not yet reached a significant enough size to be documented, or that Israel was taken into slavery by Egypt or Babylon or another larger nation as is recorded as happening in the bible, and these nations did not record the name of the enslaved nations, to name a few.  Another possibility, though, is raised by Hasel.  He stated that the view that the term Israel on the Merneptah Stela is unrelated to the people Israel of the Hebrew Bible was a position taken by Margalith based on the 1948 suggestion of Driver that the Egyptian s  could be the Hebrew z.  This means that the name would be translated as Iezree,l which could be an inexperienced scribe’s rendering of Yezreal, the valley to the north of the country.  Further, he states that this would fit the comment at the end that says that Israel has no seed and conform to the rest of the inscription which has location names[13]. 

There are still other experts that suggest that the last few lines of the stele’s inscription are the lyrics to a poem or victory anthem honouring the pharaoh’s military prowess[14].  The mention of the defeated tribes could be intended to remind the people of the previous victories that Egypt had had.  The fact that it contained the word Isrir, is substantially different and unique from what has been discovered in that time era.  It is known that rules from that time, (and somewhat still today even) would exaggerate their accomplishments and victories[15].  One such reason for the sceptical side of the Merneptah’s Stele in relation to Israel is that there are no other records from that time dictating military campaigns into the Canaanite region. 

One possible reason that there are no other references to Israel by themselves could be that at this point in history they were similar in features to the Canaanites, and they may have just been included in the records under the name Canaan[16].  The Merneptah reliefs depict both the Canaanites and the Israelites as having the same hairstyles and clothing.  These similarities between the Canaanites and the Israelites could lend themselves easily to an understanding of the appropriation of the Israelite or Canaanite legacy by different groups when looking at history. 

In conclusion, the Merneptah Stele holds the records of the pharaoh Merneptah’s military exploits into and around the area of Canaan.  While there is a lot of information contained in the Stele itself, there is a large amount of conjecture and speculation that accompanies it.  The nature of the leaders of the time to exaggerate their exploits causes some of the details to be questioned.  Further, while the Stele does mention Israel, there is as of yet no definitive answer as to the relationship to the biblical Israel, or if this was reference to another people or place that was similar.  Until there is more evidence of use of the name Israel during this time discovered, the speculation on what significance and insights the Stele can offer the modern world on the nature and existence of ancient Israel will continue to be debated. 

Bibliography

Arcaeologica.org http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewtopic.php?t=1461  (Accessed 20 Oct 2011)

Ahlstrom, G., and Edelman, D.  (1985).  ‘Merneptah’s Israel’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies.  44.1.   pp.  59-61. 

Hasel, M.  (1994).  ‘Israel in the Merneptah Stela’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.  No. 296.  pp.  45-61. 

Holy Bible, The.  King James Version.  1989.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Salt Lake City, UT.

Sparks, K.  (1998).  ‘Merneptah’s Stele and Deborah’s Song’, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel.  pp.  94-124. 

wiseGEEK.com  http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-merneptah-stele.htm  (Accessed 20 Oct 2011) 

The Bible and Interpretation.  http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/emeyers.shtml  (Accessed 20 Oct 2011) 

---

[1] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-merneptah-stele.htm

[2] http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewtopic.php?t=1461

[3] Ahlstrom, Merneptah’s Israel, p. 60

[4] http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/emeyers.shtml

[5] Sparks, Merneptah’s Stele and Deborah’s Song, p. 105

[6] Hasel, Israel in the Merneptah Stela, p. 45

[7] Ahlstrom, Merneptah’s Israel, p. 60

[8] Genesis 32:28

[9] Ahlstrom, Merneptah’s Israel, p. 60-61

[10] Sparks, Merneptah’s Stele and Deborah’s Song, p. 107

[11] http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewtopic.php?t=1461

[12] Sparks, Merneptah’s Stele and Deborah’s Song, p. 96

[13] Hasel, Israel in the Merneptah Stela, p. 46

[14] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-merneptah-stele.htm

[15] Ibid

[16] http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/emeyers.shtml

The Pithoi from Kuntillet Ajrud

The question of the potential connection between the inscribed texts and the drawings on the pithoi from Kuntillet Ajrud is a topic that has been much debated among historic scholars.  It is a question that cannot simply be answered with a cursory glance at just the pithoi themselves.  There must needs be also a further study and examination of the identity of the asherah mentioned in connection to the Hebrew god of Yahweh; to try to ascertain its significance and meaning, and in doing so, identify if it is a goddess consort or some other thing, such as an icon or place, entirely.  Through this examination and proper identification of the nature of the asherah, it will then be possible to determine if the texts and the drawings on the pithoi found at Kuntillet Ajrud are connected in any way other than by just being on the same piece of pottery.  The specific pithoi in question has an inscription on it which is a blessing to a person containing the phrase from ‘Yahweh of Samaria and his asherah’.  Along with this inscription is the depiction of three personages, two of which are standing, arms interlinked, one smaller than the other, and the third sitting in the background playing the lyre.  It is this connection that has spawned the debate on the interpretation and possible meaning of the text.

On one of the large storage jars called pithoi from Kuntillet Ajrud, some scholars believe they see asherah as a goddess depicted in a drawing standing beside a figure that they have identified as Yahweh.  Lemaire[1] disagrees with this, saying that asherah is not depicted as a goddess-consort to Yahweh in the inscriptions, or that the Biblical texts containing reference to asherah are ever referring to a goddess.  Lemaire purports that the drawing of the two standing figures on the pithoi is of the Egyptian god Bes, and the seated female with the lyre is simply just that, a seated female lyre player[2].  The storage jar does contain text referring to Yahweh’s asherah, but the text does not say or infer that asherah is a goddess or consort. 

While examining the text itself, time should be given over to studying the structure of the wording.  Using Hebrew grammar shows that asherah is not the proper noun or name of a goddess, but actually just a common noun.  All place names or proper nouns in Hebrew stand of their own accord.  A common noun, however, needs to have the prefix ha in front of the noun to make it determinative; similar to how the is used in English.  Using the examples of Judges 6:25-26, 30 and 1 Kings 16:33, asherah is preceded by the Hebrew ha in these instances, which if asherah was a name, would not happen.  Further to this, names in Hebrew never have a pronominal suffix on them, which is used to denote ownership.  The Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Kom texts both have asherah, which ends in h and thus in Hebrew denotes ownership, namely, his[3].    

Margalit argues[4] that while the Kuntillet Ajrud text uses asherah as a common noun, the fact that there are drawings of personages in close proximity indicate that it should be translated as being the proper name of a person, Asherah.  This, of course, is assuming that the text and the drawings were done at the same time and/or by the same person.  Conversely, if they were not done at the same time or by the same person, they could still be interconnected, the drawing explaining the picture, or visa versa.  At this point and with the level of research and knowledge on the subject currently available, it is almost impossible to know which of those three circumstances it could be, but for the sake of this analysis, it will be assumed that the drawing and the text were created by the same person. 

Another possibility is that asherah is translated as meaning a holy place or sanctuary.  Asherah is similar to the Akkadian word asirtu, which means sanctuary.  There are other cognates from the eighth-century BC Aramaic that have the same meaning as asirtu, as well as from the Middle and Late Punic Phoenician[5].  There is Biblical support for this translation being correct.  In 2 Kings 18:4 it says “He [Hezekiah] removed the high places (bamot), and brake the images (massebot), and cut down the groves (asherah), and brake in pieces the brazen serpent…”   In Deut 16:21 it reads “Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees (asherah) near unto the alter of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee.”   Asherah here is clearly not defined as a goddess, but rather as a tree or grove of trees. 

Whilst there is some logical reasoning behind this argument of translating asherah as a sacred tree or grove of trees, Margalit continues to be adamant that asherah should be translated as a proper noun and thus is the actual name of a personage, specifically a goddess.  Looking at the Ugaritic word atrt and the Hebrew cognate asera, both of these originally mean ‘wife’ or ‘consort’; or more literally ‘she-who-follows-in-the-footsteps (of her husband)’[6].  This can be further expounded upon when looking at some of the older artefacts found relating to the Canaanite religion.  Ugarit on the Syrian coast yielded a cache of 14^th – 13^th century BC cuneiform tablets concerning Canaanite religion.  There are several ritual texts and three religious epic myths contained on them.  Among the goddess featured is one named Athirat, the consort of El.  Athirat is the Ugaritic linguistic equivalent of the Hebrew Asherah.  One of Athirat’s epithets is “Athirat-of-the-Sea”, and describes her as being a wife to the great god El.  As El’s consort, she is also called “creator (or begetter) of the gods”[7].     

Since the story of Athirat and who she was would have been widely know among the people of the area at that time, it would explain the lack of reference to Athirat’s courtship of El.  Explaining it again would have been deemed a repetitive redundancy to the Ugaritic poets recording the tale, and similarly for the Hebrew epigraphist concerning the equivalent Asherah[8].  Interestingly, Asherah is mentioned in conjunction with Baal both repeatedly and more commonly.  A few examples can be found in the Bible as shown here: “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD (Yahweh), and forgat the LORD (Yahweh) their God, and served Baalim and the groves (Asherah)”[9], “…and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves (Asherah) four hundred…”[10], and “…bring forth out of the temple of the LORD (Yahweh) all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove (Asherah), and for all the host of heaven…”[11].  Whilst this shows that Asherah is used in connotation with the divine, it also goes back to the previously shown examples of how it can be translated as a place; specifically that of a sacred grove of trees.  This however, could be explained by looking at yet another name that the goddess Athirat is sometimes known as.

The goddess Athirat is also referred to on many occasions as Qudsu, which means ‘holiness’ or ‘sanctuary’[12].  This could be a reference to the sanctuary that the goddess herself provides, similar to a mother providing refuge to a troubled, sick, or scared child.  This would be fitting with the entire concept of a mother goddess that is being ascribed to Asherah.  Further, the concept of a place or a sanctuary within the name of a deity is not a strange concept for the Semites, as can be shown in example of the god Bethel, which is literally translated, ‘The House of El’[13].  The grove of trees that is used as a translation for Asherah could possibly be from when the goddess was worshipped in a more paganistic time, and the tradition held over and evolved into being synonymous with the goddess herself. 

The Ugaritic texts from Northern Semitic culture provides more information on Asherah as a goddess, and in these instances, is usually vocalised as Athirat.  In these texts, she is also shown to be the consort of El, and sometimes is referred to as `ilt, which is translated as goddess.  Also, she is referred to as qnyt `ilm, which is the procreatress of the gods, or as `um. `il, translated to the mother of the gods[14].  It is able to be surmised by this that Athirat then shared in the work of the creation of the world with El.  Further in the Ugaritic texts, there is reference to the ‘seventy sons of Athirat’.  This would indicate that there was a direct correlation between this concept and the Jewish concept that there are seventy guardian angels of the nations, which arises from the concept of the sons of God in Deut 32:8, and therefore gives credence to Asherah being the goddess consort to the god Yahweh[15]. 

Returning to the pithoi from Kuntillet Ajrud with this information in mind, the drawings can be analysed in conjunction to the texts in a more detailed and educated light.  Using the Egyptologist Gilula’s position on the subject of the pithoi from Kuntillet Ajrud, Margalit argues that the standing figures in the image cannot be interpreted as the Egyptian god Bes as was previously thought, because they are clearly bovine in nature and Bes was leonine[16].  Due to this reasoning, he has drawn the conclusion that the line “…yhwh.. smrn. w`srth (Yahweh and his Asherah)” is describing the two standing figures beneath the text.  Margalit continues to argue that `srh can only be interpreted in this instance as meaning a divine persona capable of conferring blessings.  Further, Margalit states that the way around the problems of the context of the text implying that asherah is a proper name of a deity, and the grammar rules of Hebrew stating that due to the possessive suffix on the word it must be a thing, is to translate asherah as the common noun meaning ‘wife or consort’.  To back up this claim, Margalit again continues to draw on the research, findings, and opinions of Gilula. 

When looking closer at the drawing of the two standing personages, the smaller of the two is found to be clearly female.  The circles on the upper chest are the same as the seated female lyre-player.  The absence of horns and the head-dress that the small figure is wearing which is thought to be the Hebrew `atara that a suitor places on his wife to be, also lends themselves to this conclusion.  The interlocking hands also purportedly were done to try and show perspective, making the smaller figure appear to be behind the larger one.  This all serves to reinforce the view that the line should be translated as ‘Yahweh of Samaria and his consort/wife’, as well as providing a unique graphical representation of the word `srh, which as previously stated means “she who follows (her husband)’[17].  This, then, is a fine example of the social conventions of the female following the male, or the wife following the husband carrying over to writing; i.e. ‘Yahweh and his Asherah’ similar in the way that ‘Mr. and Mrs.’ is used currently[18].

Margalit, however, goes on to say that he is not going to discuss the different connotations of asherah as used in the Bible though, as he believes that his point can be made without doing so.  This could be viewed as an easy way out of confronting the problem of a literary record that is obviously translated completely differently to his opinion, and supported by some scholars as being a correct translation as well. 

In conclusion, it would appear that the text and the drawings on the pithoi from Kuntillet Ajrud are indeed connected to each other.  The word ‘asherah’, whether translated as the proper name of a goddess consort to Yahweh, or as a place name of a sacred grove of trees that provided sanctuary, clearly is connected to the Hebrew god.  The information examined suggests that both translations, deity name and sacred grove, are correct, and that it is just context that allows the reader to know which is meant.  From this explanation, and given the context of the drawing that accompanies the inscription, it seems apparent that the image is that of ‘Yahweh and His Asherah’, the wife goddess, faithfully following in his footsteps.

Bibliography

Day, J. (1986). ‘Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature’, Journal of Biblical Literature, No. 105, pp. 385-408.

Holy Bible, The.  King James Version.  1989.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Salt Lake City, UT. 

Lemaire, A. (1984).  ‘Who or What was Yahweh’s Asherah’, Biblical Archaeology Review, pp. 42-51.

Margalit, B. (1990). ‘The Meaning and Significance of Asherah’, Vetus Testamentum No. 40,  pp. 264-297.

---

[1] Lemaire, Who or what was Yahweh’s Asherah? p. 46

[2] Ibid

[3] Lemaire, Who or what was Yahweh’s Asherah? p. 47

[4] Margalit, The Meaning and Significance of Asherah p. 266

[5] Lemaire Who or what was Yahweh’s Asherah? p. 50

[6] Margalit The Meaning and Significance of Asherah p. 269

[7] Lemaire, Who or What was Yahweh’s Asherah? p. 46

[8] Margalit The Meaning and Significance of Asherah p. 269

[9] Judges 3:7

[10] 1 Kings 18:19

[11] 2 Kings 23:4

[12] Day, Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature p. 388

[13] Ibid

[14] Day, Aherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature p. 387

[15] Ibid

[16] Margalit, The Meaning and Significance of Asherah p. 276

[17] Ibid p. 276-279

[18] Ibid p. 271