Family and Household Religion in

Ancient Israel and the Levant

Family and Household Religion
in
Ancient Israel and the Levant

Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt

Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2012
 © 2012 by Eisenbrauns Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America

www.eisenbrauns.com

The support of the Deutsche Forschungs�gemeinschaft (DFG), which

supplied funding to assist with the preparation of the illustrations, is
gratefully acknowledged.

The illustrations used on the cover of this book were supplied by the
Semitic Museum, Harvard University, from an exhibit entitled The Houses
of Ancient Israel: Domestic, Royal, Divine.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Albertz, Rainer, 1943–

Family and household religion in ancient Israel and the Levant / Rainer Albertz and
Rüdiger Schmitt.
â•…â•…â•…p.â•…cm.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 978-1-57506-232-7 (hardback : alk. paper)
1.╇ Jewish families—Conduct of life—History—To 70 a.d.â•… 2.╇ Jews—Social life and
customs—To 70 a.d.â•… 3.╇ Bible. O.T.—Antiquities.â•… 4.╇ Families—Biblical teaching.â•…
5.╇ Families—Religious aspects—Judaism—To 70 a.d.â•… 6.╇Families—Palestine—
History—To 70 a.d.â•… 7.╇ Palestine—Social life and customs—To 70 a.d.â•… I.╇Schmitt,
Rüdiger.â•… II.╇Title.
BM723.A45â•…2012
269.09′013—dc23
2012008049

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for
Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †Ê
 Contents

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ╇ix

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ╇xv
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvi
Generalâ•…x
Reference Worksâ•… xi
1.╇ Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ╅1
Rainer Albertz
1.1.╇ History of research╅ 2
1.2.╇ Interdisciplinary approach and temporal limitations
of the subjectâ•… 17
1.3.╇ The structure of the present book╅ 19
2.╇ Methodological Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ╇21
Rainer Albertz
2.1.╇ Problems of modern and biblical terminology╅ 21
2.2.╇ The problem of living space in domestic buildings╅ 26
2.3.╇ Overcoming the discrepancy between the archaeological evidence
and the biblical idealâ•… 34
2.4.╇ Relations between different types of family households
and to additional kinâ•… 41
2.5.╇ Conclusions for reconstructing the Israelite family and household
religionâ•…45
2.6.╇ Religious-historical concepts regarding family religion╅ 46
2.7.╇ Family and household religion within the religion of Israel╅ 55
3.╇ Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ╇57
Rüdiger Schmitt
3.1.╇Methodology╅ 57
3.2.╇ Diagnostic objects and cult patterns╅ 60
3.3.╇ Domestic cultic assemblages in Iron Age Judah and Israel╅ 74
3.4.╇ Patterns of domestic cult activities in
Iron Age Israel and Judahâ•… 172
3.5.╇ Comparative data from sites outside Israel and Judah╅ 176

v
vi Contents

4.╇ Typology of Iron Age Cult Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Rüdiger Schmitt
4.1.╇ Domestic cult: The house as space for ritual activities
(Type IA)â•… 224
4.2.╇ Domestic shrines (Type IB)╅ 227
4.3.╇ Patterns of cult places outside the domestic realm╅ 228
4.4.╇Conclusions╅ 239
5.╇ Personal Names and Family Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Rainer Albertz
5.1.╇ Introductory questions╅ 245
5.2.╇ Religious beliefs expressed in Hebrew personal names╅ 262
5.3.╇ Family beliefs related to the conduct of everyday life╅ 336
5.4.╇ The deities venerated in family religion╅ 339
5.5.╇ Iconographic evidence for iconic stamp seals serving personal
piety and family religion (R. Schmitt)â•… 367
6.╇ Rites of Family and Household Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Rüdiger Schmitt
6.1.╇Introduction╅ 387
6.2.╇ Rites and rituals associated with the cycle of human life╅ 388
6.3.╇ Rites, rituals, and observances set by the calendar╅ 399
6.4.╇ Occasional rituals╅ 403
6.5.╇ Taboos and other observances╅ 420
6.6.╇ Family rites and rituals and their significance for the symbolic
system of the familyâ•… 426
7.╇ Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family . . . . . . . 429
Rüdiger Schmitt
7.1.╇Introduction╅ 429
7.2.╇ Status of the dead╅ 431
7.3.╇ Mourning the dead╅ 433
7.4.╇ Burying the dead╅ 436
7.5.╇ Feeding the dead and other forms of
post-mortem care for the deadâ•… 455
7.6.╇ Commemorating the dead╅ 457
7.7.╇ Interrogating the dead╅ 469
7.8.╇ Summary and conclusions: The functions of mortuary rites in the
context of family and household religionâ•… 471
8.╇ Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt
8.1.╇ Research history╅ 474
8.2.╇Methodology╅ 475
8.3.╇ Archaeological evidence for domestic religious practices╅ 477
8.4.╇ Typology of cult places outside the domestic realm╅ 480
8.5.╇ The symbolic world of family religion based on
personal namesâ•… 482
 Contents vii

8.6.╇ Rites and rituals of family religion╅ 489

8.7.╇ Care for the dead in the context of
household and family religionâ•… 493
Additional Tables (Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt
Appendix A.╇ Comparative Table of Israelite and Judean Assemblages
in Alphabetical Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
Rüdiger Schmitt
Appendix B.╇ Personal Names: A Comprehensive List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
Rainer Albertz
B1.╇ Names of Thanksgiving╅ 534
1.1.╇ Divine attention╅ 534
1.2.╇ Divine salvation╅ 541
1.3.╇ Divine assistance╅ 546
1.4.╇ Divine protection╅ 552
B2.╇ Names of Confession╅ 554
2.1.╇ Divine attention╅ 554
2.2.╇ Divine rescue╅ 554
2.3.╇ Divine assistance╅ 556
2.4.╇ Divine protection╅ 559
2.5.╇ Trust in god╅ 563
2.6.╇ Relationship of personal trust in god╅ 565
B3.╇ Names of Praise╅ 571
B4.╇ Equating Names╅ 576
4.1.╇ Terms of kinship╅ 576
4.2.╇ Equating a personal/tutelary god with another god╅ 579
4.3.╇ Equating Baal with another god╅ 579
4.4.╇ Equating Yhwh or other major deities with another
godâ•…580
4.5.╇ Old epithets╅ 581
B5.╇ Names of Birth╅ 582
5.1.╇ The distress of infertility╅ 582
5.2.╇ Prayers and vows╅ 583
5.3.╇ Birth oracles╅ 585
5.4.╇ Conception and pregnancy╅ 586
5.5.╇ Creation and birth╅ 587
5.6.╇ Acceptance of the child, care, naming, and
circumcisionâ•…593
5.7.╇ Misfortune in the vicinity of birth╅ 598
5.8.╇ Infant mortality and substitute names╅ 599
B6.╇ Secular Names╅ 602
6.1.╇ Names related to the situation of birth╅ 602
6.2.╇ Personality traits╅ 605
6.3.╇ Comparing the child with animals and plants╅ 607
viii Contents

Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615
Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
Index of Authorsâ•… 662
Index of Ancient Personal Namesâ•… 668
Index of Textual Sourcesâ•… 679
Index of Sites and Place-Namesâ•… 689
Index of Subjectsâ•… 692
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1.╇ Variants of four-room houses . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . 27

Fig. 2.2.╇ Ground plan of House 1727 at Tell Balatâh, Stratum VII,
8th century b.c.e . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 29
Fig. 2.3.╇ Reconstruction and ground plan of House B at Tell el-ʿUmeri,
Iron Age I . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Fig. 2.4.╇ Reconstruction of a typical Israelite four-room house, Iron Age I,
by L. E. Stager . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . 31
Fig. 2.5.╇ Schematic reconstruction of a dwelling with unroofed
central courtyard on the lower floor by E. Netzer . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . 32
Fig. 2.6.╇ Schematic reconstruction of dwellings with unroofed
central courtyards on upper floors by E. Netzer . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . 33
Fig. 2.7.╇ Possible house compounds, compiled by L. E. Stager 1985 . . . . . . . . . 35
Fig. 2.8.╇ Reconstruction of a possible family compound by L. E. Stager,
illustrated by C. S. Alexander 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . 36
Fig. 2.9.╇ Dwelling quarter in Hazor showing a back-to-back orientation,
Area A, Stratum VII, 8th century b.c.e . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 37
Fig. 2.10.╇ Ground plan of the Iron II village Beit Aryeh and a
huge storehouse (no. 510) . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . 40
Fig. 3.1.╇ Ai: Pottery and animal figurine (below) from Locus 65 . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Fig. 3.2.╇ Tel ʿAmal: Stand, zoomorphic spout, and pottery from Locus 12 . . . . . 77
Fig. 3.3.╇ Tel ʿAmal: Stand and pottery from Locus 36 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 78
Fig. 3.4a.╇ Tel Batash: Contents of Loci 910a and 914 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . 79
Fig. 3.4b.╇ Position of Altar (▲ 23 in building F 608). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Fig. 3.5.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Location of objects from Loci 844 and 859 . . . . 81
Fig. 3.6.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects and pottery from Locus 25 . . . . . . . . 83
Fig. 3.7.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects and jug from Locus 808 . . . . . . . . . . 84
Fig. 3.8.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects from Loci 442 and 443 . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Fig. 3.9.╇ Beersheba: sphinx/cherub figurine from Locus 3622 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 86
Fig. 3.10.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 32-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Fig. 3.11.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 22-13; 4; 5 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . 88
Fig. 3.12.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 31-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Fig. 3.13.╇ Beth-shean, Upper Level V: Figurines and stand from Locus 1564 . . . . 90
Fig. 3.14.╇ Beth-shean, Level IV: Pottery and Objects from Loci 293
(nos. 1–7) and 298 (8–14) . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . 91
Fig 3.15.╇ ʿEin Gev, Stratum III: Pottery and objects from Locus 11 . . . . . . . . . 94
Fig. 3.16.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb: Content of pit 241 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . 95
ix
x List of Figures

Fig. 3.17.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb, Contents of House 440 . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Fig. 3.18.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb: Pottery shrine fragment from Room 437 . 97
Fig. 3.19.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIc: Pottery from Locus 429A . . . . . . . . . . 98
Fig. 3.20.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb, House 161: Contents of Room 157
as mapped in excavation report . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fig. 3.21.╇ Tel Halif: Plan of Field IV . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . 100
Fig. 3.22.╇ Tel Halif: Reconstruction of Room G 8005 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . 100
Fig. 3.23.╇ Tel Halif, Locus G 8005: Stand, altars, and JPF fragment . . . . . . . . .101
Fig. 3.24.╇ Hazor: Isometric reconstruction of temple 3283 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . .103
Fig. 3.25.╇ Hazor, Area A: Pottery and objects from Loci 48 (left)
and 47a (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Fig. 3.26.╇ Hazor, Area A: Pottery and mask from Locus 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Fig. 3.27.╇ Hazor, Area A, Stratum IX–X: Pottery and Objects from
Locus 239a . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . .107
Fig. 3.28.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIb with findspot of kernos . . . . . . . . . 109
Fig. 3.29.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIa with findspots
of pottery assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . 110
Fig. 3.30.╇ Jerusalem, Area G: Pottery and objects from Locus 967
(Stratum 10b “house of bullae”) . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Fig. 3.31.╇ Kinneret, Area D, Stratum II: Building 683 with pottery from
Locus 683 proper . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 113
Fig. 3.32.╇ Kinneret, Area B1, Stratum IB: Figurine and pottery from
Locus 221 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Fig. 3.33.╇ Kinneret Area B1, Stratum IA: Rattle and pottery from Locus 328;
figurine from Locus 322 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . 115
Fig. 3.34.╇ Kinneret Area B 1, Stratum I B: Figurines and pottery from
Locus 326 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Fig. 3.35.╇ Kinneret courtyard dwelling and finds from Locus 3594 . . . . . . . . .116
Fig. 3.36.╇ Lachish Level III: Pair of peg figurines from Locus 2066 . . . . . . . . .117
Fig. 3.37.╇ Male figurine and fragment and pottery from Locus 4150 . . . . . . . .118
Fig. 3.38a.╇ Lachish, Area S, the Level III lower house . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . 119
Fig. 3.38b.╇ Stand and pottery assemblage from Locus 3569 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Fig. 3.39.╇ Lachish: Altar, figurine fragment, and pottery from the lower house,
Locus 3573 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Fig. 3.40.╇ Lachish: Animal Figurine and pottery from the lower house,
Locus 3533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Fig. 3.41.╇ Lachish, Level III (?): JPF head and pottery from Locus G 14: 1008 . . . 121
Fig. 3.42.╇ Lachish, Level III: JPF head and pottery from Locus H 17: 1078 . . . . . 122
Fig. 3.43.╇ Lachish, Room 49, with objects in situ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Fig. 3.44.╇ Lachish, Stratum V: Cult Room 49: bamāh and maṣṣebah in situ . . . . 124
Fig. 3.45.╇ Tel Masos, Area G, Stratum II: Plan of House 314 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 .126
Fig. 3.46.╇ Tel Masos: Pottery assemblage from Room 343. . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . 127
 List of Figures xi

Fig. 3.47.╇ Tel Masos, House 314: Pottery assemblage and “collectibles“
from Room 307 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . .128
Fig. 3.48.╇ Tel Masos, House 314. Pottery assemblage and ivory lion’s head
from Room 331 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . .129
Fig. 3.49.╇ Tel Masos: Animal figurine and pottery from Locus 609 . . . . . . . . .130
Fig. 3.50.╇ Tel Masos: Figurine base and pottery from Room 708 . . . . . . . . . . 131
Fig. 3.51.╇ Tel Masos: Model Chair and cup from Room 758 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 .132
Fig. 3.52.╇ Tel Masos: Animal figurine, zoomorphic spout, and pottery
from Room 718 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . .133
Fig. 3.53.╇ Tel Michal, Stratum XIV–XIII: Sanctuary with findspots of pottery . . . 134
Fig. 3.54.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081: Cult corner proper with objects in situ . . . . . .135
Fig. 3.55.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081 with adjacent structures . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . 136
Fig. 3.56.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081: Pottery assemblage as reconstructed by
Zevit (2000: fig. 3.55) . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 137
Fig. 3.57.╇ Megiddo, Palace 338: General plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Fig. 3.58.╇ Megiddo, Locus 340 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . 139
Fig. 3.59.╇ Megiddo: Content of Room 340 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Fig. 3.60.╇ Distribution of ritual objects from Megiddo courtyard
House 00/K/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Fig. 3.61.╇ Megiddo, Sratum VI, Area AA: Pottery shrine and
selected pottery from eastern quadrant of Locus 2159 . . . . . . . . . .143
Fig. 3.62.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Objects and selected pottery
from Locus 1727 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Fig. 3.63.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand associated with Locus 1729
and selected pottery from Locus 1729 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . .145
Fig. 3.64.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Objects and selected pottery
from assemblage of Room 1732 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Fig. 3.65.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Zoomorphic spout and pottery
from Locus 1737 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Fig. 3.66.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand with figurative appliques
from Locus 1731 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Fig. 3.67.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand and selected pottery
from Locus 1735. Photograph of Locus 1735 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . .149
Fig. 3.68.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Selected pottery and photography
from Locus 1736 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Fig. 3.69.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Top of stand with selected pottery
and cymbals from Locus 1740 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ 151
Fig. 3.70.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand and selected pottery
from Locus 1744 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Fig. 3.71.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Amulets, bone figurine fragment,
and selected pottery from Locus 1741 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . .153
Fig. 3.72.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Cult stand and goblet
from Locus 17 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . 154
xii List of Figures

Fig. 3.73.╇ Stand, censer, and zoomorphic vessel from Megiddo, Level H 3,
Unit 94/H/8, with sample of selected pottery . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . .156
Fig. 3.74.╇ Distribution patterns from Tell en-Naṣbeh . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . .158
Fig. 3.75.╇ Tel Qashish: Pottery from pit Locus 253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Fig. 3.76.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII C: Pottery and objects
from Loci 1065 and 674 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Fig. 3.77.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII B: Pottery from Loci 690 and 1044 . . . 162
Fig. 3.78.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Fig. 3.79.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, Stratum VII, House 64 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . .166
Fig. 3.80.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, Stratum VI, House 37 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . .167
Fig. 3.81.╇ Shiloh: Pottery and Objects from Locus 623 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . .168
Fig. 3.82.╇ The so-called Cultic Structure SW 2-7 at Taanach and
selected pottery from Loci 27 and 61 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . .171
Fig. 3.83.╇ Tell Abu al-Kharaz: Tripod incense burners and cooking pot
from Area 7 house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Fig. 3.84.╇ Irbid, Area C: Ritual Vessels from Room 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . .178
Fig. 3.85.╇ Tell Jawa, Building 102 with model shrine fragment
from Room 110, proto-Aeolic capital and figurine head
from Room 105 and stone figurine from Room 217 . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Fig. 3.86.╇ Tell Jawa, Building 300: Figurine base and miniature tools
from bench Locus E54:24 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . 183
Fig. 3.87.╇ Tell Mazar, Mound A: Pottery assemblage from Room 101 . . . . . . . . 185
Fig. 3.88.╇ Tell Mazar, Building 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Fig. 3.89.╇ Pella: Pottery and stands from Plot IV E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Fig. 3.90.╇ Tall al-ʿUmeri, Building A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Fig. 3.91.╇ Tall al-ʿUmeri: Room A2 with supposed cultic stele . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ 192
Fig. 3.92.╇ Typology of Philistine terra-cotta figurines . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . .194
Fig. 3.93.╇ Ashdod, Area H: Pottery and objects from Rooms 5032 and 5033 . . . . 196
Fig. 3.94.╇ Ashdod: Figurines and pottery from Loci 4133 and 4109 . . . . . . . . . 197
Fig. 3.95.╇ Ashdod, Locus 5361 with musician’s stand and shrine
model fragment . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . 200
Fig. 3.96.╇ Stand and pottery from Ashdod, Area H, Locus 6212 . . . . . . . . . . .201
Fig. 3.97.╇ Distribution of finds from Ashdod, Building 5337 . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Fig. 3.98.╇ Ashdod: Potter’s quarter in Area D with figurine and
pottery assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Fig. 3.99.╇ ʿAin Dara: Figurine plaque fragment from Sq. 4, Loc. 24, Level 2,
Phase XIV . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Fig. 3.100.╇ ʿAin Dara: Animal figurine from Sq. 4, Loc.15, Level 1, Phase VII . . . 214
Fig. 3.101.╇ ʿAin Dara: Horse-and-rider fragment from Sq. 4,
Loc. 12 (not specified), Level 2, Phase V . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . .215
Fig. 3.102.╇ Tell Afis, Area E1, Level 3: Limestone figurine and pottery
from Loci 803 and 806 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . 217
Fig. 5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371
 List of Figures xiii

Fig. 5.4. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371

Fig. 5.5. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371
Fig. 5.2. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371
Fig. 5.3. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371
Fig. 5.6. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371
Fig. 5.7. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372
Fig. 5.9. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372
Fig. 5.11. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372
Fig. 5.8. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372
Fig. 5.12. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372
Fig. 5.10. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372
Fig. 5.13. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372
Fig. 5.14. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 373
Fig. 5.15. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 373
Fig. 5.16. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 373
Fig. 5.17. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 374
Fig. 5.18. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 374
Fig. 5.19. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 374
Fig. 5.23. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375
Fig. 5.20. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375
Fig. 5.21. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375
Fig. 5.24. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375
Fig. 5.22. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375
Fig. 5.25. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 376
Fig. 5.26. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 376
Fig. 5.27. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 376
Fig. 5.28. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 377
Fig. 5.29. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 377
Fig. 5.30. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 377
Fig. 5.31. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 380
Fig. 5.32. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 380
Fig. 5.33. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 380
Fig. 5.34. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 381
Fig. 5.35. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 381
Fig. 5.36. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 381
Fig. 5.37. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 382
Fig. 5.38. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 382
Fig. 5.39. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 382
Fig. 5.40. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 383
Fig. 5.41. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 383
Fig. 5.42. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 383
Fig. 5.43. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 384
Fig. 5.44. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 384
xiv List of Figures

Fig. 5.45. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 384

Fig. 7.1.╇ Gezer, Tomb 59 with sample of contents . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . 441
Fig. 7.2.╇ Megiddo, Tomb 39 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . 442
Fig. 7.3.╇ Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tomb 54 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . 443
Fig. 7.4.╇ Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tomb 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Fig. 7.5.╇ Samaria, Tomb 103 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . 446
Fig. 7.6.╇ Lachish, Tomb 4002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
Fig. 7.7.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . .450
Fig. 7.8.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 7 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . .451
Fig. 7.9.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 8 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 . . . . .452
Fig. 7.10.╇ Lachish, Tomb 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Fig. 7.11.╇ Jerusalem, Cave 1 with sample of ritual objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
Fig. 7.12.╇ Jerusalem, Cave Locus 6015 with sample of ritual objects . . . . . . . . 465
Fig. 7.13a (above).╇ Samaria, Locus E207: Plan and Sections . . . . . . . . . . . .尓 .467
Fig. 7.13b (below).╇ Selection of ritual objects and pottery from Samaria,
Locus E207 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Fig. 7.14.╇ Categories of social groups performing rites for the dead . . . . . . . . 473
 Preface

After being neglected for a long time, the topic of family and household religion in
ancient Israel and its surroundings has during the last few decades moved more directly
into the focus of religious-historical, gender-oriented, and archaeological research. In re-
cent years, several international conferences, sessions, and workshops have taken place in
which the subject has been discussed from a variety perspectives: in Providence, Rhode
Island (U.S.A., 2005), in Piliscaba (Hungary, 2006), Vienna (Austria, 2007), and in Mün-
ster (Germany, 2009). The present volume collects as much material as possible from the
archaeological, iconographic, epigraphic, and biblical sources in order to present a com-
prehensive picture of family and household religion in ancient Israel and in the neigh-
boring cultures from the 11th through the 7th centuries b.c.e. In this book, we intend
to demonstrate that this specific religious dimension actually existed in the region of the
Levant and show how it functioned in discontinuity and continuity with other aspects of
life—namely, local and state religion. Our goal is to provide a compendium for studying
the ancient religion of Israel and of its Levantine environment from a specific analytical
perspective.
This monograph is the result of cooperation between the authors that began in 1998.
Actual work on the book began when we started a research project on family religion
funded by the German Research Fund (DFG—Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) in
2006 (Project no. AL 141/7-1). Both of us had been working on the topic earlier: Rainer
Albertz published his Habilitation on “Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion” in
1978 and Rüdiger Schmitt his study on “Philistine Terracotta Figurines” in 1994, and the
topic of family and household religion has been a part of our research for many years. To-
day, we are glad to present the fruit of many years’ work, and we are deeply thankful to all
who have contributed to our research in one way or another. First, we thank the DFG for
funding our research project and for financially asisting in its publication. Second, thanks
go to many friends and colleagues who have discussed the topic with us at conferences
and elsewhere; we mention here only Susan Ackermann, Beth Alpert Nakhai, William S.
Dever, and Saul Olyan. Third, we owe many thanks to Mark Padgham, Bruce Wells, and
Beverly McCoy for polishing our English and editing the manuscript; Ruth Ebach, Philipp
Baumberger, and other student assistants constantly helped to supply us with books, ar-
ticles, and photocopying. The readers have Ruth Ebach and Philipp Baumberger to thank
for creating the indexes. Last, but not least, our special thanks go to the publishing firm of
Eisenbrauns for accepting the book for publication.

Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt

Altenberge and Bremen, February 2012

xv
 Abbreviations

General
Arab. Arabic/ian
Aram. Aramaic
bib. bibliography
cat. category
cat. no(s). catalog number(s)
DN divine name
Dtr Deuteronomist(ic)
DtrH Deuteronomistic History
ed(s). editor(s), edition, or edited by
Egyp. Egyptian
fem. feminine
fig(s). figure(s)/figurine(s)
frag(s). fragment(s)
H Holiness Code
Idum. Idumean
JPF Judean pillar-figurine
K. tablets in the Kouyunjik collection of the British Museum
LB(A) Late Bronze (Age)
LXX Septuagint
masc. masculine
MB(A) Middle Bronze (Age)
Moab. Moabite
MT Masoretic Text
Myc Mycenaean
n(n). note(s)
no(s). number(s)
P the Priestly writer/source
Phoen. Phoenician
pl. plural
pl(s). plate(s)
PN personal name
p(p). page(s)
rev. reverse
sing. singular
Str. stratum/a
Tg. Targum

xvi
 Abbreviations xvii

transcrip. transcription
zoom. zoomorphic

Reference Works
AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Freedman, D. N., et al., editors. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1992
ABL Harper, R. F., editor. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the
Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. 14 vols. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1892–1914
ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AMM Hübner, U. Die Ammoniter: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Kultur
und Religion eines transjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.
Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1992
ANEP Pritchard, J. B., editor. Ancient Near Eastern Pictures Relating to the Old
Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954
ANET Pritchard, J. B., editor. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen
ARI Schwiderski, D. Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften, vol. 2. Fontes et
Subsidia ad Biblica pertinentes 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBB Bonner Biblische Beiträge
Benz Benz, F. L. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972
Bib Biblica
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament
BN Biblische Notizen
BPHB Deutsch, R. Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae: The Josef Chaim Kaufman
Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center, 2003
BPPS Deutsch, R., and A. Lemaire. Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo
Mousaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center, 2000
BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD Oppenheim, A. L., et al., editors. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago. Vols. A–Z. Chicago: Oriental Institute,
1956–2011
CAI Aufrecht, W. E. A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Ancient Near Eastern
Texts and Studies 4. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1989
xviii Abbreviations

CIS Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum

CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
DDD Van der Toorn, K., B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, editors. Dictionary of
Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1995. 2nd ed., 1999
DLU Olmo Lete, G. del, and J. Sanmartín. Dictionario de lengua ugarítica. 2 vols.
Aula Orientalis Supplementa 7–8. Barcelona: Ausa, 1996–2000
DNWSI Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the Northwest Semitic
Inscriptions. 2 vols. Handbuch der Orientalistik 21/1–2. Leiden: Brill, 1995
EN Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer. West Semitic Epigraphic News of the First
Millennium bce. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center, 1999
EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972. 2nd ed., 23 vols.
Detroit: Thompson Gale, 2007
ErIsr Eretz-Israel
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FHCB Deutsch, R. “A Hoard of Fifty Hebrew Clay Bullae from the Time of
Hezekiah.” Pp. 45–98 in Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History
and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff, ed. R. Deutsch. Tel Aviv–
Jaffa: Archaeological Center, 2003
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
FSL Sader, H. Iron Age Funerary Stelae from Lebanon. Cuadernos de Arqueología
Mediterránea 11. Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra, 2005
Ges18 Gesenius, W. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte
Testament. 18th ed. 6 parts. Berlin: Springer, 1987–2010
GGG Keel, O., and C. Uehlinger. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. 4th ed.
Questiones Disputatae 134. Freiburg: Herder, 1998
Gibson Gibson, John C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3: Phoenician
Inscriptions, Including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1982
GKC Kautzsch, E., editor. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley.
2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910
HAE Renz, J., and W. Röllig. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 vols. in 4.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995–2003
HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. and ed. under supervision of M. E. J.
Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
Heltzer Heltzer, M. “The Recently Published West Semitic Inscribed Stamp Seals.”
UF 31 (1999) 199–224
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
Hug Hug, V. Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh. s.v. Chr.
Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 4. Heidelberg: Heidelberger
Orientverlag, 1993
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
 Abbreviations xix

IPN Noth, M. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen

Namengebung. BWANT 46. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1928
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements
KAI Donner, H., and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971–76
KBL3 Köhler, L., and W. Baumgartner. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum
Alten Testament. 3rd ed. 2 vols. plus supplement. Leiden: Brill, 2004
Kition Yon, M., and M. M. Sznycer. “Une inscription phénicienne royale de Kition
(Chypre).” Pp. 791–823 in Comptes rendus de séances de l’Academie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris: Boccard, 1991
KTU Dietrich, M., O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Die keilalphabetischen Texte
aus Ugarit. AOAT 24/1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1976
LAS Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian Scholars. 3 vols. Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 5. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1970–83
Lemaire Lemaire, A., and A. Yardeni. “New Hebrew Ostraca from the Shephela.”
Pp. 197–223 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological
and Historical Perspectives, ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Publications of
the Institute for Advanced Studies 1. Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2006
Maraqten Maraqten, M. Die Semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und
reichsaramäischen Inschriften aus Vorderasien. Texte und Studien zur
Orientalistik 5. Hildesheim: Olms, 1988
MVAG Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft
MZM Timm, S. Moab zwischen den Mächten: Studien zu historischen Denkmälern
und Texten. Ägypten und Altes Testament 17. Darmstadt: Harrassowitz, 1989
Naveh Naveh, J. “Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions.” Qedem 41 (2000) 1–14
NEAEHL Stern, E., editor. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993
NEE Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer. New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical
Period. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center, 1995
NTA Lemaire, A. Nouvelle tablettes araméennes. Haute études orientales 34.
Geneva: Droz, 2001
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OBOSA Orbis biblicus et orientalis: Series Archaeologica
Or Orientalia
OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PIAP Zadok, R. The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography.
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 28. Leuven: Peeters, 1988
RB Revue Biblique
RGG Religion in Geschichte Gegenwart. 3rd ed. 7 vols. Tübingen: Mohr, 1957–65
xx Abbreviations

Röllig Röllig, W. “Aramaica Haburensia II.” AoF 24 (1997) 366–74

SAJ Eggler, J., and O. Keel. Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien: Vom
Neolithikum bis zur Perserzeit. OBOSA 25. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag /
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006
SBLDS Society of biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
THAT Jenni, E., editor, with the assistance of C. Westermann. Theologisches
Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971–76
ThWAT Botterweck, G. J., and H. Ringgren, editors. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum
Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
TSF Bachelot, L., and F. M. Fales, editors. Tell Shiuk Fawqani 1994–1998, vol. 2.
History of the Ancient Near East: Monograph 4/2. Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2005
TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WM Haussig, H. W., editor. Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient. Wörterbuch
der Mythologie 1/1. Stuttgart: Klett, 1965
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
WO Die Welt des Orients
WSS Avigad, N., and B. Sass. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1997
WTP Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer. Windows to the Past. Tel Aviv–Jaffa:
Archaeological Center, 1997
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins
 Chapter 1

Introduction

This book focuses on the religious beliefs and practices of ancient Israelite families and
their households. This subject has been largely ignored throughout much of the extensive
history of Old Testament research.â•›1 Bernhard Duhm first defined the people of Israel as
the carrier (or, in German, the Subjekt) of Israelite religion in 1875, and denied that there
was any direct relationship between the individual and the divine prior to the period of
the great prophets (1875: 95). This thesis of so-called collectivism shaped the view of the
Wellhausen school until the beginning of the 20th century. In his history of the people of
Israel, Bernhard Stade (1887: 1.507) wrote that “Israel’s religion is a religion of a people.
. . . [O]nly via his affiliation to the people of Israel as a cult community of Yhwh did the
individual Israelite enter into a relationship with Yhwh.”â•›2 According to this view, a reli-
gion of the individual—and by extension, the religion of the members of a family—would
have been impossible, at least in the earlier periods.
This thesis of collectivism has been disputed a number of times. Ernst Sellin main-
tained in 1893 that a variety of social entities simultaneously promulgated—or carried for-
ward—the cultural practices of many ancient religions, be they the religion of the state, the
family, or the individual (1893: 445). With regard to ancient Israel, he suggested that, while
the legal sections of the Hebrew Bible primarily focused on Israel as a collective entity, the
Psalms, the wisdom literature, and the personal names all verified a variety of individual
relationships with the divine. A similar position was adopted by Harold H. Rowley (1956).
It was Johannes Hempel (1936) who first attempted to distinguish two circles of belief in
the religion of ancient Israel: belief in the power of Yhwh throughout history and nature
(in his chaps. 2–4), which was primarily held by the people and their sacral institutions;
and belief that Yhwh’s primary area of concern was the lives of individuals and their fami-
lies (in his chap. 5). Hempel hypothesized that the religious experiences of this second
circle were focused on central dates in the lives of each individual, such as dates of birth,
illness, or death.
However, these concepts did not greatly influence the course of scholarship within
this field. A new kind of collectivist thesis came to the fore following World War II—influ-
enced particularly strongly in Germany by the experiences of the confessional church—
that was focused on the collective beliefs of the people of Israel. This thesis presumed

1.╇ For more details, see Albertz 1978a: 4–13.

2.╇ Translations of German quotations in this volume are by the authors, except when a previ-
ously published English translation is available.

1
2 Chapter 1

these collective beliefs to have positively effected the overall form and nature of Israelite
religion, while relegating the variety of individual beliefs to marginal, subsidiary, or even
detractive positions. In his theology of the Old Testament, Walter Eichrodt (1964: 2.117)
stressed that every “individual life was embedded in the large organism of overall life” and
declared that “the individual could dare to trust in God’s power, wisdom and kindness in
his life only as a member of the people to whom Yhwh had revealed himself and given
his promises” (1964: 3.162). Gerhard von Rad (1962: 1.399) similarly spoke of a “nearly
somatic affiliation of the individual with the community” during the earlier periods, while
casting the process of individualization that occurred following the 7th and 6th centu-
ries b.c.e. in a rather negative light, as having reflected a crisis of belief in Yhwh (1962:
1.403, 406). In his theology, he therefore dealt with the Psalms under the heading “Israel
in front of Yhwh (The Answer of Israel)” (1962: 1.366) and regarded most of the indi-
vidual prayers to have been rather late contributions that reflected a perceived isolation
of individuals from their supporting community and that, in turn, confronted them with
the possibility of radical desertion by God (1962: 1.410–11). This view carried a great deal
of influence; almost none of the various Old Testament theologies written in the second
part of the 20th century considered in any great detail the beliefs of individuals or of the
members of individual families or the roles of such beliefs in their daily religious lives (see,
for example, Westermann 1978b; Childs 1985;â•›3 Preuss 1991–92; Brueggemann 1997). The
first person to write an Old Testament theology granting familial religion a place within
a larger depiction of ancient Israelite religion and society was Erhard S.  Gerstenberger
(2001), who reflected ongoing developments in attempting to understand the nature of
ancient Israelite religion.

1.1.╇ History of research

The history of inquiry during which family and household religion began to constitute
a subject of Old Testament scholarship in its own right spanned a period of about 35 years.
Its development was fed by what were initially three distinct approaches, each of which has
gradually converged and hybridized with the others, while retaining traces of its former
distinction. These approaches were the religious historical approach, the gender-oriented
approach, and the archaeological approach, each of which is considered in turn below.

1.1.1.╇ The religious historical approach

After Eissfeldt (1945–48) recognized that the trusting address of “my God” in the in-
dividual complaints of the Psalms expressed a particular kind of relationship with the di-
vine, Vorländer (1975) traced the paths of ancient Near Eastern scholarshipâ•›4 and declared

3.╇ Childs (1985: 97–103) presumed that the individual functions as only a representative of
either humanity or Israel. He suggested that a “rugged individualist,” “in the modern post-Enlight-
enment sense,” did not exist in ancient Israel and that “the individual is always viewed in relation
to a larger society and a group” (1985: 97). He gave no consideration at all to the fact that the family
necessarily constituted the closest social group for the individual in ancient Israel.
4.╇ See especially Jacobsen (1976: 146–64), who dealt with the “Gods as Parents: The Rise of
Personal Religion.”
 Introduction 3

the expression ilu + suffix to denote a specific type of deity: a personal, protective god.
This god was considered “to stand in a close relationship to an individual and his family
as their specific god” (1975: 3). Vorländer considered the main functions of this type of
deity in Mesopotamia and Israel to have included the protection of its devotees from evil
powers and the safeguarding of their well-being. A third function, intercession on behalf
of a devotee to a higher god, seemed to have been absent from Israel. He believed that
the personal gods were venerated at familial cult places (Judges 17) following private cult
practices (Vorländer 1975: 171–75). These familial cult places existed until the Josianic re-
forms. Private cults were distinct from the general cult activities of the people as a whole.
Although Vorländer did not clarify the kinds of sociological, form-critical, or material
criteria that may have been used to distinguish between the private cult of a personal god
and the public cult of Yhwh, he did emphasize a central feature of family religion and
offered previously unacknowledged possibilities for further exploring the history, nature,
and importance of family religion in the Near Eastern environment.
In investigating the creation motifs in the Psalms, Deutero-Isaiah, and Job, I noted
(Albertz 1974) that the creation of human beings was originally affiliated with the indi-
vidual complaints (and the corresponding oracles of salvation) and thus belonged to a pri-
vate ritual, while the creation of the world was a very common motif of the hymns, which
were used to praise Yhwh in the official cult. A subsequent broader investigation (Albertz
1978a) of the individual laments considered the personal names and the patriarchal nar-
ratives and the extent to which they may have given rise to material and structural differ-
ences from typical features of the Yhwh religion (1978a: 23–96). Religious statements in
private letters from Babylonia along with expressions found in Kassite seal prayers were
compared with old Babylonian royal inscriptions (1978a: 96–158). Considerable differ-
ences were noted in both cultures between personal piety as expressed within the family
realm and within the official religions of the state institutions. Official traditions of Israel’s
national history or of its political and sacral institutions are not mentioned in familial re-
ligious beliefs and practices—not in individual laments, personal names, or the Proverbs.
Although Israel’s relationship with the divine was conceptualized according to the official
Yhwh religion as having had an indisputable historical basis, constituted and proved by
decision and conditioned by the obedience of the people, the personal piety of individuals
was regarded as having its origin in their creation and was thus predetermined, uncon-
ditional, and essentially indissoluble. Thus piety in familial environments was analogous
to the close, indissoluble social relationships in a family, while the official religion was
shaped more by political analogies (1978a: 94). Therefore, the differences between the two
religious levels were attributed to the sociological differences between two societal groups
(family versus the collective people of the society). I labeled these manifest differences
(with all respect to the former scholar of religious studies in Heidelberg, Lanczkowski
1981: 50–55) “internal religious pluralism” (Albertz 1978a: 2–3).
In an article on syncretism and monotheism that was originally published 1990,
M. Weippert (1997: 9) modified and expanded this model by distinguishing three levels
of religious beliefs and practices in Israel: family religion, local religion, and state religion.
He inferred from the patriarchal narratives that the familial god ensured the survival of
the family group in situations of everyday life. He was the first to consider archaeological
4 Chapter 1

evidence for domestic cults (from Hazor, Tell Qiri, and Tell Mazar). The animal bones
found at Tell Qiri even suggested to him the possibility of blood sacrifices (1997: 12).
Although the family cult would have had a place in house shrines in the private dwellings,
families would also have participated in the cult rites and rituals of local and regional
sanctuaries (1997: 13).
In his introduction to biblical monotheism, Stolz (1996: 114–34) developed a similar
tripartite model. He distinguished between state, local, and domestic cults and regarded
the latter to have been a part of family religion. But according to Stolz, there would have
been a fluid transition between family cults and local cults, and he warned of the danger
of ascribing rigid distinctions to these levels. Regarding familial conceptions of religion,
he briefly considered the work of Vorländer and Albertz but considered rites of passage
to have been of potentially greater significance, even though the only potential rite of
passage that he considered was circumcision (1996: 124–25). He expressed reservations
about the use of personal names for the reconstruction of popular religion, because of
their potential for waxing and waning with fashion or given the momentary mood of
a mother (1996: 125–26). Stolz also discussed cults of the dead and the Moloch cult in
relation to family religion (1996: 128–32). He conceived of a domestic cult as having had
physical sites represented by niches or altars in a house and functions that included ritual
preparation of food, caring for ill members of the family, and the exorcism of demons
(1996: 132–33).
In my description of the history of Israelite religion, I attempted to reconstruct a his-
tory of Israelite familial piety from its beginning to the Hellenistic period (Albertz 1994;
[German orig., 1992]). This study was based on the tripartite model of official religion,
local cults, and familial piety. In contrast to the former study, of 1978, which attempted
to elaborate the differences between family and official religions and to establish the for-
mer as having been a distinct phenomenon in its own right,â•›5 this later study focused to a
much greater extent on the intersections and mutual influences between family, local, and
official religious beliefs and practices. Aspects of this work relevant to the present study
include the insight that the family religion of Israel was not greatly influenced by local or
national cults prior to the late 7th century. One influence from local cults was probably the
veneration of Asherah in family environments, while the inclusion of Yhwh among other
family deities would have reflected the influence of the national cult. Familial religious
beliefs and practices were only brought under tighter official control during the time of
King Josiah (1994: 1.210–16), after they had been heavily influenced by Syrian and Baby-
lonian religious practices during Assyrian dominion (1994: 1.186–95). Following these
changes, the sacrificial meals that had been celebrated by families at local sanctuaries were
only allowed at the central Temple in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12), private veneration of
deities other than Yhwh was strictly forbidden (Deut 13:7–12), and the family offering of
firstlings was combined with a commemoration of Israel’s official salvation history (Deut
26:1–11). Thus, the family religious beliefs and practices of Israelites from the late 7th
century on was shaped to a much greater extent by specifically Israelite characteristics—to

5.╇ It was never my intention to isolate familial piety from other segments of the religion of
Israel, as Conrad (1980: 486–88) suspected.
 Introduction 5

such an extent that even the official religious document of early Judaism, the Torah, be-
came a central element of personal piety in the Hellenistic period (1994: 2.556–63). My
second work placed much greater emphasis on the ritual dimension of family religion
and attempted to distinguish between the rituals performed by family members inside
their houses and rituals that would have been celebrated at local, regional, or even na-
tional sanctuaries (1994: 1.99–103). In the context of the present book, however, I must
acknowledge that my earlier work probably undervalued the significance of the cult of the
dead (1994: 1.37–39).
The first monograph explicitly devoted to the topic of family religion was that of van
der Toorn, published in 1996 (b). He also adopted my original model of internal religious
pluralism in relation to “distinct social groups” but rejected the terms “personal piety” and
“official religion,” preferring instead to differentiate between “family religion” and “state
religion” (1996b: 2). This division was preferred over a tripartite model because, accord-
ing to his conception of a family as including the wider clan, any distinct category of a
local cult became superfluous. In his words, “Once it is acknowledged that the category
of personal religion should be abandoned in favor of the notion of family religion . . . the
phenomenon of local religion merges with the latter” (1996b: 3). Difficulties arising from
attempts to differentiate domestic, urban, and royal religions are not insurmountable in
van der Toorn’s view, and in fact, “all these ‘religions’ are aspects of a single religious sys-
tem; they are not separated entities, but hold together” (1996b: 2).
Van der Toorn included in his study, as did Vorländer and Albertz in theirs, an ex-
tended investigation of the family religions of Mesopotamia (van der Toorn 1996b: 11–
147) and Syria or Ugarit (1996b: 151–77). He describes the development of Israelite family
religion in middle and northern Palestinian hill country from the 11th century b.c.e. until
the end of the Northern State (1996b: 181–332). The functionaries of the Northern State
religion, the king, the priest, and the prophets, were alleged by him to have fiercely fought
against family religion in order to weaken local identities and to strengthen national co-
herence. With the loss of local shrines and traditional burial places, the families who fled
to the south following the destruction of the Northern Kingdom created a new kind of
family religion within the Judean Diaspora, that of “personal devotion,” which in turn
heavily influenced the emergence of the new national religion of Judah through its accord
with—and consequent support by—the piety of each individual (1996b: 339–72).
Among the rich insights offered by van der Toorn’s study is his critical contribution
to the study of family religion by emphasizing the importance of the cult of the ancestors.
He used Old Babylonian material to demonstrate the important role played by the cult
of the dead in the family religion of Mesopotamia. In great detail and through very care-
ful analysis, he distinguished daily wheat offerings and libations given for the ancestors
during meals (kispu ginû) from monthly banquets hosted during the new moon period
(kispu), when entire families were gathered, and both of these from a kind of annual “All
Soul’s Day” for the underworld deities and spirits of the dead (1996b: 42–65). However, al-
though van der Toorn’s assertion about the significance of the cult of the dead for Israelite
family religion may have been accurate (1 Sam 20:6; Deut 26:14), the issue of whether the
teraphim were regarded as statues of ancestors themselves or merely represented personal
gods remains unresolved.
6 Chapter 1

One conceptual problem of van der Toorn’s study is reflected in his sometimes encom-
passing use of the term “family religion,” particularly through occasional references to a
combined and implicitly undifferentiated “family or clan religion” (1996b: 246). He also
occasionally identified “the patron god of the clans” with the local deities (1996b: 246).
Even domestic and local cults merged in his description. He seems sometimes to have be-
come so fixated with the notion of joint families or clans as the carriers of family religion
that he denied any religious role for the nuclear family: “There is neither archaeological
nor literary evidence for a domestic cult performed by single nuclear families” (1996b:
254). Much of the ensuing discussion of the present book implicitly focuses on the accu-
racy or inaccuracy of this statement.
In his history of the religion of ancient Israel, Miller (2000) again followed the tripar-
tite model of distinguishing the family religion, local cults, and official state religion (2000:
xix). According to Miller, the family included two dimensions: “Family religion and cult
has to do with what went on in domestic households and in the larger circle of clan” (2000:
62). The family cult was therefore enacted in two sacred areas, both “within the domestic
center or household” (2000: 63) and at “the cultic center of the clan or extended family”
(2000: 64). The latter hosted occasional sacrificial offerings for the family as well as the an-
nual sacrificial feast of the clan (2000: 68–69), while the former was the site of birth rituals,
naming feasts, blessings, and prayers (2000: 71–75). Thus, although Miller recognized the
cult activities of the clan in the realms of family religion, he also placed much emphasis on
the rituals that were affiliated with the nuclear family unit.
After Gerstenberger had already provided fundamental insights into the familial set-
ting of individual petition rituals in Mesopotamia and Israel (1980), he became the first to
consider the role of family religion in a “Theology of Old Testament” (2001), as mentioned
above. Reflecting on its significance in this context, he even labeled it a “theology of the
family,” which he characterized “first and foremost as a theology of the necessities of life”
(2001: 27).â•›6 According to him, domestic rituals could have been performed on roofs, be-
fore niches, at domestic shrines, or in front of open altars (2001: 37). Although women
would likely have played prominent roles in the domestic cult (2001: 39), blood sacrifices
would only have been offered at local or regional sanctuaries under male control and
authority. Among the rituals emphasized by Gerstenberger were the exorcism of demons,
Passover, healing ceremonies for ill family members, birth rituals, circumcision, bless-
ings, and burial rites (2001: 39–44). Goddesses were invoked to ensure fertility, while Bes
amulets were used to protect mother and child. He also emphasized the intimate placing
of personal trust in the family god by family members; in contrast to Stolz, he regarded
personal names as providing a credible source for the reconstruction of familial religious
beliefs and practices (2001: 50–53).
Perhaps reflecting the increasing adoption of the concept of “family religion” in recent
scholarship, one of the more recent books on Religions of the Ancient World, edited by

6.╇ Because Israelite family religion had no great reach beyond its original domain prior to the
exile, it is perhaps not appropriate to conceive of a “family theology” operating throughout the
entire history of Israelite religion. The term instead seems to arise in direct response to the title of
Gerstenberger’s book, “Theologies in the Old Testament.”
 Introduction 7

Johnston (2004), included a chapter on “Religious Practices of the Individual and Family”
(2004: 423–37). Following an introductory overview by van der Toorn, this essay pre-
sented a survey of the family religions in Mesopotamia, Syria–Canaan, Israel, Anatolia,
Iran, Greece, Etruria, Rome,â•›7 and Christianity. Insights partially suggested in the prior
works of Vorländer, Albertz, and van der Toorn with regard to Mesopotamia and Syria
were brought into much wider context in this volume. Family religion in Israel and Judah
was but one small part of a much wider religious phenomenon in the ancient Near Eastern
and Mediterranean world.
The issue of commonality and difference between these varieties of family religion
was the central question of a recent international conference on “Household and Family
Religion in Antiquity,” held at Brown University, Providence, during the winter of 2005.
Proceedings from this conference were published by Bodel and Olyan in 2008 (b) and
included not only descriptions of the household and family religions of Mesopotamia,
Syria/Ugarit, Israel, Philistia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome but also a theoretical introduction
by Stowers and an editors’ summary of the general issues.
This volume continues to be a rich resource for ongoing deliberations, including a
number of unique contributions that are of particular relevance to the present study. The
editors of the volume considered the appropriateness of the combined term “family and
household religion” (Bodel and Olyan 2008a: 276–78), as did several individual contribu-
tors (Ackerman 2008: 145; Olyan 2008: 114–15; Ritner 2008: 171–72). The first part of the
term was conceded as referring to the social group that was responsible for the execution
of ritual activities, while the second signifies the domestic locus in which this social group
worked and lived. The ritual activities of the families were not limited to the domestic cult,
as indicated by Olyan (2008: 114–15); Israelite families also celebrated sacrificial meals
in local or regional sanctuaries and performed rites for the dead at family tombs. The
combined term thus serves as a reminder both of the wider circle of family religion—ex-
panded to encompass cult and ritual activities at various places beyond the dwelling and
to include additional kin and neighbors—and of the position of the domestic cult in the
very center of family religion.
Following the observation of Daviau (2001: 202) that many religious activities in the
private dwellings of Tell Jawa seem to have been performed on their upper stories or roofs,
I argued that it would have been possible only for direct members of a nuclear family, and
possibly a select few additional kin, to have participated in domestic cult activities, be-
cause of both the limited size of these upper levels and the narrowness of typical staircases
(Albertz 2008: 96). Tell Jawa thus seems to show the kind of evidence that van der Toorn
(1996b: 256) was unable to find; it serves largely to refute his thesis that family religion was
supported exclusively by either joint families or clans.
Bodel and Olyan’s volume also presents a variety of approaches to the “degree of dis-
junction between the religion of household and family on the one hand, and state, civic
or public cult on the other” (2008a: 278). Some of the contributors emphasized the dis-
continuity (Albertz), some the continuity (Ritner), and others both (Olyan, Schmitt). It

7.╇ Although the book presented no section devoted to Egypt, there is certainly evidence for a
household religion in ancient Egypt, as reflected in the work of Ritner (2008).
8 Chapter 1

remains unclear whether these distinctions have to do with real differences that existed
and operated within the religious cultures of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean or
whether they simply reflect the variety of approaches adopted by researchers in examining
these different cultures. Moreover, disjunction also arises in interpreting cultural prac-
tices depending on whether one examines textual, epigraphic, iconographic, or ceramic
material.
An example of the dependence of interpretation on the nature of source material was
the editors’ questioning (Bodel and Olyan 2008a: 281) whether personal names can be
taken as credible sources for determining the conceptual range of family religion, stating
that “they may simply focus on the personal rather than larger, national concerns” (see
also Olyan 2008: 117, pace Albertz). Dangers always arise in placing undue weight on the
interpretation of single sources. Nevertheless, it is not only Hebrew personal names that
fail to reflect the concerns of official religion but also the individual lamentsâ•›8 and the Prov-
erbs. At least in ancient Israel, a focus on personal concerns seems to have been a general
characteristic of family religion.
Finally, in their summary, Bodel and Olyan (2008a: 279) indicated the existence of
a cross-cultural phenomenon in the realm of family religion—namely, “the avoidance
of meat offerings in domestic cult,” effectively contradicting an earlier suggestion of
M. Weippert (1997: 12). This cross-cultural evidence suggests that it was unlikely that the
archaeological remains at Tell Qiri, where animal bones were found, could be attributed
to the domestic cult.

1.1.2.╇ The gender-oriented approach

In any consideration of the participation of women in Israelite cults, a gender-oriented
approach contributes uniquely important insights to family and household religion. A
pioneer of this sort of investigation was Phyllis Bird, who suggested in 1987 that, although
women in ancient Israelite societies were very restricted in their participation in the of-
ficial cult—with participation mostly limited to pilgrimages—and although the religious
activities of women were either explicitly or implicitly denounced in the Hebrew Bible (Jer
7:17–18; 44:19; Ezek 8:14), there nevertheless must have been familial rituals performed
in domestic environments in which women played prominent roles (Bird 1987: 409), even
though few descriptions of such roles have been found. Not only did Bird mention Pass-
over, she made cross-cultural comparisons in considering the roles of women in taking
vows, rituals dedicated to expectant mothers, naming ceremonies, and circumcision. She
also suggested a ritual role for midwives (1987: 410). In her 1991 essay, she demanded
that, “for ancient Israel, we need to ask about the existence, form, and function of a family
cult alongside the national or pan-tribal cult of Yahweh: How were family and national

8.╇ The few exceptions are Ps 22:4–6; 77:14–21; 143:5; the reference to the “trust” of Israel’s fa-
thers in Ps 22:4–6, which constitutes a doublet to the confession of confidence in 22:10–11, was in
fact a literary addition that belonged to a later edition of the psalm in the community of the poor
(22:24–27 or 22:32). Psalm 77 is a special case of individual complaint about the crisis of Israel’s
salvation history during the period of exile. Ps 143:5 seems to be a later gloss influenced by Ps 77:6,
12; see Albertz 1978a: 27–32.
 Introduction 9

cult related? What role did women play in family or household cults?” (Bird 1991: 102).
This was the first consideration of the interaction of broader religious history with the
specific roles of women.
In an exemplary social-anthropological study of family households and the roles of
women in ancient Israel, Meyers (1988: 157–58) lamented the state of research at that
time, in that “little attention has been directed to private religion and its cultic expression,
that is, to the ceremonies and rituals that allowed ordinary people to meet their human
need to connect with the supernatural and transcendent power or powers in which they
believed.” She credited one reason for this oversight to an overly narrow and singular ap-
proach of archaeological research, in that “archaeologists have until recently been drawn
to the urban and the monumental” (1988: 158); and another to the influence of orthodoxy
on modern scholars, with the effect that “popular or family religion” as it deviated from
more general religious norms has not been granted sufficient attention (1988: 158). Mey-
ers pleaded for a realignment of research to address the oversight: “Although these archae-
ological and theological barriers to the recovery of popular religion are breaking down,
the material evidence for a private or family religion at any period in Israelite has yet to be
systematically collected and studied” (1988: 158). Meyers’s aim of revealing the roles and
functions of family religion as thoroughly as possible was perhaps frustrated by having to
rely on the few available sources that explicitly mentioned the roles of women. The only
references in her 1988 work were to an alleged girl’s puberty rite (Judg 11:39–40), the har-
vest dances of young women (Judg 21:20–21), and consideration of female pillar figurines,
which she regarded as having been votive objects that somehow reflected or represented
the gendered exclusivity of motherhood (1988: 161–63). Because women were presumed
to have been largely responsible for the preparation of food, they were also presumed to
hold primary responsibilities for ritual offerings of food, as well as for the preparation and
enactment of ritual meals (1988: 163).
In her 1997 study on the family in early Israel, Meyers emphasized the roles of women
in domestic religious practices. She relied, however, on the example of harvest feasts, al-
though they are not typical of domestic rituals because they were celebrated at local sanc-
tuaries. She also interpreted the familial Passover ritual as having been somehow related
to the season during which flocks would give birth (1997: 39). Although Meyers distin-
guished between “cult corners” of households and village “shrines or locales for ritual
events” rather than attempting to clarify the distinction between private and public cult
activities of families, she did emphasize that, “in the early Israelite villages, family reli-
gion extended beyond the nuclear and compound families and included the local com-
munity—the kin group, or the mišpāḥāh” (1997: 39). Some specific rituals may have in-
corporated and been enacted by such an undifferentiated, larger social grouping, but the
ascription of family religion in general to this sort of expanded definition undermines
attempts to clarify and understand social distinctions that were likely of real significance
in determining and reflecting the religious habits of ancient Israel.
The roles of women in relation to household shrines formed the focus of Willett’s Ph.D.
dissertation (1999). Synthesizing gendered and archaeological approaches, Willett inves-
tigated the installations and ritual objects found in the dwellings of Tel Masos, Tell el-
Farʿah (N), Beersheba, and Tel Halif. She interpreted this evidence to indicate dedicated
10 Chapter 1

domestic shrines (1999: 158–64),â•›9 where women revered familial deities, especially the
goddess Asherah. In accordance with Dever, she also regarded the female figurines to have
been representations of the goddess (1999: 77–100). Willett proposed the main function
of this domestic cult to have been the protection of women and their children from mortal
threats in their work and sleep (1999: 146). In this connection, Willett interpreted Ashe-
rah’s role as having been a mediator, in that women “invoked Yahweh’s protection through
his intermediary goddess Asherah before they slept at night” (1999: 458). Thus, although
not attempting a complete description of domestic cult practices, she nevertheless illumi-
nated many aspects of family religion as enacted by and related to the nuclear family unit.
In a substantial article of 2002 that was condensed in 2005 into a smaller monograph,
Meyers defined the term Israelite religion as “an umbrella term for the religions of various
groups with different albeit overlapping beliefs, activities, [and] liturgies” (2002: 281). She
also focused in this article on “rituals surrounding pregnancy, labor, and birth, along with
those securing fertility before pregnancy and those dealing with post-partum lactation,
infant care, and circumcision,” which “constitute[d] the religious culture of women more
than men” (2002: 283). Combining anthropological, archaeological, and ethno-historical
insights, Meyers vividly depicted the important roles that would have been played by Ju-
dean pillar-figurines, Bes-head amulets, and udjat-images in rituals intended to ensure
fertility, safety in childbirth, adequacy of lactation, and general protection from malevo-
lent forces for mothers during and after childbirth, as well as for their newborn infants
(2002: 286–88). She also referred briefly to other ritual items found in the assemblages
of private dwellings (2002: 288–89) and elucidated the support given to mothers during
childbirth by the social network of females within the larger kin groups (2002: 301).
Ackerman attempted in 1992 to rehabilitate the so-called “heterodox” rituals of “popu-
lar religion” (namely, those described in Jeremiah 7, 44; Ezekiel 8; Isaiah 57, 65). Although
this work did not specifically focus on gender roles, she subsequently used some of the
same texts (Jeremiah 7, 44; as well as Judges 17; 1 Samuel 1) to expand consideration of the
cult and ritual activities of women (2008). She supposed (2008: 136, 146, 148) that women
not only were “involved in furnishing of their compound’s sanctuary space” (Judges 17)
but also were responsible for delivering their family’s offerings to their regional sanctuary
(1 Samuel 1) and for “performing [the] primary ritual acts of ancient Israelite household
religion” (Jeremiah 7, 44). The cultic and ritual activities of women were directed at the
very survival of the entire family itself (2008: 148). Ackerman attempted to clarify the dis-
tinction between the ritual activities enacted by families in their domestic cult (“household
religion”) and those enacted at other places (“family religion”; 2008: 145). In considering
both biblical and archaeological evidence, she was able to depict vividly the important
roles played by women in family and household religion. In her conclusion, she indicated
that women were not only practitioners of family rituals but also “theologians who [gave]
voice to some of household and family religion’s most constitutive beliefs” (2008: 149).
These gender-oriented approaches and others like them have clarified the significance
of women, particularly in their roles as wives and mothers, for Israelite family and house-

9.╇ In contrast, the investigation of Schmitt in this book (pp. 224–225) suggests that these are
more likely to have been cooking installations.
 Introduction 11

hold religion, in stark contrast to their restricted roles in the official cult of Yhwh. In order
to redress previous imbalances brought about by the exclusion of females from general
consideration of the ancient Israelite religious traditions, many of these gender-oriented
approaches have had to concern themselves primarily with the previously unacknowl-
edged roles of women. The proper field of a gender-oriented approach must be consider-
ation of the differences between the roles of women and men, and the social and religious
origins and implications of these differences. Ancient Israelite families naturally depended
on the ritual cooperation of both males and females, particularly in their roles as mothers
and fathers, with both playing vital yet distinct roles in ensuring the biological, economic,
and cultural survival of their families.

1.1.3.╇ The archaeological approach

Meyers (1988: 158) has insisted that archaeology of the Southern Levant has for a
long time failed to consider family religion as a social and cultural phenomenon in its
own right, in spite of a wealth of suggestive evidence from, for example, the Tell Beit
Mirsim excavations from 1926 to 1932. Stimulated by my thesis (Albertz 1978a),â•›10 Helga
Weippert (1988: 409, 433–34, 447–48) was one of the first people clearly to posit domestic
cult (Hauskult) origins for several installations found in private dwellings in, for example,
Hazor, Tell Qiri, Tell Mazar, Megiddo Locus 2081, and Tell el-Farʿah, as well as associated
small items such as cult stands, tripod cups, and figurines. Her voluminous German trea-
tise of pre-Hellenistic Palestinian archaeology was not, however, particularly influential. A
considerably more influential work was that of Holladay (1987, in a Festschrift for Cross),
in which he attempted to distinguish several different levels within Israelite religion of
the Iron II period based on a “purely archaeological” approach. Following a comparison
of a variety of cult places, he posited a general distinction between “established worship”
and “tolerated ‘nonconformist’ worship” (1987: 268–70), based primarily on the use of
icons. While practices of established worship were generally aniconic, nonconformist
worship could be determined by the presence of figurines. Moreover, established worship
was, according to Holladay, practiced across two distinct levels, the first being “the town
and national level,” as characterized by large public buildings (such as those at Arad and
Dan); and the second being the “neighborhood level,” characterized by smaller buildings
that nevertheless were designed for public access (such as Megiddo Locus 2081, Build-
ing 10). All domestic cult practices were subsumed under his “tolerated ‘nonconformist’
worship,” which he referred to from an archaeological perspective as “distributed cults”
practiced or enacted in “domestic contexts” (Holladay 1987: 275). The distinctions of Hol-
laday accord to a certain extent with those considered in my “internal religious pluralism”
model (Albertz 1994) and M. Weippert’s (1997), particularly in the distinctions among
national, local, and family levels, although Holladay introduced a normative category that
he presumed to have been adopted from the “official–popular religion” to such an extent
that familial domestic cults were suspected of being illegitimate. Holladay’s study perhaps
serves well to demonstrate that the study of religion cannot be approached from a purely

10.╇ She and I were in close contact in Heidelberg at that time.

12 Chapter 1

archaeological basis (Holladay 1987: 250) but always depends—consciously or uncon-

sciously—on religious-historical models.
Holladay also presented a valuable overview of the small items of ritual connotations
excavated before 1985 from the domestic quarters of Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en-Naṣbeh,
Beersheba, and Hazor. He inferred that “about 45 percent of all houses in Level A at Tell
Beit Mirsim exhibited signs of cultic activity” (1987: 276). He claimed that the religiously
affected artifacts found at Hazor reached their greatest popularity and most widespread
use in the second half of the 8th century (1987: 279). Whether one might speak of “sudden
bursts of popular piety” (1987: 279) remains doubtful, however, and the generally poor
documentation of the otherwise rich findings from Tell Beit Mirsim leaves many issues
unable to be addressed. Holladay did not direct a final ascription of the “distributed” cult
remains to the domestic quarters of family religion; rather, he proposed that they reflected
“traditions of folk religion stretching back into the Bronze ages” (1987: 281).
The pioneering work of Holladay seems to have effected a shifting away of emphasis
from family religion, following which it took scholars some time to acknowledge the sig-
nificance of archaeological remains for the reconstruction of family religion. Summariz-
ing earlier archaeological results, Dever (2001: 173–74, 193–96; 2005: 176–249) provided
a detailed description of Israelite family religion, which according to him “the Bible al-
most totally ignores” (2001: 173). He used the terms “family religion,” “private religion,”
“folk religion,” and “popular religion” with almost no distinction regarding their various
meanings and implications (2001: 173; 2005: 176), and he further defined family religion
as a “women’s cult” (2001: 173), because “the ‘religion of hearth and home’ fell mainly
to women in Israel, as it did everywhere in the ancient world” (2001: 193). As a part of
“popular religion,” Dever (like Holladay) regarded family religion to have been “an alter-
nate, nonorthodox, nonconformist mode of religious expression” (2001: 196). While con-
sidering the inscription of Ḥirbet el-Qôm that mentioned the goddess Asherah alongside
Yhwh,â•›11 Dever asserted all plaques and figurines depicting nude women to have been
representations of the goddess. He thus regarded the veneration of Asherah or the Queen
of Heaven (Jer 44:15–23) to have assumed a central role in family religion (2005: 176–94),
declaring, “The female figurines . . . would almost certainly have had to do with women’s
prayers to conceive, to bear a child safely, and be able to nurse the baby through infancy”
(2005: 241). In addition to birth rites, Dever considered archaeological finds to have veri-
fied or demonstrated the performance of several other ritual actions, such as making vows
with votive objects, burning incense using incense cups and cult stands, and rites and
rituals for burial and care for the dead involving gifts deposited in tombs (2005: 239–47).
He strove for a comprehensive presentation of all pertinent archaeological material; pre-
sented an overview of excavated cult places (2001: 175–88); and detailed many artifacts
of potential ritual significance (2001: 188–93). This attempt could not, of course, provide
unambiguous distinction across the entire variety of cult locations, or between the various
repertoires of cult items associated with each type, and Dever was thus unable to deter-
mine with any great degree of accuracy sets of ritual paraphernalia that may have been
typical of domestic cults.

11.╇See Dever 1970b: 139–74; Renz and Röllig 1995: 1.199–211.

 Introduction 13

In his monumental work on the religions of ancient Israel, Zevit (2001) attempted a
subsequent classification of cult places. Aiming for a more accurate and precise descrip-
tion of cult locations, he employed and defined the diagnostically useful terms “cult room,”
“cult corner,” “cult cave,” “cult complex,” “cult center,” “temple,” “temple complex,” and
“shrine” (2001: 123–24). He also distinguished two primary classes of cult places: “those
whose construction is well integrated into a much larger plan attributable to centralized
planning and control” and “those whose construction does not demonstrate this feature”
(2001: 654). To the first class, Zevit ascribed ʿAjrûd, Arad, Dan, Hazor, Jerusalem, La-
chish Room 49, and Megiddo Room 340, among others, most of which were probably
connected with the official cult. To the second class, he attributed Ai, Beit Lei, Bull Site,
Ebal, the Jerusalem Cave I, Megiddo Locus 2081, and the cave from Tell ʿĒtūn, among
others. According to him, these latter sites addressed the “particular concerns of the local
population,” and “they do not constitute evidence for the domestic cult,” but instead, they
“served a larger social group” (2001: 654). Zevit considered “evidence for a domestic cult”
to have been restricted to only a very few cult rooms or corners,â•›12 two of which were in
Beersheba (in Buildings 25 and 430) and one in Tell el-Farʿah (N) (in House 440) (Zevit
2001: 652; see also pp. 175–76, 241). Thus, Zevit actually constructed a tripartite typology
formed from official, local or neighborhood, and domestic cult sites. The domestic cult
was, however, excluded from consideration within the two overarching categories, and
must be presumed to have represented a third general category. Zevit made only occa-
sional references to possible functions of the domestic cult, suggesting that, “if the female
figurines may be associated with fertility and/or lactation, and if the model couches may
be associated with a birth stool or a birthing bed . . . then these artifacts may constitute a
women’s collection intending to insure her fertility, her ability to give birth, and her con-
tinued ability to lactate” (2001: 175–76). In contrast to Holladay and Dever, Zevit appears
to have regarded the domestic cult to have been a rather peripheral phenomenon. Thus,
from an archaeological point of view, the significance and distribution of domestic cultic
activities remain open questions.
In the same year as this work of Zevit, Nakhai (2001: 161–200), a student of Dever,
published a typology of Israelite sacred places of the Iron Age. For the period of the Divided
Monarchy, she also proposed a distinct tripartite model, distinguishing between “officially
sanctioned sites such as the Jerusalem Temple, Dan and Bethel, Arad, Beersheba, Vered
Jericho, . . . less formal sites with some degree of public access such as Kedesh, Hazor, Tell
es-Saʿidiyeh, Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, Samaria Locus E 207, and the Jerusalem, Tell en-Naṣbeh and
Tell Beit Mirsim caves, . . . [and] private domestic locations” (2001: 191). The influence
of Holladay’s terminology lingered, but Nakhai avoided any pejorative implications. For
the Iron I period, she distinguished two categories (2001: 176): “pilgrimage sanctuaries,”
such as Shiloh and the Bull Site; and “village sanctuaries,” such as Hazor, Dan, Tell Qiri,
Tell Irbid, and Tall al-ʿUmeri, some of which “stood among the domestic structures” (in
Megiddo Locus 2081, Tell el-Wawiyat, Ai, Ḥirbet Raddana, Tell Qiri, and Tell es-Saʿidiyeh).
The domestic cult was absent from this schema. However, by forming one category of vil-
lage sanctuaries as those that “stood among domestic structures,” she either potentially

12.╇ Zevit did not admit evidence from Tell Beit Mirsim, because it was so poorly documented.
14 Chapter 1

admitted larger domestic installations or implied the existence of a fourth type of cult place
akin to the neighborhood chapels considered by Zevit.
In explicitly referring to domestic cults, Nakhai drew on the work of Willett (1999:
101–65), who had isolated “domestic shrines in Israelite and Judean houses at Tel Masos,
Tell el-Farʿah (N), Beersheba and Tel Halif ” (Nakhai 2001: 191) dating from the 10th to
the early 6th centuries b.c.e. She suggested that “these prayer corners contained special as-
semblages of ritual implements and furnishings, including incense altars and female figu-
rines” (Nakhai 2001: 191). The extent to which such evidence suggests “domestic shrines”
or “prayer corners” is given further consideration in a section of the present work.â•›13 Some
years earlier, Negbi (1993: 226) had considered whether some places where ritual assem-
blages had been found might be better interpreted as having been storeroomsâ•›14 from
which ritual items could readily be accessed “when needed for special ceremonies.” In any
case, Nakhai considered the archaeological evidence for the domestic cult to have been
much more conclusive than had Zevit; Willett had demonstrated its existence in more
than ten private houses from five different sites across the entire Iron II period.
In the same year again, Daviau summarized cult items found within the domestic
buildings excavated since 1992 in Tell Jawa in Transjordan near Amman. Hers was the
first archaeological publication to use the term “family religion” in its title. She had used
the work of van der Toorn to develop her own categorization of archaeological remains.
Because the domestic buildings from Iron II were left to decay in situ rather than being
razed or built anew, their walls were “well preserved, often reaching to the second storey
level,” and moreover, “in each room, the collapsed debris yielded the evidence of activity
areas on the upper storey or roof area of each building” (Daviau 1992: 202). Therefore,
Daviau was able to discern that much of the ritual material had been used on the upper
story or the roof. In each of nine excavated houses, Daviau discerned assemblages of cult
objects variously composed of between 2 and 43 pieces, forming a cult collection of 159
items. The assemblages consisted of female, male, and zoomorphic figurines, anthropo-
morphic and zoomorphic vessels, model shrines, decorated chalices, single-handled cups,
perforated and unperforated tripod cups, lamps, gaming objects, libation tablets, basalt
bowls, and a variety of small, miniature, and high-status vessels. Daviau suggested that
stone baetyls symbolized the divine presence. She pointed out that ritual objects used
in Ammonite domestic cults differed in some respects from ritual objects from ancient
Israel. In particular, limestone altars and Judean pillar-figurines have not been found in
Ammonite assemblages, and the altars seem typically to have contained a greater number
of male figurines and tripod cups (Daviau 1992: 203). In many other regards, there seems
to have been a broad homogeneity in terms of ritual artifacts across the broader Transâ•‚
and Cisjordanian regions.â•›15
Daviau interpreted evidence from the cult utensils found in domestic environments
to reconstruct activities typical of domestic cults at Tell Jawa, suggesting that they would
have comprised “the setting up of a figurine or symbolic stone in a particular area on the

13.╇ See below, pp. 224–225.

14.╇ She referred to Megiddo Locus 2081 and Building 10.
15.╇ See pp. 178–184.
 Introduction 15

roof or upper storey, food and drink offerings, use of scenting materials, lighting of lamps,
sprinkling the figurine, the baetyl, or the sacred area itself, offerings in small or miniature
vessels, casting lots or divination, and libations” (1992: 221). She further maintained that
“there is no evidence for animal offerings or extensive burning” (1992: 221–22). Thus
Daviau reconstructed a comprehensive and insightful picture of the ritual activities of
families in domestic environments. For the domestic cult, the inner center of family and
household religion, Daviau had provided the conclusive archaeological proof.
This evidence from the ancient Ammonite culture suggests in turn a greater likelihood
than previously considered that domestic cults were of similar importance in neighboring
Israel, even though the archaeological evidence there may be less conclusive. One might
even conceive of every family as having actively partaken in ritual activities within their
domestic environments. These assemblages found at Tell Jawa are of great aid in interpo-
lating the somewhat scarcer evidence for the identity and use of domestic cult utensils
found in Israelite and Judean sites.

1.1.4.╇ Some conclusions

The foregoing overview of the last few decades of research into the family and house-
hold religion of ancient Israel has revealed notable progress and refinement, considered
within three broad categories of biblical and archaeological research. The religious-histor-
ical approach aided the reconstruction of several aspects of Israelite family religion and
provided a theoretical background that enabled family religion to be situated within the
religion of Israel in general; the gender-oriented approach contributed many anthropolog-
ical and cross-cultural insights that served to highlight the important religious functions
and responsibilities of women in family and household religion; and the archaeological
approach contributed such a wealth of material evidence for the domestic cult as executed
by families that it left no doubt about the accuracy of interpretations of other religious,
historical, and anthropological evidence for the existence of an Israelite family religion.
These results are of broad, general significance. The thesis that family and household reli-
gion constituted a specific segment of ancient Israelite religion can now be considered to
be firmly established. However, in spite of this accomplishment, there has yet to appear
a single, comprehensive description of Israelite family and household religion in all of its
aspects and dimensions and comparing it with the family religions of the broader Syro-
Levantine environment. This is the task of the present volume.
When we consider the research conducted to date, however, a number of unresolved
problems and controversies become apparent. Foremost among these is the identity of an
appropriate model for reconstructing family and household religion within the religion
of Israel. A model of “religious internal pluralism” has been suggested to be of particu-
lar utility (Albertz, Weippert, Stolz, van der Toorn, Miller), with an alternative provided
in the form of the “popular religion” model (Holladay, Dever, Ackerman). The tripartite
distinction between state, local, and family religion is readily accommodated by the first
of these models (Weippert, Albertz) and is also reconcilable within similar archaeological
classifications of cult places (Holladay, Zevit, Nakhai). The first of the above two models
often distinguishes four or even more social levels of religion—for example, by adding
neighborhood shrines as variants of local sanctuaries (Zevit, Nakhai). Thus resolution of
16 Chapter 1

the most appropriate model for reconstructing historical religious practices inextricably
requires a comprehensive typology of cult places.
Furthermore, the determination of the social group responsible for the cultural propa-
gation of family religion—the carrier group—remains an issue of controversy. Such carrier
groups have been considered to have encompassed anything from simple nuclear fami-
lies (Albertz 1978a; Willett 1999), to joint families and even entire clans (van der Toorn
1996; Meyers 1997). Resolution of this issue requires clarification of the very nature and
understanding of family in ancient Israelite society, as well as descriptions of cooperation
among larger kinship groups and local populations. Appropriate appraisal of domestic
cults also demands insight into relationships between sizes of families and the physical
environments they inhabited, acknowledging at the same time the possibility for differ-
ent dimensions or social circles that might have authorized and participated in familial
religious beliefs and practices. Accurate understanding of family religion also requires it
to be distinguished from local religious practices, particularly because local sanctuaries
have yielded firm evidence of cult activities that were distinctly different from activities
conducted in domestic environments—the offering of meat during cult activities being
one clear example.
Degrees of discontinuity or continuity between family and household religion, as well
as among and with respect to state, temple, and elite religions are also issues of ongoing
controversy. I have (Albertz 1978a; 1994; 2008) elucidated clear material and structural
differences in the systems of belief across all these levels, while Olyan (2008) has noted the
existence of overlaps and continuities with regard to ceramic material and iconography.
There of course never have been entirely unambiguous distinctions between these differ-
ent levels and sites of social and religious practices (Stolz 1996; van der Toorn 1996), and
different kinds of sources will always provide evidence that may appear contrary or even
irreconcilable. However, as noted by Olyan (2008: 121), “One need not posit a nearly com-
plete disjunction between family religion and the official cult in order to speak of internal
religious pluralism in Israelite religion, for family religion and official cult remain distinct
phenomena, even when their shared characteristics are acknowledged.” Of course, this
statement is true; but it is only true given the supposition that there remain appreciable
material differences between family and state religion; otherwise, they would not “remain
distinct phenomena,” and any internal religious pluralism would be obscured. Were there
no appreciable differences between family religion and the official cult with regard to
beliefs, rituals and cultic paraphernalia, Israel’s religion would represent a unity across
all social levels, and a separate investigation of ancient Israelite family religion would be
rendered superfluous at least. The exploration of family and household religion remains
a meaningful enterprise only if it can be defined at least partially on the basis of its own
unique characteristics that stand in contrast to the religion of Israel. The existence of this
distinction is also essential for studying its intersections and connections with other seg-
ments or levels of Israelite religion.â•›16 Thus the degree of discontinuity or continuity must
be considered at all times in any discussion of the subject.

16.╇ Jeremias and Hartenstein (1999: 79) and Leuenberger (2008: 50) emphasized the overlaps
and intersections of the official and popular or private religion in ancient Israel. In their opinion, the
 Introduction 17

1.2.╇ Interdisciplinary approach and temporal limitations

of the subject
Each of the three previously distinct approaches to studying the religious history of
ancient Israel—the historical, the gender-oriented, and the archaeological—has contrib-
uted to the developing synthesis outlined above. This synthesis depends on the unique
contributions of each of these three approaches and is enriched by them. Comprehensive
examination of the history of the family and household religion of ancient Israel and its
neighbors requires the consideration and integration of a variety of approaches, such as
biblical studies, religious history, archaeology, epigraphy, iconography, cultural anthro-
pology, and sociology. The greater the span of acknowledged realms required to study a
certain topic, the greater becomes the need for cross-disciplinary cooperation and col-
laboration. The present book arises from the collaboration of two authors, both of whom
are biblical scholars. However, while the research interests of one of us—Rainer Albertz—
primarily concern religious history, sociology, and epigraphic interpretation, the other
author—Rüdiger Schmitt—has devoted himself more to archaeology, cultural anthropol-
ogy, and iconographic interpretation. The ways in which these potentially disparate fields
of expertise were combined for the present study of family religion deserve some elabo-
ration, particularly in regard to the combination of diachronic (that is, historical and ar-
chaeological) and synchronic (that is, sociological and anthropological) approaches. The
classifications of Braudel (1980: 25, 54) remain helpful in distinguishing various modes of
historical investigation. Braudel considered the defining processes of history to act and in-
terplay across three levels. The first of these levels represents the actual events (the histoire
événementielle), which occurred almost in direct response to the short-term political dy-
namic; the second represents the medium-term processes (the histoire conjonctures) that
defined the social and cultural histories; and the third represents the degree of change that
happened over longer climatic or geological periods of time (the histoire longue durée).
The study of political history necessitates a diachronic perspective. The study of archae-
ology is inherently diachronic. In this respect, it is not possible to combine an archae-
ological investigation, which is inherently diachronic, with a synchronistic approach to
biblical texts, although this is often done. Contrariwise, it is also not possible to combine
a diachronic approach to text with isolated archaeological findings that neglect to account
for the entire cultural and geographical development of a site. The historical dimension
should be emphasized equally in both fields.
Consideration of the contributions of historical processes playing out across the differ-
ent levels becomes particularly important for medium-term processes. Prior investigations

iconographic program of the Taanach cult stands were intended for use in transmitting the ideol-
ogy of the official sanctuary to the domestic cult. In addition to this, Leuenberger referred among
other things to the priestly benediction on a private amulet in Ketef Hinnom (2008: 99). Even if
these scholars’ interpretation of these very exceptional artifacts was right, these intersections with
the official sphere are only discernible under the precondition that family religion was normally
a sphere of its own. The other examples of the intersection of the private and the official religious
spheres (greetings formulas in the Arad letters and the inscriptions of Kuntillet ʿAjrûd) given by
Leuenberger (2008: 113–37, 153–55) are less convincing, since blessings are very general religious
statements that can be uttered in various spheres of life.
18 Chapter 1

into the history of Israelite family religion (Albertz 1994) have revealed a remarkable con-
stancy in many aspects, particularly across the period spanning the 11th to the early 7th
centuries. The history of family religion thus reflects a histoire conjonctures that contrasts
with the historical processes that influenced and defined the official theologies of the state
and its priests and prophets. These all changed much more quickly, in accordance with a
typical histoire événementielle. Thus, for family religion it is relatively unimportant whether
a personal name came from the 9th or the 7th century, or whether the common use of in-
cense cups was replaced at some particular date by the use of incense boxes (pace Zwickel
1999b: 27). The religious and symbolic functions of such things remained relatively con-
stant regardless of superficial changes, and, within the present context, full appreciation
of the diachronic aspects of historical dynamic becomes relatively less important, and a
single, synchronic dynamic may in many cases be presumed. In emphasizing synchronic
developments, methods and models from sociology and cultural anthropology become
important, including aspects of a social and cultural system that structured social relation-
ships in relation to dwelling and working places and their physical structures and func-
tions. Thus the present study uses data that have been amassed, classified, described, and
interpreted from an enormous amount of epigraphical inscriptions, ritual assemblages,
and items found in cultic places. Sociological typologies and methods of investigation
gain primacy over any reconstructions of individual developments. Individual historical
events (the histoire événementielle) are considered only to the extent with which they may
have had an impact on the religious beliefs and practices of families, and thus biblical,
epigraphic, and archaeological materials are all integrated here under a predominantly
synchronic perspective. Sociological and anthropological considerations and analyses of
function gain primacy.
Within the historical times encompassed by the present study, the first event that seems
to have had a strong impact on Israelite family and household religion was the Josianic
reform of the late 7th century (Albertz 1994: 1.195–231). With the centralization of the
sacrificial cult in Jerusalem, the families lost the local basis of their sacrifices. Even the do-
mestic cult came under the rigid control of state officials (Deut 13:7–12), and familial ritu-
als were subsumed within the official cult of Jerusalem (16:1–8; 26:1–11). Moreover, the
destruction of the Judean state and the Jerusalem Temple by the Babylonians (597, 587,
582 b.c.e.) deprived the Judean population and those who were deported to Babylonia
of their official sacred institutions. In this new situation of exile, familial religion became
much more effective in ensuring the survival of the entire Yhwh religion than in previ-
ous times. The entire religious and cultural symbolic system that cohered to ensure the
maintenance and continuance of Judean identity in the Diaspora was based on the fun-
damental social unit of the family. Religiously symbolic rites included the circumcision of
infants, observing the Sabbath feast, and dietary regulations (Albertz 1994: 2.399–411).
This forced coherence in turn ensured a close integration between family religion and the
emerging Jewish religion.
Although these later developments have been extensively documented and analyzed
(Albertz 1994: 2.507–22. 556–63), this is not true for the earlier period, prior to the late
7th century, for which the Hebrew Bible provides only sparse evidence. Thus the present
 Introduction 19

volume explores the development and character of Israelite family and household religion
across the period from the 11th to the 7th centuries b.c.e. During these times, there was
little official control exerted over most aspects of family and household religious practices,
and thus this period offers a unique time within which to distinguish and characterize the
original shape of family religion in ancient Israel and enables comparison with the con-
temporary familial religious practices of neighboring lands.

1.3.╇ The structure of the present book

Following this introductory chapter summarizing the history of relevant research,
chap. 2 presents a few methodological reflections in order to clarify the terms family and
household, as well as identifying the types of family that existed in ancient Israel, on the
basis of both biblical and archaeological evidence. Apparent contradictions between typi-
cal dwelling sizes in Israelite urban and rural houses, and typical family sizes are also ad-
dressed, enabling the distinction of various circles of familial ritual and cult activities. A
variety of religious-historical models useful for the classification of family religion within
the religion of Israel are also discussed, providing the basis for the model preferred here,
which is internal religious pluralism.
Chapter 3 collates and discusses archaeological findings from Iron Age domestic areas,
taken from all known published excavations in the areas of Israel and Judah that reveal
or suggest any kind of ritual activities. Installations, assemblages, and individual objects
are considered and compared, as is the extent to which they enable the characterization of
domestic or familial cult activities in contrast to activities typical of industrial structures,
neighborhood, or local shrines. Potential evidence for the existence of “cult niches” in
private houses is critically examined, as is the potential existence of places that might have
been used for the storage of ritual equipment. Moreover, comparative evidence from Iron
Age Philistia, Transjordan, Syria, and Phoenicia is discussed.
After summarizing the classifications of chap. 3, chap. 4 presents a typology of cult
places, extending from domestic cults to state temples. Several previously irreconcilable
aspects are here unified within a single typology that considers not only architectural fea-
tures but also the characteristics of cult assemblages associated with the various locations,
as well as possible social and ritual functions of typical items found within archaeological
assemblages.
Chapter 5 considers family religious beliefs as expressed in a sample of almost 3,000
individual Hebrew personal names that have so far been recorded in epigraphic material.
This Hebrew sample is further compared with smaller samples of Ammonite, Moabite,
Aramean, and Phoenician names, which amount to almost 1,400 names. The authentic-
ity of these sources and their significance for family religion are critically discussed. The
names are divided into six groups that reflect and inform the content and structure of
systems of familial belief. An excursus on the beliefs expressed in the proverbs of the He-
brew Bible is also included, which expands the horizon from religious reflections of crisis
experiences to the religious and spiritual necessities of daily life. Following this is a discus-
sion of the theophoric elements of names, analyzed in terms of the relative distribution
20 Chapter 1

of elements expressing the names of gods and goddesses in Syria and the Levant. Finally,
iconographic representations found on seals are investigated with regard to their possible
significance for reconstructing and understanding family religion.
Chapter 6 describes the variety of rites performed by families on different occasions
and at various places, whether at home, at a neighborhood shrine, or at local, regional, or
national sanctuaries. Burial rituals and the ritual care for the dead, whether at home, at
burial places, or at local sanctuaries, are examined in chap. 7. Chapter 8 presents a sum-
mary of the primary arguments and conclusions of the entire work.
Following the summary chapter is an archaeological appendix (A) which includes lists
of the ritual assemblages surveyed in this study, and an onomastic appendix (B) which
documents the entire sample of epigraphically attested names within their six categories
(names of thanksgiving, names of confession, names of praise, equating names, names
of birth, and secular names). These appendixes are intended to enable and enhance fur-
ther studies on the functions and use of ritual paraphernalia found in southern Levantine
archaeology and on onomastic material from the northern Levant. There are also a list
of abbreviations used (in the front matter), a bibliography (after the appendixes and ac-
knowledgments), and indexes of authors, ancient personal names, textual sources, sites
and place-names, and subjects.
 Chapter 2

Methodological Reflections

When one deals with family and household religion, a number of terminological,
methodological, and conceptual problems arise.

2.1.╇ Problems of modern and biblical terminology

In order to identify the carriers and locations of family and household religion, we
must clarify the terms family and household with regard to both modern sociological prac-
tice and biblical terminology.

2.1.1.╇ Clarifying the term family

Any definition of the term family, according to the German family sociologist Rose-
marie Nave-Herz (see, e.g., Nave-Herz 2007), requires a combination of macroâ•‚ and
micro-sociological perspectives. In terms of micro-sociology, a family is “a social institu-
tion, which has to accomplish specific societal achievements, above all, the ‘reproduction
of human characters’” (Max Horkheimer); from a micro-sociological perspective, a family
is “a group, where a couple lives together with its direct descendants” (Nave-Herz 2002:
148). According to Nave-Herz (2002: 149), a family is determined by four distinct features:
(1) its “dual biological and social nature” (René König) in undertaking the basic functions
of reproduction and socialization, apart from other functions, which can differ among
cultures and periods; (2) its distinction of generations; (3) its specific structuring of roles
(father, mother, son, daughter, and so on), with expectations pertaining to these roles that
differ, again, among cultures and periods; and (4) the specific cooperation and solidarity
among its family members.
Additionally with regard to the first feature mentioned above, preindustrial Israelite
families generally undertook the economic functions of production and consumption
and in most cases were economically self-sufficient. Concerning the fourth feature, Nave-
Herz points out that familial cooperation and solidarity, even though differing in form
and content between different cultures and historical periods, “always constitutes a very
specifically declared relationship, which is distinguished from any other relation of social
interaction in a given society” (2002: 149).â•›1 Thus families are able to build up their own
emotional and religious world that is more or less distinguished from society at large. This

1.╇ The entire statement, in German: “Wenn es auch historische und soziokulturelle Unterschiede
in der Form und auch in den Inhalten des familialen Kooperationsâ•‚ und Solidaritätsverhältnisses
21
22 Chapter 2

structural sociological difference is a primary driver of the existence of religion as a family

phenomenon.
Although the term family denotes a specific social unit that exists in distinction from
the larger society, it nevertheless remains ambiguous. As the American sociologist Kertzer
states: “It refers to close kin, but the exact reference of the term tends to vary contextu-
ally” (1991: 156). The structure and size of families can differ widely according to their
cultural, legal, economic, and political conditions. A question of lingering importance, not
only for sociologists, but also for biblical scholars and archaeologists concerns the relative
prevalence of extended versus nuclear families in preindustrial Europe in general and in
Mediterranean areas in particular. A conspicuous phenomenon arises in these delibera-
tions: while most biblical scholars tend to define an extended or joint family as the small-
est social unit in ancient Israelite and Judean society,â•›2 most archaeologists conceive of the
nuclear family as the basic domestic group.â•›3
Before considering this issue further, we will find it instructive to reflect on the termi-
nology of kinship itself. Although biblical and archaeological scholars mostly distinguish
between two categories of family—the nuclear and extended or joint families—modern
sociologists and anthropologists offer additional distinctions. An important example was
provided by the familial typology of the British sociologist P. Laslett (1974: 28–32), who
distinguished three categories: the “simple or nuclear family household”; the “extended
family household”; and the “multiple or joint family household.” He further suggested
that the number of conjugal family units (CFUs; married couples including their children)
is decisive for the determination of family types. For him, the term “extended family”
is defined by one conjugal unit “with the addition of one or more relatives other than
offspring” (Laslett 1974: 29), such as a widowed mother (upwards extension), an unmar-
ried sister (sideways extension) or a grandchild absent intermediate parents (downwards
extension). In contrast, the “multiple or joint family” is defined by the co-residence of
more than one conjugal unit, such as parents along with married sons and their children.
Multiple or joint families can be further distinguished between two subtypes: families in
which the parents are still alive, forming a “parental joint family”; and families in which
the parents are deceased, and several brothers live together with their respective families,
forming a “fraternal joint family” (the so-called frérèche; see Deut 25:5). Laslett naturally
acknowledged the dynamics of family structure, which may move through several cat-
egories: from nuclear to extended and joint families and back again, with the extension
depending on the life cycles of family members (Laslett 1974: 32–34).
In further developing Laslett’s categories, D. I. Kertzer (1991: 158–59) distinguished
between the two main categories of “nuclear family household” and “complex family
household,” where “the nuclear family household consists in its full form of a married
couple and their children. This is contrasted with the complex family household, which

gibt, so handelt es sich aber immer um ein ganz spezifisch erklärtes und von anderen Interaktions-
beziehungen in den jeweiligen Gesellschaften abgehobenes Verhältnis.”
2.╇See Porter 1967: 6–9; Gottwald 1981: 285–92; Scharbert 1982: 235; Bendor 1996: 31–46; van
der Toorn 1996: 197; Perdue 1997: 175–76; cf. King and Stager 2001: 36–39; and others.
3.╇See Shiloh 1980: 29; Holladay 1992: 310; 1995: 387, 393; Faust 1999a: 234; 2000: 19, 23; Faust
and Bunimovitz 2003: 26; cf. Stager 1985: 18; and others.
 Methodological Reflections 23

includes kin beyond the nuclear family.” Subdividing the “complex family household” into
four subtypes, he differentiated among (1) the “extended family household,” which “con-
sists of . . . kin beyond the nuclear family” but where there “is only one nuclear family unit
in the household”; (2) the “stem family household,” where “one child, and one child only,
brings his or her spouse into the parental household”; (3) the “joint family household,”
where “more than one child (generally all the sons) are supposed to bring their spouses
into the parental household”; and (4) the “multiple family household,” which “consists
of two or more coresiding nuclear family units.” The “multiple family household” corre-
sponds to Laslett’s “fraternal joint family.” In both models, “family households” may also
include people other than kin, such as servants or slaves.
Both Laslett and Kertzer enrich understandings of the variety of familial structures
through their use of precise terminology that avoids the simple dichotomy of “nuclear”
versus “extended.” An example of the utility of their typologies can be seen by applying
it to the “stem family household,” which existed in several parts of Europe but appears
mostly to have been overlooked by biblical scholars. This type permits the continued ex-
istence of a parental joint family household over a longer period only if the inheritance
remains largely undivided. Within stem family households, only one son, generally the
oldest, will ultimately inherit the paternal household and its estate; all other brothers are
required to leave when they marry or can stay in their paternal household as unmarried
workers. Deut 21:15–17 declares that in ancient Israel the firstborn should inherit two-
thirds of the inheritance or at least a double portion compared with his brothers. Ambigu-
ity surrounding the accurate determination of ancient Israelite familial types arises partly
through ignorance about how far this Deuteronomic rule was extended to apply to the in-
heritance of fields, vineyards, and orchards (see the suggestions of Bendor 1996: 128–64).
Because of its usefulness, we adopt the terminology of Laslett and Kertzer, albeit in
a somewhat simplified form. We distinguish between “nuclear” and “joint family house-
holds.” “Nuclear” can be generic “parental” households or, in a sense perhaps better re-
flecting the patriarchal structure of Israelite society, “paternal,” “stem,” or “fraternal”
households. We additionally use the term “extended family household” to denote a nu-
clear family consisting of single relatives beyond the one conjugal family unit (the couple
and its children).

2.1.2.╇ Clarifying the term household

In contrast to the term family, the term household is much easier to define. Accord-
ing to Kertzer (1991: 156), it “refers to the group of coresidents, people who live under
the same roof and typically share in common consumption.” The co-residential unit can
also aggregate and share its income. Denoting not only co-residents themselves but also
their producing and consumption activities, a household extends beyond the residential
area to include “outbuildings, granaries, wells, tools, and equipment, livestock, fields, and
orchards” (Meyers 1988: 130). Members of a household may not necessarily be related;
likewise, a single family may live under the same roof or may be dispersed among separate
households. Thus, from a sociological point of view, it is notable that “physical location,
shared activities, and kinship need not be empirically or logically overlapping” (Netting,
Wilk, and Arnould 1984: xiii–xxviii).
24 Chapter 2

Because of the ambiguity of the term “family,” particularly in the English language,
Meyers (1988: 127–28) prefers the term “household” for denoting the smallest social unit
of ancient Israelite society. But as useful as this term is to indicate a shared location and
common economic activity within a group, it permits no insight into the inner structure
or relationship of its members. Thus, a supplementary determination is needed, regard-
less. To a much greater extent than in modern industrial societies, most of the co-residen-
tial domestic groups in traditional societies such as ancient Israel consisted of families.
Sociologists such as Laslett and Kertzer often conflate the terms “household” and “fam-
ily,” and speak of “family households” as determining co-residential families. This com-
bined term offers several advantages. First, it allows people beyond kin, such as servants
and slaves into the family household. Second, it acknowledges the fact that pre�industrial
families were in most cases units of production and consumption. And third, it alludes to
the place where family members conducted most of their daily lives. We thus concur with
Meyers (2005: 23–24) who, in adopting the term “family household,” emphasizes that:
This term is more appropriate than “family” (a term focusing on people) or “domestic
unit” (which indicates a domicile), neither of which is inclusive of the other or of the
activities and material culture, other than the dwelling, that are part of households.
Thus household is a more comprehensive and accurate term. It signifies a built environ-
ment consisting of persons, their hardware—that is, their material culture, including
the dwelling and all its associated installations and artifacts—and also their activities.
(restated from 2002: 284; but see also 1997: 13–14).
We emphasize in addition that people of a given household are related in a very particular,
familial way. Finally, the term family household also alludes to the variety of religious rites
performed by family members that probably took place inside their house. This complex
of religious rites specific to both family and household are referred to here by the term
house cult.

2.1.3.╇ Clarifying the biblical terminology

Biblical terminology presents a fluid complexity of meanings. Among the kinship
terms of the Hebrew Bible, the term ‫ בית אב‬beit ʾāb ‘house of the father’, which occurs
83 times there, corresponds well to our use of the term “family” (KBL3 120, §5; Ges18 144,
§8).â•›4 Interestingly, the Hebrew expression for ‘family’ connects a kinship term (‫ אב‬ʾāb
‘father’) with a locational term (‫ בית‬beit ‘house’), demonstrating a common conception of
the term family household in both modern sociology and ancient Hebrew society (Meyers
1988: 128).
However, the term beit ʾāb cannot be set apart from the much more frequent term
beit, which can determine not only someone’s ‘house’ as a building but also someone’s
‘household’ or ‘family’.â•›5 Furthermore, it can also denote bigger units such as a ‘clan’ (nor-

4.╇ In passages such as Gen 31:14, 30; 41:51; 50:22; Lev 22:13; Num 30:4; Judg 11:2, 7, etc., this
meaning is obvious.
5.╇ See ‘my house’: Gen 30:30; 34:30; Josh 24:15; 1 Sam 20:15; ‘your house’: Gen 7:1; 45:11; Num
18:11, 13; Deut 14:26; 15:16, 20; 26:11; Judg 18:25; Ruth 4:12, et al.; ‘his house’: Gen 12:17; 17:27;
36:6; 39:4–5; Exod 1:1; Lev 16:6, 11; Judg 8:27; 1 Sam 1:21, et al.; ‘house of PN’: Gen 17:23; 28:2;
46:27; 50:8; Judg 8:35; 1 Sam 3:14; 27:3, et al.
 Methodological Reflections 25

mally called ‫ מׁשפחה‬mišpāḥāh),â•›6 a ‘tribe’ (normally called ‫ ׁשבט‬šēbeṭ or ‫ מטה‬maṭṭeh),â•›7 or

even the entire Israelite and Judean unit, ‫‘ ׁשני בתי יׁשראל‬both houses of Israel’; Isa 8:14).
Although this fluidity of meanings in no way precludes the assumption that in ancient
Israelite society the family household constituted a distinguished social unit, the meta-
phorical use of kinship terms that emerged from the tribal origin of the ancient Israelite
society has ensured that the biblical writers “have imposed a pseudo-kinship structure
.€.€. on their understanding of the people of Israel” (Meyers 1988: 128), regardless of their
awareness or otherwise of the finer distinctions among different levels of society (see, e.g.,
2 Sam 19:1–9).
Use of the term beit ʾāb or beit is simply dependent on the familial referrent (Bendor
1996: 54). The “house of the father” for a son (Gen 46:23) is his father’s own house (45:11).
When beit is used next to beit ʾāb, it denotes a smaller conjugal family unit of sons within
a father’s family (Gen 50:8; 2 Sam 2:30–32).
The biblical term beit ʾāb is often equated with the multigenerational joint family, most
often understood to describe three (e.g., Meyers 1988: 133–34; 1997: 16–17; Schloen 2001:
125), four (Bendor 1996: 31; Perdue 1997: 175), or even five (Gottwald 1981: 285–91)
generations living together under the leadership of a single patriarch. There is plenty of ev-
idence that the term beit ʾābâ•›8 and the term beitâ•›9 often denote a paternal joint family. And
we are certain that large joint families such as those of the patriarch Jacob or King David
are considered ideals in the biblical tradition (J. D. Schloen 2001: 148–50). However, N. P.
Lemche (1985: 251–53; followed by van der Toorn 1996: 195) has pointed out that the
term beit ʾāb can also sometimes denote a nuclear family (Gen 34:19, 26).â•›10 Moreover,
there are several cases where the term beit constructed with a suffix or with a personal
name in construct state denotes a nuclear unit within a paternal joint family, as in the case
of the house of Joseph (50:7–8) or the houses of his brothers (42:19, 33; 45:18) within the
house of Jacob. Even Bendor (1996: 121–64, 201–3), who emphasizes the importance of
the joint family in ancient Israel, concedes that “nuclear cells” existed within the beit ʾāb.
Sometimes an individual was legally referred to as “name” (e.g., Saul in “you will not wipe
out my name from my father’s house,” 1 Sam 24:22; 2 Sam 14:7) and had rights of their
own, separate consumption, and lived in complex relations of solidarity and conflict with
the remaining joint family. Thus, biblical terminology suggests that nuclear units within
the joint family enjoyed a certain degree of independence and privacy.
There are several indications that both joint and nuclear families constituted impor-
tant social units. The term beit can often denote a nuclear family as a unit of its own.â•›11 In
Josh 7:14, 18, the text most often cited for Israel’s ideal tribal structure, both the nuclear

6.╇ See Judg 4:17; Ruth 4:12; 2 Sam 16:5, et€al.; also the term ‫ בית אב‬can denote a clan or a lin-
eage: Gen 12:1; 24:40; Judg 9:1; cf. Lemche 1985: 252–53.
7.╇ See Exod 2:1; Num 17:23; Josh 17:17; 18:5; Judg 1:22, 35; 10:9; 2 Sam 3:19; 1 Kgs 11:28, et al.
8.╇ See Gen 46:31; 47:12; 50:8; Josh 2:18; 1 Sam 22:1, 22; 2 Sam 19:31; Isa 22:24, et al.
9.╇ See Gen 7:1; 28:2; 45:11; 46:27; 2 Sam 6:21; 9:9; Mic 7:6, et al.
10.╇ Probably also Gen 38:11; Lev 22:13; Num 30:4; Judg 6:15; van der Toorn (1996: 195) refers
to Judg 14:19.
11.╇ Gen 30:30; Deut 14:26; 15:20; cf. 16:11, 14; 25:9; 26:11; 1 Sam 1:21; 20:15; 27:3; 2 Sam 2:3;
2 Kgs 8:2, et al.
26 Chapter 2

family below the levels of the clan (mišpāḥāh) and the joint family (beit)â•›12 are represented
by the term ‫ גבר‬gēber: Achan, who is discovered by lot, is not an isolated ‘man’ but is, ac-
cording to v.€24, the head of a nuclear family. Moreover, the custom of the so-called Levi-
rate marriage designed to ensure the survival of the ‘brother’s house’ (Deut 25:9) does so
through his nuclear family unit. We thus concur with Williamson’s (2003: 474) judgment,
“that the nuclear/extended [or joint] family debate may have been too polarized, or in
other words, that there was an awareness of both concepts in ancient Israel and that both
reflected a social reality.”â•›13
Biblical terminology thus supports a distinction among four different types of fam-
ily household that coexisted in ancient Israel: paternal joint families consisting of two
(stem family) or more nuclear subunits; fraternal joint family households (Deut 25:5);
nuclear family households; and extended family households (e.g., Lev 22:12). Although
the paternal joint family household was considered ideal, it did not necessarily dictate
reality. Biblical terminology also highlights the significance of nuclear units within pater-
nal joint family households as well as the existence of nuclear families. Of course, biblical
texts alone cannot provide an answer to the question how common each type of family
household was in ancient Israelite and Judean society. Archaeological evidence must also
be taken into account.

2.2.╇ The problem of living space in domestic buildings

The significance of family households in turn places great importance on the ar-
chaeological remains of dwelling houses. Domestic architecture in Israelite and Judean
settle�ments of the Iron age is dominated by one type of house, which was labeled the
“four-room house,” a variant of which is the “three-room house” and occasionally even
a two-room house (fig. 2.1).â•›14 J. S. Holladay (1992: 308–9) describes a typical four-room
house as follows:
12.╇ In Josh 7:17, the MT reads ‫‘ גברים‬men’ instead of ‫‘ ביתם‬houses’ or ‘families’, which one
would expect in accordance with v.€14, but this variant is transmitted by only a few Hebrew manu-
scripts and the Syrian Bible. Most likely, ‫ גברים‬in v.€17€must be understood as the representatives
of the joint families, one of which, Zabdi, was found by lot. The fact that v.€18 names Achan’s fa-
ther Karmi and not Zabdi shows the difficulty of aligning an ideal picture of society with actual
genealogy.
13.╇ Williamson (2003: 474) questioned whether the catalog of types of forbidden sexual in-
tercourse in Lev 18:6–16 can be used to define the joint family in Israel, as was done by Porter
(1967: 9–21) and others (e.g., Schloen 2001: 148–49). On the one hand, the catalog is too wide and
includes people who do not belong to the joint family under normal conditions (e.g., the sister of
the mother in v.€13); on the other hand, the addressee’s own daughters are absent, whose protection
would be the most important of all. Thus, Rattray (1987: 542) may be right to infer that the daugh-
ters are already included in v.€6 with the term ‫‘ כל־ׁשאר בׁשרו‬any blood relative’ and to assert that
this verse has to be seen as a veiled reference to the nuclear family unit. In light of this, the catalog is
best understood as a list of all female persons of sufficiently close kin to potentially join the nuclear
family under specific conditions, be it in an extended or a joint family household, but who are not
included in the endogamy of the clan.
14.╇ Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 23. This stereotypical ground plan of Palestinian houses of
the Iron Age was already discovered by Braemer (1982: 155–57), although he distinguished several
subtypes and still did not use the terminology that has now become common.
Methodological Reflections 27

Fig.€2.1.╇ Variants of four-room

houses.
28 Chapter 2

By Iron II times, the entry was usually in the center of the front wall, leading into a
large central space, generally floored with beaten earth. . . . To either side of this larger
area are side aisles delimited by pillars, generally associated with a stub wall. These
aisles often have stone paving: cobbles or flagstones. Farther back, the columns gener-
ally give way to stone walls and doorways leading into small rooms, generally with dirt
floors; in fact, one side may lack columns altogether, having only walled rooms. Across
the back stretches the “fourth” room, usually entered from the central space, and usu-
ally having a dirt floor. Not infrequently it is subdivided.
In the three-room house, one of the aisles is lacking. By the year 1987, no less than 155
examples of fourâ•‚ and three-room houses had been excavated (Holladay 1992: 308).
Archaeologists have occupied themselves for a long time with the question of whether
this type of house was an ethnic indicator for Israelite culture (e.g., Shiloh 1970: 180). Fur-
thermore, four-room houses were the typical dwelling in the southern Levant of the Iron
Age and were found to a particularly concentrated degree in the highlands of Cisâ•‚ and
Transjordan (Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 23). Stager first considered the functional and
sociological interpretation of the four-room house in 1985, with further developments by
Holladay (1992; 1995; 1997), who introduced comparative ethnographic material from
dwellings of Iranian settlements in the Zagros Mts. This work has made clear that the
side aisles delimited with pillars served as stables and occasionally had mangers, and the
walled rooms in both aisles served a variety of functions, such as storing food, equipment,
cooking utensils, or other equipment (Stager 1985: 11–15). The central space was used
for all work-related activities of the family during the daytime and may have served as a
fold during the night (Holladay 1997: 339). Although the “fourth” room at the rear has
often been interpreted as a living and sleeping quarter for the household (Shiloh 1970:
186), Holladay (1992: 310) was able to demonstrate that in most cases these back rooms
were too narrow to serve this purpose. The recent excavation in Tall al-ʿUmeri has dem-
onstrated once more that the back room of House B was stocked with storage jars (Herr
and Clark 2001: 45). This accords with Holladay’s calculation that a family of five would
require no less than about 23 m2 for storing the amount of food they would need during a
year (1995: 387). Thus arises an important question: if, apart from the central space used
for all working activities, the remainder of the four-room house was needed for stabling
animals and storing all food and equipment, where did family members dwell and sleep?
A convincing suggestion seems to be that, in many cases, four-room houses were pro-
vided with a second floor, where the dwelling and sleeping rooms were located (Holladay
1992: 316). Stairways found in dwellings of Tell Beit Mirsim, Beersheba, and Hazor were
used to support suggestions of this sort by Albright (1943: 51), Yadin (1972: 182–84),
Stager (1985: 15–16), and others; but these stairs could also facilitate an “intensive use
of the roof ” (in line with a cautious suggestion in Holladay 1992: 309). There is certainly
clear evidence for upper stories of four-room houses from Tell Balatâh/Shechem and Tall
al-ʿUmeri. In Shechem, debris surrounding House 1727 (fig. 2.2),â•›15 belonging to Stratum
VII from the late 8th century b.c.e., corresponds to the destruction layer of between one-
half and one meter found fallen on the ground floor; even the burned half-round beams
that supported the ceiling are discernible (Campbell 2002: 284–88). At Tall al-ʿUmeri,

15.╇ Campbell 2002: 277, fig. 251.

 Methodological Reflections 29

Fig.€2.2.╇ Ground plan of House 1727 at Tell Balatâh, Stratum VII, 8th century b.c.e.

House B (fig. 2.3)â•›16 from the late 13th to 12th century b.c.e., which was destroyed by an
earthquake, shows “a massive destruction over two meters deep in places and made up of
the layers of collapse: first came the roofing material (dirt and wooden beams) followed
by masses of mudbricks from the upper, second story walls, and then stones mixed with
bricks from the upper courses of the first story” (Herr 2000b: 10). In the destruction layer
were tens of thousands of barley seeds, several types of pottery vessels, and over 20 crates
of collared pithoi; thus even this second floor served to store food in addition to being
used for living and sleeping. In House A, which is not yet fully excavated, some possible
cultic items had fallen from the second story: “three chalices, a cup and saucer and a rare
pair of cymbals” (Herr and Clark 2001: 44). It thus appears that all four-room houses with
a sufficiently strong foundation were probably provided with a second story.
Even if one accepts this admittedly sparse evidence, the problem remains whether or
not or to what degree the central spaces of the ground floors were roofed. While Stager

16.╇ Herr and Clark 2001: 40–41.

30 Chapter 2

Fig.€2.3.╇ Reconstruction and ground plan of House B at Tall al-ʿUmeri, Iron Age I.
 Methodological Reflections 31

Fig.€2.4.╇ Reconstruction of a typical Israelite four-room house, Iron Age I, by L. E. Stager.

conflates ceilings with roofs, either one of which covered the entirety of four-room houses
(see fig. 2.4),â•›17 Braemer (1982: 151–53) more cautiously conceives of entire roofs as being
restricted to specific subtypes of houses,â•›18 and Netzer (1992: 196–99) generally concep-
tualizes an unroofed central space, either on the lower or the upper floor (figs. 2.5–6).â•›19
According to the excavators, it seems that in Shechem the entire four-room-core of House

17.╇ King and Stager 2001: 29, fig. 3.15.

18.╇ See his still-cautious judgment: “Pour nous donc, la maison palestinienne serait plutôt un
édifice long, entièrement couvert et éventuellement surmonté d’un étage” (Braemer 1982: 153).
19.╇ Netzer 1992: 196–97, figs. 6–7. Borowski (2003: 18) prefers a roofed first floor and open
second floor.
32 Chapter 2

1727 had a second story (Campbell

2002: 287). Nevertheless, lingering
uncertainty concerning roof areas
led Schloen (2001: 165–83) to calcu-
late living spaces for three potential
plans of four-room houses: houses
with 100%, 50%, or 0% roofing over
the second story.â•›20 Thus, uncertainty
remains regarding the actual living
spaces of fourâ•‚ or three-room houses.
Stager’s suggestion is convincing for
architectural and practical reasons,
although concerns remain about how
the central space of the lower floor was
provided with sufficient light, ventila-
tion, and means for smoke to escape.
Even assuming a second floor for
the living space of a family, the main
problem concerning dwellings remains
unresolved. Even if we presume the
maximum amount for a second story,
most Israelite houses remain rather
small. According to Faust (2000: 19),
the average house size found in urban
Fig.€2.5.╇ Schematic reconstruction of a dwelling
Iron II sites such as Tell Beersheba,
with unroofed central courtyard on the lower floor
by E. Netzer.
Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tell
el-Farʿah North, Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, and
Hazor is between 30–70 m2.â•›21 In more
detail, Schloen (2001: 165–83) concludes that houses covering more than 70 m2 numbered
only 9 out of 32, or 28%, of dwelling houses excavated at Tell Beit Mirsim. Only in the
13 excavated dwellings of Tell Farʿah North was the proportion considerably higher (8
houses, or 61%). Regardless, in accordance with the general ethnographic quota of Naroll
(1962: 588), of 10 m2 of roofed living space per person, or the more specific Iranian quota
of LeÂ�Blanc (1971: 211), of 21–24 m2 of total roofed area inclusive of stabling, storage, and
activity spaces,â•›22 about 70% of the dwelling units of urban sites would have accommo-
dated less than 8 people.

20.╇ Dever (2005: 22–23) pictures a 50% solution: a second story above only the fourth room at
the rear, and a roofed ground floor for the rest of the building.
21.╇ Faust presents a more detailed overview in an earlier article (1999a: 236–39). In a later
article, he increases the average size of dwelling houses a little: 40–80 m2 (Faust and Bunimovitz
2003: 25).
22.╇ Schloen (2001: 168) criticized Holladay (1992: 312) for this ratio, which he took from
LeBlanc; it seems to him much too high. But he overlooked the fact that not only the living space
but also the stables and storage space are included. He himself would prefer an area of 7.3 m2 per
 Methodological Reflections 33

Fig.€2.6.╇ Schematic reconstruction of dwellings with unroofed central courtyards on upper

floors by E. Netzer.

Thus, the majority of excavated houses in Israelite and Judean sites would not have ac-
commodated the ideal biblical type of family—the paternal joint family, or beit ʾāb. Jacob’s
family, which consisted of 70 persons (Gen 46:26–27; Exod 1:5)—a datum that probably
provided the inspiration for Gottwald [1981: 285] to define the joint family as a group
of 50–100 members—would not fit in any dwelling house ever excavated in Israel. Even
with lower estimations of the size of a joint family, such as the 20 people of de Geus (1976:
135), the 15–20 of Dever (2005: 22), the 10–30 of Stager (1985: 20), the 12–14 of Holla-
day (1992: 315), or estimates of joint family size as being mostly below 15 people (Mey-
ers 1997: 19), the given space of the majority of fourâ•‚ and three-room houses could not
have sufficed to accommodate all. Most archaeologists consequently conclude that these
houses were generally occupied by nuclear families (Shiloh 1980: 29; Holladay 1992: 310;
1995: 387, 393; Faust 2000: 19, 23; Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 26; Dever 2005: 22). The
estimated size of the nuclear family, being 8 people according to Shiloh (1980: 29), 4.1–4.3
people according to Stager (1985: 18),â•›23 4.5–5 people according to Holladay (1992: 315),
4–6 people according to Blenkinsopp (1997: 51), 5–6 people according to Dever (2005:

person. But LeBlanc’s (1971: 611) more specific ethnographic estimates fundamentally confirm
Naroll’s ratio.
23.╇ Stager based his figures on the calculations of Burch (1974: 96); Schloen (2001: 122–23)
has clarified that Stager (1985: 21) presented diverging higher numbers in table 4, because here
34 Chapter 2

22), or a maximum of 7 people according to Meyers (1997: 19), would be nearly per-
fectly suited to the majority of these fourâ•‚ or three-room houses. According to most cal-
culations, there would even be enough space for housing an extended family household,
which incorporated one or two more relatives, or a servant. The conclusion whether or
not the archaeological evidence suggests that nuclear or small extended family households
constituted the vast majority of households in Israelite society remains uncertain, at least
for the monarchic period.

2.3.╇ Overcoming the discrepancy between the archaeological

evidence and the biblical ideal
The discrepancy between the archaeological evidence for the prevalence of nuclear or
small extended family households and the biblical evidence for large paternal joint family
households as the ideal family type in Israelite society is addressed via three strategies.
These are called the archaeological, demographic, and geographical strategies.

2.3.1.╇ The archaeological strategy

One resolution to the discrepancy between archaeological and biblical evidence was
proposed long ago by Stager. In his influential 1985 article, “The Archaeology of the Fam-
ily in Ancient Israel,” he admitted on the one hand that “the interior space of a farm house
in the hills was rather small, usually less than 50 m2; for the steppe it was larger, but less
than 75 m2. In neither case [was] it plausible to suggest a coresident group larger than the
nuclear family” (1985: 17–18), while on the other hand pointing out that “more significant
than the individual, spatially distinct farmhouse and its putative nuclear family [were]
clusters of dwellings, or compounds, which characterized the organization of Raddana,
Ai, and Meshash” (1985: 18). He continued, “A working hypothesis would relate these
clusters of dwellings to family organization at the extended or multiple family household
level” (1985: 18). He called them “multiple family compounds,” in which he thought that
a nuclear and joint family household could exist together.
What Stager himself introduced as a “working hypothesis” has been presumed to be
a conclusion by many scholars (e.g., Meyers 1988: 132–33; 1997: 16–19; van der Toorn
1996: 196–97; Dever 2005: 21), although the archaeological evidence to support it is rather
sparse. The best comes from Ḥirbet Raddana (fig. 2.7),â•›24 where two houses stood close to-
gether and seemed to share a common courtyard (as indicated by the ovens). Likewise, the
narrow courtyard between them, in the rear of which stood an open working place and
a storage facility, seems to indicate some degree of cooperation between the two nuclear
families. Nevertheless, there does not seem to be any evidence for a wall around the court-
yard and the two houses that could have fenced off the compound, as was illustrated by
Stager (fig. 2.8).â•›25 Stager presents only one example from Tell Beit Mirsim, where a cluster

he added 2 to Burch’s figures to allow for the parents; but this correction is not necessary, because
Burch had already estimated the total family size.
24.╇ Stager 1985: 19, fig. 9.
25.╇ King and Stager 2001: 18, fig. 3.10.
 Methodological Reflections
35

Fig.€2.7.╇ Possible house compounds, compiled by L. E. Stager 1985 (A: Tel Masos, Area A, Stratum IIb, Iron I; B: Ḥirbet Raddana,
Site€S, Iron I; C: Ai, Area 2, Iron 1; D: Tell el-Fār↜渀屮ʿah North, Stratum III, Iron II; E: Tell el-Farʿah North, Stratum II, Iron II; F: Tell Beit
Mirsim, Stratum A, Iron II; G: Tell en-Naṣbeh, early phase of Stratum I, Iron II).
36 Chapter 2

Fig.€2.8.╇ Reconstruction of a possible family compound by L. E. Stager, illustrated by C. S.

Alexander 2001.

of houses shared a common forecourt, and one other example from Tell el-Farʿah North
(1985: 19). All of Stager’s other examples (Stager 1985: 19), from Ḥirbet Meshash, Ai, and
Tell en-Naṣbeh, where clusters of houses share one wall and have entrances either opening
in different directions or all opening onto the street fail to support an argument of com-
munality.â•›26 One strikingly conspicuous fact that appears to have been overlooked thus far
is the absence of doorways directly connecting adjacent houses, as would be expected if
these structures actually formed a single joint family household. Why should the mem-
bers of these households have taken such a circuitous route between them? Investigating
the private houses in Hazor of the 8th century b.c.e., Geva (1989: 87) came to the opposite
conclusion, that “thus private dwellings, while forming dense clusters, were built as indi-
vidual units with no consideration to their immediate connection with their neighbors.”
In contrast, she observed that the entrances of clusters of houses tend to open in different
26.╇ Not by chance, Holladay (1992: 311) reduced the seven examples given by Stager to four.
 Methodological Reflections 37

Fig.€2.9.╇ Dwelling
quarter in Hazor
showing a back-to-
back orientation,
Area€A, Stratum VII,
8th century b.c.e.

directions (fig. 2.9),â•›27 and thus she speaks of a “back-to-back attitude” (1989: 94) and con-
cludes that “the people of Hazor jealously guarded the privacy of their homes” (1989: 111).
Stager’s “working hypothesis” appears to have been the subject of little critical disÂ�
cussionâ•›28 and has never been explicitly examined through subsequent archaeological in-
vestigations. Thus, the conditions under which a number of neighboring houses could
constitute a single joint family household—or even whether or not this actually occurred—
remain unresolved. Moreover, the biblical evidence often cited in support of this possibil-
ity (Judg 18:22, as first introduced by Gottwald [1981: 291–92] and subsequently cited by
Stager [1985: 22], Meyers [1997: 17], and others) is ambiguous.â•›29

27.╇ Geva 1989: appendix: fig. 2 in chap. 6.

28.╇ Some doubts were, however, uttered by Holladay 1992: 310.
29.╇ Gottwald’s (1981: 291) rendering of the phrase, ‫‘ והאנׁשים אׁשר בבתים אׁשר עם־מיכה נזעקה‬the
men who were in the houses comprising .€.€. the household of Micah were called out’, is plausible if
one takes the preposition ‫ עם‬ʿim in its sense of ‘with’. Nevertheless, it is a little bit strange that the
38 Chapter 2

2.3.2.╇ The demographic strategy

One strategy that avoids the archaeological problem of whether or not “multiple fam-
ily compounds” are demonstrable was pursued by Schloen in his book The House of the
Father as Fact and Symbol (2001). Schloen explicitly reflected on the discrepancy men-
tioned above (2001: 135–36) and incorporated much cross-cultural ethnographic and
demographic material to calculate better the sizes of family types (2001: 101–33). Ac-
knowledging the high mortality rates in ancient societies, he argued much lower numbers
of family members than previous calculations: “Even if we assume a high fertility rate,
nuclear family sizes in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant were relatively small, on the order
of 3.5 persons on average, while the patrilineally extended joint families had only 7 mem-
bers on average” (2001: 122). These low numbers were confirmed in the demographic in-
vestigation of Roman Egypt by R. Saller (Schloen 2001: 124–25), although, as Bagnall and
Frier indicated, nuclear or extended conjugal families were vastly more prevalent in Egypt
than multiple or joint conjugal families (2001: 126). By adding other co-residential people
such as kin or servants to these numbers, Schloen concluded sizes of 5 people for nuclear
or extended households and 10 people for joint family households (2001: 126, 136).
With his convincing evidence for this reduced size of joint family households, Schloen
seems to offer a compelling way to address the discrepancy between archaeological and
biblical evidence. If one presumes the maximal roof size of the second floor, then 28%
of all dwelling houses in Tell Beit Mirsim and 25% in Tell en-Naṣbeh would have had
living spaces of between 70 and 120 m2. For the less excavated dwelling houses of Tell el-
Farʿah North, this proportion was even higher. Thus about 30% of all dwelling houses in
Schloen’s sample could easily have been occupied by expanded joint families. Schloen ad-
dresses the smaller sizes of most houses by acknowledging the domestic life cycle stressed
by Laslett (1974: 32–34): “The smaller houses would have been occupied by families in the
nuclear phase of the household life cycle, or in some cases by landless families which could
not maintain patrilocal coresidence and attached themselves to wealthier households as
clients or servants” (Schloen 2001: 181). This argument seems to offer a surprisingly easy
solution. On the one hand, nuclear families need some time to grow until they can be-
come joint families covering three or more generations; on the other hand, after the death
of the older generation, joint families once again collapse to a nuclear form—because all
brothers except the oldest leave the household—until the children once again marry and
expand the family anew. Schloen highlights the role of “constant rearrangement of living
space,” which can be supported archaeologically as reflecting this life cycle (2001: 181).
There were limits, however, on this “rearrangement of living space,” especially in urban
sites, where it mostly consisted of only an inner division of a house and not an enlarge-

term ‫בית‬, which appears here twice in a narrow context, should be used with different meanings
(building and household). Since the preposition ʿim is often used in a locative sense of ‘next to’ (Gen
35:4; 2 Sam 13:32; et€al.), the traditional rendering of the phrase, ‘the men who were in the houses
that were near the house of Micah’, seems even more plausible. The existence of these houses is
already mentioned generally in v.€14. The possibility that they belonged to a family compound and
that their inhabitants constituted one paternal joint family is not excluded even through it is not
explicitly expressed in the text.
 Methodological Reflections 39

ment of actual floor space.â•›30 In Schloen’s model, families would have been forced to change
their home constantly, according to the phase of their household life cycle: falling back to
the nuclear phase of families, their members would have had to move to small houses;
growing up to the joint phase of families, their members would have had to occupy large
houses. But is such a constant moving about conceivable? How would the former inhab-
itants of the needed houses be persuaded to move as well? Thus it is uncertain whether
in Israel the beit ʾāb was a “deeply rooted patrilocal ideal” as well as “the basic social and
economic unit of Israelite society” during the entire Iron II period (Schloen 2001: 183).

2.3.3.╇ The geographical strategy

While Schloen interpreted extant archaeological data in a novel and creative way, Faust
(1999a; 2000; Faust and Bunimowitz 2003) introduced new archaeological evidence into
the debate. He pointed out that the dwelling houses in rural villages, which until then had
often been neglected in the archaeology of the southern Levant, were considerably larger
than the houses of urban sites (fig. 2.10).â•›31 The rural dwellings of five villages, which were
partly or totally excavated (Ḥirbet Jamaʿin, Beit Aryeh [Ḥirbet Hudash], Ḥirbet Malta,
Ḥirbet Jarish, and Deir el-Mir), show ground floors of 120 to 130 m2 on average; the small-
est was 100, the largest 170 m2 (see the tables in 1999a: 242; 2003: 20). Six separate farm-
houses excavated thus far are even bigger (120–170 m2, and even one of 300 m2). Accept-
ing this still-limited evidence as sufficient leads to the conclusion that rural dwellings were
on average about two times larger than most urban houses. From this, Faust concludes,
The difference in size between urban and rural four-room houses seems to be a result
neither of function (e.g., agricultural needs of the rural populations) nor of circum-
stance (e.g., more free ground for building in villages than cities). Rather, it is a faithful
reflection of the different social units comprising the urban vs. rural sectors of Israelite
society during the Iron Age. On the one hand, the comparatively small size of the ur-
ban four-room houses support the common view that they housed nuclear families.
. . . On the other hand, the large size of the rural houses indicates that they housed
extended [better: joint] families of at least three generations. (Faust 2003: 26)
This conclusion is supported by the observation that rural houses consisted of more
rooms than urban houses; internally subdivided, their number on the ground floor was
commonly 5–8 rooms.â•›32 Faust explains, “The larger number of rooms in rural houses
should be attributed to the fact that they housed an extended family. The large number of
inhabitants would have required more options for separation, segregation, and privacy,
especially between the different nuclear families” (2000: 20). This view would accord with
both the sociological insight that a joint family consists of several conjugal family units
and with biblical terminology as well, in speaking of different bātîm within a given beit ʾāb.

30.╇ This was supported by the rearrangement of dwelling houses in Hazor described by Geva
(1989: 42–61), where it seems that only in rural sites was extensive enlargement of houses possible;
see, for example, Houses 890 and 900 in Beit Aryeh (Riklin 1997: 8), where the floor space of a four-
room house was doubled by building a second four-room house in front of it.
31.╇ Riklin 1997: 8–9, fig. 2.
32.╇ Faust (1999a: 246) points out that the internal division of the houses varies greatly, most
likely due to the life cycle of the joint family.
40 Chapter 2

Fig.€2.10.╇ Ground plan of the Iron II village Beit Aryeh (map reference 15845.16090) showing
several large dwellings, including a double four-room house (no. 900) and a huge storehouse
(no.€510).

While there are only a few indications of interrelations within towns between differ-
ent houses, there is strong evidence for active cooperation between several joint family
households in rural settlements. In several villages, excavators found big storehouses (see
House 510 fig. 2.10), cisterns, wine cellars, oil presses, and oil storage installations, all of
which seem to have been used by several or even all families of a village for communally
storing the surplus of their agricultural production (2000: 26). Moreover, the building of
protective walls (2000: 27) and terrace walls around rural settlements naturally required
the cooperation of several joint families. Thus, Faust suggests that, at least as far as the
rural sector of Israelite society was concerned, “in addition to the households, the lineages
could also be regarded as corporate units, and these sometimes comprised the entire com-
munity” (2000: 26).
It is thus necessary to distinguish between the rural and the urban sectors of Israelite
society. Whereas in the rural sector the joint family (beit ʾāb) and even the “lineage”—
which means the part of the clan (mišpāḥāh) who resided together (who were “co-
 Methodological Reflections 41

residential”)â•›33—constituted a predominant corporate unit close to the biblical ideal, in the

urban sector the nuclear family became the predominant household unit, and relations to
other kin were pushed more to the background. Faust’s judgment (2000: 30) that in a rural
context the lineage was even more important than the joint family household nevertheless
remains open to further discussion.
Faust and Bunimovitz both offered explanations for the larger four-room houses
that existed in towns. Because they were often better built and usually avoided the use of
shared walls, both authors concluded that they “belonged to large (extended) and wealthy
families comprising the urban elite” (2003: 27).â•›34 Thus, according to them, both urbaniza-
tion and increasing socioeconomic stratification generated different residential patterns
in the towns and villages.
Faust and Bunimovitz both offer compelling solutions to the discrepancy mentioned
above. Both nuclear and joint family households existed side by side in ancient Israelite
and Judean society, but predominantly in different sectors thereof.â•›35 However, evidence
from rural areas is still scant, and would benefit from further excavations. Further insight
may be gained through re-evaluating the dwelling houses from Iron I settlements, which
represent a period before processes of urbanization took place.

2.4.╇ Relations between different types of family households

and to additional kin
Taken together, the biblical and archaeological evidence support the following con-
clusions. In preexilic Israelite and Judean society, there were often different types of fam-
ily households side by side. There were the paternal joint families consisting of three to
four generations under the leadership of a patriarch; under conditions of limited property,
these would often have been restricted to stem family types, in which only the oldest son
with his wife and children would have remained in the household of the father. There were
also fraternal joint family households in which, following the death of the patriarch, two
or more brothers and their families would have stayed in the house together. These joint
family types appear to have prevailed in rural settlements, where a considerable number
of family members (roughly 10–20) would have been needed to farm the land. In urban
settlements, these types of joint family households were restricted to wealthy families who
owned large estates.

33.╇ Faust’s distinction (2000: 29–30) between the larger clan as a subtribal unit that contained
several lineages potentially dispersed over several places, and the smaller group of related paternal
joint families who actually lived and cooperated together is especially useful. The latter can be re-
ferred as a “lineage”; however, the biblical term ‫ מׁשפחה‬mišpāḥāh denotes both groups.
34.╇ See also the detailed study of Faust (1999b: 187), where he distinguished—taking the pri-
vate houses of 8th–century Hazor as a test case—the dwellings of “the wealthy and the senior func-
tionaries on the one hand, and the poor on the other, and possibly also . . . of a middle class.”
35.╇ Schloen’s (2001: 141) argument against Faust does not really meet his thesis; Schloen is
right to warn of positing a “sharp urban-rural dichotomy”; but Faust seems largely to avoid this.
He in no way denies the possibility of joint family households’ existing in urban settlements but
asserts that they constituted only a minority. Thus Faust describes a remarkable difference but not
a dichotomy.
42 Chapter 2

Through processes of urbanization in the 10th and 9th century b.c.e., nuclear family
households consisting of one couple and their children became increasingly important.
In many cases during this time, single family members beyond the primary conjugal unit,
for example, a widowed sister driven out of her husband’s family, would have joined a
nuclear family; thus extended families were probably frequent variants of nuclear families.
Nuclear and extended families constituted the vast majority in urban settlements (up to
70%).â•›36 Many of them probably still worked as small farmers, with others earning ad-
ditional income as craftsmen, traders, hired workers, clients of wealthier landowners, or
state officials.
Nuclear families played a much more prominent role in ancient Israelite society than
seems to have been presumed by many biblical scholars (Gottwald, van der Toorn, Schloen,
et al.). Nuclear family units played dual roles, often constituting their own households as
well as enjoying a certain degree of independence within larger joint family households.
According to Faust (2000: 20), they probably occupied their own rooms under the roof of
their father’s house; according to Bendor (1996: 203), they could even have had their own
possessions, such as flocks and vineyards. Thus the conjugal family unit constituted the
heart of the familial group in all five types of family household.â•›37
The differences among these four family types are not as large as may initially appear,
as revealed in the typology of families by Yorburg (1975: 6). In ideal-typical terms, the
joint familyâ•›38 “is characterized by total economic and psychological interdependence be-
tween nuclear units, a single authoritarian head, and daily contact. Nuclear family units
do not have independent economic resources” (1975: 8). But since in ancient Israel the
nuclear units seem to have enjoyed some degree of independent access to resources, they
came closer to the type that Yorburg has described as the modified form of joint family
characterized “by nuclear family autonomy, but strong kin network influence” (1975: 8).
However, the nuclear families of ancient Israel cannot be placed within this “pure” type,
which Yorburg characterized as being completely “self-sufficient, economically and psy-
chologically, with respect to the wider kin network” (1975: 7), as we know it from modern
societies. Instead, they belonged to a “modified nuclear” type, which is defined only as
“largely self-sufficient economically” yet still dependent on some support from the kin
network and thus influenced by it (1975: 6–7), particularly because it is reasonable to
conjecture that Israelite nuclear families did not normally live isolated from their kin and
that in most cases related families lived in the same towns or even in the same quarters,
as it is still the case in modern Oriental cities (Schloen 2001: 101–16). Thus, the degree of
dependence on or independence from the kinship network spanned a continuum between
joint and nuclear family households.
The possible intermediate phases between the two become even more apparent by
considering “multiple family compounds,” following Stager (1985: 18–20). Even though
the evidence that they constituted the “usual” form of joint family households is rather

36.╇ In the late 7th century b.c.e., the nuclear family seems to have become so predominant that,
in the book of Deuteronomy, the term ‫ בית אב‬is nearly lacking; it only appears in Deut 22:21, where
it probably is referring to a paternal house as a building.
37.╇ This clarifies a much shorter statement on the subject in Albertz 2008: 92, 96.
38.╇ Yorburg still uses the term “extended family.”
 Methodological Reflections 43

sparse,â•›39 it is possible that they existed in Iron I villages and perhaps occasionally in urban
settlements. It is suggested in these cases that the members of joint families were split
among several houses, mostly according to their nuclear units (similar to the scenario
drawn by King and Stager 2001: 12–19). And of course, those nuclear family units would
have gained more independence than if they had remained under the roof of a paternal
house. Although economically interdependent, they psychologically enjoyed much more
privacy, because they could shut their own door behind them. Thus, bearing in mind
that a “household” is defined by people living under one roof and sharing in common
consumption (cf. Kertzer 1991: 155), it may be asked whether a social unit of this sort is
rightly defined as a joint family household or whether it is better to speak of a cluster of
nuclear family households characterized by a higher degree of cooperation than normal.
Such familial cooperation can even exceed the borders of joint family households by
the inclusion of additional kin. Faust in particular has presented (2000: 23–30) archae-
ological evidence from rural settlements suggesting cooperation among larger corpo-
rate groups, such as groups who served large wine and oil presses or storage facilities.
He identified these groups with lineages—that is, with the co-residental parts of a clan
(mišpāḥāh). In the Hebrew Bible, there is ample evidence that villages were sometimes
occupied by only one clan (Judg 8:32; Faust 2000: 31). The number of “industrial instal-
lations” found in some of these villages was commonly between one and four, supporting
the conclusion that there was an equal number of lineages. Faust thinks that, “from the
archaeological evidence it is not clear if the lineage was the production . . . unit . . . . , or if
it only managed and facilitated the production, while the production itself (the process-
ing of the agricultural products) was carried out by the extended [joint] family” (Faust
2000: 23). In any case, there was seasonal superfamilial cooperation in rural settlements.
Within urban sectors of society, the significance of these lineages seems to have been less
important.
The possible cooperation of a joint family with its patrilineal lineage, as attested pri-
marily in the rural sector of Israelite society, should not, however, lead to the opinion that
there was no clear demarcation between these social units, even through the term beit
ʾāb can sometimes denote a lineage (Gen 12:1; 24:40; Judg 9:1). Even if, as often seems to
have been the case in Israelite villages, everyone was related by blood to the others, the
close, strong emotional ties between immediate family members nevertheless constituted
a distinguished kind of relationship.â•›40 In the past, the importance of the clan or lineage has
been emphasized above that of the family, as though the clan was necessary to the family’s
survival (e.g., Gottwald 1981: 254–84;â•›41 van der Toorn 1996b: 200–203). This led Gottwald
to believe that only the clan, and not the family, had religious functions (1981: 282–84).â•›42
He in turn persuaded van der Toorn to characterize the family religion of early Israel as
largely a clan religion (van der Toorn 1996b: 250–55). Van der Toorn states, “Religion

39.╇ See above, pp. 34–36.

40.╇ See (above, pp. 21–22) the statement of Nave-Herz 2001: 149.
41.╇See Gottwald’s famous definitions of the mišpāḥāh: “protective association of families” and
“community of shared interests” (1981: 257).
42.╇ He mentions 1 Sam 20:6, 28–29 and also interprets 1 Sam 3:1 in this direction, although
here only Elkanah’s family is mentioned.
44 Chapter 2

in the early Iron Age was primarily a matter of joint family or clan” (1996b: 250). Deal-
ing with Micah’s sanctuary in Judges 17–18, he maintained that, “Even if the sanctuary
belonged to a family, it was not a domestic chapel, but a local cult centre” (1996b: 254).
And concerning sanctuaries like Ophrah and the “Bull Site,” he claimed that “the towns,
inhabited by different branches of a family or clan, were the main cultic communities.
There is neither archaeological nor literary evidence for a domestic cult performed by
single nuclear families. Related families constituted one cultic body, the pater familias of
the foremost family acting as its head” (1996b: 254).â•›43 These extensive conclusions can be
used to emphasize the importance of determining the different levels of kinship groups. If
the borderline between the family and the lineage or clan becomes blurred, family religion
will dissolve into a clan or local religion, regardless—or it might even become invisible. As
will be described in chap. 3, hundreds of ritual objects have been found in private urban
dwelling houses, providing a wealth of evidence for domestic rituals that were performed
by single nuclear families.
In order to define clear boundaries between the types of families and their wider kin-
ships, it is necessary to reiterate the main features of both the family and the household.â•›44
The former is characterized by four functions: reproduction, socialization, production,
and consumption; the latter by two features: living under the same roof and sharing in
common consumption. Between family and clan, a clear borderline can first be drawn
by the use of the term household to denote a group of co-residents living under one roof.
This criterion can never be fulfilled by a lineage or a clan but only by a family, be it nuclear
or joint. This distinction can then be reinforced by the basic feature of the family, which
is its fundamental function of reproduction. This can only be fulfilled by a conjugal cou-
ple—the definitive nuclear constituent of all family types—never by a lineage or a clan
as a whole. Finally, the distinction can be established by the criterion of shared common
consumption, which is equally important in determining households and families. Daily
common meals are very normal in nuclear or extended families and can also be consumed
within joint families if there is enough living space available,â•›45 but common meals within
lineages or clans are restricted to feasts and special events, such as commemorative meals
for the dead. Socialization was primarily the function of a nuclear family unit, but other
members of the extended family or even of the lineage could supplement or be a substitute
for family members for the purposes of socializing. It was only the function of production
that could be equally well performed by either the families alone or by all possible levels
of cooperation within the greater co-residental kinship. Since in Israel the patrilineal clan
had some control of the landholdings of the families belonging to it (Num 27:1–11),â•›46 it

43.╇ Van der Toorn (2003: 409) now uses the term “local religion,” which according to him “cov-
ers both domestic and village religion.”
44.╇ See above, pp. 22–24.
45.╇ In the scenario envisioned by King and Stager (2000: 19), the common meal of the joint
family should take place in the upper story of the house of the paterfamilias, although no consider-
ation is given to whether the total of 17 people supposed by them could actually be accommodated
there.
46.╇ See also the institution of ‫ גאלה‬gĕʾullāh, meaning the duty of the closest kin from the clan
to redeem a family’s landholding if it was sold because of debt (Jer 32:7–9; Lev 25:25–28; Ruth 4:4).
 Methodological Reflections 45

is no wonder that it enjoyed privileged access to the proceeds from agricultural products.
But this close co�operation between the family and its co-residental lineage was possible
for only one of the four basic familial functions.
While the borderline between family and lineage or clan is sharply marked, the bound-
ary between the different types of family households is considerably more ambiguous.
Considering the types of most apparent difference—the nuclear family on the one hand
and the joint family on the other—we can maintain that in the former, all familial func-
tions were accomplished by the same conjugal family unit, while in the latter, the units that
achieved these functions could vary. The function of reproduction was achieved by one of
the nuclear subunits; the function of socialization was done with the cooperation of the
parents with other members of the joint family; and food processing and consumption
could be related to both. Only the function of production was accomplished by all nuclear
subunits of a joint family household together; where this was done by a nuclear family
household alone, it occurred perhaps with the support of kin outside the household. Thus
it is primarily the organization of production that distinguishes the nuclear from the joint
family household.
These considerations highlight pronounced differences across the range of the famil-
ial functions. The fundamental function of reproduction is focused on the innermost
group of the nuclear family—whether we are dealing with a nuclear family household or
a nuclear unit within a joint family. Similarly, the function of common consumption is
often related to a nuclear family household but can also include an entire joint family. The
important function of the socialization of children has a wider range of loci. Responsibil-
ity primarily belonged to the parents but was supplemented by kin both inside and out-
side the family. The widest range of focus describes the function of production; it occurs
through cooperation with close kin both inside and outside the family household and can
even include the wider co-residental lineage.

2.5.╇ Conclusions for reconstructing the Israelite family and

household religion
Having clarified that the family household in ancient Israel in all its variants consti-
tuted a clearly distinguishable social unit of its own, we may now reconstruct a specific
family and household religion, as practiced by this unit. The above clarifications suggested
the importance of the compound term family household. The reconstruction of family and
household religion should likewise be related both to the family as a kinship group with
all its variants and to the household of the family as encompassing its dwelling, its daily
activity, and its economy. At the same time, the main familial functions elucidated thus
far—reproduction, socialization, consumption, and production—provide us with a use-
ful grid of orientation. The above considerations also reveal that ancient Israelite families
rarely lived as isolated units but were (to a greater extent than usual in modern societies)
closely related to kin outside their own households and to their entire local community.
Consequently, we distinguish three different circles of family and household religion.â•›47

47.╇ Distinguishing these three circles, we are able (in response to Olyan 2008: 114–15) to give
justice to all dimensions of family religion.
46 Chapter 2

First, to the inner circle can be assigned all the rituals that were performed at the
dwelling house, which we refer to as components of a “domestic cult.” Because the houses
were occupied by nuclear families, they are identifiable as the carriers of the domestic
cult. In the cases where joint families lived in a dwelling, the entire group or one of their
nuclear subunits would have performed the domestic cult. Several rituals of the domestic
cult would have related directly to the needs of the nuclear family, especially all rituals that
had to do with the fundamental familial function of reproduction; for example, prayers
and vows for conception, birth, lactation, the survival of the infants, and others. In cases of
illness or other needs of family members, prayer rituals would have been performed inside
the houses, possibly at the beds of the afflicted. Furthermore, the daily care of the dead
that accompanied the processing and common consumption of food probably took place
inside the house next to cooking facilities. Apotropaic rites and incantations to shelter
the house and its inhabitants from evil powers also belonged to this inner circle. In joint
family households, other family members would have commonly supported the conjugal
couple in performing rituals; the pater familias would likely have performed the rites that
were important to the entire household.
Second, we distinguish a medium circle, which comprised all rites that were performed
outside the house but still somewhere in the neighborhood of a family’s house, such visit-
ing a neighborhood chapel to reinforce the making of a vow. Rites of this medium circle
would often have been supported by members of the larger kinship. This would have been
the case in mourning rites following the death of a family member or commemorative
meals held regularly for the dead and performed at family grave sites.
Third, to an outer circle we assign all the rites that would have been performed by a
family within the sphere of their public cult, in local, regional, or state sanctuaries. Not
only family members but also other kin, friends, and neighbors would usually have partic-
ipated in these celebrations. Examples may have included a sacrificial meal in the sanctu-
ary to celebrate the healing of a family member, so he could be reintegrated into the local
community, or a sacrificial meal intended to pay the promissory vows of family members.
Also the rites having to do with family production, such as the offering of agricultural
firstlings and the firstborn of domestic animals, would have belonged to this outer circle.
Here, family religion came into contact with the sphere of regional or state religion.

2.6.╇ Religious-historical concepts regarding family religion

To distinguish a family religion within a given religion requires the recognition of a
kind of religious pluralism. Among Old Testament scholars, there is still a high degree of
uncertainty about how to deal properly with the obvious pluralism in the Israelite reli-
gion. Five main concepts are used and sometimes conflated: the concept of syncretism,
the concept of approaches to life, the concept of popular religion, the concept of primary
and secondary religions, and the concept of internal religious pluralism. We first explore
these concepts in some detail in order to clarify the theoretical framework within which
family and household religion can be accurately described (see Albertz 1995: 194–200;
2008: 89–93).
 Methodological Reflections 47

2.6.1.╇ The concept of syncretism

In earlier research (e.g., Smend 1899: 45–52; von Rad 1962: 1.28–30), differences in
the beliefs and rites of preexilic Israelite religion were often explained by assuming that a
Mosaic Yhwh-religion was heavily influenced and partly modified by Canaanite religion.
In his history of Israelite religion, Ringgren (1988: 57–58) identified several diverging ten-
dencies that existed in Israelite religion by their degree of syncretism; he wrote,
The pre-exilic religion was by no means a homogeneous entity that the present scrip-
tures of the Old Testament make it out to be. The conflict and compromise between
Canaanite and Israelite traditions was still far from over. The struggle between the re-
ligion of Yahweh and the religion of Baal continued with unabated vigor. As a result,
there existed in pre-exilic Israel several divergent tendencies that cannot be under-
stood simply as manifestations of a single homogeneous faith. There existed side by
side, for example, the so-to-speak official religion of the Temple and monarchy (in the
Southern Kingdom), a popular syncretistic religion, the religion of the great literary
prophets, and the religion of the Deuteronomistic circle.
It can be generally acknowledged that influences or borrowings from outside can cause
differences within a religion; and many anti-Canaanite polemics in biblical passages seem
to suggest the presence of these sorts of influence. The case of Israel, however, presents
particular difficulties in this regard. First, we do not know whether there ever existed a
specific Canaanite religion, let alone the form it might have had if it did exist. Often when
the prophet Hosea or the Deuteronomic theologians claimed a Canaanite origin for a
particular practice, they only inveighed against a ritual or belief that they did not want to
tolerate any longer, even though it may by then have been part of the Israelite religion for
a long time.â•›48 Moreover, the beliefs and rites of ordinary people are not necessarily shaped
to any greater degree by either syncretism or official state cults. The temple and kingship
theology of Jerusalem was nothing other than a syncretistic construction (Albertz 1994:
1.114–38). And finally, we must remember that syncretism is a process, not a state. When
it is successful, foreign elements are accepted as part of the borrowing religion and no
longer seen as alien; otherwise, they are rejected.â•›49 Therefore, the argument that a certain
religious or cultic element was of syncretistic origin one hundred or five hundred years
earlier often does not explain its significance in the present religion.â•›50 Thus distinctions
must be made between actual syncretistic processes such as enriched the Yhwh-religion
in many cases and the reproach of syncretism as a device of internal theological dispute
(Albertz 1994: 1.209; 2.289–92).â•›51
48.╇ See several examples that are denoted in Albertz 1994: 1.172–73, 210–11.
49.╇ If one also uses the term syncretism for the (successful) result of the syncretistic process,
the term becomes useless because one is only saying that all religions are syncretistic; see Rudolph
(1992: 209).
50.╇ For example, it would be a fault to infer from the present use of Easter eggs or Christmas
trees in Germany that Christian faith was unable to overcome the Teutonic religion; although they
originally were fertility symbols, they were successfully integrated into the Christian symbol system.
51.╇ In this connection, we should remember that the modern term syncretism was stamped
by the inner-Christian confessional dispute in Europe during the 17th century; see Rudolph 1992:
194–95.
48 Chapter 2

One problematic aspect of this concept was made obvious in a recent example. The
archaeologist Gitin, who excavated the Philistine town of Ekron, observed that, of the
17 small stone altars found there, only 6 were found in the auxiliary building of the city
temple; 9 were found in the industrial zone and 2 in the domestic area. Twelve of the altars
he classified as portable (2000: 289–91). Gitin concluded from these data that there was a
“decentralized worship system” that was distinct from the centralized worship of the city
temple, but he explained that, “no doubt, this dual worship system was a result of Ekron’s
exposure to multiple ethnic cultic traditions when it became an international olive-oil
production centre in 7th century b.c.e.” (Gitin 2000: 289). Even if this is true, Gitin over-
looked an easier, functional explanation. The 9 altars found in the domestic and industrial
areas clearly attest a more private form of worship separate from the central temple and
constitute good evidence for the existence of a domestic cult or a workplace cult in 7th-
century Ekron. Thus, the concept of syncretism is not particularly useful for describing
family religious practices and beliefs in Israel; the case described above reveals that it can
even hinder interpretation that otherwise would support a domestic cult.

2.6.2.╇ The concept of approaches to life

In his history of Israelite religion, Fohrer (1973: 153–64; German: 1969: 145–58) tried
to distinguish the different religious movements (Glaubensströmungen) that were no-
ticeable during the monarchic period based on six different approaches to life (Daseins�
haltungen). First, he distinguished the restorative approach, which adhered to the old
Mosaic or nomadic Yhwh-religion, as supported, for example, by the Nazirites and Rech-
abites; second, the magical approach, which Fohrer considered to be strongly stamped by
the Canaanite fertility cult; third, the cultic approach, which aimed at a cultic safeguarding
of the blessing of fields and cattle by following a middle course between Yhwhâ•‚ and Ca-
naanite religion (largely influenced by, among others, the priests); fourth, the nationalist
approach, which considered the emergence of Israel as a people and state to be permanent
proof of its divine election (as in the Jahwist and Elohist traditions); fifth, the wisdom
approach, which was concerned with the education of men and the regulations for their
behavior (for example, as officials); and finally and most important, the approach to life of
the great prophets (Fohrer 1973: 267–91; German: 1969: 269–96).
Fohrer’s model has the advantage that it can incorporate and provide structure for
many different concepts of faith and is able to combine religious influences from without
with religious pluralism from within. Moreover, Fohrer tried to name support for each of
these different approaches to life. The coexistence of the different approaches and their
function in Israelite society remain unclarified, however. Were they distinct options from
which people were free to choose? Were there roles that individuals had to play in dif-
ferent social contexts? Or did the various approaches stem from group interests? Aside
from these open questions and in spite of all the religious pluralism that Fohrer was able
to describe, he overlooked the potential existence of family and household religion. The
concept of approaches to life doesn’t seem to be suitable for determining the place of family
and household religion within Israelite religion.
 Methodological Reflections 49

2.6.3.╇ The concept of popular religion

The concept of popular religion seems to be much more promising for taking fam-
ily and household religion into consideration and determining its place. Several bibli-
cal scholars (including Vorländer 1975; Greenberg 1983; Ackerman 1992; Blenkinsopp
1997; and Zwickel 1999b) and archaeologists (including Holladay 1987; and Dever 1991;
1995; 2001; and 2005) have dealt with biblical texts, inscriptions, and artifacts that can be
ascribed to family religion by using this concept. The basis idea is that ‘popular religion’
or ‘folk religion’ (in German, Volksreligion or Volksfrömmigkeit) constitutes a religious
sub-stratum that can be distinguished from any “official religion” developed by priests
or other educated scribes as supported by primary cultic and state institutions. Accord-
ingly, within the Israelite context, popular religion was a deviate or even heterodox sort of
Yhwh-religion, supported by the common or uneducated people.
As popular as the concept of popular religion seems to be among biblical scholars and
archaeologists, it nevertheless is difficult to apply it to the study of family and household
religion. First, there has been no consensus regarding a definition of the term popular
religion. While Vorländer (1986: 281) simply maintained its uneducated character by not-
ing that “the term ‘popular religion’ refers to popular ideas entertained by the Israelites
concerning God’s action in the life of the individual, the community, and in nature,” De-
ver (2001: 196) stressed its heterodox character, in that “popular religion is an alternate,
nonorthodox, nonconformist mode of religious expression. It is largely noncentralized,
noninstitutional, lying outside state priests or state sponsorship . . . it appeals especially to
minorities and disenfranchised (in the case of ancient Israel, most women).” Ackerman
(1992: 1) accords with Dever in locating it away from any kind of “official religion,” in that
“it is not the religion usually presented to us as normative in the Bible. More specifically,
it is not the religion of the Deuteronomistic school, the priests, or the prophets, the three
groups from whom the majority of our biblical texts come.” But in contrast to Dever,
Ackerman thinks that popular religion should not be considered to be heterodox (1992:
1) and does not belong to minorities, but it “was in all likelihood the majority view” (1992:
216). Unlike Ackerman and Dever, Miller (1985: 216–18), Olyan (1988: 33–37), and again
Leuenberger (2008: 153–55) tried to escape the normative implications of the concept
and thought of a more private form of piety in contrast to the public state cult (which
Miller has designated “personal religion”; Olyan “popular piety”; and Leuenberger “pri-
vate Religion”). According to Greenberg (1983: 37), popular religion denotes the “form
and practice of everyday, nonprofessional, extemporized verbal worship in ancient Israel”
in a neutral or even positive sense.
Second, because of our uncertainty about defining popular religion, very different be-
liefs and rites may potentially be incorporated into the concept in ancient Israel. In looking
for the rites and beliefs that were condemned by the prophets or the legislators, one could
name very disparate subjects. To Segal (1976), for example, popular religion connotes
ideas about women, magic, and magical practitioners, even though magic belonged also
to official priestly rituals (see Leviticus 16; Numbers 5, 19). A much more convincing sug-
gestion is provided by Ackerman (1992: 5–35), who considers the familial veneration of
the Queen of Heaven denounced by Jeremiah in 7:18 and 44:15–23 to be a typical example
50 Chapter 2

of popular religion. For Rose (1975: 213–51), the term “popular religion” denotes the re-
ligious views of the opponents of the Deuteronomic theologians or the prophet Jeremiah.
It could even have been the Zion theology that Jeremiah attacked in his temple sermon
(Jer 7:4), which clearly belonged to the official state religion of Judah. So the term used
in this way is more confusing than clarifying. Since the prophets and legislators not only
struggled against popular customs but also against the misuse of official cultic rites and
theological concepts, their polemics do not open a secure access to a nonofficial segment
of Israelite religion.â•›52
Third, even though Ackerman tried to prevent it (1992: 1–2), the term “popular re-
ligion” has a pejorative connotation. From the official perspective, it is considered to be
a more primitive kind of belief that does not satisfy the theological and ethical norms or
the intellectual standards of official theology. By classifying all nonofficial sanctuaries as
“nonconformist” cults taken from the popular religion model, Holladay (1987: 270–80)
also takes a dim view of domestic cults. It is thus not particularly helpful to characterize
all family religion as “nonconformist.”
Fourth, the dichotomous concept of official versus popular religion was not derived
from ancient Near Eastern antiquity but, as noted by Vrijhof (1979: 674), from the “insti-
tutionalized and codified Christian religion in the western world.” Summarizing this view,
Zevit (2003: 226–27) states that “the origin of the distinction lies in the relationship of the
Western Church to the indigenous religions of Europe during and after the Middle Ages.
Initially, the two were in competition; but when the Church grew in power and author-
ity through its connections with the leading social groups of the emerging nation-states,
indigenous religions were denigrated and held to be primitive superstitions.” Later, the
division between official and popular religion or Volksfrömmigkeit was taken up by the
Volkskunde of the 19th century c.e. and was developed to analyze customs of people in the
Christian—mainly Catholic—societies of Europe (Vrijhof 1979: 1–6, 668–704; Ebertz and
Schultheis 1986: 11–52). In this context, the term “popular religion” denotes a phenom-
enon in which laymen took elements of orthodox Catholic beliefs, rites, and symbols and
redefined and reused them for their own religious purposes. For example, they erected
crosses with the Corpus Christi in fields as apotropaic or fertility symbols. Thus, popular
religion in this original sense is a degenerate subtype of official Christian religion. It pre-
supposes the establishment of orthodoxy, a clear stratification between a priestly elite and
an unprofessional laity, and a supposed priestly monopoly over all benefits of salvation.â•›53
This origin of the concept raises questions such as: did similar conditions actually ob-
tain in the ancient world? or when might comparable structures have emerged? In Israel,

52.╇ Berlinerblau (1993: 12–15, 18) stressed the additional problem that the biblical polemics
show the biased view of the literati, which could have invented popular religious groups without
any clue in the historical reality. This problem must be admitted, but, in my view, can be overcome
by scrutinizing the degree of concretion shown in the polemical argument.
53.╇ Ebertz and Schultheis define Volksfrömmigkeit as follows: “Unter ‘populärer Religiosität’
sind spezifische Konfigurationen religiöser Vorstellungen und Praktiken zu verstehen, die sich in-
folge einer Monopolisierung der Definition von und der Verfügbarkeit über die ‘Heilsgüter’ bzw.
über das ‘religiöse Kapital’ bei den von der Definition von und der Verfügbarkeit über diese Heils-
güter Ausgeschlossenen herausbilden.”
 Methodological Reflections 51

the first attempts at establishing some kind of orthodoxy were not made before the late 7th
century, and even then the leading priests and scribes of emerging Judaism were neither
able nor ready to establish hierarchical institutions of power equivalent to the Catholic
Church of the Middle Ages. Thus, the concept of popular religion cannot readily be ap-
plied to the study of ancient Israelite religion, especially not family and household religion
in the monarchic period.â•›54
Due to these difficulties, the concept of popular religion has attracted increasing crit-
icism (Albertz 1978a: 14–18; Berlinerblau 1993; 1995; Zevit 2001: 662–63; 2003). The
supporters and functions of popular religion have long remained blurred in this model.
Berlinerblau demonstrated the ambiguity of the entire concept and pleaded for a more
sociologically precise methodology in order to “delineate religiosity among particular Is-
raelite groups” (1993: 18).â•›55 However, by defining the term popular religion “as a sort of
conceptual umbrella under which the investigation of women, heterodox elements, the
non-privileged classes . . . would serve as the primary objects of scholarly scrutiny” (1993:
19), Berlinerblau demonstrated his attachment to the pejorative sense of the concept. More
radical was the criticism of Zevit (2001: 230–32), who defended impartiality in describing
the beliefs and cultic practices of the basic social groups identifiable in ancient Israelite so-
ciety, whether a father’s house, a clan, a tribe, or the people as a whole. He suggested “that
it is productive to describe both the (i.e., cultic) sites and Israelite religion as expressions
of known ancient social realities. This is preferable to describing them in dichotomous
terms, lacking social referents in ancient culture” (2001: 233). With this statement, Zevit
came close to the concept of internal religious pluralism that will be considered below.

2.6.4.╇ The concept of primary and secondary religion

The concept of primary and secondary religion, which has become more prominent in
recent years, is not drawn from ancient Near Eastern cultures either. Sundermeier (1980;
1999) developed it for describing and evaluating the process and the result of Christian
mission, especially in the southern parts of Africa. According to him, the term primary
religion denotes the religions of the autochthonous tribal societies that are characterized
by (among other things) a stabilizing life within and the coherence of societies of a cer-
tain small scale. Primary religion is presented here without reference to any alternative.
In contrast, the term secondary religion denotes the world religions, such as Christianity,
Islam, or Buddhism, which are related to complex societies and characterized by individu-
alism, a decision made between alternatives, elaborated doctrine, and claims of universal
validity, among other things. Often secondary religions were initiated by seers, prophets,
or reformers. With his concept, Sundermeier aimed toward a more positive valuation of
the surviving elements of autochthonous religions in the beliefs and rituals of African and
Asian churches.
54.╇ That the concept can become more fruitful if one divests it from its normative and pejo-
rative Christian elements was perhaps illustrated by a conference on “Official Cult and Popular
Religion in the Ancient Near East,” held in 1992 in Tokyo with a Japanese cultural perspective; see
Matsushima 1993.
55.╇ Berlinerblau (1993: 16) refers more to economically defined groups than to natural groups
such as the family, in contrast to Wach (1944: 58–79), to whom Berlinerblau refers on p. 15 n. 36.
52 Chapter 2

After Assmann (1990) adapted Sundermeier’s model for describing characteristics and
changes in ancient Egyptian religion, the concept of primary and secondary religions was
studied further by biblical scholars (Niehr 1999; Wagner 2006; Leuenberger 2008). For
Niehr (1999: 64–66), the religions of Israel and Judah during the monarchic period be-
longed to the category of primary religion; they were focused on conveying the structures
of cosmic order and were not religions of confession. According to him, Israelite religion
first showed signs of being a secondary religion under the prophets but did not become a
religion of confession focused on the relationship between god and men before the Per-
sian and Hellenistic periods. Leuenberger (2008: 77–108) uses the categories primary and
secondary religion to describe the process of theologizing, which the concept of blessing
in Israel underwent.
It is obvious that several criteria have arisen for determining primary and secondary
religions and have further been used to distinguish between official and popular religions.
Moreoever, the concept of primary and secondary religion has the advantage that it avoids
all normative and pejorative implications of the concept of official and popular religion.
However, as the primary-secondary concept has been developed to this point, it offers no
space to accommodate family religion. Sundermeier himself distinguished only small-
scale and large-scale societies but was not interested in subdivisions of tribal societies.â•›56
Leuenberger (2008: 81) even relinquishes any sociological linkage, although he concedes
that family religion might almost belong to the category of “primary religion.” The con-
cept is restricted for him to a description of religious experiences in terms of content.
Thus, the concept of primary and secondary religion is not suited to describing family
and household religion as a segment of Israelite religion (see Schmitt 2006). The simple
dichotomy leaves lingering doubts about whether the entire concept is suitable for de-
scribing the inherently complex developments of any religion at all.â•›57

2.6.5.╇ The concept of internal religious pluralism

The last explanation for religious and ritual diversity is sociological. Since all higher
societies may be subdivided into different types of groups, the religious symbols and prac-
tices that are closely related to the needs of these groups also differ to a greater or lesser
extent. In traditional societies at least, three levels of societal groups can readily be dis-
tinguished: the family, the local community, and the whole people, whether the whole
people is organized into a tribe or a state (which in premodern times constituted more
separate spheres of life than today, however interrelated they were).â•›58 Since ancient Israel

56.╇ Sundermeier (1995: 204) simply replaced the term family with a term that denotes a small-
scale or tribal society, although his reference to tribes as Kleingruppe (‘small groups’; Sundermeier
1999: 40) alters the meaning of a term conventionally reserved to denote families or groups of a very
limited scale (for example, of less than 20 members).
57.╇ In 2005, Wagner organized a symposium in Heidelberg aiming to evaluate the concept ac-
cording to many scholars of ancient Near Eastern and ancient Mediterranean religions. The major-
ity of the participants were variously opposed to it (Wagner 2006); see, for example, the negative
judgment of Grünschloß (2006: 253–58) from the perspective of Religionswissenschaft.
58.╇ A similar, group-oriented approach has been developed by the German-American Reli-
gionswissenschaftler and sociologist Wach (1944: 54–109). In his Sociology of Religions, under the
 Methodological Reflections 53

was such a traditional society, at least two or three levels of Israelite religion can be clearly
distinguished (Albertz 1978a: 2–3, 11–13; 1994: 1.18–21; 1995: 197–200): a personal piety
related to the family; an official religion related to the whole people; and in between—and
not as clearly able to to be described as the other two—a local religion related to a village
or town.â•›59 The two or three levels of religion differ from one another with respect to their
supporters, their target groups, their degree of institutionalization, and their religious be-
liefs, practices, and functions. Following Lanczkowski (1981: 50–55), who described simi-
lar phenomena in the Greek, Chinese, and Mayan religions, this concept has been labeled
internal religious pluralism (Albertz 1978a) and defined as a structural pluralism that is
related to the substructures of society.
The concept has been variously adopted by several others (M. Weippert 1997: 9–19;
van  der Toorn 1996: 2–4; Stolz 1996: 111, 124–35; Miller 2000: 62–105; Gerstenberger
2001: 26–152).â•›60 For example, Weippert distinguishes between family religion, local reli-
gion, and state religion. Miller provides a little more detail by taking social and historical
developments into account; he differentiates between family religion, local and regional
cults, the cultus of the Israelite confederation, the state religions of Judah and Israel, and
community religion. And van der Toorn thinks the clan to be more the supporter of fam-
ily religion in distinction to the local level, because a clan often constitutes an entire settle-
ment.â•›61 Some who have subscribed to the “popular religion” model have done so in ways
that have made apparent the ambiguity of distinction between it and the concept of “inter-
nal religious pluralism.”â•›62 With regard to family religion, the more feminist approaches of
Bird (1987: 387–410; 1991: 102–4) and Meyers (1997: 39–40; 2002: 283–301) also largely
accord with this model.
The concept internal religious pluralism also has the advantage of permitting a value-
free description of family religion as well as a self-contained unit standing in relation to
the local and state levels of Israelite society. Doubts have been expressed about whether

heading “Religion and Natural Groups,” he distinguished family cults, kinship cults, local cults,
racial cults, national cults, and cult associations based on sex and age, which accord in many re-
spects to our conceptual distinctions in this book. Although his book was translated into German
immediately after World War II (Wach 1951: 60–132), unfortunately Wach’s approach, because of
his emigration and early death, did not become influential in Germany.
59.╇ This third level has been borrowed from Lang 1983: 271–301, although not developed in
detail.
60.╇ A second important study that also influenced this branch of research was the book of
Vorländer (1975), who investigated the concept of personal god in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia.
61.╇ For the interrelation between nuclear family, joint family, and clan, see above, pp. 41–45.
In accordance with Joshua 7, Zevit distinguished five societal levels in Israel: the individual, the fa-
ther’s house, the clan, the tribe, and the people. However, in ancient Israel, the individual and family
levels constituted one unit, the clan or clans could be equated with the local level, and the tribe or
the confederation of tribes belonged to a level similar to the state as far as the pre-state society was
concerned.
62.╇ For example, biblical texts that have previously been used as typical examples of popular
religion (Jer 7:16; 44:15–23) have also lent themselves to insightful analysis from the perspective
of “family and household religion” (Ackerman 2008: 127–58). Dever, in his more recent studies,
occasionally uses the terms “folk” or “popular religion” and “family religion” synonymously (2001:
173; 2005: 176, 240).
54 Chapter 2

there is any great difference between family religions and religions found at local or of-
ficial levels (Jeremias and Hartenstein 1999: 79–86; Leuenberger 2008: 16, 99, 153, 173;
Bodel and Olyan 2008a: 278–79),â•›63 but the degree of continuity or disjunction between
these levels is entirely unconstrained by the concept internal religious pluralism.â•›64 It will be
shown that the distinctiveness of family religion is rooted in “a very specifically declared
relationship” between the family members, “which is distinguished from any other rela-
tion of social interaction in a given society” (Nave-Herz 2002: 149).â•›65 These fundamen-
tal structural distinctions must be understood as separate from the distinctions of social
stratification, professions, or economic conditions. Differences between families can lead
to subdivisions of family religion, providing them with slightly different external forms, as
exemplified by the “personal theology of the rich” and the “piety of the poor,” as happened
within Judean society in the Persian period,â•›66 but these differences do not alter the inner
kernel of family religion.â•›67
A few terminological problems remain to be clarified. Instead of personal piety, we
prefer the term family and household religion, in which we include the personal faith of
family members. By using this combined term, we intend to ensure that the whole range
of this segment of Israelite religion is included. This whole range covers the local center
of family religion, or the domestic cult, and all other ritual and cultic activities wherever
they are performed by the family group—whether, for example, a commemorative meal
at the tombs of ancestors or a sacrificial meal in a local or even state sanctuary.â•›68 We also
avoid using the term women’s cult to connote a wider family cult. Its use by Dever (2005:
236–40) was probably influenced by the idea that “popular religion” is a religion of a sup-
pressed people (Dever 1991: 64–65). The roles of women were of indisputable importance
in family cults, but it must be stressed that women enacted these cults not only for them-
selves but also for their families; furthermore, in many cases, men as well as women par-
ticipated in family rituals, as conceded by Dever (2001: 195–96; 2005: 237, 240).
We use the term official religion to denote more than just the practices that were
otherwise ascribable to the religion of state institutions. This term is preferable to state

63.╇ Jeremias and Hartenstein still use the inexact terminology of Volksreligion; they interpreted
the cult stand from Taanach, for example, as symbolizing the temple theology, which was trans-
ferred to the house cult. Bodel and Olyan pointed to the so-called “temple models” used in the
domestic cult. Regardless, they concede that the lack of meat offerings in the domestic cult marks a
clear difference between it and the local and state cults.
64.╇ See in this respect the different assessments made for different ancient Near Eastern and
Mediterranean cultures at the conference held in Providence, 2005 (Bodel and Olyan 2008b).
65.╇ See above, pp. 21–22.
66.╇See Albertz 1994: 2.511–23.
67.╇ In a critical evaluation of an early study on this subject (Albertz 1978a), Berlinerblau (1993:
17) contends that economic situation, gender, or special religious devotion may have been more im-
portant for an individual than his affiliation to his family. Although this may be the case in modern
times, these factors seem to have played only a minor role in the shaping of family religion as shared
by individuals in ancient times.
68.╇ Similar to Ackerman (2008: 128), Olyan (2008: 115) prefers family religion as “a useful de-
scriptive and analytical term for the study of the first-millennium Israelite cult.” The term household
religion seems to him less attractive, “since it does not communicate the larger, clan dimension of
first-millennium Israelite family religion.”
 Methodological Reflections 55

religion in particular because the form of political organization changed several times in
the history of ancient Israel, from a tribal league to a state and a substate community. But
the term official must not be presumed to denote a religion that was valid for the entire
society; rather, it refers only to the religion that claimed to be valid for the entire society.
Therefore, not only the state religion of kings and priests but also the opposing preaching
of the prophets belonged to the official religion in this paradigm, because they both related
to the same target group, which was the whole people and its fate. Although the term folk
religion would constitute the logical opposite of family religion, its use is eschewed here
because of its alternative meaning in the context of Volkskunde. The official religion of
ancient Israel in the monarchic period and later was never a monolith; it comprised com-
peting theologies, all of which fought to be a major influence on society. Compared with
the changing theological concepts and ongoing disputes over the levels of official religion,
family religion was the permanent and conformist basis of Israelite religion for most of
the monarchic period.â•›69

2.7.╇ Family and household religion within the religion of Israel

Following the model of internal religious pluralism, one can distinguish at least three
different levels of Israelite religion—family, local, and state levels—in the monarchic pe-
riod, which primarily reflect the different needs of their target groups. Among these, the
family and household religion is provided with its own spheres and characteristics and can
therefore be investigated as a separate segment of Israelite religion.
But this heuristical separation does not mean that family and household religion
constituted an isolated unit within the religion of Israel. We have already seen that the
religious activities of families, because of their integration within wider clans and local
communities, were not restricted to domiciles but also included rites in larger neighbor-
hoods and sacrificial meals at local, regional, and even state sanctuaries.â•›70 We thus must
reckon with the mutual influences of family religion and local or state religion. It is highly
likely that families adapted themselves to the religious symbols of their environment and
integrated those symbols into their own symbolic systems. One example of this sort of
state influence on family religion is the process through which the national god Yhwh
became the most prominent family god in Israel and Judah after the 8th century b.c.e.
Further possible influences from local cult places, where cultic stones and trees seem to
have symbolized the presence of gods and goddesses, may have led to the goddess Ashe-
rah (and later, Ishtar) gaining an important position in family religion.â•›71 However, family
religion also influenced state religion. When the Deuteronomic reformers created the first
comprehensive Judean official theology in the late 7th century b.c.e., they adopted, for

69.╇ In contrast to Holladay (1987: 270–75), who ascribed the domestic cult installations to
“nonconformist sanctuaries and shrines.”
70.╇ See above, pp.  45–46. Note that the three circles mentioned there cannot be identified
with the three levels conceptualized in the model of internal religious pluralism.
71.╇ However, it must have been limited in some way, because Asherah never was used in theo-
phoric names.
56 Chapter 2

example, a familial blessing spell (Deut 28:3–6, 16–19) in order to provide their covenant
concept with divine rewards and punishments.
Mutual influences also obtained, of course, simply because every Israelite or Judean
was a member of all of these groups at different societal levels and therefore shared over-
lapping group identities. A man could be the father of a family, an elder of a clan or a local
community, and an official at court. A woman could be not only the mother of a family but
also an important person in the local social network and a member of the people of Israel.
Thus everyone played different roles related to the different foci of his or her identity. Mol
(1976: 142–201) recognized the need for a distinction between (1) the religious process
of creating and safeguarding identity through sacralization and (2) these different levels
of identity, which can come into tension with one another. This provides a solid reason
to conceive of internal religious pluralism from the individual point of view (see Albertz
1994: 1.18–21). But, of course, playing his/her different roles, the individual had to find
compromises between the different levels of his/her identity; thus, some degree of mutual
influence between the religious, symbolic worlds pertaining to the individuals was natu-
ral. Generally speaking, the degree of mutual interchange between these levels of identity
was higher the more a person was entrusted with public functions, whether the functions
were judicial, political, prophetic, or priestly. For example, the religion of the family of a
leading priest or a high official would have been influenced more by the state or temple
religion than the religion of a simple farmer without any public function. In spite of this,
even the family religions of officials and priests in the capital remained distinguishable
from official court and temple theology, because the general needs of their families were
different from the needs of the state for which they worked.
Thus one can see the benefits of investigating family and household religion as a seg-
ment of its own, while always taking care not to overlook its possible interrelations with
other segments of Israelite religion.â•›72After having clarified the proper theoretical frame-
work, we are now well equipped to study the family and household religion of ancient
Israel and Judah during the preexilic period.
72.╇ For more details regarding the course of Israelite history, see Albertz 1994: 1.23–39, 94–
103, 186–95; 2.399–411, 507–22, 556–63.
 Chapter 3

Elements of Domestic Cult

in Ancient Israel

3.1.╇Methodology
Interest in the topic of family religion in Israel and its ancient Near Eastern environ-
ment has increased, particularly during the last decade.â•›1 Much of this work, however, has
focused more on literary evidence than on archaeological material, though more-recent
studies have shown the importance of archaeological finds for the reconstruction of family
religion in ancient Israel and Palestine (Daviau 2001; Albertz 2008: 94; Schmitt 2008: 159).
A short survey of archaeological evidence for sacred places in Iron Age Israel and Judah
is given by B. Alpert Nakhai (2001: 161–93).â•›2 Without typological differentiation of cultic
patterns, however, the archaeological features of family religion remain largely undeter-
mined (Zwickel 1990: 38 n. 137). Our aim in this book is to distinguish archaeological
features related to religious activities in households or larger neighborhoods and to refine
the typology of cult places and cultic activities in Iron Age living quarters.
Patterns of assemblages of objects and pottery have only occasionally been noted by
excavators. Furthermore, the assemblages have rarely been related to characteristic activ-
ities in domestic units. Excavation reports past and present tend to present material in dia-
chronic or typological groups rather than in locus groups (Meyers 2002: 429), effectively
preventing reconstruction of the relationships of objects to one another and to the larger
assemblages. This is especially true in older excavation reports with comparatively poorly
systematized records. Yet even in more recent reports, little attention has been given to
locus grouping. Furthermore, although S.  Geva in her study on the domestic quarters
and the house furnishings of 8th-century Hazor (Geva 1989) noted the significance of
assemblages for domestic activities in general, she nevertheless did not interpret this ev-
idence in relation to domestic cult activities. This oversight enabled her to conclude that

1.╇ Ackerman 1992; 2008; Albertz 1978a; 1995; 1996–97: 45–68, 143–57, 291–304, 327–37;
2004: 429–30; 2008; Nakhai 2001; Blenkinsopp 1997: 48–103; Gerstenberger 2001: 26–77; Lang
2002: 137–72; Meyers 2002; van der Toorn 1994; 1996b; Winter 1983: 127–34; Zwickel 1990: 38,
277–303; for a recent overview, see the contributions in Bodel and Olyan 2008b.
2.╇ Following the results of an unpublished dissertation by Nakhai’s student E.  A.  R. Willett
(1999), which analyzed domestic structures from Tel Masos, Tell el-Farʿah, Beersheba, and Tel Halif.

57
58 Chapter 3

the inhabitants of Hazor were not religiously inclined and that religion did not feature
prominently in their lives (Geva 1989: 110).â•›3
In his report on the Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh excavations, J. B. Pritchard (1985: 72) classified
the findings of the Stratum V living quarters into 7 groups based on function, thereby
enabling a general description of activities typical of domestic areas. The 7 groups were:

• vessels and containers (including bowls, jugs, juglets, cooking pots, and small
vessels made of faience and alabaster),
• lamps,
• tools and weapons (including bone tools, sickles, plow points, and spindle
whorls),
• articles of personal adornment (including beads, fibulae, rings, and shells),
• equipment for the preparation of food (including mortars, stone bowls, and
tripod bowls),
• nonutilitarian objects (including anthropoid and zoomorphic figurines, tripod-
cups, and seals), and
• miscellaneous objects (including alabaster bowls, and clay and metal disks).

J. S. Holladay (1987) highlighted the importance of assemblages for the identifica-

tion of cultic activities and for the classification of their different levels. He differentiated
between national or town sanctuaries (such as Dan), neighborhood shrines, and domes-
tic areas of religious activity.â•›4 Besides the forms of “establishment cultus,” Holladay dis-
tinguished “nonconformist” places of worship, which were characterized by extramural
locations (as with, for example, Samaria E207 and Jerusalem Cave 1) and contained “for-
eign” material, such as human and animal figurines, model birds and furniture, or vessels
serving food or drink offerings. Furthermore, domestic cult assemblages that occurred in
small clusters in domestic quarters typically contained elements of “distributed” or “non-
conformist” cults, such as anthropoâ•‚ or zoomorphic figurines or vessels, model furniture,
model lamps, cup and saucer vessels, or small cuboidal limestone altars. In addition to
the concept of “nonconformist” cults, Holladay distinguished between several levels of
cult and their associated cultic apparati. Moreover, O. Negbi (1993: 227) described cultic
elements in secular contexts, thus positing this phenomenon as a goal for future studies,
in that “the function of several distinctive types of cult objects found in both secular and
sacred contexts of the 10th century is of utmost importance for the study of Israelite reli-
gious practice.” Recent studies, especially the monograph by P. M. M. Daviau (1993) on
house furnishings in Middle and Late Bronze houses in Palestine and excavations such
as the joint Canadian/American mission at Tell Jawa, Jordan, have shown the great in-
sight to be gained by analyzing assemblages, especially those from domestic contexts. The
Tell Jawa excavations, directed by Daviau, uncovered domestic assemblages consisting of
terra-cotta figurines, various types of small or miniature vessels, luxury vessels, and liba-
tion and non�utilitarian vessels, partly from the upper story (Daviau 2001). Assemblages

3.╇ As the analysis of the domestic cult remains from Hazor will reveal (see pp. 102–106), this
assertion appears to be quite unlikely.
4.╇ For discussion of which, see chap. 4 below.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 59

of these sorts reveal the diversity of patterns that must be considered when scholars reex-
amine older reports. In particular, the items suggestive of cultic functions, including non�
utilitarian vessels such as censer (tripod)-cups, kernos rings, miniature altars, decorated
stands with religious symbolism, and human and animal figurines can be attributed to a
first category (A) of diagnostic objects. To this group can also be added the fenestrated
and decorated stands that often occur in clear cultic contexts.â•›5 A second category (B) of
diagnostic items includes other types of stands (that are not necessarily of cultic use, such
as simple pot stands), luxury and miniature vessels, objects of personal adornment, game
pieces, and “collectibles” (such as shells and worked or unworked stones) that may also
have served cultic functions, especially in conjunction with objects in the first category.
However, there are several problems with pursuing this research. First, although the
presence of figurines may play a primary role in identifying cultic assemblages, most of the
finds are fragments, with regard to which one must keep in mind that “the fragments indi-
cate disposal patterns after use, rather than actual use-patterns” (Kletter 1996: 57). These
concerns also apply to mass loci such as pits, pools, cisterns, streets, and other places.
Second, the relationships between the objects found beyond singularly defined loci must
remain vague, because they could have been used independently or over various periods
of time (see Kletter 2004: 2079). Thus, objects from one room may not necessarily bear
any relation to one another, if they were not found together in a clear locus. Moreover, an
excavated distribution pattern need not in any case relate to actual patterns of use, because
an assemblage may be disturbed by the destruction of a structure (Daviau 1993: 52). This
is especially true for objects that formerly belonged to a second story, which subsequently
fell down onto the first floor, an adjacent structure, or into the street. Third, small objects
such as seals, amulets, or fragments of figurines are easily able to “travel” between loci and
strata, and thus their presence may be inconclusive. On the other hand, if fragments of
one type of object are repeatedly found in similar contexts (which is especially the case for
figurine fragments, for example), the significance of them as a pattern must be considered.
Fourth, burials have their own specific problems, because they often have been used
over long periods of time, and objects found together may have belonged to different buri-
als. Nevertheless, the presence of cultic objects in otherwise noncultic structures should
not be dismissed as meaningless. Fifth, the presence of nonutilitarian pottery must be
interpreted carefully. The designation of a locus as cultic generally requires the presence of
more than one object.â•›6 Moreover, imposing a cultic interpretation onto objects of other-
wise unclear use must be done carefully. This is particularly the case with standing stones
or worked pieces of stone, sometimes interpreted as altars or maṣṣebôt (see Bloch-Smith
2005), as well as with stands that may also have served utilitarian purposes. Thus, the rela-
tionships of utilitarian to nonutilitarian objects are of utmost importance.
Sixth, the identification of an assemblage requires consideration of its character as
a whole (for example, its use for food and/or drink storage, preparation, or consump-
tion). Seventh, the relation of an assemblage to the room or locus in which it was found
and to installations within the room (such as benches or ovens) must also be considered.

5.╇ See below, pp. 68–69.

6.╇ This seems especially to be a problem in Daviau’s interpretations; see below, pp. 178–182.
60 Chapter 3

Eighth, the nature of the architecture is of utmost importance (whether it is, for example,
domestic, industrial, or public), as is the general character of a room (whether it is a stor-
age room, a kitchen used for the preparation and/or consumption of food and drink, or a
living or sleeping room).
Although necessarily a speculative enterprise, the examination of older excavation re-
ports to reconstruct possible assemblages or to list objects of possible ritual use in domes-
tic cults appears promising.

3.2.╇ Diagnostic objects and cult patterns

In this section, we discuss the functions and uses of the main groups of diagnostic
objects in categories A and B in order to determine the basic patterns of possible ritual
actions for which they were used. All other objects of clearly utilitarian purposes are in-
cluded in category C.

3.2.1.╇ Diagnostic objects of category A

3.2.1.1.╇ Terra-cotta figurines as elements of domestic cult
Archaeologists working in Israel during the last one hundred years have uncovered a
vast corpus of terra-cotta figurines in contexts from the Late Bronze Age to the Persian
and Hellenistic periods. Most of the objects found thus far are clearly female, with a much
smaller number being male. These objects are of primary importance in determining do-
mestic cult activities. The prevalence of these figurines among the small finds from the
biblical period has prompted the question whether they can be identified with divine rep-
resentations and certain goddesses mentioned in the Old Testament.

3.2.1.1.1.╇ Biblical references to anthropomorphic cult objects

The narrative and prophetic texts of the Old Testament (although notably not the legal
texts) deal several times with ‫ תרפים‬tĕrāpîm, which can be interpreted as divine repre-
sentations or representations of ancestors. The term tĕrāpîm, which can be used in the
singular as well as the plural, seems to be a Hebrew loanword from the Hittite or Luwian
tarpiš, meaning ‘demon’ or ‘protective spirit’, similar to the Akkadian šēdu.â•›7 The Septua-
gint translates tĕrāpîm as εἴδωλον (‘divine representation’ or ‘idol’) or γλυπτός (‘carved
image’), while the targums use slm/slmnʿ (‘image’) or dmʾn (‘figurines’). The term tĕrāpîm
itself appears 15 times in the OT.â•›8 Gen 31:19, 34, and 35 speak clearly of tĕrāpîm as small-
scale cultic objects: Rachel steals and hides her father’s tĕrāpîm in her saddlebag or under
the saddle-cloth. In Judg 17:4–5, Micah makes two ritual objects for the newly founded
sanctuary. The first is the ‫ אפוד‬ʾepōd, the second the tĕrāpîm. Both belong together with

7.╇ Other etymologies such as deriving from ‫ תרף‬trp ‘rotten’ (Fohrer 1966: 1952) or ‫ רפא‬rpʾ ‘to
heal’ or ‫ רפאים‬rĕpaʾîm ‘healer’ / ‘spirit of the dead’ (Tropper 1989: 334) are both etymologically and
semantically problematic. Today most scholars prefer an etymology from tarpiš (Seybold 1978:
1057; van der Toorn and Lewis 1999: 766; Lewis 2000: 845).
8.╇ In Gen 31:19, 34–35; Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17, 18, 20; 1 Sam 15:23; 19:13, 16; 2 Kgs 23:24; Ezek
21:26; Hos 3:4; and Zech 10:2.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 61

the ‫ פסל ומסכה‬pesel ūmassekāh as objects necessary for the sanctuary (see also Judg 18:14,
17, 18, and 20). 1€Sam 15:23 is a Deuteronomistic polemic against certain forms of reli-
gious practice. The tĕrāpîm are here mentioned in the context of qōsēm ‘divination’. 1€Sam
19:8–24 describes David’s escape from Saul’s men. To help her husband to escape, Michal,
in 1 Sam 19:13, 16, puts a cloth-covered tĕrāpîm in the bed, along with a wig of goat’s
hair, saying her husband is lying sick in bed. 2 Kgs 23:24 deals with tĕrāpîm in the context
of the Josianic reform, mentioning them together with the ‫ אבות‬ʾobôt (‘oracle pit’), the
‫ ידענים‬yiddĕʿonîm (‘wizards’, that is, mantic specialists), and the ‫ גללים‬gillulîm (from ‫גל‬
gl ‘excrement’; therefore: ‘gods of shit’)â•›9 as being among the “abominations” abolished by
Josiah. Ezek 21:26€mentions the tĕrāpîm in the context of certain mantic practices, such
as the throwing of arrows, and liver oracles made by the king of Babylon during the siege
of Jerusalem. In Hos 3:4, tĕrāpîm appear together with the ‫ אפוד‬ʾepōd, ‫ מצבות‬maṣṣebôt,
and sacrifices as being absent from the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom for a long
time. Zech 10:2 is a polemic against false oracles, mentioning the tĕrāpîm together with
the ‫ קוסמים‬qōsemîm ‘diviners’ (see Schmitt 2004: 342 n. 30). As Seybold (1978) has rightly
observed, tĕrāpîm in the OT are interpreted as a variety of cultic objects. In Genesis 31,
the tĕrāpîm (or, as they were called in vv. 30 and 32, ‫ אלהים‬ʾĕlōhîm) are obviously a min-
iature representation of a divine being, most likely the god of the house or the family, or
figurines of Laban’s ancestors, which he considered priceless. The interpretation of tĕrāpîm
as ancestor figurines is supported by the additional observations that, in 1 Sam 28:13 and
Isa 8:19, the term ʾĕlōhîm should be understood to refer to the spirit of a deceased person.
Because the word tĕrāpîm is often used in contexts of necromantic practices, particularly
the interrogation of them in Ezek 21:26 and their utterances in Zech 10:2, they can also
be interpreted as ancestor figurines. In the same sense, 2 Kgs 23:24 and Deut 18:11—the
“program” for the cult reform—use ‫ מתים‬metîm (‘the dead’) instead of tĕrāpîm. Less clear
is the meaning of tĕrāpîm in Judg 17:4–5; 18:14, 17, 18, and 20, where the term is clearly
differentiated from the carved and cast images but is used together with ʾepōd, which was
most likely a cultic object made of cloth. The tĕrāpîm in Micah’s sanctuary and the object
used by Michal in 1 Samuel 19 have been considered a kind of cultic mask, particularly be-
cause the 1 Samuel description necessitates its being bigger than a figurine (Elliger 1962:
691; Seybold 1978: 1058; Fohrer 1966: 1952).
In short, the term tĕrāpîm can refer to different cult objects of anthropomorphic ap-
pearance. However, because most references in the OT suggest connections with ances-
tor cults, tĕrāpîm are perhaps best understood as figurines of (male) ancestors used in
the context of domestic and familial religion, especially for interrogating ancestor spir-
its (Lewis 1989; Loretz 1992; van der Toorn 2002). Furthermore, the ‫ צלמי מסכות‬ṣalmê
massēkōt in Num 33:52 and the ‫ צלמי זכר‬ṣalmê zākār in Ezek 16:17 could include objects
of plastic art as well as the above-mentioned gillulîm. Therefore, the OT provides evidence
for the existence and use of small cultic objects in general but no direct evidence regarding
female terra-cotta figurines and their use. These require recourse to archaeology.

9.╇ For discussion, see Schmitt 2004: 186.

62 Chapter 3

3.2.1.1.2.╇ The function and meaning of female terra-cotta figurines╛10

Soon after the completion of two decades of archaeological field work, Pilz presented
the first analysis of the female figures in “Die weiblichen Gottheiten Kanaans” (1924). He
differentiated four types of figurines: nude women with their hands clutched in front of
their breasts (denoted Type A); nude women holding flowers with their arms at their sides
(Type B); nude women with their arms at their sides (Type C); and pillar figurines and
their subtypes (Type D). Pilz declared the figurines to be representations of sex and fertil-
ity goddesses. However, he denied their identification with any of the goddesses known
from the OT or ancient Near Eastern texts. Although the figurines seem somewhat akin
to the Babylonian Ishtar and the Phoenician Ashtarte, Pilz was not able to identify them
positively on the basis of the archaeological material (1924: 167). May (1935: 28), the exca-
vator of Megiddo, agreed with Pilz in general but considered the figurines from graves to
represent consorts of the dying and resurrection god and, therefore, to be protectors of the
dead. Like Pilz and May, Galling (1937: 233) refuted simple identification with any of the
known goddesses, although he did go one step further in that he considered the goddesses
represented by the figurines to be consorts of Yhwh and thus to represent the powers of
the vis naturae within the private sphere of the Israelite house. Pritchard’s 1943 study sum-
marized the findings achieved thus far by declaring that “from the foregoing we are forced
to conclude that there is no direct evidence connecting the nude female figure . . . with any
of the prominent goddesses” (Pritchard 1943: 86). The function of the figurines thus could
only be interpreted as “symbolic of womankind in general” because of the “reproductive
feature of the female figure” (1943: 87). In distinction to the highly differentiated views of
Pilz, Galling, and Pritchard, Albright identified all nude female figurines with Ashtarte.â•›11
Although he did not provide detailed reasons for this identification, it was subsequently
widely adopted, including in Holland’s typological study (Holland 1977).
Remarkably, more-thorough studies of the archaeological material were not under-
taken until more than three decades after Pritchard’s study. The first attempt was Holland’s
(1977) work on the figurines from Cave 1 in Jerusalem, although he focused primarily
on the typology of the objects. Engle presented his study in 1979, followed by Ahlström,
Hestrin, and many others, most of whom identified the Judean pillar-figurines (JPF) with
Asherah, mostly by reasoning that their pillar-like forms resemble the Asherah-cult sym-
bol that appear in Iron Age iconography (Engle 1979: 52; Ahlström 1984: 136; Hestrin
1987: 221; van der Toorn 2002). A singularly important study is the monumental book by
Winter, Frau und Göttin, which was first published in 1983. Winter denied the one-sided
interpretations and identifications in accord with Albright’s multifunctional interpreta-
tion of the figurines based on iconographic and archaeological criteria. He thus consid-
ered the figurines to serve different purposes:

10.╇ Because the history of this research has been treated extensively by Kletter (1996: 10–27),
only the important steps and arguments will be discussed here.
11.╇ Albright 1939: 118–20; idem 1953: 114–15. See also among others: Petrie 1928: 17; Cook
1930: 122–28. Just in case of the Iron Age IIC plaque-types with both hands lying on the belly
Albright was more careful: “In no case we can label them with the name of a goddess” (1953: 115).
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 63

• utilitarian use: figurines with hands on bellies served to secure the process of
birth,
• pillar-figurines: used as a sort of household icon, serving the “eroticization” of the
household,
• figurine function: ex voto for pleas, and
• burial offerings: figurines secured “female magic” for the deceased after death.
(Winter 1987: 129–31)

Winter (1987: 127; and also Schroer 1987: 334 n.189) concluded that the figurines—
though not to be identified with any of the goddesses known from literature—served
more generally as protectors and mediators and also as representations of the sex appeal
of the goddess. The various aspects of goddesses were thus encapsulated more in a phe-
nomenological way using the term “Syrian Goddess,” which was thus presumed to be the
ideal representation of womankind (Winter 1987: 93, following Helck 1971). Despite the
important contribution of Winter’s iconographic studies, several aspects of his work are
problematic. In particular, the concept of a general “Syrian Goddess” and all aspects as-
sociated with and attributed to her is little more than an archetypal Jungian cliché.â•›12
Similarly, Wenning (1991a) interpreted the female figurines used as burial offerings as
representing a deity of personal protection identified with Asherah—a syncretistic form
of the astralized Ishtar—who provided the deceased with the blessings and benefits of
the eternal powers of womankind (des Ewigweiblichen), while the male horse-and-rider
figurines were interpreted as Baal Šamim or Yhwh as paredros of the goddess. Like Win-
ter, Hübner (1989: 53) emphasized both the multifunctional use of the objects and the
view of the figurines as representations of one of the great goddesses. He argued that the
figurines represent goddesses because most of them were found broken and had been
destroyed during iconoclastic actions of fanatic devotees of Yhwh. A different argument
was proposed by Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §195): the Judean pillar-figurines were likely
to be identified with Asherah but, rather than representing a cult symbol for the tree as
proposed by Engle (1979), they represented the goddess herself. The anthropomorphic
representation of Asherah fits the more general trend found in glyptic representations
of the moon-god as well as biblical hints of the female form of Asherah in the Temple of
Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:7). In their functional interpretation of the figurines, Keel and Ueh-
linger accord with Winter’s thesis. A more general conclusion from both archaeological
and textual evidence points to a strong relationship between family religion and the cult
of Asherah. Keel and Uehlinger were more cautious in identifying the older Late Bronze
and early Iron Age plaque types because of the highly variable iconography, even though
relation with the goddesses Ashtarte, Anat, and Asherah seems highly plausible (Keel and
Uehlinger 1998: §58; a similar conclusion was found by Cornelius 2004: 102). An iden-
tification of the JPFs with Ishtar was proposed by ʾAmr (1988: 55), who asserted that, in
general, female figurines could be interpreted as “symbols of the numerous qualities of the
goddess Ishtar.” Primarily on the basis of textual evidence from Mesopotamia, he inter-

12.╇ For further critique, see: Lipiński 1986: 90; H. Weippert 1990: 106; Albertz 1992: 133 n. 114;
Schmitt 1994: 146.
64 Chapter 3

preted the gesture of holding the breasts to signify the giving of milk, thus also invoking
Tammuz as the giver of milk.â•›13
The most recent and most extensive monograph on Israelite figurines was published by
Kletter in 1996. Though the main purpose of Kletter’s study was to posit a typology of the
JPFs, he also discussed the contexts and functions of the figurines. This study confirmed
the previously established hypothesis that, although the figurines came from different
contexts, they were mainly from domestic areas (1996: 62). In identifying the figurines,
Kletter (1996: 81) makes little reference to the actual iconography and favors identification
with Asherah on the basis of the biblical and extrabiblical sources:
The JPFs are not evidence of “popular religion”, if by this we mean the opposite to an
“official Yahwistic religion”. The Asherah was part of the Yahwistic religion, though she
was probably not as important as he was. The function of the Asherah figurines was
possibly as a protecting figure which bestowed “plenty”, especially in the domain of
female lives (but not necessarily used by women only).
A different position was presented by Meyers, Bloch-Smith, Moorey, and me (Meyers
1988: 161–63; Bloch-Smith 1992b: 99–100; Schmitt 1999: 51; 2004: 187–89; Moorey 2003:
58–67). Because the Judean pillar-figurines lack any divine iconographic symbol, such
as a crown, headdress, or other item, they are probably not representations of goddesses.
This is further supported by the so called Egyptian “concubine” figurines, which are ty-
pologically related to Iron Age plaque-types, they also lack divine symbolism, and they
were found in different contexts (both domestic and in temples), where they were used as
votive objects. Their function has been interpreted as evoking fertility in a more general
sense (see Ritner 2008: 181). According to Egyptian magical texts, female clay figurines
were also used as magical media in rituals supporting pregnancy and birth (see Borghouts
1971: no. 20; 1978: no. 48). It is therefore most likely that the Iron Age figurines from
Israel and Judah were used in accordance with the different contexts in which they were
found, for votive, symbolic, and magical purposes. Albertz (1994: 87) also considered a
magical function in the context of birth and fertility rituals, at the same time permitting
identification with a goddess. Moorey (2003: 63) summarizes the interpretations of the
Iron Age figurines thus: “These images from Israel and Judah, on present evidence, might
well be set within the wider Near Eastern repertoires of terracotta items in the mature
Iron Age, where such images are taken to represent members of the local communities
as supplicants or votaries rather than deities.” This is confirmed by the fact that, in the
contemporary coroplastic art of neighboring regions (namely Philistia, Ammon, Moab,
Edom, Phoenicia, and Syria), distinct figurines of deities with divine symbols, such as
Atef-crowns, were used alongside human representations. Distinction is particularly clear
within the Edomite coroplastic repertoire between representations of deities with divine
symbolism (see Beit-Arieh 1995: fig. 3.56: head of deity with horned crown; figs. 3.70–72:
goddess standing on animal), and human representations (such as supplicants, dancers, or
musicians; see Beit-Arieh 1995: figs. 3.76–79).

13.╇ The problem of transferring evidence from Mesopotamia to Iron Age Israel was not consid-
ered by ʾAmr, however; for critique, see Schmitt 1999: 46 n. 15.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 65

In summary, these interpretations and identifications reveal that the roles of the fe-
male figurines were as multipurposed ritual objects, predominantly in domestic and fu-
neral contexts. The multiple functions and purposes of the figurines may therefore be
summarized by referring to them as “votive objects” because, in all of these different con-
texts, they shared a common function as media for petitions and thanksgiving. However,
the relationship of the figurines to the general furnishings of a household, particularly
to other concrete objects such as pottery, is undetermined. Another aim of this book,
therefore, is to investigate the relationship of these figurines to assemblages of possible
domestic cult remains.

3.2.1.1.3.╇ The function and meaning of male figurines,

including horse-and-rider figurines
The function and meaning of male figurines have largely been ignored in scholarly dis-
cussions, primarily because of their small number compared with number of female figu-
rines. Just as is true for the JPFs, the meaning and function of the male figurines remains
unclear. The few naked male figurines with exaggerated genitals may best be interpreted in
a context of magical assurance of male reproductive powers (Schmitt 2004: 153–54, 189).
It is more difficult to interpret the male figurines with fewer clear iconographic features.
For example, the relatively larger number of male heads found in domestic and work re-
lated contexts in Ashdod (and, in smaller numbers, at Israelite and Judean sites) evidence
no divine symbolism (Schmitt 1999: cat. nos. 69–86). It is therefore possible that they
represent ancestorsâ•›14 or male votaries (Schmitt 1999: 635; Moorey 2003: 61–63).
A great deal more discussion has been devoted to the horse-and-rider figurines that
have been found at all major excavation sites throughout the region.â•›15 A relationship has
been posited (by Schroer 1987: 297; M. S. Smith 1990: 116; and Wenning 1991a, among
others) between the horse and the sun-god, in reference to 2 Kgs 23:11, where horses
dedicated to Shamash are mentioned. The decoration of some of the horses with crosses
or disks between their ears seems to confirm this interpretation. However, a closer look
shows that the disk is part of the horse’s trappings (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §199). Be-
cause the horse-and-rider figurines lack divine symbolism, they are perhaps best under-
stood as merely representing human beings mounted on a horse.â•›16 Wenning’s proposal
that the JPFs form a divine pair together with the horse-and-rider figurines seems un-
likely, because the two types rarely appear together in clearly defined contexts (Kletter
1996: 65). In general, Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §§199–200) interpreted the figurines as
media for prayer and petitions, representations of the “hosts of heaven,” and a type of
guardian angel. The latter proposal, however, lacks iconographic evidence, because pro-
tective spirits are generally depicted as winged human or mixed beings. The wider con-

14.╇ A similar proposal was made by van der Toorn (2002: 54–56) concerning the so-called
schematic statues without recognizing that Iron Age male figurines have also been found in domes-
tic contexts.
15.╇ Holland (1977: fig. 1) lists 328 objects of his group D.
16.╇ Regarding the Transjordanian horses and riders, Dornemann (1983: 137–38) states, “It
would be difficult, in this light, to see in our figurines anything other than the representation of
local people as cavalrymen.”
66 Chapter 3

text of horse-and-rider figurines elsewhere in the Levant, in particular in contemporary

Cypro-Geometric III (Karageorghis 1993: pl. 39.1–3) and Cypro-Archaic figurines (found
in great quantity in a favissa at Ajia Irini; see Gjerstad 1935), have been widely interpreted
to represent the dedicant (and thus to be a votive or medium for pleas) or as more-gen-
eral symbols connoting strength or power, particularly because horses are associated with
these traits in the Israelite and Judean glyptic art of Iron Age II.â•›17

3.2.1.1.4.╇ The function and meaning of animal figurines

The animal figurines group comprises a variety of types, including horses, birds, bo-
vines, and other animals with or without horns that are difficult to identify. Though not
very common, dog figurines have also been found in Iron Age deposits (Schmitt 2004:
190–91). In his study, Holland (1977: fig. 1) has listed more than 700 objects represent-
ing all of these preceding types. Animal figurines of similar types, especially bovines and
birds, are also well represented in contemporary Cyprus (Cypro-Geometric I–III and
Cypro-Archaic) and mainland Greece (Gjerstad 1935: pls. 225.3, 226.7; 1937: pl. 224.3;
Karageorghis 1993: pls. 29.7–9, 30.1–5—bulls; pl. 43.6–9—birds). It is widely acknowl-
edged that animal figurines have religious symbolism (see Schroer 1987: 70–71; Keel and
Uehlinger 1998: §119; 189), though they have also been considered toys (Albright 1943:
§143). Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §189) associate hand-formed bird (or dove) figurines
with the mother-goddess, interpreting them as symbolic animals. A definite relationship
between the JPFs and the bird figurines seems unlikely, because only two clear cases are
known of domestic contexts where they were found together (see Kletter 1996: 65–66).
Horses were mostly associated with solar symbolism, but they may also be interpreted
as general symbols of power, especially the king’s power and military power, because they
also appear (without solar symbolism) on official seals (Schmitt 2001: 127–28; Cornelius
2007: 31–32). Male bovine figurines were associated with the weather-god and with Yhwh
(Schroer 1987: 29–30; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §88; 142), while female cows (which can-
not, on the basis of iconography, be associated with a goddess in Iron Age Palestine) likely
evoked fertility and plenty. Sheep and goat figurines may have been iconographically as-
sociated with a goddess, thus symbolizing her reproductive features (see Keel 1980; Keel
and Uehlinger 1998: §§77, 87, 88, 91–95, 116). Because many animal figurines have been
found broken or in pits, Hachlili (1971: 134) proposed that they were intended to symbol-
ize animal sacrifice. This seems unlikely, however, because a large proportion of animal
figurines do not represent typical sacrificial animals, such as horses.
In summary, animal figurines are best interpreted as votives connected to fertility
and plentitude but also with vital powers in general. Their use as personal votives is con-
firmed by an animal figurine bearing the name of the dedicant on its neck (Samaria E207;
S. A. Birnbaum in Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1957: 16–17; Renz and Röllig 1995:
Sam[8]:5).

17.╇ This was also assumed by Moorey 2003: 63 and Cornelius 2007: 31–32. Both linked the
horse-and-rider figurines with the growing importance of cavalry in the late monarchic and (espe-
cially) Persian periods. For the horse as symbol of power, see Schmitt 2001: 127–28.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 67

3.2.1.2.╇ The function and meaning of zoomorphic vessels

Zoomorphic vessels, mostly with a zoomorphic spout and body, are well represented in
different contexts in Palestine throughout the Iron Age.â•›18 Close analogues are found again
in contemporary Cyprus,â•›19 as well as in many other sites throughout the ancient Near
East. Some of the zoomorphic spouts may also have belonged to kernos bowls or kernos
rings (see A. Mazar 1980: 111–12). The zoomorphic vessels mostly resemble bovines and
caprids and therefore share the same symbolic features of fertility and abundance with
the related animal figurines. They were clearly a luxury item evidencing social prestige,
because they were complicated to make and frequently decorated. Being mostly rather
small, they would not have been well suited to the storage of liquids and would more likely
have been intended for specialized use. Their inherent religious symbolism suggests cultic
purposes, such as in libation offerings, or as containers for drinks on special occasions.
It is important to note, however, that zoomorphic vessels are not represented in definite
cultic contexts from Israel and Judah (such as Megiddo Loci 2081 and 340, Hazor build-
ing 3283, and Lachish Room 49) but were a common part of many domestic assemblages
(see tables 3.6–9, pp. 496–504). In Philistia, they occur in cultic as well as domestic and
industrial contexts (Ben-Shlomo 2008: 32)

3.2.1.3.╇ The function and meaning of anthropomorphic vessels

Anthropomorphic vessels were quite rare in Palestine during the Iron Age. Most items
that have been found can be attributed to Philistine ceramic production (Schmitt 1994:
12–15, figs. 3–5; see also A. Mazar 1980: 78–82). One Edomite specialty was anthropo-
morphic vessel-stands, known from Ḥorvat Qitmit (Beit-Arieh 1995: figs. 3.17–23) and
ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: pl. 11; Cohen and Yisrael 1997: 2–3). The few speci-
mens found thus far have mostly been jugs and gravid flasks with some female features; in
one case from Tell Qasile, the breasts form the spout of the vessel (A. Mazar 1980: fig. 18).
The latter was most likely a libation vessel symbolizing plenty and fertility. Anthropomor-
phic jugs with female features may be interpreted in the same way, although they may also
have served utilitarian purposes.

3.2.1.4.╇ The function and meaning of miniature shrines

Miniature Shrines in the form of simplified temples occur in both cultic and domestic
contexts. They do not appear in funeral contexts in Israel and Judah.â•›20 They had already
become rare by Iron I–IIA times in Israel and Judah and appear to have almost completely
vanished in Judah by the Iron IIC period. They also appear to be a rare feature in Ammon
and Moab (Dornemann 1983: 143) but are more common in the Edomite repertoire, as
the finds from Ḥorvat Qitmit (Beit-Arieh 1995: cat. nos. 203–10) indicate. They are also
more common in the Phoenician repertoire (Pritchard 1988: figs. 37.21–26; Moscati 1988:
cat. nos. 33–35). As representations of a temple, miniature shrines provide a clear indica-

18.╇ Holland (1977: fig. 1) lists 293 objects. Sixty specimens alone came from Ashdod, 50 from
Samaria, 47 from Megiddo, and 30 from Tell en-Naṣbeh. See also Ben-Shlomo 2008: 32–33.
19.╇See Karageorghis 1993: pls. 23.5b; 24.1; 25.1.
20.╇ Only one specimen from Amman is known. See Bloch-Smith 1992: 102.
68 Chapter 3

tion of cultic activities. It has been assumed that model shrines (without applied figurines)
were used as containers for terra-cotta figurines (Bretschneider 1991: 169), but because
no figurines have been found directly associated with them, we may presume that they
served as receptacles for small offerings. A special form is represented by the Tell Qasile
naos from Temple 131, where a temple facade is combined with terra-cotta plaque figu-
rines (A. Mazar 1980: fig. 20, pl. 30; Schmitt 1999: 633; cat. no. 112 ). Similar objects are
known from the Gaza region (Bretschneider 1991: cat. nos. 80, 81, 85 ). A unique group
is formed by the 120 exceptional miniature shrines and related objects from a Philistine
favissa found in Yavneh (Kletter and Ziffer 2007), with one typological parallel from Ash-
dod (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: fig. 3.75).

3.2.1.5.╇ The function and meaning of model furniture

Model chairs and model beds are often found in domestic and burial contexts but also in
purported cultic assemblages, such as Jerusalem Cave 1 and Samaria Locus E207. Though
less numerous than JPFs, model furniture constitutes a distinct component within the
corpus of Judean figurines of the Iron Age II period (Gilbert-Peretz 1996: 38). Members of
this group are distinct from the chair-like Philistine Ashdoda figurines (see Schmitt 1999:
608–12; Ben-Shlomo and Press 2009: 49–54), which are most likely divine representations.
In several cases from Beersheba and Tell en-Naṣbeh (see table 3.9, pp. 502–504), model
furniture was found together with JPFs in domestic contexts, but these did not generally
comprise pairs. Model furniture from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages was also found in the
Levant (see Schmitt 1994: 613–15; for Iron Age parallels from Cyprus, see Karageorghis
1993: pls. 25.2a; 32.1). Bed models from 3rd- and 2nd-millennium Mesopotamia found in
domestic units, temples, and palaces were used as votives in the contexts of general fertil-
ity and associated rituals (Cholidis 1992: 173–83, 194), while throne models may plausibly
be interpreted to represent deities (Cholidis 1992: 120–22, 193–94). Although these items
from Iron Age Judah are obviously nonutilitarian objects, their function and meaning
remain uncertain. Some were considered to have been birth-stools (Beck 1993; more cau-
tious, Zevit 2001: 346 n. 168); others to have been offering tables (Dothan and Freedman
1967: 137; Hachlili 1971: 129), while Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §195) proposed that they
were intended to symbolize peace and calmness in funerary contexts, and Wenning (2005:
128) proposed that model furniture served as an invitation for the deity to stay. Another
possible interpretation is that they symbolized thrones for invisible deities, as is suspected
to have been the case in Mesopotamia. Moorey (2003: 64–65) presumed that the furniture
epitomized the occupations of common people, because furniture represents a particular
class of valuable goods, both desirable for a family to own and prestigious to have. In spite
of the lack of any clear function for model furniture, its context nevertheless carries some
religious connotations, perhaps best understood (in line with Moorey) as votives evoking
prosperity, just as with animal figurines.

3.2.1.6.╇ The function and meaning of stands

Stands were often found in unambiguously cultic contexts and were generally ceramic
objects of hollow, conical, or cylindrical shape, often fenestrated and decorated and some-
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 69

times having bowls attached to the top.â•›21 This group of objects has therefore generally
been interpreted to indicate ritual activities. This is particularly true for stands bearing
elaborate decorations and obvious religious motifs, such as the Taanach stands, although
they are extremely rare. However, the kind of ritual actions performed with the stands
remains a matter of conjecture. The stands have often been addressed as “incense burners”
(Amiran 1971: 262–63; for discussion, see A. Mazar 1980: 95–96; Zwickel 1994: 147–54;
Schmitt 1994: 17 n. 82). Because only a very few of them have revealed traces of burning,
however (see May 1935: pl. 20, P6056; Briend and Humbert 1980: pl. 51.6; A. Mazar 1980:
99, fig. 32; for discussion, see A. Mazar 1980: 95–96; Zwickel 1994: 147–54), a wholesale
interpretation of this group of objects as incense burners seems untenable. Iconographic
sources from Egypt and the ancient Near East indicate the stands to have been multipur-
pose ritual objects, such as libations and meal offerings, burning of incense and other aro-
matic material, and containers for sacred plants (with evidence for the latter only applying
to official or large-scale cults).â•›22 Simple, undecorated, flat stands may also have served
cultic purposes, but in most cases they were probably used as support for other items of
domestic pottery. One indisputable incense altar is the high candelabrium altar from a
small Iron Age II temple (B149) at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, Jordan.â•›23

3.2.1.7.╇ The function and meaning of Kernoi

Kernoi are vessels formed as either a tubular rim atop a bowl (kernos bowls), or tu-
bular rings abutting small cups or bowls, sometimes with zoomorphic spouts attached to
them (kernos rings; see Amiran 1971: 366; A. Mazar 1980: 108–11; Ben-Shlomo 2008: 36–
39). Kernos rings have been found in Ashdod and both Tell Qasile and Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit
on the coastal plain, as well as from Gezer, Megiddo, Beth-shean, and Beth-shemesh (see
A. Mazar 1980: table 16, for a list of kernoi known to that date). From the western Levant,
ring kernoi are also known from Cyprus, as well as from the Greek mainland and from
Troy (A. Mazar 1980: 109). Dothan (1982: 222–24) proposed a LBA Cypriot origin for the
ring kernoi, because they were frequently found there. As A. Mazar (1980: 109–10) and
Brug (1985: 184–85) have shown, ring kernoi belong to a broader Levantine ceramic tra-
dition centered around Cyprus and extending back to the Early or Middle Bronze Age.â•›24
They appear to have become rare by Iron Age II, except in Ashdod, where the type was
still flourishing throughout the Iron IIB period (Ben-Shlomo 2008: 39). Kernos bowls,
mostly with zoomorphic spouts, are also evident in contexts dating to the Iron IIB period,

21.╇ For example, Lachish Room 49; Megiddo Locus 2081; Tell Qasile temples (A. Mazar 1980:
pl. 32.1–5 from Temple 131; pl. 33.1–2 from shrine 300), Arad fortress temple (Herzog et al. 1984:
fig. 15), Dan Sanctuary (Biran 1994: figs. 133–34) and the Edomite shrines at Ḥorvat Qitmit (Beit-
Arieh 1995: figs. 3.1–14) and ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: pls. 11–12; Cohen and Yisrael
1997: figs. 2–3).
22.╇See Keel 1984: figs. 322, 440 (incense burning), 242, 375, 441, 442, 443 (libation), 91 (lamp
stand), 180 (flower pot), 288 (presentation of flowers), 459 (presentation of various offerings), 414
(stand for jugs), 487 (ritual cleansing). See also Collon 1988: 295, 811, 813, 833 (incense burner);
418, 822 (presentation of bread); 567, 826, 853 (flower pot with sacred tree in front of deity).
23.╇See Dion and Daviau 2000; Daviau 2007: 135 with fig. 7; see also below, p. 71.
24.╇ A nice example of an MBA (Middle Cypriot) kernos is shown by Gjerstad 1934: 137 and
pl. 34.
70 Chapter 3

including in finds from Megiddo Stratum III, Samaria, and Tell en-Naṣbeh (see A. Mazar
1980: 107–8). Kernoi are, however, particularly uncommon vessels. Both ring kernoi and
kernos bowls are clearly “nonutilitarian” vessels that are unlikely to serve any practical
purposes; rather, they seem designed for the pouring in and out of liquids for libation of-
ferings. As highly complex and rare vessels, kernoi may also be interpreted as markers of
status when associated with domestic assemblages.

3.2.1.8.╇ The function and meaning of composite libation vessels

So-called composite libation vessels comprise a small group of nonutilitarian objects,
consisting of several individual vessels attached together, predominantly cups, but also
pomegranates. They have no clear utilitarian value and have therefore been interpreted as
specialized libation vessels. Like kernoi, composite libation vessels are a rather rare group
within the Iron Age ceramic repertoire. A vessel with attached pomegranates is known
from Tell Qasile Temple 131, Stratum × (A. Mazar 1980: fig. 37); a double goblet came
from the shrine at Tell Qiri (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: plan 29 and fig. 15.3); and a
double cup came from Gezer (Macalister 1912: pl. 176.5). Composite (double and triple)
flasks were also among the finds from Tell Qasile Temple 131 (A. Mazar 1985: figs. 42,
10, 11) but seem to have no parallels elsewhere in Palestine. Later examples of composite
vessels (in the form of chalices and bowls with attached pomegranates) have been found
in the Edomite ceramic repertoire (Beit-Arieh 1995: cat. nos. 186–90). Composite vessels
are highly specialized objects always found in association with temples and shrines, and
their presence may therefore serve to identify permanent ritual structures.

3.2.1.9.╇ The function and meaning of perforated tripod censer cups

Tripod-cups with perforated bodies are a variant of the unperforated tripod-cups,
which were common vessels in Iron Age Palestine and in Transjordan from Iron Age I
to Iron Age IIC.  They were most prevalent during the 8th century b.c.e., being slowly
replaced by cube-shaped incense altars after the 7th century (Zwickel 1990: 31–32). Al-
though they have occasionally been confused with strainer cups, the latter can be distin-
guished by their perforated bases. Perforated cups were most likely used for the burning
of incense or other aromatic materials, because traces of burning have been observed on
the insides of several items (see Zwickel 1990: 3–7 and cat. notes 54–61). It seems likely
that the miqṭēret named in Ezek 8:11 can be identified with these readily portable, perfo-
rated tripod-cups (see Zwickel 1990: 239–44). In the Edomite sanctuaries at Ḥorvat Qit-
mit (Beit-Arieh 1995: figs. 4.41, 4.26) and ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: figs. 124b,
c; Cohen and Yisrael 1997: fig.  2), tripod incense burners were clearly associated with
broader ritual assemblages.

3.2.1.10.╇ The function and meaning of altars

Altars are a clear indicator of ritual activities. Small and miniature altars (see Gitin
1989; 2002; Zwickel 1990: 110–37; Zevit 2001: 306–14) closely resemble bigger altars like
the one from Beersheba—usually rectangular blocks, often having horns protruding from
the platform. Notably, altars from temples and shrines such as at Dan, Arad, and Lachish
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 71

Room 49, and potential domestic cult sites such as Megiddo Locus 2081 do not differ
greatly in scale,â•›25 while domestic altars are generally smaller, such as the 24-cm-high ex-
ample from Beersheba Str. VII (Herzog 1984: fig.€25.18). Typical miniature altars have
been found at Tell Beit Mirsim, 11 cm in height, and at Gezer, 9 cm in height (Zwickel
1990: 115). Altars used in domestic contexts as well as in work-related contexts such as is
the case in Tel Miqne were generally portable and evidently did not comprise any parts
of permanent installations. The small altars were evidently not suited for animal offerings
and may have been used for burning incense or small dry offerings, such as bread or fruits,
as well as for libations. A remarkable object in this context is the 0.96-m-high candela-
brum altar found in the small temple 149 at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine (Dion and Daviau 2000;
2007: 135, fig.€7) and inscribed ‫ ליסף בת אות‬/ ‫ מקטר אׁש‬mqṭr ʾš ʿlšm / lysp bt ʾwt ‘the incense
altar that Elishama made for YSP, the daughter of ʾWT’.
Cube-shaped incense altars or incense boxes, which were often decorated, were prom-
inent in Judah between the Iron IIC and Persian periods but have also been found along
the coast and in Transjordan (Stern 1982: 182–86; Zwickel 1990: 74–109, distribution table
on p. 75; Daviau 2007). This class of objects has been widely interpreted as having served
domestic cult functions (see Zwickel 1990: 89). At the Edomite shrines from Ḥorvat Qit-
mit and ʿEn Ḥazeva (Beit-Arieh 1995: fig. 6.5; Cohen and Yisrael 1996: fig. 122a, b; Cohen
and Yisrael 1997: 84, fig. 2), as well as from Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine (Daviau 2007: 128–29),
cube-shaped incense altars and other small types of stone alters have also been found in
association with other public cultic structures. At Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, larger shaft altars
and smaller incense boxes have also been found in domestic and industrial structures
(Daviau 2007: 128–29).

3.2.1.11.╇ The function and meaning of amulets and seals

Amulets and seals were objects of personal value and adornment, and their religious
significance arose from their form or decoration. Amulets in a broader sense are small ob-
jects of artistic worth, such as object amulets (see Herrmann 1994; 2002), inscribed metal
strips, or seals that were carried by the owner near or on the body. Thus, their usual setting
is not in a house but on the body or the garments of their owner. Amulets have appeared
in a few rare cases in association with domestic cult assemblages, such as at Beersheba
Locus 844. Textual evidence from Egypt also suggests that amulets were used in magic
rituals (see Borghouts 1971: nos. 30, 31; 1978: 37). Because small objects such as seals
and amulets fall or are moved between strata easily, their association with any particular
assemblage that is not otherwise obviously closely related must be interpreted with cau-
tion. The function of the amulets was almost certainly associated with primary apotropaic
magic, while the decorated seals served multiple functions as amulets, documents of per-
sonal belief and loyalty, or personal seals (see Keel 1995: §§702–28).

3.2.1.12.╇ The patterns of use of category A objects

The usage patterns of category A objects are summarized here:

25.╇ The two Arad altars are 51 and 30 cm high, the Lachish altar is 45 cm, and the Megiddo
Locus 2081 altars are 46 and 30 cm high.
72 Chapter 3

female figurines votive

male figurines ancestor worship, votive
horse-and-rider votive
animal figurine votive, apotropaic magic
zoomorphic vessel libation
anthropomorphic vessel libation
miniature shrines worship, offerings
model furniture worship, offerings
stands dry offerings, libation offerings, burning of incense
kernoi libation
composite vessels libation
perforated tripod-cups incense burning
miniature altars incense burning
amulets and seals worship, votive, apotropaic magic

3.2.2.╇ Diagnostic objects in category B

The group of diagnostic items here denoted category B comprises objects that bear no
religious significance in themselves yet have often been found in contexts of (or can plau-
sibly be associated with) ritual activities.

3.2.2.1.╇“Collectibles”
Under the term collectibles are subsumed all kinds of nonutilitarian or unusual ob-
jects, worked or unworked, such as semiprecious stones of different shapes or otherwise
rendered attractive, shells, and so on. These objects obviously had some personal value,
and in some cases probably also served as markers of social status—for example, ostrich
eggs or worked tridacna shells. Single beads and pendants may also be categorized in this
group. Category B objects may be presumed to have served ritual purposes in cases where
they have been found in a distinct assemblage that included category A objects (see also
Daviau 2001: 219–20). Collectibles including unusual stones, slag, shells, corals, fossils,
and unusually dressed stones were found in a clear cultic context at the Late Bronze/early
Iron Age sanctuary at Timnah in the Wadi Arabah, where they were presumed to have
been used as votives (Rothenberg 1973: 184–85, T.99, 100, 105–8).

3.2.2.2.╇ Luxury and imported pottery

Locally made and imported luxury pottery wares (for example, Philistine bichrome
ware and painted Cypro-Phoenician ware, respectively) may have been favored for spe-
cialized activities or ritual actions (see Daviau 2001: 204). Such vessels are well repre-
sented from defined cultic contexts, such as the Tell Qasile temples (Philistine bichrome)
and Megiddo Locus 340 (Cypro-Phoenician ware).
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 73

3.2.2.3.╇ Chalices and goblets

Chalices and goblets form a part of many pottery assemblages clearly attributable to
cultic contexts, including those of the Tell Qasile temples, Lachish Room 49, Megiddo
Locus 2081, Building 300 from Tell Michal, Tell Qiri sanctuary (see Tables 3.6–9), the
Yavneh Favissa, and the Edomite sanctuaries at Ḥorvat Qitmit (Beit-Arieh 1995: cat. nos.
183–85, 191) and ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: fig. 127a; Cohen and Yisrael 1997:
fig. 2). Because chalices and goblets are also a common domestic pottery item, however,
they are not listed with the category A objects. Chalices and goblets were often decorated
(see Amiran 1971: pl. 68); they may therefore have been seen as luxury items and markers
of status. Aside from their use as drinking vessels, chalices may also have been used as
offering stands, their shape resembling as it does a type of stand with an attached bowl.
Chalices are known to have been used as incense burners from the finds from the Yavneh
favissa (Kletter and Ziffer 2007: 4; fig.  20), as well as from iconographic sources (Keel
1984: fig. 199).

3.2.2.4.╇ Small and miniature vessels

Small or miniature vessels, as miniaturizations of common domestic types, are not
likely to have had specialized uses in themselves, although they may have served as chil-
dren’s dishes or toys. Because some have been found in definite cultic contexts, such as
the miniature vessels in the LB orthostate temple at Hazor (Yadin 1961: pl. 259.1–21),
from the early Iron Age at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: figs. 11.15–18, 19.4–36), from Iron
Age IIC in Jerusalem Caves 1 and 2 (Eshel and Prag 1995: 10.2–4, 11.1–6, 16–20), and at
the Edomite sanctuary at ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: 114, pl. 11), they are also
likely to have been used for ritual purposes (Daviau 2001: 211–13). Extremely miniatur-
ized items, which must have lost all utilitarian value, may have served as votive objects
(Albright [1943: §143] called them toys).

3.2.2.5.╇Lamps
Lamps of different types, including the cup-and-saucer type, are common household
items. Because they have also been present in assemblages from caves (Bloch-Smith 1992b:
73) and temples (Lachish Room 49, Megiddo Room 340), they may also be presumed to
have had some symbolic meaning by virtue of their light or specialized ritual uses aside
from their utilitarian purpose (also Daviau 2001: 211).

3.2.2.6.╇Rattles
Rattles in the form of a pottery cylinder or spindle filled with pottery pellets or small
stones have frequently been found in burials (Tufnell 1953: 376; Bloch-Smith 1992: 102–
3) but rarely in domestic assemblages.â•›26 Rattles must therefore have had some kind of
ritual function in the context of funerary rites. However, because they were also found in
Jerusalem Cave 1, rattles may have had other ritual purposes as well.

26.╇ Rattles as part of domestic assemblages were found in Kinneret and Tell en-Naṣbeh. See
table 3.9 (pp. 502–504).
74 Chapter 3

3.2.2.7.╇ Cosmetic items

Cosmetic palettes, items such as ivory spoons of different shapes, and containers for
cosmetic products, including small alabastrons—known to have been status markers—
may also have served ritual purposes, particularly because cosmetic products are com-
monly used as offering and votive objects in many cultures.

3.2.2.8.╇ The so-called incense bowls or ladles

Small bowls made of stone with bases occasionally in the form of a hand, lion, or plant
and with a fitting for a handle on one side are often referred to as incense bowls or ladles,
because they resemble Egyptian incense arms. These objects, which were also present in
Syria and Mesopotamia, are similar to cosmetic spoons and most likely served as vessels
for anointing and other cosmetic purposes (Reichert 1977: 192–93; Zwickel 1990: 145–
46). Ritual use can only be supposed, but they may have been used for ritual anointing or
libations (Zwickel [1990: 146 n. 10] compares the bowls with Hittite libation arms). The
delicately made bowls are also likely to have been high-status objects. However, similar
shovel-like objects with handles made from terra-cotta, which were found at the Edomite
sanctuary at ʿEn Ḥazeva, were considered by the excavators to have been incense shovels
(Cohn and Yisrael 1996: fig. 124.d).

3.2.2.9.╇ Game pieces and astragali

Game pieces and astragali were objects used for personal recreation. In several cases,
game pieces may have been used for ritual purposes, such as the casting of lots (Daviau
1994: 76 n. 7). The 30 or more astragali found in a bowl at Megiddo Locus 2081 were most
likely used for purposes of divination or as part of a ritual game.â•›27

3.2.2.10.╇ Usage patterns of category B objects

Any of the objects in category B may have served in either profane and religious con-
texts or both, and any type of vessel may have had some kind of ritual purpose. However,
objects must be interpreted carefully. When an object was not elsewhere found with a
category A object, its categorization as profane in function is more plausible. Profane and
possible ritual usage patterns of category B objects are summarized in the table on the top
of p. 75).

3.3.╇ Domestic cultic assemblages in Iron Age Judah and Israel

3.3.1.╇ Ai (et-Tell), map reference 1747.1472
The Rothschild excavations led by Judith Marquet-Krause between 1933 and 1935 un-
covered parts of an early Iron Age village situated on a mound (Marquet-Krause 1949).
This was a short-lived settlement, in existence only between the years 1220 and 1050
b.c.e. The size and general plan of the town along with the presence of pillared houses
indicate that the settlement most likely was an early (or proto-) Israelite village (see Cal-
laway 1993a: 44–45).

27.╇ See below, pp. 134–137.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 75

artifacts profane function possible ritual function

collectibles personal value votive
luxury pottery dishes dishes for specialized ritual use
status marker
chalices and goblets drinking ritual drinking
status marker libation
small/miniature vessels dishes votive
presentation of offerings
dishes for specialized ritual use
lamps, cup and saucer lighting of rooms illumination for ritual actions
religious symbolism of light
rattles toys, music ritual music
cosmetic items personal adornment votive
presentation of offerings
“inscense” ladles cosmetic anointing ritual anointing, libation
game pieces personal recreation casting lots for mantic purposes
gaming

A long bench was found in the southern part of a partially excavated room (Locus
69) of approximately 8 × 3 m, which also had a platform in the western corner (Locus
65). The bench was associated with an assemblage that included one horse figurine, one
bovine figurine, a fenestrated stand, a chalice-like stand (category A), a bowl with a row of
knobs, a lamp (category B), a jug and fragments of storage jars, as well as two beads and a
number of clay balls.â•›28 Several more pots were found in Locus 69, but unfortunately, their
types were not specified, nor was their relationship with the assemblage of the bench.â•›29
According to Amiran, the fenestrated stand was located on the platform proper, along
with the chalice stand, jug, and bowl that stood in front of it, as shown in Zevit’s recon-
struction.â•›30 This reconstruction of several rows of objects is naturally tentative. My own
reconstruction is shown in fig. 3.1 (p. 76).â•›31 The character of the assemblage, in closely
resembling Megiddo Room 2081 and Lachish Room 49,â•›32 as well as the benches and a
kind of channel leading from the platform to the east led Zevit (2001: 154–55) to consider
it a cultic place, with an entrance from road 41 on the west and the channel as a run-off
for sacrificial liquids. The room was only partly excavated, however, and this conclusion
thus remains uncertain. If it is correct, then Rooms 65/69 could well have comprised a
neighborhood shrine integrated within the domestic area. If, however, the assemblage was

28.╇ Marquet-Krause 1949: pl. 74.1052 (stand), 1054 (chalice), 1055 (bowl), 1072 (jug), 1071
(lamp and storage jar, no drawings published), 1058, 1068, 1082, 1083 (unspecified pottery); pl. 40.2:
no. 1051 (horse?), 1051 (beads), 1072 II (balls). See also the reconstruction of Zevit 2001: 153.
29.╇ Marquet-Krause 1949: 1048, 1063.
30.╇ Zevit 2001: fig. 3.16 (based on personal communication with Ruth Amiran, who partici-
pated in the excavation).
31.╇ Drawn after Marquet-Krause 1949: pls. 97.799, 40.2.
32.╇ See below, pp. 134–137.
76 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.1.╇ Ai: Pottery and

animal figurine (below)
from Locus€65.

a purely domestic cult assemblage, then Loci 65/69 may be the back room of a four-room
house. In this case, the assemblage would be comparable with the Megiddo Stratum VI
domestic cult assemblages. However, considering both the character of the assemblage
and its association with its surrounding architecture and installations, the objects and
installations were quite likely associated with permanent ritual actions involving libations.
The entire structure was thus most likely a neighborhood shrine, rather than a domestic
cult installation.

3.3.2.╇ Tel ʿAmal, map reference 193.213

Tel ʿAmal is situated 5 km west of Beth-shean, near the site of modern Kibbutz Nir Da-
vid, and was excavated in the mid-1960s by S. Levy and G. Edelstein (Levy and Edelstein
1972). Two buildings from Iron IIA Strata III and IV yielded category A objects together
with other vessels. In Str. III, Locus 12 (which was a part of a bigger structure with a paved
courtyard that was later destroyed and sealed by fire), an elaborated tripod cult stand was
found inside a mud-brick oven. Locus 12 also contained the spout of a zoomorphic vessel
(category A), a lamp (B), as well as one large bowl, 6 other bowls, and 4 juglets (fig. 3.2).â•›33
The assemblage suggests the practice of domestic cult activities that included libations.

33.╇ Compiled after Levy and Edelstein 1972: pl. 19; figs. 13.10, 16, 19; 14.1, 5; 15.1–6; 16.12.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 77

Fig. 3.2.╇ Tel ʿAmal: Stand, zoomorphic spout, and pottery from Locus 12.

The second assemblage comes from the partially excavated Room 36 in north-western
squares M/L 5/6. This room contained a stand with a separate bowl, a juglet, and a krater
(fig. 3.3).â•›34 The adjacent Room 34 contained an oven and a bench with a depression that
was covered with a basalt plate. The pottery consisted mostly of storage vessels. The entire
structure was interpreted by the excavators as a facility for the production, processing,
and dying of textiles. The ritual objects were most likely connected with these industrial
activities.

3.3.3.╇ Tel Batash (Tell el-Baṭāšī/Timnah), map reference 141.132

Tel Batash is situated in the northern Shephelah, between Azekah and Gezer, and can
probably be identified with biblical Timnah (Mazar and Kelm 1993: 152). The Tel Batash
34.╇ Compiled after Levy and Edelstein 1972: pl. 19, figs., 13.3; 14.11; 16.7.
78 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.3.╇ Tel ʿAmal: Stand and pottery from Locus 36.

excavations are of great importance, because the Str. II domestic units were buried under
debris (most likely following destruction by the Babylonians in approximately 600), and
the well-preserved pottery assemblages from domestic and other units were published
together and partly mapped. Cultic significance was supposed in Stratum II (7th century)
Area E, Unit 914 (Loci, 933, 914, 931, 910a), because Locus 910a, which yielded two chal-
ices (category B), could be interpreted as a cultic platform within a niche (fig. 3.4).â•›35 The
adjacent Locus 914 yielded a fragment from a zoomorphic spout and a fragment from
an anthropomorphic vessel (category A), as well as a limestone vat.â•›36 The category A and
B objects point to libation offerings. Building 607 had a limestone object that was inter-
preted as an altar (Locus 919),â•›37 although there was no pottery directly associated with
it.â•›38 The rich assemblage in adjacent Locus 607 had several miniature vessels, although
they were not obviously associated with one another.â•›39 Directly to the west of Building
607, Building 608 had four chalicesâ•›40 but no other objects suggestive of cultic activities.
Some objects of possible cultic significance were scattered in Room 778, among which
were one simple stand, miniature juglets, miniature goblets, beads and pendants (all cat-
egory B), and several juglets.â•›41 The cultic character of this assemblage remains uncertain,
because no category A objects were found. On and beneath a pebble floor (Loci E624 and
E705, respectively) of a Stratum III (8th century) room, three molds for plaque figurines
of the Phoenician type were found.â•›42 This interesting find suggests possible industrial

35.╇A. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 4–5, pl. 56.1–2; A. Mazar 1997: Plan of Areas D and E,
Str. II.
36.╇ A. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 56.4, 5, 9.
37.╇ The unusual shape of the object (see A. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 75.11), however,
makes this interpretation questionable.
38.╇ See Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: fig. 13.
39.╇ Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 75.11, 15–17.
40.╇ Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 65.1–4.
41.╇ See Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pls. 38.1, 8, 17, 18; 39.7–9.
42.╇ Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 203–8; pl. 30.1–3.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 79

Fig. 3.4a.╇ Tel Batash: Contents of Loci 910a and 914.

80 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.4b.╇ Position of Altar (▲ 23 in building F 608).

production of figurines in what would otherwise seem to have been a domestic context.
Surprisingly, however, no figurines were found that could have been cast in these molds.

3.3.4.╇ Tell Beersheba (Bīr es-sebaʿ), map reference 129.071

At Beersheba, 43 JPFs and 11 horse-and-rider figurines were excavated, mostly from
clearly domestic contexts (Kletter 1996: 163 and fig.  38). Interestingly, Tell Beersheba
yielded a unique Iron IIC assemblage of objects that had most likely been used as part of
a domestic cult installation. Locus 844 in Stratum III was part of the peripheral street that
encircled the city. The assemblage indicates that it belonged to one of the adjacent houses
and most likely originated from the second story of a building that collapsed onto the
peripheral street. The hoard consists of several category A bronze objects, including a figu-
rine of a standing Egyptian goddess; a bull figurine; a handle with an animal’s head, most
likely a Seth-animal; a double crown amulet;â•›43 faience objects, including two beads and a

43.╇Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 22.1–2; 23.4–5.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 81

Fig. 3.5.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Location of objects from Loci 844 and 859.
82 Chapter 3

bowl;â•›44 glass objects, including a Phoenician-style head;â•›45 stone objects, including a Neo-
Assyrian cylinder seal and an uncarved cylinder seal;â•›46 and two ostrich eggs (category B
“collectibles”).â•›47 Another assemblage yielded Stratum II Room 859, about 5 m northeast
of the hoard of Locus 844. The material consists of a pedestal, upon which sat a faience
animal or Sphinx figurine; a bone amulet (category A); a fragment of a decorated spout of
bone (category B); and a jug (category C).â•›48 The content of the hoards and their locations
are shown in fig. 3.5.â•›49 The two hoards of category A and B objects seem to have been part
of a collection of votive objects once belonging together that were stored or arranged on
the second floor of the adjacent house. Although these hoards provide interesting evi-
dence, they are comparably unique and atypical for cultic ensembles of Iron Age IIC. Al-
though assemblages of vessels and models of furniture (see below) are quite common,
assemblages of exotic and foreign objects and objects of bronze are rather uncommon and
likely belonged to a family of some wealth. In addition to their religious significance, the
roles of these objects as markers of status must also be considered. Furthermore, attribu-
tion of this hoard to an upper story is an assumption that contrasts with most other mate-
rial from Beersheba, which is known to have originated on ground floors.
The most complete assemblage of objects including pottery comes from a house con-
sisting of Loci numbered 48, 46, 25, and 22. The assemblage from Locus 25 (the pillared
room on the right wing off the entrance) consists of one JPF, a model of a chair (category
A), and a miniature lamp on a stand (category B). The pottery consists of four cooking
pots, two bowls, two juglets, and a jar (fig. 3.6).â•›50 Another fragment of a figurine was found
in Locus 48.â•›51 The assemblage suggests cultic activities associated with the production and
consumption of food. The published plans suggest no particular relationship with a bench
situated in an adjacent courtyard (contra Willett 1999: 147–48).
In a pillared building on the peripheral street (Locus 808), a zoomorphic vessel was
found together with a model of a couch (category A) and a juglet (fig. 3.7).â•›52 Northwest
of the house, a small incense altar was unearthed.â•›53 Another house, containing Loci num-
bered 430, 443, and 442, though not a consistent assemblage, yielded a JPF and another
model of a chair from the room adjacent to the street (443); two limestone altars from the
pillared room (442); and a spouted bowl from the court or central hall (430) (fig. 3.8).â•›54
Although the presence of the small altars by themselves does not necessarily indicate that
the locus served as a household shrine, it certainly served ritual purposes.
Subsequent excavations unearthed a unique Iron IIC figurine, which comes from an
Iron IIC context (Locus 3622), most likely from an open courtyard adjoining a house
44.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 24.6–5; 25.3.
45.╇ Aharoni 1973: pl. 24.4.
46.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 26.1–3; 24.2.
47.╇ Aharoni 1973: pl. 25.1–2.
48.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 23.3; 24.1, 5; 44.8 .
49.╇ Compiled after Aharoni 1973: pls. 22–26, 84.
50.╇Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 71.1–6; 70.16–21; Plan: pl. 94. See also Holladay 1987: 276.
51.╇ Aharoni 1973: description of pl. 73; no image available.
52.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 28.2, 6; 45.4; Plan: pl. 84.
53.╇ Aharoni 1973: pl. 52.6.
54.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 52.1–2; 27.6; 28.5; 75.5; Plan: pl. 83. See also Holladay 1987: 276.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 83

Fig. 3.6.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects and pottery from Locus 25.
84 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.7.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects and jug

from Locus 808.

(Kletter and Herzog 2003). The figurine shows features typical of an animal figurine, al-
though the head is of the same type as common Iron IIC pillar-figurines (fig. 3.9).â•›55 The
figurine has some parallels in Cypro-Geometric specimens but perhaps may also be as-
sociated with sphinx or cherub-like beings found on contemporary seals.â•›56 The object is
therefore perhaps best interpreted as an apotropaic or guardian figurine.
The early Iron Age strata did not yield particularly rich finds, although they did sug-
gest cultic activities in domestic areas. A fragment of a zoomorphic figurine was found
in a courtyard behind Stratum VI House 2072,â•›57 although this was not associated with
the assemblage of pottery and objects found in Room 2072 proper. Both the kernos-ring
fragment from a room (2310) in the right wing of Building 2523â•›58 and the torso of a fe-
male figurineâ•›59 found in a building outside the enclosed settlement (Locus 1327) were
unassociated with any of the pottery or other artifacts.

3.3.5.╇ Bethel (Bētīn), map reference 172.148

The finds from the Iron Age II levels at Bethel were rather poor. The single notewor-
thy exception was Locus 315, in which were reportedly found three fragments of zoo-

55.╇ Compiled after Kletter and Herzog 2003: fig. on pp. 40–41.

56.╇ See below, p. 382.
57.╇ Herzog 1984: fig. 31.6.
58.╇ Herzog 1984: fig. 25.2.
59.╇ Herzog 1984: fig. 25.1.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 85

morphic figurines (category A);

a chalice and two bone pendants
(category B); three bowls and a
store jar, as well as several metal
objects (category C).â•›60 Unfor-
tunately, the ambiguities in the
publication details prevent ac-
curate location of the material.

3.3.6.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, map

reference 141.096
Tell Beit Mirsim, excavated
by Albright between 1926 and
1932 (Albright 1932; 1933;
1938; 1943), yielded abundant
figurines of various types. Most
of the Iron IIC fragments of
pillar-figurines came from clear
domestic contexts.â•›61 Two al-
most complete figurines were
taken from pits,â•›62 as well as two
libation vessels (one animal and
one gravid flask). Although the
vessels are suggestive of cultic
activities, they were found in-
complete and were in secondary
contexts (a pit and a silo).╛63 Two Fig. 3.8.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects from Loci 442
and 443.
pairs of JPF fragments were also
found in secondary contexts (a
silo and a cistern).â•›64 Similar to efforts to reconstruct most older excavations, the methods
used to record and systematize these finds make it difficult to accurately reconstruct the
assemblages within which these figurines and other objects were found. Though Albright
gave lists of homogenous pottery assemblages from the same loci, he largely ignored a
variety of even smaller assemblages that suggest possible cultic functions. The reconstruc-
tion of assemblages at Tell Beit Mirsim is only possible by associating objects found in
individual rooms, leaving uncertainty about whether groups of these objects formed an

60.╇ Compare with Albright and Kelso 1968: nos. 1004, 1008, 10014 (no drawings published),
1025, 1026, 1034, 1037, 1038, 1085, and 1151.
61.╇See Albright 1943: 162–205; Kletter 1996: 166.
62.╇ Albright 1943: SN 1803 and 1468 from SE 13A/A2 together with three additional fragments
(1804, 1805, 1808).
63.╇ Albright 1943: pls. 23.17 (SN 500); 15.14, §51 (SN 2574).
64.╇ Albright 1943: pl. 31.11 +SN 1329 in Silo SE 13–32; SN 2450+2295 in cistern NW 32–10.
See also Kletter 1996: 63.
86 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.9.╇ Beersheba:

sphinx/cherub figurine
from Locus 3622.

assemblage that might otherwise be identified as a locus according to current-day prac-

tice. Of particular interest are the finds from olive press NW 32–12. Among various pot-
tery vessels associated with the production of olive oil were found a complete JPF and
two additional fragments (both being almost complete torsos), as well as three fragments
of animal figurines and another fragment in a cistern (fig. 3.10).â•›65 The presence of these
figurines may suggest religious practices associated with the production of olive oil, par-
ticularly to safeguard the process of pressing. Casemate room NW 31–11 also yielded
interesting contents, and the broad back room of NW 31–10: 31–11 yielded the head of a
JPF, the head of an animal figure, the hollow pottery head of an ape (category A), a bone

65.╇ Albright 1943: §38; pl. 6; SN 2031, 2032 (no drawing in report), 2396, 2404, 2574, 2848.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 87

Fig. 3.10.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 32-12.

ear pendant, a lamp (category B), some fragments of domestic pottery, and a javelin head
(fig. 3.11).â•›66 Another house (NW 22-13, 22-14, 22-15) contained the head and base of a
pillar-figurine, a zoomorphic vessel (category A), a miniature lamp with stand, a cosmetic
palette (category B), and a rubbing stone. The utilitarian pottery that was reported con-
sisted of a cooking pot, a jug, and a juglet (fig. 3.12).â•›67 Though this was a locus of mixed
content, the presence of several anthropoâ•‚ and zoomorphic pottery objects suggests their
possible use in the back room of the house, even though associations between objects
cannot be established with any confidence. Several additional loci containing utilitarian
pottery also yielded category A objects, but their association with the larger finds remains
unclear.â•›68 Taken as a whole, Tell Beit Mirsim reveals clear evidence for the domestic use of
pillarâ•‚ and animal figurines and, in one case, possible cultic finds in the industrial complex.

3.3.7.╇ Beth-shean (Tell el-Ḥiṣn), map reference 1977.2123

The Iron Age evidence from Beth-shean, which was not published by the excavators
in the 1930–40 volumes (Rowe 1930; 1940), was reexamined and published by James in
1966. Due to the excavator’s incomplete records, only tentative evidence for domestic cult
assemblages can be reconstructed.

66.╇ Albright 1943: pl. 6; SN 2313, 2316, 2319, 2408, 2539, 2699. The pottery consists of bowls
(2332, 2495, 2497) and a small pot (2608); there are no drawings of the animal figurine and the ape
head in the report.
67.╇ Albright 1943: pl. 6; SN 1552–1555; 1817; 1524; 1563; 1570.
68.╇ Albright 1943: SE 24B (SN 1229 bull figurine, 1230 carved bone object with female face); SE
13 A11 (947 pottery rattle, 948 animal figurine).
88 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.11.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 22-13; 4; 5

Lower Level VI (Iron Age IA, the last phase of Egyptian dominance) Locus 1342 can
be assigned to buildings west of the temple. Several ovens indicate that the area was of a
domestic character (James 1966: 16–17). Many jars were recorded, which suggests that the
room also served storage purposes. Six saucer bowls were found in the locus, along with
three deep bowls, two strainer jugs, one jug, two alabaster pyxides, and a clay object with
internal tubes that was most likely a casting mold for metal.â•›69 In addition to the utilitar-
ian pottery, two fragmentary kernoi, a fragment of a limestone figurine, faience objects,
and scarabs with the names of Thutmoses III and Ramses II (category A) were found.â•›70
This assemblage of category A objects, mixed in with category C objects (storage and con-
sumption of food and liquid), along with the mold are suggestive of work-related cultic
activities involving libations and—presuming the scarabs to be more than just a chance
find—also votive practices.
Partial evidence for domestic cultic activities comes from the Israelite stratum Up-
per Level V, traditionally dated to Iron Age IIA (Finkelstein 1996a proposed an Omridic
date), but lingering uncertainties over many aspects of the function and layout of the
rooms prevent firm conclusions. Upper Level V (Iron IIA) Locus 1564 was a room of
indefinite boundaries containing installations of unknown—although potentially indus-
trial—purpose. The room included a bull’s head and torso, the head of a female figurine,
a bird figurine (category A), and an 11-cm-long ivory object (category B) that was most
likely a whirring instrument. â•›71 The pottery of the ground level, which was mixed in with
earlier and later material, contained fragments of two red burnished stands (category A),

69.╇ James 1966: figs. 77;  57.1–2, 4–7, 9–12, 14–17;  58.2, 4, 13, 14.
70.╇ James 1966: 17.
71.╇ James 1966: fig. 114.2—here classified as a boomerang.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 89

Fig. 3.12.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 31-11.

90 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.13.╇ Beth-shean, Upper Level V: Figurines and stand from Locus 1564.

a lentoid flask, and a false spout of an oil jar (category C). Other pottery was reported
to be from this room, although whether it came from Locus 1564 proper is unclear. The
published material is shown in fig. 3.13.â•›72 Considered together, the assemblage suggests
the performance of libation and votive activities and some sort of practice involving the
whirring instrument.
Upper Level V (Iron IIA) Locus 1557 forms, along with Loci 62 and 63, an Iron Age
storehouse near the gate. The reported pottery (category C) consists of a single storage
jar from Locus 1557 proper and two juglets from Rooms 62 and 63. Two heads of female

72.╇ James 1966: figs. 112.1–2 (the bird figurine is only mentioned in the text on p. 93.), 31.28
(second stand not illustrated), 41.32.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 91

Fig. 3.14.╇ Beth-shean, Level IV: Pottery and Objects from Loci 293 (nos. 1–7) and
298€(8–14).

figurines were also found there, along with the head of a horse figurine (category A).â•›73
From the indefinite area of Locus 1549 (Upper Level V, Iron IIA) a female figurine (cate-
gory A), a cup and saucer, a saucer lamp (category B), and a spinning bowl (category C)
were recorded.â•›74
The architectural remains of the Iron IIB Level IV were in relatively poor condition.
Nevertheless, some evidence was reported that is suggestive of domestic cult assemblages.
Locus 293, a room above the level of the Stratum V temple, yielded a tripod incense burner
(category A), two cooking pots, and a jar.â•›75 The adjacent Locus 298, though still unclear
in terms of its stratigraphic relation to Locus 293, yielded a stand with an associated bowl,
an object that appeared to be the leg of a zoomorphic figurine or vessel (category A),
four bowls, one jar, and one jug.â•›76 Both assemblages are shown in fig. 3.14. From Level
IV Locus 1506, which was not possible to characterize but was perhaps a passage,â•›77 a tri-
pod censer cup and a bottle were recorded.â•›78 The often insufficient reports in the original
publications of the material from Beth-shean notwithstanding, the evidence accords with
general observations about cultic assemblages. Libation vessels tend to predominate in
ensembles from Iron Age IB–IIA, whereas ensembles from Iron IIB, relatively speaking,
contain more incense burners. Both the earlier and the Iron IIB assemblages suggest that
votive practices with figurines were involved.

73.╇ James 1966: figs. 112.3–4.

74.╇ James 1966: 93. Figurine: fig. 112.6; pottery not drawn.
75.╇ James 1966: figs. 34.1–4.
76.╇ James 1966: figs. 34.8–14 (the latter was presumed to be a figurine base).
77.╇ James 1966: 73.
78.╇ James 1966: Plan p. 74; fig. 25.16 and 2.
92 Chapter 3

3.3.8.╇ Beth-shemesh (Ḥirbet er-Rumēle), map reference 1477.1286

Beth-shemesh is situated 20 km west of Jerusalem and was first excavated by D. MacÂ�
kenzie between 1911 and 1912 (Mackenzie 1911; 1912–13). Large-scale excavations were
conducted by E. Grant from 1928 to 1933 (Grant 1929; 1931–32; 1934; Grant and Wright
1938; 1939), followed by renewed work during the 1990s (Bunimovitz and Ledermann
1993: 249; 2009). The excavations revealed a rich corpus of diagnostic objects, especially
figurines. About 30 JPFs were discovered at Beth-shemesh,â•›79 as well as about 20 animal
figurines or zoomorphic vessels from the Iron Age Strata.â•›80 Although potential diagnostic
objects (including a decorated model of a seat) were found, many of them came from mass
loci (Street 317) and thus are not useful for the present purposes. Due to the inadequate
recording system of the early reports, the present investigation focuses instead on the
material from the 1934 and subsequent final reports (Grant 1934; Grant and Wright 1938;
1939). Because most of the finds were either inadequately illustrated or not at all, we are
unable to provide images in this section.
Level II Locus 387 was part of the so-called scarab house (Rooms 397, 380, 388, 387,
395, 396) and was most likely an open courtyard. It contained two animal figurines, a
zoomorphic spout along with a fragment from another zoomorphic figurine (category A),
two cooking pots, one juglet, one red juglet, and two dipper juglets.â•›81
Level II Locus 382 was part of a house that was only partially excavated. It contained
a zoomorphic spout, a model of a seat (category A), a dipper juglet, a “heavy pot,” and
fragments of decanters. The presence of a pottery oven indicates that the room was used
for the preparation of food.â•›82
Level II Room 377 was part of a building consisting of Rooms 377, 381, and 390. It
contained a mold for figurine heads, a horse figurine, two juglets, fragments of a lmlk-jar
(stamped Hebron), a fragment of a “heavy pot,” fragments of two bowls, a “crude thick
pot,” a scaraboid seal, and a bronze spatula.â•›83
Level II Locus 376 was some sort of room, possibly a courtyard, in a house that was
only partially excavated. Two zoomorphic figurines were found, along with a horse figu-
rine (category A), two shells, fragments of a lamp (category B), three juglets, bowls, de-
canter, and a stamped jar handle. Two mortars suggest activities associated with the prepa-
ration of food.â•›84
Level II Locus 375 was a room with a cement floor and a basalt tank and mortar, and
was probably an industrial place. It contained a figurine of what appears to have been a rat
or a mouse (category A), a chalice, a lamp (category B), a cooking pot, and a disk base.â•›85
Level II Locus 373 was a room with a rectangular fireplace that may have been related
to the above industrial installation. It contained two JPF heads, one animal figurine, three
fragments of animal figurines (category A), one lamp (category B), one juglet, one hole-
79.╇ Kletter 1996: figs. 15, 34.
80.╇ Grant and Wright 1939: pl. 51.
81.╇ Grant 1934: 65.
82.╇ Grant 1934: 65–66.
83.╇ Grant 1934: 67–68.
84.╇ Grant 1934: 68.
85.╇ Grant 1934: 375, map 1 and fig. 4.417.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 93

mouth jar, two stone pounders, and a pick.â•›86 A third JPF head was found in the adjacent
Locus 374.â•›87
Level II Locus 343 was a room with a pottery oven, containing the upper torso of a
JPF, including a head, along with a lotus amulet (category A), chalice (category B), juglet,
storage jar, “pot,” two jars, and a small flask from the west of the locus.â•›88
Level II Locus 321 was identified by the excavators as a room with a winepress installa-
tion. Several vessels were observed, including zoomorphic ones, although not specified. A
vessel in the shape of a pig was described, although it is unclear whether it was associated
with the winepress.â•›89
Level II Locus 305 contained two circular stone vats and loom weights, suggesting a
room used for the production and dyeing of textiles. A JPF was found here together with
four juglets, a basalt mortar and pestle, fragments of cooking pots, a jar, and a hole-mouth
jar.â•›90
Remaining uncertainties in the original publications notwithstanding, the evidence
from Beth-shemesh shows that JPFs, zoomorphic vessels, and figurines were used both
in the food preparation areas and in workshops or industrial installations. The observed
patterns, predominantly of votive objects, are typical of Iron IIC domestic cult remains
found at other places such as Beersheba, Tell Beit Mirsim, and Tell en-Naṣbeh. These finds
highlight the important observation that JPFs were also produced in domestic contexts.
One remarkable find from the renewed excavations came from a Level II pillared
house in Area E (“Fred’s House”); it is a bowl incised with qdš ‘holy’ that was discovered
in the context of utilitarian pottery, household utensils, and loom weights (Manor 2009).
The excavators interpreted this find as evidence of a priest’s house, but the incised bowl
may have been used for offerings in the context of domestic cult practices maintained by
the family.

3.3.9.╇ ʿEin Gev (Ḥirbet el-ʿĀšīq), map reference 2102.2435

ʿEin Gev is situated on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee between Wadi Nuqeib
in the north and Nahal Susitha in the south. The trial excavations of 1961 revealed part of
a plastered room in a conjectured domestic building along with an assemblage of pottery
and objects suggesting domestic cult activities (B. Mazar et  al. 1961; see also B.  Mazar
1993: 409–11; H. Weippert 1988: 628). Locus 11, which was part of a paved room in a
Stratum III (Iron Age IIB) dwelling, contained an assemblage of one tripod incense cup
(category A); a small decorated “incense spoon,” which is more likely to have been a cos-
metic bowl; a nephrite object in the shape of an axe; a square bone pendant; a worked
gazelle bone of unclear use (category B); four jugs (including one bichrome), one beer
jug, one jar, one store jar, one hole-mouth jar, one mortar and pestle, one scraper, three
small bone spatulas; and a small object made from a bronze sheet, which was most likely

86.╇ Grant 1934: 68–69.

87.╇ Grant 1934: 68; Grant and Wright 1939: 1.
88.╇ Grant 1934: 72.
89.╇ Grant 1934: 75.
90.╇ Grant 1934: 82.
94 Chapter 3

Fig 3.15.╇ ʿEin Gev, Stratum III: Pottery and objects from Locus 11.

a funnel (fig. 3.15).â•›91 The adjacent Locus 23, which belonged to the same room, yielded
two jugs, two store jars, and a hole-mouth jar. The excavators proposed that the room was
used for cultic purposes.â•›92 However, the character of the pottery assemblage is more sug-
gestive of storing liquids and foods. It seems plausible, therefore, that the room was used
for storage and that ritual objects were stored elsewhere, along with other storage vessels.â•›93
The category A and B objects (that is, the incense burner and other “collectibles,” includ-
ing a model of an axe, a square bone pendant, and a worked bone) suggest the offering of
incense and votive rituals.

3.3.10.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah (North), map reference 1823.1822

Tell el-Fārʿah is located 11 km northeast of Shechem and was excavated between 1946
and 1960 by École Biblique under the direction of R. de Vaux (Chambon 1984). Tell el-
Fārʿah is plausibly identified with biblical Tirzah (de Vaux 1993: 433). The site revealed
91.╇ Mazar et al. 1961: figs. 5.11; 6.3–4; 7.1, 4, 8; 8.2, 7, 9; pl. 11.
92.╇ Mazar et al. 1961: 12. In his NEAEHL article (Mazar 1993: 411), proposes “that the room
served the cultic needs of the family, similar to the cultic room 2081 at Megiddo. . . .” For discussion,
also see Zevit 2001: 201–2.
93.╇ This was also proposed by Zwickel 1994: 245.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 95

Fig. 3.16.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah,

Stratum VIIb: Content of pit 241.

several interesting Iron IIA domestic cult remains, among which were four miniature
shrines or fragments of them. Unfortunately, only two of them had clear contextual
associations.
An almost complete model shrine was found together with a jug, two pyxides, and
two metal objects in a pit (Locus 241) belonging to Stratum VIIb (10th century b.c.e.), in
Building 149a, which indicates that it was used in the same house (fig. 3.16).â•›94
Stratum VIIb House 440 yielded exceptionally rich finds, including a fragmentary
model shrine in the pillared Room 439 east of the entrance, which was found together
with a millstone.â•›95 Courtyard 440 of the house yielded the torso of a pregnant woman,
a figurine of a horse (category A), a gaming piece (category B), an arrow head, a blade,
an alabaster pendant, five beads, one jug, one juglet, two bowls, and one small bowl.â•›96 A
second female figurine was found north of the courtyard in Room 460.â•›97 A sample of the
finds is shown in fig. 3.17.â•›98 The presence of an oven indicates that the material from Lo-
cus 440 may have been directly associated with the preparation and consumption of food.
The domestic character of these finds therefore provides a strong argument against the
interpretation of House 440 as a shrine (Dever 2005: 115–16).

94.╇ Chambon 1984: 118; Plan 2; pls. 66.2; 58.24; 60.12, 19.
95.╇ Chambon 1984: 136; pls. 66.2; 78.4.
96.╇ Chambon 1984: 137; pls. 63.4; 65.3; 67.16; 68.5; 69.11; 73.9; 74.7; 48.10; 51.15; 56.15; 57.37;
58.3.
97.╇ Chambon 1984: pl. 63.2.
98.╇ Compiled after Chambon 1984: pl. 11 and notes above.
96 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.17.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb, Contents of House 440.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 97

Fig. 3.18.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah,

Stratum VIIb: Pottery shrine
fragment from Room 437.

Room 437, the pillared room in the right wing of House 436 (Stratum VIIb), yielded
an appliqué that was most likely part of another pottery shrine (fig. 3.18), although no
pottery or other objects were associated with it.â•›99
Locus 429A (Stratum VIIc, early 9th century b.c.e.) was most likely a broad room at
the back of a four-room house that was only partially excavated and contained a censer-
cup of category A together with a small cooking pot and a bowl (fig. 3.19).â•›100
House 176 (also Stratum VIIb) yielded a zoomorphic spout (category A), a game piece,
and a miniature juglet (category B) from the pillared Room 174 in the right wing.â•›101 The
assemblage suggests libation practices.
House 161 (Stratum VIIb) suffered a violent destruction that even reduced the skel-
etons to debris.â•›102 Of particular interest are the contents and installations of Room 157.
This was one of the rear rooms, which was accessible both from Room 156 and from the
courtyard. It contained two benches, one to the right and one in the left corner. The pot-
tery consisted of a storage jar, three jugs, two small jugs, three juglets, two cooking pots,
and a lamp.â•›103 Several other objects were found in association with the pottery, including a
game piece, three metal tools, a bead, and four pieces of mills and millstones (fig. 3.20).â•›104
The reconstruction of the places where these objects were found indicates that not all
were situated on the benches. Chambon interpreted Room 157 as an artisan’s studio.â•›105

99.╇ Chambon 1984: pls. 12; 64.6.

100.╇ Compiled after Chambon 1984: 134; pls. 18; 54.12; 53.9; 57.32 (sic).
101.╇ Chambon 1984: 113; pls. 15; 64.2; 67.14; 51.24.
102.╇ Chambon 1984: 110.
103.╇ Chambon 1984: 110; pls. 45.11; 48.3, 12, 13; 51.16, 44; 50.8, 10, 18; 52.7; 53.11; 59.3.
104.╇ Chambon 1984: 110; pls. 67.11; 70.1–3; 74.30; 77.910, 16, 19 (last 4 objects not illustrated).
105.╇ Chambon 1984: 110.
98 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.19.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIc: Pottery from Locus 429A.

Although benches sometimes served cultic purposes, there were no category A objects as-
sociated with the assemblage, making a cultic interpretation unlikely. The room was most
likely used for the storage and preparation—but not consumption—of food. Conditions
can be described similarly with regard to the alcove-like installations interpreted by Wil-
lett (1999: 133) as cultic niches. These were more likely to have served domestic purposes,
since no category A objects were directly associated with the structures.
Tell el-Fārʿah yielded several features typical of Iron IIA (or perhaps B) structures,
such as model shrines, which were uncommon in later, Iron IIB and IIC contexts. One
feature was atypical for Iron IIA assemblages, which is the relatively large number of hu-
man figurines, but this may have been because they were a local speciality.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 99

Fig. 3.20.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb, House 161: Contents of Room 157 as mapped in
excavation report: 1611: game piece; 1656: jug; 1610: jug; 1743: jug; 1609: juglet; 1608:
juglet; 1607: juglet; 1604: how; 1605: pickax.

3.3.11.╇ Gezer (Tell Ğazarī), map reference 1425.1407

Large-scale excavations conducted by Macalister between 1902 and 1909 (Macalister
1912) yielded rich finds. Unfortunately, the system of recording and mapping these finds
rendered them of little use for the present purposes. The Hebrew Union College excava-
tions led by Dever (Dever et al. 1970; 1974; 1986) provided only minor evidence for cultic
activities in the Iron Age strata because of the limited excavation area. The material from
Locus 3192 (dated to the 10th/9th century b.c.e.) consisted of a small chalk altar with in-
cised decorations from occupational debris, a zoomorphic vessel came from Locus 1098P
(occupational debris of the 11th or 10th century b.c.e.), and an Ashdoda-figurine frag-
ment came from Locus 1014.1 (Iron I).â•›106 All of this material either came from ambiguous
contexts or was not directly associated with defined architectural features.

3.3.12.╇ Tel Halif (Tell Ḥuwēlifa/Lahav), map reference 1373.0879

Tel Halif is located on the southwestern flank of the Judean Hills, about 10 km south
of Tell Beit Mirsim. The ancient mound can probably be identified with biblical Rimmon

106.╇ Dever 1974: pl. 41.2; Dever and Lance and Wright 1970: pl. 37.9 (zoomorphic vessel); 36.3
(Ashdoda, here classified as a model couch; for the Ashdoda-figurines, see Schmitt 1999: 608–19).
100 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.21.╇ Tel Halif: Plan of Field IV.

Fig. 3.22.╇ Tel Halif:

Reconstruction of
Room G 8005.

(Seger 1983: 19–20; 1993: 554). Ten JPFs, a horse-and-rider figurine, and a zoomorphic
figurine were uncovered there. Some of these came from mass-loci pits, although several
came from distinct domestic units of the Iron Age II (Stratum VIB) layer that was associ-
ated with the destruction by Sennacharib in 701.â•›107 The material was published in several
preliminary reports and an internet database of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology (Mis-

107.╇ Seger 1993: 557–58.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 101

Fig. 3.23.╇ Tel Halif, Locus G 8005:

Stand, altars, and JPF fragment.

sissippi State University) and is suitable for the reconstruction of several assemblages as-
sociated with the figurines and other ritual objects.â•›108
Field IV, Area G8, Locus G8005 is part of a four-room pillared house (known as the
“northern house”), the floors of which were covered with the debris of a burned build-
ing, effectively protecting the finds. The so-called shrine room was originally part of a
broad room in the pillared house, which was subsequently divided into two chambers,
moving the entrance to the southeastern end, thus creating a long chamber measuring
2.25 × 7 m.â•›109 The assemblage included the head of a JPF,â•›110 a fenestrated stand, two carved
and polished limestone blocks lying north and south of the stand, a pomegranate jug, a
black jug, and a juglet (figs. 3.21–23).â•›111 The assemblage led the excavators to posit the
existence of some sort of house shrine in Locus 8005, with the two limestone blocks func-
tioning as maṣṣebôt.â•›112 The predominance of utilitarian pottery such as storage jars sug-
gests a store room that also contained material for occasional cultic use, although not a
permanent shrine-like installation. The assemblage of distinctly cultic objects intermixed
with common household and storage pottery suggests the occasional consumption of cul-
tic meals (Jacobs 2001: iv). However, the idea that the two limestone blocks functioned as
maṣṣebôt is questionable, since portable maṣṣebôt have not been found in domestic units
elsewhere. The limestone blocks were most likely simple altars for the presentation of of-
ferings or the placement of vessels containing offerings.
Field IV, Area F8, Locus F8007 is the adjacent room to the north of the purported
cultic structure. This locus also represents a destruction layer that may have contained ob-
jects from the second floor or the rooftop.â•›113 Among common domestic pottery materials

108.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dig/lahav (DigMaster Database). Additional information about

the pottery was provided by Paul Jacobs in private communication. See also the preliminary reports
(Seger 1972; 1977; 1979; 1980; 1983; Seger and Borowski 1977).
109.╇ Jacobs 2001: ii.
110.╇ Object no. 2114.
111.╇ Courtesy of Paul Jacobs, Mississippi State University.
112.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/G8.shtml; Jacobs 2001: iii.
113.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/F8.shtml.
102 Chapter 3

(including an amphoriskos, two jugs, and five bowls),â•›114 the torso of a JPF was found. Field
IV, Area F7, Locus 7002 belongs to the debris of the northern building of Field IV. The de-
bris again consisted of material supposedly from the second floor. Besides pottery vessels,
this material consisted of JPF fragment 2732 (category A), a scarab, a scaraboid, a hematite
mace-head, and a bone disc.â•›115 The pottery predominantly consisted of utilitarian items
such as jars, pithoi, bowls, kraters, cooking pots, lamps, jugs, and juglets, as well as stone
tools such as grinders for the processing of food.â•›116
Field IV, Area L8, Locus 8005 was the “southern house” that contained JPF torso 1894
that was discovered in the destruction debris of a domestic unit containing ash and frag-
ments of the charred beams of the roof. The pottery consisted of a large number of bowls,
a platter bowl, a small bowl, two juglets, two lamps, and a jar.â•›117 It has been supposed that
the figurine and the pottery originated from the second floor of the building.â•›118 Field IV,
Area K8, Locus 8002 belongs to same house as L8 above, in which four figurine fragments
(JPF Torso 2726, the horse-and-rider fragment 1912, the JPF pinched head 2162, and the
JPF neck fragment 2726) were found that may have originated from the second floor. The
pottery consisted of a variety of typical household items, including storage jars, pithoi,
lamps, jugs, juglets, bowls, cooking pots, decanters, kraters, pitchers, and a large-mouth
dipper.â•›119 The pottery assemblage together with household tools such as grinding stones
indicate that a variety of domestic activities were conducted on the second floor.â•›120
The evidence from Loci L8005, K8002, F7002, and F8007 reveals an association be-
tween the figurines and the typical household items. Moreover, although the second floor
was used for domestic activities including the preparation and storage of food, the frag-
ments found there suggest that cultic activities may also have occurred.
Additional evidence comes from Field II (Stratum VII), where two fenestrated stands
were discovered in a domestic unit along with large grinding installations (Seger 1983:
10), again revealing an association between ritual and domestic activities.
Other noteworthy finds among the early Iron Age (Iron Age I) remains include the
torso of a (legless) female figurine with modeled breasts, an incised decoration on her
back, and a punctuated pattern on the body that indicated the vaginal area (Dessel 1988).
This unique figurine was found in a stone-lined and -plastered bin that had been filled
with ash and bones. Whether the object had been used in a ritual or simply thrown away
was not discernible. The figurine is one of very few Iron I examples found in Judah to date.

3.3.13.╇ Hazor (Tell el Qedaḥ), map reference 203.269

A room that was uncovered in the pre-citadel Stratum IX (Iron Age IB; Locus 3283)
and measured 3.2 × 5.2 m (with its northern edge buried under later casemates) has been
interpreted as a cultic structure. The southern part of the building consisted of a paved

114.╇ Personal communication with Paul Jacobs.

115.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/F7.shtml.
116.╇ Personal communication with Paul Jacobs.
117.╇ Personal communication with Paul Jacobs.
118.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/L8.shtml.
119.╇ Personal communication with Paul Jacobs.
120.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/K8.shtml.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 103

Fig. 3.24.╇ Hazor: Isometric reconstruction of temple 3283 (after Zevit 2001: fig. 3.42).

platform with benches running along the western, eastern, and southern walls. An un-
usual banana-shaped stone stood in a socket in the southwestern corner of the southern
platform.â•›121 Beneath the pavement, a hoard of bronze objects was excavated inside a jug,
among which was the figurine of a seated deity.â•›122 This locus also yielded an assemblage
that included a stand, a chalice-like stand, a cooking pot, a storage jar, a lamp, an ivory
handle, four basalt bowls, and pestles.â•›123 Locus 3275, which was a room or courtyard south
of Locus 3283, contained a stand in the form of a big chalice with a fenestrated body, a
bowl, a tripod bowl, a cooking pot, a krater, and a storage jar.â•›124 Within the same area but
121.╇ Ben-Tor 1996; see also Ben-Ami 2006: 125–27. This evidence was not published in the
final report (Ben-Tor 1989). See Zevit 2001: 202–3, with n. 129.
122.╇ Yadin 1961: pl. 205; Ben-Tor 1989: 80–81. See Zevit 2001: 202–5.
123.╇ Yadin 1961: pls. 203.4, 10, 16, 21; 204.4, 12; 206.5–6, 9–13, 15–16.
124.╇ Yadin 1961: pls. 204.1, 2; 203.2, 6, 9, 17, 22.
104 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.25.╇ Hazor, Area A: Pottery and objects from Loci 48 (left) and 47a (right).

west of the cult room itself (Locus 3307), a fenestrated stand, a stand with handles, a bowl,
and a store jar were found.â•›125 A reconstruction of the structure with its associated finds
is shown in fig. 3.24.â•›126 The structure has been interpreted as a cultic building because of
its architectural features and the associated finds, particularly the bronze hoard, which
was considered a foundation deposit (Ben-Tor 1989: 80–81; Yadin 1993: 601–2; Zevit
2001: 202–5). This cultic interpretation was challenged by Zwickel (1994: 251–53), who
argued that the pottery in Room 3283 was predominantly domestic and that the building
should therefore be considered a domestic building. Accordingly, the other structures
of this alleged cultic area should also be considered domestic in nature. However, the
standing stone—details of which had not been published prior to Zwickel’s work—the
bench, and the category A objects from Loci 3275, 3283, and 3307 (including at least five
stands) support the theory that the building and its adjacent structures were a shrine with
a maṣṣebāh, rather than a domestic building. Because the building seems not to have been
integrated within a domestic quarter, and because it had a courtyard, it is likely to have
been a village shrine.
A second small sanctuary from the Iron I period that was of a different type was un-
covered during the recent excavation at Hazor (Ben-Ami 2006). The installation in Locus

125.╇ Yadin 1961: pls. 202.5, 23; 204.3, 5.

126.╇ Zevit 2001: fig. 3.42.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 105

Fig. 3.26.╇ Hazor, Area A: Pottery and mask from Locus 44.

80019, which was most likely an open cult place, consisted of a roughly rectangular basalt
standing stone of 0.7 × 0.5 m, with three additional stone slabs east and south of it that
may have served as offering tables. On the right side of the standing stone, a circular
installation comprising ten stones of approximately 0.4 m in diameter was excavated, al-
though no evidence of burning or traces of ash were found inside. Remnants of a wall
and a pavement were also discovered north of the maṣṣebāh (Locus 8018). In pits about
2 m east of the paved area, a fragmentary zoomorphic vessel (a spout) and an assemblage
of three (miniature) bowls, five cooking pots, a pithos, a jug, two flasks, and a pyxis were
found. The assemblage from these pits is identical in composition to contemporary do-
mestic assemblages. Assuming the pottery to have been associated with the structure, we
may posit that ritual practices conducted here consisted primarily of libations, for which
perhaps the circular structure was used as a libation tray.
Little evidence for domestic cult activities was found in the Iron IIB residential quar-
ters. Room 48 at the back of a Stratum VI pillared house also consisting of Rooms 63,
47a, and 35a yielded the spout of a zoomorphic vessel (category A), three jugs (one of
which was a decorated Cypro-Phoenician jug), one cooking pot, one bowl, and a spindle
whorl.â•›127 Locus 47a contained a carved ivory handle depicting a four-winged protective
deity as well as an assemblage of typical domestic pottery, including two bowls, two cook-
ing pots, a krater, and two juglets (fig. 3.25).â•›128 Within a domestic building consisting of

127.╇ Yadin 1958: pl. LXV, 13–20; Plan: pl. CLXXIII.

128.╇ Yadin 1958: pl. LXV, 6–12; pl. CLI.
106 Chapter 3

four rooms of irregular layout (Area A, Stratum V, Loci 13–16, 44), a decorated fenestrated
stand was found, together with the fragment of a mask (category A), a jug, and a store jar
in back room (Geva 1989: 46: closed courtyard) 44 (fig. 3.26).â•›129 Pottery remains in the
other rooms were in poor condition or were (mostly) missing. Because Stratum V was
destroyed by the Assyrians in 732, the stand and the mask fragment suggest an assemblage
that may once have been somewhat larger (see also Geva 1989: 46). The mask could have
been used in divination or necromantic practices of some sort. Another fragment of a
mask was found situated among storage vessels in a room (3102a) that had a built-on silo
in a citadel.â•›130
An assemblage was excavated from one of the towers (239a) within the six-chambered
gate of Stratum IX–X. It included a fragment of a zoomorphic vessel (a spout), 12 bowls,
2 Cypro-Phoenician juglets, 2 jugs, 2 lamps, 2 cups with saucers, and a basalt bowl
(fig. 3.27).â•›131 This assemblage consisted mostly of vessels for the storage and consumption
of food and drink, which were probably associated with the presumably official character
of the gate complex. It can safely be concluded that the assemblage was used by the guards
of the gate for meals and, on other occasions, for drinking or libations.
The evidence for religious domestic activities in the residential quarter in Hazor is
admittedly small. Nevertheless, the presence of ritual objects and figurative material coun-
ters Geva’s thesis that the inhabitants were not religiously inclined and did not observe
religious practices (1989: 110). On the contrary, the material from Hazor fits quite well
with the general evidence for Iron IIB domestic cult activities, which consists of libation
vessels that were used along with common household items for ritual practices in the con-
text of consuming food and drink.
Although quite a number of category A and B objects were found in the citadel, in-
cluding several figurines, anthropoâ•‚ and zoomorphic vessels,â•›132 and a delicate “incense
ladle” (a cosmetic item),â•›133 no distinctive assemblage could be discerned. From the period
following the destruction of the citadel (Area B, Locus 3046 of Stratum IV), a rough floor
that was built on the foundations of the devastated Israelite fortress yielded a kernos ring
and the spout of a zoomorphic vessel along with five bowls and a jug.â•›134 Because the archi-
tectural structures were unclear, no additional contextual information could be obtained.
Nevertheless, the assemblage does suggest the performance of ritual activities involving
libations.

3.3.14.╇ Tell el-Ḥammah, map reference 1973.1977

Tell el-Ḥammah is situated 16 km south of Beth-shean at the entrance of the Beth-
shean Valley and was excavated by a Canadian team in the second half of the 1980s (Cahill
and Tarler 1993: 561–62). Two mud-brick buildings of the late 10th century were uncov-
ered here, which were separated by an open courtyard. Inside the western unit, a room of
129.╇ Yadin 1958: pl. LVII, 22, 6; LX, 10; LVI, 9; Yadin 1960: pl. CCII.
130.╇ Yadin 1960: pl. 103.6.
131.╇ Yadin 1961: pl. 177.
132.╇ Yadin 1960: pl. 103.1–12.
133.╇ Yadin 1960: pl. 108.
134.╇ Yadin 1958: pl. 71.3, 11, 16, 18, 26, 27.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 107

Fig. 3.27.╇ Hazor, Area A, Stratum IX–X: Pottery and Objects from Locus 239a.

3.95 × 2.28 m was unearthed that yielded a complete ring kernos, a multihandled krater
with appliqués of horned animals, a zoomorphic libation vessel, a fragment of a female
plaque figurine, a cat amulet (category A), a large number of astragali, and several gyp-
sum pyxides and Cypro-Phoenician juglets. Several storage jars and the remains of items
108 Chapter 3

used for spinning and weaving indicate some sort of industrial location that was used for
the production of textiles and the storage of agricultural products. The industrial activ-
ities may have been associated with religious activities, which may have included libations
using the zoomorphic vessel and the kernos as well as gaming and perhaps the casting
of lots.

3.3.15.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit (Ḥirbet Raʾs ez-Zētūn),

map reference 1718.2538
Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit is an Iron IIA fortress of about 24 × 24 m, situated 15 km southeast
of Akko, with two subphases, Stratum IIa and b, that were dated to the second half of the
10th and the first quarter of the 9th centuries b.c.e., respectively (Gal and Alexandre 2000:
200).â•›135 Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit is located in the border region between Israel and Phoenicia,
and it remains unclear whether the fort was Israelite or not, even though most of the
ceramic repertoire is typical of northern Israel (2000: 199).â•›136 The presence of agricultural
tools and a high proportion of storage jars suggest that the fort did not primarily serve a
military purpose but, more likely, was used for the production, processing, and storage of
agricultural goods (2000: 198). The fortress of Stratum IIa had several pottery assemblages
of interest to the present study. In the northwest tower (Locus 47) of the fortress, in the
ashes and debris of destruction, a large amount of Cypro-Phoenician pottery was found.
A kernos ring found among these items may be evidence of a cultic function for this
locus.â•›137 Locus 16, to the west side of the central hall, yielded storage jars and common
household pottery, among which were a zoomorphic vessel, bowls and juglets of luxury
black-on-red ware and Cypriot white-painted ware.â•›138 Another zoomorphic vessel came
from the northeast room of the same stratum. Except for the bichrome jug and chalice, all
items of pottery were of common domestic types (such as cooking pots).â•›139 The material
from Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit is illustrated in figs. 3.28–29.â•›140 The presence of libation vessels
in combination with luxury pottery suggests that cultic activities were conducted in these
rooms, which were otherwise used for the processing and storage of everyday materials.

3.3.16.╇ Jerusalem, map reference 172.131

It is difficult to reconstruct the domestic assemblages from the Iron Age domestic units
of Jerusalem because of the few excavations that have been conducted and because of the
limitations that obtain due to the often unclear reports of previous publications.
One particularly interesting unit is Area G, Locus 967 of Stratum 10B (the last Iron
IIC layer before the destruction of 587), known as the “house of the bullae” (Shiloh 1984:

135.╇ For the excavators, Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit is a key site for arguing against Finkelstein’s pro-
posal of a low chronology (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 152).
136.╇ The authors identify Rosh Zayit with biblical Cabul, which was given to Hiram of Tyre by
Solomon according to 1 Kgs 9:10–14, and conjecture that the fort was established by the Phoeni-
cians but inhabited by Israelites.
137.╇ Gal and Alexandre 2000: 14, figs. 3.70–71.
138.╇ Gal and Alexandre 2000: figs. 3.79–81.
139.╇ Gal and Alexandre 2000: figs. 3.90:19–27; 91:1–14; 92:1.
140.╇ Compiled after Gal and Alexandre 2000: pl. 4, fig. 3.70; pl. 5, figs. 3.81, 90–92.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 109

Fig. 3.28.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIb with findspot of kernos.
110 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.29.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIa with findspots of pottery assemblages.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 111

Fig. 3.30.╇ Jerusalem, Area G: Pottery and objects from Locus 967 (Stratum 10b “house of
bullae”).

18–20; 1986: 16–25). Unfortunately, only a rather small section of the building was exca-
vated (of 1 × 8 m), leaving the larger layout of the building unknown. The finds, which
all came from pavement near Wall 753, were surprisingly abundant (a sample and plan
are shown in fig. 3.30).â•›141 These included such category A objects as the leg of an animal
figurine, the torso of a horse-and-rider figurine, and four limestone altars. Category B
objects included three pot stands and two unusually shaped deep kraters that resembled a
big goblet. Category C objects included three pot stands, two storage jars, two hole-mouth

141.╇After Shiloh 1986: figs. 5–7; fig. 20: pl. 22.2; Ariel and de Groot 1996: 339. Unfortunately,
the publication did not include drawings of the figurative material.
112 Chapter 3

jars, five decanters, three cooking pots, a juglet, four bowls, and several grinding stones,
as well as three arrowheads, one blade, one earring, one ring, and a weight. The famous 51
bullae are supposed to have belonged to a public archive, a sort of “bureau close to the ad-
ministrative centre in the city of David” (Shiloh 1984: 20). However, because the character
of Area G as a whole seems to have been domestic, it also may be conjectured that the
“house of the bullae” was a dwelling with a private archive. Moreover, the domestic pottery
and grinding stones are typical of a domestic unit. It is possible that the room was used
for general storage purposes, because it seems unlikely that the four altars, the vessels, and
the figurines were used in a public archive or bureau (despite the fragmentary character
of the figurines). The entire assemblage of category A and B objects therefore suggests the
occasional burning of incense and quite likely the performance of libations in a domestic
context, while the ritual vessels were probably merely stored there.

3.3.17.╇ Tel Kedesh (Tell Qedes), map reference 199.279

Tel Kedesh is located in the Jezreel Valley between Megiddo and Taanach and may
be identified with the biblical city of Kedesh. The site was excavated during one season
in 1968 by E. Stern (Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979; Stern 1993). In a large structure dated to
the Iron IIB period, a four-horned altar was found within a long chamber that also con-
tained the indented bases of jars. The structure has therefore been interpreted as a cult
place. However, because the jars most likely served industrial or storage purposes, the
interpretation as a cult place seems implausible. The finds at Tel Kedesh should therefore
be interpreted as part of a work-related cult, comparable with the finds from the industrial
olive-oil center in Ekron.

3.3.18.╇ Kinneret (Tell el-ʿOrēme), map reference 200.252

Kinneret is located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and was excavated by a
German expedition led by V. Fritz between 1982 and 1985 (Fritz 1990a, b), and between
1995 and 1999 (Fritz 1999; Fritz and Vieweger 1996; 1999; Fritz and Münger 2002; Pak-
kala, Münger, and Zangenberg 2004; Nissinen and Münger 2009). A German, Swiss, and
Finnish team is continuing excavation even now.
The tripartite pillared Building 683 (Stratum II) in the gate area, which was 9 × 15.10 m,
yielded a rich assemblage of pottery. The middle Room 683 had walls covered with plaster.
Inside the room, the torso of a female figurine (category A), a bowl, a krater, a juglet, and a
storage jar were found (fig. 3.31).â•›142 The adjacent two Rooms 684 and 663 yielded similar
assemblages of domestic pottery, including bowls, kraters, cooking pots, storage jars, and
lamps.â•›143 The assemblage prompts the question what an assemblage for the storage, prepa-
ration, and consumption of food was doing in a building that is otherwise considered to
have been used for either public or general storage purposes. The domestic pottery pos-
sibly supports the use of the building as a military barracks, as supposed by Fritz (1990a:
153; 1990b: 77; for discussion of which, see Schmitt 2001: 145). Given this, it may be sup-

142.╇ Fritz 1990a: Plan 16; pls. 102.2; 89.23; 90.9; 91.9–10; 92.8; 93.13.
143.╇See Fritz 1990b: pls. 89–93.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 113

Fig. 3.31.╇ Kinneret, Area D, Stratum II:

Building 683 with pottery from Locus 683
proper.

posed that cultic activities were associated with more-general activities in the daily lives of
the troops, particularly activities associated with the consumption of food.
In Area B1, an area of domestic structures, excavators found several small assemblages
of diagnostic objects and pottery. An animal figurine was unearthed, together with two
cooking pots and two bowls in Area B1, Room 221, Stratum IB (fig. 3.32).â•›144 Locus 221

144.╇ Fritz 1990a: Plan 10, pls. 102.9; 69.19; 71.1; 73.7; 73.8.
114 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.32.╇ Kinneret, Area B1, Stratum IB: Figurine and pottery from Locus 221.

is one of four rooms adjoined to the same wall and was accessible through Room 202.
Locus 221 contained a stone installation that consisted of a stone slab in the center of the
room surrounded by a semicircle of stones and most likely were the remnants of a hearth.
The adjacent room yielded a similar assemblage of three bowls, two cooking pots, and a
storage jar. The installation and pottery suggest the functions of storing and preparing
food. Room 328 (Stratum IA) yielded a rattle, a goblet (category B), two jugs, two juglets,
and two storage jars (fig. 3.33).â•›145 Outside these rooms, another animal figurine fragment
was found in Room 328 (Locus 322, a street).â•›146 Locus 326 (which was not specified on
the published plans) yielded two well-crafted fragments of horse figurines, as well as two
bowls (fig. 3.34).â•›147 The evidence from this area reveals that objects for cultic use were

145.╇ Fritz 1990a: Plan 11, pls. 74.1–4; 75.7; 76.2, 8, 22–23; 79.12.
146.╇ Fritz 1990a: pl. 102.7.
147.╇ Fritz 1990a: Plan 10, pls. 102.4–5; 69.2; 70.19.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 115

Fig. 3.33.╇ Kinneret Area B1, Stratum IA: Rattle and pottery from Locus 328; figurine from
Locus 322.

associated with installations used for the preparation and consumption of food as well as
with vessels for the storage and consumption of liquids.
The latest find of importance from Kinneret was an assemblage consisting of a model
shrine, a bowl with zoomorphic appliqués (both category A), and a small flask from an
Iron IB pillared building (Room 3578), all of which together are evidence that ritual activ-
ities were performed in this dwelling (fig. 3.35).â•›148

148.╇ Nissinen and Münger 2009: figs. 3 and 4.

116 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.34.╇ Kinneret Area B 1, Stratum I B: Figurines and pottery from Locus 326.

Fig. 3.35.╇ Kinneret courtyard dwelling and finds from Locus 3594.

3.3.19.╇ Lachish (Tell ed-Duwēr), map reference 135.108

3.3.19.1.╇ Domestic assemblages from Lachish
A total of 144 figures were uncovered by the British excavation, the excavation un-
dertaken by Y. Aharoni, and the renewed excavations of Ussishkin, with the vast majority
coming from Iron Age II. Seventy-two of them came from the renewed excavations (Klet-
ter 2004: 2076 with table 28.61). However, most figurines were found either on the surface,
in unclear contexts, or in mass loci (Kletter 2004: 2078).
One male head was found in a storage unit (Area GE, Level II, Locus 4150).â•›149 The
pottery recorded from the locus consisted of utilitarian ware (three bowls, one cooking
pot, two storage jars, and a pottery basin) and thus are not clearly suggestive of cultic
activities.â•›150 Some figurines were found in pairs or larger groups, although any broader
contexts were indiscernible.â•›151 A pair of “peg-figurines,” both of which were most likely
male, were found in a domestic unit (Locus 2066), but no pottery was associated with
them (fig. 3.36).â•›152 Another male figurine came from a small room in the Level II house

149.╇ Kletter 2004: 2058, fig. 28.36,2.

150.╇ Zimhoni 2004: 1879.
151.╇ Kletter 2004: 2079.
152.╇ Kletter 2004: fig. 28.36, 3–4.; Ussishkin 2004: 664.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 117

Fig. 3.36.╇ Lachish Level III: Pair of

peg figurines from Locus 2066.

(Locus 4150) near the gate (fig. 3.37), together with three bowls, one cooking pot, and two
store jars.â•›153 The excavators considered the building to have been used primarily for the
storage and distribution of wine, mainly because of an installation with a channel. One
fragment of a male figure was distinctly different from and much more elaborate than
common heads of horse-and-rider figurines. As discussed below, these figurines and the
male head may have served ritual functions in the worship of ancestors.
Some of the most interesting finds were unearthed in Area S, Level III, the so-called
lower house, which consisted of 2 wings and 10 rooms or courtyards (fig. 3.38a).â•›154 Room
3569 yielded a fenestrated stand (category A), 19 worked sheep astragali (category B),
3 bowls, 1 krater, 4 cooking pots, 1 juglet, 1 amphoriskos, 1 flask, and 2 storage jars
(fig. 3.38b).â•›155 Room 3573 in the northeast yielded a small altar, a fragment of a zoomor-
phic figurine (category A), 29 astragali (category B)—which appeared to the excavators to
have been kept in a bowl—2 bowls, 2 cooking pots, 1 black juglet, 1 jug, 1 lamp, 4 storage
jars, 1 hole-mouth jar, a basalt bowl, and several millstones (fig. 3.39).â•›156 The assemblage
153.╇ Kletter 2004: 2058, fig. 28.36:2; Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.52:9–15.
154.╇ Ussishkin 2004: fig. 9.32.
155.╇ Zimhoni 2004: Pottery, 1860–63, figs. 26.37:9–12, 26.38.
156.╇ Zimhoni 2004: fig.  26.39:6–17; Ussishkin 2004: 478–79; Kletter 2004: fig.  28.40:4; Sass
2004: 2033, fig. 28.21:1.
118 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.37.╇ Male figurine and fragment

and pottery from Locus 4150.
Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 119

Fig. 3.38a (above).╇ Lachish, Area S, the

Level III lower house.

Fig. 3.38b (left and below). Stand and

pottery assemblage from Locus 3569.
120 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.39.╇ Lachish: Altar, figurine fragment, and pottery from the lower house, Locus 3573.

Fig. 3.40.╇ Lachish: Animal Figurine and pottery from the lower house, Locus 3533.

of Room 3582 consisted of 2 fragments of zoomorphic figurines, 1 bowl, 1 krater, 4 cook-

ing pots, 1 black juglet, 1 hole-mouth jar, 7 storage jars, 1 basalt bowl, millstones, and
other working stones.â•›157 Several more astragali were found in Room 3529, together with
an assemblage of material related to the preparation and consumption of food, and some
metal tools.â•›158 The small Locus 3533 in the south of the house contained a tabun and
formed the kitchen facilities together with another small room that contained another
tabun (Room 3609). The body of a zoomorphic figurine was found here, together with 1
bowl, 1 krater, 1 cooking pot, and 1 jug (fig. 3.40).â•›159 Rooms 3543 and 3561 both yielded a
wheel from a model chariot together with assemblages and tools related to the preparation
and consumption of food.â•›160 The assemblages from the “lower house” rooms (3569, 3573,
3582 and 3533), in containing category A and B objects together with common domestic

157.╇See Ussishkin 2004: 481–82. The report does not provide illustrations of the figurine frag-
ments and the complete pottery assemblage.
158.╇See Ussishkin 2004: 470.
159.╇ Ussishkin 2004: 471; Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.35: 1–4; Kletter 2004: fig. 28.39:3.
160.╇ Ussishkin 2004: 471–72, 474–75; Sass 2004: fig. 28.21: 4–5.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 121

Fig. 3.41.╇ Lachish, Level III (?): JPF head and pottery from Locus G 14: 1008.

pottery, reveal again an association between ritual practices and the preparation and con-
sumption of food. The ritual practices suggested in these cases are the offering of dry food
or libations, along with the burning of incense, and the astragali indicate the possibility of
gaming or the casting of lots.
122 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.42.╇ Lachish, Level III: JPF head and pottery from Locus H 17: 1078.

Scant evidence was extracted from the domestic units adjoining the street that led
to the gate and the rooms south of the palace. Artifacts described by Tufnell from Locus
K14/15:1033, east of the citadel, included the severely damaged head of a male figurineâ•›161
but gave no clear suggestion of the function or purpose of this location. Locus G14: 1008
(Level III), a part of a building south of the palace that consisted of rooms numbered
1001, 1005, 1006, and 1008, yielded a JPF head (category A), an imitation cowry shell of
faience (category B), and an assemblage of utilitarian pottery (ten bowls, three jugs, one
cooking pot, one pilgrim flask, two jars, and three storage jars (fig. 3.41).â•›162 The presence
of an oven and the character of the pottery assemblage confirm that the room must have
been used as kitchen.
Another JPF head was found in Room H17: 1078 (Level III), which belonged to one
of the domestic buildings north of the road (1087) that proceeds out from the gate. The
pottery consisted of a lamp, a pot stand, a juglet, a small jug, a cooking pot, a bowl, and
four storage jars (fig. 3.42).â•›163

161.╇ Tufnell 1953: 112–13; pl. 31.16.

162.╇Cf. Tufnell 1953: 109; pl. 31.10; fig. 3.40 compiled by Schmitt after Tufnell 1953: pls. 31.6;
79–104; 114.
163.╇See Tufnell 1953: 122; fig. 3.41 compiled by Schmitt after Tufnell 1953: pls. 31.10; 79–104;
115.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 123

Fig. 3.43.╇ Lachish, Room

49, with objects in situ.

The evidence from these Iron IIC (Level III) buildings at Lachish affirms that cultic
objects were used in areas otherwise devoted to the processing and consumption of food.

3.3.19.2.╇ Room 49: A village shrine

The supposed cultic place in Room 49, Stratum V, which was dated to the second half
of the 10th century b.c.e. (Y. Aharoni 1975: 14), was most likely a village shrine. This
structure was a broad room that measured 2.3 × 3.3 m with a bench that encircled the
inner walls. The western corner of the bench was raised to a small platform, which has
been interpreted as a bamāh (Y. Aharoni 1975: 26). The assemblage consisted of a horned
limestone altar, 4 stands (2 of which were fenestrated), 2 pointed bowls (category A) that
were set on the stands, 8 chalices, 3 lamps (category B), 8 jugs, 2 storage jars, 2 juglets, 14
bowls, 3 cooking pots, 2 fragmentary clay basins, a fragmentary clay oven,â•›164 and a dressed
basalt slab that was interpreted as a maṣṣebāh.â•›165 However, the slab was most likely a stone
of some architectural function, since there was no installation in the room that could have
accommodated a maṣṣebāh. The distribution of the objects (as shown in fig. 3.43) clearly
reveals a cultic focus oriented toward the western corner.â•›166 The integration of Room 49
in relation to the plan of the greater area remains uncertain because of erosion and the
limited excavation area. Nevertheless, within the vicinity of Room 49, Locus 111 revealed
a raised terrace that has been interpreted as bamāh. A large limestone was found in Lo-
cus 81 together with remnants of a burned tree trunk.â•›167 Two favissae (Pits 136 and 135)
contained at least four stones likely to have been maṣṣebôt, a stone slab with a cup-like de-
pression (in Pit 136), and pottery and other objects that may have served cultic purposes
(including the head of a figurine, two fragments of animal figurines, five game pieces, a
carnelian bead, and a red-burnished jug from Pit 135).â•›168 The purportedly sacred area
164.╇Y. Aharoni 1975: 107–8; pls. 41–43.
165.╇ Aharoni 1975: 26.
166.╇ Aharoni 1975: fig. 6.
167.╇ Aharoni 1975: 26–30; pl. 3.
168.╇Y. Aharoni 1975: pls. 33.3 and 9; 15.8, 9, 11–13; 16.15.
124 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.44.╇ Lachish, Stratum V: Cult Room 49: bamāh and maṣṣebah in situ.

where the maṣṣebāh was found is shown in fig. 3.44.â•›169 The entire complex has therefore
been interpreted as a cultic place that consisted of a shrine and bamāh, maṣṣebôt, and an
ašerāh-pile,â•›170 even though the relation of the shrine to the maṣṣebôt remains unclear.
The spatial arrangement of the pottery and other objects in Room 49 appears to be
quite significant. The four stands were placed in a rectangular arrangement, with the altar
in a central position in front of the lower part of the bench. Three of the chalices were po-
sitioned on this lower bench, while two of the juglets were placed on the raised platform in
the west corner. Two jugs, three bowls, and three chalices were placed on the west bench.
Cultic activities must therefore have been focused on the depression in the hillside and on
the objects that were placed there.â•›171 The entire assemblage of Locus 49 may have served a
variety of ritual purposes. The limestone altar and the bowls on stands that show traces of
169.╇ Compiled after Aharoni 1975: pls. 3.1 and 60.
170.╇ Aharoni 1975: 26–32.
171.╇See Zevit 2001: 216–17. Although Zevit’s reading of meaning into the arrangement of
objects is insightful, there seems to be little evidence for his suggestion that the partitioning of the
assemblage into three distinct groups reflects a cult of three deities.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 125

burning were probably used for burnt offerings or the burning of incense, while the large
majority of the vessels were most likely used for the consumption of food and drinks. The
last ritual action that took place in the shrine of Room 49 must have focused on either the
consumption of a drink or the ritual offering thereof, as indicated by the chalices in the de-
pression and the juglets that were found on the platform. The presence of an oven, cooking
pots, and storage jars also indicates that meals were prepared in the cult room proper. As
Zevit rightly notes (2001: 215–16), the small size and crowded character of the facility in-
dicate that ritual actions could not have been conducted with any large number of people
present. His estimate of two or three people, however, is probably a bit low, because the
objects were concentrated in the west, which left enough space in the eastern part of the
structure for up to ten people to sit close together on the benches. Thus, the cult place may
certainly have been a small village shrine, which may also have served for the occasional
offering of burnt material or libations associated with ritual meals.
The entire assemblage reflects many aspects of Megiddo Locus 2081, in terms of both
content and arrangement; a cultic focus is also indicated by the large altar flanked by the
smaller altar, censer-jug, and stand. As at Lachish, the last ritual action there involved
juglets and a chalice.â•›172

3.3.20.╇ Tel Masos (Ḥirbet el-Mušāš), map reference 146.069

Tel Masos is located on a hillside of the Beersheba valley, about 12 km east of Beer-
sheba. The site was excavated by a joint Israeli/German team led by Y. Aharoni, Fritz, and
Kempinski from 1972 to 1975 (Fritz and Kempinski 1983). The most important feature of
Tel Masos is the early Iron Age settlement found in Stratum III–II. While the finds from
most of the Iron Age I houses were scant, House 314 of Stratum II yielded some interest-
ing and unusually rich assemblages of pottery and objects of categories A and B. House
314 measured about 17 × 10.8 m, with rooms (numbered 305, 311, 307, 304, 306, 302, 331,
and 343) positioned around the central Courtyard 314. A pillared building consisting of
three rooms (numbered 352, 350, and 360) directly abutted its eastern wall (fig. 3.45).â•›173
A rich assemblage of items relating to the preparation and consumption of food was
found in Room 343 and consisted of a pot stand fragment, nine bowls, seven kraters,
three chalices, ten cooking jugs, two cooking pots, eight jugs, one strainer jug, six juglets,
nine storage jars, four hole-mouth jars, one amphoriskos, five pyxides, three lamps, one
pilgrim flask, and a fragment of an Egyptian “flower pot,” as well as several loom weights
and working stones (fig. 3.46).â•›174 The room was partly paved in the north and also con-
tained two ovens. Room 307 contained a brick platform in the southeast corner measuring
0.4 × 0.2 m, and an open fireplace. The pottery consisted of a decorated bowl, three other
bowls, three cooking pots, three jugs, four juglets, two pyxides, a lamp, a krater, a pithos,
and a storage jar.â•›175 The most striking find was a group of worked and unworked stones of
unusual shape (category B), among which was a small stone triangle, a stone resembling

172.╇ See below, pp. 134–137.

173.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 14.
174.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 41–42; pl. 38A; 150–52.
175.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 142–43.
126 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.45.╇ Tel Masos, Area G, Stratum II: Plan of House 314.

a crouching animal (category A; similar to a larger lion from Tell Beit Mirsim),â•›176 and
four unworked stones that resembled human or animal forms.â•›177 The entire assemblage is
shown in fig. 3.47.
Adjacent Room 311 yielded an assemblage of 6 bowls, 2 cooking pots, 6 jugs (3 of
which were of imported Phoenician bichrome ware), 2 flasks (1 of which was bichrome),
and fragments of about 14 storage jars.â•›178 Courtyard Room 314 yielded 2 bowls, 5 kraters,
5 jugs, a juglet, and 4 storage jars.â•›179 Important objects were also found in the northern
Room 331, including a hollow lion’s head made of ivory, which was most likely the spout
of a vessel of composite material, a simple stand, double-tipped standing or libation bowls
176.╇See Albright 1938: pl. 23.
177.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 106 A–D; 171.7–8.
178.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 41, pls. 144–46.
179.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 147–48.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 127

Fig. 3.46.╇ Tel Masos: Pottery assemblage from Room 343.

(category A), 3 lamps, a jug, a pithos, a jar, a fragment of a bichrome vessel, and some
pieces of copper (fig. 3.48).â•›180 Room 304 was predominantly a storage room and contained
fragments of more than 30 storage jars. Among other finds in this room were an unusually
shaped bowl, a bowl, and 3 jugs.â•›181 Room 306 in the northern corner yielded a juglet, an
amphoriskos, and a storage jar.â•›182

180.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 149; 170.1.

181.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 41, pls. 141.1–5.
182.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 41, pls. 141.6, 7, 9.
128 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.47.╇ Tel Masos, House 314: Pottery assemblage and “collectibles“ from Room 307.

The presence of pottery and other usual and unusual objects of probable cultic use led
Kempinski to suggest that House 314 must have served some cultic purposes (1993: 987;
see also Willett 1999: 109). Room 307 in particular was interpreted as having been some
kind of cult room, even though Fritz (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 40–41) interpreted the
stones and associated structures from Room 307 to reflect, more likely, use as a work-
shop. However, the pottery assemblage of this room consisted predominantly of items
associated with the preparation and consumption of food, with some of the vessels being
imported and therefore of a luxury character. Moreover, no items were found in this room
that could have been produced there. The stone objects considered as a single group re-
veal no clear utilitarian purpose, and it is unlikely that these objects were used as objects
of worship or other fetishistic purposes. They were more likely used as votive or ritual
objects. However, the open hearth and the platform both admit the possibility that the
room was used for food preparation as well as cultic activities. Although the unusual stone
collection considered together with the installations and the pottery assemblage support
the conjecture of some kind of cultic cell, the question whether the room served primarily
in the preparation and consumption of food or whether it served cultic purposes must
remain unresolved.
The mixed assemblage of storage vessels from Room 331, including the lion-spout, the
stand, and incense burners (or stand bowls), raises the possibility that these were cultic
objects that were stored there when not in actual use. The overall size and the rich con-
tents of House 314 are exceptional for an early or proto-Israelite settlement, and it may be
assumed that this structure with the attached Building 350 served a joint family of some
social importance and wealth. Thus we theorize that House 314 was the residence of a lo-
cal chief, who used a small room as a shrine for a variety of cultic purposes for his family.
Room 343 contained an oven and an assemblage of items related to the preparation and
consumption of food and drink and could have been used to prepare ritual meals that
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 129

Fig. 3.48.╇ Tel Masos, House 314.

Pottery assemblage and ivory lion’s
head from Room 331.

were served in the house of the chief. House 314 is thus one of the most important finds
in the present quest.
Iron Age II structures were discovered on a small mound about 200  m east of the
Iron I settlement (Area G). The Iron II structures had four subphases (1–4), all of which
have been dated to the end of the 7th century. The Area G buildings most likely suffered
destruction at times from Edomite raids near the end of the Judean Kingdom (Kempinski
1993: 989). A uniform row of chambers was unearthed in this location, which ran along
a paved street. The doors of the dwellings were supposed to have been in the northern
corner of each chamber. Because only a small section was excavated to ascertain the his-
tory of the settlement, the larger layout and the other characteristics of the structures
remain unclear. Several ovens and items of domestic pottery were found, indicating that
the rooms were used as dwellings. Kempinski (1993: 989) considered the rooms to have
been part of a fortress, while Rösel (in Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 127) suspected that they
served some kind of semi-public function. The chambers could also be another example
of military accommodation. Despite this and the limited area excavated, the chambers
yielded firm evidence of domestic cult activities.
Room 609 (Phase 2) is located in the northwest of Street 726 and was only partly exca-
vated. It contained the torso of an animal figurine (category A), a bowl, a krater, a juglet, a
130 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.49.╇ Tel Masos: Animal figurine and pottery from Locus 609.

jug, and a store jar (fig. 3.49).â•›183 Room 708 (Phase 2) contained a pottery assemblage con-
sisting of a bowl, four cooking pots, two juglets, a storage jar, and two lamps, as well as a
JPF base (fig. 3.50).â•›184 Room 758 (Phase 2) is located on the street to the west, only a small
portion of which was excavated. It contained a model chair and a cup (fig. 3.51).â•›185 Room
718 (Phase 3) was part of a structure consisting of at least two rooms and contained a zo�
omorphic spout, the torso of an animal figurine, two bowls, and a flask (fig. 3.52).â•›186 Some
additional material, including animal and JPF fragments, was found on Streets 768 and
778 and likely came from objects that were used in the adjacent dwellings. The evidence
from these Iron Age IIC dwellings, whether they served civil or military purposes, reveals
once more that cultic activities in Iron Age IIC were associated with common items of
domestic pottery and installations for the preparation and consumption of food. In ac-

183.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 22, pls. 111.3; 163.3; 164.2; 165.22; 166.1; 166.14.
184.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 22, pls. 111.5; 163.14; 165.6–9, 20–21; 166.1, 3, 15, 16.
185.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 22; pls. 172.13; 164.11.
186.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 23; pls. 111.2 and 4; 163.12; 166.3.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 131

Fig. 3.50.╇ Tel Masos: Figurine base and pottery from Room 708.
132 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.51.╇ Tel Masos: Model Chair and cup from Room 758.

cordance with other Iron IIC sites, the ritual actions in the dwellings seem to have been
predominantly votive practices associated with figurines and model furniture.

3.3.21.╇ Tell Michal (Tell Makmiš), map reference 131.174

Tell Michal, located on the shores of the Mediterranean 12.5 km north of Jaffa, was
a small site in Iron Age IIA, with an economy based on trading and viniculture (Herzog
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 133

Fig. 3.52.╇ Tel Masos: Animal figurine, zoomorphic spout, and pottery from Room 718.

et  al. 1988: 8; Herzog 1994: 1041). A small building (Locus 300) was excavated on the
small northeastern hill of the site that featured buttressed walls and a broad entrance mea-
suring 1.5 m across. These unusual architectural features along with the presence in the
building of a flat platform between 1.6 and 1.7 m wide and a ceramic assemblage of three
goblets led the excavators to the conclusion that the building served as a small sanctuary
(fig. 3.53).â•›187 Goblets of possible cultic use have also been found in Megiddo, Beth-shean,
and Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: 51), among other places. Several pits at Tell Michal, which
were possibly used as favissae for a sanctuary, yielded chalices, bowls, jugs, juglets, and
other material.â•›188 Because this Iron Age settlement participated in wine production, it
seems highly plausible that the sanctuary served the vinicultural community. A 10th-
century structure was found 400  m northeast of Tell Michal. It measured 10  m across,
contained a simple stone platform that was covered with ash, bones, and potsherds, and
was interpreted as having been an open-air cultic place (Avigad 1993: 932–33; Zwickel
1994: 265–66). The connection between these seemingly contemporary cultic places re-
mains unclear, however. Zwickel (1994: 266) assumed that the installation on the small
northeastern hill served for cooking the zebaḥ at some distance from the sanctuary itself,
although this interpretation remains tentative.

187.╇ Herzog et al. 1988: 69–70, figs. 5.5; 7.5, 15–17.

188.╇ Herzog et al. 1988: 69, 86 with fig. 7.5.
134 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.53.╇ Tell Michal, Stratum XIV–XIII:

Sanctuary with findspots of pottery.

3.3.22.╇ Megiddo and Tell el-Mutesellim, map reference 167.221

Although the assemblages at Megiddo in Stratum VA–IVB, Locus 2081—the so-called
shrine Room 340 of Building 338 and the Stratum VA Building 10—have been the subject
of much discussion, the early excavations leave many stratigraphic problems unresolved,
and these structures and assemblages are not discussed further here.â•›189

3.3.22.1.╇ The cult corner of Locus 2081

The so-called cult corner of Locus 2081 (Stratum VA–IVB) was excavated in 1936 by
the Oriental Institute Excavations (see Loud 1948: 45–46). It formed a small chamber of
1.25 × 2.5 m that had indirect access from the northwestern corner of Locus 2081, which
itself was a rectangular structure of approximately 5 × 9 m (figs. 3.54–55).â•›190 Besides the
well-documented stratigraphic problems, the layout of the building is also unclear. The
cult corner was most likely part of a larger domestic unit, as depicted in Loud’s reconstruc-
tion in fig. 3.55. Although the two stones that stood at the entrance to the central room
have been interpreted as maṣṣebôt (Loud 1948: 45 with fig. 103; Ussishkin 1989: 167), they
more likely served architectural purposes as pillars (Negbi 1993: 222; Bloch-Smith 2005:
34–35).
The assemblage of Room 2081 consisted of 2 limestone altars, 3 stands (category A),
2 chalices, 1 lamp (category B), 25 bowls, 28 jugs (some of which were Cypro-Phoenician),
7 jars, 2 basalt vessels, and several other small finds that can be assigned to diagnostic cate-

189.╇See Finkelstein et  al. 2000a: 595–602. For discussion, also see Finkelstein 1996; 2000b;
2005. A summary of the discussion is given by Schmitt 2004.
190.╇ Loud 1948: figs. 100–101.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 135

Fig. 3.54.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081: Cult corner proper with objects in situ.

gory B (astragali in a bowl, 6 game pieces, 6 stamp seals, 2 amulets, several beads, pendants,
and metal objects).â•›191 The actual cult corner of this room yielded 2 horned altars, 3 stands
(2 of which were solid and 1 fenestrated), a perforated large round jar that was probably
a large censer (Zwickel 1990: 37; 1994: 2809), a jar that blocked the mouth of the latter,
2 juglets, 2 chalices, a bowl, a limestone slab, a mortar, a rubbing stone, and an axhead, as
well as astragali found in a bowl. In front of the larger altar was a mound of burned grain.
The 2 juglets were found lying on top of the larger altar near the southern wall, and one of
the stands was lying on a platform adjacent to the northern wall. The spatial relationships
of these finds are shown in fig. 3.54.â•›192 One part of the pottery assemblage had blocked the
entrance to the cult corner, as depicted in Zevit’s reconstruction in fig. 3.56.â•›193
Aside from the offering of grain on the altar, the character of the assemblage suggests
the consumption of food and drink, as well as gaming or the casting of lots for mantic
purposes. A cultic focus is indicated by the large altar flanked by the smaller altar, along
with the censer-jug and stand oriented toward the south wall. As in Lachish Room 49, the
last ritual action seems to have involved juglets and a chalice,â•›194 along with a burnt offer-
ing. The character of this building has been the subject of much dispute. Loud (1948: 45–
46) himself admitted some cultic significance, and many others (such as Ussishkin 1989:
172; Shiloh 1993: 1023) share the opinion that Locus 2081 must have been some kind of
temple or palace shrine. Kempinski (1989: 186) concludes by comparisons with domestic

191.╇ Loud 1948: 161–62.

192.╇After Loud 1948: fig. 101.
193.╇ Zevit 2001: fig. 3.55.
194.╇ See below, pp. 123–125.
136 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.55.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081 with adjacent structures.

architecture that the building was a variant of the four-room house and was therefore
most likely the residence of an official. He further states that the assemblage points to the
nomadic origin of the Israelites, in that, “originally coming from small family or clan-
groups, their cult installations were usually connected to the household of some well-to-
do persons in the clan of the family.” H. Weippert (1988: 433) similarly considered Locus
2081 to have been a place of domestic cult activities. Holladay (1997: 253) interpreted the
structure as a shrine that was contained in a “semipublic space probably involved with the
residence of an important government official.” Zwickel (1994: 280; and following him,
Herr 2000a: 8) presumed the corner to have been nothing more than a storeroom for
items associated with cultic activities that were themselves conducted in the courtyard.
In fact, as Zevit (2001: 225–26; and see also Lamon and Shipton 1939: 24) notes, a pos-
sible fragment of a large, horned altar was discovered not far from the actual building of
Locus 2081, suggesting that sacrifices were possibly performed in the area, although the
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 137

Fig. 3.56.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081: Pottery assemblage as reconstructed by Zevit (2000:
fig.€3.55).

association may be coincidental, and the find is of unclear date. Herzog (1997: 212) con-
sidered the storeroom more likely to have served a sanctuary near the gate outside the city.
Whether Room 2081 served largely private or public purposes, there can be little doubt
about the cultic significance of the assemblage. Considering, however, that the building
was located in a northern section west of the gate (Area AA), with most other buildings
in the vicinity forming a domestic area, there is no reason to assume a public function
(Negbi 1993: 222). The building was most likely the dwelling of a wealthy person or family
(Kempinski 1989: 187), where occasional ritual meals, drinking, gaming, and offerings of
grain occurred. The presence of the horned altars may simply reflect the wealthy status
of the owner rather than the performance of cultic activities as a part of official religious
practices, as posited by Holladay (1987: 252–53).

3.3.22.2.╇ The “Palace Shrine” of Locus 340

Cult Room 340 in Building 338 (Stratum IVA) originally, which was first excavated by
Schumacher and later by an American team, presents even greater problems than Locus
2081 in terms of its stratigraphy and contents. The structure was thoroughly reevaluated
by Ussishkin (Ussishkin 1989: 149–58; 1993), who incorporated data from both the Ger-
man and the American excavations. Room 340 was part of a structure resembling a type of
bit-hilani palace; it measured 9.15 × 4 m and was oriented approximately toward the north
138 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.57.╇ Megiddo, Palace 338: General plan.

(fig. 3.57).â•›195 This room contained a number of permanent installations, all aligned in a

row in the center of the room. These installations comprised two large monolithic stelae,
between which were a bench with two pillars and an offering table, and two additional pil-
lars in the southernmost and northernmost positions. Underneath the offering table were
two stone slabs (one with a round depression) surrounded by ashes (fig. 3.58).â•›196 Cultic
activities were focused toward the east. Objects found here are illustrated in fig. 3.59 and
included a schematic anthropomorphic object (an “idol”) that was found on top of the
southern pillar; several juglets, including two black ones, found on the bench between
the stelae; one strainer jug found in the debris; a cooking pot; a bowl; a cup and saucer;
a tripod basalt bowl; and parts of a terra-cotta model shrine (interpreted by Schumacher
1908: T 39 as a pottery basin).â•›197 Adjacent Room 332 to the north yielded a round lime-
stone stand or altar, two pottery stands, a fragmented model shrine, one or two basalt
mortars, a bowl, a spouted jug, a flask, and several small juglets. In what has been assumed
to have been the forecourt were found two bowls, one large bowl, and a strainer jug.â•›198
Two stands were found in Room 331.â•›199 The assemblage of pottery and ritual artifacts

195.╇ Ussishkin 1989: fig. 4.

196.╇ Ussishkin 1989: fig. 5. See Schumacher 1908: T. 36.
197.╇ Compiled after Schumacher 1908: 121–22; T. 37–39.
198.╇ Ussishkin 1989: 163–66 with fig. 7.
199.╇ May 1935: pp. xix, 2802, 2803.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 139

Fig. 3.58.╇ Megiddo, Locus 340.

thus closely resembles the assemblage of Locus 2081, and the entire structure has there-
fore been interpreted as a fortress-temple or a shrine inside a palace or official building
(Schumacher 1908: 110–14; May 1935: 8; Kempinski 1989: 187; Ussishkin 1989; 1993;
Zevit 2001: 227–31.)
One problem in discerning the function of this building, however, is the interpreta-
tion of the stelae as maṣṣebôt.â•›200 At an early stage, Watzinger (1929: 72–73) questioned the
cultic nature of the building, presuming it to have been a dwelling, with the stelae serv-
ing as pillars, the stone with depression as a mortar, and Room 340 thus to have been a

200.╇ Schumacher 1908: 111; May 1935: 4–56; Ussishkin 1989; 1993 passim.
140 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.59.╇ Megiddo: Content of Room 340.

kitchen. Following him, Stern (1990: 102–7), Zwickel (1994: 255–56), Bloch-Smith (2005:
36), and others challenged Ussishkin’s interpretation with similar arguments. However,
even if the stelae were merely supporting pillars for the roof, the permanent installations
and particularly the altar-like structure of Room 340 and the presence in other rooms of
diagnostic objects of categories A and B (such as altars, the stand, and the pottery shrine)
support the theory of regular, ongoing cultic use of at least Room 340, with ritual objects
for occasional use stored in the other rooms. The traditional interpretation of this room as
a palace shrine therefore remains highly plausible.

3.3.22.3.╇ Buildings 10 and A1

Building 10, Stratum V, was located about 20 m south of the later Building 338. The
structure seems to have been some kind of storage building. Adjacent building 1A appears
to have been a smaller form of the tripartite, pillared buildings that are widely interpreted
as having been storerooms (H. Weippert 1988: 542–43; Herzog 1992: 225–26), although it
was not a domestic unit. In contrast, however, Negbi (1993: 225) considered the building
to have been a residential unit. Three small altars were found in its vicinity (in squares R12
and Q13) as well as a pottery shrine.â•›201 From inside the building were taken two plaque-
figurines, a fragment of a solid figurine, a zoomorphic vessel, and a vessel with an animal-
like body and spout. However, these objects lacked distinct stratigraphic contexts. There
is no evidence that any of these objects originally belonged with Shrine 340 or with any

201.╇ May 1935: pls. 12–15; Lamon and Shipton 1939: 55, 57–58.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 141

other sanctuary in the vicinity;â•›202 nor did it belong to domestic unit A1, as was proposed
by Negbi (1993: 225). Furthermore, Building 10 could not have formed a “sacred area”
together with Building 338, because these building were not contemporary.â•›203

3.3.22.4.╇ Domestic cult assemblages

3.3.22.4.1.╇ The early Iron Age domestic quarters
Some early Iron Age (IB) data that were presented with little detail by Loud (1948)
have subsequently been reevaluated by Harrison (2004). Harrison’s edition aids the recon-
struction of several assemblages from the domestic areas of Stratum VI (Iron I), particu-
larly those from Area CC, which contained rich finds of pottery and other objects. The re-
newed excavations led by Finkelstein and Ussishkin (Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern
2006) have uncovered additional important evidence from Stratum VI.
Courtyard House 00/K/10, Level K (VIA) was undoubtedly the most important find
from this period (see Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006: 87–103, 191–298, 583–
600). The building was completely excavated during the renewed excavations, revealing
large amounts of pottery and objects found in situ, aiding in the discernment of areas in
the house that corresponded to different activities. The spatial distribution of the ritual ob-
jects is shown in fig. 3.60.â•›204 The most important finds for the present purposes were a fe-
nestrated cult stand, two chalices, and fragments of figurines in categories A and B found
together with large numbers of storage vessels in Storeroom 98/K/77. The objects were
not actually in use at the time; they were in storage when the house was destroyed by fire.
Five more zoomorphic figurines and zoomorphic vessel fragments were found in Room
008/87—a kitchen with a hearth and tabun—that also included other food-processing
utensils; in Rooms 98/46, which were used for grinding and the consumption of food; in
Room 00/45, which was used for consuming food, spinning, grinding, and for storage;
and in Room 00/05. Several flat stones of up to 22 cm high were considered by the excava-
tors possibly to have been stelae (see Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Halpern 2006: 410), but
they were more likely to have been tools or working stones some kind, because stelae are
not associated with domestic cult patterns of Iron Age I and have never been observed in
other contemporary houses at Megiddo. According to the excavators, “There was no single
location dedicated to home-cult. Rather, cult was integrated spatially and probably also
spiritually with other daily activities.”â•›205
Area AA, Locus 2159 was a Stratum VIB structure that was the predecessor of the
VIA palatial Building 2072. Although difficult to reconstruct from the excavated remains,
the Stratum VIA building seems to have been a courtyard house, with Room 2159 being
adjacent to the courtyard (Harrison 2004: 15–16). The structure was clearly of a domestic
character, containing installations for the storage and preparation of food. It contained a

202.╇Against Holladay (1987: 253), who proposes a sanctuary in the vicinity that may have
been destroyed by Schumacher’s excavation; and Ussishkin (1989: 167), who assumes that the altars
were removed from Building 338.
203.╇See May 1935: 4 and pl. 1; Negbi 1993: 225.
204.╇ Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006: fig. 33.5.
205.╇Gadot and Yasur-Landau in Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006: 591; see also
pp. 246–47.
142 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.60.╇ Distribution of ritual objects from Megiddo courtyard House 00/K/10.

terra-cotta shrine (category A),â•›206 a chalice (category B), a pyxis, nine bowls, a jug, a jar,
two ovoid jars, a pilgrim flask, three lentoid flasks, a cup-mouthed lentoid flask, a cylin-
drical bottle, a spouted amphoriskos, and a double pyxis. A sample of these is shown in
fig. 3.61.â•›207 The model shrine suggests the domestic veneration of a deity.
A domestic quarter in the north of area CC included Loci 1727, 1729, 1732, 1770,
1737, and 1743, and produced some rich assemblages as follows:
Area CC, Locus 1727 contained the head of a female figurine (category A), 3 chalices,
1 lamp (category B), 2 pilgrim flasks, 2 flasks, a pyxis, 2 bowls, 2 cooking pots, 13 jugs, and
12 jars. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.62.â•›208
Area CC, Locus 1729 contained a stand (category A), a goblet, two lamps (category
B), a basalt bowl, a pyxis, four pilgrim-flasks, three jugs, a juglet, a bowl, two lamps, two
strainer cups, a baking tray, and ten jars. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.63.â•›209

206.╇ May 1935: pl. 15; Harrison 2004: pl. 21.4.

207.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D. See
also Loud 1948: 166. All illustrations in this section appear courtesy of The Oriental Institute,
Chicago.
208.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud
1948: 149.
209.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud
1948: 149.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 143

Fig. 3.61.╇ Megiddo,

Sratum VI, Area AA:
Pottery shrine and
selected pottery from
eastern quadrant of
Locus 2159.
144 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.62.╇ Megiddo, Stratum

VI, Area CC: Objects and
selected pottery from Locus
1727.

Both of these loci probably belonged to a domestic unit, with ovens, a pit, and a rectan-
gular basin or bathtub being typical installations in Iron I households in Megiddo. Locus
1727 may have been a kitchen, and Locus 1729 a storeroom accessible from the kitchen.
Area CC, Locus 1732 was a small, square room that was most likely used for storage
purposes. Along with Locus 1770, it belonged to a building that adjoined the domestic
structure formed by Loci 1727 and 1729. It contained a zoomorphic vessel, a kernos frag-
ment, a small bronze calf (most likely an amulet of category A), 3 chalices, a goblet (cate-
gory B), an amphoriskos, 3 jugs, 2 juglets, 4 lamps, a flask, 2 cooking pots, a bowl, 14 jars,
and a basalt vessel. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.64.â•›210
Area CC, Locus 1737 appears to have been an unbuilt area or courtyard associated
with the structure formed by Loci 1727, 1729, 1732, and 1743. A charred tree was found in
this locusâ•›211 along with the spout of a zoomorphic vessel, a strainer jar, a juglet, and three

210.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See Loud 1948:
149.
211.╇ Harrison 2004: fig. 72.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 145

Fig. 3.63.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand associated with Locus 1729 and selected
pottery from Locus 1729.

jugs. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.65.â•›212

Area CC, Locus 1731 enclosed a courtyard, along with Loci 1735, 1736, 1740, 1744,
and 1780, which together formed a substantial courtyard house (see Harrison 2004: 18).
A small section of wall separated this locus from an oven. It is therefore likely that Locus
1731 was part of a kitchen or its storeroom. It contained a stand (category A), a bowl, a

212.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; figure compiled after 2004: appendix D. See Loud
1948: 150.
146 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.64.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Objects and selected pottery from assemblage of
Room 1732.

flask, two jars, and a jug that was found in the east corner of the locus. A sample of these
is shown in fig. 3.66.â•›213
Area CC, Locus 1735 was a small room that either included or was situated near an
oven. It contained a stand (category A), two chalices (category B), a basalt bowl, a spouted
amphoriskos, a painted jug, two jugs, four pilgrim flasks, a juglet, and five jars. A sample

213.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud
1948: 149.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 147

Fig. 3.65.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI,

Area CC: Zoomorphic spout and
pottery from Locus 1737.

of these is shown in fig. 3.67.â•›214

Area CC, Locus 1736 contained the fragment of a Kernos ring (category A),â•›215 a painted
pyxis, 3 painted jugs, 3 lentoid flasks, 3 jugs, 5 kraters, 2 bowls, a spouted amphoriskos, a
strainer jug, a lamp, a baking tray, and 11 jars. A sample if these is shown in fig. 3.68.â•›216
Area CC, Locus 1740 contained a fish-shaped bowl that was probably the top sec-
tion of a stand (category A),â•›217 a pair of cymbals, three goblets (category B), a Phoeni-

214.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud
1948: 150.
215.╇ Harrison 2004: 160: P6217. No drawing available.
216.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud
1948: 150.
217.╇ Harrison 2004: pl. 22.6.
148 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.66.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand with figurative appliques from Locus 1731.

cian strainer jug, a strainer cup, four jugs, four bowls, six flasks, and two cooking pots. A
sample of these is shown in fig. 3.69.â•›218
Area CC, Locus 1744 was a small room containing the base of a stand (category A),â•›219
a chalice (category B), a painted jug, a strainer jug, a pilgrim flask, a funnel or strainer, four
cooking pots, a bowl, and five jars. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.70.â•›220
Area CC, Locus 1780 contained the fragment of a female figurine,â•›221 a cup-mouthed
lentoid flask, a krater, a cooking pot, a jug, and six jars.â•›222
Area CC, Locus 1741 was a part of a stone pavement that may have belonged to a
courtyard house to the northeast of the unit formed by Loci 1731, 1735, 1740, 1744, and
1780. It contained the foot of an animal figurine carved from bone, three Egyptian faience
amulets (two of which were ptah-sokar, and the other undetermined), a goblet, a basalt
bowl, a painted jug, a strainer jug, two jugs, two cup-mouthed lentoid flasks, a pyxis, a
lamp, three bowls, and two jugs. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.71.â•›223
Area CC, Locus 1752 was a room that may have belonged to the same building as
Locus 1741. It contained a stand,â•›224 a goblet, four cooking pots, a jug, a lentoid flask, two

218.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud
1948: 150–51.
219.╇ Harrison 2004: pl. 22.3.
220.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud
1948: 151.
221.╇ Harrison 2004: pl. 26.9.
222.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C.
223.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C. Compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud
1948: 150.
224.╇ Harrison 2004: pl. 14.4 = 22.4.
Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 149

Fig. 3.67.╇ Megiddo,

Stratum VI, Area
CC: Stand and
selected pottery
from Locus 1735.
Photograph of
Locus 1735.
150 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.68.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC:

Selected pottery and photography from Locus
1736.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 151

Fig. 3.69.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Top of stand with selected pottery and cymbals
from Locus 1740.

lamps, two jars, a cup and saucer, and two scaraboid seals. A sample of these is shown in
fig. 3.72.â•›225 The goblet, one of the jugs, and the cup and saucer were found in the eastern
area (E=1752).

225.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C. Compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud
1948: 152.
152 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.70.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand and selected pottery from Locus 1744.

Area CC, Locus 1750 was a largely undefined area with trees and loom weights. It con-
tained a kernos ring, a jar, a faience amulet, and an ivory animal foot.â•›226 The material from
this locus was most likely rubbish that was disposed of deliberately.
Area CC, Locus 1760 was a stone floor that belonged to another courtyard house in the
southwest of Area CC. The presence of two ovens indicates that the assemblage belonged
to a kitchen. Its contents included the torso of female figurine (category A),â•›227 a chalice,
two Phoenician bichrome flasks, a bowl, three jars, two spouted amphoriskoi, and two
226.╇ Loud 1948: 151; pl. 243.20. See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C, pp. 62–96.
227.╇ Harrison 2004: fig. 25.6.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 153

Fig. 3.71.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area

CC: Amulets, bone figurine fragment, and
selected pottery from Locus 1741.

jugs.â•›228 The figurine fragment and one flask were found in the southern section of the
locus.
Area CC, Locus 1804 contained a cup-like fragment of a kernos ring.â•›229 The overall
architecture, the pottery, and the substantial bronze hoardâ•›230 suggest that Area CC was
probably part of an extremely wealthy residential area. The contents of all of the Megiddo
Stratum VI assemblages were quite similar and always included several high-quality or
luxury items, similar to items from contemporary tombs.â•›231 The similarity of these as-
semblages, and the abundance of diagnostic objects of categories A and B could suggest
either that the entire assemblage was dedicated to cultic purposes, or that only those items

228.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C. See also Loud 1948: 152.
229.╇See Harrison 2004: pl. 23.5. Not mentioned in Loud 1948.
230.╇ Found in Locus 1739. See Harrison 2004: pls. 31–35.
231.╇ See chap. 6, pp. 178–428.
154 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.72.╇ Megiddo, Stratum

VI, Area CC: Cult stand and
goblet from Locus 17.

of unambiguously cultic purpose were so used, with the remaining items merely serving
quotidian, domestic purposes. A number of the assemblages from Megiddo Stratum VI
can be clearly associated with areas dedicated to the production and storage of food, espe-
cially those that obviously indicate kitchens (the renewed excavation Loci 98/k77; 98K70;
and the University of Chicago excavations Loci 1727, 1729, 1731, 1735, and 1760). This
does not, however, contradict an interpretation of cultic activities, because of the presence
of clearly nonutilitarian pottery and group A diagnostic objects such as the kernos frag-
ments, zoomorphic vessels, pottery shrines, figurines associated with stands, and luxury
wares such as the pilgrim flasks for intended holding liquids, the chalices and goblets used
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 155

for consumption thereof. Ritual activities were clearly associated with the kitchen, with
the predominance of stands and vessels for liquids suggesting rituals of libation. These
activities would almost certainly have been conducted by, and quite possibly on behalf of,
the personnel of the kitchen, that is, the women dedicated to the preparation and storage
of food.
There was notable continuity between the contents of Strata VI and VA–IVB, even
extending to the 8th-century (H3/IVA) assemblages, even though the material culture
of Megiddo VI seems to have been fundamentally pre-Israelite.â•›232 There thus appears to
have been very little difference between the characteristics of the pre-Israelite domestic
cult of the LB/early Iron transitional phase and the evidence found in Iron IIA–B Israelite
Megiddo.

3.3.22.4.2.╇ Iron II domestic cult remains from the renewed excavations

During the renewed excavations at Megiddo led by I.  Finkelstein and D.  Ussishkin
(Finkelstein et al. 2000), a burned room with an accumulation of collapsed mud brick and
roof materials was discovered in Square T-U/42 of Level H3 (University of Chicago Stra-
tum IVA), from Iron Age II, which was the latest level occupied by Israelites (Finkelstein
et al. 2000a: 145). While the function and purpose of the unit as a whole remain unknown,
it was clearly domestic in character (Finkelstein et al. 2000a: 160) and possibly comprised
two stories (Finkelstein et al. 2000a: 310). Locus 94 H8 yielded a rich assemblage of pot-
tery and objects buried in the debris of the collapse, some of which may have been of
significance for domestic cult activities. Along with 2 basin-like vessels, 24 storage jars, 24
bowls, 5 kraters, 12 cooking pots, a “beer jug,” 15 jugs, 6 juglets, 2 jars, an Assyrian bottle
(category C), and 2 lamps (category B), there were also found an incense cup, a cult stand,
and a zoomorphic vessel (category A), as well as a range of utensils for the preparation
of food, such as millstones, a limestone bowl, and a pestle (fig. 3.73).â•›233 The entire assem-
blage was certainly of a domestic nature and was related to the storage, preparation, and
consumption of food and liquids. The presence of the incense cup, stand, and zoomorphic
vessel suggests the performance of ritual activities associated with the food vessels. Simi-
lar to the Tel Halif “shrine room,” the cultic vessels were stored alongside the utilitarian
pottery items.
A second assemblage from Area H (Locus 98/H/62), Level H-5 (University of Chicago
Stratum VA–IVB) was also destruction debris that contained a cult stand, a bowl, a krater,
three cooking pots, two juglets, two storage jars, and a lamp, together with various stone

232.╇ Harrison (2004: 108) therefore concludes:

Megiddo appears to have provided a neutral place for these disparate communities to bring their
products to market. . . . The result was a remarkably heterogenous community comprised of in-
dividuals from widely varying social and cultural backgrounds who found themselves drawn to-
gether by the powerful forces at work, and the opportunities they afforded, in the rapidly chang-
ing world of the late 11th century b.c.
A similar picture is found in the Early Iron Age strata at Kinneret (Pakkala, Münger, and Zangen-
berg 2004: 19–21).
233.╇ Finkelstein et al. 2000a: figs. 11.43–51; 2000b: fig. 12.38:5, with a sample of pottery and
objects compiled by the author.
156 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.73.╇ Stand, censer, and zoomorphic vessel from Megiddo, Level H 3, Unit 94/H/8, with
sample of selected pottery.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 157

and metal tools. No architectural remains related to the assemblage could be observed
(Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006: 145, 443; fig. 15.5:1–7).

3.3.23.╇ Tell en-Naṣbeh, map reference 170.143

Tell en-Naṣbeh, situated 12 km northwest of Jerusalem and excavated under the direc-
tion of W. F. Badè between 1926 and 1935 (McCown 1947; Wampler 1947), has proven to
be the second-richest site for terra-cotta figurines, yielding a total of 143 pillar-figurines
(Kletter 1996: fig. 19). Moreover, Tell en-Naṣbeh produced large amounts of other diag-
nostic objects of categories A and B. The distribution of the figurines, altars, stands, seals,
amulets, and other objects of personal adornment was roughly mapped in the original
report (shown in fig. 3.74),â•›234 with this map providing some evidence for the domestic use
of these items. However, the occasionally incomplete contents of only a few tombs and cis-
terns were published, while only samples of pottery and other objects were reported from
the actual rooms, making it impossible to reconstruct entire assemblages.â•›235 Nevertheless,
some of the finds were significant. Room 616 (Iron IIC) was the central room or court of
a three-room house and yielded a fenestrated stand together with two JPF heads. The pot-
tery consisted of cooking pots, bowls, and storage jars. The room also seems to have held a
hearth. Room 622 on the west yielded one human and one zoomorphic figurine.â•›236 Room
616 seems to have been a site for the performance of ritual actions associated with the
production of food that included libations or dry offerings and votive cult. Several cate-
gory A groups were reported in a number of the domestic units. From Room 23, the center
room of a four-room building, came a JPF torso and the fragment of an animal figurine.â•›237
Room 393, which was the long southern room of a three-room house,â•›238 yielded a male
head and a model couch, while Room 398, which was a small chamber belonging to Build-
ing 124.01, yielded a JPF head and another model couch.â•›239 Another male head was found
in Room 239, which was most likely the back room of a three-room house.â•›240 In a cave
dwelling (Cave 193) that was occupied from Iron IIA to the Persian Period, a model bed
was found, with an additional JPF fragment found outside the cave.â•›241
For the additional diagnostic objects that were excavated from Tell en-Naṣbeh (by
room number) and recorded in the report, see table 3.1.â•›242 The distributional maps pre-
sented in the original report and our table 3.1 reveal that anthropoâ•‚ and zoomorphic
figurines were widely used in domestic contexts. Paired anthropomorphic figurines and
model furniture such as those found in Rooms 393 and 398 were also found at Beersheba

234.╇ McCown 1947: fig. 50. See also Kletter 1996: figs. 36–37.

235.╇ For further consideration of this issue, see Zorn 1993: 5–13.
236.╇ Wampler 1947: pl. 77:1774; Zorn 1993: 63.
237.╇ McCown 1947: figs. 86.16; 88.8.
238.╇ See Zorn 1993: 621–22.
239.╇ McCown 1947: fig.  86.2; p.  244 n. 39 (Room 393); pls. 85.12; 84.28 (Room 398). Zorn
1993: 559.
240.╇ McCown 1947: fig. 86.1; Zorn 1993: 409–10.
241.╇ McCown 1947: 230, pl. 84, 85a; 85.26.
242.╇See McCown 1947: pls. 84–90; 77–79.
158 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.74.╇ Distribution patterns from Tell en-Naṣbeh.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 159

Table 3.1.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Tell en-Naṣbeh:

Table of diagnostic objects according to room number
JPF/male Animal Incense Model
figurines figurines Stands Altars burners furniture
Room 23 23 73 360 288 393
nos. 161 55 616 353 398
221 83 356?
239 237
273 291
361 298
369 392
393 512
398 522
435 523
438 551
566 556
586 661
616
633
639
665
670

Loci 25 and 808. The assemblage from Rooms 616 and 622 seems quite analogous to the
assemblage taken from the lower house at Lachish.

3.3.24.╇ Tel Qashish (Tell el-Qassīs), map reference 160.132

The only important finds from Tel Qashish came from an Iron IIA pit that was not as-
sociated with any building in its vicinity. This pit contained the fragment of a kernos bowl
(category A), a whole jug decorated in black and red (category B), a bowl, a handmade
bowl, two jars, and a krater (fig. 3.75).â•›243 Note that most of the vessels were found intact.
We may therefore suppose that the contents of the pit were intentionally deposited and
included objects used by people of high status for unknown ritual purposes and may have
formed a foundation deposit.

3.3.25.╇ Tell Qiri, map reference 1610.2274

Tell Qiri, situated about 30 km northwest of Megiddo, is representative of a small Iron
Age village. Among other domestic structures, a building of possibly cultic character was
excavated in Area D (Stratum VIIIC) and dated to Iron Age I. The exterior formed a

243.╇ Ben-Tor, Portugali and Avissar 1981: figs. 9–10.

160 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.75.╇ Tel Qashish: Pottery from pit Locus 253.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 161

Fig. 3.76.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum

VIII C: Pottery and objects from Loci
1065 and 674.

square 6.7 × 7 m, with the interior divided into one larger (Loci 685a and 675) and two
smaller chambers (Loci 1065 and 1074). The larger chamber 685a had an entrance and a
bench spanning the entire west wall and a small portion of the south wall. The small rear
Room 1065 included Loci 692 and 1146 and seems to have been the main cult room. It
yielded a diverse assemblage of utilitarian and nonutilitarian vessels. These included a
stand with a separate stand bowl, a miniature bowl, a chalice, and a krater, as well as an
Egyptian amulet of the Ptah-Sokar type.â•›244 The orientation of the cult focus cannot be
discerned with certainty. It may have faced north, as in Stratum VIIIB.
Locus 674 was the area directly in front of the entrance and yielded a bowl, a chalice,
and a cooking jar.â•›245 The building and its finds are shown in fig. 3.76.â•›246 In Stratum VIIIB,
the layout of the building was altered: the entrance was moved from the north to Locus
690 in the south, and Locus 1044 (comprising Loci 670, 1064, and 1074) now served as

244.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: figs. 15.2, 4, 8; 16.2; photo 65.

245.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: figs. 15.1, 5; 17.2.
246.╇ Compiled after Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: figs. 15–17.
162 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.77.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum

VIII B: Pottery from Loci 690 and
1044.

a back room. A stone basin on a platform and a standing stone protruding from the wall
were erected in the front room, Locus 690, indicating a cult focus oriented toward the
north. The room yielded an assemblage of two chalices, a lamp, four cooking pots, two
pithoi, a strainer jug, and a jug. The rear room yielded a double libation vessel and a krater
(fig. 3.77).â•›247 Loci 1065, 1044, 1074, and 1146 of Strata VIIIB–C additionally yielded more
than 200 bones of sheep and goats, mostly right forelimbs.â•›248 During the last phase, VIIIA,
the building consisted of two broad rooms (Loci 670 and 690); each was entered north

247.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: Plan 29 and figs. 15.3 and 6; 16.3, 5–7, 9; 17.3–5; 18.4–6 (Lo-
cus 690); figs. 17.8; 18.3 (Locus 1044).
248.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: table 24.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 163

Fig. 3.78.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII A.

of the courtyard in Locus 675 (fig. 3.78).â•›249 It seems that the installations were still in use
in Stratum VIIIA, even though only a single cooking jar was found that dated to this last

249.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: Plan 27.

164 Chapter 3

phase. The material evidence, especially the large number of sheep and goat bones, along
with the standing stone that was interpreted as a maṣṣebāh led the excavators to conclude
that the structure functioned as a cultic building “of some sort” (Ben-Tor and Portugali
1987: 82, 86). This identification as a cultic building was questioned by H. Weippert (1988:
409) and Zwickel (1994: 209–10) because of the absence of any installations that could
have been associated with a temple. Zwickel therefore theorized that the building was the
dwelling of a priest in which the cultic assemblage was stored. Weippert believed the ev-
idence to be consistent with domestic cult activities. The unusual layout, the character of
the assemblage that contained large numbers of category A and B objects and bones, and
the permanent installations suggested regular and ongoing cultic use of the building. The
permanent installations included a platform with a basin and a bench, paralleling those in
Lachish Room 49 and Megiddo Locus 2081. The building may have served for libations as
well as the consumption and offering of animal parts and, because it was integrated into
other domestic structures, it seems likely that it was a neighborhood shrine.
Some evidence of cult activities in the Iron II period (Stratum VII) was discovered at
Tell Qiri. One room or courtyard (Locus 1027) belonging to an agricultural-industrial
complex of silos associated with the production of olive oilâ•›250 contained a tripod censer-
cup, a bowl, a cooking jar, and a cooking pot,â•›251 suggesting ritual activities associated with
the production and consumption of food in the working area. Two pairs of chalicesâ•›252
were found in the same area, although their context was unclear.

3.3.26.╇ Ḥirbet Raddana, map reference 1695.1468

A salvage excavation between 1969 and 1974 (Callaway and Cooley 1971; Callaway
1983; 1993b) at Ḥirbet Raddana, about 6 km west of Ai, revealed a small, unfortified vil-
lage from Iron Age I that was abandoned sometime before 1050 b.c.e. Unfortunately, only
cursory excavation results were published, and these did not include detailed plans. There-
fore, no figures can be provided in this section.
The site consisted of several clusters of pillared, three-room buildings, in which the
excavators found evidence of domestic cult activities. Paved stone platforms were found
in several parts of the three-room houses: in a narrow room beside the main hall, in the
main hall itself, and on an outer wall. The houses also featured benches both inside and
outside the rooms. The presence of ovens and other evidence clearly indicate that the
three-room buildings served domestic purposes. Cluster S also revealed the remains of a
metal workshop. Category A objects that were reported included two objects presumed
to be stands and a unique multihandled krater with figurative appliqués, although exact
locations were not published. The multihandled krater was found somewhere in Building
S, the same building in which an inscribed jar handle with the name ʾḥl[d] was found and
interpreted as a ritual vessel. The entire vessel would originally have had about 20 handles
and a channel beneath the rim, with at least two zoomorphic spouts attached to the inside.

250.╇See Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 67, 71.

251.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: Plan 25; figs. 14.1 (in the report, classified as the body of a
strainer); 13.2; 10.5.
252.╇See Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: figs. 10.9–12.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 165

Because this vessel was of no clear utilitarian use, the excavators proposed a ritual use for
it (Callaway and Cooley 1971: 18–19, fig. 7). Even though the scant documentation associ-
ated with these reports means that great care must be taken when interpreting the material
from Ḥirbet Raddana as evidence for domestic cult activities, the material reported does
fit well into the general picture of domestic cult patterns from Iron I deposits.

3.3.27.╇ Tel Reḥov (Tell eṣ-Ṣarem), map reference 197.207

Tel Reḥov is a large site located in the Beth-shean Valley, 5 km south of Beth-shean.
Excavations were commenced there by A. Mazar in 1997 (Mazar 1999). An open court-
yard was excavated in Area E—which is the highest point of the eastern side of the lower
mound—which yielded a square mud-brick platform of 3 × 3.55 m lying 0.4 m above the
surface (Mazar 1999: fig. 12). On the southern side, three standing stones were discovered,
with a flat limestone slab of 0.7 × 0.5 m, along with several smaller stones in front of them.
Five ovens were found in the immediate vicinity of the platform along with six circular
clay installations that might have been storage bins. An adjacent building contained a
room measuring 2.4 × 2.4 m, within which were clay compartments that may have been
used to store food. Debris lying next to the platform yielded a square pottery stand and
the fragment of a category A female figurine (Mazar 1999: figs. 15–16), along with several
chalices (category B), bowls, cooking pots, jugs, juglets, and storage jars. Bones of sheep,
goats, and cattle were also found in front of the podium. The entire installation and as-
sociated finds, dated sometime between Iron Age IIA and the beginning of Iron Age IIB,
suggest a maṣṣebāh structure associated with the sacrifice and consumption of animals
(Mazar 1999: 28). It remains unclear, however, whether the adjacent buildings belonged
to the presumed cultic structure or to the domestic units.

3.3.28.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, map reference 2045.1861

Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, situated on the south bank of Wadi Kufrinjeh, was excavated by J. B.
Pritchard in the years 1964–65 (Pritchard 1985). Renewed excavations commenced in
1985 by J.  N. Tubb on behalf of the British Museum (Pritchard and Tubb 1993: 1295).
House 64 of Stratum VII, which was dated by Pritchard to the Iron IIB period between 825
and 790 b.c.e., yielded a unique assemblage of objects suggestive of cultic activities. A per-
forated tripod-cup had been placed in a basin on a plastered mud-brick platform, which
was covered with charcoal and ashes (fig. 3.79).â•›253 Two other perforated tripod-cups were
found on the floor in the vicinity of the platform. The room also contained nine shells, two
beads, four lamps, and common items of domestic pottery.â•›254 The burned rims of some of
the tripod-cups show that they were used as censers for incense or other aromatic com-
pounds.â•›255 This installation was not in the back room but faced the side that includes the
entrance. As noted by Pritchard (1985: 9), the objects arranged on the platform were not
utilitarian, even though there is no evidence that the building served as a sanctuary, as was

253.╇ Compiled by the author after Pritchard 1985: figs. 5 and 177.
254.╇ Pritchard 1985: 8–9, figs. 36–37, tripod-cups: figs. 5.11, 12, 13.
255.╇ Pritchard 1985: 9 and tripod-cup on the same page. See also Zwickel 1990: 11.
166 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.79.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, Stratum VII, House 64.

proposed by Nakhai (2001: 189). Both the character of the architecture and the associated
finds clearly suggest that activities associated with a domestic cult occurred.
Inside House 37–39 (Stratum VI, about 790–750 b.c.e.), a pottery assemblage was
almost entirely preserved beneath the debris of the collapsed building. Among a wealth
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 167

Fig. 3.80.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, Stratum VI,

House 37.

of utilitarian materials, several diagnostic objects of category B were found, including

a fine cosmetic cup with a lid and juglet found alongside the southern wall of House
37 and a chalice, jug, and decanter found alongside the northern wall of the same room
(fig. 3.80).â•›256 However, the absence of category A objects makes any cultic use of the as-
semblage less likely. Of particular interest is a rather unique residential quarter in Stratum
V, dated between 750–730 b.c.e. This residential block (between two streets) consisted of
12 houses, each of which measured approximately 4.8 × 8.3 m and shared the same plan
as the others.â•›257 In House 6, the floors of which were covered with destruction debris, the
most extensive domestic pottery assemblage was found preserved.â•›258 The rich assemblage
of common items of domestic pottery included bowls, kraters, cooking pots, and stor-
age jars; along with category A objects that included the head of an animal figurine and
a vessel that was purported to be the cup of a kernos ring.â•›259 It remains unclear from the
256.╇ Pritchard 1985: figs. 50–51. Figure compiled by Schmitt after Pritchard 1985: figs. 7.8, 178.
257.╇ Pritchard and Tubb 1994: 1296.
258.╇ Pritchard 1985: 17–18.
259.╇ Pritchard 1985: fig. 10.30, cup (S228/P98) without drawing.
168 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.81.╇ Shiloh: Pottery and Objects from Locus 623.

report, however, whether the objects were found together in the same place in the locus.
Additional evidence for cultic activities was found in the residential quarter in the form
of the fragment of a human plaque-figurine from House 16â•›260 as well as two tripod-cups
taken from either House 9 or 11.â•›261

260.╇ Pritchard 1985: fig. 10.31.

261.╇ Pritchard 1985: figs. 10.28–29.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 169

Although aspects of the Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh finds remain ambiguous, the finds neverthe-
less provide insight for the interpretation of diagnostic objects and their associations with
one another. Pritchard (1985: 32) concluded that “among the remaining items there seems
to be no substantial evidence for either specialized industrial or a ceremonial use for the
buildings. We can only conclude that this area of the city was a residential section in which
the normal household activities were carried on at the time of its destruction.” However,
the presence of clearly nonutilitarian or cultic objects of category A, such as the figurines
and tripod-cups, demonstrates that these “normal household activities” nevertheless in-
cluded those of a cultic nature, involving the burning of incense as well as libations con-
ducted with the aid of other nonutilitarian pottery objects such as the kernos and luxury
miniature vessels represented by the faience cup and alabaster flask.

3.3.29.╇ Shiloh (Ḥirbet Sēlūn), map reference 1775.1626

Shiloh was first excavated by a Danish Expedition that began in the 1920s (Buhl and
Holm-Nielsen 1969), and then in the early 1980s by a team led by I. Finkelstein (1993;
1994). It was revealed to have been an important early Iron Age settlement. Overlying the
fallen brick debris of the Iron I pillared Building 335 in Area C was a contemporary dump
(Locus 623) in which were uncovered large amounts of pottery and bones. â•›262 Along with
different types of domestic pottery that included three bowls, three kraters, six cooking
pots, one pilgrim flask, a jug, six pithoi, and a storage jar, several fragments of category
A artifacts were unearthed. The most important find was the fragment of a stand that
was decorated with a relief depicting a prey animal (presumably some sort of large cat)
attacking a deer. A figurative appliqué depicting a horse was also uncovered, along with
another zoomorphic appliqué of an animal, most likely belonging to a couple of stands.
Other finds included the relief head of a lion or lioness on the rim of a cooking pot, and
a modelled ram’s head beneath the handle of a vessel, which had most probably been a
krater (fig. 3.81).â•›263
Although little can be presumed regarding the original context of the debris, it seems
likely that it originated from structures that had been built on the MB Age fortification.
The domestic pottery found in the debris indicates that these structures must have been
domestic in character. The decorated cult stand and the other figurative material seem to
be ritual essentials from an early Iron Age domestic cult assemblage.

3.3.30.╇ Taanach (Tell Taʿanek), map reference 171.214

Tell Taʿanek, or biblical Taanach, is situated in the Jezreel Valley about 8 km southeast
of Megiddo. Initial excavations were conducted by E. Sellin between 1902 and 1904, fol-
lowed by those of P. W. Lapp between 1963 and 1968 (see Glock 1993: 1432).
An Austrian expedition under the leadership of Sellin uncovered a structure in the
southern trench that was supposed by Sellin (1904: 75–79) to have been domestic in na-
ture. He found the fragments of the famous Taanach cult stand no. 1 scattered across an
area of 2 m. Intermixed with the material of the stand were about 20 loom weights that

262.╇ Finkelstein 1993: 27, figs. 6.52–54.

263.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Finkelstein 1993.
170 Chapter 3

the excavators thought were sling stones. Near where the stand was found, Sellin reported
what appeared to be the base of a figurine, a bovine head, and a scarab. Reports on con-
tinuing excavations at the same spot, dated one year later, noted a large amount of pottery,
including apparently Iron Age jugs and juglets and two zoomorphic vessels. This report
was preliminary, however, and contained many details that were unable to be verified.
Immediately west of where Sellin’s stand was found, a second campaign at Taanach
uncovered a room (SW 2–7) of approximately 5.1 m–7.3 m that yielded a rich ceramic
assemblage that had been sealed by debris. This assemblage consisted of utilitarian items,
including 26 storage jars, 2 amphorae, 10 jugs, 11 juglets, 3 pyxides, 1 krater, 63 bowls, and
3 cooking pots;â•›264 nonutilitarian types included a stand and a perforated tripod-cup of cat-
egory A,â•›265 as well as 140 astragali of category B and 9 iron knife blades.â•›266 A basin in the
structure contained a stone stela that was interpreted by the excavators as a maṣṣebāh. Two
more stones were interpreted by Lapp (1964: 28) as cultic stelae. In a crushed cistern (L69,
SW 2–8) that lay a scant few meters from structure SW 2–7, a large amount of pottery
was discovered that was broadly similar in character to the pottery of SW 2–7.â•›267 Among
predominantly utilitarian items, the famous second decorated cult stand, an offering stand
(category A), and two chalices (category B) were found.â•›268 Fig. 3.82 shows the location of
some of these distinctive finds.â•›269 Dating these finds to the 10th century (around the years
960–918 b.c.e.) has been widely accepted (Rast 1978: i; Glock 1993: 1432; A. Mazar 1990:
372, 387), contemporary with the pottery from Megiddo. Similarities were also evident
between the Taanach assemblage and Megiddo Locus 2081. The most striking parallel, in
terms of both the date and the type of stand, comes from Pella, where 2 rectangular stands
were discovered in a domestic structure.â•›270 A similar stand was also found at Tel Reḥov
(Mazar 1999: fig. 15), where excavators thought that the room that held the stand was a
cultic structure. The finds of Sellin and Lapp evidently belonged to the same structure,
even through they came from different loci. However, utilitarian pottery was dominant
throughout Room SW 2–7, and the basin also seems likely to have been part of an instal-
lation for the processing of food. Sellin (1904: 76) interpreted the part of the structure
that he excavated to have been an olive-oil press, while M. D. Fowler (1984: 33) was more
convinced that it was part of a kitchen; Zwickel (1994: 244; as well Herr 2000a: 8) consid-
ered it a store room; and Zevit (2001: 237) presumed some kind of domestic or industrial
building. Because the identification of a stela or maṣṣebāh depends a great deal on its con-
text (see Bloch-Smith 2005: 36), stones that were excavated by Lapp cannot be presumed
to have had any particular cultic function, particularly the stone that was found lying in
the basin. The predominance of domestic pottery suggests this was not a cultic structure; it
was more likely to have been a domestic room that was used occasionally either for cultic

264.╇ Rast 1978: figs. 30–50.

265.╇ Rast 1978: figs. 51.3–4.
266.╇ Glock 1993: 1432.
267.╇ Rast 1978: 23.
268.╇ Lapp 1969: 44; Rast 1978: figs. 53.5–6; 54.
269.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Rast 1978: figs. 30–69; 97a.
270.╇See Potts, Colledge, and Edwards 1985: 203–4; fig.  11; pls. 41–42; and pp.  188–189
below.
Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 171

Fig. 3.82.╇ The

so-called Cultic
Structure SW 2-7
at Taanach and
selected pottery
from Loci 27
and€61.
172 Chapter 3

purposes or for storing ritual utensils. The large number of cooking pots and containers
for food and drink suggest a kitchen, in accordance with Fowler, although the censer and
stand suggest the possibility of ritual meals and, of course, games or the casting of lots for
mantic purposes.

3.3.31.╇ Turʿan, map reference 1809.2429

Turʿan in Lower Galilee is situated in the foothills of the mountain by the same name,
approximately 15 km west of Nazareth. Excavations at the site commenced following two
soundings (Shalem and Gal 2000). Although the area of excavation was very limited,
structural remains were exposed, most likely the remains of a four-room house. Locus 12
contained a flat, rounded stone suggestive of a domestic workplace and was destroyed by a
fire that produced debris that effectively sealed its contents. The locus yielded a perforated
incense burner (category A), two lamps (category B), three bowls, a krater, two cooking
pots, and three storage jars (category C). Based on the pottery, the structure was dated to
between the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 9th centuries (Iron Age IIB). Most
of the items related to the preparation and consumption of food, along with tripod-cups,
fit well with inventories typical of Iron Age IIB domestic cults.

3.3.32.╇ Tel Wawit (Tell el-Wawiyat), map reference 178.244

Two building complexes were excavated at Tell el-Wawiyat in Lower Galilee that date
to Iron Age IA (Nakhai, Dessel, and Wisthoff 1993; Nakhai 2001: 173). The northeastern
room of Building K–L yielded a circular limestone basin and a tabun as well as the low
base of a column. Partially articulated bones from a single butchered cow were discov-
ered on the floor of Room 24. Concluding a cultic use for the room (Nakhai 2001: 173;
Dever 2005: 113) seems inaccurate, however, because no objects from category A or B
were found in the room, and the columnar base seems to have had a solely architectural
function. A fragmentary pottery figurine, a basalt bowl, and a stone jewelry mold were
discovered in the debris of the southern room. A large bin was also constructed in this
room. The entire structure, including its installations and associated finds, is indicative
of domestic activities that included butchering and other food processing, as well as the
manufacture of jewelry. There are no indications of cultic use, although the female plaque-
figurine found in the southern room is typical of domestic votive practices.

3.4.╇ Patterns of domestic cult activities in

Iron Age Israel and Judah

3.4.1.╇ Iron Age I

Among the 29 Iron Age I assemblages that contained category A and B artifacts sur-
veyed in this study (see table 3.6, pp. 496–498), 53% yielded stands or fragments thereof,
and 46% had chalices or goblets that could be associated with them. Thirty-one percent
of the assemblages contained zoomorphic terra-cotta figurines or vessels, although only a
few (around 14%) were anthropomorphic terra-cottas or kernoi (some of the zoomorphic
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 173

fragments may, however, have belonged to kernos rings). Miniature shrines seem to have
been quite rare, appearing in only two places (Megiddo and Kinneret). The predominant
ritual actions performed with the vessels seem to have been libations (using zoomorphic
libation vessels and stands) and possibly dry offerings, such as bread, grain, or fruit of-
ferings, which probably would have been presented in the stand bowls. One-third of the
assemblages clearly evidence kitchen installations. Moreover, 76% of all domestic assem-
blages that contained category A or B objects also contained vessels for the production or
consumption of food. It thus seems that ritual actions were related to the production and
consumption of food as well as the consumption of drinks, as indicated by the presence of
items such as chalices and jugs.â•›271 Considered together, these assemblages seem typical for
sites such as Megiddo and Beth-shean, which represent a direct continuation of the urban
material culture of the LBA. Early Israelite settlements contained scant finds suggestive
of domestic ritual activities. Typical early Israelite houses yielded assemblages containing
a limited range of utilitarian pottery (see Zwingenberger 2001: 372) and did not usually
contain specialized objects from category A. The finds from Tel Masos House 314 and the
similar finds from Tell Mazar Room 101 support the conclusion that ritual activities were
typically conducted either in the houses of wealthy members or leaders of the community
or in small public shrines (see below).
Some early Israelite settlements had shrines with permanent installations (such as
Hazor Locus 3283, the Tell Qiri Shrine, and possibly also Ai Locus 69) or else intramural
cultic places such as at Hazor Locus 80019 with its maṣṣebāh. Both the integrated neigh-
borhood shrines of Tell Qiri and Ai and the dedicated village shrine of Hazor had benches
and platforms, as well as a number of stands and, in the case of Tell Qiri, an assemblage
for the production and consumption of food. The material found at these sites suggests
that ritual actions that were likely to have been conducted in the shrines would have dif-
fered from domestic rituals in scale only. Domestic assemblages (very generally speaking)
contain fewer specialized objects, such as stands and libation vessels, than small shrines.
The assemblage from Hazor Locus 80019 that was associated with a cultic structure was
purely domestic and yielded no specialized vessels other than a zoomorphic spout. It does
not seem, therefore, that domestic assemblages can be interpreted to represent subsets of
“official” cult structures, as was proposed by Holladay. Rather, the reverse is more likely
to have been the case, in that shrines typically contained a slightly enlarged and more
specialized inventory typical of domestic assemblages. It thus seems almost certain that
the social groups that participated in the rites and rituals of domestic cults and the people
who were associated with local shrines were in many respects one and the same group
of people.

3.4.2.╇ Iron Age IIA

Of the 19 Iron IIA assemblages surveyed (table 3.7, pp. 499–500), approximately
36% contained stands and another 26% contained chalices or goblets. Just over 33% of
all the assemblages contained zoomorphic figurines or vessels (including kernoi or frag-
ments of kernoi), while female figurines were present in 21%. Model shrines appeared

271.╇ Willett (1999: 157–65) drew similar conclusions in her unpublished thesis.
174 Chapter 3

in about 10%. Similar to the Iron Age I assemblages discussed above, around 33% of
all assemblages contained category A and B artifacts that could be attributed to kitchen
installations. A considerable proportion of the assemblages that contained category A and
B artifacts (31%) appear to have been work related because of their association with storage
and/or processing facilities (Tel ʿAmal Locus 34; Beth-shean Loci 1557, 62, 63; Ḥorvat Rosh
Zayit Locus 47; Tell el-Ḥammah; Taanach “cultic structure”). These work-related areas
contained assemblages of ritual objects that were broadly similar to the assemblages of
purely domestic areas. Only at Megiddo Locus 2081 did benches or platform-like installa-
tions occur in domestic structures. In all other places, their appearance is typically indica-
tive of village shrines (as in Lachish Room 49, and Tell Michal Building 300) or of open-air
cultic structures (in Tel Reḥov Area E). Moreover, maṣṣebôt have only been found in struc-
tures that predominantly served cultic purposes (in Tel Reḥov Area E). Horned altars were
only found in domestic assemblages in Megiddo Locus 2081; other than this find, they are
typical of village shrines (as in Lachish Room 49.). As a large-scale domestic cult installa-
tion, Megiddo Locus 2081 is rather atypical of other Iron IIA domestic cult assemblages
in terms of both content and number of artifacts and is perhaps more directly comparable
with a shrine such as Lachish 49. Nevertheless, in representing a wealthy domestic cult
assemblage, Megiddo Locus 2081 accords with traditions represented by the finds of Tel
Masos House 314 and Tell Mazar Room 101. The exceptionally large number of vessels
for the consumption of food almost certainly indicates that ritual meals were held here.

3.4.3.╇ Iron Age IIB

In the 20 surveyed Iron IIB assemblages that contained category A and B artifacts
(table 3.8, pp. 500–501), stands appear less frequently than they do in Iron Age IIA assem-
blages. In these Iron IIB contexts, they appeared in only 15% of the assemblages, although
33% of the domestic ritual assemblages contained tripod censer-cups (35%), and around
20% contained either zoomorphic vessels or kernos fragments. Chalices and goblets also
appear less frequently during these times (10%). An assemblage from Megiddo Locus 94
H8 seems typical of the time: it contained an incense cup, a stand, a zoomorphic libation
vessel, and other vessels associated with the preparation and consumption of food. An
assemblage of this sort probably reflects the religious traditions of this city that were car-
ried over from Iron Age I, although it is quite similar to the assemblage of Locus 298/293
in Beth-shean, which also contained a stand, a tripod censer-cup, and the fragment of a
possibly zoomorphic libation vessel. Other figurative objects such as female figurines also
occur in typical domestic assemblages of this time, although not as frequently as they
did later in the Iron Age IIC. Although votive practices seem to have been a part of these
societies, they were apparently not as important as they became in later, Iron IIC times.
Typical assemblages seem to suggest ritual practices dominated by libations, dry offerings
such as grain and bread, and the burning of aromatic compounds. Most ritual assemblages
(around 80%) were directly associated with pottery designed to serve the preparation and
consumption of food, and in some cases they appeared in identifiable kitchen installa-
tions or other domestic storage rooms. In cases such as Tell Qiri Locus 1027, Tel Kedesh,
and Kinneret Building 683, ritual objects seem to have been used in work-related cult
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 175

practices, mostly associated with the public storage of goods. Work-related or semi�public
functions may also be posited for the assemblage from tower Room 239a from Hazor.

3.4.4.╇ Iron Age IIC

Domestic cult activities of Iron Age IIC commonly feature JPFs. Of the 42 Iron IIC
assemblages surveyed in this study (see table 3.9, pp.  502–504), approximately 53%
contained JPFs or fragments of other anthropomorphic figures; about 48% included zo�
omorphic figurines or fragments of zoomorphic vessels. Twenty percent contained both
anthropoâ•‚ and zoomorphic figurines, and 9% had JPFs together with model furniture.
Around 10% of the assemblages yielded horse-and-rider figurines, although it is possible
that additional male anthropoid and zoomorphic fragments were originally part of full
figurines of this type. About 9% of assemblages contained stands, and around 9% con-
tained altars. More limestone altars have been found than stands, and the altars and stands
have often appeared together as part of larger finds (2 were found together in Beersheba
Locus 442, 2 in Tel Halif G8005 and F6, and 4 in Jerusalem Locus 967). Tripod incense
burners were found in only one of the assemblages, in Beth-shean Loci 298/293, where it
was found together with a stand. Twenty-five percent of all assemblages contained lamps;
10% of the assemblages were associated with fireplaces; and over 40% contained pottery
for the production of food, such as cooking pots, or other associated vessels and tools.
These Iron IIC assemblages thus seem also to have been strongly linked to the preparation
and consumption of food. There also appears to have been strong continuity in domestic
ritual actions with earlier times, as shown by the presence of larger stands and altars for
libations and offerings and perhaps also for the burning of incense, as well as zoomorphic
libation vessels. The most striking change between ritual assemblages of Iron IIC and as-
semblages in earlier times is the dominance of votive objects. In Iron IIC, zoomorphic
figurines, model furniture, and anthropomorphic figurines such as JPFs and horse-and-
riders seem to have become cheap and abundant and were predominant features of do-
mestic cults. At least one figurative object was found in 86% of all assemblages, while just
over 33% yielded a variety of votive figures, even if no clear patterns emerged from this
variety. It may be concluded that this period of an increased number of political crises
that affected the ongoing existence of many households increased the perceived need for
ritual objects that symbolized characteristics such as power, fertility, and plenty. This sort
of need may also have motivated the hoarding of amulets, faience, and bronze objects that
were found in Beersheba Locus 844. This assemblage is evidence of votive practices that
were typical of a house with abundant financial means.
Similar to assemblages in previous periods, a number of Iron IIC assemblages were
clearly related to work, such as the olive-oil press at Tell Beit Mirsim NW 31–11, the
winepress at Beth-shemesh Locus 321, the workshop at Beth-shemesh Loci 373/375, and
the textile production and processing workshop at Beth-shemesh Locus 305. All of these
work-related structures held assemblages of category A and B objects similar to those
from domestic units, including JPFs, zoomorphic figurines and vessels, chalices, and
lamps, although in one case the assemblage of items related to the production and storage
of food was much larger. These work-related cult remains are clearly subsets of typical
household cultic assemblages.
176 Chapter 3

3.5.╇ Comparative data from sites outside Israel and Judah

3.5.1.╇ Houses and their furnishings in Iron Age Moab and Ammon
Material cultures in ancient Jordan, Moab, and Ammon seem to have been broadly
similar to those in Israel and Judah. Iron Age houses were mostly pillared with four rooms
or were slight variants of this type. Pillared buildings differed considerably in size, rang-
ing from 71.5 m² to 238.8 m² (Routledge 2004: 101). At Tell Jawa, typical buildings varied
in size from 134 m² (Building 120) to 227 m² (Building 800). As in contemporary Judah,
houses often had a second story, as indicated by both debris and the occasional presence of
steps or staircases. Whether or not ritual actions were regularly conducted in these second
stories remains unknown (Daviau 2001: 201–2).
The coroplastic repertoire of ancient Jordan seems to have been broadly similar to the
repertoires of Israel and Judah (see Dornemann 1983: 129–42; Mansour 2005). In Jor-
dan, a pillar-figurine with a molded head was found (see Mansour 2005: no. 11), as well
as a female figurine holding a drum (see Mansour 2005: nos. 28–28, 43), which was the
dominant type in Transjordan. Horse-and-rider figurines did differ here in some details,
although not in general composition. Animal figurines seem to have been broadly similar.
Distinct differences from Iron Age Judah were the persistence of the plaque-type in Iron
Age IIC Jordan and the presence of male terra-cotta figures that had divine features, such
as a high conical hat or a white atef crown, such as the crowns found at Tell Mazar (Yassine
1988: pl. 13.3) and Tell Jawa (Daviau and Dion 2002: fig. 2.33:1). Perforated tripod-cups
or incense burners seem to have been as popular in Transjordanian sites as they were in
Israel, although in Transjordan they have been found more frequently associated with
burials (see Zwickel 1994: 5, 39). Whether these figurines and other ritual objects were
used in ways similar to Iron Age Israel remains, however, is unknown.

3.5.1.1.╇ Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Tell Abūâ•‚Ḥaraz),

map reference 2061.2007
Tell Abu al-Kharaz is located in the Jordan Valley, 4 km east of the Jordan River and
about 15 km southeast of Beth-shean. Excavations were commenced by a Swedish team in
1989 (Fischer 1991; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1997; 1998).
The most important finds came from an atrium-type Iron IIC building in Area 7, which
had two wings of rooms and a partially roofed courtyard, indicated by the presence of roof
debris. The building has been dated to the beginning of Iron Age IIC; it was destroyed by
a fire, during which the debris sealed its furnishings. A perforated tripod-cup (category
A) was discovered in the courtyard near the entrance to Room 4, together with a jar that
contained 10 astragali (category B), 3 cooking pots, a 7-spouted lamp with a missing base,
a decanter, and several arrowheads, stone tools, and spindle whorls. A second incense
burner was discovered near this assemblage in the entrance area of Room 4, located near
a stone table, together with a bowl, 3 jugs, a lamp, a basalt bowl, and 15 iron arrowheads
with shafts (fig. 3.83).â•›272 The courtyard and Room 4 thus seem to have been used for a va-
riety of domestic activities, including cooking and weaving, as well as for ritual activities

272.╇ Compiled after Fischer 1995: figs. 5 and 7.1–4.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 177

Fig. 3.83.╇ Tell Abu al-Kharaz: Tripod incense burners and cooking pot from Area 7 house.

such as the offering of incense. The presence of the astragali further indicates that games
were played here, and lots may have been cast.
There were several more finds of domestic cult remains. Although these were only
summarily reported, they included a fragment of an anthropomorphic vessel representing
a bearded man, taken from Trench VIIC (Fischer 1994: fig. 6.1), and the torso of a female
figurine, together with a tambourine, and a bull figurine—all of which were taken from
Area 9 (Fischer 1996: 103, fig. 2.1). The well-preserved remains of a four-room house were
excavated in Trench XXXIXA–D. In this house, a zoomorphic vessel in the shape of a don-
key with two attached vessels (Fischer 1998: 220–21, fig. 10), an incense cup (presumed to
have been a strainer; category A), typical household vessels such as bowls, cooking pots,
jugs, juglets, kraters, and storage jars, and stone tools and loom weights (category C) were
found. The excavators concluded that the building was religious in character, but the pre-
dominantly utilitarian, household pottery more likely suggests domestic ritual activities
that were performed with the category A objects.

3.5.1.2.╇ Irbid (Arbēla), map reference 2298.2182

During a salvage excavation in the center of the modern city of Irbid, in 1985, a room
adjoining the city wall was excavated (Area C, Room 1) that yielded an assemblage of rit-
ual and utilitarian pottery dated to the early Iron Age (around 1200 b.c.e.; fig. 3.84).â•›273 The
assemblage consisted of 1 cylindrical and 1 basalt stand (category A), 2 goblets, a cup and
saucer, and a lamp (category B), as well as 2 bowls and a number of storage jars (category
C). The surrounding area yielded 11 vessels ranging from storage jars to pitchers. Because

273.╇ Lenzen, Gordon, and McQuitty 1985: 154–55; fig. 2; pl. 22.2.
178 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.84.╇ Irbid, Area C: Ritual

Vessels from Room 1.

of the presence of the category A objects, the structure was interpreted by the excavators
to have been a cult room with an adjacent storage room. However, the predominance of
utilitarian wares and the fact that the room adjoined the city wall (and was most likely the
back room of a threeâ•‚ or four-room house) suggest instead an assemblage associated with
domestic rituals. The assemblage is comparable with other Iron I assemblages found in
Megiddo and Tel ʿAmal and is typical of domestic ritual assemblages of the early Iron Age.

3.5.1.3.╇ Tell Jawa (Tell Ğāwa), map reference 2382.1408

Tell Jawa is a small mound located about 11 km south of the Jordanian capital of Am-
man and was excavated by a Canadian team (Daviau et al. 2003). It was a fortified city
beginning in Iron Age IIA–B, Stratum IX. Stratum VIIIB–A (Iron Age IIB extending to the
second half of the 8th century) was the period when the Ammonite culture was flourish-
ing on the tell, whereas Stratum VIIB–A is characterized more by its Assyrian influence.
Thus far, there is no evidence that the location was occupied during the Neo-Babylonian
period. The Tell Jawa excavations are of great importance in revealing detailed evidence
for the typology of Iron Age domestic cult assemblages. These excavations have revealed
benches, terra-cotta figurines, various types of small or miniature vessels, luxury vessels,
and libation and nonutilitarian vessels. It has been possible in several cases to demonstrate
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 179

Fig. 3.85.╇ Tell Jawa, Building 102 with model shrine fragment from Room 110, proto-Aeolic
capital and figurine head from Room 105 and stone figurine from Room 217.

that material originated in the upper stories (Daviau 2001: 199). The evidence found in the
assemblages as summarized by Daviau (2001: 222–23) is reproduced in table 3.2. Room
110 in Building 102 (Stratum VIII) yielded a collection of pottery and other artifacts that are
suggestive of cultic activities. Among the otherwise indistinct pottery and household items,
three fragments of a miniature shrine were found; a few other fragments very likely came from
a shrine in the form of a proto-Aeolic capital; and the crown of a figurine, the torso of a stone
figurine, and the head of a male deity wearing an atef-crown were found in the adjacent Rooms
105, 217, and 204.â•›274 The distribution of these objects is shown in fig. 3.85.â•›275 The supposed
stone baetylâ•›276 from Room 110 was, however, most likely a working stone. The presence of a
large number of kitchen tools such as grinders, pounders, and millstones indicates that the

274.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 132–333.

275.╇ Compiled by Schmitt using Daviau et al. 2003: Tell Jawa Artefact Database, vols. 1–2.
276.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: database, TJ 2028. The object is a worked stone that measures
14.2 × 5.9 × 3 cm, and seems to be broken in the middle.
180 Chapter 3

Table 3.2.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Tell Jawa

B102

B113

B200

B204

B300

B700

B800

B900

B910

Total
Figurines -13
Female 2 3 1 2 8
Male 3 1 4
Zoomorphic 1 1
Moulds 1 -1
Vessels -12
Anthropo�morphic 1 1
Zoomorphic 5 2 1 8
Relief on sherd 2 2
Rhyton/stand 1 1
Shrine model sherds 3 1 1 -5
Columns/capitals 3 -3
Chalices 1 1 2 1 -5
One-handled cup 1 1 2 7 1 2 1 -15
Tripod-cups -10
Perforated 1 1 1 3 1 7
Unperforated 1 2 3
Lamps 1 1 3 6 2 -13
Small vessels -33
Saucer 2 1 3
Bowl 1 1 5 7
Krater 1 1 2
Cooking pot 1 1 2
One handled cup 1 1
Jug 2 2
Juglet 3 1 1 1 6
Jar 1 1 1 3
Decanter 1 4 5
Painted bottle 2 2
Miniature vessels -9
Bowl 1 1
Cooking pot 1 1 2
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 181

Table 3.2.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Tell Jawa

B102

B113

B200

B204

B300

B700

B800

B900

B910

Total
Jug 1 1 2
Jar 1 1
Decanter 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Lamp 1 1
Black juglets 2 -2
Strainer bowls 1 1 -2
Stone baetyl 1 -1
High Status vessels -3
Stopper 1 1
Assyrian bowl 1 1
Double lamp 1 1
Imported vessels 1 -1
Imitation imports 2 1 1 -4
Gaming objects -4
Vessels 2 2
Boards 1 1
Pieces 1 1
Tridacna dish 1 -1
Libation table 1 -1
Basalt bowls/trays 2 2 7 4 2 -17
Cosmetic dishes 1 1 -2
Miniature mortars 1 1 -2
Total 32 14 14 4 43 4 36 10 2 159

room was used for the processing of food. The material in Room 110 represents the ground
floor level, although this also included one fragment of a figurine fragment that probably came
from the upper story, from Room 214.
One of the most important assemblages was found in Str. VIIA, Room 303 (A). It con-
sisted of numerous items of household pottery, including a bowl, a cooking pot, a juglet, a
decanter, and a strainer bowl, as well as the fragment of a female figurine, and a tripod-cup
(category A). A miniature cup found in this room probably also originated on the second
182 Chapter 3

floor.â•›277 A second assemblage was found in the same building, on the ground floor level of
Room 302 (A). It contained the base of a figurine, miniature basalt tools, a strainer bowl,
and various other vessel fragments lying on a bench (Locus E54:25; fig. 3.86).â•›278 The pres-
ence of ashes, a saddle quern, and sherds of cooking pots suggest that the room served as a
kitchen. Inside Building 800 were two loci that contained material that may have held cul-
tic significance, as suspected by Daviau. Room 807, Locus A83: 9–12 consisted of material
that had fallen down from the upper story and yielded a jug, juglet, decanter, lamp, shell
dish, and unique limestone table that was interpreted as having been a libation table.â•›279
Central Hall 804 (Loci A83:32; C27:66) had some luxury and nonutilitarian pottery such
as red slipped bowls, a painted flask, a painted chalice, and a tripod-cup.â•›280 Because no
category A objects were found, the cultic significance of the assemblages of this building
does not appear to be as evident as was claimed by the excavator. A fragmentary bull vessel
was found in Building 113, Room 107 of Str. VIII, but no other significant material was
found associated with it. Because this house also contained tools and raw materials for
the production of jewelry, the structure was interpreted as having been workshop (Daviau
et al. 2003: 1.159; 2.749).
These finds from Tell Jawa thus provide evidence for the comparison of domestic cult
assemblages that include these typical items:

• cult objects such as figurines and shrines

• nonutilitarian pottery
• luxury pottery or other luxury items, such as tridacnas
• miniaturized items of pottery or other miniature objects
• benches
• occasional objects that originated from second stories or roofs (Daviau 2001:
221–24)

It seems, however, that excavators have occasionally been overly optimistic in character-
izing assemblages and objects as “cultic.” Although pottery of luxury, nonutilitarian, or
miniaturized types may help to indicate the probable use of an item, a convincing deci-
sion requires the presence of explicit cult objects such as figurines, amulets, altars (here
considered category A objects). This is especially true because luxury items of pottery may
have been bought to indicate or enhance social prestige, which leads to their being found
together with other luxury objects. Nevertheless, although care is needed in interpreting
some of the assemblages from Tell Jawa, the finds do reveal strong evidence that cultic
activities were conducted on the upper stories of the houses.

3.5.1.4.╇ Tell Juhfiyya (Tell Ğuḥfīya), map reference 2274.2109

Tell Juhfiyya is a small Iron II site in the northern part of Jordan, approximately 7.5 km
south of Irbid. Excavations carried out by a joint German-Jordanian team revealed an Iron

277.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 254.

278.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 266. Figure compiled by Schmitt using Daviau, Tell Jawa Artefact Data-
base, vols. 1–2. Because the pottery has not been published, only a sample of objects was presented.
279.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 316; see also 2001: table 1.
280.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 322.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 183

Fig. 3.86.╇ Tell Jawa, Building 300: Figurine base and miniature tools from bench Locus
E54:24.

Age II farmstead with two major architectural units encircled by a perimeter wall. One
of these units was used for storage, the other for domestic purposes. The encircled com-
pound encompassed an area of approximately 900 m² (Lamprichs and Saʿad 2003; 2004).
184 Chapter 3

The pottery and objects found inside the buildings themselves include utilitarian wares
typical of domestic and agricultural purposes, such as vessels for the production, con-
sumption, and storage of food, and other stone vessels and tools, as well as one fragment
of a tripod incense cup (Lamprichs and Saʿad 2003: fig. 14). Remains of weapons, metal
tools, jewelry, and several other luxury items such as beads, fibulae, a comb, pierced stone
discs, and cosmetic bowls led the excavators to suggest that an elite group or family must
have resided in the compound. Although evidence for domestic cult activities from Tell
Juhfiyya is rather sparse, the tripod-cup suggests that the processing and consumption of
food may have been accompanied by ritual actions.

3.5.1.5.╇ Tell Mazar (Tell el-Mazār), map reference 2072.1812

3.5.1.5.1.╇ Tell Mazar, mound A
Tell Mazar is a small mound in the middle of the Jordan Valley that lies about 3 km
north of Tell Dēr ʿAllā and was excavated by a Jordanian team between 1977 and 1981
(Yassine 1984; 1988; 1989). On Mound A, about 220 m from the tell proper, parts of a
rectangular mud-brick building were excavated. The northern part of the building seems
to have been approximately 24 m, although the width at the south is unknown. In front of
what seems to have been a courtyard (Locus 103), three very similar rooms were unearthed
(Rooms 100, 101, and 102), each of which was 2.5 m wide and between 4.6 m and 5.5 m
deep. The entire structure has been dated to the 11th or 10th century b.c.e. A partially
preserved bench of 32 cm height and 35 cm width ran along the northern wall of Room
100. The only item found here was a fragmented bowl. Room 102 also contained a bench
(of 18 cm height and 30 cm width) that ran along the western and northern sections, an
embedded stone basin 20 cm in diameter in the southern section, and a 1.9-meter-deep
cistern. Room 101 yielded a large amount of pottery, although no distinguishing archi-
tectural features were evident. In addition to an undetermined number of storage vessels,
the assemblage found in this room included a fenestrated stand (category A), two chalices
(category B), two decorated Phoenician flasks, four jugs, two kraters, and a cooking pot
(fig. 3.87).â•›281 Several tabuns were found in Courtyard 103, along with a stone work table.
Storage jars and cooking pots were piled against the wall of Room 1000. Because of the
presence of the presumably cultic pottery (that is, the stand and chalices), the structure
as a whole was identified as having been a sanctuary that was separate from the nearby
settlement. The many storage vessels were presumed to have supplemented the needs of
the temple.â•›282 The labeling of the building as sacred was questioned by H. Weippert and
Zwickel because of the layout of the building and the ambiguity of its finds. Zwickel (1994:
207–8) considered it to have been an entirely profane structure, while Weippert (1988:
409) proposed that the building was an exemplar of domestic cultic activities. As indicated
by the presence of vessels dedicated to the storage and preparation of food as well as ovens
and working stones, the building was truly domestic in nature. No category A objects were
discovered on or in the vicinity of the benches, and they almost certainly served entirely

281.╇ Yassine 1984: figs. 1–4.

282.╇ Yassine 1984: 113–14. Yassine has later (1992: 646) qualified his view: “It is believed that
the sanctuary served a public purpose but was not a place of large-scale public worship.”
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 185

Fig. 3.87.╇ Tell Mazar, Mound A: Pottery assemblage from Room 101.

profane activities. The building seems to have been typical of rural courtyard houses of
the period (see Zwickel 1994: 207 n. 14). Room 101 contained mostly vessels related to
the preparation and storage of food and liquids. The presence of the chalices and the stand
among the storage vessels suggests the occasional performance of cultic activities (these
items being stored away when not in use). This comparably large building was most likely
the house of a wealthy farmer who may have been the chief of the village. It would have
been the site of occasional cultic activities associated with the preparation and consump-
tion of food. In terms of its architecture, contents, and date, the building seems to have
been quite similar to Building 314 at Tel Masos.â•›283

283.╇ See above, pp. 125–129.

186 Chapter 3

3.5.1.5.2.╇ Tell Mazar, summit, field I

A large building (Stratum III, Building 300) was excavated on the summit of Tell Ma-
zar (see fig. 3.88 [after Yassine 1988: 84–89, fig. 6]). An ostracon that mentions the name
of the Ammonite king HSLʾL indicates that this may have been the residence of an official.
The structure measures about 10 × 15 m and was constructed with thick mud-brick walls.
The entrance was found in the broad eastern side and opened up to two halls, similar to
the layout of the bit-hilani palatial buildings. The inside layout was altered during a second
phase by the division of the large halls into smaller chambers. Items found inside a fourth
room attached to the east side indicate that they were used in the production and storage
of food, including butchering and cooking. Numerous loom weights also indicate that the
room was used for weaving. Cooking, weaving, and other domestic activities also seem to
have been conducted in Rooms 305–8, inside the main hall. The destruction of the build-
ing during the Neo-Babylonian period sealed the material inside the rooms, although
this was unfortunately not indicated in the original excavation report. Several figurines of
horses and other animals belong with the finds taken from the rooms of Building 300. The
report describes male figurines that included a distinctly male divine representation with
a white crown and female pillar-figurines (Yassine 1988: pl. 13.1–4), although it does not
indicate whether they belonged to Building 300 or not. However, it seems likely that later
structures 200–500 on the summit of the tell were used for domestic purposes.

3.5.1.6.╇ Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, map reference 2365.1109

Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine is a site on the south bank of Wādī eṭ-Ṭemed, which is currently
being excavated by a Canadian team from Wilfrid Laurier University (Daviau and Steiner
2000; Dion and Daviau 2000; Daviau and Dion 2002; Daviau et al. 2006; Daviau 2006). It
has revealed significant finds associated with domestic and industrial buildings, as well as
finds from a small gate sanctuary and a small temple. Of special interest to our book are
the finds from the domestic and industrial areas. A cuboid altar was found in Building
140 in a room (number 114) that also accommodated a large clay oven, a stone work sur-
face, and two mortars (Daviau 2006: 19–20). These structures suggest ritual activities con-
ducted in association with the preparation of food. Buildings 200, 205b, and 210 served
both domestic and industrial purposes, with the latter indicated by the presence of loom
weights, plastered basins, and grinding tools. These items may have been associated with
textile production, especially dyeing and weaving. A total of four large shaft altars were
found in these three buildings, of which three had fallen from upper-story rooms (Daviau
2007: 128). These large altars again provide striking evidence for the presence of ritual
objects and therefore for the importance of ritual activities in working communities that
were associated with production processes.

3.5.1.7.╇ Pella (Ṭabaqāt Faḥl), map reference 2078.2064

Pella lies in the foothills on the eastern side of the Jordan Valley and has been exca-
vated by a joint American-Australian team since the late 1960s (Bourke 1989; R. H. Smith
1993: 1174–75). In Plot IVE, a poorly preserved early Iron Age structure was considered
domestic in character. It contained a deposit of pottery and ritual objects that lay be-
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 187

Fig. 3.88.╇ Tell Mazar, Building 300.

tween two burned surfaces (fig. 3.89).â•›284 The assemblage consisted of two tower-shaped
pottery stands 50 cm in height, the better preserved of which had trees incised on its
sides, while the other had two naked female plaque-figures en face with Hathor-locks,
one of which stood above a partially preserved cat. One part of the rim depicted a female
head-appliqué. These stands are similar in form and decoration to Taanach-stands 1 and
2. Among the category A objects was the fragment of a pointed stand-bowl as well. The
utilitarian pottery consisted of cooking pots, bowls, jugs, and storage jars. The entire as-
semblage suggests ritual actions associated with the production and consumption of food.

284.╇ Compiled after Potts, Colledge, and Edwards 1985: 203–4; fig. 11; pls. 41–42; cf. McNicoll
et al. 1992: 94–100 with. fig. 14 and pls. 70–71.
188 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.89.╇ Pella: Pottery and stands from Plot IV E.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 189

The excavations between 1996 and 1997 revealed an Iron Age I/IIA mud-brick do-
mestic building that had been destroyed by a massive conflagration. This building yielded
storage vessels as well as vessels for the preparation and consumption of food and drink,
among which was a zoomorphic vessel that may have been used for libations (Bourke
et al. 2003: 356–57, fig. 38).

3.5.1.8.╇ Tell Ṣāfūṭ, map reference 2286.1606

Tell Ṣāfūṭ is located 1.5 km north of Suweileh, near the modern Amman-to-Jerash
highway, and was excavated by an American team led by D. H. Wimmer (Wimmer 1987;
1989).
A destruction layer with sealed material was excavated in an Iron Age IIC casemate
room. Room A was reported to have six fragments of figurines (mostly heads, some of
which were painted), a horse figurine of category A, several cooking pots that had been
smashed in situ, pilgrim’s flasks, an Assyrian bottle, and other unspecified items of pottery.
The find corresponds closely to the material found in a casemate room in the Phoenician
site of Tell Kabri.â•›285

3.5.1.9.╇ Tawīlān, map reference 197.972

Tawīlān is located in the northern hills above Wadi Musa, approximately 8 km north-
east of Petra. The Tawīlān excavations were conducted between 1968 and 1970, and again
in 1982. Because of the death of the excavator and several other unfortunate circumstances
that included the loss of some records, the final report was not compiled until 1995 (Ben-
net and Bienkowski 1995). Although the report does not detail all items of pottery and
reflects many of the difficulties suffered during the excavations, it nevertheless reveals
a number of significant finds from Iron Age IIC–Persian period domestic structures. A
limestone incense altar in the form of a panel decorated with geometrical incisions was
found in situ under a collapsed wall inside the main hall of a four-room house (Area II,
Locus II.32, Phase IV). Two carinated and two single-handle bowls were found in the
same locus.â•›286 Another box-shaped incense altar was found in what appears to have been
the rear room of a domestic building that was only partially excavated (Area III, Locus
I.84.2, Phase VII).â•›287 No pottery was associated directly with the incense box, although
a spindle whorl suggests possible domestic textile production. A considerable number of
ritual objects were found in a structure that comprised several crudely constructed rooms
(Area III west). Several hearths and pottery used for the processing and consumption of
food indicate that domestic activities were conducted in the rooms. No specialized ritual
or luxury vessels were found, which accords with the thinking that this was a poor farm-
ing village. The figurative material contained one fragment of a female plaque-figurine,
a fragment of a pillar-figurine, three fragments of horse figurines, a clay mold for the
head of a female pillar-figurine, and four pieces of another animal figurine, as well as a

285.╇ See p. 209 below.

286.╇ Bennet and Bienkowski 1995: 32; figs. 3.1–2 (plans); 9.14:1; 9.59; 3.28 (altar); 6.8:13, 22:
6.9:7 (pottery).
287.╇ Bennet and Bienkowski 1995: fig. 9.14:2.
190 Chapter 3

bowl (Locus III.8.3).â•›288 Along with domestic incense offerings and votive practices, the
evidence from this site suggests the possibility that molded figurines were occasionally
produced in domestic contexts.

3.5.1.10.╇ Tall al-ʿUmērī, map reference 2342.1420

A building from Tall al-ʿUmērī in Jordan (Herr 2000a; 2006; Herr and Clark 2001) is
supposed to have provided evidence for ritual installations within a domestic unit. Build-
ing A measures about 17 m long and 8.5 m across at its widest point. The building was
subdivided into three larger spaces or rooms (A1 to A3), with the fourth Room A4 form-
ing a small alcove. Courtyard A5 lay to the east (fig. 3.90).â•›289 Both Rooms A2 and A3 were
filled with brick debris and roofing mud to a depth of approximately 1.5 m, suggesting that
these two rooms at least had been covered by debris from a second story. A stone stood
in the center of the western wall of the partly paved Room A2, with another flat stone
positioned at a right angle directly in front of it. A pile of carbonized barley was found
immediately south of these standing stones. The structure was interpreted by the excava-
tors (Herr 2006: 61–63 with fig. 3; see also Herr 2000a: 73–94) to have been a cultic room
with a maṣṣebāh and an altar in front of it (fig. 3.91). The alcove Room A4 contained a
line of stretcher stones with a group of seven stones lying flat. The latter stones were also
interpreted as maṣṣebôt that were no longer in use (Herr 2006: 63). There were four pot-
tery groups concentrated in Rooms A1, A2, A3, and A5. The last of these contained items
from the upper floor. The pottery consisted of typical household items and did not contain
any category A objects. Category B objects included two painted pyxides, three chalices,
and a pair of cymbals (Herr et al. 1999: 101, fig. 7; Herr and Clark 2001: 47). Although
the chalices and cymbals may have been used ritually, the absence of category A objects
precludes conclusions. This did not deter Herr (2006: 72; see also 2000: 94) from conclud-
ing that “the four groups of pottery . . . strongly indicate a domestic use of the building,
with hints of other specialized activities, perhaps ceremonial in nature. The architectural
features of the building also suggest this dual function.” Impartial consideration of Build-
ing A and its associated finds, however, reveals no clear suggestion of cultic activities. The
installation in Room A2 that included the standing stone most likely served some kind of
architectural function. The stone lying in front of the supposed maṣṣebāh was most likely
a working stone, and the flat stones in alcove A4 were probably nothing more than part of
the pavement. The ceramic repertoire of the building was also completely utilitarian and
did not include any objects obviously intended for specialized ritual usage.
Additional evidence came from the courtyard of adjacent Building B, which was a
typical four-room house. The feet, legs, and mounting pegs of a bronze figurine were dis-
covered here, together with utensils for the preparation of food, grinding stones, a basalt
stone weight, and textile implements (Herr and Clark 2001: 47). Although the presence of
a bronze figurine may provide strong evidence of domestic cult activities, the findings still
await final publication, and thus no final conclusions can be drawn at this point.

288.╇See Bennet and Bienkowski 1995: 80; figs. 9.3:1; 9.3:2; 9.3:3; 9.3:6; 9.3:7; 9.3:9; 9.4:1.
289.╇ Herr 2006: fig. 1.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 191

Fig. 3.90.╇ Tall al-ʿUmeri, Building A.

192 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.91.╇ Tall al-ʿUmeri: Room A2 with supposed cultic stele.

Excavations in Area H uncovered a large room or courtyard of a well-constructed

structure with a cobbled floor. Although first dated to the late Iron Age I, the structure has
since been dated to the early Iron II period (Herr and Clark 2005: 255). Fragments of two
model shrines were found together with a large number of pithoi fragments (Herr et al.
2001: 246–47, fig. 16; Herr and Clark 2003: 287–92, figs. 23–24). The structure was pre-
sumed by the excavators to have been a cultic building or shrine. This interpretation was
based solely on the presence of the model shrine fragments, however, and the large num-
ber of pithoi suggest the more plausible interpretation of a storeroom in an administrative
structure, and the storeroom may also have been used for ritual purposes.

3.5.1.11.╇ Conclusion for the Moabite and Ammonite evidence

General observations of similarities between the material cultures of Israel, Judah,
Moab, and Ammon in the Iron Age find additional support from evidence drawn from
the domestic cultic items. Decorated stands associated with domestic rituals in Iron Age
IIA were found both in Israel (Taanach) and in the Moab (Pella) square. Excavations at
Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Jawa also provided good evidence for the domestic use of per-
forated incense cups in the Iron IIC period; small incense altars of stone were used in do-
mestic ritual activities, as evinced in the Iron II strata at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine and Tawīlān
(Iron IIC); but in Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, they were directly associated with kitchen facilities.
Domestic ritual patterns that involved female votary figurines and animal figurines along
with other kitchen installations remained broadly similar throughout the Iron IIB and C
ages, during which times they were often associated with the production and consump-
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 193

tion of food, in spite of changes in the dominant types of figurines (from JPFs in Judah
to drummers in Transjordan). One significant difference is the occasional appearance in
Transjordan of distinctly divine images and miniature shrines alongside votive figurines—
items that were not found (or were extremely rare) in contemporary Judah. Nevertheless,
female votive figurines and animal figurines were the dominant figurines used to symbol-
ize prosperity in Judah, Moab, and Ammon. The presence of ritual objects, particularly
altars, in industrial structures at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine reflects the objects found at Ekron,
where shaft altars were also used in work-related cultic activities (see below).

3.5.2.╇ Domestic and related cult assemblages in the

Philistine coastal plain
3.5.2.1.╇ Philistine terra-cotta figurines as diagnostic items
Excavations at Ashdod led by Moshe Dothan between 1962 and 1969 revealed a large
variety of unique Philistine terra-cotta figurines, many of them found in larger assem-
blages of utilitarian and nonutilitarian pottery. The corpus of Philistine terra-cotta figu-
rines consisted of seven main types with several subtypes (fig. 3.92):â•›290

Type I:╇ Ψ-figurines

Type II:╇ mourning-figurines
Type III:╇ chair-figurines; the so-called Ashdodas
Type IV:╇ snowman-figurines
Type V:╇ snowman-figurines of musicians
Type VI:╇ pillar-figurines or Ψ-type mixed style figurines
Type VII:╇ snow woman-figurines

The largest group of figurines was the type that are formed like chairs with four legs and a
highly stylized head in the form of a kalathos on a long neck. These have been referred to
as “Ashdoda.” They have been found in Ashdod and Tell Qasile, and fragments indicative
of this type have also been found in Gezer, Tel Miqne, Tell es-Safi, Aphek, and Tell Jude-
ideh. Only one figurine from Ashdod was fully preserved, while most of the others (which
numbered approximately 60 pieces altogether) were fragments of necks, heads, or chairs
(Schmitt 1999: 644–46; Ben-Shlomo and Press 2009: 49). Some of the chairs had breasts on
the backrest. These figures were quite clearly designed to represent an enthroned female
deity. In addition to these Ashdoda fragments, the Philistine repertoire also contained
male heads and torsos, which probably belonged to standing male figurines. These figu-
rines lacked traditional iconographic indications of divinity, such as crowns and weapons.
Even though the Ashdoda clearly represented some kind of mother-goddess, there does
not appear to be any convincing evidence that associates the goddess represented by these
figurines with either the Asherah who was mentioned in an inscription found on a storage
jar from Tel Miqne/Ekron (Gitin 1990: note 18) or the deity pt[â•›g]yh, who may originally
have been a Philistine goddess (known from an inscribed dedication from Tel Miqne/

290.╇ I examined the corpus of Philistine terra-cotta figurines in my dissertation (Schmitt 1994;
1999); a recent update of the material appears in Ben-Shlomo and Press 2009; and Ben-Shlomo
2010: 31–70.
194 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.92.╇ Typology of Philistine terra-cotta figurines.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 195

Ekron and dated to the 7th century b.c.e.; Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh: 1997: 1–16; Kott-
sieper 2001: 189–90). The male heads and figurines portrayed no divine emblems, and
were most likely representations of ancestors (Schmitt 1999: 635).

3.5.2.2.╇ Material remains of domestic cult at Ashdod (Esdūd),

map reference 1179.1293
The Ashdoda-figurines and other related figurines seem to have been widely used in
domestic cult practices at Ashdod:
Excavations of a Str. XI (4b/Iron IB) building in area H uncovered structural remains
and artifacts indicative of the abode of a prosperous person or family.â•›291 The famous intact
bichrome-painted Ashdoda-figurineâ•›292 was uncovered in Room 5032, although it was un-
fortunately found in a secondary context, in a large heap of rubble and broken pottery.â•›293
However, this complete Ashdoda, along with another fragment of a similar figurine,â•›294 a
fragment of a bird figurine, and a zoomorphic kernos ring spout (which seems to have
been in the form of a dog’s head)â•›295 were clearly and directly associated with the rich con-
temporary bichrome Philistine pottery found in other parts of the building. These other
finds included a chalice and a lamp (fig. 3.93). â•›296
In residential Area G, Str. XI (Iron Age IIA), Room 4133 yielded a fragment of an
Ashdoda-chair together with a krater,â•›297 while the adjacent yard (Locus 4109) yielded a
fragment of an Ashdoda backrest and the head of another Ashdoda, together with a spin-
ning bowl, juglet, and bone spatula (fig. 3.94).â•›298 The finds here are similarly suggestive of
the performance of cultic activities in the rooms and courtyard of the building.
Another domestic room in Area H (Stratum X, Iron Age IIA; Locus 5361) contained
two tabuns and the famous decorated musician’s stand (Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 97; Dothan
and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 180–84), which were found together with part of a model shrine
that was similar to those from the Yavneh favissa (Kletter and Ziffer 2007). These items
were accompanied by a bowl, jar, and bichrome jug. These finds, which are shown in
fig. 3.95, clearly indicate the performance of ritual actions in the food-processing area.â•›299
Another notable find was a unique knobbed stand taken from Area H, Locus 6212
(Stratum IX–VIII, Iron Age IIB). It was accompanied by an assemblage that included a
chalice, a juglet, three bowls, two kraters, and a jug (fig. 3.96).â•›300 The entire area was inter-
preted by the excavators to be a domestic cult area (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 47).

291.╇ Dothan 1971: 162; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 152–53.

292.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 19 (= Dothan 1971: fig. 91.1).
293.╇ Dothan 1971: 161.
294.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 21 (= Dothan 1971: fig. 91.4).
295.╇ Dothan 1971: figs. 92.5, 8.
296.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan 1971: figs. 86–87.
297.╇ Dothan and Porath 1993: figs. 42.8 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 27); 40.3.
298.╇ Dothan and Porath 1993: Plan 12; figs. 42.4 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 27); 42.5 (= Schmitt
1999: cat. no. 58); 42.1 (spinning bowl); 41.9 (juglet).
299.╇ Compiled after Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2:10, figs. 3.69.4; 3.71.5; 3.72.4; 3.75;
3.76.
300.╇ Complied after Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.12; figs.  3.88:7–9, 17; 3.89.4, 10;
3.93.5; 3.94; 3.95.
196 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.93.╇ Ashdod, Area H: Pottery and objects from Rooms 5032 and 5033.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 197

Fig. 3.94.╇ Ashdod: Figurines and pottery from Loci 4133 and 4109.

Additional evidence from clearly domestic loci of the residential sections of Areas
H and K is summarized in table 3.3 (p. 198; after Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005). The
data in this table reveal that various types of Philistine terra-cotta figurines, zoomorphic
vessels, and stands were used in domestic contexts during the Iron Age IB–IIC, often near
or in the vicinity of tabuns. Moreover, evidence from Building 5184 suggests that a wide
variety of ritual objects may have been used in the different rooms of the building.

3.5.2.3.╇ Remains of domestic cult at Tell Qasile,

map reference 1307.1676
The only noteworthy structure excavated in the domestic quarters at Tell Qasile was
Iron Age IB–IIA Building 495.â•›301 In Room 770 of this domestic unit, one fragment of an
Ashdoda backrest was found on the burned floor of a room, together with a multi�handled
krater and a collared rim-pithos. The room opened onto a courtyard and had an adjacent
kitchen, although its function remains unclear (Mazar 1986: 8, pl. 3a, fig. 61; see Schmitt
1999: 53 and cat. no. 21). These excavations accord with observations from Ashdod, in that
cultic practices with figurines were also a defining feature of domestic cults in Philistine.

301.╇ The material from the earlier excavations (Mazar 1951) has only been published in a sum-
mary way.
198 Chapter 3

Table 3.3.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Ashdod, Areas H and K

Room/ Stratum/ Installations/
Locus Date Function Cat. A Cat. B Cat. C
5128 XII main hall of ψ-figurine 3 bowls
Iron IB Building 5128 submyc
stirrup jar
submyc
bowl bichr
2 kraters bichr
stirrup jar bichr
2? jugs bichr
5351a XII longitudinal side bird bowl head 3 bowls
Iron IB hall of Building submyc
3233 ? krater? submyc
krater submyc
jug submyc
7 bowls bichr
6 kraters bichr
lamp
4 jugs bichr
2 kraters
2 cooking pots
jug
5355 XII continuation of bird bowl bowl submyc
Iron IB Room 5351a stirrup jar
submyc
krater bichr
bowl
krater
juglet
5170b XI room of Building pomegranate
Iron IB 5184 vessel
5189 XIb main hall of 2 bird bowl bowl submyc
Iron IB Building 5184 heads bowl bichr
krater bichr
jug bichr
bowl
cooking pot
bowl/chalice?
5152b XI main hall of 1 bird bowl
(adjacent Iron IB Building 5184 head
to 4189)
5181 XI room in western male fig. frag strainer jug
Iron IB corner of bichr
Building 5184
5348 X floor Ashdoda
Iron IIA
5143a X corner of room Type I or II 4 bowls/
Iron IIA ψ-figurine kraters
2 kraters
5134a X corner of room zoomorphic krater?
Iron IIA vessel body
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 199

Table 3.3.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Ashdod, Areas H and K

Room/ Stratum/ Installations/
Locus Date Function Cat. A Cat. B Cat. C
5103 IX–VIII floor in partially kernos zoom.
Iron IIB excavated house spout
north of street, plaque figurine
near tabun
5109 IX–VIII floor in north- kernos
Iron IIB western room of zoom spout
Building 5109
6190a VII room with tabun Ashoda-frag.
Iron IIC
5121 VII floor of room, male head
Iron IIC near tabun
5111 VII floor of room, bird bowl head
Iron IIC near tabun
6128 VI room knob-footed alabastron 2 bowls/kraters
Iron IIC stand frag. cooking pot?
juglet

3.5.2.4.╇ Early Philistine hearth and bathtub installations

Excavations of areas that correspond with times of Philistine settlement have uncov-
ered several installations likely to have been associated with ritual actions conducted in
households. As suggested by T. Dothan (2003; see also Dothan and Dothan 1992: 245), the
Aegean religious heritage of the Philistines found expression in a combination of raised
hearths, benches or bamôt, bathtubs, and in some cases pillars. A large building complex
in Ashdod Area H, Stratum XIII/XII (numbered 5337; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005:
26–30) was interpreted as having been the house of a prosperous family. It contained a
hearth and bathtub installation in a hall,â•›302 along with Myc IIIC:1b and Philistine pottery,
as well as a number of category A and B objects. The distribution of these objects is shown
in fig. 3.97.â•›303 Northeastern Room 5312 yielded various luxury items, including gold disks
that probably formed parts of sword pommels, ivories, a faience amulet, and miniature
vessels, including a bowl and a kylix that were associated with a bench. Similar items were
found in northwestern Room 5318, which held one fragment of a kernos ring, a fragment
of a fenestrated stand, a bird rattle (category A), ivory objects (category B), Myc IIIC1:b
and Philistine pottery, and other ivory and bronze objects. The main hall, designated Locus
5337, featured two pillars and a hearth and bathtub installation and yielded one fragment
of an Ashdoda and two other fragments of anthropoâ•‚ or zoomorphic figurines, along with
a stand (category A), bead (category B), bowl, and bichrome strainer or spouted jug (see
Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: figs. 3.10–41).

302.╇ Dothan 2003: 200–201, fig. 10.

303.╇ Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.7.
200 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.95.╇ Ashdod, Locus 5361 with musician’s stand and shrine model fragment.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 201

Fig. 3.96.╇ Stand and pottery from Ashdod, Area H, Locus 6212.

Similar installations with hearths and bathtubs have been found in Ekron. Room I of
a Stratum VII building contained a bench, a freestanding square hearth in the center, and
an adjacent limestone bathtub on the eastern wall. Building 353 (Field IV, Stratum VI)
also contained a bathtub and a raised hearth that had a monolith as well.â•›304 A centrally
positioned square hearth and bathtub installation was also found in a building in Ash-
kelon.â•›305 Furthermore, the large domestic Building 404 in Ekron Stratum VI yielded 15
small, round pebbled hearths along with a bull-shaped zoomorphic vessel and a chalice.â•›306
Another installation with a hearth and bathtub was identified by Dothan in the Area G

304.╇ Dothan 2003: 204–7, fig. 14.

305.╇ Dothan 2003: fig. 15.
306.╇ Dothan 2003: 198.
202 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.97.╇ Distribution of finds from Ashdod, Building 5337.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 203

room or Courtyard 4124 of Stratum XII in Ashdod, although this is more likely to have
been part of a workshop for the production of pottery.â•›307
These hearth and bathtub installations were interpreted by Dothan (2003: 203) as
having been elements of purification rituals that were possibly communal. Such an as-
sertion is, according to Dothan, further affirmed by the presence of category A and B
objects in association with these installations. However, it does not seem likely that these
relatively large rooms in domestic buildings, and their associated installations would have
served ritual purposes exclusively. It is more likely that these hearths and bathtubs would
have been used for domestic activities, including baking, cooking, and other activities
associated with processing food. This association between kitchen installations and cat-
egory A and B objects and luxury pottery, particularly as evinced in Building 5337 in
Ashdod, accords neatly with the overall picture of other early Iron Age cult assemblages,
which seem to have had strong associations with the processing and consumption of food.

3.5.2.5.╇ Work-related cultic elements at Ashdod and

Tel Miqne/Ekron (Ḥirbet el-Muqannaʿ)
The archaeological contexts of the Philistine terra-cotta figurines provide significant
insight regarding their functions. Most figurines at Ashdod were found in the so-called
potter’s quarter and in the adjacent living areas of Area D. The potter’s quarter of Stratum
VIII (Str. 3) was probably destroyed at the end of the 8th century during the conquest of
Sargon II (Dothan 1993: 100). A great number of figurines were found in pits, where they
were buried together with other pottery remains (Hachlili 1971: 125–26).
A building complex in the south of Area D was interpreted by the excavators as a small
temple (Dothan and Freedman 1967: 133–34; Hachlili 1971: 125, 135). Figure 3.98 de-
picts the structures of the potter’s quarter and their associated items.â•›308 The installations
in Room 1010 consisted of a small platform (Locus 1022), with three courses of brick
measuring 1.15–1.35 m long, and a bench running along the southeast wall (W1013). The
installations were covered with whitewash. To the northwest of Room 1010 was another
room (numbered 1009), about 3 × 4 m, that was paved with pebbles; in the southeast,
there was a second room (numbered 1025), about 3  ×  3  m, that was paved with mud
brick. A single fragment of one Ashdoda was found in Room 1010.â•›309 The mud-brick
room yielded one male head.â•›310 One jug, two juglets, and a bowl were found in the debris
of Room 1010.â•›311 Adjacent Room 1003 together with Rooms 1006 and 1045 seem to have
formed a long corridor leading to Room 1010. Room 1003 contained two knob-footed
cups of unclear use, two jugs, one storage jar, a loom weight, four bowls, one cooking
pot, one jar, and a unique terra-cotta basin.â•›312 Three more fragments of Ashdodas, two
Ashtarte-plaques, and two male heads were found either in the adjacent rooms of the

307.╇ Dothan 2003: 201 with fig. 12. The excavators interpreted the structure as a workshop and
the hearth as a kiln (Dothan and Porath 1993: 72 with plan 12), which seems more likely.
308.╇ Redrawn and compiled by Schmitt, after Dothan and Freedman 1967.
309.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: fig. 43.6 = Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 24.
310.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 69.
311.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: figs. 37.15 (bowl), 22 (jug), 24–25 (juglets).
312.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: figs. 38.7–8; 37.2–3, 11–12, 16, 19; 39.1, 3.
204 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.98.╇ Ashdod: Potter’s quarter in Area D with figurine and pottery assemblages.

building or in their vicinity. Another assemblage of probable cultic objects and vessels
was found in Locus 1019, which was an open space either belonging to the older Iron
IIB Str. IX (4) or to Str. VIII (3). The assemblage consisted of one fragment of an Ash-
doda, one head of a male figurine, a zoomorphic libation vessel, a stand, a fragment of a
kernos-ring bowl (category A), six kraters, one miniature and four regular bowls, a juglet,
a jug, and two jars.â•›313 It is possible that Str. VIII (3b) Pit 1004, which contained a similar
assemblage including various items of pottery,â•›314 another Ashdoda fragment,â•›315 a plaque-
figurine, and four zoomorphic kernos-ring spouts,â•›316 was associated with the assemblage
of Locus 1019.
Interpretations of the cultic character of Area D have been the subject of ongoing
debate (Zwickel 1994: 247; Schmitt 1999: 582–83), with little resolution achieved. Inter-
preting the function and purposes of these structures remains difficult because they were
not closely associated with any alleged cultic installations, and because Area D seems in
its entirety to have been a dedicated potter’s quarter, containing shops and storerooms.
Interpretation of items taken from the purportedly cultic Room 1010 also remains prob-
lematic, particularly because the architecture is not directly comparable with any other
known temples in Iron Age Palestine. Nevertheless, the entire assemblage of utilitarian

313.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: figs. 42.18; 43.1; 42.19; 39.10; 42.3–7; 39.8, 10; 42.1, 2, 8, 15,
16; 42.9, 13; 42.11, 12.
314.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: 148; fig. 36: four bowls, three kraters, flask handle, lamp.
315.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 25.
316.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: figs. 43.4, 44.1–2, 45.4.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 205

and nonutilitarian pottery found in the building suggests distinct possibilities of some
kind of cultic use. Cultic use of Room 1010 may only have been occasional, with the uten-
sils used for these cultic activities stored in the meantime in the other general-purpose
storage rooms. The similarities in the composition of utilitarian and nonutilitarian as-
semblages of Locus 1019 and Pit 1004 also accord with this picture of occasional cultic
use. The fact that figurines were found accompanied by libation vessels, jugs, and kraters
suggests at least the occasional performance of rituals of libation or meals for the goddess
represented by the Ashdoda figurines. The adjacent workshops also suggest that these
cultic activities may have somehow been associated with pottery-production processes.
The finds from the potter’s workshop itself indicate that the production of pottery was
accompanied by cultic activities. The Ashdoda-figurines and the other types of figurine
found near the potter’s workshop—which was still in use in Stratum VII—could have been
placed near the kilns in order to ensure success in firing the pottery.â•›317 A great number of
broken figurines and kernos fragments that probably originated from the workshop were
found in Pit 1067.â•›318 It therefore seems quite possible that the assemblages with the figu-
rines of the Ashdoda and the male ancestors were used in cultic activities associated with
the work of the craftspeople and that at least one purpose of these cultic activities was to
ensure the success of firing the kilns and pottery. If this is true, these assemblages may be
interpreted as examples of large-scale cults related to work practices that included laborers
involved in industrial production.
This evidence from Ashdod is supported by similar finds in Field I NE (Stratum VI–IV,
Iron Age I–IIA) at Ekron (Gitin and Dothan 1987: 202–3; Dothan 1990: 27–28; Dothan
and Dothan 1992: 241–42; Dothan and Gitin 1993: 1053; Dothan 2003: 209). Although
the finds from the kiln area here have only been published in preliminary reports, they
included Philistine figurines of Types I (Ψ-Type, Schmitt 1999: cat. nos. 4 and 5) and II
(Ashdoda, Schmitt 1999: cat. nos. 66 and 67), kernos fragments, a lion-headed rhyton,
incised bone scapulas, and miniature vessels. The excavators proposed that the building,
which contained a plastered bench, was a shrine. However, these figurines and their as-
sociated cultic paraphernalia are also typical of both domestic and work-related cultic
activities (Zwickel 1994: 211–12; Schmitt 1999: 588–89). Given the above interpretation
of assemblages from the potter’s area, it is also likely that this building, whether domestic
or industrial, was also the site of work-related cultic practices.

3.5.2.6.╇ Cultic elements from the olive-oil industrial area at

Tel Miqne/Ekron (Ḥirbet el-Muqannaʿ)
The occasional use of industrial buildings for cultic practices is also manifested in 7th-
century Ekron, where a great number of limestone altars were found in an area used for

317.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 54 (near kiln 1164, under Hellenistic kiln 1053); cat. no. 33 (be-
tween kilns 1088 and 1164); cat. no. 31 (C/4, Locus 1085 near kiln 1169); Ashtarte-plaque near kiln
1168 (Locus 1051; Dothan 1971: fig. 64.2).
318.╇Kernoi: Dothan 1971: figs. 66.2; 68.1. Figurines: figs. 62.9, 10; 63.4 (= Schmitt 1999: cat.
no. 30); 63.6 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 34); 64.1 (Ashtarte-plaque); 64.10 (female head). Male heads/
figurines: figs. 62.9 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 77); 62.10 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 93).
206 Chapter 3

the production of olive oil.â•›319 In an apparent anteroom containing an oil pressing instal-
lation, in Area II SW150, two horned altars (a larger one measuring 65 × 61 × 51 cm; a
smaller one measuring 25 × 25 × 23 cm) and a cylindrical limestone stand of 32 × 30 cm
were discovered in debris from phase C. The larger of these stands was partially resting
on top of the smaller altar and the cylindrical stand (MacKay 1995: 24, 126–28; fig.: pl. 9
and field phase plan section 166/150). These items were obviously not originally placed
in these positions but fell together when the structure was destroyed. Area II SW 134 was
most likely a storage room and contained two limestone altars, one of which was intact
and measured 39 × 24 × 16 cm, the other of which was found in two fragments but had
originally been around 47 cm high. These also also were found in debris from the destruc-
tion of the structure and thus, similarly, were probably not in positions corresponding
with their original use. The locus also contained a large amount of pottery, mostly in the
form of jars and pithoi, as well as several juglets, a painted chalice, and the base of another
chalice (MacKay 1995: 22, 115–19). Locus 118002 in Area II SW118 belonged to the same
building and, in the debris of the 7th-century destruction, contained an intact pottery
stand and a fragment of a zoomorphic figurine. The pottery consisted of store jars, lmlk-
type jars, cooking pots, a bowl lamp, and a votive goblet (MacKay 1995: 20, 100–101).
In Area II SW 86, an olive-oil press and a stand-like chalice with a painted triangular
design were unearthed. These items had very little pottery associated with them (MacKay
1995: 15).
Because horned altars were found in contemporary Judah as well as in earlier Israel
but have not been found anywhere else in Philistia, Gitin presumed these altars to have
reflected some kind of foreign religious practice that was performed by Israelite craftsmen
who had been forced to settle in Philistia following the fall of the Northern Kingdom in
721 b.c.e. The altars have therefore been interpreted to have been material parts of the reli-
gious practices of an Israelite craft guild in Ekron (Gitin 1993: 250; also see Gitin 1989: 61;
2003: 291). These altars may have been adopted from neighboring Israel or Judah, how-
ever, because of more-general cultural assimilation, without necessarily having an ethnic
association. Moreover, because cults associated with large-scale industrial practices seem
to have had a longer tradition in Philistia (as attested by the potter’s quarter in Ashdod),
the specialized practice in Ekron seems more likely to have originated with these Phil-
istine traditions. Ritual practices associated with the olive-oil industry consisted of the
offering of dry or liquid foodstuffs on altars and stands. The altars and stands show no
evidence of burning, and the offerings involved both chalices and juglets.

3.5.2.7.╇ Conclusions regarding the Philistine evidence

The assemblages of terra-cotta figurines at Ashdod, together with nonutilitarian items
of pottery including stands, kernos rings, and utilitarian pottery that was mostly the lux-
ury type indicate their common use in cultic activities. These activities would have in-
volved and been conducted by the craftspeople of the potters’ workshops, as well as their
families, and would have consisted of the offerings of drinks and food to the goddess
who was represented by the Ashdoda-figurines and to ancestors. The cultic assemblages of

319.╇See Gitin 1989: 52–67; 1993: 248–58; MacKay 1995. See also Gitin 1990.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 207

Ashdod are quite comparable with those of the superimposed phases (319, 200, and 131,
Strata XII–X) of the temple at Tell Qasile, even through this was merely a village shrine.
Assemblages from this shrine also contained terra-cotta figurines and a small terra-cotta
naos, together with nonutilitarian pottery including kernos rings and other forms of liba-
tion vessels, stands, utilitarian luxury pottery, a lion-shaped rhyton, and small bowls.â•›320
Domestic remains associated with the shrines contained a larger number of specialized
objects than remains associated with the potter’s cult, particularly the small model shrine
(“naos”), anthropomorphic vessels, and stands. The composition of Philistine assemblages
and the characteristics of their related installations thus enable us to differentiate between
village shrines as typified by Tell Qasile; occasional cultic practices conducted in or near
industrial areas ,as typified by the potter’s quarter of Ashdod and the industrial olive-oil
area of Ekron; and domestic cults, as typified by finds from both Ashdod and Tell Qa-
sile. Domestic units unearthed in Ashdod especially reveal the strong association between
ritual activities and kitchen facilities.

3.5.3.╇ Comparative data from Phoenician and Syrian sites

Data from Iron Age I and II living quarters at Phoenician and Syrian sites remain
scarce, for both archaeological and political reasons.â•›321 Valuable data have nevertheless
emerged from Phoenician sites in Lebanon, Syria, and Israel, especially from Tell Kazel,
Sarepta, Tell Keisan, and a number of other sites.â•›322 Rather than present a comprehensive
survey of Iron Age domestic cult remains, in the following section I compare and contrast
a small selection of finds.
The Tell Bazi excavations were examined in a case study by A. Otto (2006). Table-like
installations were discovered in 17 Late Bronze Age domestic buildings, with an addi-
tional 10 possible occurrences. These tables were likely to have been altars used in do-
mestic cult practices. All of these installations were located opposite entrances, in the
middle of the shorter walls of the rooms. Additional evidence comes from anthropoâ•‚ and
zoomorphic libation vessels and other specialized vessels; collectibles sometimes found
inside vessels, which included jewelry, precious stones, and snail shells; utilitarian vessels,
including cooking pots and storage vessels; animal bones, including bovine skulls that
had been placed intentionally; stone utensils; and trays or vessels partially sunk into the
ground near altars.
On the basis of this sort of archaeological evidence, A. Otto proposed that domestic
cult practices at Tell Bazi involved the offering of libations and meals, the anointing of
altars, and the placement of votive objects. We may therefore be relatively certain that the

320.╇ Mazar 1980: 120.

321.╇ Early structures were strongly disturbed by building activities in the Hellenistic and Ro-
man periods, especially in the Phoenician centres. Moreover, archaeological work has often concen-
trated upon the later structures, or upon the more spectacular Iron Age palaces. See also Jamieson
2000: 261, with note 8 presenting a short list of Iron Age evidence from Syria.
322.╇ The Tel Dor excavations revealed quite a lot of material of religious significance (Stern
1995b: 435–56), but this material come from a later period (the Persian-Hellenistic) than that under
discussion here. This is also the case for the rich Phoenician material of figurative art discussed by
Nunn (2000).
208 Chapter 3

altar installations served cults of ancestors and of family gods. No anthropomorphic figu-
rines of humans or deities were unambiguously associated with ritual installations and,
according to Otto, figurines of deities were never present in Late Bronze Age houses, even
through figurines and weapons—or at least fragments thereof—seem to have been used in
apotropaic deposits near doors and on thresholds (A. Otto 2006: 241–44). Domestic cultic
practices in the average Tell Bazi house thus seem to have been performed and culturally
propagated by nuclear families that would generally have had at least seven members or,
for larger houses, extended nuclear families that may have included up to ten slaves (Otto
2006: 276). We may also be relatively certain that single cultic installations found in sub-
divided houses would have been owned by the primary heir. Use of these installations
would have been shared by the members of fraternal families who lived together (Otto
2006: 244).

3.5.3.1.╇ Houses and their furnishings in Iron Age Phoenicia and Syria
At Iron Age Tell Halaf, private buildings consisting of 4–5 rooms formed an L-shaped
structure—two wings surrounding an open court. These buildings most likely had two
stories, although there is also evidence for considerably less grand two-room buildings
that had only one level (Naumann 1950: 360–61, fig.  174–76). Tell Mastuma (Wakita,
Wada, and Nishiyama 2000) provided strong evidence for pronounced social stratifica-
tion. The sizes of houses ranged from simple twoâ•‚ or three-room dwellings of around
5 x 10 m to larger, two-storied houses of approximately 10 × 20 m, to even larger buildings
measuring about 19 × 28 m. A standard house may have housed a nuclear family of about
five people (Wakita, Wada, and Nishiyama 2000: 548 and n. 17). Regardless of the sizes of
buildings, cooking seems generally to have been done in courtyards, as is known to have
been the case for Building C2 of Tell Ahmar (Jamieson 2000).
Urban houses of the Iron Age IIB–C period generally followed Neo-Assyrian building
conventions, as exemplified by the late Assyrian Building C2 at Tell Ahmar (see Jamieson
2000: fig.  1). The rooms of this building were constructed around a central courtyard.
This house itself was quite large, covering an area of 700 m², and would most likely have
belonged to an elite family. Excavated pottery was used to discern several activity areas
in the house (Jamieson 2000). The northwest half formed a general living space, while
the southeast area was dedicated to domestic work and storage. Most of the items found
in Rooms 1 and 2 were storage jars, almost certainly implying that these were dedicated
storage rooms, although they may also have been used for activities associated with the
preparation of food. Most food preparation and processing, however, took place in the
courtyard (Room 7), in which were found ovens and a large number of cooking pots, as
well as vessels for the consumption of food. A large number of the latter vessels, particu-
larly bowls, were stored in the niche Room 8. An even larger number of small drinking
vessels were uncovered in the main reception hall (Room 6), while Rooms 4 and 5, which
were supposed to have been bedrooms, and the dressing and bathroom unit of Rooms
9–11 yielded at most only small amounts of pottery. No ritual objects were reported.
The Iron Age figurative material of Phoenicia and Syria bears a close typological re-
lationship with the Judean repertoire, especially the pillar-like figurines; the horses and
riders; the crude, handmade figurines of snowmen and women; and various other types of
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 209

animal figurines. This typological relationship is evinced in the coroplastic items excavated
from Tell Afis (see D’Amore in Mazzoni 1989: 75–98 and pls. 12–13), Sarepta (Pritchard
1988: figs.  10–15), and Beirut (Lehmann-Jericke 1997). Pillar-figurines with outspread
arms are also closely related to the above figurines and, even though they were not found
in Judah, they were commonly found in the Phoenician Iron II repertoire. Relatively few
figures that are divine representations were uncovered by excavations of Iron Age deposits
in Syria and Phoenicia, although exceptions are one enthroned male deity wearing an atef
crown and a few fragments of a youthful male god with a high, white crown. In the fol-
lowing sections, I consider several exemplary sites with finds that provide insight into the
extent to which these typological similarities, especially in relation to female and animal
figurines, may reflect similarities in patterns of usage.

3.5.3.2.╇ Phoenician sites

3.5.3.2.1.╇ Kabri, map reference 164.268
Kabri is a Phoenician site near Nahal Gaton, approximately 4 km west of Naharya. It
was excavated between the late 1980s and early 1990s by a joint Israeli-German team led
by A. Kempinski (Kempinski and Niemeier 1994).
At this site, an Iron Age II casemate room (Locus 890) that seems to have formed part
of an enclosure measuring approximately 50 × 90 m was destroyed. The destruction pro-
duced debris in which an assemblage containing items of possible cultic significance was
found. The assemblage consisted of one head and a fragment from a bust of female plaque-
figurines, the head of a horse-figurine, an incense burner, an Egyptian fayance amulet
depicting a baboon, a Neo-Babylonian stamp seal (category A), a goblet, three bowls, one
juglet, a bottle, a cooking pot, two decanters, three storage jars, a basket-handled jar, a
fragmentary clay basin, and a loom weight.â•›323 The pottery bears close parallels to pottery
found in layers 4 and 4b of Tell Keisan, which has been dated between the middle and
the end of the 7th century. Although it is not possible to determine with much certainty
whether these objects were actually used at this site or were merely dumped here, the pres-
ence and composition of entire vessels suggests the first possibility. The casemate room
was only about 1.5 m wide and may well have been used as a storeroom. The assemblage
seems typical of Iron II domestic ritual assemblages from Phoenicia, particularly in in-
cluding female fertility or votive figurines, animal figurines, incense burners, and domes-
tic pottery suitable for the production and consumption of food.

3.5.3.2.2.╇ Tell Kazel

Tell Kazel, ancient Ṣumura or Simyra, is located in Syria and has been excavated since
1985 by a joint European-Syrian team (Badre et al. 1990; 1994; Capet and Gubel 2000). It
is located approximately 4 km east of the Mediterranean Sea and 10 km south of Amrit.
The site has yielded convincing evidence of domestic cult activities in the Iron Age strata.
A deposit of storage vessels was discovered in a solidly constructed, Iron Age II do-
mestic building known as the “jar building” (Chantier I Locus T13 NW/SE, Niveau 9–10).

323.╇ Kempinski and Niemeier 1994: figs. 17.1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10; 18.1, 3, 4, 6–8, 12, 14, 17, 19; 20.3,
5, 9; 21.1, 8.
210 Chapter 3

The floors of the building were partially plastered, suggesting that the building was a stor-
age room. This locus also yielded fragments of two fenestrated stands with red decorations
and an unperforated tripod-cup, which was also thought to be an incense burner (Badre
et al. 1994, fig. 20; Capet and Gubel 2000: fig. 18). The ritual objects were probably stored
away when not in use. An imported Cypriot zoomorphic vessel, presumed to have been
an askos, was recorded from the Iron Age strata (7–9) of Area I, along with approximately
11 fragments of terra-cotta figurines that depicted male and female deities (Badre et al.
1994: figs. 11; 15a–i). Although it seems likely that these figures would have been used in
domestic acts of veneration, the publication did not provide explicit details on locations
or contexts. A hollow figurine in the form of a votary carrying a sacrificial animal was also
found in Locus T13 NE (Badre et al. 1994: fig. 14).
Each of the succeeding Iron Age Levels 7–9 of the structure west of the jar building in
Area I T12 NW contained category A objects together with domestic pottery (Badre et al.
1990: pl. 6, figs. 27, 29, 30). Level 7, dated to the earlier part of the 7th century, contained
vessels for the storage and consumption of liquids, including cups, jugs, and a strainer jug,
along with a decorated amphora. Objects of religious significance included the torso of a
female plaque-figurine; one torso and one molded head of female figurines holding their
breasts; a crudely made, possibly male anthropoid figurine;â•›324 and a fibula.
The Level 8–9 square T12 NW from the latter part of the 8th century was character-
ized as a kitchen, and contained two ovens. Among many unspecified items of pottery,
the Level 8 material contained a bowl and the head of a male deity. The Level 9 material
contained pottery dedicated to the production and consumption of food, including bowls
and cooking pots, ivory inlay in form of a female head with polos (presumed to have rep-
resented a female deity; see Barnett 1982: pls. 43 c–d, 44 c), and the head of a male figurine
wearing a horned headdress. The assemblages of pottery and category A objects indicate
ritual activities performed either within the kitchen or its vicinity. Although fragments of
figurines are very commonly dispersed from locations where they originally might have
been used, the concentration of figurine fragments within a room dedicated to cooking,
eating, and drinking (Level 7) does not seem accidental.
The Iron Age evidence from Tell Kazel reveals interesting parallels with contemporary
Israel and Judah in the use of stands, tripod-cups, and zoomorphic vessels, but it also re-
veals differences, particularly in the domestic use of clearly divine images. Two essentially
different cultic patterns can be observed within this figurative material. The first would
have been domestic practices of worship addressed to the male and female divine rep-
resentations, which would most likely have been of Baal and Ashtarte; while the second
would have been some kind of votive practice utilizing the anthropoid figurines, as illus-
trated by the female figurines. This latter practice is particularly evinced by votary figurine
bearing the sacrifical animal from Tell Kazel T13 NE.

324.╇ Interpreted by the excavators as a bear (Badre 1990: 50). The figurine is similar to other
coarsely made objects found throughout Palestine (see, for instance, Gilbert-Peretz 1996: pls. 1.1–3;
8–10 from Jerusalem).
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 211

3.5.3.2.3.╇ Tell Keisan, map reference 164.253

Tell Keisan is one of only a few Iron Age Phoenician sites in which living quarters have
been exposed that show some evidence of domestic cultic activities. The site was exca-
vated by École Biblique between 1971 and 1976 (Briend and Humbert 1980). A room in a
building in Str. 9 (Locus 630, Iron Age I) yielded one fragment of a zoomorphic figurine
(a horse) together with typical household items, such as a cooking pot, a large bowl, two
other bowls, a perforated juglet, two lentoid flasks, a jar, and three grinding stones (Briend
and Humbert 1980: pls. 59.5; 63.6; 64.7a; 65.14; 66.4a, 12; 83.2, 6, 7, 103.3). The assem-
blage shows a great deal of similarity with the Megiddo Str. VI material and suggests the
preparation and consumption of food.
A building found in Str. 8 (Iron IIA) yielded a fenestrated and decorated stand from
the northern room, in Locus 656 (Briend and Humbert 1980: fig. 50; pl. 56.1). Although
no other pottery or object was reported in this locus, two chalices were found in adja-
cent loci (Briend and Humbert 1980: pl. 56.12–13). Similar to the stand at Tell Kazel, the
stand at Tell Keisan is comparable to contemporary fenestrated stands from Megiddo and
Lachish, revealing that stands of this type were in common domestic use in Israelite and
Phoenician sites of Iron Age IIA.

3.5.3.2.4.╇ Sarepta, map reference 1705.1089

During the American excavations at Sarepta (Sarafand) that were led by Pritchard,
several strata of Iron Age structures were exposed on the mound in Sounding Y (Pritchard
1975: 41–70; 1978: 71–96; Anderson 1979). The function of the buildings in the Iron Age
strata remain difficult to discern, however, due to the limited extent of the excavations. It
nevertheless seems plausible that the buildings in Strata D and F served industrial pur-
poses, while those in Stratum E were of a domestic nature, and Stratum C may have been
a public structure (Anderson in Pritchard 1975: 41–42; see also Anderson 1979; 1988).
Evidence from Sounding Y is summarized in table 3.4. The data in the table suggest as-
sociations between votive practices and domestic areas, exemplified by the presence of
horse-and-rider figurines, and the presence of other zoomorphic vessels likely to have
been used for libations. Note also that Phoenician domestic structures commonly featured
masks (see Anderson 1979: 736–40).
Sounding Y was not the only place that suggested an association between work-related
spaces and cultic activities. The Iron I potter’s quarter (Sounding × in Area II; Pritchard
1975: 71–84; 1978: 110–30; 1988; Khalifeh 1988) also yielded ritual objects that may have
been both produced and used in this industrial quarter. Items found here included at least
two pottery shrines, fragments of masks, anthropoid (although these lacked any signi-
fiers of divinity) and zoomorphic figurines, a zoomorphic ladle, a pottery disc or amulet
that depicted the moon and the Pleiades, and some Egyptian fayance amulets. While the
pottery objects may simply have been artifacts of production, the fayance amulets could
not have been, and they would likely have served apotropaic functions, perhaps related
to pottery production itself. A decided majority of all anthropomorphic figurines found
at Sarepta (76 of 96 total) were in the area of the shrine, adjacent to the potter’s quarter,
in Area IIâ•‚A/B-3/4 (Pritchard 1988: 54). Of these figures, the most frequently occurring
type was the seated pregnant woman, followed by pillar-type figurines. The shrine may
212 Chapter 3

Table 3.4.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Sarepta

Installation/
Room/Locus Stratum/Date Function Cat. A Cat. B Cat. C
IIK 21/Level 4 B2/Persian public? male head with 3 bowls
conical cap
(horse-and-
rider)
IIK 20/Level 26 C1/Iron IIB–C room/domestic? zoomorphic
balk spout
IIL 20/Locus 18 C1/Iron IIB–C room/domestic? mask. 2 bowls
fragment jug
IIK 20/Locus 12 C1/Iron IIB–C room/domestic? zoomorphic lid
figurine
IIL 21/Level 26 E/Iron IB domestic wall bowls
bracket pilgrim
goblet flask
jug
cooking pot
IIK/L 21/Level 27 F/Iron I pottery mask.
balk workshop fragment
IIK 21/Level 27 F/Iron I pottery base of fem. cooking pot
workshop plaque figurine krater
IIK 20/Locus 27-1 F/Iron I pottery rattle 2 bowls
workshop jug
pithos
potter’s rib
IIK 20/Level 26 F/Iron I pottery zoomorphic
workshop figurine
IIL 21/Locus 29-1 F Iron I pottery base of female wall storage jar
workshop plaque fig. bracket bowl
wheel of 2 cooking
model chariot pots

well have been a dedicated cult place serving the industrial area, and the figurines suggest
votive activities as well.

3.5.3.3.╇ Sites from northern, central, and eastern Syria

3.5.3.3.1. ʿAin Dara
ʿAin Dara, approximately 40 km north of Aleppo, is known best for its Neo-Hittite
temple sculptures. Although limited in extent, soundings taken in the domestic quarters
revealed some evidence of domestic ritual activities (Stone and Zimansky 1999).
In the early Iron Age II Square 4 (Locus 24 of Phase XIV), one fragment of a female
plaque-figurine was found in an open space (fig. 3.99).â•›325 This space was probably the

325.╇ Stone and Zimansky 1999: 43, figs. 43 and 86.5.

 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 213

Fig. 3.99.╇ ʿAin Dara: Figurine plaque

fragment from Sq. 4, Loc. 24, Level 2,
Phase XIV.

courtyard of a house and contained a tannur-oven, Cypro-Phoenician barrel jars, and a

bone spatula—all of which suggest domestic activities, most likely associated with the
processing of food. It is possible that the figurine was used in the courtyard near the oven.
An almost complete yet rather small animal figurine of 4 cm height was found in
Square 4 (Locus 15 of Phase VII, from about 900 b.c.e.). This square was part of an open
space that was used for domestic activities, as manifest by an adjacent kitchen that con-
tained two tannur-ovens. Several spindle whorls and clay cylinders were also found in
214 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.100.╇ ʿAin Dara: Animal figurine from Sq. 4, Loc.15, Level 1, Phase VII.

the square (fig. 3.100).â•›326 The presence of the figurine suggests that the domestic activities
conducted in this area were associated with votive practices.
One fragment of a horse-and-rider figurine was excavated from the courtyard of a
Level V domestic building (fig. 3.101)â•›327 although no other objects or installations were
discovered in this courtyard.
A crude, apparently female figurine that lacked divine attributes was found in the
northwest quarter, in Level 6 Trench 1. The general area had been used for the preparation
and consumption of food, as indicated by the presence of cooking pots and bowls (Stone
and Zimansky 1999: 30–31). The presence of layers of ash led the excavators to conclude
that there had been an oven in the vicinity.

326.╇ Stone and Zimansky 1999: 47–49, figs. 52, 86.1.

327.╇ Stone and Zimansky 1999: 50, figs. 55 and 86.4.
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 215

Fig. 3.101.╇ ʿAin Dara: Horse-and-rider fragment from Sq. 4, Loc. 12 (not specified), Level 2,
Phase V.

One relatively rare object found in a pit was a broken plaque of a woman en face wear-
ing a richly decorated dress (Stone and Zimansky 1999: 54–55, figs. 64, 82.2–3; for paral-
lels, see Nunn 2000: 73). Items of pottery such as cooking pots and other small objects
taken from the pit indicate that it served domestic purposes.

3.5.3.3.2.╇ Tell Afis

Tell Afis, the site of ancient Hazrak or Akkadian Ḥatarikka, is located about 50 km
southeast of Aleppo and approximately 10 km north of the important site of Ebla/Tell
Mardikh. Excavations conducted by an Italian team since 1986 (Mazzoni 1992; Mazzoni
216 Chapter 3

Table 3.5.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Tell Afis

Room/ Installation/
Locus Stratum/Date Function Cat. A Cat. B Cat. C
Area E1/ Level 9c/ domestic, animal figurine stone food-
CsV2 Iron Age I tannur-oven / fragment processing tools,
kitchen bowls, cooking
pots, kraters,
storage jars
Area E1/ Level 7/ domestic/ animal figurine bowl,
Level 818 Iron Age IB 1-room house storage jar
Area E2/ Level 3/ domestic, animal figurine goblet bowls,
Dc V3 Iron Age IIB tannur-oven / cooking pot, jar
kitchen
Area E2/ Level 2a/ domestic animal figurine loom weights
Level 852 Iron Age IIB/C
Area E2/ Level 2 domestic animal figurine loom weights
DcV4
Area G/ Level 4a/ domestic/ female snowman cooking pot, jug,
Level 1355 Iron IIA room figurine pithos, basalt
tripod bowl,
grinder, loom
weights, stone
blades, bronze
chisel
Area G/ Level 3/ domestic/ animal figurine cooking pots,
Level 1355 Iron IIA room bowls, krater,
pithos, amphora,
basalt grinding
slab, basalt kitchen
tools, loom weights
Area L/ Level 4/ street bust of male
Level 134 Iron IIA figurine

and Cecchini 1995; Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998) have concentrated on the Iron Age re-
mains. Even though many diagnostic objects were found buried in pits or within other
mass loci or surface finds (see D’Amore in Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998: 419–25), and LB
figurines were often found intermixed with Iron Age material, it is nevertheless possible to
discern some evidence of ritual activities performed here in domestic contexts.
A domestic quarter in Area E1 contained category A objects together with utilitarian
household wares. The most important find, however, came from a single-room house in
Level 3 (from early Iron Age II, around 1000–900 b.c.e.), where a crude limestone statu-
ette 22.5 cm high was found in the form of a seated, beardless figure holding a cup or
flower. An unspecified broken female terra-cotta figurine was also found in Square CsV2.
Pottery and other domestic tools found in the two Loci 803 and 806 included a basalt
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 217

Fig. 3.102.╇ Tell Afis, Area E1, Level 3: Limestone figurine and pottery from Loci 803 and 806.

grinding slab, a bowl, three cooking pots, and two storage jars (fig. 3.102).â•›328 The lime-
stone figurine, which is typologically similar to MB and LB statuettes, was interpreted by
the excavators as an ancestor figurine (Mazzoni in Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998: 203). This
type of figurine is similar to contemporary Syro-Hittite funerary statues, which were used
to represent the deceased (see Bonatz 2000: figs. 5, 6.11).
Additional evidence taken from distinguishable lociâ•›329 in the domestic structures of
Tell Afis is summarized in table 3.5. This evidence shows that human and animal figurines,
when it is possible to associate them with clearly discernible loci, were often associated
with vessels functioning in the production, consumption, and storage of food. These loci
328.╇ Mazzoni in Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998: 171, figs. 5, 22–23; p. 208, fig. 4.
329.╇ Many diagnostic objects were found in the Mass-locus 1344/F. 1008, a depression created
by the collapse of a building that had been used as a dump (see Cecchini in Cecchini and Mazzoni
1998: 282–93).
218 Chapter 3

also contained evidence of other domestic activities, such as weaving. In two clear cases,
figurines were found in rooms that also held tannur-ovens. Most of the figurines that were
found in clearly domestic contexts were votive animal figurines or crude anthropomorphic
figurines that lacked divine attributes. In addition to these anthropomorphic figurines,
several fragments from clay chariots were found, most of which were pieces of wheels
(Cecchini and Mazzoni 2000: TA.91.E.102, 180; TA.88.E.134; TA 89.E 26; TA.89.G.146).
These model chariots may have been cultic objects or may simply have been toys. Tell Afis
thus seems to have nurtured a domestic cult characterized by votive practices involving
male and female animal and human figurines, and possibly also the veneration of ances-
tors, as represented by the limestone statuette and the terra-cotta objects.

3.5.3.3.3.Tall Šēḥ Ḥamad

Tall Šēḥ Ḥamad or the Akkadian Dūr-katlimmu, is located on the lower Ḫabur in the
Assyrian Province of Raṣappa. The Aramean city was conquered in 894 b.c.e. during the
Syrian campaign of Adadnerari II. The large domestic Building G, from the Neo-Assyrian
period, consisted of three wings and has been interpreted as being the residence of an of-
ficial. Inside this building, an assemblage of distinctive, local pottery suggestive of ritual
activities was found (Kühne 1989–90: 316–21 with fig. 137). The northern part of Room
D, which was accessible from a courtyard, yielded a cylindrical stand on which bull pro-
tomes and incised decorations were found. The stand had been placed near a hearth, along
with several other vessels, including two bowls and a pot with a tall base with incised
decorations. In this large room of 17 × 5 m, both cooking and ritual actions seem to have
taken place, including libations and the offering of dry goods.

3.5.3.4.╇ Furnishings of a late Assyrian house from

Ḥirbet Khatuniyeh
A salvage excavation during Saddam Hussein’s dam project unearthed Ḥirbet Kha-
tuniyeh in the Mossul Area (Curtis and Green 1997). Although Ḥirbet Khatuniyeh lies
outside the geographical purview of the present book, it provides useful comparative evi-
dence. Two rectangular rooms were excavated in Level 4, each measuring 10.20 x 3.25 m.
They yielded large numbers of pottery and ritual objects (Curtis and Green 1997: fig. 6–7).
The south room contained food-processing installations such as an oven, a stone basin,
and a bin, along with a number of storage vessels grouped around these installations. A
finely-worked, lion-headed rhyton was also found in the eastern half of the room’s north
wall. The installations suggest that the room was predominantly used as a kitchen, al-
though the presence of several loom weights also indicates that it must have been used for
weaving. The north room may have had no roof, and it contained 47 mostly intact vessels,
18 medium-to-large-sized jars, 13 small jars, 8 very small jars, a large bowl, a cooking
pot, a krater, a pot stand, a clay coffin used for storage purposes, and a mortar and pestle.
Ceramic rims from up to 24 additional bowls and 35 jars were also found. The most im-
portant ritual object found in this room was a small limestone incense altar. A fragment of
a zoomorphic figurine was also found, although it was not shown on the plan. Most of the
pottery was found alongside the walls, suggesting that this was a storage room, although a
large pile of loom weights again indicates that weaving was done here. Although this may
 Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 219

have been a place for the storage of ritual objects, the presence of the incense altar in the
northwest part of the room strongly suggests that it was a site of ritual actions. In this case,
the rituals would have included the burning of incense and the placement of votive objects
such as animal figurines.

3.5.3.5.╇ Conclusions for the Phoenician and Syrian evidence

Iron Age remains of domestic cultic practices reveal strong similarities between sites
in Phoenicia and Syria and those in Judah and Israel. In all of these places, human and an-
imal figurines were often found in association with kitchen installations such as ovens and
pottery or tools for the production of food on the ground floors. Stands and other ritual
vessels such as tripod incense cups were also often found in association with fireplaces.
Unlike the Late Bronze Age evidence from Tell Bazi, fixed ritual installations do not ap-
pear to have been common, with patterns more similar to many cases from Israel and
Judah, where the paraphernalia of domestic cults was stored away. This kind of storage of
cultic items was evident in Tell Kazel Locus T13 and perhaps also at Ḥirbet Khatuniyeh.
There also does not appear to have been a standard set of ritual objects. Although actual
patterns of use for votive objects, incense burners, and libation vessels in rooms dedicated
to the production of food may have been similar, votive figurines seem to have been used
in various rooms of the houses. One important difference was revealed through the oc-
casional appearance at Syrian sites such as Tell Kazel of divine representations in the same
contexts as both human representations and animal figurines. Limestone figurines lacking
divine emblems seem to have been a north Syrian speciality and most likely represented
ancestors. As was the case in Israel and Judah, the human and animal votive objects were
probably intended to symbolize fertility or prosperity and to ensure the basic needs of a
family. Representations of divine figures reveal that deities had a place in domestic ritu-
als and were directly addressed with offerings and other votive practices. The presence
of divine images seems, however, to be an exception rather than a rule. Having ritual as-
semblages close to areas of food production demonstrates that offerings such as libations
and votive practices such as the burning of incense would have been conducted either in
kitchens or very nearby. Evidence from Ḥirbet Khatuniyeh indicates that rituals of this
sort were practiced at Assyrian sites as well. Moreover, these associations between ritual
objects and kitchen facilities suggest that women very likely performed ritual activities
during their daily work.
 Chapter 4

Typology of
Iron Age Cult Places

The foregoing survey of Iron Age cult assemblages from domestic and other environ-
ments revealed a variety of association patterns that distinguish various types of domestic
cult practices, and cult practices performed outside domestic spaces as well. The abil-
ity to make distinctions of this sort based on these data is a considerable advance be-
yond previous studies.â•›1 Most earlier reference works and applied studies directed at the
archaeology of ancient Israel have made simple distinctions between enclosed temples
and open-air places of cult practice: the Hebrew ‫ במות‬bamōt.â•›2 Local or provincial shrines
have occasionally been discerned (A. Mazar 1990: 492–502), as well as sites of domestic
cults (H.€Weippert 1988: 409–10, 447, 628), although little in the way of additional differ-
entiation or systemization has been offered. One study presented by L. G. Herr (2000a)
distinguished between primary official or state sanctuaries (as in Jerusalem) and smaller
local sanctuaries that may have been official (as in Arad) or may only have served some
private group (as in Lachish Locus 49); however, this study was based more on formalis-
tic arguments than on extensive consideration of early Iron Age evidence. Nevertheless,
Herr did direct his attention toward the nature of actual cult practices performed in these
sanctuaries.
An elaborate typology of ancient Israelite cult places was developed by J. S. Holladay
(1987): national sanctuaries, town sanctuaries, neighborhood shrines, and domestic areas
of religious activity. National and town sanctuaries represented for him the “establishment
cultus,” as characterized by architectural features such as direct ingress, ashlar masonry,
and a prominent location in the town. Permanent and portable cultic apparatuses associ-
ated with these sorts of sanctuaries typically consisted of horned altars, steleform stones,
podiums, benches, stands, and a variety of uniquely formed lamps. Sanctuaries on the
neighborhood level represent a cultic subset of these national or town sanctuaries that
were constructed on a smaller scale (Megiddo Locus 2081, Lachish Building 49). Holladay
further noted that the “establishment cultus” was essentially aniconic (1987: 280). In ad-
dition to this designation of “establishment cultus,” Holladay further discerned “noncon-
formist” places of worship that were characterized by extramural locations (as in Samaria

1. See, for example, Holladay 1987: 268–70; Zwickel 1994: 8–16; Herr 2000a; Zevit 2001: 123–
24; Dever 2005: 110–75.
2. See, for instance, Fritz 1977: 70–75; 1985: 156–57; H. Weippert 1988: 407–10, 447–49, 620–
31; Mazar in Kempinski and Reich 1992: 161–87; Stern 2001: 201–3; King and Stager 2001: 320–38.

220
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 221

E 207, Jerusalem Cave 1) and typically contained “foreign” material, human and animal
figurines, models of birds and furniture, and vessels for the offering of food and drink. He
also suggested that domestic cult assemblages revealed elements suggestive of a “distrib-
uted” or “nonconformist” cult, such as anthropoâ•‚ or zoomorphic figurines that could be
considered “foreign material,” vessels, models of furniture and lamps, cups and saucers,
and small, cubic limestone altars. Holladay’s typology, however, relies on distinguishing
“nonconformist” cults by the presence of “foreign” material. This sort of characterization
assumes that religious activities as practiced on this social level showed “an attempt on
the part of individuals or groups of individuals to remedy perceived deficiencies in the
established religion” and that such processes must have taken place outside the internal
constraints of organized societies (Holladay 1987: 269–70). He presupposed the existence
of a fundamental tension between “official” or “established” cultic activities and the reli-
gious activities practiced by individuals or groups in domestic realms that were rooted in
traditions of folk religion. Archaeological evidence reveals that official sanctuaries such as
those at Dan and Arad commonly contained elements indicative of these allegedly “non-
conformist” cultic practices, such as terra-cotta figurines and other votive objects, “for-
eign” material, and elements typical of domestic cults.â•›3
However, the type of material that was considered “foreign,” including Egyptian-type
amulets and fayence figurines, terra-cotta figurines, and other types of votive objects, were
quite common in local tradition and have been found throughout the Levant.â•›4 Egyptian-
object amulets and other small artistic items bearing repertoires of Egyptian motifs in
particular ought not be considered “foreign” but, rather, to reflect local traditions that
extended back to the Late Bronze Age and occasionally—as with seal amulets—even to
the Middle Bronze Age. The fundamental antagonism recognized by Holladay between a
“nonconformist” or “distributed” cultus and an “establishment” cultus does not seem to
be supported by material cultural evidence, because the ritual apparatuses that included
figurines were used equally in both “establishment” and “nonconformist” cult practices.
Moreover, this sort of distinction seems to be based on Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic
verdicts against specific ritual practices and presupposes the official cult to have held a “le-
gitimate” status and other forms of ritual activities to have been considered from an offi-
cial point (at least to some extent) “illegitimate.” As will be demonstrated below,â•›5 observed
differences between cult practices and places are better explained from a perspective of
internal religious pluralism instead of competing levels of cultic activity.
Zwickel (1994: 9) distinguished five forms of cult structures: (1) monumental temples
as locations of official cults and comprising differentiated areas and supporting buildings;
(2) chapels as places for public or private cult activities that were not intended for larger
communities (this category also included gate sanctuaries); (3) additional buildings or
rooms that may have belonged to temples or other sacred precincts but were not used
for ritual activities; (4) open-air cultic structures (bamōt); and (5) domestic cult places

3. See above, p. 58.

4. See, for instance, Pritchard 1988 for the material from Sarepta, including Egyptian fayence
figurines and amulets.
5. See pp. 239–241.
222 Chapter 4

typically defined by the presence of cultic items such as figurines or incense burners. It
must be presumed that official or sanctioned cult personnel would have been associated
with the first four of these types of structure, while locations of domestic cult practices
would have served and been maintained by families alone.
Zevit (2001: 652–58) distinguished six primary forms: (2) temples and temple com-
plexes exemplified by the fortress temple at Arad; (2) undefined cult sites such as Lachish
Locus 81; (3) cult complexes such as the bull site; (4) cult caves such as Jerusalem Cave I;
(5) cult corners or rooms exemplified by those at Megiddo 2081, Megiddo 340, Lachish
Room 49, and Ai; and (6) places of domestic cult. These six categories additionally com-
prised two classes, distinguishable according to social contexts. Class I designated struc-
tures that had been integrated into some greater order attributable to centralized planning
and control (as at Arad, Dan, Lachish Room 49, and Megiddo 340); while structures of
Class II lacked these features (for example, those at Megiddo Locus 2081, the Ai cultic
structure, the bull site, and Cave I).
Dever (2005: 110–75) distinguished local shrines, open-air cult places, larger commu-
nal sanctuaries, and monumental temples. He defined a local shrine as “a local holy place
that served either a nuclear family, or at most a small group of related families” (2005:
111). These were characterized by the presence of standing stones, altars, stone tables and
basins, offering stands and benches, jewelry, “exotic” vessels, animal bones and food re-
mains, astragali, and female terra-cotta figurines. However, most of the structures consid-
ered by Dever to have been shrines (such as Ḥirbet Raddana, Tell el-Fārʿah House 440,
Samaria Locus E 207, and the northeast room at Tell el-Wawiyat) were in fact not shrines
but (as demonstrated in the survey in chap. 3 above) either places of domestic cult activ-
ities or other functions, such as, for example, at Samaria E 207â•›6 or Tel Reḥov, which was
an open-air cult place.â•›7 Moreover, there does not appear to be any evidence for Dever’s as-
sertion that these shrines would have served larger, extended-family compounds (p. 117;
and see pp. 18–19), because areas in which neighborhood shrines have been excavated do
not demonstrate any kind of clustering, which would be necessary for these structure to be
considered “compounds.” Furthermore, in the period considered by Dever, no evidence
has arisen to suggest that these shrines would have been the sole locations of regular,
ritual activities; these kinds of shrines appear, in fact, to have been rather uncommon,â•›8 but
there is much stronger evidence for the regular performance of ritual actions in individual
domestic units. Detailed consideration of the kinds of sites and structures grouped to-
gether in Dever’s classification presents even greater problems. The sanctuary at Dan was
grouped together with the “bull site” within the category of “public open-air sanctuaries”
(with this category also including Hazor 3283, the Taanach “cultic structure,” and Kuntil-
let ʿAjrûd), in spite of differences in internal layouts and locations within their larger areas.
Moreover, the Tel Dan “bamāh” was actually a podium for a temple building, and Kuntil-
let ʿAjrûd was definitely not a cultic structure but a caravanserai. Dever included the Iron
II Arad fortress temple in his category of monumental temple buildings and the last phase

6. See p. 466 below.

7. See p. 165 above.
8. See appendix A, pp. 518–519.
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 223

of the Shechem migdal-temple. Cult use of the latter and its maṣṣebāh ended, however, in
Iron Age I, after which the structure was used only for profane purposes (Campbell 1993:
1352; see also 2002). Thus, although the essence of Dever’s typology appears to be useful,
its application to archaeological examples is in most cases problematic.
Holladay, Zwickel, Zevit, and Dever have each presented plausible schemes for differ-
entiating cult places on the basis of their architectural features and their social contexts.
These schemes nevertheless offer no way of identifying the social carriers of particular
cult types and practices or of distinguishing the social carriers of the various rituals that
must have been associated with the various levels of cult activities. Zevit’s distinction be-
tween two classes, based on whether the planning appears to have been centralized or
not, is definitely not specific enough to be used for the present purposes, especially since
it aggregates cult structures that may have served and been used by distinctly different
social carriers of ritual practices. Moreover, relationships between these potential social
carriers of ritual practices must be examined—both the personnel and the participants
associated with the cult sites and structures. A second weakness of both Zwickel’s and
Zevit’s typology is that they pay little attention to the significance of cult paraphernalia
in characterizing cult activities. Moreover, in chap. 3 we demonstrated the necessity of
differentiating between the features typical of domestic cult practices and those of the
larger industrial, neighborhood, or village levels, even though this sort of differentiation
has not been attempted previously (H. Weippert 1988: 409–10, 628–29; and, following
her, Albertz 1992: 150–52). Furthermore, the widely held assumption that there was a
strong distinction between official religious practices and those performed in private or
family environments—which has led to their being seen as competing arenas of religious
activity; Holladay 1987; Nakhai 2001: 203)—is highly problematic. By analyzing the dif-
fering contexts of four-horned altars from Tel Miqne, Gitin (2002: 113–17) examined the
intersections between public and private religious activities and identified five examples
of coexistence and duality in the cult practices of Ekron. These were: (1) the coexistence of
private worship in religious and secular settings; (2) the coexistence of public worship in
religious and secular settings; (3) the coexistence of portable and fixed forms of worship;
(4) the coexistence of centralized and decentralized forms of worship; and (5) the coex-
istence of local and foreign forms of worship. Regardless of the fact that Gitin made no
attempt to discriminate among different levels of cult practice, his description of the inter-
sections and coexistence of different forms of cult activities provides a useful supplement
to the model of internal religious pluralism proposed in the present study.
After considering all aspects of location, evidence of centralized planning, architec-
tural features, potential social carriers, cult participants, cult functionaries, and assem-
blages of cult paraphernalia, we are proposing eight types of cult places here as well as sub-
divisions. Type IA describes common domestic cult places, with the nuclear or extended
family presumed to be the carrier group. Type IB describes larger-scale domestic cult
places or shrines, for which again the nuclear or extended family is presumed to be the
carrier group, which was also assigned to an inner circle of ritual activities. Type II com-
prised cult places associated with work environments, within which a distinction is made
between two different sizes of carrier groups: (A) small scale, incorporating an inner circle
or nuclear family; and (B) larger scale, incorporating inner and middle circles, nuclear and
224 Chapter 4

joint families, and their broader kin group. Type III cult places were neighborhood instal-
lations or shrines, for which the carrier is presumed to have been a medium circle ranging
from a nuclear or extended family to a co-residential lineage or neighborhood. Type IV
describes places associated with cults of the dead, with carriers also presumed to belong
to this same medium circle.â•›9 Type V consisted of village sanctuaries, which are further
subdivided into (A) shrines, (B) open-air places, and (C) gate sanctuaries. Social carriers
for these locations presumably belonged to an outer circle the encompassed members of
a co-residential lineage or the local community. Type VI presumes palace shrines to have
been a distinct group, representing an official variant of large-scale domestic practices
performed and socially carried by local military or elite administrative personnel. Type
VII describes regional sanctuaries, subdivided into (A) shrines or temples, and (B) open-
air places. Carriers for these sites are presumed to have been regional tribes, inhabitants
of regional communities, or perhaps official bodies. Finally, Type VIII comprised supra�
regional temples of the official cult, and the social carriers were royal personages or associ-
ated officials. There is, of course, a degree of artificiality to these classifications, and there
must have been some degree of flux among the various categories; for example, Types III
(neighborhood shrines), VA (village shrines), and VIIB (regional sanctuaries). This clas-
sification also reflects evidence drawn from a wide period of time, ranging from Iron Age I
to Iron Age IIC and is intended primarily for heuristic purposes.â•›10

4.1.╇ Domestic cult: The house as space for

ritual activities (Type IA)
Chapter 2 demonstrated that most houses in Iron Age Israel and Judah would have
contained nuclear or extended families, who would thus have been the social carriers
of domestic cult activities. Contemporary Transjordanian structures attest closely related
architectural traditions, suggesting that most Moabite or Ammonite houses would also
have been inhabited by nuclear or extended families, as would the similarly constructed
domestic units excavated in Phoenician and Syrian sites such as Tell Keisan and Tell Mas-
tuma. It therefore seems that, in the regions around Israel and Judah, nuclear families
would also have been the social carriers of domestic cult activities.
Ovens, tabuns, and cooking pits would have been the most important household in-
stallations, along with items such as basins and associated tools. In most cases, these fa-
cilities were installed in central courtyards on the ground floor,â•›11 although they have also
been found (less often) in back rooms and longitudinal rooms. The preceding chapters
revealed that ritual objects were often assembled and arranged near fireplaces or other
facilities associated with the processing and consumption of food.â•›12 It can therefore be

9. See below, pp. 429–473.

10. This methodological problem was also recognized by Dever (2005: 110–11).
11. For the Iron I settlements, see Zwingenberger 2001: 338.
12. This observation was also made by Willett (1999: 157–65). There is nevertheless only incon-
clusive evidence supporting her assumption that certain domestic installations such as the alcoves
at Tell el-Fārʿah and the bench structure Locus 36 at Beersheba represent household shrines; these
structures were in fact predominantly used for domestic activities.
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 225

concluded that ritual actions would generally have been performed on the ground floor
near or in the vicinity of a fireplace. Association patterns of this sort have been observed
in excavations spanning the entire Iron Age up until the end of Judah in 586 b.c.e. Perma-
nent installations dedicated to ritual objects and actions, such as platforms and benches,
seem to have been rare. In only one case was a small domestic platform found in a niche
(at Tel Batash Locus 914); a second platform-like installation found at Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh (in
House 64) would most likely have been a kitchen installation. Ritual objects used in do-
mestic contexts were generally light and readily portable and may have been arranged in
various ways to suit a variety of needs throughout the house. The same ritual objects often
appear to have been used in different rooms, sometimes individually and sometimes in
association with a group of other objects, as illustrated by the assemblage from the Lachish
lower house. There is strong evidence that cult objects or even entire cult assemblages
were stored in separate storage rooms when not in use, as seems to have been the case in
Tell Mazar Room 101 and Tel Halif Locus G 8005. The standard “holy corner” or domestic
shrine that is found in Late Bronze Age Tall Bazi in Syria does not appear to have existed
in Iron Age Israel or Judah.â•›13 Rather, early Iron Age assemblages appear to reflect closely
the local traditions found in Late Bronze Age domestic cult assemblages.â•›14 There is little
evidence that religious activities were conducted regularly in upper stories of houses, but
this may reflect the fact that older excavation reports often did not sufficiently delineate
the material from a second story. The Beersheba hoards and several finds from Tel Halif
certainly provide evidence of ritual objects that were located on upper stories, and the
possibility cannot be excluded that ritual activities were performed on upper stories. It
does appear that the rooms of a second story were occasionally used for ritual purposes,
as is known to have occurred in domestic structures in many other areas.
Based on recent studies on gender in relation to activities in Israelite households
(AckerÂ�man 2003; Meyers 2003a, b; van der Toorn 2003: esp. pp. 398–402), we must em-
phasize the fact that the strong association between areas that contained ritual vessels
and other objects associated with food production and installations commonly found in
main, ground-floor halls indicates the important roles played by women in the ritual per-
formances of daily life. Detailed data collated on the nature of ritual apparatuses suggest
the likelihood that daily offerings and gifts were presented to deities and ancestors, the
latter perhaps being represented by human figurines;â•›15 these ritual acts would have ac-
companied the preparation of food (see also van der Toorn 2003: 399). It may also be as-
sumed that the daily family meal was accompanied by presenting a ritual portion to one or
more deities or ancestors. Compelling evidence for the performance of these activities has
been found in remnants of food offerings and libations that had been presented in bowls
on stands, poured out on the ground, or stored in bowls along with specialized libation
vessels. Evidence for the burning of aromatic compounds provides additional support.
Acts of this sort would have provided a means for deities or ancestors to participate in

13. The regular occurrence of domestic shrines was also concluded by Albertz (1992: 150–52)
following the considerations of H. Weippert (1988: 409–10).
14. For instance, the LB assemblage from House 305 (Givon 1999: 173).
15. See pp. 60–66 in this volume.
226 Chapter 4

the daily lives of families, thereby ensuring the family’s continuation, whether in terms of
health, wealth, or prosperity.
Patterns typical of Iron Age IIC domestic cults suggest that a prominent role was played
by female votive pillar-figurines, which expressed and conveyed the desire for female fe-
cundity (Meyers 1988: 162). Male votaries such as the horse-and-rider may also have been
used to represent male interests. As argued above, figurines of sheep, goat, and cattle also
encapsulated powers of fertility, as well as more generally ensuring the abundance of live-
stock. Miniature furniture and possibly miniaturized vessels may also have symbolized
the prosperity and wealth of a household (see Moorey 2003: 65), while the same purpose
may be posited for luxury items and certain rare, collectible objects. The function of these
objects as generic symbols of prosperity may also be the reason for their presence at burial
sites. Category A and B objects thus benefited the continuation of family wealth, fecun-
dity, or prosperity—the essential needs of a nuclear family.
Several excavated items may also provide insight into mantic practices in the domestic
buildings of Israel and Judah. The mask found along with a fenestrated stand in Hazor
Room 44 (Iron IIB) suggest practices of divination and perhaps necromancy. Astragali
and other game pieces that have often been found in domestic contexts may also have
been used for mantic purposes. Although such conclusions may often be tentative, the
astragali found in a bowl excavated in Megiddo Locus 2081 were very likely intended for
ritual use. There are also certain types of figurine that may have been used to represent
ancestors and that may have been used in necromantic practices, such as the unique pair
of peg figurines from Lachish (Kletter 2004: fig. 28.36:3–4). Figurines of various types may
also have been used for magical purposes, such as to engender love, to avert evil, or even
to allow evil to fall on someone else, although archaeological evidence has not revealed
significant patterns of disposal or ritual figurines that suggest practices of this sort (unlike
the lead Hellenistic period figurines that were bound with wire or had their limbs twisted;
Bliss and Macalister 1902: pl. 85; Dothan 1971: fig. 27.5; pl. 31.1). These practices can only
be conjectured on the basis of textual and archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia (see
Schmitt 2004: 187–93).
Patterns discerned in the domestic assemblages of Israel and Judah that suggest that
religious practices were performed by or in nuclear or extended families are essentially
identical to patterns seen in domestic assemblages from Jordan, Philistia, Phoenicia, and
Syria. One apparent difference is the occasional occurrence of clearly divine images in the
households of Ammon, Philistia, Phoenicia, and Syria; images of this sort have not been
found in Iron Age Israel and Judah. Figurines of deities similar to the Moabite figurines
that bore atef crowns or the Syro-Phoenician divine representations that bore conical
headdresses or white crowns and polos have occasionally been found in domestic contexts
in Transjordan, Phoenicia, and Syria. Clearly, divine images providing evidence of domes-
tic cult activities seem to have been common only in Philistia, where they took the form of
Ashdoda figurines. Nevertheless, in Transjordan, Phoenicia, and Syria, animal and female
anthropoid figurines, as well as horses and riders—all lacking divine attributes—com-
monly appeared in domestic contexts as well as in industrial contexts in Philistia and
Phoenicia (at Sarepta). Zoomorphic libation vessels also appear to have been common
both in Ashdod (as attested in the potter’s area, Area H domestic quarter) and Tell Jawa
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 227

(in Room 107). Although there is some evidence from Tell Jawa of cultic practices that
occurred on a second story, most of the domestic cult remains seem to have originated
on the ground floor itself, suggesting that it was the primary site of religious activity (see
Daviau 2001: 201; 2003: 455).â•›16 Concentrations of ritual artifacts at Tell Jawa were found
in the kitchen (Room 302) and a food-processing room (Room 110), similar to patterns
observed at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine (in Building 140). Although Dothan’s theory that the
Philistine bathtub and hearth installations served purely cult purposes is not supportable,
there is evidence from Philistia for the ritual use of kitchens. Evidence from Tell Kazel T12
NW and Room D of Building G at Dur Katlimmu in Syria supports a similar conclusion:
that ritual objects were found in clear association with kitchen installations or rooms.
Evidence from Philistine, Jordanian, and Syro-Phoenician sites supports the conclusion
drawn from Israel and Judah that the same ritual objects were used in various rooms and
in various domestic contexts, and a considerable number of objects in all cases were asso-
ciated with food-preparation activities. Thus ritual activities performed in domestic areas
appear to have been very similar across the entire West Asian region throughout the Iron
Age. The house as the domain of the nuclear or extended family—the inner circle—can
therefore be considered the primary center of the fundamental religious activity and needs
of the family. The very general association between ritual activities and domestic activities
such as the preparation and consumption of food indicates the regularity of the ritual
activities, which may often have been performed on a daily basis. Ritual activities would
typically have included the offering of drink, food, or aromatic compounds; the honoring
of ancestors; the worship of gods represented by figurines (at least in Jordan, Philistia,
Syria, and Phoenicia); and votive practices involving fertility figurines and animals, which
would have ensured the fertility and abundance of family and flocks in Israel and Judah.

4.2.╇ Domestic shrines (Type IB)

Domestic shrines were permanent cult installations such as benches or platforms in
domestic structures or dedicated cult rooms. They typically contained large numbers of
distinctly specialized objects, such as altars and stands, often accompanied by vessels for
the consumption of food and drink. A uniquely distinct example of a domestic shrine was
found in Locus 2081 (Iron IIA) at Megiddo, which included a corner that was not directly
accessible and that contained a large number of specialized objects and food-consumption
vessels. A less distinct example was found in Room 307 of House 314 at Tel Masos, which
was characterized by a platform that was associated with unique, collectible items, as well
as an oven and vessels for the preparation and consumption of food. The platform in this
case was directly accessible. These two structures appear to have served fundamentally
different purposes, with Megiddo Locus 2081 having been a true domestic shrine, and
Tel Masos Room 307 appearing to have been a room that was predominantly used for
the preparation of food. Ritual actions conducted in domestic cult structures typically
were libations, offerings of food, the burning of aromatic compounds or incense, and the
consumption of ritual meals. In Megiddo, these activities may have been accompanied by

16. For discussion, see above, pp. 178–182.

228 Chapter 4

playing games or casting lots for mantic purposes. The Megiddo assemblage seems to rep-
resent a subset of assemblages typical of neighborhood or village shrines, rather than be-
ing a distinctive type of its own (contra Holladay 1987: 271), while the assemblages from
Tel Masos House 314 clearly display a more domestic character. These domestic shrines
could have served and been used by elite, extended nuclear families or paternal joint fami-
lies, either in urban contexts such as Megiddo Locus 2081 or in rural contexts such as Tel
Masos. These large, permanent cult installations in domestic contexts do, however, seem
to have been exceptional, and evidence from Megiddo Locus 2081 and Tel Masos House
314 should not be considered definitive.

4.3.╇ Patterns of cult places outside the domestic realm

The present survey has revealed the existence of ritual assemblages similar to those
in domestic settings but differing in size, layout, patterns of use, content, and associated
installations. These differences in turn suggest that there were ritual places that were ex-
plicitly used for social purposes outside the domestic realm, and we will consider these in
the remainder of this section.

4.3.1.╇ Work-related cults (Type II)

Cult remains from Iron Age Israelite and Judean industrial sites reveal patterns similar
to those found in domestic cult areas. Type IIA represents places that may have contained
installations serving processes of production, yet contained no dedicated cult installations
within work areas that were otherwise integrated into domestic environments. Type IIB
represents larger-scale industrial areas, exemplified by those at Ashdod and Ekron, that
contained permanent or semipermanent ritual installations, such as the benches at Ash-
dod and the Ekron potter’s quarter or the built-in altars in the industrial olive-oil process-
ing areas of Ekron.
Cult inventories from small-scale industrial areas, assessed on the basis of objects in
categories A and B seem to have generally been quite similar to the cult inventories of
domestic areas. Cult items found in Iron Age I and IIA industrial areas have mostly been
libation vessels such as kernoi and zoomorphic vessels, generally accompanied by vessels
for the storage, transport, and consumption of liquids. Although few vessels related to the
production of food have been found in Iron Age IIB–C industrial areas, cult items from
these sites closely resemble those in domestic assemblages and have typically included
anthropoid or zoomorphic votive figurines or zoomorphic vessels, and in one case a cen-
sor cup (from Tell Qiri Locus 1027). With the exception of the Ekron altars and the larger
shaft altars from Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine in Jordan, cult objects used in association with in-
dustry were typically small and light, readily ported and stored, and were similar to those
used in domestic spaces. These similarities in cult objects associated with both small-scale
industrial contexts and domestic contexts suggest that the social carrier groups of ritual
traditions were likely to have been identical: nuclear, extended, or joint families.
Ritual actions in industrial structures would most likely have been performed in order
to gain reciprocal assurance of production processes after the giving of portions to deities
or ancestors or the uplifting of ritual requests via votive objects. These actions would also
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 229

have strengthened the social cohesion of groups of workers by binding together the people
who were directly or indirectly involved in the ritual performances.
Dedicated cult organizations (see Schmitt 1999: 639–41) would probably have directed
these rituals on highly specialized or large-scale industrial production sites that featured
permanent ritual installations of Type IIB, such as the potters’ workshops in Ashdod and
Ekron or the olive-oil production facilities of Ekron. This may also have been the case at
the textile production and dyeing installations of Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, where relatively
large altars were originally used on rooftops. The altars found in the olive-oil production
area of Ekron were too large to be portable, which is compelling evidence that regular cult
activities took place. Type IIA smaller industrial installations, typically found in or near
domestic units, would more likely have been used by families who worked in industrial
processes together; these were probably joint families. The fact that the ritual assemblages
form a clear subset of domestic assemblages indicates that nuclear or joint families in most
cases were the groups responsible for work-related cult activities. Cult practices associated
with small-scale industrial areas or workshops would therefore have been confined to
the inner circle of nuclear and joint families, while practices associated with larger-scale
industrial areas would have been carried out by a medium-sized social circle (expanded
to include more kin), who probably were part of a multiple-family household, as well as
servants, slaves, and clients.

4.3.2.╇ Neighborhood shrines (Type III)

Neighborhood shrines were generally small in size, were integrated with the domestic
architecture (exemplified for the Iron Age I by Ai, Locus 69; and the Tell Qiri, Area D cult
building), lacked sacred areas such as courtyards, and were solely dedicated to cult pur-
poses. They also contained permanent installations such as benches and platforms, offer-
ing a physical focus for cult activities. Although access to these shrines could be indirect,
as at Tell Qiri, it would more likely have been direct, as at Ai. At Tell Qiri (VIII B), the cult
focus was oriented to the north, while at Ai, it was directed to the west. Cult equipment
on these sites consisted of stands and other specialized objects such as a variety of libation
vessels. These ritual vessels were also often accompanied by vessels for the consumption
of food and drink, as well as for the preparation of food (as found at Tell Qiri). Common
sizes suggest that only small groups of people, generally less than ten, participated in ritual
actions in these shrine rooms. Neighborhood shrines seem to have been typical in Iron
Age I sites.â•›17
Neighborhood shrines were clearly intended to serve and unify members of social
levels above that of the household and domestic-scale industrial cults.â•›18 These larger-scale
social levels would have formed a medium circle of cult activities, most likely consisting of
members of conjugal or joint families, and possibly also larger kinship groups or multiple-
family households. The ritual apparatus used at these higher levels seems to have been an

17. Therefore, they should not be used for a model of religious organizational patterns in Iron
Age II, as done by Holladay (1987: 268).
18. �����������������������������������尓������
This difference was not recognized by H. Weippert (1988: 409–10) and, following her, Al-
bertz (1992: 150–52).
230 Chapter 4

enlarged subset of contemporary domestic cult assemblages (contra Holladay 1987: 268–
69), but the restricted size of most neighborhood shrines probably means that the larger
ritual apparatuses were unsuitable for serving entire communities. The lack of available
data prevents determining whether specialized personnel were responsible for directing
ritual actions at neighborhood shrines and, because the societies in which these shrines
have been found show little differentiation between social levels, it seems most likely that
the above-mentioned carrier groups were responsible for the maintenance of the cults.

4.3.3.╇ Local and village shrines, local high places, and

gate sanctuaries (Types VA–C)
Although they were similar in size to neighborhood shrines, village shrines (Type
VA)â•›19 were independent or freestanding structures, as exemplified by the Iron Age IIA
structures of Lachish Room 49 and Tell Michal Building 300 and probably also Iron Age
I Hazor Room 3283. Ingress to these structures was always direct, and there does not
seem to have been a fixed direction for orienting the cult. The focus at Tell Michal 300
was oriented northwest, at Lachish Room 49 to the west, and at Hazor 3283 to the south.
Adjacent courtyards that formed sacred areas have been found at Hazor, as well outside
Israel and Judah at Tell Qasile Temple 319 (A. Mazar 1980: 13–20, fig. 4), representing an
early phase in the development of these sorts of structure. Other structures such as bamōt
may also have been associated with these kinds of shrine (as at Lachish and Tell Michal).
Interiors were characterized by installations such as platforms and benches, and often
they contained many specialized objects, such as stands and altars suggestive of frequent
libations and food offerings, as well as vessels for the consumption of liquids (at Hazor,
Lachish, and Tell Michal Building 300) or the preparation and consumption of food (at
Hazor and Lachish). An oven in Lachish Room 49 was also directly associated with the
installations of the shrine room. In Hazor 3283, a maṣṣebāh was found within the shrine
itself, and another was found near the shrine at Lachish Locus 81, although the latter may
have been a cult installation in its own right (and thus of Type IIB). Remarkably, none of
these cult rooms contained anthropoid or zoomorphic votive figurines, although this may
merely reflect the happenstance of the excavations.
Architectural cult features and ritual paraphernalia of local shrines or temples have
also been found in Tell Qasile Temples 319 (Stratum XII) and 200 (Stratum XI), Shrine
300 (Stratum XI–X), and Temple 131 (Stratum X; A. Mazar 1980: 13–73). Architectural
features commonly found in association with these structures were benches and raised
platforms in main temples (nos. 319, 200, and 131), as well as in Shrine 300. The cult
orientation in all of these structures was southwest. The foundation of an open-air altar
was excavated in the courtyard of the Stratum X sanctuary. The contents of assemblages
excavated from the Tell Qasile temples are summarized in table 4.1 (after A. Mazar 1980:
table 17; and 1985: table 2).
These assemblages are quite comparable with those from both domestic and industrial
ritual assemblages at Ashdod, although they contained a considerably higher proportion
of specialized and luxury wares. Cult activities performed at the Tell Qasile local shrine

19. Type IV (places for the care of the dead) will be dealt with in chap. 7 below.
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 231

Table 4.1.╇ The assemblages from the Tell Qasile temples

Temple 319 Temple 200 Temple 131 Shrine 300
Cat. A 1 anthropo� 1 anthropo�morphic 1 pottery shrine 3 cylindrical
morphic juglet mask 1 cult stand stands
1 zoomorphic 1 zoomorphic spout decorated with 3 stand bowls
vessel fragment 1 bird figurine human figures 2 low stands
1 (spout) kernos 1 rhyton 1 stand with fragments of
fragment animal figures bird-shaped
1 cult jar bowls
1 zoomorphic
“trick” vase
1 composite libation
vessel
1 kernos-ring bowl
in the shape of a
bird
1 fragment of an
anthropomorphic
vessel
1 pomegranate
vessel
2 composite flasks
Cat. B goblet goblet 1 chalice 3 chalices
conch 3 goblets 5 goblets
miniature bowls miniature bowls
Cat. C 15 bowls 54 bowls 72 bowls 2 bowls
1 krater 1 amphoriskos 1 krater 1 small jar
1 flask 3 juglets 2 cooking pots 1 lamp
1 pyxis 4 amphoriskoi
2 flasks 2 small jars
2 stirrup jars 11 jugs
5 lamps 7 juglets
1 pyxis
25 flasks
6 stirrup jars
4 lamps

appear to have included offerings of animals on the courtyard altar, the burning of in-
cense, offerings of food and liquids, and the consumption of sacrificial meals both inside
and outside the temple. Although terra-cotta representations of deities and votive figures
appear to have been common in domestic and industrial realms, none was found in as-
sociation with the Philistine temples at Tell Qasile (although one ceramic model shrine
depicting two naked goddesses was found in Temple 131; see Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 112).
232 Chapter 4

The finds from the Yavneh favissa included a clay miniature altar with horns, 120
unique model ceramic shrines, and thousands of small bowls, kernoi, zoomorphic vessels,
and chalices (some of which had traces of soot). It seems possibly that this extraordinary
number of objects formed the furnishings of a local Philistine temple (Kletter and Ziffer
2007). One fragment of a model shrine similar to the model shrines found at Yavneh was
found in a domestic context in Ashdod, indicating the cultural intersection of domestic
and public cults in Philistia (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: fig. 3.75). Thus, many of the
finds from the Yavneh favissa probably served as votive objects dedicated by the partici-
pants of the cult.
Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine Temple 149 in Moab (Daviau and Steiner 2000; Daviau 2006: 19)
was built south of the gate and seems also to have been a village shrine with typical fea-
tures such as benches along its walls and a stone slab. Two stone pillars supported the roof
and divided the main room, with a central bench connecting these pillars that may indi-
cate the cult focus. The entire structure was square and measured 5.5€m per side. Objects
found here included a larger shaft altar that seems to have been painted and contained a
depression for liquids; a smaller shaft altar that showed traces of burning; and the famous
candelabrum altar inscribed with ‫ ליסף בת אות‬/ ‫ מקטר אׁש‬mqṭr ʾš ʿś ʿlšmʿ / lysp bt ʾwt ‘the
incense altar that Elishama made for YSP, the daughter ʾWT’ (Dion and Daviau 2000). The
debris of the temple also yielded three fragments of female votive terra-cotta figurines (in
the form of one torso and two heads), two murex shells, a fayence bead, an Egyptian-type
Udjat-amulet, a spouted libation vessel, five lamps, two stone pegs of uncertain usage that
may have been foundation objects, a chalice, a juglet, a number of jugs, and a decanter.
Two bowls, one jug, and four jars were also recovered from a pit in the main room (Da-
viau and Steiner 2000: figs.€11–12). The annex room yielded a game board and a limestone
mortar.
Type VB is a category of small, freestanding, intramural, open-air sanctuaries, as
represented by the ‫ מצבה‬maṣṣebāh installations from Tel Reḥov (Tell eṣ-Ṣārem), Area E
(A.€Mazar 1999: 23–28), Hazor Locus 80019 (Ben-Ami 2006), the open-air cultic place
at Tell Michal (Avigad 1993: 932–33), and Arad Stratum XII, which consisted of a built
altar and a structure that was most likely a ‫ במה‬bamāh (Y.€Aharoni 1981: fig.€1; 1993: 82;
see also Zevit 2001: 157–58). Although a cultic interpretation of the Iron I structure from
Arad Stratum XII is to some extent tentative (see Fritz 1993: 186; Zwickel 1994: 243–44),
the fact that the Stratum XII altar lay in precisely the same position as the altar of the later
fortress temple strongly suggests the long-time use of this place for cult purposes. Animal
slaughter and consumption at open-air cult places occurred in the bamāh structure at Tell
Michal (Avigad 1993: 933), as well as at Tel Reḥov (A. Mazar 1999: 26).
Cult paraphernalia used in open-air sanctuaries included stands, human and animal
votive figurines, chalices, and vessels for the preparation and consumption of food and
drink, as found at Reḥov (A. Mazar 1999: figs. 14–16). Tabuns were also constructed in the
immediate vicinity of the ritual installation at Tel Reḥov. This type of sanctuary seems only
to have appeared during the limited time between Iron Age I (at Arad) and early Iron Age
IIB (at Tel Reḥov). No structure of this kind has been found in Israel or Judah in Iron Age
IIC. Local and village sanctuaries also include cult installations constructed at city gates,
such as at Tel Dan, Tell el-Fārʿah North, Bethsaida, and Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine in Jordan,
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 233

with the latter forming its own typological group (Type VC).â•›20 A platform (bamāh) with
an offering trough was found at the gate of Bethsaida, positioned in front of stelae that
depicted ā stylized image of the moon-god, and an additional aniconic maṣṣebāh besides
the bamāh (Bernett and Keel 1998). These structures were dated to the 8th century b.c.e.
Both stelae were oriented to the west. The trough contained three perforated tripod cups.
A number of ritual installations were discovered at Tel Dan (Biran 1994: 245; 1998),
including a row of five small standing stones along with a bench adjacent to the city wall
(Locus 5122b), associated with an assemblage of two tripod cups, two lamps (one with a
stand), three bowls, and a platter (Biran 1994: fig. 205). It remains unclear whether animal
bones found in the vicinity were associated with the installation. A similar installation
with five standing stones was discovered in Locus 5180, again adjacent to a wall. Both
installations have been dated to Iron Age IIB.
A third, freestanding structure (Locus 5188) has been dated to the Assyrian period,
and consisted of four maṣṣebôt of heights between 50 and 117 cm enclosed by a wall of
2.5 x 3 m. All three of these maṣṣebôt installations were oriented to the north. A maṣṣebāh
that was oriented roughly northwest was also discovered in the area of the inner gate at
Tell el-Farʿa (North), Stratum VII b–e. It included an offering trough, and has been dated
to the 10th–9th centuries b.c.e. (Chambon 1984: Plan IV–VI). The gate sanctuary thus
revealed a clear pattern of cult features, with the maṣṣebāh as a focus, an installation for
offerings (most likely involving libations poured into the trough), and the burning of aro-
matic compounds. An extramural gate shrine was built at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, directly
abutting the north face of the eastern gate tower. It contained two maṣṣebôt that were
oriented to the east (Daviau 2006: 17, with fig. 2; pl. 5a).
Similar to neighborhood shrines, the spaces formed by typical freestanding village
shrines would rarely have been able to accommodate larger communities, although com-
munities may well have been involved in ritual performances in adjacent courtyards or
other unbuilt areas. Village shrines may therefore be considered to have served and been
directed by an outer (larger) social circle consisting of families, additional kin, especially
multiple-family households, and friends or neighbors. Herr’s speculation, however, that
the generally direct ingress to village shrines indicated a closer and more-direct relation-
ship with a god or gods (2000a: 141–43) remains largely unsupported. The highly special-
ized assemblages found at local and village shrines such as Hazor, Lachish, and Tell Qasile
and the variety of ritual actions that must have been conducted with these objects suggest
that specialized personnel would have been responsible for the maintenance of the cult.
At village shrines, regular ritual actions would probably have been conducted by a priest
or priesthood on behalf of the community, as described in Judg 17:7–8 for Micah’s sanctu-
ary, while gate sanctuaries would more likely have been sites of en passant ritual actions
performed by community members themselves.

20. See Bernett and Keel (1998: 53–71) for a discussion of other possible remains of cult places
in or near the city gates at Ḥorvat ʿUzza, Ḥorvat Radum, Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, Beersheba, Megiddo, and
Kinneret. Most of these, however, are considerably less certain in their interpretation.
234 Chapter 4

4.3.4.╇ Palace shrines (Type VI)

Only one unambiguous example of a palace shrine has been found, in Iron Age IIB
Megiddo Room 340 of Building 338. It shared features of both neighborhood and village
shrines as well as large-scale permanent domestic cult installations (such as platforms
and altars). Palace shrines clearly reflect a high degree of differentiation among the mem-
bers of the society and would have served the ritual needs of the social, governmental,
or military elite. Although the later Arad fortress temple could be interpreted as a palace
shrine, it formed a distinctly separate building within the fortress, while palace shrines
were properly integrated within palatial structures. In contrast to the structure at Arad,
the palace shrine of Megiddo would not have been suitable for large-scale offerings. The
predominant ritual actions likely to have taken place here are libations and the burning
of grain—performed facing east—as well as the preparation and consumption of ritual
meals, as indicated by a cooking pot and basalt vessel. Once again, no votive figurines that
might indicate individual rituals have been found. Although this shrine would have been
too small to serve audiences of any appreciable size, excavated objects indicate that some
ritual actions, such as the burning of incense, may have been performed in the adjacent
Courtyard 313.
Because all cult activities were closely aligned with the activities of domestic cults, pal-
ace shrines can be considered to represent expanded subsets of installations and objects
typically associated with domestic shrines but incorporated into official realms. Although
the predominantly domestic character of cult objects and associated actions indicates no
particularly high degree of ritual specialization, suggesting that ritual specialists would
not necessarily have needed to be present, it seems plausible that the specialists would
have been present in these permanent ritual installations that were integrated into official
buildings. In order to transfer typical domestic cult activities to higher levels, hierarchical
social structures would have needed the presence and authority of a priest or military
commander (attended by subordinates) to function in the role of pater familias. Palace
shrines can therefore be seen to have formed points of intersection between the cult ac-
tivities of families and the official bureaucracy. However, as stated at the outset of this
section, the Megiddo palace shrine is the only example of this type known to date and,
in the absence of further evidence, the conclusions of the present subsection should be
considered tentative.

4.3.5.╇ Regional sanctuaries (Type VII)

Sanctuaries serving social groups at regional scales or larger were generally situated
beyond villages or cities themselves, at a convenient central place, and served commu-
nities from surrounding regions by providing places for offerings or worship. This de-
scription seems especially apropos for the so-called bull site in the Samarian hill country,
which could have served the Dothan–Yibleam region. Similarly, the Hathor temple could
have served the copper-mining and -processing region of the Timnah Valley.
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 235

4.3.5.1.╇ Open-air regional sanctuaries (Type VIIA)

An example of an early regional sanctuary that had no temple building is the much-
discussed “bull site” (Daḥret eṭ-Ṭawīle, map reference 1807.2016), excavated by Mazar
between 1978 and 1982 (A. Mazar 1982). The site was located on a hillock, where large
stones were used to form an elliptical enclosure. Although very few details about the con-
struction of and items found in this sanctuary are known (see Fritz 1993: 185–86; Zwickel
1994: 212–15), it nevertheless seems possible that there was a maṣṣebāh here. Among
other fragments of pottery, there was a piece that was probably part of a square offering
stand (Mazar 1982: fig. 10), similar to the stands found at Taanach and Pella. It therefore
seems that the “bull site” was used for cult purposes.
The tumuli west of Jerusalem that were previously considered cultic heights (for ex-
ample, by Amiran 1958) generally lack clear indication of cult functions, such as instal-
lations or associated paraphernalia, and are therefore not likely to have been sanctuar-
ies (see Fritz 1993: 186; Zwickel 1994: 249–50). The same applies to a presumed bamāh
on Mount Ebal/el-Burnāṭ (Zertal 1993), which is more likely to have been a watchtower
(Zwickel 1994: 204–7; see also Fritz 1993: 185).
One structure with identifiable cult features was an Iron Age IIC open-air Edomite
sanctuary found at Ḥorvat Qitmit.â•›21 Objects excavated from a favissa at the Edomite for-
tress at ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1995; 1996; 1997) included 7 stone miniature al-
tars, 3 anthropomorphic stands, 31 stands of various shapes, 11 chalices, 4 perforated
tripod cups, and 4 incense shovels. The material originally belonged to a U-shaped open-
air cultic structure at the northern front of the fortress that had a bench, an altar, and a
hearth. Two maṣṣebôt marked cultic foci, both toward the southeast. One of these showed
sign of having been decorated with a crescent.
An open-air regional sanctuary slightly predating the “bull site” (Late Bronze IIB–
Iron I) was found at Timnah in the Arabah, the so-called Hathor temple (Site 200; Rothen-
berg 1973: 134–92; 1993: 1482–85). It contained a row of iconic and aniconic maṣṣebôt
(the former being Hathor pillars, hence the name), benches, altars, offering troughs ori-
enting the ritual focus to the west, and large amounts of pottery and votive objects (in-
cluding a copper snake, copper figurines, fayence objects, jewelry, Egyptian-type amulets;
collectibles such as shells, fossils, stones of unusual shapes, slag, and corals; and vessels of
stone, alabaster, and pottery). A second cultic site was also found here (Site 2, Area A),
with five southwest-oriented maṣṣebôt, an offering basin, and a bench in a square struc-
ture that measured 8 × 9 m (Rothenberg 1973: 118–20; 1993: 1479–80). Apparent ritual
actions conducted in the sanctuaries were the slaughter and consumption of animals (as
evidenced by animal bones: Rothenberg 1973: 119, 185), the offering of incense and liba-
tions, and the presentation of votive objects.
These open-air regional sanctuaries were generally located in isolated places, removed
from other large structures, and were not associated with permanent buildings that ac-
commodated people who might otherwise have been responsible for the maintenance of
the cult. They therefore probably were sites of occasional rather than regular ritual actions,
with ritual performances being conducted by members of local communities or their for-

21. See pp. 236–237.

236 Chapter 4

mal representatives. Although it does not seem that dedicated priesthoods were associated
with these open-air sanctuaries, it is possible that official priests served at the cult mounds
on special occasions, as indicated in 1 Kgs 12:31–32 (presuming this was not a polemic).

4.3.5.2.╇ Regional sanctuaries with shrines or temples (Type VIIB)

The fortress temple at Arad (see Herzog et al. 1984; M. Aharoni 1993; for further dis-
cussion, Zwickel 1994: 266–75; Zevit 2001: 156–71) was centrally located on the road
to the Arabah and dominated the plain of the eastern Negev (see Y. Aharoni 1984: 60),
suggesting that it functioned as a regional sanctuary. The temple was built inside and was
protected by the fortress and is thus likely to have been an official sanctuary that served
both the military and the administrative staff of the fortress, the inhabitants of the Negev
region, and traders who traveled on the road. The cult paraphernalia of the temple seems
mostly to have been in use between the 9th and 8th centuries b.c.e. (Herzog 2001) and
consisted of a number of maṣṣebôt (see Bloch-Smith 2005: 32–33), two incense altars in a
niche that marked the cultic focus (oriented westward), and a sacrificial altar in the court-
yard. Five JPF fragments and one horse-and-rider figurine were found in the temple (see
Kletter 1996: fig. 35),â•›22 as well as a bronze lion figurine aside the sacrificial altar of Str. IX
(Herzog et al. 1984: fig. 20). Although not many figurines were concentrated in the temple
itself, it seems possible that they were used as votive objects in the temple cult. Other
category A objects included a small stand with a separately made bowl from Stratum X,
found in the room adjacent to the altar (1984: 15), as well as offering dishes with the in-
cised letters qop-kap (for qōdeš kōhanîm ‘set apart for priests’) found on the steps of the
sacrificial altar in Stratum X (1984: 12 and fig. 14 a, b). The utilitarian pottery of Stratum X
consisted of bowls, cooking pots, jugs, juglets, storage jars, and lamps (figs. 12–13), indi-
cating the cooking and consumption of ritual meals. The pottery assemblages of Strata XI
and IX–VII were similar in character (see Y. Aharoni 1981: figs. 6–10; Herzog et al. 1984:
figs. 18–25). As noted above, this Iron II temple at Arad had an Iron Age I predecessor in
an open-air sanctuary on the very same spot, as represented by an altar in the same place
as the altar of the fortress temple, and a bamāh (Y. Aharoni 1981; 1993: 82).
Iron II regional sanctuaries are also represented by Ḥorvat Qitmit Sanctuaries A and
B (Beit-Arieh 1995: 303–10, fig. 9.1–2). Sanctuary A was a three-room shrine (oriented
northeast, albeit without any apparent cult focus) with benches and an open-air cult place
with a bamāh and stone basin oriented toward southwest. Ritual vessels and figurines
were found at the latter spot. The second complex, Sanctuary B, was a structure of sev-
eral rooms with a courtyard and maṣṣebāh (oriented westward) that lay in front of the
main building. This sanctuary hosted an abundant ritual assemblage consisting of incense
altars, perforated tripod cups, cylindrical stands, anthropoid stands, composite vessels,
chalices, human and animal figurines, collectibles (especially mollusk shells), and figu-
rines of Edomite deities, together with large amounts of pottery for the storage, prepa-

22. Kletter 1996: cat. no. HR 80 (Locus 380, entrance to the temple), JPF 442 (Locus 783), JPF
446 (Locus 350, small room near the altar), JPF 448 (Locus 380, entrance to the temple), JPF 453
(Locus 350), JPF 456 (Locus 795, Hellenistic pit).
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 237

ration, and consumption of food, mostly in the form of bowls.â•›23 Ritual actions that must
have been performed at this sanctuary include sacrificial slaughter on the altar, the con-
sumption of sacrificial meals, the burning of incense, the offering of libations and votive
objects, and perhaps—as was supposed by the excavators (Beit-Arieh 1995: 306)—formal
processions between the sanctuary buildings. The excavators also suggested that some of
the built structures (Structure I and B may have served to accommodate priests; 1995:
308). Given the permanence of the buildings and their installations, it does indeed seem
likely that there was a priesthood associated with this sanctuary complex, whose employ
may have been supported by the local tribes.
All of these regional sanctuaries discussed above would have served different forms of
social organization dependent upon their geographical and economic contexts. The “bull
site” was likely a regional sanctuary serving the early (or proto-) Israelite settlements in
the vicinity of the Samarian hill country. The Ḥorvat Qitmit sanctuary was most likely a
central sanctuary for the semi-nomadic tribes who lived in the wider vicinity, and would
perhaps have been maintained by a priest or priesthood. The Timnah valley temple served
the mining colonists in the Timnah Valley area. The Arad fortress temple was an offi-
cial structure serving military and administrative staff, the inhabitants of the Negev, and
traders en route throughout that region. The existence of dedicatory inscriptions (qōdeš/
qōhanîm), along with good evidence of differentiated cult actions, particularly in regard
to the slaughter of animals, strongly argue that the cult of the Arad temple was maintained
by a priesthood. The evident intersection of military and religious institutions further sug-
gests that the priesthood of Arad would have been sanctioned and employed by a central
administration based in the capital, Jerusalem.

4.3.6.╇ Supraregional and state sanctuaries (Type VIII)

The most important supraregional sanctuary in Iron Age Israel found to date is the
Temple in Jerusalem, which served as the main temple for the Judean state. Evidence for
the function and purpose of this temple appears only in written sources, which have been
already been the subject of much consideration.â•›24 For the purposes of the present book, it
is sufficient to note that the unquestionably monumental Jerusalem Temple was not only
an official temple of supraregional importance but was also the primary sanctuary of the
Kingdom of Judah—as well as being the only official sanctuary subsequent to the Josianic
reform—which was considered, according to official theology, to be located at the central
point of the known world and to be the sole place blessed with Yhwh’s presence (see Al-
bertz 1992: 190–212).
Its counterparts are the main sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom, in Dan and
Bethel, of which only the Dan temple has been excavated. There are very few traces of
the first temple remaining in Jerusalem, and the nature of Israelite supraregional or state
temples can thus only be ascertained by examining the evidence from Tel Dan. The Tel

23. From Complex A came 1534 bowls, 73 kraters, 15 clay basins, 39 cooking pots, 93 jars; from
Complex B, 605 bowls, 5 kraters, 17 clay basins, 23 cooking pots, 50 jars (Beit-Arieh 1995: 209–19).
24. I only mention here some of the more recent studies: Hurowitz 1992; 2005; Keel and Ueh-
linger 1998: §§103–8; Zwickel 1999a; Bloch-Smith 2002.
238 Chapter 4

Dan Sanctuary contained a number of built features that seem to have been typical for
monumental architecture in the Northern Kingdom, including the use of ashlar masonry,
a rectangular layout for the sacred precinct (measuring 45 × 60 m), and the fact that the
building complex of the sanctuary proper, which measured 17 × 28 m, consisted of bamōt
A (Stratum IV: 9 × 18.5 m) and B (Stratum III: 18 × 18 m) with northwest orientations, a
large built altar, and additional buildings. Among items excavated from the early (Stratum
IV, 10th century) sacred precinct were two pithoi decorated with snakes, a pottery stand,
bowls, jugs, and other vessels that included Phoenician imports from one of the store-
rooms north of the central complex (Biran 1994: figs. 125, 126, 128, 129). A bar-handled
bowl filled with animal bones, two tall cylindrical stands, and a 10-cm-long fragment of a
male bearded head were found on a cobbled floor near the altar (Biran 1994: figs. 133–34).
The presence of Egyptian-type fayence figurines (Biran 1994: figs. 139, 141, 142) suggests
votive practices. A stone-lined basin associated with a stand and a terra-cotta bathtub
measuring 65 × 82 × 141 cm with an internal seat were interpreted by the excavators as an
installation for cleansing rituals (Biran 1994: 174; figs. 135–36). Another installation with
a sunken basin, basalt slabs, and sunken jars at both ends was also interpreted as having
served ritual purposes (Biran 1994: 177, fig.  137), although this installation was much
more likely to have been an olive-oil press that provided oil for the needs of the temple
(see Dever 2005: 140). A built altar from the later periods (Stratum II) was found in Room
2844 with two iron shovels and a jar that contained ashes and burned animal bones. Room
2844 also contained two miniature altars and a carinated bronze bowl. A blue fayence
dye was discovered north of the altar room in a small annex (Biran 1994: 192–99). The
objects unearthed at Tel Dan indicate that rituals performed in the temple consisted of the
slaughter of animals, food offerings and incense, the ritual consumption of meals, ritual
cleansing, and divination (through the casting of dice).
Temples 350, 351, and 650 at Tel Miqne–Ekron (Gitin and Dothan 1987: 204–5; Do-
than 1990: 29–35; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 245–52; Dothan and Gitin 1993: 1054–56)
are also structures of official or supraregional levels. The supraregional importance of
these structures is also attested in 2 Kgs 1:2–4, where Baal-zebul of Ekron is consulted by
the Israelite king. The first temple building of Stratum VIA (Temple 351, dated to the 12th
century b.c.e.) was a small mud-brick building with an open hearth, containing Myce-
naean IIIC:1b pottery and a delicately made ivory pyxis. The much more elaborate Stra-
tum V megaron-type temple of about 15 × 21 m was erected on the same spot. This had
an entrance hall with two pillars leading to another pillared hall and three cellae oriented
east, as well as several annexes. The installations in the cellae consisted of a raised platform
with a bench in the central room, a bench in the southernmost room, and a funnel-like
depression in the floor of the northern room, as well as a hearth and a bench in the hall. A
foundation deposit consisting of an oil lamp inside two bowls was discovered in the south-
east corner of the main hall beneath the floor. The main hall also yielded ashes, charcoal,
and the bones of animals, including fish. Objects found inside the middle cella of Stratum
VI included fragments of a wheeled stand of cast bronze (similar to the biblical mekonôt),
two bowls, and a flask; while objects from Stratum V included chalices and other vessels,
a fayence gaming piece, a fayence ring, and the fang of a wild pig. The northern room
contained an assemblage of bichrome pottery (including a chalice, bowls, a beer jug, and
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 239

horn-shaped flasks), as well as 20 loom weights from the middle of the floor. The southern
room yielded an iron ingot found on the platform, an iron knife with an ivory handle,
and a bronze linchpin. The finds from Stratum IV (late 11th to early 10th centuries b.c.e.)
included a variety of fayence votive objects within the northern room, as well as ker-
nos fragments, chalices, flasks, pomegranate-shaped vessels, and votive miniature vessels.
Building 353 adjacent to the temple proper contained a stone bath. Objects found inside
this temple indicate that ritual actions performed here would have included the offering
of animals, consumption of ritual meals, the offering of libations and votive objects, ritual
bathing, and perhaps divination.
Stratum IC (Iron IIC) Temple 650 was even more monumental, spanning 43 × 57 m.
It consisted of the main sanctuary building with two rows of pillars, a monumental court-
yard with additional rooms (see Gitin and Cogan 1999: fig. 3), and an auxiliary complex
(formed from Units 651–55) that contained vast amounts of pottery and other objects,
including a treasure trove of silver, bronze, and ivory objects that have yet to be fully pub-
lished. Several inscriptions were found in the temple and its auxiliary complex, including
15 inscriptions on store jars, some of which were dedicatory inscriptions (Renz and Röllig
1995: Muq[7]:1), and 2 royal dedicatory inscriptions, the first of which was from Achish
or Ikausu to his lady ptgyh (Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh 1997), and the second mentioned
King Padi and the god Baal (Gitin and Cogan 1999). The Temple 650 complex also con-
tained an olive-oil press, most likely dedicated to the needs of the cult.
Supraregional and state sanctuaries like these, which show a high degree of differen-
tiation between various cult activities and generally contained specialized and dedicated
installations, would obviously have necessitated a priesthood for their maintenance. This
priesthood would have been sanctioned by local rulers (see 1 Kgs 12:31–32) and would
have met their financial needs with a temple income collected from official and nonofficial
cult participants.

4.4.╇Conclusions
This analysis of cult assemblages and other features has revealed a variety of cult
practices associated with a range of contexts, as summarized in table 4.2 (pp. 242–244
below).
Type IA domestic cultic assemblages were often associated with facilities for the
preparation of food. They have typically yielded only a small number of specialized ritual
objects, all of which would have been portable. Ritual performances would have been
occasional and would have included libations, food offerings, the burning of incense, and
votive practices. The portable ritual paraphernalia would have been stored when not in
use. Ritual activities conducted in Type IIA small-scale industrial structures would have
been similar. In both of these cases, the presence of a deity would have had to be imagined
during ritual performances. In domestic structures, permanent installations with a clear
cult focus and enlarged ritual assemblages (of Type IB) seem to have been extremely rare,
and probably only served elite families. Type VI palace shrines that would have served
administrative and military elites appear generally to have had features similar to domes-
tic shrines, although in this case serving the realms of official religion. Cult installations
240 Chapter 4

and assemblages for the medium circle (above the nuclear family level) of Types IIB
(installations in large-scale industrial areas), III (neighborhood shrines), and IV (places
for the care of the dead) are readily distinguished by the presence of more-specific ritual
assemblages and permanent ritual installations (for Types IIB and III).
Permanent installations, especially maṣṣebôt and dedicated altars, were primarily used
by the outer circle, as represented by Type V (village or city shrines or temples, and cult
installations situated at gates). Maṣṣebôt certainly do not seem to have been present in the
realm of domestic religion. Ritual assemblages of pottery found in the outer-circle sites
are larger, more differentiated, and have larger numbers of specialized and luxury vessels.
Animal slaughter seems to have been an important religious practice in the outer-circle
realms, as attested in local or city-level structures (of Type V), regional structures (of Type
VII), and supraregional sanctuaries (of Type VIII). Some sort of priesthood was probably
responsible for the maintenance of cult practices and structures at all levels, from village
shrines upward, and would have been employed either by local bodies (for Type V) or
centralized, official bodies (for Types VII and VIII, and perhaps also Type VI).
Official regional shrines of Type VII (exemplified by the Arad fortress temple) com-
prised temple buildings with differentiated installations (such as maṣṣebôt, multiple altars,
or courtyards) and specialized vessels. Ritual assemblages excavated from official, supra-
regional temples (Type VIII Temples 350 and 650 at Tel Miqne and the Dan sanctuary)
contained quite a few more specialized objects (especially metal objects) than local or
regional-level sanctuaries did. Similarly, multiple specialized installations seem to have
been present only in official, supraregional sanctuaries, where they may have served the
special ritual activities of priests, such as ritual cleansing.
There appears to have been no standardized orientation for cultic foci in cultic struc-
tures of Levels III–VIII. Orientations differed even within the same periods and cultural
realms (see A. Mazar 1992: 186–87 with graph on p. 178). It is particularly notable that, in
the Northern Kingdom, the cult structures in Megiddo Room 340 and the Dan sanctuary
were oriented toward the east and the north, respectively, while in Philistia, Ekron Temple
350 and the Tell Qasile temple were oriented toward the east and west, respectively. There
is currently insufficient evidence to discern whether there were significant positions for
official temples to be placed in a town’s overall plan (as observed by Holladay 1987: 268).
While the Dan sanctuary was located at the northwestern edge of the tell, the sacred pre-
cincts at Ekron and Tell Qasile were both located in the city center, although the latter was
not situated on the very summit of the tell.
A feature that was common to all levels of ritual activity in Israel and Judean cultic
structures was votive practices with anthropomorphic and animal figurines. Votive ob-
jects of greater material value, such as those made of fayence or metal, seem to have been
restricted to official sanctuaries on the regional or supraregional level. No unambiguously
divine images likely to have been cult objects have been found in type VII or VIII public
cult structures in Israel or Judah, although they have been found in the Edomite sanctuary
at Ḥorvat Qitmit.
Assemblages of category A and B ritual objects and utilitarian pottery that were used
in cult structures of all levels suggest an ongoing interdependence and interaction be-
tween the levels. This interdependence can be observed during all periods surveyed in
 Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 241

the present study. Ritual paraphernalia of neighborhood and local shrines in the early
Iron Age seem to have been formed by enlarging the ensembles typical of contemporary
domestic practices. The use of tripod incense cups seems to have been typical for domestic
cult activities during Iron Age IIB, as attested at the gate sanctuaries of Dan and Bethsaida.
JPFs and other terra-cotta votive objects were used in Iron Age IIC, both in domestic
realms and in official cult structures (such as the Arad fortress temple). Domestic and
public votive practices by individuals and families thus coexisted in Iron Age IIB–C Judah.
The most important difference between cult activities on the private or domestic level and
the cult activities on the public level seems to have been that, on the domestic level, per-
formances were responsible for inviting and invoking the presence of deities, as reflected
in the portability of ritual paraphernalia, whereas the permanent presence of a deity was
indicated in structures on the levels of neighborhood shrines and upward (Types III and
V–VIII). Permanent presence is manifested by permanent installations that marked cult
foci, especially maṣṣebôt, as well as platforms, benches, and other fixed features. Type IV
places, which cared for the dead,â•›25 also seem to have shared features typical of domestic
cult practices, particularly the use of portable ritual apparatuses. In line with previous
comments on Ekron by Gitin (2002), we find that the interdependence and coexistence of
several layers and realms of cultic activity are perhaps best understood using the concepts
of internal religious pluralism, which permitted multiple intersections among the circles
of domestic, local, and official religion to meet the entire range of needs in the various
levels of social organization involved in these cult practices.
25. See chap. 6 below.
 Table 4.2.╇ Typological chart of Iron Age cult places
Category A Category B Category C
242

Group/ Permanent (dominant (dominant (dominant Cultic

Cult Type Body Architecture Installations items only) items only) items only) Activities
IA nuclear/ room within ovens stands chalices food and drink libation
Domestic extended house, votive goblets preparation food and
(inner circle) family usually figurines lamps and incense
(appendix A) central hall libation luxury items consumption offerings
vessels collectibles storage votive cult
censor-cups or game pieces ritual meals
small altars
IB elite nuclear/ room or benches stands chalices food and drink libation
Domestic shrine extended/joint corner platform votive goblets preparation food and
(inner circle) family integrated figurines luxury items and incense
(Megiddo 2081; Tel Masos into the altars lamps consumption offerings
R307) domestic censor-vessels collectibles votive cult
architecture astragali ritual meals
IIA nuclear/ workshop industrial stands sometimes storage libation
Work-related, extended/joint storage installations libation chalices sometimes food and
Chapter 4

small-scale families building vessels and luxury food and incense

(inner circle) or within votive vessels drink offerings
(appendix A) domestic figurines astragali preparation votive cult
building and ritual meals
consumption
IIB joint families workshop industrial altars sometimes storage libation
Work-related, broader separate installations stands chalices food and drink food and
large-scale kinship industrial ritual libation and luxury preparation incense
(medium circle) groups area installations vessels vessels and offerings
(Ashdod and Tel Miqne potter’s and servants/ votive consumption votive cult
quarter; Tel Miqne olive-oil clients figurines ritual meals
industrial area)
III joint families integrated benches stands chalices food and drink libation
Neighborhood multi-family building platform altars goblets preparation food and
shrine household, libation lamps and incense
(medium circle) Neighborhood vessels miniature consumption offerings
(Ai Locus 69, Tell Qiri, Area D) votives vessels votive cult
ritual meals
 Table 4.2.╇ Typological chart of Iron Age cult places
Category A Category B Category C
Group/ Permanent (dominant (dominant (dominant Cultic
Cult Type Body Architecture Installations items only) items only) items only) Activities
IV joint families caves oven stands chalices food and drink libation
Places for multi-family (Jerusalem) altars goblets preparation food and
the care of the dead household or model lamps and incense
(medium circle) neighborhood extramural furniture rattles consumption offerings
(Jerusalem Caves I–III, Locus location model shrines votive cult
6015, (Samaria libation ritual meals
Samaria E207) E207) vessels
tripod-cups
votive
figurines
VA multiple- (mostly) benches stands chalices food and drink animal
Village shrine/ family freestanding platforms altars goblets preparation slaughter
or city temple household building built altars model shrine luxury items and libation
(outer circle) village/city courtyard maṣṣebāh libation lamps consumption food and
(Lachish Room 49, Tell Michal community annexes vessels collectibles incense
Build. 300, maintained by votive offerings
Hazor Room 3283, priesthood figurines ritual meals
Tell Qasile Temples;
Temple 149 at Ḥirbet el-
Mudēyine)
VB multiple- freestanding maṣṣebāh libation miniature food and drink animal
Village or city high place family platform vessels bowls preparation slaughter
Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

(outer circle) household altar stands chalices and libations

(Lachish Locus 81, village/city (Asherah- votive consumption ritual meals
Hazor community pile?) figurines
Locus 80019, Arad Str. XII, Tell perhaps oven
Michal open-air cult place; maintained
Tel Reḥov, Area E) by priesthood

VC multiple- installations platform tripod incense miniature food and drink libation
Gate sanctuary family near the gate bench cups bowls consumption incense
(outer circle) household maṣṣebāh burning,
243

(Dan, Bethsaida, village stone trough ritual meals

Tell el-Fārʿah, community (?)
Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine)
 Table 4.2.╇ Typological chart of Iron Age cult places
244

Category A Category B Category C

Group/ Permanent (dominant (dominant (dominant Cultic
Cult Type Body Architecture Installations items only) items only) items only) Activities
VI administrative room benches stands lamp food and drink libation
Palace shrine elite integrated platform altars preparation food and
(official, administrative elites) perhaps into palatial stone trough model shrines and incense
(Megiddo 338) maintained structure consumption offerings
by priesthood ritual meals
VIIA regional tribe location on platforms cult figurine luxury food and drink animal
Regional sanctuary, inhabitants of hill or other benches (bull) vessels preparation slaughter
open-air villages in central built altar votive collectibles and libation
(regional circle) vicinity location maṣṣebāh figurines consumption votive cult
(bull site, Timnah sanctuaries, economic temenos hearth stands food and
ʿEn Ḥazeva) community stone trough libation incense
vessels offerings
ritual meals
Chapter 4

VIIB regional tribe shrine or platform cult figurines chalices food and drink animal
Regional inhabitants of temple benches altars luxury items preparation slaughter
sanctuary, the region building built altar tripod-cups lamps and libation
shrine or temple administrative temenos maṣṣebāh stands collectibles consumption votive cult
(regional circle) elite fortification stone trough votive food and
(Arad temple, Ḥorvat Qitmit traders figurines incense
shrines A and B) maintained by libation vessels offerings
priesthood ritual meals
VIII royalty monumental platform metal ritual chalices and food and drink animal
Supra-regional administrative, temple benches objects and luxury vessels preparation slaughter
sanctuary: military, and building built altar tools dice and food and
(supra-regional/ religious additional hearth and stands consumption incense
official circle) elites buildings other fixed altars offerings
(Tel Miqne temples 350, 650, citizens of city temenos cultic figurines ritual
Tel Dan, and state installations silver and gold meals
[Jerusalem]) maintained by industrial hoards ritual cleansing
priesthood installations divination
(olive-oil
presses)
 Chapter 5

Personal Names and

Family Religion

Most Hebrew personal names are theophoric, and thus they constitute an important
source for reconstructing Israelite and Judean religion. Names have been used to draw
general conclusions regarding ancient Israelite religion, as J. D. Fowler (1988) did, for ex-
ample. She suggested that the names provide “a detailed picture of what the Hebrew man
conceived his God to be” (1988: 18). She was interested in the “nature of the Hebrew deity”
(1988: 19) rather than the social context of various religious statements. Interpreting the
personal names in such a general theological way did not enable nuanced discernment
of differences but only “congruity in thought with what is revealed as the character of the
Israelite God throughout the Old Testament” (1988: 318).
This sort of uncritical interpretation of the religious messages conveyed by Hebrew
personal names has led to some far-reaching conclusions. For example, J.  Tigay (1987:
177) used the large proportion of epigraphic names containing Yhwh to make a broad
inference about general religious history: there “existed an overwhelmingly Yahwistic so-
ciety in the heartland of Israelite settlement.” H.-D. Hoffmann (1980: 83, 103) went so far
as to wonder whether Ahab could have constructed a temple for Baal as reported in 1 Kgs
16:31–33, because the names of his sons (Ahaziah and Jehoram) contained Yahwistic ele-
ments. General conclusions such as these are highly questionable; in the latter case, for
example, it is entirely possible that Ahab considered the realms of state religion and his
own personal belief to be two distinct realms. M. Noth (1928: 133), in his foundational
investigation of Hebrew anthroponymy, stated that Israelite personal names are not allud-
ing to any particular theology or dogmatic speculation but instead are a direct reflection
of the simple piety of individuals.

5.1.╇ Introductory questions

5.1.1.╇ Personal names as a source for family religion
In a previous study (Albertz 1978a: 49–77), I demonstrated that the personal names of
the Hebrew Bible do not reflect the Israelite religion in any general way; instead, they spe-
cifically attest the personal piety of Israelite and Judean families.â•›1 Furthermore, although
the traditions of Israel’s official religion—such as the exodus, conquest, kingship, Sinai,
Zion, or Bethel—seem to have had no impact on personal names, and they contain only a

1. This view is also accepted by Rechenmacher (1997: 3) but not by Fowler.

245
246 Chapter 5

few possible allusions to Israel’s political and sacred history,â•›2 the verbs and nouns used in
personal names show a high rate of correspondence with the verbs and nouns that were
used in the individual psalms of complaint and thanksgiving and in the oracles of salva-
tion. More than half of all the roots of theophoric personal names found in the Hebrew
Bible also occur in the genre of individual prayer;â•›3 and over 60% of all verbs and nouns
that appear in the petitions for divine attendance and salvation or in the confessions of
confidence in the individual complaints or the psalms of thanksgiving and oracles of sal-
vation can also be found in personal names. Thus, there is a close relationship between
Hebrew personal names and the genres of psalms that reflect aspects of private prayer
practices. In contrast, statements of hymnic praise reflect primarily the religion of the
state, and only 10% of theophoric names in the Hebrew Bible allude to those statements
(Albertz 1978a: 49–50). In the following section, I will extend the work begun in previous
investigations of Hebrew personal names in the epigraphs on excavated ostraca and seals,
and so on,â•›4 which will enable us to confirm and strengthen these conclusions.
Some may object that, although Hebrew personal names are derived from the roots of
words that express familial piety, their use was determined more by fashion than by the
religious convictions of the parents. If this were the case, these names would reflect the
religious environment only indirectly and would offer no access to the beliefs of Israelite
families. There are, however, several indications that the bestowal of names in ancient
Israelite societies reflected more than mere ephemeral fashion. Foremost among these is
the fact that, many times in the Hebrew Bible, the naming of a child is followed by an ex-
plicit explanation for the choice of the name.â•›5 In most cases, these explanations reflect the
specific circumstances of birth, such as the distress of the mother during labor or an asso-
ciation with her religious experiences at that time. These explanations are admittedly oc-
casionally inaccurate etymologically; for example, the name Jacob, which is explained in
the biblical narratives using the root ‫ עקב‬I ‘to deceive’ (Gen 27:36), or ‫ עקב‬II ‘to hold back’
(25:25–26), is actually derived from the Amorite root ‫‘ עקב‬to protect’ and should be inter-
preted as a shortened form of ya-aḫ-qú-ub-ilu, which originally meant ‘god has protected’
(Huffmon 1965: 203–4; see also Gröndahl 1967: 111–12). This example nevertheless dem-
onstrates that ancient Israelites found contemporary religious meanings for names, even
when perhaps the original meaning had been lost. There is, of course, an abundance of
etymologically accurate interpretations of personal names; for example, Hagar is asked to
call her child Ishmael, because God has heard her distress (Gen 16:11). Even though bibli-
cal explanations are generally stylized literarily, they do presuppose that parents in ancient

2. In particular, the name ‫ ׁשכניה‬Šĕkanyāh ‘Yhwh has taken [his] living’ was interpreted (follow-
ing Noth 1928: 194) to refer to the reconstruction of the Temple in 520–515 b.c.e. (Albertz 1978a:
58) because in the Hebrew Bible the name only appears in the postexilic period. However, the name
has since been found in epigraphic records from the preexilic period; see pp.€267–268 below.
3. The correspondence between roots in names expressing thanksgiving and confession, on the
one hand, and individual psalms and oracles of salvation, on the other hand, is shown in the tables
in appendixes B1 and 2 below.
4. See pp. 269–330 below.
5. See Gen 4:1, 25; 5:29; 16:11; 21:6; 29:33, 34, 35; 30:5–6, 10–11, 13, 18, 20, 24; 35:18; 38:27–30;
Exod 2:22; 18:3–4; 1 Sam 1:20; 4:21; 2 Sam 12:24, see also Fichtner 1956: 372–96.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 247

Israelite societies were aware of the specific meanings of personal names and chose names
with intent and deliberation.
A second argument against fashion’s having been the primary factor in naming con-
ventions is that the naming of a child in ancient Israel seems to have been considered a
special occasion that was commonly celebrated with a family feast. During birth, mothers
were kept isolated from their husbands and the rest of their family (Jer 20:15) and were
assisted only by midwives or female neighbors (Gen 35:17, 18a; 38:27–30; Ruth 4:13–15).
Because a woman who had given birth was considered unclean for another 7 to 14 days
(Lev 12:1–5), she had to remain in isolation with her newborn infant. The mother and
infant were not reintegrated into a family until after this period. One can imagine that
the first meeting with her husband and entire family would have been a joyful moment. It
would likely have been celebrated with a family feast, giving the mother an opportunity to
present her baby proudly and to tell of her physical and religious experiences during the
dramatic process of birth. It probably would have been on this joyful day, at the end of the
mother’s time of impurity that the naming of the child was celebrated.
One piece of evidence indirectly supports this idea. Later priestly regulations fixed the
day of circumcision for boys precisely on the 8th day of life, immediately following the
7-day period of impurity (Lev 12:3; Gen 17:12; 21:4). Thus the integration of newborn
boys into their families, now expanded by the wider aspect of their integration as one of
Yhwh’s people occurred precisely on the day when the purportedly older naming feast
took place. Although there is no direct evidence in the Hebrew Bible that the naming of
a child occurred on the day of circumcision, there is later evidence (Luke 1:59–66; 2:21;
b. Šabb. 134a; Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 48) as well as the fact that the practice prevails in
present-day Judaism (EncJud 5:572; EncJudâ•›2 4:732). It is thus reasonable to suggest that
the celebration of circumcision intentionally coincided with the older naming feast.
The ritual context of the family feast would have imbued the act of naming with great
significance. These interpretations of the circumstances surrounding naming also help
clarify one peculiarity of the biblical reports on naming. In the Hebrew Bible, the naming
of a child is reported 46 times: the mother names the child in 25 of these instances,â•›6 the
father in 15,â•›7 both parents in just 1 or 2 cases (Gen 25:25, 26),â•›8 and in 1 case the father
corrects the name bestowed by the mother (35:18).â•›9 The reconstructed ritual background
offers a ready explanation. The mother would naturally have had the prerogative in nam-
ing the child, because she may have chosen the name during the seven days of her impu-
rity, in the absence of family. Thus arises the frequent connotation of personal names with
6. See Gen 4:1, 25; 16:11; 19:37, 38; 29:32, 33, 34, 35; 30:6, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20, 21; 35:18a; 38:4, 5;
Exod 2:10; Judg 13:24; 1 Sam 1:20; Isa 7:14; 1 Chr 4:9; 7:16. In Ruth 4:17 the female neighbors, who
accompanied the birth process, chose the name.
7. See Gen 4:26; 5:3, 29; 16:15; 17:19; 35:18b; 38:3; 41:45; Exod 2:22; Isa 8:3; Hos 1:4, 6, 9; Job
42:14; 1 Chr 7:23; in Gen 38:29, 30 the verbal form is masculine, but the subject is not mentioned.
8. In 2 Sam 12:24 the text varies as to whether David or Bathsheba named Sholomo (Kethivâ•‚
Qere); in Gen 4:26 the MT reads a feminine, but the Samaritan Pentateuch reads a masculine form;
in Exod 2:22 a few Hebrew manuscripts read a feminine form against the masculine reading of the
MT.
9. Restricted to the unambiguous cases, the ratio of naming by women is 54.3%; this is a bit
lower than the ratio of 62% deduced by Meyers (2002: 291).
248 Chapter 5

the religious experiences of a mother during pregnancy, labor, or childbirth. Even secular
circumstances during processes of birth found expression in personal names.â•›10 Of course,
the husband would have had to agree with the mother’s choice, and agreement was proba-
bly reached during the naming feast after the mother had revealed her experiences and the
father and other family members had had their chance to respond. The father could also
propose the child’s name during the feast and then convinced his wife; or husband and
wife could reach a mutual decision on naming. Thus, the broader religious experiences of
families that transcended the birth itself could also determined or influenced the choice
of a child’s name. Personal names thus reflect and convey many aspects of the religious
beliefs of Israelite families, particularly aspects brought to the fore during the dramatic
events of childbirth. Names primarily reflected the woman’s personal piety as focused on
the wonder of birth, although women were also influenced by related religious experi-
ences of the father, other family members, or even friends and neighbors (Ruth 4:17).

5.1.2.╇ Epigraphic material

When I dealt with personal piety in Israelite families years ago (Albertz 1978a), I re-
stricted myself almost entirely to the names transmitted in the Hebrew Bible. Meanwhile,
many more examples of Hebrew names have been found in epigraphic sources such as os-
traca, jars, seals, seal impressions (bullae) and have been nicely edited so that it is possible
to take them as one’s primary source and use the biblical material only in a comparative
way. This methodical inversion of sources has several advantages. The epigraphic evidence
has a higher degree of authenticity, because the names were recorded during the period
with which we are dealing. As far as we can determine on stratigraphical or (mostly) epi-
graphic grounds, some of them come from the 10th and 9th centuries, but most of them
from the 8th to 6th centuries b.c.e. Thus, based on the epigraphic material, it is much
easier to distinguish preexilic names from postexilic names, while they are much more
intermingled in the Hebrew Bible. This is especially true in the books of Chronicles, Ezra,
and Nehemiah, where the largest number of biblical names appear. Since our investigation
of family religion is focused on the preexilic period, epigraphic material from the post-
exilic period, such as the Elephantine texts, Daliyeh papyri, and the Aramaic ostraca from
southern Palestine are excluded.
*â•…â•…*â•…â•…*
A first comprehensive edition of the new Hebrew epigraphic material was presented by Davies (1991)
and contained only transcriptions of the Hebrew texts. A much more detailed edition that included not
only the texts but also drawings of the material, translations, and detailed interpretations was compiled
by Renz and Röllig in their Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik (HAE); vols. 1, 2/1, and 3 dealing
with the inscriptions were published in 1995; vol. 2/2, which presents the seals and bullae, followed much
later, in 2003. In 1997, Avigad and Sass published the foundational Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals
(WSS). This was supplemented by an edition of the seals from the Hecht Museum in Haifa, prepared by
Avigad, Heltzer, and Lemaire (2000). During this period, Deutsch and Heltzer (1994; 1995 [NEE]; 1997
[WTP]; 1999 [EN]) also published a series of small editions presenting new inscriptions and seals from
Israel and its surrounds; another was done by Deutsch alone (1999). Seals from Israel and its neighbors
from the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection (BPPS) were published by Deutsch and Lemaire (2000).

10. For example, that the child quickly came out of the womb like an arrow (‫ חצי‬Ḥēṣî), a bolt of
lightning (‫ ברקי‬Barqay), or a waterfall (‫ צנר‬Ṣinnor); see appendix B6.1.1.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 249

As far as the Hebrew seals and bullae are concerned, all the material mentioned above is included in
HAE 2/2 by Renz and Röllig (2003). This edition has been chosen to form the basis of the present investi-
gation, although the authors’ assignment of origins (to Hebrew, Ammonite, or Moabite, for example) and
associated interpretations differ in some cases from the original publications.â•›11 However, we use all of the
older publications cited above for the personal names that originated in the lands of Israel’s neighbors.
The New Epigraphic Evidence (NEE) by Deutsch and Heltzer (1995) presents more ostraca and Hebrew
inscriptions, beyond those originally treated in the earlier volumes of HAE, especially HAE 2/1. New
Hebrew inscriptions found during Shiloh’s excavation in Jerusalem (1978–85) were published by Naveh
(2000). Most recently, Lemaire and Yardeni have published details of 15 new Hebrew ostraca from the
Shephelah (2006). A recently found large hoard of Hebrew bullae has been treated in recent publications,
the majority in the Josef Chaim Kaufmann Collection (BPHB), and a smaller group as part of the Shlomo
Moussaieff collection (FHCB), both edited by Deutsch (2003a; 2003b).
While the majority of the ostraca and some seals and bullae have come from controlled archaeolog-
ical excavations, the remainder were bought on the antiquities market.â•›12 Thus, the authenticity of a large
portion of the epigraphic material is questionable. Many of the recently described bullae and perhaps
also the ostraca seem to have belonged to some kind of official archive, because several seal impressions
of King Hezekiah and of several other officials were found on them (see BPHB 1–43; FHCB 45–56:1–7).
Lemaire suggested that these archives were possibly located in the vicinity of Ḥirbet el-Qôm (2006: 236).
Although all evidence providing insight into the use of personal names for the reconstruction of family
religion is valuable, it is possible that some of these seals were forgeries. In the present critical examina-
tion, we will exclude all the epigraphic objects previously supposed to be forgeries by one or more of the
scholars who examined them. We argue belowâ•›13 that the overwhelming majority of epigraphic personal
names are genuine and thus the presence of a relatively small number of forgeries in the evaluated mate-
rial will have little effect on overall interpretations.
*â•…â•…*â•…â•…*
As can be seen from table 5.1 (p. 505), 675 different Hebrew personal names are pres-
ent in the epigraphic material, drawn from 2,922 individual records. When we use the
word different, we mean not only differences in semantics or morphology but also all dif-
ferences in orthography, including differences in hypocoristic endings, different sorts of
plēne and non-plēne writing, and different abbreviations for the Tetragrammaton (-yāhû,
â•‚yau, â•‚yāh, Yĕhô-, and Yau-). The largest collection of Hebrew personal names presented
to date is Renz and Röllig’s edition (2003), which includes names from seals, bullae, and
weights collected in HAE 2/2.109–456 (470 names; 1,636 instances) and from inscriptions
in HAE 1/1.55–87 (251 names; 477 instances). Many names from bullae were also de-
scribed in the Kaufmann collection, BPHB (Deutsch 2003a), comprising 227 names from
644 instances. Smaller numbers have also appeared in the editions of NEE (44 names;
51 instances from 3 ostraca), and FHCB (30 names; 39 instances from 50 bullae). Under
the heading ‘others’ on this table, the recent editions by Naveh (2000) and Lemaire and
YarÂ�deni (2006) are summarized, and three additional names from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, men-
tioned by Zadok (1988: 279) and revisited by Heide (2002). These comprise in total 66
names from 75 instances. Of course, few names are unique to any one collection, and the
final total of 675 includes unique names compiled from all six collections.

11. See, for example, the concordance in WSS that compares HAE 2/2.441–45.
12. To give a brief impression of the phenomenon, according to Deutsch (1999: 27–47), before
the year 1999, 45 bullae had come from controlled excavations, but they represented only 13.3% of
the total number known to him at that time.
13. See pp. 260–262 below.
250 Chapter 5

Most of the names are represented more than once, and therefore the number of in-
stances is considerably higher than the number of names. In the present analysis, every
occurrence of a name is counted, except when several occurrences of one name obviously
refer to the same person, in which case only one instance is counted. For example, many
of the names in FHCB (21 out of a total of 51) are excluded, because they refer to people
already counted in the BPHB collection. But this is unusual; in most cases, names are only
excluded when they cannot be read or interpreted with a sufficient degree of certainty.
Biblical parallels to the epigraphically attested personal names are shown in table 5.2
(p.€505). There is a considerable degree of correspondence, with 545 biblical names being
identical or similar to many of the 675 epigraphic names that use the same verbal or nomi-
nal roots. Many of these names are popular in the Hebrew Bible, referring to no less than
1,362 different people. As we see in the detailed tables of appendix B, there are approxi-
mately 60 epigraphically represented roots that do not appear in the Bible, indicating the
richness of the epigraphic material. However, the Hebrew Bible presents more names than
these epigraphic sources. Noth’s index (1928: 234–60) tallies an impressive 1,426 names.
However, excluding uncertainties in the Hebrew text (142), local and tribal names (97),
symbolic names (2), otherwise unexplainable names (51), and all the names that Noth in-
cluded from ostraca and seals (53) and from the Elephantine papyri (124) reduces the tally
to 957 personal names appearing in the Hebrew Bible. Many of these names appear only
a few times, and some only emerged after the exile—for example, names derived from the
verb ‫ זבד‬zābad ‘to present, give’ (represented 19 times), which clearly supplanted older
names that had used the verb ‫ נדב‬nādab, which had the same meaning.â•›14
The 675 epigraphic personal names that constitute the basis of the present investiga-
tion probably are not all the personal names that were in use prior to the exile, because
they represent only about 70% of the biblically attested names. However, considering that
the Hebrew Bible reports names that were in use over a much longer period—from the
patriarchs (whose names, for example, were not common between the 9th and 6th centu-
ries, as verified by epigraphic sources) to the late Persian period—the 30% difference is not
very great. Probably most of the common names that were in use during the monarchic
period are included in these 675 names. Moreover, most of the epigraphic names (between
80 and 90%) that have been presented in recent publications have also appeared in previ-
ous publications. Obviously, a degree of saturation has been reached. Thus, conclusions
drawn from the present epigraphic material is provisional to some extent; but, considering
that these names refer to some 2,500–3,000 people, who represent about 400 families, or
the population of a larger Judean or Israelite town during this period, we have a sound
basis for the present religious-historical investigation.

5.1.3.╇ Grouping the personal names

To understand the significance of personal names, accurate grouping is crucial.â•›15 One
possible way of grouping is by grammatical criteria. In Northwest Semitic names in gen-

14. Only names from the root ‫ נדב‬are attested in the epigraphic sources from the 8th–6th cen-
turies b.c.e. (11 times); names from this root also appear 17 times in the Hebrew Bible.
15. Noth (1928: 3) pointed out that misunderstanding a single name can be avoided only if it is
interpreted in its wider context.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 251

eral and Hebrew names in particular, one can distinguish between word/epithet names
and sentence names. Northwest Semitic names can be subdivided into single-word names
and construct names; Hebrew names can also be subdivided into nominal sentence names
and verbal sentence names (see Noth 1928: 11–32). This purely grammatical grouping of
names was followed by J. D. Fowler (1988) and, with a high degree of sophistication, by
Zadok (1988) and Rechenmacher (1997). But, although this kind of grouping by gram-
matical criteria may be clear, names with similar or even identical meanings may be split
into different groups. To give just one example, ‫ עׂשיהו‬ʿAśāyāhû ‘Yhwh has made [the
child]’ belongs to the group with verbal sentence names, while ‫ מעׂשיהו‬Maʿaśēyāhû ‘the
work of Yhwh’ belongs to the construct subgroup of epithet names, even though both
express the same belief that the child is a creation of Yhwh. Consequently, this system is
not especially suitable if one takes into account the intent for these pious names.
Because Noth (1928: 132–213) considered the names to be active expressions of piety,
he pursued another classification scheme. He combined grammatical criteria with crite-
ria of intent and divided the names into Bekenntnisnamen (‘names of confession’, which
consisted of one of the groups of construct epithet names, and one group of the nominal
sentence names), Vertrauensnamen (‘names of trust’; another group of nominal sentence
names), Danknamen (‘names of thanksgiving’; consisting of mostly verbal sentence names
in the perfect but also some construct epithet names), and Wunschnamen (‘names of de-
sire’; verbal sentence names in the imperfect). In addition, he considered secular names
(profane Namen) to be a specific group (1928: 221–32); grammatically, these are mostly
one-word names. Noth’s grouping is much more flexible and tries to keep together names
with similar religious statements and intent; thus the two creation names mentioned
above are together interpreted as names of thanksgiving (1928: 172).
Stamm followed Noth in many respects and added additional subgroups to his scheme.
Using the additional criterion of content, he conceptualized, for example, a group of sub-
stitute names (Ersatznamen), by which he meant that the parents named one child as a
substitute/comfort for a deceased child (Stamm 1980: 45–80). Moreover, Stamm criticized
Noth’s category of Wunschnamen, because names with an imperfect-x or an x-imperfect
structure are mostly understood as names of thanksgiving in the Hebrew Bibleâ•›16 and not
as names of desire.â•›17 They seem to represent an older use of the imperfect for the past
tense, as in Amorite names from Mari and texts and names from Ugarit.â•›18 According
to Stamm, only in some cases can one consider an alternative jussive translation (1980:
62–64). This view was accepted by Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.54) and further affirmed by
Rechenmacher (1997: 47–50), who pointed out that approximately 20 verbal roots that
were used to derive both imperfect and perfect names most likely refer back to the same
situation at birth in both cases (1997: 48).â•›19 In accordance with this position, I usually

16. See the explanation of the name Yišmāʾēl in Gen 16:11: ‘because Yhwh has heard your
ill-treatment’.
17. See the names spelled plēne that have hollow roots such as ‫ אליקים‬ʾElyāqîm ‘El has raised
[me]’.
18. See Huffmon 1965: 61–87; Gröndahl 1967: 41–43, 55–59; she still follows Noth in interpret-
ing these names as names of desire; but see Tropper 2000: 682–701.
19. Most convincing are the names Yiptāḥ and Pĕtaḥyāh, which both mean that the deity has
opened the mother’s womb; desiring this to happen by expressing it in a personal name would be
252 Chapter 5

translate verbal-sentence names with imperfect-x and x-imperfect structures in the per-
fect tense in this book; only in cases where a wish for the infant might make sense contex-
tually is a jussive sense alternatively considered.
In a previous study (Albertz 1978a: 49–77), I modified Noth’s grouping by consider-
ing a form-critical criterion in addition to the grammatical and intention criteria. The
first group thus distinguished, the names of thanksgiving, may be considered parallel to
petitions for attention and petitions for salvation in the individual complaints or with
salvation reports in the thanksgiving psalms of individuals. The second group, the names
of confession, may be considered parallel to confessions of confidence in the complaints
of individuals or to the nominal reason clauses in assurances of comfort in the salvation
oracles. In contrast to Noth, I considered the names that make general praise statements
about God to be distinct from the names of confession. The names of praise find their
counterpart in the hymns. The sorts of confession in which both elements of a nominal
sentence indicate a deity or a divine epithet were separated into a group of their own, re-
ferred to as equating names, because their referents lie beyond the realms of the psalms.â•›20
In contrast to these theophoric groups was the group called secular names, again in ac-
cordance with Noth.
In this previous study, there remained the names that had no obvious relation to the
Psalms yet had a relation to birth because of their content (Albertz 1978a: 58–60). This
group seemed rather diverse, containing as it did names which stated that the deity had
opened the womb, created the child, given the child as a gift, blessed the mother or should
bless the infant, or had provided a substitute for a deceased child. Yet these diverse names
all directly referred to different events in the birth process, beginning with the stigma
of childlessness, through to prayers and vows, including birth oracles, and ending with
procreation, pregnancy, delivery, and the acceptance of the child. Because they all refer to
birth processes, these names can be classified together and labeled birth names (see appen-
dix B5). Thus, this book adds a new criterion for grouping personal names, a “situational
criterion” of referring to the birth process.
These birth names actually form one of the largest groups, including nearly one-third
of all epigraphic names.â•›21 Many of the most frequently appearing names belong to this
group, such as names formed from the roots ‫ עׂשה‬ʿāśāh ‘to make’ (55 occurrences), ‫נתן‬
nātan ‘to give’ (94 occurrences), or ‫ ׁשלם‬šillem ‘to substitute’ (111 occurrences). However,
many rare names that have previously been difficult to explain are much more readily
interpreted in the context of this group, such as ‫ דרׁשיהו‬Dĕrašyāhû ‘Yhwh has asked for
[payment of the vow]’,â•›22 ‫ קליהו‬Qōlyāhû ‘Yhwh has spoken [a birth oracle]’,â•›23 or ‫ גזא‬Gāzāʾ

senseless, because the name could only be bestowed after the birth had taken place.
20. Only the names in which the tutelary deity (“my god”) is Yhwh are connected with the
confessions of confidence in the complaints of individuals; see Ps 22:11, among others.
21. In biblically attested names, the rate is slightly higher again (31.4% of names and 32.4% of
instances).
22. See the phrase ‫ דרׁש נדר‬dāraš nēder in Deut 23:22. Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.193–94) have
offered the translation ‘Yhwh demanded an account from’, but this would be a strange personal
name; Ps 10:4, 13, to which they refer, deals with the wicked.
23. To Noth (1928: 256), the name was unexplainable; see also Stamm 1980: 150.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 253

‘[DN] has severed [the umbilical cord]’.â•›24

Establishing this group of birth names has one important consequence for our under-
standing of the personal names in general. J. D. Fowler disagreed with Noth’s grouping of
the names, because his grouping confined them too often “to the context of birth events
and limited the acts and characteristics of the deity to the past and future, without allow-
ing a timeless quality and permanence to the divine personality” (Fowler 1988: 18). In
particular, for Fowler the imperfect verbs should be translated in a habitual or customary
sense. So Fowler tended to interpret all theophoric names as signifying general praise to
God. Even a perfect verbal name such as Yĕšaʿyāhû ‘Yhwh has saved’ could, according to
her, “refer to the successful birth of the child, to the deliverance of the parents or the family
in the time of need, or perhaps even to a wider sense of the delivery of the whole people
and a time of national importance” (Fowler 1988: 89). The possibility of understanding a
personal name in this sort of context cannot be ruled out completely, as indicated by the
prophet Isaiah himself, who asserted that his name had symbolic significance for the des-
tiny of the people as a whole (Isa 8:18), but this is a rare exception restricted to prophetic
preaching. The fact that more than a third of all theophoric personal names refer directly
back to the events of birth makes it much more likely that the other theophoric names, es-
pecially those of thanksgiving and confession, should also be primarily interpreted in the
wider context of birth, or at least in a general context of familial events. Of course, other
experiences of divine salvation, support, or protection encountered by family members
could have had some influence on the giving of a name, but the suggestion that a wider,
national context might have played a major role or that the name-givers wished for a name
to reflect the everlasting nature of the deity is highly improbable. As already discussed,
references to Israel’s national history are absent in Israelite names, and actual names of
praise constitute only a minor group.
Thus, Hebrew names are grouped in this book according to the following six categories:

1.╇ names of thanksgiving

2.╇ names of confession
3.╇ praise names
4.╇ equating names
5.╇ birth names
6.╇ secular names

The plausibility of these groups is apparent in that almost every one of the Hebrew names
known to date from epigraphic sources can be unambiguously assigned to one of the six
groups. The same is true for the parallel biblical names. Furthermore, almost all names
currently known from the Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, Aramaic, and Phoenician ono-
masticon can be accommodated by these six groups, as shown in appendix B. Thus, per-
haps this proposal will now be considered a solution to the problem of finding a classifica-
tion system that is sufficient for use with all Northwest Semitic names.

24. Compare biblical Gāzez (1 Chr 2:46), the son of Caleb; Noth could not explain the name
(1928: 240); the meaning given above is supported by Ps 71:6, where the Masoretic Text reads: ‘you
are the one who severed me [‫]גוזי‬from my mother’s womb’; the LXX offers a lectio facilior; no con-
jecture is necessary.
254 Chapter 5

*â•…â•…*â•…â•…*
Two minor problems remain, however. One is the question of whether names of lament, such as ‫איעם‬
ʾAyyaʿam ‘where is the [divine?] uncle?’, which are extremely rare in the Hebrew onomasticon (with only
one epigraphic and one biblical occurrence) and in the onomasticons of the surrounding cultures (with
three Ammonite, one Moabite, and one Aramaic occurrence), constitute a group of their own. Because
of their scarcity, a ready solution is to consider them birth names under the heading ‘misfortune in the
vicinity of birth’ (see appendix B5.7).
It may also be possible to posit a small subgroup of “theophany names” in the names of praise. The
uncertainty arises primarily because of uncertain readings: Renz and Röllig (2003) read the name ‫סעריהו‬
Săʿaryāhû ‘Yhwh has stormed’ on two seals, one bulla (HAE 15.19, 20; 21.7), and one ostracon (Arad
[8].31:4). The hypocoristikon ‫ סערי‬Săʿaray ‘[DN] has stormed’ from the seal HAE 10.58 would also be-
long to this group. Presuming this reading to be accurate, the names would refer to a divine theophany
in a storm. There are also a couple of names (with nine instances) from the root ‫סעד‬, for example, ‫סעדיהו‬
Săʿadyāhû with the meaning ‘Yhwh has supported’, that are thanksgiving names (see appendix B1.3.1).
The problem is that, in archaic Hebrew script, the two letters reš and dalet can look very similar, because
the only distinction between them is that reš has a longer downstroke than dalet. Although on epigraphic
grounds, Renz and Röllig’s readings are correct, it hardly seems necessary to devise a new subgroup for
a mere two names, both of which were perhaps only badly written. From the neighboring lands, only
three names should perhaps be interpreted as theophanic names: two are the Aramaic names ‫מראיבב‬
Māreʾyabab ‘[my] lord has triumphed’ [WSS 810] and ‫ ׁשעיבב‬Šēʿyabab ‘Sin has triumphed’ [WSS 851]),
and the third is Phoenician (‫ יחרבעל‬Yaḥrebaʿal ‘Baal has been furious’ [Benz 128], because the root ‫יבב‬
literally means ‘to cry loudly’). But these constitute very sparse evidence. Because there are names that
state god’s furious intervention on behalf of a despised mother, these latter three names have been as-
signed here to the group of birth names (appendix B5.1).

5.1.4.╇ Classifying the personal names based on the six groups

Table 5.2 shows the distribution of the 675 epigraphically attested personal names in
the six groups. In terms of numbers of unique names, the largest group consists of the
birth names, with 192 names, or 28.4% of all distinct names. This demonstrates the im-
portance of the often dramatic experience of birth in name giving. The group of thanks-
giving names is slightly smaller, containing 164 names, or 24.3% of the total. However,
in terms of the number of instances, these names of thanksgiving constitute the largest
group, which includes no less than 993 instances, or 34.0% of all inscribed names. Many
names in this group appear frequently, such as those derived from the roots ‫ ׁשמע‬šāmaʿ
‘to hear’ (133 occurrences), ‫ יׁשע‬yāšaʿ Hiphil ‘to save’ (103 occurrences), and ‫ עזר‬ʿāzar ‘to
help’ (87 occurrences). Thus, the core personal names are the thanksgiving names.
The names of confession are closely related to the names of thanksgiving. What has
been an experience of god’s attention, salvation, or protection in the thanksgiving names
becomes a personal confession of one’s trust in god in the confession names; similar state-
ments can be observed in the confessions of confidence in the individual complaints. Thus,
many of the roots—verbal in the confidence, nominal in the complaints—appear in both
name groups. The names of confession constitute the third-largest group, with 119 names
(17.6%) and 434 instances (14.9%). The classification of certain personal names as names
of thanksgiving or of confession is sometimes uncertain. Because the epigraphic material
is unvocalized, in some cases we cannot determine with certainty whether a verbal or
nominal form is meant. The consonants in the name ‫אלעזר‬, for example, can be trans-
lated either ʾElʿāzār ‘El/god has helped [me]’ or ʾElīʿezer ‘El/[my] god is [my] help’, both
 Personal Names and Family Religion 255

of which appear in the Hebrew Bible (in Exod 6:23; 18:4). This name has been assigned
here to the names of thanksgiving category (appendix B1.3.1), because no suffix with the
theophoric element ʾēl is written. However, because such plene writing was not normally
used in the epigraphic material from this period, one could equally decide to classify these
as names of confession. Because of these sorts of uncertainty, the names of thanksgiving
and confession should be regarded as closely related; together, they represent 41.9% of all
names and 48.9% of all instances.
The names of praise are a relatively small group, representing only 7.1% of all names.
A few of them had limited popularity, such as ‫ מכיהו‬Mīkāyāhû ‘who is like Yhwh?’, which
appears 18 times, or 35 times taking all its variants together. Thus general praise of god
is apparently rare in personal names. There are naturally a few translation uncertainties.
Some names that contain state-of-being verbs, such as ‫ גדליהו‬Gĕdalyāhû, can be translated
two ways. They can be understood as signifying a state of becoming, which has been cho-
sen for the meaning here: ‘Yhwh has become great’ (see appendix B1.2.3).â•›25 Or they can
be understood as statives or adjectives: ‘Yhwh is great’.â•›26 If the second interpretation is
preferred, the group of praise names would be a little bit larger at the expense of the group
of thanksgiving names. To the names of praise have been assigned the names that clearly
correspond to the genre of hymns.â•›27 However, because of these potential differences in
interpreting names of this sort, the names of praise should not be considered too distinct
from names of thanksgiving and confession. Considering all groups together, the prayer
names constitute approximately one-half of all Hebrew personal names (49.0% of names,
53.5% of instances).
The equating names, which identify one divine term, name, or epithet with another,
constitute another, smaller group. This group is the smallest in terms of distinct names
(47 occurrences, or 7.0% of the total), only slightly smaller than the group of praise names
(7.1% of the total). Some very popular names occur in the equating-names group, such
as ‫ אחמלך‬ʾAḥīmelek ‘[my divine] brother is king’ (33 appearances) and ‫ מלכיהו‬Malkīyāhû
‘my king is Yhwh’ (32 appearances). Because the element ʾēl indicates the tutelary god,
there is a bit of overlap between the equating names and the confession of confidence in
the individual laments (Ps 22:11, among others), but most of these names represent a very
specific sort of confession in a polytheistic world that is far removed from the Psalms.
I have already mentioned that the group of birth names is largest in terms of names
(28.4%) and second-largest in terms of instances (29.9%). The birth names without doubt
form a second core of Hebrew personal names after the main core of prayer names. Some
features of this large group have been described above, but delimitation problems still re-

25. In this case, I follow Noth (1928: 190).

26. This reading was preferred by Rechenmacher (1997: 62–67).
27. For example, the root ‫ גדל‬in Qal with a divine subject appears four times in the Psalms,
three times in individual laments (Ps 35:27; 40:17; 70:5), and once in an individual hymn (Ps 104:1).
In Psalm 104, the use is clearly in the sense of becoming; the short praise-calls, ‫יגדל יהוה‬, in the
laments can perhaps be understood as hymnic statements (see the word ‫‘ תמיד‬everlasting’ in that
context), although the use of the imperfect would be a little bit strange. Nevertheless, since the pas-
sage should be interpreted as part of a broader vow of praise, of the type normally found at the end
of a lament, a praise of thanksgiving is probably meant in this context.
256 Chapter 5

main. Since the process of birth inevitably entails distress, pain, and danger, it is little won-
der that there is some overlap between the names about birth and the thanksgiving names.
A mother in labor might utter complaints and petitions to god and might also receive
answers from god or signs of his attention. Thus, all the prayer names that reflect a high
degree of immediate experience have been included in the group of birth names. These
include all imperative names, which in contrast to Akkadian names constitute a relatively
small group in the West Semitic onomasticon. Examples are ‫ ׁשבאל‬Šūbʾēl ‘Come back, oh
god!’ and ‫ תנאל‬Tenʾēl ‘Give, oh god!’ This group also includes names of divine response or
salvation that contain a first-person-singular suffix or address the deity in second-person
singular, such as ‫ ענניהו‬ʿAnanyāhû ‘Yhwh has responded to me’ or ‫ דלתיהו‬Daltāyāhû ‘You,
oh Yhwh, have drawn [the child] out’.â•›28 These names can best be understood as the per-
sonal testimony of a mother who remembered her prayers and experiences of salvation
during the distress of earlier childlessness or the pain of labor. For the present book, ten
roots that I previously designated names of thanksgiving (Albertz 1978a: 61–65) have
been reassigned to this group of birth names.â•›29 Although it is possible for these roots to
refer to other kinds of distress besides birth, all may be attributed to this group without
ambiguity.
The last group contains secular names, a group that lies outside the present study
of family religion. This group nevertheless serves to demonstrate the coherence of this
scheme for grouping names. In terms of both the number of names (105 occurrences) and
the number of instances (251 occurrences), the group is the fourth largest. Although the
first number is (a large portion) 15.6% of all names, a percentage not much smaller than
that of the names of confession, the proportion of instances is only about half that percent-
age (8.6%). This indicates that, although there was a great variety of secular names, they
seem not to have been very popular in preexilic Israelite society.
This finding, that less than 10% of the population of monarchic Israel and Judah bore
secular names, is strongly suggestive of the importance of family religion in this society.
It may be argued that most of the eprigraphic material is restricted to the upper classes,
members who would have been able to afford these seals, which were often made of pre-
cious or semiprecious stones. However, even if we consider only the ostraca (see table 5.6),
which represent people from all social classes and strata, the instances of secular names
still amount to less than 10% (9.8%). There seems therefore to have been no significant
difference in degree of family piety among the classes of Israelite monarchic society. Fam-
ily religion seems to have played a prominent role in nearly all households, whether rich
or poor.
The secular names further underline the significance of birth in name giving, because
many of them record peculiarities experienced during or after delivery or portray the
most striking physical or mental traits of the newborn, most notably by comparison with
animals or plants (see appendix B6.1–3.).

28. For the first three names, see appendix B5.2.; for the last, B5.5.
29. These roots are: ‫‘ אסף‬to gather, to take away’, ‫‘ גמל‬to complete’, ‫‘ גמר‬to complete’, ‫‘ דלה‬to
draw out’, ‫‘ חיה‬to live or to bring to life’, ‫‘ חמל‬to spare’, ‫‘ אמס‬to carry on one’s arm’, ‫‘ אנה‬to answer’,
‫‘ רפא‬to heal’, and ‫‘ ׁשוב‬to come back’.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 257

Finally, table 5.2 reveals the distribution of names from the Hebrew Bible to be quite
similar. Names expressing thanksgiving or birth-experience again rank highest, followed
by names of confession, and secular names; only the rank of names of praise and equating
has changed. There are more names of thanksgiving (30.5%), although nearly the same
number of instances (34.1%). There are fewer names of confession (14.0% of names; 13.2%
of instances) and, although there are fewer names of praise, the total of all prayer names
is similar (50.3% of names; 52.9% of instances). Furthermore, birth names appear slightly
more frequently (31.2%) and are more often represented (32.2%). It must be emphasized,
however, that this distribution of biblical names does not include all possible biblical
names but only names with parallels in the epigraphic material. However, the statistical
similarity of name distribution among the categories in both biblical sources and the epi-
graphic onomasticon is quite striking.

5.1.5.╇ The onomasticons from the Northwest Semitic environment

It has long been recognized that there were many similarities among personal names
in the various ancient Semitic cultures. Noth (1928) spoke of a gemeinsemitische Namenge-
bung, which he considered to be the natural context for his study of Hebrew names. Rela-
tionships among both Israelite and Judean names and other Northwest Semitic personal
names were especially close, not only because of their identical grammatical structure,â•›30
but also because of many similarities in content. This fact suggests that Israelite family
religion shared many common features with family religions in the surrounding cultures,
in contrast to the state religions of Israel and Judah which, although being similar in many
ways to the state religions of other ancient Near Eastern regions, nevertheless developed
clearly distinguishable profiles of their own. This conclusion, however, was questioned in
J. D. Fowler’s (1988) study of personal names. In comparing concepts of the deity found
in the Hebrew, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Amorite, Aramaic, Akkadian, and Palmyrian ono-
masticons, she concluded that, in spite of some similarities, “there are sharp distinctions
between the religious thought discernible in the Hebrew theophoric names and other an-
cient Semitic names, distinctions which claim for Hebrew an individuality among the
Semitic nomenclatures” (1988: 317). According to Fowler, one cannot refer to “a general
‘Semitic piety’” (1988: 317).
Fowler’s conclusion, however, is restricted to concepts of the deity, rather than the
functions of the deity expressed in names, as in this book. In contrast to Fowler, the pres-
ent study is restricted to the Northwest Semitic neighbors of ancient Israel, the Ammo-
nites, Moabites, Edomites, Arameans, and Phoenicians. These foreign onomasticons are
not studied here in their own right but are included for comparative purposes only. This
comparison nevertheless aids our understanding of Hebrew personal names and provides
answers to the question how to determine the relationship between the family religions of
Israel and its neighbors.

30. In contrast to the East Semitic names from Babylonia and Assyria, the Northwest Semitic
sentence names are mostly restricted to a subject and predicate but avoid objects, although object
suffixes do sometimes appear. There are also many similarities with Akkadian names, but similarities
with the Northwest Semitic onomasticons from Phoenicia, Syria, and Transjordan are much closer.
258 Chapter 5

*â•…â•…*â•…â•…*
There are a number of earlier works that describe the onomasticons of Israel’s Northwest Semitic
neighbors, including those of Benz (1972) for Phoenicians, Maraqten (1988) for Aramaic, and Aufrecht
(1989 [CAI]) for Ammonite personal names. Revisions and corrections to the seals and bullae are avail-
able in the WSS of Avigad and Sass (1997), where most of the Moabite and Edomite material is also
presented. In addition to these editions, the studies of Hübner (1992 [AMM]) and Eggler and Keel (2006
[SAJ]) have been used for the Ammonite names; Timm (1989 [MZM]) for the Moabite names; Hug
(1993), Röllig (1997), Lemaire (2001 [NTA]), Schwiderski (2004 [ARI]), and Bachelot and Fales (2005
[TSF]) for the Aramaic names; and Gibson (1982), Yon and Sznycer (1991 [Kition]), Deutsch and Heltzer
(1997 [WTP]), Deutsch (1999 [EN]), and Sader (2005 [FSL]) for the Phoenician names. Additional seals
from all of these cultures were presented by Heltzer (1999) and by Deutsch and Lemaire (2000 [BPPS]).
This list of references is not exhaustive but serves for compiling sufficient personal names from these
different cultures to provide a solid statistical basis for comparison. Moreover, there are several cases
in which the attribution of an inscription or seal to a particular culture is a matter of ongoing debate.â•›31
As far as possible, names from Israel’s neighbors are restricted to those of the 10th–6th centuries
b.c.e., in accordance with the selected Hebrew epigraphic material. This was particularly important for
the Aramaic names, for the results may otherwise have been distorted by the high number of Jewish
Aramaic names from Elephantine and other places in the 5th and 4th centuries. For the same reason, Tell
el-Mazār ostracon VII (CAI 147), which is dated to the 5th century, was excluded from the Ammonite
names. For the Phoenician names, the dating of epigraphic material is imprecise, and so all material was
included here. The Punic names, however, mostly come from later periods and were excluded.
*â•…â•…*â•…â•…*
Table 5.3 (p. 506) shows that 146 different Ammonite personal names were com-
piled, which represent 305 instances. A smaller number of 55 names can be attributed
to the Moabite culture, from 63 instances. The nominally Edomite names are so few (19
names out of 20 occurrences) that they have been excluded here. A considerable number
(374 names) can be assigned to the Aramean culture, which are attested altogether 443
times. An additional 101 names were excluded because, although they were written in
the Aramaic script, they were foreign in origin, coming from Akkadian or Iranian. To a
lesser extent, Hittite, Hurrian, and Luwian names have been found in the Phoenician ma-
terial. However, 319 Phoenician names were identified, representing 581 total instances.
Combining all material from the surrounding Northwest Semitic cultures produces 1,414
recorded names. Although this number is slightly less than half of the 2,922 names in the
Hebrew culture, it nevertheless forms a sound basis for comparison.
I mentioned above that almost all personal names from the five surrounding cultures
can be unambiguously classified assigned to one of the six name groups. A comparison of
the relative distributions of Ammonite, Moabite, Aramaic, and Phoenician names among
the six groups (see table 5.3) reveals striking similarities, a fact that suggests strong rela-
tionships among these cultures. Names of praise varied in occurrence from 9.6% in the
Ammonite onomasticon, to 6.3% in the Phoenician (or from 8.9% to 4.8% of instances,
respectively). The equating names ranged in occurrence from 10.9% in the Moabite cul-
ture to 5.5% in the Ammonite (or from 12.7% to 4.9% of instances, respectively). As in the
Israelite onomasticon, the birth names constituted a much larger group, attaining a max-

31. For example, the Nimrud Ostracon has been included here among the Ammonite inscrip-
tions (CAI 47 = AMM 35–36:2), following Aufrecht (1989), and in spite of Hübner’s (1992: 35–37)
doubts.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 259

imum of 30.8% of all names for the Moabite onomasticon, and a minimum of 22.2% for
the Aramaic onomasticon (respectively, 30.1% and 23.2% of instances). The secular names
varied from 12.8% in the Aramaic onomasticon to 5.5% in the Moabite (12.9% and 4.8%
of instances, respectively). Differences between cultures were less than 9% in all cases.
The one notable divergence appears between the names of thanksgiving and those
of confession. While the Ammonite and Moabite onomasticons had a high number of
thanksgiving names (26.0% and 29.1%), and fewer names of confession (23.3% and
18.2%)—similar to rates seen in the Hebrew material—the Aramaic and Phoenician ono-
masticons showed higher proportions of names of confession (30.2% and 35.1%, respec-
tively) compared with the respective proportions for names of thanksgiving (20.6% and
15.7%). As mentioned above, however, both groups are closely related, and the names
are often difficult to assign unambiguously to one or the other category because of the
un�vocalized inscriptions.╛32 Taking the names of thanksgiving and confession together
produces nearly equal proportions that range from 50.8% of names in the Aramaic ono-
masticon to 47.3% in the Moabite, with a difference of only 3.5%.â•›33 Accepting the validity
of this larger grouping of names of thanksgiving and confession leads to the astonishing
result that, in all four Syro-Levantine cultures, personal names fall most frequently in two
major groups: a larger group consisting of names of thanksgiving and confession, and a
slightly smaller group consisting of birth names. In all of these cultures, three additional
minor groups obtained: praise names, equating names, and secular names.
Comparing the distribution of names in the Syro-Levantine cultures with those in
ancient Israel reveals a very similar pattern. Names of thanksgiving and confession are
again most prominent, especially when considered together. Birth names are also promi-
nent. These prominent groups are again accompanied by the same three minor groups of
praise names, equating names, and secular names. Most astonishingly, the rankings of the
six groups in the Ammonite onomasticon were identical to the rankings of the Israelite
names. This would be expected to happen only once every 720 times (= 6×5×4×3×2). This
agreement in rankings is not accidental, therefore, but reflects genuine cultural similarities.
This striking result suggests that family religion in Israel followed the same basic struc-
ture common throughout Syria and the Levant during the first half of the first millennium
b.c.e., irrespective of minor differences among cultural groups. The minor differences in-
clude, for example, a particularly high rate of confession names in the Phoenician culture,
reflecting the popularity of names formed from the roots of ‘servant of [DN]’ (105 occur-
rences), or ‘sojourner of [DN]’ (26 occurrences), which where much less popular in Israel
and Transjordan.â•›34 Intriguingly, the rate of all prayer names in Israel was lower (at 49.0%)
than in all the other surrounding cultures, for which it varied between 58.9% in Ammon,
and 52.8% in Moab, while the rate of secular names in Israel corresponded to the highest
rank (15.6%). This does not suggest, however, that the Israelites were less pious. The rates

32. See pp. 254–255 above.

33. The difference between the Phoenician (53.3%) and Moabite (47.6%) onomasticons is a little
greater: 5.7%.
34. These together comprise 23% of all occurrences in the Phoenician onomasticon; the two
types together appear 58 times in the Israelite onomasticon, but this constitutes only 2% of names.
In the Moabite onomasticon, the rate is 3%; in the Ammonite, only 1%.
260 Chapter 5

of occurrence of the prayer and secular names in Israel (53.5% and 8.6%, respectively)
place them firmly in the middle of the rates in the surrounding cultures. Secular names
represent less than 10% in all cases, with the minor exception of the Aramaic onomas-
ticon, for which the rate of occurrence is 12.9%. Although there was a wider range of
metaphorical expressions in the theophoric names of Israel compared with the surround-
ing cultures, there was nevertheless very little difference in family religion in terms of the
degree of piety expressed in the naming of children.

5.1.6.╇ Additional arguments for the authenticity of

epigraphic material
The extraordinary similarities among the cultures in the percentage of names divided
among the six groups strengthen arguments for the authenticity of the epigraphic mate-
rial. Authenticity can, of course, only rightly be determined by thorough scientific, epi-
graphic, and grammatical research, which we have pursued insofar as possible in all the
material considered here.â•›35 However, many Hebrew seals, bullae, and even ostraca are
suspected of being forgeries because they did not come from controlled excavations. There
admittedly remain troubling questions, such as: Why have so many more Hebrew seals
and bullae been offered for sale on the antiquities market in comparison with numbers
from other Syro-Levantine cultures? In what ways does this reflect the general demand for
artifacts from ancient Israel in the Jewish and Christian communities? Why have such a
small number of Hebrew seals and bullae been found in controlled excavations? Although
we do not have answers to these questions, in the following observations we can largely
counter the possible suspicion that much of the Hebrew onomastic material included in
this study might have been forged.
Every one of the different editions or collections of onomastic material of sufficient
size showed a very similar distribution of names among the six name groups. This finding
is all the more impressive, in that each one of these large editions or collections reflects its
own unique history in the compiling of such vast and diverse material. The HAE 2/1 vol-
ume contains personal names from many inscriptions found engraved in stone or metal
or written on ostraca, the majority of which were found in controlled excavations in many
places, from the middle of the 19th century to the 1980s. Although this collection was
compiled using very stringent, methodical principles, uncertainties nevertheless remain
regarding the interpretation of many objects. By contrast, the HAE 2/2 volume contains
a large number of personal names from stamps, bullae, and weights that were collected
and published by many people during the century and a half before the year 2000; only a
few of these came from excavations, while most were bought on the antiquities market.
The artifacts appear to originate from many different places, mostly from Judah, as well
as some from Israel. Finally, the most recent large collection, BPHB, contains names from
515 bullae impressed by 421 different seals (Deutsch 2003: 11). Thus it represents many
instances of only one specific kind of artifact, all of which seem to have come from the
same place in Judah, possibly in the vicinity of Ḥirbet el Qôm (Lemaire 2006: 236). They

35. See, for example, Deutsch (2003: 11–12) for the bullae of the Kaufmann collection.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 261

probably originate from a relatively short span of time, between the second half of the 8th
century and the first quarter of the 7th.
In spite of these differences, all three publications or collections show the same ba-
sic pattern, as can be seen in table 5.4 (p. 506). All collections contain a large group
of thanksgiving names: between 27.9 and 29.1% of all names. The group of birth names
is similarly large: between 27.0 and 31.3% of all names, while the medium-sized group,
confession names, ranges in proportion between 15.8 and 17.2% of all names. These are
followed by the group of secular names: between 12.3 and 14.0%. The lowest ranking in
terms of frequencies of occurrence are the two groups of equating names and names of
praise: between 5.3 and 10.8%, and between 4.0 and 7.9%, respectively. Maximal differ-
ences between the published collections’ frequencies of occurrence in the groups range
only between 1.2 and 4.3%, with only two notable exceptions. First, HAE 2/1 contained
5.5% more equating names than the averages of the others, while the BPHB contained
5.7% fewer. The second exception pertains to thanksgiving names—and not the number
of different names but the instances. In BPHB, thanksgiving names occur considerably
more often than normal (38.9% of all cases). This differs from the inscriptions in HAE
2/1 (with thanksgiving names forming 30.2% of all cases) by 8.7%. This kind of theo-
phoric name seems to have been particulary popular in southwestern Judah during the
8th century. But as already seen above, the thematically close names of thanksgiving and
of confession are not always easily to distinguish grammatically. In a comparison of the
collections, lower values in one of the groups generally correspond to higher values in the
other.â•›36 Combining both groups of names reduces the largest difference between the three
collections to 4.7% for instances and 1.1% for names. The fact that these collections, which
arose predominantly (HAE 2/2) or entirely (BPHB) from the antiquities market, concur so
strongly with the collection that emerged mostly from controlled archaeological excava-
tions (HAE 2/1) firmly supports the authenticity of their material, which has often been
suspected of containing numerous forgeries.
Including smaller publications in this research (see table 5.5, p.  507) enhances dis-
crepancies somewhat, because the statistical basis of the smaller editions is not as firm. To
mention only the extreme: the occurrence of thanksgiving names is 12.3% less in the small
publications than in BPHB and, conversely, there is a higher proportion of praise names.
Collating prayer names from all editions reveals normal deviations of 3.5% for individual
names and 3.7% for instances.
Seals and bullae have more frequently been suspected of forgery than inscriptions
found on ostraca. However, the frequencies of occurrence of all names groups are very
similar, with differences only exceeding 2% in a rare few cases (see table 5.6, p.  507).
Notable differences include the seals and bullae having 5.9% more thanksgiving names
than ostraca, 2.7% more praise names, and 3.5% fewer equating names (or 3.9% instances
of these names).
The percentage of personal names in the six name groups cannot be considered ac-
cidental but seems to have remained constant over a broad geographical area and during
a long period of time. Moreover, the similar percentages of occurrence in the six name

36. See pp. 254, 258–259 above.

262 Chapter 5

groups of data from different sources of epigraphic material strongly supports the authen-
ticity of the material and the conclusion that the distribution of personal names among
the six groups mirrors the social realities of Israelite society and the basic structure of
Israelite family religion. The similarities of these distributions could of course reflect some
kind of centralized forgery controlling distribution in the antiquities market, but this sort
of assumption would be ludicrous. It seems much more reasonable to conclude that these
items provide firm evidence for the names’ frequencies of occurrence. Even if some items
are subsequently determined to be forgeries, given the large number of items considered
here, this event would not affect the percentages. Thus, the external evidence compiled
here to inform notions of Israelite family religion must be considered entirely reliable.

5.2.╇ Religious beliefs expressed in Hebrew personal names

Having established and described this corpus of epigraphically attested Hebrew per-
sonal names (with 675 names from 2,922 instances), we are now in a position to analyze
the beliefs expressed by their predicative elements. This epigraphic corpus constitutes the
primary subject of the following study; biblical names and other biblical texts are con-
sulted only for comparitive purposes.

5.2.1.╇ The absence of official religious traditions

In a previous study (Albertz 1978a: 56–58), I observed that there are almost no refer-
ences to the traditions of the Israelite official religion—such as exodus, conquest, kingship,
Sinai, Zion, or Bethel theology—in the corpus of biblical names. This surprising observa-
tion suggests that none of these traditions, which generally played a central role in both Is-
raelite states,â•›37 was especially significant for the symbolic world of Israelite family religion
(1978a: 57). The present book’s thesis of internal religious pluralism requires us next to
determine whether an analysis of the epigraphic names will result in the same conclusion.
A guiding observation at the outset is that the verb most frequently used for Israel’s
exodus from Egypt, ‫ יצא‬Hiphil ‘to lead out’,â•›38 does not appear in the Hebrew onomas-
ticon, either epigraphic or biblical. The second most frequent verb in this context, ‫עלה‬

37. The age of the exodus tradition is disputed, but it probably functioned as a kind of founda-
tion myth for the establishment of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kgs 12:28–29) and was transferred to
and elaborated in Judah during the 7th century b.c.e. (see Deuteronomy and the Josianic reform).
The prominent position of Sinai theology may be the result of postexilic Priestly reflections, but
its theophanic tradition seems to be much older (Judg 5:5), and it provided the Book of Covenant
with theological legitimation, probably in the late 8th century (Exodus 19–24). The related Priestly
concepts of holiness and purity were probably even older (2 Sam 6:6–7), and conquest theology
is Deuteronomic at the latest. Kingship theology, of which we know only the Southern variant in
any detail, was certainly developed during the monarchic period (see Ps 89:21–38). Zion theology
seems to have originated in pre-Israelite traditions of Jerusalem and was fully established by the
8th century (Mic 3:11–12); its relevance, of course, is restricted to Judah. There is also informa-
tion available about the state cult of Northern Israel: for further details, see Albertz 1994: 1.40–66,
105–46, 180–86, 195–231.
38. It appears 78 times in (among others places) Exod 3:10–12; 20:2; Deut 6:12, 21; 26:8; 1 Kgs
8:16; and Ps 114:1.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 263

Hiphil ‘to lead up’, is similarly lacking; it appears only among the names of praise in the
Qal, meaning ‘Yhwh is exalted’, for example, ‫ עליהו‬ʿAlīyāhû (see appendix B3.1). It is
therefore probable that the verbs of salvation that were frequently used in names, such as
‫ יׁשע‬Hiphil, ‫פלט‬, ‫חלץ‬, ‫גאל‬, and ‫( פדה‬see appendix B1.2.1), were not alluding to the rescue
of the Israelites but to the rescue of an individual, although they are also used to refer to
the exodus in biblical texts.â•›39 This assertion is further supported by the use of the verb ‫נצל‬
Hiphil ‘to deliver’; names derived from ‫ נצל‬do not appear in the Hebrew Bible, but they
appear 17 times in the epigraphic material—for example, ‫ הצליהו‬Hiṣṣīlyāhû (see appendix
B5.5). In the Hebrew Bible, the verb ‫ נצל‬Hiphil can often refer to the events of the exo-
dus.â•›40 However, because the verb ‫ נצל‬Hiphil appears in three names of individuals who
were members of people-groups that had no exodus history—in Ammon (‫ הצלאל‬Hiṣṣīlʾil
‘El has delivered’) and Moab (‫ יצלבעל‬Yaṣṣīlbaʿal ‘Baal has delivered’ and the shortened
form, ‫ הצל‬Hiṣṣīl↜)â•›41—these names most likely have a different referent, one that harks back
to the more literal meaning of the root, ‘to snatch away’, and are therefore referring to the
delivery of a baby (see appendix B5.5).
Names referring to conquest theology are similarly nonexistent. There are no names
derived from the verbs ‫ נחל‬Hiphil ‘to give as a heritage’ or ‫ נוח‬Hiphil ‘to give a resting
place’, verbs that are frequently used in reference to Israel’s conquest.â•›42 The verb ‫‘ בוא‬to
come’, which can also be used (including Hiphil ‘to bring into’) in the context of Israel’s
emigration,â•›43 appears in only one epigraphically attested name, ‫ אלבא‬ʾElībāʾ, although the
most accurate translation is probably the sense of the Qal: ‘El [or (my) god] has come [to
me]’. Thus, mass immigration is not what is being implied but divine attention bestowed
on an individual (see appendix B1.1.5).
The concept of Israel’s divine election, which is closely related to the exodus in Deu-
teronomic theology (Deut 7:6–7), seems also to have had little impact in the Hebrew ono-
masticon. The only related name that appears in the Bible is ‫ יבחר‬Yibḥār ‘[DN] has cho-
sen’, who was one of the sons of David (2 Sam 5:15). If anything, this name is referring to
the election of the king (Ps 89:4). The only theophoric parallel appears to be the Aramaic
name ‫ יבחראל‬Yibḥarʾēl ‘El has chosen’, which was found recorded on the Layard bronzes
of Nimrud (8th century; appendix B1.1.4). In the Hebrew epigraphic material, a portion
of the word ‫ לבחר‬is recorded once (NEE 92.79:14); however, it remains uncertain whether
the infinitive construct was intended (‘to choose’), whether the word was the preposition
plus common noun bāḥur ‘to a young man’, or whether it was the shortened form of a
theophoric name (see Deutsch and Heltzer 1995: 100; Lemaire 2006: 235). Consequently,
we have excluded this name from the present corpus. Thus, evidence for Hebrew names
derived from the root ‫ בחר‬remains sparse. Because the most likely evidence is found in an
Aramaic name, intentional allusion to Israel’s divine election can be excluded. It is likely

39. For ‫ יׁשע‬Hiphil, see Exod 14:30; Hos 13:4; for ‫פלט‬, see Ps 22:5; for ‫גאל‬, see Exod 6:6; 15:13;
Isa 51:10; Ps 74:2; 77:16; 106:10; for ‫פדה‬, see Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:6; 15:15; 24:18; only ‫ חלץ‬is not at-
tested in the context of the exodus.
40. For example, Exod 3:8; 6:6; 18:8–10; Josh 24:10; and others.
41. The names are attested altogether five times: see appendix B5.5.
42. For ‫נחל‬, see Deut 12:10; 19:3, 14; for ‫נוח‬, Deut 3:20; 12:10; 25:19; Josh 1:13, and others.
43. See Exod 13:5, 11; Num 14:3, 8, 16, 24, 31; Deut 6:10, 23; 7:1; etc.
264 Chapter 5

that names with these sorts of roots referred only to the divine attention that had been
directed toward a particular mother or child, as also suggested in names derived from
‫ ידד‬II (?) ‘to love’ or ‫‘ חמד‬to take a fancy to’ (although names of this sort are also uncom-
mon; see appendix B1.1.4). Thus, the notion of election is entirely absent in the Hebrew
onomasticon.â•›44
Furthermore, Hebrew personal names show no direct influence from kingship the-
ology. God was often seen as ‘king’, of course, or equated with melek in personal names,
reflecting long traditions of usage in the ancient Near East as a divine epithet or even a
divine name (see appendixes B4.1.2 and 4.5). But no other monarchic metaphors appear.
While the king is often compared with a shepherd, there are no names containing the verb
‫‘ רעה‬to graze’ in either the epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon or the biblical. The name ‫נהל‬
Nēhāl (HAE 14.40) has appeared once in an epigraphic name, which is interpreted here
to mean ‘[DN] has guided [me]’, in accordance with Ps 23:2. The metaphor of the divine
shepherd thus appears to have been transferred to the individual sphere, similar to Psalm
23. One potential influence of kingship theology appears in the names BarÂ�hadad ‘son of
Hadad’ and Binbaʿal ‘son of Baal’; this sort of name was quite popular in the Aramean and
Phoenician cultures (see appendix B2.6.3). In all ancient Near Eastern cultures, the king
was regarded the son of god par excellence (Ps 2:7). Yet even on this topic, the familial
religious practices of Israel with regard to state theology seem to have been more reserved
than the religious practices of their urban neighbors. The ‘son/daughter of DN’ type of
name is almost entirely absent from the Hebrew onomasticon: it occurs only in the Egyp-
tian loan-name ‫ פׁשחר‬Pašḥūr ‘son of Horus’, which is recorded in epigraphic and biblical
material nine and four times, respectively.â•›45
There is one other case of possible influence from royal theology, the peculiar epi-
graphic name ‫ לעגיהו‬Lăʿagyāhû ‘Yhwh mocks/scorns’ (HAE 12.1). It reminded Deutsch
and Lemaire (2000: 220) of the statement in the Kingship Psalm (Ps 2:4) that Yhwh sits
in heaven and laughs at the rebellious vassal states trying to throw off their Judean yokes
(see also Ps 59:9). But it is quite unlikely that a personal name would reflect this unusual
international political crisis. It seems much more plausible to connect the name to a fam-
ily crisis, such as the distress of an infertile woman. In this case, the name would connote
‘Yhwh has ridiculed [the mother’s despisers]’, because he cured her infertility. This name
has thus been assigned to the names of birth (see appendix B5.1).â•›46
Personal names rarely include references to state temples, their symbols, or their the-
ology. Although Zion theology celebrated Yhwh’s enthronement in Jerusalem (Ps 29:10;
47:9; Isa 6:1), there is no name in the Hebrew onomasticon that contains the central verb
‫‘ יׁשב‬to sit [down]’. Moreover, the concept of the glory of Yhwh (‫ )כבוד יהוה‬in connection

44. See also the Phoenician names derived from the verbs ‫‘ חפץ‬to take a fancy to’ and ‫ צבה‬II ‘to
desire’ (see appendix B1.1.4).
45. Another rare name is ‫ אפלי‬ʾAplāya (HAE 1.126), which can be interpreted as an Akkadian
loan-name, in which case it means ‘the inheriting son of [DN]’ (see appendix B2.6.3).
46. The name cannot be classified as a Vertrauensnamen in the sense that Noth meant (1928:
147–69), as suggested by Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.268. Lemaire (2006: 212.10, rev. 7) has recently
demonstrated the existence of the hypocoristicon ‫ לעגי‬Laʿagî; thus, the name cannot be considered
as unusual as once thought.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 265

with the enthroned god of Jerusalem (Isa 6:3), which was later elaborated in the Priestly
theology of Sinai (Exod 24:17; Lev 9:23, and others), is absent in personal names. The
one name that refers to it, Ichabod, is a symbolic name only (1 Sam 4:19–22).â•›47 Likewise,
the concept in Zion theology of Yhwh fighting against all attacking nations (Ps 46:7–12;
48:5–8) does not appear to have had any influence on personal names, which do not refer
to fighting.
Cursory consideration might lead one to suppose that the cult symbol of Bethel had
some impact on name giving, particularly since the name ‫ עגליו‬ʿEgelyau ‘young steer of
Yhwh’ appears in a Samarian ostraca (Sam[8]:1.41,1). We know that Jeroboam erected
a cult symbol in the shape of a ‘calf ’ (‫ )עגל‬in the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan (1€Kgs
12:28), but any correspondence between the cult symbol and the reference to a literal calf
in the name ‫ עגליו‬is merely coincidental. In the report by the Deuteronomist, the diminu-
tive of a bull, ‫‘ עגל‬calf ’, is used in a pejorative sense to denounce Jeroboam’s cult. The cult
statue of Bethel was actually intended to symbolize El or Yhwh in the image of a fully
grown or wild bull (in Hebrew, ‫פר‬, ‫ׁשר‬, or ‫)ראם‬.â•›48 In the personal name, by contrast, the
noun ‫ עגל‬functions as a term of affection, characterizing the child as a small companion of
god, the closest parallels to which are the names that contain the element ‫ כלב‬kaleb ‘dog’.â•›49
Although it remains possible that the ancient Near Eastern iconography that depicts Baal
or El standing on a bull influenced the choice of animal to some extent in personal names
in Bethel and Dan, it was not likely to be a reference to the name directly connected with
the sanctuary in Bethel, because the element ‫ עגל‬also occurs in the Aramaic and Phoeni-
cian onomasticons (see appendix B2.6.1).
Personal names are equally reserved in reference to the domain of official cultic activ-
ities. Verbs that express fundamental priestly concepts, such as ‫‘ קדׁש‬to be holy’, ‫‘ טהר‬to
be [ceremonially] clean’, or ‫ כפר‬Piel ‘to make atonement’ do not appear anywhere in the
Hebrew onomasticon. There are a few praise names that contain the verb ‫‘ זכה‬to be pure’—
for example, ‫ זכא‬Zakāʾ, which makes one epigraphic appearance,â•›50 and ‫ זכי‬Zakkai, which
makes one biblical appearance. However, this verb does not mean purity in a cultic sense
but in a moral sense, as in ‘to be pure from sins’, ‘to have a pure heart’, or ‘to be blameless’
(Job 15:14; Prov 20:9; Ps 73:13; 119:9). In reference to god, this statement means, ‘[DN] is
pure, or blameless, or beyond reproach’, similar to the names derived from the root ‫תמם‬
‘to be complete’ (see appendix B3.2).â•›51
In the Hebrew onomasticon, there are names derived from one particular root, ‫חׁשב‬
‘to take into account’, which is actually used in Priestly language and denotes divine ac-
ceptance of a sacrifice (Lev 7:18; 17:4; Num 18:27; cf. Gen 15:6; Ps 32:2).â•›52 In my previous

47. Stamm (1980: 64) even interpreted it as a substitute name.

48. See Num 23:22; 24:8.
49. In its short form, it is epigraphically attested once and biblically attested twice. This type of
name was more popular in Aramean and Phoenician cultures; there are also some explicit theo-
phoric forms; see appendix B2.6.1.
50. The same name can possibly be assigned to the Ammonite onomasticon (WSS 792).
51. Likewise, moral purity is meant in the Ammonite and Aramaic praise names derived from
the root ‫ברר‬, such as ‫ אליבר‬ʾIlībar ‘my god is pure’ (WSS 893; 897); see Job 11:4 and appendix B3.2.
52. See von Rad 1961: 130–33.
266 Chapter 5

study (Albertz 1978a: 56), the names that contain this root were classified as professional
names, because in postexilic biblical texts they were the names of 18 people, all of whom
were Levites and temple singers. However, the name ‫ חׁשביהו‬Ḥăšabyāhû, is now known
to have appeared two other times, once on a seal (HAE 8.64) and once in an inscription
(MHas[7].7:1), both of which can be dated to the 7th century b.c.e. and neither of which
alludes to the cultic background of the name-bearers,â•›53 a fact that argues against my ear-
lier classification. Since there are several Aramaic names containing the root ‫‘ רקה‬to be
pleased with’ (see appendix B5.2), whose Hebrew counterpart ‫ רצה‬was likewise a Priestly
term and was used in the same context (in which the priest proclaimed that the deity had
kindly accepted a sacrifice: Lev 1:4; 7:18; 19:7; 22:23, 25, 27), appearances of these Priestly
terms in personal names cannot be accidental. Thus, these terms are perhaps better under-
stood in reference to the practice of vows promised and paid in the context of birth. These
were instances in which family religion and priestly ritual overlapped. In these contexts,
the name Ḥăšabyāhû was given in gratitude as a reminder that Yhwh had taken a vow into
account and accepted the promised sacrifice. Therefore, this name is here classified as a
birth-experience name (see appendix B5.2).
In spite of this evident connection with the Priestly sphere, no expressions of perma-
nent relationships with local sanctuaries are found in Israelite personal names, in contrast
to Phoenician names such as ‫ גרהכל‬Gerhēkal ‘sojourner of the temple’ (recorded 4 times)
or ‫ גראהל‬Gerʾohel ‘sojourner of the [divine] tent’ (recorded once; see appendix B2.6.2). In
comparison with the attachments manifested by these names, which derive from an urban
society, emotional relationships of Israelite families with their sanctuaries seems to have
been less intense.â•›54
Hebrew personal names are also largely devoid of reference to the Sinai theophany.
Although several personal names refer to forms of divine revelation, such as ‫אמריהו‬
ʾAmaryāhû ‘Yhwh has spoken’, ‫ הגלניה‬Higlānīyāh ‘Yhwh has revealed to me’ (WSS 344),â•›55
or ‫ בעלנחׁש‬Baʿalnāḥāš ‘Baal has predicted’, these revelations clearly are not alluding to
theophany to a people but to a divine oracle to an individual, as explicitly seen in the sec-
ond of these three names. Moreover, the name ‫ מלאכי‬Malʾākî ‘My messenger [was DN]’,
now also known from epigraphic material (Arad[7].97:1), refers to a particular sort of
revelation, when a divine being in the form of a human being reveals a divine message,
especially a birth oracle, but leaves his divine origin undiscovered until afterward (Gen
16:11; Judg 13:3, 21). This kind of private revelation has nothing to do with dramatic

53. The name Meṣad Ḥashavyahu, given to the fort where the ostraca were found, is accidental;
it was based on an incorrect reading of ostracon 1, line 7; see Renz and Röllig, HAE 1.316.
54. In this context, it can hardly be accidental that, in Israelite names, divine presence is not
symbolized by local sanctuaries but by functional realities such as ‫‘ אור‬light’ or ‫‘ עזר‬help’ in names
such as ‫ קרבאור‬Qĕrabʾûr ‘the [divine] light has come close [to me]’ or ‫ עזריקם‬ʿAzrîqām ‘my [divine]
help has arisen’. These differences are of no great consequence regardless, because ʿAzrîqām also
appears in Aramean and Phoenician cultures (see appendix B1.1.5).
55. See also HAE 20.2 and PIAP 34. In the Hebrew Bible, the Hiphil of the root ‫ גלה‬only oc-
curs in a context in which it means ‘to take into exile’, although this could be accidental, because
the meaning ‘to bare, to open, to reveal’ is present in all other stems. Avigad and Sass (1997: 492)
consider a Niphal form of the root to be more likely, even though the reading Higgalēnayāh ‘be
revealed, O Yhwh’ sounds artificial.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 267

theophanies such as described as happening on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19–20; Deuteron-

omy 4–5).â•›56 In this book, all of these names that refer to birth oracles have been assigned
to the group of birth names (see appendix B5.3).
Additional depictions of theophany appear in a small group of personal names that
reflect the radiant presence of God above a sufferer, such as ‫ אליאר‬ʾElyāʾīr ‘El has shone
[above me]’, ‫ יהוזרח‬Yĕhôzārāḥ ‘Yhwh has risen gloriously [upon me]’, ‫ בלגי‬Bilgay ‘[DN]
has illuminated’ (see appendix B1.1.6), or ‫ ׁשחר‬Šaḥar ‘[DN] is [my] dawning’ (see appen-
dix B2.1). This group also includes Aramaic names such as ‫ יפעהד‬Yapaʿhadd ‘Hadad has
shone forth’, or ‫ נסחנגהי‬Nasuḥnaghî ‘Nasuḥ/Nusḥu is my morning light’. All such names
connect the helpful attention of the deity with the phenomenon of illumination, especially
dawn and sunrise. These metaphors admittedly converge with others commonly associ-
ated with epiphanies, such as where Yhwh powerfully comes to the salvation of his people
(see ‫ יפע‬Hiphil in Ps 80:2). These names, however, are more directly associated with con-
cepts of divine salvation in the morning.â•›57 This concept is not restricted to individual
experiences (cf. Ps 88:14; 143:8 with 46:6; 90:14), although it is clearly distinguishable
from the scenery of thunderstorms and earthquakes associated with the Sinai theophany.
There are two names that could possibly refer to a theophanic storm: ‫ סעריהו‬Săʿaryāhû
‘Yhwh has stormed’ (HAE 15.20; 21.7; Arad[7]:31.4) and the short form ‫ סערי‬Săʿaray
‘[DN] has stormed’ (HAE 10.58), following the reading of Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.77;
2/2.329). But their reading is not entirely certain; in the case of the two seals HAE 15.20
and 21.7, Avigad and Sass (1997: WSS 355 and WSS 286) preferred the reading ‫סעדיהו‬
Săʿadyāhû, which would mean ‘Yhwh has supported’; the same reading was adopted by
Zadok (1988: 28) with regard to the Arad ostracon. As I mentioned above, the characters
reš and dalet were sometimes shaped very similarly in archaic Hebrew. Arad Ostracon 31
and the seal HAE 10.58 = BPPS 7 show a clear reading of reš; in these cases, Renz and Röl-
lig were in agreement with Y.€Aharoni (1981: 56) and Deutsch and Lemaire (2000: 221).
However, because such a group of ostensibly theophanic names would be extremely small,
and because names derived from the root ‫ סעד‬are much better represented (with nine ap-
pearances), the question can be raised whether a dalet is a more accurate reading than a
reš in all these cases. Even if all four occurrences of theophanic names were accepted, their
percentage of the Hebrew onomasticon would be very small (0.13%). In any case, if there
was influence of Sinai theophany on the personal names, it must have been quite slight.
Although it is now clear to us that Hebrew personal names lack references to Israel’s
national history, Noth (1928: 215) connected two names that appear in the Hebrew Bible
to Israel’s history. According to him, the name ‫ אליׁשב‬ʾElyāšīb, which he understood as a
wish that ‘God may cause the return [of the dispersed Israel]’, refers to the return from
exile (1928: 213), and the name ‫ ׁשכניה‬Šĕkanyāh ‘Yhwh has taken [his] home’ was related
to the reconstruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 520–515 b.c.e. These readings were
plausible because in the Hebrew Bible both names only arise during or after the exilic pe-
riod. In the case of the name ʾElyāšīb, Stamm (1980: 71) undermined Noth’s interpretation

56. In the Hebrew Bible, the name ‫ נועדיה‬Nôʿadyāh ‘Yhwh let oneself be met’ also occurs in
Neh 6:14; Ezra 8:33.
57. See Janowski 1989: 1–18.
268 Chapter 5

by classifying it as a substitute name and understanding it to mean that El has caused a de-
ceased child to return through the birth of a new child. His interpretation was supported
by the archaeological finds in Arad and Lachish, which verified that the name was in use
from the 8th to the 6th centuries b.c.e.—that is, before the exile.
In the absence of archaeological evidence for the name Šĕkanyāh, Noth’s interpreta-
tion seemed plausible; thus, I accepted it as the only case in which an ordinary personal
name,â•›58 because of accommodation to aspects of official Temple theology,â•›59 referred to an
important event of Israel’s history (Albertz 1978a: 58).â•›60 Subsequent archaeological finds
cast these interpretations into doubt, and there are now eight known appearances of the
name ‫ ׁשכניהו‬Šĕkanyāhû, dating from the early 7th to the early 6th centuries b.c.e. (see
appendix B5.4). The dialectic variant from Northern Israel, ‫ ׁשכניו‬Šĕkanyau, known from
one occurrence in Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, dates back even further, to the 9th century (PIAP 279).
Any reference in this name to the postexilic reconstruction of the Temple of Jerusalem
can thus be excluded.â•›61 Since the name also occurred in Northern Israel, even a relation-
ship to Jerusalem seems improbable. It therefore seems highly implausible that the name
Šĕkanyāhû/yau referred to any kind of established sanctuary at all, notwithstanding the
possibility that it could refer to a place in which no permanent divine presence could be
supposed. It thus seems more sensible to relate the name to house shrines or neighbor-
hood chapels where a mother or young couple had prayed for a child. Yhwh had actually
been present in the domestic cult of the parents; a presence further affirmed through a
successful and joyous pregnancy and birth (see appendix B5.4). Thus the last potential
piece of evidence that may have supported a close relationship between a personal name
and national history, and in particular the history of the Temple of Jerusalem, now also
carries no weight.
The primary traditions of official Israelite state and temple religion are thus almost
entirely absent from both biblical and epigraphic names. There are a few scant references
to the sphere of priestly activities with regard to vows and sacrifices performed during the
process of birth. The potential existence of a small number of personal names referring
to Yhwh’s theophany on Mount Sinai remains unconfirmed. In comparison with urban
Phoenician culture, Israelite society, which was more rural, seemed to have more differ-
ences between the beliefs of the family and the temple theologies. There is no epigraphic
evidence for Israelite personal names referring to events of Israel’s national history. This
of course does not imply that the traditions of the exodus or conquest were unknown to
Israelite families. Rather, it suggests that these traditions did not play any significant role
in the religious lives of these families during experiences of childbirth, whether they were

58. In contrast to the symbol names, which are given in order to point to a special event or be-
havior of the people; see Ichabod in 1 Sam 4:19–22 and Immanuel in Isa 7:14.
59. The concept that Yhwh dwells in the Temple of Jerusalem or in Zion is attested in 1 Kgs
8:12; Isa 8:18; Joel 4:17, 21; Zech 2:14–15; Ps 68:17; and 135:21; it is supplanted by Deuteronomic
theologians in that now Yhwh will let his name dwell in his chosen sanctuary; see, among others,
Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; and 26:2.
60. This interpretation was also accepted by KBL31390; and Rechenmacher 1997: 72.
61. It is strange that Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.387), although they date the seals from the 7th
to the 6th centuries, still retain Noth’s interpretation.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 269

fearful or joyful. Israelite families obviously had a wealth of religious experiences of their
own, but these experiences occurred almost entirely independent of the official state and
temple religion.

5.2.2.╇ The religious significance of childbirth

Although childbirth is central to many passages in the Hebrew Bible, the circum-
stances surrounding birth generally receive only scant attention. Birth rituals are known
from ancient Mesopotamiaâ•›62 and Anatolia (Beckman 1983), but no reports of these sorts
of ritual are known from Syria–Palestine or from the Hebrew Bible. Inscriptions on an
amulet tablet from Arslan Taš (KAI 27) that were previously interpreted by Donner and
Röllig (1979: 43–47) to refer to a birth ritual have since been confirmed to record a more
general incantation against various demons’ entering a house (see Butterweck in TUAT
2/3.435–37), even though one of the demons depicted on the tablet seems to be devour-
ing a baby (ANEP no. 662). In his book From the Cradle to Her Grave, van der Toorn
(1994: 77–92) compensates for the lack of evidence from Israel for rituals of childbirth by
incorporating material from Mesopotamia, although cultural differences between the two
must render any general conclusions somewhat speculative. Other scholars, who restrict
themselves exclusively to either archaeological or biblical sources, deal only very broadly
with Israelite rituals surrounding pregnancy, labor, and birth, such as, for example, Bird
(1987: 410) and Meyers (2002: 283); or else they deemphasize or even overlook the ritual
and religious significance of childbirth in ancient Israel, as in the studies of Miller (2000:
71), King and Stager (2001: 40–41, 52–53), and Borowski (2003: 81). In the latter case,
Dever (2005: 237–51) listed 15 different items used in female cultic practices yet neglected
to include childbirth in the practices considered.
Such restricted considerations may be understandable considering the scarcity of
sources, yet the undoubted importance of childbirth to the biological and economic sur-
vival of families in ancient agrarian societies (Meyers 1997: 27–28) and its dramatic and
often very dangerous character for women under the primitive medical and hygienic con-
ditions at that time (Albertz 1978a: 51) strongly imply that it would be improper to deny
its ritual setting and religious significance merely because of an absence of direct textual
or archaeological evidence from Israel. There are in fact two sorts of archaeological source
that offer indirect evidence regarding the crucial importance of the birth of a child, es-
pecially a son, to the religious life of Israelite families. The first kind of source comprises
the masses of “Ashtarte-plaques” and “pillar-figurines,” which certainly refer to women’s
fertility, birth, and lactation.â•›63 The second indirect source consists of the Hebrew personal
names that refer to childbirth. The existence of these birth names, which constitute the
largest name group in terms of different names and the second-largest in terms of in-
stances, demonstrates that the acts and experiences surrounding childbirth were a very
important part of Israelite family religion.

62. See Krebernik 1984: 36–47; Farber 1989; van der Toorn 1994: 77–110; 1999: 139–47; Stol
2000: 49–89; and Albertz 1978a: 51–55.
63. See pp. 388–393 below.
270 Chapter 5

This last source, which has not been comprehensively analyzed to date, provides great
insight for reconstructing the significance of childbirth in family religion. However, a
methodological problem arises, in that the appropriate grouping of the personal names
is vital to their accurate interpretation (see Noth 1928: 3). An accurate grouping of birth
names should rightly require detailed information about the sequence of events that oc-
curred during the birth process, along with all associated rites and rituals. Unfortunately,
there are no authentic ritual texts from ancient Israel that were intended to accompany the
most important events of conception, pregnancy, and confinement. The short reports and
mentions in the Hebrew Bible do, however, enable us to construct a typical sequence of
childbirth events and to connect each element of this sequence with the personal names
that refer to them. This also enables us to construct a sequence of subgroups with which
interpretations of related names can be compared and contrasted.

5.2.2.1.╇ The distress of infertility

In societies in which children must sustain family farms and provide for the older
generations, women’s infertility is generally regarded as a heavy burden. A wife without
children is often an economic threat to her family and likely to suffer terrible social pres-
sure. Thus we read the laments and sorrows of infertile women, such as Hannah (1 Sam
1:4–18) and Rachel (Gen 30:1–2; see also Isa 54:1–2; Ps 113:9). Several times, the infertil-
ity of a wife is the beginning point of an entire narrative (Gen 11:30; 25:21; 29:31; Judg
13:2). God is often seen as responsible for a woman’s infertility (Gen 16:2; 20:18; 30:2; 1
Sam 1:5–6), which is also occasionally regarded as divine punishment for the woman’s sin
(2 Sam 6:20–23).â•›64
Two distinct groups of personal names can be associated with the distress of infertile
women (see appendix B5.1). The first consists of several names derived from the root ‫אסף‬
‘to gather’, which is used in this context in Gen 30:23 with the meaning ‘God has taken
away my humiliation’ (‫ ;)אסף את־חרפתי‬see Isa 4:1). Thus the names ‫ אספיהו‬ʾAsāpyāhû
(BPHB 108) and ‫ אספיו‬ʾAsāpyau (HAE 1.125) should be rendered ‘Yhwh has taken away
[the stigma of childlessness]’, an interpretation first considered by Noth (1928: 181–82)
and subsequently established by Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.158).â•›65 The name is also epi-
graphically attested in two short forms, ‫ אספא‬ʾAsāpāʾ and ‫ אסף‬ʾAsāp, the latter well known
in the Hebrew Bible (2 Kgs 18:18 and other places). The Hebrew Bible contributes the
theophoric name ‫ אביאסף‬ʾAbîʾāsāp ‘My [divine] father has taken away [the stigma of
childlessness]’ (Exod 6:24); thus there are altogether 8 epigraphic and 4 biblical instances.
Interestingly, these Hebrew names have several parallels in Phoenicia; in one of them, the
removal of infertility is explicitly ascribed to a goddess: ‫ עׁשתרתאסף‬ʿAštartʾespa ‘Ashtarte
has taken away [the stigma of childlessness]’; in another, a goddess is directly addressed:
‫ אספת‬ʾAsaptī ‘You, [O goddess,] have taken away [the stigma of my childlessness]’. The
fact that the bearer of this name was a woman supports the suggestion that all the names
in this group express specifically female experiences.

64. Against van der Toorn 1994: 79.

65. J. D. Fowler (1988: 109) misunderstood the biblical names based on this root by inferring
from its possible meaning ‘to gather’ “the concept of selection of certain people.”
 Personal Names and Family Religion 271

The second group consists of two roots that express divine revenge or anger and in-
cludes names such as ‫ נקמאל‬Nĕqamʾēl ‘El has taken revenge’ and ‫ לעגיהו‬Lăʿagyāhû ‘Yhwh
has ridiculed’. These are names that have previously been difficult to explain, because per-
sonal names generally avoid negative attitudes toward the deity. However, considered in
relation to the conflicts in which infertile women had to experience the contempt and in-
sults of their relatives and neighbors, these names gain a positive meaning. By presenting
a child to a formerly infertile woman, god had taken revenge for her on all who derided
her and had ridiculed them. Thus, the mother who bestowed one of these names on her
child constructed a reminder of her former distress and confessed that god had reversed
her social humiliation.

5.2.2.2.╇ Prayers and vows

In the distress of their infertility, women were accustomed to praying to god. If they
wanted to provide their prayers with more urgency, they could make a vow. So Hannah
made a vow to Yhwh at the regional sanctuary of Shiloh in order to conceive a son (1 Sam
1:11). Furthermore, the fact that the mother of Lemuel called him “son of my vow” (Prov
31:2) demonstrates that women’s vows designed to conceive a son were very common.
We also know from Jer 44:25 that women in particular liked to make vows to their family
goddess at home, although childbirth is not explicitly mentioned in this case. These vows
made by women seem to have occurred so frequently and to have been so expensive that
they could become a threat to a family’s property, and thus required male control. Accord-
ing to Numbers 30, a father or husband was allowed to invalidate the vow of a daughter
or wife on the day that he first heard of it. The custom of poor women working as harlots
in order to be able to pay their vows apparently was so common that it had to be strictly
forbidden (Deut 23:18). Gen 25:21 also reports a case in which a husband formally inter-
ceded on behalf of his barren wife. Thus, private prayers and vows, especially those made
by women, were important rituals of Israelite family religion.â•›66
While evidence of prayers and vows regarding childbirth is rather sparse in the He-
brew Bible, 27 names referring to 105 people are now known from epigraphic material,
each of which constitutes or refers to small prayers or vows (see appendix B5.2). The name
‫ ׁשבאל‬Šūbaʾēl ‘Come back, O god!’ is addressed to a personal god who had gone astray.â•›67 A
probable variant of this name that contains a cohortative -na- infix is the frequently occur-
ring name ‫ׁשבניהו‬, which in agreement with Zadok (1988: 43) and Avigad and Sass (1997:
534), I vocalize Šūbnayāhû and render ‘Do come back, O Yhwh!’â•›68 If this translation is
correct, this simple prayer name was given to 60 different people, as well as another 11
referred to in the Hebrew Bible.
Other prayer names refer more directly to the gift that a child is, such as ‫ אׁשניו‬ʾUšnayau
‘Do present, O Yhwh!’ (again with cohortative -na- infix) and ‫ תנאל‬Tenʾēl ‘give, O god!’;

66. See especially Berlinerblau 1996; and also Tita 2001.

67. The name was also popular in the Ammonite culture, where it appeared 6 times.
68. Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.380; see HAE 2/1.85) prefer a derivation from an uncertain Ara-
bic root, šabana ‘to come close’, but the popularity of this name (with all variants represented 48
times) strongly suggests a Hebrew origin. The vocalization Šĕbanyāh in the Hebrew Bible (Neh 9:4,
5; 10:5, 11, 13; 12:14) seems to be incorrect.
272 Chapter 5

more frequent was the short form ‫ אׁשנא‬ʾUšnāʾ ‘Do present, [O DN]!’ (10 instances), with
one person of this name being a servant of King Ahaz (HAE 1.151). A newborn child
could also be called ‫ ׁשאל‬Šāʾūl ‘requested’, ‫ ׁשאלה‬Šĕʾilāh ‘[the object of the] request’, or
(from another root) ‫ בקׁש‬Baqqūš ‘requested’ and the female form ‫ בקׁשת‬Baqqūšet. Thus,
girls as well as boys were explicitly desired from god. Almost all of these names are simi-
larly extant in the surrounding cultures,â•›69 among which is the Aramaic variant ‫ׁשאלתי‬
Šaʾaltî ‘I have requested [him]’, a name that always harks back to the prayers of the child’s
mother or parents.â•›70
Several personal names that refer to vows made by women or couples have gone un-
recognized as such thus far.â•›71 The name ‫ דרׁשיהו‬Dĕrašyāhû, which is epigraphically extant
three times, means neither ‘Yhwh has demanded an account’, as suggested by Renz and
Röllig (HAE 2/2.193–94), nor ‘Yhwh seeks [the welcome of the child]’, as supposed by
Avigad and Sass (1997: 494). It means ‘Yhwh has demanded [the payment of the vow]’,
because in this special sense the verb ‫‘ דרׁש‬to ask, to seek’ with Yhwh as subject appears
in Deut 23:22. Accordingly, the hypocoristic name ‫ יׁשאל‬Yišʾal, from the related verb ‫ׁשאל‬
‘to ask, to seek’, has the similar meaning ‘[DN] has asked for [the payment of the vow]’.
These names suggest that Yhwh is entitled to demand payment of the vow by presenting
the child requested. Likewise, the hypocoristicon ‫ פצרי‬Paṣrî probably means ‘[DN] has
urged [the payment of the vow]’.
A similar meaning can be found in the name ‫ חׁשביהו‬Ḥăšabyāhû ‘Yhwh has taken [the
vow] into account’. As already mentioned, in this case the personal names incorporated
a technical term used by the priests when they proclaimed their verdict that god had ac-
cepted a sacrifice (Lev 7:18; 17:4).â•›72 Although this name occurs only twice in the epigraphic
material, it is much more frequently used in the Hebrew Bible (18 times), even in forms
personally related to the person who profited from the vow (via a first-person-singular
suffix), as in ‫ חׁשבניה‬Ḥašabnĕyāh or in a better vocalized form, Ḥašabāniyāh ‘Yhwh has
charged [the vow to my account]’ (Neh 3:10; 9:5). Finally, the names ‫ ׁשעריהו‬Šĕʿaryāhû
‘Yhwh has charged [the vow]’ and ‫ מכר‬Mākīr ‘sold [by DN]’ express a meaning similar
to the same words used in a commercial context. A similar juxtaposition of priestly and
commercial language can be found in birth names in the surrounding cultures.â•›73 Thus,
although there are connections between family religion and priestly theology, they are
mostly restricted to cases in which the payment of a vow involved animal sacrifices. The
conjunction of commercial and priestly terms reveals a very pragmatic feature of family
piety: a woman promised to pay a fee so that the family god would give her a child.
The prayers and vows of barren or childbearing women could result in divine attention.
In the biblical narratives, God heard a woman’s plea (‫ ;ׁשמע‬Gen 30:17, 22), saw her distress

69. The name ‫‘ ׁשאל‬Saul’ also appears in the Ammonite, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticons.
70. See also the name of Zerubbabel’s father, ‫ ׁשאלתיאל‬Šĕʾaltîʾēl ‘I have requested [him] from
God’ (Hag 1:1), which follows the form of Babylonian names. It shows that the Judeans were ready
to adopt names of their Babylonian environment during the period of exile, even in the royal family.
71. Even by Berlinerblau (1996).
72. See pp. 265–266 above.
73. See the names ‫ הדרקי‬Haddraqî ‘Hadad has accepted [the vowed sacrifice] with pleasure’ and
‫ זבנאדן‬Zĕbinʾadān ‘bought from Adon’, both of which come from Aramean culture.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 273

(‫ ;ראה‬Gen 29:32), remembered her (‫ ;זכר‬Gen 30:22; 1 Sam 1:19), or looked after the af-
flicted (‫ ;פקד‬Gen 21:1). Here, a wide range of verbs normally used in the names of thanks-
giving for god’s attention are employed in these prayers, even though they are not specific
to the birth process. These verbs and names will therefore be considered later.â•›74 There is
one verb with regard to divine attention, however, that stands somewhat apart from the
others, namely, ‫‘ ענה‬to answer’. Of the four epigraphically represented names from this
root, two explicitly refer back to the mother: ‫ ענניהו‬ʿAnānyāhû ‘Yhwh has responded to
me’ (HAE 14.7), and ‫ קוסענל‬Qausʿanalī ‘Qos [the national god of the Edomites] has re-
plied to [me]’ (Arad[6].12:3).â•›75 The Hebrew Bible offers similar evidence: in the six names
that use this root, two have a first-person-singular suffix—‫ ענניה‬ʿAnānyāh (Neh 3:23) and
the short form, ‫ ענני‬ʿAnānî (1 Chr 3:24). Both are also attested at Elephantine. The mother
desired to refer to her own experience during childbirth by naming her child this way:
her complaint did not go unheard; god responded to her petition. These names do not
necessarily refer to a favorable oracle obtained from a priest (1 Sam 1:17) or prophet;â•›76 it
is also possible that a woman had discerned a nonverbal sign that she interpreted as being
affirmation from god (Judg 13:23).
This rich group of personal names reflecting prayers, vows, and divine answers in the
context of birth demonstrates that prayers, vows, and oracles of salvation that were ac-
companied by other ritual acts such as libations, incense, and meal offerings played very
prominent roles throughout the entire process of childbearing.

5.2.2.3.╇ Birth oracles

According to the Hebrew Bible, birth oracles might be given to barren women (Gen
17:19; 18:10, 14; Judg 13:3, 5, 7; 1 Sam 1:17; 2 Kgs 4:16) or to pregnant women whose life
was in danger (Gen 16:11; 25:23). In addition to vows of sacrifice, this suggests a second
point when male religious functionaries were sometimes included in the birth process.
Divine oracles were mediated by priests at regional sanctuaries (1 Sam 1:17) or by peri-
patetic practitioners of magic, so-called ‘men of God’ (‫ ;איׁש ]ה[אלהים‬2 Kgs 4:16; see Judg
13:6, 8). Birth oracles were occasionally delivered by strangers who were later revealed to
have been heavenly messengers of Yhwh (‫ ;מלאך יהוה‬Gen 18:1–16; Judg 13:15–21). In
almost all cases, these birth oracles were spoken to women; they asked a request of Yhwh
(‫ ;דרׁש את־יהוה‬Gen 25:22); they offered personal hospitality to the “men of God” (2 Kgs
4:8–10) or had secret meetings with divine messengers (Judg 13:2–5). These birth oracles
thus evidence specifically female religious experiences.
Like vows, these oracles lay largely outside the control of husbands; thus, in the late
birth story of Judges 13,â•›77 the mysterious messenger had to repeat the birth oracle to

74. See pp. 298–309 below.

75. The interpretation of this name, which also appears on many Edomite seal impressions, is
somewhat uncertain, because the verb ‫ ענה‬I is normally collocated with an accusative rather than
being suffixed with the preposition ‫־‬â•”‫‘ ל‬to’.
76. For oracles of assurance as answers to individual complaints, see Begrich 1934; and Albertz
2003: 166–73.
77. Stipp (1995: 346–49) has shown that Judges 13 functions as a secondary but coherent intro-
duction to the Samson stories (Judges 14–16) that was composed in order to incorporate them into
274 Chapter 5

Manoah (13:8–14) that he had already given to Manoah’s wife (13:3–5). This repetition
reinforced the credibility of the wife’s religious experience.
The remarkable significance of birth oracles is reflected in 10 different personal names
that are epigraphically attested 34 times (see appendix B5.3). The name ‫ אמריהו‬ʾAmaryāhû
‘Yhwh has spoken’ was most popular and is recorded 22 times. Its Northern variant, ‫אמריו‬
ʾAmaryau, was recorded as far back as the 9th century b.c.e.; 9 other people in the Hebrew
Bible bear this name. The name ‫ קוליהו‬Qôlyāhû (Qal) or Qawwelyāhû (Piel) appears less
frequently and probably had the same meaning, ‘Yhwh has spoken’. There were 5 names
derived from this root altogether. Names from both roots were also used in surrounding
cultures, as well as names derived from the root ‫רגם‬, such as Aramaic ‫ בעלרגם‬Baʿalragam
‘Baal has spoken’. Of particular importance is the single occurrence of the Hebrew name
‫ הגלניה‬Higlānīyāh ‘Yhwh has revealed to me’ (HAE 20.2).â•›78 This name verifies that none
of the oracles referred to by these names were general statements; they were addressed to
an individual personally.
The divine oracles were probably associated with mantic procedures. The most recent
appearance of the name ‫ בעלנחׁש‬Baʿalnāḥāš is on an ostracon from the late-7th-century
Shephelah. Rather than meaning ‘Baal is a snake’ by being derived from the noun ‫( נחׁש‬the
god Baal is never conceptualized as a snake in ancient Near Eastern iconography), the
name refers to the verb ‫ נחׁש‬I ‘to look for an omen, to divine’, which means that it must
be rendered ‘Baal has predicted [a good omen]’. The verb may originally have denoted a
specific kind of divination performed with the help of snakes.â•›79 However, in the Hebrew
Bible, this term is associated with a number of different objects used by mantics, such as
Joseph’s silver goblet (Gen 44:5), as suggested by Schmitt (2004: 110–12).â•›80 Thus, although
the details of the divination technique connoted by this personal name in connection
with the Baal oracle remain uncertain, it was probably delivered using an instrumental
medium. Similarly, the name ‫ נחׁש‬Nāḥāš, which was the name of an Ammonite king (1
Sam 11:1–2), probably does not mean ‘snake’, as has often been suggested (by Noth 1928:
230 and Hübner 1992: 128, among others) but alludes to a good omen in the context of
childbirth.
Both Deut 18:10 and Lev 19:26 state that the kind of divination denoted by the term
‫ נחׁש‬was strictly forbidden by the Deuteronomic and Priestly reformers along with other
mantic and magic practices. The time during which this sort of prohibition might have
been enacted cannot be ascertained. Interestingly, this kind of divination was still prac-
ticed in Judean family religion at the end of the 7th century, in periods during or after
the Josianic reform (622 b.c.e.). This close relationship to the god Baal, as expressed in
the personal name under discussion, may have been associated with some kind of mantic

the already existing Deuteronomistic History; thus it can be dated to late preexilic or exilic times
at the earliest, depending on one’s model for the DtrH. The attempt by Römheld (1992: 47–48) to
reconstruct Judges 13 as a pre-Dtr story is less convincing.
78. For the problems with this interpretation/translation, see p. 266 above.
79. See the hints at snake omina in Isa 3:3, Jer 8:17, Ps 58:5–6, and Qoh 10:11, connected with
the related term ‫‘ לחׁש‬to whisper, to charm’.
80. This may have been a kind of oil omina, which are known from Mesopotamia; see Pettinato
1966.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 275

practice that had been rejected by representatives of the official Israelite religion, although
this does not seem likely. Unfortunately, the father of Baʿalnāḥāš remains unknown be-
cause of the fragmented state of the record (see Lemaire and Yardeni 2006: 220 and pl.€15).
However, there is one bulla from a period about 100 years earlier that reveals that a certain
ʾAmaryāhû had a father named Nāḥāš (BPHB 103). Thus, Nāḥāš would almost certainly
have been a believer of Yhwh, even though his parents had used the unapproved divina-
tion practice prenatally. Interestingly, Nāḥāš again chose a name referring to a birth oracle
for his own son, suggesting that birth oracles were popular in this family.
Several personal names are known from Aramean and Phoenician cultures that prob-
ably refer to other mantic practices that involved some sort of instrument. The Aramaic
name ‫ אחלכד‬ʾAḥlakad probably means ‘[my divine] brother has picked [me by drawing
lots]’, because this special meaning of ‫‘ לכד‬to catch’ may be the meaning that was intended
in Phoenician inscription KAI 37.B8 (see DNWSI 1:577), and it certainly is the meaning in
Hebrew (Josh 7:14 Qal; 1 Sam 10:20–21 Niphal).â•›81 Reference to the casting of lots may also
have been intended by the Aramaic name ‫ הדדסמני‬Hadadsamānî ‘Hadad has designated
me’ (samek instead of śin). Finally, the Phoenician name ‫ אׁשמניעד‬ʾEšmunyaʿad ‘Eshmun
has determined’ may refer to a date of birth, although the sort of divination involved can-
not be determined.
In the Hebrew onomasticon, the name ‫ מלאכי‬Malʾākî refers to a special form of in-
tuitive mantic. A human being, often a foreigner, served as the medium of a birth oracle
and was later revealed to have been a ‫־יהוה‬â•”‫מלאך‬, a ‘messenger of Yhwh’ (Judges 13). In
accordance with the Punic name ‫בעלמלאך‬, which verifies that it was a nominal sentence,
it should more accurately be rendered ‘my messenger [was DN]’. By choosing this name,
a mother was emphasizing that the person who had promised her a child was in fact god
himself (see Gen 18:1–16).â•›82 Thus, this group of personal names clearly verifies that divine
oracles delivered by priests and laymen, as well as other sorts of divination played integral
roles in Israelite family religion, especially in the context of childbirth. Birth oracles given
by laymen who were later revealed to have been divine messengers can be considered
specifically female experiences of divine revelation.

5.2.2.4.╇ Conception and pregnancy

Equal in importance to the day of birth for the emergence of new human life was the
time of conception (Job 3:1). For Job, the two dates played equal roles in forming his ex-
istence (3:1–10). In the Hebrew Bible, every conception and pregnancy is viewed as the
work of god, especially following a period of infertility (Gen 20:17–18; 21:1–2; 29:31–32;
30:17, 22; 1 Sam 1:19–20) but also in more typical cases (Ruth 4:13). Thus, during the
night of conception, god draws very near the couple and is especially engaged with the
female partner by healing her infertility (‫ ;רפא‬Gen 20:17) and opening her womb (‫פתח‬
‫ ;רחם‬Gen 29:31; 30:22).
81. The translation ‘ʾḥ ist [mein] Angriff ’ (‘. . . is my attack’) by Maraqten (1988: 121) is doubtful
for a name in the Northwest Semitic onomasticon because, in other confession names of this sort,
only locations or weapons of defense are compared to god.
82. Based on this name that appears on Arad(7).97:1, it is clear that the name of the prophet
Malachi is a genuine personal name rather than a symbolic name.
276 Chapter 5

The Atramhasis Epic demonstrates that the period of procreation and conception was
surrounded by specific rites in Babylonia intended to honor the mother-goddess (I  90–
306).â•›83 It seems highly probable that, in ancient Israel, conception was accompanied by
rites and rituals intended to ensure the divine presence. These rites were likely to have
included libations, incense offerings, and prayers at a house shrine or perhaps at a portable
installation of cultic artifacts that was positioned in or near the marriage chamber. Pillar-
figurines, Bes figures, and amulets may have been used or invoked in this ritual context.
Ten names are known to date from epigraphic material that signify this decisive sexual
ritual; these 10 names appear 64 times (see appendix B5.4). A first subgroup of these
names relates to the opening of the womb, such as the hypocoristica ‫ פתח‬Pĕtaḥ ‘[DN]
has opened [the womb]’, ‫ נפתח‬Niptaḥ ‘[the womb] was opened [by DN]’. The complete
theophoric variant, ‫ פתחיה‬Pĕtaḥyāh ‘Yhwh has opened [the womb]’, is known only in
the Hebrew Bible, where it is the name of 3 different people (1€Chr 24:16; Ezra 10:23; Neh
11:24). Most prominent among these is the army commander and judge who went by the
hypocoristicon ‫ יפתח‬Yiptaḥ ‘[DN] has opened or may open [the womb]’ (equivalent to
Jephthah; Judg 11:1–12:7). This name in turn is probably the shortened version of ‫יפתחאל‬,
which is a place-name in Josh 19:14. These names have often been connected with birth,
especially the birth of a firstborn,â•›84 but considering that in Gen 29:31 and 30:22 the verb
‫ פתח‬is related to the beginning of pregnancy, a reference to the act of procreation and con-
ception seems more plausible. By opening the female womb to the male sperm, the deity
creates the prerequisite for birth by overcoming the infertility of the woman.
According to Gen 20:17, names that allude to god’s healing act likewise refer to this
critical situation of procreation and conception, such as ‫ רפאיהו‬Rĕpāʾyāhû ‘Yhwh has
healed’, with the short forms, ‫ רפא‬Rāpāʾ and ‫ רפאי‬Rĕpāʾî ‘[DN] has healed’. This subgroup
appears much more frequently (represented 27 times) than names from the root ‫( פתח‬rep-
resented only 3 times); it appears another 10 times in the Hebrew Bible and 9 times in
surrounding cultures.
A slightly smaller subgroup comprises names derived from the root ‫( דמל‬represented
25 times), a group that does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. The meaning of these names
remain the subject of ongoing debate. Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.65) derive it from the
Arabian root damila ‘to prepare, to make peace, to heal’. Avigad and Sass analyzed a name
consisting of the root ‫‘ דמם‬to be silent’ plus the preposition ‫־‬â•”‫‘ ל‬for, to’ and translated it as
an imperative name, ‘be silent before [DN]!’ Names of this sort do appear among names
of confession, such as ‫ חכליהו‬Ḥakalyāhû ‘Place your hope in Yhwh!’ However, in con-
trast to the verb ‫‘ חכה‬to hope’ and its synonyms, the verb ‫ דמם‬is used quite infrequently
in the confessions of confidence in the Psalms.â•›85 Moreover, an exhortation ‘to be silent
before god’ occurs only once in the postexilic wisdom psalm, 37:7; it refers to a unique
kind of devotional piety that would be distinctive in the preexilic Israelite onomasticon.
Following Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.65; 2/2.191), we interpret these names similarly to

83. See Lambert and Millard 1969: 63–64; TUAT 3/2.625–26.

84. See Noth 1928: 179; Albertz 1978a: 58; Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.367–68.
85. Although verbs denoting ‘to hope’ appear in Ps 25:5, 21; 33:20, 22; (37:14); 39:8; 40:2; 52:11;
69:7; 71:14; 119:43, 49, 74, 81, 114, 147, 166; 130:5, 7; (131:3) (21 times), the verb ‫ דמם‬appears only
once in a confession of confidence (Ps 62:6) and twice in modifications (Ps 37:7; 131:2).
 Personal Names and Family Religion 277

names derived from ‫רפא‬: ‫ דמלאל‬Dĕmalʾēl ‘El has healed’, ‫ דמליהו‬Dĕmalyāhû ‘Yhwh has
healed’, and the short form ‫ דמלא‬Damlāʾ ‘[DN] has healed’. Although these healing names
could refer to various general healing experiences in a family, the high number of appear-
ances—52 instances—suggests that the main focus was childbearing.
The name ‫ ׁשכניהו‬Šĕkanyāhû and its Northern variant, ‫ ׁשכניו‬Šĕkanyau ‘Yhwh was
present’, which are known from 9 epigraphic records (and the first also appears in 8 bibli-
cal records), have already been discussed.â•›86 Because they were used only between the 9th
and 6th centuries, they could not have been related to the postexilic reconstruction of
the Jerusalem Temple, as Noth (1928: 194) suggested. They are perhaps more plausibly
interpreted as being related to a house cult in which Yhwh’s presence was not regarded as
being permanent (which would have been the case in a temple) but was only experienced
sporadically by a family as an extraordinary event. Of course, the divine presence might
have been discerned in rituals that accompanied the birth process, but it would have had
special significance during the act of procreation and conception. The very experience of
becoming pregnant often might have been proof enough for a woman and her husband
that Yhwh had been present during the ritual acts that accompanied their sexual inter-
course. He had opened the womb, healed her infertility, and transformed it into fertility,
and thus his presence could not be doubted. Interpreted in this way, the name Šĕkanyāhû
shows that the shrine or cultic space in the household and the ritual activity of the fam-
ily, no matter how simple or even primitive they may have been, were accorded the full
dignity of divine presence.

5.2.2.5.╇ Creation and birth

Creation and birth are at the very center of existence, and no less than 63 different
names derived from 24 different roots can be assigned to this group, with these names
appearing 227 times total (see appendix B5.5). This subgroup consists of the greatest per-
centage of all birth names (25.9%) and can itself be subdivided further into three groups:
pregnancy, confinement, and care for a newborn.

5.2.2.5.1.╇ The religious dimension of pregnancy

In ancient Israelite society, pregnancy and birth were defining events for women, and
during their lives, most women could expect to pass through four or five cycles of preg-
nancy and birth, only partly interrupted by longer phases of nursing. Pregnancy was a
part of daily life, and women had to continue their daily work while pregnant (see Meyers
1997: 27–28). The time of pregnancy, which lasts ten lunar months, was a sufficiently de-
fining period for woman that it was referred to with a special term, ‫ עת חיה‬ʿet ḥayyāh ‘the
time of [emerging] life’ (Gen 18:10; 2 Kgs 4:16).â•›87 In ancient Israel, pregnancy was com-
monly regarded as a supernatural process. It was believed that god created a new creature
in the womb of a mother during this period (Jer 1:5; Ps 139:13; Job 10:8–11; 31:15; see also
Isa 49:1, 5). Ps 139:13 uses the weaving metaphor for this creative act of god (‫ ;)סכך‬Job

86. See p. 268 above.

87. In the Hebrew Bible, the term only appears in the context of birth oracles. The correspond-
ing Akkadian term, ana balāṭ ‘in the period of [emerging] life’—that is, ‘in the coming year’—be-
came a much more common term and was used to designate a generally longer period of time.
278 Chapter 5

10:10–11 even describes, with medical detail, how god solidified a human embryo out of
a milk-like liquid. As I previously demonstrated (Albertz 1974: 44–51), according to the
symbolic world of ancient Israel, the two events of god’s primeval creation of man and hu-
man pregnancy and birth are closely connected (particularly in Job 10:8–11).
Notions of the divine origin of pregnancy were not restricted to an inner circle of reli-
gious experts or literati but circulated among the whole population, as can now be verified
by the many extant creation names: a total of 39 epigraphic names derived from 11 differ-
ent roots appear no less than 148 times, describing the divine creative activity surround-
ing conception from a surprising variety of aspects.
One concept that is very close to the metaphor in Ps 139:13 is found in a personal
name on the Lachish tablets, ‫ סבכיהו‬Sĕbakyāhû ‘Yhwh has woven [the child in the womb]’
(Lak[6].1.11:4). The biblical name ‫ סבכי‬Sibbĕkay or Sibkay (2 Sam 21:18) may be the short-
ened form. The metaphor of “weaving” accommodates the divine creative activity to the
emergence of an embryo in its mother’s womb (see appendix B5.5.1).
Other creation names use more ordinary verbs for god’s creative activity. More-fre-
quent names include ‫ בניהו‬Bĕnāyāhû ‘Yhwh has created [the child]’ (with 22 epigraphic
and 12 biblical occurrences), which emphasizes the constructive aspect of creation; in the
Akkadian language, banû is the most frequent verb used to denote divine creative activity;
in the Hebrew Bible, the cognate verb is used for the primeval creation of Eve (Gen 2:22).
Names from this root also appear in the Ammonite, Aramean, and Phoenician cultures,
such as the Ammonite name ‫ בנאל‬Banāʾil ‘El has created’ (appearing twice).
Other common names are derived from the most general root, ‫‘ עׂשה‬to make’, in-
cluding ‫ עׂשיהו‬ʿAśāyāhû ‘Yhwh has made [the child]’ (with 17 epigraphic and 4 biblical
instances) and ‫ מעׂשיהו‬Maʿaśēyāhû ‘the work of Yhwh’ (with 13 epigraphic and 21 bibli-
cal appearances). This epithet name, which denotes the newborn as a creature of Yhwh,
shows that, in all creation names, the child is regarded as the implicit object. The root ‫עׂשה‬
is often used for the creation of human beings, for example, in Job 10:8 and 31:15. Curi-
ously, names derived from ‫ עׂשה‬were rarely used by Israel’s neighbors.
The opposite is the case with regard to a second common root, ‫‘ פעל‬to make’. Only one
derived name is known in Hebrew, from two epigraphic appearances of the hypocoristicon
‫ פעלה‬Păʿalāh ‘[DN] has made [the child]’ (BPHB 326, 327) and the full name, used once
in the Hebrew Bible, ‫ אלפעל‬ʾElpaʿal ‘El or god has made’ (1 Chr 8:11–12). Names from
this root are more common in Phoenicia, where goddesses such as Bastet and Ashtarte are
also attested as creators, as in ‫ פעלאבסת‬Peʿlaʾabast (attested twice) ‘Bastet has made’, and
‫ פעלעׁשתרת‬Peʿlaʿaštart ‘Ashtarte has made’ (attested once). In the Bible, the root ‫ פעל‬for
the creation of humans appears in Job 36:3. Among Aramaic names, the root ‫עבד‬, denot-
ing ‘to serve’ in Hebrew, is used for expressing god’s creative activity in a general way, as in
‫ אלעבד‬ʾElʿabad ‘El has made’ (NTA 42.4:5).
Creation names derived from the root ‫קנה‬, which has the two meanings ‘to acquire’
and ‘to create’, are more specific. While the former meaning predominates in most bibli-
cal texts, the latter seems to be preferred in personal names, since it occurs several times
exclusively in the context of birth and the creation of human beings (in Gen 4:1; Deut
32:6; and Ps 139:13). Stolz (1970: 132–33) suggested an underlying meaning of ‘to bring
forth, to produce’, from which both of these meanings may have developed. Gen 4:1 even
 Personal Names and Family Religion 279

expresses a sexual connotation, where Eve boasts that she created (‫—)קניתי‬in the sense
of ‘bore’—a man ‘with Yhwh’. Although this does not explicitly mean that Yhwh had a
child by Eve, a close cooperation between her and him is nevertheless implied. The male
aspect of procreation is hinted at in Deut 32:6, where Yhwh is considered the father who
made or created Israel (‫ קנה‬with 2nd-person-singular suffix). Thus, in the verb ‫ קנה‬itself,
both realities (that of creation and that of procreation and birth) are closely intermingled.
Hebrew personal names derived from ‫ קנה‬are known from 22 epigraphic instances
(and 8 biblical reports); the most frequent of these is the epithet name ‫ מקניהו‬Miqnēyāhû
‘creature of Yhwh’ (with 15 epigraphic attestations and one biblical), which also appears
in one variant from the Northern Kingdom (Israel) as ‫ מקניו‬Miqnēyau. Similar names
come from Ammon and Phoenicia—for example, ‫ מקנמלך‬Miqnēmilk ‘creature of Milk’.
Names containing the root ‫‘ כון‬to be firm’ should also be interpreted as creation names,
because the verb can be used in the Polel stem to designate the creation of humanity (Ps
119:73; Job 31:15). Since the names probably use the Hiphil and the Qal stems with the
same meaning, they serve to emphasize god’s fashioning of his creation. Job 31:15 clearly
indicates that this fashioning occurs in the mother’s womb (‫)ברחם‬. Thus, the verb ‫ כון‬con-
notes a concept similar to the description in Job 10:10–11: the creator fashions the em-
bryo from a milk-like liquid. This type of creation name therefore also refers to the birth
process. The most frequently attested of these names is ‫ כניהו‬Konyāhû ‘Yhwh has fash-
ioned [the child]’ (9 instances), followed by ‫ אליכן‬ʾElyākin ‘El has fashioned’ (5 instances);
this type of creation name appears a total of 17 times. It also appears in the Phoenician
and Aramaic onomasticons, for example, in Phoenician in the form of ‫ יכנׁשלם‬Yakīnšalim
‘Shalem has fashioned’.
*â•…â•…*â•…â•…*
Thus, almost all roots used in the Hebrew Bible for god’s creation of human beings, whether primeval
creation or ongoing creation, are also used in creation names, with 2 exceptions: the verbs ‫ יצר‬yāṣar ‘to
form’ and ‫ ברא‬bārāʾ ‘to create’. The former alludes to the concrete action of God’s forming man from
clay; in the Hebrew Bible, it is frequently used for both god’s primeval (Gen 2:7) and his ongoing creative
activity (Isa 43:1; 44:2, 21, 24; 64:7; Jer 1:5). However, remarkably, only 2 rare hypocoristic names from
this root appear in the Hebrew Bible: ‫ יצר‬Yeṣer (Gen 46:24) and ‫ יצרי‬Yiṣrî (1 Chr 25:11) ‘creation [of DN]?’
The root ‫ ברא‬has a similar status in the Hebrew Bible. It is used in important theological passages such
as Gen 1:27; Isa 43:1; 45:12; and Ps 89:48 but appears only once in one name: ‫ בראיה‬Bĕraʾyāh ‘Yhwh has
created’ (1 Chr 8:21). The absence of these roots in the epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon is not unusual.
The absence of the root ‫ ברא‬probably reflects its adoption as a specific theological term by religious offi-
cials (most likely sometime after the exile), but there is no such ready explanation for non-use of the root
‫יצר‬. It may be that the unique concept of creation conveyed by this root was somehow too explicit, or it
may be that alluding to a child’s having been formed from dirty clay was considered unfair or insulting.
Both roots are similarly absent from the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors.
*â•…â•…*â•…â•…*
Aside from the larger groups of creation names, there are a few more that are used
infrequently. The name ‫ קדבׂש‬Qadbeś, an Egyptian loan-name with the meaning ‘Bes has
formed’, has been found only once, in the Samaria ostraca (Sam[8].1:1:5). The name ‫חצב‬
Ḥāṣāb also only appears once. This name is difficult to understand, coming as it does
from a verb that means ‘to carve out’, especially used in relation to cisterns, winepresses,
or tombs (Deut 6:11; Isa 5:2; 22:16). Avigad and Sass (1997: 500) postulated that it was
280 Chapter 5

some kind of professional nickname, akin to ‘stone hewer’. But, since in Isa 51:1 the verb
is metaphorically used to designate Israel’s origin from Abraham and Sarah, Renz and
Röllig (HAE 2/2.226) offer what is perhaps a more plausible interpretation in relation to
god’s creative act. The reading ‘[DN] has carved out’ seems best, because the text explicitly
refers to Sarah’s labor, and thus the metaphor would allude to childbearing. Translation
of the name ‫ ירימות‬Yerîmaut is similarly uncertain. Although this name occurs relatively
frequently in the Hebrew Bible (a total of 12 times), only one epigraphic record is known
(HAE 10.75). According to Zadok (1988: 61), the name may be interpreted as ‘founded by
Mot’, in reference to the old Canaanite deity of death but in the function of creator here.
Although we will show below that there was almost no overlap between the specific quali-
ties ascribed to deities by religious officials and those referred to in family religion,â•›88 it
nevertheless is difficult to explain why a name with this sort of meaning would be used so
frequently, and exclusively in the late books of the Hebrew Bible.
A different concept of divine creature is referred to in personal names derived from
two other roots. The name ‫ עמליהו‬ʿAmalyāhû ‘the [laborious] work of Yhwh’, which is
known in only two instances to date, emphasizes the great pain that god had taken to cre-
ate the child. Names derived from the second root, ‫ עדיהו‬ʿAdāyāhû ‘Yhwh has adorned
[the child]’, and its variants have been found much more frequently (17 instances total)
and emphasize the wondrous product of Yhwh’s creative act. This name would likely have
been a popular choice for acknowledging god’s creation of a handsome newborn.
During the compilation necessary for writing my earlier work on the creation of the
world and humankind (Albertz 1974: 156, 246–47), evidence for personal names referring
to Yhwh’s creative activity was rather limited. However, the number and variety of cre-
ation names now known from epigraphic material clearly reveal that the divine creation
of every human being constituted a primary tenet of family religion. The religious signifi-
cance of birth also was emphasized to a much greater extent than we previously supposed.
It was not only the elites who transcribed and collated the Hebrew Bible but also the
masses of ordinary people, especially women, who considered birth a direct creative act
of god rather than a generic, natural event. The primordial creation of mankind (Gen 2:7,
18–24) was continued (Job 10:8–11) in every human birth, and each birth reflected and
symbolized a necessarily intimate cooperation between a woman and the divine creator
(Gen 4:1). All mothers were included in a miraculous divine activity during pregnancy
and birth, partaking in a mythical reality that lay behind more-quotidian familial percep-
tions of the event.
The attribution of both religious and mythical dimensions to birth suggests that birth
rituals in Israel were cultural moments of the conjunction of both of these realms. In birth
rituals known from Mesopotamia—whether they expressed the primordial creation of
man or the fathering of a cow by the moon-god Sin—this mythical reality (see Albertz
1978a: 51–55; van der Toorn 1994: 89–90; Stol 2000: 59–70) was incanted to safeguard
pregnancy and to prevent difficulties during delivery. As already mentioned, no record of
this sort of ritual has been found to date in ancient Israel or the Levant. It is only the He-

88. See pp. 344–348 below.

 Personal Names and Family Religion 281

brew Bible that records the women’s customs of consulting the deity to prevent or alleviate
danger regarding a pregnancy (Gen 25:22).â•›89

5.2.2.5.2.╇ The religious dimension of confinement during pregnancy

Little is known of the confinement of expecting women in ancient Israel. Sites of con-
finement seem typically to have been an inner room (‫ חדר‬ḥéder) of a family house (Cant
3:4) or a place outside the village boundaries (Cant 8:5: ‘under the apple tree’), and in all
cases they were somewhere removed from the public domain.â•›90 It seems that access to
a woman in the very late stages of pregnancy was limited to a select few women (Ruth
4:14–17). Even husbands seem to have been entirely excluded (Jer 20:15). This strict divi-
sion by gender during birth probably reflected the extraordinary pain suffered by women
during birth and the perceived need to prevent men from witnessing such painful experi-
ences (see Gen 3:16; Isa 26:17–18). The death of a mother during childbirth would not
have been uncommon in that time (Gen 35:16–18; 1 Sam 4:19–22). Being exposed to the
men of the family in the face of such peril, a woman would risk being socially degraded.
The condition of ritual impurity therefore protected mothers from this risk (Leviticus 12).
Only one type of primitive installation is known that directly related to confinement—
the kneeling of a woman on two birth stones (Exod 1:16). Women were assisted by mid-
wives (‫ מילדת‬mĕyallédet) during labor, at least in cases of difficult birth (Gen 35:17; 38:28;
Exod 1:15, 17–20). These female experts, in being responsible for ensuring a safe delivery,
were probably held responsible to perform special rites and recitations. In Gen 35:17, a
midwife utters a form of salvation oracle, “Fear not; this is another son for you!” in an at-
tempt to rouse the failing Rebecca (see also 1 Sam 4:19). This oracle may have been part of
the longer ritual text that we know from Mesopotamia (see above). The absence of birth
rituals such as these in the Hebrew Bible may reflect the fact that their practice was limited
to specifically female realms, and neither male priests nor prophets would have had ready
access.
The procedure following delivery is known from Ezek 16:4, according to which the
umbilical cord was cut, and then the infant was bathed in water, rubbed with salt, and
wrapped in swaddling clothes. These acts also were probably performed by the midwife.
An apotropaic ritual may have guided one act in particular, which was the rubbing with
salt, which may have functioned to protect the child from demonic attack (Zimmerli
1979: 349).
There were various notions regarding god’s presence during confinement: he induced
labor (Isa 66:9); he gave birth (Jer 2:27); he himself acted as midwife in delivering the baby
from its mother’s womb (Ps 22:10); and he even severed the umbilical cord (Ps 71:6). These
identifications reiterate and reinforce the religious significance of midwives during the
dramatic event of birth. Although the explicit connection between god as divine creator

89. See the birth oracles on pp. 273–275 above.

90. It is also possible that the secular name ‫ כרמי‬Karmî (see appendix B6.2.2) did not refer to
the typical occupation (‘wine-grower’) but to the place where the child was born. In this case, it
should be translated ‘the one from the vineyard’. This interpretation is supported by the nisbe, and
we know that there were huts or towers in Israelite vineyards (Isa 1:8; 5:2) where birth could have
occurred.
282 Chapter 5

and as midwife has been denied (Grohmann 2006: 85), in a broader context, god’s role as
midwife merely indicates his presence during the final stages of the creative act that he
commenced in the mother’s womb at conception.
Divine activity during the dramatic events of confinement is often memorialized in
personal names (see appendix B5.5.2). One name, ‫ דלתיהו‬Daltāyāhû, interpreted as a di-
rect address to god (see PIAP 33), is particularly impressive. It appears on an 8th-century
seal (HAE 4.5). The mother expressed direct gratitude to Yhwh for the delivery of her
child by saying, ‘You, Yhwh, have drawn out [my child]’. Although the root ‫ דלה‬literally
means ‘to scoop’, and it also carries the wider metaphorical sense of ‘to draw from distress,
or to liberate’ (see Ps 30:2), it is nevertheless understandable that names derived from this
root were often considered to be expressing thanksgiving (Albertz 1978a: 63; Renz and
Röllig, HAE 2/1.64–5). However, if one presumes that names were formulated shortly after
birth, these thanksgiving names would also have been an apposite means of expressing
gratitude for a mother’s safety during her confinement.
Rather than using the root ‫דלה‬, Ps 22:10 connotes a similar meaning by use of the
rare root ‫ גחה‬gāḥāh, where what is expressed from the child’s perspective as ‘You have
drawn me out from the womb’ is equivalent to the name Daltāyāhû, which expresses the
same thing from the mother’s perspective. Thus, all the personal names derived from the
verb ‫ דלה‬are perhaps best interpreted as deriving from the literal meaning of the root,
even though a metaphorical meaning may occasionally embellish or enrich the reading.
Thus both ‫ דליהו‬Dĕlāyāhû and ‫ דליו‬Dĕlāyau are taken to mean ‘Yhwh has drawn out [the
child]’. These names are known from 12 epigraphic artifacts and 5 biblical references.
This type of name was also popular in Aramean culture, and is known from one in-
scription on a small Moabite onomasticon. Interestingly, one Aramaic variant explicitly
relates its religious sentiment to the bearer of the name ‫ ביתאלדלני‬Baytʾeldalanî ‘Bethel
has drawn me out’. This name may also have been intended in a wider metaphorical sense,
but Ps 22:10 suggests that the literal reading as a personal confession in the sense of ‘the
god Bethel has created me’ is more apposite. By giving this sort of name, the mother would
have been projecting her experiences onto the child.
By a similar argument, personal names derived from the root ‫ נצל‬are also more plau-
sibly interpreted with reference to the Hiphil stem, which literally means ‘to tear out or
away’, with the metaphorical extension ‘to deliver’. Names derived from this root could
also have expressed thanksgiving, as noted, for example, by Avigad and Sass (1997: 515).
Regardless of their categorization, their absence from the Hebrew Bible and their rela-
tive paucity in epigraphic impressions (17 total) in comparison with names derived from
other verbs of deliveranceâ•›91 suggest that they probably had a more specific meaning. It is
thus likely that the name ‫ הצליהו‬Hiṣṣīlyāhû was literally intended to mean ‘Yhwh has torn
away or delivered [the child from the womb]’. Names from this root are also known in
both Ammonite and Moabite cultures, such as Ammonite ‫ הצלאל‬Hiṣṣīlʾil ‘El has delivered’
and Moabite ‫ יצלבעל‬Yaṣṣīlbaʿal ‘Baal has delivered’. As mentioned above,â•›92 this evidence
is sufficient to refute the conjecture of intentional reference to exodus traditions.

91. For example, names from the root ‫‘ יׁשע‬to save’ occur 103 times, from the root ‫‘ פלט‬to rescue’
38 times, and from the root ‫‘ פדה‬to ransom’ 35 times.
92. See pp. 262–263 above.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 283

A number of other names may also refer to maternal confinement. The rare name ‫איץ‬
ʾIṣ is probably best interpreted as a hypocoristicon, because the theophoric variant ‫אצבעל‬
ʾIṣbaʿal is known in Punic names. This suggests the translation ‘[DN] has hastened [the
birth]’. The single name ‫ גז‬or ‫ גזא‬Gāz or Gāzāʾ, the final letter of which is difficult to read
on bulla BPHB 341, is probably derived from the root ‫ גוז‬as a variant of the common root
‫‘ גזז‬to cut off, to shear’. By this meaning, the name is probably referring to the cutting of
the umbilical cord, especially since Ps 71:6 records the alternative root, ‫גזה‬, as a statement
that it was Yhwh who severed the petitioner from his mother’s womb. Thus, a plausible
rendering of the name would be ‘[DN] has severed [me from the umbilical cord]’. The
name Gāzez appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, although its meaning remains unclear.
Two names from the Phoenician onomasticon derived from two different roots should
possibly be translated similarly: ‫ גדעת‬Gadaʿta ‘You, [O DN,] have severed [me]’ and ‫פרם‬
Parom ‘[DN] has cut off ’.
Although no interpretation is certain, the personal names clearly verify the role of the
deity as midwife during confinement, as well as safely delivering the baby, and possibly
severing the umbilical cord. One name known from an Aramaic seal (‫ כרעדד‬Kĕraʿadad
‘Hadad kneeled down’) that has thus far eluded interpretationâ•›93 may also derive from the
generic concept of divine midwifery. Although the name seems contradictory, because
mortals conventionally kneel before deities (for example, 1 Kgs 8:54) rather than the other
way around, if the name was intended to refer to divine midwifery, it could simply have
depicted Hadad as a midwife kneeling before the woman giving birth. The birthing mother
would then have been kneeling in the same posture but above her on the birth stones,
while the divine creator acted to bring his/her creature safely out of the womb unto light.
Finally, two roots share almost identical meanings in commemorating a joyous end to
confinement: ‫ גמריהו‬Gĕmaryāhû ‘Yhwh has completed [the birth]’ and ‫ גמליהו‬Gĕmalyāhû
‘Yhwh has completed [the birth]’. Both roots carry the meaning ‘to be benevolent toward
a person’ and are also used in the individual complaint psalms (Ps 13:6, 57:3). Although
these names were formerly considered thanksgiving names (Albertz 1978a: 64), they are
perhaps better interpreted as literal expressions of their etymological roots, because the
literal meaning was usually what was intended in personal names. The underlying mean-
ing of the verb ‫ גמל‬was ‘to be ready or ripe, to finish’, which, when used in reference to
birth, would have referred to the weaning of the child (1 Sam 1:23); and while the literal
meaning of ‫ גמר‬is ‘to come to an end, to finish’, Noth (1928: 175) considered Gĕmaryāhû
to be related to a fortunate outcome of birth. It therefore seems reasonable to propose a
similar meaning for the name Gĕmalyāhû.â•›94 This interpretation is supported by two ap-
pearances of the name ‫ גמול‬Gāmûl in the Hebrew Bible, where the form participle passive,
meaning ‘completed’, is best understood as signifying the name-bearer himself as witness
to the fortunate completion of his birth, due to the direct aid of god. Names derived from
these two roots appear 6 times in the Hebrew Bible and have been found on 22 epigraphic

93. Maraqten (1988: 175) states: “Wahrscheinlich ist dieser Name aus dem Element krʿ ‘sich
beugen, niederknien’ . . . und dem theophoren Element dd herzuleiten,” but he does not reveal how
he would understand this.
94. In this case, Noth (1928: 182) preferred the derived meaning ‘to be good to somebody’.
284 Chapter 5

artifacts. The short form ‫ גמר‬Gamor ‘[DN] has completed [the birth]’ is also known from
a Phoenician record.
*â•…â•…*â•…â•…*
There were also secular names that referred to the delivery of a child. If a child was delivered rapidly,
it might be named ‫ חצי‬Ḥēṣī ‘[s/he who was swift] as an arrow’, ‫ ברקי‬Barqay ‘[s/he who was quick] as light-
ening’ or ‫ חׁשי‬Ḥušay ‘the speedy one’. The name ‫ צנר‬Ṣinnōr ‘[like a] waterfall’ is known from both Am-
monite and Phoenician cultures. Although it does not seem to have found a definitive interpretation to
date, it was probably related to the amniotic fluid that accompanied the delivery. The Hebrew name ‫גרפי‬
Garpay may also refer to the same context and can be rendered ‘s/he who was washed away’ (which was
left unexplained in FHCB 88.37). In a situation where the newborn required a great deal of prompting to
take its first breath, s/he might be named ‫ פרפר‬Porpar ‘s/he who was shaken to and fro’, ‫ מׁשמׁש‬Mōšmaš
or perhaps ‫ מׁשׁש‬Mūšaš ‘the palpated one’. Although names such as ‫ בכי‬Bĕkî ‘whiny’ and ‫ צרח‬Ṣeraḥ ‘bawl-
ing’ may sound improbableâ•›95 because they seem to connote negative characteristics, acts such as bawling
and crying also provided the first indicators of life, and they may have expressed the positive fulfillment
of the mother’s longing for the emergence of her whining, bawling baby. The existence of these secular
names evinces the significance of birth in the bestowal of names, but their interpretation in reference to
the actual delivery process fosters even better understanding.

5.2.2.5.3.╇ Divine support for the newborn

Names that relate to events following confinement reveal that the attention of the di-
vine creator was turned toward the newborn, whose tenuous beginning required divine
care and attention.
One of the first occasions when the creator was present was for the opening of the
newborn’s eyes. The letting in of earthly light that followed a safe delivery was memo-
rialized in the name ‫ פקחיו‬Pĕqaḥyau ‘Yhwh has opened [the eyes of the child]’ or, in its
more-frequent, short form, ‫ פקח‬Peqaḥ ‘[DN] has opened [the eyes]’. Ten recorded names
from this root have been found so far in epigraphic material, and there are two instances
in biblical texts. These names have been related to the opening of the womb during the
birth process (KBL3 903, and possibly Ges18 1073) but, because this root is primarily refer-
ring to the opening of the eyes (Prov 20:13; and see Gen 21:19), and one time refers to the
opening of the ears (Isa 42:20), its intended meaning was probably not the opening of the
womb. These names are distinct from the names that are derived from ‫פתח‬, which explic-
itly refer to the opening of the womb.â•›96 Mesopotamian birth rituals testify to the crucial
importance of the moment when the baby emerged from darkness and first perceived the
bright light of the exterior world (see Albertz 1978a: 59).
The second important moment for a newborn that was memorialized in a name was
the moment when the bawling baby was placated with the aid of god. Thus, Renz and
Röllig (HAE 1/1.84) interpreted the names ‫ רגא‬Rāgāʾ and ‫ רגע‬Rāgāʿ as ‘[DN] quieted [this
baby]’. According to them, the ʾalep of the first variant, which superseded the final ʿayin of

95. Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.169–70) considered names from the root ‫ בכה‬to be unlikely. In
the case of ‫צרח‬, the reading of the first letter is unsure: Avigad and Sass (1997: 201) read ‫ זרח‬zeraḥ
‘[DN] has arisen gloriously’ on the bulla from Jerusalem (WSS 505); although Renz and Röllig
(HAE 2/2.224–25) assert that the first letter was clearly like a ṣāde, they doubted that the name
would have been derived from the root ‫צרח‬.
96. See pp. 275–276 above.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 285

the root, suggests a hypocoristicon. However, these names appear less frequently (a total
of 4 times) than names from ‫ פקח‬and are not found in the Hebrew Bible.
The essential act of God in bringing a newborn to life is expressed in names derived
from the root ‫ חוח‬or ‫‘ חיה‬to live’, such as ‫ חויהו‬Ḥawwīyāhû ‘Yhwh has brought [the child]
to life’. Although these types of name refer to past events, one similar name from this root
clearly expresses a wish regarding the future: it is ‫ יחי‬Yĕḥî, which may be translated ‘May
it [the baby] stay alive, [O god]’. Thus the names in this subgroup may express thanksgiv-
ing for a fortunate birth as well as expressing hope for the survival of a newborn. In this
case, names constructed in imperfect tense are not necessary constrained to the past but
may also express wishes such as ‫ יחועלי‬Yĕḥawwiʿalay, which can mean either ‘The Exalted
has brought [the child] to life’ or ‘The Exalted will keep [the child] alive’. Both meanings
express events that immediately followed confinement; the second was more appropriate
for a newborn that was perceived as being weak or otherwise imperiled.
Names derived from the root ‫חוה‬/‫ חיה‬are comparatively rare in Hebrew epigraphic
material, appearing only 4 times altogether, compared with 12 appearances in the Hebrew
Bible. It is possible that the unusual name ‫ בלטה‬Balṭāh, found on a block of stone exca-
vated in Jerusalem, was derived from the Akkadian verb balāṭu ‘to live’ and would have
been intended to convey a sentiment similar to ‘[DN] brought to life’.â•›97 There are a few
other names derived from East Semitic roots that have not been found in Hebrew.â•›98 In
contrast, names derived from ‫חוה‬/‫ חיה‬were more frequent in surrounding cultures: found
9 times in Moab and Phoenicia. One Phoenician name of particular interest not only men-
tions a goddess but addresses her personally: ‫ עׁשתרתחות‬ʿAštartḥewwiti ‘O Ashtarte, you
have brought [my child] to life’. One expression of a wish has been found in the Moabite
culture, together with its theophoric element, ‫ כמׁשיחי‬Kamōšyĕḥî ‘O Chemosh, may it stay
alive!’ Several names from the Aramean culture may be expressing similar concepts by
using the root ‫‘ מנה‬to count’. Avigad and Sass (1997: 512) suggested that the intended
meaning was ‘to count among the living’. Thus, for example, the name ‫ אלמנני‬ʾElmanānî
would mean ‘El counted me [among the living]’.
The last names in this subgroup probably referred to serious complications that arose
during or after pregnancy, including three names derived from the root ‫‘ חמל‬to have com-
passion, to spare’. Although the name ‫ יחמליהו‬Yaḥmolyāhû might be understood in a more
general sense as ‘Yhwh had compassion’ and accordingly be categorized as a thanksgiv-
ing name (see Albertz 1978a: 62), there is a strong argument against this interpretation.
There are two appearances of the root ‫ חמל‬that, according to Num 26:21, are the passive
participle Ḥamūl. The bearer of this name was the one who was spared; that is, although
his life was imperiled during or after birth, he survived. The names in this small group (5
instances altogether) are probably references to god’s sparing the life of a specific child,

97. Naveh (2000: 8) considered it to have been a misspelling of the thanksgiving name, ‫פלטה‬
Palṭāh, which is epigraphically attested four times; see appendix B1.2.1. However, since exactly that
name was written twice upon one block, it would be unlikely to have been an error.
98. For example, ‫ יהוסחר‬Yĕhôsāḥār (HAE Arad [8]:90,1), which contains the Akkadian verb
saḥāru ‘to turn to’; or ‫ אפלי‬ʾAplāya, which contains the Akkadian noun, aplu ‘inheriting son’. A
similar name occurs in the Aramaic onomasticon (‫ בלט‬Balaṭ).
286 Chapter 5

whether his life was in danger during or after pregnancy, or he was the sole survivor in the
birth of twins.
The name ‫ אצליהו‬ʾAṣalyāhû probably had a similar meaning, even though Noth (1928:
193–94) proposed that it was derived from the Arabic root ʾaṣula in the sense of ‘Yhwh
has shown himself to be distinguished’, and J. D. Fowler (1988: 108) considered the name
to be derived from the Hebrew root ‫‘ אצל‬to set aside, to reserve’,â•›99 with the meaning
‘Yhwh has reserved, set apart’. Although Fowler’s extrapolations from the Hebrew origins
of this name may have been accurate, she nevertheless misunderstood the name to refer
to “the concept of selection of a certain people” (1988: 108)—that is, Israelâ•›100—and not
the more plausible meaning of sparing an individual child from mortal danger. As such,
the name would be rendered ‘Yhwh has set [the child] aside’, a very likely meaning if the
bearer of the name survived but his/her twin died. This interpretation is supported by the
fact that another name from this root appears as the passive participle (‫ אצול‬ʾAṣûl ‘the
reserved’; see HAE 2/2.162), although it was not found in preexilic epigraphic material but
in later material from Elephantine. Thus, alongside the manifold expressions of gratitude
conveyed in names about birth experiences, the dangers and perils of childbirth are also
noticeably present.
All of these names related to pregnancy, confinement, and other aspects of birth and
the experiences of newborns contribute to an impressive image of the profoundly religious
impact of childbirth on ancient Israelite society, especially as experienced by the women.
These experiences must have constituted the very center of Israelite family religion.

5.2.2.6.╇ Acceptance, naming, and circumcision of the child

Postpartum, a woman was considered unclean for a period of time following birth.
Although this ritual impurity may have reflected the bleeding of the mother after giving
birth (Lev 12:2), it was also a cryptic reflection of the intimate encounter with the divine
that had happened during birth. This impure state of women after childbirth was the sole
ritual aspect of birth with which religious officials were concerned. In Leviticus 12, an of-
ficial purifying ritual was established for women postpartum in order to avoid defilement
of a sanctuary. A woman who had given birth to a boy was considered impure for seven
days and was not allowed to enter the sanctuary for 33 days; a woman who had given birth
to a girl was considered impure for 14 days and had to stay away from the sanctuary for
66 days (Lev 12:2, 4).
Regardless of how these regulations were implemented, we must presume that a
mother and her newborn would have been isolated for a certain period. Although the
good news of the birth of a boy or girl might have been conveyed to a husband (Jer 20:15),
it seems that husbands were forbidden access to their wives during this period of impurity.
After childbirth, mothers were probably accompanied only by their midwives or perhaps a
few select female neighbors (Ruth 4:17). This time would also have allowed a new mother

99. This meaning is made clear in Gen 27:36; consider the preposition ‫‘ אצל‬apart’ as well.
100. While the root ‫ אצל‬was used to refer to the election of a person, the root ‫בחר‬, which can be
seen as the terminus technicus for Israel’s election, does not appear in personal names; see pp.€263–264
above.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 287

to recover from the difficulties of childbirth and to form emotional bonds with her baby.
Emotional bonds with daughters may have been forged even tighter because of the longer
period of isolation.
A woman who had given birth was not permitted to leave isolation or be reunited
with her family for at least one (for boys) or two weeks (for girls). This prolonged period
of absence was followed by the mother’s reintegration with her family and society and the
introduction and initial integration of the newborn. This joyful moment would in most
cases have been celebrated in a family feast, during which the mother would have proudly
presented her baby and talked about her physical and religious experiences during the
birth process. Although the father would usually have welcomed and blessed his wife and
their new baby and, by doing so, would have accepted the newborn as his own child, there
would have been exceptional cases when a newborn might have been refused by a father
(Hos 1:6). His absence from the actual birth process would have created space for doubt,
and rejection of a newborn by a father would have required the baby’s being fostered or
even abandoned (Ezek 16:5).
It has been argued above that it was this family feast on the 8th day that was later
transformed into a feast of circumcision for boys and a time when the child’s name was
bestowed, whether it was the mother’s or the father’s choice or a joint decision.â•›101 For girls,
the naming celebration would naturally have occurred on the 15th day. Although all of
the names mentioned above originated during this celebration of naming or circumcision,
there was one particular group of names that directly commemorated the gratitude felt
and expressed during this feast and the concurrent integration of the newborn into the
family (see appendix B5.6).
One very large subgroup of these names expresses conditions related to the acceptance
or potential rejection of a child. In classifying the child as a gift from god, the father and
all the other members of his family were accepting the child. One cannot refuse a gift
from god but is compelled to accept it with gratitude. This social function of integrating
the newborn into its family probably motivated the great number of names recorded in
epigraphic material. No less than 35 of these sorts of names derived from 11 different roots
are represented a total of 166 times. There are 33 names derived from 7 roots in the Hebrew
Bible, referring to 114 different people. The largest subgroup comprises names derived
from the root ‫‘ נתן‬to give’, such as ‫ אלנתן‬ʾElnātān ‘El or god has given [the child]’, ‫נתניהו‬
Nĕtanyāhû ‘Yhwh has given [the child]’, or ‫ מתניהו‬Mattanyāhû ‘gift of Yhwh’, which ap-
pear 94 times altogether.â•›102 Second-most frequent are the names derived from the root
‫‘ אוׁש‬to give’, such as ‫ אׁשיהו‬ʾAšyāhû ‘Yhwh has given [the child]’â•›103 and ‫ יאוׁש‬Yāʾûš ‘[DN]
has given [the child]’, which are attested 50 times altogether. Names derived from the root

101. See pp. 247–248 above.

102. Names of this type also appear frequently in the surrounding cultures, sometimes with dif-
ferent verbs that have the same meaning, such as ‫ יתן‬yatōn in Phoenicia or ‫ יהב‬yahab in Aramean-
speaking Syria.
103. Because the epigraphic names of this type are never written with a medial yod, a derivation
from the noun ‫‘ איׁש‬man’ is less plausible. Thus the biblical interpretation of the name of Saul’s son,
‫( אׁשבעל‬1 Chr 8:33), as ‘man of Baal’ (2 Sam 2:8, among others) is highly questionable. This is also
supported by the fact that the rare names of the type ‘man of God’ are not formed in Ammonite and
288 Chapter 5

‫‘ נדב‬to present’ also appear quite frequently (11 instances) and include ‫ יהונדב‬Yĕhônādāb
‘Yhwh has presented [the child]’ and the synonymous ‫ נדביהו‬Nĕdabyāhû. These names,
which were also very popular in Ammonite culture (17 instances), emphasize divine mu-
nificence. Interestingly, names from the related root ‫ זבד‬zābad ‘to present’, of which 19 ap-
pear in the Hebrew Bible, have not been found in epigraphic material from the monarchic
period, and this Aramaic root does not seem to have appeared in the Hebrew onomasti-
con until after the exile.
Personal names derived from the following roots appear considerably less frequently.
The roots ‫ בקק‬bāqaq ‘to bring forth amply’, ‫ חצה‬ḥāṣāh ‘to divide’, and ‫ פזר‬pāzar ‘to spread’â•›104
place an even stronger emphasis on god’s lavish generosity. Examples of names derived
from these roots are ‫ בקיהו‬Buqqyāhû ‘Yhwh has amply given’, ‫ יחץ‬Yaḥaṣ ‘[DN] has dis-
tributed’, and ‫ פזרי‬Pazrî ‘[DN] has generously given’. Two variants of theophoric names
derived from the root ‫ חצה‬appear in the Hebrew Bible, of which one is ‫ יחציאל‬Yaḥăṣîʾēl
‘Yhwh has selected [the child for us]’ (1 Chr 7:13). Names derived from these three roots
have been found in only 4 epigraphic records, and appear 5 times in the Bible.
There are 3 other names for which no clear etymology can be determined. The first
is the name ‫מגן‬, which is epigraphically attested 3 times but absent in the Hebrew Bible.
Zadok (1988: 124) considered it to have been derived from the noun māgēn ‘shield’ and
regarded it as a confession name, interpreted as ‘[DN is my] shield’ (see Ps 18:3). However,
because similar Punic names are better understood in a verbal sense (see Benz 1972: 339),
it is more likely that the name derives from the verb ‫‘ מגן‬to present’ (for discussion, see
Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.73). Thus the name should be understood as Māgān ‘[DN] pre-
sented’. The name was also used by Phoenicians and Ammonites in the 1st millennium.
The second case is the name ‫ מנח‬Manōăḥ, which has been found on 1 seal (HAE 13.2;
WSS 22) of unknown provenience from the early 7th century, as well as 3 plene-written
instances in the Hebrew Bible (Judg 13:2). This biblical vocalization contradicts sugges-
tions for an active participle Hiphil derived from the root ‫‘ נוח‬who gives rest’. Relating the
name to the conquest of Israel cannot be right either, despite the fact that the root is used
with this meaning in narrative (in Josh 1:13 and other places). The problem with relating
names derived from the same root to the conquest by the Israelites is that the name also
appears in Ammonite and Moabite cultures. It is similarly unlikely to have been derived
from the noun ‫ מנוח‬mānôăḥ (see HAE 2/2.269), meaning ‘place of rest’. In common famil-
ial contexts, new infants would not have signified a period of ‘rest’ for the parents; quite
the opposite. Thus, Lemaire’s suggestion (1983: 24–25) that the name represents a Qal
passive participle derived from the verb ‫‘ מנח‬to present’ is more likely. This root may also
be related to the common noun ‫ מנחה‬minḥāh ‘gift, offering’, as found in Ugaritic (DLU
2:282–83), among other languages. Thus the name was probably intended to signify ‘pre-
sented [by DN]’.
The final case is the name ‫נמׂשר‬, which is known from 3 late-7th-century epigraphic re-
cords, 2 of which are seals (HAE 14.20, 21), and 1 of which is an ostracon (NEE 92.79:6–7).

Aramean cultures from ‫ איׁש‬but from ‫‘ מת‬man’ (see appendix B2.6.1). For additional discussion, see
Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.61.
104. In Ps 112:9, the verb has the meaning ‘to give generously’, parallel to ‫נתן‬.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 289

Although it has the form of a Niphal participle from the root ‫מׂשר‬, the grammatical form
of which commonly appears in the Hebrew onomasticon (see Zadok 1988: 126–27), there
is in fact no such root known. Thus, both Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.309) and Deutsch and
Heltzer (1995: 98) were unable to offer any convincing interpretation. However, the two
letters samek and śin are occasionally interchangeable in Hebrew writings, thus suggest-
ing the root ‫ מסר‬māsar ‘to hand over, to transmit’. This root is frequently found in later
Hebrew derivatives (e.g., “Masoretes”), as well as occasional appearances in late passages
of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, if we accept the interchange of sibilants and suppose the root to
have been in earlier use, perhaps in its basic meaning the name Nimśār may be translated
‘handed over [by DN]’.
The idea of accepting a child as a gift from god could also find more extraordinary or
even striking expression by drawing on foreign languages or concepts. The name ‫פטיהו‬
Pūṭīyāhû is a hybrid form of Egyptian and Hebrew elements (Renz and Röllig, HAE
2/1.81), the meaning of which is ‘the one whom Yhwh has given’. Only epigraphic appear-
ances of the name are known, but there are 2 of these. It is also known from Phoenicia,
where it referred to the Egyptian goddess Isis.
The name ‫ ׁשמיה‬Šemyāh, which was found on an ostracon from Arad (HAE Arad
[6].110:1), is somewhat ambiguous. It does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, although it is
reminiscent of Aramaic and Phoenician names of the same type, such as ‫ ׁשמאדד‬Šemʾadad
and ‫ ׁשמזבל‬Šemzabūl. Although the element šem ‘name’ could have been used as a theo-
phoric element,â•›105 it is perhaps more accurately understood (in accordance with Hug
(1993: 154) in the secular sense of ‘descendants’. Thus, the Hebrew form of this name
would have denoted a child as being a ‘descendant of Yhwh’, parallel to the Aramaic ‘de-
scendant of Adad’ and the Phoenician ‘descendant of the prince [Baal]’. The concept of a
child as belonging to the relatives of a deity would have been less transcendent than being
related to a divine creature or a divine gift, which may be why this metaphor appears in-
frequently among Israelite names. A similar metaphor, which meant that the child was the
‘semen’ (‫ זרע‬zéraʿâ•›) of god, is known from a few instances in the Aramaic and Phoenician
onomasticons and adds a sexual dimension. This sexual connotation may be the reason,
however, that this metaphor has not appeared in any Hebrew epigraphic material and
appears in the Hebrew Bible only as an old place-name (Jezreel: 1 Kgs 4:12; 1 Sam 25:43;
and other places).â•›106 One could even assert that, if the metaphor of ‘descendant’ or ‘semen’
were used as a name, the child would have been accepted as begotten by god to such a
degree that its natural father would no longer have been considered a rightful parent. In
Israel, however, the more transcendental metaphor of regarding the child as a gift from
god that should be joyfully received was much more prominent.
The next subgroup of names was associated with divine blessing on or the care and
support of an infant and his/her newly constituted family. In ancient Israel, blessing was

105. Thus, the Hebrew clan name ‫ ׁשמידע‬Šemyādāʿ from Samaria (Sam[8]:1) should probably
be rendered ‘the [divine] name has taken care’ (see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.86). It is also possible
that the Aramaic name ‫ ׁשמהיקר‬Šemēhyeqar, with the suggested meaning ‘his name should be hon-
ored’, rightly belongs in this same category (see Maraqten 1988: 220).
106. The name of Hosea’s first son (Hos 1:4) is a symbolic name derived from this place-name;
this is also true of the clan name (1 Chr 4:3).
290 Chapter 5

considered to be the divine power of fertility (Gen 1:28; Isa 65:8). Because the blessed
birth of a child was evidence of this divine power, and because further blessing was re-
quired to ensure the ongoing health and growth of the newborn, names of blessing could
refer equally to the past and to the future, as in ‫ ברכיהו‬Berekyāhû ‘Yhwh has blessed’
and ‫ יברכיהו‬Yĕberekyāhû, which can be rendered either ‘may Yhwh bless’ or ‘Yhwh has
blessed’. A name formed from the passive participle, ‫ ברך‬Bārūk ‘blessed [by DN]’ (with
biblical parallels in Jer 32:12 and other places), suggests that god’s power of fecundity
found primary expression in the appearance and life of a newborn, although this fecun-
dity was also bestowed in a more general way as property given to entire families. Names
derived from the root ‫ ברך‬have appeared so far in 15 epigraphic records and also appear
in the Hebrew Bible 13 times. Names from this root were also popular in the surrounding
cultures, one of which is a Phoenician name that addresses the god of Tyre: ‫ברכתמלקרת‬
Baraktamelqart ‘You have blessed, O Melqart’. This succinct prayer of thanksgiving clearly
shows once again the common expression of personal experiences and emotions in West
Semitic theophoric personal names.
Another, rather small group (only 5 names) could be formed that comprises names re-
ferring to divine blessings. This group would consider the element ‫ מרי‬to be derived from
the root ‫ מרר‬with the meaning in the D-stem of ‘to give strength, to bless’, as in the names
‫ מריבעל‬Mĕrībaʿal, ‫ מרימות‬Mĕrêmôt, and perhaps ‫ מריהו‬Mĕrayāhû. The root is known from
Ugaritic (see the discussion in HAL 1/1.74–75). These names would be rendered ‘Baal
has blessed’, ‘Mot has blessed’, and ‘Yhwh has blessed’ (although this last reading may be
less certain). Curiously, the names in this small group, which mention foreign gods and
use a foreign root, were not used by neighboring peoples. Rather, a number of names ex-
press similar divine blessings by using different roots, such as [‫ אלדׁש]א‬ʾElidiššeʾ ‘[My] god
has caused to thrive’ and ‫ אׁשמנצלח‬ʾEšmunṣaloḥ ‘Eshmun has caused to prosper’ (both of
which are Phoenician).
There are 2 Hebrew names that allude to similar abundance experienced by families.
The name ‫ יסף‬Yōsep appears once, on a late-7th-century bulla from Jerusalem (HAE 15.1
= WSS 587). The name is clearly a statement that ‘[DN] has added [a child to the family]’,
but Gen 30:24 also uses this name as an expression of desire for another child. Theophoric
variants of this root appear in Phoenicia, such as ‫ בעליסף‬Baʿalyūsep ‘Baal has added [a
child]’, as well as in the Hebrew Bible, such as ‫ אליסף‬ʾElyāsāp ‘El has added a child’ (Num
1:14), where the derivation is Qal instead of Hiphil.
The name of the first Northern king, Jeroboam, probably conveyed a similar meaning.
This name is known from a seal that was found at Megiddo and probably belonged to a
servant of Jeroboam II, who reigned during the first half of the 8th century. Although in-
terpretations of this name are still disputed, a likely derivation would be from the root ‫רבב‬
‘to become many’ or ‘to multiply’ in the Hiphil, in conjunction with the element ‫ עם‬ʿam as
the divine subject (‘divine uncle’).â•›107 Thus the name ‫ ירבעם‬should be read Yarobʿam and
rendered ‘the [divine] uncle has increased, or may increase [the family]’.

107. Noth’s explanation (1928: 207), which relates the element ‫ עם‬to the people of Northern
Israel (“es mehre sich das Volk”), is entirely unconvincing. No other name has this secular meaning
of ‫עם‬.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 291

Three roots were used to derive names that refer to divine care for an infant. The use
of the verb ‫‘ עמס‬to carry’ portrays a particularly vivid picture. As a mother takes her baby
in her arms, so god carries his little creature (see Isa 46:3), and ‫ עמסיהו‬ʿAmasyāhû may
be read ‘Yhwh has carried [the child on his arm]’. The name of the prophet Amos, also
known from 2 epigraphic records, makes clear that the bearer of this name was thought in
his infant state to be the object of god’s care, because the name is constructed as a passive
participle, ‫ עמס‬ʿAmōs ‘who is carried [by DN on his arm]’. This name was also used in
Phoenicia. In Ammon, the theophoric variant ‫ עמסאל‬ʿAmasʾil ‘El has carried [the child on
his arm]’ seems to have been popular and was found in 3 records.
Divine care is also referred to in names derived from the Palpel stem of the root ‫כול‬
‘to look after, to supply’, such as ‫ כלכליהו‬Kalkōlyāhû ‘Yhwh has looked after [the child]’.
Together with its short form, this type of name is attested 6 times epigraphically and 1
time biblically.
A final name in this small group has been found no less than 8 times in epigraphic
material, although it does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. It is clearly derived from the
active participle of the root ‫‘ יעל‬to be useful’, and thus the name ‫ יועליהו‬Yôʿelyāhû should
be rendered ‘the one to whom Yhwh is useful’. Thus Israelite family religion again reveals
a very practical attitude toward the divine.
It is interesting to note, while we are considering names that express divine care for an
infant, the absence of names relative to the nursing of an infant. Inadequate lactation poses
a potential problem in raising children, and the prominent breasts of the pillar-figurines
certainly suggest an abundance of lactation. However, not one personal name is known to
be derived from the roots ‫ ינק‬yānaq Hiphil and ‫ עול‬II ʿûl ‘to suckle, to nurse’, either in Is-
rael or among its neighbors. There does not seem to be an immediate explanation for this
omission, particularly because Hebrew personal names, which mirrored almost all typical
events in the birth process, did not shy away from transferring anthropomorphic concepts
to the deity. Moreover, ancient Near Eastern iconography provides a number of examples
of a goddess suckling an infant, who was often a king.â•›108 It may be that the metaphor of
lactation or breastfeeding was too intimate for personal names that were used publicly. It
is also possible that many of the personal names discussed here, especially names derived
from the root ‫עמס‬, obliquely referred to nursing an infant.
A final subgroup consists of 1 name, which most likely referred to the rite of circumci-
sion: ‫ מליהו‬Malyāhû ‘Yhwh has circumcised [the child]’. Although no such name appears
in the Hebrew Bible, the fact that it existed at all is astonishing. It is known from 4 epi-
graphic records to date, 3 of which were clearly imprinted on 2 seals and a bulla, all dated
to the 7th century b.c.e. (HAE 13.32, 33, 34), and one less distinct on a broken early-7th-
century bulla (BPHB 404).â•›109 Deutsch and Lemaire (2000: 220) proposed an alternative
derivation from the presumably Aramaic root ‫ מלל‬mālal ‘to speak’, although such names
are rare in the Hebrew Bible. A much easier grammatical interpretation is that the third-

108. See, for example, Keel 1972: 165; 182 (illustrations 253 and 277a); ANEP 829; Orthmann
1971: plate 15e.
109. The upper register of the imprint is partly broken, so it is not able to be discerned whether
the letters ‫מליהו‬, which fill the whole lower register, constitute the complete name; if not, ‫גמליהו‬,
‫דמליהו‬, or ‫ רמליהו‬would be possible.
292 Chapter 5

person-singular perfect element was derived from the root ‫ מול‬môl ‘to circumcise’. This
explanation was proposed by Avigad (1989: 10) and thus seems to be established (see
Deutsch 1999: 126; Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.278; Deutsch 2003a: 409). Either way, all
of the interpretations presume a metaphorical use of this root, as expressed in Deut 30:6,
“Yhwh, your god will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love Yhwh,
your god.” Such an explanation is doubtful, however, for three reasons. First, Deut 30:1–
10 is one of the latest additions to the book of Deuteronomy and did not emerge before the
late exilic period;â•›110 thus the text is much more recent than the epigraphic material. Sec-
ond, this spiritualization of circumcision presupposes that the rite had become very com-
mon at the time. However, as far as we know, rites of circumcision did not gain widespread
popularity before the period of exile (see Genesis 17). Third, widespread incorporation of
such a highly sophisticated theological concept from the Deuteronomistic traditions of
official religion into the rites and rituals of family religion seems unlikely. A much more
plausible theory is that this personal name was intended to refer simply to the family rite
of infant circumcision, in the same was that many other names reflected various family
rites such as prayers, vows, sacrifices, and birth oracles.
Circumcision as practiced in Israel seems to have been an old apotropaic rite in con-
nection with puberty or with preparation for marriage originally (see Exod 4:25; Gen 34),
as is also suggested by Arab and Egyptian practices. By the time the postexilic texts of the
Hebrew Bible were collated, the rite had already been transferred to the context of birth.
According to P, it was to be performed on all male members of the family eight days after
birth (Gen 17:12; 21:4; Lev 12:3).â•›111 This biblical evidence thus suggests that the practice
of circumcising infants was adopted as a widespread cultural practice during the period
of exile, when the rite served as a mark of Jewish identity in the Diaspora. However, if the
explanation given above for the name ‫ מליהו‬holds true, this general thesis needs to be ac-
commodated. The circumcision of infants had already emerged in the late preexilic period
but, because the name was evidently relatively rare, it seems likely that only a minority of
families performed circumcision rites on infants during the 7th century.
I argued aboveâ•›112 that the rite of circumcision performed precisely on the 8th day after
birth, by which time a woman’s postnatal period of impurity would have ended, over-
lapped with the older family feast tradition of name giving. As has now been demon-
strated, this transition had probably occurred by the late monarchic period, long before
Israel’s national identity and unity began to be challenged. Although no references have
been found to explain the purpose of circumcising infants at this early time, the rite prob-
ably symbolized the integration of the newborn into the larger family, which had always
been the purpose of the feast of name giving. The festival may also have been augmented
by adding an apotropaic function, which has been associated ever since with the rite of
circumcision. By naming an infant Malyāhû, a family expressed a very literal and genu-
ine belief that Yhwh had performed the rite of circumcision himself, had integrated the

110. For reasons for this moderate dating, see Nelson 2002: 344–50; Albertz 2003: 284. For Per-
son (2002: 106–8, 123–25), the passage belongs to the early or late postexilic period.
111. For more details, see Albertz 1994: 2.407–8.
112. See pp. 247 above.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 293

newborn into the family, and had provided him with a divinely bestowed sign to protect
him from demonic or malevolent powers. The name would have served to remind all of its
bearers that these ritual feasts had occurred on the occasion of their circumcision.
Thus, all personal names in this subgroup express aspects of the integration of a child
into his/her family and the assurance of his/her continued well-being.

5.2.2.7.╇ Misfortune surrounding a birth

The overwhelming majority of personal names testify to the feelings of jubilation and
thankfulness following a fortunate birth. Occasionally, however, the normally joyous
revelry would have been overshadowed by a misfortune surrounding the birth. Thus a
number of names of complaint arise among the Northwest Semitic personal names (see
appendix B5.7). Only one name of complaint has been found in Hebrew epigraphic mate-
rial: ‫ איעם‬ʾAyyaʿam ‘Where is the uncle?’ This name is formally parallel to the well-known
biblical name ‫ איוב‬ʾIyyôb, which probably had the meaning ‘Where is the father?’ (Job
1:1). Although both of these names may have referred to a relative’s death during the
time of pregnancy and birth, consideration of equivalent names in Ammonite, Moabite,
and Aramean cultures renders this interpretation less certain. In Transjordanian societies,
the name ‫ אינדב‬is attested 4 times: 3 Ammonite and 1 Moabite. It is usually transcribed
ʾAynadab and interpreted as ‘Where is [the] noble [one]?’ (as translated by Aufrecht 1989:
123; and Avigad and Sass 1997: 514). The person declared to be noble by giving him this
name could have been either human or divine, and thus this name should not be consid-
ered separately from the names that express gratitude to a deity for the munificent gift of
a child, as attested 17 times in the Ammonite onomasticon, including the name ‫אלנדב‬
ʾIlnadab ‘El has presented’ (4 known instances). Thus, reference to a deity in the above
names seems more plausible than to a relative, which means that it might be preferable
to interpret the name ‫ אינדב‬as a present participle verbal form. The transcription of the
complaint name would then be ʾAynudeb ‘Where is the [divine] giver?’, thus complain-
ing about the absence of the god who had so recently given the gift of a healthy infant.
The Ammonite hypocoristicon ‫ איא‬ʾAyyāʾ, which forms the simple question ‘Where?’ and
the existence of the comparable Aramaic complaint name ‫ איעזר‬ʾAyʿezer ‘Where is help?’â•›113
also seem to imply that a theophoric understanding is plausible. Although I am interpret-
ing these complaint names this way, it remains unclear whether the death of an actual rela-
tive prompted the distress that the names commemorate. The name ʾAyʿezer in particular
could reflect various severe problems, such as the death of the mother during or shortly
after birth that left the infant suddenly abandoned.

5.2.2.8.╇ Infant mortality and substitute names

The events following birth were not completed with the naming feast, because
these two events were followed by a period of nursing that could extend to two or three
years (2€Macc 7:27). The weaning of a child that followed this nursing period was again

113. In Aramaic names, it is less likely that the element ‫ אי‬was an intentional allusion to the
Babylonian goddess Ayya or that it was an abbreviation for the theophoric element ‫‘ אבי‬my father’
(see Num 26:30 and Josh 17:2; for discussion, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 480–81).
294 Chapter 5

celebrated with an extensive family feast, which in Gen 21:8 was referred to as ‫מׁשתה‬
‫‘גדול‬a large banquet’. No personal names are known that reflect the rituals that marked
weaning, which is hardly surprising because this ritual occurred long after the naming
feast. This observation does, however, reinforce the assertion here that personal names did
not reflect the full variety of potential ritual and religious statements but generally referred
directly to the religious and secular experiences encountered during the circumstances of
birth.
Weaning could also be accompanied by the payment of any vows that had been prom-
ised before, during, or shortly after birth. This would have been especially true when the
dedication of the child was the fulfillment of a promissory vow. Thus, after weaning, Han-
nah brought her son to the priest Eli at the temple of Shiloh (1 Sam 1:22–29). Other vows
made on various occasions surrounding birth might have been paid on dates when families
customarily visited sanctuaries anyway, such as the required annual festivals (1€Sam€1:21).
The apparent scale of the celebrations that marked the weaning of a child may reflect
the communal joy when a child passed the age of the greatest risk of infant mortality—a
risk that would have been considerably higher than in modern industrial societies. Schol-
ars estimate that more than one-third of all infants died during the first few months or
years of life, and as many as half of all children did not survive to adulthood;â•›114 in Isa
65:20, children at this stage of life were referred to as ‫ עול ימים‬ʿûl yāmîm, literally, ‘infant of
days’.â•›115 The simple fact that an infant had actually reached childhood, as explicitly stated
in Gen 21:8 (‫ גדל‬gādal), was cause for rejoicing and thanksgiving.
The mortality of an infant is likely also the intended reference of another name of
complaint, the name, ‫ חבלי‬Ḥablî, which is reminiscent of the Akkadian name Ḫabil-kēnu
and thus should be rendered ‘[the genuine] is destroyed’ (Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.206).
In bestowing this name, the parents were creating a reminder of an older brother’s death
and indirectly denoting the newborn as a substitute for his deceased sibling (see appendix
B5.8).
This indirect reference to substituting the living for the dead became a more-direct
declaration in the group of substitute names.â•›116 The large number and variety of substitute
names reflect the shockingly high rate of infant mortality in preexilic Israelite societies.
This group is the second-largest group of birth names, next to creation names, and it com-
prises one-quarter of all instances. In this group appear no fewer than 20 different names,

114. See C. Meyers 1988: 112–13 with reference to ancient Palestinian burials in Jericho, La-
chish, and Meiron; in one tomb group, 35% of individuals had died before the age of five; see J. D.
Schloen 2001: 122–25; C. Meyers 2005: 16. For Egypt in Late Antiquity, R. S. Bagnall (1993: 182)
calculated that ‘nearly one-third of all children died before their first birthday and more than two-
fifths by the age of five’. According to E. A. R. Willett (2008: 2), “on average, 35 percent of all indi-
viduals died before age 5” in Iron Age Cisâ•‚ and Transjordan.
115. The high rate of mortality, especially during the first month, is also reflected in the priestly
regulations concerning the first born in Num 18:15–16. The payment of 20 Shekels for redeeming
a child from sacrifice was not demanded before the end of the first month after birth (V. 16), only
after which time would it have become clear that a child would have been likely to survive this most
dangerous period.
116. The insight that these names constitute their own distinct group was established by Stamm
1980: 59–80.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 295

derived from 6 different roots, known from 219 occurrences. The apparent popularity
of these names suggests that, confronted with a desire to express experiences related to
birth by choosing a name, something like a quarter of all parents felt themselves still so
attached to a previously deceased infant that they gave their newborn one of these substi-
tute names. The actual rate of infant mortality should be presumed higher than the 25%
rate of substitute names given. Thus, the estimated rate of 30–40% mortality manifests the
fact that many parents had probably ceased grieving and no longer felt the need to declare
their sorrow in such a public fashion as using a substitute name.â•›117
The first type of substitute name conveyed the sentiment that the birth of the new
child had helped the parents to overcome their sorrow for the deceased child. These
names could be formulated with explicitly religious references, as in the names ‫נחמיהו‬
Nĕḥemyāhû ‘Yhwh has comforted’ (12 times) or the short form, ‫ נחם‬Naḥam or Naḥum
‘DN has comforted’ (27 times), or in more-secular forms, testifying that the newborn
him/herself had directly served to comfort the parents, as in ‫ מנחם‬Mĕnaḥēm ‘comforter’
(29 times), ‫ מנׁשה‬Mĕnaššēh ‘who makes [the parents] forget’ (2 times), and ‫ תנחם‬Tanḥum
‘comfort’ (10 times). These names nevertheless presuppose the new infant to be both cre-
ated by and a gift from god. Both of these sorts of substitute name have also been found
in surrounding cultures, with the name Mĕnaḥēm, for example, appearing 15 times in the
Ammonite onomasticon, 6 times in the Phoenician, and 4 times in the Aramaic.
The second type of substitute name conveyed a belief on the part of the parents that
the newborn represented their deceased child returned to them, as in ‫ אליׁשב‬ʾElyāšīb ‘El
caused [the deceased child] to return’, which is known so far from 14 epigraphic records
(and appears 8 times in the Hebrew Bible). Although, as mentioned above, Noth (1928:
213) postulated that this name was related to the return from exile,â•›118 it has since become
clear that the name was in common use up til the 8th century b.c.e., thereby refuting this
explanation. Strikingly, however, there appear to have been no parallels to these substitute
names used by Israel’s neighbors.
The third type of substitute name appears to have been much more common (120
times) and expresses the parental belief that, rather than the new child’s being their de-
ceased child returned to them, the newborn was given as a replacement for the deceased.
Among these names, there is only one that conveys an explicitly religious sentiment, the
name ‫ ׁשלמיהו‬Šellemyāhû ‘Yhwh has replaced’, which has been found in 11 epigraphic
records and appears 8 times in the Hebrew Bible. Most Hebrew names in this group de-
note the substitute status of the newborn in a more secular way, as in ‫ ׁשלם‬Šallum (58
instances), ‫ מׁשלם‬Mĕšullam (37 times), and ‫ תחת‬Taḥat (appears once), meaning ‘substi-
tute [for the deceased child]’. Similar sentiments are expressed in the name ‫סלא‬, which,
interpreted in accordance with Num 25:14 as the passive participle Sālūʾ, means ‘[the de-
ceased child has been] replaced’. Suffixes occasionally served to relate the newborn to the
deceased child as a substitute, as illustrated by the name ‫ׁשלמה‬. This name was used for
both females (HAE 21.51) and males (21.52) and thus would have had the two variants

117. The rate as estimated from names in the Hebrew Bible is lower: 86 appearances, represent-
ing 19.7% of the birth names.
118. See p. 267 above.
296 Chapter 5

Šallumāh ‘her substitute’ and Šallumōh ‘his substitute’. The latter version is formally iden-
tical to the name of King Solomon. Several other explicitly female names, such as ‫ׁשלמת‬
Šĕlōmīt, ‫ מׁשלמת‬Mĕšullēmīt, and ‫ סלאה‬Sĕlūʾāh ‘[female] substitute or replaced’ verify that
ideas of substitution were considered in relation to infant girls and demonstrate that Is-
raelite families commonly mourned the loss of daughters and desired their replacement
or substitute. An additional female substitute name has been found in the small Edomite
onomasticon: ‫ מנחמת‬Mĕnaḥemet ‘[female] comforter’.
In the Phoenician, Aramean, and Ammonite cultures, there were also several names
derived from ‫ ׁשלם‬Piel ‘to make complete, to substitute’ as well as a number from the
root ‫‘ סלא‬to pay, to refund’. In these cases, the distribution of names between their theo-
phoric and secular variants seems to have been more equitable than in Israel. For the
more-frequent names derived from the root ‫ׁשלם‬, the ratio of secular to theophoric forms
is approximately 10:1 for Hebrew names, 3:2 for Phoenician, and 1:1 for Aramaic. A typi-
cal theophoric example from the Phoenician onomasticon is ‫ בעלׁשלם‬Baʿalšillem ‘Baal has
replaced’, which occurs 4 times.
These substitute names effectively convey the ways that Israelite families handled cri-
ses of infant mortality. We know from the Hebrew Bible (2 Sam 12:15–25; 2 Kgs 4:18–24;
Isa 65:20) that infant mortality was a heavy burden for families, especially for women who
were confronted with the ultimate futility of their pain and labor (Isa 65:23). However,
the high rates of infant death and the incalculable sorrow of grieving mothers and their
families did not fundamentally alter their belief that god was the magnificent creator of
all and the generous provider of children, and it was he who desired and was capable of
ensuring their survival. In exceptional situations, god was capable of rescuing a child from
death through the intervention or intercession of a “man of God” (1 Kgs 17:17–24; 2€Kgs
4:32–37). In most cases, god comforted the mourning parents simply by presenting them
with their new child as the replacement for the deceased. This symbolic overcoming of
the moments of crisis presupposes particular conceptions of family, with children seen
primarily as members of the larger social group and only secondarily as individuals in
their own right. The role of latter-born children as substitutes or replacements for their
deceased older brothers or sisters was apparently not considered degrading but honorable.
According to the concept of substitution, families included their dead members along
with the living members. The name ʾElyāšīb arises as a direct reflection of the lack of dis-
tinction between the living and deceased members of a family: god may grant the return
of a deceased infant in the form of a younger brother or sister.â•›119 Finally, the concept of
substitution reveals that Israelite family religion was directed more at the continued exis-
tence of the family group than at the survival of its individual members.
The notion of substitution or replacement was, however, much less explicitly religious
than it was secular; with the ratio of religious to secular substitution names was 1:4. This
is an indication that theological problems about infant mortality—which must have in-
cluded the eternal questions about how god could allow the death of one of his own new
creations—could not be resolved on the level of family religion.

119. The relation of the family to its deceased members is dealt with below; see pp. 455–469.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 297

In summary, epigraphically attested personal names refer in extensive detail to almost

all aspects of the birth process and reflect their own religious dimension as well. They
verify that childbirth was extraordinarily significant in ancient Israel. Conception, preg-
nancy, and confinement were strongly influenced by mythological concepts regarding the
creation of humankind, which will be shown below to be at the center of all familial be-
lief. The whole birth cycle was accompanied by various rites such as prayers, vows, offer-
ings of libations and incense, birth oracles performed to overcome difficulties, birth rites
performed by midwives, purification rites, naming feasts, associated circumcision feasts,
weaning feasts, and the payment of vows by sacrifices.
However, these rites and rituals marking the significant events surrounding birth were
limited to family and household religion and were of little direct relevance to state reli-
gion. There were three possible times when families might have been aided by religious
officials such as priests or “men of God.” When difficulties arose, birth oracles were con-
sulted; when vows were made, they were paid in a sacrifice aided by a priest; and when
an infant was in mortal danger, a man of God could be consulted. Only at these specific
times did the rites and rituals extend beyond the practices of the immediate family to
overlap with official religion; in all other cases, rites accompanying birth were performed
in or near the domestic environment. Vital medical and ritual support for families during
a birth was provided by midwives, who had no official cult function whatsoever. The only
aspect of birth that would in any way have concerned a priest directly was the impure state
of postpartal women (Leviticus 12), yet birth was such a defining event on all social and
religious levels that Genesis 12–36 presents Israel’s prehistory in the narrative framework
of a miraculous birth oracle. Nevertheless, the primary religious and ritual venue for birth
was the family. Conversely, no other event in the life of a family combined so many var-
ied religious and ritual aspects. And records of the personal names provide an enduring
testament to the religion of the family. As stated above, nearly one-third of all recorded
personal names and instances (28.4% and 29.9%, respectively) refer directly to secular
and religious experiences before, during, and after the processes surrounding childbirth.
These data are also significant in evaluating the relative status of males and females
and their roles in family religion. Scholars have noted that women assumed much more
prominent roles in the family and in household religion than they did in Israel’s official
cult (see Bird 1987: 408–10; Ackerman 2003: 461–65; Meyers 2005: 13–17; and others),
and van der Toorn stated (1994: 92) that:
If we review the multitude of religious customs and duties that were connected to preg-
nancy and parturition, we cannot help but think that these experiences formed the
high point of the religious life of the average woman. . . . It was a climax in her religious
life. The kindness of the gods was tangibly present in the fruit of the womb. If all pain
and tension [were] brought to a good conclusion the woman could say that she had
bodily experienced the gracious concern of the gods.
Although Dever (1991: 64; with a slight retraction in 2005: 236–37) may have overÂ�
emphasized the role of women in identifying what he referred to as “folk religion” directly
with “women’s religion,” it is nevertheless clear that the female members of families, par-
ticularly the mothers, contributed enormously to the specific beliefs and characteristics of
family religion.
298 Chapter 5

5.2.3.╇ Familial beliefs relating to other experiences of crisis

Although all Hebrew theophoric names are always related to childbirth in some way,
they are not necessarily restricted to referring to this particular experience. In bestowing
a child’s name after surviving the perils of birth, parents might acknowledge memories of
divine salvation or protection that was granted to them or other members of their family
on previous occasions and thereby express their gratitude more generally. Religious be-
liefs and experiences of family members related to crises were expressed in prayer names,
which account for half of all Hebrew theophoric names (49% of names and 53.5% of in-
stances; see table 5.2) and can be divided into three main groups, the largest of which was
the names of thanksgiving (24.3% of names and 34% of instances), followed by the names
of confession (17.6% of names and 14.9% of instances), and the names of praise (7.1% of
names and 4.6% of instances).

5.2.3.1.╇ Familial beliefs as represented by names of thanksgiving

Epigraphic records attest 164 names of thanksgiving to date, which is evidence of an
astonishingly rich treasury of familial beliefs. All of these names allude to divine acts of
salvation, assistance, or protection as experienced by members of a family, with a large
diversity of emphases. No less than 58 different verbs are used in the epigraphic names
(11 more than are found in the entire Hebrew Bible),â•›120 and only 6 of the verbs found in
biblical names have not yet been found in epigraphic names.â•›121 Thus a total of 64 different
roots are used in the names of thanksgiving found so far.
Of the 58 epigraphically attested verbs, 39 also appear in the individual psalms and
in oracles of salvation; they are particularly frequent in the petitions for attention and
salvation in the individual laments, in the reports of god’s attention and salvation in the
individual psalms of thanksgiving, and in the reason clause accompanying the command
“Do not fear!” in the oracles of salvation, where the verbs appear in the perfect. These
biblical texts use more than two-thirds of all verbal roots known from all names in the
epigraphic record that express thanksgiving, which is an even greater percentage (67%)
than I previously estimated.â•›122 With the inclusion of the psalms gattungen that portray
some connection to the experience of individual prayers, the number of biblical verbs
increases to 48, or 83% of all verbs used in epigraphic names.â•›123 Thus, epigraphic names of
thanksgiving reveal a strong interconnection with the individual prayer psalms. Although

120. The 11 additional verbs are: ‫ אמן‬ʾāman ‘to remain faithful’; ‫ בוא‬bôʾ ‘to come to’; ‫ בחן‬bāḥan
‘to test’; ‫ בין‬bîn ‘to notice’; ‫ חמד‬ḥāmad ‘to take a fancy’; ‫ נהל‬nāhal ‘to guide’; ‫ סעד‬sāʿad ‘to support’;
‫ עוׁש‬ʿûš ‘to come to help’; ‫ פקד‬pāqad ‘to pay attention’; ‫ קרב‬qārab ‘to come close to’; and probably the
Akkadian verb saḫāru N ‘to turn to’.
121. These are: ‫ הדה‬hādāh ‘to guide’; ‫ חמה‬ḥāmāh ‘to shelter’; ‫ יׁשב‬Hiphil hōšīb ‘to let dwell
safely’; ‫ יׁשר‬yāšar ‘to be just’; ‫ נבט‬nābaṭ ‘to look at’; and the Amurrite verb ʿāqab ‘to protect’, the
meaning of cannot be inferred from the Hebrew Bible itself. It must not be by chance that the name
Jacob does not appear among the epigraphic names.
122. See Albertz 1978a: 49–50, where I mentioned a proportion over 50%, and this calculation
included the less-common names of confession.
123. Including the six additional biblical roots in the calculation alters the rates of correspon-
dence to 65.6% and 82.8%.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 299

the prayers that were actually spoken by family members in their domestic cult activities
may have been modified in both form and use to meet the ritual demands of prayers used
by religious experts as cult formulas, and although cult formulas of this sort may have
been originated later than the family prayers from which they were derived, these psalms
nevertheless reveal a variety of beliefs and practices characteristic of family religion.
Individual laments derived from two distinct kinds of petition: petitions for atten-
tion and petitions for salvation. Accordingly, the thanksgiving names can be sub�divided
into the two categories of “divine attention” and “divine intervention” and the latter group
further subdivided into names about “divine salvation,” “divine assistance,” and “divine
protection.” The following analysis draws on these four categories of religious belief.â•›124

5.2.3.1.1.╇ Reference to divine attention in names of thanksgiving

The yearning for divine attention to rectify or alleviate difficult situations was of ut-
most sincerity (see appendix B1.1) and necessitated the utterance of complaints to God
or, to address more severe cases, the utterance of lamentations or the performance of in-
tercessory rituals. However, one could never be assured of god’s attention, and therefore
names of thanksgiving commonly reflect the first grateful experience of God’s response
to the prayers and rites of a sufferer or his/her family. The most frequent expression of
these names is that God has heard the complaints addressed to him (see appendix B1.1.1),
and the names ‫ אלׁשמע‬ʾElīšāmāʿ (37 instances), ‫ ׁשמעיהו‬Šĕmaʿyāhû (also 37 times), and
‫ יׁשמעאל‬Yišmaʿʾēl (33 times)—meaning ‘My god, Yhwh, or El has heard’—belong to the
most frequent epigraphic names of all. The root ‫ ׁשמע‬šāmaʿ forms the basis of 9 different
names recorded in 133 instances (and is used in 12 biblical names mentioned in 55 in-
stances). This concept of divine attention is also common in nearly all Levantine cultures,
being absent only in the Moabite. Divine attention is less frequently alluded to by names
based on the verb ‫ אזן‬ʾāzan ‘to hear’ (Hiphil), with only 8 of these names known from 22
references. In the Psalms, this concept is expressed, for example, in Ps 30:11 (individual
thanksgiving) and 143:1 (individual lament). These complaints represent the specific be-
liefs of individuals, because neither of these types of verb appears in the collective laments
of the Hebrew Bible.
It is much less common for epigraphic Hebrew names to express the analogous con-
cept of God’s having seen the distress of the sufferer (see appendix B1.1.2). There are only
two known names derived from the root ‫ חזה‬ḥāzāh and ‫ ראה‬rāʾāh ‘to look, to see’. They
are ‫ יחזיהו‬Yaḥzēyāhû ‘Yhwh has seen [my distress]’ and ‫ יראיהו‬Yĕrīʾyāhû ‘Yhwh has seen
[my distress]’, each of which appears 4 times.
However, both the neighboring cultures and the Hebrew Bible provided further ex-
amples. The biblical onomasticon records a third root, ‫ נבט‬nābaṭ ‘to look at’, which has
not been found so far in epigraphic material. The general absence of this verbal root in
personal names probably reflects a conception of the deity’s focus as being more on col-
lective or national identities than on individuals. Verbs of seeing frequently appear in

124. In contrast to my former treatment of the biblical material (Albertz 1978a: 61–65), I now
include in the birth names 6 of the roots mentioned before among the names of thanksgiving; see
p. 256 n. 29 above.
300 Chapter 5

the collective laments,â•›125 but there are only a few appearances in individual prayers (for
example, Ps 13:4; 17:2; 31:8; 59:5; 119:153).
Aside from direct sensory perception, divine attention could be felt in a general intel-
lectual or emotional sense (see appendix B1.1.3), for which the deity signified as remem-
bering a sufferer was most common, whether the deity was the personal god, Yhwh (in
‫ אלזכר‬ʾElīzākār and ‫ זכריהו‬Zĕkaryāhû) or Baal (in ‫ בעלזכר‬Baʿalzākār). There are 5 known
names that were derived from the root ‫ זכר‬zākar ‘to remember’, which appears in 38 epi-
graphic records and is mentioned 35 times in the Bible. These names presuppose god’s
personal acquaintance with the sufferer, which presumably reflected the deity’s original
creation of the person. This divine awareness of one’s existence could not be taken for
granted, however, because it was occasionally possible for god to forget or appear to ne-
glect one’s existence (Ps 13:2; 42:11), in which case a complaint could serve to remind god
of one’s existence. Receipt of God’s benevolent attention is expressed in the name ‫פקדיהו‬
Pĕqadyāhû ‘Yhwh has carefully paid attention’, which does not appear in the Bible but ap-
pears in two epigraphic records. In Ps 8:5, the two verbs zākar and pāqad appear alongside
one another, expressing the rapturous experience of the almighty god and creator of the
world actively and directly caring for insignificant mortals. This psalm represents a hym-
nic generalization with semantic elements that had their origins in practices and beliefs
of family piety.
There are also names derived from the root ‫ ידע‬yādaʿ ‘to know’ (expressed in 5 names,
with 28 instances), which expressed not only divine intellectual activity but also emotional
knowledge. As emphasized by Noth (1928: 181), this root could denote the kind of entirely
pragmatic “knowledge” that comes from extensive, intimate dealings with a particular
person or practice.â•›126 Thus the name ‫ ידעיהו‬Yĕdaʿyāhû may be accurately rendered ‘Yhwh
has taken care [of me]’. A similar meaning may be supposed for the root ‫ בין‬bīn ‘to un-
derstand’. Thus, the name ‫ אחבן‬ʾAḥbān, which has been found only once epigraphically,
probably had the intended meaning of ‘the [divine] brother has noticed [me]’. This verb
is also used in one individual lament in relation to a sufferer’s sighs (Ps 5:2). Concepts of
this sort about the deity’s remembering and caring for his lamenting creatures during their
sorrow were also common in names found in the neighboring Ammonite, Aramaic, and
Phoenician cultures.
There are also names that emphasize emotional responses to the granting of divine
mercy to a sufferer (see appendix B1.1.4), the largest group of which comprises names
derived from the root ‫ חנן‬ḥānan ‘to be gracious’. There are no less than 10 of these names,
known from 55 different epigraphic occurrences (and 10 in the Hebrew Bible, with 49
occurrences), such as ‫ אלחנן‬ʾElḥānān ‘El was gracious’ and ‫ חנניהו‬Ḥananyāhû ‘Yhwh was
gracious’. These names express typical individual experiences, in that ‫ חן‬ḥēn denotes a
mark of favor bestowed by a person in higher position or status on someone lower in
status, a distinctly noteworthy act that would naturally have been restricted to very few in-

125. See Ps 74:20; 80:15; Isa 63:15; 64:8; Lam 5:1; see also Lam 1:9, 11; 2:20.
126. J. D. Fowler (1988: 101–2) has questioned Noth’s insight because, according to her, this nu-
ance of meaning cannot be read into the Hebrew Bible. However, Noth was referring to verses such
as Exod 33:12; Isa 63:16; and Amos 3:2.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 301

dividuals. Thus, the verb appears frequently in the Hebrew Bible in the individual prayersâ•›127
but is absent in the collective laments and hymns. Names derived from more-emotive
roots, such as ‫ רחם‬rāḥam, as in ‫ ירחמאל‬Yĕraḥmĕʾēl ‘El has shown mercy to [me]’, appear
much less frequently (recorded in 4 instances of 3 different names). The same holds for
the root ‫ ידד‬yādad ‘to love’, from which the hypocoristicon ‫ ידו‬Yiddû (?) is probably de-
rived (4 appearances of 1 name). These names thus reveal that, although divine attention
and affection were directed toward individuals, the prevailing perception was of distance
separating god and man, and occasions on which god acted to broach this distance were
worthy of being memorialized by the giving of such names.
In addition to the names about the occasional turning of god’s attention toward a suf-
ferer, a few epigraphic names emphasize the faithfulness of god’s attention on the sufferer,
such as ‫ חסדיהו‬Ḥăsadyāhû ‘Yhwh has shown loyalty [to me]’ (5 instances of 3 names) and
‫ יואמן‬Yauʾāmān ‘Yhwh has remained faithful [to me]’. Neither of these names is found in
the Hebrew Bible, and they probably do not represent hymnic praise but only refer to god’s
direct acts of care (see Ps 18:26). The same seems to hold true of the only known Hebrew
name (Arad[8].55:1) that expresses divine fancy turned on a sufferer: ‫ חמדא‬Ḥemdāʾ ‘[DN]
has taken a fancy [to me]’. This name can be compared with the Phoenician name ‫חפצבעל‬
Ḥapoṣbaʿal ‘Baal has taken a fancy [to me]’ and the Aramaic name ‫ יבחראל‬Yibḥarʾēl ‘El has
chosen’, all of which testify to the special affection of the deity granted to a sufferer, who
was thus honored above others. The intention of these names would have been similar to
what was intended by use of the root ‫ ;חנן‬however they would not have been intended as
expressing theological concepts of divine election, let alone the Deuteronomic concept of
the election of Israel.â•›128
Names in one small subgroup that refer to divine attention express notions of move-
ment toward a sufferer (see appendix B1.1.5). The most common of these are derived from
the root ‫ קום‬qûm Qal (5 names, 41 occurrences), including ‫ אחיקם‬ʾAḥîqām ‘my [divine]
brother has arisen’ and ‫ יהוקם‬Yĕhôqām ‘Yhwh has arisen’, meaning the deity had risen
from his seat or throne—regardless of whether this was a heavenly or earthly throne—to
move toward the sufferer (see Ps 3:8). In spite of the potentially bellicose imagery of Ps
35:2, there is no necessary connection between this rising of Yhwh and his being a deity
of war (Num 10:35), as was suggested by Noth (1928: 176), especially because names of
this sort were also used by Israel’s neighbors. It was also possible in variants of this name
in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticons to replace references to the deity
himself with expressions of divine aid that was impending (‫)עזר‬, as in the name ‫עזריקם‬
ʿAzrîqām ‘my [divine] help has arisen’. Similar intentions were also likely in expressions
in which the divine light (‫ )אור‬was drawing close to a sufferer, as in ‫ קרבאור‬Qĕrabʾûr ‘the
[divine] light has come close [to me]’, a name found in 2 variants used in 5 instances (see
Ps 69:19). God’s coming to a sufferer in his/her need also appears to have been attested
in the rare names ‫ אלבא‬ʾElībāʾ ‘[my] god has come [to me]’ and ‫ קדם‬Qiddem (?) ‘[DN]
has come toward [me]’. We also know of 2 names (each appears once) that express the
deity’s volition in directing his attention toward a sufferer: ‫ פנאל‬Pĕnīʾēl ‘El has turned to

127. Ps 4:2; 6:3; 9:14; 25:16; 27:7; 30:11; 31:10; 41:5, 11; 56:2; 57:2 (twice); 59:6; 86:16; 119:132.
128. See above, pp. 263–264.
302 Chapter 5

face [me]’ (see Ps 86:16); and ‫ יהוסחר‬Yĕhôsaḥar, which Röllig and Renz (HAE 1.158 n. 1)
presumed to be derived from the Akkadian root saḥāru in the N-stem and thus to mean
‘Yhwh has turned [to me]’. This concept is also found in the Phoenician onomasticon:
‫ ביתלפן‬Bayt[ʾ]elpano ‘Bethel has turned to face [me]’.
In addition to the above name stating that divine light was drawing nigh, there were
other names that mentioned various aspects of divine illumination or radiance (see ap-
pendix B1.1.6). In the darkness of sorrow (see Ps 18:29), god might manifest his radiant
presence above a sufferer, prompting the names ‫ אליאר‬ʾElyāʾīr ‘El has shone [above me]’,
‫ יהוזרח‬Yĕhôzārāḥ ‘Yhwh has risen gloriously [above me]’, and ‫ בלגי‬Bilgay ‘[DN] has il-
luminated’. The subgroup formed from these names is rather small and consists of only 4
different names recorded a total of 18 times. As already discussed,â•›129 these names do not
refer to an epiphany of the deity, as in collective laments (see Ps 80:2), but to the more
peaceful concept of divine salvation in the morning (Janowski 1989: 1–18).
Thus, with the possible exception of the last subgroup, names of divine attention en-
compass the entire range of possible sensory, cognitive, emotional, and physical experi-
ences that a person in need might desire or receive from an individual deemed to be suffi-
ciently important or capable of granting aid. The anthropomorphic traits of god can then
be seen as direct extensions of the typical behaviors that mothers and fathers might show
toward their children or kings might show toward their subjects. Similarly extensive quali-
ties of god appear in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors, which attest more than half of
the roots used in Hebrew names with regard to divine attention (12 of 23) and which can
be categorized into every subgroup described here for Hebrew names.

5.2.3.1.2.╇ Divine salvation in names of thanksgiving

In most cases, petitions for divine attention naturally sought for god to intervene by
granting salvation, assistance, or protection. The largest group alluding to the interven-
tion of god comprises names that testify to divine salvation, of which there are 50 known
names derived from 16 different roots (see appendix B1.2). There is only 1 root that does
not appear in the Bible but appears in epigraphic records (‫ בחן‬bāḥan ‘to test’; BPHB 99),
and conversely, 1 root that appears in the Hebrew Bible but has not yet been found in the
epigraphic material (‫ יׁשר‬yāšar ‘to be just’).
The first subgroup of names expresses God’s salvation directly or the fact that he ran-
somed a sufferer (see appendix B1.2.1). The most frequent names in this group are derived
from the root ‫ יׁשע‬yāšaʿ and appear equally in the Qal and the Hiphil. Of these, the name
‫ אליׁשע‬ʾElîšaʿ ‘[my] god has saved [me]’ is known from 8 epigraphic appearances (and also
occurs 8 times in the Ammonite onomasticon), ‫ יׁשעיהו‬Yĕšaʿyāhû ‘Yhwh has saved’ from
22 instances, and ‫ הוׁשעיהו‬Haušaʿyāhû ‘Yhwh has saved’ , 39 instances. There are a total of
9 of these names known from 103 recorded instances. Four names that occur a total of 38
times are derived from the root ‫ פלט‬pālaṭ, which denotes a person’s escape from danger
or catastrophe, including, ‫ פלטיהו‬Pĕlaṭyāhû ‘Yhwh has saved’. Furthermore, 2 names that
appear in 35 records are derived from the root ‫ חלץ‬I ḥālaṣ, which emphasizes a person’s
having been snatched from need—for example, ‫ חלציהו‬Ḥeleṣyāhû ‘Yhwh has delivered’.

129. See above, p. 267.

 Personal Names and Family Religion 303

All 3 of these roots are used in the individual laments of the Hebrew Bible (Ps 3:8; 31:2;
6:5), and all are appear in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors as well. There are also
many Aramaic names derived from the root ‫ מתע‬mataʿ ‘to save’ (NTA 107) and 1 Phoeni-
cian name derived from the root ‫ ׁשלך‬šillek Piel ‘to save’.
The custom of impoverished people being enslaved by their creditors and obligatorily
ransomed by their closest relatives (compare Exod 21:8; Lev 19:20; 25:48–49; Ruth 3:13)
is mentioned in 7 names. The two names ‫ גאליהו‬Gĕʾalyāhû (recorded 8 times) and ‫פדיהו‬
Pĕdāyāhû (21 times) share the same meaning, that ‘Yhwh has ransomed’. Thus, Yhwh
himself metaphorically assumes the liberating duty (compare Ps 69:19; 26:11). Names
from these roots appear in epigraphic material from the 8th century b.c.e. on, and it there-
fore seems that individual theological expressions of this concept preceded the collective
use later introduced in Deuteronomy (Deut 7:8; 13:6; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18) in the 7th century
and in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 43:1; 44:22–23; 48:20; 52:9) in the 6th century. Thus, a familial
custom once again transformed into a religious belief that subsequently influenced Israel’s
official religion. The root ‫ פדה‬also appears in the Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite ono-
masticons, although names derived from the root ‫ גאל‬do not. The name ‫ ירחב‬Yarḥib (?),
which can be interpreted as a hypocoristicon with the meaning ‘[DN] has widened [my
restriction]’, expresses more-general concepts of divine liberation (compare Ps 4:2). The
theophoric name ‫ רחביהו‬Rĕḥabyāhû ‘Yhwh has widened [my restriction]’ is found in the
Hebrew Bible,â•›130 as is the name of King Rehoboam, ‫רחבעם‬, which can be rendered ‘[my
divine] uncle has widened [my prior restriction]’.â•›131
A second subgroup contains names that conceptualize divine salvation as God’s pro-
vision of justice for a sufferer (see appendix B1.2.2). These concepts derived from local
judicial traditions that hardships suffered by an individual should be treated as though
they were unjust legal actions taken by human or demonic adversaries. This subgroup
comprises 10 names, derived from 6 different roots. The most common derive from the
root ‫ ׁשפט‬šāpaṭ and include ‫ ׁשפטיהו‬Šĕpaṭyāhû ‘Yhwh has given [me] justice’ (cf. Ps 43:1);
the hypocoristicon of this root also appears in the Phoenician onomasticon. The root ‫צדק‬
ṣādaq is epigraphically represented only in the hypocoristicon Ṣādōq ‘[DN] was just’ (4
instances), although the theophoric form appears in the Hebrew Bible (‫ יהוצדק‬Yĕhôṣādāq)
as well as the Moabite onomasticon (‫ כמׁשצדק‬Kamōšṣādāq). From the similar root ‫ דין‬dîn
‘to judge’, the name ‫ ידניהו‬Yĕdīnyahû ‘Yhwh has given justice’ is derived, which is known
from 2 epigraphic instances. However, there are 4 names derived from this root that occur
7 times in the Hebrew Bible, and such names also appear in the Ammonite, Moabite, and
Aramaic onomasticons. Names derived from the verb ‫ ריב‬rîb ‘to conduct a legal case’ are
similarly distributed, with 1 epigraphic attestation of the name ‫ אלירב‬ʾElyārīb ‘El has given
justice’ (Lak[7/6].27:1), but 6 records of 4 different names in the Hebrew Bible. The name
‫ יהוירב‬Yĕhôyārīb has even been found on seals written in Aramaic script. These latter 2
roots also represent verbs used in the individual laments (Ps 54:3; 35:1).

130. See 1 Chr 23:17. Although Ges18 1234 suggests a possible reference to the mother’s womb,
the verb is intended in a more general sense in Ps 4:2.
131. In correction of Noth’s (1928: 193 n. 4) suggestion, “Das Volk hat sich ausgeweitet, hat sich
ausgebreitet.”
304 Chapter 5

There are a few names containing the verbs ‫ פלל‬pālal and ‫ פלה‬pālāh, which explicitly
refer to an arbitrator’s having made a just decision. The name ‫ מיפלל‬Mîpillel ‘Who has
given justice?’ forms a prayer expressing astonishment at the success of the divine arbitra-
tor’s actions. The name could be considered as much a name of thanksgiving as a name
of praise; however, it should not be separated from the thanksgiving name ‫ פליה‬Pĕlayāh,
which means ‘Yhwh has made a just decision’. The final name in this group, ‫ בחנא‬Băḥanāʾ
‘[DN] has tested [me]’, explicitly refers to legal proceedings in which an individual had
been falsely charged. In choosing this name, the sufferer desired to express gratitude to
an unnamed deity who had tested him and thereby proven him innocent. This is a unique
name; although the verb appears in the laments of the innocent (in Ps 26:2), the name
derived from it must have been rare because no parallels have been found to date.
The third subgroup comprises names that express more-general concepts of divine
salvation, such as that God has acted miraculously toward a sufferer (see appendix B1.2.3).
This idea is most directly stated in the name ‫ פלאיהו‬Pĕlāʾyāhû ‘Yhwh has acted won-
derfully’, which is known from a single epigraphic record. The Hebrew Bible contains 2
names derived from this root, each of which is recorded twice. The only personal names in
this subgroup that appear more frequently are those derived from the root ‫ גדל‬gādal ‘to be
great’, such as ‫ גדליהו‬Gĕdalyāhû, which has been found in 20 epigraphic records and ap-
pears 3 times in the Hebrew Bible. A total of 5 names are derived from this root, attested in
27 instances. As discussed previously, in accordance with Noth (1928: 190), names derived
from this root should be understood in a resultative sense, in that it is through his saving
act that ‘Yhwh has proven himself to be great’.â•›132 These interpretations are supported by
similar statements that primarily appear in the individual laments (Ps 35:27; 40:17; 70:5),
where direct experience with god’s saving acts is intended. Noth (1928: 191) also proposed
that the rare name ‫ עתיהו‬should be understood in this context. Derived from the Arabic
root ʿatā ‘to be beyond measure’, this name should be read ʿAtāyāhû and understood as a
statement that ‘Yhwh has proven himself to be outstanding’. This interpretation remains
uncertain, however, and by analogy with the name ‫ עותי‬ʿÛtay in the Hebrew Bible, Zadok
(1988: 30, 32) proposed a derivation from an uncertain Aramaic root, ‫‘ עות‬to help’, which
would correspond to the Hebrew root ‫עוׁש‬. Presuming this derivation to be accurate, the
name should be included as a name of divine assistance.
It is remarkable that this subgroup that is so closely allied with the names of praise is
so small. It seems that concrete descriptions of god’s saving acts were favored much more
than general statements, not only in Israelite family religion, but also in the family reli-
gions of the greater Northwest Semitic region.

5.2.3.1.3.╇ Divine assistance in names of thanksgiving

If we compile names that express notions of divine assistance, a group appears that is
almost as large as the group with names of divine salvation. There are 43 known names that
allude to divine assistance and are derived from 15 different roots (see appendix B1.1.3).
Only 2 roots are known only from epigraphic material: ‫ סעד‬sāʿad ‘to support’ and ‫נהל‬
nāhal Piel ‘to guide’. The Hebrew Bible also reveals a name that means ‘to guide’, but it is

132. See above, p. 255; contra Rechenmacher (1997: 62–67), who preferred a stative meaning.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 305

derived from the root ‫ הדה‬hādāh. The prevalence of names in this group illustrates the sig-
nificance of the concept of divine assistance in family religion and, as will be shown later,
the significance of divine protection as well. Most verbs that appear in the names of this
group relate specifically to individual actions or experiences rather than to the experiences
of collective social units or entire peoples (Albertz 1978a: 66–67). One primary function
of collective societies is the diffusion of risk, and danger or threat is generally experienced
by individuals more often than by larger social groups. Thus, individuals were more likely
to feel an immediate need for divine support and protection, and this need reflected the
relative frailty of the individual with respect to the larger society. Accordingly, a significant
function for family religion was to express a desire for divine support and protection.
The first subgroup of names reflecting these desires acknowledges in various ways that
God has supported the sufferer (see appendix B1.3.1). The most common names are de-
rived from the root ‫ עזר‬ʿāzar ‘to help’ (87 attestations of 6 different names). The name
‫ עזריהו‬ʿAzaryāhû ‘Yhwh has helped [me]’ and its shortened form, ‫ עזר‬ʿAzzūr or ʿEzer
‘[DN] has helped [me]’, are known from 44 and 35 epigraphic records, respectively (bibli-
cally, including variant spellings, 25 and 9 times, respectively). Although the verb ‫ עזר‬ap-
pears 3 times in the collective laments (Ps 44:27; 60:13; 79:9), it appears a total of 27 times
in the individual laments, thanksgiving psalms, and oracles of salvation.â•›133 Names derived
from this root were also popular among all of Israel’s neighbors, as exemplified by the Am-
monite name ‫ אלעזר‬ʾIlʿazar ‘El has helped [me]’ (8 instances) and the Phoenician name
‫ אׁשמנעזר‬ʾEšmunʿazor ‘Eshmun has helped [me]’ (9 instances). There is one known ap-
pearance of the hypocoristicon ‫ יעׁש‬Yēʿūš ‘[DN] has come to help’ (Sam[8].1.48:3), which
also appears 4 times in the Hebrew Bible and once as a king’s name ‫ יועׁש‬Yôʿāš (Joas)
‘Yhwh has come to help’.
Names derived from the root ‫ סמך‬sāmak ‘to support’ appear only 3 times in the He-
brew Bible, but epigraphic sources have revealed them to be the second-largest subgroup
in this category, consisting of 56 appearances of 6 different names, such as ‫ אלסמך‬ʾElsāmāk
‘El has supported [me]’ and ‫ סמכיהו‬Sĕmakyāhû (or the Northern variant ‫ סמכיו‬Sĕmakyau)
‘Yhwh has supported [me]’. Names from this root are also well attested in the surround-
ing cultures. The verb ‫ סמך‬occurs several times in the individual laments (Ps 3:6; 51:14;
54:6; see also 71:6; 119:116) but not in their collective counterparts. To be supported by
god was typically experienced by an individual and expressed in a name derived from the
verb ‫ סעד‬sāʿad ‘to support’. These names are known from between 9 and 13 appearances
of 6 variants.â•›134 As above, the names ‫ סעדיהו‬Săʿadyāhû and its Northern variant ‫סעדיו‬
Săʿadyau have parallels in the individual laments and thanksgiving psalms (Ps 18:36; 41:4;
94:18; see also 119:117) but are absent in the collective complaints.
Names derived from the root ‫ אחז‬ʾāḥaz ‘to hold [someone] tight’ were even more ex-
plicitly focused on an experience by an individual and were extensions of images of god
holding the hands of sufferers, as expressed exclusively in the individual laments (Ps 73:23;

133. Ps 22:20; 27:9; 28:7; 30:11; 35:2; 38:23; 40:14, 18; 54:6; 63:8; 70:2, 6; 86:17; 94:17; 109:26;
118:7, 13; 119:86, 173; cf. 121:1, 2; Isa 41:10, 13, 14; 44:2; 50:7; cf. 49:8.
134. The number depends on whether one feels obliged to derive 4 of the instances from the
root ‫ סער‬sāʿar ‘to storm’; see above, p. 267.
306 Chapter 5

139:10).â•›135 There are 15 known epigraphic records with 4 names of this sort (and 10 bibli-
cal instances of 5 names), including ‫ יהואחז‬Yĕhôʾāḥāz and ‫ אחזיהו‬ʾAḥazyāhû, both mean-
ing ‘Yhwh has held [me] tight’. There is also a related Aramaic name, ‫ נבלאחז‬Nabalʾaḥaz
‘the noble one has held tight’. These names of assistance thus reveal the sorts of intimate
relationship with god that were typical of Israelite and Levantine family religious practices
and beliefs.
The second subgroup of assistance names consists of names expressing the fact that
god has proven his strength through assistance (see appendix B1.3.2). These rather rare
names are derived from a variety of roots and include ‫ חזק‬Ḥāzāq (appears twice), ‫אמץ‬
ʾAmōṣ (also twice), and ‫ ילא‬Yilāʾ (appears once),â•›136 all of which share the meaning ‘[DN]
has proven himself to be strong’. Purely theophoric forms derived from 3 roots have
been found. There is one probable epigraphic reference to the name, ‫ עזזיהו‬ʿAzazyāhû
‘Yhwh has proven himself to be strong’. This name is analogous to names such as ‫גבריהו‬
Gĕbaryāhû ‘Yhwh has proven himself to be superior’ (attested twice) and ‫ יהוכל‬Yĕhôkal
‘Yhwh has proven himself to be mighty’ (ten times). All of these roots find parallels in the
onomasticons of Israel’s neighboring cultures. The use of these roots in Isa 41:9, plus ‫עמץ‬
in Isa 41:10 and ‫ עזז‬in Ps 86:16 further suggest a possible translation of them in the transi-
tive sense, meaning that the deity has strengthened a sufferer (Albertz 1978a: 65). How-
ever, because there are other roots in this subgroup that clearly have intransitive meanings
(namely, ‫לאה‬, ‫גבר‬, ‫ )יכל‬and thus can be understood in a resultative sense,â•›137 this potential
duality of interpretation may perhaps be conceived best this way: any experience of being
strengthened by god’s assistance simultaneously reveals god’s strength in its own right.
A third subgroup consists of names that express divine assistance in the sense of God’s
raising a fallen sufferer (see appendix B1.3.3), for which the most frequent are those con-
taining the Hiphil of the verb ‫ קום‬qûm ‘to stand up’ (with 6 names recorded a total of
49 times). The intended imagery of these names is ‫ אליקם‬ʾElyāqīm ‘El has raised [me]’
and ‫ יקמיהו‬Yĕqamyāhû ‘Yhwh has raised [me]’, as we know by referring to the individual
psalms of lament and thanksgiving (Psalms 40–41); the sufferer, whose former friends had
caused him or her to fall, first asks for Yhwh’s assistance in raising him (41:10–11), then
directly experiences Yhwh’s raising his sunken position in a muddy pit to set his feet on
a rock (40:3). The sentiments of these names thus express very typical individual experi-
ences. One rare name of interest is ‫ מקמיהו‬Mēqīmyāhû, which is formed from the Hi-
phil participle (HAE 14.10) and should be rendered ‘[He] who has raised [me] is Yhwh’.â•›138
This name demonstrates that the sorts of experiences manifest in thanksgiving names
could also be transferred to the sorts of concepts expressed in names of praise.

135. In the salvation oracle of Isa 41:10, a similar concept is expressed with the verb ‫ תמך‬tāmak,
that God has supported the sufferer with his right hand.
136. The root ‫ לאה‬lāʾāh, which in the Hebrew Bible means ‘to be tired, exhausted’, has the op-
posite meaning in other Northwest Semitic languages; see Maraqten 1988: 126; Lemaire 2001: 16.
137. See above, p. 255.
138. A similar name is attested in the Nabatean onomasticon (mqymʾl ‘[he] who has raised [me]
is El’); whether the Phoenician name mqm (Benz 404) constitutes a parallel remains uncertain; see
Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.305.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 307

Similar concepts of divine assistance were expressed in names derived from the Hiphil
of the root ‫ רום‬rûm ‘to be exalted’ (known from 28 appearances of 2 names). In the indi-
vidual lament in Ps 3:4, Yhwh is called by the sufferer ‘the one who raised my head’, and
the hymn Ps 113:7 generalizes this statement to ‘Yhwh lifts the weak from the dust’. Thus,
the name ‫ ירמיהו‬Yĕrīmyāhû ‘Yhwh has exalted [me]’ arises from the direct experience of
someone who had been humiliated and had sunk into the dust. This individual has been
exalted by god and is once again able to lift his or her head. Similar Ammonite and Phoe-
nician names, such as ‫ ירמאל‬Yarīmʾil ‘El has exalted’ and ‫ מלכירם‬Milkyarīm ‘Milk has ex-
alted’ also express this typical individual religious experience. Finally, the name ‫ עדד‬ʿOded
expresses similar sentiments and is known from 1 epigraphic reference (HAE 13.14) and
2 biblical appearances. This name is clearly a hypocoristicon, as shown by the Aramaic
name ‫ יעדדאל‬Yĕâ•›ʿodedʾel (WSS 801).â•›139 Noth and others took the name to be derived from
the root ʿDD ‘to count, to reckon’, which appears in Ugaritic (DLU 73) and Aramaic (KAI
202.A12) texts. They interpreted it as referring to some sort of professional mantic, such
as a ‘seer’ or ‘prophet’ (Noth 1928: 252), thus taking the name as a Qal active participle.
However, evidence from an Aramaic seal contradicts this interpretation. And, if it’s not a
Qal active participle hypocoristicon of ʿDD, then the following DN element cannot be a
genitive; it’s grammatically no longer possible. This leaves the alternative interpretation of
ʿoded as a Polel of the root ‫ עוד‬ʿûd with the meaning ‘to help up’ (Ps 146:9; 147:6), which
was first suggested by Wilhelm Rudolph (1955: 245 n. 1) as being much more likely.â•›140 Al-
though both psalms are hymns, they use the verbal form ‫ יעדד‬yĕʿōded to refer to the same
kind of divine assistance for the weak as referred to in Ps 113:7, but this psalm uses the
root ‫רום‬. Thus, the name under discussion should be rendered ‘[DN] has helped [me] up’.
The fourth and final subgroup of names that allude to notions of divine assistance con-
sists of 1 epigraphic name, the use of which is supported by a similar name in the Hebrew
Bible. It can thus be considered an established name that expressed the fact that God had
carefully guided a sufferer. The two versions are ‫ נהל‬Nēhāl ‘[DN] has guided [me]’, which
was found on a seal (HAE 14.40), and ‫ יהדי‬Yāhday ‘[DN] has guided [me]’, which appears
in 1 Chr 2:47.â•›141 The imagery expressed in these names reflects Ps 23:2, which is a psalm of
personal trust in which god is conceived as the faithful shepherd who leads the individual
to refreshing waters.â•›142 Although this usage in the psalm may allude to notions of divine
kingship, and although the verb ‫ נהל‬Piel can also be used in poetic contexts to denote
Yhwh’s care for Israel (Exod 15:13; Isa 40:11; 49:10), the sentiment conveyed in the names
was a form that had already been transferred to the individual sphere, as demonstrated
by Psalm 23 (see also 31:4). These concepts of divine assistance expressed in names of
thanksgiving thus usually had their origins in individual experiences.

139. For the preferable reading of this seal, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 300.
140. KLB3 752; HALOT 911 clearly preferred this interpretation; Ges18 923 remains undecided.
141. The name is probably derived from the verb ‫ הדה‬hādāh, which is only attested once, in Isa
11:8, in the meaning ‘to grasp’.
142. Overlooking this reference, Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.316) suggested the meaning “[GN]
hat [die Eltern] zur Ruhe gebracht.”
308 Chapter 5

5.2.3.1.4.╇ Divine protection in names of thanksgiving

The group of names that express divine protection is considerably smaller than the
names that express divine assistance (see appendix B1.4). The divine protection group
consists of 10 epigraphic names derived from 4 different roots. Names derived from 3
additional roots are recorded in the Hebrew Bible: the Amorite root ʿāqab ‘to protect’,
the meaning of which was no longer known in Israel in the monarchic period; and the
Hebrew roots ‫ חמה‬ḥāmāh ‘to shelter’ and ‫ יׁשב‬yāšab Hiphil ‘to let dwell safely’. Curiously,
the Ammonite and Aramaic onomasticons often record several different roots that, al-
though mostly known from Biblical Hebrew, have not been found to date in any Hebrew
epigraphic material. These roots all have the meaning ‘to protect’ and are: ‫ ׂשגב‬śāgab Piel,
‫ נצר‬nāṣar, ‫ חוט‬ḥûṭ, and perhaps ‫ יקע‬yāqaʿ (see Maraqten 1988: 131).â•›143 Like names of di-
vine assistance, names of divine protection are intimately bound to the individual sphere.
The first subgroup of these names expresses experiences of God’s protecting a sufferer
(see appendix B1.4.1) and includes the name ‫ ׁשמריהו‬Šĕmaryāhû and its Northern variant
‫ ׁשמריו‬Šĕmaryau with the meaning ‘Yhwh has protected [me]’, which have been found on
4 and 5 epigraphic artifacts, respectively. The Hebrew Bible contains 13 occurrences of 6
similar names, and names derived from this root have also been found in the Ammonite
and Phoenician onomasticons. In cases in which the common verb ‫ ׁשמר‬is used with the
deity as the subject, specific individual experiences are again being connoted. This verb
does not appear in the collective laments but appears 12 times in the individual laments
and individual psalms of trust and thanksgiving.â•›144 Occasionally, god’s protection of a suf-
ferer may be expanded to embrace a larger group of pious believers,â•›145 but Psalms only
reveals 1 case in which divine protection refers to the entirety of Israel (Ps 121:4). The
intimately individual context of divine protection is illustrated in Ps 17:8, where Yhwh is
asked to protect the sufferer as he would his own eyeballs. There is only one name known
to derive from the root ‫ זמר‬zāmar III ‘to protect’, which is the hypocoristicon ‫ זמר‬Zāmār;
and in the Hebrew Bible, the name ‫ זמרי‬Zimrî appears 4 times. Both names probably car-
ried the meaning ‘[DN] has protected [me]’. In the Ammonite and Aramaic cultures, the
same experiences with the gods El, Nabû, and Hadad were expressed using different verbs.
The Hebrew Bible also records the patriarchal name ‫ יעקב‬Yaʿăqob from the pre-Israelite
period. It originally meant ‘[El] has protected’, but this meaning had been lost by the time
of the writing of the Hebrew Bible (see Huffmon 1965: 203–4).â•›146
The second subgroup emphasizes God’s provision of shelter for a sufferer (see appen-
dix B1.4.2). The most popular names in this group appear to have been those derived
from the root ‫ צפן‬ṣāpan ‘to shelter’ (known from 39 instances of 3 names), such as ‫צפניהו‬
Ṣĕpanyāhû ‘Yhwh has sheltered me’. The Hebrew Bible contains 2 more names derived
from this root but embellished with the theophoric elements ‘El’ and ‘my god’. The reli-
gious imagery behind these names is elucidated by Ps 27:5, where the hope is that Yhwh

143. The root ‫ סתר‬sātar ‘to hide’, which occurs among the Aramaic thanksgiving names, seems
to constitute a name of confession in Hebrew.
144. Ps 16:1; 17:8; 25:20; 41:3; 86:2; 91:11; 121:3, 5, 7, 8; 140:5; 141:9.
145. Ps 34:21; 37:28; 97:10; 116:6; 145:20; 146:9.
146. In Gen 25:26, Jacob’s name is explained with the noun ‫ עקב‬ʿāqēb ‘heel’; in Gen 27:36 and
Hos 12:4 with the verb ‫ עקב‬ʿāqab I ‘to deceive’.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 309

will shelter the sufferer in his hut during days of misfortune. These concepts appear to
express a transferral of the asylum offered by the temple to the world of individual beliefs.
There were also names derived from a different root, ‫חבה‬/‫ חבא‬ḥābāh/ʾ, that had the
same meaning of ‘to shelter’. In the second Servant Song, which is analogous to the oracle
of salvation, the servant reveals that Yhwh sheltered him ‘in the shadow of his hand’ (Isa
49:2). Thus, a name such as ‫ חביהו‬Ḥābāyāhû ‘Yhwh has sheltered [me]’ would probably
have alluded to the experience of an individual in hardship who was feeling himself to
have been sheltered by Yhwh in the same way that a child might flee to his or her parents
to find comfort, with the child’s face being sheltered in their hands. The family imagery of
these names thus becomes apparent. There are 12 epigraphic records of 4 different names
derived from this root, and the Hebrew Bible contains 2 different theophoric names and
1 hypocoristicon. The Bible also records the names ‫ יחמי‬Yaḥmay ‘DN has protected [me]’
(in 1 Chr 7:2) and ‫ יוׁשביה‬Yôšībyāh ‘Yhwh has let [me] dwell safely’ (in 1 Chr 4:35).
Thus, names of thanksgiving reveal that there was an astonishing richness of belief in
the family religion of ancient Israelites. Aside from the exceptional allusions to concepts
of official religion (such as the divine shepherd) or their institutions (such as the asylum
offered by the Temple), family beliefs had their own symbolism, which generally alluded
to individual, family, or local referents. Names of thanksgiving reveal a high degree of cor-
respondence with the individual gattungen of the Psalms and vividly portray the prayer
practices of Israelite families in their domestic cults and beyond. However, the family
religions of ancient Israel were also inextricably intertwined with the practices of neigh-
boring cultures and, although only 58% of epigraphically attested Hebrew thanksgiving
names were also used by Israel’s neighbors, we have shown here that there was not a single
concept expressed by these names—whether concepts of divine attention, salvation, as-
sistance, or protection—that was not also expressed by other names in the neighboring
cultures.

5.2.3.2.╇ Family beliefs as represented by names of confession

Names of confession compose the second-largest group of prayer names and the third-
largest of all the name groups. It contains 17.6% of all epigraphic names, and 14% of all
recorded instances. The 119 personal names in this group are derived from 53 different
roots; 15 of these roots do not appear in personal names recorded in the Hebrew Bible.â•›147
Conversely, there are only 5 roots used in the confession names of the Hebrew Bible that
have not been found to date in epigraphic records.â•›148 There are thus 58 different roots used
in these names of confession.
These confession names are grammatically distinct from thanksgiving names because
they do not contain verbal statements but instead consist of nominal sentences, construct

147. These are the following nouns and prepositions: ‫ אביר‬ʾabbîr ‘strength’, ‫ און‬ʾôn ‘strength’,
‫ אלוף‬ʾallûp ‘friend’, ‫ אפלו‬ʾaplû ‘inheriting son’, ‫ בעד‬baʿad ‘for’, ‫ חיל‬ḥayil ‘strength’, ‫ טור‬ṭûr ‘defensive
wall’, ‫ כסל‬késel ‘trust’, ‫ מבטח‬mibṭāḥ ‘trust’, ‫ מגדל‬migdāl ‘tower’, ‫ מן‬min ‘from’, ‫ מׁשען‬mišʿān ‘support’,
‫ נוה‬nāweh ‘pasture’, ‫ נתיב‬nātîb ‘path’, and ‫ עגל‬ʿégel ‘young steer’. Theophoric elements used in one-
word names are not included.
148. These are the following nouns, verbs, and expressions: ‫־‬â•”‫ל‬â•›+â•›‫ יחל‬yāḥalâ•›+â•›lĕâ•”Ö¾ ‘to place hope in’,
‫ עד‬ʿēd ‘witness’, ‫ עין אל‬ʿayin ʾĕl ‘eye on’, ‫ ׁשבע‬šébaʿ ‘richness’, and ‫ ׁשור‬šûr I ‘wall’.
310 Chapter 5

phrases, and single words. There is, however, quite a bit of overlap between the two groups
of prayer names. Nine of the nouns used in the names of confession are derived from
roots that also appear in the names of thanksgiving but in verbal form.â•›149 (Of course, one
must continue to bear in mind the difficulties involved in sorting the unvocalized epi-
graphic names into appropriate categories, as I’ve already mentioned above.â•›150) Similar to
the names of thanksgiving, the names of confession have a structural counterpart in the
confessions of confidence in the individual laments and the nominal reason clause of “Do
not fear” in the oracles of salvation. They also have close analogues in the psalms of confi-
dence, which developed from the confessions of confidence of the individual laments. In
all of these sections of prayers and expressions of divine response, the experiences of sal-
vation through intervention that are conveyed by the thanksgiving names are transformed
into confessional statements of confidence and trust.
Thus, analogous to the names of thanksgiving, the names of confession can be sub-
divided into the four categories of divine attention, salvation, assistance, and protection.
However, in the present case, these subdivisions must be expanded by introducing two
more subgroups in which religious confidence is brought to the fore. The fifth and sixth
groups are thus the names that express direct trust in god and allude to a relationship of
personal trust in god. Categorizing this sixth group as a subgroup of the prayer names is
somewhat problematic, because many nouns used in these names do not appear in the
individual prayers; however, since the nominal elements of the most common names in
this group, ‫ עבד‬ʿébed ‘servant’ and ‫ גר‬gēr ‘sojourner’ of a deity, have counterparts in the
confessions of confidence in individual laments (Ps 143:12; 39:13), the group does show
demonstrable connections to actual prayers. The sixth group is an expansion of the fifth
group in that the trust in god expressed in a name becomes a statement about one’s onÂ�
going trusting relationship to a particular deity expressed in a name.
The relative uniqueness of this sixth group is reflected in a slightly lower correspon-
dence between the names of confession and those of individual prayers than between
the names of confession and those of thanksgiving. Of the 53 roots used in epigraphic
names, slightly over half (27) also appear in individual laments, psalms of thanksgiving,
and psalms of confidence. Including more-general analogues and other related gattungen
increases the correspondence to 33 instances (or 62%). Without this somewhat anomalous
sixth group, the correspondence would increase to 66% of names and 82% of instanes.
Thus, names of confession also reveal a remarkable correspondence with the individual
prayers.

5.2.3.2.1.╇ Divine attention in names of confession

Names of confession referring to divine attention are rather rare (see appendix B2.1),
but 2 names with 1 attestation each may be assigned to this group, both considered to be

149. These are ‫ אור‬ʾôr ‘light’ and ‫ אור‬ʾûr ‘to shine’; ‫ חזק‬ḥézeq ‘strength’ and ‫ חזק‬ḥāzaq ‘to turn out
to be strong’; ‫ חן‬ḥēn ‘mercy’ and ‫ חנן‬ḥānan ‘to be gracious’; ‫ עז‬ʿōz ‘[strong] protection’ and ‫ עזז‬ʿāzaz
‘to turn out to be strong’; ‫ עזר‬ʿézer ‘help’ and ‫ עזר‬ʿāzar ‘to help’; ‫ פלט‬péleṭ ‘rescue’ and ‫ פלט‬pālaṭ ‘to
rescue’; ‫ צדק‬ṣédeq ‘justice’ and ‫ צדק‬ṣādaq ‘to be just’; ‫ ׁשוע‬šûăʿ ‘salvation’ and ‫ יׁשע‬yāšaʿ ‘to save’; and
‫ ׁשפט‬šépeṭ ‘legal assistance’ and ‫ ׁשפט‬šāpaṭ ‘to give justice’.
150. See above, p. 254.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 311

derived from the root ‫ חנן‬ḥanan. The names are ‫ חנמלך‬Ḥannīmelek ‘The [divine] king is
[my] mercy’ and ‫ חניהו‬Ḥannīyāhû ‘Yhwh is my mercy’. However, it is also possible that
these rare names should be categorized with the multitude of thanksgiving names derived
from this same root, a possibility rendered even more likely because the parallel root ‫חנן‬
is absent in the confessions of confidence in the Psalms. On the other hand, because the
names are written with only one nun, and because the Hebrew Bible records the name
‫ חניאל‬Ḥannîʾel twice (Num 34:23; 1 Chr 7:39), the nominal construction of which is indi-
cated by the suffix, it seems more likely that the above names should be derived from the
noun ‫ חן‬ḥēn (see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.219, 406) instead of the root ‫חנן‬, and thus they
do fit the category of confession names.
Names containing the noun ‫ ׁשחר‬šáḥar ‘dawning’ are more common (with 12 in-
stances) and, although only the hypocoristicon is epigraphically attested, the Hebrew Bible
transmits full theophoric forms such as ‫ אחיׁשחר‬ʾAḥîšaḥar ‘my [divine] brother is [my]
dawning’,â•›151 suggesting that the accurate interpretation of the shortened epigraphic name
is ‘[DN] is [my] dawning’. The name directly alludes to the fact that phenomena of divine
attention and salvation have taken place or been experienced in the morning (Janowski
1989: 1–18).â•›152 The Ammonite onomasticon also provides the name ‫ׁשחר‬, which expresses
an intention similar to that of Aramaic names containing the noun ‫ נגה‬nĕgah ‘bright-
ness [of dawn]’ (DNWSI 714; Dan 6:20), such as ‫ נסחנגהי‬Nasuḥnaghî ‘Nasuḥ/Nusku is my
morning light’. All names of this sort are a clear, personal reference to a sufferer.

5.2.3.2.2.╇ Divine salvation in names of confession

In confession names, the individuals who are confessing that the deity granted salva-
tion to a sufferer appear to have been more common than names confessing divine at-
tention (see appendix B2.2.1). Eight names derived from 4 different roots are attested 26
times. The first subgroup of these names confess god to be the savior of the sufferer, the
most common of which is the famous name ‫ יהוׁשע‬Yĕhôšūăʿ ‘Yhwh is [my] salvation’,
which is known from 12 epigraphic records and 14 biblical references in all of its variants.
Similar names appear in all the cultures of Israel’s neighbors, such as ‫ כמׁשוע‬Kamōššūăʿ
‘Chemosh is [my] salvation’ in Moab and ‫ הדיסעי‬Haddyisʿî ‘Hadad is my salvation’ in
Syria. Haddyisʿî clearly shows the reference to the name bearer that was implicit in all of
these names, a fact that is also supported by comparison with the corresponding prayers
of confession (Ps 140:8). These names do not relate to every sort of divine salvation, such
as salvation on the family, local, and national levels, contrary to J. D. Fowler’s supposition
(1988: 89); rather, they express the personal sentiments of the name bearer and his or her
family. This is similarly demonstrated by the name ‫ אלפלט‬ʾElīpeleṭ ‘[my] god is [my] res-
cue’, which reflects an analogous expression in the personal confession of Ps 40:18. One
Ammonite name is also known to be derived from this root.
As in the category of thanksgiving names, the confession names’ second subgroup uses
local judicial imagery to express that it is god who intervenes to provide justice for a suf-
ferer (see appendix B2.2.2). This group consists of 10 names derived from 2 roots, among
which the most common name is ‫ צדקיהו‬Ṣidqīyāhû ‘my justice is Yhwh’, known from 7
151. Names of this type are also attested at Ugarit; see Ges18 38.
152. See also the names of thanksgiving in the appendix B1.1.6.; and above, pp. 301–302.
312 Chapter 5

epigraphic records and mentioned 6 times in the Bible. This name also has parallels in the
Ammonite, Moabite, and Aramean cultures—for example, in the Aramaic name ‫צדקרמן‬
Ṣidqīramān ‘Rimmon is [my] justice’. From the root ‫ ׁשפט‬šāpaṭ ‘to judge’, only one name is
derived that we know of, which is ‫ ׁשפטן‬Šipṭān: it is attested once epigraphically and once
biblically. Now, although Noth (1928: 187) and Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.86) considered
it to be the hypocoristicon of a thanksgiving name, Stamm (1980: 170) considered it to
be derived from a nominal. Derivation from a nominal is also supported by the existence
of names in the Edomite onomasticon derived from the noun ‫ מׁשפט‬mišpāṭ, such as the
full theophoric form ‫ מׁשפטאל‬Mišpaṭʾel, which is then plausibly interpreted as a construct
name meaning ‘[the] legal assistance of El’. If we consider the name ‫ ׁשפטן‬to share a simi-
lar derivation and interpret the ending â•‚ān not as a diminutive (Noth 1928: 38) but as a
shortened suffix of the first-person plural,â•›153 the name may then be rendered ‘our legal
assistance [by DN]’. If this is an accurate interpretation, the name was probably intended
to testify on behalf of the parents that their child served as living proof that god’s decision
of salvation had been granted to their family. The Hebrew Bible embellishes this judicial
imagery with the name, ‫ יועד‬Yôʿēd ‘Yhwh is [my] witness’ (Neh 11:7), which is parallel to
Job’s famous confession of confidence (Job 16:19). All concepts of this sort are meaningful
only with reference to an individual.

5.2.3.2.3.╇ Divine assistance in names of confession

Notions of divine assistance form the most prominent topic expressed in names of
confession (see appendix B2.3), much more so than in names of thanksgiving. There are
no less than 37 epigraphic names derived from 11 different roots, recorded 149 times alto-
gether (representing 34% of all occurrences of confession names). As discussed above, the
prominence of this topic reflects individual experiences of danger or peril during which
a person feels a much keener need for divine support than he or she feels simply as one
member of the collective social group.â•›154 We also discussed above, from the tradition-
historical perspective, many expressions of need for divine assistance derive from experi-
ences directly encountered in individual or family environments.â•›155
The first subgroup of names that plead for divine assistance consists of names that
declare God to be a support for the sufferer (see appendix B2.3.1). A number of names are
derived from the noun ‫ עזר‬ʿézer, in which god is conceived to be the personal source of
aid to the sufferer, including, ‫ אחיעזר‬ʾAḥîʿezer ‘my [divine] brother is [my] help’. Five of
these names appear 7 times epigraphically (and 5 biblical names appear 18 times). Verbal
thanksgiving names derived from the root ‫ עזר‬appear to have been much more com-
mon (87 epigraphic instances), although the very frequently recorded hypocoristicon ‫עזר‬
ʿAzzūr or ʿEzer (35 references) may have been intended to some extent in a nominal sense,
in which case these names would be more appropriately considered names of confession.
The full theophoric form of this name appears often in the Aramaic onomasticon. There,
names such as ‫ עתרעזרי‬ʿAttarʿizrî ‘Ashtar is my help’ reveal that divine aid was understood
as relating directly to the name bearer and his or her family. Similar conclusions may be

153. For these plural suffixes on personal names, see other examples below, p. 332.
154. See above, p. 305.
155. See above, pp. 300–301, 305, 306.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 313

drawn from the biblically recorded name ‫ עזריאל‬ʿAzrîʾel ‘my help is El/god’ (Jer 36:26), as
well as the confession of confidence in the individual lament, Ps 54:6.
A number of names from several different roots express the similar concept that Yhwh
is the strength of the sufferer, such as, ‫ חזקיהו‬Ḥizqīyāhû ‘my strength is Yhwh’ (recorded 6
times), ‫ חליו‬Ḥelyau ‘[my] strength is Yhwh’ (KAgr[9]:5; in 5 variants, recorded 10 times),
‫ אבריהו‬ʾAbbiryāhû ‘[my] strength is Yhwh’ (recorded twice), and ‫ אניהו‬ʾOnîyāhû ‘my
power is Yhwh’ (also recorded twice). Although names derived from the nouns ‫ חזק‬ḥézeq
and ‫ חיל‬ḥayil, both of which denote ‘strength’, have parallels in the personal confessions
of confidence in prayers (Ps 18:2; Hab 3:19), no such counterparts are found for names
derived from the other two nouns. A name with the noun ‫ אביר‬ʾabbîr ‘strength, the strong
one’ may represent one of the very few instances in which an official epithet of Yhwh
was adopted in family religion—in the form of the title ‫ אביר יעקב‬ʾabbîr Yaʿăqōb ‘the
strong one of Jacob’ (Gen 49:24; Ps 132:2, 5; Isa 49:26; 60:16) and its variant ‫אביר יׂשראל‬
ʾabbîr Yiśrāʾel (Isa 1:24). However, several parallels to this name also appear in the Phoe-
nician onomasticon (Benz 1972: 55, 259), such as ‫ אברבעל‬ʾAbbirbaʿal ‘[my] strength is
Baal’, so this correspondence may just be a coincidence. Apart from ‫חזק‬, all nouns in this
group also appear in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighboring environment. The Aramaic
name ‫ ביתאלעׁשני‬Baytʾelʿušnî ‘Bethel is my strength’ again reflects the conception of divine
strength as being personally related to the name bearer. These names of confessions thus
testify to the concurrence of god’s strength and his support for suffering individuals, as
already shown above in the corresponding names of thanksgiving.â•›156
Another subgroup of names alluding to divine assistance granted to a sufferer con-
tains names that conceive of god as personally accompanying the sufferer (see appendix
B2.3.2). Of particular interest are the names derived from the preposition ‫ עם‬ʿim ‘with’,
such as ‫ עמדיהו‬ʿImmadīyāhû ‘Yhwh is with me’, ‫ עמנויהו‬ʿImmānûyāhû ‘Yhwh is with us’,
and ‫ עמד‬ʿImmadi ‘[DN] is with me’. Although the Hebrew Bible only contains the sym-
bolic name ‫ עמנואל‬ʿImmānûʾel (in Isa 7:14), there are 5 names of this sort known to date
in 13 different epigraphic records, as well as 1 Edomite name that may have been derived
from the same preposition. In the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons, names convey-
ing the same meaning were derived from the preposition ‫ את‬ʾet ‘with’ and include ‫אתאל‬
ʾIttīʾēl ‘El is with me’ (NTA 14.1:3) and ‫ ]א[תבעל‬ʾIttobaʿal ‘Baal is with [him]’ (Benz 73;
see also 1 Kgs 16:31). In most of these cases, divine assistance was conceived as relating to
an individual, whether formulated as the personal confession of the name bearer (Ittiʾel)
or as a confession by the parents on behalf of him/her (Ittobaal). There were also some
cases in which divine assistance was granted to a group (Immanuyahu), generally a small
familial group. There is only one exception: in naming his child, the prophet Isaiah used
this name to symbolize trust in God by the entire Judean community. Parallels of these
names appear in the confessions of confidence in prayers (Ps 23:4 and Jer 20:11) and in
the nominal clauses in the oracles of salvation (Isa 41:10; 43:2, 5; Jer 30:11 = 46:28; see also
Jer 1:8, 19; 15:20).
The concept of god’s manifest presence appears repeatedly throughout the Hebrew
Bible—particularly often, for example, in the patriarchal stories (Gen 21:20, 22; 26:3, 24;

156. See above, pp. 305–306.

314 Chapter 5

28:15, 20; 31:3, 5; 35:3; 39:2, 3, 21, 23; 48:21). However, expressions of god’s manifest pres-
ence reflect neither nomadic nor military social traditions (Albertz 1978a: 81–87), and
two-third of all instances of these names specifically conceive of divine assistance as be-
ing bestowed on the individual, with occasional extension to include a small group (Gen
48:21; Jer 42:11; Ruth 2:4) and a few rare cases in which the concept is expanded to encom-
pass an entire people (Deut 20:1; Judg 6:13; Ps 46:8, 12; among others). This concept thus
seems to reflect origins almost entirely centered in family religion. The analogous concept
of Yhwh’s presence with his people in granting them collective support is an extension
of individuals’ experience of the efficacy of intimate support by a close companion, an
experience that can banish fear during dangerous situations. In stark contrast to these
notions, Yhwh’s proximity is typically conceived as being threatening or dangerous in of-
ficial religious expressions (Exod 24:11; 33:3, 5; Isa 6:5). Yhwh’s relation to the collective
entity of Israel is typified by the image of his preceding his people (‫ הלך לפני‬hālak lipnê)
as the chief commander (Exod 13:21; Num 14:14; Deut 1:30, 33; 31:8).â•›157 God’s manifest
company as a friend or family member who is present in order to assist someone was the
concept that typified family religion.
There are related names of confession derived from the preposition ‫ בעד‬baʿad ‘for’
that are known from epigraphic evidence. Although they do not occur in the Hebrew
Bible, they appear to have been common names used by Israel’s neighbors. These names
include ‫ בעדאל‬Baʿadīʾēl ‘El is for [me]’ (2 variants, 4 instances). Reference to an Aramaic
name again elucidates an intended personal reference to the name bearer, in the form of,
‫ אלבעדי‬ʾElbaʿadî ‘El is for me’. The preposition used in this name does not appear in He-
brew prayers, although a similar confession uses the related preposition ‫־‬â•”‫ל‬â•” lĕ- ‘for’ in the
individual lament of Ps 56:10–11: “This I know: god is for me! .€.€. What can a mere mortal
do to me?” as well as in the psalm of thanksgiving, 118:6: “Yhwh is for me; I do not fear!”
There is also evidence that Aramaic names used this latter preposition (in ‫ אלהלי‬ʾIlahlî
‘God is for me’), suggesting also that the ‫־‬â•”‫ בעד‬names are closely affiliated with prayer con-
fessions. These names are once again an impressive witness to the preoccupation in family
religion of god’s power to ward off, prevent, or protect against perceived threats, dangers,
and adversaries.
A single name of the present subgroup derives from a nominal form of the root ‫ׁשען‬
šāʿan ‘to support oneself with’ in the form of ‫ מׁשען‬Mišʿān ‘[my] buttress [is DN]’. The
same metaphor for god’s personal assistance is used in Ps 18:19 (see also Ps 23:4). Ara-
maic names that convey a similar meaning employ nominal derivations from the root ‫סמך‬
sĕmak ‘to support’ and include ‫ עתרסמכי‬ʿAttarsumkî ‘Ashtar is my support’, again demon-
strating the personal focus of divine assistance. One Hebrew name that has no parallel to
date is ‫ נתביהו‬Nĕtībyāhû ‘[my] path is Yhwh’, which expresses Yhwh’s granting of support
to a sufferer by providing direction or orientation.
A third and final subgroup of the confession names consists of names that maintain
that god is the source of light for a sufferer (see appendix B2.3.3). These names may also

157. In Akkadian, the chief commander was called ālik pāni ‘the one who goes in front’; see also
expressions similar to ‫ יצא לפני‬yāṣāʾ lipnê ‘to go out in front’ in Judg 4:14; 2 Sam 5:24; and see also
Ps 44:10; 60:12; as well as ‫ עבר לפני‬ʿābar lipnê ‘to pass in front’ in Deut 9:3; 31:3.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 315

reflect the provision or at least the facilitating of direction or orientation (see Ps 119:105).
They derive from only two nouns: ‫ אור‬ʾûr ‘light’ and ‫ נר‬ner ‘lamp, light’, although they are
the most numerous of all confession names about divine assistance. From each of the 2
noun stems, 7 epigraphic names are derived that appear 45 and 58 times, respectively. The
most common of these names are ‫ אריהו‬ʾUrīyāhû and ‫ נריהו‬Nērīyāhû, both of which mean
‘my light is Yhwh’. The first has a parallel in the confession of confidence in an individual
lament, Ps 27:1; the second, in a confessional statement of the psalm of thanksgiving in
2€Sam 22:29. Directly personal references are verified not only by these confessions but
also by the first-person-singular suffix explicit in several Aramaic parallels, such as ‫ננורי‬
Nannûrî ‘Nanna is my light’. Names derived from both of these nouns were also common
in the cultures of Israel’s neighbors. All these names conceive of light as being provided
for a sufferer, and many gods—not just astral deities—are capable of providing this light,
including Baal, El, Hadad, Chemosh, Milkom, Nanna, Shamash, and Sin. Thus, Yhwh
names are subsumed in the confessional statements made with reference to a pantheon of
gods venerated by families throughout the Levant.

5.2.3.2.4.╇ Divine protection in names of confession

Names of confession that express the deity as being protection for a sufferer are the
third most-common of all names of confession. There are 28 different names known that
appear a total of 74 times (see appendix B2.4). The names are derived from the largest
number of distinct roots: 12 roots are epigraphic attestations, and a 13th appears in the
Hebrew Bible. More than 80% of all of these roots also occur in the prayer confessions,
which is the highest degree of correspondence of all types of names. Thus, although the
names of this group convey a wide variety of different concepts, they are all deeply rooted
in the prayer culture of family religion.
The first subgroup of these names confesses that god is a protector for a sufferer
(see appendix B2.4.1). In this group, the most common names contain the noun ‫ עז‬ʿoz
‘strength’, derived from the root ‫ עזז‬ʿāzaz. This noun is often used in conjunction with
a noun derived from the root ‫ עוז‬ʿûz ‘to seek or find refuge’, however, as exemplified by
the compound noun ‫ מעוז‬māʿôz ‘refuge’ (Ges18 941–42). It is particularly common in the
confessions of confidence for ʿoz to be accompanied by nouns such as ‘shield’ (Ps 28:7),
‘refuge’, or ‘stronghold’ (Jer 16:19; Ps 59:18). Thus, the names derived from ʿoz should be
rendered ‘[DN] is my [strong] protection’. Seven of these names are epigraphic and ap-
pear a total of 37 times (along with 5 biblical names, 19 instances), the most common of
which is ‫ יהועז‬Yĕhôʿaz ‘Yhwh is [my] protection’. Similar names were also very common
among Israel’s neighbors. One Ammonite name is of particular interest, ‫ אלעזן‬ʾIlʿuzzān
(BPPS 162). Interpreting this name’s ending â•‚ān as a diminutive (GKC §86g; Noth 1928:
38) seems less plausible than as a shortened form of the first-person-plural suffix â•‚ānū
(Deutsch and Lemaire 2000: 218). An unambiguous example of this plural suffix is the
name ʿImmānūyāhû.â•›158 Accordingly, the name ʾIlʿuzzān should be rendered ‘El is our pro-
tection’ and taken to refer to divine protection for an entire family.

158. See above, pp. 312 and 313.

316 Chapter 5

This subgroup includes other, somewhat rare names, such as ‫ זמריהו‬Zimrīyāhû ‘my
protection is Yhwh’, which is known from a single epigraphic artifact and alludes to Ps
118:14, which declares, “My refuge and my protection is Yhwh.”â•›159 The name ‫ יוסתר‬Yau-
seter ‘Yhwh is [my] hiding place’ is also attested only once and alludes to the confessional
statement in the individual thanksgiving psalm, Ps 32:7: “You are my hiding place; you
protect me from distress.” Other more-personal metaphors of a deity’s being a protector,
shepherd, guardian, or watchman have been found in Aramaic and Phoenician names.
There are 2 epigraphic names derived from the noun ‫ צל‬ṣēl ‘shadow’ (in 3 instances, along
with 4 biblical names, 4 instances), one of which is very interesting because it deviates
from the typical pattern of Northwest Semitic names by appearing to be the abbreviation
for an existing prayer confession in the form of ‫ בצל‬bĕṣēl, which may be rendered ‘in the
shadow [of DN]’. An expanded confession of this type is offered in Ps 57:2, “In the shadow
of your wings I seek [my] refuge.”â•›160 There are 2 probable theophoric forms of this name
in the Hebrew Bible, one of which is ‫ בצלאל‬Bĕṣalʾel ‘in the shadow of El’. It is possible
that this sort of name was intended to reflect imagery typical of a temple (compare, for
example, the throne of cherubs in Jerusalem). It also may have alluded to the frequently
found epigraphic representations of “winged sun-discs.” The fact that this sort of name
also appeared in Babylonia (in the form of Ina-ṣilli-Nabû ‘in the shadow of Nabû’, for
example)â•›161 suggests that the interpretation probably is a more-generalized metaphor, in
which the deity is perceived as a mother bird who shelters her children beneath her wings.
Another form of adverbial name was derived from the expression ‫ יד‬+ ‫ ב‬bĕ + yād
‘in the hand’ and was commonly used in Phoenicia, for example, in the form of ‫בדבעל‬
Bōdbaʿal ‘in the hand of Baal’ (Benz 75; WSS 726). It also appears in the Ammonite and
Aramaic onomasticons. However, this type is rather rare in the Hebrew onomasticon, ap-
pearing in only 4 epigraphic instances of 3 different names (1 time in the Hebrew Bible).
An example of these names is ‫ בדיהו‬Bēdyāhû ‘in the hand of Yhwh’, an expression of
religious belief that the hand of god offered refuge to a suffering individual in his/her state
of fear. This kind of metaphorical sentiment is again likely to have been evoked by typical
family imagery, such as a frightened child running to his or her mother, who lifts the child
into her arms to be comforted and caressed by her hands. The concept also expresses the
broader metaphor of trust that the destiny of all individuals is always in the hands of god.
A slightly different metaphorical slant appears in variants of these names in the Aramaic
onomasticon, for example, ‫ כלבידׁשמׁש‬Kolbayadšamaš ‘all is in the hand of Shamash’. And
the confession of confidence in Ps 31:5, “Into your hand I commit my spirit,” conveys a
sentiment that is a hybrid of these two types of sentiment.
Another subgroup consists of names that explicitly express belief that God is a ref-
uge for the suffering (see appendix B2.4.2). Most metaphors used in the 9 names of this
group are well known from the confessions of confidence in the Psalms, such as the name
‫[ ]א[למעז‬ʾE]lmaʿaz ‘El is my refuge’, which corresponds to the confession of the indi-
vidual lament in Ps 31:5, “because you are my refuge” (‫ מעוזי‬māʿûzzî). Only two names

159. Reading ‫ זמרתי‬zimrātî ‘my protection’ with one Hebrew ms and the versions.
160. Compare Ps 17:8; 36:8; 63:8; and 61:5; 91:4.
161. See Stamm 1968: 276.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 317

of this sort have been found in epigraphic material, each recorded only once, and the
Hebrew Bible contributes another name, ‫ מעזיהו‬Maʿazyāhû ‘my refuge is Yhwh’. Ara-
maic names of this kind appear to have been a little more common (with 3 names known
with 1 instance each) and included ‫ אדמעזי‬ʾAddumaʿuzzî ‘Adad is my refuge’; this name is
again a personal reference to the name bearer. Names derived from the similar noun ‫מחסה‬
maḥăsēh were more common (3 names, 16 instances), and this noun is also well known
from the confessions of confidence—for example, in the Ps 61:4 declaration, “You became
a refuge for me.” The same sentiment is expressed in the name ‫ מחסיהו‬Maḥsēyāhû ‘[my]
refuge is Yhwh’, which is known from 13 epigraphic records, while there is 1 biblical ap-
pearance of a slightly shortened form of this name (in Jer 32:12). No names of this sort are
known yet to have been used by Israel’s neighbors.
Names deriving from the noun ‫ צור‬ṣûr ‘rock’, used to portray a typical place of refuge,
have appeared in both Israel and Syria. The Hebrew name ‫ אליצר‬ʾElîṣūr ‘my god is [my]
rock’ has a counterpart in the confession of confidence in Ps 62:3, “He alone is my rock
and my salvation.” The reference to Yhwh in this name is similar to an Aramaic name
with reference to Hadad: ‫ צוריהדד‬Ṣûrîhadad ‘my rock is Hadad’. This name also is an
explicitly personal reference. One name confesses Yhwh to be a tower for the individual
who is suffering (‫ מגדליהו‬Migdalyāhû), and even this very concrete metaphor is similarly
used in the confessions of confidence (in Ps 61:4). A similar construction compares the
deity with a wall provided to support a suffering individual. An ostracon obtained on the
antiquities market (NEE 92.79:4) provides the unique name ‫ יהוטר‬Yĕhôṭūr, for which the
editors Robert Deutsch and Michael Heltzer (1995: 98) suggested that a nun is missing
and the word is related to the root ‫ נטר‬nāṭar ‘to watch, to guard’. However, the noun ‫טור‬
ṭûr, which denotes a kind of wall, appears in Biblical Hebrew (in 1 Kgs 6:36; Ezek 46:23),
and the Bible provides another parallel name, ‫ אביׁשור‬ʾAbîšûr, which is derived from the
Aramaic or Hebrew noun ‫ ׁשור‬šûr ‘wall’ (used in poetic contexts in Gen 49:22; 2 Sam
22:30). Thus this name clearly can be rendered ‘my [divine] father is [my defensive] wall’.
There are also several Aramaic parallels to this biblical name, such as ‫ נבוׁשרי‬Nabûšūrî
‘Nabu is my defensive wall’, that further strengthen the argument that ‫ יהוטר‬should be
interpreted ‘Yhwh is my defensive wall’.
It is important to note that these names make no reference to offensive weapons or
installations; only defensive functions are metaphorically ascribed to the deity. Although
many metaphors may not immediately appear to be related to family religion, rocks, tow-
ers, fortifications, and explicit places of refuge were all places to which individuals or fami-
lies might flee when they or their larger communities came under attack by an enemy (Jer
4:5–6, 29). Thus, these defensive attributions arise directly from typical village experiences
and do not necessarily connote a dedicated military function. Such military metaphors
in the belief system of family religion again reflect the keenly felt vulnerability of the in-
dividual. In this case, fear was allayed by confessing that god himself provided defense
against enemies for the name bearer and rendered all enemies powerless, whether worldly
or otherwise.
The final subgroup of protection names consists of names that express much more
peaceful sentiments, that God himself is the sheltering place of residence for the suffering
(see appendix B2.4.3). This group comprises only 5 known instances of 5 different names
318 Chapter 5

derived from 2 roots. One of these roots, from which 3 names are derived, is the noun ‫נוה‬
nāwēh ‘pasture’, which is parallel to the shepherd metaphor in the psalm of confidence
Ps 23:2.â•›162 The names ‫ נויה‬Nawīyāh and its Northern variant ‫ נויו‬Nawīyau both mean
‘my pasture is Yhwh’ and express Yhwh’s ability to guarantee nourishment and security
of abode for the suffering. The second root of this group also describes typical pastoral
scenery, ‫ חמיאהל‬Ḥammîʾōhel ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] tent’. Although no names
containing ‫ נוה‬have been found to date outside Israel, names formed from ‫ אהל‬appear in
Phoenicia, as in the example ‫ אהלבעל‬ʾOhelbaʿal ‘[my] tent is Baal’. Names formed from
the two roots in this subgroup testified not so much to a defense against possible enemies
but a desire for the peaceful existence of being actively sheltered by the deity.

5.2.3.2.5.╇ Trust in god in names of confession

Although all of the names of confession considered thus far express various forms
of trust in God, there is one group of names that focuses directly on religious trust in its
own right (see appendix B2.5). The existence of these names is remarkable considering
the general patterns of Northwest Semitic personal names, in which mortals were appar-
ently not permitted to be the subject of theophoric names. The rightful subject of these
names would normally have been the deity, whether the names formed verbal or nominal
sentences. Although there are several known cases in which the deity is the predicate of
a nominal sentence, the deity was not used as the object of a verbal sentence or an adver-
bial expression (in contrast to the constructions of Akkadian names). Thus, a confession
of trust such as ‘I trust in you, Yhwh’, which is frequently attested in the individual la-
ments (Ps 13:6; 25:2; 26:1; 31:7, 15; 56:5, 12; 143:8), would normally not have appeared in
a Hebrew personal name. What makes the present names remarkable is that they attest
a variety of strategies used to overcome the “regulations” and thus to make these sorts of
declarations anyway.
Given the lexical difficulties, this group of names naturally remains rather restricted
and consists of 18 names derived from 9 different roots. The names have, however, been
recorded 84 times, making them slightly more common than confession names of divine
protection. There are 2 epigraphic roots known so far that do not appear in the Hebrew
Bible, but it provides 3 additional verbal or nominal expressions. Thus there are 12 differ-
ent roots known to date.
The first subgroup of these names comprises 3 names containing the noun ‫ חלק‬ḥéleq
‘portion, share’, with 31 individual instances (see appendix B2.5.1). This noun denotes a
share of land that had been inherited and consequently was possessed by a family (Ruth
2:3; 4:3–4; Hos 5:7). Thus, the name ‫ חלקיהו‬Ḥilqīyāhû ‘my portion is Yhwh’ signified that

162. These names have proven difficult to explain (Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.303). Deutsch
and Heltzer (1997: 43) assumed that the name ‫ נויו‬nwyw, which was found inscribed on a fancy
silver signet, derived from the root ‫ נאה‬nāʾāh ‘to ornate’, which takes a waw ending in its adjectival
conjugation (see Cant 1:10). Thus they read Nōiyāw and rendered the name ‘My prettiness [grace]
is Yāū’. The ʾalep, however, which is never omitted in the texts, would not have been included on
the signet, if this were the correct reading. In a 2nd edition, Deutsch and Lemaire (2000: 14, 220)
altered the actual reading (to Naveyau) but retained the same explanation. Zadok (1988: 98) plau-
sibly interpreted the short form ‫ נוי‬nwy as a Gentile name derived from the noun nāwēh ‘pasture’.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 319

Yhwh was considered one’s very subsistence, exactly as a family’s tenured land would
have been. A special priestly decree stated that Levites could not possess shares of Israel’s
land, because Yhwh himself was their share and patrimony (Num 18:20; Deut 10:9; 12:12;
14:27, 29; 18:1–2; among others). Thus one could conjecture that these names were no-
tionally derived from this levitical law (Albertz 1978a: 70). However, because the earliest
known names of this sort appeared in the 8th century—a time prior to the Deuteronomic
reform that gave rise to the oldest formulations of levitical rule—this derivation seems
doubtful. The confessions of confidence that declare Yhwh to be one’s personal portion
(Ps 16:5; 73:26; 142:6; Lam 3:24) do not reflect levitic influence either (with the possible
exception of Psalm 73). These names are thus more likely to have emerged conceptually
from the familial sphere. Possession of a share of land on which a family was completely
dependent economically was symbolically being transferred to god in order to express
that he himself was regarded as one’s true portion of life “in the land of the living” (Ps
142:6). By identifying Yhwh as the basis of all life, these confession names aimed to ex-
press the essence of relationship between a particular individual and his/her god, and this
relationship was characterized by trust and dependence. There has been a curious absence
of names derived from this root located so far in Israel’s environment. One seal written in
Aramaic script contained the name ‫ חלקיו‬Ḥelqīyau (WSS 818), indicating that it belonged
to a North Israelite who lived in Syria. However, there are similar names (with different
deities) known from Mesopotamia that derived from the noun zittu ‘share of land’, such
as Ea-zittišu ‘Ea is his share’ (CAD Z 141b).
The second subgroup of these names explicitly states that Yhwh is the basis of trust
(see appendix B2.5.2). In the names ‫ מבטחיהו‬Mibṭaḥyāhû ‘My trust is Yhwh’, known from
6 epigraphic instances, and ‫ כסליהו‬Kislīyāhû ‘My trust is Yhwh’, known from 8, the deity
is simply and directly equated with the Hebrew nouns for trust. These are, of course, inex-
act expressions, because Yhwh cannot actually be trust itself; he can only be the object of
human trust. It is nevertheless in this same fashion that these nouns are used when they
appear in the corresponding confessions of confidence (Ps 22:10; 71:5; Job 4:6). Thus the
apparent regulations underlying the construction of Northwest Semitic personal names
led to an ambiguity in these statements that does not apply to most other classes of names,
and yet the very existence of these ambiguous statements must reflect the singular impor-
tance of the sentiment that personal trust could or should be placed in god.
There are other examples in which the underlying “rules” for forming Northwest Se-
mitic names appear to have been neglected in favor of grammatical constructions more
typical of Akkadian names, including 3 names requiring that one place one’s hope in god.
The name ‫ חכליהו‬Ḥakalyāhû, in which the verb is the imperative of ‫ חכה‬ḥākāh ‘to hope’
used in connection with the preposition ‫־‬â•”‫ ל‬lĕâ•”Ö¾ ‘for, on, in’ (also associated with this verb
in Hab 2:3; Ps 106:13), thus uses the divine name as an object, again in contradiction of
apparent regulations. The verb in this case would normally be a Piel. However, other per-
sonal names also use stems in which the Qal has often been substituted. Thus, the name
should be rendered ‘Place your hope in Yhwh!’ A similar command is expressed in short-
ened form, ‫ חכל‬Ḥakal ‘Place your hope in [DN]!’ and also ‫ קוה‬Qawwēh, which derives
the same meaning from the root qāwāh used in the Piel. The Hebrew Bible also contains
1 name constructed similarly. It is derived from the root ‫ יחל‬yāḥal ‘to wait’ in the form
320 Chapter 5

‫ יחלאל‬Yaḥlĕʾel ‘Wait for El!’ (Gen 46:14; see also Ps 38:16).â•›163 All of these imperative names
command not only the name bearers to place their trust in god but also all those whom
they encounter, who must call them by this name. Bearers of these names could hardly
have avoid personifying persistent commands for their families to comply with this reli-
gious attitude. The single-word name ‫ תקוה‬Tiqwāh ‘[my] hope [is DN]’ (see Ps 62:6) ex-
presses a similar sentiment. Finally, the biblical name ‫ אליהועיני‬ʾElyĕhôʿênay ‘To Yhwh my
eyes [are directed]’ (1 Chr 26:3; Ezra 8:4; see also Ps 141:8) accords entirely with patterns
of Akkadian confession names. Although names of this type are admittedly rare because
they deviate from conventions guiding the construction of Northwest Semitic names, they
nevertheless demonstrate more immediately than the names of any other group the cen-
trality for Israelite family religion of placing one’s trust in god. Moreover, although these
names appear to have been used even more rarely by Israel’s neighbors, they do appear
in a few examples, such as ‫ יחלבעל‬Yaḥellĕbaʿal (?) ‘wait for Baal!’ (Benz 127; KAI 49.15).â•›164
The final subgroup of confession names consists of names that declare that God is
the joy of life (see appendix B2.5.3). This group includes 8 names derived from 4 differ-
ent nouns, most of which are rare: ‫[ ׂשראל‬ʾA]śriʾel ‘[my] joy is El’ (appears once), which
was probably derived from the noun ‫ אׂשר‬ʾéśer ‘joy’; ‫ אבגיל‬ʾAbīgayl ‘[my divine] father
is [my] rejoicing’ (appears twice); and ‫ חמיעדן‬Ḥammîʿeden ‘my [divine] father-in-law is
[my] bliss’ (in 2 variants recorded once each). Only the names derived from the noun ‫גד‬
gad ‘luck’ seem to have been more common (25 instances of 4 names). Examples include
the name ‫ גדיהו‬Gaddīyāhû ‘my luck is Yhwh’, which in itself appears 9 times. Names con-
taining the nouns ‫ עדן‬ʿéden ‘bliss’, ‫ גד‬gad ‘luck’, and ‫ ׁשבע‬šébaʿ ‘richness’ also were used
in the Ammonite, Aramaic, and Phoenician cultures (although the last of these is known
only from biblical references,â•›165 with no epigraphic evidence to dateâ•›166). Many names de-
rived from these roots were specifically female names, and it thus seems that, in contrast
to the patriarchal structures that dominated most aspects of ancient Israelite society, it was
exclusively the birth of daughters that reminded parents of the joyful, fortunate aspects of
their trusting relationship to god.

5.2.3.2.6.╇ Relationships of personal trust in god

alluded to in names of confession
Israelite families’ trusting relationship with god that was born out of experiencing re-
curring crises nurtured broader expression of enduring, stable relationships between fam-
ily members and their deity (see appendix B2.6). Although names in this group testify to

163. The verbal form should be interpreted as the imperative Piel yaḥel; the preposition ‫־‬â•”‫ ל‬lĕ is
intermingled with the last letter of the root, which has correctly been interpreted by Zadok (1988:
42); Noth (1928: 204) tried to derive the name from the root ‫ חלה‬ḥālāh II ‘to be sweet’, but this does
not make good sense.
164. This is in accordance with the biblical name derived from this root. The name has previ-
ously been unexplained; Donner and Röllig (1979: 66, no. 49) suggested a consonantal shift in cor-
respondence with the name ‫יחנבעל‬, which is attested in KAI 80.2.
165. See the specifically female names ‫ אליׁשבע‬ʾElîšebaʿ ‘my god is richness’ (Exod 6:23), and
‫ יהוׁשבע‬Yĕhōšebaʿ ‘Yhwh is richness’ (2 Kgs 11:2)
166. But see the Phoenician name ‫ תנתׁשבע‬Tannitšebaʿ ‘Tannit is richness’, which denotes a
goddess.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 321

personal transcendence of hardship or danger, they still bear distinct connections with
the confessions of confidence in the prayers. In their individual laments, suffering people
might remind god that they were his servants or were aliens to whom he should show re-
sponsibility. For example, Ps 143:12 states, “In your faithfulness, ruin my enemies; destroy
all those who oppress me, for I am your servant [‫ עבד‬ʿébed]!” and Ps 39:13 adds, “Hear my
prayer; listen to my cry; do not disregard my tears; for I am a sojourner [‫ גר‬gēr], a client
like all my fathers.” What is confessed here in a time of urgent need, partially including
the horizon of family descent, is made a prolonged statement in the names in which the
name bearer declares himself to be a servant (‫ )עבד‬or a sojourner (‫ )גר‬of a particular deity.
Including references to all the individual deities, the group consists of 25 names that
are derived from 14 different nominal elements (see appendix B2.6) and that altogether
appear a total of 87 times. These names were common in the cultures surrounding Israel,
particularly in the Phoenician onomasticon. However, they were appreciably less common
in the Hebrew onomasticon, where only the names that contain the above-mentioned
nouns are more frequently represented (‫ עבד‬46 times, ‫ גר‬12 times).
The first subgroup of these names declares the name bearer to be a servant of god
(see appendix B2.6.1). In most Hebrew versions of these names that appear in epigraphic
records, the name emphasizes its bearer’s personal relationship to Yhwh, as in ‫עבדיהו‬
ʿAbdiyāhû ‘servant of Yhwh’, which appears 18 times, as well as 3 other variants. Iso-
lated cases in Israel also mentioned other gods, as in ‫ עבדירח‬ʿAbdiyēraḥ ‘servant of Yeraḥ’,
who was the Canaanite moon-god (HAE 2.25). The seal on which this name appears
comes from the 7th century b.c.e., and—although the iconographic forms share Mes-
opotamian characteristics (see WSS 34)â•›167 and thus may be presumed to reflect foreign
(possibly Ammonite) influence—the script is distinctly Hebrew. Thus the seal probably
reflects the process of astralization or lunarization in Israelite religion during the Assyr-
ians’ domination, which is also reflected in biblical texts (Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer
8:2). The inscription of the name ‫ עבדׂשהר‬ʿAbdiśāhār on a seal from the late 8th or 7th
century, which is rightly interpreted not as a title but as a name meaning ‘servant of Sa-
har’, also contains astral symbols (see WSS 1075). Because Sahar was a moon-god well
known from Syria (for example, see KAI 202.B24) and South Arabia (WM 225–26), and
because the script reflects a degree of Aramaic influence, Renz and Röllig (HAE 21.77)
considered the name bearer to be Aramean and excluded this name from the Hebrew
onomasticon.â•›168 However, the fact that amulets called ‫ ׂשהרנים‬śĕhărōnîm ‘little moons’
were in use in 8th-century Jerusalem (Isa 3:18) reveals that astral or lunar symbols did
not necessarily reflect foreign elements, and this name may be considered among Hebrew
names. There is also one name in which the name of a deity is replaced by a generic di-
vine quality: ‫ עבדחיל‬ʿAbdiḥayil ‘servant of the [divine] strength’. ʿÉbed-names were also
very common in Phoenicia and referred to many different gods (including Baal, Hadad,
Melqart, Shalem, Shamash, Amun, Osiris, and Ptah), as well as several goddesses (Anat,
Ashtarte, Tannit, Bastet, and Isis). These names also appeared in female variants, such

167. On its side, the seal has a winged ibex-man, an ankh-shaped cult stand in front, and a
crescent above.
168. The name is lacking in Renz and Röllig’s list (HAE 2/2.455).
322 Chapter 5

as ‫ אמתׁשמן‬ʾAmotešmun ‘maidservant of Eshmun’, although they do not show up in the

Hebrew onomasticon.
Although submission to the deity as expressed in the proliferation of ʿÉbed-names
is also conceptualized in the rare name ‫ נעריהו‬Naʿaryāhû ‘servant boy of Yhwh’, a more
equitable relationship is conceived solely in the name ‫ אלף‬ʾAllūp ‘friend [of DN]’; the
name is considered a hypocoristicon of the theophoric name and not merely the secular
name ʾélep ‘ox’. Theophoric intention is beyond doubt in names that use the 2 zoomorphic
elements ‫ כלב‬and ‫עגל‬. The name ‫ כלב‬Kālēb, which is derived from kéleb ‘dog’, could not
have been a secular name because this term generally had pejorative connotations in the
Israelite culture (1 Sam 17:43; Prov 26:11, 17; Qoh 9:4). Moreover, a full theophoric form
is known to have existed in Phoenicia: ‫ כלבאלם‬Kalbʾēlîm ‘dog of the gods’. These names
would thus have been declaring the name bearer to be a loyal follower of the deity, as a
dog is faithful to its master or mistress. A similar sentiment is intended with the name
‫ עגליו‬ʿEgelyau ‘young steer of Yhwh’. In the same way that a calf or young steer will fol-
low its mother wherever she goes, the name bearer will faithfully follow Yhwh. I argued
above that this name did not derive from the cult symbol of the Bethel sanctuary,â•›169 partly
because names of this kind also appeared in Phoenicia and Syria. Furthermore, there is
one Aramaic seal (WSS 835) that belonged to a person named ‫ עגלהדד‬ʿEgelhadad ‘young
steer of Hadad’, but it depicts a goddess. These names are in no way connected to the Syro-
Palestinian iconography that depicts the weather-god standing on a bull. The zoomorphic
metaphors thus represent broader generalizations of sentiment that originated in family
and household contexts. This assertion is further supported by the fact that more-profes-
sional attributions, such as the Aramaic name ‫ כמראלה‬Kumrʾilah ‘priest of god’, are absent
in the Israelite onomasticon.â•›170
The second subgroup consists of names that variously declare a certain individual to
belong to a deity (see appendix B2.6.2), for which one mode of expression was to use the
noun ‫ גר‬gēr, denoting a ‘resident alien’. The religious understanding of this word referred
not to the foreign origin of a person but to a well-defined relationship with a particular
native citizen for whom the person worked and from whom he or she gained sustenance
and protection. Thus arises the name ‫ גריהו‬Gēryāhû ‘sojourner of Yhwh’, which appears
in only 6 epigraphic records, and maintains that the name bearer belongs to Yhwh, whom
the bearer in turn would have regarded as being responsible for him/her. Again, Phoeni-
cian names of this sort were much more common and also included female variants, such
as ‫ גרתבעל‬Geretbaʿal ‘she-sojourner of Baal’.
Another way of expressing this sentiment of belonging was by using the nisbe (‫־י‬╔╂ay),
which generally denoted a person’s affiliation with a particular people or being in a certain
category. In the Hebrew onomasticon, this form of theophoric name is restricted to refer-
ence to the Egyptian god Bes, in ‫ בסי‬Besay ‘who belongs to Bes’, which is known from 4
epigraphic sources and appears once in the Bible (in Ezra 2:49). Noth (1928: 152) assumed
that the biblical name was a shortened form of ‫ בסודיה‬Bĕsôdyāh ‘in the council of Yhwh’,
which appeared once in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 3:6). However, this interpretation

169. See above, p. 265.

170. See below, pp. 344–348.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 323

is now contradicted by subsequently unearthed epigraphic material from the preexilic

period (see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.175). The god Bes played a role in ancient Israel,
especially in relation to apotropaic rituals and devices.â•›171 These sorts of name are more
common in the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons, for example, ‫ אלתי‬ʾIlatay ‘who
belongs to the goddess’ and ‫ בעלי‬Baʿalay ‘who belongs to Baal’. If we agree that all such
names reflect nisbe constructions, then perhaps all personal names that consist of a deity’s
name alone are the shortened form of the same class of names that merely omitted the
nisbe. Although these names only rarely appear in the Ammonite and Moabite onomasti-
cons, they are considerably more common in the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons.
Five divine names appear in Hebrew epigraphic material: ‫ אב‬ʾāb ‘[divine] father’; ‫ עם‬ʿam
‘[divine] uncle’; ‫ בעל‬Baʿal ‘Baal’; ‫ חר‬Ḥōr ‘Horus’; and ‫ מת‬Maut ‘Mot’, two of which (Baal
and Horus) also appear in the Hebrew Bible. All of these names should thus be rendered
‘[the one who belongs to] DN’. Zadok (1988: 175) also proposed that the name ‫ מאס‬Mēʾis
(?), known from 6 appearances, represents a hybrid form of the Hebrew preposition ‫מן‬
min ‘from’ and the name of the Egyptian goddess Isis. If this is true, this type of name then
also testifies to the close relationship between an individual and his or her goddess. If we
accept this interpretation, then this name is one of very few cases in which a goddess ap-
pears in the Hebrew onomasticon.
The final subgroup consists of names that declare the name bearer to be the son or
daughter of a particular deity (see appendix B2.6.3). This was a very common notion in
the ancient Levant and beyond, that the relationship between an individual and his or her
god was analogous with the socially and physically intimate relationship that typically
exists between children and their parents. Names expressing this concept were especially
popular among the Arameans and Phoenicians, from which many names arise, such as
‫ ברהדד‬Barhadad ‘Son of Hadad’ and [‫ בנענ]ת‬Binʿanat ‘son of Lady Anat’. A female variant
of the latter name appears once in the Ammonite onomasticon as ‫ בתאל‬Batʾil ‘daughter
of El’ and several times in the Phoenician onomasticon as ‫ בתׁשחר‬Batšaḥar ‘daughter of
Shaḥar’. These occurrences make the relative paucity of names of this sort in the Hebrew
onomasticon all the more conspicuous. The few examples include ‫ אפלי‬ʾAplāya, which is
probably best understood as representing a hypocoristic loan name from Mesopotamia
of the type apil-DN ‘inheriting son of DN’ (see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.159), which is
known from a single inscription on a seal from the 7th–6th centuries (WSS 86); and a
name adopted from Egypt in the form of ‫ פׁשחר‬Pašḥūr with the accepted meaning ‘son
of Horus’. It appears to have been quite popular in Judah, where it has been found in 9
epigraphic records, and it also appears 4 times in the Hebrew Bible.
Thus, insofar as interpretations of the names adopted from foreign cultures are ac-
curate, Israelite family religion can be concluded to have conveyed through names its
conception of a child as the son or daughter of a deity. However, it appears that these
sentiments did not gain sufficient popularity among Israelite families that they devised
equivalent names in their own language. The official religious traditions of Israel and Ju-
dah during the monarchic period certainly drew on imagery of divine fatherhood, and
this sentiment was central to the kingship theology of the Southern (Ps 2:7) and Northern

171. See below, pp. 381, 391–393, 440.

324 Chapter 5

kingdoms (Ps 80:18), in both of which the king was proclaimed to be a son of Yhwh. The
prophet Hosea and his followers even regarded the entirety of Israel to be a singular or
collective son of Yhwh (Hos 11:1; Isa 1:2; Deut 14:1; 32:5). However, traditions of family
religion seem to have had reservations about this paternal concept, even though Jeremiah
asserted (in Jer 2:27) that the people of Judah had trustfully addressed the gods and god-
desses of their local cults as they would the fathers and mothers who had borne them.
Most Israelite families apparently regarded paternal symbolism to be less appropriate for
expressing their personal relationship to god in a sufficiently intimate and faithful man-
ner. These reservations reflect the similar reservations noted above with regard to express-
ing physical or sexual concepts in birth names.â•›172 Thus, the family religion of ancient Israel
seems to have been a little more literally in awe of the distance and transcendence of the
deity than Israel’s northern neighbors, in spite of the myriad of ways in which the deity
might draw nigh.
This sort of distinction was already noted by J. D. Fowler (1988: 314), but she did not
indicate that it forms only one element in the extended spectrum of beliefs enshrined in
the Hebrew names of confession. In this chapter, we have discovered no significant dif-
ference between the family religions of Israel and its neighbors in 13 of the 15 subgroups
of confession names. Rather, there appears to have been a remarkably high degree of cor-
respondence between the various Levantine cultures on this level of religion. Major dif-
ferences are apparent in only two subgroups, the first of which (2.6.1) is the distribution
of ʿébed-names. These names constitute a considerable portion of the Phoenician names
of confession, and, to a lesser extent, of the equivalent Aramaic names, at the expense of
more concrete expressions of confidence. This difference leads to the discovery that He-
brew confession names with more concrete expressions of confidence are somewhat more
expressive and diverse. Nevertheless, the differences are very slight throughout, and it is
only the second and final subgroup above (§2.6.3) that reveals any substantial difference
in conceptions of belief. Overall, discernible differences are very few.
As with names of thanksgiving, Hebrew names of confession reveal an astonishing
richness of family belief. Furthermore, the various crises that provoked the desires for
divine attention, protection, assistance, or salvation alluded to in the thanksgiving names
actually enhanced the intimate personal relationships that individual family members had
with their gods, as we discovered during our examination of the confession names. The
direct correspondence between names of confession and the confessions of confidence
in the individual laments reveals that the amazing conceptual richness of these names
was directly related to the actual experiences faced by individuals in times of crisis. These
names provided a base on which an individual might rekindle his or her hope in god’s pro-
tection, aid, or salvation. The names of confession thus reveal the center of family religion
to have consisted of a close personal relationship with the divine. It was determined by
the mutual aspects of trust and dependence at its foundation. The importance of trust in
personal relationships with the divine is explicitly attested in the personal names of trust
that were given despite apparent Northwest Semitic traditions against the construction of
such names (see appendix B2.5). The aspect of dependence is most clearly expressed by

172. See above, p. 289.

 Personal Names and Family Religion 325

the names that denote the name bearer as a servant or sojourner of the deity (see appendix
B2.6.1–2). In subsequent sections of this book, we will add more detail to this understand-
ing of personal relationship with the divine by examining its interrelatedness with the
belief in individual creation.â•›173 In the meantime, it is abundantly clear that the trusting
relationships expressed in the names of confession were not derived from the beliefs or
concepts of official Israelite religion—despite the fact that they shared a few idioms and
metaphorsâ•›174—but derived from intimate individual and family perspectives.

5.2.3.3.╇ Familial beliefs as represented by names of praise

Names of praise constitute the smallest group of prayer names and in fact manifest
fewer epigraphic appearances than any other Hebrew name group. The group consists of
48 names known from 135 occurrences, which amount to 7.1% and 4.6%, respectively,
of all known names. In comparison with thanksgiving names (consisting of 24% of all
names and 34% of all instances) and confession names (consisting of 17.6% of all names
and 14.9% of all instances), praise names apparently reflected phenomena that were pe-
ripheral to the central issues of Israelite family religion. Expressions of praise found their
primary outlet in the singing of hymns in temples and regional or central sanctuaries
during annual pilgrimage festivals, such as Maṣṣot, Shavuot, and Sukkot. The singing was
led by priests and professional singers. The sentiments of praise thus belonged largely to
the domain of official religion. Nevertheless, the presence of families in larger pilgrimage
festivals would have ensured that they were familiar with the statements of hymnic praise
offered to god in these official domains, and these sentiments occasionally found parallel
expression in the more private realms of family religion. Names of praise constituted a
minor portion of all individual names of prayer (14%), and an even lower proportion of
actual instances (8.6%), demonstrating the limited extent to which the domains of official
and family religion affected or overlapped with each other.
Names of praise can be classified into four subgroups of (1) names praising the great-
ness of god; (2) names praising the goodness of god; (3) names praising the vitality of god;
and (4) names calling for the praise and worship of god. The first two groups reflect to
the essential structure of Israelite hymns, which has been detailed by Claus Westermann
(1963: 87–97). He wrote that the corpus of Israelite hymns is not merely an accumulation
of generic praise statements but a more structured accumulation of statements about two
opposing notions: praise for god’s majesty and praise for his mercy. The fourth group con-
sists of sentiments closely allied with the calls to praise that generally introduce Israelite
hymns (Crüsemann 1969: 19–80).â•›175 These three subgroups (1, 2, and 4) thus directly
reflect the typical structure of the hymn genre. The fact that these structures were a much
less conspicuous phenomenon in Israel’s neighboring cultures and that some names adopt

173. See below, pp. 331–336; and already above, pp. 277–281.

174. The following terms are discussed above in this respect: ʾabbîr ‘the strong one’, ṣēl ‘shadow’,
and ʿegel ‘young steer’.
175. Regardless of criticisms that may be leveled at Crüsemann’s (1969: 126–54) consideration
that the imperative form of hymns was specifically Israelite while the participial forms were attrib-
utable to foreign influences, he nevertheless emphasizes what was a characteristic trait of Israelite
hymns.
326 Chapter 5

calls to praise in their original plural forms (which are otherwise not exactly appropri-
ate as family sentiments) suggests that praise names were strongly influenced by Israelite
hymns. Thus, these names were at least influenced structurally by the official religion.
There are, however, two notable differences between praise names and hymns that
indicate the limits on these influences. The first of these differences is found in the third of
the above four subgroups, in which the vitality of god is praised, which had no clear coun-
terpart in hymnal expressions. The second difference arises from a comparison of the rates
of occurrence of etymological roots: praise names and hymnic statements share fewer
than 40%, a notably lower percentage than equivalent values for thanksgiving names and
confession names.â•›176 (Inclusion of roots shared with the related genres and other less-
direct parallels increases the amount shared to just over 60%.) Although there seems to
have been little conjunction between the semantic context of praise names and the se-
mantic contexts of thanksgiving and confession names,â•›177 there is some continuity that
may be traced, simply because any experience of god’s protection, aid, or salvation can by
extension be cause for praise.

5.2.3.3.1.╇ Praise for the greatness of god

The first subgroup of praise names contains names that praise the greatness of god
(see appendix B3.1). In this group are 12 epigraphic names derived from 4 different roots
culled out of a total of 34 occurrences. The Hebrew Bible records more of these names
(21), although they are derived from only 3 roots, with only 29 total instances. Among
the most popular epigraphic names are those derived from the roots ‫ עלה‬ʿālāh ‘to ascend’
and ‫ רום‬rūm ‘to be exalted’. Five names are derived from ‫עלה‬, including ‫ עליהו‬ʿAlīyāhû
and its Northern variant ‫ עליו‬ʿAlīyau, both of which mean ‘Yhwh is exalted’; they appear
altogether 11 times. Four names are derived from ‫רום‬, including ‫ אלירם‬ʾElîrām ‘my god is
exalted’, which is known from 13 records. The name ‫ בערא‬Baʿarāʾ, which was found on 4
Samarian ostraca, probably also belongs in this subgroup and was probably intended as a
shortened form of ‫ בעלרם‬Baʿalrām (Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.62). We know from Phoe-
nicia that it meant ‘Baal is exalted’. The Judean and Israelite regal names ‫ יהורם‬Yĕhôrām
and ‫ יורם‬Yôrām ‘Yhwh is exalted’ (1 Kgs 22:51; 2 Kgs 3:1; 8:16, 21) certainly belong in
this subgroup. Even though the only Israelite epigraphic evidence for these names to date
comes from the fragmentary Dan inscription (line 7),â•›178 names derived from both of these
roots appear several times in the Ammonite, Moabite, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomas-

176. Roots used in thanksgiving names correspond with roots in hymns 67% of the time in the
strictest sense, 82.5% in a wider sense. Roots in confession names correspond 51% with roots in
hymns in the strictest sense, and 62% in a wider sense, although if we include names that extend-
beyond confessions of prayer (the 6th subgroup), these correspondences increase considerably, to
66% and 81.5%, respectively.
177. See the praise names based on the roots ‫ נור‬nûr Hiphil ‘to lighten’ and ‫ אמן‬ʾāmen ‘to be
faithful’, in comparison with thanksgiving names from ‫( אמן‬see above, p.€301) and confession
names from ‫ נר‬nēr ‘light’ (see above, pp.€315–315). In contrast to praise names derived from the
roots ‫ רום‬rûm ‘to be exalted’ and ‫ ידע‬yādaʿ ‘to recognize’, thanksgiving names derived from these
roots have different meanings.
178. See the reconstruction of Kottsieper (1998: 478), in which only . . . ]rm br [ . . . ‘xx is exalted
son of xx’ is readable.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 327

ticons. In contrast, the rare name ‫ רביהו‬Rabyāhû, derived from the root ‫ רבב‬rābab ‘to be
frequent, to be great’, has only been found one time so far, in spite of its common meaning
‘Yhwh is great’. This sentiment could also have been intended as a declaration of thanks-
giving and classified as a thanksgiving name, indicating that the deity had proven himself
to be great, strong, or mighty in his saving intervention; however, in those sentiments,
various roots were typically used, such as ‫ גדל‬gādal, ‫ אמץ‬ʾāmaṣ, and ‫ יכל‬yākol, all of which
had their counterparts in private prayers or divine answers.â•›179 What the present names
do is to render what would otherwise be statements issued in response to divine acts or
intervention as more general statements of praise for the immanent qualities of the deity.
The general nature of these statements is reflected in their semantic correspondence to
statements that are made in the hymns (Ps 97:9; 99:2; 89:8).
Two other names derived from the roots ‫ׂשרר‬/‫ ׂשרה‬śārar/śārāh ‘to rule’ appear to have
been somewhat rarer, but these roots do not appear at all in the hymns and are rather rare
in biblical texts in general. The statement made in the name ‫ ׂשריהו‬Śĕrāyāhû, that ‘Yhwh
rules’, is a conventional expression of Yhwh’s majesty found in Israelite hymns that de-
clare him to be the ruler of history and to override and overrule the power of mortal
rulers (Ps 33:10–12; 65:8–9; 113:4; 135:8–12; 146:3–5), although again, sentiments of this
sort are made in hymns using different terms and metaphors. The name ‫ אלמׁשל‬ʾIlmašal
‘El rules’ is epigraphically known in only 3 occurrences in the Ammonite onomasticon,
although the root from which it is derived, ‫ מׁשל‬māšal, is more frequent in the Hebrew
Bible, and also appears in the hymns (Ps 66:7; 103:19). In Israel, however, names express-
ing this sentiment were preferentially derived from the roots ‫ׂשרר‬/‫ׂשרה‬,â•›180 which probably
reflects the influence of official religion in Israel, especially because the important, influ-
ential ancient tribal name ‫ יׂשראל‬Yiśrāʾel was probably derived from the same root. Al-
though this personal name may appear to have been political in nature by suggesting that
‘El/God rules’ or ‘should rule’ (Noth 1928: 207–9; Albertz 1994: 76–79), names of praise
derived from this root diminished the political impact by focusing solely on the control
by the deity over the potential enemies of the individual so named. The fact that one name
derived from this root has been found in the Phoenician onomasticon in the form of
‫ ׂשררמן‬Śarramōn ‘[Baal] Rimmon rules’ (WSS 1101)â•›181 shows that any potential influence
by the official religion was simply influence on the form of the word.

5.2.3.3.2.╇ Praise for the goodness of god

The obverse side of god’s greatness was his goodness, and there are 14 names known
that express this quality derived from 6 roots in 32 epigraphic appearances (see appendix
B3.2). Praise for god’s greatness and kindness appeared equally as often, which is also true
of the distribution of these sentiments in Israelite hymns. Most of these names derive from
the root ‫ טוב‬ṭôb ‘to be good, goodness’, from which no less than 7 different names are
derived, attested 22 times epigraphically (along with 4 biblical names in 8 instances). The
most frequent of these names are ‫ טבׁשלם‬Ṭōbšalem ‘Shalem is good’ and ‫ טביהו‬Ṭōbyāhû

179. See above, p. 301 and p. 303.

180. Two names are known epigraphically from 9 occurrences, along with 2 biblical names from
10 instances.
181. For a plausible interpretation of this seal, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 538.
328 Chapter 5

‘Yhwh is good’, each of which is known from 7 instances. These names express divine at-
tention and mercy as directly experienced by families (see Ps 100:5), and the names were
used to refer to both Shalem, the old city-god of Jerusalem, and Yhwh. Shalem, who ac-
companied sunset (DDD 1995: 1428–31), was likewise mentioned in the equivalent name
in Aramaic. There are also similar names derived from the root ‫ נעם‬nāʿam ‘to be pleas-
ant, kindness’, which is known in 6 attestations of 3 individual names, including ‫אבנעם‬
ʾAbinōʿam ‘[my divine] father is kind’ and, ‫ אחנעם‬ʾAḥīnōʿam ‘[my divine] brother is kind’.
These 2 names are feminine and in the Hebrew Bible are the names of Saul’s wife (1 Sam
14:50) and David’s second wife (1 Sam 25:43). Another use of this root in a woman’s name
is attested in Phoenicia: ‫ נעמלכת‬Nōʿammilkat ‘kindness of Milkat’. These names probably
reflect joy experienced at the birth of daughters that especially called for praise with re-
gard to the deity’s grace.
Two names praise the deity’s perfection or purity, each of which is known from 1 in-
scription: ‫ יהותם‬Yĕhôtam ‘Yhwh is perfect’ and ‫ זכא‬Zakāʾ ‘[DN] is pure’. The former also
appears 3 times in the Hebrew Bible in a shorter variant, ‫ יותם‬Yôtam (Judg 9:5; 2 Kgs 15:5;
1 Chr 2:47) and has several parallels in the Ammonite, Phoenician, and Aramaic onomas-
ticons. The latter is also known from 1 Aramean or Ammonite seal (WSS 792), as well as
in Ammonite and Aramaic names that use the root ‫ ברר‬bārar ‘to be pure’ instead of ‫זכה‬
zākāh, as in ‫ נׁשכבר‬Nuškubar ‘Nusku is pure’. These did not refer to imminent impurity or
imperfection; the roots ‫ תמם‬tāmam, ‫זכה‬, and ‫ ברר‬denoted moral rather than ritual quali-
ties, and these names ascribed purity and perfection to the deity, who was always beyond
blame or reproach in spite of doubts that may have been expressed or experienced by
fallible mortals in times of hardship. Thus, the names Yĕhôtam and Yôtam should be ren-
dered ‘Yhwh is beyond reproach’, while Zakāʾ meant ‘[DN] is blameless’.â•›182
The beauty of Yhwh is praised in 1 name found on two 7th-century seal impressions
from Lachish—‫ יפיהו‬Yĕpāyāhû ‘Yhwh is beautiful’—a statement that never appears in the
Hebrew Bible. Although this name may have reflected an encounter with a physical statue
of Yhwh himself, it is more likely that it was intended as a metaphorical expression about
the radiance of his grace. The final name in this subgroup praises the guiding or directing
function of the deity: ‫ מנר‬Mēnīr ‘[DN] is enlightening’. The sort of statement frequently
made by confession names, that the deity is light (‫ נר‬nēr) incarnate for a suffering person,
is transformed here into a general laudatory statement using the Hiphil participle of the
root ‫ נור‬nûr. These names also appear in the Ammonite onomasticon (WSS 948). How-
ever, the last 4 names have no parallels in hymnic statements of praise, probably because
they refer more directly to existential crises.

5.2.3.3.3.╇ Praise for the vitality of god

A third, rather small subgroup of praise names stands outside the hymnic poles of
divine majesty and mercy and consists of only 4 names, which are mostly derived from
the single root ‫ חיה‬ḥāyāh ‘to live, to be alive’ (see appendix B3.3). Corresponding expres-
sions appear in the individual prayers (Ps 18:47; 41:3; 84:3), and the names might be more

182. The biblical name ‫ זכי‬Zakkay (Ezra 2:9) should be understood in the same way, despite the
fact that Noth (1928: 187) interpreted it as a shortened form of names derived from the root ‫זכר‬
zākar ‘to remember’.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 329

appropriately considered names of thanksgiving.â•›183 However, because declarations about

Yhwh’s vitality also appear in a variety of other contexts that are unambiguously asso-
ciated with official religious practices or beliefs (including Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam
17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Jer 23:36; Hos 2:1; see Kreuzer 1983: 259–98), they cannot be
restricted to use in family religion alone. It thus seems more plausible that names such
as ‫ אדניחי‬ʾAdōnîḥay ‘my lord is alive’ and ‫ יהוחי‬Yĕhôḥay ‘Yhwh is alive’ adopted official
epithetsâ•›184 but were adapted to emphasize the more-general, abiding vitality of the deity
as experienced during moments of personal salvation. These sentiments of praise were in
no way restricted to Israel, however, as illustrated by similar names that were used in Am-
mon and Moab, such as ‫ אביחי‬ʾAbîḥay ‘my [divine] father is alive’. The rare name ‫בלתה‬
Biltāh, which Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.171) considered a hypocoristicon based on the
particle (‫ בלת)י‬bilt(î) ‘without’, probably also belongs in this group in accordance with
their interpretation, ‘without [DN, there is no life]’, which is analogous to the Amurrite
name Manna-balti-el ‘who would be without god?’ (Huffmon 1965: 175).

5.2.3.3.4.╇ Calls to praise and worship god

As mentioned above, this last group of praise names (see appendix B3.4) directly cor-
responds to calls to praise found in Israelite hymns. This is especially true of the names
with imperatives derived from the roots ‫ ידה‬yādāh Hiphil ‘to praise’ and ‫ הלל‬hālal Piel
‘to praise’, both of which appear frequently in hymnic calls to praise (Ps 136:1; 135:1). A
number of names derived from ‫ ידה‬even explicitly incorporate the imperative plural used
in hymnic calls to corporate worship, for example, ‫ הודויהו‬Haudûyāhû ‘praise Yhwh!’
(recorded 6 times), and thus imitate their use in the public forum.â•›185 Four names from
this root are epigraphically attested in different spellings, with 11 instances (along with
7 biblical appearances of 3 names). Imperative names derived from the root ‫ הלל‬appear
to have been less common (2 names, 1 appearance each) and were not explicitly plural;
instead, they were imperative singular in meaning, as in ‫ הללאל‬Hallelʾēl ‘praise El/god!’
There are 2 similar names, however, that commanded worship of god that may again have
been imperative plural: ‫ יראויהו‬Yĕrʾûyāhû ‘worship Yhwh!’ derived from the root ‫ ירא‬yārēʾ
‘to fear’ (4 instances) and ‫ דעואל‬Dĕʿûʾel ‘recognize god!’ taken from the root ‫ ידע‬yādaʿ ‘to
know’ (recorded once). These names of praise demonstrate that Israelite families’ religious
duties occasionally transcended their collective borders. The bearer of this sort of name
and his family would have been inviting all neighbors and anyone else encountered to par-
ticipate in the shared joy and devotion offered in response to experiences of god’s direct
intervention. There are also a scant few names of this sort that have been found among
names used by Israel’s neighbors—for example, the plural imperative Aramaic name ‫הודו‬
Haudû ‘praise [DN]!’ and the singular imperative Phoenician name ‫ יגראׁשמן‬Yĕgor↜ʾešmun
‘fear/worship Eshmun!’

183. Names from the same root but derived from the Piel stem also appear in the birth names;
they refer to the divine support granted to a newborn (see appendix B5.5.3.; and p. 284 above).
184. The plausible interpretation of ‫ אל חי‬ʾel ḥay ‘living god’ (Josh 3:10; Ps 42:3; 84:3; Hos 2:1;
see also Dan 6:21, 27) suggests the predicative element ‫ חי‬ḥay as the verbal adjective ‘alive’ and not
the perfect form of the verb.
185. These names also deviate from the grammatical tradition in Northwest Semitic naming
that avoided placing the deity in the position of a grammatical object.
330 Chapter 5

Less direct ways in which members of the larger community were included in collec-
tive utterances of praise to god are alluded to in the names in this subgroup that raise lau-
datory rhetorical questions, as in 2 names that have been found in inscriptions. The most
popular was ‫ מכיהו‬Mīkāyāhû ‘Who is like Yhwh?’ This name appears 35 times distributed
in 7 variants, and is the most common of all individual names of praise. Similar names
were also very common among Israel’s neighbors, including the name ‫ מכאל‬Mīkāʾel or
its fuller form, ‫ מכמאל‬Mīkamōʾel ‘Who is like El?’, found in the Ammonite, Edomite,
Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticons. Both names also appear in the Hebrew Bible,
spelled either (‫ מיכיה)ו‬or ‫( מיכאל‬9 and 6 instances, respectively). This rhetorical question
was intended to place the incomparability of a particular deity as the grammatical object
of agreement; a grammatical device that was also used in hymnal praise (Ps 113:5). These
questions, as used in the domain of personal or familial religious experience would have
been intended to convince family members that what they had experienced through the
direct and personal intervention of their god was beyond all comparison.
The second name that was formed as a question appears in 9 epigraphic contexts, in 2
orthographic variants of ‫ מיאמן‬Mîʾāmēn ‘Who is faithful [if not DN]?’ This name has no
counterpart in the hymns and seems to have arisen exclusively in the realms of family reli-
gion, because its closest parallels are names of thanksgiving. Among the names described
above that expressed divine attention was ‫ יואמן‬Yauʾāmān ‘Yhwh has remained faithful’
(see appendix B1.1.4).â•›186 In the present context, ‫ מיאמן‬transforms that former statement
of gratitude into a question of astonishment. By using it, the members of a family might
convince themselves and others that the faithful and dependable attention of their god
was incomparable.
Thus, although when considered together, these praise names appear to reflect to some
extent the influence of Israel’s official religion, especially in regard to hymnic structures,
the beliefs conveyed by these names are in most cases still firmly rooted in the same sorts
of family religious experience as the thanksgiving and confession names. The only excep-
tions to this general dissociation between official religion and the social and religious mi-
lieux of names seems to have been with regard to names that alluded to the vitality of the
deity or the deity’s ineluctable rule. However, there was still not one topic of Israel’s official
religious hymnic praise—whether the creation of the world, the exodus, Sinai, Zion, or di-
vine kingship—that was referred to by the names in this group.â•›187 Rather than expressing
these hymnal topics, the names seem to have been more-general allusions to divine great-
ness or kindness that were not restricted to Israel’s national identity or existence. They
were more likely to reflect divine greatness or kindness in relation to the families’ and
individuals’ everyday lives and unique needs. Although our recognition of this adoption
and incorporation requires that we admit to broadening the scope of potential religious
influence on religious practices and beliefs typical of Israelite families, we insist that the
family was the essential core toward which all religious experiences were directly focused.

186. See also above, p. 301.

187. Reaffirming the absence of Israel’s official traditions in family religion, as already demon-
strated above, pp. 262–269.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 331

5.2.3.4.╇ The structure of familial piety related to experiences of crisis

Following the above analyses of the beliefs of family religion as expressed in birth-
experience, thanksgiving, confession, and praise names, the present section describes the
essential structure and function of practices and beliefs pertaining to family piety. The
personal names do not encompass the entire range of beliefs of family religion (contra
previous assertions in Albertz 1978a) but only one important segment of it. Since they are
all directly or indirectly connected to the dramatic events of the birth process, they reflect
various experiences of crisis. This sort of connection is reflected in the strong correspon-
dences between the extended group of prayer names and the individual psalms of lament,
thanksgiving, and confidence: sentiments expressed by all such names and psalms reveal a
fundamental relationship to crises typical of individual and family life. The nature of piety
as shown by the prayer names thus reflects the segment of family religion that provided
ways for individuals and families to deal with crises both emotionally and spiritually. Al-
though practices and beliefs surrounding family religion naturally extended beyond these
experiences of crisis and ways of coping with their implications (as demonstrated in the
following paragraph), these experiences and mechanisms nevertheless reflect the central
focus and function of all religion, in helping the individual and community to overcome
the trials and travails of life.
Personal names reveal the strong influence of beliefs about personal relationships with
the divine on the structure and function of Israelite family religion. The god referred to in
theophoric names is often ‘my god’ (‫ אלי‬ʾēlî↜渀屮), meaning that this god is the sort of “personal
god” that is considered to be in an intimate relationship with the name bearer. Although
epigraphic material from the 9th to the 6th centuries b.c.e. often eschewed the inscrip-
tion of personal suffixes or else intermingled them with other name elements such as the
first letter of the name Yhwh, there are plenty of cases that do allow us to determine un-
ambiguously that the divine appellative carries the first-person-singular suffix. Examples
are: ‫ אליסמך‬ʾElîsāmāk ‘my god has supported [me]’ (in addition to ‫)אלסמך‬, ‫ אליצר‬ʾElîṣūr
‘my god is [my] rock’ (next to ‫)אלצר‬, and ‫ אליעז‬ʾElîʿoz ‘my god is [my strong] protection’
(next to ‫)אלעז‬. Sometimes divinized designations of kinship are explicitly personal, such
as ‫ אחיעזר‬ʾAḥîʿezer ‘my [divine] brother is [my help]’ (next to ‫ יהועזר‬Yĕhôʿezer), ‫אחיקם‬
ʾAḥîqām ‘my [divine] brother has arisen’ (next to ‫)אחקם‬, and ‫ חמיאהל‬Ḥammîʾohel ‘my [di-
vine] father-in-law is [my] tent’. Notions of the divine other as being personally related to
an individual are witnessed by an apotheosis of god’s intervention and the use of the first-
person-singular suffix, as in ‫ עזריקם‬ʿAzrîqām ‘my [divine] help has arisen’ (next to ‫)עזרקם‬.
These grammatical interpretations of epigraphic material are supported by numerous
names found in the Hebrew Bible, often written plene and explicitly revealing the yod of
the personal suffix, as in ‫ אחיׁשחר‬ʾAḥîšaḥar ‘my [divine] brother is [my] dawning’. Con-
ceptions of a personal god are especially manifest in the appeals of the individual lament
psalms in which Yhwh is addressed as “my god” no less than 29 times in the 39 texts of
this type.â•›188 The personal nature of the address is emphasized in expressions of trust such

188. Five times as ‫ אלי‬ʾelî in Ps 22:2, 11; 63:2; 102:25; 140:7; and 24 times as ‫ אלהי‬ʾĕlōhay in Ps
3:8; 5:3; 7:2, 4; 13:4; 22:3; 25:2; 31:15; 35:23, 24; 38:16, 22; 40:18; 42:7; 42:12; 43:4–5; 59:2; 69:4; 71:4,
12, 22; 86:2, 12; 109:26; and 143:10; with both forms conveying the same meaning.
332 Chapter 5

as “god of my salvation,” “god of my protection,” “my god of mercy,” “god of my justice,”

and “god of my praise,”â•›189 all of which are similar to expressions typical of the confessions
of confidence. Finally, Yhwh could be addressed as “my lord” (Ps 16:2; 38:16; 86:12), “my
shepherd” (23:1), “my king” (5:3), or “my rock” (28:1), rendering an individual’s close re-
lationship to his or her god immediate and evident. This sort of personal relationship with
the divinity was the fundamental characteristic of family religion.â•›190
Many aspects of the intimate personal relationships between individuals and their
gods were expressed in names of confession, and these names shared strong parallels with
the confessions of confidence in the individual laments. These names acknowledge that
a personal god was clearly the provider of protection, aid, or salvation to an individual,
and thus they assert one’s solid, indispensable trust in god. In the defective epigraphic
Hebrew spelling of these names, personal references to the bearers of the names were
generally not indicated explicitly, although there is ample evidence from the formation of
Aramaic names to suggest that the confessions were intended as personal references, as in
the examples ‫ ׁשמׁשעדרי‬Šamašʿidrî ‘Shamash is my help’ and ‫ אדמעזי‬ʾAddumaʿuzî ‘Adad is
my refuge’. These sorts of personal intention are also reflected in the corresponding con-
fessions in the Psalms, which employ personal formulations, such as: Ps 54:6, “See, god
is my helper; the lord is among the supporters of my life!” and Ps 31:5, “Set me free from
the net men have hidden for me, because you are my refuge!” Moreover, the epigraphic
Hebrew names ‫ עמנויהו‬and ‫ עמניהו‬ʿImmānûyāhû ‘Yhwh is with us’ not only explicitly
intend a personal referenceâ•›191 but also verify that an entire family could be considered in
direct relationship to the personal (family) god.â•›192 The existence and function of personal
relationships with a deity characterized by trustfulness thus must be seen as having been
a defining characteristic of family religion.

189. ‘God of my salvation’ ‫ אלהי יׁשעי‬ʾĕlōhê yišʿî in Ps 25:5; 27:9; ‫ אלהי יׁשועתי‬ʾĕlōhê yĕšûʿātî in Ps
88:2; and ‫ אלהי תׁשועתי‬ʾĕlōhê tĕšûʿātî in Ps 51:16, all of which have the same meaning.
‘God of my protection’ ‫ אלהי מעזי‬ʾĕlōhê māʿuzzî in Ps 43:2, in a confession of confidence.
‘My God of mercy’ ‫ אלהי חסדי‬ʾĕlōhê ḥasdî in Ps 59:18, a final address after a confession of
confidence.
‘God of my justice’ ‫ אלהי צדקי‬ʾĕlōhê ṣidqî in Ps 4:2, as an opening address.
‘God of my praise’ ‫ אלהי תהלתי‬ʾĕlōhê tĕhillātî in Ps 109:1, as an opening address; see also the
confession of confidence in Ps 71:6.
190. The Psalms further support the above interpretation of personal names, contrary to Noth’s
(1928: 33–36) doubt about interpreting the letter yod in names to signify a first-person-singular
suffix. His argument that the same name could be spelled with or without the interlocutory vo-
cal î merely reflects the ambiguity of older written Hebrew as used in the epigraphic names, an
ambiguity only partly ameliorated by the time of the later biblical scribes. This letter did, however,
actually represent the first-person-singular suffix of the in many cases (Zadok 1988: 51–55), and the
old constructus ending was intended only in the cases where the element appears between the two
nominal elements of a construct name; only in these cases can the survival of an old constructus
ending be suggested.
191. The spellings ‫ עמדיהו‬ʿImmādīyāhû and ‫ עמדיו‬ʿImmādīyau ‘Yhwh is with me’ also presup-
pose the first-person-singular suffix, because the preposition ‫ עם‬ʿim ‘with’ uses this fuller form only
in connection with that suffix (see GKC §103c).
192. Similar interpretation of the Hebrew name ‫ ׁשפטן‬Šipṭān ‘our legal assistance’ (see above,
p.€312) and the Ammonite name ‫ אלעזן‬ʾIlʿuzzān ‘El is our protection’ (see above, p.€315), however,
remains uncertain.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 333

The names themselves, however, are not sufficient evidence for elucidating the origins
or foundations of these personal relationships with god. From the fact that the confession
names mentioned above were bestowed by parents on their children, we can conclude that
the intimate relationship with the divine was imparted from one generation to the next
and was not a matter of individual decision.â•›193 From the very beginning of a child’s life, his
or her identity and self-perceptions were imposed based on the religious experiences and
beliefs of the parents. But these considerations reveal the social reasons rather than the
religious. The religious foundation underlying the personal relationship with the divine is
illustrated more directly by the formal analogy between the names that express lifelong
personal relationships to a deity (such as ‫ עבדיהו‬ʿAbdiyāhû ‘servant of Yhwh’) and equiv-
alent names of creation (such as ‫ מעׂשיהו‬Maʿaśēyāhû ‘work of Yhwh’ or ‫ מקניהו‬Miqnēyāhû
‘creature of Yhwh’). The former formulate from a human perspective what is conceived
by the latter from a divine perspective: one is related to god for one’s entire life because
god has created every individual and thus has entered into a relationship with each one.
Birth names, especially the extended group of creation names (39 names from 11 roots,
148 occurrences),â•›194 reveal the religious foundations of these personal relationships with
god that are so vividly attested in the prayer names.
Direct evidence for the religious origin of personal relationships with god is further
provided by the Psalms. In two prominent confessions of confidence found in two differ-
ent psalms of individual lament, the two topics of one’s creation by god and one’s ongoing
personal relationship with god (which are closely connected in Psalm 22) appear:
10
But you are he who drew me from the womb,
â•… who instilled confidence in me in my mother’s womb.
11
On you I was cast from the day of my birth;
â•… from my mother’s womb you have been my god.
The emergence of the suffering individual’s confidence is here traced back to his or her
birth, which is conceptualized as the personal creation of god. God draws one from the
womb of one’s mother as a midwife. The intended meaning of the participle of the root ‫גחה‬
gāḥāh is the same as the intended meaning of creation names derived from other roots
such as ‫ דליהו‬Dĕlāyāhû ‘Yhwh has drawn out’, ‫ הצליהו‬Hiṣṣīlyāhû ‘Yhwh has delivered’, or
‫ איץ‬ʾIṣ ‘[DN] has accelerated [the birth]’. The petitioner of Psalm 22 declares this divine
creative act to have instilled him with confidence (the Hiphil participle of the root ‫בטח‬
bāṭaḥ), and the resulting sentiment is similar to the confession names derived from the
noun of the same root, such as ‫ מבטחיהו‬Mibṭaḥyāhû ‘my trust is Yhwh’. Thus, the trust-
ing relationship between the person who is suffering and his or her personal god was the
direct result of the person’s creation by god. This trustful relationship began at the very
first instant of life and was predestined to prevail throughout this life, regardless of the
individual’s intention, volition, or deeds. Moreover, the middle two phrases of 22:10–11

193. That the personal relationship to god was inherited in Israelite families is also clear in
expressions such as “god of my father,” which occur often in the patriarchal narratives (Gen 31:5,
29, 42; 32:10; 43:23; 46:1, 3; 50:17). This expression indicates that the god venerated by the children
was identical to the god of the father. This familial divine appellative is also attested outside Israel;
see Albertz 1994: 1.27–30.
194. See above, pp. 277–281.
334 Chapter 5

reveal a lasting personal relationship with god that consists of both a strong confidence in
him and a strong dependence on him.
Similar sentiments are expressed in the confession of confidence in Psalm 71:
5
You are my hope, O Lord, Yhwh,
â•… my trust since my youth.
6
From birth I have leaned on you;
â•… you are he who cut me from the womb of my mother;
â•… my praise was ever about you.
7
I became a frightening sign for many,
â•… but you are my strong refuge.
In the needs of old age (Ps 71:18), an old man traces his lifelong trust in Yhwh back to his
youth and locates the beginning of this intimate relationship with god to his birth, when
Yhwh (once again acting as midwife) severed his umbilical cord. The expression of v.€6
derived from the participle of the root ‫ גזה‬gāzāh ‘to cut’ is probably directly analogous
to the hypocoristic creation name ‫ גזא‬Gāzāʾ ‘[DN] has severed [me from the umbilical
cord]’.â•›195 Furthermore, the designation ‘my hope’ (‫ תקותי‬tiqwātî) in v.€5 has a parallel in
the Hebrew personal name ‫ תקוה‬Tiqwāh ‘[my] hope [is in DN]’; and the similar confes-
sion of confidence in v.€6, ‘I have leaned on you’ (‫ סמך‬sāmak Niphal), is expressed in the
Aramaic name ‫ אלסמכי‬ʾElsumkî ‘El is my support’. Psalm 71 also testifies that an indi-
vidual’s personal relationship with god, which is initiated during his or her creation and
birth, endures through the individual’s lifetime. This relationship may be revitalized time
and again in the face of actual danger or hardship. Because the psalmist’s confessions in Ps
22:10–11 and 71:5–7 show such a high degree of verbal and material correspondence with
the personal names, they can be considered additional evidence for family religion. Thus,
the hypothesis that the central feature of Israelite family religion, a personal relationship
with god, was rooted in each individual’s creation has been proven.
In being so directly rooted in the creation of humankind, the central beliefs of Israelite
family religion differed markedly from the central beliefs of the official religion of Israel
and Judah. Psalms 22 and 71 reveal that suffering individuals could attempt to gain the
attention of god by reminding him of the intimate, enduring relationship that he himself
had established at the very instant of their creation. The collective laments represent simi-
lar attempts by entire communities to remind Yhwh of his foundational actions for his
people, whether during the exodus from Egypt and the occupation of the promised land
(Ps 80:9–12; see also 44:2–4), the election of the Jerusalem Temple (74:2), or the establish-
ment of the Davidic Kingdom (89:20–38). Although Israel’s relationship to Yhwh was
also structured personallyâ•›196—a feature that stands in marked contrast to all other official
religions of the ancient Near Eastâ•›197—this relationship was deeply rooted in Israel’s politi-
cal history. In contrast, Israelite family religion was not based on political history but on
195. Thus no correction of the text based on the Septuagint or Jerome is necessary.
196. Consider Yhwh’s most frequent epithet, ‫ אלהי יׂשראל‬ʾĔlōhê Yiśrāʾel ‘god of Israel’ (Judg
5:3, 5; 1€Sam 14:41; 1 Kgs 1:30, among others), which appears 198 times in the Hebrew Bible. By it,
Yhwh is defined as a god who is in personal relationship with a large group.
197. Here the relationship between the gods and their cities or countries comes to the fore;
therefore, the deities commissioned kings to keep their property in order (see Albertz 1978a: 152–
63, in reference to the Old Babylonian state religion). Notably, the Moabite King Mesha wrote in his
 Personal Names and Family Religion 335

biological grounds, as were the family religions of all of Israel’s neighbors. The complete
absence of official religious traditions in personal namesâ•›198 testifies that family religion
existed and functioned independently of Israel’s history of national salvation and was un-
influenced by it.â•›199 Instead, family religion was in essence focused on the personal creation
of every individual.
Thus, the essential traits of premonarchic family religion in Israel can be summa-
rized based on the evidence drawn from epigraphic personal names and the prayers of
the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible. The intimate personal relationship between each family
member and his or her god primarily reflected and was determined by two contrasting
feelings: (1) trust in god and (2) dependence on god. By being based on every moment of
individual conception and creation, these relationships were predetermined for all, and
they prevailed independently of individual whim or volition. These relationships with the
divine remained as indisputable as one’s very existence and were not conditional on any
acts or instances of ritual or ethical behavior. These relationships could, however, be re-
vitalized by individuals in moments of crisis as they sought to garner god’s attention and
aid. In these moments, individuals could remind their god that he had personally created
them and therefore should act to protect and preserve them, rather than allowing them
to die (Job 10). Personal relationships with god were indestructible. These characteristics
of familial belief are not only observable from the individual prayers of the Hebrew Bible
(Albertz 1978a: 23–49) but are also reflected in the confession names that were bestowed
on Israelite children for life. Even for people whose trust in god may have faltered or failed
in times of crisis or who may have temporarily neglected or forgotten their obligation to
serve their god, the names bestowed on them by their families, whether in the form of
Mibṭaḥyāhû ‘Yhwh is [my] confidence’ or ʿAbdiyāhû ‘Servant of Yhwh’, continued to
define them and encourage them to renew their personal religious relationship.
The religious concepts revealed by the birth-experience, thanksgiving, and confession
names were derived in many cases from typical family experiences. The names discussed
here make clear that personal relationships with god as expressed by birth-experience and
prayer names were perceived similarly to the intimate personal relationships that family
members had with one another (Albertz 1978a: 94). The relationships between children
and parents reveal particularly strong analogies. Whether divine or earthly, these relation-
ships were generally unconditional, indissoluble, and indestructible, even in times of cri-
sis. The sentiments of personal names in relation to god regarding confidence, protection,
and security also describe the conditions that were ideally experienced by every infant in
relation to his or her mother or father.â•›200 This “very specifically declared relationship” that,

inscription that the national god Chemosh was angry about his land, rather than about his people
(KAI 181.5; ANET 320).
198. See above, pp. 262–269.
199. Ps 22:4–6, which reminds Yhwh of his relationship to Israel and its forefathers, who trusted
in him, is a redaction imposed on the psalm during its reuse in the community of the poor in the
postexilic period (see vv. 24–27, the later eschatological outlook of vv. 28–32, and Albertz 1978a:
30–31; and Gerstenberger 1988: 108–13).
200. See, for example, the verb ‫ חסה‬ḥāsāh ‘to seek shelter’ in the psalmist’s confessions of con-
fidence (such as Ps 7:2; 11:1; 25:20; 31:2), which clearly reflect childhood experiences, as does the
reflection in Ps 27:10.
336 Chapter 5

according to the sociologist Rosemarie Nave-Herz (2002: 149), “distinguished the family
from any other relation of social interaction in a given society”â•›201 was also the very rela-
tionship that determined and defined the typical features of family religion. Thus the cen-
tral beliefs of family religion were predominantly influenced and formed by fundamental
social relations and the essential experiences typical of family groups.

5.3.╇ Family beliefs related to the conduct of everyday life

I have already mentioned that personal names do not express the whole compass of
family religion, primarily because their references are in many ways constrained to the
dangerous and dramatic events that were typical of birth processes. However, although the
lives of typical Israelites, especially women and children, may have been much more fre-
quently in grave peril than is the case for many people in modern societies, family religion
was not entirely forged in times of crisis. Life would have had its times of relative peace and
equanimity, and it is only reasonable to presume that even these times were experiences
with their own religious dimensions. Although the religious dimensions of quotidian life
not in crisis were generally not reflected in personal names, there was a genre that aimed
to counsel individuals and enable them to make good decisions in their everyday conduct:
the proverbs. There is, however, no epigraphic evidence for the existence of proverbs in
ancient Israel, and the biblical proverbs are thus considered here merely as an excursus in
order to provide a more complete picture of familial beliefs.
Like the personal names considered above, the older wisdom literature in the Hebrew
Bible also makes no reference to Israel’s official religious traditions or national history.â•›202
While this conspicuous absence has often been excused by referring to the international
character of the wisdom tradition (Fichtner 1965: 13; H. D. Preuss 1987: 59–60), B. Lang
(1972: 73–75) was the first to associate this absence with the difference between personal
piety and official religion. In his doctoral thesis, Tae-Kyung Kim (2008) then studied
forms of piety expressed in the wisdom literature and related these expressions to my pre-
vious (1978a) reconstruction of personal piety in Israelite religion, which did not include
evidence from proverbs.
The historical period of concern in the present book overlaps only with the oldest
piece of wisdom literature, the book of Proverbs. Although the present form of the book
derives from the postexilic period, chaps. 10–29 contain several collections of proverbs
that extend in origin back in the monarchic period. Prov 25:1 says that the “men of Heze-
kiah, king of Judah” collated the subsequent material. However, although the older parts of
the book of Proverbs may constitute the collections of the wisdom teachers of the Judean
court in Jerusalem, the essence of these expressions would have originated in individual
proverbs and smaller collections as used and orally transmitted by ordinary people. Prov-
erbs in general served both to express the experiences of adult men and women during the
conduct of their daily lives and to provide others with a sense of moral orientation (Wes-
termann 1974; Golka 1994). Thus, the biblical proverbs provide immediate insight into
201. See above, pp. 21–22.
202. A synthesis of the Wisdom, Torah, and Zion traditions was only explicitly created by Ben
Sira at the end of the 3rd century b.c.e. (see Ben Sira 1 and 24).
 Personal Names and Family Religion 337

the lives of Israelite families on the village level. From the more recent chapters of Prov-
erbs under consideration here (chaps. 1–9), which may have arisen in the court school,
only one passage—the instructive speech on the religious education of individuals, Prov
3:1–12—will be included.
Religion does not play a central role in biblical proverbs. By retelling experiences and
providing counsel, Proverbs tends to address individuals’ rationality rather than their pi-
ety. In fact, only 12% of all proverbs show any religious dimension,â•›203 a percentage that
is almost precisely opposite the percentage of names in the epigraphic onomasticon that
express theophoric (84.4%) rather than secular concepts (15.6%). There is, nevertheless, a
degree of overlap between the primary religious notions expressed in names and prayers
and those expressed in the proverbs. The divine creation of individuals that is witnessed
in many birth names (appendix B5.5.1) and private prayers (Ps 22:10–11; 71:5–7; Job 10:3,
8–12) is also mentioned in Prov 14:31; 17:5; 20:12; 22:2; 29:13; the divine provision of pro-
tection and shelter witnessed by many confession names (appendix B2.4) and the confes-
sions of confidence in the individual laments (Ps 43:2; 71:5; 61:4) is also addressed in Prov
10:29; 14:26; 15:29; 18:10 (and see also 16:3); and the trust in god alluded to in names in
the same group (see appendix B2.5) as well as prayers (Ps 13:6; 28:7; 31:7) is also a subject
in Proverbs (Prov 3:5; 16:20; 22:19; 28:25; 29:25). Although all notions expressed by names
are modified to some extent based on context or function, the piety expressed in Proverbs
may still be considered to belong to the realm of family religion.
There are a number of religious motifs used in Proverbs either to provide encourage-
ment or to warn a person. Encouragement is provided particularly for those afraid to
take appropriate or necessary action. Thus the faithful are told not to fear human beings,
because those who trust in Yhwh will be sheltered (Prov 29:25); and those who submit
all motives to Yhwh will find their plans fulfilled (16:3). One may at all times place confi-
dence in the perceptions of one’s eyes and ears and one’s analytical skills, because all were
created by Yhwh (20:12). The disheartened are informed by Prov 14:26 that their close
relationship to god—fear of Yhwh (‫ יראת יהוה‬yirʾat Yhwh)—constitutes a firm founda-
tion for trust (‫ מבטח‬mibṭaḥ), a foundation that is even capable of providing divine shelter
(‫ מחסה‬maḥăseh) for one’s children. The family was thus regarded as the nexus through
which piety was passed from one generation to the next—which is directly parallel to the
above conclusions drawn from our consideration of personal names.â•›204 God’s pleasure
might lead him to grant unexpected success (16:7), and this success might be especially
due to the presence of a woman who is a helper in the founding of a family (18:22; 19:14).
Like wisdom, piety guarantees a successful life (14:27; 19:23; 22:4; and see 13:14). More-
over, piety is required before one can be instructed by wisdom (15:33). In all cases, the
practices and beliefs of personal piety provide individuals with the essential confidence
that is necessary for making rational decisions.

203. Attribution of the religious sayings to the times of the older proverbs rather than the later
interpretations is supported by the existence of the Aramean collection ascribed to the wise Aḥiqar
(TUAT 2.320–47), which according to the editor, I. Kottsieper, comes from the south Syrian Levant
of the 8th century b.c.e.
204. See above, pp. 334–336.
338 Chapter 5

Proverbs that serve as warnings are more numerous and remind individuals of their
relationship with god in demarcating human endeavor, ingenuity, and wisdom and not
overestimating themselves or their abilities. In spite of plans and efforts that one might
make, the success of one’s work is entirely dependent on god’s blessing and decision and
remains at all times beyond one’s disposal (Prov 10:22; 16:9, 33; 19:21; 21:31). God also
decides the limits of human wisdom (21:30; 22:12); one may fail in spite of all one’s clev-
erness and must never blame God for one’s failure (19:3). Young men are warned during
their religious education not to place excess trust in their own wisdom but to place all trust
in Yhwh (3:5). All people should remain aware that Yhwh will examine their most inti-
mate thoughts and deeds (15:3, 11; 17:3; 20:27) and will uncover any self-deception (16:2;
21:2). Yhwh does not accept lying, deceit, arrogance (11:20; 12:22; 15:26; 16:5), deceptive
commerce (11:1; 20:10, 23), or unjust judgments in trials (17:15). He punishes evildo-
ers and defends their victims (10:3; 12:2; 15:25; 22:22–23). Personal piety in Proverbs is
thus strongly ethical in orientation. Divine protection is not presumed to be automatically
granted to all but is only reserved for the pious (10:29; 15:29; 18:10). The evildoer may
not claim to be a beloved creature of god as others may. Furthermore, although Prov 16:4
admits that an evildoer may be one of Yhwh’s creatures, it sardonically declares that he
was only created for the day of doom. Proverbs no longer considers a trusting relation-
ship with god to be unconditional; it is dependent on volitional acts such as avoiding evil
(16:6), deceitfulness (14:2), greed (28:25), jealousy (23:17), and revenge (20:22; 25:21–22)
and giving support to the needy (19:17). Hope placed in god thus replaces any need to
take revenge (20:22), and trusting in riches (11:28) is replaced by confidence in god. Piety
naturally restricts aspirations for personal profit (15:16). Proverbs even reveals a social
dimension to the creation motif that we saw was so central to family piety. The belief that
Yhwh created each and every individual can only mean that no human being, no mat-
ter how poor or unfortunate, should be despised and that all social stratification must
be restricted and limited as much as possible (14:31; 17:5; 22:2; 29:13).â•›205 Thus, Proverbs
considers Yhwh to be not only the creator, supporter, and protector of all individuals but
also their examiner, their judge, and the person who will retaliate on their behalf.
This sort of piety, as expressed in Proverbs, differs markedly from the piety attested
in the personal names and private prayers. Tae-Kyung Kim (2008: 15–17, 242–44) argues
that this difference reflects the different sociohistorical contexts in which these texts were
written and to which they were directed. Personal names and (especially) laments derived
from instances of personal crisis, whether illness or jeopardy during birth or times when
social relationships were contracted. Thus, individuals sought shelter in god as a small
child flees to its mother. Dominating all these statements were god’s unconditional protec-
tion of the individual and the fundamental indissolubility of an individual’s relationship
with God. In contrast, Proverbs was directed at the daily life of adults who were capable of
taking responsibility for their own deeds in their particular social environment. In these
situations, god cannot be conceived purely as the creator and supporter of the individual;

205. P. Doll (1985: 15–29) showed that in the older proverbs only the creation of man is present,
similar to the thinking of the individual laments (Albertz 1974: 33–44). The creation of the world,
which is a topic of hymns (Psalms 33; 65; 95; 104; 136; 146; 147; 148) and belongs to the stratum of
official religion, appears in Proverbs only in later wisdom poems (Prov 3:19–20; chap. 8).
 Personal Names and Family Religion 339

rather, lest one forget one’s relationship with the divine, god was also considered to be
both examiner and judge of all actions throughout life. Personal piety was thus an at-
titude required of all individuals throughout their lives; moreover, it was an attitude that
required specific social behavior and forbade egotism at the expense of others. Thus, per-
sonal piety as expressed in personal names and Psalms, on the one hand, and in Proverbs,
on the other hand, can be seen to reflect two different dimensions of the same underlying
family religion but also two fundamentally different situations of family life.
In being concerned with the everyday existence of typical villagers, Proverbs was not
especially addressed to the typical locus of the family cult. Sacrifices offered by evildoers
are criticized (Prov 15:8), righteous social conduct is considered more important than
sacrifices (21:3), and divine attention granted in response to prayers is restricted to the
pious (15:8, 29). The religious education of young men, however, emphasizes the impor-
tance of the sacrifice of firstlings (3:9–10), and these typical family sacrifices directly con-
nected the household economy to the veneration of the deity that took place in local or
regional sanctuaries.â•›206 Thus, young men who would assume responsibility for the family
cult were reminded to honor god for his blessings in order to safeguard themselves and
their future.
The religious education of young men also addresses appropriate behavior in situa-
tions of distress (Prov 3:11–12). The teacher pleads for the pupils to accept distress as a
manifestation of Yhwh’s education. The teacher attempts to render divine reprimands ac-
ceptable by reference to family relationships: God acts as a father who reprimands his son,
because he loves and favors him. This, admittedly, is a rational interpretation of general
situations of distress, which often must have been incomprehensible to those who were
afflicted. Nevertheless, it identified the indissoluble relationship between parents and chil-
dren as the formative essence of relationships with the divine in family religion.

5.4.╇ The deities venerated in family religion

Following the above descriptions of familial religious beliefs, predominately eluci-
dated by the predicative statements of theophoric personal names, the present section
examines the actual deities mentioned in those names. Personal names contain a number
of theophoric elements that have been used in the past to construct religious histories. For
example, J. H. Tigay’s (1987) study aimed to determine the polytheistic and monotheistic
traits of preexilic Israelite religion and concluded that “the evidence currently available
makes it very difficult to suppose that many Israelites worshiped gods other than Yhwh”
(1987: 180) during the period of the Divided Monarchy. However, can observations about
the prevailing characteristics of family religion be used to support these general conclu-
sions? Are we free to presuppose that the deities venerated by Israelite families shared
similar areas of responsibility as their official religious equivalents? An improved under-
standing of the nature of familial deities requires a new investigation that compares and
contrasts the differing cultural realms of ancient Israelite society. In this context, a treat-
ment of the last group of personal names, the “equating names,” is crucial.

206. See below, pp. 402–403.

340 Chapter 5

5.4.1.╇ General observations about West Semitic deities

By omitting secular names and hypocorisms, we tally 404 Hebrew theophoric personal
names from the 1,978 epigraphic records (see table 5.7, p. 508). Twenty-eight different
theophoric elements can be distinguished in these names, which we further divide into
seven units based on their structures. The first unit contains five divinized designations
of kinship, including ʾāb ‘father’, ʾāḥ ‘brother’, ʿam ‘uncle’, ḥam ‘father-in-law’, and prob-
ably also ʾēm ‘mother’.â•›207 Names containing these units amount to 13.1% of all theophoric
namesâ•›208 and 12.1% of all instances. The second unit uses the theophoric elements ʾēl
and ʾēlī, which are not clearly distinguishable because the suffix that is pronounced in ʾēlī
is almost never written. The word ʾēl may denote either the high god El, the head of the
Canaanite pantheon in the 2nd millennium b.c.e. (DDD 1995: 522–32), or the appella-
tive ‘god’; ʾēlī may denote the tutelary or personal god of a family member (‘my god’). The
El-names constitute a similar 13.1% of all Hebrew theophoric names and 11.1% of all oc-
currences. The third and largest unit refers to the Israelite national god, Yhwh; 59.4% of
all names in the present sample contain this reference, which are 67.6% of all in�stances.╛209
The names in the fourth unit include a reference to the god Baal; it is a small unit of only
11 names represented in 20 instances (or 2.8 and 1.0% of the total, respectively). Never-
theless, this unit appears in each of the four groups of theophoric names. Hebrew names
also refer to or use epithets for other West Semitic deities, including the gods Mot, Yerach,
Sahar,â•›210 Shalem, Asher, and Qos; and goddesses such as Anat; and other generic divine
female titles such as queen and lady. The old Canaanite epithets melek ‘king’ and ʾadōn
‘lord’ are also common and, if we include 1 name that refers to the Mesopotamian sun-god
Shamash, these names together compose a fifth unit, which constitutes 8.2% of all names
and 6.1% of instances. There are also 3 Egyptian gods whose names arise in the epigraphic
Hebrew onomasticon: Horus, Isis, and Bes. These form a sixth unit that includes 1.7% of
all theophoric names and 1.2% of all instances. The seventh unit comprises names with
five sorts of reference to the divine: šem ‘name’, ʿezrī ‘my help’, ʾûr ‘light’, ḥayil ‘strength’,
and ʿalay ‘exalted’. Although these elements in this unit are used in predicative statements

207. For discussion of which, see below, pp. 350–351 and 363–364.

208. Each equating name consisting of 2 theophoric elements is counted twice in the present
calculations, and thus this group of names represents a higher portion of names here than the per-
centages given in previous calculations.
209. On the basis of the Hebrew Bible, J. D. Fowler (1988: 366–67) calculated that 36% of names
during the period of the United Monarchy contained Yhwh-elements, and 74.3% during the period
of the Divided Monarchy. On the basis of 738 preexilic epigraphic names, Tigay (1987: 161–62)
concluded that 47.6% of all names contained Yhwh-elements. My conclusion in this chapter, taken
from evidence spanning the 9th–6th centuries, is a midpoint between these estimates but is dis-
tinctly lower than Fowler’s estimate for the later period. Because most epigraphic material comes
from the second part of the 8th–7th century, and because dating is often uncertain, any diachronic
perspective is relinquished here. Proving that Yhwh was the family god would have taken some
time, and any detailed study of the process of adoption and assimilation would require the inclusion
of a great deal more epigraphic material from the 10th and 9th centuries.
210. Sahar is an Armaean name for the moon-god.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 341

in other theophoric names,â•›211 in a few rare cases (here) they are used as substitutes for the
names of deities (1.7% of all names, 0.9% of instances).â•›212
There is a high degree of similarity in predicative statements used in the various Syrian-
Levantine onomasticons, but the theophoric elements contain a much greater diversity
of expression. The element Yhwh, for example, is found in two-thirds of all epigraphic
Hebrew names yet is only rarely attested in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors. No in-
stances have been found in Moabite names, and it appears in only 1.1% of all Ammonite
names, 0.8% of Phoenician names, and 4.1% of all Aramean names.â•›213 There are never-
theless a number of striking similarities in the theophoric elements used in the different
Levantine onomasticons. Table 5.8 (p. 509) reveals that there were quite a few divin-
ized kinship terms in every onomasticon: 13.1% of all names and 12.1% of instances in
the Hebrew onomasticon; 15.6% and 9.6%, respectively, in the Ammonite onomasticon;
and 15.5% and 14.9% in the Aramaic. These names arise more frequently in the Moabite
onomasticon (27.0% of names and 28.6% of instances), while they are less frequent in the
Phoenician onomasticon (7.9% of names and 5.2% of instances). However, in all Levan-
tine cultures—as demonstrated by Noth (1928: 66–82) across the spectrum of Semitic
cultures—these kinship terms constituted a fundamental element of theophoric personal
names.
All selected Levantine onomasticons show a considerable portion of El-names: 13.1%
of all names in Hebrew, and 11.1% of all instances, with similar percentages in the Moabite
onomasticon of 13.5% and 11.9%. The percentages are slightly higher in the Aramaic ono-
masticon (19.1% and 20.4%, respectively), and again somewhat lower in the Phoenician
(7.2% and 5.6%, respectively). The Ammonite onomasticon presents a special case; the
element El is contained in 67.8% of all names and 81.8% of all the instances. Thus, the god
El or Il was clearly the primary god of family religions in this region. Even if we disregard
the different possible meanings, the theophoric element El—whether used to denote a
specific deity, an appellative, or a personal god—featured prominently in all Levantine
onomasticons.
All of the selected Levantine onomasticons considered here were used in cultures that
projected central religious beliefs onto a primary deity. The percentages of names given
that referred to these deities reveal interesting cultural differences. The Ammonite ono-
masticon had the highest percentage of references to the god El (mentioned in 67.8% of
all names and 81.8% of all instances). This percentage is even higher than references to the
national god Yhwh as represented in the Hebrew onomasticon (59.4% and 67.6%, respec-
tively). The national god of the Moabites, Chemosh, appears in 37.9% of all theophoric
names in that region and 40.5% of all occurrences, in contrast to the considerably lower

211. See appendixes B5.6. (šem), 2.3.1. (ʿezrī, ḥayil), 2.3.3. (ʾûr), and 3.1. (ʿalay).
212. Including the names ‫ ׁשמידע‬Šemyādāʿ ‘the [divine] name has taken care’, ‫ עזריקם‬ʿAzrîqām
‘my [divine] help has arisen’, ‫ עבדחיל‬ʿAbdiḥayil ‘servant of the [divine] strength’, ‫ קרבאור‬Qĕrabʾûr
‘the [divine] light has come close [to me]’, and ‫ יחועלי‬Yĕḥawwīʿalay ‘the Exalted brought [the child]
to life’.
213. This phenomenon is often explained by conjecturing that some Israelites lived outside the
borders of their homeland, yet even the Hebrew Bible suggests the possible veneration of Yhwh by
indigenous peoples outside Israel (2 Kgs 5:17–19).
342 Chapter 5

percentages for the primary gods of the Aramaic and Phoenician cultures. Conflating the
largely indistinguishable and undistinguished gods Baal and Hadad, both of whom largely
shared the singular status of national god in their cultures, names alluding to this com-
pound deity amount to 23.5% of known names and instances in Phoenicia, and 18.7% and
18.1%, respectively, of all names and instances in the Aramaic onomasticon. The inclusion
of other weather-gods and related epithets in the group increases these percentages some-
what, to 24.3% and 24.0% in Phoenicia, and 21.5% and 21.4% in the Aramaic onomas-
ticon. These “weather-gods” seem to have been unique to the Aramean and Phoenician
family religions, because their names made up only a small percentage of the theophoric
elements used in the Ammonite, Hebrew, and Moabite onomasticons (varying between
2.2% and 10.8%). Thus, apparently familial religious practices and beliefs made little dis-
tinction between the purportedly “monotheistic” position exemplified by the primary god
of Israel and the more “polytheistic” practices prevailing in neighboring cultures. Only
slight differences appear in terms of preferences given to the primary gods’ names; Yhwh
held only second position in the region in terms of frequency of reference.
The main difference among the five Levantine cultures is in the number and percent-
age of references to secondary deities. The Moabite onomasticon (see table 5.9, p. 509)
attests the lowest portion of references to deities other than the primary god, Chemosh,
and the weather-gods Baal and Hadad. There are only 3 known secondary deities who
were referred to or who had epithets that were used in theophoric names (Malk, Hauron,
and Rachban). It should be noted, however, that the sample of Moabite theophoric names
is small (only 37 names and 42 instances) and consists of 10.8% of all names and 9.5% of
instances.
References to secondary deities are somewhat more common in the Ammonite ono-
masticon (see table 5.10, p. 510) where, aside from the primary god El and the weather-
gods Baal and Hadad, the names of another 6 West Semitic deities or epithets for them
appear (Malk, Milkom, Adon, Mareʾ, Mot, and Yhwh), as well 1 name referring to the
Mesopotamian deity Bel. A total of 13.3% of all known Ammonite names refer to second-
ary gods, 7.2% of all instances, and the figures in this case are drawn from a much larger
sample (90 names, 209 instances).
Names of secondary deities are similarly infrequent in the Hebrew onomasticon (see
table 5.7). Aside from the names of Yhwh and Baal, the names of 11 other West Semitic
deities or epithets for them are mentioned (Adon, Adatt, Anat, Asher, Yerach, Melek, Mal-
kah, Mot, Qos, Sahar, and Shalem), plus 3 Egyptian deities (Bes, Horus, and Isis) and 1
Mesopotamian deity, Shamash. These names are 9.9% of all known names and 7.3% of all
instances in the Hebrew sample. The larger number of individual deities probably arises
in this case from the relatively comprehensive epigraphic sample of Hebrew theophoric
names found, with 1,978 attestations of 404 different names. The percentage of names that
refer to secondary deities in this large sample may thus be presumed to reflect more ac-
curately the underlying cultural distribution of names and in this case notably amounts to
the lowest observed percentage in all the West Semitic cultures.
Analysis of theophoric names referring to secondary deities in the Aramaic onomas-
ticon reveals a strikingly different picture (see table 5.11, pp. 510–511). Aside from the
primary deities Hadad, Baal, and the other weather-gods, recorded names refer to 15 other
 Personal Names and Family Religion 343

West Semitic deities, as well as 9 Mesopotamian and 3 Egyptian deities. They amount to
43.1% of all names and 42.6% of all references to secondary deities in names. Even if not
all Aramean names have been considered, the sample considered here of 246 names taken
from 275 instances is large enough to make the difference between the Aramaic and the
Hebrew onomasticons significant. The only gods used relatively frequently in this pan-
theon are Nabu, Shamash, Sin, and Yhwh, along with the epithet Mareʾ (‘lord’).
The Phoenician onomasticon reveals an even more striking diversity (see table 5.12,
pp.  512–513). Excluding references to the primary deities Baal, Hadad, and the other
weather-gods, we find that names refer to or employ epithets for another 30 West Semitic
deities, along with 8 Egyptian and 4 Mesopotamian deities. These names constitute 57.4%
of all theophoric names and 62.4% of all instances. This is the highest percentage observed
across all West Semitic lands, with more than three times as many names alluding to sec-
ondary gods as alluding to primary gods. Most common among these numerous gods are
Eshmun, Ashtarte, and Milk.
These analyses demonstrate the artificiality of any distinction between “monotheism”
and “polytheism,” at least in the practices and beliefs of family religion, and suggest that
it would be better to distinguish between different sorts of polytheism. The most immedi-
ately apparent distinction is between the southern Levantine cultures of Israel, Ammon,
and Moab, where polytheistic tendencies were relatively restricted, and the cultures of
Syria and Phoenicia. The onomasticons of the southern cultures have a limited number of
theophoric elements (28 in the Hebrew, 15 in the Ammonite, and 11 in the Moabite). Most
families seem to have venerated only a rare few gods in addition to El and the main god,
and the veneration of secondary gods does not appear to have been especially popular. In
Syria and Phoenicia, in contrast, families selected names for their children from an array
of different gods in addition to El and the primary gods. This diversity represents a much
more expansive polytheistic culture, and the onomasticons of Syria and Phoenicia reveal
considerably larger numbers of theophoric elements, with 44 and 60 different elements
known in names from these cultures, respectively.
Differences in the diversity and popularity of secondary gods would naturally have
reflected contemporary cultural, economic, and political circumstances. For example,
Phoenicia used access to the Mediterranean Sea to develop extensive trade with Egypt,
and Egyptian deities were quite popular. Thus, the names of 8 Egyptian gods or goddesses
appear in the theophoric names of Phoenicia (Amun, Bastet, Isis, Osiris, Apis, Horus,
Min, and Ptah); no less than 6.8% of all different Phoenician names and 8.0% of all oc-
currences refer to Egyptian gods. Conversely, the far greater distance between Phoenicia
and Mesopotamia meant that deities from Mesopotamia were only rarely referred to (the
names mention only the 4 gods Assur, Bel, Nabu [?], and Shamash) and appear in only
3.2% of different names and 2.6% of all instances.
The opposite conditions prevailed in Syria, where close geographic, cultural, and polit-
ical connections to Mesopotamia ensured that its deities held prominent positions in the
Aramaic onomasticon, in which names mention 9 different Mesopotamian deities (Assur,
Bel, Enlil, Haldi [from Urartu], Nabu, Nanaya, Nusku, Shamash, and Sin). These amount
to 20.0% of all theophoric names and 18.9% of instances. References to Egyptian deities
are contrastingly few, with mention made only of Horus and Osiris and occurring in only
344 Chapter 5

1.6% of names and 1.5% of all instances.â•›214 On a much lower level, the local factor can be
observed in the Hebrew onomasticon. It contains the names of 3 Egyptian deities (Bes,
Horus, Isis) from their southern neighbors, which equal 1.7% of the theophoric names
and 1.2% of their occurrences, but only 1 reference to a Babylonian god (Shamash).â•›215
The almost complete absence of foreign gods from the Moabite and Ammonite onomasti-
cons—with the latter including 1 name that refers to Bel—probably reflects the compara-
tively remote locations of these peoples. In terms of Egyptian and Mesopotamian influ-
ence, Israelite family religion seems to have been situated somewhere in between their
Moabite/Ammonite and Phoenician/Aramean counterparts. In sympathy with the family
religions of Moab and Ammon, Israelite family religion manifests a small amount of poly-
theism. The primary god assumed the dominant position, and secondary gods were only
adopted by families from among a limited number of gods considered sufficiently depend-
able and trustworthy.
There are two final important patterns that must be noted. The first is referring to
divine characteristics as substitutes for the actual names of deities. This practice is observ-
able in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticons, but it appears to have been
relatively uncommon in the Hebrew (a mere 0.8% of names and 0.7% of instances). It
was considerably more common in the Aramaic and Phoenician cultures (3.2% of names
and 2.8% of all instances). The second important pattern appears in references to god-
desses. A few specific goddesses are mentioned in the Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and
Aramaic onomasticons, ranging between 2.0% and 4.5% of names. This striking under-
representation of female deities used in names was thus not a phenomenon restricted
to the Hebrew culture, and only in the Phoenician onomasticon did names mentioning
goddesses compose a notably higher portion: 13.4% of all theophoric names and 11.0% of
their occurrences. References to female deities in personal names are considered in more
detail below.â•›216
The foregoing comparisons of theophoric elements used in personal names across the
various Levantine cultures have shown that the form of each family religion was deter-
mined by its immediate religious environment, with particularly pronounced differences
between the cultures being due to the extent of polytheism. However, even considering
these difficulties, most cultures shared a number of common features in addition to those
that have already been observed with regard to the predicative statements.

5.4.2.╇ The interchangeability of theophoric elements

In considering the relative degree of influence that various deities mentioned in the
personal names of the Levantine onomasticons appear to have had on the beliefs of the

214. Including the Idumean-Arabian goddess Ada in the seal WSS 790.
215. See WSS 1075 and HAE 21.77; epigraphically, the script shows some Aramaic influence.
Renz and Röllig (2005: 404) considered the name bearer potentially to have been Syrian, because
the father’s name contained the moon-god Śāhār, showing Aramean influence. But since the predi-
cate of the name Šamašʿizrī ‘Shamash is my help’ is clearly Hebrew, and the Aramean moon-god
seems also to have had some influence on the Judean culture (Isa 3:18), there is no reason to exclude
the name from the Hebrew onomasticon. Even if the name bearer did come from Syria, he seems to
have been entirely integrated into Israelite society.
216. See below, pp. 363–366.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 345

family religions, we find one curious phenomenon. While a variety of theophoric elements
were used in the theophoric names throughout these different cultures, the predicative
statements remained strikingly similar in all of them.â•›217 This similarity can be observed
both by comparing the variety of deities in each individual onomasticon and by compar-
ing the different onomasticons.
These sorts of similarities and differences may be demonstrated by presenting just
a few striking examples taken from different groups of names established above. In the
names of thanksgiving, divine attention is often expressed by the predicate ‫ ׁשמע‬šāmaʿ, in-
dicating that a deity heard the complaint of the sufferer (see appendix B1.1.1). The Hebrew
onomasticon contains examples of these statements made with reference to El, Yhwh, and
Baal; the Ammonite and Edomite onomasticons refer in this fashion to El; and the Ara-
mean and Phoenician onomasticons, to Baal. Thus, all three of these deities were believed
to be able to respond in this same way. An even larger diversity of deities were associated
with the fundamental belief of divine salvation as expressed by the verb ‫ יׁשע‬yāšaʿ ‘to
save’ (see appendix B1.2.1). Identical statements are made in the Hebrew onomasticon
in association with the names El and Yhwh as in the Moabite for the divine brother and
Chemosh; in the Ammonite for El and Baal; in the Aramean for the divine lord (māreʾ↜);
and in the Phoenician for Milk.
In names of confession, belief that a certain deity had served as the aid (‫ עזר‬ʿēzer; in
Aramaic ‫ עדר‬ʿidr) of the name bearer was commonly attested (see appendix B2.3.1). In the
Hebrew onomasticon, this aid could be attributed to the divine father, the divine brother,
Yhwh, and probably also Shamash; El was considered able to aid in the Edomite onomas-
ticon; Baal in the Phoenician; and any or all of the gods Baal, Hadad, Ashtar, Shalman,
Shamash, and Sin in the Aramaic onomasticon. Regardless of differences in name and
nature, all gods were believed able to serve this same function. Similar concurrences arise
in regard to the fundamental confession that a particular deity had provided protection
(‫ עז‬ʿoz) for the name bearer (see appendix B2.4.1). This sentiment is expressed in Hebrew
names with regard to El, Adon (the divine lord), and Yhwh; in Moabite names with regard
to the divine father and Chemosh; in Ammonite names with regard to El and Adon; in
Aramean names with regard to Milkom, El, and Baal; and in Phoenician names with re-
gard to Baal, Ashtarte, and Milk. Again, this familial belief remains invariant throughout
regardless of differences in the divine natures of these gods.
A central tenet expressed in names of praise is belief in the goodness of a particular de-
ity (‫ טב‬ṭōb or ṭūb; see appendix B3.2). Hebrew names considered the divine brother, uncle,
El, Yhwh, and Shalem to be equally praiseworthy for their goodness; Aramaic names
considered the divine brother and Shalem to manifest the same goodness; as did Baal in
Phoenician names.
Birth names are of particular interest in potentially revealing affinities with specific
gods or goddesses in relation to fertility and birth. Divine responses granted to the prayers
and vows of women during the birth process could be especially formative for the later
experiences of mother and child (see appendix B5.2). The verb ‫ ענה‬ʿānāh ‘to respond’ is
incorporated into statements in the Hebrew onomasticon made in connection with the
deities Yhwh, Baal, and Qos; while in the Edomite onomasticon, these statements are

217. A similar observation was previously made about biblical names (Albertz 1978a: 71–74).
346 Chapter 5

associated with Qos; in the Aramean with El and Mot; and in the Phoenician with Baal.
The reference to Baal in this context may arise from the special relevance of this god to
fertility in general, as an extension of his association with soil fertility in the Ugaritic
mythological texts (DDD 1995: 249–56). Indeed, initial consideration of the distribution
of Baal names in the Hebrew onomasticon seems to support this assumption (table 5.7,
p.€508), in that 5 of the 11 known names are birth names, represented in 5 of the 20 known
instances. Although these figures reveal a considerable percentage of birth names among
the Baal names (45.4% and 25%, respectively), which would partly exceed the average
portion of all the birth names in the Hebrew onomasticon (28.4% of different names and
29.9% of all instances; see table 5.2, p.€505), the number of known Baal names and in-
stances is relatively low, and these percentages should to be considered provisional at best.
The names Baal, Hadad, and other weather-gods appear much more often in the Aramaic
and Phoenician onomasticons, and in these cases no particular preference for these gods
can be discerned in the birth names. In the Aramaic onomasticon, 22.6% of different
names (12 out of 53) or 20.3% of all instances (12 of 59) that refer to these gods belong to
the birth-experience name group (see table 5.11, p.€510). These figures just correspond to
the average portion of Aramean birth names (22.2% of all names, 23.2% of all instances;
see table 5.3, p.€506) and do not exceed it. In the Phoenician onomasticon, only 14.8% of
the names (9 of 61) or 19.8% of the instances (22 of 111) that refer to the weather-gods
can be assigned to the birth-experience name group (see table 5.12, p.€512). These figures
fall below even the average portion of Phoenician birth names, making 26.9% or 27.9%
of the total sample (see table 5.3, p.€506). Thus the higher affinity of the god Baal with the
birth process that might be inferred from the Hebrew personal names is not supported by
names in the neighboring cultures, where the god was much more prominent. Instead, it
must be considered to be a random result.
Another interesting fact, aside from these references to Baal is the appearance of the
god Mot in the Ammonite onomasticon and in Hebrew birth names. In Hebrew, the name
‫ מרימות‬Mĕrêmaut ‘Mot has blessed’ appears 3 times, and ‫ ירימות‬Yerîmaut, plausibly ren-
dered ‘founded by Mot’, appears once.â•›218 The Ugaritic mythological texts posit Mot as the
enemy of Baal who represents death and all that is opposed to the life-giving fecundity of
Baal (DDD 1995: 1122–28). However, because Mot was used in personal names, appar-
ently all the negative attributes that were once associated with Mot had been nullified.
One very important belief expressed in birth names that was central to all family re-
ligions was the divine creation of each individual. Different cultures used different verbs
and nouns to express this divine creation, but all these statements may easily be consid-
ered together in one group. The divine creator of a child could, in the Hebrew onomas-
ticon, be considered El, Yhwh, Anat, Melek (or the divine king), Mot, or Bes; while only
El was so mentioned in the Edomite onomasticon; both El and Malk in the Ammonite;
El and Hadad in the Aramean; and in the Phoenician onomasticon, the divine father,
El, Ashtarte, Milk, Shalem, or Bastet could be considered divine creators. Among these
gods and goddesses, only El or Yhwh was considered a divine creator of humankind in

218. This is astonishing, considering the 12 references in Hebrew biblical names.

 Personal Names and Family Religion 347

its entirety.â•›219 Although none of the other gods was ever regarded a god of creation in the
associated official religions, all of them clearly assumed creation roles in the family reli-
gions—even, astonishingly, the god of death, Mot.â•›220
Finally, among the most frequent birth names were the names that stated that a certain
deity had presented (‫ נתן‬nātan, in Phoenician ‫ יתן‬yaton) a child to his or her parents. In
Hebrew names, this presentation could be attributed to El, Yhwh, Baal, or Melek (or the
divine king); in Moabite names, to Chemosh or Baal; in Ammonite names, to El, Baal, or
Bel (Marduk); in Aramaic names, to the divine father, El, Baal, or Hadad; and in Phoeni-
cian names, to Baal, Eshmun, Ashtarte, Milk, Sid (the city-god of Sidon), Resheph, Bel,
or Apis. Again, there is a manifold diversity of gods, each of whom was considered both
able and willing to grant the same benevolent gift to a family. In this pantheon, the name
of Resheph in the Phoenician onomasticon is conspicuous. Resheph was conceived in
Ugaritic ritual texts as a “chthonic deity, gatekeeper of the Netherworld .€.€. the lord of
battle and diseases” (DDD 1995: 1325). In Phoenician family religion, however, he seems
to have been divested of these negative attributes and was praised freely as the benefactor
of a newborn child.
All of these examples reflect the central finding of the present section: that the pred-
icative statements in names that reflected and conveyed the beliefs of family religion were
used almost completely independently from the theophoric elements. The nature of the
deities referred to in names had relatively little influence on what these deities were con-
sidered able to offer in their divine capacities to families. The functions of deities were
largely immutable, and their identities were freely interchanged. Moreover, the cases of
Baal/Hadad, Mot, and Resheph demonstrate that specific characteristics that were attrib-
uted to deities in the official religious realms were very commonly neglected or negated
in their incorporation into the realm of family religion. Rather, gods were given attributes
that reflected the immediate needs of families, and family religion as a whole often con-
ceived of gods in ways that fundamentally contrasted with the views of official theologies
and state cults. Rather than deities’ being defined according to specific characteristics de-
veloped throughout the long history of nations or their cultic practices and places, they
were defined in family religion predominantly by specific functions. There was even a
small subgroup of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician theophoric elements that replaced
the names of deities with their functions (see table 5.8 [p. 509], “divine characteristics”).
These functions were at all times intimately related to the essential needs of individuals
and their families. These needs are relatively universal and change very little even during
long periods of time, while the identities of and characteristics ascribed to deities under-
went more dynamic transformations.
Thus, the religious beliefs and practices of Levantine families exhibited an essential
tension between an apparent tendency toward an enriched polytheism and a degree of
redundancy and interchangeability of divinities. Families were intimately dependent on
219. El was considered, based on his Ugaritic title, the ʾab ʾadam ‘father of mankind’; see the
Epic of Keret, KTU 1.14 I 36–37 (and TUAT 3.1219); El also cared for Keret’s wife during her confine-
ment and delivery (KTU 1.15 II 16–28; TUAT 3.1235). For Yhwh, see Gen 1:26–28; 2:7; Job 10:8–12.
220. For the participation of goddesses, see pp. 363–366 below.
348 Chapter 5

and influenced by their immediate religious environment and generally chose family de-
ities based on whether they were regarded as efficacious or were otherwise venerated in
their particular region or land. These regional tendencies no doubt produced the differ-
ent assemblages of deities observed in the Hebrew, Ammonite, Moabite, Aramaic, and
Phoenician onomasticons. However, differences among actual deities or in the number
of deities who were commonly venerated by families were apparently only of minor im-
portance. Because deities were adopted by families in response to the very specific needs
and beliefs of the family religion, deities were commonly divested of different character-
istics with which they might otherwise or previously have been associated. They literally
were assimilated into the essence of family religion. Regardless of their names, nature, or
number, deities were believed to act similarly for all families. Thus, the family religions
in relatively less-polytheistic environments such as Israel, Ammon, and Moab find many
direct parallels with family religions in the more markedly polytheistic environments of
Syria and Phoenicia.
Thus, consideration of the family religious practices and beliefs in any or all of these
cultures may aid our reconstruction of Israelite family religion. In being assimilated as
family deities, Yhwh, El, Baal, Anat, Mot, and other deities shed their individual attributes
and were believed to act or function in largely identical ways. The question posed by Tigay
(1987: 162–67) and J. D. Fowler (1988: 29–69) regarding the extent to which the use of
divine names or epithets other than direct references to Yhwh might be considered im-
plicit references to a national god is thus uninformative, because Israelite families would
probably not have distinguished between these various gods, whether they were implicitly
or explicitly associated with Yhwh or not. Israelite families might have regarded Yhwh as
the primary divine figure, but a very important and generic function of all divine names
and appellations was simply to represent the essence of divinity.â•›221 Thus, rather than re-
flecting a confusion about deities (which Jeremiah accused Judah of in the late 7th century
b.c.e., Jer 2:27), these names reveal the profound absence of competition among the vari-
ous deities. Up to the time of Jeremiah, Yhwh was not considered by the Israelite and Ju-
dean family religions as having any particularly unique attributes; rather, he was divested
at this level of characteristics that he otherwise had on the national level of both Israelite
kingdomsâ•›222 and was generically assimilated into the beliefs typical of family religions.
It was only after the Josianic reforms that the characteristics ascribed to Yhwh on the
national level began to be reflected in the practices and beliefs of Judean family religion.

5.4.3.╇ The equating names

The tendency for family religion to assimilate various gods also appears in the group of
names that I am referring to here as equating names. These names are formed as nominal
sentences, as are the names of confession, but they differ from those names in that they
contain two theophoric elements that are intimately related in the construction of the

221. As exemplified by the existence of the subgroup in which generic divine characteristics are
substituted for the names of deities (table 5.8).
222. Compare the observation made above (pp. 262–269) that Hebrew personal names make
no reference whatsoever to national religious traditions.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 349

name. Equating names are a relatively impoverished group compared with other Levan-
tine onomasticons, containing only 7% of the names in the Hebrew onomasticon and 8%
of all attestations (see table 5.3). However, these names offer important insights about the
ways that family religion dealt with the divine.
As previously indicated by Noth (1928: 141–43), the names in this group were pri-
marily intended to identify various divine designations that had emerged during differ-
ent stages in the histories of the ancient Near Eastern religions (see also Albertz 1978a:
73–74). This assertion was subsequently questioned by Rechenmacher (1997: 18, 24), who
classified only a few names this way, such as ‫ אלהוא‬ʾElihûʾ, which he rendered ‘Il is he’ (that
is, the gracious and powerful god). He considered most of these names to be a means by
which a named god—in most cases, Yhwh—was classified as “god,” “father,” “lord,” or
“king” (1997: 11–24).â•›223 However, these divine designations often did not remain mere
appellatives throughout religious history but became divine names in their own right (for
example, El and Baal) or else became epithets that were intimately associated with par-
ticular deities, such as Milk ‘king’ for the Tyrian god Melqart, and Malkāh ‘queen’ for the
Queen of Heaven, as we know from the book of Jeremiah (Jer 7:18; 44:17–19, 25). These
are clear cases in which epithets replaced divine names, with the epithets assuming speci-
ficity to the divine names. Moreover, there are several examples from Israel’s neighbors in
which two named deities are unambiguously equated in a name, such as Šalmānrimmān
in the Aramaic onomasticon, which can only be translated ‘Shalman is (Hadad-)Rimmon’.
Although some equating names may have served partially to qualify the divine nature,
their primary function was identification.
Interpretation of equating names demands accurate determination of the subject and
predicate of the nominal statements, even though they generally lack clear grammatical
distinctions. Although a strict progression from subject to predicate was assumed in pre-
vious works (such as GKC §141,l; Noth 1927: 17–20), extensive consideration of nominal
clauses during the past few decades has revealed a more nuanced and intricate picture.â•›224
For example, the more modern grammar of Waltke and O’Connor (1990: 130) suggests
that, “Roughly speaking, an identifying clause has the order S–Pred and a classifying
clause has the reverse.” This general pattern is confirmed in some ways by the nominal
sentences found in epigraphic Hebrew names of confession, which clearly contain classi-
fying clauses and reveal a slight bias toward predicate-subject orderâ•›225 (51.5% of the time).
However, subject-predicate ordering remains more prominent even in qualifying nomi-
nal clauses in personal names than in the literary Hebrew of the Bible, as well as in the
nominal sentences of Hebrew texts found in epigraphic records (Gogel 1998: 276). This
reflects the generally lower literary standards of epigraphic inscriptions. Because equating

223. Other than in personal names, Yhwh is rarely qualified as father and never as brother or
uncle (see p. 351 below), leading Rechenmacher (1997: 22) to believe that identification with dif-
ferent deities was intended.
224. For a broad overview of this discussion, which remains inconclusive to date, see Joüon and
Muraoka, 2nd ed. (2006: 508–43); and Michel 2004: 23–46.
225. This order seems to be normative in the confession names in which the predicate consists
of a prepositional phrase, as in ʿImmadīyāhû ‘with me is Yhwh’ or Baʿadīyāhû ‘for me is Yhwh’.
This rule also holds true for nominal sentences in epigraphic inscriptions; see Gogel 1998: 277.
350 Chapter 5

names emphasize the identifying function of the nominal clause,â•›226 a subject-predicate

order would be expected to dominate, and it is no surprise that this order is even more
dominant here than in identifying nominal clauses found in the Hebrew Bible.

5.4.3.1.╇ The divinized kinship designations

Divinized kinship designations feature prominently in equating names, which consti-
tute 43.5% of all theophoric elements in the Hebrew onomasticon and even 47.2% of all
instances recorded (see table 5.7). They greatly exceed even the percentage of names and
instances that contain the theophoric element Yhwh (24.4% and 24.6%, respectively).
Moreover, similarly high portions of divinized kinship terms in equating names have also
been observed in the Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic onomasticons (see tables 5.9,
5.10, and 5.11). Only the Phoenician onomasticon attests lower percentages (28.3% of
names and 17.8% of all instances; see table 5.12). If one takes into consideration the dis-
tribution of divinized kinship terms among all the different name groups, the equating
names have the highest percentage in all the selected Levantine onomasticons; in the He-
brew onomasticon, no less than 64.2% of different equating names are divinized kinship
names, which is 82.9% of all appearances of equating names. Thus, both the occurrence of
these divinized kinship terms and their particular concentration in equating names were
common to all Levantine onomasticons. These names seem to have satisfied the families’
desire to identify their deities appropriately.
Moreover, Noth (1927: 43–45; 1928: 68–82) pointed out that the kinship terms ʾāb
‘father’, ʾāḥ ‘brother’, and ʿam ‘father’s brother, uncle’ were in most cases intended as di-
vine designations not only in the Hebrew onomasticon but also in all the other Semitic
onomasticons. Since Noth, the idea that these names were intended primarily as state-
ments of divine identity has been widely accepted (DDD 1995: 616–19, 338–42, 41–44).â•›227
However, the actual identities of the deities referred to are by now largely unknown or
uncertain. Noth himself, who still believed that the Semitic peoples had nomadic origins,
considered them to have been tribal deities (1928: 73–75). However, he was unable to ex-
plain the use of familial terminology.â•›228 I proposed that the kinship terms reflected early
designations of personal gods (Albertz 1978a: 74–75); in contrast, Karel van der Toorn
(1996a: 1–11) considered these kinship terms to have been intended as designations of
ancestors. This idea that some form of “ancestor cult” was a feature of family religion (in-
vestigated in detail by van der Toorn in 1996b: 206–35) is now widely accepted. Whether
or not these gods were deceased and subsequently divinized ancestors, the activities of the
alleged ancestors as described by van der Toorn on the basis of biblical personal names

226. The strict criterion for distinguishing the two types of functions on the basis of the defi-
niteness of the subject or the predicate is of little aid in interpreting equating names, because articles
are not used in personal names, and many divine designations may be understood as both divine
names and appellatives.
227. The alternative explanation by Stamm (1968: 279–84), that most of the Akkadian names
containing kinship terms were correctly interpreted as substitute names for deceased human rela-
tives, was restricted to a few cases by Di Vito (1993: 90–92, 254, 264).
228. The term ʿam, which denotes not only a father’s brother but also kin and related people in
a wider sense, was never used as an epithet for Yhwh.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 351

differed only slightly from activities that families typically believed their gods were ca-
pable of undertaking. Thus, all divinized kinship terms may be considered semantically
equivalent to designations of family gods. These terms characterized the god of a family, to
whom the members felt themselves personally related; this notion was directly analogous
to the “very specifically declared relationship” that existed between family members and
that was considered so unique by the sociologist Nave-Herz (2002: 149). The foregoing
discussion demonstrates that the structures and beliefs of family religion were shaped and
defined to a very great extent by the character of intrafamilial social relationships,â•›229 and
it should thus not be surprising that a family deity would be referred to by terms that were
otherwise employed to denote specific family relationships.â•›230
Ancient Near Eastern societies were predominantly patriarchal. The father at least
symbolized (or assumed, in practice) all responsibility, care, and protection for his entire
familial group, and thus family gods were naturally commonly referred to as “father.”
Gods were also often named “brother,” which reflected the practice of an older brother’s
assuming responsibility for the family after the unavoidable absence or death of the fa-
ther (see, for example, Genesis 44). References to the father’s brothers appear for similar
reasons.â•›231 The issue of whether or not equivalent feminine terms such as “mother” and
“sister” were actually intended as divinized designations will be discussed below.â•›232 The
roles of father, mother, and brother also had social connotations and symbolism beyond
the mere family domain, as illustrated in a 9th-century b.c.e. inscription dedicated by
King Kilamuwa of Samʾal (KAI 24.10–11, 13) that declared: “Before the former kings,
the mškbm went [cowed] like dogs. I, however, to some was a father, to some a mother, to
some a brother. . . . I took the mškbm by the hand. They were disposed [toward me] as an
orphan is to his mother.”â•›233 References made to family gods by using similar kinship terms
were intended to evoke exactly this sort of idealized image.
In regard to the designations for gods, Israelite family religion again manifests a degree
of disjunction with the official religions of Judah and Israel. There are only a few known
cases from official religious realms in which Yhwh was referred to as or compared with a
father, suggesting that official theologians had reservations about using this familial title
for him during most of the monarchic period.â•›234 Moreover, Yhwh was never referred to
as or compared with either a brother or an uncle.

229. See above, p. 335.

230. The suggestion that divinized kinship terms (which go back to Sumerian and Old Akka-
dian name giving in the 3rd millennium), represent particular manifestations or expressions of
“personal gods” was also supported by Di Vito 1993.
231. The rare term ḥam ‘father-in-law’ could also mean being responsible for someone’s care
and protection, especially for married women who had to leave their own families, as illustrated
in the names Ḥammî↜ʿeden ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] bliss’ and Ḥammî↜ʾohel ‘my [divine]
father-in-law is [my] tent’; this kinship term does not appear in any equating names, however.
232. See below, pp. 353 and 363–365.
233.╇ Cited according to ANET 654. The mškbm was apparently “an oppressed sedentary ele-
ment of the population.”
234. See Deut 32:6, 18; Isa 63:16; 64:7; Jer 3:4, 19; Mal 1:6; 2:10; and compare Ps 103:13; Prov
3:12. The epithet seems to have been established at an earlier stage only in Judean kingship theol-
ogy; see 2 Sam 7:14; Isa 9:5; Ps 2:7; 89:27–28.
352 Chapter 5

Presuming that all divinized kinship terms were intended to denote family gods en-
ables unambiguous translation of all equating names that were formed with the initial
elements ʾāb, ʾāḥ, or ʿam and followed by the name of a deity (see appendix B4.1). For
example, ‫ אבבעל‬ʾAbībaʿal would be translated ‘[my divine] father is Baal’, ‫ אביו‬ʾAbīyau as
‘my [divine] father is Yhwh’, ‫ אחיאל‬ʾAḥîʾēl as ‘my [divine] brother is El’, ‫ אחחר‬ʾAḥīḥūr as
‘[my divine] brother is Horus’, and ‫ עמׁשלם‬ʿAmmīšālēm as ‘[my divine] uncle is Shalem’.
In all of these names, the family god, who is the subject of the nominal sentence, is predi-
cated by the higher god being named. These names thus allowed families to integrate
higher gods—who could have been adopted from their wider religious and social envi-
ronments, whether El, Yhwh, Baal, Shalem, or Horus—into their own symbolic world of
familial beliefs and traditions. By inheriting aspects of these higher deities, family gods
could be rendered more powerful or efficacious. At the same time, this sort of assimilation
would have required a certain redefining of these higher deities as they were adopted to
suit familial purposes and considered to offer the benefits of a protective father or brother.
A parent’s intention of integrating personally the gods identified by the names is clear
in cases in which the divinized kinship term is written with a first-person-singular suf-
fix, as in the example ‫ אחיאל‬ʾAḥîʾēl ‘my [divine] brother is El’. A family god could also
be regarded as personally related to an entire family group, as was probably intended by
the Phoenician name ‫ אבנׁשמׁש‬ʾAbinušamaš ‘our [divine] father is Shamash’. The Hebrew
name mentioned above, ʾAḥīḥūr, the Aramean name ‫ אבחלדי‬ʾAbīḥaldî ‘[my divine] fa-
ther is Haldi’ (a deity from Urartu), and the Phoenician name ‫ אחמן‬ʾAḥīmin ‘[my divine]
brother is Min’ (a deity from Egypt) attest that even deities from distant areas could be per-
sonally integrated into the intimate environments of individual families in this fashion.â•›235
It is also likely that names in which the second position expressed a divine epithet
rather than a named deity had the same purpose. Thus the very popular name ‫אחמלך‬
ʾAḥīmelek should be rendered ‘[my divine] brother is king’ or ‘the king’, and the prob-
ably feminine pendant with the name ‫ אחמלכה‬ʾAḥīmalkāh meant ‘[my divine] brother is
queen’ or ‘the queen’. While equivalent counterparts from the Aramaic and the Phoeni-
cian onomasticons probably intended explicit references to actual deities (Malik or Milk/
Melqart), the Hebrew names were more likely meant to be implicit references to major
deities, most likely Yhwh or El, but also Asherah.
The third way of constructing these names employed kinship terms in both the first
and second positions of the nominal sentence. These forms are more difficult to interpret
than the above two. In spite of the divinized interpretation that he had established, Noth
(1928: 222) interpreted the popular name ‫ אחאב‬ʾAḥʾāb (34 instances) as being secular and
meaning ‘brother of the father’, alluding to the physical similarities of the newborn to
his father. Stamm (1980: 76) also read this name as a construct clause but considered it a
substitute name indicating that the newborn was felt to be the restored deceased brother
of the father. In contrast, Zadok (1988: 47) proposed that the name meant the same as
all other names containing divinized kinship designations, and thus he interpreted it as
‘The [divine] brother is [my] father’. This view subsequently gained additional support

235. See also the name ‫ אבלחי‬ʾAbīluḥay in the Samaria papyri of the 4th century, in which the
remote Arabian deity Luḥay was integrated into the world of a Samarian family (see Cross 2006: 76).
 Personal Names and Family Religion 353

by the discovery of three instances of the name spelled ‫ אחיאב‬ʾAḥîʾāb, in which the plene
spelling suggests a first-person-singular suffix instead of a construct.â•›236 The name is thus
interpreted here as ‘My [divine] brother is father’, in which case it would not have been
intended to integrate a national or regional deity into the realm of the family but to be a
statement of trust that the god of the family is a faithful, reliable god.
Acceptance of this interpretation, however, raises the question whether the name ‫אחאם‬
ʾAḥʾēm, which also has the plene-written variant ‫ אחיאם‬ʾAḥîʾēm, should be understood in
a similar way as ‘My [divine] brother is mother’. Because of the vocalization in 2 Sam
23:33 and 1 Chr 11:35 of the similar name Aḥîʾām, Renz and Röllig (1995: 57–58; 2005:
131) followed Noth in proposing the interpretation ‘My brother has ruled’ (derived from
the Arabian root ʾāma), while Zadok (1988: 55) considered it more likely to be a shortened
form of ʾAḥîyamm ‘My brother is Yamm’ (the sea-god). But both explanations remain
contentious. Stamm (1980: 76) proposed the reading ʾAḥîʾem but conjectured that again
it was intended as a substitute name and should be translated ‘brother of the mother’.
Defectively spelled versions of this same name also appear in the Moabite and Philistine
onomasticons. But since we now also know names from Phoenicia that express the op-
posite sequence of kinship terms, as in ‫ אמיאח‬ʾImmîʾāḥ, which is analogous to ‫אמעׁשתרת‬
ʾImmīʿaštart ‘[My divine] mother is Ashtarte’,â•›237 it is highly plausible that all of these
names, including the Hebrew names, should be interpreted along the lines of ‘My [divine]
mother is brother’ or ‘My [divine] brother is mother’. The appearance of females in both
kinship terms presents no obstacle to this interpretation, because there are other known
examples of cross-sex combination.â•›238 If we accept these interpretations, the name ‫אחאמה‬
ʾAḥīʾimmōh would also need to be interpreted, not as a substitute name (Renz and Röllig
2005: 121: ‘the [divine] brother of his mother’),â•›239 but as a nominal-sentence name, ‘The
[divine] brother is his mother’, with the predicate designating the mother of the child. Al-
though these interpretations must remain speculative to a certain extent, the existence of
names of this sort would reflect the belief that the family god had the qualities of a divine
mother. Even Yhwh was able to be compared with a mother (Num 11:12; Isa 49:14–15;
66:13), and thus no objections may be raised against this direct equating of God with a
mother figure at the level of Israelite family religion. Regardless, in all cases in which two
kinship terms are equated, the names were intended as declarations of trust: the family
god cared as a father, brother, or mother cared, and thus was acting as a true family god
for the benefit of his or her particular family.

236. Peculiarly, Zadok (1988: 59) considers the name ʾAḥʾāb to be a genitive construction.
237. Considering it to be the construct expression ‘the mother of [my] brother’ seems unrea-
sonable, because such a person would also be one’s own mother.
238. See the female Aramaic name ʾAḥatmalik ‘[My divine] sister is Malik’; the previously men-
tioned male Hebrew name, ʾAḥīmalkāh ‘[my divine] brother is the queen’; the female Phoenician
name, Milkatbaʿal ‘The queen is Baal’; and the Edomite name Qausʾimmī ‘Qos [?] is [my] mother’
(WSS 1056; although the reading of the divine name in this case is uncertain). See also the Punic
name, ʾImmi(ʿ)ešmun ‘My mother is Eshmun’ (Benz 57), for which Noth’s (1928: 71) explanation of
the first element as having been a poorly written version of ʾamot ‘maid or servant of ’,remains far
from convincing.
239. See also the parallels collected by Mähner 1992: 68–81.
354 Chapter 5

5.4.3.2.╇ El, god, or tutelary god

As mentioned above, the theophoric element ʾēl featured prominently in the four se-
lected Levantine onomasticons. ʾĒl-names constituted a considerable percentage of each
onomasticon and the largest percentage of names in the Ammonite onomasticon. The
term ʾēl is ambiguous, however, because it could denote the god El; the appellative ‘god’;
or, by the inclusion of the first-person-singular suffix (ʾēlî), the tutelary or personal god of
an individual (‘my god’). Which of these three distinct sentiments was intended in indi-
vidual names is particularly difficult to determine, because suffixes were generally omitted
in epigraphic personal names. Thus, we can only roughly establish whether a tutelary god
was intended by comparing ʾēl-names with identical or similar plene-written names in the
Hebrew Bible. Accurate discrimination between the deity’s proper name and an appella-
tive can be made only in the Aramaic onomasticon, because the Aramaic language ex-
pressed a clear morphological distinction between the two forms: that is, ʾēl, at least when
used in the singular and without any suffix, generally denoted the god El, while the ap-
pellative was expressed by using the noun ʾilāh ‘god’. Since the the male form of the latter
has only been found in four inscriptions, and only one of the female form (ʾilat) has been
found in the Aramaic material known to date (see table 5.11), the majority of the 42 names
containing ʾēl probably intended to refer to the god El. Intentions in the Phoenician and
Hebrew onomasticons can only be construed by using more-general religious-historical
considerations.
Ugaritic texts from the late 2nd millennium b.c.e. portrayed El as the king and head of
the Ugaritic pantheon (see DDD 1995: 523–26). El was no longer automatically inscribed
in first position in Aramaic and Phoenician inscriptions from Samʾal, Sfire, and Karatepe
in 8th-century Syria, and thus Rolf Rendtorff (1975: 177–82) assumed that El had lost his
position of supremacy in the 1st millennium. This conclusion was extended by Herbert
Niehr (1990: 3–6, 17–22) to El’s having lost most of his former significance in the North-
west Semitic religions, including Israel, and having been almost entirely supplanted by
Baal-Shamem. Ingo Kottsieper (1997: 25–50), however, pointed out that El still played a
significant role in the Levant of the 1st millennium and, next to Shamsh, he was the most
often-mentioned god in the Aramean Aḥiqar proverbs from around 700 b.c.e. (TUAT
3.320–46). He was conceived in these proverbs as being a god of mercy, who accompanied
and supported an individual, whereas Shamsh was thought to be more of an examiner and
judge. But El was not merely an intimate, protective deity. In an inscription from Deir ʿAlla
dating to around 800 b.c.e., he was still regarded as the head of the assembly of deities.â•›240
Thus, Kottsieper concludes that during the 1st millennium El was still regarded as a high
god, but his activity was seen to be particularly focused on the protection of individuals,
whereas Hadad, Baal, and other deities gained more prominence in political realms. The
Hebrew Bible presents a similar picture, in that El or Elyon could still be considered the
head of the divine assembly (Deut 32:8–9; Psalm 82), but he was also described as being
particularly intimately involved in familial realms in the patriarchal stories (Gen 16:13;

240. See Kottsieper (1997: 41 n. 57) and the newly restored line 2 of combination 1 in the re-
construction of Blum (2008: 377), which should be rendered ‘To him [Bileam] the gods came in the
night . . . his [vision] according to the saying of El’.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 355

21:33), while Yhwh predominated in the political sphere. Thus, El seems to have held a
special affinity with family religion in the 1st millennium, and his presence and function
in the Levantine onomasticons of this period must be taken into consideration.
The volitional activity of ʾēl in the designations of the Levantine onomasticons is re-
flected in the high percentage of thanksgiving names that include this element and also
refer to specific activities of the divine. These names constitute 16.3% of all thanksgiving
names in the Hebrew onomasticon and 17.2% of all instances, compared with averages
(out of all names) of 13.1% and 11.1%, respectively (see table 5.7). Although these propor-
tions are not especially high, they are the most frequently occurring type of thanksgiving
names after those containing the theophoric element Yhwh. In the Aramaic onomasticon,
designations containing ʾēl are found in 34.9% of all thanksgiving names and 38.7% of all
their instances, compared with percentages from all name groups of 19.1% and 20.4%, re-
spectively (containing either ʾēl or ʾilāh; see table 5.11). The portion of thanksgiving names
in the Ammonite onomasticon that contain ʾil is extremely high, 88.9% of all names and
96.1% of all instances, in comparison with respective amounts across all name groups of
67.8 and 81.8% (see table 5.10). The Moabite sample is insufficiently large to permit any
statements of this kind. However, in the Phoenician onomasticon, the theophoric element
ʾēl is clearly underrepresented in the group of thanksgiving names and appears in only
5.6% of all such names and 4.0% of instances (see table 5.12). Percentages across all name
groups are in this case only slightly larger, at 7.2% and 5.6%, respectively. It thus appears
that it was not only the morphologically unambiguous references in the Aramaic ono-
masticon that intended explicit references to the god El but also most of the theophoric
elements in the Ammonite onomasticon. The Hebrew epigraphic onomasticon probably
also reflects the lingering significance of the god El because, even if reference to his name
developed into the more appellative sense, the Hebrew Bible still attests his name in about
one-third of all theophoric personal names during the 10th century (see J. D. Fowler 1988:
367–68). It was only in Phoenicia that El seems to have lost his significance.
It is thus apparent that El assumed the position of the most important family god in
the Ammonite culture where, like Yhwh in the Israelite onomasticon, personal names
that referred to him formed the highest percentage in all name groups except the equating
names. With averages of 67.8% of all names and 81.8% of all instances, his popularity ex-
ceeded even that of Yhwh (59.4% and 67.6%, respectively; see table 5.10). Remarkably, the
Ammonite national god Milkom has appeared only twice to date in the Ammonite ono-
masticon, in the names ‫ מלכמאור‬Milkomʾûr ‘Milkom is [my] light’ (WSS 860), and ‫מלכמגד‬
Milkomgad ‘Milkom is [my] luck’ (WSS 940; see appendixes B2.3.3 and B2.5.3). This is
the same number of instances referring to this deity known in the Aramaic onomasticon
(WSS 792, 853; see appendix B2.4.1). Even if we assume that the 3 Ammonite names con-
taining the theophoric element malk ‘Malk’ or ‘king’ were intentionally associated with
Milkom, these percentages only increase from 2.2% to 5.5% of all Ammonite names and
from 0.9 to 2.4% of all occurrences. Thus, the choices of family gods manifest a profound
discontinuity between family and state religions in the Ammonite culture.
In contrast to divinized designations of kinship, the theophoric element ʾēl appears in
only a small percentage of equating names, ranging across the cultures between 5% and
11%. It is only noticeably higher in the Ammonite onomasticon. This element or name
356 Chapter 5

thus appears to have been less important in distinguishing among the various gods in fam-
ily religion than divinized designations of kinship. Most if not all of the cases in which the
element ʾēl stands in the first position of the nominal statement and a named god appears
in the second (see appendix B4.2) should be interpreted—as illustrated by the biblical par-
allels—as designations for the tutelary or personal god, even though the first-person-sin-
gular suffix is not explicitly written. Thus, the famous example of the Hebrew name ‫אליהו‬
ʾElīyāhû ‘my god is Yhwh’, which is attested in 13 inscriptions, can now be seen to have
been an ordinary personal name, as can the Phoenician name ‫ אלבעל‬ʾElībaʿal ‘my god is
Baal’, and probably also the Ammonite name ‫ אלמלך‬ʾElīmalk ‘my god is king/Milkom’.â•›241
Similar to gods in the names that contain divinized kinship terms, the personal god of the
family is predicated by a higher god; the former inherits the power of the latter, while the
latter is integrated into the personal, symbolic world of family religion.
There are a few different cases in which the tutelary god was equated with a divinized
kinship term, as in the Phoenician name ‫ אלעם‬and the Aramean or Ammonite counter-
part ‫ אליעם‬ʾElîʿam ‘my god is [my] uncle’ (which may also have included a written suffix;
see WSS 1105). As for the names that included two divinized kinship terms, a trusting,
intimate relationship is being acknowledged with the family god, who acted as a true fam-
ily god by caring for the family as an uncle (father’s brother) would.
In the cases in which the theophoric element ʾēl, written without a suffix, holds the sec-
ond position of the nominal sentence, with the first position designating the family god,
it is likely that the god El was meant, as clearly exemplified in the Ammonite name ‫מראל‬
Māreʾil ‘[My] lord is El’, which appears 4 times (see appendix B4.5.1). This is also probably
the case with the Hebrew name ‫ אחיאל‬ʾAḥîʾēl and its shortened form ‫ חיאל‬Ḥîʾēl, both of
which may be translated ‘My [divine] brother is El’ (see appendix B4.1.2). The family god
is predicated in these cases by El, from whom he gains his power; again, such construc-
tions indicate the ongoing integration and assimilation of El into the religious world of
the family. These sorts of integrative and assimilative process are especially noticeable in
the Ammonite culture, where El became the favored family god,â•›242 as did Yhwh in the
Israelite culture. Thus, to a certain extent, these equating names mirror the more-general
aspects of religious historical development.

5.4.3.3.╇Yhwh and other primary deities

References to primary deities in the theophoric elements of personal names vary greatly
between the different Levantine onomasticons. As mentioned above, Yhwh was the pre-
dominant god in the epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon (present in 59.4% of all names and
67.6% of instances), but he only rarely appears in the onomasticons of the neighboring
lands.â•›243 The distribution of his name across the different name groups broadly reflects the

241. It remains uncertain whether the identically written Aramean name would also have been
intended in the same sense, as ‘My god is Malik’, or as an identification with the two gods El and
Malik. For the god Malik, who seems to have had a funeral and underworld character, see DDD
1995: 1005–12.
242. In the few cases where it is likely that the shortened form of the word ʾēl with a suffix
was being written, such as ‫ אחלי‬ʾAḥlay ‘[My divine] brother is my god’ in Hebrew and ‫ ססלי‬Sāsilî
‘Shamash is my god’ in Aramaic, the tutelary god would again have been intended.
243. See above, p. 341.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 357

general distribution across all Hebrew personal names. His name is especially prevalent
in names of thanksgiving (72.3% of names and 77.0% of all instances) and birth names
(73.4% of names and 83.5% of all instances) but also appears to have been common in
names of confession (82.6% of all instances; see table 5.7). It is only in equating names that
the number that refer to Yhwh is far below average—attested in only 24.4% of names and
24.6% of instances.
The name Yhwh was nevertheless a frequent theophoric element in Hebrew equating
names, occurring in 19 different names, 104 instances. In 14 names and 86 instances, his
name assumes the second (predicate) position, while in 5 names and 18 instances, it ap-
pears in the first (subject) position in nominal statements. Thus in most cases, the family
or the personal god was predicated by Yhwh. This accords with the process discussed
above in which Yhwh, the national god of Israel, was becoming integrated and assimilated
into the personal, symbolic world of Israelite families.
There are, however, a few cases in which Yhwh was predicated by other gods (see ap-
pendix B4.4), who could of course have been family gods, for example, the names ‫יהואב‬
Yĕhôʾāb or ‫ יואב‬Yauʾāb ‘Yhwh is [divine] father’ and ‫ יהואח‬Yĕhôʾāḥ ‘Yhwh is [divine]
brother’. These sorts of name expressed other aspects of identity. In being adopted by
families, Yhwh inherited family characteristics in sympathy with family gods, and he was
thus subject to expectations that he would act as a father or brother in being responsible
for the care and protection of a family. The same processes led to his being divested of
the military and political characteristics that had been so important for the state religion.
Yhwh thus became a typical family god, who was believed to act for the benefit of (his)
families precisely as other family gods had always done and would continue to do.
The present epigraphic sample also suggests that Yhwh was only predicated by one
other primary god, El, in the equating name ‫ יהואל‬Yĕhôʾēl or ‫ יואל‬Yauʾēl (Joel) ‘Yhwh
is El’. The spelling of this name in the Hebrew Bible proves that it was not referring to a
tutelary god. Of course, ʾēl could be regarded as an appellative in the sense ‘Yhwh is god’,â•›244
but since we know from the Hebrew Bible that Yhwh was in fact equated with the older
god, El—the former king of the gods—during the preexilic period,â•›245 it is more likely
that this name, at least as originally formulated, would have been intended in the more
concrete sense that Yhwh inherited the power and position of El. Presuming this inter-
pretation, the name Joel would then mirror these general religious-historical processes on
the family level. The Hebrew Bible records almost the same percentage (around 30%) of
Yhwh-containing names from the 10th century as El-containing names, with Yhwh later
assuming dominance (see J. D. Fowler 1988: 366–67). Therefore, by choosing the name
Joel, the families who had formerly venerated El as their family god confessed that Yhwh,
after taking over the position, acted exactly as El previously had. By these means, families
were able to express their confidence that the gods they chose to venerate remained es-
sentially identical, regardless of changing religious-historical conditions.

244. This wider understanding is evident in, for example, the postexilic name from Samaria
‫ יהובגה‬Yĕhôbaga, which according to Cross (2006: 79) uses the Iranian word baga ‘god’ to declare
that ‘Yhwh is god’; by being correlated with a foreign appellative, Yhwh inherits a degree of Iranian
flavor and is defined as a god who fits into the international culture of the Persian Empire.
245. See Albertz 1994: 1.77–78, 132–35, 137–38, 144.
358 Chapter 5

The epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon includes only one name known to date in which
the god Baal is equated with another god (see appendix B4.3), ‫ בעלא‬Baʿalāʾ ‘Baal is [DN]’,
although this is a hypocoristicon and does not unambiguously indicate by which god Baal
should be predicated. The shortened form of the same name is also attested in the Moabite
and Ammonite onomasticons, while the Hebrew Bible records the name ‫ בעליה‬Baʿalyāh
(one of David’s warriors, 1 Chr 12:6). This name is rightly rendered ‘Baal is Yhwh’. The
rendering supposed by some scholars (such as J. D. Fowler 1988: 55), ‘Yhwh is the Lord’,
would require the opposite sequence of elements. In my interpretation, ‘Baal is Yhwh’
reflects a similar process, in which Yhwh was substituted by Baal as the god of the family,
and the name attests that Baal is identical to Yhwh. The foundation of this name posited
here is also supported textually by the accusations of the prophets that the people pre-
ferred to venerate Baal at the expense of Yhwh (2€Kgs 1:3; Hos 11:2; 13:1; Zeph 1:4; Jer
2:23; 7:9; 12:16).
Similar patterns, in which a primary or major god holds the subject position in the
nominal statement and is predicated either by a family or a personal god or some other
important god, can also be observed in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors (see ap-
pendix B4.4). The Moabite onomasticon contains the name ‫ כמׁשעם‬Kamōšʿam ‘Chemosh
is [divine] uncle’, in which the Moabite national god is defined based on the family god’s
qualities; and the name ‫ כמׁשאל‬Kamōšʾēl ‘Chemosh is El’, in which he inherits El’s position.â•›246
The Aramaic onomasticon includes the name ‫ׁשמׁשיב‬, plausibly interpreted as Šamšîʾāb
(Lemaire 2001: 45) and conveying the meaning ‘My Shamash is [my divine] father’. Here
the Babylonian sun-god is qualified based on the family god and even inherits from him
the personal connotation. The personal god becomes the qualifier for high gods in the
names ‫ ססלי‬Sāsilî ‘Shamash is my god’, ‫ סיראדני‬Sîrʾadōnî ‘Osiris is my lord’, and ‫ׁשאדני‬
Šēʾadōnî ‘Sin is my lord’, where suffixes are explicitly written. In these cases, ʾadōn clearly
designates a personal god, thereby suggesting that names in which the specific Aramaic
term ‫ מרא‬māreʾ ‘lord’ was written without the suffix might also have intended a connec-
tion with a personal god—for example, ‫ נבמרא‬Nabūmāreʾ ‘Nabû is lord’, read in the sense
of ‘my lord’. The identity of two different major deities is clearly attested in the names ‫ׁשידד‬
Šēdad ‘Sin is Adad’ and ‫ ׁשלמנרמן‬Šalmānrimmān ‘Shalman is [Hadad-]Rimmon’. In the
first of these, the Aramean weather-god Hadad is substituted by the Babylonian moon-
god Sin; while in the second, the same deity, here called by his epithet ‘the thunderer’ (see
2 Kgs 5:18) is substituted by the horseman’s deity Shalman (see DDD 1995: 1431–33). In
both cases, the deities who were adopted in this way by these two families were considered
to have inherited the powers of the prominent Aramean god.
No such clear patterns of association arise in the Phoenician onomasticon. There are
clear identifications of major deities with divinized kinship terms and with personalized
divine epithets, as in ‫ מלקרתאב‬Melqartʾāb ‘Melqart is [my divine] father’, by means of
which the city-god of Tyre was being assimilated to and modified in accordance with the
family god. The same would have occurred with the Phoenician god Eshmun in relation

246. The Edomite onomasticon possibly contains two names of this sort; both of their readings
remain uncertain. One name refers to a family god (‫ קוסאם‬Qausʾimmī ‘Qos [?] is [my] mother’; WSS
1056); the other refers to a personal god (‫ קוסאדני‬Qaus[?]ʾadōnî ‘Qos [?] is my lord’; WSS 1057).
 Personal Names and Family Religion 359

to a personal god in the name ‫ אׁשמנאדני‬ʾEšmunʾadōnî ‘Eshmun is my lord’. There are

four known records with this name written with the first-person-singular suffix, and five
appearances without it, but it is unlikely that the two variants had different meanings.
By means of this equation, Eshmun was being divested of his attributes as a healing god
(see DDD 1995: 583–87) and was becoming a conventional personal god responsible for
particular individuals and families.â•›247 There is, however, no clear equating of two differ-
ent major deities. There are three different deities—the national god Baal; the city-god of
Sidon, Sid; and the little known deity Doʿam—who are all ambiguously equated by use of
the element ‫ מלך‬milk. According to Benz (1972: 344), this element should be interpreted as
a nontheophoric title denoting these gods as ‘king’. Provided with a first-person-singular
suffix, however, milkî or malkî ‘my king’ could also be a designation for one’s personal god,
as with ʾadōnî ‘my lord’ in the Hebrew onomasticon.â•›248 In the Phoenician onomasticon,
however, the term often seems to denote the specific deity called Milk, who was prob-
ably identical to the Tyrian city-god Melqart (see Benz 1972: 344–45). Thus, these names
should perhaps be interpreted alone the lines of ‘Baal is Milk’, ‘Sid is Milk’, ‘Doʿam is Milk’
or ‘Melqart’. The substitution of the city-god of Sidon for the city-god of Tyre would plau-
sibly happen whenever families moved from one city to the other.
The equating of national, city, and other major deities thus seems to follow a similar
pattern throughout the different Levantine cultures. Differences arose primarily in the
cultures that manifested relatively low degrees of polytheism, such as Israel, Moab, and
Edom; they referred to—and explicitly equated—a reduced number and variety of deities.
Conversely, more-polytheistic cultures such as Aram and Phoenicia, contrasted, com-
pared, and equated a greater diversity of divinities.

5.4.3.4.╇ Old epithets

The final theophoric elements to be discussed here are old Canaanite epithets found
in the Levantine onomasticons, the most frequent of which are mélek/malk/milk, mean-
ing ‘king’; and the Canaanite ʾadōn and Aramaic māreʾ or shortened mar, both of which
mean ‘lord’.
The epithet mélek appears in 13 names in the Hebrew onomasticon, used in 78 in-
stances, amounting to 3.2% and 3.9%, respectively. Percentages are similar in the Moabite,
Ammonite, and Aramaic onomasticons, and only in the Phoenician onomasticon is the
proportion of these names higher, constituting 11.2% of known names and 13.4% of all in-
stances. The higher proportion in this latter case reflects Milk’s having been considered an
actual deity in Phoenicia, and many names probably used a shortened form of the name
Melqart (see Benz 1972: 344–45). Furthermore, in Aramaic names, the god Malik seems
to have been intended in 2 or 3 cases.
The epithet ʾadōn is attested in 7 names known from 21 instances in the Hebrew ono-
masticon, with proportions amounting to 1.7% of different names and 1.1% of all instances.
The epithets ʾadōn and māreʾ were used synonymously in the Ammonite, Aramaic, and

247. The predicate statements of the names that contain Eshmun are not specifically affiliated
with healing; for example, none of the names is derived from the root rāpāʾ ‘to heal’.
248. See p. 360.
360 Chapter 5

Phoenician onomasticons and together amount to 5.5% and 3.8% of Ammonite, 5.7% and
5.1% of Aramaic, and 4.0% and 5.0% of Phoenician names and instances, respectively.
These two epithets are absent only from the small Moabite onomasticon. But with this
small exception of Moabite names, all of these old epithets were clearly common features
in the Levantine onomasticons. Naturally, they appeared in the forms of the local variants.
Like the divinized kinship designations, the epithets ʾadōn and māreʾ appear especially
frequently in the equating names group. In the Hebrew onomasticon, ʾadōn is present in
71.4% of all names and 85.7% of instances. I demonstrated above that ʾadōn in the predi-
cate position of equating names and when provided with a first-person-singular suffix
probably designated the tutelary god in the Aramaic and the Phoenician onomasticons.
Similar designations were probably also intended in the Hebrew onomasticon, where
ʾadōn took the first position (see appendix B4.5.1). Parallels in the Hebrew Bible suggest
that the name ‫ אדניהו‬ʾAdōnīyāhû and its variants were considered to have the first-person-
singular suffix and thus should be rendered ‘my lord is Yhwh’. Just as the theophoric ele-
ment ʾēlī ‘my god’ represented the integration of the national god Yhwh in an individual’s
personal relationship with his or her deity, the Phoenician name ‫ אדנבעל‬ʾAdōnībaʿal ‘[my]
lord is Baal’ represented the same process with regard to Baal. The appearance in the
Ammonite onomasticon of the name ‫ אדנאב‬ʾAdōnīʾāb ‘[my] lord is the [divine] father’,
in which the personal god is predicated by the family god, is not evidence against this
argument, because combinations of this sort also appear with ʾēlî, as in the Aramean or
possibly Ammonite name ‫ אליעם‬ʾElîʿam ‘my god is the [divine] uncle’.
In Aramean names, the epithet māreʾ ‘lord’ seems to have been intended in some
cases (particularly in thanksgiving and birth names) to represent a primary god, possibly
Hadad. But the equating names group reveals a different association. Because the name
‫ מריחלד‬Mārayḥaldi ‘my lord is Haldi’ is explicitly written with the first-person-singular
suffix, all other equating names containing māreʾ or māre in first position may plausibly
be interpreted in the same way. Take, for example, the name ‫ מראהד‬Māreʾhadd ‘[my] lord
is Hadad’, which is evidence that the primary god in the Aramaic onomasticon, Hadad,
had been integrated into the familial sphere of personal gods, just as Yhwh was in Israel
and Baal was in Phoenicia. Thus the theophoric elements māreʾ, ʾadōn, and ʾēl, which take
first position in nominal statements, along with the similarly positioned divinized kinship
terms, whether or not they contained the first-person-singular suffix, probably all had
very similar functions in these equating names.
The second of these old epithets, ‘king’, seems to have been used a little bit more di-
versely in the Levantine onomasticons. It was relatively less frequent in equating names
and also appears in all the other groups. The Hebrew onomasticon reveals this epithet in
only 5 of 13 personal equating names (or 39%), but these names are 88.5% of all recorded
instances. The Hebrew, Edomite, Moabite, and Ammonite onomasticons seem to reflect
the tradition or rule that, when an epithet was used as the second element in verbal- or
nominal-sentence names, it was always a substitute for the name of a major deity, whether
Yhwh, El, Milkom, or someone else.â•›249 When it was used in the first position, the epithet

249. See the Hebrew names Yĕkolmelek ‘the [divine] king has proven himself to be mighty’
(thanksgiving), Śĕrāmelek ‘the divine kings rules’ (praise), ʾAḥīmelek ‘[my divine] brother is king’
 Personal Names and Family Religion 361

always seems to have designated a personal god. This rule even appears to have guided
the construction of the Moabite name of thanksgiving ‫ מלכיעזר‬Malkî↜ʿazar ‘my king has
helped’, in which the first-person-singular suffix is explicitly written,â•›250 and the Hebrew
name of confession ‫ מלכיצדק‬Malkîṣedeq ‘my [divine] king is [my] justice’, with a similarly
explicit first-person-singular suffix. This rule probably also led to the formation of the
name ‫ מלכנר‬Malkīnēr ‘[my divine] king is [my] light’, although the suffix is not written in
this case. We may therefore assume that equating names in which the epithet is in first po-
sition were meant in the same sense. The very common name ‫( מלכיהו‬recorded 32 times)
and its rare Northern counterpart ‫ מלכיו‬can with certainty be transcribed Malkīyāhû and
Malkīyau and be rendered ‘my [divine] king is Yhwh’, although the first-person-singular
suffix is concealed by the first letter of the divine name. This interpretation is also sup-
ported by the Masoretic punctation (Jer 38:6). The last two names have the same gram-
matical and logical structure as the name ‫ אליהו‬ʾEliyāhû ‘my god is Yhwh’, in that the per-
sonal god is predicated by Yhwh, from whom he draws his power, and Yhwh is integrated
into the personal sphere of family religion. The only difference is that the personal god
in the present case is referred to as ‘my king’. Thus, just like ʾelî and ʾadōnî, whenever the
theophoric element melek—which was probably always intended to be read as containing
the first-person-singular suffix—appears in the first position in Hebrew personal names,
it designates the tutelary or personal god of the family.
The “rule” discerned above does not appear to have applied in the Aramaic and Phoe-
nician onomasticons because, in these cultures, the element MLK was used in either first
or second position to denote the specific deity Malik or Milk/Melqart. There are only a few
instances in which the element in the first position appears with a first-person-singular
suffix.â•›251 It is thus unclear whether the Phoenician equating name ‫ מלכׁשמׁש‬Milkšamaš
meant that the god Milk or the personal god was supposed to be equated with Shamash.
The first of these possibilities seems more plausible and would thus have been equating
two major or primary gods.
In conclusion, the hypothesis that equating names primarily served to identify various
deities and achieved this through the structured ordering of subject and predicate leads
to clear and coherent results. The equating names evidence four distinct possibilities for
correlating two deities, which are analogous to observations previously made in regard to
the predicates of theophoric personal names (see table 5.13, p. 514).

(equating); Miqnēmelek ‘creature of the [divine] king’ (birth); and Bōmelek/milk ‘in the hand of
the [divine] king/Milk’ (confession). Only in the last case are we uncertain whether the name was
meant to refer to an epithet or to the god Milk/Melqart, because the form of this name is typically
Phoenician. These names may be compared with the Ammonite names Yĕrīmmalk ‘the [divine]
king has exalted’ (thanksgiving), ʾIlīmalk ‘[my] god is the [divine] king’ (equating), and Miqnēmalk
‘creature of the [divine] king’ (birth), and the Edomite and Moabite names Padamalk ‘the [divine]
king has ransomed’ (thanksgiving).
250. See WSS 1039; here the editors interpreted the yod as a prefix of the verb, but since there is
no other instance in which a name containing the verb ‫ עזר‬ʿāzar ‘to help’ is constructed with a prefix
conjugation, this interpretation is much less plausible.
251. The clearest of these is the Phoenician name ‫מלכיעזר‬, traditionally transcribed Milkyaʿzor
‘Milk has or will help’, which could also be read Milkîʿazor ‘my king has helped’.
362 Chapter 5

In the first case, either the family god (Type 1a) or the personal god (Type 1b) is predi-
cated by a major deity, from whom it inherits its power. Through this equating, the major
deity becomes integrated into the personal sphere of the family and the symbolic world
of its religion. This process corresponds to the observation made aboveâ•›252 that all deities
assimilated into family religion were given personalized characteristics and assumed very
similar functions, which were of direct benefit to families.
In the second case, a major deity was predicated either by the family god (Type 2a) or
the personal god (Type 2b). Through this equating, the major deity became shaped by the
characteristics of the personal family god and was largely divested of the characteristics
that had been ascribed to it in the sphere of official religion. This process reflects various
observations of deities’ losing specific characteristics when integrated into familial realms.
Even the deities with largely negative connotations in spheres of official religion, such as
Mot and Resheph, could act for the benefit of individuals on the level of family religion.â•›253
Moreover, the activities that so clearly characterized Yhwh on the national level are absent
from the predicative elements used in Hebrew personal names.â•›254
In the third case, different types of deities from the same family level are predicated by
one another, whether the personal god by the family god (Type 3a), the family god by the
personal god (Type 3b), or the family god by the family god (Type 3c). These names are
confessions of trust that the chosen god of a family is a true family or personal god. They
reflect the strong influence of the intimate social and emotional relationships of family
members on family religion.â•›255
In the fourth and final case, a major god is predicated by a major god (Type 4). During
the changing conditions of the polytheistic religious environments, these names allowed
families to adhere to the identity of the gods they had chosen. Thus this type of equating
name corresponded to the observations made above that on the level of family religion
all the deities were furnished with the same functions. Because family religion placed
primary emphasis on personal relationships with the divine, it manifested a tendency to-
ward monolatry, in which all gods, however they might be named, were expected to act in
the same way for the benefit of a family. Each god would have represented the complete
divinity for each family, and the only possible debate might have been over which of the
various divine representations was the most effective. Thus this last subgroup of equating
names can be regarded as reflecting the response of family religion to its encounter with
the larger, variously polytheistic environment. By making these various gods identical,
family religion effectively pled for an inclusive sort of monolatry.â•›256
252. See above, pp. 332–333 and 341–344.
253. See above, pp. 346–347.
254. See above, pp. 262–269.
255. See above, pp. 331–333.
256. This tendency toward monolatry can also be observed in the names in which the sec-
ond theophoric element is simply the pronoun ‫ הוא‬hûʾ ‘he’, such as in the Phoenician name ‫אבהא‬
ʾAbīhūʾ ‘[my divine] father is the one [who is god]’, which also appears in the Hebrew Bible (Exod
6:23), and in the epigraphic and biblically attested Hebrew names ‫ אלהוא‬ʾElīhûʾ ‘[my] god is the
one [who is god]’ and ‫ יהוא‬Yēhûʾ ‘Yhwh is the one [who is god]’. In the case of Abihu and Elihu,
the pronoun refers to major deities; and in the case of Yehu, it refers to the family gods, who are
confessed to be true gods.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 363

A final look at the theophoric element Yhwh in the Hebrew equating names reveals
that polytheism as encountered by Israelite families was apparently rather limited. The
vast majority of the Yhwh-names belong to the above Types 1a (31.6% of names and
21.2% of instances) and 1b (41.1% of names and 61.5% of instances), in which the family
or personal god is predicated by Yhwh. Taken together, these two groups comprise 73.7%
of all names and 82.7% of all instances. Type 2a, in which Yhwh is predicated by the fam-
ily god, contains a smaller number (15.8% of names and 15.4% of instances), but in only
10.5% of names and 1.9% of instances is Yhwh predicated by the god El (Type 4). Even
through the presence of the name Baʿalyāh in the Hebrew Bible suggests the possibility of
more names of this type than have been found to date in epigraphic material, it is never-
theless apparent that under the relatively restricted polytheistic conditions of Israel, the
overwhelming function of the equating names was to integrate Yhwh into the sphere of
family religion and not to identify him with other major deities.

5.4.4.╇ Goddesses and female personal names

The almost complete absence of goddesses in the Hebrew onomasticon has already
been noted and has been considered one of the ways in which Israel differed from its
environment (Tigay 1987: 168–71); however, this assertion is not entirely accurate. The
epigraphic material does in fact reveal a few female deities among the theophoric elements
in Hebrew names; moreover, the very small portion of personal names referring to god-
desses—as mentioned aboveâ•›257—is true of not only the Hebrew onomasticon but also the
Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic onomasticons of the 1st millennium b.c.e. Only in the
Phoenician onomasticon is the percentage higher (see table 5.8).â•›258
Many potential references to female deities remain ambiguous, however, and while
the goddesses referred to by definite names or female titles can be readily acknowledged,
possible female designations of kinship remain a matter of dispute. According to Noth
(1927: 42–43), the female kinship terms ʾem ‘mother’ and ʾaḥat ‘sister’ do not reflect the
same sorts of common Semitic divinized designations as ‘father’, ‘brother’, and ‘uncle’. In
spite of the relatively small number of clearly theophoric ummuâ•‚ and aḫatâ•‚ names in the
Akkadian onomasticon, Noth saw no real parallels in the Levantine onomasticons. He did
accept a few in his 1928 book but regarded them as secondary formations (1928: 71–72).
However, more material has been accumulated in the meantime and, as discussed above,
there is now evidence from the Aramaic, Phoenician, Moabite, and Hebrew onomasticons
that the element ʾēm can rightly be regarded as theophoric in many if not all cases.â•›259 The
most convincing examples are the Aramean confession name ‫ אמעזר‬ʾImmīʿizrī ‘[my di-
vine] mother is [my] help’ and the Phoenician equating name ‫ אמעׁשתרת‬ʾImmīʿaštart ‘[my
divine] mother is Ashtarte’.â•›260 The clearest example among the Levantine personal names
for the divinized character of the kinship term ʾaḫat ‘sister’ is the Ammonite name ‫חתעזת‬
257. See above, p. 340.
258. Tigay (1987: 170–71) draws his parallels not only from the contemporary Phoenician ono-
masticon but also from the Old Babylonian and Ugaritic onomasticons of the 2nd millennium b.c.e.
259. See above, pp. 353–353.
260. Noth (1928: 71 n. 1) regarded this Aramean name, which appears on a tablet from Nin-
eveh (CIS 2/1 43), as having been influenced by the Akkadian ummu-names. However, even if the
364 Chapter 5

[ʾA]ḥatʿazzāt, which may be plausibly rendered ‘[divine] sister, you have proven yourself
to be strong’. Assuming that female kinship terms were used as theophoric elements not
only in Akkadian but also in Levantine personal names allows similar interpretations of
the Hebrew names ‫ אחיאם‬and ‫ אחאם‬ʾAḥîʾem as ‘my [divine] brother is mother’ and ‫אחאמה‬
ʾAḥīʾimmōh ‘[my divine] brother is his mother’.â•›261 The second name is also attested in
the Moabite and Phoenician onomasticons. A number of families acknowledged in these
names that the family god addressed as the brother (who was responsible for fostering and
protecting the family) also acted as an ideal divine mother (see appendix B4.1.2).
In two cases from the Hebrew onomasticon, goddesses are named by their titles. In
the name ‫ אחמלכה‬ʾAḥīmalkāh ‘my brother is queen’ or ‘the Queen’ (see appendix B4.1.2),
the title seems to refer to a major goddess such as Asherah, Ashtarte, or Ishtar. The He-
brew Bible refers to one of these goddesses (or a mixture of them) as ‘Queen of Heaven’
(‫)מלכת הׁשמים‬â•›262 (in Jer 7:18; 44:17–19, 25). Since the ostracon that has this name (NEE
79.92–102) can probably be dated on epigraphic grounds to the late 7th or early 6th cen-
turies, it would have been contemporary with Jeremiah’s polemic against this goddess.
The editors Robert Deutsch and Michael Heltzer hesitated to accept the feminine ending,
because the text denotes the name bearer as male. They therefore suggested a scribal er-
ror, based which the final he should be replaced by a yod, and the name should be read
ʾAḥīmalkî ‘[My] brother is my king’ (NEE 79.93). But this conjecture is unconvincing,
because the name ʾAḥimelek is common both epigraphically and biblically, yet it is never
spelled with the first-person-singular suffix. Moreover, in the epigraphic Hebrew onomas-
ticon, the theophoric element melek appears with this suffix only in the first position of a
nominal sentence and not in the second. Thus, the final he of the name most likely actually
refers to a female ending. The fact that a man is denoted as a worshiper of the Queen of
Heaven presents no contradiction for two reasons. First, there are many examples in the
Phoenician and Aramaic onomasticons where men appear as servants of goddesses such
as ʿAbdimilkat ‘servant of the [divine] queen’ or ʿAbdbaʿalat ‘servant of the [divine] lady’.â•›263
Second, Jer 7:18 describes the Queen of Heaven as being eagerly worshiped by all family
members, including husbands. There would thus have been no reason that a Judean fam-
ily might not have called their newborn son ‘[my divine] brother is the Queen’, by which
statement they would have been identifying their own family god with the goddess. Other
examples of cross-sexual identifications in Levantine equating names have been discussed
above.â•›264
In the hypocoristicon ‫ אדתא‬ʾAdattāʾ ‘[my] mistress is [DN]’, attributed to a woman,
the female title would probably have referred to the personal goddess, as in the equating
names in which the male counterpart ʾadōnî ‘my lord’ was used in the first position of the

divinized female kinship terms came to the Levant from Mesopotamia, they still demonstrate an
incontrovertible reality.
261. For similar supporting arguments, see p. 353 above.
262. As LXX Jer 44:17 shows, the divine title was originally read malkat haššamayim, and the
reading mĕleket or mĕleʾket in the sense of ‘hosts of heaven’ in later Hebrew manuscripts is a deliber-
ate distortion.
263. See below, p. 366.
264. See above, p. 353.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 365

nominal-sentence names. The name verifies that, in individual cases, female deities could
also be chosen as the personal gods of Israelite families, which we know was done by some
of Israel’s neighbors (see appendix B4.1.–2.).
A named female deity is clearly attested in the name ‫בנענת‬, which has two plausible
interpretations. The first of these derives from the noun ‫ בן‬ben ‘son’, producing the trans-
literation Benʿānat, which is translated ‘son of Anat’. This name also seems to have been
present in the Phoenician onomasticon (see appendix B2.6.3).â•›265 However, because this
type of name is extremely rare in the Hebrew onomasticon, the name is perhaps more
likely to have derived from the verb ‫ בנה‬bānāh ‘to build, to create’ and thus transliterated
Bĕnāʿānat and rendered ‘Anat has created’.â•›266 The goddess Anat is depicted in Ugaritic
texts as the consort and sister of Baal and is not known as a creator. She seems to have
been affiliated more with warriors than with sexuality (see DDD 1995: 63–66). These char-
acteristics, however, do not mean that she was not adopted for use in the present context
because, in family religions, the characteristics of all deities were altered in accordance
with family needs.
In the Hebrew onomasticon, the second and final female deity called by name is the
Egyptian goddess Isis (see appendix B2.6.2). There are no less than six appearances of the
name ‫ מאס‬known to date. With Zadok (1988: 175), I propose that this name be read Mēʾis
‘from Isis’. This interpretation is debatable, however. There may be a formal parallel in a
personal name that was formed by combining the preposition ‫ מן‬min ‘from’ and a theo-
phoric element: the Phoenician name ‫ מחדׁש‬Mēḥōdeš ‘from the new moon’. Because this
name was recorded in this form too many times to be a scribal error, and because negative
statements would have been implied if the name were derived from the verb ‫ מאס‬māʾas ‘to
reject’ and would not have been used in personal names,â•›267 Zadok’s explanation remains
the only plausible suggestion to date. Accepting this interpretation, I think that the name
meant that the child who came from Isis would belong to Isis for his or her entire life.â•›268
Even though there are a few uncertainties regarding potential references to female
deities in the Hebrew onomasticon, the discussion above seems to provide irrefutable ev-
idence of their incorporation into personal names. Five different female theophoric ele-
ments presented here were used in the Hebrew onomasticon; they appeared in 7 names
culled from 17 instances. These represent only 1.7% of all epigraphically attested names
and 0.9% of their occurrences. In terms of numbers of goddesses, the epigraphic Hebrew
onomasticon is similar to the Aramaic onomasticon, and while the number of goddesses
in the Moabite and Ammonite onomasticons was even smaller, their overall percentages
were similar. The only onomasticon in which the number and percentage of goddesses
were considerably higher was the Phoenician (see table 5.14, p. 514).

265. This name in the Ugaritic onomasticon is interpreted by Gröndahl (1967: 321) in this
direction.
266. This interpretation is supported by Renz and Röllig 2005: 376, 172–74.
267. Moreover, rejection by Yhwh of a person, king, or his people seems more likely to have
been a concept of the official religion; see, e.g., māʾas in Jer 14:19; Ps 89:39; and Lam 5:22; and zānaḥ
in Ps 44:10; 60:3, 12; 74:1; 89:39; and Lam 2:7.
268. See also the birth name ‫ אסיתן‬ʾIsiyaton ‘Isis has given’, which appears in Samarian papyri
from the 4th century b.c.e.; and Cross 2006: 76.
366 Chapter 5

No immediate reasons can be offered for the paucity of references to goddesses in the
Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic onomasticons. The societies of both Phoeni-
cia and Mesopotamia, where the proportions of female deities mentioned in names were
considerably higher, were relatively more developed and urbanized. Women in these so-
cieties occupied more important, prominent positions in public life. In contrast, in other
Levantine areas, where societies were less developed and were defined by more-rural tra-
ditional values, women were often marginalized. Under such conditions, male deities may
also have been presumed to be more powerful or efficacious. The prominent position of
Ashtarte among the female deities of the Phoenician onomasticon would certainly have
been due to the fact that she enjoyed the rank of a national deity with her own temples in
Sidon and other Phoenician cities (1 Kgs 11:5).
The sex of a divinity seems, however, to have been of limited consequence in family
religion, and what was true for male deities seems also to have been true for female equiv-
alents. There were no specific functions for which goddesses would have been thought
to have special responsibility, as exemplified most clearly in the fact that they in no way
assumed more prominent roles in birth names. There is only 1 birth name in the Hebrew
onomasticon that refers to a goddess, while there are 6 names in the Phoenician onomas-
ticon that refer to goddesses (Ashtarte, Bastet, or Isis), known from a total of 8 references
(see table 5.12). In this latter case, the names are 17.4% of 34 total names and 15.6% of
51 instances (see table 5.14). Among these goddesses, Ashtarte is the only goddess who
gains any noticeable prominence, by appearing in 5 records with 4 different Phoenician
birth names. These are 23.5% of all names that refer to Ashtarte and 20.8% of all instances.
Although this proportion may seem impressive initially, compared with the number of
general Phoenician birth names, however, which constitute 26.9% of names and 27.9% of
instances (see table 5.3), the Phoenician goddesses, including Ashtarte, are actually rela-
tively underrepresented. The goddess Anat is the only female deity referred to in a Hebrew
birth name who can be demonstrated to have lost all of her typical warrior characteristics,
which also happened to all male deities.â•›269 There were thus no perceptible differences in
the roles played by goddesses and the roles of their male counterparts in the Levantine
onomasticons.
One might expect that a goddess would be more likely to be mentioned when par-
ents were naming a newborn daughter, yet this does not appear to have been a common
practice either. There were only a few women with a name that referred to a female deity:
‫ נעמלכת‬Noʿammilkat ‘kindness of the Queen’ and ‫ חנעׁשתרת‬Ḥannaʿaštart ‘Ashtarte was
gracious’ in the Phoenician onomasticon; ‫ אחתאב‬ʾAḥatʾab ‘my sister is father’ in the Am-
monite; ‫ אחתמלך‬ʾAḥatmalik ‘my sister is Malik/king’ in the Aramaic; and ‫ אדתא‬ʾAdattāʾ
‘[my] mistress is [DN]’ in the Hebrew onomasticon. However, these cases, especially the
names in the Phoenician onomasticon constitute only a minor percentage throughout.
In fact, there are a number of just the opposite: boys were given a name that referred to a
goddess—for example, ‫ עבדלבאת‬ʿAbdlabiʾt ‘servant of the lioness’ (Anat) and ‫גרעׁשתרת‬
Gerʿaštart ‘sojourner of Ashtarte’ in the Phoenician onomasticon; ‫ עבדבעלת‬ʿAbdbaʿalat
‘servant of the Lady’ in the Aramaic; and ‫ אחמלכה‬ʾAḥīmalkāh ‘[my divine] brother is the

269. See pp. 346–348.

 Personal Names and Family Religion 367

Queen’ in the Hebrew onomasticon. This reflects the fact that, in the majority of cases
in which a woman can be identified as having a theophoric name, the deity referred to
is male: ‫ אמתׁשמן‬ʾAmotʾešmun ‘maidservant of Eshmun’ and ‫ ארׁשתבעל‬ʾArūštbaʿal ‘[she
who] was desired from Baal’ in the Phoenician onomasticon; ‫ בתאל‬Batʾil ‘daughter of
El’ in the Ammonite; and ‫ אחנעם‬ʾAḥīnōʿam ‘[my divine] brother is kindness’ in the He-
brew onomasticon. It seems that it was only in when divinized kinship terms were used
for a female infant that the rare term ḥam ‘father-in-law’ was preferred, as in ‫חמיאהל‬
Ḥammîʾohel ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] tent’ and ‫ חמיעדן‬Ḥammî↜ʿeden ‘my [divine]
father-in-law is [my] bliss’ in the Hebrew onomasticon; and ‫ חמדן‬Ḥammīdan ‘my [divine]
father-in-law has given [me] justice’ in the Ammonite onomasticon. It may be that the
choice of a male or female deity in the name of a newborn reflected to a much greater
extent the religious experiences of the mother than the sex of name bearer, although for
the moment, we must content ourselves with saying that more investigation is needed. A
significant methodological problem is that the indeterminate sex of many name bearers
as recorded in epigraphic material and our uncertainty about the (presumably limited)
extent to which women were allowed public roles in most Levantine societies affect our
determination of the extent of female names in the epigraphic material. In the meantime,
it is difficult to quantify accurately the frequency of occurrence of female names and of
references to female divinities.
Although further investigation is needed, the above investigations have shown the ben-
efits of a detailed comparison of the Hebrew epigraphic onomasticon with other Levantine
onomasticons. It not only provides insight into the beliefs of the family religions of Israel
and its neighbors but also into the various intriguing strategies that the family religions
used to confront the challenges presented by their variously polytheistic environments.

5.5.╇ Iconographic evidence for iconic stamp seals serving

personal piety and family religion (R. Schmitt)
5.5.1.╇ The significance of stamp seals for the reconstruction of
personal piety and family religion
Iron Age name seals are of great importance for the reconstruction of family and per-
sonal piety, not only because of epigraphic evidence but also because of the iconography
of the seals themselves. According to Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §4), the iconography of
stamp impressions reflects the variety of symbolic systems in a culture. Motifs were cho-
sen based on personal beliefs and preferences. Moreover, the repertoire of iconic seals,
especially unique seals, reflects personal beliefs in relation to, for example, personal dei-
ties, guarding deities, and needs for numinous protection. Members of Iron Age societies
were not defined as individuals so much as part of the greater entity that was the family;
consequently, personal seals may be interpreted not only in terms of personal piety but
also in terms of the beliefs of families as a whole. The iconographic repertoire, however,
reflects not only the more-general religious trends but also the traditions and fashions
of stone carving, the engraver’s personal tastes, and the personal choices of the owners
(Uehlinger 1993: 274–75). But the customer’s choice was not simply random, as Uehlinger
368 Chapter 5

(1993: 275) remarks: “A customer’s choice, even when facing a limited offer, is as much a
choice as that of the manufacturer, and we may understand any owner of a name-seal to
have adopted a certain motif, be it local or foreign, as his own, personal sealing object.”
There can be no doubt that the iconography of seals witnesses elements of personal be-
liefs and piety as well as more-general, supraregional religious trends. Nevertheless, analy-
ses of iconographic repertoires are also limited in a number of potentially important ways.
It must be understood at the outset that the iconography of seals does not necessarily re-
flect an entire religious, symbolic system. Figurines of naked females holding their breasts,
for example, although represented in more than 2,000 JPFs, are almost entirely absent in
the Iron Age IIC glyptic repertoire; there are also no motifs that can be directly identified
with Yhwh or Asherah (except, perhaps, WSS no. 173).â•›270 Nevertheless, there are symbols
that are common in the West Asian glyptic repertoire, such as the winged sun-disc and
winged scarab, which may represent Yhwh (see Schmitt 2001: 171–83). Yhwh is virtu-
ally absent in the iconographic evidence considered in isolation, and the Iron IIC–period
Judeans appear to have been dedicated followers of the moon-god of Haran (see GGG
figs. 296–310). Furthermore, although glyptic material may represent an entire symbolic
system, it may also represent a self-contained symbolic system committed to its own tradi-
tions of craftsmanship and its own repertoire of motifs. Two glyptic traditions are found
in Iron Age glyptic repertoires, both expressing parallel but unique symbolic systems. One
was the Egyptianized Phoenician koiné style (dominant during Iron IIB but still well rep-
resented up to Iron III and even later) that was both imported and locally produced; the
other was a style dominated by Aramean and Assyrian influences (dominant during Iron
Age IIC). These traditions raise the question of the extent to which a largely imported
iconography can be interpreted as evidence for local beliefs. Patterns of belief expressed
in motifs found in glyptic material concur surprisingly well with biblical evidence for the
astralization of the cult in the Assyrian period. It is possible to identify celestial beings
mentioned in the Old Testament, such as the seraphim, although it is not always possible
to clarify understandings of adapted motifs. Finally, interpreting iconographic repertoires
with regard to larger symbolic systems is also limited when we are considering unique
seals, because firm conclusions can only be drawn from repeated series of motifs (on this
methodological fundamental, see Parayre 1993: 28–29; and Uehlinger 1993: 260, 277).
Another challenge is to relate the often ambiguous evidence presented by glyptic ma-
terial to the existence and function of internal religious pluralism; this challenge is exac-
erbated by the existence of elements in the seals that represent aspects of both personal
piety and official religion (especially the official religion of Judah). In Keel and Uehlinger’s
(1998: §152) conception of symbolic systems, any differentiation between these religious
spheres is difficult. Even though the authors occasionally consider the concepts of pri-
vate or family religion when dealing with particular groups of objects such as terra-cotta
figurines (§376), they do not generally distinguish between different religious strata. One
possibility is that the glyptic material should be considered, in line with Dever (1990: 162;
cf. 2005: 5–31), within a paradigm of folk religion that presupposes “unsophisticated folk
. . . always inclined with syncretism.” Alternatively, the symbolism of the seals could be

270. See below, p. 380.

 Personal Names and Family Religion 369

considered in accordance with Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §152), who rejected the popular
religion paradigm (1998: §376, n. 345) and thought that glyptic icons reflected their adap-
tation by the elite of society. In §5.5.2, I will demonstrate that the problems and discrepan-
cies that arise in attempts to interpret the symbolic system of 1st-millennium Israel—or
its internal subsystems—are best understood in the broader context of internal religious
pluralism.

5.5.2.╇ The material basis

The material examined here comprises the Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (WSS)
compiled by Avigad and Sass (1997), additional material from uninscribed seals taken
mostly from Keel and Uehlinger’s GGG (1998) and from the Transjordanian material col-
lected by Eggler and Keel (2006). While it is not my goal in this book to present the com-
plete collection of published and unpublished specimens, I will provide a survey of mo-
tifs in tables 5.15. and 5.16. Full details would require the publication of Keel’s complete
corpus, which at present extends only to three volumes covering place-names that begin
with the letters A through F. In the absence of a complete survey, the material basis for the
present work is a significant series of objects.

5.5.3.╇ Astral symbolism in Iron Age stamp seals

5.5.3.1.╇Introduction
Its mostly polemic character notwithstanding, evidence from the Hebrew Bible pro-
vides several lines of information pertaining to the worship of astral deities, particularly in
the late monarchic period. These deities include the sun, the moon, the constellations, the
host of heaven (2 Kgs 23:5: laššemeš wĕlayyārēaḥ wĕlammazzālôt ûlĕkōl ṣĕbāʾ haššāmāyim;
cf. Deut 4:19), and the Queen of Heaven (Jer 7:18; 44:17–19, 25: malkat haššāmāyim),
often described as the “Assyrian crisis” of Israelite religion. The precise meaning and im-
plications of this supposed Assyrian crisis of Israelite (or, more precisely, Judahite) re-
ligion have been subjects of ongoing discussion since 1970. McKay (1973) argued that,
rather than arising from religious pressure by the hegemonial power, this crisis of national
religious self-confidence was due to a Syrian-Canaanite syncretism rooted in older tradi-
tions. Similarly, Donner (1986: 332) described the “Assyrian crisis” as nothing more than
a Canaanization of the Yhwh-religion. According to Cogan (1993), Judah as an Assyrian
vassal was never confronted with pressure to participate in the Assyrian imperial cult;
rather, assimilation took place in a less-defined manner in the cosmopolitan atmosphere.
Spieckermann (1982: 371) presented the alternative argument that there was at least a
degree of Assyrian pressure placed on the official religion of Judah but that the main im-
pact of Assyrian religion was due to official religious compromise. Furthermore, Albertz
observed (1994: 188–89) that aspects of Assyrian influence led to official syncretism but
only due to the much stronger impact of Assyrian cultic elements, especially practices of
divination on family religion that was the result of a general fascination for and attrac-
tion to the religion of the victorious Assyrians. In considering the iconographic evidence,
Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §§166–215, esp. §211) denied the entire argument of Canaan-
ite “survival” and emphasized both the Assyrian and Aramean influence on the Judahite
370 Chapter 5

symbolic system and the retreat of the role of protection by deities. In addition to the
character and origin of these foreign elements, we should discuss the identity of the Queen
of Heaven. Was she a local or regional deity akin to Asherah or Ashtarte who underwent
an astral transformation? Or is she more accurately identified with the Assyrian Ishtar (in
line with Spieckermann 1982: 221)?
The iconography of Iron Age II private seals was dominated by motifs from the Egyp-
tianizing Syro-Phoenician koiné repertoire, such as griffins, winged uraeii and scarabs,
and winged deities for human protection. With the exception of the winged sun-disc from
the older LB tradition, astral symbolism was almost entirely absent. This pattern under-
went considerable change, however, in the period of Assyrian hegemony in Iron IIC. De-
spite the persistence of Egyptianizing Phoenician motifs, the Aramean and Assyrian influ-
ence, which had already penetrated the official glyptic repertoire in Iron IIB (see Schmitt
2001: 100–102), became dominant by the time of the Iron Age IIC personal seals. Some of
the novel features that appeared in the iconographic repertoire of this time were heavenly
bodies, mainly the symbols of the astral deities Sin (a crescent), Ishtar (a star), and the
Pleiades, as well as anthropomorphic representations of deities.

5.5.3.2.╇ Lunar symbols and representations

Lunar motifs appear most commonly on West Semitic seals and are also the most
common motif to appear on inscribed seals. They appear in three basic forms: as an an-
thropomorphic representation of a lunar deity, as a crescent on a standard, and as a cres-
cent alone. The anthropomorphic representations are mostly of a man seated in a boat in
front of the crescent, which again resembles the moon on the Judean seal in fig. 5.1 (GGG
305b, from the Jerusalem antiquities market). A common motif is a worshiper, with or
without an altar, under a crescent and star (figs. 5.2., 5.3., and 5.4.; GGG 312a from Akko;
317c and 312b = WSS 1080; here classified as inconclusive in origin, probably Moabite).
Another prominent group of seals bears a crescent on a standard (fig. 5.5 from Jerusa-
lem and fig. 5.6 from Nachshonim in the Plain of Sharon; GGG 297a and b), sometimes
together with worshipers, exemplified by a seal from Tell Ğemme (fig. 5.7.; GGG 301a =
Petrie 1928: pl. 17.19) and another specimen from Šiqmona (fig. 5.8; GGG 301b). As Keel
and Uehlinger have shown (1998: §§173–79), the crescent on the standard may be identi-
fied with the moon-god of Haran, demonstrating the influence of this god, who was the
most popular god in Assyrian personal and family piety in the Iron IIC period.

5.5.3.3.╇ The star and the goddess Ishtar

The star as an astral symbol first appears clearly on seals from the Iron IIC period. Of
particular interest is a two-sided scaraboid from Megiddo, which showing a female wor-
shiper on one side and the symbol of a star on the other side (fig. 5.9: GGG fig. 289 = SchuÂ�
macher 1908: fig. 72d). The iconography of this seal provides clear evidence for the vener-
ation of the goddess by women. The goddess Ishtar herself is the only Assyrian deity who
is given an anthropomorphic appearance in representations on Iron Age stamp seals from
Israel/Judah (figs. 5.10–13; GGG 286 = Wright 1965: fig. 82.6; GGG 287 = Parker 1949:
no. 6; GGG 288b from the region of Beth-shean [see also GGG §171, n. 295; GGG 288c =
 Personal Names and Family Religion 371

Fig. 5.1. Fig. 5.2. Fig. 5.3.

Fig. 5.4. Fig. 5.5. Fig. 5.6.

Stern 1987: 69]). While the identification of Ishtar is clear, the identification of the nude
winged goddess depicted in Phoenician style in fig 5.14 (WSS no. 112 = GGG fig. 331a) is
contentious (see Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §197). In my view, there is hardly any evidence
for identifying it with the Phoenician Ashtarte or a syncretistic form of Ishtar and Ashtarte
(Olyan 1988; Ackerman 1992: 34), because the iconography of the nude goddess differs
greatly from the seals that depict Ishtar. It therefore seems more plausible that she was
associated with the local deity Asherah, who was also represented in epigraphic sources.
In any event, this material provides no definite additional iconographic evidence for this
goddess. Both Asherah and Ishtar were referred to in Mesopotamia as šarrat šamē, but
whether the same referent is intended by malkat haššamayîm is uncertain. Both goddesses
were venerated alongside one another and were referred to with this epithet, and there is
thus no need to construct a syncretistic form of Asherah/Ishtar (see Keel and Uehlinger
1998: §197). The fact that the local goddess Asherah is depicted with the star alludes to the
more general tendency toward astralization, although not necessarily to a direct identifi-
cation with Ishtar. However, the iconographic evidence clearly shows the impact of both
Assyrian iconography and religion on the local symbolic system in the Iron IIC period.
372 Chapter 5

Fig. 5.7. Fig. 5.8.

Fig. 5.9. Fig. 5.10.

Fig. 5.11. Fig. 5.12. Fig. 5.13.

5.5.3.4.╇ Solar symbols

The most prominent solar symbol found on Israelite and Judahite seals is the winged
sun-disc. Though only nine inscribed private seals carry the motif, hundreds of type III
lmlk-stamps with the winged sun-disc are known. The winged sun-disc is a common mo-
tif in Palestine and Syria from the Late Bronze Age on; its outer appearance had assimi-
 Personal Names and Family Religion 373

Fig. 5.15.

Fig. 5.14. Fig. 5.16.

lated with Egyptian prototypes. The Egyptian type of sun-disc was still dominant in the
Egyptianizing Phoenician glyptic style of Iron Age IIB. The Iron IIC seals, including the
type III lmlk-stamps (for the typology of which, see Welten 1969; a survey of the lmlk-
stamps found up to 1999 is given by Vaughn 1999), show another type of winged sun-disc.
Its uplifted wing tips, tail, and upper volutes are clearly Assyrian in design (fig. 5.15. and
5.16.; Welten 1969: 40, Z II B 2; S II A 1). The same adaptation of the Assyrian winged
sun-disc can be seen in contemporary Phoenician and Aramean glyptic art, as well as on
reliefs from northern Syria (see Parayre 1993). The Assyrian-style sun-disc as a sole motif
on the official lmlk-stamps fits particularly well with the trend toward the astralization
of the national god. This trend was still encountered in postexilic texts such as Mal 3:20,
where it was said that the “sun of righteousness” would rise with healing in his wings (see
Arneth 2000). The lmlk-stamps also manifest the trend of associating the king with solar
qualities, as in Ps 72:5, 17. This is a development that was encountered in Assyria as early
as the 9th century, when the king was given epithets such as the ‘Sun-god of all mankind’
(dšamšu kiššat nišemeš; see Podella 1996: 151–54). It is therefore quite likely that not only
were Assyrian motifs assimilated but also solar elements of the Assyrian kingship ideology
(see Schmitt 2001: 174–76). The Assyrianizing winged sun-disc thus clearly shows the As-
syrian impact on the symbolic system of the official religion. The Assyrian type of winged
sun-disc is not only represented on official seals but also on private seals such as a stamp
seal from Gezer that shows a worshiper in front of a griffin beneath a winged sun-disc and
374 Chapter 5

Fig. 5.17. Fig. 5.18. Fig. 5.19.

crescent (fig. 5.17; GGG 293a), the seal of Gemalyahu [ben] Adonyeḥi (fig. 5.18; WSS 122)
and others (WSS 3b; 267, 284, 343, 349, 373, 685; GGG 293a, 293b).
After the winged sun-disc, the most frequently occurring solar symbol is the winged
beetle, which appears on a wide range of private seals, the seals of officials (fig. 5.19: WSS
16; 662; fig. after Sass 1993: fig. 85), and even on the seals of the king himself (Hezekiah;
fig. 5.20: Cross 1999: 43). It also appears on several hundred lmlk-stamps (fig. 5.21: Type 1
naturalistic; fig. 5.22: Type 2 stylized; fig. 5.23: Type 3 mixed; after Welten 1969: 36; on
their typology, see Schmitt 2001: 172). The scarab, which first appeared in Egyptian ico-
nography of the Middle Kingdom, found its way to Palestine during the Middle Bronze
Age and—becoming winged during and after the Late Bronze Age—became an important
motif of the Syro-Phoenician koiné style of the Iron Age (Schmitt 1990). The twoâ•‚ and
four-winged scarabs on Iron II Israelite/Judahite seals therefore have no direct Egyptian
connection. It is note�worthy that the scarab associated with solar symbology is one of a
number of motifs of the Syro-Phoenician koiné style that were not superseded by Assyr-
ian motifs but flourished throughout the West Semitic realm during Iron Age IIC. The
immense popularity of the motif in Judah is apparent both in official iconography and
private glyptic representations. This popularity may have occurred because the symbol
amalgamates both aspects of the twoâ•‚ and four-winged protective spirits and the more
universal aspects of solar symbolism (Schmitt 2001: 174; Keel and Uehlinger [1998: §§151;
164] tend to interpret the winged scarab as the sun-god himself). The presence of both
the winged sun-disc and the winged beetle on private and official seals shows the strong
interdependence of the realms of official religion and private piety.

5.5.3.5.╇Constellations
Only one constellation that appears on Iron Age stamp seals from Israel can be iden-
tified with certainty: that is, the Pleiades or (in Akkadian) the Šibitti (fig. 5.24–26; GGG
282c; 315b; 316; with no occurrence in the corpus of inscribed seals). Though we do not
have many examples of the Pleiades icon on seals (see table 5.15), the local reception of
this motif (which was also common in Assyrian glyptic representations) shows that the
 Personal Names and Family Religion 375

Fig. 5.20. Fig. 5.21. Fig. 5.22.

Fig. 5.24.

Fig. 5.23.

impact of this even-more-abstracted astral symbol was similar to the impact of the bet-
ter-known great astral deities Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar, each of whom was also depicted
anthropomorphically.
At least 10 seals displayed a rhombus (WSS 86, 152, 338; GGG 284a, 300, 302c, 308,
315a, 315b, 317a), which always appeared together with a star or crescent (fig. 5.27: GGG
315a). Because this figure cannot be identified or interpreted with reference to any par-
ticular heavenly body, and because it always occurs along with a star and crescent, it seems
likely that it symbolizes a constellation (Sass 1993: 240). There is no evidence for Ueh-
linger’s (1990: 328) interpretation of this rhombus as a more general symbol of holiness.
The motif seems to have appeared first in Kassite glyptic art, often in association with a
star, cross, and dog (see Moortgat 1940: 554, 556, 558; Porada 1948: 583, 584), and was still
common on Neo-Assyrian seals (Collon 1988: 344, 345, 783). It is likely that the rhom-
bus symbolizes a constellation of four stars, such as the cup in the southern hemisphere.
The rhombus was generally positioned vertically rather than horizontally, making it also
unlikely to have been intended as symbolizing an eye (Moortgat 1940: 57; Brentjes 1983;
Bordreuil 1993: 96 n. 28).
376 Chapter 5

Fig. 5.25. Fig. 5.26. Fig. 5.27.

The meaning of the astral symbol of a fish as represented on more than 10 Hebrew
seals (figs. 5.28 and 5.29; Sass 1993: figs. 96, 97) remains uncertain. Sass interpreted the
fish as a symbol for plenty and fertility. A fish also appears together with a scorpion on
an imported Assyrian cylinder with astral symbols from Megiddo (fig. 5.30; GGG 290),
although we are uncertain whether the appearance and symbolism of the fish on Hebrew
seals was connected with the Assyrian symbolic systems, since the fish generally appears
only as an isolated motif.

5.5.3.6.╇ Comparisons with other West Semitic glyptic repertoires

The iconographic repertoire of West Semitic inscribed seals from the 8th to the 6th
centuries b.c.e. reveals many shared motifs and, in spite of local variations in style and
repertoire (see Gubel 1993; Hübner 1993; and Timm 1993), it also reveals several cases
of uniformity of expression. Thus an artistic koiné seems to have developed (see Ueh-
linger 1993: 268; 271) along with a symbolic system shared in Israel/Judah, Phoenicia,
the Aramean states, Moab, Edom, Ammon, and, of course, Philistia.â•›271 While the icono-
graphic repertoire in Phoenicia during the 8th and 7th centuries exhibited a great deal of
continuity in terms of Egyptianizing style elements, in the equivalent Aramean, Moabite,
Edomite, Ammonite, and Philistine repertoires, Aramean and Assyrian elements domi-
nated from the 8th century onward. This was especially true for Assyrian-style representa-
tions of the winged sun-disc in late 7th- to 6th-century seals from the West Semitic realms
(see Parayre 1993) and also for the crescent and half-moon standard of Sin of Haran, the
star, and the Šibitti. Anthropomorphic representations of astral deities are limited to Sin
and Ishtar, in agreement with the overall West Semitic tendency to avoid anthropomor-
phic representations of deities (see Ornan 1993: 71). The male human figure represented
in sun-discs, who is identified as Shamash, was well represented in Aramean seals but was
apparently avoided in Israelite/Judahite glyptic representations, where the sun-disc alone
was preferred. However, the frequent appearance of symbols representing the great astral
deities suggests the important—if not predominant—role of the astral deities Shamash

271. The material evidence for Philistia is small but distinctive. For instance, the royal iconogra-
phy of Philistine seals is very much the same as the contemporary Judahite; cf. Schmitt 2001: 27–28.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 377

Fig. 5.28. Fig. 5.29. Fig. 5.30.

(who was more likely to be the solarized Yhwh in Israel/Judah), Sin, Ishtar, and the Šibitti
in realms of personal piety, and therefore also of family religion, in the West Semitic re-
gion. Besides the canon of Aramean/Assyrian motifs, a few Egyptionizing Phoenician
motifs found their way into the general West Semitic repertoire, including the twoâ•‚ and
four-winged beetles, with 9 Israelite specimens found (not including lmlk-stamps), 5 Am-
monite specimens, 1 unambiguously Phoenician, 8 Aramean, and 17 of indeterminable
Phoenician, Aramean, or Hebrew origin (see table 5.15). The winged beetle was also a
common astral motif in the whole West Semitic realm.

5.5.3.7.╇ The influence of astral cult elements on

Iron Age Judahite religion
The iconographic evidence clearly shows the strong impact of astral elements on the
symbolic system of Iron IIC Judah, which itself reveals a change in the belief system to-
ward the veneration of astral powers, particularly in the religious stratum of personal and
family piety. Other West Semitic material further demonstrates that Judah and the Assyr-
ian-occupied North were participants in a broader trend affecting the entire West Semitic
realm. However, the reason for the flourishing of astral cults in Iron IIC Judah remains
unknown at this point. Theories of either Canaanite “survival” or foreign influence would
not seem to be applicable to the entire iconographic canon, in which the roles of both
tradition and innovation must be considered. There were, of course, pre-Yahwistic astral
cults in Palestine (see Keel 1998: 104), as reflected in place-names such as Beth-shemesh,
Jericho and, of course, Jerusalem (City of Shalem, the evening star). Furthermore, textual
evidence clearly shows that celebrations related to celestial bodies, such as the new moon,
were traditionally held in familial contexts (in 1 Sam 20:5, 18, 24, 27, 34, a meal was held;
while in 2 Kgs 4:23, a man of God was visited), as well as in more-public environments
(Hos 2:13; Isa 1:13–14; see Keel 1998: 104–5). It therefore seems likely, as Keel (1998:
106) has argued, that the cult of the moon-god underwent a revival inspired by Assyrian-
Aramean influence.
Solarization of the national god was another trend affecting the entire West Semitic
realm in the 1st millennium. Archaeological evidence suggests that it preceded the
Assyrian-Aramean influence. Note, for example, the sun-disc that was used to symbolize
378 Chapter 5

the highest god on Iron Age IIA Taanach cult stand no. 2 (contra Keel and Uehlinger 1998:
§98) and the winged beetles found on Iron Age IIB seals from the Northern Kingdom (see
Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §151; Schmitt 2001: 130–31). In this case, Assyrian influence
appears to have been more iconographic, finding expression in the Assyrian-style winged
sun-disc.
In contrast, the veneration of constellations (such as the Šibitti/Pleiades and the con-
stellation represented by the rhombus) is a phenomenon that was novel in Iron Age IIC.
The iconography of Iron IIC private seals follows Assyrian models, which is firm evi-
dence that the veneration of constellations was the result of Assyrian-Aramean influence.
As indicated by the appearance of combined astral symbols on seals (such as a star and
crescent; a crescent and star or the Pleiades; or any of these together with the anthropo-
morphic Ishtar), there was widespread communal assimilation of astral symbols from the
Aramean-Assyrian models, particularly the symbols of the night (see Keel 1998: 100–
101), and these were reproduced by local carvers. Thus, there appears to have been a kind
of collective veneration of celestial bodies, as indicated in the enumerations of Deut 4:19
and 2 Kgs 23:5.
The veneration of Ishtar was also an imported phenomenon during Iron Age IIC and
existed alongside continuing traditions of a local goddess (Asherah) represented by differ-
ent iconography. It seems especially likely that Ishtar—as the war-goddess of the victori-
ous Assyrians—proved quite attractive to the inhabitants of Assyrian vassal states or occu-
pied provinces. Because both goddesses were represented by astral symbolism, the epithet
‫ מלכת הׁשמים‬malkat haššamayîm might be attributable to both of them. Besides the fact
that the powerful Assyrians enhanced her appeal, she also seems to have been an intimate
and personal goddess, based on all the seals that depict male and female worshipers of her.
Trade opportunities furthered through the expansion of the Assyrian Empire would
also have played a role in the transport and wider dissemination not only of goods, but
also of ideas and beliefs in those realms subject to Assyrian control (see Theuer 2000:
442). This must have strongly affected all levels of religion. The visibility, accessibility, and
consequent plausibility of the astral gods were all aspects that were popularly enhanced
through the apparent success of the Assyrians (2000: 440). Such processes, however, did
not detract from the relevance of the national god Yhwh, as evinced in the Judean ono-
masticon of the Iron IIC age, which is clearly dominated by yahwistic names. Moreover,
the large number of Iron IIC seals depicting astral symbols was not reflected in an in-
creased occurrence of personal names carrying the element Sin or Shamash. In neither
Judah, nor in the Aramaic onomasticon did the frequency of such names increase (WSS
lists justs one for the former, ʿabdyrḥ: no. 34). Aramaic names containing elements such
as sn or šn were mostly Mesopotamian (WSS 537; 542), but were too few in number to de-
termine whether the carrier groups of the cult were predominantly Mesopotamian or not.
Finally, the astralization of the symbolic system was a development shared among all
peoples of the west semitic realm, further demonstrating the international character of
family religion. Not only did family religion fulfill the basic religious needs of individuals
and collective families, but the astralization of the symbolic system attests to reciprocal
relations between family and official religion, both of which exhibited the general tenden-
cies described above.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 379

5.5.4.╇ Deities, protective deities and mixed creatures on

Iron Age stamp seals
5.5.4.1.╇ Seated and standing deities
Only one Hebrew Seal from the Iron IIC period contains a potentially anthropomor-
phic representation of Yhwh, as well of his consort. The much discussed seal shown in
fig. 5.31 (WSS 173 = Sass 1993: 143; GGG 331b) depicts an Assyrian-style male deity with
horned polos and two wings standing on an aladlammû, and a four-winged female deity
on a volute tree. Because the owner of the seal has a Yahwistic name (↜渀屮y[X]hw š[l]m), the
representations most likely corresponded to Yhwh and his consort Asherah in Ishtar-like
appearance (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §197), although this identification is tentative. Fig-
ures that can be associated with particular deities with some certainty are largely absent
from the Israelite and Judean glyptic repertoire of Iron Age II—despite the seals discussed
above that have motifs of astral deities, including the seals that evince Mesopotamian
influence and the solitary seal WSS 173. The figure standing face forward who appears
on one Hebrew name seal (fig. 5.32, after Sass 1993: 144 = WSS 226) is not comparable
with the JPFs, because both the gesture and the gender of the figure are unclear. Neverthe-
less, nude figures clutching breasts are known from the Ammonite repertoire, although
they are rare (fig. 5.33, after Hübner 1993: no. 11; WSS 861, 921; cf. 950 with arms held
aloft). One case (861) is also suspect as a forgery. However, this absence of deities does not
necessarily reflect biblical iconoclasm (see Uehlinger 1993: 278–86, with discussion) but
accords with the broader trend in West Semitic glyptic arts. Depictions of major deities
from local panthea are also extremely rare in the repertoires of Ammon, Moab, Edom, and
Philistia, as well as in the Phoenician and the Aramean glyptic arts (table 5.16). Only soli-
tary objects with depictions of local major deities are known, such as the Ammonite seal
WSS 1057, possibly depicting Qauš, and the Phoenician seal WSS 736, of an enthroned
deity on a sphinx. Other seals from Transjordan that depict deities (see, for example, Egg-
ler and Keel 2006: Amman 5 and 88, depicting Nabu and Gula) were most likely Assyrian
imports. Thus there appears to have been a definite aversion to anthropomorphic repre-
sentations of major deities in national panthea, including Israelite/Judean Yhwh, Moabite
Chemosh, Ammonite Milkom, and Edomite Qauš, as well as the major deities of Philis-
tia, Phoenicia, and the Aramean states (see also Ornan 1993: 71; Sass 1993: 245). There
were thus two coinciding trends in the West Semitic religion of the 1st millenium. The
first was the concentration in the pantheon on a select few major gods, accompanied by
the predominance of the national god, who possessed universal characteristics (see Niehr
1990). The second trend was a strong aversion to anthropomorphic images of major dei-
ties in general, even though they were quite well represented in the onomasticon, as they
appear on seals. As the major gods became more universal and were no longer limited
to their original spheres of activity, they simultaneously became more transcendent and
more broadly accessible. It is possible that the aversion to divine imagery was reflected in
both the close association between the owner of a seal and his or her god or goddess, as
expressed in personal names, and in the universal character of the major or national gods.
The tendency of the major gods toward increasing transcendence may also explain the
enormous popularity of protective-spirits, as detailed further below.
380 Chapter 5

5.5.4.2.╇Anthropomorphic
protective spirits
The apparent aversion to
depicting major deities on
West Semitic seals stands in
stark contrast to the relatively
large number of seals that de-
pict anthropomorphic protec-
tive spirits. The twoâ•‚ and four-
winged genies of Phoenician
iconography appear on He-
brew seals, occasionally with
a partially debased double-
crown, and usually carrying
lotus-flowers (fig. 5.34 = GGG
211c = WSS 1165; cf. Keel
and Uehlinger 1998: 211a, Fig. 5.31.
211b = WSS 1149 [probably
Moabite], 212 a, 212b). The
winged male genius also ap-
pears on Ammonite seals
(Eggler and Keel 2006: Safut
4), Moabite seals (WSS 1020;
1030), Phoenician (WSS 715,
729 [?], and 730), as well as on
Aramaic (WSS 844) and other
undefined seals (WSS 1087;
1092; 1114; 1119; 1134; 1147;
1149; 1154; 1155). The mo-
tif was also found on a bone
handle from Hazor (Yadin
1958: pl. 151) and on the Sa- Fig. 5.32. Fig. 5.33.
maria Ivories (e.g., Crowfoot
and Crowfoot 1938: pl. 14.2). The four-winged figure was identified by Keel and Uehlinger
(1998: §121) as being either the youthful Baal or one of the numinous beings from his
realm. Grounds for this identification seem scant, however, because none of these seals
contains the sorts of divine emblem typically associated with Baal, such as lightning or
the bull, which were typical of the 1st-millenium iconography of the weather-god. A more
plausible interpretation of the winged figures would therefore be as protective spirits, akin
to the twoâ•‚ and four-winged Assyrian Apkallus, although they are clearly of Phoenician
origin (Gubel 1993: 124). A variant of this type was the protective deity with the head
of a bird, probably a falcon, who appears on one Hebrew name seal (WSS 320) and an
uninscribed seal from Tell el-Farʿah South (fig. 5.35 = GGG 213) and on one Ammonite
 Personal Names and Family Religion 381

Fig. 5.34. Fig. 5.35. Fig. 5.36.

specimen with the unwinged figure flanking the sacred tree (Eggler and Keel 2006: Mazar
23). Phoenician seals depicting a falcon-headed figure closely resemble the Egyptian ico-
nography of Horus/Re-Harachte (WSS 728, 735) rather than the typical iconography of
protective spirits. In one case of unclear origin (WSS 198; possibly Hebrew), an Assyrian
lahmu is depicted. Images of lahmu and il bīti are also found on Ammonite (Keel and
Eggler 2006: Safut 4) and Aramaic seals (WSS 763; 802; 845). However, it would have been
unlikely for the lahmu to have been seen as anything other than some kind of protective
figure, because the motif was not particularly popular in West Semitic glyptic arts.

5.5.4.3.╇ Horus as child and falcon

The infant Horus appears on both uninscribed seals from Israel and Judah (fig. 5.36 =
GGG 241b; also 241a; 241c) and several Hebrew name seals (WSS 4; 126; 316). The motif
also appears on some of the Samaria ivories (Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938: pls. 1.2–3),
and the falcon of Horus appears on Hebrew seals with wings spread wide, similar to a
protective spirit of the kind depicted in fig. 5.37 (Sass 1993: fig. 99 = WSS 243; also 108;
267). Both the infant Horus and the associated falcon, which are also known from Trans-
jordan and Phoenicia (table 5.16), belong to the Egyptinizing Phoenician repertoire and
were interpreted by Keel and Uehlinger in the context of solar symbolism (1998: §148; cf.
Uehlinger 1993: 277). In their West Semitic reception, however, it seems that the falcon
was reduced to a merely protective function, while the interpretatio semitica of the Horus
child is unclear, since extensive knowledge of the sophisticated Egyptian mythology that
was associated with the Horus child cannot be presupposed in the West Semitic realm.

5.5.4.4.╇Bes
The Egyptian god Bes appears occasionally on seals from ancient Israel (fig.  5.38 =
GGG 226b; also 226a; 226c; 227; 228; Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 62; WSS 769; 786;
829). It appears more frequently, however, on amulets. Herrmann (1994: 319; 2002: 20)
382 Chapter 5

Fig. 5.37. Fig. 5.38. Fig. 5.39.

lists a total of 54 Iron IIB–C Bes amulets, of which up to 14 belong to Iron Age IIC. The
function of Bes in this West Semitic environment remains unknown, however, and one
can only speculate about some sort of protective or apotropaic function that was ascribed
to the grotesque appearance of his face (also Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §131).

5.5.4.5.╇ Mixed creatures

5.5.4.5.1.╇ The winged Uraeus
Twoâ•‚ and four-winged forms of Uraeus (see figs. 5.39–40: GGG 247b, 274d, respec-
tively) are depicted on many inscribed and uninscribed Hebrew seals of the 8th–7th cen-
tury b.c.e., as well as on a few Transjordanian seals, 1 Aramean seal, and 2 seals of unde-
fined origin (see table 5.16). The prominence of the four-winged form in Judah probably
reflects Keel’s suggestion (1977: 70–115; cf. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §161) that this crea-
ture is identical with the biblical seraphim of Isa 6:2, 6 (Hebrew śārāp ‘scorcher’, denoting
both the zoological species and the mythological creature; see Num 21:6–9; Deut 8:15; Isa
14:29; 30:6), which was perceived in the late 8th and 7th centuries to be a protective, apo-
tropaic spirit associated with Yhwh. The appearance of seraphim on private seals reveals a
rather remarkable coincidence between the symbolic systems of official Jerusalem and the
symbolic systems of personal piety, with the latter incorporating the seraphim by virtue of
their protective and apotropaic functions.

5.5.4.5.2.╇ The sphinx

Although sphinxes are not found very frequently on Iron II Hebrew name seals (see
Sass 1993: 226), they nevertheless appear to have been quite popular in the West Semitic
glyptic repertoire (see table 5.16), in both standing (fig. 5.41: GGG 249, from the Lachish
region; see WSS 369; 2 seals notably owned by two women) and crouching forms (fig. 5.42:
GGG 246, from Megiddo = WSS 1124, rendered as undefined). The motif previously ap-
peared in the Middle Bronze Age on scarabs from Palestine (Tufnell 1984: 134; pl. 41), as
well as in the Old Syrian glyptic repertoire (for example, Collon 1988: 206, 213). Sphinxes
were also a popular motif on ancient Near Eastern ivories of the 1st millenium b.c.e.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 383

Fig. 5.40. Fig. 5.41. Fig. 5.42.

from places such as Nimrud and Arslan Taš (see Barnett 1982: pls. 47a, 49e, 50a, 51, 53).
In Israel, they appear on the Samaria ivories (for example, Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938:
pls. 5–7, 14.5–7; see also Schmitt 2001: 129–30) and on the fragment of an ivory pyxis
from Hazor (Barnett 1982: pl. 45e). In the Iron age, sphinxes also occasionally appeared
as Egyptian-type object amulets (Herrmann 1994: cat. nos. 277, 278; Herrmann 2002: cat.
no. 40). One terracotta-figurine of a sphinx was found in Beersheba (fig. 3.9; see Kletter
and Herzog 2003). As convincingly argued by Keel (1977: 15–45) and widely accepted,
the sphinx was almost certainly associated with biblical cherubim (kĕrûbîm; also Akka-
dian kāribu ‘protective spirit’). Biblical sources portray a special relationship between the
cherubim and Yhwh, who was described as sitting on a cherubim-throne according to
the traditions about the sanctuaries at Shiloh (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2) and Jerusalem (Isa
37:16). These cherubim were therefore an integral part of the symbolic system of official
Judean religion. Although there are not enough sphinxes on Hebrew name seals for us to
observe a significant series (further suggesting that these symbols were not as popular as
other symbols such as the winged Uraei), this may merely reflect the random nature of the
discoveries, especially since the motif is well represented in other media.

5.5.4.5.3.╇ The griffin

The winged griffin is by far one of the most frequently occurring motifs on Iron Age
seals from Israel and Judah (fig. 5.43 and 5.44: GGG 250a–b), as well as from Philistia,
Ammon, Moab, Edom, Phoenicia, and Aram, as well as on an even larger number of seals
of indeterminate origin (table 5.16). The motif appeared in Syria in the 2nd millenium
b.c.e. and was popular both in the ancient Near East and in the Levant. As a symboli-
cally mixed creature, the griffin may have had both apotropaic and protective functions,
although its mythological associations and precise functions (and even the name by which
it was referred at the time) are unknown (see Black and Green 2004: 99–101).

5.5.4.5.4.╇Lamassu/aladlammû
In the corpus of Iron Age II Judean stamp seals, a Lamassu-like creature appears on
one seal (fig. 5.31: GGG 331b = WSS no. 173). The creature was depicted in accordance
384 Chapter 5

Fig. 5.43. Fig. 5.44. Fig. 5.45.

with Assyrian conventions as a male bull with bearded face and a horned polos, crowned
with a sun-disc. A similar creature but lacking the horned crown was depicted on an Am-
monite seal that has been dated to the second half of the 8th or early 7th century (WSS
no. 925). This latter creature is generally considered to have been a sphinx (Hübner 1993:
144; WSS 344). The motif is clearly borrowed from the contemporary Assyrian repertoire,
where the winged-bull creature was often represented either as a singular motif (see, for
example, Porada 1948: 633; although these sorts of representations are sometimes difficult
to distinguish from similar sphinx-like creatures with leonine bodies) or as part of larger
contest scenes (for example, Porada 1948: 611–15). It was also present on Syrian seals
that imitated the Assyrian style (Collon 1988: 385–86). The use of winged-bull creatures
as pedestals for higher deities, although not represented in contemporary Mesopotamian
iconography, may suggest local association between the aladlammû and cherub (Keel and
Uehlinger 1998: §197).

5.5.4.5.5.╇ The scorpion-man

The scorpion-man was found on only 1 Hebrew seal, inscribed lḥmlk (fig. 5.45: Sass
1993: 226, fig.  125 = WSS no. 159). It is considered to be either Moabite (Timm 1989:
no. 14) or Phoenician in origin. The motif is also known from 1 Aramean seal (WSS
no.  758). The style of the lḥmlk-seal is Phoenician, while the Aramaic seal is of purely
Assyrian iconography, showing an ugallu-demon on its obverse side. In Mesopotamia, the
scorpion-man, or girtablullû, appeared in representations of the late 3rd millenium and is
well represented in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian glyptic art, where it appears either
as a protective spirit or as holding the sun-disc (e.g., Porada 1948: 712, 783–84, 801; Col-
lon 1988: 883). The creature also appears as a prophylactic figurine in Neo-Assyrian times
(Rittig 1977: 78–79, figs. 24–26). As with many other symbols occasionally borrowed from
Assyrian iconography, the presence of the scorpion-man shows the influence of Assyrian
iconography rather than Assyrian beliefs, even though the figure may have been revered
as an apotropaic figure.
 Personal Names and Family Religion 385

5.5.4.5.6.╇ Other mixed creatures

The West Semitic glyptic repertoire adopted a variety of mixed creatures from contem-
porary Mesopotamia, such as the ugallu-demon (WSS 858; Keel and Eggler 2006: Amman
no. 5, Ammonite; WSS nos. 758, 802, 845, Aramean), the winged bull (WSS nos. 759, 844,
973; Keel and Eggler 2006: ʿUmeiri no. 77, Ammonite), bull men supporting a sun-disc
(WSS no. 783, Aramean), a winged horse (WSS no. 1113, of unclear origin), and a winged
lion (WSS no. 1159). As above, the adoption of Assyrian iconography in these cases prob-
ably reflects general cultural influences more than the direct influence of religious beliefs.

5.5.5.╇Conclusions
The material discussed above reveals that anthropomorphic representations of major
deities—with the exception of the astral deities of Assyrian or Syrian origin—did not play
an important role as motifs and even seem to have been entirely avoided on personal
seals in both Israel and Judah, as well as by their West Semitic neighbors. The major dei-
ties probably were not considered to require anthropomorphic representation because of
the prevailing trend toward universalizing the major gods in 1st-millenium West Semitic
religions, by which means these gods also became iconographically transcendent. These
trends toward both transcendence and universality as well as an aversion to anthropo-
morphic representations coincided in Judah with the usage of both the winged sun-disc
and the winged beetle as more-abstract symbols for Yhwh. Similar conditions seem to
have influenced solar representations of major gods in other West Semitic religions (see
table 5.15). The presence of both winged sun-discs and winged beetles on private and of-
ficial Judean seals reveals the strong relation between official and private religion in using
identical symbols—at least in glyptic media. In contrast, the symbolic system pertaining
to personal piety reveals perceived needs for protection in a more general sense, as repre-
sented by the various motifs of protective spirits and apotropaic monsters. An interesting
phenomenon that again reflects the coincidence of the symbolic systems of official and
personal religion is the frequent presence of winged Uraei in Israelite iconography. Par-
ticularly in Judean iconography, this stands in stark contrast to the very few occurrences
on other West Semitic seals (table 5.16). The winged Uraei, which have generally been
associated with biblical seraphim, along with the sphinxes, who were in turn associated
with cherubim, may together be considered protective lower deities who would have been
of some importance for personal piety and possibly also as mediators of Yhwh. The popu-
larity of the seraphim in particular reveals that elements of the official symbolic system,
especially aspects of an apotropaic or protective nature, were eminently able to be assimi-
lated in realms of personal piety. There is a notable absence of impact by Mesopotamian
protective spirits on the Judean repertoire of symbolic motifs, even though they seem to
have influenced both Ammon and the Aramaic states, although this latter influence oc-
curred again through adoption of more-general cultural norms rather than of directly
religious functions.
Iconographic evidence in total is nevertheless of no great use in considering personal
and familial piety, because by far the greatest number of motifs were the general apotro-
paic symbols that seem either to have followed broader trends in West Semitic glyptic arts
386 Chapter 5

or to have been adopted due to the cultural influence of the great powers of Assyria and
Babylonia. Nevertheless, a number of observations may be made to connect the official
symbolic system of the Judean state and practices of personal piety. Both of these religious
realms shared the motif of the winged sun-disc as a representation of Yhwh and the motif
of seraphim as protective spirits (even though distinctions among the various religious
strata must be acknowledged; see Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §4). Moreover, although sym-
bolic systems seem to have converged as far as the glyptic arts are concerned, different me-
dia that served different purposes often evolved their own distinct symbolic patterns. This
was true, for example, in the coroplastic arts and their predominant symbolism of fertility.
The fact that the various media fostered unique symbolic systems is also attested by bibli-
cal texts, especially for the Jerusalemite theology of Zion, which seems not to have been
represented in any concrete medium used on smaller objects. The coincidences between
general, official symbolism and private religious preferences must also be understood with
regard to distinctions between the public and private characteristics of glyptic media.
Notions of internal religious pluralism are helpful to resolve ambiguities that might
otherwise arise in attempting to understand the symbolism of iconic seals, because they
permit the existence of different spheres of coincidence and interaction between re-
ligious strata in spite of their differences and contradictions. In contrast, the model of
folk versus official religion used by Dever (2005: 5–31) is far less flexible and tends to
foster antagonism between the two realms. In short, the official Judean religion and the
personal-and-family-religion complex coincide in their use of Yhwh symbols such as the
winged sun-disc and beetle as well as in the use of symbols representing protective spirits
such as the seraphim. However, they differ in that private seals were dominated more by
general apotropaic and protective symbols, while official (or royal) Judean iconography
tended to employ either solar symbolism or symbols expressing power and strength (see
Schmitt 2001: 161–83), both of which accorded with Assyrian and Babylonian conven-
tions. The overlapping of symbols in both of these realms represented two fundamental
needs: (1) the divine support of the national god associated with the power and strength
of the state; and (2) divine protection for individuals and their families, as reflected by the
symbols of winged sun-discs and scarab beetles. In addition, certain symbols, depending
on the private or public character of the seals on which they were placed, were probably
signs of loyalty (see Keel 1995: §722; Schmitt 2001: 117–20, 166–88)—especially on seals
used in official realms.
 Chapter 6

Rites of Family and Household Religion

6.1.╇Introduction
The Old Testament describes familial rites relating to processes from birth to burial or,
in the words of K. van der Toorn (1994), from cradle to grave. These rites, rituals, beliefs,
and observances of family religion were the manifestations of families’ religious and spiri-
tual needs and values, and they also provided a means by which families could internalize
their primary religious experiences (Sundermeier 1992; 1999). Both annual cycles and the
various phases of human life itself were accompanied by a variety of rites and rituals with a
variety of functions for both individuals and families. Rituals fixed by the annual calendar
were associated with the Sabbath, the new moon, the giving of firstlings, Passover, and
Maṣṣot. Other rites of passage and rituals were associated with circumcision, marriage
(for which, there are no accounts describing the nature of the ritual performances), bless-
ings, and complex rites for the dead, including burial, which will be discussed in chap. 7.â•›1
Other rites were performed to address situations such as infertility, distress, and danger
or to bestow blessings or curses, with these occasional rites taking the form of vows or
ceremonies of petition or thanksgiving. There were also prohibitions that were ritualisti-
cally adhered to within family contexts, some of which were associated with agriculture
and livestock, others with aspects of sexuality or gender. Anthropological records provide
firm evidence for the use of apotropaic magical rites in family contexts. Such apotropaic
rites played especially important roles in the greater Near Eastern environment of ancient
Israel in protecting families from sickness and from mischievous acts or threats by gods,
demons, or human witchcraft. There is both textual and archaeological support for the use
of apotropaic practices.
Examination of the role of ritual performances in the familial realms requires con-
sideration of the relationship between magic and religion. The term magic traditionally
denotes ritual practices that mobilize supernatural forces or use hidden causes (Ratschow
1947: unio magica) to achieve certain outcomes. There is no denying that the Hebrew Bible
contains passages that could clearly be considered to describe magic, even though the
practices described would have been inherited either from Canaanite practices or from
Assyria and Babylon, especially, by intrusions into the originally “pure” religion of ancient
Israel (for instance, Fohrer 1969: 19). Relationships between religion and magic have been

1.╇ See below, pp. 429–473.

387
388 Chapter 6

considered in enormous depth through all ages and places of human social development;
in the modern European context, notable contributions have been made by Edward Bur-
nett Tylor (1873), William Robertson Smith (1967), James George Frazer (1989), Emile
Durkheim (1981), and Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss (1989). In considering trajecto-
ries of human social development from the 19th century onward, many people (including
those associated with the so-called phenomenological school and the German “ReligionsÂ�
geschichtliche Schule” of the first half of the 20th century) assumed an evolutionist para-
digm and were misguided into thinking that human progress had followed a path from
“savagery, through barbarism, to civilization” (Morgan 1877). According to this evolu-
tionist paradigm, magic was an expression of the first and most-primitive forms of human
religion, born of belief in the hidden powers of nature (as in manaism or dynamism) or
of spirits (as in animism). Up to the second half of the 20th century, many exegetes and
scholars of religious studies believed that monotheistic religion had supplanted beliefs in
magic with conceptions of the absolute dependence of man on the one true God, and thus
this dependence was in no way amenable to manipulation through magic.
For von Rad (1962: 1.47–48), for example, Israel’s conception of Yhwh was therefore
utterly incompatible with magical practices and beliefs. Moreover, religion was defined as
a collective phenomenon in which rituals and prayers were esteemed because of their con-
tributions to collective betterment, while magic was thought to be an individual practice
designed for one’s own benefit. According to Durkheim (1981), a magician had clients but
no church. The Old Testament as a document of monotheistic religion was then read as
opposing any form of magical thought or practice. This perception of magic can be seen
to have influenced more-recent discourses on magic somewhat (see, for example, Douglas
2004: 194). Over the last decade, however, as anthropology has turned more directly to-
ward cultural phenomena, the perception of “magical” practices in Old Testament studies
has changed (Cryer 1991; Jeffers 1996; Schmitt 2004), as it has also in studies of the ancient
Near East (for example, Thomsen 1987; Abusch 2002; and Schwemer 2007) and Egypt (for
example, Assmann 1991 and Ritner 1993). Magic and divination have come to be seen
more as performative acts and comprising the more integral part of religion and the entire
symbolic system of a culture. Accordingly, magic in the Old Testament, as in the ancient
Near Eastern world, was not so much a manipulation of matter and beings through the use
of dynamistic or animistic powers as it was the result of a belief in the absolute power of
the divine. The absolute divinity was the final or sole authority able to intervene by super-
natural force in the human realm. Magic as a descriptive term denotes ritual practices that
were intended to effect particular results through rituals or acts performed in anticipation
of divine intervention (see Schmitt 2004: 92–93). Thus, the rites and rituals of family reli-
gion—as well as the rituals of official cults—were strategies of ritual behavior that must be
seen as genuine expressions of religion, regardless of differences in socioreligious settings.

6.2.╇ Rites and rituals associated with the cycle of human life
6.2.1.╇Birth
The investigation of epigraphic Hebrew personal names in chap. 5 revealed that the
birth process was accompanied by various ritual activities in ancient Israelite family reli-
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 389

gion.â•›2 Although, in contrast to Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt,â•›3 no direct sources for
birth incantations with ritual instructions have been found for ancient Israel, the evidence
provided by the personal names and the evidence scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible
make it possible to describe roughly the main ritual elements connected with typical birth
processes. Of all of the typical rites de passage of human life, birth seems to have been
universally the most preoccupied with religious rituals.
In the ancient world, childlessness was an economic threat for families and a social
humiliation for afflicted women; therefore, the lament of an infertile woman uttered either
at home (Gen 30:1–2) or at a local sanctuary (1 Sam 1:4–8) was a semiritual reality in the
environment of birth. The sorrow of childless women found ritual expression in prayers
to the deity for a child, especially a son (1 Sam 1:10–11), and prayers were provided with
even more urgency when accompanied by promissory vows (1:11; Prov 31:2: “son of my
vows”).â•›4 The prayers of barren women could also be supported by the ritual interces-
sions of their husbands (Gen 25:21). The inclusion of animal sacrifices in ritualistic family
prayers and vows for infertile women overlapped with the symbolic and ritualistic worlds
of the priestly sphere of local and regional sanctuaries.
Either spontaneously or in response to laments, birth oracles could be given to barren
women (Gen 17; Judg 13:3, 5; 1 Sam 1:17; 2 Kgs 4:16) or to pregnant women whose lives
were endangered (Gen 16:11; 25:23). In encountering difficulties, a pregnant woman could
make a request to god (dāraš ʾet-Yhwh) for the provision of a divine prognosis (25:22). In
cases where these divine oracles were mediated by priests (1 Sam 1:17) or “men of God”
(2 Kgs 4:16), male religious functionaries were included in the rituals that accompanied
the birth process. In some cases, however, the Bible indicates that unknown visitors, who
were later revealed to have been divine messengers (malʾak Yhwh), delivered birth oracles
to infertile women (Gen 18:10, 14; Judg 13:3, 5). Thus, the birth oracles represent a specifi-
cally female religious experience that was not completely subject to the control of men. All
such birth oracles are considered to be the intuitive mantic type. Some personal names,
however, suggest instrumental mantic practices such as the casting of lots.â•›5 According to
the Hebrew Bible, priests administered oracular instruments (1 Sam 14:41; 23:2, 6), but
the presence of equipment for oracles in private dwellings suggests that birth oracles could
also be given in the domestic cult.
Because every conception was conceived as a divine work (Ruth 4:13), especially con-
ceptions that followed periods of apparent infertility (Gen 20:17–18; 21:1–2; 29:31–32;
30:17, 22; 1 Sam 1:19–20)—whether by God’s healing (rāpāʾ↜) the barren woman (Gen
20:17) or opening (↜pātaḥ) her womb (29:31; 30:22)—it also seems likely that the situation
of procreation and conception was accompanied in ancient Israel by specific rites within
the domestic cult. Ritual objects found in dwellings suggest that these rites may have
2.╇ See above, pp. 252–253, 269–293
3.╇ For ancient Mesopotamia, see Krebernik 1984: 36–47; Farber 1989; van der Toorn 1994:
77–110; 1999: 139–47; Stol 2000: 49–89; and earlier on, Albertz 1978a: 51–55; for Anatolia, see
Beckman 1983; for Egypt, see, for example, Borghouts 1971: 28–32.
4.╇ For more details on vows, see below, pp. 403–410.
5.╇ See, for example, the Aramaic name ʾAḥlakad ‘[my divine] brother has picked [me by draw-
ing lots]’ or the Hebrew Baʿalnāḥāš ‘Baal has predicted [a good omen]’; see above, pp. 274–275;
and appendix B5.3.
390 Chapter 6

included the offering of libations and incense, and prayers offered at portable cultic instal-
lations placed next to sleeping chambers. It is also possible that the Judean pillar-figurines
depicting women with prominent breasts played important roles in these rituals in the
later monarchic period. Because there are no signs of their being goddesses, these figu-
rines would have functioned instead as mediators, transferring the prayers for a child to
the deity, and the fertility and divine support from the deity to the women.â•›6 The personal
name Šĕkanyāhû ‘Yhwh was present’, which is epigraphically attested nine times between
the 9th and 6th centuries, suggests that the divine presence was experienced during these
domestic ceremonies and later confirmed by the woman’s pregnancy and fortuitous birth.
The period of pregnancy—that is, the time when the deity created a child in the womb
of the mother (Jer 1:5; Ps 139:13; Job 10:8–11; 31:15)—could be accompanied by vari-
ous rites in case of difficulty. The Hebrew Bible refers to laments and requests to god
(Gen 25:21). Specific incantations and “magic” practices were found in Mesopotamia that
served to protect pregnant women from the nefarious influences of sorcery to ensure that
the fetus would not be lost (Farber 1989: 111–13). Pillar-figurines may also have played a
role in these cases.
During the confinement itself, the pregnant woman was separated from her family (Jer
20:15). The birth took place either in the inner room of the dwelling (Cant 3:4) or some-
where outside the village (Cant 8:5). Only women were permitted access to women in the
final stages of pregnancy (Ruth 4:14–17).â•›7 Parturition took place under primitive condi-
tions: a woman in labor knelt on the two birth stones (ʾabnáyîm) mentioned in Exod 1:16
and was assisted by a midwife (mĕyallédet), at least in difficult cases (Gen 35:17; 38:28;
Exod 1:15). These midwives were particularly important, and even Yhwh was metaphori-
cally represented in their role (Ps 22:10; 71:6). As wise women, they are plausible candi-
dates for transmitting the knowledge and practices of birth rites and incantations that
they would have performed to control a delivery. In Gen 35:17, the midwife uttered a form
of a salvation oracle to Rebecca, whose vitality had faded. Evidence from Mesopotamia
suggests that midwives activated the mythological background of birth in order to ensure
a safe and happy end to the confinement for the mother and child. Birth was extremely
dangerous under the medical and hygienic conditions of the ancient world. For example,
an Old Babylonian incantation states:
In the waters of intercourse, the bone was created;
in the flesh of muscles, the baby was created.
In the ocean waters, fearsome, raging,
in the far-off waters of the sea:
where the little one is—his arms are bound!—,
inside which the eye of the sun does not bring light.
Asalluḫi, the son of Enki, saw him.

6.╇ See, for example, an Egyptian birth ritual (Papyrus Leiden I 348:369–72), where the healing
spell in which the goddess Hator and the god Horus are promising their help is spoken over a Bes-
figurine placed on the brow of the woman (Borghouts 1971: 29).
7.╇ Even in the Hittite birth rituals, in which a purificatory priest (lúpatili) played an important
role, this male priest was never directly involved with the delivery: “this function seems to be the
preserve of the midwife in the Hittite texts” (see Beckman 1983: 238).
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 391

He loosed his tight-bound bonds,

he made him a path, he opened him a way:
“Opened are the paths for you, the ways are . . . for you.
The [mother goddess] is sitting for you,
she who creates, [Mami], who creates us all,
she has spoken to the doorbolt: ‘You are released!’”
Removed are the locks, the doors are thrown aside.
Let him strike . . . ; like a fish (?), bring yourself out!â•›8
This incantation refers back to the divine creation of a baby in its mother’s womb (see Job
10:8–11), the waters of which, during labor, are compared to a raging ocean. The baby had
been bound in the dark, but Asalluḫi (later equated with Marduk), the god of magic and
son of Enki the creator of mankind, liberated him and opened a path for him from the
inside, while the mother-goddess who has created every individual acts as a midwife and
opens the closed cervix from the outside by her command. At the end, the baby is encour-
aged to find his way out. Because the concepts of divine creation and midwifery in ancient
Israel are not very unlike the concepts of Mesopotamia, it is likely that Israelite midwives
recited comparable but perhaps simpler incantations that served to activate Yhwh’s cre-
ative power. The absence of allusions to these sorts of text in the Hebrew Bible reflects the
fact that they were transmitted in Israel exclusively by midwives and thus were not part
of the professional knowledge of male priests or scribes. Ezek 16:4 provides evidence that
the umbilical cord of a newborn was severed following delivery; the infant was bathed in
water and was rubbed with salt. The latter seems to have been an apotropaic rite to protect
the newborn from demonic attack (Zimmerli 1979: 349).
A woman in childbed was deemed impure for 7 days following the birth of a son and
for 14 days after the birth of a daughter (Lev 12:2, 5). This status of impurity was associated
not only with the mother’s bleeding during parturition but also with her close encounter
with the divine during the birth process. During this period of impurity, a woman who
had given birth was isolated from her family, and a messenger had to be sent to inform the
husband of the birth of his child (Jer 20:15). At the same time, the period protected the
woman in childbed and enabled her to recover from her exhaustion, to begin lactation,
and to begin her intimate relationship with her child. Additional prayers and rites would
naturally have been performed in case of difficulty with an infant or with lactation. Pillar-
figurines showing prominent breasts again could have played mediating roles in cases of
this sort.
Following the end of the period of impurity, that is, on the 8th or 15th days after con-
finement, the feast of name giving would probably have taken place within the domestic
area of the family. After her considerable period of absence, the mother along with her
new child needed to be reintegrated into the family household. The father would typically
have offered a joyful welcome, blessed his wife and her baby, and by doing so, would have
accepted the newborn as his own child. He could refuse to accept the baby in exceptional
cases, however (Hos 1:6). The mother probably would have told her family members of

8.╇ See van Dijk (1973: 503–5); the translation is almost the same as in Stol 2000: 10–11; for ad-
ditional examples, see Stol 2000: 59–72; and earlier, Albertz 1978: 51–55.
392 Chapter 6

the physical and religious experiences she encountered during the birth and would have
proudly presented her new child to them. The name of the newborn would have emerged
during the conversations about these experiences. The naming of the baby, whether by
mother, father, or both,â•›9 also served as a thanksgiving ceremony for the family group, who
also may have invited the midwife, other relatives, and neighbors. It is likely that name-
giving ceremonies would have included a meal, along with offerings of food and drink to
the deity.
For boys, the family name-giving feast later became the feast of circumcision, when
this apotropaic rite, which was originally connected with a rite de passage for older boys (at
maturity and before marriage), was transferred to the newborn stage. This feast is explic-
itly dated to the eighth day following birth (Gen 17:12; 21:4) and therefore would probably
have overlapped with the older name-giving feast on this date, after the end of the period
of impurity. According to new evidence provided by the personal name Malyāhû ‘Yhwh
has circumcised’, this practice had already begun in the 7th century b.c.e. (see appendix
B5.6). This rite served not only to integrate the newborn into the familial group but also to
protect him from the dangers of demons and evil powers. During the period of exile, the
circumcision of infants became a religious badge of integration into the people of Yhwh.â•›10
The survival of newborns was far from certain, given the medical and hygienic condi-
tions of ancient times. Infant mortality rates were very high and, although precise numbers
are difficult to determine for Cisâ•‚ and Transjordanian societies in the Iron Age, according
to the recent calculations of Willett (2008: 2), “On average, 35 percent of all individuals
died before age 5.” Protracted crying and screaming of infants could be warning signs of
of lethal danger. Therefore, in ancient Mesopotamia, for example, special “baby incan-
tations” existed that were used to calm crying infants (Farber 1989: 34–97), along with
other rituals performed to protect an infant from being attacked by Lamashtu, the promi-
nent she-demon of infant mortality, or the lilûâ•‚, or a bad alûâ•‚ demon.â•›11 We are uncertain
whether comparable rites existed in ancient Israel,â•›12 but we know that the weaning of a
child was celebrated in families by a “large banquet” (Gen 21:8). In Egypt, birth and birth
rites were closely associated with the Egyptian god Bes (Ritner 2008: 179–81), and protec-
tive amulets representing the deity appear to have been common items. In Iron Age Israel
and Judah, Bes appears 5 times in personal names (4 times in the confession name ‫בסי‬
Besay ‘who belongs to Bes’ and once in the birth name ‫ קדבׂש‬Qadbeś ‘Bes has formed’; see
appendixes B2.6.2. and 5.5.1). Bes is also attested in the graffiti at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd (Beck
1982: fig.€5) and by more than 50 Iron IIB–C Bes-amulets, of which up to 14 came from
Iron Age IIC (Herrmann 1994: 319; 2002: 20). According to Herrmann, this type was not
particularly popular in Iron Age Palestine compared with other types. The function of Bes
in his West Semitic reception is unknown. We can only speculate that some protective and
apotropaic purpose was ascribed to the grotesque appearance of his face (see also Keel and
Uehlinger 1998: §131).

9.╇ See above, pp. 247–248.

10.╇ See below, pp. 393–395.
11.╇ See, for example, Farber 1989: 103–6, 127–29.
12.╇ Willett (2008: 16–21) also ascribes a child-protecting role to the pillar-figurines.
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 393

The period of breast-feeding was long in ancient Israel; according to 2 Macc 7:28, it
ended after two–three years. The weaning feast was considered a family thanksgiving cer-
emony for the fact that the child had surmounted the perils of infancy and had grown up
(see ‫ גדל‬gādal ‘to grow up’ in Gen 21:8).
Thus, the rites and ceremonies that accompanied the protracted process of birth were
central elements of the domestic cult of ancient Israel.

6.2.2.╇Circumcision
One of the most important familial rituals both in antiquity and in modern Judaism is
the rite of circumcision. The rite of circumcision was performed in accordance with Gen
17:12; 21:4; and Lev 12:3, on the eighth day following the birth of a male child.
According to Jer 9:24, circumcision in the preexilic period was a practice shared by Ju-
deans, Egyptians, Ammonites, Edomites, and Moabites and, according to Ezek 28:10, the
Phoenicians as well. In Judg 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sam 14:6; 17:26, 36; 18:25, 27; 31:4; 2 Sam 1:20;
and 3:14, the Philistines were reported to be uncircumcised, in contrast to the common
practices of the Judeans and their neighbors.
Although it seems clear that circumcision was a common preexilic practice, its origi-
nal meaning and context in the circle of life are still a matter of discussion. Many scholars
share the opinion that Exod 4:24–26, the story of the ‘bridegroom of blood’ (‫חטן דמים‬
ḥaṭan dāmîm), attests the originally apotropaic character of this rite, based on the assump-
tion that the numinous aggressor must originally have been a demon (e.g., Gunkel 1921;
Beer and Galling 1939: 37–39; Noth 1961: 35–36; Coats 1999: 45–46; for discussion, see
Schmidt 1985: 220–22). However, “Few texts contain more problems for the interpreter
than these few verses which have continued to baffle throughout the centuries. The diffi-
culties cover the entire spectrum of possible problems” (Childs 1974: 95). The apotropaic
meaning, particularly of an allegedly older tradition—not to mention the general plausi-
bility of this sort of reconstruction—has been refuted by a number of scholars (including
Childs 1974: 100; and Durham 1987: 57–58). Most more-recent interpretations share the
opinion that the text is not an etiology of circumcision (Childs 1974: 100; Schmidt 1985:
232–34; Houtman 1993: 447–48). Moreover, several scholars have opined that the story of
the bloody bridegroom was composed for the contemporary context in order to prepare
Moses for what was to come, the exodus (Weimar 1980: 284–90; compare with Houtman
1993: 447), and also, at the beginning of the exodus, to allude to the circumcision at the
beginning of the conquest story in Josh 5:2–3.
In spite of the problems with reconstructing an older tradition and the sometimes-
fanciful interpretations such as: the demon was claiming for himself the right to the first
night (for example, Gressmann 1913: 58); it was an atonement rite (Gunkel 1910: 269); it
was a rite of family solidarity on the eve of exodus (Propp 1999: 515); it expiated the blood
guilt caused by the slain Egyptian (Propp 1999: 238); it was an apotropaic rite to prevent
incestuous relations between mother and son (Lescow 1993); or it replaced an originally
practiced circumcision of the groom before marriage (for example, Wellhausen 1927b:
175; van der Toorn 1994: 72)—despite these fanciful ideas, there nevertheless are several
elements in the text that support the view that the story reflects an originally apotropaic
394 Chapter 6

meaning for the rite. First, the attack takes place in the wilderness and at night; second,
the attack was unprovoked and endangered the life of Moses; and third, the attack was
repelled by a rite that included the application of blood and the severed foreskin. Even
without assuming the continuance of an older tradition or the substitution of an origi-
nally demonic being with Yhwh, the text in its final form is in essence an apotropaic act
in which the blood and foreskin serve as ritual media to repulse the attack (Blum 1998:
1355; Gerstenberger 2001: 35). Mary Douglas (1999: 181) also notes that the rite had a
prophylactic purpose: “Whatever the dangers that menace new male babies, the rite gives
them some protection.”
Moreover, Exod 4:24–26 was also read in later traditions as an attack by a numinous
being and therefore as an apotropaic rite. Although the Septuagint replaced Yhwh with
an angel that attacked Moses, probably because the encounter had become dogmatically
problematic, the fact of warding off an attack by a numinous being nevertheless remains.
In Jub. 48:2, the encounter with Yhwh is replaced by a demonic attack by the prince of de-
mons, Mastema. This tradition, especially, shows that the rite of circumcision during the
Hellenistic period was still understood apotropaic, in addition signifying the covenant of
belonging to God’s people. An apotropaic reading is also attested by Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan
on Exod 4:26, in which Zipporah says that is was the blood of circumcision that saved
Moses from the hand of the Angel of Death. Thus, there is a great deal of support for the
thesis that circumcision was essentially an apotropaic rite.
Several biblical texts support the view that circumcision was originally practiced either
as a rite of maturity or as preparation for marriage. Despite the above-mentioned difficul-
ties, the term ḥaṭan dāmîm ‘bridegroom of blood’ in Exod 4:25 and the story in Genesis
34 about the circumcision required of the Shechemites prior to marriage also suggest that
circumcision was originally associated with marriage. The circumcision of the thirteen-
year-old Ishmael in Gen 17:25 and the circumcision of the generation who had grown up
in the wilderness in Josh 5:2–9 may allude to a rite de passage performed on the cusp of
adulthood. The Egyptian practice of circumcision was also performed in the second de-
cade of life, and thus at the same point in the life cycle (see Ritner 2008: 178), as was the
analogous Arabian practice. Nevertheless, the somewhat ambiguous picture of preexilic
maturity rites probably reflects the fact that knowledge of its original context had faded,
thereby opening space for speculation on the part of the exilic and postexilic writers. Ac-
cording to the epigraphic evidence of the personal name ‫( מליהו‬Malyāhû), which is at-
tested four times,â•›13 the circumcision of infants as presupposed by the Priestly tradition of
Gen 17:12; 21:4; and Lev 12:3 seems to have commenced during the 7th century b.c.e. The
overlap between circumcision and the feast of name giving provided circumcision with an
apotropaic function, with Yhwh integrating the newborn into the family and protecting
the infant from demons and evil powers.
In spite of the fact that the rite of circumcision bore a variety of meanings (many of
which must now remain elusive) and that it was etiologized in various ways, it neverthe-
less remains clear that the common practice of circumcising male infants arose during
the period of exile and was partly a cultural product of the need to define and defend

13.╇ See appendix B5.6; and above, pp. 292–293.

 Rites of Family and Household Religion 395

the religious and national identity of the exilic community (Grünwaldt 1992: 222–24; Al-
bertz 2003: 107). Because circumcision was not common in Mesopotamia, it became a
confessional badge for the Babylonian golah by which the head of every family could de-
clare his membership in the community of exiles and his fidelity to the ancestral religion.
The father’s responsibility for the performance of circumcision again made the family the
nucleus of national and religious identity. Circumcision eventually became the most im-
portant hallmark of the Jewish faith, a practice that was also required of converts (Albertz
1994: 407–8; 2003: 107). The possibility of integrating individually alien people into a
family by circumcision (although not by general proselytizing) is reflected both in the
story of the circumcision of Ishmael and the household slaves in Gen 17:23–27, and by the
permission granted to circumcised foreign slaves in Exod 12:43–49 to participate in the
Passover.â•›14 Although circumcision became a potent sign of Jewish national and religious
identity, it was always intimately connected with characteristic family rites.

6.2.3.╇Marriage
Surprisingly, there is a complete absence of Old Testament accounts about ritual ac-
tions associated with the institution of marriage. Marriage contracts such as were found
at Elephantine are purely legal in character and do not mention ritualistic actions or ele-
ments. Moreover, the biblical rules for levirate marriage in Deut 25:5–10 are essentially
secular, despite their integration within a collection of divine law. This did not, of course,
mean that marriage was an entirely profane institution. Although the essence of marriage
may have lain in its legal status, it was associated with a variety of religiously motivated
observances and performances.

6.2.3.1.╇ Monogamy and polygyny

According to King and Stager (2001: 38; following Crüsemann 1978), the biblical fam-
ily had six main characteristics: “It [was] endogamous, patrilineal, patriarchal, patrilocal,
joint, and polygynous.” Scholars have often suggested that polygyny was the general—or
at least a common—form of marriage in ancient Israel.â•›15 Others have argued conversely
that polygyny was an exception that was practiced both in Israel and in Mesopotamia
only when the first wife proved to be barren.â•›16 Royal polygyny was a special case, the main
function of which was to ensure political alliances. It has also been argued that Israel’s so-
ciety developed from a seminomadic, pastoral society that commonly practiced polygyny
into a sedentary, agrarian society that favored monogamous marriages. However, argu-
ments of this sort reflect erroneous hypotheses regarding the existence of general evolu-
tionary trajectories from early polygyny to later monogamy (see, for example, Kronholm
1982) and accord with the now thoroughly discredited premises of Morgan, Tylor, Frazer,
and their ilk.

14.╇See Wöhrle 2010.

15.╇ For example, by Gunkel 1910: 329, 332; Wolff 2002: 247–48; Scharbert 1982: 312; Brenner
1992: 92; Friedl 2000: 156–62; Douglas 2004: 76.
16.╇ For example, by Meyers 1988: 137; Albertz 1994: 33; van der Toorn 1996b: 20; Marsman
2003: 129, 141; Westbrook 2003–5: 600.
396 Chapter 6

The patriarchal narratives of the Bible seem at first to support rather strongly the no-
tion that polygyny was a common phenomenon. Lamech was married to Adah and Zillah
(Gen 4:23); Abraham was married to Sarah as well as to Hagar and Keturah (Genesis 16;
25:1–6); Jacob’s primary wives were Leah and Rachel (chap. 29), and Bilhah and Zilpah
were his “second wives” (Gen 30:1–13); Esau in Gen 26:34 was married to the Hittite
women Judith and Basemath as well as to Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael in Gen 28:9;
and, according to Gen 36:1–5, to Adah the Hittite, to Oholibamah the Hivite, and to Ish-
mael’s daughter Basemath.
The patriarchal narratives, however, are suffused with archaic imagery such as no-
madic wanderings, living in tents, and especially the archaic or pseudoarchaic imagery of
religious practices and beliefs. Polygyny would have fitted quite well into such an imag-
ined archaic patriarchal age. Note that the Deuteronomistic History does not mention
polygyny except for the two wives of Elkanah in 1 Sam 1:2 (which also may have merely
reflected an imagined archaic practice); the polygamy of the kings David (in 1 Sam 18:17–
30; 25:38–43; 2 Sam 3:2–5) and Solomon (in 1 Kgs 3:1; 11:3); and that of Gideon (in
Judg 8:30). Royal polygyny was viewed by the Deuteronomists as the reason for Solomon’s
veneration of foreign gods (1 Kgs 11:11–13), and in 2 Chr 11:21, it was mentioned in the
context of Rehoboam’s failures. Rather than aiming to suppress polygynist practices, the
Deuteronomistic writings and Chronicles were directed more toward practices that would
ensure exogamy.
Monogamy as the dominant form of marriage is explicitly evinced in stories such as
Bathseba, the wife of Uriah, in 2 Samuel 11 and the Shunammite couple in 2 Kgs 4:8–37.
Other biblical sources compiled both before and after the exile also show that monogamy
generally prevailed, such as the description of Isaiah’s wife the “prophetess” in Isa 8:3, and
Hosea’s wife Gomer in Hos 1:2–3. Accounts of women and their marital relationships in
the Old Testament wisdom literature, especially Prov 31:10–31 and Ben Sira 26, also seem
to presuppose monogamy (with the possible exception of Sir 25:14, the meaning of which
is unclear). Although Old Testament legal codes do not explicitly refer to polygyny, it is
nevertheless clear—particularly in Deut 21:15–17, which describes the rights of the first-
born—that it was generally legal.
It has been suggested that polygyny flourished in the upper classes, although there is
no epigraphic evidence to support this assertion. The 7th-century b.c.e. inscription from
Silwan 1.B (Renz and Röllig 1995: 264–65, Jer [7]:2) mentions an ‫‘ אמה‬slave girl’ or ‘sec-
ond wife’, merely indicating that the man’s wife—and only one wife is mentioned—was
of (perhaps much) lower social status. The marriage contracts from Elephantine (Porten
and Yardeni 1989: B 3.8:36–7; B 6.4:1) forbade a male partner to marry a second wife,
lest he face divorce, loss of dowry, or the exclusion of certain heirs (Porten and Yardeni
1989: B€2.6:32–5). Thus, monogamy seems to have been the rule in the Persian period, and
preexilic evidence also suggests that monogamous marriages reflected common practice.
Polygyny was an exception and was generally practiced only when a woman was barren or
had borne only girls. Both New Testament and talmudic sources also portray monogamy
as the general rule. The social inclination toward monogamy in ancient Israel and its con-
temporary environment may have reflected an awareness that polygynous marriages were
known to provoke considerable tensions among the women of a family (in Gen 30:1–24;
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 397

see Gunkel 1910: 332; Friedl 2000: 275–85; Marsman 2003: 141) and also to raise serious
legal problems (Deut 21:15–17).

6.2.3.2.╇ Endogamy and exogamy

Although issues of polygamy versus monogamy may have been primarily legal issues
for the biblical writers, those of endogamy versus exogamy were charged with religiously
motivated prohibitions and arguments. The patriarchal narratives and the book of Tobit
provide clear examples of encouraging endogamous marriages in family environments
(Tob 4:12; cf. Numbers 36). Marriages between cousins appear to have been common (see,
for example, Gen 24:15; 29:9; Tob 6:11–12; as well as Gerstenberger 2001: 32; Marsman
2003: 61–62). In the absence of preexilic voices addressing the religious implications of
endogamy and exogamy, we may assume that family property was an important economic
factor in encouraging endogamous marriages, as supported by the above-mentioned texts.
Endogamy and exogamy became important topics in exilic and postexilic literature.
The Priestly patriarchal narratives most likely reflect experiences of exile. They contain
strong directives against exogamous marriages, with the marriages between Esau and his
Hittite wives being viewed very negatively (Gen 26:34–35; 27:46; 28:6–9). Biblical sources
prior to the exile showed no connection between religious practices and exogamy. Post-
exilic sources such as Deut 7:2–4 (see Achenbach 1991: 287–89) explicitly forbade inter-
marriage with the seven nations of the “Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Ca-
naanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.” These “nations” were the generic
foreign nations with which intermarriage might once have been possible; the statement
also connects the directives against exogamy with the prevention of the veneration of the
gods of those nations. The literature of the exile thus drew a connection between exogamy
and cults of foreign gods. The two practices of endogamy and adherence to monothe-
istic Yahwism seem to have been of paramount importance in the maintenance of na-
tional identity during the time of the exile. Thus, after the exile, there arose the strict
religious injunctions against exogamy in Ezra 9–10, which sanctioned divorce in cases of
intermarriage, and in Neh 13:23–30, according to which individuals who practiced inter-
marriage might be subject to curses or bodily punishment, and officials who permitted
interm�arriage might potentially be ostracized. In practice, these injunctions would not
have permeated the entire society, and the book of Ruth certainly manifests a different
position (I. Fischer 2001: 86–91) in emphasizing that even Moabites—who had often been
viewed as abominable, as in Num 25:1–5—could be faithful wives for Israelite men. Fur-
thermore, Moses’ marriage to a Midianite in Exod 2:15–22 and 18:1–7 was not criticized,
even though Israelites who intermarried with Moabites or Midianites were to be impaled
according to the late Priestly regulations of Num 25:1–10. The Elephantine texts show
that marriages between Jewish women and Egyptians were common (Porten and Yardeni
1989: B 2.6), at least in the late-5th-century Egyptian Diaspora.

6.2.3.3.╇ Levirate marriage

The law regarding levirate marriage (Hebrew ‫ יבם‬yābām; for a discussion of which,
see Marsman 2003: 212–18) in Deut 25:5–10 declares that a man—referred to as the ‘re-
deemer’, or in Hebrew, ‫ גואל‬gōʾēl—is obliged to marry the ‘widow’ (the ‫ יבמה‬yĕbāmāh) of
398 Chapter 6

his brother if she has no offspring, to ensure “that his brother’s name may not be blotted
out in Israel” (Deut 25:6). The redeemer can also, according to Gen 38:6–26, be the father-
in-law (Judah) or even a man from the wider family, such as Boaz in the book of Ruth. If
the gōʾēl refuses to marry the yĕbāmāh, a rite of public humiliation is performed before
the elders at the city gate, in which she removes the sandals from the feet of the redeemer
and spits in his face. The unwilling redeemer then must bear the shame of having refused
to support and continue his brother’s house (Deut 25:9). The law is directed primarily at
continuing the lineage,while also serving the secondary purpose of ensuring social and
economical protection for the widow (Pressler 1993: 73–74). The rites described in Deu-
teronomy 25 are purely legal and entirely free of religious practices or connotations. The
humiliation is not even accompanied by a curse that invokes Yhwh. In Ruth 4:11–12, the
legal act is followed by a blessing performed by the witnesses, which in turn is merely an
expression of joy. Levirate marriage in general is directed against exogamy and is there-
fore implicitly connected with the stereotype of foreign women as being likely to seduce
men into alien cults. The book has often been interpreted within the broader context of
postexilic discourses regarding exogamy (see I. Fischer 2001: 86–93), according to which
the prohibition against exogamy in the so-called reforms of Ezra are based on explicitly
religious arguments. The book of Ruth itself, however, does not use explicitly religious
arguments; instead, it presents a legal framework that also calls for human compassion.

6.2.3.4.╇ Rites of marriage

As noted above, there is almost no information about actual rites, ceremonies, or ritu-
als for weddings. Everything that appears pertains solely to legal actions. The notion of
marriage as a divine institution in Gen 2:24 seems to be merely sanctifying an otherwise
entirely profane institution, and even this sanctification is not reflected in other biblical
texts or extrabiblical sources that deal with marriage (contra van der Toorn 1994: 60–62;
and Marsman 2003: 121). Nevertheless, although the act of marriage in ancient Israel
may have been dictated by law rather than by religion, there are occasional suggestions
in biblical texts that ritual elements were performed as a part of marriage ceremonies.
According to Tob 7:13–14, a marriage ceremony consisted of a formal presentation of the
bride by the groom’s father, a declaration by the father that she now belonged to her man
“in accordance with the law and decree of the book of Moses” (7:13), a blessing, agree-
ment on a marriage contract (‫ כתבה‬kĕttubāh in postbiblical Hebrew), and a festive meal.
A dowry (‫ מהר‬mohar) had to be paid by the groom’s family (Gen 24:53; Gen 34:11–12;
Exod 22:15–16; cf. Deut 22:29) in exchange for a dowry (‫ ׁשלוחים‬šillûḥîm) given with the
daughter. A bride’s farewell could have been accompanied by a blessing, as in Gen 24:60,
where Rebekah is blessed by her brothers; and the redemption of a yĕbāmāh by a redeemer
could have been accompanied by a blessing from the witnesses (as in Ruth 4:11–12). The
oath of Ruth, “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:15–16) was
probably not stated as an example of a special oath taken in situations of intermarriage (as
proposed by van der Toorn 1994: 69; and Marsman 2003: 113) but more likely just served
some narrative purpose. Marriage celebrations certainly included meals (see Gen 29:22;
Judg 14:10). Tobit 6 is not necessarily indicating that wedding nights were accompanied by
various rituals that included apotropaic and exorcistic rituals (contra van der Toorn 1994:
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 399

70–72; cf. Gerstenberger 2001: 43), because there is no further evidence from biblical or
other sources for these sorts of practice. The same is true of a wider interpretation of the
solitary remark in Mal 2:14–15 about the bĕrīt between the man and woman with Yhwh
as witness. Thus, based on this admittedly meager evidence, we see that blessings were ap-
parently the only rites of a religious nature performed during marriage ceremonies, while
the form of the entire ceremony was entirely legal in nature, as was acknowledged as early
as 1914 by Jahnow (1994: 34).

6.3.╇ Rites, rituals, and observances set by the calendar

6.3.1.╇ Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread
Except for circumcision, Passover was the most important family ritual, as evinced by
the numerous accounts in the Hebrew Bible about various ritual and communal obser-
vances.â•›17 Ongoing debates about the interpretation of textual descriptions of Passover re-
flect its importance, as do related debates about possible changes to the nature of the Pass-
over celebrations (for discussion of which, see Dahm 2003; Prosic 2004; Schlund 2005).
Thirty years ago, Childs (1974: 186) commented, “Few problems in the Old Testament
have called forth such sustained scholarly research as has that of the Passover.” Previous
hypotheses drawn from textual evidence that the Passover originated in nomadic tradi-
tions, while the Feast of Unleavened Bread originated in traditions associated with settled
agrarianism (Wellhausen 1887: 80–94; Rost 1943) are now eschewed, as are phenomeno-
logical approaches that claim Passover originated with the common ancient Near Eastern
New Year’s Festival (Engnell 1952).
It is widely agreed that Exod 12:21–23* represents the most ancient preexilic core
of the Passover ritual, later adopted by P in Exod 12:1–13 during the situation of exile
(Grünwaldt 1992: 222–24; Dahm 2003: 162–65).â•›18 Although the Priestly Passover account
represents a notably advanced stage of its development, elements of the older traditions
as presented in Exod 12:21–23*, 12:8–11, and 12:3–4 reveal its original familial setting.
The Passover ritual was celebrated in families and included the slaughter of a lamb and
the application of blood on the doorpost and lintel to repel the mašḥīt demon.â•›19 Requisite
elements of the family Passover meal, as explicated in Exod 12:1–3 and 8–11, included
one lamb for each family roasted on the fire, to be eaten at night together with unleavened
bread and bitter herbs, with girded loins; it was to be eaten in haste, for none of it was to
remain.
It is noteworthy that all ritual actions described in Exod 12:1–3, 8–11, and 21–23*
were conducted by laymen within a family setting, not by priests or Levites. According

17.╇ In Exod 12:1–13:16; Lev 23:4–8; Num 9:1–14; Num 28:16–25; Deut 16:1–8; Josh 5:10–12;
2 Kgs 23:21–23; Ezek 45:21–24; Ezra 6:19–22; and 2 Chronicles 30; 35:1–19.
18.╇ This is different from Veijola (1996: 63) and Prosic (2004: 70), who propose that Deut
16:1–8 is the oldest account. The theory of a development the other way around, from a seasonal,
communal, Temple festival performed by the official cult to a commemorative festival performed
by families and kinship groups is not likely to have many followers, because it is contrary to much
of the textual evidence.
19.╇ See below, pp. 419–420.
400 Chapter 6

to Dahm (2003: 162–65), the festival served both to establish borders between the world
of the family and the wider (non-Israelite) world beyond, and to secure the identity of
lineages and households during the exile. The chronicling of the feast and its connection
with the exodus may already have been part of its essence, regardless of its unverifiable
age, or may have been introduced during the postexilic period to ensure national and
religious identity by means of a commemorative rite (Dahm 2003: 165–66). In contrast
to its original ritual setting in a family context, Deut 16:1–8 depicts a centralized Pass-
over Festival in which the slaughter and consumption of Passover animals (here including
bovines) needed to take place at the Temple. The character of the consumed animal had
thus been transformed into a zebaḥ-offering, and the Passover as now associated with
the agricultural Festival of Unleavened Bread (maṣṣot) was thus transformed into a pil-
grimage festival. In its form as a pilgrimage festival, it could no longer be celebrated after
the destruction of the Temple and the deportation to Babylon and wider regions of the
(Neo-)Babylonian Empire. The Priestly adoption of the Passover in Exod 12:1–13 is thus
a response to the needs of exilic communities for families living abroad to be permitted to
celebrate Passover. Only the slaughtering of the Passover lambs takes place communally
(Exod 12:6), but the Passover meal proper is explicitly held in family contexts (12:8–11).
Following the exile, the Holiness Code (Lev 23:4–8) again promoted the character of the
Passover as a pilgrimage feast, analogous to the maṣṣot Festival (Exod 12:14–17). More-
over, access to the festival was restricted to participants who were circumcised (Exod
12:43–50). In an even later stage of the feast’s postexilic development, the maṣṣot rite was
also opened to the Diaspora (Exod 12:18–20) and was thus transformed once again into
a familial rite. The accounts of Passover in 2 Chr 30:1–31:1; 35:1–19; and Ezra 6:19–22
reflect the strict centralization of this rite and emphasize its sacred character, in that the
Levites are doing the slaughtering, while the priests pour the blood on the altar (2 Chr
35:11). Thus, all ritual actions were performed by priests and not by laymen, and even
the animals used for offerings were officially sanctioned. The strict claim regarding the
centralization of Passover is also reflected in Jubilees 49.
In spite of these attempts at centralization and the “ritual expropriation” of laypersons
by the priests, the familial character of the feast and even the active role of laypeople ul-
timately prevailed. According to Philo (Questiones in Exodum 1.10), the sacrifices were
commonly performed at the sanctuary by laymen who had been endowed with priestly
authority for one day (Schlund 2005: 55–76). A hybrid form prevailing during the 1st cen-
tury a.d. consisted of a public slaughter performed at the Temple and a family celebration
of the Passover meal itself (Mark 14:12–25; Matt 26:17–19; Luke 22:7–23). This hybrid
form also appears in m. Pesaḥim, with public slaughter (m. Pesaḥ. 5:5–9) and domestic
preparation and consumption (m. Pesaḥ. 10:8). Thus, centralization of this ritual did not
ultimately prevail during the Second Temple period.
The impassioned Old Testament discourse over the familial versus centralized setting
of the Passover feast and the familial character that ultimately prevailed following the de-
struction of the Second Temple reveal the central importance of the familial nature of this
feast throughout its entire history until the present day.
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 401

6.3.2.╇ The Sabbath and the New Moon

The origins of and possible ancient Near Eastern parallels to the biblical Sabbath have
been subject to ongoing discussion for more than a century, as has the etymology of the
Hebrew word ‫ ׁשבת‬šabbāt. It is not the aim of this chapter to offer a complete discussion
about this controversial issue (for which, see Robinson 1988; Hasel 1992). Instead, I will
give a brief overview of arguments that have been presented at greater length elsewhere
(Albertz 1994: 408–11; 2003: 108–9). According to preexilic sources, the Sabbath was not
a family religious observance during Iron Age I–IIC, except that the Sabbath day was con-
sidered a favorable day to seek omens from religious devotees (2 Kgs 4:23). According to
2€Kgs 4:23; Isa 1:13; Hos 2:13, and Amos 8:5, the preexilic Feast of the Sabbath seems to
have been held on days with a full moon and to have been connected with the Israelite Fes-
tival of the New Moon (ḥōdeš) as its calendrical opposite.â•›20 Its presence in realms of official
religion was reflected in its celebration by Temple priests (in Isa 1:13; Hos 2:13; 2€Kgs
16:17–18; and Lam 2:6). Preexilic texts mention the Sabbath as being associated with a se-
quence of new moons, similar to the Babylonian sequence from arḥum to šapattu, or from
the new moon to the full moon (Robinson 1988). In addition to Temple celebrations of the
Sabbath, family traditions had deigned to interrupt agricultural work every seventh day
(Exod 23:12; 34:21: šābat), although this practice had no direct cult connotations. These
breaks in the weekly rhythm of work may have reflected prohibitions intended to prevent
the exhaustion of overworked humans and animals. It seems likely that this originally
noncultic, seventh day of rest became combined with traditions of the full moon festival
during the period of exile, especially because the original cult celebration ceased with
the destruction of the Temple (Lam 2:6). Thus, the former Sabbath Festival was detached
from the lunar cycle and became the day of the Sabbath (yōm haššabbāt). In this way, the
former festival that had been centered around the Temple shifted toward a familial setting
that could then be celebrated throughout the Diaspora, with the respite from work on
this seventh day then assuming a sense of religious and cult dignity (Deut 5:12–15; Exod
20:8–11). During the exile, the Sabbath became a token of religious and ethnic identity
along with other observances and served to maintain the precarious entity of the exiled
community and its religious traditions (see Grünwaldt 1992: 222–23). The Sabbath did
not, however, entirely lose its previous connotations with the Temple cult following the
exile because, according to Lev 23:1–3; Num 28:9–10; and Ezek 46:1, 3, holy convocations
took place at the rebuilt Temple alongside the celebration of the festival within families.

6.3.3.╇ Sabbatical Year

The Book of the Covenant, Exod 23:10–11, dictates that the seventh year be an agri-
cultural year of rest, during which the land, vineyards, and olive trees must be allowed to
rest and lie fallow, and all fruit must be left to the poor, and everything else to the animals.
These verses do not use the term šabbāt but use verbal forms of the roots ‫ ׁשמט‬šamaṭ ‘to
let drop’ and ‫ נטׁש‬nāṭaš ‘to abandon’. Deut 15:1–3, 7–11 transfers the fallow year to the fi-
nancial realm and proclaims the year of relief from debt (‫ ׁשנטה‬šĕmiṭṭāh). The much more

20.╇ On the ḥōdeš, see below, pp. 457–458.

402 Chapter 6

detailed legislation of the early postexilic Holiness Code, Lev 25:1–7, uses the term šabbāt
(or ‫ ׁשבת ׁשבתון‬šabbāt šabbātōn ‘great Sabbath’), where it explicitly calls it a ‫ׁשבת ליהוה‬
šabbāt laYhwh (‘Sabbath for Yhwh’). In the Holiness Code, the agrarian fallow year is
rehabilitated, and debt relief is transformed into the year of jubilee (Lev 25:8–55). It seems
likely that the regulation that appears in the Book of the Covenant refers to an individual
observance by single families and that different fallow periods were prescribed for differ-
ent agricultural products (see Gross 2000: 7–11). It therefore seems unlikely that Exod
23:10–11 promoted a sabbatical year as a common observance of all people. The Holiness
Code adopted older preexilic observances governing the agricultural lives of families and
proclaimed a divinely sanctioned sabbatical year to be adhered to by the whole commu-
nity. Although Neh 10:32 might be taken to suggest that these descriptions were provided
merely for theological reasons, the sabbatical year in actual practice is attested in both
biblical (1 Macc 6:49, 53) and extrabiblical sources (Josephus, Ant. 8.8.1; 14.10.6; 16.2).
This regulation about a sabbatical year both reflected and alleviated social problems. The
observance as described in the Book of the Covenant was designed both to encourage
compassion for society’s poor (Childs 1974: 482) and to prevent exploitation of fields,
which would only have diminished future agricultural returns (Albertz 1994: 102). There
is no textual evidence to support contrived theological interpretations, such as the theory
that the sabbatical year marked the temporary restitution of a primeval peace (Noth 1961:
153–54).

6.3.4.╇ The offering of firstlings at the festivals of harvest and gathering

Families in Iron Age Israel subsisted mostly through direct agricultural production,
including the farming of livestock, and all families would have shared the same essential
needs for good harvests and bountiful progeny from their livestock. Rites and rituals as-
sociated with acts of harvesting and herding thus would have provided the basis for the
primary religious experiences of Israelite families.
The Old Testament describes two distinct offerings of firstlings: (1) firstfruits and
vegetables (Hebrew ‫ראׁשית‬/‫ בכורים‬bikkûrîm/reʾšīt) in Exod 23:19a; 34:26; Deut 26:1–11;
and (2)€firstborn animals (Hebrew ‫ בכור ]רחם[ פטר‬peṭer [reḥem] bĕkōr ‘what [first] breaks
through the womb’) in Exod 22:28–29; 34:19–20; and Deut 15:19–23. The offering of the
firstfruits and vegetables was performed according to Exod 34:22 on two feasts of the agri-
cultural year—the festival of the wheat harvest (‫ בכורים‬bikkûrîm) and the festival of gath-
ering (‫ חג הסיף‬ḥag hāsīp) that marked the turn of each year (in preexilic feast calendars;
see Körting 1999: 8–90). The regulations for the offering of firstlings in Deuteronomy 26
do not explicitly indicate a date on which these offerings were to be made. The offering of
firstborn animals was not originally bound to the annual festive cycle but was merely an
occasional practice. According to Exod 22:29, animals were offered on the eighth day after
birth. In the Law Code, Deut 15:19–23, however, the offering of firstborn animals was in-
tegrated into the annual festival cycle. In spite of the fact that this festival had been central-
ized and thereby became subject to priestly control, it did not lose its character as a fam-
ily celebration, because legislation established a common meal for the family to be held
at the sanctuary. The Feast of Unleavened Bread, maṣṣot (Exod 23:15; 34:18–20), which
spanned seven days, was also originally independent from Passover and was a festival of
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 403

the agricultural cycle that signified the beginning of the grain harvest in the month of
Abib (March/April). The most important characteristic of the festival was the unleavened
bread that was baked from freshly harvested grain. The prohibition against using leaven in
the maṣṣot-bread most likely served to distinguish it from everyday food. Offerings were
not explicitly mentioned in Exod 23:15 and 34:18–20, although it must be assumed that
firstfruits would also have been offered to Yhwh based on the practices of other festivals
throughout the agricultural year.
Before the exile, rituals associated with these offerings, although related to local or
regional sanctuaries, were essentially performed independently by each family. The late-
monarchic Deuteronomistic reform movement sought to incorporate the rites and rituals
of family religion into those of the official cult. The regulations of Deut 26:1–11 provided
a liturgy for this ritual, made it compulsory to offer the firstfruits at the centralized sanctu-
ary, and introduced a rite of confession to be performed by the head of the family in order
to acknowledge Yhwh as the deity who had liberated the people from Egypt and had
given them the land (see Albertz 1994: 103).
Yhwh’s claim on the human firstborn (bĕkōr; see Exod 22:28; 34:20; and Num 8:17;
18:15) did not refer to an actual human sacrifice (for discussion of which, see Milgrom
2000: 1586–91) but (as already noted by de Wette 1842: §206; and W. R. Smith 1899: 189)
ascribed to him/her a special, sacred dignity (see Douglas 2004: 170). The claim on the
firstborn in Exod 13:11–16 was derived from narratives about the killing of the firstborn
in Egypt. Claims on human firstborns were thus theologically motivated, and each claim
needed to be redeemed (Exod 34:20), according to Num 3:50, with a prescribed amount
of silver. Num 3:12, 40–41; and 8:17–18 proclaimed that Levites were a substitute for all
human firstlings (see Noth 1964: 33). It is unlikely, however, that these descriptions reflect
the supplanting of ancient forms of human sacrifice with offerings of animals or other
substitutes. As concluded by Milgrom (2000: 1590), “There is no evidence that the first-
born, except in crisis situations (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:27), were sacrificed; there is no indication
that Israel’s God ever demanded or even sanctioned this practice.” The demand that the
firstborn be offered therefore represents thanksgiving to Yhwh for granting the first child
and for enabling the mother and child to survive the birth.

6.4.╇ Occasional rituals

6.4.1.╇Vows
6.4.1.1.╇ Biblical evidence
In Old Testament narrative texts, ‫ נדר‬nēder ‘vow[s]’ were offered mostly in response to
cases of extreme distress, crisis, or danger. Vows were made in situations of war, as dem-
onstrated by the fight with the king of Arad in Num 21:2 and by Jephthah’s vow in Judg
11:30–31; they were also made during situations of critical personal or political impor-
tance, which is evidenced by Absalom’s vow to return to Jerusalem in 2 Sam 15:7–8. Oaths
were sworn not only to Yhwh but, as indicated in Jer 44:15–19, 25, to other deities, such as
the Queen of Heaven. In family contexts, vows originated in situations that threatened the
continuance of a family, such as infertility. In 1 Sam 1:11, Hannah made a vow in exchange
404 Chapter 6

for a male child, who would in turn be promised as a nazirite for Yhwh. The vow was
offered at the local sanctuary in Shiloh although, rather than being spoken publicly, the
words of the vow were offered in silence. As emphasized by Berlinerblau (1996: 66–82),
the making of vows was primarily a private affair, and it required no cult apparatus. The
making of vows by females in return for (particularly male) children is also reflected in
the teaching of King Lemuel’s mother in Prov 31:2, in which Lemuel is addressed as the
‘son of my womb’ (‫־בטני‬â•”‫ בר‬bar-biṭnī) and the ‘son of my vow’ (‫־נדרי‬â•”‫ בר‬bar-nĕdāray). Vows
made in situations of personal distress, sickness, or hostility are recorded in the individual
thanksgiving psalms (Ps 22:26; 56:13; 66:13–15; and 116:18–19) and in Jonah 2:10 and the
individual complaint psalms, as in Ps 61:6–9. Vows were also made to ensure divine pro-
tection and the general welfare of individuals or families (the latter through the provision
of such things as bread and clothing), as demonstrated by Jacob’s dream in Gen 28:20–22.
There is biblical evidence for the making of promissory vows to secure progeny, to prevent
or alleviate sickness or social distress, and to ensure general welfare. The general welfare
requested in the vow of offerings to be made to the Queen of Heaven in Jer 44:17–18
was especially for ensuring abundance of food and absence of misfortune. Vows were not
necessarily as simple as direct exchanges of offering and promise, however. Numbers 30
regulated that vows made by women could be nullified by the father or husband to prevent
economic problems that might arise by making too many vows or by promising too much
to the deity. Typical offerings of vows were calves, cows, rams, and lambs (Num 15:1–11),
all of which would have been of considerable value. Some biblical texts even recommended
the exercise of restraint in regard to vows, including Num 30:3; Deut 23:22–24; Qoh 5:3–6;
and Prov 20:25. Although Deut 12:5–7 and 11–12 stipulated that vows in postexilic times
had to be made at the central sanctuary, these stipulations included explicit descriptions
of the family contexts expected of such vows, with Deut 12:7 commanding the presence
of “you and your households” and Deut 12:12 the presence of “you and your sons, and
your daughters, and your menservants and your maidservants.” The public fulfillment of
vows at the temple is also indicated by Ps 22:26; 66:13; and 116:14–18. The usual type of
offering according to Ps 116:17 and 107:22 was the ‫ זבח תודה‬zebaḥ tōdāh ‘thanksgiving
offering’, while in the priestly offering regulations of Lev 7:11–17, the zebaḥ hattōdāh was
classified as the ‫ זבח ׁשלמים‬zebaḥ šĕlāmîm ‘offering of well-being’ of a cow, sheep, or goat
(see also Lev 22:19; Num 15:1–11) and was to be accompanied by offerings of bread and
cakes. Additional libation offerings were mentioned in Num 15:5, 7, and 10, while Lev
22:18 and Num 15:1–11 also mentioned that an offering made for the fulfillment of a vow
could take the form of an ‫ עלה‬ʿolāh-offering. According to Jer 44:17, the offerings vowed
to the Queen of Heaven included libations, cakes, and burnt incense. These items could
also be offered in domestic environments or in profane public locations, such as a street
(Jer 44:21).
Prior to the exile, vows would most likely have been made at a local or regional sanctu-
ary, as occurred in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom (2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31–32; 19:6, 11–14). The
making of vows thus represented a point of intersection between the realms of familial
religion and official religion. Vows were made in both private contexts (as presupposed in
Numbers 30) and public contexts (in the sanctuary in 1 Sam 1:9–11), while rituals follow-
ing their fulfillment were performed in communal sanctuaries.
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 405

The existence of both legislative and biblical texts recommending restraint in the mak-
ing of vows provides strong evidence that vows were not only entered into in response
to severe danger or distress but also frequently to address situations of perceived need
(Berlinerblau 1991: 555).

6.4.1.2.╇ Survey of extrabiblical evidence

Extrabiblical sources from the West Semitic realm between the Late Bronze Age and
the Hellenistic period reveal a broad similarity to vows made by families or in familial
contexts. The Ugaritic epics of Keret and Aqhat describe vows made in exchange for the
promise of a male heir. In the Keret Epic, King Keret, having lost seven wives in succession
through childbirth, illness, and demonic forces, made a vow to the goddess Athirat asking
for a new wife to bear him a male descendant.

KTU 1.14 IV 31–43â•›21

31
They went 32a day and a second; at 33sunset on the third day, 34they arrived at the
sanctuary of 35Athirat of Tyrus and the Goddess36of Sidon. There 37the noble Keret
made a vow: 38‘As surely as Athirat of Tyre exists—39yes, the Goddess of Sidon—40if
I take Huriya into my house, 41make the girl 42enter my residence, I will give twice
her (weight) in silver, 43and three times her (weight) in gold!

In KTU 1.22 II, Danil made a vow to the deified ancestors of his royal house, the ra-
piuma, and invited them to a sacrificial meal, if his son would sit on his throne (although
it is unclear whether the text meant Aqhat or a second son after Aqhat).

KTU 1.22 IIâ•›22

15
[Danil] 16made [a vow]: If [my son becomes ki]ng 17over Amurru, gras[ps the
throne of his kingship,] 18the seat of the throne of his [dominion], 19then I will call
the Rapiuma [of my house]; I will invite the divine 20into my palace.

Although the vows made by Keret and Danil were motivated to ensure the continua-
tion of their dynasty, the practice of males undertaking vows in exchange for children or
for the protection of an existing child may have been commonplace, as indicated by Phoe-
nician dedicatory inscriptions, such as stele P 11.38 (TUAT 2.620), which declare that,

TUAT 2.620
1
Guddbaal, son of Hannibaal, 2set up the stele for his daughter 3and has redeemed
his vow.

The Phoenician epigraphic material also evinces that vows were made to prevent or
alleviate illness, as in KAI 66 (2nd century b.c.e.):

21.╇ Translation after TUAT 3.1229.

22.╇ Translation after TUAT 3.1315.
406 Chapter 6

KAI 66
1. lʾdn lʾšmn mʾrḥ mzbḥ nḥšt mšql lṭrm mʾ 100 ʾš ndr ʾklyn šḥsgm ʾš bmmlht šm[ʿ
2. [q]lʾ rpyʾ bšt špṭm ḥmlkt wʿbdʾšmn bn ḥmlk
1
To the Lord Ešmun-Mʾrḥ: An altar of copper of 100-litra weight,â•›23 which has
been vowed by Kleon, the (servant) of Šḥsgm, who is over the saltworks. He
has hear[d] 2his ca]ll (and) has healed him. In the year of the špṭm Ḥmlkt and
ʿBdʾšmn, the sons of Ḥmlk.

Most private inscriptions do not, however, mention the circumstances of or occasions for
the vows, as in the unique votive inscription on one (presumably) Ammonite seal from
the 7th century b.c.e. (WSS no. 876), which reads:

Avigad and Sass 1997: no. 876

1
[.╯.╯.] 2ʾbndb š nd 3r lʾšt bṣdn 4tbrkh
1
[PN, son of?] 2Abinadab, who vow-3ed to ʾšt (Ashtarte) in Sidon. 4May she bless
him.

The Abinadab seal was made to be used repeatedly, most likely in conjunction with regular
donations (Avigad 1966: 250; Berlinerblau 1991: 551–53), demonstrating that vows were
made not only in response to individual situations of distress but also regularly. Many
Phoenician dedicatory inscriptions also mention vows but do not mention any related oc-
casion. Punic dedicatory inscriptions demonstrate that vows were made not only by men
but also commonly by women, as in KAI 109:â•›24

KAI 109
1
lʾdn lbʿl ḥmn mlk 2ʾmr ndr ʾš ndr ʾ 3kbrt bt [.╯.╯.]
1
To the Lord, Baal Hammon, a molk-2lamb. A vow, vowed by A3kborat, daughter
of [.╯.╯.]

The erection of stelae to mark the fulfillment of vows is also described in Gen 28:20–22,
although there is not yet any archaeological evidence from ancient Israel of dedicatory
inscriptions that mention vows. The extrabiblical evidence, especially Phoenician and
Punic inscriptions, demonstrates that these dedications also represented an intersection
of familial and official cult practices, because the dedicatory inscriptions were installed
in sanctuaries, thereby making both the undertaking and the redemption of vows a
public affair.

6.4.1.3.╇ Epigraphic documents from the Samaritan Temple on

Mount Gerizim and their implications for family religion
Some 400 dedicatory inscriptions were found during the excavations at the Samaritan
sacred precinct on Mount Gerizim, most of which were dated to the Hellenistic period
between the 3rd and 2nd centuries b.c.e., and some are up to 200 years older (Magen,

23.╇ A coin weighing ca. 330 grams (KAI 2.81).

24.╇See CIS 3323: 3–4; 3334: 2; 3356: 3; 3829: 3–4; 3456: 2; 3459: 2–3; 3460: 2.
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 407

Misgav, and Tsfania 2004). Although these periods do no overlap with those of the present
study, these inscriptions are nevertheless worthy of mention because of their demonstra-
tion of the ways that familial and official cult practices intersected and overlapped.
The inscriptions were found upon building and pavement stones in the general area
of the sacred precinct, although none of these stones appear to have been in their original
positions, with a single exception (no. 223) being used a second time as part of a monu-
mental staircase. The dedicatory inscriptions were made using two forms of the Aramaic
script: lapidary Aramaic as commonly found in other inscriptions from the Persian and
early Hellenistic periods, and proto-Jewish script. These two styles occurred alongside one
another, although those inscriptions in the lapidary style perhaps originated somewhat
earlier (Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: 41).
Two types of dedication formula are represented in the inscriptions. The first type
opened with the expression zy (or dy) hqrb ‘that which [PN] offered’. A typical formula
(from no. 1) reads:
Document no. 1 from the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim
1
zy hqrb ʾlzʿr [br . . . ʿl npšh] 2[w]ʿl ʾmh ʾntth wb[nwhy . . .]
1
That which Elʿazar [son of PN] offered [for himself] 2[and] for his wife Imma
and [his]so[ns]

The second type of formula again began with zy/dy hqrb ‘that which [PN] offered’ but
ended with the expression ldkrn ṭw ‘for good remembrance’. A typical version of this for-
mula (from no. 147) reads:
Document no. 147, Samaritan Temple, Mount Gerizim
dy hqrb dlyh br šmʿn ʿlwhy wʿl bnwhy ʾbnʾ [dh l]dkrn ṭw qdm ʾlhʾ bʾtrʾ dnh
Delayah, son of Šimʿon, offered [this] stone for himself and his sons for a good
remembrance by God in this place

Several inscriptions describe the dedications of women, whose names are either men-
tioned alone (as in nos. 17, 45) or together with their husbands’ names (in nos. 18, 19):

Document no. 17, Samaritan Temple, Mount Gerizim

1
zy hqrbt mrym ʿl npšh wʿl 2bnyh
1
That which offered Miriam for herself and for her 2sons
Document no. 19, Samaritan Temple, Mount Gerizim
1
[z]y hqr[bt . . .2. . .] ʾntt ʾl[. . . 3. . .] w/yh [. . .
1
[That whi]ch offe[red PN . . . 2. . .] wife of ʾl [. . . 3. . .] w/yh [. . .

The female donor of no. 17 who was mentioned without her husband would most likely
have been a widow occupying the role of pater familias after the death of her husband. This
sort of change to women’s social roles also seems to have included their responsibility to
undertake ritual activities, including donations to the temple. Inscription no. 19 further
indicates, however, that women whose husbands were presumably still alive were also able
to donate to the temple on their own behalf.
408 Chapter 6

Those who edited and compiled the records for these inscriptions assumed that the
expression zy hqrb, or ‘that which [PN] offered’, referred to a monetary contribution, be-
cause the only inscription (no. 199) that mentions the sacrifice of animals (in the form of
pryn ‘bulls’) used the sacrificial term dbḥ—equivalent to the Hebrew zbḥ—in a different
formulation from the standard dedicatory inscription (Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania 2004:
17). Inscription nos. 147 (cited above) and 148 suggest that the votive object was the actual
stone that bore the inscription (ʾbnh/ʾbnʾ dh), although this does not exclude the likeli-
hood that monetary contributions were also included.
The general absence of explicit reasons or circumstances for these inscribed references
to vows along with the high degree of stereotypy in the inscriptions prevent much specula-
tion regarding the motivations and reasons for undertaking these vows. Most inscriptions
merely express a wish for a good remembrance (ldkrn ṭw) by God and can thus be inter-
preted as being general petitions for welfare. It must naturally be assumed that donors
were beholden to their vows. One case (no. 157) used the expression [.╯.╯.] ḥyy npšh ‘[for]
his own life’ or, literally, ‘the life of his soul’, rather than the more customary ʿl npšh ‘for
himself ’, suggesting a severe threat to the life of this donor should his vows not be fulfilled.
Parallel formulas have been found on 5th- and 4th-century b.c.e. Aramaic inscriptions
from Teima. For example,

KAI 229
1
mytbʾ zy qr 2[b] mʿnn br ʿm 3[r]n lṣlm ʾlh 4ʾlḥyy npšh
1
The pedestal that offer2ed mʿnn, son of ʿm 3[r]n, to Ṣalam, the go4 d, for the life
of his soul.

Some scholars have proposed that these dedications reflected atonements being offered
for misdeeds (Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: 20), because of the alleged similarity be-
tween the formulas zy hqrb, ldkrn ṭw, and ʿl npšh; and Exod 30:16, which states, “You shall
take the atonement money from the Israelites and shall designate it for the service of the
tent of meeting. Before Yhwh it will be a reminder (lĕzikkārōn) to the Israelites of the
ransom (lĕkappēr) given for your lives (ʿal-napšōtēkem).”
Although this verse contains both lĕzikkārōn and ʿal-napšōtēkem, the key term used
to refer to atonement rituals (kpr) does not appear in the Samaritan inscriptions. The Sa-
maritan formulas, however, lack sufficient details for us to infer that the dedications were
being made for atonement; furthermore, we do know from other formulas that ldkrn ṭw
refers to the more general desire for welfare rather than the more severe ritual quest for
atonement.
These dedicatory inscriptions from the Gerizim sanctuary were generally intended to
achieve a blessing or God’s good remembrance for the dedicator himself and for the mem-
bers of his family, especially his wife and sons. Dedicators were, however, also women, who
had most likely been widowed—as indicated by nos. 17 and 45—but also may have been
married, as suggested by nos. 18 and 19. In all cases, the inscriptions followed the same
formula used by male dedicators, including a reference to sons. Dedicatory inscriptions
intending to ensure the welfare of a family provide strong evidence for the intersection
of familial religion and official cults. Families as mentioned in the inscriptions seem to
have been nuclear types, comprising parents and sons (daughters were not mentioned in
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 409

any of the inscriptions). One case (no. 149) depicts an extended family by mentioning the
father of the donor. These dedicatory inscriptions permitted concerns for family welfare
to be voiced in the public realm, and public cults granted an official place for this expres-
sion. As observed in the records of these inscriptions, their uniformity and their place-
ment on building and pavement stones indicates official involvement in their preparation.
They would most likely have been composed by temple scribes and executed by dedicated
craftsmen employed by the temple authorities (Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania 2004: 14, 20).
Thus, a family’s religious needs were granted a place in the official cult, but the expression
of these needs was subject to the control of temple authorities. The large number of these
inscriptions and the considerable size that would have rendered them clearly readable
even when incorporated into walls of considerable height are firm evidence for the im-
portance of this practice in the Samaritan Temple. This Samaritan evidence elucidates the
cultural intersections between familial and official religious practices. The nature of these
intersections accords with previous observations drawn from biblical evidence for Judaic
practices following the exile (Albertz 1994: 508–11).

6.4.1.4.╇ The social settings of vows

There has been much recent debate over whether (1) vows were primarily enacted in
the private or popular religious realm, which nevertheless remained separate from official
religion (Berlinerblau 1991; 1996; Cartledge 1992); or (2) the personal act of making a
vow and the public rites performed once it was fulfilled were created and constrained
by the realm of official religion (Tita 2001). I have taken the middle position that vows
represented a mode of intersection between familial and official religion, the significance
of which can be interpreted in the broader context of internal religious pluralism. Prior
to the exile, vows were made both privately and publicly, and rites following fulfillment
were performed at a local sanctuary (Albertz 1994: 101). After the exile (1994: 508–11),
fulfillment rites were performed at the primary official sanctuary. The above discussions
imply that there would not have been any general contradiction if fulfillment rites for
vows made in private were performed publicly, as suggested by Albertz (Albertz 1996:
111). The Samaritan inscriptions demonstrate particularly well the coexistence of these
private and public acts, and this sort of coexistence must reflect a degree of pluralism in
the nature of both private and official religious practices and understandings. Although
rites following the fulfillment of vows were regularly performed in sanctuaries, and al-
though this performance must also have been a public act of thanksgiving, there is very
little evidence that rites of fulfillment were also acts of confession (Tita 2001: 226–28).
Vows were intended to ensure family welfare or to secure specific family promises, while
directly praising the deity was merely an appropriate response to the deity’s granting of
the desired outcome. Although votive inscriptions, including some from the Samaritan
Temple, were solely dedicated to expressions of thanksgiving, these were not confessional.
Vows and their associated performances were fundamental practices of family religion,
and they remained familial rites even though the public enactment of a rite of fulfillment
was dictated by official religious prescriptions. Thus, although official religion dictated
some aspects of the public rites performed after the fulfillment of promissory vows—as
reflected by the standardization of dedicatory formulas found in Samaritan, Phoenician,
410 Chapter 6

and Punic inscriptions—these official dictates had little impact on general practices as-
sociated with the offering of vows.

6.4.2.╇ Blessings and curses

6.4.2.1.╇ Terminology and modus operandi
The essential difference between a blessing (or in Hebrew, ‫ ברוך‬bārūk) and a curse
(in Hebrew, mostly ‫ ארר‬ʾārar, ‫ קלל‬qilēl, ‫ אל‬ʾālā; sometimes ‫נקב‬/‫ קבב‬qābab/nāqab or ‫זעם‬
zāʿam) may be said to be that “a blessing consists of a wish for someone to receive the
good things: land, numerous progeny, sufficient food, clothing, safety etc. [while a] curse
is the wish that someone be deprived of the same things” (Crawford 1992: 231). The sig-
nificance of blessings and curses in the Old Testament has long been considered under the
anthropological rubrics of animism and dynamism, in the footsteps of such pioneers of
social anthropology as W.€R. Smith, E.€B. Tylor, and J.€G. Frazer. In the dynamistic para-
digm, certain powers inhere within the spoken word, and these powers are immediately
manifest upon pronouncement of the word (Pedersen 1914; Mowinckel 1966; Bertholet
1926; Westermann 1978a; for discussion, see Schmitt 2004: 124–28). This position was
also taken up recently by Leuenberger (2008: 453–86). Modern linguistics (Austin 1975),
anthropology (Tambiah 1968; 1990: 73–74), and Old Testament studies (Thiselton 1974;
Mitchell 1983; Crawford 1992; Wagner 1997; Schmitt 2004) all emphasize that the word
as a speech act has only a situative power, and this could not have been perceived by the
“primitive mentality.” Thus, Thiselton (1974: 294) states that words “are effective, in most
cases, only when performed by the appropriate person in the appropriate situation.” And
Mitchell (1983: 174) states that “illocutionary speech acts are not based on magic, but on
societal conventions.” The typical blessing formula in the model ‫ ברוך ליהוה‬bārūk PN
laYhwh (see Judg 17:2; Ruth 2:20; 3:10) does not implicate a self-effecting magic act but
presupposes both an adequate setting and an adequacy of belief that, in this setting, the
wish expressed by the utterance of a blessing will be fulfilled by God. The authority to ut-
ter a blessing was not necessarily issued by a sociologically “stronger” sender (as Boaz was
in Ruth 3:10) to a “weaker” receiver (such as Ruth) but could also be granted by a weaker
or inferior sender when situations demanded it, as was the case for Ruth in Ruth 2:20.
Blessing and curses were not magical acts that merely manifested the inherent power of
words but were ritual acts of speech that mediated or anticipated God’s favor or disfavor
and were performed by a person endowed with authority, even when that authority was
merely situational. This authority in familial contexts would usually have resided in the
pater familias.

6.4.2.2.╇ Biblical evidence

One form of Old Testament blessing of special importance to families was the transfer
of the authority of a pater familias to a male descendant, such as described in the story of
Isaac’s blessing bestowed on Jacob in Gen 27:1–40. The narrative places particular empha-
sis on the authority of the pater familias to grant the blessing of the firstborn and also states
that the granting of the blessing cannot be reversed, even if it was erroneously bestowed
on the second born (27:37–38). This situation of course does not imply that the requests
inherent in these blessings were immediately granted but instead that, once a blessing was
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 411

requested in the presence of the family and god—who was, according to Gen 27:7 (‫ואברכה‬
‫ לפני יהוה‬waʾabārekkā lipnĕ Yhwh ‘that I may bless you before Yhwh’), also the divine
witness and guarantor of the blessing—the circumstances surrounding the blessing were
part of irrevocable societal conventions, especially the conventions that served to prevent
controversy over the line of succession. Moreover, the formula ‘that my soul may bless
you’ (‫ תברכה נפׁשי‬tĕbārekkā napšī) in Gen 27:4, 19, 25, 31 was not an argument for an ani-
mistic transfer of power (Leuenberger 2008: 237–41) but pointed out the fact that it was
the personal, emotional relationship between the father and son that made the situation
appropriate for uttering a blessing. According to Gen 48:14–21 (and also implicitly, Gen
25:5), the pater familias had authority to determine which heir was granted the blessing of
the firstborn. In Genesis 48, Ephraim is chosen over his older brother Manasseh, regard-
less of the custom of blessing the firstborn and thereby anointing him heir. This is also
exemplified by Noah’s blessing of Shem and his subordinating of Canaan under him in
Gen 9:25–27. For families with no pater familias, the widow was ceded authority to grant
the blessing, as described in Judg 17:2: After Micah returned the 1,100 pieces of silver to
his mother, she blessed him (‫ ברוך בני ליהוה‬bārūk bĕnī laYhwh) and endowed him with a
newly founded sanctuary. Although the narrative does not directly address the succession
of family authority, it does indicate that widows could act in the role of pater familias. The
blessing of the pater familias was also sometimes accompanied by a laying on of hands,
especially the right hand (Gen 48:14). A blessing was also uttered by the pater familias
when members of his household, whether servants or sons, had to undertake journeys
(Gen 24:7; Tob 5:17). A special occasion for blessing was the departure of a daughter from
her father’s house to join her husband’s house. Laban blessed his daughters Leah and Ra-
chel in Gen 32:1 before they left with Jacob; and, in Gen 24:60, Rebekah was blessed by
her brothers before beginning her journey to marry Isaac. Another blessing is described
in Tob 7:13, where Raguel bestows blessings on both his daughter, Sarah, and her groom,
Tobias, on the occasion of their marriage. The public pronunciation of Boaz as redeemer
and his acquisition of Ruth as wife in Ruth 4:9–12 were also followed by a blessing by the
witnesses for a good marriage and many children. 1 Sam 1:17 also describes a blessing
bestowed by the priest against female infertility when the barren Hannah makes a vow in
front of Eli, who then utters a blessing for a male heir.
In contrast to this evidence for blessings, there is considerably less evidence for the
utterance of curses or for rituals associated with them. Biblical law (as expressed in Exod
21:17; Lev 20:9; Deut 27:16) expressly forbids the cursing (here, qll↜) of one’s parents (see
Albertz 1978b; Schmitt 2004: 347–50). In the Book of the Covenant, in Exod 21:17, the
cursing of parents is mentioned along with other crimes deserving of the death penalty,
because it violates the commandment to honor one’s parents and disturbs both societal
and divine order. The regulation of the Holiness Code in Lev 20:9 was drawn from Exod
21:17 and reinterpreted as a violation of God’s claim of holiness for his people. Although
Deut 27:16 (the so-called decalogue of curses) contains no judicial proscription; never-
theless, cursing one’s parents is seen as a violation of God’s covenant, and the ‫ ארור‬ʾārûr
(‘forbidden’) formulation threatens violators of the law with divine reprobation.
The blessing of Jacob by Isaac in Gen 27:29 includes a curse on those who curse Ja-
cob (‫ ארריך ארור ומברכיך ברוך‬ʾōrĕrĕykā ʾārūr ûmĕbārăkeyka bārūk ‘Cursed [be he] who
curses you and blessed [be he] who blesses you’), although the primary intention of the
412 Chapter 6

phrase would have been to ensure blessings rather than curses. The Noah curse on his son
Canaan in Gen 9:25–27 serves more as an etiological synecdoche for Israel’s superior-
ity over Canaan. The curses uttered by Jacob in Genesis 49 on his sons Ruben, Simeon,
Levi, and Issachar reflect an artificial composition unrelated to actual practices of family
religion. The curse of Micah’s mother in Judg 17:2 was not directed at her son but at an
unknown thief. In situations of deep personal distress, one may curse the night of one’s
conception (Job 3:8) or the day of one’s birth (Jer 20:14), although these curses reflect uni-
versal social practices more than they do contemporary religious rites or rituals. The re-
ligious practices of Israelite families during Old Testament times were primarily directed
at ensuring their own welfare, and thus the utterance of curses would not have been a
particularly prevalent practice, nor was it frequently recorded in texts.

6.4.2.3.╇ Epigraphic evidence

There is scant epigraphic evidence for blessings that would have been performed in
familial contexts, and most epigraphic blessings are addressed to a person rather than a
collective group. Curses are addressed to potential evildoers. Nevertheless, there is some
epigraphic evidence that can be interpreted in the wider context of familial piety. Grave
inscriptions in particular served family religious purposes, and inscribed amulets were
given to the deceased for their final journey.
Inscriptions on graves could express either curses or blessings; blessings were probably
stated in order to ensure the welfare of the deceased in the netherworld. Note, for example,
the En-gedi cave inscription (Renz and Röllig 1995: 173–75, EGed [8]:2) that reads:

EGed [8]:2
1
ʾrr ʾšr ymḥh (. . .) 4brk yhw[. .] (. . .) 6. brk bgy[.╯.╯.] mlk 7. brk ʾdn[.]yh[.] (. . .)
1
cursed who erases (this) (. . .) 4blessed is Yeho[. .](. . .) 6blessed is BGY[.╯.╯.] MLK
7
blessed is ʾAdoniya

The Ketef Hinnom amulets (Renz and Röllig 1995: 447–56, Jer [x]:34–35) also contain
blessings (similar to the priestly blessing in Num 6:24–26)—in this case addressed to the
owners of the objects and serving to ensure the blessings of Yhwh in postmortem exis-
tence. The existence of this blessing, originally associated with ritual actions performed
in the Temple, again reveals the convergence between family and official religion (Leuen-
berger 2008: 153, 155–77).â•›25
An even broader context is suggested by the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscription on pithos
no. 2 (a school exercise), which contains a greeting formula along with a blessing that may
be considered typical for written communication:

25.╇Nevertheless Leuenberger’s (2008: 175) assertion that the Ketef Hinnom amulets are to be
interpreted in the context of secondary religious experience is without evidence: They belong to an
individual or family context and have nothing to do with confession. Moreover it seems unlikely to
me that such things as “theologies of blessings,” as reconstructed by Leuenberger, ever existed or
that these “theologies” can be reconstructed from random inscriptions.
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 413

Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscription, pithos no. 2 (Renz and Röllig 1995: 62, KAjr [9]:9)
4
brktk ly 5hw[.╯.╯.] 6w lʾšrth yb 7rk wyšmrk 8wyhy ʿm ʾd[n] 9y [.╯.╯.]
4
I bless you by Y5hw[h] [of Teman?] 6and by his Ašerah. May he b7less you and
protect you, 8and may he be with my lo[r]9d

Comparable blessings in everyday contexts are attested by the even-more-general bless-

ings for the recipients of letters on some of the Arad Ostraca that read brktk lYhwh (Renz
and Röllig 1995: 379 Arad [6]:16.3; 387 Arad [6]:21.3).
The epigraphic evidence suggests that curses did play a role in the protection of fam-
ily graves. An inscription from Ḥirbet Beit Layy (Renz and Röllig 1995: 249, BLay [7]:4)
reads:

BLay [7]:4
1
ʾrr 2↜ʾšr ymḥh
1
cursed (is) 2whoever erases (this)

A similar formula was used in inscription 1B from Silwan (Renz and Röllig 1995: 264–65,
Jer [7]:2):
Silwan inscription 1B, Jer [7]:2
1
zʾt [krbt . .]yhw ʾšr ʿl hbyt : ʾyn [p]h ksp : wzhb 2[ky] ʾm [ʿṣmtw] wʿṣmt ʾmth ʾth : ʾrwr
hʾdm ʾšr 3yptḥ ʾt zʾt
This is [the tomb of XY]yahu, who is over the house. [He]re is no silver or gold;
1

[on]ly [his bones] and the bones of his slave-girl with him. Cursed (is) the man
2

who opens this.

These inscriptions that served to protect graves belong to the realm of familial care for the
dead, as will be discussed more comprehensively in chap. 7.â•›26 Suffice it to say here to say
that curses on graves were similar in purpose to familial blessings: they were intended to
protect a family from mischief and distress perpetrated from beyond and, if not securing
welfare, then at least serving to ensure a peaceful rest.
Blessings in the context of family religion had important functions, especially with
regard to delegating a succeeding pater familias (Genesis 27; 48), or the widow who was
acting in this role (Judg 17:2), and maintaining social cohesion and adherence to social
conventions. The latter concern was especially prominent in curses.

6.4.3.╇ Domestic ceremonies of petition,

lamentation, and thanksgiving
Prescribed rituals governed responses to distress and sickness, to bad omens and other
mischief, and to good fortune such as the restoration of health to family members. Al-
though the Old Testament makes no explicit reference to these sorts of rituals in family
contexts, many other biblical texts and analogous Mesopotamian incantations suggest the

26.╇ See pp. 429–473 below.

414 Chapter 6

importance of these sorts of domestic ritual. Both Gerstenberger (1980: 132–47; 1988:
30–34; 1996; 2001: 40–41) and I (Albertz 1978a: 23–49; 1994: 100–101; 2008: 102–3) ar-
gued that the psalms of individual complaint and thanksgiving originated in domestic cer-
emonies. Although those psalms were composed by religious professionals and officials,
and although their recorded forms reflect the terminal point of an extended process of
derivation, they nevertheless reflect the beliefs and religious experiences of families. The
psalms of complaint in particular lack elements that would otherwise be expected if they
merely reflected official religious traditions, because their forms were clearly based on the
intimate relationship between the individual and the divine. Thus, the deity invoked in the
psalms of individual complaint is addressed as “my god” 29 times,â•›27 and an additional 19
times in psalms of confidence and other related genres.â•›28 Such personal intimacy with the
divine is also reflected in the use of phrases such as “my help,” “my protection,” “my trust,”
and “my hope.”â•›29 In chap. 5 above, we noted the considerable correspondence between the
semantic structures of these individual psalms of complaint or thanksgiving and Hebrew
personal names that appear in both epigraphic and biblical sources.â•›30 Choices of personal
names and these psalms of individual complaint and thanksgiving are all deeply rooted
in the primary religious experiences of families. They convey similar desires for comfort,
stability, and harmony (see Sundermeier 1992: 7–8; 1999: 34–36). The intimacy of a re-
lationship with Yhwh and the practice of placing personal trust in him are expressed,
for instance, in Ps 22:9–10 and 71:5–6, both of which refer to divine protection during
gestation.
Although the psalms of individual complaint present highly stylized formulas ad-
dressing a variety of distressing occasions, they provide insight into the sorts of situation
in which they were used as ritual prayers. These include general experiences of divine
absence,â•›31 facing the wrath of God,â•›32 sickness,â•›33 the fear of death,â•›34 social conflict, un-
usual hostility,â•›35 and perhaps also demonic threats (or at least the perception of demonic
threats).â•›36 The situations presented in the psalms of individual complaint reflect existen-
tial experiences typical of individuals within their immediate social contexts. There thus
appears to be strong evidence to support the thesis that this genre of psalms had its origin
in rituals conducted in and for the benefit of the domestic environment.
Domestic ceremonies of petition, lamentation, and thanksgiving may have involved
the recitation of a psalm prayer that expressed the occasion for the ritual, as well as in-

27.╇ ʾĒlī: Ps 22:2, 11; 63:2; 102:25; 140:7. ʾĔlōhay: Ps 3:8; 5:3; 7:2, 4; 13:4; 22:3; 25:2; 31:15; 35:23–
24; 38:16, 22; 40:18; 42:7, 12; 43:4–5; 59:2; 69:4; 71:4, 12, 22; 86:2, 12; 109:26; 143:10.
28.╇ Such as in Ps 18:3; 30:13; 91:2.
29.╇ See, for example, Ps 18:3; 27:1; 31:4; 38:16; 40:18; 54:6; 59:17–18; 62:3, 7; 71:5–7; 94:22;
140:8.
30.╇ See above, p. 252.
31.╇ In Ps 13:2; 22:2–3; 42.
32.╇ In Ps 6:2; 38:2–3; 39:11–12, 14.
33.╇ In Ps 6:3; 22:15–16; 38; 41:4–5; 88; 102.
34.╇ In Ps 9:14b; 22:15–16; 88; 141:7–8.
35.╇ In Psalm 3; 6:6, 11; 7; 9:14a; 10; 13:2; 17; 25:19; 27:2; 31:12–14; 35; 43; 54; 55; 56; 57; 59; 64;
69; 70; 71; 86:14; 109; 140; 142; 143.
36.╇ In Ps 22:17; 91:5–6.
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 415

volving the performance of specific ritual actions. Gerstenberger’s (2001: 40) speculative
reconstruction of these domestic ceremonies included the ritual elements of cleansing,
offerings, and petitional prayers. These were followed by public offerings of thanks�giving
(‫ זבח התדה‬zebaḥ hattōdāh) that were performed at local sanctuaries in preexilic times
and at a central sanctuary in later times (see Gerstenberger 1996: 75–84). The forms of
these ceremonies would likely have been influenced by the forms of other ceremonial rites
of passage described in Old Testament sources such as Leviticus 12–14, which included
acts of ritual separation, cleansing, and offering, as well as ritual reintegration into one’s
broader social group. These sorts of ceremony were often conducted to aid the healing,
recovery, and reintegration of sick members of a family (see Gerstenberger 1980: 168). The
public celebration of the zebaḥ hattōdāh included a tribute given to the saving deity and
both communicated and celebrated publicly the reintegration of an individual into his or
her broader society.
Domestic ceremonies of this sort could have been performed by the pater familias.
Most common domestic ritual activities were performed by and within families them-
selves without external support or direction from priests or other religious devotees.
Chapter 3 demonstrated the frequent archaeological presence of objects such as offer-
ing stands, libation vessels, incense burners, miniature altars, and votive figurines that
were used as ritual media in domestic contexts. The abundance of these objects is good
evidence that rituals associated with the offering of food and liquids and the burning of
incense were often performed for purposes of petition and thanksgiving by families in
their domestic environment. Although families themselves would generally have been the
intended public recipients of these rites, the common presence within domestic ritual
assemblages of the sorts of bowls and tripod incense cups that are also found at gate and
local sanctuariesâ•›37 suggests that, for some occasions at least, these smaller-scale rituals
were performed in a more public situation. The presence of burned animal bones at some
neighborhood and local sanctuariesâ•›38 also suggests that sacrificial animals were offered in
thanksgiving (zebaḥ hattōdāh) by individuals or families. Although it is unclear whether
the performance of occasional ceremonies at local sanctuaries that included a zebaḥ re-
quired the assistance of a priest, as described in 1 Sam 1:21 and 2:13, ritual specialists were
certainly needed for rituals that addressed cases of sickness or unusual distress.

6.4.4.╇ Rites and rituals involving religious specialists

6.4.4.1.╇ Men of god and prophets
The Elijah and Elisha traditions in 1 and 2 Kings are our primary witnesses to the
involvement of religious specialists in the religious activities of families. Most of these
traditions, as recorded, are post-Deuteronomistic additions to the Deuteronomistic His-
tory (S. Otto 2001), although the traditions themselves reach back to the Northern King-
dom during the Omride period and reflect ritual practices performed by the religious
phenoÂ�type ‫ איׁש האלהם‬ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm ‘man of God’ and the beliefs associated with this fig-
ure (Schmitt 2004: 209–302). The ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm responded to a variety of circumstances,

37.╇ See above, pp. 230–233.

38.╇ See above, pp. 238–240.
416 Chapter 6

especially those that required rituals that lay outside the usual family repertoire (Albertz
1994: 100; Gerstenberger 1996: 72–74; 2001: 40–41). In 2 Kgs 4:8–17, Elisha saw fit to
intervene on behalf of a barren wife and promised her a son. The boy died but was raised
to life again according to 2€Kgs 4:18–37 by the man of God through prayer and sym-
bolic actions. The mother in this case had to go to Mount Carmel to consult the man of
God. A similar miracle story appears in 1 Kgs 17:17–24, where Elijah revived the son of
a widow in Sarepta. The primary activity of the ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm was this sort of ritual inter-
vention, which also seems to have been the case for later prophets, such as Isaiah in 2 Kgs
20:1–11 and Isaiah 38. According to 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kgs 4:8–17, men of God were oc-
casionally hosted by families, who were reimbursed by his performance of ritual services.
However, the miraculous stories in 1 Kgs 17:8–16 and 2 Kgs 4:1–7 describing wondrous
bounties of flour and oil also reflect the expectations of households that the presence of an
ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm would bring material benefits. According to 2 Kgs 4:23, regular consultations
with the ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm outside the domestic environment did occasionally occur on new
moons and Sabbaths. The men of God often represented the conjunction and communion
of several religious realms by being directly affiliated with certain cult places or sanctuar-
ies (such as Elisha and his community with Carmel and Gilgal, in 2 Kgs 4:25 and 4:38;
and perhaps also Elijah with Carmel), performing rituals and uttering oracles on official
occasions (see 2 Kgs 13:14–19) and being ritual practitioners for individuals and families
in cases of infertility, death, sickness, loss of valuable goods, and other distressing situa-
tions. In these narratives, the men of God performed miracles in response to overt pleas
or requests presented by supplicants, thereby demonstrating the benefits of overcoming
passive submission or acceptance of circumstances (particularly in 2 Kgs 4:1–7; 5:1–19;
and 6:1–7) and the need to have faith for salvation (see S. Otto 2001: 226; Schmitt 2004:
299–300). These tales of miracles thus encapsulate the one essential axiom, that god saves
(Moore 1990: 151–52).
Narratives about miracles in the Old Testament, especially 1 Kgs 17:17–24 and 2 Kgs
4:32–37, suggest that associated rituals required the separation of the sick person (thereby
also marking their liminal status), the utterance of intercessory prayers by the man of God
along with the performance of symbolic actions, and finally, the ritual reintegration of the
healed person. This final act was also a public demonstration of the efficacy of the man
of God. Another final action in the ritual process was sometimes the giving of thanks to
the man of God or the ritual specialist (see 2 Kgs 5:16; Ezek 13:19). An additional zebaḥ
hattōdāh may also have been performed occasionally at a local sanctuary, although there
is no record of this associated with the prophetic miracle stories. Psalms of lament would
probably have been recited as ritual prayers by the men of God, analogous to the Meso-
potamian ašipu (Gerstenberger 1980: 168–69; 1988: 30; 2001: 40–41). Moreover, although
the Psalms contain no actual oracles of salvation (Begrich 1964: “priesterliches Heilsor-
akel”; see Janowski 2003: 75–84), it is also possible that oracles were spoken as a part of
these ritual proceedings (Albertz 2001: 101).
The patriarchal selection of the Old Testament texts left little room for evidence of
ritual authority held by women, and there is scant mention of female ritual specialists or
their actions. The most important evidence appears in 1 Samuel 28 and Ezek 13:18–21.
1€Sam 28:3–25 describes Saul’s visit to the ‫ בעלת אב‬baʿalat ʾōb (‘mistress of a conjura-
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 417

tion pit’, with Ebach and Rüterswörden 1977; 1980), which attests the presence of female
necromancers in ancient Israel, similar to the Hittite SALŠU.GI or ḫaššawa (the ‘wise’ or
‘old woman’). Although this text may reflect other traditions, it presupposes the Deutero-
nomic injunction in Deut 18:11 against necromancers and thus may have been intention-
ally directed at female ritual specialists contemporary with the Deuteronomistic redac-
tors. It is impossible, however, to ascertain how common or uncommon necromancy was
during this period.╛39 A ritual mask and a cult stand found at Hazor Locus 44 (fig.€3.27)╛40
may be evidence that domestic necromantic consultations occurred prior to the exile. The
polemics of Ezek 13:17–21 against the “daughters of Israel” were directed at female healers
and ritual specialists acting under their own aegis who misused (according to the prophet)
the name of Yhwh by performing “black” magic rituals such as the tying of knots or who
may have constructed unauthorized instruments used in magic, performed unauthorized
healing rituals, or engaged in deadly witchcraft (see Schmitt 2004: 283–87, 360–62). The
profanation of Yhwh’s name in Ezek 13:19 reflects magic deeds that were performed in
the name of Yhwh, both to mobilize him against a ritual enemy so that the enemy would
be injured or killed (“putting to death persons who should not die”) and to heal (“keeping
alive persons who should not live”).
These biblical texts reveal that ritual specialists were consulted when rituals that a pa-
ter familias or other family member might have been able to perform were inadequate (or,
perhaps, inappropriate). Infertility and severe sickness especially required consultation
with men of God or female ritual specialists; but the female ritual specialists were usually
consulted for their capacity to conjure love charms and perform various kinds of “black
magic” rituals.

6.4.4.2.╇ Priestly ritual texts and the intersection of apotropaic rites

with official religion and family religion
Ritual specialists acting on behalf of individuals played important roles in the Priestly
purification rituals of Leviticus 12–14. Although the Priestly ritual texts appear at least
superficially to express the official religious concepts and beliefs of postexilic Israel, some
of the rituals also demonstrate the reciprocal influences that family religious practices
must have had with official practices. The ritual for purifying a leper’s house in Lev 14:33–
53 provides a particularly good example of these influences. Verse 34 suggests that the
leprosy, or ‫ צרעת‬ṣāraʿat, was brought on by Yhwh himself. Other biblical references to
ṣāraʿat also indicate that it could be caused by the wrath of God.â•›41 Yhwh often seems to
have inflicted ṣāraʿat on a household in response to sins committed by one of its members.
Similar purification rituals existed in the Hittite and Mesopotamian cultures. The Hittite
ritual for “evoking the underwordly gods” (Otten 1961) explicitly connects affliction in a
family with the sinful deeds of the household.

39.╇ See below, pp. 469–471.

40.╇ See above, p. 107.
41.╇ For example, 2 Sam 3:28–29; 2 Kgs 15:5; 2 Chr 26:16–21 (against Uzziah); 2 Kgs 5:27
(against Gehazi); and Num 12:10 (against Miriam).
418 Chapter 6

10
Why is this house coughing? 11Why does it look to heaven? 12Either someone has
sworn wrongfully or performed a deed of blood 13and has thrown his coat over it;
14
or someone has been “cut off ” or spoken a curse; 15or someone afflicted with a
deed of blood has come in; or someone who has sworn wrongfully; 16or someone
has practiced black magic and gone in; 17or in the house itself, a deed of blood was
done.

Mesopotamian Namburbi rituals against the domestic katarru fungus similarly dem-
onstrate that omens regarding fungus on walls were interpreted as indicating guilt by a
house’s owner, by its other inhabitants, or by visitors (Maul 1994: 354–66). Lev 14:33–53
describes a similar situation, in which Yhwh inflicted ṣāraʿat on a house to reflect or
indicate the guilt of one of its inhabitants. The disease was often inflicted not only on indi-
viduals but also on the houses themselves, necessitating ritual purification of the afflicted
house. Rabbinic sources also describe houses as being afflicted with the sins of their own-
ers, and domestic fungus was understood as a punishment for unrepentant sinners (Pesiq.
Rab. 17). There thus seems to have been a strong, direct association of sin with defilement
(see Schmitt 2004: 307–34), contrary to previous assertions by Milgrom (see especially
1991: 864–65; and the studies compiled in Milgrom 1983), and in agreement with him,
Wright (1987: 85) and Douglas (1999: 185). The apotropaic character of purification ritu-
als has often been assumed to reflect the textual transformation of an originally exorcistic
ritual (Elliger 1966: 186; Gerstenberger 1993: 161). The texts themselves, however, betray
no underlying suggestions of exorcism or of demonic causes for the defilement. Instead,
Lev 14:34 declares Yhwh to have been the direct cause of the defilement, acting in re-
sponse to sin. These rituals were apotropaic simply because they prevented (or at least
discouraged)further misfortune from befalling a house due to the sins of its inhabitants.
All the inhabitants of a house probably would have had to undergo ritual purification for
ṣāraʿat, as in Lev 14:1–33, because people considered ritually impure were prevented from
participation in official cult activities and many other aspects of normal social life.
Lev 14:33–53 clearly demonstrates one way that official cult offices and activities inter-
sected with domestic religious practices by providing one of the few examples of priests’
officiating on behalf of people infected with disease by conducting rituals in domestic
settings. Official priests considered ṣāraʿat to induce defilement of such severity that it
could not be addressed by any domestic rites that a pater familias could perform; rather, it
afforded priests an opportunity to perform the kipper ritual, for which they were the only
sanctioned officials. A priest was necessary for the kipper ritual because it involved blood
rites that were considered a ‫ חטאת‬ḥaṭṭāʾt ‘sin offering’ (in Lev 5:9, the offering of a bird was
explicitly called a ḥaṭṭāʾt). The general authority that priests held for performing rituals
was absolute in the case of purification rituals, particularly for family purification rituals
that required blood rites. Priests probably would have been present throughout preexilic
times in cases of severe defilement, as was the case in Mesopotamia. However, the control
exercised by priests over all rites against defilement (from initial diagnosis through to final
purification and reintegration) also reflects the broader practices of postexilic theologians
who emphasized the importance of surveillance over domestic ritual activity. Priests also
had sole authority for making purity decisions in cases of genital discharge or menstrua-
tion, or following the postnatal period of confinement discussed above.
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 419

6.4.4.3.╇ Demonic threats to families; and domestic

apotropaic rites, rituals, and objects
Biblical texts make almost no reference to exorcisms or to demonic threats endan-
gering families. The few exceptions appear in the Psalms of individual complaint. Note
the ‫ עדת מרעם‬ʿădat mĕrēʿîm ‘pack of evildoers’ in Ps 22:17; the ‫ פחד לילה‬paḥad lāylāh
‘terror of the night’ in Ps 91:5; the ‫ קתב‬qeteb and ‫ דבר‬deber ‘destruction and plague’ in Ps
91:6, and the ‫ רׁשף‬rešep and ‫ קתב‬qeteb ‘pestilence and destruction’ in Ps 78:48 (see DDD²;
Frey-Anthes 2007: 68–143); as well as the early tradition of the Passover ritual in Exod
12:21–23. There are also descriptions of Sarah’s being oppressed by the demon Asmodeus
in Tob 3:7–9 and 6:1–9 (from the Septuagint).
The application of blood to lintels and doorposts as described above also seems to
have served an apotropaic purpose, because the Hebrew root ‫ פסח‬psḥ that is used in the
description of the Passover ritual of Exod 12:7, 13, 21–24 means to ‘spring over’ or ‘repel’
(see E. Otto 1988: 664–68). The mark of blood indicated to the ‫ מׁשחת‬mašḥīt-demon sent
by Yhwh that he should pass over the door and not smite the Israelites inside. The applica-
tion of blood was part of a ritual power directed at the liminal realm between the family
space protected by Yhwh and the external world of demonic threats to family existence.
The annual performance of the rite thus reified Yhwh’s promised protection. The apotro-
paic interpretation of the blood-application ritual presented later, in the book of Jubilees,
addressed the forces of Mastema that were sent by Yhwh (Jub. 49:3) to kill the firstborn
of Egypt. This apotropaic function is echoed again later in Jubilees, where the offering is
described as protecting Israel from the plague (Jub. 49:15). According to Josephus (Ant.
2.14.6), the Passover ritual could even atone (ἄγνίζω) for the sins of a house.
The only biblical text to describe means by which demonic threats were eliminated
is the book of Tobit (found in the Septuagint’s canon). Although this book was written
sometime between the late-3rd and early-2nd centuries b.c.e. and thus during a period
after the timeframe of this book, it is nevertheless valid with regard to family beliefs and
values in this period. Note, however, that Tobit relies on motifs of miracles and myths that
probably bore no direct relationship to actual ritual practices during these times (contra
van der Toorn 1994: 71–72).
According to Tob 3:7–9, Sarah was married to seven husbands, all of whom were killed
by the demon Asmodeus before the marriages could be consummated. Sarah was accused
of having killed her husbands (implying that witchcraft was involved) and prayed that
Yhwh might let her die. In Tob 6:1–9, the angel Azariah or Raphael revealed to Tobias
how to relieve her demonic affliction by burning the liver and heart of a fish inside the
bridal chamber. This apotropaic ritual exorcised the demon, who then fled to Egypt, only
to be bound there, hand and foot, by Raphael. Aside from the probable mythological mo-
tifs mentioned above, the story of Tobit represents the sorts of problems and fears that
were common in contemporary marriages, such as sudden death of a spouse, fears about
demonic attacks while engaged in procreative acts, and accusations of witchcraft. The text
suggests that apotropaic rituals such as the burning of sacrificial animals were used to
counter fears and resolve these problems.
The elaborate narratives describing the threats, manifestations, and repelling of de-
mons in the books of Enoch and Jubilees, in the writings from Qumran (in the spell against
the prk-demon in 4Q560, for example), in the exorcisms described in the New Testament,
420 Chapter 6

and in the rich magical literature of late antique Judaism (see Naveh and Shaked 1985;
1993)—all reflect the importance of beliefs and traditions associated with demons in the
daily religious lives of families throughout this entire period. The scarcity of demonic nar-
ratives in the Old Testament thus more likely reflects the selectiveness of their compilation
rather than the lack of relevance of these themes during the more ancient times of the Old
Testament books (Frey-Anthes 2007). This theory is corroborated by the wealth of archae-
ological evidence for apotropaic practices, especially the abundance of amulets that served
to ward off various nefarious influences.

6.5.╇ Taboos and other observances

6.5.1.╇ Food observances
Many religions prohibit certain foods and behaviors and forbid contact with certain
classes of people. Taboos reflect broader aspects of the symbolic systems of the cultures
that proscribe them (Douglas 1966; Lévi-Strauss 1966). The taboos regarding clean and
unclean animals recorded in Exod 22:30; Leviticus 11; and Deut 14:3–21 dictated and
constrained many aspects of family conduct in the daily preparation and consumption of
food. Prohibitions have many profound consequences in daily life.
The prohibitions on foods in the Old Testament have often been thought to reflectthe
animistic or dynamistic tendencies that have been ascribed to Old Testament societies
in accordance with the 19th-century beliefs reflected in W.  R. Smith’s totemistic inter-
pretations (1899: 87–94, 114). Milgrom (1991: 718) stated regarding the variety of these
interpretations that “there are as many theories as theorists.” In contrast to this plethora
of misguided ideas, especially useful insights were offered by Mary Douglas in her fa-
mous book Purity and Danger (1966; for discussion and critique of which, see Grabbe
1993: 56–59). According to Douglas, biblical prohibitions against certain animals, espe-
cially against eating pigs and certain other animals, reflected the perceived unsuitability
of these animals to accord with a larger classification system regarding the unity, sanctity,
and order of the cosmos in general. All the things that found no place in this classification
system were considered expressions of chaos and were therefore prohibited. Anomaly was
equated with abomination (Douglas 1966: 60–78; see also 1972a, b).â•›42

42.╇ While not withdrawing from this original position, she later emphasized (1972a, b) the
function of prohibitions in maintaining and unifying an otherwise precarious social identity and
adopted yet another position in subsequent works (1999: 134–75; 2004: 159–60, 170–73), accord-
ing to which the impurity of animals arose because of their analogical symbolism: “The animal that
is taken into the body by eating corresponds to that which is offered on the altar by fire; what is
disallowed for the one is disallowed for the other; what harms the one harms the other” (Douglas
1999: 134). Domestic ruminants belonged in the realms considered under Israel’s covenant, while
all other animals (which symbolized the fertility of creation) were forbidden for human consump-
tion and protected in Yhwh’s covenant after the flood. Thus, the food taboos are seen in the context
of religious competition, in the process of which the writers of Leviticus promoted their views on
animal welfare (1999: 171–74). Critics of this position emphasize that animal welfare is a modern
concern, not a concern of ancient agrarian societies (Grabbe 2004: 159).
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 421

Young goats were not to be cooked in their mother’s milk according to Exod 23:19b;
34:26b; and Deut 14:21b, although the reference to prohibited animals in Deut 14:21 is
only incidental. This curious taboo has generally been interpreted as a verdict against a
Canaanite fertility rite (see Noth 1961: 156; von Rad 1964: 73; Childs 1974: 485–86). Keel
(1980), however, argued that this prohibition was more likely to have been both ethically
and religiously motivated. It was rooted in respect for the aspect of divine creation that is
present in the loving care of a mother. Milgrom (1991: 741) argued that the prohibition
was the result of the simultaneous fusion of and confusion between the life expressed
in the mother’s milk and the death embodied in the cooked kid. The mother’s milk was
part of the essence of life and was therefore not to be associated with death. The prohibi-
tion originally only applied to official cult activities; however, Deuteronomy rendered it
a dietary law to which every household must adhere (see Houtman 2000: 269). However,
Exod 23:19 seems to extend a literary tradition designed to maintain the distinct, Israelite
character of the feasts mentioned in Exod 23:14–17 (Dohmen 2004: 191, 372; with Knauf
[1988: 166], who proposed that it was a festive meal of the nonurban populations of Pal-
estine). In spite of a lack of consensus regarding the interpretation of this prohibition
and the ritual that it implied, it certainly served to distinguish Israel from its neighboring
nations. The maintenance of this distinction was also the aim of the privileges in Exod
34:10–26.
Whatever the interpretation, it seems likely that the food taboos formulated in Exod
23:19b; 34:26b; Leviticus 11; and Deuteronomy 14 (which may already have been conven-
tional in Israelite society) became increasingly important during the exile. In the general
absence of official religious authority during the exile, the family would have been the
only institution able to maintain national and religious identity by observing traditional
customs. Food prohibitions thus would have become a means for exiled families to focus
on their personal identity, their identity as members of the ethnic Judean community, and
their adherence to their own religious traditions (Albertz 2003: 107–8).

6.5.2.╇ Harvesting and firstfruits taboos

In addition to the prohibitions mentioned above, Priestly legislations also contain pro-
hibitions against harvesting the very edges of fields (↜pĕ↜渀屮ʾah), stripping vineyards bare, and
gleaning fallen grapes (Lev 19:9–10). These prohibitions seem to have been socially moti-
vated, because the text states: “You shall leave them for the poor and the alien” (19:10). The
Deuteronomic social legislations accordingly adopted this prohibition (Deut 24:19–22),
requiring that the remains of any harvest be given to strangers, widows, and orphans,
while also adding a theological incentive, “so that Yhwh may bless you in all your under-
takings” (24:19). These legislations were also explicitly associated with the exodus (24:22;
see Albertz 1994: 222). Although it is possible that these legislations reflected prior (pre-
Israelite) religious prohibitions in which harvest gleanings were consecrated to the gods
associated with agricultural fertility (see Noth 1962: 121; von Rad 1964: 109; Gersten-
berger 1994: 243), there is no biblical or extrabiblical evidence for this sort of interpreta-
tion, and the direct social functions of these legislations seem to be more plausible as
motivations (Milgrom 2000: 1623–30). The prohibitions against harvesting the firstfruits
422 Chapter 6

of trees in Lev 19:23–25 are, however, not so readily explained. It was forbidden to pick the
fruit off trees for three years after planting, and fourth-year fruits were to be consecrated
to Yhwh. Only from the fifth year on were fruits permitted for human consumption.
One suggestion has been that these practices were intended to ensure a blessing on future
harvests, particularly in reflecting a reverent awareness that shorter-term exploitation of
nature’s bounty endangers its future fecundity (Albertz 1994: 102–3; and see Milgrom
2000: 1684).

6.5.3.╇ Sexual taboos

The Old Testament prohibitions against bestiality in Exod 22:18; Lev 18:23; 20:15–16;
and Deut 27:21 have been interpreted to reflect differentiation from Canaanite and Mes-
opotamian cult practices, which allegedly included this sort of practice with the ritual
meaning of enhancing sexual power and fertility (see Schmitt 2004: 355–56). Mesopo-
tamian ritual texts such as the ŠÀ.ZI.GA potency incantations (Biggs 1967) may support
this interpretation, as do the numerous animal fecundity motifs found in 1st-century
b.c.e. glyptic arts from Mesopotamia.â•›43 Close examination of the mythological and ritual
literature of ancient Israel’s neighbors, however, reveals no explicit reference to ritual in-
tercourse with animals. Although no laws against bestiality have been found in Mesopota-
mia, there were Namburbi-rituals for protection from the wrath of god that descended on
any man who had intercourse with a female goat (Maul 1994: 415–20). Hittite laws §199
demanded the death of anyone who had intercourse with pigs or dogs, while intercourse
with horses or mules would result in exclusion from priestly office and excommunication
from the royal court (§200). The Old Testament verdicts against bestiality are thus likely to
have reflected broader cultural patterns in the ancient Near East, where sexual intercourse
with animals was generally seen as an aberration and was often proscribed. Prohibitions
against bestiality may have reflected a fear of the consequences of mixing divinely or-
dained categories of creation (Douglas 1966: 73; â•›44 also Ellens 2008: 275), and any blurring
of boundaries between these categories might potentially have disturbed the social and
cosmic order. In this case, perhaps there was also a fear of begetting monstrous creatures
outside the categories and intentions of divine creation (see Gerstenberger 1996: 299).
Of more direct bearing on family norms and practices would have been the incest ta-
boos of Lev 18:6–18; 20:11–12, 14, 17. These prohibitions predate the pentateuchal law col-
lections and their theistic foundations and probably originated from nontheological laws.
The most extensive list in Lev 18:6–18 prohibited intercourse with one’s mother (18:7),
stepmother (18:8), sister (18:9, 11), granddaughter (18:10), aunt (18:12–4), daughter-in-
law (18:15), or brother’s wife (18:16). It also prohibited intercourse with both a woman
and her daughter (18:17) or a woman and her sister (18:18). All the people mentioned
belonged to the nuclear, extended, or paternal joint family, and the list included direct
blood relatives as well as individuals related by marriage only. The bloodlines of wives
were designated as strictly as the husbands’, although incest with daughters was not ex-

43.╇See Schmitt 2004: fig. 9; after Frankfort 1939: pl. 36g.

44.╇ Later (1999: 235–39) Douglas took a different position and related the sexual taboos to the
conservative mainstream as a demarcation of boundaries with foreign cults.
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 423

plicitly proscribed. However, as Rattray (1987: 542) has argued, the key to understanding
this omission is found in the opening verse of the incest prohibitions, Lev 18:6, which
states that one may not marry close kin (šĕʾēr bĕśārō), which according to Lev 21:2 are
one’s mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or maiden sisters. Thus, incest with daughters
is explicitly forbidden by Lev 18:6.
Lev 18:3–4 mentions incest as being an abomination of Egypt and Canaan, with the
biblical interdictions again serving to distinguish Israel from its neighbors. However, legal
traditions in Israel’s ancient Near Eastern environment reveal widespread prohibitions on
incest, for example in §§189 (75) j; 190 (76) j; 195 A–C (81a–c) of the Hittite Laws; and
§§154–58 of the Hammurapi Code, and breaking laws §155 (intercourse with the wife of
one’s son) and §§157–58 (intercourse with a mother or stepmother) was punishable by
death.
A variety of anthropological explanations have been offered to explain the prohibi-
tion of incest. Early studies emphasized the function of sexual prohibitions (including
incest) in preventing the mobilization of negative forces (W. R. Smith 1899; Frazer 1922),
while functionalistic interpretations inspired by the works of Freud on totemism and ta-
boos (1989 [1912–13]) have long dominated the discussion. Malinowski (1986 [1927])
described prohibitions on incest as the very foundation of culture. They ensured harmo-
nious relationships between parents and children; but, more generally, the family was the
nuclear source of social harmony, and incest thus had the potential to destroy the very
foundation of society. Prohibitions on incest also immediately require and foster alliances
with other, external social groups (Lévi-Strauss 1981) and serve to maintain both social
and cosmic order (Douglas 1966: 53).â•›45 According to Sundermeier (1992: 7–8), small-
scale societies can only survive when behavior is based on commonly accepted models of
behavior that strengthen and stabilize its basic structures, as well as refusing and prevent-
ing the negation and deterioration of life. Prohibitions on incest also demarcate families,
including extended families, from external social groups. The biblical regulations against
incestuous practices almost certainly reflect these more-general purposes (Hartley 1992:
298–99; Milgrom 2000: 1530; Ellens 2008: 99, 147), especially in protecting families from
the destructive consequences that are engendered by sexual relationships between close
relatives. There was also probably the secondary social rationale of ensuring procreation
within and in accordance with the predominating patriarchal form of family government
(Milgrom 2000: 1530). Suggestions that verdicts against intercourse with one’s sister, who
in cuneiform sources was referred to as “the daughter of one’s god,” were motivated by
the perceived violation of a divine ancestor (van der Toorn 1996b: 58) rely on the widely
refuted totemistic theories of Smith.
Similarly harsh verdicts against homosexual intercourse are found in Lev 18:22 and
20:13, with 20:13 indicating that the appropriate punishment was death. This prohibi-
tion of homosexuality once again allegedly distinguished ancient Israel from its ancient
Near Eastern neighbors (see, for example, Douglas 1999: 235–39). There are, however,
no ancient Near Eastern sources that connect homosexuality with cult practices. Semitic

45.╇ Later (1999: 236–39), Douglas adopted a different position, explaining the laws as inescap-
ably cultic and motivated by a demarcation against the practices of foreign religions.
424 Chapter 6

symbolic systems viewed homosexual behavior as a violation of both social and cosmic
order, just as in intercourse with animals and other forms of sexual deviation. Reflecting
the perceived severity of these violations, the Middle Assyrian Laws (§20) sentenced any-
one engaged in homosexual conduct to rape and castration.
Sexual liaisons with members of the same sex and with animals were perceived as
dangerous transgressions of social and cosmic boundaries. “Perhaps the insertive partner
was originally condemned as a boundary violator because his act ‘feminized’ his part-
ner or because he did not conform to his class (male) when he chose another male as
a partner in intercourse” (Olyan 1994: 206). Gender roles were rigidly prescriptive, and
sexual penetration was strongly associated with—and indicative of—social submission
(Stone 1996: 75–79). Transvestitism was also prohibited (Deut 22:5) because it blurred the
boundary between genders and rendered the definition and social understanding of one’s
own gender ambiguous. The proscriptions against homosexuality in the Holiness legisla-
tion similarly served to protect social distinctions, as noted by Olyan (1994: 205): “The
primary concern of the H tradents responsible for framework materials in chapters 18 and
20 is preserving the purity of the land, which itself is threatened by the defiling sexual acts
enumerated in Lev 18 and 20.”â•›46
Sexual prohibitions on incest and homosexuality reflected nontheocratic and non-
theological laws designed to promote the integrity of families, to ensure their social func-
tions, and to prevent internal conflicts that might otherwise have threatened the contin-
ued existence and functioning of families in a very general sense.

6.5.4.╇ Taboos regarding genital discharge

The regulations and prohibitions regarding ritual cleansing after birth in Lev 12:1–8
represent an additional class of taboos that related to sexuality in a more general sense
but nevertheless affected family conduct. In Leviticus 15, these decrees also dictated ap-
propriate procedures following menstruation and the issuing of male bodily discharges,
both of which were addressed by use of the Hebrew noun zōb. All household furnishings
were declared impure in these cases, as well as any other people who had contact with
the individual involved. Many cultures caution or prohibit contact with people who have
bodily discharges, especially menstruating women. These regulations are often explained
by anthropologists in terms of male dominance, which delineated the social realms of
men and women (see Douglas 1966: 151–58, 176–77). These sorts of taboo that are sup-
posedly pre-Yahwistic in origin have often been interpreted as manifestations of the fear
of evil or demonic forces (e.g., W. R. Smith 1967: 113–14; Noth 1962: 81; Elliger 1966:
197; Gerstenberger 1994: 190). There is, however, no evidence to support these interpreta-
tions, either in the Priestly writings themselves or in associated writings. A more compel-
ling argument is that menstrual blood was directly associated with death (Milgrom 1991:
766–68). The very nature of death was defilement, and the realm of death had to be kept

46.╇ The other assumption, that “the laws of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 in their final setting may
well be part of a wider effort to prevent the mixing of semen and other defiling agents in the bod-
ies of receptive women, men and animals, mixings that result in defilement of the individuals in-
volved” (Olyan 1994: 205), seems less plausible because homosexual contact does not necessitate
anal intercourse.
 Rites of Family and Household Religion 425

separate from that of life. These Priestly regulations thus served both to ensure that ritual
purity was upheld in the tabernacle and to ensure that the realm of death was kept at bay.
These absolute and ineluctable priestly demands for the ritual purity of cult partici-
pants must have affected the ongoing business of domestic life to a great degree (see Al-
bertz 1994: 464), especially activities related to the production and processing of food
by women, who were required to stop during times of uncleanness. Although these pro-
hibitions would have offered a certain degree of respite for women following childbirth
and menstruation (see Gerstenberger 1994: 190; Douglas 1999: 181), they must also have
forced a potentially unwelcome degree of social isolation and inactivity, particularly by
imposing the regulations on the woman’s own home.

6.5.5.╇ Prohibitions against intermixing

Not only was the sexual intermixing of divinely ordained categories prohibited, but
the generic mixing of many categories was prohibited, even if the mixing did not have
immediate religious or social implications. Lev 19:19 prohibited the crossbreeding of a
variety of animals, the sowing of fields with particular seeds, and the wearing of garments
made from two different materials; while Deut 22:9–11 forbade the sowing of a vineyard
with two different kinds of seed, the ploughing of a field with an ox and ass together, and
the wearing together of garments made of wool and linen. These restrictions have been
interpreted in a variety of ways: from pre-Yahwistic customs that held apart the realms
of different gods (Elliger 1966: 259), to original folkloric fears of demons that later be-
came sanctioned by Yahwism (Gerstenberger 1993: 249–50), to relationships between
these forbidden practices and contemporary magic practices (von Rad 1964: 101). There
is no direct evidence to date, however, in biblical or extrabiblical sources to support these
hypotheses.
It is more likely that these taboos were related to symbolic systems and modes of
thinking, which is an interpretation that Noth favored (1962: 123) but did not apply sys-
tematically. Douglas interpreted the verdict against mixing very uneven pairs as reflecting
an essentially binary ordering of the world: “The pairs are not so much uneven as differ-
ent; respecting their difference is symbolic of completion and totality” (Douglas 1999:
251). Even if this was true, the verdicts also may have reflected (1) explicit attempts by
the exilic and postexilic writers to promote their particular views of the ordering of the
cosmos (Douglas) or (2) simply a more generic and culturally widespread aversion to the
symbolic imbalance of uneven mixings. Alternatively, the very act of mixing disparate
things may have been considered sacred (Milgrom 2000: 1656–65), and the products of
intermixing may have been reserved for the holy sphere. Priests wore mixed garments in
the sacred sphere, while laypeople were only permitted ordinary garments made from
one cloth. These suggestions, however, do not explain the agricultural regulations regard-
ing mixing different kinds of seeds or crossbreeding animals. Many cultures manifest
fundamentally binary perceptions of reality (see Lévi-Strauss 1958; 1962), and it seems
more plausible to posit these generic tendencies with regard to the binary ordering of
agricultural life and domestic production. The regulations differentiated and set apart
the products of the flock in the form of wool from agricultural products in the form of
linen; divided fields according to their produce, to enable more effective planting and
426 Chapter 6

harvesting; and used animals in regard to their primary function, which for asses was
transport and for oxen was labor.

6.6.╇ Family rites and rituals and their significance for the
symbolic system of the family
The essential interests of families and the actions required to meet these interests
largely determined the symbolic systems that were then used to express and manifest
family religious beliefs and practices. Rites and rituals of familial religion thus directly
expressed family values and were largely shaped by the personal relationships of the family
members, especially the relationship between children and their parents. Idealized fam-
ily and environmental qualities required during infancy, such as protection, security, and
trust (by the parents), also described the general qualities attributed by families to their
personal relationships with their gods.â•›47 The primary religious experience, according to
Sundermeier (1992: 3), is intended “to strengthen, stabilize, multiply and preserve it as
well as to refuse and prevent the negation and deterioration of life.” In a world that was of-
ten subject to intractable threats to family perpetuity—such as illness, death in childbirth,
famine; or shortages of food or water; war, plunder, foreign rule, and burdensome taxes—
the essential religious desires of the family microcosm for peace, stability, harmony, abun-
dant progeny, and general welfare were mirrored by the divine order of the macrocosm.
The rites and rituals that accompanied the cycles of life were directed at ensuring the
safety and success of birth and infancy. The rite of circumcision served to protect male
children from dangers encountered during childhood. Marriage rules and customs re-
garding endogamy tended to protect and enlarge a family’s property, often through mar-
riages between cousins. Thus, family rites that governed progeny and the perpetuation
of the patriarchal blood line were closely connected to ensuring material property. The
various sexual taboos with regard to family life served to maintain its functionality as an
essential unit of society, to prevent tensions between different members and generations
of a family, and ultimately to ensure fecundity. The family truly was a synecdoche for
cosmic order. What was destructive to the microcosmic order of the family also endan-
gered the divine order of the world on the macrocosmic level. The maintenance of world
order by avoiding the blurring of boundaries due to intermixing or sexual transgressions
also served to maintain the harmony of families and the cosmos. The domestic patriarch
strove to maintain his microcosmic order (in direct analogy with god’s strivings to main-
tain the macrocosmic world order) by strictly observing the rules, customs, and bound-
aries regarding family conduct. This general framework aids our understanding of many
regulations and prohibitions, but for a number of dietary and agricultural prohibitions we
can find no obvious explanation. These restrictions may reflect accumulated pragmatic
knowledge regarding the effects of procedures such as the mixing of seeds, which became
canonized and were later prohibited by divine order.
Before the exile, the religious practices of families existed alongside religious practices
performed on the local, regional, and official levels of society. All of these levels interacted

47.╇ See above, pp. 262–339.

 Rites of Family and Household Religion 427

and intersected with one another. There was of course no single, definitive preexilic reli-
gion of ancient Israel; instead, there was a constantly evolving internal religious pluralism.
During the exile and in the subsequent Diaspora, many observances, rites, and rituals of
family religion became symbolic of national and religious identity and served to maintain
an otherwise precarious existence. Particularly effective in this case were the rites and
rituals of circumcision, Sabbath, and the dietary customs, which both strengthened the
collective identity of exiled communities and marked them as distinct from the outside
world. The Feast of Passover demonstrated a particularly dynamic evolution and trans-
formation, from originally being a familial celebration, to later becoming a feast of the
official cult in the Second Temple period, the whole time maintaining important elements
gleaned from its family roots, before reverting once again to a primarily family celebration
after the destruction of the Second Temple.
The rites, rituals, and observances of a family not only communicate their identity on
the family, national, and confessional levels; they also manifest and mediate the cultural
memory of their larger society. The observance of rites, rituals, regulations, and prohibi-
tions indoctrinates and internalizes the values of a society. Family religion, as a primary
religious experience, therefore, “imparts knowledge and is conveyed by means of rite and
word, i.e., it denominates and can be handed over from one generation to the other” (Sun-
dermeier 1992: 2).
Along with the changes to Passover, other family religious beliefs and practices were
probably also affected by the transformation from preexilic Yahwism to postexilic early
Jewish religion. In Douglas’s most recent books (1993; 1999; 2004), she emphasizes the
roles of the Priestly writings in prohibiting not only magic and divination but also many
other rites and rituals that were being performed in family settings. These prohibitions
established a starkly revised religion that promoted a radically different symbolic sys-
tem. Douglas wrote, “In defining the central doctrine of monotheism, the priestly editors
thought out all its implications. They had to exclude blasphemy and vain superstitions”
(2004: 193). Furthermore, “For that to be achieved the Bible religion had to be radically
reconstructed: kings not to be mentioned, dead ignored, and diviners and seers excori-
ated; no magic, no images; mutual accusations to be ended, all potential divisive doc-
trines eliminated” (2004: 194). The position recently adopted by Douglas thus accords
with widespread perceptions of family religion as consisting of peripheral, superstitious,
or folkloric practices—a religion that was effectively supplanted by official rule during the
exile. Douglas’s interpretation, however, makes no distinction between the various social
levels of religion and assumes that the Priestly literature directly reflected the religious
reality. All of her statements are therefore guided and determined by the Priestly positions.
Similar positions have also been taken in recent anthropological discussions of pri-
mary and secondary religious experiences, in particular by Jan Assmann (1997; 2003;
2006; and see Schmitt 2006), who describes the transformational process from exilic to
postexilic Yahwism as an assertion of the supremacy of secondary religious experience
over the primary experiences of family religion. However, the primary religious experi-
ences of families were not in fact overruled or eliminated but prevailed within their own
social and domestic religious environments. Although novel aspects of religious belief and
practice were introduced during their evolution toward their postexilic forms, the changes
428 Chapter 6

that occurred between the late monarchic period and the Second Temple period were
primarily the integration of many preexilic official and family beliefs and practices and
the integration of the preexilic and exilic reform movements. The final products of this
transformation in many cases bore little resemblance to their original forms, but many of
the family religious beliefs and practices persisted. Sabbath, Passover, and circumcision
survived the destruction of the Second Temple but took on a completely new charac-
ter as family rites that has survived to this very day. In spite of attempts by the Priestly
and Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic schools to marginalize, control, and even abol-
ish certain observances, rites, rituals, and feasts of family religion, the official religion of
the Second Temple period was influenced by elements of family religion to a far greater
extent than the preexilic cult in Jerusalem was. Due to the failure of state restoration and
the continued influence of communities in the Diaspora, official and family religion drew
closer together, producing a form of early Judaism in which family beliefs and practices
were the essential elements of the postexilic symbolic system (see also Albertz 1994: 510;
2008: 105). This basic system, with its values of family harmony, welfare, and many prog-
eny actually did not change very much, even though the religious “superstructure” was
transformed.
 Chapter 7

Care for the Dead in the Context of

the Household and Family

7.1.╇Introduction
For a long time, ritual communication with and care for the dead have been inter-
preted in the context of the evolutionary and animistic/dynamistic paradigm of late-19th-
century anthropological scholarship. One of the most influential concepts has been the
notion that ancestor cults were the oldest form of human religion, as supported by Numa
Denis Fustel de Coulanges’ Ancient City (English ed. 1873 [repr. 1963]), Edward Burnett
Tylor’s theory of animism (1873), Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology (1874), and
Robertson Smith’s (1967) notion of the development of Israelite religion from an ancient
totemistic cult of the clan to a sacrificial meal. In the context of the evolutionary animis-
tic/dynamistic paradigm, cults of the dead were often viewed as “survivors” of the older
Canaanite religion that were overruled by Yahwism. Furthermore, in Gerhard von Rad’s
thinking (1957: 290), Israel demythologized and desacralized death, its cult of the dead
being fundamentally incompatible with the cult of Yhwh. However, social-anthropologi-
cal concepts of the evolution of religion led to many erroneous assertions that culminated
(in the present context) in the supposed antagonism between Canaan and Israel.
Research conducted since the final two decades of the last century has greatly enriched
understanding of ancient Israelite conceptions of death and the netherworld, as well as
their care for and the communication with the dead.â•›1 Because the history of scholarly
thinking up to the mid-1980s has been meticulously described by Spronk (1986: 3–85),
only a few remarks on the state of research are necessary. There is general acknowledg-
ment that pursuit of the animistic/dynamistic paradigm has not aided the reconstruc-
tion of the history of ancient Israelite religion in general or the development of thought
about the dead and afterlife in particular (Spronk 1986: 84–85; Schmidt 1994: 1–3; Jeffers
1996: 4–16; Schmitt 2004: 5–12, 29–34). On the other hand, the development of mod-
ern social anthropology and cultural hermeneutics has raised new questions and revealed

1.╇ On beliefs about the dead and mortuary rites in general, see A. A. Fischer 2005; Janowski
2001; Kühn 2005; Olyan 2004; Pham 1999; Podella 1986; 1988; 1989: 100–116; 1998; 2002; Schmidt
1994; Spronk 1986; van der Toorn 1997. On necromancy, see Cryer 1994; Jeffers 1996; Lewis 1989;
Podella 1997; Tropper 1989; 1999. On the archaeological evidence, see Bloch-Smith 1992a, b; Wen-
ning and Zenger 1990; and Wenning 1991b; 1997; 1998; 2005.

429
430 Chapter 7

new modes of research on symbolic systems, cultural remembrance (Podella 2002), and
ritual theory (Olyan 2004: 1–13)—issues that are still subject to a great deal of ongoing
debate. The last decade has also seen attempts to integrate textual and archaeological ev-
idence (Bloch-Smith 1992a; Wenning and Zenger 1990; Wenning 1997; 2005). However,
there are still gaps between them, because the archaeological evidence is in many ways not
reconcilable with the text (Bloch-Smith 1992a: 151–52; Podella 2002: 530). The relation-
ship between typical household assemblages and burial assemblages, especially, remains
unclear.
Before examining the textual and archaeological evidence, we must clarify the termi-
nology to be used in this context. The terms cult of the dead and ancestor cult are often
used without distinguishing between veneration of the dead as quasi-divine beings and
the honoring of ancestors. However, it is still an issue of discussion whether a cult of the
dead (in the sense of venerating ancestors similarly to the divine) ever existed in ancient
Israel or not.â•›2
We differentiate between (1) cults of the dead and ancestor cults in the sense of cultic
veneration of the dead as divine beings, which is not attested in Old Testament sources;
and (2) the beliefs and rites practiced by living kinsmen with regard to deceased ancestors.
Modern anthropology is duly averse to referring to rites involving ancestors as “ancestor
cults,” emphasizing instead the social functions of the associated practices (Fortes 1965;
Thiel 1984: 138–42; Sundermeier 1988: 142–59). Rites addressed to ancestors may, on a
purely descriptive level, look like cultic rites addressed to a god, but they are essentially
different. They do not deal with an almighty divine being but solely with familial kinship.
The phenomenological approach that conflates gods with ancestors neglects their differ-
ent functions. Modern anthropology has acknowledged that ancestors played important
roles in cases of family distress such as illness, death, or infertility, as well as in cases of im-
portant family enterprises, but not in larger issues such as national concerns (Thiel 1984:
143–44). Along with Fortes (1965: 124), we define the term ancestor as “a named dead
forebear who has living descendants . . . representing his continued structural relevance.”
Therefore, what makes a dead kinsmen an ancestor is described in modern anthropology
not as a kind of apotheosis but as an ongoing social relationship between that ancestor
and his or her living kin. An ancestor is defined therefore by his or her social function and
status, not by his or her numinous qualities, which are secondary and of course culturally
contingent. In this book, therefore, the neutral term care for the dead, in the sense of Ger-
man Totenpflege, is preferred as a more-general term; thus we avoid the problems associ-
ated with expressions such as ancestor cult and cult of the dead.
Moreover, certain differentiations are required with regard to various mortuary rites.
Schmidt (1994: 13) distinguished primary, situationally observed rites (including the
funerary rites of burial and mourning); secondary, regularly instituted cults (including
mortuary rites of care, feeding, and commemoration; and rites of veneration and worship

2.╇ For the existence of a cult of the dead, see: Spronk 1986: 247–50; Ackerman 1987; Lewis
1989: 171–81; Loretz 1992; Bloch-Smith 1992a: 121–22, 146; 1992b: 787; van der Toorn 1996: 206–
35; 1997: 119; Niehr 2003.
For disagreement that a cult of the dead existed, see: Schmidt 1994: 292; Podella 1998; 2002:
535; Schmitt 2006.
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 431

of the dead or their ancestors); and tertiary, magical mortuary rites (particularly nec-
romancy). Regarding mortuary rites in particular, Podella (2002) distinguished among
mourning rites that address, for one thing, the social lacunae left by the dead among the
remaining members of the family; rituals of care for and commemoration of the dead as
expressions of cultural remembrance; and rituals performed directly on behalf of the dead
or on the dead body.

7.2.╇ Status of the dead

7.2.1.╇ The post-mortem status in general
With the notable exception of ancient Egypt, beliefs regarding post-mortem existence
in the ancient Near East (including Israel) envisioned milieus that few would desire to
attain. The dead (‫ מתם‬metîm; ‫ נפׁש‬nepeš was also used in P and H: Lev 19:28; 21:1; Num
5:2; 6:11; 9:10) are mere shadows living in a netherworld (‫ ׁשאל‬Šĕʾōl in late texts; also ‫אבדן‬
ʾăbbadōn ‘place of destruction’: Job 26:6; Prov 15:11; 27:20), a land of darkness, forgetful-
ness (Ps 88:12; Job 10:21–22), and silence (Ps 94:17; 115:17). As in Ugaritic, the Hebrew
term ‫ ארץ‬ʾereṣ ‘earth’ could also apply to the netherworld (Job 26:7). As synonyms, the
terms ‫ קבר‬qeber (Ps 88:5) ‘grave’, ‫ ׁשחטת‬šaḥṭat ‘pit’ or ‘grave’ (Ps 30:10; Isa 51:14; Job 33:22),
and ‫ בר‬bōr ‘pit’ (Ps 88:5) were also used to refer to places of evident death and darkness.
Šĕʾōl was located underneath the world of the living; one had to ‘go down, descend’ (‫ירד‬
yrd) to meet the deceased (Gen 37:35). Šĕʾōl could also be located underneath the waters
(Job 26:5, with similar imagery appearing in Ps 88:18). There are different geographical lo-
cations for Šĕ↜渀屮ʾōl: to the north in Job 26:7, and to the west in 1 Enoch 22–25. The conceptual
topography (or “mental map”) of the netherworld thus comprised four areas in which the
realm of the dead could be located, none of which was necessarily distinct from another:â•›3

1.╇ Šĕʾōl as part of the visible world located in the far west or north;
2.╇ within the empirical realm of death: the grave and the necropolis;
3.╇ a liminal realm with ambiguous borders: for instance, caves, graves, the
necropolis, the desert; but also the sea;
4.╇ a mythical realm of the netherworld, underneath the waters.

Thus, the conceptual topography of the netherworld either distinguished between the
world of the living and the world of the dead by positioning Šĕʾōl in distant regions in-
accessible to the living; or imagined realms of conjunction between these two distinct
worlds, mostly in realms of chaos and danger, or in liminal realms such as a necropolis or
caves; caves also provided entrance into the earthly netherworld.
In later texts, especially 1 Enoch 22, a more elaborate conception of Šĕʾōl and its to-
pography was described, with four valleys, three dark and one bright; the bright valley
had a well of living water reserved for the righteous. Interestingly, in Hellenistic times,
the netherworld became ever more mythologically “charged”—analogous to the growing
hosts of heaven and their demonic counterparts. Thus, the necropolis as visible entrance

3.╇ See also Podella (2002: 545), who distinguishes three realms.
432 Chapter 7

to both the liminal realm and the netherworld became the dwelling of demonic beings, as
reflected in the story of the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5:1–20.
According to Ezek 32:17–32, the dead lay in their graves in Šĕʾōl, as they did in vis-
ible reality. Special honor was given to the fallen warrior, who was buried with his shield
as a cover and his sword as a neck-rest (Ezek 32:27). The uncircumcised lay together in
a separate place. Their dead existed in quietness and sleep as indicated in Isa 16:9, or in
unconsciousness as in Qoh 9:4–6. The dead were separated from god (Isa 38:18; Ps 6:6;
88:11–14) and were powerless (Isa 14:10; Ps 88:5). Even kings and their armies lost their
power (Ezek 32:17–32). Both their resting place and their cover were worms and maggots
(Isa 14:11). Even social ties were loosened and inverted: in Šĕʾōl, the dead welcomed the
worm as mother or sister (Job 17:13). Thus, their existence was the very opposite of life.

7.2.2.╇ Identity and status of the ancestors

As noted above, many 19th-century scholars emphasized the role of ancestor cults in
the beginning of religious development. The issue of ancestor cults in ancient Israel has
therefore become important to biblical scholarship, especially the identity and ascription
of the term ancestor. For more than a century of study, from W. R. Smith (1899/1967)
to van der Toorn (1996: 233), scholars have acknowledged that the ancestors in the Old
Testament were patrilineal ancestors (‫ אבות‬ʾābōt ‘fathers’), as also indicated by the biblical
designation bēt ʾāb (‫בת אב‬, lit., ‘house of the father’) for ‘house’ and ‘family’. Neh 2:5 also
referred to the ‘tombs of the fathers’ (‫ קברת אבתי‬qibrōt ʾābōtay) as designating Nehemiah’s
hometown of Jerusalem. The national ancestors comprised a special group, within which
the mothers of Israel (Sarah in Hebron and Rachel in Ramat Rahel) were commemorated.
The ʾābōt are thought to have comprised a collective, to whom the deceased were ‘gath-
ered’ (‫ אסף‬ʾsp in Judg 2:10; 2 Kgs 22:20; and other passages) or next to whom they ‘laid’
themselves (‫ ׁשכב‬škb in Gen 47:30; Deut 31:16; and other passages), thus reflecting family
coherence even in post-mortem existence. Because the texts concerned with mortuary
rites and (especially) provisions for the dead (Deut 26:14; Sir 7:33) used the generic term
‘the dead’ (MT: ‫ מתם‬metîm; LXX: νεκροί), it appears that there were no categorical dis-
tinctions among the dead regarding their ritual care. Rituals were conducted on behalf
of all deceased members of a family, even though the ʾābōt were the focal point of family
identity.
Several biblical texts refer to ‫ רפאם‬rĕpāʾîm (‘healers’, on the etymology of which, see
Rouillard 1999: 699–700) as inhabitants of the netherworld (Isa 14:9; 26:14, 19; Ps 88:11;
Job 26:5; Prov 2:18; 9:18; 21:16), and biblical scholars have often referred to the rĕpāʾîm as
ancestors with divine or semidivine status (for more-recent examples, see Tropper 1989:
334–35; and Loretz 1990: 128–33). However, in Isa 14:9, the term rĕpāʾîm is used to denote
the group of deceased kings (like the Ugaritic dynastic ancestors, the rpwm), who had
then become weak (Isa 14:10). Moreover, in poetic and wisdom texts (Isa 26:14; Ps 88:11;
Prov 2:18), the word rĕpāʾîm is used parallel to metîm, thereby denoting the deceased in
the netherworld, in general. Thus, as a weakened status of the rĕpāʾîm is presupposed in
the biblical texts, which refer to them as inhabitants of the netherworld, it is clear that they
do not represent divine or semidivine ancestors (see Spronk 1996: 227–29; Schmidt 1994:
267–73).
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 433

Several scholars have interpreted the Hebrew kinship terms that appear as theophoric
elements, such as ‫ אב‬ʾāb, ‫ אח‬ʾāḥ, and ‫ עם‬ʿam, as referring to deified kin (van der Toorn
1996: 228–31). Of course, ancestors and spirits of the dead can be addressed as ‫אלהם‬
ʾelōhîm, as in 1 Sam 28:13 and Isa 8:19–20, although the concept of the deification of ances-
tors is problematic. First, West Asian kinship names mostly refer to gods (Albertz 1978a:
74–77; 1992: 147),â•›4 not to ancestors. Second, there is no clear indication in any biblical
text that the ancestors were worshiped as gods. Ancestors were to be honored (Albertz
1978b) but not worshiped. This being the case, one would expect harsh polemics against
ancestor worship. However, there are none in the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic texts,
the Priestly law codes, or the prophetic texts against practices considered incompatible
with Yahwism. Third, there is no evidence that ancestors were considered able to trans-
form themselves into divine beings, and thereby requiring (as in many cultures) ritual
support by the living. Thus arises the question how the rendering of the dead as ʾelōhîm in
1 Sam 28:13 and Isa 8:19–20 should be understood. In the Ugarit text KTU 1.6 VI 45–48,
the terms rpim, ilnym, ilm, and mtm were used synonymously to refer to the inhabitants of
the netherworld. Likewise, in the Ugaritic king list KTU 1.113, the deceased are referred to
as il. A Phoenician inscription from Pyrgi (KAI 277.8–9) also indicates that the dead could
be referred to as ʾilm, and both Ugaritic and later Phoenician texts show that mtm and ilm
could be used synonymously to refer to the deceased. Thus, the use of ʾelōhîm in 1 Sam
28:13 and Isa 8:19–20 is perhaps best understood as ascribing special status to the dead
as preternatural beings (Lewis 1989: 115–16), who thereby possessed qualities not shared
by the living, especially knowledge of things to come. This preternatural status should
not, however, be confused with the status of divine or semidivine beings. The concept of
the deification of the dead as a universal religious phenomenon belongs to the evolution-
ist paradigm of 19th-century scholarshipâ•›5. Because the Hebrew Bible contains almost no
evidence that family (or royal) ancestors were worshiped, it seems to provide a strong
argument against the universality of this phenomenon. This does not mean, however, that
beliefs about the dead and the honoring of ancestors were considered meaningless in an-
cient Israel. On the contrary, especially as witnessed in the patriarchal stories, ancestors
were an important focus of family identity.

7.3.╇ Mourning the dead

7.3.1.╇ Textual evidence
Unlike burial and funerary rites, which were done to the dead body or on behalf of
the dead, mourning rites were performed by the bereaved, primarily on their own be-
half. There was often no clear line dividing funerary and mourning rites, however. Both

4.╇ See also p. 245 in this volume.

5.╇ Schmidt (1994: 292) therefore states:
Simply put the worship or veneration of the ancestors typically envisioned as underlying the
mortuary rituals of ancient Israel comprises a cherished relic of nineteenth century anthropol-
ogy. More to the point, mortuary data formerly identified as indicative of a primitive or syncre-
tistic Israelite ancestor cult are neither primitive nor syncretistic nor of the ancestor cult. They
witness instead to a variety of indigenous funerary, mourning and commemorative rites.
434 Chapter 7

were separation rites but with different addressees (see Schmidt 1994: 5, 13; Podella 2002:
542–43; Olyan 2004: 6–13). The biblical rites of mourning (‫ספד‬/‫ אבל‬ʾābal/sāpad) were a
set of rites and behaviors established to express grief and sorrow about the deceased by
alteration of the regular behavior and appearance of the mourners themselves. Mourn-
ing rites can be differentiated between those altering garments or bodily appearance and
those of self-mutilation and abasement (Kutsch 1986), including self-laceration and other
forms of bodily violation and changed social behavior. Mourning rites, especially those
of self-mutilation and fasting, were not restricted to mortuary contexts but also appeared
in situations of danger and calamity as petitional or prophylactic acts of collective or in-
dividual mourning (Kutsch 1986; Podella 1989; Olyan 2004: 25–27). However, petitional
mourning transcends its original context of mourning a beloved person. The focus of the
present study is the complex of family mortuary and mourning rites.
One immediately apparent feature was the changed appearance of the mourner, which
found expression in the tearing of clothes (attested in mortuary contexts in Gen 37:34;
Lev 10:6; 21:10; 2 Sam 1:11; 3:31; Job 1:20); the donning of a special mourning garment,
the ‫ סק‬śaq (Gen 37:34; 2 Sam 3:31; Ezek 27:31; Jdt 8:5); and the removal of headdresses
and sandals (Ezek 24:17; Jdt 10:3–4), as well as jewelry (Jdt 10:4). Hair was also loosened
and left uncombed (Lev 10:6; 21:10; Jdt 10:3), cut off (Lev 21:5; Job 1:20; Jer 16:6; Ezek
7:18), or shaved off the forehead (Lev 19:27; Deut 14:1). Sometimes beards (Ezek 24:17) or
heads were covered (2 Sam 19:5). Washing and anointing were also halted (2 Sam 14:2; Jdt
10:3). Instead, one put dust and ashes on one’s head (Josh 7:6; 1 Sam 4:12) or rolled in the
dirt (Jer 6:26). Behavioral changes included fasting (1 Sam 31:13; 2 Sam 1:12) and sitting
in dust and ashes, which was typical of the inverted structure (which Turner 1969 called
antistructure) of funerary rites. Rites involving dust also symbolized that the mourners
were like the dead. The strongest behavioral expressions of mourning were rites of self-
laceration (Lev 19:28; Deut 14:1; Jer 16:6; 41:5) and other forms of self-violation, such as
beating oneself on the breast (Isa 32:12) or lumbar region (Jer 31:19). Other expressive
rites included uttering mourning cries such as ‫ הוי‬hoy ‘alas’ (1 Kgs 13:30; Isa 1:4; etc.), ‫הו‬
‫ הו‬hōâ•‚hō ‘oh, oh’ (Amos 5:16), and ‫ אך‬ʾēkā ‘oh, how .€.€.’ (in Lamentations); and lament-
ing and singing wailing songs (‫ ספד‬sāpad in Gen 23:2; 1 Sam 25:1; 28:3; 1 Kgs 13:30). The
performance of mourning rites was primarily the duty either of the nuclear family, repre-
sented by the pater familias as in Gen 23:2, or of the joint family as indicated in Gen 25:9
and 35:29, but mourning was not restricted to the members of a family. Mourning rites of
self-laceration, however, were most likely restricted to the nearest kin and wailing women.
For public lamentation, wailing women were engaged to mourn and cry aloud, sing the
wailing song (‫ קנה‬qīnāh), and perform expressive body rites (Jer 9:16, 19; Ezek 32:16; 2
Chr 35:25). The inclusion of wailing woman, most likely recruited from the larger fam-
ily and neighborhoods, illustrates that mourning the dead crossed the realm of nuclear
and joint families to include the broader community (such as the co-residential lineage
[‫ מׁשפחה‬mišpāḥāh], the village, or the neighbors) and to make public the hole that had
been made by the death.
The literary genre of the qīnāh, or wailing song, was first analyzed in detail by
H.€Jahnow (1923), who distinguished between (1) “profane” wailing songs sung on behalf
of a dead person and (2) lamentations that were performed on behalf of live individuals
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 435

who were suffering (whether because of sickness, war, or other causes), and the laments
were addressed to god. In accordance with Jahnow’s criteria, only 2 Sam 3:33–34 and Jer
38:22 are authentic wailing songs, while David’s wailing song in 2 Sam 1:19–27 is more like
an elaborate poem. Other genres, especially the prophetic oracles and the book of Lam-
entations, use typical motifs yet transcend their original genres. However, the distinction
between “profane” wailing songs and lamentions addressed to Yhwh does not mean that
wailing was performed in a religious vacuum, because it was nevertheless a fundamental
religious duty, as observed by Gerstenberger (1996).
Many 19th- and early-20th-century scholars interpreted mourning rites, based on the
animistic/dynamistic paradigm, as ritual behaviors intended (for one thing) to support
the dead with the powers of life, to protect the living from threats of dead spirits and
the negative powers of a corpse, and to establish a unification with the dead or a ritual
connection between the living and the dead.â•›6 The rites of self-abasement enabled tempo-
rary identification between the mourners and the dead that reestablished and ensured an
ongoing social relationship between them (Spronk 1986: 245; Podella 1989: 85, 114–16;
Schmidt 1994: 290; Olyan 2004: 42–45).
Rites of abasement and altered appearance communicated that mourners no longer
held their usual social statusâ•›7 but had assumed a liminal status somewhere between the
dead and the living and were temporarily suspended from participating in various social
activities. The separation of the mourner generally lasted 7 days, according to Gen 50:10;
1 Sam 31:13; and Sir 22:12, but a mourning period of 30 days is also attested (Num 20:29;
Deut 34:8). For non-relatives, a mourning period of 1 day was sufficient (2 Sam 1:11–12;
3:35). The 7-day period corresponded to the 7 days of uncleanness after contact with a
corpse in Numbers 19, but it is unclear whether the strict regulation about corpse contact
found in the late, Priestly texts existed in preexilic times. However, social separation did
not mean that the mourners were ritually impure in general, because according to Jer
41:4–5 they were allowed to bring offerings to the house of Yhwh. The strong biblical
prohibitions against laceration and shaving of the forehead for the dead in Lev 19:28; 21:5;
and Deut 14:1 have nothing to do with apotropaic rites or offerings (as proposed in Loretz
1990: 112), because the texts include no suggestions about offerings or connections with
Baal rites (Spronk 1986: 246–47). The negative attitude toward laceration is perhaps best
explained by the fact that rites of this sort leave marks that remain throughout the time of
mourning and are therefore “out of place” (Olyan 2004: 123).
Mourning rites highlighted not only the relationships of the bereaved to the dead but
also the social relationships among the living. The rites that afflicted the appearance and
body of the mourner were severe expressions of the utter debasement of life and emotion
resulting from the death of the loved one. The altered, humble appearance communicated
the hole left by the deceased (Podella 2002: 543) and appealed to the public (in the form of
kin, friends, village, and neighborhood) to join the mourners. In this way, people revealed
their need to be comforted and to establish new or renewed communitas among the liv-

6.╇ See, among others, W. R. Smith 1967: 282; Frazer 1989: 99; Bousset 1906: 37–41; Jirku 1912;
Bertholet 1907: 1256; Mowinckel 1953: 68.
7.╇Contra Olyan 2004: 35.
436 Chapter 7

ing. As Olyan (2004: 148–53) has pointed out, mourning rites also served to renegotiate
status and roles, especially in the political realm. In the context of family, neighborhood,
and friends, the two-way participation in mourning rites and comforting of the bereaved
by relatives (Gen 37:35) and friends (Job 2:11–13) strengthened social ties and nurtured
a spirit of community that lasted at least throughout the time of mourning. Furthermore,
mourning and burial were occasions to negotiate roles and status within the family. For
example, in Gen 50:14–26, following the death of Jacob, Joseph’s brothers submitted to
him, accepting his status as pater familias, even though he was younger than they. Thus we
assume that establishing succession rights was an important aspect of mortuary rituals.

7.3.2.╇ Archaeological evidence

Mourning rituals were expressive actions performed by the bereaved, about which
very few material artifacts have been found. Nevertheless, one group of wailing women
appears in the repertoire of Philistine coroplastic art that reflects practices of mourning
and perhaps also certain beliefs about the dead (Schmitt 1999: 600–606; cat. nos. 8–18,
102a, b; see also Ben-Shlomo and Press 2009: 44–49). The group consists of about 10
mourning figurines (Type II) from the Philistine coastal plain and 5 specimens from Beth-
shean. The whole group has been dated to the Iron IB–IIA periods. The figures of wailing
women appear to be using the kopetos-gesture of beating the head and breast, a gesture
that is also prevalent in contemporary Greek and Cypriot coroplastic art (Schmitt 1999:
figs. 6–14). Unfortunately, many examples of mourning figures that reportedly came from
burial sites (including two from Azor and two from Tell ʿĒtūn: Schmitt 1999: cat. nos. 9,
13, 16, 17) were acquired on the antiquities market. Only one figurine of our Type II and
a unique Iron I pair from Beth-shean that may also be interpreted as mourners were actu-
ally found in graves (Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 102a and b). However, because the Aegaean
parallels were found solely in funeral contexts, it seems likely that the examples from Phi-
listia and Israel were also originally from graves. The figurines represent mourning rela-
tives who are accompanying the dead to their burials, thus reifying a connection between
the living and the dead. Indeed, the figurines emphasize the need of the dead to be cared
for by the living.

7.4.╇ Burying the dead

7.4.1.╇ Textual evidence
According to Old Testament, burial (‫ קבורה‬qĕbûrāh) in a grave (‫ קבר‬qeber) occurred
on the very day of death (2 Sam 3:22–39, among other passages). According to Deut 21:23,
an unburied body defiled the land, but this may reflect a later view regarding the sanctity
of the land rather than a view that was prevalent during preexilic times. Usually it was the
children’s duty to bury their parents in an act of family piety (Gen 25:7–11; 35:29) or a
husband’s duty to tend to the tomb and burial of his wife and children (Gen 23:1–20). As
Gen 25:9 and 35:29 indicate, even scattered joint families met on occasions of burial. This
reflects the fact that, not only the nuclear family was responsible for burial; in cases of a
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 437

pater familias, the greater family was also responsible. His tomb was of utmost importance
to the identity of the family and individual. Thus, in Neh 2:1–5, Nehemiah’s hometown of
Jerusalem was described as the place of his fathers’ tombs.
The most prominent example of family burial is the patriarchal narrative about the
family tomb at Machpelah that Abraham purchased from the Hittites (Gen 23:1–20;
49:29–31). In this narrative, not only did the burial at Machpelah symbolize the identity
of the family but it also came to symbolize the identity of the nation. Interpretations of the
biblical texts regarding burials are in many cases difficult to reconcile with the archaeo-
logical evidence, especially regarding the character of the cave as ‫ נחלה‬naḥalāh ‘property,
inheritance’. Tombs were located in clusters (as in Lachish) or in graveyards comprising
numerous burials (as in Beth-shemesh) outside a city in an agricultural area; they were
not single graves. Interment in a family tomb was probably not intended to support a con-
tinuous claim to the naḥalāh, as was proposed by Bloch-Smith (1992b: 150) and van der
Toorn (1996: 233). There is thus no archaeological evidence for the picture presented in
the patriarchal narratives in which the dead were buried on the property of the family (see
also Wenning 1997: 84–85), even though the grave itself was most likely the property of
the family. It appears that the connection of the grave with naḥalāh in the patriarchal nar-
ratives served the purely ideological purpose of claim to the promised land. In two cases,
burials under trees are mentioned (Gen 35:8 and 1 Sam 31:13). Whether this indicated
perpetuation of memory or the sacred connotation of trees, as supposed by Bloch-Smith
(1992a: 785), is not clear, because there are not many biblical references to this custom.
The Hebrew Bible provides no information on the treatment and preparation of the
dead or burial practices in general, other than a few references to practices in royal buri-
als. Treatment of the dead does appear in later sources such as the New Testament and
even rabbinic sources. According to Mark 15:46 and b. Ketub. 8b, the corpse was wrapped
in a linen cloth and anointed with spices (see Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1; m. Šabb. 23:5). Ac-
cording to rabbinic sources, the corpse was also washed before being buried (m. Šabb.
23:5). Accoutrements found with cloth remains have been discovered in Iron Age burials,
such as toggle pins and fibulas (Wenning 1997: 88). Storage jars found outside tombs in
the Hellenistic–Roman period (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 121) may have been used as
containers for water for the cleansing of corpses. According to the New Testament (Mark
15:42–47 and parallels), not only were family members involved in the burial and its
preparation, but also close friends of the deceased.
The cremation of the bodies of Saul and Jonathan in 1 Sam 31:12–13 may be historical
reminiscence or intentional fiction. Since no cremation burials have been discovered in
either Israel or Judah from Iron Age I, and because this custom was also quite rare from
Iron IIA on (see Bloch-Smith 1992a: tables 2–3), one might conjecture that the crema-
tions of Saul and Jonathan do not reflect historical fact. On the other hand, because the
narrative about Saul’s death describes no negative attitudes toward the fallen king or his
son, it seems unlikely that Saul’s cremation was fictitious. Nevertheless, the report about
the unusual custom of cremation remains a mystery: Was it done because the corpses
were beheaded? Because of their advanced state of decomposition (Hertzberg 1964: 233)?
Or was it just to have the bones stripped and cleaned for burial (J. Preuss 1923: 615–16)?
These questions must for the moment remain unanswered.
438 Chapter 7

7.4.2.╇ Archaeolovgical evidence

One might expect that the material elements of domestic cult and family religious
practices would somehow be reflected in the burials. Therefore, in the following, a short
overview of typical burial contents is provided to compare with domestic cult remains.
Burial contents must be considered carefully for several reasons. First, tombs were com-
monly used over long periods of time, and most contain material from any number of
individuals. As Wenning (1997: 91; 2005: 128) has pointed out, no more than five to seven
vessels and one to three items of personal adornment were used in a single burial. Second,
burial equipment was chosen based on the special needs of the dead—which were never
identical to the needs of the living. Third, burials contained many elements of personal
adornment and personal value (especially seals and amulets), which are not represented
by the archaeological record in the same way as the furnishings of a household, because
they were carried on or near the garment or body of the family member. Because the
material found in burials has been analyzed in several other studies (Bloch-Smith 1992a,
b; Wenning 1997; 2005), the evidence presented here will be select typical examples from
cave, bench, and chamber tombs—all of which can be considered family burial sites from
Iron I to Iron IIC in Judah and Israel.

7.4.2.1.╇ Survey of Iron Age tomb types

E. Bloch-Smith (1992a: 25–62) has distinguished eight burial types in the ancient Pal-
estine–Israel region: the first type was the simple earthen or pit grave, dug into the gound,
which usually contained one body. This type is exemplified by 249 sites from Iron Age I,
mostly located on the southern coast or in the Jordan Valley; 199 graves from Iron Age
IIB, mostly on the northern and southern coasts or in the Shephelah; and 212 finds from
Iron Age IIC, mostly on the northern and southern coasts or in the Jordan Valley.
The second type was the cist grave lined with stones or mud bricks. One hundred
four examples have been found from Iron Age I, mostly on the southern coast and in the
Jordan Valley; 39 examples from Iron Age IIA–B, mostly on the northern and southern
coasts; and 5 examples from Iron IIC, mostly in the Jordan Valley.
The third type was the jar burial, which was in most cases the inhumation of an infant,
of which 104 Iron Age I examples have been found, mostly on the northern and southern
coasts or in the Jordan Valley; 39 Iron Age IIA–B examples have been found, mostly on
the northern and southern coasts; and 18 examples from Iron Age IIC were found mostly
in Israel and the Transjordanian Plateau.
The fourth type was burial in anthropoid, wooden, or stone coffins. From Iron Age I,
17 examples have been found in Israel and on the southern coast, with 25 examples of Iron
Age IIB–C coming in the Transjordanian Plateau.
The fifth type was burial in a bathtub-shaped ceramic vessel. A single example is dated
to Iron IIA–B Israel, while 14 Iron IIC examples have been found in Israel, the southern
highlands, and the Transjordanian Plateau.
The sixth type was the cave, chamber, or shaft tomb used for multiple burials; the bod-
ies in this case were placed directly on the earth. Twenty-two Iron Age I examples have
been found, mostly in Israel, the Shephelah, and the Transjordanian Plateau; from Iron
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 439

IIA–B, 52 examples have been found on the northern coast, in the Shephelah, the south-
ern highlands, and the Transjordanian Plateau; and 29 Iron Age IIC examples have been
found in similar geographic regions as the Iron IIA–B examples.
The seventh type was the arcosolia or bench tomb,â•›8 which usually consisted of a square
chamber used for multiple burials, in which the bodies were lain on benches or in loculi
cut into the rock. Forty-four Iron Age I examples have been found, mostly on the northern
and southern coasts; 63 Iron Age IIA–B examples, mostly in the Shephelah and southern
highlands; and 184 Iron Age IIC examples, mostly in the southern highlands.
The eighth type was cremation, which was restricted to the northern and southern
coasts. Two of these were found dating to Iron Age I, 96 to Iron Age IIA–B, and 109 to
Iron Age IIC. A survey of the various burial types in Iron Ages I–II shows strong local
traditions. The dominant burial types in Israel and Judah during these periods were bench
and arcosolia tombs and cave tombs. The underrepresentation of simple earthen graves in
Judah and Israel may be because these are difficult to discover and are easily destroyed by
such things as erosion, agriculture, and earth works. Therefore, we assume that this type of
burial was much more common than suggested by the actual numbers (Zenger and Wen-
ning 1990: 286; Wenning 1997: 86).
The types of tomb described above are mostly clustered in the vicinity of towns or cit-
ies, as exemplified by the necropolis of Silwan in Jerusalem. During the Second Temple
period, the city was surrounded on all sides by graveyards. At Megiddo, the necropolis
excavated by Guy was located on the southeastern slope of the tel and comprised quite
a dense cluster (see Guy and Engberg 1938: fig. 2 and pl. 1). At Lachish, the tombs were
located in several clusters in proximity to the tel. For example, the EB “2000” cemetery
consisted of 120 densely packed tombs on the northwestern slope of the tel. At Gezer, the
graveyards were also grouped in clusters around the city, but here they were 200–500 m
away from the city wall and the gate (see Macalister 1912: vol. 2, pl. 8), while at Beth-
shemesh, the necropolis was located just 50 m west of the wall and about 170 m outside
the gate (Mackenzie 1912–13: pl. 1). Cemeteries seem generally to have been located near
cities, with a few minor exceptions due to topographical idiosyncrasies. Moreover, not
only were graveyards generally located near cities, they also seem to have been situated so
that they were clearly visible from many parts of the city.

7.4.2.2.╇ Iron Age I

Early Iron Age burials mostly follow Late Bronze Age forms, especially cave tombs,
which were often reused; bench tombs, which predominated in later periods, also ap-
peared in Iron Age I (see Bloch-Smith 1992a: tables 2–3; Wenning 1997: 86; 2005: 122–
24). Gezer Tomb 59 and Megiddo Tomb 39 are typical of cave burials in the Late Bronze–
Early Iron transitional phase.
Gezer Tomb 59 (see fig. 7.1, after Macalister 1912: 1.325–31, pls. 56.17, 84–85; see also
Bloch-Smith 1992a: 176) consisted of a central chamber with five recesses and contained
remains of more than 30 individuals. Nearly all the grave goods and bones were found

8.╇ Wenning (1997: 86–87; 2005: 122–23) has classified the arcolosolia type as quadrosolia tombs
(because of the square loculi) and (with Mackenzie 1912–13) the bench tombs as “diwan”-type.
440 Chapter 7

concentrated in one recess, which had been used as receptacle, and contained more than
100 vessels that included an anthropoid vessel, bowls, cup-mouthed lentoid flasks, over 40
lamps, several Philistine and Cypro-Phoenician bichrome black-on-red vessels, a chalice,
beads, a decorated ivory comb, rings, an arrowhead, two flint knives, and a Bes-amulet.
Along with the human remains, the tibia of a goat was found that was most likely part of
the food provisions for the dead.
Megiddo Tomb 39 (see fig. 7.2, from Guy and Engberg 1938: 17–119 with fig. 143 and
pls. 68.9–20; 69.1–4; 164–68) is a rock-cut shaft tomb with two irregular chambers that
was built in the MB period and reused in Iron I. Unfortunately, the number of human re-
mains was indeterminable. The pottery consisted of 3 flasks (among them a cup-mouthed
lentoid flask), 2 lamps, 1 cooking bowl, 6 bowls, 1 krater, 1 multihandled krater, 2 juglets,
1 pyxis, 2 chalices, and 4 jars, as well as a fragmentary fayence vessel. Among the small
finds were 11 seals, 3 amulets (one Ptah-Sokar, one Bes, and one crocodile), 4 gold rings,
2 gold earrings, 3 gold plaques, a gold medallion, 2 gold pendants, 1 bone pendant, a bone
comb, 8 bone inlays, a tournette, 9 weights, and 6 whorls. The fine pottery is of the same
type as the Stratum VI domestic assemblages. The rich jewelry finds fit well with the Stra-
tum VI evidence, which suggests that the inhabitants had lived in an unusually wealthy
settlement.

7.4.2.3.╇ Iron Age IIA

In Iron Age IIA, different forms of cave, chamber, arcosolia, and bench tombs were of-
ten used side by side, especially in the Shephelah and the Judean Hills, although evidence
from the north remains scarce (see Bloch-Smith 1992a: table 3).
Tell en-Naṣbeh Tomb 54 (fig. 7.3) was a cave tomb of approximately 7 × 8 m, with a
stepped main chamber. A smaller rear chamber may have been used in earlier periods, but
it contained materials from the 10th century (McCown 1947: 82–83, fig. 19.1, table 2; cf.
Bloch-Smith 1992a: 207). The cave yielded mandibles from at least 54 individuals. A total
of 193 vessels were found inside the cave: 33 lamps, 8 chalices, 5 kraters, 5 pitchers, 11 jugs,
76 juglets, 2 cups, 1 one-handled pot, 32 bowls, 11 lug-handled bowls, and 9 miscellen-
ous vessels. Among the smaller finds were a number of flint artifacts, 9 eyelet pins, about
25 iron rings, 2 bronze bracelets, 2 iron arrowheads, 2 cylinder and 2 stamp seals, and an
unspecified number of bronze objects of personal adornment.
Lachish Tomb 521 (Tufnell 1953: 222–24; no usable drawing provided) was a shaft
tomb with a rectangular chamber and a bench running along the north wall and has
been dated to around 1000 b.c.e. Two skeletons were found on the bench, one above the
other, with another two positioned in front of the southern wall. The pottery consisted of
4 lamps, 5 bowls, a loop-footed bowl, 2 jugs, 3 juglets, a strainer spouted jug, and 4 stor-
age jars. The small finds included 4 seals, 3 iron knives, an iron trident, a pendant, 1 bone
object that appears to have been a calendar, and 2 bone spindle whorls. Most of the pottery
and objects were found near the heads on the bench, while the jars were positioned on the
floor. Tufnell (1953: 222) concluded that Tomb 521 was a family tomb of four people, two
of whom may have been of older generations or of inferior rank. In most cases, at least one
object of each group (for example, 1 of the lamps, 1 bowl, 1 jug, and 1 seal) appears to have
been associated with each of the bench burials.
Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 441

Fig. 7.1.╇ Gezer, Tomb 59 with sample of

contents.
442 Chapter 7

Fig. 7.2.╇ Megiddo, Tomb 39.

 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 443

Fig. 7.3.╇ Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tomb 54.

444 Chapter 7

Table 7.1.╇ Pottery content of Lachish Tomb 1002

Layers 1–5 Layers 6–10 Layers 11–13
Lamps 37 24 40
Bowls 31 28 28
Chalices – – 6
Jugs 71 88 111
Juglets 38 48 41
Spouted jugs/juglets 2 2 –
Mini pithoi 1 3 2
Mini amphorae 2 – –
Storage jars – 1 1
Pilgrim flasks 2 2 –
Cooking pots 10 9 8

7.4.2.4.╇ Iron Age IIB

In Iron Age IIB, the bench or diwan tomb along with the arcosolia tomb were the dom-
inant forms of contemporary burial places, although earlier burials caves were also reused.
Tell en-Naṣbeh Tomb 3 (see fig. 7.4.; McCown 1947: 102 with fig. 11) is an Iron IIB
bench tomb (whcih was reused in the Hellenistic period) with some interesting features.
A forecourt measuring 2.25 × 1.3 m led to the burial chamber and had a small recess or
repository with a stone slab cover. This yielded the bones of an infant with adult femurs
above them. The main chamber was approximately 3 × 4 m and had benches running
along three sides with one recess at the corner of the rear bench and a second recess cut
into the side of the chamber. The most outstanding architectural features were two pro-
truding lamp sockets above the western bench and a second socket in the western corner.
The Iron Age pottery consisted of 10 saucer lamps, 5 lamps with disk bases, 4 black juglets,
4 decanters, 6 bowls, and a pitcher, as well as a steatite seal.
Samaria Tomb 103 (see fig. 7.5.; Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: 21–22, fig. 10;
Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 135–36, 197–98; cf. Bloch-Smith 1992a: 197) is a
cave tomb with a pillar supporting the roof. It has an irregular plan with a central cham-
ber measuring about 5 × 4.7 m and a smaller burial chamber proper of 2.4 × 1.9 × 1.55 m
that contained the skeletons of three adults and one child, buried with their heads toward
the east. The most astonishing feature was a group of seven bottle-shaped pits up to 4.5 m
deep, with ring-shaped openings for stone covers. These were filled with pottery and other
objects of bronze, iron, stone, and bone, including the bones of asses, sheep, and goats.
The bones were interpreted by the excavators as offerings to the dead. Unfortunately, the
precise number of pottery pieces has never been published. The pottery assemblage re-
ported from pit I consisted of bowls, small bowls, large bowls, juglets, a jar, a cooking
pot, two bone spatulas, and an arrowhead. Pit II yielded bowls, cooking pots, jars, a rattle,
a scarab, a Bes-amulet, 1 bead, and 5 bone spatulas. Pit III contained 2 bronze fibulae,
a bronze spatula, and a bead. Pit IV in the burial chamber contained bowls, jars, jugs,
several bronze objects (including a fibula, a spatula, rings, a bangle, and a buckle), stone
Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 445

Fig. 7.4.╇ Tell en-

Naṣbeh, Tomb 3.
446 Chapter 7

Fig. 7.5.╇ Samaria, Tomb 103.

Table 7.2.╇ Small finds in Lachish Tomb 1002

Layers 1–5 Layers 6–10 Layers 11–13 Unstratified

Human figurines 2 JPF 2 JPF 1 –
1 horse-and-rider
horse-and-rider
Animal figurines 1 bird figurine 1 bird figurine – –
1 unspecified 1 unspecified
Zoomorphic vessels 1 fragment – 3 –
Rattles 1 3 – –
Model furniture 2 1 1 –
Seals 3 8 8 15
Amulets 5 3 2 5
Metal objects 5 earrings 4 earrings 3 earrings 2 earrings
1 ring 1 knife 2 rings 1 bangle
1 bangle 3 bangles 2 bangles 1 fibula
1 armor scale 1 fibula 1 armor scale 1 blade
Bone objects 1 pendant 1 finial 1 pendant 1 calendar
2 pendants

Table 7.3.╇ Ceramic evidence in Beth-shemesh Tombs 2, 7, and 8

Cooking Storage
Tomb Total Bowls Jugs Juglets Pots Jars Lamps
2 92 12 20 34 2 1 23
7 109 18 28 15 2 3 43
8 165 20 49 24 2 1 69

objects (including a cosmetic palette, a pounder, and a spindle whorl), a bone pendant,
and 15 beads. Pit V contained a high bowl, 5 saucer bowls, a rattle, a dipper juglet, a lamp,
2 iron arrowheads, and a small stone polisher. Pit VI contained large and small bowls, a
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 447

Table 7.4.╇ Comparison of finds on the benches of Beth-shemesh Tomb 7

Cooking Storage
Tomb 7 Bowls Jugs Juglets Pots Jars Lamps
Eastern bench 5 5 9 – 2–3 14
Western bench 5 1 2 1 – 18
Floor 8 22 4 1 – 11

Table 7.5.╇ Small finds in Beth-shemesh Tombs 2, 7, and 8

Tomb 8 Tomb 8
Tomb 2 Tomb 7 Repository Chamber
Human figurines – 1
horse-and-rider
Animal figurines 1
Figurative vessels – 1 anthropo-
morphic jug
Rattles – 1 1
Model furniture –
Seals 4 2 5?
Beads 7 numerous beads
+
complete
necklaces and
bracelets
Amulets –
Metal objects 1 fibula 18 rings 10 rings
1 fibula 4 toggle pins
1 bangle 1 bronze tube
2 toggle pins 1 bronze disc
7 arrowheads 1 knife
12 arrowheads
Bone objects – 1 bone inlay
Miscellenous 3 loom-weights

“footbath,” jugs, a rattle, 1 pair of bronze tweezers, and a pottery spindle whorl. Pit VII
contained a bowl and a dipper juglet. The resemblance of the pottery from Tomb 103 to
the material from Locus E207 was well noted by the excavators as was the fact that figu-
rines and other figurative objects were absent from the cave (G. M. Crowfoot in Crowfoot,
Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 135).
Lachish Tomb 4002 (see fig. 7.6; Tufnell 1953: 239–40, fig. 28; cf. Bloch-Smith 1992a:
176) is a cave tomb with five loculi that was in use from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late
Bronze Age and was subsequently reused in Iron IIB. The Iron Age burial of two adults
was accompanied by a bowl, 2 lamps, a dipper juglet, a cup, a storage jar, an iron knife,
and 53 beads. The tomb and its contents can be seen as a typical example, with a relatively
small assemblage of burial gifts for each person (see Wenning 2005: 128).
448 Chapter 7

Table 7.6.╇ Lachish Tomb 106 Iron Age IIC pottery

Cooking Storage
Room Total Bowls Jugs Juglets Pots Jars Lamps Misc.
A 171 28 20 63 4 – 56 –
B 174 23 38 51 7 2 mini 53
pithoi
C 138 18 15 45 4 – 54 2 bottles

Table 7.7.╇ Lachish Tomb 106 Iron Age IIC objects other than pottery

Chamber A Chamber B Chamber C Tomb Filling

Human figurines 1 horse-and-rider 3 JPF
figurine
Animal figurines 1
Figurative vessels 1 zoomorphic
vessel
Rattles 1
Model furniture 1
Seals 8 3 2 12
Beads 33
Amulets 2 (Lotus and Mut) 1 sow-amulet 1 Isis with Horus
Metal objects 2 iron knives 2 fibulae 3 knives 4 earrings
6 iron arrowheads 2 arrowheads 1 arrowhead
1 iron tweezer
1 nail
1 chisel
Miscellaneous 1 spindle whorl

Lachish Tomb 1002 (Tufnell 1953: 229–36 with pls. 43, 44, 57; no usable drawing pro-
vided) is—despite its collapsed structure—especially remarkable, because it contained
burial remains of about 600 vessels accumulated in 13 layers from Iron IIB (layers 11–13)
to early Iron IIC (layers 1–5). The pottery content is shown in table 7.1. ����������������
Besides the pot-
tery, there were many smaller pieces, including an unusually high number of zoomorphic
vessels (see table 7.2).

7.4.2.5.╇ Iron Age IIC

In Iron Age IIC, the dominant burial type was the bench or diwan type, and newly ex-
cavated collective burials in Judah seem to have been mostly of this type (see Bloch-Smith
1992a: table 4; Wenning 2005: 126).
The Iron Age II (8th-century) bench or diwan tombs from Beth-shemeshâ•›/Ain Shems
(Mackenzie 1912–13) that were studied by Wenning (2005: 130–31) were typical. He
summarized the ceramic evidence from Tombs 2, 7, and 8 (figs. 7.7–7.9, after Macken-
zie 1912–13: pls. 5, 10) as shown in table 7.3. Thus, the pottery repertoire seems to have
been relatively homogeneous at this local level, with lamps strongly predominant. This is
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 449

Fig. 7.6.╇ Lachish, Tomb 4002.

especially apparent if we compare the deposits on the single benches of Tomb 7 (Wenning
2005: 131); see table 7.4. The small finds from the above-mentioned tombs are shown
in table 7.5 (after Mackenzie 1912–13). Lachish Tomb 106 (Tufnell 1953: 179–87) was a
triple-chambered-bench or diwan tomb, with recesses in two chambers (denoted B and C;
fig. 7.10). The pottery of this tomb has been dated to the late monarchic period (670–580
b.c.e). The tomb was reused for burials in the late Roman / Byzantine period. The Iron
Age IIC pottery is shown in table 7.6. Objects in the cave other than pottery are shown in
table 7.7. From the human remains, at least 25 skulls have been reported. Thus, Lachish
Tomb 106, with its three chambers and its finds has been interpreted as the burial place
of a rather well-to-do family. It is especially noteworthy that in Tomb 106 the number of
pieces associated with each burial is more than the customary number of 5–7. If the pro-
posed number of around 25 burials is correct, the average number of pottery items used
for each inhumation would have been about 19.

7.4.3.╇ The significance of burial practices for family religion

The kind of pottery generally associated with burials consisted of typical quotidian
household items such as bowls, kraters, chalices, pilgrim flasks, jugs, juglets, cooking pots,
storage jars, and lamps. Lamps were dominant, as were vessels for the storage of liquids
(such as jugs, juglets, decanters, and flasks) and bowls for consuming food and liquids,
450 Chapter 7

Fig. 7.7.╇ Beth-shemesh,

Tomb 2.
Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 451

Fig. 7.8.╇ Beth-shemesh,

Tomb 7.
452 Chapter 7

Fig. 7.9.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 8.

 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 453

Fig. 7.10.╇ Lachish, Tomb 106.

followed by food-preparation and storage vessels (such as cooking pots and large bowls
or kraters). Very few specialized ritual vessels such as stands or incense burners have been
found in graves, with the notable exception of a few examples of zoomorphic and an-
thropomorphic vessels from Lachish and Ain Shems, which seem to reflect a regional
custom. Libation vessels have only rarely been found in Iron IIC burials. The appearance
of zoomorphic vessels in Lachish Tomb 1002 seems to reflect a custom unique to one
family, because no vessels of this type have been found elsewhere. On the other hand,
figurative ritual objects that have frequently been found in Iron IIC domestic assemblages,
such as JPFs, horses and riders, model furniture, and animal figurines, are commonly
found in graves as well. Thus, these burial assemblages are clearly a subset of domes-
tic utilitarian pottery assemblages, although they do differ significantly in their lack of
specialized ritual vessels, such as stands, tripod incense burners, or libation vessels. The
only specialized object that seems to have been typical for Iron IIC graves is the rattle. As
Wenning (2005: 130–33; see also Bloch-Smith 1992b: 80) has shown, there was no typical
Judean “standard” assemblage, but there existed strong local traditions regarding content
454 Chapter 7

that mostly followed the earliest burial in a cemetery. For example, the Beth-shemesh
tombs contained many lamps that have no functional explanation; at Tell en-Naṣbeh, the
tombs yielded more storage jars than other places have. In some cases (such as Lachish
Tomb 1002), burials seem to have followed specific family traditions. Large storage vessels
such as jars and vessels for the preparation of food, have seldom been found in burials
from Iron Age I and were introduced into common use in the 10th century (Bloch-Smith
1992b: 75–76). Most individual burials, however, seem to have followed a general pattern
of including a standardized repertoire of 5–7 vessels of the types described above, and
1–3 items of jewelry and personal adornment, including amulets. Sometimes a weapon,
such as an arrow, spearhead, or knife was added to the grave goods (Wenning 2005: 128).
The significant omission of specialized vessels for libation and incense burning is perhaps
best understood by presuming that the dead in Šĕʾōl did not need to sacrifice anything.
Moreover, no sacrifices were performed by the bereaved in the cave proper. Conversely,
the presence of other ritual media such as terra-cotta figurines of various types, amulets,
and perhaps weapons suggests a perceived need for protection. The function of the rattles
is puzzling. It may be assumed that the act of rattling or the mere presence of the instru-
ment had some apotropaic effect in protecting the dead.
The relatively small number of vessels that accompanied each inhumation does not
support the supposition that they served as supplies either in the grave or in Šĕʾōl for lon-
ger periods extending into eternity. It seems more likely that the food provisions served
for shorter, transitional phases during which the person may have been believed to be
present, or possibly until the body had decomposed (Wenning 2005: 129–30). The latter
case was apparently the opinion in rabbinic sources (see b. Šabb. 152b; m. Nid. 10:4).
Interestingly, burial customs in ancient Israel do not show great social differentiation
(except for the burials of the administrative and royal elites in Jerusalem). Differences in
status can be discerned through the quality or apparent value of individual grave goods,
but generally the burial customs in Israel and Judah during Iron IIA–IIC seem to have
been egalitarian. There also appears to have been no difference in burial customs among
men, women, and children (see Wenning 2005: 128). A slight contrast to the situation
that prevailed in the central and southern hill country during Iron I appears in Megiddo,
where exceptionally rich caves reflect the wealth of the Iron Age I (Stratum VI) residential
quarters. Both the size and content of the tombs, which clearly represent a subset of do-
mestic assemblages, lead to the conclusion that one tomb was generally used per nuclear
family or at least per extended family, as most strikingly confirmed by the evidence from
the Beth-shemesh tombs. Unfortunately, very few accurate numbers with regard to human
remains have been obtainable due to both the advanced state of decomposition of the bod-
ies and inadequate records. Nevertheless, even caves that were used over long periods (of
up to 200 years) contain maximal numbers of 25–54 individuals (Wenning 1997: 90). The
mixture of skeletal remainsâ•›9—insofar as they were discernible or recorded at all—mirrors
the stratification of ages and also suggests use by nuclear or extended nuclear families.

9.╇ Bloch-Smith (1992b: 70) records a ratio of 15.4% infants, 7.7% children, 7.7% adolescents,
and 69.2% adults for cave tombs; and 8.3% infants, 25% children, 25% adolescents, and 41.7%
adults for the bench tombs.
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 455

The most significant social functions of burial practices in Israel and Judah during
Iron Age II seem to have been the creation, maintenance, and continuation of identity
both on local and family levels. The grave goods, with their regional and sometimes indi-
vidual differences, may be seen as both markers and communicators of family and local
identity. As in Neh 2:1–5, the family tomb was a symbol of the location one identified
with and a symbol of family identity. The tombs communicated the cultural and symbolic
systems of the burial rites performed, as did the grave goods and the treatment of corpses
(see also Wenning 2005: 109–12). The personal identity of the deceased was indicated on
seals and objects of personal adornment such as jewelry and fibulae. When a grave was
opened again for additional burials, the dead were easily identifiable by their objects of
personal value. Even after bones were stored in a recess after decomposition, the personal
items remained features of continuing remembrance. The treatment of the corpse and the
nature of the grave goods were important indications of the identity and values of the fam-
ily who gathered together at the burial. By performing the burial rites and observing the
burial practices, children and young people were able to internalize the customs, values,
and other elements of the symbolic system that constituted family and local identity.

7.5.╇ Feeding the dead and other forms of

post-mortem care for the dead
7.5.1.╇ Textual evidence
Old Testament evidence for feeding the dead—as distinct from ritual meals involving
both the living and the deadâ•›10—is scarce. The Bible does not directly refer to institutions
such as the Mesopotamian kispum (see Tsukimoto 1985), which according to van der
Toorn (1994: 48–65) could have been performed daily, at the interlunium, at the end of
the month, or annually. However, there is at least some evidence for regularly performed
mortuary rites in the Old Testament.
For example, regular provisions for the dead are suggested by Deut 26:14:
I have not eaten of [the required tithe of produce] while mourning, nor have I removed
any of it while I was unclean or offered any of it to the dead. I have listened to the voice
of Yhwh my God; I have done all that you have commanded me.
Deut 26:14 is a kind of “liturgical supplement” (Braulik 1992: 191) for annual regulations
of the tithe by means of an oath affirmed by the pater familias.â•›11 Rather than being a
general prohibition against provisions for the dead, as suggested by van der Toorn (1997:
107), it referred to the regulation that no portion of Yhwh’s tithe reserved for the needy
should be given to the dead. In his or her oath, the dedicant would proclaim that he or
she had not eaten any of the consecrated portions for the needy while mourning or during
times of uncleanness and had not offered a portion of it to the dead. Behind this regulation
was a fear that any ritual behavior on behalf of the dead might have infected the dedicant

10.╇ See below, pp. 457–459.

11.╇ However, one should not speak of “counter-liturgies” against Canaanite fertility cults, as
stated by Braulik (1992: 191).
456 Chapter 7

and therefore also the tithe for the house of Yhwh. Though the text does not refer to a
regular portion for the dead, it makes clear that tithes of the produce of the field were oc-
casionally given to the deceased and, furthermore, that the pater familias was responsible
for offerings to the ancestors.
Ps 106:28€mentions sacrifices for the dead in connection with the Baal of Peor: “Then
they attached themselves to the Baal of Peor and ate sacrifices offered to the dead (‫זבחי‬
‫ מתם‬zibḥē mētîm).” This has been interpreted to suggest an ancestor cult requiring sacri-
fices to the dead (Lewis 1989: 167) or a cult of the dead associated with the Baal of Peor as
a chthonic deity (Spronk 1986: 232). However, in concurrence with Schmidt (1994: 266)
and numerous others, this is better understood as a polemic against sacrifices to dead
idols in reference to Num 25:2.â•›12
Food provisions for the dead were still common in Hellenistic times. According to Sir
7:33, providing food for the dead was a holy duty: ‘Give graciously to the living and do not
withhold kindness from the dead’ (χάρις δόματος ἔναντι παντὸς ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ νεκρῶι μὴ
ἀποκωλ``ύσηις χάριν). In Tobit’s instructions to his son, Tob 4:17 mentions placing a gift of
bread on the tomb of the righteous (ἔκχεον τοὺς ἄρτους σου ἐπὶ τὸν τάφον τῶν δικαίων)
as one of the duties of the living for the dead. Thus, in the realm of family religion, care
for the dead was—even in Hellenistic times—an orthodox practice in the true sense of
the word. Notably, the text states that the gift for the deceased was placed on the tomb
proper, which appears to indicate a regularly performed rite of giving portions to the dead
at burial sites.
Because textual evidence is scarce with regard to occasional gifts to the dead (other
than Deut 26:14; Sir 7:33; and Tob 4:17), we cannot reconstruct any institution of regular
care for the dead. However, it seems possible that these gifts were—as in Babylonia—occa-
sions that were fixed by the calendar, even though they are not reflected in the text. Never-
theless, the texts do reflect the fact that ritual care for the dead—either occasionally or
regularly—was indicative of ongoing social relationships between the living and the dead.
The ‫ פגר‬pgr mentioned in Ezek 43:7–9 has been interpreted as sacrifices for the king
(see Kühn 2005: 384–86; Dietrich and Loretz 2005: 236). This interpretation, however,
does not correspond to the use of pgr elsewhere in the Old Testament (see HALOT 911),
where it clearly refers to a ‘corpse’. Therefore, Ezek 43:7–9 does not have had anything to
do with a cult for dead kings but was instead a polemic against burying kings in the palace,
which might have polluted the neighboring Temple.
2 Chr 16:14; 21:19; and Jer 34:5  mention fires lit on the occasion of the death of a
king. These fires were not burnt offerings (Bloch-Smith 1992b: 119) or food portions for
the dead king. As parallels from Mesopotamia show, the fire was an independent rite that
most likely had an apotropaic function and thus was adopted from Assyria during the late
monarchic period (Zwickel 1989).â•›13

12.╇ There is no evidence that Baal of Peor was a god of the netherworld. Moreover, it is obvi-
ous that Ps 106:28 depends on Numbers 25, which has no association with the cult of the dead. See
Kraus 1989: 904; Seybold 1996: 423–24. For discussion, see also Schmidt 1994: 266.
13.╇ Texts analyzed by Zwickel (K. 164; K. 12 = ABL 670 = LAS 4; ABL 378 = LAS 195; K. 168 =
ABL 437 = LAS 280) show that items such as furniture and other household items of the deceased
were burned during these rituals.
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 457

7.5.2.╇ Archaeological evidence

As the discussion of burial contents during the Iron Age has shown, common utilitar-
ian household wares used for the consumption, storage, and preparation of liquids and
food were also placed in graves. Vessels with food remains, mostly animal bones, have
been reported in many excavations (a comprehensive overview was given by Bloch-Smith
1992b: 105–8). Archaeologically, supplies for the dead in graves, such as items of personal
adornment, lamps, cosmetic containers, cooking pots, bowls, and jugs with food are well
attested until the late Second Temple period (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 116, 121; Kuh-
nen 1990: 77; Hachlili 1992: 790–91; Triebel and Zangenberg 2003: 456).â•›14 These finds
probably represent the continuation of earlier practices. As mentioned above, the small
portions of food for each burial were not intended as supplies for an extensive period, let
alone for eternity, but for a liminal phase, during which the spirit of the deceased was still
thought to be present in the grave.
In addition to semi-regular provisions at the tomb itself, we can assume that regular
portions of daily meals were dedicated to the ancestors, as indicated by domestic ritual
objects found by archaeologists. The boundary between feeding the dead and commemo-
rative meals for the ancestors is, of course, somewhat fluid.

7.6.╇ Commemorating the dead

7.6.1.╇ Textual evidence
7.6.1.1.╇ Funerary meals and feasts commemorating the dead
1 Sam 20:6 refers to an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem on behalf of the entire clan (‫זבח‬
‫־המׁשפחה‬â•”‫ הימם לכל‬zebaḥ hayyāmîm lĕkol-hammišpāḥāh), which David pretended to go to,
thereby avoiding attendance at a royal banquet (20:5; ‫ לחם‬leḥem) held by Saul on the same
day. Several scholars have interpreted this banquet as a practice associated with preexilic
Israelite worship of ancestors (Loretz 1982: 93; Bloch-Smith 1992b: 124; van der Toorn
1996: 211–18; 1997: 109–13), particularly because, as van der Toorn observed, this ritual
took place at the date of the interlunium (‫ חדׁש‬ḥodeš), or at the beginning of the disap-
pearance of the last quarter of the moon (new moon). However, the text does not specify
whether this ritual banquet was performed on behalf of the dead or whether the ancestors
were thought to participate in any way. However, the phrase lĕkol-hammišpāḥāh in 20:6
can be interpreted to suggest solidarity between the living and deceased members of the
clan, which here most likely referred to a co-residential kinship group. Thus, both living
and dead were provided with portions of the sacrifice reserved for the clan.
As van der Toorn (1994: 214–18) further noted, in the narrative of Saul’s meeting with
Samuel in 1 Samuel 9–10, his participation in the sacrificial meal at the local ‫ במה‬bāmâ
‘high place’ most likely occurred at the ‘new moon’ (ḥōdeš ‘month’). The ritual perfor-
mances on the ḥōdeš included, according to 1 Sam 10:2–3, visits to ancestrals tombs, such
14.╇ However, it is not clear whether the vessels generally served as containers of provisions for
the dead (which seems most likely for vessels found in closed loculi) or contained water or other
substances used during the burial or for cleaning. Storage jars were mostly found outside tombs. See
Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 121.
458 Chapter 7

as the tomb of Rachel and the oak of Tabor. The latter was most likely the oak of weeping
in Gen 35:8, which was the tomb of Deborah.
Funerary and commemorative meals for the dead are explicitly mentioned in Jer
16:5–8 and Isa 65:3–5. The former referred to a funerary ritual banquet in the context of
a ‫ מרזח‬marzeaḥ:
5
For thus says Yhwh: Do not enter the marzeaḥ-house, or go to lament, or bemoan
them; for I have taken away my peace from this people, says Yhwh, my steadfast love
and mercy. 6Both great and small shall die in this land; they shall not be buried, and no
one shall lament for them; there shall be no laceration, no shaving of the head for them.
7
No one shall break bread for the mourner, to offer comfort for the dead; nor shall any-
one give them the cup of consolation to drink for their fathers or their mothers. 8You
shall not go into the house of drinking to sit with them, to eat and drink.
The marzeaḥ mentioned in this context of mourning rites has been interpreted as a special
ritual meal, as attested in the Ugarit texts (see KTU 1.21, 1.114; 3.9; 4.642). However, it
is now widely acknowledged that marzeaḥ was not a technical term for a ritual meal of
the dead but was more likely an institution such as a club or association, or a public place
such as a public drinking house (Spronk 1986: 196–202; Lewis 1989: 80–94; Schmidt 1994:
246–49; McLaughlin 2001: 214–17; McGeough 2003: 410–11). Furthermore, Jer 16:8 uses
the term ‘drinking house’ in parallelism with the marzeaḥ-house in 16:5. This is further
confirmed by the use of the term in Amos 6:7, where it refers to a kind of symposium of
the upper class of Samaria (see Schmidt 1994: 144–47). Although the textual evidence
does not support the meaning of marzeaḥ as a ritual funeral meal, ritual feasts on the
occasions of funerals could have taken place at a common place, the marzeaḥ-house, out-
side the mourning house itself, and could have involved the family and friends of the
deceased.â•›15 The text thus provides evidence for both the public nature of mourning rites
and the fact that they were not performed in the house of mourners itself. The funeral
meal at the marzeaḥ-house involved the breaking of bread and the offering of the ‘cup of
consolation’ (‫ כס תנחומם‬kōs tanḥūmîm) by the participants to the bereaved on behalf of
the father and mother of the deceased. The consolation rites performed by the comfort-
ers, the breaking of bread, and the offering of the cup of consolation (Jer 16:7) were all
intended to strengthen and renew the social ties between the bereaved and the guests,
their family, their friends, and their dependents (see Olyan 2004: 57–59). We can assume
that the location of the funeral in the marzeaḥ-house was because the consumption of
alcoholic beverages would commonly have been accepted there. Alcohol may have served
as a “comforter” in the literal sense of the word. Drinking together and sharing the cup
and bread were expressions of solidarity and community.â•›16
Another type of ritual meal is mentioned in Isa 65:3–5:

15.╇ For Ugarit, McGeough (2003) has tried to identify as a marziḥu-house the so-called bâti-
ment au vase de pierre, with its large main hall of 10 × 10 m, in which big stone vessels and a great
number of kraters have been found.
16.╇ In many regions of Germany, funeral ceremonies are traditionally held in taverns or bars.
Drinking to excess is acceptable and common, especially in rural environments.
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 459

3
a people who provoke me continually to my face, who sacrifice in gardens, burning
incense on bricks; 4who sit in tombs and spend the night in secret places; who eat the
flesh of swine, and in their vessels is the broth of a desecrated sacrifice (piggûl↜);â•›17 5who
say: “Stay where you are; do not come near me, for you will become holy (qedaštīkā).”
The polemic of Trito-Isaiah was in opposition to the custom of ritual meals for the dead
involving the consumption of certain kinds of unclean flesh, which was forbidden else-
where in the Bible. We may suppose that the consumption of pork occurred during a
special mortuary meal. In fact, it seems that Isa 65:3–5 was not a polemical distortion at all
but a real practice (at least in offering provisions for the dead), because swine bones were
discovered in two Iron Age IIC graves in Lachish (Tufnell 1953: 187, 193.). The ‘desecrated
sacrifice’ (piggûl) refers to sacrificial meat that had to be consumed in two days and that
became unsuitable on the third day and had to be burned (Lev 7:18; 19:7). The rules of
suitable meat seem to have been inverted with regard to this kind of ritual meal, creating
a death-related antistructure. Due to proximity of the dead and the meat, the participants
were in a special state of holiness (‫ קדׁש‬qdš ‘holy’ but not—as might be expected in accor-
dance with Num 19:11—‫ טמא‬ṭmʾ ‘unclean’). This included the danger of contaminating
individuals who were not involved in the ritual (19:5). According to the LXX, mortuary
meals were accompanied by necromantic practices (v. 4a: δι’ ἐνύπνια), although it remains
unclear whether the addition in the Septuagint reflected older traditions or came from
Hellenistic-era dream-oracle practices. Because the LXX evinced little understanding of
Hebrew magic and mantic terms, and there is no equivalent to δι’ ἐνύπνια in the Hebrew
text, this was most likely added by the translators. The ritual meal provided at the grave
that included unclean meat was a sort of upside-down or antistructural ritual that used
the strong opposition between life and death, clean and unclean, and suitable and unsuit-
able meat to express a change in social status.â•›18 By eating unclean meat and sleeping in
the grave, the participants temporarily became as the dead: participating in taboo social
practices and being unable to come into contact with the living. Thus, this kind of mor-
tuary meal would have served to strengthen and renew ties to ancestors by sharing the
ancestors’ “home” and provisions and by temporarily assuming their status. This meant,
however, that one temporarily became a social “outsider.” The polemics of Trito-Isaiah
may have been prompted by the exaggerated character of the ritual itself and by the use of
the desecrated portions of offerings, which were not otherwise available legally.
From the textual evidence, it is difficult to discern the typical size of groups who held
commemorative meals at a grave site. Because the text does not mention the burial itself,
perhaps this sort of ritual was a commemorative meal that was held on special occasions
or at regular intervals fixed by the calendar. And because the burial cave itself or some
other hidden place was used, we may conclude that the participants and thus the range of
rituals were not identical with the burial. We can only conjecture that the nuclear or joint
family participated in these meals, which generally took place in rather small burial caves.

17.╇On piggûl, see Wright 1987: 141–42.

18.╇ Upside-down oppositions often appear in statements about the netherworld or in funeral
rituals in many cultures’ belief systems. For Mesopotamia, see Gilgamesh XII and The Descent of
Ishtar to the Netherworld.
460 Chapter 7

7.6.1.2.╇ Material memorials for the dead

Ritual memory for the dead, according to the Old Testament, was not only expressed
by rites, gatherings, and meals but also by material memorials. Material memoria for the
dead were called ‫ יד‬yād (2 Sam 18:18; Isa 56:5), ‫ צין‬ṣīyyūn (‘sepulcher’ of the man of God
in 2 Kgs 23:17), or ‫ מצבה‬maṣṣebāh (the ‘tomb’ of Rachel in Gen 35:20; the ‘monument’ of
Absalom in 2€Sam 18:18; see Schroer 1987: 361–73; Bloch-Smith 1992b: 113–14; Kühn
2005: 311–45).
The erection of a memorial was, according to Gen 35:20 and Isa 56:6, a part of family
piety, and it was especially the duty of a son to commemorate his parents after their death
(see Albertz 1978b). The designation of the memorial as a maṣṣebāh suggests that these
items were worked or unworked stelae that most likely would have functioned as more
than just markers of tombs. This is made explicit in the notice about Absalom’s maṣṣebāh
in 2 Sam 18:18; it was called “Absalom’s monument (yād).”
In his lifetime, Absalom had taken and set up a maṣṣebāh for himself in the King’s
18

Valley, for he said: “I have no son to keep my name in remembrance.” He called the
maṣṣebāh by his own name. It is called Absalom’s monument (yād) to this day.
The note about Absalom’s maṣṣebāh or yād was a late addition to the story about suc-
cession to the throne, as noted by Rost (1943) and others subsequently. It is uncertain
whether this verse reflected preexilic traditions or folkloric associations that were preva-
lent at the time of a later compilation of the preexilic sources.
Furthermore, in Isa 56:4–5, memorials were thought to ensure eternal remembrance:
4
For thus says Yhwh:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant.
5
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
a monument and a name (yād wāšem)
better than sons and daughters.
I shall give them an everlasting name,
that shall not vanish.
As both 2 Sam 18:18 and Isa 56:4–5 show, memoria were not placed at the grave or in
its vicinity, as the pillar was at Rachel’s tomb in Gen 35:20; instead, it was to be placed
in a temple or some other location. As the text indicates, a memorial to one’s name in
the presence of the Lord in his Temple was considered an exceptional honor. In the case
of Absalom’s pillar, we presume that a place was chosen that would include other royal
commemorative stelae as well. This place could have been the ‫ עמק ידת‬ʿmq ydt ‘valley
of monuments’, as attested twice on an ostracon from Jerusalem (Renz and Röllig 1995:
310–11, Jer [7]:5). Unfortunately, however, no archaeological evidence of memorials in
the form of stelae have been found in Iron Age Israel.â•›19 Nevertheless, in contemporary
Syria and Phoenicia, memorials in the form of stelae were common, especially in honor

19.╇As Wenning (2005: 120) has noted, Iron Age tombs lack markers or any other installations
on the outside. The arrangement of stelae and the seated figurine at the Hazor Stelae Temple (Yadin
1985: 83–92) may have been related to the worship of a royal ancestor, which is the case at Tell
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 461

of kings, but also for common people (see Moscati 1988). In Iron Age Jordan, memorial
pillars with anthropomorphic features (such as noses or, in one case, ears) were placed
over graves discovered in the Wādī Fīdān cemetery (Levy et€al. 2005: 471–72, figs. 23, 24,
38–40). These stones stood about 30 cm high and were surrounded by stone circles that
indicated the position of a cist grave beneath. It was supposed by the excavators that these
monuments were representations of the deceased. However, the Iron Age tomb monu-
ments of Silwan were not examples of the sort of memorial under discussion; they were an
expression of royal power. Absalom’s maṣṣebāh and the yād in Isa 56:4–5 can be compared
with both the Wādī Fīdān stones and the npš-pillars found in the context of Hellenistic
Jewish (see Hachlili 1981; Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 114–15 and fig.€5; Kuhnen 1990:
80) and Nabatean (see Kühn 2005) tombs. Absalom’s pillar and the yād wāšem for the eu-
nuchs must be understood as memorializing the names of the dead, ensuring the durabil-
ity of their commemoration. The finds from Wādī Fīdān support the same conclusion, but
this representation is not to be confused with identification with the dead spirit or with
his or her powers in any animistic sense (contra Schroer 1987: 370–71). There is no textual
evidence at all that stelae were inhabited by dead spirits or that acts of veneration were
performed in front of them. As Kühn (2005: 280) has observed, the presence of the dead
as marked by stelae was not intended to denote any sort of actual presence; it was intended
to represent symbolically an ongoing relationship between the dead and the bereaved.
The use of stelae and comparable elements in the context of funerary architecture is
also attested by Josephus (Ant. 13.211–12), who mentions the monuments that Simon
erected for his father and brothers:
Simon also erected a very large monument for his father and his brothers, of white
and polished stone, and raised it to a great height, to be seen from a long distance, and
made cloisters about it, and set up monolithic pillars (στύλους μονολίθους), a work that
was wonderful to see. Moreover, he built seven pyramids also for his parents and his
brothers, one for each of them, which were made very surprising, both for their size
and beauty, and which have been preserved to this day.
Thus, the erecting of commemorative monuments by a son or brother may be traced from
the Hellenistic period back to preexilic times. In Hellenistic–Roman times, at least (based
on archaeological evidence from Jericho; see Hachlili and Killebrew 1983), this was a cus-
tom not only for the tombs of royalty and high priests but also for the tombs of affluent
families. Because of the lack of archaeological evidence from this period, however, and
because the textual evidence speaks only of memorial stelae for royalty and the adminis-
trative elite, one must not conclude that the erection of pillars was a common practice in
the Iron Ages.
The most important commemorative structure of the Hellenistic period is the monu-
mental Herodian Tomb of the Patriarchs (Ḥaram el-Ḥalīl) in Hebron, a commemorative
place that also served as a symbol of national identity. However, because no archaeological
work is possible there today (and also, taking into consideration the fact that Josephus

Mišrife/Qatna (see Landesmuseum Württemberg 2009: 85–87). Setting up statues and stelae seems
to have been a Middle–Late Bronze Age practice that was not continued into the Iron Age.
462 Chapter 7

himself does not mention the building or its history),â•›20 it is not possible to explore its
architectural heritage prior to the days of Herod.

7.6.2.╇ Archaeological evidence

7.6.2.1.╇ Figurines as domestic representations of the ancestors
The problem with identifying terra-cotta figurines as representations of ancestors has
already been discussed in chap. 3.â•›21 As we argued there, only the male figurines may be in-
terpreted as ancestor figurines. The question remains, however, why are there so few male
figurines (no more than ten percent, at most)? Alas, consistent explanations are not easy
to find. Ancestors, of course, did not generally need to be represented by objects, because
they could be remembered by name or by their collective identity. Based on the argument
above drawn from the textual evidence that quasi-divine ancestor worship seems unlikely
to have been prevalent in ancient Israel during the Iron Age (and, of course, later), figu-
rines may be understood as representing ongoing social relationships between the living
and the dead. This in no way contradicts the notion that figurines, as representations of
ancestors, probably were given portions of meals and beverages as part of domestic ritual
actions (which should not be confused with the phenomenologically similar offerings to a
deity) and thus would have played a part in family meals. The same applies to the possible
use of figurines in necromancy. The presence of male figurines during Iron Ages IIB and
IIC may also be associated with the tendency evident during Iron IIC to use anthropo-
morphic objects as votives and representations of the dedicants, especially JPFs. Though
male figurines with horses and riders may best be interpreted as ancestor figurines, it is
nevertheless possible that they were also used to represent the dedicant and were thus
used as votive figures or for mediating pleas.

7.6.2.2.╇ Jerusalem Cave I and related finds as evidence for

ritual commemoration of the dead
Records of the materials from several caves located on the eastern slope of the south-
eastern hill in Jerusalem that were excavated in 1967 by Kathleen Kenyon were published
intermittently between 1974 and 1996 (Kenyon 1974; Holland 1977; Franken and Steiner
1990; Eshel and Prag 1995). The caves yielded no traces of burials and therefore were
probably never used as tombs but nevertheless contained great amounts of utilitarian pot-
tery, as well as category A and B ritual objects. The reference to caves and secret or hidden
places as room for rituals for the dead in Isa 65:3–5 raises the question whether Jerusalem
Caves I–III and related finds, which were not used for burial purposes, were nevertheless
used in ritual care for the dead.
Cave I (fig.  7.11) was an artificial cave cut into the rock; it was approximately 8  m
long, 1.65 m high, and had a maximum width of 4.2 m. The cave yielded exceptionally
large numbers of pottery pieces as well as ritual objects, including 16 JPF and other types
of female figures, 21 horse-and-rider figurines, 7 bird figurines, 38 different zoomorphic
figurines, 2 anthropoid vessels, 3 items of miniature furniture, 1 rattle, 1 model shrine,

20.╇ Josephus (Ant. 1.237 and J.W. 4.531) only refers to the sepulchers (μνημεία) of the patriarchs.
21.╇ See above, pp. 60–65.
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 463

2 miniature altars, 1 intact fenestrated cult stand, and fragments of 2 more items, as well
as 3 chalices (Holland 1977: 139 and figs. 7–9; Franken and Steiner 1990: 48; fig. 7.3; Eshel
1995: figs. 31–33).â•›22 A sample of these objects is shown in fig. 7.11 (compiled after Hol-
land 1977: figs. 7–9). According to Eshel (1995: table 3), the pottery consisted of typical
household items, especially vessels for the consumption of food (which numbered 511
bowls, or 42.5% of the total number of items), for the preparation of food (with 168 cook-
ing pots, or 14% of all items), and for the storage of dry goods and liquids (including 261
jugs, 51 juglets, 62 jars, and 5 kraters), as well as 105 lamps. In total, 63% were used for
some aspect of food consumption, 9% for the preparation of food, and 24% for storage
(Franken and Steiner 1990: fig. 7.3). Moreover, because a tabun and animal bones were
found in the cave (Lernau 1995), it is likely that the preparation and consumption of food
took place in the cave itself. Among the pottery pieces, there were also a number of vessels
and sherds that were inscribed with names (Renz and Röllig 1995: 267–72; Jer [7]:12–29)
indicating dedications for rituals.
In Cave II, a similar assemblage of about 288 vessels was found. Eshel (1995: 19, table
2) listed a total of 159 bowls (or 55.2% of the total), 1 krater, 13 cooking pots (or 4.5% of all
items), 53 jugs (18.4%), 33 juglets (11.4%), 2 jars (0.6%), 21 lamps (7.3%), and 6 miscella-
neous vessels. Here too, the majority (72%) were food-consumption vessels, while vessels
for the preparation of food made up 3%, and vessels for storage made up 18% (Franken
and Steiner 1990: 26 and fig. 7.3). Only 2 fragments of ritual objects were found: 1 frag-
ment of a model chariot, and 1 leg from an animal figurine (Prag 1995: 217). Fifty-eight
percent of all vessels from a third assemblage, excavated from Cave III, were used for the
consumption of food, 12% for its preparation, and 12% for storage (Franken and Steiner
1990: fig. 7.3). In contrast to Caves I and II, Cave III yielded no specialized objects.
A fourth, smaller assemblage otherwise similar to that of Cave I was discovered in
a rock-cut chamber (Locus 6015) on the eastern slope of the Ophel (Mazar and Mazar
1989: 50–53, plan 20, pls. 25–29; a plan and a sample of objects are shown in fig.€7.12).
The chamber was roughly square but rounded to the north. It spanned between 2.15 and
3.90€m and had a height of 3.5€m. It was accessible through a small square shaft in the
west. An opening in the ceiling of the chamber was a kind of square chimney of 0.8 × 1€m.
Like Caves I–III, Locus 6015 yielded no human remains or other suggestions of burial,
but again many pottery and ritual objects were found, and the chamber was therefore
considered by the excavators to have been a repository or storeroom (Mazar and Mazar
1989: 53). The pottery assemblage consisted of vessels for the consumption of food (in the
form of 40 bowls), for the preparation of food (in the form of 8 cooking pots and 2 baking
trays), storage vessels (including 6 large bowls, 1 krater, 4 jars, 3 pithoi, and 3 hole-mouth
jars), vessels for liquids (including 6 jugs, 4 decanters, and 6 juglets), as well as 2 pyxides
and 3 lamps. The assemblage of category A ritual objects consisted of a cylindrical stand,
1 chalice-like stand, the torso of a JPF, a bearded male head with helmet (which had most
likely been part of a horse-and-rider figurine), a fragment of a horse figurine, and a rattle.

22.╇ There are some differences in the total number of vessels presented by Franken and Steiner
(1990) and by Eshel (1995).
464 Chapter 7

Fig. 7.11.╇ Jerusalem, Cave 1 with sample of ritual objects.

As argued above,â•›23 cylindrical stands were typical in ritual assemblages but not in burials.
The high percentage of vessels for the preparation and consumption of food suggests that
meals accompanied by ritual actions were performed using the stand and the figurines.

23.╇ See pp. 68–69.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 465

Fig. 7.12.╇ Jerusalem,

Cave Locus 6015 with
sample of ritual objects.
466 Chapter 7

One of the jars had an inscription on the shoulder that read ‫ ליׁשעיהו‬lyšʿyhw ‘belonging
to Yešaʿyāhû’ (Mazar and Mazar 1989: pl. 27.5; Renz and Röllig 1995: 274–75; Jer [7]:29),
which seems to suggest a votive or dedicatory function.
The finds in Jerusalem are comparable to the materials found by the Joint Excavations
at Locus E207 in Samaria. This locus was interpreted by the excavators as having been an
Israelite shrine (Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: 23–24, fig. 11; Crowfoot, Crowfoot,
and Kenyon 1957: 76–82, 137–39 with figs. 13–33, fig. B, pls. 11–12; see fig. 7.13a/b.),â•›24
and was located about 700 m east of the Israelite royal enclosure. It was located in a trape-
zoidal hewn rock trench that measured about 26 × 30 m. The trench itself was 3.3–3.75 m
deep × 4 m wide. The unbuilt center of the trench was accessed by a bridge to the west.
Several shafts and tombs were cut into the outer wall of the trench. Locus E207 yielded a
great number of category A objects, especially figurines, including 23 female, 2 male, and
120 zoomorphic figurines; the latter included 34 horses, 83 cows or bulls, 1 camel, 1 sheep,
and 1 donkey. Other ritual objects included several tripod incense cups, a perforated
goblet, and 2 rattles. Although details were not provided in the original report—which
merely mentioned a total of 155 items—McClellan (1975, cited by Eshel 1995: table 4)
has since enumerated this collection of typical household items thus: 403 bowls, 1 krater,
2 platters, 4 cooking pots, 52 jugs, 62 juglets, 13 jars, and possibly 4 lamps.â•›25 A number
of high-status vessels were also found in the assemblage, such as decorated chalices and
Cypro-Phoenician ware. A sample of pottery and other objects is presented in fig. 7.13b.â•›26
Remarkably, the proportion of cooking pots was only 0.5%, which was a much smaller
percentage than was found in Cave I, where cooking pots constituted 14%. It thus appears
that little cooking was done in this locus, suggesting that food was brought here already
prepared for consumption.
Of particular interest are a number of ostraca and whole pots from E207 with incised
inscriptions, mostly names, and an animal figurine incised with a name (Birnbaum in
Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1957: 9–25; Renz and Röllig 1995: 140–42, Sam [8]:3–7,
9–11, 13). The inscription on the animal figurine read lʿzʾ hḥṣʾ [. .] ‘belonging to ʿUzzā [╇ ]’,
although it is unclear whether hḥṣ [. .] denoted a place-name or a patronym (see Renz and
Röllig 1995: 140 with n. 2, Sam [8]:3). The inscriptions show that personal votive figurines,
as well as dedicated jugs, bowls, and their contents were used in ritual procedures in this
locus.
As noted by several others (H. Weippert 1988: 622; Zwickel 1994: 248; Zevit 2001:
208), Locus E207 was quite unusual for a shrine, because no architectural or other struc-
tural features such as cult installations were discovered here, which provides opportunity
for alternative interpretations of the function and purpose of this structure.
Kenyon first interpreted Caves I–III in Jerusalem as favissae for a nearby sanctuary,
as indicated by standing stones (Kenyon 1967: 138–40). Because the adjacent structures
that were originally interpreted as maṣṣebōt are more akin to pillars designed to support a

24.╇ Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: fig. 11.

25.╇ The small number of lamps listed here is not consistent with the original report (Crow-
foot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 181), which mentions that “in E 207 several baskets-full were
recorded.”
26.╇ Compiled after Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: fig. B, figs. 13–33.
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 467

Fig. 7.13a (above).╇ Samaria, Locus E207: Plan and Sections.

Fig. 7.13b (below).╇ Selection of ritual objects and pottery from Samaria, Locus E207.
468 Chapter 7

roof, Franken and Steiner (1990: 125–29) proposed that Caves II and III were storerooms
for a guesthouse. In agreement with Holladay’s earlier theory (1987) that Cave  I was a
place for “nonconformist” cultic practices, Franken and Steiner considered this cave pos-
sibly to have been the cult place where a popular heterodox cult practiced magic rituals.
The rooms above the cave would have served a prophet or another functionary as both
a dwelling and a place to receive visitors. Similar conclusions regarding Samarian Lo-
cus E207 were reported by the excavators themselves (Sukenik in Crowfoot, Kenyon, and
Sukenik 1942: 23–24; Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 137–39), as well as by Hol-
laday (1987), Franken and Steiner (1990: 25), and Moorey (2003: 55). Furthermore, the
exceptional Tell ʿĒtūn Tomb 1 (see Ussishkin 1974) was suspected of having been a place
for a cult of the dead (Zevit 2001: 241–47),â•›27 although there is scant evidence for this sort
of function. In comparing the finds from Samaria E207 with the contents of Jerusalem
Caves I and II, Eshel (1995: 22–23) pointed out that the Samarian assemblage differed in
its relative number of category-A and -B objects, which was between 2.0 and 2.2% of the
finds from Jerusalem Caves I and II but 32.6% of the finds from Samaria E207. He con-
cluded that the assemblages of Caves I and II were essentially related to domestic storage
and production, despite the presence of ritual objects. Eshel therefore tried to categorize
the contents of the assemblage according to patterns of usage and interpreted the ritual
objects as having originally belonged to a public cult center rather than to the cave itself.
A noncultic interpretation of Cave I (first as a storeroom, then as a dump) that reflects the
functions of the nearby buildings was also preferred by Prag (1995: 213–16), but he did
not deny that the figurines and other specialized objects in Cave I may also have served
ritual purposes. Zevit (2001: 206–9) considered Cave I to have been a cult place in its first
stage and a favissa in its second.
The Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic prejudices inherent in interpretations of these
caves as locations of “nonconformist” or “heterodox” cults unavoidably entail their own
problems, as discussed in chap. 3. The dissociation of the Jerusalem assemblages preferred
by Eshel and Prag is, however, not convincing. The presence of ritual objects together with
items for the preparation and consumption of food that was common in domestic assem-
blages as described in chap. 3â•›28 clearly indicates ritual actions associated with meals per-
formed in or near the caves. As indicated by the animal bones (Kenyon 1967: 136; Franken
and Steiner 1990: 26; Lernau 1995) and the oven in Cave I, ritual actions were enacted in
the subterranean chamber itself, at least in this cave, while the smaller Caves II, III, and
Locus 6015 may have served as storerooms for supplies used in ritual meals outside or
nearby. Therefore, Moorey (2003: 55) interpreted the cave deposits as indicating places
where rituals were “performed by the common people in family groups or communally.”
Dever’s interpretation was similar. He classified Cave I as a bamah (2005: 155). Animal
bones were also found in Samaria Locus E207 (Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957:
138), indicating that meals occurred in the trench proper.

27.╇ Despite the unique sculptural decoration of the tomb, Tomb 1 was almost certainly used
for burials. The fact that cooking took place in the tomb, as indicated by the ashes and blackened
cooking pots, may point to occasional ritual or burial procedures (such as cleaning and preparing
the tomb for burial) but not to long-standing rituals.
28.╇ See above, pp. 172–175.
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 469

Except for Cave III, which had no ritual objects, all other places mentioned above
had several things in common: a subterranian location, a large utilitarian assemblage for
the preparation and consumption of food, the presence of ritual objects and vessels, and
also—in the case of Jerusalem Cave I, Locus 6015, and Samaria E207—the presence of
votive vessels inscribed with names. These locations were not a matter of happenstance;
it appears that locations for ritual meals beneath the earth were chosen solely to provide
proximity to the dead and the netherworld. As in the Hebrew Bible, the caves or cisterns
were a metaphor for death and the netherworld (Keel 1972: 54–57; 60–63; Janowski 2003:
30–35). Thus, one may interpret them as a kind of forecourt of the netherworld, where the
world of the living met the world of the dead (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §201). It therefore
seems plausible to interpret Caves I–III, Jerusalem Locus 6015 (which was located near
a cemetery), and Samaria Locus E207 as places for ritual communication with the dead,
especially commemorative meals, whereby the living shared community with the dead,
as in Isa 65:3–5. We posit that the terra-cotta figurines served as representations of an-
cestors, who were honored by burning incense on the altars and offering them portions
of food on the stands. Another argument for interpreting these places as hosting rituals
associated with the dead comes from the presence of rattles, which have otherwise been
found mostly in graves and only rarely in domestic contexts (Tufnell 1953: 376; Bloch-
Smith 1992b: 102–3). Rattles are the only specialized items that are distinct from the usual
domestic assemblages. The assemblages from the Jerusalem caves and from Samaria 207,
which were designated in chap. 4 as Type IV cultic structures, were identical in content
to domestic assemblages. Both of these types of assemblage included similar percentages
of utilitarian vessels and ritual objects; the differences between them was only in terms
of absolute numbers. The grave assemblages are thus an enlarged subset of domestic as-
semblages. As in domestic ritual assemblages, the presence of a deity was not indicated by
permanent representations but was evoked by ritual acts. One can therefore conclude that
these caves served the families of the deceased, who met to commemorate their ancestors
with meals that included the giving of portions to relatives who were residing in the neth-
erworld. Although Jerusalem Cave I could have accommodated quite a large group, it is
nevertheless likely that the cave served only nuclear or joint families. The number of accu-
mulated vessels gradually increased as the cave was used over an extended period of time.

7.7.╇ Interrogating the dead

7.7.1.╇ Textual evidence
The Hebrew Bible rarely refers to ritual communication with the dead. The corpus of
texts mentioning necromantic practices is quite small,â•›29 and if mentioned at all, necro-
mancy is either forbidden or criticized. Because necromancy has been discussed exten-
sively in many recent works,â•›30 only a few remarks are necessary here.

29.╇ Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; 1 Samuel 28; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; Isa 8:19; 19:3; 29:4; Ezek 21:26; Zech
10:2; 1 Chr 10:13; 2 Chr 16:12.
30.╇See Spronk 1986: 251–57; Lewis 1989; Tropper 1989; Podella 1989: 103–6; 1997; Cryer
1994; Schmidt 1994; Jeffers 1996.
470 Chapter 7

Judgments against necromancy are found in the prophetic law in Deut 18:11, which
prohibits the interrogation of ‫ אוב‬ʾōb, ‫ ידענים‬yiddĕʿōnîm, and ‫ מתים‬metîm, as well as in
the Holiness Code in Lev 19:31 and 20:6, which mentions the interrogation of ʾōbōt and
yiddĕʿōnîm as forbidden practices (see Schmitt 2004: 345–46). The much discussed ʾōbōt
were most likely pits, as in the Hurrite and Hittite rituals evoking the gods of the nether-
world (see Ebach and Rüterswörden 1977; 1980; see also Otten 1961), but are also under-
stood in the Old Testament as having been spirits of the dead.â•›31 The ‘wise ones’ (‫הידענים‬
hayyiddĕʿōnîm) can also be understood as spirits of the dead (see Tropper 1989: 317–19;
Cryer 1994: 260–61; Loretz 1990: 140; 2002: 509) or representations of them (Loretz 2002:
509–10).
The most noteworthy description of necromancy is found in the famous story of Saul’s
consulting the “witch” of Endor in 1 Sam 28:3–25. The location of the conjuring pit, the
ʾōb, seems to have been inside the home of the ‫ בעלת עוב‬baʾălat ʾōb. We suppose that the
ʾōb inside the house was comparable to similar installations such as the pits or cisterns that
were common in Iron Age Israelite houses. Although this text refers to an old tradition
that provides insight into practices of divination by death spirits, it is dependent on the
Deuteronomic pronouncements against necromancy. In following the Deuteronomistic
guidelines, Chronicles also considered necromancy to be a punishable crime. King Asa’s
consultation of the ‫ רפאים‬rĕpāʾ↜îm in 2 Chr 16:12 actually led to his death. Prophetic po-
lemics such as Isa 8:19–20 also alluded to Deuteronomy 18:
19
Now if people say to you, “Consult the ʾōbōt and the yiddĕʿōnîm that chirp and mut-
ter!”; should not a people consult their ancestor spirits (ʾĕlōhîm),â•›32 the dead on behalf
of the living?” 20To the law and to the testimony! They are speaking according to this
word, which has no power.
None of the biblical texts that mention necromantic practices (except 1 Samuel 28) pro-
vide clear evidence of domestic consultations. Zech 10:2 mentions tĕrapîm as being used
in divination but, because this was a late text that used stereotypical terminology with
its concomitant negative connotations (see Tropper 1989: 337–38; and also Loretz 1990:
140), it offers little insight into domestic practices.
One reason for the biblical proscriptions against necromancy is that the Deutero-
nomic/Deuteronomistic, Priestly, and prophetic lines of tradition considered the con-
sultation of other authorities besides Yhwh to be insubordinate to his sovereignty. An-
other reason is the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic tendency to maintain a distinction
between the worlds of the living and the dead (Schmidt 1994: 290; Olyan 2004: 122–23).
The Priestly lines of tradition were also concerned with the authorization of ritual per-
formances (Schmitt 2004: 345–47). Because most of the texts on necromancy arose in
consultation with Deuteronomy 18, and because the texts do not provide clear evidence of
domestic forms of necromancy, the practice of consulting spirits of dead family members
could only have been either a marginal phenomenon or some sort of official religious
practice (Schmidt 1994: 286–87). Rather than supposing that necromantic practices were

31.╇ For discussion, see Tropper 1989: 189–204; Jeffers 1996: 169; Loretz 2002.
32.╇ Taking into consideration the context and 1 Sam 28:13, we suggest that ‫ אלהים‬ʾēlōhîm is
best translated here as ‘ghost’ or ‘spirit of the dead’ (see Podella 1988: 87).
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 471

a late introduction during the time of Manasseh, however, we must consider the tradition
behind 1̣Samuel 28 to indicate that domestic necromancy was known and practiced in
ancient Israel, even though it may never have been a very well-known practice.

7.7.2.╇ Archaeological evidence

Archaeological evidence for necromantic practices is scarce. The only evidence that
can convincingly be associated with necromantic practices is a mask that was found in
Iron IIB Locus 44 (Area A, Stratum V) of Hazor (fig. 3.26).â•›33 We presume that this mask
(masks are very rare items in Iron Age Israel) was used for divination practices, as in nu-
merous other cultures. It has been proposed that the tĕrapîm mentioned in Zech 10:2 were
used as media for divination (Loretz 1990: 140). However, because this was a later text that
was written with reference to earlier polemics against “false gods,”â•›34 this proposal does
not seem particularly plausible. It is possible, however, that the frequently found astragali
were involved in ritual interrogations of the dead, in addition to their main purpose as
game pieces. The scant archaeological evidence for necromantic practices similarly sug-
gests that, although domestic necromancy may have been known and practiced, it prob-
ably was not widely practiced.

7.8.╇ Summary and conclusions: The functions of mortuary rites

in the context of family and household religion
Both textual and archaeological evidence supports a variety of forms of mortuary rites
and ritual communication with the dead. This evidence reveals that, in ancient Israel,
there was no ancestor cult in the sense of ancestors being venerated as divine or quasi-
divine beings, although the dead may have been addressed as preternatural beings. The
dead, especially the patrilineal ancestors, were honored and remembered both by rites (in-
cluding commemorative ritual meals, and regular or occasional gifts to the dead) and by
representation as figurines or other material memoria such as stelae (the latter are attested
only in textual sources). Honoring and remembering ancestors was an important aspect
of building and maintaining family identity. Rites and rituals for the care of the dead can
be considered in two different categories based on the social groups who performed them.
First was a ritual that included burial and mourning rites for the local family; second was
regularly or occasionally observed commemorative rituals that would have been signifi-
cant to the social group comprising everyone from the nuclear family to the entire lineage
(mišpāḥāh).
In the first category were burials rites primarily addressed to the dead and rites of
mourning that primarily addressed the bereaved. Collective burials in bench or arcosolia
tombs, which were the dominant form in Iron Age burials, most likely served as final rest-
ing places for nuclear or extended families; they reflect the ongoing connection thought to
exist between family members after death. Burial gifts, such as food provisions, figurines,
amulets, and post-mortem gifts all attest the need of the dead for care by the living. The

33.╇ See p. 106 above.

34.╇ See above, pp. 60–61.
472 Chapter 7

personality of the deceased was represented by items of personal adornment and jewelry.
Thus, a (nuclear) family tomb became an expression of broader family and local identity.
Burial and mortuary rites performed by family members were an act of family solidar-
ity. The family was accompanied and assisted by local members of their lineage and by
friends, clients, and members of the local community. Burial and mourning rites thus
clearly were public due to the involvement of local individuals, such as wailing women
from the neighborhood. The burial itself and its contents were a means of communicat-
ing local and family identity and values. Mortuary rites such as mourning made tangible
the gap left by the deceased; grief and sorrow were expressed and enacted in physically
expressed rites. During mourning rites, the living temporarily became like the dead, able
to express the ongoing social relationship between the deceased and the bereaved. Mourn-
ing rites were also an occasion to strengthen and renegotiate the social roles of the living,
especially within the realm of the joint family, such as among Joseph and his brothers, but
also within the larger co-residential lineage and the local community as a whole.
The second category (regularly observed mortuary rites) was more contracted. These
rites addressed ancestors by involving the nuclear or joint family and included individu-
als up through the lineage group of the mišpāḥāh. There are textual witnesses to annual
commemorative meals, such as 1 Samuel 20, involving the mišpāḥāh at the time of the
new moon, and thus we can presume that there were gatherings (which perhaps included
members of the joint family) at the same fixed time each month. Rituals conducted more
frequently concerned daily care for the dead and were performed in a home by nuclear or
extended family members. The existence of such practices is supported by archaeological
evidence that suggests the frequent use of domestic ritual objects.
Family commemorative meals were evidence of the ongoing social relationship be-
tween the living and the dead. These relationships were also reflected in rites performed
in special locations such as in Jerusalem Cave I. The large assemblages that were used
over longer periods of time in Jerusalem Caves I–III, Locus 6015, and Samaria E207
are suggestive of ritual meals held by groups such as nuclear or joint families. The textual
evidence reveals that portions of food for the dead and sacrificial meals held on their
behalf more likely served as symbols of the ongoing social relationship between the dead
and the living rather than as provisions for their existence in the netherworld. The entire
complex of mortuary rites together expressed the importance of the role of the family and
the maintenance of its solidarity in ancient Israelite society.
The social groups who performed rites or cared for the dead are diagramed in fig. 7.14.
The nuclear family was responsible for the basic, more frequently performed rituals of
care for the dead. The rites that were less frequently or only occasionally performed be-
longed to the realms of the co-residential lineage and the local public. The rituals that
were performed by the nuclear family itself, especially rituals for daily care, ensured the
well-being of a family by maintaining a connection between the living and their ancestors.
Even though ancestors were not considered divine or semi-divine, the maintenance of on-
going relationships with them provided positive benefits for the surviving nuclear family.
These benefits included, in particular, reinforcing the endurance of the family itself as well
as their prosperity and general welfare. A common function of burial-related rites in all
three of the realms depicted above was the renegotiation of socials roles, which could have
 Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 473

public

lineage

Daily care for the

dead, commemorative
meals, preparation for
Nuclear/ burial
joint
family Commemorative meals at interlunium
Mourning, attendance at burials

Fig. 7.14.╇ Categories of social groups performing rites for the dead.

various degrees of importance depending on the role of the deceased and the role of the
male descendants in each of the three realms. The middle realm of the lineage was of less
importance, because its members only needed to perform commemorative rites, while
the nuclear or joint family were always responsible for the more important functions.
 Chapter 8

Summary

8.1.╇ Research history

The subject of this book, the family and household religion of ancient Israel, has been
overlooked in Old Testament scholarship for a long time. Due to the concept of collectiv-
ism, influential scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries (19th: B. Duhm 1875; B. Stade
1887–88; 20th: W. Eichrodt 1964; G. von Rad 1962) regarded the people of Israel—a single,
corporate group—as the main carrier of Israelite religion, and they denied or downplayed
the role of the individual or the family in this regard. Other scholars, however, such as
E. Sellin (1893), J. Hempel (1936), and H. H. Rowley (1956) saw fit to grant the family
some significance. Inquiry into family and household religion in ancient Israel began in
earnest about 35 years ago, when H. Vorländer (1975) and R. Albertz (1978a) identified
the notions of a personal deity (in the sense of one’s own deity) and personal piety as spe-
cific elements of the religion of ancient Israel.
Three different approaches to the question that converged over the course of time shed
more and more light on the subject. The religious-historical approach of M.  Weippert
(1997), F. Stolz (1996), R. Albertz (1994; 2008), K. van der Toorn (1996b), P. D. Miller
(2000), E. S. Gerstenberger (2001), S. M. Olyan (2008), and others aided the reconstruc-
tion of several aspects of Israelite family religion and provided a theoretical background
for describing family religion as a specific segment of the religion of Israel. The gender-
oriented approach developed by P. A. Bird (1987), C. Meyers (1988; 2002), E. A. R. Wil-
lett (1999), and S. Ackerman (2008) contributed many anthropological and cross-cultural
insights that served to highlight the important religious functions of women in Israelite
family and household religion. Finally, the archaeological approach of H. Weippert (1988),
J. S. Holladay (1987), W. G. Dever (2001; 2005), B. A. Nakhai (2001), Z. Zevit (2001), and
P. M. M. Daviau (2001) provided such a wealth of material evidence for the domestic cult
that private ritual activities by Israelite families could no longer be doubted. The rich finds
that Daviau excavated in a domestic area of Tell Jawa in Transjordan are especially helpful
for reconstructing assemblages of ritual objects from domestic areas in the ancient Israel-
ite sites where the archaeological evidence is less conclusive. Incorporating the methods
and results of all three approaches into a critical analysis of the topic laid the foundation
for a comprehensive reconstruction of ancient Israelite family religion that encompasses
all of its aspects and dimensions.
474
 Summary 475

Because later developments in Israelite family religion have been described elsewhere
(Albertz 1994: 2.399–411, 507–22, 556–63), the reconstruction in the present book is lim-
ited to the preexilic period (11th–7th centuries), a period that had barely been verified in
the Hebrew Bible before Israelite family and household religion came under the control of
state officials (Deut 13:7–12), and family rituals were subsumed within the official cult of
Jerusalem (16:1–8; 26:1–11).

8.2.╇Methodology
In order to overcome particular uncertainties and controversies in previous scholarly
works, we found it necessary to clarify several terms and concepts at the outset. According
to Nave-Herz (2002: 148–49), the term family is defined by four distinct features: its dual
biological and social nature, its distinguishing of the generations, its structuring of spe-
cific roles, and the unique cooperation and solidarity of its family members. Pre�industrial
families such as those living in ancient Israel undertook four main functions: the basic
functions of reproduction and socialization, and the economic functions of production
and consumption. Because of the ambiguity of the term family, especially in English, it is
helpful to combine it with the term household. A household is defined as a “group of co-
residents, people who live under the same roof and typically share in common consump-
tion” (Kertzer 1991: 156). Referring not only to the co-residents themselves but also to
their production and consumption activities, the term household extends beyond the liv-
ing area to include the hardware of the family (e.g., tools, granaries, wells, livestock, fields,
orchards), as Meyers (1988: 130) has pointed out. The two terms—family and household—
overlap because both include the functions of consumption and production. Incidentally,
the combination of the two terms corresponds to the biblical terminology; the Hebrew
term for family, which is ‫ בית אב‬beit ʾāb ‘house of the father’, also combines a location
term with a kinship term. Moreover, members of the household who were not actual rela-
tives, such as slaves or resident aliens, can easily be included in the term family household.
The specific familial functions of reproduction and socialization, however, foster a sort
of cooperation and solidarity that, as Nave-Herz (2002: 149) has emphasized, can differ
in form and content in different cultures and historical periods but “always [constitute] a
very specifically declared relationship, which is distinguished from any other relation of
social interaction in a given society.” This structural, sociological difference seems to be
one of the reasons for the existence of family religion as a distinctive phenomenon.
While biblical and archaeological scholars have debated at length whether ancient Is-
raelite family units should be considered nuclear or extended—or, better, joint—fami-
lies, sociologists such as Laslett (1974: 28–32) and Kertzer (1991: 158–59) have identified
many other types as well. For these types, the number of conjugal units—that is, married
couples including their children—is the distinguishing factor. Following their lead, we
distinguish here among five different types of families: (1) the nuclear family household
consisting of one conjugal unit, which runs the entire household; (2) the extended family
household consisting of single relatives beyond the conjugal unit; (3) the paternal joint
family household consisting of more than one conjugal unit while the father of married
sons is still alive; (4) the stem family household consisting of the conjugal units of the
476 Chapter 8

father and a single son; all other sons function as unmarried workers or leave the house-
hold when they marry; and (5) the fraternal family household, in which two or more mar-
ried brothers live together after their father has died. Sociologists emphasize the dynamics
of family structure; the same individuals can belong to different types of families over the
course of their life cycles.
An investigation of biblical terminology and texts shows that different types of families
coexisted side by side. The term beit ʾāb, often denoting a paternal joint family (Gen 46:31;
47:12; 50:8), may have constituted the ideal form of family in the opinion of the biblical
tradents (Schloen 2001: 148–50), but it did not predominate in Israelite and Judahite so-
ciety during the monarchic period. A detailed investigation of the typical living spaces of
excavated domestic buildings in Cisâ•‚ and Transjordan has revealed (cf. Faust 1999a; 2000)
that joint family households (roughly 10–20€members) prevailed only in rural settlements
and among the wealthy inhabitants of the towns, whereas in urban settlements, nuclear
or extended family households (about 5–7€members) probably composed the vast major-
ity (up to 70%). Thus, nuclear families played a much more prominent role in ancient
Israelite society than several biblical scholars seem to have thought (Gottwald, van der
Toorn, Schloen, et€al.). Because both the biblical (several ‫ בתים‬bātîm within one ‫ּבית אב‬
beit ʾāb) and the archaeological (higher numbers of rooms in the large dwellings of rural
settlements) data show that the conjugal units within joint family households enjoyed
some degree of independence and privacy, the conjugal family unit formed the heart of
all types of family households—nuclear, extended, or joint. Thus, it is no coincidence that
many beliefs and rituals of Israelite family and household religion were focused on the
conjugal unit.
It has sometimes been presumed that the ties between a given family household and
the co-residential clan (lineage) to which it belonged were so close that the borders be-
tween the two social units became blurred, and the religious practices of family and clan
intermingled (Gottwald 1981: 282–84; van der Toorn 1996b: 246–55; Meyers 1997: 39).
Archaeological remains in rural settlements (only a few wine presses and common store-
houses) seem to indicate that there was, indeed, agricultural cooperation among families
who probably were related (Faust 2000: 23, 31). This cooperation in the production of
food, however, was only one of the four main family functions. The function of repro-
duction was strictly limited to the conjugal family unit, and common consumption was
also normally restricted to the family group because of the limited space of its dwelling.
Only during certain feasts did the whole clan customarily participate in a common meal.
Socialization was primarily the function of the nuclear family unit but could be supple-
mented with or replaced by other members of the joint family or the clan. Finally, there
were only a few other non-family kin who might have been part of a household “living
under one roof.” The same was true for participation in the domestic cult, especially if it
occurred on the second story. Thus, even though there were social ties to other kin, an-
cient Israelite families in all their variant types were well-defined social units. Therefore,
family and household religion, as practiced by these units, can also be reconstructed as a
specific phenomenon.
Taking the various functions and social ties of Israelite family households into consid-
eration, we distinguish three circles of family and household religion. First, we assign to
 Summary 477

the inner circle all rituals that were performed in the residential dwelling—rituals that we
refer to as components of the “domestic cult,” such as birth rituals for a pregnant mother,
prayer rituals for ill members, daily care for the dead, and apotropaic rituals to protect
the house. Second, we discern a middle circle that comprised all the rituals that were per-
formed outside the house but within its vicinity, such as visits to neighborhood shrines
to uphold the promise of a vow, or commemorative meals held regularly for the dead and
performed at family grave sites. Third, an outer circle consists of the rites that would have
been performed by the family within the sphere of the public cult at local, regional, or
state sanctuaries, such as sacrificial meals to celebrate the healing of a family member, or
offerings of agricultural “firstfruits” and firstborn domestic animals. Here, family religion
came into contact with the sphere of regional or state religion.
In previous works, scholars have used various concepts to explain the various layers
or segments of ancient Israelite religion. We discussed in detail the merits and disad-
vantages of the concepts of syncretism (Smend 1899; von Rad 1962; Ringgren 1988), ap-
proaches to life (Fohrer 1973), popular religion (Vorländer 1975; Holladay 1987; \ 1992;
Dever 1991; 2001; 2005; et al.), primary and secondary religion (Sundermeier 1980; 1999;
Niehr 1999; Wagner 2006; Leuenberger 2008), and internal religious pluralism (Lancz-
kowski 1981; Albertz 1978a; 1994; 1995; M.  Weippert 1997; van der Toorn 1996; Stolz
1996; Miller 2000; Gerstenberger 2001). We consider the latter to be the most suitable
for describing family and household religion as a self-contained unit that was also related
to other segments of Israelite religion—whether local or state religion. The concept of
internal religious pluralism avoids pejorative categories (“syncretism,” “popular”), mere
dichotomies (primary–secondary), and questionable notions taken from outside the an-
cient world (“orthodoxy”). In contrast to other concepts, it is sociologically grounded and
distinguishes at least three segments of religion based on three levels of social groups:
those of the family, the local community, and the entire people (federation of tribes, or
state). Although mutually related, these three segments of religion—family and household
religion, local religion, and official or state religion—differ from one another in terms of
their adherents, their target groups, their degree of institutionalization, and their religious
beliefs, practices, and functions. The concept of internal religious pluralism also allows for
open debate about the degree of continuity and discontinuity between family and house-
hold religion, on the one hand, and local and state religions, on the other hand (Albertz
2008: 102–4; Olyan 2008: 121; Bodel and Olyan 2008a: 278). We maintain, however, that
the exploration of family and household religion is a meaningful enterprise only if it can
be defined at least partially on the basis of its own unique characteristics, which contrast
with other segments of the religion of Israel.

8.3.╇ Archaeological evidence for domestic religious practices

Despite growing interest in the issue of family religion, the archaeological evidence
for ritual activities in Iron Age houses has only been acknowledged occasionally, and the
phenomenon of cultic elements in secular contexts (see Negbi 1993: 227) has never been
addressed systematically by scholars. Our aim in this book was to fill this gap and to
investigate the ritual apparatuses in domestic contexts on a broader archaeological base
478 Chapter 8

than ever before. Our investigation reexamined domestic and related structures from Iron
Age I to Iron Age IIC by analyzing their contents based on three categories: category A:
unambiguous ritual objects such as stands, altars, figurines, amulets, etc.; category B: ob-
jects with possible ritual use such as chalices, goblets, cosmetic items, lamps, collectibles,
etc.; and category C: utilitarian objects such as cooking pots, storage vessels, stone and
other tools, etc. Insofar as it was possible to judge from the published materials, we re-
constructed assemblages of ritual objects or at least determined typical usage patterns
of ritual objects and their relation to architectural features and to utilitarian objects in
category C. In our study, we surveyed 29 Iron Age I structures containing category A and
B artifacts. Of these, about 53% yielded stands or fragments thereof, and 46% had chalices
or goblets that could be associated with them. Approximately 31% of the assemblages
contained zoomorphic terra-cotta figurines or vessels, although a few (around 14%) were
anthropomorphic terra-cotta. Miniature shrines were rare, appearing in only two of the
assemblages. The predominant ritual actions performed with the vessels seem to have
been libations and, possibly, dry offerings such as bread, grain, or fruit. One-third of the
assemblages clearly belonged to kitchen installations, and 76% of all domestic assemblages
that contained category A or B objects also contained vessels for the production or con-
sumption of food.
Of the 19 Iron IIA assemblages, around 36% contained stands, and a further 26%
contained chalices or goblets. About a third of all assemblages contained zoomorphic
figurines or vessels, while female figurines were present in 21%. Model shrines made up
around 10%. Similarly to the Iron Age I assemblages, one third of all structures examined
contained category A and B artifacts that could be attributed to kitchen installations.
In the 20 surveyed Iron IIB structures that contained category A and B artifacts, stands
appeared less frequently than in Iron Age I and IIA structures—in only 15% of struc-
tures—although a third of the domestic ritual assemblages contained tripod censor-cups
(35%), and around 20% contained either zoomorphic vessels or kernos fragments. Chal-
ices and goblets also appeared less often during these times—in about 10% of assemblages.
Approximately 80% of the assemblages were directly associated with pottery designed to
be used in the preparation and consumption of food; in some cases, this pottery also ap-
peared in kitchen facilities.
Of the 42 Iron IIC structures and their contents surveyed in chap. 3, around 53% con-
tained the typical Iron IIC Judean pillar-figurines (JPFs) or fragments of other anthro-
pomorphic figures, and 48% yielded zoomorphic figurines or vessels. Around one-tenth
of the assemblages yielded male horse-and-rider figurines. About 9% of the assemblages
contained stands, and around 9% contained altars. The tripod incense burners, frequently
found in Iron Age IIB, were found in only one of the assemblages. One-tenth of the ritual
objects or assemblages of objects were associated with fireplaces, and over 40% contained
or were related to kitchen tools or to pottery used for the production of food.
Based on the analysis of more than 80 instances of cultic items found in domestic
and related contexts from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIC and the ritual paraphernalia found
in these contexts, we can conclude that ritual objects were often assembled and arranged
near fireplaces or other facilities associated with the processing and consumption of food
 Summary 479

on the ground floor. Additionally, ritual objects were located in storerooms (being stored
away when not in use) and also occasionally in debris from second stories, pointing to
ritual actions that were occasionally performed in upper rooms or on the roof. In Iron
Age I–IIC, there is no evidence of fixed ritual installations such as domestic shrines or
sacred corners of the house. Rather, ritual objects were arranged and used situationally
and simultaneously in different rooms according to the demands of the ritual. As dem-
onstrated in chap. 2, most houses in Iron Age I–II Israel and Judah would have contained
nuclear or extended families, who would thus have been the social carriers of the domestic
cult activities represented by the ritual objects. Contemporary Transjordanian structures
manifest closely related ritual practices, as was true in Iron Age Phoenicia and Syria and
perhaps also in Mesopotamia.
Based on the cultic apparatuses found in the domestic structures, we can conclude that
the predominant ritual actions were libation rites with stands and zoomorphic vessels,
dry offerings in the stand bowls, the burning of aromatic compounds, as well as votive
practices and other ritual actions with human and animal figurines. The ritual apparatuses
suggest that daily offerings and gifts were given to deities and ancestors, the latter of which
may have been represented by human figurines. The human representations, predomi-
nantly the JPFs in Iron Age IIC, are not divine representations, given their lack of divine
emblems, but more probably likenesses of humans, expressing human needs and wishes
such as fertility, plentiful progeny, ample lactation for the mother, etc. They were gener-
ally multipurpose objects used in various contexts (domestic residences, temples, graves),
especially for votive practices. We define votive practices as the use of the figurine as an ex
voto, both to give thanks for a benefit from the gods and to give to the gods in exchange
for a benefit; they also served as media for prayer by representing the petitioner, and for
magical rites such as love charms and apotropaic rituals (see Schmitt 2004: 187–89). Un-
ambiguous divine figures (carrying divine emblems) used in domestic cult activities have
not been found in Iron Age Israel, but they are occasionally found in Transjordan and
Phoenicia and also in Philistia, where they were more common. Note also that, in Trans-
jordan and Phoenicia, divine representations are not commonly found in domestic con-
texts but human representations are. Other figures such as the commonly found animal
figurines represent families’ requests, especially for abundant livestock. Apotropaic rituals
in domestic contexts are attested by a great number of Egyptian-type amulets and (much
less commonly) by apotropaic figurines, such as the Beersheba cherub. Most likely the
rituals associated with the objects were performed by the women in charge of the kitchen
facilities. Thus, women played an important role in the ritual activities of everyday life.
These ritual acts, such as votive and magic practices with the figurines, libations, food
offerings, and the burning of aromatic compounds would have provided a means for de-
ities or ancestors to participate in the daily lives of families, thereby ensuring the family’s
continuation, whether in terms of health, wealth, or prosperity. With regard to both the
periods and the regions observed in our study, it can be said that there was a great deal of
continuity among Iron Age domestic ritual practices in the West Semitic world in the ap-
paratuses employed (although types of objects might change) and in the associations with
food production and consumption.
480 Chapter 8

8.4.╇ Typology of cult places outside the domestic realm

Our analysis of cult assemblages and other features has revealed a variety of cult prac-
tices associated with a range of different contexts, apart from the aforementioned domestic
cults. Eight types of cult places are now discernible, and they can be partially subdivided.
These types can also be categorized within the three circles of familial ritual activities
(domestic, neighborhood, local/regional/supraregional) already distinguished in chap. 2:

• Type IA: The usual domestic cult, with the nuclear or extended family as carrier
group
• Type IB: A large-scale domestic cult or domestic shrine (also with the nuclear or
extended family as carrier group) that could be used for ritual activities by the
inner circle
• Type II: Work-related cults of various sizes
•â•‡ IIA: Small-scale, inner circle, nuclear family
•â•‡ IIB: Large-scale, inner and middle circles, extended/joint family, wider kin
• Type III: Neighborhood cult installations or shrines (medium circle, ranging
from the nuclear or extended family to the co-residential lineage and the
neighborhood)
• Type IV: Places for the cult of the dead, also in the medium circle
• Type V: Village sanctuaries, outer circle, with the co-residential lineage and/or the
local community as carrier group
•â•‡ VA: Shrines
•â•‡ VB: Open-air cult places
•â•‡ VC: Gate sanctuaries
• Type VI: Palace shrines, an official variant of large-scale domestic cultic practice,
carrier group being the local military and administrative elites
• Type VII: Regional sanctuaries, with the regional tribe, the inhabitants of the
regional communities, or an official body as carrier group, and with priests
maintaining the cult
•â•‡ VIIA: Shrine/temple
•â•‡ VIIB: Open-air
• Type VIII: Supraregional temples of the official cult, carrier group was the king or
an official body, maintained by a priesthood

One important fact that we discovered is that a considerable number of structures from
Iron Ages IIA–IIC that seem to have been work-related areas or workshops exhibit features
similar to residential structures. Domestic cultic assemblages (Type IA) and small-scale
industrial structures (Type IIA) share the same contents in terms of ritual paraphernalia
and therefore the same carrier group, the nuclear family. Likewise, large-scale industrial
installations (Type IIB) such as the olive-oil production area at Tel Miqne/Ekron also con-
tained ritual objects and even built-in ritual apparatuses such as limestone altars, but they
belonged to the medium circle, above the nuclear family level and were used by wider
kin, members of the co-residential lineage, the neighborhood, and perhaps servants and
clients. Permanent installations with a clear cult focus and enlarged ritual assemblages
 Summary 481

within a domestic context, which can be seen as domestic shrines (Type IB), are only at-
tested in one early case (Megiddo Locus 2081) and may have served an elite family. Cultic
structures in the medium circle were neighborhood shrines (Type III, predominantly in
Iron Age I sites); they were small cultic buildings or rooms within or integrated into a
residential area. They were also places for the care of the dead, as illustrated by Jerusalem
Cave 1 (Type IV).
While Type IV places for the care of the dead yielded enlarged and more-differentiated
subsets of domestic ritual assemblages, large-scale industrial cult installations and neigh-
borhood shrines also had permanent installations, such as platforms and benches, and
(in the case of the Tel Miqne olive industry) larger limestone altars, some of which were
attached to the building. The predominant ritual actions carried out here—dry offerings,
libations, and burning aromatic compounds—were similar to domestic ritual activities
and did not require specialized personnel. They could be carried out by the pater familias
and other family members. Permanent installations fall in the Type V category; they were
found mostly in rather small village or city shrines or temples and cult installations situ-
ated at gate areas. They were subsidized by the local communities and, in the case of village
shrines and temples, may have been maintained by priests, as indicated by evidence of
animal offerings at the structures in Tell Michal and Tel Reḥov. Palace shrines (Type VI)
are exemplified by only one structure (Megiddo Room 338). It had features similar to do-
mestic shrines, with evidence only for dry offerings, libations, and incense burning. How-
ever, it was used by administrative and military elites and therefore must be categorized
in the realm of official religious activities. Likewise, regional (Type VII) and supraregional
sanctuaries (Type VIII) were maintained by official bodies. One example of the regional
sanctuary type is the Arad fortress temple. It was part of the official structure and had a
large sacrificial altar that most likely accommodated animal offerings. Based on excavated
sacrificial dishes inscribed with qob-qab = qōdeš qōhānîm (‘set apart for the priests’), we
know that it was maintained by an official priesthood. Similar features also characterize
supraregional sanctuaries (Type VIII) such as the Tel Dan temple, with its differentiated
structures and rich ritual apparatuses (large sacrificial altar, multiple small altars, stands,
and bathtub).
However, we can also discern several levels of cultic activities with enlarged subsets
of ritual paraphernalia by the size of the cult places, and their ritual apparatuses show
on�going interdependence and interaction among the levels. Typical votive objects from
Iron IIC domestic contexts, such as figurines, were also found at the regional sanctuary
in Arad (see Kletter 1996: fig. 35), and other types of votive figure were uncovered in the
Northern Kingdom’s sanctuary at Dan, indicating votive practices by families or individu-
als. However, these votive practices did not play an important role in the earlier neighbor-
hood or small-village shrines of Iron Ages I–IIA. For the Persian–Hellenistic periods, the
hundreds of votive inscriptions from the Samaritan sanctuary on Mount Gerizim are a
witness to the ongoing importance of family ritual practices at official cultic sites. This
interdependence and coexistence of various layers and realms of cultic activity is best
understood by reference to the concept of internal religious pluralism, which allows for
multiple intersections between the circles of domestic, local, and official religion. But, de-
spite this continuity among the segments of religion with regard to ritual artifacts and cult
482 Chapter 8

places, the cultic facilities that show evidence of blood sacrifices and permanent priest-
hoods were clearly cult places that were used by the public (Types V, VII, VIII). Evidence
of sacrifices and priesthoods is missing in cult remains on the domestic, neighborhood,
and work-related levels (Types I, II, III, IV, VI).

8.5.╇ The symbolic world of family religion

based on personal names
Because of the scarcity of religious texts that have survived from the world of an-
cient Israelite and Judahite families in the preexilic period, we needed to explore the sym-
bolic world of their religious beliefs by a detailed investigation of the theophoric Hebrew
personal names that are frequently attested in inscriptions on ostraca, seals, bullae, and
weights. The corpus, drawn from several recent publications, comprises 675 different per-
sonal names that appear 2,922 times altogether. Some of them come from the 10th and the
9th centuries b.c.e. but most from the 8th to 6th centuries. For the sake of comparison,
we combined the Hebrew name corpus with some smaller corpora of personal names
from Israel’s ancient neighbors, the Moabites, Ammonites, Arameans, and Phoenicians.
Altogether, they totaled 895 names and 1,394 occurrences. Only the Edomite onomasti-
con was excluded from the statistical calculations, because of its small size (19 names, 20
occurrences thus far).
Although some scholars have been skeptical (Stolz 1996: 125–26; Olyan 2008: 117),
most have acknowledged for a long time (Sellin 1893: 445; Noth 1928: 133; Albertz 1978a:
49–51; Gerstenberger 2001: 50–53) that Hebrew personal names provide suitable, though
perhaps not ideal, access to the personal piety of ancient Israelite families. The names
undeniably come from pious families; a large percentage of them are theophoric (up to
90%!). According to the biblical narratives, they were chosen by parents with intent and
deliberation, probably during a naming feast, when the days of the mother’s purification
had ended. Moreover, the names’ religious statements overlapped with the religious state-
ments in the individual prayers in the Hebrew Bible to a significant degree. Thus, they
reflected—as did the prayers—the religious crises of the family, primarily of the mother
during the dramatic, dangerous process of birth, but also of other family members during
struggles for survival.
To understand the significance of personal names, one must categorize them accu-
rately. This is crucial. Developing Noth’s (1928) proposal further, we grouped Hebrew
names in six categories: (1) names of thanksgiving; (2) names of confession; (3) names of
praise; (4) equating names; (5) birth names; and (6) secular names. Personal names from
Moab, Ammon, Syria, and Phoenicia (at least the names of Northwest Semitic origin) can
also be grouped into the same categories. Amazingly, even the distribution of the names
among the six groups is similar in all Levantine onomasticons. There is a high percentage
of thanksgiving and confession names: the two name groups, which are closely related,
together encompass about half of all personal names in each of the five onomasticons. The
same is true for the somewhat smaller number of birth names, which amount to between
one-quarter and one-third of all personal names in the Levantine onomasticons. The
praise-name and equating-name groups are small in each of the five cultures (5%–10%).
 Summary 483

The secular names vary from 6% to 15% in the different cultures; they were not popu-
lar, except in Syria (12.9%), because their occurrences are less than 10% in all the other
cultures. This striking result suggests that family religion in Israel was similar in structure
to the family religion of the other cultures in Syria and the Levant during the first half of
the first millennium b.c.e. The similar pattern of name distribution among the six name
groups also provides an argument against the suspicion that a significant portion of the
Hebrew name seals and bullae were forged. Because the epigraphic Hebrew names ac-
cord with those of the neighboring cultures, and because the seals and bullae that almost
certainly come from the antiquities market show the same pattern of distribution as the
inscriptions and ostraca found in controlled excavations, the authenticity of most of the
material that came from antiquities markets is very likely.
One of the most interesting results related to the debate about the continuity or dis-
continuity between Israelite family and household religion, on the one hand, and the of-
ficial or state religion, on the other is that unambiguous allusions to the specific traditions
of official Israelite religion—the exodus, conquest, or kingship; Sinai, Zion, or Bethel the-
ology—are nonexistent in predicative elements in the epigraphic Hebrew personal names.
There are no names derived from the verbs ‫ יצא‬or ‫ עלה‬in the Hiphil (‘to lead out’ or ‘up’),
which appear frequently in exodus theology, and none with the verbs ‫ נחל‬in the Hiphil (‘to
give an inheritance’) or ‫ נוח‬in the Hiphil (‘to provide a resting place’), which are common
in conquest theology. Likewise, the verbs ‫‘( רעה‬to graze’), used metaphorically in kingship
theology, or ‫‘( יׁשב‬to take a seat’), prominent in Zion theology, are lacking in the personal
names. And the same is true for priestly concepts, such as ‫‘( קדׁש‬to be holy’), ‫‘( טהר‬to be
clean’), and ‫ כפר‬in the Piel (‘to make atonement’). In the case of the name ‫( עגליו‬ʿEgelyau
‘young steer of Yhwh’), one could posit an allusion to the theology of the sanctuary at
Bethel, but because the Deuteronomist used the term ‘calf ’ in a pejorative sense and simi-
lar names also appear in Syria and Phoenicia, this suggestion is highly unlikely; rather, the
name probably denotes a desire for the child to be a small companion of the deity. Noth
(1928: 213, 194) considered two names to be allusions to Israel’s national history. Accord-
ing to him, ʾElyāšīb (‘El may bring or has brought back’) expresses a wish for Israel’s return
from exile, and Šĕkanyāh (‘Yhwh has taken up his abode’) refers to the reconstruction
of the Temple in 520–515 b.c.e. Both names, however, have now appeared in epigraphic
evidence from the preexilic period. Thus, the first name was interpreted by J.€J. Stamm
(1980: 71) as a substitute name (for another child who died); and the second name prob-
ably refers to the domestic cult where the presence of the deity was noteworthy. There is
only a small overlap of personal names with Priestly terminology: names regarding the
fulfillment of vows (Dĕrašyāhû ‘Yhwh has asked for [the payment of a vow]’; cf. Deut
23:22) and the offering of sacrifices (Ḥăšabyāhû ‘Yhwh has taken [the vow/sacrifice] into
account’; cf. Lev 7:18). These are precisely the areas where family and priestly ritual activ-
ities came into contact in the outer circle of family religion. Whether names that seem to
refer to a storm theophany really existed is uncertain. Thus, as far as the beliefs of family
and household religion are concerned, there is primarily discontinuity in relation to other
domains of Israelite religion.
Not all of the details of the many family beliefs enshrined in the personal names can
be presented here; only a few generalities can be outlined. Because of the large number of
484 Chapter 8

birth names, which comprise 28.4% of all names and 29.9% of occurrences, we conclude
that the birth of a child played a central role in the symbolic world of family religion. No
less than 74 different roots were used to express a great variety of religious notions ac-
companying the long birth process from the distress of infertility, through conception
and pregnancy, to confinement, care for the newborn, his/her integration into the family
group, and the potential of infant mortality. Each of these phases was regarded as having
its own religious or even mythological dimension. The deity was believed to overcome
the infertility of women, to accept their prayers and vows, to bestow benevolent oracles
on them, and to cause their conception and pregnancy. During the phase of pregnancy,
the deity was believed to create the child in the womb of its mother (Sĕbakyāhû ‘Yhwh
has woven [the child in the womb]’; cf. Ps 139:13; Jer 1:5; Job 10:8–11), and during her
confinement he was believed to be active as a midwife (Daltāyāhû ‘You, O Yhwh, have
drawn out [the child]’) who delivered his new little creature and cared for it (Pĕqaḥyau
‘Yhwh has opened [the eyes of the child]’). The many creation names (39) derived from
11 different roots—such as Bĕnāyāhû (‘Yhwh has created’), ʾElʿāśāh (‘El has made’), and
Miqnēmélek (‘creature of the King’), which occur no less than 148 times—verify that the
creation of the individual was one of the central beliefs of the family and household reli-
gion of ancient Israel. Every wonderful, dangerous birth was experienced as an encounter
with the divine (Šĕkanyau ‘Yhwh was present’) and considered to be a continuation of the
mythological creation of man (Gen 2:7; 4:1). The newborn was integrated into the family
group by accepting it as a present from the deity (Mattanyāhû ‘gift of Yhwh’). It seems that
this act, celebrated during the naming feast on the 8th or 15th day after birth, began to be
replaced by the ritual of infant circumcision (Malyāhû ‘Yhwh has circumcised’) during
the 7th century b.c.e. The high rate of infant mortality is reflected in the large number and
variety of substitute names (20 names and 219 occurrences).
Next to birth names, the names of thanksgiving and confession constitute a consider-
able portion of epigraphic Hebrew personal names; thanksgiving names make up 24.3%
of all the names and 34% of occurrences; confession names are 17.6% of all names and
14.9% of occurrences. Although the two sets of names are different in size, the combined
sets contain 53 different roots, with 9 occurring in both sets. The names of thanksgiving
and confession also reveal an amazing number and variety of family beliefs. These deal,
on the one hand, with divine attention, salvation, assistance, and protection of the indi-
vidual during suffering or danger and, on the other hand, with trust in and dependence
on the deity. Of course, many of these names can also be related to the dangers of the birth
process, but they point more generally to a wider range of crises. This accords well with
the fact that both groups of names often correspond to the individual complaints, thanks-
giving psalms, and oracles of salvation in the Hebrew Bible. First, there is a fundamental
structural correspondence between the names of thanksgiving and the petitions for divine
attendance and salvation that one finds in the individual complaints and in the corre-
sponding reports of the thanksgiving psalms; there are also correspondences between the
names of confession and the confessions of trust in the individual complaints including
the corresponding statements in the oracles of salvation. Second, there is a close verbal
correspondence with the individual Gattungen of the Psalms: 67% of all roots that appear
in the epigraphic names of thanksgiving are also attested in the biblical thanksgiving texts;
 Summary 485

and the verbal correspondence of the names of confession varies between 51 and 66%,
depending on how they are delineated. This verbal correspondence is even a bit higher
than the correspondence between the biblical names and the individual psalms (a little
more than 50%; see Albertz 1978a: 49–50). Based on these results, one can infer that these
personal names actually reflect the prayer customs of ancient Israelite families and that the
individual psalms, although given a ritual shape by professionals and often edited in much
later periods, still reflect ancient family piety in some way.
On the basis of the personal names mentioned above, the structure of family piety can
be reconstructed insofar as it was related to crises. The names of confession, especially,
show an intimate personal relationship with the divine; the deity was often addressed as
“my god,” although in the epigraphic material the first-person-singular suffix was nor-
mally not written during this period. But names such as ‫( אליסמך‬ʾElîsāmāk ‘my god has
supported me’), ‫( אליעז‬ʾElîʿoz ‘my god is my [strong] protection’), or ‫( עמדיהו‬ʿImmādīyāhû
‘Yhwh is with me’) unambiguously verify the intimate relationship between the individual
who bore this name and his or her personal god. Sometimes even the whole family group
could be included in this personal relationship (‫ עמנויהו‬ʿImmānûyāhû ‘Yhwh is with us’).
Generally speaking, this personal relationship with the divine had two aspects: a strong
sentiment of trust in (e.g., ‫ מבטחיהו‬Mibṭaḥyāhû ‘my trust is Yhwh’) and a sentiment of
dependence on the personal deity (e.g., ‫ עבדיהו‬ʿAbdiyāhû ‘servant of Yhwh’). This re-
lationship lasted for the entire life of the name-bearer; it was not a matter of personal
choice but a relationship inherited from the parents who bestowed the name on their
child. We showed that the creation of every individual by the deity, as reflected by the
creation names, was the foundation for this intimate, trustful relationship with the deity
(cf. Ps 22:10–11; 71:5–7). Because it was based on a biological connection, this individual
religious relationship differed significantly from Israel’s relationship with Yhwh, which
was based on political history. In its broadly unconditional, indissoluble, and indestruc-
tible character, this individual relationship had strong analogies with the social relations
between family members, especially the relationship between parents and their small chil-
dren. Thus the “very specifically declared relationship” that, according to the sociologist
R.€Nave-Herz (2002: 149), “distinguished the family from any other relation of social in-
teraction in a given society” was also the very one that determined and defined the typical
features of family religion.
The names of praise (48 names and 135 occurrences) compose a much smaller por-
tion of the epigraphic corpus (7.1% and 4.6%, respectively). Dealing with the greatness,
kindness, and vital activity of the deity and calling for praise and veneration of him, these
names have structural parallels with the hymn Gattung, with which they also exhibit some
verbal correspondences (40%). Hymns were used in the services of the state cult and the
great pilgrimage feasts of the regional and central sanctuaries in which many Israelite and
Judahite families participated. Thus, the praise-name group verifies that there was influ-
ence by the official religion on the family and household religion, but it also demonstrates
that it was rather limited.
A detailed comparison of all the predicative elements of the theophoric personal
names of Israel’s neighbors reveals that there were only slight differences between Israel
and other peoples in the distribution of religious statements among the name groups, and
486 Chapter 8

there were only a few variations in motifs and metaphors. There were no significant differ-
ences from the corpus of Hebrew names. The metaphorical nature of the Hebrew names
may have been somewhat richer than in Moabite, Ammonite, Aramean, and Phoenician
names. This impression may obtain merely because of the greater size of the attested He-
brew onomasticon. But in any case, there is no subgroup of prayer names mentioned
above for which a parallel from Israel’s neighbors cannot be found. The only difference
worth mentioning is the apparent reservation of Israelite parents to express the relation-
ship with the divine in sexual terms; here, the names of the type “son/daughter of DN” that
appear frequently in the Aramean (Barhadad ‘son of Hadad’) and Phoenician (Batšaḥar
‘daughter of Shachar’) onomasticons are clearly underrepresented and only are attested as
loan-names (e.g., from Egypt, Pašḥur ‘Son of Horus’). The main differences between the
personal names of Israel and its surrounding cultures are related not to the predicative
elements but the theophoric.
That the birth and prayer names do not represent the entire range of family and house-
hold religious beliefs was demonstrated by a brief consideration of the biblical proverbs
(Proverbs 10–29), because no epigraphic Israelite proverbs are available. While the names
focused on crises, the proverbs were intended to provide counsel for the conduct of life
in times of relative peace and equanimity. Although the proverbs are directed more at
individuals’ reasoning skills than at piety, they have some features in common with the
theophoric names, such as references to the divine creation of the individual (Prov 14:31;
17:5; 20:12; et  al.), divine protection (10:29; 14:26; et  al.), and trust in the deity (Prov
3:5; 16:20; 22:19; et al.) and an absence of national religious traditions. The proverbs not
only encourage people to act with trust in the deity (16:3) but also warn them against
over�estimating their own abilities. God recognizes the limits of their wisdom (21:30), he
examines their most intimate thoughts and deeds (15:3), and he will punish evildoers
and defend victims (10:3; 12:2; et al.). Thus, the piety of the proverbs has a strong ethi-
cal orientation; the deity is not only the benevolent creator of the individual but also the
examiner and judge. As far as conducting one’s life was concerned, the guiding family re-
ligious beliefs were the dependence of each individual on the deity and the idea of moral
and social responsibility.
In contrast to the predicate statements, the theophoric elements of personal names
differ much more among the various Levantine onomasticons. The Hebrew onomasti-
con manifests 28 different theophoric elements, with a strong preference for Israel’s na-
tional god Yhwh; he appears in 59.4% of the 404 theophoric Hebrew names (excluding
the hypo�coristica) and in 67.6% of all 1,978 occurences. An even higher percentage of
names that contain the references to the god El appears in the Ammonite onomasticon.
He was referred to in 67.8% of the Ammonite names and 81.8% of the occurrences within
a small pantheon of 15 deities. The small Moabite onomasticon consisted of 11 different
deities; among them, the national god Chemosh held a lower position, appearing in 37.9%
of the Moabite names and 40.5% of the occurrences. In contrast to these rather limited
pantheons, the Aramaic pantheon had 44 different deities who were referred to in the
onomasticon; and the Phoenician, 60 different deities. The main gods Baal and Hadad
(including all other weather-gods) were referred to in only a small portion of the names—
about 21% or 24%. In spite of these obvious differences, all Levantine onomasticons share
 Summary 487

some common ground: they all contain a similar percentage of divinized kinship terms;
they all know the god El, the appellative, or a tutelary god; and they all refer to only a small
number of female deities. These observations lead to the conclusion that, as far as a choice
of deities was concerned, Levantine families obviously adapted themselves to the religious
environment of their societies, whether it was a less developed polytheism such as in Am-
mon, Moab, and Israel; or a more highly developed polytheism such as in Syria and Phoe-
nicia. Nevertheless, they all had some features in common, especially their preference for
calling their family deities by kinship terms (ʾāb ‘father’, ʾāḥ ‘brother’, ʿam ‘uncle’, ḥam
‘father-in-law’, ʾēm ‘mother’, and ʾaḥat ‘sister’) or taking them as their personal gods (ʾēlī
‘my god’, ʾădōnī, māray ‘my lord’, malkī ‘my king’)—both of which were less common no-
tions in the official religions of the Levantine cultures.
In spite of their adaptation to a more or less polytheistic environment, the Levantine
family and household religions manifested one curious characteristic: a variety of theo-
phoric elements were used in the personal names throughout these different cultures, but
the predicative elements remained strikingly similar in all of them. This similarity can be
observed both by comparing the variety of deities within the individual onomasticons and
by comparing the different onomasticons. This means that, regardless of name, nature,
or number, all deities were believed to act similarly on behalf of their families. They were
divested of the individual characteristics that they had acquired on the level of state and
temple religion over a long period of time and became associated with the divine func-
tions (attention, salvation, protection, support) that correspond to the typical needs of
family members. In being assimilated as family deities, Yhwh, El, Baal, Anat, Mot, and
other deities attested in the Hebrew onomasticon shed their specific individual attributes
and were believed to act or function in largely identical ways.
This convergence and identification of deities on the family level of religion are like-
wise attested by the group of equating names, in which two divine designations are closely
connected in a nominal sentence. Although these names constitute only a small group
within each of the Levantine onomasticons (varying between 5.5% and 10.9% of all the
names and 4.9% and 12.7% of the occurrences), they are of great theological significance.
Four types can be distinguished. In the first type, the family gods or personal gods are
predicated by a major deity (e.g., ʾAḥīḥur ‘my [divine] brother is Horus’; ʾElīyāhû ‘my god
is Yhwh’), from whom they inherit their power. By this equating, the major deity becomes
integrated into the personal sphere of the family and the symbolic world of its religion.
In the second type, a major deity is predicated by either the family god or the per-
sonal god (Kamōšʿam ‘Chemosh is [my divine] uncle’; ʾEšmunʾadōnī ‘Eshmun is my lord’).
Through this equating, the major deity was shaped with the characteristics of the per-
sonal family god and largely divested of the characteristics ascribed to the deity within the
sphere of official religion. This corresponds to the observation that the national character-
istics of Yhwh are absent in the religious sphere of the personal names.
In the third type, deities on the same level are predicated by one another—the personal
god by the family god, the family god by the personal god, or a family god by a family god
(ʾElîʿam ‘my god is the [divine uncle]’, ʾAḥlay ‘[my divine] brother is my god’, ʾAḥatʾab
‘[my divine] sister is father’). These names are confessions of confidence in the chosen god
of the family, that he or she acts as a true family or personal god.
488 Chapter 8

In the fourth type, a major god is predicated by another major god (Šēdad ‘Sîn is Ha-
dad’; Šalmānrimmān ‘Shalman is [Hadad-]Rimmon’). These names allowed families to
retain the identity of the gods they had chosen, despite changing conditions in their poly-
theistic environment. This type corresponds to the observation that on the level of family
religion all the deities were furnished with the same functions. It appears more often in
cultures with a more-developed polytheism (Syria, Phoenicia).
Most of the Hebrew equating names belong to types 1 and 2, in which a major god, in
most cases Yhwh, was integrated into the world of family religion. In Israel, where poly-
theism existed in a relatively restricted form, equating names of the fourth type are rather
limited (Yĕhôʾēl ‘Yhwh is El’, Baʿalyāh ‘Baal is Yhwh’ [from the Hebrew Bible]). Never-
theless, the very existence of these names verifies a clear tendency toward an inclusive
monolatry in Israelite and all others Levantine family and household religions.
In spite of the important role that women, especially mothers, played in developing
the belief system of family and household religion, female deities are noticeably under-
represented in the theophoric elements of personal names. This oddity is not limited to
the Hebrew onomasticon, where goddesses appear in only 1.7% of all theophoric names
and 0.9% of the epigraphic names (in precise figures, 7 and 17, respectively). Similarly
low percentages occur in the Moabite and Ammonite onomasticon (2.7% and 2.0% of the
names). Goddesses are found somewhat more frequently in the Aramaic onomasticon
(4.5%); only in the Phoenician onomasticon is there a higher proportion—13.5% of the
theophoric names and 11.0% of the occurrences. It may be that goddesses became more
prominent only in more urbanized societies such as Phoenicia and Mesopotamia, where
women occupied a more important position in public life, while in more rural societies
such as Israel, Ammon, and Moab, where patriarchy dominated, male deities were nor-
mally considered more effective. In any event, on the level of family religion, female deities
were also divested of their special characteristics and were believed to act as family deities
like their male counterparts. Thus the Levantine onomasticons not only provide detailed
insights into the beliefs of the family religion of Israel and the family religion of its neigh-
bors but also reveal interesting strategies by which family religions met the challenges of
their various polytheistic environments.
In contrast to the personal names, the iconographic evidence from the private Iron
Age stamp seals of Israel and Judah shows a rather close affinity of family religion to the
religious symbol system of state and temple religion. On these personal seals, anthropo-
morphic representations of major deities seem to have been avoided altogether; instead,
an abstract symbolization of Yhwh was used, such as the winged sun-disc and the winged
beetle. The presence of both the winged sun-disc and winged beetles on private and of-
ficial Judean seals reveals a strong continuity between official and private religion in use of
symbols. The same is true for the use of winged Uraei (which can be associated with bib-
lical seraphim), cherubim (in the appearance of a sphinx), and Temple iconography; on
the seals, they may have functioned as lower protective deities and mediators for Yhwh.
The characteristics that were unique to family religion are reflected in the decided prefer-
ence for protective spirits and apotropaic monsters on private seals; based on the personal
names on the seals, divine salvation, protection, and support were of central importance
to families. The difference in the evidence provided by the glyptic media and the personal
 Summary 489

names may have to do with the fact that the professional manufacturers who engraved the
seals were constrained by an iconographic repertoire that was taken from many different
international, regional, and local sources, including the official religion. Thus their icons
did not directly reflect the beliefs of the seal owners. The second reason may have been
the double function of the seals, which were used not only for private purposes but also to
represent individuals in the public sphere.

8.6.╇ Rites and rituals of family religion

The rites and rituals associated with the religious practices of the family are manifold.
Generally, we can discern between the following: (1) rites and rituals associated with the
human life cycle, such as those associated with birth, circumcision, and marriage; (2) rites
and rituals associated with the calendar, such as the Passover and the Sabbath; (3) occa-
sional rituals such as petitions, vows, lamentations, and apotropaic rituals; and (4) ritual
taboos and related observances.
Of utmost importance to families were the religious activities and rituals associated
with the human life cycle. Pregnancy and birth were a crucial and potentially dangerous
period in a woman’s life and therefore were accompanied by rituals and religious obser-
vances. Although biblical texts provide no explicit evidence for birth rituals, which may
have been the sole purview of midwives, both the Bible and the Hebrew onomasticon
provide us with some important information about ritual activities related to pregnancy
and birth. Women who had not yet given birth could address the deity with laments and
vows at a sanctuary, as Hannah did in 1 Samuel 1. They did this because conception and
the creation of a human being were considered a divine work. Ritual protection of the
child is attested by amulets of the Egyptian god Bes as well as the appearance of the god’s
name in the Hebrew onomasticon (Qadbeś ‘Bes has formed’). Birth-related ritual obser-
vances included the mother’s purification period (7 days after the birth of a boy and 14
after the birth of a girl) and, on the 8th or 15th day, the feast of name giving (Gen 17:12;
21:4). The feast to celebrate the birth began being replaced in the 7th century by the cir-
cumcision of infants, which originally had been an apotropaic rite de passage at the age
of maturity (this function is attested in the story of the “bridegroom of blood” in Exod
4:24–26). Circumcision then became the badge of religious identity during the Exile. Dif-
ferent from birth and circumcision, marriage—otherwise regarded as an important step
in the religious life of a person—was, according to both biblical and extrabiblical sources,
merely a legal action accompanied by blessings. Monogamous marriages were the rule,
and the polygyny of the patriarchs seems to have been an intentional archaism. More-
over, endogamous marriages were preferred by the exilic and postexilic authors in order
to maintain the religious integrity of the people as a whole. This was, however, a point of
debate, as the book of Ruth attests. Another important social issue, according to the book
of Ruth and Deut 25:5–10, was the so-called levirate marriage: the obligation of a brother
to marry his brother’s widow, if she had no offspring, in order to ensure the continuation
of the brother’s line and the widow’s sustenance.
One of the most important feasts fixed by the calendar was the Feast of Passover, which
underwent several transformations: from an originally preexilic ritual only performed by
490 Chapter 8

laymen in a family setting with apotropaic elements, as preserved in Exod 12:1–13; to a

centralized pilgrimage feast, as depicted in Deut 16:1–8, performed by the priests; and the
lamb, which was originally to be consumed, was transformed into a zebaḥ-offering and
associated with the agricultural Festival of Unleavened Bread; during the Exile, as attested
by the Priestly adoption of the old feast in Exod 12:1–13, the festival regained its family
setting. Despite the claim of strict centralization and priestly control over the Passover
in the postexilic era, the family character of the festival prevailed in the Second Temple
period, including public slaughter and domestic consumption.
In contrast to Passover, the Sabbath apparently was not a religious observance of fami-
lies in preexilic times but was simply a day of rest. During the Exile, the seventh day
was combined with the traditions of the Full Moon Festival. It gained religious and cultic
dignity as a family celebration (Deut 5:12–15; Exod 20:8–11) and also served as a to-
ken of religious identity. In addition to the weekly Sabbath, the postexilic Holiness Code
(Lev 25:1–7) promoted the older custom of an agricultural fallow year every seventh year
(Exod 23:10–11) to the level of a religious observance. This is confirmed by references
to the observance in sources from the Hellenistic and Roman periods (1 Macc 6:49, 53;
Josephus, Ant. 8.8.1; 14.10.6; 16.2). Also in the area of agriculture were the offerings of the
“firstfruits” of agricultural produce and of firstborn animals (Exod 23:19; 34:19–20, 26;
Deut 15:19–23; 26:1–11), as well as the festivals of harvest and ingathering (Exod 34:22).
Before the Exile, rituals associated with these offerings, although related to local or re-
gional sanctuaries, were essentially performed independently by each family. The late mo-
narchic Deuteronomistic reform movement sought to incorporate the rites and rituals of
family religion with those of the official cult.
The most prominent occasional ritual practice was, according to both biblical and
extrabiblical sources, the vow (nēder). According to biblical texts, vows were often un-
dertaken during war, as demonstrated by the fight with the king of Arad in Num 21:2
and by Jephtah’s vow in Judg 11:30–31, and in situations of critical personal and political
importance, as evidenced by Absalom’s vow regarding his return to Jerusalem in 2 Sam
15:7–8. In family contexts, vows were used in situations that threatened the continuation
of a family, such as Hannah’s infertility in 1 Samuel 1. Vows were used not only in situa-
tions of severe danger or distress but also in situations of perceived need, as Berlinerblau
also observed (1991: 555). However, many biblical texts recommend restraint from vows
(Num 30:3; Deut 23:22–24; Qoh 5:3–6; and Prov 20:25). As Jer 44:15–19 attests, oaths were
sworn not only to Yhwh but also to other deities such as the Queen of Heaven. In preexilic
times, vows would most likely have been made at a local or regional sanctuary (1 Sam-
uel 1; 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31–32; 19:6, 11–14), but vows were also made in private contexts
(Numbers 30), while rituals following their fulfillment were usually performed in commu-
nal sanctuaries. The making of vows thus represented a point of intersection between the
realms of family religion and official religion; nevertheless, vowing was essentially a family
rite. This intersection—as well as official control over these practices—is attested as well by
the rich epigraphic evidence from the Samaritan sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim.
Like vows, blessings (‫ ברוך‬bārūk) were an important religious practice of families,
but so also was their counterpart, curses. Blessings were particularly important as a ritual
performance to transfer the authority of the pater familias to a chosen heir as in Gen 27:1–
 Summary 491

40. The counterpart of the family blessing, the curse, is less prominent in biblical texts;
nevertheless, biblical law contains strong verdicts against curses in the realm of the family,
especially against cursing one’s parents (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9), to prevent family and so-
cial disorder caused by curses and related practices of witchcraft. In this case, biblical law
was largely shaped by family values. The most common context for curses in epigraphic
sources is tomb inscriptions to prevent the family’s cave from being disturbed or robbed.
As I emphasized in previous works (Albertz 1978a: 23–49; 1994: 100–101; 2008: 102–
3), ceremonies for sickness, distress, bad omens, and other types of misfortune were origi-
nally performed by the pater familias in domestic settings. Although the Old Testament
does not refer explicitly to these rituals in family contexts, the Psalms in particular and
also analogies from Mesopotamian incantations support the theory that they were family
rituals. Most likely, the psalms of individual complaint and thanksgiving originated in the
domestic sociohistorical context, because they strongly reflect the beliefs and religious
experiences of families. The deity invoked in the psalms of individual complaint and in
psalms of confidence and related genres is often addressed as ‘my god’ (‫אלי‬, ‫ אלהי‬ʾēlî,
ʾĕlōhay). This sort of personal intimacy with the deity is also reflected in the use of phrases
such as ‘my help’, ‘my protection’, ‘my trust’, and ‘my hope’. As shown in chap.€5 above,
there is considerable correspondence between the semantic structures of these individual
psalms of complaint and thanksgiving and the Hebrew onomasticon. Furthermore, the ar-
chaeological evidence presented in chap. 3 supports the idea of domestic ceremonies: for
example, the presence of ritual objects such as offering stands, votive figurines, apotropaic
amulets, and so on. This archaeological evidence, the biblical texts (e.g., Exod 12:21–23; Tob
3:7–9; and 6:1–9), and several psalms of individual complaint (Ps 22:17; 91:5) attest do-
mestic prophylactic and exorcistic measures against the threat of demons. As mentioned,
these domestic ceremonies were usually carried out by the pater familias. But in situations
of extreme distress, a ritual specialist such as a man of God (‫ איׁש האלהים‬ʾîš hāʾĕlōhîm)
needed to be consulted. These actions by religious specialists are reflected in the miracle
stories of the men of God Elijah and Elisha in 1 and 2 Kings, especially the case of the bar-
ren wife in 2 Kgs 4:8–17 and the death of the son in 1 Kgs 17:17–24 and 2€Kgs 4:18–37.
In these passages, men of God were occasionally hosted by families, and they paid for
this provision with ritual services. As evidenced by the polemics in Ezek 13:17–21 (cf.
1€Samuel 28), there were also female ritual specialists who could be consulted in situations
of sickness and distress; however, the patriarchal selection of biblical texts included almost
no references to ritual authority held by women. In postexilic times, the Priestly writers’
bias was toward confining domestic ritual procedures to the official sphere of religion,
as can be seen in the ritual purification of the house afflicted with a skin disease (‫צרעת‬
ṣāraʿat) in Lev 14:33–53. But we should also realize that, even during the preexilic period,
purification rituals involving blood rites would only have been performed by priests.
The values and the symbolic system of family religion were also strongly emphasized
in the complex of taboos and related ritual observances. Largely due to the groundbreak-
ing study on Purity and Danger by Mary Douglas (1966), there is quite a broad consensus
among Hebrew Bible scholars that food taboos (Exod 22:30; Leviticus 11; Deut 14:3–21)
and related taboos such as the prohibition against cooking a young goat in its mother’s
milk (Exod 23:19b; 34:26b; Deut 14:21b) were linked to societal ideas about sanctity and
492 Chapter 8

cosmic order, which were reflected in the classification systems. Thus, certain animals that
did not fit into the classification system were rendered unclean. Although the food taboos
may already have been conventional in preexilic times, their observance later became a
badge of national and religious identity and were primarily maintained by families.
Also strongly shaped by family values were the sexual taboos against incest (Lev 18:6–
18; 20:11–12, 14, 17). The most important reason for the incest taboo was to ensure har-
monious relationships between parents, children, and other close kin. Thus, the family as
the central source of social harmony was protected. The taboos regarding bestiality (Exod
22:18; Lev 18:23; 20:15–16) and homosexuality (Lev 18:22 and 20:13) were more complex
and stemmed from cultural conventions as well as views about the cosmic order. Acts
of this sort were considered a blurring of boundaries that endangered the cosmological
order. This was also the case for the more general prohibitions on intermixing, such as in
Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9–11. As can be shown by prohibitions against sexual deviations
in the law codes of Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors, specifically against intercourse
with animals and homosexuality, the biblical prohibitions do not serve the purpose of de-
marcating Israel in contrast to foreign cults and their practices but simply reflect common
ancient Near Eastern conventions. Obviously, small-scale societies stressed the impor-
tance of conducting one’s life according to the commonly accepted models of behavior in
order to strengthen, stabilize, and ensure the survival of their basic structure and institu-
tions, especially the family. More closely related to the requirements of official religion
were the taboos about genital discharges in Lev 12:1–8. These allegedly archaic taboos
were adapted to the Priestly ritual system in postexilic times and strongly affected family
life because they enforced periods of isolation and inactivity, especially for women. Other
taboos, such as harvesting the edges of a field or stripping a vineyard bare (Lev 19:9–10;
Deut 24:19–22) were socially motivated, to sustain the poor and aliens.
Obviously, the rituals, rites, and observances of family religion expressed family values
such as harmony and solidarity and were strongly influenced by the personal relationships
of family members, especially between children and their parents. The rites and rituals of
family religion, including the ritual care of the dead, were aimed at the essential religious
desires of the familial microcosm, such as peace, stability, harmony, abundant progeny,
and general welfare. Moreover, these family values were mirrored by the divine order of
the macrocosm.
Historically, we can observe that, before the exile, family religious practices existed
alongside religious practices performed on local, regional, and official levels of society and
that all of these practices interacted closely with one another. Thus, there was no single
definitive preexilic religion of ancient Israel but a highly differentiated internal religious
pluralism, aspects of which frequently intersected with each other. During the Babylonian
Exile and throughout the subsequent Diaspora, many observances, rites, and rituals of
family religion became symbolic of national and religious identity and served to maintain
this otherwise precarious identity. Particularly effective in this regard were the rites and
rituals of circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary customs, which in turn began to create and
maintain the religious identity. Passover especially went through a dynamic evolution and
transformation, from originally being a family celebration to later becoming a feast of the
official cult in the Second Temple period. It nevertheless maintained important elements
 Summary 493

from its origin and eventually reverted once again back to being a predominantly family
celebration, after the destruction of the Second Temple. Rites, rituals, and observances
of the family as well as burial practices and commemorative rituals for the deceased (see
below) not only communicated national and religious identity but also manifested and
mediated the cultural memory of ancient Israel and early Judaism. One of the most im-
portant observations of our investigation is that the basic symbolic system of family reli-
gion—with its values of family harmony, welfare, and abundant progeny—did not change
a great deal, even when the religious “superstructure” was transformed. Thus, postexilic,
early Judaism also shared the essential features of its symbolic system and its religious
expressions with its contemporary neighbors.

8.7.╇ Care for the dead in the context of

household and family religion
Family religion took place in the realm of the house itself and also (as was demon-
strated in chap. 4) in other places. One of the most important contexts for ritual activity
other than the regular domestic cult was burial and post-mortem care for the dead. The
significance of cultic activities for the deceased in Israelite religion has been a controver-
sial subject of recent discussion (Spronk 1986: 247–50; Lewis 1989: 171–81; van der Toorn
1996b: 206–35; Niehr 2003; Schmitt 2007 et€al.). We prefer the term care for the dead
instead of terms such as cults of the dead and ancestor cults, because the latter terms imply
veneration of ancestors similar to that of gods, and this is not attested in our sources. Care
for the dead underlines the ongoing social relations between the living and the deceased
members of a family, clan, or other community. Honoring and remembering ancestors
were an important aspect of building and maintaining family identity in ancient Israel.
Looking at the rites and rituals for the care of the dead, we can distinguish two distinct
groups of ritual activities: (1) irregularly observed rites, such as burial and mourning rites;
and (2) regularly or periodically observed commemorative rites and rituals. The most
important irregularly observed rites were related to burial. Burial rites had the dead as
their primary addressee, especially the burial itself, but rites of mourning primarily ad-
dressed the bereaved. Information about burial practices is available due to the wealth of
archaeological evidence. The dominant type of burial in the Iron Age was collective burial
in bench or arcosolia tombs. This may be referred to as the final resting place for nuclear
or extended families and is evidence of the ongoing connection between family members
that was still important even after death. Burial sites were always arranged in a cluster or
a necropolis near the city but not, as indicated in biblical sources, on the family farm or
herding land (the ‫ נחלה‬naḥălāh). Material memorials (‫מצבה‬, ‫ יד‬maṣṣebāh or yād) erected
as tomb markers or memorial stelae are mentioned in biblical and extrabiblical texts (Gen
35:20; 2 Sam 18:18; Josephus, Ant. 13.211–12) but not attested by archaeological evidence.
Burial gifts, such as food provisions, figurines, amulets, and perhaps post-burial gifts show
the dead’s need to be cared for by the living. The personality of the deceased was repre-
sented by items of personal adornment and jewelry, and thereby the tomb became an
expression of the broader family and local identity. Burial and mortuary rites performed
by family members were actions of familial solidarity. The family was accompanied and
494 Chapter 8

assisted by local relatives and by friends, clients, and members of the local community.
Thus, burial and mourning rites were clearly public due to the involvement of members of
the greater community, such as wailing women drawn from the neighborhood. Mortuary
rites such as mourning made conspicuous the gap that had been left by the deceased; grief
and sorrow were expressed and enacted by expressive physical rites, such as wailing aloud,
tearing clothes, sitting in the dirt and rubbing oneself with dirt and ashes, self-laceration,
beating one’s breast and head, shaving the forehead, and so on. With these expressive rites,
the living temporarily became like the dead. Mourning rites were used as occasions for
strengthening and renegotiating the social roles of the living members of the family or
clan, as well as the roles of the co-residential circle of relatives and the local community.
Among the regularly observed mortuary rites were annual commemorative meals,
such as the meal mentioned in 1 Samuel 20 that involved the ‫ מׁשפחה‬mišpāḥāh at the new
moon, and we may assume that there were monthly gatherings, perhaps including mem-
bers of the joint family. Rituals conducted with greater frequency involved the daily care
for the dead and were performed in houses by the nuclear or extended family. The exis-
tence of these practices is inferred from archaeological evidence that suggests the frequent
use of domestic ritual objects. The post-mortem relationship between the living and the
dead is reflected in the rites that were performed in special locations, such as in Jerusalem
Caves I–III, Locus 6015, or Samaria E207. These locations appear to have been special
subterranean places for ritual performances focused on the dead (cf. Isa 65:3–5), espe-
cially ritual meals held by such groups as nuclear or joint families. In any case, the ritual
apparatus found at these places is identical to domestic ritual assemblages or an enlarged
subset of them. The textual evidence of Deut 26:14; Sir 7:33; and Tob 4:17 reveals that
portions of the meals for the dead served as symbols of the ongoing social relationship
between the dead and the living and also as sustenance for the dead in the netherworld.
The entire complex of burial and post-mortem rites expressed the importance of the fam-
ily and maintaining its solidarity in ancient Israelite society.
A special form of ritual communication with the dead was interrogation of the dead,
or necromancy, as narrated in the famous story about Saul and the “witch” of Endor in
1 Samuel 28 and other, mostly polemical accounts in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deuteron-
omy 18). The strong opposition of the biblical writers to necromancy can be explained by
necromancy’s being viewed as a violation of Yhwh’s sovereignty and denial of his being
the only source of divination. Furthermore, the blurring of boundaries between the living
and the dead must be taken into account, because interaction with the spirits of the dead
is dangerous. Although a mask was found together with an offering stand, which could be
interpreted as evidence for necromancy, there is no textual or archaeological support for
necromancy as a common domestic ritual practice.
From the historical perspective, the rites, rituals, and observances of ritual care for the
dead were relatively stable from preexilic to postexilic times and even into the Hellenistic
and Roman periods, although certain practices, such as expressive mourning rites and
necromancy were eliminated because they were associated with foreign beliefs and there-
fore no longer regarded as Yahwistic.
Consequently, based on the archaeological, epigraphic, and biblical evidence pre-
sented in this volume, we conclude that the family and household religion of ancient Israel
 Summary 495

from the 11th to the 7th centuries b.c.e. was a vivid, rich segment of Israelite religion. It
was carried out by family members at various locations, whether in their own dwelling,
at the shrines or burial places in their neighborhoods, or at local, regional, or even state
sanctuaries. Although it intersected in many ways with the local and official segments of
Israelite religion, it nevertheless formed a religious symbolic world with its own charac-
teristics and typical ritual activities that were based on the particular social relationships
of families and that were focused on their specific needs.
Up to the 7th century b.c.e., the Israelite family and household religion manifested
almost no unique features but was quite similar to other family and household religions
of the Levant. Thus, for the preexilic era, it should be characterized as a mere variant of
a common Levantine religious phenomenon. Only from the 6th century onward did the
family religion of Israel acquire a distinctive, Israelite shape. But even as the distinctly
Jewish family religion of the Persian and Hellenistic periods (as evidenced, for example,
by “Torah piety”), it never completely lost the customs and traditions of its family roots.
 Additional Tables:
Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16
Table 3.6.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron Age I
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Ai Iron I Locus 69, bench cultic stands collectibles bowl libation, neighborhood
integrated platform animal fig. lamp jar food/drink shrine
channel (?) frag. consumption

Beth- Iron IA Locus 1342 storage/ fem. fig. frag. fayence obj. jars worship/ work related
shean industrial 2 kernoi pyxides bowls votive
jugs libation

Hazor Iron IB Stratum XI, platform sanctuary 3283: stand ivory handle cooking pot libation village shrine
Room 3283 benches foundation storage jar food
and adjacent standing stone offering in basalt bowls offering/
structures jug 3307: 2 and pestles consumption
(Loci 3307 stands 3275: 3307:
and 3275) 2 stands ╇bowl
freestanding(?) ╇ store jar
3275:
╇bowl
╇ tripod bowl
╇ cooking pot
╇krater
╇ store jar
Tel Iron I House 314 ovens kitchen / food pot stand bowls food / drink
Masos Room 343 preparation / chalices kraters consumption
consumption lamps cooking jugs
cooking pots
jugs
strainer jug
juglets
store jars
hole-mouth
jars
amphoriskos
pyxides
pilgrim flask
flower pot
working
stones
Tel Iron I House 314 platform kitchen animal collectibles bowls worship/ domestic,
Masos Room 307 oven figurine ? cooking pots votive house shrine
jugs food / drink
juglets consumption
pyxides
lamp
krater
pithos
storage jar
Tel Iron I House 314 stands collectibles? jug libations domestic
Masos Room 331 (bowls) (copper) jar and/or dry
ivory spout lamps pithos offerings
(lion’s head) bichrome
vessel frag.

496
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 497

Table 3.6.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron Age I
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Tell Iron IB Mound A benches storage fenestrated chalices storage jars libations domestic
Mazar Room 101 (Rooms 100, stand cooking pots and/or dry
102 only) kraters offerings
flasks
jugs
Megiddo Iron IB Courtyard storage stand chalices storage jars libations domestic
house 00/K/10, zoom. vessel cooking pots
Locus 98/K/77 bowls
jugs
juglets
flasks
lids
Megiddo Iron IB Courtyard oven, tabun kitchen zoom. vessels storage jars libations domestic
house 00/K/10, zoom. figs. cooking pots votive
Locus bowls
00/K/87and jugs
89/K/70 juglets
flasks
Megiddo Iron IB Area AA, storage mini shrine chalice pyxis worship/ domestic
Locus 2159 double bowls libations
Courtyard pyxis jug
house jars
spouted
amph.
pilgrim flask
lentoid flasks
bottle
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, oven, pit, kitchen: fem. fig. head 3 chalices pilgrim flasks worship/ domestic
Locus 1727 basin storage, food lamp jugs votive
processing pilgrim flasks
and pyxis
consumption bowls
cooking pots
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, storage, food stand goblet bowl libation domestic
Locus 1729 processing lamp pyxis and/or dry
pilgrim flasks offerings ?
jugs
juglets
strainer cups
baking tray
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, storage bronze calf chalices amphoriskos votive/ domestic
Locus 1732 amulet goblet jugs libation
zoom. vessel lamps juglets
kernos flask
cooking pots
bowl
jars
basalt bowl
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, tree unbuilt area zoom. spout strainer jar libation domestic
Locus 1737 or juglet and/or dry
courtyard jugs offerings
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, oven kitchen or stand bowl libation domestic
Locus 1731 storage flask and/or dry
jars offerings
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, oven kitchen or stand chalices basalt bowl libation domestic
Locus 1735 storage amphoriskos and/or dry
jugs offerings
juglet
pilgrim flasks
jars
 498 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 3.6.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron Age I
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food kernos painted Jugs libation domestic
Locus 1736 processing/ pyxis lentoid flasks and/or dry
storage painted jugs kraters offerings
bowls
spouted
amphoriskos
strainer jug
baking tray
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food stand (bowl goblets strainer jug libation domestic
Locus 1740 processing/ of) cymbals strainer cup and/or dry
consumption jugs offerings
bowls music
flasks
cooking pots
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food stand (base) chalice strainer jug libation domestic
Locus 1744 processing/ painted jug pilgrim flask and/or dry
consumption/ funnel offerings
storage bowl
cooking pots
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food fem. fig. frag. lentoid flask worship/ domestic
Locus 1780 processing/ krater votive
storage cooking pot
jug
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food / drink bone anim. 3 fayence bowl votive domestic
Locus 1741 consumption? fig. frag. amulets basalt bowl
pyxis jugs
lamp painted jug
goblet lentoid flask
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food stand 2 seals cooking pots libation domestic
Locus 1752 processing/ goblet jug and/or dry
storage lamps lentoid flask offerings
cup&saucer jars
Megiddo Iron IB Locus 1750 trees unbuilt area kernos frag. unlikely:
fayance dump?
amulet
ivory animal
frag.
Megiddo Iron IB Locus 1760 ovens kitchen fem. fig. torso chalice bowl worship/ domestic
flask jugs votive
jars
amphoriskoi
Tell Qiri Iron I Str. VIIIB–C benches cultic stand+bowl chalices bowls libation neighborhood
building, platform libation vessel miniature cooking pots animal shrine
integrated stone basin vessel krater offerings/
amulet jug meals
cooking jar
pithos
Ḥirbet Iron I Cluster S benches domestic stands? libation? domestic
Raddana platforms decorated
ovens krater
Shiloh Iron I Room 335, stand frags. bowls libations and domestic
debris 623 frags. of cooking pots dry offerings
zoomorphic pilgrim flask
appliques jug
pithoi
storage jar
Tell el- Iron I NE room basin kitchen none none remains of none none
Wawiyat ovens butchered
cow
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 499

Table 3.7. Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron IIA
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Tel ʿAmal Iron IIA 12 ovens kitchen stand lamp bowls libations domestic
zoom. spout juglets
Tel ʿAmal Iron IIA 34 ovens, bench industrial stand krater libations/ work related
dry
offerings
Beth-shean Iron IIA Locus 1564 basin? domestic fem. fig. and ivory object flask libation, domestic
2 zoom. frags. votive
2 stands music
Beth-shean Iron IIA Loci 1557 storage 2 fem. fig. frags jar worship/ work related
62 1 zoom. juglets votive
63
Tell Iron IIA House 440 oven domestic, model shrine millstone worship/ domestic
el-Fārʿah Room 439 food votive
preparation
Tell Iron IIA House 440 oven domestic, fem. fig. and game piece jug worship/ domestic
el-Fārʿah Room 460 food zoom. frags. juglets votive
courtyard preparation bowls
Tell Iron IIA House 440 model shrine ? worship/ domestic
el-Fārʿah Room 437 votive
Tell Iron IIA House 175 zoom. vessel game piece libation domestic
el-Fārʿah Room 174 mini juglet
Tell Iron IIA House 161 benches food game piece jugs unlikely none
el-Fārʿah Room 157 storage/ bead juglets
back room preparation lamp cooking pots
jar
Tell el- Iron IIA Structure on L basins industrial/ kernos ring multihandled storage jars libation work related
Ḥammah Terrace agricultural fem. fig. frag. krater
Cypro-Phoen jugl.
Pyxides
astragali
Lachish Iron Room 49, platform cultic altar clay basin chalices bowls offerings village shrine
IIA–IIB isolated benches 4 stands lamps jugs meals
oven juglets
cooking pots
storage jars
Megiddo Iron IIA/ Locus 2081, built in-corner, cultic 2 horned altars chalices jar libations, large-scale
IIB Integrated in bench, stone 3 stands astragali (in bowl) juglets incense domestic
house slab big censor jar axhead bowl burning and/or
mortar and burnt neighborhood
rubbing stone offerings cult
Megiddo Iron IIB Room 340 bench, cultic schematic stone cup and saucer juglets libations Palace shrine
integrated platform, object strainer jugs burnt
in palatial pillars, stone model shrine frag. basalt bowl offerings
structure 338 slabs
Tell Michal Iron IIA Building 300, platform sanctuary 3 goblets libation/ village shrine
isolated drink
Tel Iron IIA Pit 253 kernos bowl globular jug, black bowl foundation domestic
Qashish on red handmade bowl or ritual
jars deposit
krater
Tel Reḥov Iron Area E mud-brick open-air stand chalices bowls animal open-air
IIA–B open-air platform, cult place fem. fig. frag. cooking pots slaughter village
structure masṣṣebōt, jugs libations sanctuary
ovens jars votives
Ḥorvat Iron IIA Locus 16 fortress/ zoom. vessel chalice bowls libation work related
Rosh Zayit Str. IIa storage Cypro-Phoenician juglets
facility ware
 500 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 3.7. Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron IIA
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Ḥorvat Iron IIA Locus 47 fortress kernos Cypro-Phoenician libation work related
Rosh Zayit tower tower ware
Taanach Iron IIA Room SW 2-7 basin kitchen stand astragali 26 storage jars libation domestic or
and/or censor cup 3 pyxides 2 amphorae and dry work related
storage 10 jugs offerings,
11 juglets censing,
1 krater casting
63 bowls lots
3 cp

Table 3.8.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron IIB
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Beth-shean Iron IIB/C Loci 298/293 domestic tripod incense bowls incense domestic
burner cooking pots burning,
stand jars libation
zoom. frag. jug
ʿEin Gev Iron IIB Locus 11 domestic, tripod incense nephrite ax jugs incense domestic
storage cup cosmetic bowl beer jug burning,
decorated jug jar votive
bone pendant store jar
worked holemouth jar
gazelle bone pestle
mortar
scraper
bone spatulae
bronze funnel
Tell Iron IIB Locus 429a, tripod censor cooking pot incense domestic
el-Fārʿah back room cup bowl burning
Hazor Iron IIB Room 239a guardroom 1 zoom. vessel Cypro- 12 bowls libation work
Tower of gate frag. (spout) Phoenician 2 jugs drinking, related—
juglets 1 basalt bowl meals? military?
2 lamps
2 cups and
saucers
Hazor Iron IIB House food zoom. spout jugs libation domestic
48/63/47a/35a preparation/ cooking pot
consumption bowl
Hazor Iron IIB House food ivory handle bowls
48/63/47a/35a preparation/ cooking pots
consumption juglets
krater
Hazor Iron IIB House stand jug offering/ domestic
13-16, 44 mask store jar divination ?
(back room)
Kinneret Iron IIB Building 683, storage? fem. fig. torso bowl domestic
Tripartite barracks krater and/or work
building juglet related
storage jar
Tel Kedesh Iron IIB chamber with sunk-in jar industrial limestone altar libations, dry work related
courtyard bases offerings/
incense
burning
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 501

Table 3.8.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron IIB
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Kinneret Iron IIB Room 221 oven dwelling animal fig. frag. cooking pots votive domestic
bowls
Kinneret Iron IIB Room 328 dwelling rattle jugs uncertain
goblet juglets
storage jars
Megiddo Iron IIA/IIB Locus 2081, built cultic 2 horned altars chalices jar libations, large-scale
Integrated in in-corner, 3 stands astragali (in juglets incense domestic
house bench, stone big censor jar bowl) bowl burning and / or
slab axhead mortar and burnt neighborhood
rubbing stone offerings cult
Megiddo Iron IIB Room 340 Bench, cultic schematic stone cupandsaucer juglets libations Palace shrine
integrated platform, object strainer jugs burnt
in palatial pillars, stone model shrine basalt bowl offerings
structure 338 slabs frag.
Megiddo Iron IIB Room 332 in cultic ? limestone altar/ bowl burnt/dry/ Palace Shrine
Building 338 storage room stand jug libation
for 340? 2 pottery stands flask offerings
model shrine juglets
frag. 1 jug
Megiddo Iron IIB Locus 94 H 8 storage and incense cup basins incense domestic
food stand storage jars burning,
preparation zoom. vessel bowls libations and
frag. kraters dry offerings
cooking pots
jugs
beer jug
juglets jars
lamps
assyrian bottle
Tell Iron IIB Room 430 censor cup incense domestic
en-Naṣbeh burning
Tell Qiri Iron IIB Str. VII silo storage censor cup cooking pot work related
Locus 1027
Tell Iron IIB House 64 platform dwelling 3 tripod censor shells 1 jug incense domestic
es-Saʾīdīyeh cups beads 2 juglets burning
4 lamps
Tell Iron IIB House 6 dwelling animal bowls votive domestic
es-Saʾīdīyeh fig. frag. kraters libation
kernos frag. cooking pots
storage jars
Turʿan Iron IIB Locus 12 grinding stone domestic, incense burner lamps cooking pots incense domestic
kitchen bowls burning
krater storage
jars
 502 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 3.9.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages Iron IIC
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Tel Batash Iron IIC Unit 914 platform in domestic anthrop. and chalices libation/ domestic
Loci niche zoom. vessel drink
910/915 frags. consumption
Tel Batash Iron IIC House 607 domestic miniature altar incense- domestic
offering
Tel Batash Iron IIC Room 778 domestic miniature uncertain ʿdomesticʾ
vessels
pot stand
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 844 (domestic) Bronze and collectibles votive domestic
Debris from fayance
2nd store fallen figurines
on street amulets
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 25 domestic, JPF mini lamp bowls votive domestic
pillared room model chair cooking pots
juglets
jar
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 808 domestic JPF juglet worship/ domestic
model chair votives
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 442 domestic 2 limestone incense domestic
altars offering
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 3622 domestic, Sphinx-figurine apotropaic domestic
courtyard
Tell Beit Iron IIC NW 32-12 olive-oil press industrial 3 JPF worship/ work
Mirsim 3 zoom. frags. votive related
Tell Beit Iron IIC NW 31-11 domestic 1 JPF frag lamp various worship/ domestic
Mirsim casemate 2 zoom. frag. domestic votive
(back) room lamp
Tell Beit Iron IIC NW 22-13 domestic 2 JPF mini lamp cooking pot worship/ domestic
Mirsim 1 zoom. frag. cosmetic jug votive
palette juglet
Beth-shean Iron IIC Loci 298/293 domestic tripod inc. bowls incense domestic
burn. cooking pots burning,
stand jars libation
zoom. frag. jug
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 387 courtyard of 3 zoom. fig. juglet votive/ domestic
shemesh house, frag. red juglet libation
food 1 zoom. spout. dipper juglets
preparation cooking pots
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 382 oven kitchen model chair dipper juglet votive domestic
shemesh zoom. spout “heavy pot” libation
decanters
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 377 JPF head mold juglets figurine domestic
shemesh horse fig. frag. bowls production
lmlk-jar votive
“crude” and
“heavy” pots
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 376 courtyard (?) 3 zoom. frags. shells bowls votive domestic
shemesh food lamp decanter
processing lmlk-jar
mortars
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 375 basalt tank industrial animal fig chalice cooking pot votive work
shemesh (mouse)? disk-base related
lamp
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 373 rectangular industrial 2 JPF heads lamp holemouth jar worship/ work
shemesh fireplace (+ 1 from stone votive related
adjacent locus) pounders
1 animal fig. pick
3 animal fig.
frag.
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 503

Table 3.9.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages Iron IIC
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 321 wine press industrial various zoom. votives/ work
shemesh vessels/ libations related
figurines
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 305 vats textile JPF juglets votive work
shemesh production cooking pots related
and jar
processing holemouth jar
mortar
pounder
loom weights
Beth- Iron IIC “Fred’s House” domestic incised bowl utilitarian dry offerings domestic
shemesh qdš pottery,
loom weights
Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus G storage JPF head storage jars worship/ domestic
8005 fenestrated jugs votive,
back room stand juglets meals
2 limestone
altars
Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus L 8005 living ? JPF torso lamp bowls worship/ domestic
Debris of 2nd platter bowl votive,
store juglets meals
jar
Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus K 8002 food 3 JPF frags. lamps storage jars worship/ domestic
Debris of 2nd preparation/ horse and rider pithoi votive,
store consumption frag. jugs meals
juglets
cooking pots
kraters
decanter
pitcher
grinding
stones
mouth dipper
Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus F living ? JPF torso amphoriskos worship/ domestic
8007 jugs votive
debris of 2nd bowls
store
Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus F 7002 living ? JPF frag scarab jars worship/ domestic
debris of 2nd food mace head pithoi votive
store preparation/ bone disc bowls
consumption lamps kraters
cooking pots
jugs
juglets
grinding
stones
Tel Halif Iron IIC Area F6 grinding food 2 fenestrated libations/ domestic
installations processing stands dry offerings
Jerusalem Iron IIC Locus 967 domestic animal fig. frag. big goblet- juglets incense domestic
“house of the storage horse-and-rider like kraters bowls burning
bullae” (bureau?) frag. pot stand cooking pots libations (?)
4 altars decanters votive
store jars
holemouth
jars
Lachish Iron IIC lower house, stand astragali bowls libation/dry domestic
Room 3569 kraters offerings,
cooking pots casting lots/
juglets gambling
flask
storage jars
 504 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 3.9.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages Iron IIC
Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts Cult
Site Date Room Installations Function Cat. A Cat. B Other Activities Cult Type
Lachish Iron IIC lower house, altar, astragali bowls incense domestic
Room 3573 zoom. frag. cooking pot burning,
black juglets votive,
lamp casting lots/
jug gambling
store jare
holemouth jar
basalt bowl
Lachish Iron IIC lower house, 2 zoom. frag. bowl votive domestic
Room 3582 krater
cooking pots
black juglet
holemouth jar
storage jars
basalt bowl
Lachish Iron IIC lower house, oven kitchen zoom. fig. frag. bowl votive domestic
Room 3533 cooking pot
krater
jug
Lachish Iron IIC Level II house channel and wine storage male head 3 bowls votive/ domestic
basin 1 cooking pot ancestor cult or work
2 store jars related
Lachish Iron IIC Locus 2066 entrance area 2 male votive/ domestic
of house peg-figurines ancestor cult
Lachish Iron IIC G 14: 1008 oven kitchen JPF head imitated bowls worship/ domestic
cowry jugs votive
shell cooking pot
pilgrim flask
jars
storage jars
Lachish Iron IIC H 17: 1078 JPF head pot stand juglet worship/ domestic
lamp small. jug votive
cooking pot
bowl
storage jars
Tel Masos Iron IIC Room 609 military zoom. fig. bowl votive domestic
dwelling ? krater
jug
juglet
store jar
Tel Masos Iron IIC Room 708 military JPF base lamps bowl worship/ domestic
dwelling ? juglets votive
cooking pots
storage jar
Tel Masos Iron IIC Room 758 military model chair cup votive domestic
dwelling ?
Tel Masos Iron IIC Room 718 military zoom. fig. bowls votive domestic
dwelling ? zoom. spout flask libation
Tell Iron IIC Rooms hearth kitchen stand jars libations/dry domestic
en-Naṣbeh 616/622 2 JPF frags. bowl offerings
(616) cooking pot votive
anthropom.
frag.
v frag. (622)
Tell Iron IIC 393 male head votive domestic
en-Naṣbeh couch model
Tell Iron IIC 398 JPF head votive domestic
en-Naṣbeh couch model
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 505

Table 5.1.╇ Epigraphic Judean and Israelite personal names

verified by different collections
Names of Names of Names of Equating Names of Secular Not In-
Thanksgiving Confession Praise Names Birth Names cluded Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances
HAE 2/1 70 144 41 80 10 19 27 58 68 132 35 44 13 251 477
HAE 2/2 125 554 81 246 37 87 32 125 135 493 60 131 49 470 1636
NEE 12 14 8 8 2 2 2 2 16 21 4 4 1 44 51
FHCB 8 9 5 10 3 3 1 1 9 10 4 6 21 30 39
BPHB 66 251 36 82 14 19 12 41 71 196 28 55 23 227 644
Others 18 21 8 8 5 5 6 7 19 23 10 11 7 66 75
Total 164 993 119 434 48 135 47 234 192 875 105 251 675 2922

Table 5.2.╇ Comparing the distribution of epigraphic and biblical names

Names of Names of Equating Names of Secular Not In-
Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Names Birth Names cluded Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances
Epigraphic 164 993 119 434 48 135 47 234 192 875 105 251 675 2922
24.3% 34.0% 17.6% 14.9% 7.1% 4.6% 7.0% 8.0% 28.4% 29.9% 15.6% 8.6%
thank+confess: 41.9% 48.9%
All Prayer Names: 49.0% 53.5%

Biblical 166 465 76 180 32 76 34 95 170 439 67 107 545 1362

30.5% 34.1% 14.0% 13.2% 5.8% 5.6% 6.2% 7.0% 31.2% 32.2% 12.3% 7.9%
thank+confess: 44.5% 47.3%
All Prayer Names: 50.3% 52.9%
 506 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 5.3.╇ Epigraphic personal names from Israel and its environment
Names of Names of Not In-
Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Equating Names Names of Birth Secular Names cluded Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances
Ammon. 38 98 34 54 14 27 8 15 37 89 15 22 28 146 305
26.0% 32.1% 23.3% 17.7% 9.6% 8.9% 5.5% 4.9% 25.3% 29.2% 10.3% 7.2%
thank+confess: 49.3% 49.8%
All Prayer Names: 58.9% 58.7%
Moabite 16 18 10 12 3 3 6 8 17 19 3 3 3 55 63
29.1% 28.6% 18.2% 19.0% 5.5% 4.8% 10.9% 12.7% 30.8% 30.1 5.5% 4.8%
thank+confess: 47.3% 47.6%
All Prayer Names: 52.8% 52.4%
Aram. 77 92 113 129 24 26 29 36 83 103 48 57 101 374 443
20.6% 20.8% 30.2% 29.1% 6.4% 5.9% 7.8% 8.1% 22.2% 23.2% 12.8% 12.9%
thank+confess: 50.8% 49.9%
All Prayer Names: 57.2% 55.8%
Phoen. 50 83 112 228 20 28 30 52 86 162 21 28 58 319 581
15.7% 14.3% 35.1% 39.2% 6.3% 4.8% 9.4% 9.3% 26.9% 27.9% 6.6% 4.8%
thank+confess: 50.8% 53.5%
All Prayer Names: 56.9% 58.1%
Hebrew 164 993 119 434 48 135 47 234 192 875 105 251 114 675 2922
24.3% 34.0% 17.6% 14.9% 7.1% 4.6% 7.0% 8.0% 28.4% 29.9% 15.6% 8.6%
thank+confess: 41.9% 48.9%
All Prayer Names: 49.0% 53.5%

Table 5.4.╇ Epigraphic Judean and Israelite personal names

according to their distribution in different collections
Names of Names of Not In-
Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Equating Names Names of Birth Secular Names cluded Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances
HAE 2/1 70 144 41 80 10 19 27 58 68 132 35 44 13 251 477
27.9% 30.2% 16.3% 16.8% 4.0% 4.0% 10.8% 12.1% 27.0% 27.7% 14.0% 9.2%
thank+confess: 44.2% 47.0%

HAE 2/2 125 554 81 246 37 87 32 125 135 493 60 131 49 470 1636
26.6% 33.9% 17.2% 15% 7.9% 5.3% 6.8% 7.7% 28.7% 30.1% 12.8% 8.0%
thank+confess: 43.8% 48.9%

BPHB 66 251 36 82 14 19 12 41 71 196 28 55 23 227 644

29.1% 38.9% 15.8% 12.8% 6.2% 3.0% 5.3% 6.4% 31.3% 30.4% 12.3% 8.5%
thank+confess: 44.9% 51.7%

Max. 2.5 8.7 1.4 4.0 3.9 2.3 5.5 5.7 4.3 2.7 1.7 1.2
Deviation
thank+confess: 1.1 4.7

All Epi� 164 993 119 434 48 135 47 234 192 875 105 251 675 2922
graphic
24.3% 34% 17.6% 14.9% 7.1% 4.6% 7.0% 8.0% 28.4% 29.9% 15.6% 8.6%
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 507

Table 5.5.╇ Epigraphic Judean and Israelite personal names according to

their distribution in different collections, taking all prayer name groups together
Names of Names of Names of Equating Names of Secular Not In-
Thanksgiving Confession Praise Names Birth Names cluded Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances
HAE 2/1 70 144 41 80 10 19 27 58 68 132 35 44 13 251 477
27.9% 30.2% 16.3% 16.8% 4.0% 4.0% 10.8% 12.1% 27.0% 27.7% 14.0% 9.2%
All Prayer Names: 48.2% 51.0%

HAE 2/2 125 554 81 246 37 87 32 125 135 493 60 131 49 470 1636
26.6% 33.9% 17.2% 15.0% 7.9% 5.3% 6.8% 7.7% 28.7% 30.1% 12.8% 8.0%
All Prayer Names: 51.7% 54.2%

BPHB 66 251 36 82 14 19 12 41 71 196 28 55 23 227 644

29.1% 38.9% 15.8% 12.8% 6.2% 3.0% 5.3% 6.4% 31.3% 30.4% 12.3% 8.5%
All Prayer Names: 51.1% 54.7%

All Others 38 44 21 26 10 10 9 10 44 54 18 21 29 140 165

27.2% 26.6% 15.0% 15.8% 7.1% 6.1% 6.4% 6.1% 31.4% 32.7% 12.9% 12.7%
All Prayer Names: 49.3% 48.5%
Maximum Deviation 3.5 3.7

All Epi� 164 993 119 434 48 135 47 234 192 875 105 251 675 2922
graphic
24.3% 34% 17.6% 14.9% 7.1% 4.6% 7.0% 8.0% 28.4% 29.9% 15.6% 8.6%
All Prayer Names: 49.0% 53.5%

Table 5.6.╇ Comparing the distribution of the names from

ostraca, seals/bullae, and the Hebrew Bible
Names of Names of Equating Names of Secular Not In-
Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Names Birth Names cluded Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances
HAE 2/1 70 144 41 80 10 19 27 58 68 132 35 44 13 251 477
NEE 12 14 8 8 2 2 2 2 16 21 4 4 1 44 51
Others 18 21 8 8 5 5 6 7 19 23 10 11 7 66 75
Ostraca 100 179 57 96 17 26 35 67 103 176 49 59 361 603
27.7% 29.8% 15.8% 15.9% 4.7% 4.3% 9.7% 11.1% 28.5% 29.1% 13.6% 9.8%

HAE 2/2 125 554 81 246 37 87 32 125 135 493 60 131 49 470 1636
FHCB 8 9 5 10 3 3 1 1 9 10 4 6 21 30 39
BPHB 66 251 36 82 14 19 12 41 71 196 28 55 23 227 644
Seals 199 814 122 338 54 109 45 167 215 699 92 192 727 2319
27.4% 35.1% 16.8% 14.6% 7.4% 4.7% 6.2% 7.2% 29.6% 30.1% 12.6% 8.3%
Deviation -0.3 +5.9 +1.0 -1.3 +2.7 +0.4 -3.5 -3.9 +1.1 +1.0 -1.0 -1.5

All Epi� 164 993 119 434 48 135 47 234 192 875 105 251 675 2922
graphic
24.3% 34% 17.6% 14.9% 7.1% 4.6% 7.0% 8.0% 28.4% 29.9% 15.6% 8.6%

Biblical 166 465 76 180 32 76 34 95 170 437 67 107 545 1362

30.5% 34.1% 14.0% 13.2% 5.8% 5.6% 6.2% 7.0% 31.2% 32.2% 12.3% 7.9%
 508 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 5.7.╇ Theophoric elements in Hebrew personal names

Names of Names of
Divinities Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Equating Names Names of Birth Total
28 Theophoric Elements Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names instances
ʾāb divine father 4 5 2 5 10 60 1 1 17 71
ʾēm divine mother 3 8 3 8
ʾāḥ divine brother 3 21 1 1 2 2 20 130 1 1 27 155
ʿam divine uncle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4
ḥam father-in-law 2 2 2 2
Divinized Designations 3 21 8 9 5 8 34 199 3 3 53 240
of Kinship
3.1% 3.1% 9.5% 2.8% 14.7% 8.0% 43.5% 47.2% 2.8% 0.7% 13.1% 12.1%
ʾEl, ʾēlī El, my god 16 116 10 16 6 12 9 21 12 55 53 220
16.3% 17.2% 11.9% 5.0% 17.6% 12.0% 11.5% 5.0% 11.0% 12.0% 13.1% 11.1%
Yahweh Yhwh 72 520 51 265 18 64 19 104 80 384 240 1337
72.3% 77.0% 60.7% 82.6% 53.0% 64.0% 24.4% 24.6% 73.4% 83.5% 59.4% 67.6%
Baʿal Baal 2 3 1 1 1 4 2 7 5 5 11 20
2.1% 0.4% 1.2% 0.3% 2.9% 4.0% 2.6% 1.7% 4.6% 1.1% 2.8% 1.0%
ʾAdōn lord 1 1 1 2 5 18 7 21
ʾAdatt lady 1 1 1 1
ʿAnat Anat 1 1 1 1
ʾAšer Asher 1 1 1 1
Yeraḥ Yerach 1 1 1 1
Melek king 1 1 4 4 1 2 5 69 2 2 13 78
Malkāh queen 1 1 1 1
Môt Mot 1 1 2 4 3 5
Qōs Qos 1 1 1 1
Śāhār Sahar 1 1 1 1
Šalem Shalem 1 7 1 1 2 8
Šamaš Shamash 1 1 1 1
Other West Semitic Deities and 1 1 9 9 4 12 13 90 6 8 33 120
Epithets
1.1% 0.2% 10.7% 2.8% 11.8% 12.0% 16.7% 21.3% 5.5% 1.7% 8.2% 6.1%
Ḥor Horus 2 10 1 1 1 2 4 14
ʾIs Isis 1 6 1 6
Bes Bes 1 4 1 1 2 5
Egyptian Deities 4 20 1 1 2 3 7 24
4.8% 6.2% 1.3% 0.2% 1.8% 0.6% 1.7% 1.2%
šem name 1 1 1 1
ʿezrī my help 2 8 2 8
ʾūr light 2 5 2 5
ḥayil strength 1 1 1 1
ʿalay the exalted 1 2 1 2
Divine Characteristics 5 14 1 1 1 2 7 17
5.1% 2.1% 1.2% 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 1.7% 0.9%
Total 99 675 84 321 34 100 78 422 109 460 404 1,978
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 509

Table 5.8.╇ Comparison of the theophoric elements of Levantine onomastica

Deities Hebrew Moabite Ammonite Aramaic Phoenician
Number of Deities or Epithets 28 11 15 44 60
Portion in Percent Names Inst. Names Inst. Names Inst. Names Inst Names Inst.
Div. Kinship Terms 13.1 12.1 27.0 28.6 15.6 9.6 15.5 14.9 7.9 5.2
El, My God 13.1 11.1 13.5 11.9 67.8 81.8 19.1 20.4 7.2 5.6
Yhwh Kamosh El Hadad/Baal Baal/Hadad
Main God 59.4 67.6 37.9 40.5 67.8 81.8 18.7 18.1 23.5 23.5
Weather Gods 2.8 1.0 10.8 9.5 2.2 0.9 21.5 21.4 24.3 24.0
Other West Semitic Deities or Epithets 7.9 6.0 10.8 9.5 13.3 7.2 21.5 22.2 47.4 51.8
Egyptian Deities 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.5 6.8 8.0
Mesopotamian Deities 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.5 20.0 18.9 3.2 2.6
Total of All Other Gods 9.9 7.3 10.8 9.5 14.4 7.7 43.1 42.6 57.4 62.4
Divine Characteristics 1.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 3.2 2.8
Goddesses 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.0 4.5 4.4 13.5 11.0

Table 5.9.╇ Theophoric elements in Moabite personal names

Names of Names of
Divinities Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Equating Names Names of Birth Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances
ʾāb divine father 1 1 1 1 2 2
ʾēm divine mother 1 1 1 1
ʾāḥ divine brother 2 2 1 1 3 3 6 6
ʿam divine uncle 1 3 1 3
Divinized Designations 2 2 1 1 2 2 5 7 10 12
of Kinship
22.2% 22.2% 12.5% 11.1% 66.7% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 27.0% 28.6%
ʾEl, ʾēlī El, my god 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
11.1% 11.1% 12.5% 11.1% 33.3% 33.3% 10.0% 7.1% 14.3% 14.3% 13.5% 11.9%
Kamōš Chemosh 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 4 14 17
44.5% 44.5% 50.0% 55.6% 20.0% 23.5% 57.2% 57.2% 37.9% 40.5%
Baʿal Baal 1 1 2 2 3 3
Adad Hadad 1 1 1 1
Weather Deities 2 2 2 2 4 4
20.0% 14.3% 28.5% 28.5% 10.8% 9.5%
Malk Malk, king 2 2 2 2
Hauron Hauron 1 1 1 1
Raḥban Rachban 1 1 1 1
Other West Semitic 2 2 2 2 4 4
Deities
22.2% 22.2% 25.0% 22.2% 10.8% 9.5%
Total 9 9 8 9 3 3 10 14 7 7 37 42
 510 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 5.10.╇ Theophoric elements in Ammonite personal names

Names of Names of
Divinities Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Equating Names Names of Birth Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances
ʾāb divine father 1 1 3 3 3 5 1 2 8 11
ʾāḥ divine brother 1 3 1 1 2 4
ʾaḥat divine sister 1 1 1 1 2 2
ʿam divine uncle 1 2 1 2
ḥam father-in-law 1 1 1 1
Divinized 2 2 1 1 3 3 5 9 3 5 14 20
Designations of
Kinship
7.4% 2.6% 4.5% 2.6% 30.0% 13.6% 45.4% 39.1% 15% 10.2% 15.6% 9.6%
ʾEl, ʾēlī El, my god 24 74 16 32 5 17 3 8 13 40 61 171
88.9% 96.1% 72.8% 84.3% 50.0% 77.3% 27.3% 34.8% 65.0% 81.7% 67.8% 81.8%
Adad Hadad 1 1 1 1
Baʿal Baal 1 1 1 1
Weather Deities 1 1 1 1 2 2
4.5% 2.6% 5.0% 2.0% 2.2% 0.9%
Malk king 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3
Milkom Milkom 2 2 2 2
ʾAdōn lord 2 2 1 1 3 3
Māreʾ lord 1 1 1 4 2 5
Maut Mot 1 1 1 1
Yahweh Yhwh 1 1 1 1
Other West Semitic 1 1 4 4 2 2 3 6 2 2 12 15
Deities and
3.7% 1.3% 18.2% 10.5% 20.0% 9.1% 27.3% 26.1% 10.0% 4.1% 13.3% 7.2%
Epithets
Bēl Bel, Marduk 1 1 1 1
Mesopotamian 5.0% 2.0% 1.1% 0.5%
Deities
Total 27 77 22 38 10 22 11 23 20 49 90 209

Table 5.11.╇ Theophoric elements in Aramaic personal names

Names of Names of
Divinities Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Equating Names Names of Birth Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances
ʾāb divine father 1 1 3 3 1 1 9 9 2 2 16 16
ʾēm divine mother 2 2 2 2
ʾāḥ divine brother 1 1 2 2 3 3 7 10 2 2 15 18
ʾaḥat divine sister 1 1 1 1
ʿam divine uncle 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 4
Divinized Designations 2 2 8 8 4 4 19 22 5 5 38 41
of Kinship
4.3% 3.7% 9.3% 8.2% 23.5% 22.2% 36.5% 36.7% 11.1% 10.6% 15.5% 14.9%
ʾEl, ʾēlī El, (my god) 15 20 10 11 3 3 3 4 11 13 42 51
ʾilāh god 1 1 3 3 4 4
ʾilat goddess 1 1 1 1
El + Appellative 16 21 14 15 3 3 3 4 11 13 47 56
34.9% 38.7% 16.2% 15.5% 17.3% 16.7% 5.8% 6.7% 24.4% 27.7% 19.1% 20.4%
Hadad Hadad 6 7 15 18 4 4 2 2 9 9 36 40
Baʿal Baal 2 2 5 5 3 3 10 10
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 511

Table 5.11.╇ Theophoric elements in Aramaic personal names

Names of Names of
Divinities Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Equating Names Names of Birth Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances
Baʿalat Mistress 1 1 1 1
Rimmān Rimmon 1 1 1 2 2 3
ʾAplad Aplad 2 2 2 2
Rakeb Rider 1 2 1 2
Ṣapān Saphon 1 1 1 1
Weather Deities 10 11 24 28 4 4 3 4 12 12 53 59
21.7% 20.8% 27.9% 28.9% 23.5% 21.2% 5.8% 6.7% 26.7% 25.5% 21.5% 21.4%
ʾAdōn lord 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 4
ʿAttar Ashtar 5 7 5 7
Baytʾel Bethel 2 2 1 1 3 3
Dagan Dagan 1 1 1 1 2 2
Gad Gad 1 1 2 2 3 3
Hauron Hauron 1 1 1 1
Kadiʾāh Kadia 1 1 1 1
Malk king, Malik 1 1 1 2 4 6 6 9
Malik
Milkom Milkom 2 2 2 2
Māreʾ lord 2 2 6 6 2 2 10 10
Qaus Qos 1 1 1 1
Šaḥar Shachar 1 1 1 1
Šalem Shalem 1 1 1 1 2 2
Šalman Shalman 1 3 1 2 2 5
Yahweh Yhwh 5 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 10 10
Other West Semitic 7 7 19 23 4 5 15 18 8 8 53 61
Deities and Epithets
15.2% 13.2% 22.1% 23.7% 23.5% 27.8% 28.8% 30.0% 17.8% 17.0% 21.5% 22.2%
Assur Assur 1 1 1 1 2 2
Bēl Bel, Marduk 1 1 1 1
Elil Enlil 1 1 1 1
Haldi Haldi 2 2 2 2
Nabû Nabu 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 7
Nanay Nanaya 3 4 2 2 5 6
Nasuḥ Nasuch, 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6
Nusku
Šamaš Shamash 2 2 7 7 2 2 2 2 13 13
Sîn Sin 3 3 4 5 3 3 3 3 13 14
Deities from 8 9 19 21 2 2 11 11 8 8 49 52
Mesopotamia and Urartu
17.5% 17.0% 22.1% 21.7% 11.9% 11.1% 21.2% 18.3% 17.8% 17.1% 20.0% 18.9%
Ada Ada 1 1 1 1
Sir Osiris 1 1 1 1 2 2
Ḥor Horus 1 1 1 1
Egyptian and Arabian 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 4
Deities
2.4% 2.0% 1.9% 1.6% 2.2% 2.1% 1.6% 1.5%
ʿezrī my help 1 1 1 1
nabal noble 1 1 1 1
Divine Characteristics 2 2 2 2
4.3% 3.7% 0.8% 0.7%
Total 46 53 86 97 17 18 52 60 45 47 246 275
 512 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 5.12.╇ Theophoric elements in Phoenician personal names

Names of Names of
Divinities Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Equating Names Names of Birth Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances
ʾāb divine father 1 1 6 8 2 3 9 12
ʾēm divine mother 3 3 3 3
ʾāḥ divine brother 2 2 5 6 7 8
ʿam divine uncle 1 1 1 1
Divinized Designations of 1 1 2 2 15 18 2 3 20 24
Kinship
2.8% 2.0% 12.5% 9.1% 28.3% 17.8% 4.4% 3.1% 7.9% 5.2%
ʾEl, ʾēlī El, my god 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 6 4 4 13 17
ʾilāh god 1 1 1 1
ʾēlīm gods 3 7 3 7
ʾšēdu tutelary god 1 1 1 1
El + appellative + šēdu 2 2 7 12 2 2 3 6 4 4 18 26
5.6% 4.0% 7.0% 6.2% 12.5% 9.1% 5.7% 5.9% 8.9% 4.1% 7.2% 5.6%
Baʿal Baal 15 21 19 35 5 8 7 18 9 22 55 104
Hadad Hadad 2 2 2 3 4 5
Rimmōn Rimmon 1 1 1 1
Ṣapōn Saphon 1 1 1 1
Weather Deities 15 21 22 38 6 9 9 21 9 22 61 111
41.6% 42.0% 21.8% 19.7% 37.5% 41.0% 17.0% 20.8% 20.0% 22.7% 24.3% 24.0%
ʾEšmun Eshmun 3 11 5 17 1 1 3 10 4 13 16 52
ʿAštar Ashtar 1 1 1 1 2 2
ʿAštart Ashtarte 4 4 8 14 1 1 4 5 17 24
Ḥammon Hammon 2 3 2 3
Melqart Melqart (Tyre) 3 11 1 2 2 2 6 15
Maskir Maskir 2 2 2 2
ʿAn An 1 1 1 1
ʿAnat Anat 2 3 2 3
labiʾt Lioness (ʿAnat) 1 1 1 1
Paʿam Pa’am 1 2 1 2
Sakkōn Sakkon 1 3 1 3
Ṣid Sid (Sidon) 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 5 9
Tannit Tannit 2 2 1 1 3 3
Other Phoenician Deities 8 16 30 61 3 3 6 16 12 24 59 120
22.2% 32.0% 29.7% 31.6% 18.7% 13.6% 11.3% 15.8% 26.7% 24.7% 23.5% 25.9%
ʾAdōn lord 3 5 4 14 7 19
ʾAšim Ashima (?) 1 1 1 1
Baytʾel Bethel 1 1 1 1
Dagon Dagan 1 1 1 1
Doʿam Doʿam 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4
Gad Gad 1 1 1 1
Gušī Gushi 1 1 1 1
Hauron Horon 1 1 1 1
Ḥodeš new moon 2 6 2 6
Māreʾ lord 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4
Milk Milk, king 5 5 8 11 1 4 8 16 6 26 28 62
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 513

Table 5.12.╇ Theophoric elements in Phoenician personal names

Names of Names of
Divinities Thanksgiving Confession Names of Praise Equating Names Names of Birth Total
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances
Milkat Milkat, queen 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 5
Rešep Resheph 2 6 1 2 3 8
Šaḥar Shachar 1 1 1 1
Šalim Shalim 1 2 1 2
Šapaš Shapash 1 1 1 1
Yahweh Yhwh 1 1 1 1 2 2
Other West Semitic Deities and 8 8 23 38 2 5 16 35 11 34 60 120
Epithets
22.2% 16.0% 22.8% 19.7% 12.6% 22.7% 30.2% 34.7% 24.5% 35.1% 23.9% 25.9%
Assur Assur 1 1 1 1
Bēl Bel, Marduk 1 1 1 1
Šamaš Shamash 1 4 3 4 1 1 5 9
Super scribe (Nabû) 1 1 1 1
Deities from Mesopotamia 3 6 3 4 2 2 8 12
2.9% 3.1% 5.6% 4.0% 4.4% 2.1% 3.2% 2.6%
ʾAmun Amun 2 3 2 3
ʾAbast Bastet 1 7 1 2 2 9
ʾIs Isis 2 2 1 1 3 3
Sir Osiris 2 9 1 1 3 10
Ḥapi Apis 1 1 1 3 2 4
Ḥor Horus 2 3 2 3
Min Min 1 1 1 1
Ptaḥ Ptah 1 3 1 1 2 4
Egyptian Deities 11 28 1 1 5 8 17 37
10.9% 14.5% 1.9% 1.0% 11.1% 8.2% 6.8% 8.0%
ʾohel tent 1 1 1 1
hēkal temple 1 4 1 4
ʾūr light 1 1 1 1
ʿezrī my help 1 1 1 1
laʾi mighty 2 3 2 3
naʿm good 1 2 1 2
šem name 1 1 1 1
Divine Characteristics 2 2 5 10 1 1 8 13
5.6% 4.0% 4.9% 5.2% 6.3% 4.5% 3.2% 2.8%
Total 36 50 101 193 16 22 53 101 45 97 251 463
514 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 5.13.╇ Types of equating names

Type Subject Predicate Examples
1a family god major god ʾAbīyāhû, ʾAḥîʾēl, ʾAḥīḥur, ʿAmmīšālēm
1b personal god major god ʾElīyāhû, ʾAdōnīmelek, Malkīyāhû, Mārayḥaldi
2a major god family god Melqartʾāb, Yĕhôʾāḥ, Kamošʿam, Qausʾimmī (?)
2b major god personal god Sasilī, Sîrʾadōnī, Ešmunʾadōnī, Nabûmāreʾ
3a personal god family god ʾElīʿam, ʾAdōnīʾāb
3b family god personal god ʾAḥlay
3c family god family god ʾAḥîʾāb, ʾAḥīʾēm, ʾImmīʾāḥ, ʾAḥatʾāb
4 major god major god Yĕhôʾēl, Kamōšʾēl, Šēdad, Šalmānrimmān, Milkšamaš, cf. Baʿalyāh

Table 5.14.╇ Female deities in the Levantine onomastica

Goddesses Hebrew Moabite Ammonite Aramaic Phoenician
Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances
ʾēm ‘mother’ 3 8 1 1 2 2 3 3
ʾaḥat ‘sister’ 2 2 1 1
ʾadatt or baʿalat ‘lady’ 1 1 1 1
malkāh/milkat ‘queen’ 1 1 3 5
ʾilat ‘goddess’ 1 1
ʿAnat 1 1 2 3
labiʾt ‘lioness’ 1 1
ʿAshtarte 17 24
Tannit 3 3
Isis 1 6 3 3
Bastet 2 9
Nanaya 5 6
Ada 1 1
Total 7 17 1 1 2 2 11 12 34 51
Portion 1.7% 0.9% 2.7% 2.4% 2.0% 1.0% 4.5% 4.4% 13.5% 11.0%
Goddesses 5 1 1 6 8
 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 515

Table 5.15.╇ Astral symbols on Iron Age stamp seals

Israelite/ Undefined or
Astral Deities Judahite Philistine Ammonite Edomite Moabite Phoenician Aramaic Unclear Origin
Shamash/ WSS 1053 WSS 1025 WSS 782;
Man in 783; 784; 845;
Sun-Disc 849
Sin/Moon- WSS 80; 97; Eggler and WSS 767; WSS 1177
God of Haran GGG 304; 305b Keel 2006: 779; 793; 795;
D. ʿAlla 28; 816; 838; 848;
Amman 5 850; 856
Ishtar GGG GGG WSS 754 (?)
286; 287; 288b; 288a
288c
Other WSS 112; 173; WSS 861; WSS 791
Goddesses 226; GGG 323 921; 950; 976
Symbols of Astral Deities

Winged Sun- about 1,700

Disc lmlk / impressions
Winged
Scarab lmlk
Winged WSS 3b; 122; WSS 867; GGG 294 WSS 1032 WSS 728; WSS 750; WSS 1096; 1101;
Sun-Disc 267; 284; 343; 899; 915; 938; 733; 735; 737; 755; 763, 772; 1107; 1125; 1143;
349; 373; 685; 945; 989 743; 746; 749 780; 790; 819 1148; 1172; 1174;
GGG 293a; 293b 1184
Sun-Disc WSS 5; 122 WSS 858; WSS 1032 WSS 817
without Wings 967; 993
Winged WSS 16; 59; 103; WSS 860; WSS 731 WSS 775; WSS 1082; 1085;
Scarab 163; 188; 475; 865; 891; 944; 843; 785; 811; 1094; 1127; 1128;
639; 662; Seal of 981 832; 837; 839; 1129; 1136; 1145;
Hezekiah 843 1150; 1151; 1152;
1159; 1161; 1169;
1171; 1175; 1180
Rosette WSS 113; 199; WSS 964 WSS 1037 WSS 1088; 1113;
239 1139
Star WSS 94; 112 WSS 867; WSS 1006; 1013; WSS 725; WSS 754; WSS 1075; 1079;
GGG 280b; 282a; 937; 942 1016; 1017; 1018; 741; 749 759; 761; 762; 1080; 1083; 1098;
282b; 282c; 284a 1021; 1027; 1028; 767; 806; 816; 1100; 1110; 1148;
285a; 285b; 286; 1031; 1033; 1035; 817; 840; 849; 1153; 1167; 1181
287; 289; 290; Eggler and Keel 853
301b; 302c 2006: Karak 2
 516 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

Table 5.16.╇ Deities, protective deities and mixed creatures on Iron Age stamp seals
Protective Israelite/ Undefined or
Spirits Judahite Philistine Ammonite Edomite Moabite Phoenician Aramaic Unclear Origin
Seated Deity, Male WSS Eggler and Keel WSS 1057 WSS 736
1067 (?) 2006: Amman 88
(Nabu)
Seated Deity, Eggler and Keel WSS 754 WSS 1102 (?)
Female 2006: Amman 5 (Ishtar); 782
(Gula)
Standing WSS 173 WSS 749 WSS 814 WSS 1098
Deity, Male (Adad)
Winged Anthropo- WSS 173; 185; WSS 973; Eggler WSS 1020; WSS 715; 729 WSS 844 WSS 1087; 1092;
Morphic, Male GGG 211a,b,c; and Keel 2006: 1030 (?); 730 1114; 1119; 1134;
212 a, b; 213 Safut 4 1147; 1149; 1154;
1155
Winged Anthropo- WSS 112; 173 Eggler and Keel WSS 712 WSS 791
morphic, Female 2006: Salt 4
Anthropomorphic WSS 115; 198 Eggler and Keel WSS 741 WSS 763
Figure without (laḫmu) 2006: Amman 5 (lahmu),
Wings, Male (il bīti) 802; 845 (il bīti)
Anthropomorphic WSS 226 WSS 861; 921;
Figure without (950)
Wings, Female
Falcon-Headed WSS 320; Eggler and Keel (WSS 728, 735
Figure GGG 213 2006: Mazar 23 Horus/
Re-Harachte)
Infant Horus WSS 4; 126; WSS 712
316; GGG
241a, b, c.
Horus Falcon WSS 108; 243; Eggler and Keel WSS 733; 740; WSS 1143
(dominant motif 267 2006: Umm 743
only) Qeis 3
Bes GGG Eggler and Keel WSS 769; 786;
226a, b, c; 2006: Amman 62 829 (?)
227; 228
Winged Uraeus WSS 11; 29, Eggler and Keel WSS 796 WSS 1091; 1124
46; 104; 127; 2006: Amman
194; 206; 284; 70,
349; 370; 381; Eggler and Keel
385; 475; 689 2006: ‘Umeiri 50
GGG 259b
Sphinx WSS 369; WSS 940; 965 WSS 1049 WSS 1012; WSS 713; 740; WSS 1077; 1095;
(1124 = GGG Eggler and Keel 1017; 1019; 745 1124; 1129; 1132;
246); 249 2006: Umm 1030; 1038 1163; 1184
Qeis 2
Winged Griffin WSS 44; 85; WSS WSS 893; 901; WSS 1055; WSS 1023 WSS 747 WSS 780; 819 WSS 1123; 1128;
116; 135; 143; 1067 959 1056 1137; 1146; 1147;
160; 168; 182; Eggler and Keel 1151; 1172; 1174;
190; 193; 325; 2006: Amman 1190; 1192
345; 711; 54; Mazar 24
GGG
250a; 251; 254
a, b
Lamassu WSS 173 WSS 925

Lion Demon WSS 858 WSS 758; 802;

(Ugallu) Eggler and Keel 845
2006: Amman 5
Scorpion-Man WSS 159 WSS 758

Lion Dragon WSS 772

 Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 517

Table 5.16.╇ Deities, protective deities and mixed creatures on Iron Age stamp seals
Protective Israelite/ Undefined or
Spirits Judahite Philistine Ammonite Edomite Moabite Phoenician Aramaic Unclear Origin
Other Mixed WSS 844; 973 WSS 759 WSS 1113
Creatures Eggler and Keel (winged bull); (winged horse);
2006: Amman 4 783 (bull men 1159 (winged
(winged bull) supporting god lion)
Eggler and Keel in sun-disc)
2006: ʿUmērī 55
(human/
bovine)
Eggler and Keel
2006: ʿUmeiri 77
(winged bull)
Contest Scene GGG 284a, b WSS 938 WSS 763; 776; WSS 1097
777; 802
 Appendix A
518

Comparative Table of Israelite and Judean Assemblages

in Alphabetical Order

Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts

Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Ai Iron I Locus 69, bench cultic stands collectibles bowl libation, neighborhood
integrated platform animal fig. frag. lamp jar food/drink shrine
channel(?) consumption
Tel Batash Iron IIC Unit 914 platform in domestic anthropom. chalices libation/ domestic
Loci 910/915 niche and zoomorph. drink
vessel frags. consumption
Tel Batash Iron IIC House 607 domestic miniature altar incense offering domestic
Appendix A

Tel Batash Iron IIC Room 778 domestic miniature uncertain (domestic)
vessels
pot stand
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 844 (domestic) bronze and collectibles votive domestic
debris from 2nd fayance fig.
store fallen on amulets
street
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 25 domestic, JPF mini lamp bowls votive domestic
pillared model chair cooking pots
room juglets
jar
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 808 domestic JPF juglet worship/ domestic
model chair votives
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 442 domestic 2 limestone incense offering domestic
altars
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Beersheba Iron IIC Locus 3622 domestic, Sphinx-figurine apotropaic domestic
courtyard
Bethel Iron IIB Locus 315 ? 3 zoomorph. chalice bowls votive? most likely
fig. frags. pendants store jar domestic
Tell Beit Iron IIC NW 32-12 olive-oil press industrial 3 JPF worship/ work related
Mirsim 3 zoomorph. votive
frags.
Tell Beit Iron IIC NW 31-11 domestic 1 JPF frag. lamp various domestic worship/ domestic
Mirsim Casemate (back) 2 zoomorph. votive
room frag.
lamp
Tell Beit Iron IIC NW 22-13 domestic 2 JPF mini lamp cooking pot worship/ domestic
Mirsim 1 zoomorph. cosmetic jug votive
frag. palette juglet
Beth-shean Iron IA Locus 1342 storage/ fem. fig. frag. fayence obj. jars worship/votive work related
industrial 2 kernoi pyxides bowls libation
jugs
Beth-shean Iron IIA Locus 1564 basin? domestic fem. fig. and ivory object flask libation, domestic
2 zoomorph. votive
frags. music
2 stands
Beth-shean Iron IIA Loci 1557 storage 2 fem. fig. frags. jar worship/ work related
62 1 zoomorph. juglets votive
63
Beth-shean Iron Loci 298/293 domestic tripod incense bowls incense burning, domestic
Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order

IIB/C burner cooking pots libation

stand jars
zoomorph. jug
frag.
519
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
520

Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 387 courtyard 3 zoomorph. juglet votive/ domestic
shemesh of house, fig. frag. red juglet libation
food 1 zoomorph. dipper juglets
preparation spout cooking pots
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 382 oven kitchen model chair dipper juglet votive domestic
shemesh zoomorph. “heavy pot” libation
spout decanters
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 377 JPF head mold juglets figurine domestic
shemesh horse fig. frag. bowls production
lmlk-jar votive
“crude” and
“heavy” pots
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 376 court- 3 zoomorph. shells bowls votive domestic
shemesh yard(?) frags. lamp decanter
food lmlk-jar
processing mortars
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 375 basalt tank industrial animal fig chalice cooking pot votive work related
Appendix A

shemesh (mouse)? disk-base

lamp
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 373 rectangullar industrial 2 JPF heads lamp hole-mouth jar worship/votive work related
shemesh fireplace (+ 1 from adja- stone pounders
cent locus) pick
1 animal fig.
3 animal fig.
frag.
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 321 wine press industrial various zoo- votives/ work related
shemesh morph. vessels/ libations
figurines
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Beth- Iron IIC Locus 305 vats textile JPF juglets votive work related
shemesh produc- cooking pots
tion and jar
processing hole-mouth jar
mortar
pounder
loom weights
ʿEin Gev Iron IIB Locus 11 domestic, tripod incense nephrite axe jugs incense burning, domestic
storage cup cosmetic bowl beer jug votive
decorated jug jar
bone pendant store jar
worked gazelle hole-mouth jar
bone pestle
mortar
scraper
bone spatulae
bronze funnel
Tell Iron IIA House 440 oven domestic, model shrine millstone worship/ domestic
el-Farʿah Room 439 food votive
preparation
Tell Iron IIA House 440 oven domestic, fem. fig. and game piece jug worship/ domestic
el-Farʿah Room 460 food zoomorph. juglets votive
courtyard preparation frags. bowls
Tell Iron IIA House 440 model shrine? worship/ domestic
el-Farʿah Room 437 votive
Tell Iron IIB Locus 429a tripod cooking pot incense burning domestic
Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order

el-Farʿah back room censor-cup bowl

Tell Iron IIA House 175 zoomorph. game piece libation domestic
el-Farʿah Room 174 vessel mini juglet
Tell Iron IIA House 161 benches food game piece jugs unlikely none
el-Farʿah Room 157 storage/ bead juglets
back room preparation lamp cooking pots
jar
521

Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus G 8005 storage JPF head fenestrated storage jars worship/ domestic
back room (pot-)stand jugs votive,
2 limestone juglets meals
blocks
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
522

Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus L 8005 living? JPF torso lamp bowls worship/ domestic
debris of 2nd platter bowl votive,
store juglets meals
jar
Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus K 8002 food 3 JPF frags. lamps storage jars worship/votive, domestic
debris of 2nd prepara- horse-and- pithoi meals
store tion/ rider frag. jugs
consump- juglets
tion cooking pots
kraters
decanter
pitcher
grinding stones
mouth dipper
Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus F 8007 living? JPF torso amphoriskos worship/ domestic
debris of 2nd jugs votive
store bowls
Appendix A

Tel Halif Iron IIC Locus F 7002 living? JPF frag scarab jars worship/ domestic
debris of 2nd food mace-head pithoi votive
store prepara- bone disc bowls
tion/ lamps kraters
consump- cooking pots
tion jugs
juglets
grinding stones
Tel Halif Iron IIC Area F6 grinding food 2 fenestrated libations/ domestic
installations processing stands dry offerings
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Hazor Iron IB Stratum XI, platform sanctuary 3283: ivory handle cooking pot libation village shrine
Room 3283 and benches stand storage jar food offering/
adjacent standing stone foundation basalt bowls and consumption
structures offering in jug pestles
(Loci 3307 and 3307: 3307:
3275), free- 2 stands bowl
standing (?) 3275: store jar
2 stands 3275:
bowl
tripod bowl
cooking pot
krater
store jar
Hazor Iron IIB Room 239a guardroom 1 zoomorph. Cypro- 12 bowls, libation work related
Tower of gate vessel frag. Phoenician 2 jugs drinking, military?
(spout) juglets a basalt bowl meals?
2 lamps
2 cup & saucer
Hazor Iron IIB House food zoomorph. jugs libation domestic
48/63/47a/35a prepara- spout cooking pot
tion/ bowl
consump-
tion
Hazor Iron IIB House food ivory handle bowls
48/63/47a/35a prepara- cooking pots
tion/ juglets
Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order

consump- krater
tion
Hazor Iron IIB House 13-16, 44 stand jug offering/ domestic
(back room) mask store jar divination?
523
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
524

Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Jerusalem Iron IIC Locus 967 domestic animal fig. frag. big goblet-like juglets incense burning domestic
“house of the storage horse-and- kraters bowls libations (?)
bullae” (bureau?) rider frag. pot stand juglets votive
4 altars bowls
cooking pots
decanters
store jars
hole-mouth jars
Kinneret Iron IIB Building 683, storage? fem. fig. torso bowl domestic
Tripartite barracks krater and/or work
building juglet related
storage jar
Kinneret Iron IIB Room 221 oven? dwelling animal fig. frag. cooking pots votive domestic
bowls
Kinneret Iron IIB Room 328 dwelling rattle jugs uncertain
goblet juglets
storage jars
Appendix A

Lachish IA Room 49, platform cultic altar clay basin bowls offerings neighbor-
IIA–IIB isolated benches 4 stands chalices jugs meals hood/village
oven lamps juglets shrine
cooking pots
storage jars
Lachish Iron IIC lower house stand astragali bowls libation/dry domestic
Room 3569 kraters offerings,
cooking pots casting lots/
juglets gambling
flask
storage jars
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Lachish Iron IIC lower house altar, astragali bowls incense burning, domestic
Room 3573 zoomorph. cooking pot votive,
frag. black juglets casting lots/
lamp gambling
jug
store jare
hole-mouth jar
basalt bowl
Lachish Iron IIC lower house 2 zoomorph. bowl votive domestic
Room 3582 frag. krater
cooking pots
black juglet
hole-mouth jar
storage jars
basalt bowl
Lachish Iron IIC lower house oven kitchen zoomorph. fig. bowl votive domestic
Room 3533 frag. cooking pot
krater
jug
Lachish Iron IIC Level IIHouse channel and wine male head 3 bowls votive/ancestor domestic or
basin storage 1 cooking pot cult work related
2 store jars
Lachish Iron IIC Locus 2066 entrance 2 male votive/ancestor domestic
are of peg-figurines cult
house
Lachish Iron IIC G 14: 1008 oven kitchen JPF head imitation bowls worship/votive domestic
Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order

cowry shell jugs

cooking pot
pilgrim flask
jars
storage jars
525
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
526

Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Lachish Iron IIC H 17: 1078 JPF head pot stand juglet worship/ votive domestic
lamp small jug
cooking pot
bowl
storage jars
Lachish Persian Building 10 altar lamp bowl offerings domestic
(Loci 10-16) flask
here: 11 jug
hole-mouth jar
Stone rubber
Tell Mazar IA IIA Mound A benches storage (Room 101) chalices (Room 101) libation and domestic
isolated? (Rooms 100, stand storage jars food/drink
Room 100; 101; 102 only) flasks consumption
102 jugs
krater
cooking pots
Tel Masos Iron I House 314 ovens kitchen/ pot stand bowls food/drink
Appendix A

Room 343 food chalices kraters consumption

prepara- lamps cooking jugs
tion/ cooking pots
consump- jugs
tion strainer jug
juglets
store jars
hole-mouth jars
amphoriskos
pyxides
pilgrim flask
flower pot
working stones
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Tel Masos Iron I House 314 platform kitchen animal fig.? collectibles bowls worship/votive domestic,
Room 307 oven cooking pots food/drink house shrine
jugs consumption
juglets
pyxides
lamp
krater
pithos
storage jar
Tel Masos Iron I House 314 stands (bowls) collectibles? jug libations and/or domestic
Room 331 ivory spout (copper) jar dry offerings
(lion’s head) lamps pithos
bichr. vessel frag.
Tel Masos Iron IIC Room 609 military zoomorph. fig. bowl votive domestic
dwelling? krater
jug
juglet
store jar
Tel Masos Iron IIC Room 708 military JPF base lamps bowl worship/votive domestic
dwelling? juglets
cooking pots
storage jar
Tel Masos Iron IIC Room 758 military model chair cup votive domestic
dwelling?
Tel Masos Iron IIC Room 718 military zoomorph. fig. bowls votive domestic
dwelling? zoomorph. flask libation
Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order

spout
Tell Mazar Iron IB Mound A storage fenestrated chalices storage jars libations and/or domestic
Room 101 stand cooking pots dry offerings
kraters
flasks
jugs
527
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
528

Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Megiddo Iron IB Courtyard house storage stand chalices storage jars libations domestic
00/K/10, zoomorph. cooking pots
Locus 98/K/77 vessel bowls
jugs
juglets
flasks
lids
Megiddo Iron IB Courtyard house oven, tabun kitchen zoomorph. storage jars libations domestic
00/K/10, vessels cooking pots votive
Locus 00/K/87 zoomorph. figs. bowls
and 89/K/70 jugs
juglets
flasks
Megiddo Iron IB Area AA storage mini shrine chalice pyxis worship/ domestic
Locus 2159 double pyxis bowls libations
Courtyard house jug
jars
spouted amph.
Appendix A

pilgrim flask
lentoid flasks
bottle
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, oven, pit, basin kitchen: fem. fig. head 3 chalices pilgrim flasks worship/ domestic
Locus 1727 storage, lamp jugs votive
food pro- pilgrim flasks
cessing and pyxis
consump- bowls
tion cooking pots
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, storage, stand goblet bowl libation and/or domestic
Locus 1729 food lamp pyxis dry offerings?
processing pilgrim flasks
jugs
juglet
strainer cups
baking tray
jars
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, storage bronze calf chalices amphoriskos votive/ domestic
Locus 1732 amulet goblet jugs libation
zoomorph. lamps juglets
vessel flask
kernos cooking pots
bowl
jars
basalt bowl
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, tree unbuilt zoomorph. strainer jar libation and/or domestic
Locus 1737 area or spout juglet dry offerings
courtyard jugs
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, oven kitchen or stand bowl libation and/or domestic
Locus 1731 storage flask dry offerings
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, oven kitchen or stand chalices basalt bowl libation and/or domestic
Locus 1735 storage amphoriskos dry offerings s
jugs
juglet
pilgrim flasks
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food kernos painted pyxis Jugs libation and/or domestic
Locus 1736 processing/ painted jugs lentoid flasks dry offerings
storage kraters
bowls
spouted
amphoriskos
Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order

strainer jug
baking tray
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food stand (bowl of) goblets strainer jug libation and/or domestic
Locus 1740 processing/ cymbals strainer cup dry offerings
consump- jugs music
tion bowls
529

flasks
cooking pots
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
530

Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food stand (base) chalice strainer jug libation and/or domestic
Locus 1744 processing/ painted jug pilgrim flask dry offerings
consump- funnel
tion/ bowl
storage cooking pots
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food fem. fig. frag. lentoid flask worship/votive domestic
Locus 1780 processing/ krater
storage cooking pot
jug
jars
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food/drink bone anim. fig. 3 fayence bowl votive domestic
Locus 1741 consump- frag. amulets basalt bowl
tion? pyxis jugs
lamp painted jug
goblet lentoid flask
Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, food stand 2 seals cooking pots libation and/or domestic
Appendix A

Locus 1752 processing/ goblet jug dry offerings

storage lamps lentoid flask
cup & saucer jars
Megiddo Iron IB Locus 1750 trees unbuilt kernos frag. unlikely: dump?
area fayance amulet
ivory animal
frag.
Megiddo Iron IB Locus 1760 ovens kitchen fem. fig. torso chalice bowl worship/votive domestic
flask jugs
jars
amphoriskoi
Megiddo Iron IIA/ Locus 2081, built in corner, cultic 2 horned altars chalices jar libations, incense large-scale
IIB integrated into bench, stone 3 stands astragali (in juglets burning and domestic and/
house slab big censor-jar bowl) bowl burnt offerings or neighbor-
axhead mortar hood cult
rubbing stone
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Megiddo Iron IIB Room 340 bench, plat- cultic schematic stone cup & saucer juglets libations palace shrine
integrated into form, pillars, object strainer jugs burnt offerings
palatial struc- stone slabs model shrine basalt bowl
ture 338 frag.
Megiddo Iron IIB Room 332 in cultic? limestone altar/ bowl burnt/dry/liba- palace shrine
Building 338 storage stand jug tion offerings
room for 2 pottery flask
340? stands juglets
model shrine 1 jug
frag.
Megiddo Iron IIB Locus 94 H 8 storage incense cup basins incense burning, domestic
and food stand storage jars libations and dry
preparation zoomorph. bowls offerings
vessel frag. kraters
cooking pots
jugs
beer jug
juglets jars
lamps
Assyrian bottle
Tell Michal Iron IIA Building 300, platform sanctuary 3 goblets libation/ village shrine
isolated drink
Tel Qashish Iron IIA Pit 253 kernos bowl globular jug, bowl foundation or domestic
black-on-red handmade bowl ritual deposit
jars
krater
Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order

Tell Iron IIC 616 hearth kitchen stand jars libation/dry domestic
en-Naṣbeh 2 fem. fig. frag. bowl offerings
cooking pots votives
Tell Iron IIB 430 incense burner incense burning domestic
en-Naṣbeh
Tell Iron IIC 293 male head votive domestic
model couch
531

en-Naṣbeh
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
532

Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Tell Iron IIC 298 JPF head votive domestic
en-Naṣbeh model couch
Tell Qiri IA Str. VIIIB–C benches cultic stand+bowl chalices bowls libation neighborhood
building, platform libation vessel miniature cooking pots animal offerings/ shrine
integrated stone basin vessel krater meals
amulet jug
cooking jar
pithos
Tell Qiri IA IIB Str. VII silo storage censor-cup cooking pot work-related
Locus 1027
Ḥirbet Iron I Cluster S benches domestic stands? libation? domestic
Raddana platforms decorated
ovens krater
Tel Reḥov Iron Area E mudbrick plat- open air stand chalices bowls animal slaughter open-air vil-
IIA–B open-air form, maṣṣebôt, cult place fem. fig. frag. cooking pots libations lage sanctuary
structure ovens jugs votives
jars
Appendix A

Ḥorvat Iron IIA Locus 16 fortress/ zoomorph. chalice bowls libation work related
Rosh Zayit Str. IIa storage vessel Cypro- juglets
facility Phoenician
ware
Ḥorvat Iron IIA Locus 47 fortress kernos Cypro- libation work related
Rosh Zayit tower tower Phoenician
ware
Tell Iron IIB House 64 platform dwelling 3 tripod shells 1 jug incense burning domestic
es-Saʾīdīyeh censor-cups beads 2 juglets
4 lamps
Tell Iron IIB House 6 dwelling animal fig. frag. bowls votive domestic
es-Saʾīdīyeh kernos frag. kraters libation
cooking pots
storage jars
 Building/ Room Artifacts Artifacts
Site Date Room Installations function Category A Category B Other Cult activities Cult type
Shiloh Iron I Room 335, stand frags. bowls libations and dry domestic
debris 623 frags. of cooking pots offerings
zoomorph. pilgrim flask
appliques jug
pithoi
storage jar
Taanach IA IIA Room SW 2-7 basin kitchen stand astragali 26 storage jars libation and dry domestic or
and/or censor-cup 3 pyxides 2 amphorae offerings, censing, work-related
storage 10 jugs casting lots
11 juglets
1 krater
63 bowls
3 cooking pots
Turʿan Iron IIB Locus 12 grinding stone domestic, incense burner lamps cooking pots incense burning domestic
kitchen bowls
krater storage
jars
Tell el- Iron I northeast room basin kitchen none none remains of butch- none none
Wawiyat ovens ered cow
Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order
533
 Appendix B1

Names of Thanksgiving

Note to the readerâ•›: Epigraphic Hebrew personal names are presented below in order of meaning based on the
6 name groups presented in this book: (1) names of thanksgiving, (2) names of confession, (3) praise names,
(4) equating names, (5) birth names, and (6) secular names. An alphabetical list of the same names appears in
the index of personal names. Each name is presented in Late Hebrew script, in (a possible) transcription and
translation, with its references, with its provenance, and with the number of times it is attested. (Refer to the list
of abbreviations in the front matter for identification of reference acronyms.) The total number of appearances
for all personal names derived from the same root appears in bold.
Biblical names parallel to the epigraphic names or references to related biblical texts are provided in the last
two columns. The first number in the row refers to identical names; numbers in parentheses refer to biblical
names with minor differences (primarily differences with regard to plene writing or the spelling of theophoric
elements). Biblical variants with major differences are noted in the last column together with their number of
appearances. At the bottom of the column, the total number of biblical names appears in plain typeface next to
the bold total of epigraphic names from the same root. Thus, comparison of the epigraphic and biblical material
has been simplified. Note, however, that biblical names derived from roots that are not attested epigraphically
are not included in this list.
This list of Hebrew names is amplified with epigraphic names from the surrounding Levantine cultures
(Edomite, Moabite, Ammonite, Aramean, and Phoenician) that are derived either from the same root or from
different roots with the same or similar meaning in order to aid cross-cultural comparisons.

1.1.╇ Divine attention

1.1.1.╇ God has heard the complaint

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אלׁשמע‬ ʾElīšāmāʿ El has heard [me] HAE 1.100, 104, 105, 106, 37 (6) Ps 30:11
107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112,
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 141;
5.9, 13; 8.65; 10.6; 14.4; 15.3;
17.2; 21.44, 45, 46; BPHB 8;
62; 98a–d; 99; 100; 101a, b;
147a–c; 180a, b; 205; 251a, b;
Lemaire 215.12:6
Ammonite ‫אלׁשמע‬ ʾIlšamaʿ El has heard [me] WSS 82 (= SAJ 7.1); 871; 911; 912; 9
913; 914; 915; 926; BPPS 166; AMM
39:5
‫יׁשמעאל‬ Yišmaʿʾēl El has heard HAE 8.40; 10.52, 66, 78, 84, 33 6 ‫יׁשמעיהו‬
85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90; 13.17, (1×),
52, 65, 106; 17.16, 42; 21.81; ‫יׁשמעיה‬
30.15, 16; 50.5; Jer(8).8:1; NEE (1×)
83.77:2; BPHB 32; 45; 212;
213; 214; 215a, b; 216; 217a–e;
403a–c; Lemaire 211.10:
rev.€3?

534
 Names of Thanksgiving 535

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יׁשמע‬ Yišmaʿ [El] has heard HAE 21.37 1 (1) ‫יׁשמע‬
‫בעלׁשמע‬ Baʿalšāmāʿ Baal has heard HAE Gem(7).3:4 1 —
Aramaic ‫בעלׁשם‬ Baʿalšam[aʿ] Baal has heard ARI 392.310 1
Phoenician ‫בעלׁשמע‬ Baʿalšamoʿ Baal has heard Benz 100 1
‫יהויׁשמע‬ Yĕhôyišmāʿ Yhwh has heard HAE 10.30 1 (1) ‫הוׁשמע‬
or may hear
Ammonite ‫ׁשמע⟨א⟩ל‬ Šamaʿʾil El has heard WSS 978 1
Edomite ‫ׁשמעאל‬ Šamaʿʾēl El has heard WSS 1064 1
‫ׁשמעיהו‬ Šĕmaʿyāhû Yhwh has heard HAE 1.82, 127, 149; 2.29; 5.18; 37 7
8.47; 10.62; 21.65, 66, 67, 68,
69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 92; 61.3;
Mur(7).2:4; Arad(7).31:5;
39:2; 7f.; Arad(6).27:2;
Lak(6).1.4:6; 19.4; BPHB 35;
173?; 281?; 379; 380?; 381a–d;
382?; 383; 387; 417; Naveh
6.9?; Lemaire 208.7:3′
Phoenician ‫ׁשמעבעל‬ Šamoʿbaʿal Baal has heard Benz 181 1
‫ׁשמעיה‬ Šĕmaʿyāh Yhwh has heard BPHB 51 1 22
‫ׁשמעיו‬ Šĕmaʿyau Yhwh has heard HAE KAgr(9).4 1 —
‫ׁשמע‬ Šāmāʿ [DN] has heard HAE 1.14, 126; 5.17; 8.30; 21 5 ‫ׁשמעא‬
21.54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, (4×),
64; 22.5; 61.2; Msa(7).3:4 (?); ‫ׁשמעה‬
BPHB 82; 179; 226; 376; 377; (1×)
378?
Ammonite ‫ׁשמע‬ Šamaʿ [DN] has heard WSS 903?; 977 2
Phoenician ‫ׁשמע‬ Šamoʿ [DN] has heard FSL 43.16 2
Phoenician ‫ׁשמעא‬ Šamoʿāʾ [DN] has heard Benz 181 1
133 55
‫יו⟨א⟩זן‬ Yau⟨ʾa⟩zan Yhwh has heard HAE 10.50 1 — Ps 143:1
[me]
‫יהו⟨א⟩זן‬ Yĕhô⟨ʾa⟩zan Yhwh has heard FHCB 84.33; 85.34 2 —
Ammonite ‫י⟨א⟩זנאל‬ Yazanʾil El has heard WSS 934 2
‫יאזניהו‬ Yaʾazanyāhû Yhwh has heard HAE 3.16; 10.2, 3, 4, 5; 21.64; 11 2
or may hear Arad(7).39:9; Lak(6).1.1:2, 3;
NEE 83.77:3; BPHB 178
‫יאזניה‬ Yaʾazanyāh Yhwh has heard HAE 8.15; 10.1 2 2
‫יאזני‬ Yaʾazanî [Yhwh] has HAE 21.71 1 —
heard
‫יאזן‬ Yaʾazan [DN] has heard HAE 21.70; Arad(8).59:5; 3 —
Arad(6).58:4
Aramaic ‫אזניו‬ ʾAzanyau Yahweh has heard BPPS 109 1
‫אזני‬ ʾOznî [DN] has heard HAE Lak(6).1.20:2 1 — ‫אזניה‬
(1×)
‫אזן‬ ʾAzan [DN] has heard BPHB 61 1 —
22 5
536 Appendix B1

1.1.2.╇ God has seen the distress

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יחזיהו‬ Yaḥzēyāhû Yhwh has seen HAE Kom(8).6.1; Arad(6).6:3 2 (1) Ps 17:2
[my distress]
Phoenician ‫יחזבעל‬ Yaḥizbaʿal Baal has seen Benz 157 1
‫יחזא‬ Yaḥzāʾ [DN] has seen HAE Aren(8).1:1 1 — ‫יחזיאל‬
(5×)
Ammonite ‫חזאל‬ Ḥazāʾil El has seen AMM 36.2:1; BPPS 185 2
Aramaic ‫חזאל‬ Ḥazāʾēl El has seen Maraqten 80 (cf. bib.) 3
Aramaic ‫אללחז‬ Elilḥazā Enlil has seen (?) Maraqten 69 1
‫חזא‬ Ḥāzāʾ [DN] has seen FHCB 72.21 1 — ‫חזיאל‬
(1×),
‫חזיה‬
(1×)
4 8
‫יראיהו‬ Yĕrīʾyāhû Yhwh has seen HAE 10.73; BPHB 203; 204 3 (3) Ps 31:8
[my distress]
‫ראיהו‬ Rĕʾāyāhû Yhwh has seen HAE 20.1 1 (3) ‫יריאל‬
(1×)
Moabite ‫ירא‬ Yirāʾ [DN] has seen WSS 1027 1
4 7
Phoenician ‫בעלפלס‬ Baʿalpalos Baal has looked at Benz 97 2

1.1.3.╇ God has taken care of the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אלזכר‬ ʾElīzākār [my] God has HAE 1.65; 10.101; 21.2; BPHB 4 — (Ps 8:5)
remembered [me] 79
Ammonite ‫אלזכר‬ ʾIlzakar [my] God has WSS 887; BPPS 156 2
remembered [me]
Ammonite ‫זכראל‬ Zakarʾil El has remembered WSS 928; AMM 36.2:3 2
me
Aramaic ‫זכראל‬ Zakarʾēl El has remembered NTA 42.4:2; 75.9:2 2
me
Aramaic ‫אבדכר‬ ʾAbidakar [my] father has Maraqten 65 1
remembered [me]
‫בעלזכר‬ Baʿalzākār Baal has HAE Sam(8).1.37:3; [39:9] 2 —
remembered [me]
Phoenician ‫בעלסכר‬ Baʿalsakor Baal has Benz 96 1
remembered [me]
Phoenician ]‫זכרב[על‬ Zakorbaʿal Baal has NEE 24.5; 25.12 = 26.29 2
remembered [me]
‫זכריהו‬ Zĕkaryāhû Yhwh has HAE 1.143; 2.12; 9.1; 70.2; 8 4
remembered [me] Msa(7).3:4; NEE 92.79:2; (11)
BPHB 194; 296
 Names of Thanksgiving 537

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫זכריו‬ Zĕkaryau Yhwh has HAE 7.6, 7; 21.61 3 —
remembered [me]
‫זכר‬ Zakkur [DN] has HAE 7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5; 9.6, 21 9+1 ‫זכרי‬
Zeker remembered [me] 7; 10.54; 11.3; 42.1; (10×)
Sam(8)1.31:3; Arad(8).48:3;
67:5; Arad(7).38:7;
Msa(7).1:1; Gaz(7).1:2; BPHB
160?; 161; 213; 283; 358
Ammonite ‫זכר‬ Zakkur [DN] has AMM 24.3:2 1
remembered [me]
Aramaic ‫זכר‬ Zakar [DN] has Maraqten 79 1
remembered [me]
Phoenician ‫זכר‬ Zakor [DN] has Benz 109; WSS 724; WTP 21.48 4
remembered [me]
38 35
‫ידעיהו‬ Yĕdaʿyāhû Yhwh has taken HAE 8.42; 10.12, 13, 14, 15, 19 —
care [of me] 16, 17; 11.13; 16.2:74; 21.88;
Arad(7).31:7; 39:4; 5; BPHB
184; 185; 186; 399; Naveh
2.2:3?
‫ידעיה‬ Yĕdaʿyāh Yhwh has taken HAE 10.11 1 3
care
‫ידעיו‬ Yĕdaʿyau Yhwh has taken HAE 10.18; Sam(8).1.1:8; 4 — ‫יוידע‬
care 42:2; 48:1 (2×)
Aramaic ‫ידע⟨א⟩ל‬ Yadaʿʾēl El has taken care Maraqten 82 1
Phoenician ‫ידעמלך‬ Yadoʿmilk Milk has taken care Gibson 69.18:3 (Benz 127, Punic) 1
‫ידע‬ Yaddūʿ [DN] has taken HAE 10.18; Sam(8).1.1:8; 3 1 ‫אבידע‬
care 42:2; 48:1 (2) (1×)
Aramaic ‫ידע‬ Yadaʿ [DN] has taken care NTA 109.20:4′ 1
‫ׁשמידע‬ Šemyādāʿ the [divine] name HAE Sam(8).1 (clan name) 1 1 ‫אלידע‬
has taken care (3×),
‫בעלידע‬
(1×)
Aramaic ‫ביתעלידע‬ Baytʾelyadaʿ Bethel has taken Maraqten 72 1
care
28 17
‫אחבן‬ ʾAḥbān the [divine] HAE 3.17 1 0 Ps 5:2
brother has
noticed [me]

‫פקדיהו‬ Pĕqadyāhû Yhwh has care- HAE 17.35; BPHB 328 1 — (Ps 8:5)
fully paid atten-
tion [to me]
‫פקדיה‬ Pĕqadyāh Yhwh has BPHB 328 1 —
carefully paid
attention
2 17
538 Appendix B1

1.1.4.╇ God has shown mercy to the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אלחנן‬ ʾElḥānān El was gracious HAE 1.5 1 1 Ps 30:11
Ammonite ‫אלחנן‬ ʾIlḥanan El was gracious WSS 890; 891; 892; 934; 987 5
Phoenician ‫בעלחן‬ Baʿalḥan Baal was gracious WSS 730 1
Phoenician ‫בעלחנן‬ Baʿalḥanon Baal was gracious WSS 731 1
Phoenician ‫בעליחן‬ Baʿalyaḥon Baal has granted Benz 94 1
[me] a favor
Phoenician ‫דעמחנא‬ Doʿamḥanōʾ Doam was gracious Benz 108 1
to him
Phoenician ‫עׁשתרחן‬ Aštarḥan Ashtar was gracious Benz 174 1
‫חננאל‬ Ḥananʾēl El was gracious HAE 8.48 1 4
Ammonite ‫חננאל‬ Ḥananʾil El was gracious WSS 874; 882; 933; 822; 6
AMM 36.2:2?; 5
‫חנניהו‬ Ḥananyāhû Yhwh was HAE 1.140; 5.23; 8.51, 53, 54, 23 3 ‫יהוחנן‬
gracious 55, 56, 57, 58, 59; 20.7; 48.2 (8×),
(?); Arad(8).92:1; Gib(7).1; ‫יוחנן‬
Arad(7).36:4; Msa(7).1:3; (4×)
Arad(6).3:3; 16:1; BPHB 12a,
b; 102a–c; 171; 172; 173?;
‫חנניה‬ Ḥananyāh Yhwh was HAE 1.48; 8.49, 50 3 11
gracious
Aramaic ‫חנניה‬ Ḥananyah Yhwh was gracious Maraqten 81 1
Phoenician ‫יוחנן‬ Yauḥanan Yhwh was gracious NEE 25.16 1
Phoenician [‫חננב]על‬ Ḥanonbaʿal Baal was gracious Benz 125 1
Phoenician ‫חנעׁשתרת‬ Ḥannaʿaštart Ashtarte was Benz 125 (fem.) 1
gracious
‫חנני‬ Ḥănānî [Yhwh] was HAE 17.34; 18.3 2 5
gracious
‫חונן‬ Ḥōnēn [DN] is gracious HAE 8.15 1 —
‫חנן‬ Ḥānān [DN] was HAE 8.41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47; 20 9 ‫חנון‬
gracious Bat(10).3; Sam(8).1.43:2; 45:2; (3×)
46:2; 47:1; Arad(7).38:2; 6;
BPHB 48; 110; 124; 168; 169;
170; FHCB 71.20
Ammonite ‫חנן‬ Ḥanan [DN] was gracious WSS 932; AMM 36.2:4; Heltzer 253 3
Aramaic ‫חנן‬ Ḥanan [DN] was gracious Maraqten 81; WSS 796?; 5
NTA 15.1:18; TSF 655.47:21
Phoenician ‫חנן‬ Ḥanon [DN] was gracious WSS 1084; 1085 2
‫חנא‬ Ḥannāʾ [DN] was HAE Sam(8).1.30:3 1 —
gracious
Ammonite ‫חנא‬ Ḥannāʾ [DN] was gracious WSS 878; 931 2
Aramaic ‫חנא‬ Ḥannāʾ [DN] was gracious Maraqten 81 1
Phoenician ‫חנא‬ Ḥannāʾ [DN] was gracious WSS 1083 1
‫חנה‬ Ḥannāh [DN] was HAE 8.39 1 1
gracious
 Names of Thanksgiving 539

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫חני‬ Ḥannî [DN] was HAE 9.4; BPHB 49a, b 2 —
gracious
Aramaic ‫חני‬ Ḥannî [DN] was gracious Maraqten 81 1
Aramaic ‫חנון‬ Ḥanûn [DN] was gracious NTA 34.3:14 1
Phoenician ‫חן‬ Ḥan [DN] was gracious NTA 34.3:14 1
55 49
‫ירחמאל‬ Yĕraḥmĕʾēl El has shown HAE 10.74; BPHB 380 2 3 (Ps
mercy to [me] 103:13)
Moabite ‫ירחמאל‬ Yĕraḥmeʾēl God has shown BPPS 186 1
mercy
‫ירחם‬ Yĕroḥam [DN] has shown BPHB 205 1 8
mercy
Aramaic ‫אסרחם‬ ʾAssurraḥam Assur [or Isis?] has Maraqten 70 1
shown mercy
Aramaic ‫דדרחם‬ Dadraḥam Hadad has shown TSF 665.59:1; 666.62:1 2
mercy
‫רחם‬ Raḥam [DN] has shown HAE 14.60 1 — ‫רחום‬
mercy (4×)
Aramaic ‫רחם‬ Raḥam [DN] has shown Maraqten 100 1
mercy
4 15
‫חסדיהו‬ Ḥăsadyāhû Yhwh has shown HAE 1.102; RRah(7).1:2; 3 — Ps 18:26
loyalty [to me] BPHB 174
‫חסדיה‬ Ḥăsadyāh Yhwh has shown Naveh 2.2:2 1 1
loyalty [to me]
Moabite ‫כמׁשחסד‬ Kamōšḥāsād Chemosh has shown WSS 1008 1
loyalty [to me]
‫חסדא‬ Ḥasdāʾ [DN] has shown HAE 8.61 1 — ‫חסד‬
loyalty [to me] (1×)
5 2
Aramaic ‫צדאׁשמׁש‬ Ṣedaʾšamaš Shamash has shown BPPS 136 1
loyalty [to me]

‫יאמן‬ Yoʾāmān Yhwh has re- BPHB 179 1 —

mained faithful
‫יואמן‬ Yauʾāmān Yhwh has re- HAE 10.47; 17.3, 33 3 —
mained faithful
Phoenician ‫אלאמן‬ ʾEliʾamon [my] god has Benz 61 1
remained faithful
4 0
‫ידו‬ Yiddû (?) [DN] has shown HAE 1.106, 136; 10.8; 4 2 —
love Nasb(8).6:1

‫חמדא‬ Ḥemdāʾ [DN] has taken a HAE Arad(8).55:1 1 0 —

fancy [to me]
Phoenician ‫חפצבעל‬ Ḥapoṣbaʿal Baal has taken a Benz 125 1
fancy
Phoenician ‫עׁשתרתצב‬ ʿAštartṣeba Ashtarte has desired Benz 175 1
Aramaic ‫חדי‬ Ḥaday [DN] was delighted Maraqten 80 1
Aramaic ‫יבחראל‬ Yibḥarʾēl El has chosen Maraqten 82 1
540 Appendix B1

1.1.5.╇ God has turned to the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אחיקם‬ ʾAḥîqām my [divine] HAE 1.50, 51, 52, 53; 21.32; 9 1 Ps 3:8
brother has arisen Arad(7).31,5; Jer(6).37; NEE
83.77:5; Naveh 3.3:3?
‫אחקם‬ ʾAḥîqām my [divine] HAE 1.59, 60, 61, 62, 63; 11 1 ‫אדניקם‬
brother has arisen 16.51; Gaz(7).1:1; NEE (1×)
92.79:8; BPHB 46; 77; 78
Moabite ‫אחקם‬ ʾAḥīqām [my divine] brother Heltzer 258 1
has arisen
Aramaic ‫אחקם‬ ʾAḥīqām [my divine] brother WSS 764; 765 2
has arisen
Phoenician ‫אבקם‬ ʾAbīqōm [my divine] father Benz 55 4
has arisen
‫יהוקם‬ Yĕhôqām Yhwh has arisen HAE 10.41, 42, 43; 17.12; 13 —
21.35; 50.2; BPHB 120; 154;
176a, b; 193; 194; 401; FHCB
74.23?
‫עזריקם‬ ʿAzrîqām my [divine] help HAE 16.47; 18.10; BPHB 302 3 4
has arisen
‫עזרקם‬ ʿAzrīqām [my divine] help HAE 16.48, 49, 50; 21.100 5 —
has arisen BPHB 335
Aramaic ‫עזרקם‬ ʿAzrīqām [my divine] help has BPPS 133 (= WSS 1167 undef.) 1
arisen
Phoenician ‫עזרקם‬ ʿAzrīqōm [my divine] help has Heltzer 282 1
arisen
41 6
‫פנאל‬ Pĕnīʾēl El has turned to HAE Seb(8).1:2 1 (2) Ps 86:16
face [me]
‫פניה‬ Pĕnīyāh Yhwh has turned HAE Gez(10).1, Rand 1 —
to face [me]
Phoenician ‫ביתלפן‬ Bayt[ʾ]elpano Bethel has turned to WSS 727 1
face [me]
2 2
‫יהוסחר‬ Yĕhôsāḥār Yhwh has turned HAE Arad(8).90:1 1 0 —
to [me] (from
saḥāru N)

‫אלבא‬ ʾElībāʾ [my] god has HAE Sam(8).1.1:6 1 0 (Ps 121:1)

come [to me]

‫קדם‬ Qiddem (?) [DN] has come HAE Arad(7).39:1 1 — Ps 59:11

toward [me] ‫קדמיאל‬
(1×)
1 1
‫קרבאר‬ Qĕrabʾūr the [divine] light HAE 19.4; 59.1; Jer(6).37? 3 — Ps 69:19
has come close
[to me]
 Names of Thanksgiving 541

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫קרבאור‬ Qĕrabʾûr the [divine] light HAE Arad(6).24:14; Naveh 2 —
has come close 3.3:5?
[to me]
5 0

1.1.6.╇ God has shone on the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אליאר‬ ʾElyāʾīr El has shone HAE 1.66, 67; Arad(6).21:2 3 — Ps 31:17
[above me]
‫יאר‬ Yāʾīr [DN] has shone HAE 70.2; Lak(7/6).26:5 2 (3)
5 3
‫יהוזרח‬ Yĕhôzārāḥ Yhwh has risen HAE 10.26; 13.85, 97; BPHB 6 — (Ps 112:4)
gloriously [above 18a–f; 189; 190 ‫זרחיה‬
me] (2×),
‫יזרחיה‬
(2×),
‫זרח‬
(6×)
‫בלגי‬ Bilgay [DN] has HAE 1.93, 94; 2.5, 6, 7; [10.43 7 1 (Ps 39:14)
illuminated read Shilgi] 17.1; BPHB 124 ‫בלגה‬
(2×)
7 3
Aramaic ‫יפעהד‬ Yapaʿhadd Hadad has shone Maraqten 84 1
forth

1.2.╇ Divine salvation

1.2.1.╇ God has saved or ransomed the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אליׁשע‬ ʾElîšaʿ My god has saved HAE 1.91; 13.18; Sam(8).1.1:4; 8 1 Ps 3:8
[me] 7; Nim(8).2:1; Arad(6).24:15;
19; BPHB 89
Ammonite ‫אליׁשע‬ ʾIlyašūʿ El has saved CAI 31; WSS 894; 895; (SAJ 179.4 1
Moab.); 960; 975; 979; AMM 36.2:7;
62.33
Moabite ‫אחיׁשע‬ ʾAḥîšaʿ my [divine] brother WSS 1017 1
has saved
‫יויׁשע‬ Yauyāšāʿ Yhwh has saved HAE Sam(8).1.36:3; 2 —
Sam(8).4:1
Ammonite ‫בעליׁשע‬ Baʿalyašūʿ Baal has saved WSS 860; Heltzer 234 (king) 1
Moabite ‫כמׁשיׁשע‬ Kamōšyašūʿ Chemosh has saved BPPS 194 1
Aramaic ‫מראיׁשע‬ Māreʾyašaʿ the lord has saved WSS 811 1
Phoenician ‫מלכיׁשע‬ Milkyašoʿ Milk has saved BPPS 102 1
542 Appendix B1

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יׁשעיהו‬ Yĕšaʿyāhû Yhwh has saved HAE 5.24; 8.62; 10.93, 94, 22 3
95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100; 13.23;
18.8; 21.52, 79; Jer(7).29:1(?);
BPHB 28.29; 218; 219; 220?;
243; 339; 366
‫יׁשעיה‬ Yĕšaʿyāh Yhwh has saved HAE 13.67 1 5
‫יׁשעא‬ Yišʿāʾ [DN] has saved HAE 16.9 1 — ‫יׁשעי‬
(4×)
Moabite ‫יׁשעא‬ Yišʿāʾ [DN] has saved WSS 1028 1
Phoenician ‫יׁשעא‬ Yišʿāʾ [DN] has saved Benz 129 1
Aramaic ‫יׁשע‬ Yašaʿ [DN] has saved WSS 1102 1
‫יׁשעה‬ Yišʿāh [DN] has saved HAE 10.92 1 —
Ammonite ‫הוׁשע[א]ל‬ Haušaʿʾil El has saved WSS 930 1
‫הוׁשיהו‬ Haušaʿyāhû Yhwh has saved HAE 1.36, 73; 2.16; 3.21; 4.4, 39 —
12, 13, 14, 15; 5.12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; 17.22,
23, 24, 25, 26; 21.47; 50.1;
MHas(7).1:7; Lak(6).1.3:1;
Gaz(7).1:3; BPHB 47; 152;
153?; 154; 155a, b; 156a–d;
157; 158; 187; 236; FHCB
69.18
‫הוׁשעיה‬ Haušaʿyāh Yhwh has saved HAE 5.10, 11; 17.9; BPHB 4 2
191.184
‫הוׁשע‬ Haušēʿ [DN] has saved HAE 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 9; 7.1; 13.49; 25 5
16.4; Mur(7).2:1; BPHB 6; 48;
72; 81a, b; 90; 146a, b; 147a–c
(2×); 148; 149; 150a, b; 151;
310; 364a–c; 365; 395
Aramaic ‫הוׁשע‬ Haušeʿē [DN] has saved Maraqten 77 1
103 20
‫פלטיהו‬ Pĕlaṭyāhû Yhwh has saved HAE 1.60; 10.72; 13.12, 25, 98, 28 1 Ps 31:2
99, 100; 16.28, 75; 17.18, 19, (1)
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31; 21.48, 73; BPHB
324; 325; Lemaire 197.1:1
Aramaic ‫פלטאל‬ Palaṭʾēl El has saved TSF 655.47:1 1
Phoenician ‫פלטבעל‬ Paloṭbaʿal Baal has saved Benz 176 1
‫פלטה‬ Palṭāh [DN] has saved HAE 17.15, 16; BPHB 46; 323 4 —
‫פלטי‬ Palṭî [DN] has saved HAE 16.52; 17.17; BPHB 303 3 2+1
Ammonite ‫פלטי‬ Palṭî [DN] has saved WSS 968; 969; 986 3
Moabite ‫פלטי‬ Palṭî [DN] has saved WSS 1011 1
Aramaic ‫פלטי‬ Palṭî [DN] has saved TSF 655.47:1 1
‫פלט‬ Peleṭ [DN] has saved HAE 17.14; BPHB 322; 382 3 2 ‫יפלט‬
(4×)
Ammonite ‫פלט‬ Palaṭ [DN] has saved CAI 144.1; WSS 966; 978 3
38 9
 Names of Thanksgiving 543

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫חלציהו‬ Ḥeleṣyāhû Yhwh has HAE 1.110, 111; 5.15, 16; 8.22, 19 — Ps 6:5
delivered 23, 24, 25; 10.89; 13.40; 20.1;
BPHB 163; 164; 165; 166;
177a, b; 333?; FHCB 70.19;
Lemaire 201.2:11?
Phoenician ‫אׁשמנחלץ‬ ʾEšmunḥilleṣ Eshmun has Benz 70 2
delivered
‫חלץ‬ Ḥeleṣ [DN] has HAE 8.21; 16.55; 14 2
delivered Sam(8).1.22:4; 23:4; [26:2];
30:2; 31:2; ; 32:2; 33:2; [34:2];
35:2; 49:2; 90:2; Sam(8).11:1
Aramaic ‫חלץ‬ Ḥeleṣ [DN] has delivered BPPS 132 (Israelite) 1
Phoenician ‫חלץ‬ Ḥilleṣ [DN] has delivered Benz 109 1
33 2
Aramaic ‫מתעאל‬ Mataʿʾēl El has saved Maraqten 89 2
Aramaic ‫מתעדד‬ Mataʿadad Adad has saved Maraqten 89 1
Aramaic ‫מתעהדד‬ Mataʿhadad Hadad has saved Maraqten 90 1
Aramaic ‫מתעׁשא‬ Mataʿšēʾ Sin has saved Maraqten 90 1
Aramaic ‫מתע‬ Mataʿ [DN] has saved NTA 107.19:3 1
Aramaic ‫מתעי‬ Matēʿî saved by [DN] Maraqten 90 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשאמתע‬ Šēʾmataʿ Sin has saved Maraqten 101 1

Phoenician ‫אׁשמנשלך‬ ʾEšmunšillek Eshmun has saved Benz 73 3

‫גאליהו‬ Gĕʾalyāhû Yhwh has HAE 3.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 8 — Ps 69:19

ransomed Arad(7).39:5; Arad(6).16:5
‫גאל‬ Gāʾāl [DN] has HAE 3.1 1 — ‫יגאל‬
ransomed (3×)
9 3
‫פדיהו‬ Pĕdāyāhû Yhwh has HAE 1.67; 2.19; 10.7; 13.45, 21 1 Ps 26:11
ransomed 51; 14.57; 16.44; 17.8, 9, 10, ‫פדהאל‬
11, 12; 21.75, 98; 57.1, 2; (1×)
Arad(8).49:15; NEE 89.78:6; ‫פדהצור‬
BPHB 318; 319; 320 (1×)
‫פדיה‬ Pĕdāyāh Yhwh has HAE 17.7; BPHB 317 2 6
ransomed
Ammonite ‫פדאל‬ Padaʾil El has ransomed WSS 857; 965 2
Moabite ‫פדמלך‬ Padamalk Malk has ransomed WSS 1015 1
Edomite ‫פדמלך‬ Padamalk Malk has ransomed WSS 1053 1
‫פדא‬ Pādāʾ [DN] has HAE 17.3: 4 2 —
ransomed
‫פדה‬ Pādāh [DN] has HAE 17.5; BPHB 148; 149; 5 —
ransomed 314; 315
Aramaic ‫פדה‬ Padāh [DN] has ransomed Maraqten 97 1
‫פדי‬ Pādî [DN] has HAE 9.2; 15.9; 17.6?; 5
ransomed Arad(8).55:2; BPHB 316
Aramaic ‫פדי‬ Padî [DN] has ransomed Maraqten 97; WSS 799 2
544 Appendix B1

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Phoenician ‫פדי‬ Paday [DN] has ransomed Gibson 69.18:4 (Benz 175, Punic); 2
NEE 25.15
Phoenician ‫פדן‬ Pādāni [DN] has ransomed FSL 62.40 (Tyre) 1
me (?)
35 12
Phoenician ‫אׁשרׁשלח‬ ʾAššuršilleḥ Assur has set free Benz 73 1

‫ירחב‬ Yarḥīb (?) [DN] has given BPHB 402 1 — Ps 4:2

[me] room ‫רחבעם‬
(1×),
‫רחביהו‬
(1×)
‫רחב‬
(3×)
1 5

1.2.2.╇ God has given justice to the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יׁשפט‬ Yišpōṭ [DN] has given HAE Arad(8).53:1 1 — Ps 43:1
justice
‫ׁשפטיהו‬ Šĕpaṭyāhû Yhwh has given HAE 1.96; 8.20, 64; 15.11; 19 3 ‫אליׁשפט‬
[me] justice 16.17, 71; 21.42, 89, 90, 91, 92, (6) (1×)
93, 94, 95, 96; 61.5 (?); BPHB
375a–c; 389; 418
‫ׁשפט‬ Sāpāṭ [DN] has given HAE 8.13; 10.20; 13.37; 21.41, 10 5
justice 84, 85, 86, 87, 88; BPHB 388
Phoenician ‫ׁשפט‬ Šapoṭ [DN] has given NEE 26.21; 26.26; 26.28; FSL 46.20 4
justice (Tyre)
30 15
‫צדק‬ Ṣādōq [DN] was just HAE 18.1, 2; Arad(8)93:1; 4 (7) Ps 4:2
BPHB 330 ‫יהוצדק‬
(1×)
‫יוצדק‬
(1×)
Moabite ‫כמׁשצדק‬ Kamōšṣādāq Chemosh has given WSS 1036 1
justice
4 9
‫ידניהו‬ Yĕdīnyahû Yhwh has given HAE 10.9; Arad(6).27:4 2 — Ps 54:3
justice ‫אבידן‬
(1×)
‫דניאל‬
(4×)
‫דן‬
(1×)
‫דינה‬
(1×)
 Names of Thanksgiving 545

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Ammonite ‫חמדן‬ Ḥammīdan [my divine] father- BPPS 153 (fem.) 1
in-law has given
[me] justice
Ammonite ‫אלידן‬ ʾIlyadīn El has given justice WSS 898; 902 2
Aramaic ‫אלידן‬ ʾElyadīn El has given justice NTA 26.2:14 1
Moabite ‫כמׁשדן‬ Kamōšdān Chemosh has given WSS 1030 1
justice
2 7
‫אלירב‬ ʾElyārīb El has given HAE Lak(7/6).27:1 1 — Ps 35:1
justice ‫יהויריב‬
(1×)
‫יויריב‬
(1×)
‫יריב‬
(3×)
‫ריבי‬
(1×)
Aramaic ‫יהוירב‬ Yĕhôyārīb Yhwh has given BPPS 123 1
justice
1 6
‫מיפלל‬ Mîpillel Who has given HAE 13.17/a 1 1 —
justice? ‫פלליה‬
(1×)
‫פלל‬ Pālāl [DN] has given HAE 17.33 1 — ‫אפלל‬
justice (1×)
Ammonite ‫פלל‬ Palal [DN] has given WSS 82 (= SAJ 7.1) 1
justice
2 3
‫פליה‬ Pĕlayāh Yhwh has made a HAE 17.32 1 1 —
just decision ‫אליפלהו‬
(1×)
1 3
‫בחנא‬ Băḥanāʾ [DN] has tested BPHB 99 1 0 Ps 26:2
[me]

1.2.3.╇ God has acted wonderfully toward the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יגדליהו‬ Yigdalyāhû Yhwh has proven HAE 10.39; BPHB 183 2 1 Ps 40:17
himself to be
great
‫יגדל‬ Yigdal [DN] has proven BPHB 182; 230a, b 2 —
himself to be
great
‫גדליהו‬ Gĕdalyāhû Yhwh has proven HAE 1.105; 3.14, 15, 16, 20 3
himself to be 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; 8.57;
great Arad(8).71:3; Jer(7).20:1;
Arad(6).21:1; BPHB 24; 131;
132; 133; 134; 385; Lemaire
204.3:1?
546 Appendix B1

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫גדליה‬ Gĕdalyāh Yhwh has proven HAE Arad(6).110:2 1 2 ‫גדלתי‬
himself to be (1×)
great
‫גדל‬ Gādāl [DN] has proven HAE 10.1; 16.64 2 2
himself to be
great
27 19
‫עתיהו‬ ʿAtāyāhû Yhwh has proven HAE 16.73 (Zadok, PIAP 32, 1 (1) —
himself to be derives from Aramaic ‫‘ עות‬to ‫עותי‬
outstanding (?) help’) (2×)
1 3
‫פלאיהו‬ Pĕlāʾyāhû Yhwh has acted HAE 17.13a, b 1 (1) Ps 4:4
wonderfully ‫פלוא‬
(1×)
1 2

1.3.╇ Divine assistance

1.3.1.╇ God has supported the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אלעזר‬ ʾElʿāzār El has helped HAE 10.11 1 7 Ps 30:11
[me]
Ammonite ‫אלעזר‬ ʾIlʿazar El has helped WSS 953; PPPS 163; 165; 174; 972; 8
981; AMM 31.2?; Heltzer 236
Aramaic ‫אלהעזר‬ ʾIlahʿazar God has helped WSS 770 1
Ammonite ‫ירחעזר‬ Yarḥʿazar Yeraḥ has helped AMM 24.3:1 1
Moabite ‫מלכיעזר‬ Malkîʿazar my king has helped WSS 1039 1
Aramaic ‫פלדעזר‬ Pladʿazar Aplad[ad] has Röllig, AoF 368.1:10 1
helped (the weather-
god of Suchu)
Phoenician ‫אׁשמנעזר‬ ʾEšmunʿazor Eshmun has helped Benz 72 9
Phoenician ‫מלכיעזר‬ Milkyaʿzor Milk has helped Benz 139 1
‫עזראל‬ ʿAzarʾēl El has helped HAE 19.4 1 6
Ammonite ‫עזראל‬ ʿAzarʾil El has helped WSS 906 1
Aramaic ‫עזרנאל‬ ʿAzaranīʾēl El has helped me Maraqten 95 2
‫עזריהו‬ ʿAzaryāhû Yhwh has helped HAE 1.141; 8.54; 13.104; 44 11
15.7, 8; 16.32, 33, 34, 35,
36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
44, 60; 18.15, 16; 21.16, 66;
56.2; Gib(7).1; Arad(6).16:6;
Lak(6).1.18.2; BPHB 20; 21;
34; 105; 106; 139; 160; 172;
200; 296; 297; 298; 299; 300;
409; 410; 411
‫עזריה‬ ʿAzaryāh Yhwh has helped HAE 8.2; 16.31; 21.8 3 14
 Names of Thanksgiving 547

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫עזריו‬ ʿAzaryau Yhwh has helped HAE 16.45, 46; BPHB 301a, b 3 —
Aramaic ‫עזריו‬ ʿAzaryau Yhwh has helped BPPS 132 1
Aramaic ‫)?(עזרׁשמׁש‬ ʿAzaršamaš Shamash has helped Maraqten 96 1
Phoenician ‫עזרבעל‬ ʿAzorbaʿal Baal has helped Benz 167; WSS 713; NEE 24.7 4
Phoenician ‫עׁשתרתעזר‬ ʿAštartʿezra Ashtarte has helped Gibson 121.32 XIII 2 1
Phoenician ‫עזרמלך‬ ʿAzormilk Milk has helped Benz 170 1
Phoenician ‫עזרתבעל‬ ʿAzartabaʿal you have helped Benz 170 2
[me], Baal
‫עזר‬ ʿAzzūr [DN] has helped HAE 1.142, 148; 3.13; 7.2; 35 3+6 ‫עזרה‬
ʿEzer 8.26; 14.41; 16.23, 24, 25, (2×)
26, 27, 28, 29, 30; 18.13, ‫עזרי‬
14; KAgr(9).4; Msa(7).1:2; (1×)
Arad(6).22:2; 23:8; 58:3;
Lak(6).1.19:1; NEE 83.77:3; 5;
BPHB 50; 117; 155a, b; 190;
220; 275; 294; 295; 339?; 376;
FHCB 83.32
Ammonite ‫עזר‬ ʿAzar [DN] has helped WSS 962 1
Moabite ‫עזרא‬ ʿEzrāʾ [DN] has helped WSS 1043 1
Phoenician ‫עזר‬ ʿAzor [DN] has helped Benz 167; WTP 21.47; FSL 46.20 4
87 50
‫יעׁש‬ Yĕʿūš [DN] has come HAE Sam(8).1.48:3 1 (3) —
to help ‫יועׁש‬
(2×)
Edomite ‫בעלעוׁש‬ Baʿalʿûš Baal has come to BPPS 203 1
help
1 5
‫אלסמך‬ ʾElsāmāk El has supported HAE 1.97; 3.30; 15.17; 4 — Ps 3:6
[me] BPHB 94
Aramaic ‫אלסמך‬ ʾElsamak El has supported Maraqten 69 2
Ammonite ‫אלתמך‬ ʾIltamak El has supported WSS 917; AMM 36.2:10 2
Aramaic ‫מרסמך‬ Māresamak the lord has WSS 1094 1
supported
Phoenician ‫מרסמך‬ Māresamok the lord has Benz 143 1
supported
‫אליסמך‬ ʾElîsāmāk my god has HAE 3.29 1 — ‫אחיסמך‬
supported (1×)
‫סמכיהו‬ Sĕmakyāhû Yhwh has HAE 1.113, 121, 129; 13.107; 17 1 ‫יסמכיהו‬
supported 15.14; Lak(6)1.4:6; 13:2; (1×)
Lak(6).15:5; NEE 89.78:2;
BPHB 31; 78; 104?; 145; 240;
278; 279; 280
Ammonite ‫תמכאל‬ Tamakʾil El has supported WSS 881; 886; 923; 982; 983; 984; 9
985; 986; BPPS 182
Aramaic ‫תמכאל‬ Tamakʾēl El has supported WSS 853 1
Phoenician ‫תמכאל‬ Tamokʾēl El has supported Benz 186 1
548 Appendix B1

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫סמכיו‬ Sĕmakyau Yhwh has HAE Sam(8):6, 3; Nasb(8):1, 1 2 —
supported
Aramaic ‫סמכיו‬ Sĕmakyau Yhwh has Maraqten 93 (Nimrud) 1
supported
Ammonite ‫תמכא‬ Tamkāʾ (DN) has supported WSS 956; 981 2
Phoenician ‫תמכא‬ Tamokāʾ (DN) has supported Benz 186 1
‫סמכי‬ Samkî [DN] has HAE 55.1 1 —
supported
‫סמך‬ Sāmāk [DN] has HAE 1.54; 2.5; 3.14; 10.95; 31 —
supported 15.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13; 18.2; 20.11; 21.39, 90;
Hes(8).1:1; BPHB 65; 66a-d;
67; 68; 69; 85; 228; 257; 274;
275; 276a, b; 277; 320; 407;
FHCB 63.13
Ammonite ‫סמך‬ Samak [DN] has supported WSS 861 1
56 3
‫סעדיהו‬ Săʿadyāhû Yhwh has HAE 15.19 (Röllig reads 4[7] — Ps 41:4
supported 15.20; 21.7 and Arad[7].31:4
‫‘ סעריהו‬Yhwh stormed’, but
these would be the only ex-
amples of a theophany name);
BPHB 281; 282; 328
‫סעדיה‬ Săʿadyāh Yhwh has HAE 15.17 1 —
supported
‫סעדיו‬ Săʿadyau Yhwh has HAE 15.18 1 —
supported
‫סעדא‬ Săʿadāʾ [DN] has Lemaire 215.12:4? 1 —
supported
‫סעדה‬ Săʿadāh [DN] has HAE 15.15 1 —
supported
‫סעדי‬ Săʿadî [DN] has HAE 15.16 (Röllig reads 10.58 1[2] —
supported ‫)סערי‬
9[13] 0
‫יהואחז‬ Yĕhôʾāḥāz Yhwh has held HAE 10.24 1 4 Ps 73:23
[me] tight ‫יואחז‬
(1×)
Aramaic ‫נבלאחז‬ Nabalʾaḥaz the noble one has BPPS 107 1
held tight
‫אחזיהו‬ ʾAḥazyāhû Yhwh has held HAE 1.35; 7.8; 41.1; BPHB 4 2
tight 122?
‫אחזי‬ ʾAḥzay [DN] has held HAE Sam(8).1.25:3 1 1
tight
‫אחז‬ ʾAḥāz [DN] has held HAE 1.33, 34, 151; 8.19; 9 2
tight Sam(8).1.2:5; Sam(8).9:1;
BPHB 9; 72; 98a–d;
Aramaic ‫אחז‬ ʾAḥaz [DN] has held tight Maraqten 67; NTA 54.6.5′ 1
15 10
 Names of Thanksgiving 549

1.3.2.╇ God has proven himself to be strong (in his assistance)

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יחזק‬ Yeḥzaq [DN] has proven HAE 10.56 1 — Isa 41:9
himself to be ‫יחזקאל‬
strong (2×),
‫יחזקיהו‬
(2×)
Aramaic ‫יחזק‬ Yiḥzaq [DN] has proven Maraqten 83 1
himself to be strong
‫חזק‬ Ḥāzāq [DN] has proven HAE 8.18 1 —
himself to be
strong
Aramaic ‫חזג‬ Ḥazag [DN] has proven Maraqten 80 1
himself to be strong
(sound shift from
q to g)
2 4
‫אמץ‬ ʾAmōṣ [DN] has proven HAE Qad(8).1:1; Seb(8).1:4 2 (1) Isa 41:10
himself to be ‫אמציהו‬
strong (1×)
‫אמציה‬
(3×)
‫אמצי‬
(2×)
Ammonite ‫אלאמץ‬ ʾIlʾamaṣ El has proven CAI 18; WSS 884; 885; 886; 971? 5
himself to be strong
Ammonite ‫אמצאל‬ ʾAmaṣʾil El has proven WSS 963 1
himself to be strong
Moabite ‫אמץ‬ ʾAmoṣ [DN] has proven WSS 1007; 1018 2
himself to be strong
2 7
‫גבריהו‬ Gĕbaryāhû Yhwh has proven HAE Arad(8).60:5f. 1 — (Ps 103:11)
himself to be ‫גבריאל‬
superior (1×)
Edomite ‫קוסגבר‬ Qausgabar Qos has proven WSS 1048; (1049) 1
himself to be
superior
Aramaic ‫אלגבר‬ ʾElgabar El has proven NTA 42.4:7 1
himself to be
superior
Aramaic ‫הדגבר‬ Haddgabar Hadad has proven Röllig AoF 24, 368.1:2 1
himself to be
superior
Aramaic ‫מלכגבר‬ Malkigabar [my] king has BPPS 126 (Edomite?) 1
proven himself to be
superior
Aramaic ‫ׁשאגבר‬ Šēʾgabar Sin has proven Maraqten 101 1
himself to be
superior
550 Appendix B1

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫גבר‬ Geber [DN] has proven HAE Gar(7).2:1 1 2
himself to be
superior
Aramaic ‫גברי‬ Gabrî [DN] has proven NTA 49.5:5 1
himself to be
superior
2 3
‫עזזיהו‬ ʿAzazyāhû Yhwh has proven Lemaire 211.10: rev. 3? 1 3 Ps 86:16
himself to be ‫עזז‬
strong (1×)
Ammonite ‫חתעזת‬ [ʾA]ḥatʿazzāt [divine] sister, you Heltzer 238 (fem.) 1
have proven yourself
to be strong
1 4
‫יהוכל‬ Yĕhôkal Yhwh has proven HAE 10.31, 46; 13.74; 20.6; 8 (1)
himself to be Arad(6).21:1; BPHB 225; 279;
mighty Lemaire 215.12:8
‫יכלמלך‬ Yĕkolmelek the [divine] king BPHB 26 1 —
has proven him-
self to be mighty
‫יכליו‬ Yĕkolyau Yhwh has proven HAE 10.58 1 — ‫יכליהו‬
himself to be (1×)
mighty
Moabite ‫יכל‬ Yakol [DN] has proven BPPS 189; 196 2
himself to be mighty
Aramaic ‫יכל‬ Yukalāʾ [DN] has proven Maraqten 83 1
himself to be mighty
Aramaic ‫יכלא‬ Yukalāʾ [DN] has proven Maraqten 83 1
himself to be
superior
10 2
‫ילא‬ Yilāʾ [DN] has proven HAE Arad(8).60:5f. 1 0
himself to be
strong
Moabite ‫ילא‬ Yilʾā [DN] has proven WSS 1026 1
himself to be strong
Aramaic ‫ילא‬ Yilʾā [DN] has proven Maraqten 83 1
himself to be strong
Aramaic ‫אלה[ל]אי‬ ʾIlahlĕʾî God has proven NTA 14.1:1f. 1
himself to be strong
Phoenician ‫עׁשתרתלאת‬ ʿAštartlaʾati Ashtarte has proven FSL 31.7 1
himself to be strong

1.3.3.╇ God has raised the fallen-down sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אליקם‬ ʾElyāqīm El has raised [me] HAE 1.75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 17 (3) Ps 41:11
81; 21.43, 85; BPHB 83; 84a, b;
85; 86a, b; 87; 198; 266; 342
 Names of Thanksgiving 551

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יהויקם‬ Yĕhôyāqīm Yhwh has raised HAE 1.146;10.29; 3 (1)
Lak(7/6).26:3
‫יוקם‬ Yauqīm Yhwh has raised HAE 10.55; 16.72 2 (1)
‫יקמיהו‬ Yĕqamyāhû Yhwh has raised HAE 1.19, 32, 70; 10.64, 24 — ‫יקמעם‬
65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70; 16.59; (1×),
50.3; Arad(8).74:3; 80:2; ‫יקים‬
Arad(8).59:2; Arad(7).39:1; (2×)
NEE 92.79:3; BPHB 128; 199;
200; 201a, b; 202; Lemaire
201.2:8?; 210.10: obv.2
‫יקמיה‬ Yĕqamyāh Yhwh has raised HAE 10.63; 13.19 2 2
‫מקמיהו‬ Mēqīmyāhû [he] who has HAE 14.10 1 —
raised me is
Yhwh
49 10
‫ירמיהו‬ Yĕrīmyāhû Yhwh has exalted HAE 1.66, 103; 3.5; 8.61; 22 4 Ps 3:4
[me] 10.79;, 80, 81, 82, 83; (5)
21.36, 74; 50.4; Ser(7).3:1;
Arad(6).24:15; Lak(6).1.1:4;
NEE 92.79:13; BPHB 10a, b;
209; 210a, b; 211; Lemaire
214.11:5; 215.12:4?
Ammonite ‫ירמאל‬ Yarīmʾil El has exalted BPPS 153 1
Ammonite ‫ירמלך‬ Yĕrīmmalk Malk has exalted CAI 98 1
Phoenician ‫מלכירם‬ Milkyarīm Milk has exalted NEE 27.39 1
‫ירם‬ Yārīm [DN] has exalted HAE 10.76, 77; NEE 89.78:5; 6 — ‫ירמי‬
BPHB 206; 207; 208 (1×)
28 10
‫עדד‬ ʿOded [DN] has helped HAE 13.14 1 2 (Ps 146:9)
[me] up
Aramaic ‫יעדדאל‬ Yĕʿodedʾel El has helped [me] WSS 801 1
up

1.3.4.╇ God has carefully guided the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫נהל‬ Nēhāl [DN] has guided HAE 14.40 1 0 Ps 23:2
[me]
552 Appendix B1

1.4.╇ Divine protection

1.4.1.╇ God has protected the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫ׁשמריהו‬ Šĕmaryāhû Yhwh has pro- HAE 16.37; 21.74, 75; 4 1 Ps 17:8
tected [me] Arad(6).18:4 (3) ‫ׁשמרי‬
(4×),
‫ׁשמר‬
(3×)
‫ׁשמריו‬ Šĕmaryau Yhwh has HAE 21.76; Sam(8).1.1:1f; 5 ‫ׁשומר‬
protected 13:2; 14:2; 21:1 (1×),
‫יׁשמרי‬
(1×)
Ammonite ‫אלׁשמר‬ ʾIlšamar El has protected AMM 31.2 1
Phoenician ‫בעלׁשמר‬ Baʿalšamor Baal has protected Benz 100 2
9 13
‫זמר‬ Zāmār [DN] has HAE Sam(8).1.12:3 1 — (Ps 118:14)
protected ‫זמרי‬
(4×)
1 4
Ammonite ‫אלׂשגב‬ ʾIlśiggeb El has protected WSS 871 1
Aramaic ‫[אל]ׂשגב‬ [ʾEl]śaggeb [El] has protected Maraqten 70 1
Aramaic ‫אפלדׂשגב‬ ʾApladśaggeb El has protected TSF 655.47:21 1
Aramaic ‫נבוׂשגב‬ Nabûśaggeb Nabu has protected WSS 814 1
Aramaic ‫נבׂשגב‬ Nabûśaggeb Nabu has protected NTA 84.12:13; Röllig, AFO 24 2
371.2:7
Aramaic ‫ׂשגבי‬ Śaggebî [DN] has protected WSS 814 1
Aramaic ‫ׂשגב‬ Śaggeb [DN] has protected Maraqten 102 1

Aramaic ‫נצראל‬ Naṣarʾil El has protected WSS 866 (SAJ 179.1 Moab.); 3
Aramaic ‫נצרי‬ Naṣrî [DN] has protected WSS 756 1

Ammonite ‫גנא‬ Gannāʾ [DN] has protected AMM 36.2:6 1

Aramaic ‫אלקה‬ ʾEl[ya]qāh El has protected (?) Maraqten 70 1

Aramaic ‫[הד]דיחוט‬ Hadadyeḥûṭ Hadad(?) has NTA 65.6A.11′ 1

protected
Aramaic ‫יחוט‬ Yeḥûṭ [DN] has protected Maraqten 83 1
(?)
 Names of Thanksgiving 553

1.4.2.╇ God has sheltered the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫צפניהו‬ Ṣĕpanyāhû Yhwh has shel- HAE 8.7, 8; 10.83; 15.12, 13; 14 1 Ps 27:5
tered [me] 16.54; 18.19, 20; 21.23, 68; ‫אלצפן‬
Arad(8).59:5; Jer(7).5:3; BPHB (1×),
338; 339?; ‫אליצפן‬
(2×)
‫צפניה‬ Ṣĕpanyāh Yhwh has HAE 18.17, 18 2 3
sheltered
‫צפן‬ Ṣāpān [DN] has HAE 5.7; 18.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 23 —
sheltered 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; 21.95;
Jer(7).12:1; BPHB 137; 312;
333; 335; 336; 337; Lemaire
201.2:8, 10
39 7
‫חביהו‬ Ḥābāyāhû Yhwh has shel- HAE 18.7 1 (1) Isa 49:2
tered [me] ‫אליחבא‬
‫חבא‬ Ḥubāʾ [DN] has HAE 8.1; BPHB 162; 244; 329 4 —
sheltered
‫חבה‬ Ḥubāh [DN] has HAE 8.2 1 1
sheltered
‫חבי‬ Ḥubī [DN] has HAE 1.51; 8.3; 9.3; ; NEE 6 —
sheltered 83.77:2; BPHB 83; 302
12 3
Aramaic ‫אלסתר‬ ʾElsatar El has hidden [me] Maraqten 70 1
 Appendix B2

Names of Confession

2.1.╇ Divine attention

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫חנמלך‬ Ḥannīmelek The [divine] king HAE 8.40 1 — —
is [my] mercy
‫חניהו‬ Ḥannīyāhû Yhwh is my mercy HAE 21.83 1 — ‫חניאל‬
(2×)
2 2
‫ׁשחר‬ Šaḥar [DN] is [my] HAE 1.134, 135; 10.27, 28; 12 — —
dawning 13.28, 92, 95; 21.6, 20, 21, 22; ‫אחיׁשחר‬
NEE 92.79:8 (1×)
‫ׁשחריה‬
(1×)
Ammonite ‫ׁשחר‬ Šaḥar [DN] is [my] Heltzer 253 1
dawning
12 2
Aramaic ‫נסחנגהי‬ Nasuḥnaghî Nasuch/Nusku is my Maraqten 91 1
morning light
Aramaic ‫נגהי‬ Naghî [DN] is my morning TSF 652.45: rev. 2′ 1
light

2.2.╇ Divine rescue

2.2.1.╇ God is the rescuer of the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אבׁשוע‬ ʾAbīšûăʿ [my divine] father HAE 1.13 1 — Ps 140:8
is [my] salvation
Ammonite ‫אלׁשע‬ ʾIlšūăʿ El is [my] salvation CAI 18; WSS 885; 916 3
Phoenician ‫אדנׁשע‬ ʾAdonīšūăʿ [my] lord is [my] Benz 59; WSS 1082; NEE 25.17 3
salvation
‫יהוׁשע‬ Yĕhôšūăʿ Yhwh is [my] HAE 1.132, 133; 10.44; 13.13, 12 (4) ‫יׁשוע‬
salvation 32, 66; BPHB 74; 196; 197; 231; (10×)
386; FHCB 75.24
Moabite ‫כמׁשוע‬ Kamōššūăʿ Chemosh is [my] WSS 1031 1
salvation
Moabite ‫מׁשע‬ Mēšaʿ [DN] is [my] KAI 180.1 1
salvation

554
 Names of Confession 555

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Edomite ‫מׁשע‬ Mēšaʿ [my] salvation is WSS 1061; 1062 2
[DN]
Phoenician ‫ׁשעבעל‬ Šuʿībaʿal [my] salvation is Baal Benz 182 1
Moabite ‫ׁשועא‬ Šûʿaʾ [my] salvation is WSS 1046 1
[DN]
Ammonite ‫יׁשעאל‬ Yišʿīʾil [my] salvation is El WSS 937 1
Aramaic ‫הדיסעי‬ Haddyisʿî Hadad is my Maraqten 77 1
salvation
Ammonite ‫יׁשעא‬ Yišīʿaʾ [my] salvation is CAI 20 1
[DN]
Ammonite ‫יׁשע‬ Yišīʿ [my] salvation [is CAI 31 1
DN]
13 14
‫אלפלט‬ ʾElīpelet [my] god is [my] HAE Or(8).1:1 1 1 Ps 40:18
rescue (4) ‫פלטיאל‬
)>>×2)>>
‫יהופלט‬ Yĕhôpelet Yhwh is [my] BPHB 171; 192 2 —
rescue
Ammonite ‫אדנפלט‬ ʾAdonīpillet [my] lord is [my] WSS 858 1
rescue
3 7

2.2.2.╇ God helps the sufferer with justice

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫ מלכיצדק‬Malkîṣedeq my king is [my] HAE 13.46 1 1 Ps 4:2
justice
‫צדקיהו‬ Ṣidqīyāhû my justice is Yhwh HAE 18.3; Jer(7).5:4; 7 4
Lak(6).1.11:5; NEE 92.79:5; (2)
BPHB 331?; 332?; Lemaire
201.2:6, 9
Ammonite ‫צדקאל‬ Ṣidqīʾil [my] justice is El Heltzer 221; 239 2
Moabite ‫צדקאל‬ Ṣidqīʾel [my] justice is El SAJ 421.2 1
Aramaic ‫צדקרמן‬ Ṣidqīramām Rimmon is [my] WSS 839 1
justice
‫צדקא‬ Ṣidqāʾ [my] justice is HAE 16.50 1 —
[DN]
Aramaic ‫צדקי‬ Ṣidqî my justice [is DN] BPPS 137 (= WSS 1171) 1
9 7
‫ׁשפטן‬ Šipṭān our legal assistance HAE Msa(7).3:3 1 1 (Ps 9:5)
[by DN]
Edomite ‫מׁשפט‬ Mišpāṭ legal assistance of WSS 1063 1
[DN]
Edomite ‫מׁשפטאל‬ Mišpaṭʾēl legal assistance of El BPPS 203 1
Phoenician ‫ׁשפטבעל‬ Šipiṭbaʿal legal assistance of Benz 184 2
Baal
556 Appendix B2

2.3.╇ Divine assistance

2.3.1.╇ God is support for the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אבעזר‬ ʾAbīʿezer my [divine] father HAE Sam(8).1 (clan name) 1 2 Ps 54:6
is [my] help
Aramaic ‫אמעזר‬ ʾImmīʿizrī [my divine] mother is Maraqten 70 1
[my] help
‫אחיעזר‬ ʾAḥîʿezer my [divine] HAE 1.49 1 2 ‫עליעזר‬
brother is [my] (10×),
help ‫עזריאל‬
(3×)
‫יהועזר‬ Yĕhôʿezer Yhwh is help HAE 10.38, 39 2 —
‫יועזר‬ Yauʿezer Yhwh is help HAE 8.48; Mur(7).2:4 2 1
‫ׁשמׁשעזר‬ Šamašʿizrī Shamash is [my] HAE 21.77 (Syrian?) 1 —
help
Aramaic ‫בעלעזר‬ Baʿalʿizrī Baal is [my] help Maraqten 73 1
Phoenician ‫בעלעזר‬ Baʿalʿazrī Baal is [my] help Benz 96 1
Aramaic ‫הדדעזר‬ Hadadʿizrī Hadad is [my] help WSS 785 1
Aramaic ‫הדעדר‬ Hadadʿidrī Hadad is [my] help Maraqten 77 1
Aramaic ‫עתרעזר‬ ʿAttarʿizrī Ashtar is [my] help Maraqten 97; WSS 837 2
Aramaic ‫עתרעזרי‬ ʿAttarʿizrî Ashtar is my help NTA 42.4:9 1
Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫ׁשלמנעזרי‬ Šalmānʿizrî Shalman is my help NTA 84.12:10; 95.15:9; Röllig, AoF 24 3
368.1:8
Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜ ‫ׁשמׁשעדרי‬ Šamašʿidrî Shamash is my help WSS 848 (showing Sin) 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשמׁשעזר‬ Šamašʿizrī Shamash is [my] help Hug 42 (S 6) 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשעזרי‬ Šēʿizrî Sin is my help TSF 655.47:18 1
Edomite ‫בעזראל‬ Bĕʿazarʾēl by the help of El WSS 1052 1
(worshiper of Baal!)
7 18
‫חזקיהו‬ Ḥizqīyāhû my strength is HAE 8.19; 10.26; 16.40; 48.1; 6 1 Ps 18:2
Yhwh BMir(8).5:1; Jer(7).5:1 (3) ‫חזקי‬
(1×)
6 5
‫יהוחיל‬ Yĕhôḥayil Yhwh is [my] HAE 1.65; 10.27; BPHB 400 3 — Hab 3:19
strength
‫יהוחל‬ Yĕhôḥēl Yhwh is [my] HAE 10.28, 99; BPHB 97 3 —
strength
‫חליו‬ Ḥēlyau [my] strength is HAE KAgr(9).5 1 —
Yhwh
‫חילא‬ Ḥaylāʾ [my] strength is HAE 13.39; 21.24 2 —
[DN]
‫חלא‬ Ḥēlāʾ [my] strength is BPHB 390 1 —
[DN]
Ammonite ‫חלא‬ Ḥēlaʾ [my] strength is [DN] WSS 930 1
10 0
 Names of Confession 557

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אבריהו‬ ʾAbbiryāhû [my] strength is HAE 1.11; Jer(8).30:1 2 0 —
Yhwh
Phoenician ‫אבראס‬ ʾAbbirʾis [my] strength is Isis Benz 55 1
Phoenician ‫אברבעל‬ ʾAbbirbaʿal [my] strength is Baal Benz 55 1
Phoenician ‫אברגד‬ ʾAbbirgad [my] strength is Gad Benz 55 1
Phoenician ‫אדרמלך‬ ʾAddirmilk [my] strength is Milk Benz 60 1
‫אניהו‬ ʾOnîyāhû my power is Yhwh HAE 1.122; Kom(8).3:4 2 0 —
Phoenician ‫אני‬ ʾOnī my strength [is DN] NEE 27.42 1
Aramaic ‫אילן‬ ʾAyilān [DN is] our strength NTA 95.15:8 1
Aramaic ╇↜渀屮↜‫ביתאלעׁשני‬ Baytʾelʿušnî Bethel is my strength Maraqten 72 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשעׁשני‬ Šēʿušnî Sin is my strength TSF 653.46, obv. 4; 655.47:4, 6, 9 1
Aramaic [‫עׁשנא]ל‬ ʿUšnīʾe[l] [my] strength is NTA 34.3:13; cf. WSS 1169 (undef.) 1
DN/El

2.3.2.╇ God is assistance for the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫עמדיהו‬ ʿImmādīyāhû Yhwh is with me HAE 1.58; 15.14; 16.60, 61, 62, 7 — Ps 23:4
75; Gaz(7).1:2
‫ )?( עמדיה‬ʿImmādīyāh Yhwh is with me BPHB 45 1 —
‫עמדיו‬ ʿImmādīyau Yhwh is with me HAE 16.63 1 —
Aramaic ‫אתאל‬ ʾIttīʾēl El is with [me] NTA 14.1:3 1
Phoenician ‫]א[תבעל‬ ʾIttobaʿal Baal is with [him] Benz 73 (cf. 1 Kgs 16:31) 1
‫עמד‬ ʿImmādī [DN] is with me HAE 16.59 1 —
‫עמנויהו‬ ʿImmānûyāhû Yhwh is with us HAE 16.64; BPHB 306 2 — ‫עמנואל‬
(1×)
‫עמניהו‬ ʿImmānūyāhû Yhwh is with us BPHB 307a, b 1 —
Edomite ‫עמן‬ ʿImmānu [DN is] with us (?) BPPS 202 1
13 1
‫בעדאל‬ Baʿădīʾel El is for [me] HAE 1.25 1 — (Ps 56:10)
‫בעדיהו‬ Baʿădīyāhû Yhwh is for me HAE 2.21, 22; 42.3 3 —
Ammonite [‫בעדא]ל‬ Baʿadīʾil El is for me WSS 957 1
Ammonite ‫בעדא‬ Baʿadāʾ [DN] is for me WSS 915 1
Aramaic ‫אלבעדי‬ ʾElbaʿadî El is for me WSS 769 1
Aramaic ‫הדבעד‬ Haddbaʿdī Hadad is for [me] WSS 751 1
Aramaic ‫סירבעדי‬ Sîrbaʿdî Osiris is for me WSS 827 1
Aramaic ‫אלהלי‬ ʾIlahlî God is for me Maraqten 68 1
Aramaic [‫בכא]ל‬ Bĕkaʾel El, in you [is my Maraqten 72 (WSS 1130; ARI 378.142) 1
help]
4 0
‫מׁשען‬ Mišʿān [my] buttress [is HAE 13.92 1 0 Ps 18:19
DN]
Aramaic ‫אלסמכי‬ ʾElsumkî El is my support WSS 106 1
558 Appendix B2

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫עתרסמך‬ ʿAttarsumkī (?) Ashtar is [my] Maraqten 87; WSS 753 2
support
Aramaic ‫עתרסמכי‬ ʿAttarsumkî Ashtar is my support NTA 15.1:14 1
‫נתביהו‬ Nĕtībyāhû [my] path is Yhwh HAE 14.49 1 0 —

2.3.3.╇ God is light for the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אראל‬ ʾUrīʾēl [my] light is El HAE 1.12 1 [4] Ps 27:1
Ammonite ‫אוראל‬ ʾUrīʾil [my] light is El WSS 891; 959 2
‫אוריהו‬ ʾUrīyāhû my light is Yhwh HAE Kom(8).3:1, 2; 6 1
Arad(7).31:2; [36:2]; Jer(7).5:8; (4)
Arad(6).26:1
‫אריהו‬ ʾUrīyāhû my light is Yhwh HAE 1.49:138, 139, 140, 141, 27 —
141/a, 142; 10.33, 77; 11.4;
13.105; BPHB 114; 115; 116;
117; 118; 134; 152; 163; 209;
210a, b; 351; 354; 355; 393;
FHCB 91.41; Lemaire 217.13:4?
‫אריו‬ ʾUrīyau my light is Yhwh HAE Sam(8).1.50:2; Sam(8).6:4 2 —
Phoenician ‫ארמלך‬ ʾUrīmilk [my] light is Milk Benz 64 1
‫ארא‬ ʾUrāʾ my light is [DN] HAE 1.118,145; 10.71; BPHB 5 — ‫אורי‬
112; 113 (3×)
Ammonite ‫אורא‬ ʾUrāʾ [DN] is [my] light WSS 988 1
Aramaic ‫ארא‬ ʾUrāʾ [DN] is [my] light BPPS 114 1
‫יה]ו[אר‬ Yāh[û]ʾōr Yhwh is [my] light HAE 50.1; BPHB 187; Lemaire 3 —
210.10: obv. 4?
‫יואר‬ Yauʾōr Yhwh is [my] light HAE 10.48 1 —
Ammonite ‫אלאור‬ ʾIlʾûr El is [my] light WSS 884 1
Ammonite ‫אלאר‬ ʾIlʾūr El is [my] light WSS 887 1
Ammonite ‫מלכמאור‬ Milkomʾûr Milk is [my] light WSS 860 1
Moabite ‫כמׁשאר‬ Kamōšʾūr Chemosh is [my] BPPS 198 1
light
Aramaic ‫מלכאר‬ Malkīʾūr [my] king is [my] BPPS 125 1
light
45 12
‫אלנר‬ ʾElīnēr El is [my] light NEE 83.77:1 1 — 2 Sam
22:29
Ammonite ‫אלנר‬ ʾIlnūr El is [my] light AMM 36.2:1; 2; 8 3
Aramaic ‫אלנורי‬ ʾElnūrî El is [my] light WSS 772 1
Aramaic ‫אלהנר‬ ʾIlahnūr God is [my] light BPPS 112 1
‫מלכנר‬ Malkīnēr [my] king is [my] HAE 13.47 1 — ‫אבנר‬
light (1×)
Ammonite ‫אדננר‬ ʾAdonīnūr [my] lord is [my] WSS 859 1
light
Aramaic ‫אדנרי‬ ʾAddunūrî Adad is my light Maraqten 66 2
 Names of Confession 559

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫אחנ]ו[רי‬ ʾAḥīnûrî [my divine] brother WSS 762 1
is my light
Aramaic ‫ננורי‬ Nannûrî Nanaya is my light Maraqten 91 1
(daughter of sin)
Aramaic ‫ססנורי‬ Sāsnûrî Shamash is my light Maraqten 93 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשחרנורי‬ Šaḥarnûrî Shachar is my light Maraqten 102 1
‫נריהו‬ Nērīyāhû my light is Yhwh HAE 1.26, 63; 2.18, 30; 4.9; 36 [1]
7.4; 8.53; 10.87; 11.6; 14.19, 35,
36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
44, 45, 46, 47, 48; 16.22; 18.6;
21.103; Seb(8).5:1; Arad(7).31:4;
Lak(7/6).21:1; Lak(6)1.1:5;
Lak(6).23:1; BPHB 270; 271;
297; 406
‫נריה‬ Nērīyāh my light is Yhwh HAE 8.29 1 1
‫נוריה‬ Naurīyāh my light is Yhwh HAE 8.49 1 —
Ammonite ‫נוראל‬ Nûrīʾil [my] light is El BPPS 176 1
Aramaic [‫נרבע]ל‬ Nūrībaʿal [my] light is Baal Maraqten 92 1
Aramaic ‫נרׁשא‬ Nūršāʾ [my] light is Sin Maraqten 92; WSS 753 2
Aramaic ‫נרׁשבׁש‬ Nūršavaš [my] light is Shamash WSS 824 1
‫נרא‬ Nērāʾ [my] light is [DN] HAE 14.25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; 14 —
Gib(7).1; BPHB 19; 265; 266;
267; 268a–g; 269a, b; 331
Aramaic ‫נרא‬ Nūrāʾ [my] light is [DN] NTA 34.3:14 1
‫נרי‬ Nērî my light [is DN] HAE 14.31, 32, 33, 34 4 — ‫נר‬
(1×)
Aramaic ‫נרי‬ Nūrî my light [is DN] Maraqten 92 1
58 3

2.4.╇ Divine protection

2.4.1.╇ God is protection for the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אליעז‬ ʾElîʿoz my god is [my HAE 1.73; 10.21 2 — Ps 28:7
strong] protection
‫אלעז‬ ʾElīʿoz [my] god is [my HAE 1.98, 99; 10.22, 23; 13.22 5 — ‫עזיאל‬
strong] protection (7×)
Ammonite ‫אלעז‬ ʾIlʿuz El is [my] protection WSS 905; 906; 913 3
Ammonite ‫אלעזן‬ ʾIlʿuzzān El is our protection BPPS 162 1
Moabite ‫אבעז‬ ʾAbīʿoz {my divine] father is WSS 1012 1
[my] protection
‫אדנעז‬ ʾAdonīʿoz [my] lord is [my BPHB 349a, b 1 —
strong] protection
Ammonite ‫אדנעז‬ ʾAdonīʿaz [my] lord is [my] BPPS 151 1
protection
560 Appendix B2

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יהועז‬ Yĕhôʿaz Yhwh is [my] HAE 10.34, 35, 36, 37, 63, 13 —
protection 102, 103; 16.35; Arad(8).49:7;
Arad(7).31:3; BPHB 191a, b;
219; FHCB 73.22
Moabite ‫כמׁשעז‬ Kamōšʿoz Chemosh is [my] WSS 1009; Heltzer 267 2
protection
Aramaic ‫מלכמעז‬ Milkomʿaz Milkom is [my] WSS 792 1
protection
Phoenician ‫בעלעז‬ Baʿalʿoz Baal is [my] Kition 805.1, 3, 5 1
protection
Phoen.╅╇╛╛╛ ‫עׁשתרתעז‬ ʿAštartʿoz Ashtarte is [my] Benz 175; WSS 746 2
protection
‫עזיהו‬ ʿUzzīyāhû my protection is HAE 8.46; 16.21, 22; 56.1; 6 3
Yhwh Arad(6).20:2; Lemaire 201.2:4? (3)
‫עזיו‬ ʿUzzīyau my protection is HAE 1.9; 21.17; PIAP 279. 3 —
Yhwh 72127:10 (KAgr)
Ammonite ‫עזאל‬ ʿUzziʾil El is [my] protection WSS 961 1
Aramaic ‫עזאל‬ ʿAzziʾēl [my] protection is El Maraqten 95; WSS 1115 2
Aramaic ‫עזבעל‬ ʿAzzibaʿal [my] protection is BPPS 105 1
Baal
Phoenician ‫עזבעל‬ ʿUzzibaʿal [my] protection is Benz 165; NEE 25.13; 25.16; Heltzer 281; 7
Baal FSL 62.39
Phoenician ‫עזמלך‬ ʿUzzimilk [my] protection is Benz 165 1
Milk
Phoenician ‫עזם‬ ʿUzzima [my] protection is Benz 165; WSS 713; NEE 26.22 3
[Milk]
‫עזא‬ ʿUzzāʾ [my] protection is HAE 1.76; 16.19, 20; 7 — ‫( עזי‬5×)
[DN] Sam(8).1.1:5; Arad(8).72:4; ‫עזיא‬
Sam(8).5:1; BPHB 212.208 (1×)
Ammonite ‫עזיא‬ ʿUzzîʾa my protection is WSS 868 1
[DN]
Ammonite ‫עזא‬ ʿUzzāʾ [my] protection is WSS 925; 960; AMM 36.2:4; Heltzer 242 5
[DN]
Aramaic ‫עזא‬ ʿAzzāʾ [my] protection is WSS 1114; BPPS 131 2
[DN]
Phoenician ‫עזא‬ ʿUzzāʾ [my] protection is Benz 165 2
[DN]
Aramaic ‫עזי‬ ʿAzzî my protection [is WSS 1116 1
DN]
Aramaic ‫עז‬ ʿAz [my] protection [is Hug 18 (NinU.2:8) 1
DN]
37 19
‫זמריהו‬ Zimrīyāhû my protection is HAE 10.76 1 — Ps 118:14
Yhwh ‫זמרי‬
(4×)
1 4
‫יוסתר‬ Yauseter Yhwh is [my] HAE 21.62 1 — Ps 32:7
hiding place ‫סתרי‬
(1×)
‫סתור‬
(1×)
1 2
 Names of Confession 561

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫אביקי‬ ʾAbyaqî [my] father is [my] Maraqten 65 1
protector (?)
Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫ביתאלרעי‬ Baytʾelraʿî Bethel is my WSS 776 1
Shepherd
Aramaic ‫הדדערי‬ Hadadʿīrî Hadad is my BPPS 121 1
guardian (?)
Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫)?(פקדיהד‬ Paqdîhadd (?) my watchman is WSS 838 1
Hadad
Phoenician ‫עינאל‬ ʿAyinʾēl [under the] eye of El Benz 171 2
‫צלא‬ Ṣillaʾ [DN is my] HAE 5.6; Nim(8).3.1 2 (1) Ps 57:2
shadow
Aramaic ‫צלתי‬ Ṣillatī my shadow [is DN](?) Maraqten 98 1
‫בצל‬ Bĕṣēl in the shadow of HAE Arad(8).49:1 1 — ‫בצלאל‬
[DN] (2×)
‫צלפקד‬
(1×)
Aramaic ‫צלנני‬ Ṣilnanay [in] the shadow of NTA 106.19:6 1
Nanaya
3 4
‫בדיהו‬ Bēdyāhû in the hand of HAE 2.1; 8.28 2 (1) Ps 31:6
Yhwh
‫בדיו‬ Bēdyau in the hand of HAE Sam(8).1.58:1 1 —
Yhwh
‫במלך‬ Bōmilk in the hand of Milk HAE Gem(8).2:1 1 —
Ammonite ‫בידאל‬ Bayadʾil in the hand of El WSS 857; 922; 923; 931; AMM 36.2:3; 6
BPPS 169
Ammonite ‫בדאל‬ Bādʾil in the hand of El WSS 908; 921a, b 2
Aramaic ‫בדמלכם‬ Bādmilkom in the hand of WSS 853 1
Milkom (?)
Phoenician ‫בדאׁשמן‬ Bōdʾešmun in the hand of Benz 75 1
Eshmun
Phoenician ‫בדבעל‬ Bōdbaʿal in the hand of Baal Benz 75; WSS 726 4
Phoenician ‫בדמלקרת‬ Bōdmelqart in the hand of Benz 75 1
Melqart
Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫בדעׁשתרת‬ Bōdʿaštart in the hand of Benz 82 3
Ashtarte
Aramaic ‫כלבידאל‬ Kullbayadʾēl all is in the hand of El Maraqten 85 1
Aramaic ╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫כלבידׁשמׁש‬ Kullbayadšamaš all is in the hand of WSS 802 1
Shamash
Phoenician ‫ידבעל‬ Yadbaʿal [in] the hand of Baal NEE 26.30 1
Aramaic ‫בדי‬ Bādī in the hand of [DN] Maraqten 71 1
Phoenician ‫בדא‬ Bōdaʾ in the hand of [DN] Benz 74 4
Phoenician ‫בד‬ Bōd in the hand [of DN] Gibson 12.3 1
4 1
562 Appendix B2

2.4.2.╇ God is a refuge for the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫[א]למעז‬ [ʾE]lmaʿaz El is [my] refuge HAE 16.42 1 — Ps 31:5
Aramaic ‫אדמעזי‬ ʾAddumaʿuzî Adad is my refuge Maraqten 66 1
Aramaic ‫נסחמעזי‬ Nasuḥmaʿuzî Nasuch/Nusku is my NTA 34.3:15 1
refuge
‫מעז‬ Maʿaz [DN is my] refuge HAE 13.63 1 — ‫מעזיהו‬
(1×)
Aramaic ‫מעז‬ Maʿaz [my] refuge [is DN] ARI 391.303 1
2 1
‫מחסיהו‬ Maḥsēyāhû [my] refuge is HAE 13.9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 21.14, 13 (1) Ps 61:4
Yhwh 72; 50.6; Arad(6).23:6; NEE
92.79:3; BPHB 229; 230a, b; 231
‫מחסיו‬ Maḥsēyau [my] refuge is HAE Sam(8).6:1; BPHB 232 2 —
Yhwh
‫מחסא‬ Maḥĕsāʾ [my] refuge is HAE 13.8 1 —
[DN]
16 1
Aramaic ‫סנעיד‬ Sinʿiyād Sin is (my) refuge (cf. WSS 834 1
Arab.)
‫אליצר‬ ʾElîṣūr my god is [my] HAE 1.74 1 (1) Ps 62:3
rock
‫אלצר‬ ʾElīṣūr [my] god is [my] HAE Seb(8).2:1; BPHB 96 2 — ‫צוריאל‬
rock (1×)
‫צוריׁשדי‬
(1×)
Aramaic ‫אחצר‬ ʾAḥīṣūr [my divine] brother WSS 763 1
is [my] rock
Aramaic ‫צוריהדד‬ Ṣûrîhadad my rock is Hadad NTA 93.14:4′ 1
Aramaic ‫צורי‬ Ṣûrî my rock [is DN] WSS 840; BPPS 135 2
3 3
Aramaic ‫קתרא‬ Qatraʾ [my] rock is [DN] Maraqten 100 (WSS 1173) 1
Phoenician ‫הרבעל‬ Harībaʿal [my] rock is Baal Benz 108 1
‫מגדליהו‬ Migdalyāhû [my] tower is HAE Gib(7).1:58 1 0 Ps 61:4
Yhwh
‫יהוטר‬ Yĕhôṭūr Yhwh is [my] NEE 92.79:4 1 0 (Jer 1:18)
defensive wall
Aramaic ‫]א[בׁשורי‬ [ʾA]bīšûrî [my divine] father is TSF 652.45: rev. 3′ 1
my defensive wall
Aramaic ‫אדׁשרי‬ ʾAddušūrî Adad is my defensive Maraqten 66 1
wall
Aramaic ‫נבוׁשרי‬ Nabûšūrî Nabu is my defensive WSS 815 1
wall
Aramaic ‫עויד‬ ʿAwîd refugee (of DN) Maraqten 95 1
 Names of Confession 563

2.4.3.╇ God is a protected living space for the sufferer

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫נויו‬ Nawīyau my pasture is HAE 14.3 1 — Ps 23:2
Yhwh
‫נויה‬ Nawīyāh my pasture is HAE 14.62 1 —
Yhwh
‫נוי‬ Nawî my pasture is [DN] HAE Gaz(7).1:3 1 —
3 0
‫חמיאהל‬ Ḥammîʾohel my [divine] father- HAE 8.34 (fem.) 1 — (Ps 27:5)
in-law is [my] tent
(1×)
Phoenician ‫אהלבעל‬ ʾOhelbaʿal [my] tent is Baal Benz 60 1
Phoenician ‫אהלמלך‬ ʾOhelmilk [my] tent is Milk Benz 60 1
‫אוהל‬ ʾOhel [DN is my] tent HAE 1.79 1 (1) ‫אהליבמה‬
(2×) ?
2 4

2.5.╇ Trust in god

2.5.1.╇ God is one’s portion in life

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫חלקיהו‬ Ḥilqīyāhû my portion is HAE 8.28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41; 23 4 Ps 142:6
Yhwh 10.26, 86, 94, 97; 13.70; 16.33, (7)
34; 17.19, 28; 20.5; NEE 83.77:4;
BPHB 18a–f; 84a, b; 153?; 167;
224a–c;
Aramaic ‫חלקיו‬ Ḥilqīyau my portion is Yhwh WSS 818 1
‫חלקא‬ Ḥelqāʾ [my] portion is HAE 8.27; 16.32; BPHB 311 3 —
[DN]
‫חלק‬ Ḥeleq [my] portion [is HAE 4.5; 8.26; 13.44; 17.27; 5 1 ‫חלקי‬
DN] Sam(8).1 (clan name) (1×)
31 13

2.5.2.╇ God is the basis of trust

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫מבטחיהו‬ Mibṭaḥyāhû my trust is Yhwh HAE 13.3, 4, 5; Lak(6).1.1:4; 6 0 Ps 71:5
BPHB 30; 36
‫כסליהו‬ Kislīyāhû my trust is Yhwh HAE 8.44; BPHB 267?; FHCB 8 — Job 4:6
81.29; 81.30; 82.31a, b; 90.38a,
b; 90.39a, b; 91.40
‫כסלא‬ Kislāʾ [my] trust is [DN] HAE 11.7, 8, 9; 15.4; 17.20 5 —
13 0
564 Appendix B2

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫האמן‬ Haʾamen he trusted [in DN] Maraqten 77 1
‫חכליהו‬ Ḥakalyāhû place your hope in HAE Lak(6).1.20:2 1 (1) (Ps 33:20)
Yhwh!
‫חכל‬ Ḥakal place your hope in HAE 10.59 1 —
[DN]!
2 1
Phoenician ‫יחלבעל‬ Yaḥellĕbaʿal wait for Baal (?) Benz 127 1
‫קוה‬ Qawwēh place your hope NEE 92.79:12 1 — Ps 62:6
[in DN]
‫תקוה‬ Tiqwāh [my] hope [is in HAE 22.5 1 2
DN]
2 2

2.5.3.╇ God is the joy of life

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫ׂשראל‬ [ʾA]śrīʾēl [my] joy is El HAE Sam(8).1 (clan name) 1 (3)
‫אבגיל‬ ʾAbīgayl [my divine] father HAE 1.4, 5 (fem.) 2 (2) Ps 43:4
is [my] rejoicing

‫חמיעדן‬ Ḥammîʿeden my [divine] father- HAE 8.35 (fem.) 1 — —

in-law is bliss
‫יהועדן‬ Yĕhôʿeden Yhwh is my bliss HAE 10.33 1 1
Ammonite ‫אבעדן‬ ʾAbīʿadan [my divine] father is WSS 869 (fem.) 1
[my] bliss
Aramaic ‫בעלעדן‬ Baʿalʿadan Baal is [my] bliss ARI 391.301 1
2 1
Phoenician ‫תנתׁשבע‬ Tanitšebaʿ Tannit is richness FSL 38.13 1
‫גדיהו‬ Gaddīyāhû my luck is Yhwh HAE 1.135; 3.10, 11, 12, 13; 9 — —
21.21, 22; 43.1; BPHB 252? ‫גדיאל‬
(1×)
‫גדיו‬ Gaddīyau my luck is Yhwh HAE Sam (8).1.2:2; 4.2; 5.2; 13 —
6.2f.; 7.2; 16a/b.2; 17a/b.2; 18.2;
30.2; 33.2; 34.2; 35.2; 42.3
Ammonite ‫מלכמגד‬ Milkomgad Milkom is [my] luck WSS 940 1
Phoenician╇↜ ↜‫עׁשתרתג‬ ʿAštartga[d] Ashtarte is [my] luck FSL 57.32 1
‫גדא‬ Gaddāʾ [my] luck [is DN] HAE Arad(8).72:3 1 —
‫גדי‬ Gaddî my luck [is Yhwh] HAE 2.10; 21.20 2 1 ‫( גד‬3×)
Phoenician ‫גדי‬ Gaddî my luck [is DN] Benz 102 1
25 5
 Names of Confession 565

2.6.╇ Relationship of personal trust in god

2.6.1.╇ Servant of god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫עבדירח‬ ʿAbdiyēraḥ servant of Yēraḥ HAE 2.25 1 — Ps 143:12
(moon-god)
‫עבדׂשהר‬ ʿAbdiśāhār servant of Sahar HAE 21.77 (Syrian?) [not in- 1 —
(moon-god) cluded in the index of HAE II/2]
‫עבדיהו‬ ʿAbdiyāhû servant of Yhwh HAE 10.38; 14.59; 16.7, 8, 9, 18 3 ‫עבדיאל‬
10, 11, 12, 13; Arad(8)49:8; (1×),
Arad(6).10:4; 27.2; NEE 92.79:9; ‫עבדאל‬
BPHB 137; 287; 288; 289; 359 (1×)
‫עבדיה‬ ʿAbdiyāh servant of Yhwh HAE 10.3 1 8
‫עבדיו‬ ʿAbdiyau servant of Yhwh HAE KAgr(9).3; Sam(8).1.50:2 2 —
‫עבדחיל‬ ʿAbdiḥayil servant of the BPHB 286 1 —
[divine] strength
Ammonite [‫עבדא]ל‬ ʿAbdʾi[l] servant of El CAI 144.1 1
Ammonite ‫עבדאדד‬ ʿAbdʾadad servant of Adad WSS 959 1
Moabite ‫עבדחורן‬ ʿAbdiḥauron servant of Hauron WSS 1041 1
Moabite ‫עבדרחבן‬ ʿAbdiraḥban servant of Rachban WSS 1042; BPPS 199 2
Aramaic ‫עבדאיו‬ ʿAbdʾayau servant of Yhwh (?) Maraqten 94 1
Aramaic ‫עבדבעל‬ ʿAbdbaʿal servant of Baal Maraqten 94 1
Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫עבדבעלת‬ ʿAbdbaʿalat servant of the Lady Maraqten 94 1
Aramaic ‫עבדהדד‬ ʿAbdhadad servant of Hadad WSS 832; NTA 26.2:11 2
Aramaic ‫עבדחורן‬ ʿAbdḥauron servant of Hauron Maraqten 94 1
Aramaic╅╛↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮‫עבדכדאה‬ ʿAbdkadiʾāh servant of Kadiʾa ARI 372.80 1
Aramaic ‫עבדסלם‬ ʿAbdsalim servant of Shalem WSS 833 1
Phoenician ↜渀屮‫עבדאבסת‬ ʿAbdʾabast servant of the Lady Benz 148 7
Bastet
Phoenician ‫עבדאדני‬ ʿAbdʾadonî servant of my lord Benz 149 1
Phoenician ‫עבדאלם‬ ʿAbdʾelīm servant of the gods Benz 149; NEE 27.38 5
Phoenician ‫עבדאמן‬ ʿAbdʾamun servant of Amun Benz 149; Gibson 115.29:1 2
Phoenician ‫עבדאס‬ ʿAbdʾisi servant of Lady Isis Benz 149 1
Phoenician ‫עבדאסר‬ ʿAbdʾosir servant of Osiris Benz 149 8
Phoenician ↜渀屮↜‫עבדאׁשמן‬ ʿAbdʾešmun servant of Eshmun Benz 150 13
Phoenician ‫עבדבעל‬ ʿAbdibaʿal servant of Baal Benz 153; WSS 743 4
Phoenician ‫עבדהדד‬ ʿAbdihadad servant of Hadad Benz 154 1
Phoenician ‫עבדחורן‬ ʿAbdiḥauron servant of Horon Benz 154 1
Phoenician ‫עבדחמן‬ ʿAbdiḥammon servant of Hammon Benz 154 2
Phoenician ‫עבדחר‬ ʿAbdiḥor servant of des Horus Benz 154 2
Phoenician ‫עבדלא‬ ʿAbdilaʾi servant of the mighty Benz 154 2
one
Phoenician ╇↜渀屮↜‫עבדלבאת‬ ʿAbdilabiʾt servant of the lioness NEE 24.2; 3; 4; 25.10?; 11 1
(Anat)
Phoenician ‫עבדמלך‬ ʿAbdimilk servant of Milk Benz 155; WSS 744; BPPS 100 3
566 Appendix B2

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Phoenician ╇↜渀屮↜渀屮‫עבדמלכת‬ ʿAbdimilkat servant of the queen Benz 155 3
Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮‫עבדמלקרת‬ ʿAbdimelqart servant of Melqart Benz 155 7
Phoenician╇↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫עבדמסכר‬ ʿAbdimaskir servant of Maskir Benz 162 1
Phoenician ‫עבדסכן‬ ʿAbdisakkōn servant of Sakkon Benz 162; FSL 63.41? 3
(corresponds to
Hermes)
Phoenician ╇ ‫עבדעׁשתר‬ ʿAbdʿaštar servant of Ashtar Benz 162 1
Phoenician ‫עבדעׁשתרת‬ ʿAbdʿaštart servant of Lady Benz 162; 2
Ashtarte
Phoenician ‫עבדפעם‬ ʿAbdipaʿam servant of Paʿam Benz 163; FSL 74.51 2
Phoenician ‫עבדפתח‬ ʿAbdiptaḥ servant of Ptah Benz 163 3
Phoenician ‫עבדרׁשף‬ ʿAbdirešep servant of Resheph Benz 163 5
Phoenician ‫עבדׁשמׁש‬ ʿAbdišamaš servant of Shamash Benz 163 4
Phoenician ‫עבדתנת‬ ʿAbditanīt servant of Lady Benz 163 1
Tannit
‫עבדא‬ ʿAbdāʾ servant of [DN] HAE 5.25; 9.5; 16.2, 3, 74; 7 2
Sam(8).1.57:1; Lemaire 211.10:
rev. 6
Aramaic ‫עבדא‬ ʿAbdāʾ servant of [DN] WSS 864; BPPS 177 2
Aramaic ‫עבדא‬ ʿAbdāʾ servant of [DN] Maraqten 94; WSS 1112; 1113 3
Phoenician ‫עבדא‬ ʿAbdāʾ servant of [DN] Benz 148; WSS 1095 8
‫עבדה‬ ʿAbdāh servant of [DN] BPHB 284 1 —
‫עבדי‬ ʿAbdî servant of [DN] HAE 1.43; 10.47; 14.13; 16.4, 5, 9 3
6; 21.63; BPHB 19; 408
Phoenician ‫עבדי‬ ʿAbday servant of [DN] NEE 26.27; 27.34; 27.40; 27.41; WTP 6
21.45; 46
Phoenician ‫עבדני‬ ʿAbdoni servant of my lord NEE 25.13 1
‫עבד‬ ʿEbed servant [of DN] HAE 16.1; Arad(8).72:5; 5 2
Seb(8).1:2; BPHB 285; Lemaire
214.11:1
Aramaic ‫עבד‬ ʿAbd servant [of DN] Maraqten 93 1
Aramaic ‫עביד‬ ʿUbayd small servant [of DN] WSS 834 1
46 20
Phoenician ‫אמתאסר‬ ʾAmotʾosir maidservant of Osiris Benz 62 1
Phoenician ‫אמתבעל‬ ʾAmotbaʿal maidservant of Baal Benz 62 1
Phoenician╇↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫אמתמסכר‬ ʾAmotmaskir maidservant of FSL 59.34 1
Maskir (divine
warrior)
Phoenician ‫אמתספר‬ ʾAmotsūper maidservant of the FSL 56.30 1
[divine] scribe (?)
Phoenician↜渀屮‫אמתעׁשתרת‬ ʾAmotʿaštart maidservant of Lady Benz 63 (fem.) 1
Ashtarte
Phoenician ‫אמתשמן‬ ʾAmotešmun maidservant of FSL 32.8 1
Eshmun
‫נעריהו‬ Naʿaryāhû servant boy of HAE 14.24 1 (2) —
Yhwh ‫נערי‬
(1×)
1 3
 Names of Confession 567

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Phoenician ‫מהרי‬ Maharî soldier of [DN] FSL 56f.:31 1
Aramaic ‫מליך‬ Malīk governed by [DN] Maraqten 87 1
‫אלף‬ ʾAllūp friend [of DN] HAE 1.100 1 0 —
Aramaic ‫רעדד‬ Reʿēdad friend of Adad Maraqten 100 1
‫כלב‬ Kālēb [faithful] dog [of HAE Arad(6).58:2 1 2 —
DN]
Aramaic ‫כלבא‬ Kalbāʾ [faithful] dog of NTA 89.13:8′ 1
[DN]
Aramaic ‫כלבו‬ Kalbū [faithful] dog of Maraqten 85 1
[DN]
Phoenician ‫כלבא‬ Kalbāʾ [faithful] dog of Benz 131 1
[DN]
Phoenician ‫כלבאלם‬ Kalbʾēlīm [faithful] dog of the Benz 131 1
gods
Phoenician ‫כלבי‬ Kalbay [faithful] dog of Benz 132 2
[DN]
Phoenician ‫כלבלא‬ Kalblaʾi [faithful] dog of the Benz 132 1
might one
Phoenician ‫כלבת‬ Kalbat [faithful] bitch of FSL 63.41 (fem.) 1
[DN]
‫עגליו‬ ʿEgelyau young steer of HAE Sam(8).1.41:1 1 0 —
Yhwh
Aramaic ‫עגלהדד‬ ʿEgelhadad young steer of Hadad WSS 835 1
Phoenician ‫עגלא‬ ʿAglāʾ young steer of [DN] WSS 1096 1
Ammonite ‫מתא‬ Mutaʾ man of [DN] WSS 951 1
Aramaic ‫מתי‬ Mutî man [of DN] (?) Maraqten 89 1
Aramaic ‫כמראלה‬ Kumrʾilah priest of god Maraqten 85 1

2.6.2.╇ Belonging to god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫גריהו‬ Gēryāhû sojourner of Yhwh HAE 3.31; 13.83; 16.67; 6 — Ps 39:13
Arad(8).64:1; BPHB 139; 140
Aramaic ‫גראל‬ Gerʾēl sojourner of El ARI 379.152 1
Aramaic ‫גרצפן‬ Gerṣapān sojourner of Saphon Maraqten 76 1
Phoenician ‫גראהל‬ Gerʾohel sojourner of the Benz 103 1
[divine] tent
Phoenician ‫גראׁשמן‬ Gerʾešmun sojourner of Eshmun WSS 733 1
Phoenician ‫גרׁשמן‬ Gerešmun sojourner of Eshmun FSL 58.33 1
Phoenician ‫גרבעל‬ Gerbaʿal sojourner of Baal Benz 103; NEE 24.6 1
Phoenician ‫גרגׁש‬ Gergušī sojourner of Gushi FSL 42.15 2
Phoenician ‫גרהכל‬ Gerhēkal sojourner of the Benz 104 4
temple
Phoenician ‫גרחמן‬ Gerḥamon sojourner of FSL 36.12 1
Hammon
Phoenician ‫גרמלך‬ Germilk sojourner of Milk Benz 104; WSS 734 2
568 Appendix B2

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Phoenician ‫גרמלקרת‬ Germelqart sojourner of Melqart Benz 104 3
Phoenician ╛╛↜渀屮↜‫גרעׁשתרת‬ Gerʿaštart sojourner of Lady Benz 106; WSS 735 3
Ashtarte
Phoenician ‫גרצד‬ Gerṣid sojourner of Sid Benz 106 1
(city-god of Sidon)
Phoenician ‫גרצפן‬ Gerṣapōn sojourner of Zaphon Benz 106 1
Phoenician ‫גרׁשד‬ Geršed sojourner of Shedu WSS 736 1
Phoenician ‫גרתבעל‬ Geretbaʿal she-sojourner of Baal FSL 50.24 (fem.) 1
‫גרא‬ Gērāʾ sojourner of [DN] HAE Sam(8).1.30:3; 36.3; 6 4
BMir(8).3:1; Arad(6).20:2; 27:5;
BPHB 138
Aramaic ‫גרה‬ Gerāh sojourner of [DN] WSS 824 1
Phoenician ‫גרא‬ Gerāʾ sojourner of [DN] Benz 103 2
Phoenician ‫גרתא‬ Geratʾā she-sojourner of FSL 61.38 (fem.) 1
[DN]
12 4
‫בסי‬ Besay who belongs to Bes HAE 2.20; 16.15; 22.1; BPHB 4 1 (Ps 119:94)
94?; 130; Lemaire 211.10:
obv.€11?
Aramaic ‫אלתי‬ ʾIlatay who belongs to the Maraqten 70 1
goddess
Aramaic ‫דדי‬ Daday who belongs to Maraqten 76 1
Hadad
Aramaic ‫נני‬ Nanay who belongs to Maraqten 91; WSS 820 2
Nanaya
Aramaic ‫ססי‬ Sasay who belongs to Röllig, AoF 24 371.8 1
Shamash
Phoenician ‫בעלי‬ Baʿalay who belongs to Baal Benz 94; FSL 30.6 3
Phoenician ‫מלכי‬ Milkay who belongs to Milk NEE 26.22 1
‫אב‬ ʾAb [the one of the HAE 1.1 1 0
divine] father
Aramaic ‫אחת‬ ʾAḥat [the one of the Maraqten 68; WSS 756 (fem.) 2
divine] sister
‫עם‬ ʿAm [the one of the HAE Kom(8).11:1 1 0
divine] uncle
‫בעל‬ Baʿal [the one of] Baal HAE Sam(8).1.12:2 1 2
Phoenician ‫בעל‬ Baʿal [the one of] Baal WSS 729 1
Aramaic ‫בל‬ Bēl [the one of] Bel NTA 101.17:1 1
‫חר‬ Ḥōr [the one of] Ḥorus HAE 2.14 1 (6)
Aramaic ‫חור‬ Ḥûr [the one of] Horus WSS 793 1
Phoenician ‫חר‬ Ḥor [the one of] Horus Benz 125 4
‫מת‬ Maut [the one of] Mota BPHB 284 1 0
Ammonite ‫אלן‬ ʾIlōn the one of god WSS 897; 898; 899; 4
SAJ 339.46
Moabite ‫כמׁש‬ Kamōš [the one of] WSS 1029 1
Chemosh
Aramaic ‫אל‬ ʾEl [the one of] El ARI 276.126 1
 Names of Confession 569

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫דגן‬ Dagān [the one of] Dagon BPPS 119 1
Aramaic ‫נׁשך‬ Nušku [the one of] Nusku Maraqten 92 1
Aramaic ‫קוס‬ Qaus [the one of] Qaus WSS 842 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשמׁש‬ Šamaš [the one of] Shamash WSS 847 1
Phoenician ‫אלם‬ ʾElim [the one of the] gods FSL 38f.:13 1
Phoenician ‫אמן‬ ʾAmon [the one of] Amon FSL 60.36 1
Phoenician ‫מלך‬ Milk [the one of] Milk FSL 57.32 1
Phoenician ‫ענת‬ ʿAnat [the one of] Lady NEE 25.11 1
Anat
Phoenician ‫עׁשתא‬ ʿAštaʾ [the one of] Lady NEE 25.11 1
Ashtarte
Phoenician ‫עׁשתרת‬ ʿAštart [the one of] Lady NEE 25.11 1
Ashtarte
Phoenician ‫ׁשפש‬ Šapaš [the one of] Shapash Heltzer 284 1
‫מאס‬ Mēʾis (?) from Isis HAE 8.32; 14.53; BPHB 188; 6 0
288; 308a, b; FHCB 69.18
Phoenician ‫מחדׁש‬ Mēḥodeš from the new Benz 138 1
moon (?)

2.6.3.╇ Son or daughter of god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אפלי‬ ʾAplāya the inheriting son HAE 1.126 1 0 (Jer 2:27)
of [DN]
Aramaic ‫בראבא‬ Barʾabāʾ the son of the Maraqten 73 1
[divine] father
Aramaic ‫בראם‬ Barʾem son of the [divine] BPPS 118 1
mother
Aramaic ‫ברעמא‬ Barʿammāʾ son of the [divine] Maraqten 74 1
uncle
Aramaic ‫ברהדד‬ Barhadad son of Hadad Maraqten 73 2
Aramaic ‫בררכב‬ Barrakeb son of [the cloud] Maraqten 74; WSS 750 2
rider
Aramaic ‫ברעתר‬ Barʿattar son of Ashtar WSS 780 1
Aramaic ‫ברצר‬ Barṣūr son of the [divine] Maraqten 74; BPPS 105 2
rock
Aramaic ‫ברגאיה‬ Bargaʾyāh son of the loftiness Maraqten 73 1
Phoenician ‫בנאר‬ Binʾūr son of the [divine] Benz 89 1
light
Phoenician ‫בנבעל‬ Binbaʿal son of Baal Benz 89 1
Phoenician ‫בנחדׁש‬ Binḥodeš son of the new moon Benz 89 5
Phoenician ‫בנחף‬ Binḥapi son of Apis Benz 89 1
Phoenician ‫בנען‬ Binʿan son of An (masc. Benz 89 1
companion of Anat)
Phoenician [‫בנענ]ת‬ Binʿanat son of Lady Anat NEE 24.5; 26.31 2
Phoenician ‫בנרׁשף‬ Binrešep son of Resheph Benz 89 1
570 Appendix B2

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Ammonite ‫בתאל‬ Batʾil daughter of El (?) WSS 927 1
Phoenician ‫בתאׁשם‬ Batʾašim[a] daughter of Ashim[a] WSS 715 1
Phoenician ‫בתנעם‬ Batnaʿm daughter of Naʾm Benz 102 (fem.) 2
Phoenician ‫בתׁשחר‬ Batšaḥar daughter of Shachar FSL 50.24 (fem.) 1
‫פׁשחר‬ Pašḥūr son of Horus HAE 1.22; 17.39, 40, 41, 42, 9 (4) —
43; Arad(8).54:1; Ar(8).2:1-2;
BPHB 329
 Appendix B3

Names of Praise

3.1.╇ Praise for the greatness of god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יהועלי‬ Yĕhôʿalî Yhwh is exalted HAE 10.40 1 — Ps 97:9
‫יוע]א[לה‬
(1×)
‫יעלי‬ Yaʿalay [DN] is exalted ‫א‬/‫יעלה‬
(2×)
Ammonite ‫אבעל‬ ʾAbīʿal [my] father is exalted WSS 878 1
Aramaic ‫אחעל‬ ʾAḥīʿal [my] brother is Maraqten 68 1
exalted
Ammonite ‫מרעלי‬ Māreʿalî the lord is exalted WSS 950 1
Phoenix ‫תנתעלי‬ Tanitʿalî Tanit is exalted FSL 27.4 (Tyre) 1
Aramaic ‫אלעלן‬ ʾElʿalān El is exalted NTA 26.2:12 1
Aramaic ‫דדעלה‬ Dadʿalē Hadad is exalted WSS 784 1
‫עליהו‬ ʿAlīyāhû Yhwh is exalted HAE 1.23, 31; 2.17; 16.55, 56, 7 —
57; BPHB 305
Ammonite ‫עליה‬ ʿAlyah Yhwh is exalted WSS 874 (fem.) 1
Aramaic ‫עלאל‬ ʿAlīʾēl El is exalted NTA 79.11:3 1
‫עליו‬ ʿAlīyau Yhwh is exalted HAE 16.58 1 — ‫עלי‬
(1×)
‫עלא‬ ʿAlāʾ [DN] is exalted BPHB 44a–f (fem.) 1 —
Ammonite ‫עלא‬ ʿAlāʾ [DN] is exalted WSS 873 (fem.) 1
11 4
‫אלירם‬ ʾElîrām my god is exalted HAE 1.82, 83 2 — Ps 99:2
‫אדנירם‬
(1×)
Moabite ‫אלירם‬ ʾElîrām my god is exalted BPPS 188 1
‫אלרם‬ ʾElīrām [my] god is exalted HAE 1.102, 103; BPHB 97; 199; 5 — ‫אבירם‬
FHCB 66.16 (2×),
‫אחירם‬
(1×)
Ammonite ‫אלרם‬ ʾIlrām El is exalted WSS 864; 907; 908; 909; 910; BPPS 164; 9
165; 170; Heltzer 222
Moabite ‫אברם‬ ʾAbīram [my divine] father is WSS 1013 1
exalted

571
572 Appendix B3

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫אברם‬ ʾAbīrām [my divine] father is WSS 752 1
exalted
Aramaic ‫אדנלרם‬ ʾAdānlurām Adon is highly Maraqten 66; WSS 760 2
exalted
Aramaic ‫גדרם‬ Gadrām Gad is exalted Maraqten 75 (ARI 379.154) 1
Aramaic ‫מלכרם‬ Malikrām Malik is exalted Maraqten 87 2
Phoenix ‫אחרם‬ ʾAḥīrōm [my divine] brother Benz 61 (king of Byblos) 1
is exalted
Phoenician ‫חרם‬ Ḥirōm [my divine] brother Benz 125 (cf. 1 Kgs 5:15–16) 1
is exalted
Phoenician ‫מלכרם‬ Milkrōm Milk is exalted Benz 140; WSS 1091; WTP 21.45 4
Phoenician ‫ׁשמרם‬ Šemrōm the [divine] name is NEE 27.37 1
exalted
‫בערא‬ Baʿarāʾ Baʿal is exalted HAE Sam(8).1.43:2; 45:2; 46:2; 4 — ‫מלכירם‬
47:1 (1×),
‫יהורם‬
(3×),
‫יורם‬
(3×)
Phoenician ‫בעלרם‬ Baʿalrōm Baal is exalted Benz 98; Kition 805.1 3
Phoenician ‫רמבעל‬ Rōmbaʿal Baal is exalted Benz 179 2
‫רמה‬ Rāmāh [DN] is exalted BPHB 248; 412 2 — ‫רמיה‬
(1×),
‫רם‬
(3×)
Phoenician ‫רם‬ Rōm [DN] is exalted NEE 27.35 1
13 15
Aramaic ‫אדגאי‬ ʾAdgāʾay Adad is exalted Maraqten 65 1
‫רביהו‬ Rabyāhû Yhwh is great HAE 20.2 1 0 Ps 89:8
Aramaic ‫אדקׁשר‬ ʾAdduqašīr Adad is strong NTA 106.19:4 1
‫ׂשׁריהו‬ Śĕrāyāhû Yhwh rules HAE 2.22; 13.58; 16.3; 21.96, 7 1 —
101, 102, 103 (9)
‫ׂשרמלך‬ Śĕrāmelek the [divine] king HAE 1.108; 21.53 2 —
rules
Phoenician ‫ׂשררמן‬ Śarramōn [Baal] Rimmon rules WSS 1101 1
9 10
Ammonite ‫אלמׁשל‬ ʾIlmašal El rules WSS 896; 912; SAJ 333.39 3
Phoenician ‫מׁשל‬ Mašol [DN] rules Benz 143 1
Phoenician ‫כברבע‬ Kaborbaʿ Baal is mighty Benz 131 1

3.2.╇ Praise for the goodness of god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אחטב‬ ʾAḥīṭūb my [divine] HAE 1.36 1 (2) Ps 100:5
brother is good
 Names of Praise 573

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫אחטב‬ ʾAḥīṭāb my [divine] brother NTA 70.7:6 1
is good
Phoenician ‫בעליטב‬ Baʿalyaṭūb Baal is good FSL 47.21 1
‫עמיטב‬ ʿAmmîṭūb my [divine] uncle BPHB 245 1 —
is good
‫טבׁשלם‬ Ṭōbšālēm Shalem is good HAE 9.6, 7, 8; Lak(6).1.1:2; 7 —
7.5–6; BPHB 7; 177a, b
Aramaic ‫טבׁשלם‬ Ṭābšālem Shalem is good Maraqten 82 (WSS 172) 1
‫טבאל‬ Ṭōbʾēl El is good HAE 9.2; BPHB 176a, b 2 2
‫טביהו‬ Ṭōbyāhû Yhwh is good HAE 1.62; 7.3; 9.3, 4, 5; Lak 7 (1) [‫טברמן‬
(6).1.3:19; 5:9 (3) (1×)
Aram.]
‫טבא‬ Ṭōbāʾ [DN] is good HAE 9.1; 11.12; BPHB 397 3 —
‫טב‬ Ṭōb [DN] is good HAE Gem(7).3:8 1 —
22 8
‫אבנעם‬ ʾAbīnōʿam [my divine] father HAE Sam(8).1.[8.2]; 9.2; 10.2; 4 (1) Ps 27:4
is kind [11.2]
‫אחנעם‬ ʾAḥīnōʿam [my divine] HAE Sam(8).1.19:4 1 (2)
brother is kind (fem.)
‫נעמאל‬ Nōʿamʾēl kindness of El HAE 14.22 1 —
Phoenician ‫נעמלכת‬ Noʿammilkat kindness of Milkat / Benz 147 (fem.) 1
the Queen
6 3
Phoenician ‫צדירך‬ Ṣidyerak Sid (city god of WSS 1098 (Benz 177) 1
Sidon) is tender
‫יהותם‬ Yĕhôtam Yhwh is perfect / HAE 1.33 1 (3) —
beyond reproach
Phoenician ‫בעלתם‬ Baʿaltam Baal is beyond Benz 100 1
reproach
Phoenician ‫תמאל‬ Tamʾel El is beyond reproach FSL 60.37 (Tyre) 1
Ammonite ‫תם‬ Tam [DN] is beyond WSS 966 1
reproach
Ammonite ‫תמא‬ Tammāʾ [DN] is beyond WSS 910 1
reproach
Aramaic ‫תמא‬ Tammāʾ [DN] is beyond BPPS 148 1
reproach
‫זכא‬ Zakāʾ [DN] is pure/ HAE 11.9 1 — ‫זכי‬
blameless (1×)
Aramaic ‫זכא‬ Zakāʾ [DN] is pure WSS 792 (Ammonite?) 1
1 1
Ammonite ‫אליבר‬ ʾIlîbar my god is pure WSS 893; 897 2
Aramaic ‫נׁשכבר‬ Nuškubar Nusku is pure WSS 825 1
Aramaic ‫אחבר‬ ʾAḥibar [my divine] brother Maraqten 67 1
is pure
‫יפיהו‬ Yĕpāyāhû Yhwh is beautiful HAE 11.11 1 0 —
Phoenician ‫תארא‬ Tōʾarāʾ gracefulness of [DN] Benz 185 (fem.) 1
574 Appendix B3

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫מנר‬ Mēnīr [DN] is HAE 13.59 1 0 —
enlightening
Ammonite ‫מנר‬ Mēnīr [DN] is enlightening WSS 948 1
Aramaic ‫מיפע‬ Maypiʿ [DN] is enlightening Maraqten 87 1
(?)

3.3.╇ Praise that god is alive

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אביחי‬ ʾAbîḥay my [divine] father HAE Arad(7).39:11 1 — (Ps 18:47)
is alive
Ammonite ‫אביחי‬ ʾAbîḥay my [divine] father WSS 867 (fem.); 868 2
is alive
Moabite ‫אחיחי‬ ʾAḥîḥay my [divine] brother WSS 1016 1
is alive
‫אדניחי‬ ʾAdōnîḥay my lord is alive HAE 3.24; 13.95 2 —
‫אׁשרחי‬ ʾAšerḥay Ašer is alive HAE 14.45 1 —
‫יהוחי‬ Yĕhôḥay Yhwh is alive HAE 10.31; FHCB 72.21 2 —
6 0
‫בלתה‬ Biltāh without [DN is no HAE 2.8 (cf. Ammurite: Manna- 1 0 (Ps 16:2)
life] balti-el)

3.4.╇ Call to praise and worship god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫הודויהו‬ Haudûyāhû praise Yhwh! (pl.) HAE 3.25; 5.2; 8.14; 13.96; 6 1 Ps 136:1
Lak(6).1.3:17; BPHB 145 (3)
‫הודיהו‬ Haudūyāhû praise Yhwh! HAE 5.3, 4 2 —
‫הודיה‬ Haudūyāh praise Yhwh! HAE 15.2 1 (3)
‫הדיהו‬ Haudūyāhû praise Yhwh! HAE 11.5; 21.33 2 —
Aramaic ‫הודו‬ Hawdû praise [DN]! (pl.) WSS 754 1
Phoenician ‫חדי‬ Ḥeddai shout with joy! (sing.) WSS 738; 739? 2
11 7
‫הללאל‬ Hallelʾēl praise El! (sing.) HAE 5.21 1 — Ps 135:1
‫הלליהו‬ Hallelyāhû praise Yhwh! HAE 5.22 1 — ‫הלל‬
(1×)
2 1
‫יראויהו‬ Yĕrʾûyāhû worship Yhwh! HAE 10.71, 72; BPHB 51; 175 4 (1) Ps 34:10
(pl.)
Ammonite ‫מגראל‬ Magorʾil [one ought to show] WSS 945 1
fear of El!
Phoenician ‫יגראׁשמן‬ Yĕgorʾešmun fear/worship Benz 127 1
Eshmun! (sing.)
 Names of Praise 575

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫דעואל‬ Dĕʿûʾēl recognize god! Naveh 3.3:2? 1 1 —
(pl.)
‫מיכיהו‬ Mîkāyāhû who is like Yhwh? HAE 14.14 1 5 (4) Ps 113:5
‫מכיהו‬ Mīkāyāhû who is like Yhwh? HAE 13.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 18 —
26, 27, 28, 29, 31; 14.18; 16.48;
Lak(6).1.11:3; BPHB 235; 330;
FHCB 86.35; Lemaire 205.4:1
‫מכיה‬ Mīkāyāh who is like Yhwh? HAE 53.3 1 — ‫מיכאל‬
(6×)
Ammonite ‫מכאל‬ Mīkāʾil who is like El? WSS 938; AMM 36.2:8? 2
Aramaic ‫)?(מכאל‬ Mīkāʾēl who is like El? WSS 1119 1
Phoenician ‫מכאל‬ Mikaʾēl who is like El? BPPS 97 1
Ammonite ‫מכמאל‬ Mīkamōʾil who is like El? WSS 939 1
Edomite ‫מכמאל‬ Mikĕmōʾēl who is like El? BPPS 202 1
Aramaic ‫כנבו‬ Kinabū who is like Nabû WSS 803 1
‫מכא‬ Mîkāʾ who is like [DN]? HAE 1.78; 13.18; 18.1; 53.2; 5 (3) ‫מיכא‬
BPHB 234
‫מיכה‬ Mîkāh who is like [DN]? HAE 1.72; Lemaire 219.14:3 2 3
‫מיכי‬ Mikay who is like [DN]? Lemaire 217.13:6? 1 —
‫מכי‬ Mākî who is like [DN]? HAE 13.19; 16.47; 21.80; 7 1
Arad(6).110:2; Gaz(7).1:4; NEE
92.79:1; BPHB 290
Aramaic ‫מנך‬ Manka who is like [DN]? Maraqten 88 1
Aramaic ‫מיא‬ Mīʾā who is like [DN]? TSF 655.47:1 (= NTA 123.4:1) 1
35 22
‫מיאמן‬ Mîʾāmēn who is faithful [if HAE 10.25; 13.14, 15, 16; 18.18; 8 — —
not DN]? 53.1; NEE 92.79:5; BPHB 233
‫מאמן‬ Mīʾāmēn who is faithful [if HAE 1.39 1 —
not DN]?
9 0
Aramaic ‫אדקר‬ ʾAddu[ye]qar Adad should be Maraqten 66 1
honored
Aramaic ‫ׁשמהיקר‬ Šemēhyeqar his name should be Maraqten 103 1
honored
 Appendix B4

Equating Names

4.1.╇ Terms of kinship

4.1.1.╇ Equating the divine father with another god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אבבעל‬ ʾAbībaʿal [my divine] father HAE Sam(8).1.2:4 1 — ‫אביאל‬
is Baal (2×)
Phoenician ‫אבבעל‬ ʾAbībaʿal [my divine] father Benz 54; FSL 23.1 2
is Baal
Phoenician ‫אביבעל‬ ʾAbîbaʿal my [divine] father Benz 54 1
is Baal
‫אביהו‬ ʾAbīyāhû my [divine] father HAE 1.7, 8, 45; Arad(6).27:6 4 1 ‫אבימלך‬
is Yhwh (6) (4×)
Aramaic ‫אביה‬ ʾAbīyāh my [divine] father is BPPS 106 1
Yhwh
‫אביו‬ ʾAbīyau my [divine] father HAE 1.9, 10; Sam(8).1.52:2 3 —
is Yhwh
‫אבטביה‬ ʾAbīṭōbīyāh [my] good [divine] HAE 1.6 1 —
father is Yhwh
Aramaic ‫אבחלדי‬ ʾAbīḥaldî [my divine] father NTA 49.5:10 1
is Haldi (deity from
Urartu)
Phoenician ‫אבנׁשמׁש‬ ʾAbinušamaš our [divine] father is Benz 55 1
Shamash
‫אבא‬ ʾAbāʾ [my divine] father HAE 1.2, 3, 97 3 —
is [DN]
Ammonite ‫אבא‬ ʾAbāʾ [my divine] father WSS 877 1
is [DN]
Aramaic ‫אבא‬ ʾAbāʾ [my divine] father Maraqten 65 3
is [DN]
Phoenician ‫אבא‬ ʾAbāʾ [my divine] father Benz 54; NEE 24.1 1
is [DN]
‫אבי‬ ʾAbî my [divine] father HAE Gez(10).1: Rand; 2 1
is [DN] Mur(7).2:2
Aramaic ‫אבי‬ ʾAbay my [divine] father Maraqten 65 1
is [DN]
Phoenician ‫אבהא‬ ʾAbihūʾ [my divine] father is FSL 25f.:3 1
the one [who is god]
14 14

576
 Equating Names 577

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Phoenician ‫אמיאח‬ ʾImmîʾaḥ my [divine] mother is FSL 48.23; 56-57.31 1
brother
Phoenician↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫אמעׁשתרת‬ ʾImmīʿaštart [my] mother is Benz 62 (fem.) 1
Ashtarte

4.1.2.╇ Equating the divine brother with another god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אחאב‬ ʾAḥʾāb [my divine] HAE 1.25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 61, 34 2
brother is father 98, 99, 128; 5.11; 8.21; 10.35,
(Röllig: brother of 85; 13.94; 14.16; 16.13; 21.5, 32;
the father) Ham(9).1; NEE 92.79:12 (corr);
BPHB 62; 63; 64; 65; 66a–d; 67;
68; 69; 109; 125; 323; FHCB
63.13; Lemaire 201.2:7f.
Aramaic ‫אחאב‬ ʾAḥʾab [my divine] brother CAI 98; WSS 932; BPPS 155 3
is father
Aramaic ‫אחאב‬ ʾAḥʾāb [my divine] brother BPPS 123 1
is father
Aramaic ‫)?(אחאבו‬ ʾAḥʾabû [my divine] brother BPPS 110 1
is father (Heltzer 211,
reads: ‫)אחאבר‬
Aramaic ‫אחאבי‬ ʾAḥʾabî [my divine] brother Maraqten 66 1
is my father
Aramaic ‫אחאבה‬ ʾAḥiʾabihu [my divine] brother WSS 1103 1
is his father
‫אחיאב‬ ʾAḥîʾab my [divine] HAE 1.40, 41; BPHB 74 3 —
brother is father
‫אחאם‬ ʾAḥīʾēm [my divine] HAE 21.50 1 —
brother is mother
(Röllig: see below)
Moabite ‫אחאם‬ ʾAḥiʾēm [my divine] brother BPPS 193 1
is mother
Phoenician ‫אחאם‬ ʾAḥiʾēm [my divine] brother Benz 61 1
is mother
‫אחיאם‬ ʾAḥîʾēm my [divine] HAE 1.42; Arad(7).35:3 2 (1)
brother is mother
(Röllig: my brother
has ruled ?)
‫אחאמה‬ ʾAḥīʾimmōh [my divine] HAE 1.31, 32; 17.41; BPHB 70; 5 —
brother his mother 71
(Röllig: the divine
brother of his
mother)
‫אחיאל‬ ʾAḥîʾēl my [divine] HAE Jer(7).36; Jer(6).37; Naveh 4 —
brother is El 2.2:1; 3.3:4?
‫אחלי‬ ʾAḥlay [my divine] BPHB 392 (according to Ges18, 1 2
brother is my god 39a, it stands for ‫)אחאלי‬
‫חיאל‬ Ḥîʾēl my [divine] HAE 21.34 1 1
brother is El
578 Appendix B4

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אחחר‬ ʾAḥīḥūr [my divine] BPHB 73 1 —
brother is Horus
Phoenician ‫אחמן‬ ʾAḥīmin [my divine] brother Benz 61 1
is Min (Egyp. deity)
‫אחמלך‬ ʾAḥīmelek [my divine] HAE 1.28, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 33 (3) ‫אחימות‬
brother is king 69; 5.12; 8.35; 10.34, 65; 13.20, (1×)
73, 89; 14.32, 56; 16.14; 18.5;
Sam(8).1.22:2f.; 23:2; 24:1; 25:2;
[26:1]; 27:2; 28:2; 29:2; 48:2;
Arad(8).72:2; BPHB 75; 76; 77;
108; 288
Aramaic ‫אחמלך‬ ʾAḥīmalk [my divine] brother Maraqten 67 2
Malik
Phoenician ‫חימלך‬ [ʾA]ḥîmilk my [divine] brother WSS 733 1
Milk
‫אחמלכה‬ ʾAḥīmalkāh [my divine] NEE 92.79:4 (masc.) 1 —
brother is queen
‫אחימא‬ ʾAḥîmāʾ my [divine] HAE Sam(8).1.3:1f.; 32:3; [36:2]; 6 —
brother is [king] 37:2; 38:2; 39:2
‫אחימה‬ ʾAḥîmāh my [divine] HAE 1.48 1 —
brother is [king]
Aramaic ‫אחמה‬ ʾAḥimāh [my divine] brother Maraqten 67; WSS 1104 3
is [king]
‫אחיהו‬ ʾAḥīyāhû my [divine] HAE 1.43, 44, 45, 53, 131; 10 1
brother is Yhwh 21.87; RRah(7).1:1; Jer(7).5:2;
Lak(6)1.3:17; BPHB 114
‫אחיו‬ ʾAḥīyau my [divine] HAE 1.46, 47; Nim(8).4 3 2
brother is Yhwh
Aramaic ‫אחיו‬ ʾAḥīyau my [divine] brother Maraqten 67 1
is Yhwh
‫חיהו‬ Ḥiyāhû my [divine] HAE Qas(8).1:3 1 —
brother is Yhwh
Moabite ‫אחאד‬ ʾAḥʾad [my divine] brother WSS 1015 1
is Adad
‫אחא‬ ʾAḥāʾ [my divine] HAE 1.23, 24; 8.50; 16.27; 21.49; 10 —
brother is [DN] Sam(8).1.51:3; Arad(8).74:2;
Arad(8).49:16; 67:4; Msa(7).1:4
Moabite ‫אחא‬ ʾAḥāʾ [my divine] brother WSS 1014 1
is [DN]
Phoenician ‫אחא‬ ʾAḥāʾ [my divine] brother NEE 27.42; 27.43 2
is [DN]
‫אחיא‬ ʾAḥīyāʾ my brother is [DN] HAE 1.39; BPHB 37 2 —
‫אחי‬ ʾAḥî my brother is [DN] HAE 1.37, 38; Arad(7).39:6; 4 2
Lemaire 217.13:3
123 15
Ammonite ‫אחתאב‬ ʾAḥatʾab [my divine] sister is WSS 870 (fem.) 1
father
Aramaic ‫אחתמלך‬ ʾAḥatmalik [my divine] sister WSS 1102 (fem.) 1
is king
 Equating Names 579

4.1.3.╇ Equating the divine uncle (on one’s father’s side) with another god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫עמׁשלם‬ ʿAmmīšālēm [my] uncle is HAE Arad(8).59:4 1 — ‫עמיאל‬
Šalem (4×),
‫עמיחור‬
(1×),
‫עמיׁשדי‬
(1×)
Aramaic ‫עמׁשא‬ ʿAmmīšēʾ [my] uncle is Sin WSS 846 1
1 6

4.2.╇ Equating a personal/tutelary god with another god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אליהו‬ ʾElīyāhû my god is Yhwh HAE 1.69, 70, 71, 72, 92; 10.12; 13 1 Ps 22:11
13.11; 14.51; Jer(7).14:1; BPHB ‫אליאב‬
80a–e; 81a, b; 82; 229 (6×),
‫אלימלך‬
(1×)
‫אליה‬ ʾElīyāh my god is Yhwh HAE 1.68 1 4
‫אליו‬ ʾElīyau my god is Yhwh PIAP 279.72127:4 (KAgr) 1 —
Aramaic ‫)?(אליעם‬ ʾElîʿam my god is the WSS 1105 1
[divine] uncle
Phoenician ‫אלעם‬ ʾElīʿam [my] god is the WTP 21.46 1
[divine] uncle
Phoenician ‫אלבעל‬ ʾElībaʿal [my] god is Baal Benz 61; NEE 26.30; EN 19.51 4
‫אלא‬ ʾElāʾ [my] god is [DN] HAE Sam(8).1.38:3 1 1
Ammonite ‫אלא‬ ʾIlāʾ El is [DN] WSS 883; 958; Heltzer 241 3
‫אלהוא‬ ʾElīhûʾ [my] god is the one HAE Arad(8).69:4 (?) 1 (3)
[who is god] (2)
17 18
Ammonite ‫אלמלך‬ ʾIlīmalk [my] god is the king BPPS 163 1
[Milkom]
Aramaic ‫אלמלך‬ ʾElīmalk [my] god is Malik Maraqten 69; NTA 15.1:15 2
Phoenician ‫אלמלך‬ ʾElīmilk my god is Milk WTP 21.44 1

4.3.╇ Equating Baal with another god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫בעלא‬ Baʿalāʾ Baal is [DN] HAE Sam(8).1.1:7; 3:3; 27:3; 6 — ‫בעליה‬
28:3; 31:3; Gem(7).3:6 (1×)
Moabite ‫בעלא‬ Baʿalāʾ Baal is [DN] BPPS 195 1
Phoenician ‫בעלא‬ Baʿalāʾ Baal is [DN] NEE 25.14
6 1
580 Appendix B4

4.4.╇Equating Yhwh or other major deities with another god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יהואב‬ Yĕhôʾāb Yhwh is [divine] HAE 1.41, 55, 119; 10.20; 8 —
father 14.15; Arad(8).49:9; 59:1;
Arad(7).39:10
‫יואב‬ Yauʾāb Yhwh is [divine] HAE 10.45 1 3
father
‫יהואח‬ Yĕhôʾāḥ Yhwh is [divine] HAE 10.21, 22, 23; 16.40; 7 (5)
brother Arad(9).79; BPHB 9; 318
‫יהוא‬ Yēhûʾ Yhwh is the one HAE 10.19 1 5
[who is god]
‫יהואל‬ Yĕhôʾēl Yhwh is El HAE 10.25 1 —
‫יואל‬ Yauʾēl Yhwh is El HAE 10.46 1 15
19 28
Moabite ‫כמׁשאל‬ Kamōšʾēl Chemosh is El WSS 1010 1
Moabite ‫כמשעם‬ Kamōšʿam Chemosh is [my WSS 1010; 1035; Heltzer 268 3
divine] uncle
Edomite ‫קוסא‬ Qausāʾ Qos is [DN] WSS 1055 (Aroer) 1
Edomite ‫קסואדני‬ Qaus[?]ʾadōnî Qos [?] is my lord WSS 1057 1
Edomite ‫קוסאם‬ Qausʾimmī Qos [?] is my mother WSS 1056 1
Aramaic ‫נבמרא‬ Nabūmāreʾ Nabû is [my] lord TSF 665.59:1 1
Aramaic ‫נממרא‬ Nammāreʾ Nanay [?] is [my] TSF 655.47:18 1
lord
Aramaic ‫ננא‬ Nanāʾ Nanay is [DN] Maraqten 91 1
Aramaic ‫נסחא‬ Nasuḥāʾ Nasuch/Nusku is TSF 655.47:4 1
[DN]
Aramaic ‫סיראדני‬ Sirʾadōnî Osiris is my lord NTA 54.6:4′ 1
Aramaic ‫ססלי‬ Sāsilî Shamash is my god TSF 655.47:21 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשאדני‬ Šēʾadōnî Sin is my lord BPPS 141 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשידד‬ Šēdad Sin is Adad Maraqten 102 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשלמנרמן‬ Šalmānrimmān Shalmon is NTA 84.12:9; 95.15:11 2
(Haddad-)Rimmon
Aramaic ‫ׁשמׁשיב‬ Šamšî[ʾā]b my Shamash is [my NTA 42.4:11 1
divine] father
Phoenician ‫אדא‬ ʾAddāʾ Adad is [DN] Benz 55 2
Phoenician ↜渀屮↜ ‫אׁשמנאדני‬ ʾEšmunʾadōnî Eshmun is my lord Benz 70 4
Phoenician ‫אׁשמנאדן‬ ʾEšmunʾadōnī Eshmun is [my] lord Benz 70 5
Phoenician ‫בעלמלך‬ Baʿalmilk Baal is Milk/king Benz 96 6
Phoenician ‫דעמלך‬ Doʿammilk Doam is Milk/king Benz 108 2
Phoenician ‫הדא‬ Haddāʾ Haddu is [DN] FSL 45.19 1
Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫מלקרתאב‬ Melqartʾāb Melqart is [my FSL 38.14; 43.17 2
divine] father
Phoenician ‫צדמלך‬ Ṣidmilk Sid is Milk/king Benz 177 3
Phoenician [‫ׁשמני]?ל‬ Ešmunī [?] Eshmun is [DN/El] FSL 52.25 1
 Equating Names 581

4.5.╇ Old epithets

4.5.1.╇ Equating Adon with another god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אדניהו‬ ʾAdōnīyāhû my lord is Yhwh HAE 1.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19; 12 2
13.48; 14.44; 21.93; Qud(8).7:1;
BPHB 60a, b; 80a–e;
‫אדניה‬ ʾAdōnīyāh my lord is Yhwh HAE 21.31; EGed(8).2:7 2 1
‫אדניו‬ ʾAdōnīyau my lord is Yhwh HAE 1.20; Sam(8).1.42:3 2 —
Ammonite ‫)?(אדנאב‬ ʾAdōnīʾab [my] lord is [my WSS 862 1
divine] father
Phoenician ‫אדנבעל‬ ʾAdōnībaʿal [my] lord is Baal Benz 56; NEE 24.7 3
Phoenician ‫אדנׁשמׁש‬ ʾAdōnīšamaš [my] lord is Shamash Benz 59 2
‫אדנמלך‬ ʾAdōnīmelek [my] lord is king HAE 1.21 1 —
‫אדנא‬ ʾAdōnāʾ [my] lord is [DN] Lemaire 214.11:4? 1 —
‫אדתא‬ ʾAdattāʾ [my] lady is [DN] HAE 1.22 (fem.) 1 —
19 3
Ammonite ‫מראל‬ Māreʾil [my] lord is El WSS 879; 949; Heltzer 242; 243 4
Ammonite ‫מרא‬ Māreʾ [my] lord is [DN] CAI 21 1
Aramaic ‫מרא‬ Māreʾ [my] lord is [DN] WSS 808 1
Aramaic ‫מראהד‬ Māreʾhadd [my] lord is Hadad WSS 809 1
Aramaic ‫מריחלד‬ Mārayḥaldi my lord is Haldi NTA 26.2:13 1
(deity from Urartu)
Phoenician ‫מרדגן‬ Māredagon [my] lord is Dagon NEE 27.37 1

4.5.2.╇ Equating Melek with another god

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫מלכיהו‬ Malkīyāhû my king is Yhwh HAE 1.114; 13.36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 32 1 ‫מלכיאל‬
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 61; 14.2, 26, (8) (1×)
27; 15.20; 53.4(?); Arad(8).40:3;
Seb(8).7:1; Arad(7).39:2;
Arad(6).24:14; BPHB 33a, b;
97; 185; 211; 236; 238; 268a–g;
269a, b; 388; 405; Lemaire
214.11:5?
‫מלכיו‬ Malkīyau my king is Yhwh HAE Nim(8).5 1 —
Phoenician ‫מלכׁשמׁש‬ Milkšamaš Milk is Shamash BPPS 98 1
Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜ ‫מלכתבעל‬ Milkatbaʿal the queen is Baal Benz 140 (fem.) 1
‫מלכי‬ Malkî my king [is DN] HAE 2.27; 13.35 2 —
Aramaic ‫מלכי‬ Malkay my king is [DN] Röllig, AoF 24 371.2:10 1
Phoenician ‫מלכא‬ Milkāʾ Milk is [DN] FSL 62.40 (fem.) 1
35 10
 Appendix B5

Names of Birth

5.1.╇ The distress of infertility

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אספיהו‬ ʾAsāpyāhû Yhwh has taken BPHB 108 1 — Gen 30:23
away [the stigma of ‫אסף חרפה‬
childlessness]
‫אספיו‬ ʾAsāpyau Yhwh has taken HAE 1.125 1 — ‫אביאסף‬
away (1×)
Phoen.╅╛↜渀屮 ‫עׁשתרתאסף‬ ʿAštartʾespa Ashtarte has taken FSL 63.42 1
away [the stigma of
childlessness]
Phoenician ‫מכסף‬ Mi[l]k[ʾa]sop Milk has taken WSS 1090 1
away (?)
‫אספא‬ ʾAsāpāʾ [DN] has taken HAE 1.124 1 —
away
‫אסף‬ ʾAsāp [DN] has taken HAE 1.120, 123; 10.67; 13.81; 5 3
away BPHB 9?
Phoenician ‫אספת‬ ʾAsapti you, [O goddess], Benz 63 (fem.) 1
have taken away
[the stigma of my
childlessness]
8 4
‫נקמאל‬ Nĕqamʾēl El has taken HAE Nasb(8).2:1 1 —
revenge [for the
despised mother]
Phoenician ‫נקמאל‬ Naqomʾēl El has taken revenge Benz 147 1
‫נקם‬ Nāqām [DN] has taken HAE Jer(7).20:1 1 —
revenge
2 0
‫לעגיהו‬ Lăʿagyāhû Yhwh has ridi- HAE 12.1 1 —
culed [the mother’s
despisers]
‫לעגי‬ Laʿagî [DN] has ridiculed Lemaire 212.10: rev. 7 1 —
2 0
Aramaic ‫מראיבב‬ Māreʾyabab the lord has WSS 810 1
triumphed
Aramaic ‫ׁשעיבב‬ Šēʿyabab Sin has triumphed WSS 851 1
Phoenician ‫יחרבעל‬ Yaḥrebaʿal Baal has been furious Benz 128 1

582
 Names of Birth 583

5.2.╇ Prayers and vows

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫ׁשבאח‬ Šūbaʾaḥ Come back, O Lemaire 215.13:3? (wants to 1 —
[divine] brother! restore to ‫)יׁשבאח‬
‫ׁשבאל‬ Šūbaʾēl come back, O god! HAE 5.10; 17.14; Gib(7).1:21; 5 (2)
BPHB 351; 352
Ammonite ‫ׁשבאל‬ Šubʾil come back, O god! WSS 973; 974; 975; AMM 36.2:4; BPPS 6
180 (correction of WSS 976); Heltzer
252
Ammonite ‫ׁשבא‬ Šūbāʾ come back, [O god]! SAJ 331.33; 333.38 2
Aramaic ‫ׁשבא‬ Šubāʾ come back, [O god]! TSF 653.46: obv. 1 1
‫ׁשבי‬ Šōbay come back, [O HAE 1.56; 3.15; 21.2, 3; 5 2
DN]! MHas(7).1:8
‫ׁשבניהו‬ Šūbnayāhû do come back, O HAE 2.6; 5.26; 8.12; 13.26, 27, 27 1
Yhwh! 71; 14.20; 16.61; 21.9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 51; Arad(8).60:3;
Arad(6).27:4; BPHB 181; 313;
356; 357; 358; 359; 360; 415?
‫ׁשבניה‬ Šūbnayāh do come back, O HAE 14.31; 21.7, 8 3 4
Yhwh!
‫ׁשבניו‬ Šūbnayau do come back, O HAE 21.17 A, B 1 —
Yhwh!
‫ׁשבנא‬ Šūbnāʾ do come back, [O HAE 10.53; 14.29, 30; 16.70; 17 2
DN]! 21.4, 5, 6, 19; 61.1; BPHB
165; 182; 353?; 354; 355; 414;
Lemaire 207.6:4f.′; 219.14:2
‫יׁשב‬ Yāšūb [DN] may come HAE 16.8 1 —
back
60 11
‫ׁשעיהו‬ Šĕʿēyāhû look mercifully at HAE 21.78 1 0
[me], Yhwh!
‫אׁשניה‬ ʾUšnayāh do present [a HAE 1.155 1 —
child], O Yhwh!
Phoenician ‫אׁשניהו‬ ʾUšnayāhû do present, O Yhwh! WSS 1070 1
‫אׁשניו‬ ʾUšnayau do present [a HAE 1.156 1 —
child], O Yhwh!
‫אׁשנא‬ ʾUšnāʾ do present [a HAE 1.151, 152, 153, 154; 4.10; 10 —
child], [O DN]! 11.7; BPHB 13a–c; 121; 122; 260
12 0
‫תנאל‬ Tenʾēl give, O god! HAE 22.2 1 0
Phoenician ‫אסרתני‬ ʾOsirtenayū O Osiris, present him Benz 63 1
[to me]!
‫ׁשאל‬ Šāʾūl [the] requested HAE 1.47; 21.1, 86; BPHB 86a, 9 (4) ‫ׁשאלתיאל‬
b; 157; 167; 261; 348; 349a, b (1×)
Ammonite ‫ׁשאל‬ Šaʾūl [the] requested Heltzer 251 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשאל‬ Šaʾīl [the] requested BPPS 142 1
Phoenician ‫ׁשאל‬ Šaʾūl [the] requested Gibson 34.13 I 4 1
584 Appendix B5

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫ׁשאלתי‬ Šaʾaltî I have requested Maraqten 101 1
[him]
‫ׁשאלה‬ Šĕʾilāh [the object of the] HAE 14.9; 18.20; BPHB 350 3 —
request
Aramaic ‫ׁשאלה‬ Šĕʾalah [the object of the] WSS 845 (Maraqten 101) 1
request
‫יׁשאל‬ Yišʾal [DN] has asked for HAE 8.9 1 1 Ezra 10:29
[the payment of Kethiv↜Or
the vow]
Phoenician ‫יׁשאל‬ Yišʾal [DN] has asked for Gibson 65.16:3 1
[the payment of the
vow]
13 6
‫בקׁש‬ Baqqūš [he who] was re- HAE 2.24; 15.6; BPHB 278 3 —
quested of [DN]
Ammonite ‫בקׁש‬ Baqqūš [he who] was WSS 924; 925 2
requested of [DN]
‫בקׁשת‬ Baqqūšet [she who] was HAE 2.25 (fem.) 1 —
requested of [DN]
Phoenician ‫בקׁשת‬ Baqūšt [she who] was Benz 100 (fem.) 1
requested of [DN]
4 0
Aramaic ‫בלׂשי‬ Baliśi [he who] was Maraqten 72 1
requested of [DN]
Phoenician ↜渀屮↜ ‫ארׁשתבעל‬ ʾArūštbaʿal [she who] was Benz 69 (fem.) 1
desired from Baal
Phoenician ‫ארׁש‬ ʾArūš [he who] was desired Benz 64 5
from [DN]
Phoenician ‫ארׁשת‬ ʾArūšt [she who] was Benz 69 (fem.) 1
desired from [DN]
‫ענניהו‬ ʿAnānyāhû Yhwh has re- HAE 14.7 1 (1) ‫ענני‬
sponded to me (1×)
‫עניהו‬ ʿAnāyāhû Yhwh has re- Lemaire 201.2:10? 1 (2) ‫עני‬
sponded to me (2×)
‫עניבעל‬ ʿAnîbaʿal Baal has responded HAE MHas(7).6:1 1 —
‫קוסענל‬ Qausʿānalī Qos has replied to HAE Arad(6).12:3 1 —
[me]
Edomite ‫קוסענל‬ Qausʿanalī Qos has replied to WSS 1051A–V 1
[me]
Ammonite ‫ענאל‬ ʿAnāʾil El has responded AMM 36.2:1, 2 1
Ammonite ‫ענמות‬ ʿAnāmaut Mot has responded WSS 875 1
Aramaic ‫עני‬ ʿAnî [DN] has responded NTA 79.11:4 1
Phoenician ‫ענא‬ ʿAnāʾ [DN] has responded FSL 74.51 1
4 6
Aramaic ‫הדרקי‬ Haddraqî Hadad has accepted WSS 751 1
[the vowed sacrifice]
with pleasure
Aramaic ‫רקי‬ Raqî [DN] has accepted WSS 844 1
[the vowed sacrifice]
with pleasure
 Names of Birth 585

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫רקין‬ Raqyan [DN] has accepted BPPS 140 1
[the vowed sacrifice]
with pleasure
Aramaic ‫לאל‬ Laʾēl [vowed] to EL Maraqten 86 (WSS 1145) 1
Aramaic ‫לקח‬ Luqqaḥ accepted [by DN] (?) Maraqten 86 3
Aramaic ‫לקחי‬ Luqqaḥî accepted [by DN] (?) ARI 386.219 1
‫דרׁשיהו‬ Dĕrašyāhû Yhwh has asked HAE 4.17, 18; Lemaire 201.2:11? 3 0 Deut 23:22
for [payment of the ‫דרׁש נדר‬
vow]
Aramaic ‫מראיסר‬ Māreʾyasar the lord has BPPS 127 1
demanded [payment
of the vow] (cf.
Akkadian esēru)
Phoenician ‫אלצאל‬ ʾAloṣʾel El has pressed for NEE 27.33 1
[the payment of the
vow]
‫פצרי‬ Paṣrî [DN] has urged HAE 10.10 1 0
[the payment of
the vow]
‫חׁשביהו‬ Ḥăšabyāhû Yhwh has taken HAE 8.64; MHas(7).7:1 2 3 ‫חׁשבניה‬
[the vow] into (9) (2×),
account ‫חׁשבנה‬
(1×),
‫חׁשבה‬
(1×),
‫חׁשוב‬
(2×)
2 18
‫ׁשעריהו‬ Šĕʿaryāhû Yhwh has HAE 5.4; 21.83 (from ‫)ׁשער‬ 2 (1)
charged [the vow
to my account]
‫מכר‬ Mākīr sold [by DN] HAE 13.31; BPHB 207 2 (2)
Aramaic ‫זבנעדן‬ Zĕbīnʿadān bought from Adon Maraqten 78 1
Aramaic ‫זבנא‬ Zĕbīnāʾ bought from [DN] Maraqten 78 1
Aramaic ‫זבן‬ Zabīn bought [from DN] Maraqten 78 1
Moabite ‫ׂשכר‬ Śākār wages [from DN] WSS 1047 (cf. 1 Chr 11:35; 26:4) 1

5.3.╇ Birth oracles

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אמריהו‬ ʾAmaryāhû Yhwh has spoken HAE 1.118, 119, 120, 121; 8.5; 22 3 Gen
10.93; 13.108; Seb(8).5:1; 6:1; (6) 25:22–23
Gib(7).1; BPHB 12a, b; 102a–c;
103; 104; 105; 106; 107; 115;
183; 189; 324; 357
‫אמריו‬ ʾAmaryau Yhwh has spoken HAE KAgr(9).9:1 1 —
Ammonite ‫אמראל‬ ʾAmarʾil El has spoken WSS 899; 919 2
Moabite ‫אמראל‬ ʾAmarʾēl El has spoken WSS 1019 1
Aramaic ‫אלאמר‬ ʾElʾamar El has spoken BPPS 111 1
586 Appendix B5

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אמרי‬ ʾImrî [DN] has spoken HAE 1.7; 3.4 2 2
Ammonite ‫אמרא‬ ʾAmrāʾ [DN] has spoken WSS 918 1
25 11
‫קוליהו‬ Qôlyāhû or Yhwh has spoken HAE 8.56; Msa(7).3:3; BPHB 3 (2)
Qawweleyāhû 340
‫קליהו‬ Qōlyāhû Yhwh has spoken HAE 19.2 1 (1) ‫קלי‬
(1×)
‫קליו‬ Qōlyau Yhwh has spoken HAE Sam(8).6:2 1 —
Aramaic ‫)?(גדקל‬ Gadqōl Gad has spoken Maraqten 75 1
5 4
Aramaic ‫בעלרגם‬ Baʿalragam Baal has spoken Maraqten 73 1
Aramaic ‫רגם‬ Ragam [DN] has spoken Maraqten 100; BPPS 139 2
Phoenician ‫רגם‬ Ragom [DN] has spoken WSS 1099 1
‫הגלניה‬ Higlānīyāh Yhwh has revealed HAE 20.2 1 — ‫יגלי‬
to me (1×)
1 1
‫בעלנחׁש‬ Baʿalnāḥāš Baal has predicted Lemaire 220.15:1 1 1
‫נחׁש‬ Nāḥāš [DN] has predicted BPHB 103 1 —
2 4
Aramaic ‫אחלכד‬ ʾAḥlakad [my divine] brother Maraqten 67 1
has picked [me by
drawing lots]
Aramaic ‫הדדסמני‬ Hadadsamānî Hadad has designated Maraqten 77 1
me
Phoenician ‫ׂשמבעל‬ Śōmbaʿal Baal has designated EN 19.50 1
[me] (?)
Aramaic ‫יזם‬ Yazum [DN] has intended BPPS 145 1
doing [something
with me] (?)
Phoenician ‫זמא‬ Zamaʾ [DN] has intended NEE 25.9; 26.28; 27.33 3
doing [something
with me] (?)
Phoenician ‫אׁשמניעד‬ ʾEšmunyaʿad Eshmun has Gibson 71.19:1 (Benz 71 Punic) 1
determined [the date
of birth]
‫מלאכי‬ Malʾākî my messenger [was HAE Arad(7).97:1 (cf. Punic 1 1
DN] ‫)בעלמלאך‬

5.4.╇ Conception and pregnancy

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫פתח‬ Pĕtaḥ [DN] has opened HAE 8.24; 17.44 2 — ‫פתחיה‬
[the womb] (3×)
‫נפתח‬ Niptaḥ [the womb] was BPHB 326 1 — ‫יפתח‬
opened [by DN] (1×)
3 4
 Names of Birth 587

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Ammonite ‫יתיר‬ Yattīr [DN] has broken WSS 904 1
[the bonds] (from
‫ נתר‬II; in Isa 58:6
in parallel to)
‫רפאיהו‬ Rĕpāʾayāhû Yhwh has healed HAE 13.88; 14.8; 18.11; 20.7, 8, 14 (5) ‫רפיה‬
9, 10, 11, 12; 21.40; BPHB 292?; ‫רפאל‬
345; 346; 413? (1×)
Aramaic ‫ירפאל‬ Yirpaʾēl El has healed Maraqten 84 1
Aramaic ‫אדרפא‬ ʾAddurapāʾ Adad has healed BPPS 108 1
‫רפא‬ Rāpāʾ [DN] has healed HAE 4.16; 5.19(?); 15.10; 16.56; 10 3 ‫רפוא‬
20.4, 5; Sam(8).1.24:12; BPHB (1×)
92; 344; FHCB 88.37
Moabite ‫רפא‬ Rapāʾ [DN] has healed WSS 1045 1
Aramaic ‫רפא‬ Rapāʾ [DN] has healed Maraqten 100; NTA 95.15:11; 101.17:5? 3
Phoenician ‫רפא‬ Rapāʾ [DN] has healed NEE 25.8 1
Aramaic ‫רפתי‬ Rapatay healing of [DN] (?) Maraqten 101 1
‫רפאי‬ Rĕpāʾî [DN] has healed HAE 13.35, 82; 20.6 3 —
Phoenician ‫רפאי‬ Rapoʾay [DN] has healed BPPS 103 1
27 10
‫דמלאל‬ Dĕmalʾēl El has healed HAE 19.2; BPHB 63; 143?; 3 —
‫דמליהו‬ Dĕmalyāhû Yhwh has healed HAE 4.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 12 —
16; 14.1, 47; 21.94; BPHB 144
‫דמלא‬ Damlāʾ [DN] has healed HAE 4.6, 7; Sam(8).10:1; 10 —
Gib(7).1; BPHB 14a, b; 15; 16;
17; 70; 142
25 0
Aramaic ‫אסי‬ ʾAsî [DN] is/was my Maraqten 70 1
physician
‫ׁשכניהו‬ Šĕkanyāhû Yhwh was present HAE 10.15; 17.29; 21.24, 25, 26; 8 2
NEE 92.79:10; BPHB 361a–c; (6)
362a, b
‫ׁשכניו‬ Šĕkanyau Yhwh was present PIAP 279.72127:15 (KAgr) 1 —
9 8

5.5.╇ Creation and birth

5.5.1.╇Pregnancy

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫סבכיהו‬ Sĕbakyāhû Yhwh has woven HAE Lak(6).1.11:4 1 — Job 10:11
[the child in the ‫;סבך‬
womb] ‫סבכי‬
(1×)
1 1
‫יהובנה‬ Yĕhôbānāh Yhwh has created HAE 13.56; Lak(7/6).22:1 2 — Gen 2:22
[the child]
588 Appendix B5

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫יובנה‬ Yaubānāh Yhwh has created HAE 10.49; 13.57; BPHB 25? 3 —
‫יבנה‬ Yaubānāh Yhwh has created HAE 13.55 1 — ‫יבניה‬
(2×)
‫בנענת‬ Bĕnāʿānat Anat has created HAE 20.4 1 —
‫בניהו‬ Bĕnāyāhû Yhwh has created HAE 2.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22 6 ‫בנוי‬
16, 17, 18, 19, 24; 10.75; 16.1; (6) (4×),
Arad(7).39:9; NEE 92.79:18; ‫בני‬
BPHB 125; 126; 127; 128; 129; (9×)
233
Ammonite ‫בנאל‬ Banāʾil El has created [the WSS 918; 936? 2
child]
Aramaic ‫אדבנה‬ ʾAdbanāh Adad has created Maraqten 65 1
Phoenician ‫תבנת‬ Tabnīt creation of [DN] Benz 186 2
Phoenician ‫בניא‬ Banoyaʾ [DN] has created NEE 26.24 1
Phoenician ‫בנא‬ Banoʾa [DN] has created NEE 26.21 1
29 27
‫אלעׂשה‬ ʾElʿāśāh El has made [the HAE 10.102, 103; 21.26; BPHB 9 4 Job 10:8;
child] 95a, b; 126?; 191a, b?; 356; Isa 44:2
361a–c; 362a, b
‫אלעׂש‬ ʾElʿāśā El has made HAE 16.25; 1 —
‫יועׂשה‬ Yauʿāśāh Yhwh has made HAE 10.54; KAgr(9).8:1 2 — ‫יעׂשי‬
(1×),
‫יעׂשיאל‬
(2×)
‫עׂשאל‬ ʿAśāʾēl El has made HAE 10.81 1 (4) ‫עׂשהאל‬
‫עׂשיאל‬
(1×)
‫עׂשיהו‬ ʿAśāyāhû Yhwh has made HAE 1.4, 37, 144; 10.44; 17 (4)
16.68, 69, 70, 71; 21.91; 56.6;
Lak(6).15:7; NEE 83.77:1;
89.78:4; BPHB 217a–e; 223?;
312; 368
‫עׂשיו‬ ʿAśāyau Yhwh has made HAE 16.72 1 —
‫עׂשי‬ ʿAśay [DN] has made HAE 8.38; 16.67; BPHB 271; 311 4 —
Moabite ‫עׂשי‬ ʿAśay [DN] has made BPPS 201 1
‫עׂשא‬ ʿAśāʾ [DN] has made BPHB 310 1 —
‫מעׂשיהו‬ Maʿaśēyāhû work of Yhwh HAE 1.77, 116; 10.5, 57; 13.66, 13 6
67, 68, 69, 70; 14.6; BPHB 243;
320; FHCB 56.8
‫מעׂשיה‬ Maʿaśēyāh work of Yhwh HAE 1.80; 13.65 2 15
‫מעׂשי‬ Maʿśay work of [DN] HAE 5.1; 13.64; Arad(6).22:4; 4 1
Lemaire 214.11:2?
Aramaic ‫מעׂשי‬ Maʿśay work of [DN] TSF 655.47:20 1
55 38
‫פעלה‬ Păʿalāh [DN] has made BPHB 326; 327 2 — Job 36:3
[the child] ‫אלפעל‬
(1×)
 Names of Birth 589

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Phoenician ‫אלפעל‬ ʾElpaʿol El has made [the Benz 61 1
child]
Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮↜ ‫פעלאבסת‬ Peʿlaʾabast Bastet has made Benz 176 2
Phoen. ╅╛↜‫פעלעׁשתרת‬ Peʿlaʿaštart Ashtarte has made Benz 176 1
2 1
Aramaic ‫אלעבד‬ ʾElʿabad El has made [the NTA 42.4:5 1
child]
‫אלקנה‬ ʾElqānāh El has created [the HAE 1.101 1 7 Ps 139:13
child]
Aramaic ‫ׁשמׁשקנה‬ Šamašqanah Shamash has created NTA 42.4:20 1
‫קניה‬ Qĕnayāh Yhwh has created BPHB 150a, b; 341 2 —
‫קניו‬ Qĕnayau Yhwh has created HAE 19.3 1 —
‫קני‬ Qanay [DN] has created HAE Kom(8).10:1 1 —
‫מקנמלך‬ Miqnēmelek creature of the king HAE 13.78 1 —
Ammonite ‫מקנמלך‬ Miqnēmalk creature of Malk WSS 985 1
Phoenician ‫מקנמלך‬ Miqnēmilk creature of Milk Benz 143 1
‫מקניהו‬ Miqnēyāhû creature of Yhwh HAE 1.57; 13.73, 74, 75, 76, 87; 15 1
18.9; Arad(8).60:4; 72:1; BPHB
203; 204; 247; 248; 256; 316?
‫מקניו‬ Miqnēyau creature of Yhwh HAE 13.77a, b 1 —
Aramaic ‫קנואל‬ Qanūʾēl creature of El Maraqten 99 1
22 8
‫אליכן‬ ʾElyākīn El has fashioned HAE 21.55 1 — Ps 119:73;
[the child] Job 31:15
‫אלכן‬ ʾElyākīn El has fashioned NEE 83.77:6; 89.78:3; BPHB 4 (1) also
92; 374 ‫יהויכון‬
‫יוכן‬ Yau⟨yā⟩kīn Yhwh has HAE 1.81 1 [1]
fashioned
‫יכניהו‬ Yakīnyāhû Yhwh has HAE 10.59 1 [1] ‫יכין‬
fashioned (2×)
Phoenician ‫יכנׁשלם‬ Yakīnšalim Shalim has fashioned Benz 128 2
‫כניהו‬ Konyāhû Yhwh has HAE 1.88, 96; 11.4, 5, 6; 13.103; 9 [1] ‫כנניהו‬
fashioned Arad(8).49:4; Lak(6).1.3:15; (2×)
FHCB 79.28a, b
‫כניה‬ Konyāh Yhwh has BPHB 223 1 [1] ‫כנני‬
fashioned (1×)
Aramaic ‫כני‬ Kunay [DN] has fashioned WSS 804; NTA 42.4:13 2
17 6
‫קדבׂש‬ Qadbeś Bes has formed HAE Sam(8).1.1:5 1 0 Egyp.
‫חצב‬ Ḥāṣāb [DN] has carved HAE 8.62 1 0 Isa 51:1
out
‫ירימות‬ Yerîmaut founded by Mot (?) HAE 10.75 (so Zadok, PIAP 61) 1 12
Aramaic ‫ׁשואל‬ Šawʾēl El has founded BPPS 144 1
Phoenician ‫יסד‬ Yĕsod foundation of [DN] Benz 128 1
590 Appendix B5

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫עמליהו‬ ʿAmalyāhû [laborious] work of HAE 10.96; 56.3 2 — ‫עמל‬
Yhwh (1×)
2 1
‫אלעדה‬ ʾElʿādāh El has adorned HAE Mur(7).2:3 1 1 ‫עדיאל‬
[the child] (3×)
‫עדיהו‬ ʿAdāyāhû Yhwh has adorned HAE 2.23; 3.3; 16.14, 15, 16, 14 1 ‫)?(מעדיה‬
[the child] 17, 18; 17.40; Arad(8).58:1; (5) (1×),
Arad(7).39:7; Arad(6).58:1; ‫)?(מעדי‬
BPHB 291; 292; 367a, b (1×)
Ammonite ‫עדאל‬ ʿAdāʾil El has adorned [the CAI 31 1
child]
Edomite ‫עדאל‬ ʿAdāʾēl El has adorned [the WSS 1062 1
child]
Phoenician ‫אבעד‬ ʾAbīʿado [my divine] father Benz 55; WSS 724 2
has adorned
‫עדה‬ ʿAdāh [DN] has adorned HAE KAgr(9).2 1 2 ‫ו‬/‫עדא‬
(4×)
‫יעדי‬ Yeʿday [DN] has adorned BPHB 206 1 —
17 18

5.5.2.╇Deliverance

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫דלתיהו‬ Daltāyāhû you, O Yhwh, have HAE 4.5 (see PIAP 33) 1 — Ps 22:10
drawn out [the ‫גחה‬
child]
‫דליהו‬ Dĕlāyāhû Yhwh has drawn HAE 2.7; 4.3, 4; 5.21; 14.24; 7 2
out Lak(6).15:4; BPHB 141 (3)
‫דליו‬ Dĕlāyau Yhwh has drawn HAE Haz(8).3:1 1 —
out
‫ביתאלדלני‬
Aramaicâ•…â•› Baytʾeldalanî Bethel has drawn Maraqten 72 1
me out
Aramaic ‫נבודלה‬ Nabûdalah Nabu has drawn out Maraqten 90 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשאדלה‬ Šēʾdalah Sin has drawn out NTA 70.7:7 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשמׁשדלה‬ Šamašdalah Shamash has drawn Maraqten 103 1
out
Aramaic ‫ׁשנדלה‬ Šindalah Sin has drawn out Maraqten 103 1
‫דלה‬ Dālāh [DN] has drawn HAE 4.1, 2; Sam(8).1.38:3 3 —
out
Moabite ‫ידלא‬ Yidlāʾ [DN] has drawn out WSS 1023 1
12 5
‫הצליהו‬ Hiṣṣīlyāhû Yhwh has HAE 5.23, 24, 25, 26; 14.11, 12, 16 —
delivered 48; 16.57; 62.1; Lak(6).1.1:1;
Gaz(7).1:4; NEE 92.79:18; BPHB
141; 159; 254; 307a, b
Ammonite ‫הצלאל‬ Hiṣṣīlʾil El has delivered WSS 928; BPPS 170; AMM 27.1:2 3
Moabite ‫יצלבעל‬ Yaṣṣīlbaʿal Baal has delivered BPPS 197 1
 Names of Birth 591

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫הצל‬ Hiṣṣīl [DN] has delivered BPHB 396 1 —
Moabite ‫הצל‬ Hiṣṣīl [DN] has delivered WSS 1022 1
17 0
‫איץ‬ ʾIṣ [DN] has acceler- HAE 1.27 1 0
ated [the birth]
Phoenician ‫אצי‬ ʾOṣay [DN] has accelerated WSS 717 (votive seal) 1
[the birth] (cf. Punic
‫)לעבצא‬
Phoenician ‫יחׁש‬ Yaḥuš [DN] has accelerated NEE 25.8 1
(or: has healed)
‫ גזא‬or ‫גז‬ Gāzāʾ or Gāz [DN] has severed BPHB 341 1 Ps 71:6
[me from the ‫( גזז‬2×)
umbilical cord]
Phoenician ‫גדעת‬ Gadaʿta you, O [DN], have Benz 102 1
severed
Phoenician ‫פרם‬ Parom [DN] has severed Benz 177 4
1 2
Aramaic ‫כרעדד‬ Kĕraʿadad Hadad has kneeled Maraqten 85 1
down [as a mid-
wife] (?)
‫גמריהו‬ Gĕmaryāhû Yhwh has com- HAE 3.26, 27, 28; Arad(8).40:1; 9 1
pleted [the birth] Arad(7).31:8; 35:4; (1)
Arad(7).38:3; Lak(6).1.1:1;
NEE 92.79:17
‫גמר‬ Gōmer [DN] has HAE 21.25; Sam(8).1.50:1; 4 1
completed BPHB 137; 193
Phoenician ‫גמר‬ Gamor [DN] has completed FSL 44.18 1
13 3
‫גמליהו‬ Gĕmalyāhû Yhwh has com- HAE 3.22, 23, 24, 25; 4.3; 8.63; 9 — ‫גמליאל‬
pleted [the birth] 43.2; BPHB 136; 168 (1×),
‫גמלי‬
(1×),
‫גמול‬
(2×)
9 3

5.5.3.╇ Divine support for the newborn

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫פקחיו‬ Pĕqaḥyau Yhwh has opened HAE 4.6 1 (1)
[the eyes of the
child]
‫פקחי‬ Paqḥî [DN] has opened HAE 1.46 1 —
[the eyes]
Aramaic ‫פקחי‬ Paqḥî [DN] has opened Maraqten 97 1
[the eyes of the child]
Phoenician ‫פקחי‬ Paqḥî [DN] has opened NEE 26.19 1
[the eyes]
592 Appendix B5

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫פקח‬ Peqaḥ [DN] has opened HAE 2.18; 13.84; 17.36; 57.3; 8 (1)
[the eyes] Haz(8).2:1; Lak(6).1.19:2; BPHB
11; 272
10 2
‫רגא‬ Rāgāʾ [DN] has quieted HAE Arad(8).68:3; 3 —
[the baby] Sam(8).1.78:1; Arad(7).31:2
‫רגע‬ Rāgāʿ [DN] has quieted HAE Sam(8).1.1:4 1 —
4 0
‫יחועלי‬ Yĕḥawwīʿalay the Exalted HAE Sam(8).1.55:2; 60:1 2 — ‫יחואל‬
brought [the child] (1×
to life or shall keep Kethiv),
alive ‫יחיאל‬
(10×)
Phoenician ‫יחומלך‬ Yeḥewwimilk Milk has brought to Benz 127 1
life or shall keep alive
Phoenician ‫יחוא‬ Yeḥewwiʾā [DN] has brought to Benz 127 1
life or shall keep alive
Phoenician ‫פתיחו‬ Pta[ḥ]yeḥewwi Ptah has brought to Benz 177 1
life or shall keep alive
‫חויהו‬ Ḥawwīyāhû Yhwh brought HAE 16.69 1 (1) ‫יחיה‬
to life
Phoen.╅╇╛↜渀屮‫תוחתרתׁשע‬ ʿAštartḥewwiti O Ashtarte, you have Benz 175 1
brought to life
‫יחי‬ Yĕḥî may it [the baby] HAE 16.3 1 —
stay alive, [O god]!
Moabite ‫כמׁשיחי‬ Kamošyĕḥî O Kamosh, may it WSS 1032 1
stay alive!
Phoenician ‫מריחי‬ Māreyĕḥî O lord, may it stay Benz 143 2
alive!
Phoenician ‫יחמלך‬ Yĕḥīmilk may it stay alive, O Benz 128 2
Milk!
4 12
‫בלטה‬ Balṭāh [DN] brought to Naveh 8.15 1 0
life
Aramaic ‫בלט‬ Balaṭ [DN] brought to life NTA 26.2:14 1
Aramaic ‫אחמן‬ ʾAḥīman my [divine] brother Maraqten 67 (cf. Sir 40:29) 1
has counted [the
baby among the
living]
Aramaic ‫חמנן‬ Ḥammanānī [my divine] uncle has TSF 653.46: obv. 1 1
counted me [among
the living]
Aramaic ‫אלמנני‬ ʾElmanānî El has counted me Maraqten 69 1
[among the living]
Aramaic ‫נס]ח[מנני‬ Nasuḥmananî Nasuch/Nusku has TSF 653.46: rev. 8 1
counted me [among
the living]
Aramaic ‫מנן‬ Manāni [DN] has counted me Maraqten 88; WSS 807 3
[among the living]
Aramaic ‫מנני‬ Manānî [DN] has counted me Maraqten 88; NTA 75.9:3 2
[among the living]
 Names of Birth 593

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫מני‬ Manî [DN] has counted NTA 89.13:7↜′ 1
[among the living]
Phoenician ‫ימן‬ Yimne [DN] has counted or NEE 26.27 1
may count [among
the living]
‫יחמליהו‬ Yaḥmolyāhû Yhwh has spared HAE 10.57; 21.8 2 —
[the child]
‫יחמל‬ Yaḥmol [DN] has spared HAE Kom(8).5:1 1 —
‫חמל‬ Ḥamūl the escaped HAE 4.17; 10.98 2 (1)
5 1
‫אצליהו‬ ʾAṣalyāhû Yhwh has set [the HAE 1.136; 1.137 2 0 Gen 27:36
child] aside

5.6.╇ Acceptance of the child;

care, naming, and circumcision of the child

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אלנתן‬ ʾElnātān El has given [the HAE 1.92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 139; 14 2
child] 3.26; 13.90; Arad(8).69:6;
Arad(6).110:1; Lak(6).1.3:15;
11:2; NEE 89.78:3; BPHB 93
Ammonite ‫אלנתן‬ ʾIlnatan El has given [the WSS 904 1
child]
Aramaic ‫אלנתן‬ ʾElnatan El has given Maraqten 69 3
Aramaic ‫אבנתן‬ ʾAbīnatan [my] father has given Maraqten 65 1
‫בעלנתן‬ Baʿalnātān Baal has given HAE 16.19 1 —
Ammonite ‫בעלנתן‬ Baʿalnatan Baal has given BPPS 152 1
Moabite ‫בעלנתן‬ Baʿalnatan Baal has given WSS 1020 1
Ammonite ‫בלנתן‬ Bēlnatan Baal has given AMM 36.2:11 1
Aramaic ‫בעלנתן‬ Baʿalnatan Baal has given WSS 1107 1
Phoenician ‫בעליתן‬ Baʿalyaton Baal has given Benz 95; WSS 719 9
‫יהונתן‬ Yĕhônātān Yhwh has given HAE 10.32 1 10
‫יונתן‬ Yaunātān Yhwh has given HAE 10.51; Sam(8).1.45:3; 3 6
BPHB 49a, b
Moabite ‫כמׁשנתן‬ Kamōšnātān Kamosh has given WSS 1034 1
Moabite ‫כמׁשית‬ Kamōšyat[on] Kamosh has given KAI 180.1 (MZM 275f.) 1
Aramaic ‫אדנתן‬ ʾAddunatan Adad has given Maraqten 66 1
Aramaic ‫הדנתן‬ Haddnatan Hadad has given WSS 786 (genuine?) 1
Phoenician ‫אׁשמניתן‬ Ešmunyaton Eshmun has given Benz 71 9
Phoenician↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫עׁשתרתיתן‬ ʿAštartyetna Ashtarte has given Benz 175 2
Phoenician ‫צדיתן‬ Ṣidyaton Sin has given Benz 177 2
Phoenician ‫רׁשפיתן‬ Rešepyaton Resheph has given Benz 179 2
‫נתנמלך‬ Nĕtanmalk Malk has given HAE 14.61 1 (1)
Phoenician ‫יתנמלך‬ Yatonmilk Milk has given Benz 130 2
Phoenician ‫מלכיתן‬ Milkyaton Milk has given Benz 139; Kition 805,1 19
594 Appendix B5

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫נתנבעל‬ Nĕtanbaʿal Baal has given NEE 40.49 (Phoenician?) 1 — ‫נתנאל‬
(10×)
‫נתניהו‬ Nĕtanyāhû Yhwh has given HAE 10.9; 14.58, 59, 60; 16.65; 9 4
Arad(8).56:1–2; Kom(8).2:1;
Arad(6).23:9; BPHB 309
‫נתניו‬ Nĕtanyau Yhwh has given HAE Nasb(8).1:1 1 —
Phoenician ‫יתנבל‬ Yatonbēl Bel has given Benz 129 1
Phoenician ‫יתנבעל‬ Yatonbaʿal Baal has given Benz 129 1
Phoenician ‫יתנחף‬ Yatonḥapi Apis has given Benz 130 3
Phoenician ‫יתנצד‬ Yatonṣid Sin has given Benz 130 2
‫נתן‬ Nātān [DN] has given HAE 14.50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 13 8
56, 57; Gem(7).3:7; BPHB 50;
272; 340?; 389
Phoenician ‫יתן‬ Yaton [DN] has given Benz 129 1
‫מתניהו‬ Mattanyāhû gift of Yhwh HAE 1.133; 2.11; 5.3; 13.101, 26 2
102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,
108; 16.26, 73; 18.17; 20.8, 9, 10;
Seb(8).9:1; Lak(6)1.1,5; BPHB
196; 260?; 345; 346; FHCB
84.33; 85.34; Lemaire 204.4:2
‫מתניה‬ Mattanyāh gift of Yhwh BPHB 263 1 5
Ammonite ‫מתנאל‬ Mattanʾel gift of El WSS 933; 952; BPPS 174 3
‫מתתיהו‬ Mattityāhû gift of Yhwh HAE 17.13 A 1 1 ‫מתתה‬
(3) (1×)
‫מתן‬ Mattān gift [of DN] HAE 1.38, 50, 155; 3.22; 4.8; 22 2 ‫מתני‬
8.1; 10.37; 13.41, 93, 94, 95, 96, (3×),
97, 98, 99, 100; 14.39, 49; 16.11; ‫אתנן‬
21.97; Msa(7).3:2; BPHB 143 (1×)
‫אתני‬
(1×)
Phoenician ‫מתן‬ Matten gift [of DN] Benz 143 1
Phoenician ‫מתני‬ Mattenay gift [of DN] Benz 146 1
94 60
‫יהונדב‬ Yĕhônādāb Yhwh has pre- HAE 10.42; FHCB 86.35? 2 2 ‫אבינדב‬
sented [the child] (4×)
‫נדביהו‬ Nĕdabyāhû Yhwh has pre- HAE Arad(7).39:3; PHPB 38; 4 — ‫אחינדב‬
sented [the child] 164; FHCB 70.19 (1×)
‫נדביה‬ Nĕdabyāh Yhwh has pre- HAE 70.5 1 1 ‫עמינדב‬
sented [the child] (5×)
Ammonite ‫אבנדב‬ ʾAbīnadab [my divine] father WSS 876 (votive seal) 1
has presented
Ammonite ‫אחנדב‬ ʾAḥīnadab [my divine] brother WSS 880 1
has presented
Ammonite ‫עמינדב‬ ʿAmmînadab [my divine] uncle has WSS 858; 859 (king); AMM 27.1:1 (king) 2
presented
Ammonite ‫אלנדב‬ ʾIlnadab El has presented WSS 900; 901; 902; 903 4
Ammonite ‫יאנדב‬ Yaʾnadab Ya? has presented Heltzer 239 1
Ammonite ‫נדבאל‬ Nadabʾil El has presented WSS 921; 924; 953; 954; 955; 956; AMM 8
36.2:4; BPPS 156
 Names of Birth 595

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫נדב‬ Nādāb [DN] has HAE 1.90; 13.46; BPHB 261; 4 4
presented FHCB 73.22
11 17 19× with
‫זבד‬
Aramaic ‫ׁשנזבד‬ Šinzabad Sin has presented TSF 655.47:17 1
Aramaic ‫אליהב‬ ʾElyahab El has given Maraqten 68 1
Aramaic ‫גדיא‬ Gaddiyāʾ Gad has gi[ven] (?) NTA 85.12:7 1
Aramaic ‫הדיהב‬ Haddyahab Hadad has given NTA 54.6:3′ 1
Aramaic ‫והבדה‬ Wahabada Ada (Idum.-Arab. WSS 790 1
goddess) has given
Aramaic ‫סריהב‬ Suryahab Assur has given WSS 831 1
‫אׁשאב‬ ʾAšʾāb the [divine] father HAE 1.143 1 —
has given
‫אשחר‬ ʾAšḥōr Horus has given HAE 1.144; Sam(8).1.13:3f. 2 (1) ‫?אׁשבעל‬
(1×),
‫?אׁשבל‬
(1×)
‫אׁשיהו‬ ʾAšyāhû Yhwh has given HAE 1.84, 85, 146, 147, 148, 22 — ‫יהואׁש‬
149, 150; 13.38, 64, 86; 16.62; (2×),
21.11; Arad(8).40, [7]; [11]; ‫יואׁש‬
Arad(8).51:1; Arad(7).35:2; (4×)
Arad(6).17:3; Lak(6).15:6; NEE
92.79:7; BPHB 88; 120; 394
‫אׁשיה‬ ʾAšyāh Yhwh has given HAE 1.86; 2.31 2 —
‫אׁשא‬ ʾAšāʾ [DN] has given HAE Sam(8).1.22:2; 23:2; 24:1; 12 —
[25:2]; 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 29:1;
37:3; 39:3; 102:1; Jer(7).15:1
Ammonite ‫אׁשא‬ ʾAšaʾ [DN] has given WSS 920 1
Aramaic ‫אׁשא‬ ʾAšāʾ [DN] has given NTA 73.8:9 1
Aramaic ‫אׁשה‬ ʾAšāh [DN] has given WSS 1129 (Maraqten 71) 1
‫אׁשי‬ ʾAšai [DN] has given BPHB 119; 192 2 —
‫יאוׁש‬ Yāʾûš [DN] has given HAE Lak(6).1.2:1; 3:2; 6:1; 4 —
BPHB 398?
‫יאׁש‬ Yāʾūš [DN] has given HAE 1.95; 10.6, 7; BPHB 180a, b 4 —
Aramaic ‫יאׁש‬ Yaʾūš [DN] has given WSS 799 1
‫מאׁש‬ Mūʾaš given [by DN] HAE 13.2 1 —
Moabite ‫מאׁש‬ Mūʾaš given [by DN] WSS 1011; 1037; 1038 3
Moabite ‫כמׁשמאׁש‬ Kamōšmūʾaš given by Kamosh (?) WSS 1033 1
50 9
‫מגן‬ Māgān [DN] has HAE 3.27; 22.3; Gar(7).2:1 3 0
presented
Ammonite ‫מגן‬ Magan [DN] has presented AMM 31.3 1
Phoenician ‫מגן‬ Magon [DN] has presented Benz 133 3
596 Appendix B5

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫מנח‬ Manōăḥ presented [by DN] HAE 13.2 (cf. Ges18, 696) 1 (3) ‫מנחת‬
(1×)
Ammonite ‫מנח‬ Manōḥ presented [of DN] WSS 892; 941 2
Moabite ‫מנח‬ Manōḥ presented [of DN] WSS 1040 1
1 4
‫נמׂשר‬ Nimśār handed over [by HAE 14.20, 21; NEE 92.79:6–7; 3 0
DN] (?) (Niphal participle from ‫)מסר‬
‫יחץ‬ Yaḥaṣ [DN] has selected NEE 56.61 (from ‫)חצה‬ 1 — ‫יחצאל‬
(1×),
‫יחציאל‬
(1×)
Moabite ‫יחץ‬ Yaḥaṣ [DN] has distributed WSS 1025 1
1 2
Aramaic ‫דגנבזי‬ Dagānbazî Dagon has WSS 1025 1
distributed (?) (from
bzy II, DNWSI 1:149)
‫בקיהו‬ Buqqyāhû Yhwh has amply HAE Jer(7).5:1 1 1
given
‫בקי‬ Buqqî [DN] has amply HAE 13.63 1 2
given
2 3
Phoenician ‫יׁשבע‬ Yišbaʿ [DN] has generously NEE 26.26 1
given
‫פזרי‬ Pazrî [DN] has gener- HAE 17.37 1 0 Ps 112:9
ously given
‫פטיהו‬ Pūṭīyāhû the one whom HAE EGed(7/6).1; BPHB 321 2 0 Egyp.
Yhwh has given
Phoenician ‫פתאס‬ Putiʾisi the one whom Isis Gibson 72.20:1 1
has given
‫ׁשמיה‬ Šemyāh descendant of HAE Arad(6).110:1 1 0
Yhwh
Aramaic ‫ׁשמאב‬ Šemʾab descendant of the WSS 1118; Hug 29 (GeldL 1) 2
[divine] father
Aramaic ‫ׁשמאדד‬ Šemʾadad descendant of Adad Hug 30 (GeldL 5) 1
Phoenician ‫ׁשמאל‬ Šemʾēl descendant of El Hug 30 (GeldL 5) 1
Phoenician ‫ׁשמזבל‬ Šemzabūl descendant of the Benz 181 (fem.) 1
prince [Baal]
Phoenician ‫ׁשמא‬ Šemāʾ descendant of [DN] Benz 180 (fem.) 1
Aramaic ‫ל‬â�¨‫א‬â�©‫זרע‬ Zarʿʾēl seed of El Maraqten 79 1
Phoenician ‫זרעי‬ Zerʿay seed [of DN] NEE 26.19 1
‫יברכיהו‬ Yĕberekyāhû Yhwh has blessed HAE Lak(6/7).26:2 1 1
or may Yhwh bless
‫יברך‬ Yĕbarek [DN] has blessed HAE Lak(6/7).26:2 2 —
or, may [DN] bless
‫ברכיהו‬ Berekyāhû Yhwh has blessed HAE 2.26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; 9 3 ‫ברכאל‬
Gar(7).1:1; Arad(6).22:1; NEE (3) (1×)
83.77:4
 Names of Birth 597

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Ammonite [‫אלבר]ך‬ ʾIlbarak El has blessed WSS 888 1
Ammonite ‫ברכאל‬ Barakʾil El has blessed WSS 863; 926; 943; SAJ 339.46; Heltzer 5
235 (king)
Aramaic ‫מרברך‬ Mārebarek the lord has blessed Maraqten 89 1
Phoenician ‫ברכבעל‬ Barokbaʿal Baal has blessed Benz 101 1
Phoenician ‫ברכׁשמׁש‬ Barokšamaš Shamash has blessed Benz 101 1
Phoen.╇╛╛╛↜渀屮 ‫ברכתמלקרת‬ Barkatamelqart you have blessed, O Benz 101 1
Melqart
‫ברכי‬ Berekî [DN] has blessed HAE 70.1 1 — ‫ברכה‬
(1×)
Aramaic ‫ברכא‬ Barakaʾ [DN] has blessed Maraqten 73; WSS 1108 2
‫ברך‬ Bārūk blessed [by DN] HAE Sam(8).3:1f.; Sam(8).9:1 2 4
Aramaic ‫ברכבעל‬ Barikbaʿal blessed of Baal Maraqten 74 (ARI 371.76) 1
Aramaic ‫ברכי‬ Barikî blessed of [DN] WSS 779 1
15 13
‫יסף‬ Yōsēp [DN] has added [a HAE 15.1 1 1 ‫אביסף‬
child to the family] (1×),
‫אליסף‬
(2×),
‫יוספיה‬
(1×)
Phoenician ‫בעליסף‬ Baʿalyūsep Baal has added Benz 95; WSS 732 2
Phoenician ‫יסף‬ Yūsep [DN] has added FSL 48.23; 56f.:31 1
1 5
‫ירבעם‬ Yarobʿam the [divine] uncle HAE 21.58 1 2
has increased or
may increase
Aramaic ‫ירבן‬ Yarbēnī [DN] has increased Maraqten 84 1
or may increase
‫מריבעל‬ Mĕrîbaʿal Baal has blessed HAE Sam(8).1.2:7 1 1
‫מרימות‬ Mĕrêmaut Mot has blessed HAE 13,79; [Sam(8).1.33:3]; 3 (2) ‫מרמות‬
Arad(8).50:1
‫מריהו‬ Mĕrayāhû Yhwh has blessed Lemaire 201.2:7? 10? 1 —
Phoenician ‫מרא‬ Morrāʾ (?) bless, [O DN]! FSL 25f.:3 1
5 3
Ammonite ↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫)?(אבדׁשא‬ ʾAbīdiššeʾ [my divine] father BPPS 152 1
has caused to thrive
(?)
Phoenician [‫אלדׁש]א‬ ʾElidiššeʾ [my] god has caused Benz 61 (fem.) 1
to thrive
Phoenician ╛╛╛‫אׁשמנצלח‬ ʾEšmunṣaloḥ Eshmun has caused Benz 72 2
to prosper
Phoenician ‫בעלצלח‬ Baʿalṣaloḥ Baal has caused to Benz 98 2
prosper
Phoenician ‫דעמצלח‬ Doʿamṣaloḥ Doam has caused to Benz 108 1
prosper
598 Appendix B5

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫)?( יעמס‬ Yaʿmos [DN] has carried Naveh 4.6? 1 —
or may carry [on
his arm]
‫עמסיהו‬ ʿAmasyāhû Yhwh has carried Naveh 5.7 1 (1)
[the child on his
arm]
‫עמס‬ ʿAmōs who is carried [by HAE 56.4; BPHB 22 2 (1)
DN on his arm]
Ammonite ‫עמסאל‬ ʿAmasʾil El has carried [the WSS 917; 955; 964 3
child on his arm]
Phoen.╅€╛↜渀屮 ‫מלקרתעמס‬ Melqartʿamos Melqart has carried Benz 141 1
[on his arm]
Phoenician ‫עמס‬ ʿAmūs who is carried [by Benz 172 1
DN on his arm]
4 2
‫כלכליהו‬ Kalkōlyāhû Yhwh has looked HAE 11.3 1 — ‫יכיליה‬
after [the child] (1×)
‫כלכל‬ Kalkōl [DN] has looked HAE 8.6, 10; 11.2; 21.3; BPHB 5 1
after 222
6 2
‫יועליהו‬ Yôʿelyāhû the one for whom HAE 10.52, 53 13.43; NEE 8 0
Yhwh is useful 89.78:1; 92.79:9; 16; Lemaire
201.2:3; 219.14:1
‫מליהו‬ Malyāhû Yhwh has HAE 13.32, 33, 34; BPHB 404 4 0
circumcised

5.7.╇ Misfortune in the vicinity of birth

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫איעם‬ ʾAyyaʿam where is the [di- HAE 10.82 1 — ‫איוב‬
vine?] uncle? (1×)
Ammonite ‫אינדב‬ ʾAynūdeb where is the [divine] WSS 882; AMM 36.2:9; Heltzer 221 3
giver?
Moabite ‫אינדב‬ ʾAynūdeb where is the [divine] SAJ 421.2 1
giver?
Aramaic ‫איעזר‬ ʾAyʿezer where is the [divine] WSS 766 1
help?
Ammonite ‫איא‬ ʾAyyāʾ where is [DN] WSS 881 1
1 1
Ammonite ‫אוא‬ ʾAwāʾ where is [DN]? (?) WSS 879 1
 Names of Birth 599

5.8.╇ Infant mortality and substitute names

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫חבלי‬ Ḥablî (?) [the genuine] is HAE 8.4 (cf. Ḫabil-kēnu) 1 0
destroyed
‫נחמיהו‬ Nĕḥemyāhû Yhwh has com- HAE 1.130; 8.59; 13.34; 14.14, 12 (3)
forted [with the 15; 16.16; Arad(8).40:1;
birth of a new 59:3; Arad(7).31:3; 36:2;
child] Arad(6).11:5; NEE 92.79:11
‫נחמיו‬ Nĕḥemyau Yhwh has HAE 8.17; 10.36, 69; 14.4, 5, 1 —
comforted 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 16.31;
17.44; 21.38; Arad(6).16:10;
17.1; 8; BPHB 214; 215a, b; 216;
259a–c; 262; 263; FHCB 79.28a,
b; Lemaire 215.12:6
Phoenician ‫נחמי‬ Naḥomay [DN] has comforted Benz 146 2
‫נחם‬ Naḥa/um [DN] has HAE 8.17; 10.36, 69; 14.4, 5, 27 1 ‫נחמני‬
comforted 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 16.31; (1) (1×)
17.44; 21.38; Arad(6).16:10;
17.1, 8; BPHB 214; 215a, b; 216;
259a–c; 262; 263; FHCB 79.28a,
b; Lemaire 215.12:6
Aramaic ‫נחם‬ Naḥam [DN] has comforted WSS 818; ARI 368.48 2
Ammonite ‫ינחם‬ Yanaḥem [DN] has comforted WSS 867; 894; 919; 935; 936; 944 6
or may comfort
Phoenician ‫נחם‬ Naḥum [DN] has comforted Gibson 74.21:3 (Benz 147, Punic) 1
‫מנחם‬ Mĕnaḥēm comforter [of par- HAE 3.32; 8.34; 10.80; 11.2; 29 1
ents mourning for 13.49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
a deceased child] 56, 57; 16.12; 17.43; 53.5;
Arad(8).72:1; Sam(8).6:5;
BMir(8).2:1; Gaz(7).1:1; NEE
92.79:6; BPHB 144; 239; 240;
241; 319; 325; FHCB 83.32?;
Lemaire 211.10: obv. 9?
Ammonite ‫מנחם‬ Manaḥem comforter CAI 83; WSS 861; 893; 905; 942; 943; 15
944; 945; 946; 947; AMM 36.2, 3, 6, 7;
Heltzer 241
Aramaic ‫מנחם‬ Menaḥem comforter Maraqten 87; WSS 1110 4
Phoenician ‫מנחם‬ Menaḥem comforter Benz 141 6
Edomite ‫מנחמת‬ Mĕnaḥemet [female] comforter WSS 1053 (fem.) 1
‫תנחם‬ Tanḥūm comfort HAE 1.24, 35; 12.1; 16.29; 22.3, 10 — ‫תנחמת‬
4; 62.1; Arad(7).39:4; BPHB (1×)
390; 391
Ammonite ‫תנחם‬ Tanḥum comfort WSS 947 1
Aramaic ‫תנחם‬ Tanḥum comfort ARI 368.48 1
79 8
‫מנׁשה‬ Mĕnaššēh who makes forget HAE 13.60, 61 2 5
[the death of an
earlier child]
600 Appendix B5

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Moabite ‫מנׁשה‬ Mĕnaššēh who makes forget WSS 1006 1
Phoenician ‫מנׁשי‬ Menaššê who makes forget Benz 142 1
‫מנׁש‬ Mĕnaš who makes forget HAE 13.53 1 —
‫ינׁש‬ Yĕnaš [DN] has made BPHB 198 1 — ‫יׁשיהו‬
forget (1×),
‫יׁשיה‬
(4×)
Phoenician ‫יׁשא‬ Yaššeʾ [DN] has made forget NEE 26.25 1
4 10
‫אליׁשב‬ ʾElyāšīb El has caused [the HAE 1.84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 14 (8) ‫יׁשבאב‬
deceased child] to 89, 90; 21.56; Arad(8).64:2; (1×),
return Arad(7).38:5; 47:1; Arad(6).1:1 ‫יׁשבעם‬
et€al. Lak(6).15:8; BPHB 88 (2×),
‫יׁשוב‬
(2×)
‫מׁשיב‬ Mēšīb who brought [the BPHB 249 1 — ‫מׁשובב‬
deceased child] (1×),
back ‫ׁשובב‬
(2×)
15 16
‫ׁשלמיהו‬ Šellemyāhû Yhwh has replaced HAE 2.26; 5.14; 7.5; 21.53, 54, 11 4
[the deceased 55, 56; Gar(7).1:4; Lak(6).1.9:7; (4)
child] BPHB 93; 374?
Aramaic ‫ׁשלמיו‬ Šallemyau Yhwh has replaced Hug 29 (GeldL 2) 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשלמאל‬ Šallemʾēl El has replaced Maraqten 103; WSS 846? 2
Phoenician ‫אבׁשלם‬ ʾAbišillem [my divine] father Benz 55 1
has replaced
Phoenician╛╛↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫אׁשמנׁשלם‬ ʾEšmunšillem Eshmun has replaced Benz 73 1
Phoenician ‫בעלׁשלם‬ Baʿalšillem Baal has replaced Benz 100; Gibson 115.29:1 4
‫ׁשלם‬ Šallum substitute [for the HAE 1.42, 71; 2.3, 15; 8.27; 58 14
deceased child] 13.21, 42; 21.27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
50; [Arad(8).44:1]; Gem(7).3:3;
Arad(7).35:3; Ser(7).1:3;
Lak(6).1.3:20; BPHB 44a–c;
91; 118; 221; 285; 298; 363a–c;
364a–c; 365; 366; 367a, b; 368;
370; 371; 372; 373; 377; 391;
416; Lemaire 204.3:2; 211.10:
obv.€10?; 214.11:4
Aramaic ‫ׁשלם‬ Šallum substitute Maraqten 102; NTA 25.2:10; Hug 29 3
(GeldL 3)
Phoenician ‫ׁשלם‬ Šallum substitute Benz 180; NEE 26.20 9
‫ׁשלמה‬ Šallumā/ōh his/her substitute HAE 21.51 (fem.), 52 2 1
‫ׁשלמת‬ Šĕlōmīt [female] substitute BPHB 375a–c (fem.) 1 (3) ‫ית‬/‫ׁשלמו‬
 Names of Birth 601

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫מׁשלם‬ Mĕšullam substitute [for the HAE 1.107, 137; 10.14, 68; 13.7, 37 16 ‫מׁשלמיהו‬
deceased child] 15, 17a, 24, 68, 72, 80, 81, 82, 83, (1×),
84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90; 14.28, ‫מׁשלמיה‬
38; Arad(7).39:3; Arad(6).110:1; (1×)
BPHB 186?; 250a–c; 251a, b;
252; 253; 254; 255a, b; 256; 257;
258; 295; Lemaire 211.10: rev. 5
‫מׁשלמת‬ Mĕšullemīt [female] substitute HAE 13.91; NEE 83.77:6 (fem.) 2 1 ‫ית‬/‫מׁשלמו‬
(2)
111 47
‫סלא‬ Sālūʾ [the deceased child HAE 1.156; 13.76; 15.4; NEE 6 (1) ‫סלו‬
has been] replaced 92.79:2; BPHB 273 (1) (1×)
Ammonite ‫סלא‬ Sālūʾ replacement WSS 958 1
Aramaic ‫סילא‬ Sîlāʾ replacement (?) ARI 392.311 1
‫סלאה‬ Sĕlūʾāh she who is the HAE 15.5 1 —
replacement
‫מסלא‬ Mĕsullāʾ he who is the BPHB 242 (Pual participle) 1 —
replacement
8 3
‫תחת‬ Taḥat substitute HAE 22.1 1 2
 Appendix B6

Secular Names

6.1.╇ Names related to the situation of birth

6.1.1.╇ Related to the process of birth

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫חצי‬ Ḥēṣî [who was swift] as HAE 8.63; 13.29 2 —
an arrow
‫ברקי‬ Barqay [who was quick] as BPHB 23; 100; 131 3 (1) ‫ברק‬
a bolt of lightning
Aramaic ‫ברק‬ Baraq [like] a bolt of Maraqten 74; NTA 89.13:2; Röllig, 3
lightning AoF 24 368.1:4
‫חׁשי‬ Ḥūšay the speedy one HAE 8.65; Arad(8).57:1; BPHB 3 (2)
127?
Ammonite ‫צנר‬ Ṣinnōr [like a] waterfall WSS 971; 972; AMM 36.2:3 3
Phoenician ‫צנר‬ Ṣinnōr [like a] waterfall Benz 177 1
‫גרפי‬ Garpay who was washed FHCB 88.37 1 —
away (?)
‫פרפר‬ Porpar who was shaken to HAE 16.49 1 —
and fro
Ammonite ‫פרפר‬ Porpar who was shaken to WSS 895 (SAJ 179.4, Moabite); BPPS 179 2
and fro
‫מׁשמׁש‬ Mōšmaš the palpated one HAE 1.147; 10.19 2 — ‫מוׁשי‬
(1×)
‫מׁשׁש‬ Mūšaš (?) the palpated one BPHB 259a–c 1 —
Aramaic ‫חבׁש‬ Ḥabbūš bandaged (?) Maraqten 79 1
‫בכי‬ Bĕkî whiny HAE 2.3 1 —
‫צרח‬ Ṣeraḥ bawling HAE 8.58 1 —
‫יתם‬ Yatom orphan HAE 10.101; 21.10, 102; BPHB 5 (1)
221; Naveh 7.10
Edomite ‫יתם‬ Yatom orphan WSS 1054 1
Phoenician ‫יתם‬ Yatom orphan WSS 742 1
20 5
Aramaic ‫ׁשכח‬ Šakūḥ foundling Maraqten 102 1
Aramaic ‫כרזי‬ Karīzay bought in an auction Maraqten 85 1
(?) (cf. DNWSI 1:535)
Phoenician ‫תאם‬ Tōʾam twin Benz 185 1

602
 Secular Names 603

6.1.2.╇ Related to the day of birth

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫חגי‬ Ḥaggay [born] on the feast HAE 1.87; 2.9; 5.8; 8.3, 9, 10, 11, 13 2 ‫חגית‬
day 12, 13, 14; 14.52; 16.30; Lemaire (1×)
215.12:2 [‫חגיה‬
(1×)]
Aramaic ‫חגי‬ Ḥaggay [born] on the feast AMM 36.2:9 1
day
Aramaic ‫חגי‬ Ḥaggay [born] on the feast NTA 89.13:9′ 1
day
Phoenician ‫חגי‬ Ḥaggay [born] on the feast Benz 109 1
day
Ammonite ‫חג‬ Ḥag [born on the] feast WSS 941 1
day
Phoenician ‫חגת‬ Ḥaggīt she [who was born] Benz 109 1
on the feast day
‫גׁשמי‬ Gišmî [born] on a rainy HAE 3.32; 14.37 2 (1) ‫גׁשם‬
day
‫נמטר‬ Nimṭar [born] on a rainy HAE Mur(7).2:1 1 (1) ‫מטרי‬
day
‫חרף‬ Ḥorep [born] in autumn HAE 16.21; BPHB 111; 175 3 1 ‫?חריף‬
(1)
‫ׁשלגי‬ Šilgî [born] on a snowy HAE 10.43 (corrected by BPHB 1 —
day 201.195a-d)
20 7
Aramaic ‫אללי‬ ʾUlulay [born] in [the month NTA 34.3:16 1
of] Ulul
Aramaic ‫כנני‬ Kanūnay [born] in [the month Maraqten 85; NTA 26.2:11; 107.19:3; 4
of] Kanun Röllig, AoF 24 368.1:7

6.1.3.╇ The child’s function in the family

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫ׁשם‬ Šēm descendant HAE 1.44 1 1 ‫ׁשמא‬
(2×)
Phoenician ‫ׁשם‬ Šem descendant Benz 180 1
‫נבי‬ Nûbay fruit HAE 10.83; 13.10; 16.66; 21.82 4 (1)
‫צמח‬ Ṣemaḥ scion HAE Arad(8).49:11 1 —
Aramaic ‫ׁשרׁש‬ Šuršu root WSS 823 1
‫פארת‬ Pōʾrat (?) shoot HAE 14.22 1 —
‫מירב‬ Mērab growth HAE 1.122; 13.17 2 (1)
Aramaic ‫ברעזי‬ Barʿuzzî son of my strength NTA 53.6:5 1
‫ׁשבע‬ Šebaʿ fullness [for the HAE 21.18; Sam(8).1.2:6; 3 2 ‫־ׁשבע‬â•”‫בת‬
family] Arad(7).38:4 (1×)
‫ׁשבעת‬ Šibʿat she who is fullness HAE Jer(7).13:1 (fem.?) 1 —
[for the family]
604 Appendix B6

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Phoenician ‫ׁשבעת‬ Šibʿat she who is fullness FSL 62.39 (fem.) 1
[for the family]
13 8

6.1.4.╇ Esteem for the child

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫בצר‬ Beṣer golden HAE 21.12 1 1
‫חורץ‬ Ḥûraṣ golden (?) HAE 8.16 1 —
Phoenician ‫חרץ‬ Ḥarūṣ golden Heltzer 277 1
‫גלגל‬ Galgūl little bell HAE Arad(8).49:3 1 —
‫עדן‬ ʿEden bliss BPHB 293 1 2
‫עדנה‬ ʿAdnāh bliss HAE KAgr(9).3 1 1 ‫עדין‬
(2) (1×),
‫עדינא‬
(1×)
‫מעדנה‬ Maʿadnāh [fem.] bliss HAE 13.62 (fem.) 1 —
Moabite ‫בנעדנן‬ Benʿadnan son of bliss BPPS 194 1
‫נעמה‬ Naʿamāh the lovely one HAE 14.23 (fem.) 1 2 ‫נעמי‬
(1)
‫נאהבת‬ Naʾhābat the beloved one HAE 14.1 (fem.) 1 —
Aramaic ‫חבב‬ Ḥabib the beloved one BPPS 122 1
Aramaic ‫מודד‬ Mawdād the beloved one Maraqten 86 1
‫מׁשר‬ Mēšar the upright one HAE 14.25 1 —
‫מוקר‬ Mauqīr the honored one HAE Gar(7).1:3 1 —
Aramaic ‫מוקר‬ Maukir the honored one Maraqten 86 1
10 11

6.1.5.╇ Babble names

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫גגי‬ Gagî babble name (?) HAE 3.9; FHCB 66.16 2 —
‫פפי‬ Papî(?) babble name (?) HAE 13.54 1 —
Aramaic ‫בבי‬ Babî babble name Maraqten 71 1
2 0
 Secular Names 605

6.2.╇ Personality traits

6.2.1.╇ Physical and mental traits

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫ׁשמנם‬ Šomnām (?) fatty HAE 1.40 1 — ‫מׁשמנה‬
(1×)
‫אבסי‬ ʾAbsî like [something] BPHB 59 1 —
fattened
‫כרׂשן‬ Karśōn [with a] thick HAE Mur(7).2:3 1 —
stomach
‫עבל‬ ʿEbal thick BPHB 290 (Weippert refers to 1 (1) [‫ובל‬/‫עי‬
Arab. ʿabl) (2×)]
‫קטן‬ Qāṭān small HAE Arad(9).76:5 (?) 1 —
Aramaic ‫גדל‬ Gadūl tall Maraqten 75 1
‫ׁשפל‬ Šapīl low HAE 17.11 1 —
‫קרח‬ Qōraḥ bald HAE Arad(8).49:2; 2 3
Lak(7/6).26:4
Aramaic ‫קירח‬ Qayraḥ bald Maraqten 99 1
Aramaic ‫קרחא‬ Qarḥāʾ the bald-headed BPPS 138; NTA 84.12:11; 89.13:10′ 3
‫גבח‬ Gibbeăḥ bald HAE Gar(7).1:2 1 —
Aramaic ‫גבוחא‬ Gĕbûḥāʾ the bald-headed Maraqten 75 1
Aramaic ‫גרע‬ Gareʿ shaved Maraqten 76 1
‫פסח‬ Pasĕaḥ lame HAE 17.10; BPHB 370; Lemaire 3 3
217.13:7
Ammonite ‫פסח‬ Paseḥ lame NEE 71.70 1
Aramaic ‫עפסח‬ ʾEpsaḥ lame NTA 101.17:5 1
Aramaic ‫עור‬ ʿAwir blind or one-eyed WSS 836 1
‫נעה‬ Nōʿāh swinging HAE Sam(8).1 (name of a clan) 1 1
‫אטר‬ ʾAṭer crooked FHCB 81.29; 81.30; 82.31? 3 2
Aramaic ‫עקל‬ ʿAqal crooked NTA 15.1 1
‫זכן‬ Zākēn aged HAE 7.8 1 —
‫יבׁש‬ Yābēš dried out HAE Lak(6).1.19:5 1 1
Phoenician ‫מרץ‬ Mereṣ ill NEE 26.31 1
‫יפה‬ Yāpāh [she, the] beautiful HAE 10.62 (fem.) 1 —
Aramaic ‫לבן‬ Laben white Maraqten 86 1
‫הׂשרק‬ Haśśōrēq the red one HAE Jer(7).5:2 1 —
‫פארר‬ Pāʾrur redness HAE 16.36; 17.1, 2; BPHB 313 4 —
‫גחם‬ Gaḥam the blazing one HAE Arad(7).31:6 1 1
‫רצף‬ Reṣep [like] heating BPHB 140 1 — ‫רצפה‬
stones (1×)
‫ׁשחרחר‬ Šĕḥarḥor almost black HAE 16.10; 21.23 2 — Cant 1:6
Ammonite ‫ׁשוחר‬ Šôḥer black WSS 865; 946 2
Edomite ‫חׁשך‬ Ḥašōk dark WSS 1059 1
Aramaic ‫אכמא‬ ʾUkkāmāʾ the black one WSS 767 1
606 Appendix B6

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫חם‬ Ḥām hot HAE Or(8).4:1 1 1
‫מלח‬ Melaḥ salty BPHB 255a, b (or Mallaḥ 1 —
‘sailor’)
‫ׁשקץ‬ Šiqqūṣ digusting NEE 89.78:5 1 —
‫מבן‬ Mabīn the intelligent one HAE 13.6 1 — ‫?יבין‬
(1×)
Edomite ‫חכם‬ Ḥākām wise WSS 1058? 1
Aramaic ‫חכם‬ Ḥakkīm wise Maraqten 81 1
‫נבל‬ Nābāl stupid/noble (?) HAE 1.124 1 1
‫עפצח‬ ʾEpṣaḥ cheerful HAE Sam(8).1.31:2; 90:2 2 —
Ammonite ‫סרר‬ Sarar stubborn (?) WSS 869
‫)?( חסף‬ Ḥāṣūp (?) cheeky HAE 13.69 1 —
36 18
Aramaic ‫ׁשלה‬ Šelah quiet BPPS 145 1
Aramaic ‫חסן‬ Ḥasān quiet TSF 655.47:19 1
Aramaic ‫קׁשרא‬ Qašīrāʾ strong NTA 49.5:8 1
Aramaic ‫פטט‬ Paṭiṭ garrulous NTA 93.12:2′ 1

6.2.2.╇Occupation

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫אגור‬ ʾAgûr paid worker HAE Arad(8).42:1 (?) 1 1
‫כרמי‬ Karmî wine-grower HAE 10.13; 11.11; BPHB 71; 7 3
224a-c; 225; 226; Lemaire
217.13:2
‫ציד‬ Ṣayyād huntsman HAE Arad(8).52:1 1 —
‫ערס‬ ʿArās dough maker NEE 89.78:6 1 —
10 4
Aramaic ‫נגר‬ Nager carpenter Maraqten 90 1
Aramaic ‫נגׁש‬ Nageš master Maraqten 90 1
Aramaic ‫חזרן‬ Ḥuzirān swineherd (?) Maraqten 80 1
Phoenician ‫מסכן‬ Misken beggar Benz 142 2

6.2.3.╇Origin

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫בוזי‬ Bûzî the one from Buz HAE 14.58 1 2
‫בזא‬ Būzāʾ the one from Buz HAE Seb(8).1:4 1 —
(?)
‫בעלמעני‬ Baʿalmĕʿōnî the one from HAE Sam(8).1.27:3 1 —
Baal-Meʿon
 Secular Names 607

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫גדר‬ Gader the one from BPHB 253 1 (1) ‫גדרי‬
[Bet-]Gader
‫היהדי‬ Hayyĕhūdî the Judean HAE Sam(8).1.51:3 1 (1) ‫יהודי‬
‫כׁשי‬ Kūšî the Ethiopian HAE 11.12, 13; 21.89; BPHB 291 4 (3)
Ammonite ‫כׁשי‬ Kūšî the Ethiopian NEE 71.70 1
‫מצרי‬ Miṣrî the Egyptian HAE 13.71, 72; NEE 92.79:10 7 —
(with Judean father!); BPHB
244; 245; 246; Lemaire 210.10:
obv.€3?
Aramaic ‫מצרי‬ Miṣrî the Egyptian Maraqten 88 1
Phoenician ‫מצרי‬ Miṣrî the Egyptian Benz 142; WSS 1093; FSL 47.21 3
‫נגבי‬ Nĕgbî the one from the HAE 14.2 1
Negev
‫נגב‬ Negeb [the one from] the HAE 22.4 1
Negev
‫קדרי‬ Qedārî the one from HAE 19.1 1
Kedar
‫קעלתי‬ Qĕʿilātî the one from BPHB 169; 170; 342; 343? 4
Kegila
‫קרי‬ Qāray the one from the HAE Jer(7).5:3 1
town
‫ׂשוכי‬ Śōkî the one from HAE 21.19 1
Socoh
25 7
Aramaic ‫חרני‬ Ḥarranî the one from Harran Maraqten 82 1
Aramaic ‫ערבי‬ ʿArabî the Arabian Maraqten 96 1
Aramaic ‫קדמו‬ Qadmû the Arabian (?) WSS 841 1
Phoenician ‫כתי‬ Kitî the one from Kition NEE 27.32 1
(Cyprus)
Phoenician ‫נכרי‬ Nokrî the alien WTP 21.47 1
Phoenician ‫עכי‬ ʿAkkay the one from Akko NEE 24.1 (Benz 171) 1
Phoenician ‫פרסי‬ Parsay the Persian Benz 177 3
Phoenician ‫צרי‬ Ṣōray the Tyrian Benz 178 1

6.3.╇ Comparing the child with animals and plants

6.3.1.╇Animals

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫עופי‬ ʿAupay like a bird HAE Kom(8).1:1; 2:1 2 1 ‫יפי‬/‫עו‬
‫עפי‬ ʿAupay like a bird HAE 13.16; 16.65; BPHB 309 3 —
Phoenician ‫עפף‬ ʿOpep fluttery (?) Benz 174 1
Aramaic ‫נׁשרי‬ Nišrî like an eagle WSS 765 1
‫בלבל‬ Bulbul nightingale (?) HAE 2.4; BPHB 123 2 —
‫ינה‬ Yonāh pigeon Lemaire 215.12:7 1 (1)
608 Appendix B6

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Ammonite ‫ינה‬ Yōnah pigeon BPPS 179 1
‫הכוס‬ Hakkaus (?) the owl HAE Arad(7).38:1 1 —
Aramaic ‫כוסה‬ Kûsēh the owl NTA 42.4:13 1
‫ערב‬ ʿOreb raven HAE 16.66 1 1
‫חגלה‬ Ḥoglāh partridge HAE Sam(8).1 (name of a clan) 1 1
‫קראה‬ Qōrĕʾāh partridge HAE Jer(7).5:1 1 (2) ‫קרא‬
‫אפרח‬ ʾEproḥ chick HAE 1.29, 117, 127, 128, 129, 16 —
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135;
20.12; BPHB 109; 110; 111; 306
‫בכרי‬ Bikrî like a young camel HAE 18.19 1 1 ‫בכר‬
(2)
Aramaic ‫אבל‬ ʾIbl Camel BPPS 149 (a camel is carved on the seal) 1
‫כפר‬ Kĕpīr young lion HAE 11.10 1 —
Aramaic ‫כפר‬ Kĕpīr young lion Maraqten 85 1
Phoenician ‫כפר‬ Kĕpīr young lion Benz 132; WSS 1086; 1087 3
Phoenician ‫לבאי‬ Lābīʾî like a lion FSL 27f.:5 1
‫צבי‬ Ṣĕbî gazelle HAE Mur(7).2:2 1 (2) ‫צביא‬
‫צביה‬
‫עירא‬ ʿAirāʾ male ass HAE KAgr(9).2 1 2
Moabite ‫עירם‬ ʿIram foal of an ass (?) BPPS 191 1
‫יעל‬ Yāʿal ibex HAE 10.60, 61 2 1
‫ׁשפן‬ Šāpān rock badger HAE 1.52; 3.28; 10.90; 21.97, 98, 9 4
99, 100; BPHB 40; 41
Moabite ‫ׁשפן‬ Šāpān rock badger WSS 1046 1
‫ׁשעל‬ Šūʿāl fox HAE 1.83, 89, 115, 150; 3.1; 22 (1)
10.16, 89; 14.21, 23; 21.79, 80,
81; Arad(8).49:14; Kom(8).9:1;
Jer(7).31:1; Arad(7).38:2; BPHB
142; 378?; 384; 385; 386; 387
Ammonite ‫ׁשעל‬ Šuʿal fox WSS 951; 969; 979 3
Ammonite ‫ׁשעלי‬ Šuʿalî like a fox WSS 980 1
Aramaic ‫ׁשעלא‬ Šuʿalāʾ the fox NTA 89.13:10′ 1
‫נמׁש‬ Nimšī ichneumon HAE 14.17, 18, 19; Asi(10).1; 8 (1) ‫נמׁשי‬
Sam(8).1.56:2; BPHB 242?; 264;
317
‫אמר‬ ʾImmer lamb HAE Sam(8).1.29:3; BPHB 289 2 8
Ammonite ‫אמר‬ ʾImmer lamb WSS 873 1
Aramaic ‫אמרן‬ ʾImrān sheep NTA 70.7:4 1
Ammonite ‫כבס‬ Kabas lamb AMM 36.2:10 1
‫חלדי‬ Ḥelday mole HAE 1.20; Arad(7).39:10; 4 2 ‫חלד‬
Arad(6).27:5; Lemaire 215.12:7 (1×),
‫חלדי‬
(1×)
‫גלל‬ Gālāl turtle HAE 1.59; BPHB 135a, b 2 2 ‫גללי‬
(1×),
 Secular Names 609

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

Aramaic ‫חמטט‬ Ḥamṭūṭ lizard Maraqten 81 1
‫עכבר‬ ʿAkbār mouse HAE 5.2, 9; 8.55; 16.51, 52, 53, 14 (3)
54; NEE 92.79:11; BPHB 146a,
b; 147a-c; 201a, b; 270; 303; 344
Ammonite ‫עכבר‬ ʿAkbōr mouse WSS 963; AMM 36.2:11 2
Aramaic ‫עכבר‬ ʿAkbār mouse Maraqten 96 1
Phoeician ‫עכבר‬ ʿAkbōr mouse Benz 171 1
Ammonite ‫אגברת‬ ʾAgboret female mouse (acc. to AMM 52.131 1
Hübner)
‫געלי‬ Guʿalî dung beetle HAE 3.29, 30 2 (1) ‫געל‬
Aramaic ‫געלא‬ Guʿalāʾ the dung beetle Maraqten 75 1
‫רימה‬ Rîmāh worm Lemaire 215.12:6? 1 —
‫חגב‬ Ḥāgāb locust HAE 8.5, 6, 7, 8; 21.99; 9 1
Lak(6).1.1:3; BPHB 39; Lemaire
215.12:5; IEJ 51 199.1:1
‫הגבה‬ Haggābāh (?) the locust (?) HAE 16.45 1 1
‫פרעׁש‬ Par↜ʿoš flea HAE 1.21; 17.38; BPHB 101a, b 3 5
Phoenician ‫פרעׁש‬ Par↜ʿoš flea Benz 177 1
111 46
Aramaic ‫חזר‬ Ḥuzir swine NTA 93.14:3′; 98.16:1; Röllig, AoF 24 3
368.1.1:12
Aramaic ‫כלבן‬ Kalbân our dog (?) NTA 34.3:10 1

6.3.2.╇Plants

Name Transcrip. Meaning Epigraphic No. Bib. Compare

‫ברׁשה‬ Bĕrōšāh juniper tree HAE 2.32 1 —
Aramaic ‫זתא‬ Zetāʾ olive tree Maraqten 89 1
‫דרדר‬ Dardar thorn(bush) FHCB 75.24; Lemaire 217.13:5 2 (1) ‫?דרדע‬
3 1
Aramaic ‫מרקחתא‬ Marqaḥtāʾ perfume Maraqten 89 1
 Illustration Sources:
Acknowledgments

Fig. 2.1.╇ Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 23 Fig. 3.5.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Y. Aharoni
(reproduced by permission of Israel 1973: pls. 22–26, 84
Exploration Society) Fig. 3.6.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Y. Aharoni
Fig. 2.2.╇ Campbell 2002: 277; fig. 251 1973: pls. 71.1–6; 70.16–21; plan: pl. 94)
(reproduced by permission of American Fig. 3.7.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after
Schools of Oriental Research) Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 28.2, 6; 45.4; plan: pl.
Fig. 2.3.╇ Herr and Clark 2001: 40–41 (reproduced 84
by permission of Larry Herr) Fig. 3.8.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Y. Aharoni
Fig. 2.4.╇ King and Stager 2001: 29; fig. 3.15 1973: pls. 52.1–2; 27.6; 28.5; 75.5; plan: pl. 83
(reproduced by permission of Lawrence Fig. 3.9.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Kletter and
Stager) Herzog 2003: fig. on pp. 40–41 (reproduced
Fig. 2.5.╇ Netzer 1992: 196–97; fig. 6 (reproduced by permission of Raz Kletter)
by permission of Israel Exploration Society Fig. 3.10.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after
Fig. 2.6.╇ Netzer 1992: 196–97; fig. 7 (reproduced Albright 1943: pl. 6; SN 2031, 2032, 2396,
by permission of Israel Exploration Society) 2404, 2574, 2848
Fig. 2.7.╇ Stager 1985: 19; fig. 9 (reproduced by Fig. 3.11.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after
author: permission of BASOR) Albright 1943: pl. 6; SN 2313, 2316, 2319,
LXXIC (fig. Fig. 2.8.╇ King and Stager 2001: 18; fig. 3.10 2408, 2539, 2699
3.1) is not a (reproduced by permission of Lawrence Fig. 3.12.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Albright
roman nu- Stager and the Semitic Museum, Harvard 1943: pl. 6; SN 1552–55; 1817; 1524; 1563;
meral. What University) 1570
should it be? Fig. 2.9.╇ Geva 1989: appendix: fig. 2 for chap. 6 Fig. 3.13.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after
and should (reproduced by permission of BAR/ James 1966: figs. 112.1–2; 31.28; 41.32
40: 276 be Archaeopress) Fig. 3.14.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after James 1966:
40.276 or 40; Fig. 2.10. Riklin 1997: 8–9; fig. 2 (reproduced by figs. 34.1–4; 34.8–14
276? permission of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig 3.15.╇ After B. Mazar et al. 1961: figs. 5.11;
Fig. 3.1.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Marquet- 6.3–4; 7.1, 4, 8; 8.2, 7, 9; pl. 11 (reproduced
Krause 1949: pls. 97; LXXIC; 40: 276 by permission of Israel Exploration Society)
Fig. 3.2.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Levy and Fig. 3.16.╇ Compiled after Chambon 1984: 118;
Edelstein 1972: pl. 19; figs. 13, 10, 16, 19; 14, plan 2; pls. 66.2; 58.24; 60.12, 19
1, 5; 15, 1–6; 16, 12 Fig. 3.17.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Chambon
Fig. 3.3.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Levy and 1984: pls. 11; 63.2.4; 65.3; 66.2; 67.16; 68.5;
Edelstein 1972: pl. 19, figs. 13, 3; 14, 11; 16, 7 69.11; 73.9; 74.7; 48.10; 51.15; 56.15; 57.37;
Fig. 3.4a.╇ Compiled after A. Mazar and Panitz- 58.3.78.4
Cohen 2001: 4–5; pl. 56, 1–2; A. Mazar 1997: Fig. 3.18.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Chambon
plan of Areas D and E, Str. II (reproduced by 1984: pls. 12; 64.6
permission of Amihai Mazar) Fig. 3.19.╇ Ccompiled by Schmitt after Chambon
Fig. 3.4b.╇ A. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 1984: 134; pls. 18; 54.12; 53.9; 57.32
fig. 13 (reproduced by permission of
Amihai Mazar)

610
 Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments 611

Fig. 3.20.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Chambon Fig. 3.36.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Kletter
1984: 110; pls. 67.11; 70.1–3; 74.30; 77.910, 2004: fig. 28.36, 3–4.; Ussishkin 2004:
16, 19 664 (reproduced by permission of David
Fig. 3.21.╇ Reproduced by permission of Paul Ussishkin)
Jacobs, Mississippi State University Fig. 3.37.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Kletter
Fig. 3.22.╇ Reproduced by permission of Paul 2004: 2058, fig. 28.36:2; Zimhoni 2004:
Jacobs, Mississippi State University fig. 26.52:9–15 (reproduced by permission
Fig. 3.23.╇ Reproduced by permission of Paul of David Ussishkin)
Jacobs, Mississippi State University Fig. 3.38a. After Ussishkin 2004: fig. 9.32
Fig. 3.24.╇ After Zevit 2001: fig. 3.42 (reproduced (reproduced by permission of David
by permission of Ziony Zevit) Ussishkin)
Fig. 3.25.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Yadin 1958: Fig. 3.38b. After Zimhoni 2004: 1860–63,
pls. 65, 6–12; 151 (reproduced by permission figs.  26.37:9–12, 26.38 (reproduced by
of Israel Exploration Society) permission of David Ussishkin)
Fig. 3.26.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Yadin 1958: Fig. 3.39.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Zimhoni
pls. 57, 22, 6; 60, 10; 56, 9; Yadin 1960: 2004: fig. 26.39:6–17; Ussishkin 2004:
pl. 202 (reproduced by permission of Israel 478–79; Kletter 2004: fig. 28.40:4; Sass 2004:
Exploration Society) 2033, fig. 28.21:1 (reproduced by permission
of David Ussishkin)
Fig. 3.27.╇ After Yadin 1961: pl. 177 (reproduced
by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 3.40.╇ After Ussishkin 2004: 471; Zimhoni
2004: fig. 26.35: 1–4; Kletter 2004:
Fig. 3.28.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Gal and
fig. 28.39:3 (reproduced by permission of
Alexandre 2000: pl. 4, fig. 3.70 (reproduced
David Ussishkin)
by permission of Israel Antiquities
Authority) Fig. 3.41.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after
Tufnell 1953: pls. 31.6; 79–104; 114
Fig. 3.29.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Gal
and Alexandre 2000: pl. 5, figs. 3.81, Fig. 3.42.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Tufnell
90–92 (reproduced by permission of Israel 1953: pls. 31.10; 79–104; 115
Antiquities Authority) Fig. 3.43.╇ After Y. Aharoni 1975: fig. 6
Fig. 3.30.╇ After Shiloh 1986: figs. 5–7; fig. Fig. 3.44.╇ After Y. Aharoni 1975: pls. 3.1 and 60
20: pl. 22.2; Ariel and de Groot 1996: Fig. 3.45.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: plan 14
339 (reproduced by permission of Israel (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz)
Exploration Society) Fig. 3.46.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz and
Fig. 3.31.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz 1990a: Kempinski 1983: 41–42; pl. 38A; 150–52
plan 16; pls. 102.2; 89.23; 90.9; 91.9–10; (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz)
92.8; 93.13 (reproduced by permission of Fig. 3.47.╇ Compiled after Fritz and Kempinski
Harrassowitz) 1983: pls. 106 A–D; 171.7–8 (reproduced by
Fig. 3.32.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz 1990a: permission of Harrassowitz)
plan 10, pls. 102.9; 69.19; 71.1; 73.7; 73.8 Fig. 3.48.╇ After Fritz and Kempinski 1983:
(reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) pls. 149; 170.1 (reproduced by permission
Fig. 3.33.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz of Harrassowitz)
1990a: plan 11, pls. 74.1–4; 75.7; 76.2, 8, Fig. 3.49.╇ After Fritz and Kempinski 1983: plan
22–23; 79.12 (reproduced by permission of 22, pls. 111.3; 163.3; 164.2; 165.22; 166.1;
Harrassowitz) 166.14 (reproduced by permission of
Fig. 3.34.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz 1990a: Harrassowitz)
plan 10, pl. 102.4–5; 69.2; 70.19 (reproduced Fig. 3.50.╇ After Fritz and Kempinski 1983: plan
by permission of Harrassowitz) 22, pls. 111.5; 163.14; 165.6–9, 20–21; 166.1,
Fig. 3.35.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Nissinen 3, 15, 16 (reproduced by permission of
and Münger 2009: figs. 3–4 (reproduced by Harrassowitz)
permission of Martti Nissinen and Stefan Fig. 3.51.╇ After Fritz and Kempinski 1983: plan
Münger) 22; pls. 172.13; 164.11 (reproduced by
permission of Harrassowitz)
612 Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments

Fig. 3.52.╇ Compiled and redrawn after Fritz and Fig. 3.71.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004:
Kempinski 1983: plan 23; pls. 111.2 and 4; appendix D (reproduced by permission of
163.12; 166.3 (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago)
Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.72.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004:
Fig. 3.53.╇ After Herzog et al. 1988: 69–70, appendix D (reproduced by permission of
figs. 5.5; 7.5, 15–17 (reproduced by The Oriental Institute, Chicago)
permission of Zeʾev Herzog) Fig. 3.73.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Finkelstein
Fig. 3.54.╇ After Loud 1948: fig. 100 et al. 2000a: figs. 11.43–51; 2000b: fig. 12.38:5
Fig. 3.55.╇ After Loud 1948: fig. 101 (reproduced by permission of Israel
Fig. 3.56.╇ Zevit 2000: fig. 3.55 (reproduced by Finkelstein)
permission of Ziony Zevit) Fig. 3.74.╇ After McCown 1947: fig. 50
Fig. 3.57.╇ After Ussishkin 1989: fig. 4 (reproduced Fig. 3.75.╇ Ben-Tor, Portugali, and Avissar 1981:
by permission of Israel Exploration Society) figs. 9–10 (reproduced by permission of
Fig. 3.58.╇ After Ussishkin 1989: fig. 5 (reproduced Amnon Ben-Tor)
by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 3.76.╇ Compiled after Ben-Tor and Portugali
Fig. 3.59.╇ Compiled after Schumacher 1908: 1987: figs. 15–17 (reproduced by permission
121–22; pls. 37–39 of Amnon Ben-Tor)
Fig. 3.60.╇ Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern Fig. 3.77.╇ After Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: plan
2006: fig. 33.5 (reproduced by permission of 29 and figs. 15.3 and 6; 16.3, 5–7, 9; 17.3–5;
Israel Finkelstein) 18.4–6; 17.8; 18.3 (reproduced by permission
of Amon Ben Tor)
Fig. 3.61.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004:
appendix D (reproduced by permission of Fig. 3.78.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: plan
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) 27 (reproduced by permission of Amnon
Ben-Tor)
Fig. 3.62.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004:
appendix D (reproduced by permission of Fig. 3.79.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Pritchard
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) 1985: figs. 5 and 177
Fig. 3.63.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: Fig. 3.80.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Pritchard
appendix D (reproduced by permission of 1985: figs. 7.8, 178
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.81.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Finkelstein
Fig. 3.64.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: 1993: 27, figs. 6.52–54 (reproduced by
appendix D (reproduced by permission of permission of Israel Finkelstein)
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.82.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Rast 1978:
Fig. 3.65.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: figs. 30–69; 97a
appendix D (reproduced by permission of Fig. 3.83.╇ Compiled after P. M. Fischer 1995: figs.
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) 5, 7.1–4 (reproduced by permission of Peter
Fig. 3.66.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: Fischer)
appendix D (reproduced by permission of Fig. 3.84.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Lenzen,
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Gordon, and McQuitty 1985: 154–55; fig. 2;
Fig. 3.67.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: pl. 22.2
appendix D (reproduced by permission of Fig. 3.85.╇ Compiled by Schmitt using Daviau
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) et al. 2003: Tell Jawa Artefact Database,
Fig. 3.68.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: vols. 1–2 (reproduced by permission of P. M.
appendix D (reproduced by permission of M. Daviau)
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.86.╇ Compiled by Schmitt using Daviau
Fig. 3.69.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: et al. 2003: Tell Jawa Artefact Database,
appendix D (reproduced by permission of vols. 1–2 (reproduced by permission of P. M.
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) M. Daviau)
Fig. 3.70.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: Fig. 3.87.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Yassine
appendix D (reproduced by permission of 1984: figs. 1–4
The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.88.╇ After Yassine 1988: 84–89, fig. 6
 Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments 613

Fig. 3.89.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after Fig. 5.5.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 297a
Potts, Colledge, and Edwards 1985: 203–4; (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
fig. 11; pls. 41–42 Fig. 5.6.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 297b
Fig. 3.90.╇ Herr 2006: fig. 1 (reproduced by (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
permission of Larry Herr) Fig. 5.7.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 301a
Fig. 3.91.╇ Herr 2006: fig.3 (reproduced by (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
permission of Larry Herr) Fig. 5.8.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 301b
Fig. 3.92.╇ Drawing by Schmitt (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
Fig. 3.93.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan Fig. 5.9.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 289
1971: figs. 86–87 (reproduced by permission (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 5.10.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 286
Fig. 3.94.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
and Porath 1993: plan 12; figs. 42.1.4.5.9 Fig. 5.11.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 287
(reproduced by permission of Israel (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
Antiquities Authority) Fig. 5.12.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 288b
Fig. 3.95.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan and (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
Ben-Shlomo 2005: plan 2:10, figs. 3.69.4; Fig. 5.13.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 288c
3.71.5; 3.72.4; 3.75; 3.76 (reproduced by (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
permission of Israel Antiquities Authority)
Fig. 5.14.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 331ac
Fig. 3.96.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan and (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
Ben-Shlomo 2005: plan 2.12; figs. 3.88:7–9,
Fig. 5.15.╇ After Welten 1969: 40 Z II B2
17; 3.89.4, 10 (reproduced by permission of
Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 5.16.╇ After Welten 1969: 40 S II A1
Fig. 3.97.╇ After Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Fig. 5.17.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 293a
plan 2.7 (reproduced by permission of Israel (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
Antiquities Authority) Fig. 5.18.╇ Drawing by Schmitt
Fig. 3.98.╇ Redrawn and compiled by Schmitt after Fig. 5.19.╇ Sass 1993: 85
Dothan and Freedman 1967 Fig. 5.20.╇ After Cross 1999: 43
Fig. 3.99.╇ Compiled after Stone and Zimansky Fig. 5.21.╇ After Welten 1969: 36
1999: 43, figs. 43 and 86.5 (reproduced by Fig. 5.22.╇ After Welten 1969: 36
permission of Elizabeth C. Stone)
Fig. 5.23.╇ After Welten 1969: 36
Fig. 3.100.╇ Compiled after Stone and Zimansky
Fig. 5.24.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 282c
1999: 47–49, figs. 52, 86.1 (reproduced by
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
permission of Elizabeth C. Stone)
Fig. 5.25.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 315b
Fig. 3.101.╇ Compiled after Stone and Zimansky
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
1999: 50, figs. 55 and 86.4 (reproduced by
permission of Elizabeth C. Stone) Fig. 5.26.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 316
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
Fig. 3.102.╇ Mazzoni in Cecchini and Mazzoni
1998: 171, figs. 5, 22–23; p. 208, fig. 4 Fig. 5.27.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 315a
(reproduced by permission of Serena Maria (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
Cecchini) Fig. 5.28.╇ Sass 1993: 96
Fig. 5.1.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 305b Fig. 5.29.╇ Sass 1993: 95
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.30.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 290
Fig. 5.2.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 312a (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.31.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 331b
Fig. 5.3.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 317c (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.32.╇ Sass 1993: 144
Fig. 5.4.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 312b Fig. 5.33.╇ Hübner 1993: 11
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.34.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 211c
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)
614 Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments

Fig. 5.35.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 213 Fig. 7.3.╇ After McCown 1947: 82–83, fig. 19.1
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 7.4.╇ After McCown 1947: 102, fig. 11
Fig. 5.36.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 241bc Fig. 7.5.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Crowfoot,
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: 21–22, fig. 10;
Fig. 5.37.╇ Sass 1993: 99 Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957:
Fig. 5.38.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 226b 135–36, 197–98
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 7.6.╇ After Tufnell 1953: 239–40, fig. 28
Fig. 5.39.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 247b Fig. 7.7.╇ After Mackenzie 1912–13: pl. 5
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 7.8.╇ After Mackenzie 1912–13: pl. 10
Fig. 5.40.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 274d Fig. 7.9.╇ After Mackenzie 1912–13: pl. 10
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 7.10.╇ After Tufnell 1953: 179–87
Fig. 5.41.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 249 Fig. 7.11.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Holland
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) 1977: figs. 7–9
Fig. 5.42.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 246 Fig. 7.12.╇ Compiled after E. Mazar and B. Mazar
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) 1989: 50–53, plan 20, pls. 25–29 (reproduced
Fig. 5.43.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 250a by permission of E. Mazar)
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 7.13a. After Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik
Fig. 5.44.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 250b 1942: fig. 11
(reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 7.13b. Compiled by Schmitt after Crowfoot,
Fig. 5.45.╇ Sass 1993: 226 Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: fig. B,
Fig. 7.1.╇ After Macalister 1912: 1.325–31, figs. 13–33
pls. 56.17, 84–85 Fig. 7.14.╇ Illustration by Schmitt
Fig. 7.2.╇ After Guy and Engberg 1938: 17–119,
fig. 143 and pls. 68.9–20; 69.1–4; 164–68
 Bibliography

Abusch, T., and Toorn, K. van der

1999 Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives. Ancient
Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx.
2002 Mesopotamian Witchcraft: Towards a History and Understanding of Babylonian
Witchcraft Beliefs and Literature. Ancient Magic and Divination 5. Leiden: Brill.
Achenbach, R.
1991 Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deute�
ronomium 5–11. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23, Theologie 422. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Ackerman, S.
1987 “And the Women Knead Dough”: The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in Sixth-
Century Judah. Pp. 109–24 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. Peggy L.
Day. Minneapolis: Fortress.
1992 Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. HSM 46. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
1998 Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel. Anchor
Bible Reference Library 17. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
2003 At Home with the Goddess. Pp. 455–68 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of
the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Bronze Age through
Roman Palaestina, ed. G. W. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2008 Household Religion, Family Religion, and Women’s Religion in Ancient Israel.
Pp. 127–58 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M.
Olyan. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford: Blackwell.
Aharoni, M.
1993 Arad: The Israelite Citadels. Pp. 82–87 in vol. 1 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Explo-
ration Society / Carta.
Aharoni, Y.
1973 Beer-Sheba I. Excavations at Tell Beer-Sheba: 1969–1971 Seasons. Publications of the
Institute of Archaeology 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.
1975 Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Publications
of the Institute of Archaeology 4. Tel Aviv: Gateway.
1981 Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1984 Das Land der Bibel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Ahlström, G. W.
1984 An Archaeological Picture of Iron Age Religions in Ancient Palestine. Studia Orien-
talia 55: 117–245.
Albertz, R.
1974 Weltschöpfung und Menschenschöpfung: Untersucht bei Deuterojesaja, Hiob und in
den Psalmen. Calwer theologische Monographien A 3. Stuttgart: Calwer.

615
616 Bibliography

1978a Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion: Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Is-

rael und Babylon. Calwer theologische Monographien A 9. Stuttgart: Calwer. [Repr.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.]
1978b Hintergrund und Bedeutung des Elterngebots im Dekalog. ZAW 90: 348–74.
1994 A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. Louisville: West-
minster John Knox.
1995 Wieviel Pluralismus kann sich eine Religion leisten? Zum religionsinternen Plura�
lismus im Alten Israel. Pp. 193–213 in Pluralismus und Identität, ed. J. Mehlhausen.
Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 8. Gütersloh:
Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher Verlag.
1996 Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Grundrisse zum Alten Testa-
ment 8/1. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1997 Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Grundrisse zum Alten Testa-
ment 8/2. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
2003 Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century b.c.e. Studies in Bibli-
cal Literature 3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2004 Religious Practices of the Individual and Family: Israel. Pp. 429–30 in Religions of
the Ancient World: A Guide, ed. S. I. Johnston. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
2008 Family Religion in Ancient Israel and Its Surroundings. Pp. 89–112 in Household
and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. The Ancient World:
Comparative Histories. Oxford: Blackwell.
Albright, W. F.
1932 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 1: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns.
AASOR 12. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.
1933 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 1a: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth
Campaign. AASOR 13. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.
1938 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 2: The Bronze Age. AASOR 17. New Haven,
CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.
1939 Astarte Plaques and Figurines from Tell Beth Mirsim. Pp. 107–20 in Mélanges
syriens offerts à M. R. Dussaud. Biblithèque archéologique et historique 30/1. Paris.
Geuthner.
1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 3: The Iron Age. AASOR 21–22. New Haven,
CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.
1953 Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. The Ayer Lectures of the Colgate-Rochester
Divinity School 1941. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Albright, W. F., and Kelso, J. L.
1968 The Excavation at Bethel (1934–1960). AASOR 39. New Haven, CT: American
Schools of Oriental Research.
Amiran, R.
1953 The Tumuli West of Jerusalem: Survey and Excavations. IEJ 8: 205–27.
1971 Hakiramikah Hakedumah Shal Eretz Yisrael. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
ʾAmr, A.-J.
1988 Ten Human Clay Figurines from Jerusalem. Levant 20: 185–96.
Anderson, G.
1987 Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Impor-
tance. HSM 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
 Bibliography 617

Anderson, W.
1979 A Stratigraphic and Ceramic Analysis of the Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of
Sounding Y at Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Penn-
sylvania.
Ariel, D. T., and de Groot, A.
1996 Excavations at the City of David IV: Various Reports. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Institute
of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Arneth, M.
2000 Sonne der Gerechtigkeit: Studien zur Solarisierung der Jahwe-Religion im Lichte
von Psalm 72. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische RechtsÂ�
geschichte 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Assmann, J.
1990 Maʾat: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im Alten Ägypten. Munich: Beck.
1991 Magische Weisheit: Wissensformen im ägyptischen Kosmotheismus. Pp. 241–57 in
Weisheit: Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation III, ed. A. Assmann. Munich:
Fink.
1997 Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. New Haven, CT:
Harvard University Press.
2003 Die Mosaische Unterscheidung. Munich: Hanser.
2006 Kulte und Religionen: Merkmale primärer und sekundärer Religion(serfahrung) im
Alten Ägypten. Pp. 269–80 in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Reli-
gionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments, ed. A. Wagner. BZAW 364. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Aufrecht, W. E.
1989 A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 4. Lew-
iston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
1999 Ammonite Texts and Language. Pp. 163–88 in Ancient Ammon, ed. B. MacDonald
and R. W. Younker. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 17.
Leiden: Brill.
Austin, J. L.
1975 How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Avigad, N.
1966 Two Phoenician Votive Seals. IEJ 16: 243–51.
1989 Another Group of West-Semitic Seals from the Hecht Collection. Michmanim 4:
7–21.
1993 Makmish. Pp. 932–33 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society /
Carta.
Avigad, N.; Heltzer, M.; and Lemaire, A.
2000 West Semitic Seals: Eight–Sixth Centuries b.c.e. The Reuben and Edith Hecht Mu-
seum Collection B. Haifa: University of Haifa.
Avigad, N., and Sass, B.
1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Bachelot, L., and Fales, F. M., eds.
2005 Tell Shiuk Fawqani 1994–1998, vol. 2. History of the Ancient Near East: Monograph
4/2. Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N.
Badre, L.; Gublel, E.; Al-Maqdissi, M.; and Sader, H.
1990 Tell Kazel (Syria): Excavations of the AUB Museum, 1978–1987. Preliminary Re-
ports. Berytus 38: 9–124.
618 Bibliography

Badre, L.; Gubel, E.; Capet, E.; and Panayot, N.

1994 Tell Kazel (Syrie) Rapport Préliminaire sur les 4e–8e Campagnes de Fouilles (1988–
1992). Syria 71: 259–346.
Bagnall, R. S.
1993 Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barnett, R. D.
1982 Ancient Ivories in the Middle East. Qedem 14. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.
Beck, P. 
1982 The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ʿAjrud). Tel Aviv 9: 3–68.
1993 Early Bronze Age ‘Bed Models’ Reconsidered. Tel Aviv 20: 33–40.
Beckman, G. M.
1983 Hittite Birth Rituals. 2nd ed. Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 29. Wiesbaden: HarÂ�
rassowitz.
Beer, G., and Galling, K.
1939 Exodus. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1st series 3. Tübingen: Mohr.
Begrich, J.
1934 Das priesterliche Heilsorakel. ZAW 52: 81–92. [Repr. pp. 217–31 in J. Begrich. GeÂ�
sammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Theologische Bücherei 21. Munich: Chr.
Kaiser, 1964.]
Beit-Arieh, I., ed.
1995 Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Negev. Monograph Series of the Institute of
Archaeology Tel Aviv University 11. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology.
Ben-Ami, D.
2006 Early Iron Age Cult Places: New Evidence from Tel Hazor. Tel Aviv 33: 121–33.
Bendor, S.
1996 The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ʾAb) from
the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7. Jerusalem:
Simor.
Bennet, C. M., and Bienkowski, P.
1995 Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ben-Shlomo, D.
2008 Zoomorphic Vessels from Tel Miqne–Ekron and the Different Styles of Philistine
Pottery. IEJ 58: 24–47.
2010 Philistine Iconography: A Wealth of Style and Symbolism. OBO 241. Fribourg: Uni-
versitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Ben-Shlomo, D., and Press, M. D.
2009 A Reexamination of Aegean-Style Figurines in Light of New Evidence from Ash-
dod, Askelon, and Ekron. BASOR 353: 39–74.
Ben-Tor, A.
1989 Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–58,
Text. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1996 Tel Hazor, 1996. IEJ 46: 262–68.
Ben-Tor, A., and Portugali, Y.
1987 Tell Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Qedem 24. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeol-
ogy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
 Bibliography 619

Ben-Tor, A.; Portugali, Y.; and Avissar, M.

1981 The First Two Seasons of Excavations at Tel Qashish, 1978–1979: Preliminary Re-
port. IEJ 31: 137–64.
Benz, F. L.
1972 Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute.
Berlinerblau, J.
1991 The Israelite Vow: Distress or Daily Life? Bib 72: 548–55.
1993 The ‘Popular Religion’ Paradigm in the Old Testament Research: A Sociological Cri-
tique. JSOT 60: 3–26.
1995 Some Sociological Observations on Moshe Greenberg’s Biblical Prose Prayer as a
Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. JNSL 21: 1–14.
1996 The Vow and the ‘Popular Religious Groups’ of Ancient Israel: A Philological and So-
ciological Inquiry. JSOTSup 210. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Bernett, M., and Keel, O.
1998 Mond, Stier, und Kult am Stadttor: Die Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell). OBO 161. Fri-
bourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bertholet, A.
1907 Magie. Pp. 1840–50 in vol. 3 of RGG. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr.
1926 Das Dynamistische im Alten Testament. Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge
und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte 121. Tübin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck.
Biggs, R. D.
1967 ŠÀ.ZI.GA: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. Texts from Cuneiform
Sources. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin.
Biran, A.
1994 Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1998 Sacred Spaces of Standing Stones, High Places and Cult Objects at Tel Dan. BAR
24/5: 38–45, 70.
Biran, A., and Aviram. J., eds.
1993 Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress
on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society.
Bird, P. A.
1987 The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus. Pp. 397–419 in Ancient Israelite Religion:
Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. Dean
McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1991 Israelite Religion and Faith of Israel’s Daughters: Reflections on Gender and Reli-
gious Definition. Pp. 97–108 in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor
of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. D. D. Jobling, L. Peggy, and
G. T. Sheppard. Cleveland: Pilgrim.
Black, J., and Green, A.
2004 Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Lon-
don: British Museum.
Blenkinsopp, J.
1997 The Family in First Temple Israel. Pp. 48–103 in Families in Ancient Israel: The Fam-
ily, Religion, and Culture, ed. L. G. Perdue. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
620 Bibliography

Bliss, F. J., and Macalister, R. S. A.

1902 Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900. London: Committee of the Pal-
estine Exploration Fund.
Bloch-Smith, E.
1992a Burials: Israelite. Pp. 785–89 in vol. 1 of ABD. New York: Doubleday.
1992b Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. JSOTSup 123. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press.
2002 Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space. Pp. 83–94 in Sacred Time, Sacred
Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed. B. M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
2005 Maṣṣebōt in the Israelite Cult. Pp. 28–39 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed.
J. Day. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 422. London: T. & T. Clark.
Blum, E.
1998 Beschneidung II: Bibel. Pp. 1355–56 in vol. 1 of RGG. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.
2008 Die Kombination I der Wandinschrift vom Tell Deir ʿAlla: Vorschläge zur ReÂ�
konstruktion mit historisch-kritischen Anmerkungen. Pp. 573–601 in Berüh-
rungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt—
FS R. Albertz, ed. I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Bodel, J., and Olyan, S. M.
2008a Comparative Perspectives. Pp. 276–82 in Household and Family Religion in Antiq-
uity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Ox-
ford: Blackwell.
Bodel, J., and Olyan, S. M., eds.
2008b Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. The Ancient World: Comparative His-
tories. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bonatz, D.
2000 Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal. Mainz: von Zabern.
Bordreuil, P.
1986 Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée
du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale.
1993 Le répertoire iconographique des sceaux araméens inscrits et son évolution. Pp. 74–
100 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and
C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Borghouts, J. F.
1971 The Magical Text of Papyrus Leiden I 348. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen 51.
Leiden: Brill.
1978 Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts. Nisaba 9. Leiden: Brill.
Borowski, O.
2003 Daily Life in Biblical Times. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 5. Leiden: Brill.
Bourke, S. J.
1989 Pella: Early Bronze–Iron Age Periods. Pp. 414–24 in vol. 2/2 of Archaeology of Jor-
dan, ed. D. Homés-Fredericq and J. B. Hennessy. Leuven: Peeters.
 Bibliography 621

Bourke, S. J., et al.

2003 Preliminary Report on the University of Sydney’s Eighteenth and Nineteenth Sea-
sons of Excavations at Pella (Tabaqat Faḥl) in 1996–97. Annual of the Department of
Antiquities of Jordan 47: 335–88.
Bousset, W.
1906 Das Wesen der Religion. Halle: Gebauer-Schwetzschke.
Braemer, F.
1982 L’architecture domestique du Levant à l’âge du fer. Recherche sur les civilisations 8.
Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations.
Braudel, F.
1980 On History. London: Weinfeld & Nicolson.
Brenner, A.
1992 The Hebrew God and His Female Complements. Pp. 56–71 in A Feminist Compan-
ion to World Mythology, ed. C. Larrington. London: Pandora.
Brentjes, B.
1983 Alte Siegelkunst des vorderen Orients. Leipzig: Seemann.
Bretschneider, J.
1991 Architekturmodelle in Vorderasien und der östlichen Ägäis vom Neolithikum bis in
das 1. Jahrtausend. AOAT 229. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag.
Briend, H., and Humbert, J.-B.
1980 Tell Keisan: Une cite phénicienne en Galilée. OBOSA 1. Fribourg: Universitätsver-
lag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Paris: Gabalda.
Brug, J. F.
1985 A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 265. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Brueggemann, W.
1997 Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy: Minneapolis: Fortress.
Buhl, M. L., and Holm-Nielsen, E.
1969 Shiloh. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.
Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z.
1993 Beth Shemesh. Pp. 249–53 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Soci-
ety / Carta.
2009 The Archaeology of Border Communities: Renewed Excavations at Beth Shemesh,
Part 1: The Iron Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 72/3: 114–42.
Burch, T. K.
1974 Some Demographic Determinants of Average Household Size: An Analytic Ap-
proach. Pp. 91–102 in Household and Family in Past Time, ed. P. Laslett and R. Wall.
2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, J. B.
1998 Female Pillar Figurines of the Iron Age: A Study in Text and Artifact. Andrews Uni-
versity Seminary Studies 36: 23–49.
Butterweck, C.
1988 Eine phönizische Beschwörung. Pp. 435–37 in Weisheitstexte, Mythen und Epen, ed.
D. O. Edzard. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 3/3. Gütersloh: GüterÂ�
sloher Verlag.
622 Bibliography

Cahill, J., and Tarler, D.

1993 Tell el-Ḥammah. Pp. 561–62 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society / Carta.
Callaway, J. A.
1965 The 1964 ʿAi (et-Tell) Excavations. BASOR 178: 13–40.
1983 A Visit with Ahilud: A Revealing Look at Village Life When Israel First Settled the
Promised Land. BAR 9/5: 42–53.
1993a Ai. Pp. 39–45 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta.
1993b Raddana, Khirbet. Pp. 1253–54 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society / Carta.
Callaway, J. A., and Cooley, R. E.
1971 A Salvage Excavation at Raddana. BASOR 201: 9–19.
Campbell, E. F.
1993 Shechem: Tell Balatah. Pp. 1345–54 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Explora-
tion Society / Carta.
2002 Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balâtah. Vol. 1. ASOR
Archaeological Report 6. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Capet, E., and Gubel, E.
2000 Tell Kazel: Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation (c. 1200–612 b.c.). Pp. 425–57
in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Supplement 7. Louvain: Peeters.
Cartledge, T. M.
1992 Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSup 147. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press.
Cecchini, S. M., and Mazzoni, S.
2000 Tell Afis (Siria). Egitto e Vicino Oriente 22: 1–103.
Cecchini, S. M., and Mazzoni, S., eds.
1998 Tell Afis (Siria): Scavi sull’ acropolis 1988–1992. Pisa: ETS.
Chambon, A.
1984 Tell el-Farʿah 1: L’Age du Fer. Recherche sur les Civilisations Memoires 31. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations / CNRS.
1993 Farʿah, Tell el: Late Bronze Age to the Roman Period. Pp. 439–40 in vol. 2 of
NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta.
Childs, B. S.
1974 The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. London: SCM / Phil-
adelphia: Westminster.
1985 Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. London: SCM.
Cholidis, N.
1992 Möbel in Ton: Untersuchungen zur archäologischen und religionsgeschichtlichen Be-
deutung der Terrakottamodelle von Tischen, Stühlen und Betten aus dem Alten Ori-
ent. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Clark, D. R.
2003 Bricks, Sweat and Tears: The Human Investment in Constructing a “Four Room”
House. Near Eastern Archaeology 66: 34–43.
Coats, G. W.
1999 Exodus 1–18. FOTL 2A. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
 Bibliography 623

Cogan, M.
1974 Imperialism and Religion in Assyria, Judah and Israel in the 8th and 7th Centuries
b.c.e. SBLMS 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
1993 Judah under Assyrian Hegemony: A Re-examination of Imperialism and Religion.
JBL 112: 403–14.
Cohen, R., and Yisrael, Y.
1995 Iron Age Fortresses at ʿEn Ḥazeva. BA 58: 223–35.
1996 ʿEn Ḥazeva: 1990–1994. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15: 110–16.
1997 Haḥapirot beʿein-ḥazebah/tamar hamikrʾait weharumit. Qadmoniot 112: 78–92.
Collon, D.
1988 First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum.
Conrad, J.
1980 Welche Bedeutung hatte die Familie für die Religion Altisraels? TLZ 105: 481–88.
Cook, S. A.
1930 The Religion of Ancient Palestine in the Light of Archaeology. Schweich Lectures of
the British Academy 1925. London: Oxford University Press.
Cornelius, I.
2004 The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses
Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah, c. 1500–1000 b.c.e. OBO 204. Fribourg: Uni-
versitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
2007 A Terracotta Horse in Stellenbosch and the Function of Palestinian Horse Figurines.
ZDPV 123: 28–36.
Crawford, T. G.
1992 Blessing and Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age. American Univer-
sity Studies 7, Theology and Religion 120. New York: Peter Lang.
Cross, F. M.
1999 King Hezekiah’s Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery. BAR 25/2: 42–45.
2006 Personal Names in the Samaria Papyri. BASOR 344: 75–90.
Crowfoot, J. W., and Crowfoot, G. M.
1938 Samaria–Sebaste II: Early Ivories from Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration
Fund.
Crowfoot, J. W.; Crowfoot G. M.; and Kenyon, K. M.
1957 Samaria–Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration
Fund.
Crowfoot, J. W.; Kenyon, K. M.; and Sukenik, E. L.
1942 Samaria–Sebaste I: The Buildings of Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
Crüsemann, F.
1969 Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel. WMANT 32. Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
1978 “. . . er aber soll dein Herr sein” (Gen 3,16): Die Frau in der patriarchalischen Welt des
Alten Testaments. Pp. 13–106 in Als Mann und Frau geschaffen: Exegetische Studien
zur Rolle der Frau, ed. F. Crüsemann and H. Thyen. Kennzeichen 2. Gelnhausen:
Burckhardt.
Cryer, F. H.
1991 Der Prophet und der Magier: Bemerkungen anhand einer überholten Diskussion.
Pp.  79–88 in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: FS S.  HerrÂ�
mann, ed. R. Liwak and S. Wagner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
624 Bibliography

1994 Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-historical
Investigation. JSOTSup 142. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Curtis, J., and Green, A.
1997 Excavations at Khirbet Khatuniyeh. Saddam Dam Report 11. London: British Mu-
seum.
Cunningham, G.
1997 Deliver Me from Evil: Mesopotamian Incantations 2500–1500 b.c. Studia Pohl: Series
Major 17. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Dahm, U.
2003 Opferkult und Priestertum in Alt-Israel: Ein Kultur- und religionswissenschaftlicher
Beitrag. BZAW 327. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Daviau, P. M. M.
1993 Houses and Their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine: Domestic Activity Areas and
Artefact Distribution in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. JSOT and ASOR Mono-
graph Series 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
2001 Family Religion: Evidence for the Paraphernalia of the Domestic Cult. Pp. 199–229
in The World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of
P. E. Dion, vol. 2, ed. J. W. Wevers and M. Weigl. JSOTSup 325. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
2006 Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine in Its Landscape: Iron Age Towns, Forts, and Shrines. ZDPV
122: 14–30.
2007 Stone Altars Large and Small: The Iron Age Altars from Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine (Jor-
dan). Pp. 125–49 in Bilder als Quellen / Images as Sources: Studies on Ancient Near
Eastern Artefacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel, ed. S. Bickel
et al. OBO Special Volume. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Daviau, P. M. M., and Dion, P. E.
2002 Khirbet el-Mudeina. AJA 106: 446–48.
Daviau, P. M. M., and Steiner, M.
2000 A Moabite Sanctuary at Khirbat al-Mudayna. BASOR 320: 1–21.
Daviau, P. M. M., et al.
2003 Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, vols. 1–2. CHANE 11/1–2. Leiden: Brill.
2006 Excavations and Survey at Khirbat al-Mudayna and Its Surroundings: Preliminary
Report of the 2001, 2004, and 2005 Seasons. ADAJ 50: 259–83.
Davies, G. I., ed.
1991 Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Dejkstra, M.
2001 Women and Religion in the Old Testament. Pp. 164–88 in Only One God? Monothe-
ism in Ancient Religion and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah, ed. B. Becking,
M. C. A. Korpel, and K. J. H. Vriezen. Biblical Seminar 77. Sheffield: Continuum.
Dessel, J. P.
1988 An Iron Age Figurine from Tel Halif. BASOR 269: 59–64.
Deutsch, R.
1999 Messages from the Past: Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Isaiah through the Destruc-
tion of the First Temple. Tel Aviv: Achaeological Center.
 Bibliography 625

2003a Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae: The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection. Tel Aviv: Ar-
chaeological Center.
2003b A Hoard of Fifty Hebrew Clay Bullae from the Time of Hezekiah. Pp. 45–98 in
Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of
Shlomo Moussaieff, ed. R. Deutsch. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center.
Deutsch, R., and Heltzer, M.
1994 Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center.
1995 New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological
Center.
1997 Windows to the Past. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center.
1999 West Semitic Epigraphic News of the 1st Millenium b.c.e. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeolog-
ical Center.
Deutsch, R., and Lemaire, A.
2000 Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Mussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeo-
logical Center.
Dever, W. G.
1970a Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–66 Seasons. Hebrew Union College Bibli-
cal and Archaeological School in Jerusalem 1. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of
Biblical Archaeology.
1970b Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet El-Khôm. HUCA 40–41
(1969–70) 139–204.
1990 Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. Seattle: University of Wash-
ington Press.
1991 Women’s Popular Religion, Suppressed in the Bible, Now Revealed by Archaeology.
BAR 17/2: 61–5.
1995 “Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?” Part II: Archaeology and the Religions of
Ancient Israel. BASOR 298: 37–58.
2001 What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology
Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
2005 Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Eerdmans.
Dever, W. G., et al.
1974 Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Hebrew Union College Bib-
lical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem 2. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.
1986 Gezer IV: The 1969–1971 Seasons in Field IV: The Acropolis. Jerusalem: Nelson
Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.
Dietrich, M., and Loretz, O.
1990 Mantik in Ugarit: Keilalphabetische Texte der Opferschau – Omensammlungen – NeÂ�
kromantie. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syren-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens
3. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
2005 “Weihen” (ʿly Š) von pgr, Ochsen und Gegenständen in KTU 6.13, 6.14 und 6.62. UF
37: 227–39.
Dion, P. E., and Daviau, P. M. M.
2000 An Inscribed Incense Altar of Iron Age II at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine (Jordan). ZDPV
116: 1–13.
Dijk, J. van
1973 Une incantation accompagnant la naissance de l’homme. Or n.s. 42: 502–7.
626 Bibliography

Di Vito, R. A.
1993 Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: Designation
and Conception of the Personal God. Studia Pohl: Series Maior 16. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute.
Dohmen, C.
2004 Exodus 19–40. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg:
Herder.
Doll, P.
1985 Menschenschöpfung und Weltschöpfung in der alttestamentlichen Weisheit. SBS 117.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.
Donner, H.
1986 Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen, vol. 2. ATD Ergän-
zungsreihe 4/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Donner, H., and Röllig, W., eds.
1979 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. 3rd–4th eds. Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz.
2002 Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Dor, S.
1996 The Relationship between the Dwelling Place and the Family in Ancient Israel. ErIsr
25 (Aviram volume): 151–57, 93*–94*.
Dorneman, R. H.
1983 The Archaeology of Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Milwaukee: Milwaukee
Public Museum.
Dothan, M.
1971 Ashdod II: The Second and Third Season of Excavations—1963, 1965; III: Soundings
in 1967. ʿAtiqot 9–10. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
1993 Ashdod. Pp. 93–102 in vol. 1 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society /
Carta.
Dothan, M., and Ben-Shlomo, D.
2005 Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969). Israel Antiquities Au-
thority Reports 24. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Dothan, M., and Dothan, T.
1992 People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines. New York: Macmillan.
Dothan, M., and Freedman, D. N.
1967 Ashdod I: The First Season of Excavations. ʿAtiqot 7. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities
Authority.
Dothan, M., and Porath, Y.
1982 Ashdod IV: The Fourth Season of Excavations. ʿAtiqot 15. Jerusalem: Israel Antiqui-
ties Authority.
1993 Ashdod V: The Fourth–Sixth Seasons of Excavations, 1968–1970. ʿAtiqot 13. Jerusa-
lem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Dothan, T.
1982 The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
1990 Ekron of the Philistines, Part I. BAR 16/1: 26–36.
2003 The Aegean and the Orient: Cultic Interactions. Pp. 189–211 in Symbiosis, Symbol-
ism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors, ed. W. G.
Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
 Bibliography 627

Dothan, T., and Gitin, S.

1993 Miqne, Tel (Ekron). Pp. 1051–59 in Vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Explora-
tion Society / Carta.
Douglas, M.
1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
1970 Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Barrie & Rockliff.
1972a Deciphering a Meal. Daedalus 1972/winter: 61–81.
1972b Self Evidence: Henry Myers Lecture. Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Insti-
tute: 27–44.
1999 Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2004 Jacob’s Tears: The Priestly Work of Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duhm, B.
1875 Die Theologie der Propheten als Grundlage für die Innere Entwicklungsgeschichte der
israelitischen Religion. Bonn: Marcus.
Durham, J. I.
1987 Exodus. WBC 3. Waco, TX: Word.
Durkheim, É.
1981 Die elementaren Formen des religiösen Lebens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [Orig.
pub., 1899]
Ebach, J., and Rüterswörden, U.
1977 Unterweltsbeschwörung im Alten Testament. UF 9: 57–70.
1980 Unterweltsbeschwörung im Alten Testament, Part 2. UF 12: 205–20.
Ebertz, M., and Schultheis, F.
1986 Einleitung: Populäre Religiosität. Pp. 11–52 in Volkfrömmigkeit in Europa, ed.
M. Ebertz and F. Schultheis. Beiträge zur Soziologie populärer Religiosität 14. Mu-
nich: Chr. Kaiser.
Eggler, J., and Keel, O.
2006 Corpus der Siegel Amulette aus Jordanien: Vom Neolithikum bis zur Perserzeit.
OBOSA 25. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Eichrodt, W.
1964 Theologie des Alten Testaments, vols. 2–3. 5th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Eissfeldt, O.
1945–48â•… ‘Mein Gott’ im Alten Testament. ZAW 61: 3–16.
Ellens, D. L.
2008 Women in the Sex Texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old
Testament Studies 458. New York: T. & T. Clark.
Elliger, K.
1962 Teraphim. Pp. 690–91 in vol. 6 of RGG. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
1966 Leviticus. HAT 1/4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Engle, J. R.
1979 Pillar Figurines of the Iron Age and Asherah and Asherim. Ph.D. dissertation. Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh.
Engnell, I.
1952 Pesaḥ-Maṣṣōt and the Problem of “Patternism.” Orientalia Suecana 1: 39–50.
628 Bibliography

Eshel, I.
1995 Two Pottery Groups from Kenyon’s Excavations on the Eastern Slope of Ancient Je-
rusalem. Pp. 1–157 in Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, vol. 4:
The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials Elsewhere,
ed. I. Eshel and K. Prag. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 6. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Eshel, I., and Prag, K., eds.
1995 Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, vol. 4: The Iron Age Cave De-
posits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials Elsewhere. British Academy Mono-
graphs in Archaeology 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farber, W.
1989 Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf! Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwörungen und -Rituale. Meso-
potamian Civilizations 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Faust, A.
1999a Differences in Family Structure between Cities and Villages of the Iron Age II. Tel
Aviv 26: 233–52.
1999b Socioeconomic Stratification in an Israelite City: Hazor VI as a Test Case. Levant 31:
179–90.
2000 The Rural Community in Ancient Israel during the Iron Age II. BASOR 317: 17–39.
Faust, A., and Bunimovitz, S.
2003 The Four Room House: Embodying Iron Age Israelite Society. Near Eastern Archae-
ology 66: 22–31.
Fichtner, J.
1956 Die etymologischen Ätiologien in der Namengebung der geschichtlichen Bücher
des Alten Testaments. VT 6: 372–96.
1965 Zum Problem Glaube und Geschichte in der israelitisch-jüdischen Weisheitslitera-
tur (1951). Pp. 9–17 in J. Fichtner, Gottes Weisheit: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten
Testament, ed. K. D. Fricke. Arbeiten zur Theologie 2/3. Stuttgart: Calwer.
Finkelstein, I.
1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1993 Shiloh: Renewed Excavations. Pp. 1366–70 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society / Carta.
1996 The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View. Levant 28: 177–87.
2000a Omride Architecture. ZDPV 116: 114–38.
2001 The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link. Levant 33: 105–15.
2005 Megiddo. Tel Aviv 23: 170–84.
Finkelstein, I., ed.
1993 Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv University Monograph Series.
Jerusalem: Graphit.
Finkelstein, I.; Ussishkin, D.; and Halpern, B., eds.
2000 Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. 2 vols. Tel Aviv University Monograph Series
18. Jerusalem: Graphit.
2006 Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. 2 vols. Tel Aviv University Monograph Series
24. Tel Aviv: Emery & Claire Yass.
Fischer, A. A.
2005 Tod und Jenseits im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag.
 Bibliography 629

Fischer, I.
2001 Ruth. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder.
Fischer, P. M.
1991 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1989. First Season Preliminary
Report. ADAJ 35: 67–104.
1993 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1991. Second Season Prelimi-
nary Excavation Report. ADAJ 37: 279–305.
1994 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1992. Third Season Prelimi-
nary Excavation Report. ADAJ 38: 127–45.
1995 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1993. Fourth Season Prelimi-
nary Excavation Report. ADAJ 39: 93–119.
1996 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1994. Fifth Season Preliminary
Excavation Report. ADAJ 40: 101–10.
1997 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1995–1996. Sixth and Seventh
Season Preliminary Excavation Report. ADAJ 41: 129–45.
1998 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1997. Eighth Season Prelimi-
nary Excavation Report. ADAJ 42: 213–23.
Fohrer, G.
1966 Teraphim. P. 1952 in vol. 3 of Biblisch-Historisches Handwörterbuch. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1969 Geschichte der israelitischen Religion. De Gruyter Lehrbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter.
1973 History of Israelite Religion, trans. D. E. Green. London: S.P.C.K.
Forster, B., ed.
1993–96â•… Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 2 vols. Bethesda, MD:
CDL. 
Fortes, M.
1965 Some Reflections on Ancestor Worship in Africa. Pp. 122–42 in African Systems of
Thought, ed. M. Fortes and G. Dieterlen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, J. D.
1988 Theophoric Personal Names: A Comparative Study. JSOTSup 49. Sheffield: JSOT
Press.
Fowler, M. D.
1984 Concerning the ‘Cultic Structure’ at Taanach. ZDPV 100: 30–34.
Franken, H. J., and Steiner, M. L.
1990 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961–1967, vol. 2: The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the
South-East Hill. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 2. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Frankfort, H.
1939 Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near
East. London: British Museum.
Frazer, J. G.
1910 Totemism and Exogamy. London: Macmillan.
1922 The Golden Bough. London: Macmillan.
1989 Der goldene Zweig: Das Geheimnis von Glauben und Sitten der Völker. Nachdruck
der Ausgabe von 1928. Reinbek: Rowohlt. [Original, 1928]
630 Bibliography

Freud, S.
1989 Totem und Tabu (1912–1913). Pp. 287–444 in Sigmund Freud: Studienausgabe,
vol. 9. 5th ed. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Frey-Anthes, H.
2007 Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, Antiwesen und Grenzgänger: Vorstellungen von
“Dämonen” im Alten Israel. OBO 227. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Friedl, C.
2000 Polygynie in Mesopotamien und Israel: Sozialgeschichtliche Analyse polygamer Bezie-
hungen anhand rechtlicher Texte aus dem 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. AOAT 277.
Münster: Ugarit.
Friedrich, J., and Röllig, W.
1999 Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. 3rd ed., M. G. A. Guzzo, and W. R. Mayer. AnOr
55. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Fritz, V.
1977 Tempel und Zelt: Studien zu Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Pries-
terschrift. WMANT 47. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
1985 Einführung in die biblische Archäologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft.
1990a Kinneret: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell el-ʿOrēme am See Gennesaret
1982–1985. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins 15. Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz.
1990b Die Stadt im Alten Israel. Beck’s Archäologische Bibliothek. Munich: Beck.
1993 Open Cult Places in Israel in the Light of Parallels from Prehistoric Europe and Pre-
Classical Greece. Pp. 182–87 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the
Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem. June–July 1990, ed.
A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1999 Kinneret: Excavations at Tell el-ʿOreime (Tel Kinrot): Preliminary Report on the
1994–1997 Seasons. Tel Aviv 26: 92–115.
Fritz, V., and Kempinski, A.
1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Ḫirbet el-Mšāš (Tēl Māśōś). Abhandlungen des
Deutschen Palästinavereins. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Fritz, V., and Münger, S.
2002 Vorbericht über die zweite Phase der Ausgrabungen in Kinneret (Tell el-ʿOreme)
am See Gennesaret 1994–1999. ZDPV 118: 2–32.
Fritz, V., and Vieweger, D.
1996 Vorbericht über die der Ausgrabungen in Kinneret (Tell el-ʿOreme) 1994 und 1995.
ZDPV 112: 81–99.
1999 Tel Kinrot—1996. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 19: 15*, 21–22. [Heb.].
Fustel de Coulanges, N. D.
1963 The Ancient City: A Study of the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome.
Repr., New York: Doubleday. [original, 1873]
Gal, Z., and Alexandre, Y.
2000 Horvat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. IAA Reports 8. Jerusalem:
Israel Antiquities Authority.
 Bibliography 631

Galling, K.
1941 Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. vornehmlich aus Syrien und
Palästina. ZDPV 64: 121–202.
Galling, K., ed.
1937 Biblisches Reallexikon. HAT 1/1. Tübingen: Mohr.
1977 Biblisches Reallexikon. 2nd ed. HAT 1/1. Tübingen: Mohr.
Gerstenberger, E. S.
1980 Der bittende Mensch: Bittritual und Klagelied des Einzelnen im Alten Testament.
WMANT 51. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
1988 Psalms, Part I, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. FOTL 14. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.
1993 Das 3. Buch Mose / Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1996 Welche Öffentlichkeit meinen das Klage- und das Danklied? Jahrbuch für biblische
Theologie 11: 69–89.
2001 Theologien im Alten Testament: Pluralität und Synkretismus alttestamentlichen
Gottes�glaubens. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Gesenius, W.; Kautzsch, E.; and Bergsträsser, G.
1962 Hebräische Grammatik. 28th ed. Hildesheim: Olms. [orig., 1909]
Geus, C. H. J.
1976 The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s
Amphictyony Hypothesis. Studia Neerlandica 18. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Geva, S.
1989 Hazor, Israel: An Urban Community of the 8th Century b.c.e. British Archaeological
Reports International Series 543. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 
Gibson, John C. L.
1982 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3: Phoenician Inscriptions, Including In-
scriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gilbert-Peretz, D.
1996 Ceramic Figurines. Pp. 29–134 in Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985,
vol. 4: Various Reports, ed. D. T. Ariel and A. de Groot. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: He-
brew University.
Gitin, S.
1989 Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah: Context and Typology. ErIsr 20 (Yadin
volume): 52–67.
1990 Ekron of the Philistines Part II: Olive-Oil Suppliers to the World. BAR 16/2: 33–42,
59.
1993 Seventh Century b.c.e. Cultic Elements at Ekron. Pp. 248–58 in Biblical Archaeology
Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology
Jerusalem. June–July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society.
2002 The Four Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective. Pp. 95–
124 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed. B. M.
Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2003 Israelite and Philistine Cult and the Archaeological Record in Iron Age II: The
“Smoking Gun” Phenomenon. Pp. 279–95 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power
of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Bronze Age through
Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
632 Bibliography

Gitin, S., and Cogan, M.

1999 A New Type of Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. IEJ 49: 193–202.
Gitin, S., and Dothan, T.
1987 The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines. BA 50: 197–222.
Gitin, S.; Dothan, T.; and Naveh, J.
1997 A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. IEJ 47: 1–16.
Givon, S.
1999 The Three-Roomed House from Tel Harassim, Israel. Levant 31: 173–77.
Gjerstad, E.
1934 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–
1931. Vol. 1. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
1935 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–
1931. Vol. 2. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
Gjerstad, E., et al.
1937 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–
1931. Vol. 3. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
Glock, A. E.
1993 Taanach. Pp. 1428–33 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society /
Carta.
Gogel, S. L.
1998 A Grammar of Epigraphical Hebrew. SBL Resources for Biblical Studies 23. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Golka, F. W.
1994 Die Flecken des Leoparden: Biblische und afrikanische Weisheit im Sprichwort. Ar�bei�
ten zur Theologie 78. Stuttgart: Calwer.
Gottwald, N. K.
1981 The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel. 2nd ed. Mary�
knoll, NY: Orbis.
Grabbe, L.
1993 Leviticus. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
2004 Review of Leviticus as Literature, by Mary Douglas. Journal of Ritual Studies 18:
157–61.
Graesser, C. F.
1974 Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine. BA 35: 34–65.
Grant, E.
1929 Beth Shemesh (Palestine): Progress of the Haverford Archaeological Expedition. Hav�
erford: Haverford College Press.
1931–1932â•… Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine): 1928–1929–1930–1931, vols. 1–2. Haver-
ford: Haverford College Press.
1934 Rumeileh: Being Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), vol. 3. Haverford: Haverford
College Press.
Grant, E., and Wright, G. E.
1938 Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), vol. 4. Haverford: Haverford College Press.
1939 Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), vol. 5. Haverford: Haverford College Press.
Greenberg, M.
1983 Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
 Bibliography 633

Gressmann, H.
1913 Mose und seine Zeit. FRLANT 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Grohmann, M.
2006 ‘Du hast mich aus meiner Mutter Leib gezogen’: Geburt in Psalm 22. Pp. 73–97 in
“Du hast mich aus meiner Mutter Leib gezogen,” ed. D. Dieckmann, and D. Erbele-
Küster. Biblisch-theologische Studien 75. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Gross, W.
2000 Die alttestamentlichen Gesetze zu Brache-, Sabbat-, Erlass- und Jubeljahr und das
Zinsverbot. Theologische Quartalschrift 180: 1–15.
Gröndahl, F.
1967 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute.
Grünschloss, A.
2006 Jenseits von “primärer” und “sekundärer” Religion. Pp. 251–66 in Primäre und
sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments, ed.
A. Wagner. BZAW 364. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Grünwaldt, K.
1992 Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift. BBB 85.
Frankfurt am Main: Hain.
Gubel, E.
1993 The Iconography of Inscribed Phoenician Glyptic. Pp. 101–29 in Studies in the Ico-
nography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO
125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Gunkel, H.
1910 Genesis. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1/1. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.
1921 Die Urgeschichte und die Patriarchen (Das erste Buch Mosis). Die Schriften des Alten
Testaments 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Guy, P. L. O., and Engberg, R. M.
1938 Megiddo Tombs. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Hachlili, R.
1971 Figurines and Kernoi. Pp. 125–35 in Ashdod II/III: The Second and Third Season of
Excavations 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967, ed. M. Dothan. ʿAtiqot 9–10. Jerusalem:
Israel Antiquities Authority.
1992 Burials: Ancient Jewish. Pp. 789–94 in vol. 1 of ABD. New York: Doubleday.
Hachlili, R., and Killebrew, A.
1983 Jewish Funerary Customs during the Second Temple Period in the Light of the Ex-
cavations at the Jericho Necropolis. PEQ 115: 109–32.
Harrison, T. P.
2004 Megiddo 3: Final Report on the Stratum VI Excavations. Oriental Institute Publica-
tion 127. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
Hartenstein, F.
2003 Religionsgeschichte Israels: Ein Überblick über die Forschung seit 1990. Verkündi-
gung und Forschung 48: 2–28.
Hartley, J. F.
1992 Leviticus. WBC 4. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
634 Bibliography

Hasel, G. F.
1992 Sabbath. Pp. 849–56 in vol. 5 of ABD. New York: Doubleday.
Haussig, H. W.
1965 Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient. Wörterbuch der Mythologie 1/1. Stuttgart:
Klett.
Heide, M.
2002 Die theophoren Personennamen der Kuntillet-ʿAgrūd Inschriften. WO 32: 110–20.
Helck, W.
1971 Betrachtungen zur grossen Göttin und den mit ihr verbundenen Gottheiten. Religion
und Kultur der alten Mittelmeerwelt in Parallelforschungen 2. Munich: Olden-
bourg.
Heltzer, M.
1999 The Recently Published West Semitic Inscribed Stamp Seals: A Review Article. UF
31: 199–224.
Hempel, J.
1936 Gott und Mensch im Alten Testament: Studie zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit. 2nd ed.
BWANT 38. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Herr, L. G.
2000a “Deinem Haus gebührt Heiligkeit, Jhwh, alle Tage”: Typen und Funktionen von
Sakralbauten im vorexilischen Israel. BBB 124. Berlin: Hain.
2000b Excavation and Cumulative Results at Tall al-ʿUmayri. Pp. 7–20 in Madaba Plains
Project, vol. 4: The 1992 Season at Tall al-ʿUmayri and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. G.
Herr, L. T. Geraty, .Ø S. LaBianca, and B. Younker. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press.
2006 An Early Iron Age I House with a Cultic Corner at Tall al-ʿUmayri, Jordan. Pp. 61–
73 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in
Honor of William G. Dever, ed. S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
Herr, L. G., et al.
1999 Mādāba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayrī, 1998. ADAJ 43: 99–114.
2000 Madaba Plains Project 4: The 1992 Season at Tall al-ʿUmayri and Subsequent Studies.
Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
2001 Mādāba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayrī, 2000. ADAJ 45: 237–52.
Herr, L. G., and Clark, D. R.
2001 Excavating the Tribe of Reuben: A Four-Room House Provides a Clue to Where the
Oldest Israelite Tribe Settled: BAR 72/2: 36–47, 64–66.
2003 Mādāba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayrī, 2002. ADAJ 47: 279–94.
2005 Mādāba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayrī, 2004. ADAJ 49: 245–60.
Herrmann, C.
1994 Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Mit einem Ausblick auf ihre Rezeption
durch das Alte Testament. OBO 138. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht.
2002 Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel II. OBO 184. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag /
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hertzberg, H. W.
1964 Die Samuelbücher. ATD 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
 Bibliography 635

Herzog, Z.
1984 Beer-Sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv University, Publications of
the Institute of Archaeology 7. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archae�
ology.
1992a Administrative Structures in the Iron Age. Pp. 223–30 in The Architecture of Ancient
Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1992b Settlement and Fortification Planning in the Iron Age. Pp. 231–74 in The Architec-
ture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kempinski
and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1994 Tel Michal. Pp. 1036–41 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Soci-
ety / Carta.
1997 Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implications.
Jerusalem: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeological Press.
2001 The Date of the Temple at Arad: Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and the Implica-
tions for the History of Religion in Judah. Pp. 156–78 in Studies in the Archaeology
of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar. JSOTSup 331. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Herzog, Z.; Rapp, G.; and Negbi, O.
1988 Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Tel Aviv University, Publications of the Institute of
Archaeology 8. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology.
Herzog, Z., et al.
1984 The Israelite Forttress at Arad. BASOR 254: 1–34.
Hestrin, R.
1987 The Lachish Ewer and the ʾAsherah. IEJ 37: 212.
Hoffmann, H.-D.
1980 Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomis-
tischen Geschichtsschreibung. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen
Testaments 66. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag.
Hoftijzer, J., and Jongeling, K.
1995 Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Handbuch der Orientalis-
tik 21/1–2. Leiden: Brill.
Holladay, J. S., Jr.
1987 Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Ap-
proach. Pp. 249–99 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore
Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress.
1992 House, Israelite. Pp. 308–18 in vol. 3 of ABD. New York: Doubleday.
1995 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the
Iron IIA–B (ca. 1000–750 b.c.e.). Pp. 368–98 in The Archaeology of Society in the
Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New York: Facts on File.
1997 Four-Room House. Pp. 337–42 in vol. 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia in the Near East.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holland, T. A.
1977 A Study of Palestinian Iron Age Baked Clay Figurines, with Special Reference to
Jerusalem Cave 1. Levant 9: 121–55.
Houtman, C.
1993 Exodus, vol. 1. HCOT. Kampen: Kok Pharos.
2000 Exodus, vol. 3. HCOT. Kampen: Kok Pharos.
636 Bibliography

Hubert, H., and Mauss, M.

1989 Entwurf einer allgemeinen Theorie der Magie. Pp. 43–179 in Soziologie und Anthro-
pologie 1, ed. M. Mauss. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [Orig., 1902–3]
Hübner, U.
1989 Das Fragment einer Tonfigurine vom Tell el-Milḥ: Überlegungen zur Funktion der
sog. Pfeilerfigurinen in der israelitischen Volksreligion. ZDPV 105: 47–55.
1992 Die Ammoniter: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Kultur und Religion eines transjor-
danischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-
vereins 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1993 Das ikonographische Repertoire der ammonitischen Siegel und seine Entwicklung.
Pp. 130–60 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed.
B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht.
Huffmon, H. B.
1965 Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press.
Hug, V.
1993 Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh. s.v. Chr. Heidelberger Studien
zum Alten Orient 4. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.
Hurowitz, V. A.
1992 I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopo-
tamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. JSOTSup 115. ASOR Monograph Series 5;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
2005 Yhwh’s Exalted House: Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple.
Pp. 63–110 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. J. Day. Library of Hebrew
Bible / Old Testament Studies 422. London: T. & T. Clark.
Ibrahim, M. M., and van der Kooij, G.
1997 Excavations at Tall Dayr ʿAllā: Seasons 1987 and 1994. ADAJ 41: 95–113.
Jacobs, P.
2001 Reading Religious Artifacts: The Shrine Room at Judahite Tell Halif. Journal of Bib-
lical Studies 2. http:// journalofbiblicalstudies.org.Issue2./Articles/Tell_Halif/multi╉
.html.
Jacobsen, T.
1976 The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Jahnow, H.
1923 Das Hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung. BZAW 36. Giessen: de
Gruyter.
1994 Die Frau im Alten Testament. Pp. 30–47 in H. Jahnow et al., Feministische Herme-
neutik des Ersten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
James, F. W.
1966 The Iron Age at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VI–IV. Museum Monographs. Philadel-
phia: University Museum.
Jamieson, A. S.
2000 Identifying Room Use and Vessel Function: A Case Study of Iron Age Pottery from
Building C2 at Tell Ahmar, North Syria. Pp. 259–303 in Essays on Syria in the Iron
Age, ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7. Louvain: Peeters.
 Bibliography 637

Janowski, B.
1989 Rettungsgewissheit und Epiphanie des Heils: Das Motiv der Hilfe Gottes “am Morgen”
im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. 2 vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag.
2001 Jenseitsvorstellungen II/2. Pp. 406–7 in vol. 4 of RGG. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.
2003 Konfliktgespräche mit Gott: Eine Anthropologie der Psalmen. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag.
Janssen, J. J., and Rosalind, M.
1990 Growing up in Ancient Egypt. London: Rubicon.
Jeffers, A.
1996 Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. Studies in the History and
Culture of the Ancient Near East 8. Leiden: Brill.
Jeremias, J., and Hartenstein, F.
1999 “Jhwh und seine Aschera”: “Offizielle Religion” und “Volksreligion” zur Zeit
der klassischen Propheten. Pp. 79–138 in Religionsgeschichte Israels: Formale
und materiale Aspekte, ed. B.  Janowski and M.  Köckert. Veröffentlichungen der
Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 15. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Güter-
sloher Verlag.
Jirku, A.
1912 Die Dämonen und ihre Abwehr im Alten Testament. Leipzig: Deichert.
Johnston, S. I., ed.
2004 Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Joüon, P., and Muraoka, T.
1991 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Subsidia Biblica 14/1–2. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute.
Kaiser, O., ed.
1982–2001â•… Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. 3 vols. Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlag.
Karageorghis, V.
1987 La Nécropole d’Amathonte Tombes 113–367: The Terracottas. Ètudes Chypriotes 9.
Nicosia: Nicolaou.
1993 The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus II: Late Cypriote II- Cypro-Geometric III.
Ni�cosia: Imprinta.
Keel, O.
1972 Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der
Psalmen. Zurich: Benzinger Verlag / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
1977 Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes
6, Ez 1 und Sach 4. SBS 84–85. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.
1980 Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandtes. OBO 33. Fribourg: Univer-
sitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1984 Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der
Psalmen. 3rd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
1995 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina and Israel: Von den Anfängen bis
zur Perserzeit. Einleitung. OBOSA 10. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
638 Bibliography

1996 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Katalog, vol. 1. OBOSA 13.
Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1998 Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the He-
brew Bible. JSOTSup 261. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Keel, O., and Uehlinger, C.
1998 Göttinnen: Götter und Gottessymbole. 4th ed. Questiones Disputatae 134. Freiburg:
Herder.
Kempinski, A.
1989 Megiddo: A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel. Materialien zur Allgemeinen
und vergleichenden Archäologie 40. Munich: Beck.
1993 Tel Masos. Pp. 986–89 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society /
Carta.
Kempinski, A., and Niemeier, W. A.
1994 Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1992–1993, Seasons 7–8. Tel Aviv: Tel
Aviv University.
Kempinski, A., and Reich, R., eds.
1992 The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusa-
lem: Israel Exploration Society.
Kenyon, K. M.
1974 Digging up Jerusalem. London: Benn.
Kertzer, D. I.
1991 Household History and Sociological Theory. Annual Review of Sociology 17: 155–
79.
Khalifeh, I. A.
1988 Sarepta II: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X.  Publications de
l’Université Libanaise: Section des Études Archéologiques 2. Beirut: Catholic Press
SAL.
Kim, T.-K.
2008 Frömmigkeit und Weisheit: Untersuchungen zum religiösen Geschehen zwischen Gott
und dem einzelnen Menschen in der Weisheitstradition. Diss.Theol. Münster.
King, P. J., and Stager, L. E.
2001 Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Kletter, R.
1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. British Archaeological
Reports International Series 636. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
2001 Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines from Judah and the Ashera.
Pp. 179–216 in Studies in Archaeology of Iron Age Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar.
JSOTSup 331. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
2004 Clay figurines. Pp. 2058–83 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at LaÂ�chish
(1973–1994), vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University – Sonia and Marco Nadler
Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology.
Kletter, R., and Herzog, Z.
2003 Hermaphrodita be Jehudah? Zelamit kentaur mitkupat habrezel be Tel Beer-Sheba.
Qadmoniot 127: 40–43.
 Bibliography 639

Kletter, R., and Ziffer, I.

2007 In the Field of the Philistines: Cult Furnishings from the Favissa of a Javneh Temple.
Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum.
Knauf, E. A.
1988 Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des
2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Koehl, R. B.
1985 Sarepta III: The Imported Bronze and Iron Age Wares from Area II, X. Publications de
l’Université Libanaise: Section des Études Archéologiques 2. Beirut: Catholic Press
SAL.
Körting, C.
1999 Der Schall des Schofar: Israels Feste im Herbst. BZAW 285. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kottsieper, I.
1997 El—ferner oder naher Gott? Zur Bedeutung einer semitischen Gottheit in verschie-
denen sozialen Kontexten im 1. Jtsd.v.Chr. Pp. 25–74 in Religion und Gesellschaft:
Studien zu ihrer Wechselbeziehung in den Kulturen des Antiken vorderen Orients, ed.
R. Albertz. AOAT 248. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
1998 Die Inschrift vom Tell Dan und die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Aram–DaÂ�
maskus und Israel in der 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus. Pp. 475–500 in
“Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf ”: Studien zum alten Testament und zum Alten Ori-
ent. FS Oswald Loretz, ed. M. Dietrich and I Kottsieper. AOAT 250. Münster: Ugarit
Verlag.
2001 Eine Tempelbauinschrift aus Ekron. Pp. 189–90 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten
Testaments: Ergänzungslieferung, ed. O. Kaiser. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag.
Krahmalkov, C. R.
2001 A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/54. Leiden: Brill.
Kraus, H. J.
1989 Psalmen II. 6th ed. BKAT 15/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Krebernik, M.
1984 Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla: Untersuchungen zur ältesten keilschriftlichen LiÂ�
teratur. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 2. Hildesheim: Olms.
Kreuzer, S.
1983 Der lebendige Gott: Bedeutung, Herkunft und Entwicklung einer alttestamentlichen
Gottesbezeichnung. BWANT 116. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Kronholm, T.
1982 Polygami och monogami i Gamla testamenet: Med en utblick over den anbtiken
judendomen och Nya testamentetet. Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 47: 48–92.
Kühn, D.
2005 Totengedenken bei den Nabatäern und im Alten Testament: Eine religionsgeschichtÂ�
liche und exegetische Studie. AOAT 311. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Kühne, H.
1989–90â•… Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad Dūr-katlimmu, 1985–1987. AfO 36–37: 308–21.
Kuhnen, H.-P.
1990 Palästina in Griechisch-römischer Zeit. Handbuch der Archäologie 2/2. Munich:
Beck.
640 Bibliography

Kutsch, E.
1986 Trauerbräuche und Selbstminderungsriten im Alten Testament. Pp. 78–95 in Kleine
Schriften zum Alten Testament, ed. E. Kutsch. BZAW 168. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lambert, W. G., and Millard, A. R.
1969 Atra-Ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford: Clarendon. [Repr., Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999]
Lamon, R. S., and Shipton, G. M.
1939 Megiddo I. Seasons of 1925–34: Strata I–V. Oriental Institute Publication 42. Chi-
cago: Oriental Institute.
Lamprichs, R., and al-Saʿad, Z.
2003 Tall Juḥfiyya—An Archaeological Site in Northern Jordan: A Preliminary Report on
the 2002 Field Season. ADAJ 47: 101–16.
2004 Tall Juḥfiyya—An Iron Age Site and Its Surroundings in Northern Jordan: A Pre-
liminary Report on the 2002–2003 Field Season. ADAJ 48: 171–80.
Lanczkowski, G.
1981 Begegnung und Wandel der Religionen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch�gesell�
schaft.
Landesmuseum Württemberg, ed.
2009 Schätze des Alten Syrien: Die Entdeckung des Königreichs Qatna. Stuttgart. Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Lang, B.
1972 Die weisheitliche Lehrrede: Ein Untersuchung von Sprüche 1–7. SBS 54. Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk.
1983 Persönlicher Gott und Ortsgott: Über Elementarformen der Frömmigkeit im alten
Israel. Pp. 271–301 in Fontes atque Pontes: Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner, ed.
M. Görg. Ägypten und Altes Testament 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2002 Jahwe, der biblische Gott: Ein Porträt. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft.
Lapp, P.
1964 Tell Taanek. BASOR 173: 4–44.
1969 The 1968 Excavations at Tell Taʿanek. BASOR 309: 41–68.
Laslett, P.
1974 Introduction: The History of Family. Pp. 2–89 in Household and Family in Past Time:
Comparative Studies in the Size and Structure of the Domestic Group over the Last
Three Centuries in England, France, Serbia, Japan and Colonial North America, with
Further materials from Western Europe, ed. P. Laslett and R. Wall. 2nd ed. London:
Cambridge University Press.
LeBlanc, S.
1971 An Addition to Naroll’s Suggested Floor Area and Settlement Population Relation-
ship. American Antiquity 36: 210–11.
Lehmann-Jericke, K.
1997 Terracotta Figurines (Bey 020 Preliminary Report of the Excavations, 1995). Bul-
letin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 2: 143–50.
Lemaire, A.
1983 Nouveaux sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques. Semitica 33: 17–31.
2001 Nouvelles tablettes araméennes. Haute études orientales 34. Geneva: Droz.
 Bibliography 641

2006 Khirbet el-Qôm and Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions. Pp. 231–38 in Confront-
ing the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of Wil-
liam G. Dever, ed. S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns.
Lemaire, A., and Yardeni, A.
2006 New Hebrew Ostraca from the Shephela. Pp. 197–223 (and 20 plates) in Biblical
Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, ed.
S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Publications of the Institute for Advanced Studies 1.
Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Lemche, N. P.
1985 Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the
Monarchy. VTSup 37. Leiden: Brill.
Lenzen, C.; Gordon, R. L.; and McQuitty, A. M.
1985 Excavations at Tell Irbid and Beit Ras. ADAJ 29: 151–59.
Lernau, H.
1995 Faunal Remains from Cave I in Jerusalem. Pp. 201–8 in Excavations by K. M. Ken-
yon in Jerusalem, 1961–1967, vol. 4: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East
Hill and Isolated Burials Elsewhere, ed. I. Eshel and K. Prag. British Academy Mono-
graphs in Archaeology 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lescow, T.
1993 Das Buch Maleachi: Texttheorie – Auslegung – Kanontheorie. Arbeiten zur Theologie
75. Stuttgart: Calwer.
Leuenberger, M.
2008 Segen und Segenstheologien im alten Israel: Untersuchungen zu ihren religions- und
theologiegeschichtlichen Konstellationen und Transformationen. Abhandlungen zur
Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 90. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag.
Lévi-Strauss, C.
1958 Anthropologie Structurale. Paris: Plon.
1962 La Pensée Sauvage. Paris: Plon.
1964 Mythologiques I: Le Cru et le Cuit. Paris: Plon.
1966 Das Wilde Denken. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
1967 Strukturale Anthropologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
1981 Mythologica I: Das Rohe und das Gekochte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Levy, S., and Edelstein, G.
1972 Cinq années de fouilles a Tel ʿAmal (Nir David). RB 79: 325–67.
Levy, T. E., et al.
2005 Iron Age Burial in the Lowlands of Edom: The 2004 Excavations at Wādī Fīdān 40,
Jordan. ADAJ 49: 443–87.
Lewis, T. J.
1989 Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. HSM 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
2000 terāpîm. Pp. 765–78 in vol. 8 of ThWAT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Lipiński, E.
1986 The Syro-Palestinian Iconography of Woman and Goddess. IEJ 36: 87–96.
Loretz, O.
1978 Vom kanaanäischen Totenkult zur jüdischen Patriarchen- und Elternehrung. JahrÂ�
buch für Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 3: 149–204.
642 Bibliography

1982 Ugaritisch-biblisch mrzḥ “Kultmahl. Kultverein” in Jer 16.5 und Am 6.6. Pp. 87–93
in Künder des Wortes. FS Schreiner, ed. L. Ruppert. Würzburg: Echter Verlag.
1990 Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanäische Götter und Religion im Alten Testament. Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
1992 Die Teraphim als “Ahnen-Götter-Figur(in)en” im Lichte der Texte aus Nuzi, Emar
und Ugarit. UF 24: 133–78.
2002 Ugaritisch a͗p (III) und syllabisch-keilschriftlich abi/apu als Vorläufer von hebräisch
ʾab/ʾôb “(Kult/Nekromantie-)Grube”: Ein Beitrag zu Nekromantie und Magie in
Ugarit, Emar und Israel. UF 34: 481–518.
Loud, G.
1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39. Oriental Institute Publication 62. Chicago: Oriental
Institute.
Macalister, R. A. S.
1912 The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909. 3 vols. London: Murray.
Mace, D. R.
1953 Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study. London: Epworth.
MacKay, D.
1995 Tel Miqne–Ekron. Report of the 1994 Spring Excavations in Field IISW: The Olive
Oil Industrial Zone of the Late Iron Age II, Text: Data Base and Plates. Jerusalem:
American Schools of Oriental Research / Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew
University.
Mackenzie, D.
1911 Excavations at Ain Shems. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 1: 41–94.
1912–13â•… Excavations at Ain Shems. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 2: 1–100.
Magen, Y.; Misgav, H.; and Tsfania, L.
2004 Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 1: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscrip-
tions. Judea and Samaria Publications. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Mähner, S.
1992 Ein Namen- und Bildsiegel aus ʿĒn Šems (Beth Schemesch). ZDPV 108: 68–81.
Maier, C., and Dörrfuss, E. M.
1999 “Um mit ihnen zu sitzen, zu essen und zu trinken”: Am 6,7; Jer 16,5 und die Bedeu-
tung von marzeaḥ. ZAW 111: 45–57.
Malinowski, B.
1986 Mutterschaft und Inzestversuchung (1927). Pp. 129–33 in Schriften zur Anthropolo-
gie. Schriften in vier Bänden 4/2. Frankfurt am Main: Syndikat.
Manor, D. W.
2009 A Holy Bowl from a Priest’s House? Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology 72/3: 138.
Mansour, S.
2005 Figurines and Iron Age Objects from ʿAmman Citatel. ADAJ 49: 541–55.
Maraqten, M.
1988 Die Semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften aus
Vorderasien. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 5. Hildesheim: Olms.
Marquet-Krause, J.
1949 Les Fouilles de ʿAi (et-Tell) 1933–1935. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 45.
Paris: Geuthner.
 Bibliography 643

Marsman, H. J.
2003 Women in Ugarit and Israel: The Social and Religious Position in the Context of the
Ancient Near East. OTS 49. Leiden: Brill.
Matsushima, E., ed.
1993 Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Collo-
quium on the Ancient Near East: The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Cul-
ture Center in Japan (Mitake, Tokyo), March 20–22, 1992. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Matthews, V. H., and Benjamin, D. C.
1993 Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250–587 b.c.e. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Maul, S.
1994 Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der
baÂ�bylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi). Baghdader Forschungen 18. Mainz:
von Zabern.
May, H. G.
1935 Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. Oriental Institute Publications 26. Chicago:
Oriental Institute.
Mazar, A.
1980 Excavations at Tell Qasile I. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
1982 The ‘Bull Site’: An Iron I Open Cult Place. BASOR 247: 27–42.
1985 Excavations at Tell Qasile II. Qedem 20. Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
1986 Excavations at Tell Qasile, 1982–1984: Preliminary Report. IEJ 36: 1–15.
1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 b.c.e. Anchor Bible Reference Li-
brary. New York: Doubleday.
1992 Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age. Pp. 161–87 in The
Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kem-
pinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1997 Timnah (Tel Batash) I. Qedem 37. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Uni-
versity of Jerusalem.
1999 The 1997–1998 Excavations at Tel Reḥov: Preliminary Report. IEJ 49: 1–42.
Mazar, A., and Kelm, G. L.
1993 Tel Batash. Pp. 152–57 in vol. 1 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society /
Carta.
Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N.
2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II.  Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
Mazar, B.
1951 Excavations at Tell Qasile: Preliminary Report. IEJ 1: 61–76; 125–40; 194–218.
1993 ʿEn Gev: Excavations on the Mound. Pp. 409–11 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society / Carta.
Mazar, B., et al.
1961 ʿEn Gev. IEJ 11: 192–93.
1964 ʿEin Gev Excavations in 1961. IEJ 14: 1–49.
Mazar, E., and Mazar, B.
1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Qe-
dem 29. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
644 Bibliography

Mazzoni, S., ed.

1992 Tell Afis e l’età del Ferro. Seminari di Orientalistica 2. Pisa: Giardini e Stampatori.
Mazzoni, S., and Cecchini, S. M., eds.
1995 Tell Afis (Siria). Pisa: ETS.
McCown, C. C.
1947 Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè,
vol. 1: Archaeological and Historical Results. New Haven, CT: American Schools of
Oriental Research.
McGeough, K. M.
2003 Locating the Marzihu Archaeologically. UF 35: 408–20.
McKay, J. W.
1973 Religion in Judah under the Assyrians, 732–609 b.c.e. London: Allenson.
McLaughlin, J. L.
2001 The Marzēaḥ in the Prophetic Literature. VTSup 86. Leiden: Brill.
McNicoll, A. W., et al.
1992 Pella in Jordan, vol. 2: The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney
and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella, 1982–1985. Mediterranean Archaeol-
ogy Supplement 2. Canberra: Australian National Gallery.
Meyers, C.
1988 Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford University
Press.
1991 ‘To Her Mother’s House’: Considering a Counterpart to the Israelite Bêt ʾāb. Pp. 39–
51 in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: FS Norman K. Gottwald, ed. D. D. Jobling,
L. Peggy, and G. T. Sheppard. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim.
1997 The Family in Ancient Israel. Pp. 1–47 in Families in Ancient Israel, ed. L. G. Perdue
et al. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
2002 From Household to House of Yahweh: Women’s Religious Culture in Ancient Is-
rael. Pp. 277–303 in Congress Volume: Basel, 2001, ed. A. Lemaire. Leiden: Brill.
2003a Everyday Life in Biblical Israel: Women’s Social Networks. Pp 185–204 in Life in the
Ancient Near East, ed. R. Averbeck and D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda, MD: CDL.
2003b Material Remains and Social Relations: Women’s Culture in Agrarian Households
of the Iron Age. Pp. 425–44 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past:
Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors: From the Bronze Age through Roman
Palaestina, ed. W. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2005 Household and Holiness: The Religious Culture of Israelite Women. Minneapolis:
Fortress.
Michel, D.
2004 Der Hebräische Nominalsatz: Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax, vol. 2. NeuÂ�
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Milgrom, J.
1983 Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36.
Leiden: Brill.
1991 Leviticus 1–16. AB 3. New York: Doubleday.
2000 Leviticus 17–22. AB 3a. New York: Doubleday.
2001 Leviticus 23–27. AB 3b. New York: Doubleday.
 Bibliography 645

Miller, P. D.
1985 Israelite Religion. Pp. 201–37 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, ed.
D.  A. Knight and G.  H. Tucker. SBL Centennial Publications.  Philadelphia: For-
tress / Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
1993 Things Too Wonderful: Prayers of Women in the Old Testament. Pp. 237–51 in
Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: FS N. Lohfink SJ, ed. G. Braulik,
W. Gross, and S. Mc Evenue, Freiburg: Herder.
2000 The Religion of Ancient Israel. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowl-
edge / Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Mitchell, C. W.
1983 The Meaning of brk ‘To Bless’ in the Old Testament. SBLDS 95. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Mol, H.
1976 Identity and the Sacred: A Sketch for a New Social-Scientific Theory of Religion. Ox-
ford: Blackwell.
Moore, R. D.
1990 God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories. JSOTSup 95. Sheffield: Sheffield Univer-
sity Press.
Moorey, P. R. S.
2003 Idols of the People: Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near East. The Schweich
Lectures of the British Academy 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moortgat, A.
1940 Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin:
Mann.
Morgan, L. H.
1877 Ancient Society: Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through
Barbarism to Civilisation. New York: Holt.
Morgenstern, J.
1963 The “Bloody Husband” (?) (Ex 4,24–26) Once Again. Hebrew Union College Annual
34: 35–70.
Moscati, S., ed.
1988 The Phoenicians. Milan: Bompiani.
Mowinckel, S.
1953 Religion und Kultus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1961 Åwän und die individuellen Klagepsalmen. Psalmenstudien 1.  Amsterdam: Schip-
pers. [Orig., 1921]
1966 Segen und Fluch in Israels Kult und Psalmdichtung. Psalmenstudien V. Repr. Amster-
dam: Schippers. [Orig., 1924]
Nakhai, B. Alpert
2001 Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel. Boston: American Schools of
Oriental Research.
Nakhai, B. Alpert; Dessel, J. P.; and Wisthoff, B. L.
1993 Tell el-Wawiat. Pp. 1500–1501 in vol. 4 of NEAHL.  Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society / Carta.
Naroll, R.
1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population: American Antiquity 27: 587–89.
646 Bibliography

Naumann, R., et al., eds.

1950 Tell Halaf II: Die Bauwerke. Berlin.
Naveh, J.
2000 Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions. Pp. 1–14 in Excavations at the City of David
1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shilo, vol. 6: Inscriptions, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 41.
Jerusalem: Keter.
2001 Hebrew Graffiti from the First Temple Period. IEJ 51: 194–207.
Naveh, J., and Shaked, S.
1985 Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Mag-
nes / Leiden: Brill.
1993 Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem:
Magnes.
Nave-Herz, R.
2002 Familiensoziologie. Pp. 148–52 in Wörterbuch der Soziologie, ed. G. Endruweit and
G. Trommsdorf. 2nd ed. Uni-Taschenbuch 2232. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.
2007 Familie heute: Wandel der Familienstrukturen und Folgen für die Erziehung. 3rd ed.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Negbi, O.
1993 Israelite Cult Elements in Secular Contexts of the 10th Century b.c.e. Pp. 221–30 in
Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on
Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusa-
lem: Israel Exploration Society.
Nelson, R. D.
2002 Deuteronomy. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Netting, R. McC.; Wilk, R.; and Arnould, E., eds.
1984 Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Netzer, E.
1992 Domestic Architecture in the Iron-Age. Pp. 193–201 in The Architecture of Ancient
Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Niehr, H.
1990 Der höchste Gott: Alttestamentlicher Jhwh-Glaube im Kontext syrisch-kanaanäischer
Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. BZAW 190. Berlin: de Gruyter.
1999 Auf dem Weg zu einer Religionsgeschichte Israels und Judas: Annäherung an einen
Problemkreis. Pp. 57–78 in Religionsgeschichte Israels: Formale und materiale AsÂ�
pekte, ed. B. Janowski and M. Köckert. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft für Theologie 15. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher Verlag.
2003 The Changed Status of the Dead in Yehud. Pp. 136–55 in Yahwism after the Exile:
Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. R. Albertz and B. Becking.
Studies in Theology and Religion 5. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Nissinen, M., and Münger, S.
2009 “Down the River . . .”: A Shrine Model from Tel Kinrot in Its Context. Pp. 129–44
in In a Timeless Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Hon-
our of Gerrit van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. E. Kaptijn
and L. P. Petit. Archaeological Studies Leiden University 19. Leiden: Leiden Uni-
versity Press.
 Bibliography 647

Noth, M.
1927 Gemeinsemitische Erscheinungen in der israelitischen Namengebung. ZDMG n.s.
6: 1–45.
1928 Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung.
BWANT 46. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
1961 Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus. ATD 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1962 Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Nunn, A.
2000 Der figürliche Motivschatz Phöniziens: Syriens und Transjordaniens vom 6. bis zum
4.Jh. v. Chr. OBOSA 18. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Olmo Lete, G. del, and Sanmartín, J.
1996–2000â•… Dictionario de la lengua ugarítica. 2 vols. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 7–8.
Barcelona: Ausa.
Olyan, S. M.
1988 Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. SLBMS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
1994 “And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman”: On the Meaning
and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Journal of the History of Sexuality 5:
179–206.
2004 Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2008 Family Religion in Israel and the Wider Levant of the First Millenium b.c.e. Pp. 113–
26 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. The
Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ornan, T.
1993 Mesopotamian Influence on West Semitic Inscribed Seals. Pp. 52–72 in Studies in
the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger.
OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
2001 Ištar as epicted on a Find from Israel. Pp. 235–56 in Studies in Archaeology of Iron
Age Israel and Jordan, ed. A.  Mazar. JSOTSup 331. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
Orthmann, W.
1971 Untersuchungen zur Späthethitischen Kunst. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur AltertumsÂ�
kunde 8. Bonn: Habelt.
Otten, H.
1961 Eine Beschwörung der Unterirdischen aus Bogazköy. ZA 20: 114–57.
Otto, A.
2006 Alltag und Gesellschaft zur Spätbronzezeit: Eine Fallstudie aus Tell Bazi (Syrien). SuÂ�
bartu 19. Brussels: Brepols.
Otto, E.
1988 pāsaḥ/paesaḥ. Pp. 659–82 in vol. 6 of ThWAT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Otto, S.
2001 Jehu, Elia und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der
Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen. BWANT 152. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Pakkala, J.; Münger, S.; and Zangenberg, J.
2004 Kinneret Regional Project: Tel Kinrot Excavations. Tel Kinrot – Tel el-ʿOrēme – Kin-
neret: Report 2/2004. Vantaa: Tummavuoren kirjapaino Oy.
648 Bibliography

Parayre, D.
1993 A propos des sceaux ouest-sémitiques: Le rôle de l’iconographie dans l’attribution
d’un sceau à une aire culturelle ou à un atelier. Pp. 27–51 in Studies in the Iconog-
raphy of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125.
Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Parker, B.
1949 Cylinder Seals from Palestine. Iraq 11: 1–42.
Pedersen, J.
1914 Der Eid bei den Semiten. Strassburg: Trübner.
Perdue, L. G.
1997 Israelite and Early Jewish Family: Summary and Conclusions. Pp. 163–221 in Fami-
lies in Ancient Israel: The Family, Religion and Culture, ed. L. G. Perdue, J. Blenkin-
sopp, and C. Meyers. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Person, R. F., Jr.
2002 The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature. Studies in Biblical
Literature 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Petrie, W. M. F.
1928 Gerar. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 48. London: British School of Ar-
chaeology in Egypt.
Pettinato, G.
1966 Die Ölwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern. 2 vols. Studi Semitici 21–22. Rome: Univer-
sità di Roma.
Pham, X. H. T.
1999 Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 302. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
Pilz, E.
1924 Die weiblichen Gottheiten Kanaans: Eine archäologische Studie. ZDPV 47: 129–68.
Pinch, G.
1993 Votive Offerings to Hathor. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Podella, T.
1986 Ein mediterraner Trauerritus. UF 18: 263–69.
1988 Grundzüge alttestamentlicher Jenseitsvorstellungen. BN 43: 70–89.
1989 Ṣôm-Fasten: Kollektive Trauer um den verborgenen Gott im Alten Testament. AOAT
224. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker.
1996 Das Lichtkleid Jhwhs: Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testa-
ment und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt. FAT 15. Tübingen: Mohr.
1997 Nekromantie. Theologische Quartalschrift 177: 120–33.
1998 Ahnenverehrung III. Pp. 227–28 in vol. 1 of RGG. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
2002 Totenrituale und Jenseitsbeschreibungen: Zur anamnetischen Struktur der Reli-
gionsgeschichte Israels. Pp. 530–61 in Tod, Jenseits und Identität: Perspektiven einer
kulturwissenschaftlichen Thanatologie, ed. J. Assmann and R. Trauzettel. VeröffentÂ�
lichungen des Instituts für Historische Anthropologie 79. Freiburg: Alber.
Porada, E.
1948 Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections, vol. 1: The Col-
lection of the Pierpont Morgan Library. Bollingen Series 14. New York: Pantheon.
 Bibliography 649

Porten, B., and Yardeni, A.

1989 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, vol. 2: Contracts. Jerusalem:
Hebrew University.
Porter, J. R.
1967 The Extended Family in the Old Testament. Occasional Papers in Social and Eco-
nomic Administration. London: Edutext.
Potts, T. F.; Colledge, S. M.; and Edwards, P. C.
1985 Preliminary Report on a Sixth Season of Excavations by the University of Sydney at
Pella in Jordan (1983–84). ADAJ 29: 181–210.
Prag, K.
1995 Summary of the Reports on Caves I, II and III and Deposit IV. Pp. 209–20 in Exca-
vations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961–1967, vol. 4: The Iron Age Cave Deposits
on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials Elsewhere, ed. I. Eshel and K. Prag. British
Academy Monographs in Archaeology 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pressler, C.
1993 The View of Woman Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws. BZAW 216. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Preuss, H. D.
1987 Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur. Kohlhammer Urban-Taschen-
bücher 383. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
1991–92â•… Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Preuss, J.
1923 Biblisch-talmudische Medizin: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Heilkunde und der Kultur
überhaupt. Berlin: Karger.
Pritchard, J. B.
1943 Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known through Literature.
American Oriental Series 24. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
1954 Ancient Near Eastern Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
1975 Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age. Philadelphia: University Museum.
1978 Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, 1969–
1974, by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Princeton: Prince�
ton University Press.
1985 Tell es-Saʿidiyeh: Excavations on the Tell, 1964–1966. Philadelphia: University
Museum.
1988 Sarepta IV: The Objects from Area II, X. Publications de l’Université Libanaise: Sec-
tion des Études Archéologiques 2. Beirut: Catholic Press SAL.
Pritchard, J. B., and Tubb, J. N.
1993 Tell es-Saʿidiyeh. Pp. 1295–300 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society / Carta.
Propp,W. H. C.
1999 Exodus 1–18. AB 2. New York: Doubleday.
Prosic, T.
2004 The Development and Symbolism of Passover until 70 c.e. JSOTSup 414. London:
T. & T. Clark.
650 Bibliography

Rad, G. von
1961 Die Anrechnung des Glaubens zur Gerechtigkeit. Pp. 130–35 in Gesammelte Stu-
dien zum Alten Testament. 2nd ed. Theologische Bücherei 8. Munich: Chr. Kaiser.
1962 Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 3rd ed.; vol. 2, 4th ed. Munich:
Chr. Kaiser.
1964 Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. ATD 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Rast, W. E.
1978 Taanach 1: Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of
Oriental Research.
Ratschow, C. H.
1947 Magie und Religion. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.
Rattray, S.
1987 Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms and Family Structure in the Bible. Pp. 537–44 in
Society of Biblical Literature: Seminar Papers. SBLSP 26. .
Rendtorff, R.
1975 El, Ba‘al und Jahwe: Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von kanaanäischer und israeli-
tischer Religion (1966). Pp. 172–87 in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testa-
ment. ThB 57. Munich: Chr. Kaiser.
Rattray, S.
1987 Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms, and Family Structure in the Bible. Pp. 537–44 in
1987 Seminar Papers: One Hundred Twenty-Third Annual Meeting, December 5-8,
1987, ed. K. H. Richards. SBLSP 26: Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Rechenmacher, H.
1997 Personennamen als theologische Aussagen: Die syntaktischen und semantischen
Strukturen der satzhaften theophoren Personennamen in der hebräischen Bibel. Ar-
beiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 50. St. Ottilien: EOS.
Reichert, A.
1977 Kultgeräte. Pp. 189–94 in Biblisches Reallexikon, ed. K. Galling. 2nd ed. HAT 1/1.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Renz, J., and Röllig, W.
1995–2003â•… Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 vols. in 4. Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buch�gesellschaft.
Riklin, S.
1997 Bet Aryé. ʿAtiqot 32: 7–20. [Heb.; Eng. summary, pp. 37*–38*]
Ringgren, H.
1988 Israelite Religion, trans. David E. Green. Brown Classics in Judaica. Lanham, MD /
London: University Press of America. [Orig., 1963]
Ritner, R. K.
1993 The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice. Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilizations 54. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
2008 Household Religion in Ancient Egypt. Pp. 171–96 in Household and Family Religion
in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. The Ancient World: Comparative Histo-
ries. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rittig, D.
1977 Assyrisch-babylonische Kleinplastik magischer Bedeutung vom 13.–6. Jh. v. Chr.
MünÂ�chener vorderasiatische Studien 1. Munich: Uni-Druck.
 Bibliography 651

Robinson, G.
1988 The Origins and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Ex-
egetical Approach. Beiträge zur Biblischen Exegese und Theologie 21. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Röllig, W.
1997 Aramaica Haburensia II: Zwei datierte aramäische Urkunden aus Tall Šeḥ Ḥamad.
AoF 24: 366–74.
Römheld, K. F. D.
1992 Von den Quellen der Kraft (Jdc 13). ZAW 104: 28–52.
Rose, M.
1975 Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomistische Schultheologie und die
Volksfrömmigkeit in der späten Königszeit. BWANT 106. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Rost, L.
1943 Weidewechsel und altisraelitischer Festkalender. ZDPV 66: 205–15.
Rothenberg, B.
1973 Timna: Das Tal der biblischen Kupferminen. Neue Entdeckungen der Archäologie.
Bergisch Gladbach: Lübbe.
1993 Timnah. Pp. 1475–86 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society /
Carta.
Rouillard, H.
1999 Rephaim. Pp. 692–700 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van
der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill.
Routledge, B.
2004 Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Rowe, A.
1930 The Topography and History of Beth Shean 1. Philadelphia: University Museum.
1940 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shean 2/1. Philadelphia: University Museum.
Rowley, H. H.
1956 The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought. London: SCM.
Rudolph, K.
1992 Geschichte und Probleme der Religionswissenschaft. Studies in the History of Reli-
gions 53. Leiden: Brill.
Rudolph, W.
1955 Chronikbücher. HAT 1/21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Sader, H.
2005 Iron Age Funerary Stelae from Lebanon. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea
11. Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra.
Sass, B.
1993 The Pre-exilic Hebrew Seals: Iconism vs. Aniconism. Pp. 194–256 in Studies in the
Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO
125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
2004 Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia. Pp. 1983–2057 in The Re-
newed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin.
Tel Aviv University Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv:
Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
652 Bibliography

Satlow, M. L.
2001 Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scharbert, J.
1982 Bēyt ʾāb als soziologische Grösse im Alten Testament. Pp. 213–37 in Von Kanaan
bis Kerala: FS J.  P. M.  Ploeg, ed. W.  C. Delsman. AOAT 211. Kevelaer: Butzon &
Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Schloen, J. D.
2001 The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonalism in Ugarit and the Ancient
Near East. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
Schlund, C.
2005 “Kein Knochen soll gebrochen werden.” WMANT 107. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag.
Schmidt, B. B.
1994 Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion
and Tradition. FAT 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. [Repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns, 1996]
Schmidt, W. H.
1985 Einführung in das Alte Testament. 3rd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Schmitt, R.
1994 Philistäische Terrakottafigurinen: Archäologische, ikonographische und religionsÂ�
geschichtliche Beobachtungen zu einer Sondergruppe palästinischer Kleinplastik der
Eisenzeit. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen.
1999 Philistäische Terrakottafigurinen. UF 31: 576–676.
2000 Das Problem der Deutung von Terrakottafigurinen aus Palästina/Israel. Pp. 44–55 in
Texte und Steine, ed. A. Leinhäupl-Wilke, S. Lücking, and J. M. Wiegand. Biblisches
Forum Jahrbuch 1999. Münster: Biblisches Forum.
2001 Bildhafte Herrschaftsrepräsentation im eisenzeitlichen Israel. AOAT 283. Münster:
Ugarit Verlag.
2004 Magie im Alten Testament. AOAT 313. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
2006 Die nachexilische Religion Israels: Bekenntnisreligion oder kosmotheistische Re-
ligion? Pp. 147–57 in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der ReligionsÂ�
geschichte des Alten Testaments, ed. A. Wagner. BZAW 364. Berlin: de Gruyter.
2008 Ashdod and the Material Remains of Domestic Cults in the Philistine Coastal Plain.
Pp. 159–70 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M.
Olyan. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schorch, S.
2003 Die Propheten und der Karneval: Marzeach – Maiomoumas – Maimuna. VT 53:
397–415.
Schroer, S.
1987 In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament. OBO
74. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Schumacher, G.
1908 Tell el-Mutesellim: Bericht über die 1903 bis 1905 mit Unterstützung Sr. Majestät
des Deutschen Kaisers und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft vom Deutschen Ve�
rein zur Erforschung Palästinas Veranstalteten Ausgrabungen, vol. 1: Fundbericht.
Leipzig: Haupt.
 Bibliography 653

Schwemer, D.
2007 Abwehrzauber und Behexung: Studien zum Schadenzauberglauben im alten Mesopo-
tamien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schwiderski, D.
2004 Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften, vol. 2. Fontes et Subsidia ad Biblica per-
tinentes 2. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Segal, J. B.
1976 Popular Religion in Ancient Israel. JJS 72: 1–22.
Seger, J. D.
1972 Tel Halif. IEJ 22: 161.
1977 Tel Halif. IEJ 27: 45–47.
1979 Tel Halif. IEJ 29: 247–49.
1980 Tel Halif. IEJ 30: 223–26.
1983 Investigations at Tell Halif, Israel, 1976–1980. BASOR 252: 1–23.
1993 Tel Halif. Pp 553–59 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society /
Carta.
Seger, J. D., and Borowski, O.
1977 Tel Halif. BA 40: 156–66.
Sellin, E.
1893 Das Subjekt der altisraelitischen Religion. neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 4: 441–79.
1904 Tell Taannek. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Phi-
losophisch-Historische Klasse 50. Vienna: Sohn.
Seybold, K.
1978 terafîm. Pp. 1057–60 in vol. 2 of THAT. Munich: Chr. Kaiser / Zurich: Theologischer
Verlag.
1996 Die Psalmen. HAT 1/15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Shalem, D., and Gal, Z.
2000 A Sounding at Iron Age Turʿan, Lower Galilee. ʿAtiqot 39: 105–11.
Shiloh, Y.
1970 The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City. IEJ 20: 180–
90.
1980 The Population of Iron Age Palestine in the Light of a Sample Analysis of Urban
Plans, Areas, and Population Density. BASOR 239: 25–35.
1984 Excavations at the City of David I, 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Sea-
sons. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusa-
lem.
1986 A Group of Hebrew Bullae from the City of David. IEJ 36: 16–38.
1993 Megiddo: Iron Age. Pp. 1012–25 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society / Carta.
Smend, R.
1899 Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. 2nd ed. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck.
Smith, M. S.
1990 The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. San Fran-
cisco: Harper.
Smith, R. H.
1993 Pella. Pp. 1174–80 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL.  Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society  /
Carta.
654 Bibliography

Smith, W. R.
1899 Die Religion der Semiten. Tübingen: Mohr.
1967 Die Religion der Semiten. Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Spencer, H.
1874 The Principles of Sociology. London: Williams & Norgate.
1877 Die Principien der Sociologie. Stuttgart: Vetter.
Spieckermann, H.
1982 Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. FRLANT 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Spronk, K.
1986 Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East. AOAT 219. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker.
Stade, B.
1887–88â•… Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 2 vols. Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen
1/6: 1–2. Berlin: Grote’sche Verlag.
Stager, L. E.
1985 The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. BASOR 260: 1–35.
Stamm, J. J.
1968 Die akkadische Namengebung. MVAG 44. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft. [Orig., 1939]
1980 Beiträge zur hebräischen und altorientalischen Namenskunde, ed. J. J. Stamm and
A. Klopfenstein. OBO 30. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Stern, E.
1982 The Material Culture of Palestine in the Persian Period. Warminster: Aris & Philips /
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1987 Excavations at Tell Dor: A Canaanite-Phoenician Port-City on the Carmel Coast.
Qadmoniot 20: 66–81. [Heb.]
1993 Tel Kedesh. P. 860 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL.  Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society  /
Carta.
2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian
Periods (782–332 b.c.e.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Stern, E., and Beit-Arieh, I.
1979 Tel Kedesh. Tel Aviv 6: 1–25.
Stern, E., et al.
1995 Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Volume 1b Areas A and C: The Finds. Qedem Re-
ports 2. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Stipp, H.-J.
1995 Simson, der Nasiräer. VT 45: 327–69.
Stol, M.
2000 Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting. Cuneiform Monograph
14. Groningen: Styx.
Stolz, F.
1970 Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem. BZAW 118. Berlin: de Gruyter.
1996 Einführung in den Biblischen Monotheismus. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche BuchÂ�
gesellschaft.
 Bibliography 655

Stone, E. C., and Zimansky, P. E.

1999 The Iron Age Settlement at ʿAin Dara, Syria: Survey and Soundings. British Archae-
ological Reports International Series 786. Oxford: Hedges & Archaeopress.
Stone, K.
1996 Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 234. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press.
Sundermeier, T.
1980 Die “Stammesreligionen” als Thema der Religionsgeschichte: These zu einer “TheoÂ�
logie der Religionsgeschichte.” Pp. 159–67 in Fides pro mundi vita. Missionstheologie
heute: Hans-Werner Gensichen zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. H.-J. Becken, B. H. Willeke,
and T. Sundermeier. Missionswissenschaftliche Forschungen 14. Gütersloh: Güter-
sloher Verlag.
1988 Nur gemeinsam können wir leben: Das Menschenbild schwarzafrikanischer Reli-
gionen. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag.
1992 The Meaning of Tribal Religions for the History of Religion: Primary Religious Ex-
perience. Scriptura 10: 1–9.
1995 Religionswissenschaft versus Theologie? Zur Verhältnisbestimmung von ReligionsÂ�
wissenschaft und Theologie aus religionswissenschaftlicher Sicht. Pp. 189–206 in
Religionswissenschaft oder Theologie des Alten Testaments? ed. I. Baldermann et al.
Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
1999 Was ist Religion? Religionswissenschaft im theologischen Kontext: Ein Studienbuch.
Theologische Bücherei 96. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher Verlag.
Tambiah, S. J.
1968 The Magical Power of Words. Man n.s. 3/2: 175–208.
1990 Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality. Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures
1984. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thiel, J. F.
1984 Religionsethnologie: Grundbegriffe der Religionen schriftloser Völker. Corpus Inscrip-
tionum Atticarum 33. Berlin: Reimer.
Theuer, G.
2000 Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien–Palästinas. OBO 173. Fribourg: Univer-
sitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Thiselton, A. C.
1974 The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings. Journal of Theological Stud-
ies 25: 283–99.
Thomsen, M.-L.
1987 Zauberdiagnose und Schwarze Magie in Mesopotamien. Carsten Niebuhr Institute of
Ancient Near Eastern Studies Publication 2. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Tigay, J. H.
1987 Israelite Religion: The Onomastic Evidence. Pp. 157–94 in Ancient Israelite Religion:
Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. Dean
McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Timm, S.
1989 Moab zwischen den Mächten: Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten.
ÄgypÂ�ten und Altes Testament 17. Darmstadt: Harrassowitz.
1993 Das ikonographische Repertoire der moabitischen Siegel und seine Entwicklung: Vom
Maximalismus zum Minimalismus. Pp. 161–93 in Studies in the Iconography of
656 Bibliography

Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg:
Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tita, H.
2001 Gelübde als Bekenntnis: Eine Studie zu den Gelübden im Alten Testament. OBO 181.
Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Toorn, K. van der
1994 From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the
Babylonian Woman. The Biblical Seminar 23. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
1996a Ancestors and Anthroponyms: Kinship Terms as Theophoric Elements in Hebrew
Names. ZAW 108: 1–11.
1996b Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of
Religious Life. Studies in the History and Ancient Culture of the Ancient Near East
7. Leiden: Brill.
1997 Ein verborgenes Erbe: Totenkult im frühen Israel. Theologische Quartalschrift 177:
105–20.
1999 Magic at the Cradle: A Reassessment. Pp. 139–47 in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual,
Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, ed. T. Abush and K. van der Toorn. An-
cient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx.
2002 Israelite Figurines: A View from the Texts. Pp. 45–62 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place:
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed. B. M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns.
2003 Nine Months among the Peasants in the Palestinian Highlands: An Anthropologi-
cal Perspective on Local Religion in the Early Iron Age. Pp. 393–410 in Symbiosis,
Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors
from the Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Wi-
nona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Toorn, K. van der, and Lewis, T. J.
1999 Teraphim. Pp. 844–50 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van
der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill.
Triebel, L., and Zangeberg, J.
2003 Hinter Fels und unter Erde: Beobachtungen zur Archäologie und zum kulturel-
len Kontext jüdischer Gräber im hellenistisch-jüdischen Palästina. Pp. 447–87 in
Zeichen aus Text und Stein: Studien auf dem Weg zu einer Archäologie es Neuen Tes-
taments, ed. S. Alkier and J. Zangenberg. Tübingen: Francke.
Tropper, J.
1989 Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. AOAT 223.
Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
1999 Spirit of the Dead. Pp. 806–9 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed.
K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill.
2000 Ugaritische Grammatik. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Tsukimoto, A.
1985 Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien. AOAT 216. Ke�ve�
laer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Tubb, J. N.
1993 Tell es Saʿidiyeh. Pp. 1297–1300 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society / Carta.
 Bibliography 657

Tufnell, O.
1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press.
1984 Studies on Scarab Seals, vol. 2: Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to History in the
Early Second Millennium b.c., with contributions by G. T. Martin and W. A. Ward.
Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
Turner, V. W.
1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Lewis Henry Morgan Lecture 1966.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Tylor, E. B.
1873 Die Anfänge der Cultur: Untersuchungen über die Entwicklung der Mythologie, Phi-
losophie, Religion, Kunst und Sitte. 2 vols. Leipzig: Carl Winter.
Uehlinger, C.
1990 Ein ʿnh-förmiges Astralkultsymbol auf Stempelsiegeln des 8./7. Jhs. Pp. 322–30
in Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel III: Die frühe Eisenzeit, ed.
O. Keel, M. Shuval, and C. Uehlinger. OBO 100. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1993 Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Iconography and Syro-Palestinian Religions of
Iron Age II: Some Afterthoughts and Conclusions. Pp. 257–88 in Studies in the Ico-
nography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO
125. Fribourg : Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Ussishkin, D.
1974 Tombs from the Israelite Period at Tel ʿEton. Tel Aviv 1: 109–27.
1989 Schumacher’s Shrine in Building 338 at Megiddo. IEJ 39: 148–72.
1993 Fresh Examination of Old Excavations: Sanctuaries in the First Temple Period.
Pp. 67–85 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second Interna-
tional Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem, June–July 1990, ed. A. Biran and
J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Ussishkin, D., ed.
2004 The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994). 4 vols. Tel Aviv
University Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery
and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
Vaughn, A. G.
1999 Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler Account of Hezekiah. Archaeol-
ogy and Biblical Studies 4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Vaux, R. de
1993 Tell el Farʿah: Identification and History. P. 433 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society / Carta.
Veijola, T.
1996 The History of the Passover in the Light of Deuteronomy 16,1–8. Zeitschrift für AltÂ�
orientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 2: 53–75.
Veldhuis, N.
1991 A Cow of Sîn. Library of Oriental Texts 2. Groningen: Styx.
Vorländer, H.
1975 Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott im Alten Orient und Alten Tes-
tament. AOAT 23. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag.
1986 Aspekte von Volksreligiosität im Alten Testament. Concilium 22: 281–85.
658 Bibliography

Vrijhof, P., and Waardenburg, J., eds.

1979 Official and Popular Religion: Analysis of a Theme for Religious Studies. Religion and
Society 19. The Hague: Mouton.
Wach, J.
1944 Sociology of Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1951 Religionssoziologie, trans. of 4th Eng. ed. H. Schoeck. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Wagner, A.
1997 Sprechakte und Sprechaktanalyse im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen im biblischen
Hebräisch an der Nahtstelle zwischen Handlungsebene und Grammatik. BZAW 253.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wagner, A., ed.
2006 Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testa-
ments. BZAW 364. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wakita, S.; Wada, H.; and Nishiyama, S.
2000 Tell Mastuma: Change in Settlement Plans and Historical Context. Pp. 535–57
in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Supplement 7. Louvain: Peeters.
Walmsley, A. G., et al.
1993 The Eleventh and Twelfth Seasons of Excavations at Pella, 1989–1990. ADAJ 37:
165–240.
Waltke, B. K., and O’Connor, M.
1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Wampler, J.
1947 Tell en-Nasbeh, vol. 2: The Pottery. Berkeley: Palestine Inst. of Pacific School of
Religion.
Watzinger, C.
1929 Tell el-Mutesellim: Bericht über die 1903 bis 1905 mit Unterstützung Sr. Majestät des
Deutschen Kaisers und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft vom Deutschen Verein
zur Erforschung Palästinas Veranstalteten Ausgrabungen, vol. 2: Die Funde. Leipzig:
Haupt.
Weimar, P.
1980 Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5.
OBO 32. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Weippert, H.
1988 Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Handbuch der Archäologie 2/1. Munich: Beck.
1990 Review of Frau und Göttin, by Urs Winter. ZDPV 106: 185–88.
Weippert, M.
1997 Synkretismus und Monotheismus (1990). Pp. 1–24 in Jahwe und die anderen Göt-
ter: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel in ihrem syrisch-palästinischen
Kontext, ed. M. Weippert. FAT 18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Wellhausen, J.
1887 Reste Arabischen Heidentums. Berlin: de Gruyter.
1927a Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 6th ed. Berlin: Reimer.
1927b Reste Arabischen Heidentums. Berlin: de Gruyter. [Reprint of 1887]
Welten, P.
1969 Die Königs-Stempel: Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins. Wiesbaden: HarÂ�
ras�sowitz.
 Bibliography 659

Wenning, R.
1991a Grab. Pp. 942–46 in vol. 1 of Neues Bibel-Lexikon, ed. M. Görg and B. Lang. 3 vols.
Zurich: Benzinger.
1991b Wer war der Paredros der Aschera? Notizen zu Terrakottastatuetten in eisenzeit�
lichen Gräbern. Biblische Notizen 59: 89–97.
1997 Bestattungen im königszeitlichen Juda. Theologische Quartalschrift 177: 82–93.
1998 Bestattung II. Pp. 1363–64 in vol. 1 of RGG. 4th ed.
2005 “Medien” in der Bestattungskultur im eisenzeitlichen Juda. Pp. 109–50 in Medien
im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der
PalästinaÂ�archäologie, ed. C. Frevel. FAT 2/11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Wenning, R., and Zenger, E.
1990 Tod und Bestattung im biblischen Israel: Eine archäologische und religionsgeschichtÂ�
liche Skizze. Pp. 285–303 in Ihr alle aber seid Brüder: FS Adel Theodor Khoury, ed.
L.  Hagemann and E.  Pulsfort. Religionswissenschaftliche Studien 14. Würzburg:
Echter / Altenberge: Telos.
Westbrook, R.
2003–5 Polygamy. Pp 600–602 in vol. 10 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Westermann, C.
1963 Das Loben Gottes in den Psalmen. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1974 Weisheit im Sprichwort (1971). Pp. 149–61 in Forschung am Alten Testament: GeÂ�
sammelte Studien, vol. 2. Theologische Bücherei 55. Munich: Chr. Kaiser.
1978a Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church, trans. Keith R. Crim. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
1978b Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen. Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 6.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wette, W. M. L. de
1842 Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen Archäologie nebst einem Grundrisse der hebräisch-
jüdischen Geschichte. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Vogel.
Willett, E. A. R.
1999 Women and Household Shrines in Ancient Israel. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tucson: Uni-
versity of Arizona.
2008 Infant Mortality and Women’s Religion in the Biblical Periods. Pp. 1–21 in The
World of Women in Ancient and Classical Near East, ed. B. A. Nakhai. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Williamson, H. G. M.
2003 The Family in Persian Period Judah: Some Textual Reflections. Pp. 469–85 in Symbi-
osis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neigh-
bors from the Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever, and S. Gitin.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Wimmer, D. H.
1987 Tell Ṣāfūṭ Excavations, 1982–1985: Preliminary Report. ADAJ 31: 159–74.
1989 Safut. Pp. 512–15 in vol. 2/2 of Archaeology of Jordan, ed. D. Homés-Fredericq and
J. B. Hennessy. Leuven: Peeters.
Winter, U.
1983 Frau und Göttin. OBO 53. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
660 Bibliography

1987 Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild
im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt. 2nd ed. OBO 53. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag /
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wöhrle, J.
2011 The Integrative Function of the Law of Circumcision. Pp. 71–87 in The Foreigner and
the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. R. Achen-
bach, R.  Albertz, and J.  Wöhrle. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und
Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Wolff, H. W.,
2002 Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. 7th ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag.
Wright, D. P.
1987 The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopota-
mian Literature. SBLDS 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Wright, G. E.
1965 Shechem. London: Duckworth.
Yadin, Y.
1958 Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1960 Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1961 Hazor III–IV: Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–1958.
Plates. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1972 Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms (Joshua 11:10). Schweich Lectures of the
British Academy, 1970. London: Oxford University Press.
Yassine, K.
1984 The Open Court Sanctuary from the Iron Age I at Tell el-Mazār Mound A. ZDPV
100: 108–18.
1988 Archaeology of Jordan: Essays and Reports. Amman: Department of Archaeology,
University of Jordan.
1989 Mazar (Tell el-). Pp. 381–84 in vol. 2.2 of Archaeology of Jordan, ed. D.  Homés-
Fredericq and J. B. Hennessy. Leuven: Peeters.
1992 Mazar, Tell el-. Pp. 645–46 in vol. 2 of ABD.
Yorburg, B.
1975 The Nuclear and Extended Family: An Area of Conceptual Confusion. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies 6: 5–14.
Yon, M., and Sznycer, M. M.
1991 Une inscription phénicienne royale de Kition (Chypre). Pp. 791–823 in Comptes
rendus de séances de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris: Boccard.
Zadok, R.
1988 The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. Orientalia Lovanien-
sia Analecta 28. Leuven: Peeters.
Zertal, A.
1993 Ebal, Mount. Pp. 375–77 in vol. 1 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Soci-
ety / Carta.
Zevit, Z.
2001 The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London: Con-
tinuum.
2003 False Dichotomies in Descriptions of Israelite Religion: A Problem, Its Origin, and
a Proposed Solution. Pp. 223–35 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past:
 Bibliography 661

Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Ro-
man Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Zimhoni, O.
2004a The Pottery of Levels V and IV. Pp. 1643–788 in The Renewed Archaeological Exca-
vations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University Nadler
Institute of Archaeology Monograph 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publi�
cations.
2004b The Pottery of Levels III and II. Pp. 1789–899 in The Renewed Archaeological Exca-
vations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University Nadler
Institute of Archaeology Monograph 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publi�
cations.
Zimmerli, W.
1979 Ezechiel. 2 vols. 2nd ed. BKAT 13/1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Zorn, J. R.
1993 Tell en-Nasbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early
Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. 4 vols. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
California, Berkeley. 
Zwickel, W.
1989 Über das angebliche Verbrennen von Räucherwerk bei der Bestattung des Königs.
ZAW 101: 266–77.
1990 Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte. OBO 97. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1994 Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel: Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte Palästinas von
der Mittelbronzezeit bis zum Untergang Judas. FAT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
1999a Der Salomonische Tempel. Mainz: Zabern.
1999b Religionsgeschichte Israels: Einführung in den gegenwärtigen Forschungsstand in
den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Pp. 9–56 in Religionsgeschichte Israels: Formale
und materiale Aspekte, ed. B. Janowski and M. Köckert. Veröffentlichungen der Wis-
senschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 15. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher
Verlag.
Zwingenberger, U.
2001 Dorfkultur der frühen Eisenzeit in Mittelpalästina. OBO 180. Fribourg: Universitäts-
verlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
 Index of Authors

Abusch, T.â•… 388 Bendor, S.â•… 22–23, 25, 42

Achenbach, R.â•… 397, 610, 655 Bennet, C. M.â•… 189–90
Ackerman, S.â•… 7, 10, 15, 49–50, 53–54, 57, 225, Ben-Shlomo, D.â•… 67–69, 193, 195, 197, 199,
297, 371, 430, 474, 477 232, 436
Aharoni, Y.â•… 80, 82, 116, 123–25, 232, 236–67 Ben-Tor, A.â•… 70, 103–4, 159, 161–64
Ahlström, G. W.â•… 62 Benz, F. L.â•… 254, 258, 288, 306, 313, 316, 320,
Albertz, R.â•… 1, 3–5, 7–8, 11, 15–18, 42, 46–47, 353, 359
51, 53–54, 56–57, 63–64, 223, 225, 229, Berlinerblau, J.â•… 50–51, 54, 271–72, 404–6,
237, 245–46, 248, 252, 256, 262, 266, 409, 490
268–69, 273, 276, 278, 280, 282–85, 292, Bernett, M.â•… 233
298–99, 305–6, 314, 319, 327, 331, 333–35, Bertholet, A.â•… 410, 435
338, 345, 349–50, 357, 369, 389, 391, 395, Bienkowski, P.â•… 189–90
401–3, 409, 411, 414, 416, 421–22, 425, Biggs, R. D.â•… 422
428, 433, 460, 474–75, 477, 482, 485, 491 Biran, A.â•… 69, 233, 238
Albright, W. F.â•… 28, 62, 66, 73, 85–87, 126 Bird, P. A.â•… 8–9, 53, 269, 297, 474
Alexander, C. S.â•… 36 Birnbaum, S. A.â•… 66, 466
Alexandre, Y.â•… 108 Black, J.â•… 383
Amiran, R.â•… 69, 73, 75, 235 Blenkinsopp, J.â•… 33, 49, 57
ʾAmr, A. J.â•… 63–64 Bliss, F. J.â•… 226
Anderson, G.â•… 211 Bloch-Smith, E.â•… 59, 64, 67, 73, 134, 140, 170,
Ariel, D. T.â•… 111 236–37, 429–30, 437–40, 444, 447–48,
Arneth, M.â•… 373 453–54, 456–57, 460, 469
Arnould, E.â•… 23 Blum, E.â•… 354, 394
Assmann, J.â•… 52, 388, 427 Bodel, J.â•… 7–8, 54, 57, 477
Aufrecht, W. E.â•… 258, 293 Bordreuil, P.â•… 375
Austin, J. L.â•… 410 Borghouts, J. F.â•… 64, 71, 389–90
Avigad, N.â•… 133, 232, 248, 258, 266, 267, 271, Borowski, O.â•… 31, 101, 269
272, 276, 279, 282, 284–85, 292–93, 307, Bourke, S. J.â•… 186, 189
327, 369, 406 Bousset, W.â•… 435
Avissar, M.â•… 159 Braemer, F.â•… 26, 31
Braudel, F.â•… 17
Bachelot, L.â•… 258 Braulik, G.â•… 455
Badè, W. F.â•… 157 Brenner, A.â•… 395
Badre, L.â•… 209–10 Brentjes, B.â•… 375
Barnett, R. D.â•… 210, 383 Bretschneider, J.â•… 68
Beckman, G. M.â•… 269, 389–90 Briend, H.â•… 69, 211
Beck, P.â•… 68, 392 Brueggemann, W.â•… 2
Begrich, J.â•… 273, 416 Brug, J. F.â•… 69
Beit-Arieh, I.â•… 64, 67, 69–71, 73, 112, 236–37 Buhl, M. L.â•… 169
Ben-Ami, D.â•… 103–4, 232 Bunimovitz, S.â•… 22, 26, 28, 32–33, 39, 41, 92

662
 Index of Authors 663

Burch, T. K.â•… 33, 34 Dothan, T.â•… 68–69, 195, 199, 201, 203, 205,
227, 232, 238, 239
Callaway, J. A.â•… 74, 164–65 Douglas, M.â•… 388, 394–95, 403, 418, 420,
Campbell, E. F.â•… 28, 32, 223 422–25, 427, 491
Capet, E.â•… 209–10 Duhm, B.â•… 1, 474
Cartledge, T. M.â•… 409 Durham, J. I.â•… 393
Cecchini, S. M.â•… 216–18 Durkheim, E.â•… 388
Chambon, A.â•… 94–95, 97, 233
Childs, B. S.â•… 2, 393, 399, 402, 421 Ebertz, M.â•… 50
Cholidis, N.â•… 68 Edelstein, G.â•… 76–77
Clark, D. R.â•… 28–29, 190, 192 Edwards, P. C.â•… 170, 187
Coats, G. W.â•… 393 Eggler, J.â•… 258, 369, 379–81, 385
Cogan, M.â•… 239, 369 Eichrodt, W.â•… 2, 474
Cohen, R.â•… 67, 69–71, 73, 78, 235 Eissfeldt, O.â•… 2
Colledge, S. M.â•… 170, 187 Ellens, D. L.â•… 422–23
Collon, D.â•… 69, 375, 382, 384 Elliger, K.â•… 61, 418, 424–25
Conrad, J.â•… 4 Engberg, R. M.â•… 439–40
Cook, S. A.â•… 62 Engle, J. R.â•… 62–63
Cooley, R. E.â•… 164, 165 Eshel, I.â•… 73, 462–63, 466, 468
Cornelius, I.â•… 63, 66
Crawford, T. G.â•… 410 Fales, F. M.â•… 258
Cross, F. M.â•… 11, 352, 357, 365, 374 Farber, W.â•… 269, 389–90, 392
Crowfoot, G. M.â•… 380–81, 383, 444, 447, 466, Faust, A.â•… 22, 26, 28, 32–33, 39–43, 476
468 Fichtner, J.â•… 246, 336
Crowfoot, J. W.â•… 380–81, 383, 444, 447, 466, Finkelstein, I.â•… 88, 108, 134, 141, 155, 157, 169
468 Fischer, A. A.â•… 429
Crüsemann, F.â•… 325, 395 Fischer, I.â•… 397–98
Cryer, F. H.â•… 388, 429, 469, 470 Fischer, P. M.â•… 176–77
Curtis, J.â•… 218 Fohrer, G.â•… 48, 60–61, 387, 477
Fortes, M.â•… 430
Dahm, U.â•… 399–400 Fowler, M. D.â•… 170, 172, 245, 251, 253, 257,
Daviau, P. M. M.â•… 7, 14–15, 57, 58–59, 69, 270, 286, 300, 311, 324, 340, 348, 355,
71–74, 176, 178–79, 182, 186, 227, 232–33, 357–58
474 Franken, H. J.â•… 462–63, 468
Dessel, J. P.â•… 102, 172 Frankfort, H.â•… 422
Deutsch, R.â•… 248–49, 258, 260, 263–64, 267, Frazer, J. G.â•… 410, 423, 435
289, 291–92, 315, 317–18, 364 Freedman, D. N.â•… 68, 203, 204
Dever, W. G.â•… 10, 12–13, 15, 32–34, 49, 53–54, Friedl, C.â•… 395, 397
95, 99, 172, 220, 222–24, 238, 269, 297, Fritz, V.â•… 112–14, 125–30, 220, 232, 235
368, 386, 468, 474, 477 Fustel de Coulanges, N. D.â•… 429
Dietrich, M.â•… 456
Dijk, J. J. vanâ•… 391 Galling, K.â•… 62, 393
Dion, P.-E.â•… 69, 71, 176, 186, 232 Gal, Z.â•… 108, 172
Di Vito, R. A.â•… 350–51 Gerstenberger, E. S.â•… 2, 6, 53, 57, 335, 394,
Dohmen, C.â•… 421 397, 399, 414–16, 418, 421–22, 424–25,
Doll, P.â•… 338 435, 474, 477, 482
Donner, H.â•… 269, 320, 369 Geva, S.â•… 36–37, 39, 57–58, 106
Dornemann, R.â•… 65, 67, 176 Gibson, J. C. L.â•… 258
Dothan, M.â•… 68, 193, 195, 197, 199, 203–5, 238 Gilbert-Peretz, D.â•… 68, 210
664 Index of Authors

Gitin, S.â•… 48, 70, 193, 195, 205–6, 223, 238–39, Hug, V.â•… 258, 289
241 Humbert, J.-B.â•… 69, 211
Givon, S.â•… 225 Hurowitz, V. A.â•… 237
Gjerstad, E.â•… 66, 69
Glock, A. E.â•… 169–70 Jacobsen, T.â•… 2
Gogel, S. L.â•… 349 Jacobs, P.â•… 101–2
Golka, F. W.â•… 336 Jahnow, H.â•… 399, 434–35
Gordon, R. L.â•… 177 James, F. W.â•… 87–88, 90–91, 388
Gottwald, N. K.â•… 22, 25, 33, 37, 42–43, 476 Jamieson, A. S.â•… 207–8
Grabbe, L. L.â•… 420 Janowski, B.â•… 267, 302, 311, 416, 429, 469
Grant, E.â•… 92–93 Jeffers, A.â•… 388, 429, 469–70
Green, A.â•… 218, 383 Jeremias, J.â•… 16, 54
Greenberg, M.â•… 49 Jirku, A.â•… 435
Gressmann, H.â•… 393 Joüon, P.â•… 349
Gröndahl, F.â•… 246, 251, 365
Groot, A. deâ•… 111 Karageorghis, V.â•… 66–68
Gross, W.â•… 402 Keel, O.â•… 63, 65–66, 68–69, 71, 73, 233, 237,
Grünschloß, A.â•… 52 258, 291, 367, 368–71, 374, 377–86, 392,
Grünwaldt, K.â•… 395, 399, 401 421, 469
Gubel, E.â•… 209–10, 376, 380 Kelm, G. L.â•… 77
Gunkel, H.â•… 393, 395, 397 Kelso, J. L.â•… 85
Guy, P. L. O.â•… 439, 440 Kempinski, A.â•… 125–30, 135, 137, 139, 209,
220
Hachlili, R.â•… 66, 68, 203, 437, 457, 461 Kenyon, K. M.â•… 66, 444, 447, 462, 466, 468
Halpern, B.â•… 141, 157 Kertzer, D. I.â•… 22–24, 43, 475
Harrison, T. P.â•… 141–42, 144–48, 151–53, 155 Khalifeh, I. A.â•… 211
Hartenstein, F.â•… 16, 54 Killebrew, A.â•… 437, 457, 461
Hartley, J. F.â•… 423 Kim, T.-K.â•… 336, 338
Heide, M.â•… 249 King, P. J.â•… 22, 31, 34, 43–44, 220, 269, 296,
Helck, W.â•… 63 303, 395, 470
Heltzer, M.â•… 248–49, 258, 263, 289, 317–18, Kletter, R.â•… 59, 62, 64–66, 68, 73, 80, 84–85,
364 92, 116–17, 120, 157, 195, 226, 232, 236,
Hempel, J.â•… 1, 474 383, 481
Herr, L. G.â•… 28–29, 136, 170, 190, 192, 220, König, R.â•… 21
233 Kottsieper, I.â•… 195, 326, 337, 354
Herrmann, S.â•… 71, 381, 383, 392 Kraus, H. J.â•… 456
Hertzberg, H. W.â•… 437 Krebernik, M.â•… 269, 389
Herzog, Z.â•… 69, 71, 84, 132–33, 137, 140, 236, Kreuzer, S.â•… 329
383 Kronholm, T.â•… 395
Hestrin, R.â•… 62 Kühn, D.â•… 429, 460–61
Hoffmann, H.-D.â•… 245 Kühne, H.â•… 218
Holladay, J. A.â•… 11–13, 15, 22, 26, 28, 32–33, Kutsch, E.â•… 434
36–37, 49–50, 55, 58, 82, 136–37, 141, 173,
220–21, 223, 228–30, 240, 468, 474, 477 Lambert, W. G.â•… 276
Holland, T. A.â•… 62, 65–67, 462–63 Lamon, R. S.â•… 136, 140
Holm-Nielsen, E.â•… 169 Lamprichs, R.â•… 183–84
Horkheimer, M.â•… 21 Lance, H. D.â•… 99
Hubert, H.â•… 388 Lanczkowski, G.â•… 3, 53, 477
Hübner, U.â•… 63, 258, 274, 376, 379, 384 Lang, B.â•… 53, 57, 336
 Index of Authors 665

Lapp, P. W.â•… 169–70 Miller, P. D.â•… 6, 15, 49, 53, 269, 474, 477
Laslett, P.â•… 22–24, 38, 475 Misgav, H.â•… 407–9
LeBlanc, S.â•… 32–33 Mitchell, C. W.â•… 410
Lehmann-Jericke, K.â•… 209 Mol, H.â•… 56
Lemaire, A.â•… 248–49, 258, 260, 263–64, 267, Moorey, P. R. S.â•… 64–66, 68, 226, 468
275, 288, 291, 306, 315, 318, 358 Moortgat, A.â•… 375
Lemche, N. P.â•… 25 Morgan, L. H.â•… 388
Lenzen, C.â•… 177 Moscati, S.â•… 67, 461
Lernau, H.â•… 463 Mowinckel, S.â•… 410, 435
Leuenberger, M.â•… 16–17, 49, 52, 54, 410–12, Münger, S.â•… 112, 115, 155
477 Muraoka, T.â•… 349
Lévi-Strauss, C.â•… 420, 423, 425
Levy, S.â•… 76–77, 461 Nakhai, B. Alpertâ•… 13–15, 57, 166, 172, 223,
Lewis, T. J.â•… 60–61, 429–30, 433, 456, 458, 469, 474
493 Naroll, R.â•… 32–33
Lipiński, E.â•… 63 Nave-Herz, R.â•… 21, 43, 54, 336, 351, 475, 485
Loretz, O.â•… 61, 430, 432, 435, 456, 457, 470–71 Naveh, J.â•… 195, 239, 249, 285, 420
Loud, G.â•… 134–35, 141–42, 144–48, 151–53 Negbi, O.â•… 14, 58, 134, 137, 140–41, 477
Nelson, R. D.â•… 292
Macalister, R. A. S.â•… 70, 99, 226, 439 Netting, R. McC.â•… 23
MacKay, D.â•… 206 Netzer, E.â•… 31–33
Mackenzie, D.â•… 92, 439, 448–49 Niehr, H.â•… 52, 354, 379, 430, 477, 493
Magen, Y.â•… 406–9 Niemeier, W. A.â•… 209
Mähner, S.â•… 353 Nishiyama, S.â•… 208
Manor, D. W.â•… 93 Nissinen, M.â•… 112, 115
Mansour, S.â•… 176 Noth, M.â•… 245–46, 250–53, 255, 257, 264,
Maraqten, M.â•… 258, 275, 283, 289, 306, 308 267–68, 270, 274, 276–77, 283, 286, 290,
Marquet-Krause, J.â•… 74–75 295, 300–301, 303–4, 307, 312, 315, 320,
Marsman, H. J.â•… 395, 397–98 322, 327–28, 332, 341, 349–50, 352–53,
Matsushima, E.â•… 51 363, 393, 402–3, 421, 424–25, 482, 483
Mauss, M.â•… 388 Nunn, A.â•… 207, 215
May, H. G.â•… 62, 69, 138–42, 285, 413
Mazar, A.â•… 67–70, 77–78, 133, 165, 170, 197, O’Connor, M. P.â•… 349
220, 230, 232, 235 Olyan, S. M.â•… 7–8, 16, 45, 49, 54, 57, 371, 424,
Mazar, B.â•… 93–94, 463, 466 429–30, 434–36, 458, 470, 474, 477, 482
Mazar, E.â•… 463, 466 Ornan, T.â•… 376, 379
Mazzoni, S.â•… 209, 215–18 Orthmann, W.â•… 291
McCown, C. C.â•… 157, 440, 444 Otto, A.â•… 207–8, 415–16, 419
McGeough, K. M.â•… 458
McKay, J. W.â•… 369 Pakkala, J.â•… 112, 155
McLaughlin, J. L.â•… 458 Parayre, D.â•… 368, 373, 376
McNicoll, A. W.â•… 187 Parker, B.â•… 370
McQuitty, A. M.â•… 177 Pedersen, J.â•… 410
Meyers, C.â•… 9–11, 16, 23–25, 33–34, 37, 53, 57, Perdue, L. G.â•… 22, 25
64, 225–26, 247, 269, 277, 294, 297, 395, Person Jr., R. F.â•… 292
474–76 Petrie, W. M. F.â•… 62, 370
Michel, D.â•… 349 Pettinato, G.â•… 274
Milgrom, J.â•… 403, 418, 420–25 Pilz, E.â•… 62
Millard, A. R.â•… 276 Podella, T.â•… 373, 429–31, 434–35, 469–70
666 Index of Authors

Porada, E.â•… 375, 384 Sass, B.â•… 117, 120, 248, 258, 266, 267, 271–72,
Porath, Y.â•… 195, 203 276, 279, 282, 284–85, 293, 307, 327, 369,
Porten, B.â•… 396–97 374–76, 379, 381–82, 384, 406
Porter, J. R.â•… 22, 26 Saʿad, Z. al-â•… 183–84
Portugali, Y.â•… 70, 159, 161–64 Scharbert, J.â•… 22, 395
Potts, T. E.â•… 170, 187 Schloen, J. D.â•… 25–26, 32–33, 38–39, 41–42,
Prag, K.â•… 73, 462–63, 468 294, 476
Pressler, C.â•… 398 Schlund, C.â•… 399–400
Press, M. D.â•… 68, 193, 436 Schmidt, B. B.â•… 429–30, 435–56, 458, 469
Preuss, H. D.â•… 2, 336, 437 Schmitt, R.â•… 7, 10, 17, 52, 57, 61, 63–69, 99,
Pritchard, J. B.â•… 58, 62, 67, 165, 167–69, 209, 112, 122, 134, 167, 169–70, 179, 182,
211, 221 193, 195, 197, 203–5, 226, 229, 231, 274,
Propp, W. H. C.â•… 393 367–68, 370, 373–74, 376, 378, 383, 386,
Prosic, T.â•… 399 388, 410–11, 415–18, 422, 427, 429–30,
436, 470, 479, 493
Rad, G. vonâ•… 2, 47, 265, 388, 421, 425, 429, Schroer, S.â•… 63, 65–66, 460–61
474, 477 Schultheis, F.â•… 50
Rast, W. E.â•… 170 Schumacher, G.â•… 137–39, 141, 370
Rechenmacher, H.â•… 245, 251, 255, 268, 304, Schwemer, D.â•… 388
349 Schwiderski, D.â•… 258
Reichert, L.â•… 74 Segal, J. B.â•… 49
Reich, R.â•… 220 Seger, J. D.â•… 100–102
Rendtorff, R.â•… 354 Sellin, E.â•… 1, 169–70, 474, 482
Renz, J.â•… 12, 66, 239, 248–49, 251–52, 254, Seybold, K.â•… 60–61, 456
264, 266–68, 270–72, 276, 280, 282, 284, Shalem, D.â•… 172, 340, 377
288–89, 292, 294, 302, 306–7, 311–12, Shiloh, Y.â•… 13, 22, 28, 33, 108, 111–12, 135,
318, 321, 323, 326, 329, 344, 353, 365, 396, 168–69, 249, 271, 383
412–13, 460, 463, 466 Shipton, G. M.â•… 136, 140
Riklin, S.â•… 39 Smend, R.â•… 47, 477
Ringgren, H.â•… 47, 477 Smith, M. S.â•… 65
Ritner, R. K.â•… 7, 64, 388, 392, 394 Smith, R. H.â•… 186
Rittig, D.â•… 384 Smith, W. R.â•… 388, 410, 423–24, 429, 432, 435
Robinson, G.â•… 401 Spencer, H.â•… 429
Röllig, W.â•… 12, 66, 239, 248–49, 251–52, 254, Spieckermann, H.â•… 369–70
258, 264, 266–72, 276, 280, 282, 284, Spronk, K.â•… 429–30, 432, 435, 456, 458, 469,
288–89, 292, 294, 302, 306–7, 311–12, 318, 493
320–21, 323, 326, 329, 344, 353, 365, 396, Stade, B.â•… 1, 474
412–13, 460, 463, 466 Stager, L. E.â•… 22, 28–29, 31–37, 42–44, 220,
Römheld, K. F. D.â•… 274 269, 395
Rost, L.â•… 460 Stamm, J. J.â•… 251–52, 265, 267, 294, 312, 316,
Rothenberg, B.â•… 72, 235 350, 352–53, 483
Rouillard, H.â•… 432 Steiner, M.â•… 186, 232, 462–63, 468
Routledge, B.â•… 176 Stern, E.â•… 71, 112, 140, 207, 220, 371
Rowe, A.â•… 87 Stol, M.â•… 269, 280, 389, 391
Rowley, H. H.â•… 1, 474 Stolz, F.â•… 4, 6, 15–16, 53, 278, 474, 477, 482
Rudolph, W.â•… 47, 307 Stone, E. C.â•… 212, 214–15, 424
Sukenik, E. L.â•… 66, 444, 466, 468
Sader, H.â•… 258 Sundermeier, T.â•… 51–52, 387, 414, 423,
Saller, R.â•… 38 426–27, 430, 477
 Index of Authors 667

Sznycer, M. M.â•… 258 Weippert, H.â•… 11, 63, 93, 136, 140, 164, 220,
223, 225, 229, 466, 474
Tambiah, S. J.â•… 410 Weippert, M.â•… 3, 8, 11, 15
Theuer, G.â•… 378 Wellhausen, J.â•… 1, 393, 399
Thiel, J. F.â•… 430 Wenning, R.â•… 63, 65, 68, 429–30, 437–39,
Thiselton, A. C.â•… 410 447–49, 453–60
Thomsen, M.-L.â•… 388 Westbrook, R.â•… 395
Tigay, J. H.â•… 245, 339–40, 348, 363 Westermann, C.â•… 2, 325–36, 410
Timm, S.â•… 258, 376, 384 Wilk, R.â•… 23
Tita, H.â•… 271, 409 Willett, E. A. R.â•… 9–10, 14, 16, 57, 82, 98, 128,
Toorn, K. van derâ•… 5–7, 14–16, 22, 25, 34, 173, 224, 294, 392, 474
42–44, 53, 57, 60–62, 65, 225, 269–70, Williamson, H. G. M.â•… 26
280, 297, 350, 387, 389, 393, 395, 398, 419, Wimmer, D. H.â•… 189
423, 429–30, 432–33, 437, 455, 457, 474, Winter, U.â•… 57, 62–63
476–77, 493 Wisthoff, B. L.â•… 172
Tropper, J.â•… 60, 251, 429, 432, 469–70 Wöhrle, J.â•… 395
Tsfania, L.â•… 407–9 Wolff, H. W.â•… 395
Tsukimoto, A.â•… 455 Wright, G. E.â•… 92–93, 99, 370, 418, 459
Tubb, J. N.â•… 165, 167
Tufnell, O.â•… 73, 122, 382, 440, 447–49, 459, Yadin, Y.â•… 28, 73, 103–6, 380, 460
469 Yardeni, A.â•… 249, 275, 396–97
Turner, V. W.â•… 434 Yassine, K.â•… 176, 184, 186
Tylor, E. B.â•… 388, 410, 429 Yisrael, Y.â•… 67, 69–71, 73–74, 235
Yon, M.â•… 258
Uehlinger, C.â•… 63, 65–66, 68, 237, 367–71, Yorburg, B.â•… 42
374–76, 378–82, 384, 386, 392, 469
Ussishkin, D.â•… 116–17, 120, 134 35, 137–41, Zadok, R.â•… 249, 251, 267, 271, 280, 288–89,
155, 157, 468 304, 318, 320, 323, 332, 352–53, 365
Zangenberg, J.â•… 112, 155, 457
Vaux, R. deâ•… 94 Zenger, E.â•… 429–30, 439
Veijola, T.â•… 399 Zertal, A.â•… 235
Vieweger, D.â•… 112 Zevit, Z.â•… 13–15, 50–51, 53, 68, 70, 75, 94,
Vorländer, H.â•… 2–5, 7, 49, 53, 474, 477 103–4, 124–25, 135–37, 139, 170, 220,
Vrijhof, P.â•… 50 222–23, 232, 236, 466, 468, 474
Ziffer, I.â•… 68, 73, 195, 232
Wach, J.â•… 51–53 Zimansky, P. E.â•… 212, 214–15
Wada, H.â•… 208 Zimhoni, O.â•… 116–17, 120
Wagner, A.â•… 52, 410, 477 Zimmerli, W.â•… 281, 391
Wakita, S.â•… 208 Zwickel, W.â•… 18, 49, 57, 69–71, 74, 94, 104,
Waltke, B. K.â•… 349 133, 135–36, 140, 164–65, 170, 176,
Wampler, J.â•… 157 184–85, 204–5, 220–21, 223, 232, 235–37,
Watzinger, C.â•… 139 456, 466
Weimar, P.â•… 393 Zwingenberger, U.â•… 173, 224
 ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫‪ʾAlep‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬אגור‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 577‬אחאבה‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬אב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬אדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 577‬אחאבו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 576‬אבא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬אדבנה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 577‬אחאבי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 576‬אבבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬אדגאי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחאד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 320, 564‬אבגיל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 317, 332, 562‬אדמעזי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 353, 364, 577‬אחאם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬אבדכר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 581‬אדנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 353, 364, 577‬אחאמה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬אבדׁשא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360, 514, 581‬אדנאב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 537‬אחבן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 362, 576‬אבהא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360, 581‬אדנבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬אחבר‬
‫‪ 352, 576‬אבחלדי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬אדניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬אחז‬
‫‪ 576‬אבטביה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360, 581‬אדניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬אחזי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 576‬אבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 581‬אדניו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 548‬אחזיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אביאסף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬אדניחי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 487, 514,‬אחחר‬
‫‪ 576‬אביבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬אדנלרם‬ ‫‪578‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 576‬אביה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 514, 581‬אדנמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572–73‬אחטב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 514, 576‬אביהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אדננר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 576‬אביו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬אדנעז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחיא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬אביחי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 555‬אדנפלט‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 353, 514, 577‬אחיאב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬אביקי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אדנרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 356, 514,‬אחיאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬אבל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 581‬אדנׁשמׁש‬ ‫‪577‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬אבנדב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 554‬אדנׁשע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 353, 364, 514,‬אחיאם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 328, 573‬אבנעם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬אדנתן‬ ‫‪577‬‬
‫‪ 352, 576‬אבנׁשמׁש ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬אדקר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬אבנתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬אדקׁשר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחיו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬אבסי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬אדרמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬אחיחי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬אבעד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 587‬אדרפא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחימא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬אבעדן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬אדׁשרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחימה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬אבעז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 364–65, 366, 581‬אדתא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 312, 331, 556‬אחיעזר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬אבעזר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 318, 563‬אהלבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 331, 540‬אחיקם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬אבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 563‬אהלמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 331, 554‬אחיׁשחר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 540‬אבקם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 598‬אוא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 541‬אחיׁשע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬אבראס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬אוהל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356n, 487, 514,‬אחלי‬
‫‪ 313, 557‬אברבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אורא‬ ‫‪577‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬אברגד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אוראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 275, 389n, 586‬אחלכד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313, 557‬אבריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אוריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 577‬אחמה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571–72‬אברם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬אזן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 255, 352, 360n,‬אחמלך‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 554‬אבׁשוע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬אזני‬ ‫‪364, 578‬‬
‫‪] 562‬א[בׁשורי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬אזניו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 353n, 364,‬אחמלכה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 600‬אבׁשלם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחא‬ ‫‪366–67, 578‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬אגברת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352–53, 577‬אחאב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 578, 592‬אחמן‬

‫‪668‬‬
 ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪669‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬אחנדב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ אליסמך‬ ‫‪331, 485, 547‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬אלׁשמר‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬אחנ]ו[רי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ אליסף‬ ‫‪290, 597‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 554‬אלׁשע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 328, 367, 573‬אחנעם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ אליעז‬ ‫‪331, 485, 559‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬אלתי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬אחעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ אליעם‬ ‫‪356, 360, 579‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 353, 364, 514,‬אמיאח‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬אחצר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ אליצר‬ ‫‪317, 331, 562‬‬ ‫‪577‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 331, 540‬אחקם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ אליקם‬ ‫‪306, 450‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬אמן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬אחרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ אלירב‬ ‫‪303, 545‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 363, 556‬אמעזר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬אחת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ אלירם‬ ‫‪326, 571‬‬ ‫‪ 353, 363, 367,‬אמעׁשתרת ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 366, 487, 514,‬אחתאב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ אליׁשב‬ ‫‪267, 295–96, 483,‬‬ ‫‪577‬‬
‫‪578‬‬ ‫‪600‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 549‬אמץ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 353n, 366, 578‬אחתמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 302, 541‬אליׁשע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬אמצאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬אטר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬אלכן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬אמר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 293, 598‬איא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬אללחז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬אמרא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 293, 598‬איוב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬אללי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬אמראל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬אילן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬אלם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬אמרי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 293, 598‬אינדב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356, 360–61n,‬אלמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 274–75, 585‬אמריהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 293, 598‬איעזר‬ ‫‪579‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 274, 585‬אמריו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 254, 293, 598‬איעם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬אלמנני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬אמרן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 282, 333, 591‬איץ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪] 316–17, 562‬א[למעז‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתאסר ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬אכמא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 327, 572‬אלמׁשל‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתבעל ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬אל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬אלן‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתמסכר ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 577‬אלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 293, 594‬אלנדב‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתספר ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלאור‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלנורי‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתעׁשתרת ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬אלאמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלנר‬ ‫‪ 321–22, 566‬אמתׁשמן ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬אלאמץ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 287, 593‬אלנתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬אני‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬אלאמר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 331, 547‬אלסמך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313, 557‬אניהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלאר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 334, 557‬אלסמכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 587‬אסי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 301, 540‬אלבא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 553‬אלסתר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אסף‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 314, 557‬אלבעדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 589‬אלעבד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אספא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356, 579‬אלבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬אלעדה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אספיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬אלבר]ך[‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 331, 559‬אלעז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אספיו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬אלגבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 315, 332n, 559‬אלעזן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אספת‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬אלדׁש]א[‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 254–55, 305, 546‬אלעזר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬אסרחם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 349, 362n, 579‬אלהוא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬אלעלן‬ ‫‪ 552‬אפלדׂשגב ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 550‬אלה]ל[אי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356, 360, 487,‬אלעם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264n, 285n, 323,‬אפלי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 314, 557‬אלהלי‬ ‫‪514, 579‬‬ ‫‪569‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלהנר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬אלעׂש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬אפסח‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546‬אלהעזר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 484, 588‬אלעׂשה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬אפרח‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 536‬אלזכר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬אלף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬אצבעל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 538‬אלחנן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 555‬אלפלט‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 286‬אצול‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 267, 302, 541‬אליאר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 588–89‬אלפעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 591‬אצי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 265n, 573‬אליבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬אלצאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 286, 593‬אצליהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 544‬אלידן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 331, 562‬אלצר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬ארא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 579‬אליה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬אלקה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אראל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אליהב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬אלקנה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 315, 558‬אריהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356, 361, 487,‬אליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬אלרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אריו‬
‫‪514, 579‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬אלׂשגב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬ארמלך‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 579‬אליו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪[ 552‬אל]ׂשגב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ארׁש‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬אליכן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 299, 534‬אלׁשמע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ארׁשת‬
‫‪670‬‬ ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫‪ 367, 584‬ארׁשתבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 302, 540‬ביתלפן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬בעלנתן‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬בכא[ל[‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬בעלסכר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשאב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬בכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬בעלעדן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 287n, 595‬אׁשבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬בכרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬בעלעוׁש‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬בל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬בעלעז‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אשחר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬בלבל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬בעלעזר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 267, 302, 541‬בלגי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬בעלפלס‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285n, 592‬בלט‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬בעלצלח‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 287, 595‬אׁשיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬בלטה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 274, 586‬בעלרגם‬
‫‪ 580‬אׁשמנאדן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬בלנתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 326, 572‬בעלרם‬
‫‪ 358–59, 487,‬אׁשמנאדני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬בלׂשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 296, 600‬בעלׁשלם‬
‫‪514, 580‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬בלתה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬בעלׁשם‬
‫‪ 543‬אׁשמנחלץ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360–61n, 561‬במלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬בעלׁשמע‬
‫‪ 275, 586‬אׁשמניעד ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬בנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬בעלׁשמר‬
‫‪ 593‬אׁשמניתן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 588‬בנאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬בעלתם‬
‫‪ 305, 546‬אׁשמנעזר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנאר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 326, 572‬בערא‬
‫‪ 290, 597‬אׁשמנצלח ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264, 569‬בנבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬בצל‬
‫‪ 543‬אׁשמנשלך ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנחדׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬בצלאל‬
‫‪ 600‬אׁשמנׁשלם ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנחף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬בצר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272, 583‬אׁשנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬בניא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬בקי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 583‬אׁשניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 484, 588‬בניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬בקיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 583‬אׁשניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬בנעדנן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272, 584‬בקׁש‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 271, 583‬אׁשניו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנען‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272, 584‬בקׁשת‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬אׁשרחי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 569‬בנענ]ת[‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬בראבא‬
‫‪ 544‬אׁשרׁשלח ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 365, 588‬בנענת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279‬בראיה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313, 557‬אתאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנרׁשף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬בראם‬
‫‪] 313, 557‬א[תבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 322–23, 392, 568‬בסי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬ברגאיה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 577‬בעדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264, 323, 486,‬ברהדד‬
‫‪Bet‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 314, 557‬בעדאל‬ ‫‪569‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬בבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 349n, 557‬בעדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬ברך‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬בעזראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬ברכא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬בעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596–97‬ברכאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 358, 579‬בעלא‬ ‫‪ 596‬ברכבעל ‬
‫‪ 561‬בדאׁשמן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 536‬בעלזכר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬ברכי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬בדבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬בעלחן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 596‬ברכיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬בעלחנן‬ ‫‪ 597‬ברכׁשמׁש ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬בדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬בעלי‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬ברכתמלקרת ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 358, 363, 488,‬בעליה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬ברעזי‬
‫‪ 561‬בדמלכם ‬ ‫‪514, 579‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬ברעמא‬
‫‪ 561‬בדמלקרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬בעליחן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬ברעתר‬
‫‪ 561‬בדעׁשתרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬בעליטב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬ברצר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬בוזי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬בעליסף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬בררכב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬בזא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 541‬בעליׁשע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 602‬ברק‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 545‬בחנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬בעליתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 248n, 284, 602‬ברקי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בידאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 275, 586‬בעלמלאך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬ברׁשה‬
‫‪ 282, 590‬ביתאלדלני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 359, 580‬בעלמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 367, 570‬בתאל‬
‫‪ 537‬ביתעלידע ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬בעלמעני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 570‬בתאׁשם‬
‫‪ 313, 557‬ביתאלעׁשני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 274–275,‬בעלנחׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 570‬בתנעם‬
‫‪ 561‬ביתאלרעי ‬ ‫‪389n, 586‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 486, 570‬בתׁשחר‬
 ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪671‬‬

‫‪Gimel‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567–68‬גרצפן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬הודיהו‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬גאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרׁשד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542‬הוׁשע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 543‬גאליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרׁשמן‬ ‫‪ 542‬הוׁשע]א[ל ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬גבוחא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרתא‬ ‫‪ 542‬הוׁשעיה ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬גבח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 322, 568‬גרתבעל‬ ‫‪ 302, 542‬הוׁשעיהו ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 550‬גבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬גׁשמי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬היהדי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 550‬גברי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬הכוס‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 549‬גבריהו‬ ‫‪Dalet‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬הללאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬גגי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬דגן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬הלליהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬גדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬דגנבזי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 591‬הצל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬גדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬דדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 282, 590‬הצלאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬גדיא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬דדעלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 282, 333,‬הצליהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 320, 564‬גדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬דדרחם‬ ‫‪590‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬גדיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬דלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬הרבעל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546, 605‬גדל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 282, 333, 590‬דליהו‬ ‫ ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546‬גדליה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 282, 590‬דליו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬הׂשרק‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 255, 304, 545‬גדליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 256, 282, 484,‬דלתיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬גדעת‬ ‫‪590‬‬ ‫‪Waw‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬גדקל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 277, 587‬דמלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬והבדה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬גדר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 277, 587‬דמלאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬גדרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 277, 291n, 587‬דמליהו‬ ‫‪Zayin‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬גז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬דעואל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬זבן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 252, 283, 334,‬גזא‬ ‫‪ 538‬דעמחנא ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬זבנא‬
‫‪591‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 359, 580‬דעמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272n, 585‬זבנאדן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬גחם‬ ‫‪ 597‬דעמצלח ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 265, 328, 573‬זכא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬גלגל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬דרדר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 265, 328, 573‬זכי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬גלל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 252, 272, 483,‬דרׁשיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬זכן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬גמול‬ ‫‪585‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬זכר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 291n, 591‬גמליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬זכראל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 591‬גמר‬ ‫‪He‬‬ ‫‪ 536‬זכרב]על[ ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬גמריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬האמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 536‬זכריהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬גנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬הגבה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬זכריו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬געלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 274, 586‬הגלניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬זמא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬געלי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬הדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 308, 552‬זמר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬הדבעד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 308, 552, 560‬זמרי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 567‬גראהל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬הדגבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 316, 560‬זמריהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גראל‬ ‫‪] 552‬הד[דיחוט ‬ ‫‪ 596‬זרע⟩א⟨ל ‬
‫‪ 567‬גראׁשמן ‬ ‫‪ 275, 586‬הדדסמני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬זרעי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרבעל‬ ‫‪ 556‬הדדעזר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬זתא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרגׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬הדדערי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬הדיהב‬ ‫‪Ḥet‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 567‬גרהכל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬הדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 553‬חבא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרחמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 555‬הדיסעי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬חבב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬גריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬הדנתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 553‬חבה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬הדעדר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 553‬חבי‬
‫‪ 568‬גרמלקרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272n, 584‬הדרקי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 309, 553‬חביהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬גרע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬הודו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 294, 599‬חבלי‬
‫‪ 366, 568‬גרעׁשתרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬הודויהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 602‬חבׁש‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרצד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬הודיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬חג‬
‫‪672‬‬ ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬חגב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬חנמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 596‬יברכיהו‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬חגי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬יבׁש‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬חגלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חננאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 545‬יגדל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬חגת‬ ‫‪ 538‬חננב]על[ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 545‬יגדליהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539, 574‬חדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329; 574‬יגראׁשמן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬חויהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬ידבעל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חונן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 538–39‬חנניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬ידו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬חור‬ ‫‪ 366, 538‬חנעׁשתרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬ידלא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬חורץ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬חסדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬ידניהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬חזא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬חסדיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬חזאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬חסדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידע⟩א⟨ל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬חזג‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬חסן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידעיה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 549‬חזק‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬חסף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 537‬ידעיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313, 556‬חזקיהו‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬חפצבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידעיו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬חזר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬חצב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידעמלך‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬חזרן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 248n, 284, 602‬חצי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 362n, 580‬יהוא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356, 577‬חיאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬חר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 357, 580‬יהואב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬חיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬חרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יהו⟨א⟩זן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬חילא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬חרני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 357, 514, 580‬יהואח‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 578‬חימלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬חרף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 548‬יהואחז‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 319, 564‬חכל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬חרץ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 357, 488, 514,‬יהואל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 276, 319, 564‬חכליהו‬ ‫‪ 266, 272, 483,‬חׁשביהו ‬ ‫‪580‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬חכם‬ ‫‪585‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬יה[ו]אר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬חלא‬ ‫‪ 272, 585‬חׁשבניה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 587‬יהובנה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬חלדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬חׁשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 267, 302, 541‬יהוזרח‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313, 556‬חליו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬חׁשך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬יהוחי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬חלץ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 363–64, 550‬חתעזת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬יהוחיל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 302–3, 543‬חלציהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬יהוחל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 563‬חלק‬ ‫‪Ṭet‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬יהוטר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 563‬חלקא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬טב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 551‬יהויקם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 318–19, 563‬חלקיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬טבא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 545‬יהוירב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 319, 563‬חלקיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬טבאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 550‬יהוכל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬חם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 327–28, 573‬טביהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 594‬יהונדב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬חמדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 327–28, 573‬טבׁשלם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬יהונתן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 367, 545‬חמדן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284n, 302, 540‬יהוסחר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬חמטט‬ ‫‪Yod‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬יהועדן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 318, 331, 351n,‬חמיאהל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 287, 595‬יאוׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 315, 560‬יהועז‬
‫‪367, 563‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יאזן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 331, 556‬יהועזר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 320, 351n, 367,‬חמיעדן‬ ‫‪ 535‬י⟨א⟩זנאל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬יהועלי‬
‫‪564‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יאזני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 555‬יהופלט‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285, 593‬חמל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יאזניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬יהוצדק‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬חמנן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יאזניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 326, 572‬יהורם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬חן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬יאמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יהויׁשמע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬יאנדב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 540‬יהוקם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 541‬יאר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬יהוׁשע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנון‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬יאׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 328, 573‬יהותם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬חני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 301, 539‬יבחראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 357, 580‬יואב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬חניאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬יבנה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יו⟨א⟩זן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬חניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬יברך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 357, 580‬יואל‬
 ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪673‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 330, 539‬יואמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 547‬יעׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬כלב‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬יואר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬יפה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬יובנה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 328, 573‬יפיהו‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬כלבאלם ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬יוחנן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 267, 541‬יפעהד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 541‬יויׁשע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 251n, 276, 586‬יפתח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬יוכן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 282, 590‬יצלבעל‬ ‫‪ 561‬כלבידאל ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬יונתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 551‬יקמיה‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬כלבידׁשמׁש ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 316, 560‬יוסתר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 551‬יקמיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבלא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬יועזר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬ירא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬כלבן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬יועליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬יראויהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבת‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬יועׂשה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 299, 536‬יראיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 598‬כלכל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 547‬יועׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬ירבן‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬כלכליהו ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 551‬יוקם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬ירבעם‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬כמראלה ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 326, 572‬יורם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬ירחב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬כמׁש‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬יזם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬ירחם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 358, 514, 580‬כמׁשאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬יחוא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬ירחמאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬כמׁשאר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬יחוט‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546‬ירחעזר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 545‬כמׁשדן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬יחומלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 280, 346, 589‬ירימות‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬כמׁשוע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285, 341n, 592‬יחועלי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 551‬ירם‬ ‫‪ 538‬כמׁשחסד ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬יחזא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬ירמאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 592‬כמׁשיחי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬יחזבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬ירמיהו‬ ‫‪ 541‬כמׁשיׁשע ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 299, 536‬יחזיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360–61n, 551‬ירמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬כמׁשית‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬יחזק‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬ירפאל‬ ‫‪ 595‬כמׁשמאׁש ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬יחי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 600‬יׁשא‬ ‫‪ 593‬כמׁשנתן ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 320, 564‬יחלבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272, 584‬יׁשאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬כמׁשעז‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬יחמל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 583‬יׁשב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 358, 487, 514,‬כמׁשעם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285, 593‬יחמליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬יׁשבע‬ ‫‪580‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬יחמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 534‬יׁשמע‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬כמׁשצדק ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬יחץ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 299, 534‬יׁשמעאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬כנבו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬יחציאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542, 555‬יׁשע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬כני‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 254, 582‬יחרבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542, 555‬יׁשעא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬כניה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 591‬יחׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 555‬יׁשעאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬כניהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 550‬יכל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542‬יׁשעה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬כנני‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 550‬יכלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542‬יׁשעיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 563‬כסלא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 550‬יכליו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 302, 542‬יׁשעיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 319, 563‬כסליהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360n, 550‬יכלמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 544‬יׁשפט‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬כפר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬יכניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 587‬יתיר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 602‬כרזי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬יכנׁשלם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 602‬יתם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 281n, 606‬כרמי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 549‬ילא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬כרעדד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬ימן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתנבל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬כרׂשן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607–8‬ינה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתנבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬כׁשי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 600‬ינׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתנחף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬כתי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬יסד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬יתנמלך‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬יסף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתנצד‬ ‫‪Lamed‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬יעדדאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬לאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬יעדי‬ ‫‪Kap‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬לבאי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬יעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬כבס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬לבן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬יעלי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬כברבע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264n, 582‬לעגי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 598‬יעמס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬כוסה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264, 271, 582‬לעגיהו‬
‫‪674‬‬ ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬לקח‬ ‫‪ 361, 546‬מלכיעזר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬מריהו‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬לקחי‬ ‫‪ 361, 555‬מלכיצדק ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬מריחי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬מלכירם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360, 514, 581‬מריחלד‬
‫‪Mem‬‬ ‫‪ 541‬מלכיׁשע ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 346, 597‬מרימות‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מאמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬מלכיתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬מרסמך‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 365, 569‬מאס‬ ‫‪ 355, 558‬מלכמאור ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬מרעלי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬מאׁש‬ ‫‪ 355, 564‬מלכמגד ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬מרץ‬
‫‪ 319, 333, 335,‬מבטחיהו ‬ ‫‪ 560‬מלכמעז ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬מרקחתא‬
‫‪485, 563‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 361, 558‬מלכנר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 600‬מׁשיב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬מבן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬מלכרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬מׁשל‬
‫‪ 317, 562‬מגדליהו ‬ ‫‪ 361, 514, 581‬מלכׁשמׁש ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 601‬מׁשלם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 595‬מגן‬ ‫‪ 353n, 581‬מלכתבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 296, 601‬מׁשלמת‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬מגראל‬ ‫‪ 358, 514, 580‬מלקרתאב ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬מׁשמׁש‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬מהרי‬ ‫‪ 598‬מלקרתעמס ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 554–55‬מׁשע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬מודד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬מנח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 314, 557‬מׁשען‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬מוקר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599‬מנחם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 555‬מׁשפט‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 365, 569‬מחדׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 296, 599‬מנחמת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 312, 555‬מׁשפטאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬מחסא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬מני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬מׁשר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬מחסיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מנך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬מׁשׁש‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬מחסיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬מנן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬מת‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מיא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬מנני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬מתא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 330, 575‬מיאמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 328, 574‬מנר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬מתי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מיכה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 600‬מנׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מיכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599–600‬מנׁשה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתנאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מיכיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 600‬מנׁשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתני‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 545‬מיפלל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬מסכן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתניה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬מיפע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 601‬מסלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 287, 484, 594‬מתניהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬מירב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬מעדנה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מכא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬מעז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 330, 575‬מכאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬מעזיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬מעׂשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעדד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מכיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬מעׂשיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעהדד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 255, 330, 575‬מכיהו‬ ‫‪ 251, 278, 333,‬מעׂשיהו ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעׁשא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 330, 575‬מכמאל‬ ‫‪588‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתתיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 582‬מכסף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬מצרי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272, 585‬מכר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 551‬מקמיהו‬ ‫‪Nun‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 275, 586‬מלאכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 333, 589‬מקניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬נאהבת‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬מלח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬מקניו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬נבודלה‬
‫ ‬ ‫;‪ 291–93, 394, 484‬מליהו‬ ‫‪ 279, 360–61n,‬מקנמלך ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬נבוׂשגב‬
‫‪598‬‬ ‫‪484, 589‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬נבוׁשרי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬מליך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 581, 597‬מרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬נבי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬מלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360, 581‬מראהד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬נבל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 581‬מלכא‬ ‫‪ 254, 582‬מראיבב ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 548‬נבלאחז‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬מלכאר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬מראיסר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 358, 514, 580‬נבמרא‬
‫‪ 549‬מלכגבר ‬ ‫‪ 541‬מראיׁשע ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬נבׂשגב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568, 581‬מלכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356, 581‬מראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬נגב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 255, 361, 514,‬מלכיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬מרברך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬נגבי‬
‫‪581‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 581‬מרדגן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 554‬נגהי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 361, 581‬מלכיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬מריבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬נגר‬
 ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪675‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬נגׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬נתן‬ ‫‪ 366, 565‬עבדבעלת ‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬נדב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬נתנבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬נדבאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 287, 594‬נתניהו‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדהדד ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬נדביה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬נתניו‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדחורן ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 594‬נדביהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬נתנמלך‬ ‫‪ 321, 341n, 565‬עבדחיל ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264, 307, 551‬נהל‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדחמן ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 563‬נוי‬ ‫‪Samek‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדחר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 318, 563‬נויה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 587‬סבכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 318, 563‬נויו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 484, 587‬סבכיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדיה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נוראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 601‬סילא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 321, 333, 335,‬עבדיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נוריה‬ ‫‪ 358, 514, 580‬סיראדני ‬ ‫‪485, 565‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599‬נחם‬ ‫‪ 577‬סירבעדי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדיו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 599‬נחמי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 601‬סלא‬ ‫‪ 321, 565‬עבדירח ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599‬נחמיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 296, 601‬סלאה‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדכדאה ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 599‬נחמיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סמך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדלא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 274–75, 586‬נחׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סמכי‬ ‫‪ 366, 565‬עבדלבאת ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬נכרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 547‬סמכיהו‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדמלך ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬נמטר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 548‬סמכיו‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדמלכת ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬נממרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬סנעיד‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדמלקרת ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬נמׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬ססי‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדמסכר ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288–89, 596‬נמׂשר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356n, 358, 514,‬ססלי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדסכן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬ננא‬ ‫‪580‬‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדסלם ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 315, 559‬ננורי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬ססנורי‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדעׁשתר ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬נני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סעדא‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדעׁשתרת ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬נסחא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סעדה‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדפעם ‬
‫‪ 592‬נס[ח]מנני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סעדי‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדפתח ‬
‫‪ 562‬נסחמעזי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סעדיה‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדרחבן ‬
‫‪ 267, 311, 554‬נסחנגהי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 254, 267, 305,‬סעדיהו‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדרׁשף ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬נעה‬ ‫‪548‬‬ ‫‪ 321, 565‬עבדׂשהר ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬נעמאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 548‬סעדיו‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדׁשמׁש ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬נעמה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 254, 267, 548‬סערי‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדתנת ‬
‫‪ 328, 366, 573‬נעמלכת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 254, 267, 548‬סעריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עביד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 322, 566‬נעריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬סריהב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬עבל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 276, 586‬נפתח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬סרר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬עגלא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬נצראל‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬עגלהדד ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬נצרי‬ ‫‪ʿAyin‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 265, 322, 483,‬עגליו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 582‬נקם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבד‬ ‫‪567‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 282, 582‬נקמאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬עדאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נרא‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאבסת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬עדד‬
‫‪ 559‬נרבע]ל[ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאדד ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬עדה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נרי‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאדני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 280, 590‬עדיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נריה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬עדן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 315, 559‬נריהו‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדא]ל[ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬עדנה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נרׁשא‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאלם ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬עויד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נרׁשבׁש‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאמן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬עופי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬נׁשך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬עור‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 328, 573‬נׁשכבר‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאסר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 546‬עותי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬נׁשרי‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאׁשמן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עז‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 314, 558‬נתביהו‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזא‬
‫‪676‬‬ ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬עמסאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬פדיה‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬עמסיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 543‬פדיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 550‬עזזיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 579‬עמׁשא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360–61n, 543‬פדמלך‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 514, 579‬עמׁשלם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 544‬פדן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזיא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ענא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬פזרי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ענאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬פטט‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬עני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 289, 596‬פטיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬עניבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 546‬פלאיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬עניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546‬פלדעזר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 312, 547‬עזר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ענמות‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542‬פלט‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 256, 273, 584‬ענניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285n, 542‬פלטה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546‬עזראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬ענת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542‬פלטי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬עפי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 302, 542‬פלטיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313, 556‬עזריאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬עפף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 545‬פליה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546‬עזריה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬עפצח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 545‬פלל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 546‬עזריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬עקל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301–2, 540‬פנאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזריו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬ערב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 540‬פניה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266n, 301, 331,‬עזריקם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬ערבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬פסח‬
‫‪341n, 540‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬ערס‬ ‫‪ 278, 589‬פעלאבסת ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬עׂשא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 588‬פעלה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546‬עזרנאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬עׂשאל‬ ‫‪ 278, 589‬פעלעׁשתרת ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 540‬עזרקם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬עׂשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬פפי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרׁשמׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 251, 278, 588‬עׂשיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272, 585‬פצרי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרתבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬עׂשיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬פקדיה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬עינאל‬ ‫‪ 557‬עׁשנא]ל[ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬פקדיהד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬עירא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬עׁשתא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 537‬פקדיהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬עירם‬ ‫‪ 538‬עׁשתרחן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 592‬פקח‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬עכבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬עׁשתרת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 591‬פקחי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬עכי‬ ‫‪ 570, 582‬עׁשתרתאסף ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 484, 591‬פקחיו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬עלא‬ ‫‪ 564‬עׁשתרתג ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬פרם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬עלאל‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬עׁשתרתחות ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬פרסי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬עליה‬ ‫‪ 593‬עׁשתרתיתן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬פרעׁש‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 326, 571‬עליהו‬ ‫‪ 550‬עׁשתרתלאת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬פרפר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 326, 571‬עליו‬ ‫‪ 560‬עׁשתרתעז ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264, 323, 486,‬פׁשחר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬עם‬ ‫‪ 547‬עׁשתרתעזר ‬ ‫‪570‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬עמד‬ ‫‪ 539‬עׁשתרתצב ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬פתאס‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬עמדיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 546‬עתיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 276, 586‬פתח‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313–14, 332,‬עמדיהו‬ ‫‪ 558‬עתרסמך ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 251n, 276, 586‬פתחיה‬
‫‪349n, 485, 557‬‬ ‫‪ 314, 558‬עתרסמכי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬פתיחו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 332, 557‬עמדיו‬ ‫‪ 556‬עתרעזר ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬עמיטב‬ ‫‪ 312, 556‬עתרעזרי ‬ ‫‪Ṣade‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬עמינדב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬צבי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 280, 590‬עמליהו‬ ‫‪Pe‬‬ ‫‪ 539‬צדאׁשמׁש ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬עמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬פארר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬צדירך‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313–14, 557‬עמנואל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬פארת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬צדיתן‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313–14, 332, 485,‬עמנויהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬פדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 359, 580‬צדמלך‬
‫‪557‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬פדאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬צדק‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 332, 557‬עמניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬פדה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 555‬צדקא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬עמס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543–44‬פדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 555‬צדקאל‬
 ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪677‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 555‬צדקי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬קׁשרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבי‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311–12, 555‬צדקיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬קתרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבנא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 312, 555‬צדקרמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבניה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬צורי‬ ‫‪Reš‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 271, 583‬שבניהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬צוריהדד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬ראיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבניו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬ציד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 327, 572‬רביהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 603‬שבע‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬צלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 592‬רגא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 603–4‬שבעת‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬צלנני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬רגם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 589‬שואל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬צלתי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 294, 592‬רגע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 605‬שוחר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬צמח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬רחביהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 555‬שועא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 248n, 248, 602‬צנר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬רחבעם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 267, 311, 554‬שחר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 553‬צפן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬רחם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 605‬שחרחר‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 553‬צפניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬רימה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 559‬שחרנורי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 308–9, 553‬צפניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬רם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 358, 488, 514,‬שידד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬צרח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬רמבעל‬ ‫‪580‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬צרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬רמה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 602‬שכח‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬רעדד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 246n, 267, 483‬שכניה‬
‫‪Qop‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 276, 587‬רפא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 268, 277, 390,‬שכניהו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 392, 489,‬קדבׂש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 276, 587‬רפאי‬ ‫‪587‬‬
‫‪589‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 276, 587‬רפאיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 268, 277, 484,‬שכניו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 540‬קדם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 587‬רפתי‬ ‫‪587‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬קדמו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬רצף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 603‬שלגי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬קדרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬רקי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 606‬שלה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 319, 564‬קוה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬רקין‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 295–96, 600‬שלם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 274, 586‬קוליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬רׁשפיתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 600‬שלמאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬קוס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 295–96, 600‬שלמה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬קוסא‬ ‫‪Sin‬‬ ‫‪ׁ 295–96, 600‬שלמיהו ‬
‫‪ 358n, 580‬קוסאדני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 552‬שגב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 600‬שלמיו‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 353n, 358n., 514,‬קוסאם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 552‬שגבי‬ ‫‪ׁ 556‬שלמנעזרי ‬
‫‪580‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 607‬שוכי‬ ‫‪ׁ 349, 358, 488,‬שלמנרמן ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬קוסגבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 585‬שכר‬ ‫‪514, 580‬‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 273, 584‬קוסענל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 586‬שמבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 296, 600‬שלמת‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬קטן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 320, 564‬שראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 603‬שם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬קירח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 327, 572‬שריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 596‬שמא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 252, 586‬קליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 360n, 572‬שרמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 596‬שמאב‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬קליו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 327, 572‬שררמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 289, 596‬שמאדד‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬קנואל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 596‬שמאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬קני‬ ‫‪Šin‬‬ ‫‪ׁ 289n, 575‬שמהיקר ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬קניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 549‬שאגבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 289, 596‬שמזבל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬קניו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 590‬שאדלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 289n, 341n, 537‬שמידע‬
‫‪ 358n, 580‬קסואדני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 258, 580‬שאדני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 289, 596‬שמיה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬קעלתי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 272, 583‬שאל‬ ‫‪ׁ 580‬שמני]?ל[ ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬קראה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 272, 584‬שאלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 605‬שמנם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266n, 301, 341n,‬קרבאור‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 272, 584‬שאלתי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמע‬
‫‪541‬‬ ‫‪ׁ 272n, 583‬שאלתיאל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 540‬קרבאר‬ ‫‪ׁ 543‬שאמתע ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬קרח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבא‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעבעל ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬קרחא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבאח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעיה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬קרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 256, 271, 583‬שבאל‬ ‫‪ׁ 299, 535‬שמעיהו ‬
‫‪678‬‬ ‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 608‬שעל‬ ‫‪Taw‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 308, 552‬שמריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 608‬שעלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 602‬תאם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 308, 552‬שמריו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 608‬שעלי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬תארא‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 572‬שמרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 272, 585‬שעריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬תבנת‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 569‬שמׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 557‬שעׁשני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 601‬תחת‬
‫‪ׁ 590‬שמׁשדלה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 544‬שפט‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬תם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 358, 580‬שמׁשיב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 555‬שפטבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬תמא‬
‫‪ׁ 332, 556‬שמׁשעדרי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 303, 544‬שפטיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬תמאל‬
‫‪ׁ 344n, 556‬שמׁשעזר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 312, 332n, 555‬שפטן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬תמכא‬
‫‪ׁ 589‬שמׁשקנה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 605‬שפל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬תמכאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 590‬שנדלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 608‬שפן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 256, 271, 583‬תנאל‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 595‬שנזבד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 569‬שפש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599‬תנחם‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 555‬שעבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 606‬שקץ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬תנתעלי‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 556‬שעזרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 603‬שרׁש‬ ‫‪ 320n, 564‬תנתׁשבע ‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 254, 582‬שעיבב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 320, 334, 564‬תקוה‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שעיהו‬
 Index of Textual Sources

Hebrew Bible / Old Testament

Genesis Genesis (cont.) Genesis (cont.)

1:26–28â•…347n 20:17â•…276 28:6–9â•…397
1:27â•… 279, 484 20:18â•…270 28:9â•…396
1:28â•…290 21:1–2â•… 275, 389 28:15â•…314
2:7â•… 279, 280, 347n 21:1â•…273 28:20–22â•… 404, 406
2:18–24â•…280 21:4â•… 247, 292, 392–94, 489 28:20â•…314
2:22â•… 278, 587 21:6â•…246n 29â•…396
2:24â•…398 21:8â•… 294, 392–93 29:9â•…397
3:16â•…281 21:19â•…284 29:22â•…398
4:1â•… 246–47n, 278, 280, 21:20, 22â•… 313 29:31–32â•… 275, 389
484 21:33â•…355 29:31â•… 270, 276
4:23â•…396 23:1–20â•…436–37 29:32–35â•…247n
4:25â•…246–47n 23:2â•…434 29:32â•…273
4:26â•…247n 24:7â•…411 29:33–35â•…246n
5:3â•…247n 24:15â•…397 30:1–2â•… 270, 389
5:29â•…246–47n 24:40â•…43 30:1–24â•…396
9:25–27â•…411–12 24:53â•…398 30:5–24â•…246n
11:30â•…270 24:60â•… 398, 411 30:6–21â•…247n
12:1â•…43 25:1–6â•…396 30:17â•… 272, 275, 389
15:6â•…265 25:5â•…411 30:22â•… 272–73, 275–76,
16â•…396 25:7–11â•…436 389
16:2â•…270 25:9â•…434 30:23â•… 270, 582
16:11â•… 246–47n, 251, 266, 25:21â•… 270–71, 389–90 30:24â•…290
273, 389 25:22–23â•…585 31:3â•…314
16:13â•…354 25:22â•… 273, 281, 389 31:5â•… 314, 333n
16:15â•…247n 25:23â•… 273, 389 31:19â•…60
17â•… 292, 389 25:25–26â•…246–47 31:29â•…333n
17:12â•… 247, 292, 392–94, 25:26â•…308n 31:30–32â•…61
489 26:3â•…313 31:34–35â•…60
17:19â•… 247n, 273 26:24â•…313 31:42â•…333n
17:23–27â•…395 26:34–35â•…397 32:1â•…411
17:25â•…394 26:34â•…396 32:10â•…333n
18:1–16â•… 273, 275 27:1–40â•… 410–11, 413, 34â•…292
18:10â•… 273, 277, 389 490–91 34:11–12â•…398
18:14â•… 273, 389 27:36â•… 246, 286n, 308n, 34:19, 26â•… 25
19:37–38â•…247n 593 35:3â•…314
20:17–18â•… 275, 389 27:46â•…397 35:8â•… 437, 458

679
680 Index of Textual Sources

Genesis (cont.) Exodus (cont.) Leviticus

35:16–18â•…281 4:25â•…292 1:4â•…266
35:17â•… 247, 390 6:6â•…263n 5:9â•…418
35:18â•…246–47n 6:23â•… 255, 320n, 362n 7:11–17â•…404
35:20â•… 460, 493 6:24â•…270 7:18â•… 265–66, 272, 459, 483
35:29â•… 434, 436 12:1–13:16â•…399n 9:23â•…265
36:1–5â•…396 12:1–13â•… 399–400, 490 10:6â•…434
37:34â•…434 12:7–24â•…419 11â•… 420–21, 491
37:35â•… 431, 436 12:14–20â•…400 12–14â•… 415, 417
38:3–5â•…247n 12:21–23â•… 399, 419, 491 12:1–8â•… 424, 492
38:6–26â•…398 12:43–49â•…395 12:1–5â•…247
38:27–30â•…246–47n 12:43–50â•…400 12:2â•… 286, 391
38:28â•… 281, 390 13:5â•…263n 12:3â•… 292, 393–94
38:29–30â•…247n 13:11–16â•…403 12:4â•…286
39:2–3â•…314 13:11â•…263n 12:5â•…391
39:21, 23â•… 314 13:21â•…314 14â•…417–18
41:45â•…247n 14:30â•…263n 14:33–53â•…491
42:19, 33â•… 25 15:13â•…263n 15â•…424
43:23â•…333n 18:1–7â•…397 16â•…49
44â•…351 18:3–4â•…246n 17:4â•… 265, 272
44:5â•…274 18:4â•…255 18:3–4â•…423
45:11, 18â•… 25 18:8–10â•…263n 18:6–16â•…26n
46:1, 3â•… 333n 19–20â•…267 18:6–18â•… 422, 492
46:14â•…320 19–24â•…262n 18:6â•…423
46:23â•…25 20:2â•…262n 18:22â•… 423–24, 492
46:26–27â•…33 20:8–11â•… 401, 490 18:23â•… 422, 492
46:26â•…279 21:8â•…303 19:7â•… 266, 459
46:31â•…476 21:17â•… 411, 491 19:9–10â•… 421, 492
47:30â•…432 22:15–16â•…398 19:19â•… 425, 492
48:14–21â•… 411, 413 22:18â•… 422, 492 19:20â•…303
48:21â•…314 22:28â•…403 19:23–25â•…422
49:22â•…317 22:28–29â•…402 19:26â•…274
49:24â•…313 22:30â•… 420, 491 19:27â•…434
49:29–31â•…437 23:10–11â•… 401–2, 490 19:28â•… 431, 434–35
50:7–8â•…25 23:12â•…401 19:31â•…470
50:10â•…435 23:14–17â•…421 20:6â•…470
50:14–26â•…436 23:15â•…402–3 20:9â•… 411, 491
50:17â•…333n 23:19â•… 402, 421, 490–91 20:11–17â•…492
24:11â•…314 20:13â•… 423–24, 492
Exodus 24:17â•…265 20:15–16â•… 422, 492
1:5â•…33 30:16â•…408 21:1â•…431
1:15–20â•…281 33:3, 5â•… 314 21:2â•…423
1:15â•…390 33:12â•…300n 21:5â•…435
2:10â•…247n 34:10–26â•…421 21:10â•…434
2:15–22â•…397 34:18–20â•… 402–3, 490 22:12â•…26
2:22â•…246–47n 34:21â•…401 22:18–19â•…404
3:8â•…263n 34:22â•… 402, 490 22:23–25â•…266
3:10–12â•…262n 34:26â•… 402, 421, 490–91 23:1–3â•…401
4:24–26â•… 393–94, 489 23:4–8â•…399n–400
 Index of Textual Sources 681

Leviticus (cont.) Deuteronomy Deuteronomy (cont.)

25:1–7â•… 402, 490 1:30, 33â•… 314 22:5â•…424
25:8–55â•…402 3:20â•…263n 22:9–11â•… 425, 492
25:25–28â•…44n 4–5â•…267 22:21â•…42n
25:48–49â•…303 4:19â•… 321, 369, 378 22:29â•…398
5:12–15â•… 401, 490 23:18â•…271
Numbers 5:26â•…329 23:22–24â•… 404, 490
1:14â•…290 6:10â•…263n 23:22â•… 252n, 272, 483, 585
3â•…403 6:11â•…279 24:18â•… 263n, 303
5â•…49 6:12, 21â•… 262n 24:19–22â•… 421, 492
5:2â•…431 6:23â•…263n 25:5–10â•… 395, 397, 489
6:11â•…431 7:1â•…263n 25:5â•… 22, 26
6:24–26â•…412 7:2–4â•…397 25:6â•…398
8:17–18â•…403 7:6–7â•…263 25:9â•… 26, 398
9:1–14â•…399n 7:8â•… 263n, 303 25:19â•…263n
9:10â•…431 8:15â•…382 26:1–11â•… 4, 18, 402–3, 475,
10:35â•…301 9:3â•…314n 490
11:12â•…353 9:26â•…263n 26:2â•…268n
12:10â•…417n 10:9â•…319 26:8â•…262n
14:3–31â•…263n 12â•…4 26:14â•… 5, 432, 455–56, 494
14:14â•…314 12:5–7â•…404 27:16â•…411
15:1–11â•…404 12:10â•…263n 27:21â•…422
15:5â•…459 12:11–12â•…404 28:3–6â•…56
18:15–16â•…294n 12:11â•…268n 28:16–19â•…56
18:15â•…403 12:12â•…319 30:1–10â•…292
18:20â•…319 13:6â•… 263n, 303 31:3â•…314n
18:27â•…265 13:7–12â•… 4, 18, 475 31:8â•…314
19â•…49 14:1â•… 324, 434–35 31:16â•…432
19:11â•…459 14:3–21â•… 420, 491 32:5â•…324
20:29â•…435 14:21â•… 421, 491 32:6â•… 278–79, 351n
21:2â•… 403, 490 14:23â•…268n 32:8–9â•…354
21:6–9â•…382 14:27â•…319 32:18â•…351n
23:22â•…265n 14:29â•…319 34:8â•…435
24:8â•…265n 15:1–11â•…401
25:1–10â•…397 15:15â•… 263n, 303 Joshua
25:2â•…456 15:19–23â•… 402, 490 1:13â•… 263n, 288
25:14â•…295 16:1–8â•… 18, 399–400n, 475, 3:10â•…329
26:21â•…285 490 5:2–3â•…393
26:30â•…293n 16:2, 6, 11â•… 268n 5:2–9â•…394
27:1–11â•…44 17:3â•…321 5:10–12â•…399n
28:9–10â•…401 18â•… 470, 494 7â•…53n
28:16–25â•…399n 18:1–2â•…319 7:6â•…434
30â•… 271, 404 18:10â•…274 7:14â•… 25–26n, 275
30:3â•… 404, 490 18:11â•… 61, 417 7:17â•…26n
33:52â•…61 19:3, 14â•… 263n 7:18â•…25–26n
34:23â•…311 20:1â•…314 7:24â•…26
36â•…397 21:8â•…303 17:2â•…293n
21:15–17â•… 23, 396–97 19:14â•…276
21:23â•…436 24:10â•…263n
682 Index of Textual Sources

Judges 1 Samuel (cont.) 2 Samuel (cont.)

2:10â•…432 4:19–22â•… 265, 268n, 281 5:24â•…314n
4:14â•…314n 4:21â•…246n 6:2â•…383
5:3â•…334n 9–10â•…457 6:6–7â•…262n
5:5â•… 262n, 334n 10:20–21â•…275 6:20–23â•…270
6:13â•…314 11:1–2â•…274 7:14â•…351n
8:30â•…396 14:6â•…393 12:15–25â•…296
8:32â•…43 14:41â•… 334n, 389 12:24â•…246–47n
9:1â•…43 14:50â•…328 14:2â•…434
9:5â•…328 15:23â•…60–61n 14:7â•…25
11:1–12:7â•…276 17:26â•… 329, 393 15:7–8â•… 403, 490
11:30–31â•… 403, 490 17:36â•… 329, 393 18:18â•… 460, 493
11:39–40â•…9 17:43â•…322 19:1–9â•…25
13â•…273–75 18:17–30â•…396 19:5â•…434
13:2â•… 270, 288, 413 18:25â•…393 21:18â•…278
13:3â•… 266, 389 18:27â•…393 22:29â•… 315, 558
13:5â•…389 19:8–24â•…61 22:30â•…317
13:21â•…266 19:13, 16â•… 60n 23:33â•…353
13:24â•…247n 20â•… 472, 494
14:3â•…393 20:5â•… 377, 457 1 Kings
14:10â•…398 20:6â•… 5, 43n, 457 1:30â•…334n
15:18â•…393 20:18, 24, 27â•… 377 3:1â•…396
17â•… 3, 10 20:28–29â•…43n 4:12â•…289
17–18â•…44 20:34â•…377 6:36â•…317
17:2â•…410–12 23:2, 6â•… 389 8:12â•…268n
17:4–5â•…60–61 24:22â•…25 8:16â•…262n
17:7–8â•…233 25:1â•…434 8:54â•…283
18:14–20â•…60–61n 25:38–43â•…396 9:10–14â•…108n
18:22â•…37 25:43â•… 289, 328 11:3â•…396
21:20–21â•…9 28â•… 416, 470–71, 491, 494 11:5â•…366
28:3â•…434 11:11–13â•…396
1 Samuel 28:13â•… 61, 433 12:28–29â•…262n
1â•… 10, 489–90 31:4â•…393 12:28â•…265
1:2â•…396 31:12–13â•…437 12:31–32â•… 236, 239
1:4–8â•…389 31:13â•… 434–35, 437 13:30â•…434
1:9–11â•…404 16:31–33â•…245
1:10–11â•…389 2 Samuel 16:31â•…313
1:11â•… 271, 403 1:11–12â•…434–35 17:17–24â•… 296, 416, 491
1:17â•… 273, 389, 411 1:19–27â•…435 22:51â•…326
1:19–20â•… 275, 389 1:20â•…393
1:19â•…273 2:8â•…287n 2 Kings
1:20â•…246–47n 2:30–32â•…25 1:2–4â•…238
1:21–29â•…294 3:2–5â•…396 1:3â•…358
1:21â•…415 3:14â•…393 3:1â•…326
1:23â•…283 3:22–39â•…436 3:27â•…403
2:13â•…415 3:28–29â•…417n 4:1–7â•…416
3:1â•…43n 3:31â•…434 4:8–10â•…273
4:4â•…383 3:33–35â•…435 4:8–17â•… 416, 491
4:12â•…434 5:15â•…263 4:8–37â•…396
 Index of Textual Sources 683

2 Kings (cont.) Isaiah (cont.) Isaiah (cont.)

4:16â•… 273, 277, 389 11:8â•…307n 65:8â•…290
4:18–24â•…296 14:9–11â•…432 65:20â•… 294, 296
4:18–37â•… 416, 491 14:29â•…382 65:23â•…296
4:23â•… 377, 401 16:9â•…432 66:9â•…281
4:32–37â•…296 22:16â•…279 66:13â•…353
5:1–19â•…416 26:14â•…432
5:17–19â•…341n 26:17–18â•…281 Jeremiah
5:18â•…358 26:19â•…432 1:5â•… 279, 390, 484
5:27â•…417n 30:6â•…382 1:8â•…313
6:1–7â•…416 31:4â•…307 1:18â•…562
8:16, 21â•… 326 32:12â•…434 1:19â•…313
11:2â•…320n 37:16â•…383 2:23â•…358
13:14–19â•…416 38â•…416 2:27â•… 281, 324, 348, 569
15:5â•… 328, 417n 38:18â•…432 3:4, 19â•… 351n
16:17–18â•…401 40:11â•…307 4:5–6â•…317
18:18â•…270 41:9–10â•… 306, 549 4:29â•…317
19:4, 16â•… 329 41:10â•…313 6:26â•…434
20:1–11â•…416 42:20â•…284 7â•…10
22:20â•…432 43:1â•… 279, 303 7:4â•…50
23:5â•… 321, 369, 378 43:2, 5â•… 313 7:9â•…358
23:7â•…63 44:2â•… 279, 588 7:16â•…53n
23:10â•… 404, 490 44:21â•…279 7:17–18â•…8
23:11â•…65 44:22–23â•…303 7:18â•… 49, 349, 364, 369
23:17â•…460 44:24â•…279 7:31–32â•… 404, 490
23:21–23â•…399n 45:12â•…279 8:2â•…321
23:24â•…60–61n 46:3â•…291 8:17â•…274n
48:20â•…303 9:16, 19â•… 434
Isaiah 49:1â•…277 9:24â•…393
1:2â•…324 49:2â•…553 12:16â•…358
1:4â•…434 49:5â•…277 14:19â•…365n
1:8â•…281n 49:10â•…307 15:20â•…313
1:13–14â•…377 49:14–15â•…353 16:5–8â•…458
1:13â•…401 49:26â•…313 16:6â•…434
3:3â•…274n 51:1â•… 280, 589 16:19â•…315
3:18â•… 321, 344n 51:10â•…263n 19:6â•… 404, 490
4:1â•…270 51:14â•…431 19:11–14â•… 404, 490
5:2â•… 279, 281n 52:9â•…303 20:11â•…313
6:1â•…264 54:1–2â•…270 20:14â•…412
6:2â•…382 56:4–6â•…460–61 20:15â•… 247, 281, 286,
6:3â•…265 57â•…10 390–91
6:5â•…314 60:16â•…313 23:36â•…329
7:14â•… 247n, 268n, 313 63:15–16â•…300n 30:11â•…313
8:3â•… 247n, 396 63:16â•…351n 31:19â•…434
8:14â•…25 64:7â•… 279, 351n 32:7–9â•…44n
8:18â•… 253, 268n 64:8â•…300n 32:12â•… 290, 317
8:19–20â•… 433, 470 65â•…10 34:5â•…456
8:19â•…61 65:3–5â•… 458–59, 462, 469, 36:26â•…313
9:5â•…351n 494 38:6â•…361
684 Index of Textual Sources

Jeremiah (cont.) Hosea (cont.) Psalms (cont.)

38:22â•…435 13:4â•…263n 7:2â•…335n
41:4–5â•…435 8:5â•… 300, 536–37
41:5â•…434 Joel 9:5â•…555
42:11â•…314 4:17, 21â•… 268n 10:4â•…252n
44â•…10 10:13â•…252n
44:15–19â•… 403, 490 Amos 11:1â•…335n
44:15–23â•… 12, 49, 53n 3:2â•…300n 13:2, 4â•… 300
44:17–18â•…404 5:16â•…434 13:6â•… 283, 318, 337
44:17–19â•… 349, 364, 369 6:7â•…458 16:2â•… 332, 574
44:19â•…8 16:5â•…319
44:21â•…404 Jonah 17:2â•… 300, 536
44:25â•… 271, 349, 364, 369, 2:10â•…404 17:8â•… 308, 316n, 552
403 18:2â•… 313, 556
46:28â•…313 Micah 18:3â•…288
3:11–12â•…262n 18:19â•… 314, 557
Ezekiel 18:26â•… 301, 539
7:18â•…434 Habakkuk 18:29â•…302
8â•…10 2:3â•…319 18:36â•…305
8:11â•…70 3:19â•… 313, 556 18:47â•… 328, 574
8:14â•…8 22:4–6â•… 8n, 335n
13:17–21â•… 416–17, 491 Zephaniah 22:5â•…263n
16:4â•… 281, 391 1:4â•…358 22:9–10â•…414
16:5â•…287 22:10–11â•… 8n, 333–34, 337,
16:17â•…61 Haggai 485
21:26â•…60–61n 1:1â•…272n 22:10â•… 281–82, 319, 390,
24:17â•…434 590
27:31â•…434 Zechariah 22:11â•… 252n, 255, 579
28:10â•…393 2:14–15â•…268n 22:17â•… 419, 491
32:16â•…434 10:2â•… 60–61n, 470 22:24–27â•… 8n, 335n
32:17–32â•…432 22:26â•…404
43:7–9â•…456 Malachi 22:28–32â•…335n
45:21–24â•…399n 1:6â•…351n 22:32â•…8n
46:1, 3â•… 401 2:10â•…351n 23:1â•…332
46:23â•…317 2:14–15â•…399 23:2â•… 264, 307, 318, 551,
3:20â•…373 563
Hosea 23:4â•… 313–14, 557
1:2–3â•…396 Psalms 25:2â•…318
1:4â•…289n 2:4â•…264 25:5â•…332n
1:4–9â•…247n 2:7â•… 264, 323, 351n 25:20â•…335n
1:6â•… 287, 391 3:4â•… 307, 551 26:1â•…318
2:1â•…329 3:6â•… 305, 547 26:2â•… 304, 545
2:13â•… 377, 401 3:8â•… 301, 303, 540–41 26:11â•… 303, 543
3:4â•…60–61n 4:2â•… 303, 332n, 544, 555 27:1â•… 315, 558
5:7â•…318 4:4â•…546 27:4â•…573
11:1â•…324 5:2â•… 300, 537 27:5â•… 308, 553, 563
11:2â•…358 5:3â•…332 27:9â•…332n
12:4â•…308n 6:5â•… 303, 543 27:10â•…335n
13:1â•…358 6:6â•…432 28:1â•…332
 Index of Textual Sources 685

Psalms (cont.) Psalms (cont.) Psalms (cont.)

28:7â•… 315, 337, 559 56:5â•…318 80:18â•…324
29:10â•…264 56:10–11â•…314 82â•…354
30:2â•…282 56:10â•…557 84:3â•…328–29n
30:10â•…431 56:12â•…318 86:12â•…332
30:11â•… 299, 534, 538, 546 56:13â•…404 86:16â•… 302, 306, 540, 550
31:2â•… 303, 335n, 542 57:2â•… 316, 561 88:2â•…332n
31:5â•… 316, 332, 562 57:3â•…283 88:5â•…431–32
31:6â•…561 58:5–6â•…274n 88:11–14â•…432
31:7â•… 300, 318, 337 59:5â•…300 88:12â•…431
31:8â•…536 59:9â•…264 88:14â•…267
31:15â•…318 59:11â•…540 88:18â•…431
31:17â•…541 59:18â•… 315, 332n 89:4â•…263
32:2â•…265 60:3â•…365n 89:8â•… 327, 572
32:7â•… 316, 560 60:12â•… 314n, 365n 89:21–38â•… 262n, 334
33:10–12â•…327 60:13â•…305 89:27–28â•…351n
33:20â•…564 61:4â•… 317, 337, 562 89:39â•…365n
34:10â•…574 61:5â•…316n 89:48â•…279
35:1â•… 303, 545 61:6–9â•…404 90:14â•…267
35:2â•…301 62:3â•… 317, 562 91:4â•…316n
35:27â•… 255n, 304 62:6â•… 276n, 320, 564 91:5–6â•… 419, 491
36:8â•…316n 63:8â•…316n 94:17â•…431
37:7â•…276 65:8–9â•…327 94:18â•…305
38:16â•… 320, 332 66:7â•…327 97:9â•… 327, 571
39:13â•… 310, 321, 567 66:13–15â•…404 99:2â•… 327, 571
39:14â•…541 68:17â•…268n 100:5â•…572
40–41â•…306 69:19â•… 301, 303, 540, 543 103:11â•…549
40:17â•… 255n, 304, 545 70:5â•… 255n, 304 103:13â•… 351n, 539
40:18â•… 311, 555 71:5–6â•…414 103:19â•…327
41:3â•…328 71:5–7â•… 334, 337, 485 104:1â•…255n
41:4â•… 305, 548 71:5â•… 319, 337, 563 106:10â•…263n
41:11â•…550 71:6â•… 253n, 283, 305, 332n, 106:28â•…456
42:3â•…329n 390, 591 107:22â•…404
42:11â•…300 71:18â•…334 109:1â•…332n
43:1â•… 303, 544 72:5, 17â•… 373 112:4â•…541
43:2â•… 332n, 337 73:13â•…265 112:9â•… 288n, 596
43:4â•…564 73:23â•… 305, 548 113:4â•…327
44:2–4â•…334 73:26â•…319 113:5â•… 330, 575
44:10â•… 314n, 365n 74:1â•…365n 113:7â•…307
44:27â•…305 74:2â•… 263n, 334 113:9â•…270
46:6â•…267 74:20â•…300n 114:1â•…262n
46:7–12â•…265 77:6, 12â•… 8n 115:17â•…431
46:8, 12â•… 314 77:14–21â•…8n 116:14–19â•…404
47:9â•…264 77:16â•…263n 118:6â•…314
48:5–8â•…265 78:48â•…419 118:14â•… 316, 552, 560
51:14â•…305 79:9â•…305 119:9â•…265
51:16â•…332n 80:2â•… 267, 302 119:73â•… 279, 589
54:3â•… 303, 544 80:9–12â•…334 119:94â•…568
54:6â•… 305, 313, 332, 556 80:15â•…300n 119:105â•…315
686 Index of Textual Sources

Psalms (cont.) Proverbs Proverbs (cont.)

119:116–17â•…305 2:18â•…432 22:2â•…337–38
119:153â•…300 3:1–12â•…337 22:4â•…337
121:1â•…540 3:5â•… 337–38, 486 22:19â•… 337, 486
121:4â•…308 3:9–12â•…339 22:22–23â•…338
131:2â•…276n 3:12â•…351n 23:17â•…338
132:2, 5â•… 313 9:18â•…432 25:1â•…336
135:1â•… 329, 574 10:3â•… 338, 486 25:21–22â•…338
135:8–12â•…327 10:22â•…338 26:11, 17â•… 322
135:21â•…268n 10:29â•… 337–38, 486 27:20â•…431
136:1â•… 329, 574 11:1, 20, 28â•… 338 28:25â•…337–38
139:10â•…306 12:2â•… 338, 486 29:13â•…337–38
139:13â•… 277–78, 390, 484, 12:22â•…338 29:25â•…337
589 13:14â•…337 31:2â•… 271, 389, 404
140:8â•…311 14:2â•…338 31:10–31â•…396
141:8â•… 320, 554 14:26â•… 337, 486
142:6â•… 319, 563 14:27â•…337 Ruth
143:1â•… 299, 535 14:31â•… 337–38, 486 1:15–16â•…398
143:5â•…8n 15:3â•… 338, 486 2:3â•…318
143:8â•… 267, 318 15:8â•…339 2:4â•…314
143:12â•… 310, 321, 565 15:11â•… 338, 431 2:20â•…410
146:3–5â•…327 15:16, 25â•… 338 3:10â•…410
146:9â•… 307, 551 15:29â•…337–39 3:13â•…303
147:6â•…307 15:33â•…337 4:3–4â•…318
16:2â•…338 4:4â•…44n
Job 16:3â•… 337, 486 4:9–12â•…411
1:1â•…293 16:5–9â•…337–38 4:11–12â•…398
1:20â•…434 16:20â•… 337, 486 4:13–15â•…247
2:11–13â•…436 16:33â•…338 4:13â•… 275, 389
3:1–10â•…275 17:3â•…338 4:14–17â•… 281, 390
3:8â•…412 17:5â•… 337–38, 486 4:17â•… 247–48n, 286
4:6â•… 319, 563 17:15â•…338
10â•…335 18:10â•…337–38 Canticles
10:3â•…337 18:22â•…337 1:6â•…605
10:8–11â•… 278–80, 390–91, 19:3â•…338 1:10â•…318n
484 19:14â•…337 3:4â•… 281, 390
10:8–12â•… 337, 347n 19:17, 21â•… 338 8:5â•… 281, 390
10:8â•…588 19:23â•…337
10:11â•…587 20:9â•…265 Qoheleth
10:21–22â•…431 20:10â•…338 5:3–6â•… 404, 490
11:4â•…265n 20:12â•… 337–38, 486 9:4–6â•…432
15:14â•…265 20:13â•…284 9:4â•…322
16:19â•…312 20:22–23â•…338 10:11â•…274n
17:13â•…432 20:25â•… 404, 490
26:5–7â•… 431, 432 20:27â•…338 Lamentations
31:15â•… 278–79, 390, 589 21:2â•…338 1:9, 11â•… 300n
33:22â•…431 21:3â•…339 2:6â•…401
36:3â•… 278, 588 21:16â•…432 2:7â•…365n
42:14â•…247n 21:30â•… 338, 486 2:20â•…300n
21:31â•…338 3:24â•…319
 Index of Textual Sources 687

Lamentations (cont.) Nehemiah (cont.) 1 Chronicles (cont.)

5:1â•…300n 3:23â•…273 7:39â•…211
5:22â•…365n 6:14â•…267n 8:11–12â•…278
9:4–5â•…271n 8:21â•…279
Daniel 9:5â•…271–72n 8:33â•…287n
6:20â•…311 10:5â•…271n 11:35â•…353
6:21, 27â•… 329n 10:11–13â•…271n 12:6â•…358
10:32â•…402 23:17â•…303n
Ezra 11:7â•…312 24:16â•…276
2:9â•…328n 11:24â•…276 25:11â•…279
2:49â•…322 12:14â•…271n 26:3â•…320
6:19–22â•…399–400n 13:23–30â•…397
8:4â•…320 2 Chronicles
8:33â•…267n 1 Chronicles 11:21â•…396
9–10â•…397 2:46â•…253n 16:12â•…470
10:23â•…276 2:47â•… 307, 328 16:14â•…456
10:29â•…584 3:24â•…273 21:19â•…456
4:3â•…289n 26:16–21â•…417n
Nehemiah 4:9â•…247n 30â•…399n
2:1–5â•… 437, 455 4:35â•…309 30:1–31:1â•…400
2:5â•…432 7:2â•…309 35:1–19â•…399–400n
3:6â•…322 7:13â•…288 35:25â•…434
3:10â•…272 7:16, 23â•… 247n

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

1 Enoch 1 Maccabees Sirach (cont.)

22–25â•…431 6:49â•… 402, 490 25:14â•…396
6:53â•… 402, 490 26â•…396
Jubilees
48:2â•…394 2 Maccabees Tobit
49â•…400 7:27â•…293 3:7–9â•… 419, 491
49:3, 15â•… 419 7:28â•…393 4:12â•…397
4:17â•… 456, 494
Judith Sirach 5:17â•…411
8:5â•…434 1â•…336n 6:1–9â•… 419, 491
10:3–4â•…434 7:33â•… 432, 456, 494 6:11–12â•…397
22:12â•…435 7:13–14â•…398
24â•…336n 7:13â•…411
688 Index of Textual Sources

New Testament

Matthew Mark (cont.) Luke

26:17–19â•…400 14:12–25â•…400 1:59–66â•…247
15:42–47â•…437 2:21â•…247
Mark 16:1â•…437 22:7–23â•…400
5:1–20â•…432 24:1â•…437

Extrabiblical Sources

Rabbinic Literature KTU

b. Ketub. 8bâ•… 437 1.6 VI 45–48â•… 433
b. Šabb. 1.14 I 36–37â•… 347n
134a â•… 247 1.14 IV 31–43â•… 405
152bâ•…454 1.15 II 16–28â•… 347n
m. Nid. 10:4â•… 454 1.21â•…458
m. Pesaḥ. 1.22 IIâ•… 405
5:5–9 â•… 400 1.113â•…433
10:8â•…400 1.114â•…458
m. Šabb. 23:5â•… 437 3.9â•…458
Pesiq. Rab. 17â•… 418 4.642â•…458
Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 48â•… 247
Tg. Pseudo–Jonathan on Exod 4:26â•… 394 TUAT
2.320–47â•…337n
Ancient Near East 2.620â•…405
ANET 3.320–46â•…354
320â•…335n 3/2.625–26 (Atramhasis I 90–306)â•… 276
654â•…351n
Latin and Greek Writings
KAI Josephus
2.81â•…406n Ant.
24.10–11, 13â•… 351 1.237â•…462n
27â•…269 2.14.6â•…419
37.B8â•…275 8.8.1â•… 402, 490
49.15â•…320 13.211–12â•… 461, 493
66â•…405–6 14.10.6â•… 402, 490
80.2â•…320n 16.2â•… 402, 490
109â•…406 J.W. 4.531â•…462n
180.1â•… 554, 593
181.5â•…335n Philo
202.A12â•…307 Questiones in Exodum 1.10â•… 400
202.B24â•…321
229â•…408
277.8–9â•…433
 Index of Sites and Place-Names

Ai (et-Tell)â•… 13, 34–36, 74–76, 164, 173, 222, Deir ʿAllaâ•… 354
229, 242, 496, 518 Deir el-Mirâ•…39
ʿAin Daraâ•… 212–15 Dūr-katlimmuâ•…see Tall Šēḥ Ḥamad
Ain Shemsâ•… 448, 453
Ajia Iriniâ•… 66 Ebal (Mount Ebal/el-Burnāṭ)â•… 13, 235
Akkoâ•…370 ʿEin Gev (Ḥirbet el-ʿĀšīq)â•… 93–94, 500, 521
Ammanâ•…67n Ekron (Tel Miqne/Ḥirbet el-Muqannaʿ)â•… 48,
Aphekâ•…193 71, 112, 193, 195, 201, 203–7, 223, 228–30,
Aradâ•… 11, 13, 69–71n, 220–22, 232, 234, 238, 240–42, 244, 480
236–37, 240–41, 243–44, 254, 266–68, 289, En-gediâ•…412
301, 403, 413, 481, 490 ʿEn Ḥazevaâ•… 67, 69–71n, 73–74, 235, 244
Arbēlaâ•… see Irbid Esdūdâ•…see Ashdod
Arslan Tašâ•… 269, 383 et-Tellâ•… see Ai
Ashdod (Esdūd)â•… 65, 67–69n, 193, 195–207,
226, 228–30, 232, 242 Gezer (Tell Ğazarī)â•… 69–71, 77, 99, 193, 373,
Ashkelonâ•…201 439, 441
Azorâ•…436 Gilgalâ•…416

Beersheba (Bīr es-sebaʿ)â•… 9, 12–14, 28, 32, Haranâ•… 368, 370, 376, 515
57n, 68, 70–71, 80–86, 93, 157, 175, Ḥatarikkaâ•…see Tell Afis
224–25n, 233n, 383, 479, 502, 518–19 Hazrakâ•…see Tell Afis
Beirutâ•…209 Hazor (Tell el Qedaḥ)â•… 4, 11–13, 28, 32,
Beit Aryeh (Ḥirbet Hudash)â•…39–40 36–37, 39n, 41n, 57–58, 67, 73, 102–7,
Beit Lei (Ḥirbet Beit Layy)â•… 13, 413 173, 175, 222, 226, 230, 232–33, 243, 380,
Bethel (Bētīn)â•… 13, 84–85, 237, 245, 265, 322, 383, 417, 460n, 471, 496, 500, 523
483, 519 Hebronâ•… 92, 432, 461
Bethlehemâ•…457 Ḥirbet Beit Layyâ•… see Beit Leiâ•…413
Bethsaidaâ•… 232–33, 241, 243 Ḥirbet el-ʿĀšīqâ•…see ʿEin Gev
Beth-shean (Tell el-Ḥiṣn)â•… 69, 87–91, 133, Ḥirbet el-Mudēyineâ•… 69, 71, 186, 192–93,
173–75, 370, 436, 496, 499–500, 502, 519 227–29, 232–33, 243
Beth-shemesh (Ḥirbet er-Rumēle)â•… 69, 92–93, Ḥirbet el-Muqannaʿâ•…see Ekron
175, 377, 437, 439, 446–48, 450–52, 454, Ḥirbet el-Mušāšâ•…see Tel Masos
502–3, 520–21 Ḥirbet el-Qômâ•… 12, 249, 260
Bētīnâ•…see Bethel Ḥirbet er-Rumēleâ•… see Beth-shemesh
Bīr es-sebaʿâ•…see Beersheba Ḥirbet Hudashâ•…see Beit Aryeh
Bull Site (Daḥret eṭ-Ṭawīle)â•… 13, 44, 222, Ḥirbet Jamaʿinâ•… 39
234–35, 237, 244 Ḥirbet Jarishâ•… 39
Ḥirbet Khatuniyehâ•… 218–19
Daḥret eṭ-Ṭawīleâ•…see Bull Site Ḥirbet Maltaâ•… 39
Danâ•… 11, 13, 58, 69–70n, 221–22, 232–33, Ḥirbet Meshashâ•… 34, 36
237–38, 240–41, 243–44

689
690 Index of Sites and Place-Names

Ḥirbet Raddanaâ•… 13, 34–35, 164–65, 222, 498, Nachshonimâ•…370

632 Nimrudâ•… 258n, 263, 383
Ḥirbet Raʾs ez-Zētūnâ•…see Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit
Ḥirbet Sēlūnâ•…see Shiloh Ophrahâ•…44
Ḥorvat Qitmitâ•… 67, 69–71n, 73, 235–37, 240,
244 Pella (Ṭabaqāt Faḥl)â•… 170, 186–89, 192, 235
Ḥorvat Radumâ•… 233n
Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit (Ḥirbet Raʾs ez-Zētūn)â•…69, Qatnaâ•…see Tell Mišrife
108–110, 174, 499–500, 532 Qumranâ•…419
Ḥorvat ʿUzzaâ•… 233n
Ramat Rahelâ•… 432
Irbid (Arbēla)â•… 13, 177–78 Rimmonâ•… see Tel Halif

Jerichoâ•… 13, 294n, 377, 461 Samʾalâ•… 351, 354

Jerusalemâ•… 4, 13, 18, 58, 61–63, 68, 73, 108– Samariaâ•… 13, 58, 66–68, 70, 220, 222, 243, 265,
12, 157, 175, 220–22, 235, 237, 243–44, 279, 326, 352n, 357n, 380–81, 383, 444,
249, 262n, 264–65, 267–68, 278, 285, 290, 446, 458, 466–69, 472, 494
316, 321, 328, 334, 336, 370, 377, 382–83, Sarafandâ•… see Sarepta
403, 428, 432, 437, 439, 454, 460, 462–69, Sarepta (Sarafand)â•… 207, 209, 211–12, 221n,
472, 481, 490, 494, 503, 524 226, 416
Sfireâ•…354
Kabriâ•… 189, 209 Shechem (Tell Balatâh)â•… 28–29, 31, 94, 223
Karatepeâ•…354 Shiloh (Ḥirbet Sēlūn)â•… 13, 168–69, 249, 271,
Kedeshâ•…see Tel Kedesh 383, 404, 498, 533
Ketef Hinnomâ•… 17n, 412 Silwanâ•… 396, 413, 461
Kinneret (Tell el-ʿOrēme)â•… 73n, 112–16, 155n, Simyraâ•…see Tell Kazel
173–74, 233n, 500–501, 524 Šiqmonaâ•…370
Kuntillet ʿAjrûdâ•… 13, 17n, 222, 233n, 249, 268, Ṣumuraâ•…see Tell Kazel
392, 412–13
Taanach (Tell Taʿanek)â•… 54n, 69, 169–72, 174,
Lachish (Tell ed-Duwēr)â•… 13, 67, 69–71n, 73, 192, 222, 235, 378, 500, 533
75, 116–25, 135, 159, 164, 174, 211, 220, Ṭabaqāt Faḥlâ•…see Pella
222, 225–26, 230, 233, 243, 268, 278, 294n, Tall al-ʿUmērīâ•… 13, 28, 30, 190–92
328, 382, 437, 439–40, 446–49, 453–54, Tall Šēḥ Ḥamad (Dūr-katlimmu)â•… 218
459, 499, 503–4, 524–26 Tawīlānâ•… 189–90, 192
Lahavâ•…see Tel Halif Teimaâ•…408
Tel ʿAmalâ•… 76–78, 174, 178, 499
Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim)â•… 11, 13–14n, Tel Batash (Tell el-Baṭāšī/Timnah)â•… 72, 77–80,
62, 67, 69–76, 94n, 125, 133–57, 164, 225, 235, 237, 244, 502, 518
170, 173–74, 178, 211, 220, 222, 226–28, Tel Danâ•…see Dan
233–34n, 240, 242, 244, 290, 370, 376, Tel Dorâ•… 207n
382, 439–40, 442, 454, 481, 497–99, 501, Tel Halif (Lahav/Rimmon)â•… 9, 14, 57n,
528–31 99–102, 155, 175, 225, 503, 521–22
Meironâ•…294n Tel Kedesh (Tell Qedes)â•… 13, 112, 174, 500
Mizpaâ•…see Tell en-Naṣbeh Tel Masos (Ḥirbet el-Mušāš)â•… 9, 14, 35, 57n,
Mount Carmelâ•… 416 125–33, 173–74, 185, 227–28, 242, 496,
Mount Ebal/el-Burnāṭâ•…see Ebal 504, 526–27
Mount Gerizimâ•… 406–8, 481, 490 Tel Miqneâ•…see Ekron
Tel Qashish (Tell el-Qassīs)â•… 159–60, 499, 531
 Index of Sites and Place-Names 691

Tel Reḥov (Tell eṣ-Ṣarem)â•… 165, 170, 174, 222, Tell Ğuḥfīyaâ•…see Tell Juhfiyya
232, 243, 481, 499, 532 Tell Halafâ•… 208
Tel Wawit (Tell el-Wawiyat)â•… 13, 172, 222 Tell Ḥuwēlifaâ•…see Tel Halif
Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Tell Abūâ•‚Ḥaraz)â•…176–77, Tell Irbidâ•…see Irbid
192 Tell Jawa (Tell Ğāwa)â•… 7, 14–15, 58, 176,
Tell Abūâ•‚Ḥarazâ•…see Tell Abu al-Kharaz 178–83, 192, 226–27, 474
Tell Afis (Ḥatarikka/Hazrak)â•… 209, 215–18 Tell Judeidehâ•… 193
Tell Ahmarâ•… 208 Tell Juhfiyya (Tell Ğuḥfīya)â•…182–84
Tell Balatâhâ•…see Shechem Tell Kabriâ•…see Kabri
Tell Baziâ•… 207–8, 219 Tell Kazel (Simyra/Ṣumura)â•… 207, 209–11,
Tell Beershebaâ•…see Beersheba 219, 227
Tell Beit Mirsimâ•… 11–13, 28, 32, 34–35, 38, 71, Tell Keisanâ•… 207, 209, 211, 224
85–89, 93, 126, 175, 502, 519 Tell Makmišâ•…see Tell Michal
Tell ed-Duwērâ•…see Lachish Tell Mastumaâ•… 208, 224
Tell el-Baṭāšīâ•…see Tel Batash Tell Mazar (Tell el-Mazār)â•… 4, 11, 173–74, 176,
Tell el-Farʿah North (Tirzah)â•… 9, 11, 13–14, 32, 184–87, 225, 258, 497, 526–27
35–36, 38, 57n, 94–99, 222, 224n, 232–33, Tell Michal (Tell Makmiš)â•… 73, 132–34, 174,
243, 499–500, 521 230, 232, 243, 481, 499, 531
Tell el-Farʿah Southâ•… 380 Tell Mišrife (Qatna)â•… 460–61n
Tell el-Ḥammahâ•… 106–8, 174, 499 Tell Qasileâ•… 67–70, 72–73, 133, 193, 197, 207,
Tell el-Ḥiṣnâ•… see Beth-shean 230–31, 233, 240, 243
Tell el-Mazārâ•…see Tell Mazar Tell Qedesâ•…see Tel Kedesh
Tell el-Mutesellimâ•…see Megiddo Tell Qiriâ•… 4, 8, 11, 13, 70, 73, 159–64, 173–74,
Tell el-ʿOrēmeâ•… see Kinneret 228–29, 242, 498, 501, 532
Tell el-Qassīsâ•…see Tel Qashish Tell Ṣāfūṭâ•…189
Tell el Qedaḥâ•…see Hazor Tell Taʿanekâ•…see Taanach
Tell el-Wawiyatâ•…see Tel Wawit Timnahâ•… see Tel Batash
Tell en-Naṣbehâ•… 12–13, 32, 35–36, 38, 67n, 68, Timnah Valleyâ•… 234, 237
70, 73n, 93, 157–59, 440, 443–45, 454, 501, Tirzahâ•… see Tell el-Farʿah North
504, 531–32 Troyâ•…69
Tell es-Safiâ•… 193 Turʿanâ•… 172, 501, 533
Tell es-Saʾīdīyehâ•… 13, 32, 58, 165–69, 225, 501,
532 Vered Jerichoâ•…see Jericho
Tell eṣ-Ṣaremâ•…see Tel Reḥov
Tell ʿĒtūnâ•… 13, 436, 468 Wādī Fīdānâ•… 461
Tell Ğāwaâ•…see Tell Jawa
Tell Ğazarīâ•…see Gezer Yavnehâ•… 68, 73, 195, 232
Tell Ğemmeâ•… 370
 Index of Subjects

Adad (see also Hadad)â•… 289, 317, 332, 358, 354, 356, 358–60, 367, 380, 456, 508–10,
509–10, 516, 543, 558, 562, 565, 567, 572, 512, 535–42, 547, 552, 555–69, 572–73,
575, 578, 580, 587–88, 593, 596 576, 579–82, 584, 586, 590, 593–97, 600,
Aliensâ•… 321–22, 395, 421, 475, 492, 607 606
Altarsâ•… 70–72, 135, 175, 207–8, 227–32, 235– Bamāh (see also Cult places)â•… 123–24, 232–33,
38, 240, 242–44, 478, 480–81, 499–504, 236
518, 524–26, 530–31 Beit ʾābâ•… 24–25, 33, 39–40, 43, 475–76
â•… candelabriumâ•… 69, 71, 232 Birthâ•… 246–48, 269–73, 277–86, 293, 297,
â•… hornedâ•… 135–37, 174, 206, 220, 223, 499, 482–84
501, 530 â•… namesâ•… 252–57, 345–46, 582–601
Amuletsâ•… 71–72, 446–48, 471, 478–79, 491, â•… naming feastâ•… 247–48, 286–91
493, 497–98, 502, 518, 529–30, 532 â•…oraclesâ•…273–75
Anatâ•… 321, 323, 340, 346, 365–66, 508, 512, â•…ritualsâ•…388–93, 489–90
514, 565, 569, 588 â•…weaningâ•…293–94, 392–93
Ancestorsâ•… 61, 225–26, 405, 432–33, 457, 459, Blessingâ•… 56, 252, 289–90, 339, 346, 387, 391,
470–72, 493, 504, 525 398–99, 406, 410–13, 421–22, 490–91,
â•… cult (see also Dead)â•… 5, 61, 207–8, 350, 596–97
429–30, 456 Burial practices (see also Graves)â•… 436–55,
â•… figurinesâ•… 61, 65, 72, 117, 205, 219, 226, 471–73
462, 469 â•… giftsâ•… 12, 456, 471, 493
Angelsâ•… 65, 394, 419
Anthropologyâ•… 17–18, 388, 410, 429–30 Canaanite rites/religionâ•… 47–48, 369, 377, 387,
Apotropaic 421–22, 429
â•… figurineâ•… 84, 208, 384, 454, 479, 502, 519 Centralizationâ•… 18, 223, 400, 402, 490
â•… functionsâ•… 211, 382–83, 385–86, 456 Chaosâ•… 420, 431
â•…magicâ•…71–72 Cherubimâ•… 84, 86, 383–85, 479, 488
â•… rites/ritualsâ•… 46, 281, 292, 323, 387, 391–94, Circumcisionâ•… 247, 286–93, 387, 392–95, 400,
398, 417–20, 477, 479, 489 426–28, 484, 489, 492, 593, 598
Asherahâ•… 4, 10, 12, 55, 62–64, 243, 364, 371, Clanâ•… 5–6, 24–26, 43–45, 53, 136, 457, 476
379 Covenantâ•… 56, 394, 411, 460
Ashtarteâ•… 62, 210, 269–70, 278, 285, 312, 314, â•… Book ofâ•… 401–2, 411
343, 345–46, 353, 363–64, 366, 371, 406, Creationâ•… 3, 251, 277–80, 330, 333–35,
511–12, 514, 538–39, 547, 550, 556, 558, 337–38, 346–47, 391, 422, 484–86, 587–90
560–61, 564, 566, 568–69, 577, 582, 589, Cult placesâ•… 220–44
592–93 â•…domesticâ•…224–28
Astralizationâ•… 63, 321, 368, 371, 373, 378 â•… local high placesâ•… 230–33, 243, 457
Astral symbols/deitiesâ•… 321, 369–79, 515 â•… work-related cult placesâ•… 71, 112, 174–75,
Atonementâ•… 265, 393, 408, 483 203–5, 228–29, 242, 480, 532–33
Cursesâ•… 387, 397–98, 410–13, 490–91
Baalâ•… 63, 210, 238, 245, 254, 263–66, 274, 282,
290, 296, 300–301, 314–27, 342–49, 352, Davidâ•… 25, 61, 247n, 263, 328, 396, 435, 457

692
 Index of Subjects 693

â•…Davidic Kingdomâ•…334 Firstlings (see also Sacrifices)â•… 339, 402–3

Deadâ•…429–73 Food
â•… cultâ•… 5, 429–30, 456, 480 â•… consumptionâ•… 23–24, 44–46, 59–60,
â•…commemorationâ•…457–69 173–75, 224, 227–32, 234–39, 242–44, 420,
â•…memorialâ•…460–62, 493 463–64, 468–69, 475, 478–79, 496–98,
â•…mourningâ•…433–36 500, 502
Demonsâ•… 269, 387, 392, 394, 419–20, 491 â•… preparationâ•… 58–60, 225, 227, 229–30, 232,
Diasporaâ•… 5, 18, 292, 397, 400–401, 427–28, 234, 242–44, 463–64, 496, 499–503
492 Funerary meals and feastsâ•… 457–59
Diseases/crisis/illnessâ•… 331–36, 413–18, 491
Divinationâ•… 61, 226, 244, 274–75, 369, 388, Godsâ•…508–14
470–71, 500, 523 â•… goddessesâ•… 62–65, 344, 363–67, 370–71,
488, 509, 514
Elâ•…354–56 â•…familyâ•…350–53, 356–63
Elephantineâ•… 248, 250, 258, 286, 395–97 â•… nationalâ•… 55, 340, 356–59, 377
Ethicsâ•… 50, 335, 338, 421 â•… personalâ•… 331–36, 358–65, 579
Exclusionâ•… 11, 422 â•… tutelary (see also personal)â•… 354–56, 360,
Exileâ•… 18, 250, 266–68, 292, 394–95, 397, 579
400–401, 421, 427, 483, 489–90, 492 Graves/Tombs (see also Burial prac-
Exodusâ•… 245, 262–63, 268, 330, 334, 393, 421, tices)â•… 436–58, 460–62, 468
483 â•…inscriptionsâ•…413–14
â•…typesâ•…436–49
Familyâ•… 21–23, 41–45, 480
â•… extendedâ•… 22–23, 26, 34, 38–44, 223–28, Hadadâ•… 264, 267, 275, 283, 311, 317, 321–23,
242, 454 342–43, 346–47, 358, 360, 486, 509–10,
â•… jointâ•… 22–23, 25–26, 33–46, 228–29, 512, 539, 541, 543, 549, 552, 555–57,
242–43, 472–73, 475–76 561–62, 565, 567–69, 571, 581, 584, 586,
â•… nuclearâ•… 22–23, 25–26, 33–34, 38–46, 591, 593, 595
223–29, 242, 434, 454, 471–73, 475–76 Harvest feastsâ•… 402–3, 490
â•… pater familiasâ•… 44, 46, 407, 410–11, 418, Holinessâ•… 93, 225, 262n, 265, 401, 425, 459
434, 455–56 Holiness Codeâ•… 400, 402, 411, 470, 490
â•…stemâ•…23, 475–76 Homosexualityâ•… 423–24, 492
Fertility/Infertilityâ•… 10, 13, 62–68, 264, Householdâ•… 23–24, 41–45
269–71, 275–77, 345–46, 389–90, 417, Houses (types)â•… 26–34
421–22, 484, 582 â•… second storyâ•… 29, 32, 176, 182, 225, 227, 479
Figurinesâ•…60–72
â•…animalâ•…66 Identityâ•… 56, 333
â•… Ashdodaâ•… 68, 193, 195, 198–99, 205–7 â•… familyâ•… 400, 432–33, 437, 455, 471–72, 493
â•…femaleâ•…62–65, 226 â•…Jewishâ•…292
â•… horse-and-riderâ•… 63, 65–66, 72, 80, 100, â•… national/ethnicâ•… 18, 330, 395, 397, 421, 427,
102, 111, 114, 117, 175–76, 211–12, 437, 461, 492–93
214–15, 226, 236, 446–48, 453, 462–63, â•… religiousâ•… 395, 400–401, 421, 427, 489–90,
478, 503, 522, 524 492–93
â•… Judean pillar (JPF)â•… 10, 14, 62–68, 92–93, Images (divine) (see also Figurines)â•… 60–61,
121–22, 159, 175, 236, 368, 390, 446, 448, 64, 193, 210, 219, 226, 379, 427
478–79, 502–4, 518–27 Impurityâ•…see Purity
â•… maleâ•… 65–66, 72, 462 Infant mortalityâ•… 293–97, 392, 484, 599
â•…Philistine terra-cottaâ•…193–95 Infertilityâ•… see Fertility
Firstfruitsâ•… 402–3, 421–22, 490 Inheritanceâ•… 23, 323, 437, 483, 569
694 Index of Subjects

Integration/Reintegrationâ•… 247, 287, 292, 360, Model furnitureâ•… 68–69, 175, 221
392, 415 Monolatryâ•… 362, 488
Intercessionâ•… 3, 299, 389, 416 Monotheismâ•… 342–43, 388, 427
Isisâ•… 289, 323, 340, 343–44, 365–66, 448, 508, Mosesâ•… 393–94, 397
513–14, 557, 565, 569, 596 Motâ•… 280, 290, 323, 342, 346–48, 362, 487,
508, 510, 568, 584, 589, 597
Jeroboamâ•… 265, 290 Mourningâ•…433–36
Justiceâ•… 303–4, 311–12, 332, 361, 367, 544–45,
555 Necromancyâ•… 61, 106, 226, 459, 462, 469–71,
494
Kernoiâ•… 69–70, 72, 172–74, 206–7, 496–501, Necropolisâ•… 431, 439, 493
519, 529–32 New Moonâ•… 365, 377, 401, 457, 472, 512, 569
Kingshipâ•… 47, 245, 262, 264, 307, 323, 330, â•… interluniumâ•… 455, 457, 473
373, 405, 483
Offerings (see also Sacrifices)â•… 72, 402–4, 479,
Levitesâ•… 266, 319, 399–400, 403 483
Libation (see also Offerings)â•… 70, 72, 174–75, â•… burntâ•… 125, 499, 501, 530–31
404, 479, 481 â•… drink/foodâ•… 71, 173–75, 206, 225, 227, 230,
Lineageâ•… 40–45, 224, 434, 471–73, 480 239, 242–44, 392, 415, 479
lmlk-stampsâ•… 92, 372–74, 502, 515, 520 â•… dryâ•… 71–72, 173–74, 479, 481, 496–501,
503–4
Magicâ•… 48–49, 64, 226, 387–88, 410, 417, 427, â•… incenseâ•… 243–44, 175–77, 227, 239, 242–44
479
Manticâ•… 61, 75, 226, 274–75, 389 Pantheonâ•…486–87
Marriageâ•… 395–99, 419, 426, 489 Passoverâ•… 6, 8–9, 387, 395, 399–400, 419,
â•…intermarriageâ•…397–98 427–28, 489–90, 492
â•…levirateâ•…26, 397–98 Peaceâ•… 68, 336, 402, 426, 458
â•…monogamyâ•…395–97, 489 Piety
â•…polygamyâ•…396–97 â•… familialâ•… 53, 246, 256, 300, 331–36, 338,
â•…polygynyâ•…395–97, 489 412, 436, 460
Masksâ•… 61, 105–6, 226, 417, 471, 500, 523 â•… personalâ•… 3–5, 54, 245, 248, 336–39,
Maṣṣebāhâ•… 61, 101, 123–24, 170, 174, 190, 230, 367–86
233, 235, 240, 243–44, 460–61, 532 Pilgrim/Pilgrimageâ•… 8, 13, 325, 400, 485, 490
Maṣṣotâ•… 325, 387, 399–403 Polytheismâ•… 339, 342–48, 362–63, 487–88
Miniature altarsâ•… 70–72, 502, 518 Prayersâ•… 271–72, 255–57, 583–85
Mixed creaturesâ•… 382–86 â•… confessionâ•… 252–55, 259, 309–25, 332–35,
â•… Besâ•… 6, 10, 276, 279, 322–23, 340, 342, 344, 554–70
346, 381–82, 392, 440, 489, 508, 516, 568, â•… lamentationâ•… 270, 299–315, 331–34,
589 337–38, 413–15, 434–35, 489
â•… Griffinâ•… 373, 383, 516 â•… praiseâ•… 255, 325–30, 485, 571–75
â•… Horusâ•… 264, 323, 343–44, 352, 381, 448, â•… thanksgivingâ•… 252–57, 259, 282, 298–309,
508, 511, 513, 516, 565, 568, 570, 578, 595 355, 404, 413–15, 484, 534–53
â•…Lamassuâ•…383–84, 516 Pregnancyâ•… 10, 64, 252, 270, 273, 275–81,
â•…scorpion-manâ•…384, 517 285–86, 297, 389–90, 484, 489, 586–87
â•… sphinxâ•… 82, 84, 86, 379, 382–85, 488, 502, â•… pregnant women (figurine)â•… 95, 211
516, 519 Priestsâ•… 5, 18, 49–51, 233–40, 243–44, 273,
â•… sun-disc (winged)â•… 316, 368, 370, 372–74, 297, 322, 389, 400–401, 417–18, 480–82,
378, 384–86, 488, 515 491, 567
â•… Uraeusâ•… 382–83, 385, 488, 516 Propertyâ•… 271, 290, 397, 426, 437
 Index of Subjects 695

Prophetsâ•… 5, 18, 47–52, 273, 281, 358, 415–17, â•… of a deityâ•… 259, 310, 321–22, 325, 333, 335,
470 364, 366–67, 406, 565–67
Protective Spiritsâ•… 380–81 Shamashâ•… 65, 316, 332, 340–45, 358, 361, 376,
Purity/Impurityâ•… 265, 328, 418, 420, 425 378, 508, 511, 513, 515, 539, 547, 556, 559,
â•… period of impurityâ•… 247, 286, 292, 391–92 561, 566, 568–69, 576, 580–81, 589–90,
â•… purification ritesâ•… 203, 417–18, 482, 489, 597
491 Shavuotâ•…325
Shrinesâ•… 220–24, 239–41, 480–81
Queen of Heavenâ•… 12, 49, 349, 364, 369–70, â•… domestic/houseâ•… 101, 227–28, 242, 277,
403–4, 490 479, 496, 527
Qosâ•… 273, 340, 342, 345–46, 508, 511, 549, â•… local and villageâ•… 123–25, 173–74, 207,
580, 584 230–33, 243–44, 496, 499, 523–24, 531
â•… miniatureâ•… 54n, 67–68, 72, 95, 173–74, 207,
Reform/Reformersâ•… 51, 55, 274, 319, 398, 403, 243–44, 478, 497, 499, 501, 521, 528, 531
428, 490 â•… neighborhoodâ•… 75–76, 229–30, 242, 477,
â•… Josianicâ•… 3, 18, 61, 237, 274, 348 496, 498, 518, 532
Religion â•… palaceâ•… 135–40, 234, 244, 499, 501, 531
â•… internal religious pluralismâ•… 3, 46, 52–56, Sin (god)â•… 280, 343, 358, 375–77, 488, 511,
223, 368–69, 386, 477, 481, 492 515, 543, 549, 556–57, 559, 562, 579–80,
â•…localâ•…44, 53 582, 590, 593–95
â•… officialâ•… 4–5, 54–55, 262–69, 351, 369, 409, Sinaiâ•… 245, 262, 265–68, 330, 483
417–18 Slavesâ•… 23–24, 208, 229, 395–96, 413, 475
â•…popularâ•…49–51 Socializationâ•… 21, 44–45, 475–76
â•…primary/secondaryâ•…51–52 Sociologyâ•… 17–18, 21, 24
Rĕpāʾîmâ•… 432, 470 Sojourners
Reproductionâ•… 21, 44–46, 475–76 â•… of a deityâ•… 259, 310, 321–22, 325, 567–68
Reshephâ•… 347, 362, 513, 566, 569, 593 â•… of the temple/tentâ•… 266, 567
Spirits of the deadâ•… 433, 435, 461, 470, 494
Sabbathâ•… 18, 387, 401–2, 416, 427–28, 460, Standsâ•… 59, 68–69, 72, 173–75, 242–44,
489–90, 492 496–504, 518–33
Sabbatical yearâ•… 401–2 Sukkot (see also Harvest feasts)â•… 325
Sacrificesâ•… 18, 265–66, 272–73, 297, 339, 400, Syncretismâ•… 47–48, 369, 371, 477
454, 456–59, 483, 584–85
â•… animalâ•… 66, 165, 272, 389, 408 Taboosâ•… 420–26, 459, 489, 491–92
â•… bloodâ•… 4, 6, 482 Templeâ•… 13, 47–48, 67–73, 103, 203–4,
â•…humanâ•…403 220–24, 230–44, 460, 480–81, 487–88, 513
Sanctuariesâ•… 4–7, 44, 60–61, 133, 220–24, â•… Dan (Tel)â•… 237–38, 481
240–41, 265–66, 286, 389, 403–4, 409, â•… Jerusalemâ•… 4, 63, 237, 267–69, 334, 400–401
480–81, 490, 496, 499, 523, 531 â•…modelsâ•…see Shrines, miniature
â•… gateâ•… 230–33, 243, 415, 532 â•…Samariaâ•…406–9
â•… regionalâ•… 234–37, 244, 271, 273 â•… Second Templeâ•… 400, 427–28, 490–93
â•… supraregional and stateâ•… 237–39, 244 Tĕrāpîmâ•… 60–61, 470–71
Saulâ•… 272n, 328, 416, 437, 457, 470, 494 Theophanyâ•… 254, 266–68, 548
Sealsâ•… 71–72, 248–50, 260–62, 367–86, 498, Throne/Enthronementâ•… 68, 193, 209, 264–65,
507, 515–17, 530 301, 379, 405
Šĕʾōlâ•… 431–32, 454 â•… of cherubsâ•… 316, 383
Seraphimâ•… 368, 382, 385–86, 488 Tombsâ•…see Graves
Servantsâ•… 23–24, 34, 38, 229, 242, 309, 480
696 Index of Subjects

Tripod cups (perforated)â•… 70, 72, 165–66, â•… practicesâ•… 174–75, 219, 227, 240–41, 479,
174–77, 180, 219, 241, 243–44, 478, 496, 481
500–502, 519, 521, 523, 532 Vowsâ•… 46, 252, 266, 271–73, 294, 297, 389,
403–10, 483–84, 489–90, 583–85
Vassal statesâ•… 264, 369, 378
Vesselsâ•… 58–59, 172–75, 207–8, 221–22, Wisdomâ•… 1–2, 48, 276, 336–38, 396, 432, 486
227–40, 242–44, 438, 440, 453–54, 463–64, â•…Proverbsâ•…336–39
469, 496, 527 Womenâ•… 8–11, 270–73, 277, 388–93, 479, 488
â•… anthropomorphicâ•… 68, 72, 453, 462 â•… baʾălat ʾōbâ•…470–71
â•… composite libationâ•… 70, 72, 453–54, 498, 532 â•… female ritual specialistsâ•… 416–17, 491
â•… miniatureâ•… 73, 75, 226, 502, 518, 532 â•… midwivesâ•… 247, 281–83, 297, 333–34,
â•… zoomorphicâ•… 68, 72, 226, 446, 453, 478, 390–92, 591
497, 499–503, 518, 520–21, 523, 528–29, â•…wailingâ•…434–36, 472
531–32
Votive Yhwhâ•… 262–69, 356–58
â•… figurinesâ•… 72, 175, 193, 219, 221, 226, 228,
230–32, 234, 242–44, 415, 462, 466 Zionâ•… 50, 245, 262, 264–65, 330, 386, 483
â•… inscriptionsâ•… 405–9, 466, 481
â•… objectsâ•… 64–66, 68, 72–75, 175, 219, 221,
228, 232, 235–37, 239–44, 469, 481