Following on j?om David Rohl's New Chronology papers in JACFs 3 and 5, the detailed arguments are presented here for the proposed synchronism between the early Israelite Monarchy era and the el-Amarna period of the late 18th Dynasty. In the New Chronology, Saul was a contemporary of Amenhotep 111 and Akhenaten (during their coregency), whilst David reigned at the time when Tutankhamun and Haremheb were on the Egyptian throne. Part One The Source Material The Amama Letters date from the time of three pharaohs reigning towards the end of the 18th Dynasty - Amenhotep 111, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. Almost all the Letters were recovered from the site of Tell el-Amama in Middle Egypt, apparently having been cached in antiquity beneath the floor of the `House of Correspondence of Pharaoh'. Unfortunately, many of the clay tablets were broken and a number of fragments, perhaps even some whole tablets, may have been lost during the original discovery (by local villagers) due to unauthorised removal from the site. Nevertheless, the entire Amama Age (the site of `Akhetaten' was occupied for about 15 years only') would seem to be represented fairly evenly in the collection: there are no obvious gaps before the very end of the period, when Tutankhamun moved the royal administration to Memphis. In all, there are 382 surviving tablets (catalogued as EA 1 to EA 382) in the collection - predominantly housed in the Cairo, Berlin and British Museums. In terms of Egypto-Levantine politics, they fumish the historian with information unrivalled in any other period of ancient history. Although the Letters consti- tute an incomplete archive of the diplomatic corres- pondence exchanged between the pharaohs and the other rulers of the Levant, they show quite clearly that in Amenhotep 111's time Egypt was the dominant power in Palestine. During the reign of his successor, Akhenaten, pharaonic influence rapidly waned and large numbers of vassal cities were lost to a wide- spread revolt movement. As the later Letters indicate, Egypt's loss of hegemony seems to have been due to an apparent indifference towards the ever worsening political situation, coupled with prolonged military inactivity on the part of an inward-looking Egyptian administration at the new capital of Akhetaten. This paper will concentrate on the Amama Letters from Palestine - the correspondence exchanged between the pharaohs and the petty kings or rulers of the city- states of Canaan. For convenience, the most recent English language translation of the entire archive will be cited - that of William Moran3 - whilst noting the claims of other translations in areas of critical dif- ference. The Amarna Letters will be compared with the other history we possess from this region - the traditional narrative account of the Israelite people as recorded in the Old Testament. Now, biblical criticism, in respect of the Old Testament's historicity, is usually conducted from the following perspective: (a) if there is any direct archaeological confirmation available for a section of the traditional narrative, then the biblical passage in question is `historical', (b) if there is no archaeological evidence, then that passage is taken as questionable, folklore having a lesser status than contemporary documentation, JACF VOL. 6 (199293) Pages 33-64 33 (c) therefore, the priority lies with the archaeological findings. The later books of the Old Testament are widely perceived as containing valuable and accurate historical information, especially where biblical, Assyrian, Baby- lonian and Persian histories coincide. In the era of William Albright and Kathleen Kenyon, considerable portions of the earlier biblical corpus were also deemed `historical' - most notably the account of the Exodus under Moses and the Conquest under Joshua. Today, these earlier passages are usually thought of as `non- historical' because of their perceived poor fit with the archaeological record. However, as has been shown elsewhere, a rather good fit is actually available at another locus in time4 - though, since its adoption would require a radical revision of the generally accepted chronology, it has yet to be widely welcomed. There is, therefore, an additional chronological requirement: the `traditional' biblical narratives are considered only to be `historical' if they 'fit' at their expected place in time. With the advent of the New Chronology, scholars now have an alternative frame- work for Egyptian history - a framework which holds considerable potential for a re-establishment of the earlier Old Testament narratives as a true (though perhaps garbled) record of the establishment of the proto-Israelite nation, based on real historical events. The New Chronology places the rise of the Israelite monarchy at the time of the late 18th Dynasty in Egypt.5 The question, therefore, is: does a comparison of the events of the two periods confirm the new chronological theory? This paper will demonstrate that there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the two independent historical sources record events of a single time period. In so doing, we aim to provide further support for the theoretical chronological place- ment of the late 18th Dynasty at the beginning of the 10th century BC. The two books of Samuel will be our principal biblical sources. Literary parallels between the Amama Letters and I Samuel are frequently noted by biblical scholars. For example, Nadav Na`aman (who is also an eminent authority on the Amama Letters) discems that the Samuelic author, in his use of the word ibrim (= `Hebrew', see below), is familiar with the Amama usage of the word habiru. He regards the books of Samuel as a valuable contemporary account: One should begin with the occurrences of the term in the books of Samuel because, of all the traditions relating to the early history of Israel, the stories in these books were the first to be set down in writing. Moreover, only a relatively short time separates the events described therein from the date of their recording, and, in addition, the author(s) lived in the same area where the reported events took place.6 Our present comparison of the Amama Letters with material (mostly) from the books of Samuel should not, therefore, offend the sensitivities of historians. Part Two The Political Topography of Palestine The Population Centres of Canaan In the Amama Age the (known) city-states of Palestine were Gaza, Ashkelon, Gath, Gath-Cannel, Gezer, Yurtsa and Lachish in the west (that is the coastal plain and Shephelah); Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley; Achshaph and Acco by the coast to the north-west; Hazor in the north; Ashtaroth (and possibly Pella) in Transjordan; and Jerusalem in the southern part of the central hill-country. The remaining towns named in the southem correspondence should not be thought of as city-states because: there is no specific mention of named rulers for these towns, representatives of these towns do not write to Pharaoh (as do the vassal city-states), nor do they appear to be in receipt of his Letters, there are towns (e.g. Yaramu, Ajalon and Sarha) which are `written to' by correspondents: if there were rulers for these towns, surely they, rather than the towns themselves, would be `written to', (d) there are numerous instances where neighbouring city-states have, or claim to have, authority over certain towns (e.g. Shunem, Burquna, Harabu, Qiltu (i.e. Keilah), Rubute, Hannathon, Bethshan, Sapuna and Bit.NINURTA/Bethlahmi). A very different political situation existed in the central hill-country - the region which was to become the nucleus of the kingdom of Israel. The Amama Letters show only two powers there: Yohanan Aharoni ob- serves that each ruled over `a fairly extensive area' and that their kings `dominated, to all practical purposes, the entire central hill-country at the time'. In the south was Jerusalem - a city-state ruled by Abdiheba. To the north was the territory ruled by Labayu which Aharoni describes as `especially large in contrast to the small Canaanite principalities round about'. JACF VOL. 6 Bible Acco Megiddo Gezer Gaza Ashkelon Gath Jerusalem Hazor Lachish * Aijalon Bethshan Taanach 13. Bethshemesh 14. Ashdod 15. Ekron 16. Ibleam 17. Dor [not attested] Amarna Letters 1. Acco 2. Megiddo 3. Gezer 4. Gaza 5. Ashkelon 6. Gath 7. Jerusalem 8. Hazor 9. Lachish 10. Aijalon 11. Bethshan 12. Taanach (Shubandu's resident city? 9, [not attested] [not attested] [not attested] [not attested] 18. Sarha (= Zorah?'O) Comparison of the non-Israelite citiesltowns men- tioned in Judges and I & II Samuel with the city- states and towns of the Amarna Letters (including towns not controlled by Labayu). Their locations in Palestine are shown on the map. [Illust: D. Rohl] Labayu was a serious contender with the kings of Jerusalem and Gezer. EA 250 indicates that for some time he even dominated the entire Sharon, having conquered Gath-padalla (Jett in the central Sharon) and Gath-rimmon (appar- ently the biblical town of this name, perhaps to be identified with Tell Jerisheh on the Yarkon). Even in the north Labayu was not content to possess only the hill-country; he tried to pen- etrate into the Jezreel Valley, laying siege to Megiddo [EA 2441 and destroying Shunem and some other towns [EA 2501." In addition, we may infer that Labayu also ruled a large area in the Transjordan which was later to be the focus of the kingdom of his son Mutbaal. In EA 255 Mutbaal writes of his intention to convey one of Pharaoh's caravans to Hanigalbat (Mitanni) in the far north, stating that his father Labayu had been in the custom of overseeing all the caravans which the Egyptian king sent there via the trade route through northem Transjordan. Obviously, Labayu could have done so only if he also controlled those lands in Trans- jordan later ruled by his son Mutbaal. Thus Palestine in the Amama Age is made up of about a dozen small city-states surrounding Labayu's `fairly extensive kingdom' in the central hill-country and Transjordan. City-states are conspicuous by their rarity in the hill-country and, indeed, there are few ref- erences to population centres in these upland regions. JACF VOL. 6 How does Palestine in the Amama Age compare with that in the post-Conquest period as described in the Old Testament? It is readily apparent that, after Joshua's Conquest of the Promised Land and the Israelites' destruction of the Canaanite cities of the Jordan Valley and central hill-country (e.g. Jericho, Ai, Bethel), the pattern of occupation there begins to resemble that in the Amama Age. Throughout the Judges period, the hill-lands are inhabited by Israelite tribes who are periodically united under charismatic leaders (Deborah, Gideon, etc.). This pattern of occupation is essentially unaltered at the time of the accession of Israel's first king, Saul. The political topography of Palestine is permanently changed only after his successor, David, captures Jeru- salem and defeats the other powerful city-states in the region, thus creating a greater Israel. The political topography of the rest of post- Conquest Palestine (prior to the reign of David) can be visualised by determining which cities were not subdued by the invading tribal Israelites: 35 Major cities not conquered by Israel include Beth-shean, Ibleam, Acco, Taanach, and Megid- do in the north, and Jerusalem, Ajalon, Gezer, Dor, Beth-shemesh, Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron in the south . . . l2 This city list, given by William Stiebing, shows that the map of Palestine was certainly similar to that depicted in the Amama Letters. Of special note is the inclusion of Jerusalem in the list of unconquered cities: it is generally accepted that, despite there being an account of its conquest in Joshua 10, this city remained independent until the time of David. Aharoni would add other names to the list, including Hazor and Lachish. l3 The Nationalities of Amarna Age Canaan We will now look at what the Letters tell us about the settled peoples of Palestine. First, there is a group, as reflected in the city- states of the west, whose rulers bear names of Indo- European origin, such as Shuwardata (of Gath?), Widia (of Ashkelon), Biridiya (of Megiddo) and his friend Yasdata (probably also a city-ruler from the Jezreel), Indaruta (of Achshaph) and Shubandu (home town unknown but probably from the coastal plain). Crucial to an understanding of Shuwardata and his Letters is the matter of the location of his home town. Here the most telling argument is that of Aharoni l4 who deduces that Gath was Shuwardata's capital, on the grounds that EA 290 (from Abdiheba of Jerusalem) mentions Milkilu and Shuwardata leading troops of Gezer, Gath and Keilah in the conquest of Rubute. Since Milkilu is known to have been king of Gezer, the towns of Gath and Keilah would appear to have been in Shuwardata's possession. In addition, we note two Letters written to Pharaoh by Shuwardata, which support Aharoni's contention: in EA 280 Shuwardata complains that Abdiheba has taken one of his towns - Keilah - by bribing its inhabitants with silver, whilst in EA 279 he seeks permission to recapture Keilah from the ruler of Jerusalem, requesting archers to assist him in the task. Since one does not lose one's base as a result of a bribe, nor need to seek permission for its recapture, we must conclude that Gath (rather than Keilah Is) was Shuwardata's principal city. There are many Gaths in Palestine, but Aharoni makes the interesting suggestion that Shuwardata ruled from the city which was one and the same as the later Philistine Gath - the Gath of the Bible.16 In the con- ventional chronology this would make Shuwardata a pre-Philistine king of Gath (with an Indo-European name): in the New Chronology hypothesis he would actually be one of the Philistine seranim (`lords'). Second, there is Jerusalem and its ruler Abdiheba (lR.Heba), the Heba element of whose name denotes a Hurrian goddess attested in the Letters from Mitanni. After Abdiheba's last Letters (which reveal his city to be in dire straits) there is silence from Jerusalem - Egyptian records do not mention the city again in its full name form. l7 Some 340 years later, according to the conventional chronology, the independent status of the Jebus (Jerusalem) is ended by David's conquest. Third, there is the city of Gezer, an independent state whose rulers bear Canaanite names - Milkilu and his sons Yapuhu and Addadanu. In the Early Monarchy period, Gezer does not come under Israel's control until the city is given to Solomon as a dowry by Pharaoh [I Kings 9:16]; prior to that it seems to have been an independent Canaanite enclave. Fourth, there are the Canaanites in the central hill-country - Labayu and, later, his son Mutbaal. EA 252, written by Labayu, was successfully translated by William Albright in 1943. He discerned that the author was apparently unfamiliar with Akkadian - the lingua franca of the Amama Letters - since much of EA 252 is written in Canaanite. Following a conventional introduction, Labayu em- ploys only about 20% pure Akkadian words and `40% mixed or ambiguous, and no less than 40% pure Canaanite words'. For example, the word nam-lu in line 16 of EA 252 is the Hebrew for `ant' (nemalah), the Akkadian word being zirbabu. Albright noted the some- what Proverbial style of the letter: The ruins of the `House of Correspondence of Pharaoh' at Tell el-Amarna (ancient Akhetaten). [Photo: D. Rohl] 36 If ants are smitten, they do not accept (the smiting) quietly, but they bite the hand of the man who smites them. l8 JACF VOL. 6 Labayu's son, Mutbaal, also uses many Canaanite and mixed-origin words. In respect of line 13 of his EA 256 Albright notes: `As already recognized by the interpreters, this idiom is pure Hebrew.' l9 Furthermore: . . . phonetically, morphologically and syntactic- ally the people then living in the district later occupied by Manasseh spoke a dialect of Heb- rew (Canaanite) which was very closely akin to that of Ugarit. The differences which some scholars have listed between biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic are, in fact, nearly all chronological distinctions. Albright is stating here that the Canaanite language of EAs 252 and 256 can hardly be distinguished from that spoken by the Israelites:21 their idiom appears to be identical. The chronological distinctions referred to (the basis of his surprise in finding biblical Hebrew idiom in the Letters) involve a period of up to three centuries. Fifth, there are the kings of Amurru in Syria, Abdiashirta and his son Aziru. Their kingdom seems to undergo expansion during the Amarna period and soon comes to dominate Syria and the Lebanon. Aziru casts off his allegiance to Egypt, makes a treaty with the Hittite emperor Suppiluliumas I during his cam- paign in Syria, and receives Hittite backing in his wars. The treaty with Suppiluliumas shows the extent of Amurm's influence, listing Karduniash (Babylonia) and Astata (the Middle Euphrates below Carchemish) as kingdoms bordering Aziru's domain. 22 Abraham Malamat notes the geographical simi- larity between Aram-Zobah of the late 11th century and Amurm of the 14th to 13th centuries BC. Writing of Aram-Zobah, he states: This political entity, whose strength is difficult to estimate from the fragmentary evidence found in the Bible, expanded during the reign of its king Hadadezer, a contemporary of David, over vast territories. ... In the south it apparently reached the frontier of Ammon, as can be deduced from the intervention of Aramaean troops on the side of the Ammonites in their war with David [I1 Samuel 10:6 ffl. In the northeast the kingdom of Zobah extended to the river Euphrates and even to territories beyond it [I1 Samuel 8:3, 10:16]. In the east it touched the Syrian desert and in the west it included Coel- syria. These boundaries roughly correspond to the expansion of the kingdom of Amurm which still flourished in the 13th century. We have no information on the political organisation in this area in the 12th century after Amurru was destroyed by the Sea Peoples, or in the 11th century during the period of Aramaean settle- ment until the period of consolidation of the Aramaean states on the eve of David's period. 23 JACF VOL. 6 Letter EA 252, written to the pharaoh by Labayu, BM. Cat. No. WA E29844. [Photo: D. Rohl] Having noted this, he finds the lack of any political continuity problematical: The question is whether Hadadezer's kingdom, like that of David, was not based, in one way or another, on a previously existing political organisation. It has to be pointed out, however, that in the case of Aram Zobah, there was apparently no continuity in the transmission of political rule as in the case of Israel, and the influence of the political tradition reaching back to the days of the kingdom of Amurru could only be indirect. 24 The five observations we have made here all appear to point to the same basic conclusion: the types of settled population groups found in Palestine during the Amama Age are very similar in their make-up and inter-relationships to those peoples resident in Palestine during the Judges and Early Monarchy periods (some three centuries later in the generally accepted chronol- ogy). Our knowledge of 14th-century Amama Age population groups derives from the letters their leaders wrote to Amenhotep 111, Akhenaten and the Egyptian administration, whereas it is the Old Testament which provides our information concerning the Israelite tribes and their neighbours. In the New Chronology the Amama Age does not fall in the 14th century but rather in the late 11th century BC - the first years of the Early Monarchy according to biblical chronology. Thus, in the revised chronological model, there is no 37 300-year interval between our two sets of population groups in the southern Levant and no problems of continuity such as those raised by Albright and Malamat. We can therefore conclude that, so far, there are no contradictions in the New Chronology's date for the Amarna period, but rather a number of encouraging similarities in respect of the general political topo- graphy of the region. The Identification of the habiru In considering the final and most important element of the population of Palestine we will draw extensively on the material gathered together in the Masters Dissertation of Peter van der Veen (resume in JACF 3). 25 We shall simply summarise the findings here and leave the reader to follow up the discussion in the original publications. Apart from the kings and petty rulers, the other elements of the population of Syro-Palestine include brigands such as the Habbatu and the nomadic Sum but also specific types called GAZ and SA.GAZ. One correspondent - Abdiheba of Jerusalem - calls these GAZ/SA.GAZ people `habiru', an appellation regarded by many scholars as an exact equivalent of the term npiru found in Egyptian texts of the New Kingdom.% Habiru and SA.GAZ types are mentioned some centuries earlier in legal documents and other literature from Mesopotamia (e.g. from the cities of Nuzi and Mari) and Anatolia: they are, therefore, by no means a new phenomenon.z7 Nor are they an ethnic group, though many, even from the earliest periods, bear Semitic names. The term SA.GAZ/habiru (from now on hnbiru zs) instead refers to a socio-political grouping whose members share no common ethnicity: con- sequently the term habiru lacks the `people' determina- tive. The same applies in the Amama Letters where the appellation refers to unsettled groups outside the normal protection of the law. They are perhaps refu- gees from feudal and tribal societies (indeed, the term hnbiru probably derives from the Akkadian verb hubaru `to migrate'). In the Amama Letters, the habiru are always referred to in a context of warfare: (a) somctimcs as independent soldiers of fortune; (b) often as mercenaries in the service of the city-state rulers; and (c) as the driving force of the major revolt move- ment against the feudal system which occurred towards the end of the Amama period. However, the Amama correspondcnts also feel frec to apply the term to other troublesome elements (associatcd to some degree with traditional habiru bands but, strictly speaking, not falling within the above categories). Consequently the appellation be- comes a pejorative (a term of contempt) to be under- stood as `rebel', `traitor' or `reprobate'. Thus we find one city-state ruler calling another `habiru' simply because he considers his neighbour to be failing in his obligations to Pharaoh. In another instance, Aziru (of 38 Amurm) is stigmatised as `habiru' and `stray dog' by the self-righteous vassal prince Ribaddi (of Byblos) because of his rebellious activities [EA 671. In the same way, Shuwardata (of Gath) calls Labayu (of central Palestine) `habiru' because he `rose up against the lands' of the king [EA 3661. When we turn to the Old Testament, we find in I Samuel a close analogy to the appellation habiru. It has been noted by a number of scholars that the term ibrim in I Samuel is not used there as an ethnicon (or gentilic, i.e. the name of a people) for `Israelites' but rather as a socio-political grouping, just as with the habiru of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. For example, the term ibrim is used to describe mercenary troops fighting for the Philistines: Those Hebrews (ibrim) who had earlier taken service with the Philistines and had accompa- nied them into camp, now defected to the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan. [I Samuel 14:21 - NJ*] A further example indicating that the ibrim are distinct from the Israelites is to be found in I Samuel 13: 6-7: When the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait (for the people were hard pressed), then the people hid themselves in caves, in thickets, in cliffs, in cellars, and in pits. Also some of the Hebrews (ibrim) crossed the Jordan into the land of Gad and Gilead. [NASV"] Joyce Baldwin makes the distinction even clearer when she concludes that these ibrim were recruited by Saul (i.e. they were mercenaries): If, as wc have argucd, these `Hebrews' are the uncommitted recruits whom Saul had attracted to himself, it is understandable that they should be singled out for separate action. The text needs no emendation. The hirelings fled.29 We also find instances where the term is employed as a pejorative. When the Philistine lords refer to the ibrim, the appcllation denigrates their former servants in four out of five instances. For example: But take courage and be men, Philistines, or you will become slaves to the Hebrews (ibrim) as they have been slaves to you. Be men and fight. [I Samuel 4:9 - NJ] And again, when insulting Jonathan before Michmash: `Look, the Hcbrcws (ibrim) are coming out of the holes where they have been hiding'. The * NJ = New Jenisalem Bible; NASV = New American Standard Version. JACF VOL. 6 men of the outpost (Heb. matsabah) then hailed Jonathan and his armour bearer. `Come up to us', they said, `we have something to tell you' (Heb. nodiah - causative of the verb yada `to know' - probably here with the meaning `to teach you a lesson'). [I Samuel 14:ll-12 - NJ] We can be even more confident of one specific parallel between the habiru of the Amarna Letters and the ibrim of I Samuel. It is widely recognised that a close set of parallels exists between the activities of David and his mercenaries (specifically called ibrim in I Samuel 29:3) and the habiru of the Amama period. Independently of one another, several eminent scholars have argued this point: they include Moshe Greenberg, Wolfgang Helck, George Mendenhall, Nadav Na`aman and Roland de Vaux. Another leading advocate is Kyle McCarter: In short David became an `apiru chief. Like the `apiru known from the Amarna Age, David and his men were soldiers of fortune, who lived by hiring themselves out as mercenaries or subsis- ted on plunder. 31 We therefore conclude that the usage of ibrim (= Hebrews) in I Samuel parallels that of habiru in the Amarna Letters in every respect. We re-encounter here the issue of continuity - for the Amarna usage of habiru, both as a description of unassimilated landless mercenaries and as a pejorative (c. 1350 BC), is not recorded again until approximately three hundred and thirty-five years later, when, in the days of the prophet Samuel (c. 1015 BC), it resurfaces in an identical form. The term habirulapiru (as it appears in contemporary documents retrieved by ar- chaeology) is confined to the Bronze Age - the latest example occumng in a text dated to the reign of Ramesses IV,32 by which time the apiru appear to be very much assimilated into society. 33 According to the generally accepted chronology, this is still more than a century before the era of Saul and David, when the habiru are once again seen as an outsider element in the population of Palestine. Given this apparent reversal of social status, resulting from the chronologi- cal separation of the two eras, it is telling to find such renowned biblical scholars as Greenberg and Menden- hall observing that `the clearest example'34 and `the most striking parallels by far' 35 of habiru activity are those of David and his fighting men. Their failure to make the clear leap of logic which requires the habiru mercenaries of the Amarna Age to be, in reality, one and the same as the Hebrew mercenaries under Saul and David (rather than merely strikingly similar) is simply a consequence of the high chronology imposed on the biblical specialists by the Egyptologists. Part Three The Personalities of Amarna Palestine We have seen how the political topography of Pales- tine in the Amarna period is comparable to that in the post-Conquest period from Judges to Saul. We now propose to take the comparison to the level of the individual, to determine if there are major figures in the Amama correspondence who might be identified with certain biblical characters. For instance, we should be able to identify Labayu, ruler of the central hill-country in the Amama Letters, since this same hilly landscape is the setting for the Book of Judges and is where Israel's monarchy was founded. During the Judges period the Israelites are depic- ted as a loose confederation of tribes, for the most part dominated by their westem neighbours, the Philistines. From time to time a particularly strong and warlike leader emerges - Gideon and Abimelech are good examples - who unites the tribes and dominates the hill-country. However, when we attempt to make a detailed comparison between these tribal heroes and Labayu and his sons, little more than the most general of parallels can be drawn. It becomes evident that the details of the lives, events and deaths of the leaders in the Judges period do not even remotely reflect those of Labayu and his sons. JACF VOL. 6 However, with the advent of the early Israelite monarchy, a dynastic structure is set up (son following father to the throne) which is reflected in the Amarna Letters (where Labayu was succeeded by his son Mut- baal). More significantly, wc find reference to the activities of the ibrim coincident with Saul's establish- ment of a professional army. Saul, then, would appear to be a promising candidate in our search for a biblical counterpart to Labayu of the Amarna Letters. In Part Three we shall be evaluating the evidence for Saul's identity as Labayu and many of the ramifications of the equation. Presentation of the arguments for this identification will be made as a series of parallels. The lack of any obvious similarity between the names of Labayu (meaning `Lion [of deity NN]') and Saul should not be taken as an objection to our thesis. The names of the kings Saul (meaning `asked for [by the people]') and Solomon (meaning `peace [in his time]') probably originate with the later biblical writers, since they are a reflection of the history of the kings' respective reigns. It is unlikely, therefore, that Israel's first king would have been called by the name `Saul' during his lifctime. The only indication we have 39 Excursus A The Arrowheads from el-Khadr A hoard of twenty-six bronze arrowheads was discovered at the village of el-Khadr near Bethlehem. Six of these bore the inscription hiz `abd leb`at (= `arrow of the servant of Lebaoth'). Some time later, another arrowhead was discovered bearing the additional inscription `Son of Anath'. As the original hoard was discovered by a local villager, without proper archaeological supervision, there is no stratigraphical evidence to determine the date of manufacture of the bronzes. Indeed, there appears to be no evidence for the occupation of the site of el-Khadr prior to the Roman period. The find was first examined by James Milik and Frank Cross [see J. T. Milik & F. M. Cross Jr.: `Inscribed Javelin-heads from the Period of the Judges: A Recent Discovery in Palestine' in BASOR 134 (1954), pp. 5-15]. On the basis of palaeographical evidence, as well as the form of the arrowheads, they adduce a date some time during the 12th to 11th centuries BC. However, their arguments for a date in the Early Iron Age are not con- clusive. They themselves suggest that the form of the incised alphabetical characters on the blades is reminis- cent of the script found on objects dated to the Late Bronze I1 period (e.g. the Lachish ewer and bowl from Fosse Temple I11 and the Tell es-Sarem sherd, both of LB IIB). Similar arrowheads, but without inscriptions, have been discovered in strata clearly defined by Egyptian artefacts datable to the reigns of Amenhotep 111, Seti I and Ramesses I11 (found, for example, at Bethshan [see Milik & Cross, op. cit., p. 6, n. 2 & 31). On the other hand, Benjamin Mazar suggests a date in the second half of the 11th century BC. He believes that the original owner of the arrowheads belonged to a corps of professional archers in the service of either Saul Two of the inscribed arrowheads found at el-Khadr near Bethlehem. [Illust. P. van der Veen] or David [see B. Mazar: The Early Biblical Period (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 87-881. Mazar proposes that the inscription on the heads indicates that the owner was a devotee of a Canaanite lioness goddess (Lebaoth could be a divine epithet for Anath - the Canaanite goddess of war). Additionally, he links the labaim of Psalm 57:4 (here mercenaries in the service of Saul) with the find, arguing that they too were professional archers whose emblem was the lioness goddess. We would concur with Mazar in dating the arrow- buds to the time of Saul and David, but, on the basis of the evidence cited in this paper, we suggest that the hoard may indeed belong to the Late Bronze Age or, more specifically, to the Amarna period. It is then within the bounds of possibility that the name Labayu derives from the cult of this Canaanite lioness deity, which, according to Mazar, was popular among the Canaanite and Israelite soldiers of the Early Monarchy period. It follows that the labaim (= `great (or stout) lions') of Psalm 57:4 could have taken their name from that of their leader, Labayu - `the Great (or Stout) Lion' (Heb. labiy/lebiya). of a contemporary name occurs in Psalm 57:4, where David uses a unique word, labuim36 (meaning `[great/ stout] lions'), to refer to the bodyguard of Saul. Might King Saul's men have taken their military title from the name of their leader who was referred to by his contemporaries as `Lion', a shortened version of `Lion [of Yahweh]'? The Life of Labayu Labayu - the untutored king We have already noted how, in EA 252, Labayu utilises no less than 40% `pure Canaanite' words and a great many words of mixed origin (part Canaanite, part Akkadian). Albright comments: That [Labayu's] beginnings were insignificant also appears in one of the earliest letters from him to the pharaoh, which was written by a scribe so untutored that he wrote the second half of the letter in almost pure Canaanite, obviously not knowing enough Akkadian to translate it even into the strange jargon taught in the schools. 37 In his early years Labayu and his scribe appear to have been unfamiliar with the Akkadian language: a prince groomed for kingship would have had a much better grasp of the language of court correspondence. When we turn to the man chosen as Israel's first king we find someone whose elevation to the kingship was also unexpected: Saul then replied, `Am I not a Benjaminite, from the smallest of Israel's tribes? And is not my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin?' [I Samuel 9:21, NJ] Although Saul was a warrior (Heb. b~hur~~) and his father, Kish, a nobleman (Heb. gibbor huyil), his family were not of any `royal' line. The tribes of Israel JACF VOL. 6 40 possessed neither a court structure nor anythmg resem- bling it; their first king could not therefore be expected to have access to a multilingual administration. There is a parallel here in the inference we can draw concerning the upbringing of both Labayu and Saul. Neither was raised with the expectation of king- ship. Albright suggests that Labayu's origins were `insignificant', which is just what Saul's words protest for himself. Labayu - the rebel In EA 244, Biridiya of Megiddo writes to Pharaoh con- cerning Labayu's hostile activities. Megiddo was in a state of seige, with Biridiya's men unable to leave the city gate or bring in the harvest. He writes: So may the king give a garrison of one hundred men to guard his city lest Labayu seize it. Look, Labayu has no other purpose. He seeks simply the seizure of Megiddo. Whereas in EA 244 Labayu is named as Biridiya's enemy, in EA 243 Biridiya writes to Pharaoh to tell of his vigilance in guarding Megiddo because `the war- ring of the habiru in the land is severe'. We conclude from these two Letters that Labayu either joined an already existing revolt movement in the region or was himself the prime mover. In either case, he was a rebel: it remains to determine whether he was the rebel of the time. Another Letter [EA 2451 describes how a coalition of forces slew Labayu in battle. This Letter seems to record the same event as EA 366, written by Shuwar- data, who is fighting a war against the habiru (this time singular) with the assistance of Abdiheba of Jerusalem, Zurata of Acco and Indaruta of Achshaph: May the king, my lord, be informed that the habiru that rose up against the lands, the god of the king, my lord, gave (him) to me, and I smote him. Before this crucial defeat, the Letters from Labayu contain repeated rebuttals to charges of disloyalty and rebellion. Although he would like to disassociate himself from the habiru, he is implicated with them through Biridiya's accusations in EAs 243 and 244. Before the death of Labayu (and the chaotic political situation which followed), no other southern vassal ruler is accused of rebellion; none are referred to as being habiru or identified as associating with them. When, in EA 366, Shuwardata refers to `the habiru who was raised up against the lands', he is clearly referring to the major villain of the time. If there had been any doubt about the identity of this habiru, or if there had been more than one current troublemaker, Shuwardata would have named him, for otherwise the meaning of his message to Pharaoh would have been ambiguous. We can be reasonably confident, therefore, that the habiru enemy of Shuwardata was Labayu,39 ruler of the hill-country. That Saul and his son Jonathan were also rebels and associated with a Hebrew revolt move- ment is clear from the passage in I Samuel 13:3-5 which describes the dramatic symbolic event which acted as the signal for the uprising: Jonathan smashed the Philistine pillar (Heb. netsib) which was at Gibeah and the Philistines learnt that the Hebrews (ibrirn) had risen in revolt. Saul had the trumpet sounded throughout the country, and the whole of Israel heard the news: Saul has smashed the Philistine pillar, and now Israel has incurred the enmity of the Philistines. [NJ] Excursus B Pillar or Garrison? I Samuel 13:3-5 has often been misunderstood by the biblical translators - in particular the word netsib which has a meaning approximating to something which is set up. On the occasions where netsib is used in the OT (e.g. Genesis 1926 - `pillar' of salt), the word refers to an inanimate object - a netsib never does anything (like speak or move). We believe that the meaning is un- ambiguous and should simply be translated as `standing stone' or `pillar' (but not a column which is re?resented by the word ammud). It is therefore entirely misleading to translate netsib as `garrison' (Heb. mutstebah) or `governor' as is often proposed. Thus Saul does not go up to the high place (at Gibeath-elohim) `where the Philistine garrison is' but to `where the Philistine pillar is' [I Samuel 1051; nor, in the same way, does Jonathan kill a Philistine governor based at Gibeah - what I Samuel 13:3 is telling us is that Saul's son overthrew the selfsame stone monument mentioned in I Samuel 105, set up by the Philistines to establish their control over the region. When King David later erects a netsib following the conquest of territory (e.g. I1 Samuel 8:6, I Chronicles 18:13) he is not establishing military gar- risons. Perhaps, therefore, we should understand the Davidic `empire' as a rather less structured hegemony. JACF VOL. 6 41 Labayu and his home town In EA 252 Labayu writes to Pharaoh after recapturing a town previously lost to an unidentified enemy: It was in war that the city was seized. When I had sworn my peace - and when I swore the magnate (governor) swore with me - the city, along with my god, was seized. I am slandered before the king, my lord. Moreover, when an ant is struck, does it not fight back and bite the hand of the man that struck it? How at this time can I show deference and then another city of mine will be seized? ... I will guard the men that seized the city (and) my god. They are the despoilers of my father, but I will guard them. The explanation of his action is that an enemy took his town despite a peace treaty sworn in the presence of an Egyptian official. He describes the loss of the city as well as his god, and later adds `the despoilers of my father'. It is Moran's understanding that this Letter refers to Labayu's paternal town.40 Is there a parallel here in Saul's life? Saul rises to prominence when he marches to the aid of the men of Gilead in Transjordan who had been threatened by their Ammonite neighbours [I Samuel 111. The victory he gains marks him out as God's choice and he is duly anointed as Israel's first king at Gilgal [I Samuel 11:15]. Saul then goes to Michmash with two thousand men whilst his eldest son, Jonathan, enters Geba (in the Masoretic version; the Septuagint,/ LXX renders `Gibeah') with a further one thousand troops and overthrows the Philistine pillar (Heb. netsib) there, marking the Hebrew revolt [I Samuel 13:2-41. The Philistines react by mustering their forces, camp- ing at Michmash, and causing the Israelites to disperse in the hills of Ephraim whilst the Hebrews flee across the Jordan [I Samuel 135-71. After waiting at Gilgal for Samuel to arrive, Saul joins Jonathan at Geba of Benjamin [I Samuel 13:16]. The conflict is won as a result of a daring stratagem employed by Jonathan, who routs the Philistine camp at Michmash. The enemy is put to flight [I Samuel 141, finally giving Saul control of the hill-lands of Benjamin. The overthrow of the Philistine pillar at Geba is crucial to our understanding of these traditions. The pillar staked a claim to possession by those who erected it: Jonathan's widely proclaimed demolition of this symbol marked not only rebellion but also an end to that possession. He was thereby showing he had recaptured Geba from the Philistines, just as he was later to displace them from Michmash. Geba is otherwise known as Gibeath-elohim, 41 meaning `Hill of God' - in other words the town/ village of Geba was also associated with the God of the Israelites in some way. This may provide us with a parallel for `the town my god' of EA 252. It should 42 be noted that biblical editors have hopelessly mixed up references to Saul's home town Gibeah (meaning `hill') with Geba (also meaning `hill'), and that, there- fore, no distinction can be made between these renditions. According to Maxwell Miller, Geba, Gibeah and Gibeath-elohim are the same place, being the location of the Philistine pillar, the home town of and an Israelite holy place possibly marked by a standing stone (Heb. netsib) of their own. A triple-stranded parallel can be drawn here. It consists of Labayu and Saul both having had their home towns seized somewhat unexpectedly, of the towns' recapture, and of the importance of the towns in respect of both the deity and the father of the two rulers. An objection might be that, according to I Samuel, Saul and Jonathan recaptured two towns (Geba/Gibeah and Michmash) whilst in EA 252 Labayu only records recovering one. Our response would be to consider the alternative translation of EA 252 offered by William Albright. Moran translates lines 20-22 as: How at this time can I show deference and then another city of mine will be seized? whereas Albright in ANET gives: How could I hold back this day when two of my towns have been taken? [our emphasis]43 Labayu in Gezer In EAs 253 and 254 Labayu is explaining to Pharaoh the things he is purported to have said when he was in Gezer. Perhaps it should be asked just what he was doing there. Is it possible that he entered Gezer during a military conflict with its king, Milkilu? This seems most unlikely as Gezer was Milkilu's main residence and neither he, nor any of the other correspondents, write to Pharaoh to express alarm at an expansion to the west by Labayu. If he did not enter in war, then he must have entered in peace. Had he entered into an alliance with Milkilu? This looks likely, because in EA 249 Balu-UR.SAG associates Milkilu with Labayu: also, in EA 263 Tagi, the father-in-law of Milkilu, is associated with Labayu. If we look for a biblical parallel here, we must go back to the time just before Saul became king when, following Samuel's victory over the Philistines at Miz- pah, I Samuel 7:14 records: `There was peace also between Israel and the Amorites'. Scholars regard this verse as referring to an Israelite-Canaanite alliance: The territory of Gath and mainly Ekron had evidently been expanded considerably at the expense of the neighbouring Shephelah settle- ments, Israelite and Amorite, who then banded together in opposition to the Philistines. 44 JACF VOL. 6 The tell of Megiddo - city of Biridiya. The LBA palace and triple-entry gateway (contemporary with the el-Amarna period) are located below the Y. Other areas have been excavated down to LBA levels but most of the excavations have only reached the early Iron Age. [Photo: 0 Pictorial Archive, P.O. Box 19823, Jerusalem] We cannot know when the `peace' between the Israel- ites and Canaanites ended but we may assume it continued at least into Saul's reign, while Samuel was still alive. Labayu's son and the habiru In EA 254 Labayu also writes: Moreover, the king wrote for my son. I did not know that my son was consorting with the habiru. I herewith hand him over to Addaya. Labayu has a son who associates with the habiru and he avows to send him to the Egyptian governor based at Gaza for a reprimand. Here the biblical parallel is obvious: Jonathan's friendship with David is legendary and David and his Hebrews represent, as we have highlighted earlier, the most notable parallel with the Amarna habiru. There is, however, another aspect to this parallel, for Labayu claims not to have known that his son was consorting with the habiru. Similarly, in I Samuel, after David is banished from the Israelite court and is forced to flee from Saul, Jonathan main- tains a secret friendship with the rebel chieftain. When Saul discovers this, he is furious and calls his eldest son (whose earlier heroism had secured for him his kingdom) `the son of a wanton' [I Samuel 20:30-311. JACF VOL. 6 The two sons of Labayu After the death of the king of the hill-country, various correspondents write to Pharaoh about the continuing activities and potential threat of Labayu's sons, some- times referring to his two sons. One of these we can identify, for he identifies himself: Mutbaal who writes from Pella (the author of EAs 255 and 256), describes himself as a `son of [Lablayu'. The other son is not established as a correspondent in the Letters but, as will be revealed later, both his name and his capital are mentioned by others. If we look for a biblical parallel here we run into an immediate problem. According to the Bible, Saul and his three sons Jonathan, Melchishua and Abi- nadab all died with him at the Battle of Gilboa [I Samuel 31:2]. A fourth son, IshbaalEshbaal, was taken across the Jordan to safety and proclaimed king of Israel [I1 Samuel 2:8]. So, if Saul is to be identified with Labayu, who is the second surviving son? The answer is that David was regarded as a legiti- mate son of Saul - though not originally in the fore- front of the line of succession. He was unanimously chosen for the throne of all Israel upon Ishbaal's death because he was Saul's `son' through his marriage to the king's daughter, Michal [I Samuel 18:27]. More- over, David's claim to the throne of Israel, through this marriage, 45 was recognised by Saul during his lifetime: 43 `You (Jonathan) son of a wanton! Do I not know that you are in league with the son of Jesse (i.e. David). ... As long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth neither your person nor your royal rights are secure.' [I Samuel 20130-31, NJ] Rashi, the noted medieval Jewish scholar, wrote that David was considered as a son by Saul - not as a son-in-law4 - and it is not difficult to see on what evidence this is based. There are a number of instances in the biblical text where Saul refers to David as `son' [I Samuel 24:17,26:17,26:21 & 26:25] and one where David refers to Saul as father [I Samuel 24:11]. Of special note is the exchange between the two at En- gedi, where David addresses Saul as father and Saul replies `Is that your voice, my son David?' Thus `the two sons' of Labayu who were active after his death have their biblical counterparts in David (the vassal of the Philistines), who was crowned king over Judah in Hebron, and Ishbaal, made king over the rest of Israel in Gilead by his general, Abner. The Death of Labayu Three Letters also tell us about the death of Labayu. EA 245 was written by Biridi~a~~ of Megiddo who rode into battle with his friend Yasdata (author of EA Letter EA 245, from Biridiya of Megiddo. B.M. Cat. No. WA E29855. [Photo: D. Rohl] 248 whose home town is not known). Afterwards the ruler of Megiddo writes to Pharaoh to explain what had occurred: Moreover, I urged my brothers, `If the god of the king, our lord, brings it about that we over- come Labayu, then we must bring him alive to the king, our lord.' My mare, however, having been shot, I took my place behind him and rode with Yasdata. But before my arrival they had struck him down (Akk. ma-ah-su-u). According to Biridiya, the intention had always been to capture Labayu and send him alive to the king in Egypt, but, as his excuse makes clear, responsibility for the death of the rebel4* during this engagement was to be placed on the shoulders of the forward troops. Another Letter [EA 3661 reporting Labayu's death comes from Shuwardata. He writes: Let the king, my lord, be informed that the habiru (singular) who was raised up against the lands; the god of the king, my lord, has deli- vered him to me, and I have smitten him (A&. i-du-uk-su, from daku = `to smite'). And let the king, my lord, be informed that all my brothers had abandoned me.49 Both Albright and Moran interpret i-du-uk-su here as `smitten' and there can be little doubt that the death of Labayu (rather than the defeat of his troops) is being related in EA 366, as in EA 245. Shuwardata does not mention sending Labayu back to Pharaoh, but he does tell us about his allies: Only Abdiheba and I have been at war against this habiru. Zurata, the man of Acco, and Indaruta, the man of Achshaph, both of them have come to my rescue with 50 chariots; they are now at my side in the war.50 Who killed Labayu? At this stage, let us look again for biblical parallels. There is a coalition of rulers (in spite of Shuwardata's comment that all his brothers have abandoned him) waging war against Labayu. These are Shuwardata, Abdiheba, Zurata and Indaruta, as well as two would- be combatants in the final battle - Biridiya and Yasdata. Apart from Abdiheba, the king of Jerusalem, all are lowland kings from western Palestine. The Bible records that, in his last battle on Gilboa, Saul's adversaries were the combined armies of the rulers of Philistia (in the coastal plain). Only one of these rulers is named - Achish, the king of Gath. (He is also the only Philistine lord to be referred to as a king.) Thus, the enemy of both Labayu and Saul in their JACF VOL. 6 44 I Events in the Battle of Gilboa 1. The Philistines move into the Jezreel Valley and camp near Shunem. The ruler of Megiddo joins forces there with the king of Gath and the other Philistine seranim. 2. Saul moves his forces from their initial camp at the fountain of Jezreel up onto Mount Gilboa. 3. The Philistine army moves around the westem spur of Gilboa and attacks Saul's forces in the rear - ascending the gentle southern slopes of the mountain with their massed chariots. They are unopposed by, or perhaps even aided by, the men of Gina. This is an act of treachery in the eyes of the defeated Israelites who had expected their kindred allies at Gina to have defended the easy route up onto the heights. 4. The remnants of the Israelite army (including Ishbaal) flee across the Jordan to Pella. 5. The bodies of Saul and his sons are taken to Bethshan where a Philistine garrison is estab- lished to deter any attack into the Jezreel Val- ley by the Israelite forces now in Transjordan. last battles was a coalition of western city-state rulers among whose number was the king of Gath. The location of the battle The Letters of Biridiya and Shuwardata do not specify any particular location for the crucial battle. This information is to be found in EA 250, written to Pharaoh by Balu-UR.SAG (whose home town is not known). The Letter contains complaints that the two sons of Labayu have been trying to stir up a new con- flict. Balu-UR.SAG accuses them of making a number of rebellious statements. For example: The new interpretation of the Battle of Gilboa enhanced by the additional information derived from the Amarna Letters. [Must: D. Rohl] `Why have you handed Gath-padalla to the king, your lord, a city that Labayu, our father, had taken?' . . . `Wage war against the people of Gina for having killed our father.' . . . `Wage war against the king, your lord, as our father did, when he attacked Shunem, Burquna and Harabu, and deported the evil ones, lifting the loyal. He also seized Gath-rimmon, and he cultivated the fields of the king, your lord.' All these towns are in northern Israel. Gath-padalla has been identified with Jett in the Sharon.'l Of the others: Three are in the Esdraelon plain in the vicinity of Megiddo; Shunem lies across the plain, ten miles due east of Megiddo; Gath-rimmon lies six miles south and east of Megiddo, near Ta- naach; Burquna lies eleven miles southeast of Megiddo, near modem Jenin ... 52 Jenin is biblical En-Gannim - the Gina of the Amama Letters- south-west of Mount Gilb~a.'~ If the sons of Labayu are blaming the inhabitants of Gina for the death of their father - and they were not named by Shuwardata in his list of allies - then presumably the rebel ruler of the hill-country died nearby and the local Ginaites were a party to his defeat in some way. We turn now to the biblical accounts of Saul's last battle. I Samuel 29:l states that the Philistines gathered their forces at Aphek in the Sharon Plain whilst the Israelites came together at the fountain of Jezreel. The Philistines then moved into the Jezreel Valley: Meanwhile the Philistines had mustered and pit- ched camp at Shunem. Saul mustered all Israel and they encamped at Gilboa. [I Samuel 28:4] During the Judges and Early Monarchy period, the Israelites were at a disadvantage in battles fought on the plains because their adversaries could field chariots against them.54 Unwilling to commit himself to a set- piece battle in the plain, Saul took his forces from the fountain of Jezreel [I Samuel 29:1] up onto the heights of Mount Gilboa. The Bible tells us that the Philistines engaged him with their chariots and cavalry. Saul may have hoped that they would adopt the direct approach, resulting in an engagement of troops on the steep northern slopes or western spur of Gilboa - deployments considerably to Saul's advantage and to the obvious disadvantage of both chariots and cavalry. Since Saul's position was nearly impregnable from the north and west, some scholars argue that his defeat was the result of being enticed down into the plains.55 On the contrary, it is far more logical that the Philistines followed the route up Gilboa taken by Saul's army, 56 thus approaching the 45 JACF VOL. 6 The Jezreel Valley, looking west, with the almost precipitous northern slopes of Mount Gilboa to the left. [Photo: D. Roth] mountain from the south. Indeed, only by going around Jezreel and ascending by the easier southern slopes of the mountain could the Philistine chariots hope to gain access to the heights of Gilb~a.~~ There is thus a parallel in the general location of the final battles of Labayu and Saul. The former was killed somewhere so close to Gina that its inhabitants bore the blame, in some way, for his death. Israel's first king died on or near Mount Gilboa, the southern slopes of which are guarded by the town of Gina. Treachery and vengeance The sons of Labayu, as we have seen in EA 250, urge the making of war on Gina to avenge their father's death. A parallel can be found here in David's cursing of Gilboa and its battlefield: 0 mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew or rain on you; treacherous fields (Heb. sede tar- mit), for there the hero's (Heb. gibborirn) shield was dishonoured! [I1 Samuel 1:21, NJ] Klostermann and Hertzberg note that the Hebrew word tarmit has connotations of deceit or betrayal.58 David's curse therefore refers to an act of treachery which led to the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The consequences of the death of Labayu Following the defeat of Labayu, a new coalition of western city-states now begins to make territorial gains in the central hill-country. Abdiheba writes in EA 289 that the troops of Gath now garrison Bethshan; also in 46 EA 289, and elaborated upon in EA 290, we find that Milkilu of Gezer, Tagi of Gath-Cannel and Shuwar- data of Gath have joined forces to capture Rubute (a town between Gezer and Jerusalem); and in EA 287 we hear of the loss of Keilah and attacks upon caravans in the region of Ajalon by the same coalition. It is reasonably clear that these events are to be dated to the period following the demise of Labayu. Consider, for instance, the dispute between Abdiheba and Shuwardata over the town of Keilah. In EA 280 the king of Gath, in justifying his recapture of Keilah, writes that `Labayu, who used to take our towns, is dead but Abdiheba is another Labayu'. There is confir- mation from Abdiheba, who writes, in EAs 287 and 289, concerning the warlike activities of `the sons of Labayu' - their father presumably being dead at this time. Territorial gains by the western city-states are also a direct consequence of King Saul's defeat - here an expansion by the Philistines: When the Israelites who were on the other side of the (Jezreel) valley saw that the men of Israel had taken flight and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned their towns and fled. The Philistines then came and occupied them. [I Samuel 31:7, NJ] Bethshan was securely in Philistine hands after the defeat of Saul: they fastened his body and those of his sons to the walls of the town [I Samuel 31:10]. Although it is usually assumed that Bethshan was a Canaanite city under the control of the Egyptians (throughout the Judges period and into the reign of Saul), the Bible only records this single instance of the Philistines being in occupation of the town. This is not to deny their presence there on earlier occasions, but the death of Saul is the only time we positively know that forces of the coastal plain were at Bethshan. Is it simply a coincidence that the sole reference to Beth- shan in the Amarna Letters occurs following the death of Labayu when soldiers of Gath are in occupation? There is, therefore, a parallel in the general expansion of the power of the westem city-states into the central hill-country and eastern Jezreel Valley. After the deaths of both Labayu and Saul, their forces took over a number of towns and obtained many new servants - in particular they were noted to be in control of Bethshan on both occasions. JACF VOL. 6 The Years After Labayu The new alliance We shall now explore the political changes brought about as a consequence of Labayu's death. The Canaanites (including Milkilu of Gezer and Tagi of Gath-Carmel) enter into an alliance with other western city-state rulers - most notably Shuwardata of Gath. The habiru mercenaries are also major participants with the allies at this juncture: for instance, in EA 290, Abdiheba of Jerusalem announces defections to the habiru immediately following his complaint to Pharaoh that Milkilu and Shuwardata had captured Rubute: Here is the deed against the land that Milkilu and Shuwardata did: against the land of the king, my lord, they ordered troops from Gezer, troops from Gath and troops from Keilah. They seized Rubute. The land of the king has deserted to the habiru. The hard-pressed Abdiheba makes a similar accusation in EA 287 with regard to the capture of Keilah: Consider the lands of Gezer, Ashkelon and Lachish. They have given them food, oil and any other requirement. ... This is the deed of Milkilu and the deed of the sons of Labayu, who have given the land of the king to the hubiru. Abdiheba's usage of habiru in these two Letters is reminiscent of that in his EA 289 where he writes: Or shall we do like Labayu, who gave the land of She- chem to the habiru?59 Abdiheba does not use habiru in these contexts as a pejorative (as in his use with respect to Milkilu in EA 286), but, instead, he clear- ly portrays the habiru as under the patronage of the western city- states. The political elements ranged against the king of Jerusalem in- clude Gath, Gath-Cannel, Lachish, Gezer, Ashkelon, and the sons of Labayu, who have given the land to the habiru. The situation is com- parable to the years immediately following King Saul's death when David's band of Hebrew mercen- aries, as clients of the ruler of Gath, are allocated territory at Hebron, to the south of Jerusalem and the Philistines support the coronation of David as king of the southern hill-country. Two parallels can be drawn here. The first consists of a new alliance between the western city-states and the sons of Labayu as indicated in the Letters, whereas, from the Bible, we learn of a Philistine alliance with at least one of the `sons' of Saul (we have no informa- tion regarding Philistine relations with Ishbaal). The second concerns the allocation of land to mercenary forces. In this instance, the western allies (prominent among whom is the king of Gath) `give' lands to the habiru [EA 2871; the Hebrews, on the other hand, are granted land, initially at Ziklag (prior to Saul's death) and then later around Hebron. As already noted by Greenberg,60 the `giving' (by the king of Gath) of Ziklag to David's ibrim is an identical usage to that of EA 287. A general revolt movement in Judah From two independent sources we hear of a general revolt movement in the territory of southern Palestine bordering on the Negev. In EA 288 Abdiheba writes: May the king give thought to his land; the land of the king is lost. All of it has attacked me. I am at war as far as the land of Seru and as far as Gath-Cannel. . . . The strong hand of the king took the land of Naharim (Mitanni) and the land of Kashi (Cush), but now the habiru have taken the very cities of the king. Not a single mayor remains to the king, my lord; all are lost. ... Behold, Turbazu was slain in the city gate of Sile. The king did nothing. Behold, servants The tell of Bronze to Iron Age Bethshan at the eastern end of the Jezreel Valley. [Photo: 0 Pictorial Archive, P.O. Box 19823, Jerusalem] 47 JACF VOL. 6 ~~ Excursus C Labayu and Shechem A number of distinguished commentators including Aharoni and Moran have referred to Labayu as the king of Shechem. This interpretation, which we feel is totally misleading, is based on Abdiheba's rhetorical question in EA 289: Are we to act like Labayu when he was giving the land of Shechem (Akk. Sakhmu) to the habiru? [Moran: op. cit. [31, pp. 332-331 But, as de Vaux has pointed out [R. de Vaux: The Early History of Israel, Vol. 2 (London, 1978), p. 8011, it is far from clear that Shechem was Labayu's home town: Labayu was not, however, given the title of king of Shechem and it is very doubtful whether he ever was. It would seem too that he did not live at Shechem; his authority was probably exercised from elsewhere by means of an agreement with the inhabitants. The latter took care of the internal administration of the city and recognised Labayu's authority as a kind of protectorate, giving him responsibility for defending and extending their territory. Edward Campbell is careful not to commit himself to an interpretation based on such evidence: The Amarna Letters tell us very little directly about Shechem - it is mentioned by name only once - and even leave a trace of doubt that Labayu had his headquarters there; but that its fate was in his hands is made clear. [Campbell: op. cif. [47], pp. 191-921 The key phrase in Abdiheba's question is that concerning `giving the land': it is the same usage as Achish, the Philistine king of Gath, giving the town of Ziklag in southern Palestine to David and his Hebrew mercenaries. Abdiheba is therefore referring to the time when Labayu assigned quarters in the land of Shechem to his habiru troops. Another relevant point here is the failure of the scribe to add an URU- determinative before the name `Sakhmu' or a -ki after it - the cuneiform signs denoting towns or cities. It is thus likely that Shechem was not a major town during this period and that Abdiheba's remark is rather a reference to a locality or district in the hill-country surrounding Shechem. We conclude that, although Labayu was certainly in control of the Shechem area, the town itself was not his principal residence. The case for Labayu being the king of Shechem is to be rejected: we must accept that the name of his home town is not given in the Amarna correspondence. who were joined to the habiru smote Zimredda of Lachish, and Yaptihhadda was slain in the city gate of Sile. The king did nothing. When, in EA 288, Abdiheba laments the assassinations at Sile, he is referring to the eastern border town of Egypt.61 He informs Pharaoh of the assassination of the king of Lachish by servants allied to the habiru and in EA 290 complains of the loss of another of his towns, Bit.NINURTA/Bitlahmi (= Bethlehem). 62 A complementary account (EA 335) comes from Abdiastarte (his town is not named but is presumed to be near Lachish and Jerusalem). He too mentions the deaths of Turbazu and Yaptihhadda; there is an in- complete reference to some event at Lachish; the rebel has captured all of his towns; Lachish is hostile, Muhrastu has been seized, Jerusalem is hostile! Probably also referring to this time is EA 333 - a letter from an Egyptian functionary named Paapu. He informs Pharaoh of the disloyalty of Zimredda and Shiptibaal, the rulers of Lachish (and authors of EAs 329 and 330-32 respectively). The men of the town of Yaramu, in writing to Shiptibaal to ask for weapons, are seeking a joint venture against the lands still loyal to the pharaoh. Aharoni identifies Yaramu with Ramoth in Judah. 63 The biblical parallel in this section concerns the 48 activities of David and his band of Hebrews. Whilst at Ziklag, David undertook campaigns in the western Negev. I Samuel 27-30 tells how he conducted a far-ranging pursuit of the Amalekites (who the Bible records dwelt in the land as far as Shur/Sile). He sent the booty `to the elders of Judah, town by town', there- by enhancing his status and improving his prospects of kingship; but it also had the effect of involving them in his activities.@ `Ramoth of the Negev' is named in the list of recipients in I Samuel 30:27. Jerusalem's plight Our next parallel concerns the dire straits of Abdi- heba's Jerusalem, as reflected in his last Letters. There is a case for regarding EA 288 as the last of all: where- as Milkilu and Shuwardata have taken the town of Keilah from him and he has complained about their activities in other Letters, Abdiheba's main concern now is the habiru and their revolt movement. In EA 288 he repeatedly warns that all Pharaoh's towns are being lost to the habiru; he asks again for archers with which to protect his city; but, failing that, a commis- sioner should be sent to rescue him and take him and his brothers to Egypt, where they may die close to their lord, the pharaoh. After this, we hear no more from Abdiheba and can only conjecture his fate. No Letters JACF VOL. 6 from Jerusalem or its king appear among the later dis- patches from central Palestine. Was he the very last independent king of the Jebus - the city which fell to David in his 8th year as king in Hebron? Upon the death of Saul, and apparently with the blessing of his Philistine lord, David was made king of Judah. For seven and a half years his capital was Hebron. It seems inevitable, then, that he would have come into conflict with the king of Jerusalem, whose interests lay in the same area. It is our belief that this conflict, David's earlier incursions into the Amalekite lands of the western Negev, and his military efforts to strengthen his power base in the lands of Judah were recorded in the Letters of the very king of Jerusalem who pleaded for aid from Akhenaten. without an ally. Like Abdiheba before him, Shuwar- data asks for Egyptian forces to rescue him and bring him in safety to Pharaoh [EA 2821. Shubandu, another city-ruler from the Shephelah, writes (EA 305) that the habiru are much stronger than the vassal kings - a theme echoed in EA 307 from an unknown author and also in EA 299 from Yapuhu of Gezer (a successor of Milkilu). Another southern ruler, Shum-[. . .], writes in EA 272 of the massive desertion to the hubiru: [May] the king, my lord, know that the mayors that were in the (major) ci[ties of my lord] are gone, and that the [entire] land of the king, my lord, [has delserted to the habiru. Fortunes reversed This Letter reiterates the theme, first raised by Abdiheba, that there are no loyal rulers left and that all the lands have deserted to the habiru. Milkilu, ruler of Gezer, was, as we have noted earlier, one of the more expansionist kings in southern Palestine who had greatly benefitted from his alliances with Shu- May the king, my lord, know that wardata and the habiru. One of his war has been waged in the land, Letters, EA 271, does not fit into this and gone is the land of the king, pattern, for in it Milkilu writes in fear my lord, by desertion to the of his own life: habiru. May the king, my lord, take cognisance of his land, and May the king, my lord, know may the king, my lord, know that the war against me and that the habiru wrote to Aijalon against Shuwardata is severe. and Sarha,and the two sons So may the king, my lord, of Milkilu barely escaped being save his land from the power killed. [EA 2731 of the habiru. Otherwise, may the king, my lord, send chari- ots to fetch us lest our ser- vants kill us. Aijalon is the principal town on the ascent to Jerusalem: with Sarha (= biblical Zorah?) it is just north of Bethshemesh. The queen-regent NIN. The Letters now show a marked UR.MAH.MES, author of EA 273, is change in the fortunes of the western cities. Akhenaten. thus recording a habiru breakthrough in SuddenIyMilkilu and Shuwardata are hard pressed, and Milkilu asks that Pharaoh intervene to save them from the power of the habiru. Here he is not referring to any named enemy: the revolt movement which had taken hold in the hills, having threatened Abdiheba, now also threatens the western city-states. They are in danger from their `servants' (this also may be a reference to the habiru). As for Shuwardata: May the king, my lord, be informed that now my own cities are hostile to me, and so may the king, my lord, send archers . . . [EA 2811 Shuwardata's pleas for Egyptian archers are repeated and desperate [EAs 282, 283 and 2841, and in EA 283, besides claiming that the war against him is severe (cf. Milkilu in EA 271), he informs Pharaoh that thirty towns are waging war on him (most, we may assume, were previously in his possession) and that he is alone, JACF VOL. 6 the region of Bethshemesh in the time of the suc- cessors of Milkilu. She confirms that the habiru are the enemy of Gezer at that time. According to our hypothesis, the habiru enemy of the western city-states can be identified with the (mostly irregular) military forces of the newly re- united Israelite kingdom. Shortly after David was made king of all Israel in Jerusalem his former masters, the Philistines, made war on him. I1 Samuel 5:17-18 portrays them as the aggressors: When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over all Israel, they all marched up to seek him out. On hearing this, David went down to the stronghold. When the Philistines arrived they deployed in the valley of Rephaim. The Valley of Rephaim runs in a south-westerly direction down from Jerusalem into the coastal plain. 49 The enemy from the mountains The fortress of Zion viewed from above the Kidron Valley. [Photo: 0 Pictorial Archive, Jerusalem] The Philistines proceeded up the valley in order to take and garrison the town of Bethlehem [I Chronicles 11:15]. David engaged the Philistines at Baalperazim [I1 Samuel 5:20] and defeated them there. The Philistines came back and again spread themselves in the Valley of Rephaim [verse 221, but King David set an ambush and `smote the Philistines from Geba (Gibeon?) until thou come to Gazer' [I1 Samuel 5:25]. It is generally accepted that the `Gazer' here is a variant spelling of Gezer - confirmed in the Masoretic text, the Septuagint and by I Chronicles 14:16. It is significant that Gezer should be mentioned, for it is suggestive of Canaanite participation in the Philistine coalition against David at this time. The parallel in this section consists of a change in allegiance of the habiru mercenaries towards their former masters, the western city-states, who include Gath and Gezer among their number. Having played host to the habirulHebrews, and having sought to exercise power in the region through these `servants', they now find they cannot control the situation. The rulers of the plain discover that the hubirulHebrew revolt movement which they had encouraged is now too powerful and they themselves are in mortal peril. 50 EA 271 is the last we hear from Milkilu. His suc- cessors at Gezer (presumably his sons) were Yapuhu [EAs 297, 298, 299 & 3001 and Addadanu [EAs 292, 293 and 2941. The order in which they reigned is not certain. The `cringing subservience' of their Letters6' stands in marked contrast to those of their predecessor Milkilu. Addadanu records in EA 292 that: There being war against me from the mountains, I built a house - its (the village's) name is Man- hatu - to make preparations before the arrival of the archers of the king, my lord, and Maya has just taken it away from me and placed his commissioner in it. The later Letters depict a situation in which the old alliance between the western city-states and the habiru had broken down. This occurred before the death of Milkilu or before he was replaced as ruler of Gezer. Milkilu and his successors (Yapuhu and Addadanu), Shuwardata of Gath, Shubandu (city unknown, pos- sibly Ashdod), and a number of other western city- rulers found themselves in a `severe' war against hostile forces referred to as `habiru' (SA.GAZ). All seem to have found their foes too strong for them. Additionally, Addadanu's Letter EA 292 informs us that the enemy had come from the mountains. The enemy city Although there are several Letters in the later cor- respondence from the western city-rulers, not one gives the name of the leader confronting them. What we do have are three enigmatic references to an enemy city - probably the capital of their adversary. Thus Yapuhu writes: May the king, my lord, be informed that my younger brother, having become my enemy, entered Muhatsu and pledged himself to the hubiru. As [Tilanna is at war with me, take thought for your land. [EA 2981 Two other mentions of the city of Tianna (URU t[i]- i[a-n]a & [KURIURU ri-a]n-nub) are in the Letters of Shuwardata [EA 2841 and Shubandu [EA 3061, where it is also mentioned as a city at war with the western states. Moran is unable to locate Tianna, but we may adduce, since Gezer's enemy (according to Addadanu) came from the mountains, that we have here one of those rare references to a city in the hill-country of central southern Palestine. According to our hypo- thesis, this ought to refer to the military stronghold of the habirulHebrews at some time not long after David's capture of Jerusalem - an event recorded in I1 Samuel 5:7: JACF VOL. 6 But David captured the citadel of Zion (Heb. Tsiyon), that is, the City of David, This verse gives us the name of the city of the leader of the Hebrews: it is referred to not by its better known name - Jerusalem - but as Zion. Incidentally, this is the first reference to Zion in the Bible. We suggest, therefore, that the city of Tianna, which appears only in the latest Letters, is one and the same as the city of Tsiyon - the `city of David'. We cite here the following examples from the independent studies of Zellig Harris and Wilhelm Gesenius on Canaanite dialects 66 to demonstrate the well-recognised interchangeability of the letters `ts' I `t/d' in the Semitic language group: Canaanite/Hebrew rsade is interchanged with ret in Ugaritic and Phoenician - as in Hebrew harser (= courtyard) which is found as hater in both languages; or Hebrew narsar (= to guard) which equals Phoenician narur. Another example is pre- exilic Hebrew qars (= summer, as in the Gezer Calendar) - clearly corresponding to Ugaritic qat. Hebrew rsade is found in Ugaritic as an emphatic `d' and `t', such as in rsahaq (= glad) which corresponds to Ugaritic dahaq; or, alternatively, Hebrew erers (= earth) which equals Ugaritic urd. Harris also suggests that the Greek spelling of the topographical name Turos (= the Phoenician port of Tyre) recalls an original Tor rather than the Hebrew Tsor (= Tsurru of the Amarna Letters). Part (d) Gesenius confirms that Hebrew fsade is also often rendered as a hard `t' in Aramaic: for example, Hebrew rsabiy (= gazelle) becomes rabaya in Aramaic; and Hebrew rsahar (= to step forward) is one and the same as Aramaic rahara. We are, therefore, suggesting that something similar may have occurred with the Hebrew name Tsiyon (= Zion). This would have developed from the original Canaanite (or Hurrian?) name Tianna. We would then propose that the initial `ret' of the Canaanite became transmuted into biblical Hebrew `tsadeh', giving us the following progression: Tian[-na] Tsian Tsiyon (Heb.) Zion (English). Manhatu and Manahath We referred earlier to the two battles which David fought against the Philistines in the Valley of Rephaim. Less than a mile from Baalperazim - the site of the first of these battles - is Manahath. This place .is identified by Aharoni and by Ross67 with the Manhatu of EA 292 and its location has been taken to mean that Gezer's sphere of influence extended deep into the hill-country . We support the suggested equation of the Amama period Manhatu and modem Manahath, for it is cer- tainly compatible with our hypothesis. The construc- tion of a military `house' at Manahath parallels the military preparations made by the Philistine coalition in the Vale of Rephaim as David began his reign in Jerusalem. Four Biblical Names in Amarna Akkadian In order to complete the picture of our chronological relocation of the Amama Age at the very end of the 11th century, we now need to determine whether it is possible to match the major personalities from the Early Monarchy period with named characters in the el-Amama Letters. Here in Part Four we will discuss the identifications from a linguistic standpoint only. We begin with a now familiar name: (a) Mutbaal/Ishbosheth/Ishbaal The name Mutbaal (Akk. Mu-ur-ba-ah-lum) is borne by the king of Pella (A&. Pihilu), the son of Labayu [EA 2551. He is the correspondent of EA 255 and 256. The name Mutbaal means `man of Baal'.68 Ishbosheth [I1 Samuel 2:8-4:12] is the name of the surviving son of King Saul who rules from Transjordan some time after his father's death on Mount Gilboa. The name Ishbosheth means `man of shame' and was the euphemism for Ishbaal (= `man of Baal') employed by the later Yahwist redactors. The latter is the JACF VOL. 6 original version, which is preserved in the Theodotian and Lucan versions of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (otherwise known as the Septuagint = LXX) where the name is rendered Ishbaal (Gk. E~opaah - Eisbaal). As noted by Matitiahu Tsevat, the meaning of the el-Amama name Mutbaal is identical to that of the biblical name Ishbaal. 69 (b) AyablJoab ... as the king my lord lives, Ayab is not in Pella. Behold, he has not been (here) for two (months?). Indeed, ask Benilima, ask Dadua, ask Yishuya. [EA 256I7O The Amama name Ayab (Akk. A-ya-ab) appears in Mutbaal's letter in EA 256. His seat is apparently at Ashtaroth in the Bashan, east of Lake Kinnereth. Only one letter (EA 364) survives from Ayab himself, written directly to the Egyptian king (almost certainly 51 Akhenaten). Albright regards the meaning of the name Ayab as `wholly obscure' but he compares it to the bib- lical name Job (Heb. Zyyob = `where is the Father?'). 71 Joab is David's general, first mentioned in the account of the battle of Gibeon [I1 Samuel 2:13-321. He survives into the reign of Solomon when he is executed by Benaiah [I Kings 2:33-41. The name Joab (Heb. Yo-ab) means `Y[ah]w[eh] is the Father'. There is a possible alternative reading of the Amama Canaanite name Ayab to that of Albright. We find numerous examples in the ancient onomasticon (the dictionary of proper names) where the theophoric element (the part with the divine name) is prefixed by what scholars call a `prosthetic aleph'. For example, we give four instances from the Amarna correspondence: (i) Artamanya (Akk. Ar-fa-ma-an-ya) was king of Ziribashani [EA 2011. Manfred Mayrhofer suggests that the name is Indo-Aryan and has the meaning `in memory of [the god] Rta'.72 Clearly the name of Rta has been prefixed by an aleph to produce `A-Rta'. (ii) Aaddumi (Akk. A-add[u]-umi) was ruler of a town in the Bekaa Valley [EA 1701. Moran suggests trans- lating the name as `it is [the god] Haddu' (Akk. Addu-umi). 73 This is another instance where the divine name has an aleph prefix to produce A-Addu. (iii) Atahmaya (Akk. A-fa-ah-ma-ya) [EA 2651, the Akkadian vocalisation of the Egyptian name Ptahmose (Commissioner of Pharaoh), is also given as Tahmashi in EA 303. There is no doubt that we are dealing here with the same individual, and so we can conclude that the aleph at the beginning of the name Atahmaya is prosthetic and has been added to the name of the god Ptah (Akk. TA). (iv) Irshappa (Akk. Zr-sha-up-pa) [EA 311 is believed by Frauke Grondahl to be the name of the Canaanite god Rashap followed by the genitive `belonging to'.74 Thus this envoy of Amenhotep I11 is called `belonging to Rashap'. Here again we find the aleph prefix, this time employed with the deity Rashap to give A- Rashap, as Grondahl also concludes. Semitic philolo- gist Pieter Siebesma confirms that such a modification is not uncommon.75 We suggest that the name Ayab of EA 256 (Akk. A-ya-ab) should be understood as Ya-ab (Heb. Yo = Akk. Ya) with the aleph prefix. The name is therefore to be read `Yah is the Father' and is an exact match for the name Joab. (c) Benelima/Benenima/Baanah The name Benelima (Akk. Bi-en-e-lilni-ma - the syl- lable `li' is interchangeable with `ni') means `son of El'. If we read `li', then the ending `ima' would be 52 the `majestic plural' commonly used with this deity and no doubt the equivalent of the biblical El[oh]im. In the early translations of the Amarna Letters, however, this name was read `Benenima' (adopting Jagersma Knudtzon's reading of `ni' for the fourth syllable 76). Benelima/Benenima is one of the other characters mentioned by Mutbaal in EA 256. Benjamin Mazar has often suggested that the biblical name Baanah (Heb. Ba-anah), carried by one of Ishbaal's commanders [I1 Samuel 4:2], should be interpreted as `Ba(n)-Ana', with the meaning `son of (the god) Ana' (Heb. Bin-Anah).77 If we adopt the original rendition of the name `Bi-en-e-ni-ma' in EA 256 (using the `ni' rather than `li' syllable), we can propose that we have here the name Binanah with a majestic plural ending. The name Binanima (our rendition of the EA 256 name) is therefore virtually identical with the Binanah of I1 Samuel 4:2 (as read by Mazar). Both names mean `son of Ana'.78 (d) Dadua/David The name Dadua (Akk. Da-du-~~~) also appears in EA 256, borne by one of the individuals whom Mutbaal suggests the commissioner should consult as to the whereabouts of Ayab. Dadua means `the beloved (or favourite) [of deity NI'. This name is, therefore, probably hypocoristic (i.e. a shorter version or nick- name with the deity's name omitted). This shortening is a common practice within the Amama onomasticon. The name David is vocalised in Hebrew as Dawid [e.g. I Chronicles 11:1]. However, unvocalised, the name is transcribed as Dud [e.g. I Samuel 16:13, but the LXX gives `Dad' in I Kings 2:33 (Alexandrinus copy) and in Ecclesiasticus 47: 11. Indeed, the unvocal- ised writing predominates and is the earliest form of the name David in the Old Testament. The original version of the name borne by King David was there- fore Dud/Dad with the meaning `the beloved (or favourite)'. Following Martin Noth, we would suggest that this is the hypocoristicon of the name Dudiyah meaning `the beloved (or favourite) of Yahweh'.80 Stamm argues that the Hebrew name DudDad is the exact equivalent of the Akkadian Dadu as found in names such as Daduilu, Dadusha, Dadanu, and Dadiya (this latter name would have the meaning `the beloved of` or `favourite' and would therefore be the same as our Dadua of EA 256)." We would support this well established equation and would add a further example from the el-Amama correspondence: the name Dadua of EA 256 is to be recognised as the equivalent of the name David. (e) YishuyalJesse The name Yishuya (Akk. Yi-shu-ya) is also found in EA 256 along with Benenima and Dadua. Moran sug- gests (as with earlier scholars) that the name is similar JACF VOL. 6 to the Hebrew for Joshua (Heb. Yuhu-shua = `Yah[weh] has saved'),82 but Albright has shown that the latter should rather be rendered in Amama-period Canaanite as Ya-hu-shu-uh. 83 The name Jesse (Heb. Yish-ay) means `[deity NI exists'. Jesse is the father of David [I Samuel 16:1]. It is generally accepted that the Hebrew phonetic ayh is a hypocoristic ending which is equivalent to the Akkadian and West Semitic hypocoristic ending ya. Thus, we propose that Yishuya of EA 256 is the same as Yishay in I Samuel - both names have the meaning `[deity NI exists'. (f) Pu baal /Mep hiboshethlMepibaa1 The name Pubaal (Akk. Pu-IM with IM as the Sumerian logogram for Baal, cf. Mut-ZM for Mutbaal in EA 256) means `(from the) mouth of Baal' or `utterance of Baal'. Pubaal is the ruler of Yurtsa and the correspondent of EAs 3 14- 16. Helck identifies the town of Yurtsa with modem Tell el-Ful, between Gezer and Muhatsu (modem Mahoz). 85 The town site , the biblical name Achish should be located within the Hurrian onomasticon where it represents the name Aki-[deity NI. In the light of our el-Amama/Early Monarchy synchronisms, we would identify the mis- sing deity as the Human sun-god Shimige and give the full name as Akishimige (`the Sun has given'). Alternatively, we may have here another Mischname (mixed name) with the combined Hurrian/Semitic name Akishamash (cf. Abdiheba which is mixed Semitic/Human), meaning `the Sun has given'. 91 Thus Shuwardata (Indo-European) and Akishimige (Hurrian) are alternative versions of the same name in two politically related languages. (h) AziruIHadadezer The name Aziru (Akk. A-zi-ru) is also another typical hypocoristicon from the el-Amama onomasticon. Moran suggests the translation `[deity N is the] helper'. Aziru is the ruler of Amurru, son of Abdiashirta, and a major disruptive element within the northem hege- mony of the pharaoh. is therefore located on the boundary of the te Hadadezer (Heb. Ha-dad-e-zer) is of Labayu. `the Rehobite king of Zobah' [I1 Mephibosheth (Heb. Me-pi-boshet) was Samuel 8:3]. The name Hadadezer the son of Saul by his concubine Rizpah means `Hadad is the helper'. Pierre [I1 Samuel 21:8]. Mepiboshet means `from Bordreuil and Javier Teixidor propose the mouth of shame' where the word that the hypocoristicon of Hadadezer ` shame' is employed as a euphemism for was Ezra - as demonstrated by their Baal by the later Yahwist redactors. The study of the MeIkart Stela,= where name was, therefore, originally Mepi- they read `Barhadad, son of Ezra, the baal (`(from) the mouth of Baal'). The king, the Rehobite, king of Aram'. two names Pubaal (of the Letters) and We identify the missing deity in Mepibaal (of I1 Samuel) have already the Amama-period name as Hadad and been compared by Tsevat. 86 It is clear would render the full name as Hadad- that they have the same meaning. aziru (Akk; Haddu-aziru = `Hadad is the helper'). We have already noted (g) Shuwardata/Achish Malamat's geographical comparisons be- tween the kingdoms of Aziru and Hadad- S huwardata (Akk. Shu-wa-ar-da-tu) is an important member of the coalition An additional observation concerns DU.teshub, against Labayu. We have argued (above, p. who is known to have been the son and successor 36) that his home base was the city of Gath. of Aziru through another son's later correspond- ezer in Part Two (p. 37). In the parallels being drawn here, we have to identify him with the Achish, king of Gath, introduced in I Samuel 27:2 - the avowed enemy of king Saul. Mayrhofer regards the name Shuwardata as Indo- European and gives the translation `(has been) given by the Sun'. 87 However, Annelies Kammenhuber sug- gests that the name Shuwardata (literally `Shuwar' = `Sun' + the participle `data' = `given') could also be translated as `the Sun (has) given'. 88 Comey argues that the name Achish (Heb. Akish) is the Human hypocoristicon of Aki-[deity NI with the meaning `[deity NI has given'.89 Kammenhuber and Helck both offer the example Akiteshub (`Teshub has given'). 90 We propose here to adopt Comey's suggestion that JACF VOL. 6 eqe with the Hittite~.'~ His name means `son 01 Teshub', the Human weather-god (DU being a pos- sible abbreviation of the Sumerian logogram DUMU = `son'). The name Barhadad (the Aramaean version of the biblical Benhadad, son of Hadadezer) means `son of Hadad' (the Syrian weather-god). (i) TehuteshublTou Tehuteshub (Akk. Te-hu-te-shu-ba) is a ruler located somewhere in northern Syria. His capital city is not given in his one extant letter to Pharaoh [EA 581. Illustration: Ivory plaque of Hadadezer, king of Aram- Zobah. [Illust: P. van der Veen] 53 Tou is the king of Hamath and ally of David in his wars against Hadadezer [I1 Samuel 8:10]. The Masoretic text gives the name as Toi. However, the LXX, Vulgate and Samaritan versions all give Tou, (so also the translators of the New Jerusalem Bible). McCarter and Mercer both suggest that Toi/Tou is the biblical variant of Tehi/Tehu. 94 We propose that the name Tou in I1 Samuel is a hypocoristicon for the fuller name Touteshub - the equivalent of the Hurrian name Tehuteshub. U) Lupakku/Shopak Lupakku (Akk. Lu-pa-ak-ku) is the commander of `the troops of Hatti' campaigning in northern Syria [EA 1701. The troops of Hatti would include all the forces under allegiance to the Hittite emperor Suppiluliumas I, including the vassal states of Amurru. From the Hittite correspondence we learn that Lupakku led a major assault upon the land of Amku (Bekaa Valley). 95 We also know that Suppiluliumas campaigned against Part the kingdom of MitaMi (Aram-Naharaim). 96 The first element of the name Lupakku may be read as `man', the meaning of the second being at present unknown. Shopak (Heb. Shu-pak) is the army commander of Hadadezer who returns from Aram-Naharaim to defend Amurru against David's forces [I Chronicles 19:16]. The biblical name Shupak contains the initial Akkadian element Shu which means `he'. We suggest that the two generals are one and the same person, the respective versions of his name being Lupakku meaning `man (of?) Pakku' (as in EA 170) and Shupak meaning `he (who is of?) Pak(ku)' (as in I Chronicles). It can be seen from the foregoing analysis of the el-Amarna onomasticon that almost all the major characters who feature in the Early Monarchy nar- ratives are also attested in the Amarna correspond- ence. Thus we have identified Ishbaal, Joab, Baanah, David, Jesse, Mephibosheth, Achish (king of Gath), Hadadezer (king of Aram-Zobah), Tou (king of Hamath) and Shopak (commander of Hadadezer's forces). Five A History of Arnarna Age Palestine At this juncture, it would be helpful to outline the historic events in Palestine during the Amarna period from the perspective of the New Chronology synchro- nism proposed here. Hitherto, mostly because of the lack of detailed evidence concerning Egypt's western Asiatic sphere of influence immediately before and after the Amarna Age, it has not been possible to determine the true impact of the socio-political up- heavals of the period. Now, using the Letters as our primary source but interpreting them in the light of the parallel biblical narratives in the books of Samuel, we can confirm that the disruptions at the end of the 18th Dynasty were major in scale and had long-lasting consequences. In particular, the birth of the kingdom of Israel in the central hill-country coincided with the collapse of the Egyptian northern hegemony under Pharaoh Akhenaten. The window of opportunity pro- vided by the inward-looking policies of the late 18th Dynasty enabled David to forge his kingdom un- opposed by the region's superpower. We have chosen to refer to the principal characters of this history by their contemporary names. Thus, for example, King Saul will be referred to as Labayu; Ish- baa1 and David bear their real names - Mutbaal and Dadua; Joab, Achish and Hadadezer are Ayab, Shuwar- data and Aziru respectively. The reader may at first feel a little uncomfortable with this approach, but, as we have argued that the personalities mentioned in I and I1 Samuel were given their biblical names by the later Old Testament redactors, we feel it would be more precise and indeed, technically correct, to employ their original `Canaanite' names in this overview. 54 Labayu's Kingship The central hill-country of Palestine was of little economic importance during the 18th Dynasty and the inhabitants - a loose confederation of Israelite tribes (as described in the book of Judges) - were largely subjugated by the rulers of the prosperous city-states of the western coastal plain (the biblical Philistines), who were loyal vassals of Pharaoh. We cannot know what set the tribes upon their road to unification under a king `like all other peoples' [I Samuel 8:5], but we might suspect the coronation of Labayu, a rustic Benjaminite noble, to have been an act of political opportunism. Such an occasion would have presented itself when Amenhotep I11 died after a long and peace- ful reign of 37 years. (It has been a recurring pattern throughout history for the death of a long-lived and powerful ruler to have been the trigger for revolt movements both internally and in the vassal principal- ities - cf. in Egypt: Pepi 11, Ramesses I1 and 111.) Even so, the coronation of the first Israelite king and subsequent revolt against Egyptian control nearly turned out to be a serious miscalculation on the part of the tribal league. The swift reaction of the Philistines, massing in large numbers and capturing Labayu's towns of Gibeah and Michmash in the hill-country was probably not anticipated. On this occasion the Israelite king was saved by the military audacity and personal bravery of his eldest son. The fledgling kingdom continued to depend on the valour of its young men, one of whom - Dadua, son of Yishuya - secured a royal bride. It was not long JACF VOL. 6 before Dadua was perceived by Labayu to be a threat to the king's authority by dint of his personal popu- larity within the ranks of the habiru mercenary forces. In this light he was also a potential danger to the succession itself through his claim to the throne - as a result of his marriage to princess Michal. Although secretly befriended by Labayu's son, Dadua was forced to flee the court and live the life of an outlaw, becoming the leader of a band of habiru based in the southern hill-country. He soon took shelter with Labayu's enemy, Shuwardata, the Philistine king of Gath, who assigned the town of Ziklag to his habiru troops under Dadua's command. From Ziklag Dadua began to build a strong power base in Judah. Labayu's two-year reign saw him stigmatised as a habiru by the Philistine rulers based in the Shephelah and coastal plain. He allied himself with Milkilu the Canaanite (non-Philistine) ruler of Gezer and his father-in-law Tagi, ruler of Gath-Cannel. Besides harrying his rival Dadua, Labayu was permanently at war with the loyal vassals of Egypt to the west. His attempt to conquer the Jezreel Valley to secure a land corridor to the northern tribes" proved to be a major miscalculation which finally cost him his life. 98 The Israelite king's campaign endangered Egypt's trade routes (especially along the Via Maris and into the Jezreel) to the north and east. The Philistines and other western vassals who normally protected these routes (such as Biridiya of Megiddo) joined forces to meet the Israelite threat and were supplied with archers from Egypt through the port of Acco, whose king in a number of the Letters is shown to be preparing for military supplies and personnel. Prominent amongst the Philistine confederacy was Shuwardata of Gath. Labayu met his end on the southern slopes of Mount Gilboa either at the hands of a troop of archers from the town of Gina or with the latter's compliance in allowing the Philistine alliance to attack the Israelites to the rear of Labayu's carefully laid out defensive positions. This was seen by the surviving sons of the Israelite king as an act of betrayal and treachery on the part of the town. The Philistines and a Divided Israel After the death of Labayu, the western city-states were again in the ascendancy. They took many towns and thereby obtained new servants (as is reflected in the Letters which lament their later rebellion and loss). A garrison was installed at Bethshan to separate the northern tribes from the remnants of Labayu's army which had fled across the Jordan to seek refuge in Gilead. Strategic locations such as Rubute and Ajalon were seized, as noted by Abdiheba (the ruler of the Jebus) but the Philistines and their allies did not undertake a large scale conquest of Labayu's kingdom because of the nature of the terrain which greatly favoured the guerrilla tactics employed so effectively JACF VOL. 6 by the hill-country tribes. Instead, the Letters from Abdiheba detail a grand alliance between Ashkelon (Widia), Gath (Shuwardata), Gezer (Milkilu), Gath- Camel (Tagi), Lachish (Shiptibalu and Zimredda) and the habiru (under Dadua). A valuable insight here is that of Albert0 Soggin99 who writes that the Philistines `saw the possibility of exercising indirect control over the region through an intermediary' - namely David. We may perceive two main reasons for Dadua's installation at Hebron. First, he could act as a buffer against the king of the Jebus, who had recently quarrelled with Shuwardata over ownership of the town of Keilah. Second, his coronation as vassal ruler in the southem hill-country would effectively divide the Israelite tribes; since the tribe of Benjamin was the most faithful to Labayu, the setting up of a rival from the tribe of Judah (just to the south) would serve to counter the legitimate claims to kingship of Labayu's family there. With the northernmost tribes cut off by the re-occupation of the Jezreel by Philistine forces, the lands of Ephraim under subjugation, and Judah con- trolled by a rival under vassalage to Shuwardata, the house of Labayu would no longer be able to raise a powerful tribal militia which would threaten a resur- gence of the revolt movement. The Philistine plan was well reasoned. However, they failed to see the danger in their midst: Dadua had been a threat to the first king of Israel and his ambition would soon extend to an overthrow of his political masters. Excursus D Saul's Kingdom Saul's kingdom, according to John %yes and Maxwell Miller [A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Phila- delphia, 1986), pp. 140-411, consisted of the hill- country south of the Jezreel (but excluding the Jebus) and central Transjordan. His kingdom was therefore a rather smaller affair than is sometimes adduced, but there is good reason to doubt whether the first Israelite king could have been in control of a larger region. Although I Samuel 14:47 records Saul having fought Zobah, this is not likely to be a reference to a war in northern Palestine, Lebanon or Syria, for it is ques- tionable whether he held sway even in the lands of the northern tribes of Issachar, Zebulun, Asher and Naphtali - these tribes having been been cut off from the rest of Israel by the forces of the Philistine/ Canaanite-controlled Jezreel/Esdraelon. This biblical reference to Zobah comes in the context of an account of wars against Moab, Edom and Ammon. Whilst 14:47 may be a record of a northern war of which we have no other details, it is more likely that it refers to Saul's war(s) with the Ammonites who were kinsmen of the Aramaeans of Zobah and allied to them in David's time. David was obliged to fight three wars with the Aramaeans [I1 Samuel 8 & lo], having incurred their enmity in dealing with the Ammonites. 55 Excursus E The Length of King Saul's Reign How long did Saul reign? Was he king for a mere two years (plus perhaps a few months?) as recorded in I Samuel 13:1? Or did he reign the twenty or twenty-two years usually assigned to him by biblical historians (based on Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, book VI, chapter XIV: 9)? A careful comparison of the relevant texts in the original language of the books of Samuel shows that the chronological information concerning the reigns of Saul, Ishbaal and David follows a clear structural pattern - a formula which was used by the Chroniclers of both the United Monarchy and of the post-Schism Judahite kingdom [I Kings 14:21, 22:42; II Chronicles 29:1, 33:1]. The repetition of this particular formula in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles suggests that the informa- tion was originally derived from a (then surviving) state document of the Early Monarchy era and that the data are just as reliable, therefore, as that for the later rulers of Israel and Judah. The Reign Length of Ishbaal in II Samuel 2:IO Hebrew text transliteration: ben-'arbayim shanah Ish-bosheth ben-Shad b'mol'kho `al-yisrael ushtayim shanim [var. shanah = singular] malakh Literal translation: Son of forty year[s], Ishbosheth, son of Saul, [took] on his rule over Israel. Two years he reigned. The Reign Length of David in II Samuel 5:4 Hebrew text transliteration: ben-sh'loshim shanah Dawid b'mol'kho 'arbayim shanah malakh Literal translation: Son of thirty year[s], David [took] on his rule. Forty year[s] he reigned' (`over Israel' follows in the editorial gloss of verse 5). The Reign Length of Saul in I Samuel 13:l Hebrew text transliteration: ben-shanah Shaul b `mol `kho ushtey shanim malakh `al-yisrael Literal transla tion: Son of [...I year[s], Saul [took] on his rule. Two years he reigned over Israel. From this comparison it can be concluded either that the number representing Saul's age at his coronation has dropped out of the formula at an early stage in the transmission of the text or, alternatively, that Saul's age was unknown to the later redactors. However, there is no evidence in I Samuel which would undermine the reign length given in the second half of this standard formula. Saul cannot have been a young man when he was anointed king by Samuel [I Samuel 9:2]. The Hebrew word here is bahur (= `elect' or `choice' - a term often associated with warriors) which, as various commentators suggest, is more likely to refer to his capacity for kingship in Israel rather than to his youthful age [cf. A. van Zijl: I Samuel, Vol. 1 (Nijkerk, 1988), p. 1331. A clear indi- cation that Saul was of mature years at the engagement at Michmash (first year of reign) is Jonathan's daring assault on the Philistines. He could only have attempted such an exploit if he was himself a grown man, of at least eighteen years - probably nearer twenty-five. This suggests an age of forty to forty-five years for Saul at his coronation. With regard to David's supposed youthfulness at the beginning of Saul's rule - as portrayed in the story of the Goliath incident - we can offer the following: (a) David was already described at his fist meeting with Saul [I Samuel 16:18] as a `mighty man of valour' (Heb. 'ish milchamah). (b) The story of David and Goliath in I Samuel 17 (where David is described as a shepherd boy unskilled in warfare) may well predate David's entry into Saul's court (as narrated in chapter 16). Hans Hertzberg [Die Samuelsbiicher, (Gottingen, 1973), pp. 116-181 argues that this material is of a later tradition con- cerning David's origins and wrongly inserted here by the compiler. One of the immediate consequences of a two year reign for Saul is that the conflict with David would begin in the former's first year - as soon as the king recognised that the latter's popularity might become a serious threat to his rule. We do not believe that this presents an insuperable problem. The events of the conflict could well span a period of less than one and a half years, beginning in the eighth month of King Saul's first year. We conclude that there is no evidence to contradict the view that the incidents narrated in I Samuel can be accommodated within a two-year reign for Saul. This is the position held by biblical scholars such as Martin Noth [Geschichte Israels (Gottingen, 1966), p. 1631; R. Rend- torff [The Old Testament - an Introduction (London, 1985), p. 301; W. Richter [Die Bearbeitungen der `Retterbiicher' in der deuteronomischen Epoche (Bonn, 1964), pp. 132-40, n. 131; W. Vollborn [`Die Chronologie des Richterbuches' in Festschrqt Fr. Baumgartel (Erlangen, 1959), pp. 192- 961; C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch [Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Edinburgh, 1891), pp. 122-241; and Samuel R. Driver [Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford, 1913), pp. 96-97]. There is, therefore, no need to amend the text of I Samuel 13:l so as to give King Saul a twenty-year reign. The chronology used here assumes a short reign for Saul. The Amama Letters concerning Labayu (= Saul) thus cover a period of no more than two years. 56 JACF VOL. 6 Relations between Mutbaal and Dadua After the death of Labayu on Mount Gilboa, his military general, Abner, took the surviving son and heir apparent, Mutbaal, across the Jordan to Mahanaim and safety [I1 Samuel 2:8]. Mahanaim's exact location is disputed, but we shall support the traditional identi- fication with the two unexcavated mounds close to Khirbet Mahna (following such authorities as F. M. Abel, Nelson Glueck and Otto Eissfeldt).loO Mahna lies some twelve miles east of the Jordan up the Wadi Jabis and beyond the proposed site for Jabesh-Gilead. Some five years later, on becoming king, Mutbaal made his military base at Pella, a site located two miles to the north of the entrance to this wadi, as it was ideally situated to protect the route up to Jabesh-Gilead from the west and, in particular, from Bethshan. From Mutbaal's two Letters, dating from his two- year reign, we can determine that his power base was centred on the lands of Gilead. EA 255 contains his promise to convey Pharaoh's caravan to Hanigalbat, and EA 256 indicates that he had borders with the lands controlled by the ruler of Ashtaroth (to the north and east, i.e. biblical Bashan) and that this neighbour was his ally. He went to the rescue of Ashtaroth because the towns of Gari had become hostile: Gari is probably to be equated with biblical Geshur in Syria, within the Golan region.l0' It should be noted that the kingdom claimed for Mutbaal (`Man of Baal' = Ish- baal/Eshbaal) in I1 Samuel 2:9 considerably overstates his strength: Eshbaal's power was more apparent than real. The highlands west of the Jordan had been drawn once more into the Philistine sphere of influence, and Eshbaal had been forced to withdraw across the Jordan and settle in Mahanaim. lo2 Dadua, meanwhile, had been crowned in Hebron not long after the death of Labayu [I1 Samuel 2:l-41; he reigned there for seven-and-a-half years [I1 Samuel 2:11 and 551. The political situation in the rest of Israel (to the north and east) during Dadua's first five years in Hebron is confused and complex: since the Letters throw little clear light on events, we must rely heavily on the biblical narrative to fill in the gaps at this point. Soggin assumes that this was a period of reorganisation `to stave off chaos and in rebuilding the army'lo3 whilst McCarter argues that `Abner was presiding over the reorganisation of the country after the Gilboa disaster'. `04 Likewise Rowley states: It was really Abner, Saul's commander-in-chief, who held the reins of power in the Northern Kingdom. . . . It was not long before this general opened negotiations with David, probably be- cause he realized that Eshbaal was not fit for the kingship. lo' Clearly, the Israelite tribes were hopelessly divided after the death of Labayu, just as they had been in the time of the Judges. Both Abner and Dadua addressed the difficult task of reuniting the tribes under their leadership. As is indicated in the Letters, they sought to make contact (through messengers, negotiations and military interventions) with tribal towns and with lands which Labayu had once seized from the Philistines. A number of Letters depict the two sons of Labayu acting in concert to cause trouble for the vassals loyal to Egypt. Biridiya, in EA 246, complains that the sons of Labayu have been paying the Sutean brigands and the habiru to wage war on him. Balu- UR.SAG, in EA 250, informs Pharaoh of an attempted subversion by the sons of Labayu.lo6 The `sons of Labayu' are anonymous in these Letters, perhaps because of their lack of status: the succession after Labayu's death had still to be resolved (cf. the `sons of Milkilu' referred to after the latter had departed from the scene) - Mutbaal was not yet a king and Dadua was still a vassal of the Philistines. It has also been proposed that secret negotiations may have been underway between the Hebronite king and Abner in order to re-establish a `united' Israel. Soggin suggests that their alliance broke down at a critical juncture, causing Abner to crown Ishbaal king. He notes that in the biblical narrative, David, whilst negotiating with the northern tribes, was making over- tures to the men of Jabesh-Gilead so that they would have him as their king [I1 Samuel 2:4-71. Soggin argues that Abner understood the severity of the threat to his own power base in the north and consequently decided `to break off the negotiations between David and Israel by means of a fait accompli'. `07 After crowning Mutbaal as king over Israel, Abner marched upon the forces of Dadua led by Ayab (`Yah is the father' = Joab) and was defeated by Dadua's men at the pool of Gibeon. As a result of this incident, a state of war then existed between Mutbaal and Dadua. However, we may assume with some confi- dence that upon the death of Abner, soon after the incident at Gibeon, the power of the Labayu dynasty was spent. Within the short time in which Mutbaal remained on the throne of Israel, Dadua managed to create a country which was united in all but name, with Mutbaal as his reluctant vassal. This would appear to be the situation depicted in EA 256 where Mutbaal professes his support for the military campaign to defend Ashtaroth (support designed to please Pharaoh) but, at the same time, tries to wash his hands of Ayab's other generally disruptive activities in Palestine (on behalf of Dadua): How can it be said in your presence: `Mutbaal has fled. He has hidden Ayab'? As the king, JACF VOL. 6 57 Excursus F Dating the Reign of Ishbaal I1 Samuel 210 relates that the reign of Saul's legitimate heir, Ishbaal/Ishbosheth, over the remnant- of Israel was a mere two years. However, in I1 Samuel 2:11 and 5:5, David is given a seven-and-a-half year reign in Hebron before he is proclaimed king over all Israel following the death of Ishbaal. Many scholars consider there to be a chronological discrepancy between these passages and some have rationalised that the biblical Ishbaal was given `only' 2 years (like Saul) because he was perceived by the redactor to be an unworthy king. For instance, Hans Hertzberg [Die Samuelisbiicher (Gottingen, 1973), p. 2041 argues that: . . . the total of reign years can hardly be correct. If David reigned 7.5 years in Hebron, then this would have to correspond, more or less, to those of Ishbaal, who was certainly crowned king soon after the death of king Saul. Also, David will not have received the crown over (all) Israel too long after Ishbaal's death. [Trans: P. van der Veen] Similarly, Joyce Baldwin [I and 2 Samuel (Leicester, 1988), p. 1851 has stated: Moreover the length of the reign of Ishbosheth, the two years, is hard to reconcile with the seven and a half that David reigned in Hebron. It may be that there has been a mistake in the trans- mission of the text, as in I Samuel 13:l. But this reasoning rests on an incorrect assumption - namely that the heir apparent's rule must have com- menced shortly after the death of his father. The notion of a textual error is contested by a number of scholars, including Albert0 Soggin who believes that two years is an accurate statement of the reign length: In any case, the real problem begins only when we presume that Eshbaal's two years began simultaneously with David's seven-and-a-half years, a supposition not at all required by the text. [J. A. Soggin: Old Testament and Oriental Studies, Biblica et Orientalia 29 (Rome, 1975), p. 351 To the same effect, we have Kyle McCarter's argument, which would place Ishbaal's two year reign at the end, not the beginning, of David's rule in Hebron: ... the two years of Ishbaal's kingship correspon- ded to the last two of David`s (i.e. in Hebron). [K. McCarter: I1 Samuel (Anchor Bible, Double- day, 1984), p. 89.1 We have followed this reasoning and place the two-year reign of Mutbaal contemporary with the sixth and seventh regnal years of Dadua in Hebron, leaving the six month period following the assassination of Mutbaal for Dadua to prepare to take Jerusalem and unify the whole of Israel. my lord, lives, as the king, my lord, lives, I swear Ayab is not in Pella. Dadua's Israelite Kingdom The Letters provide comprehensive evidence of a second wave of unrest in Judah following Labayu's demise - this time instigated by Dadua and his hubiru (initially backed by the Philistines and Canaanites of the coastal plain). Once Abdiheba, the king of the Jebus, was isolated,"' his fate was sealed. Upon the assassination of Mutbaal [I1 Samuel 4:7] Dadua sought to unite the kingdoms of Judah and Israel by establishing his new capital on neutral ground. He seized the city and lands of Jerusalem in his eighth year of rule in Hebron, and occupied the old Jebusite citadel of Tianna (biblical Tsiyon = Zion). The Philistines and Canaanites, realising their support for Dadua had been misplaced, now reacted swiftly to the new threat posed by the reunification of the Israelite tribes, just as they had done upon Labayu's accession. They moved up into the hill- country to attack Dadua and his forces but were twice beaten. The Letters subsequently portray the rulers of Gezer, Gath and other western cities in fear for their 58 lives: their former servants were now their enemies. Repeated requests for military assistance from Egypt (just as Abdiheba had pleaded for earlier) brought no tangible results. A new order existed: the men from the central hill-country were now the military masters in the region, and Egypt was ill-prepared to help restore the old order of things. Campbell has written of the hegemony of the central hill lands exercised by the successors of Labayu. `09 Although his interpretation is based on a different chronology for the Letters, it is in our view an accurate assessment - given the recognition that Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun or Ay would have been quite unable to mount any serious challenge to Dadua's control of the hinterland. It is, however, somewhat surprising that Dadua did not follow up his victories by the conquest and garrisoning of Gezer, Ashkelon and Ashdod. Many biblical scholars, in looking at this matter, have concluded that David would have been afraid to alter the status of these cities. Indeed, Ernest Wright argues that Philistia as a whole was under Egyptian domination during David's reign and that, although the Israelite king could probably have captured Gezer, he did not do so for fear of antago- nising Egypt: JACF VOL. 6 From this it may be inferred that David purposely refrained from taking Gezer, but left it completely isolated and surrounded. . . . He did not take over these cities (Gaza, Ashkelon and Ashdod), and the situation with Gezer may provide the clue to his reason. David refrained from taking over their original city-state grant for the same reason he refrained from taking Gezer, namely his respect for Egyptian claims, and his desire not to become involved with Egypt if he could help it. 110 We would agree, and add our observation that Dadua's kingdom was nowhere near as powerful as some scholars have made out when discussing the Davidic empire. Their case is primarily based upon the numerous `garrisons' (Heb. netsib) the king set up in territories attacked by Israelite forces, suggesting a permanency to David's control over the region. As we have noted (Excursus B, p. 41), this interpretation rests on an incorrect translation of the Hebrew word which should rather be understood as `pillar'. David defeated Hadadezer son of Rehob, king of Zobah, when the latter mounted an expedition to extend his power to the River. .. . David then set up pillars (Heb. netsib) in Aram of Damas- cus, and the Aramaeans became David's sub- jects and paid him tribute. [I1 Samuel 8:3-61 David set up stone pillars to mark his victories, just as the Philistines had done (and pharaohs regularly did - cf. the Bethshan stelae of Seti I), but the erection of a pillar did not necessarily ensure permanent possession (cf. Thutmose I erecting his stela on the banks of the Euphrates). The strength of Dadua's kingdom mainly derived from his ability to mount campaigns and punitive raids, but also stemmed from the many alliances he made - especially with the kings Talmai of Geshur, Hiram of Tyre and Tehuteshub (biblical Tou/Toi) of Hamath. Egyptian control over Canaan Egypt's western Asiatic hegemony had been won earlier in the 18th Dynasty, partly by force of arms but mainly through diplomatic negotiation, with powerful kings like Thutmose I11 and Amenhotep I1 making repeated sorties (mostly grand tours to remind their vassals of Egyptian military strength?) into Palestine and Syria. During the reign of Akhenaten, direct military action by the Egyptian army in Syro-Palestine is not attested. Instead we find campaigns undertaken by the subject city-states on Pharaoh's behalf. Some- times their forces are stiffened by Egyptian troops - especially archers. A possible reference to just such troops may be found in the feat of one of David's `mighty men', Benaiah, in killing an Egyptian of great JACF VOL. 6 stature [I Chronicles 11:23]. At some time during the Amarna Age, the Hittites under King Suppiluliumas I, conquered the land of Mitanni and became the major political power in North Syria. Many of Egypt's vassals in Lebanon and Syria were in fear of the Hittites and of their new vassal (an emerging power itself) - the kingdom of Amurm under the leadership of Aziru (Hadadezer). In the central hill-country of Palestine, Dadua's Israel was complete- ly dominant. Even with the help of Pharaoh's archers, Egypt's remaining loyal vassal states were no match for these two major local powers. Egypt had been reduced to military impotence in its northern realm. It was inevitable, sooner or later, that Israel and Hittite- backed Amurm would come into conflict. When this happened, Dadua inflicted a series of military defeats upon Aziru and successfully concluded alliances with some of the northern kingdoms previously loyal to Egypt (e.g. Tyre and Hamath). Thus Haremheb, coming to the throne after the ineffectual administrations of Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun and Ay, would have faced a monumental task in attempting to regain Egypt's former Asiatic sphere of influence - much of which had been usurped by Israel. With the immediate restoration of the infra- structure in Egypt itself as his priority, the new pharaoh decided on the wise expediency of marrying one of his daughters to Solomon, the new king of Israel [I Kings 3:1], in order to secure access to the trade routes from Mesopotamia. At the same time, this marriage alliance between Egypt and Israel guaranteed the co-operation of the most powerful independent ruler in the region. It would appear that this new policy of marrying off royal females to key Levantine rulers had begun in the immediate post-Amarna period when the Egyptian military, under General Haremheb, was too weak to dominate the region by force of arms. Archaeology has revealed another such marriage of an Egyptian princess - on this occasion to Nikmaddu 11, king of Ugarit. The marriage of the lady (whose nick- name was `Sharelli' in the Ugaritic text) most likely took place during the reign of Tutankhamun or Ay. (Was she a younger daughter of Akhenaten?)"' The loss of empire, with its attendant humiliations and severe economic cost, was never forgotten. Akhen- aten, the heretic king whose lax administration had allowed these disasters to happen, was never forgiven. All memory of him was systematically obliterated by Haremheb and his eastern Delta successors. Such were the conditions which led to the taking of the double- crown from the Theban pharaonic line by a military family stationed at the ancient Hyksos city of Avaris. There they would shortly establish the new royal capital of Pi-Ramesse, close to the northern frontier of Egypt and strategically placed to begin the forging of a new empire in the Asiatic territories, this time policed by military garrisons of native Egyptians and mercenaries under direct pharaonic control. 59 Part Six The Chronology of the Arnarna Letters Date 1025 1024 1023 1022 1021 1020 1019 1018 1017 1016 1015 1014 1013 1012 101 1 1010 1009 1008 1007 1006 1005 1004 1003 1002 1001 1000 999 998 997 996 995 EgvQt Principal Events 4menhotep I11 25 26 27 4- - - - 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 -+ 1 Tutankhaten 2 Tutankhamun 3 4 5 Amenhotep IV 1 2 3 4 .---- 5 4---- 7 g 4---- 9 10 11 Ugarit eclipse."` 12 Durbar. 13 14 15 16 17 6 .---- Founding of new capital at Akhetaten. Amenhotep IV changes his name to Akhenaten. Second royal inspection visit to Akhetaten. Th Akhetaten abandoned The definitive volume on the chronology of the Amama Letters is that of Campbell"' - but the work is seriously flawed. *16 As noted by Moran, there are a host of nearly insoluble problems when it comes to looking at the internal chronology of the Letters. `17 One of these, largely outside the remit of this paper (whole volumes could be written on the subject), is the matter of the co-regency between Amenhotep I11 and Akhenaten. We take the view here that the evidence for a substantial co-regency between the two pharaohs is compelling. This would best explain the significance of the `durbar' held by Akhenaten in his 12th year which is most likely to have been the celebration of his `appearance' as senior pharaoh following the death of his father, Amenhotep 111. 118 Perhaps the establish- ment of his new junior co-regent, Nefemeferuaten (i.e. Nefertiti as Pharaoh) provided a secondary reason for the arrival of so many foreign ambassadors sent to pay homage to the royal couple. It is also significant that 60 I royal inspection visit to Akhetaten. Israel/ Judah 1 Dadua114 2 3 4 I Capture of Jerusalem 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Amarna Letters 252-54, 243-34, 248 245, 366, 237-38 365, 279-80 246, 250 285-87 329-33 289-90, 255-56 288, 335, 364 281-84, 305-6, 271-73 292-94, 297-300 the Queen Mother, Tiye, came to take up residence at Akhetaten in the same year and that Tutankhamun (who claimed to be a son of Amenhotep 111) was himself crowned at the tender age of nine or ten - following the 17-year reign of Akhenaten. Another vital issue is the hieratic docket on EA 254 - the Letter in which Labayu protests that he did not know his son was associating with the habiru. The faded date has been read as both `Year 12' and `Year 32'. If the former is correct, then the king can only be Akhenaten. This interpretation is not generally favoured because it is supposed to result in a chrono- logical compression of the later period covered by the Letters. If the latter interpretation is accepted, then `Year 32' can only refer to the reign of Amenhotep 111. There are two main factors which cast doubt upon the higher reading. First, the `House of Correspond- ence of Pharaoh' (i.e. the Letters archive) was not established before his Year 8, after which he took JACF VOL. 6 up residence at Akhetaten. Since EA 254 would have been written at least two years earlier, it is necessary to explain its inclusion in the Amarna archive. Second, if our Amama thesis is correct, we would be required to make somewhat arbitrary adjustments to the stated reign lengths of kings Saul, David and Solomon. The Year 12 proposition, although disliked by many scholars, does not seem to us to present undue difficulties for the chronology of the Letters. As demonstrated in the chart opposite, there is a fairly even distribution of the datable correspondence from southem Canaan. We note an increase in Letter-writing activity coincidental with the revolt movement in Judah and the fall of Jersualem - as might be expected. However, the Year 12 model makes two assump- tions in respect of the internal chronology of the Amarna pharaohs: (i) that Smenkhare had a brief reign in his own right and (ii) that Tutankhamun abandoned Akhetaten some time after his first regnal year. Part Seven Conclusions The Literature Political Topography We have compared two ancient textual sources, one dating from the Late Bronze Age (the Amama Letters from Syro-Palestine), the other ascribed to the Early Iron Age (the two books of Samuel from the Old Testament). Both sources appear to describe the same historical events. The following series of conclusions was reached: Although the Amarna Age spanned a mere 15 years and is but a tiny window on history, it has been possible to compare the period to an equally brief epoch - that of the Early Monarchy of Israel. (3) We have demonstrated that the political map of Palestine was very similar in both periods, with a Both the Amarna Letters (EA) and the books of Samuel (Sam.) highlight the activities of a par- ticular socio-economic group known as the habiru (EA) or Hebrews (Sam.). The two sources often display similar idioms when refemng to these stateless mercenaries and their families. We find examples of the term habirulibrim used as a pejorative in both sources. Our study supports Na'aman's conclusion with regard to the books of Samuel - that only a relatively short time separates the events from their recording. In addition, we agree with Albright - that the perceived differences between the Canaanite language of Late Bronze Age Ugarit and the early Hebrew language of the Judges/United Monarchy era are 'mostly chronological'. Without the centuries-long interval which separates these two civilisations their languages would be consi- dered virtually identical (allowing for geographical differences). There are important implications here for the study of the literature of the ancient Near East. Scholars have often noted the similarities between Ugaritic texts and the Psalms. It has been suggested, for instance, that Psalm 29 was directly adapted from the Prayer to Baal found in the archive at Ugarit,"' even though the latter is usually dated 300 to 350 years earlier. Another frequently noted parallel is that between Akhenaten's 'Hymn to the Sun' and Psalm 104 (of David).12' In the conventional chronology these works are again sepa- rated by at least three centuries. The New Chronology proposes that their authors were in fact contemporaries. JACF VOL. 6 large kingdom straddling the central hill-country where there were very few important towns. This kingdom was adjoined by a number of smaller city-states on the coastal plain and Sharon, in the Shephelah, and at the western end of the Jezreel Valley. In both cases there was also an indepen- dent city-state centred on Jerusalem. When we examined the nationalities present in the two sources we found: (4) Indo-European named rulers (EA) or Philistine (5) a Canaanite enclave centred around Gezer in both (6) a Canaanite-speaking, mostly non-urban population (7) an independent Hurrian (EA) or Horite (Sam.) city- (8) an emerging Amorite (EA) or Aramaean (Sam.) seranim (Sam.) in the coastal plain; instances; in the hill-country; state ruler based in Jerusalem; and kingdom in Syria. Specific Parallels On then taking our examination down to the level of the individual we moved from the general to the specific. We identified Labayu, the king of the central hill- country, with the biblical King Saul: (9) both were rustic, untutored kings; (10) both were leading rebels of their times, accused 61 u Notes and References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Akhetaten was occupied by Akhenaten's coult after the Year 8 in- spection and was abandoned some time after Year 1 of Tutankhamun. As argued by C. Aldred: Akhenafen, King of Egypt (London, 1988). p. 186. We have no evidence that Amenhotep Ill actually resided at Akhetaten, yet nearly half of the Letters from the great kings (of Babylon, Assyria, Hatti, etc.) are addressed to him. One can only conclude that Akhenaten, from about his Year 8. must have had some of the Letters of the old coregent sent to him at Akhetaten. W. L. Moran: The Amarna Letters (Baltimore, 1992). Please note that we have simplified his rendition of names, e.g. `Labayu' instead of Lab'ayu, `Mutbaal' for Mut-Bahli, etc. for ease of recognition. The Middle Bronze IIB/C provides an excellent fit for biblical data concerning inhabited sites, destructians and site abandonments at the time of the Exodus and Conquest. See J. J. Bimson: Redafing the Exodus and Conquest (JSOT, Sheffield, 1978). See D. M. Rohl: `The Early Third Intermediate Period: Some Chronological Considerations' in JACF 3 (1990/1). pp. 45-69; idem: `A Test of Time: The New Chronology of Egypt and its Implications for Biblical Archaeology and History' in JACF 5 (1991/2), pp. 30-58. N. Na`aman: `Habiru and Hebrews' in JNES 45:4 (1986). p. 279. Joshua's destruction of Hazor must have been less than fmal: it survived to become the centre of Canaanite power in the time of Deborah and Barak. Moreover, although Judges 4 tells of the Israelite defeat of Jabin. the king of Hamr and his general Sisera, it is far from clear that they went on to destroy the city itself. We may deduce from the silence of the book of Judges that, although Deborah ended the Canaanite oppression of the northem tribes at this time, Hazor may well have survived the defeat of its king. We invoke similar arguments to account for the presence of Lachish as a city-state in the Amama period, i.e., that it was rebuilt as a Canaanite citv after Joshua's Conauest. N. Na`aman: `The Origin and Histohcal Background of Several Amama Letters' in Ugarif Forschwtgen 11, pp. 679-81. 10. Sarha, a town mentioned in EA 273 is located near to Bethshemesh and identified with the biblical Zorah by Moran: op. cif. [3], p. 391. 11. Y. Aharoni: The Land of fhe Bible (London, 1966), p. 175. 12. W. H. Stiebing: Out of the Desert? (Buffalo, 1989). p. 89. 13. Aharoni, op. cif. [ll], p. 214 remarks of the survival of Jerusalem despite the conquest narrative in Joshua 10: `This is not an unusual phenomenon, that a certain tribe should succeed in overcoming and destroying a Canaanite city in its region without having the means to settle it immediately due to the lack of sufficient technical and organisational ability to rebuild and refortify the town. As fyrther examples, one may cite Hazor, Lachish and Tell Beit Mirsim. 14. Aharoni, op. cif. [ll], p. 174. 15. Mom, op. cif. [3], p. 135, 384, believes that Shuwardata was king of Keilah. citing Na`aman's evidence (op. cif. [9], pp. 676ff.) that his Letters and those of Abdiastarte (EAs 63-65) seem to have been written by the same scribe and sent from Shuwardata's residence. On the other hand, Albright, in BASOR 87 (1942), p. 37, regards Shuwardata as king of Hebron. This is rather a strange suggestion because Hebron does not appear to be named in the Amama correspondence. Rainey, in El Amarna Tablefs 257-379 (Supp. to J. A. Knudtzon: Die E1 Amarna Tafeln, 2nd ed. revised, 1978) agrees with Aharoni's proposal that Shuwardata's main city was Gath. 16. Aharoni, op. cif. [ll], p. 174. 17. But see Rohl, op. cif. 151. JACF 5, p. 43, on the conquest of Shalem by Ramesses II. 18. W. F. Albright: `An Archaic Hebrew Proverb in an Amama Letter from Central Palestine' in BASOR 89 (1943). pp. 29-32. 19. W. F. Albright: `Two Little Understood Amama Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley' in BASOR 89 (1943). p. 11. 20. Ibid.. pp. 7-8. 21. Strictly speaking, the language of the Israelite tribes and of the Early Monarchy (i.e. Saul, David) was Canaanite, a forerunner of biblical Hebrew. 22. For example, see. A. Goetze in ANET, pp.529-531. 23. A. Malamat: `The Kingdom of David and Solomon in its Contact with Aram Naharaim' in Biblical Archaeologist 21:4 (1958), pp. 100-101. 24. Ibid., p. 101. 25. P. G. van der Veen: I Samuel and the Habiru-Problem (Leuv.cn, 1989): thesis submitted to the Evangelical Theological faculty of Leuven in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Licentiate in Theology; also idem: `The el-Amama Habiru and the Early Monarchy in Israel' in JACF 3 (1989/90), pp. 72-78. 26. E.g., M. Greenberg: The Hablpiru (New Haven, 1955), pp. xiii & 99; J. Bottero: L Problime des Habiru d la 4` Rencontre Assyriologique Infernufionale (Paris, 1954). pp. xxxviii & 208. 27. van der Veen, op. cif. [25a], pp. 2-3. 28. Where the terms GAZ, SA.GAZ or habiru appear in the Letters Moran (op. cif. [3]) often gives `apiru, which is, of course, the equivalent Egyptian term: we have reproduced throughout habiru for these terms so as to maintain consistency with earlier translations of the Letters. 29. J. Baldwin: I and 2 SAMUEL: An Infroduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Leicester, 1988). p. 104. JACF VOL. 6 30. Greenberg: op. cif. [261, p. 76; W. Helck: Die Beziehungen Aegypfem zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden, 1971). p. 489; G. Mendenhall: The Tenth Generation (Baltimore, 1973), pp. 135-36; Na`aman, op. cif. [61, pp. 279-81; and R. de Vaux: Hisfoire Anciinns d'lsrael (Paris, 1971). p. 207. 31. P. K. McCarter: `The Historical David' in Interpretation 40 (1986), p. 121. 32. Bottero, op. cif. 1261, Text 190. 33. P. G. van der Veen: `The hbiru as the ibrim of I Samuel and the implications for the "new chronology"' in C & C Review XV (1993). p. 33. 34. Mendenhall, op. cif. [30], p. 135. 35. Greenberg, op. cif. [26], p. 76. 36. David was in the habit of comparing Saul and his men with limns, as is demonstrated in Psalms 7:2, 17:12 and 35:17. In the Old Testament the common word for `lion' is aryeh, occurring 85 times, but, in Psalm 57:4 David has chosen labaim (plural of labi, meaning stout' or `great' lions) - the only occurrence of this word in the Bible. 37. Albright, op. cit. [l8], p. 30. 38. Related to the Akkadian bahulati, meaning `warrior'. 39. Albright also argues for this equation of `the habiru' (singular) [EA 3661 with Labayu; see W. F. Albright: `The Amama Letters from Palestine' in CAH' 2:2 (1975). p. 114. 40. Moran, op. cif. [3], p. 306. 41. Aharoni, op. cif. [lll, p. 275. citing I Samuel 105 and 13:3. 42. J. M. Millar: `Geba/Gibeah of Benjamin' in Vefw Testamentam XXV, 2 (1975), pp. 145-66, and `Saul's Rise to Power' in Cafhdic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974). pp. 160-64 & 173-74. Clearly, since we place the Early Monarchy period in the Late Bronze Age rather than the Iron Age, the currently accepted location of Gibeah at Tell el-Ful (3 miles north of Jerusalem) has to be rejected because the site contains no remains prior to the Early Iron Age. 43. Albright in ANET, p. 486. 44. Aharoni, op. cif. [lll. p. 275; J. Singer: `The Beginning of Philistine Settlement in Canaan and the Northern Boundary of Philistia' in Tel Aviv 12:2 (1985). argues that a large Amorite indigenous element lived in the Philistine region with its capital city at Gezer (p. 116). Other towns with Amorite /Canaanite population nearby are Ajalon, Shaalbim and Gath/Gittaim @. 118); N. K. Gottwald: The Tribes of Yahweh (London, 1979). p. 418, proposes that there was a common interest between the Israelites and `Amorite/Canaanites' against their mutual enemy, the Philistines. This was not limited to what Gottwald con- siders to be a `disputed' account of Samuel's victory over the Phili- stines, but rather as a general statement of an overall attitude of sympathy from Canaanites towards Israelites - from the end of the Judges period until the incorporation of the old surviving Canaanite city-states into the kingdom of David. 45. See the remarks of T.Ishida: The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel (New York, 1977). pp. 62 & 72ff. 46. Rabbi A. Ben Isaiah & Rabbi B. Sharfman (translators) in The Pentateuch and Rarhi's Commenfary, Vol. I. (Philadelphia, 1949). p. 155. One should also note the opinion of the Greek writer Eupolemos (c. 160 BC) who similarly wrote of David as the son of Saul: this tradition is preserved in Eusebius, see K. Mars (ed.): Eusebiur Werke Vol. Ill, Die Preparafio Evangelica (1954). 538, 30, 2-3. 47. As has been demonstrated by E. F. Campbell Jr.: `Shechem in the Amama Archive' in G. E. Wright: Shechem (London, 1965). p. 199. 48. This is confirmed by Albright, op. cif. [43], p. 485, who translates here: `but before my arrival, they had slain him'. 49. W. L. Moran: Les Lffres d`el Amarna, (Paris, 1987). pp. 561-62: our translation from the French. We have cited this version here because it is a more literary translation and therefore easier to follow. See also Albright, op. cif. [43], p. 487. 50. Ibid., p. 562. 51. Aharoni. op. cif. [ 1 11, p. 49. 52. Campbell, op. cif. [47]. p. 204. 53. As confirmed by Aharoni, op. cif. [ll], p. 432. 54. See, for example, Aharoni, op. cif. [ll], p. 225, and also C. Hertzog & M. Gichon: Baffles of the Bible (London, 1978). pp. 49ff with particular reference to Barak's engagement with Sisera's forces. 55. M. Grant: The Hkfory of Ancienf Israel (London, 1984). p. 75; M. Magnusson: The Archaeology of the Bible Lads (London. 1977). pp. 124-25. 56. Thus Hertzog & Gichon, op. cif. 1541. p. 74. 57. As argued by G. A. Smith: The Hirtorical Geography of the Holy Land (London, 1894/1931), p. 262. 58. D. A. Klostermann: Die Biicher Samuelis wrd der Konige (Nordlingen. 1887). p. 131; H. Hertzberg: Die Samuel Biicher (Gottingen. 1965), p. 192. 59. Albright, op. cif. [43], p. 489. 60. Greenberg, op. cif. [26], p. 48. 61. Moran, op. cif. [3], p. 391. 62. Albright reads `Bet-Lahmi' [ANET, p. 4891, i.e. Bethlehem, whereas Moran gives `Bit-NlNURTA'. In the context of the scheme offered here, the capture of Bethlehem by a coalition including habiru would represent the `liberation' of David's home town. 63. Y. Aharoni & M. Avi-Yonah (ed.): McMillan Bible Aflas (New 63 Yorkbndon, 1977), p. 36; in his The Land ofthe Bible, op. cif. [ll], p. 174, he sees Yaramu as the town of Jarmuth defeated by Joshua (in alliance with the kings of Jerusalem, Lachish and Gezer). This hypothesis is contradicted by a number of Letters showing the hostility between Jerusalem and Gezer and the friendship between Lachish and the habiru. 64. J. W. Flanagan: `Succession and Genealogy in the Davidic Dynasty' in H. B. Huffman et. al.: The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (Winona Lake. 1983). p. 51. 65. J. F. Ross: `Gezer in the Tell el-Amama Letters' in BA 302 (1967). p. 68 66. Z. S. Hams: Development of the Canaanite Dialects (Millwood, 1978). pp. 35 & 40; Wilhelm Gesenius: Hebraisches und Aramiiisches Handworterbuch iiber ah Alte Testament (Leipzig, 1921), pp. 669-75. 67. Aharoni, op. cif. [ll], p. 285; Ross, op. cif. [65], p. 68, citing IEJ 16 (1966). p. 15. 68. Albright, op. cif. [19], p. 10, note 16. 69. M. Tsevat: `The Canaanite God Salah` in Vetus Testamentum IV (1954), pp. 41-42. 70. Albright, op. cif. [43], p. 486. 71. Albright, op. cit. [19], p. 11, note 18. 72. M. Mayrhofer: Die Indo-Arier im Alten Vorderasien (Wiesbaden, 1966), p. 30. 73. Moran, op. cif. [3], p. 379. 74. F. Grondahl: Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Rome. 1967). pp. 226-27. 75. Personal communication to Peter van der Veen, January 1993. 76. J. A. Knudtzon: Die el-Amarna Tafeln (Leipzig, 1915). p. 816. 77. B. Mazar: The Early Biblical Period (Jerusalem, 1986). p. 130, n. 20. 78. An alternative possibility is to identify Benelima with Meribaal. The name Men-Baal is usually translated as `my lord is Baal' (Aramean `Mar' = lord + `i' = my + Baal). Meribaal was the crippled son of Jonathan, the boy who would have been the heir apparent if his father had not died on Mount Gilboa along with King Saul and his other brothers [I Chronicles 8:34 & 9:40]. We could suggest an alternative reading of this name. In the context of Akkadian, the lingua franca of the el-Amama period, the first element of the name `Man' would mean `son' or `child'. Thus we could have the name `Son of Baal'. This usage `Son of [deity] NN', as noted by Wilhelm von Soden, is frequently attested in cuneiform documents [Akkadisches Handwijrter- buch (Wiesbaden, 1966). pp. 615-161. It is also well known that in Old Testament Hebrew the names of the deities Baal, and El are interchangeable. For example, the Temple of Baal-benth (`Lord of the Covenant') at Shechem mentioned in Judges 9:4 is also called the Temple of El-berith (`God of the Covenant') in Judges 9:46. Another example is the son of David named Eliada in II Samuel 5:16 but Baaliada in I Chronicles 14:7. The name Meribaal may have been interchangeable with Man-El - with the meaning `son of El'. which is identical to Benelima of EA 256. 79. The syllable `Da' is alternatively rendered as `Ta'. I. Lehmann: The Hittites (London. 1977). p. 73, states `The same uncertainty exists in the case of `T' and `D' because it is still unknown how these consonants were pronounced, hard or soft. This accounts for the many b/p and d/t variations in spelling, which reflect scholarly preference rather than definite knowledge'. Examples of the interchangeability of d' and `t' are numerous, e.g. Dadu-Hepal Tadu-Hepa, Dud- haliyas/Tudhaliyas, Dushratta/Tushratta, and from the EAs Indaruta/Intaruta.' 80. M. Noh: Israelitische Personennumen (Stuttgart, 1928). p. 149. 81. J. J. Stamm: `Der Name David' in Supplement to Vetus Testamentum VII (Leiden, 1960). pp. 175-181. 82. Moran, op. cit. [3], p. 385. 83. Albright, op. cif. [19]. p. 12, note 27. 84. Grondahl. op. cif. 1741, p. 49,. 85. W. Helck: Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden, 1962). pp. 190-91. 86. M. Tsevat: `Ishbosheth and Congeners: The Names and their Study' in Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975). p. 81. 87. Mayrhofer, op. cif. [72], p. 30. 88. A. Kammenhuber, personal communication to P. van der Veen, January 1993. 89. R. W. Corney: `Achish' in K. Crim et al.: Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I (Nashville, 1962). p. 27; he reads the name as Akk (i.e. Aki)-Sha[rur], i.e. `The [divine] king has given'. 90. A. Kammenhuber, personal communication, January 1993; Helck, op. cif. [85], p. 371. 91. We are suggesting that the final `sh' in the name Achish may represent a shortening of the theophoric element `Shimige'. There is clear evidence from the Human onomasticon that divine elements were shortened in this way, e.g. `sham' becomes `sha', `shenni' becomes `she', and `Teshup' becomes `te' or `teshe' - c.f. B. Mazar: The Early Biblical Period (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 134-35. 92. P. Bordreuil and J. Teixidor: `Nouvel Examen de I'Inscription de Bar-Hadad' in Aula Orientalis 1 (1983), pp. 271-276. They suggest variously that Ezra might be the name of Barhadad's father, or Hadad-ezer's son and successor, or even Hadadezer's hypocoristicon. F. M. Cross (BASOR 205 [1972], p. 37) had previously read the name 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. as `Ezer'. Helck, op. cif. [85], p. 294. P. K. McCarter: II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (New York, 1984). p. 250; Lehmann, op. cit. [79j, p. 225. See Albrecht Goetze: `Hittite Historical Texts' in ANET, p. 319. Our thesis enables us to solve the age-old question of why Saul fought his last battle in the Jezreel Valley. The standard interpretation is that his action was defensive, in trying to stop the Philistines from penetrating the hill-country and that the Philistines, having been defeated in direct approaches through the lands of Ephraim and Benjamin, were making a fresh approach through the Jezreel. The Letters suggest another interpretation: Labayu was the aggressor, capturing a number of towns including Shunem and laying siege to Megiddo. In this vein, we note the argument of C. Hauer [Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31:2 (1969). pp. 163-651 that Saul`s last battle was part of a campaign aimed at seizing the Jezreel Valley for himself. Campbell argues that EA 245 refers to two campaigns of Labayu in the Jezreel area. The first section of the Letter relates the death of Labayu (as also EA 366) but he thinks the second half refers to an earlier incident during which the rebel was ransomed. Campbell regards this incident as complementary to the account in EA 237 (possibly from Bayadi, author of EA 238). See Campbell, op. cit. [47], p. 194. It should be noted that the Bible fails to record an earlier defeat for Saul or any incident involving his ransom. We give this as a possible example (if Campbell's analysis is correct) of the incompleteness of the biblical record: a narrative concerning an earlier failure in the same region would detract from the depiction of Saul's heroic end on the slopes of Mount Gilboa and so might have been overlooked by the later editors. Another possible %tu- pretation of EA 245 was proposed in D. Rohl & B. Newgrosh: The el-Amama Letters and the New Chronology' in Chronology and Cafastrophism Review X (1988). pp. 33-34, but this, the authors now believe, has certain difficulties. 99. J. A. Soggin: A History of Israel (London, 1984), p. 51. 100. 0. Eissfeldt: `The Hebrew Kingdom' in Cambridge History II:2 (1975). p. 579; cf. also R. A. Coughenour: A Search for Mahanaim' in BASOR 273 (1979). D. 59. .. ~ ~ 101. W. F. Albright, op. cif. [l9], p."li. 10`2. H. H. Rowley (ed.): New Atlas ofthe Bible (London, 1969), p. 63. 103. So~gm: OD. cit. [99], p. 36. 104. Micarter- op. cit. @4j. p. 89. 105. Rowley: op. cif. [102], p. 63. 106. That we do not then hear of the capture of Megiddo and other towns in the Sharon and Jezreel areas can be put down to one of two reasons. Either the relevant Letters have been mislaid or - and this is more likely - the period of the Letters does not cover the conquest of these parts of Israel by Dadua (see chronological table, p. 60). 107. Soggin: op. cit. 1991, p. 40. 108. In EA 289, Abdiheba complains that his enemies seek to isolate Jerusalem, fearing that all would be lost in such an event. 109. Campbell: op. cif. [47], pp. 206-207 writes: `After his [Labayu's] death, for about a decade [i.e. the period covered by the later Letters], his sons and their allies may have controlled the land from the Mediterranean coast to Gilead, and even farther north in Transjordan to the region opposite the Sea of Galilee. Whether Egypt moved to break this stranglehold remains a question. Letters in the Amama collection which can clearly be dated later in Akhenaten's reign are confined to Syria, or else are colorless and uninformative.' 110. G. E. Wright: `Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story' in Biblical Archaeologist 29:3 (1966). p. 8% see also M. Grant: The History of Ancient Israel (London, 1986), p. 80. 111. See A. Curtis: Ugarit (Cambridge. 1985). pp. 44-45. 112. W. A. Mitchell: `Ancient Astronomical Observations and Near Eastem Chronology' in JACF 3 (1989/90), pp. 18-20. 113. EA 254 possibly dates from Labayu's first regnal year but may not have arrived at Akhetaten until Year 12 of Akhenaten. 114. We allow for a small gap between Saul's death and David becoming king in Hebron. 115. E. F. Campbell: The Chronology of the Amarna Letters (Baltimore, 1964). 116. See &e criticisms of Aldred. op. cif. [l], pp. 186ff. 117. Moran, op. cif. [3], pp. xxxiv ff. 118. C. Aldred in Cambridge Ancient History II:2A, p. 60. 119. P. C. Craigie: `The Tablets from Ugarit and their Importance for Biblical Studies' in BAR (Sept/Oct 1983). p. 73; similarly, see H. L. Ginsberg (in ANET, p. 149) on `The Tale of Aqhat' also found at Ugarit: `There is a considerable probability that Aqhat's father, Daniel, is the ancient saint and sage of that name to whom the prophet Ezekiel refers in Ezek.14:14, 20; 28:3.' 120. For instance by John A. Wilson in ANET, p. 369. *** D. M. Rohl is a holder of the W. F. Masom Scholarship at the University of London. 64 JACF VOL. 6