Silwan Tunnel Inscription > > Home

The Moabite Stone

Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2008 by Charlie Trimm

The Mesha stone is a fairly long inscription from King Mesha of Moab (see 2 Kings 3). The discovery of the stone 100 years ago is worthy of a movie. Someone saw it in Jordan and recognized its value, so he made a squeeze of it (a copy). But as he was finishing it, some men came to attack him, so the last part was rather rushed. He later offered to buy the stone, but since they saw it was valuable, they decided there must be some kind of valuable metal in it, so they put it in a fire and broke it into pieces. It eventually ended up in the Louvre in Paris. Follow the link below for a discussion of the theology of the Moabite stone, the relationship to 2 Kings 3, and the differences between Hebrew and Moabite. 

This section is found in the midst of a series of accounts of military actions taken by Mesha. The stele begins with an introduction (lines 1-4), then continue with the military actions (4-21). After the battles comes a description of the repairs undertaken by Mesha (21-28). A conclusion comes after that (28-31), and then strangely more battles are described again in the unclear bottom of the stele (31-34). This particular section is the first battle described in the battle section and highlights the actions of Chemosh as opposed to Mesha, who is only described as rebuilding, not fighting. 

עמר

י. מלך. ישראל. ויענו. את. מאב. ימן. רבן. כי. יאנף. כמש. באר

צה \ ויחלפה. בנה. ויאמר. גם. הא. אענו. את. מאב \ בימי. אמר כ

וארא. בה. ובבתה \ וישראל. אבד. אבד. עלם.                        

 

Omri King of Israel, and he subjected Moab for many days, because Chemosh was angry with his land. His son succeeded him, and he also said “I will subject Moab.” In my days thus he said. And I saw up on him and upon his house [my desire? my will?] and Israel was destroyed forever.

 


b. The theological perspective of the Mesha stele sounds very similar to the Bible. The people interpret all events as being caused by their god, Chemosh. So when they have difficulties in life, it is because their god is angry with them (line 5), similar to various texts in the Bible where the God of Israel is angry with his people and so they suffer difficulties (2 Kings 24:20).

              A main purpose of the writer of the Mesha stele is to give justification for the attack by Mesha. The main justification given is that the lands used to belong to Moab, and so the attack is not simply pure greed, but a restoring of the lands to their owner (for example, see lines 7-8). For the places that were not previously conquered, the writer invokes the command of Chemosh their god. If Chemosh commanded to conquer somewhere, woe to them if they did not (line 14)! (Naaman).

              Chemosh is the main god of the Moabites. From just this stele, no other god appears in their thinking. Chemosh is their divine warrior who fights for them and initiates battle for them, giving the guidance (lines 9, 14) (Naaman).

            The relationship with 2 Kings 3 is difficult to determine with exactness. The main parallel is the mention of a Moabite king named Mesha and battle between Israel and Moab. But the details of the battle and the various events recorded do not appear to be the same. The Mesha stele recounts a previous Israelite occupation and a rebellion by Mesha, who takes back many of his lands and some new land. On the other hand 2 Kings 3 relates a rebellion by Mesha, but then an attack by Israel to restore Moab to its control. The attack goes well for Israel and much land is conquered until the king of Moab offers his own son as a sacrifice, and the attack is stopped. So is this the same rebellion? It is possible that the two accounts are two perspectives on the same event, with each side focusing on the part of the battle that went their way. It is also possible that these were two separate rebellions. In the final evaluation, it is impossible to say with the data that we possess.

 

 

c. Moabite is very similar to Hebrew (the following is from Jackson). There are a few differences, but overall they are minor. One major similarity with Hebrew is the use of wayyiqtol (such as ויאמר is line 6), which is virtually unheard of outside of Hebrew. Historical spelling is usually not used (for example, רשה in line 20 has no א), but in one case it does appear (בית in line 25, but see בבתה in line 7). In contrast to Biblical Hebrew, diphthongs usually contract in Moabite, leaving no י or ו in its wake, (see בתה above). Another possible historical spelling is the final ה of ארצה in line 5, which is standardized to final ו in Biblical Hebrew.

            Affinities with Aramaic are seen in the masculine plural ending –ין instead of –ים, such as אלפן in line 16. Aramaic similarity can also be seen in some of the suffixes, such as ימה instead of the Biblical Hebrew ימיו (line 8). One word gets its meaning from Aramaic instead of Hebrew: ויחלפה. In Biblical Hebrew it means “to change,” but in Aramaic and in the Mesha stele it means “to succeed.”

            The word שת as opposed to שנה (line 2) reveals a similarity with Israelite Hebrew (ostraca from Samaria) as opposed to Judean Hebrew. One unique word to Moabite is קר, which means city (line 11). Some words are difficult to determine if they are unique to Moabite or if there is a lack of final vowel letters, such as the אנך in line 1. Another difference is the use of a final ת as a feminine singular ending (line 3). A similarity with Phoenician is the use of את more in line with emphasis than with a grammatical necessity. Another similarity with Phoenician is the non-use of the article with a demonstrative modifying a noun with the article (line 3).

Login to add comments