A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom, IEJ 61 (2011), 184-195.

Israel

Exploration

Journal

VOLUME 61 • NUMBER 2JERUSALEM, ISRAEL • 2011

ISRAEL EXPLORATION JOURNAL

Published twice yearly by the Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of

Archaeology of the Hebrew University, with the assistance of the Nathan

Davidson Publication Fund in Archaeology, Samis Foundation, Seattle WA,

and Dorot Foundation, Providence RI

Founders

A. Reifenberg, D. Amiran

Former Editors

Michael Avi-Yonah, Dan Barag, Jonas C. Greenfield, Baruch A. Levine,

Miriam Tadmor

Editorial Board

Shmuel A¢ituv and Amihai Mazar, Editors

Tsipi Kuper-Blau, Executive Editor

Joseph Aviram, President, Israel Exploration Society

Editorial Advisory Board

Gideon Avni, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Israel Ephªal, Baruch A.

Levine, Aren M. Maeir, Gloria Merker, Joseph Naveh, Ronny Reich, Myriam

Rosen-Ayalon, Zeev Weiss

IEJ is now available online on JSTOR

Email: [email protected]

Books for review: Israel Exploration Journal, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070,

Israel

Guidelines: http://israelexplorationsociety.huji.ac.il

Copyright © 2011 Israel Exploration Society

ISSN 0021-2059

The Editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors

VOLUME 61 • NUMBER 2 • 2011

CONTENTS

129 DANIEL M. MASTER and ADAM J. AJA: The House Shrine of Ashkelon

146 ELY LEVINE, SHLOMO BUNIMOVITZ and ZVI LEDERMAN: A Zebu-Shaped

Weight from Tel Beth-Shemesh

162 ODED LIPSCHITS: The Ivory Seal of šlm (Son of) Klkl, Discovered at

Ramat Ra¢el

171 YOSEF GARFINKEL and HOO-GOO KANG: The Relative and Absolute

Chronology of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Very Late Iron Age I or Very Early Iron

Age IIA?

184 NADAV NAºAMAN: A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef

Hinnom

196 BOAZ ZISSU and EITAN KLEIN: A Rock-Cut Burial Cave from the Roman

Period at Beit Nattif, Judaean Foothills

217 YOAV FARHI: The ‘Modest Aphrodite’ from Nysa-Scythopolis (Beth Shean)

and Ptolemais (Akko)

223 KOSTA Y. MUMCUOGLU and GIDEON HADAS: Head Louse (Pediculus

humanus capitis) Remains in a Louse Comb from the Roman Period

Excavated in the Dead Sea Region

230 MICHAEL E. STONE, DAVID AMIT, JON SELIGMAN and IRINA ZILBERBOD:

A New Armenian Inscription from a Byzantine Monastery on Mt. Scopus,

Jerusalem

236 REVIEWS

247 HEBREW BOOKS AND PAPERS

Page layout by Avraham Pladot

Typesetting by Marzel A.S. — Jerusalem

Printed by Old City Press, Jerusalem

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

AJA American Journal of Archaeology

AfO Archiv für Orientforschung

ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament3, ed. J.B. Pritchard,

Princeton, 1969

BA The Biblical Archaeologist

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BT Babylonian Talmud

CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary

CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum

DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

DSD Dead Sea Discoveries

EI Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies

ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel

IAA Reports Israel Antiquities Authority Reports

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies

JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

KAI W. Donner and W. Röllig: Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften 1–3,

Wiesbaden, 1962–1964; 15, 2002

NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (English

Edition), Jerusalem, 1993

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

PT Palestinian Talmud

QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine

RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale

RB Revue Biblique

RE Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

RQ Revue de Qumran

VT Vetus Testamentum

ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie

ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES

2012: $60 including postage or equivalent payable to

the Israel Exploration Society, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070, Israel.

All subscribers are entitled to a 25% reduction on the publications of the Society.

Subscribers should give full name and postal address when paying their

subscription, and should send notice of change of address at least five weeks before

it is to take effect; the old as well as the new address should be given.

Single issue: $30 or equivalent.

A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets

from Ketef Hinnom*

NADAV NAºAMAN

Tel Aviv University

ABSTRACT: In the course of his 1979 excavations of a burial cave located at the site

of Ketef Hinnom, Gabriel Barkay discovered two silver plaques with Hebrew

inscriptions from the Bible. The inscriptions are the earliest biblical texts discov-

ered to date. In an early publication (1989), Barkay deciphered portions of the two

texts and dated the plaques to the late pre-exilic period. In a recent publication

(2004), a team of scholars, using advanced photographic techniques and computer

imaging technology, made considerable advances in deciphering the texts. Never-

theless, gaps remained in the text of plaque I and its meaning has not been entirely

clear. In this article, I suggest decipherment of the missing section of plaque I and

offer a new interpretation of the text. I further suggest that the amulets date from

the early Second Temple period, possibly not many years after the construction of

the Temple. The inscriptions reflect the hopes pinned on the newly erected Temple

and the recent resettlement of the land and exhibit the belief that the return to Zion

and the redemption of the land was orchestrated by the God of Israel.

INTRODUCTION

IN 1979, in the course of his excavations at the site of Ketef Hinnom, some 80 m.

above the Hinnom Valley to the south-west of Jerusalem, at the foot of the Scot-

tish Church of St. Andrew, Gabriel Barkay unearthed seven late Iron Age rock-cut

burial caves. Most important among them is Cave 24, consisting of five burial

chambers. The repository dug under one of these chambers (no. 25)1 is the sole

intact one to have been discovered to date in late Iron Age Jerusalem. Its excava-

tion, in 1979, yielded the remains of at least 95 individuals and over 1,000 items.

Barkay suggested that the burial cave had been in use from the second half of the

seventh century down to the early fifth century BCE and that the burial gifts had

gradually accumulated in the repository.

The most remarkable artefacts unearthed in the repository are two silver

plaques with Hebrew biblical inscriptions. They were published by Barkay, in

Hebrew (1989) and in English (1992), and by Ada Yardeni (1991), who was the

IEJ 61 (2011): 184–195 184

* I would like to thank Prof. P. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins University, who

reviewed the article for IEJ and made numerous useful comments throughout. A

Hebrew version of this article appeared in Cathedra 140 (2011): 7–18.

1 For the brief excavation reports published so far, see Barkay 1984; 1986; 1989: 37–46;

1992: 139–151; 2000.

first to decipher the priestly blessing inscribed on the amulets.2 The inscriptions

on the plaques are the earliest biblical texts discovered to date, hundreds of years

before the earliest biblical scrolls from Qumran. It is, therefore, no wonder that

they attracted the attention of scholars, who suggested textual restorations and

comments, analysed the date of the inscriptions and discussed their contribution

to biblical research in general and to the study of the Priestly Source in particular.3

A multi-disciplinary team of scholars made considerable progress in the deci-

pherment of the two inscriptions, using advanced photographic techniques and

computer imaging technology. Through this process, the team was able to deci-

pher traces of letters which could not have been detected by older techniques

(Barkay et al. 2003). The results of this research were published in 2004 (Barkay

et al. 2004). The team’s new readings of the texts, combined with a more precise

palaeographic description of the script, put the research on new ground. A few

studies that take into consideration the advances in the deciphering of the texts

have already been published (Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 2005: 263–275; A¢ituv 2005:

24–29; Berlejung 2008a; 2008b). This improved text is the point of departure for

my study of plaque I.

Before discussing the two plaques, a word of caution should be expressed.

Although Cave 24 was excavated in 1979, the rich assemblage unearthed in the

repository remains as yet unpublished (with the exception of one Greek coin; see

Barkay 1984–85). Hence, in all matters not directly related to the plaques, we

depend upon the data supplied by the excavator. Since archaeological evidence is,

in many cases, open to different interpretations, this is an unfortunate situation.

For example, Barkay noted that ‘the pottery assemblage dates from the 7th century

to the early 5th century B.C.E. with no gap or “cultural break” following the Baby-

lonian conquest of Jerusalem in 587/6 B.C.E’ (1992: 147). This statement

establishes the earliest possible date for the two plaques, although no published

evidence corroborates it. It also establishes continuity in the life of a wealthy

Judahite family in Jerusalem from the seventh to the early fifth century BCE,

contrary to the findings of the extensive excavations held in Jerusalem, according

to which the city was abandoned after the Babylonian 587/6 BCE conquest and

deliberate destruction. Of course, Barkay’s conclusions might be correct, but

scientific archaeological discussion is a matter of evidence, rather than of trust. To

date, no supporting evidence for these conclusions has been published. We may

conclude that as long as the burial gifts discovered in the repository remain

unpublished and the stages during which they were accumulated in the repository

remain practically unknown, Barkay’s conclusions concerning the findings from

A NEW APPRAISAL OF THE SILVER AMULETS FROM KETEF HINNOM 185

2 Many readings originally suggested by Yardeni have been confirmed in recent

research of the plaques.

3 Haran 1989; Korpel 1989; Renz 1995a: 447–456; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 363–367;

Liwak 2001: 222–239; Waaler 2002.

the cave — including the dating of the two plaques — must be treated with

caution.

DATING THE COMPOSITION AND CACHING OF THE AMULETS

There are four criteria for establishing the date of the engraving on the plaques and

the amulets’deposition in the burial cave. I shall proceed to examine each of these.

1. Barkay divided the area of the repository into six squares, labelled A to F. He

noted that plaque I was uncovered in Square D, about 7 cm. above the repository

floor, and was identified in situ. He thus concluded that ‘its location close to the

floor indicates its relative antiquity compared with the other finds recovered here’

(1992: 148; Barkay et al. 2004: 44). Plaque II was found while sifting the earth

from Square A, at the lower level of the deposits of the innermost square of the

repository. For Barkay et al. (2004: 44) this suggested ‘an indication of the

plaque’s relative antiquity’.4 However, unlike plaque II, which was found in an

innermost location, plaque I was found not far away from the entrance to the

repository — indicating that distance from the entrance is not a safe criterion for

establishing the date of deposition of small artefacts.5 Moreover, as plaque II is

very small (before rolling, it measured 11.5 mm. in length and 5.5 mm. in dia-

meter) and in addition, was not found in situ, it might easily have been shifted

from its original place during reburial and/or excavation. As for plaque I, if

Barkay had published the artefacts discovered in the locus where it was unearthed

and demonstrated that they all date from the late Iron Age, his dating of the plaque

would have been much stronger. As these artefacts remain unpublished, however,

the plaque’s location alone cannot support an early dating. We may conclude that

the stages during which the artefacts accumulated in the repository are practically

unknown and that the archaeological evidence provided so far by Barkay for

dating the plaques is inconclusive and thus cannot establish the date with certainty.

2. On the basis of the palaeographic evidence, Barkay (1992: 169–174) originally

dated the plaques to the second half of the seventh century BCE, whereas Yardeni

(1991: 180) dated them to the early sixth century BCE. Most scholars who dealt

with the plaques accepted either the mid-seventh-century or the late seventh–early

sixth-century date (see literature in Berlejung 2008a: 211, nn. 41–42). Cross

(2003: 23*, n. 23) dated the plaques to the late sixth century BCE, and Renz

(1995a: 449–452) dated them to the Hellenistic period. The team dated the

plaques to the seventh–sixth century BCE (Barkay et al. 2004: 52b). They exam-

ined Renz’s arguments in great detail and made it clear that only eight late

186 NADAV NAºAMAN

4 Barkay’s earlier publications do not mention the fact that the plaque was discovered in

the lower level of the deposit (1989: 44; 1992: 148).

5 See the drawing of the distribution of finds in Barkay 1992: 146; Barkay et al. 2004: 45.

Hellenistic vessels were unearthed in the repository, all located in its uppermost

layer (Barkay et al. 2004: 43b). The team further demonstrated that no letter forms

in these inscriptions point to a Hellenistic date (Barkay et al. 2004: 44–52), thus

concluding that dating the plaques to this late period is highly unlikely.

The exact dating of the two plaques on the basis of palaeographic consider-

ations, however, involves several problems. First, they are small, narrow and

engraved on silver, and the engraving process must have been very careful.

Hence, the letter forms are formal and different from the cursive script of the time

of production. Second, whereas there are many inscriptions from the late monar-

chical period, the number of inscriptions dated to between the second half of the

sixth and the early fifth century is very small and we know very little about the

development of the script in this relatively short period. We may conclude that the

palaeographic dating of the two plaques raises serious difficulties and that it is

impossible to pinpoint their date to the early sixth or the late sixth–early fifth

centuries BCE.

3. Dobbs-Allsopp et al. (2005: 266, 268, 273) observed that ‘orthography

provides the greatest challenge to a pre-exilic date for these amulets’. They noted

four transcriptions that do not correspond to the writing practice of the pre-exilic

period, but avoided drawing conclusions from this evidence.

Renz (1995a: 448) and Cross (2003: 19* and 23*, n. 23) discussed the reading

åéðô in line 9 of plaque II and emphasised that the third masculine singular

pronominal suffix added on plural or dual nouns is written in the pre-exilic period

with wâw, as opposed to the Massoretic spelling of yôd-wâw. To corroborate their

claims, they brought two pre-exilic epigraphic examples: åùðàå (‘and his men’) in

Lachish letter no. 3, line 18, and åìà (‘to him’) in the Yavneh-Yam ostracon, line

13. The team’s response that the number of attestations of the shorter spelling is

too small to permit firm conclusions regarding standard orthographic practices is

a non-convincing attempt to counter the contrast between their dating proposal

and the textual orthographic reality (Barkay et al. 2004: 53–54).6 Moreover, it is

possible that the yôd-wâw spelling was originally written in lines 5–7 of plaque I

([åéúåöî] éøîù å[é]áäàì), which would correspond precisely to the space left in

these lines. Unfortunately, the plaque is broken and there is no way to verify this

suggestion.

Three additional orthographic peculiarities appear in plaque I. First, the noun

úéøá in line 4 is written with a yod as an internal mater lectionis (Dobbs-Allsopp et

al. 2005: 266). Second, the hiphil verbal form [åðáéù]ä (‘[has] restored us’ or

‘[made] us dwell’) with an internal yôd appears in line 13. The verb áåù appears

A NEW APPRAISAL OF THE SILVER AMULETS FROM KETEF HINNOM 187

6 The team’s suggestion (Barkay et al. 2004: 54) that ‘the orthography in Ketef Hinnom

II represents the official urban dialect of Jerusalem, over against the more rurally

oriented dialect of Lachish’ raises many more problems than it resolves.

several times in inscriptions dated to the pre-exilic period, always without the

internal yôd (Renz 1995b: 233; Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 2005: 726). Deriving the

verbal form from the verb áùé leads to the same late dating of the text. Third, the

noun øåö (‘rock’) in line 14 is written with an internal wâw, as opposed to the pre-

exilic writing øö in the Siloam inscription (lines 3 and 6).

In light of these four orthographic peculiarities, it is clear that the amulets

should be dated no earlier than the second half of the sixth century BCE.

4. In two recent articles, Berlejung (2008a: 211–212; 2008b: 45–47) suggested an

early Persian date for the plaques, emphasising that amulets and stamps made of

silver and gold are rare in Iron Age Palestine and that small objects of this kind

appear only in the Persian period.7 Moreover, text amulets written on rolled papy-

rus, silver, or gold lamellae appear in large numbers in the Phoenician–Punic

world in the sixth–fifth centuries BCE (Lemaire 2003; 2007; Berlejung 2008b:

53–56, with earlier literature; 2010: 5–11; Smoak 2010: 427–429). The Persian

period date of the manufacture of silver plaques strongly supports the date estab-

lished by the orthographic analysis.

In sum, the archaeological and palaeographic data do not supply a firm date for

the plaques; thus, the decision should be made on the basis of other consider-

ations, in particular the orthographic data. In my opinion, the pre-exilic date for

the plaques, originally suggested by Barkay and Yardeni and supported by the

majority of scholars, cannot be maintained. Dating the plaques to the late sixth or

early fifth century BCE is preferable, and is in keeping with all the available data.

This dating corresponds with the conclusions I present in the final part of this arti-

cle, which are drawn on entirely different grounds (see below).

NEW READING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT OF PLAQUE I

The team presented the transcription and translation of plaque I, lines 1–14, as

follows (Barkay et al. 2004: 61):

éøîùå [å] (6) áäàì ãñç[ä] (5) å úéøáä (4) [øîù ì]ãâ (3) [.....] (2) [.]åäé (1)åá éë (11) òøäîå ç (10) [ô] ìëî äëøá[ä] (9) .. íìòä ú (8) [... åúå] (7) [öî]

øåö (14) [å] åðáéù[î] (13) äåäé éë ä (12) ìàâ

‘[…]YHW … the grea[t … who keeps] the covenant and

[G]raciousness toward those who love [him] and those who keep [his

commandments …]. the Eternal? [… the?] blessing more than any

[sna]re and more than Evil. For redemption is in him. For YHWH is

our restorer [and] rock.’

188 NADAV NAºAMAN

7 For an earlier discussion, see Barkay 1992: 174–176; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 366.

The transcription and translation are accompanied by a detailed commentary, in

which the team explain their textual decisions and their interpretation of the text.

In their corpus of Hebrew inscriptions, Dobbs-Allsopp et al. (2005: 265) accepted

the transcription substantially as is and wrote a detailed commentary. Berlejung

(2008a: 212–213) copied the transcription as is, suggested a German translation

of the text and added a short commentary. On the basis of Ps. 41:14 and Neh. 9:5,

A¢ituv (2005: 25) restored the gap in lines 7–8, [..] íìòä ã[òå íìòäî]. However,

not only is the restoration of the dalet unlikely (the letter as restored by the team is

clearly tâw), but the expression ‘from everlasting to everlasting’ does not fit the

context well.

The point of departure for my discussion is the text of line 11, äìàâ åá éë (‘for

redemption is in him’). The preposition with pronominal suffix bw (‘in him’) is

anaphoric; when written in conjunction with éë (‘for’), it refers to a subject

mentioned even earlier. For example, ‘And God blessed the seventh day …

because on it (åá éë) God rested from all his work’ (Gen. 2:3); ‘You shall observe

the Feast of Unleavened Bread … for in it (åá éë) you went forth from Egypt’

(Exod. 23:15); ‘YHWH, my God, lights up my darkness; for with you (êá éë) I can

crush troops …’ (Ps. 18:29–30); ‘Our soul waits for YHWH … for in him (åá éë)

our heart rejoices’ (Ps. 33:20–21)’ and ‘Lead me in the path of your command-

ments for I delight in it (åá éë)’ (Ps. 119:35).8

In light of these and other closely related texts we may ask what the subject of

the causal sentence äìàâ åá éë (‘for redemption is in him’) may have been. The

assumed subject, YHWH, is mentioned only at the beginning of the inscription, a

few sentences before the redemption statement. Moreover, in another sentence

(lines 12–13), God’s name as subject is indeed included (åðáéù[ä] äåäé éë). Can we

find a different, heretofore unobserved, subject for the causal sentence in lines

11–12? In my opinion, restoring äú[éá], ‘his temple’, in lines 7–8 and considering

it the subject of the redemption sentence instantly clarifies the matter. The simul-

taneous occurrence of the archaic third masculine singular pronominal suffix

(byth) and later pronominal suffix (bw) is typical of a text written in a transitional

period, when –w gradually replaced –h to represent a final –ô.

This restoration is the key for the entire passage in lines 7–14, which I suggest

rendering as follows:

ìàâ åá éë (11) òøäîå ç (10) [ô] ìëî äëøá [ã] (9) [ò]å íìò äú[éá] (7–8)øåö (14) [ë] åðáéù[ä] (13) äåäé éë ä (12)

‘His temple is everlasting, a blessing from any snare and evil, for

redemption is in it. For YHWH made us dwell [like] a rock.’

A NEW APPRAISAL OF THE SILVER AMULETS FROM KETEF HINNOM 189

8 A similar causal sentence probably appears in the Amman Citadel inscription (line 5):

‘[You will loc]k? (?ì[òðú]) the door by a door of terebinth (ïèá) for in it (äáë) […]’. For

the inscription, see Puech and Rofé 1973: 532–534.

Commentary

Line 8. — Traces of the wâw appear in the photograph and drawing published by

the team (Barkay et al. 2004: 56, 58). The combination ãòå íìò (‘everlasting’)

appears frequently in the Book of Psalms (10:16; 21:5; 45:7,18; 48:15; 52:10;

104:5). Compare lines 7–8 ãòå íìò äúéá (‘His temple is everlasting’) with Ps.

45:7a ãòå íìåò íéäìà êàñë (‘Your throne, O God, is everlasting’). Both in the

amulet and in Ps. 45:7, the adverb ãòå íìò refers to God’s divine objects, the

temple and the throne.

The verbal form in line 13 might be derived from either the verb áåù (‘restore’)

or áùé (‘dwell’). The hiphil perfect form of the verb áùé with suffix is contextually

preferable and better fits the metaphor øåö[ë], ‘[like] a rock’. For the verbal form

åðáéùä (‘made us dwell’), compare éðáéùåä (‘made me dwell’) in Ps. 143:3 and

Lam. 3:6.9

The text opens with a promise made to the owner of the amulet that if he

follows the Deuteronomic laws, the essence of which are the love of God and the

maintenance of his laws, God, ‘who keeps the covenant and graciousness’, shall

requite him in a similar way. Next, the text emphasises the eternity of the temple

and its function as a source of blessing and protection against all misfortune and

danger. It also guarantees that the community of returnees would never be

uprooted from the land. The last part contains the blessing, addressed directly to

the owner of the amulet and including the elements of divine protection, favour

and grace. The elements of protection from all kinds of danger and from evil spir-

its are common to our amulet and all other amulets discovered in the ancient Near

East, but the formulation of the text and the emphasis on the temple is unique to

the Jerusalem amulet.

As long as YHWH was considered the subject of redemption (äìàâ), the latter

term attracted only minimal scholarly attention.10 The statement that redemption

lies in the temple, however, requires clarification.

The verb ìàâ and its derivatives have been discussed several times in bibli-

cal research.11 According to the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon (Koehler,

Baumgartner and Stamm 1994: 169–170), the basic meaning of äìåàâ is ‘right and

obligation of repurchase’ and that of the verb ìàâ is ‘to lay claim to a person, to

something > to demand him back, to redeem’. Scholars who analysed the verb ìàâ

190 NADAV NAºAMAN

9 Prof. Kyle McCarter suggested an alternative reading: to understand the suffix as third

masculine singular with the energic, thus -ennû. He suggests translating it: ‘His

temple is everlasting … for redemption is in it. For YHWH has restored it like a rock’

(or ‘has caused it to dwell like a rock’). According to this translation, ‘YHWH has

restored it’ follows closely upon the mention of ‘his house’.

10 It was not discussed by Barkay et al. or by A¢ituv, and Dobbs-Allsopp et al. (2005:

268) offered only a short discussion.

11 See, for example, Johnson 1953; Beattie 1964; 1978; Ringgren 1977; Sasson 1978;

Unterman 1992; 1995.

have observed that it functions in two different spheres: on the one hand, in

connection with legal and social life, and on the other, with the redeeming acts of

God. There is a consensus among scholars that the theological concept has its

roots in the socio-legal sphere (note the appearance of the verb áéø in reference to

the divine redemption in Ps. 119:154, Prov. 23:11 and Lam. 3:58) and that various

descriptions of the redeeming god have their origin in the various aspects of the

socio-legal system. Unterman (1995, with earlier literature) has demonstrated that

the origin of the eschatological descriptions of divine redemption in the Book of

Isaiah lies in the social phenomenon of íãä ìàåâ, ‘the blood redeemer’. The motif

of YHWH as redeemer of the orphan and widow (Ps. 72:13–14; Prov. 23:10–11)

was borrowed from the social role of the family to protect its impoverished rela-

tives. In the Song of the Sea, ‘the people you redeemed (úìàâ)’ (Exod. 15:13) is

interchanged with ‘the people you ransomed (úéð÷)’ (v. 16) (Seeligmann 1954:

390). The figure of YHWH who forcefully delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt

probably combines several aspects of the family’s defence of its members in situa-

tions such as impoverishment, bond and murder.

All biblical texts mention äìàâ in socio-legal contexts. It appears in reference

to the redemption of a field (Lev. 25:24,26; Ruth 4:7), the price of redemption

(Lev. 25:26,47–48), various aspects of the right of redemption (Lev. 25:29,31,32;

Jer. 32:8; Ruth 4:6), and once as designation of those who should claim redemp-

tion — namely, the kindred group (Ezek. 11:15). The institution of redemption

was established on the right and obligation of the extended family to repurchase

the lost property that a certain head of a family could no longer hold in his posses-

sion. In the case of redemption of property, the nearest relative (Lev. 25:25; Jer.

32:7–10; Ruth 4:3–4) was bound to buy back the sold property (which often was

sold at a low price as the sale took place under economic pressure) at the original

selling price and thus restore the lost possession to the property of the extended

family.12

In biblical theology, the concept of redemption was shifted from the family to

the nation and from the human redeemer to the God of Israel. It seems to me that

the concept of äìàâ in the Ketef Hinnom amulet has likewise developed from the

socio-legal right of redemption of a property by the nearest relative. Following the

loss of the land to a foreign power, the destruction of the temple and the deporta-

tion of the elite, it was conceived that Israel lost its possession of the land,

analogically to the extended family’s loss of ancestral land when an impoverished

family sold it to a foreigner. The return to Zion and the rebuilding of the temple

became considered to be the divine redemption of the lost property. The words

‘for redemption is in it’ (äìàâ åá éë) defined the central place of the rebuilt temple

within the new concept of YHWH as redeemer of Israel and its lost territorial

A NEW APPRAISAL OF THE SILVER AMULETS FROM KETEF HINNOM 191

12 For the redemption of land in the Bible and ancient Near Eastern legal systems, see

Westbrook 1971; 1985.

property. The temple was the symbol both of YHWH’s presence within his

people and of his redemption of Israel’s land. The text of the amulet presents the

temple as the source of blessing that guarantees protection ‘from any snare and

evil’ (òøäîå çô ìëî äëøá). It also connects the construction of the everlasting

temple (ãòå íìò äúéá) to YHWH’s firm settling of the returnees in the land

(øåöë åðáéùä äåäé éë).

The author of plaque I combined Deuteronomic and Priestly textual fragments in

the text he produced. The text in lines 3–7, [åéúåöî] éøîù å[é]áäàì ãñç[ä]å úéøáä [øîù](‘Who keeps the covenant and steadfast love with those who love him (and) keep

his commandments’) has an exact parallel in Deut. 7:9, åéáäàì ãñçäå úéøáä øîùåúåöî éøîùìå (‘Who keeps the covenant and steadfast love with those who love

him and keep his commandments’; see Dan. 9:4; Neh. 1:5).13 In both amulets, the

closing blessing to the holder of the amulet is well known from the Priestly Source

(Num. 6:24–26). In addition, the author used several expressions appearing in

Psalms.14 He was probably a priest in the temple of Jerusalem who operated at a

time when the Deuteronomistic and Priestly compositions were held in one place.

From the vast corpus assembled at the time in the temple of Jerusalem, he selected

several sentences that fitted the text of the amulet he had inscribed. Since the two

inscriptions are pastiches of fragments selected by their respective authors, the

amulets cannot indicate the stage of composition of the biblical text at the time of

their engraving.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ketef Hinnom plaques are not only the earliest examples known to date of

verses appearing in the biblical text, but they are also important sources for the

study of religious concepts held in Jerusalem in the early post-exilic period. The

amulets were probably engraved in the early Second Temple period, possibly not

many years after the construction of the Temple. The engraved inscriptions reflect

the hopes pinned on the newly-erected Temple and the recent resettlement of the

land and exhibit the belief that the God of Israel orchestrated the Return to Zion

and the redemption of the land.

REFERENCES

A¢ituv, S.

2005 HaKetav VeHaMiktav. Handbook of Ancient Inscriptions from the Land of Israel and

192 NADAV NAºAMAN

13 Some scholars dated Deuteronomy 7 to the post-exilic period. See Römer 2005: 170;

Pakkala 2007: 164–165, with earlier literature.

14 For references to the Book of Psalms, see Barkay et al. 2004: 55–68; Dobbs-Allsopp

et al. 2005: 265–275.

the Kingdoms beyond the Jordan from the Period of the First Commonwealth, Jeru-

salem (Hebrew)

Barkay, G.

1984 Excavations on the Slope of the Hinnom Valley, Jerusalem, Qadmoniot 17: 94–108

(Hebrew)

1986 Ketef Hinnom: A Treasure Facing Jerusalem’s Walls (The Israel Museum Catalogue

no. 274), Jerusalem (Hebrew)

1989 The Priestly Benediction on the Ketef Hinnom Plaques, Cathedra 52: 37–76

(Hebrew)

1992 The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem, TA 19:

139–191

2000 Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem, in Geva, H. (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem

Revealed2, Jerusalem: 85–106

Barkay, G., Lundberg, M.J., Vaughn, A.G. and Zuckerman, B.

2004 The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation, BASOR 334:

41–71

Barkay, G., Lundberg, M.J., Vaughn, A.G., Zuckerman, B. and Zuckerman, K.

2003 The Challenges of Ketef Hinnom. Using Advanced Technologies to Reclaim the

Earliest Biblical Texts and Their Contexts, Near Eastern Archaeology 66: 162–171

Barkay, R.

1984–85 An Archaic Greek Coin from the ‘Shoulder of Hinnom’ Excavations in Jerusalem,

Israel Numismatic Journal 8: 1–5

Beattie, D.R.G.

1964 The Book of Ruth as Evidence of Israelite Legal Practice, VT 24: 251–267

1978 Redemption in Ruth, and Related Matters: A Response to Jack M. Sasson, Journal

for the Study of the Old Testament 5: 65–68

Berlejung, A.

2008a Ein Programm fürs Leben. Theologisches Wort und anthropologischer Ort der

Silberamulette von Ketef Hinnom, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

120: 204–230

2008b Der gesegnete Mensch. Text und Kontext von Num 6,22–27 und den Silber-

amuletten von Ketef Hinnom, in Berlejung, A. and Heckl, R. (eds.), Mensch und

König. Studien zur Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. Rüdriger Lux zum 60.

Geburtstag, Freiburg: 37–62

2010 There Is Nothing Better than More! Texts and Images on Amulet 1 from Arslan

Tash, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36/1: 1–42

Cross, F.M.

2003 Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention to the Third

Person Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [-âw], EI 27: 18*–24*

Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W., Roberts, J.J.M., Seow, C.L. and Whitaker, R.E.

2005 Hebrew Inscriptions. Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concor-

dance, New Haven — London

A NEW APPRAISAL OF THE SILVER AMULETS FROM KETEF HINNOM 193

Haran, M.

1989 The Priestly Blessing on Silver Plaques: The Significance of the Discovery at Ketef

Hinnom, Cathedra 52: 77–89 (Hebrew)

Johnson, A.R.

1953 The Primary Meaning of Ö ìàâ, Supplement to VT 1: 67–77

Keel, O. and Uehlinger, C.

1998 Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Minneapolis

Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W. and Stamm, J.J.

1994 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament 1, Leiden

Korpel, M.C.A.

1989 The Poetic Structure of the Priestly Blessing, Journal for the Study of the Old Testa-

ment 45: 3–13

Lemaire, A.

2003 Amulette Phénicienne Giblite en Argent, in Deutsch, R. (ed.), Shlomo. Studies in

Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff,

Tel Aviv-Jaffa: 155–174

2007 L’inscription phénico-punique de la lamelle magique de Moraleda de Zafayona,

Orientalia 76: 53–56

Liwak, R.

2001 ‘Wer eine Grube gräbt…’. Zum Verhältnis von Archäologie und Exegese am

Beispiel einer Ausgrabung in Jerusalem, in Maier, C., Liwak, R. and Jörns, K.-P.

(eds.), Exegese vor Ort. Festschrift für Peter Welten zum 65. Geburtstag, Leipzig:

217–247

Pakkala, J.

2007 The Monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History, Scandinavian Journal of the Old

Testament 21: 159–178

Puech, E. and Rofé, A.

1973 L’inscription de la citadelle d’Amman, RB 80: 531–546

Renz, J.

1995a Die althebräischen Inschriften, I. Text und Kommentar, Darmstadt

1995b Die althebräischen Inschriften, 2. Zusammenfassende Eröterungen, Paläographie

und Glossar, Darmstadt

Ringgren, H.

1977 ìàâ gâ<al. ìàâ gô<çl. äìàâ ge<ullâh, in Botterweck, G.J. and Ringgren, H. (eds.),

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 2, Grand Rapids MI: 350–355

Römer, T.

2005 The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. A Sociological, Historical and Literary

Introduction, London — New York

Sasson, J.M.

1978 The Issue of ge<ullâh in Ruth, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5: 52–64

194 NADAV NAºAMAN

Seeligmann, I.L.

1954 äìàâ, Encyclopaedia Biblica 2, Jerusalem: 389–391 (Hebrew)

Smoak, J.D.

2010 Amuletic Inscriptions and the Background of YHWH as Guardian and Protector in

Psalm 12, VT 60: 421–432

Unterman, J.

1992 Redemption, in Freedman, D.N. (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary 5, New York:

650–654

1995 The Social-Legal Origin for the Image of God as Redeemer ìàåâ of Israel, in Wright,

D.P., Freedman, D.N. and Hurvitz, A. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells.

Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor

of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake IN: 399–405

Waaler, E.

2002 A Revised Date for Pentateuchal Texts? Evidence from Ketef Hinnom, Tyndale

Bulletin 53: 29–55

Westbrook, R.

1971 Redemption of Land, Israel Law Review 6: 367–375

1985 The Price Factor of the Redemption of Land, Revue Internationale des Droits de

l’Antiquité 32: 97–127

Yardeni, A.

1991 Remarks on the Priestly Blessing on Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusalem, VT 41:

176–185

A NEW APPRAISAL OF THE SILVER AMULETS FROM KETEF HINNOM 195