HISTORY OF JUDAH and THE DIASPORA
Life in Ancient Biblical Lands
John M. Lundquist, “Life in Ancient Biblical Lands,” Ensign, Dec. 1981, pg 31
Israel—ever-changing, yet timeless. Indeed, some of Israel’s scenes have
succumbed to time and history; yet others have remained constant and are as
familiar to modern inhabitants as they were to the ancients. Following is a look
today at yesterday’s Israel, with a glance at a conqueror, Babylon—a glimpse of
sites, objects, and scenes that tell part of the story of Israel’s past.
It is hoped that this orientation will be helpful to readers of this year’s adult scriptural
reading assignment, 1 Kings to Malachi.
A Plan of Jerusalem
Jerusalem, as with many other great cities of the world, did not remain static during the
long period of its ancient occupation. From the time that it was captured by David and
made the capital of his new kingdom about 993 B.C., to the time that it lay a tragic and
barren ruin following the Babylonian destruction of 587 B.C., to the time of its
resettlement and rebuilding in the days of Zerubbabel and of Ezra and Nehemiah,
Jerusalem underwent many changes in area and in population. Combining data from
population studies with results of excavations, archaeologists and Bible scholars have
attempted to reconstruct the area of settlement and the population of Jerusalem at
various times during the Biblical period.
It is generally believed that the fortress of Jerusalem which David captured from its
Jebusite inhabitants and renamed the “City of David” (2 Sam. 5:6-9) is the eastern
ridge which extends southward from the modern-day temple mount. The “fort” that
David then dwelt in and expanded (2 Sam. 5:9) would have been located on the
Ophel, an area encompassing about 12 acres with an estimated population of about
2,400.
We learn from 2 Chronicles 3:1 [2 Chr. 3:1] that Solomon built his temple on Mount
Moriah, which was the place where David had earlier purchased the threshing floor of
a Jebusite man and had there been instructed by the Lord to build an altar. The Jewish
historian Josephus identified this site, on the modern-day temple mount, as the location
of the rock on which the Lord had commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Solomon’s
builders would have had to build a wide and deeply founded platform over the ridge
that forms Mount Moriah for the placement of his palaces and the temple.
Archaeological investigations have shown that the area west of the temple mount was
probably outside of the city walls in Solomon’s time, and was probably used as a
cemetery. The extent of Solomon’s city is therefore estimated to have been about 32
acres, encompassing a population of some 5,000 people. The Israelite population of
Solomon’s kingdom as a whole has been calculated at about 800,000, with the
Canaanite populace bringing the total up to well over a million.
Most scholars assume that Jerusalem, and the southern kingdom in general,
experienced major influxes of population as refugees fled south from the kingdom of
Samaria following the destruction by Assyria in 721 B.C. Furthermore, when the
Assyrian King Sennacherib was besieging and capturing many cities of Judah during
the time of King Hezekiah, around 701 B.C., Jerusalem would doubtless have received
many refugees from this danger. Thus, 2 Chronicles 32:5 [2 Chr. 32:5] tells us that
Hezekiah built up a formerly broken section of the city wall and built “another wall
without.” This “wall without” could well have been the massive, 23-foot-wide wall
uncovered by Professor N. Avigad in excavations in the Jewish quarter of the old city
of Jerusalem, west of the Western (Wailing) Wall plaza. The area of the city in
Hezekiah’s day is estimated to have been 125 acres, with a population of about
25,000.
Following the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon in 587-86 B.C.,
the site of Jerusalem lay as a wasteland for almost seventy years. Following King
Cyrus’s decree of 538 B.C., a group of Jews returned under the leadership of
Zerubbabel and the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. The temple was completed in
515, and the walls were finally rebuilt under the leadership of Nehemiah in about 445
B.C. The circuit of rebuilt and repaired walls and gates described in Nehemiah 3 [Neh.
3] is presumed to correspond roughly to the area originally encompassed by Davidic
and Solomonic Jerusalem, although slightly less because the eastern wall in Nehemiah’s
time was located a little higher up on the Kidron slope. The extent of this last period of
Jerusalem’s habitation before the Old Testament period ends is thus estimated to have
been about 30 acres, including approximately 4,500 people.
The Solomonic Gate
We read in 1 Kings 9:15 [1 Kgs. 9:15] that King Solomon built “the house of the
Lord, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and
Megiddo, and Gezar.” And indeed, archaeological investigations at the sites of Hazor,
Megiddo, and Gezer have uncovered city walls and gateway complexes of identical
construction that date to the time of Solomon. The typical Solomonic gateway
consisted of two massive towers standing at the entrance to the city, followed by three
sets of piers or buttresses that formed six chambers. The chambers are often found
with benches along the walls, and could have served as guardrooms or for other
activities associated with city life.
The gates, along with the courtyards that were often built adjacent to them, served as
centers of the ancient Palestinian city’s commercial life. A good example of this practice
is found in 2 Kings 7:1 [2 Kgs. 7:1], where, during the famine that had befallen
Samaria as a result of the siege by King Ben-Hadad of Syria, Elisha prophesied that
“tomorrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two
measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria.”
The city gates also served as gathering places where the king or one of the prophets
could address large groups of people, and as places where legal transactions, including
trials, could take place. Jeremiah was told by the Lord on several occasions to stand in
one of the city gates of Jerusalem and preach to passersby, and his great message on
keeping the Sabbath day holy was given “in the gate of the children of the people,” and
“in all the gates of Jerusalem.” (Jer. 17:19.)
The Jordan River
The area that comprised ancient Palestine is a land of striking geographical and climatic
contrasts—a land highly dependent on one special resource: water. Between Jerusalem
on the west and Amman, Jordan, on the east flows the Jordan River from the Sea of
Galilee on the north to the Dead Sea. Fed by its two major tributaries, the Yarmuk and
the Zarqa (biblical Jabbok), the Jordan anciently provided water for irrigation and
seepage agriculture, as well as for culinary purposes and for animals. However, for the
majority of the population living in the highlands on either side of the Jordan Valley and
on the coastline, the staple crops of wheat, grapes, and olives would have been
watered primarily by the area’s scanty rainfall, and water for drinking and culinary
purposes would have been taken from the wells and springs that are so abundant in the
country. Major cities were founded either in well-watered valleys or near permanent,
fresh springs.
One of the major dangers to the inhabitants of a Palestinian city in wartime was that
their water supply, typically a spring located just outside the city walls, could be cut off
by the invading army. Two methods were developed to overcome this danger. First,
large cisterns would be cut into rock formations within the city and lined with lime
mortar. These would be used to store rainwater. Second, elaborate waterworks were
devised to connect the city via tunnels and aqueducts with the springs located outside
the city walls. The springs would then be camouflaged. The waterworks discovered by
archaeologists at Jerusalem, Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer, and Gibeon testify to the
extraordinary engineering skill of the ancient Israelites in their attempts to ensure an
adequate water supply during siege.
Samaria and Its Culture
Samaria, chosen as capital of the northern kingdom of Israel by Omri in about 870 B.C.
(see 1 Kgs. 16:23-24), subsequently gave its name to the hill country area north of
Jerusalem, and also to the kingdom founded by Omri. Located on a hill about 35 miles
northwest of Jerusalem, it lay on the major north-south trade route and was thus open
to the corrupting cultural influences of Phoenicia. The whole of the summit of the hill
was taken up with the royal buildings of Omri and, following him, of his infamous son
Ahab.
Deep-rooted cultural and ethnic differences separated the northern and southern tribes
of Israel—differences that can be traced back to the days of the division of the land in
the time of Joshua, and perhaps even earlier. David was originally king over the tribe of
Judah while he lived in Hebron, while Saul’s son Ish-bosheth reigned over Israel (that
is, the remaining tribes). Following Ish-bosheth’s death “all the tribes of Israel” came to
Hebron and there anointed David king over Israel. (2 Sam. 5:1-5.) When the united
kingdom again broke apart following Solomon’s death, we read that “all Israel” (that is,
the northern tribes) said to Solomon’s son and successor, Rehoboam, “What portion
have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O
Israel.” (1 Kgs. 12:16.) Thus the northern tribes viewed the house of David as
pertaining only to the tribe of Judah, hearkening back to the days before David’s
united kingship when division, and not unity, characterized the relationship between the
two groups of tribes.
Once the split had occurred, Jeroboam set about introducing Canaanite religious
practices and symbols into the religious life of the northern kingdom. One of his main
purposes in introducing golden calves and “high places” was to divert the feelings of
devotion that the northern tribes continued to feel for the temple in Jerusalem. From the
time of Jeroboam until the destruction of Samaria in 721 by the Assyrians,
Canaanite/Phoenician religious influence streamed into the north. This influence brought
the northern kingdom to a low point of corruption during the reign of Ahab and Jezebel.
It was against the background of this apostasy that calls came to such great prophets as
Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Hosea, and Micah.
Assyrian policy decreed that conquered peoples be deported from their homelands and
replaced by people from elsewhere in the Assyrian empire. This policy effectively
defused possible rebellions. The Assyrians, following their capture of Samaria in 721
B.C., carried away the tribes of Israel into various parts of the Assyrian empire. (See 2
Kgs. 17:6.) In their place, “the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from
Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in
the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel.” (2 Kgs. 17:34.) Later the
Assyrians brought back one of the Israelite priests who had been deported, so that he
could instruct the new inhabitants in “the manner of the God of the land.” (2 Kgs.
17:27.) The result was that “they feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the
manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence.” (2 Kgs. 17:33.) It was in
these years that the seeds of the distrust and animosity that would characterize the
relationships between the Samaritans and the Jews of Jesus’ day were sown. But as the
Bible makes clear, this discord and disharmony did not begin at this time, but was
based in part on deep-rooted and ancient cultural influences.
Pottery Burial Urns
The inhabitants of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah were in intimate contact, both
culturally and religiously, with their Canaanite neighbors. Following their failure to
completely drive out the Canaanites from the land, the Lord told the Israelites:
“Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as
thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.” (Judg. 2:3.)
For a time, the northern kingdom was in more direct contact with the
Canaanite/Phoenician civilization and its corrupting influence than was the kingdom of
Judah. In fact, the northern kingdom actually served as a kind of buffer, keeping a
certain amount of the Canaanite influence from Judah. With the destruction of Israel in
721, however, this buffer relationship was removed, and Judah was then in a position
to receive the full forces of Canaanite/Phoenician influence.
The abominable practice of burning children, presumably the firstborn, in the fire in
honor of a certain deity is widely attested among the neighbors of ancient Israel. The
Assyrians themselves practiced this custom, and among the peoples they imported into
Samaria we read that “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and
Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim.” (2 Kgs. 17:31.) In addition, archaeological
and historical studies of the ancient Phoenician city of Carthage, in modern Tunisia,
have demonstrated similar customs. Hundreds of funerary urns have been uncovered
from the “Precinct of Tanit” (Tanit was the chief Carthaginian goddess, the equivalent
of the biblical Tophet). These urns contain the bones of sheep and goats, but also in
many cases the bones of premature or newborn children and older infants. Evidence
suggests that in the fourth and third centuries B.C., as Carthage’s population increased,
wealthy families in the city provided most of the children for the sacrifices. These
sacrifices were seen as having religious significance, but also served to limit the growth
of the population, and to limit the number of potential heirs to the wealth of the parents.
The Bible indicates that the inhabitants of the northern kingdom engaged in the practice
of sacrificing children in fire (see 2 Kgs. 17:17), and also that during the reigns of
Ahaz, Manasseh, and possibly in the time of Jeremiah, such practices were carried out
in a place called Tophet, which was located in the Valley of Hinnom, south of Ophel or
the City of David. During the reign of King Josiah of Judah (640-609 B.C.) an attempt
was made to rid the kingdom of this corrupt influence: “And he defiled Topheth, which
is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.” (2 Kgs. 23:10.) “Molech” was the name
of a deity to whom some of these sacrifices were dedicated by the Judahites. It is the
opinion of many scholars that the death of the child was actually brought about by
burning, rather than the child having been killed by exposure or some other means and
then burned.
An Olive Grove on the Lebanese Coast
“Wine to gladden the heart of man, and oil to make his face shine, and bread to
strengthen man’s heart” (Ps. 104:15). These products—grapes, olives, and
wheat—were the staple produce of the eastern Mediterranean lands, and in fact it has
been said that the Israelites did not colonize any area where these three products would
not grow together. (Denis Baly and A.D. Tushingham, Atlas of the Biblical World,
New York: 1971, p. 30). Other main types of produce grown in Israel anciently are
mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:8 [Deut. 8:8]: barley, figs, pomegranates, and honey.
Wheat was grown successfully in the fairly well watered highland areas of Samaria and,
east of the Jordan River, in Gilead. In areas of less rainfall south of Jerusalem, barley
was grown.
Dairy products would have consisted primarily of sheep and goat milk. Cattle were
scarce, and were a sign of wealth which the ordinary Israelite would not have
possessed. (Amos’s denunciation of the indolent, wealthy inhabitants of Samaria as
“kine of Bashan” is an image derived from the rich pasture lands of Bashan, east of the
Sea of Galilee, famous for its fattened herds of cattle.)
Since we can assume that the great majority of Israelites lived in small towns and
villages and were directly dependent upon the produce of the land, we may not be far
wrong if we compare their ordinary living habits and their diet with that of peasant
villagers in the Middle East today. This means that their diet would have consisted
largely of grains, olive oil, and dairy products, with smaller amounts of meat and fruits,
but with substantial portions of commonly grown vegetables.
A Family Harvesting Grain in the Fields
Many of the important aspects of life in ancient Israel tended to be family affairs.
Whether the family was involved in the common work of the fields (Ruth 2), in grief
(Job 1), or in happiness (Job 42), we can assume that family closeness, including love
between husband and wife and between parents and their children, was typical, even
though there are many instances recorded in the Bible where family relationships were
characterized by animosity, hatred, intrigue and bloodshed. We get two relatively rare
views of domestic life in the book of Job, with descriptions of his first family in the first
chapter [Job 1], and of his second in chapter 42 [Job 42]. The first family, which came
to a very grievous end, may have been characterized by some degree of thoughtless
disobedience on the part of the children. (See Job 1:4-5.) His second family, on which
he lavished much affection, must certainly have provided him with much joy in his later
years. In each case it seems that Job was a conscientious and loving father.
A Threshing Floor
One of the most important of ancient Hebrew inscriptions is the so-called Gezer
Calendar, a small limestone tablet found at the site of Gezer in the Judean foothills
northwest of Jerusalem. The tablet, which dates to the latter years of Solomon’s reign
(late tenth century B.C.), consists of eight lines in archaic Hebrew letters which outline
the yearly agricultural calendar. The year is comprised of twelve months, beginning in
the fall, with two months assigned to the olive harvest (approximately mid-September
to mid-November), two months to the planting of grain, two months to late planting,
one month for harvesting flax, one month for harvesting barley (mid-April to mid-May),
one month for the wheat harvest, two months for vine tending (mid-June to
mid-August), and one month devoted to summer fruit. (See Pritchard, Ancient Near
Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 320.) It is clear that the average
Palestinian family would have spent much of the year in the fields engaged in
backbreaking labor. It is no accident that the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments,
is filled with the imagery of this way of life, with references to planting, tilling, harvesting,
names and characteristics of specific crops, names of tools and of specific planting and
harvesting strategies, and references to the successes and joys and the failures and grief
that accompany the agricultural life in an area of limited and often uncertain water
supplies and of rocky and intractable soil.
One of the principal references to agricultural activity in the Bible is the threshing floor.
Often located in a broad public place near or even in the city gate (see 1 Kgs. 22:10,
with the corresponding footnote in the new LDS edition of the King James Bible), the
threshing floor was the place where grain was brought, placed in stacks, and threshed.
The purpose of threshing is to separate the kernels from the husks—usually
accomplished in ancient times and in many modern Middle Eastern villages by pounding
the stack of grain in some fashion. One of the laws in the book of Deuteronomy
indicates that threshing could be accomplished by having the oxen trample the grain
(see Deut. 25:4), as illustrated here. Isaiah 28:23-29 [Isa. 28:23-29] mentions some
of the methods and tools of planting, tilling, and threshing. Among these are two types
of threshing sledges, the “threshing instrument” of verse 27 and the “cart wheel” of the
same verse. The threshing sledge was a wooden board, with its underside set with
“teeth” (stones of basalt), to which an ox would be yoked. The ox would then walk
slowly around the stack of grain, with a person “riding” the board and guiding the ox.
The stack would be reduced in this way, following which winnowing would take place.
Winnowing was accomplished by throwing the threshed substance into the air with a
pitch-fork-like implement (see Isa. 30:24) and letting the chaff blow away. More
delicate grains and other plants would be threshed with a stick. (See Isa. 28:27-28.)
Reconstruction of the City of Babylon
Babylon, the city that would have been known to such Jewish exiles as Daniel, was the
product of the building activity of Nebuchadnezzar II, the greatest neo-Babylonian
king, who conquered Jerusalem in 586 B.C. and carried most upper-class Jews into
exile. The ancient city was located on the Euphrates River, about fifty miles south of
modern-day Baghdad. Bisected by the Euphrates, its system of massive double walls
encompassed an area approximately one mile north and south by three quarters of a
mile east and west.
Within the city, excavators have found evidence which, when coupled with written
remains, bears testimony of Jeremiah’s statement: “It is the land of graven images, and
they are mad upon their idols.” (Jer. 50:38.) The evidence indicates that Babylon had
hundreds of temples, chapels, and street altars. There were precincts within the city
where male and female prostitution were readily available to passersby. Fabulous
processionals would wind their way north from the Temple of Marduk, along the
processional way, and through the famous Ishtar Gate at the time of the New Year
Festival. The Ishtar Gate and other structures within the city were faced with beautiful,
colored, glazed bricks.
The city of Babylon and surrounding regions received major influxes of population
during the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquests—principally deported peoples brought
into Babylon from other areas. We have very little information indicating where the
Jewish exiles would have lived. Daniel and his associates lived at the palace of the
successive Babylonian kings (Nebuchadnezzar’s palace was located along the
Euphrates River, on the east side of the city, and just to the west of the Ishtar Gate. Its
throne room has been compared in size with the Gallery of Mirrors at
Versailles—about 150 by 45 feet). It was in the northeast corner of this palace, in an
underground vaulted crypt, that excavators recovered a number of clay tablets dating
to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. These tablets include, among other things, lists of corn
and oil rationed to a number of individuals bearing Jewish names, among them
“Jehoiachin, the son of the king of Judah.” Another of these ration tablets mentions an
allotment given to “the five sons of the king of Judah.” (Pritchard, Ancient Near
Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 308.)
Many of the exiles would doubtless have lived outside Babylon proper, in one of the
smaller towns or villages built along the numerous irrigation canals that directed water
from the Euphrates. Ezekiel received his prophetic call “as I was among the captives by
the river of Chebar” (Ezek. 1:1); and we are later told that he “came to them of the
captivity at Tel-Abib, that dwelt by the river Chebar” (Ezek. 3:15). The River Chebar
and Tel-Abib have been identified as sites near Nippur, south of Babylon. The Chebar
would have been one of the canals, and Tel-Abib one of the towns where the exiles
lived. Other towns in Babylonia from which exiles returned to Jerusalem are listed in
Nehemiah 7:61 [Neh. 7:61]: Tel-melah, Tel-haresha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer.
The Cyrus Cylinder
In 539 B.C., Cyrus, King of Persia, entered Babylon as a conquering hero and was
acclaimed king of Babylon by the priests of the Babylonian god Marduk. Although
Cyrus had become the king of the Persians already in 557 B.C., it was his entry into
Babylon that marked the beginning of his reign as universal ruler, “king of the four
quarters of the earth.” We thus read in the book of Ezra, “Now in the first year of
Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be
fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a
proclamation throughout all his kingdom.” (Ezra 1:1.) This “first year” would have
been 539 B.C., and the proclamation which follows in Ezra 1:2-4 charges the people of
Judah to return from their Babylonian exile to their homeland, where they should build
a temple to the Lord God of Israel in Jerusalem.
Even though the decree quoted in the first chapter of Ezra is not found in the preserved
royal inscriptions of Cyrus, the sentiment contained in that decree, that of returning
exiled peoples to their homelands and to the worship of their own gods, is an authentic
reflection of Cyrus’s policy. The Cyrus Cylinder, which is an account in the Babylonian
language of Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon and his subsequent policy, states: “I gathered
all their former inhabitants and returned to them their habitations. Furthermore, I
resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and
Akkad whom Nabonidus [the last king of Babylon, defeated by Cyrus] has brought
into Babylon to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their former chapels, the
places which make them happy.” (James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955, p. 316).
Cyrus thus reversed the policy of preceding rulers: instead of deporting conquered
peoples, he restored them to their homelands. The Assyrians had deported the people
of the kingdom of Israel in 721 B.C., and the Babylonians had deported the Jews in
587/6 B.C. But Cyrus was broad-minded in his dealings with conquered peoples and
was detached enough in his adherence to his own religion that he was able to grant
concessions to others. He established a remarkably farsighted and effective
administrative system for the far-flung Persian Empire. The books of Ezra and
Nehemiah give us a number of fascinating glimpses into the workings of this system.
Cyrus, one of the most remarkable rulers in history, was thus able to carry out a
mission that had been foreseen two hundred years earlier by the prophet Isaiah: “Thus
saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue
nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two
leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.” (Isa. 45:1.)
Archaeology Reveals Old Testament History Digging for the Truth
Ross T. and Ruth R. Christensen, Feb. 1974, pg 60
The Holy Land is wonderfully rich in archaeological remains. A recent estimate places
the number of sites in this area at no less than 5,000.
While it is true that no great golden treasure has ever been found in Palestinian soil,
such as the tomb of Tut-Ankh-Amen at Thebes or the “golden hoard of Priam” at
Troy, the land nevertheless abounds in treasure of a different sort: the light that
archaeological excavation sheds upon the holy scriptures.
The Bible is no ordinary book of scripture. It is not primarily a collection of liturgical
formulas and moral precepts. Its framework is historical: it tells the story of a people
who lived at specified times and places. The ancient Israelites learned to teach their
religion by telling the story of their faithful forebears and of God’s dealings with them. In
other words, they bore their testimony in narrative form. Thus, for the Bible to be
understood, its historical framework has to be taken seriously.
Archaeology is the science that explains and verifies the pages of past history. What
archaeologists call the “Iron Age”—roughly from the time of Joshua to that of Malachi
(approximately 1250 to 450 B.C.)—abounds in evidence that helps us understand the
story of God’s people in the Holy Land. Let us look at some examples: some from the
time of the Israelite conquest, some from the “golden age” of David and Solomon, and
some from the so-called Period of the Divided Kingdoms.
Entry into Canaan
Moses gazed upon the Holy Land from the heights of Mount Nebo, then yielded his
leadership over Israel to Joshua. (See Deut. 34.)
After the fall of Jericho and Ai and the alliance with the Gibeonites, Joshua turned his
forces southward in the first of two great campaigns and conquered the land of
Canaan.
One after another of the captured cities show an abrupt break in the archaeological
record—signs of violent destruction and the intense heat of their burning.
Excavations at Bethel, one of the captured cities, have unearthed the remains of a
prosperous Canaanite city with fine homes featuring paved floors and drains. Evidence
of a great destruction follows. The level above this one is of much poorer quality. The
contrast between the two levels is so obvious that there can hardly be any doubt that
this helps prove the conquest of the Israelites.
Joshua next moved swiftly to the north toward Hazor, the focus of the second of his
major campaigns. This metropolis, 14 miles north of the Sea of Galilee, was evidently
the capital of a coalition of kingdoms.
Hazor has now been excavated. Dr. Yigael Yadin, one of Israel’s best-known
archaeologists, recently completed four seasons of work at Hazor. The oldest of its 21
layers dates back to 2700 B.C. Then, around 1750 B.C., about the time of Jacob and
Joseph, a great wall was built at a lower elevation around an area vastly larger than the
original city, such as would be suitable for a city that was to become “the head of all
those kingdoms.” (Josh. 11:10.)
For the next five hundred years the Canaanite civilization is fully and beautifully
documented as a result of Dr. Yadin’s diggings. All this comes to a sudden end in the
late thirteenth century B.C. with Joshua’s conquest. The excavations show that the entire
city was destroyed by fire, just as the record says (see Josh. 11:11), and the vast
lower part of the city was never again occupied.
An interesting aspect concerning the biblical account of Joshua’s conquest is that
nothing is said of any fighting in the central part of Canaan. Once again archaeology
bears out the Bible: there is no sign of any military destruction in this area at this time.
Golden Age
The struggles of Saul against his enemies were followed by the brilliant victories of
David and the peaceful reign of Solomon.
SAUL. Israel was first united under Saul of the tribe of Benjamin. His royal residence,
Gibeah, was excavated by William F. Albright at a point some three miles north of
Jerusalem. A sort of palace-fortress, it was strong but plain and simple to the point of
austerity, with double walls fashioned of rough-hewn stones chinked with smaller
stones. The structure was at least two stories high, with the main living quarters
probably on the upper floor, typical of most of the better homes of the day. Each
corner of the house had a tower for defense.
Inside, the artifacts bore further witness of the simplicity of life of the royal household:
slingstones and bronze arrowheads; pottery, almost entirely utilitarian and very little of it
decorated; stones for grinding flour; spinning wheels; a whetstone; and an iron plow
point.
DAVID. After Saul’s death at Mount Gilboa, David hastened to secure the kingship to
which he had been anointed. It was David who made Israel great in the eyes of the
world, for the Lord placed all his enemies beneath his feet. He made great conquests
by land, such as the subduing of the Canaanite cities of Beth-shan and Jerusalem and
the conquering of the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites. Success
followed David in every direction, and he was able to extend the territory of Israel from
the borders of Egypt to perhaps as far as the Euphrates River.
Most remarkable of all was David’s conquest of the Aramaean (Syrian) kingdoms of
Damascus and Zobah. Assyrian inscriptions tell us that during the time of his reign over
Israel, Zobah captured Assyrian territory along the upper Euphrates River that had
been part of the latter empire for a hundred years. Then, according to the biblical
record, David in turn defeated and subjugated the Aramaean kingdoms. (See 2 Sam.
8:3-8.) This may mean that Israel incorporated within its boundaries lands that had only
shortly before belonged to the Assyrian empire.
As well as his conquests by land, David also made his power felt westward across the
waters of the Mediterranean.
At least three of the tribes of northern Israel—Zebulon, Dan, and Asher—had already
long before taken to the sea and were no doubt able to give much aid to their king.
These three tribes were all close neighbors to the Phoenicians, living on the coast to the
north of Israel and famed as the greatest mariners of the ancient world. Hiram of Tyre,
a good friend of David of Israel, was ruler of the leading kingdom of the Phoenicians.
The two of them appear to have laid the foundation for the joint Phoenician-Israelite
commercial enterprises in the Mediterranean that were to thrive in later years.
Such evidence is found, for instance, at Jerba, a little island off the southern coast of
Tunisia. The colony of Jews who presently live there claim their ancestors settled on
that island in the great days of David and Solomon. There is a tradition among them
that there was once a stone on the island on which were inscribed the words, “As far
as this point came Joab, the son of Zeruia, in his pursuit of the Philistines.” Joab was
David’s general, who exercised authority “over all the host of Israel.” (See 2 Sam.
8:16; 2 Sam. 20:23.) The whereabouts of the stone, unfortunately, is unknown to
modern archaeology.
SOLOMON. If it was David who gave ancient Israel its might, it was Solomon who
gave it its glamour. Sophisticated, learned, and wealthy, he was involved in many
activities of the sort that archaeology can illuminate. We could tell of his joint maritime
commercial ventures with the Phoenicians in the Red Sea, of his caravan trade with the
spice kingdoms of South Arabia, of his middlemen dealings in horses and chariots
coming out of Cilicia and Egypt, and of his metal industry in the Arabah south of the
Dead Sea.
We could also tell of his heavy taxation and forced labor, two policies that eventually
brought his empire to an end.
All of these seem to have been contrived to finance the one activity that may have been
dearest to Solomon’s heart: building. Despite the overlay of many subsequent
civilizations, enough of his buildings have now been revealed by excavation to give
some clear notions as to what they were like.
Of all the ancient cities Solomon built up, perhaps the most fascinating to us is his own
capital, Jerusalem, with its archaeological focal point, the site of the Holy Temple.
Present-day Jerusalem is built over the accumulated remains of many destructions and
re-buildings through the ages. Some parts of it, in fact, are estimated to lie over as
many as 150 vertical feet of cultural debris. If archaeologists could have a free hand
and unlimited budget to excavate, the resulting increase in knowledge would be
enormous.
But unfortunately, the city is densely populated. One wall often serves two houses, and
many of the streets are so narrow that pedestrians have to stand in doorways to permit
an automobile to pass. Moreover, it is a holy city to Jews, Christians, and Moslems
alike, and fortunate is the archaeologist who is granted one small spot for excavation.
The approximate site of Solomon’s temple is known. Solomon built the temple on
Mount Moriah (2 Chr. 3:1) over the spot where it is believed that Abraham was about
to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice (Gen. 22:2). That spot is now covered by the
Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s most sacred shrines.
When the city of Jerusalem was reunited at the close of hostilities in June 1967,
worship was once again permitted at the “Wailing Wall.” This towering structure is
actually only a small portion of the western side of a high and massive retaining wall
built by Herod the Great shortly before the time of Jesus. This wall supported and
surrounded an enormous raised platform of earth upon which stood Herod’s enlarged
and beautified temple. This huge compound, which includes about one-fifth of the total
area of the present Old Jerusalem, is known as the Haram esh-Sherif, or the Temple
Mount. Somewhere beneath it, no doubt under the Dome of the Rock, lie whatever
stumps of walls of the temples of Solomon and Herod that may still exist. But no
portion of either temple is now known to archaeology, and unfortunately, because of
political and religious restrictions, there is no present possibility of excavating in search
of them.
However, it is possible to excavate outside the retaining wall of the Temple Mount, and
this in fact is what has been happening during the past five years. Dr. Benjamin Mazar
of the Hebrew University, with his staff of archaeologists, architects, engineers, and
volunteer workers, has been working outside the south wall of the sacred enclosure.
Much broken pottery and other artifacts from the time of Solomon’s temple are
reported among the finds.
OTHER TEMPLES. There may have been more than just one temple in ancient Israel.
If it has not been possible for archaeology to find any part of the Temple in the Holy
City itself, this need not be the case in outlying areas. Indeed, some scholars have come
to believe that a whole system of temples might have existed outside Jerusalem at key
locations near the border. Some authorities believe that such temples functioned until
late in the seventh century B.C., when Josiah, as monarch, prohibited sacrifice and
temple ritual outside Jerusalem itself.
In a lonely desert location south of Hebron and west of Masada is a mound known as
Tel ’Arad. Sometime in the eleventh century B.C., a city was built there on the ruins of a
Bronze Age settlement. During the reign of Solomon a wall was added. For most of the
next 2,000 years the site continued as a small but important fortress, defending the
southern border of Judah.
A startling discovery at Tel ’Arad during excavations of the past decade is the ruin of a
small Israelite temple. It was first built at the time of Solomon as an integral part of the
fortress. The temple then continued in use, with some remodeling, down to the seventh
century B.C., when, as a result of Josiah’s decree that temple ritual outside Jerusalem
cease, the city wall was rebuilt and was deliberately placed so as to cut right through
the little temple.
Divided Kingdoms
Solomon died about 926 B.C., “… and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.” (1
Kgs. 11:43.) At that time Shechem seems still to have been a sort of spiritual capital
over the house of Jacob, for there “all Israel were come … to make him king.” (1 Kgs.
12:1.)
The people of Israel were still a liberty-loving people and still knew the “principle of
common consent.” It was felt that in order for Rehoboam to be properly authorized to
reign, the people must first sustain him in this manner. However, because of grievances
held against him, the people refused to sustain Rehoboam. Rehoboam fled back to
Jerusalem, where he continued to reign over Judah and Benjamin only, the empire
crumbled, and the golden age of a united Israel came to an end.
Up to this time (926 B.C.) only three kings had reigned over the United Monarchy.
Between the rebellion in 926 B.C. and the Assyrian captivity of the Ten Tribes in 721
B.C., 19 others ruled over the Northern Kingdom. Between that rebellion and the
Babylonian captivity of the Southern Kingdom in 587 B.C., 19 more kings sat upon the
throne in Jerusalem.
Of the total of 41 kings, a portrait of only one of them has ever been found: that of
Jehu, who ruled over the Northern Kingdom from 845 to 818 B.C. in the days of the
prophet Elisha. It appears in the middle of a bas-relief panel of what is called the Black
Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. It is a portrait, but not one made with any friendly intent,
for the sculptor shows Jehu kneeling and kissing the ground before the proud, erect
figure of the Assyrian emperor. Behind their humiliated leader, in the three more panels
sculptured around the remaining sides of the obelisk, is a line of Israelite servants
bearing a variety of tribute. Already Israel had fallen within the power of the brutal and
bloody kings of Nineveh.
TARSHISH. In the days of Jeroboam II, who ruled over northern Israel from about
787 to 747 B.C., there lived a prophet by the name of Jonah, the son of Amattai.
Jonah received a call from the Lord to preach repentance to “that great city,” Nineveh.
But Nineveh! Those people were nothing but pagans. He refused the call. Instead, he
“rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord, and went down to Joppa,
and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into
it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.” (Jonah 1:3.)
We know that Joppa (modern Jaffa) was a port located in approximately the center of
Israel’s Mediterranean coast. But where was Tarshish?
We know Tarshish was a Phoenician possession involved in the mining and processing
of tin and other metals. The name Tarshish seems to be a Phoenician word meaning
refinery or smelter. An old Assyrian inscription tells us it was located somewhere at the
far western end of the Mediterranean. Many have thought it was in Spain, and this is
clearly a possibility, as that land is known to have been exploited by Phoenician miners.
But the discovery of a stone covered with large Phoenician letters has presented a
more likely answer.
The Nora inscription, found at a ruin of that name in southern Sardinia, an island west
of mainland Italy, and now housed in a museum in the nearby city of Cagliari, stands
about three feet tall. Of reddish local stone, it bears eight lines in the Phoenician
alphabet common to the ninth century B.C.
Scholars have disagreed widely over its exact translation. But whatever the case, the
first line plainly reads “b-T-r-sh-sh,” which translates to read “in Tarshish,” while the
third line contains the word “b-Sh-r-d-n,” which must mean “in Sardinia” or something
similar.
HEZEKIAH’S TUNNEL. About a generation after Jonah—in 721 B.C.—the armies of
Assyria took Samaria, capital of the Northern Kingdom, destroyed it, and carried its
citizens off to northern lands as state slaves. (2 Kgs. 17:6.) The Northern Kingdom of
Israel was no more. Only Judah remained, as a small independent kingdom under
Hezekiah, a descendant of David.
But even Judah was not to be left alone by the greedy and relentless kings of Assyria.
Some two decades later Sennacherib, a heartless and cruel man, sat upon the throne at
Nineveh. The Jews were filled with terror when they learned of his plans for the
conquest of Jerusalem. Hezekiah hastened to strengthen Jerusalem against
Sennacherib’s forces.
In his hasty preparations for Sennacherib’s arrival he perceived a serious weakness in
the city’s defenses: the Gihon spring, a vital water supply, lay outside the wall of the
city.
So Hezekiah built a new reservoir, the pool of Siloam, in the southern part of Jerusalem
within the wall, carved out a tunnel underneath the city connecting the reservoir with
the Gihon spring, and then covered the spring so that it could not be found from the
outside. Thus the precious water would benefit the city’s defenders, and not their
enemies. (2 Kgs. 32:3-4; 2 Chr. 20:20.)
To cut the tunnel, workmen started simultaneously from both ends and chiseled through
nearly 1800 feet of solid rock. At one point the tunnel was 150 feet below the city. The
water supply of the city thus was preserved for its inhabitants and the enemy did not
conquer Jerusalem.
Today, nearly 2,700 years later, the water still flows from Gihon to Siloam along
Hezekiah’s tunnel and still supplies modern Jerusalem with much of its water. In 1880
some boys playing at the pool found the inscription that was carved to commemorate
the finishing of the tunnel. While the two crews were still some five feet apart, the
inscription reports, they could hear each other’s voices, which guided them to complete
the union of the two halves of the tunnel. The inscription, carved in letters of the Old
Hebrew alphabet, is now in the Imperial Ottoman Museum at Istanbul.
The tense years around 600 B.C., so critical in setting the stage for the Book of
Mormon, are illustrated by a number of discoveries in the Holy Land: the Israelite
temple at Tel ’Arad, for instance. Quite a different sort of discovery, but perhaps
equally as startling, has been made at the same site: some ostraca (pieces of broken
pottery bearing messages), which seem to throw light on the “reformed Egyptian”
writing of the Book of Mormon.
More than 200 ostraca were discovered at Tel ’Arad during the five seasons of its
excavation. Most of those unearthed in 1965 were written in Hebrew and appear to
date to the period between about 598 and 587 B.C., the time between the departures
from the Holy Land of Lehi and Mulek.
During the 1967 season one ostracon of unusual interest was uncovered: one that
exhibits a combination of the Hebrew alphabet with Egyptian hieratic, that is, that
contains letters taken from both these scripts. It dates to a little before 600 B.C.
A careful study of this “combination ostracon” has been made by John A. Tvedtnes, a
trained linguist. His conclusions are twofold: (1) that “there were close ties between
Judah and Egypt” in the century before Lehi’s departure, and (2) that in the Holy Land
at that time there were persons who were skilled in the use of both the Hebrew and the
hieratic scripts. These findings are intriguing against the background of the Book of
Mormon claim to have been written in “reformed Egyptian.”
LEHI. Most Latter-day Saints probably think that Lehi is a man’s name. So it is in the
Book of Mormon, but in earlier biblical times it was in fact a place name. In Judges 15
it is an important locality in the story of Samson. It was a place—perhaps a town—in
the land of Judah close to the Philistine border.
Modern archaeologists may have found the place Lehi. Khirbet Beit Lei, which may be
translated “Ruin of the House of Lehi,” is a hill located some 20 miles southwest of
Jerusalem, not far from Mareshah (Marissa). Twelve years ago, while building a road
on the eastern slope, workmen discovered an ancient tomb carved out of the soft
limestone. Writing and various pictures had been scratched on its walls. The written
messages themselves were removed from the tomb walls and exhibited in the Israel
Museum of Jerusalem.
The three main inscriptions are written in the Old Hebrew script of the sixth century B.C.
One of them is a prayer for rescue: “Deliver us, O Lord.” Another is a plea for
forgiveness: “Absolve us, O merciful God.” The third is a prophetic utterance in poetic
form: “I am Jehovah thy God: I will accept the cities of Judah and will redeem
Jerusalem.” In no instance, however, is the exact wording found in the Bible. It is
suggested that they may have been written by some nonbiblical prophet who was
fleeing the Holy City in the early sixth century B.C., perhaps at the time of the
Babylonian conquest.
In addition to the writings, pictures of three human figures are cut into the tomb walls,
one holding what looks like a lyre, one with hands upraised as if in prayer, and one
wearing dress and headgear suggesting a priest or Levite. Also on the walls are two
ships with sails and two figures that may be tents.
What connection does the tomb at Khirbet Beit Lei have with the Book of Mormon
prophet Lehi and his family? “The land of our father’s inheritance” (1 Ne. 3:16, 22)
was apparently some sort of family estate. Was it the same as the “House of Lehi” now
discovered by archaeology? The ruin is located approximately where we might expect
to find the biblical place Lehi. This family estate figures prominently in the story of
Lehi’s departure from the Holy Land in 600 B.C. It appears to have been somewhat
removed from Jerusalem itself (“let us go down to the land of our father’s inheritance”).
Perhaps it lay in a southerly direction from the city, since the four sons on their way
from there back to their encampment beside the Red Sea hid for a time in “the cavity of
a rock” (1 Ne. 3:27), perhaps to them a familiar spot on their father’s estate.
Bibliography
For the reader who desires additional information on this subject, three good textbooks
on biblical archaeology are William F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine; J. A.
Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology; and G. Ernest Wright, Biblical
Archaeology. On the archaeology of the Holy City, see Kathleen Kenyon, Jerusalem.
The Society for Early Historic Archaeology publishes many brief studies of scriptural
archaeology, especially papers read before the Annual Symposium on the Archaeology
of the Scriptures. These are usually obtainable by membership in the society: 140
Maeser Building, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602. The following recent
issues of its Newsletter and Proceedings are pertinent to the above discussion: No. 119
(Donald W. Forsyth, “Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah”); No. 127 (John A.
Tvedtnes, “Linguistic Implications of the Tel ’Arad Ostraca”); No. 129 (Joseph Ginat,
“The Cave at Khirbet Beit Lei”); and No. 131 (Ross T. and Ruth R. Christensen, on
Israelites in the Mediterranean).
See also Yohanan Aharoni, “Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple,” Biblical
Archaeologist, February 1968; Frank Moore Cross, Jr., “The Cave Inscriptions from
Khirbet Beit Lei,” in James A. Sanders (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the
Twentieth Century; Ariel L. Crowley, “The Anthon Transcript,” Improvement Era,
January, February, and March 1942, and September 1944; Doyle L. Green,
“Hezekiah’s Tunnel,” Improvement Era, August 1967; and John A. Tvedtnes, “The
Language of My Father,” New Era, May 1971.
Five Empires of the Ancient Near
East
A Historical Backdrop of 1 Kings to
Matthew
John A. Tvedtnes, Ensign, Apr. 1982, pg 49
During the period treated in the second half of the Old Testament course of study,
Israel felt the powerful influences of several neighboring kingdoms and
empires—especially the successive empires of Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and
Rome—each one pressing in, invading, conquering, exerting its own influence on the
culture and institutions of Israel, affecting its political and social structure, testing its
fortitude and obedience.
Much of the fate of Israel was due to the position of its lands at the crossroads of the
ancient world. Bordered on the west by the Great Sea (the Mediterranean) and on the
east by the searing Arabian deserts, it lay directly on a virtual land bridge between
Egypt and the lands of Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Not always a target for invasion
itself, the land and its people were often the victims of armies passing through, marching
in pursuit of the riches of Egypt.
Thus, with the waning of Egyptian and Hittite power in the early part of the twelfth
century B.C., a number of smaller nations were able to establish their independence in
the area of Palestine. These included Philistia, Moab, Edom, the city-states of
Phoenicia and Syria, and Israel under the kingship of Saul. Babylonia and Assyria
shared the region of Mesopotamia. The Elamites continued to exercise control over
what is now southern Iran, while new peoples—notably the Medes and the
Persians—were moving into the northern and central parts of that territory.
By the middle of the ninth century B.C., Israel had been divided into its northern and
southern kingdoms for more than a hundred years and powerful Assyria was on the
move against its neighbors. Assyrian conquests in the west and south were delayed for
a time by a confederation organized in the days of Shalmaneser III (859-824 B.C.). But
by 805 B.C., the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III claimed to rule all of Syria, Phoenicia,
Israel, Edom, Philistia, Babylonia, Media, Persia, and the Hittite area, with only Urartu
and Elam holding out and Egypt not yet endangered. During the years when the
northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah were overshadowed by
Assyrian rule, there were many revolts. However, numerous Assyrian campaigns into
the heart of the land crushed all but the later ones. In 722 B.C., Israel was taken and
many of its people deported. Judah was virtually subdued in 701 B.C. (only Jerusalem
remained unconquered), Babylon fell in 689, and in 668 B.C. Assyria placed a
pro-Assyrian king on the throne of Egypt. In the east, Elam was devastated by the
Assyrian army in 639 B.C.
But Assyria’s days were numbered. In 615 B.C., the Medes, along with their vassals,
the Scythians, Urartu, and Phrygia (all located in what is today called Turkey), united
with Babylon in a war destined to end Assyrian rule. The end came at the battle of
Carchemish in 605 B.C., the same year in which Nebuchadnezzar II (who had assisted
the Medes) became king of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar thought of himself as king of the
world, controlling all of Mesopotamia and Syro-Palestine. But he was never fully
accepted as such in the area controlled by the Medes or in Egypt. Indeed, the
Egyptians tried to stir up some of their neighbors against Babylon; and one of the
results of this action was a Babylonian invasion that brought about the destruction of
Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jews in 586 B.C.
Then, in 555 B.C., the Persian king Cyrus the Great united the Persians and the Medes;
and over the years, as his strength and reputation grew, he expanded his empire until
finally, in 539 B.C., he took Babylon in a bloodless coup and established Persia as the
dominant force in the Near East. It was Cyrus whose decree permitted the return of the
exiles of Judah to their homeland to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. His son
Cambyses took Egypt in 525 B.C., making the Persian empire the largest the world had
yet known.
But this empire, too, was to pass away, during the “inter-testamental period”—the time
between the close of the Old Testament record and the advent of Christ.
During the years 499-400 B.C., the Greek-speaking Ionians of western Anatolia
(Turkey) revolted against Persia and received aid from the Greek city of Athens. The
next 170 years were to see Persians pitted against Greeks in such famous battles as
those of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis, to name but a few. Finally it was Philip
II of Macedonia who united the Greek states and began the final thrust against Persia.
Assassinated in 337 B.C., he was succeeded by his young son Alexander, who in 334
B.C. launched his campaign against the Persians. Alexander conquered all of Anatolia,
Syro-Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Persia proper, moving as far east as the
border of India, part of Afghanistan, and central Asia. His empire exceeded even the
Persian empire in geographical area.
Alexander’s death at Babylon in 323 B.C. split his kingdom into smaller nations which
vied for power. Consequently, warring armies criss-crossed the land, including
Palestine, and the Maccabean rebellion arose—until, in 66-63 B.C., the Roman Pompey
conquered much of the Near East. This set the stage for that which was to follow: in all
the ancient world of ever-larger empires in succession, there would be no empire
covering more territory than that of Rome, and never would there be more commerce
and contact among the nations of the Old World. Rome was to rule for more than five
hundred years after Pompey. Into this period came the Messiah with the message of
peace for all the world, and it was this world that shaped the rise and fall of the early
Church.
The Lachish Letters: Documents from Lehi’s Day
Hugh Nibley, Ensign, Dec. 1981, pg 48
About twenty-five miles southwest of Jerusalem in Lehi’s day lay the powerfully
fortified city of Lachish, the strongest place in Judah outside of Jerusalem itself.
Founded more than three thousand years before Christ, it was under Egyptian rule in
the fourteenth century B.C. when the Khabiri (Hebrews) had just arrived. At that time,
its king was charged with conspiring with the newcomers against his Egyptian master. A
later king of Lachish fought against Joshua when the Israelites took the city about 1220
B.C. In a third phase, either David or Solomon fortified it strongly.
The city’s strategic importance down through the years is reflected in the Babylonian,
Assyrian, Egyptian, and biblical records. These describe a succession of intrigues,
betrayals, sieges, and disasters that make the city’s story a woefully typical Palestinian
“idyll.” Its fall in the days of Jeremiah is dramatically recounted in a number of letters
found there in 1935 and 1938. These original letters, actually written at Jeremiah’s
time, turned up in the ruins of a guardhouse that stood at the main gate of the city—two
letters a foot beneath the street paving in front of the guardhouse, and the other sixteen
piled together below a stone bench set against the east wall. The wall had collapsed
when a great bonfire was set against it from the outside.
The bonfire was probably set by the soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar because they wanted
to bring down the wall, which enclosed the gate to the city.
Nebuchadnezzar had to take the city because it was the strongest fortress in Israel and
lay astride the road to Egypt, controlling all of western Judah. Jeremiah tells us that it
and another fortified place, Azekah, were the last to fall to the invaders. (See Jer.
34:7.) An ominous passage from Lachish Letter No. 4:12-13 reports that the writer
could no longer see the signal-fires of Azekah—that means that Lachish itself was the
last to go, beginning with the guardhouse in flames.
The letters survived the heat because they were written on potsherds.
They were written on potsherds because the usual papyrus was unobtainable.
It was unobtainable because the supply from Egypt was cut off.
The supply was cut off because of the war.
The letters were in the guardhouse because they were being kept as evidence in the
pending trial of a military commander whose name was Hoshacyahu.
He was being court-marshalled because he was suspected of treason.
He was suspected of treason because someone had been reading top-secret
dispatches sent from the court at Jerusalem to the commander at Lachish, whose name
was Yaush.
Hoshacyahu was a likely suspect because all the mail had to pass through his hands.
It had to pass through his hands because he was in command of a fortified town on the
road between Jerusalem and Lachish, probably Qiryat Ye’arim. His duty, among other
things, was to forward the king’s mail—not to read it.
That the confidential letters had been read was apparent because somebody had tipped
off a certain prophet that he was in danger.
He was in danger because the king’s soldiers had been put on his trail.
They were on his trail because he was fleeing to Egypt.
He was fleeing because he was wanted by the police in Jerusalem.
He was wanted by the police because he and other prophets were considered by the
king’s supporters to be subversives.
They were considered subversives because they were opposing the official policy and
undermining morale by their preaching. As Jeremiah puts it: “The princes [the important
people] said unto the king: We beseech thee, let this man be put to death: for thus he
weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the
people, in speaking such words unto them.” (Jer. 38:4.) As Lachish Letter No. 6:6
puts it: “The words of the [prophet] are not good [and are liable] to loosen the hands.”
The Book of Mormon adds another reinforcement: “In that same year there came many
prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city of
Jerusalem must be destroyed” (1 Ne. 1:4)—disheartening news, indeed.
The Lachish Letters may be dated with considerable accuracy owing to the discovery
in 1935 of another layer of ashes beneath them to match the one in which they were
found. The two layers represent the destructions of 597 (three years after Lehi left) and
the final burning in 588. The letters come between those two dates; comparison of
names and potsherds shows that they were all written at the same time, “not long
before the final destruction … in 588.” (P. 68.)
The prophet who was tipped off to escape “was surely Uriah of Qir-yat-Ye’arim,”
according to Torczyner. Jeremiah tells us a bit of his story:
“And there was also a man who prophesied in the name of the Lord, Urijah the son of
Shemaiah of Kirjath-jearim, who prophesied against this city and against this land
according to all the words of Jeremiah:
“And when Jehoiakim the king … heard his words, the king sought to put him to death:
but when Urijah heard it, he was afraid, and fled, and went into Egypt.
“And Jehoiakim the king sent men into Egypt, namely, Elnathan the son of Achbor.
…
“And they fetched forth Urijah out of Egypt, and brought him unto Jehoiakim … who
slew him.” (Jer. 26:20-23; italics added.)
In Lachish Letter No. 3:13-18, Hoshacyahu says that it was reported to him that “the
commander of the army [Yi] khbaryahu the son of Elnathan went down to Egypt” to
fetch something, that other men were sent, and that there was a letter of warning to the
prophet. Elnathan son of Achbor was an important man, very much in on the action.
(See Jer. 36:12; Jer. 35:25; Jer 26:22.) What is the likelihood of another high
military commander by the name of Achbor, son of Elnathan, being sent on an identical
mission to Egypt? The Bible story and the Lachish Letters are full of such striking
coincidences. Letter 4:6-7 tells of a man with the same peculiar name as Uriah’s father,
Shemacyahu, going up from Uriah’s village to Jerusalem on urgent business,
accompanied by the chief inspector of military outposts. On what business? Perhaps,
Torczyner suggests, “to use his influence with the king” in behalf of his son. (P. 86.)
Furthermore the scribe of Jeremiah keeps assigning the Uriah episode to the time of
Jehoiakim (608-597 B.C.); but scholars now agree on the evidence of Jeremiah 27:1-3
[Jer. 27:1-3] that the incident rightfully belongs to the reign of Zedekiah. (P. 69.)
In Letter No. 4:3-4, Hoshacyahu assures his superior in Lachish that he has carried out
his written orders to the letter: “According to whatever my lord has sent, so has thy
servant done.” Furthermore, “I have written down in the deleth whatever my lord has
sent [written] me.” Plainly he copied it down for the official record. Though “the Bible
throughout speaks of rolls of writing,” meaning papyrus or, more rarely, parchment rolls
(p. 16), Letter 4 specifically uses the rare word deleth for the form in which
Hoshacyahu copied down or registered his official correspondence. Torczyner
assumed that deleth must refer to a “papyrus sheet,” or “page,” since a deleth is not a
roll and is certainly not a potsherd. (P. 80.) An alternative is a tablet or plate of solid
material.
Even without the archaeological sites, the setting and situation in which the letters were
written could be determined by their style as well as their content. They contain “90
lines of clear writing, beautiful language and highly important contents.” (P. 15.) The
language is pure Hebrew, most closely resembling that of the books of Jeremiah and of
Kings. (P. 17.) They show, to everyone’s surprise that in 600 B.C. “writing was almost
common knowledge, and not a secret art known only to a few.” (P. 15.) But they also
show that the Egyptian scribal tradition at that particular time exerted a major influence
in official record keeping throughout the Near East. The kings who attacked Jerusalem
from the east at the time brought “two scribes” with “every expedition,” writes A. T.
Olmstead, “the chief with his stylus and tablets, his assistant with a papyrus roll or
parchment and Egyptian pen.” 2 The assistant was needed not so much for his skill with
Egyptian writing materials, which had been introduced quite recently in the time of
Tiglath-Pileser III and which anyone could learn to handle, but for the same reason “the
court found it necessary to possess an Aramaic scribe”—namely to deal with the
language, 3 so widespread was the Egyptian tradition of record keeping at the time.
Would the Egyptian scribes of a Babylonian or Assyrian king employ their skill to write
in cuneiform or any other language but Egyptian? There were plenty of native scribes
for that. Though a wealth of cuneiform writings on clay have been found in Egypt,
cuneiform writings on papyrus are not known in the East.
Even more than the language and style of the letters, the proper names they contain in
abundance place them in a neat and narrow segment of the time spectrum. They are
peculiar names, characteristic of just one period in Jewish history, and likewise peculiar
to the Book of Mormon. First, however, we should take note of the most frequently
occurring name in the Letters, that of Yaush, the high commander of Lachish, which
Torczyner anglicizes as Jaush. The name is not found in the Bible, but it is found in the
Book of Mormon where Josh is a high military officer commanding a force of 10,000
troops. (See Morm. 6:14.) Needless to say, in the past critics of the Book of Mormon
have made merry in citing it as another example of Joseph Smith’s supposed hayseed
mentality. Josh indeed!
More important from the Book of Mormon point of view is the peculiar type of names
turning up in the Lachish Letters. They are characteristic of just one period in the
history of Judah, namely the days of Lehi.
Seven of the nine proper names in Letter No. 1 end in -yahu (Jehovah), and in all the
letters there are no Baal names and no El names—the lack of which was once thought
to be a serious defect in the Book of Mormon. Most important, Torczyner finds many
names “compounded with -iah” (or yahu), also found about a century later among the
Jews in Elephantine in Egypt, who were “perhaps the descendants of those Jews who
after the fall of the Judaean kingdom went down to Egypt, taking with them the prophet
Jeremiah.” (p. 27.)
Here we have another control over the Lehi story. For the discovery of the Elephantine
documents in 1925 showed that colonies of Jews actually did flee to the desert as Lehi
did—during Lehi’s lifetime, and for the same reasons. Arriving in their new home far up
the Nile, they built a temple similar to Solomon’s temple, exactly as Lehi’s righteous
children did upon landing in the New World. Both of these oddities, and especially the
temple, were once thought convincing refutations of the Book of Mormon.
The -yahu endings of personal names abound at Elephantine, but in a more abbreviated
form, iah, than at Lachish (-yahu) a hundred years earlier. Both forms are found in the
Book of Mormon. For example, the Lachish name Mattanyahu appears at
Elephantine as Mtn(i), and in the Book of Mormon both as Mathoniah and Mathoni.
Of the two names in Letter No. 1 not ending in -yahu, one is Tb-shlm (which
Torczyner renders Tobshillem), which suggests Book of Mormon Shilom and Shelem,
while the other, Hgb, (Torczyner suggests Hagab) resembles Book of Mormon
Hagoth. The Book of Mormon has both long and short forms in the names Amalickiah,
Amaleki, and Amlici. The Elephantine form MLKih, is very suggestive. (P. 24.) The
Assyrian inscriptions show that the final “h” was dropped in the Hebrew spelling after
Lehi left, when the Jews “lost their pronunciation of the consonant ‘H’ under the
influence of the Babylonian language.” (P. 25.)
More significant are the indications that the -yahu names are “certainly a token of a
changed inner-Judaean relationship to Yahwh.” Such reformations, Torczyner suggests,
“in some way parallel … the first reformation by Moses.” He finds in these yahu names
a reflection of “the act of general reformation inaugurated by King Josiah (Yoshiahu) (2
Kings 22:23).” (P. 29.) [2 Kgs. 22:23]
It is another interesting coincidence that a Book of Mormon king, 450 years after Lehi,
undertook a general reformation of the national constitution and revival of the religious
life of the people. He and his brothers had been stringently trained by their father, King
Benjamin, “in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of
understanding,” familiar with the writings of the ancient prophets and also “concerning
the records which were engraven on the plates of brass,” without which records, he
tells them, “even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief.” He urges, “And now my
sons, I would that ye should remember to search them diligently, that ye may profit
thereby.” (Mosiah 1:2-3, 5, 7.)
Fittingly, this king names his eldest son, the great reforming king, Mosiah, suggesting
both the early reform of Moses and its later imitation by Josiah. This would be
altogether too much of a coincidence were it not that the book of Mosiah fully accounts
for the resemblances when it explains just how Nephite names and customs were
preserved intact in the transplanting of cultures from the Old World to the New. Lehi’s
ties to the Yahvist tradition are also reflected in the only female name given in his
history, that of his wife, Sariah.
The Lachish Letters center on the activities of the prophets, who are causing grave
concern to the government. On an identical note the Book of Mormon opens: “And in
that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must
repent, or the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed.” (1 Ne. 1:4.) The identity of
all but two of these prophets has now been lost, but it is clear from both the Lachish
Letters and Book of Mormon that there were more of them. “It must certainly be
admitted,” concludes Torczyner, “that there was more than one prophet at this time.”
(P. 65.)
The central figure is, of course, Jeremiah, but it is only by chance that we know even
about him, for he is not even mentioned in the book of Kings—it is the prophetess
Huldah, “an otherwise quite unknown figure,” whom Josiah consults. (P. 71.) Jeremiah
in turn happens to mention the prophet Uriah “in only a few passages,” and his name
turns up nowhere else, though Uriah’s “religious influence must have been of great
extent and long standing!” (P. 70.) Uriah “prophesied against this city according to the
words of Jeremiah.” (Jer. 26:4.)
The words of such prophets were dangerously undermining morale both of the military
and the people. Lachish Letter 6:5-6 protests: “Behold the words … are not good, to
weaken the hands … of the country and the city.” (P. 64.) The identical idea appears in
Jeremiah 38:4 [Jer. 38:4]. And so to the Book of Mormon. Lehi was one of those
distressed and discouraged by the preaching of the “many prophets.” As he “went
forth,” he “prayed unto the Lord, yea, even with all his heart, in behalf of his people.”
(1 Ne. 1:5.) In reply to his prayer he received a vision which sent him out to join the
prophets: “My father … went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to
declare unto them” his vision. (1 Ne. 1:18.) He indeed was teaching in the spirit of
Jeremiah, for Nephi explicitly links him to the prophet’s vicissitudes: “For behold, they
have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah have they cast into prison. And they have
sought to take away the life of my father, insomuch that they have driven him out of the
land.” (1 Ne. 7:14; italics added.)
Torczyner suggests that Uriah “may have hidden in the hills of western Judah for a long
time” (p. 70), and we find Lehi doing the same thing. Indeed, as Torczyner points out,
what we are dealing with here is a type of thing, Uriah’s story being told “only as
parallel to Jeremiah’s not less dangerous position.” (P. 69.) To their number we may
add Lehi, whose story has every mark of authenticity.
As the Book of Mormon leads us into a world of Rechabites (see Jer. 35) of the
desert, so the Lachish Letters give us “for the first time … authentic and intimate
reports from Jews faithfully following their God [and] about their inner political and
religious struggle.” Torczyner sees in the -yahu names a sure indication of “a loyal
reformist faction which included even the highest military officers.” Yaush and his men
are the prophet’s followers (p. 66), even though they are necessarily the king’s
defenders. We see Uriah hiding out in the hills “where he had friends and followers, for
a long time.” (P. 70.)
The Dead Sea Scrolls have put flesh on these sectarian bones, showing how from the
earliest times communities of the faithful would withdraw from Jerusalem to bide their
time in the wilderness. The pattern is familiar to readers of the Book of Mormon, who
recall that Lehi “went forth among the people” as a prophet (1 Ne. 1:18), but, badly
received, he was warned in a dream that his life was in danger and ordered to go into
the wilderness, leaving all his worldly things behind (see 1 Ne. 2:1-2).
It was the idea behind the Rechabites and the people of Qumran: Nephi, inviting a new
recruit to come and “have place with us,” points out to him that only so could he “be a
free man like unto us,” and that to “go down in the wilderness” was the only way to “be
diligent in keeping the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Ne. 4:33-34.) So Zoram duly
takes an oath and joins the company.
The Rechabite ideal of the desert sectaries was in full flower in Lehi’s day, as many
other sources now indicate. From the accusation that Nephi’s elder brothers brought
against him, it is clear they knew all about that sort of thing, for they complain that he
was planning to set up such a society with himself as “our ruler and our teacher,”
leading them by his false claims of prophetic inspiration to believe “that the Lord has
talked with him … thinking, perhaps, that he may lead us away into some strange
wilderness [some unoccupied tract]; and after he has led us away, he has thought to
make himself a king and a ruler over us.” (1 Ne. 16:37-38.) When, after eight years of
wandering, the party was commanded to build a ship and sail on the waters, they were
all at their wits’ end, because they had never dreamed of such a thing as a promised
land beyond the sea; theirs was strictly the tradition of the desert sectaries, “a lonesome
and a solemn people,” as Nephi’s brother put it. (Jacob 7:26.)
Against the larger background of national calamity which is never lost from view, both
the Lachish Letters and the Lehi story are concerned with relatively narrow circles of
friends and relations. Clandestine flights from the city in both stories involve friends and
families; Nephi and his brethren go back to town to persuade Ishmael and his family to
join them in flight. But soon the group begins to split up as Laman, Lemuel, and the two
daughters of Ishmael whom they have married, as well as two of Ishmael’s sons, vote
to return to Jerusalem, unable to give up their opulent life-style and renounce their
fashionable friends:
“Behold, these many years we have suffered in the wilderness, which time we might
have enjoyed our possessions and … been happy.
“And we know that the people … of Jerusalem were a righteous people; for they kept
the statutes and judgments of the Lord. … They are a righteous people; and our father
hath judged them.” (1 Ne. 17:21-22.)
They are especially disgruntled at having to defer to a quality in their father for which
the Lachish Letters have a particular expression, characterizing the man of prophetic
calling as ha-piqqeah, which Torczyner translates as “the open-eyed or visionary
man” (p. 53), “the seer,” “the man whose eyes God has opened to see” (p. 65) things
that other people do not see. For the followers of a prophet the term was the highest of
praise; for his critics, a label of derision:
“They did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man,
and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and
their gold, and their silver, and their precious things. And this they said he had done
because of the foolish imaginations of his heart.” (1 Ne. 2:11; italics added.)
Torczyner explains the word by reference to 2 Kings 6:20 [2 Kgs. 6:20], where Elisha
asks the Lord to open the eyes of a certain ordinary man so he could see the horses
and chariots of fire which otherwise only Elisha could see.
If the Lachish Letters reflect “the mind, the struggles, sorrows, and feelings of ancient
Judah in the last days of the Kingdom” (p. 18), so to an even greater extent does the
book of Nephi, where families split along politcal lines in a tragic conflict of loyalties.
And if the situation of Uriah parallels that of Jeremiah, as Torczyner points out, even
more closely does it parallel that of Lehi when we learn from the Letters of “a warning
from the prophet to one of his friends, who is apparently in the same danger as he,
himself. It is, therefore, a prophet fleeing from his home and his friends, a prophet
wanted by the military authorities.” (P. 64.)
As we saw earlier, the sender of nearly all of the Letters is a high military officer
suspected by one party of treachery to the king in aiding the prophet, and by the other
of betraying the prophet by revealing the contents of his warning letter to the king. (P.
113.) Likewise his superior offricer, Yaush, who has been ordered to investigate him,
“appears to be on the best of terms with the king. But still both men respect the
prophet and believe in him in spite of the king’s attitude towards him, and their hearts
ache that they should be responsible for his destruction.” (P. 113.) The same tragic
confusion exists in the Lehi story.
Furthermore, the actors in both dramas have ties to the Egyptians. Though Lehi
supports the anti-Egyptian party, his sons have Egyptian names and Egyptian
educations and they keep their records after the Egyptian manner. Moreover, the party
flees toward Egyptian territory. The same anomaly confronts us in the Lachish Letters,
which tell of a certain general sent down to Egypt to fetch a prophet back to Jerusalem
for execution. (P. 63.) But why on earth, asks Torczyner, would the good man flee to
Egypt of all places, when his crime was supporting Jeremiah in calling “for peace with
Babylonia?” Our informant finds it “astonishing” that he fled towards Egypt instead of
Babylonia.
As the main actors in the Lachish drama are high military officers, so in the Book of
Mormon does Laban, whose official position resembles that of Yaush in Lachish, play
a key role. Torczyner postulates that “Yaush must be the military governor of Lachish”
and possibly “governor of the city, whose archives would probably have been housed
in the region of the palace-fort or keep.” (Pp. 87, 12.) Similarly, Laban was a powerful
leader in Jerusalem, “a mighty man” apparently in command of at least fifty men and
possibly even of tens of thousands. (See 1 Ne. 3:31; 1 Ne. 4:1.)
Where is the king in all this? In both stories he appears as a rather weak character in
the background. As for Yaush, “the king appeals to him in everything concerning this
part of the country” (p. 118), that is, the whole western part of the kingdom (p. 87),
and Laban would probably have enjoyed the same preference at Jerusalem. As with
Yaush at Lachish, the archives were housed at Laban’s official residence, making him a
top candidate for a counselor to the king.
The story of negotiating for the brass plates—the bribery, the threats of violence and
attempts at violence, Nephi’s successful encounter with the drunk Laban and his
deception of Laban’s servant to gain access to the treasury and archives—reveals a
world of secret emergency sessions, tension, danger, and intrigue. The situation
matches that in Lachish Letter 18, which must be “forwarded from Yaush to the King
through the village of Qiryat Ye’arim by night.” (P. 183.)
Lehi’s sons take Laban’s servant with them, “that the Jews might not know concerning
our flight … lest they should pursue us and destroy us.” (1 Ne. 4:35.) Even so we see
in the Lachish Letters “a prophet fleeing from his home and friends, a prophet wanted
by the military authorities.” (P. 64.) The military correspondence of the Lachish Letters
with its grim suspicions of disloyalty and double-dealing, fervid denials, charges,
investigations, and reports reminds one of the much later Bar Kochba letters
discovered in 1966, which in turn present truly astonishing parallels to some of the
military correspondence in the Book of Mormon.
One peculiar situation in the Lachish letters casts a good deal of light on an equally
peculiar and highly significant episode in the Book of Mormon. Torczyner suggests that
“the prophet’s warning letter … could have been sent while the prophet was still near
his home town, through a little boy, most suited as an unsuspected messenger.” He
remarks that little boys performed such offices in the time of David (2 Sam. 15:36; 2
Sam. 17:17-21) and that “such small boys are used also today in Palestine, often for
quite responsible missions” (p 68).
What suggests the idea to Torczyner is the mention of one “Nedabyahu the NKD of
the king” who delivered a letter from the prophet to one SHLM warning him of the
danger he was in. (Letter 3:19-21.) The king’s own grandson bore letters for the
prophet? There is a Nedabiah, grandson of King Jehoiakim in 1 Chronicles 3:18 [1
Chr. 3:18], and Torczyner finds it “possible and even probable” that he is the very one
named here. The exact meaning of NKD is “unfortunately … not definitely
established,” so that the king referred to may be “either Jehoiakim … or, less likely,
Jeconiah, or Zedekiah.” (P. 61.) It is not a direct line of descent, Jeconiah being not the
father but the nephew of Zedekiah; but since most scholars maintain that NKD simply
means offspring or descendant, “it would be quite possible … to call somebody the
‘grandson’ [NKD] of his grandfather’s brother,” in this case of Zedekiah. “The
Hebrew negedh may certainly be used at least for grandnephew as well as for
grandson.” (By an interesting coincidence the Septuagint translates the word NKD by
which Nedabyahu is designated in Hebrew simply as “seed” (p. 61), as apparently
does the Book of Mormon: “the seed of Zedekiah.”
This Nedabiah, whose title “may equally well mean the grandson of Jehoiakim as the
grandnephew of Zedekiah,” was quite young, “one would prefer the age of 10-13 to
that of 5 years” (p. 69), carrying dangerous letters between the towns and camps for
the prophet’s people. Since he was carrying letters of warning to people ready to
decamp to save their lives at a moment’s notice, he could surely count on escaping with
them. When news reached them that the royal family would be wiped out, only one
course of survival was open to the child and his friends.
Torczyner suggests “the date of 590-588,” for this episode. According to the Book of
Mormon, eleven years after Lehi left Jerusalem—in 589—a company escaped from
the land of Jerusalem bearing with them the youngest son of Zedekiah, the only member
of the family not put to death when Jerusalem was taken. From the descendants of
these people in the New World the Nephites learned that Jerusalem actually did fall as
prophesied:
“Will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah
were not slain all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of
Zedekiah are with us, and that they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem?” (Hel.
8:21; italics added.)
Nowhere are we told that Mulek was the leader of the company, and indeed in his
apparent youth that would be unlikely. But as the sole survivor of the royal family and
heir presumptive to the throne, he was certainly the most important person in the
company, a source of legitimate pride to the group. The name tells everything. Mulek is
not found anywhere in the Bible, but any student of Semitic languages will instantly
recognize it as a diminutive, a term of affection and endearment, meaning “little king.”
What could they call the uncrowned child, last of his line, but their little king? And what
could they call themselves but Mulekiyah or Mulekites?
Major Jewish Groups in the New Testament
Victor L. Ludlow, Ensign, Jan. 1975, pg 26
When someone says he belongs to a certain group of people, such as the Republican
Party, the Teamsters Union, or the Lions Club, it is usually easy to identify with that
person characteristics common to those associations. We would probably also
recognize that he could belong to a number of groups without any serious conflict of
interests.
This process of learning about people by their associations is also valid in our study of
people who lived during Jesus’ lifetime. But the groups of Zealots, Sadducees,
Publicans, and Essenes probably don’t mean as much to us as do the names
Democrats, Catholics, or Communists, even though they were important groups in
biblical times.
One of the apostles was a Zealot. Jesus himself denounced the Sadducees and taught
the Publicans. John the Baptist is sometimes described as being similar to the Essenes.
The proliferation of these and many other Jewish sects began a few hundred years
before Jesus’ birth. When the Jews returned to Palestine in the latter part of the sixth
century B.C., there developed among them many political, social, and religious opinions
and sects. Some Jews sought a return to the glory and power characteristic of David
and Solomon; some favored submissive roles; still others believed if they became a
righteous people, God would lead them to power and glory.
The sects that developed were usually not just political or just religious or just social in
nature, but often encompassed aspects of a variety of philosophies. However, for the
sake of simplicity, this article will divide the sects into the following main groupings:
Political-Religious Sects (Samaritans, Zealots); Social-Vocational Sects (Publicans,
Scribes); and Religious Sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Nazarenes).
Through study and understanding of these sects, we can develop greater insight into the
Savior’s life and teachings.
A. Political-Religious Sects
1. The Samaritans
At the time of Jesus, the Jews and the Samaritans were two mutually antagonistic
communities. (See Luke 9:52-56.) The Jews refused to consider the Samaritans as
Israelites, mostly because of political and religious reasons. The Samaritans accepted
the Pentateuch as the only inspired scripture, and they offered their sacrifices on Mount
Gerizim rather than in Jerusalem. But these religious differences could have been
bridged, since other Judean groups had been permitted to profess similar views without
being excommunicated.
The primary cause for hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans was the political
schism that split Solomon’s kingdom in two. Centuries later animosity continued, even
as Jews returned from Babylon to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. (See Ezra 4:1-10.)
The Samaritans originated from a mixture of people living in Samaria and others who
migrated into the area following the 721 B.C. conquest of Samaria by Assyria. (See 2
Kgs. 17.) The chronicles of the Samaritans stress they were direct descendants of the
Joseph tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Strong rivals of the Jews, they occupied
territory in central Palestine, where their own high priest supervised sacrifices offered
on Mount Gerizim.
They were often persecuted along with the Jews during the Persian and Greek eras, but
gained more favorable status than the Jews as the Romans gained control of Palestine.
The Romans later helped the Samaritans rebuild their temple to reward them for fighting
against Jewish zealots. Another sign of Samaritan influence during Christ’s time is
apparent in the fact that Herod, the king of the Jews, ruled from a Samarian capital and
had a Samaritan as one of his wives.
After the Romans expelled the Jews from Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Samaritans remained
in Palestine, where they maintained their communities through the following Christian
and Moslem eras. Today, a few hundred of them still reside in Israel. (See Facts
About Israel, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, 1970, p. 69, and LaMar C.
Berrett, Discovering the World of the Bible, Brigham Young University Press, Provo,
Utah, 1973, p. 323.)
2. The Zealots
The Zealots were a group of Jewish nationalists who strongly opposed Roman rule.
The Zealot movement stemmed from the action of Judah (Judas) the Galilean, who
believed theocracy should be the law of the land and Jews should not pay tribute to
Rome nor acknowledge the emperor as their master. Judah was apparently killed in
the suppression of this revolt. (See Acts 5:37.) His followers took to the deserts,
where they maintained a guerrilla resistance against the Romans.
One of Christ’s apostles, Simon, was a Zealot (see Luke 6:15), indicating that Zealot
principles were not inconsistent with the church. Christ was later associated with Zealot
activities at his Roman trial when his fate was linked with that of Barabbas, who had led
a recent insurrection against the Romans. (See Mark 15:7.) Christ was crucified
between two lestai. (See Mark 15:27; John 19:18.) Since lestai was the official
Greek designation for Zealots, the Romans probably viewed Jesus as a Zealot leader.
The Zealots increased their activities in the years following Christ’s death, seizing the
temple in 66 A.D. The Romans forcibly crushed this revolt and destroyed Jerusalem (and
the temple) in 70 A.D. Shortly after this, the Zealots made their last and fateful stand
against Roman rule as they defended their garrison at Masada, a desert plateau near
the Dead Sea, holding off the Roman army for over a year.
B. Social-Vocational Sects
1. Publicans
Originally Publicans (publicani) were men who served in the public works or farmed
public lands for the Roman government. They later became known as professional tax
farmers, who made their profits from the excess taxes they collected. The right to
collect taxes was sold at public auctions to private corporations of Publicans who gave
the highest bid. Since the Publicans were native Jews of Palestine, they were detested,
ostracized, and often excommunicated by most Jewish groups. But some Publicans,
such as Matthew, received the gospel very readily, and Jesus associated frequently
with them. (See Matt. 9:9-10; Matt. 21:31-32; Mark 2:15.)
2. Scribes
The Scribes performed secretarial services for the many who were unable to read and
write. Jewish Scribes were well versed in the laws of Moses, making them the spiritual
and temporal legal counselors of the period. Most Scribes were Pharisees, so Jesus
frequently referred to them in connection with the Pharisees. Some others were
affiliated with the Sadducees and other religious groups.
C. Jewish Religious Sects
Most of the Jews during Christ’s time were somewhat religious, although most were
not directly affiliated with any particular religious group. The total Palestinian population
was probably about 500,000. Josephus records that 6,000 were Pharisees, 4,000
were Essenes, and the Sadducees were not very numerous. Thus, although most Jews
were influenced by the sects, they lived outside their ranks.
1. Sadducees
The Sadducees were an aristocratic, priestly class of Jews, influential in the temple and
the Sanhedrin. Their name is derived from the high priest Zadok, since the sons of
Zadok were the most worthy to minister to the Lord in the temple. (See Ezek. 40:46;
Matt. 1:14.)
Sadducees originated when the wealthier elements of the population united during the
Hellenistic period, a period of Greek cultural revival around 200 B.C. A conservative
priestly group, they held to older doctrines and always opposed the Pharisees, both
politically and religiously. Although both groups believed in the Pentateuch (Torah), the
Pharisees accepted the oral law while the Sadducees refused to accept anything not
written in the Torah.
The strict Sadducees questioned the existence of the spirit and the concept of
punishments and rewards in a life after death, denying the doctrine of the physical
resurrection. (See Mark 12:18-27; Acts 4.)
The Sadducees have been historically represented as worldly minded aristocrats,
primarily interested in maintaining their own privileged position. Both John the Baptist
and Jesus strongly denounced the Sadducees, who were also unpopular with the
common people, from whom they kept aloof. Their strength was in their control of the
temple, and when it was destroyed in 70 A.D., they ceased to exist as a viable political
or religious force among the Jews.
2. The Pharisees
The Pharisees were the largest of the Jewish sects. Six thousand strong, they observed
Jewish ritual and studied the Torah and the oral law. They tried to adapt old codes to
the new urban conditions, fulfilling religious interests of many of the common people.
The Pharisees conceived of God as an all-wise, all-knowing, all-just, and all-merciful
spiritual being. They believed man had his free agency, and would receive retribution
for his actions. This retribution would come either in this life or in the one to come, as
the Pharisees believed in life after death and in the resurrection of the dead. The Torah
was the center of their teachings, and its inspired laws and commandments were to be
interpreted by the rabbis in each generation to harmonize with more advanced ideas.
The Pharisees became scholars of the law, fostering the synagogue as a place of study,
worship, and prayer. (See Luke 18:10-12.)
As the rabbis interpreted the commandments, new systems of laws and “fences around
the law” evolved which would sometimes conflict with the. original commandments.
(See Mark 7:1-9, 13.) Some Pharisees also sought ways to bend the laws to their
own philosophies and ways of life. While Jesus publicly criticized the Pharisees, he did
not condemn their beliefs, but condemned their hypocritical manner of living that
violated the ideals they taught. (Matt. 23:1-15.)
The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee and was taught by one of the sect’s most eminent
scholars, Gamaliel of Jerusalem. (See Matt. 23; Mark 7; Luke 11.)
Although many Pharisaic doctrines were similar to Christian ones, the two groups
separated when Paul and the Christian missionaries used Jewish communities and
synagogues to teach the gospel. (See Acts 23:6-9.) Some Christians refused to
sympathize with Jews who didn’t convert to Christianity, while many Jews couldn’t
appreciate the Christian zeal nor believe their teachings. After the temple was
destroyed and other sects ceased to exist, the Pharisees continued to function. They
promoted Judaism and the preservation of its teachings and scriptures until Pharisaism
and Judaism became coextensive.
3. The Qumran Community and the Essenes
The Dead Sea scrolls portray the communal life of a Jewish religious sect in Qumran
similar to the Essenes, a religious communalistic brotherhood. Doctrinally, the Essenes
with their own beliefs probably stood somewhere between the Sadducees and the
Pharisees. (See Col. 2:18.) Like the Sadducees, they presumptuously claimed to be
the true priests of God and the descendants of Zadok. And like the Pharisees, they
called themselves the “holy” or “pure” ones. Essenes believed in the immortality of the
soul, but rejected the idea of bodily resurrection.
The Essenes regarded religious observances in the synagogues and temple as corrupt.
They sought God in the wilderness of Judea, organized communities and brotherhoods
(many of them monastic), zealously studied the scriptures, and sought to practice justice
toward men.
Many practices in Qumran were similar to Christian ones. Initiation into the community
involved a baptism, and a ritual bath took place daily in connection with a meal where
special blessings were given over bread and wine by a priest.
John the Baptist probably knew of this sect and of the Essenes since he lived,
preached, and baptized only a few miles from Qumran.
4. Nazarenes
According to the Gospel of John, some thought nothing good could come from
Nazareth. (John 1:46.) The term “Nazarene,” then, as a contemptuous one in early
Christianity.
The root meaning of the word Nazarene helps explain why it was degrading. The
Hebrew spelling of Nazarene has the same root letters as the Hebrew word nezer,
which means twig, sprout, shoot, sprig, or branch. Who would want to be called a
twig?
Matthew changed it to a title of honor when he referred to the Messianic prophecy
(Isa. 11:1), telling of a branch (nezer) that would grow out of the roots of Jesse. (See
JS—H 1:40; D&C 113.)
Early Christians were apparently called Nazarenes, since Paul was accused of being a
leader of this sect. (See Acts 24:5.) Early historians refer to a Christian group as
Nazarenes, Christian Jews who neither would nor could give up their Jewish mode of
life. Paul taught that the Mosaic Law was not binding upon gentiles or Jews, having
been fulfilled by Christ. Later Nazarenes rejected Paul because of this, even though he
had been known as a Nazarene during his lifetime. Later Nazarenes were absorbed
within Judaism and Christianity by the end of the fifth century. However, the term Nozri
(Nazarene) remains as the Hebrew word for Christian.
Jerusalem at the Time of Lehi and Jeremiah
Lehi and his family fled a city headed for destruction. What was that Jerusalem like?
Jeremiah paints a vivid picture of a land filled with wickedness.
Keith H. Meservy, Ensign, Jan. 1988, pg 23
Lehi abandoned the doomed city of Jerusalem in the first year of Zedekiah’s
eleven-year reign. That single year of adversity had seen three different kings rule the
land of Judah.
First was Jehoiakim, who died shortly after he revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, king
of Babylon. Next was his son Jehoiachin, who reigned three months before
Nebuchadnezzar arrived to put down a rebellion Jehoiakim had started. Jehoiachin’s
prompt submission to Nebuchadnezzar saved the city, but his father’s foolishness
caused him, along with his queen, children, officials, artisans, and thousands of
citizens—including Ezekiel and Daniel—to be carried into captivity in Babylonia. (See
Jer. 29:2.) Last of the three kings was Zedekiah, who secured his throne by swearing
an oath of allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar.
When Nebuchadnezzar disappeared northward, taking thousands of Jewish captives
with him, those who remained yearned for release from the stress. Instead, prophets of
God predicted that Jerusalem, so recently saved, was about to be destroyed unless its
citizens repented. The recent deportation of thousands of citizens did not end the threat.
It merely provided a taste of the terror and sorrow to come.
While true prophets cried of war and desolation, the citizens refused to take either them
or their warnings seriously. Pacified by false prophets who chorused peace, they felt so
secure that nine years later they pressed Zedekiah to break his oath of allegiance to
Nebuchadnezzar. With that act, the countdown to the destruction of the city began.
A grinding year-and-a-half siege preceded Jerusalem’s fiery end. As Jeremiah had
predicted, thousands of citizens died by famine, fire, and sword. Jerusalem and
Solomon’s magnificent temple became rubble and ashes. Zedekiah, the proud
monarch, saw his sons slain, before having his eyes put out. Contrary to promises made
by false prophets, tens of thousands more of Jerusalem’s citizens became Babylonian
captives. The few survivors eventually fled to Egypt for safety. (See Jer. 39:1-2, 6-9;
Jer. 43:5-7; Jer. 52:6, 13. Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent references are to
the book of Jeremiah.)
What, exactly, led to the fiery destruction of Jerusalem? Jeremiah tells us that its
inhabitants had become so sensual and materialistic that they had lost all sense of divine
values: “They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.” (Jer.
4:22.)
“They be all adulterers,” Jeremiah said about the mores of that generation. (Jer. 9:2.)
They “assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses.” Like well-fed stallions,
“every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.” (Jer. 5:7-8.)
He who delights “in the chastity of women,” to whom whoredoms are an abomination
(Jacob 2:28), saw how the wickedness of adulterous husbands caused anguish to
wives whose love and trust had been shattered. He beheld “the sorrow, and heard the
mourning of the daughters of [his] people in the land of Jerusalem.” (Jacob 2:31.)
Consequently, the Lord led Lehi’s group “out of the land of Jerusalem … that [he]
might raise up … a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.” (Jacob
2:25.)
The people’s preoccupation with sensuality was matched by their covetousness and
dishonesty. Jeremiah lamented, “From the least of them even unto the greatest of them
every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every
one dealeth falsely.” (Jer. 6:13; Jeremiah referred to false prophets simply as
prophets, as the context makes clear.) He challenged anyone who doubted his words
to search the streets and plazas of Jerusalem to see “if there be any that executeth
judgment, that seeketh the truth.” (Jer. 5:1.)
In Jerusalem, possessing things became all-important, and any means to possessing
them seemed justified. Dishonesty replaced integrity, trust disappeared, and neighbors
became treacherous. Jeremiah observed:
“They bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth.
…”
Therefore he counseled, “Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in
any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with
slanders.” (Jer. 9:2-4.)
“One speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his
wait.” (Jer. 9:8.)
As covetous, dishonest, and adulterous as that generation was, it carefully maintained
its self-respect by rationalizing good into evil, and evil into good. Carefully, it called and
anointed prophets who were made in its own mold. Because of these soothsayers’
perverse influence, Jeremiah said, “Mine heart within me is broken because of the
prophets.” (Jer. 23:9.)
Of these false, immoral testators, the Lord said: “I have seen also in the prophets of
Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also
the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them
unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.” (Jer. 23:14.)
How carefully such false prophets assured citizens that wickedness really was
happiness! How well they insulated them from the pangs of conscience! How
thoroughly they convinced them that sensual, materialistic lives were better than ones
lived in the peace of the Spirit!
Though they claimed to have visions, their visions came from their own hearts. They
promised those who walked after their own imaginations that no evil would come upon
them. To those who despised the Lord, they blandly promised, “The Lord hath said,
Ye shall have peace.” (See Jer. 23:16-17.) By contradicting and ridiculing the true
prophets, they convinced that perverse generation not to repent.
Ironically, they could have been a great influence for good. The Lord told Jeremiah, “If
they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they
should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.” (Jer.
23:22.)
In addition to paying prophets to say “Yea” to the desires of their own lustful, covetous
hearts, citizens of Jerusalem also zealously worshipped idols. In their zeal, the people
served as many gods as they had cities in Judah and erected as many altars to Baal as
they had streets in Jerusalem. (See Jer. 11:13.) They built “high places of Tophet” in
the Hinnom valley, where they burned “their sons and their daughters in the fire” to Baal
and Molech, something God had never required of them, neither had it ever entered his
heart to ask. (Jer. 7:31; see also Jer. 19:5; Jer. 32:35.) When the Canaanite
predecessors to Israel had polluted the land by similar practices, the land had vomited
them out. (See Lev. 18:21, 24-25.)
Worst of all, the people refused to change or even to recognize their iniquity. There
was no introspection, no remorse. “No man repented him of his wickedness, saying,
What have I done?” (Jer. 8:6.)
“Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all
ashamed, neither could they blush.” (Jer. 6:15.)
In fact, the people even wondered, “Wherefore hath the Lord pronounced all this great
evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed
against the Lord our God?” (Jer. 16:10.) Laman and Lemuel, as products of that
society, shared those feelings. “We know,” said they, “that the people who were in the
land of Jerusalem were a righteous people,” and they convinced themselves that their
father Lehi had misjudged their friends and neighbors. (1 Ne. 17:22.) Prophets must
always appear too judgmental to those who lose their ability to discriminate between
good and evil.
Jeremiah, not willing that any should perish, was inspired to promise the citizens of
Jerusalem that God would save them, their city, and their temple from destruction—if
they would repent. More specifically, if they would simply keep the Sabbath day holy,
God would spare them. (See Jer. 17:19-27.) Jeremiah’s warnings, however, went
unheeded and failed to deter their rampant wickedness.
To an unrepentant people, divine prophets must have appeared to be harbingers of
doom, while false prophets must have seemed to be angels of peace and mercy.
Jeremiah, for example, wrote to the captives in Babylonia telling them to build homes,
plant gardens, and marry off their children so that they would grow during the long
years of captivity. The false prophet Hananiah, on the other hand, promised in the name
of the Lord that within two years God would bring them all back to their homes in
Palestine. (See Jer. 28:1-4; Jer. 29:1, 4-7.) When Jeremiah cried war—sword,
spear, and fire—false prophets pacified the sinful people with “Peace, peace!” (See
Jer. 6:13-14, 22-29.)
When the Babylonians finally came and surrounded the city, Jeremiah again counseled
individuals that they could survive by surrendering to the Babylonians. Such advice
weakened the hands of the defenders and made Jeremiah look as if he were a traitor.
(Jer. 38:2-4.) Yet only God knew what was coming and could tell them how to
survive.
In the final days of the siege, Zedekiah desperately asked Jeremiah for advice.
Jeremiah promised him his life and the city’s salvation if he would give himself up to the
Babylonians. Otherwise, the city would be destroyed. Yet Zedekiah kept the advice
secret for fear of his own people, and Jeremiah’s prophecy was fulfilled. (Jer.
38:17-27.)
The widespread hostility to and rejection of divine messages made it a hard time to be
an authentic prophet. Even the priestly men of Anathoth, Jeremiah’s hometown,
repeatedly made attempts on Jeremiah’s life, saying, “Prophesy not in the name of the
Lord, that thou die not by our hand.” (Jer. 11:21.) The plotters even involved his
brothers and the house of his father. (See Jer. 12:6.)
Jeremiah was horrified at the variety of plots being made against him: “I was like a lamb
or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices
against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off
from the land of the living.” (Jer. 11:19.)
Another time, when he had promised that the temple and city would fall, the priests and
prophets brought him to trial before the princes and accused him of treason, demanding
his death. But, like Abinadi, he replied, “I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth
good and meet unto you.
“But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood
upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the
Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.” (See Jer. 26:8-15.)
Once again, the Lord delivered Jeremiah out of their hands, as he had promised. (See
Jer. 1:18-19; Jer. 26:24.) One of Jeremiah’s contemporaries, however, was not as
fortunate. When Urijah “prophesied against this city and against this land,” Jehoiakim
tried to kill him. Urijah fled to Egypt for safety, but the king extradited him and “slew
him with the sword.” (Jer. 26:20-23.)
The constant harassment, mockery, and ridicule became at times a burden almost too
heavy for Jeremiah to bear. He wondered aloud, “Wherefore came I forth out of the
womb to see labour and sorrow, that my days should be consumed with shame?” (Jer.
20:18.) On the other hand, he empathized with the suffering his people were about to
experience: “Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I
might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!” (Jer. 9:1.)
In such a prophet-killing environment, Lehi courageously took his stand on the side of
the true prophets and prophesied of what he had seen and heard: the destruction of
Jerusalem, the people’s wickedness and abomination, the coming of the Messiah, and
the redemption of the world.
“When the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; … and they also sought
his life, that they might take it away.” (1 Ne. 1:18-20.)
If we had no Old Testament into which to put his experience, the reaction to his
message might seem melodramatic. But knowing the context, we understand more
about the courage and willingness of this great prophet Lehi to stand with the other true
prophets.
Lehi and Nephi knew that prophetic warnings are blessings that a compassionate God
offers to his children. Nephi extends the message of Jeremiah: “The tender mercies of
the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them
mighty even unto the power of deliverance.” (1 Ne. 1:20; see also Jer. 7:3-7.) Lehi’s
and Nephi’s testimony are the same as that of every other prophetic writer of scripture:
salvation and deliverance are of God.
As Lehi was led toward the promised land prepared for him by the Lord, we can sense
his excitement in looking ahead to a place where his family might seek the Lord and
serve him in righteousness. Thus, while humbly acknowledging that he was a visionary
man, he knew that his visions were responsible for his family being saved:
“If I had not seen the things of God in a vision I should not have known the goodness
of God, but had tarried at Jerusalem, and had perished with my brethren.
“But behold, I have obtained a land of promise, in the which things I do rejoice.” (1
Ne. 5:4-5.)
These stories of Jeremiah and Lehi are part of the ongoing story of God’s love. They
show how the Lord strives continuously to save all of his children, how he warns the
wicked of his impending judgments, and how he leads to safety those who listen to his
counsel.
In our day, prophets are once again warning the world that God’s judgments will be
poured out upon the wicked. The experiences of Jeremiah and Lehi encourage us to
believe that, if we love the truth enough to follow the prophets and take the Holy Spirit
for our guide, we will receive the promised blessings. (See D&C 45:57.)
The Families of Abraham and Israel
Edward J. Brandt, Ensign, May 1973, pg 49
1. TERAH—Gen. 11:26-27, 31-32; 1 Chr. 1:26; Luke 3:34; Abr. 2:1.
2. ABRAHAM—Gen. 11:26-27, 29-31; Gen. 21:1-5; 1 Chr. 1:27-28; Luke 3:34;
Abr. 2:2.
3. HARAN—Gen. 11:28-29; Abr. 2:2.
4. NAHOR—Gen. 11:29; Gen. 22:20-24; Gen. 24:15, 24; Gen. 29:5; Gen.
31:53; Abr. 2:2.
5. SARAH*, or SARAI—Appears twice on the chart, as the daughter of Haran and
as the wife of Abraham. Gen. 11:29-30; Gen. 17:15-16; Abr. 2:2.
6. HAGAR—Wife of Abraham. Gen. 16; Gen. 21:9-21; Gen. 25:12.
7. KETURAH—Wife of Abraham. Gen. 25:1-4; 1 Chr. 1:32-33.
8. MILCAH—Appears twice on the chart, as the daughter of Haran and as the wife of
Nahor. Gen. 11:29; Gen. 22:20-23; Gen. 24:15, 24, 47; Abr. 2:2.
9. LOT—Gen. 11:27, 31; Abr. 2:4.
10. ISCAH—Gen. 11:29.
11. MOAB—Gen. 19:37. His descendants were known as Moabites.
12. BENAMMI—Gen. 19:38. His descendants were known as Ammonites.
13. REUMAH—Wife of Nahor. Gen. 22:24.
14. DESCENDANTS OF NAHOR AND MILCAH—Gen. 22:20-23.
15. BETHUEL—Gen. 22:22-23; Gen. 24:15, 24; Gen. 25:20; Gen. 28:2, 5.
16. LABAN—Gen. 24:15, 24, 29; Gen. 25:20; Gen. 28:2; Gen. 29:5, 10, 16.
17. REBEKAH*—Appears twice on the chart, as the daughter of Bethuel and as the
wife of Isaac. Gen. 22:23; Gen. 24:7, 15, 24, 58-67; Gen. 25:20-28.
18. ISHMAEL—Gen. 16:10-16; Gen. 17:20-21; Gen. 21:9-21; 1 Chr. 1:28-31.
19. ISHMAELITES (the descendants of Ishmael)—Most authorities agree that the
Ishmaelites made up a part of what became known as the Arab nations. Gen.
25:12-15; Gen. 28:9; 1 Chr. 1:28-31.
20. DESCENDANTS OF KETURAH AND ABRAHAM—Gen. 25:2; 1 Chr.
1:32-33.
21. MIDIAN—Gen. 25:2, 4; 1 Chr. 1:32-33.
22. JETHRO—A descendant of Midian, who many years later ordained Moses to the
priesthood. Ex. 3:1; Ex. 4:18; Ex. 18:1-12; D&C 84:6.
23. ISAAC—Gen. 21:1-5, 12; Gen. 22; Gen. 25:5, 19-26; 1 Chr. 1:28, 34; Luke
3:34.
24. ESAU—Gen. 25:21, 24-25; Gen. 26:34-35; Gen. 27:30-33; Gen. 28:8-9; 1
Chr. 1:35-54.
25. WIVES OF ESAU, JUDITH, BASHEMATH, AND MAHALATH (a daughter
of Ishmael)—Gen. 26:34-35; Gen. 28:8-9. Their descendants were known as
Edomites.
26. JACOB (changed to Israel, Gen. 32:27-28)—Gen. 25:21, 24, 26, 29-34; Gen.
27:26-29; Gen. 28:1-2, 5; Gen. 29:10-12; 1 Chr. 1:34; 1 Chr. 2:1-2; Luke 3:34.
27. LEAH*—Appears twice on the chart, as the daughter of Laban and as the wife of
Jacob. Gen. 29:16-17, 30-35; Gen. 30:17-21.
28. RACHEL—Appears twice on the chart, as the daughter of Laban and as the wife
of Jacob. Gen. 29:10, 16-17; Gen. 30:22-24; Gen. 35:16-20.
29. ZILPAH—Wife of Jacob. Gen. 29:24; Gen. 30:9-13.
30. BILHAH—Wife of Jacob. Gen. 29:29; Gen. 30:3-8.
31. REUBEN—Gen. 29:32; Gen. 49:3-4.
32. SIMEON—Gen. 29:33; Gen. 49:5-7.
33. LEVI—Gen. 29:34; Gen. 49:5-7.
34. JUDAH—Gen. 29:35; Gen. 49:8-12; Luke 3:33.
35. ISSACHAR—Gen. 30:18; Gen. 49:14-15.
36. ZEBULUN—Gen. 30:20; Gen. 49:13.
37. GAD—Gen. 30:11; Gen. 49:19.
38. ASHER—Gen. 30:13; Gen. 49:20.
39. DAN—Gen. 30:6; Gen. 49:16-18.
40. NAPHTALI—Gen. 30:8; Gen. 49:21.
41. JOSEPH—Gen. 30:24; Gen. 49:22-26.
42. BENJAMIN—Gen. 35:18; Gen. 49:27.
43. MANASSEH—Gen. 46:20; Gen. 48:5, 17-19.
44. EPHRAIM—Gen. 46:20; Gen. 48:5, 17-19.
45. DINAH—Only daughter mentioned in the family of Jacob. Gen. 30:21.
|