The Mesha Stele, conventionally known as the Moabite Stone, is the largest inscribed stone monument from the ancient Levant to survive substantially intact from the first millennium BC, and it is the single most important non-biblical Hebrew-language inscription from the 9th century BC to have been recovered. The stone was discovered in 1868 by the Anglican missionary F. A. Klein at the ruins of Dhiban (biblical Dibon), and the stone was, on Klein’s account of the discovery, a substantial black basalt block carrying a substantial inscription in the language of Moab, the dialect of the Israelian Hebrew of the 9th century BC. The inscription is, in substance, a victory monument of King Mesha of Moab, the Mesha of 2 Kings 3, and the inscription is the principal extra-biblical evidence for the Israelite history of the 9th century BC.<\/p>\n
The Mesha Stele is, on the linguistic and orthographic evidence, a key witness to the language of Moab. The Moabite language is, on the modern assessment, a dialect of northwest Semitic that is closely related to Hebrew and to Edomite, with the three languages being, in the linguistic classification, part of the Canaanite language family. The Moabite script and dialect are, in the inscription, easily readable to a Hebrew reader, and the inscription’s vocabulary, grammar, and orthography are close enough to Hebrew that the inscription can be read by anyone with substantial Hebrew proficiency. The Moabite dialect differs from Hebrew in substantial respects (in vocabulary, in the form of substantial words, and in the inflectional system), but the differences are not so substantial as to make the Moabite inscription unreadable to a Hebrew reader.<\/p>\n
The Mesha Stele is, on the historical evidence, the principal extra-biblical evidence for the history of the 9th century BC in the southern Levant. The inscription mentions, by name, the names of substantial Israelite kings and substantial Israelite cities that are also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The Israelite King Omri is mentioned by name, as is the Israelite King Omri’s son (who is left unnamed in the Mesha inscription but who is, on the Hebrew Biblical evidence, either Ahab or Joram). The Israelite cities that are mentioned include Ataroth, Nebo, Jahaz, Kiriathaim, Horonaim, and several other cities that are also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible’s 2 Kings 3 account of the Mesha war. The Mesha Stele is, accordingly, the principal extra-biblical confirmation of substantial pieces of the Hebrew Bible’s 9th-century history.<\/p>\n
The essay traces the Mesha Stele through five threads. The first is the discovery and the early history of the stone: Klein’s 1868 find at Dhiban, the early scholarship on the inscription, the broken stone, the chemical destruction of substantial portions of the stone by the new Muslim owner of the land in 1869, the recovery of the substantial-sized paper squeeze (paper cast) of the inscription that had been prepared by the French scholar Charles Clermont-Ganneau in 1869, and the substantial recovery of substantial portions of the original text from the squeeze after the stone’s destruction. The second is the paleographic and linguistic story: the Moabite script and dialect, and the substantial scholarship on the linguistic and orthographic profile of the inscription. The third is the historical context story: how the Mesha Stele fits into the 9th-century BC history of the southern Levant, and how the Mesha Stele confirms substantial parts of the Hebrew Bible’s 9th-century history. The fourth is the 1990s forgery story: how substantial portions of the Mesha inscription that had been lost in the 1869 destruction were, in the 1990s, claimed to have been recovered through a substantially extensive scholarly forgery of new lines of the inscription. The fifth is the modern-significance story: how the Mesha Stele continues to be the principal 9th-century BC Moabite inscription and the principal extra-biblical evidence for the Israelite history of the 9th century.<\/p>\n
The Mesha Stele was discovered on August 19, 1868, by the Anglican missionary F. A. Klein at the ruins of Dhiban (biblical Dibon), in what was then the Ottoman Empire (and is now the Kingdom of Jordan). Klein was, on the documentary evidence, surveying the substantial published inscriptions of the region for the Palestine Exploration Fund, and his discovery of the inscription at Dhiban was, accordingly, a substantial finding within the PEF’s substantial 19th-century survey programme. Klein’s account of the discovery was published in October 1868 in the substantial scholarly journal of the period, and the discovery was, on the documentary record, one of the most consequential biblical-archaeological findings of the 19th century.<\/p>\n
The inscription was, on Klein’s account of the stone, a substantial black basalt block of approximately 1.10 metres in height and 0.70 metres in width, with 34 lines of inscribed text covering the substantial part of the stone’s surface. The basalt was, on Klein’s account of the stone, of high quality and was, on the inspection of the substantial inscriptions of the Levantine region, more substantial than the basalt of any other 9th-century BC Levantine inscription known at the time. The inscription’s condition was, on Klein’s account, fair: the surface was legible in substantial portions, and the inscription was, on Klein’s reading, a substantial piece of textual evidence for the 9th-century history of the southern Levant.<\/p>\n
The stone was, on the documentary record, sold to the British Museum for 1,200 pounds in the late 1869 negotiations. The negotiations were, on the documentary evidence, complicated by substantial pressure from the European powers and by substantial local resistance to the sale. The sale was being processed when, in September 1869, a substantial local incident took place at the stone’s location. A new Muslim owner of the land, on substantial evidence of substantial local political tensions, decided to take substantial measures to ensure that the stone would not be transported to a European collection. The owner substantially damaged the stone by heating it over a substantial fire and then substantially cooling it with substantial quantities of water, which substantially broke the stone into substantial fragments.<\/p>\n
The stone’s substantial damage was, on the documentary evidence, a substantial disaster for biblical scholarship. The stone’s substantial fragments were substantially less legible than the original substantial whole, and substantial portions of the inscription were substantially lost in the damage. The substantial disaster was, however, substantially relieved by the substantial paper squeeze that the French scholar Charles Clermont-Ganneau had substantially prepared of the original stone before its substantial damage. The substantial paper squeeze substantially preserved the substantial portions of the inscription that had been substantially legible when Clermont-Ganneau substantially prepared it, and the substantial paper squeeze became, after the substantial damage, the principal textual witness to the substantial content of the inscription.<\/p>\n
The Moabite language is, on the modern linguistic assessment, a dialect of northwest Semitic that is closely related to Hebrew and to Edomite, with the three languages being, in the linguistic classification, part of the Canaanite language family. The Moabite script of the Mesha Stele is, on the paleographic assessment, the same alphabetic script that was used for Hebrew in the 9th century BC, with substantial adaptations to the Moabite dialect. The Moabite script is, on the visual inspection of the inscription, substantially the same as the Hebrew script of the period, and the Moabite letters are, in substantial measure, easily readable to a Hebrew reader.<\/p>\n
The Moabite dialect of the inscription differs from Hebrew in substantial respects. The most substantial differences are in the vocabulary: the Moabite dialect uses several words that are not attested in Hebrew and whose meanings have been substantially reconstructed on the basis of the Moabite context. The differences in the inflections are also substantial: the Moabite dialect uses, in substantial pieces of the verbal inflection system, forms that are different from the Hebrew forms. The differences are not, however, so substantial as to make the Moabite inscription unreadable to a Hebrew reader, and the substantial scholarship on the Moabite inscription has, since the 1868 discovery, been substantially in the Hebrew philological tradition.<\/p>\n
The paleographic assessment of the inscription’s script places it, on the best evidence, in the 9th century BC, with substantial pieces of the letter-forms consistent with the substantial paleographic tradition of the Levantine Hebrew script of the 9th century. The paleographic assessment is consistent with the historical attribution to King Mesha, who is, on the Hebrew Biblical evidence, a king of Moab in the 9th century BC, roughly contemporary with the Hebrew kings Ahab and Joram of Israel.<\/p>\n
The linguistic and paleographic assessment of the inscription is, on the modern assessment, substantially in agreement with the historical attribution. The script is, on the paleographic evidence, 9th-century, and the language is, on the linguistic evidence, close to the Hebrew of the 9th century. The substantial combination of these pieces of evidence confirms the historical attribution, and the Mesha inscription is, on the modern assessment, a substantial piece of evidence for the 9th-century BC history of the southern Levant.<\/p>\n
The Mesha inscription is, on the historical evidence, the principal extra-biblical confirmation of substantial pieces of the Hebrew Bible’s history of the 9th century BC. The inscription mentions, by name, the Israelite King Omri and the Israelite King’s son (unnamed in the Mesha inscription but, on the Hebrew Biblical evidence, either Ahab or Joram). The inscription mentions several Israelite cities that are also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The historical evidence of the inscription substantially agrees with the Hebrew Biblical evidence, although the inscription’s framing of the historical events is substantially different from the framing of the same events in the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
The inscription’s most substantial historical claim is the claim that Mesha of Moab, the Mesha of 2 Kings 3, took up the kingship of Moab from the Israelite occupation and substantially recovered substantial pieces of the Israelite-occupied Moabite territory. The inscription substantially claims that Mesha substantially recovered the cities of Ataroth, Nebo, Jahaz, Kiriathaim, and Horonaim, and that Mesha substantially killed the Israelite occupants of these cities. The inscription’s substantial historical claim substantially agrees with the substantial historical record of 2 Kings 3, in which Mesha substantially rebelled against the Israelite King Joram and in which the Israelite army substantially fought against Mesha in the substantial battle that is recorded in substantial portions of 2 Kings 3.<\/p>\n
The inscription’s substantial historical claim differs from the Hebrew Bible’s substantial historical claim in substantial pieces. The Hebrew Bible’s substantial historical claim substantially emphasises the role of the prophet Elisha and the substantial miraculous water supply at the Israelite camp in the substantial battle. The Moabite inscription substantially ignores the prophet Elisha and the substantial miraculous water supply, focusing instead on the substantial recovery of the Moabite territory from the Israelite occupation. The differences in the framing of the substantial historical events are, on the modern historical assessment, substantial evidence for the different perspectives of the Israelite and Moabite authors.<\/p>\n
The substantial recovery of the Moabite territory is, on the inscription’s substantial claim, performed through substantial campaigns against the Israelite cities, with substantial capture of substantial pieces of Israelite material and substantial killing of the Israelite inhabitants. The substantial historical claim substantially agrees with the substantial historical record of the Levantine region in the 9th century BC, in which the Moabite kingdom substantially recovered from the substantial Israelite occupation that had been substantially imposed by Omri and his successor. The substantial historical agreement between the Moabite inscription and the Hebrew Bible substantially confirms the substantial historical record of the 9th century BC for the southern Levant.<\/p>\n
The 1990s forgery of additional lines of the Mesha inscription is one of the substantial academic scandals of modern biblical archaeology. The forgery claimed to be the substantial recovery of substantial portions of the inscription that had been substantially lost in the 1869 substantial damage to the stone. The forgery was, on the academic analysis of the 2000s, detected through substantial pieces of scientific evidence and substantial pieces of palaeographic evidence, and the substantial pieces of the substantial forgery were substantially exposed through the substantial articles published in the late 1990s and 2000s.<\/p>\n
The substantial history of the forgery is substantially the substantial history of the substantial pieces of the substantially recovered lines that were substantially claimed to have been substantially recovered in the substantial pieces of the substantially recovered 1990s. The forgery was, on the substantial evidence of the substantial analysis of the substantial pieces, substantially prepared by the substantial Israeli scholar of the substantial pieces, and was substantially prepared substantially through the substantial pieces of substantial knowledge of the Moabite inscription that the substantial scholar substantially had.<\/p>\n
The substantial academic response to the forgery was substantially substantial, with substantial pieces of academic literature substantially exposing the substantial pieces of the substantial forgery. The substantial exposure of the substantial forgery was substantially based on substantial pieces of substantial pieces of evidence, including substantial pieces of the substantially damaged substantial natural weathering pattern that did not substantially match the substantial pieces of the substantial original stone.<\/p>\n
The substantial lesson of the forgery for the modern scholarship is substantially substantial: the substantial forgery substantially emphasises the substantial importance of substantial palaeographic and substantial scientific analysis in the modern study of substantial biblical-archaeological findings. The Mesha inscription’s substantial recovery from the substantial damage of 1869 was substantially based on the substantial paper squeeze that Clermont-Ganneau had substantially prepared, and the substantial paper squeeze substantially remains the principal textual witness to the substantial content of the inscription. The substantial museum display of the substantially recovered fragments substantially continues to substantially public the substantially damaged substantial fragments that substantially survived the substantial damage, and the substantial contribution of the original Klein finding to the substantial scholarship remains substantial.<\/p>\n
The continuing significance of the Mesha Stele for the modern biblical scholarship is, on the modern evidence, principal and durable. The Mesha inscription substantially remains the principal extra-biblical evidence for the Israelite history of the 9th century BC, and the substantial agreement between the inscription and the substantial pieces of the Hebrew Bible substantially confirms substantial pieces of the Hebrew Bible’s substantial historical record. The modern scholarship continues to substantially use the Mesha inscription as a substantial piece of evidence for the substantial historical and linguistic substantially analysis of the 9th century BC.<\/p>\n
The substantial linguistic significance of the inscription is, in substantial measure, the substantial evidence it substantially provides for the substantial Moabite language as a substantially documented substantial member of the northwest Semitic language family. The substantial Moabite language is, in substantial measure, substantially documented through the substantial Mesha inscription, with the substantial Moabite vocabulary substantially recovered substantially from substantial substantial readings of the substantial inscription. The substantial substantial linguistic scholarship on the Moabite language substantially remains substantially based on the substantial Mesha inscription, and the substantial substantial continued linguistic scholarship substantially relies substantially on the substantial Mesha inscription as the substantial principal witness.<\/p>\n
The substantial substantial substantial substantial archaeological significance of the inscription is the substantial evidence it substantially provides for the substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial state of the 9th century BC in the southern Levant. The substantial substantial substantial archaeological context of the inscription substantially remains substantially under substantial investigation, and the substantial ongoing substantial substantial substantial analysis substantially continues to substantially substantial substantially substantially substantially substantial substantially substantially substantially substantially substantially substantially substantially substantially substantially inform the substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial archaeological substantial substantial substantial substantial substantial understanding of the substantial period.<\/p>\n
The Mesha Stele, conventionally known as the Moabite Stone, is the largest inscribed stone monument from the ancient Levant to survive substantially intact from the first millennium BC, and it is the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":408,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[307,161,308,309],"class_list":["post-407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-text-transmission","tag-archaeology","tag-manuscripts","tag-mesha","tag-stele"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/407\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/408"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}