It should be reiterated that an acceptance of the historicity of the Bible requires that the Amarna letters, which date from the Late Bronze Age, must be placed after the dissolution of the United Monarchy. The fact that the archeological record matches the biblical account of history precisely, but only with the Israelite conquest of Canaan dated to the end of EB III and the United Kingdom dated to MB IIB,C, has been documented by Stan F. Vaninger in "Historical Revisionism: Archeology and the Conquest of Canaan" (Journal of Christian Reconstruction VII:1) and "Abraham to Hezekiah: An Archeological Revision" (C & AH V:2, VI:1).
I am not arguing here that the historicity of the Bible be accepted as an article of faith. This may be appropriate in a religious context, and I would not want to be seen as opposing such a position, but in the study of history, blind faith--be it in the Bible, Sothic dating, Manetho, or what have you--is liable to stand in the way of dealing with the actual data. As Vaninger has put it, "Objectivity is not attained by avoiding all presuppositions (which is impossible), but by not allowing our presuppositions to color our interpretation of the data or to distort the data itself" (JCR VII:1, p.133). I would nonetheless maintain that the presupposition (read: working hypothesis) that the Bible is historically accurate is not only reasonable, but logically compelling. This point will be discussed elsewhere.
It must be emphasized that these proposed readings are based to a large extent upon the aforementioned working hypothesis. If the conventional chronology is correct, many of these readings are much less compelling. In fact, within the bounds of the conventional chronology, the current readings are, for the most part, the best possible. The scholars who have worked on the Amarna archives are not fools. They are and have been handicapped by a chronology which places the Amarna letters some five centuries before the events they describe. It should be clearly understood that the ambiguity of cuneiform is such that often there are multiple readings for a sign, or series of signs, more than one of which is entirely valid from a linguistic or orthographic point of view. The choice of reading is determined in cases like these either by historical setting (a point to which we will return) or by the equivalent of a coin flip. I do not mean by this to denigrate this process. If every equally valid reading was given in every case, transcriptions would be unreadable. For this reason, scholars use what they feel to be the most likely reading, based on all factors--linguistic, orthographic, historical or other.
Choices must be made. But a choice made does not invalidate other possibilities. A classic example of this is the Sumerian king Urukagina, who was known by this name for many years. After an article was published touting Uruinimgina as the more likely reading ("ka" and "inim" being represented by the same sign), historians began using the new and more "authoritative" reading. The reaction among Assyriologists has been somewhat cooler. It is understood that until a version of the name is found with either "inim" or "ka" written with a different choice of cuneiform signs, the correct reading of the name is purely a matter of conjecture.
In Ages in Chaos, Velikovsky identified this king with Ahab son of Omri. As a linguistic justification of this identification, he wrote,
The name Rib-Addi, written in ideograms, means "the elder [brother among the sons] of the father", the first part of the name signifying "the elder" or "the elder" son, and the second part "father." It is constructed like the Hebrew name Ahab, the first part of which means "brother" (ah), the second part "father" (ab).While it is true that "rib" derives from the Akkadian word denoting "great" or "big" (rab), and may well mean "the elder", the addition "[brother among the sons]" is an invention of Velikovsky's, seemingly for the sole purpose of identifying the two names. "The elder father" is not an exceptionally strange title for a king to use, although we may be left with the question of why Jehoram chose to use such a title.
Leaving aside the particle "rib" for the time being, let us take a closer look at the part of the name conventionally read "Addi".
First, some explanation of the way cuneiform texts work may be helpful. When a cuneiform expression is transcribed in all capital letters, like SA.GAZ or the DU in DU-Teshup, it means that the expression in question is being treated as an ideogram. For our purposes, the ideograms are Sumerian words for the Akkadian expression desired, and are referred to as Sumerograms (= Sumerian ideograms). For example, the Akkadian word for "big" is rab. Depending upon the gender, number (plural or singular) and grammatical status (subject, direct object or indirect object) of the noun being modified by this adjective, the radical rab may appear as rabbum, rabbam, rabbim, rabbatum, and so on. All of these may be written instead with the Sumerogram GAL, which is Sumerian for "big". The advantage of such a substitution is that while rabbum must be written with at least two signs (rab-bum) and as many as four (ra-ab-bu-um), GAL is a single sign.
The disadvantage is that given the Sumerogram GAL, there is no way other than context to know what grammatical form of rab is intended. And sometimes context is insufficient. To overcome this difficulty, additional signs, called determinatives, are sometimes introduced. In general, a determinative is a word (usually a Sumerogram) which, placed before or after a word, relates the category into which that word falls. For instance, the determinative DINGER, transcribed as a superscript "d" before a name, labels the bearer of that name as a deity. Grammatical determinatives work similarly. If we were to come across the expression GAL-batum or GAL-atum, we would know that the scribe intended rabbatum.
The Addi in Rib-Addi is written in two different ways in the Amarna letters. The first is with the two signs ad and di. The prevalence of this usage seems to be the reason this name is read addi. The second way is with the two signs IM and di, where IM may be read addu (when a transcription from a cuneiform text is written in all capital letters, it means that the expression in question is either an ideogram or of unknown meaning). We would like to find a reading which is common to both of these versions, and two such readings exist. One, which is the conventional one, is to see the di in IM-di as a determinative, telling us that IM is to be read, not addu and not adda, but addi. Thus, both versions may be read as addi, which accounts for the conventional Rib-Addi. Alternatively, the ad in ad-di may be seen as the Sumerogram AD, which like IM may be read addu. Thus, both versions may be read addu-di, or taking di as a Sumerogram, Addu-DI.
The significance of this second reading is that it is the usual form taken by semitic names. Generally, semitic names are made up of a divine name (abbreviated DN) and a radical, which may be an adjective, verb or noun. Sometimes the DN precedes the radical, as in Jehoiachin (Yeho-Yachin--"YHVH will make firm") and Elimelech (Eli-Melech--"God is a King"), but sometimes it follows the radical, as in Gabriel (Gavri-El--"Mighty One of God" or "My Mighty One is God") and Jechoniah (Yechon-Yahu--"may YHVH make firm"). There are exceptions to this rule, like Michael (Mi Cha-El--"Who is like God?") and Benjamin (Bin-Yamin--"Son of the Right Hand" or "Southerner"), but the majority of semitic names do follow it. And this is not only true of semitic names found in the Bible. Shulmanu-asharid (Shalmaneser) means "Shulman is the foremost", and Ashur-uballit means "May Ashur give life"; both are normal semitic constructions.
If the Amarna letters were written in the 9th century BCE, we would expect to find mostly semitic names being used. And if there are two equally valid readings for a particular name, the one which is identifiable as semitic would be preferred. Of course, if the Amarna period was in the 13th century (as in the conventional chronology) or the 11th (as in the Rohl/Newgrosh New Chronology), we would have less reason to prefer such a reading, but within our framework, the reading Addu-DI is to be preferred.
The radical DI has the meaning "compassionate", which in Akkadian is ram. Addu-DI may therefore be read Addu-Ram or Adduram, which is immediately recognizable as the biblical Adoram or Hadoram (cuneiform has no way of representing the consonant "h", which is why the DN which appears as Hadad in the Bible is Adad in cuneiform, and which is why both the forms Adoram and Hadoram are attested).
One individual bearing this name is Hadoram son of To'i, prince of Hamath (I Chronicles 18:10), who is also called Joram (II Samuel 8:10). At this point, we might simply point out that "Addi" is more likely to be read "Adduram," and that we have an attested case of Hadoram and Joram being used for the same individual, which seems to make the equation of Rib-Addi and Jehoram son of Ahab a foregone conclusion. But I would like to take this a step further.
The DN Addu has been understood in more than one way. Due in part to the parallel occurances of names such as Shamshi-Addu and Shamshi-Adad, and in part to the phonetic similarity between the two names, many scholars have seen Addu as a mere corruption of Adad. Yet IM, which is the common sign used for Addu, has also been read as Baal. For example, the name Adda-Danu (an Amarna correspondant) has also been read Balu-Shipti. The difference in the second part of this name is due to the fact that it is actually the compound Sumerogram DI.KUD, meaning "to judge". In East Semitic (Akkadian), this is expressed as danu, while the West Semitic (Hebrew or "Canaanite"), which is more commonly used in the Amarna letters (except for those from Mesopotamia), is shiptu. The reading of IM as Baal may be due to the names Balu-Shipti and Shipti-Balu appearing elsewhere in the Amarna corresponance.
The explanation of how the same sign could be used to denote two different deities may lie in the meaning of the word addu. Addu is Akkadian for "father", and is generally understood as an Akkadianization of the Sumerian AD, also meaning father (the semitic word for father, abu, is also represented often by the sign AD). We know that abu (or abi) was used as a DN in such names as Abimelech, Abinadab, Abinoam, Abiram, and so on.
I suggest that Addu was used in much the same way as the modern "God"; that it was interchangable with the local chief deity. In Syria, this might be Adad; in Phoenicia, it might be Baal; in Israel, it would be YHVH (cuneiform Yau) or El.
This would explain the fact that in two of the three occurances of the name (H)adoram in the Bible, a parallel name of the form DN-ram is given for the bearer of the name. As noted above, Hadoram son of To'i is also called Joram. And (H)adoram, the officer in charge of the labor details under David and Solomon (II Samuel 20:24, I Kings 12:18, II Chronicles 10:18), is also referred to as Adoniram (I Kings 4:6, 5:28).
One reason for the use of the generic Addu in place of the actual DN, especially in correspondance between nations worshipping different deities, might have been to avoid the profanation of the divine name by those who did not have the same reverence for it. This would be the case especially for the Israelites. Even Israelites such as Ahab, who introduced Baal worship, did not do so, in their estimation, at the expense of YHVH, Whom they continued to revere. Ahab gave his children (at least those mentioned in the Bible) names containing YHVH: Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash and Athaliah. He also showed great respect and deference to the prophet Elijah.
The parallel usage of Adoram and Adoniram suggests further that the particle Ado- (Addu) was seen as a shortened form of Adon, or "lord". In fact, given the name Adonram (a possible rendering of Adoniram; cf. Absalom and Abisalom), the weak consonant "n" would assimilate into the "r", producing Adoram. Although this does not seem to be a true etymology, even folk etymologies take strong root among the common people.
The idea that "Adoni" could be used as a substitute for YHVH to avoid profaning that name may be connected to a Jewish custom which has continued to this day. In modern times, when a religious Jew wishes to refer to God outside of prayer and religious study by the name written YHVH, he or she will refer to Him as "Hashem", which means "the Name". The way this name is read in prayer and religious study is "Adonai". "Hashem" is used for the reason given above: to avoid the profanation of God's name. But the Hebrew YHVH is certainly not pronounced "Adonai". In fact, the use of "Hashem" is what could be called a second-degree layer of protection. Originally, "Adonai" was in fairly common usage, while in a cultic context, YHVH was given its literal pronunciation (which is no longer known, notwithstanding the common usage by scholars of their best guess).
To get an idea of how old this practice is, the Talmud (Yoma 39b) relates that after the death of Simeon the Just, the priests stopped pronouncing the explicit name of God in the priestly blessing. Until this time, the accurate pronunciation of YHVH was still used for this holiest of duties. After this, the only occasion upon which this Name would be spoken would be on the Day of Atonement, at which time the High Priest would utter it upon his return from the Holy of Holies. After the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, this ceased as well. It seems that by the time of Simeon the Just, who was High Priest when Alexander the Great added Judea to his conquests, "Adonai" had already replaced YHVH in common usage, as it is quite unlikely that YHVH would have been dropped from Temple usage while still used in the marketplace.
The use of "Adonai" as an alternate pronunciation of YHVH was therefore significantly under way by the 4th century BCE. Given the parallel usages of Adoram, Adoniram and Joram, and the fact that the same sign (IM) is read Addu, Adad, and Baal (at the very least), it doesn't take a tremendous leap of imagination to link "Adonai" and "Addu", if only through folk etymology.
Returning to the king of Sumur and Gubla, we see that his name, in a 9th century context, is best read Rib-Addu-DI, or Rib-Adduram. With "Addu" understood as a general term denoting the local chief deity, it is perfectly legitimate to read this name as Rib-Yauram, or Jehoram the Elder.
As described in the Jerusalem Chronology of the Israelite Monarchies (JCIM) , Jehoshaphat appointed his son Jehoram coregent while he was in the North, helping Ahab to fight against Aram. But Ahab's son Jehoram became king of North Israel before Jehoshaphat died. In order to avoid the confusion that was bound to arise with two Jehorams ruling in the same general area, Ahab's son signed himself as Jehoram the Elder, or Jehoram the Greater. The particle "rib" can be understood in either way, and there is actually no reason to assume that this king was older than his southern brother-inlaw.
Why was this necessary? After all, the Bible distinguishes these two kings by patronymic: Jehoram son of Ahab and Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. The answer lies in the political situation at the time. As has been noted by many critics of Velikovsky's revised chronology, the Bible describes the kingdoms of North Israel and Judah as sovereign states, while the picture gotten from the Amarna letters is one of petty princedoms in thrall to Egypt. If we assume, as we have been doing, that the Bible and the Amarna letters are referring to the same place and time, which of them is right? The answer is that it depends on your point of view. As an example, the Bible refers to the king of Edom as a mere governor, and Edom as no more than a possession of Judah. Were we to find contemporary Edomite records, we would no doubt find a somewhat different description. The Israelites likewise considered themselves a sovereign people, with vassaldom to Egypt a temporary situation. As it turned out, they were right. But at the time, political exigencies demanded that they conform to the Egyptian view, unless they wanted to find Egyptian troops on their doorsteps.
One of the signs of a sovereign state is that it chooses its own rulers. A state which is subject to another has its rulers chosen for it. As a matter of practice in the ancient world, this was usually limited to confirming the heir of the previous ruler. If there was a question of loyalties, the imperial power might take more active steps, such as choosing between two rival heirs or even putting an end to a ruling dynasty. This was the exception rather than the rule. But even when succession was automatically confirmed, the legality of the situation, at least from the standpoint of the imperial power, was that vassals ruled, not as their fathers' heirs, but by appointment. We find an illustration of this in a letter sent from the king of Jerusalem to Pharaoh (EA 286). The king of Jerusalem protests his loyalty to Egypt, proclaiming:
Behold, neither my mother nor my father has put me in this place. The mighty hand of the king had led me into the house of my father.Despite the clear indication of dynastic succession ("the house of my father"), the king of Jerusalem is here proclaiming his loyalty in the clearest way possible, by acknowledging that he rules only at the whim of Pharaoh. For Jehoram son of Omri to have referred to himself as "Yauram mar Humri" would have implied that he held his throne by virtue of his birth, and would have constituted an act of rebellion against Egypt.
Certain questions remain regarding the identification of the Rib-Yauram of the Amarna letters and the biblical Jehoram son of Omri. The main one is geographical; i.e., can Sumur and Gubla be identified with Samaria and Jezreel? This question will be dealt with in a forthcoming paper to be entitled "The Hebrew-Phoenician-Aramean Kingdom of North Israel."
The realization that the cuneiform Addu is a non-specific DN, which may be used in place of the local chief deity has significance for more than just one king. Addu is found as a part of many names in the Amarna correspondance. It may be worthwhile to go through some of these, as many names which have been identified as non-semitic and used to support the theory of a large non-semitic population in Amarna Canaan/Israel are actually biblically and extra-biblically attested semitic names. Alternate readings for Addu in an Israelite context include Yau, Il(i), Ab(i) and others.
"Adda-Danu" As was mentioned above, this name has also been read Balu-Shipti. However, given that Addu may represent any number of DNs, along with the fact that "Adda-Danu" is based in the south, probably within Judahite territory, we might as easily read this name Yau-Shipti, the biblical Jehoshaphat (not the king of that name). And even though Hebrew uses the verb "Shaphat" for "to judge" rather than the Akkadian "Dan", the latter is often used even in Western semitic names, such as Daniel. So other possibilities include Yau-Dan (Jehodan), Ili-Dan (Eldan), Ili-Shipti (Elishaphat--II Chronicles 3:1) and Abi-Dan (Abidan--Numbers 1:11). In any case, the name of normal semitic construction, and means "God is the Judge" or "God has judged".
"Addu-UR.SAG" The Sumerian UR.SAG is the equivalent of the Akkadian mihir, or "warrior". For this reason, Rainey has identified this individual with Balu-Mihir, which would seem to settle the question of how to read Addu in this case. But given the possibility of more than one individual bearing the same or similar name, it is worth considering that the biblical Abihail, or "My Father is a Warrior" (Numbers 3:35) could easily have been written "Addu-UR.SAG". The name is of normal semitic construction.
"Yaptihada" Even if Addu was not a name in its own right, it is reasonable to assume that it was at times pronounced as it is written. Thus, the biblical Adoram. It is likely that the son of the king of Hamath was actually known in Hamath as Adadram, or Baalram, or some such, although it is not impossible that Israelite influence was responsible for his actually being named Joram. In the case of "Yaptihada", we have Addu included phonetically as part of the name. This should not be understood to mean that this individual's name was actually read this way; rather, it is likely to be a type of scribal "shorthand". This name is written ya-ap-ti-ha-da, and normalized as "Yaptih-Adda" by Rainey. This name means "May God open" and is biblically attested both as Pethahiah (I Chronicles 24:16) and in shortened form as the Judge Jephthah. It is of normal semitic construction.
"Yahzibada" This name is similar in construction and orthography to the previous one, and has been normalized by Rainey as "Ya`zib-Adda". This name means "May God rescue", and is of normal semitic construction. If it had been found in the Bible, it would have been transliterated "Jaazabiah".
In Ages in Chaos, Velikovsky identified this individual as Jehozabad, one of Jehoshaphat's captains. This was due to the obvious similarity between the names, when they are transcribed into English. The source of the error lies primarily in the letter "h". As mentioned earlier, cuneiform does not have any way of reproducing this sound. What it does have is a gutteral consonant which does not exist in English, represented in transliteration as "h" (with an inverted circumflex under the letter), and pronounced like the "ch" in "achtung" or "loch" (the Cambridge Ancient History transcibes this consonant as "kh"). This consonant is often used in cuneiform to represent the Hebrew gutteral "ayin", which is generally dropped in English transliteration. Thus, the cuneiform version of "Omri" is "Humri". The name Jehozabad, if it appeared in the Amarna letters, would be written "Yau-Zibdi", or "Adda-Zibdi".
"Zurata" As stated above, a single cuneiform sign may have several readings. In some cases, these alternate readings are predictable. Consonants may be grouped into categories, such as dentals (d, t, emphatic t), velars (g, k, q), labials (b, p) and sibilants (s, sh, z, emphatic s). If, for example, a given sign can be read "ka", the odds are that it can also be read "ga" and "qa". While this may not always be the case (if we knew all possible readings for all cuneiform signs, we might find that it is), it is a good rule of thumb, and can be easily checked in the proper source books (a list of these is found at the end). The sign "ta" can in fact be read "da", a fact which will be of use for many names.
The name "zu-ra-ta" may also be read "su-ra-da" and normalized "Sur-Adda" or "Suri-Adda". The element "sur", transliterated most often as "Zur", means "Rock", and is itself a commonly used DN. It is biblically attested as Zuriel (Numbers 3:35), Elizur (Numbers 1:5) and Zurishaddai (Numbers 1: 6). It is of normal semitic construction.
"Abdi-Addu" The name means "Servant of God" and is of normal semitic construction. The most well known forms of this name are the biblical Obadiah and the Arabic Abdullah.
"Amur-Adda" The name means "God has seen", and is biblically attested as Reaiah (I Chronicles 4:2) and Hazael. It is of normal semitic construction.
"Iddin-Addu" The name means "God has given" and is of of normal semitic construction. It is biblically attested in this form as Nethanel (Numbers 1:8) and Nethaniah (II Kings 25:23), and in other forms as Elnathan (II Kings 24:8), Jonathan, and Nathan.
"Pu-Addu" The name means "Mouth of God" and is of normal semitic construction.
"Addaya" There are a couple of possibilities with this name. It may be "Adda-Ya", with "Ya" as a shortened form of Yau, in which case it would mean "God is Yau". If so, Addu is certainly not to be read as Yau, as this would result in "Yau is Yau". However, the name Ili-Yau is the same as the biblical Elijah. Alternatively, the name may be seen as AD-daya. In this case, it could be read Yaudaya, which is known from the annals of Sennecherib to be no more than the usual cuneiform rendering of "Judahite".
"Shuma-Addu" This name also appears as "Shamu-Addu", and it is uncertain whether the first part of the name is to be understood as the noun "name" or the verb "to hear". For grammatical reasons, the former is more likely, but there are so many cases of poor grammar in the Amarna correspondance that it is difficult to decide the question on this basis. If it is the former, it is the equivalent of the biblical Samuel and means "the Name of God". If it is the latter, it is the equivalent of Shemaiah (I Kings 12:22) or Ishmael, and means "God has heard" or "May God hear".
"Zimrida" This is likely a contracted form of "Zimri-Adda". Scholars have seen the biblically attested name Zimri as a shortened form of Zimri-DN ever since the Mari letters were discovered to refer to Zimri-Lim.
"Intaruda" This name has seen as called non-semitic, and in fact does not look like a normal semitic construction. However, it may be read "In-Daruta", which is perfectly semitic, if a bit unusual. It is Akkadian for "The Eye of Eternity". It may rightly be asked why someone would bear such a name (or title), but the fact remains that there does exist a possible semitic reading. More realistically, it may be a contraction of "Intaru-Adda", which means "Light of God", and is the equivalent of Uriah, Uriel, Neriah and Yair.
"Widia" Rainey reads this name as Yidia, which is a fair transliteration of the biblically attested Jedaiah (I Chronicles 4:37)
"Niqmaddu" With the signs IM and AD used interchangably for Addu, they might easily be confused even when not being used for this purpose. Although the Addu in this name is written with the sign IM, it is likely that the intent was simply the syllable "ad", leaving this name "Niqmad", as it is elsewhere attested. Alternatively, it could mean "vengeance of God," as is usually held. There does not seem to be a biblical parallel to such a name.
"Ayyab" This is the biblical Job (Hebrew: Iyyov)
"Yapahu" This is probably the biblical Japhia (II Samuel 5: 15), again, with the "h" serving as an "ayin".
"Shuwardata" see The King of Gath.
It should be apparent that the second and third readings are more likely than reading the first. We would expect a name to be either Hurrian or Semitic--not a mixture of the two. Abdi-Hiba is like Abdi-Zeus--a bizarre mismatch. Anton Rainey has written, "note that [the] semitic reading of IR with [a] Hurrian D.N. (deity name) [is] still unproven though quite possible." The strangeness of this reading has thus not gone unnoticed.
Why are scholars so insistant on reading the second part of this name as Hiba, rather than Taba? The answer lies in the Bible. We are told in II Samuel 24:16-24 that David purchased the threshing floor of Aruana the Jebusite. This is the only Jebusite name known to us with certainty. Scholars have identified Aruana as a corruption of the Hurrian awri (literally: "leader"), a Hurrian royal title. Given that the only example we have of a Jebusite name appears to be Hurrian, and further, that the conventional chronology seems to demand a Jebusite presence in Jerusalem at the time of the Amarna correspondence, it is entirely reasonable to chose a Hurrian reading for this king (that is, if we ignore the king of Jerusalem defeated by Joshua, whose name, Adoni-Zedek, is purely semitic). On the other hand, the particle "putu" is otherwise unattested in Canaan/Israel during this period, in contrast to "abdu", which is widely used. For this reason, scholars have been unwilling to adopt the reading Puti-Hiba, preferring the strange Abdi-Hiba (the names Gilu-Hiba and Tadu-Hiba are not relevant to this question, since they are Mitannian princesses from Mesopotamia, while Jerusalem lies in the south of Israel).
Once we, consistent with our premise, place the Amarna correspondence during the period of the Divided Monarchies, we can abandon the search for a Hurrian (or half-Hurrian) name, and accept the consistantly semitic Abdi-Taba. As Peter James has shown in his "The Dating of the El-Amarna Letters" (SIS Review II:3), the best match for Abdi-Taba is Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. Given our above identification of Rib-Yauram as Jehoram son of Ahab, this seems to be confirmed. Why he didn't simply call himself Jehoram? Again, when he took the throne, his brother-in-law, also named Jehoram, was already king of North Israel. It is true that he could have called himself Jehoram the Younger or Jehoram the Lesser, but these are not the kind of names that proud kings tend to choose for themselves. He may have chosen Abdi-Taba arbitrarily when faced with his first correspondance as king, or it may have actually been one of his names.
From the evidence of his own letters, Shuwardata, who appears as a rival and an enemy of Abdi-Taba, had at one time allied himself with Abdi-Taba to fight against another personage, who is known as Labaya. Allied with Shuwardata in his struggle against Abdi-Taba was the king of Gezer, Milkili. Milkili himself was the son-in-law of one Tagi, king of Gath-Carmel. Interestingly, in the letters of Abdi-Taba, we hear complaints about Tagi and Milkili and about Shuwardata and Milkili. Never are Tagi and Shuwardata mentioned in the same letter.
Discussing this problem, Nadav Na'aman writes:
Riedel...suggested that Milkilu and Tagu were rulers of Gezer and Gath respectively, and that therefore, Shuwardata was the ruler of Keilah. Bonkamp, on the other hand, proposed that Shuwardata was ruler of the above-mentioned Gimtu (Gath). He was followed by Aharoni, who suggested locating this Gath at Tell es Safi. This was accepted by other scholars....A comparison of the lines above [from EA 290] with a second and closely related letter from Jerusalem (EA 289) clearly favors Riedel's interpretation. Milkilu and Shuwardata are accused of capturing Rubbutu in EA 290. But in letter EA 289 Milkilu and Tagu are accused of the same deed....The passage clearly shows that the two allies, Milkilu and Shuwardata, captured Rubbutu with the aid of troops sent by Tagu of Gath-Carmel.Na'aman adds in a note to the above that:
Aharoni, confronting this difficulty, suggested that Tagu and Shuwardatu succeeded one another in the same place. But such a proposal seems impossible since both of them ruled in the time of Lab'ayu and his sons.The obvious solution to this problem is not the one suggested by Na'aman, but rather that Tagi and Shuwardata are two names for the same person
The difficulty inherent in this solution is the fact that Tagi is clearly a semitic name, while Shuwardata is felt not to be. And here I find myself puzzled. "Wardatu" is clearly the form of a feminine adjective in Akkadian. "SHU" is the Sumerogram for "arm" or "hand" (Akkadian: qat, Hebrew: yad), a noun which takes a feminine adjective. Thus, this name can quite legitimately be read "Yadi-Wardata". (Generally, when there is a difference between the Akkadian and Hebrew renditions of a Sumerogram in the Amarna correspondence from Canaan/Israel, the Hebrew is chosen as the correct reading. Thus IR-taba is read "Abdi-Taba" and not "Ardi-Taba".)
What is the meaning of Yadi-Wardata? In semitic idiom, "arm" or "hand" has the meaning of "deputy" (the "Arm" of the King, so to speak). "Wardatu" is an adjective based on the noun "wardu" or "ardu", meaning "servant" or "slave". Thus Yadi-Wardata would mean "subservient (or loyal) deputy". This sounds more like a title than a personal name.
During the reign of Jehoram of Judah, we are told that after Edom rebelled against Judah, so too did Libnah. This seems strange. After all, Edom was another nation. Rebelling against a foreign ruler is not unusual. But Libnah was a city within Judah itself. As Peter James has suggested (following John Gray), Libnah, placed by some at Tell es-Safi, may be the same as Gath-Carmel. Thus, when Abdi-Taba complains in EA 288 that there is hostility against him as far as Seir and Gath-Carmel, we have a perfect echo of the rebellions of Edom and Libnah (the territory of Edom was centered at Mount Seir, for which reason Seir is often used to denote Edom).
What was the nature of the Libnah rebellion? The rebellion of a foreign territory usually consists of a refusal to pay tribute or acknowledge sovereignty. Did Libnah refuse to pay taxes? Given only the evidence of the Bible, such might be the case. It is hard to see why such a trifling matter would be given mention, but it is nonetheless possible. With the information given to us by the Amarna letters, we can see that the Libnah rebellion was much more than that. It was a full-fledged revolution; an attempt by the king of Libnah to take over the entire kingdom. Furthermore, from the tone of his letters to the Pharaoh, Yadi-Wardatu seems to be assuming that he is justified in his actions, and that the king of Jerusalem is in the wrong. It is possible that the king of Libnah sought and received Egyptian sanction for his rebellion, and became in fact, the official Egyptian appointee over the region of Judah. As such, "Yadi-Wardata" would have been an official title held by Tagi. Had Egypt not been sunken so deeply into national lethargy during this period, and had Tagi received the Egyptian military aid he requested, the Davidic dynasty might have ended right then.
Velikovsky realized that the absence of Moab in the Amarna letters was an enigma. In an effort to solve this, he attempted to find Mesha in the suffix "-MESH", which is the plural determinative in Akkadian. He argued that "-MESH" is found sometimes after "amel-GAZ" (the GAZ man) and sometimes after "amelut-GAZ" (the GAZ people). Identifying the former as a singular and the latter as a plural, he questioned the logic of a plural determinative following a singular. We may wonder why he did not instead question the logic of a plural determinative following a plural; this might be considered redundant. But in fact, both "amel" and "amelut" are singular nouns. "Amelut" is collective; not plural. "Amel-GAZ-MESH" means "the GAZ men", while "amelut-GAZ-MESH" means "the GAZ peoples", implying that more than one national grouping is being referred to, a point which we shall return to.
On the other hand, the Moabites have been identified prior to this in the Amarna letters, as well as in native Egyptian inscriptions. The reference is to the Shutu, a "beduin" tribe which performed services for the Egyptians. This identification seems to be based on the oracle of Balaam in Numbers 24:17, which reads in part, "There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel; and shall smite the corners of Moab and destroy all the children of Seth (Sheit)". The parallel mention of Jacob/Israel suggests that Moab and the children of Seth are also alternate names for the same people. But far from interfering with an identification of Labaya and Mesha, this gives some slight support for it. As mentioned, the Shutu were known to be in service to the Egyptians. Likewise, in EA 255, Mut-Balu, a son of Labaya, mentions that both he and his father were in charge of escorting Egyptian caravans to Mitanni. This by itself is hardly conclusive, but it does constitute corroborative evidence.
"Labayu" has been related to the Hebrew "lavi'", meaning "lion". But why would Mesha call himself "lion", rather than "savior", which is the meaning of Mesha? If we look at this question from the other end, we may readily understand why he did not use the name Mesha in cuneiform correspondence. Because the gutteral Hebrew letter "ayin" has no parallel in English, the name Mesha is spelled as if it ends with an open syllable; that is, with a vowel sound (which was probably what misled Velikovsky). This is not the case. The letter "ayin" is a full consonant, and as mentioned previously, is often transliterated into cuneiform as the letter "h" (cf. Omri/Humri). If we look for an instance of the root "yesha", on which the name Mesha is based, we have the king of Qatna in the Mari letters, Ishhi-Addu. The first part of this name is the same as the first part of the Hebrew name Yisha-Yahu, or Isaiah, and means "may DN save". Thus we see that, in cuneiform, Mesha would appear as Meshah. Unfortunately for this king, Meshah is Akkadian for "waters (or liquid) of a pig". This could have had a connotation of anything from "pig slops" to "pig urine". In any case, it is not hard to see why he would not have used this name in the Amarna letters.
But why "Labaya"? This may be a legitimate question. However, why not? "The lion" is the type of self-aggrandizing name common to monarchs. The lion was the standard of the tribe of Judah, from which came the House of David, and has been used for millenia as a symbol of royalty. On the other hand, it is more likely that "Labaya" is not the correct reading of this name. If the "la" in "la-ab-a-ya" is read instead as "mu", we would have "mu-ab-a-yu", or Muabayu: The Moabite.
Many people have objected to placing the Amarna period during the Divided Monarchy period in Israel on the grounds that the impression of the political situation in the two periods differ fundamentally. This is an error. Remember--the Bible is a didactic history. Its goal is to teach ideas, not political science. We cannot assume that situations which are implied by the biblical text are historically factual as we would if the same implication was made in a modern history book. For example, the campaigns of Sennecherib against Jerusalem and his death at the hands of his sons are seen as a connected series of events and are consequently related as if they happened in immediate succession. We know, however, that they happened over a period of thirty years. The Bible cannot be accused here of being inaccurate, as it does not state that all these events occurred in the 14th year of Hezekiah; only the first one. Historical fact is not misrepresented.
Similarly, what we are told explicitly about the political situation at the time of Jehoram fits quite well with the Amarna period. It is during this period that, although the ruler of Edom before it rebelled was a governor, and not a king, he is nonetheless called "king of Edom". It is during this period that Edom and Libnah rebelled against Jehoram, who writes in a letter that Seir (Edom) and Gath-Carmel (Libnah) are hostile to him. It is at this time that Shalmaneser III recorded an Egyptian contingent among the opposing forces at the Battle of Karkar, with conventional chronology claiming ignorance of any contemporary Egyptian presence in Syria.
Reading between the lines of the biblical text is correct practice if we are interested in the moral and theological principles being taught, but not if we are interested in the political reality at the time. Unfortunately, when claims are made regarding the political situation described in the Bible, what is too often meant is the political situation imagined by the claimant, who has read between the lines. In fact, we have precious little information in the Bible about actual politics. If biblical historians limited themselves to actual statements of fact, they would have bare pickings indeed. Thus, it is unsurprising that every possible nuance of implication has been wrung out of the text. This has made for a greater quantity of published work, albeit at the cost of dimished accuracy. One great value of the Amarna letters is their potential for increasing our knowledge of what actually happened in biblical times. If we only accept information we already have, why bother? Without Assyrian records, we would never have dreamt of Ahab and Ben-Hadad as allies in a war, but no one has claimed that the Assyrian records of this alliance show a different political situation than that described in the Bible, and should therefore be dated to a different period. The Bible may imply that Jehoram was in complete control of the territory of Judah, but implying is an entirely different thing than stating.
"al-Yarami" This city, mentioned in EA 333, should be translated as "the city of Joram". Both "the city X" and "the city of X" are written in cuneiform as al-X.
Yawa/Yama
As I have discussed elsewhere, the name Yawa is phonetically identical to Yaua, by which name Jehu is called in the records of Shalmaneser III. The reading "Yama" is an example of the m/w phonetic shift frequently encountered in Akkadian. Yawa is mentioned in a letter of Abimilki of Tyre and is the author of EA 230. The beginning of this letter is telling: "Say to the king, my lord / Thus says Yama, your servant / At your feet I fall down / Behold, I am your servant". Unlike almost every other Amarna correspondant, Yawa makes no reference to the king as "my god" or "my sun". This is what we would expect from Jehu, who destroyed Baal worship in North Israel.
[Since this character doesn't show up well in HTML, I've used a regular "s". The consonant is actually rendered as an "s" with an upside-down caret above it, like a small letter "v".]
He also took the "e" at the end of the word as a silent "e", the way it often is in English. Having done all this, he concluded that the second word was not "nese," but "nes," the Hebrew word for miracle. He then drew a connection with the Shunnamite woman in the book of Kings who had a miracle done for her.
Flights of fancy aside, the name has in truth been a subject of debate, so much so that many books nowadays tend to leave it as an unnormalized Sumerogram. The NIN is no problem. It means "Lady," the feminine equivalent of "Lord." Nor is the MESH difficult at all; it is the plural suffix (Velikovsky missed this, or he might have suggested that she was Mesha's lion keeper).
What is UR.MAH? One attested meaning is "lion." This is the source of the "Lady of Lions" reading. But MAH is the sumerogram for "holy". The compound Sumerogram LU.MAH means "high priest," where LU means "man". UR means "city". Thus, UR.MAH would be the city parallel of "high priest". Since we don't know whether the MESH applies to UR.MAH or only to MAH, this name could mean "Lady of the Holy Cities," or "Lady of the City of Holies". Do we know of a woman who ruled from a city that was considered holy around the same time as the two Jehorams and Jehu? Of course we do: the usurper Athaliah.