The Moabite Stone: Lessons in Biblical Archaeology
Kerry A. Shirts
Years ago in the LDS magazine the Ensign, John M. Lundquist wrote a marvelous article on the extra textual sources that illumine the King James Bible.1 In that article he briefly brought up the Moabite Stone, among other ancient textual and archaeological sources, and its significance for understanding a part of the Old Testament. I was extremely interested in how the Moabite Stone described the situation in the Bible. Since then I have gathered a few ideas and sources, and so, will revisit the Moabite Stone and expand its lessons for us.
The Moabite Stone is a black basalt stele bearing an inscription of Mesha, King of Moab and contemporary with King Ahab of Israel. "The upper portion of it was first seen by a Prussian clergyman Rev. F. A. Klein, in the year 1868."2
The Bible
discusses the Mesha account in 2 Kings 3. The stone caused a stir
in Biblical circles as it had a direct contemporary reference to
an episode in the Bible, and specifically mentioned Israel and
the Omri dynasty. Mesha is described in the Bible as sacrificing
his eldest son to help him defeat Israel. It so horrified the
Israelites that they packed up and went home instead of defeating
Mesha. There are some very interesting ramifications to all this
as we now have two sides of this story, which enlarges the
context as well as the content of biblical history.
Moab itself was a small kingdom, "squeezed between Gilead in the North and the Zered in the South. This includes the entire eastern shore of the Dead Sea."3
The stone is written in the first person, from Meshas
viewpoint himself. The stone is "inscribed in Moabite, a
dialect closely akin to Hebrew, commemorates the victorious
exploits of this king, which are ascribed to the favor of his
god, Chemosh."4 On analyzing the Hebrew inscriptions it was
found that "several letter-forms of these Moabite stelae (waw,
kaf, mem, nun, pe, sade, and taw) display definite Hebrew
characteristics
in later Moabite inscriptions, mainly seals
from the seventh and sixth centuries, we see clear Aramaic
letters written side by side with letters of Hebrew form
the writing of the Moabites and the Edomites in the ninth century
B.C. did not differ from that of the Hebrews, while in the later
seventh and sixth centuries, we already find clear signs of the
intrusion of Aramaic elements into these two scripts."5 The
text was written
approximately
830 B.C. and is 34 lines long. 6 The intrusion of Aramaic
elements into Moabite could have been because Damascus had
influence in the ninth century, or it could have been because
Assyria, for diplomatic purposes, used Aramaic in the eighth and
seventh centuries.7 The language on the Moabite Stone differs
from Hebrew in that it contracts all diphthongs ay and aw
to e^ and o^ (carrots over the characters)
respectively, in exhibiting a masculine plural and dual
termination in n rather than in m, in preserving
the iphteal theme of the verb, and in employing a
feminine ending t in place of at, as in
st (=satt) for OT sana (<sanatu ),
"year."8
There are some
theological items of significance with the Moabite Stone, and at
least one historical item of significance I would like to present
for our consideration.
The historical item first. To get to this, it is important to actually have the entire inscription here. Then we can compare and check it against what the Bible records. Here is the translation of the Mesha Stone:

2 Kings 3 recounts the Bible version of Meshas rebellion. At verse 5 it states that Mesha rebelled. The Moabite Stone gives another impression however. "Mesha described Moabs oppression by Omri, king of Israel, and Omris earlier military exploits in Moab, as a way to justify his own territorial ambitions."10 The Moabite Stone gives us several familiar names of cities from the Bible as well as mentioning events the Bible does not. "The Biblical account says nothing of Meshas revolt, while Mesha in his turn says nothing of the campaign described in 2 Kings 3. Neither document implies that the events described in the other did not occur; the two are written from two different points of view and their authors selected the events which suited the purpose of the respective writers."11
Werner Kellers enthusiastic response to this is tempered by the facts however. He stated "The Mesha-stele adds the necessary colour to the Biblical narrative and illumines its obscurity. The stele and the Bible agree on the decisive point, namely that the campaign ended with the defeat of the Israelite king. The Bible describes at length the initial success of Israel, which king Mesha passes over in silence. The unfortunate outcome of the campaign is only briefly hinted at in the Bible, whereas the Moabite king revels in his victory. Both are telling the truth!"12 This enthusiasm is not shared by James B. Pritchard who noted "In addition to the new information which the stone gives for the history of the ninth century it actually raises more problems than it settles and historians have generally concluded that the Hebrew and the Moabite chroniclers tended generally , and quite understandably, to ignore their own losses and setbacks there is reflected a glimpse of Moabite theology. Mesha received his instructions for battle from his god Chemosh. When his god gave him a victory, he devoted the same word is used in the inscriptions as appears in the Hebrew account of Joshua devoting the spoils of Jericho to Yahweh all the inhabitants of the town of Nebo (Moses grave was on Mt. Nebo) to his god Ashtar-Chemosh."13
And this leads us right into the theological ramifications of the Moabite Stone. "According to the Biblical account the Israelites succeeded at first against the Moabite forces, thus conquering many towns, but the siege of Kir-hareseth (Kir of Moab, Isa. 15:1; el-Kerak) failed, and as usual, in such cases, the retreat apparently became a rout.
The boastful words of Mesha are not without foundation, for not only did Moab throw off the Israelite yoke but henceforth the entire Mishor became Moabite. In the prophecies of Isaiah (15-16) and Jeremiah (48) reference is made to many of the towns that appear in the Mesha Stele as belonging to Moab. Even Heshbon, Elealeh, Sibmah and Jaazer belonged to Moab according to these prophecies, which show that its kingdom had expanded even farther to the north, thus exceeding the bounds of Meshas expansion by imposing its rule on southern Gilead."14
As we can understand, at least from the Biblical record, there is no mention of the defeat of Mesha. It is the Mesha Stone which actually claims the victory, which it was, "despite the military stalemate; for thereafter Moab ceased to be under Israelite tutelage."15
And this came about because Meshas god Chemosh came through for him! The Moabite Stone indicates that Chemosh actually told Mesha what to do, and he went and did it, as far as conquering various Israelite cities. He even took to Chemosh the hdwd l)r) "altar of David?) in the Moabite city Kerioth. This is the Biblical Kerioth (Jeremiah 48:24; Amos 2:2; today el-Qereiyat south of Ataroth).16 This is the Hebrew word in the brackets in line 18, that was left untranslated. Barton calls this object the "altar-hearths of Yahweh."17 Now, this Hebrew word l)r) is broken up and hard to read on the line. Could it be the Hebrew ryd), "mighty, noble, powerful, elite soldier, Mighty One," etc. instead? The altar of David makes no sense, while the noble ones or the mighty ones, that is the warriors would make very good sense indeed, as this is a military success of Mesha. The reason I suppose this might make more sense is because the r and d easily get mixed up as would the r and l if they were beat up also, as the stone was broken up. Its just fun speculation at this point. There are other options which I wont go into right now Oh all right, just one.
The Hebrew word
dwd looks very similar to our
Hebrew word hdwd which is
translated as "David." The Hebrew word dwd is a kettle or pot, a basket. So
could Mesha have taken big baskets? Some kind of religious
furniture item to use for his own people perhaps? Who knows?
Its just good clean fun guessing. But it is more than
interesting that this word is used in one place in the Old
Testament, at 1 Samuel 2:14. The context here is the priests
custom that when any man offered sacrifice, the priests
servant came and stuck the seething meat into a kettle or pot!
The theme of sacrifice meshes with Meshas sacrifice of his
son, and perhaps him wanting these pots or kettles for his own
religious duties to his god, Chemosh. Who knows? But it makes
sense.
Indirectly there is another angle here that may fit. Frank Moore Cross has shown that the Mesha Stele has the language of "Holy War," in it. The context of ancient Israelite and pre-Israelite war was a cosmic context. This may refer to the heavenly council of Yahweh, which takes on the characteristics of judicial courts or assemblies with a Divine Warrior leading the heavenly armies. The "heavenly hosts" fights in the wars of Yahweh (Judges 5:20, 23; Joshua 10:12-13); these are the wars of Yahweh Seba'ot "Creator of the heavenly armies." This ideology, according to Cross, was present in southern Palestine, Moab, Edom, Ammon, Midian and Qedar. The Qedarite league is called Ilu sad Atar-samayn (LU I-lu sa DINGIR a-tar-sa-ma-a-a-in) in Assurbanipals records.18 It would show the context of Mesha bringing back sacred pots or kettles back for sacrificing to his own cosmic deity. It is also interesting that Moabite seals have been found with theophoric names on them such as kms/ntn "Kemosh-natan." Many of these seals have "astral symbols" on them, again bringing in the possible cosmic dimension.19 See more of this below.
So just who was #$wmok; Chemosh? One idea is that he is the ancient Sun deity, of Sippar and Moab, worshipped in the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 11:7). There were many personal names associated in theophoric relationship with Chemosh, such as Kmssdq, Kmsyhy, Kmsm/Kmsl/hspr and the seals Kmsntn, Kmsms.20 Chemoshs influence was known for centuries, though in later times he was replaced by the Nabataean deities at Kerak.21 Meshas own father was named "Chemosh-yatti," "it is Chemosh who gives."22 As was noted, all the people of Ataroth were clain as a sacrifice for Chemosh. At His command, Nebo was taken from Israel, and the population from there sacrificed for the god Ashtar-Chemosh. This is the Canaanite go of the morning star, Venus. The winged sun disk occurs several times as a motif on seals in connection with names formed with Chemosh as well. In the Babylonian vocabularies of the second millenium Chemosh (Kammush) appears as a name of Nergal, the Lord of the city of the Underworld. His name also appears in II Kings 17:30 and in a theophoric name Nergal-sharezer (Jer. 39:3, 13 r()-r# lgrn, The Akkadian, Nergal-sar-usur, "Nergal protect the king!"). Nergal was originally associated with the sun, fire and heat.23 The identity of Chemosh with Milcom (Molech) seems to be indicated at Judges 11:24.24
"All Semitic tribes appear to have started with a single tribal deity whom they regard as the divine creator of his people, and this deity seems to have been astral, the sun, moon, or the planet Venus. The South Arabians of Aksum in Abyssinia speak of their gods "Astar (=Ashtar=Venus) "25
Ashtarte and Ashtaroth and the various ways of spelling the name can be decoded as it were, with the help of the Bible itself. Raphael Patai has guided our attention to various passages in Deuteronomy that helps us grasp the significance of the name Ashtar-Chemosh.
Deuteronomy 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51 in these four phrases "the ashotrath of your flock" poetically, which is paralleled by "the increase of your kine." The rules of Hebrew prosody demonstrates that the word "increase," (sheger) must have roughly the same meaning as ashtorath. On the other hand, sheger (which has its cognate verb-root in Aramaic meaning "to send forth") is a synonym of rehem, the well known biblical word for "womb" (Exodus 13:12). Thus both sheger and ashtorath can mean only "womb" or by transference "that which issues from the womb." From rehem is derived the Biblical Hebrew noun raham, meaning "she of the womb," or "girl" (Judges 5:30). Similarly from ashtorath, is derived from the Canaanite name of the Goddess "Ashtorath" meaning "she of the womb,"26
Lundquist also noted that Chemosh in fact, became popular as a deity in Israels own worship! (1 Kings 11:7; 19:18; 2 Kings 17; 21). "The Moabite Stone gives us a picture of such an idol as one of his native adherents would have viewed him."27
Here we see a pagan, non-Israelite deity actually helping his follower and true prophet/priest/king fight battles and win. We see the Moabite king having such tremendous faith in Chemosh that he actually sacrificed his own son, which won him the battle against the Israelites! In Josephus account of this situation he says the Israelites were distressed in the way of humanity and pity that they simply left the siege and went home after seeing Mesha sacrifice his eldest son, and heir to Meshas throne, as a burnt offering.28 The point is, even against Elishas prophecy (!) Mesha won the battle against Israel using his god Chemosh. And in a most horrible manner, by human child sacrifice!
Elisha had prophesied in verses 18f that God would hand over every fortified city including Moab. This did not happen however. Meshas intensely personal sacrifice saved the day. The Bible records that Israel was in indignation. The Hebrew word used here Pceqe Qesef means twigs or splinters! This interesting allusion is in reference to being broken off. It is a breaking forth in anger or provoking of the anger of Jehovah at Deuteronomy 9:7,8, 22. Other scriptures which use this word are Joshua 9:20; 22:20; Isaiah 34:2, 54:8, 60:10, Zechariah 1:2; 2 Chronicles 19:10; altercations, strife, Esther 1:18.29 The BDB notes that it also means to be fearful or anxious.30 The Hebrew word indicates a force external to the people involved. Meshas sacrifice of his oldest child had a profound effect on the deity, who responded with some kind of action against Israel.31
Now it is worth noting that Mesha in the Moabite Stone goes on to proclaim his victories and expansion, which is also noted in the prophecies of Jeremiah and Isaiah as already noted. The house of Omri was wiped out. Moab wasnt.
But child sacrifice? Here there has been some interesting new developments in understanding child sacrifice in the Bible. In the Bible we find a few scattered references to this cult practice, as well as some examples. The key for our understanding is "the theology of warfare in the biblical world indicates that at least indirectly, the deity must be seen as lying behind the event, (i.e., Meshas sacrificing his son). Even the author of the chronicled event did not simply leave this story out, though he did leave other things Mesha did out of the biblical record. Levensons analysis deserves more of our attention.
The implications and lessons of the Moabite Stone are that history is written by the victors. From Meshas point of view he won. From the Bible point of view he was horrible. From Meshas point of view his god Chemosh helped him win many battles. From the Bible point of view it is their god Yahweh who fights their battles and wins.
What archaeology has shown us in this case is that the Bible does, indeed, have some historical realization behind it. It also shows that it presents its history form a bias viewpoint, yet one that is fairly accurate from that viewpoint. The doctrines touched on are remarkable. Prophets can prophesy and be wrong, without marring their Godly power. Elisha was wrong about Moab being defeated, yet he went on to have Elijahs Priesthood Mantle and work with great power from God. Mesha literally did the same thing as his Stone inscription demonstrates! What is helpful for us, from our own vantage point, to understand is that not everything in the Bible comes off as a victory for Israel and Yahweh or as true history as it is recorded. Perhaps Meshas sacrifice was pure dumb luck. We honestly cannot know at this point. But if that victory was such, what of the victories of Israel? Could not the Moabites from their perspective take the same view as Israel having just pure dumb luck? They certainly had justification for bragging on their god Chemosh, as they defeated Israel, and then expanded in power and territory and hence wealth. Their increase in fertility of their power and wealth could easily have been seen as their very god Ashtaroth-Chemosh operating on their behalf. In other words, we must use care when trying to believe and think that archaeology will support only our own views and hopes and beliefs. It never has done this. It never will. What archaeology has done in this case is present us with both sides of a terrible war situation, the outcome, and an understanding that when we read in the Bible, we read about real people involved in life and real events.
Endotes