Israel’s House: Reflections On The Use Of Byt Ysõrʾl In The Old Testament In The Light Of Its Ancient Near Eastern Environment

By Daniel I. Block

[Daniel Block is associate professor of Old Testament at Bethel Theological Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota.]

In the OT the nation of Israel is referred to in a variety of ways. Recalling the traditions of their putative ancestor, the poets and prophets of Israel frequently employ “Jacob” as a collective eponymous designation for their nation.[1] Several interesting features characterize this usage. First, in two-thirds of these texts Jacob is paralleled with another designation for the nation, usually “Israel” itself.[2] Surprisingly, Jacob is overwhelmingly favored as the a-word in the pair.[3] Furthermore there appears to be a pronounced tendency to combine the name with another noun in genitive constructions.[4] Of interest also is the frequent appositional association of Jacob with “my/his servant” (ʾbdy/w).[5] Finally, Jacob appears to have been especially appropriate as a vocative term.[6]

Much more common, however, is the name Israel, which occurs 2,517 times, frequently in combination with other terms, thus producing compound forms of the name. Especially important are the expressions bny yśrʾl (hereafter “bny Israel”), byt yśrʾl and zrʾyśrʾl.[7] Having previously investigated the significance of the first of these,[8] the present study will focus on the usage and significance of byt yśrʾl.[9] The procedure followed will consist of two major parts: (1) an examination of the significance of byt yśrʾl in the light of its OT context, and (2) an examination of the use of the byt-GN (“geographical name”) form as a national designation in the cognate Semitic texts. In the conclusion we will seek to synthesize the findings to arrive at a clearer understanding of the use of byt yśrʾl (hereafter “byt Israel”) as a self-designation by the Hebrews.

I. The Data

1. Frequency and distribution. The expression byt Israel occurs 146 times in the OT, accounting for almost six percent of the references to Israel. As Table I indicates, the distribution of the form is extremely uneven.[10] The eighty-three appearances in Ezekiel represent fifty-five percent of the total. Other significant concentrations are found in Jeremiah (20 x) and Amos (8 x, or one-fourth of all the references to Israel in this book). When compared with that of bny Israel, the usage of byt Israel was governed by totally different considerations. Neither chronological proximity to the earlier tribal days nor a specific literary style determined its usage. If Jeremiah and Ezekiel—for whom the form appears to have been a distinctive literary device—are excepted, the distribution of the expression is quite evenly divided between historical narrative and prophetic writings.

As Table 1 illustrates, byt Jacob occurs twenty-one times. Only in Gen 46:27 is the expression used in a narrowly literal sense encompassing the immediate household of Jacob the patriarch. Everywhere else it occurs as a collective designation for the nation, usually serving simply as a stylistic variant to byt Israel. Apart from Exod 19:3 where byt Jacob is paralleled with bny Israel, these texts are restricted to the prophetic and poetic writings of the OT.

2. Usage. At first sight, the historians of Israel appear to have employed byt Israel simply as a stylistic variant of bny Israel. In each Pentateuchal context in which it occurs the latter form predominates.[11] In I Samuel 7, where the expression appears twice (vv 2, 3), it is alternated with Israel (vv 9–10), “all (kl) Israel” (v 5), “men of (ʾns̆y) Israel” (v 11) and “sons of (bny) Israel” (vv 4, 6–8). On the other hand it may be argued that bny Israel stresses the plurality of individuals of whom the whole consists, whereas byt Israel places the emphasis on the nation as a unified body.[12] This would explain the ease with which the latter is paralleled with kl hʾdh, “all the congregation,” in Num 20:29.[13] Similarly, the adoption of this expression in Josh 21:45 may serve to highlight Yahweh’s promise of the land of Canaan to the nation rather than to the individuals of whom it consisted. In each occurrence in Samuel-Kings a strong corporate stress is observable. According to I Sam 7:2 the absence of the ark from the central sanctuary caused corporate lamentation after Yahweh. This was transformed into corporate celebration when the ark was finally brought home to Jerusalem.[14]

Table 1

Frequency, Distribution and Genre of byt Israel and byt Jacob in the OT

Book	byt Israel (146)		byt Jacob (21)
	Narrative	Poetry	Narrative	Poetry
Genesis	-	-	1	-
Exodus	2	-	1	-
Leviticus	5	-	-	-
Numbers	1	-	-	-
Subtotals	8	-	2	-
Joshua	1	-	-	-
1 Samuel	2	-	-	-
2 Samuel	5	-	-	-
1 Kings	2	-	-	-
Subtotals	10	-	-	-
Isaiah	1	3	-	9
Jeremiah	15*	5	-	2
Ezekiel	82**	1	1***	-
Hosea	2	3	-	-
Amos	2	6	-	2
Obadiah	-	-	-	2
Micah	-	3	-	2
Zechariah	1	-	-	-
Subtotals	103	21	1	17
Psalms	-	3	-	1
Ruth	1	-	-	-
Subtotals	1	3	-	1
Grand Totals	122	24	3	18

*The full expression in 23:8 is zrʿ byt yśrʾl.

**The full expression in 44:22 is zrʿ byt yśrʾl.

***The full expression in 20:5 is zrʿ byt yśrʾl.

After the institution of the monarchy, byt Israel tended to become increasingly political—even dynastic—in overtone. The tragedy at Mount Gilboa caused David to weep for “the people of Yahweh, even the house of Israel” (ʾm yhwh wbyt yśrʾl, 2 Sam 1:12). The association of byt Israel with the ʾm yhwh might suggest a collective religious sense here, but this connotation is absent from Mephibosheth’s strictly secular comment in 16:3: “Today byt Israel will restore the kingdom (mmlkwt) of my father to me.” After the division of the kingdom the expression is applied exclusively to the northern kingdom, in juxtaposition to Judah. In 1 Kgs 12:21 Rehoboam assembles all byt Judah and the tribe of Benjamin against byt Israel. In 20:31 Ben-Hadad of Aram is reminded by his servants of the merciful reputation of the kings of byt Israel. A final text, 2 Sam 12:8, is noteworthy because of the effective play on the word byt. On the one hand Nathan reminds David that he has been given “the house of your master” (byt ʾdnyk); on the other he has also received byt Israel and Judah.

The outstanding characteristic of the use of byt Israel in the prophets is its vocative function.[15] The critical circumstances immediately preceding the fall of the northern kingdom in the eighth century,[16] and Judah toward the end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth,[17] contributed to the adoption of this hortatory device. The scope of the expression fluctuated in the prophets between the entire nation on the one hand[18] and the northern kingdom alone on the other.[19]

Ezekiel’s use of byt Israel deserves special comment. In a general sense the prophet is charged to minister to byt Israel,[20] to renounce her evil,[21] and to declare her future prospects.[22] Elsewhere the name is applied specifically to the northern kingdom even though it had long since disappeared,[23] the exiles of Judah in Babylon,[24] and the remnant in Jerusalem.[25] In several contexts byt Israel is paired with “my people” and contrasted with the nations (gwym).[26] According to this prophet byt Israel has elders,[27] possesses a register of its citizens,[28] and has a wall surrounding it.[29] Why Ezekiel, the prophet who is otherwise recognized for his emphasis on the responsibility of the individual for his own welfare, should have preferred this form to the simple name Israel[30] or bny Israel[31] is not clear. It may be speculated that on the verge of the collapse of the nation as an independent political entity he deliberately adopted an expression with strong cohesive overtones. On the other hand, since he wrote from Babylon the form may suggest a Mesopotamian literary influence on his writings.[32]

3. Antithetical evidence. Byt Israel is juxtaposed with antithetical expressions in only four contexts. Lev 17:8, 10 distinguishes the members of byt Israel from the gr hgr btwkm, “the sojourner who sojourns in their midst.” However, the text is of little value for determining the unique emphasis of byt Israel because of the free interchange of the expression with bny Israel in the context. A similar alternation occurs in 22:18, in which Moses is charged to speak to Aaron, his sons and all bny Israel. The actual statement to be made, however, distinguishes between “the men from the house of Israel” (ʾys̆ mbyt yśrʾl) and “the sojourner in Israel” (hgr byśrʾl). According to the succeeding verses both may offer sacrifices to Yahweh, a privilege denied the stranger (bn nkr) in v 25. Indeed the latter’s produce is not to be received even if offered by an Israelite. Ezek 14:7 is similar to Lev 22:18 in insisting that the same laws concerning idolatry apply to both byt Israel and the sojourner (gr) in their midst.

Isa 14:1–2 is more helpful. The prophet speaks in v 1 of the sojourner (hgr) attaching himself[33] to byt Jacob, which in the context is paralleled with byt Israel. According to v 2 the “peoples” (ʾmym) who will bring the Israelites back to their own land will themselves become the servants and captives of the byt Israel. The text clearly distinguishes between byt Israel and outsiders who would identify with them on the one hand and those who will be subject to them on the other.

4. Other examples of byt-GN in the OT. Proper names with a prefixed byt are common in the OT.[34] Two types of names, however, should be distinguished: toponyms and eponyms. The most striking feature of the former is the absence of any place name of the form byt-GN in which GN also occurs as a personal name. Most reflect the veneration of a deity at the site[35] or some physical or biological feature associated with it.[36] Occasionally moral qualities will appear in the genitive position.[37] Each of these forms assumes a more literal meaning of byt than is reflected in byt Israel.

In contrast to this common usage, byt precedes other eponyms relatively rarely. In each occurrence the genitive is a personal name that also appears with great frequency in the patriarchal narratives.[38] Since these names are all closely associated with that of Israel/Jacob they provide little additional assistance in the interpretation of the significance of byt in byt Israel.[39]

Having summarized the ways in which byt Israel is used in the OT we turn now to an interpretation of the data. What is the significance of the prefixed byt in this compound form of the name? In our earlier study we concluded that as a self-designation the form bny Israel reflected an Israelite perception of descent from a common ancestor. Is the same true of byt Israel? This question may be answered only by examining the broader use of the term byt in the OT and the byt-GN form in the cognate languages.

II. The General Usage Of Byt

With its more than two thousand appearances, byt seems to have been one of the most frequently-used Hebrew substantives.[40] Although its significance varied greatly from one context to another, in its basic meaning byt represented a building that served as a dwelling, a residence. Frequently, however, byt was used in a derived sense to designate a “household, family”—i.e., those who resided in the same dwelling. Not surprisingly a byt could consist of more than the parents and the immediate children. Noah’s included the wives of his sons (Gen 7:1, 7); Jacob’s included his grandchildren.[41] Abraham’s byt incorporated 318 trained men, and that long before he had any children of his own (14:14). Servants, whether born in the house or purchased from outside, were included (17:23, 27). Although the word byt is not employed in the context of Exod 20:10, since they are subject to the head of the house it is implied that even aliens and livestock were considered to belong.

In a patriarchal society such as Israel’s the byt was dominated by the father (ʾb). The word ʾb itself connotes not only kinship but also authority.[42] The father was the lord of the house,[43] even of his wife.[44] Children and servants alike honored him.[45] In return, in him they also found their security.[46] So important was the father in the household that the adoption of byt ʾb as a designation for the family was a natural development.[47]

It should be emphasized, however, that although the byt could often include servants and other outsiders the foundation of this social unit was the blood relationship that existed among the primary members.[48] Marriage signified the departure of the male adult from his father and mother (Gen 2:24) and the establishment of his own byt (Num 30:10). The selection of an appropriate wife was a critical task, for her function was not only to attend to the physical well-being of the family (Prov 31:10 ff.) but especially to provide the ʾb with children. To have children was to build the byt;[49] not to have them was the cause of great shame.[50] The importance of kinship by blood lies at the heart of the patriarchal narratives. Abraham was called to leave his kinsmen (mwldt) and his byt ʾb in order that his own might grow in new creative directions (Gen 12:1–3). However, this growth was frustrated by Sarah’s inability to conceive. Nevertheless all alternative schemes were rejected: Neither Eliezer, the designated heir (bn ms̆q bytw, 15:2), nor Ishmael the son of the Egyptian handmaiden (17:15 ff.) could substitute for the actual son of Abraham and Sarah. This concern for the blood ties continued in the search for a wife for Isaac,[51] as well as the latter’s final instructions to Jacob (28:1 ff.). It was these marriages that ultimately produced the byt Jacob—consisting of seventy members, fathers, children and grandchildren[52] —that made its descent into Egypt.

According to the subsequent narratives, consciousness of membership in the household of Jacob was never forgotten in spite of the increasing size and complexity of the group. The hierarchical organization of the nation that emerged from Egypt was based upon an awareness of lineal descent from the ancestor, the dimensions of which are reflected in the genealogies.[53] These are by definition concerned with kinship ties; servants and slaves were not normally included. Consequently, although the term byt was applied to each new family unit, not only could the descendants of the various tribes be designated as byt Judah, byt Ephraim, byt Benjamin, etc., but the entire nation continued to be known as byt Israel/Jacob. It may therefore be concluded that overtones of kinship underlie the Hebrew use of byt-GN, particularly when employed as a self-designation, although perhaps to a slightly lesser degree than in the expression bny Israel.[54]

III. Byt-Gn In The Cognate Languages

The root *byt, “house,” appears to have been common to all Semitic languages.[55] Fortunately, for the purposes of this discussion the form byt-GN has been attested in a variety of contexts, permitting a firm basis of comparison with the Hebrew usage.

1. Bþt-GN in Akkadian writings. The term bþtu(m) occurs frequently in Akkadian texts. Its broad range of meanings parallels the Hebrew usage in many respects.[56] Especially important for our purposes are the numerous occurrences of the expression bþt-GN in which the proper name designates a geographic or tribal entity.[57] It remains to be determined whether the phrase implies a recognition of ethnic cohesion as was observed to be operative in the Hebrew counterpart.

Several rather severe limitations frustrate the search for a satisfactory answer to this question. First, most of these names appear only as just that: the names of regions or tribes listed along with many others, tribes that were conquered by the Assyrian and Babylonian kings. Consequently their value for us is little more than statistical; at best they may reveal some hierarchical structures.[58] Many appear only once.[59] Second, the Akkadian scribes were dis-appointingly inconsistent in their application of determinatives, alternating among māt (“land”), āl (“city”) and mār (“son”), or omitting them entirely. Third, and perhaps most seriously, bþt in the sense of ruling dynasty and bþt meaning tribal unit are not carefully distinguished.[60] As a result it is often impossible to determine whether a given text is dealing with the ruling house of a tribe or with the tribe itself.[61] On the other hand it is possible that in some cases the name in the genitive position of bþt-GN may have been recognized as both the ancestor of the tribe and the founder of the dynasty. Finally, unlike the Hebrews, who demonstrated their keen interest in ancestral traditions by committing them to writing, not a trace of similar literature has survived in Mesopotamia. The records of the ancestral heritages of the monarchs are not to be confused with national traditions.[62]

In view of these limitations a great deal of caution must be observed in handling the data. It is impossible to prove definitively or to refute the common ethnic roots of any of the Mesopotamian tribes that come under the name bþt-GN. At best one may speak in terms of probabilities. But it is to be expected that, if the form bþt-GN does reflect a common ethnic heritage, hints of this consanguinity should occasionally be dropped.

The first hint derives from the common use of bþtu for “household, family..”[63] That the bþtu as an economic unit could include servants and slaves as well as the members of the actual family is clear from the Babylonian laws. However, the core of the bþtu consisted of the father (abu), his wife (as̆s̆atu), and the children of that marriage.[64] In the patriarchal Mesopotamian society the father was considered to be the lord of the house.[65] The use of the expression bþt abim, one of the central concerns of the law code of Hammurapi, is of special interest.[66] Full membership in the bþt abim, indicated by the rights of inheritance, was normally open to the children of the man (awþlum) and his wife.[67] However, under special circumstances if a slave woman bore children fathered by the awþlum these could also share in the privilege.[68] Adopted children too were to share in the inheritance,[69] but under certain conditions they could also return to their paternal homes (i.e., their own bþt abim).[70] On the other hand, even for seigniors the threat of being cut off from the bþt abim hung over those guilty of moral offenses against the family.[71] The obvious importance of blood relationships in these texts confirms overtones of kinship in the Akkadian usage of bþtu when followed by an appropriate genitive.[72]

Although in its essential meaning bft abi referred to the nuclear family, the expres~ion could be applied to social units of ever-increasing size. According to ABI, 1074:8–9, one b~t abi is presented as a larger entity containing a qinnu as a subunit: “This family belongs to the clan Bels̆unu.”[73] The hierarchical tribal social structure is reflected even more explicitly in ABL 877:12–17: “Il-latu, son of Marduk, son of Baueresh, family of the Buletira clan, his ancestral house is outside the gate of the Gula (temple).”[74] Noteworthy here is the substitution of the name of the person fulfilling the role of father, Buletira, in place of abi. It is this usage that also underlies the lists of Sennacherib’s Chaldean conquests.[75]

In an extended sense bþtu was commonly used of paternal estate—not only of movable property,[76] but also of real estate. Thus a patrimony could consist of a garden, a field, or even a manor.[77] On the other hand, although one paternal estate could be divided into several “houses” the expression bþt abi continued to have reference to the ancestral castle, the family seat.[78] This semantic process developed still farther, to the point where bþtu could be applied to a plot of land or geographic region independent of any inheritance connections.[79] Only in such cases have the kinship overtones receded completely.

We would be greatly assisted in confirming the kinship connotations of the expression bþt-GN if it could be demonstrated that when it is employed in a tribal or geographic sense the name appearing as the genitive represented a bona fide personal name. Unfortunately many of the names so used are unattested as names of individuals. It is possible that the personal-name determinative prefixed to many of these reflects memories of the founders of these houses—i.e., the eponymous ancestors.[80] On formal grounds there does not seem to be any reason for rejecting many of those accompanied by this determinative as personal names.[81] Several have appeared in contexts in which they have been interpreted as individuals, suggesting that the personal-name determinatives were not entirely fictitious.[82]

Of special interest in this regard are the major Chaldean tribes—the Bit-Amukani, Bit-Dakkuri and Bit-Yakin peoples. Several features, apart from the prefixed bþt and the personal-name determinative, suggest that here we have to do with tribes whose basis of unity was descent from a common ancestor. First, these names are never used of cities or associated with specific geographic locations.[83] Second, the members of the tribes are regularly identified as mdr-PN, the genitive being the name of the supposed ancestor.[84] Since the names are not applied to cities, this usage should probably not be equated with the common Assyrian designation of a citizen of a city as “the son of the city.”[85] This suggests that these groups had not yet developed politically beyond tribal status.[86]

It is obvious that the search for the origins of the peoples referred to by the Assyrians as bþt-GN cannot be completed without a great deal more information. However, it does appear that in some instances, especially with respect to the Chaldean tribes, the form might reflect a perception of tribal identity based on descent from a common ancestor. As in the case of Hebrew usage, this interpretation does not demand absolute ethnic purity. It is known that intermarriage was practiced at least among the leading families of the tribes.[87] It is also quite likely that outsiders were often incorporated into the tribe, either voluntarily or by coercion.

2. Byt-GN in Northwest Semitic texts. Outside Mesopotamia examples of tribal and national names using the form byt-GN are rare. The nearest the cuneiform texts of Ugarit come is the application of the expression bþt abi to a family seat or ancestral castle.[88] Unfortunately, however, as in so many instances from Mesopotamia, this text concerns the fortunes of a dynasty, not a tribe. From the alphabetic texts the Keret epic speaks of a bt ḥbr.[89] Habur, however, is not the name of a person but of a city, the home of Keret.[90]

The data provided by Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions are no more satisfying. The expression bt/byt ʾb occurs frequently with the sense “dynasty, royal house,”[91] but bt/byt-GN forms are rare. However, two eighth-century B.C. references deserve comment. Exactly who is meant by bt mps̆ in the Karatepe inscription is not clear.[92] It could be argued on the basis of KAI 26 A II:13–16 that bt mps̆ is treated as the equivalent of “the Danunites” (dnwnym).[93] Both are clearly associated with the plain of Adana and may be viewed as inhabitants thereof. On the basis of KAI 26 A I:13–16[94] and A III:8 ff.,[95] however, this interpretation is unlikely. Furthermore, if the tradition of Stephanos is to be relied upon, Adana was founded not by Mupsh but by a person named Adanos.[96] Consequently bt mps̆ should be viewed as the name of the dynasty, considered to have been founded by a man named Mupsh.[97]

From the Aramaic texts we learn of byt gs̆,[98] a northern Aramean state with its capital Arpad.[99] According to Sefire II B:10 byt gs̆ as well as byt ṣll are threatened with a curse should they break the treaty that Bir-Ga’yah king of KTK has made with them. From the context the identity of byt gs̆ is not clear. If both entities are understood as toponyms,[100] these represent important parallels to bþt-GN in Akkadian and byt-GN in Hebrew. However, it is possible to interpret the form much more narrowly—i.e., as a designation for the dynasty founded by gs̆.[101] In the present context the expression seems to refer to those mentioned in Sefire II B:2–3: Arpad and its people, Mati”el, his sons, his nobles, his people (ʾm).[102] If this interpretation is correct, byt gs̆ serves as a collective expression for the inhabitants of the state ruled by Mati”el. It must still be determined, however, how the state came to be known as byt gs̆. Unfortunately, apart from this text[103] byt gs̆ has appeared on only one fragmentary Aramaic text, which reads l[ʾtrsmk] byt gs̆, “to [Attarsumki] of Bþt-Gus̆i.”[104] Otherwise even the Sefire inscription appears to exchange byt for br/bny.[105] Again the expression has been associated with both the territow and/or the subjects of Mati”el[106] and the dynasty he represented.[107] The eighth-century B.C. inscription of Zakkur of Hamath names a certain brgs̆ next to br Hazael in a list of kings allied against Zakkur.[108] It is apparent that here gs̆ is understood as a dynastic title, suggesting that elsewhere too byt gs̆ signifies either a dynasty or a state identified after its ruling house. Consequently the origins of the name are not to be found in an eponymous ancestor of the people of Arpad.

This interpretation is confirmed by the evidence of the neo-Assyrian royal annals. From the time of Ashurnasirpal (883-859 B.C.) comes the form mGu-u-si 1Ia-hãa-na-a-a, the name of a king bringing tribute.[109] The name distinguishes between the man Gusi and his country Yahan.[110] The annals of Shal-maneser III (858-824 B.C.) frequently speak of Arame, a son of (A)gusi.[111] More than one hundred years later Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 B.C.) encounters Matiʾilu mār mA-gu-u-si.[112] In a list of villages the form Bþt-A-g[u-si] appears,[113] while another text uses māt Bþt-A-gu-si.[114] It appears that by this time the entire region ruled from Arpad was being identified by the name of the ruling dynasty in precisely the same way that Israel was being referred to as Bþt-Humria and Aram Damascus as Bþt-Hazaʾilu.[115] Consequently we are left with no Aramaic or Phoenician witnesses to the byt-GN form in which overtones of national unity based on descent from a common ancestor are reflected.

IV. Summary And Conclusions

The employment of the expression byt Israel as a self-designation by the Hebrews represents a usage unattested outside the OT. But the form is not restricted to the name Israel; the Israelites also identify themselves as byt Isaac and much more frequently as byt Jacob. Where individual tribes of Israel are concerned, byt often appears before the eponymous tribal name. The double occurrence of byt Esau as a designation for Edom in Obad 18 confirms that the byt-GN form was used not only as a self-designation but also was applied to the Transjordanian nations, with the name in the genitive position being that of the perceived eponymous ancestor. This observation, combined with the general understanding of a byt as being primarily (though not exclusively) a kinship unit, supports the hypothesis that when Israelites identify their nation as byt Israel they are employing a collective expression that assumes a nation that is essentially an ethnic unity. Such overtones, however, are probably not as strong as in the cases of zrʾ Israel and bny Israel.

Since such use of the byt-GN form is not known from the Phoenician and Aramaic texts of the same period and is absent from all Akkadian references to the Northwest Semitic nations, it may be proposed that the expression reflects a unique Hebrew perception of national self-consciousness. To be sure, in these contexts the form byt-GN appears to have been in common use, even as a means of identifying a state, but the significance of the expression was fundamentally different. In every one of these instances a territorial state, as opposed to a nation state, is involved,[116] and in every case the name derives from that of the recognized founder of a ruling dynasty. The neo-Assyrians even applied this form (albeit erroneously) to the northern kingdom of Israel.

By way of contrast, however, it should be emphasized that, apparently lest realm and dynasty be confused, the Hebrew historians studiously avoided the identification of their nation, byt Israel, with the various dynasties. Neither the united kingdom of Israel nor Judah is ever called byt Saul or byt David. Similarly the northern kingdom is never referred to as byt Jeroboam, byt Omri or byt Jehu.[117] The nations represented the houses of their ancestors, not of the kings-come-lately. Their sense of unity transcended mere political considerations. It was founded upon a conviction of consanguinity and kinship.[118]

Notes

1. This usage cannot be passed off as a later poetic device. It appears in the blessing of Jacob (Gen 49:7, 24), dated by F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman (Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry [SBLDS 21; Missoula: Scholars, 1975] 70) as premonarchic; the oracles of Balaam (Num 23:7, 10, 21, 23; 24:5, 17, 19), dated by W. F. Albright (“The Oracles of Balaam,” JBL 63 [1944] 233) in the twelfth century B.C. (cf. idem, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths [London: Athlone, 1968] 15-16); the song of Moses (Deut 32:9), dated by Albright, ibid., p. 17, c. 1025 B.C. (so also O. Eissfeldt, Das Lied Moses, Deuteronomium 32:1–43 und das Lehrgedicht Asaphs Psalm 78, saint einer Analyse der Umgebung des Mose Liedes [Berlin: Akademie, 1958] 21; cf. U. Cassuto, “The Song of Moses,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. I: Bible [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1974] 41-46, who concludes that the song follows immediately upon the conquest of the land. Not all accept so early a date; see A.D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy ]London: Oliphants, 1979] 380-382, who prefers an exilic or postexilic date on form-critical grounds; so also G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament [Nashville: Abingdon, 1968] 190); the blessing of Moses (Deut 33:4, 10, 28), dated by Albright, Yahweh, to the mid-eleventh century B.C. (so also Cross and Freedman, Studies 97); the last words of David (2 Sam 23:1), discussed by Albright (Yahweh 24–25) in the context of other tenth-century poems.
2. These texts may be tabulated as follows://yśrʾl: Gen 49:7, 24; Num 23:7, 10, 21, 23a, 23b; 24:5, 17; Deut 33:10, 28; Isa 9:7; 10:20; 14:1; 27:6; 29:23; 40:27; 41:8, 14; 42:24; 43:1, 22, 28; 44:1, 5, 21, 23; 45:4; 46:3; 48:1, 12; 49:5, 6; Jer 2:4; 10:16; 30:10; 46:27; Ezek 20:5; 39:25; Hos 12:13; Mic 1:5; 2:12; 3:1, 8, 9; Nah 2:3; Pss 14:7; 22:24; 78:5, 21, 71; 81:5; 105:10, 23; 114:1; 135:4; 147:19; Lam 2:3; 1 Chr 16:17; //ys̆rwn: Isa 44:2; //yhwdh: Isa 65:9; Jer 5:20; Hos 10:11; 12:3; //ʾprym: Hos 10:11; //ywsp + ʾsw:Obad 18; //ʾmy: Isa 58:1; //ʾbrhm: Mic 7:20; Ps 106:6. In the last reference the parallel pair actually consists of bny yʾqb//zrʾ ʾbrhm.
3. Exceptions are Deut 33:28; Isa 10:20; 41:8; 58:1; Ezek 20:5; Hos 12:3; Pss 81:5; 85:2; 105:6, 23; 114:1; Lam 2:3. This runs counter to the commonly held view that a-words are usually the more common words, whereas b-words are rarely used in prose. Cf. the note by J. J. Boling, “Synonymous Parallelism in the Psalms,” JSS (1960) 223-224.
4. (1) Designations for the people of Israel or segments thereof: (a) bny yʾqb: (Gen 49:2; 1 Kgs 18:31; 2 Kgs 17:34; Mal 3:6; Pss 77:16; 105:6; (b) zrʾ yʾqb:Isa 45:19; Jer 33:26; Ps 22:24; cf. Isa 65:9, whwṣʾty myʾqb zrʾ; (c) byt yʾqb:Exod 19:3; Isa 2:5, 6; 8:17; 10:20; 14:1; 29:22; 46:3; 48:1; 58:1; Jer 2:4; 5:20; Ezek 20:5 (zrʾ byt yʾqb);Amos 3:13; 9:8; Obad 17, 18; Mic 2:7; 3:9; Ps 114:1; cf. the literal use in Gen 46:27; (d) s̆bṭy yʾqb:Isa 49:6; (e) s̆ʾr/s̆ʾryt yʾqb:Isa 10:21; Mic 5:6, 7; (f) rʾs̆y yʾqb:Mic 3:1; (g) plyṭt byt yʾqb:Isa 10:20. (2) Designations for the places of residence in Israel: (a) ʾhly yʾqb:Jer 30:18; Mal 2:12; (b) nʾwt yʾqb:Lam 2:2; (c) ms̆knwt yʾqb:Ps 87:2; (d) nḥlt yʾqb:Isa 58:14. (3) Designations for the God of Israel: (a) ʾl/ʾlhym yʾqb: lsa 2:3; Mic 4:2; Pss 46:8, 12; 94:7; 114:7; 146:5 (all //yhwh);Pss 20:2; 84:9 (both//yhwh ṣbʾt); 81:2 (//ʾlhym); also 2 Sam 23:1; Pss 75:10; 76:7; 81:5; (b) qdws̆ yʾqb:Isa 29:23; (c) ʾbyr yʾqb:Isa 49:26; 60:16; Ps 132:2, 5; (d) mlk yʾqb:Isa 41:21. (4) Other associations: ḥlq yʾqb:Jer 10:16; 51:19; s̆m yʾqb:Isa 44:5; kbwd yʾqb:Isa 17:4; gʾwn yʾqb:Amos 6:8 (in negative sense); 8:7; Ps 47:5 (both positive); ʾwn yʾqb:Isa 27:9; s̆byt(wt) yʾqb:Ezek 39:25; Ps 85:2.
5. Isa 44:1, 2; 45:4; 48:20; Jer 30:10; 46:27, 28; Ezek 28:25; 37:25. Cf. Isa 41:8; 44:21.
6. Num 24:5; Isa 2:5 (byt yʾqb);40:27; 41:14 (twlʾt yʾqb);43:1, 22; 44:1 (yʾqb ʾbdy), 2, 21; 46:3 (byt yʾqb);48:1 (byt yʾqb), 12; Jer 2:4 (byt yʾqb);46:27, 28 (ʾbdy yʾqb);Mic 2:7 (byt yʾqb);3:1, 9.
7. For a table illustrating the frequency and distributions of each of these expressions see our previous study, “‘Israel’—’Sons of Israel’: A Study in Hebrew Eponymic Usage,” SR 13/3 (1984) 322-323.
8. Cf. n. 7.
9. The expression zrʾ yśrʾl deserves its own study.
10. Note the total absence of byt Israel from late historiography (Ezra-Chronicles).
11. Note the broader contexts of Exod 16:31; 40:38; Lev 10:6; 17:3, 8, 10; Num 20:29.
12. Cf. A. R. Hulst’s conclusion that in Deuteronomy bny Israel stresses “die empirische Pluralität,” whereas Israel by itself emphasizes the “Einheit” of the nation; “Der Name ‘Israel’ im Deuteronom-ium,” OTS 9 (1951) 82. This concurs with W. Zimmerli’s comment (Ezekiel [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983}, 2. 564): “Here there is expressed the family solidarity, the all-embracing total entity of this Israel”; cf. idem, “Israel im Buche Ezechiel,” VT 10 (1960), esp. 79–90.
13. On the use of ʾdh in “P” cf. J. Milgrom, “Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-Monarchic Israel,” JQR 69 (1978) 76.
14. 2 Sam 6:5, 15. Verse 19 indicates that the byt Israel consisted of “all the people, all the multitude of Israel, both men and women” (lkl hʾm lkl hmwn yśrʾl lmʾys̆ wʾd ʾs̆h).
15. Cf. Isa 46:3; Jer 3:20; 5:15; 10:1; 18:6 (bis);Ezek 11:5; 18:25, 29, 30, 31; 20:31, 39, 44; 33:11, 20; 36:22; 44:6; Hos 5:1; Amos 5:1, 25; 6:14; note also Ps 135:19.
16. See the references in Hosea and Amos in n. 15.
17. Cf. the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel in n. 15. Interestingly, after the fall of Jerusalem Ezekiel uses the phrase in a vocative sense only twice. The absence of byt Israel from Deuteronomy, which is cast as a sermonic address, may suggest a chronological distance between this work and the two prophets.
18. This is frequently indicated by pairing byt Israel with byt Jacob (Isa 14:1–2; 46:3; Jer 2:4; Mic 3:9) or Jacob alone (Ezek 39:25; Mic 1:5; 3:1). Elsewhere this is indicated by the context; so Isa 5:7; 63:7; Jer 2:26; 9:25; 31:33; 33:17; Amos 9:9; cf. Pss 98:3; 115:12.
19. Note the reference to the two houses of Israel in Isa 8:14. A specifically northern interpretation is indicated by the juxtaposing of byt Israel with byt Judah; so Jer 3:18; 5:11; 11:17; 31:27, 31 (cf. v 33, where byt Israel includes both houses); 33:14; Zech 8:13; cf. also Isa 5:7 (//ʾys̆ Judah). Hos 6:10; 12:1 parallel byt Israel with Ephraim. Elsewhere the broader contexts of Jer 48:13; Hos 1:4, 6; Amos 5:1, 3, 4; 6:1, 14; 7:10 suggest the more restricted scope.
20. 3:1, 4, 5, 17; 12:6, 27; 14:6; 17:2; 20:27, 30; 24:21; 33:7, 10; 36:22; 40:4; 44:6.
21. 3:7; 6:11; 8:6, 10; 9:9; 12:9, 24; 14:4, 5; 18:6, 15, 29; 20:13; 22:18; 39:23; 44:6, 12.
22. 14:11; 20:40; 28:24, 25; 29:21; 36:10; 37:11; 39:12, 22, 25, 29; 43:10; 45:17.
23. 4:3, 4, 5; 9:9; 37:16.
24. 11:15.
25. 12:10: hnśyʾ hmśʾ hzh byrws̆lm wkl byt yśrʾl ʾs̆r hmh btwkm.
26. 13:9; 14:11; 28:25; 34:30; cf. 39:22.
27. 8:11, 12.
28. 13:9: ktb byt yśrʾl.
29. 13:5.
30. The independent form Israel appears only in 13:4; 37:28; 44:10. Israel occurs in appositional relationship to “my people” seven times (14:9; 25:14; 36:8, 12; 38:14, 16; 39:7) and with the preposition bĕ- ten times (12:23; 14:7; 18:3; 20:5; 39:7, 11; 44:28, 29; 45:8, 16). Otherwise a variety of construct combinations is used, depending upon the requirements of the context—e.g., ʾdmt yśrʾl, 17x; hry yśrʾl, 16x; ʾlhy yśrʾl, 7x; s̆bty yśrʾl, 7x; etc. For additional expressions and full discussion see G. A. Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament (Uppsala: Appelbergs, 1946) 238-260; W. Zimmerli, “Israel im Buche Ezechiel,” VT 10 (1960) 76-80. Byt Israel may well have been rejected in these instances because of a reluctance to extend the construct chain beyond two members.
31. The form appears only in 2:3; 4:13; 6:5; 35:5; 37:16, 21; 43:7; 44:9, 15; 47:22; 48:11. Some of these have been questioned on text-critical grounds; cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2. 564.
32. J. Hermann speaks of a “bewusste übername babylonischer Redeweise”; Ezechiel übersetzt und erklärt (KAT; Leipzig; A. Diechertsche, 1924) 20.
33. The two words for “attaching” used here are both relatively rare. The word sph occurs only four times—each time, however, in a different stem. In 1 Sam 2:36 (Qal) it is used of appointing one to a professional (in this instance priestly) office. Hab 2:15 (Piel) uses it in the context of mixing drink, adding ingredients. In Job 30:7 (Pual) the verb is descriptive of young fools gathering to taunt Job. The closest parallel to Isa 14:1 is found in 1 Sam 26:19 (Hithpael). Here David complains of Saul’s men having drawn him out of the land in order that he (David) should have no attachment with the inheritance of Yahweh. The second verb, lwh, appears more frequently, but Qoh 8:15 represents the only example of its usage in the Qal stem. Here it bears the sense “to commit oneself to”—e.g., the pursuit of pleasure. Only the Niphal stem occurs elsewhere. In each instance the connotation of “joining” in some type of relationship is obvious: (1) marital union, Gen 29:34; (2) political alliance, Ps 83:9; (3) joint religious service, Num 18:2, 4; (4) a people attaching itself to a deity, Jer 50:4–5 (bny Israel and bny Judah to Yahweh); Zech 2:15 (many nations becoming his people); but note especially Isa 56:3–6, which speaks of the foreigners (bny nkr) joining themselves to Yahweh to minister to him, to love his name, and to be his servants, contraLev 22:25 above; (5) proselytes who are said to attach themselves to another people rather than a deity, Isa 14:1; Esth 9:27. Cf. also Dan 11:34 on the possibility of a hypocritical alliance.
34. Cf. BDB 110–112.
35. The byt-DN (“divine name”) in such cases is to be viewed as the residence of the deity—e.g., byt El, Josh 18:13; byt Dagan, 15:41; byt Anath, 19:38; byt Shemesh, 19:38; perhaps also bʾs̆trh for byt ʾs̆trh, “house of Astarte,” 21:27; so W. Boree, Die alten Ortsnamen Palästinas (2nd repr. ed.; Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1968) 79. All the Palestinian names containing the element byt are listed on pp. 75-81.
36. Examples of the former: byt gdr, “house of the wall,” 1 Chr 2:51; byt hrm, “house of the height,” Josh 13:27; byt lḥm, “house of bread,” Judg 12:8; byt hʾmq, “house of the valley,” Josh 19:27; etc. For additional examples see Boree, Ortsnamen. Examples of the latter: byt hgn, “house of the garden,” 2 Kgs 9:27; byt hkrm, “house of the vineyard,” Jer 6:1; byt lbʾwt, “house of the lioness,” Josh 19:6; etc.
37. Byt ʾwn, “house of iniquity,” Josh 7:2.
38. Byt Esau, Obad 18 (bis); byt Isaac, Amos 7:16; byt Jacob, Gen 46:27 + 20x (cf. n. 4 above); and before the eponyms of the tribes of Israel. Cf. BDB 110.
39. lnterestingly, when Obadiah uses the form byt-GN he uses the personal name of the eponym as the genitive and not that of the national name, Edom. This may suggest that the association Esau-Edom rests upon different foundations than that of Jacob-Israel. However, since byt Esau occurs only here the evidence is too limited to confirm or refute this hypothesis. In addition to the names cited, note also byt Eden, Amos 1:5. This name does not fit into either category, being paralleled exactly by the Akkadian form, bīt-Adini, on which see below. For further discussion cf. A. Malamat, “Amos 1:5 in the Light of the Til Barsip Inscriptions,” BASOR 129 (1953) 25-26, as well as our own “‘Israel’-’Sons of Israel’” 313, 316.
40. For studies of the term see E. Jenni, “bajit: Haus,” in THAT, 1. 308–313; H. A. Hoffner, “bayith,” TDOT, 2. 107–116.
41. Gen 46:27. The female members of a byt were subject to special customs. An unmarried daughter belonged to the byt of her father (Num 30:3 ffl. When she married she would join the byt of her husband (30:10). If a woman should lose her husband either through death or divorce while in a state of childlessness, she would return to the byt of her father (Lev 22:13; cf. Num 30:10 ff.).
42. For discussions of the term ʾb and the role of the father in the Israelite household see H. Ringgren, “ʾabh,” in TDOT, 1. 1–19; E. Jenni, “ʾab: Vater,” in THAT, 1. 1–17; J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford University, 1926), 1.60-64; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) 7-8.
43. Bʾl hbyt, Exod 22:7.
44. The term bʾl is commonly used in the sense of “husband”; Gen 20:3; Exod 21:3, 22. See further J. Mulder, “bʾl: baʾal,” TDOT, 2. 182.
45. Exod 20:12; Mal 1:6.
46. Ps 27:10; Lam 5:3.
47. Gen 12:1; Exod 12:3.At the more advanced stage of tribal development the expression came to denote a subgroup of a clan (Num 3:24) and even a tribe (17:17). For a study of the use of the expression in postexilic times see J.P. Weinberg, “Das Bēit ʾābōt im 6.-4. JH. V. U. Z.,” VT 23 (1973) 400-414. Cf. also N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 B.C.E. (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1979) 248.
48. Cf. Pedersen, Israel 51–54.
49. Note the idiom “to build a house for someone,” bnh byt l-, 1 Sam 2:35; 2 Sam 7:27; 1 Kgs 11:38. Cf. also “to make a house for someone,” ʾśh byt l-, Exod 1:21; 1 Sam 25:28; 2 Sam 7:11; 1 Kgs 2:24.
50. The grief of one who has failed in this vital respect is given classic expression by Rachel in Gen 30:1.
51. Abraham’s servant is to get her from his mwldt (Gen 24:4), his byt ʾb and his ms̆pḥh (24:38).
52. Gen 46:27. Note that in the context not a word is said about servants or other associates of the family; only blood relatives are counted.
53. This hierarchical structure is reflected in Josh 7:14–18 and may be represented diagrammatically as follows: (A = ʾm; B = s̆bṭ; C = ms̆pḥh; D = byt ʾb) For fuller discussions of the interrelationships among these entities see de Vaux, Ancient 8, 12, 22; Gottwald. Tribes 245 ff.; Milgrom, “Priestly” 79–81; F. I. Andersen, “Israelite Kinship Terminology and Social Structure,” BT 20/1 (1969) 29-39.
54. It is these overtones of kinship that underlie the application of byt ʾb in a special sense to a royal dynasty. These are frequently identified by the name of the first occupant of the throne from a given line; e.g. byt Saul, 2 Sam 3:1et passim; 9:1, 2, 3, 9; 16:5, 8; 19:17; byt David, 3:1, 6; 1 Kgs 12:19 (= 2 Chr 10:19), 20, 26; 13:2; 14:8; 2 Kgs 17:21; Isa 7:2, 13; 22:22; Jer 21:12; Zech 12:7, 8, 10, 12; 1 Chr 17:24; byt Jeroboam, 1 Kgs 13:34; 14:10, 13, 14; 15:29; 16:3; 21:22; 2 Kgs 9:9; 13:6; byt Baasha, 1 Kgs 16:3, 7; 21:22; byt Jehu, Hos 1:4. Notice, however, byt Ahab instead of byt Omri, 2 Kgs 8:18, 27 (3x); 9:7, 8, 9; 10:10, 11; 21:13; Mic 6:16.
55. Cf. Hoffner, TDOT, 2. 107–111; Jenni, THAT, 1. 308–309.
56. CAD, 2. 282–295, divides the various meanings of bþtu into the following categories: (1) house, dwelling palace, shelter (of animals), temple, palace; (2) manor, estate, encampment of nomads; (3) room (of a house or temple); (4) container repository, housing; (5) place, plot, area, region; (6) household, family, royal house; (7) estate, aggregate of property of all kinds. Numerous references are provided. Cf. also AHW 132–134.
57. For listings see S. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Becker Kevalaer, 1970) 75-92, where more than 110 entries are cited. Cf. also Reallexikon der Assyriologie, 2.33 ff. (hereafter cited as RLA).
58. See for example the records of the campaigns of Sennacherib in D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2; Chicago: University Press, 1924) 52-54. In this particular campaign, the scribe records the following conquests: (1) 33 strong, walled cities and 250 hamlets within the borders (li-mi-tu) ofBþt-Dak-ku-ri, including, among others, Bþt Sa-an-na-bi,Bþt-Ra-ḫi-e,Bþt-Ku-dur-ri; (2) 8 strong, walled cities and 120 hamlets ofBþt-Sa-ʾ-al-li; (3) 39 strong, walled cities and 350 hamlets of Bþt-A-muk-ka-a-ni, including Bþt-Ta-ú-ra-a,Bþt--Ba-nu-ilu-ú-a,Bþt-Il-ta-ma-sa-ma-’,Bþt-Di-ni-ilu; (4) 8 strong, walled cities and 100 hamlets within the borders ofBþt-Ia-ki-ni, including Bþt-Za-bi-di-ia. According to these lists Bþt-Dakkuri, Bþt-Saʾili, Bþt-Amukkani and Bþt-Yakin, each with the land determinative, appear to be larger units, with subdivisions identified on the basis of urban centers, of which some are likewise designated as “houses.”
59. Of the subgroups listed in the previous note only Bþt-Zabidia is named elsewhere, and that only on one occasion.
60. See for example the references to the northern kingdom of Israel as Bþt-Hãu-um-ri-a and variations; ANET 284–285; cf. 280–281. Hãu-um-ri (Omri) was neither the eponymous ancestor nor the first monarch of Israel. His significance to the neo-Assyrians may be attributed either to the latter’s perception of him as having founded the state capital in Samaria or to his occupation of the throne when neo-Assyrian political ambitions first began seriously to touch Israelite interests. This occurred first under As̆s̆ur-nāṣir-apli, a contemporary of Omri. Cf. H. W. Saggs, “The Assyrians,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times (ed. D. J. Wiseman; Oxford; Clarendon, 1973) 158. This designation of Israel as Bit-Omri contrasts sharply with the OT usage. In the latter the nation is never identified as “the house” of its monarch or ruling dynasty. Cf. n. 54 above. Furthermore, this particular dynasty is never identified as byt Omri but always as byt Ahab. T. Ishida, “The House of Ahab,” IEJ 25 (1975) 135-151, attributes this alteration to the Deuteronomistic religious perspective of Israelite historiography. If D. J. Wiseman’s reconstruction of a lacuna in one of Tiglath-Pileser’s inscriptions is correct, the identification of Aram Damascus as Bþt-Hãa-za-ilu may represent a similar case. “A Fragmentary Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III from Nimrud,” Iraq 18 (1956) 120 ff. Cf. H. Tadmor, “The Southern Border of Aram,” IEJ 12 (1962) 114-122.
61. In fact, even where the texts are clear the Assyrian interpretation appears to be erroneous. On the black obelisk Jehu is identified as Ia-ú-a mār Hãu-um-ri (ANET 280), although it is known from 2 Kgs 10:1–17 that, far from being a member of the dynasty, he was responsible for its extermination and replacing it with his own. Note also the designation of the northern dynasty as byt Jehu in Hos 1:4. Expressions such as this Akkadian form may therefore signify no more than that Jehu was a successor of Omri or that he was from “Humri-land.” So A. Ungnad, “Jaua, Mâr Humri,” OLZ 4 (1906) 224-226.
62. E.g. the Sumerian king list (ANET 265–266), the Assyrian king list (ANET 564–566), the Hammurapi genealogy (J. J. Finkelstein, “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty,” JCS 20 i1966] 95-117). compare this with their interest in the creation of man and his early history. Cf. W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-Hãasþs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969) 15 ff.
63. CAD. For a discussion of family life in Mesopotamia see E. Ebeling, “Familie,” RLA, 3.9-15.
64. Eg. TCL 13, 193:10, PN (“personal name”) PN2as̆s̆at-s̆u PN3 PN4 PN5 PN6mārþ-s̆u PN7ú PNsmarāti-s̆ú naphãar 8 LUõ a-me-lu-ut-tu4 LU.UN mes̆bþt-s̆u, “PN (himself), his wife PN2, his sons PN3, PN4, PN5, PN6, his daughters PN7 and PN8, together eight persons, his entire family.”
65. Cf. “The Code of Hammurabi,” ANET, 171, #129, and 173, #161, where he is called be-el as̆-s̆a-tim, “owner of a wife.” Hereafter the code will be referred to by CH and number of the article only.
66. Note CH #165–184.
67. CH #165, 166, 167.
68. CH #170, 171.
69. CH #191.
70. CH #186, 189, 190, 193.
71. CH #158, ina bþt abim innassahã, for having engaged in sexual relations with his stepmother. The punishment for the same offense with his mother was for both to be burned (CH #157). The verb nasāhãum is used in CH #168, 169 of removing a son’s title to a share in the father’s estate.
72. For numerous other references to similar usage from other documents see CAD, 1.73-74.
73. As translated by CAD, 1.73. On qinnum see AHW, 922.
74. As translated by CAD, 1.75.
75. Cf. above, n. 58. Cf. also the use of bēl bþti to refer to the chief of a tribe; CAD, 2. 295. These kinship connotations are especially important in the use of bþt abi to refer to a ruling dynasty; cf. CAD, 1.74.
76. CH #183.
77. For references see CAD, 1.74-75.
78. lbid., 75. Cf. n. 56 above.
79. CAD, 2. 292–293. Cf. also Jer 31:27 where, however, kinship overtones may still be present.
80. Of the more than 110 toponyms with the prefixed bþt listed by Parpola, half occur with this determinative.
81. Compare the forms of the names with the personal-name determinative listed by Parpola with those cited by K. L. Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names (Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 43/1; Helsingfors: 1914), and discussed by J. J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung (MVAG 44; Leipzig: 1939).
82. E.g. Adini, WO 4 (1967) 34, vi:6–7. So interpreted by E. Ebeling, “Adini,” RLA, 1.36; J. A. Brink man, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158-722 B.C. (AnOr 43; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968) 198 n. 1208 (hereafter cited as PKB). Cf. ibid. p. 224 n. 1567; KAI text 233:15. Note also Yakin, whose name appears in the same text as Adini and who is called “king of Sealand,” s̆ar māt Tam-di. PKB 198 n. 1213 suggests that in this case the Assyrians have mistaken the name of the tribe, here accepted as its eponymous ancestor, for the name of its ruler. Cf. also A. R. Millard in a review of PKB in Or 39 (1970) 449. On these tribes and their names see further J. A. Brinkman, “Notes on Arameans and Chaldeans in Southern Babylonia in the Early Seventh Century B.C.,” Or 46 (1977) 305-309, in a review of M. Dietrich, Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700–648) (AOAT 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1970). Dietrich, Aramäer 5, interprets the bþt-PN designations as primarily geographic rather than tribal entities.
83. Cf. the Arameans who are also found in southern Mesopotamia but whose “tribal” names appear elsewhere only as city names. PKB 271 suggests that their identification among the Aramean tribes may have been an Assyrian fabrication.
84. Cf. the use of gentilics for the Arameans; PKB 267 n. 1716; 273 n. 1762. This Chaldean usage applies even to the chieftains—e.g. a-di-ni mār da-ku-ri, WO 4 (1967) 34, vi:6.
85. Cf. our discussion, “‘Israel’—’Sons of Israel’,” 309–310. Significantly, although several northern Aramean states were also identified by the bþt-GN form (e.g. Bit-Adini, Bit-Bahiani, Bit-Halupe, Bit-Zamani) and although their citizens could be referred to as “sons of bþt-GN”, the personal-name determinative never appears before the genitive. Contrast this with the Chaldean Bit-Adini, which seldom appears without the determinative.
86. The occasional reference to the leaders of Bit-Yakin as “king of Sealand” and the collective designation of the chieftains as “kings of Chaldea” (s̆arrāni [s̆a] māt Kaldi), Iraq 25 (1963) 56 line 47, need not indicate otherwise. See PKB 264 n. 1704 for additional references to the use of s̆arrum for the rulers of these tribes. The process of sedentarization is described by H. Klengel, Zwischen Zelt und Palast: Die Beziehungen von Noraaden und Sesshaften im alten Vorderasien (Vienna: Schroll, 1972) 135-136.
87. Cf. PKB 265 n. 1707.
88. J. Nougayrol, ed., Le palais royal d’Ugarit, Vol. IV: Textes accadiens des archives sud (Mission de Ras Shamra 9; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956) 138 text 18.06 + :13–15, u li-hãal-li-qú-s̆u i[s̆-tu lib]bi bþt a-bi-s̆u u is̆-tu libbi māt a-bi[s̆u uÂ] is̆-tu kussî s̆a abbê-s̆u, “May they (the gods) drive him from the house of his fathers, the land of his fathers, and the throne of his fathers.”
89. 1 Keret 82, 173; ANET 143–144.
90. Cf. ḥbr rbt, “Great Habur,” and “Little Habur” in UT 128 IV:8–9, 19–20. This city is located by M. C. Astour on the Habur river; “A North Mesopotamian Locale of the Keret Epic,” UF 5 (1973) 32. For consenting views see also H. L. Ginsberg, ANET 143 (contrary to his earlier interpretation in The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age [BASOR Supp. Studies 2–3 (1946)] 15); J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan (VTSup 5; Leiden: Brill, 1957) 99 n. 5. The alternative is to interpret ḥbr as “storehouse, granary”; so H. Sauren and G. Kestemont, “Keret, roi de Hubur,” UF 3 (1971) 196, “cellier”; G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Old Testament Studies 3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956) 31. Cf. J. C. L. Gibson in his revised edition of the volume (1978), 84.
91. KAl 24:5 (Kilamuwa, = J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Vol. III: Phoenician Inscriptions [Oxford: Clarendon, 1982] text 13:5; hereafter cited as P/); 214:9 (Panammuwa I, = J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Vol. II: Aramaic Inscriptions[Oxford: Clarendon, 1975] text 13:9; hereafter cited as AI); 215:2 et passim (Panammuwa II, = AI 14:2 et passim); 217:3 (Barrakab Fragment, = AI 16:3); 224:9–10, 24–25 (Sefire, = AI 9 iii:9–10, 24–25). Cf. the frequent use of byt without ʾb in this sense in KAI 222 B:21 et passim (Sefire).
92. KA1 26 A I:16; II:15; III:11; C III:12. Cf. PI 15; ANET 653–654.
93. “I have built it (the city of Azitawadda)... with plenty to eat and well-being and in a good situation and in peace of mind to be a protection for the Plain of Adana (ʾmq ʾdn) and the House of Mupsh (bt mps̆), for in my days the country of the Plain of Adana had plenty to eat and well-being, and the Danunites (dnwnym) never had any night in my days”; ANET 654.
94. The text speaks of evil men who were not subservient to bt mps̆. Azitawadda, however, was able to subdue them, thus bringing peace to the Danunites.
95. This passage speaks of the inhabitants of the city of Azitawadda prospering and serving Azitawadda and bt mps̆ in large numbers.
96. As reported by Stephanos of Byzantium; cf. M. C. Astour, Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 38-39. The etymological relationship between ʾdn and dnwnym is not clear, but the problem need not detain us here. For discussions see ibid., p. 14: PI 56, who derive them from different roots; contra E. Laroche, “Etudes sur les hieroglyphes Hittites,” Syria 35 t1958) 263-275; KAI, II, 39, who treat the initial aleph of ʾdn as prosthetic and thus derive the two from the same root.
97. This name is probably to be connected with the Mopsus of Greek legend. Two years prior to the conclusion of the Trojan War this prince, the son of Rhakius of Clarus and Manto, daughter of Teiresias, is supposed to have embarked on a series of adventures, along with a band of followers, which led him as far as Pamphylia and Cilicia. In the former region he is purported to have founded the cities Aspendus and Phaselis; in the latter, Mopsuestia (“Mopsus’ hearth”) and Mallis. His influence appears to have extended to the plain of Adana. The Luwian form of the name, which exchanges k for p, may also be remembered in the name of the south Phrygian city of Moxoupolis, another of his foundations, as well as the tribal name Moxianoi, from western Phrygia. See further R. D. Barnett, “Phrygia and the Peoples of Anatolia in the Iron Age,” in CAH, 3d ed., vol. II/2: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380-1000 B.C. (ed. I.E. S. Edwards et al., Cambridge: University Press, 1975) 441-442; PI 43–45. For a different interpretation see Astour, Hellenosemitica 53–67, who sees mps̆ primarily as a divine name.
98. In several Akkadian texts gs̆ appears with a prosthetic a-, which E. Puech compares with the prosthetic aleph of Adana, cf. dnwnym (KAI 24 and 26); “Un ivoire de Bit-Gusi (Arpad) a Nimrud,” Syria 55 (1978) 165 n. 8.
99. On the historical relationship between Arpad and Aram see A. R. Millard, “Adad-Nirari, Aram, and Arpad,” PEQ 105 (1973) 161-164.
100. So A. Dupont-Somer, in “Les inscriptions arameennes de Sfire,” Memoirs presentees par divers savants a l’Academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 15 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1958) on Sf I B:1–3, who identifies ṣll with A-ṣal-li of the Akkadian texts. Cf. D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (New York: Greenwood, 1968 I1927]), 1. par. #475 (hereafter cited as ARAB). Cf. also KAI, II, 253—but admitting the impossibility of identifying the place involved.
101. So M. Noth, “Der historische Hintergrund der Inschriften von Sefire,” ZDPV 77 (1961) 129, who regards byt gs̆ and byt ṣll as parallel forms. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (BibOr 19; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967) 40, 60.
102. If the restoration of Dupont-Sommer is correct.
103. See also the broken segments I A:16 and I B:11, which are to be restored on the basis of II B:10.
104. Puech, “Un ivoire” 162–169. Puech also provides a helpful summary of all references, including those in the Akkadian texts, to (A)gusi. Cf. also F. Vattioni, “A propos du nom propre syriaque Gusai,” Sem 16 (1966) 39-41.
105. Cf. I B:3, ʾm bny gs̆.
106. KAI, II, 247.
107. Fitzmyer, Aramaic 40.
108. KAl 202:5; ANET 655–656.
109. ARAB, 1. par. #477.
110. Cf. J. D. Hawkins, “Jahan,” RLA 5 (1977) 238-239.
111. ARAB, 1. par. #582,600 ( = ANET 278), 601, 614, 668. Arame appears in the Maras Museum stela as Adrame, father of Atarsumki. Cf. A. R. Millard and H. Tadmot, “Adad-Nirari IH in Syria: Another Stele Fragment and the Dates of His Campaigns,” lraq 35 (1973) 61.
112. ARAB, 1. par. #813.
113. W. Schramm, Einleitung in die Assyrischen Königsinschriften, part 2:934–722 v. Chr. (Handbuch der Orientalistik; Leiden/Cologne: Brill, 1973) 133.
114. Ibid, p. 136. Cf. D. J. Wiseman, “A Fragmentary Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III from Nimrud,” Iraq 18 (19561 117–118.
115. Cf. above n. 60. So also Puech, “Un ivoire” 163–164; S. Schiffer, Die Aramäer: historisch-geographische Untersuchungen (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911) 90 n. 6.
116. For a clarification of the distinction see G. Buccellati, Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria: An Essay on Political Institutions, with Special Reference to the Israelite Kingdoms (Studi Semitici 26; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967) 13-14.
117. lCf. n. 54 above for references. Note also the following: 2 Sam 3:10, which speaks of transferring the kingdom from byt Saul and establishing the throne of David over Israel and Judah; 1 Kgs 12:20, the tribe of Judah followed byt David; 12:26, “the kingdom will return to byt David”; 14:8, the kingdom is torn away from byt David (cf. 2 Kgs 17:21); 14:14, a king over Israel will cut off byt Jeroboam; Jer 33:17, David would never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel (ksʾ byt yśrʾl);Ezek 12:10, reference to the prince of Jerusalem and all byt Israel in it; 43:7, Yahweh will dwell among the bny Israel forever; neither byt Israel nor their kings will defile his name again; Hos 1:4, Yahweh will punish byt Jehu and put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel (mmlkwt byt yśrʾl);5:1, O priests!//O byt Israel!//O byt hmlk!
118. I am indebted to my student Kathryn A. Brogan for her assistance in the preparation of this paper. Any deficiencies in the presentation, however, are my responsibility.