. 237), is probably the KRHH of the Moabite
tone. Other traces of Egyptian influence E. of Jordan are a monolith near the Lake of Tiberias bearing the cartouche of Ramses U., now known as the Stone of Job (see vol. i. p. 166%); and the delineation of a local deity Akna-zapu, ‘ Yokin of the North,’ with the full face and crown of Osiris (Sayce, Egypt of the Hebrews, p. 81).
We now come to the biblical accounts of the Exodus, which include statements as to the for- tunes of Moab in the period immediately preceding the a ance of Israel in Eastern Palestine. According to these, Moab, shortly before the ad- vent of Israel, was deprived of its northern terri- tory, at least, by an Amorite king, Sihon; and though Israel occupied the land of Moab, it was conquered, not from the Moabites, but from Sihon. But the historicity of this account is disputed. We will first give the narrative as it stands, and then the criticism of it.
MOAB, MOABITES
The original authority for the narrative is the section of E, Nu 21*!-* (Wellh. J), which contains the account of the defeat of Sihon, and the con- quest of his dominions. V.™, sometimes held to be a later gloss, states that ‘Sihon, king of the Amorites, had ate agaist the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand, even unto Arnon’; and vy.7- give, on the authority of ‘them that speak in proverbs,’ i.e. the com- posers or reciters of ‘taunt songs,’ celebrating the discomfiture of Israel’s enemies, the following poem, probably taken from the Book of the Wars of J”, quoted in y.**;—
*Come ye to Heshbon,
Let the city of Sihon be built and established ; For a fire is gone out of Heshbon,
A flame from the city of Sihon.
It hath devoured Ar of Moab,
The lords of the high places of Arnon.
Woe to thee, Moab !
Thou art undone, O people of Chemosh.
He hath made his sons fugitives,
And his daughters captives
To Sihon, king of the Amorites.
χε have shot at them; Heshbon {s perished even unto
1bon,
And we have laid waste even unto Nophah, Which reacheth unto Medeba.’
According to Dillmann, the speakers are Israel- ites, who, in celebrating their victory over Sihon, describe his recent conquest of Moab. Unless v.% is a gloss, Sihon’s war against Moab, and Israel’s against Sihon, rest on substantially the same authority. The latter is frequently referred to by the Deuteronomic writers ; it is also alluded to in P’s account of the division of Canaan, Jos 132-7 (unless these verses are P%), in the late passage Jg 11" (RIE, Budde, Moore), in Neh 9”, and in Ps 135" 136% The poem is quoted in Jer 48 (a late addition, Corn., Giesebr.), but there is no reference to Israel’s war with Sihon. Thus the tradition is comparatively early, and was con- tinuously recognized ; moreover, the narrative is not intrinsically improbable.
On the other hand, neither J nor P mentions the Sihon episode (unless Jos 13"!:” are rightly assigned to P*), and none of the accounts of Moab’s rela- tions with Israel suggest that Israel had avenged Moab by conquering its oppressor. Hence, though the narrative is accepted by Dillmann (on Nu 21), Cornill (Hist. of the ῬΩΣΙ of Israel, p. 45), ete., it is regarded as unhistorical by Stade (Gesch. Isr. 117f.), Addis (on Nu 21), etc. According to the latter, the poem refers to the conquest of a Moabite king, Sihon, by Israel in the 9th cent. (ef. ΒΙΗΟΝ).
τῇ we accept E’s narrative, we may follow Cornill (Hist. p. 45) in reconstructing the history somewhat thus: Sihon expelled the Rfoa bites and Ammonites from the most fertile parts of their territory. The conquered either invited the Israel- ites, then occupying the country about Kadesh, to come to the rescue, or welcomed them as allies when they appeared on the scene. But, after the Israelites had overthrown Sihon, they kept for themselves the territory he had taken from Moab.
Nu 951: (JE), according to which the women of Moab led the Israelites into immorality, and the Israelites worshipped Baal-peor as guests at Moabite sacrificial feasts, is entirely in accordance with E. Similarly Dt 27, in stating that J” for- bade Israel to attack Moab, and that Moab allowed the Israelites to pass through its territory, and furnished them with provisions; and Jg 115 (ΕΠ ἢ, in stating that Balak did not fight against Israel, are following either E, possibly in a fuller form than we have it, or some equivalent account. The futile attempt of Balak to induce Balaam to curse Israel occurred, according to current analysis, both in J and E, and seems also to imply that up to that point no hostilities had taken place be.
MOAB, MOABITES
tween Israel and Moab. Possibly, however, the whole Balaam section belongs to E, with the exception of the episode of the speaking ass, which may be J, but may originally have had nothing to do with Balak or Moab (cf. BALAAM and the analysis in NUMBERS). In P, Nu 315, Jos 13%, Balaam is connected with Midian, and P may have followed a lost section of J.
On the other hand, there is a series of passages which suggest hostile relations between Moab and Israel at this time. Ex 15" (JE), the Song of Triumph after crossing the Red Sea, speaks of the dismay of the Moabites at that event. Dt 23% states that Moab did not furnish Israel with pro- visions; it does not mention any war between them ; and, according to Jg 11"7 (1 Ὲ ἢ), the Israel- ites were refused permission to pass through Moab. But, curiously enough, it is in Jos 24°, the E-speech, that we d the explicit statement, ‘Balak ben Zippor, king of Moab, arose and fought against Israel; and he sent and called Balaam ben Beor to curse you.’ Perhaps at an earlier stage of the Wanderings, before Sihon attacked Moab, the Moabites feared Israel, and refused to admit them into Moab; after the conquests of Sihon, Moab was glad to obtain the help of Israel, but again became hostile when Israel refused to restore to Moab its former territory.