Whether Israel took the land north of Arnon from Sihon or from Moab, it was always debatable ground, and stimulated and aggravated the quar- rels that naturally arose between{neighbours. The northern frontier of Moab retired or advanced as the power of Israel waxed or waned. The most important incident narrated as to the relations of Israel and Moab, in the period of the Judges, is the occupation of Jericho by the Moabites, the assassination of their king, Eglon, by the Ben- jamite Ehud, and the consequent slaughter of the
oabites and the recovery of the territory of Jericho for Israel, Jg 3 (J?, in Dt setting). The occupation of Jericho implies that Moab had reconquered the country north of the Arnon, as far as opposite Jericho (ef. Enup, EaLon). LXX (not all MSS) and Syr. insert Moab in the post- exilic (Budde, Moore) list of the oppressors from whom Jephthah delivered Israel. The conjecture, though late, was natural, and probably correct. Moab would take advantage of so good an oppor- tunity, and was always closely connected with Ammon. The author of Jg 11) was certainly under the impression that Moab was concerned in the controversy. The Book of Ruth assigns its story to the period of the Judges, and illustrates the friendly relationships which sometimes existed between the neighbouring peoples. Perhaps the obscure verse 1 Ch 4” (a Tee addition, Kittel, SBOT) is intended to refer to this period. The Heb. includes in the list of Judahites ‘and Jokim, and the men of Cozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had dominion in Moab, and Jashubi-lehem’ ; LXX and Vulg., followed by Kittel, read for ‘Jashubi,’ ‘and they returned,’ i.e. probably to Bethlehem when unable to retain power in Moab. Vulg. has the remarkable translation, ‘Et qui stare fecit solem, virique mendacii, et Securus, et Incendens, qui principes fuerunt in Moab, et qui reversi sunt in Lahem; hee autem verba vetera,’ apparently on the lines of ancient Jewish exegesis, which sees here a reference to Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion of the Book of Ruth (Bertheau). But the original meaning, and in- tended period, and the value of the verse, are quite uncertain. Another hopelessly corrupt and cbscure passage, 1 Ch 88 (late addition, Kittel; according to Gray, Heb. Proper Names, the names are ancient), seems intended to refer to this period, ef. Ehud, 85, and furnishes another statement as to
MOAB, MOABITES
Israelites, here Benjamites, settling in the Field of Moab, whether as part of an Israelite colony or as gérim_ of Moab, does not appear. Further, the Israelites, Jg 10° (R®), worshipped Moabite gods. Any account which can now ibe given of Moab is necessarily one-sided. Our information is chiefly from Israelite sources; and our only Moabite document, the Mesha inscription, happens to be wholly taken up with a war with eel But the consequent impression that Moab was chiefl occupied with its relations with Israel woul obviously be amistake. Their dealings with other neighbours, e.g. Ammon and the nomad Arabs, must have been equally important to them—to say nothing of their own private affairs. Here and there we havea gleam o light on such subjects. In the list of Edomite kings, Gn 36°-® (J usually, but Dillm. P), 1 Ch 1°, we read, Gn 36", of a Hadad ben Bedad, who defeated Midian in the Field of Moab, which pupEeste that at some period, probably that of the Judges (Ewald, in the time of ideon), part of the Moabite territory was occupied by Edom. Two of the capitals of these kings, Avith and Dinhabah, have been identified with sites in Moabite territory ; cf. DINHABAH. Whether the Midianites were presentin ‘the Field of Moab’ as invaders (Moore on Jg 63) or allies is not clear. In Nu 21-25, read continuously, Midian appears in about the same district as the ally of Moab; the references to Midian may be P and R?, and yet be based on older documents. It is not clear that Moab and Midian were combined in any of the sources. To this period may also be assigned the capture of KRHH by Ramses Il. c. 1280, cing one of his Syrian campaigns (Sayce, Patr. Pal. . 165). Ξ Passing to the united monarchy, Saul to Solomon, in addition to the account of Saul’s victory over Nahash king of Ammon (1S 11), Moab, Ammon, and Edom are mentioned (1S 14) amongst the enemies against whom Saul fought successfully ; he clearly did not conquer Moab, since David’s parents found an asylum there (15 22%) ; accord- ing to Ru 418%, Ruth the Moabitess was an ancestress of David. During the civil war be- tween David and Eshbaal, Moab must have been able to hold its ground, or even to aggrandize itself at the expense of Israel. Hence, perhaps, David’s war with Moab, in which ‘he smote Moab, and measured them with the line, making them to lie down on the ground ; and he measured two lines to put to death, and one full line to keep alive. ren the Moabites became subject to David, and paid tribute’ (2S 83). Part of the spoil of Moab, as of that from other conquests, David dedicated to J” (2S 8). Probably instead of the ‘two lion-like men of Moab,’ slain by one of David’s warriors (2S 23%), we should read with Kloster- mann and Budde, partly following the LXX, ‘two lions in their lair.’ In the parallel passage, 1 Ch 11”, Kittel reads ‘two sons of Ariel from Moab.’ Bertheau, who adopts a similar reading, under- stands Ariel as the name of the king cf Moab (cf. ARIEL). In 1 Ch 11%, in a passage which Kittel ascribes to an ancient source, no longer extant, Ithmah the Moabite is mentioned among David's mighty men. Kautzsch and Budde ascribe 2 S 8? 4 to late editors. According to 1 Καὶ 117% (05, Kautzsch), Solomon had Moabite women in his harem, erected a temple to Chemosh, and wor- shipped him. Hoe long Moab remained tributary we do not know. It is next mentioned as rebelling against Ahab; and it has been supposed that it remained subject to Solomon till his death, and was trans- ferred to Israel after the formation of the Northern Kingdom. But the silence of our meagre and fragmentary authorities as to any prior revolt does