THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
in this region. All that is known of the Moabitic religion implies that it did not rise above the usual nature religion of the Semites, but the inscription mentions an Israelitic sanctuary in the land in the shape of an 'Arel (cf. Ezek. xliii. 15, margin).
The Old Testament concerns itself not only with the relations between Israel and Moab, but it deals also with the attitude of Moab in universal ethics. Amos condemned Moab for its breaches of the common laws of morality. On the other hand, Isa. xv.xvi., xxv. 9-12; Jer. xlviii.; Zeph. 6. Relations ii. 8-9 speak from a national point of between view, though the date of these pieces Moab and is not entirely settled. That the atti- Israel. tude toward the Moabites in the Old Testament is not uniformly hostile is shown by the fact that David had a Moabite in his train (I Chron. xi. 46). The background of Deut. xxiii. 4 is intense hostility toward the Moabites, since admission of a Moabite to the congregation is forbidden to the tenth generation (cf. Neh. xiii. 1), while the Edomites and Egyptians of the third generation are admitted. On the other hand, the whole atmosphere of the book of Ruth is one of kindly complaisance toward Moabites — a book which may have been written late. The general attitude of the Chronicler is unfriendly (II Chron. xx., xxiv. 26). Rabbi Joshua is reported as pronouncing favorably upon the admission of an Ammonitic proselyte on the ground that the Ammonites had long ceased to exist, a fact which applies equally to the Moabites. (F. Buhl.)
Bibliography: Honors T. P. J. d'Albert, Duke de Luynes, Voyage d'exploration a la mer morte, a Petra, i. 23-182, ii. 81-140, iii. passim, 3 vols., Paris, 1871-76; C. Ritter, Comparative Geography of Palestine, ii. 148-156, Edinburgh, 1866; H. B. Tristram, Land of Moab, New York, 1873; S. Merrill, East of the Jordan, ib. 1881; C. R. Conder, Heth and Moab, London, 1883; C. M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta, i. 18-127, ib. 1888; PEF, Survey of Eastern Palestine, Memoirs, vol. i., ib. 1889; F. Buhl, Geographic des alien Palastina, Tubingen, 1896; G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, chap, xxvi., London, 1897; C. Clermont-Ganneau, Recueil d'archeologie orientate, ii. 185-234, Paris. 1898; L. Gautier, Autour de la mer morte, pp. 48-122, Geneva, 1901; R. E. Briinnow and A. Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia, i. 1-110, Strasburg, 1904; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, parts xxvi.xxvii., Paris, 1905-06; A. Musil, Arabia petrcea, i., Moab, Vienna, 1907; G. Dalman, Petra und seine FelsheiligtiXmer, Leipsic, 1908; PEF, Quarterly Statement 1871, pp. 40-73 (by E. Palmer), 1895, pp. 203-235, 332-373 (by E. Bliss), 1896, pp. 24-47 (by G. Hill); ZDPV, ii. 2 (1879), 1-12 (by Schick), pp. 124 sqq. (by Klein), pp. 201 sqq. (by Kersten), xvi (1893), 162 sqq. (by Schumacher); DB, iii. 402-413; EB, iii. 3166-3179.
MOABITE STONE, THE: A slab of black basalt containing an inscription in the Moabitic language by Mesha, king of Moab, who is probably the Mesha of II Kings iii. 4. It was discovered at Dhiban, the ancient Dibon (Num. xxi. 30), by F. A. Klein, a German missionary, in 1868. Attempts were made by the discoverer to secure it for the Berlin Museum, and at the same time by C. Clermont-Ganneau, then of the French consulate in Jerusalem, for the Louvre. This rivalry of interests made the Arabs suppose the stone to be of very great value, while the interposition of the Turkish authorities led them to fear its entire loss. They therefore broke it into fragments. Fortunately a squeeze
had been obtained by Clermont-Ganneau through a friendly Arab, so that when piecemeal large fragments were recovered, the reconstruction was made possible and nearly all of the inscription was in the possession of scholars, two-thirds of it on the reconstructed stone. The slab is forty-four and a half inches high, twenty-seven and a half inches wide, and thirteen and three-quarter inches thick and contains thirty-four lines of writing. The indistinctness and strangeness of form of some of the characters, and the lacunae, especially in the last lines, at first caused differences of rendering of the inscription. But the researches of Smend, Socin, Clermont-Ganneau, Nordlander, Holzinger, and Lidsbarski (see below, the bibliography) have resulted in practical agreement in the reading and meaning of the entire text.
The stele records the thanks of the king to the Moabite deity Chemosh, who had helped him against his enemies, so that he had extended and strengthened his kingdom. In return, Mesha had built " this sanctuary," i.e., where the stone was erected. He seized the occasion to tell what he had done in peace and war for his people. Among the foes of Moab he named Omri of Israel, and referred to Omri's son and successor, his own contemporary, Omri having oppressed Moab because Chemosh was angry, and his son having vainly desired to do so. Mesha recovered Medeba, for forty years in Israel's possession, took Ataroth where the Gadites had dwelt and destroyed the population as a " spectacle " for Chemosh and Moab, and settled other people there, while the altar-hearth (?) he placed in the sanctuary in Kerioth. He also took Nebo from Israel, destroying all its population and removing the Yahwen altar to Chemosh's sanctuary. He captured Jahaz and Horonayin and added them to his realm. He restored and fortified a number of cities, especially the chief city Dibon, and took thought for the water supply.
The stone affords a glance at the political and religious conditions in Moab and shows the national expansion under this vigorous king. The chief interest is in the relations between Moab and Israel, though it is not easy to bring the inscription and the Old Testament into harmony. Of Omri's conquest of Moab the Bible says nothing (cf. I Kings xvi. 27), though II Kings i. 1, iii. 4-5 records a rebellion of Mesha after Ahab's death, in consequence of which Jehoram of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah undertook a campaign which succeeded until the besieged Moabite king offered up his eldest son, in consequence of which the allies abandoned the war (II Kings iii.). The silence of the inscription as to this episode and the reference to Omri's son make it probable that Mesha's rebellion and the events he narrates took place in Ahab's reign and not after his death, and so far appear to correct the Biblical narrative. The stone also introduces chronological difficulties, since it implies that Omri's reign and half of Ahab's made up forty years, while the Biblical account would make this only twentythree. Possibly Mesha ignored the reigns of Ahab and Ahaziah, which would make the Biblical and Mesha's accounts approximately the same; but the inscription itself seems against this solution. On