acrossky

While scouting for places to shoot video in Hebron, Joel Kramer and I stumbled on a potters workshop.  The potter was deaf and mute and seemed to live in his own world.  He welcomed us into his shop and was happy to let us film.  Joel just released a 3 minute short with some of the footage.

The Potter from SourceFlix.com on Vimeo.

Joel captures footage in Israel that you aren’t likely to find elsewhere.  His videos bring to life subjects that are foreign to us who have grown up in Western cultures.  You can check out his work on his website: http://sourceflix.com/

Israel was brought out of the ‘house of slavery’ to the land of Promise.  The bars of their yoke were broken, and they were made “to walk erect”.   (Lev 26:13 ESV)  In the laws of kingship in Deuteronomy, the king was expressly forbidden from selling his people back into slavery to Egypt in order to acquire horses, because “You shall not return that way again.”  (Deu 17:16 ESV)

The prophet Isaiah opposed making a treaty with Egypt because he saw such an alliance as a rejection of the Sinai covenant.

“Egypt’s help is worthless and empty; therefore I have called her “Rahab who sits still.”…   For thus said the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel, “In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength.” But you were unwilling…”   (Isa 30:7-8, 15 ESV)

Isaiah likewise warned Ahaz from making an alliance with Assyria.   Isaiah said to the king, “If you do not stand in faith, you will not stand at all!”   But Ahaz insisted on pursuing a more ‘pragmatic’ foreign policy and purchased a few years of peace by paying tribute to the Assyrian king Tiglath Pileser III.  (pic)

In the second chapter of Jeremiah, the signing of treaties with Assyria and Egypt are equated with idolatry.  The prophet charged the people with forsaking the fountain of living water to hew out broken cisterns that can hold no water.   Jeremiah asks,  “Is Israel a servant, a slave by birth? Why then has he become plunder?   Now why go to Egypt to drink water from the Nile? And why go to Assyria to drink water from the Euphrates?”  (Jer 2:14 NIV)  Israel’s freedom was conditioned upon obedience to the covenant at Sinai but Israel broke the conditions of the covenant, symbolized by breaking off the yoke of the Law.

¹⁹ Your wickedness will punish you; your backsliding will rebuke you. Consider then and realize how evil and bitter it is for you when you forsake the LORD your God and have no awe of me,” declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.  ²⁰ “Long ago you broke off your yoke and tore off your bonds; you said, ‘I will not serve you!’ Indeed, on every high hill and under every spreading tree you lay down as a prostitute.  (Jer 2:18-20 NIV)

 Israel traded the yoke imposed upon them at Sinai  for the yoke of a foreign king.  This humiliation is graphically born out on the Black Obelisk (although a little earlier than the time of Jeremiah) on which Jehu is portrayed paying homage to the Assyrian King, Shalmaneser III, under the tutelage of Assyria’s gods.

Assyrian kings often spoke of placing their ‘yoke’ on those they have conquered:

 I destroyed the lands of Saraus (and) Ammaus, which from ancient times had not known submission, (so that they looked) like ruin hills (created by) the deluge.  I fought with their extensive army in Mt. Aruma, and rbought about their defeat.  I laid out like grain heaps the corpses of their men-at-arms.  I conquered their cities, took their gods, and brought out their booty, possessions (and) property.  I burned, razed, (and) destroyed their cities (and) turned them into ruin hills.  I imposed the heavy yoke of my dominion on them (and) made them vassals of Assur, my lord.   (Tiglath Pilerser I, B. Foster, Before the Muses)

 A common justification used by Assyrian kings for marching to war was to crush those who sinfully ‘throw off the yoke’.

Isaiah looked forward to the day when the yoke of burden would depart from Israel (Is. 14:25; cf. 10:27), and the oppressors staff would be broken.  (Isaiah 9:4)  For a king would be born who would take the government upon his shoulders instead of laying it on the backs of his subjects. (Isaiah 9:5)   He will be called the Prince of Peace and the Wonderful Counselor (Isa 9:6), the Shepherd who gives rest to the anxious soul (Isa 40:11; 28:11), the Servant who gives his life for many (Isa 40-66; Matt. 20:28).  He will bring good news for the poor and bind up the wounds of the broken hearted.  (Is. 61:1)  The Stone that the builder’s rejected has become the Cornerstone, how marvelous it is in our eyes!   (Psa 118:23, cf. Is. 8: 14 cf. 28:16)

 

Click the ‘expand’ button to view full res panorama.

Click the ‘expand’ button to view full res panorama.

And so, look now, the Lord is bringing upon them the waters of the River, mighty and numerous, (namely), the king of Assyria and all his glory, and he shall run over all his courses, and go over all his banks. And he will push on against Judah, overflow and sweep over, reaching even the neck. And his outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, 0 Immanuel. (8:7-8)

The Assyrians often compared their military prowess to the waters of the Flood (abubu).  This was not just any flood, but the waters of the Great Flood that destroyed the earth.  Isaiah picks up on this metaphor in Isaiah 8:6-8.  Because the people refused the gentle brook of Shiloah,  the LORD was bringing on them the waters of ‘the River’, a reference to the Euphrates.

There is an interesting relief in the British Museum that actually shows Assyrian soldiers swimming across the Euphrates River on inflated animal bladders.  Horses swim next to them while the chariots have been dissembled and are being carried across the river in little coracles.  It is a striking depiction of the words of Isaiah.

As is so typical in Isaiah, the foretelling of doom is followed by words of hope – in this case, the promise of Emmanuel.   Although the water would reach up to the neck – ultimately, those who fight against the LORD will be destroyed “for God is with us”.

Be broken, you peoples, and be shattered; give ear, all you far countries; strap on your armor and be shattered; strap on your armor and be shattered. Take counsel together, but it will come to nothing; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us.  (Isa 8:9,10 ESV)

While I was in the UK last month, the media was debating whether Britain should still be classified as a Christian nation.  There was a general consensus that Britain could no longer be considered a Christian nation if one were to judge by church attendance and religious beliefs.  So what happens to a Western nation that moves away from Christian beliefs and ethics?  Where does it go?  What does it look like?  Is the post-Christian era unchartered territory or a well trodden path?  I believe it is the latter and that Britain has exchanged the teachings of Christ for those of Epicurus.   The following are ’10 Principles’ of Epicurean Philosophy that seem particularly relevant for today.  (Source: http://www.epicurus.net/index.html)

1. The world was created by Nature through the chance cohesion of  atoms. 
“We for our part deem happiness to consist in tranquility of mind and entire exemption from all duties.  For he who taught us all the rest has also taught us that the world was made by nature, without needing an artificer to construct it, and that the act of creation, which according to you cannot be performed without divine skill, is so easy, that nature will create, is creating, and has created worlds without number.  You on the contrary cannot see how nature can achieve all this without the aid of some intelligence, and so, like the tragic poets, being unable to the plot of your drama to a dénouement, you have recourse to a god; whose intervention you assuredly would not require if you would but contemplate the measureless and boundless extent of space that stretches in every direction, into which when the mind projects and propels itself, it journeys onward far and wide without ever sighting any margin or ultimate point where it can stop.  Well then, in this immensity of length and breadth and height there flits an infinite quantity of atoms innumerable, which though separated by void yet cohere together, and taking hold each of another form unions wherefrom are created those shapes and forms of things which you think cannot be created without the aid of bellows and anvils, and so have saddled us with an eternal master, whom day and night we are to fear; for who would not fear a prying busybody of a god, who foresees and thinks of and notices all things, and deems that everything is his concern?”  (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods)

…we worship with reverence the transcendent majesty of nature.  (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods)

2. Justice is based on a social contract and nothing else.
Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.  (Principle Doctrines)

Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm.  (Principle Doctrines)

Among the things held to be just by law, whatever is proved to be of advantage in men’s dealings has the stamp of justice… (Principle Doctrines)

3. There is no absolute Law but only ‘agreements’ made between men. 
There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.  (Principle Doctrines)

4. All that we call virtue is really self love.
“Can you then suppose that those heroic men performed their famous deeds without any motive at all? What their motive was, I will consider later on: for the present I will confidently assert, that if they had a motive for those undoubtedly glorious exploits, that motive was not a love of virtue in and for itself…”

It is a mistake to praise the heroic men of old “on account of the splendor of abstract moral worth” instead of on “utilitarian grounds”.   The principle that accounts for all human action is this —”the principle of forgoing pleasures for the purpose of getting greater pleasures, and enduring, pains for the sake of escaping greater pains.”  (Cicero, On Ends)

5. Happiness is not found in serving others, but in attaining a leisurely lifestyle.
“But repose is an essential condition of happiness.  If… some god resides within the world as its governor and pilot, maintaining the courses of the stars, the changes of the seasons, and all the ordered processes of creation, and keeping a watch on land and sea to guard the interests and lives of men, why, what a bondage of irksome and laborious business is his!”  (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods)

“We for our part deem happiness to consist in tranquillity of mind and entire exemption from all duties.”   (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods)

6. Harmony is the highest Value.
“It must therefore be admitted that the Chief Good is to live agreeably.”  (Cicero, On Ends)

7. Marriage brings more pain than pleasure so it is better not to marry
“Epicureans do not suffer the wise man to fall in love… according to them love does not come by divine inspiration: so Diogenes in his twelfth book… Nor, again, will the wise man marry and rear a family—so Epicurus says in the Problems and in the On Nature.  Occasionally he may marry owing to special circumstances in his life.  Some too will turn aside from their purpose.”  (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book X)

8. Do not fear final judgment but rather the painful consequences of discovery.
Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the fear which is associated with the apprehension of being discovered by those appointed to punish such actions.   (Principle Doctrines)

It is impossible for a man who secretly violates the terms of the agreement not to harm or be harmed to feel confident that he will remain undiscovered, even if he has already escaped ten thousand times; for until his death he is never sure that he will not be detected.   (Principle Doctrines)

9. Having been freed from the superstitious fear of the gods, we fear only pain.
Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power…   there is no other thing besides pain which is of its own nature capable of causing either anxiety or distress.  (Cicero, De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum)

10. Existence ends with death.
“I do not let myself be frightened by the Tityi and the Tantali whom some represent in Hades; horror does not seize me when I think of the putrefaction of my body… when the links which bind our organism are loosened, nothing further touches us.” (Cumont)

 

 

 

 

The Russian novelist and historian, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, was no friend of the Soviet Union but he had some hard words for the West as well.   The following are few quotes from a commencement speech he gave to the Harvard class of 78′.

If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required.  Nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice, and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. I have spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either.

And it will be, simply, impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.

Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counterbalanced by the young people’s right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society.

But it is also demeaning to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music. 

We have more laws on the books than ever – but we have abandoned  the Law.  As Solzhenitsyn put it, our legal system is focused “on human rights instead of on human obligations.”

If Solzhenitsyn disliked what he saw as “TV stupor, revolting invasion of publicity, and intolerable music” back in 78′ then I wonder what he would say today?  Facebook?  MTV? 24/7 peddlers of junk news?  I wonder if we have the ability to resist the temptation to be entertained when technology has made it immediately available on demand and relatively cheap?

 

Na; the sea’s like the land, but fearsomer.  If there’s folk ashore, there’s folk in the sea – deid they may be, but they’re folk whatever’ and as for deils, there’s nane that’s like the sea deils… labsters an’ partans, an’ sic like, howking in the deid; muckle, gutsy, blawing whales’ an’ fish – the hale clan o’ them – cauld-wamed, blind-eed uncanny ferlies. O, sirs,” he cried, “the horror – the horror o’ the sea!  R.L. Stevenson, The Merry Men

The sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply; their drink offerings of blood I will not pour out or take their names on my lips. (Psa 16:1 ESV)

The Pentateuch knows several kinds of libations.  There are libations of water, oil and wine – but never of blood.  Psalm 16:1 is the only place where we find any mention of a blood libation and it is in a negative sense.  The sacrificial laws of the Old Testament expressly forbid the sacrifice of animals ‘upon the ground’ so that their blood was allowed to run into the ground.  The Israelites were to slaughter the sacrifice at the entrance of the tabernacle and the blood was to be sprinkled on the altar.  Deuteronomy makes allowance for non sacrificial slaughter in the open field but in this case, the blood must be ‘poured out like water’ – that is, not ceremonially.

So what exactly was the purpose of a libation of blood and why would does the Psalmist single out this particular practice?  I suspect the reason why is because the blood libation had to do with the cult of the dead.   Leviticus 17:7 assumes that, until the giving of the sacrificial laws, the people sacrificed to ‘goat demons’  – what is is probably a general category for spirit beings who inhabit the ground.  In Roman times, the blood of victims was poured into the ground to satisfy the restless spirits of the dead.   Franz Cumont writes,

Fights of gladiators, whose blood drenched the soil, originally formed part of the funeral ceremonies.  It is said that these sacrifices were intended to provide him who had gone to the other world with servants and companions, as the offering of a horse gave him a steed, or else that, in case of violent death, they were meant to appease the shade of a victim who claimed vengeance.  (Cumont 1959, 51)

Cumont further observes that sacrifice to the dead “was at first often a human sacrifice of slaves or prisoners – Octavius, upon taking Perugia on the Ides of March, caused three hundred notables of the town to be slaughtered on Caesar’s altar…” (Suetonius, Life of Augustus – 15)  We find this same idea in Greece.  For example, Euripides tells a story about the sacrifice of the virgin Polyxena to the spirit of Achilles.  This sacrifice was made at the tomb of Achilles in order to get a favorable wind home after the sacking of Troy:

The Argives with one consent are eager for thy sacrifice to the son of Peleus at his tomb.

The language used to describe the slaying of Polyxena is the same kind of language used to describe the slaying of an animal.  Thus Polyxena laments,

As a calf of the hills is torn from its mother, and sent beneath the darkness of the earth with severed throat for Hades, where with the dead shall I be laid, ah me!

When the son of Achilles slays the girl, he prays:

Son of Peleus, father mine, accept the offering I pour thee to appease thy spirit, strong to raise the dead; and come to drink the black blood of a virgin pure, which I and the host are offering thee; oh!

This sacrifice is famously depicted on a sarcophagus found in Turkey that dates to ca 525 BC.  That means the depiction on the sarcophagus is older than the story told by Euripides.  Euripides would have us believe that Polyxena wished to die instead of live a life of slavery, but the relief on the sarcophagus tells a different story.  The tall mound in the background is the grave of Achilles – emphasizing the fact that this is a sacrifice for the dead.

 

Sorry about the graphic and not very pleasant reading.  I think it at least brings home the idea behind blood libations and the reality of human sacrifice that is so often denied in modern scholarship.   I don’t think the Psalmist necessarily had in mind human sacrifice in Psalm 16 but the principle is the same in either case.  The spirits of the dead needed the blood of the sacrifice just as the gods in heaven needed its meat.  Franz Cumont writes,

“When blood was sprinkled on the soil which covered the remains of a relative or a friend, a new vitality was given to his shade.”  (Cumont 1959, 51)

This makes the conclusion of Psalm 16 all the more meaningful.  The Psalmist does not look forward to a future as a disembodied spirit inhabiting a tomb and waiting for a friend or relative to bring a food offering or a blood libation.  His hope is of a completely different order,

I have set the LORD always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure.
For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption (shachat).
You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. (Psa 16:8-11 ESV)

The word translated ‘corruption’ is shachat which some of the more modern versions translate as ‘pit’ (NET, JPS, TNK)  The word could be translated either way – and it is possible that the Psalmist intended for the word to stand for both meanings.  Unfortunately, translators have to choose one or the other.  It is worth nothing that the LXX translates shachat as ‘corruption’ and for good reason.  If we translate the phrase ‘to see the Pit’ then we must ask what exactly did the Psalmist mean by this?   The Psalmist’s hope is not that he will be kept from the grave, but that he will not be abandoned there.  To be abandoned in the grave is to experience corruption.

Did the psalmist switch from the 1st person to the 3rd person and assume the title ‘holy one’?  Did the Psalmist really believe that he would not see the pit or experience corruption?   The Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter quote this passage in reference to Christ (Acts 2:27 13:25).   The psalmist looks with a prophetic eye beyond his own circumstance to the resurrection of Christ – the firstfruits of those who are asleep, but not abandoned!

Bibliography

Cumont, F. V. M. (1959). After life in Roman paganism. New York,, Dover Publications.

How did Jews living under the rule of the Persians look upon the Medes?  Did they see Media as separate from Persia –  a distinct empire or did they see the Medes and the Persians as essentially the same?

“But as a careful family man, Tobit also works out the practical consequences of these prophecies; he enjoins his son to leave Nineveh for Media because Media will have “real peace” until the appointed time. Thus, for the author, the fall of the Persian Empire will be followed by the establishment of the Kingdom of God.  It is obvious therefore, that the book must have been written before Alexander’s conquest and the fall of the Fourth Monarchy.  (Bickermann 1988, 57)

A 4th century BC Jew living in Ninevah did not distinguish between Media and Persia.  Neither did the Greeks,

“The word ‘medism’ was used to condemn an opponent as having pro-Persian, often aristocratic, sympathies…”  (Freeman 1996, 165)

It is highly improbable that Media and Persia are two empires represented separately in the statue of Daniel 2 and the beasts of Daniel 7.

Bibliography

Bickerman, E. J. and Jewish Theological Seminary of America. (1988). The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
Freeman, C. (1996). Egypt, Greece, and Rome : civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean. Oxford ; New York ;, Oxford University Press.

 

 

Did the Israelites hope for a life beyond the grave?  I have been reading through some of the Psalms with this question in mind, and am struck by the number of places where the Psalmist expresses hope for life after death.  For example, the last phrase of Psalm 23 reads:

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever (leorech yamim). (Psa 23:1 ESV)

Some expositors take issue with the word “forever” and think it would better be translated “the rest of my life.”  While the the Hebrew phrase leorech yamim literally means ‘length of days’ and therefore does not necessarily mean forever, it often does refer to eternity.   They further argue that the Israelites viewed death with finality and despair.  The souls of the dead inhabit a shadowy underworld where none of the pleasures of this world are known or experienced.  This view is typified by J. Assman,

In fact, not only was there no meaningful afterlife in the Old Testament world, but also no sacred space of duration in this world, such as the Egyptians achieved by means of stony monumentality.  The divine and death were kept as far apart as possible, man was close to the divine only during his earthly existence, and all the accounts of righteousness had to be settled in this life; there could be no talk of immortality, yet the life of the individual was surrounded by a mighty horizon of recollections, by a promise that extended not into the afterlife, but into the chain of generations.”  (Jan Assman, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt 11)

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that the Psalmist only hoped for a blessed existence during the days that he lived on the earth.   Already he is conceiving of his days on earth in terms of a metaphor that sounds very much like the Christian view of heaven.  He wants to be with God – in his temple (cf. Psalm 15).   It is absurd to think that the Psalmist then envisions that when he dies, he enters the shadowy world of Sheol.

Moreover, there is good reason to think that the Psalmist is referring to more than just the days of his life on earth.  The final two clauses of Psalm 23 are in parallel, with the 2nd clause building on the first.  The goodness and mercy of the Lord experienced in this lifetime (all my days) becomes the all surpassing hope of dwelling with the LORD in his house forever (length of days).  This is how most translations understand it, but it is nevertheless surprising how many commentators go with Gesenius. [See Note 1]

It is with this in mind that we read in the book of Isaiah of a certain overseer of the house named Shebna whom the prophet condemned for building an elaborate tomb as “a dwelling in the rocks.”  The word Isaiah uses for ‘dwelling’ is ‘mishcan‘ – the same word used for the Temple.  Shebna built an impressive tomb to dwell in, which was a perfectly reasonable thing to do if one believes, as the Egyptians did, that the tomb was an important staging point for the soul on its journey to the afterlife.  But Israelite belief and ritual does not give place for a cult of the dead.

I have heard it said, “There is no resurrection in the Hebrew Bible!!!  None!” with an added caveat about Daniel, which is late.    While it is true that the resurrection of the body is not made explicit in the OT –  belief that the dead will go to be with the LORD is expressed clearly and directly in a number of places.  One could argue that this is the central idea behind the temple – it is the stairway that connects heaven and earth as revealed in Jacob’s vision.    Many of the Psalms express hope for life after the grave and relate this hope to the temple, just as Psalm 23 does.

It is interesting that, in light of these OT references, the Lord Jesus referred to heaven as ‘my Father’s house’.

Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?   And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.   (Joh 14:1-3 NIV)

Notes:

(1)  Gesenius argued that ‘I will dwell in the house of the LORD’ should be translated ‘I will frequent the house of the LORD’.  Hengstenburg responds, “… it is impossible that the expression can be applied to literally abiding in the external temple, and it is altogether arbitrary to substitute, as Gesenius does, frequenting, instead of abiding.  Moreover, the possibility opened up by God of frequenting the temple, if occurring at all in a Psalm which extols so well what is great and glorious in God, is least of all to be expected at the conclusion, where there ought to have come in some comprehensive significant expression, and where it serves no other purpose except to weak the impression of the whole.  As parallel to goodness and love follow me all the days of my life, the words, I dwell in the house of the for ever, sound exceedingly feeble and cold, if they relate to a frequenting of the sanctuary.”   (Hengstenberg, E. W. (1842). The Psalms. Edinburgh, T & T Clark.)

(2) Forevermore (leorech yamim) in the OT:

Your decrees are very trustworthy; holiness befits your house, O LORD, forevermore (leorech yamim). (Psa 93:5 ESV)

He asked life of you; you gave it to him, length of days (orech yamim) forever and ever. (Psa 21:4 ESV)

The phrase also appears in Akkadian texts,

I will give you long days and eternal years in the City, O Essarhaddon, in Arbela, I will be your good shield.  (Esarhaddon and Ishtar of Arbela, Foster 2005, 814)

Several hundred Iron Age tombs have been found in the hillside opposite the City of David .  Most are just simple burial chambers carved into the rock with a raised bench inside where the body was laid.  All that is visible from outside is the square opening to the chamber.   However, two tombs have been discovered that were more elaborate.  The first of these is the tomb of Pharaoh’s daughter.

Although difficult to spot among the tightly packed houses of Silwan, the tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter (aka.The Silwan Monolith) is a truly impressive tomb – probably one of the best preserved structures from the 1st temple period.   The tomb takes its name from the very Egyptian looking beaded cove that encircles the outer edge of its roof.  Apparently it was originally crowned with a pyramid.

[envira-gallery id=”635″]

One of these tombs preserves a lengthy Hebrew inscription (now in the British Museum) that may have an interesting connection with the prophet Isaiah:

“This is the tomb of… ]yahu who is over the house. No silver or gold is here but (his bones) and the bones of his Amma. Cursed be the man who opens this.”  (1)

Based on the identification of this tomb with an overseer of the house, and the fact that the tomb is one of the more elaborate Iron Age tombs in Silwan, it is quite likely that this tomb is the one mentioned by Isaiah,

Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him:   What have you to do here, and whom have you here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself, you who cut out a tomb on the height and carve a dwelling for yourself in the rock?  (Isa 22:15-16)

So why was Isaiah so critical of Shebna’s tomb?   Was it because it was a symbol of vanity?   Some indication that this may be the case is found in the prophet’s criticism of Shebna for traveling about with ‘glorious chariots’ (lit. – chariots of his glory).   But it is also possible that the elaborate tomb of Shebna was influenced by Egyptian ideas about death and the afterlife.

It is interesting to consider that many of the greatest monuments surviving today are tombs.  Think: the Pyramids, Petra, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Terracotta Warriors, the Taj Mahal…  I don’t think the prophet Isaiah would have approved.