Marbeh Ḥokmah

Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East

in Loving Memory of

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

edited by
S. Yona, E. L. Greenstein, M. I. Gruber,
P. Machinist, and S. M. Paul

Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns
2015
Victor Avigdor Hurowitz
 Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution:
The Biblical Tabernacle (ʿōhel môʿēd/miškān)
and the Akkadian qersu

Natalie N. May

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz’s dissertation 1 explored temple building in the

Bible in the light of ancient Near Eastern sources. As Victor’s Doktortochter,
I had the special pleasure of dedicating to his forthcoming Festschrift an essay
that continued his study of the Tabernacle (in both method and theme). 2 It has
been a great sorrow to continue working on the same paper for his memorial
volume. My only comfort is that the memory of Victor as an extraordinary
scholar, mentor, and friend lives on.
The present contribution investigates the Tabernacle in a Mesopotamian
context. It derives from a study of the Assyrian portable sanctuary qersu begun
in my dissertation, which was written under Victor’s supervision and benefited
greatly from his insightful thinking and erudition. 3
This article explores the connection between Akkadian qersu 4 and the bibli-
cal portable sanctuary, both of which were initially nomadic tent shrines. Both
Akkadian and biblical sources preserved accounts of nomadic realia put on

1.  Victor A. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible
in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1992).
2.  Idem, “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle,” JAOS 105 (1985): 21–30;
idem, “The Form and Fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a Recent Proposal,” JQR 86
(1995): 127–51.
3.  See also my article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting: Its Origin, Depiction
and Evolution,” in Proceedings of 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale—Moscow/
St. Petersburg, July 23–28, 2007, vol. 1: Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. L. Kogan
et al.; Babel und Bibel 4/1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 441–89.
4.  For the West Semitic origin of the word qersu and its connection with Hebrew qereš,
which Simo Parpola interprets as “board, prow (?),” and Ugaritic qrš, translated by him
as “abode,” see Simo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon
and Assurbanipal, part 2: Commentary and Appendices, AOAT 5/2 (Kevelaer: Butzon  &
Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), 65–66.

369
370 Natalie N. May

record already in sedentary society, thus presenting certain methodological dif-

ficulties. The evidence from Mari and Assyria describes the contemporary por-
table shrines, while the biblical accounts may preserve the collective historical
memory at best.
The biblical text refers to two different portable sanctuaries: 5 the non-
Priestly Tent (ʿōhel môʿēd) and the Priestly Tabernacle, called both ʿōhel

5.  The LXX suggests the existence of one more portable sanctuary and portable di-
vine symbols of celestial deities in Amos 5:26: καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μολοχ καὶ τὸ
ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν ραιφαν τοὺς τύπους αὐτῶν οὓς ἐποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς. Original: ûnĕśāʾtem
ʾēt sikkût malkĕkem wĕʾēt kîyyûn ṣalmêkem kôkab ʾĕlōhêkem ʾăšer ʿăśîtem lākem, “But you
shall carry the tents (?) of your king, and Kaiwan (Saturn), your images of a star, which you
made for yourself.”
The passage is extremely difficult (see Francis I. Andersen, Amos: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24A [New York: Doubleday, 1989], 533–37). An-
dersen translates, “But you shall carry Sakkuth, your king, and Kaiwan, your star god, your
images, which you made for yourself,” 529). Nevertheless, the LXX interpretation of sik-
kût(?) as sukkat, “tent/booth,” is not impossible. Notably, the Peshitta translates it as msknh!
In this case, it would be the earliest (first half of the 8th century b.c.e.) evidence in the
Bible for a portable sanctuary that also appears in connection with celestial divine symbols.
Moreover, the reading sukkôt malkĕkem wĕʾēt kîyyûn ṣalmêkem kôkab ʾĕlōhêkem, though
compromised by the translations of the LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta by singular “tent,” is
suggested by the Hebrew Bible’s rendering of skwt with waw (Rykle Borger, “Amos 5,26,
Apostelgeschichte 7,43 und Šurpu II, 180,” ZAW 100 [1988]: 77). The translation then would
be “tents of your king, and of Kaiwan, your images of the star of your god.” This draws a pic-
ture that immediately calls to mind the Lachish relief depicting the tent of King Sennacherib
and the divine symbols worshiped by priests in the Assyrian military camp nearby (Richard
D. Barnett, Erika Bleibtreu, and Geoffrey Turner, Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of
Sennacherib at Nineveh [London: British Museum, 1996], pls. 322, 342–48; and below,
n. 42); Andersen (Amos, 536) states that, if ever Israelites practiced planetary worship, it
would have been under Assyrian influence and that “these Assyro-Babylonian deities here
cannot come from Amos, or the period of Amos prophecies” (ibid.). However, Shalom M.
Paul (Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, ed. F. M. Cross, Hermeneia [Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991], 194 with nn. 65–66) refutes the suggestion that “at least one of two gods,
Sikkuth (‫)סּכּות‬,
ִ is supposed to have been introduced into Israel only after the Assyrian con-
quest (2 Kgs 17: 30)” and that “many commentators . . . surmise that the verse is a later
interpolation.” Paul (p. 197) notes further, “There is no reason to suspect this verse of being
introduced by a later redactor after the Assyrian conquest,” since Mesopotamia astral cult
could penetrate Israel through Aramean agency. To Paul’s argumentation, one can add that
the equation of sikkût with dSAG.KUD (p. 195 with n. 72) is no longer valid after Borger’s
collation of the relevant passage of Šurpu proved that dSAG.KUD is not to be found there
(Borger, “Amos 5,26, Apostelgeschichte 7,43 und Šurpu II, 180”). The passage with its cur-
rent interpretation constitutes a parallel to Mesopotamian and (particularly) Assyrian cult
processions (Paul, Amos, 194, 197), when the king, the divine symbols, and the portable
sanctuary processed in all their glory before the army and the commoners (Natalie N. May,
“Royal Triumph as an Aspect of the Neo-Assyrian Decorative Program,” in Organization,
Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008, ed. G. Wilhelm
[Winona Lake: IN, Eisenbrauns, 2012], 461–88, e.g., at fig. 1).
 Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution 371

môʿēd and miškān. 6 The descriptions of the Tent and the Tabernacle derive
from different sources and their functions were different. 7 The description of
the Tabernacle originates from the Priestly source (P), which means that it was
composed in the Persian period. The Tent appears in the Jahwistic, Elohistic,
and Deuteronomic sources, which were of an earlier date.
The entity qersu is a “portable sanctuary” in Akkadian. 8 It is attested in two
groups of texts as well. The smaller group consists of the 3 Mari texts. The
larger group consists of 19 texts from the time of the Assyrian Sargonids. 9 Nat-
urally, such a gap of time between the two groups suggests differences in usage
and meaning, so one should actually differentiate between Amorite and Neo-
Assyrian qersu. Moreover, a portable sanctuary, represented as a baldachin
structure, is depicted in the visual sources of the early Neo-Assyrian period. 10
As for the meaning of the qersu in Mari, Daniel Fleming suggested inter-
preting qersu in the Mari texts as “a heavy object that serves to raise the struc-
ture of the tent.” 11 The tent in question is a public structure that is analogous,
in his view, to the biblical sanctuary Tent.
It is noteworthy that in Mari texts qersū is a pluralis tantum. Moreover, in
all three examples at our disposal, the plural of qersū is never indicated by
a determinative but only phonetically and numerically, probably due to the
foreign origin of the word. In two of the three cases, qersū is written with the
determinative GIŠ and is mentioned in connection with ḫurpatum (M. 6754
and M. 6873; see below). It seems that in these cases the qersū are the wooden
frames or posts of a tent. The word ḫurpatum is known only in Mari. 12 The only
dictionary that has this entity is the Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, where it

6.  For detailed analyses of the Tent and the Priestly Tabernacle, see Menahem Ha-
ran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1978), 149–204, 260–75; as well as idem, “The Nature of the ‘Ohel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal
Sources,” JSS 5/1 (1960): 50–65; idem, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” HUCA 36
(1965): 191–226.
7.  Haran (“The Nature of the ‘Ohel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” 56) also points
out that ʿōhel môʿēd is not a permanent abode of the godhead; miškān is the place where the
godhead dwells (p. 58).
8.  For establishing the meaning of qersu in Akkadian as “portable sanctuary,” see my
article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting: Its Origin, Identification, Depiction and
Evolution,” especially pp. 468–70.
9.  Ibid., 446–53.
10.  Ibid., 458–68.
11. Daniel Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” VT 50
(2000): 484–98, esp. p. 487.
12.  The meaning of the Middle Assyrian ḫu-ru-up-pa-a-te (KAV 1 col. VI 17, 20) is
unclear (contra Jean-Marie Durand, AEM 1/1.115 with n. 68, who translates it “tent”). For
the meaning of ḫurpatum, see idem, La nomenclature des habits et des textiles dans les textes
de Mari, ARM 30, Matériaux pour le Dictionnaire de Babylonien de Paris 1 (Paris: CNRS,
2009), 46–47.
372 Natalie N. May

is translated “tent.” 13 Fleming points out that it can designate only the tent’s
fabric. However, the meaning “baldachin” is also possible. 14 In the three Mari
texts, the use of qersū provides a perfect parallel to qaršê hammiškān, which
are mostly used in plural construct, and everywhere in the Bible, with one
only exception, 15 are associated with miškān. Actually, qereš/qĕrāšîm/qaršê/
is found mostly in the description of the tent sanctuary in Exod 26:17–28 and
36:21–34, where it designates “frame” or “board.” 16
The use of qersū in the kispum ritual (M. 12803) dated to the reign of Samsī-
Addu I 17 differs from two other Mari texts mentioning qersū. The ḫurpatum
does not appear in M. 12803, and the determinative GIŠ is absent. The ritual
takes place at the qersū, which suggests that it is a shrine itself (M. 12803): 18
Column II
 7. ūm gimkim
 8. qersū
 9. iššakkanū
10. imērum iddâk
11. ilū u enūt[um]
12. ina lib⸢bi qer⸣sī
13. uṣṣû ilum ana bītišu
14. šarru an[a] e[kalliš]u illak

13.  CDA, 122a.

14.  Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 487. On the
meaning “tent” for the ḫurpatum, see Durand, AEM 1/1.114–15; and idem (La nomenclature
des habits et des textiles, 47); Durand collected all the evidence for this entity and suggested
the translation “tent.” Nevertheless, taking into consideration ḫurpa[tim] ša eleppi, “the
ḫurpatum of the boat” (ARM 9 12, no. 22, lines 10–11), baldachin should not be excluded
(Durand AEM 1/1.114; and idem, La nomenclature des habits et des textiles, 47).
15. Ezek 27:6; this exceptional passage is exhaustively treated by Fleming (“Mari’s
Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 491). See also below. Parpola’s transla-
tion of qersu as “prow?” probably comes from here (see above, n. 4).
16. See Hurowitz, “The Form and Fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a Recent Pro-
posal,” 134–43, 147–51, on the reconstruction of the Tabernacle’s wooden frame of qĕrāšîm.
17. Jean-Marie Durand and Michaël Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari, III,” in Recueil
d’études à la mémoire de Marie-Thérèse Barrelet, ed. D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, Flori-
legium Marianum 3, Mémoires de NABU 4 (Paris: Société pour l’Étude du Proche-Orient
Ancien 1997) 19–78; Daniel E. Fleming, “Chroniques bibliographiques, 1: Recent Work
on Mari,” RA 93 (1999): 157–74, esp. p. 161. Durand and Guichard (pp. 63–64) and Flem-
ing (p. 161) deduce the time of Samsī-Addu I as the date for this text based on calendrical
considerations and on the fact that the ritual was performed as an ancestral cult for Sargon
of Akkad and Narām-Sîn, who were closely associated with the dynasty of Samsī-Addu. The
ritual was carried out in the month of ŠE.GUR10(KIN).KU5, which is only attested in the
calendar of Samsī-Addu.
18.  As collated by Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,”
490–91. This text is fully published in Durand and Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari, III,”
63–70.
 Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution 373

Fleming translates qersū as “tent frames,” though he speaks of the qersū as a

shrine in this ritual text. 19 I will argue that the term is used here as pars pro
toto designating the entire structure and not just its wooden frame. This is con-
firmed by the absence of the determinative GIŠ, which is present in two other
examples from Mari. Thus the proposed translation is:
On the gimkim day the tent sanctuary is 20 installed. A donkey is killed. The gods
and the utensils come out from inside the tent sanctuary. The god goes to his
house (and) the king to his palace.

The text is a ritual of the funerary offerings (kispu) to the statues of Sargon
of Akkad and Narām-Sîn. Maurice Birot saw in this ceremony a legitimation
rite aimed at connecting the Dynasty of Samsi-Addu I with the hero-kings
of Akkad—a practice that is also well attested for the Assyrian Sargonids. 21
Fleming is convinced that, since “the king is not said to leave the qersū, it ap-
pears that he is present but not inside” during the ritual. 22 This would mean that
the rite actually took place outside the tent sanctuary; inside it, only the gods’
images and utensils were placed. This situation identical to the theophany at
the door of the biblical (E) Tent (ʿōhel môʿēd) as it is described in Exod 33:9–
10 and elsewhere. 23
In the Neo-Assyrian period, the portable sanctuary qersu was mostly used
during military campaigns, where it substituted for permanent temples. 24 Nev-
ertheless, there is evidence for such a function of the qersū and the ḫurpatum
in Mari in a letter that one of the king’s officials sent to another (M. 6754 =
ARM 27, no. 124): 25
Obv. 2–5: [ana Šunu]ḫra-˹ḫa˺[lû˺ // [qib]ima // [umma Zi]mri-Addu //
aḫukāma // x x x x kīma ˹ḫur˺[pa- (. . .)
Rev. 1ʹ–10′: annumma ṭuppam a[na ṣēr šarri?] // ušābilam šupur[ma
ḫurpa­tam] // šâti lilqūn[i]m[ma] // ša šuddun ḫu[rpatim šâti] // qadum
GIŠ
qersīša [epuš] // ana mātim šanītum ū˹lūma˺ tillatim // b[ēlī i]l[l]ak

19.  Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 491–92.
20.  Qersū is translated here using a singular as a pluralis tantum.
21. Maurice Birot, “Fragment de rituel de Mari relatif au kispum,” in Death in Meso-
potamia (ed. B. Alster; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), 139–50, esp. pp. 139 and
148–49.
22.  Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 491.
23.  Haran, “The Nature of the ‘Ohel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” 55–56; and
Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 265–67. See also the worship of divine stan-
dards at the entrance to the Neo-Assyrian qersu (below).
24.  See my article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting,” 470–72.
25.  Following Maurice Birot Correspondance des gouverneurs de Qattunân, ARM 27
(Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1993), 211. See also Wolfgang Heimpel,
Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and
Commentary, MC 12 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2003), 453.27 124 for the translation.
374 Natalie N. May

ḫurpatam // [lā]? ˹i˺kallūnim // [ina anneti]m a[t]ḫutka // [u rāʾimūtka]

lūmur
Obv. 2–5: [Say to Šunu]ḫra-˹ḫa˺[lû˺: [so (says) Zi]mri-Addu, your brother
. . . as for the ˹tent] (. . .).
Rev. 1ʹ–10′: Here I have sent a letter to the [king?]. Write [and] may they
fetch me this [tent]. [Make] so that this tent will be handed over together
with its qersus. (If) [my lo]rd will go to another land or e[lse], to the
aid (of someone), they shall [not?] withhold the tent. Let me see your
brotherly attitude [and friendship] in this!
Durand and Fleming identify GIŠqersū in this text as the supporting wooden
construction of a tent. 26
The last Mari text that mentions qersū is M. 6873. 27 It is an administrative
text, listing the number of men responsible for each part of the tent: 28
ḫurpatum rabītum 16 awīlū
10 GIŠqersū 20 awīlū
5 GIŠmuzzazū 5 awīlū
14 GIŠmurudû 2 awīlū
napḫarum 43 awīlū ša ḫurpatim rabītim
. . .
10 GIŠqersū
3 GIŠmurudû
2 awīlū našû
One large tent (by) 16 men, 10 qersus (by) 20 men, 5 bases? (by) 5 men,
3 fence units? (by) 2 men—total: 43 men pertaining to the large tent— . . .
10 qersus (and) 3 fence units? (by) 2 men are carried.
The assignment to certain Levitical families of responsibility for the trans-
portation of various parts of the miškān provides a striking parallel to this
text. According to the Bible, the Gershonites were responsible for the covers
and other skin and textile components of the Tabernacle and the altar; the
furniture and other sacral utensils were assigned to the Kohathites; and car-
rying the frames (qaršê hammiškān), bars, posts, and sockets was the duty of
the Merari family:

26.  Fleming “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 487 with n. 11,
“Without translation, Durand identifies the qersum as a heavy object that serves to raise the
structure of the tent, with reference to ARM XXVII 124: 4′−5′ and the Hebrew noun qereš.”
27.  Unpublished, partially cited by Durand and Guichard, Les rituels de Mari, III, 65−66.
28. Following Fleming “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,”
486−87; and Durand and Guichard, Les rituels de Mari, III, 65−66.
 Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution 375

ûpĕqudat mišmeret bĕnê mĕrārî qaršê hammiškān ûbĕrîḥāyw wĕʿammudāyw

waʾădānāyw wĕkol-kēlāyw wĕkōl ʿăbōdātô wĕʿammudê heḥāṣēr sābîb wĕʾadnê­
hem wîtēdōtām ûmêtrêhem
The marshalled force bearing the Merarite assignment is charged with the planks
of the Tabernacle (qaršê hammiškān), and its bolts; its posts and its sockets, and
all of its appurtenances, and their complete construction, also the posts of the
courtyard, on every side; and their sockets, their tent pegs, and their lashings.
(Num 3:36−37) 29

Although, as was shown by Fleming, 30 the tent in Mari text M. 6873 was ex-
traordinary in size, since 43 men were needed to carry its parts, it was certainly
smaller than the Priestly Tabernacle. According to M. 6873, this large tent
had 10 qersus; each of these qersus needed 2 men to carry it. The Tabernacle
had 48 qĕrāšîm (Exod 26:18−25). If, as Fleming suggests, 31 qersū-frames and
qĕrāšîm were comparable in size, the large Mari tent in M. 6873, which had
only 10 qersūs, was 5 times smaller than the Priestly Tabernacle. Moreover, if
we translate muzzazū as “bases” or “stands,” as Fleming does 32 and as we can
only agree, then their construction must be different from that of the ʾădānîm
(“sockets”) of the Tabernacle: in the Mari text, only 1 muzzazu corresponds to
2 qersū, whereas, in the biblical text, 2 ʾădānîm are necessary for each qereš.
The text describes the ḫurpatum, which here obviously specifies the tent’s
cover, as “large.” But Fleming 33 presumes the existence of smaller tents of this
type whose fabric weighed only 30 kg, in his estimation. 34 The texts do not
mention the qersū in conjunction with the smaller tents, since for small tents
the wooden frames would be unnecessary. 35 In the Bible, qĕrāšîm with one ex-
ception only (see below) are characteristic of the miškān and are not associated
with any other tent, including the non-Priestly ʿōhel môʿēd or any other struc-
ture. Haran notices that these are qĕrāšîm, which distinguish the construction
of the Priestly Tabernacle from that of a simple tent. 36 They obviously were
perceived as being used in a special sort of construction that was necessary
to raise a very large tent. Possibly the same was the case with the Mari qersū,

29.  Translation following Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary, AB 4A (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 153.
30.  Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 488.
31.  Ibid., 490.
32.  Ibid., 487.
33.  Ibid., 488 with n. 16.
34.  Ibid.
35.  See Phillippe Talon, Texts administratives des salles “Y et Z” du palais de Mari,
ARM 24 (Paris: Editiones Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), 99, 238; and Durand, La
nomenclature des habits et des textiles, 46−47, for the meaning of ḫurpatum, and the catalog
of the Mari texts where it occurs (nos. 8, 10).
36.  Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 195.
376 Natalie N. May

Figure 1.  The White Obelisk VI A–B. Representation of a triumph. The divine standard on
the royal chariot and the winged quadruped (cherub?) on the ridge of what is perhaps a rep-
resentation of the Assyrian portable shrine on the march. After Edmond Sollberger, “The
White Obelisk,” Iraq 36 (1974): pls. 42–43. © Copyright of the Trustees of the British
Museum. Reproduced with permission.

which makes them a distinctive feature of the cultic or public tent. This is why
we describe this term as pars pro toto in M. 12803 and in the Neo-Assyrian
texts. In Mari, the qersū were a distinctive characteristic of rather large tent
structures, and thus qersū gradually became the term for the later public tents
or tent sanctuaries.
According to M. 6873, the third element of the Mari portable sanctuary is
murudû, “grating fence (?).” Unlike qersū and ḫurpatum, it is not Amorite but a
Sumerian loanword in Akkadian. 37 It has neither cognates in Biblical Hebrew,
nor parallel constructive elements in the structure of the Priestly Tabernacle. 38
The Neo-Assyrian portable sanctuary obviously was not a nomadic sort of
tent. It served as a cultic center at the military camp and as an installation for
purification rights, particularly in the Late Assyrian period. 39 Nevertheless, it
shows certain similarities with the Priestly Tabernacle.
First of all, the Neo-Assyrian qersu is closely associated with the divine
symbols, as can be traced in both texts and pictorial sources (e.g., figs. 1–3). 40

37.  CAD M/1 230.

38.  See also Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 487
with n. 14.
39.  May, “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting,” 445−72, especially pp. 454 and
470.
40.  See VAT 10464, rev., col. VI, lines 3–11:
našpartu ina GIŠqersi ušerrab ušeššab dariu ina[ssaḫ] silqu epp[al] [unī]qu iqallu ḫariu
ipatte našpartu ina libâni ša rab! šipirte ikar!rar ana Libbi-āli illaka kî kunukku issu Libbi-
āli ana muḫḫi urigallu illakanni
He brings the letter into the qersu (and) puts (it there), makes sacrifices, offers boiled
food, he burns a female kid (and) opens a ḫariu, puts the letter on the neck of the message
master, comes to Aššur. When the sealed (letter) from Aššur upon the divine symbol
comes. . . .
And the Assyrian war ritual performed with the war chariots carrying divine standards
(Karlheinz Deller, “Neuassyrische Rituale für den Einsatz der Götterstreitwagen,” in Erica
 Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution

Figure 2.  Baldachin structure within the representation of the Assyrian royal battlefield ritual. Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 b.c.e.). Throne room of
the Northwest Palace at Kalhu. After Austin H. Layard, The Monuments of Nineveh from Drawings Made on the Spot [London: Murray, 1853],
pl. 30. © Copyright of the Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with permission.
377
378 Natalie N. May

Figure 3. Assyrian royal battlefield ritual. The chariots with the king and the divine sym-
bols are approaching the baldachin structure qersu. Ashurnasirpal II. The throne room of
the North-West Palace at Kalhu. After Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, pls. 21, 22,

One of the important functions of the divine symbols from the earliest periods
was to provide the divine’s presence in the army at war. For this purpose,
they were taken on military campaigns. This practice is evident in the writ-
ten sources, beginning with Gudea’s time. 41 Artistic representations of the di-

Bleibtreu, Karlheinz Deller, and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Götterstreiwagen und Götterstan-

darten: Götter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im Feldlager,” BaghM 23 [1992]: 341–46,
pls. 67–69; May, “Royal Triumph as an Aspect of the Neo-Assyrian Decorative Program,”
462; K.10209, lines 19, 25, 38, 44–46):
issi muḫḫi narkabte ša dNergal inassūn[e] . . . amēlu šaniu issi dBēlat-dunāni irakkubu
. . . šarru . . . erāb āli ana madākti uppaš // [an]a qersi errab // naptunu iššakkan [ša]rru
iḫaddu
from the chariot of (the standard) of—N.N.M.) Nergal they raise the “second man”
rides (in a chariot—N.N.M.) with (a standard of—N.N.M.) Bēlat-dunāni . . . (the
king . . .) performs a triumphal entrance into the camp. He enters the qersu. A meal is
prepared. The king rejoices.
See my article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting,” 458–66, 485 with figs. 1–14
and 17 for the catalog of representations of the baldachin structures in Assyrian art; Aus-
tin H. Layard, The Monuments of Nineveh from Drawings Made on the Spot (London: Mur-
ray, 1853), pls. 21, 22, 30; Shalmaneser III’s Balawat Gates, passim and probably Paul E.
Botta and Eugène Flandin, Monument de Ninive, vol. 2: Architecture et Sculpture (Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale, 1849), pl. 146. For the identification of the baldachin structure of the
Neo-Assyrian reliefs with the qersu, see my article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Set-
ting,” 458–68, 470–72.
41.  See Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Mesopotamische Standarten in Literarische Zeugnis-
sen,” in Erica Bleibtreu, Karlheinz Deller, and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Götterstreiwagen
und Götterstandarten: Götter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im Feldlager,” BaghM 23 (1992):
299–340, esp. pp. 306, 316, 323, 337–39.
In the following two examples, the campaign designated ḫarranu, lit., “way, road,” is
mentioned in connection with the divine standard: ina alāk harrānu urinnāku, “on (military)
campaign I am a standard” (see “The Poem of Erra,” in Luigi Cagni, Das Erra-Epos: Keilschrift-
text, Studia Pohl 5 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970], 7, col. I, 1ine 114).
 Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution 379

and 30. Details: the upper parts of the divine standards with representations of
the gods. © Copyright of the Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with
permission.

vine standards accompanying the army were known already from the stele of
Narām-Sîn (fig.  4) and became particularly widespread in the Neo-Assyrian
period (figs.  3, 6). 42 Šamšī-Adad V boasts of capturing the standards of his
Babylonian adversary. 43
The association of the Ark of the Covenant with the Priestly Tabernacle in
the Bible is similar to the association of divine symbols with the qersu. 44 The
ark and the Tabernacle are created by the same command (Exodus 25–26) and
often move together (1 Kgs 8:4; 1 Chr 15:1; 2 Chr 5:5); the Ark is to stand

See also the seal inscription of Aššur-šumu-iddina:

ša Aššur-šumu-iddina šangû Ninurta/Nergal(?) Adad ša harrānu epāše Ninurta/Ner-
gal(?) Adad ša Kalḫi (ša Aš+šur-MU-ŠUM-na dMAŠ.⟨MAŠ⟩ dIM šá KASKAL DÙ dMAŠ
d
IM šá URUKal-ḫi . . .)
the seal of Aššur-šumu-iddina, the high-priest of Ninurta/Nergal(?) (and) Adad that go
on campaign (and of) Ninurta/Nergal(?) (and) Adad of Kalḫu.
Concerning the reading KASKAL DÙ, I completely agree with the argument of Beate
Pongratz-Leisten and Karlheinz Deller contra Wilfred G. Lambert (Beate Pongratz-Leisten and
Karlheinz Deller, “Zum Siegel des Aššur-šumu-iddina,” NABU [1991]: 77; Karlheinz Del-
ler, “Einleitung,” in Erica Bleibtreu, Karlheinz Deller, and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Götter-
streiwagen und Götterstandarten: Götter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im Feldlager,” BaghM
23 [1992]: 291–98, esp. p. 294; and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Mesopotamische Standarten in
Literarische Zeugnissen,” 338–39; Wilfred G. Lambert, “A Late Assyrian Seal Inscription,”
NABU [1991]: 14; idem, “The Seal of Aššur-šumu-iddina Again,” NABU [1991]: 111).
42.  See also Erica Bleibtreu, “Standarten auf Neuassyrischen Reliefs und Bronzetreibar-
beiten,” in Erica Bleibtreu, Karlheinz Deller, and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Götterstreiwagen
und Götterstandarten: Götter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im Feldlager,” BaghM 23 (1992):
291–357, pls. 349–56 and pls. 50–66.
43.  Ernst F. Weidner, “Die Feldzuge Šamši-Adad V. Gegen Babylonien,” AfO 9 (1933):
89–104, esp. pp. 95, 100.
44.  For the portable sanctuary and portable divine symbols of celestial deities in Amos
5:26, see n. 5.
380 Natalie N. May

Figure 4.  The divine standards on the stele of Narām-Sîn.

 Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution 381

Figure 5.  Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III (858–824 b.c.e.). Band IV, upper register. Bal-
dachin structure inside Assyrian camp. The king is performing a ritual in front of it. After
Leonard W. King and E. A. Wallis Budge, Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser
King of Assyria b.c. 860–825 (London: British Museum, 1915), pl. 20. © Copyright of the
Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with permission.

inside the Tabernacle (Exod 26:33; 28:21, 40:2–3). Haran notes that “in the
Priestly Source the Ark is described as a fixed and inseparable part of the
Tabernacle,” 45 but in the JE sources it is “a portable object in the full sense of
the term” that can be removed from the sanctuary when the people are on the
march or in a procession or at war. Julian Morgenstern argued that the Ark
itself was a kind of portable shrine in the form of a tent. 46 Some scholars sug-
gested that the Priestly “Ark of the Testimony” (Exod 30:26 and passim) was
conceived as containing two tablets inscribed with the Decalogue, in a likeness
of the Ark of the Temple of Solomon (1 Sam 8:9). 47 The divine standards as-
sociated with the Assyrian portable sanctuary are two poles with the emblems
that appear following the royal chariot at the head of the attacking army (fig. 6)
or in a triumphal procession (figs. 1, 3). 48

45.  Haran, “The Nature of the ‘Ohel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” 50; Temples and
Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 261.
46. Julian Morgenstern, “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting,’” HUCA 17
(1942–43): 153–266 at 229–66; and especially pp. 249–50.
47.  Ibid., 230.
48.  For the contents of the portable sanctuaries of the Semitic-speaking nomads, see
also ibid., 213–14, concerning the pair of goddesses or bethyls in the pre-Islamic Bedouin
portable sanctuaries.
382 Natalie N. May

The Ark, which was the receptacle for the divine presence, 49 was used in
military campaigns, just as the divine symbols were in Mesopotamia. It pre-
ceded the tribes of Israel at their entrance into Canaan, showing them the way
and drying up the waters of the Jordan (Josh 3:3–17; 4:18). It accompanied
the procession around the walls of the besieged Jericho (Josh 6:5–8, 10–12).
Finally, Israelites brought along the Ark to support their army in the second
battle against the Philistines at Ebenezer (1 Sam 4:3–6), where it was captured
by the latter (fig. 7; 1 Sam 4:11). This event was perceived as the abandonment
of Israel by Yhwh (1 Sam 4:21). 50
It is noteworthy that all the biblical evidence for the participation of the Ark
in military campaigns is connected with the premonarchic period and belongs
to a non-Priestly source. After the Ark was put inside the Temple, no biblical
narratives recount its removal until the destruction of the First Temple.
It seems that the only function of the Amorite nomadic tent sanctuary pre-
served in the use of the Neo-Assyrian qersu was its use as a portable sanctuary
on military campaigns, when the divine symbols were also kept inside it and
worshiped when installed in front of it. 51 Rituals were performed in front of the
baldachin structure qersu in the Assyrian camp (figs. 3, 5). 52
The other feature common to the Tabernacle and the qersu is the materials
out of which they were produced. The determinative GIŠ, which often appears
with qersu, indicates that the wooden construction was a significant part both
of the Neo-Assyrian military shrine 53 and the Mari large tent. Wooden frames
(qaršê hammiškān) are characteristic of the Priestly Tabernacle. It seems that
in Mesopotamia as well as in the Bible, the wooden construction of the por-
table sanctuaries was different from the construction of the regular tents and
was a distinctive feature of the tent shrines.

49.  For example,, see the discussion in ibid., 237–38.

50.  The ephod of Benjamin plays the same role at the Battle of Michmas (1 Sam 14:3,
18, 20); see ibid., 8–9.
51.  The divine symbols are shown being worshiped in front of but not inside the tent
(Richard D. Barnett and Margarete Falkner, The Sculptures of Assur-Nasir-Apli II [883–859
b.c.], Tiglath-pileser III [745–727 b.c.], Esarhaddon [681–669 b.c.] from the Central and
South-West Palaces at Nimrud, Assyrian Sculptures in the British Museum 3 [London: Brit-
ish Museum, 1962], pl. 60; Paul E. Botta and Eugène Flandin, Monument de Ninive, vol. 2:
Architecture et Sculpture [Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1849], pl. 146). The Mari kispum
text M.  12803, which uses the qersū to designate the entire portable sanctuary, mentions
also the divine emblem (Durand and Guichard, Les rituels de Mari, III, 68, col. iii, line 8,
written GIŠTUKUL, “weapon”). Unfortunately, the text in this part is too broken to permit
understanding the connection between these two entities. Durand and Guichard (lines 8–9)
reconstruct gišTUKUL [ša d . . .. . . i-na É . . . ] uṣ-[ṣí-ma a-na É . . .], “the standard [of the god
in the house . . .] withdr[aw to the house . . .].
52.  See also my “Royal Triumph as an Aspect of the Neo-Assyrian Decorative Pro-
gram,” 461–67.
53.  May, “The Qersu in Neo Assyrian Cultic Setting,” 456–57.
Figure 6.  The divine standards
following the royal chariot at the
Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution

head of the attacking army. After

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh,
pls. 13–14. Details (6a–b): the
upper parts of the standards
with representations of the gods.
© Copyright of the Trustees of the
British Museum. Reproduced with
383

permission.
384 Natalie N. May

Figure 7.  Dura-Europos Synagogue (245–256 c.e.). Panel WB4. The Ark captured by the
Philistines in the second battle at Ebenezer (1 Sam 4:3–6). After Carl H. Kraeling et al.,
The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Conducted by the Yale University and the French
Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: Final Report VIII, Part I: The Synagogue (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956), pl. 56.

A letter to Sargon II from Aššur-ālik-pāni, the king’s military official on the

northeastern Assyrian frontier, reveals that the qersu was made of linen and
leather: 54
qersēya pāniūte ibašši lā ˹dam˺qu šaniūte eššūte ú-TAR-si lā gammurū ina
GIŠ

muhhi Adad-ibni šarru bēliya ˹l˺išpura GIŠqersē damqāte ša eliš kitê šapliš
KUŠ
˹t˺unimme ˹is˺sēniš l[išpur]˹ū˺[ni]
My previous tent-shrines (GIŠqersus) were not good and I have . . .ed new ones,
but they are not ready. May the king, my lord, write to Adad-ibni that they should
[send me] good tent-shrines (GIŠqersus), (furnished) with linen abo[ve] and with
tunimmu-leather below.

It should be stressed that the word KUŠtunimmu used in this text to designate the
material from which the qersu was made is a hapax. Only the determinative

54.  Giovanni B. Lanfranchi and Simo Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, part 2:
Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces, SAA 5 (Helsinki: Helsinki Univer-
sity Press, 1990), 115–16, no. 152, rev. lines 6–10.
 Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution 385

Figure 8.  Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III (858–824 b.c.e.). Band IV, upper register.
Double baldachin structure qersu. After King and Budge, Bronze Reliefs, pl. 10. © Copy-
right of the Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with permission.

KUŠ permits establishing KUŠtunimmu as being some kind of a leather. It is

evidence for the use of a rare, presumably luxurious sort of leather to construct
the Assyrian tent sanctuary. In addition to precious woods and linen used for
the Tabernacle, it was covered with the exquisite, red-dyed leather (ʿōrōt ʾêlim
mĕʾāddāmîm) and an exotic “tâḥaš leather” 55 (?; ōrōt tĕḥāšîm; Exod 26:14;
35:23; 36:19).
Finally, the Neo-Assyrian pictorial sources often represent a portable field
sanctuary as a luxuriously decorated double baldachin structure (figs. 2, 8).
The relief of Assurnasirpal II (fig. 2) displays a Neo-Assyrian portable sanctu-
ary ornamented with various apotropaic symbols, such as rosettes, pomegran-
ates and cones. Its columns are topped with the images of goats. Cherubs,
which are apotropaic images as well and a cognate of the Akkadian kurību/

55.  Yellow- or orange-dyed leather, according to Hayim Tadmor, “‫ ָ ּתחַׁש‬,” EM 8.520 –21.
Stephanie Dalley (“Hebrew taḥaš, Akkadian duḫšu, Faience and Beadwork,” JSS 45 [2000]:
1–19, especially p. 17) suggests that it was a leather decorated with beadwork, both colored
mainly blue or turquoise, as suggested by the LXX (δέρματα ὑακίνθινα) and Vulgate (ianthae
pelles). The Akkadian cognate of taḥaš is duḫšu (ibid., 8–9; Tadmor, “‫)” ָ ּתחַׁש‬.
386 Natalie N. May

Figure 9. The plan

of the Tabernacle
and its enclosure.
After Menahem
Haran, Temples and
Temple-Service in
Ancient Israel, 152.
(Natalie N. May).

kāribu, 56 decorated the linen covers of the Priestly Tabernacle (Exod 26: 1), the
veil of the Ark (Exod 26: 31) and the Ark itself (Exod 25: 18–20). A winged

56.  See T. N. D. Mettinger, “Cherubim,” in Dictionaries of Demons and Deities in the

Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd rev. ed.
(Leiden: Brill, 1999), 189–92, especially p. 191b.
 Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution 387

quadruped, as were the cherubs, appears on the ridge of what possibly is a rep-
resentation of the Assyrian portable shrine on the march (fig. 1).
Following the description of the Priestly Tabernacle (Exod. 26) most schol-
ars reconstruct it as a rectangular structure, open on one side and divided into
two by the veil; behind it, in the rear part of the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies,
stood the Ark (fig. 9). 57 We do not have a plan of the Assyrian portable sanctu-
ary, but its elevations and sections permit one to assume that it was a rectan-
gular structure which often consisted of two parts: rear and front (figs. 2, 8).
I suggest the following scheme for the evolution of the qersu. In Mari, it
was introduced as the wooden frames (qersū) of the West Semitic nomadic
portable sanctuary, analogous to the biblical Priestly Tabernacle (ʾōhel môʿēd)
and its qĕrāšîm. Gradually, due to its being a distinctive feature of a tent sanc-
tuary, the term qersū came to be employed pars pro toto meaning the entire
portable shrine, not just its frame. The donkey sacrifice, which is a typically
nomadic Amorite rite, 58 takes place in the qersū according to the kispum ritual
(M. 12803, lines 10–12), thus proving the West Semitic character of the whole
ritual and its attributes beyond Hebrew and Ugaritic cognates. 59 Qersū/qersu
was introduced into Akkadian with the meaning “tent sanctuary” or “portable
sanctuary,” which it later had in the Neo-Assyrian texts. The text of the funeral
offerings ritual (M. 12803), where qersū is first attested with this meaning, is
attributed to Samsī-Addu I, the Assyrian ruler of Mari. Thus, perhaps the term
qersū as a “portable shrine” was colloquial in Assyrian Amorite, and the port-
able sanctuary itself together with the word designating it survived in Assyria
as a heritage of the Amorite nomadic milieu.
The use of qĕrāšîm in Ezek 27:6 is exceptional. 60 This metaphor likening
Tyre to a ship is the only place where this word appears not in conjunction
with the Tabernacle. In this passage, qĕrāšîm is obviously not part of the sacral
inventory but an installation that belonged to a ship. This installation was made
of wood inlaid with ivory. Significantly, in Mari a baldachin structure of a
ship is ḫurpatum: 4 ṣubātuša ana ḫurpa[tim] ša eleppi išša[k]nu ana Mari

57.  Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 150–53.

58.  ḫayyarum qatālum, “slaughtering of a donkey” (Bertrand Lafont, “Relations interna-
tionale, alliances et diplomatie au temps des rois de Mari: Essai de synthèse,” in Mari, Ebla
et les Hourrites—dix ans de travaux: Actes du colloque international (Paris, mai 1993),
2 vols., ed. Jean-Marie Durand and Dominique Charpin, Amurru 1–2 [Paris: Édition Recher-
che sur les Civilisations, 1996–2001], 2.213–328, esp. pp. 263–71); compare with the Syrian
Ruwala-Bedouins’ rite of annually sacrificing a white camel to the tribal ancestor in front
of a portable sanctuary, described by Morgenstern (“The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of
Meeting,’” 158) and Jaussen, Curtiss, and Musil (apud Morgenstern, ibid., 167–69 and 182).
59.  See also Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 491.
60.  Greenberg interprets qereš here as a collective (Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 [New York: Doubleday, 1997],
549) and translates “Your planking they made of ivory-inlaid cypress from the Kittean is-
lands” (p. 545).
388 Natalie N. May

ub[l]u[šun]uti, “4 textiles were set out for the baldachin of the ship and they
brought them to Mari.” 61
In my view, the qĕrāšîm in Ezek 27:6 most likely designate the posts of the
ship baldachin structure or the entire structure as pars pro toto, similar to the
qersū in the funerary offerings text (M. 12803). The passage qaršēk ʿāśû-šēn
bat-ʾăšurîm mēʾîyê kitîyim should be translated “They made your posts(!) of
ivory-inlaid cypress from the Kittean islands.”
Ezekiel probably preserves the only original profane West Semitic meaning
of qĕrāšîm as a wooden support of a tent or a baldachin of the ship’s deck in
the Bible. Taking into consideration the Babylonian background of the book
of Ezekiel and its date prior to P, 62 I suggest that it may reflect a meaning of
qĕrāšîm as a wooden frame in a secular context, the frame of a tent or a balda-
chin, which was eventually lost by the Priestly source, where qĕrāšîm appeared
only in conjunction with the Tabernacle as the “posts” or the “poles of the
Tabernacle” but nothing else.
The Mari portable sanctuary, ḫurpatum or qersū, constitutes a historical
parallel to the Priestly Tabernacle as well as to the Elohistic Tent, sharing
common features with both. It has often been noted that the Priestly “account
of the Tabernacle is a kind of historical fiction.” 63 It has been suggested as
well that the Tabernacle was modeled after the Temple. 64 The descriptions of
the Tabernacle, the Temple, 65 and the shrine of Shilo, which itself had been a
tabernacle, 66 share much in common. However, the Tabernacle and the Shilo
shrine were items to be reconstructed by the time of the composition of the
Priestly source.
Taking into consideration the similarities of the qersu and the biblical
miškān, discussed above, I suggest that the Priestly account of the Tabernacle
may have been inspired by the Assyrian portable shrine.­­

61.  ARM 9, no. 22, lines 9–11. See also Talon, Texts administratives des salles “Y et Z”
du palais de Mari, 99.
62.  Between 593–571 b.c.e., in accordance with Lawrence Boadt (“Ezekiel, Book of,”
ABD 2.711–72, esp. p. 711) and Moshe Greenberg (Ezechiel 1–20, HTKAT [Freiburg im
Breisgau: Herder, 2001], 32).
63. E.g., Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 188, 197.
64.  Ibid., 189–94.
65.  Morgenstern, “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting,’” 24.
66.  Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 201.
 Abbreviations

General

A. Siglum for cuneiform tablet from Mari

Akk. Akkadian
ANE ancient Near East
Aram. Aramaic
b. Babylonian Talmud
BH Biblical Hebrew
ED Early Dynastic period
Ee Enuma Elish
ET English translation
fem. feminine
Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah
Heb. Hebrew
jb Jerusalem Bible
kjv King James Version
LBH Late Biblical Hebrew
LXX Septuagint
m. Mishnah
MB Middle Babylonian
Midr. Midrash
mng. meaning
MT Masoretic Text
nab New American Bible
nasb New American Standard Bible
neb New English Bible
niv New International Version
njb New Jerusalem Bible
njps New Jewish Publication Society Version
nrsv New Revised Standard Version
n.s. new series
OB Old Babylonian
obv. obverse

xlii
 Abbreviations xliii

Om. Omits
pl. plate; plural
Q Qumran Cave number
reb Revised English Bible
rev. reverse
rsv Revised Standard Version
rv Revised Version
SB Standard Babylonian
SP Sumerian Proverbs; Samaritan Pentateuch
Sum. Sumerian
t. Tosefta
TH siglum for cuneiform tablet from Mari
Tg. targum
Ug. Ugaritic
var. variant
WS West Semitic
y. Yerushalmi, i.e., Jerusalem Talmud

Museum Sigla

A
tablets in the collections of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
AO tablets in the collections of the Musée du Louvre
BM tablets in the collections of the British Museum
Bogh1 siglum of texts from Boghazköy
CA, CB sigla for Gudea’s Cylinder Inscriptions
CBS tablets in the collections of the University Museum of the University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
CTMMA Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
EA El Amarna text siglum
Geers Heft unpublished copies of tablets in the British Museum by F. Geers
IM tablets in the Iraq Museum
K. tablets in the Kouyunjik collection of the British Museum
M. siglum of the Mari cuneiform tablets
MLC Morgan Library Collection
RS sigum of texts from Ras Shamra
Sm. siglum of tablets in the British Museum
UM University Museum, Philadelphia
VAT siglum of tablets in the Vorderasiatsches Museum
YBC Yale Babylonian Collection
xliv Abbreviations

Reference Works

AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology

AAAS Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes
AB Anchor Bible
AbB Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung
ABD D. N. Freedman et al., eds. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1992
ABIM A. al-Zeebari. “Altbabylonische Briefe des Iraq Museums.” Ph.D. dissertation.
Münster, 1964
ABL R. F. Harper, ed. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik
Collections of the British Museum. 14 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1892–1914
ADPV Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
AEAD Simo Parpola. Assyrian-English-Assyrian Dictionary. Helsinki: University of
Helsinki Press, 2007
AEM Jean-Marie Durand. Archives épistolaires de Mari. 2 vols. ARM 26. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1988
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AfOB Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft
AHw W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1965–81
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature
AKA E. A. Wallis Budge and L. W. King. Annals of the Kings of Assyria. London:
Longmans, 1902
ALASP Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens
ALCBH Hayim ben Yosef Tawil. An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical
Hebrew. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 2009
AMT R. C. Thompson. Assyrian Medical Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1923
ANEP James Pritchard, ed. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old
Testament. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994
ANET James Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen
AOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries
ARAB David Daniel Luckenbill. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–27
ARM Archives royales de Mari
ArOr Archiv Orientální
AS Assyriological Studies
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
 Abbreviations xlv

AuOr Aula Orientalis

AYB Anchor Yale Bible
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BaghM Baghdader Mitteilungen
BaghM Beih. Baghdader Mitteilungen Beiheft
BAM F. Köcher. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und
Untersuchungen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963–
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BAR Int. Series British Archaeological Reports International Series

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BASORSup Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplements
BBR H. Zimmern. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion. 3 vols.
Leipzig: Hinrichs,1896–1901
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BBRSup Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement
BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderer Orient Texte
BCSMS Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies
BDB Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BHL Harold R. (Chaim) Cohen. Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian
and Ugaritic. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978
BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta
BHS K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983
Bib Biblica
BibInt Biblical Interpretation
BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series
BibOr Biblica et Orientalia
BIN Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BJSUCSD  Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament
BN Biblische Notizen
BO Bibliotheca Orientalis
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BWL W. G. Lambert. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960
BzA Beiträge zur Assyriologie
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
21 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956–2010
xlvi Abbreviations

CAH Cambridge Ancient History. 14 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2006
CANE J. Sasson, ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. New York:
Scribner, 1995
CB Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBR Currents in Biblical Research
CDA Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds. A Concise
Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999
CDOG Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
CHD H. G. Güterbock, H. A. Hoffner Jr., and Theo P. J. van den Hout., eds. The
Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980–
ChS Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler. Rome: Multigrafica, 1984–
CM Cuneiform Monographs
CMAwR T. Abusch and D. Schwemer. Corpus of Mesopotamian
Anti-witchcraft Rituals. Leiden: Brill, 2010
COS William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture. 3
vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002
CPU Jesús-Luis Cunchillos, and Juan-Pablo Vita. Concordancia de Palabras
Ugaríticas en morfología desplegada. Madrid: CSIC, 1995
CRAIBL Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 
CRRAI Compte rendu de la Recontre Assyriologique Internationale
CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum
CTH E. Laroche. Catalogue des textes hittites. Paris: Klincksieck, 1971
CTMMA Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York
CTN 3 S. Dalley and J. N. Postgate. The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser. Cuneifrom
Texts from Nimrud 3. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1984
DCH D. J. A. Clines, ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic and Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2014
DCCLT Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts. Directed by Niek Veldhuis of the
University of California at Berkeley, 2003–. http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/
dcclt
DEUAT Aicha Rahmouni. Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts. Translated
by J. N. Ford. HO. Leiden: Brill, 2008
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DJPA Michael Sokoloff. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. 2nd ed.
Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002
DNWSI Jacob Hoftijzer and Karen Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic
Inscriptions. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1995
DOG Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft
DULAT Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartin. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic
Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2003
 Abbreviations xlvii

EM Encyclopaedia Miqraʾit (Encyclopedia Biblica). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,

1950–88 [Heb.]
EncJud C. Roth et al., eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972
EPE Bezalel Porten with J. Joel Farber et al. The Elephantine Papyri in English:
Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Documenta et
monumenta Orientis antiqui 22. Leiden: Brill, 1996
ePSD psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html
ErIsr Eretz-Israel
ETCSL Jeremy Black et al., eds. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature.
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk
ExpTim Expository Times
FAOS Freiburger Altorientalische Studien
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FB Forschung zur Bibel
Flandin 1849 Paul E. Botta and Eugène Flandin. Monument de Ninive, vol. 1/2:
Architecture et Sculpture. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1849
FM Florilegium Marianum
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
Ges18 Wilhelm Gesenius. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über
das Alte Testament. 18th ed. Edited by Rudolph Meyer and Herbert Donner.
Berlin: Springer, 1987–2010
GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd ed. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by
A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910
GLH E. Laroche. Glossaire de la langue hourrite. Paris, 1976–77
HALAT Ludwig Koehler et al., eds. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten
Testament. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1967–95
HALOT L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm et al. Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and ed. M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000
HALOT 2001, L. Koehler et al. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vols.
2002 1–5 on CD-ROM. Leiden: Brill, 2001 (Windows), 2002 (Mac)
HAR Hebrew Annual Review
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HO Handbuch der Orientalistik
HS Hebrew Studies
HSAO Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTKAT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IBoT Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri
IBT Interpreting Biblical Texts
xlviii Abbreviations

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB G. A. Butrick, ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1962
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IOS Israel Oriental Studies
Jacobsen,
Harps That Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. and trans. The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry
Once . . . in Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987
JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JEOL Jaarbericht ex Oriente Lux
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Joüon-Muraoka P. A. Joüon. Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Trans. and rev. T. Muraoka. 2 vols.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991
JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAI H. Donner and W. Röllig, eds. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3
vols. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1966–69. 5th ed., 2002–
KAR Erich Ebeling, ed. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1919–23
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
KAV Otto Schröder, ed. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts. Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1920
KB E. Schrader, ed. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. 6 vols. Berlin: Reuther &
Reichard, 1889–1915
KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi
KHAT Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament
KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, eds. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte
aus Ugarit. AOAT 24. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1976
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi
KUSATU Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und Seiner Umwelt
LAPO 16–18 Jean-Marie Durand. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. Vols. 1–3.
Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 16–18. Paris: Cerf, 1997–2000
 Abbreviations xlix

LAS S. Parpola. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and
Assurbanipal. 2 vols. AOAT 5. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1970–83
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies
LKK H. L. Ginsberg. The Legend of King Keret. BASORSup 2–3. New Haven, CT:
American Schools of Oriental Research, 1946
LKU A. Falkenstein. Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk. Berlin:
Vorderasiatische Abteilung der Staatlichen Museen, 1931
Mandl S. Mandelkern. Veteris Testamenti concordantiae hebraicae atque chaldaicae.
2nd ed. Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1967
MARI Mari: Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires
MC Mesopotamian Civilizations
MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
MDP Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse
MHH Menaḥem Zevi Kaddari. A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. Ramat-Gan: Bar-
Ilan University Press, 2006
MSL Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon
NABU Nouvelles assyriologiques breves et utilitaires
NCB New Century Bible
NEAEHL Ephraim Stern, ed. New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in
the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta; New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1993
NH E. Laroche. Les noms des hittites. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966
NIBC New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NPN I. J. Gelb, P. A. Purves, and A. A. MacRae. Nuzi Personal Names. OIP 57.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology
OECT Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts
OIP Oriental Institute Publications
OIS Oriental Institute Seminars
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica
Or Orientalia
OTL Old Testament Library
Parker, UNP S. Parker, ed. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Translated Mark S. Smith.
SBLWAW 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997
PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PG Patrologia Graeca
PL Patrologia Latina
PNA H. D. Baker and K. Radner. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
3 vols. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998–2011
l Abbreviations

PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology

PSD Åke W. Sjöberg et al., eds. The Sumerian Dictionary of the University
Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Babylonian Section
of the University Museum, 1984–
PTMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series
R. H. C. Rawlinson, ed. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. 5 vols.
London: Published by the author, 1861–1909
RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archaéologie orientale
RB Revue biblique
RCU Dennis Pardee. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. SBLWAW. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2002
RGTC Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes
RIH Dennis Pardee. Les textes rituels. 2 vols. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 2000
RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods
RIMB The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Babylonian Periods
RIME The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods
RINAP Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period
RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928–
RTU Nicholas Wyatt. Religious Texts from Ugarit. Biblical Seminar. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998
SAA State Archives of Assyria
SA 1 Jesper Eidem and Jørgen Læssøe. The Shemshāra Archives, vol. 1: The
Letters. 2 vols. Historisk filosofiske Skrifter 23. Copenhagen: Royal Danish
Academy of Sciences and Letters, 1992–2001
SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin
SAACT State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts
SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
SBH G. A. Reisner. Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafelen
griechischer Zeit. Berlin: Speman, 1896
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series
SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World
ScrHier Scripta Hierosolymitana
SED Alexander Militarev and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary.
AOAT. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000–2005
Sem Semitica
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SK Sumerische Kultlyrik
SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici
SMSR Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni
 Abbreviations li

SpTU Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk

SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica
StOr Studia Orientalia
SubBi Subsidia Biblica
TAD Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni, eds. Textbook of Aramaic Documents.
4 vols. Jerusalem: Department of the History of Israel, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, 1986–99 [Hebrew]
TAPS Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
TCL Textes cuneiforms du Louvre
TDOT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, trans. J. T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1974–2006
TDP R. Labat. Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics médicaux. 2 vols. Paris:
Académie internationale d’histoire des sciences, 1951
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
TSSI John C. L. Gibson. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. London: Oxford
University Press, 1971–82
TUAT Otto Kaiser, ed. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh:
Mohn, 1984–
UAVA Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie
UBC 2 M. S. Smith and W. T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 2. VTSup 114.
Leiden: Brill, 2009
UET Ur Excavations: Texts. 9 vols. London: Trustees of the British Museum and
the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1928–
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
UT Cyrus H. Gordon. Ugaritic Textbook. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1965
VAB Vorderasiatiche Bibliothek
VAT Vorderasiatische Abteilung Tontafel. Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WO Die Welt des Orients
YOS Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
ZABR Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte
ZAH Zeitschrift für Althebraistik
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins