Life and loyalty : a study of the socio-religious culture of Syria and Mesopotamia in the Greco-Roman period

Abstract: DEUTERONOMY 26:16-19 AS THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF THE COVENANTAL FRAMEWORK OF DEUTERONOMY Steven Ward Guest, Ph.D. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009 Chairperson: Dr. Russell T. Fuller This dissertation maintains that the covenant relationship formula (CRF) as expressed in Deuteronomy 26:16-19 (~[;l. Al tAyh.li . . . ~yhil{ale ^l. tAyh.li) serves as a focal point which defines, unifies and bears the weight of the covenantal framework of the book of Deuteronomy. Chapter 1 reviews previous assertions that Deuteronomy is patterned after ancient Near Eastern treaties, highlights the conclusions of Rendtorff regarding the CRF, and identifies the translation difficulties in 26:16-19. Chapter 2 critiques the proposals of von Rad, Kline, Kitchen, and Wenham who suggest that Deuteronomy follows the pattern of the ancient Near Eastern treaties. An alternate schema for the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy 1-30 is proffered. Finally, an excursus addressing the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy 27 is included. Chapter 3 proposes that the Hiphil of rma in verses 17 and 18 is functioning causatively and utilizes dual direct objects in the sentence construction. Grammatical and syntactical features of the text of 26:16-19 are observed. Theological concerns on the translational renderings of 26:17-19 are posed. A proposed conceptual model of the sequence of events that may underlie the text of Deuteronomy 26:17-19 is offered. Chapter 4 considers the canonical context of Deuteronomy 26. A chart demonstrates the literary-structural unity of the three ceremonies of confession (26:1-11; 26:12-15; and 26:16-19). Further analysis, however, reveals that 26:16-19, while integrally connected to the other ceremonies, functions also on the macro level within the greater covenantal framework of Deuteronomy. Chapter 5 examines each of the expressions of the CRF (4:20; 7:6; 14:2; 27:9; 28:9; and 29:12) as they occur in the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy. An analysis of the function of the CRF reveals that prior to its expression in the focal text (26:16-19) it is associated with the notion of exclusive loyalty to Yahweh and after the focal text it is associated with the expectation of obedience to Yahweh. Chapter 6 summarizes the work of chapters 1 and 2 then applies the findings of chapters 3 through 5 to demonstrate that the CRF (Al tAyh.li . . . ~yhil{ale ^l. tAyh.li ~[;l. ) as expressed in 26:16-19 with its concomitant covenantal obligations can bear the weight of and does indeed serve as the keystone of the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy. The covenantal exchange in 26:17-19 connects the emphasis on obedience in 26:17 to that of the covenant relationship formula in 27:9; 28:9; and 29:12 and connects the emphasis on exclusive loyalty in 26:18-19 to that of the covenant relationship formula in 4:20; 7:6; and 14:2.

Abstract: The purpose of this thesis is to examine the cult of Dushara, the head of the Nabataean pantheon, in the Nabataean and Roman periods, in order to better understand Nabataean cultural identity following the Roman annexation of Nabataea by Trajan in AD 106. I explore Dushara's cult during the Nabataean and Roman periods by analyzing literary, archaeological, and artistic evidence. An important aspect ofDushara's worship is his close connection with the Nabataean king as lithe god of our lord (the king)" in inscriptions. A major question for this thesis is how Dushara's worship survived in the Roman period after the fall of the Nabataean king. Greco-Roman, Byzantine, and Semitic sources attest to the worship of Dushara in the post-Nabataean period, but these sources are often vague and sometimes present misinterpretations. Therefore, we must necessarily look to archaeological and artistic evidence to present a more complete picture of Dushara's worship in the Roman period. Specific archaeol_ogical sites examined in this thesis include Oboda and Sobata in the Negev; Bostra, Umm el-Jimal, and SI' in the Hauran; HUrawa, Khirbet edh-Dharih, and DhIban of central Jordan; Petra, Hawara, and Iram in southern Jordan; and Hegra in northwestern Saudi Arabia. Most of these sites contain some evidence for Dushara's worship, although much cannot be dated. Artistic evidence is also an important aspect in the study ofDushara's worship. In the Nabataean period, Nabataean deities, including Dushara, are generally depicted as a betyl, a rectangular, ani conic stone; however, given the relative lack of inscriptions and other datable evidence associated with betyls, their date is often difficult to determine. Numismatic evidence suggests that Dushara's cult

Abstract: The present study has been conceived on the trails of those works about the Roman Near East and the relations and interactions with the Eastern neighbours and the local populations. In more recent times, the on-going excavations projects in the area and the new notions of interaction and integration related to the Roman presence have made relevant further steps in the understanding of the topic. Considering exclusively Roman or, at the contrary, exclusively Parthian (or Sasanian) a site means, nowadays, ignoring the dynamics that characterized the whole area in the period at issue. It is doubtless that the starting point for the comprehension of such dynamics must be the identification of the points of interactions as well as the differences, always bearing in mind the hybridisation that occurred. The term hybridisation indeed, even if it is a modern word, perfectly fits with the mixture of races, religions and social institutions that shaped the Near East in the period from the Hellenistic period to the late 4th century CE. The theory is quite easily applicable in the major centres (Nisibis, Singara, Hatra), where the abundance of data is widely used to identify this kind of hybridisation such as the distinctive and unmistakable feature of a given culture as well, while it appears to be slightly tougher to track in the minor settlements. The lack of historical and archaeological evidence, indeed, affects our knowledge about the rural landscape and the countryside itself. Some of the minor sites mentioned in the literary sources are still not only unexcavated, but quite often unidentified too, while the fewer where excavation works have been conducted are the same sites almost practically unknown to the ancient sources (see the specifica case of Tell Barri). Notwithstanding this lack of evidence on both sides the countryside and the rural landscape still remains a keystone for the understanding of the Roman occupation in the area, as well as the organization and administration of the newly acquired territory after the severian annexation. The integration of the archaeological data with the known literary and epigraphic evidence could be the only way through which the presence of Rome beyond the Euphrates could be better understood. The region itself, indeed, represents one of the most archaeologically important areas of the world and thus the isolation of a given event in a specific chronological period forcedly needs more elements than elsewhere.

Abstract: DEUTERONOMY 26:16-19 AS THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF THE COVENANTAL FRAMEWORK OF DEUTERONOMY Steven Ward Guest, Ph.D. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009 Chairperson: Dr. Russell T. Fuller This dissertation maintains that the covenant relationship formula (CRF) as expressed in Deuteronomy 26:16-19 (~[;l. Al tAyh.li . . . ~yhil{ale ^l. tAyh.li) serves as a focal point which defines, unifies and bears the weight of the covenantal framework of the book of Deuteronomy. Chapter 1 reviews previous assertions that Deuteronomy is patterned after ancient Near Eastern treaties, highlights the conclusions of Rendtorff regarding the CRF, and identifies the translation difficulties in 26:16-19. Chapter 2 critiques the proposals of von Rad, Kline, Kitchen, and Wenham who suggest that Deuteronomy follows the pattern of the ancient Near Eastern treaties. An alternate schema for the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy 1-30 is proffered. Finally, an excursus addressing the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy 27 is included. Chapter 3 proposes that the Hiphil of rma in verses 17 and 18 is functioning causatively and utilizes dual direct objects in the sentence construction. Grammatical and syntactical features of the text of 26:16-19 are observed. Theological concerns on the translational renderings of 26:17-19 are posed. A proposed conceptual model of the sequence of events that may underlie the text of Deuteronomy 26:17-19 is offered. Chapter 4 considers the canonical context of Deuteronomy 26. A chart demonstrates the literary-structural unity of the three ceremonies of confession (26:1-11; 26:12-15; and 26:16-19). Further analysis, however, reveals that 26:16-19, while integrally connected to the other ceremonies, functions also on the macro level within the greater covenantal framework of Deuteronomy. Chapter 5 examines each of the expressions of the CRF (4:20; 7:6; 14:2; 27:9; 28:9; and 29:12) as they occur in the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy. An analysis of the function of the CRF reveals that prior to its expression in the focal text (26:16-19) it is associated with the notion of exclusive loyalty to Yahweh and after the focal text it is associated with the expectation of obedience to Yahweh. Chapter 6 summarizes the work of chapters 1 and 2 then applies the findings of chapters 3 through 5 to demonstrate that the CRF (Al tAyh.li . . . ~yhil{ale ^l. tAyh.li ~[;l. ) as expressed in 26:16-19 with its concomitant covenantal obligations can bear the weight of and does indeed serve as the keystone of the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy. The covenantal exchange in 26:17-19 connects the emphasis on obedience in 26:17 to that of the covenant relationship formula in 27:9; 28:9; and 29:12 and connects the emphasis on exclusive loyalty in 26:18-19 to that of the covenant relationship formula in 4:20; 7:6; and 14:2.

Abstract: The purpose of this thesis is to examine the cult of Dushara, the head of the Nabataean pantheon, in the Nabataean and Roman periods, in order to better understand Nabataean cultural identity following the Roman annexation of Nabataea by Trajan in AD 106. I explore Dushara's cult during the Nabataean and Roman periods by analyzing literary, archaeological, and artistic evidence. An important aspect ofDushara's worship is his close connection with the Nabataean king as lithe god of our lord (the king)" in inscriptions. A major question for this thesis is how Dushara's worship survived in the Roman period after the fall of the Nabataean king. Greco-Roman, Byzantine, and Semitic sources attest to the worship of Dushara in the post-Nabataean period, but these sources are often vague and sometimes present misinterpretations. Therefore, we must necessarily look to archaeological and artistic evidence to present a more complete picture of Dushara's worship in the Roman period. Specific archaeol_ogical sites examined in this thesis include Oboda and Sobata in the Negev; Bostra, Umm el-Jimal, and SI' in the Hauran; HUrawa, Khirbet edh-Dharih, and DhIban of central Jordan; Petra, Hawara, and Iram in southern Jordan; and Hegra in northwestern Saudi Arabia. Most of these sites contain some evidence for Dushara's worship, although much cannot be dated. Artistic evidence is also an important aspect in the study ofDushara's worship. In the Nabataean period, Nabataean deities, including Dushara, are generally depicted as a betyl, a rectangular, ani conic stone; however, given the relative lack of inscriptions and other datable evidence associated with betyls, their date is often difficult to determine. Numismatic evidence suggests that Dushara's cult

Abstract: The present study has been conceived on the trails of those works about the Roman Near East and the relations and interactions with the Eastern neighbours and the local populations. In more recent times, the on-going excavations projects in the area and the new notions of interaction and integration related to the Roman presence have made relevant further steps in the understanding of the topic. Considering exclusively Roman or, at the contrary, exclusively Parthian (or Sasanian) a site means, nowadays, ignoring the dynamics that characterized the whole area in the period at issue. It is doubtless that the starting point for the comprehension of such dynamics must be the identification of the points of interactions as well as the differences, always bearing in mind the hybridisation that occurred. The term hybridisation indeed, even if it is a modern word, perfectly fits with the mixture of races, religions and social institutions that shaped the Near East in the period from the Hellenistic period to the late 4th century CE. The theory is quite easily applicable in the major centres (Nisibis, Singara, Hatra), where the abundance of data is widely used to identify this kind of hybridisation such as the distinctive and unmistakable feature of a given culture as well, while it appears to be slightly tougher to track in the minor settlements. The lack of historical and archaeological evidence, indeed, affects our knowledge about the rural landscape and the countryside itself. Some of the minor sites mentioned in the literary sources are still not only unexcavated, but quite often unidentified too, while the fewer where excavation works have been conducted are the same sites almost practically unknown to the ancient sources (see the specifica case of Tell Barri). Notwithstanding this lack of evidence on both sides the countryside and the rural landscape still remains a keystone for the understanding of the Roman occupation in the area, as well as the organization and administration of the newly acquired territory after the severian annexation. The integration of the archaeological data with the known literary and epigraphic evidence could be the only way through which the presence of Rome beyond the Euphrates could be better understood. The region itself, indeed, represents one of the most archaeologically important areas of the world and thus the isolation of a given event in a specific chronological period forcedly needs more elements than elsewhere.