Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/662

 perpetrating cruelties upon Gilead (Am. i. 13 sqq.). But under II. (q.v.) Israelite territory was extended to the Wadi of the ʽArabah or wilderness (probably south end of the Dead Sea), and again Moab suffered. If Isa. xv. seq. is to be referred to this age, its people fled southwards and appealed for protection to the overlord of Edom (see ). During the Assyrian supremacy, its king Salamannu (probably not the Shalman of Hos. x. 14) paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser IV., but joined the short-lived revolt with Judah and Philistia in 711. When Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem in 701, Kamus(Chemosh)-nadab also submitted, and subsequently both Esarhaddon and Assurbani-pal mention the Moabite king Musuri (“the Egyptian,” but cf. ) among their tributaries. In fact, during the reign of Assur-bani-pal Moab played the vassal’s part in helping to repulse the invasion of the Nabayati and nomads of Kedar, a movement which made itself felt from Edom nearly as far as Damascus. It had its root in the revolt of Samas-sumyukin (Shamash-shun-ukin) of Babylonia, and coming at a time immediately preceding the disintegration of the Assyrian Empire, may have had most important consequences for Judah and the east of the Jordan. (See : History.)

Moab shares with Ammon and Edom in the general obscurity which overhangs later events. If it made inroads upon Judah (2 Kings xxiv. 2), it joined the coalition against Babylonia (Jer. xxvii. 3); if it is condemned for its untimely joy at the fall of Jerusalem (Isa. xxv. 9 seq.; Jer. xlviii.; Ezek. xxv. 8–11; Zeph. ii. 8-10), it had offered a harbour to fugitive Jews (Jer. xl. 11). The dates of the most significant passages are unfortunately uncertain. If Sanballat the Horonite was really a native of the Moabite Horonaim, he finds an appropriate place by the side of Tobiah the Ammonite and Gashmu the Arabian among the strenuous opponents of Nehemiah. Still later we find Moab part of the province of Arabia in the hands of fresh tribes from the Arabian desert (Jos. Ant. xiii. 13, 5); and, with the loss of its former independent power, the name survives merely as a type (Dan. xi. 41). (See ; .)

A populous land commanding the trade routes from Arabia to Damascus, rich in agricultural and pastoral wealth, Moab, as Mesha’s inscription proves, had already reached a high state of civilization by the 9th century Its language differed only dialectically from Hebrew; its ideas and religion were very closely akin to the Israelite, and it may be assumed that they shared in common many features of culture. The relation of Chemosh, the national god, to his “children” (Num. xxi. 29) was that of Yahweh to Israel (see especially Judges xi. 24). He had his priests (Jer. xlviii. 7), and Mesha, perhaps himself a priest-king, receives the oracles direct or through the medium of his prophets. The practice of devoting, banning or annihilating city or community was both Moabite and Israelite (cf. above, also Deut. ii. 34, iii. 6, xx. 10–20; 2 Chron. xxv. 12, &c.), and human sacrifice, offered as an exceptional gift to Chemosh in 2 Kings iii. 27, in Israel to (q.v.), was a rite once less rare. Apart from the religious cult suggested in the name Mount Nebo, there were local cults of the Baal of Peor and the Baal of Meon, and Mesha’s allusion to ʽAshtar-Chemosh, a compound deity, has been taken to point to a corresponding consort whose existence might naturally be expected upon other grounds (see ). The fertility of Moab, the wealth of wine and corn, the temperate climate and the enervating heat supply conditions which directed the form of cult. Nature-worship, as in Israel, lay at the foundation, and the impure rites of Shittim and Baal-Peor (Num. xxxi. 16; Ps. cvi. 28) would not materially differ from practices which Israelite prophets were called upon to condemn. Much valuable evidence is to be obtained also from the survival of ancient forms of cult in Moab

and east of the Jordan (e.g. sacrifices on the house roofs) and from a survey of epigraphical and other data from the Greek, Roman, and later periods, allowance being made for contamination. The whole question deserves careful investigation in the light of comparative religion.

The relationship felt between Israel and the external states (Moab, Edom, and Ammon) is entirely justified. It extends intermittently throughout the history, and certain complicated features in the traditions of the southern tribes point to affinities with Moab which find a parallel in the traditions of David (see ) and in the allusions to intercourse between Moab and Benjamin (1 Chron. viii. 8) or Judah (ibid. iv. 21 seq.). But the obscure historical background of the references makes it uncertain whether the exclusiveness of orthodox Judaism (Neh. xiii. 1-3; cf. Deut. xxiii. 3–6; Ezra ix. 1, 12) was imposed upon an earlier catholicity, or represented only one aspect of religious spirit, or was succeeded by a more tolerant attitude. Evidence for the last-mentioned has been found in the difficult narrative in Josh. xxii. But Israel remained a great power in religious history while Moab disappeared. It is true that Moab was continuously hard pressed by desert hordes; the exposed condition of the land is emphasized by the chains of ruined forts and castles which even the Romans were compelled to construct. The explanation of the comparative insignificance of Moab, however, is not to be found in purely topographical considerations. Nor can it be sought in political history, since Israel and Judah suffered as much from external movements as Moab itself. The explanation is to be found within Israel itself, in factors which succeeded in re-shaping existing material and in imprinting upon it a durable stamp, and these factors, as biblical tradition recognizes, are to be found in the work of the prophets.

MO‛ALLAKĀT ( or ). Al-Mo‛allaqāt is the title of a group of seven longish Arabic poems, which have come down to us from the time before Islam. The name signifies “the suspended” (pl.), the traditional explanation being that these poems were hung up by the Arabs on or in the Ka‛ba at Mecca. The oldest passage known to the present writer where this is stated occurs in the ‛Iqd of the Spanish Arab, Ibn ‛Abd-Rabbihi ( 860–940), Būlāq ed. of 1293 vol. iii. p. 116 seq. We read there: “The Arabs had such an interest in poetry, and valued it so highly, that they took seven long pieces selected from the ancient poetry, wrote them in gold on pieces of Coptic linen folded up, and hung them up (‛allaqat) on the curtains which covered the Ka‛ba. Hence we speak of ‘the golden poem of Amra’al Qais,’ ‘the golden poem of Zuhair.’ The number of the golden poems is seven; they are also called ‘the suspended’ (al-Mo‛allaqāt).” Similar statements are found in later Arabic works. But against this we have the testimony of a contemporary of Ibn ʽAbd-Rabbihi, the grammarian Nāḥḥās (d. 949), who says in his commentary on the Mo‛allaqāt: “As for the assertion that they were hung up in [sic] the Ka‛ba, it is not known to any of those who have handed down ancient poems.” This cautious scholar is unquestionably right in rejecting a story so utterly unauthenticated. The customs of the Arabs before Mahomet