ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN PROPHECY
The label “prophetic” has been applied to various texts and roles known from the ANE. The texts so described involve predictions, or apparent predictions, eschatology or apocalyptic, social or religious criticism, and commissioned messages from deities. The roles include those of ordinary priests (Egypt), technical diviners (Western Asia), and those who speak directly under orders from a deity. The comparative discussion of prophecy is guided by whichever particular definition of prophecy is used. For some, the prophet is the critic of society; for others, the prophet is the announcer of the future; for yet others, the prophet is the charismatically authorized messenger. Although necessarily referring to materials reflecting this wider range of definitions, this entry focuses on prophecy understood as inspired speech at the initiative of a divine power, speech which is clear in itself and commonly directed to a third party.
1. North Syria: Ebla and Emar
1. Uruk (Southern Babylonia)
2. Mari (Middle Euphrates)
3. Ishchali (East Tigris)
1. North Syria: Ebla and Emar. The Ebla texts, dating to the middle of the 3d millennium b.c., have been cited as evidence of prophecy, but those claims have yet to be substantiated. From Emar (Meskene), on the Middle Euphrates, texts from ca. 1300 b.c. indicate an office with the Akkadian designations anabbi˒ātu and munabbi˒ātu associated with the goddess Išhara. The editor (Arnaud 1986: 118, 360, 375, 377, 403; cf. 386) translates this title of office “prophetesses,” but nothing is indicated of the role; cf. Akk munambû, “wailer.”
2. Ugarit. Among the Ugaritic texts there are announcements of future blessing that have been labeled “prophetic” (van Selms 1971) as well as references to technical divination that have been referred to as “prophecy,” but there is no evidence as yet for a divinely commissioned messenger.
3. Phoenicia. The Bible has many references to prophets of the Phoenician god Baal (and even of Asherah), using for them the same Hebrew term, nābı̂˒, used for Israelite prophets. The Baal prophets share ecstatic behavior with the Israelite prophets, but they are not identified as giving oracles. However, the Egyptian report of Wen-Amun (ANET, 25–29; AEL 2: 224–30) states that while Wen-Amun was in Byblos (ca. 1090 b.c.), one of the Phoenician prince’s young attendants became ecstatic and delivered an oracle authenticating Wen-Amun’s mission from the god Amun (ANET 26; AEL 2: 225). Primarily because of these references it was at one time argued that biblical prophecy derived from Canaanite (Phoenician) prophecy.
4. Aram. Noteworthy among the small corpus of Old Aramaic inscriptions is that of Zakkur, king of Hamath and Luash (ca. 800 b.c.). While besieged in one of his cities, Zakkur records that “I lifted up my hands to Baal-Sha[may]n and Baal-Shamay[n] answered me [and spoke] to me by means of visionaries (ḥzyn) and . . . (˓ddn). Baal-Shamayn [said] to me, ‘Fear not, for I have made [you kin]g [and I will st]ay with you and rescue you’.” The text does not indicate how the speakers received their message. Presumably this classic salvation oracle in response to the king’s petition derived from prophetic inspiration; note the title ḥzyn, as with the Balaam text (below), parallel with ḥôzeh, “visionary,” frequently used of biblical prophets.
5. Ammon. The plaster inscription from ca. 700 b.c., found at Tell Deir ˓Alla in 1967 refers to Balaam, son of Beor, a “visionary of the gods” (ḥāzēh ˒ilāhı̄n) who saw a vision during the night and obtained a somewhat enigmatic revelation from a group of numinous beings (šdyn). This is reinforced by Num 24:4–5, in which Balaam, son of Beor, “hears the words of God, sees a vision of the Almighty (maḥăzê šadday).”
In 14th-century b.c. texts of King Mursilis II and of his uncle (?) Kantuzilis, who seek relief from plagues or more personal sufferings, there are inventories of means of divine communication. It is in these inventories—cf. 1 Sam 28:6 (dreams, lots, and prophets)—that references to inspired speakers occur. In addition to direct communication to the petitioner through a dream, the deity might use indirect communication through incubation, liver divination, an “inquirer-sibyl” (ensi), or a so-called “Old [Vol. 5, Page 478] [Vol. 5, Page 478] Woman” (šu.gi); or—in the case of Mursilis II—a “man of god” (šiuniyanza) might “(come and) declare” the cause of suffering (Lebrun 1980: 113, 160, 209; Kammenhuber 1976: 16–17, 19–23). Although there is no further significant information about this “man of god,” the Hittite texts are important as an attestation of the dispersion of such phenomena and as evidence for such activity in the latter part of the mid-2d millennium b.c.
A rich variety of texts comes from Mesopotamia, including Babylonia, Assyria, and the domain of the Mari texts, even though the Mari texts relate to an area reaching into NW Syria. Among the texts, a number have been published under the label “(Akkadian) prophecies” (Grayson 1975: 13–37; Hunger and Kaufman 1975), one of them being the “Uruk prophecy.” These texts, though not of a uniform nature, essentially contain prophecies ex eventu, i.e., cast as predictions (e.g., “a king will arise . . .”), and are allied with the omen literature. The prophecies may even take the form of first person speeches of a deity (Marduk) or a divinized king (Shulgi). In some texts the wide-reaching time perspective is more reminiscent of apocalyptic (Hallo 1966; Kaufman 1977). Revelatory intermediaries are not involved.
1. Uruk (Southern Babylonia). A text from ca. 1850 b.c., distinct from the “Uruk prophecy” (above), reports a visit to an unnamed person by a deity who speaks directly to him concerning the future of Uruk and its ruler, whom the deity will appoint. The person responds to the deity and reports to the king “the words which Ishtar spoke to me” (ANET, 604). The text is not well enough preserved to indicate whether or not it is an example of inspired speaking.
2. Mari (Middle Euphrates). From the several thousand texts now published from Mari and dating to the first half of the 18th century b.c., there are many references to prophetic activity, using a variety of titles (ANET, 623–32; Huffmon 1970). Over a dozen deities are involved; and some eighteen prophets are named, apart from many others who are unnamed. Both male and female prophets are cited. For those with cultic titles, about four-fifths are male. Those without such titles are about evenly divided between men and women.
The small size of the corpus does not allow differentiation among the various titles in terms of specific roles, although there are some suggestive contrasts between those prophets with titles and those without them. This prophetic activity, regarded as marginal from the viewpoint of Mari court circles, doubtless to some extent reflects the Amorite cultural substratum. In keeping with that, the geographical range of references extends from Mari and nearby Terqa along the Euphrates (note Emar, above) to Aleppo in the west. The reference to Shamash of Sippar suggests activity even in Babylonia, although the reference may be to the cult of Shamash of Sippar within the Mari region. With the 1988 publication of the first two parts of Archives Royales de Mari, XXVI, the corpus of Mari Letters expanded by almost 500 new letters, and the number of “prophetic” letters increased by more than 20 (to a total of about 50, depending on the criteria for selection). Additionally, almost all of the previously published “prophetic” texts were reedited, frequently with important new readings. (One of the reports was formerly interpreted as a metallurgical text!) With the greatly enlarged corpus of letters, not to mention possible integration with data from the thousands of economic and administrative texts, the picture of prophecy in the Mari archives is in the process of considerable adjustment. The editor’s introductory discussion offers an important new beginning (Durand 1988: 377–412, 455–63).
a. Prophets with Titles. These persons are associated with particular deities, though at times they communicate requests from other deities as well. The frequent bestowal on them of garments and other items from the royal stores—and at times their requests for such items—point to their regularized, significant status, analogous to that of typical letter couriers.
(1) Āpilu/āpiltu, “answerer.” An ordinary Akkadian form, this title for both men and women seems restricted to the Mari texts and lexical compilations. The title implies that the person provides an answer to an explicit or implicit inquiry, although the texts do not exemplify the process. The “answerer” is normally associated with a specific deity, though a unique letter from the āpilu of Shamash of Sippar conveys requests for Shamash, Addu of Aleppo, and Nergal of Hubshalum, while mentioning also Dagan of Terqa (Charpin and Durand 1985: 332–33). Two texts mention the receipt of royal rations, suggesting that the “answerer” had an official standing. One of the most important letters, sent from Aleppo, concerns the “answerer” of Addu, lord of Kallassu, who “reclaims the territory of Alahtum as property” (Lafont 1984; the passage was previously translated “is standing guard over the tent-shrine of Alahtum to [be] an estate” [Malamat 1980], illustrating the problems of translation). This same letter refers to “what the ‘answerers’ (pl.) have said.” The writer adds that when he had been in Mari itself, he had sent on to the king “whatever word the ‘answerer’ (male) or the ‘answerer’ (female) would say.” The “answerer” is thus someone who “came and spoke” or “got up (in the temple) and spoke,” addressing a court official with a message for the king.
The new texts include even an āpilu of Marduk, in Babylon—presumably a Mari designation for a different Babylonian title or a Mari functionary acting for the god of Babylon—and such initiatives as demanding a skillful scribe to write down the news which the deity had sent for the king. (That letter itself is now published in full [Durand 1988: 417–19].) The “answerer” can travel about in the king’s realm and apparently can provoke oracles.
(2) Assinnu, “cult functionary.” Although in later texts this title refers to a member of the cultic staff of Ishtar, connected especially with singing—perhaps even a eunuch—the Mari occurrences are much earlier and their meaning is uncertain. The two assinnu attested are affiliated with Annunitum, a form of Ishtar. One of them speaks in a state of ecstasy. Another assinnu apparently resides in an abandoned and partly ruined sanctuary.
(3) Muḫḫû/muḫḫūtu, “ecstatic.” Deriving from the Akkadian root meaning “to become ecstatic,” this is the most common prophetic title at Mari. The range of behavior may involve self-wounding, as suggested by a text from Ugarit (“my brothers bathe with their own blood, like[Vol. 5, Page 479] [Vol. 5, Page 479] maḫḫû [pl.]”). “Ecstatics” are associated with the deities Nergal, Itur-Mer, Ninhursaga, Annunitum, and especially Dagan. One Mari text detailing the cult of Ishtar mentions that a muḫḫû “is not [ . . . ] to become ecstatic” and hints at a connection of the muḫḫû with watered-down beer. Otherwise the Mari texts do not explicitly point to ecstatic behavior. Rather, the “ecstatic” “gets up/comes and speaks,” sometimes in association with sacrifice. Also, it is an “ecstatic” who says “I will continue to answer (atanappal),” using a verb related to the title āpilu. Like the “answerer,” the “ecstatic” occasionally receives garments from the royal stores (in five texts). One Mari “ecstatic,” Irra-gamil, associated with Nergal, may even be the same person as Irra-gamil, servant of Nergal, known from a contemporary cylinder seal (Anbar 1976: 63). From Larsa in S Babylonia there are references to the female slave of the maḫḫû.
One report (partly restored) involves a person who becomes ecstatic, a person whose name is identified elsewhere as that of an “ecstatic” (Durand 1988: 398, 451–52). Such behavior for an “ecstatic” is otherwise specified only in the Ishtar Ritual Text from Mari. Also, a strikingly assertive “ecstatic” requests a lamb from the king, which he proceeds to eat raw—possibly reflecting an oath ceremony. He then assembles the elders at a city gate to hear his message and ends by requesting a garment, which he is provided (Durand 1988: 434–35).
(4) Nabû, “diviner (?).” This appears for the first time as a “prophetic” title in the Mari texts (Durand 1988: 444–45). A Mari functionary advises the king that he went to meet with a Hanaean leader. He then assembled the nabû (pl.) of the Hanaeans and had an omen taken on the king’s behalf, putting a binary question to them and obtaining, apparently, a favorable answer. The new Mari title parallels the Hebrew nābı̂, but little is known of the function. It may be a question of conventional divination.
(5) Qam(m)ātum, unclear title. The reading qabbātu(?), “speaker (fem.),” an attractive interpretation confidently accepted by the major dictionaries in correction of the original editor’s reading, qamātum, is no longer tenable. The reading qam(m)ātum is confirmed by collation and a further example—possibly two. Durand (1988: 396) suggests that the term refers to a prophetess with a characteristic hairstyle.
b. Prophets without Titles. Those without titles include a slight majority of women, one of whom was a high official at Mari. Also, a majority of the revelations derive from dreams—a means not yet attested for those prophets with titles; one revelation involves ecstasy. The locus of revelation is commonly a temple.
Also associated with untitled persons are some letters concerning divine revelations of unclear derivation (ANET, 629–30, 631). A divine word is sought through “a man and a woman,” or Dagan speaks in some unspecified fashion. These texts may conceal prophetic activity, or forms of technical divination may be involved.
Dreams predominate among untitled prophets. In a well-known text the dreamer heard an administrative priest (šangû) speaking; in one of the new texts the dreamer reports the speech of two “ecstatics,” apparently deceased. But generally the private persons report more directly.
c. The Context of the Oracles. A number of the texts provide information about the context of the message. The typical locus of revelation is a temple, either in reality or by dream visit. In some texts, the revelation by an “answerer” or an “ecstatic” seems to be a response to a sacrifice, whether favorable or unfavorable, but there is no clear example of a revelation in response to a petition of despair. One correspondent advises the king that “(when) I offered a sacrifice to Dagan for the life of my lord, the ‘answerer’ [masc.] of Dagan of Tuttul got up and spoke as follows, saying, ‘O Babylon, . . . (here follows an oracle against Babylon).’” Another correspondent advises that the king’s sacrifice has arrived and has been presented, apparently successfully, yet “the ‘ecstatic’ [masc.] got up before Dagan and spoke as follows: ‘I (Dagan) am not given pure water to drink. Write to your lord so that he may give me pure water to drink.’” Most such oracles, however, do not specify cultic prompting.
Another text, referring to a female “ecstatic,” suggests a sequence of messages: “O Zimri-Lim, do not go on a campaign. Stay in Mari and I will continue to answer.”
The message is usually communicated to a royal official, but in two cases a temple administrator (šangû), who is not a cultic priest, serves as intermediary with the royal official. The šangû presumably had some jurisdiction over such temple activity. One letter even reports that a šangû himself had a revelatory dream.
A number of the oracles are public, even in the presence of the assembly of the elders. The connection of the oracles with times of political and personal (royal) crisis is even clearer with the publication of the additional texts. Also, the initiatives that the prophets can take—especially the “official” speakers—are striking.
d. The Content of the Oracles. Because of the nature of the Mari archives, the oracles deal almost exclusively with the king’s affairs. Commonly the prophet communicates a message from a deity speaking in the first person, often referring to being “sent” by the deity. The message may begin with a formula such as “thus says [the deity X].” The content is generally an assurance to the king or a warning to the king of dangers (and an assurance of divine assistance); but a number of messages deviate from this pattern.
A unique letter from an āpilu contains cultic requests from several deities and promises support for the king. In other cases the king is chided for not meeting the cultic expectations of the deity—failing to provide “pure water” or neglecting the funerary offering for a predecessor or ancestor. More serious charges come from Addu of Aleppo and Addu of Kallassu: the king, who owes his throne to the deity, has been inattentive in offerings and in recognition of the deity’s claims—what Addu has given, Addu can take away. Moreover, the deity does not speak in terms of self-interest, for the king has a fundamental obligation to deal justly in his realm with all who appeal to him. An obedient king will be richly rewarded (Lafont 1984).
At least one oracle is directed to a different audience. The citizens of Terqa are warned through a young man’s dream revelation from Dagan that they should not (re)build a certain house (temple?).
There is some sense of community among the “[Vol. 5, Page 480] [Vol. 5, Page 480] prophets.” The proverb “Under the straw, water flows” is now attested in two messages by a qam(m)ātum and one by an “ecstatic.” The oracles center on the king’s person and his political affairs, but include some rather personal elements, such as the notice to the king that his newly born(?) daughter has died, just as predicted by an “ecstatic” while in a trance state. Cultic requests are prominent. A deity advises the king, through a woman (as summarized; title perhaps lost), that “I have been safeguarding you since your youth; and I have continually led you in good ways,” so send me what I ask for.
e. The Status of the Oracles. The marginal character of these prophetic revelations is underscored by the frequency with which the king’s correspondents either report on means of confirmation which they employed, including technical divination, or encourage the king to examine the matter by means of technical divination. Several letters specify that a portion of the prophet’s hair and a piece from the fringe of the prophet’s garment are being sent on to the king. These items surely were intended for use in a confirmation process involving technical divination, as confirmed by a contemporary text from Karana (Dalley, Walker, and Hawkins 1976: 64–65, pl. 19).
The new texts show the prophets as rather assertive at times; together with administrative texts, new texts indicate a significant personal status for the titled prophets. Yet the prophets continue to be one channel of divine communication among others, and their messages continue to be sent on either with supportive statements or with the recommendation to seek a means for confirmation.
3. Ishchali (East Tigris). A number of OB texts from Babylonia proper evidence the title muḫḫûm/muḫḫūtum, at times associated with specific deities, although there is no explicit indication of oracular activity. Recently published texts from Ishchali, however, may indicate prophetic practice. Two letters are addressed directly to the king by the goddess Kititum, a manifestation of Ishtar. The best-preserved letter contains a message with similarities to some of the Mari prophecies (Ellis 1987). Unfortunately, the means of transmission are not indicated. The text may report a message from an individual intermediary, as at Mari, or a message obtained in response to a technical divination process.
4. Assyria. Especially characteristic of the reigns of Esarhaddon (680–669 b.c.) and Ashurbanipal (668–627 b.c.) is their special interest in a wide variety of modes of communication with the divine powers, including prophetic-type speakers. Esarhaddon adjures vassals not to conceal anything they hear that is derogatory to the crown prince, including any word from “a proclaimer” (raggimu), “an ecstatic” (maḫḫû), or “a dream interpreter.” The existence of prophetic revelations in particular may reflect the influence of Aramean culture (Tadmor 1982: 458), though none of the titles is Aramean in origin. Unlike the Mari texts, the NA texts do not point to a marginal status for the prophetic speakers. Again, the focus of activity is the royal court. Many of the prophets, at least, seem to be attached to the court.
Many of the texts, some of which have been known for almost a century, present special linguistic problems and have been inadequately published. Careful study must await new publication of these important texts.
a. Prophets with Titles. (1) Maḫḫû/maḫḫūtu, “ecstatic.” This title, in this spelling, is known from the OAkk period on, and as a variant of Mari muḫḫû/muḫḫūtu (above) provides the only continuity with the older titles. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal make frequent reference to messages from “ecstatics.” Though these messages are at times associated with dreams sent by Ishtar, no verbatim messages are reported. The “ecstatic,” predominantly male in the NA period, has a role in some rituals. The character of the oracular activity of “ecstatics” remains basically unknown.
(2) Raggimu/raggimtu, “proclaimer.” This title, which also occurs as a divine epithet, is first attested in a MA text—without specification of function. In the 7th century b.c. the “proclaimer” delivers prophetic messages—one text contains two series of three oracles each addressed to Esarhaddon, one series from Asshur, and one from Ishtar; another contains an oracle from Ninlil/Mullissu for Ashurbanipal (Strong 1894). Also, the “proclaimer” plays a role, whether by agreement or by presumption, in connection with the substitute king ritual. Another reference suggests that “proclaimers” might be active as a group. Presumably the “proclaimer” had status within the cult, though there is no specific information concerning this.
(3) Šabrû, “revealer.” One lexical text identifies this title with that of the “proclaimer.” To be separated from the homonym referring to an administrative officer, this title derives from Akk barû, “to see.” The “revealer” has a message dream—apparently through incubation—from Ishtar and reports it to Ashurbanipal. The lú.kal, who has a message dream from Sin intended for Ashurbanipal, closely parallels the “revealer” (ANET, 606; Oppenheim 1956: 249–50).
(4) Šēlūtu, “(female) votary.” Literally “someone sent up (for a deity),” this title identifies one of the speakers in a long collection of individual oracles for Esarhaddon (ANET, 605), a woman presumably devoted by the king to the deity. The title is known from contemporary contracts recording dedications to Ninlil/Mullissu. As a “votary” given by the queen, one contract notes, no creditor or legal adversary can seize her, though she is married.
b. Prophets without Titles. Two major collections of individual oracles for Esarhaddon are identified as being from the mouth of so-and-so, from such and such a city—apart from the one oracle from a “votary.” One speaker even appears in both collections (and, for that matter, uses some identical terminology, otherwise unknown). The absence of a title for all speakers but one in these two collections suggests the lack of an official position in the cult. These speakers, male and female in roughly equal proportion, are especially—but not exclusively—associated with Ishtar of Arbela.
c. The Context of the Oracles. Virtually all of the oracles can fit within the pattern indicated in the fullest record of the context of an oracle. A crisis situation—minor or major—prompts a complaint to or an inquiry of a deity, who responds with a message of reassurance. Communication of the oracle to the king (or queen mother) may be oral or written down, deposited in the temple, and presented to the king in connection with ritual [Vol. 5, Page 481] [Vol. 5, Page 481] acts. The fullest report says, “Now these rebels have incited against you, they have made you come out, they have surrounded you. You (Esarhaddon) opened your mouth. Now I, Ashur, have heard your distress cry. From the gate of heaven I soar down(?). . . . I will surely have fire consume them. . . . I slaughtered your enemies. I filled the river with their blood. Let them see, let them praise me, for I am Ashur, lord of the gods. This is the greeting which is (placed?) before the (divine) statue. This is the sworn tablet of Ashur. It comes in before the king upon a . . . They sprinkle special oil, they make sacrifices, the incense burns, (and) they read out (the tablet) before the king” (Strong 1894: 637–39). At times the oracle is clearly received in a temple, sometimes specifically associated with sacrifices. On another occasion the setting is a political assembly.
One of the oracles seems to concern the occasion of a treaty ceremony: “Should you (pl.) go to your cities and your districts, eat food and forget these oaths, (then) when you drink from this water you will remember me (Ishtar) and keep this sworn agreement which I made concerning (your obligations to) Esarhaddon” (Strong 1894: 639–41).
Some of the oracles seem to be unsolicited, but there are many indications of a response to an inquiry. Those oracles by “proclaimers” (female) in connection with the substitute king ritual may reflect divine initiative. There is no reference to the speaker’s being “sent” with the message, but a commissioning is at times implied.
d. The Content of the Oracles. The oracles are typically oracles of assurance for the political and succession concerns of the king, communicated directly, as it were, from the deity. “Fear not” is a common phrase, as in other ANE oracles of assurance. The oracles also emphasize the deity’s power and reliability. The speakers rarely admonish the king; and if so, they use a mild form, such as saying that former utterances by the deity have been ignored.
The principal association of the prophets is with Ishtar or Arbela (and allied deities), though a number of other deities provide oracles.
e. The Status of the Oracles. The oracles are reported individually to the king, noted in the official annals, and collected into cumulative records. Sometimes the oracles are grouped by the deity involved. One collection appears to be oracles—perhaps even from two different deities—from a particular “proclaimer,” but the concluding section is poorly preserved. There is also some evidence for the copying and transmission of oracle collections.
The (occasional) formality of the process of presentation and the attention to preservation point to the normalization of prophetic communication in the circles of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal.
The problem of definition is especially well illustrated by the Egyptian materials. “The Admonitions of Ipu-wer,” a critique of the sociopolitical order, is labeled by some as prophetic in a biblical sense. Texts such as “The Prophecy of Neferti” are cast as foretelling a future deliverance for a country in a time of trouble, though written ex eventu. This sequence has been taken as a forerunner to the biblical prophets and their sense of a time of crisis that will give way to a messianic age. But these texts illustrate more a relationship with wisdom, drawing on the past to anticipate the future; Neferti is a lector priest and a “wise man of the East,” not a charismatic prophet. A major order of priests, the ḥmw nṯr (literally, “servants of god”), were described by Hellenistic Greek commentators with the term prophētēs because of their role in reporting oracles. Accordingly, the scholarly literature abounds with references to these priests under the rendering prophets—even in the hierarchy of the “first prophet” (high priest) through “fourth prophet” of Amun in Karnak. In actuality there is very little known from Egypt that illustrates the prophet as an inspired speaker of divine oracles. Plutarch reports that Pamyle—foster parent of Osiris—heard a voice from the temple of Zeus (Amun) instructing Pamyle to announce that Osiris had been born (Ray 1981: 174). Generally, however, Egyptian oracles result from a form of manipulate divination, such as movements of a deity during a public procession.
Anbar, M. 1976. Trois documents de la collection Leo Perutz. IOS 6: 59–63.
Arnaud, D. 1986. Recherches au pays d’Aštata. Emar VI.3. Textes sumériens et accadiens. Texte. Paris.
Charpin, D., and Durand, J.-M. 1985. La prise du pouvoir par Zimri-Lim. MARI 4: 293–343.
Charpin, D.; Joannes, F.; Lackenbacher, S.; and Lafont, B. 1988. Archives epistolaires de Mari I/2. ARM 26. Paris.
Dalley, S.; Walker, C. B. F.; and Hawkins, J. D. 1976. The Old Babylonian Tablets from Tell al Rimah. London.
Durand, J.-M. 1988. Archives epistolaires de Mari I/1. ARM 26. Paris.
Ellis, M. de J. 1987. The Goddess Kititum Speaks to King Ibalpiel: Oracle Texts from Ishchali. MARI 5: 235–66.
Grayson, A. K. 1975. Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts. Toronto.
Gurney, O. R. 1981. The Babylonians and Hittites. Pp. 142–73 in Oracles and Divination. ed. M. Loewe and C. Blacker. Boulder, CO.
Hallo, W. W. 1966. Akkadian Apocalypses. IEJ 16: 231–42.
Herrmann, S. 1963. Prophetie in Israel and Ägypten: Recht und Grenze eines Vergleichs. Pp. 47–65 in Congress Volume, Bonn, 1962. VTS 9. Leiden.
Huffmon, H. B. 1970. Prophecy in the Mari Letters. BAR 3: 199–224.
Hunger, H., and Kaufman, S. A. 1975. A New Akkadian Prophecy Text. JAOS 95: 71–75.
Kammenhuber, A. 1976. Orakelpraxis, Träume und Vorzeichenschau bei den Hethitern. Heidelberg.
Kaufman, S. A. 1977. Prediction, Prophecy, and Apocalypse in the Light of New Akkadian Texts. PWCJS 6/1: 221–28.
Lafont, B. 1984. La roi de Mari et les prophètes du dieu Adad. RA 78: 7–18.
Lebrun, R. 1980. Hymnes et prières hittites. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Malamat, A. 1980. A Mari Prophecy and Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle. Pp. 68–82 in Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer, ed. J. A. Emerton. BZAW 150. Berlin.
———. 1987. A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents. AIR, 33–52.
Noort, E. 1977. Untersuchungen zum Gottesbescheid in Mari. AOAT 202. Kevelaer.
Oppenheim, A. L. 1956. The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East. TAPhS 46/3. Philadelphia.
Ray, J. D. 1981. Ancient Egypt. Pp. 174–90 in Oracles and Divination, ed. M. Loewe and C. Blacker. Boulder, CO.
[Vol. 5, Page 482] [Vol. 5, Page 482] Sasson, J. 1983. Mari Dreams. JAOS 103: 283–93.
Schmitt, A. 1982. Prophetischer Gottesbescheid in Mari und Israel. BWANT 114. Stuttgart.
Selms, A. van. 1971. CTA 32: A Prophetic Liturgy. UF 3: 235–48.
Strong, S. A. 1894. On Some Oracles to Esarhaddon and Ašurbanipal. Beiträge zur Assyriologie 2: 627–45.
Tadmor, H. 1982. The Aramaization of Assyria: Aspects of Western Impact. Vol. 2., pp. 449–70 in Mesopotamien und Seine Nachbarn, ed. H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger. Berlin.
Weippert, H.; Seybold, K.; and Weippert, M. 1985. Beiträge zur prophetischen Bildsprache in Israel und Assyrien. OBO 64. Freiburg and Göttingen.
Weippert, M. 1981. Assyrische Prophetien der Zeit Asarhaddons und Assurbanipals. Pp. 71–113 in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons, ed. F. M. Fales, Rome.
ANE Ancient Near East(ern)
b.c. before Christ
ca. circa (about, approximately)
cf. confer, compare
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. with suppl., ed. J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1969
AEL M. Lichtheim. 1971–80. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley
e.g. exempli gratia (for example)
pl. plural or plate
fem. feminine; female
OB Old Babylonian
OAkk Old Akkadian
MA Middle Assyrian
IOS Israel Oriental Studies
ARM Archives royales de Mari
Pp. pages; past
ed. editor(s); edition; edited by
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal, Jerusalem
BAR Biblical Archaeologist Reader
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven
PWCJS Proceedings of the . . . World Congress of Jewish Studies
RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie orientale, Paris
BZAW Beihefte zur ZAW
AIR Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia, 1987
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
TAPhS Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia
BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
H. B. Huffmon Professor, Drew University, Madison, NJ