A Reëxamination of the Lachish Letters

Abstract

Lachish Letters are; the subject has been discussed again and again our pages since the initial discovery January and February, 1935-just four years ago.1 It is now a year since the official publication, Torczyner's The Lachish Letters, was distributed and there is already a very respectable list of important reviews and articles based on it.2 Most of these contributions of the past year are like the writer's paper the BULLETIN for last April, which is based only on the official volume and on preceding treatments of the first four ostraca. The surveys by Hempel, Dussaud, and Reider are based upon more extensive material and must be studied by all. Most important of these contributions, however, is Ginsberg's brief supplementary paper, on which the writer will draw heavily the present sketch. Reider has also made a convincing original observation which solves one of the most elusive passages. There is complete unanimity with regard to the historical situation of the Lachish ostraca, which must be just prior to the final siege at the end of Zedekiah's reign. The campaign of 1937-38, begun by the late J. L. Starkey and completed by Lankester Harding, yielded a fully adequate picture of the archaeological situation during the last two preexilic phases of occupation, which came to an end respectively 598/7 and 589/8 B. C.3 It should be observed this connection that the difference of a year the date given by the writer for the letters, 589 B. C.,4 and the one a year later given by other recent students, depends on the view held with reference to late Judaean chronology; the writer agrees with the system of Kugler, Begrich, and Mowinckel, which places the destruction of the First Temple the year 587, not 586.5 The exact year of the fall of Lachish is probably given by an ostracon found the last campaign,6 which begins with the date in the ninth [year], i.e., the year 589/8, since the first year of Zedekiah was 597/6. Since the writer's paper nearly a year ago further progress has been made Letters II, III, VI, and IX, which will be treated, briefly or detail, below. Letter IV seems to be clear throughout after Gordon's observations, which were utilized the paper just mentioned. In Letter V the writer's correction mh l'bdk yytb 'w yr' Imlk has been generally accepted, though sometimes with slight deviations. The observation of Gordon, tentatively