Hešbon in Early Byzantine IV - Late Byzantine III

 

By koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil [Pretoria South Africa], ThD [Rikkyo Japan]

Kyungpook National University, Sangju Campus, South Korea; conjoint lecturer Avondale College, Australia, 15 April 2009

 

Stratum VIII was allocated by R.S. Boraas and L.T. Geraty to he Early Byzantine IV-Late Byzantine III period.1 According to the coin investigation by A. Terian, the closest parallels to this period was the Nummus of Justinian I, 527-565 A.D. Hešbon was inhabited during this period. According to the historical report of the site that was written by Boraas and S.H. Horn, the report of the acts of the council of Ephesus, held in 431 A.D. mentioned a bishop of Esbus whose name was Zosus. They mentioned that soon after the invasion of the Arabs in the 7th century, Hešbon ceased to be a Christian city.

In 1988, Stefan Timm questioned whether the excavators of tell Heban were able to locate Hešbon. If one looks at the coin of Esbus from the time of Elagabulus 207-217 A.D., then one have to admit that it was called by a similar name in that period. That was at least the Roman way of honoring the tradition of the inhabitants of that time. Our fundamental question is whether Esbus is Hešbon or Heban in that time. That it was later called by the Arabs tell Heban was only a way of carrying on the tradition that was already clear in the time of the Late Roman I-II empire.

Not mentioned previously by the scholars on Hešbon is the evidence from archaeological source pertaining to Judaism of the period: Early Byzantine-Late Byzantine. The inscription in the Synagogue at Reob mentioned the name of Hešbon, among other names that might be useful to identify where the city was seen to be in the period 500-560 A.D. The excavators are uncomfortable about the dating of the site, but nevertheless suggested that the time of the synagogue was probably between the fifth until the seventh century A.D.2 If our coin of 527-565 A.D. would allow us such a dating and if the Jewish artist designed his mosaic with that reference to Hešbon, then one will have to see it as a city inhabited during the period of the Jewish inscription.

 

1AUSS 16/1 (1978) :16.

2J. Sussmann, "The Inscription in the Synagogue at Rehob," in Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Lee I. Levine (Jerusalem: Academic Press, 1981), 146-153, especially pages 150 and 152.

 

The inscription is mentioning that at the Jewish centers of Beth-Shean and Paneas of that time, certain agricultural products were forbidden in the seventh year and in all the other sabbatical cycles: marrows, melons, cucumbers, the parsnips, the mint, Egyptian beans, leeks, seeds, dried figs, sesame, mustard, rice, cummin, dry lupine, large peas, garlic, village onions, onions, pressed dates, wine, oil.3 Then the cities are listed which are permitted around Beth-Shean (line 6). The forbidden cities are mentioned (lines 9-18). From line 13 the towns are mentioned which is seen as Eretz Israel, "the place which they that returned from Babylon [held]." Hešbon is mentioned in line 17 after Jabbok is mentioned and before the brook of Zered is listed. The linguistic form of Hešbon is given as wšbwn.4

Ninety cities and towns and thirty kinds of fruit are mentioned. The regions were considered 'pagan" and this was the reason that they were listed.5 The problem with such a view as presented here by Sussmann, is why would the territory "and all which Jews have purchased" (line 12) and "the territory of Eretz-Israel, the place which they that returned from Babylon [held]" (line 13) also be seen as "pagan"? In line 26 is the answer, "and if there is a place which was purchased by Jews )our rabbis are suspicious of it. Shalom." Probably this inscription should be seen as dating after certain groups of Jews came from Babylon and resettled in Israel and neigborhoods. They apparently did not obey the Deutoronomistic precepts pertaining to the sabbatical year and this inscription is evidence from the artist as to what the rabbis of that synagogue felt concerning this issue. In all probability, the areas are not necessarily "pagan" but could be also secularized Jews returning from Babylon. If this is the case, then it could mean that territories in and around Hesbon could have being purchased by Jews during this time. The artist was thinking down the major regions of agricultural produce in Transjordan in line 17: Rekem of Trachonitis, Zimra of the limits of Bostra, Jabbok, and Heshbon, and the brook of Zered, Igar Sahaduta, Nimrim. Bostra, Jabok, Heshbon and Zered are spaced out almost in equal distance from each other.

 

3Ibid., 152 lines 1-5.

4See here the form in line 17, left of the major black hole in the center of the mosaic on page 147.

5Ibid.

 

 

Readers of the history and development of Judaism are well aware of the two schools of Judaism that developed in Palestine and Babylon between 220-500 A.D. The character and nature of the two schools were different. Since those in Palestine were always involved in persecution and differences with the Christians, the nature of their modus operandi was either offensive or defensive.

This we can see from the inscription in the synagogue (line 26). Altogether eight generations existed in Babylon until 500 A.D. Somewhere between the eighth generation at Babylon between 460-500 A.D. and before the Arabic invasion of the world, these Jews from Babylon returned to Palestine and purchased land for themselves. The year 500 A.D. is always seen as the time for the completion of the Babylonian Talmud. The next group of academics from Babylon was reflective of the Talmud. The inscription in this synagogue should probably be placed somewhere between 500-630 A.D. During this period Hešbon was a regional town for an agricultural region that was considered by the Palestinian amoraim as suspicious even though Jews of Babylon purchased lands there.

Although we are using the term Hešbon here, and the Arabic name is Heban, we are not making the superflous methodological error of saying that Hešbon of the Old Testament is Heban of the Arabic period or Hešbon of this Byzantine period. Why? Since cities in ancient times sometimes included regional districts attached to it through treaties and bonds. If a king is in charge of such a city the likelihood that a larger area than only a tell may be in mind, is greater.

 

End item