1 For Dialogue Documents, see J. Rabinowitz, ‚Neo-Babylonian Documents and Jewish Law’, The Journal of Papyrology, 13 (1961), p.131; H. Petschow, ‚Die neubabylonische Zwiegesprächsurkunde und Genesis 23’, JCS 19 (1965), pp. 103–120; idem, Mittelbabylonische Rechts und Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena, Berlin 1974, pp. 36–39; G. M. Tucker, ‚The Legal Background of Genesis 23’, JBL 85 (1966), pp.81 – 82; R. Westbrook, ‚Purchase of Cave of Machpelah’, ILR 6 (1971), pp.34 –36; M. Weinfeld (ed) Encyclopedia of the World of the Bible, Genesis, Tel-Aviv 1982, (Hebrew), p. 147.

2 Rabinowitz, Jewish Law, New York 1956, p.92; idem, 1961 (note 1), pp. 131–175; Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 105, 117–120; Tucker 1966 op.cit. (note 1), p.82; Rabin, ‚L- with Imperative (Gen xxiii)’, JSS 13 (1968), p.113; Westbrook 1971 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 35–38; M. Weinfeld 1982 op.cit. (note 1), p. 147; C. Westermann, Genesis 12–36, London 1986, p.270.

3 Muffs has already suggested, if with reservations (since he had no firm proofs) that not only the Aramaic kingdoms adopted the pre-1000 BC Syrian legal tradition, but that also the kingdom of David and Solomon had done so; he even brings 1 Kings 5:15–25 as a basis for his claim. (Y. Muffs, Love & Joy, New York and Jerusalem 1992, p. 102).

4 The only scholar to have researched the subject of Dialogue Documents is Petschow. All other scholars have relied on his pioneering research. Therefore, in my summary of the main characteristics of this type of document I will base myself solely on Petschow, even if later scholars have advanced identical views.

5 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 105.

6 Petschow 1974 op.cit. (note 1), p.38.

7 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 107.

8 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 107.

9 Petschow 1974 op.cit. (note 1), p.25, 39.

10 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), pp.112, 118; op.cit. 1974 (note 1), pp.25, 38, 39. However, Rabinowitz 1961 op.cit. (note 1), p. 134 and Tucker 1966 op.cit. (note 1), p.82 are of the opinion that the verb ‚to hear’ signifies complete acceptance of the proposal.

11 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 108.

12 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p.115.

13 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p.115.

14 On the link between ancient Middle Eastern law and Rabbinic literature, See Muffs 1992 op. cit. (note 3), pp. 121–30; 162–163. And idem p.139–141, a bibliographic survey of the subject; E. Sand, קיר ביניים בתעודות בבליות עתיקות M.A. thesis, Bar-Ilan University 1994, p.111.

15 Treatise Kethuboth 97a

16 Op.cit.

17 According to Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 113, note 66, which relies on Rabinowitz 1961 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 133–134, Dialogue Documents were used in the Talmudic period. Rabinowitz bases his case on the style of the Jewish marriage contract (Mishna Kethuboth, Chap.4, 5–12; Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Laws of Levirate Marriage, Chap 4, Law 33). However, the text is not a Dialogue Document, since the dialogue section does not specify why each party came to enter into the transaction, but rather details the undertakings of the bridegroom to the bride; similarly, the text does not include the usual part which specifies the transfer of money on the one hand and the ‚acquisition’ of the woman on the other hand. The form of this text is thus not that of a Dialogue Document. However, Dialogue Document keywords do appear in the text: it opens ‚Mr. Someone’ says to ‚Miss Someone’, his words are quoted in the first person, and the Bride's agreement is in the formula, ‚she found pleasure (to agree), she agreed’ in the Babylonian text; and in the Palestinian Talmud the phrasing is ‚and she heard’. Similarly in wedding contracts from Elephantine, most of the text is written in the first person and includes the undertakings the future husband is taking upon himself, documentation of the giving of the bride-price, the agreement of the father of the bride using the formula ‚־ ‘בא אליך וטוב לבך’ – ‚he came to you and your heart is satisfied’. (Cowley 15, line 5; Kraeling 7, line 5), and also documentation of the dowry that the bride brings with her (Cowley 15; Kraeling 2, 7). There are no marriage documents from Elephantine built along the lines of a Dialogue Document, although one does find quotations in the first person, as well as the expression ‚and you should be pleased’ (וטוב לבך) which is parralel to ‚out of the gladness of his heart’ (b'simchat libo). (A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford 1923; E. G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri. New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine, New Haven 1953). It would appear that the use of the first person in speech as well as the use of keywords particular to Dialogue Documents in the written text point to an acquaintance with this type of document in the period of Elephantine and of the Talmud. (I would like to thank Prof. Skaits, who drew my attention to the marriage documents from Elephantine).

18 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p.116.

19 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 115–116.

20 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 116.

21 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 119–120 and also Tucker 1966 op.cit. (note 1), p.84.

22 Petschow 1974 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 36–40. Petschow p.39 raises the argument that one should look for the source of the Middle Babylonian Period Dialogue Documents in the Kassite Period.

23 J. Skinner, Genesis, Edinburgh 19692, p.335; Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 120 note 134; Westermann 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.270.

24 G.J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, Dallas 1994, p. 122.

25 Amongst others see G. von Rad, Genesis, London 19632, p.244; B. Perrin, ‚Trois texts bibliques sur les techniques d'acquisition immobilière’, RHDFE 41 (1963), p.6.

26 J.A. Emerton, ‚The Priesterly Writer in Genesis’, Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 39 (1988), p.388 adds that the use of ‚anochi’ for ‚I’ in verse 4 is contrary to P's usual preference for ‚ani’.

27 Skinner 19692 op.cit. (note 23), p.335, and similarly Emerton 1988 op.cit. (note 26), p.388. Westermann 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.271 rejects this theory of Skinner, arguing that Dialogue Documents were known at the time of the writing/editing by P, and that therefore the passage does not reflect an ancient document, but was written by P. We do not agree with this argument since it is pure speculation that ignores the written evidence, and confuses a hypothesis without factual basis with certainty.

28 Westermann 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.271.

29 C. Rabin 1968 op.cit. (note 2), p.115.

30 Westbrook 1971 op.cit. (note 1), p.38.

31 E.A. Speiser, Genesis, New York 1964, p. 173.

32 G.J. Wenham, 1994 op.cit. (note 24), p. 125. See a discussion on the subject in Emerton 1988 op.cit. (note 26), pp. 388–390.

33 For translation of verses I have used the Authorised King James Version of the Bible.

34 E.A. Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), p. 170, who bases himself on Deuteronomy 6:7 and on the widespread use in Acadian of this meaning; also C. Westermann 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.273; Davidson, Genesis 12–50, Cambridge 1979, p. 102 however without proof.

35 The Hebrew letter vav 0) in ‚and Ephron sat amongst the sons of Heth’ is the vav used for contrast.

36 See the discussion on the topic, p. 100.

37 In the opinion of Melamed 1943 op.cit. (note 34), pp. 12–15, Abraham bought the Cave of Machpelah by trickery. Melamed understands the verb ‚natan’ (‚to give’) – a verb both sides in negotiations are at pains to use – as being the opposite of ‚to buy’ and ‚to sell’. At the end of the negotioations, Ephron gave Abraham the Cave of Machpelah as a gift, and Abraham made Ephron a gift of four hundred silver shekels. Even if Melamed's theory is correct, the final result of the trickery is that the Cave of Machpelah is owned by Abraham the stranger, a legal situation at odds with the local codex.

38 The Hebrew original uses the same word ‚vayakam’ for both Abraham stood up and that the field became his. It is not possible to reproduce this play of words in English.

39 See for example Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), p.171; Westermann 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.274.

40 Westermann 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.271. All other theories on this subject, as for example A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel, Hildesheim 1968, pp. 101–102, are not based on the text.

41 Skinner 1969 op.cit. (note 23), p.336.

42 Ben Kao, ‚Burial of Sarah’, Journal of Biblical Studies, Vol. 1 No. 1, (Jan-Mar 2001), pp. 1–25 (http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/issue1.html).

43 For a list of earlier research that treats Genesis 23 as a Dialogue Document, see Note 2 above.

44 The words in italic print are those typical of Dialogue Documents.

45 Dialogue Document from Type III, in which just one side ‚hears’, while the other party ‚makes heard’ his position; Petschow 1974 op.cit. (note 1), p.38. Similarly, the document of the purchase of the Cave of Machpelah and of the purchase of cedar wood from Hiram are Type III.

46 The change of order in the hebrew phrase is due to the different structure of the sentence in Biblical Hebrew,

47 The theory is that this expression must be understood in its legal sense as complete settlement of a debt, on which afterwards there can be no claims. See our extensive discussion of the verse, below p. 109.

48 When translating legal terms from one language to another, the problem is that there are very few synonyms common to both. A metaphor in one language has a completely different meaning in another. In addition, written styles tend to be different. Thus translating legal terms often leads to using a vocabulary, structure and semantic fields quite different from the original. See an extended discussion of this issue in Muffs 1992 op.cit. (note 3), pp. 97–98.

49 A key phrase for the closing words of each of the protagonists. See above p.97.

50 Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p.117.

51 See above p. 13.

52 On this subject see 2 Samuel 12:17, where it is related that when David was in mourning on the death of his son, the elders tried to raise him from the ground, but that he refused.

53 For example, see Westermann 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.272.

54 Wenham 1994 op.cit. (note 24), p. 126.

55 N. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, New York 1967, p. 168.

56 For example, Sarna 1967 op.cit. (note 55), p. 167; p. 178 note 10.

57 See Skinner 19692 op.cit. (note 23), p.336, and also Wenham 1994 op.cit. (note 24), p.126, who follows Hoffner (POTT 213 – 14). For a bibliography of the subject up to 1965, see Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p.118, Note 124.

58 Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), pp. 169–170.

59 Sarna 1967 op.cit. (note 55), p. 168; A. Kamron in: M. Weinfeld (ed) Encyclopedia of the World of the Bible, Genesis, Tel-Aviv 1982, (Hebrew), p. 150.

60 For a bibliography up to 1965, see Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p.118, note 127. See also H. Reviv 1997, pp. 189–190.

61 G. M. Tucker 1966 op.cit. (note 1), p.77.

62 Westbrook 1971 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 36–37.

63 Because of this limitation, we shall not attempt to understand the exact meaning of ‚people of the land’ or ‚all that went in at the gate’.

64 Ehrlich, מקרא כפשוטו Berlin 1899, p.62; Perrin 1963 op.cit. (note 25), p.8.

65 J. Skinner 19692 op.cit. (note 23), p.336.

66 C. Gordon, ‚Abraham and the Merchants of Ura’, JNES 17 (1958), pp. 28–31.

67 Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), pp.170, 172.

68 Perrin 1963 op.cit. (note 25), p.8.

69 H. Reviv, ‚Early Elements and late Terminology in the Descriptions of Non-Israelite cities in the Bible’, IEJ 27/4 (1977), pp. 189–190.

70 N. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, New York 1967, pp. 166–167.

71 Westermann 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.273 and Davidson 1979 op.cit. (note 34), p.98.

72 Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), p. 170.

73 CAD N I p.50b.

74 E.Z. Melamed 1943 op.cit. (note 34), pp. 12–14, 18.

75 Westbrook 1971 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 29–30.

76 Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), p. 170. Not like von Rad, op.cit (note 25) p.243, who argues that the people of Heth deliberately ignored the Abraham's request to purchase the burial lot for the full, market price.

77 Westbrook 1971 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 32–34.

78 Ben Kao 1998 op.cit. (note 42), p.20.

79 ‚The past tense indicates determination’, compare Ruth 4:3 (Y. Zakovitch, Ruth Introduction and Commentary, Tel-Aviv 1990, (Hebrew) p. 104). An alternative position: ‚the past tense is used to express an act that takes place, in its entirety or partially, using the speech which describes it’. Compare Judges 1:2 (Y. Amit, Judges Introduction and Commentary, Tel-Aviv 1999, p.32). Since we are here talking about a private purchase, I prefer to compare Genesis 23 to Ruth 4, since there too it is talking about a private purchase, and not to Judges 1, which is talking about the transfer of captured territory to private ownership.

80 Ehrlich 1899, op.cit. (note 64).

81 I cannot accept Speiser's distinction of meaning in the Hebrew word ‚imachem’ (‚with you’) between ‚together’ and ‚underneath you’, since it has no meaning here. (Speiser op.cit (note 23), p.170).

82 I. Hoffman, Jeremiah a Commentary, Tel-Aviv 2001, p.249 (Hebrew).

83 A key phrase for the closing words of each of the protagonists. See above p.97.

84 Ehrlich 1899 op.cit. (note 64).

85 Speiser, op.cit. (note 23), p. 107.

86 M.Z. Segal, פירוש מ”צ סגל לספר בראשית Tel-Aviv 1960, p.39.

87 See S. Ahituv, Joshua, Introduction and Commentary, Tel-Aviv 1995, p.73 (Hebrew).

88 Ahw 1413a.

89 See above p.89.

90 Mayer I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East, Rome 1980, p.188.

91 A key phrase for the closing words of each of the protagonists. See above p.97.

92 Speiser, op.cit (note 23), p. 170.

93 Westermann 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.273.

94 Gruber op.cit (note 90), p. 187.

95 Gruber idem.

96 Additional examples from the Bible of bowing as an act of thanks: Genesis 28:12; Ruth 2:10; 2 Kings 4:37. See Gruber op.eit (note 90), pp. 98–101.

97 Segal (note 86), idem.

98 Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), p. 170, gives this as the meaning of the verb, unrelated to Dialogue Documents. On the meaning in Dialogue Documents, above p.89 and above note 10.

99 Segal op.cit. (note 86), idem.

100 1 Chronicles 21:22, 23. kasap gamirti, šīmū gamrūtu in Acadian. See Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 118 note 126; CAD K, p.247a; Ahw 454a; and not as von Rad 19632 op.cit. (note 25) p.243: ‚pay good money’.

101 Tucker 1966 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 79–80.

102 Hoffmann 2001 op.cit. (note 82), p.185.

103 A key phrase for the closing words of each of the protagonists. See above p. 12.

104 Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), p. 170; CAD A II, p.387b; Ahw p. 1480b.

105 E.Z. Melamed, ‚קניית מערת המכפלה, Tarbitz 14 (1943), pp. 15–16,

106 So also von Rad 19632 op.cit. (note 25), p.242.

107 Wenham 1994 op.cit. (note 24), p.128; Reviv 1977 op.cit. (note 36), pp. 190–191. The legal term in Acadian is amilū ša bābi.

108 S. Ahituv 1995 op.cit. (note 87), p.328.

109 M. R. Lehmann, ‚Abraham's Purchase of Machpela and Hittite Law’, BASOR 129 (1953), pp. 16–17.

110 Tucker 1966 op.cit. (note 1), p.78.

111 Perrin 1963 op.cit. (note 25), p. 10, reasons that since the main subject of ours story is ‚bury thy dead’, Ephron's concluding words ‚bury thy dead’ are meant to end the negotiations. Westerman 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.274, sees in these words of Ephron a proposal to continue the negotiations. And it is Westermann who notes that the phrase ‚bury my/thy dead’ concludes the words of each of the protagonists. See above, p.97.

112 A key phrase for the closing words of each of the protagonists. See above p.97.

113 This explanation is opposed to that of Ehrlich 1968 op.cit. (note 40), pp. 100–101. There he explains Abraham's bowing down as acknowledgement of the past, on the agreement of the children of Heth to let him bury his dead. Nonetheless, Abraham had already thanked them for this when he bowed down to ‚the people of the land, to the children of Heth’ in verse 7. Why is there an additional bowing down for the identical purpose, in verse 12? Furthermore, if the children of Heth are no longer interested in the negotiations, why does Abraham continue to talk ‚in the audience of the people of the land’ (verse 13)? Why does Abraham weigh out the money ‚in the audience of the sons of Heth’ – that is to say that the children of Heth agreed with him, and not ‚in the presence of the children of Heth’ – that the children of Heth were witnesses to the transfer of money?

114 Gruber op.cit. (note 90), pp. 188–189.

115 Rabin 1968 op.cit. (note 2), pp. 122–124.

116 Ehrlich 1899 op.cit. (note 64), p.63.

117 Compare the admiration of Achan, expressed with emotion in Joshua 7:21 (I. Kaufman, ספר הושע, Jerusalem 1976, p. 121); an emotional Sisera giving instructions to Jael in the masculine (Judges 4:20); The plethora of words that have no connection to each other, said by the overwrought girls to Saul in 1 Samuel 9:12; and the confused answer of the lad to Boaz in Ruth 2, 7 (A. Hurowitz, ‚Ruth 2:7 – ’A Midrashic Gloss‚?’, ZAW 95 (1983), pp. 122–123). And see also Genesis 37:30.

118 A key phrase for the closing words of each of the protagonists. See above p.97.

119 See above, p.96 for bibliography and for a chiastic analysis of verses 3–18, which leads to an identical conclusion.

120 CADK, p.247b.

121 Tucker 1966 op.cit. (note 1), p.82.

122 M. Weinfeld 1982 op.cit. (note 1), p.147. Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), p.171. maḫīrāt ibaššu or maḫīrāt illaku – based on profit, or maně ša tamkari – a merchant's unit, or kaspu ša nadān u maḫāri – the money that is given and accepted. See also Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), p. 118 note 128; Davidson 1979 op.cit. (note 34), p. 102. This is not like ‚kù.babbar. meš- ki, CAD K p.247b. You (clay) have been given your price, you have received (it) nadnukki maḫrāti’; However, CAD N I p.43 ‚nadānu u maḫāru, to do business’. According to this, ‚silver of trade’. V.A. Hurowitz, ‚Two Terms for Wealth in Proverbs VIII in Light of Akkadian’, Vetus Testamentum L,2 (2000), pp. 252–257 argues that (Prov. Viii 18) הון עתק = (כסף עובר (לסוחר = kaspum … ittiq, ‚negotiable wealth’ (p.252).

123 For example, Speiser 1964 op.cit. (note 31), p. 171.

124 Kamron 1982 op.cit. (note 59), p. 151.

125 E. Fox, The Five Books of Moses, New York 1995.

126 Lehmann 1953 op.cit. (note 109), pp. 15–19; Perrin 1963 op.cit. (note 25), pp. 16–17. Tucker 1966 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 83–84, Sarna 1967 op.cit. (note 55), p.169, and Kamron 1982 op.cit. (note 59), p. 150 argue that there are other Mesopotamian contracts of sale that note the trees along with the field, but they do not explain why this is so.

127 J. G. Lautner, ‚Rechtsverhältnisse an Grenzmauern’, Symbolae Koschaker, Leiden 1939, pp. 93–95.

128 Melamed 1943 op.cit. (note 34), pp. 17–18, points out that even today (i.e. 1902) Arabs who buy land must specify wells, springs and trees. He adds that the same characteristic existed in Talmudic law. However, he does not explain the legal rationale behind this convention. It is, as previously stated, a recognition of secondary rights in another's property. On secondary rights in another's property in the Talmud, see: 12, פיצול זכות הבעלות, ‚דיני ישראל (תשמ”ד - תשמ”ה), עמי קעג- קעד.ש. שילה, ’בנכס במשפט התלמוד.

129 CAD MI p. 105a maḫru 2; Ahw 585a maḫru IIb: ‚vor (ihm), in Gegenwart von’.

130 S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Tought, Jerusalem 1977, (Hebrew), pp. 404–410, and in particular p.408 para 3.

131 S. Abramsky, ‚שלמה המלך בעיני בעל דברי הימים’, Eretz Yisrael 16 (1982), pp. 3–14, and in particular p.7.

132 As is written in 2 Chronicles 2:9 ‚And, behold, I will give … beaten wheat’. J. M. Myers, II Chronicles, New York 1965, p. 12. However, J. Gray, I & II Kings, London 1970, p. 153 believes that the payment in the Book of Kings was also to Hiram's servants.

133 G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, London 1984, pp. 152–153.

134 Also E. L. Curtis, The Book of Chronicles, Edinburgh 19762, p.321; and H. G. M. Williamson, 2 Chronicles, London 1982, p.200.

135 M. L. Malbim, ספר מקראי קדש, Jerusalem 1957, Writings, Section 1, p.187.

136 Curtis op.cit. (note 134), p.320; Williamson op.cit (note 134), p. 197; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, Texas 1987 p. 18.

137 Jones op.cit. (note 133), pp. 152–153; S.J. Devries, 1 Kings, Texas 1985, pp. 79–80.

138 H. S. Gehman, The Book of Kings, Edinburgh 19672, p.136.

139 J. Mulder, 1 Kings, Leuven 1998, p.207.

140 A. Hurowitz, in M. Garsiel (ed.) אנציקלופדיה עולם התג” ך, Book of 1 Kings, Tel-Aviv 1994, p.62.

141 Mulder op.cit (note 139), p.207.

142 On the letter in the Bible and in Mesopotamia, see the entry ‚Letter’ in אנציקלופדיה מקראית, Jerusalem 1962, vol.4, cols. 966–974.

143 Dillard op.cit. (note 136), p.20.

144 The verb ‚and he sent’ at the beginning of verse 2 could refer to either a letter or to messengers who transmitted a verbal message.

145 I. Kyll, ספר דברי הימים, Jerusalem 1986 p.514.

146 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv 1967, (Hebrew) Part II, section 55.

147 Ibid p.515; Curtis op.cit. (note 134), p.320.

148 The expression ‚covenant of brothers’ is a diplomatic expression meaning an alliance between equals. The expression ‚brotherhood’ is found in Sumerian documents and is extremely common in Acadian sources. (Brotherhood = aḫḫūtu, brothers = aḫḫū) (S. M. Paul, Amos Introduction and Commentary, Tel-Aviv 1994, p.38).

149 M. Weinfeld, ‚משמעה של ”ברית ידידות” פוליטית בישראל ובמזדח הקדום’’, Z. Talshir, Y. Shamir, D. Sivan (eds.), Homage to Shmuel, Studies in the World of the Bible, Beer Sheva 2001, (Hebrew), pp. 178–179; 182–183.

150 H.J. Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, Beer Sheva 19972, pp.95, 97.

151 אנציקלופדיה מקראית op.cit. (note 142) col.970.

152 Similarly also Katzenstein 19972 op.cit. (note 150), p.98.

153 On this subject see the discussion p.4 above, and of 1 Kings 5:15–25, p. 123 below.

154 Dillard op.cit. (note 136), p. 19.

155 Hurowitz op.cit. (note 140), p.2; in Acadian = anumma. Used to present the main subject (CAD A I, p. 147a).

156 R. J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of the Chronicles, Cambridge 1929, p. 152.

157 Idem p. 150.

158 Myers op.cit. (note 132), p.9; Dillard op.cit. (note 136), p. 16.

159 For an example of writing on an envelope, L. Waterman, Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire, Michigan 1930, p.267.

160 I. Kyll, op.cit (note 145), p.521; E. Kautzch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, Oxford 1985, § 117n.

161 Idem. Also Myers op.cit.(note 132) p. 12.

162 Josephus op.cit (note 146), sec 50 – 58 p. 272.

163 Josephus op.cit (note 146), sec.55.

164 Dillard op.cit. (note 136), p.18.

165 Mulder op.cit. (note 139), p.209.

166 Katzenstein 19972 op.cit. (note 150), p.78.

167 The emphasis is by the author of this article. E.S.

168 Josephus op.cit. (note 146), secs.55–56.

169 Katzenstein 19972 op.cit. (note 150), p.78.

170 אנציקלופדיה מקראית V01.4, col.970

171 Prof. Katzov in a personal conversation.

172 On the five-stage structure see, amongst others, Y. Amit, Reading Biblical Stories, Tel-Aviv 2000, (Hebrew), pp. 55–56.

173 Rabinowitz, Jewish Law, New York 1956, p.92; idem 1961 pp. 131–175; Petschow 1965 op.cit. (note 1), pp.105, 117–120; Tucker 1966 op.cit. (note 1), p.82; Rabin 1968 op.cit. (note 2), p. 113; C. Westermann, 1986 op.cit. (note 2), p.270; M. Weinfeld 1982 op.cit. (note 1), p. 147; Westbrook 1971 op.cit. (note 1), pp. 35–38.

174 The words in italic print are those typical of Dialogue Documents.

175 Dialogue Document from Type III, in which just one side ‚hears’, while the other party ‚makes heard’ his position; Petschow 1974 op.cit. (note 1), p.38. Similarly, the document of the purchase of the Cave of Machpelah and of the purchase of cedar wood from Hiram are Type III.

176 Solomon received ‚all his desire’, that is, what he wanted, and accordingly was happy. The Acadian expression that should appear at this point in the document translates literally as, ‚Out of the gladness of his heart someone1 paid someone2 this sum of money’; however, the translation from one language to another is not always literal. Where the Acadian formulation retains the result of the transaction – the joy or gladness, the Hebrew version retains the cause of the gladness of the heart – the person received all his desire: ‚And Hiram gave Solomon … all his desire’. See further our commentary to the verse, p.127 below.

177 The change of order in this phrase is due to the different structure of the sentence in Biblical Hebrew.

178 The theory is that this expression must be understood in its legal sense as complete settlement of a debt, on which afterwards there can be no claims. See our extensive discussion of the verse, below p. 128.

179 When translating legal terms from one language to another, the problem is that there are very few synonyms common to both. A metaphor in one language has a completely different meaning in another. In addition, written styles tend to be different. Thus translating legal terms often leads to using vocabulary, structure and semantic fields quite different from the original. See an extended discussion of this issue in Muffs 1992 op.cit. (note 3), pp. 97–98.

180 This is the best oil (Gersonides). The theory is that due to the Acadian legal terminology, the expression ‚pure oil’ must be understood metaphorically, in the sense of clearing a debt by transferring the oil, ‚refining the debt with oil’. See our extended commentary on the verse below p. 128.

181 Similarly also Gray op.cit.(note 132), p. 151.

182 D. Elgavish, The Diplomatic Service in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Sources, Jerusalem 1998, pp. 81–82.

183 There is much interest to research the period the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint came into being, as found in the addition in the Septuagint (sending the oil). For it reflects an ancient custom that had not been found after the Persian period. It is possible that the editor of the Masoretic text suppressed Hiram's sending of oil, since the matter might be understood by someone not acquainted with ancient custom, namely the contemporaries of the editor, as Solomon's subservience as vassal to Hiram, as though it is Hiram that puts Solomon on the throne. On the subject of the editing of the historical books see the article by S. Japhet, ‚Can the Persian Period Bear the Burden? Reflections on the Origins of Biblical History’, Twelfth World Congress of Jewish, Studies 1, The Bible and Its World, Jerusalem 1999, pp.35*-45*. It is also possible to explain the phenomenon in exactly the opposite way: the editor of the urtext of The Septuagint added the sending of the oil, since that was the custom in his time.

184 Similarly also Gray op.cit. (note 132) p.149; Mulder op.cit. (note 139) p.206.

185 As mistakenly understood, Myers op.cit.(note 132) p.11; Gehman op.cit. (note 138) p.132; J. Robinson, The First Book of Kings, Cambridge 1972, p.64; Devries op.cit. (note 137) p.79.

186 In this context the word ‚melachim’ is a special term for diplomatic envoys, see Elgavish op.cit. (note 182), p.26.

187 Similarly Devries op.cit. (note 137), p.80.

188 Williamson op.cit. (note 134), p. 177; Jones op.cit (note 133), p. 154; Dillard, op.cit. (note 136), p.20.

189 Mulder op.cit, (note 139), pp. 207–208.

190 Above p.36.

191 In accordance with the rule that the party opening the dialogue was the one of lower social status. See above, p.4.

192 Robinson op.cit (note 185), p.64.

193 S. Ahituv 1995 op.cit. (note 87), p.346.

194 Devries op.cit. (note 137), p.81.

195 Jones op.cit. (note 133), p.156.

196 Antiquities of the Jews, op.cit. (note 146), sec.51 p.272.

197 Hoffmann 2001 op.cit. (note 82), p. 166.

198 Gray op.cit. (note 132), p.53; Jones op.cit. (note 133), p. 155.

199 H. J. Katzenstein, The History of Tyre, Jerusalem 1973, p.82.

200 Mulder op.cit. (note 139), p.213.

201 Devries op.cit. (note 137), p.82.

202 Antiquities of the Jews, op.cit. (note 146), sec.52 p.272.

203 Hiram did not want Solomon's servants to acquire the skill of tree felling, which would allow Solomon to compete with Hiram in this business. On this subject, see our analysis of 2 Chronicles 2, p.117–118 above.

204 See p.89 and note 10 there.

205 Mulder op.cit. (note 139), p.213.

206 A. Hurowitz op.cit. (note 140), p.62.

207 Muffs 1992 op.cit. (note 3), pp. 144–145.

208 Gehman, op.cit. (note 138) p. 134; Devries op.cit. (note 137) p.82.

209 Jones op.cit. (note 133), p.156; similarly Mulder op.cit. (note 139), p.213, who quotes other places in the Bible where the G-d of Israel is greeted by Jews; Exodus 18:10; 1 Kings 10:9. He is of the opinion that this was also accepted practice between kings in the ancient Middle East.

210 Jones, op.cit. (note 133), p. 156.

211 Ibid; A. Hurowitz 1994 (note 140), p.62.

212 Concerning this rule, above p.89.

213 Gehman op.cit. (note 138), p.136; Jones op.cit. (note 133), p.156.

214 For more on the Hebrew root ‚zakak’ (to refine) See Muffs 1992 op.cit. (note 3), p.97, and CAD Z p.28 sec.3; CAD E p.6 § c, p.81 § b.

215 CAD ŠII pp. 27–28 sec.2.