1 This is a revised version of an article originally submitted for publication (in Hebrew) in Tarbiz. The preparation of the article for publication was made with the generous financial support of the Israel Science Foundation (ISF).

3 N. Na'aman, “When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah's Premier City in the 8th-7th Centuries BCE”, BASOR 347 (2007), 21–56.

4 For the gradual restoration of the kingdom of Judah in the time of Manasseh, see L. Tatum, “King Manasseh and the Royal Fortress at Horvat ‘Usa”, Biblical Archaeologist 54 (1991), 136–145; I. Finkelstein, “Horvat Qitmit and the Southern Trade in the Late Iron Age II”, ZDPV 108 (1992), 156–170; idem, “The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh”, in M.D. Coogan – J.C. Exum – L.E. Stager (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, Louisville 1994, 169–187; E. Ben Zvi, “Prelude to Reconstruction of the Historical Manassic Judah”, BN 81 (1996), 31–44; I. Finkelstein – N. Na'aman, “The Judahite Shephelah in the Late 8th and Early 7th Centuries BCE”, Tel Aviv 31 (2004), 60–79; F. Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and child sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (BZAW 338), Berlin – New York 2004, 99–120; E.A. Knauf, “The Glorious Days of Manasseh”, in L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Good Kings and Bad Kings (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 393), London 2005, 164–188.

5 A detailed discussion about the excavations in the strata of the second half of the 7th and beginning of the 6th centuries BCE in Jerusalem's western hill has recently been published by Hillel Geva, showing that there was a steep decline in the city's population at that time. See: H. Geva, “The Settlement on the Southwestern Hill of Jerusalem at the End of the Iron Age. A Reconstruction Based on the Archaeological Evidence”, ZDPV 122 (2006), 140–150

6 Finkelstein – Na'aman, “Judahite Shephelah”, 60–79.

7 M. Broshi – I. Finkelstein, “The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II”, BASOR 287 (1992), 47–60.

8 Na'aman, “Jerusalem”, 24–38.

9 For the root GWR in ancient West Semitic languages, see M. Görg, “Der ‘Fremde’ (gēr): ein Fremdwort im Alten Testament?”, BN 25 (1984), 10–13; D. Kellermann, “gûr; gēr; gērûth; meghûrîm”, in G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2, Grand Rapids 1975, 439–442; F.A. Spina, “Israelites as gērîm, “Sojourners”, in Social and Historical Context”, in C.L. Meyers – M. O'Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, Winona Lake 1983, 325–328; B. Greger, “Beobachtungen zum Begriff ger”, BN 63 (1992), 30–34; C. Bultmann, Der Fremde im antiken Juda. Eine Untersuchung zum sozialen Typenbegriff ‘ger’ und seinem Bedeutungswandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung (FRLANT 153), Göttingen 1992, 22–28. On the other hand, in Akkadian the resident alien is called ubāru. See: D. Bodi, “Outraging the Resident-Alien. King David, Uriah the Hittite, and an El-Amarna Parallel”, UF 35 (2003), 29–56, with earlier literature.

10 I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis 1995, 21 n. 35, 28, 52, 93 n. 111.

11 Of the rich literature written on the status of the gēr in the Second Temple period, see Kellermann, “gûr; gēr”, 445–447; A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, Freiburg – Leipzig 1896, 123–178; J. Milgrom, “Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel”, JBL 101 (1982), 169–176; idem, Numbers (The JPS Torah Commentary), Philadelphia 1989, 398–402; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 9), Frankfurt 1989, 334–351; C. van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law (JSOTSup 107), Sheffield 1991, 109–157; P.F. Stuehrenberg, “Proselyte”, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, New York 1992, 503–505; R. Rendtorff, “The gēr in the Priestly Laws of the Pentateuch”, in M.G. Brett (ed.), Ethnicity and the bible (Biblical Interpretation Series, 19), Leiden 1996, 77–87; D.L. Smith-Christopher, “Between Ezra and Isaiah: Exclusion, Transformation, and Inclusion of the ‘Foreigner’ in Post-Exilic Biblical Theology”, ibid., 117–142.

12 The lateness of Josh. 8:33, 35 is shown by the phrase “aliens and citizens alike”, which is common in the Holiness Code and does not precede the Persian period. On the lateness of the composition of Joshua 8, see: A. Rofé, “The History of the Cities of Refuge in Biblical Law”, in S. Japhet (ed.), Studies in Bible, 1986 (Scripta Hierosolymitana 31), Jerusalem 1986, 205–239; M. Staszak, Die Asylstädte im Alten Testament. Realität und Fiktivität eines Rechtsinstituts (Ägypten und Altes Testament 65), Wiesbaden 2006, 280–332, with earlier literature.

13 For a comprehensive discussion of the problem, see B.M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, New York – Oxford 1997, with earlier literature. Van Seters has recently argued that the Book of the Covenant is later than the Book of Deuteronomy and was composed during the exile. See: J. Van Seters, A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Book, Oxford – New York 2003. For criticism of his suggestion, see: B.S. Jackson, “Revolution in Biblical Law: Some Reflections on the Role of Theory in Methodology”, JSS 50 (2005), 83–115; B.M. Levinson, “Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters”, J. Day (ed), In Search of Pre-exilic Israel, (JSOTSup 406), London 2004, 272–325.

14 J. Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34, 10–26. Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomistischer Zeit (FRLANT 114), Göttingen 1975, 413–423 (see figure in p. 421); G. Wanke, “Bundesbuch”, in G. Krause – G. Müller – H.R. Balz (eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 7, Berlin 1981, 412–413 (see figure in p. 413); F. Crüsemann, The Torah. Theology and Social History of the Old Testament Law, Minneapolis 1996, 113, 181–182.

15 Crüsemann, The Torah, 112–143; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht, 391–504. The early date of the laws in Exod. 34:11-26 is debated among scholars. See: E. Blum, “Das sog. ‘Privilegrecht’ in Exodus 34,11-26: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition des Exodusbuches?”, in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation (Bibliotheca ETL 126), Leuven 1996, 347–366; D.M. Carr, “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11-26 and its Parallels”, in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32-34 und Dtn 9-10, Gütersloh 2001, pp. 107–140; H.-C. Schmitt, Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10-28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch, in J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jünfsten Diskussion (BZAW 315), Berlin and New York 2002, pp. 157–171.

16 M. Broshi, “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh”, IEJ 24 (1974), 21–26.

17 Crüsemann (above, n. 12), 183–185; idem, “Das Bundesbuch – Historischer und institutioneller Hintergrund”, SVT 40 (1988), 33–35. For other scholars who maintain the same view see note 46 below.

18 M. Weinfeld, The Decalogue and the Recitation of “Shema”: The Development of the Confession, Tel Aviv 2001, 77 (Hebrew).

19 Bultmann, Der Fremde, 64, 166 and n. 175; E. Haag, “šabbāt”, in G.J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 14, Grand Rapids 2004, 391–394

20 The hypothesis was first argued in detail by A.C. Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy. A New Theory of Its Origin, London 1924. For the list of works written until the mid 1960s, see E.W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, Philadelphia 1964, 58 n. 1.

21 A. Alt, “Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums”, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. II, München 1953, 250–275.

22 Of the many works written on this problem, see Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, 58–82; F. Dumermuth, “Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und ihren Voraussetzungen”, ZAW 70 (1958), 59–98; A. Caquot, “Remarques sur la ‘loi royale’ du Deutéronome (17/14-20)”, Semitica 9 (1959), 21–33; J. Muilenburg, “The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations”, VT 9 (1959), 347–351; M. Weinfeld, “Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy”, JNES 23 (1964), 202–212; idem, “Deuteronomy – the Present State of Inquiry”, JBL 86 (1967), 249–262; idem, Deuteronomy 1-11. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB), New York 1991, 44–57; R.E. Clements, “Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult Tradition” VT 15 (1965), 300–312; F.R. McCurley, “The Home of Deuteronomium Revisited: A Methodological Analysis of the Northern Theory”, in H.N. Bream – R.D. Heim – C.H. Moore (eds.), Old Testament Studies in Honor of J.M. Myers, Philadelphia 1974, 295–317; M. Weinfeld, “The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedent”, in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL 68), Leuven 1985, 76–98; R. Nurmela, The Levites: Their Emergence as a Second-Class Priesthood (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 193), Atlanta 1998, 159–161.

23 G. von Rad, “The Provenance of Deuteronomy”, Studies in Deuteronomy (SBT 9), London 1953, 60–69; H.W. Wolff, “Hoseas geistige Heimat”, ThLZ 81 (1956), 90–94; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, Oxford 1965, 223; Clements, “Jerusalem Cult Tradition”, 309–310; J. Lindblom, Erwägungen zur Herkunft der Josianischen Tempelurkunden, Lund 1971, 42–56, 73–75.

24 N. Lohfink, “Die Bundesurkunde des Königs Josias (Eine Frage an die Deuteronomiumsforschung)”, Biblica 44 (1963), 492–498.

25 According to Muilenburg “Covenantal Formulations”, 349), “It is now generally held that the Reformation of 621 was a movement of restoration, and that its ultimate origin is to be discovered in the amphictyony of Shechem”.

26 Lately scholars have questioned the story about the book that was found during the restoration of the temple (2 Kings 22), arguing that the idea of finding a document in order to legitimize a present situation appeared for the first time during the Neo-Babylonian period (6th century BCE), and not before. It should be noted that this is a controversial conclusion, and that other scholars have dated the text known as “the Memphite Theology”, which legitimized a new religious outlook by arguing that it had been written in antiquity, to the reign of Shabaka, a king of the 25th Dynasty (late 8th century BCE). See: F.T. Miosi, “Memphite Theology”, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, New York 1992, 691–692, with earlier literature; D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton 1992, 399–400. Moreover, in every known case of a “discovery” of a hidden text, the “discoverers” pointed to a particular document, claiming it was ancient. The critics suggest that in Josiah's reign there was no book to point to. For the literature on this issue, see: B.J. Diebner – C. Nauerth, “Die Inventio des spr htwrh in 2 Kön 22: Struktur, Intention und Funktion von Auffindungslegenden”, DBAT 18 (1984), 95–118; T.C. Römer, “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On “Book-Finding” and Other Literary Strategies”, ZAW 109 (1997), 1–11; idem, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction, London – New York 2005, 49–56; A.J. Droge, “‘The Lying Pen of the Scribes’: of Holy Books and Pious Frauds”, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 15 (2003), 117–147; D. Henige, “In Good Company: Problematic Sources and Biblical Historicity”, JSOT 30 (2005), 29–47; K. Scott, “Finding the Lost Book of the Law: Re-reading the Story of “The Book of the Law” (Deuteronomy-2 Kings) in Light of Classical Literature”, ibid., 153–169.

27 N. Na'aman, “The King Leading Cult Reforms in his Kingdom: Josiah and Other Kings in the Ancient Near East”, ZAR 12 (2006), 131–168.

28 Note the changed use of the term Urdeuteronomium in the scholarly literature. Whereas the classical biblical research used the term to designate the presumed work that preceded the Book of Deuteronomy and was supposedly its source, today scholars use the term to denote the early stratum of the Book of Deuteronomy, which was composed during the First Temple period.

29 For comprehensive discussions of the formation of the Book of Deuteronomium, see: E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium. Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284), Berlin – New York 1999; idem, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 30), Tübingen 2000, 110–155; idem, “Perspektiven der neueren Deuteronomiumsforschung”, ZAW 119 (2007), 319–340, with earlier literature.

30 In addition to the commentaries, see the following discussions of the sojourners in the Book of Deuteronomy: Bertholet, Die Stellung, 105–113; Van Houten, The Alien, 68–108; Bultmann, Der Fremde, 34-174, with earlier literature in 220–230; P.-E. Dion, “Israël et l'étranger dans le Deutéronome”, in M. Gourgues – G.-D. Mailhiot (eds.), L'Altérité. Vivre ensemble différents. Approches Pluridisciplinaires (Recherches – nouvelle série 7), Montréal – Paris 1986, 221–233.

31 For discussion of v. 17 and the triad of sojourner, the orphan and widow, see T. Krapf, “Traditionsgeschichtliches zum Deuteronomischen Fremdling-Waise-Witwe-Gebot”, VT 34 (1984), 87–91.

32 On the use of the term ‘brother’ to denote individual Israelites, and in some cases also to their social connections, see: Bultmann, Der Fremde, 79–83; L. Perlitt, “‘Ein einzig Volk von Brüdern’. Zur deuteronomischen Herkunft der biblischen Bezeichnung ‘Bruder’, D. Lührmann – G. Strecker (eds), Kirche: Festschrift fur Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag, Tübingen 1980, 27–52; cf. G. Braulik, Studien zum Deuteronomium und seiner Nachgeschichte (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 33), Stuttgart 2001, 28–29.

33 Bultmann, Der Fremde, 79–84.

34 Recently some scholars have even dated the Ten Commandments to the Second Temple period. See: I. Himbaza, Le Décalogue et l'histoire du texte: Études des formes textuelles du Décalogue et leurs implications dans l'histoire du texte de l'Ancien Testament (OBO 207), Fribourg – Göttingen 2004, 231–232.

35 Braulik was the first to propose that the final redaction of the Book of Deuteronomy, which he dates to the period of exile, edited chapters 12-26 in accordance with the order of the Ten Commandments. See: G. Braulik, Die deuteronomistischen Gesetze und der Dekalog. Studien zum Aufbau von Deuteronomium 12-26, Stuttgart 1991 (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 145), 23–118; idem, “The Sequence of the Laws in Deuteronomy 12-26 and in the Decalogue”, In D.L. Christensen (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song, Winona Lake 1993, 313–335. This idea was further developed by Otto, who named it “the main Deuteronomistic redaction” (DtrD). See: Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 110–155.

36 E. Nielsen, The Ten Commandments in New Perspective (SBT, Second Series 7), London 1968, 35–44; C. Levin, “Der Dekalog am Sinai”, VT 35 (1985), 165–191; A. Graupner, “Zum Verhältnis der bilden Dekalogfassungen Ex 20 und Dtn 5. Ein Gespräch mit Frank-Lothar Hossfeld”, ZAW 99 (1987), 308–329; Weinfeld, The Decalogue, 67-78 (Hebrew).

37 Bultmann, Der Fremde, 60–71; Haag, “šabbāt”, 392–393; Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 245 n. 34; F.-L. Hossfeld, Der Dekalog. Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (OBO 45) Fribourg – Göttingen 1982, 53–57. For the current state of research of the Ten Commandments, see: F.-L. Hossfeld, “Der Stand der Dekalogforschung”, in B.M. Levinson – E. Otto (eds.), Recht und Ethik im Alten Testament, (Altes Testament und Moderne 13), Münster 2004, 57–65.

38 Himbaza, Le Décalogue, 221-280, 292–300.

39 For a detailed discussion of this problem, see: Haag, “šabbāt”, 387–397, with earlier literature.

40 For a detailed discussion of this problem, see: R. Frankena, “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy”, OTS 14 (1965), 122–154; H.U. Steymans, “Eine assyrische Vorlage für Deuteronomium 28,20-44”, in G. Braulik (ed.), Bundesdokument und Gesetz. Studien zum Deuteronomium (Herders biblische Studien 4), Freiburg 1995, 119–141; idem, Deuteronomium 28 und die adě zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel (OBO 145), Freiburg – Göttingen 1995, with earlier literature; idem, “Die literarische und historische Bedeutung der Thronfolgevereidigung Asarhaddons”, in M. Witte et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW 365), Berlin – New York 2006, pp. 331–350; K. Radner, “Assyrische ṭuppi adě als Vorbild für Deuteronomium 28,20-44?”, ibid., pp. 351–378. Otto (Das Deuteronomium, 64-72) took it further, arguing that the composition of a pre-Deuteronomic oath of loyalty to YHWH was influenced by Esarhaddon Treaty, and should be dated between 672 (the time of the Esarhaddon Treaty) and 612 BCE (the fall of the Assyrian empire).

41 There is no parallel for vv. 43-44 in the Esarhaddon Treaty, but Steymans (Deuteronomium 28, 308) showed that its location in the biblical sequence parallels the final line (493) in the list of imprecations in the Esarhaddon Treaty: “Demon, fiend and evil spirit will choose your houses (to dwell in)”.

42 Bultmann, Der Fremde, 135-136. Bultmann also suggested that the insertion was influenced by the text of Lev. 25:47, which was written in the Second Temple period and reflected the presence of well-to-do sojourners,

43 An example of this is the law calling for the designation of cities of refuge in Deut. 19:1-13. The ancient Deuteronomic law (vv. 1-3) called for three cities of refuge west of the Jordan. But under the influence of the Priestly Law, which demanded six cities of refuge on either side of the Jordan (Numbers 35:9-15), a late editor added vv. 8-9 to chapter 19, thereby harmonizing the two texts. See: A.D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCBC), Grand Rapids – London 1981, 284, 287–288; A. Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy. Part I and Further Chapters, Jerusalem 1988, 97-101 (Hebrew); E. Ben Zvi, “The List of Levitical Cities”, JSOT 54 (1992), 91–94; L. Schmidt, “Leviten- und Asylstädte in Num. XXXV und Jos. XX; XXI 1-42”, VT 52 (2002), 109–110, 120–121. Another example is the law centralizing the cult in Deuteronomy 12, in which the ancient stratum in vv. 13-18 was expanded in vv. 20-28, as an exegesis to bridge between the law in Deuteronomy which permitted profane slaughter and the law in Lev. 17:1-7, which prohibited it. See: Mayes, Deuteronomy, 229–230; Ben Zvi, “Levitical Cities”, 93–94, with earlier literature in n. 1; Römer, Deuteronomistic History, 60–61.

44 W.L. Moran, “The Literary Connection between Lv. 11,13-19 and Dt. 14,12-18”, CBQ 28 (1966), 271–277; A.D.H. Mayes, “Deuteronomy 14 and the Deuteronomic World View”, in F. García Martinez et al. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C.J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, (SVT 53), Leiden 1994, 165–181; Römer, Deuteronomistic History, 129 n. 40.

45 N. Lohfink, “Das deuteronomische Gesetz in der Endgestalt – Entwurf einer Gesellschaft ohne marginale Gruppen”, BN 51 (1990), 25–40.

46 Extensive literature was written on the law of the king in the Book of Deuteronomy and I will mention only few works: K. Galling, “Das Königsgesetz im Deuteronomium”, ThLZ 81 (1951), 133–138; Caquot, “Remarques”, 21–33; Bultmann, Der Fremde, 145–157; F. Garcia Lopez, “Le roi d'Israël: Dt 17,14-20”, in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL 68), Leuven 1985, 277–297; U. Rüterswörden, Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde. Studien zu Dt 16,18 — 18,22 (BBB 65), Frankfurt 1987, 94–111; D.V. Reimer, “Concerning Return to Egypt: Deuteronomy XVII 16 and XXVIII 68 Reconsidered”, SVT 41 (1990), 217–229; C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, Josua und Salomo. Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament (SVT 58), Leiden 1995, 70–85; G.N. Knoppers, “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship”, ZAW 108 (1996), 329–346; idem, “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings”, CBQ 63 (2001), 397–409; W. Dietrich, “History and Law: Deuteronomistic Historiography and Deuteronomic Law Exemplified in the Passage from the Period of the Judges to the Monarchical Period”, in A. de Pury – T. Römer – J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs its History. Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTS 306), Sheffield 2000, 333–342; B.M. Levinson, “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History's Transformation of Torah”, VT 51 (2001), 520–534; P. Dutcher-Walls, “The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in Its Ancient Social Context”, JBL 121 (2002), 601–616; E. Nicholson “‘Do Not Dare to Set a Foreigner Over You’: The King in Deuteronomy and ‘The Great King’”, ZAW 118 (2006), 46–61.

47 Alfred Bertholet, (Die Stellung, 2), in the basic work on the sojourner in the Bible, defined the gēr as “der Fremde, der sich aufhält und verweilt im Lande und Volke”. The origin of the gēr and the foreigner (nåkrî) is the same, the latter becoming gēr by settling in the land. Writing about the kingdom of David and Solomon, Yehezkel Kaufmann wrote as follows: “The gērîm of that period were not gērîm in the later sense of the word. They were aliens who came to live in Eretz Israel and culturally assimilated among the Israelites, hence also religiously assimilated.” In the chapter on race and religion he wrote: “In addition there was in Israel from antiquity a special status of gērîm, which was not homogeneous in descent and social condition. A distinct racial and social entity were the Gibeonites and other Canaanite vestiges, which had not been destroyed and were subjugated to the temples. Over time they became faithful worshippers of God, and they were the “temple servants” (netînîm) and “sons of Solomon's servants” (beně ‘abdě Šelômô), who returned from Babylonia with the exiles … Other subjugated gērîm were the slaves and house-born aliens. They were circumcised, thereby making them into Israelites … And they took part in the Israelite cult… Besides these, there was also a class of free gērîm. They were aliens who had not assimilated into the tribes of Israel and did not inherit land, and over time became a special group of gērîm of undefined race. They constituted a low class of labourers doing hard work, and were sometimes numbered with the slaves and the indigent … By culture and religion that became complete Israelites, and were probably counted among the “mixed multitude”, or the “rabble”, which came out of Egypt with the Israelites.” See: Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, vol. II/1, Jerusalem 1947, 191, 458-459 (Hebrew). Isac Leo Seeligmann argued that the term “gēr” had various hues, yet “apparently had but one permanent flavour, denoting one who is not of pure Israelite descent, and his status differs from both that of a ‘brother’ and ‘citizen’ of Israel as well as that of a foreigner.” See I.L. Seeligmann, “Gēr”, Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 2, Jerusalem 1954, 546 (Hebrew). Roland de Vaux wrote that “when the Israelites settled in Canaan, they considered themselves the legitimate owners of the land, the ‘people of the land’; the former inhabitants, unless they were assimilated by marriage or reduced to slavery, became gērîm, and to this were added immigrants.” He went on: “Since all landed property was in Israelite hands, the gērîm were reduced to hiring out their services”. See: R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel. Vol. 1: Social Institutions, New York – Toronto 1965, 74–75. Christiana van Houten (The Alien), consistently defined the gērîm as “aliens”, and did so in the title of her book, The Alien in Israelite Law. On p. 160 she writes that “In the Deuteronomic laws the aliens are clearly and consistently treated as a non-Israelite”.

48 Crüsemann, The Torah, 183–185; idem, “Das Bundesbuch”, 33–35; M. Cohen, “Le ‘ger’ biblique et son statut socio-religieux”, RHR 207 (1990), 146–148. For criticism of the suggestion that the sojourners migrated from the kingdom of Israel, see Bultmann, Der Fremde, 44, 213–214.

49 Seeligmann, “Gēr”, 546–549 (Hebrew); Cohen, “Le ‘ger’ biblique”, 131–158; J.D. Amusin, “Die Gerim in der sozialen Legislatur des Alten Testaments”, Klio 63 (1981), 15–23; Van Houten, The Alien, 159–162.

50 Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 191-193, 459-461 (Hebrew); Milgrom “Religious Conversion”, 169–176; idem, Numbers, 398–402; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972, 229–232

51 Bultmann, Der Fremde, 176-179. Bultmann noted the late redaction of vv. 33-34, but made no reference to the text in Lev. 23:22. Knohl (Sanctuary of Silence, 8-14) noted that chapter 23 was based on the Priestly Law, and was worked and expanded in the Holiness Code.

52 I. Finkelstein, “State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, a Contrast in Trajectory”, Near Eastern Archaeology 62 (1999), 35–52; Na'aman, “Jerusalem”, 30–31.

53 I. Finkelstein – N.A Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York 2001, 243–245; idem, David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York 2006, 129–138; I. Finkelstein, “On Vanished Pottery and Unexplained Population Growth: An Answer to Nadav Na'aman Regarding the Expansion of Jerusalem in the Eighth Century BCE”, Zion 72 (2007), 325–337 (Hebrew); W.M. Schniedewind, “Jerusalem, the Late Judaean Monarchy, and the Composition of the Biblical Texts”, in A.G. Vaughn – A.E. Killebrew (eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, Atlanta 2003, 380–381, 385–386; idem, How the Bible became a Book. The Textualization of Ancient Israel, Cambridge 2004, 68–73, 94–95. For criticism of this view, see Na'aman, “Jerusalem”, 21–56; idem, “The Growth and Development of Judah and Jerusalem in the Eighth Century BCE and the Assumed “Melting Pot” Policy Attributed to King Hezekiah. A Response to Israel Finkelstein”, Zion 72 (2007), 338–346 (Hebrew).

54 U. Dahmen, Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien (BBB 110), Bodenheim 1996, 388–405.

55 E. Otto, “Die post-deuteronomistische Levitisierung des Deuteronomiums. Zu einem Buch von Ulrich Dahmen”, ZAR 5 (1999), 277–284; R. Achenbach, “Levitische Priester und Leviten im Deuteronomium. Überlegungen zur sog. “Levitisierung” der Priestertums”, ibid, 285–393.

56 The distinction between the two post-Deuteronomistic redactions lies beyond the scope of the present article, and will be discussed as a single late redaction. For a critique of the distinction between the two redactions, see Otto, “Die post-deuteronomistische Levitisierung”, 279–282; Achenbach, “Levitische Priester”, 287–290.

57 Dahmen, Leviten und Priester, 263-310. Dahmen divided the text expansion into two stages: in the first the editor added “the Levitical priests”, to emphasize the priests' membership of the tribe of Levi. In the second stage, a pro-Levite, claiming privileges for the Levites, expanded v. 1 and added vv. 2, 5, 6-8. However, Udo Rüterswörden (Von der politischen Gemeinschaft, 65-72) argues that vv. 6-8 belong to the original text of Deuteronomy.

58 Dahmen, Leviten und Priester, 368–373.

59 For discussion of the framework of the laws, see Dahmen, Leviten und Priester, 21–202.

60 In a recently published article, Mark Leuchter interpreted the phrase “the Levites in your gates” to mean their nomination as judges in the gates, the locus where the traditional jurisprudence took place. He considered it part of the Josianic judicial reform in which the Levites, whom he regards as the local clergy in all Judahite cities and villages, were appointed “judges and magistrates in all your gates” (Deut. 16:18). See M. Leuchter, “‘The Levite in Your Gates’: The Deuteronomic Redefinition of Levitical Authority”, JBL 126 (2007), 417–436. However, firstly Leuchter ignored the many references to the personae miserae (sojourners, orphans, widows, the poor) who, like the Levites and sometimes side by side with them, are referred to in the Book of Deuteronomy as “within the gates” (Deut. 5:14; 14:21, 29; 15:7, 14; 26:12; 31:12). Secondly, the term “Levitical priests” indicates that there were other priests who were not Levites. The local clergy in the Judahite towns was either of Levitical or non Levitical families. Thirdly, Leuchter ignored the obvious fact that neither in the Book of Deuteronomy nor in the Book of Jeremiah are Levites referred to as judges. It is only the priests who according the laws of Deuteronomy were sitting in judgment (17:8-12; 19:17; 21:5). Moreover, the office of judge is held in preexilic biblical literature by high functionaries (the king, his high officials and the priests), and by the local authorities – certainly not by the Levites. The hypothesis of a Josianic judicial reform in which the Levites held a pivotal place, and which was further promoted by Jeremiah, rests on shifting sands and should be abandoned.

61 12:19 “Take heed that you do not forsake the Levite as long as you live in your land” was probably added in the post-Deuteronomistic redaction. Compare 8:11a: “Take heed lest you forget YHWH your God”. See: Römer, Deuteronomistic History, 57 n. 26.

62 For discussion of Deut. 18:1-8, in addition to the commentaries see: J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (5th ed.), Berlin 1899, 142–143; G.E. Wright, “The Levites in Deuteronomy”, VT 4 (1954), 325–330; John A. Emerton, “Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy”, VT 12 (1962), 129–138; A.H.J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester. Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte der israelitisch-jüdischen Kultpersonals (FRLANT 89), Göttingen 1965, 126–138; A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (Analecta Biblica, 35), Rome 1969, 129–132; R. Abba, “Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy”, VT 27 (1977), 257–277; J.G. McConville, “Priests and Levites in Ezekiel: A Crux in the Interpretation of Israel's History”, Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983), 5–9; idem, Law and Ideology in Deuteronomy (JSOTSup 33), Sheffield 1984, 136–147; R.K. Duke, “The Portion of the Levite: Another Reading of Deuteronomy 18:6-8”, JBL 106 (1987), 193–201.

63 This interpretation was first suggested by S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC), New York 1895, 217. For additional discussions and literature, see McConville, Law and Ideology, 145–146; Duke, “The Portion of the Levite”, 194–195.

64 D.L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:10-21:9, revised (WBC 6A), Nashville 2001, 391–392, 397–398; R.D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, a Commentary (OTL), Louisville – London 2002, 228, with earlier literature.

65 Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 121, 142–143; Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, 118–132; McConville, Law and Ideology, 132-135, 145–147; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 231–232; idem, “The Role of the Priesthood in the Deuteronomistic History”, SVT 43 (1991), 141–144; E. Nicholson, “Josiah and the Priests of the High Places (II Reg 23,8a,9)”, ZAW 119 (2007), 499–513, with earlier literature.

66 Scholars have argued that vv. 9b-10 were inserted at a later stage into the text, and that the original sequence comprised vv. 8-9a, 11–13. See: Römer, Deuteronomistic History, 79 n. 22, with earlier literature.

67 Rofé ascribed the portion on the decapitated heifer to the Deuteronomic phase of the redaction of Deuteronomy (which he labelled SD 2). See: Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy, 90-91, with rearlier literature in n. 17 (Hebrew); Dahmen, Leviten und Priester, 321–334.

68 August Dillmann interpreted vv. 6-8 as follows: “Die auf dem Land lebenden Mitglieder des Stamms, die, weil am Heiligtumsdienst factisch nicht betheiligt, eben nur Leviten …, nicht KHNYM (wie v. 3) genannt werden, bekommen, wenn sie in den Dienst am Heiligthum eintreten, dieselben Rechte auf die Einkünfte, wie die dort befindlichen LWYM, welche also hier die KHNYM in sich schliessen. Deutlich ist somit ein Unterschied zwischen Pristern u. Leviten gemacht … nur ein anderer als bei A (bei welchem Leviten die Gehilfen u. Diener der Priester sind)”. See: A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua (KHAT 13), Leipzig 1886, 326–327; Driver, Deuteronomy, 219–221; Cody, Old Testament Priesthood, 125-132. Contra: Duke, “Portion of the Levite”, 193–201.

69 The investigation of the origin of the Levites has been treading water for many years, and neither new data nor new ideas have been adduced in recent times to move it forward. For literature on this subject, see: J. Licht, “Levi, Levites”, Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 4, Jerusalem 1962, 461-469 (Hebrew); Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, 52–64; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 2: Religious Institutions, New York – Toronto 1961, 358–371; idem, “‘Lévites’ Minéens et Lévites Israélites”, Bible et Orient, Paris 1967, 277–285; Cody, Old Testament Priesthood, 29-38, 52–61; C.H.J. de Geus, The Tribes of Israel. An Investigation into Some of the Presuppostions of Martin Noth's Amphictyony Hypothesis (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 18), Assen and Amsterdam 1976, pp. 97–108; A. Jepsen, “Mose und die Leviten”, VT 31 (1981), 318–323; A. Rofé, “Moses' Blessing, the Sanctuary at Nebo and the Origin of the Levites”, in Y. Avishur – J. Blau (eds.), Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East: Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on his Seventieth Birthday, Jerusalem 1978, 409–424 (Hebrew); M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel – An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Oxford 1978, 71–83; G. Schmitt, “Der Ursprung des Levitentums”, ZAW 114 (1982), 575–599; H. Schulz, Leviten im vorstaatlichen Israel und im Mittleren Osten, München 1987, 15–180; M.D. Rehm, “Levites and Priests”, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, New York 1992, 297–310; D. Kellermann, “lēwî; lewîyîm”, in G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 7, Grand Rapids 1995, 483–494

70 N. Na'aman, “A New Look at the System of Levitical Cities”, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4), Jerusalem 1986, 203–236.

71 Ben Zvi, “Levitical Cities”, 84–100; Schmidt, “Leviten- und Asylstädte”, 104–117.

72 Na'aman, “A New Look”, 217–218, 227–234. Although Graeme Auld proposed that the masoretic text in the Book of Joshua was produced by a very late redaction of the list of Levitical cities in the Book of Chronicles – in my opinion an unacceptable suggestion – he did note that the list of 13 cities of the sons of Aaron reflected the ancient stratum of the text. See: A.G. Auld, “The ‘Levitical Cities’: Texts and History”, ZAW 91 (1979), 195–194, 204–205.

73 A.G. Auld, “The Cities in Joshua 21: The Contribution of Textual Criticism” Textus 15 (1990), 146; Ben Zvi, “Levitical Cities”, 101–102; V. Fritz, Das Buch Josua (HAT I/7), Tübingen 1994, 210–215; G. Schmitt, “Levitenstädte”, ZDPV 111 (1995), 46–47; R.D. Nelson, Joshua, a Commentary (OTL), Louisville 1997, 239; G.N. Knoppers, “Projected Age Comparisons of the Levitical Townlists: Divergent Theories and Their Significance”, Textus 22 (2005) 21–63.

74 Schmidt “Leviten- und Asylstädte”, 117–120.

75 S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (2nd revised ed.), Oxford 1913, 349; J.R. Bartlett, “Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem”, JhTS N.S. 19 (1968), 10–11; S. Olyan, “Zadok's Origins and the Tribal Politics of David”, JBL 101 (1982), 190–192. Driver has noted that such lists generally include the official's city of origin but not his family name. For a different view, see: P.K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB), Garden City 1984, 434.

76 F.-M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine II, Paris 1938, 391–392; D. Jericke, Die Landnahme im Negev. Protoisraelitische Gruppen im Süden Palästinas: Eine archäologische und exegetische Studie (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 20), Wiesbaden 1997, 210–211, 302–303, 324; N. Na'aman, “Ostracon 40 from Arad Reconsidered”, in C.G. den Hertog – U. Hübner – S. Münger (eds.), Saxa loquentur. Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels. Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum 65. Geburtstag, Münster 2003, 202.

77 For the town list of Simeon, see N. Na'aman, “The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon”, ZDPV 96 (1980), 136–152; Fritz, Das Buch Josua, 185–187; Jericke, Landnahme im Negev, 299-325, with earlier literature; Z. Kallai, “Simeon's Town List: Scribal Rules and Geographical Patterns”, VT 53 (2003), 81–96

78 N. Lissovsky – N. Na'aman, “A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes”, UF 35 (2003), 305, 318, 321.

79 It is accepted in German scholarship that the list of Simeon's cities (Josh. 19:2-9) was borrowed from the cities of Judah in Joshua 15. See: A. Alt, “Beiträge zur historischen Geographie und Topographie des Negeb III. Saruhen, Ziklag, Horma, Gerar”, JPOS 15 (1935), 303–305 (reprint: Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III, München 1953, 417–419); M. Noth, Das Buch Josua (HAT I/7), Tübingen 1953, 113; W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT I/21), Tübingen 1955, 38–39; K. Elliger, “Tribes, Territories of”, in G.A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, New York – Nashville 1962, 709; S. Mittmann, “Ri. 1,16f und das Siedlungsgebiet der kenitischen Sippe Hobab”, ZDPV 93 (1977), 217–218 n. 14; Fritz, Das Buch Josua, 186.

80 Jericke (Landnahme im Negev, 301-302) has noted the divergence between the city lists of Judah and Simeon, and highlighted the different aim underlying either list: the list of Judah's cities is an administrative one, as distinct from the list of Simeon's cities, which represents the tribe's settlements.

81 Schmitt, “Levitenstädte”, 46–47.

82 Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem 1981, 80–84; A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques, vol. 1: Les ostraca, Paris, 209-211, 227; F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp et al., Hebrew Inscriptions. Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance, New Haven 2005, 77–80, with earlier literature. In line 3 I prefer the reading “son of YKNYHW” (cf. Jer. 24:1; 27:20; 28:4; 29:2) rather than the accepted reading “sons of KNYHW”, because wherever the inscription refers to “sons of (whoever)” there is a dot separating the words, but it is missing in the phrase “son of GLGL” (the restoration “[so]n of ṢMḤ” in line 11 is uncertain and I prefer restoring a personal name that ends with an N rather then [B]N).

83 Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques, 210–211.

84 K. Möhlenbrink, “Die levitischen Überlieferungen des Alten Testaments”, ZAW 52 (1934), 191–197; de Vaux, Religious Institutions, 370; J. Liver, “Korah, Dathan and Abiram”, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961), 210–215; F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge, Mass. – London 1973, 206–207

85 A. Lemaire, “Un nouveau roi Arabe de Qedar dans l'inscription de l'autel à encens de Lakish”, RB 81 (1974), 63–72.

86 J.M. Miller, “The Korahites of Southern Judah”, CBQ 32 (1970), 58–68.

87 Scholars have proposed a variety of suggestions about the circle that wrote the Book of Deuteronomy, because it presents interests that might be attributed to diverse circles in Judahite society (scribes, priests, sages, prophets), and expressed various, even contradictory, theological views. A large part of the diverse aims and contradictory views found in the work is due to the extensive redactions it underwent during the exile and the Second Temple period, which greatly changed its original character. Moreover, a clear distinction must be made between the small circle that composed the early Deuteronomy and preserved it and the circle of supporters of Josiah's reform, which was influenced by its ideological platform and was naturally a wider group, as might be expected from such a far-reaching political-religious-social move. Consequently, we must reject any solution suggesting that the work was composed by all the circles whose interests and ideologies it reflects (e.g., Nelson, Deuteronomy, 6-8). The circle responsible for it must be sought in a small ideological group which wrote it and preserved it in the following years.

88 The southern origin of the priestly family which served in the temple of Jerusalem, and its close connection with the Levites who dwelled in the southern Judean mountain region, could account for the biblical traditions about the connection of the people of Israel with groups inhabiting the country's southern frontier, such as the Kenites, whose centre was in Arad (Judg. 1:16), as well as Jethro/Reuel the Midianite. It could also explain the intense hostility evinced in the biblical literature towards the Amalekites, camel-driving nomads who inhabited the desert frontier and raided the nearby settlements.

89 The supposition that the priests of Anathoth were Shilonites rests on the text of 1 Kgs. 2:26 according to which Abiathar, scion of the Elides of Shiloh, was exiled to his estate in Anathoth. Hence some scholars suggested that Jeremiah and the other priests of Anathoth who lived hundreds of years later were descendants of the House of Eli. See M.A. Cohen, “The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel”, HUCA 30 (1965), 89–94; M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel – An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Winona Lake 1985, 87 n. 2, 101, 119-120. However, Jeremiah neither refers to Abiathar as his ancestor nor to Shiloh as the ancestral place of his forefathers. In my opinion, the reference to the location of Abiathar's estate in Anathoth rests on the residence of priestly families, possibly of Levitical origin, in the place at the time that the Succession Narrative was written. This suggested to the author that Abiathar's estate was also in Anathoth. Shiloh was destroyed in the second half of the 11th century BCE and there was no significant settlement there in the Iron II and Persian periods. See I. Finkelstein, “Iron I Shiloh: Twenty Years Later”, in M. Müller – T.L. Thompson (eds.), Historie og konstruktion. Festskrift til Niels Peter Lemche, Copenhagen 2005, 142–152. In light of the enormous chronological gap between the destruction of Shiloh in the 11th century and the time in which the biblical historiography was written, it is impossible to establish the place of the Shilonite priesthood in the kingdom of Judah in the late monarchical period.

90 Cross (Canaanite Myth, 207-215) supposed that Zadok came from a Levitical family originally from Hebron. See also: M. Haran, “studies in the Account of the Levitical Cities”, JBL 80 (1961), 161. The suggestion about Zadok's originating in Hebron is a possible one, but lacking support in the sources and remains a mere supposition.

91 Ben Zvi, “Levitical Cities”, 100–105.

92 N. Na'aman, “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History”, in I. Finkelstein – N. Na'aman (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy, Jerusalem 1994, 255–256.

93 M. Kochavi, “Khirbet Rabûd = Debir”, Tel Aviv 1 (1974), 13, 16–18.

94 Z. Yeivin, “The Silver Hoard from Eshtemoa”, ‘Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 10 (1990), 42–55 (Hebrew).

95 R. Kletter – E. Brand, “A New Look at the Iron Age Silver Hoard from Eshtemoa”, ZDPV 114 (1998), 139–154.

96 Many hoards have been discovered in sites that were destroyed and abandoned. See e.g., A. Golani – B. Sass, “Three Seventh Century BCE Hoards of Silver Jewlery from Tel Miqne-Ekron”, BASOR 311 (1998), 57–81; B. Sass, “An Iron Age I Jewellery Hoard from Cave II/3 in Wadi el-Makkuk”, Atiqot 41 (2002), 21–33; S. Gitin – A. Golani, “The Tel Miqne-Ekron Silver Hoards: The Assyrian and Phoenicia Connections”, in M.S. Balmuth (ed.), Hacksilber to Coinage: New Insights into the Monetary History of the Near East and Greece, New York 2001, 27–48, with earlier literature.

97 A. Ofer, The Highland of Judah during the Biblical Period, vol. I-II (Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University 1993, Part II, 59 (Hebrew); J.R. Chadwick, The Archaeology of Biblical Hebron in the Bronze and Iron Ages: An Examination of the Discoveries of the American Expedition to Hebron (Ph.D. Thesis), University of Utah, 1992, 114–128, 138–139, with earlier literature.

98 Ofer, The Highland of Judah, Part III, 47, 50-52 (Hebrew).

99 The Assyrian army reached Jerusalem, most likely via Beth-horon, having crossed the land of Benjamin. But we do not know if it stopped to capture cities and villages along the road, or headed straight to Jerusalem. On surveys conducted in the land of Benjamin, see: I. Finkelstein – Y. Magen (eds.), Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem 1993 (Hebrew).

100 F.C. Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature”, JNES 21 (1962), 129–139; Krapf, “Fremdling-Waise-Witwe-Gebot”, 87–91; N. Lohfink, Option for the Poor. The Basic Principle of Liberation Theology in the Light of the Bible, Berkekey 1987, 18–23, 29–32; C. Houtman, Das Bundesbuch. Ein Kommentar (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 24), Leiden 1997, 237–241, with earlier literature in p. 237.

101 A. Faust, Israelite Society in the Period of the Monarchy. An Archaeological Perspective, Jerusalem 2005, 130–131, 187–189, 294–296 (Hebrew). Faust correctly rejected the analysis of Baruch Halpern, who supposed that the system of the extended family was shattered in the 7th century BCE, and the nuclear family became the dominant form in Judahite society. On the contrary – in the regions that were not affected by the Assyrian campaign the extended family remained in existence, and this framework was preserved until the fall of the First Temple. For Halpern's discussion, see: B. Halpern, “Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability”, in B. Halpern – D.W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOTSup 124). Sheffield 1991, 68–77.

102 See note 51 above.

103 For discussion of the Meṣad Ḥashaviahu letter, see Dobbs-Allsopp et al., Hebrew Inscriptions, 357-367, with earlier literature in 368–370.

104 Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, wrote that he had mobilized “the 22 kings of Hatti, the seashore and the islands”, including Manasseh, king of Judah, and ordered them to cut down trees and carry them to his capital Nineveh, for the construction of his palace. See: R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (AfOB 9), Osnabrück 1967, 60–61 (V 54 – VI 1).

105 Faust, Israelite Society, 116-122, 247–248.

106 For the various activities taking place in the gates according to the Book of Deuteronomy, see 5:14; 12: 15, 17, 18, 21; 14: 21, 27–29; 15:7, 22; 16:5, 11, 14, 18; 17:2, 5, 8; 18:6; 18:6; 23:17; 24:14; 26:12; 31:12.