First Kings 21:17-19
The Evolution Of Prophetism At Mari And Israel

Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite: "Go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who rules in Samaria. He is now in Naboth's vineyard, where he has gone to take possession of it. Say to him, `This is what the LORD says: Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?' Then say to him, `This is what the LORD says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth's blood, dogs will lick up your blood--yes, yours!'"

See also ../quest.txt

 Anything and everything in culture has an evolutionary development or a history. In particular, everything in Israel has a developmental history. For instance, the Hebrew alphabet did not just pop up on the scene; it developed out of a cuneiform pictorial style of writing, e.g. daleth ("d") was first written or drawn as a door. Why the Lord chose the Hebrew alphabet as a medium of communication is hard to ascertain, especially since at least five letters of the twenty-two letters look so much alike and are easily confused, and worse, it is a consonantal language with originally no vowels, punctuation, or spaces between words. "Cny'mgntht"[Sample] Furthermore, when David wrote some of the Psalms, he borrowed entire hymns to Baal from the Ugaritic peoples, only changing the name Baal to the sacred tetragrammton "YHWH," perhaps similar to Martin Luther adopting German bar room songs for his hymnology in the church. "Today it is clearer than ever that certain points of view, terms, and basic concepts that can be found in the Ugaritic texts were the common possession of religions in the Canaanite and Syrian world."[1] The scriptures in Exodus and Leviticus assume the reader or the hearer of the law has a working knowledge of how to offer a basic sacrifice.[2] Here the subject is prophetism. Within the biblical text itself one finds great difficulty in trying to trace the development of prophetism. According to the rabbis (b. Meg. 14a) there were forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses in Israel.[3] The "major" and "minor" prophets wrote their messages within a two hundred and fifty year span from 750- 500 B.C.E.[4]  These prophets are not figures in the history books, except for the rare mention of Isaiah and Jonah in the book of Kings, so it is difficult to understand their prophetic development. For the most part these literary prophets do not do miracles (except Isaiah with Hezekiah). The further one searches back into the text, the more nebulous and diversified are the forms of prophetism. In the time of the monarchy, a non-literary type of prophet, Nathan and Gad, worked in the court of the king. Somewhat later Elijah served as a mysterious free lance prophet.  He appears to be a transitional link to the writing prophets.  He performed miracles, preached to a king, but did not write.  He is seen as a transitional prophet moving from miracles to the miracle of the spoken word.
[5] Elijah totally terrified king Ahab with three Hebrew words, Have you not murdered a man and seized his property? haratzachta vegam-yarshta? Then Samuel, predating the monarchy, also seems to be a transitional prophet. He served as a judge, a diviner, and a prophet mixing these three functions that later evolved into the non-miracle performing prophet. Perhaps the prophet was historically a successor to the judges and the kings, especially as Samuel appears as the transition figure and the kingmaker.[6]  As one looks at the monarchical period, the urim and thummim appear in I Samuel 23 as strange prophetic instruments. David inquired on two occassions of the priest Abiathar concerning war and expected an answer through these divinatory objects. In the time of the judges, Gideon set out his fleeces and overheard a prophetic dream related in the enemy's tent. The strangeness of the vehicles of Hebrew prophecy continues as one looks into the divination cup of Joseph, the ladder dream of Jacob, the direct dialogues of Abraham and others with God or with his angels. God speaks in the rustling mulberry tree or the burning bush in the Old Testament. Can one trace a pattern of development in the role and office of the prophet within the Old Testament?  Prophecy comes in many forms and through various persons (laypersons, priests, and royalty). Because of critical research and the confusing contents in the biblical text much diversity has reigned on the issue of prophetic development. One extrabiblical source which can help the historian to trace the development of prophecy is the archives of Mari. I hope to trace three "categories" of prophetism in Israel. The first category, consisting of divination, dreams, and utterances, is reflected strongly at Mari. The second category, "the court prophets," is really a finer distinction of the first category and is in embryo at Mari. The third category of prophetism, classical- literary or public-oriented prophecy, does not exist at Mari at all, perhaps because of the arresting of the evolutionary process at Mari by king Hammurabi's destruction of that cultural center.

 I hope to trace the three categories of prophetism in Israel against the backdrop of Marian prophecy. The first problem one encounters in making any comparison between the two cultures is the chronological gap of at least eight hundred years and at most one thousand years. The tablets were entombed during the conflagration caused by Hammurabi of Babylon about 1757 B.C.E. The first biblical texts were not enscribed until at least the turn of the first millenium and the bulk of the prophetic texts were not written until the middle of that same millenium. Another problem is that the tablets of Mari were found in the royal city and pertain to the king's affairs; therefore, they do not represent society at large. This misprepresentation causes a sociological gap. Despite the problems, Mari is still useful for historical reconstruction of prophetism. The fact is that no prophecy anywhere in the Near East had developed in a vaccum. Just as the Hebrew priests borrowed from other cultures and developed out of other contexts so did the Hebrew prophets. James F. Ross wrote an article on the relationship of Aramaic prophecy at Hamath in the ninth and eighth centuries with Hebrew (Israel) and Akkadian (Mari) prophecy.[7] He believes the prophets of Hamath did not borrow their terminology and content from Israel but from the prophets at Mari.[8]John F. Craghan establishes the importance of Mari to Old Testament prophetism, writing, "Just as its tribal organization and institutions parallel those found in the Bible, so too its prophets provide a link with the Israelite prophetic movement. Hence the Akkadian correspondence from Mari cannot be ignored."[9]  Klaus Koch is most enthusiastic concerning the justification of comparing the two prophetic cultures. In alluding to the issue of whether Amos was an institutional-cultic or independent-charismatic prophet, he says it is not worth debating the possibility of a contradictory role because of what one finds at Mari. Koch writes, "Even a thousand years before, in Mari, we find charismatic and cultic prophets side by side, with the same aim."[10] In short, the importance of Mari in tracing the development of prophetism is "for all practical purposes unparalleled outside of the Old Testament."[11] Lastly, Blenkinsopp believes Marian prophecy is "fairly typical" of the entire area of Syria and Mesopotamia.[12]

 Concerning the three categories of prophecy in Israel, two are attested at Mari. I choose the word "category" instead of "stage" because one does not find the categories in isolation. Unfortunately the term "category" is not accurate because the prophetic types overlap and appear through out the Bible. The categories or the stages of evolution: are not marked out for the historian. At Mari categories one and two are present. Category one includes such prophecy as divination, dreams, and utterances. Category one is the best attested of all the categories. Category two is rare but may provide a transition piece to Israel's court prophets. The continuing problem is that category one is also very prominent nearly a millenium later in early biblical prophecy. To explain the descendancy of category one and the ascendancy of categories two and three one must look outside of the Mari tablets as Holladay has done.[13] He attributes the "terror psychology" of the Assyrian government as the cause for the evolutionary step from the court room prophet (category two) to the popular prophet (category three). Since the Assyrians changed the policy regarding the disciplining of a rebellious country from the old time practice of removing only the disobedient vassal king to the revolutionary practice of holding the entire people responsible for the uprising, they began removing the entire population into captivity for their continued insurrections. This modification in Assyrian diplomacy necessitated the need for a prophet to the people and brought the private royal prophet out to the public domain. Assyrian diplomacy helped category two evolve into category three.

 Before I proceed any further, the texts of the Archives Royales De Mari or ARM referring to prophecy are:[14]

 Public prophecies: ARM X: 7, 8, 50, 53, 81; ARMT XIII: 23 114; A.455.

 Private prophecies: ARM(T) II; 90; III: 40, 78; ARM X: 4, 6, 9, 80, 100;

 A.1121, 2731, 4260.

 Dreams: ARM X: 10, 50, 51, 94, 117; ARMT XIII: 112, 113; A.15

 Signs: ARM X: 4.

 Again, category one consists of divination, dreams, and utternaces.  Divination, the seeking of an answer from a god, has a wide development in the ancient Near East. In particular divination has developed the "science" of extispicy, haruspexy, or hepatoscopy. Extispicy has preeminence over all other forms of prophecy in the ancient Near East and has itself experienced its own evolution.[15] First, the Babylonians and the Assyrians were developers of the art of omens one to two thousand years before the common era. They divined information from eclipses of the sun, moon, storms, from the birth of deformed children or animals, from the flight of birds or the path of ants, from the rising of smoke or the flowing of oil dropped in water, etc. etc.[16] These signs were called ittum (Hebrew 'ot) and were interpreted by a priest called baru. The baru, when he induced the omen himself, called it tertum, which some have thought corresponded to the Hebrew torah.[17] This false identification of the Torah with the Akkadian tertum (message, law; derived from go, send) "becomes more sinister when Jensen claims that tertu sometimes denotes the liver in Accadian, and Zimmern draws the conclusion from this that oracles [of the Hebrew prophets] were given out as the result of that branch of sacrificial augury which is called hepatoscopy."[18]  Secondly, as the development of extispicy occurred, it rose to preeminence. The divinatory procedures are briefly described as follows. The baru priest would whisper a question into the animal's ear, then slaughter it, and then read the form taken by certain parts of the body especially the liver in order to find the answer to the question. The priest also had a magic ritual to make evil turn away or to direct it to other objects or persons. The priest rarely required any moral action from the inquiring person.[19]  Very important to note is that the prophetic texts at Mari require an extispicy be performed in order to authenticate the less respectable messages given by dreams or utterances, This divinatory subcategory of prophecy is evident through out scripture (even in Acts), but seems to be condemned by the Deuteronomistic writing prophets of Israel for the most part. Extispicy was not halakhically practised in Israel nor scripturally authorized for Israelites.

 Dreaming prophecy is also part of category one, but it also overlaps with category two to a degree. Most of the dreams recorded in the ancient Near East were by private persons. There were no professional interpreters of dreams of any priestly or social standing anywhere in the organized religions in Mesopotamia.[20] Oneiromancy was held in low esteem, therefore it is rare to find divine dream messages in the ancient Near East.[21] Perhaps dream messages were rarely sought because it did not involve the official technical expertise, craftsmanship, or education. Dream messages might easily lead to a popular practice of religion and devaluate the worth of a priestly class. One commoner might rationalize, "Why pay a priest to help me with the future when I can have God enter my very immediate dream world?" As mentioned before, the baru priests at Mari had a very developed system of foretelling the future or bringing answers from God to the petitioners which was based on the sacrifice of expensive animals and the interpretation of the bloody entrails according to a sophisticated system. The way dream messages evolve at Mari is that it is valid for a variety of persons, cultic or non-cultic, male or female to experience a dream message, but the prophecy must be supported and authenticated by extispicy. Thus, the priesthood has the final say in the message. However, the priesthood does not retain this exclusive power over authentification of the dream message or of any type of prophecy. The authentification of prophecy develops according to "the hair and hem" symbolism which will be discussed more fully in later paragraphs.

 Again, dream prophecy seems to overlap with categories one and two. Dream messages were not common at Mari or anywhere in the ancient Near East. One auditory dream message is known at Mari in text A.15, which seems to show how a man "heard the divine voice when he was in prostration or when he turned around to leave the cella."[22] In the Bible dream messages appear early in Genesis and continue into the New Testament as a sort of pristine method of immediate divine communication. This form of prophetic communication is not disallowed by scripture but must be practiced under at least two conditions. The dream message must follow the basic test for any authentic word from God: it must not lead to apostasy and it must be fulfilled completely (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20-22). A third condition for biblical dreaming might also include that such dreams should not be induced or sought after (Jeremiah 27:9ff.). The significance of this auditory dreamer at Mari in text A.15 is that it appears that the priesthood of the temple of Dagan in Terqa is trying to control the political affairs of the king of Mari. This aspect links the prophetic nature closer to category two, where court prophets have the potential to challenge the king. Other dream texts seem to have courtly characteristics. ARM XIII: 112, also from the same temple and city as the previous text, warns the king in a dream against rebuilding a temple. ARM X: 10 contains a message from a prophetess warning king Zimri-Lim not to travel because of dangers against his life. ARM XIII: 113 and X: 5 have military prophecies for the king. These dream prophecies relate to some degree to "the court room prophet," and perhaps should be classed as such, but I will try to refine my categories.

 In addition to prophecy by divination and dreams, category one includes prophecy by utterance. Prophecy by utterance was performed by either ecstatic or non-ecstatic means. This prophecy came by both cultic and non-cultic persons, by professionals or laypersons, by men or women, rich or poor, slave or free, young or old, and heterosexual or homosexual. In modern liberal terms they appear to be more democratic than contemporary prophetism. The cultic professionals were called apilum (male) or apiltum (female) and muhhum (male) or muhhutum (female). The apilum are literally "one who responds," and corresponds perhaps to the Hebrew verb 'nh.[23] This prophet does not go into a trance but transmits a word from a deity.  The muhhum prophet does go into an ecstatic trance, sometimes violently so; this word may correspond to the Hebrew meshugga',[24] or the hithpael of nb'.[25] (The word nabi, literally "entrusted with a message," was found in twenty-third century Ebla.)[26] The cuneiform determinative for this word "one who is ecstatic" is a picture of "a human figure in violent motion or epileptic convulsion."[27]  In addition to the professional cultic person who would prophesy, non-cultic prophets are found at Mari. These persons consisted of ordinary citizens.[28]  This democratic nature of prophecy is considered atypical in comparison to other Semitic and Babylonian groups. The abundance of women who prophesy is striking.[29]  Sometimes a cultic person, not normally a prophet, might be moved to prophesy as in the case of the sangum priest (ARM X: 51) and an assinnu cult worker (perhaps a eunuch or a male who dressed up as a woman or a homosexual) (ARM X: 6, 7). The prophecies uttered by any of these persons needed to be authenticated by "objective" extispicy.[30]  Dreams or utterances can only propose; it is the haruspex which disposes.[31]

 In addition to the ecstatic and non-ecstatic utterances by professionals and laypersons, there is another refinement that can be made to utterance prophecies: public or private utterances.[32] In this distinction lies the significance for understanding the evolution of prophecy. The public prophecies given by any individual were usually made outside the city of Mari in a vassal city subjugated to the patron king of Mari. These cities include Aleppo, Sippar, Tuttul, and especially Terqa.[33]  When a prophecy originated in one of these towns, the message was usually (with 2-3 exceptions) sent to the king with a lock of hair and the fringe of the dreamer's or the prophet's garment.[34]  If the prophecies were given privately, the hair and hem symbols were never required.[35]  In either the public or the private prophecies, the king would be encouraged to authenticate the prediction by means of extispicy, if he thought it necessary. ARM X: 94, 5'-14' provides of sample of this double system of prophecy:[36]

 In the dream (it went) thus: A man of [...] stepped forward and thus he (spoke): "Let the girl, the daughter of X-pahim..., Tagidnate, be sum[moned]." This he said to me. Now let my lord have the ha[rus]pex look into the matter, and if this [dr]eam was s[e]en, my lord, have confidence in this girl and let her be summoned.

 One must keep in mind that the hair and hem symbols were usually sent along with public prophecies. The hair and hem of the prophet was sent for several possible purposes: to authenticate a revelation,[37] to limit the number of prophecies coming to the palace by identifying the source of the oracle,[38] to hold a person legally responsible,[39] or to have magical control over the individual.[40] Other occurences of the word "hem" in the Mari tablets denote it as a symbol of submission to another power.[41] ARMT VI: 26, 3' and 8'-9' says:[42]

Saisis le pan du  vetement de Zi[mri-Lim] (Seize the tail of the garment of Zimri-Lim.)

Selon l'ordre de mon pays, j'ai saisi le pan du vetement de mon seigneur; que mon seigneur ne repousse pas ma main! (According to the order of my country, I seized the tail of the garment of my lord, so that my lord does not reject my hand!)

ARMT VI: 33, 31 says:[43]

Et tu portes le bord du manteau de [cette] maison. (And you are carrying the edge of the cloak of this house.)

As an idiomatic expression, the last quote means "you have the power over that political entity." In these two texts the primary purpose of the securing of the hem was to seize or control an individual or group, that is to subjugate one to royal authority.[44] Thus the primary purpose of these symbols is to demonstrate the royal authority over against any other claimants to power. If the prophecy originated outside the city of Mari, the king naturallly would want a symbol of submission from the prophet. The secondary purpose of these symbols was to authenticate the message by the prophet's "signature." Sometimes cuneiform texts were impressed by the fringe of the sender instead of the more typical impression by the cylinder seal.[45]  The hair and hem symbols were not sent in every case, especially if the prophecy was private or local. In RA XLIII, 50-55 these symbols were explicitly not sent because the man giving the prophecy was "trustworthy."[46]  His prophecy was considered as self-authentic, accurate, and submissive to royal authority. Here in this trustworthiness begins the transition to category two, "the court room prophet."

 That category two had time to develop at Mari is not very certain. The word, apilu, however, has had time to increase its meanings. Its secondary meaning seems to follow the tradition of the court room prophet who would dare to contradict the king by inspiration of a god. In the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, the cultic prophet at Mari, the answerer or the respondant (apilu), has an intriging secondary definition. It means a dissenter, that is, one who answers or gainsays. It is used in a royal context in the sentence sarru ina ekallisu a-pi-la ul irassi "the king will have no one who gainsays him in the palace," (KAR 460: 16  [Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts]).[47]  This secondary definition originating outside of Mari and the lack of hair and hem symbols by persons making private prophecies may be a link to the court room prophet (category two).

 It is important that the trustworthiness of a private prophet might be a link to category two. It is important that the lack of the hair and hem symbols might be a sign in this direction. It is valuable that a secondary definition paints a category two image. In addition to these evidences of transition, a more important evolutionary change is implied in these signs. It is not as important that the lack of providing the hair-hem power symbols would evolve into the court prophet, as it is important that such trustworthiness helps move away from the confirmatory requirements of extispicy. The hair and hem did serve as a secondary source of authentification of the prophecy by virtue of the prophet's willingness to own the prophecy and personal "signature." The identification of the prophet with the prophecy and the second-rate authentification of the prophecy through the symbols overlapped each other and in the evolutionary process atrophied. Extispicy normally succeeded the spoken oracle, and traditionally preceded any other form of prophecy, but as the need for the hair and hem of a private prophet came to no longer be regarded as necessary neither would the need for an extispicy. The trustworthiness of particular prophets lead to the demise of the priestly verification system. Surely the king would need to expedite the authentification process and would be willing to trust the word of the god given by "the hairless and hemless" court prophet more and more. The power struggles between the educated priesthood and the king and the costliness of consulting the priesthood to validate a prophecy in the sacrificial process might lead to the king's independence of priestly aids and lead more to a non-cultic prophetic dependence. Of course, this evolutionary hypothesis never found fulfillment at Mari because the royal court was disrupted by the Babylonian destruction under Hamnurabi. Perhaps it found fulfillment in Israel.

 Even before the atrophy of the need for symbolism, the court room prophet (category two) had its beginnings at Mari in category one because the priests had limited participation in the government by virtue of their position as mediums between gods and kings and as authenticators of any prophetic messages. Others have long ago noted the embryonic developnent of the court room prophet at Mari.[48] Technically the Mari prophet is not the biblical court room prophet. But the prophet is similar to the Hebrew one in a significant way as is revealed in text A.1121. In this text the oracle of the temple of the god Adad requires the delivery of specific sacrifices. This tablet is interesting in that it provides evidence that certain inspired men at Mari had taken an attitude of some authority and independence from the royalty similar to that which has been seen in Israel. This similar attitude seems to be a preparatory state that likewise preceded the appearing of the great age of prophecy in Israel.[49]

 Two hints at the would-be development of full-fledged category two court room prophecy at Mari might be found in texts A.2731 and ARM X: 100.[50]  The latter text "calls a powerful figure to compasionate care for the weak."[51]  A girl has been kidnapped. A certain maid servant receives a message frorn the god Dagan for Zimri-Lim. Zimri-Lim is to assist in the release of the girl by order of the god Dagan. Then A.2731 provides "one of the predominant concerns of the classical prophets" [category three], namely "the crusade for justice."[52]  In this text, the god Adad admonishes the king in these words: "When a man or a woman who have suffered an injustice speak to you, reply to their appeal and render them a jud[gment]."[53]

 The distinction between category one and two is not really clear because of their overlap. Some see a clear connection between the apilum, the muhhum, and the laypersons of Mari and the Hebrew prophets. Koch writes, "we find the same juxtaposition of cultically appointed, official prophets and charismatically endowed private persons a thousand years later in Israel."[54]  One of my purposes in having the categories is to steer clear of sweeping enthusiasm and to trace the slight changes in prophetic patterns at Mari and subsequently at Israel. It is possible to lump all the Mari prophets together and make the comparison that these Mari spokespersons, like their Hebrew counterparts, made the matters of the king and the policies of the state their personal concern and that they did not hesitate to intervene in royal affairs,[55] but I have attempted to trace a possible evolutionary scheme and needed the refinenent afforded by the arbitrary categories.

 In conclusion, category one is basic prophecy supported by extispicy and the hair and hem signatures. Category two lies within category one but drops the need for authentification by extispicy and the second class symbolism. The tablets of Mari attest to the demise of the need for the symbolic authentification. Category two does not require the hair and hem of the prophet and by extension neither must the king use extispicy to verify the prophecy. If the prediction was considered trustworthy and not in need of the secondary controls, then at times the king surely would dismiss the use of primary controls or extispicy. In the seven hundred year gap between Mari and Israel, it is possible that category two, which was in embryo at Mari, developed fully into the biblical court room prophet.

 Finally, category three, the classical writing prophets of Israel, does not occur at all at Mari. The article concerning Assyrian statescraft addresses this development in Israel.[56] The closest one may come to such "literary prophecy" is ARM III: 78, a fragmentary missive concerning the building of a new gate. This text contains the only known prophecy not meant for the king alone but for a plural audience.  "The message is intended for the ears of the citizens of Terqa with the address in the second person plural."[57] It is safer to say that no divine messengers at Mari ever addressed the common population as one finds in Israel, but this possibility should not be dismissed because the samples at Mari represent royal affairs.[58]

End Notes:

Sample."Can you imagine that?" Frthrm'rwhnDvdwr'ts'm'fthPslmshb'rr'wdntrhymnst'Bl
fr'mthgrtcp'pls'nlychngngthnmBlt'thscrdttrgrmmt'nYHWHprhpssmlrt'MrtnLthradpt ngGrmnbrr''ms'ngsf'rhshymn'l'gynthchrch

1.Hans~Hoachim Kraus, Theology Of The Psalms (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), p. 28.

2. J.H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch And Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation, And Commentary Second Edition (London: Soncino Press, 1976), p. 410.

3. Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History Of Prophecy In Israel: From The Settlement In The Land To The Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), p. 19.

4.Klaus Koch, The Prophets:  Volume One The Assyrian Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 15.

5. Mark Van Doren and Maurice Samuel, "Magicians And Prophets: The Rise And Fall Of The Miracle Workers," recorded at The Center For Cassette Studies, Inc., N. Hollywood, CA, no date.

6. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy, pp. 66-67.

7. James F. Ross, "Prophecy In Hamath, Israel, And Mari," Harvard Theological Review, 63 (1970), pp. 1-28.

8. Ibid., 11-12.

9. John F. Craghan, "Mari And Its Prophets:  The Contributions Of Mari To The Understanding Of Biblical Prophecy," Biblical Theology Bulletin, 5 (1975), p. 33.

10. Koch, Vol. One, p. 38.

11. Dennis Pardee and Jonathan T. Glass, "The Mari Archives: Literary Sources For The History Of Palestine And Syria," Biblical Archaeologist, 47 (1984), p. 94.

12. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy, p. 58.

13. John S. Holladay, Jr., "Assyrian Statecraft And The Prophets Of Israel," Harvard Theological Review, 63 (1970), pp. 29-51.

14. Craghan, "Contributions," p. 37 in footnote 30.

15. Erica Reiner, "Fortune-Telling In Mesopotamia," Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 19 (1960), p. 30.

16. Koch, Vol. One, pp. 8-9.

17. Ibid. Also, N. W. Porteous, "The Basis Of The Ethical Teaching Of The Prophets," in Studies In Old Testament Prophecy Presented To Professor Theodore H. Robinson, ed. H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950), p. 148.

18. Porteous, Basis, p. 148.

19. Koch, Vol. One, pp. 8-9.

20. A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation Of Dreams In The Ancient Near East With A Translation Of An Assyrian Dream Book, Series: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n. s. 46/3, 1956, p. 200.

21. Ibid., p. 193.

22. Ibid., p. 195.

23. Craghan, "Contributions," p. 39.

24. Ibid.

25. Koch, Vol. One, p. 26.

26. Ibid., p. 16, Also, Helmer Ringgren, "Prophecy In The Ancient Near East," in Israel's Prophetic Tradition: Essays In Honour Of Peter R. Ackroyd, eds. Richard Coggins, Anthony Phillips, and Michael Knibb (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 2.

27. Herbert B. Huffmon, "Prophecy In The Mari Letters," Biblical Archaeologist, 31 (1968), p. 103 in footnote 4.

28. Craghan, "Contributions," p. 40.

29. B. F. Batto, Studies On Women At Mari (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1974), p. 123.

30. William L. Moran, "New Evidence From Mari On The History Of Prophecy," Biblica, 50 (1969), p. 23.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid., pp. 19-20. Also, Craghan, "Contributions," p. 44.

33. Moran, "New Evidence," p. 17.

34. Ibid., p. 19.

35. Ibid., p. 20.

36. Ibid., p. 44.

37. Craghan, "Contributions," p. 42.

38. Ibid., p. 44.

39. Ibid., p. 42.

40. Ibid. Also, John H. Hayes, "Prophetism At Mari And Old Testament Parallels," Anglican Theological Review, 49 (1967), p. 408.

41. Martin Noth, "Remarks On The Sixth Volume Of Mari Texts, Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1 (1956), pp. 328-329 in footnote 2.

42. J. R. Kupper, Lettres: Correspondance de Bahdi-Lim préfet du palais de Mari (ARM VI), (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1954), p. 43.

43. Ibid., p. 55.

44. Huffmon, "Letters," p. 121.

45. Ibid.

46. Hayes, "Parallels," p. 408.

47. Miguel Civil, Ignace J. Gelb, A. Leo Oppenheim and Erica Reiner, eds., The Assyrian Dictionary Of The Oriental Institute Of The University Of Chicago, vol. 1, part 2 (Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute Of Chicago, 1977), p. 170.

48. Adolphe Lods, "Une Tablette Inédite De Mari Intéressante Pour L'Histoire Ancienne Du Prophétisme Sémitique," in Studies In Old Testament Prophecy Presented To Professor Theodore H. Robinson, ed. H.K. Rowley (Edinburg: T & T Clark, 1950), pp. 103-110.

49. Ibid., p. 110.

50. Mora, "New Evidence,"  pp. 54-55.

51. Stanley D. Waiters, "Prophecy In Mari And Israel," Journal Of Biblical Literature, 89 (1970), p. 80,

52. Craghan, "Contributions," p. 50.

53. Ibid.

54. Koch, Vol. One, pp. 9-10.

55. Hayes, "Parallels," p. 402.

56. Holladay, "Statecraft," pp. 29-51.

57. Huffmon, "Letters," p. 114.

58. Hayes, "Parallels," p. 403.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Batto, B. F. Studies On Women At Mari. Baltimore, MD: John  Hopkins University Press, 1974.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History Of Prophecy In Israel:  From The Settlement In The Land To The Hellenistic Period.  Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1983.

Civil, Miguel, Ignace J. Gelb, A. Leo Oppenheim and Erica Reiner,      eds. The Assyrian Dictionary Of The Oriental Institute Of The University Of Chicago, vol. 1, part 2. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute Of Chicago, 1977.

Craghan, John F. "Mari And Its Prophets: The Contributions Of Mari To The Understanding Of Biblical Prophecy." Biblical Theology Bulletin, 5 (1975), 32-55.

Hayes, John H. "Prophetism At Mari And Old Testament Parallels." Anglican Theological Review, 49 (1967), 397-409.

Hertz, J.H. ed. The Pentateuch And Haftorahs: Hebrew Text, English Translation, And Commentary. Second Edition London: Soncino Press, 1976.

Holladay, John S., Jr. "Assyrian Statecraft And The Prophets Of Israel." Harvard Theological Review, 63 (1970), 29-51.

Huffmon, Herbert B. "Prophecy In The Mari Letters." Biblical Archaeologist, 31 (1968), 101-124.

Kraus, Hans~Hoachim. Theology Of The Psalms. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

Koch, Klaus. The Prophets: Volume One The Assyrian Period. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983.

Kupper, J. R. Lettres: Correspondance de Babdi-Lim préfet du palais de Mari (ARM VI). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1954.

Lods, Adolphe. "Une Tablette Inédite De Mari, Intéressante Pour L'Histoire Ancienne Prophétisme Sémitique." In Studies In Old Testament Prophecy Presented To Professor Theodore H. Robinson. Ed. H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950.

Moran, William L. "New Evidence From Mari On The History Of Prophecy." Biblica, 50 (1969), 15-56.

Noth, Martin.  "Remarks On The Sixth Volume Of Mari Texts." Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1 (1956), 322-333.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. The Interpretation Of Dreams In The Ancient Near East With A Translation Of An Assyrian Dream Book. Series: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n. s. 46/3, 1956.

Pardee, Dennis and Jonathan T. Glass. "The Mari Archives: Literary Sources For The History Of Palestine And Syria." Biblical Archaeologist, 47 (1984), 88-108.

Porteous, N. W. "The Basis Of The Ethical Teaching Of The Prophets." In Studies In Old Testament Prophecy Presented To Professor Theodore H. Robinson. Ed. H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1950.

Reiner, Erica.  "Fortune-Telling In Mesopotamia." Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 19 (1960), 23-25.

Ringgren, Helmer. "Prophecy In The Ancient Near East." In Israel's Prophetic Tradition: Essays In Honour Of Peter R. Ackroyd. Eds. Richard Coggins, Anthony Phillips, and Michael Knibb, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Ross, James F. "Prophecy In Hamath, Israel, And Mari." Harvard Theological Review, 63 (1970), 1-28.

Van Doren, Mark and Maurice Samuel. "Magicians And Prophets: The Rise And Fall Of The Miracle Workers." Recorded at The Center For Cassette Studies, Inc., N. Hollywood, CA, no date.

Walters, Stanley D. "Prophecy In Mari And Israel." Journal Of Biblical Literature, 89 (1970), 78-81.