Nehushtan Timeline

Nehushtan Timeline

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


NEPHILIM (Heb. נְפִילִים), a race of giants said to have dwelt in pre-Israelite Canaan (Num. 13:33). Genesis 6:1𠄲 relates that the "sons of gods," i.e., divine or angelic beings, took mortal wives verse 4 continues, "It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared [lit., were] on earth–when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes [Heb. gibborim] of old, the men of renown." This could mean that the Nephilim were contemporaneous, but not identical, with the offspring of divine beings and earthly women, who were called gibborim (so, e.g., Morgenstern, in HUCA 14 (1939), 85ff.). The above translation, however, follows an ancient tradition in equating the Nephilim and the gibborim as offspring of the union of ʪngels and mortals .

In apocryphal writings of the Second Temple period this fragmentary narrative was elaborated and reinterpreted. The angels were then depicted as rebels against God: lured by the charms of women, they "fell" (Heb, nfl. נפל), defiled their heavenly purity, and introduced all manner of sinfulness to earth. Their giant offspring were wicked and violent the Flood was occasioned by their sinfulness. (None of these ideas is in the biblical text.) Because of their evil nature, God decreed that the Nephilim should massacre one another, although according to another view most of them perished in the Flood. One version asserts that the evil spirits originally issued from the bodies of the slain giants. These giants, or their offspring, are identified as Nephilim (See I En. 6�, 15� Jub. 7:21ff.). As this dualistic myth does not appear in the apocalypses of Baruch and Esdras nor in the aggadah of the talmudic period, it was apparently rejected as incompatible with Jewish monotheism. The "sons of God" are explained in the Targum to Genesis 6:4 and the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:5) as young aristocrats who married the daughters of commoners. The Targum renders both gibborim and Nephilim by gibbaraya the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:7) lists seven names applied to giants. The Babylonian Talmud mentions the names of Shamhazzai, Uzza, and Uzziel, the leaders of the fallen ʪngels in Enoch , but does not say that they were angels: Yoma 67b alludes to the sins of Uzza and Uzziel Niddah 61a states that Sihon and Og were descendants of Shamhazzai. In Deuteronomy 3:11 *Og is described as a giant, and this theme was developed to a large degree in aggadic legend. In post-talmudic literature (cf. Rashi, Yoma 67b) the long-suppressed myth came to the surface again. The Palestinian Targum gives the orthodox rendering of Genesis 6:1, but translates verse 4 as: "Shamhazzai and Uzziel fell from heaven and were on earth in those days"–identifying the Nephilim as the fallen angels rather than their children. The same identification is found in a late Midrash, which calls the fallen angels Uzza and Uzziel another passage in the same document says the Nephilim were descendants of Cain (Aggadat Bereshit, ed. S. Buber, introd., p. 38). The Zohar (1:58a) also identifies the Nephilim with the fallen angels. The standard medieval Bible commentators generally followed the classical aggadah in rejecting the mythological interpretation and asserting that the marriages in Genesis 6 were human. Some variant opinions about the "sons of God" are offered𠄾.g., that their distinction was not only social, but physical and even moral, and that the offspring were called Nephilim because they "fell short" of their fathers in these respects (Nahmanides, Abrabanel).


U. Cassuto, in: Sefer ha-Yovel… J.H. Hertz (1943), 35� B.J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels (1952), 3� H.L. Ginsberg, in: EM, 5 (1968), 896𠄷 (incl. bibl.).

Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.

Ancient Jewish History: The Philistines

The Philistines are referred to as the descendants of the Casluchim in Genesis 10:14 and Exodus 13:17. Known as a seafaring nation, the Philistines were a non-Semitic people who left Crete and arrived in Canaan at the beginning of the 12th century B.C.E. The Philistines inhabited the Mediterranean coast of Canaan during the period of the Book of Judges. They founded five principalities - Gaza, Asheklon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath.

Their highly-developed weapons brought a great threat to the Israelites. During the Exodus from Egypt, the Israelites purposely took a southern route to circumvent them. The Philistines often battled against the Israelites. The first King of Israel, Saul, temporarily weakened them. Later, a little-known shepherd by the name of David (later second King of Israel) defeated them after his battle with the large Philistine by the name of Goliath. The Philistines were reduced to mainly commercial ventures rather than military ventures. Throughout the Books of Kings, different Jewish leaders fought the nation until the Assyrians completely defeated them. The Philistines then assimilated into the surrounding cultures and ceased to exist as a separate nation.

The name Palestine originates from the Philistine inhabitance of the land of Judea. After the Romans conquered the region in the second century C.E., the Romans used the term Palestinia to refer to the region in an attempt to minimize Jewish attachment to the land. The Arabic use of the term Filastin is from this Latin root.

Sources: Bridger, David. Ed. The New Jewish Encyclopedia. NY: Behrman House, Inc. 1976.
Schreiber, Mordecai (ed.). The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia. Shengold Books. 1998.
Telushkin, Joseph. Jewish Literacy. William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1991.
Navigating the Bible II

Download our mobile app for on-the-go access to the Jewish Virtual Library

Nehushtan – Numbers 21:4-9

The old generation has passed away and it is now time for the “children” to enter the Promised Land. (See Timeline) Miriam and Aaron have died so it is now Moses, Joshua and Eleazar (Aaron’s son) are leading the people. Israel, not Moses, has cried out about Arad, a Canaanite king, has come out against them and Israel has completely destroyed them. They now must go around their cousins, Edom, because God will not let them have their land. (See Edom) So what do they do?

  1. Grow impatient
  2. Speak against God
  3. Speak against Moses
  4. Bring out the ubiquitous complaints no water, bad food, no bread and are we to die in the desert.

I know this cycle is old and you think they would have learned but they have not makes you think about our complaining. In verse 6 God sends venomous snakes these are probably the Carpet or Saw-scaled Viper. People start to die so they once again confess their sins to Moses and he prays for them and God gives them a way out. The thing that really stands out here is God did not remove the snakes He requires an act of faith before they can be healed. They must look at a brass snake (See copper) on a pole.

In John 3:14-15 this act of faith is explained as a type and shadow of Jesus and the salvation He would bring because of the cross. And just as John 3:16 is next, so the people went on to get water and defeat Sihon and Og.

But the story of the brass/bronze serpent apparently does not end when they moved on and camped at Oboth. They kept it and it became an object of worship because in 2 Kings 18:4 Hezekiah breaks it up because they were burning incense to it. It seems to be human nature to get stuck on something that works God used that for a time but He moved on and did other great things and used other things to deliver the people. They seemed to miss the point – Worship God and not things. (See Superstitious)



The story of the Exodus is told in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the last four of the first five books of the Bible (also called the Torah or Pentateuch). [2] In the first book of the Pentateuch, the Book of Genesis, the Israelites had come to live in Egypt in the Land of Goshen during a famine due to the fact that an Israelite, Joseph, had become a high official in the court of the pharaoh. Exodus begins with the deaths of Joseph and the ascension of a new pharaoh "who did not know Joseph" (Exodus 1:8). The pharaoh becomes concerned by the number and strength of Israelites in Egypt and enslaves them, commanding them to build at two "supply" or "store cities" called Pithom and Rameses (Exodus 1:11). [b] The pharaoh also orders the slaughter at birth of all male Hebrew children. One Hebrew child, however, is rescued by being placed in a basket on the Nile. He is found and adopted by Pharaoh's daughter, who names him Moses. Moses eventually kills an Egyptian he sees beating a Hebrew slave, and is forced to flee to Midian, marrying a daughter of the Midianite priest Jethro. The old pharaoh dies and a new one ascends to the throne. [2]

Moses, in Midian, goes to Mount Horeb, where Yahweh appears in a burning bush and commands him to go to Egypt to free the Hebrew slaves and bring them to the promised land in Canaan. Yahweh also speaks to Moses's brother Aaron they both assemble the Israelites and perform signs so that they believe in Yahweh's promise. Moses and Aaron then go to the Pharaoh and ask him to let the Israelites go into the desert for a religious festival, but the Pharaoh refuses and commands the Israelites to make bricks without straw and increases their workload. Moses and Aaron return to the Pharaoh and this time ask him to free the Israelites. The Pharaoh demands for Moses to perform a miracle, and Aaron throws down Moses' staff, which turns into a tannin (sea monster [17] or snake) (Exodus 7:8-13) however, Pharaoh's magicians [c] are also able to do this, though Moses' staff devours the others. The Pharaoh then refuses to let the Israelites go.

After this, Yahweh begins inflicting the Plagues of Egypt on the Egyptians for each time that Moses goes to Pharaoh and Pharaoh refuses to release the Israelites. Pharaoh's magicians are able to replicate the first plagues, in which Yahweh turns the Nile to blood and produces a plague of frogs, but are unable to reproduce any plagues after the third, the plague of gnats. [19] After each plague Pharaoh allows the Israelites to worship Yahweh to remove the plague, then refuses to free them. Moses is then commanded to fix the first month of Aviv at the head of the Hebrew calendar. He instructs the Israelites to take a lamb on the 10th day of the month, slaughter it on the 14th, and daub its blood on their doorposts and lintels, and to observe the Passover meal that night, the night of the full moon. In the final plague, Yahweh kills all the firstborn sons of Egypt and the firstborn cattle, but the Israelites, with blood on their doorposts are spared. Yahweh commands that the Israelites observe a festival as "a perpetual ordinance" to remember this event (Exodus 12:14). Pharaoh finally agrees to let the Israelites go after his firstborn son is killed. Yahweh leads the Israelites in the form of a pillar of cloud in the day and a pillar of fire at night. However, once the Israelites have already left, Yahweh hardens Pharoahs heart. Pharaoh then changes his mind and pursues the Israelites to the shore of the Red Sea. Moses uses his staff to part the Red Sea, and the Israelites cross on dry ground, but the sea closes down on the pursuing Egyptians, drowning them all. [20]

The Israelites now begin to complain about Aaron and Moses, as Yahweh miraculously provided them first with water and food, eventually raining manna down for them to eat. Amalek attacks at Rephidim but is defeated in battle. Jethro comes to Moses with Moses's wife and sons on Jethro's advice, Moses appoints judges for the tribes of Israel. The Israelites reach the Sinai Desert and Yahweh calls Moses to Mount Sinai, where Yahweh reveals himself to his people and establishes the Ten Commandments and Mosaic covenant: the Israelites are to keep his torah (i.e. law, instruction), and in return he will give them the land of Canaan. Yahweh establishes the Aaronic priesthood and various rules for ritual worship, among other laws. However, in Moses's absence the Israelites sin against Yahweh by creating the idol of a golden calf, and as retaliation Yahweh has the Levites kill three thousand people (Exodus 32:28) and Yahweh sends a plague on the Israelites. The Israelites now accept the covenant, which is reestablished, build a tabernacle for Yahweh, and receive their laws. Yahweh commands Moses to take a census of the Israelites and establishes the duties of the Levites. Then the Israelites depart from Mount Sinai. [21]

Yahweh commands Moses to send twelve spies ahead to Canaan to scout the land. The spies discover that the Canaanites are strong, and, believing that the Israelites cannot defeat them, the spies falsely report to the Israelites that Canaan is full of giants so that the Israelites will not invade (Numbers 13:31-33). The Israelites refuse to go to Canaan, so Yahweh manifests himself and declares that the generation that left Egypt will have to pass away before the Israelites can enter Canaan. The Israelites will have to remain in the wilderness for forty years, [21] and Yahweh kills the spies through a plague except for the righteous Joshua and Caleb, who will be allowed to enter the promised land. A group of Israelites led by Korah, son of Izhar, rebels against Moses, but Yahweh opens the earth and sends them living to Sheol.

The Israelites come to the oasis of Kadesh Barnea, where Miriam dies and the Israelites remain for forty years. [21] The people are without water, so Yahweh commands Moses to get water from a rock by speaking to it, but Moses strikes the rock with his staff instead, for which Yahweh forbids him from entering the promised land. Moses sends a messenger to the king of Edom requesting passage through his land to Canaan, but the king refuses. The Israelites then go to Mount Hor, where Aaron dies. The Israelites try to go around Edom, but the Israelites complain about lack of bread and water, so Yahweh sends a plague of poisonous snakes to afflict them. After Moses prays for deliverance, Yahweh has him create the brazen serpent, and the Israelites who look at it are cured. The Israelites are soon in conflict with various other kingdoms, and king Balak of Moab attempts to have the seer Balaam curse the Israelites, but Balaam blesses the Israelites instead. Some Israelites begin having sexual relations with Moabite women and worshipping Moabite gods, so Yahweh orders Moses to impale the idolators and sends a plague, but the full extent of Yahweh's wrath is averted when Phinehas impales an Israelite and a Midianite woman having intercourse (Numbers 25:7-9). Yahweh commands the Israelites to destroy the Midianites and Moses and Phinehas take another census. They then conquer the lands of Og and Sihon in Transjordan, settling the Gadites, Reubenites, and half the Tribe of Manasseh there.

Moses then addresses the Israelites for a final time on the banks of the Jordan River, reviewing their travels and giving them further laws. Yahweh tells Moses to summon Joshua, whom Yahweh commissions to lead the conquest of Canaan. Yahweh tells Moses to ascend Mount Nebo, from where he sees the promised land and where he dies. [21]

Covenant and law

The climax of the Exodus is the covenant (binding legal agreement) between God and the Israelites mediated by Moses at Sinai: Yahweh will protect the Israelites as his chosen people for all time, and the Israelites will keep Yahweh's laws and worship only him. [22] The covenant is described in stages: at Exodus 24:3–8 the Israelites agree to abide by the "book of the covenant" that Moses has just read to them shortly afterwards God writes the "words of the covenant" – the Ten Commandments – on stone tablets and finally, as the people gather in Moab to cross into Canaan, the land God has promised them, Moses makes a new covenant between Yahweh and the Israelites "beside the covenant he made with them at Horeb" (Deuteronomy 29:1). [23] The laws are set out in a number of codes: [24]

    (i.e., the Ten Commandments), Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5
  • The Book of the Covenant, Exodus 20:22–23:3 , Exodus 34
  • The ritual laws of Leviticus 1–6 and Numbers 1–10
  • The Holiness Code, Leviticus 17–26
  • Deuteronomic Code, Deuteronomy 12–26.

There are two main positions on the historicity of the Exodus in modern scholarship. [3] The majority position is that the biblical Exodus narrative has some historical basis, although there is little of historical worth in the biblical narrative. [8] [25] [1] The other position, often associated with the school of Biblical minimalism, [26] [27] is that the biblical exodus traditions are the invention of the exilic and post-exilic Jewish community, with little to no historical basis. [28] The biblical Exodus narrative is best understood as a founding myth of the Jewish people, providing an ideological foundation for their culture and institutions, not an accurate depiction of the history of the Israelites. [29] [1] The view that the biblical narrative is essentially correct unless it can explicitly be proven wrong (Biblical maximalism) is today held by "few, if any [. ] in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes." [3]

Reliability of the biblical account

Mainstream scholarship no longer accepts the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons. Most scholars agree that the Exodus stories were written centuries after the apparent setting of the stories. [5] The Book of Exodus itself attempts to ground the event firmly in history, dating the exodus to the 2666th year after creation (Exodus 12:40-41), the construction of the tabernacle to year 2667 (Exodus 40:1-2, 17), stating that the Israelites dwelled in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40-41), and including place names such as Goshen (Gen. 46:28), Pithom and Ramesses (Exod. 1:11), as well as stating that 600,000 Israelite men were involved (Exodus 12:37). [30] However, the numbers involved are fanciful, as the Sinai Desert could never have supported the 603,550 Israelite males and their families mentioned in Numbers 1:46, which modern estimates put at 2.5-3 million total Israelites. [31] The geography is vague with regions such as Goshen unidentified, and there are internal problems with dating in the Pentateuch. [16] No modern attempt to identify a historical Egyptian prototype for Moses has found wide acceptance, and no period in Egyptian history matches the biblical accounts of the Exodus. [32] Some elements of the story are miraculous and defy rational explanation, such as the Plagues of Egypt and the Crossing of the Red Sea. [33] The Bible also fails to mention the names of any of the Pharaohs involved in the Exodus narrative. [34]

While ancient Egyptian texts from the New Kingdom mention "Asiatics" living in Egypt as slaves and workers, these people cannot be securely connected to the Israelites, and no contemporary Egyptian text mentions a large-scale exodus of slaves like that described in the Bible. [35] The earliest surviving historical mention of the Israelites, the Egyptian Merneptah Stele (c. 1207 BCE), appears to place them in or around Canaan and gives no indication of any exodus. [36] Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman say that archaeology has not found any evidence for even a small band of wandering Israelites living in the Sinai: "The conclusion – that Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable [. ] repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence." [37] Instead, modern archaeology suggests continuity between Canaanite and Israelite settlement, indicating a primarily Canaanite origin for Israel, with no suggestion that a group of foreigners from Egypt comprised early Israel. [38] [39]

Potential historical origins

Despite the absence of any archaeological evidence, a majority of scholars agree that the Exodus probably has some historical basis, [25] [8] with Kenton Sparks referring to it as "mythologized history." [1] Scholars posit that small group of people of Egyptian origin may have joined the early Israelites, and then contributed their own Egyptian Exodus story to all of Israel. [d] William G. Dever cautiously identifies this group with the Tribe of Joseph, while Richard Elliott Friedman identifies it with the Tribe of Levi. [40] [41] Most scholars who accept a historical core of the exodus date this possible exodus group to the thirteenth century BCE at the time of Ramses II, with some instead dating it to the twelfth century BCE at the time of Ramses III. [25] Evidence in favor of historical traditions forming a background to the Exodus myth include the documented movements of small groups of Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples into and out of Egypt during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, some elements of Egyptian folklore and culture in the Exodus narrative, [42] and the names Moses, Aaron and Phinehas, which seem to have an Egyptian origin. [43] Scholarly estimates for how many people could have been involved in such an exodus range from a few hundred to a few thousand people. [25]

Joel S. Baden [44] notes the presence of Semitic-speaking slaves in Egypt who sometimes escaped in small numbers as potential inspirations for the Exodus. [45] It is also possible that oppressive Egyptian rule of Canaan during the late second millennium BCE may have aided the adoption of the story of a small group of Egyptian refugees by the native Canaanites among the Israelites. [46] The expulsion of the Hyksos, a Semitic group that had conquered much of Egypt, by the Seventeenth Dynasty of Egypt is also frequently discussed as a potential historical parallel or origin for the story. [46] [47] [48] Alternatively, Nadav Na'aman argues that oppressive Egyptian rule of Canaan during the Nineteenth and especially the Twentieth Dynasty may have inspired the Exodus narrative, forming a "collective memory" of Egyptian oppression that was transferred from Canaan to Egypt itself in the popular consciousness. [49]

A minority position among scholars is to see the biblical exodus traditions as the invention of the exilic and post-exilic Jewish community, with little to no historical basis. [28] Lester Grabbe, for instance, argues that "[t]here is no compelling reason that the exodus has to be rooted in history," [50] and that the details of the story more closely fit the seventh through the fifth centuries BCE than the traditional dating to the second millennium BCE. [51] Philip R. Davies suggests that the story may have been inspired by the return to Israel of Israelites and Judaeans who were placed in Egypt as garrison troops by the Assyrians in the fifth and sixth centuries BCE. [52] Finkelstein and Silberman argue that "the most consistent geographical details of the Exodus story come from the seventh century BCE [. ] six centuries after the events of the Exodus were supposed to have taken place". [53] There is no direct evidence for any of the people or Exodus events in non-biblical ancient texts or in archaeological remains, and this has led most scholars to omit the Exodus events from comprehensive histories of Israel. [54]

The earliest traces of the traditions behind the exodus appear in the northern prophets Amos (possibly) and Hosea (certainly), both active in the 8th century BCE in northern Israel, but their southern contemporaries Isaiah and Micah show no knowledge of an exodus. [10] (Micah 6:4–5 contains a reference to the exodus, which many scholars take to be an addition by a later editor.) [e] The story may, therefore, have originated a few centuries earlier, perhaps in the 9th or 10th BCE, and there are signs that it took different forms in Israel, in the Transjordan region, and in the southern Kingdom of Judah before being unified in the Persian era. [56] The Exodus narrative was most likely further altered and expanded under the influence of the return from the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BCE. [57]

Evidence from the Bible suggests that the Exodus from Egypt formed a "foundational mythology" or "state ideology" for the Northern Kingdom of Israel. [58] The northern psalms 80 and 81 state that God "brought a vine out of Egypt" (Psalm 80:8) and record ritual observances of Israel's deliverance from Egypt as well as a version of part of the Ten Commandments (Psalm 81:10-11). [59] The Books of Kings records the dedication of two golden calves in Bethel and Dan by the Israelite king Jeroboam I, who uses the words "Here are your gods, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 12:28). Scholars relate Jeroboam's calves to the golden calf made by Aaron of Exodus 32. Both include a nearly identical dedication formula ("These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" Exodus 32:8). This episode in Exodus is "widely regarded as a tendentious narrative against the Bethel calves". [60] Egyptologist Jan Assmann suggests that event, which would have taken place around 931 BCE, may be partially historical due to its association with the historical pharaoh Sheshonq I (the biblical Shishak). [58] Stephen Russell dates this tradition to "the eighth century BCE or earlier," and argues that it preserves a genuine Exodus tradition from the Northern Kingdom, but in a Judahite recension. [61] Russell and Frank Moore Cross argue that the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom may have believed that the calves at Bethel and Dan were made by Aaron. Russell suggests that the connection to Jeroboam may have been later, possibly coming from a Judahite redactor. [62] Pauline Viviano, however, concludes that neither the references to Jeroboam's calves in Hosea (Hosea 8:6 and 10:5) nor the frequent prohibitions of idol worship in the seventh-century southern prophet Jeremiah show any knowledge of a tradition of a golden calf having been created in Sinai. [63]

Some of the earliest evidence for Judahite traditions of the exodus is found in Psalm 78, which portrays the Exodus as beginning a history culminating in the building of the temple at Jerusalem. Pamela Barmash argues that the psalm is a polemic against the Northern Kingdom as it fails to mention that kingdom's destruction in 722 BCE, she concludes that it must have been written before then. [64] The psalm's version of the Exodus contains some important differences from what is found in the Pentateuch: there is no mention of Moses, there are only seven plagues in Egypt, and the manna is described as "food of the mighty" rather than as bread in the wilderness. [65] Nadav Na'aman argues for other signs that the Exodus was a tradition in Judah before the destruction of the northern kingdom, including the Song of the Sea and Psalm 114, as well as the great political importance that the narrative came to assume there. [57] [f] A Judahite cultic object associated with the exodus was the brazen serpent or nehushtan: according to 2 Kings 18:4, the brazen serpent had been made by Moses and was worshiped in the temple in Jerusalem until the time of king Hezekiah of Judah, who destroyed it as part of a religious reform, possibly around 727 BCE. [69] [g] In the Pentateuch, Moses creates the brazen serpent in Numbers 21:4-9. Meindert Dijkstra writes that while the historicity of the Mosaic origin of the Nehushtan is unlikely, its association with Moses appears genuine rather than the work of a later redactor. [70] Mark Walter Bartusch notes that the nehushtan is not mentioned at any prior point in Kings, and suggests that the brazen serpent was brought to Jerusalem from the Northern Kingdom after its destruction in 722 BCE. [69]

The revelation of God on Sinai appears to have originally been a tradition unrelated to the Exodus. [71] Joel S. Baden notes that "[t]he seams [between the Exodus and Wilderness traditions] still show: in the narrative of Israel's rescue from Egypt there is little hint that they will be brought anywhere other than Canaan—yet they find themselves heading first, unexpectedly, and in no obvious geographical order, to an obscure mountain." [72] In addition, there is widespread agreement that the revelation of the law in Deuteronomy was originally separate from the Exodus: [73] the original version of Deuteronomy is generally dated to the 7th century BCE. [74] The contents of the books of Leviticus and Numbers are late additions to the narrative by priestly sources. [75]

Scholars broadly agree that the publication of the Torah (or Pentateuch) took place in the mid-Persian period (the 5th century BCE), echoing a traditional Jewish view which gives Ezra, the leader of the Jewish community on its return from Babylon, a pivotal role in its promulgation. [76] Many theories have been advanced to explain the composition of the first five books of the Bible, but two have been especially influential. [77] The first of these, Persian Imperial authorisation, advanced by Peter Frei in 1985, holds that the Persian authorities required the Jews of Jerusalem to present a single body of law as the price of local autonomy. [78] Frei's theory was demolished at an interdisciplinary symposium held in 2000, but the relationship between the Persian authorities and Jerusalem remains a crucial question. [79] The second theory, associated with Joel P. Weinberg and called the "Citizen-Temple Community", proposes that the Exodus story was composed to serve the needs of a post-exilic Jewish community organized around the Temple, which acted in effect as a bank for those who belonged to it. [80] The books containing the Exodus story served as an "identity card" defining who belonged to this community (i.e., to Israel), thus reinforcing Israel's unity through its new institutions. [81]

Writers in Greek and Latin record several Egyptian tales of the expulsion of a group of foreigners that were connected to the Exodus in the Ptolemaic period. [82] These tales often include elements of the Hyksos period and most are extremely anti-Jewish. [83] The earliest non-biblical account is that of Hecataeus of Abdera (c. 320 BCE), as preserved in the first century CE Jewish historian Josephus in his work Against Apion and in a variant version by the first-century BCE Greek historian Diodorus. [84] Hecataeus tells how the Egyptians blamed a plague on foreigners and expelled them from the country, whereupon Moses, their leader, took them to Canaan. [85] In this version, Moses is portrayed extremely positively. [82] Manetho, as preserved in Josephus's Against Apion, tells how 80,000 lepers and other "impure people", led by a priest named Osarseph, join forces with the former Hyksos, now living in Jerusalem, to take over Egypt. They wreak havoc until the pharaoh and his son chase them out to the borders of Syria, where Osarseph gives the lepers a law-code and changes his name to Moses. The identification of Osarseph with Moses in Manetho's account may be an interpolation or may come from Manetho. [86] [87] [85] Other versions of the story are recorded by first-century BCE Egyptian grammarian Lysimachus of Alexandria, who sets the story in the time of Pharaoh Bakenranef (Bocchoris), the first-century CE Egyptian historian Chaeremon of Alexandria, and the first-century BCE Gallo-Roman historian Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus. [88] The first century CE Roman historian Tacitus includes a version of the story that claims that the Hebrews worshiped a donkey as their god in order to ridicule Egyptian religion, while the Roman biographer Plutarch claims that the Egyptian god Seth was expelled from Egypt and had two sons named Juda and Hierosolyma. [89]

It is possible that the stories represent a polemical Egyptian response to the Exodus narrative. [90] Egyptologist Jan Assmann proposes that the story comes from oral sources that "must [. ] predate the first possible acquaintance of an Egyptian writer with the Hebrew Bible." [85] Assmann suggests that the story has no single origin but rather combines numerous historical experiences, notably the Amarna and Hyksos periods, into a folk memory. [91] There is general agreement that the stories originally had nothing to do with the Jews. [82] Erich S. Gruen suggests that it may have been the Jews themselves that inserted themselves into Manetho's narrative, in which various negative actions from the point of view of the Egyptians, such as desecrating temples, are interpreted positively. [92]

In Judaism

Commemoration of the Exodus is central to Judaism, and Jewish culture. In the Bible, the Exodus is frequently mentioned as the event that created the Israelite people and forged their bond with God, being describes as such by the prophets Hosea Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. [93] The Exodus is invoked daily in Jewish prayers and celebrated each year during the Jewish holidays of Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot. [94] The fringes worn at the corners of traditional Jewish prayer shawls are described as a physical reminder of the obligation to observe the laws given at the climax of Exodus: "Look at it and recall all the commandments of the Lord" (Numbers). [95] The festivals associated with the Exodus began as agricultural and seasonal feasts but became completely subsumed into the Exodus narrative of Israel's deliverance from oppression at the hands of God. [94] [96]

For Jews, Passover celebrates the freedom of the Israelites from captivity in Egypt, the settling of Canaan by the Israelites and the "passing over" of the angel of death during the death of the first-born. [97] [98] Passover involves a ritual meal called a Seder during which parts of the exodus narrative are retold. [99] In the Hagaddah of the Seder it is written that every generation is obliged to remind and identify itself in terms of the Exodus. Thus the following words from the Pesaḥim (10:5) are recited:

”In every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has gone forth from Egypt”. [100] [h]

Because the Israelites fled Egypt in haste without time for bread to rise, the unleavened bread matzoh is eaten on Passover, and homes must be cleansed of any items containing leavening agents, known as Chametz. [102]

Shavuot celebrates the granting of the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai Jews are called to rededicate themselves to the covenant on this day. [99] Some denominations follow Shavuot with The Three Weeks, during which the "two most heinous sins committed by the Jews in their relationship to God" are mourned: the Golden Calf and the doubting of God's promise by the Twelve Spies. [103] A third Jewish festival, Sukkot, the Festival of Booths, is associated with the Israelites living in booths after they left their previous homes in Egypt. [94] It celebrates how God provided for the Israelites while they wandered in the desert without food or shelter. [104] It is celebrated by building a sukkah, a temporary shelter also called a booth or tabernacle, in which the rituals of Sukkot are performed, recalling the impermanence of the Israelites' homes during the desert wanderings. [105]

Non-Jewish significance

The Christian ritual of the eucharist and the holiday of Easter draw directly on the imagery of the Passover and the Exodus. [106] In the New Testament, Jesus is frequently associated with motifs of the Exodus. [107] The Gospel of Mark has been suggested to be a midrash on the Exodus, though scholar Larry Perkins thinks this unlikely. [108] Mark suggests that the outpouring of Jesus' blood creates a new covenant (Mark 14:24) in the same way that Moses' sacrifice of bulls had created a covenant (Exodus 24:5). [109] In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus reverses the direction of the Exodus by escaping from the Massacre of the Innocents committed by Herod the Great before himself returning from Egypt (Matt 2:13-15). [110] Other parallels in Matthew include that he is baptized by water (Matt 3:13-17), and tested in the desert unlike the Israelites, he is able to resist temptation (Matt. 4.1-3). The Gospel of John repeatedly calls Jesus the Passover lamb (John 1:29, 13:1, 19:36), something also found in 1 Peter (1 Pet 1:18-20), and 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 5:7-8). Michael Graves calls Paul's discussion of the exodus in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 and his comparison of the early church in Corinth to the Israelites in the desert "[t]he two most significant NT passages touching on the exodus." [107] John also refers to Jesus as manna (John 6:31-5), water flowing from a rock in the desert (John 7:37-9) and as a pillar of fire (John 8:12). Early Christians frequently interpreted actions taken in the Exodus, and sometimes the Exodus as a whole, typologically to prefigure Jesus or actions of Jesus. [111]

In Romans 9:17, Paul interprets the hardened heart of Pharaoh during the Plagues of Egypt as referring to the hardened hearts of the Jews who rejected Christ. [112] Early Christian authors such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine all emphasized the supersession of the Old Covenant of Moses by the New Covenant of Christ, which was open to all people rather than limited to the Jews. [113]

A number of historical events and situations have been compared to the Exodus. Many early American settlers interpreted their flight from Europe to a new life in America as a new exodus. American "founding fathers" Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin recommended for the Great Seal of the United States to depict Moses leading the Israelites across the Red Sea. African Americans suffering under slavery and racial oppression interpreted their situation in terms of the Exodus, making it a catalyst for social change. [114] [115] [116] South American Liberation theology also takes much inspiration from the Exodus. [13]

Dictionaries :: Nehushtan

ne-hush'-tan (nechushtan compare nechosheth, "brass," and nachash, "serpent"):

1. Traditional Interpretation:

The word occurs but once, namely, in 2Ki 18:4. In the account there given of the reforms carried out by Hezekiah, it is said that "he brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it and he called it Nehushtan." According to the Revised Version margin the word means "a piece of brass." If this be correct, the sense of the passage is that Hezekiah not only breaks the brazen serpent in pieces but, suiting the word to the act, scornfully calls it "a (mere) piece of brass." Hezekiah thus takes his place as a true reformer, and as a champion of the purification of the religion of Israel. This is the traditional interpretation of the passage, and fairly represents the Hebrew text as it now stands.

2. Derivation: A Proper Noun:

There are at least three considerations, however, which throw doubt upon this interpretation. In the first place, the word Nehushtan is not a common noun, and cannot mean simply "a piece of brass." The point of the Biblical statement is entirely lost by such a construction. It is emphatically a proper noun, and is the special name given to this particular brazen serpent. As such it would be sacred to all worshippers of the brazen serpent, and familiar to all who frequented the Temple. In the second place, it is probable that Nehushtan is to be derived from nachash, "serpent," rather than from nechosheth, "brass,"

(1) because the Greek VSS, representing a form of the Hebrew text earlier than Massoretic Text, suggest this in their transliteration of Nehushtan (Codex Vaticanus Nesthalei Codex Alexandrinus Nesthan)

(2) because the Hebrew offers a natural derivation of Nehushtan from nachash, "serpent" and

(3) because the name of the image would more probably be based on its form than on the material out of which it was made. In the third place, the reading, "and it was called," which appears in the Revised Version margin, is decidedly preferable to that in the text. It not only represents the best reading of the Hebrew, but is confirmed by the similar reading, "and they called it," which appears in the Greek version referred to above. These readings agree in their indication that Nehushtan was the name by which the serpent-image was generally known during the years it was worshipped, rather than an expression used for the first time by Hezekiah on the occasion of its destruction.

Whichever derivation be adopted, however, the word must be construed as a proper name. If it be derived from "brass," then the translation must be, not "a piece of brass," but "The (great) Brass," giving the word a special sense by which it refers unequivocally to the well-known image made of brass. If it be derived from "serpent," then the translation must be, "The (great) Serpent," the word in this case referring in a special sense to the well-known image in serpent form. But the significance of the word probably lies far back of any etymological explanation of it that can now be given. It is not a term that can be adequately explained by reference to verbal roots, but is rather an epitome of the reverence of those who, however mistakenly, looked upon the brazen serpent as a proper object of worship.

In view of the foregoing it may be concluded,

(1) that Nehushtan was the (sacred) name by which the brazen serpent was known during the years "the children of Israel did burn incense to it"

(2) that the word is derived from nachash, "serpent" and

(3) that it was used in the sense of "The Serpent," paragraph excellence.


The Nehushtan Armor healing Chris

Though labelled an armor, the Nehushtan Armor is actually very weak defensively. Its primary abilities instead lie in its infinite regenerative capabilities. While easily broken, the relic can completely heal itself within seconds of taking damage, and can regenerate from near-complete destruction. For offense, the armor is primarily equipped with a set of long chain-whips which hang off each pauldron. These whips are not exceptionally strong in battle, but can extend to virtually infinite lengths, enough to pull a fragment of the moon from its orbit. Furthermore, the whips can be used to hurl large balls of energy at an opponent — this attack is called "NIRVANA GEDON". However, only Chris was seen to use this ability. The user can also utilize the whole armor in a wide-range attack called "Armor Purge", which will also cause the armor to be removed from the user's body. Again, only Chris was seen to use this. Finally, the Nehushtan Armor grants its user the ability to fly, though the exact details of its flight capabilities are unknown.

Like the Symphogear, the Nehushtan Armor changes its shape depending on its wielder. When Chris wore it, it was silver and covered most of her body save for her face and the undersides of her breasts, while Finé's version was primarily gold and exposed much more of her face and body. The anime keywords state that Finé has a higher mastery of the relic than Chris does.

Wielding the Nehushtan Armor is something of a gamble for the user, as the Nehushtan's regenerative properties cause the armor to invade and start fusing with its user via any open wounds they obtain while wearing the armor. If this process is not halted, the armor will continue fusing with the wearer until it consumes their whole body. After Chris wore the armor, Finé would make use of her regular electrocution of Chris to shock the fragments of the Nehushtan Armor inside her body into an idle state, when they could then be safely removed, putting an end to the contamination. It is unknown if there are any other ways to stop the constant fusion of the Nehushtan with its user.

Notably, it was Finé observing this fusion of the relic with Chris, along with the existence of Hibiki as the first medical case of a fusion between a relic and a human being, that led to Finé becoming interested in capturing and dissecting Hibiki and further creating a living fusion of her own. Finé would later proceed to become one with the Nehushtan Armor herself once Chris proved useless to her and Kadingir drew nearer to completion.

If fused with a user, the regenerative abilities of the armor are extended to the user as well, causing them to become nearly immortal. Only an attack on the scope of Durandal's Synchrogazer can overcome this regeneration and destroy the armor, which will cause both relic and user to turn to ash.

The Nehushtan Armor seems to be able to be turned into energy and summoned and dematerialized at the will of the user. Finé was seen to take the broken armor scattered by Chris into her possession this way, and summon it again in the need of combat. Notably, the armor is seen to be summoned to and from her hands.

In the manga, Chris is seen attempting to summon the armor after Finé takes it back, but her attempt fails, as Finé has taken command of it. Given Finé's dialogue in the same scene ("Using something you borrowed as if it actually belonged to you is very poor behavior, Chris"), it's possible that she had full control of the armor all along, and only let Chris use it for missions.

In Symphogear XDU game, Finé's Nehustan Armor evolved into Type II, a stronger version.


Gesenius (among others) argued the name לִוְיָתָן ‎ was derived from the root לוה ‎ lvh "to twine to join", with an adjectival suffix ן- ‎ ָ, for a literal meaning of "wreathed, twisted in folds". [2] If it exists, the adjectival suffix ן- ‎ ָ (as opposed to -ון) is otherwise unattested except perhaps in Nehushtan, whose etymology is unknown the ת would also require explanation, as Nechushtan is formed from nechoshet and Leviathan from liveyah the normal-pattern f.s. adjective would be לויון, liveyon. Other philologists, including Leskien, thought it a foreign loanword. [3] A third school considers it a proper noun. [4] Bauer proposed לוית+תן, for "wreath of serpent." [5]

Both the name and the mythological figure are a direct continuation of the Ugaritic sea monster Lôtān, one of the servants of the sea god Yammu defeated by Hadad in the Baal Cycle. [6] [7] The Ugaritic account has gaps, making it unclear whether some phrases describe him or other monsters at Yammu's disposal such as Tunannu (the biblical Tannin). [8] Most scholars agree on describing Lôtān as "the fugitive serpent" (bṯn brḥ) [7] but he may or may not be "the wriggling serpent" (bṯn ʿqltn) or "the mighty one with seven heads" (šlyṭ d.šbʿt rašm). [9] His role seems to have been prefigured by the earlier serpent Têmtum whose death at the hands of Hadad is depicted in Syrian seals of the 18th–16th century BC. [9]

Sea serpents feature prominently in the mythology of the ancient Near East. [10] They are attested by the 3rd millennium BC in Sumerian iconography depicting the god Ninurta overcoming a seven-headed serpent. It was common for Near Eastern religions to include a Chaoskampf: a cosmic battle between a sea monster representing the forces of chaos and a creator god or culture hero who imposes order by force. [11] The Babylonian creation myth describes Marduk's defeat of the serpent goddess Tiamat, whose body was used to create the heavens and the earth. [12]

The Leviathan specifically is mentioned six times in the Tanakh, in Job 3:8, Job 40:15–41:26, Psalm 74:14, Psalm 104:26 and twice in Isaiah 27:1.

Job 41:1–34 is dedicated to describing him in detail: "Behold, the hope of him is in vain shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?" [13] Included in God's lengthy description of his indomitable creation is Leviathan's fire-breathing ability, his impenetrable scales, and his overall indomitability in Job 41.In Psalm 104, God is praised for having made all things, including Leviathan, and in Isaiah 27:1, he is called the "tortuous serpent" who will be killed at the end of time. [10]

The mention of the Tannins in the Genesis creation narrative [14] (translated as "great whales" in the King James Version), [15] in Job, and in the Psalm [16] do not describe them as harmful but as ocean creatures who are part of God's creation. The element of competition between God and the sea monster and the use of Leviathan to describe the powerful enemies of Israel [17] may reflect the influence of the Mesopotamian and Canaanite legends or the contest in Egyptian mythology between the Apep snake and the sun god Ra. Alternatively, the removal of such competition may have reflected an attempt to naturalize Leviathan in a process that demoted it from deity to demon to monster. [18] [19] [ page needed ]

Later Jewish sources describe Leviathan as a dragon who lives over the sources of the Deep and who, along with the male land-monster Behemoth, will be served up to the righteous at the end of time. The Book of Enoch (60:7–9) describes Leviathan as a female monster dwelling in the watery abyss (as Tiamat), while Behemoth is a male monster living in the desert of Dunaydin ("east of Eden"). [10]

When the Jewish midrash (explanations of the Tanakh) were being composed, it was held that God originally produced a male and a female leviathan, but lest in multiplying the species should destroy the world, he slew the female, reserving her flesh for the banquet that will be given to the righteous on the advent of the Messiah. [20] [21] A similar description appears in Book of Enoch (60:24), which describes how the Behemoth and Leviathan will be prepared as part of an eschatological meal.

Rashi's commentary on Genesis 1:21 repeats the tradition:

the. sea monsters: The great fish in the sea, and in the words of the Aggadah (B.B. 74b), this refers to the Leviathan and its mate, for He created them male and female, and He slew the female and salted her away for the righteous in the future, for if they would propagate, the world could not exist because of them. הַתַּנִינִם is written. [I.e., the final "yud", which denotes the plural, is missing, hence the implication that the Leviathan did not remain two, but that its number was reduced to one.] – [from Gen. Rabbah 7:4, Midrash Chaseroth V’Yetheroth, Batei Midrashoth, vol 2, p. 225]. [22]

In the Talmud Baba Bathra 75 it is told that the Leviathan will be slain and its flesh served as a feast to the righteous in [the] Time to Come and its skin used to cover the tent where the banquet will take place. Those who do not deserve to consume its flesh beneath the tent may receive various vestments of the Leviathan varying from coverings (for the somewhat deserving) to amulets (for the least deserving). The remaining skin of the Leviathan will be spread onto the walls of Jerusalem, thereby illuminating the world with its brightness. The festival of Sukkot (Festival of Booths) therefore concludes with a prayer recited upon leaving the sukkah (booth): "May it be your will, Lord our God and God of our forefathers, that just as I have fulfilled and dwelt in this sukkah, so may I merit in the coming year to dwell in the sukkah of the skin of Leviathan. Next year in Jerusalem." [23]

The enormous size of the Leviathan is described by Johanan bar Nappaha, from whom proceeded nearly all the aggadot concerning this monster: "Once we went in a ship and saw a fish which put his head out of the water. He had horns upon which was written: 'I am one of the meanest creatures that inhabit the sea. I am three hundred miles in length, and enter this day into the jaws of the Leviathan'". [24] [21]

When the Leviathan is hungry, reports Rabbi Dimi in the name of Rabbi Johanan, he sends forth from his mouth a heat so great as to make all the waters of the deep boil, and if he would put his head into Paradise no living creature could endure the odor of him. [24] His abode is the Mediterranean Sea and the waters of the Jordan fall into his mouth. [25] [21]

In a legend recorded in the Midrash called Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer it is stated that the fish which swallowed Jonah narrowly avoided being eaten by the Leviathan, which eats one whale each day.

The body of the Leviathan, especially his eyes, possesses great illuminating power. This was the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who, in the course of a voyage in company with Rabbi Joshua, explained to the latter, when frightened by the sudden appearance of a brilliant light, that it probably proceeded from the eyes of the Leviathan. He referred his companion to the words of Job 41:18: "By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning". [26] However, in spite of his supernatural strength, the leviathan is afraid of a small worm called "kilbit", which clings to the gills of large fish and kills them. [27] [21]

In the eleventh-century piyyut (religious poem), Akdamut, recited on Shavuot (Pentecost), it is envisioned that, ultimately, God will slaughter the Leviathan, which is described as having "mighty fins" (and, therefore, a kosher fish, not an inedible snake or crocodile), and it will be served as a sumptuous banquet for all the righteous in Heaven.

In the Zohar, the Leviathan is a metaphor for enlightenment. The Zohar remarks that the legend of the righteous eating the skin of the leviathan at the end of the days is not literal, and merely a metaphor for enlightenment. [28] The Zohar also specifies in detail that the Leviathan has a mate. [29] The Zohar also associates the metaphor of the leviathan with the "tzaddik" or righteous in Zohar 2:11b and 3:58a. The Zohar associates it with the "briach" the pole in the middle of the boards of the tabernacle in Zohar 2:20a. Both, are associated with the Sefira of Yesod. [30]

According to Abraham Isaac Kook, the Leviathan – a singular creature with no mate, "its tail is placed in its mouth" (Zohar) "twisting around and encompassing the entire world" (Rashi on Baba Batra 74b) – projects a vivid metaphor for the universe's underlying unity. This unity will only be revealed in the future, when the righteous will feast on the Leviathan. [31]


Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, fired rockets into northern Israeli population centers in the 1990s, posing a security challenge for the Israel Defense Forces. Israel had floated the idea of its own short-range antimissile system, but U.S. defense officials cautioned that it would be "doomed to fail". [19]

In 2004, the idea for Iron Dome gained momentum with the installation of Brig. Gen. Daniel Gold as the head of the research and development bureau of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Gold was a strong backer of the antimissile project, even skirting army contracting regulations to secure financing. [19] He also helped persuade key politicians to support the project. [19]

During the 2006 Second Lebanon War, approximately 4,000 Hezbollah-fired rockets (the great majority of which were short-range Katyusha rockets) landed in northern Israel, including on Haifa, the country's third largest city. The rocket barrage killed 44 Israeli civilians [20] and caused some 250,000 Israeli citizens to evacuate and relocate to other parts of Israel while an estimated 1 million Israelis were confined in or near bomb shelters during the conflict. [21]

To the south, more than 8,000 projectiles (estimated at 4,000 rockets and 4,000 mortar bombs) were fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centers from Gaza between 2000 and 2008, principally by Hamas. Almost all of the rockets fired were Qassams launched by 122 mm Grad launchers smuggled into the Gaza Strip, giving longer range than other launch methods. Nearly a million Israelis living in the south were within rocket range, posing a serious security threat to the country and its citizens. [22]

In February 2007, Defense Minister Amir Peretz selected Iron Dome as Israel's defense against this short-range rocket threat. [23] Since then, the $210 million system has been developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems working jointly with the IDF. [24]

In May 2021 it was estimated that Palestinian militant groups had an arsenal of about 30,000 rockets and mortar bombs in Gaza, potential targets, when fired, for Iron Dome. Range varies widely, and guidance systems are lacking, but accuracy has improved over the years. There are estimates of the numbers and types of rockets, and their range and payload. [25]

Project leader Colonel S. and his team in the Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure (Maf'at) needed an appropriate name for the system. According to Colonel S., "The first name I thought of was 'Anti-Qassam', but when the project started to move forward I realized it was problematic. I sat down with my wife, and together we thought of suitable names. She suggested the name 'Tamir' (Hebrew acronym for טיל מיירט, Til Meyaret, 'interceptor missile') for the missile, and for the system itself we thought of 'Golden Dome'. The following Sunday, 'Tamir' was immediately approved, but there was a problem with 'Golden Dome'—it could be perceived as ostentatious. So it was changed to 'Iron Dome'." [14] [15]

The system is designed to counter short-range rockets and 155 mm artillery shells with a range of up to 70 kilometers. According to its manufacturer, Iron Dome will operate day and night, under adverse weather conditions, and can respond to multiple threats simultaneously. [1]

Iron Dome has three central components: [1] [24]

  • Detection & Tracking Radar: the radar system is built by Elta, an Israeli defense company and subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries, and by the IDF.
  • Battle Management & Weapon Control (BMC): the control center is built for Rafael by mPrest Systems, an Israeli software company.

The system's radar is referred to as EL/M-2084. It detects the rocket's launch and tracks its trajectory. The BMC calculates the impact point according to the reported data, and uses this information to determine whether the target constitutes a threat to a designated area. Only when that threat is determined, is an interceptor missile fired to destroy the incoming rocket before it reaches the predicted impact area. [24]

Comparison to a typical battery

The typical air defense missile battery consists of a radar unit, missile control unit, and several launchers, all located at the same site.

Conversely, Iron Dome is built to deploy in a scattered pattern. Each launcher, containing 20 interceptors, is independently deployed and operated remotely via a secure wireless connection. [28] Reportedly, each Iron Dome battery is capable of protecting an urban area of approximately 150 square kilometers. [29]

The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel. [30] This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems. [31] Subsequently, funding for an additional eight Iron Dome systems—along with funding for a supply of interception missiles—is currently being provided by the United States, with two of these additional systems having been delivered by 2012. [31] Funding for the production and deployment of these additional Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles was approved by the United States Congress, after being requested by President Obama in 2010. [32] In May 2010, the White House announced that U.S. President Barack Obama would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress in his 2011 budget, to spur the production and deployment of additional Iron Dome batteries. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor stated, "The president recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel's short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome." This would be the first direct U.S. investment in the project. [32] Such financial assistance could expedite the completion of the defensive system, which has long been delayed by budgetary shortfalls. [33] A few days later, on 20 May 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the funding in a 410–4 vote. [34] The bill, the United States–Israel Missile Defense Cooperation and Support Act (H.R. 5327), was sponsored by Representative Glenn C. Nye of Virginia. [35] This money was expected to be included in the 2011 budget. Once the money was received in 2011, it still took a further 18 months before the additional batteries were delivered to the air force. [36]

On 9 May 2011, Haaretz published that Defense Ministry director general Maj. Gen. (res.) Udi Shani said that Israel plans to invest nearly $1 billion in the coming years for the development and production of Iron Dome batteries. "We are no longer approaching this in terms of initial operational capabilities but are defining the final target for absorbing the systems, in terms of schedule and funds. We are talking about [having] 10–15 Iron Dome batteries. We will invest nearly $1 billion on this. This is the goal, in addition to the $205 million that the U.S. government has authorized," Shani said. [37]

On 4 April 2012, Reuters reported that a senior Israeli official, during a briefing to a small group of journalists on condition of anonymity, predicted an increased interception range of up to 250 km, as well as more flexible aiming of Iron Dome units, thus lowering the number of batteries needed for full deployment in Israel. That would help Israel to cope with the prospect of reduced funding from the United States, while a "new round" of talks about missile-defense funding would be completed in two to three months, he anticipated. While praising American largess, the official said US planners have asked Israel to "point out honestly where the upper limit is in terms of what can be implemented" with the Iron Dome. He said the US is "deep in (fiscal) challenges itself", so it does not want to "give money for the sake of it". [38]

In exchange for the second tranche of deployment funding, the United States asked Israel for access to, and a stake in, elements of the system's technology. [39]

On 17 May 2012, when Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the Pentagon issued a statement from the Secretary saying in part, "I was pleased to inform Minister Barak that the President supports Israel's Iron Dome system and directed me to fill the $70 million in assistance for Iron Dome that Minister Barak indicated to me Israel needs this fiscal year." [40]

On 18 May 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, with $680 million for Iron Dome in Section 227. The report accompanying the bill, 112–479, also calls for technology sharing as well as co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in light of the nearly $900 million invested in the system since 2011.

Section 227, Iron Dome Short-range Rocket Defense Program, would authorize $680.0 million for the Iron Dome system in fiscal years 2012–15 in PE 63913C for procurement of additional batteries and interceptors, and for operations and sustainment expenses. This section would also require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to establish within MDA a program office for cooperative missile defense efforts on the Iron Dome system to ensure long-term cooperation on this program. The committee is aware that National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) included $205.0 million for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system for the State of Israel. The committee notes that the Iron Dome system has proven very effective at defeating threat rockets launched at protected targets. The committee also notes that if the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S. taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0 million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680 million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights to this technology for United States defense purposes, subject to an agreement with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, and in a manner consistent with prior U.S.–Israeli missile defense cooperation on the Arrow and David's Sling suite of systems. The committee also believes that the Director should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system. [41]

On 4 June 2012, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee included $210 million for Iron Dome, in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, S.3254. The bill has been reported out of committee and is waiting to be assigned a date for consideration by the full Senate. [42]

Sec. 237, Availability of Funds for Iron Dome Short Range Rocket Defense Program, said that of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by section 201 for research, development, test, and evaluation, defense-wide, and available for the Missile Defense Agency, $210,000,000 may be provided to the Government of Israel for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program as specified in the funding table in section 4201.

On 17 January 2014, President Barack Obama signed the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The bill provides $235 million for Israel to procure the Iron Dome system. [43] The Israeli government has also agreed to spend more than half the funds the United States provides for the Iron Dome system in the United States. Funds going to U.S. contractors will increase to 30 percent in 2014 and 55 percent in 2015 from 3 percent previously, according to a U.S. Missile Defense Agency report to Congress. [44]

On 1 August 2014, Congress approved a measure to deliver an additional $225 million in aid to Israel, with the aim of replenishing funds for the Iron Dome system in the midst of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Following the signing of bill, for which "the Senate and House of Representatives as well as Republicans and Democrats set[ting] aside differences to advance Israel's emergency request," the White House stated that "The United States has been clear since the start of this conflict that no country can abide rocket attacks against its civilians" and that it "supports Israel's right to defend itself against such attacks." [45] [46] Senate Report 113-211 from the U.S. Government Publishing Office, which accompanied text H.R. 4870, [47] recommended an increase in funding for the program for FY2015. The report calculates "U.S. investment in Iron Dome production since fiscal year 2011" to be over $1 billion. [48]

With the United States on track to greatly increase funding for Iron Dome, there have been calls for technology transfer and co-production of Iron Dome in the United States. Just as the US and Israel share co-production of the Arrow III missile system, with Boeing manufacturing 40–50 percent of the production content, there has been support in the U.S. Congress, media and think tanks in favor of co-production. [49] The U.S. House of Representatives included report language in its FY-2013 Defense Authorization Act supporting Iron Dome with $680 million but also instructing that the Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, "should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system." [50] There were media reports that the Pentagon was requesting similar language in the Senate Defense Authorization Act as well as the respective House and Senate defense appropriations bills for 2013. [30] Adding Iron Dome to the list of high-tech military programs built jointly by both nations would help further strengthen ties between Israel and the United States. [51]

In July 2014 it was announced that Raytheon would be the major U.S. partner in co-production of major components for the Iron Dome's Tamir intercepting missile. [52] The U.S. firm will supply components through various subcontractors.


In 2005, Brig. Gen. Danny Gold, then head of Maf'at, decided to start the program that would include the system's research and a demonstration of the intercepting system. [14] [15] In 2007, Israel commissioned the development of Iron Dome, choosing Israeli contractor Rafael over the American giant Lockheed Martin. Israeli company mPrest Systems was put in charge of programming the core of Iron Dome's battle management system. Iron Dome went from the drawing board to combat readiness within less than four years, a remarkably short period of time for a weapons system designed from scratch, according to military experts. [53]

There was no system like this, anywhere in the world, in terms of capabilities, speed, accuracy. We felt like a start-up.

According to the leading developers of Iron Dome, due to schedule and low-cost settings constraints, some of the missile components have been taken from a toy car sold by Toys "R" Us. [54]


  • July 2008: the Tamir interceptor missile underwent successful testing. [55]
  • March 2009: Israel successfully tested the missile defense system, though without yet actually intercepting an actual projectile. [56]
  • July 2009: the system successfully intercepted a number of rockets mimicking Qassam and short-range Katyusha rockets in a Defense Ministry test. [57]
  • August 2009: the IDF completed the establishment of a new battalion that will operate the Iron Dome system. The battalion is a part of the Israel Air Force's Air Defense Division. The system was to be first deployed along the Gaza border and then along the border with Lebanon. The system was slated to start operating in mid-2010. [58]
  • January 2010: Iron Dome successfully intercepted multiple rocket barrages mimicking Qassams and Katyushas. Defense Ministry Director-General Pinhas Buchris stated that the system would ultimately "transform" security for the residents of southern and northern Israel. [59]
  • July 2010: The system successfully intercepted multiple rocket barrages mimicking Qassams and Katyushas. During the test, Iron Dome successfully distinguished rockets which were threats from those that would not land in designated areas and did not need to be intercepted. [60]
  • March 2011: Iron Dome was declared operational by the IDF, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak authorized deployment. [61][62]

During the first stage of Iron Dome's operational duty, the Israeli Air Force included many soldiers from Sderot, citing high motivation among the city's pre-army youth to be part of the project. [63] The 947th "Marksmen" Stinger Battalion of the Israeli Air Defense Network was chosen as the first unit to become familiar with and operate Iron Dome. [64]

Energy weapons

Although Iron Dome has proven its effectiveness against rocket attacks, Defense Ministry officials are concerned it will not be able to handle more massive arsenals possessed by Hezbollah in Lebanon should a conflict arise. Although in Operation Protective Edge it had a 90 percent hit rate against only rockets determined to be headed for populated areas, 735 intercepts were made at a cost of $70,000–100,000 per interceptor with an estimated 100,000 rockets possessed by Hezbollah, Iron Dome systems could be fiscally and physically overwhelmed by dozens of incoming salvos. In 2014 Directed-energy weapons were being investigated as a complement to Iron Dome, with lower system cost and lower cost per shot. Solid-state lasers worldwide have power levels ranging from 10–40 kW to destroy a rocket safely from 15–20 km (9.3–12.4 mi) away, several low-power beams could coordinate and converge on one spot to burn through its outer shell and destroy it. Because laser beams become distorted and ineffective in foggy or heavy cloud conditions, any laser weapon would need to be complemented by Iron Dome. [65]

In 1996, the Israelis developed the Nautilus prototype and later deployed it in Kiryat Shmona, Israel's northernmost city along the Lebanese border. It used a collection of components from other systems and succeeded in keeping a beam on the same point for two continuous seconds using an early prototype of the Green Pine radar. Nautilus succeeded in its goal to prove the concept was feasible, but it was never deployed operationally, as the government believed that sending in ground troops to stop rocket fire at source was more cost-effective. [65]

At the 2014 Singapore Air Show, Rafael unveiled its Iron Beam laser air-defense system. Iron Beam is a directed-energy weapon made to complement the Iron Dome system by using a high-energy laser to destroy rockets, mortar bombs, and other airborne threats. [66] Development of the system began some time after the joint United States and Israel Nautilus laser development program ended. [3]

In December 2014, former Israeli Air Force chief and head of Boeing Israel David Ivry showed interest in the American Laser Weapon System (LaWS). Earlier that month, the U.S. Navy had revealed that the LaWS had been mounted on the USS Ponce and locked onto and destroyed designated targets with near-instantaneous lethality, with each laser shot costing less than $1. [65]


In October 2014, Rafael unveiled a naval version of the Iron Dome called C-Dome. It is designed to protect vessels in blue and littoral waters from ballistic trajectory and direct attack weapons fired in saturation attacks. C-Dome includes a 10-round canister loaded with vertically-launched Tamir interceptors for 360-degree coverage, a feature not supported by the land-based Iron Dome system the ship's own surveillance radar is used to negate the need for a dedicated fire control radar. The system has a small footprint to enable installation on small ships like offshore patrol vessels, corvettes, and even stationary oil rigs. [67] Though in the very early stages of concept development, Rafael estimated that it could take less than a year to build a prototype C-Dome system. Preliminary discussions with potential users have already been launched. [16] The C-Dome will be used on the Israeli Navy's Sa'ar 6-class corvettes. [68] On 18 May 2016 Col. Ariel Shir, head of Israeli Naval operation systems announced that the system had successfully intercepted and destroyed a salvo of short range missiles while deployed on a naval vessel at sea. [69] On 27 November 2017, the Israeli military declared initial operational capability for the C-Dome, completing more than 18 months of integration and design work. [70]


The Iron Dome has been pitched to the IDF as a more cost-effective anti-aircraft system to intercept unmanned aerial vehicles. Some estimates of the cost of a Tamir interceptor are around $100,000, but it is still 95 percent cheaper than using a MIM-104 Patriot, the primary Israeli interceptor, costing $2–3 million. Although the Patriot has broader coverage, the low cost of UAVs and operational scenarios they would be encountered in would make Iron Dome equally effective against them. No material upgrades would be needed to optimize the system for drone-killing missions, as this role and capability has been publicized from its inception. [71]

In July 2015, Rafael released video footage of Iron Dome interceptors destroying several low and high-flying UAVs in a test. Although some targets were destroyed by proximity-operated warheads, in others the interceptor achieved a kinetic hit. The company says the system is capable of destroying armed UAVs before they can get close enough to release their munitions, and most medium-altitude reconnaissance UAVs before they are close enough to survey an area. [72]

Other uses

In June 2016, it was revealed that the Iron Dome had been tested to successfully intercept salvos of artillery shells, which are typically difficult to destroy because of the need to penetrate the thickness of their metal casings to get to the warhead, and "multiple" air-to-ground precision guided munitions (PGMs) similar to the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). [73]

The Iron Dome system began operating in early 2011, [62] initially deployed at air force bases in southern Israel. It was designated to be set up in other areas, such as the town of Sderot, during significant escalations along the Gaza border. [74]

On 27 March 2011, Al Jazeera English reported that Iron Dome has been deployed for the first time. Brigadier-General Doron Gavish, commander of Israel's air defense corps, said Iron Dome had passed a series of tests and reached its "evaluation phase" in the field. It was stationed near Beersheba, following two rocket attacks on the area that month. [11]

On 7 April 2011, after deployment as an "operational experiment" on 3 April, the Iron Dome system in the area of Ashkelon successfully intercepted a Grad rocket fired at the city, the first time a short-range rocket fired from Gaza had been intercepted. According to reports from the area, the interception could be seen in Israeli towns near northern Gaza. [12] Immediately afterwards an IAF aircraft successfully attacked the squad that had fired the rocket. Later that day the IDF stressed that the system, though operational, was still under evaluation. [75] On 8 April the system successfully intercepted another four rockets. [76]

On 12 April, the IDF announced it would accelerate the introduction of a third Iron Dome battery. According to Haaretz, IDF officials indicated that the security establishment intended to ensure that the third battery would become available in six months, instead of the expected 18 months. According to the new plan, launchers from existing systems would be combined with other components that had already been manufactured to speed up the battery's production. In that way, the first operational Iron Dome battalion would come into being within six months, with batteries that could be deployed in the south or in other arenas. [77]

Also according to Haaretz, the IDF was to finalize its long-term Iron Dome acquisition program—nicknamed "Halamish"—within a few months (from April 2011), which would indicate the final number of systems to be introduced into the military. Israel Air Force officials estimated the number of Iron Dome systems needed to cover threatened areas as thirteen. [77] According to Meir Elran, a scholar at the Institute of National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, Israel would need a total of 20 batteries to provide adequate defense for its borders with Gaza and Lebanon. Such a deployment would require financial assistance from the United States, but he said that even in the original limited form, officially designated a trial period, the system was important. [53]

On 5 August 2011, the IDF redeployed the Iron Dome system near Ashkelon following days of heightened rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. The deployment came a day after Ashkelon mayor Benny Vaknin sent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak a letter asking them to redeploy the system. [78]

On 18 August 2011, four rockets were fired from Gaza at Ashkelon. The system determined that two were a threat and intercepted them, ignoring the other two which were directed at non-populated areas. No injuries or damage were reported. Defense officials said that Iron Dome would be re-deployed in Beersheba. [79]

On 20 August 2011, while engaging with a volley of seven rockets fired almost simultaneously at Be'er Sheva from Gaza, one was not intercepted by the defense system, exploding in a residential area and killing one person. Brig. Gen. Doron Gavish, commander of the IAF's Air Defense Corps, said on the following day that "we said in advance that this wasn't a hermetic system," adding that the air defense units were learning on the fly and improving the performance of Iron Dome while operating it. "This is the first system of its kind anywhere in the world it is in its first operational test and we've already intercepted a large number of rockets targeting Israeli communities, saving many civilian lives," Gavish said. [80]

On 21 August 2011, Ynetnews reported that the success of the Iron Dome system against Gazan rocket fire had southern city mayors battling over the right to be the next to have it deployed in their area. The IDF stressed that "no system can offer airtight protection" and that the system positioned in Ashkelon was incapable of extending its defense to Ashdod, but this did not stop the mayors from pressuring the Defense Ministry and the IDF to position Iron Dome batteries within their city limits. Ashdod, Ofakim, Netivot, Beersheba, and Ashkelon have all pursued the system, but the IDF had only two batteries available. [81]

On the same day, The Jerusalem Post reported that Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced that a third Iron Dome battery would be installed in the region "within weeks", and estimated that nine more batteries would be positioned within the next two years [ needs update ] . [82] In attacks shortly before, the Iron Dome system had successfully intercepted about 85% of the rockets identified as threats to populated areas by the Battle Management Control (BMC) system launched at Israel from Gaza. [83]

On 23 August 2011, Globes reported that Rafael would invest tens of millions of shekels in the following months to open a second production line for the Iron Dome's Tamir interceptor missiles. Future operational needs, as well as the plan to build two more Iron Dome batteries by the end of the year, necessitated the increase of missile production. [84]

On 31 August 2011, the IAF deployed a third Iron Dome battery outside Ashdod. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who had said earlier in the week that it would take 10 days until the battery was deployed near Ashdod, praised the IDF and the IAF Air Defense Division for beating the deadline and beginning the deployment before the opening of the school year. [29]

On 1 December 2011, Brig. Gen. Gavish said that a fourth battery of the system would be deployed in the "coming months". He spoke to The Jerusalem Post ahead of the Air Defense Division's largest-ever draft of soldiers needed to fill the ranks of its increasing number of units and battalions. "The numbers will continue to grow and another battery will become operational in the beginning of the year," he said. [85] On 8 December, "outstanding" officer Capt. Roytal Ozen began to command the battery's unit in preparation for its deployment, the first woman to be in charge of the system. [86]

On 6 December 2011, Matan Vilnai, the Israeli Minister of Home Front Defense, said that the Defense Ministry is considering a permanent deployment of an Iron Dome battery in the Haifa Port to protect the oil refineries there against future Hezbollah rocket attacks. "The continued work of the oil refineries is critical for the Israeli economy during a time of war," he said. During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, a number of Katyusha rockets struck Haifa but did not hit the refineries. A direct hit on one of the refineries may cause numerous casualties as a result of leakage of dangerous chemical substances. The port is also the site of a chemical terminal that includes containers of ammonia and ethylene gas. [87] [88]

On 30 December 2011, The Jerusalem Post reported that a performance analysis it had obtained shows that Iron Dome was successful in downing rockets from Gaza 75% of the times it fired. It said two interceptors are usually fired at each rocket. In April 2011, for example, the system succeeded in intercepting eight of 10 rockets. Following the October violence, the IDF conducted an inquiry into the Iron Dome's performance and discovered that a radar failure caused some of the interceptors to miss their targets, a problem since corrected. An officer told the Post that "seventy-five percent is impressive, but we would still like to see it perform better." [89]

Response by Palestinian militants

On 22 August 2011, Haaretz reported that according to Israeli security sources, Palestinian militants changed their rocket-launching tactics in an attempt to evade the two Iron Dome batteries deployed in southern Israel. The new tactics included aiming more frequently at areas beyond the Iron Dome protection range. After the Palestinian launch teams realized that the systems deployed in the previous two weeks around Ashkelon and Be'er Sheva provided near-perfect protection from rockets, they began firing more frequently at Ashdod and Ofakim. When they did aim at Beersheba on 21 August, they did not fire one or two rockets, as in the past, but rather a volley of seven rockets almost simultaneously. Iron Dome intercepted five of them successfully, but one penetrated the defense system, exploding in a residential area and killing a man. [80]

August 2011 Supreme Court decision

On 8 August 2011, the Israeli High Court of Justice rejected a petition asking that the government be ordered to deploy the system in Gaza border communities. In rejecting the petition, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and Justices Salim Joubran and Uzi Fogelman ruled that in balancing all relevant considerations including budgets, changing security realities and operational matters, the government's decision not to deploy the Iron Dome in the area was reasonable. The panel of justices also said that the court had no reason to intervene in operational decisions regarding where to deploy the Iron Dome system. "We believe the [government] will make the necessary decisions in accordance with the time and place requirements," they said. [90]

In its petition, the Eshkol Regional Council argued that the government should be ordered to deploy the Iron Dome to protect communities between 4.5 and 7 kilometers from Gaza from rocket fire. Government-funded rocket-roof protection is in place for homes in communities within 4.5 km of Gaza, but not for structures further from the border. [90]

The state said that the High Court should not intervene in the "military decision" regarding how and where to deploy the anti-rocket system. It also argued that if the court were to order it to deploy Iron Dome in a specific area, budgetary limitations would result in other communities not receiving protection, particularly as the range of Palestinian rockets had grown in recent years and therefore it was not possible to deploy Iron Dome to protect every community. [90]

December 2011 accident

On 26 December 2011, an accident occurred during a maintenance drill involving one of the systems. While loading missiles into a launcher vehicle from a bunker at the Air Defense Network's school near kibbutz Mashabei Sadeh in the Negev, [91] two soldiers caused twenty Tamir interceptors to fall from a height of four meters near soldiers and officers without detonating, causing no injury, but making them unserviceable. [92] [93] Ynetnews reported that the soldiers were never in danger because the interceptor missiles are equipped with a security mechanism that prevents premature explosions. The IDF Spokesperson's Unit said that the Air Force commander, Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, appointed a committee to examine the accident and ordered an immediate stop to all Air Defense Network maintenance work until a preliminary investigation was concluded. [93] It also said that during the following week actions would be taken to "improve skills and safety awareness". [91] [92] A security official told Reshet Bet that the failure was twofold in that the soldiers and their commander deviated from severely strict safety protocols, and 20 costly interceptors were lost. [92] Walla! website reported that the soldiers made a mistake in loading the missiles and they fell backwards. The website calculated the damage at US$1 million (at $50,000 per missile). The missiles were transferred back to Rafael to determine whether they could be repaired. [91]

On 1 January 2012, those soldiers were sentenced to punishment by the school's commanding officer following an inquiry into their conduct regarding the incident. The lieutenant in charge of the loading crew was given 21 days in mahbosh, while the sergeant in charge of the technician crew was given 14 days. [94]

March 2012 intensive attacks

After the IDF killing of Zohair al-Qaisi, the secretary general of the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza on 9 March 2012, more than 300 rockets were fired on Israel. Some 177 fell on Israeli territory. The Iron Dome system had successfully intercepted at least 56 rockets (directed at population centers) in 71 attempts.

July 2012 first Eilat deployment

On 11 July 2012, Ynetnews reported that on that day the Iron Dome system was deployed in the greater Eilat area as a part of an IDF survey meant to test it in various areas across Israel. [95] The IDF published on its website that the Iron Dome battery will be temporarily stationed there as part of an effort to test and prepare different sites across the country for the possibility of permanently stationing there additional batteries. "Since the system continues to grow and improve, it is important to test potential sites," said a commander from the Air Defense Formation. "After stationing Iron Dome batteries in numerous regions in southern Israel, including Ashkelon, Ashdod, Netivot and Gush Dan—it is time to test the southernmost region in the country, Eilat." [96] Haaretz reported that an official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the interceptors were set up on 9 July. [97] Three weeks beforehand, two Katyhusha rockets were fired into southern Israel, and according to The Jerusalem Post the IDF believes that they originated from the Sinai. According to the report, IDF assessments are that they were either fired by a Palestinian rocket cell from Gaza—affiliated either with Hamas or Islamic Jihad—or by Bedouin freelancers who work for them. The launches followed an earlier one in April 2012, when at least one Katyusha rocket was fired from the Sinai to Eilat. [98] Ynetnews reported that according to a military source, following these rocket attacks, the IDF decided not to take any chances and calibrated the system to the region's topography, before finally deploying it. The system's deployment was coordinated with local communities and the City of Eilat, to prevent public panic. [95]

November 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense

According to the Israeli Air Force, during operation "Pillar of Defense" (14–21 November 2012) Iron Dome made 421 interceptions. [99] On 17 November, after two rockets targeted Tel Aviv during the operation, a battery was deployed in the area. Within hours, a third rocket was intercepted by the system. This fifth battery had not been scheduled to come into service until early 2013. [100]

CNN relayed an estimate that Iron Dome's success rate in Pillar of Defense was about 85%. [101]

July 2014 Operation Protective Edge

The system was employed during operation "Protective Edge", intercepting rockets launched from Gaza towards southern, central and northern parts of Israel. [102] As of August 2014, ten Iron Dome batteries had been deployed throughout Israel. [4] During the 50 days of the conflict 4,594 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli targets Iron Dome systems intercepted 735 projectiles that it determined were threatening, achieving an intercept success rate of 90 percent. Only 70 rockets fired at Israel from Gaza failed to be intercepted. One civilian was killed and three others and nine servicemen were wounded by mortar bombs, but they were not in areas protected by Iron Dome. Only 25 percent of rockets fired were determined to be threatening due to the low accuracy and unstable trajectory of the poor-quality rockets fired. Six systems had been deployed prior to hostilities, and three more were rushed into service for a total of nine batteries used during the conflict a tenth system was delivered, but not deployed due to a shortage of staff. [103]

May 2018 Israel–Iran incidents

On 10 May 2018, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran allegedly launched 20 rockets from Syria toward Israel in retaliation for recent Israeli airstrikes against IRGC facilities. According to an IDF spokesperson, 16 of the rockets fell short of the Israeli border, and Iron Dome intercepted the other four. Israel reported no casualties or damage. [104]

Gaza-Israel clashes

The Iron Dome system intercepted 100 rockets that were launched from the Gaza Strip in mid-November 2018. [105]

Mount Hermon video

On 21 January 2019, the IDF released footage online of a Syrian Arab Army rocket attack on the Golan Heights being intercepted by Iron Dome. The video was shot by skiers at Mount Hermon ski resort Israeli authorities announced that the resort was closed until further notice. The attack was in response to Israel's launching of nine rockets at SAA targets in western Damascus. [106] [107] [108]

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

During the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, over 4,300 rockets were fired at Israel by Hamas from Gaza [109] from 11 to 21 May. In the first 24 hours of the conflict 470 rockets were fired, a much higher rate than had been attained in previous conflicts. Of the rockets, 17% were long-range attacks on Tel Aviv, again more than previously. [25] About 680 of the rockets fired during hostilities fell short and landed in Gaza the Iron Dome system intercepted about 90% of the rockets heading to populated areas within Israel. [109] During the operation Iron Dome shot down a bomb-laden drone. [110]

On 15 May 2021 Israel destroyed the twelve-storey Jala tower building, which housed the Gaza offices of Associated Press (AP) and Al Jazeera, with an air strike, giving one hour's notice for evacuation. The press agencies demanded an explanation at the time Israeli government sources said that there had been hidden Hamas military assets used by its intelligence wing in the building. On 8 June Israel said that Hamas was carrying out signals intelligence (SIGINT), electronic signals intelligence (ELINT), and electronic warfare (EW) operations from the building, including developing an electronic system to jam Iron Dome. AP demanded proof of this Hamas did not immediately make any comment. Israel said that they did not suspect that AP personnel knew of Hamas's use of the building, and offered to assist AP in rebuilding its offices and operations in Gaza. [109]

In 2017 it was reported that Israel was planning to deploy Iron Dome batteries at sea to protect off-shore gas platforms, working in conjunction with Israel's Barak 8 missile system. [17] Two Iron Dome batteries were to be deployed on each of the Israeli Navy's Sa'ar 6-class corvettes. [17]

Some Iron Dome systems have been exported. A weakness for most potential markets is that each Iron Dome system protects no more than 100–150 square kilometers this is effective in a small country like Israel, but not for larger states. Even in Israel the batteries have to be moved around according to perceived risk of attack. Singapore, a small city-state, is reported to have purchased Iron Dome, and the US Army has bought two batteries to protect overseas bases. [111]

Azerbaijan On 17 December 2016, Azerbaijan Defense Industry Minister Yavar Jamalov told reporters that Azerbaijan had reached an agreement with Israel to purchase Iron Dome batteries in the first confirmed foreign sale of the system. The country's acquisition of the system is believed to be related to neighboring Armenia's purchase of Russian Iskander short-range ballistic missiles. [112] India On 23 November 2012, The Economic Times reported that Indian Defense planners were considering the possibility of India acquiring an indigenous version of Iron Dome, keeping a close watch on the performance of Iron Dome during the 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense. Several months earlier, the military scientists in the Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) had suggested that India look at a joint development program with Israeli firms to develop an Indian version of Iron Dome. They believed Israel's short range missile defense requirements have several parallels to the Indian threat from Pakistan, which includes a "battlefield range" quasi-tactical ballistic nuclear weapon delivery system, called Nasr, which some Indian defense sources say the Iron Dome might be an effective deterrent against, as well as the vulnerability of its cities to attacks from militants. However they have not used any missiles against India. [113] "The Israeli team comes and works in our laboratories. Our team goes and works in their laboratories and industries. There is a learning that is taking place which was not there when we buy things and integrate with existing products. we have started discussions about Iron Dome for co-development (in India)," W. Selvamurthy, Chief Controller looking after international cooperation said. [113] On 8 February 2013, Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne, commander of the Indian Air Force, told reporters that Iron Dome is not suitable for the service. The announcement came after two years of discussions. [114] In August 2013, India resumed attempting to acquire the Iron Dome system after Israel agreed to transfer system technology. Iron Dome could complement the domestic long-range Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme air defense system. [115] In 2017, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi signed a series of agreements on defense and technology worth around $2 billion, including a deal to buy the "Iron Dome" system. [116] Romania In May 2018, Romania's Romaero signed a deal to purchase the Iron Dome system. [117] United States On 16 August 2011, Raytheon Company announced that it had teamed with Rafael to lead marketing in the United States for the Iron Dome system. "Iron Dome complements other Raytheon weapons that provide intercept capabilities to the US Army's Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar initiative at forward operating bases," said Mike Booen, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems' Advanced Security and Directed Energy Systems product line. "Iron Dome can be seamlessly integrated with Raytheon's C-RAM systems to complete the layered defense." [118] On 10 November 2011, The Jerusalem Post reported that the US Army had expressed interest in acquiring the system, to be deployed outside forward bases in Iraq and Afghanistan that could potentially be targeted by artillery rockets. The US military had discovered 107 mm rockets in Iraq in the past. [119] Yossi Druker, head of Rafael's Air-to-Air Directorate, said that the initial deal was valued at $100 million, but could reach several hundred million dollars over a number of years. [120] In April 2016, Iron Dome's Tamir interceptor successfully shot down a UAV during a test firing in the United States, the system's first trial on foreign soil. [121] In January 2019 it was reported that the United States would purchase two Iron Dome batteries for 373 million dollars. The batteries were to be deployed to protect US armed forces in hostile areas of operation. [122] The order was for two command posts and radars, 12 launchers, and 480 missiles [123] and was finalized in August 2019. [124] Rafael announced the first battery's delivery on 30 September 2020. [125] On 13 November 2020, Iron Dome was activated at Fort Bliss to test if it could be connected into the Army's air and missile defense network, to serve as an interim capability to intercept cruise missiles. [126] [127] The Israeli MOD announced the delivery of the second battery on 3 January 2021. [128]

Possible foreign sales

Following the system's deployment in April 2011, Iron Dome was used to successfully intercept Katyusha rockets fired by Palestinian militants. [134] In August that year, Iron Dome intercepted 20 missiles and rockets fired into Israel. However, in one instance the system destroyed four rockets fired at the city of Beersheba but failed to stop a fifth, which killed one man and injured several others. [135]

In November 2012, during Operation Pillar of Defense, the Iron Dome's effectiveness was estimated by Israeli officials at between 75 and 95 percent. [136] According to Israeli officials, of the approximately 1,000 missiles and rockets fired into Israel by Hamas from the beginning of Operation Pillar of Defense up to 17 November 2012, Iron Dome identified two-thirds as not posing a threat and intercepted 90 percent of the remaining 300. [137] During this period the only Israeli casualties were three individuals killed in missile attacks after a malfunction of the Iron Dome system. [138]

In comparison with other air defense systems, the effectiveness rate of Iron Dome is very high. [136] Defense consultant Steven Zaloga stated that Iron Dome's destruction of 90 percent of missiles it targeted is "an extremely high level", above that usually expected for air defense systems. [139] Slate reported that the effectiveness rate is "unprecedented" in comparison with earlier systems such as the Patriot missile defence system. [140]

Defense reporter Mark Thompson wrote that, the "lack of Israeli casualties suggests Iron Dome is the most-effective, most-tested missile shield the world has ever seen." [141]

During Operation Protective Edge Iron Dome's interceptors were claimed to have struck down 87–90% of their targets, [142] [143] totaling 735 successful interceptions. [144]

In the 2006 war with Hezbollah, prior to Iron Dome's development, during 34 days of fighting, 4,000 rockets landed and 53 Israelis were killed. However, in the 2014 war with Gaza, the 50-day conflict and 3,360 rockets resulted in just two rocket-related deaths. [145] In 2006, about 30,000 insurance claims for rocket-related damage were filed while in 2014, there were just 2,400. [145]

On 25 March 2019 a J-80 rocket fired from Gaza hit a house in Mishmeret, Israel. According to Hamas the J-80 travels on a nonlinear path and cannot be intercepted by Iron Dome. [146]

In 2010, before the system was declared operational, Iron Dome was criticized by Reuven Pedatzur, a military analyst, former fighter pilot and professor of political science at Tel Aviv University [147] for costing too much compared to the cost of a Qassam rocket (fired by Palestinian forces), so that launching very large numbers of Qassams could essentially attack Israel's financial means. [148] Rafael responded that the cost issue was exaggerated since Iron Dome intercepts only rockets determined to constitute a threat, and that the lives saved and the strategic impact are worth the cost. [149]

The estimated cost of each Tamir interceptor missile was cited in 2014 as from US$20,000 [150] to 50,000 [24] a 2020 analysis estimated a total cost of $100,000 to $150,000 for each interception. [3] In contrast, a crudely manufactured Qassam rocket costs around $800 and the Hamas Grad rocket costs only several thousand dollars. [151] [152]

Other anti-rocket systems, such as the Nautilus laser defense system, were argued to be more effective. From 1995 to 2005, the United States and Israel jointly developed Nautilus but scrapped the system after concluding it was not feasible, having spent $600 million. The US Navy continued R&D on the system. American defense company Northrop Grumman proposed developing a more advanced prototype of Nautilus, Skyguard. [153] Skyguard would use laser beams to intercept rockets, with each beam discharge costing an estimated $1,000–$2,000. With an investment of $180 million, Northrop Grumman claimed it could possibly deploy the system within 18 months. Israeli defense officials rejected the proposal, citing the extended timeline and additional costs.

In a 2012 op-ed in Haaretz, Jamie Levin suggested that the success of the Iron Dome system was likely to increase demands to field additional systems across Israel. Budget shortfalls meant that Israel would be forced to weigh spending on missile defenses against other expenditures. Such funds, he argued, would probably come from programs intended to help the most vulnerable sectors of society, such as social welfare. [154]


Iron Dome can potentially be overcome by swarms of many missiles that exceed its capability to intercept them, and by sheer numbers of attacking missiles during a campaign if not enough interceptors are available to counter them. Also, the cost of each interception is high, while attacking rockets can be relatively inexpensive. These are among the reasons encouraging the development of the Iron Beam energy weapon to complement Iron Dome, which is cheap to fire, has unlimited "ammunition", and is effective at short range. [3] Iron Dome is also significantly less effective against very short-distance saturation strikes. Hamas is aware of these vulnerabilities. In addition to having very large numbers of rockets and using saturation strikes, they consistently fire rockets at low trajectories to make them harder to intercept. [155]

According to Ronen Bergman, in 2012, during Operation Pillar of Defense, Israel agreed to an early cease-fire "for a reason that has remained a closely guarded secret: The Iron Dome anti-missile defense system. had run out of ammunition." Bergman says that as a result of the experience, Israel had tried to prepare larger stocks of interceptors for future rounds of fighting. [156]

During the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis Israel said that Hamas had been developing an electronic system to jam Iron Dome Israeli aircraft destroyed a building said to have been used for this purpose. [109]


Prior to deployment

Prior to its deployment, the Iron Dome was criticized as ineffective in countering the Qassam threat for the southern city of Sderot, given the short distance—840m, half a mile, from the closest point in Sderot to Gaza [157] —and flight time between the much-attacked city and the rocket launching pads in the Gaza Strip. [148] [153] Israeli defense officials insisted in 2008 that with recent improvements to Iron Dome, the system was fully able to intercept Qassams. [153] [158]

Analysis based on YouTube video footage

An unpublished 2013 report [159] by Theodore Postol, Mordechai Shefer and Richard Lloyd, [160] argued that the official effectiveness figures for Iron Dome during Operation Pillar of Defense were incorrect. [161] Although Postol had earlier lauded Iron Dome's effectiveness, [162] after studying YouTube videos of the warhead interceptions as well as police reports and other data, he argued that "Iron Dome's intercept rate, defined as destruction of the rocket's warhead was relatively low, perhaps as low as 5%, but could well be lower." [161] [163] Postol reached this conclusion mainly from an analysis of non-official footage of interceptions taken by civilians and published on YouTube.

The Israeli Institute of National Security Studies published a detailed rebuttal to Postol's claims, labeling it "dubious research without access to credible data". The rebuttal stated:

The report's claims appear puzzling, to say the least, particularly the contention that Iron Dome did not succeed in causing the rocket's warhead to explode. These clips were not filmed during sophisticated trials they were taken by civilians who photographed them using their smartphones and uploaded them to YouTube. In general, it is not possible to know where they were filmed or the direction in which the person filming was looking. It is very difficult to conduct precise analyses, and it is generally difficult to learn from the film about the geometry of the missile's flight. The researchers also looked for double explosions and failed to find them. This is not surprising, since such explosions are very close to each other both in distance and in time—less than a thousandth of a second. There is no way that a smartphone camera could distinguish between a double and a single explosion. [164]

Uzi Rubin writes: "So how did Postol reach such a radical conclusion? He made a series of assumptions on Iron Dome performance, most of them very wrong, and examined public domain video clips shot from smartphones and media cameras that showed the wind-sheared smoke trails of Iron Dome interceptors, but in which the engaged rockets remained invisible. From this half-blind sky picture, he guessed interception geometries that, when matched with his own gross underestimation of Iron Dome performance, yielded an intuitive estimate of a 5 percent to 10 percent success rate. Postol's estimates are simply wrong." [165]

Analysis of damage reports

Postol additionally used the amount of claims filed by the Property Tax Authority and the number of Israeli Police Reports (taken from the Israeli Police website) relating to rockets to support his argument. In relation to Postol's argument based on the number of reports the Israeli Police received, Israeli Institute of National Security Studies wrote: "However, Israel Police reports on calls from citizens, and these include reports on falling fragments, rocket parts, and duds." [166]

Analysis of losses per rocket

Research published in 2018 analyzed the numbers of deaths, injuries, and property damage claims per rocket fired for four conflicts. [167] These were the Second Lebanon War of 2006, Operation Cast Lead in 2008–2009, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014. By comparing the loss rates per rocket of the latter two operations (which had Iron Dome batteries) to the first two (which did not), it estimated the interceptor batteries' overall effectiveness at reducing Israeli losses from rockets. [168]

Those estimates suggest Iron Dome intercepted 59 to 75 percent of all threatening rockets during Protective Edge. "Threatening" means the rockets struck populated areas or were intercepted beforehand. The interceptions likely prevented $42 to $86 million in property damage, three to six deaths, and 120 to 250 injuries. Since those percentages include rockets anywhere in Israel, the high interception rates claimed for only the areas that batteries were defending seem plausible.

By contrast, Iron Dome apparently intercepted less than 32 percent of threatening rockets during Pillar of Defense, perhaps much less. The prevented at most two deaths, 110 injuries and US$7 million in damage. The research also implies the number of rocket hits on populated areas was understated. Conversely, the number of threatening rockets seems overstated. The effective interception rate for Pillar of Defense therefore may have been markedly less than reported.

The study further estimated that improvements in Israeli civil defenses, such as warning sirens and hardened shelters, were at least as good as Iron Dome at reducing civilian deaths and injuries from rockets.

These results partly support critics (like Theodore Postol) of Iron Dome's effectiveness during Pillar of Defense. However, they also partly support proponents (like Uzi Rubin) of the system's effectiveness during Protective Edge.

Effects on Israeli society

Yoav Fromer, writing in The Washington Post, thanked Iron Dome for the lack of fatalities and the relatively low casualty rate among Israeli civilians, and said that the technology appears to provide "both a physical and a psychological solace that enables Israelis to go about their business." However, in his view, over time, Iron Dome may do the Israeli public more harm than good because despite the fact it is a "tactical miracle" it may help create a serious strategic problem to Israelis' long-term security because, by temporarily minimizing the dangers posed by rocket attacks, it distracts Israelis from seeking a broader regional political solution that could finally make systems such as Iron Dome unnecessary. In Fromer's view, the Israeli government is "not exactly brimming with creative ideas to reignite the peace process with the Palestinians. And with Iron Dome, why would it? As long as the Israeli public believes it is safe, for now, under the soothing embrace of technology, it will not demand that its political leaders wage diplomacy to end violence that mandated Iron Dome in the first place. Since Iron Dome has transformed a grim reality into a rather bearable ordeal, Israelis have lost the sense of urgency and outrage that might have pushed their government" to make necessary concessions in exchange for peace. In Fromer's view, Israelis risk confusing the short-term military advantage provided by Iron Dome with the long term need for an original and comprehensive diplomatic solution. [169]

Amir Pertz, the 2006–2007 Israeli Defense Minister who pushed through the implementation of Iron Dome, [170] told The Washington Post that the system is no more than a stopgap measure, and that "In the end, the only thing that will bring true quiet is a diplomatic solution." [171]

Extending the Promised Land to the Transjordan

Fixing the little problem of Nebo&rsquos location was not this author&rsquos main goal, of course arguing for a more extensive promised land was. This third and final take on Moses&rsquos death scene attempts to get the last word on what constitutes the promised land, to make the case that it is not limited to Canaan but includes territory in the Transjordan. Thus, the links between Moses and Abraham are not just compositional (if they are that at all) but ideological&mdashour author also wants to reconfigure the way we view all the promises that come before.

Not everyone in ancient Israel agreed with this maneuver. Other versions of the narrative are clear that this territory is off limits for Israel because it was given by God to the descendants of Lot. And still other texts categorically reject efforts to extend the promised land. [15] The discourse about land is as unstable in our foundational texts as it is in our contemporary conversations. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

[1] These links between Deuteronomy 34 and Genesis are highlighted in Thomas C. Römer and Marc Z. Brettler, &ldquoDeuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,&rdquo Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 401&ndash19.

[2] See, e.g, Konrad Schmid, &ldquoThe Late Persian Formation of the Torah: Observations on Deuteronomy 34,&rdquo in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century C.E., ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Ranier Albertz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 236&ndash45. The same applies to arguments that Deuteronomy 34 forms a Hexateuch or an Enneateuch see Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3 (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2003), 318&ndash320 and Hans-Christoph Schmitt, &ldquoSpätdeuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk und Priesterschrift in Deuteronomium 34,&rdquo in Textarbeit: Studien zur Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels, ed. K. Kiesow and T. Meurer, AOAT 294 (Munich: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003), 407&ndash424.

[3] Num 26:29&ndash30 27:1 32:1&ndash42 36:1 Deut 2:36 3:8&ndash16 4:41&ndash43 Josh 12:1&ndash6 13:8&ndash32 17:1&ndash6 20:8 21:36&ndash37 22:1&ndash34.

[4] Römer and Brettler, &ldquoDeuteronomy 34,&rdquo 405&ndash406.

[5] The ideology in Genesis can also be found in the older layer of the introduction to Deuteronomy before the conquest of Sihon and Og was added to it. See Angela Roskop Erisman, &ldquoTransjordan in Deuteronomy: The Promised Land and the Formation of the Pentateuch,&rdquo Journal of Biblical Literature 132.4 (2013): 769&ndash89. A similar phenomenon is happening in Numbers 21 see Angela Roskop Erisman, &ldquoNavigating the Torah&rsquos Rough Narrative Terrain into the Land,&rdquo TheTorah (2019).

[6] See, e.g., Martin Noth, The Chronicler&rsquos History, trans. H. G. M. Williamson, JSOTSup 50 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 121.

[7] How do we know that the mountain is not named? See Angela Roskop (Erisman), The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah, History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 272&ndash275.

[9] Noth, Chronicler&rsquos History, 129&ndash32, 145. This idea is not currently widely accepted among scholars (and there are certainly problematic elements of Noth&rsquos particular framing of it), but it is still adopted by, e.g., Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, trans. P. Dominique (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 146&ndash53. The idea has faltered in part because it&rsquos hard to find this previous ending. Yet the problem may not be the idea itself but our expectation that we would find the whole ending intact. As David Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 112 notes, &ldquoone thing the current discussion about the &lsquoend of P&rsquo may suggest is that the end of an original P document may not be well preserved&rdquo by tradents who appropriated it.

[11] No other extant administrative document or military narrative that involves itineraries from any period in the ancient Near East or Egypt changes form in the middle. For detailed discussion of these texts and their implications for the wilderness narrative, see Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries. For a source-critical explanation for the three styles, using the Documentary Hypothesis, see David Ben-Gad HaCohen, &ldquoIroning Out Israel's Itinerary through the Transjordan,&rdquo TheTorah (2016).

[12] On the probable location of Iye-abarim in the Negeb, south of the land, see Angela Roskop Erisman, &ldquoFor the Border of the Ammonites Was&hellipWhere?: Historical Geography and Biblical Interpretation in Numbers 21,&rdquo in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 761&ndash76.

[13] Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, 272&ndash74.

[14] This is called reference repair. See Hubert H. Clark, Using Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 284&ndash85.

[1] These links between Deuteronomy 34 and Genesis are highlighted in Thomas C. Römer and Marc Z. Brettler, &ldquoDeuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,&rdquo Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 401&ndash19.

[2] See, e.g, Konrad Schmid, &ldquoThe Late Persian Formation of the Torah: Observations on Deuteronomy 34,&rdquo in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century C.E., ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Ranier Albertz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 236&ndash45. The same applies to arguments that Deuteronomy 34 forms a Hexateuch or an Enneateuch see Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3 (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 2003), 318&ndash320 and Hans-Christoph Schmitt, &ldquoSpätdeuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk und Priesterschrift in Deuteronomium 34,&rdquo in Textarbeit: Studien zur Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels, ed. K. Kiesow and T. Meurer, AOAT 294 (Munich: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003), 407&ndash424.

[3] Num 26:29&ndash30 27:1 32:1&ndash42 36:1 Deut 2:36 3:8&ndash16 4:41&ndash43 Josh 12:1&ndash6 13:8&ndash32 17:1&ndash6 20:8 21:36&ndash37 22:1&ndash34.

[4] Römer and Brettler, &ldquoDeuteronomy 34,&rdquo 405&ndash406.

[5] The ideology in Genesis can also be found in the older layer of the introduction to Deuteronomy before the conquest of Sihon and Og was added to it. See Angela Roskop Erisman, &ldquoTransjordan in Deuteronomy: The Promised Land and the Formation of the Pentateuch,&rdquo Journal of Biblical Literature 132.4 (2013): 769&ndash89. A similar phenomenon is happening in Numbers 21 see Angela Roskop Erisman, &ldquoNavigating the Torah&rsquos Rough Narrative Terrain into the Land,&rdquo TheTorah (2019).

[6] See, e.g., Martin Noth, The Chronicler&rsquos History, trans. H. G. M. Williamson, JSOTSup 50 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 121.

[7] How do we know that the mountain is not named? See Angela Roskop (Erisman), The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah, History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 272&ndash275.

[9] Noth, Chronicler&rsquos History, 129&ndash32, 145. This idea is not currently widely accepted among scholars (and there are certainly problematic elements of Noth&rsquos particular framing of it), but it is still adopted by, e.g., Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, trans. P. Dominique (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 146&ndash53. The idea has faltered in part because it&rsquos hard to find this previous ending. Yet the problem may not be the idea itself but our expectation that we would find the whole ending intact. As David Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 112 notes, &ldquoone thing the current discussion about the &lsquoend of P&rsquo may suggest is that the end of an original P document may not be well preserved&rdquo by tradents who appropriated it.

[11] No other extant administrative document or military narrative that involves itineraries from any period in the ancient Near East or Egypt changes form in the middle. For detailed discussion of these texts and their implications for the wilderness narrative, see Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries. For a source-critical explanation for the three styles, using the Documentary Hypothesis, see David Ben-Gad HaCohen, &ldquoIroning Out Israel's Itinerary through the Transjordan,&rdquo TheTorah (2016).

[12] On the probable location of Iye-abarim in the Negeb, south of the land, see Angela Roskop Erisman, &ldquoFor the Border of the Ammonites Was&hellipWhere?: Historical Geography and Biblical Interpretation in Numbers 21,&rdquo in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016) 761&ndash76.

[13] Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, 272&ndash74.

[14] This is called reference repair. See Hubert H. Clark, Using Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 284&ndash85.

Watch the video: Sumerian Mythology Exploration That Will Give you Goosebumps and Leave your Hair Standing on End (August 2022).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos