The Iron Age npš and the Utility of Egyptian Comparative Evidence

Abstract

This purpose of this article is twofold. Firstly, I present an overview of the Egyptian concepts of the ba and ka, as well as the attestations of npš extant in the Iron Age Levant. This brief investigation is meant to illustrate the second point, which is the utility of Egyptian evidence for the study of Levantine culture and religion. In addition, this article may stand as a starting point for further investigation of the npš through Egyptian comparative evidence, going beyond iconographic, archaeological, and textual comparison to include comparison of concepts and ideologies.

The comparative method is commonplace within modern scholarship on ancient Israel and the Hebrew Bible, utilizing evidence from vast temporal and geographical scopes in order to illuminate a variety of topics under investigation.1 The most commonly employed evidence in comparative investigations derives from familiar locales such as Mesopotamia and Ugarit, primarily due to the backgrounds of many biblical scholars, with easily comparable mythology and texts written in familiar Semitic languages.

There remain, however, locales and cultures that, for various reasons, have not garnered due attention. Here, I focus specifically on the utility of Egyptian comparative evidence for the interpretation of concepts within Levantine culture, Israelite religion, and the Hebrew Bible. Despite Egypt’s proximity to the Levant, in addition to high levels of interconnectivity through hegemony, trade, military conquests, and cultural interaction, the use of Egyptian evidence is minimal within comparative work on Israelite religion, the Hebrew Bible, and the broader Levant, likely due simply to the fact that many biblical scholars are not familiar with Egyptian language, texts, and archaeology due to the focus on Semitic languages and other West Asian civilizations.

Egypt is, however, a locale that provides rich comparative evidence. It is important to note that Egyptian culture represents a closer geographic relative to Israel than even that of Mesopotamia, including a shared border between the two during the Iron Age Israelite period (c. 1200–586 BCE), as well as Egyptian hegemony over the Southern Levant, alongside extensive influence over the Northern Levant during the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BCE). Thus, Egyptian comparative evidence is often directly applicable to the interpretation of Levantine concepts due to these factors.2

What follows presents an overview of the Egyptian concepts of the ka and ba, as well as the West Semitic concept of npš. This concise examination seeks to demonstrate the validity and importance of increased engagement with Egyptian sources in order to prompt biblical scholars, and scholars of West Semitic culture(s) broadly, to prioritize evidence from Egypt in their attempts to illuminate the religion(s), culture(s), and history of ancient West Asia.3 I note that my focus on the Iron Age is due to the manageable nature of the source material for this space, as well as its importance to the general field, in addition to the desire to present a case study that occurs before increased Mesopotamian influence after the Babylonian exile of Judah. While the Late Bronze Age also provides a manageable corpus, it presents challenges due to a lack of geographical variance in attestations of npš. In addition, I find it important to demonstrate the importance of Egyptian comparison, even during a period when Egypt does not maintain hegemony over the Levant. In addition, for cases such as npš, whose meanings have remained opaque, it is important to survey all available comparative evidence for increased insight and clarity. Finally, I have chosen this particular example to highlight the utility of Egyptian comparative evidence outside of the archaeological, epigraphic, iconographic, and mythological, suggesting that such evidence may also assist even in the study of difficult cultural concepts and vocabulary—a contention buoyed most apparently through the similarities between the Late Bronze Age Egyptian Hymn to the Aten and the Iron Age biblical Psalm 104.

1. Overview of the ba, ka, and npš

The five distinct parts of human nature discernable from Egyptian evidence are the physical body (ḥʿ), the shadow (šwt), the name (rn), and, the two important for this particular study, the ba and ka.4 The difficult concepts of the ba and ka are typically left untranslated, but A.H. Gardiner originally denoted them as “soul” and “spirit,” respectively—two concepts that are even difficult to differentiate between in English (Gardiner 1927, pp. 172–73).5

Despite the difficulties of translation, it is pertinent to attempt to discern the function of these two terms. The ka, most commonly thought of as “life force,” “double,” or “self,” is present within the individual in both life and death, and these may, in fact, all be appropriate translations that represent the array of different aspects of the ka. See (Nyord 2019). For the present purposes, the theory that the ka is the aspect of the person that dwells in the tomb as the recipient of offerings is likely the most relevant and is the most frequent role of the ka, which is described as the recipient of mortuary offerings in lists.6 It should not, however, be overlooked that the ka is also present in life.

The ka is also associated with the ba in death, as related through the common phrase, “going to his ka” (sbj n k3.f), which is sometimes rendered as “going to his ba,” as an expression denoting the act of death.7 Like this expression, the ba can also replace the ka in offering formulae, especially in later periods. See Lekov (2005, p. 19). The ka and ba are, however, certainly distinctive elements in the Egyptian mindset, which can be combined together to form the akh of the deceased individual.

More specifically, the ba may be thought of as the portion of the individual that lives on after death, able to travel around the tomb, as well as into the world of the living. Thus, the ba, like the ka, is likely part of the individual in both life and death and is typically construed as the “spirit” of the individual, although the ba may also be rendered as “personality” as it is what makes each person unique.8

These difficult terms are typically left untranslated due to their fluid nature. Importantly, however, the ka and ba both exist in the world of the living and the dead, while both terms also reflect the ability to consume offerings given to the deceased.

The fluid nature of these concepts is similar to that of the npš within West Semitic traditions. Notably, the npš is able to consume funerary offerings as depicted in the Katamuwa and Hadad inscriptions from Zincirli, but it also functions in many other ways.9 Attempts to discern semantic equivalents to the West Semitic npš typically look to Akkadian, arguing that the term eṭemmu is semantically equivalent to npš.10 The issue with this interpretation is that there is no evidence for the concept of eṭemmu in West Semitic contexts.

Attempts to discern semantic equivalents to npš should instead begin with examinations of concepts known to exist in the West Semitic world, which evidence shows are Egyptian—not Mesopotamian. I will demonstrate the presence of the aforementioned Egyptian concepts in their historical context, arguing that Egyptian concepts may prove more beneficial to the explication of West Semitic—and biblical—religious ideology.

2. Egypt in/and the Levant

Egyptian presence in the Levant dates as early as the Predynastic (c. 6000–3150 BCE) and Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2181 BCE) periods, with an increased interest in the Levant starting in the Middle Kingdom (c. 2055–1650 BCE), as witnessed in the Execration texts, as well as economic relations between elites in both geographic locales.11 This presence and interest grows exponentially in the New Kingdom, or Late Bronze Age (c. 1650–1200 BCE), with frequent Egyptian military expeditions into the region, as well as the establishment of administrative centers.12 The nature of Egyptian presence in the Late Bronze Age Levant, particularly the Southern Levant, is outside the current purview, with the important point simply being that there was a heavy Egyptian presence in the region.13

Egyptian interactions with the Southern Levant continue into the Iron Age, even though Egypt no longer nominally controls the region as in the previous centuries. Historically, Egyptian presence in the Southern Levant is highlighted by the invasion of Pharaoh Sheshonq, or Shishak in the Hebrew Bible, in the 920s, as well as Pharaoh Necho’s famous battle at Megiddo in the late 600s, in which King Josiah of Judah notably perishes.

Thus, the presence of Egypt in the Levant lasts for several millennia—far longer than that of the more common comparative partner of biblical/West Semitic studies, Mesopotamia. In addition, I note that Egypt and the Southern Levant share a border, with the transferal of not only material culture and goods commonplace, but also the transferal of ideas and concepts.14

In fact, one of the concepts under investigation, the ka, is noticeably extant in the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant, unlike its Mesopotamian counterpart, the eṭemmu. The ka appears in the inscription of the Mekal Stele—a funerary stele from Beth Shean commemorating an Egyptian architect named Amenemopet. While the majority of examinations of this stele concern the iconography of the stele and the identification of Mekal—likely a Semitic deity similar to Baal and Reshef who is, perhaps, the city-god of Beth Shean—the more important aspect for the current study is the presence of the ka within the stele’s inscription.15

The iconography of the stele is, however, notable in that it depicts both Levantine and Egyptian imagery, demonstrating how concepts from the Levant and Egypt can become intermixed. I argue that this intermixing of concepts is also depicted within the stele’s inscription, with the inclusion of the ka concept:

Line 3

n k3 n ḥsj nṯr.f ḳd imn-m-ʾipt

for the ka of the honored one of his god, the architect, Amenemopet

This inscription is most important in that it evidences the presence of the ka concept within the Levant.16 While this stele dates to the Late Bronze Age, the presence of both Egyptian peoples and ideas in the Levant does not cease following the end of Egyptian hegemony in the region due to the geographic proximity of the two.17

The continued presence of Egyptian culture in the Iron Age Levant is most easily depicted through the presence of Egyptian (or Egyptianized) material culture such as scarabs.18 These small objects often are simply heirlooms or foreign exotica. Their prevalence in the region, however, does support the argument for the presence of Egyptian culture, even amongst native Levantine peoples. Although scarabs do support the existence of Egyptian material culture in the Levant, they are tenuous evidence for the presence of Egyptian ideology(ies).

Another prevalent object in the material culture of the Levant, however, demonstrates that aspects of Egyptian culture and religion appear in the ideology of the region. I speak here of Bes statues and figurines, which represent that, at least among non-elites, Egyptian religious concepts permeate local culture.19

Assuredly, though, the most recognizable instance of Egyptian influence on Levantine culture is depicted by the Phoenician anthropoid sarcophagi, which resemble their Egyptian counterparts.20 Phoenicia, however, presents a situation different than the rest of the Levant due to its unique relationship with Egypt. Likely considered a part of Egypt proper in the Late Bronze Age, it is unsurprising to find significant Egyptian influences within the local culture.21

Thus, aspects of Egyptian culture, including that of the ka, are noticeably present in the Levant during both the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. I, again, note that this largely differs from Mesopotamian culture, due to both the lack of geographic proximity, as well as a general stance of powers in Mesopotamia that they were not interested in assimilating local populations.22

3. Epigraphic Evidence for npš from the Iron Age Levant

An attempt to gauge the meaning of the npš in the Iron Age is difficult due to the lack of extant evidence, as well as the difficulties in dating biblical texts. Here, I only note the attestations that I definitively locate in the Iron Age.23

The most notable Iron Age attestation of the npš appears in the previously mentioned KTMW stele from the Syro-Anatolian city of Sam’al. This mortuary stele is a large basalt stone that is 99 cm tall, 72 cm wide, and 25 cm thick, depicting an image, writing, and a frame. The top of the stele is damaged but likely depicts a winged sun disk similar to other iconography excavated at Zincirli. In the imagery, KTMW is depicted wearing a conical hat with four pieces of fringe unique to the Zincirli depictions of royal men, and, in one instance, a woman. The long tunic he wears is typical of Syro-Hittite reliefs, although his hair is not in the usual style of locks. In his right hand, he holds a drinking vessel commonly depicted in funerary reliefs, while in his left hand, he holds a curved branch with an oval object attached, the significance of which is still unclear. KTMW is seated in a straight-backed chair, his feet on a footstool, with a table in front of him bearing different types of food.24

The iconography must be interpreted alongside the inscription, which notes the offerings that KTMW made during his life, before noting that food offerings should be made yearly at this stele, and, by extension, his burial site. The inscription itself is written in a language that is closely related to Aramaic, best supported by the form nbš in lines 5 and 11.25

This attestation of nbš is important for the present study, as this word correlates with npš. See Aḥituv (2008, p. 131). The same spelling is also extant in the Hadad inscription from Sam’al to reference eating and drinking with Hadad. The meaning in the KTMW attestations most likely reflects that the iconographic representation of KTMW on the stele is, in fact, his “soul” that is capable of eating and drinking.26 Notably, the attestations of nbš in this inscription both clearly refer to the deceased KTMW.

This is the only mortuary inscription from Zincirli that does not represent a king, suggesting that KTMW held a lofty position within local society. This suggestion may further be elucidated through comparison to Egyptian funerary banquet rituals and their accompanying iconography, whereby deceased individuals hope to retain the status in death that they held in life.27 Interestingly, however, the stele was not located near the palace or sites associated with high-ranking individuals, but, rather, it was excavated near a part of the town for commoners, next to a small temple. Presumably, KTMW’s relationship with this part of the town and/or temple caused him to trust that offerings would be brought on his behalf.28

As mentioned above, nbš also appears in a similar context in the Hadad inscription from Zincirli, dedicated by PNMW I, King of Sam’al from c. 790–750 BCE. Carved into a statue of Hadad wearing a head covering and bearing a beard, the inscription is typical of contemporary ones by rulers from the ancient Near East. Notably, it contains four attestations of nbš in line 17–18 and 20–24, with a fifth perhaps missing in a broken portion of line 18.29 These attestations all concern eating with Hadad in the context of the remembrance of the deceased PNMW by his descendants. While not as explicit as the KTMW stele given its accompanying iconography and explicit demands for food and drink offerings, the PNMW inscription suggests a similar expectation by PNMW. The inclusion of Hadad in the PNMW inscription may relate to his higher status as the ruler of Sam’al.

Additional contemporaneous Aramaic attestations of nbš are extant in Sefire in northern Syria. The three treaties from the c. mid-8th century BCE contain nine attestations of nbš.30 Notably, these attestations all refer to living individuals, absent any context of death or an afterlife. These attestations support that nbš was also used simply to refer to living individuals.

An additional notable attestation of nbš in Iron Age epigraphic evidence from the Levant occurs in the Tell Fekhireye inscription.31 This bilingual Akkadian–Aramaic inscription dating to the c. 8th century BCE contains an attestation of nbš in line 7, correlating with the Akkadian napšātišu (ZI.MEŠ-šú) in line 10 of the Akkadian version.32 The meaning of nbš in this attestation clearly refers to the living king (or governor in the Akkadian), Sasnuri (or Šamašnuri), but also contains an element of an eternal soul in wishing for his days to be long.

These attestations of nbš depict the range of meanings inherent in the limited attestations from the Iron Age epigraphic corpus. While these attestations all come from the Northern Levant, they are the only verifiable attestations of npš/nbš from the Iron Age Levant, in addition to the sole confirmable attestation from the Southern Levant, Arad 24, discussed below.

Egyptian influence is not solely relegated to the Southern Levant due to their shared geographic (and political) border, as well as the Egyptian hegemony over the region in the prior Late Bronze Age. While not under the direct hegemony of Egypt during the Late Bronze Age, the Northern Levant also experienced significant influence, displayed most clearly in the evidence from Ugarit.33

I contend that these Aramaic attestations of nbš from the Northern Levant assist in discerning the meaning of npš in Iron Age Israel, especially in that this form, nbš, is also present in one Iron Age inscription from Israel—the lone epigraphic attestation of npš/nbš from the Iron Age Southern Levant. This inscription, on the reverse of Arad 24, is a letter that contains the form in line 18. The meaning of nbš in this attestation is similar to that of Tell Fekhireye in that the individual is living, but the reference concerns a mortal threat.34 Thus, the nuanced meaning of npš/nbš is again clear. Arad 24 is also significant in that it attests the usage of the term in the Iron Age Southern Levant, providing the only assured usage of the word in Iron Age Israel due to its definitive Iron Age context.

4. Biblical Evidence for npš from the Iron Age

In turning to the biblical evidence, the most difficult part of the examination is determining which texts to include. For the present purposes, I am only including texts whose compositions I convincingly place in the Iron Age.35 While this certainly limits the number of texts, it is an important guardrail for examining the Iron Age npš prior to enhanced Mesopotamian influence during and after the exile. There are, assuredly, other Iron Age attestations of npš contained within the Hebrew Bible not discussed here due to questions regarding the date of their composition.36

npš appears in three of the four texts that have general scholarly consensus for an early dating.37 Even these three texts—Genesis 49, Exodus 15, and Judges 5—show that npš carried a variety of meanings in the Iron Age. For instance, Jdg 5:18 uses npš in the context of “life,” although it is notable that it is also used in a context where death is a possibility. npš occurs again only three verses later in Jdg 5:21, this time with a clearly different context of an individual referencing their own soul and urging it to be strong. Again, however, it occurs in a context where death is a possibility, amidst the poetic discussion of warfare in the Song of Deborah. The reference within the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 comes in similar warfare context. The attestation itself in Ex. 15:9, however, is difficult to interpret, likely best translated again as “my soul.” In this context, the soul will be sated by the defeat of the enemies. The attestation in Genesis 49:6 retains the same context of death. Here, once again, the best translation is likely “my soul,” with a sense of self-protection due to a dangerous situation where others have been killed.

These four attestations of npš in three of the oldest portions of the Hebrew Bible demonstrate several important points. Firstly, they demonstrate the usage of the word, and, due to its presence in three of the four oldest chapters of the Hebrew Bible, presumably its regular usage in the Iron Age. Secondly, npš appears in contexts where death is a possibility in all four attestations. Thus, there is a connotation with death, even if it is not being used to reference deceased individuals.

5. Conclusions

This overview of the Iron Age npš/nbš displays the usage of this term in the Iron Age Levant. While not widespread, its inclusion within epigraphic evidence from the Northern Levant, as well as three of the four likely oldest texts of the Hebrew Bible, depicts the presence of this concept in the Iron Age. In addition, the term possesses varied meanings, as shown above, all relating in some manner to the living or deceased individual.38

Given the overall lack of attestations, however, it is my contention that the concept of npš is best elucidated through comparison to the Egyptian evidence, most specifically that of the ba and ka. The ka is likely the most helpful, given that it can clearly refer to both the living and the deceased. In addition, the ka is intimately connected with food offerings after death, which is also a function of the npš as illustrated in the KTMW inscription, alongside the association with representations of the deceased.39 Most importantly, however, there is evidence for the presence of the ka concept from the Levant. The ba is, however, also useful in discussing the npš, as it is also present in both life and death. In addition, it is the aspect of the deceased individual that is able to travel around the tomb and into the world of the living.

Given my earlier comments regarding Mesopotamian comparison, I grant that these are overstatements. By no means is Mesopotamian evidence unimportant for the study of Levantine concepts. With that said, while sheer definitional assistance may be provided due to their shared origins as branches of the Semitic language family in this particular case, the presence of Mesopotamian concepts and ideology within the pre-exilic Iron Age Levant is more difficult to ascertain. I simply urge the inclusion of Egyptian evidence in order to promote responsible comparison and increased success within scholarly examinations.

While this examination is by no means comprehensive, it serves as a starting point for a systematic gathering of ka and ba references, which will further illuminate the concept of npš. I note that no suggestion is made regarding the scope or existence of influence. Rather, I emphasize the cultural integration of Egypt and the Levant, alongside geographical proximity, noting that similarities within the scopes of ka, ba, and npš are possibly due to cultural contact and connection. As is commonly done in Egyptology, I contend that the range of meanings represented by npš warrants that it typically remain untranslated, allowing for the presence of its broad nature in each attestation. In addition, I reiterate the need for increased engagement with Egyptian evidence by those working on the Iron Age Levant.