Scribal Kingdom

Living in the light of the Kingdom of God

Menu Close

Category: Uncategorized

ID is 1

The Crook of Shepherds, Kings, and Gods in the Ancient Near East

What is today an iconic symbol for shepherding has an interesting history when we look back at its origins in ancient history. A shepherd’s crook is a staff or rod with a hook at one end used for directing or separating herd animals such as sheep and cattle. The crook could conceivably be used to also hold an animal in place from stepping into danger or a place it should not go. Hence the crook was used for guiding and protecting a flock. Overall it was a very useful tool for shepherds.

Yet, the iconography for this in the ancient world is not abundant, and shepherds also are depicted simply with straight staves. So then, it bears some special attention to trace the imagery of the crook in the Ancient Near East in particular to illustrate what the crooks looked like and how they were depicted. I will only briefly survey such imagery below to serve as a quick orientation. As will be seen, the crook was used not only by shepherds but was also applied as a symbol of rulership to kings and gods as well.

This iconography is particularly helpful to illustrate numerous ancient texts which speak generically of shepherds’ rods, some of which may have been crooks while others were straight, as well as distinct words specially designating a crook (such as are found in the Egyptian and Hittite languages). When reading we might conjure images to our mind of what those crooks looked like based on more modern forms, but while there are indeed some similarities there are also some interesting differences to be observed. What better source than ancient peoples themselves to show us what these common shepherding implements looked like?

SHEPHERDS WIELDING CROOKS

The Egyptians have provides us some vivid examples from Egypt of curves staves or crooks. Henry Fischer in a survey of numerous kinds of staves depicted in Egyptian reliefs and iconography notes several different illustrations of curved staves.[1]Fischer, Henry G. “Notes on Sticks and Staves in Ancient Egypt.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 13 (1978). https://doi.org/10.2307/1512707. Among the figures he supplies [from plates by J.E. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara 1907-1908 (Cairo, 1909)], one shows a man using a curved staff with the crook around the neck of one of the fowl. In another figure, two men are pictured with curved staves in hand, one of the men having a dog (likely a “Tesem” hunting dog) on a leash.


In another context in which a crook appears, it perhaps unexpectedly shows their use in an instance which does not show cattle:

“In other scenes at Beni Hasan the herdsmen who carry such staves are tending cranes… Three Theban examples of the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty show herdsmen with …crooks driving long-necked fowl — a crane in one case and, in two other cases, flocks of cranes, ducks, and geese.”[2]Ibid., Pgs. 8-9. https://doi.org/10.2307/1512707.

Fischer reproduces the following plates for those scenes [from Jean-Francois Champollion, Monuments de l’Égypte et de la Nubie, Planches, IV (Paris, 1845)]:



A third example, found among Egyptian paintings found at Beni Hassan of visiting Asiatic peoples.



A restoration and enhancement of the damaged original from Beni Hassan.

His staff might be simply a shepherd’s tool, but might also be a symbol reinforcing his princely status by reiterating his title.

A portion of the painting shows a man placing a rod of some sort which has a slight curve to it behind the neck of an ibex. While it is not clearly a crook it may yet be related to it in some way by serving a similar function. This man’s name is given as Abishai or Abisharie and he is depicted as the leader of the delegation and a ruler.

Susan Cohen in a discussion of the painting describes the object as simply a “curved implement”. She writes: “Abishai is shown using a curved implement to further control the ibex, while the man behind him grasps the gazelle’s horns with his right hand.”[3]Cohen, Susan. “Interpretative Uses and Abuses of the Beni Hasan Tomb Painting.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74, no. 1 (2015): 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1086/679590.

Another source notes two things about the depiction. First, it mentions the heiroglyphic symbol showing a crook that is written above the ibex:

“The title HqA xAswt (ruler of the hill-lands) is familiar in its Hellenized form, Hyksos, most often associated with the Levantine princes who conquered Egypt at the end of the Middle Kingdom (ca. 1650 B.C.)… HqA, written with a crook, is commonly translated as ‘ruler’…”[4]Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.). Cultures in Contact : From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., Edited by Joan Aruz, Sarah B Graff, and Yelena Rakic. … Continue reading

Secondly, it endeavors to describe the object in the man’s hand and its purpose (describing the latter as a staff that may have been used by shepherds):

“Abisharie extends his right hand with the palm flat and facing down, in a gesture of respect or submission, toward a large standing figure of Khnumhotep II. With the other, he uses a short staff to restrain a Nubian ibex. His staff might be simply a shepherd’s tool, but might also be a symbol reinforcing his princely status by reiterating his title (although it is significantly less curved than the hieroglyph for HqA).”[5]Ibid., Pg. 159.

These observations of the crook being used as royal symbol leads into the next iconographic category.


KINGS WIELDING CROOKS

The Pharaoh Mentuhotep II, of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, is depicted with a curved staff or crook in hand.


“The shepherd’s crook, or litus, served as a Hittite royal symbol, and livestock were frequently listed as booty in military campaigns…”

Hittite relief depicting a crook.

The Egyptians were not the only ones known to use crooks. The Hittites were also known to employ them in imagery, which similarly could also double as a royal symbol. Citing examples of pastoralism in Hittite culture, Arbuckle and Hammer write:

“The shepherd’s crook, or litus, served as a Hittite royal symbol, and livestock were frequently listed as booty in military campaigns (Beckman 1988). Sheep, goat, and cattle pastoralism were highly integrated into local economies, with both settlement-based herding and transhumance attested in texts.”[6]Arbuckle, B. and E. Hammer. 2019. The Rise of Pastoralism in the Ancient Near East. Journal of Archaeological Research 27: 391449https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-018-9124-8. Pg 34. (italics original)

Hence we see evidence of ordinary pastoralism in the Hittite Empire but also the heightened use of the common shepherding implement, the crook, as a symbol of kings as well.



DEITIES WIELDING CROOKS

The Hittite Dictionary published by the University of Chicago mentions a Hittite text which it translates (with original editorial and parenthetical notes): “But who will cull them (the calves mentioned two lines before) out (of the herd)? The Stormgod [will cull] them [with] a rod, both with a rod and a crook.”[7]The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Pg. 176. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/CHDP.pdf. The text source it cites is … Continue reading

This shows a deity being depicted in a shepherding role and using two different implements: as rod and crook. This description is especially interesting given the description of a shepherd with two implements in Psalm 23:4 (“your rod and your staff“) applied to the true God of Israel, Yahweh, and may help us visualize and distinguish the two. A rod was simply straight, and may have been short to be used as a club or smite dangerous animals or other attackers, whereas the crook had the curved end for the purposes mentioned before (directing herd animals). It is not unlikely that the crook was also occasionally used as a weapon, but that was not its primary purpose.

The Israelite religion was aniconic, meaning they were forbidden to depict Yahweh as it clearly stated in the opening lines of the Ten Commandments. Hence there is no iconography to be found of Yahweh shepherding, even though Yahweh as a shepherd is a common verbally descriptive image in the Old Testament. Nonetheless, other Ancient Near Eastern did depict their gods with a shepherd’s crook hearkening back to their role as guiding and protecting deities.

“But who will cull them (the calves …) out (of the herd)? The Stormgod [will cull] them [with] a rod, both with a rod and a crook.”

HITTITE CUNEIFORM TEXT

Let us look now at iconography of gods using the shepherd’s crook.

Mesopotamian gods: Amurru / Martu

The deity Amurru (also known as Martu) was commonly depicted with a crook in iconography. The name Amurru is Akkadian while Martu is the deity’s Sumerian counterpart name. Joshua J. Mark writes on Amurru:

“The Akkadian and Sumerian name for the storm/sky god of the Amorite people (also known as the Amurru) who migrated to the Mesopotamian region c. 2100 BCE. The god Amurru is associated with Adad but is a gentler version always depicted with a gazelle and a shepherd’s crook or staff and watched over nomads. He was also known as Martu. His consort is Beletseri, scribe of the dead.”[8]Mark, Joshua J. The Mesopotamian Pantheon. World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/221/the-mesopotamian-pantheon.

The god Martu with a crook in hand.

Amurru with staff in hand.

Egyptian deities

Ra-Horakhty with the crook and flail.
Egyptian Moon god Khonsu with crook and flail.

Greek deities and creatures

The Greek god Pan as well as satyrs were sometimes depicted with a crook as well:

A satyr with a basket of berries and a crook on a silver amphora (Image by the Seuso Research Project).

Pan depicted with crook in hand on a Roman sarcophagus.
Statue of Pan with a goat.

 


Thus we can see that the imagery of the shepherd’s crook was wide spread and, in the case of kings and gods, also came to symbolize a ruler with power to guide the people under them.

References

References
1 Fischer, Henry G. “Notes on Sticks and Staves in Ancient Egypt.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 13 (1978). https://doi.org/10.2307/1512707.
2 Ibid., Pgs. 8-9. https://doi.org/10.2307/1512707.
3 Cohen, Susan. “Interpretative Uses and Abuses of the Beni Hasan Tomb Painting.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74, no. 1 (2015): 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1086/679590.
4 Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.). Cultures in Contact : From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., Edited by Joan Aruz, Sarah B Graff, and Yelena Rakic. Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013. Pg. 159.
5 Ibid., Pg. 159.
6 Arbuckle, B. and E. Hammer. 2019. The Rise of Pastoralism in the Ancient Near East. Journal of Archaeological Research 27: 391449https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-018-9124-8. Pg 34.
7 The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Pg. 176. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/CHDP.pdf. The text source it cites is from a 60 volume collection of cuneiform tablets from Boghazköi titled Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi (28.9).
8 Mark, Joshua J. The Mesopotamian Pantheon. World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/221/the-mesopotamian-pantheon.

Some Observations on Psalm 23

As I was thinking over Psalm 23 today, I noticed two things which I never had before pertaining to its form, flow, and characteristics that I think are worth sharing. Before commenting, I will share the ESV’s translation here for reference:

1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
3 He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
    for his name’s sake.

4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
    I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
    your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.

You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
    my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
    all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord
    forever.

Psalm 23 (ESV)


First observation: While there is not necessarily a chiasmus of content, there is one of indirect address and direct address:

A – Verses 1–3 — Indirect address / confession
   B – Verse 4 — Direct address / confession
   B’ – Verse 5 — Direct address / confession
A’ – Verse 6 — Indirect address / confession

The reason I separated verses 4 and 5 instead of lumping them together as a single segment of direct address is explained by and leads into my second observation.

Second observation: During the brief two verse span in which David turns to address Yahweh directly (“you”, “your”) he switches from images of dwelling outdoors (using animal imagery for himself) to images of dwelling indoors (using human imagery for himself).

I will briefly expand on the significance of these observations with a few notes here.

Even though David turns from indirect confession in verse 3 (“he leads me”) to the first instance of direct confession in verse 4 (“you are with me”), the theme and imagery has not changed. Verse 4 continues the thought of verse 3 of walking in paths (cf. “paths of righteousness”) by describing more path-walking (yet through a very dark valley) in God’s presence.

When we come to verse 5 we see the theme of God’s presence and provision persist, but the imagery noticeably switches to that of tables, cups, and anointing (more human and often indoor imagery). I think that these images proleptically look forward (in verse 6) to a new setting for dwelling: inside Yahweh’s house. What do you do inside a house? Eat, drink, and cleanse/anoint the body. The direct address then drops off again after verse 5, and in verse 6 reverts to the kind of indirect confession that the Psalm began with.

While in verse 2 the sheep dwells outdoors in green pastures, the psalmist in verse 6 now dwells inside a house. The mention of dwelling in verse 6 I believe mirrors a similar picture of “dwelling” (lying down and being beside) used earlier, where it is the psalmist in pastures (with still waters) that was in view there. Even if the terminology in verse 2 is more descriptive (as poetry is wont to do) of “dwelling” rather than actually using the word, I believe it still describes the same essential reality of abiding in God’s presence wherever it may be (in pastures or in a sacred house) and the blessings that attend that abiding.

There is possibly another kind of parallelism between the ideas of being beside still waters (if this signifies a source of quenching thirst) and the indoor imagery of the cup overflowing, although that association is less certain and structurally linked.

One of the most interesting parts of the above observations though is the function of the “bridge” verses of 4–5 in that they turn directly to Yahweh and also serve as the transition point of the metaphors employed. I think if we notice that convergence point through direct confession it helps us conceptually and thematically tie the whole Psalm together, even though the imagery changes.

Bonus observation:

If you remove the English word “will” (signifying future action) from most common translations of Psalm 23 in two places then you can see the more immediate effect of the indirect confessions:

  • I lack nothing (currently) — Hebrew Professor Dr. Bill Barrick of The Master’s Seminary drew my attention to translating it this way.
  • Goodness and lovingkindness follow me all the days of my life (currently)
    (Note: Indeed “all the days of my life” gives the sense a forward look into the future as well, but we must not override the present sense which is there.)
  • For the third statement though the verb’s aspect is different and signifies the future: I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

So much to meditate on in Psalm 23!

If God’s will had been kept in the Old Testament, would we need Jesus?

One of the biggest things I appreciate about seminary is not just the opportunity to gain knowledge from books and instructors who are are specialized in their areas of expertise but especially the ability to also interact with fellow students and learn from them.

As one of our graduate level Old Testament classes embarked on the study of Genesis, someone in class posed an interesting question to my classmate Drew Zook. They asked about the hypothetical outcome if the patriarchs and (later) people of God had kept the stipulations of the covenants given to them perfectly, and whether in that case that would obviate a need for a Messiah. I liked Drew’s response so much that I asked him permission to share the exchange here.

I hope this spurs you to think further on what the covenants established in the Old Testament, and their expression of God’s will to his people at that time, did and did not accomplish prior to the time of Christ. The Abrahamic covenant still looked forward for its ultimate fulfillment and the Mosaic/Siniatic Covenant could (and was designed) to only accomplish so much. Perhaps we can learn just as much from what the covenants did not address as what they do.


Question: “Would there be a need for Jesus if the Patriarch’s and the people in OT fulfilled God’s will?”

Drew’s Response: “My answer is yes. Jesus is unique from the people in that he is not just a man. His place as the Son of Man is significant in that He can stand as a second Adam and a new Israel bringing the promise of God to all nations. The calling in Genesis 2 is to spread the image by cultivating and multiplying. While that alone would be sufficient for the will of God to be fulfilled on a human level in terms of the spread of His glory and name, it would be unable to combat the full problem. In Genesis 3, the promise is of a snake crusher.

Jesus’ position as the Son of God operates on a different level. He is solely capable of confronting and abolishing the hold that the powers and principalities of this world have on mankind. There is a spiritual aspect to the fulfillment of God’s will that is aided by the giving of the Holy Spirit and will be fully realized in the renewed Heaven and Earth and in our renewed bodies. Freedom from sin and death only can be achieved through sharing in Jesus’ death and resurrection.

– His perfect life fulfilled the requirements of the law.
– His actions of healing the sick and lifting the poor enabled Him to speak into the lives of broken and hurting people.
– sufficiently making Satan powerless in their lives.
– His sacrifice on the cross absorbed the natural consequence for sin
– and lifted Him to His rightful throne in Heaven.
– His resurrection broke the power of death over His people.
– the giving of the Spirit definitively sealed a life in the world to come.”