Leaders and Legacies in Assyriology and Bible: The Collected Essays of David B. Weisberg 9781575066882

Citation preview

Leaders and Legacies in Assyriology and Bible

Leaders and Legacies in Assyriology and Bible The Collected Essays of David B. Weisberg

David B. Weisberg

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2012

Ç 2012 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Weisberg, David B. Leaders and legacies in Assyriology and Bible : the collected essays of David B. Weisberg / David B. Weisberg. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-230-3 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Assyriology. 2. Bible. O.T.—History. 3. Iraq—Civilization—To 634. I. Title. DS69.6.W45 2012 935u.03072—dc23 2012002503

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †

Contents Preface (Andrew Pfeiffer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Introduction (William W. Hallo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Part 1 Political and Military History and Ancient Royals Loyalty and Death: Some Ancient Near Eastern Metaphors . . . . . . . . Zabaya, an Early King of the Larsa Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rib-Hadda’s Urgent Tone: A Note on EA 74:50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Length of the Reign of Hallusu-Insusinak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Esarhaddon and Egypt: A Preliminary Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Sale of Property from the Time of Esarhaddon, “King of Lands” . The Neo-Babylonian Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “Antiquarian” Interests of the Neo-Babylonian Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Royal Women of the Neo-Babylonian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A “Dinner at the Palace” during Nebuchadnezzar’s Reign . . . . . . . . . Notes on Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polytheism and Politics: Some Comments on Nabonidus’ Foreign Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 17 22 28 36 44 49 61 72 79 85 95

Part 2 Texts and Legacies The Impact of Assyriology on Biblical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Assyriology An Old Babylonian Forerunner to Summa Alu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 The R. Campbell Thompson Tablets Published by Ivan Lee Holt . . . 137 A Guided Tour through Babylonian History: Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Cincinnati Art Museum . . . . . . . . . 149 Bible, Masorah, and Rabbinics Jacob Wards Off Endangerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Wool and Linen Material in Texts from the Time of Nebuchadnezzar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Character Development in the Book of Ruth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 v

vi

Contents

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Break in the Middle of a Verse: Some Observations on a Massoretic Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. O. Lehman, HUC mss 951–981 from Kai Feng, and a Purported Link between China and Yemen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Observations on Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources . . . . Ben Zion Wacholder and David B. Weisberg “Feet of Iron” in the Babylonian Talmud? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Israel O. Lehman and David B. Weisberg

221 259 270 279 289 303

Part 3 Social and Economic History Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Integration of Material and Non-Material Culture . . . . . . . . . A Neo-Babylonian Dialogue Document (3.123) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Mar Banutu Text from the Town of Hubat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Neo-Babylonian Temple Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pirquti or Sirkuti ? Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

307 316 319 323 330

Part 4 Critical Self-Reflection “Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”? Ancient Near Eastern Texts and the Study of the Bible . . . . . . . . . A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bill T. Arnold and David B. Weisberg Delitzsch in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bill T. Arnold and David B. Weisberg Babel und Bibel und Bias: How Anti-Semitism Distorted Friedrich Delitzsch’s Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bill T. Arnold and David B. Weisberg On Reading Archival Texts: M. Jursa’s Comments to OIP 122 and the Limits of Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

345 355 372

381

389

Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

Preface In his Introduction to George Sanger’s “Seventy Years a Showman,” Kenneth Grahame notes that “retirement and reminiscence are apt to trot in harness together.” 1 And while I have not yet retired, I have reached an age in which many scholars make arrangements for collecting their works so that they more easily can be accessed by others.2

Dr. David B. Weisberg was committed to scholarship in community. This commitment motivated his decision to produce Leaders and Legacies. He was intimately involved in the production of this book for three years but was unable to complete the introduction before his death in early 2012. In his mind, the introduction was to be an important contribution of this book. His aspiration was to do more in this project than to assemble his work. The articles in this book were published between 1966 and 2009. This collection does not include or refer to all of his reviews, presented papers, or books. During this time, he served as a research associate at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago (1965–1967), as Professor of Bible and Semitic Languages at the Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, (1967–2012), as an IREX fellow in St. Petersburg (1974), and as visiting professor at HUC–JIR Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem. Regarding his career he writes, “I am pleased to express my debt to HUC for enabling me to lead a life of teaching and writing.” He was deeply proud to be a part of the college-institute. This collection represents the breadth of David Weisberg’s scholarship. He arranged its contents into four sections: Political and Military History and Ancient Royals, Texts and Legacies (in Assyriology, Bible, Masorah, and Rabbinics), Social and Economic History, and Critical Self-Reflection. He arrived at this division in 2010, and his notes from the preceding year further describe how he summarized his work: This collection of essays spanning the years 1966 to 2009 represents work in three distinct areas, sometimes overlapping: Biblical Studies, particularly the impact of Assyriology on Biblical Studies and the Masoretic text of the

1. London: J. M. Dent, 1910, p. v. 2. David Weisberg (1938–2012) penned these lines shortly after this book project commenced.

vii

viii

Preface

Hebrew Bible; Assyriology, especially the Neo-Babylonian period; and a combination of both.

Dr. Weisberg viewed his fields of research as moving ahead with great momentum. He sometimes quoted a former teacher who taught him that, by the time your article comes into print, the field has already moved forward. David Weisberg viewed this republication as an opportunity to communicate his appreciation to those who contributed to the progress in its subject areas. If Leaders and Legacies could draw current and future scholars into further research in these subjects with the same success that he could draw his students into conversations about them, then his aspirations for the book will be realized. David Weisberg aspired to be as professional, collegial, and courteous in his writing as he was in his personal life. He viewed people from premodern societies with equal respect. He was wary of the notion that “we moderns know better.” In his article, “Antiquarian Interests of the NeoBabylonian Kings,” he noted that even these ancient kings viewed themselves as custodians of much more ancient traditions. He believed that we should endeavor to view ourselves in the same light, realizing that historians may someday consider us to be a “premodern” society. His first inclination was to permit the ancient authors their voice and to accurately describe what they put into writing. He could quickly recognize errors of various types, but was reluctant to suggest emendations. His respect for ancient cultures (as well as those in antiquity or the middle ages) permeated his teaching. This is reflected in the articles in this collection, such as in his opening sentence in “An Old Babylonian Forerunner to Summa Alu.” Dr. Weisberg acknowledged the community of scholars who preceded him. In his notes for the introduction, he wrote: “Reflecting upon the ideas in my lectures and writing through the years, I can often hear the voices of my teachers. To them I owe a debt that cannot be repaid.” In the classroom, office, library, or halls, he would share memories of his teachers and colleagues. He relayed wisdom garnered from those in the Americas, England, Eastern and Western Europe, Egypt, Israel, and China. In autumn 2011, David Weisberg began a list of his former teachers that he might name in the introduction. The larger it became, the more he doubted that such a list, if possible to complete, could aptly convey his gratitude to all who invested in him. His readiness to mention those who assisted him regularly occupies the first footnote in his articles. Dr. Weisberg was determined to credit those who helped make this book possible. Dr. Sung Duk Yun surveyed recent scholarship in the field and how it interacts with the articles in this volume. Dr. Sherry Walton Kingston consulted with Dr. Weisberg on matters involving the structure

Preface

ix

of the book and contributed her diligent attention to details as an editor. I was invited to write this preface in light of the discussions Dr. Weisberg and I had as the project evolved. I revised the presentation of source material in “Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books,” and I assisted with the editing, subject index, and abbreviations list. David Weisberg especially wanted to express his gratitude to the Hebrew Union College for its generous support of this publication. He wanted to thank a friend, Jim Eisenbraun, for his discernment, guidance, and personal involvement in this project. He also wished to recognize the editorial staff at Eisenbrauns. They ensured that even the smallest diacritics, cuneiform drawings, and accent marks were perfectly placed. The result of the combined effort of all who contributed to this book is that many articles in their republished form are superior to the originals. David Weisberg grew more excited about this project as he saw it accelerate toward completion. He regularly spoke about it with his wife and children as the project developed. His family is dedicated to the best possible form of this book and has invited Dr. David Weisberg’s mentor and dear friend, Dr. William W. Hallo, to contribute the included introduction. It is with their deep sense of pride that the Weisberg family wishes to present this book. Andrew C. Pfeiffer Cincinnati, Ohio

Introduction A telling sentiment in the Reform liturgy reminds us that all our lives can be regarded as an ongoing project to construct an honorable memory. Such a memory can be a coat of many colors: the love of a spouse, the growth of offspring, the influence of one’s beliefs and actions. In the case of an academic, it emphatically includes the raising of disciples. In the particular instance of David Weisberg, it is also the abiding value of a lifetime of scholarly publications, whether of monographic length or in the form of essays contributed to learned journals, anniversary volumes, or other collaborative outlets. Such essays constitute a significant part of David Weisberg’s legacy, and it is to them that this volume—and my preface— are dedicated. But first a bit of biography. David caught the bug—or fascination—of Assyriology as an undergraduate at Columbia University. Already endowed with a strong background in Hebraica, he naturally gravitated to courses with Professor Isaac Mendelsohn, well known for his monograph on Slavery in the Ancient Near East (1949). But David knew that he needed the deeper immersion of a graduate program, and he came to Yale to pursue it with Professor Albrecht Goetze, a towering figure in the field. When I followed his example in 1962—albeit as a faculty member—we quickly discovered much common ground. I persuaded Professor Goetze to let me find a suitable thesis topic for David and to monitor his progress. Since I served concurrently as curator of the Yale Babylonian Collection and had already begun to catalogue its immense holdings, it was not hard to identify half a dozen dissertation-worthy account texts of the periods by then of great interest to him—namely, the Chaldean Dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar and the Achaemenid Dynasty of Cyrus the Great. These two dynasties, collectively known to Assyriologists as the Neo-Babylonian period, had by then emerged as the focus of David’s interest, and his thesis succeeded in illuminating the wider significance of some previously unpublished cuneiform texts—as well as earning him the doctorate. Under the somewhat daunting title Guild Structure and Political Allegiance in Early Achaemenid Mesopotamia, the thesis shortly thereafter appeared in print in the newly established monograph series Yale Near Eastern Researches (1967), and David’s career was launched. Moving from biography to bibliography, Weisberg’s oeuvre, as exemplified by the nearly three dozen essays conveniently assembled here, attest both to his prodigious industriousness and to the loss that the field of Assyriology has suffered in his untimely demise. As is clear from the “Table xi

xii

Introduction

of Contents,” he continued to make major contributions to the study of the Neo-Babylonian period. But he also offered seminal insights in other areas. No brief summaries could do justice to either category of his writings. Nor would it suffice to follow the categories outlined in the “Table of Contents.” Rather, I will attempt a “form-critical” approach and limit my remarks to selected items in each genre. From this point of view, it will be noticed that the largest number of essays in this volume belong to the genre of tributes to fellow-scholars, living or deceased. That includes an essay of 1991 dedicated to the memory of Stanley Gewirtz, though not identified as such here. The earliest of these tributes went to Harry Orlinsky (1982), like Gewirtz a long-time colleague of David’s at the Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC–JIR), albeit at its New York City campus—not, like Gewirtz, in California. This was followed in short order (1984) by an essay in honor of Franz Rosenthal, one of David’s teachers at Yale. It dealt with the rather obscure Elamite king Hallushu-Inshushinak and marked the first of two sallies into what may be called the thicket of Central Asian studies, of which the more recent and even more daring example was his tribute to Shalom Paul (2008), evaluating alleged connections between the texts of the Jewish communities of Kai Fung (China) and Yemen. Other tributes honored the Assyriologists Cagni (2000), Oelsner (2000), Malamat (2003), and Klein (2005), the historians Wacholder (1994), Astour (1998), de Vries (2004), and Oded (2009), and his fellow Yale student Frymer-Kensky (2009). For my own anniversary volume (1993), David dealt with a Neo-Assyrian text; his continuing involvement with slightly later Neo-Babylonian matters is well attested by additional articles as well as major text volumes. Other genres represented by multiple examples include lectures originally delivered in various venues, including meetings of learned societies, especially the American Oriental Society (AOS) and the Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (RAI). Of these, one may single out two that were published by the Bible Lands Museum of Jerusalem, which has a long and distinguished record of sponsoring important talks in connection with its rotating exhibits. Weisberg’s two essays on urbanism in the Biblical world, “Royal Cities” (1996) and “Capital Cities” (1998), both shed welcome light on the corresponding exhibit. Also worthy of special note is the author’s lecture at the University of Haifa (1996) reflecting his frequent stays in Israel, particularly in Jerusalem, where he repeatedly taught at the Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School (HUC–BAS; now the HUC-JIR Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology) which also serves as the locus of an introductory year of study for rabbinical students. Of special interest to me personally is the article on “Zabaya, an Early King of the Larsa Dynasty” (1989). David’s children had been eager to give

Introduction

xiii

him a cuneiform text of his own as a significant birthday gift and consulted me on their choice. While I didn’t encourage them to buy an “unprovenanced” antiquity, my interest perked when they found a cylinder seal inscribed by a “servant of Zabaya.” And its prompt publication by David justified the purchase: not only was it a royal inscription, but it was only the fourth known inscription mentioning this particular king. Our paths crossed with less serendipity on other occasions, most notably in our collaboration leading to the publication, under the title “A Guided Tour Through Babylonian History,” of the cuneiform tablets of the Cincinnati Art Museum (1992). I had copied and studied most of the texts before I left Cincinnati for New Haven thirty years earlier, but they languished in my “to-do” file until David agreed to tackle the remaining, mostly Neo-Babylonian ones. He obliged me again a decade later with an introductory essay for the third and final volume of my anthology that appeared under the title of The Context of Scripture: Archival Texts from the Biblical World (2002). He also contributed “A Neo-Babylonian Dialogue Document” to that volume, noting its significance for the interpretation of Genesis 23. Weisberg was equally at home in Biblical as in cuneiform texts and even reconciled himself eventually to my attempts to bring the latter to bear on the former. But, unlike mine, his forays into Jewish sources were never less than path-breaking. This is illustrated most impressively by two learned studies of Masoretic accentuation, “Rare Accents” (1966–67) and “Break in the Middle of a Verse” (1994). The latter was dedicated to his HUC colleague Ben Zion Wacholder, with whom he had co-authored another pioneering study, “Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources” (1971). This study opened (or reopened) a whole new window on Assyriology, for the respective sources were separated by many centuries, even if both were at home in Babylonia. The new approach has in the meantime been successfully applied to another aspect, the law, by another of Weisberg’s Cincinnati colleagues, Samuel Greengus. David was my first doctoral student at Yale and in time became my very good friend. He was one of the three editors of my anniversary volume (1993), and I treasure the picture of the four of us taken at the time of its presentation. Would that he had lived to see me return the gift. The preceding preface will have to serve as a modest but heartfelt substitute. I am deeply grateful to Ophra Weisberg for inviting me to perform this mitzvah. Hamden, Connecticut May 23, 2012 / 46th day of the Omer, 5772 William W. Hallo The William M. Laffan Professor Emeritus of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature Yale University

Abbreviations AASOR AB ABD ABL ACT Acta Sum. AfO AHw AJSL ANET AnOr AOAT AOS ARAB ARM ArOr AS ASAW ASOR AUSS AUWE BA BAL BaM BEvT BH BHS BIN BiOr BM BOR BR BRM BZAW CAD CANE CBQ CCK

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Astronomical Cuneiform Texts Acta Sumerologica Archiv für Orientforschung Akkadisches Handwörterbuch American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Ancient Near Eastern Texts Analecta orientalia Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia Archives royales de Mari Archiv Orientální Assyriological Studies Abhandlungen der Königlich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften American Schools of Oriental Research Andrews University Seminary Studies Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte Biblical Archaeologist Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Biblia Hebraica Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies Bibliotheca Orientalis British Museum The Babylonian & Oriental Record: A Monthly Magazine of the Antiquities of the East Bible Review Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Civilizations of the Ancient Near East Catholic Biblical Quarterly Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings

xv

xvi COS CT CTMMA CTN DA EA EncJud FGrH GAG GCCI GKC HAKL HBT HdO Hh HSS HTR HUCA IDB IEJ JANES JAOS JBL JCS JESHO JNES JPS JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KTU LAS LSS MAD MCS MCSA MGWJ MHUC MSL MT NABU NBN NCE NJPS

Abbreviations The Context of Scripture Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud Documents assyriens relatifs aux présages El Amarna Encyclopaedia Judaica Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik Goucher College Cuneiform Inscriptions Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar Handbuch der Keilschrift Literatur Horizons in Biblical Theology Handbuch der Orientalistik HAR.ra = hubullu Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Israel Exploration Journal The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Publication Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal Leipziger semitistische Studien Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary Manchester Cuneiform Studies Mesopotamia. Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Monographs of the Hebrew Union College Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon Masoretic Text Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Samassumukîn bis Xerxes The New Catholic Encyclopedia New Jewish Publication Society (Version)

Abbreviations NRSV NRV OBGT OBO OBT OECT OIP OLZ Or (NS) OrAnt PSB Q.S. R.E. RA RCT REJ RGTC RlA RPN

xvii

New Revised Standard Version Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden I Old Babylonian Grammatical Texts Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Oriental Institute Publications Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Orientalia (NS) Oriens antiquus The Princeton Seminary Bulletin Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale R. Campbell Thompson Tablets Revue des études juives Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie (H. Ranke) Early Babylonian Personal Names from the Published Tablets of the so-called Hammurabi Dynasty RSV Revised Standard Version SBAW Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World SBT Studies in Biblical Theology ScrHie Scripta Hierosolymitana SKAW Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften St.Or. Studia Orientalia STT The Sultantepe Tablets TAVO Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients TCL Textes cunéiformes. Musée du Louvre TEBR Textes économiques de la Babylonie récente TU Texte und Untersuchungen UET Ur Excavations: Texts UF Ugarit-Forschungen UT Ugaritic Textbook VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Var. Hist. Varia Historia VAS Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin VDI Vestnik drevnej istorii VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WO Die Welt des Orients WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes YIVO Yidisher Visnshaftlekher Institut YOS Yale Oriental Series

xviii YOSR ZA ZDMG

Abbreviations Yale Oriental Series. Researches Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft

Loyalty and Death: Some Ancient Near Eastern Metaphors In the concluding section of his presidential address at the 199th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, 1 William Hallo discussed the use of metaphor in the interpretation of some biblical and Mesopotamian expressions, primarily “the Deluge.” An advocate of treating the limited textual documentation from Mesopotamia “as a precious resource to be critically sifted” in the reconstruction of a total picture of antiquity, Hallo used a methodology that provided a helpful means for dealing with the Flood: The linguistic approach may . . . be the clue to a proper understanding of the Mesopotamian concept. That concept, like the related one of the storm, is frequently employed in a purely metaphoric sense.2

Hallo (1) noted the use of the term “flood” as a “metaphor for cataclysms in subsequent history”; (2) pointed out that, alternatively, “Elizabeth Carter has suggested that it is the destruction or breakdown of the irrigation system”; and, finally, (3) “with a new twist,” 3 he resurrected [Reprinted from MAARAV 7 (1991) 253–67.] Author’s note: A version of this paper was written during my Sabbatical leave in Jerusalem in 1987–88 and delivered at the 35th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, July 15, 1988. My friend Herbert C. Brichto has made valuable suggestions that have enhanced the style and content of this version of the paper and has generally shared with me material from his Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics (Oxford University Press, 1992). In its present form, the paper was read at the Midwest AOSSBL Meeting at Wheaton College, February 18 1991. Thanks are due to Robert Ratner, Brian Webster, Paul Wright and Richard Weisberg. In addition to the scholars cited in the footnotes, I have also benefitted from speaking with Pinhas Artzi, Victor Hurowitz, Avraham Malamat, Shalom Paul, Aaron Shaffer and Haim Tadmor. 1. Delivered in New Orleans on March 14, 1989 entitled “The Limits of Skepticism,” JAOS 110 (1990): 187–99. Hallo noted that the address as delivered was “augmented here [in the published version] by the remarks between notes 124 and 156.” This is the section which contains most of the material relevant to our investigation. 2. Hallo (n. 1): 195. Hallo was responding to Miguel Civil’s “thought-provoking . . . insistence on the inadequacy of the cuneiform record for the task of reconstructing ancient Near Eastern history, institutions and society,” see ibid., 187. 3. Ibid., 196–97. Hallo argued that the entry of the Amorites into the TigrisEuphrates area “could very well have been symbolized in the Sumerian imagination by

3

4

Loyalty and Death: Some Ancient Near Eastern Metaphors

W. F. Albright’s proposal 4 and advocated the metaphorical interpretation of the Flood advanced by Adam Falkenstein, van Dijk and others. In tracing the currents of competing ideologies in Mesopotamia, Hallo noted the movement from literary figure to historical actuality: “The flood was transformed from metaphor to reality in the Sumerian Flood Story, more properly designated, with Jacobsen, as ‘The Eridu Genesis’.” 5 He further noted that, in a final stage, The Amorite Kings of Babylon became patrons of a whole new corpus of literature in Akkadian. They could thus readily have ordained a new and literal interpretation of the flood, beginning with the Atar-hasis epic, aptly described as ‘The Babylonian story of the flood’ by Lambert and Millard.6

Hallo’s analysis suggests a process by which a literary topos in due course came to be considered as “historic” by both the Sumerians and Akkadians. 7 In the spirit of these observations, but with some methodological variations, we are adopting an approach for studying literary features from the ancient Near East according to which the “literal” and the “metaphoric” are not opposites but are parts of a single spectrum. Indeed, for some of the cultural motifs we shall discuss, there may be no way of saying whether they were ever literal or never literal. We shall offer thoughts on some literary figures from ancient Near Eastern texts, principally Enuma Elish, 8 and from the Bible, organized around the themes of “Loyalty and Death.”

the metaphor of a fluvial flood, bringing destruction downstream along the otherwise life-giving rivers.” 4. “The Evolution of the West-Semitic Divinity ºan–ºanat-ºattâ,” AJSL 41 (1925): 79, n. 2, cited by Giorgio Buccellati, “The Amorites of the Ur III Period,” Richerche 1 (Naples: Istituto orientale di Napoli, 1966): 171. 5. Hallo (n. 1): 198. 6. Ibid., 199. 7. In fact one could envisage a three-stage process in which the pattern of interpretation was: literal-metaphoric-literal. I.e., originally, not only in Akkadian sources was the flood interpreted literally but in Sumerian sources as well. In the latter, the original term “great flood” seems to have begun in a non-metaphoric context, cf. William W. Hallo and William Kelly Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History (N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971): 34–35: “Native Mesopotamian sources and their derivatives, including the Bible, are in impressive agreement that at about this time [i.e., the Early Dynastic I Period, ca. 2900–2700 b.c.] there ensued a natural catastrophe which threatened the extinction of all mankind. . . .” Cf. also ibid., 28–29. 8. For the purpose of this paper, the term “Enuma Elish” shall be defined as “the cuneiform text established by W. G. Lambert and copied out by Simon B. Parker,”

Loyalty and Death: Some Ancient Near Eastern Metaphors

5

We shall try to demonstrate for Enuma Elish that there is a chain of similarities in themes—and to a certain extent in language—between the role and the relationships of the personae (especially Marduk’s victory over Tiamat) on the one hand, and language of treaty and oath, 9 and politics and diplomacy, on the other. When Enuma Elish themes and language are compared with usages in treaties and oaths, and politics and diplomacy, we observe correspondences that accompany the victories of one party, the defeats of another, and the restoration of Pax (peaceful order) in the sphere of international relations. (A summary of our discussion appears in the chart, below.) In Enuma Elish, we see the themes of human conflict, victory and defeat, anticipation of the future, and taming the enemy. In order to illustrate metaphors relating to these themes, we shall present material from the interrelated perspectives of “Loyalty and Death”: On Loyalty: Of “Oil and Water” (Enuma Elish VI 98a and Hosea 12:2); On Death: (A) Of “Touching/Slitting the Throat” (Enuma Elish VI 98b, IV 31); (B) Of “Between the Parts” (Enuma Elish IV 137–138, V 62, Genesis 15, and Jeremiah 34:18–19).

On Loyalty: Of “Oil and Water” (Enuma Elish VI 98a and Hosea 12:2) Scholars have long noted the joint occurrence of “oil and water” in documents from the ancient Near East. However, it is difficult to determine what the imagery of oil and water might represent, since, despite the clear contexts in which these words occur, we do not know how the oil and water were used. 10 Nevertheless, this uncertainty in no way militates Enuma Elis: The Babylonian Epic of Creation. The Cuneiform Text (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966). In The Treasures of Darkness (by Thorkild Jacobsen; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1976): 256 n. 326, we are informed that “An edition by W. G. Lambert is in preparation.” See Philippe Talon, The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enuma Elis (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2005). With regard to conventions used: for “incorrect” syllabic spellings, my transcription does not adjust to grammatically “correct” forms (e.g., of case-endings), but reflects the signs employed in the cuneiform. For logograms, however, an attempt has been made to transcribe “correctly.” It is above all in Enuma Elish—the poetic work that is, in the words of Herbert Brichto, the “anthem which celebrates the supremacy of Babylon, using its divine genius as a personification of this [victory],” where we think we can find the most promising examples. 9. It would be best not to draw a hard and fast line between “oath” and “treaty”. Treaty terminology is unthinkable without the oath. 10. See below.

6

Loyalty and Death: Some Ancient Near Eastern Metaphors

against the possibility of our understanding the metaphorical use of the phrase, since the common theme in each of the documents is “loyalty.” 11 We wish to examine Enuma Elish VI 97–100 and Hos 12:2, together with other documents from the ancient Near East, in order to investigate this motif. In 1976, Thorkild Jacobsen summarized the scene in which the vanquished gods appeared before Marduk: The gods prostrated themselves before him and bound themselves by oath by touching their throats with oil and water. They then formally gave Marduk the kingship as a permanent office, appointing him permanent lord of the gods of heaven and earth. 12

Enuma Elish VI 97–100 was first read in 1952 by O. R. Gurney on the basis of STT 60. 13 VI 97. 98. 99. 100.

uzakkiruma ana ramanisu araru ina mê u samni itmû ulappitu napsati iddinusumma sarrut ili epesa ana belut ili sa samê u erßetim sunu uktinnusu

Gurney translated: VI 97. 98. 99. 100.

14

They pronounced upon themselves a curse. They swore with water and oil touching their throats. They granted him (power) to exercise kingship over the gods, They established him in dominion over the gods of heaven and earth.14

A. K. Grayson rendered: VI 97. 98.

15

They pronounced among themselves a curse, Swearing by water and oil to place life in jeopardy.15

11. See below for examples. 12. “The Creation Epic” in Jacobsen (n. 8): 182. 13. Anatolian Studies 2 (1952): 33, lines 97–98. 14. Note that Marduk is granted sarrutu and belutu over the gods rather than ilutu. In the same year as Gurney’s article appeared, W. von Soden translated this phrase as it occurs in a Mari text: “sein Leben einsetzen = verpfänden,” d.h. “sich verpflichten,” Or 21 (1952): 79. 15. ANET, Addendum, 501–3, “The Creation Epic: Additions to Tablets V–VII.” See 503. The translation by Grayson is an interpretation of the act of touching the throat, viewed as having magical significance.

Loyalty and Death: Some Ancient Near Eastern Metaphors

7

Attestations of the use of oil and water occur in legal ceremonies, specifically those involving taking an oath; 16 in treaties; 17 and possibly in legal ceremonies apart from treaties. 18 However, this last group needs clarification in light of the remarks of Nicholas Postgate. Discussing the risk clause in Neo-Assyrian documents, he says: Although the position regarding the attribution of liability in the risk clause is now clearer, the same cannot be said of the accompanying mention of ‘water, oil, snake (and) scorpion’. This phrase was rescued from broken contexts and discussed by K. Deller (Or NS 34 (1965) 169; Biblica 46 (1965) 349ff.). He favours the idea that these words refer to an oath by water and oil, snake and scorpion, and quotes some parallels for the use of oil and water in biblical and cuneiform sources. On the other hand, he admits as possible that the clause might allude to the death of the pledge in consequence of a snake-bite or scorpion-sting; this, by itself, is attractive, as a death in this way could not readily be blamed on either party, but while water could perfectly well be another agent of accidental death, the same cannot be said of oil. Consequently, it may well be that despite appearances, the snake and scorpion are in this clause for different reasons from the oil and water, but until a more explicit version is found, some obscurity will persist. 19

We next move to biblical evidence involving the theme of loyalty and oil and water, offering an interpretation of Hosea 12:2 on the basis of the work of McCarthy, Deller and Hirsch. In an article entitled “Hosea XII 2: Covenant by Oil,” 20 Dennis McCarthy put forth a convincing argument regarding the meaning of the passage lb:Wy μyir'x}mIl} ˆmhnçm yrds hçç vol. 4 ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1953), p. 181.

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

233

hlw[h ymw .dmw[ ymw bçwy ymw .πqwz ymw .çlwt ym hçml wrmanç μh [sic] twnygnl ym[fç 36.μwnqtç [sic] awh μyrpws twngynh ynmys lba .jnwmh ymw drwyh ymw The (method of) chanting the accents was revealed to Moses: when one should draw out (the tune) (çlwt) raise (one’s voice) (πqwz), dwell (on a syllable) (bçwy), stand, raise (hlw[) lower (drwy), and when to rest (jnwm). But the post-Talmudic Sages were the ones to introduce the actual signs for the accents.

Simhah ben Samuel (d. 1105) took some of the material from the “Seder of Rabbi Amran Gaon” and other earlier sources, and incorporated it into the Ma˙zor; it is therefore of interest to note that he took the more liberal interpretation concerning the origin of the accents. S. D. Luzzatto (1800–1865), in his hlbqh l[ jwkyw, 37 came to the conclusion that the vowels and accents did not exist in the time of the Talmud, and that the Zohar, which speaks of vowels and accents, must therefore be of a later composition. His view was that they were invented in the period from the sixth through the ninth centuries, and this is the accepted scientific view to date. Some scholars see in the accents a resemblance to the Syriac system of punctuation introduced at the end of the fifth century. This, in turn, was influenced by Greek methods of punctuation, declamation, and pause. 38 While some features in common seem to be obvious, the plethora of Hebrew signs demands a more comprehensive explanation than this affords. The master of the Academy at Sura, Rabina II, committed the Talmud to writing at the close of the fifth century of the Common Era. The lack of evidence in the Talmud for written accents, vowels, and punctuation, indicates that these features were introduced later than this date, and that the rare accents were introduced still later. Our sources concerning Palestinian Jewry in the centuries immediately following the extinction of the patriarchate (425 c.e.) are meager. The next information bearing on our problem is contained in Masseket Soferim, a post-Talmudic treatise composed in Palestine and dealing with regulations pertaining to the preparation of Scripture and the reading of the Law. 39 The details relating to points in the text, inverted letters, qere and kethib, and reading the Torah and the Book of Esther, give us ample reason

36. Sim˙ah, Machsor Vitry nach der Handschrift im British Museum, Ed. by S. Hurwitz (Berlin: Druck von H. Itzkowski, 1893), p. 462. 37. Dialogues on the Kabbalah and the Antiquity of Punctuation, 1852. 38. Margolis, “Accents in Hebrew,” p. 157a. 39. M. Franco, “Soferim,” pp. 426–29 in vol. 11 of The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1905), p. 427b.

234

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

to believe that by the time this treatise was composed, a firm basis had been laid for the written Masorah, accents, and punctuation. Concerning the date of composition, M. Franco tells us: The evidence . . . makes it very probable that this treatise was finally redacted about the middle of the eighth century, an assumption which is supported by the statement of R. Asher (c. 1300 in the Hilkot Sefer Torah) that Soferim was composed at a late date. 40

At the year 750, we still have no explicit mention of the written forms of the accents or of their musical value as individual signs. If this development took place some time between the middle of the eighth century and the beginning of the tenth century, we are left with a short period, from, perhaps, 850 to the time of the appearance of Aaron ben Asher’s Dikduke Ha-te’amim for the development and introduction of the rare accents into the manuscripts. Having attempted to establish when the rare accents were introduced, we must now turn our attention to the main question: Why were they introduced? It is a generally accepted fact that the Masoretes used various textual devices such as small, large, suspended, or inverted letters, dotted words and taggin to indicate homiletical interpretations which the Rabbis had connected with the words. In almost every case, one may find an explicit statement connecting such homiletic interpretations with the textual device. Sources for these statements are the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, the Midrash, and commentators in the Rabbinic Bible (almost always drawing on earlier material). In no place in the rabbinic writings, however, is a connection made explicit between a homiletic interpretation and a rare accent. It is my feeling that the question of why the rare accents were introduced may be answered by the assumption that these accents (like small, large, suspended, and inverted letters, dotted words and taggin) are devices introduced by the Masoretes to connect certain Biblical words with homiletic interpretations. In other words, every rare accent calls to mind some midrash which the Rabbis felt was important enough to be marked by a special device. In an attempt to prove this assumption, I have searched the rabbinic sources for homiletic interpretations which would successfully account for the presence of the rare accent. The assumption I have made throughout is that though the connection between rare accent and homiletic interpretation has been lost to us, the homiletic interpretation remains to be rediscovered in connection with the rare accent. 40. Ibid.

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

235

Since there is never any explicit connection made between homily and rare accent in rabbinic sources, it will probably never be possible to prove the basic assumption of this paper. For this reason, I do not regard even the most convincing of the examples brought, as proof for my assumption. I rather look upon these examples as evidence which makes this assumption both plausible and probable. The examples I have presented lead me to believe that though the specific statements connecting homily and accent were lost, the homilies themselves were not lost. What criteria may be used to evaluate the proposed connection between midrash and rare accent? First, the midrash cited must be relevant to the word on which the rare accent occurs. Second, the midrash occasionally mentions the word, verse, or subject which has to do with the accent. This often provides a valuable clue, even though the connection between the accent and midrash is never explicitly made. Third, and in many ways most significant, is the fact that each of the three types of rare accent has a unique pattern which sets it off from the other accents. For example, wherever shalsheleth is used, the element of “hesitation”, “reticence”, “repetition”, or “vacillation” is present. In the case of merkha kefula, the element is an aggadic tale or lesson occurring (except once) on the fourth from last word in the sentence and always on a monosyllabic word. In the case to qarne fara, it is my belief that this note was introduced to mark a midrash halakha (interpretation involving a legal point in Jewish law). This latter point has to my knowledge never been suggested before. I have been unable to give a convincing example in every case, but I feel that I have shown sufficient proof to offer it as a working theory. The fact that most of the accents in each category fall into the pattern mentioned, is, in my opinion, one of the most conclusive and convincing aspects of this study. In attempting to defend the thesis that every rare note represents an important midrash, the following serious objection must be answered: since there are midrashim on practically every subject and verse of the Bible, how can we be sure that it is not a mere accident that a rare accent occurs on a verse which also has an important midrash connected with it? I believe this objection may be answered in two ways. First, the fact that a midrash relates in a highly convincing manner, in most of the cases, directly to the word on which the rare accent occurs, seems to be more than mere co-incidence. This point, of course, takes for granted that the proofs cited below are examined by the reader and that he is impressed with the connection proposed between rare accent and midrash in the particular case. Second, and more conclusive, is the fact mentioned above concerning the unique pattern of each of the rare accents. The fact that each midrash in each of the three categories shares common characteristics with all the other midrashim of the same category would definitely indicate some

236

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

purpose and system behind the accentuation, and would more or less eliminate the element of chance. Another objection: if every rare note calls to mind an important midrash, should not every important midrash be represented by a rare note? In other words, why isn’t there a rare note for every verse which calls to mind an important midrash? This objection may be answered, I believe, by referring to the abovementioned fact that the rare accents are devices, like small, large, suspended, and inverted letters, dotted words and taggin, introduced by the Masoretes for homiletic purposes. If this objection is valid for the rare accents, it is equally valid for the other Masoretic devices. One can just as well ask why isn’t there a “small letter” or “large letter” for other midrashim which were not marked by the Masoretes, as ask why isn’t there a rare note for every verse calling to mind an important midrash. In this context, I doubt if the question can be answered. One must just assume that because of some scribal tradition or some customary usage, some words and letters attracted the attention of the Masoretes and in their opinion merited a special notation. To what extent the system of Masoretic accentuation is dependent upon Syriac and Greek origins is a problem we cannot treat thoroughly without straying far from our subject. 41 A few remarks, however, would be in order, since this problem has direct bearing on the problem of the rare accents: if the argument is accepted that the Hebrew system is derived from the Syriac and Greek system, then one might maintain that the rare accents can be explained by reference to the orthographic practices of Hellenistic scribes, rather than to the homiletic interpretations of the Rabbis. A related problem would be the origin of the Masoretic devices other than the musical accents, such as the dots, and inverted, suspended, large, and small letters. Many scholars 42 accept the view that these devices were introduced by Jewish scribes following Hellenistic practices. In answer to this argument it could be maintained that even granting Greek influences some time around the inception of the system, about the sixth century, 43 by the time refinements had been added from within the system itself, and by the time the rare accents had been introduced, about 850 c.e., the development may be said to be an inner-Masoretic one uninfluenced by an outside system. This would fit in well with the argu-

41. Margolis, “Accents in Hebrew,” p. 157a. 42. See Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: 1962), esp. pp. 38– 46, and Romain Butin, The Ten Nequdoth Of The Torah (Baltimore: 1906). 43. Margolis, “Accents in Hebrew,” p. 157a.

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

237

ments put forth by the proponents of the Hellenistic influence theory, since even these scholars do not maintain that the Masoretic system, with its many complications and refinements, was taken over full-blown from another system. It would now be well to recall Wickes’ remark terming the rare accents “. . . irregular and unmeaning accentuation.” 44 What in his words are “a few (mostly unimportant) instances . . . which we can well afford to dispense with,” 45 turn out upon closer examination to be highlights of Rabbinic exegesis. Now, it will be recalled that Wickes himself noticed that the Masoretes sought to “attach a special meaning to the passages in question.” He also noticed that we might have here an explanation of the midrash. His vision, however, was obscured by belittling the midrash and by making the assumption a priori that everything in the midrash may be dispensed with in scientific inquiry. One may recognize the midrash as the reason for the rare accents without necessarily accepting the content of the midrash. One may use the midrash to explain phenomena in the Masoretic Text, while disagreeing with the method employed. For example, we shall see how the Masoretes treated certain Biblical passages as convenient “jumping-off-points” for their own homiletical interpretations; these same passages would be treated entirely differently by modern scholars, who would use a scientific and historical point of view. It is not necessary for the latter to accept the interpretations of the former; it is important for them to understand their motives. In his introduction to the classical Pesikta midrash, Professor Bernard Mandelbaum asks “What is midrash?” Part of the answer he gives is that “It is literature which penetrates beneath the surface of words.” 46 This was precisely the motive of the men who introduced the rare accents into the Masoretic Text: to penetrate beneath the surface of the words by means of the midrash. If we bear in mind this sympathetic approach to the midrash, I believe we will better be able to appreciate and evaluate the contribution of the Masoretes to the making of our biblical text. At this point we shall discuss the role of the rare accent in eighteen verses together with the homiletical interpretation. I have selected five examples of shalsheleth, seven of merkha kefula, and six of qarne fara. 47 Our first verse has a shalsheleth, and will illustrate the element of “hesitation” to which I have made reference: Amos 1:1–2.

44. Wickes, p. 92. 45. Ibid., p. 85. 46. Pesikta de Rav Kahana ( Jewish Theological Seminary, New York: 1962).

238

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

“The words of Amos . . . And he said: The Lord roars from Zion . . .”

At first it seems rather perplexing for the rare accent to appear on the word for “And he said.” If, however, we bear in mind that where the note shalsheleth occurs in the twenty-one books, we should look for the element of “hesitation”, a remark of the Rabbis in the Midrash comes to mind. Leviticus Rabbah X.2 contains the following remark about Amos: swm[ wmç arqn hml sjnyp ruua ybr rmad swlysp wtwa ˆyrwq wyhw swm[ ta ytjlç .wnwçlb swm[ hyhç I sent Amos (to the people as a prophet), but the people called him “stutterer,” for Rabbi said in the name of R. Phineas, “Why was he called Amos?— because he was heavy (amus) of speech.”

A similar remark is found in Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1.2: huubqh jynh /rwd yçna Wrma ./nwçlb swm[ hyhç sjnp ruua swm[ arqn hml swm[ .aswlysp ançyl [yfq ˆydh l[ ala /tnykç hrçh alw wytwyrb lk ta Concerning Amos: Why was he named Amos?—Said R. R. Phineas: “Because he was heavy of speech”. The people of his generation said: “The Holy-OneBlessed-be-He has put aside all His creatures and cause His Spirit to dwell in none but this stutterer of broken speech.”

From these two remarks of the rabbis we may argue that the reason for the occurrence of shalsheleth at the very outset of Amos’ message is to bring to mind the midrashic remark that “Amos was heavy of speech.” Our second verse has a merkha kefula, and shows how an aggadic tale is read into the section containing the rare accent:

Zechariah 3:2: “. . . is not this (man) a brand plucked out of fire?”

The Talmud, in Sanhedrin 93a, discusses our verse in a legend connected with Jeremiah 29:21–23:

47. All references to Midrash Rabbah, unless otherwise noted, come from the fivevolume publication of the Moriah Publishing Company, Tel Aviv, Israel, 1960. Note has not always been taken of parallel references in other parts of the midrash, since this would have had involved textual criticism of an unwieldy sort.

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

239

Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Ahab the son of Kolaiah and concerning Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, who prophesy lies to you in My name: Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon, and he will slay them before your eyes; And a curse shall be taken up by all the captivity of Judah in Babylon concerning them, saying: “The Lord make you like Zedekiah and like Ahab whom the King of Babylon roasted in the fire,” because they have done vile deeds in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives, and spoken words in My name falsely which I commanded them not; but I am He Who knows and a witness, says the Lord.

An inquiry is made as to what sin the two false prophets had committed, with the midrash seeking to delve deeper into the situation and satisfy our imagination in a place where the text itself is brief:

What did they do? They went to Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter. Ahad said to her: “Thus says God: ‘Give yourself to Zedekiah’,” while Zedekiah said to her: “Thus says God, ‘Surrender to Ahab’.” So she went and told her father, who said to her, “The God of these hates unchastity: when they (again) approach you, send them to me!” So when they came to her, she referred them to him. “Who told this to you?” asked he of them. “The Holy-OneBlessed-Be-He,” replied they. “But I have enquired of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who informed me that it is forbidden.” They answered, “We too are prophets, just as he; to him he did not say it, but to us.” “Then I desire that you be tested, just as Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were,” he retorted. “But they are three while we are only two,” they protested (the combined merit of three may be sufficient for a miracle, but not of two). “Then choose whom you wish to accompany you,” said he. “Joshua the High Priest,” they answered, thinking, “Let Joshua be brought, for his merit is great, that he may protect us.” So he was brought, and they were all thrown (into the furnace). They were burned, but as to Joshua, the High Priest, only his garments were singed, for it is said, “And he showed me Joshua the High Priest standing before the angel of the Lord, etc.” (Zechariah 3:1–2).

The purpose of the rare accent on the word hz in the expression “. . . is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?” is probably to bring to mind the legend about Joshua and Ahab and Zedekiah, and to say in effect that the

240

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

words “a brand plucked out of the fire” are not merely a figure of speech, but a reference to actual events. Our third example has a qarne fara, which calls to mind a midrash halakha, or legal point in Jewish law, on Numb. 35:5, “You shall measure from outside the city on the east side 2,000 cubits . . .”

This verse, referring to the open land lying about the Levitical cities, contains the only example in the Pentateuch of yera˙ ben yomo and qarne fara. We at once ask, “Why does the rare accent occur just here? Are there not more significant places where such a note might fit better?” The answer to this question, I believe, lies in a seemingly unrelated matter in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate ’Erubin 51a, in a section dealing with laws concerning the transportation of objects from one place to another on the Sabbath, based on Exodus 16:29:

See the Lord has given you the Sabbath . . . let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

According to Rashi: 48

LET NO MAN GO OUT OF HIS PLACE—these are the 2,000 cubits of the Sabbath limit (Mechilta).

The “Sabbath limit” mentioned in Rashi is the limit of 2,000 cubits in any direction from his home, beyond which a man may not travel on the Sabbath. The Talmud, in ’Erubin, asks the question: ˆbytk ˆkyh hma μypla ynh Where in Scripture are these 2,000 cubits prescribed? (i.e., There is no explicit mention of the measure in the text. Where, then, do we derive the figure?)

The Talmud answers that the figure of 2,000 cubits is derived by analogy from Numbers 35, where, in connection with the open land surrounding Levitical cities to be used for commons, fields, and vineyards, the figure is mentioned explicitly. I propose that the purpose of the rare accent in Numbers 35:5 is to call to mind the analogy mentioned in the Talmud: 48. A. Berliner, Raschi: Der Kommentar des Salomo B. Isak Über den Pentateuch (Frankfurt A.M.: J. Kauffmann,1905), p. 139.

241

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

tbç ytbwç lk why hzk Like this measurement (the one for the land of the Levites, Numbers 35:5) shall be that of all who observe the Sabbath rest.

Now it may still be asserted that, granted, the rare accent would call to mind such an analogy, still, is this fact significant enough to warrant the exclusive use of the accent in this verse? To the Rabbis, the law dealing with transportation of objects on the Sabbath certainly deserved the special prominence which the Masoretes gave it. In fact, the importance of the Sabbath limit was such that Jeremiah singled it out from all other laws to admonish the people (17:19–27).

Thus says the Lord: Take heed for yourselves and carry nothing on the Sabbath day, nor bring anything in by the gates of Jerusalem, nor carry out anything from your houses on the Sabbath day . . .49

There follow now four additional examples of shalsheleth, six more of merkha kefula, and five of qarne fara. SHALSHELETH Genesis 19:16:

“But he lingered; and the men laid hold of his hand . . .”

The element of hesitation is recorded in Midrash Bereshith Rabbah 50:17.

50.

. .

But he lingered . . . (this shows) lingering after lingering; he thought: “How much do I stand to lose in silver and gold, in precious stones and pearls?” This accords with what has been stated elsewhere: (The reference is apparently to one who hoards his money, and then loses his fortune without having enjoyed it.) (Ecclesiastes 5:12–13a) Said Rabbi Joshua B. Levi: “This (verse in Kohelet) refers to Lot . . .”

49. See especially The Sabbath by I. Grunfeld (London: 1956), pp. 25–29. 50. Cf. J. Theodor and C. Albeck, Bereschit Rabbah mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar ( Jerusalem: Sifre Wahrman, 1965), p. 528.

242

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

Genesis 24:12:

“Then he said: ‘O Lord, God of my master, Abraham . . .”

The following passage in the Bab. Tal., Taanith 4a is relevant to our verse:

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: “Three (men) made haphazard requests (lit., ‘asked not in a proper manner’).” Two of them were fortunate in the reply they received, and one was not; namely, Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Saul, the son of Kish; and Jephtha, the Gileadite. Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, as it is written, ‘So let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, ‘Let down thy pitcher, etc.’ (Genesis 24:14) She might have been lame or blind, but he was fortunate in the answer given to him in that Rebecca chanced to meet him (for the other references see I Samuel 17:25 and Judges 11:31).

Rashi comments that in making his request, Eliezer used the method of auguring, or divination, which is forbidden by the Torah. It is likely that the rare accent fixed on the first of the three examples cited in the Talmud would serve as a mnemonic device, to recall the fact that “Three men made haphazard requests.” Now, if shalsheleth indicates “hesitation,” we must seek a reason for the hesitation in this case. This is not hard to find. The answer is contained in a remark by Rashi to verse 39 of this chapter: hçah ˚lt al yla “Perhaps the woman will not follow me.” The word yla is written without a vav (yl"Wa) so that it may be read yl"aE, “unto me.” Eliezer had a daughter, and he was trying to find some reason for Abraham to appeal to him (Eliezer) to give his daughter in marriage to Isaac. (Note: Rashi suggests that we must translate thus: “Unto me, yl"aE, you will have to come to seek a wife for Isaac; the woman will certainly not follow me.”) 51

According to this, Eliezer hesitated before he sought to fulfill his master’s command, because he would stand to lose if successful.

51. Silbermann, Rashi’s Commentary in English (London: 1929), p. 106.

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

243

Genesis 39:8: “But he refused; and he said to his masters’ wife . . .”

The element of “hesitation” which we have seen in the previous examples of shalsheleth in Genesis is present in this verse as well. Wickes records the following remark in bwf jql çrdm to Genesis 39:8 .tlçlçw qspb bytkd μym[p hbrh ˆwaym dja ˆwaym One refusal—refusal on many occasions,—(We learn this from the fact that) it is written with a pesik and shalsheleth. 52

The Talmud, in recording how Joseph sanctified God’s name in Potiphar’s house, tells that a supernatural image an;q}/ydi tWmD] of Jacob appeared to Joseph and prevented him from acting immorally.

“And she caught him by his garment, saying, etc.” (Genesis 39:12) At that moment his father’s image came and appeared to him through the window, and said, “Joseph, your brothers will have their names inscribed upon the stones of the ephod, and yours is among theirs; is it your wish to have your name expunged from among theirs and be called an associate of harlots?” . . . R. Johanan said in the name of R. Meir: “(At this) his passion subsided.”53

Leviticus 8:23: “And he slaughtered it. Moses took some of its blood . . .”

Leviticus 8 tells us of the detailed execution of God’s commandments concerning the initiation of the Sanctuary in the desert. Now we are again faced with the question, why does the rare shalsheleth accent occur in this verse? The answer seems to be contained in the Midrash Sifre (to Numbers) in a commentary on Numbers 7:1:

54

52. Wickes, p. 85, note 4. 53. Bab. Tal., So†ah 36b. 54. H. S. Horovitz, ed., afwz yrpsw rbdmb rps l[ yrps .br ybd yrps ( Jerusalem: Sifre Wahrman, 1966) section 44, p. 49.

244

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

“On the day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle, he anointed and consecrated it and all its furnishings, as well as the Altar and its utensils.” Since it says, “On the day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle,” instead of merely saying, “On the day Moses set up the Tabernacle”, we may learn that on each of the seven days of initiation Moses set up the Tabernacle in the morning and then dismantled it, but on the eighth day, which was the first day of Nisan, he set it up and did not dismantle it (Exod 40:17).

The idea that spiritual purification is achieved by repetition is not unknown to the Bible, since the initiation ceremony of the priests was repeated daily for seven days (Exodus 29:30, 35, and Leviticus 8:33), as was the initiation ceremony of the altar (Exodus 29:37). Here we have again encountered our theme of “recurrence” where the shalsheleth is concerned: the reason for the shalsheleth in this verse is to remind us of the midrashic remark that the tabernacle was set up and dismantled seven times before it was finally erected. Since the seven-day repetition is explicitly mentioned in the case of the initiation of the priests and the altar, the shalsheleth was not needed there; here, however, we are in need of the rare accent recalling the midrash, since the repetition is not explicitly mentioned. The note occurs on the word “And he slaughtered it . . .” since the sacrifice of the ram was the central part of the initiation rite which had to be repeated. Further importance of this passage may be seen from the remark of Samson Raphael Hirsch in his Commentary to Exodus 40:17 Was this perhaps a significant hint that the Tabernacle was destined to be erected seven times and taken down or destroyed seven times before it would finally become the permanent home of God’s glory . . . ? We may point out that ub tybw ua tyb ,ˆw[bg ,bwn ,hlyç ,lglg ,rbdmb actually do present us with the historical fact of seven such incidents followed by their destruction until the advent of “The End of Days,” when the eighth building will be erected as is promised in Isaiah 2:1–4.55

MERKHA KEFULA Genesis 27:25:

“. . . so he served him, and he ate, and he brought him wine and he drank.”

It is clear from Rabbinic sources that the “wine” mentioned in this verse was not ordinary wine. It is my contention that the rare accent double merkhah which occurs on the word wlèì was placed there for the purpose of calling to mind the midrashim referring to this wine. Now it might be 55. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary To Exodus, translated by I. Levy (London: 1960).

245

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

asked why the accent does not occur on the word “wine” itself; this fact is easily explained: The double Merkhah . . . as the servus darga shows, is a weakened form of tªbir. 56

The accent would not, by the rules of notation and syntax, be able to fall on the word “wine” itself, since the tebhir cannot occur on the second-tolast word in the verse. The first reference I would like to quote in this connection is the Targum of Jonathan ben Uziel ad loc.: yiyi/bn][IB} [nfxad armj ˆm ytyyaw akalm hyl ˆmdzaw hybg armj hwh alw lkaw hyl brqw .ytçw ywbal hyl yfma bq[yw bq[y dyb hybhyw aml[ ywryç ymwy ˆm “. . . so he served him and he ate . . .” But there was no wine nearby, so an angel appeared to him and brought some wine preserved in the grape since the Creation of the world, and he placed it in Jacob’s hand; then Jacob brought it to his father “and he drank”.

The Commentary on this Targum, in both Aramaic and Hebrew, printed in the Rabbinic Bible, explains:

“ ‘Wine preserved in the grape’—hidden ever since the creation of the world.”

Recanati (Menahem ben Benjamin Recanati, an Italian Rabbi floruit c. 1300, whose “Commentary on the Torah” is marked by Cabalistic interpretations on the text), reports the remark of the Cabalah that the angel drew for him from “wine” which represents the symbolic characteristic of Isaac. He drew from the same source from which strict judgment is aroused. 57 A commentary shedding still further light on this verse is that of t[d twpswth yl[bm μynqz:

58

56. Wickes, p. 92. 57. Recanati, hrwth l[ çwryp [Commentary on the Torah] (Venice: D. Bomberg, 283 [1522 or 1523]), p. 17r. Reprinted as hrwth l[ rwayb (Venice: Justinian, 305 [1544 or 1545]), p. 24r. Note: In the mystic scheme of the Cabalah, the symbolic characteristic of Abraham is “water” which represents “loving kindness,” while the symbolic characteristic of Isaac is “wine,” which represents the “strict measure of justice.” 58. See, for example, Bab. Tal. Berakhot 34b, ymy tççm wybn[b rmwçmh ˆyy hz luubyr rma tyçarb. “Rabbi Joshua b. Levi said, ‘This is the wine that had been preserved in grapes

246

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

From where did he get the wine?—It says nowhere that his mother gave it to him! (The explanation is that) Michael (the angel) brought him wine from the Garden of Eden, because there can be no good feeling and no blessing where there is no wine. Similarly, in the case of Abraham, we read: “And Malchizedek, King of Shalem, brought forth bread and wine . . . and he blessed him” (Genesis 14:18–19)—In this case, too, since he drank (wine), he blessed him.

All evidence taken together seems to point to the explanation that the purpose of the rare accent in this verse is to call to mind the elaborate homiletic interpretation which fills out the bare story of the text. Exodus 5:15:

“Then the Israelite foremen came to Pharaoh and cried: ‘Why do you deal thus with your servants?’ ”

Exodus 5 tells of the request by Moses that Pharaoh let the Israelites go to celebrate a festival in the wilderness. Pharaoh then deprives the people of straw for making bricks. The foremen ask Pharaoh to lighten the daily brick-quota. At his refusal, they accuse Moses of bringing harm to the people. Moses cries to God to deliver the people. The rare accent on the words “Why do you deal thus with your servants” would seem to be connected with the following midrash recorded in Bab. Tal., Sanhedrin 111a:

It has been taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said: “I once visited Alexandria of Egypt and found an old (Egyptian) man there who said to me, ‘Come, and I will show you what my ancestors did to yours: some of them they drowned in the sea, some they slew by the sword, and some they crushed in the buildings ˆynbb wk[m μhm And for this (for losing faith in God through this) Moses was punished, as it is said, ‘Ever since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, it has gone worse with this people . . . yet You have not delivered Your people at all.’ (Exodus 5:23).

The Talmud explains that Moses was allowed to behold the defeat of Pharaoh, but for his lack of faith, he would not behold the conquest of Palestine. from the six days of creation,’ and discussion by Judah David Eisenstein, ‘Wine,’ ” pages 532–35 in vol. 12 of The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1905), p. 533.

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

247

The first thing the Egyptians did to the Israelites (“Some of them they drowned in the sea”) is mentioned explicitly in the Bible: Then Pharaoh charged all his people saying, “Every boy that is born you shall throw into the Nile . . .” (Exodus 1:22) The second thing (“Some they slew by the sword”) is seen by Jewish commentators to be implied in Exodus 5:21: “And they [the foremen] said to them [Moses and Aaron]: ‘May the Lord look upon you and punish you for making us objectionable to Pharaoh and his courtiers—putting a sword in their hands to slay us.” The third thing (“Some they crushed in the buildings”) may be seen as a reference to a legend recorded in Midrash Exodus Rabbah 5:21: 59

With respect to their being loathsome [to Pharaoh], Rabbi Jo˙anan said, “You have made our odor abhorrent.” Rashbal said, “[The odor was abhorrent] from those who were built into the walls, who died and whose bodies were decayed.

The reference is explained in Rashi to Sanhedrin 101b (to ˆynbb ˚mkmtn):

According to legend, when the Israelites in Egypt did not complete their quota of bricks, their children were built into the walls instead.

The rare accent on the words “Why do you deal thus with your servants” apparently points to this last midrash. This evil deed of Pharaoh caused Moses to lose faith in God and complain that He had abandoned His people. Numbers 14:3:

“Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?”

Numbers 13 and 14 deal with the episode of the spies who scouted the Land of Canaan and brought back an evil report about the country. I believe that the reason for the rare accent on the word lies in the following sections of the Babylonian Talmud:

59. Midrash Shemoth Rabbah ( Jerusalem: Vilna, 1980), p. 32. See also 2:5, wyhç rham ˆynbb ˆtwa ˆyçbwkw ˆyrzwj wyh rhnb ˆtwa ˆy[ybfm. Ibid., p. 19. “After drowning them in the river, they immured them in a building.” Translated by S. M. Lehrman, Midrash Rabbah, Exodus (London: Soncino Press, 1983), p. 54. Reference courtesy of Andrew Pfeiffer.

248

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

60

Five misfortunes befell our fathers . . . on the ninth of Ab: . . . It was decreed that our fathers should not enter the (promised) land, the Temple was destroyed the first and second time, Bethar was captured, and the city ( Jerusalem) was ploughed up.

Now we shall see the connection between the episode of the spies and the first day of the ninth of Ab: 61

“The whole community broke into loud cries and the people wept that night. (Numbers 14:1)” Rabbah said in the name of R. Jo˙anan, “That night was the night of the ninth of Ab. The Holy One Blessed Be He said to them: ‘You have wept without cause; therefore, I will set (this day) aside for weeping throughout the generations to come’.”

This remark is reflected in a dictum of R. Jose in Bab. Tal. Arakin 11b, who gives the statement in general terms applicable to our verse:

R. Jose said: “Good things (E.g., the redemption from Egypt as well as the final redemption fall into the month of Nisan. In Numbers 14:1 the whole congregation is reported to have ‘broken out into loud cries.’ According to Gershom, ‘That evil day fell on the ninth of Ab, the ninth of Ab therefore was a day predestined to disaster) are brought about on a good (auspicious) day, and evil ones on a bad one.”

The rare accent on the word bwf would serve to bring the irony of the situation into sharp focus: whereas the people complained that “It would be better (“bwf”) . . . to go back to Egypt, “God marked the day as one predestined for evil (the opposite of “bwf”). Numbers 32:42:

“. . . and he called it Nobah, after his name.”

60. Bab. Tal. Taanith 26a–26b. Cf. Mishnah Taanith 4:6 by Hanoch Albeck, yrds hçç d[wm rds .hnçm Vol. 2 ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1953), pp. 343–44. 61. Bab. Tal., Taanith 29a.

249

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

The word hl is written raphe, that is, without a mappiq-he. In analyzing the remarks of the Rabbis in explaining this phenomenon, I hope to be able to show why the rare accent double-merkhah is used on this word. The fullest explanation occurs in the commentary of the Ramban, who quotes Rashi as follows: 62

There is no mappiq in the he, and I found (the reason for this) in the Yesod of R. Moses Hadarshan [a French midrashist of the 11th century known only by quotations found mostly in Rashi’s commentaries]: “Since the name Nobah for the town did not survive, the he is written raphe as if to suggest the reading al (i.e., ‘He did not call it Nobah.’).”

Rashi quotes the two other verses which according to the Masorah have the same phenomenon, viz., Ruth 2:14 (“And Boaz said to her . . .” hl rmayw z[b) and Zechariah 5:11 (“. . . to build her a house in the land of Shinar . . .” hl twnbl r[nç ≈rab tyb) and he wonders how a similar explanation might be applied to them. Nachmanides supplies an answer to this by showing sources which prove that wherever the he is written raphe there is an indication of a temporary state of affairs. He first quotes Midrash Ruth Rabbah Parashah 5, Section 5 showing that Ruth’s condition as a handmaid was only temporary, and that in truth, “the royal house of David was destined to emanate from her.”

63

Ruth 2:13: “Though I be now even as one of your handmaids . . .” (On hearing this remark, Boaz) said to her: ‘God forbid. You are not one of the handmaids (t/hm:a)" but rather, one of the mothers (t/hm:yaI).’ (Continues the Midrash:) A similar use (of the he raphe) may be found in Numbers 32 indicating that the name for the town did not endure, and in Zechariah 5 which teaches that “lies cannot endure” (h[wçt rqçl ˆya)

Further illumination of the passage in Zechariah is provided from the Bab. Tal., Tractate Sanhedrin, 24a: 62. Nachmanides, l[ww[ç bd μyyj brh tam ;(ˆuubmr) ˆmjn ˆb hçm wnybrl :hrwth yçwryp [Edited by Chaim Chavel] ( Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Ku˚, 1981), p. 333. 63. Midrash Ruth Rabbah, in ynç qlj ,hbr çrdm rps ( Jerusalem: M. P. Press, 1980), Parashah 5, Section 5, p. 9.

250

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

“Then I lifted up mine eyes, etc.” [Zechariah 5:9–11] Said R. Johanan on the authority of R. Simeon B. Johai: “These [i.e., the two women] symbolize hypocrisy and arrogance which made their home in Babylon.” But was Babylon really the home of haughtiness?—did not the master say, “Ten measures of arrogance came down into the world, of which Elam took nine, and the rest of the world one”? Yes, originally it descended to Babylon, but it travelled to Elam. This can also be inferred from the phrase, “To build her a house in the land of Shinar.”

Commenting on a parallel passage in Bab. Tal., Kiddushin 49b, Tosafoth remarks ad loc.:

Rashi explains here that she sought to build but did not succeed. Others explain it from the fact that it says “for herself” and not “for them” (i.e., for hypocrisy and arrogance), showing that there was only one (measure of wickedness remaining in Babylon), namely “hypocrisy.” But this is not clear, since throughout the chapter the term “measure” is referred to in the singular, and this would fit in well with the usage “for herself.” Still others explain that the word hl is written raphe; now all other references in Scripture with the word “hl” have a mappiq-he except for three places, this being one, as if to suggest the reading al. And the purpose of this is to tell us that this name of the town did not survive. This is Rashi’s explanation in Numbers 32.

To summarize: Rabbinic sources indicate that in the three places in Scripture where the word hl is written without a mappiq, the purpose is to show a temporary state of affairs. Now this midrash provides the clue which reveals why the rare merkhah accent is used here: the accent apparently serves to call to mind the midrash; i.e., it is a mnemonic device. If this explanation is true, it shows very neatly why verses such as Numbers 32:42, which at first strike the reader as deserving of no special notice, merited a rare accent. Ezekiel 14:4b–5a:

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

251

“. . . I the Lord will answer him who comes according to the multitude of his idols, that I may take the house of Israel in their own heart . . .”

The beginning of the chapter tells us that certain of the elders came before Ezekiel. Their original purpose is not precisely clear to us, but we know that they incurred the wrath of God, who accused them of “setting up their idols in their mind” (verse 3). The rare note occurs on the word /l of verse 4b. Why? The answer is apparently contained in a section of Bab. Tal. Kiddushin 39b, which seems to be discussing an unrelated point. The question is raised as to whether one is punished for merely thinking of a transgression without actually committing the deed. The conclusion is reached that one is not punished for mere intention. This, however, is true only of an ordinary transgression; in the case of meditating idolatry, even the intention is punished. The prooftext is our verse: “. . . that I may take the house of Israel in their own heart (i.e., I will reveal the evil concealed in their heart—Kimhi).” A further indication of the importance of this thought is contained in the following passage in Kiddushin 40a:

. . . What (is the interpretation) of the verse “that I may take the house of Israel in their own heart”?—Said R. Aha b. Jacob: “That refers to idolatry, for a Master said: ‘Idolatry is so heinous that he who rejects it is as though he admits (the truth of) the whole Torah’; (hence mere intention is punished).”

Maimonides illustrates the importance of this law in his Code, Laws Concerning Idolatry, 2.4: 64

. . . anyone who denies idolatry has in effect accepted the entire Torah, all the Prophets, and everything commanded the Prophets from the age of Adam to the end of time, since this commandment is fundamental to all other commandments.

The purpose of the rare accent would seem to be to illustrate the importance of the thought that idolatry is a crime so heinous that even the intention of idolatry is punished. The position of the rare note, on the word of verse 4b (rather than in verse 5a, where the principal emphasis of the midrash seems to lie) is not difficult to explain, since an examination will show that most occurrences of merkha kefula are on the fourth 64. Maimonides, hrwt hnçm vol. 1 ( Jerusalem: Mekhon Óatam Sofer, 1963), p. 57.

252

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

word from the end of a verse. Therefore, someone wishing to stress the beginning of verse 5 would naturally place the merkha kefula in the position which it has in our Hebrew text. It is interesting to note that the Qere of Ezekiel 14:4 is (with alef), while the kethib is : (with he, without mappiq in codices A and B19a). We recall that for Numbers 32:42 a midrash we have discussed is based on the fact that is written without mappiq-he, suggesting the reading : (with alef). Perhaps here, too, the purpose is to show “a temporary state of affairs.” (See above, on Numbers 32:42.) A further point of interest is that in the edition of the Rabbinic Bible published by the Pardes Company of New York the rare note is omitted, and in its place is a merkha. This merkha is undoubtedly a printer’s error for a tebhir (since the difference between a merkha and tebhir in orthography is only a dot) and we have already met the doctrine that merkha kefula is only a weakened form of tebhir. The omission would support the theory that the rare accents are later modifications of already existing notes, on the assumption that the Pardes edition is based on a manuscript which does not have this modification. It follows from what I have said that since the elders were meditating idolatry, the writer considered their original purpose in coming before the Prophet wholly immaterial in the light of this heinous crime. This would explain why their purpose in coming before the Prophet is not explicitly mentioned by him in the text. Habakkuk 1:3:

Why do you show me iniquity and behold mischief? And why are spoiling and violence before me? So that there is strife, and contention arises.

We may piece together the structure of the verse as seen by the midrash from the remarks of Rashi and Meßudath David. Explaining the first two lines of the verse, the latter remarks:

In a prophetic vision, he (Habakkuk) sees the secret sins of Israel . . . He is shown their inevitable punishment in the form of the Babylonian exile . . .

On Habakkuk 1:2–3, Rashi says:

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

253

65

In these lines Rashi refers to Nebuchadnezzar, who shall spread (açn) strife and contention (ˆwdmw byr) and who shall successfully endure (yhyw) [with impunity]. The rare accent calls to mind the foreknowledge of the prophet concerning the Babylonian conquest and triumph by Nebuchadnezzar, as brought out by the midrash.

QARNE FARA Joshua 19:51:

“These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua, the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance.”

On this verse Kim˙i remarks (ad loc.): 66.rqph

larçy ≈rab wyhç ˆyd tyb rqphl qwsph hzb wkms luuz wnytwbrw

Our rabbis of blessed memory used this verse as support for (their deduction of) the doctrine that hefker by the courts of Israel is legal hefker.

This is a reference to Bab. Tal., Yebamoth 89b (cf. Gittin 36b):

How do we know that a rabbinic court of law has the authority to declare property ownerless (after which it can assign it to an injured party)? . . . R. Eleazar said: We derive it from here: “These are the inheritances . . . etc.” Now why is the word “fathers” put next to “heads?” (It would have been sufficient to say, “heads of the tribes.”)—to show that just as fathers transmit to their children whatever they wish, so the heads transmit to the public whatever they wish.

It would seem, then, that the purpose of the rare accent in this verse is to remind the reader of the midrash halakhah (that is, a midrash for the purpose of teaching a legal and practical point, rather than an aggadic, or 65. rç[ yrt :harml dmjn :μybwtkw μyaybn ( Jerusalem: Torah Ha’Mefuarah, 1994), p. 273. 66. μyfpwç - [çwhy :harml dmjn :μybwtkw μyaybn ( Jerusalem: Torah Ha’Mefuarah, 1994), p. 130.

254

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

“legendary” point) which gives the rabbis the authority to declare property ownerless.

Jeremiah 13:9–17

Thus says the Lord: “After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem . . .” Thus says the Lord: “Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land . . . with drunkenness . . . Hear you and give ear, be not proud, for the Lord has spoken . . . My soul shall weep in secret for your pride . . .”

At the beginning of Chapter 13, Jeremiah is commanded to perform a symbolic act bearing on the destiny of Israel. He is told to put on a linen loin-cloth. Later he is told to take the loincloth he has brought and hide it in the cleft of a rock at Perath. After many days, he returns to the spot to find that the garment is damaged beyond repair. God tells him that He will damage the pride of Judah in the same way. In a second section, Jeremiah uses the allegory that just as every bottle is filled with wine, God will fill the inhabitants of the land with drunkenness and make them reel, because of their pride. The dominant theme of both sections is the pride of Judah, which will be punished if the people do not repent. The rare accent, qarne fara, occurs on the words “all the inhabitants of this land.” Wickes, in his treatment of the accents offers the suggestion that the purpose of the rare accent is to point to the symbolic nature of God’s act: just as every bottle is filled with wine, so will God fill all the inhabitants of the land with drunkenness. One might, however, object to this: why among the hundreds and hundreds of allegories in Jeremiah and the other books of the Bible was this particular allegory picked for the rare accent? Besides, what does the rare accent tell us that we do not already know by our simple understanding of the text before us? A more convincing line of reasoning seems to be the following. The theme of the chapter is the pride of all the inhabitants of Judah. We must therefore look for some connection with the notion of the sinfulness of arrogance. A second clue is the fact that the qarne fara always points to a midrash halakhah, that is, a midrash of the text having to do with a legal tradition. Such a reference may indeed be found, in Bab. Tal., Sotah 5a:

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

255

Whence is there a prohibition for the haughty of spirit?—Raba said in the name of Ze’iri: “Hear ye, and give ear; be not proud.” . . . This is in accord with what R. Abin said in the name of R. Elai: “. . . Wherever it is stated ‘Beware’ and ‘Do not’ (‘Be not’),” the reference is to a prohibition.”

Thus we see that there was a legal tradition associated with this passage which referred to a prohibition of haughtiness. The rare accent serves as a mnemonic device to recall this tradition. We may point out that when Raba quotes verse 15 of our chapter, he has in mind the whole context of the verse, and therefore means that we may learn the prohibition from the whole preceding section including verse 15, and not only from the few words he quotes (from memory). Ezekiel 48:21:

“And the residue shall be for the prince, on the one side and on the other, of the holy offering and of the possession of the city.”

The reason for the occurrence of the qarne fara here seems to lie in the following discussion in Bab. Tal. Tractate Baba Batra 122a:

The Master has said, “The land of Israel will in time to come (i.e., the days of the Messiah) be divided among thirteen tribes.” For whom is that (extra portion)? R. Hisda said: “For the prince; for it is written, ‘And he that serves the city (i.e., the prince, whose duty it is to serve the interests of his subjects), they out of all the tribes of Israel shall serve him.’ (Ezekiel 48:19. “Serve him” is interpreted to mean “providing him with a share in the land.”) R. Papa said to Abaye: “Might it (this verse from Ezekiel) not be said (to refer) merely to public service? (Which subjects render to their chief, such as corvee, etc. What proof, then, is there for the statement that the prince was given a special share in the land?)”—This cannot be assumed at all, for it is written, “And the residue shall be for the prince, on the one side and on the other of the holy offering and of the possession of the city.” (Ezekiel 48:21)

We may say, then, that the reason for the rare accent in this verse is to show that the verse is a proof-text for the statement that the prince has the right to a special share in the land. To illustrate the importance of this concept in Jewish Law, one may cite this reference from Maimonides’ Code of Laws Concerning Kings, 4:8.

256

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books 67

“King Messiah is entitled to one-thirteenth of the land possessed by Israel. This law is valid for him and his children forever.”

The reference to the Messiah is taken from Rashbam’s Commentary to the passage from Baba Batra 122a, where the passage in Ezekiel is taken to refer not to the temporal prince, but to the Messiah.

“For whom is this thirteenth portion? For we know that there were twelve individual tribes, for whom the land was a portion . . . for the messiah.”

Nehemiah 13:5:

(Verse 4: Now before this, Eliashib the priest who was appointed over the chambers of the house of our God, being allied to Tobiah,) had prepared for him a great chamber where aforetime they laid the meal-offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels, and the titles of the corn, the wine, and the oil, which were given by commandment to the Levites, and the singers and the porters; and the heave-offerings for the priests.

A chamber of the Temple, formerly used for storage of offerings brought to the Temple, had been set aside by the High Priest, Eliashib, for the personal use of Tobiah, a relative by marriage, but a heathen. I believe that the rare accent points to some midrash concerning the offerings brought into the chamber rather than the story about Eliashib and Tobiah. Such a midrash may indeed be found, in Bab. Tal., Makkoth 23b:

R. Joshua b. Levi said that three things were cenated by the (mundane) Tribunal below, and the (celestial) Tribunal on high gave assent to their action. These were: “The recitation of the Scroll (of Esther): saluting with the Divine Name; and the (Levite’s) tithe to be brought (to the Temple-chamber),

The Soncino Edition of the Talmud contains the following explanatory note to this latter enactment: V. Ezra 8:15 ff.; Nehemiah 10:39–40. Some say it was Ezra that deprived the Levites of their (the first) tithe due to them according to Numbers 18:21 ff. 67. Maimonides, hrwt hnçm vol. 6 ( Jerusalem: Mekhon Óatam Sofer, 1963), p. 183.

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

257

and gave it entirely to the priests (instead of one-tenth only) because the Levites had not responded to his call for the return to Palestine . . . Others say that R. Joshua b. Levi refers rather to the view that Scripturally, tithes were due to be given only of corn, wine, and oil (Numbers 18:27, 30), but that tithes on all other produce of the soil, of fruits, legumina, and vegetables were a voluntary contribution imposed by the mundane authorities which the statement of Malachi (3:10) confirmed as approved of by the Tribunal above. . . . 68

The purpose of the rare accent qarne fara on the words is to call to mind the midrash-halakhah that “the Levite’s tithe be brought into the Temple-Chamber.” Nehemiah 13:15:

“In those days, I saw in Judah some treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses therewith . . .”

Once again we find that the use of the qarne fara points to a midrash halakhah, this midrash resembling the one on Numbers 35:5 in that it concerns a very important Sabbath regulation. Our reference is to Bab. Tal., Sabbath 123b. The Mishnah has the following Law:

R. Jose said: “All utensils may be handled (on the Sabbath) except a large saw and the pin of a plough” (since the latter can only be used for a purpose which is forbidden on the Sabbath).

In the relevant passage in the Gemarah, the history of this law is given:

Our Rabbis taught: At first they (the Sages) ruled, that three utensils may be handled on the Sabbath: a knife for cutting pressed figs, a soup-ladle, and a small table knife. Then (when they saw that the people became more strict in Sabbath observance), they permitted (other articles), and they permitted again (still more), and they permitted still further until they ruled: All utensils may be handled on the Sabbath except a large saw and the pin of a plough.

68. Bab. Tal. Makkoth 23b. Soncino Edition, Translation, Notes, and Commentary by H. M. Lazarus (London: Soncino Press, 1935), p. 167 n. 3.

258

The Rare Accents of the Twenty-One Books

Now the connection with our passage in Nehemiah becomes clear: In the days of Nehemiah, the Sabbath observance of the people was very lax. For this reason, the laws of the Sabbath had to be tightened up. In the course of time, the people became more strict, and the restrictions were eased: hdwhyb ytyar hmhh μymyb bytkd wz hnçm tynçn hylkj ˆb hymjn ymyb anynj br rma .twmyr[h μyaybmw tbçb twtyg μykrwd R. Hanina said: “This Mishna (the first ruling that permitted only three utensils to be handled but forbade all others) was taught in the days of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah, for it is written, ‘In those days I saw in Judah some treading winepresses and bringing in sheaves, etc.’ ”

The purpose of the qarne fara would seem to be to remind the people that the Sabbath observance was lax in the days of Nehemiah, but that as greater observance was the rule in later days, the law was made more lax. Because of the nature of this subject, this writer has had little help from standard manuals and texts of the Masorah in matters of form and content. He hopes that the results which appear in this paper will justify his preoccupation with this important subject.

Break in the Middle of a Verse: Some Observations on a Massoretic Feature Professor Ben Zion Wacholder, a life-long interpreter of the form and content of texts and scrolls, 1 has brought numerous valuable insights to the study of Qumran manuscripts and the elucidation of biblical and rabbinic texts. As his neighbor on the third floor of the library for close to three decades, and as his co-author and co-teacher, I frequently have had occasion to appreciate his creative mind and imaginative approach to textual study. Thus I am aware that this article, which touches on Ben’s interests and is dedicated to him, is only small recompense for the amount of knowledge I have acquired from him through the years. Nevertheless I hope he will accept it in the spirit of friendship in which it is written, as I wish him many more years of original work. Our discussion on the “break in the middle of a verse” is organized as follows: 1. definition of pisqa; 2. review of scholarly literature on pisqa beªemßaº pasuq since the discoveries at the Dead Sea; 3. massoretic 2 listing of pisqa beªemßaº pasuq and discussion of the term amgArp; 4. Pentateuchal examples; 5. proposal suggesting possible analogous usage of pisqa beªemßaº pasuq with the Akkadian hipu; 6. conclusion.

[Reprinted from Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. John. C. Reeves and John Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 35–45.] For their kind help I wish to thank John Kampen and John C. Reeves, editors of this Festschrift; Hendrik Gert Platt and Robert Southard, participants in the 1993 seminar in massoretic studies at Hebrew Union College; and Arnona Rudavsky and Allan Satin, of the Hebrew Union College library staff. 1. See The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (MHUC, 8; Cincinnati, 1983), p. xiii. 2. For a discussion of this term, see I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (trans. and ed. E. J. Revell; Missoula, MT, 1980), pp. 34–36. See also P. Haupt, “Masora,” JBL 37 (1918), pp. 219–28.

259

260

“Break in the Middle of a Verse”

The word pisqa itself, as is known, signifies an “interruption, broken line; space indicating a new section, paragraph,” 3 as used in the expression pisqa beªemßaº pasuq (= “break in the middle of a verse”). This feature is indeed an old and difficult problem of biblical scribal practice, yet the subject at hand has not been one of the more heavily researched topics in the area of massoretic studies. 4 Therefore, in order to place matters in helpful perspective, the next section will present a brief review of scholarly literature on this theme since the discovery of the DSS. In his 1952 study of the Isaiah MS from Qumran, Curt Kuhl noted passages which contained spaces within the sentence and were therefore worthy of special mention: besonders auffallend sind einige andere Stellen . . . dass sich die Zwischenräume innerhalb des Satzgebildes befinden und dass der Text in seinem grammatisch-stilistischen Aufbau irgendwelche Härten und Unebenheiten enthält. 5

While he treated the problem of the different sorts of breaks as one (not isolating the breaks in the middle of a verse from those occurring elsewhere), he noted that these breaks appeared to occur at junctures in the text demarcating (both at beginning and end) prayers, words of the Deity, certain changes of subject, etc. 6 Thus, in his view, the cause for these breaks was literary and stylistic. Three years later, in 1955, Avigdor Ohr surveyed the problem, correctly considering it separate from that of the other types of “break” in the MT. 7 His suggestions for the solution to why this designation is present in the MT all basically point to “lower critical matters” of the biblical text and cover the gamut of logical possibilities, such as textual corruption, and the like. In 1959, Peretz Sandler examined the feature in question. 8 From Sandler’s presentation, 9 one realizes the difficulty of knowing in which realm 3. M. Jastrow, Dictionary, II (New York, 1950), p. 1201 mng. 2. 4. An early researcher of modern times was H. Graetz, “Ueber die Bedeutung der masoretischen Bezeichnung: ‘Unterbrechung in der Mitte des Verses’,” Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 27 (1878), pp. 481–503; 36 (1887), pp. 193– 200, cited in Sandler (see below, n. 9 pp. 222f.). 5. C. Kuhl, “Schreibereigentümlichkeiten: Bemerkungen zur Jesajarolle (DSIa),” VT 2 (1952), pp. 316–17. 6. Kuhl, “Schreibereigenümlichkeiten,” pp. 314ff. 7. See the suggestions summarized by A. Ohr, “Pisqa be’emßa‘ pasuq mahu?” in Pirsumei ha-˙evrah le-˙eqar ha-miqraª be-yisraªel, I ( Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 31–42, esp. pp. 37– 38. 8. See P. Sandler, “Le-˙eqer ha-pisqa beªemßaº ha-pasuq,” Pirsumei ha-˙evrah le-˙eqar ha-miqraª be-yisraªel, VII ( Jerusalem, 1959), pp. 222–49. 9. See especially Sandler, pp. 234–38.

spread is 12 points long

“Break in the Middle of a Verse”

261

we are located (aesthetic, rhetorical, lower-text-critical, etc.) as we seek explanations for the origin of this text feature. M. Z. Segal, in the year following Sandler’s publication, 10 argued that the purpose of pisqa beªemßaº pasuq was to demarcate the end of one section and the beginning of another. Here I find the criticism of Talmon 11 valid. Talmon stated that since the feature which we are discussing comes in the middle of verses or sentences and not at the end of verses or between sections, Segal’s proposal to the effect that it divided between sections would seem to be incorrect. In an essay linking the massoretic pisqa beªemßaº pasuq with the method of writing a Scroll of Psalms from Cave 11 at Qumran (11QPsa), Shemaryahu Talmon added important insights to this problem of biblical scribal practice. 12 Talmon’s summary of different possibilities of approach, which appears to be based upon Sandler, p. 234, is worth summarizing here: In the discussion of the matter on hand scholars are divided into two camps. On the one hand we have the monists who posit one key-explanation only for all instances of the p.b.p. On the other hand, there are the pluralists, in whose opinion the phenomenon is not of one cloth, and is assumed to fulfill diverse functions in the transmission of the MT. Another division of opinion concerns the very nature of the p.b.p. Some students would define it as a Massoretic note which is meant to draw attention to textual matters pure and proper. It is taken to reveal the Massoretes’ doubts about passages which, assumedly, in their opinion had suffered textual corruption . . . As against this, other scholars insist on the integrity of the MT and reject completely the very suggestion that the p.b.p. was meant to indicate textual flaws . . . 13

Talmon argued that the pisqa beªemßaº pasuq pointed to “extraneous expansions” 14—actually supplementary midrashic expositions, or “poetical paraphrases” 15 as he put it—not to be considered “as integral components of the Bible”: 16 “They were intended to remain outside the authoritative canon as some kind of appendices to the original Scriptural version.” 17 In so arguing, Talmon rejected other viewpoints on the pisqa beªemßaº pasuq, such as “evidence of textual deficiency at junctures so singled out.” 18 10. “qwsp [xmab aqsyph,” Tarbiz 29 (1960), pp. 203–6. 11. See below, n. 12. 12. “Pisqah Beªemßaº Pasuq and 11 QPsa,” Textus 5 (1966), pp. 11–21. 13. Talmon, “Pisqah,” p. 14. 14. Talmon, “Pisqah,” p. 21. 15. Talmon, “Pisqah,” p. 18. 16. Talmon, “Pisqah,” p. 21. 17. Talmon, “Pisqah,” p. 21. 18. Talmon, “Pisqah,” p. 17.

262

“Break in the Middle of a Verse”

Taking as his central point of focus another mt feature that could as well be described as designating “breaks” or “lacunae,” namely the parashiot petuchot and setumot, Josef M. Oesch made them the object of a special study. 19 Oesch described various methods of division used in the DSS (1QIsb) 20 and matched the features he had isolated with those designated by Maimonides. Important traditions and observations on why these divisions might have entered the texts were explored and medieval and Qumran manuscripts were scrutinized, yet this investigation does not bear directly on our problem. Another example of “breaks” in the MT is qere ve-lo kethiv, 21 which designates “the ten instances where . . . words have dropped out of the text.” Having defined the term in question and examined some scholarly opinions on its function, we now need to inquire as to where in Scripture the feature may be found. The researcher will discover that to this question there is no uniform answer. It appears that different mss have different traditions; some do not mark the feature in question at all. 22 For purposes of this article, I shall adopt the massoretic note preserved by C. D. Ginsburg in his monumental Introduction. In this work, Ginsburg examined the pisqa beªemßaº pasuq, which he called a “break.” The reference to the feature in question occurs in a description of one of the manuscripts studied by him: Another contribution which this MS. [Manuscript No. 14 (see Introduction, p. 543) = British Museum Library Add. 9401–9402, dated 1286 ad] makes to textual criticism is the indication of the passages where there is a hiatus in the Pentateuch. The List of these “breaks in the middle of the verse,” as they are Massoretically called, embracing the whole Hebrew Bible, is of extreme rarity. I have found it in only one ms. 23

The full list, according to The Massorah is: Gen. 4.8; 35.22; Num. 25.19; Deut. 2.8; 23.18; Judg. 20.18; 1 Sam. 4.1; 10.11; 10.22; 14.12; 14.19; 2 Sam. 19.8; 1 Sam. 16.2; 1 Sam. 16.12; 1 Kgs 13.20; Jer. 13.12; Ezek. 3.16; Hos. 1.2; 1 Chron. 17.3; 2 Chron. 29.12; 29.14; 34.26. 24 Note that in the 19. Petucha und Setuma, Untersuchungen zu einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 27; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sefer Torah, ch. 8. Maimonides’ list is cited in Oesch, Tabelle I, p. 1+. 20. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma, pp. 248ff. 21. Ginsburg, Introduction, Index p. 1011a s.v. Lacunae. 22. See Ohr, pp. 35–37 and 42. 23. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (with prolegomenon by H. M. Orlinsky; New York, 2nd edn. 1966), p. 547. 24. C. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts (London, 1880), p. 57a, entry 185.

spread is 6 points long

“Break in the Middle of a Verse”

263

list as published the order of verses is not strictly kept; for example, the entry for 1 Sam. 16.2 occurs after the one for 2. Sam. 19.8 25 and there is an incorrect number in the heading of the relevant section, 185: the list notes eighteen occurrences of this feature instead of the more complete tally as displayed in the list, twenty-two. Further, according to Ginsburg, The printed Massorah of Jacob b. Chayim gives only the List of the five passages in the Pentateuch. Our ms. marks the hiatus in four out of the five instances and among these is Gen. IV 8. Against each of the four passages the Massoretic Annotator has in the Massorah Parva ymgyrp = amgyrp = prhgma, pragma, break, hiatus . . . 26

Here we are presented with a challenge, for the meaning of the term amgyrp quoted in the massorah and cited by Ginsburg is elusive and puzzling. Graetz 27 cites Eli Levita as having inquired but having been unsuccessful in learning from what language the term derives: hzyam [rwy ynyaw awh ˆwçl. Identification with praÅgma “deed, act,” etc. 28 seems not to fit the required meaning. A number of colleagues to whom I have put the question have made the following suggestions regarding this term. 1. Ann Michelini, of the Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati, proposes a reading originating from ©rhgma, “trouble, difficulty, marginal marking,” a word familiar in Byzantine mss brought to Europe. This is the antecedent form of the word cited in the next proposal. 29 2. Adam Kamesar, of Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, notes the citation of this passage in Krauss 30 but suggests the reading rJhÅgma, “breakage, fracture.” 31 This assumes the annotator of the Massorah Parva did not transmit the Greek term accurately. 3. Frank Shaw, Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati, thinks of Latin fragmentum, “a broken off piece.” 32 25. With regard to the question of the wrong order of these verses, my colleague Alan Cooper has kindly shared with me some thoughts about errors and inaccuracies in medieval editions. He cites as an example Nora Tehillot by Joel Ibn Shu’eib (1568– 1569) of Salonika, in which the first three or four pages of commentary on Ps. 19 have running heads that identify the Psalm as “Psalm 20,” then, midway through the same section, the running heads revert to the reading “Psalm 19.” 26. Introduction, p. 547. 27. MGWJ 27 (1878), pp. 481–82. 28. Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1958), p. 1457. 29. Liddell and Scott, p. 1568, s.v. rJhÅgma. 30. S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrash und Targum (Hildesheim, 1964), II, p. 488. 31. Liddell and Scott, p. 1568b. 32. Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982), p. 739.

264

“Break in the Middle of a Verse”

At this point I should like to outline and present a few examples of the feature we have been discussing. My effort is in no sense intended to be exhaustive but is rather exploratory and investigative, my purpose being to illustrate more clearly the issues at hand and to give possible categories of explanation for the biblical occurrences. For this reason, I shall confine myself to the first four out of five examples from the Pentateuch (where we have available both codices and scrolls). First the data will be presented in tabular form and then a short analysis will follow. Clearly the other evidence would be important to follow up. The reader will be interested to note that in the locations we are investigating, the marginal notation pisqa beªemßaº pasuq has not been entered by the massoretes who edited B19a, the manuscript upon which are based BHS and its predecessors, BHK and BH3. 33

Pentateuchal Examples of the Massoretic Feature Pisqa Beªemßaº Paßuq (= “Break in the Middle of a Verse”) Listing in Ginsburg, The Massorah:

Identification and Location of Break in Hebrew Text:

Notation in B19a:

Notation in Torah Scroll (=Tiqqun 34 +Letteris 35):

Gen. 4.8

wyja lbh la Break occurs after quoted words.

ethnakta; See critical note in BHS

normal spacing ethnakta;

Gen. 35.22

≈rab larçy ˆkçb yhyw Quoted words mark beginning of verse. Break occurs after larvy [mvyw

double accentuation: ethnakta and sof pasuq; p

open space to end of line; double accentuation: ethnakta and sof pasuq;

Num. 25.19

hpgmh yrja yhyw Break occurs after quoted words.

ethnakta; p; no marginal notation

open space to end of line; double accentuation: ethnakta and sof pasuq; p

ethnakta; s unmarked

ethnakta; s

Deut. 2.8

wç[ ynb wnyja tam rb[nw Quoted words mark beginning of verse. Break occurs after rbn ˆwyx[mw

33. Codex Leningrad B19a ( Jerusalem: Makor, 1970). 34. Tiqqun Laqore’im (New York: Ktav, 1946). 35. For comments on the Letteris edition of the Hebrew Bible, see Ginsburg, Introduction, p. 195.

265

“Break in the Middle of a Verse” Deut. 23.18

twnbm hçdq hyht al unmarked larçy Quoted words mark beginning of verse. No break is evident.

Note somewhat larger than normal space for s; otherwise normal sof pasuq

We record the following with regard to pisqa beªemßaº pasuq in the Pentateuch: 1. There is a lack of uniformity in the mss with regard to this tradition; 2. There is a lack of correlation between scroll and codex; 3. A break in the text between Deut. 23.17 and 18 fails to appear in the manuscripts examined. It is possible that this is either an error or perhaps a reflection of a tradition that is unknown to us. I shall not include this passage from Deuteronomy in our inquiry. 1. Gen. 4.8. To be noticed is the lxx “plus”: Dievlqwmen e√Í to; pedÇon, 36 which would imply a lacuna of something like hdch hkln, 37 which could be the reason for the feature in the mt. 38 The rsv translates “Let us go out to the field,” noting the ancient versions that have this reading and notifying the reader that the Hebrew lacks these words. However, note the interpretation of my colleague, Herbert C. Brichto: 39 “There’s absolutely nothing missing. But someone [i.e., the translator of the lxx verse here] later assumed something might have been missing.” Brichto translates: “Cain thought: ‘It’s all my brother’s fault’.” 2. Gen. 35.22. Ginsburg, 40 to Gen. 35.22 observes a difference between “Westerners” and “Easterners,” the former showing only ethnakta, the latter only sof pasuq. Note the lxx to Gen. 35.22, which has the “plus”: kaμ ponhro;n ejfavnh ejnantÇon auj touÅ, “and the thing appeared grievous before him.” 41

36. A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 1979), Gen. 4.8. 37. BHS, critical note to Gen. 4.8. 38. H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (New York: Ktav, 1968), p. 243, notes: “As a whole, the Law [in the lxx version] has escaped material changes in either direction [i.e., containing as a rule very few “pluses” or “minuses” as compared with the massoretic text]. But there are a few important exceptions [our passage is here quoted].” 39. These and the following comments by Brichto were furnished in an oral communication of 14 January 1994. 40. Ginsburg, The Hebrew Bible (London, 1908), to Gen. 35.22 notes a difference between “Westerners” and “Easterners,” the former showing only ethnakta, the latter only sof pasuq. 41. See E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research ( Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981), p. 134.

266

“Break in the Middle of a Verse”

Brichto comments on the verse: “Here one might assume a sort of gap—‘let’s think about it.’ [ Jacob does not comment at this point, but he returns to the theme in his “blessing” at the end of Genesis, where he excoriates Reuben; the “break” would serve to indicate (in the case of Joseph’s dreams) “and his father kept the matter to himself.” He knew the brothers were involved in foul play but he could not accuse them or he would lose them too.]” One might see in this feature an aposiopesis—a deliberate break: “an abrupt breaking off in the middle of a sentence without the completion of the idea, often under the stress of emotion.” 42 3. Num. 25.19. The lxx reads the words hpgmh yrha yhyw together with the opening words of the following verse (which begins ch. 26, cp. the translation of the rsv) “After the plague the Lord said to Moses and to Eleazar.” 4. Deut. 2.8. Like Num. 25.19, this verse in the lxx reads smoothly. There is no indication of any massoretic feature such as pisqa beªemßaº pasuq. If the verse in the mt were read without the pisqa beªemßaº pasuq it could be understood without any problems, such as the rendering of the rsv, which leaves a paragraph break after the words “Ezion-geber” and before the beginning of the next section of v. 8, “And we turned and went . . .’ So we went on, away from our brethren the sons of Esau who live in Seir, away from the Arabah road from Elath and Ezion-geber. And we turned and went in the direction of the wilderness of Moab.

It would appear from our brief investigation of these four verses that there is no single explanation that covers every case. Essentially the only thing that is totally evident is that the Massorah marked these verses to contain a pisqa beªemßaº pasuq. No generalization seems possible. We should now like to call attention to a practice from ancient Mesopotamia, which, we suggest, might have some bearing upon our understanding of the feature under discussion in the Hebrew Bible, the pisqa beªemßaº pasuq. Alan Millard has noted: Although earlier copies of any part of the Bible are denied us, neighboring cultures can show how ancient scribes worked, and such knowledge can aid evaluation of the Hebrew text and its history.43

42. K. Beckson and A. Ganz, A Reader’s Guide to Literary Terms (New York: Noonday Press, 1960), p. 12. 43. A. Millard, “In Praise of Ancient Scribes,” Biblical Archeologist 45.3 (1982), p. 143.

spread is 9 points long

267

“Break in the Middle of a Verse”

In asking “how old these practices . . . might be,” 44 Millard noted that “Throughout the history of cuneiform writing there was a tradition of care in copying.” 45 He commented upon the feature under discussion here: Certain other points illustrate the scrupulosity of the scribes in handling texts, their traditionalism, and their care as glossators attempting to elucidate texts. First, scribes copying from clay tablets might find their exemplars damaged. In some cases they may have been able to restore the damaged text and hide the fact from us. Sometimes the scribe simply recorded the damage by writing “break” or “recent break” in smaller script on his copy, even when the restoration seems obvious to us.46

A. L. Oppenheim has pointed out the element of conservatism that would make preservation of older traditions more likely: there is the large number of tablets that belong to what I will call the stream of tradition—that is, what can loosely be termed the corpus of literary texts maintained, controlled and carefully kept alive by a tradition served by successive generations of learned and well-trained scribes.47

Within the “stream of tradition” in Mesopotamia, when a text was received which for one reason or another contained a break of a few characters or words, the scribes did not intentionally fill in the space, but took care to mark that there was a break which they consciously attempted to preserve. The Akkadian term for this was hipu. 48 Here are a few instances of the feature in question:

Examples of a “Break on a Tablet” Expression

Reference

Dialect of ms

Type of Text

hipu “break” hipu I sumi “break of one line”

Nbk 403:8 Nabnitu XXII 263

Neo-Babylonian CT 12 48 IV 13 49 = Standard Babylonian

administrative lexical

44. Millard, “Praise of Ancient Scribes,” p. 143. 45. Millard, “Praise of Ancient Scribes,” p. 146. 46. Millard, “Praise of Ancient Scribes,” p. 146. 47. A. L. Oppenheim, “Assyriology—Why and How?,” in Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), revised edition completed by Erica Reiner, p. 13. For further details, see ch. V, especially, “The Scribes,” pp. 235–49. 48. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary H 196 and Akkadisches Handwörterbuch 374b. Assyriological conventions used here are those of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. 49. See MSL 16 p. 199, 263, fn.

268 hipu labiru 50 “old break” hipu essu “new break” hipa lisallim “let him repair the breaks”

“Break in the Middle of a Verse” ACh Supp 33:17

Standard Babylonian

astrological

TCL 6 37 r. ii 7, 11

Neo-Babylonian

lexical

StOr 1 33 r. 9

Standard Babylonian

colophon 51

From the perspective of the Akkadian usages there are some uncertainties the determination of which would be necessary, such as the extent of the practice of writing these scribal messages, both in time and space; the significance of some of the specific formulae, such as “let him repair the breaks” (was it permissible in some circumstances to fill in the broken stretches?); the meaning of “new break” (does this refer to recent breaks that were distinguishable from those that entered the texts long before the time of the scribe?); and the full range of genres in which the terms are employed. The author recognizes the crucial nature of these questions but realizes that future studies will be needed in order to carry the matter further. Let us summarize the examples gleaned from among Akkadian texts and from the Massorah and then let us consider the possibility of comparison. The feature noted in Akkadian texts deals with the occurrence of a break in the tablet that had been transmitted through time. We have observed the lack of unanimity among modern scholars as to the reason for the placement of the pisqa beªemßaº pasuq. The suggestions vary from a marker of textual corruption to aposiopesis to a supplementary midrashic exposition. On the basis of the evidence, the two terms do not appear to be identical nor do they refer to phenomena that denote the same thing. Nevertheless we can assert that if massoretic scribes copying biblical mss were in possession of a tradition that advised them to mark the text at points at which a “break” occurred within a verse, then the massoretic scribes were acting in the spirit of (but not necessarily consciously imitating) a convention that was old and had its roots in the ancient Near East. This convention was based upon the concept of “reverence for tradition.” I think that an advantage of my approach is that I do not seek to offer an explanation of why each individual break occurred. The explanations 50. Writings are also described as “copied from old copies,” e.g., CT 38 13:104 cited in CAD L 29b. 51. See H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (AOAT 2; NeukirchenVluyn: Kevelaer, 1968), #498:3.

“Break in the Middle of a Verse”

269

proposed by scholars, though thought-provoking, are, at the present stage of our knowledge, unprovable, and as such must remain in the realm of speculation. In contrast, what we are proposing requires the fewest possible assumptions—in fact, only two, namely, that: (1) the breaks called pisqa beªemßaº pasuq were recorded due to scribal reverence for tradition and (2) there could conceivably be a parallel between the practice as found in the Hebrew Bible and that known from Mesopotamia. We feel that this is as far as our present knowledge can take us. Therefore, in our view, it is unnecessary to assume that the break indicates either a midrashic exposition on the one hand, or a damaged section of text on the other.

I. O. Lehman, HUC mss 951–981 from Kai Feng, and a Purported Link between China and Yemen Among the most valued holdings of the Hebrew Union College (HUC) library in Cincinnati are rice paper manuscripts in booklet form from the city of Kai Feng (KF) in China. The material includes biblical and liturgical texts (the former with various parashiot of the Torah, while the latter consists of a prayer book and a Haggadah) and a register of the members of the community. 1 The 59 HUC Hebrew manuscripts come from the Jewish community of Kai Feng on the Yellow River in the province of Honan in China.

[Reprinted from Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. C. Cohen et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008) 979–87.] Author’s note: This essay is dedicated to my long-time friend, Shalom M. Paul. In a volume published some time ago, Shalom spoke of a “broad, humanistic approach to the Bible, remarkably free of . . . sectarian bias or tendentious argument.” His rich contributions to Bible and ancient Near Eastern studies could well be characterized in this way for me. I wish to thank volume editors Chaim Cohen, Avigdor Hurowitz, and Jeffrey Tigay for their kind help. I am also grateful to HUC technical services computer specialist Lisa Ben-Hur; to librarians Daniel J. Rettberg and Arnona Rudavsky for their help; to Sherry Walton Kingston for research assistance; to HUC students Charles Halton and Roger Lerner for their useful contributions; and to David Gilner, Director of Libraries, for his support and encouragement. 1. On the Jews of China, see: Sally Brown and Steven Mallinger, “The Story of the Chinese Jews,” unpublished communication (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College– Jewish Institute of Religion, circa 1970); Pan Guang, Xu Xin et al., The Jews in China (Beijing: China Intercontinental, 2001); William Charles White, Chinese Jews: A Compilation of Matters Relating to the Jews of K’ai-Feng Fu (New York: Paragon Book Reprint, 1966); and Xu Xin, The Jews of Kaifeng, China ( Jersey City: KTAV, 2003). The author’s trip to Kai Feng and elsewhere in China is reported in “From HUC-JIR to China,” Chronicle 62 (Cincinnati: HUC-JIR, 2003) 14, 32.

270

I. O. Lehman and a Purported Link between China and Yemen

271

Kaifeng was once the prosperous capital of the Northern Song dynasty (ad 960–1126). Today, however, after centuries of flooding, the city of the Northern Song lies buried eight to nine metres below ground. Between 1194 and 1938, the city was flooded 368 times, an average of once every two years. . . . Kaifeng was the first city in China where Jews settled when they arrived, via India, along the Silk Road.2

The biblical material in the “quartos” or “square scriptures,” as they have been called, has attracted the attention of scholars. 3 In recent years, these Chinese mss were studied by I. O. Lehman, late Curator of mss and Special Collections at HUC, whom I subsequently joined. There is one major published article on the subject by Lehman, 4 to which the present essay is a sequel. I would like to give a brief account of this cooperation, which was based upon a friendship that began in Chicago about forty years ago, together with a short biography of the late I. O. Lehman. As a research associate at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago in 1965–67, I met I. O. Lehman, who was teaching at the College of Jewish Studies. We were both living in Hyde Park, and as matters turned out, in the late 1960s both of us moved to Cincinnati to be employed by Hebrew Union College. Dr. Lehman introduced me to the mss of the Chinese Jews of Kai Feng, and together we began working on them. Israel O. Lehman (1912–2001) was born in Berlin and ordained under Leo Baeck at the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums. He left Germany for England in 1939 and obtained his M.A. and doctorate at Oxford University. He lectured at various institutions of higher learning, including the Leo Baeck College, London, and Spertus College, Chicago. He was Curator of Manuscripts and Special Collections at Hebrew Union

2. Damian Harper et al., eds., China (8th ed.; Melbourne: Lonely Planet, 2002) 490. 3. Sources for the ms tradition of the Chinese Jews, especially the “quartos” are: Donald Daniel Leslie, The Survival of the Chinese Jews: The Jewish Community of Kaifeng (Monographies du T’oung Pao 10; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 147–53 (“Section Books of the Law” and “Books of the Bible”); Adolph Neubauer, “Jews in China,” in Studies of the Chinese Jews: Selections from Journals East and West (ed. Hyman Kublin; New York: Paragon Book Reprint, 1971) 139–57, esp. pp. 155ff. [reprinted from JQR (1895) viii n. 29, 123– 39]; Michael Pollak, “The Manuscripts and Artifacts of the Synagogue of Kaifeng: Their Peregrinations and Present Whereabouts,” in Jews in China from Kaifeng . . . to Shanghai (ed. Roman Malek; Monumenta Serica 46; St. Augustin and Nettetal: Joint Publication of the Monumenta Serica Institute and the China-Zentrum, 2000) 81–109; White, Chinese Jews (“The Square Scriptures”) part 2/159. 4. I. O. Lehman, “The Biblical Texts from K’ai Feng Fu and Their Manuscript Tradition,” in Salvacion en la Palabra: En Memorria del professor Alejandro Diez Macho (Madrid: Ediciones Christiandad, 1986) 185–91.

272

I. O. Lehman and a Purported Link between China and Yemen

College–Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, until his retirement in 1978, and lived in Cincinnati until his passing. Lehman was the greatnephew of Jules Oppert (1825–1905), an Orientalist and professor at the Sorbonne. 5 One of Lehman’s most enduring works of scholarship is his (unpublished) eight-volume “Catalogue of Hebrew Manuscripts” describing the holdings of more than two thousand manuscripts in the Dalsheimer Rare Book Room of the Klau Library, HUC, Cincinnati. Referring to the quartos of KF, Lehman stated: “Some of them are dated 1619–26. . . . None of the quartos are from Yemen, none are older than the 17th century.” 6 Table 1 (see p. 273) gives for the first time the complete list of the biblical quartos, representing all currently known manuscripts of the Pentateuch from KF. The subsequent division of μybxn into two parashiot, μybxn and ˚lyw, is the result of a calendrical reckoning relating to the observance of Rosh Hashana. By Maimonides’ time (1135–1204), various customs of Jewish communities in reading the Torah had coalesced into one: the annual cycle. As the Torah reading evolved to constitute one unified praxis, μybxn or μybxn-˚lyw was (/were) read on the Sabbath before Rosh Hashana, irrespective of the “type” of year (regular, leap, etc.). If, however, Rosh Hashana fell on a Monday or Tuesday, then the division of μybxn into two parashiot, μybxn and ˚lyw, was deemed necessary. This was due to the fact that two Sabbaths would occur between Rosh Hashanah and Sukkot, each needing a parasha. Thus, ˚lyw was the first parasha and wnyzah was the second. In due course, μybxn and ˚lyw were treated as two separate parashiot. 7 It is reasonable to assume that this intricate calendrical solution was unknown to the members of the Kai Feng community, even as recently as the first part of the 17th century c.e. and that they continued to read the Torah in accordance with the older custom, as reflected, for example, in the Aleppo Codex. We now focus upon an interesting aspect of the mss from KF: can we track any of their features in an attempt to discover the manuscripts’ ancestry?

5. See the obituary by Rebecca Billman in the Cincinnati Enquirer, November 21, 2001; and the feature article by Richelle Thompson, “Faith Matters: Rabbi’s Legacy Lives On,” Cincinnati Enquirer, January 26, 2002. Some of my material is from my personal notes and recollections. 6. Lehman, “The Biblical Texts from K’ai Feng Fu,” 186. 7. I am indebted to R. Sar-Shalom, yrb[h jwll μyr[ç (Netanya: published by the author, 1984) for this explanation, which can be found on pp. 111 and 113.

I. O. Lehman and a Purported Link between China and Yemen

273

Table 1. The Parasha Booklets Preserved at HUC, Cincinnati

Booklet #

Parasha # (out of 54)

HUC ms #

Parasha (Chumash)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

1 3 5 6 11 13 14 17 18 19 22 23 23 24 25 30 34 35 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 47 47 49 51 & 52 53 54

951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981

tyçarb ˚lA˚l hrç yyj tdlwt çgyw twmç araw wrty μyfpçm hmwrt lhqyw ydwqp ydwqp arqyw wx μyçdq rbdmb açn jlç tqj qlb sjnyp twfm y[sm μyrbd har har axtAyk ˚lywAμybxn wnyzah hkrbh tazw

(tyçarb) (tyçarb) (tyçarb) (tyçarb) (tyçarb) (twmç) (twmç) (twmç) (twmç) (twmç) (twmç) (twmç) (twmç) (arqyw) (arqyw) (arqyw) (rbdmb) (rbdmb) (rbdmb) (rbdmb) (rbdmb) (rbdmb) (rbdmb) (rbdmb) (μyrbd) (μyrbd) (μyrbd) (μyrbd) (μyrbd) (μyrbd) (μyrbd)

Comment (# Extant in this Chumash out of Total)

5 out of 12

Note 2 booklets 7 out of 11

3 out of 10

8 out of 10 Note 2 booklets

Treated as 1 7 out of 11

a. We have 30 out of 54 parashiot represented, or 55% of the total. The other material has been lost. b. The impression given in Lehman’s article is that the booklets were divided up with regularity, alternating between booklets that were acquired by HUC and booklets

274

I. O. Lehman and a Purported Link between China and Yemen

that were acquired elsewhere (e.g., 1, 3, 5, etc., 2, 4, 6, etc.; Lehman, “The Biblical texts from K’ai Feng Fu,” 186). However, this is misleading, because the systematic configuration breaks down once we continue through the list—as one can see. c. It is not clear to me why the booklets were divided as they were. Records preserved in the library of HUC–JIR, Cincinnati, do not reveal details pertaining to the transactions of librarian Adolph Oko in London in 1924 (David Gilner, personal communication. See Adolph S. Oko, A History of the Hebrew Union College Library and Museum [Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1944] 5ff.). d. We do have in our possession the first books of each of the five Chumashim. e. In two instances, ydwqp and har, there are two booklets for one parasha. f. As in the Aleppo Codex, μybxn and ˚lyw are considered to be one parasha, not two, as developed later in Jewish liturgical tradition (see Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Aleppo Codex [ Jerusalem, Magnes, 1976] pls. g and d, where hçm ˚lyw has no division marker “çrp,” as at μybxn. This plate was previously published in Izhak BenZvi, “The Codex of Ben Asher,” Textus 1 [1960] plate showing Deut 30:11–31:12).

In this essay, I cannot speak to patterns of trade, the China-to-Yemen connections, or what one author has called the “Silk Superhighway.” 8 Rather, I will touch on one textual feature that may provide a clue to this complex situation. A bare hint may be revealed in the writing of the Tetragrammaton in Yemen and in Kai Feng. 9 In his article, Lehman turns his attention to “some graphic features,” which he identified in the course of his scrutiny of “the first three sidras in the quartos and the Oxford, Cambridge and London scrolls.” 10 A paramount feature in the vocalized texts is the convention used for writing the Tetragrammaton: “[In KFF] a special treatment is given to the tetragrammaton, which is against MT in forms in A, B, and C like badonay, ladonay, wadonay, etc. [and which] always receives a shewa under the letter yod (e.g., hy]B).” 11 He further states, “The influence of Yemenite manuscripts on KFF seems to go much further than has been assumed so far, in the use of BeYah Shemo.” 12 The impression left by these two statements is that 8. For a detailed discussion of Yemen and the Silk Road, see the Stanford University lecture “[email protected]: A Yemeni Trading Link Three Thousand Years Old,” delivered on Oct. 16, 2002, by Diana Pickworth, visiting scholar at the University of California, Baskerville, Dept. of Near Eastern Studies. The text can be found at: http://silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/volumeonenumberone/sheba.html (ref. courtesy of Sherry W. Kingston). 9. In the following discussion, where I use only the preposition plus the first two letters of the Tetragrammaton, I am referring to the entire Tetragrammaton. 10. Lehman, “The Biblical texts from K’ai Feng Fu,” 186–87. 11. Ibid., 189. 12. Ibid., 191.

I. O. Lehman and a Purported Link between China and Yemen

275

(1) the method of writing the Tetragrammaton in China and Yemen is consistent, and (2) it thus forms a reliable basis for linking Kai Feng with Yemen. However, as I shall try to show, these statements are only partially true, thus weakening the possibility of comparing the Chinese customs with the Yemenite customs in writing the Divine Name. I shall now examine the term cited by Lehman, BeYah Shemo, to see how its usage can shed light on the writing of the Tetragrammaton and any potential links between China and Yemen. 1. What is the meaning of BeYah Shemo and how is it dealt with in our grammars? 2. How is BeYah Shemo treated in KF apart from Lehman’s “A, B and C”? 3. How is BeYah Shemo treated in Yemenite mss? 1. The Hebrew phrase or mnemonic BeYah Shemo refers to a distinctive treatment of the Tetragrammaton. Though I have not been able to find the original source for this phrase, we know that many similar phrases are embedded in early Masoretic treatises. The term itself, though in an unrelated meaning, is a quotation from Ps 68:5. 13 It may be that, not wanting to use the Tetragrammaton, scribes used only the abbreviated Divine Name (with two letters). The example cited from Psalms is, as we have stated, unrelated to any Masoretic praxis. A rule for special treatment of the Tetragrammaton after certain prepositional elements is qyPm al blkw qyPm hçm. In Adonai and all its forms and flexions . . . the a quiesces after the prefixes wlkb with Pathah. . . . The masoretic rule is qyPm hçm [Moses bring out, i.e., the prefixes hçm make the a audible] qyPm al blkw [and Caleb does not bring out, i.e., the blkw prefixes effect its quiescence]. . . . The reason for all this is the mystical significance of this word.14

2. Now note that, apart from Lehman’s “A, B and C” (the first three preserved quartos of the KF mss: Bereshit, Lekh-Lekha, and Chaye Sarah), we notice a variety of practices in writing the Tetragrammaton rather than the uniformity that he asserted (see table 2). 3. For evidence from Yemenite mss dating from the 17th to 20th centuries in a private collection, we turn to table 3 (p. 277). 13. On this verse, see GKC, §119 i/p. 379 n. 3: “textually very uncertain.” 14. William Chomsky, ed., David Kim˙i’s Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol) (New York: Bloch, 1952) 334.

276

I. O. Lehman and a Purported Link between China and Yemen Table 2. Spellings of BeYah Shemo in Kai Feng mss

Example # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Vocalization of ‘BeYah ms Booklet Shemo’ (last 2 letters of Biblical # and page Tetragrammaton omitted) Reference 4 p. 1 8 p. 24 24 p. 35 27 p. 37 27 p. 44 27 p. 45 29 p. 10

hy]l" (ladonai) hy]l" (ladonai) hy]b" (vadonai) hyl" (ladonai) hyl" (ladonai) hyl" (ladonai) hyl" (ladonai)

Gen 25:21 Exod 20:10 Num 36:2 Deut 15:2 Deut 15:19 Deut 16:1 Deut 29:28

Parasha tdlwt wrty y[sm har har har μybxn

a. In both tables 2 and 3, only the first two letters of the Tetragrammaton are presented, but I am referring to the entire Tetragrammaton. b. The focus is on the letter yod: does it or does it not have a shewa according to the principle of BeYah Shemo? c. Metheg is not represented in our tables. d. Additions in the table such as “(ladonai)” are presented merely as aids for possible pronunciation, but actual pronunciation may have been different (for example, David Gilner suggested that wmv hyB may have been pronounced amçb—that is, using an Aramaic circumlocution for the Divine Name [private communication]). e. Identification of the Hebrew geographical name on the title page of ms #31 in table 3: Risabah, Yemen, also spelled Rasabah, Risabah, Rasabah (not far from Qababal, Dhi Najidh, and Al Hiqaª). See http:www.fallingrain.com/world/YM/11/Risabah.html (information on Risabah, courtesy of Daniel J. Rettberg). f. For the Seleucid-era dating system that is preserved in Yemenite ms #31 and the Chinese “Square Scriptures,” see White, Chinese Jews, par. 2, p. 159.

Results Analyzed 1. In the random sampling for table 2, we note that three out of the seven examples are according to the principle of BeYah Shemo and four are not. Apparently there was no uniform practice in KF. 2. In the random sampling for table 3, we note that half the examples are according to the principle of BeYah Shemo and half are not. This tells us that apparently there was no uniform practice in Yemen either. 3. In ms #14 from the 18th century (table 3), we have two patterns of writing the Tetragrammaton. Either it was written by two different scribes, or one scribe employed two different methods of vocalization, both of which were acceptable. In another case of two different patterns in one ms, we refer to ms #23 (table 3). It appears that here the same scribe was

I. O. Lehman and a Purported Link between China and Yemen

277

Table 3. Spellings of BeYah Shemo in Yemenite mss from a Private Collection

Example # ms #

Vocalization of BeYah Shemo (last 2 letters of TetraBiblical grammaton omitted) Reference

1

1

hyl" (ladonai)

Lev 1:2

2

1

hyl" (ladonai)

Lev 4:31

3

1

hyl" (ladonai)

Num 8:12

4

1

hyk" (kadonai)

Deut 4:7

5

2

hyb" (badonai)

Jer 17:7

6

6

hy]l" (ladonai)

Judg 11:31

7

6

hy]l< (ledonai)

1 Sam 15:15

8

8

hy]l< (ledonai)

1 Sam 15:22

9

8

hy]b" (badonai)

Hab 3:18

10 11 12

14 14 16

hy]l" (ladonai) hyb" (badonai) hy]b" (badonai)

Judg 13:19 Isa 61:10 Isa 61:10

13

16

hy]l" (ladonai)

Judg 13:19

14 15 16

17 17 18

hyl" (ladonai) hyb" (badonai) hy]l" (ladonai)

Judg 13:19 Isa 61:10 Lev 1:2

17

18

hy]l" (ladonai)

Lev 1:17

18 19 20

23 23 31

hyl" (ladonai) hy]b" (badonai) hyl" (ladonai)

Judg 13:19 Isa 61:10 Judg 13:19

Catalog and Dating by I. O. L. Lev–Deut ca. end of 18th cent. Lev–Deut ca. end of 18th cent. Lev–Deut ca. end of 18th cent. Lev–Deut ca. end of 18th cent. Haftarot (not dated by I. O. L.) Haftarot, Song of Songs, Ruth, and Qoh (not dated by I. O. L.) Haftarot, Song of Songs, Ruth, and Qoh (not dated by I. O. L.) Haftarot (not dated by I. O. L.) Haftarot (not dated by I. O. L.) Haftarot, 18th century Haftarot, 18th century Haftarot (not dated by I. O. L.) Haftarot (not dated by I. O. L.) Haftarot, 17th century Haftarot, 17th century Pentateuch and Targum (not dated by I. O. L.) Pentateuch and Targum (not dated by I. O. L.) Haftarot calligr. 19th cent. Haftarot calligr. 19th cent. hbaxr 2212 Seleucid-era calendar (= 1901 c.e.)

a. Mss in table 3 from which examples are taken are from a private collection cataloged by I. O. Lehman. b. Dates proposed by Lehman.

278

I. O. Lehman and a Purported Link between China and Yemen

indeed writing both examples (the ms is similar in general appearance, running heads, and other features). 4. In an analysis of the book of Daniel in a “Babylonian-Yemenite manuscript,” Shelomo Morag observes: . . . y . . . (Yhwh) hywh μçb çmçm dblb ynrbf dwqyn Only the Tiberian vocalization was used with respect to the Tetragrammaton (y). 15

He thus brings at least one Yemenite biblical ms in line with the tradition that does not use a shewa under the yod of the Tetragrammaton. 16 Contrary to the statement by Lehman that in KF and Yemen the Tetragrammaton always receives a shewa under the letter yod, we have found that the use of BeYah Shemo is not consistent. Consequently, the statement that “the influence of Yemenite manuscripts on KFF seems to go much further than has been assumed so far, in the use of be-yah shemo,” if true, needs to be substantiated by other evidence. 15. “laynd rps lç ynmytAylbb dyAbtk,” in S. Morag, “The Yemenite Handcopied Bible and Ben-Asher Tradition,” Hebrew and Aramaic Language Traditions as Spoken by Yemenite Jews (Tel Aviv: Afikim, 2002) 79–131; quotation, p. 99 [Hebrew]. 16. Note this paragraph from a web page on Hebrew manuscripts (http://www .fathom.com/course/72810016/session1.html): It should be pointed out that there were other reasons as well for the continued use of handwritten books at a time when printing was widespread. In distant places, Yemen for example, the art of printing was never practiced and the rich and ancient literature of Yemenite Jews was transmitted in manuscript form from generation to generation. This explains why, among Yemenite manuscripts, there are many of late vintage, some even from the twentieth century. When such manuscripts contain standard texts their significance for scholarship or even as collectors’ items is minimal. On the other hand, they often preserve older traditions. Only individual examination will determine a given manuscript’s importance, if any. (ref. courtesy of Sherry W. Kingston)

Some Observations on Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature By the first century of the Christian era, the city of Babylon had been reclaimed by the desert. At this time, the Akkadian language was largely forgotten. 1 It would not, however, be correct to say that the more than three millennia of Akkadian civilization in Mesopotamia died out completely with the death of the Akkadian language. 2 Akkadian traditions and terminology survived in Aramaic garb and were transmitted to later generations in this somewhat altered, but not unrecognizable dress. This thesis is made plausible by the fact that Akkadian and Aramaic existed side by side in Mesopotamia for half a millennium, until the use of Akkadian gradually died out. Marshaling philological evidence to show a link between the outgoing Akkadian and incoming Aramaic civilizations is not a new endeavor. Half a century ago and more, scholars such as Jacob Barth, 3 Samuel Daiches, 4

[Reprinted from Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968) 71–80.] Author’s note: This paper was read at the 178th meeting of the American Oriental Society in Berkeley, on March 21, 1968. It is presented here in somewhat expanded form. I wish to thank Professors J. C. Greenfield, S. Greengus, and B. Z. Wacholder for their kind suggestions and advice. 1. See Jacob Neusner, “Survival of Babylonian Civilization” in A History of the Jews in Babylonia; I. The Parthian Period, Studia Post-Biblica 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1965), pp. 3–6; and H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1966), pp. 483–504. 2. We have cuneiform documents still in significant numbers from the second preChristian century, see e.g., Clay, BRM 2. The latest cuneiform tablet now known dates from 75 c.e.; see O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity (2nd ed., New York: Harper, 1962), p. 139, ad. 42. 3. rwça tpç ylm yuu[ ˚uuntb twdja μylm rwayb, Beth Vaad Lachachomim 8 No. 1 (London, 1902), pp. 10 f. Note the publication dates of works cited in this and the following notes. 4. The Jews in Babylonia in the Time of Ezra and Nehemiah According to Babylonian Inscriptions, Jews’ College Publication No. 2 (London, 1910); Babylonian Oil Magic in the Talmud and in the Later Jewish Literature, ibid., No. 5 (1913).

279

280

Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature

D. Feuchtwang, 5 S. R. Krauss, 6 Immanuel Löw, 7 and Hermann Pick, 8 utilizing Delitzsch’s Handwörterbuch, tried to show connections between Akkadian and rabbinic texts. Heinrich Zimmern, in his well-known Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonischen Kultureinfluss 9 was a pioneer in the attempt to demonstrate cross-cultural influences. Much progress in Assyriology has occurred since that time, notably the ongoing work embodied in the two Akkadian dictionaries, grammars of the Akkadian language, and the accumulation of text volumes and studies. Unfortunately, no comparable progress has occurred in the field which would relate the two areas of Late Babylonian and rabbinic literature, particularly Babylonian talmudic studies. Aside from the work of J. N. Epstein, 10 Jonas Greenfield, 11 and Zeev Falk, 12 very little has been done in this area. Landsberger, 13 Oppenheim, 14 and Speiser, 15 have recognized the importance of these studies; otherwise, Assyriologists have not worked in the two disciplines. 16 In searching for possible connections between two areas, great caution should be exercised; similar ideas or practices in two groups of texts are in themselves no proof of dependence, since the same idea or practice can

5. “Studien zum babylonischen Rechtswesen,” ZA 5 (1890), 23–30; 6 (1891), pp. 437–46. 6. Talmudische Archäologie (Leipzig: Fock, 1910–12). 7. Die Flora der Juden (Vienna, 1926–34). 8. Assyrisches und Talmudisches (Berlin: Calvary, 1903). 9. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915. 10. Tarbiz 20 (1949), pp. 7–16 and Festschrift David Simonsen (Copenhagen, 1923), pp. 290–310. 11. HUCA 29 (1958), pp. 203–28 (passim); JSS 11 (1966), p. 100. 12. Tarbiz 37 (1967), pp. 39–47. In this study Falk uses only transliterated texts. 13. See most recently The Date Palm and its By-Products according to the Cuneiform Sources, Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 17 (Graz, 1967), pp. 1 and passim. 14. Untersuchungen zum babylonischen Mietrecht, WZKM, Beiheft 2 (Vienna, 1936), pp. 51 (see nn. 28–29 on pp. 130 f.), 60, 73 (n. 12 on p. 136) and 76 (n. 20 on p. 136); “Akk. arad ekalli = ‘Builder’ ” ArOr, 17 (1949), p. 227; The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, 46: 3 (Philadelphia, 1956), pp. 205 f., 232, 274; Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 293; Letters from Mesopotamia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 9. 15. See Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, J. J. Finkelstein and Moshe Greenberg eds. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967), pp. 39, 109, 119, 139 f., 183 f., 191 f., 377 ff. 16. A further encumbrance is the lack of a scientific edition of the Babylonian Talmud with critical notes and variant readings. There is also no comprehensive up-todate dictionary of the Talmud.

Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature

281

grow up in two separate cultures independently. 17 However, the fact that the same technical term occurring in two cultures describes the same material object, legal practice, or scientific phenomenon should point to some kind of dependence or borrowing. That an influence of some extent did exist could be demonstrated by showing that a noticeable number of Aramaic words occurs in Late Babylonian texts and numerous Late Babylonian terms occur in rabbinic texts. That such is actually the case should cause no surprise. The rabbinic academies of Pumbeditha, Nehardea and Sura were a stone’s throw from the sites of the old Mesopotamian cultcenters and cities. 18 There is more reason for supposing a link between Sura and Babylon than between Beersheba and Nuzi or Benjamin and Mari. We cannot, within the confines of this article, enter into the problem of Babylonian Jewry in the centuries following the exile until the time of Rav, in the third century c.e. 19 But it would not be out of place to ask, to what extent was the tradition preserved in the Babylonian Talmud and shortly thereafter a living tradition? This is an important question, for if we can show that the Akkadian tradition was still alive in the years between 200 and 500 c.e., when the authorities mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud lived, any equations which we might make will seem more reasonable. Let us take an example. A lexical entry contains the listing s í g ( - n u ) - a l - h i - a = (sipatu) (la) mazratum (wool which has (not) been matted). 20

The entry hibsu A (“wool of a certain quality”) is listed together with mizru in a synonym list. 21 Some seventy years ago, J. Krengel 22 suggested that the Akkadian mizru/mazru should be identified with the talmudic Aramaic ˆrzym. Mishna Kelim 19:3–6 discusses laws concerning a ˆrzym, a girth of material spread over or under bedding. There is no indication in the Mishna or Tosephta as to what material the ˆrzym is made of. Hai Gaon (939–1038), the last Gaon of Pumbeditha, is quoted in the Aruch, a medieval lexicon covering the Talmud, as follows:

17. See Reuven Yaron, Introduction to The Law of The Aramaic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), p. 100. 18. See J. Neusner, op. cit. (n. 1), map III, between pp. 101–2, and p. 114. 19. For literature see Neusner, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 170 ff. 20. AHw, pp. 637, 664 (sub mazru and mizru). 21. CAD H, 181. 22. Das Hausgerät in der Misnah (Frankfurt a. M., Kauffmann, 1899), p. 25.

282

Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature

Mizran refers to woolen coverings which the well-to-do placed on their beds under each mattress. 23

Though earlier authorities did not mention the composition of the mizranmattress, Hai was aware of the fact that it was made of wool. I should now like to present several examples which are illustrative of the possibilities for utilizing Late Babylonian texts and rabbinic literature for mutual illumination. In the tractate Bava Bathra of the Babylonian Talmud 24 we read the following: If someone sold a slave who was found to have been a thief or a gambler, the sale is valid. [If the slave was found to have been] an armed robber or a twklml btkwm [The buyer may] say to the seller, “he is yours, take him back.”25

Rashi explains the term twklml btkwm as “sentenced to death.” The Soncino translates “one proscribed by the government.” Jastrow has “levied for royal service.” 26 Goldschmidt has “der Regierung verschrieben,” with a note explaining, “zum Tod verurteilt; in diesen Fällen gilt der Sklave als tot u. ist nichts wert.” 27 For clarification of this term, I believe we might turn to Dougherty’s study of The Shirkûtu of Babylonian Deities 28 where marking of a slave’s body is indicated by the words ritta sa†aru ana, literally, “to inscribe the hand to.” This phrase occurs in YOS 6 129:4 ff., and elsewhere, to indicate that a slave was marked, branded, or tattooed as an indication of ownership. 29 Since the Akkadian sa†aru ana is the equivalent of the Hebrew—l btk in the phrase twklml btkwm I suggest that we should translate simply “marked with a royal mark,” meaning that the slave was the property of the king. This would naturally invalidate any future sale since the slave was already owned by the king. In the Babylonian Talmud Bava Mez5iºa 39b we read that in a discussion of presumptive possession of land there is fear of a false claim only if no adfy[ were drawn up. But if an adfy[ had been drawn up, the facts of the case would become generally known, hence there is no fear of a false claim. The Munich Manuscript reads adfya. In Bava Bathra 29b we encounter the same word, this time written adfy[ for which the Munich 23. tw[xmh lk tjt ˆhytwfm l[ ˆybwçjh μylwdgh μda ynb ˆyntwnç rmx dgb up ˆrzymh A. Kohut, ed., Aruch Completum (New York: Pardes, 1955), vol. 5, p. 103. 24. Folio 92b; cf. Qiddushin 11a. 25. See Soncino edition, p. 383. 26. A Dictionary of the Targumim . . . Vol. 1 (New York: Pardes, 1950), 679a. 27. Der babylonische Talmud, Vol. 6/3 (Berlin: Calvary, 1897), p. 1190, n. 16. 28. YOSR V/2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923), pp. 43, 82 ff. 29. Cf. also Yaron, Law (n. 17), p. 36, n. 2.

Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature

283

Manuscript reads adfya. Rashi in both Bava Mez5iºa and Bava Bathra takes the word to mean “a deed of partition (hqwlj rfç).” Kohut, in the Aruch Completum, took it from the Greek eJtaireÇa “association, brotherhood.” 30 This Greek etymology is implicitly rejected by Krauss, and rightfully so, in his Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum 31 as well as in his Addendum to the Aruch. 32 Already in 1903, Hermann Pick 33 suggested a connection with the Akkadian e†eru which means “to pay.” 34 Pick suggested that the talmudic arfya implied that a deed had been drawn up containing the word e†ir (“he [the seller] has been paid”), and that when such an expression was included in the document, it became generally known. 35 Research has shown that a standard formula in many Neo-Babylonian legal documents of land sale runs as follows: sim eqlisu ki kasap gamirti e†ir nadin mahir The price of his [the seller’s] field as one complete (payment in) silver, has been paid [by the buyer], handed over [by the buyer to the seller], (and) received [by the seller]. 36

From the formula, it appears that the silver has been handed over. This, however, was not the case. In his study of the Neo-Babylonian sale formulae, Petschow discussed this phrase as a part of the “Kaufpreisquittung.” 37 Petschow observed that despite the fact that the actual sale price seemed not to have been paid immediately, the receipt for the sale was given. He concluded that the specification of the sale price in the document had legal significance in and of itself, and was therefore a prerequisite for the transfer of property. Referring now to the Talmudic statement that if an arfy[ had been drawn up the case would become generally known, we might add that the facts become generally known because the document contains the prerequisite phrase which shows that the transfer of property has actually taken place. From the Talmud we learn that if the document contained no arfy[ there might be fear of a false claim. One might therefore argue that the phrase e†ir nadin mahir or the similar mahir apil zaku is 30. Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), p. 700. 31. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964. No entry is listed. 32. auua” :3rf[, 309 (1955 ,.sdrp ,qrwyAwyn) μlçh ˚wr[h twpswt rps tynwyh ˆm wayxwhl.” 33. Assyrisches u. Talmudisches, p. 33. 34. CAD E, pp. 404 ff.; AHw, pp. 264 f. 35. See Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, Vol. 3, p. 331, n. 479, and p. 366 n. to page 88 (Nachträge). 36. Translation of RA 24 (1927), p. 38:19 from CAD E, p. 404 (brackets mine). 37. Die neubabylonischen Kaufformulare, Leipziger Rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 118 (Leipzig: Weicher, 1939), pp. 16 ff.

284

Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature

the operative clause in the Neo-Babylonian contract of land sale. 38 An advantage of this interpretation is to provide a reading which decides between the different text editions’ resh and daled. Mishna Nedarim 3:8 deals with the validity of vows couched in various types of language. The passage reads: He who vows [not to benefit] from çarh yrwjç may not [benefit] from the bald and the grey-haired, but may [benefit] from women and children, because only men are called çarh yrwjç. 39

We see from this passage that in the time of the Mishna, the phrase which originated in Sumerian as s a g - g e6 - g a, and which passed into Akkadian as ßalmat qaqqadi (“the ‘dark-headed’ [a poetic expression for ‘mankind’]”), 40 appears as the loan translation çarh yrwjç in rabbinic Hebrew. We also see that the Mishna interpreted the phrase to mean “mankind” (to the exclusion of “womankind”), a conclusion which is in accord with the Akkadian evidence. 41 Among those mentioned in the Talmud who are disqualified from appearing as witnesses or judges 42 are various types of gamblers. In the discussion in the Gemara, a word employed to describe one type, a “pigeon trainer,” is ara. This word should be identified with the Middle- and NeoBabylonian arru, as proposed by Louis Ginzberg. 43 Ginzberg pointed out that the gaonic tradition had preserved the interpretation açabç “Lockvogel” for this word, and he noted that this confirms our belief that the gaonim were witnesses to a living connection with the Aramaic past that preceded them. 44 Though the authors of a letter preserved in a responsum are berated for not spelling the word ara correctly, 45 Jastrow neglects this information. 46

38. For the operative term in Elephantine, see Yaron, Law (n. 17), pp. 10 f. 39. Nedarim 30b, Soncino ed., p. 87. Cf. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, vol. 1, p. 191, and pp. 641 ff., for nn. 815–16. 40. CAD Í, pp. 75 f. 41. The phrase çar yrwjç occurs in Gen. Rabba 59:1 as a designation for “young people.” Here the meaning would seem to be slightly different from that cited in the Mishna passage above. 42. Sanhedrin 25a. 43. “Beiträge zur Lexikographie des Aramäischen,” Festschrift Adolf Schwarz (Berlin, 1917), p. 333. 44. Cf. above, p. 73. 45. açabç wçwrypw ,çyrb ara ala ˆk wnya tldb ada μtbtk rça. Studien und Mittheilungen aus der Kaiserlichen Oeffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg, Vierter Theil. Responsen der Geonim (zumeist aus dem X.–XI. Jahrhundert), ed. A. Harkavy (Berlin, 1885–87), p. 182. 46. ada, Dictionary, p. 15.

Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature

285

The word arru by itself does not denote “Schlinge, Fessel” as reported by Krauss in the name of Ginzberg 47 and by Jacob Schachter in the Soncino translation of the Talmud. 48 It refers to “a [living] bird used to decoy other birds” as these passages show: g í d - d a m u s e n = ár-ru sá ißßuri, “decoy, when one is speaking of birds”49 kurummat arri, “food allowance for the arru (listed with allowance for birds)” 50

I believe the proper translation of the passage in Bab. Talmud Sanhedrin 25a where this word occurs should read as follows: What are PIGEON TRAINERS?—Here (in Babylon) it has been interpreted, [of one who says to another], “if your pigeon passes mine [you win].” R. Óama b. Oshaia said: It means [one who employs] a decoy-bird.

The next two words discussed deal with the common vessels, and and tybj. The word and “vessel,” “vat” occurs in Bab. Talmud Berakhoth 5b (armjd ynd “vats of wine”), in Bab. Talmud Yoma 28b (aljd and “a vessel of vinegar”), and elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud, but not in the Mishna or the Yer. Talmud. It is related to the Neo-Assyrian-Neo-Babylonian dannu. 51 The word and which we find in the Babylonian Talmud is clearly a loan from Akkadian, since it is not attested in similar contexts in rabbinic texts emanating from Palestine. The connection between Akkadian habû and Aramaic tybj has long been recognized. 52 Syriac and Arabic cognates have been given by the CAD 53 and AHw. 54 According to the Chicago Dictionary, habû is an Akkadian loanword in Syriac, “from an unattested Akk. variant *habitu.” Some day perhaps the actual link will come to light. For the time being, however, I wish to point out a variant reading in a Mishna text, which at least supplies a secondary link in the connection between habû and tybj. The text in question is Miqwaoth 2:10; it reads: tybj ypb drwyh. Danby translates:

47. Die Mischna: Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung, “Sanhedrin-Makkot,” S. Krauss (Giessen, 1933), p. 124. 48. P. 145, n. 11. 49. CT 19, 48 II 7 (Antagal). 50. PBS 2/2 34:20 (MB economic text. Correct AHw, p. 71: “UM 2/2, 3, 4” to 34). 51. See CAD and AHw, s.v. This was already noted by Tallqvist, Die Sprache, p. 65; Oppenheim, Mietrecht, p. 51; and Yehoshua Brand, (guuyçt μylçwry) dwmlth twrpsb srjh ylk, pp. 103 ff. 52. Compare Krengel, Hausgerät, p. 48, n. 5. 53. Volume H, p. 20. 54. P. 306b.

286

Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature

[(speaking of the kind of mud in an immersion pool into which vessels may be immersed:)] . . . such that will go down through the [narrow] neck of a jar. 55

The variant to this passage recorded in the Aruch, s.v., reads hybj for tybj, pointing to a parental development, in Akkadian, *habiatu > *habitu. The variant hybj, preserved in the gaonic commentary to twrhf, demonstrates once again the accuracy and reliability of gaonic tradition. 56 We turn now to the realm of architectural features. In Nega‘im 13:2 we read: wlç ta lfwn ˆytpb harn wlk ta lfwn çarb harn ˆytpw çar ywnbh tyb 57.wrybj lç ta jynmw

Danby (Mishnah, p. 693) translates: If the house was built with [walls having alternate courses of] great stones and small stones [n.: the great stones can be seen on either side of the common wall, whereas the small stones face only to the one side] and the leprosy-sign appeared on a great stone, he must take it out wholly; but if on the small stones he need take out only what belongs to him and may leave what belongs to his fellow.

The word ˆytp occurring here as a hapax remains an enigmatic word. Jastrow defines ˆytp as the “principle or king-beam common to two adjoining buildings, opp. to μyçar, the cross-beams.” Albeck takes ˆytp to be a masculine plural noun (absolute state) from Syriac and Aramaic: . . . bjwrh :hçwrypç tymraw tyrwsb “aytp” ˆwçlm ayh “ˆytp” tbytç harn 58.twbjrh μynbah ˆh ˆytpw

With Krauss 59 I take the word to be singular, not plural. Some clarification might be acquired by comparison with Neo-Babylonian pit(i)nu. The following references should be noted: (1) In architectural contexts: gusure a-ma-lu-tum pi-ti-nu-tu (Nbn. 441:5 f.) 60 “straight (or: “spruce-like”) solid beams” (cf. CAD G 145) 55. The Mishnah, p. 735. 56. Brand, ibid. (n. 51), p. 111, n. 2. 57. For Ms. variants, see Krauss, Archäologie, I, p. 309, n. 294. 58. 558 um[, 1958 μylçwry (“twpswtw twmlçh”) 6 ˚rk hnçm yrds hçç ,qbla ˚wnh. I am grateful to Rabbi Lewis M. Barth for discussing with me various usages of ytp in Syriac, Biblical Aramaic, and the Targumim. 59. Archäologie I 309, n. 294. 60. CAD B 22 reads at the beginning of line 8: ina KÁ URU; this should be corrected to ina ITI.APIN which agrees with the copy and line 5. The text is dated in lines 20 f. to ITI.DUL, which means that the transaction was to be completed in the course of the next month.

Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature

287

“dried-out . . . wood beams” (AHw 6, reading a-ba!-lu-tum [with our word omitted]) hußßu pi-it-nu babbanû ina libbi ihaßßaß (VAS 5 117:6) “He will make a strong, very good reed hut thereon (on the lot).” (CAD H 260) gusure p[i-i]t-nu ina libbi ißabbat (VAS 5 117:12 f.) “He will put in a solid beam.” (CAD G 145) asuppu babbanû pi-te-nu (VAS 5 50:5) “a fine (/well-built) . . . attic room” (cf. CAD B 8 [with our word omitted]) (2) Describing animals: 50 SILÁ UDU.NITÁ kalume babbanutu pít-nu-tu supramma (YOS 3 76:10 ff.) “Send me 50 young, very good, strong lambs” (Cf. Ebeling, Glossar 183, and Neubab. Briefe aus Uruk, p. 64.) (3) Describing men: han†is LÚ halpi supranu ßabe pi-ti-nu-tu LÚ ki-din-ia u nepisu (YOS 3 188:7 ff.) “Send (pl.) quickly armored men, strong men, my. . . . and tools.” (CAD H 49) alla kî ßabe pi-tin-nu-tu ßabeni gabbi sa akanna ihteliq [!] ßabe pi-tin-nu-tu par-ra-tú sa ana dullu †abu dikama supru (BIN 1 40:18–24) “Rather (I swear) that on account of the strong men all the people who are here did not escape. Summon and send strong men. . . . that are fit for the work.”

(CAD D 174 and 126, for last clause)61

Our passages deal with the Neo-Babylonian adjective pit(i)nu, pl. pit(i)nutu, meaning “strong, solid, well-built,” used to describe architectural features, sheep and men (possibly soldiers). Relying upon the evidence describing architectural features, one might interpret ˆytp as “a strong wooden beam.” In an important article published in Orientalia 62 W. von Soden offered some preliminary remarks concerning Aramaic words in Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Late Babylonian texts. This article discusses 97 words treated in the Akkadisches Handwörterbuch through the early pages of fascicle 8, and makes reference to the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary where these volumes have already been published. 80% of the words discussed in this article are Neo- or Late Babylonian. Of these, 75% are attested in 61. Against E. Ebeling, Neubab. Briefe aus Uruk, p. 195. For parratu, cf. CAD B 113, sub barsallu. 62. Or., N.S. 35 (1966), pp. 1–20.

288

Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature

the Babylonian Talmud in basically the same meaning and form, and for verbs in the same stem. An interesting observation is that of the total of 97 words, 93 are attested in rabbinic sources including the Yer. Talmud, the various targumim, the tannaitic midrashim and the gaonic commentaries (preserved in the Aruch). Von Soden’s article is a valuable point of departure for information regarding Aramaic terms. When, however, one leaves the lexical material and examines the primary sources, one is often rewarded with additional information. A case in point is von Soden’s number 14, “dargis, eine Lagerstatt.” A Neo-Babylonian inventory contains the solitary Akkadian reference to “one kussû chair, one dargis-couch of willow wood, one dargiscouch of mulberry wood.” 63 From the Bab. Talmud, Nedarim 56a (see Soncino ed., pp. 177 f.) we learn more about its construction, at least as it was in later times. A dargesh was made with thongs, which, when they were untied, caused it to collapse; its strapping consisted of leather instead of the ropes which were customary in a bed. It was not supported by long legs, and stood very low. While in a bedstead the strapwork is drawn on top, a dargesh has the strapwork inside, attached through slits in the frame. We are further informed that the dargesh was sometimes reserved for utensils or for the domestic genius, to bring good luck to the house; normally one did not sit on the dargesh. For von Soden’s Number 20, “galalu, (Kiesel-) Stein,” compare now Raymond A. Bowman, “lln ˆba—aban galâlu (Ezra 5:8; 6:4),” in Hebraic Studies in Honor of Abraham I. Katsh, 64 where it is shown that since galâla is used with objects of various shapes—stelae, pillars, window frames, mortars, pestles, and plates . . . it is clear that throughout the Persian period and down into Christian times, galâla, or even aban galâla, meant simply “stone” . . . 65

63. CAD D, p. 112. 64. I. T. Naamani et al., eds. (New York: National Association of Professors of Hebrew, 1965), pp. 64–74. 65. Ibid., p. 70.

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources Ben Zion Wacholder and David B. Weisberg The problem of the visibility of the new moon in Ancient Mesopotamia 1 is now almost a century old. Closely connected with it is the problem of the evolution of the 19-year intercalary cycle, whose fixed points are determined by sightings of the lunar crescent. In the closing decade of the 19th century following the important work of Epping and Strassmaier, 2 Eduard Mahler posited a 19-year cycle for the Babylonian calendar adopted by Nabû-naßir in 747 b.c.e. 3 Mahler’s conjecture was made on the basis of his knowledge of the rabbinic calendar that came into use during the first millennium of the present era. Moreover, he was the first one to see the relationship between the rabbinic and ancient Babylonian calendars. 4 But, as shown below, some of Mahler’s views are clearly unacceptable while others remain as controversial today as they were at the turn of the century.

[Reprinted from Hebrew Union College Annual 42 (1971) 227–42.] Author’s note: Parts of this paper were read at the 181st Meeting of the American Oriental Society in Cambridge, Mass., on April 7, 1971. 1. See J. K. Fotheringham, “The Visibility of the Lunar Crescent,” The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga, S. Langdon, C. Schoch, and J. K. Fotheringham (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1928), pp. 45–49. 2. Joseph Epping, “Astronomisches aus Babylon oder das Wissen der Chaldäer über den gestirnten Himmel,” unter Mitwirkung von J. N. Strassmaier, Ergänzungshefte zu dem Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, 44 (Freiburg, 1889); Epping and Strassmaier, ZA 5 (1890), 341 ff.; 6 (1891), 89–102, 217–44; 8 (1893), 149–78. 3. See Eduard Mahler, SKAW 101/II March, 1892, 1–17, and “Das Kalenderwesen,” in 9th ICO, 1892; “Der Schaltcyclus der Babylonier,” ZA 9 (1894), 42–61; “Der SarosCanon der Babylonier und der 19-jähriger Schaltcyclus derselben,” ZA 11 (1896), 41– 46; “Der Schaltcyclus der Babylonier,” ZDMG 52 (1898), 227–46; “Der Kalender der Babylonier,” in Hilprecht Anniversary Volume (Chicago, 1909), 1–13. 4. M. Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, Giessen, 1912, Pt. II, pp. 540 ff. Almost 90 pages are devoted to a summary of the cuneiform evidence relating to the ominous portents associated with the visibility of the moon which he had culled from R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters . . . (London, 1914), and from R. C. Thompson, Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon (London, 1900).

289

290

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic

In this paper, the authors present evidence on the visibility of the moon from cuneiform sources as well as from talmudic texts from the first centuries c.e. We shall note a remarkable similarity in the procedures for determining the new month by the method of sighting the lunar crescent. We believe that our results will show Mahler’s conclusions to have been substantially correct. Important insights on the related problem of the evolution of the luni-solar calendar and the institution of the regular 19-year intercalary cycle are also obtained. 5 Observation of the movements of the sun and the moon plays a controlling part in the systematization of time-reckoning and is, apparently, one of the oldest recorded features of civilization. 6 But astronomy is only one of the ingredients—the others are social and religious—that enters into the makeup of the calendar. And of all civilization’s institutions, the calendar is perhaps the most important for regulating public life. We may assume that Babylonian mathematics and astronomy reached the peaks that they did partially because of the need to determine the time of the appearance of the new moon. There was, at least in the beginning, a magical element too. The mythology concerning the disappearance of the moon and its reappearance reveals the anxiety that ancient man felt at this ominous period. The Babylonian calendar was luni-solar. Originally, actual sightings of the moon determined the new month in this system. 7 It was observed that 5. Note also the following basic works: E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell U. Press, 1968), especially pp. 18 f., and p. 97, nn. 11 and 14 (Correct “No. 303” to “No. 298”); S. Gandz, J. Obermann, and O. Neugebauer, “Sanctification of the New Moon,” from The Code of Maimonides, Book 3, Treatise 8, Yale Judaica Series, Volume 11 (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1956), particularly the astronomical commentary of Neugebauer, pp. 113–49, bibliography, pp. 151–52; Ernest Wiesenberg, “Elements of a Lunar Theory in the Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 2:6, and the Talmudic Complements Thereto,” HUCA 33 (1962), pp. 153–96; Neugebauer, ACT (London, 1955); Julian Morgenstern, “The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel,” HUCA 1 (1924), 13–78; 3 (1926), 77–107; 10 (1935), 1–148. 6. See Alexander Marshack, “Lunar Notation on Upper Paleolithic Remains,” Science 146 (1964), pp. 743–45. According to Marshack, there is evidence for luni-solar lore in the early agricultural civilizations of Eurasia in the Paleolithic period. The evidence consists of accurate lunar notations on bones and stones from the Ice Age. These discoveries date from about 34,000 to about 10,000 years ago, in widely ranging sites. If Marshack’s interpretation of these notations is correct, our estimates of the body of knowledge of our distant forebears will have to be revised—and the traditions in Mesopotamia about which we are speaking will have to be placed much farther back than anyone would have supposed. The writers would like to thank Miss Margaret Currier, Librarian of the Peabody Museum, for her kind help in securing this reference. 7. See S. J. De Vries, “Calendar,” in IDB Volume 1 (1962), pp. 483–88, with bibliography. The “probable etymologies” are not convincing.

spread is 6 points long

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources

291

the interval between one lunation and the next was 29!2- days. For practical purposes, this was changed to months having either 29 or 30 days. But whether a month was hollow (29 days) or full (30 days) was determined by sighting. Although it was not necessarily always so, on the average, a hollow month was followed by a full month, which made for six hollow months plus six full months of 354 days. Thus, some 11!4- days were lacking in the lunar year as compared with the solar. To make up this discrepancy, certain years, by edict of the king, contained an additional month. Custom determined that the intercalated month was either Ullulu or Addaru. This haphazard system of determining the time of the new moon was replaced in the first half of the 5th century b.c.e. by a calendar known in the west as the Metonic calendar. 8 This calendar, we believe, had its origin in Babylonia. When the system of sighting was replaced by tables that predicted the position of the moon, a calendar was established which fixed the length of each month and year. The lists have been compiled by Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein; they run to about 100 c.e. 9 The questions confronting us are the following: (1) How did the system of sighting the new moon work? (2) When did the standard 19-year cycle emerge in Babylonia? (3) At what point did rabbinic authorities change the pre-exilic (biblical) calendar, possibly a solar one which had its origin in Egypt, to a Babylonian luni-solar one? (4) How was the talmudic system of calendation related to that of the cuneiform tradition in Babylonia? It should be pointed out at the outset that this study does not claim to be exhaustive, but is, rather, a preliminary effort at highlighting the relationship between the two traditions of calendation. Cuneiform evidence relating to the problem of visibility will now be presented. This comes partially from Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian letters which contain actual examples of the sighting of the lunar crescent, reflecting the procedures in force at the time of their writing. A Neo-Assyrian text from the Harper Collection, ABL 894, reads: Sîn um 30 atamar saqia sa um 30 ina pitti isaqia ki sa um 2 izzaz summa ina pan sarri belia mahir ina pan sa al Assur sarru lidqul haramima sarru beli umu lukin 8. The ancient testimony on Meton: Diodorus Siculus, XII, 36, 2; Aelian, Var. Hist. X, 7; Scholion on Aristoph. Av. 997 = F. Jacoby, FGrH 111B, pp. 135 f., 328 F 122. Modern Literature: Diels and Rehm, Bischoff, “Kalender,” R.E., XX (1919), 1569; W. Kubitschek, Grundriss der antiken Zeitrechnung (Munich, 1928); Benjamin Dean Merritt, The Athenian Calendar (London, 1928), 101. 9. Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, Brown U. Press, 1956.

292

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic

I observed the moon on the thirtieth day of the month—it was in a high position. Concerning the thirtieth day, it will soon be as high as it stands on the second day. Therefore, if it is pleasing to the king, my lord, may the king wait for (the messenger) from Ashur, at which time the king, my lord, can fix the date.

The following facts would seem to follow from this letter: 1. The lunar month was determined by the sighting of the new moon and not by a predetermined calculation. 2. A messenger arrived from an important city bringing word about the sighting (ina pan (PN) dagalu—always used of people). 3. The date was fixed by the king after hearing from this messenger (i.e., it was officially proclaimed). Many texts, especially from the Neo-Babylonian period, allude to the fact that the scholars determined the period for the intercalation of the month (based upon the visibility of the new moon), informed the king of this, who in turn instructed the Babylonian temple as to the official proclamation of the month, and they, the officials of the Babylonian temple, instructed those of neighboring cities. From one text we learn that the king orders Addaru intercalated (YOS 3 115). In a second, six people write to the temple administrator, people qualified to enter the temple, and the assembly of Eanna, that the king has ordered Addaru intercalated. The recipients of the letter are to see that the proper rites are performed, and to be sure it is done promptly (YOS 3 152). A third text tells how the qipu-officials of the Esagil write to the temple administrator and another individual of Eanna: “For your information, we are now sending you the message that the month is an intercalary (month)” (YOS 3 15). This shows that royal instructions were sent to the various temples for the official proclamation of a month as intercalary. In this case, the instructions went from the king to the Babylonian temple, and from the officials of the Babylonian temple to those of Eanna in Uruk. A fourth text informs us that “For your information: Ullulu is an intercalary month” (YOS 3 196). The following text would seem to demonstrate the intricate connection that exists between the establishment of the visibility of the moon and the proper performance of the religious rites which were based upon its appearance: parßikunu ina Addari sa itti Nisanni tibu aki si ipsa “Perform your religious services in the month of Addaru that immediately precedes the month of Nisannu” (YOS 3 152; 16 ff.).

The recurring phrase in the letters telling about the observation of the heavenly bodies is maßartu nitaßar (“we have kept the watch”). Many of

spread is 6 points long

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources

293

these letters are written exclusively to inform the king that the watch is being kept. For example, in ABL 141, the writers inform the recipient that maßartu nitaßar um 14 Sîn Samas ahis etamru

“We have kept the watch; on the 14th day the moon and sun appeared together.” Note that this is the exclusive subject of this letter. Watches were kept in Akkad, Borsippa and Nippur for the eclipse of the moon (ABL 337). It is safe to assume that they were kept there for the appearance of the new moon and for the appearance of any noteworthy astronomical phenomena which might have ominous portent (cf. also ABL 351). That the practice of establishing the beginning of the month by observation was in vogue at the time of the 7th and 6th centuries is clear from the following letters: ina um 29 maßartu nitaßar Sîn la nimur Duzu um 2 limmu Belsunu pihat Hindanu We kept watch for the new moon on the 29th day of the month, but did not see the moon. [Dated] 2nd of Duzu in the limmu of Belsunu, in the district of Hindanu (ABL 671).

The watch described in this letter was kept on the 29th day of Simanu. Because the crescent was not sighted on the 29th day, Simanu was declared to have 30 days. The new month of Duzu was declared to be on the 31st day. On the 2nd day of the new month, a report was written. At Arba-el a watch was kept on the 29th day (ABL 423). Because of cloudy conditions, the moon was not sighted. What the implication is of the phrase ITI Addaru um 1 pan 1 umu is not clear, unless this is an indication of a practice of predating. We turn now to selections of Mishnah and Tosephtah from the tractate Rosh Hashanah (“New Year’s Festival”) which deal with the setting up of the rabbinic calendar. Mishnah RH 1:3–3:1 outlines the procedure of verification. It is mainly from here that we can reconstruct the pattern of the evidence relating to the problem of visibility. 10 lwdgh ta ˆysynkmw ,ˆwçar wtwa ˆyqdwb ˆwçar abç gwz ?μyd[h ta ˆyqdwb dxykmmm hnwpxl ,hmjh rjal wa hmjh ynpl ,hnblh ta tyar rxyk ,rwma :wl μyrmwaw ˆhbç hmjh ynpl rma μa 11?bjr hyh hmkw ?hfwn hyh ˆyalw ?hwbg hyh hmk ?hmwrdl wa 10. See now Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshu†a Part 5 (New York, 1962), pp. 1026– 1038, whose comments embrace most of the talmudic material and who also cites the secondary literature. 11. For a discussion of the technical vocabulary, see Wiesenberg, HUCA 33 (1962), 152–96. The difficulty with Wiesenberg’s commentary is: a) it runs counter the talmudic exegesis; and b) it assumes too great a mastery of astronomical lore on the part of laymen, perhaps even of the average member of the court, unless one were a professional moon-watcher.

1. “We are sending you the message . . .” (YOS 3 15)

5. messengers are sent out

1. “. . . messengers go out . . .” (RH. 1:3)

1. “The head of the court proclaims, ‘It is sanctified’ . . .” (RH. 2:7) 2. (Letter of R. Gamaliel)

1. “They bring in the pair that came first—they question the senior man . . .” (RH. 2:6)

1. “Was its appearance like this or this?” (RH. 2:8) 2. “It was two ox-cart-lengths high” (Tosephta)

Rabbinic

No preference No No

Preference for Addaru II or Ullulu II?

7 months intercalated in 19-year cycle?

Predictable pattern for intercalary years in cycle?

747–634 b.c.e.

STAGE I

Yes

Experimentally (5, 8, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8)

Preference Emerging for Addaru (34) over Ullulu (20)

633–482 b.c.e.

STAGE II

Yes—“standard” cycle

Yes

Addaru (with Ullulu as 17th yr.)

481 b.c.e.–71 c.e.

STAGE III

Table II. The Emergence of The Standard 19-Year Cycle As Seen in Cuneiform Documents Based on Parker and Dubberstein, “Babylonian Chronology,” Plate 1 (p. 6)

1. 2. 3. 4.

4. authorities proclaim new moon

“Let the king fix the day” (ABL 894) King orders date fixed (YOS 3 115) “Establish your festivals” (YOS 3 152:16) “The intercalary month . . .” (YOS 3 15, 52)

1. “Let the king, my lord, wait for (the messenger from) Assur” (ABL 894, 522)

2. bring information to authorities

3. witnesses cross-examined

1. “We have kept the watch” (ABL, passim) 2. “I saw the moon on the 30th day; it was high” (ABL 894)

Akkadian

1. witnesses sight new moon

Procedure

Table I. Comparison of Akkadian and Rabbinic Procedures

294 Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources

295

ˆhyrbd waxmn μa .wtwa ˆyqdwbw ynçh ta ˆysynkm wyh ˚k rjaw .μwlk rma al (w:b huur) .tmyyq ˆtwd[ μynwwkm How are the witnesses cross-examined? The pair that comes first is crossexamined first. They bring in the senior man and say to him: “Tell us, how did you see the moon? Was it facing the sun or turned away from it? To the north or to the south? How high was it? To which side did it lean? And how wide was the crescent?” If he said, “Facing the sun,” his testimony is invalid. Afterwards they brought in the second witness and cross-examined him. If their testimony is found to agree, it was accepted. harm ˆhbç ,wtyl[b ltwkbw albfb laylmg ˆbrl wl wyh twnbl twrwx twmdmmm (j:b huur) ?hzk wa tyar hzkh :rmwaw twfwyrh ta Rabban Gamaliel had drawings of the phases of the moon on a tablet and on the wall of his attic. He used to show them to the laymen12 and ask, “Did you see it this way or that?” (z:b huur) .çdwqm çdwqm wyrja ˆynw[ μ[h lkw çdwqm rmwa ˆyd tyb çarmmm The head of the court proclaims, “The month is hallowed!” and all the people answer after him, “It is hallowed, it is hallowed!”13 l[ ,tyn[th ynpm ba l[ ,jsph ynpm ˆsyn l[ ,ˆyaxwy ˆyjwlçh μyçdj hçç l[mmm l[w ,hkwnjh ynpm wlsk l[ ,twd[wmh tnqt ynpm yrçt l[ ,hnçh çar ynpm lwla (n:a huur) .μyrwph ynpm rda On six months agents would go out to proclaim the new month: On Nisan, on account of Passover; On Ab, on account of the Fast; On Elul because of The New Year;14 On Tishri because of the order of the holidays; On Kislev because of Hannukah; and on Adar because of Purim.

12. The implication is that Rabban Gamaliel was a professional astronomer, who could calculate the presence of the new moon without the witnesses. See Bab. Talmud Rosh Hashanah, 25a: “Rabban Gamaliel said to the Sages: ‘Thus I have received from the school of my grandfather: “(The interval between the conjunction and the time the moon becomes visible) sometimes appears after a long time (42 hours in September); at other times it appears after a short interval (16!2- hours in March).” ’ ” Ibid., “Rabban Gamaliel said to them . . . : ‘The interval between one lunation and another is not less than 29 days, and a half day, two thirds of an hour, and 73 parts (73/1080 of an hour), which in standard computation is 29 days, 12 hours, and 793/1080 (or 44 minutes plus 3 and 3!- seconds).’ ” It has been plausibly argued (David Ganz, Ne˙mad We-na‘im ( Jessnitz, 1743), Par. 113) that “73 parts” is a post-talmudic addition. But see now M. M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, XIII (New York, 1949), 101–9. 13. See also Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Sanctification of the Moon,” II, 8–9. 14. See below, note 17.

296

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic . . . tmyyq ˆtwd[ ,hçlç rmwa djaw tw[drm ytç hwbn wytyar rmwa djammm (70–69 twrwç ,16 § a qrp huur atpswt)

If one witness says, “I saw it (the moon) two oxcart-lengths-high,” and the other says, “three oxcart-lengths-high,” their testimony is accepted . . .”15

A different type of cuneiform evidence involves calendrical dates culled from astronomical tables and administrative texts by J. N. Strassmaier, F. X. Kugler, and F. H. Weissbach, which revealed the detailed workings of the Babylonian luni-solar calendar. The most complete lists presently available, however, (to some degree based upon unpublished texts) are those of Parker and Dubberstein (note 9), which are the basis for our reconstruction of Tables II and III, given below. The reader is warned nevertheless to be aware of the hypothetical nature of these two tables, partly due to the uncertainties of unclear readings, that have divided the savants since the 1890s. Based on Epping and Strassmaier’s publication of cuneiform planetary tables, as has been mentioned, Eduard Mahler wrote a series of articles beginning in 1892 which claimed that: (a) Nabû-naßir introduced the permanent calendar on the 21st of April, 747 b.c.e., whose 19-year cycles remained unchanged until the first century b.c.e.; (b) The Babylonian 19-year cycle was identical with the rabbinic calendar used by the Jews today; and (c) on the basis of admittedly slight and in some cases fragmentary evidence it was possible to convert cuneiform dates into Julian ones, with an error of plus or minus one day, beginning with 747 b.c.e. In 1895, Mahler published what he regarded as the Babylonian calendar of 747–100 b.c.e. in the Denkschriften der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Volume 62, pp. 641–64). The extravagant claims contained therein divided the scholars of that day. Eduard Mayer (ZA 9 (1894), 325– 28) and C. F. Lehmann (ZA 11 (1896), 110–16), found amazing confirmation of Mahler’s calendar in the Chaldean dates recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest and in the verified statements mentioning eclipses in cuneiform records. On the other hand, Jules Oppert (ZA 8 (1893), 56–74), and F. H. Weissbach (ZDMG 55 (1901), 195–220), pointed out that a number of years said by Mahler to have been intercalated were found in cuneiform texts to have contained only twelve months and vice versa. Reviewing the evidence in 1906, Ginzel (Handbuch der Chronologie I, 132) found that of the 51 attested dates, 33 confirmed Mahler’s hypothetical calendar

15. See also Yer. Talmud Rosh Hashanah, II, 9, p. 58b; Bab. Talmud Rosh Hashanah, 24a.

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources

297

whereas 18 negated it; of the 16 eclipses recorded in the Babylonian tablets, one half proved Mahler right and the other half showed him wrong. Mahler’s achievement must be considered quite remarkable given the meagre evidence which he then had at his disposal. To some extent, the criticism levelled against Mahler’s calendar is partially valid with regard to Parker and Dubberstein’s tables as well, particularly for the data before the 4th century b.c.e. As Professor Abraham Sachs pointed out in a communication to us, some of the readings of intercalary months recorded in Parker and Dubberstein’s tables may not be quite reliable, while a handful are admittedly hypothetical. But even assuming the essential correctness of Parker and Dubberstein’s tables, Professor Sachs maintains, the supposition of a 19-year cycle prior to 386 b.c.e. may be reading into the evidence something which possibly is not there. Despite these reservations, we find it difficult to believe that the discovery of the equivalent of 235 lunar months with 19 solar years and its implementation into the calendar were a sudden development. It is probable that centuries of experimentation led to this remarkable discovery and that more time passed before the Babylonian astronomers felt confident enough to convince the king that a permanent calendar was practicable. Tables II and III, even if somewhat hypothetical, seem to reflect roughly this period of experimentation. The first table (Table II) shows our interpretation of the emergence of the standard 19-year cycle as seen in cuneiform records. We detect three stages of development, in which a trial-and-error procedure was adopted until the data had been systematized. The second (Table III) shows how the Babylonians experimented with various positions of intercalary years in the 19-year cycle. It will be seen that in the cycle of 557–539 b.c.e. (“Period 11”), only 3 of the final 7 positions of the standard cycle were employed. In the cycle of 538–520 (“Period 12”), 4 of the 7 positions were employed. In the cycle of 519–501 (“Period 13”), the number was raised to 5. In the cycle of 500–482 (“Period 14”), the “standard cycle” had been adopted, with the exception that the first year of the cycle was kept as an intercalary one, thus making 8 intercalary years in the cycle. This, however, was the last time such an absence of regularity may be noted in the calendar; from 481 on, the seven years were regularly intercalated in the sequence 3 – 6 – 8 – 11 – 14 – 17 – 19. Some scholars maintain that Ullulu II was occasionally intercalated during Second Temple days, while others deny this (see David Sidersky, REJ 58 (1909), 293–96). In the opinion of the writers, the state of affairs in the Talmud reflected a procedure in which it was still conceivable to intercalate Ullulu II as one of the intercalary months, though this as officially discouraged. For some reason which is not clear to us, the rabbis wanted to

298

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Table III. Table Showing Experimentation With Intercalation of Seven Years in 19-Year-Cyclea Position of Intercalary Years in 19-Year-Cycle

Period 11 (557–539)

1 – 3 – 5 – 8 – 12 – 14 – 17

Period 12 (538–520)

2 – 3 – 6 – 9 – 12 – 14 – 17

Period 13 (519–501)

1 – 3 – 6 – 9 – 11 – 14 – 17

PERIOD 14 (500–482)

1 – 3 – 6 – 8 – 11 – 14 –17 – 19

“Standard Cycle”

3 – 6 – 8 – 11 – 14 – 17 – 19

a. (Bold face numeral indicates position of intercalary year is the same as that of the “Standard Cycle.”)

suppress this custom. But from Sanhedrin 12a and Rosh Hashanah 19b, the implication is clear: speculation about, perhaps even the practice of, the intercalation of a second Elul never ceased. In Bab. Talmud Sanhedrin 12a, the following principle is enunciated: “The year is not intercalated immediately before Rosh Hashanah (i.e., one does not intercalate Elul to make Tishri fall in the proper season); but in case of an emergency, they intercalate immediately after Rosh Hashanah. Nevertheless, they intercalate only the month of Adar (but no other month).” This unambiguous ban against proclaiming a second Elul is quite striking. No other month is specifically named, suggesting that we heave here an allusion to, perhaps a disapproval of, the Babylonian calendar that regularly added another Ullulu each seventeenth year of the nineteen year cycle. What is even more striking is that Bab. Talmud Sanhedrin 12a, quoting from a coded message from Tiberias to the fourth century Amora, Rabba, clearly asserts that the rabbis assembled “in the month that Aaron died” and added another “governor.” The meaning is that they met in the month of Ab to proclaim an extra Elul. 16 Admittedly, the action here involved an emergency because of some unknown clash with the Byzantine authorities. Nevertheless it is no accident that when a month other than Adar was added it happened to be Elul. Another passage, frequently quoted and attributed to Rab (died in 247), also seems to deal with the problem of a second Elul: al ˚lyaw arz[ twmym rbw[m lwla wnyxm “Since the time of Ezra we have no record of Elul 16. See Rashi, ad locum, making it clear that the rabbis deliberated in the month of Ab to make Rosh Hashanah coincide with the fall equinox.

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources

299

me‘ubar.” 17 This word is taken to mean “full,” i.e., that the month of Elul was always hollow, having only 29 days. That me‘ubar could not mean “full” here is clear from the use of this term that only marginally refers to the length of a month, and as a rule refers to intercalation. Moreover, as the Babylonian Talmud points out, Rab’s dictum, if interpreted to refer to the question whether Elul was hollow or full, would contradict a number of mishnaic traditions. Certainly, the talmudic answers do not remove the serious objections. In the light of our discussion, however, it is possible that the statement attributed to Rab was no longer understood by the talmudists. It is likely that me‘ubar here referred to the intercalation of an extra Elul rather than the number of days of the month. If so, the statement “Since the days of Ezra we have no record of an intercalated Elul” may retain a vague memory of a time when the Jews adopted the Babylonian luni-solar calendar. For in rabbinic literature, Ezra always stands for the leader of the returning exiles. But while the exiles borrowed the Babylonian system of calendation, only Adar, not Elul, was subject to intercalation. A text preserved in Bab. Talmud Sanhedrin 11b, which informs the recipients about the intercalation of a month at the close of Addaru, is reminiscent of the typical Neo-Babylonian letter formula: “It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel was sitting on a step on the Temple-hill, and the well-known scribe Jo˙anan was standing before him while three cut sheets were lying before him . . . He said: ‘Take a sheet and write: “To our brethren the Exiles in Babylon and to those in Media, and to all the other exiled sons of Israel, thus: ‘May your peace be great forever! We beg to inform you that the doves are still tender and the lambs are still young and that the crops are not yet ripe. It seems advisable to me and to my colleagues to add thirty days to this year.’ ” ’ ” 18

Conclusions (1) The system of sighting in cuneiform and rabbinic records apparently worked as follows: 1. Witnesses saw the new moon; 17. Bab. Talmud Betsah, 6a; 22b; Rosh Hashanah, 19b; 32a. Cf. also Yer. Talmud Shevi‘it, X, 2, p. 39b; Rosh Hashanah, III, 1, p. 58c, where the wording is quite different. 18. See also Tosefta, II, 6, p. 416 (Zuckermandl); Yer. Talmud Sanhedrin, I, 1, p. 18d. Bab. Talmud Sanhedrin 11b concludes the discussion with the words: amlyd hwrb[d rtb which Rashi interprets: “Possibly after they removed Rabban Gamaliel from his office of nasi.” Perhaps a better interpretation is that (mentioned by Z. H. Chajes in his commentary, ad locum, in the Romm editions) Rabban Gamaliel’s letter was written after they “intercalated it” (the month of Adar).

300

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic 2. 3. 4. 5.

They brought this sighting to the attention of the authorities; They were cross-examined; The authorities proclaimed the new moon; Messengers were sent out bearing the official announcement of the beginning of the month.

(2) The standard 19-year cycle emerged in Babylonia in 481 b.c.e. after two distinct earlier stages had been passed through, beginning in about 747 b.c.e. (See Table III.) (3) The Talmud still appears to preserve the older system of observation of the lunar crescent, if we may take the written record as reflecting actual procedure. It would seem, therefore, that the system of calendation preserved in 1st or 2nd century rabbinic texts preserves a system which was in use before 481 b.c.e. and continued in use even after a new one was introduced in Babylonia. The talmudic system could not have been adopted until—at the earliest—359 c.e., and possibly as late as the seventh century of the Christian era. 19 (4) The post-exilic calendar as presented in the Talmud was thus inconsistent with that of the cuneiform tradition in Babylonian after 481 b.c.e.; though bearing many resemblances, the two systems diverged until at least several centuries into the present era. The first clear exposition of the rabbinic standard 19-year cycle appears in the time of the historian Al-Biruni (973–1048), where we read of it in his “Chronology of Ancient Nations.” Al-Biruni records what was in fact only one of several variants still then in vogue, which went out of practice by the 12th century. The philosopher Abraham bar Óiyya (12th cent. c.e.) mentions the cycle now in use in his “Book of Intercalation” (3–6–8–11–14–17–19). Two of the most important questions which have not yet been answered concern Ullulu II: (1) Why did the rabbis seek to suppress the practice of inserting Ullulu II as an intercalary month? (2) Why did the Babylonian cuneiform calendar keep Ullulu II as the month which was always inserted in the 17th year of the 19-year intercalary cycle? 19. Hai Gaon (died in 1038) is the first authority who is said to have mentioned that Hillel ben Judah, the patriarch, instituted the rabbinic calendar in the year 670 A. Sel. (359), according to Abraham bar Óiyya (Sefer Ha‘ibbur (London, 1851), p. 97). For a more recent text, see now M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, XIII, 24, who cites more evidence (pp. 24 ff.), defending the tradition against Bornstein’s view that the present Jewish calendar started in 836 or in 865 (pp. 176–79).

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic Sources

301

As Parker and Dubberstein have noted in Babylonian Chronology (p. 3, n. 4), Professors O. Neugebauer and A. Sachs have attempted to grapple with these difficult questions. Writing in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies 6 (1952), pp. 13–14, with reference to the astronomical series MUL.APIN, Professor Sachs observes that “the mean date for the rising of Sirius is IV 15 . . . This feature may well have been of prime importance in connection with the invention of the 19-year cycle.” He suggests that at some moment before 380 b.c., the 19-year cycle was invented on the basis of a set of observed dates of the heliacal rising of Sirius. The seven intercalary months were distributed over the 19 years in such a way that these dates of the rising of Sirius always fell in month IV [Duzu]. Perhaps the unique intercalary month VIa [Ullulu II] was included to make sure that the dates of the apparent acronycal rising of Sirius should never fall outside IX [Kislimu] or X [ˇebetu] . . .

On p. 110 of his article, Dr. Sachs concludes that “the first use of the 19year cycle is dated around 380 b.c., specifically not before 381/0 b.c.” He rejects the theory of O. Neugebauer presented in Studies . . . Sarton (1946), pp. 435–48, that the beginning of the 19-year cycle may have been somewhere around 418 b.c. The conclusion of the present writers is that the seven years of the 19year cycle were regularly intercalated from 481 b.c.e. on. How can this be squared with the evidence of the Sirius rising dates?—It may be that the observed dates of the heliacal rising of Sirius actually predate the “Sirius scheme” that is evident from Seleucid texts by a century or a century-anda-half but that we have no written record of the earlier development of this scheme. Alternatively it may be that the construction of the 19-year cycle with its regularly intercalated 7 years was an independent development that had no associations with the heliacal rising of Sirius. As we have noted above, it was Eduard Mahler who first proposed that the Babylonians formulated the 19-year cycle from which both the Greek (also called the Metonic cycle) and the Jewish (rabbinic) calendars were ultimately derived. This study has sought to illustrate the interdependence of the cuneiform and rabbinic texts, thereby confirming Mahler’s hypothesis concerning the rabbinic tradition. 20 20. For other studies that relate cuneiform and rabbinic traditions, see D. Weisberg, “Some Observations on Late Babylonian Texts and Rabbinic Literature,” HUCA 39 (1968), pp. 71–72, nn. 1–15, to which should be added the important study by Baruch Levine, “Mulugu Melûg: The Origins of a Talmudic Legal Institution,” JAOS 88 (1968), 271–85; the comments of J. N. Epstein, A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic ( Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1960), pp. 105–15; and S. Greengus, “Old Babylonian Marriage Rites and Ceremonies,” JCS 20 (1966), p. 68, n. 75.

302

Visibility of the New Moon in Cuneiform and Rabbinic

As to the Greek calendar, however, it is now recognized that Meton’s discovery did not result in a 19-year cycle in Athens in 432 b.c.e. or even thereafter. Meton’s contribution was the publication of an astronomical tract for an Athenian audience which showed that 235 lunar months equal 19 solar years. But Meton was operating as an individual. He was a scholar without links with the rulers of the city, who would have been able to put his principles into practice. 21 A body of scientific knowledge such as this, which requires centuries of careful observation before principles can be formulated, cannot be assumed to have developed simultaneously in Greece as well as Babylonia. Barring remarkable coincidence, then, Meton’s cycle was a Greek version of the Babylonian institution. In conclusion, it may be asked, “What was the link connecting the Mesopotamian, Palestinian, and Greek calendar traditions of the 19-year cycle?” It is our contention that the two Mediterranean systems, the Palestinian and the Greek, go back to a common origin, Mesopotamia. Some possible paths of transmission to the west might have been cultural links between Palestine and Mesopotamia during the pre-exilic period; the experience of the returnees in the Persian period; or the Phoenician bridge between Mesopotamia and the southern part of the Levant coast. Nor would it be difficult to envisage how the Greeks, who had extensive contacts in Mesopotamia in the pre-Christian centuries, might then have learned of the 19-year cycle. Table IV summarizes this hypothesis: Table IV. Path of Transmission of the 19-year cycle in the Ancient Near East Akkadian Language texts [Aramaic texts] Greek Sources (Meton, 432 b.c.e.)

[Babylonian Exiles] Palestinian Tannaitic Palestinian and Babylonian Amoraic

21. On Meton, see above note 8. As to the formulation and the possible adoption of the Metonic cycle in Athens, see now W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens (1931), 217, 377 ff., who believes that Meton’s observations were utilized. See, however, W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens (London, 1911), 122: “The demos, not the astronomers, ruled Athens”; Jacoby, Atthis, the Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949), 65; FGrH, IIIb (Suppl.), I, 497 f.; II, 402 f.

“Feet of Iron” in the Babylonian Talmud? Israel O. Lehman and David B. Weisberg In B. T. Berakhoth, fol. 41b, there occurs the passage, yrgn ˆl byhy ˆam ˚ny[mçnw alzrpd. Maurice Simon, in the Soncino Talmud, translates: “Would that we had feet of iron so that we could always (run and) listen to you.” 1 Rashi, ad loc., explains: ˚yrja ˚lnw ˚çmçnw ˚ny[mçnw lzrb lç μylgr dymt. Levy-Fleischer, adopting Rashi’s explanation, adds, “That is, that we might always have the opportunity to listen to your exquisite words of instruction.” 2 The difficulty inherent in this explanation is that “feet of iron” are not usually employed in imagery meant to express “fleetness of foot”! No variant reading has been recorded here. 3 No familiar pattern of graphical errors can be applied to the word alzrp. Yet, the text cannot be in order in its present form. What is required is a symbol of speed and agility. We therefore suggest emending from alzrp to alzra, thus giving us the image of the fleet-footed gazelle. In the Babylonian Talmud, it is true, alzrwa occurs only twice 4 and not as a symbol of speed and agility. But the word frequently occurs elsewhere in classical Hebrew, Akkadian, Aramaic and Arabic. In Biblical Hebrew we have the image of agility portrayed by a gazelle, where Joab’s brother, Asahel, is described as rça μybxh djak wylgrb lq hdçb. 5 The gazelle appears in Isaiah as a symbol of the fugitive Babylonians: jdm ybxk hyhw. 6 It occurs in parallelism with the bird to symbolize

[Reprinted from Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 120 (1970) 180– 81.] Author’s note: Studies in Hebrew Manuscript Tradition, no. 8. 1. London, 1948, page 256. 2. Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch. Leipzig, 1876, III, p. 338a. 3. R. Rabbinowicz, Variae Lectiones. Munich, 1867, I, p. 222. 4. alzrwa = “gazelle” in Bab. B. 73b and 74b. 5. 2 Sam. 2:18; cf. 1 Chron. 12:8. 6. Isa. 13:14.

303

304

“Feet of Iron” in the Babylonian Talmud?

speedy escape. 7 In Aramaic, the image of the graceful, speedy gazelle is brought, e.g., in the Targum on Cant. 2:9: aybfk fhrw alyad alzrwakw; cf. also the Targum to 8:14. For Arabic G. W. Freytag 8 quotes Kam. for the definition: “ghazal . . . a tempore, quo nascitur, usque ad tempus quo vehementissimo cursu pollet.” The poet Imruulkais gives a colorful account of the hunter piercing the fleeing game with his spear. 9 If we are correct in assuming that the scribe copied alzrp for alzra perhaps we might conjecture that what subconsciously led him to this error was that he had in mind the imagery of Daniel 2:33f. and 4:12, where a statue is described as having “feet of iron.” In our view, there are no grounds for assuming an expression which involved “feet of iron” in the Babylonian Talmud. The passage, which has hitherto been translated “feet of iron” is to be reinterpreted as “feet of a gazelle,” making it consonant with the desired imagery. 7. Prov. 6:5. 8. Lexicon Arabico-Latinum, 1835, III, p. 274. 9. Cf. Óamasa IV, 54.—For the Arab, the bint ar-raml (lit. “daughter of the sand”), the gazelle, was a frequent object of comparison, having a similar role as the stag in the West. ˇarafa, somewhat reminiscent of Canticles, compares the gazelle with the beloved, or its beauty is contrasted with the din of war (cf. G. Jacob, Leben der vorislamischen Beduinen. 1895, p. 119). In Christian tradition, the legend of a fleeing gazelle turned into the Virgin Mary was adduced to explain the building of the church at Saidnaya in Syria (Hanauer, Q.S. 1909 p. 137). In mythology and plastic art the gazelle appears frequently: the ancient Egyptians illustrated gazelles in pictures from the Old Kingdom and they were also hunted (A. Erman—H. Ranke, Aegypten, 1923, pp. 271, 528). Akkadian uzzalum occurs in Hh XIV 154 for a m a r. m a s . d ù (see CAD Í 42 sub ßabitu). For artistic renditions, see E. Douglas van Buren, The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia as Represented in Art, AnOr 18 (1939), pp. 46–48. The image of fleetness of foot is sometimes rendered by muru, “foal,” see, for example, Lambert, BWL 218:17: “Let the foal which you bear be a swift runner, like me” (Popular Saying). The Arabic word ghazal survives in English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, etc. (cf. K. Lokotsch, Etymolog. Wörterbuch. 1927, no. 699).

Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Integration of Material and Non-Material Culture 1. Major Themes and Recent Works The theme of this essay is best exemplified in the works of many scholars who have made important contributions in many aspects of the field. 1 The present author has given a critique of the background of the period under discussion in “The Neo-Babylonian Empire” 2 under the following headings: Chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty; The Downfall of Assyria and the Rise of Babylonia; The Golden Age of Babylon; Trade and Material Culture; Religion; Polytheism and Politics; Language, Literature and Calendar; Family and Society; Achaemenid Conquerors; and The Legacy of Babylon. Daily life is not a new theme in Assyriology, witness for example, Georges Contenau’s La vie quotidienne à Babylon et Assyrie, published in

[Reprinted from Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East, ed. Richard E. Averbeck, Mark W. Chavalas, and David B. Weisberg (Bethesda, MD: CDL) 89–91.] Author’s note: I wish to thank W. W. Hallo and Getzel Cohen for their generous scholarly help, and Arnona Rudavsky for her help in locating research materials. The friendly encouragement of Richard Averbeck has benefitted the article very much. I am indebted to HUC students Christopher Morgan, Christian Rata and Angela Roskop for their helpful comments as well as Jeffrey Cooley, Tiffany Grantham, Ronald Hardin, N. Blake Hearson and In Seh Lee, who contributed important ideas on this topic. For recent Hebrew Union College Neo-Babylonian dissertations, see, in Bibliography B. T. Arnold, S. Fudge, J. Shao, and P. Wright. Note also the related work of D. Redford. 1. See our remarks below and see Bibliography. 2. Weisberg (1996).

307

308

Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period

Paris in 1950. Other fields have been active, too. Note some ways people have phrased this topic: Daily Life in Life in A Day in the Life of Everyday Life in Life in

Ancient Mesopotamia the Ancient Near East Ancient Athens Babylon and Assyria Ancient Athens

Nemet-Nejat Snell Deighton Contenau Tucker

1998 1997 1995 1966 1906

Many writers focusing upon our theme have employed the term “material culture” as complement to “non-material” elements of the civilization, such as literature, art and religion. Archaeology gives us many of the clues we are seeking about material culture, especially what one might call “New archaeology”—looking at small finds. 3 Assyriology, of course, concentrates mostly upon written sources, by and large, and, in this case, from clay tablets from the NeoBabylonian period. In this study our objective is to (1) look briefly at some features of the material culture, the “everyday life” (“Alltagsleben”) of the Neo-Babylonian period and (2) features of non-material culture. We hope for the prospect of integrating more successfully our abundant social and economic data from this period with non-material aspects of Neo-Babylonian society. In discussing the topic of “Everyday Life in . . .” or “Life in . . .” (as per above) we are harking back to a theme that became popular during the heyday of Communism and materialism. 4 Though we are not arguing for a direct cause and effect relationship between the perspectives of Communism and the interest in the scholarship dealing with daily life, we pose the following question: Could it be that though Marxist historians were not necessarily interested in the “nitty-gritty” of daily life (but rather essentially in class-struggle), their focus upon materialism was one of the factors that piqued a general interest in daily life? Thus the notion has remained in our heads that what is “real” is “counting beans” but what has to do with non-material culture is of less substance. Despite the fall of Communism and the discrediting of much of the Marxist historiography, the notion may not have given way.

3. Stager (1985); Moorey (1999). 4. Cp. Childe (1967) 8, preface by Grahame Clark: “A . . . point to remember is that he [Childe] made no secret of his interest in Marxism. He found it useful to suppose that societies at each phase of social evolution rested on definite productive forces which shaped their lives, which harboured contradictions that in due course compelled the emergence of new productive forces and a new cycle of social evolution.”

Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period

309

Dan Snell 5 and Karen Nemet-Nejat 6 have recently published works on everyday life. Snell’s book contains much valuable information, as well as careful reflection and theorization on society. His effort at surveying life in the ancient Near East from the social and economic perspective is a success, covering a remarkable three millennia. As for the Neo-Babylonian period, one reviewer maintains: The narrative is entertaining and easy to follow, yet the later chapters dealing with the Assyrian Empire, Chaldean and Persian domination, and relations with the classical Greek world are considerably less informative than those dealing with the rise of the Sumerians and Amorites . . . His primary area of specialization is early Mesopotamian economic history, and this too is reflected in a treatment of Assyrian, Chaldean and Persian economic life that is a good deal less detailed than where focused on the third and second millennia. 7

Karen Nemet-Nejat’s well-done work offers a close look at certain topics in greater detail, such as mathematics, a subject on which the author has written before. She approaches the field from the perspective of a Neo-Babylonian scholar, as can be seen by her treatment of religion, slavery, crafts and labor, and others.

2. Perspectives on Neo-Babylonian Material Culture P. R. S. Moorey (1999) provides a recent comprehensive archaeological “synthesis of the major industries and technologies of the ancient Near East . . . the author covers a chronological range that traces the first (prehistoric) use of the material and/or technology through to its later methods of manufacture in the Late Iron Age.” 8 There is thus much valuable material for the student of the Neo-Babylonian period. From the perspective of Neo-Babylonian textual evidence, there are still a great many unknowns, despite the fact that the Neo-Babylonian period is the second best-attested period in Mesopotamian antiquity. 9 An innovative probe into “material culture,” including, but not limited to, Neo-Babylonian civilization, was undertaken by Oppenheim, in his volume Ancient Mesopotamia. Oppenheim organized his survey into what he called “Three vistas: plants-animals-[and] minerals.” In his section on plants, 10 Oppenheim divided the theme into “[plants grown] in gardens 5. Snell (1997). 6. Nemet-Nejat (1998). 7. Sack (1998). 8. Lamberg-Karlovsky (1997). 9. Cp., for example, the index of Weisberg (2003).

6 points short

310

Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period

and [plants grown] in fields,” 11 the former being an older source of food than the latter. He reflected: If we knew about the relationship between the acreage used for fields and gardens in Mesopotamia, we would have better insight into the economic and social texture than that offered us by many hundreds of documents.12

This problem was remedied with the publication of texts bearing upon fields and field plans by Nemet-Nejat. 13 The date palm provided the most essential subsistence throughout this area. 14 Coming next in importance, as reflected in our textual evidence, are barley and various types of emmer and emmer wheat. These were stored in a massive pile of barley called the karû. Hartman and Oppenheim have studied beer and brewing techniques, as reflected in an important text “inscribed in typical Neo-Babylonian script, . . . written somewhere in southern Mesopotamia during the fifth or fourth century b.c.” 15 Further on the subject of “alcoholic beverages,” note the following novel feature introduced in the period under discussion here: As a rare example of an innovation in Mesopotamian food technology, we discover in Neo-Babylonian texts references to a beer, or better, an alcoholic drink, made of dates, a practice not mentioned before this period.16

Paul-Alain Beaulieu edited a document from the administration of Ekur, the Enlil sanctuary, that supplies new information about the Nippur temples and their brewers. He notes: prosopographical interconnections with other dated documents from Nippur would date this material from “the first half of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. 17

This information augments that from the Eanna-temple of Uruk and elsewhere previously known.

10. Oppenheim (1977) 311–15; see Renfrew (1973) for a valuable discussion on the cereals, pulses, legumes, flax, and fruits of the Near East. 11. Oppenheim (1977) 311. 12. Oppenheim (1977) 312. 13. Nemet-Nejat (1982). 14. Cocquerillat (1968). 15. Hartman and Oppenheim (1950) 1. 16. Oppenheim (1977) 315. 17. Beaulieu (1995) 96.

Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period

311

In the comprehensive picture of domestic animals 18 we note the centrality of sheep, goats, and cows and the significance of dairy products made from them that could be processed into cheese. We note the importance of hair, skins, and wool and the employment of horses for warfare and commerce, and bulls for pulling the plow. Examining Neo-Babylonian economic documents from the cattle industry available to him at the mid-twentieth century, M. San Nicolò examined many aspects of this as reflected in temple transactions. 19 In the category of usage of animal products, we can think of tanning and weaving. Landsberger sorted out the problem of colors and fabrics in his article on that subject, bringing much important material from Middle and Late Babylonian texts. 20 As for minerals, such features as stone-working for tools and weapons, work on beads, amulets and pendants, and cylinder seals have been studied from an archaeological and lexical point of view. 21 Oppenheim described the importance of the chamber oven, the use of iron, copper, and bronze. His insights into glass making were, of course, a result of his own research on this topic. 22 He then cited the widespread “three main uses of clay in Mesopotamia—pottery, clay tablets, and bricks.” 23

3. Perspectives on Neo-Babylonian Non-Material Culture It should not cause surprise that the material side of Neo-Babylonian culture has been more thoroughly investigated than the non-material side. It is easier to access and study objects from the material culture that can be held in one’s hand than to gain entree to the subtleties of non-material culture. Nevertheless, it is possible to learn a lot about the non-material aspects of Neo-Babylonian culture from several important sources. First, one might mention the surviving literary compositions. The poems, hymns and prayers of the Neo-Babylonian period reflect a broad benevolence, universalism and spirituality that are characteristic of our own religious faith. 24 18. Clutton-Brock (1981) discusses aspects of domestication of animals, geography and nomenclature with much material on the ancient Near East. 19. San Nicolò (1948). 20. Landsberger (1967). 21. See Moorey (1999) chapters 1, 5 and 6; Gibson and Biggs (1977). 22. Oppenheim (1970). See Moorey (1999) 189ff. 23. Oppenheim (1977) 324. 24. Weisberg (1996) 226. See also Foster (1993) vol. 2—incorporating, in Foster’s words, “The Mature Period” (1500–1000 b.c.) and “The Late Period” (1000–100 b.c.) of Akkadian literature. This a masterly collection of late works. On p. 905 is one of my

312

Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period

Another aspect of religious life that is possible to “read” rather clearly is that of names people gave their children. The personal names reflect individual prayers, often requesting divine protection and sometimes asking for the restoration of lost family members.25

The workings of the temples can be understood both from archaeological and philological materials. The precincts of the temple contained both cultic rooms and various auxiliary chambers and areas that housed numerous economic activities.26

One of the problems involved in the combination of material culture with “Persönliche Frömmigkeit” is that Babylonian (and Assyrian) religion as we know it is essentially “royal” and does not involve “collective responsibility.” 27 The individual has not much to do except watch from a distance. One does not get the impression that the individual had much to do with religion. Perhaps in the case of a sick child one would need to get an exorcism performed or the like—then there was the involvement of the individual. But otherwise, not. The cult that we know of is the cult if “official” religion. Personal religion intersects with official religion at the festivals that we know of in the Neo-Babylonian period. Nevertheless, one does not see a heavy connection between the private person and the public, official structures. 28 Thorkild Jacobsen had the notion that there was an evolution from the third to the second to the first millennia. He described the life and culture of the Neo-Babylonian period in the following terms: A world, barely livable before, had now collapsed and become rank jungle.29

But it is our feeling that the personal religious fervor expressed in the examples quoted above, such as in personal names, hymns and prayers, and visits and donations to the temples tell a different story. Looking for examples of personal piety leads us to Leo Oppenheim’s comments in a chapter on particular cases of non-literary genres: favorites—late, though Assyrian and not Babylonian—perhaps the most deeply moving personal poem from ancient Mesopotamia, telling about a woman’s tragic death in childbirth. It is translated also in Reiner (1985), where it is entitled “An Assyrian Elegy.” 25. Weisberg (1996) 226. Knut Tallqvist (1905) is still the basic source for NeoBabylonian personal names. 26. Weisberg (1996) 228. A recent work that collects and studies cuneiform material dealing with temples is George (1993). 27. See Shao (1989). 28. See Cohen (1993) 391–99, 427–53. 29. Jacobsen (1976) 226.

Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period

313

At times, personal requests and all sorts of incidentals are added [to letters answering queries of the king]. The scholar ends the report with his name, in the same abrupt and matter-of-fact way he began. (Here Oppenheim’s note [68 on p. 382] reads: “For a unique [because private] reference to astrological matters, see the Neo-Babylonian letter UET 4 168.”)30

Much important work on everyday life in the Neo-Babylonian period has been accomplished in recent decades. Many scholar have emphasized the integration of material and non-material culture. We feel their example is worth following. 31

Bibliography Albertz, Rainer 1978 Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion. Calwer Theologische Monographien 9. Stuttgart. Arnold, B. T. 1985 Babylonian Letters from the Kuyunjik Collection. Seventh Century Uruk in Light of New Epistolary Evidence. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain 1995 The Brewers of Nippur. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 47, 85–96. Childe, V. Gordon 1967 What Happened in History. Rev. ed. Baltimore, Maryland. Clutton-Brock, Juliet 1981 Domesticated Animals from Early Times. Austin and London. Cocquerillat, Denise 1968 Palmeraies et Cultures de l’Eanna d’Uruk (559–520). Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka Band 8. Berlin. Cohen, Mark E. 1993 The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Maryland. Contenau, Georges 1950 La vie quotidienne à Babylon et Assyrie. Paris. 1966 Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria. New York. Foster, Benjamin R. 1993 Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. Two Volumes. Bethesda, Maryland.

30. Oppenheim (1977) 279, “Patterns in Non-Literary Texts.” 31. Cp. Snell (1997) ix: “Eckart Otto in a brief essay has suggested that the interest in the field among Christian biblicists derives from their sense that today faith and daily life are separated in people’s lives, and to study ancient Israel’s society may be a way for them to see how faith and daily life were once integrated and perhaps could be again.”

314

Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period

Fudge, Sarah 2000 The Lure of the Past. Ancient Man’s Interest in His History. With Translations of the Neo-Babylonian Texts of the Carlos Museum. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio. George, A. R. 1993 House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Winona Lake, Ind. Gibson, McGuire, and Robert D. Biggs 1977 Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 6. Malibu, Calif. Hallo, W. W. 1968 Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition. Journal of the American Oriental Society 88, 71–89. Hallo, W. W., and W. K. Simpson 1998 The Ancient Near East. A History. 2nd edition. Fort Worth, Texas. Hartman, Louis F., and A. L. Oppenheim 1950 On Beer and Brewing Techniques in Ancient Mesopotamia. According to the XXIIIrd Tablet of the Series HAR.ra = hubullu. Supplement to the Journal of the American Oriental Society 10. Jacobsen, Thorkild 1976 The Treasures of Darkness. New Haven, Connecticut. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1997 Our Past Matters: Materials and Industries of the Ancient Near East. Journal of the American Oriental Society 117, 87–102. Landsberger, Benno 1967 Über Farben im Sumerisch-Akkadischen. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21, Special Volume Honoring Professor Albrecht Goetze, 139–73. Moorey, P. R. S. 1999 Ancient Mesopotamia Materials and Industries. The Archaeological Evidence. Winona Lake, Indiana [reprinted from Oxford University Press, 1994]. Nemet-Nejat, Karen Rhea 1982 Late Babylonian Field Plans in the British Museum. Studia Pohl, Series Maior 11, Rome. 1998 Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Daily Life through History. Westport, Connecticut. Oppenheim, A. L. 1970 Glass and Glass-making in Ancient Mesopotamia. New York. 1977 Ancient Mesopotamia. 2nd edition, Erica Reiner, ed. Chicago. Otto, Eckart 1981 Sozialgeschichte Israels. Probleme und Perspektiven. Ein Diskussionspapier. Biblische Notizen. Beiträge zur exegetischen Diskussion. Heft 15 [Bamberg], 87–92. Redford, Douglas W. 1998 Quest for the Crown Jewel: The Centrality of Egypt in the Foreign Policy of Esarhaddon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Everyday Life in the Neo-Babylonian Period

315

Reiner, Erica 1985 Your Thwarts in Pieces, Your Mooring Rope Cut. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Renfrew, Jane M. 1973 Palaeoethnobotany. The Prehistoric Food Plants of the Near East and Europe. New York. Robbins, Ellen 1996 Tabular Sacrifice Records and the Cultic Calendar of Neo-Babylonian Uruk. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 48, 61–87. Sack, Ronald H. 1998 Review of Daniel Snell, Life in the Ancient Near East. In Journal of the American Oriental Society 118, pp. 601–2. San Nicolò, M. 1948 Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln. I, Orientalia NS 17, 273–93. 1949 Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln. II, Orientalia NS 18, 288–306. 1951 Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln. III, Orientalia NS 20, 129–50. 1954 Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln. IV, Orientalia NS 23, 351–82. 1956 Materialien zur Viehwirtschaft in den neubabylonischen Tempeln. V, Orientalia NS 25, 24–38. Setness, Daniel Edward 1984 Pantheon, Piety and Religious Beliefs in the Neo-Babylonian Royal Inscriptions. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, New York. Shao, Joseph T. 1989 A Study of Akkadian Royal Hymns and Prayers. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio. Snell, Daniel C. 1997 Life in the Ancient Near East. New Haven, Connecticut. Stager, Lawrence 1985 The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260, 1–35. Tallqvist, Knut L. 1905 Neubabylonisches Namenbuch. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae. Helsingførs. Weisberg, David B. 1996 The Neo-Babylonian Empire. In Royal Cities of the Biblical World, Joan Goodnick Westenholz, ed. Jerusalem, 221–33. 2003 The Oriental Institute Neo-Babylonian Texts. Oriental Institute Publications 122. Chicago, Illinois. Wright, Paul H. 1994 The City of Larsa in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods. A Study of Urban and Intercity Relations in Antiquity. Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio.

A Neo-Babylonian Dialogue Document (3.123) A widely used legal formulation, which scholars have entitled the “Dialogue Document,” makes its appearance in the Middle and Neo-Babylonian periods of ancient Mesopotamia (late second and first millennia bce). Many students of these texts (see bibliography) have noticed striking parallels to Genesis 23, which tells of Abraham’s purchase of a burial cave for his wife, Sarah. The name “Dialogue Document” derives from the fact that the negotiations between the parties to the transaction are recorded not in an “objective” style (i.e., in the third person) but in a “subjective” formulation in which the participants speak in the first person. The five components of the Dialogue Document are: 1. Proposal for transaction, formulated in the first person. 2. Agreement of the second party, expressed by the verb semû (“to hear”). 3. Weighing out of the silver (including “additional payment”). 4. Declaration of the consummation of the transaction. 5. Witnesses The Dialogue Document is employed in slave sales, real estate sales and real estate leases as well as in adoptions and marriages. Below are pointed out examples of the features of the Dialogue Document as recorded in the adoption tablet of a girl from the time of rule of the Elamite king, Hallusu, 1 on a tablet from the collection of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Museum Number A 33248, as well as the parallel form in Genesis 23. The biblical parallels are: Ephron’s proposal (v. 15); Abraham’s agreement (v. 16); weighing out of the silver [Reprinted from Archival Documents from the Biblical World, vol. 3 of The Context of Scripture, ed. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger (Leiden: Brill, 2003) pp. 271–72.] 1. According to A. K. Grayson, “Chronicle I,” in Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1975; reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), and other sources, Hallusu ruled Elam for six years (699–693 bce). But this is contradicted by the date on this economic document, which assigns him (at least) fifteen years total. Several possible solutions have been proposed by the present author (D. B. Weisberg, “The Length of the Reign of Hallusu-Insusinak,” in JAOS [Studies in Islam and the Ancient Near East Dedicated to Franz Rosenthal] 104/1 [1984] 213–17), but none of them is conclusive.

316

A Neo-Babylonian Dialogue Document (3.123)

317

(v. 16); declaration of transfer of ownership of property to Abraham, and description of property (v. 17) and witnesses (v. 18). (1–4) Samas-ußur, descendant of Íilla (and Kidinniti, his wife, spoke thus to Ninurta-iddin and Lu-belti: “Akkaiti, 2 your daughter, give me, let her be my daughter.” (5–9) Afterwards, Ninurta-iddin listened to him (and) gave his daughter, Akkaditi, in adoption, to Samas-ußur. Samas-ußur, of his own free will, gave a tug2.kur.ra garment 3 (and) a sir’am garment, as additional payment to Ninurta-iddin and Lu-belti. (10) Wherever Akkaditi goes, she is our daughter. (11–17) [. . .] . . . , at such time as the family of the house of Samas-ußur should come forward with a claim and do not say to Akkaiti as follows: “You are a maidservant, Akkaditi.” Akkaiti is a free woman (lit. “a daughter of Nippur”), no one shall have any authority over her, nor . . . shall he return [X mi]nas of silver. (18–19) Whoever ªchangesº [this] agreement—may Anu, Enlil and Ea, ªthe great gods,º curse him with an irrevocable curse. (20) At the sealing of this document (were) Suma descendant of [X.X.X] (21) Kinenua descendant of Rimut Ninurta-mukin-x (line 22) descendant of Ninurta-ah-iddin [X-X-]kidin descendant of Ahhesa The scribe (was) (23) Ah-lumur descendant of Belsunu (At the) city of Sumundanas 4 (24) (in the) month of Addaru, day 15, (in the) 15th year of Hallusu, (25) King of Elam.

References Grayson, A. K. 1975 “Chronicle I.” Pp. 77–79 in Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin; reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

2. The name of the girl is spelled two different ways in the document. The name can mean “a woman of Akkad (= Babylonia)” or perhaps, it may be a shortened form of a name meaning “she who belongs to the goddess of Akkad.” 3. The nature as well as the reading of this garment are unknown. 4. A southern Elamite city whose precise location is unknown; cf. Weisberg 1984: 215 and n. 22.

318

A Neo-Babylonian Dialogue Document (3.123)

Petschow, H. 1965 “Die neubabylonische Zwiegesprächesurkunde und Genesis 23.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 19: 103–20. 1974 Mittelbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. 1. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologische-Historische Klasse 64/4. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Roth, M. 1989 Babylonian Marriage Agreements: 7th–3rd Centuries b.c. Alter Orient und Altest Testament 222. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. San Nicolò, M. 1925 “Zur Entwicklung der babylonischen Urkundenformen.” Pp. 23–25 in Abhandlungen zur antiken Rechtsgeschichte: Festschrift für Gustav Hanausek zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstage am 4. September 1925. Graz: J. Meyerhoff. 1931 “Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte im Bereiche der Keilschriftlichen Rechtsquellen.” Pp. 152–60 in Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning: beretning om dets virksomhet inntil sommern 1931. Ed. by F. Stang. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co. Tucker, G. 1966 “The Legal Background of Genesis 23.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85: 77–84. Weinfeld, M. 1982 “Commentary to Genesis 23.” P. 147 in The Encyclopedia of the World of the Bible. Jerusalem: Revivim [Hebrew]. Weisberg, D. B. 1984 “The Length of the Reign of Hallusu-Insusinak.” JAOS [Studies in Islam and the Ancient Near East Dedicated to Franz Rosenthal] 104/1: 213– 17. 2003 The Neo-Babylonian Texts of the Oriental Institute Collection. Oriental Institute Publications 122. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

A Mar Banutu Text from the Town of Hubat The growing discussion about the class of people called mar bani (cp. most recently John MacGinnis, “The Manumission of a Royal Slave,” Acta Sumerologica 15 [1993], pp. 99–106) has prompted me to publish Oriental Institute text A 32099 (dating to Amel-Marduk year 2 = 560 b.c.) at this time in N.A.B.U. I hope to include it with a more extensive discussion in a forthcoming edition of Neo-Babylonian texts from the Oriental Institute Collection. I was able to discuss the text and some underlying dynamics of its NeoBabylonian social setting with Paul-Alain Beaulieu: I thank him for his help. I gratefully acknowledge permission of the Curator of the Oriental Institute Tablet Collection, J. A. Brinkman, to publish the text here. Scholars whose helpful comments have been utilized are mentioned in the comments below. A 32099 1dUTU.NUMUN.DÙ

A-sû sá 1ba-la-†u A 1dIM-ra-bi Obv. 1. 2. ina hu-ud lib-bi-sú IM.DUB LÚ DUMU.DÙ-ú-tu 3. sá SAL la-qip-tum ù DUMU.MES-e-sú 4. a-na UD.MES ul-lí-a ik-nu-uk 5. SAL la-qip-ti u DUMU.MES-e-sú 6. LÚ DUMU.MES DÙ.MES sú-nu ina il-ki 7. EN-ú-tu sá ina UGU 1dUTU.NUMUN.DÙ 8. SAL la-qip-ti u DUMU.MES-e-sú 9. za-ku-ú a-sar ßi-ba-a-ta 10. SAL la-qip-tum DUMU.MES-e-sú a-na 11. É LÚ DUMU.DÙ-ªiº ta-sap-par ____________________________________________________ 12. sá dib-bi an-nu-tu BAL-ú 13. da-num dEN.LÍL u dé-a 14. NÍG.GIG-su li-ir-ru-ru 15. dAMAR.UTU u dzar-pa-ni-tum ZÁH-sú 16. liq-bu-ú dAG pa-qid kis-sat [Reprinted from N.A.B.U. (Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires) 3 (1993) 68–69.]

319

A Mar Banutu Text from the Town of Hubat

320

17. AN-e u KI-tim mi-na-a-ta 18. UD.MES-sú GÍD.DA.MES li-kar-ra Rev. 19. d30 u dUTU ina di-in-ni-sú a-a iz-zi-zu 20. dDILBAT dINNIN GASAN KUR.KUR SAHAR.SUB.BA-a 21. lis-sá-bis-su nis dLÚ.dAMAR.UTU LUGAL-sú-nu 22. iz-kur-ru SAL la-qip-tum u DUMU.MES-e-sú 23. ina dGASAN sá UNUG.KI u dna-na-a it-tim-mu-u 24. ki-i UD-mu ma-la bal-†a-nu 25. 1dUTU.NUMUN-ib-ni ni-it-te-e-iq _____________________________________________________ 26. ina ka-nak IM.DUB MU.MES _____________________________________________________ 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

IGI 1dUTU.MU A-sú sá 1KAR.dEN A 1ba-bu-tú 1dEN.SES.MES.MU A-sú sá 1ú-bar A LÚ.SIMUG 1da-num-SES.MES.URÙ A-sú sá 1dUTU.NUMUN.DÙ DUMU 1dIM-ra-bi LÚ.UMBISAG 1dAG.DÙ.SES A-sú sá 1e-ri-si A LÚ.SU.KU6 URU hu-ba-at ITI.BÁRA UD.8.KÁM MU 2.KÁM dLÚ.dAMAR.UTU LUGAL TIN.TIR.KI Translation

(1–4) Samas-zer-ibni, son of Bala†u, descendant of Adad-rabi, of his own free will, wrote a document granting free-citizenship status to Laqiptum and her sons, irrevocably. (5–6) Laqiptum and her sons are free citizens. (7–9) Laqiptum and her sons are clear of responsibility for performing the ilku-service that rests upon Samas-zer-ibni. (9–11) Insofar as she may wish, Laqiptum may send her sons to ( join) a family of free citizens. _______________________________________________________________ (12–14) Whoever changes this agreement, may Anu, Enlil and Ea curse him with an evil . (15–16) May Marduk and Íarpanitu pronounce his destruction. (16–18) May Nabû, in charge of the heavens and the earth, shorten the span of his (allotted) future days. (19) May Sîn and Samas not stand (at his side) during his lawsuit. (20–21) May Dilbat (and) Innin, Mistress of Lands, shroud him with leprosy.

A Mar Banutu Text from the Town of Hubat

321

(21–25) Invoking the life of Amel-Marduk, their King, they took an oath. Laqiptum and her sons swore by the Lady of Uruk and Nanâ: As long as we live, we shall not perform any harmful action against Samas-zer-ibni. _______________________________________________________________ (26) At the sealing of this tablet _______________________________________________________________ (27) Before Samas-iddin, son of E†ir-Bel, descendant of Babutu. (28) Bel-ahhe-iddin, son of Ubar, descendant of the Smith. (29) Anum-ahhe-ußur, son of Samas-zer-ibni. (30) descendant of Adad-rabi. (31) The scribe was Nabû-bani-ah, son of Erisi. (32) descendant of the Fisher. City of Hubat. (33) Month of Nisannu. Day 8. Year 2. (34) Amel-Marduk. King of Babylon. Textual Comments (9)

The use of asar in the sense of “insofar as” is based upon AHw 83b sub asru III. (20–21) In the passage containing the curse relating to leprosy, lis-sá-bis-su is an error for lisalbissu. Note the following errors as well: (4) ul-lí-a is spelled with the KAK sign instead of NI. (14) The noun is omitted in the curse formula. (21 and 34) The RN has the determinative for DINGIR in the first position: dLÚ.dAMAR.UTU for LÚ.dAMAR.UTU. (25) Perhaps emend to PN netteq (I owe the suggestion to Erica Reiner). (25) etequ is normally used for transgressing a time limit, boundary or the like (see CAD E 384). I know of no other usages relating to people. (27) The reading of KAR in 1KAR.dEN and similar Neo-Babylonian Personal Names is ambiguous. CAD M/2 p. 269 s.v. musezibu and E p. 425 s.v. ezebu read Musezib-dBel, on the basis of VAS 4 17:3 // 13. Whereas CAD E p. 403 s.v. e†eru reads E†ir-dBel, presumably on the basis of Moldenke II 10:9 (= 1KAR-ir-dEN). (29) This witness is the son of the man who grants mar banutu status to Laqiptum and her sons. (31) J. A. Brinkman wonders whether the correct rendering of 1dAG.DÙ.SES should not be Nabû-tabni-ußur rather than Nabûbani-ah. For banû in PN’s, see CAD B 88. Tallqvist NBN pp. 309f. and Stamm Namengebung p. 355.

322

(32)

A Mar Banutu Text from the Town of Hubat Examples of the name Nabû-tabni-ußur, with the basic stem preterite second person singular tab-ni element spelled syllabically, can be found in Tallqvist NBN p. 149. The imperative ußur is spelled with both SES and ú-ßur. The question is therefore, whether d1AG.DÙ.SES is a logographic rendering of this same name. Occurrences of the spelling 1dAG.DÙ.SES (as here) are numerous (see Tallqvist, NBN p. 125), but what is the correct reading? Note the rare syllabic spelling in VAS 4 76:4: 1dAG-ba-ni-SES (CAD PN Index, courtesy Research Associate Remko Jas). In contrast, in the Personal Name Sîn-tabni-ußur (Stamm p. 158), the element tabni is spelled overwhelmingly syllabically. Note in addition that there is no short form Nabû-tabni, corresponding to Sîn-tabni. None of this is conclusive. However, presumably on the basis of the rare occurrence, recent authors such as Gehlken (AUWE 5), Joannès (TEBR) and Kessler (AUWE 8) [including the present author in YOS 17] have continued to read the name as Nabû-bani-ah. The spelling of the town Hubat in this line appears to resolve the dispute between Zadok and Joannès on the rendering of this name, in favor of the latter. See Zadok, RGTC 8 (1985) p. 166 s.v. Humit.

A Neo-Babylonian Temple Report 1 The letter presented here belongs to the category of texts which we may call “temple reports” in that they are generally addressed to someone having an important administrative position at the cult center. The person to whom the letter is addressed is absent from his post (probably having gone out on some temple business) and is kept informed about the progress of affairs during his absence. The opening references to the health of the recipient, and to the “bread, fine beer and the gods” are purely stock phrases meant to show that everything which the absent official is responsible for, or concerned about, is being done despite his absence. These phrases are not “news items” but are on the level of the phrases of the city governors in the Mari letters who introduce their letters to the king with phrases which are meant to show that they are doing their duty. 2 The real information to be conveyed begins with the detailed remarks which follow the stylized “heading.” In our letter this information begins with the report about the goods donated to the temple by the king, perhaps for some festival. The fact that the king has given foodstuffs and other items to the temple for a certain occasion is in line with the traditions in which the king makes votive offerings to the temples (perhaps in order to secure their political support). If our dating of the text is correct, the fact that the king presented these goods to the temple is of special importance, since it would indicate to the Babylonians that the Persian kings (probably Cyrus or Cambyses) were continuing their support for the local cults. The contents of the letter can be summarized as follows: three officials report to a fourth, probably the Royal Commissioner of Eanna from 539– 525 b.c., concerning the state of affairs at Eanna in the latter’s absence. They send their formal greetings (lines 1–8), including a report that the [Reprinted from Journal of the American Oriental Society 87 (1967) 8–12.] 1. The writer wishes to thank Professor I. J. Gelb, Curator of the Tablet Collection at the Oriental Institute, for permission to publish this text, A 5345 + 5364. He is also indebted to Professors A. L. Oppenheim and R. D. Biggs for their many helpful suggestions, and to Professor H. G. Güterbock, whose careful perusal of his copy has resulted in numerous improvements. Abbreviations used in this article are those of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Volume B vi ff. 2. Cf. e.g., alum Mari ekallum u halßum salim ARM 6 14:5 f., et passim.

323

324

A Neo-Babylonian Temple Report

offerings are in good condition and that the gods have gone on procession (?) on a certain day of Tammuz (9–10). The king has given wine, honey, leather bags, and date palm branches to the temple (11–16) aside from the Dilmun dates which are normally offered to the deity (17–18) (19–23 are fragmentary). Wool and some other commodities have been given to the bakers and the brewers (24–27). Imgur-Samas, Satammu of Esagila, has told the three officials that the king has inquired of him asking, “how much of the property of the Lady-of-Uruk has come up to Babylon?” (27–32). The three men report that all the men, as many as were sent to Eanna by their lord, have been sent back to him (32–35). A 5345 + 5364 Transliteration obv. 1. [IM 1d x x x] SE[S].ME.MU 2. [1x x] ªxº-si-dAMAR.UD u 1TIN-[†u] 3. ªa-naº 1dAG.SES.MU EN-i-ªniº 4. ªUD-muº-us-su dEN u dAG dGASAN sá UNUG.KI 5. ªu? dna-ºna-a ana TIN ZI.ME a-ra-ku 6. ªUD.ºMES †u-ub lìb-bi †u-ub UZU 7. ªpa-ºni ha-du-tu sá DINGIR.MES u [LU]GAL 8. a-na muh-hi ªEN-i-ºni nu-ßal-li 9. NINDA.HI.A ba-ni KAS.ªSAGº †a-a-bi DINGIR.MES 10. ina ªx-miº UD.15.KÁM ITI.SU it-ti-bi 11. u ªit-taº[-al?-la?-ku x x] ªGÌRº 12. sá É.AN.NA 20 D[UG kan-du s]á GESTIN.HI.A 13. sá e-bir Í[D] 5 DUG kan-du sá LÀL.HI.A 14. 10 KUS mas-ki-r[u].MES sá hu-ßa-bu 15. 2 lim GÚ.UN sá [h]u-ßa-bu GIS.GISIM=MAR ªxº[(x)] 16. LUGAL a-na dGASAN sá UNUG.KI [SÌ e-zu-ub] 17. as-ni-e sá a-na ªUD.1.KÁMº [x x] 18. ªi-ºqar-ru- ªbuº [x x x x] 19. [x x] ni k[a x x x x] lo.e. 20. [x] ªxº [x x x x] rev. 21. [x] ªxº ba [x x x x x] 22. ªsẠa-na ITI.KI[N] ªxº [x x x] 23. a-kan-na ia-a-nu 10 [x x x] 24. SÍG.HI.A ù 5 ME [x x x x] 25. tar-di-ni-e sá a-na pap-[pa-su] 26. a-na LÚ.MU.MES u LÚ.SIRAS.MES 27. in-na-an-di-na EN KU 1SE.GA.dUTU A-sú 27a. 28. LÚ.SÀ.TAM sá É.SAG.ÍLA

A Neo-Babylonian Temple Report

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

325

ªiq-ta-º ba-an-na-a-sú um-ma LUGAL il-ta-la-an-ni um-ma ki-ma-a NÍG.GA sá dGASAN sá UNUG.KI a-na TIN.TIR.KI i-la-a LÚ.ERIM.MES gab-bi ma-la a-na a-kan-na EN is-pu-ra UD.18.KÁM a-na pa-ni EN-iá ni-il-ta-par

A 5345 + 5364 Translation (Obv.) Letter of . . . ahhe-iddin, (2) . . . -Marduk, and Bala†u (3) to Nabû-ah-iddin, our lord. (4) Daily to Bel and Nabû, the Lady-of-Uruk (5) and Nana for the preservation of life, length of (6) days, peace of mind and well-being of flesh, (7) acceptance before the gods and the king (8) for our lord we pray. (9) The bread looks fine, the beer tastes good, the gods (10) have gone on procession (?) in . . . on the 15th day of Duzu (11) and they have gone a[bout? . . .] (12) of Eanna.

326

A Neo-Babylonian Temple Report

Twenty kandu-vessels of wine (13) from (the district) across the river, five kandu-vessels of honey, (14) ten leather bags, (for rafts) of wood, (15) two thousand loads of branches of date palms . . . (16) the king [gave to] the Lady-of-Uruk [aside from] (17) the Dilmun-dates which (18) they (normally) offer to [the deity . . .] (17) on the 1st day. (19–21) broken) (23) There is no [. . .] here (22) for the month of Ululu . . . (23) Ten [. . .] (24) of wool and five hundred [. . .] (25) of second quality which (27) have been given (26) to the bakers and the brewers (27) . . . Imgur-Samas, son (28) Administrator of Esagila, (29) has said to us as follows: (30) “the king has inquired of me as follows: (30) ‘how much of the property of the Lady-of-Uruk (32) has come up to Babylon’?” (34) On the 18th day (35) we have sent to my lord (33) all (32) the men, (33) as many as (34) my lord sent (33) here.

Notes to the Text 3. The person to whom the letter is addressed, Nabû-ah-iddin, is clearly an important official connected with the Eanna temple at Uruk. That he is an important official may be gathered from the fact that he is addressed as “our lord” here and in lines 34–35. This may also be gathered from the length of the greeting and the contents of the letter, which deal with matters concerning the temple and the king. According to San Nicolò 3 a Nabû-ah-iddin was the res sarri bel piqitti Eanna (“Royal Commissioner and Executive Officer of Eanna”) from 539/8 to 526/5 b.c., during the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses. W. F. Saggs has noted that . . . the shatammu seems always to have exercised control from Eanna, whilst the resh sharri bel piqitti, though often associated with the shatammu at Eanna, is quite commonly found inspecting, assessing and reporting on estates and canals away from Erech. 4

If this is the case, we have before us in our letter an example of officials of Eanna reporting to the absent Royal Commissioner concerning events at the temple while he is away. Another fact which fits this interpretation is that in the letter the officials report that the king has addressed an inquiry concerning some property of Eanna to the Satammu of Esagila. This is significant because Nabû-ah-iddin is the Royal Commissioner and such inquiries would naturally be of interest to him, as the king’s representative at the temple. 4. umussu: Our text shows certain formal contacts with the Babylonian letters in the Harper Corpus, particularly the greeting formula in umussu. The same deities 3. “Beiträge zu einer Prosopographie neubabylonischer Beamten der Zivil- und Tempelverwaltung,” SBAW (1941) p. 19. 4. “Two Administrative Officials at Erech in the 6th Century b.c.,” Sumer 15 (1959) p. 30.

A Neo-Babylonian Temple Report

327

as in our text are even evoked in ABL 266–67, 274, 277, 324, etc. This fact would seem to argue for an earlier date than the one we had proposed in note 3, above. However, since this formula is attested for the later period as well, cf. Ebeling, Glossar, p. 42 f., it should not be the decisive factor in dating. 9. For a similar report on offerings and rites of the temple in the Middle Babylonian period, compare Robert D. Biggs, “A Letter from Kassite Nippur,” JCS 19 (1965) 98 ff. 10., 22. The references to Duzu ( June-July) and Ululu (August-September) indicate that the letter was probably written in late spring or early summer. 10. For tebû in the sense of “to rise, go on procession,” see RAcc. 129: 2. 12., 13. kandu = Aramaic kanda’, Hebrew kad, “pitcher, jug.” For other containers used to hold wine, cf. sappatu (Nbn. 247: 11, Camb. 212: 1), udû (Ebeling Glossar 14), and dannu (CAD D 98). karan eber nari: This refers to wine from northern Syria (cf. CAD E 8). Grapes were not grown in southern Mesopotamia; wine was imported. For the provenience of wines, GCCI 1 225: 1–4 (dating from the 42nd year of Nebuchadnezzar = 563 b.c.) is of interest: (1) 2 DUG sap-pa-a-ta (2) s[á K]UR i-zal-la (3) 12 URU É.ME (4) 2 KUR ar-na-ba-nu (1) Two sappatu-vessels (2) from the land of Izalla, (3) 12 from the city of Bitate (4) (and) 2 (from) the land of Arnabanu. For the three localities mentioned, we have the following information: Ißalla (Azalla): Ort in der palmyrenischen Steppe zwischen Jarki und Damaskus . . . 5 Bitate: Land, aus dem Nebokadnezar II. Wein bezieht.6 Arnabanu: einer der Ruinenhügel westlich am Zusammenfluss des Óabûr mit dem Dschaghdschagh, vermutlich der Tell Ósakah. 7 14. maskiru: The large skin bags to which this refers could be inflated with air (as here) for use in rafts, or filled with wine or water. For a discussion of this term, cf. “Die Inschriften vom Tell Halaf,” AfO Beiheft 6 (1940) p. 18, note to line 5. 17. asnû: In Neo-Babylonian business documents, asnû date palms are generally mentioned separately from ordinary date palms, indicating that they were probably of a rarer variety. Asnû-dates were very sweet, cf. M. Civil in JNES 23 (1964), and note on page 9: assannû du[ssupu] in AHw 75.

5. RLA I p. 325. 6. Ibid. II p. 36. 7. Ibid. I p. 152.

328

A Neo-Babylonian Temple Report

26. SIRAS: SIMxNINDA. For the bakers and brewers, see Goetze, Studies Landsberger 211 ff., Oppenheim, “On Beer and Brewing Techniques,” Suppl. to JAOS 10 (1950), and Chapter 5 of my forthcoming “Guild Structure and Political Allegiance in Early Achaemenid Mesopotamia.” 27. A reading adi †em is not likely because this expression is otherwise unattested in our period; furthermore, the individual components of this expression are not spelled logographically in NB texts. Emendation of EN KU to en-na! would be tempting and would supply a needed transition. 27a. The apilsu of line 27 hangs in thin air without antecedent or regens. We therefore assume that the names of the father and ancestor of Imgur-Samas have been omitted. Another possibility is to delete the words A-su on the assumption that the scribe automatically began this formula after seeing a proper name, but then correctly omitted the balance of the name when he realized he was writing the name of a high official, where this is not called for.8 28. If our dating of this tablet on the basis of the name in line 3 is correct, then we can assume that Imgur-Samas held office at Esagila within this period. This provides us with a new criterion for dating texts and as such is a welcome addition to our prosopographic lists. 31. kima: “wieviel?” (AHw 477b) reflects the Aramaic speech of the scribe, since in Akkadian one would otherwise expect ki maßi. NÍG.GA: In Emesal III 34–35 we find the equations [m u . u ] n . g a r / g a = n í g. g a = ma-ak-ku-ri. 9 OB Lu describes a rich man as l ú . n í g. g a . t u k = sa ma-ku-ra isu (he who possesses property). 10 In the Neo-Babylonian period, the word is generally spelled logographically, but there are a few syllablic spellings (UET 4 110: 7, YOS 3 170: 13). Makkuru can denote all types of animal or agricultural produce, precious metals, etc. 34.–35. beli, belia: This term can refer either to the king (cf. CAD B 194b), to the official mentioned in line 27, or to the official mentioned in line 3 (cf. ibid. 195d f.). If it refers to the king, then lines 32–35 are the response of the three Eanna officials to the query of the king. They say that the men whom the king sent to Eanna, perhaps to accompany the property of the Lady-of-Uruk to Babylon11 have been sent off already. If beli and belia refer to Imgur-Samas, we might take it as a response to the king’s question, as above, or we might take it as a separate remark by the three officials unrelated to the previous question. If the beli and belia refer to Nabû-ah-iddin, then the response obviously has nothing to do with the query of the king. For a similar problem of the interpretation of the word belu, see Biggs, op. cit., p. 95 f.

8. Cf. Dougherty, “Nabonidus and Belshazzar,” YOR 15 (1929) p. 68. 9. MSL 4 p. 30. 10. OB Lu A 58, cf. ibid. B ii 14, sa ma-ak-ku-ra-am isu, CAD I 289d. 11. Cf. Dougherty, “Cuneiform Parallels to Solomon’s Provisioning System,” AASOR 5 (1925) p. 28 f.

A Neo-Babylonian Temple Report

329

We may now deal with several interesting questions arising from our treatment of the text. Can we identify the writers of the letter with any greater degree of certainty? It is possible that the writers of the letter are themselves the bakers and the brewers referred to in lines 24–27. If this is the case, the latter part of the letter might be a complaint on their part that their income has been curtailed, part of it having been sent to Babylon. This identification is attractive because it is the bakers and the brewers who are responsible for the proper functioning of an important part of the cult, the preparation of food for the images. 12 The king’s concern as to how much of the property of the Lady-of-Uruk has come up to Babylon is somewhat perplexing, unless one assumes that the king relied upon the lucrative income of the temples as an important source for his own tax collection system. If this interpretation is correct, the king might be inquiring about temple goods which should have been sent to him in Babylon, but were delayed for some reason. This explains why the king asks how much of the property has come up to Babylon (rather than Esagila). More evidence to the effect that the king taxed temple income may be had from the title of an official stationed in Uruk called sa res sarri sá muhhi quppi sa sarri sa Eanna, “The King’s Officer (actually, “Eunuch”) in Charge of the King’s Basket of Eanna.” This official collected meat, barley and money at the temple and sent them to the king. 13 Against the interpretation presented above, it may be argued that the property is called “the property of the Lady-of-Uruk” and is not referred to as any kind of tax. Further, the inquiry is directed to the Satammu of Esagila, which is difficult to explain if one assumes that taxes are involved here. These facts would seem to argue for an inter-temple affair. 14 12. Cf. A. L. Oppenheim, “The Care and Feeding of the Gods” in Ancient Mesopotamia, Portrait of a Dead Civilization (The University of Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 183–98. 13. Cf. Dougherty, AASOR 5 26 ff. It is conceivable that in our letter no actual property is referred to, but that an inventory tablet is meant. However, I know of no evidence in our period to suggest that an inventory tablet is referred to as makkuru. 14. It is likely that the Satammu of Esagila had political jurisdiction in Babylon under some conditions. This has been shown for Kis and Sippar by B. Landsberger, “Brief des Bischofs von Esagila an König Asarhaddon,” Mededelingen Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 28, 6 (Amsterdam, 1965) p. 62, section h. However, this would still not provide us with unambiguous evidence in our case as to whether or not we are dealing with taxes.

Pirquti or Sirkuti? Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved? This paper focuses upon a Neo-Babylonian legal document from the Tablet Collection of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, accession number A 32117. The document is numbered #38 in our “NeoBabylonian Texts of the Oriental Institute” and was published (except for copy) in Professor Martha Roth’s “A Case of Contested Status.” We quote from her opening paragraph: On 7 July 530 b.c., the judges of King Cyrus II heard a case in Uruk. The case was brought by a slave dedicated to the Lady-of-Uruk against his former master’s wife. The latter had attempted to transfer ownership of the slave to another person, and the slave challenged her right to alienate him. The testimony presented by the litigants raises questions about details of Neo-Babylonian legal and social history: the meanings of the personal status terms mar banî, sirku, and zakû; conditions of marriage between free and semi-free persons, and the status of their offspring; the relationship between state and temple jurisdictions. 1

We have benefited from the fine readings and interpretations of Roth. We differ with her on several points, which we shall attempt to explain. Our approach has a twofold basis: textual and logical, to be presented below. Here, though, we wish to outline our position. [Reprinted from Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicate alla memoria di Luigi Cagni (Istituto Universitario Orientale series minor LXI, ed. Simonetta Graziani; Naples, 2000) 1163–77.] It is a pleasure to thank Simonetta Graziani (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples), Joseph Biancalana (The University of Cincinnati Law School), Edward Boraz (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati), J. A. Brinkman (Curator, Tablet Collection of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago), Susan Conforti (HUC-JIR), Sara Fudge (HUC-JIR), Peter Lushing (Benjamin Cardozo Law School), Herbert Paper (HUC-JIR), Erica Reiner (The Oriental Institute), Martha Roth (The Oriental Institute), Matthew Stolper (The Oriental Institute), Michael Sokoloff (Bar-Ilan University), Ben Zion Wacholder (HUC-JIR) and Richard Weisberg (Benjamin Cardozo Law School), for their gracious help. Any errors that remain in this paper are, of course, solely my responsibility. 1. Roth, 1989, p. 481.

330

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

331

(1) In our view, the case was brought not by a slave, but by a free man. (2) The purpose of the proceedings was not to achieve a “coercive remedy” 2 “against his former master’s wife,” but rather to obtain a “declaratory judgment” 3 from the court. (3) The “former master’s wife” was not a litigant in the case; she was merely a witness. (4) Though the “former master’s wife” did sign a document transferring ownership of the man to another person (as stated in the text), the document was illegal because the man was a free man at the time the document was signed. (5) The principal did not “challenge her right to alienate him.” Rather, the principal was seeking to establish the fact that he had been manumitted and that there were no grounds for re-enslaving him. (6) The meanings of the personal status terms (a) mar banî, (b) sirku, and (c) zakû”; retain their standard usages: (a) a free citizen, (b) a temple slave, and (c) “one whose status has been cleared by (/corroborated by/or in the jurisdiction of) the Lady-ofUruk.” We present our translation, after which we shall give our interpretation of the document. (1–2) Istar-ab-ußur, a zakû sa Istar (sa) Uruk (Roth: “the man dedicated to the Lady-of-Uruk”), testified as follows to the Judges of Cyrus . . . that (3–8) “in the month of Addaru, in the accession year of Cyrus, King of Babylon, King of Lands, Arrabi, son of Samas-uballi† and Inninna-e†erat, his wife, spoke as follows to Nergal-sum-ibni, son of Marduka: ‘Give Inninna-e†erat, your sister, daughter of Arrabi, in marriage to Istar-ab-ußur, our slave!’. (9–20) “Nergal-sum-ibni accepted the proposal of Arrabi and Inninnae†erat, his wife, (and) did give Inninna-e†erat, his sister, in marriage. Arrabi and Inninna-e†erat, his wife, sealed my tablet of citizenship (IM.DUB DUMU-ba-nu-ti-ya ik-nu-ku). They wrote as follows in my tablet: “ ‘Istar-ab-ußur and the children whom Inninna-e†erat bears to Istar-abußur, are zakûti sa Istar (sa) Uruk (Martha Roth: “are mar banî’s [note: at the end of line 16, we see only a few traces, and therefore do not read ªDUMU ba-ni-iº as does M.R.] dedicated to the Lady-of-Uruk”)’.

2. I thank Prof. Peter Lushing for making me aware of this term and of its contrast with the term “declaratory judgment” (see below). 3. Prof. Joseph Biancalana first pointed out this term to me and suggested that our text might be an example of it. A point that has continued to perplex me about the interpretation of the text, is the question of how the re-enslavement described took place. We must assume under the circumstances described [i.e., of re-enslaving a man who had earlier been manumitted] that something like a warrant was issued at which point Istar-ab-ußur put up a fight. But there is no indication of any of this happening. Or, we must ask ourselves, whether someone (e.g., a creditor) could simply appear on the scene without legal authorization and seize another individual in order to satisfy a debt.

332

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

(A curse is then invoked upon anyone who would violate the agreement. Istar-ab-ußur continues his testimony): (21–28) “Now, 9 years later, after Inninna-e†erat had given birth to 3 children for me, 4 Inninna-e†erat, the wife of Arrabi, the very person who had sealed my tablet of citizenship, sold me to Anu-ah-iddin, son of Íilla after the death of Arrabi, her husband; and he (Anu-ah-iddin) branded my hand (with a slave-mark)! 5 You must acknowledge my ( justified) claim against Inninnae†erat!” (28–33) The judges listened to his testimony. They read the tablet proclaiming his citizenship and summoned Inninna-e†erat.

(Her testimony follows): (34–39) “Arrabi, my husband, did indeed seal and turn over to Istar-abußur his tablet. We sealed the tablet of citizenship of Istar-ab-ußur—for himself and any children whom Inninna-e†erat would bear to Istar-ab-ußur— transforming them into free citizens (mar banî), zakuti sa Istar (sa) Uruk (Roth: “dedicated to the Lady-of-Uruk”). (39–41) “Anu-ah-iddin, (acting) without (authority of) saknu or Judge, seized me, and forced me to conclude a contract for the re-enslavement of Istar-ab-ußur (rik-su sá ÌR-ú-tú sá 1dINNIN.ªAD.URÙº it-ti-ya is-ku-us), 6 all the while asserting, ‘I am the creditor7 of your husband’ ”. (42–43) The judges conferred with each other. They did not change the tablet of freedom (†uppi zakuti; Roth: “the tablet recording the dedication of Istar-ab-ußur to the Lady-of-Uruk”) of Istar-ab-ußur, thereby not countermanding the curse of the great gods. (44–45) They reaffirmed (the status of) Istar-ab-ußur and his children (as recorded) in their tablet of redemption (†uppi pirqutisunu; Roth: “but they confirmed Istar-ab-ußur and his children in a tablet recording their status as oblates”).

(Seals of the judges appear on the tablet).

Comments Our text is to be viewed against the background of a private loan. The document of indebtedness (u’iltu), 8 which so far has not turned up, would have spelled out what the couple owed the creditor and under what terms the loan was made (i.e., interest-free or interest-bearing, at what rate, for what period, was there any security taken by the creditor? etc.). 9 4. Roth’s excellent reading: lapaniya tuldu. 5. See Stolper 1998, “Inscribed in Egyptian,” where “marks applied to persons donated or dedicated to temples to indicate their status as oblates (sirkutu) . . .” are thoroughly discussed. 6. Reading courtesy Erica Reiner (is-ku-us from irkus - rakasu). See AHw, 946. 7. Petschow, 1956, p. 19. 8. Ibid., p. 10. 9. Ibid., p. 14.

spread is 15 points long

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

333

When did the creditor, Anu-ah-iddin, extend the loan to the debtor couple, Arrabi and his wife, Inninna-e†erat: was it before 539 b.c., i.e., before the slave was manumitted or after 539 b.c., i.e., after the slave was manumitted? If it was before, then the slave was still the property of the couple. Yet it is clear that the slave was not a formal surety or security for the loan, otherwise how could he have been free for nine years? 10 If it was after, then unless we apply the principle of retroactivity, what right would the creditor have had to re-enslave Istar-ab-ußur? This might happen only in the case of “fraudulent conveyance.” 11 There is another point to be considered: Why did the couple manumit the slave? No reason is given nor is any remuneration alluded to. Finally, what of the family of Istar-ab-ußur? His wife is not mentioned, presumably because she originally was free and there never was any doubt about her status, whereas Istar-ab-ußur originally had been a slave. As for the children, if they were born after the slave was manumitted, then they have free status. Here, then, might be a first proof for the free status of Istarab-ußur. According to lines 42–45, the status of the children, born after Istar-ab-ußur was manumitted, is “reaffirmed,” meaning the children stay as they were—free. It would then follow that Istar-ab-ußur is free also because his status is the same as that of his children. 12

Summary of arguments Here follows a summary of our arguments followed by an expanded text of these arguments. (1) The court proceedings in this text show that the man was freed unconditionally. (2) The proceedings also show that the man is asking the judges to reaffirm his status as a free man. We thus view the document as a request for a “declaratory judgment” rather than a request for a change of status. (3) We suggest a translation of the term zakû more in consonance with its broad meaning: one whose status has been clarified. As the dictionaries show, as often as not, the term may refer to someone who is not a slave. (4) A collated reading pirquti in line 45 fits well into the pattern of the direction of the text.

10. Ibid., pp. 132–48 explores the legal nature of surety law in the Neo-Babylonian period. It would not be possible, with the evidence at hand, to determine what conditions obtained regarding the loan (and type of security, if any) in this text. 11. Perhaps it was with this in mind that the creditor somehow established his problematic claim. 12. I wish to thank Sara Fudge for suggesting this point.

334

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

Expansion of Arguments The whole thrust of the court proceedings in this text militates against the interpretation that the principal figure, Istar-ab-ußur, was re-enslaved legally. How is this so? All who have studied this text agree that Istar-abußur had been manumitted. This follows unambiguously from the following evidence: 1. Istar-ab-ußur produces his tablet of manumission. “The judges listened to his testimony. They read the tablet proclaiming his citizenship . . .” (lines 28–33); and 2. Inninna-e†erat, who, together with her [now deceased] husband, was the previous owner of Istar-ab-ußur, herself confirmed that Istar-ab-ußur was speaking the truth when he claimed that her husband, Arrabi, had sealed and turned over to him (i.e., Istar-ab-ußur) the latter’s tablet of citizenship (lines 34–39). Consequently, the aim of the proceedings must have been to do one of two things: either 1) to disqualify Istar-ab-ußur from having attained the status of a freedman and to re-enslave him; or 2) to reconfirm Istar-abußur’s status of freedom. If we assume that the purpose of the proceedings was to re-enslave Istar-ab-ußur (interpretation #1), on what basis would the re-enslavement have occurred? We would need to see concrete, indisputable evidence to the effect that Istar-ab-ußur’s manumission was in error or that there was a legitimate new reason for re-enslaving him. But no such evidence is forthcoming from the ancient court. Moreover, a crucial point now becomes clear: not only was no incontrovertible evidence presented, no evidence at all was presented to show that Istar-ab-ußur’s manumission was in error or that there was a legitimate reason for re-enslaving him!—What does in fact emerge from this judicial review of the evidence, is that a creditor of the former owners of Istar-ab-ußur had illegally re-enslaved him!: “Anu-ah-iddin, (acting) without (authority of) saknu or judge, seized me [Inninna-e†erat], and forced me [Inninna-e†erat] to agree to conclude a contract for the re-enslavement of Istar-ab-ußur, all the while asserting, ‘I am the creditor of your [late] husband’ ” (39–41). It was this illegal act of coercion that was being challenged by Istar-abußur. If this is a document about the re-enslavement of a temple oblate, then why does the temple play no role in the proceedings? Note that at no point in these proceedings was Istar-ab-ußur ever referred to as a sirku, 13 nor did the temple ever claim that its slave had been 13. Dougherty, 1923, pp. 78–80 has spellings of this term in his Concluding Discussion.

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

335

snatched away. Had this been the case, one could be certain that we would have heard from temple officials immediately. (On the non-appearance of temple authorities in this case, from which I infer their non-involvement, see below.) So it follows that only on the basis of her reading of line 45, can Roth assume that the judges reaffirmed Istar-ab-ußur’s status as a sirku. Let us put aside for a moment the question of the accuracy of this transliteration (on the reading of the pivotal cuneiform sign as PI instead of SI, see below), and instead let us examine Roth’s argument: 1) Istar-ab-ußur was once freed; 2) The judges examined the evidence presented and declared Istar-abußur to be a slave. The missing piece of the argument is that the evidence included a justification for his re-enslavement. Since no grounds for legal re-enslavement of Istar-ab-ußur emerge from the record we have before us, it follows that we must reject interpretation #1, that the aim of the proceedings was to re-enslave Istar-ab-ußur, and accept interpretation #2, that the aim of the proceedings was to reconfirm his status as a free man.

The nature of the legal document before us We have sought a definition from U.S. law, appreciating the fact that the modern legal environment cannot be identified with the ancient one, and that “our matrix has more distinctions than theirs did,” to quote Professor Peter Lushing. Lushing points out that there exists a danger of imposing the conceptual matrix of a later era onto that of an earlier era. The term to be recognized here is “declaratory judgment.” “Declaratory judgment [is a] statutory . . . remedy for the determination of a justiciable controversy where the plaintiff is in doubt as to his legal rights. A binding adjudication of the rights and status of litigants even though no consequential relief is awarded.” 14 According to Lushing, the declaratory judgment is a remedy that is in contrast with a coercive remedy, such as an award of damages. In our case, the slave is asking for a “bare-bones declaration” that would be “binding on society” that he is a free man. The title of Roth’s article, “A Case of Contested Status,” (Roth, 1989) gives the impression that someone other than Istar-ab-ußur (presumably the temple) is seeking a verdict in order to re-enslave him. We believe that the term “declaratory judgment” gives a more plausible scenario, not one in which any action is ordered. Here is the definition of the Random House Dictionary:

14. Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 368.

336

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

declaratory judgment: Law. a judgment that merely decides the rights of the parties in a given transaction, situation, or dispute, but does not order any action. 15

In accordance with this definition, we feel that it is Istar-ab-ußur himself who is asking the court for relief from an unauthorized act, and that the net result of the account we have before us, the declaratory judgment, is the reaffirmation of the freedom of Istar-ab-ußur.

The Implications of the Term zakû We see no need to reexamine the terms zakû (“one whose status has been clarified”) together with mar banî (“free citizen”) and sirku (“temple slave” / “oblate”) as Roth suggested, since sirku is not in the text and mar banî and sirku are mutually exclusive. Once Roth had read the word sirkuti in line 45 of the text, she was confronted with a problem: how could a person be both slave (sirku) and free (mar banî) 16 at the same time? To understand the dynamic of this document, she did the logical thing, and sought to redefine the concept of the mar banî. But it seems to us that this term always unambiguously designates a “free citizen,” with no qualifications possible (see below). As for the term sirku, which unambiguously designates a temple slave or oblate, our only question is whether or not to read sirkuti in line 45. For our part, we shall not redefine any of the terms. We shall merely take a closer look at the term zakû sa Istar (sa) Uruk because in this text, Istar-ab-ußur is called both a mar banî as well as a zakû sa Istar (sa) Uruk. The text provides us a unique chance to refine our understanding of this term. As a first step, let us see what the two modern dictionaries have done with the term zakû. First, note the following entries from the CAD: (1) CAD Z pp. 23 ff. s.v. zakû adj. mng. 5. “free of claims” b) “referring to human beings” 2u in NB. (2) CAD Z pp. 29 f. s.v. zakû v. (zukkû) “to free, release” 2u (with ana DN) “to release (and to dedicate) to a deity.” Then, note the definitions in the AHw: (1) AHw p. 1505 Adj. “rein, Klar . . .” (2) AHw p. 1506 “klar, rein, gereinigt . . .” Roth has followed one of the logical options for translation by rendering “dedicated to the Lady-of-Uruk” for zakû sa Istar (sa) Uruk (see Roth,

15. Random House Dictionary, p. 375. We are seeking an Akkadian equivalent for this concept. 16. See Roth, 1989, p. 487.

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

337

M. 1989, pp. 486–87). We hold this sometimes can be true but we want to suggest that at other times it has a different sense. 17 If we assume that the term zakû sa Istar (sa) Uruk in and of itself does not designate an oblate or a temple slave, what then would be its meaning? Simply, “one whose status has been clarified by the Lady-of-Uruk.” Now in some cases, this could designate one whose status has been cleared (/no impediment seen) for becoming a temple oblate. But in other cases, it might betoken the opposite: i.e., one whose status has been cleared for becoming a free person, which we believe is its meaning in the text under discussion. To appreciate the significance of the term zakû, we need to think of a kind of “neutral” status. One might ask, If the above is true, then why is Istar in the picture? She is in the picture because this “clearing of status” happened within her jurisdiction. Alternatively, one might interpret: “Within this jurisdiction, the goddess is the one who is responsible for clearing anyone’s social status.” Further illumination can be obtained along these lines from Cardascia, “Les lois assyriennes.” 18 Cardascia notes that the term za-a-ku (graphic variant of zakû), said of a person, means “ ‘être quitté’, c’est-à-dire ‘innocenté’ ” (see further comments to §38, on the term ‘sirku’). My colleague, Professor Ben Zion Wacholder, suggested clarification by referring to three biblical Hebrew words that are used in more than one sense, and that sometimes have contradictory meanings. Perhaps one could say these words have “multiple meanings” or “alternative meanings.” 19 The three terms are (1) rg, “sojourner” 20 but also “dweller in Israel, with certain conceded, not inherited rights”; 21 (2) dwd, “beloved” 22 but also “uncle”; 23 and (3) ywg, “nation” 24 but also a nation, “usually of non-Hebrew peoples.” 25 Just as the terms rg, dwd, and ywg can designate people of different and even contradictory social statuses, so might the term zakû sa Istar (sa) Uruk. If it were used as a kind of ‘shorthand’ by Babylonian scribes, the term could very well designate an oblate or a tem17. Dandamaev, 1984, p. 469 brings the literature on zakû. We would add simply that zakû is often but not always related to the institution of temple slavery. Others besides temple slaves can be so designated. 18. Cardascia, 1969, p. 160 note a, pp. 193–94. 19. Courtesy Herbert Paper. 20. Brown et al. 1962, p. 158. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid., p. 187. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid., p. 156. 25. Ibid.

338

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

ple slave, but it might also designate one who has been “cleared” or “authorized” for citizenship. The latter meaning, we believe, is correct for our case. James Barr deals with the question of “meaning, in comparative philology.” 26 In noting the complexity of semantic relations, he observes that “one may say that semantics formed the Achilles’ heel of comparative philology.” 27 He points to “an emphasis on forms rather than on meanings” that can mislead the scholar. 28

The implications of the term pirquti We now note that pirquti fits harmoniously into the pattern of the presumed direction of the text. Note that collation of A 32117:45 establishes the reading of the PI sign rather than the SI sign in a pivotal spot, as follows: 42. 43. 44. 45.

. . . LÚ DI.KUD.MES im-tal-ku-ma IM.DUB za-ku-ti X sá 1dis-tar-AD.URÙ la i-nu-ú er-ret DINGIR.MES GAL.MES la ú-sá-an-nu-ú 1dis-ªtar-ºAD.URÙ ù DUMU.MES-sú ina IM.DUB pi-ir-qú-ti-sú-nu us-zi-zu

We translate: (42–43) The judges conferred with each other. They did not change the tablet of freedom of Istar-ab-ußur, thereby not countermanding the curse of the great gods. (44–45) They reaffirmed (the status of) Istar-ab-ußur and his children (as recorded) in their tablet of redemption.

According to Roth, line 45 is to be read: ina IM.DUB si-ir-ku-ti-sú-nu us-zi-zu

Roth translates line 45 as “but they confirmed Istar-ab-ußur and his children in a tablet recording their status as oblates.” Commenting upon sirkuti, we note that we know of no other spellings of the word precisely like that proposed by Roth for our text: si-ir-ku-ti, but note the more frequent spellings with SIM or RIG7. 29 Pirquti is related to Aramaic qrp. Two illustrations of the usage of qrp were pointed out to the author by Professor Michael Sokoloff: 30 26. Barr, 1968, pp. 86–91 and 289–304. 27. Ibid., p. 88. 28. Ibid. 29. See CAD S/III pp. 111–12, s.v. sirkutu, which contains reference to our text as read by Roth. We are unsure about the “concomitant act of manumission” in our text as cited in CAD S/III p. 110, s.v. sirku A. 30. Personal communication.

spread is 3 points long

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

339

(1) hyqwrpl hyrtb lza “he went after him in order to secure his release,” 31 and (2) ˆwhdwb[ç ryn twjt ˆm ˆqyrp “redeemed from [lit.: “from under”] the yoke of their bondage.” 32 However, atwqrp, which would be the exact equivalent of pirquti, is unattested. 33 We now want to consider a viewpoint espoused by Professor Matthew Stolper, in his article: “No Harm Done: On Late Achaemenid pirku Guarantees.” Stolper analyzes the expression pirku epesu as it occurs in Babylonian legal documents of the fifth century. He notes that: Von Soden distinguished two words: one, pisku (pirku), with a meaning perhaps borrowed from Aramaic, ‘wrong, harm,’ construed with the verb epesu in PBS 2/1 140 and in the inscriptions of Darius; and the other, pisqu (pirqu), an Aramaic loanword, “ ‘Einlösung’ bzw. ‘Auslösung’ (einer Person von Schuldknechtschaft),” specific to the guarantees with the phrase pûtu nasû. 34

By analyzing the term pisku in the Murasû guarantees, Stolper concludes that “p. cannot mean ‘redemption’.” 35 Stolper remarks further: “Von Soden’s analysis is no longer tenable . . . No warrant remains for postulating *pisqu and separating it from pisku (la) epesu.” 36 Our own position is that some of the references included in von Soden’s AHw p. 867 pirqu II entry should remain where they are and not merged into AHw p. 855 pe/irku, and that the reference in our text indicates that such a word containing the emphatic “q” rather than the non-emphatic “k” does indeed exist in Akkadian apart from pirku.

Is the temple involved? If our document is about the re-enslavement of a temple slave, then why does the temple play no role in the proceedings? Surely the temple interests would be represented in such a document by the appearance and/or testimony of the sesgallu. 31. Babylonian Talmud Tractate Baba Metzi’a 83b (Vatican MS line 42), Soncino edition p. 478. 32. Targum Neofiti to Exodus 6:1. 33. There is an interesting parallel to our situation that arises from an emendation in EA 71:8, where the text reads im-ti-ka, which is emended to im--ti-ka, a suggestion first made by Albright, W. F. 1946 p. 12 n. 8, and adopted by Moran, W. L. 1992, p. 140 n. 3. The point is that while a noun emqu exits, an abstract of the form emqutu is otherwise unattested, though highly plausible. 34. Stolper, “No Harm Done,” p. 6. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid.

340

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

For example, from our own book referred to above, we cite text 36, 37 which records proceedings in the assembly concerning personal status. The first person mentioned in this text is Rimut-Bel son of Bel-uballi† descendant of Gimil-Nana, who was a sesgallu. For particulars, and for his appearance in first position of lists, see Kümmel, H. 1979, 38 with relevant notes. Further comments and bibliography on this position can be found in CAD S/II, s.v. “sesgallu (a priest),” 39 and AHw “ein Oberpriester.” 40 We infer from the absence of representation of temple officials that the temple’s interests were not involved in these proceedings.

Conclusion As we have demonstrated, a person cannot be a mar banî and a temple slave at one and the same time. There is no evidence to substantiate Roth’s contention that “The mar banî was not ‘free’ with the Western or Classical connotations of that term.” 41 Roth is arguing from our own text, which is circular reasoning. In any event, the evidence, as we have tried to show, both from a logical perspective as well as from an Assyriological (textual) viewpoint, clearly suggests one conclusion: as a result of this declaratory judgment, Istar-ab-ußur’s freedom was affirmed; he was not reenslaved.

Bibliography Albright, W. F. 1946 “Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography,” in JNES, 5, pp. 7– 25. Barr, J. 1968 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford. Black’s Law Dictionary 1979 St. Paul, Minnesota. Brown, F., et al. 1962 Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford. Cardascia, G. 1969 Les lois assyriennes (Littératures anciennes du proche-orient, 2). Paris. Dandamaev, M. A. 1984 Slavery in Babylonia (Translated by V. A. Powell, Edited by M. A. Powell, D. B. Weisberg Co-Editor). DeKalb.

37. D. Weisberg, 2003, text 38. 38. Kümmel, 1979, pp. 134–35. 39. CAD S/II p. 336. 40. AHw p. 1220. 41. Roth, 1989, p. 487.

Was Istar-ab-ußur’s Freedom Affirmed or Was He Re-Enslaved?

341

Dougherty, R. P. 1923 The Shirkûtu of Babylonian Deities (YOS Researches, V/2). New Haven. Kümmel, H. M. 1979 Familie, Beruf und Amt im spätbabyonischen Uruk (ADOG, Nr. 20). Berlin. Moran, W. L. 1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore. Petschow, H. 1956 Neubabylonisches Pfandrecht (ASAW, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Band 48, Heft 1). Berlin. Roth, M. T. 1989 “A Case of Contested Status,” in Behrens, H., et al. (eds.), DUMU-E2 DUB-BA: Studies in Honor of Å. W. Sjöberg (Occasional Publications of the S. N. Kramer Fund, 11), pp. 481–89. Stein, J., and Urdang, L. (eds.) 1967 Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged Edition. New York. Stolper, M. W. 1998 “Inscribed in Egyptian,” in Brosius, M., Kuhrt, A. (eds.), Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of D. Lewis, pp. 133–43. (Achaemenid History). Leiden. Stolper, M. W. 2000 “No Harm Done: on Late Achaemenid pirku Guarantees,” in Neumann, H., Marzahn, J. (Hrsgg.), Festschrift J. Oelsner, Münster, pp. 467–77. Weisberg, D. B. 2003 The Neo-Babylonian Texts of the Oriental Institute Collection of the University of Chicago. OIP 122.

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”? Ancient Near Eastern Texts and the Study of the Bible 1 The title of our paper was borrowed from two phrases relating to the research of Friedrich Delitzsch, the 100th anniversary of whose Babel und Bibel lectures occurred in January 2002. The first phrase, “Splendid Truths,” was used in a compliment to Delitzsch by an admirer from South Africa, who, when he praised Delitzsch, intended the phrase “Splendid Truths” to refer to Delitzsch’s courage for “telling it as it is.” 2 Implied was the fact that the truths of the ancient Near East were more impressive than those of the Bible and that biblical Israel had taken its most important institutions and cherished ideas from its neighbor in Mesopotamia. The second phrase, “Prodigious Commotion,” was used by Delitzsch himself in his Notes to Lecture II in the series. 3 The words were intended as praise for the interest that Delitzsch’s lectures stirred up among the scholars and the members of the general public. We shall use the same phrases, but in a different manner. For us, the phrase Splendid Truths refers to the fact that the truths of the biblical text stand in place. Seeing Scripture more distinctly today in its ancient Near Eastern context, it is clear that some things were borrowed; but it is also clear that in many cases the uniqueness of biblical values and institutions [Reprinted from The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan R. Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 357–67.] 1. I wish to express my thanks to James Hoffmeier, Alan Millard, Bill T. Arnold, and Edwin Yamauchi for their help. 2. Letter of Edgar H. Rex Evans to Friedrich Delitzsch from Cape Colony, South Africa, 2 May 1903, cited in Reinhard G. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-BibelStreit, OBO 133 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1994), 340. 3. “The prodigious commotion . . . excited by my second Lectures serves to show convincingly enough that in quarters from which Church and school are governed an essentially different view from that of my highly esteemed critic prevails.” Cited in C. H. W. Johns, ed., Babel and Bible: Two Lectures by Friedrich Delitzsch (New York: Putnam, 1903), 217–18.

345

346

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”?

has been highlighted even more vividly than before. They can be augmented by the other Splendid Truths, namely those from the ancient Near East. For Delitzsch, “Prodigious Commotion” (= publicity) was a good thing. We shall argue that “commotion” is—if anything—detrimental to the cause of science, and prodigious commotion even more so. Of what scientific value is the oft-repeated fact that Delitzsch’s lectures took place before the Kaiser? One might ask oneself: Is some of today’s “commotion”—lacking as it is in scientific evidence or even aesthetic value—of the same ilk? We should like to bring three major points in our presentation: 1. The value and importance of text-archaeology; 2. Proof by examining not only individual ancient Near Eastern Texts, but by mass of evidence; 3. The informed theological approach.

The Value and Importance of Text-Archaeology Zipora Talshir offers a sound methodology in her article, “Textual and Literary Criticism of the Bible in Post-Modern Times. . . .” 4 Talshir critiques postmodernism: 5 1. An “immense amount of information [is available] but with no lasting value.” 2. “There is no one meaning of a text.” 3. “Scientific scepticism has evolved into total chaos.” Talshir describes the foundation of modern biblical scholarship as “undermined” by a recent school whom some have called “deconstructionists.” She herself uses the term “destructionists.” 6 “The ‘deconstructionists’ claim that all of biblical literature is the product of the 6th–3rd centuries b.c.e. and that ancient Israel is merely the invention of the Persian/Hellenistic Jewish society.” She continues: “Post-modern approaches seem to defy the major achievements of centuries of specialized research and revert to overall [= overarching] theories. They have thus forfeited the scientific methods which have long been used to reconstruct lost contexts of ancient literatures.” 7 Here we do not want to rehearse the series of arguments that review the state of the field, since these are well known—we are thinking of such 4. Henoch 21/3 (1999). 5. Talshir, 235. 6. Talshir, 236. 7. Talshir, 237.

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”?

347

debates as those surrounding the reading of the critical passage in the Tell Dan inscription—“Beth dod . . .” which, as is known, “Lemche . . . [labeled] a forgery.” 8 Rather, let us move on to the points raised by Avi Hurvitz 9 in his careful critique of Philip Davies. 10 Hurvitz finds Davies’s approach to be “methodologically unsound,” 11 and he brings logical arguments to support this observation. First is Davies’s failure to “review earlier studies relevant to the issue at hand,” 12 and second is Davies’s nonappreciation of extrabiblical sources from the First Temple period. 13 Hurvitz asks the fundamental question: “Does or does not Biblical Hebrew exhibit diachronic changes indicative of continuous historical developments?” 14 In answer, Hurvitz observes “. . . a comparative analysis of all this material . . . conclusively demonstrates that . . . there is a far-reaching uniformity underlying both the pre-exilic inscriptions and the literary biblical texts written in classical Hebrew” (e.g., Classical Hebrew sep2 er is replaced in late Biblical Hebrew by ’iggeret). 15 These observations make it unimaginable that Biblical Hebrew is a “scholarly construct” or “fabrication” from a later time, as Davies claims. Continuing now within the rubric of “text-archaeology,” we would like to shift the focus from the textual material in Biblical Hebrew to that in Akkadian, written in cuneiform characters on clay. Working in reading clay tablets through a period of years brings with it a feeling of closeness to the ancient writers and personalities mentioned therein and also a kind of intuitive sense—sometimes subtle and sometimes more obvious—of the differences and contrasts between the writings of one period and those of another. True, the clear differences in types and shapes of characters, of grammatical features, lexemes and syntactic variances, not to mention the external appearance of the clay tablet itself, are characteristics that can easily be identified and taught. But in addition, there is a more subtle—today one might say “nuanced”—appreciation of the unique and special presentation of this text and language that is shared by no other place and no other period. Many scholars can undoubtedly identify with this experience. Our point is that no one would 8. Talshir, 240. 9. Avi Hurvitz, “The Historical Quest for ‘Ancient Israel’ and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations,” VT 47 (1997): 301–15. 10. Philip R. Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel,” JSOTSup 148 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992). 11. Hurvitz, 303. 12. Hurvitz, 305. 13. Hurvitz, 307. 14. Hurvitz, cited in Talshir, 241. 15. Hurvitz, cited in Talshir, 241.

348

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”?

claim that all texts, genres, and types were written much later than the texts themselves claim—and all at the same time. Though we do not yet have the biblical manuscripts themselves—the exception being a partial text of the “Priestly Benediction” found by Gabriel Barkay at Ketef Hinnom 16—to reduce everything between the boards of BHS to one smoke-filled room in the Hellenistic period simply is out of accord with the realities of ancient texts. In his chapter “Historical Sources or Literature?” in Ancient Mesopotamia, A. Leo Oppenheim makes a related, and we believe powerful, supporting point about the appreciation for the varied sources and periods of a living and vibrant literary tradition, by no means to be viewed as frozen and monolithic. He [Nabonidus] quotes in scholarly fashion the texts of the documents his workmen had excavated from the ruins of temples he was in process of rebuilding. He even gives us on one such occasion the text of an inscription of a Kassite king that would otherwise have been lost . . . [finally] let me point out Assurbanipal’s repeated descriptions of his training and his achievements as a scholar and a soldier which--one-and-a-half millennia later— include a topos from the Sumerian royal hymns. This illustrates the continuity and tenacity of a living literary tradition other than that literary tradition frozen and preserved in the royal library of Nineveh. Anyone who intends to write a history of Mesopotamian literature that is more than an inventory of extant fragments will have to consult these living, changing royal inscriptions. 17

Were the “minimalists” to treat these Assyriological texts as they treat the biblical material, would they be inclined to view Nabonidus and Assurbanipal as “forgers” whose interest was in deceiving the public? Or would they be willing to concede that the Kassite and Sumerian inscriptions were not counterfeits from a later period but authentic texts preserved by a “living, changing” culture? While this is no proof for our argument, it does furnish a convincing parallel for how ancient texts were viewed in antiquity. 18 Oppenheim speaks of other practices that preserved links from the past with a more distant past. 16. See P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., “The Ketef Hinnom Amulets,” in COS 2:221. 17. A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 150. 18. In her recent dissertation, “The Lure of the Past: Ancient Man’s Interest in His History: With Translations of the Neo-Babylonian Texts from the Carlos Museum” (Cincinnati, 2000), Sara Fudge examines the antiquarian interests of ancient man, showing how nations, including biblical Israel, had a healthy interest in their past. They sought to collect materials from it, establish museums, and preserve authentic records.

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”?

349

We have a number of copies (from the Middle Babylonian through the NeoBabylonian period) of older inscriptions, often imitating their script. To this interest we owe much of what we know today of the Old Akkadian period and the rule of the kings of Ur III. . . .19

Thus, instead of contrasting the situation in biblical manuscript study with that in Mesopotamia, we might use the insights garnered from our study of the transmission of written records to compare the two. To summarize: the sensitive text-archaeological study of the Hebrew language of the biblical period, as well as the richness of cuneiform sources, make it likely that we can discover a multidimensionality and profundity incompatible with the views of those who see composition, editing, and canonization as a one-time act of a later period. This is not, as some would contend, an “old-fashioned” idea but rather an elegant, modern methodology suitable for appreciation of our texts.

Proof by Examining Not Only Individual Ancient Near Eastern Texts, but by Mass of Evidence Our second point is that proof for the antiquity of materials including the Hebrew Bible can be obtained not only by examination of individual ancient Near Eastern texts, but by presentation of a mass of evidence, whose existence and relevance make it unlikely, of not virtually impossible, that we can seat the major parts of the Hebrew Bible in the last centuries before the foundation of Christianity. In fact, one can point to a program of advancing scholarship that does not involve answering points or accusations, but instead quietly continues to contribute to our knowledge. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr.’s Context of Scripture is by its nature an answer to the minimalists—insofar as the enterprise situates the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern setting, thus demonstrating conclusively that the Hebrew Bible was not a product of the Hellenistic, Persian, or (perhaps) even 8th-century periods. The parallels demonstrate beyond doubt that the Bible is the product of the earlier age that it purports to be. We would like to quote from Hallo’s “Introduction” to Context 2: The combination of an intertextual and a contextual approach to biblical literature holds out the promise that this millennial corpus will continue to yield new meanings on all levels: the meaning that it holds for ourselves in our own contemporary context, the meanings it has held for readers, worshipers, artists and others in the two millennia and more since the close of the canon; the meaning that it held for its own authors and the audiences of their times; and finally the meanings that it held when it was part of an

19. Oppenheim, 150.

350

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”?

earlier literary corpus. It is to the clarification of that oldest level of meaning that the Context of Scripture is dedicated.20

Another point in this section pertains to the attitude of those who hold for a Hellenistic date. The argument has been raised in another context in an article by Hallo entitled “The Limits of Skepticism,” his Presidential Address to the American Oriental Society of March 1989. 21 Here Hallo is opening the door, or inviting one, to place a limit upon skepticism as one places a limit upon credulity. One who holds this approach has recently, and humorously, been referred to as a “golden meanie” (neither a maximalist nor a minimalist). The Informed Theological Approach Our third point is the importance of the informed theological approach. To us it is of interest that in all of the contemporary “commotion” about the minimalist-maximalist viewpoints, something very important has fallen out—that is, an appreciation of the uniqueness of biblical prophecy. Abraham Heschel stated: The history of the Western world may be written . . . by the way the various generations understood or misunderstood, revered or repudiated, the spirit of the prophets. 22

It was an interesting exercise to reread H. H. Rowley’s “Trends in Old Testament Study” published as the Introduction to his edited volume, The Old Testament and Modern Study: A Generation of Discovery and Research. 23 There one can get an idea about the state of the field 50 years ago as contrasted with the state of the field today. The essays of Albright, Baumgartner, Robinson, Snaith, Eissfeldt, Winton Thomas and others, when taken in and of themselves, were—and in numerous parts, still are—of great value in our understanding of archaeology, pentateuchal criticism, historical books, prophetic literature, Psalms, and others. Otto Eissfeldt’s “The Prophetic Literature,” included in The Old Testament and Modern Study, had many insights that are still relevant to us today, and that moreover can play a role in our evaluation of the failure to appreciate the uniqueness of prophetic literature in some of today’s scholarship. Eissfeldt notes that “. . . many observations by earlier generations of scholars still retain their value.” 24 20. W. W. Hallo, “Introduction,” COS 1:xxviii. 21. W. W. Hallo, “The Limits of Skepticism,” JAOS 110 (1990): 187–99. 22. Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 305. 23. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951). 24. Otto Eissfeldt, “The Prophetic Literature,” in Rowley, 115.

spread is 3 points long

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”?

351

Eissfeldt mentions the names of scholars who have contributed to our understanding of “The Prophets of Israel” going as far back as 1882. He notes that these scholars have still much to contribute to anyone concerned with a real understanding of Israelite prophetism. . . . To neglect the insight into the nature of Israelite prophetism gained by the preceding generation would inevitably wreck our whole understanding of that phenomenon. In this field, no less than in that of Pentateuchal criticism, we must be careful to safeguard continuity of research with the work of earlier scholars.25

In a passage that might be interpreted as a rejoinder to the minimalist position as cited above by Talshir, Eissfeldt describes a process of transmission that is the last stage of a complex process that had occurred through many centuries of transmission: “In fact, this writing down gives us simply the mechanical preservation of an already completed structure.” 26 Why have today’s “minimalists” downplayed to such a degree the greatness of the Israelite prophets? Can literature like this be “manufactured” so readily by people intent on patching together a history allegedly so desperately needed? No one who has really and truly sought to comprehend the personality and message of the great prophets of the Old Testament can avoid the impression that here we have men not only speaking a word to their own generation, but having something of value for us today also.27

Now as two persuasive contemporary examples of an “informed theological approach,” we should like to cite the works of Alan Millard and John Bright. In Part I of his essay, “Story, History and Theology,” 28 Alan Millard unpacks James Barr’s approach on how the narrative material of the Old Testament, which Barr feels could be suitably described as “story,” differs from “history.” Characteristics of Old Testament narrative, according to Barr as understood by Millard, are four: Barr’s first point is that myth and legend are present in Old Testament material. In his section on “Legend, Folklore and History,” 29 Millard

25. Eissfeldt, 115. 26. Eissfeldt, 117. 27. Eissfeldt, 136. 28. In Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. Alan R. Millard, James K. Hoffmeier, and David W. Baker (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994). 29. Millard (43–47) analyzes Barr’s units in reverse order from Barr’s presentation. We have reverted to the original order.

352

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”?

argues that “the sources can be treated soberly as the basis for satisfactory historical reconstructions.” 30 Barr’s second point is that the narratives of the Hebrew Bible contain a mixing of human and divine elements. In his section “Divine Intervention and History,” Millard contends that The presence of a report of a divine communication does not invalidate the accompanying episodes in biblical or other ancient texts any more than it does in the story of Joan of Arc. Whether scholars today share the belief that these figures were in communication with a supernatural power, or not, has no effect on the fact that these people possessed such beliefs. . . .31

Barr’s third point is that aetiological motives appear in Old Testament reports. Under “Etiology and History,” Millard asserts that There is . . . reason to contest the claim that the paradigmatic form reporting events is “not really historical in original basis and motivation.” Ancient writers deliberately set out the reports of military campaigns in paradigmatic form, demonstrating sequences of events, actions, and their consequences, which they saw repeated and accepted as conforming to certain patterns. Rebellion against the suzerain brought his forces to the vassal’s territory in punishment, just as Israel’s apostasy brought her enemies to humiliate her.32

Barr’s fourth and final point is that in Hebrew Scripture, one notes the “absence of critical evaluation of sources.” In his investigation of “The Authors as Critics,” Millard writes: . . . it is surely possible that a critical attitude did lie behind the selection the compilers of Kings made from more extensive records. The Israelite presentation of history did involve critical judgment, inasmuch as it claims to be true. . . . Moabite or Assyrian viewpoints were denied. . . .33

In order to evaluate narratives for their role in re-creating the history of Israel, Millard proposes we establish certain criteria such as an appreciation of the function of anachronism, a differentiation of fantasy from (e.g.) claims of hearing divine voices, and that biblical texts not find themselves in contradiction with other texts. 34 In Part II, “Theology and History,” Millard rejects “paths of assumption and speculation that lead to increasingly subjective hypotheses.” 35 Bringing attention to Assyrian royal inscriptions (“Ancient Records and Religious Beliefs”), Millard notes that “Overt theological intent . . .

30. Millard, 47. 31. Millard, 43. 32. Millard, 41. 33. Millard, 40. 34. See Millard, 50. 35. Millard, 51. spread is 18 points long

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”?

353

[has] not brought rejection [by modern scholars] of the ‘historical’ narratives, nor cast much doubt on them.” 36 Evaluating modern editorial assessments of Assyrian and Babylonian records (“Bias and Historicity”), Millard observes that “Undoubted bias . . . need not carry a totally adverse attitude to a document or give rise to allegations that the accounts are untrue or imaginary.” 37 In the section “Opposing Biased Views,” Millard notes that there is no reason to doubt the essential truth of the Hebrew accounts of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah when compared and contrasted with the Assyrian records. 38 Is the fact that a period of time—say 20 years—has elapsed between the time events were reported in biblical texts and the time they were written down enough of a reason to reject those texts as “historical,” as some modern scholars have done (“ ‘Narrative Theology’ versus ‘Historical Narrative Proper’ ”)? Citing the biblical texts “in the ancient Near Eastern context,” we find that the question “loses its force.” 39 Both Israelite writers and other writers “saw divine intervention as a historical reality. . . . The continuity of that [Israelite] belief through the Exile and other adversities, a continuity that contrasts with the extinction of all the contemporary religions, is a noteworthy testimony to faith firmly founded in history” (“Divine Intervention in Human Affairs”). 40 In the Prelude to Israel’s Past, Niels Peter Lemche identified the writers who hold that the biblical “narratives are authentic reflections of antiquity.” 41 Among these scholars belong the circle of William F. Albright. . . . The most important description of the time of the patriarchs from this circle is, however, John Bright, A History of Israel. . . . 42

In 2000, the fourth edition of John Bright’s A History of Israel appeared posthumously. It had an “Introduction” and “Appendix” by William P. Brown that helped update the approach originally taken by Bright in the first edition of 1959. 43 In describing “the center of Bright’s History,” Brown wrote:

36. Millard, 54. 37. Millard, 55. 38. Millard, 57ff. 39. Millard, 60ff. and 63. 40. Millard, 64. 41. Niels Peter Lemche, Prelude to Israel’s Past: Background and Beginnings of Israelite History and Identity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 27. 42. Lemche, 27. 43. Earlier editions of Bright’s History are: 2nd ed. 1972; 3rd ed. 1981; 4th ed. 2000. Bright died in 1995, in Richmond, Virginia.

354

“Splendid Truths” or “Prodigious Commotion”?

All in all, Bright’s textbook is more than a work of historical reconstruction. It is a robustly theological investigation. And for that Bright has been severely criticized. Martin Noth’s review of Bright’s first edition sums it up well: ‘It is certainly a serious question whether a presentation of Israel’s history could and should present a “Theology of the Old Testament,” at the same time. The question is not easily answered and cannot be solved by interpolating references to the history of religion into a History of Israel.’ Bright, however, cannot be criticized for indiscriminately interjecting his own ‘interpolations.’ Considering himself primarily a historian, Bright intended all along to convey his theological insights, subjected to external controls, ‘at the right time and in the right way,’ so as not to violate the integrity of historical inquiry. 44

Brown pointed to the reality of biblical material for Bright by underlining that an authentic understanding of the Deity is not possible without an authentic understanding of Israel’s history and vice versa. On the one hand, Israel’s story is no imaginative construct severed from the harsh realities of historical experience. The Bible is about a particular people who embodied a peculiar history.45

We think that the remarks of a Hebrew Union College graduate student, Christopher Morgan, offered privately to the present writer, summarize very well the thinking involved here, as we try to argue for the informed theological approach: Modern scholarship in general fails adequately to address what is perhaps the central reason for the existence of the biblical materials—the religious impulse and religious experience. Why is the reality of the religious impulse and experience less “scientific” than, say, power politics? When historians a priori reject one facet of human experience (which humans seem to have experienced in all ages and all geographic locales), how can we hope to achieve anything approaching an accurate understanding of a historical reality which undeniably includes the very element they have ruled out of court? 46 44. Brown, “Introduction,” 21. Brown cites Bright’s Early Israel in Recent History Writing: A Study in Method, SBT 19 (London: SCM, 1956), 29. 45. Brown, “Introduction,” 21. 46. Christopher Morgan, communication of 7 December 1999.

A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures Bill T. Arnold Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, KY 40390

David B. Weisberg Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, OH

Scholars interested in Hebrew Scriptures and comparative Near Eastern literature recently reached a significant milestone. January 13, 2002, marked the centennial of Friedrich Delitzsch’s initial public lecture entitled “Babel und Bibel,” which he delivered in the Singakademie of Berlin before the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft with Kaiser Wilhelm II in attendance. 1 Delitzsch delivered a second lecture on the same topic one year later ( January 12, 1903), again before the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft and a distinguished audience that included both the emperor and the empress. 2 The second lecture was so controversial and created such an international uproar that Delitzsch’s third and final lecture in the series was [Reprinted from Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002) 441–57.] Authors’ note: An earlier draft of this paper was presented to the Hebrew Scriptures and Cognate Literature Section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2000. The authors hereby acknowledge the assistance of a number of people. Professor Weisberg expresses gratitude to Blake Hearson and Daniel Watson for research assistance, and to Batya Kaplan, head librarian of the Hebrew Union College Library in Jerusalem, for her help with research materials. Professor Arnold is indebted to Sandra Richter, Lawson G. Stone, and Brent A. Strawn for their helpful suggestions. In addition, Dorothy James of the B. L. Fisher Library at Asbury Theological Seminary provided valuable assistance. 1. At the emperor’s request, Delitzsch repeated the lecture on February 1 in the Royal Palace at Berlin. See Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel: Ein Vortrag (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902), 52; Herbert B. Huffmon, “Babel und Bibel: The Encounter between Babylon and the Bible,” Michigan Quarterly Review 22 (1983): 309; Reinhard G. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel-Streit (OBO 113; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 80. 2. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 173.

355

356

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

delivered in much less prestigious circumstances. On October 27 and 28, 1904, he delivered the third lecture before the literary societies of Barmen and Köln respectively. Rather than repeat the lecture at the royal palace in Berlin, Delitzsch gave a final presentation before the Verein für Geographie und Statistik in Frankfurt am Main. 3 Friedrich Delitzsch was a leading Semitist of his day, and it is no exaggeration to say that he was responsible for putting Assyriology on sound philological footing. Because of his many students and monumental publications, he has been called one of the founders of modern Assyriology. 4 The last half of the nineteenth century had witnessed an explosion of knowledge and information from Mesopotamia, and many uncritical comparisons had been made with the more familiar biblical materials. In the lectures that are the focus of our attention, Delitzsch attempted to put the fledgling discipline of Assyriology on an equal footing with biblical studies and to champion Babylonian religion and culture over against that of the Hebrew Bible. The high esteem in which Delitzsch was held and the distinguished circumstances of these lectures were nearly unprecedented. This constituted more than a watershed in the history of Assyriology and biblical studies. His theme and conclusions also had significant political and sociological ramifications involving the kaiser and the leading intellectuals of Europe at the turn of the century, so that Delitzsch’s views struck a chord with the deep-seated psychological interests rooted in German cultural and political life. Our concern in this essay is not with the role of Delitzsch’s work in the history of the disciplines of Assyriology and biblical studies per se. 5 Instead we aim to take this centennial as an opportunity to refresh the guild’s memory concerning his presuppositions and the tragic turn observable in the lectures themselves. To a lesser degree, we will make reference to his subsequent work. I. Delitzsch as a Reflection of His Context Delitzsch’s lectures themselves are still easily available, and they have been admirably summarized elsewhere in the secondary literature. 6 Our 3. Ibid., 251. 4. John A. Brinkman, “Delitzsch, Friedrich,” NCE 4:739; and Abraham Arzi, “Delitzsch, Friedrich,” EncJud 5:1475. 5. For which, see Mark W. Chavalas, “Assyriology and Biblical Studies: A Century and a half of Tension,” in Mesopotamia and the Bible (ed. Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger, Jr.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003); and David B. Weisberg, “The Impact of Assyriology on Biblical Studies” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Region of the SBL/AOS, Chicago, Illinois, 14 February 2000). 6. The lectures generated an enormous amount of literature both in the popular press and in scholarly publications. The international attention created a demand for

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

357

purpose here is not to repeat these summaries but to critique the lectures for their underlying assumptions. The anti-Semitism of Delitzsch’s positions has often been discussed, and we hope to show how his views were stated at first subtly, and then with increasing boldness. In addition, we contend that the lectures expose other philosophical and theoretical presuppositions that are sometimes overlooked, and which illustrate further how Delitzsch mirrored his sociopolitical and cultural context. So, in addition to anti-Semitism, we encounter in Delitzsch’s work unmitigated nationalism and anti-Christian sentiment.

German Nationalism Delitzsch was a child of his time. The nationalism that emerged in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was for the first time based on a feeling of community among a people of common descent, language, and religion instead of dynastic ties in which citizens owed loyalty to church or ruling family. Whereas previous cultures had been concerned with clan, tribe, or village, now the nation-state became paramount as a means of realizing social, economic, and cultural aspirations. Such nationalism ran rampant in the Western world during the nineteenth century, during which the great powers acquired colonial empires throughout the world, creating capital for industrialization. Germany had been a relative newcomer to European colonial expansion. Since unification under Otto von Bismarck in 1871, Germany had experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth and had thrown itself full scale into the scramble among the European powers to colonize Africa and the Pacific. Whereas the British Empire had dominated the early nineteenth century, the end of the century saw a balance of European powers vying with one another for colonies, fueled by a surging political rivalry, sometimes referred to as “New Imperialism.” Together with the evolutionary winds that blew throughout the nineteenth century, these events gave the intelligentsia an almost euphoric sense of progress and accomplishment. Just before the turn of the century, however, Germany lagged behind its European rivals in ancient Near Eastern research. The Louvre in Paris and the British Museum in London had by then acquired vast quantities copies of the lectures, which resulted in numerous editions, many of which incorporated revisions. For thorough treatment of the literature, including exhaustive textcritical treatment of the lectures in all their editions, see Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 80–91 (lecture 1), 174–84 (lecture 2), 250–56 (lecture 3), and his bibliographies (pp. 378–408). For summaries, see Klaus Johanning, Der Bibel-Babel-Streit: Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Studie (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/343; Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1988), 33–67; Mogens Trolle Larsen, “The ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy and Its Aftermath,” CANE 1:99–103; and Huffmon, “Babel und Bibel,” 311–18.

358

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

of archaeological artifacts and texts from ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, creating in Germany a sense of urgency in archaeological expeditions. Parts of the Near East were seen as potential colonies for European powers, and it became a matter of national pride for Germany to assume its rightful place among the world powers in archaeological research, as in all other endeavors. Accordingly, in 1898 the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft was founded in Berlin, with widespread support among the political elite of the country and with the principal function of raising Germany’s status among the nations of Europe. 7 Delitzsch and his teacher, Eberhard Schrader, had provided new German leadership in Semitic philology. But the fact remained that they were dependent on British and French source materials because Germany had no cuneiform collections. Consequently, at the time of Delitzsch’s lectures, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, with the support of Wilhelm II, was in the process of launching major new archaeological campaigns in Asshur, in Babylon itself, and eventually (in 1906) in Khattusha (Boghazköy). 8 The urgent sense of nationalism that was so characteristic of the young German state at the turn of the century is characteristic also of Delitzsch’s lectures. From his opening questions in lecture 1, we get a hint of the competition between nations for archaeological success. Why all this toil and trouble in remote, inhospitable, and perilous lands? What is the purpose of going to such great expense to ransack through mounds that are many centuries old, digging all the way to the water table, all the while knowing there is no gold or silver to be found? Why this rivalry among the nations, in order to secure the greatest possible number of desolate tells for excavation? And, on the other hand, what is the source of the ever-growing, self-sacrificing interest, which is now apparent on both sides of the Atlantic, in the excavations in Assyria and Babylonia?9

To these questions, Delitzsch gives an answer in the next sentence: the Bible! It is the Bible that has led the nations into such rivalry and competition to secure as many desolate mounds for excavation at possible. A few paragraphs later we learn specifically which nations are most deeply in-

7. The organization’s statement of purpose explained that “the time has come for Germany to take part in the great task of discovering and recovering the earliest Orient through more extensive systematic excavations” (see Larsen, “ ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy,” 96). 8. Huffmon, “Babel und Bibel,” 309; and Larsen, “ ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy,” 96–97. 9. Delitzsch, Ein Vortrag, 3 (emphasis ours); and Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 81. All quotations of Delitzsch’s work in this paper are new translations prepared by the authors.

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

359

volved, those that Delitzsch says are justifiably called “Bible-lands”: Germany, England, and America. 10 The German nationalism only hinted at in these excerpts from lecture 1 was stated blatantly in the conclusion to the printed versions of the lecture. Babylonia and the Bible—What has been said here displays only a small excerpt of the significance of the excavations in Assyria and Babylonia for the history and progress of humanity. May it help establish the recognition that it was high time for Germany to pitch her tent on the palm-crowned banks of the streams of Paradise! Figure 50[11] displays the residential premises for members of the expedition dispatched by the German Oriental Society, which works indefatigably there among the ruins of Babylon from morning until evening, in heat and cold, for Germany’s honor and for Germany’s science. We too “confess ourselves to be of the race that strives from darkness into light.” Supported, like the archaeological undertakings of other nations, by the increasing participation of our people and the energetic support of our government, the German Oriental Society, which was the last to appear on the field—only three years ago—will also certainly maintain its glorious place under that sun, which is rising over there in the East out of those mysterious hills. The society is always inspired afresh by gratitude for the highest personal patronage and warm interest, which His Majesty our King and Emperor has been pleased to bestow to its efforts in a lasting and gracious manner. 12

Such competition among the nations is not itself alarming, even when the archaeological enterprise of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft is described as contributing to “Germany’s honor” and “Germany’s science.” But when this sentiment is combined in Delitzsch’s subsequent work with his rejection of the authority and validity of the Hebrew Bible, this nationalism takes on a very different tone. Delitzsch began the second lecture by rejecting the “verbal inspiration” of the Hebrew Scriptures and denying the concept of “revelation.” It soon became clear that an ideological shift had occurred between the first two lectures, partially due to Delitzsch’s strident reaction to critics of the first lecture. Instead of speaking of Babylon as “interpreter and illustrator” of 10. “Es ist erstaunlich, wie ebenjetzt in Deutschland, England, Amerika—diesen drei Bibelländern, wie sie nicht mit Unrecht genannt worden—das Alte Testament, diese kleine Bibliothek mannigfaltigster Bücher, von einer kaum übersehbaren Zahl christlicher Gelehrter nach allen Richtungen hin durchforscht wird” (Delitzsch, Ein Vortrag, 4; and Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 81). 11. The published form of the lecture was accompanied by a photograph of the dwelling of the German expedition in Babylon. 12. Delitzsch, Ein Vortrag, 50–52 (emphasis ours).

360

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

the Hebrew Bible (as in lecture 1), Delitzsch now moved to an attack on the idea that the Hebrew Bible was authoritative for modern German Christians. 13 In the second edition of lecture 2 published in mid-March 1903, Delitzsch included a preface in which he denigrated the ethical value of the Hebrew prophets and bemoaned the fact that the Hebrew Bible still serves believers of the West after these many centuries as an authoritative book of morality and edification. In the following quotation from the new preface, he implied for the first time that instead of ancient Israelite literature, it may be more beneficial for German Christians to learn to appreciate God’s revelation to the German people throughout their own history. Instead of immersing ourselves “with grateful hearts” in the rule of God among our own people, from Germany’s primitive times to the present, we continue granting a “revelation” status to those old Israelite oracles, either out of ignorance, apathy, or blindness. But this no longer stands up in the light of science, nor that of religion, nor ethics.14

Delitzsch states this proposal even more boldly in his last publication, Die Grosse Täuschung (The Great Deception), released in two volumes in 1920 and 1921. 15 Here his nationalism had come to full fruition in his suggestion that the Hebrew Bible is not a book of Christian religion and should be replaced by German Christians with Schwaner’s Germanen-Bibel, which collects the thoughts of Germany’s heroes of the past concerning God, eternity, and immortality. 16 By seeking to replace what he considered repulsive features of the Hebrew Bible, Delitzsch added his voice to those in Germany who sought to eradicate all things Jewish, and thus he anticipated certain German Christians of the Third Reich. In the second lecture, Delitzsch’s nationalism met his anti-Semitism and resulted in an attempt to eliminate the Hebrew Scriptures as Christian literature; such a move is also, as we shall see, anti-Christian.

13. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 185–91. 14. Ibid., 244. 15. Friedrich Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, Erster Teil, Kritische Betrachtungen zu den alttestamentlichen Berichten über Israels Eindringen in Kanaan, die Gottesoffenbarung vom Sinai und die Wirksamkeit der Propheten (Stuttgart/Berlin: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1920); idem, Die Grosse Täuschung, Zweiter (Schluss-) Teil, Fortgesetzte kritische Betrachtungen zum Alten Testament, vornehmlich den Prophetenschriften und Psalmen, nebst Schlußfolgerungen (Stuttgart/Berlin: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1921). 16. Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, 1:97. His reference is to Wilhelm Schwaner, ed., Germanen-Bibel: Aus heiligen Schriften germanischer Völker (3d ed.; Schlachtensee: Volkerzieher Verlag, 1910).

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

361

Anti-Semitism The anti-Semitism present in Delitzsch’s lectures and subsequent work has been thoroughly documented and widely acknowledged. 17 As with his expressions of nationalism, Delitzsch was on this point again a child of his times. In fact, among contemporaneous European scholars of the Hebrew Bible, Delitzsch stood in a long line of anti-Jewish predecessors. For a prime example, we need look no further than the celebrated Julius Wellhausen, who like many other scholars of the period had a penchant for using language of death or dying when describing Judaism, in marked contrast with the vibrancy of earlier Israelite religion. 18 One of the fundamental assumptions pervading Wellhausen’s rather imposing historical construction was the conviction that the postexilic law-centered religion of Judaism was a decline from the higher prophetic insights of the earlier period. In essence, the religion of Judaism was the religion of Israel after it had died. 19 He believed that Christianity, again by contrast, emerged as a result of the struggle in the first century to recapture the old prophetic spirit, and that Jesus and the early church were reacting against the legalism of Pharisaic Judaism. In his overarching evolutionary schema, tracing religion from primitive expressions of animism and polytheism to high ethical monotheism, Judaism was actually a setback in humankind’s development. Jewish scholars of the day were vocal in their opposition to such arguments, as is most notably evident in the well-known hyperbole of Solomon Schechter, when he equated higher criticism with higher antiSemitism. 20 17. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 28–71; and Larsen, “ ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy,” 104–5. His most racist expressions were not published until after the lectures themselves, specifically in Die Grosse Täuschung. 18. On the anti-Semitism of Wellhausen in general, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 3; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 20–22; and Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 41–43. Interestingly, Lou H. Silberman relies on the oral testimony of one of Wellhausen’s students, Jacob Z. Lauterbach, to argue that the Prolegomena was a work of anti-Judaism, while Wellhausen himself was “no vulgar anti-Semite” (“Wellhausen and Judaism,” in Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel [ed. D. A. Knight; Semeia 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983]: 75–82). 19. Levenson, Hebrew Bible, 42. 20. Solomon Schechter, “Higher Criticism—Higher Anti-Semitism,” in Seminary Addresses and Other Papers (Cincinnati: Ark Publishing, 1915), 36–37; and on Schechter’s reaction to German Christian theology generally, see Norman Bentwich, “Solomon Schechter [1849–1915],” in Great Jewish Personalities in Modern Times (ed. Simon Noveck; The B’nai B’rith Great Books Series 2; Clinton, MA: Colonial Press, 1960), 138.

362

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

The lectures under review here evince a similar prejudice revealed in Delitzsch’s concern to uncover features of the ancient Near East that were non-Semitic. 21 In the first lecture, Delitzsch describes the wife of Ashurbanipal, whose image was preserved on a relief from Nineveh, as follows: “Ashurbanipal’s wife is obviously to be thought of as a princess of Aryan blood and blond hair.” 22 Early in the third lecture he makes the assertion that the Hebrew author of the seventh century b.c.e. who composed Genesis 10 gave Shem the rank of firstborn to the father of postdiluvian humanity. But, avers Delitzsch, this shortsighted representation of early civilization is “constantly fettered by Semitic prejudices” and obscures the important role played by the non-Semitic peoples who preceded the later Indo-Germanic Medes. 23 This leads to an extended section on the Sumerians, whose role, in Delitzsch’s view, has been obscured by the Hebrew historians. The Sumerians are said to have established the cultural and religious conceptions for “the immigrant Semitic” Babylonians, resulting in a cultural heritage superior in its ethics and morality to that of the biblical Israelites. 24 That the resultant, amalgamated culture in Babylonia was superior was conveniently illustrated by the Code of Hammurapi, discovered only one year prior to Delitzsch’s first lecture. The Code revealed that Babylonian kings endeavored (like the German emperors of the Middle Ages!) to obliterate the distinction between native and foreigner, including all tribes under the dominion of the throne. By contrast, Israel’s legislated moral code requires that strangers and foreigners remain strangers and foreigners, and that they be kept aloof from Israelite national life. 25 Delitzsch’s racism came fully to the surface in the third lecture, where he asserted that the population of Samaria and Galilee was essentially Babylonian in origin. Once the northern kingdom of Israel fell into the Neo-Assyrian provincial system in the late eighth century b.c.e., the population of the area was a mixture that included many Babylonians. Further, Delitzsch believed that the Babylonians were not purely Semitic, but included some Aryan stock. This is where he first hints at the view that Jesus was Aryan, though his position does not yet have the insidious certainty it 21. So, for example, Delitzsch customarily refers to the Medes as “der indogermanischen Meder” (Babel und Bibel: Dritter (Schluss-) Vortrag [Stuttgart: Deutsche VerlagsAnstalt, 1905], 49). 22. Delitzsch, Ein Vortrag, 19–20. 23. Delitzsch, Dritter (Schluss-) Vortrag, 3–4. He includes in this discussion a gross exaggeration for the role of the “nicht-semitischen Volke der Elamiten” (“The nonSemitic Elamites”). 24. For the “eingewanderten Semiten,” see Delitzsch, Dritter (Schluss-) Vortrag, 32; and on the role of the Sumerians, see pp. 4–6 and 32–37. 25. Delitzsch, Dritter (Schluss-) Vortrag, 56–57 n. 22.

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

363

will later have in Die Grosse Täuschung. 26 As early as the third lecture, as part of his contention that Babylonian ethical and moral conceptions were superior to those of Israel, Delitzsch came eventually to the identification of the parable of the Good Samaritan with Babylonian ideals. He averred that the Good Samaritan (whom he called a Babylonian!) was in Jesus’ parable a model of universal neighborly love established as a pattern for all humankind to follow. 27 Similarly in his conclusion to the third lecture, the three wise men of the East, also said to be Babylonian, were the first to present their homage at the cradle of Christianity. 28 Delitzsch’s views came to full expression in his last work, the twovolume Die Grosse Täuschung. The title refers to the Hebrew Bible, which he wanted to expose as an untruthful historical record in order to draw conclusions about “the Jewish question.” 29 Delitzsch’s anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism are no clearer than here. He expressed concern that the history of the Jewish people posed a threat to the future of the German people. It is obvious that such a people, which is deliberately landless or an international people, presents a great, a frightening danger for all other peoples of the earth. 30

It is here that we encounter the twisted logic that Jesus was a Jewish proselyte rather than a Jew. He was from Galilee, and therefore a Babylonian who was not Semitic at all, but probably in part Aryan. 31 Such conclusions fueled the already radical ideas of Germans such as Kaiser Wilhelm, now living in his post-war exile in the Netherlands. He argued in 1923, partly under the influence of Delitzsch, that Jesus was not only an Aryan, a nonJew, but in fact an anti-Jew who opposed the message of the Hebrew Scriptures. Wilhelm tried to make the case for religious reforms under the banner, “Out with Jewry and its Yahweh!” 32 What strikes us as remarkable after the passage of a full century is Delitzsch’s inability to acknowledge that his views were anti-Semitic. 33 In his 26. Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, 1:96. 27. Delitzsch, Dritter (Schluss-) Vortrag, 23; see also pp. 56–57 n. 22. 28. Ibid., 48. 29. Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, 1:107–8. 30. Ibid., 1:105. 31. Ibid., 1:96, and 2:59–66. 32. See Larsen, “ ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy,” 105. Wilhelm was anticipated by Delitzsch (Die Grosse Täuschung, 2:62–66). 33. One could make the case that he was aware of his anti-Semitism but did not believe it to be a thing to be condemned. In fact, the boldness of his anti-Judaism in Die Grosse Täuschung would support this argument. But this would lead us into psychological motivations that we believe we are in no position to analyze.

364

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

notes to the second lecture, published in 1903, Delitzsch contended that his views meant no injury or insult to Judaism and modern Jewish faith. Instead, he countered that his work was a “dispassionate, strictly objective discussion” of the issues such as the institution of the Sabbath, the role of women in Israel and Babylonia, and other topics. 34 The next year, he published a booklet in which he again defended himself against charges of anti-Semitism. 35 He portrayed himself as trapped between two unfair criticisms. On the one hand, he was accused of “Semitomania,” but on the other hand of being anti-Semitic. He responded that the truth lay in the middle, since in reality he was neither a philo- nor an anti-Semite, but was simply seeking truth for its own sake, without any prejudice or bias. 36 It is instructive to critique Delitzsch’s historical methodology on this point. The quotation just considered reveals in Delitzsch’s reasoning the classic historical error often known as the “Baconian fallacy.” This is the conviction that a historian “can operate without the aid of preconceived questions, hypotheses, ideas, assumptions, theories, paradigms, postulates, prejudices, presumptions, or general presuppositions of any kind.” 37 The historian is like one gathering nuts and berries in the dark forest of the past until amassing enough to make a general truth. But this approach is impracticable in methodology and impossible in its objectives. 38 It has been exposed by various theorists in recent decades, and few historians today commit this fallacy as blatantly as in previous generations. 39 However, it would be foolish to deny its continued existence among scholars of the ancient Near East, or any other historical endeavor. As Fischer so graphically states, the “old error still survives, deep in the 34. “Leidenschaftslose, streng objektive Erörterung des Ursprungs der Sabbathinstitution, der Stellung der Frau in Israel wie in Babylonien und andrer derartiger Fragen kann unser Urteil nur schärfen, die Wahrheit nur fördern” (Delitzsch, Zweiter Vortrag über Babel und Bibel [Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1903], 39). In this reply to critics, Delitzsch continued to speak of a “dispassionate, historical-critical reinvestigation of the relevant documents” (ibid., 42). 35. Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel: Ein Rückblick und Ausblick (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1904), 57–66. 36. Ibid., 63; and see Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, 2:4. 37. David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 4. As Fischer notes, the label “Baconian” is unfair to its namesake, Francis Bacon, because it reflects an inaccurate understanding of his thought. We retain it here because it has become the conventional standard among historians and logicians. 38. For more critique of the fallacy, see Fischer, Fallacies, 4–5. 39. Interestingly, the classic examples of the Baconian fallacy among historians come from the nineteenth century (Fischer, Fallacies, 6), again revealing that Delitzsch was a reflection of his generation.

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

365

dark recesses of every historian’s heart.” 40 In biblical studies, the definitions of exegesis and eisegesis are sometimes easily contrasted and conveniently illustrate the point. Exegesis “is what I do,” while eisegesis” is what you do.” 41 So historians, those who work in the ancient Near East included, are sometimes guilty of identifying the preconceived assumptions in anyone who disagrees with them, while arguing that they themselves are merely going wherever the evidence leads them without the vitiating effects of such assumptions. Many other examples could be garnered to illustrate how Delitzsch was a willing participant in the intense anti-Semitism of his day. 42 Suffice it to say, however, that Delitzsch was not alone in his racism, but rather he drank deeply from the well of anti-Jewish sentiment gushing up so feverishly in the young German state. By participating in the anti-Semitic culture of his time and place, he failed, like Wellhausen and others before him, to challenge his culture’s theological and philosophical assumptions. He failed to present his culture with an alternate portrait of reality, and thereby he contributed to the historical and theological underpinnings of Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s. 43 Making a platform for later Nazism, Delitzsch did for theology what we once thought Nietzsche had done for philosophy. While the portrait of Nietzsche as an anti-Semite must be corrected in light of developments in Nietzschean scholarship over the last twenty years, 44 no such correction is needed for Delitzsch. This centennial review of Delitzsch lectures has only confirmed his contributions to the anti-Semitism of his day.

40. Fischer, Fallacies, 7. 41. As Rabbi Chanan Brichto used to state frequently (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) to his students at Hebrew Union College. 42. For which see G. F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921); 191– 254. For German biblical scholarship in the twentieth century, see Charlotte Klein, AntiJudaism in Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 15–66; and Rolf Rendtorff, “Die Hebräische Bibel als Grundlage christlich-theologischer Aussagen über das Judentum,” in Jüdische Existenz und die Erneuerung der christlichen Theologie (ed. M. Stöhr; Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen dialog 11; Munich: Kaiser, 1981), 33–47. 43. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 20. 44. The reopening of the Nietzsche Archive in Weimar in 1991 revealed that, after he was incapacitated, his sister Elizabeth suppressed certain of his writings against Germany and against anti-Semitism. One leading Nietzsche scholar has concluded that, contrary to Nazi propaganda and thus the widespread popular view, Nietzsche was not an anti-Semite (Weaver Santaniello, Nietzsche, God, and the Jews: His Critique of JudeoChristianity in Relation to the Nazi Myth [Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994], esp. 137–54; idem, “A Post-Holocaust Re-examination of Nietzsche and the Jews,” in Nietzsche and Jewish Culture [ed. J. Golomb; London: Routledge, 1997], 21–54.

366

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

Anti-Christian Sentiment The charge that Delitzsch’s lectures expressed views that were antiChristian may be surprising in this context, and we admit it would certainly be a surprise to Delitzsch himself. Perhaps we should clarify immediately that we are not referring to his Lutheran heritage, which one might have expected (given the sociocultural climate of his surroundings) to lead to anti-Catholic elements in his research. Instead we refer here in the most general way to assumptions that run counter to Christianity in its broadest definitions; specifically, we refer to his attitude toward, and later his position against, the Hebrew Scriptures, or the “Old Testament” as they are known in Christian thought. 45 Like much of European biblical scholarship of the nineteenth century, Delitzsch manifested a fixation with the evolutionary and historical progression of the Christian religion from its early stages in the Hebrew Scriptures to the New Testament, how it declined from that expression under the influence of Greek metaphysics, and finally how it evolved again from the dissolution of dogma by Martin Luther into a new level of nobleness of heart. 46 This found fruition specifically for studies of ancient Israel in the famous construction of Wellhausen, which became the acceptable way of understanding Israelite religion. First, early Israelite religion was natural and free from law as expressed by Yahwistic and Elohistic sources. Its cycles were related to the agricultural year, the priesthood was universal, and worship could take place anywhere. Second, the Deutero45. On the problems of terminology for confessional Christian scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures, see Christopher Seitz, “Old Testament or Hebrew Bible? Some Theological Considerations,” in Word without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 61–74; Levenson, Hebrew Bible, 1–32; R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 147–75; idem, “Theology of the Old Testament,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies (ed. D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 459–61. Moberly’s work provides a meaningful framework for Jewish–Christian dialogue. While not wishing to minimize the difficulties of confessional Jewish and Christian scholars working together on the Hebrew Scriptures, we should state that so-called Christian supersessionism is not necessarily endemic to Christian faith (contra Levenson, Hebrew Bible, 27 and passim). However, it is certainly a concept that found multifarious expression in church history, and more to the point of this paper, in Christian scholarship as it emerged from the Enlightenment. See Krister Stendahl, “Qumran and Supersessionism—and the Road Not Taken,” PSB 19 (1998): 134–42; and Fredrick C. Holmgren, “The Old Testament and the ‘New’ in Jesus: Is ‘Old Testament’ a Suitable Title?” in The Old Testament and the Significance of Jesus: Embracing Change—Maintaining Christian Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 119–38. 46. Most notably in Delitzsch’s contemporary and colleague in Berlin Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma (3 vols.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1896–99).

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

367

nomic materials reveal that Israel’s sacred festivals were subsequently cut off from nature and given new dates based on mathematical calculations. The priesthood became the right of the Levites, and central worship was demanded. Third, the Priestly source reflected a religion in which the festivals were fixed on precise days of the calendar year, and while other festivals were retained, an entirely new one, the Day of Atonement, took precedence. The priesthood was limited to the descendants of Aaron, while all other Levites became lesser clerics. 47 The idea that religion had progressed through several evolutionary stages so pervaded nineteenth-century scholarship that many assumed religion was still progressing higher and higher to an ultimate good. 48 The notion was articulated by none other than Kaiser Wilhelm himself shortly after Delitzsch’s first lecture. In an address given November 29, 1902, the emperor spoke of freedom for the “further development of religion” (Weiterbildung der Religion), which appears to have been inspired by Delitzsch’s lecture. 49 Indeed the concluding lines of Delitzsch’s second lecture appeal to the same enthusiastic charge, in an apparent reference to the emperor’s call for the further development of religion, to continue the struggle for a higher expression of religious enlightenment.

47. This schema is everywhere apparent in the Prolegomena, but perhaps best illustrated in his treatment of sacrifice: see Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1983), 52–82; repr. of Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Enzies, with preface by W. Robertson Smith; Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885); trans. of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2d ed.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883). See also Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Summit Books, 1987), 25–27; and on the problems of evolutionary thought as particularly prevalent in Delitzsch, see Jacob J. Finkelstein, “Bible and Babel: A Comparative Study of the Hebrew and Babylonian Religious Spirit,” Commentary 26 (1958): 531–44, esp. 442–44. 48. The question of the influence of Hegel’s idealism on Wellhausen via Vatke has been much discussed. See Ernest Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 50; Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 82; and Levenson, Hebrew Bible, 11–12. For a rebuttal of the influence of Hegel on Wellhausen, see most notably Lothar Perlitt, Vatke und Wellhausen: Geschichtsphilosophische Voraussetzungen und historiographische Motive für die Darstellung der Religion und Geschichte Israels durch Wilhelm Vatke und Julius Wellhausen (BZAW 94; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1965). The question here is not whether or not Wellhausen was self-consciously aware of any influence or the degree to which he purposefully explained the history of Israel’s religion using Hegel’s philosophy. We are more interested in the general impact of Idealism on Wellhausen, Delitzsch, and their colleagues in the late nineteenth century. 49. So Larsen, “ ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy,” 100.

368

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

But on the other hand, let us not blindly adhere to antiquated, scientifically disproved dogmas, even perhaps out of fear, lest our belief in God and genuine piety thereby suffer injury. We consider everything earthly as in an active state of flux; standing still is synonymous with death. We gaze there at the mighty, pulsating power, with which the German Reformation serves great nations of the earth in every aspect of human work and human progress! However even the Reformation is only a stage upon the way to the goal of truth, which has been placed before us by God and in God. To that end we strive in humility, but with all the means of free scientific investigation, cheerfully declaring our allegiance to the further development of religion, which has been seen from the high watch-tower with eagle glance and proclaimed as the lively slogan for the whole world.50

Following on the success of the first lecture, this conclusion to the second seems to assume that the power of the German empire, with its resources to support Delitzsch’s own work and that of other enlightened scholars, has ushered in the time for a new religious construction. The observations from ancient Mesopotamia discussed in the lectures will free humans from the vitiating effects of the older Hebraic religion and make it possible to move beyond it to a higher expression of faith, one that presumably Delitzsch himself will articulate with the help of Wilhelm II. 51 Delitzsch’s commitment to the further development of religion is merely the backdrop to another, more central question, which he elaborated specifically in his second lecture. Early in the lecture he began to explain in detail his approach to the Hebrew Scriptures as something other than “divine inspiration,” and he rejected altogether the Hebrew Scriptures as “inspired” word of God. He subsequently responded to his vehement critics by stating that in their day they had reached “the end of the theological and the beginning of the religio-historical treatment of the Old Testament.” 52 What had been only implied in the first lecture was openly stated in the second: Christian religion should be fundamentally renewed and no longer needs the Old Testament. 53 In this he came close to the classic position of Adolf von Harnack, who said famously: 50. Delitzsch, Zweiter Vortrag, 37 (emphasis ours); and Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 183–84. 51. Such a position was so transparent that Wilhelm began to put distance between himself and Delitzsch shortly after the second lecture. See Johanning, Bibel-Babel-Streit, 53; Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 211–20; and Larsen, “ ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy,” 101–2. 52. Delitzsch, Zweiter Vortrag, 41; and see Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible: Two Lectures Delivered before the Members of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft in the Presence of the German Emperor (ed. C. H. W. Johns; Crown Theological Library 1; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1903), 220. 53. Johanning, Bibel-Babel-Streit, 52.

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

369

The rejection of the Old Testament in the second century was a mistake which the Great Church rightly refused to make; the retention of it in the sixteenth century was due to a fatal legacy which the Reformation was not able to overcome; but for Protestantism since the nineteenth century to continue to treasure it as a canonical document is the result of a religious and ecclesiastical paralysis. 54

This quotation is often cited as an example of anti-Semitism in German biblical scholarship, which it certainly is. But we suggest it is also antiChristian, as the reaction of the church to Harnack attests. 55 Thus Delitzsch’s views should be seen not only as anti-Semitic but also as anti-Christian. 56 Both of the programs we have discussed here—further development of religion and rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures—need critiquing from the Christian point of view. First, one would be hard pressed to locate in primitive Christianity the concept that Christian faith is itself contributing to an ongoing evolutionary progression from primitive expressions of noble worship to higher versions. In fact both Judaism and Christianity are marked by similar calls to “keep this festival,” so that Passover for Israel and the Lord’s Supper for Christians were benchmarks of the past that served to summon believers to remember and conform to the salvific configurations of history. In both, the danger lies in moving beyond the primitive, constitutional formulations of faith. Though both may be said to contain an Endzeit—an ideal eschatological culmination of faith in the future—that Endzeit is something new while at the same time a returning rather than a surpassing of the Urzeit. Second, the question of Christianity’s relationship to the Hebrew Scriptures is complex and certainly not as easy to sever as Delitzsch would make it seem. Christians of every generation have confronted this question, sometimes with troubling results, while many consider it the central question of Christian theology. Regardless of the definition or explanation of Christianity’s relationship to the Hebrew Scriptures, Christianity has continued to insist that a relationship

54. Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott: Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche (TU 45; rev. and enl. ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924), 217. 55. Martin Rumscheidt, ed., Adolf von Harnack: Liberal Theology at Its Height (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 14–33. 56. His anti-Christian positions have been eloquently summarized by Huffmon: “In dealing with Assyriological matters, as Delitzsch did in his first two lectures, he combined scholarship with special pleading; in dealing with Old Testament materials, Delitzsch mixed learning with considerable naivete; in dealing with the New Testament, or, more specifically Jesus, Delitzsch displayed naivete and perfidy” (Huffmon, “Babel und Bibel,” 319).

370

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

still exists, indeed must exist. 57 From the second century until the present, the church has continued to insist that any form of Christianity that can do without the Hebrew Scriptures is no genuine Christianity. 58 It is possible that Delitzsch’s anti-Christian positions are at times attributable to negative reactions against his family and childhood faith. His father was Franz Julius Delitzsch (1813–1890), who was appointed professor at Erlangen in 1850 and Leipzig in 1867. He was without doubt one of the most beloved and revered professors of the Hebrew Scriptures of his generation. 59 It is surprising, therefore, that in a brief autobiography published shortly before his death, Friedrich Delitzsch gave no room to the influence of his early faith and family. 60 Instead, he attempted to portray himself solely as the famous academic he had become, while also trying to dismiss charges of anti-Semitism. As has been commented upon by Reinhard Lehmann, this autobiographical account makes no mention of religion or theology in the context of Delitzsch’s youth or childhood home. 61 While such information might be unexpected and its absence thus without any significance, we agree with Lehmann that Delitzsch’s silence on the topic is particularly interesting in light of his fond recollections of his “ideale goldene Jugendzeit” in Erlange, which he claimed continued to shed sunshine well into the later years of his life. 62 Lehmann continues by lamenting the lack of evidence for the father’s influence on the son, though the pietistic Lutheran devotion must have been a formative influence in his life. Though every indication is that Franz and Friedrich had a

57. See Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 670–71. In essence, “Old Testament theology” from a Christian perspective is a formulation of the relationship between the two testaments (see Matitiahu Tsevat, “Theology of the Old Testament—A Jewish View,” HBT 8 [1986]: 33–50). 58. The date refers, of course, to Marcion’s attempt to compose a canon of Scripture in conformity to his anti-Jewish bias, which contained only a version of the Gospel of Luke, ten letters of Paul, and his own work entitled Antitheses. Marcion taught that the God of Jesus was not the same as the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that in fact the God of the Hebrews should be rejected. However, it was Marcion who was rejected by the church in Rome, beginning during his lifetime in the second century c.e. With the leadership of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the early church of the second and third centuries rose to the challenge, and with Augustine in the fourth century the issue was finally settled. See Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, 42; and John J. Clabeaux, “Marcion,” ABD 4:514–16. 59. Siegfried Wagner, Franz Delitzsch: Leben und Werk (BEvT 80; Munich: Kaiser, 1978). 60. Friedrich Delitzsch, “Main Lebenslauf,” Reclams Universum 36 (1920): 241–46, reprinted conveniently in Johanning, Bibel-Babel-Streit, 339–45. 61. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 59. 62. Delitzsch, “Lebenslauf,” 242.

Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures

371

favorable relationship, 63 Friedrich’s subsequent rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures and vitriolic response to his Catholic and Lutheran critics may find their roots in a desire to distance himself from his childhood faith. In his reply to critics of the second lecture, Delitzsch includes a passing mention of his father. In a passage in which he is responding to charges from a fellow biblical scholar (Ernst Sellin) that he has been late by nearly a century to argue against divine revelation in the Bible, Delitzsch contrasts his situation in the current controversy with his father’s career. Whereas Franz Delitzsch was slow to adopt the results of historical-critical investigation, he was finally compelled toward the end of his life “by the weight of the facts of Old Testament text criticism” to make the smallest possible concessions for the book of Genesis. As a result of having made such concessions, Franz was persecuted even while on his deathbed by the denunciations of church synods. 64 The son, Friedrich, now argues that the controversy caused by his second lecture only demonstrates the gap between academy and church. This rare reference to his “dear father” may also reveal the distance Friedrich sees between the work of the two. The father was a devout Lutheran scholar who made only slight adjustments to his critical positions during his career, while the son not only rejected the inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures but also denied their usefulness and validity for contemporary Christians. One can hardly imagine greater distance between father and son who are both academics working in the same discipline, and this would not be the first time an academic has jettisoned confessional positions partly as a defense mechanism.

II. Conclusion At the centennial of the “Babel und Bibel” lectures, our intent has been to consider Delitzsch and his method in the context of his time and place in order to gain a heuristic depth perception after the passage of a full century. Delitzsch was a brilliant Assyriologist, one of the most distinguished scholars of the time. But beyond his philological accomplishments, he also left behind a legacy of uncritical political nationalism and questionable assumptions. In this light, Delitzsch stands as a singular reminder of the importance of the way in which we relate our research to our context. 63. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch, 60 n. 109. 64. “Als mein teurer [sic] Vater Franz Delitzsch sich gegen sein Lebensende durch die Wucht der Tatsachen der alttestamentlichen Textkritik bewogen sah, in der Genesis auch nur die kleinstmögliche Konzession zu machen, wurde er noch auf seinem Sterbebett (1890) von Warnungen ganzer Synoden verfolgt” (Delitzsch, Zweiter Vortrag, 40). See also the revealing autobiographical reference to his “strict orthodox Lutheran family” in Die Grosse Täuschung, 1:9.

Delitzsch in Context Bill T. Arnold and David B. Weisberg

This study, dedicated to Simon De Vries, is written in conjunction with a paper entitled ‘A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch’s “Babel und Bibel” Lectures’, presented at the November 2000 Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Nashville, by the authors. 1 In the present paper, the authors propose to examine further two aspects of Delitzsch’s work: 2 1. What was the direct impact of ideas of German nationalism affecting Delitzsch at a time when he spoke before Emperor Wilhelm II? and 2. What were some of Friedrich Delitzsch’s Assyriological contributions as seen in their context of a century ago? In his essay ‘The “Babel/Bible” Controversy and its Aftermath’, Mogens Trolle Larsen gives a taste of the political background in Germany one hundred years ago as Delitzsch was delivering his three lectures. Pointing out the ‘significant element of nationalism behind the support given to these scholarly pursuits by the political leadership in Germany’, 3 Larsen [Reprinted from Gods Word for World: Theological and Cultural Studies in Honor of Simon John de Vries (ed. J. H. Ellens, et al.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 2:37–45.] Authors note: ‘Delitzsch in Context’ was presented at the Annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature at Denver, Colorado, on 17 November 2001. The authors are pleased to thank Professors Pinhas Artzi (Bar-Ilan University), Todd Herzog (University of Cincinnati), Isaac Kalimi (Case Western Reserve University), Stephen Kaufman (Hebrew Union College), Vejar Liulevicius (University of Tennessee), Richard Schade (University of Cincinnati) and George Schoolfield (University of Yale) for their kind help. Abbreviations are those of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (hereafter CAD). 1. JBL 121 (2002), pp. 441–57. That article contains many references relevant to this study as well. See also by the same authors, ‘Babel und Bibel und Bias’, BR 18.1 (2002), pp. 32–40. 2. A brief biography of Friedrich Delitzsch (1850–1922) by F. Weissbach can be found in the RlA 2 (1938), p. 198. This includes an evaluation of Delitzsch’s scholarship as well as an overview of many of his publications. 3. Larsen, ‘The “Babel/Bible” Controversy and its Aftermath’, in J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (4 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995), I, pp. 95–106.

372

Delitzsch in Context

373

stressed the ‘element of global politics involved’ 4 in sponsoring German Oriental studies. Larsen noted ‘The prestigious nature of the occasion in Berlin, with the emperor present along with some of the most prominent men of the German elite, gave a special significance to the evening’s lecture . . .’ 5 The establishment of the German Oriental Society, before which Delitzsch delivered the first and second of his lectures, was one of only several aspects of German government patronage of Oriental studies in Delitzsch’s day. 6 On whose initiative did the invitation come?—In his Introduction to the English edition of Babel and Bible, C. H. W. Johns refers to the circumstances surrounding the invitation to deliver Delitzsch’s first lecture: ‘The announcement that Professor Friedrich Delitzsch, the great Assyriologist, had been granted leave to deliver a lecture upon the relations between the Bible and the recent results of cuneiform research, in the august presence of the Kaiser and the Court, naturally caused a great sensation’. 7 The following year, in 1903, Delitzsch’s invitation was renewed, as described by Johns with the following words: ‘the great professor was once more bidden to deliver a lecture in the presence of the Kaiser and the Court’. 8 It thus appears that these two lectures were a kind of ‘command performance’ of German élites (business, government and military leaders) to co-opt academics, but it also seems clear that the academicians willingly participated in these nationalist efforts. 9 This phenomenon extended beyond the pre-World War I and World War I periods into the 1930s and on into the World War II period. 10 Fritz Fischer is the author of Germany’s Aims in the First World War, 11 a landmark book which Yale University scholar Hajo Holborn called ‘not only the chief source on German foreign 4. Larsen, ‘The “Babel/Bible” Controversy’, p. 96. 5. Larsen, ‘The “Babel/Bible” Controversy’, p. 97. 6. In RlA 2 (1938), p. 201, an entry reads: ‘Deutsche Orientgesellschaft s. Gesellschaft, wissenschaftliche’. However, in RlA 3 (1966), pp. 233–43 under, ‘Gesellschaft’, there is no reference to modern learned societies like the German Oriental Society. The article by E. von Schuler deals with ancient societies only. 7. Johns, Babel und Bibel (New York: Putnam’s, 1903), p. v. 8. Johns, Babel und Bibel, p. x. 9. See below, on Fischer’s Germany’s Aims in the First World War. 10. See Max Weinreich, Hitler’s Professors (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999 [first published in 1946 by YIVO]). Many quotes from this volume from the pre-World War II and World War II days sound as if they could have originated back in the World War I era, as the following quote might show: ‘A realistic picture of what happened in Germany, therefore, can be gained only if the words of her scientists are confronted with the deeds of her political, industrial, and military leaders. In doing so, by the way, we merely comply with the wish of the German scholars themselves, who ardently desired to be considered part and parcel of the German system’ (p. 37).

374

Delitzsch in Context

policy in World War I but also an invaluable introduction to the history of our own age’. 12 In his book, Fischer demonstrated that on the subject of Germany’s great power aspirations before the outbreak of World War I, there was no difference of objective between industry and the military on the one hand, and the labor movement and the academy on the other. It is this last mentioned component of German society, ‘the academy’, that we would like to examine here as forming the backdrop for Delitzsch’s activities at that time. The two examples cited deal with (1) the Near East, and (2) the Baltic States. Several instances of the geopolitical importance of the Near East in Germany’s plans follow. In a chapter entitled ‘The Vision of World Power’, Fischer spelled out Germany’s view of ‘Turkey as an outpost against Britain’. 13 Turkey would be revitalized as a state which would prevent Germany’s enemies from erecting ‘a barrier against [Germany’s] eastward path’. 14 Moreover, as a conference of representatives of German government offices in 1917 resolved, ‘the Mesopotamian oil wells must . . . come within Germany’s sphere of influence’ 15 because other sources ‘would not suffice for Germany’s needs’. 16 In this regard, the security and extension of the Baghdad railway were major objectives related to the above-mentioned oil. 17 These issues relating as they did to the Near East, must have impacted Delitzsch, an Assyriologist and biblical scholar, and undoubtedly bore on Delitzsch’s desire to engage in some active way in Germany’s ‘Vision of World Power’. 18 A second area of academics and the German nationalist movement, though not relating to the Near East, does tie in with the activities of German scholars in the service of their homeland. This is the area of German interest in the Baltic States. With respect to the Baltic States and Lithuania, Fischer informs us that

11. Germany’s Aims in the First World War (New York: W. W. Norton, 1967), published in Germany in 1961 under the title Griff nach der Weltmacht. 12. Hajo Holborn, ‘Introduction to the American Edition’ of Germany’s Aims in the First World War, p. xv. 13. Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, p. 583. 14. Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, p. 586. 15. Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, p. 586. 16. Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, p. 586. 17. Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, pp. 583–84. 18. See above, n. 12.

Delitzsch in Context

375

The original annexationist purposes of German policy survived in purest form in the attempt to ‘attach’ Lithuania, Courland, Livonia and Estonia.19

Two academic events, one occurring in 1913 and the other in 1918, are relevant to our investigation as illustrating the mood of German scholars of that time. The first relates to a summer university in Riga: As early as 1913 a large number of idealistic and patriotic German savants from the Reich had met in a so-called summer university in Riga with the intention of promoting a ‘movement of world philosophy’ which should ‘save from cultural isolation this part of the German people which politically is separated from us’. 20

The second event was the institution of ‘lecture courses by German professors at Dorpat University (Tartu, in Estonia) . . . The leading figures of academic Germany took part.’ 21 We have no indication that Delitzsch participated in lectures in the Baltic States, but we think that the existence of such exercises at this time in all likelihood created a certain amount of pressure—as it were—for people to contribute their efforts to nationalistic causes. If so, we have a line stretching from Delitzsch’s ‘Babel und Bibel’ lectures beginning in 1902, and continuing with the summer university in Riga in 1913, then to the Dorpat university 1918 and finally to activities of pre-World War II days. Turning now to the second question raised at the beginning of our essay, we ask: What were some of Friedrich Delitzsch’s Assyriological contributions as seen in their context of a century ago? Friedrich Delitzsch’s contributions to scholarship are wide-ranging. We would like to examine some of them and assess them as to their value in his day and their value to scholarship today. By ‘value’ we do not necessarily mean that the work continues to be used today, being as useful as it was about one hundred years ago. Rather, what we mean is that in its time it was most useful and played an important role as the field developed, in many cases, eventually to be superseded. The four categories of Delitzsch’s contributions have been summarized as follows: 22 1. ‘purely Assyriological studies’,

19. Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, p. 598. Courland is the southwestern part of Latvia and Livonia denotes the lands on the eastern coast of the Baltic north of Lithuania. 20. Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, p. 604. 21. Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, p. 604. 22. Abraham Arzi, ‘Delitzsch, Friedrich’, in EncJud, V, p. 1475.

376

Delitzsch in Context

2. comparative studies such as ‘the Hebrew language in its relation to Akkadian and the Semitic Languages in relationship to the IndoEuropean Languages’, 3. studies solely ‘in the field of Bible’, 4. ‘comparative studies of Babylonian culture and the world of the Bible’. We shall try to show that the studies in the purely Assyriological and purely biblical areas are the ones that have had the enduring value, whereas the comparative cultural studies in languages and in Biblical and Babylonian culture have not endured, or indeed in the latter case, have become discredited. 23

1. ‘Purely Assyriological Studies’ The first category consists of ‘purely Assyriological studies’. We shall cite some of Delitzsch’s works, representing major areas of Assyriological research, namely, lexicography, grammar, sign lists and chrestomathies.

a. Lexicography In his review of events leading to the publication of CAD, I. J. Gelb mentioned the role that Delitzsch’s efforts played in the development of a comprehensive Akkadian dictionary. According to Gelb, Friedrich Delitzsch, writing about 40 years after the earliest attempts in Akkadian lexicography were made, undertook ‘to publish a smaller and much more useful dictionary, namely, the 728-page Assyrisches Handwörterbuch (Leipzig, 1896) (hereafter AHw). The new work by Delitzsch was a masterpiece of its kind [that] remained a basic tool of Assyriology for over half a century’. 24 The materials used for W. von Soden’s AHw included among them ‘an unpublished supplement to Akkadian Dictionaries published by Delitzsch and Meissner’s annotated copies of Delitzsch’s and Muss-Arnolt’s dictionaries . . .’ 25 Obviously, this dictionary could no longer be useful today, considering the stupendous progress in the field of Assyriology and especially in Akkadian lexicography during the past century. In R. Borger’s words, it was ‘very good but [it is] now out-of-date’. 26 23. For example, Delitzsch’s Die Grosse Täuschung (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1921). 24. ‘History of Akkadian Lexicography’, in CAD, I, A Part I, p. x. 25. ‘History of Akkadian Lexicography’, p. xi. 26. ‘Sehr gut, aber jetzt veraltet’: Rykle Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke (hereafter BAL) (Analecta Orientalia, 54.2; neubearbeitete Auflage; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1994), p. ix.

Delitzsch in Context

377

b. Grammars Delitzsch’s Assyrische Grammatik was first published in Berlin in 1889. A second revised edition appeared in Berlin seventeen years later, in 1906. 27 Writing in Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik (hereafter GAG), W. von Soden observed that ‘Works that are totally dated are not cited’. 28 Consequently, Delitzsch’s grammar is not cited in GAG. Moreover, we failed to find it referenced in any other modern grammars of Akkadian, especially grammars of Akkadian in the English language. However, Delitzsch’s Assyrische Grammatik is cited in R. Borger’s Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke, who felt that in some respects, ‘it still continues to be valuable’. 29 c. Sign Lists Delitzsch produced sign lists in the second edition of his Assyrische Grammatik and the fifth edition of his Assyrische Lesestücke 1912, 30 but his lists would not be consulted by today’s Assyriologists. Moreover, even in their own day, they could not have been considered the equivalent of René Labat’s Manuel d’Epigraphie Akkadienne 31 or R. Borger’s Zeichenliste. 32 d. Chrestomathy The best known edition of the five that Delitzsch’s Assyrische Lesentücke underwent was the fifth edition published in Leipzig in 1912. Selections from the Chrestomathy were published by subsequent scholars, for example, ‘Two Neo-Assyrian Letters’ cited in Bergsträsser Introduction. 33 Borger has described it in the following words: ‘In earlier times [it was] the standard Chrestomathy, [and it is] still valuable today . . .’ 34

2. Comparative Studies The second category consists of comparative studies such as the Hebrew language in its relationship with Akkadian and the Semitic Languages in 27. R. Borger, Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur (hereafter HAKL) (3 vols.; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1967–75), I, p. 77. 28. W. von Soden, Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik (hereafter GAG) (Analecta Orientalia 33; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1952), p. xxii. 29. BAL, p. x. 30. See HAKL, III, p. 140. 31. R. Labat, Manuel d’Epigraphie Akkadienne (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1948). 32. R. Borger, Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste (AOAT, 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 2nd edn., 1981). 33. Gotthelf Bergsträsser, Introduction to the Semitic Languages (trans. Peter T. Daniels; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), p. 49 (= Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1896], Nos. 341 and 435). 34. BAL, p. x.

378

Delitzsch in Context

relationship to the Indo-European Languages. Examples are Studien über indo-germanisch-semitische Wurzelwandtschaft (1873) and Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament (1886). 35 Not having encountered either of these works in our own research, we consulted a colleague in comparative Semitics, Stephen Kaufman, who expressed his unfamiliarity with both of them. They are works that are not quoted today, even as part of the description of the history of the field, and Professor Kaufman said that he was ‘not really familiar with either’ and that he had ‘never seen either work referred to in a positive or negative way. In other words, Delitzsch is not cited in the area of West Semitic lexicography.’

3. ‘Studies Solely in the Field of Bible’ The third category consist of ‘studies solely in the field of Bible’. Probably the best example to be cited is Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament, 36 which is still ‘a valuable aid to textual criticism’. 37 Delitzsch used standard methods of categorizing errors in the biblical text such as errors due to lack of separation of words and phrases where such should occur; omission of certain letters where they should appear—or the reverse; errors due to misvocalization, and so on. Usually overlooked by both Assyriologists and biblical scholars is a small but valuable collection of scribal errors culled by Delitzsch from cuneiform texts that could serve as parallels to the kind of biblical scribal errors he was classifying in the main part of his book. It is possible one might fail to notice this sort of comparison due to the obvious fact that the one language is written in cuneiform characters whereas the other is written in Hebrew letters. Nevertheless the comparison is illuminating. Delitzsch cited dittography of signs, omission of words and metathesis of signs and of words in close proximity in cuneiform writing. 38

4. ‘Comparative Studies of Babylonian Culture and the World of the Bible’ The fourth category is ‘comparative studies of Babylonian culture and the world of the Bible’, an area in which Delitzsch was perhaps less than scientifically objective. 35. The authors were able to locate these works among the books from the library of Julius and Hildegaard Lewy bequeathed to the library of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati. 36. Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im alten Testament (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1920). 37. Arzi, ‘Delitzsch, Friedrich’, p. 1475. 38. Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler, pp. iv–v.

Delitzsch in Context

379

Two of the parade examples cited by Delitzsch to show that the Israelites ‘borrowed’ key institutions or names from Babylonians are the tetragrammaton and the Sabbath. But in each case, it is clear that the original claim is false. The personal name in which Delitzsch thought he saw the name of the Israelite deity has been interpreted differently since the writings of Landsberger, von Soden and J. Lewy—see CAD, I/J, p. 330, for the possessive pronoun ja’u (‘mine’) and the bibliography cited at the conclusion of the article. For the accepted meaning of the personal name in which this pronoun occurs, note: ‘Die innige Verbindung von Mensch und Schutzgott hat zum Inhalt der Name Ia’um-ilum “Mein ist der Gott . . .” ’ 39 As for the institution of the Sabbath, some scholars have accepted the link with the original Akkadian term—see AHw, p. 1172, for the noun sapattu, ‘15. Monatstag, Vollmond?’ However, in an article by W. G. Lambert, the author argues that since sapattu has neither genuine Babylonian etymology nor Sumerian equivalent, and since it first appears sometime around the eighteenth century bce, it must be Amorite in origin. Lambert believes that both sapattu and tbç were dependent on an Amorite source. 40 Thus we should no longer think in terms of simple borrowing, Hebrew from Babylonian or vice versa. Moreover, even if the Akkadian and Hebrew terms are from a similar Amorite source, many would grant that ‘its meaning was incontestably altered when the term was applied to the novel concept of the weekly rest day’. 41 W. W. Hallo notes that the notion of the origin of the Sabbath as an unfavorable day ‘goes back at least to Friedrich Delitzsch’, but Hallo appears to side with U. Cassuto who favors the notion that the Israelite Sabbath was instituted in opposition to the Mesopotamian system . . . Israel’s Sabbath day shall not be as the Sabbath of the heathen nations; it shall not be the day of the full moon . . .42 39. Johann Jakob Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1939), p. 211. 40. W. G. Lambert, ‘A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis’, Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965), pp. 287–300 (296–97); reprinted in R. S. Hess and D. T. Tsumura (eds.), I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp. 96–113 (106). See also Benno Landsberger, Der Kultische Kalender der Babylonier und Assyrer. 1. Die altbabylonischen Lokalkalender (Leipziger Semitische Studien, 6; Leipzig: A. Pries, 1914), pp. 131–35. 41. William Hallo, Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), p. 127. 42. Hallo, Origins, pp. 127–28. For a differing viewpoint, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 149–50.

380

Delitzsch in Context

With regard to the question of ‘Just when did this transformation in the meaning of the Biblical Sabbath take place?’, Hallo responds: ‘The question still awaits a clear answer’. 43 Finally, it is interesting to compare Friedrich Delitzsch’s permanent contributions to those of W. von Soden, who was the editor of the AHw, the author of the major Akkadian reference grammar in use today, and the Akkadian syllabary. In many ways their scientific work is parallel and both were towering figures in the international progress of the field of Assyriology. In this study, the authors have attempted to place an important and influential scholar in his context of a century ago. By so doing, they hope they have made a small contribution to the two fields named in Delitzsch’s prominent lectures, and to the ongoing debate about the relationship between these fields. 43. Hallo, Origins, p. 128.

Babel und Bibel und Bias: How Anti-Semitism Distorted Friedrich Delitzsch’s Scholarship Bill T. Arnold and David B. Weisberg

Bible scholars don’t often become famous. And they certainly don’t do it overnight. But that’s what Friedrich Delitzsch did, 100 years ago. Already known among scholars as a leading Semitist and historian, Delitzsch had published the standard dictionary of Akkadian (the Assyrian-Babylonian language), a grammar of Akkadian and a book on the Babylonian creation myths. But on January 13, 1902, amid the dazzling surroundings of Berlin’s famed Music Academy, the 51-year-old German scholar gave a lecture on Babylonia and the Bible that was so controversial the speaker became an overnight sensation. His impressive audience included not only the German intelligentsia but also the German emperor. Kaiser Wilhelm II was so impressed with Delitzsch’s lecture that he invited him to repeat it for the empress two weeks later at the royal palace. The lecture had been hyped as a landmark event in which Delitzsch would shed new light on the Hebrew Scriptures using recent spectacular discoveries from excavations in Babylonia, including the law code of King Hammurabi (1792–1750 b.c.e.), which had been discovered only the previous year. Delitzsch turned the tables on his audience, however. Instead of calling his lecture “The Bible and Babylonia,” he called it “Babylonia and the Bible” (in German “Babel und Bibel”), thereby giving preeminence to Babylonia over the Bible. His thesis was even more shocking: Babylonian religion and culture were not only older than that of the Israelites, but superior, too! In a series of three lectures under the same title held between 1902 and 1904, Delitzsch expanded on this thesis: The Sabbath had its origins in Babylonian ethics; the Lord’s sacred name (YHWH) appeared first in [Reprinted from Bible Review 18/2 (Feb, 2002) 32–40, 47.] Authors’ note: The authors express their gratitude to Dr. J. Steven O’Malley for his assistance.

381

382

Babel und Bibel und Bias

Babylonian texts; and Israelite monotheism was a lesser (and later) expression of a more noble Babylonian concept. Later Delitzsch even recommended that the Old Testament be excised from the Bibles of German Christians. 1 Delitzsch struck a nerve that ran deep in German culture and society, as exemplified by the breadth and intensity of the controversy that followed his lectures. Many listeners were convinced by his impressive edifice of cultural and archaeological comparisons and by his creative reconstructions of the history of religion. Others recognized the lectures as eloquent and scholarly arguments, cleverly stated, but nonetheless illogical and misleading. A few charged him with anti-Semitism, which he claimed was impossible because of his scientific objectivity. In the 20th century, Delitzsch’s lectures have come under close scrutiny, and most of what he argued must, in the opinion of virtually all scholars, be discarded. But at the centennial of Delitzsch’s first lecture, it is still valuable to revisit his lectures and the debate they caused in order to illustrate how biases and preconceived convictions sometimes affect the conclusions of Bible scholars. In retrospect, it is easy to identify the extreme German nationalism and anti-Semitism that informed Delitzsch’s lectures.

1. The ensuing international uproar created a demand for copies of the lectures, which went through numerous editions. For a scholarly text-critical approach to the various published editions, see Reinhard G. Lehmann, Friedrich Delitzsch und der BabelBibel-Streit, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 133 (Freiburg: Universitätsberlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994). Of the several English editions of the lectures, the most often cited are Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible: Two Lectures Delivered Before the Members of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft in the Presence of the German Emperor, ed. C. H. W. Johns, Crown Theological Library 1 (London: Williams and Norgate; New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1903), and Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible: A Lecture on the Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion, trans. T. J. McCormack (Chicago: Open Court, 1902). Eventually, McCormack provided all three lectures in translation: Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible: Three Lectures on the Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion, Embodying the Most Important Criticisms and the Author’s Replies, trans. McCormack, W. H. Carruth and I. G. Robinson (Chicago: Open Court, 1906). For more references, see Lehmann, Delitzsch, pp. 382–84. For summaries of Delitzsch’s arguments, see Jacob J. Finkelstein, “Bible and Babel: A Comparative Study of the Hebrew and Babylonian Religious Spirit,” Commentary 26 (1958), pp. 431–44; Herbert B. Huffmon, “Babel und Bibel: The Encounter Between Babylon and the Bible,” Michigan Quarterly Review 22 (1983), pp. 309–20; Klaus Johanning, Der Bibel-Babel-Streit: Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Studie, Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/343 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988); and Mogens Trolle Larsen, “The ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy and Its Aftermath,” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack Sasson (New York: Scribners, 1995), vol. 1, pp. 99–103.

Babel und Bibel und Bias

383

A close reading of the Babel und Bibel lectures reveals a number of personal assumptions at work behind Delitzsch’s scholarship, including his nationalism, which was so characteristic of Europeans at the turn of the century. In the late 19th and early 20th century, Germans felt they were falling behind in the race among European national powers. To build an empire, it was necessary to colonize other areas of the globe and thereby acquire the capital for industrialization at home. Since unification under Otto van Bismarck in 1871, Germany had been scrambling to compete with the British, French and Dutch, long since established as colonial powers in many parts of the world. One secondary consequence of colonization in the Near East was the acquisition of antiquities. Germany had a distinct disadvantage. The Louvre in Paris and the British Museum in London had already amassed huge quantities of artifacts and texts from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The founding in 1898 of the German Oriental Society, which sponsored excavations in Babylon and subsidized Delitzsch’s lecture series, was motivated in part by the need to compete for Egyptian and cuneiform collections. In the opening paragraph of his first lecture, Delitzsch acknowledged the rivalry and competition for Near Eastern excavation sites and artifacts. For Delitzsch, the new participation in the excavations in Babylon was “for Germany’s honor and for Germany’s science,” rather than for the advancement of the discipline generally. 2 He longed for the German Oriental Society to take its “glorious place under the sun” among the other national efforts in the Near East. Delitzsch’s nationalism became an issue in his second lecture, delivered a year later, on January 12, 1903. Here we detect an ideological shift. Rather than speak of Babylon as “interpreter and illustrator” of the Hebrew Bible (as he had done in lecture one), Delitzsch attacked the Hebrew Bible as an authoritative source for modern German Christians. In a published edition of the lecture, Delitzsch denigrated the ethical value of the Hebrew prophets. He denied the revealed nature and the divine inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures. He bemoaned the fact that the Hebrew Bible continued to serve believers of the West as a source of morality and edification. German Christians, he stated, should come to appreciate God’s revelation to German people rather than ancient Israelites. Instead of immersing ourselves . . . in the rule of God among our own people, from Germany’s primitive times to the present, we continue granting a “revelation” status to those old Israelite oracles, either out of ignorance,

2. From the conclusion to the printed versions of lecture one; Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel: Ein Vortrag (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902), pp. 51–52.

384

Babel und Bibel und Bias

apathy, or blindness. But this no longer stands up in the light of science, nor that of religion, nor ethics. 3

Twenty years later, Delitzsch would repeat this proposal even more boldly in Die Grosse Täuschung (The Great Deception), his last publication before he died in 1922. 4 Here Delitzsch suggested that the Hebrew Scriptures should no longer be valued as a book of Christian religion and should be replaced with tales of Germany’s heroes of the past and their thoughts on God, eternity and immortality. The so-called “Old Testament” is entirely dispensable for the Christian church, and thereby also for the Christian family. It would be a great deal better for us to immerse ourselves from time to time in the deep thoughts, which our German intellectual heroes have thought concerning God, eternity, and immortality. 5

In this way, nationalism merged with anti-Semitism. Delitzsch anticipated by only a decade or so those German Christians of the Third Reich who sought to eradicate all things Jewish. 6 Delitzsch’s prejudices are apparent throughout. Early in the lectures, Delitzsch was especially interested in finding non-Semitic racial features in ancient Near Eastern sources. While describing the image of the wife of King Assurbanipal (668–627 b.c.e.) in a Neo-Assyrian relief, Delitzsch noted that she was “obviously to be thought of as a princess of Aryan blood and blond hair.” 7 In later lectures, Delitzsch went even further. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 ranks Shem, the ancestor of the Semites, as the firstborn among Noah’s sons. But Delitzsch counters that the Hebrew author was blinded by “Semitic prejudices” and unintentionally concealed the important role in early human history of earlier non-Semitic peoples.

3. Lehmann, Delitzsch, p. 244. 4. Released in two volumes in 1920 and 1921: Friedrich Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung: Erster Teil, Kritische Betrachtungen zu den alttestamentlichen Berichten über Israels Eindringen in Kanaan, die Gottesoffenbarung vom Sinai und die Wirksamheit der Propheten (Stuttgart/Berlin: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1920) and Die Grosse Täuschung: Zweiter (Schluss-) Teil, Fortgesetzte kritische Betrachtungen zum Alten Testament, vornehmlich den Prophetenschriften und Psalmen, nebst Schlußfolgerungen (Stuttgart/Berlin: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1921). 5. Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, pt. 1, p. 97. 6. Delitzsch’s anti-Semitism has been thoroughly documented and widely acknowledged. See Lehmann, Delitzsch, pp. 268–71, and Larsen, “The ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy,” pp. 104–5. 7. Delitzsch, Ein Vortrag, pp. 19–20.

Babel und Bibel und Bias

385

This was all part of Delitzsch’s attempt to prove the primacy of IndoAryans in world history and to describe the history of the world’s early cultures as the encounter of humankind’s “passive” peoples with those, like the Germans, who were more “creative” and “active.” 8 According to Delitzsch’s reconstruction of early Mesopotamian history, the non-Semitic Sumerians established the religious conceptions for “the immigrant Semitic” groups that followed. Delitzsch believed that the cultural heritage of these Sumerians was superior in ethics and morality to that of the biblical Israelites. 9 Delitzsch assumed that the Babylonians were partly of Aryan stock. With the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians in 722 b.c.e., non-Semites entered the population of Israel (especially Samaria and Galilee). They introduced the ethical and moral conceptions that resulted in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Delitzsch argued. The Good Samaritan, according to Delitzsch, was a Babylonian. From him all humankind learned the model of neighborly love, a model far superior to the ethical conceptions of ancient Israel. 10 Delitzsch also made much of the tradition that the three magi—the first to present their homage at the cradle of Christianity—were wise men from Babylonia. 11 Perhaps most shocking of all is his suggestion that Jesus himself was not Jewish, but Babylonian and probably in part Aryan, since the Aryan Babylonians had settled Samaria and Galilee! This suggestion became a conviction later in Delitzsch’s life, when he argued that Jesus was a Jewish proselyte (convert) rather than a Jew. His Galilean origins meant Jesus was not Semitic at all, but Babylonian and at least in part Aryan. 12 Delitzsch was one of several anti-Semitic European scholars of his day. 13 But more than these other scholars, Delitzsch held a position of influence and political power on an international stage. His conclusions—argued in so scholarly a fashion—fueled flames already raging in the minds of many Germans. In 1923, partly under the influence of Delitzsch, Kaiser

8. Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel: Dritter (Schluss-) Vortrag (Stuttgart: Deutsche VerlagsAnstalt, 1905), pp. 3–4. 9. Delitzsch, Dritter (Schluss-) Vortrag, pp. 4–6, 32–37. 10. Delitzsch, Dritter (Schluss-) Vortrag, pp. 23, 56–57. 11. Delitzsch, Dritter (Schluss-) Vortrag, p. 48. 12. Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, pt. 1, p. 96, pt. 2, pp. 59–66. 13. Julius Wellhausen for example. On the anti-Semitism of Wellhausen in general, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 3 (Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1977), pp. 20–22; and Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), pp. 41–43.

386

Babel und Bibel und Bias

Wilhelm argued that Jesus was not only Aryan, but in fact anti-Jewish, and that he actually opposed the message of the Hebrew Scriptures. Wilhelm tried to make the case for religious reforms under the banner “Out with Jewry and its Yahweh!” 14 The title of Delitzsch’s last published work, Die Grosse Täuschung (The Great Deception), refers to the Hebrew Scriptures. He was intent on exposing them as an untruthful historical record. 15 In the end, Delitzsch expressed concern that the history of the Jewish people posed a threat to the future of the German people. “It is obvious,” he wrote, “that such a deliberately unpatriotic and international people represents a great and dreadful danger for all other peoples of the earth.” 16 Delitzsch had still another bias: In addition to nationalism and antiSemitism, anti-Christian sentiment marred his scholarship. It may seem strange to charge anti-Christian impulses to a child of devout Lutheran parents, and to someone so closely linked to the traditional Christian culture of 19th-century Germany. But Delitzsch’s antipathy toward the Hebrew Scriptures must also be recognized as an antipathy toward the Christian Old Testament, and thus as an attack on traditional Christianity, as well. Delitzsch’s hostility toward the Hebrew Bible-Old Testament was based on his ardent belief in the continual upward progression of religion. Delitzsch, like many scholars at the turn of the century, was convinced that religion was still progressing higher and higher to an ultimate good. He was convinced that his own work, and that of other enlightened scholars (supported in large measure by the power of the new German state), was contributing to this ongoing evolutionary process. Theirs was not simply a reformation or revivalist movement, but a genuine advancement beyond primitive expressions of noble worship toward a truly higher expression of religious enlightenment. 17 Delitzsch implied that his lectures on Babylon and the Bible should be accepted as a significant step toward a reformulation of Christian faith, which eventually would free humans from the contaminating vestiges of the old Hebrew religion. In denigrating the Hebrew Bible, Delitzsch shared the position of his contemporary, church historian Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930), who took the Old Testament to be anachronistic. Harnack believed the early 14. See Larsen, “The ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy,” p. 105. Wilhelm was anticipated by Delitzsch (Die Grosse Täuschung, pt. 2, pp. 62–66). 15. Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, pt. 1, pp. 107–8. 16. Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, pt. 1, p. 105. 17. For details of the evolutionary approaches to religion dominant at the time and Delitzsch’s role in them, see Bill T. Arnold and David B. Weisberg, “A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch’s ‘Babel und Bible’ Lectures,” JBL 121/3 (2002) 441–57.

Babel und Bibel und Bias

387

church’s retention of the Hebrew Scriptures had been unavoidable due to the prescientific world view. But modern Christians since the Enlightenment should reject the Old Testament, because, according to Harnack, the new age of science had provided a superior, scholarly foundation for Christianity. According to Harnack, “The rejection of the Old Testament in the second century was a mistake which the Great Church rightly refused to make; the retention of it in the sixteenth century was due to a fatal legacy which the Reformation was not able to overcome; but for Protestantism since the nineteenth century to continue to treasure it as a canonical document is the result of a religious and ecclesiastical paralysis.” 18 The idea of an ever-improving progression from primitive expressions of faith to higher and more noble versions is foreign not only to early Christianity, but also to contemporaneous Judaism. Instead of encouraging progression beyond earlier formulations, both Judaism and Christianity warn of the dangers of moving beyond the original constitutional formulations of faith. “Keep this festival” (Exodus 12:14), God tells Moses and Aaron, instructing them to celebrate Passover in perpetuity. “Do this in memory of me” (Luke 22:19), Jesus similarly orders his disciples at the Last Supper. Both episodes call believers to remember, repeat and conform to these saving acts of history. Christianity’s relationship to the Hebrew Scriptures is indeed complex, and certainly not as easy to sever as Delitzsch would make it seem. Christians of every generation have confronted this question, sometimes with troubling results; many consider it the central question of Christian theology. Regardless of the explanation of Christianity’s relationship to the Hebrew Scriptures, Christianity has always maintained that a strong bond exists, indeed must exist. 19 From the second century until the present, the church has insisted that any form of Christianity without the Hebrew Scriptures is not genuine Christianity. 20

18. Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott: Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche, Texte und Untersuchungen 45, rev. and enl. ed. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924), p. 217. 19. See Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), pp. 670–71. In essence, Old Testament theology from a Christian perspective is a formulation of the relationship between the two testaments (see Matitiahu Tsevat, “Theology of the Old Testament—A Jewish View,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 8 [1986], pp. 33–50). 20. The second-century date refers to Marcion’s attempt to compose a canon of Scripture in conformity to his anti-Jewish bias, which contained only a version of the Gospel of Luke, ten letters of Paul and his own work titled “Antitheses.” Marcion taught that the God of Jesus was not the same as the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that in fact the God of the Hebrews should be rejected. But it was Marcion who was rejected

388

Babel und Bibel und Bias

Anti-Christian sentiment, anti-Semitism, unmitigated nationalism: The theoretical and philosophical assumptions that drove this brilliant scholar seem obvious to us today. As we look back across the shadows of the early 20th century, past the conflagrations caused by two World Wars, and through the tears, shame and horror of the Holocaust, what we see—100 years later—is that Delitzsch contributed in some way to those events. His brilliance, combined with his unprecedented opportunity to address Germany’s intelligentsia and leaders, put him in a position to make a difference. As a respected and revered scholar, he had an opportunity to challenge the norms of society. Instead, he added to some of their excesses. Few of Delitzsch’s contemporaries grasped how truly harmful his words were. When he was criticized as anti-Semitic, he contended that he meant no injury or insult to Judaism or to modern Jewish faith. Instead, he countered, his work was a “dispassionate, strictly objective discussion” of the factual issues. 21 He portrayed himself as trapped between two unfair criticisms: Some accused him of “Semitomania,” while others claimed he was anti-Semitic. 22 The truth, he responded, lay in the middle: He neither loved nor hated Semites, but was simply seeking truth for its own sake, without any prejudice or bias. 23 It is easy for us today to critique Delitzsch after a century has passed; his flaws are so apparent. But it is difficult for today’s scholars to recognize the racial, theoretical or theological biases we sometimes bring to our work. As brilliant as Delitzsch was, he failed to confront his culture with a window onto truth. Instead he became a mirror of sorts, reflecting and even magnifying the prejudices and distortions of truth that sadly marred the Europe of his day. Biblical scholarship has the potential, indeed the responsibility, to serve contemporary society and culture as a window, offering a view of reality that may be new and different. Which function do today’s scholars serve? Are they mirrors or windows? by the church in Rome beginning during his lifetime in the second century c.e. With the leadership of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the early church of the second and third centuries rose to the challenge, and with Augustine in the fourth century the issue was finally settled. See Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, p. 42; and John J. Clabeaux, “Marcion,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD) (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992), vol. 4, pp. 514–16. 21. Delitzsch, Zweiter Vortrag über Babel und Bibel (Stuttgart: Deutsche VerlagsAnstalt, 1903), p. 39; and on p. 42, he presented his work as a “dispassionate, historicalcritical reinvestigation of the relevant documents.” 22. Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel: Ein Rückblick und Ausblick (Stuttgart: Deutsche VerlagsAnstalt, 1904), pp. 57–66. 23. Delitzsch, Rückblick und Ausblick, p. 63, and see Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung, pt. 2, p. 4.

On Reading Archival Texts: M. Jursa’s Comments to OIP 122 and the Limits of Criticism In his landmark essay, “Assyriology Why and How?” 1 A. Leo Oppenheim referred to two distinct categories of cuneiform documents: the tablets that were part of the “stream of tradition,” consisting of the corpus of literary texts, and the “mass of texts of all descriptions . . . [which] were used to record the day-to-day activities of the Babylonians and Assyrians.” 2 Referring to the latter, Oppenheim asked: “What information do these texts contain? How and to what degree can this information be utilized for the understanding of Mesopotamian life and customs?” 3 In our time, publishing “clay tablets in their archival arrangement” has emerged as of “vital importance.” 4 Individual scholars as well as others working in major projects have come forward to engage in this line of investigation and to attempt to answer the above questions. In the spirit of the advancement of our knowledge of clay tablet collections and various aspects of their archival arrangement, I wish to address the contents of an article published by a scholar who has had a major role in, and impact upon, this field. [Reprinted from Journal of the American Oriental Society 128 (2008) 559–64.] 1. Oppenheim’s essay was published originally in Current Anthropology 1.5–6 (Sept.– Nov. 1960) and was republished as the “Introduction” to Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1964), 2nd rev. ed. completed by Erica Reiner, 1977. 2. Ancient Mesopotamia, 13. 3. Ibid., 24. 4. See Ernst Posner, “The Clay Tablet Archives,” in Archives in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1972), 15. See also Michael Jursa, Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents. Typology, Contents and Archives, Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005); Jacqueline Susann du Toit, “The Organization and Use of Documentary Deposits in the Near East from Ancient to Medieval Times: Libraries, Archives, Book Collections and Genizas” (Ph.D. diss., McGill University, 2002), 92–113; Klaas Veenhof, “Cuneiform Archives: An Introduction,” in Cuneiform Archives and Libraries: Papers Read at the 307e Rencontre Assyriologique in Leiden, 4–8 July 1983, ed. Klaas R. Veenhof (Istanbul: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut, 1986); Mogens Weitemeyer, “Archive and Library Technique in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Libri 6 (1956): 217–38; and Godefroy Goossens, “Introduction à l’archivéconomie de l’Asie Antérieure,” Revue d’Assyriologie 46 (1952): 98–107.

389

390

On Reading Archival Texts

In his comments to my OIP 122 5 that appeared recently in this journal, 6 Michael Jursa commented upon readings and interpretations of fiftyfive of the 173 texts that appeared therein. 7 He did not include any copies of signs under discussion. 8 Jursa’s comments were gathered during a brief trip that he made to Chicago. 9 Some of these comments are valuable and add to our understanding of these newly published tablets. On the other hand, many of Jursa’s comments can be challenged, while others exceed the limits of legitimate criticism. This article is intended to be a corrective both to the questionable readings of cuneiform signs and the methodological flaws in Jursa’s article. By my count, thirty-five to forty percent of Jursa’s comments are faulty. This material will provide a cautionary voice to scholars who might open their copy of OIP 122 and uncritically enter Jursa’s comments without checking. Below is a list of corrections to texts read by Jursa. These readings have been obtained by rechecking OIP 122, by consulting my unpublished notes (where I weighed and discarded certain options), and by collations obtained during a trip to the Oriental Institute from June 18–26, 2008. Jursa suggests that I failed to provide the most “definitive” treatment. 10 However, clearly, no book is written to be the “definitive work.” It is a goal to be worked for but not something that actually can be achieved. No sooner does something come out, then scholars review it and corrections are offered. If Jursa was implying that OIP 122 failed to give the most upto-date references—he might have been thinking of works published after 1998, including many of his own—then a word of explanation will clear this up. Although the manuscript of OIP 122 was submitted to the Oriental Institute editor in August 1998, due to a backlog in the Publications Office the book could not be published until 2003. 11 Thus, a snapshot of the field up to 1997–98 is reliably reflected in the book and its bibliography. 5. David B. Weisberg, Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Oriental Institute Collection, Oriental Institute Publications, vol. 122 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2003). Other reviews are by F. Joannès, RA 99 (2005): 182–84; M. Dandamaev, VDI 2006.2: 202–4; M. Streck, ZA 91 (2007): 152–54; and H. Hunger, JNES 68 (2009): 40-41. 6. JAOS 126 (2006): 452–58. 7. The fifty-five texts are: 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12–20, 22, 24–28, 33, 36–38, 40, 41, 43– 45, 48+153, 84, 86–88, 102+151, 108, 109, 129, 130+132, 132+130, 135, 137, 143, 145, 147, 151+102, 153+48, 157–159, 163 and 164, leaving 118 pieces unremarked upon. 8. See below, where I present my copies of signs called into question by Jursa. 9. The author states that he was at the Oriental Institute on April 11–15, 2005, where he was able to collate “all the texts in the Oriental Institute.” 10. “nicht immer das letzte Wort.” 11. I received an advance copy in winter 2004.

One Line Short

On Reading Archival Texts

391

Jursa leaves the reader of his article with the impression that important texts lack apposite interpretations. Thus, for example, he states that a full treatment of text no. 36 will be published elsewhere, but provides nary a comment on my elucidation. On the surface, many of Jursa’s comments on particular signs appear to be justified, but when examined in closer detail are simply incorrect. These readings have a slapdash quality. What is more, Jursa does not present legitimate differences of opinion as to correct cuneiform readings, especially of difficult signs, but gives his readings as if only they might be correct. (See my discussion on the reading of pirquti [others: sirquti ] in 38:45.) Further examples dealing with signs follow: In 15:7 note Jursa’s “Sadiku” where he alleges a reading of “ku” against my “lu.” There is no other support or substantiation, and, as far as I can tell, there is no such word. In 15:8 Jursa wants to read my sih-hu-u as si*-hu-u, but the text clearly has sih. The origin of Jursa’s misreading is that the dictionary reference is spelled according to Jursa’s expectation (see CAD S 210 and AHw 1035). Jursa sees what he anticipates the text should read, yet we know that many Neo-Babylonian spellings are not “historically correct,” and the task of the copyist is to read what is on the text, not what s/he thinks should be there. In 26:5u Jursa’s reading of the e-sign is incorrect; compare e-ma in line 7. In several instances Jursa fails to acknowledge the interpretations provided in the book. Examples of this include: In text 25 Jursa notes the peculiarity of the ductus. I noted the same thing (OIP 122, 52 top), albeit not mentioning “Achaemenid” specifically. Another example is his suggested reading for 38:42: “im.dub za-ku-ti-su*,” overlooking my own very similar comment in the book (OIP 122, 73, note to line 42). Again, comment to text 45: “Vorder- und Rückseite sind von Weisberg vertauscht worden,” gives a false impression, in that it does not take into account my annotation to this text on Plate 25: “Reverse(?)” and “Obverse(?).” There are missed or incorrect references. On the first page of his article, Jursa refers to a piece by B. Jankovic in AfO 51, but no such article is to be found. I find it inexplicable that when Jursa dealt with Larsa texts, such as 22, 30, and 33, he failed to acknowledge the dissertation of Paul Wright, “The City of Larsa in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Study of Urban and Intercity Relations in Antiquity.” 12 Wright is cited in my Introduction, on p. 4, “Provenience,” as well as in the text of the 12. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, 1994.

392

On Reading Archival Texts

book and in the bibliography. OIP 122, 22 and 33 are part of the Itti-SamasBalatu archives (see p. 49, Commentary), treated in Wright’s dissertation. On the other hand, Jursa cites Martha Roth as if she had not been mentioned in OIP 122. In actuality she is listed in the bibliography, and cited in the commentary to various texts. In view of the fact that the reviewer admits to not having consulted my comments and transliterations, lapses such as these are perhaps understandable. This next section, dealing with the issue of the identification of personal names in archival texts, is critical, especially in light of the great time and effort put in by Jursa and other scholars in Vienna in sorting out these items. Merely stating that two persons named in different texts are one and the same is not proof. After all, we are often dealing with common personal names from the Neo-Babylonian period, the second-best documented period in ancient Mesopotamian history. Identification of individuals bearing the same name in different texts has the best chance of being accurate when the names are not broken and both parties are listed with patronymic (and/or professional name), the documents are from the same time period and from the same (excavated) archive (city, temple, or related geographical entity). The chances that two names represent one and the same individual decline when one or more of the above conditions are not met. To take a modern example: what would be the odds of correctly identifying a “Robert Smith” from the state of Ohio with a “Robert Smith” from the state of New York, if the former were attested in 1910 and the latter in 2008, or if one or both of these figures had no date? Table 1 evaluates three such identifications. Table 1. Personal name identification PN

OIP 122 Jursa’s Comment Reference

My Observation

1. Enlil-Sumu-iddin, son of Samaspaqissunu

(restored at: 40:4)

“Nr. 40 und 41: Archiv des Enlil-sumu-iddin”

Text: [X.X.X.X.-]qit-su-nu. Nippur text of 504 b.c.

2. Kiribti/Nadin

17:3

“Ein harranu-UnterDates in both texts are nehmen eines destroyed. Kiribtu/Nadin (s. Zeile 3) ist aus AUWE 8, 50 bekannt.”

3. Bel-sum-iskun / dayyanu

20:9

“Einer der Protagonisten, Bel-sumu-iskun/ Dajjanu, ist aus BM 108858 (Uruk, 16 Kandalanu) bekannt.”

OIP 122:20 has no date. (BM Text courtesy C. Wunsch)

On Reading Archival Texts

393

In 40:4 the proposed identification of the restored Piqissunu carries conviction, insofar as the tablets concerned have been excavated as a group. 13 In 17:3 Jursa notes that there is a harranu-Unternehmen in AUWE 8 50 and brings the name of the father as Nadin. However, this name is destroyed here. Moreover, the date in our text as well as in the AUWE 8 text is destroyed. In the third example, OIP 122, 20:9 has no date. Jursa cites a “protagonist” from an unpublished text (BM 108858, Uruk 16, Kandalanu). Without more solid proof it is difficult to conclude that some of the names cited by Jursa represent one and the same person. In a difficult section of text 38, Jursa translates (line 35): “mein Ehemann Arrabi hat mir Istar-abu-ußur unter Ausstellung einer Urkunde übertragen . . . ,” where I see no justification for the insertion of “mir.” His interpretation does not hold. What makes sense is that a document of citizenship should be conveyed to the man whose status has been challenged, and whose free status has been sustained. In several instances, Jursa recommends joining texts. I cite two examples: In one, the fit was excellent—A5023 indeed joins A4884 (OIP 122, 130 and 132). But whether A5366 + A5655 (OIP 122, 153 and 58) join is not clear to me. Unlike A 5366, A 5655 is salt-encrusted, the clay is of a different color and at first glance there doesn’t seem to be an obvious physical place for the join. Further study might confirm this suggestion. In conclusion, I note the absence of courtesy and collegiality throughout Jursa’s article. Positive criticism encourages cooperation and progress in our field. There was not a single point in the entire book that was endorsed by our colleague. A thoughtful and careful review can be beneficial in pointing out strengths and weaknesses in research. Constructive reviews make good points but avoid speculation and gratuitous comments, sticking to the facts as ascertainable. But Jursa has presented us less with a review than a hastily compiled list of unedited notes, many of which have not been carefully sorted through. In the spirit of our common enterprise, the study of archival texts, I hope this rejoinder will encourage a respected scholar not to exceed the limits of reasonable criticism.

collations to oip 122, chicago, 18–26 june, 2008 14:1

After SAL mu-us-tum, I read , and Jursa read pe*-ßi*-tu4. But Jursa disregards the traces: . The pattern is to ignore cuneiform wedges that cannot be coherently read. Traces are: -ßitum -mit-tum.

13. See Jursa, “Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents,” 115 n. 851.

394

On Reading Archival Texts

14:4 The traces for the father’s name are: . 14 rev. 5 The traces for the PN are: . The second sign in the PN cannot be din which would rule out the PN Kidinnu. dAG, as read in OIP 122, should stand. 14 rev. 6 Traces of scribe’s name: . There is no reason to favor a hypothetical IdAM[AR.*UTU . . .] over the reading IdPAB.[SUKKAL]. 14 rev. 6 End: I see: . I don’t see LÚ or anything that looks like it. 15:7 Jursa reads Isá-di-ku* as opposed to my Isá-di-lu. I see . Jursa’s reading is otherwise unattested. , sih, as in OIP 122. 15:8 For Jursa’s “lúsi*-hu-ú,” text has 16:3 End: IdEN. 16:14 End: . 19:18 The traces sustain the reading of OIP 122, “year 28.” 20:2 I read kin; Jursa: ku. 20:4 DBW: ÌR or Jursa: SIG5? 20:11 SU -u. This cannot be ITI.SU! The sign must be SU. 20:13 —possibly the beginning of ªbi º—but there are other options. 20:16 According to Jursa, my ª º is the last part of r]a: . But the final Winkelhaken before the ina rules that out. 20:17 —possibly “la” (—Jursa). 26:5u For Jursa’s “e,” text has which cannot be “e” ( ). Note ema ú-ìl-tim in line 7u, where “e” is: . 33:1u (about 4 or 5 signs destroyed). For Jursa’s ªsáº* all that is visible on the tablet is: (possibly ªsẠbut possibly not). 33:12u GARIN ha-ma[r] seems correct. 36:16 . My reading is: -ul-lad ª º. Jursa’s reading does not match the traces. His -ªla-*º does not allow enough room for the horizontals. My original reading here should stand as being more compatible with the traces. 38:18 it-ti . Jursa does not accept Roth’s ªi º but there seem to me to be 3 not 4 horizontals—which would support her. I still read ª º. 38:19 The traces, , do not seem to support Jursa’s restoration. 38:19 For the “i ” in Jursa’s ªi º-*[na], I see: . These traces do not favor ªi º, hence my ª º. This fits the pattern of reading, time and again, what you think should be on the tablet, but is not there.

On Reading Archival Texts 38:42 38:45

84:1 84:2 84:5

84:7

108 108:1u 108:6u 108:8u 108:12u

108:15u 109:1 129:1u 129:3u 129:4u 135:4u 135 rev. 135 rev. 137:1 147:2 163:3 163:11 164:14 164:16

395

The text has but su is unlikely for the 3rd person, singular masculine, pronominal suffix as opposed to -sú. After close and repeated examination of the original, I copy the sign in question as . Please see OIP 122 p. 73, note to line 45. See also the note to lines 44– 45, which gives the rationale for my interpretation, overlooked by Jursa. . End of line 2: . Jursa’s “3 QA” is not accurate. ... . Note¶ 2 QA space. SIG5 is quite possible.

OIP 122 108 A 1629 obv. OIP 122 108 A 1629 rev. Photo of cast closely resembles original shape. . -zi-’-ru. It does not appear to be SAL. . . . TÚG (probably, rather than my GÍN), then: . . The second sign is not GIS and the third has too many wedges for DA so the combination cannot represent GIS.DA. sá. This is not isten. The number is damaged. One more accurately might have said: “possibly ‘8’.” . —isten seems likely; ª2º is not indicated by the traces. dªUTUº = u? 1?d?—the present author; read ª º by Jursa. I read “1.” I see no trace of an additional wedge to the left of the upright. (SU) LÚ GAL ma- or possibly ba- (as in rab banî?). 1u KÙS US as Jursa read. 5u LÚ . . ªSU?º GAL. lìb is likely. TIN(ku-)nu. É is correct (as per Jursa). su-bi-lu or -lam? .

Index of Authors

Aaron, D. H. 194, 196–97, 199 Abraham, K. 56 Albeck, C. 241 Albeck, H. 232, 248, 286 Al-Biruni 300 Albright, W. F. 4, 339, 350, 353 Alexander Polyhistor 72 Alter, R. 199, 217 Andersen, F. I. 8–9 Archi, A. 154 Arnaud, D. 18 Arnold, B. T. 107, 110–11, 345, 386 Artzi, P. 3, 27, 36, 38–39 Arzi, A. 356, 375, 378 Asher, A. 234 Astour, M. C. 95 Aubet, M. 38–39 Aynard, J.-M. 151 Badian, E. 68 Baker, D. W. 110–11 bar Óiyya, A. 300 Barkay, G. 348 Barr, J. 338, 351–52 Barth, J. 279 Barth, L. M. 286 Barton, G. A. 151, 162 Bauer, T. 32, 74 Baumgartner, W. 350 Beaulieu, P.-A. 64–65, 80–81, 96–

98, 165, 310, 319 Beckson, K. 266 Beek, M. A. 114 Beitzel, B. 15 Ben Asher, A. 222–23, 230, 232 ben Judah, H. 300 Bentwich, N. 361 Ben-Zvi, I. 274 Berger, P. R. 65, 96

Berger, P.-R.

64–65, 87–88, 90,

96 Bergsträsser, G. 377 Berliner, A. 240 Bewer, J. A. 77 Beyer, B. 137 Bezold, C. 23 Biancalana, J. 331 Bickerman, E. J. 290 Biggs, R. D. 19, 110, 311, 323, 327–

28 Birot, M. 18, 164 Black, J. 18 Blenkinsopp, J. 361, 365, 385 Böhl, F. 25, 74 Boissier, A. 119, 135 Borger, R. 39–40, 86, 88, 137, 376–

77 Botta, P. E. 108 Bowie, W. R. 195, 201 Bowman, R. A. 288 Boyer, G. 48 Brand, Y. 285–86 Brav, A. 198–99 Breasted, J. H. 137 Breuer, M. 226 Brichto, H. C. 3, 5, 95, 116–18,

194, 196, 265–66, 365 Bright, J. 15, 77, 91, 351, 353–54 Brinkman, J. A. 28–34, 37, 40–41,

44, 47, 49, 112, 137, 319, 321, 356 Brown, F. 337 Brown, S. 270 Brown, W. P. 353–54 Buccellati, G. 4, 18 Buchanan, B. 19–20, 152–53 Budge, E. W. 23 Butin, R. 236 397

398

Index of Authors

Cameron, G. C. 28 Campbell Thompson, R.

8, 55, 61, 63, 69, 90, 96, 137, 142–43, 289 Campbell, E. F., Jr. 217 Caplice, R. 134 Cardascia, G. 337 Carre, M.-H. 13 Carter, E. 3, 15 Cassuto, M. D. 14 Cassuto, U. 379 Chajes, Z. H. 299 Chavalas, M. 108–9, 356 Childe, V. G. 308 Childs, B. S. 370, 387–88 Chomsky, W. 275 Civil, M. 3, 153, 163, 327 Clabeaux, J. J. 388 Clark, G. 308 Clay, A. T. 17, 63, 66, 141, 149, 279 Clines, D. J. A. 217 Clutton-Brock, J. 311 Cocquerillat, D. 310 Cohen, G. 307 Cohen, M. E. 312 Collins, J. 65 Contenau, G. 210, 307–8 Cooper, A. 22, 263 Copeland, M. 101 Cowley, A. E. 115 Cross, F. M. 367 Culican, W. 91 Currier, M. 290 Dahood, M. 10 Daiches, S. 279 Dandamaev, M. A.

140–42, 210,

337, 390 Davies, P. R. 347 De Vries, S. J. 290, 372 Deighton 308 Delitzsch, F. 108, 280, 345–46,

355–88 Deller, K. 7–9 Dhorme, É. 72, 75, 96, 98 Dijk, J. J. van 4 Dinsmoor, W. B. 302

One Line Short

Dole, G. F. 101 Dougherty, R. P. 63, 77, 96, 202,

210, 282, 328–29, 334 Drews, R. 96 Driver, G. R. 132 Driver, S. R. 211 Du Toit, J. S. 389 Dubberstein, W. 291, 294, 296–97,

301 Dunham, S.

164

22, 24–25, 139, 200, 209, 287, 327 Edel, E. 87, 90 Edzard, D. O. 17–20, 108 Eichler, B. 109 Eisenstein, J. D. 246 Eissfeldt, O. 350–51 Elayi, J. 39 Elliott, J. H. 198–99 Ellis, M. deJ. 17, 20 Ellis, R. S. 65–66 Elworth, F. T. 198 Englund, R. K. 161 Ephºal, I. 85, 92, 96–97, 101 Epping, J. 289, 296 Epstein, J. N. 280, 301 Erman, A. 304 Eshel, C. 13 Eusebius 72–73 Evans, E. H. R. 345 Ebeling, E.

Falk, Z. 280 Falkenstein, A. 4, 10–11, 205 Falkowitz, R. S. 163 Farber, W. 200 Ferguson, W. S. 302 Feuchtwang, D. 280 Finkel, I. 137 Finkelstein, J. J. 367, 382 Fischer, D. H. 364–65 Fischer, F. 373–75 Fish, T. 154 Fishbane, M. 113–14, 379 Fitzmyer, J. A. 13 Fleischer 303

Index of Authors Fleming, D. 110 Fossey, C. 33 Foster, B. R. 56, 116, 311 Fotheringham, J. K. 289 Fox, J. N. 198, 217 Fox, M. 217 Frame, G. 37–38 Franco, M. 233–34 Franke, J. A. 19 Frankenstein, S. 38–40 Frayne, D. R. 162 Freedman, D. N. 8–9 Frensdorff, S. 224–26 Freydank, H. 207 Freytag, G. W. 304 Friberg, J. 138 Friedman, R. E. 367 Fudge, S. 333, 348

17, 65, 67, 72–73, 95, 119, 135 Galil, G. 79 Gallagher, J. 110 Gandz, S. 290 Ganz, A. 266 Ganz, D. 295 Gaon, A. 233 Gaon, H. 281, 300 Garelli, P. 39, 54, 74, 98 Gehlken, E. 322 Gelb, I. J. 17–18, 20, 28, 154, 323, 376 George, A. R. 52–53, 64, 312 Gesenius, H. W. F. 115, 223 Gibson, M. 19, 311 Gilner, D. 270, 274, 276 Ginsburg, C. D. 262–266 Ginzberg, L. 284–285 Ginzel, F. K. 296 Goetze, A. 10, 20, 129–30, 132, 150, 159–60, 202, 328 Goitein, S. D. 218 Goossens, G. 62–64, 389 Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 274 Gottwald, N. 198 Graetz, H. 260, 263 Gadd, C. J.

399

Grafman, R. 13 Grant, M. 68 Grayson, A. K. 6, 12, 28–30, 38,

316 Greenfield, J. C. 280 Greengus, S. 109, 113, 132, 301 Guang, P. 270 Gurney, O. R. 6 Güterbock, H. G. 51, 135, 323 Guttmann, A. 212 Hall, H. R. 90, 119 Hallo, W. W. 3–4, 10, 17, 19, 44, 56,

65, 79, 82, 107, 112–13, 136, 150, 152–55, 158–61, 164, 197, 200, 307, 349–50, 379–80 Hanauer, J. E. 304 Haran, M. 84, 211 Harnack, A. von 366, 368–369, 386–387 Harper, D. 271 Harper, R. F. 289, 377 Harper, W. R. 8 Hartman, L. F. 310 Haupt, P. 259 Hegel, W. 367 Heltzer, M. 36 Heschel, A. J. 350 Hess, R. S. 22, 109, 379 Hinz, W. 29, 33 Hirsch, H. 7, 9 Hirsch, S. R. 244 Óiyya, A. bar 300 Hoffmeier, J. K. 345 Holborn, H. 373–74 Holloway, S. 79 Holma, H. 135 Holmgren, F. C. 366 Holt, I. L. 137–44, 147 Horovitz, H. S. 243 Horowitz, W. 12 Huffmon, H. B. 355, 357–58, 369, 382 Hunger, H. 88, 132, 268, 390 Hurowitz, V. 3 Hurvitz, A. 347

400

Index of Authors

Jacob, G. 304 Jacobsen, T. 4–6, 11, 49, 151, 154,

158, 163, 312 Jacoby, F. 72–73, 291, 302 James, D. 355 James, T. G. H. 91 Jankovic, B. 391 Jas, R. 36, 39, 322 Jastrow, M. 198, 260, 282, 284,

286, 289 Jeremias, A. 108 Joannès, F. 322, 390 Johanan, R. 232 Johanning, K. 357, 368, 370, 382 Johns, C. H. W. 345, 373 Jones, T. B. 157 Josephus 73, 96, 112 Joüon, P. 224 Jursa, M. 79, 83, 389–95 Kamesar, A. 61, 68, 263 Kärki, I. 162 Kasher, M. M. 295, 300 Katzenstein, J. 39–40, 92 Kaufman, S. 378 Kautzsch, E. 115 Kelly-Buccellati, M. 19 Kennedy, D. A. 37, 44, 47 Kessler 322 Kilmer, A. D. 15 Kim˙i 253 King, L. W. 78 Kingston, S. W. 194 Kitchen, K. A. 40 Kittel, G. 229 Klein, C. 365 Klengel, H. 27 Knight, D. A. 11 Knudtzon, J. A. 23 Köcher, F. 119 Kohut, A. 282–283 König, F. W. 30 Kramer, S. N. 151 Kraus, F. R. 18, 133 Kraus, H. J. 9 Krauss, S. 263, 280, 283–86

Krengel, J. 281, 285 Kubitschek, W. 291 Kugler, F. X. 296 Kuhl, C. 260 Kuhrt, A. 98–99 Kümmel, H. M. 47, 140, 340 Labat, R. 129, 377 Læssøe, J. 64 Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 309 Lambert, W. G. 4, 12, 58, 99, 116,

304, 379 37, 74, 97, 128, 132, 157, 163, 203, 214–15, 280, 311, 329, 379 Langdon, S. 76, 79, 81, 86, 90, 96, 200, 289 Larsen, M. T. 357–58, 361, 363, 367–68, 372–73, 382, 384, 386 Lauterbach, J. Z. 361 Layard, A. H. 108 Lazarus, H. M. 257 Leahy, A. 87, 89–90 Lehman, I. O. 271–75, 277–78 Lehmann, C. F. 296 Lehmann, R. G. 108, 345, 355–61, 368, 370–71, 382, 384 Leichty, E. V. 34, 89, 134, 137 Lemche, N. P. 347, 353 Leshem, Y. 217 Leslie, D. D. 271 Levenson, J. D. 361, 366–67, 385 Levine, B. 9, 137, 301 Levine, L. 30 Levy, I. 303 Lewy, H. 55, 77 Lewy, J. 97, 379 Licht, J. 220 Liddell, H. G. 263–64, 283 Lieberman, S. 236, 293 Listermann, D. 82 Livingstone, A. 12, 16 Lokotsch, K. 304 Löw, I. 280 Luckenbill, D. D. 32 Lushing, P. 331 Landsberger, B.

Index of Authors Luther, M. 366 Luzzatto, S. D. 233 MacGinnis, J. 319 Machinist, P. 15, 98–99 Maher, M. 195 Mahler, E. 289–90, 296–97, 301 Maimonides 211, 251, 255–56,

262, 272, 295 Malamat, A. 3, 109, 137, 197 Mallinger, S. 270 Mallowan, M. E. 64 Malul, M. 36 Mandelbaum, B. 237 Mangano, M. J. 26–27 Ma’oz, Y. 220 Marcus, D. 26 Margolis, M. L. 223, 233, 236 Markoe, G. 36, 150 Marshack, A. 290 Mayer, E. 296 McCarter, P. K., Jr. 348 McCarthy, D. 7–9 Medan, M. 223 Meltzer, F. 218–19 Merritt, B. D. 291 Metzger, B. M. 194 Michalowski, P. 15, 158, 161 Michelini, A. 263 Miles, J. C. 132 Millard, A. R. 4, 114, 267, 345,

351–53 Mitchell, T. C. 87–88, 90 Moberly, R. W. L. 366 Moore, G. F. 365 Moorey, P. R. S. 308–9, 311 Morag, S. 278 Moran, W. L. 15, 22, 24–26, 101,

110, 115, 339 Morgan, C. 354 Morgenstern, J. 290 Murphy, R. E. 194 Naªaman, N. 27, 111 Naamani, I. T. 288 Nachmanides 249

401

Nemet-Nejat, K. 137–38, 308–10 Neubauer, A. 271 Neugebauer, O. 138, 164, 279, 290,

301 Neusner, J. 279, 281 Nicholson, E. 367 Nietzsche 365 Noth, M. 14, 354 Notley, R. S. 90 Nötscher, F. 129, 135 Nougayrol, J. 132 Obermann, J. 290 Oelsner, J. 22 Oesch, J. M. 262 Ohr, A. 260, 262 Oko, A. S. 274 Oppenheim, A. L. 10, 52, 55, 57,

68, 73, 76, 82–83, 86–89, 99– 100, 114–16, 119–20, 133–35, 200, 202–3, 210–11, 214–15, 267, 280, 285, 309–13, 323, 328–29, 348–49, 389 Oppert, J. 272, 296 Orlinsky, H. M. 202, 262 Owen, D. I. 155 Parker, R. 291, 294, 296–97, 301 Parker, S. B. 4 Parpola, S. 32, 38–40 Paul, S. 3, 79, 81, 84, 217, 219, 270 Perlitt, L. 367 Petschow, H. 31, 140, 203, 283,

332–33 Pettinato, G. 10, 15 Pick, H. 280, 283 Pickworth, D. 274 Pinches, T. G. 86, 141 Pollak, M. 271 Pomponio, F. 154, 208 Porada, E. 20, 165 Posner, E. 56, 389 Postgate, J. N. 7, 39 Powell, M. A. 140 Price, I. M. 151 Pritchard, J. B. 107

402

Index of Authors

Rab 298–99 Rabbinowicz, R. 303 Rad, G. von 196 Rahamim, G. 217, 220 Rahlfs, A. 265 Rainey, A. F. 22, 25–26, 90, 110 Ramban 197, 199, 249 Ranke, H. 304 Rashbam 256 Rashi 195, 199, 232, 240, 242, 247,

249–50, 252–53, 282–83, 298– 99, 303 Ratner, R. 3 Redford, D. 307 Reed, W. L. 99 Reiner, E. 10, 12, 28, 39, 61–62, 66–67, 135, 267, 312, 321, 332, 389 Rendtorff, R. 365 Renfrew, J. M. 80–81, 310 Renger, J. 27, 160 Rettberg, D. J. 270, 276 Rich, C. J. 108 Rivkin, E. 95 Robinson, E. 350 Roebuck, M. C. 62 Röllig, W. 96, 207 Rosenthal, F. 28 Roth, M. T. 56, 112–13, 161, 330– 32, 335–36, 338, 340, 392, 394 Rowley, H. H. 350 Rudavsky, A. 270 Rudolph, W. 14 Rumscheidt, M. 369 Rutherford, R. B. 68 Ryle, H. 196 Sachs, A. 138, 164, 203, 297, 301 Sack, R. H. 309 Saggs, H. W. F. 57, 107–8, 114–15,

279, 326 Salonen, A. 161 San Nicolò, M. 83, 141, 311, 326 Sandler, P. 260–61 Santaniello, W. 365 Sar-Shalom, R. 272

Sasson, J. 80–81, 220, 372 Schachter, J. 285 Schaudig, H. 97 Schechter, S. 361 Schmidt, H. 9 Schnall, A. 194 Schneider, N. 156 Schoch, C. 289 Schoville, K. N. 9 Schrader, E. 107, 358 Schuler, E. von 373 Scott, R. 263–64, 283 Scurlock, J. 79, 84 Segal, M. Z. 261 Seitz, C. 366 Seux, M. J. 36 Shaffer, A. 3, 119, 130–31 Shao, J. T. 312 Shaw, F. 264 Shea, W. 37, 48 Shu’eib, J. 263 Sidersky, D. 297 Sigrist, M. 156, 161 Silberman, L. H. 361 Silbermann, A. M. 242 Silverman, A. 61 Sim˙ah 233 Simhah ben Samuel 233 Simon, M. 303 Simon, U. 218 Simpson, C. A. 195, 201 Simpson, W. K. 4, 10, 17, 65 Sjöberg, A. W. 163 Smith, G. 108 Smith, S. 77 Smith, W. R. 367 Snaith, N. H. 350 Snell, D. 308–9, 313 Snyder, J. 157 Soden, W. von 6, 12, 18, 58, 61, 67,

69, 88, 100, 200, 287–88, 339, 376–77, 379–80 Sokoloff, M. 338 Sollberger, E. 19, 119 Spalinger, A. J. 87 Spar, I. 137, 140

403

Index of Authors 11–14, 109, 113, 116, 196, 201, 280 Stager, L. 308 Stamm, J. 19, 76, 321–22, 379 Stein, J. 98 Steinkeller, P. 155 Stendahl, K. 366 Stol, M. 164 Stolper, M. 28, 32, 34, 137–39, 332, 339 Stone, E. C. 163 Strassmaier, J. N. 86, 142, 165, 289, 296 Streck, M. 390 Swete, H. B. 265 Speiser, E. A.

3, 11, 13, 16, 38, 40, 64–65, 96–99, 111 Tallqvist, K. 76, 285, 312, 321–22 Talmon, S. 261–62 Talon, P. 5 Talshir, Z. 346–47, 351 Tanret, M. 153 Theodor, J. 241 Thompson, Richelle 272 Thomsen, M.-L. 154 Thureau-Dangin, F. 17 Toorn, K. van der 200 Tov, E. 266 Tremayne 210 Tsevat, M. 17, 22, 61, 109, 212, 370, 387 Tsumura, D. T. 379 Tucker, G. M. 11, 308 Tadmor, H.

Undheim, T. 110 Unger, E. 32, 76

Wagner, S. 370 Walker, C. B. F. 89, 141 Walker, D. S. 150 Watanabe, K. 8, 38–39 Weber, O. 23 Webster, B. 3, 10 Weidner, E. 12, 19, 78, 207 Weinfeld, M. 8, 13 Weinfeld, S. J. 224 Weinreich, M. 373 Weisberg, D. B. 37, 69, 85, 96, 113,

115, 150, 158, 301, 307, 309, 311–12, 316–17, 340, 356, 386, 390–95 Weisberg, J. 36, 217 Weisberg, R. 3 Weissbach, F. 47, 108, 296, 372 Weitemeyer, M. 389 Wellhausen, J. 361, 365–67, 385 Werr, L. 19 Westenholz, J. G. 51, 61 White, W. C. 270–71, 276 Whiting, R. M. 28 Wickes, W. 225–29, 237, 243, 245, 254 Wiesenberg, E. 290, 293 Wilhelm, G. 36 Wilson, H. 41 Wilson, J. V. K. 80 Winckler, H. 86–87, 90, 108 Winter, I. J. 19 Winton Thomas, D. 350 Wiseman, D. J. 7–9, 51, 76–77, 86, 88–89, 112, 167 Woolley, L. 64 Wright, P. 3, 9, 137, 391–92 Xin, X.

Van Buren, E. D. 19, 304 Van Driel, G. 36 Vawter, B. 196 Veenhof, K. 389 Veenker, R. 10 Wacholder, B. Z.

337

61, 65, 113, 259,

270

Yadin, Y. 13 Yamauchi, E. 345 Yaron, R. 281–82, 284 Yeivin, I. 259 Yeivin, Z. 13 Yellin, H. 232 Youngblood, R. F. 22–26

404

Index of Authors

Younger, K. L., Jr. Yun, S. 79 Zadok, R.

79, 107, 111, 349

139–41, 322

Zakovitch, Y. 218 Zehnpfund, R. 79, 81 Zimmern, H. 280

Index of Scripture Genesis 1:5 222 4:8 114, 262, 264–65 10 362, 384 12–50 195 14:18–19 246 15 5, 12–14 15:18 13 19:16 225, 241 23 31, 316 24:1 199 24:12 225, 242 24:14 242 25:8 197 25:21 276 27:25 225, 244 27:41 195 31:1–7 195 34 195, 199 35:18 195 35:22 114–15, 262, 264–66 35:28–29 197 37:33–35 195 39:8 225, 243 39:12 243 47:7–9 194 47:9 195, 197, 199 47:28 197 49:7–9 195 Exodus 1:22 247 5 246 5:15 225, 246 5:21 247 5:23 246 6:1 339 12:14 387

Exodus (cont.) 16:29 240 20:10 276 21:2–6 14 29:30 244 29:35 244 29:37 244 40:17 244 Leviticus 1:2 277 1:17 277 4:31 277 8:23 225, 243 8:33 244 10:1 222, 225 19:27 211 21:8 227 24:8 84 24:9 84 Numbers 1:26 200 7:1 243 8:12 277 13 247 13:15 257 14 247 14:1 248 14:3 225, 247 18:21 256 18:27 257 18:30 257 25:19 262, 264, 266 26 266 32 249–250 32:42 225, 248, 250, 252

405

Numbers (cont.) 35:5 222, 226, 228, 240–41, 257 36:2 276 Deuteronomy 2:8 262, 265–66 4:7 277 7:15 199 11:28 227 15:2 276 15:9 197 15:12–15 14 15:19 276 16:1 276 22:11 211 23:17–18 265 23:18 262, 265 24:12 222 28:54 198 29:28 276 30:11–31:12 274 30:13 222 Joshua 13 109 19:51 226, 253 20 109 21 109 Judges 11:31 13:19 20:18

242, 277 277 262

1 Samuel 4:1 262 10:11 262 10:22 262

406

Index of Scripture

1 Samuel (cont.) 14:12 262 14:19 262 15:15 277 15:22 277 16:2 263 16:12 263 17:25 242 21:1–7 84 2 Samuel 2:18 303 4:2 226 4:3 228 19:8 263 1 Kings 10:3 225 13:20 263 20:29 225, 229 2 Kings 10:5 226 25 166 Isaiah 2:1–4 13:8 13:14 14:16 61:10

244 225 303 219 277

Jeremiah 13:9–17 254 13:12 263 13:13 226, 228 17:7 277 17:19–27 241 29:21–23 238 34 13–14 34:15 14 34:18 14 34:18–19 5, 12, 14 34:20 15 38:25 226 39:3 77

Jeremiah (cont.) 52 166

Psalms (cont.) 109:18 10

Ezekiel 3:16 263 14:3 251 14:4 225, 229, 251– 52 14:4–5 250–51 20:25 232 48:19 255 48:21 226, 255

Proverbs 6:5 304 23:6 197 28:2 197

Hosea 1:2 263 12 8 12:2 5–7, 9 Amos 1:1–2 237 1:2 225 Habakkuk 1:2–3 252 1:3 225, 229, 252 3:18 277 Zechariah 3:1–2 239 3:2 225, 238 5 249 5:9–11 250 5:11 249 Malachi 3:10 257 Psalms 19 263 20 263 23:5 10 26:5 9 68:5 275 73:13 9 92:10 10 109:15–18

Ecclesiastes 12:9 231 Ruth 1:19 218 2:9 218 2:13 249 2:14 249 4:1 218 4:6 218 4:11 219 4:16–17 220 4:17 219 Ecclesiastes 5:12–13 241 Lamentations 2:15 219 Esther 7:9 226 Daniel 2:33 4:12 4:30

304 304 51

Ezra 5:8 288 5:15 225 6:4 288 6:9 226 7:25 225 8:15 256

9

Nehemiah 1:6 226

407

Index of Scripture Nehemiah (cont.) 3:38 225 5:13 226, 228 8:8 223, 231 10:39–40 256 13:5 226, 256 13:15 226

New Testament Luke 22:19

387

1 Chronicles 12:8 303 17:3 263 28:1 226 2 Chronicles 9:2 225

2 Chronicles (cont.) 20:30 225 24:5 226 29:12 263 29:14 263 34:26 263 35:7 226

Index of Subjects Aaron 211, 367, 387 Abraham 14, 217, 242, 245 246, 316, 317 Abdi-Asirta 23, 27 accents 221–58 origin of 230–36 purpose of 228, 229, 234–36 as syntax 223, 224 Achaemenids 37, 38, 57, 83, 138, 167, 391 Adad-Gupi 54, 67, 73, 74, 78, 98, 167 Adapa 10 Ahimelek 84 Akhenaton 99 akitu 55, 56 Akkad 57, 293 Akkadian history 4, 61, 66, 279, 281, 349 language and literature 4, 28, 55, 115, 119, 160, 162, 163, 200, 202, 268, 279–88, 294, 347–49, 376, 377, 380, 381 Alalakh 109 Aleppo Codex 272, 274 Alexander Polyhistor 72 Amar-Suen 154, 157 Amarna 22–27, 58, 110, 116 Amasis 86, 90, 91 Amel-Marduk 50, 73, 77, 78, 165, 319, 321 Ammi-Íaduqa 164 Amorites 17, 18, 51, 154, 155, 158 Amytis 72, 73 Anam of Uruk 10 Anu 36, 53, 161, 317, 320 Anunnaki 11, 13, 16 Apsu 117 Arabia 40, 97 Aramaeans 50, 54, 74, 96

Aramaic 55, 56, 58, 281, 279, 328 archaeology 61, 62, 69, 82, 86, 308, 309, 311, 312, 346, 347, 349, 350, 358, 359, 382 archival texts 96, 150, 389, 393 see also legal documents Ashshur-etel-ilani 37 Ashur 50, 291, 292, 358, 362 Assur-nadin-sumi 29, 30 Asur-uballi† 38 Assurbanipal 50, 53, 65, 67, 68, 70, 384 Assyria army 29–34 decline of 29, 38, 50, 51, 92 expansion of 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 89, 385 history 30, 36–41, 44–48, 91 provincial system 362 texts 9, 33, 40, 61, 291, 352, 353 Assyriology 55, 107–18, 149, 267, 280, 307, 308, 340, 348, 356, 369, 371, 372–78, 389 Astronomy 57, 289–302 Baal 39 Babylon (city of) 4, 40, 50–58, 85, 97, 98, 108, 162, 164, 250, 279, 281, 329, 358, 383 Babylonia Assyrian domination of 29, 37, 41, 44 documents 11, 19, 30, 31, 36, 48, 79, 115–17, 202, 283, 316–17, 323– 29, 330–40, 353 history 17–20, 28–35, 40, 50, 57, 69, 72–78, 85–95, 97, 158–67 omens 119–36 regional influence and legacy 32, 40, 44, 49–52, 57, 58, 85, 165

408

Index of Subjects Babylonia (cont.) religion and politics 33, 53–55, 61– 70, 95–102 royal women 72–78 society, language, and literature 4, 13, 15, 18, 48, 55–57, 67, 68, 79–84, 121, 221, 289–302, 307–13, 329 barley 135, 139, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 166, 310, 329 beer 80, 81, 82, 152, 155, 310, 323, 325 Bel-ahhe-eriba 53 Bel-sum-iskun 76–78 Belshazzar 55, 78, 97, 98 Boaz 217–20, 249 borrowing (literary) 281, 299, 339, 345, 379 Borsippa 33, 293 bronze 18, 311 Bullatatum 164 Byblos 23, 24, 26, 27 Cabala 245 Calah 80 calendars 56, 113, 114, 157, 289–302 Cambyses 37, 323, 326 Canaan 17, 22, 109, 110, 110, 247 Chaldaeans 29, 30, 37, 44, 49, 50, 61, 62, 66, 67, 69, 83, 95, 296, 309 chanting 221, 228, 232, 233 Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings 28– 32, 34, 50, 85, 88, 112 Chronicon 72 Cilicia 167 cities 49–52, 54, 57, 80, 85, 100, 150– 52, 240, 281, 292 commerce 8, 38, 40, 52, 61, 69, 311 copper 311 covenants 7–9, 13, 14, 72, 109, 199 creation epic 58, 115, 381 see also Enuma elis cuneiform 56, 86, 109, 163, 347, 349, 358 Cyrus II 34, 37, 57, 61, 67, 69, 74, 82, 100, 167, 323, 326

409

David 84 declaratory judgments 335, 336, 340 Delitzsch, F. anti-Christian sentiment 357, 360, 366, 367–71, 386–88 anti-Semitism 356, 357, 360–65, 369, 370, 378, 379, 381, 382, 384, 385, 386, 388 as scholar 356, 371, 374, 376, 377, 379, 380, 381 lectures 345, 346, 355, 359, 360, 362–73, 375, 381–88 Der 29 Dilbat 47, 320 Dinah 199 diplomacy 5, 11, 16, 36, 72, 74, 77, 110 divination 10, 56, 58, 119, 125–36, 242 Durum 158 Ea 10, 11, 116, 317, 320 Eanna 54, 57, 81, 292, 310, 323, 324, 326, 328, 329 Ebabbar 110, 20, 54 Ebla 109, 110 economics 24, 28, 30, 33–35, 39, 40, 44, 52, 54, 57, 100, 151, 152, 160, 163–65, 199, 309–12, 316, 357 Egipar 74 Egypt 7–9, 26, 38–40, 41, 56, 87, 90– 92, 197, 199 Ekur 310 Elam 28–34, 40, 158, 250 Emah 152 Emar 105, 110 emendations 15, 22–25, 27, 303, 321, 328, 339, 339 Emisum 17 Enki 161 Enlil 36, 151, 156, 157, 161, 310, 317, 320 Ennigaldi-Nanna 64, 67 entu-priestess 64, 65, 74 Enuma elis 4–6, 10–13, 15, 16, 53, 56, 116, 117, 165

410

Index of Subjects

Eridu Genesis 4 Esagila 54, 65, 75, 292, 324, 326, 328, 329 Esarhaddon 8, 36–41, 44, 47, 50 Esau 195, 266 Eshnunna 160, 161 evil eye 197–201 Ezida 54 festivals 55, 56, 110, 157, 246, 272, 293, 294, 298, 312, 323, 367, 369, 387 foodstuffs 8, 9, 80–84, 91, 166, 218, 285, 310, 323, 329, 256, 257, 310, 329 Gamaliel 295 Gemarah 257, 284 Gigitu 73, 78 gold 54, 84, 202, 241, 358 Gottesbrief 88, 89 Gubla 23, 27 Gudea 149, 151 Gula 89, 90, 93, 156, 210 Gungunum 17, 158 halakhah 235, 240, 253, 254, 257 Hallusu-Insusinak 28–35, 316 Hammurapi 61, 66, 132, 161, 162, 362 hapiru 23, 26 Harran 50, 54, 65, 69, 73, 74, 98, 101 hefker 253 Herodotus 96 Hezekiah 168 hipu 115, 259, 267, 268 Humban-nikas I 29 Humban-tahrah 30 Ibbi-Sin 17, 158 Iddin-Dagan 20 Inanna 36 inscriptions 29, 30, 32, 40, 51, 54, 61, 63–67, 69, 74, 75, 96, 97, 150, 151, 158, 161, 162, 339, 347–49, 352 iron 303, 304, 311 Isaac 242, 245

Istar

337 see also Lady-of-Uruk Isin 18, 20, 158–60 Isme-Dagan 20 Israel 9, 40, 58, 91, 101, 118, 200, 251, 254, 345, 352, 353, 367 Jacob 194–201, 243, 245 Jehoiachin 166 Jerusalem 14, 50, 77, 91, 254 Joseph 194, 195, 243 Josephus 96, 112 Josiah 99 Judah 51, 91, 111, 219, 239, 254, 257, 258, 353 judges 242, 333–35, 338 Kassa 76–78 Kassites 19, 33, 348 kingship, acts of kings 6 8, 37, 39, 40, 55, 57, 61–78, 80, 81, 96, 97, 101, 158, 282, 292, 293, 323, 324, 329, 362 Kingu 11, 16 Kish 164 Kudur-nahhunte 30, 33, 34 Kuyunjik 119, 134, 135 Labashi-Marduk 50, 77 Labynetos 72, 77 Lady-of-Uruk (Istar) 53, 83, 209, 321, 324–36, 328–32, 336, 337 Lagash 151, 155, 156, 161, 162 Larsa 17–20, 54, 158–60, 162, 168, 391 Leah 219 legal documents 7, 8, 31, 32, 36, 44– 48, 52, 56, 113, 138–42, 161, 283, 316–17, 330–40 letters 22, 37, 88, 291, 292, 293, 313, 323, 326, 377 Levites 241, 256, 257, 367 linen 202–16, 254 Lugal-Marada 75 Manetho

40

Index of Subjects Marduk 5, 6, 8, 10–13, 16, 53–55, 67, 69, 74, 75, 81, 95, 97, 116, 117, 138, 320 Mari 6,10, 14, 17, 109, 115, 200, 281, 323 Marxism 308 Masorah 115, 224, 229, 234, 249, 258, 262–64, 266, 268 Masoretes 14, 224, 234, 236, 237, 241 Masoretic (text and practice) 14, 15, 221, 223, 227, 230, 232, 236, 237, 275, 227, 229, 231, 275 mathematics 58, 290, 309 Medes 50, 72, 77, 362 merkha kefula 225, 227, 229, 235, 237, 238, 244–53 Merodach-Baladan II 29, 30, 32, 33 metaphor 3–5, 9, 10, 13–15, 196, 197 Midrash 227, 234–41, 243, 244, 247, 248, 249–54, 256–57, 261, 263, 268, 269, 288 Mishnah 257, 284, 286, 293 Moses 230, 231, 244, 246, 247, 266, 275, 387 Nabonidus 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 61– 67, 69, 70, 72–74, 75, 77, 78, 95– 101, 167, 348 Nabopolassar 62, 50, 64, 77, 78, 165 Nabu 53, 73, 98, 165, 167, 320, 325 Nabu-ah-iddin 326, 328 Nabu-aha-ußur 53 Nabu-epir-laªa 76 Nabu-naßir 296 Nabu-sum-ukin 73 namburbi 134, 135 Nana 159, 209, 212, 321 Naomi 217–20 Naplanum 17 Nebuchadnezzar 31, 50, 51, 55, 61, 62, 64, 69, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79–84, 85–93, 99, 100, 112, 165, 202, 239, 253, 327 Nehardea 281 Nergal-shar-ußur 165, 167 Nergal-ushezib 30

411

Neriglissar 50, 62, 73, 76–78 Nimrud 81 Nineveh 50, 67, 68, 362 Ninlil 156, 157 Ninnu 151 Ninshubur 161, 162 Ninurta temple 139 Nippur 31–33, 37, 153, 156, 162–63, 293, 310 Nur-Adad 20, 159 Nuzi 109, 281 oaths 5–11, 13, 15, 16, 27, 83, 141, 321 omens 10, 99, 119, 127–35, 121, 129, 130, 134 Oriental Institute (Chicago) 28, 31, 36, 44, 48, 137, 271, 316, 325, 330, 390 pan-Babylonianism 108, 356, 360, 363 Persia 41, 51, 57, 69, 74, 77, 98, 102, 288, 302, 309, 323, 349 pharaohs 23, 24, 26, 27, 50, 91, 92, 194, 197, 201, 246, 247, 195 Phoenicia 38, 39, 41, 91 pisqa 259–62 policy and political motivations 36, 38, 41, 44, 55, 61, 66, 68–69, 83, 95–102 politics 5, 11, 15, 18, 26, 33, 36, 40, 41, 54, 55, 62, 63, 66, 69–70, 73– 75, 79, 95–102, 110, 164, 165, 220, 354, 356–58, 371–75 prophets, prophecy 7, 14, 50, 109, 115, 239, 252, 253, 350, 351, 360, 361, 239, 251, 383 Ptolemies 67, 68, 70, 296 Pumbeditha 281 Puzrish-Dagan 157 Qarne fara 226, 228, 235, 237, 240, 253–58 rabbinic literature 58, 84, 113, 199, 200, 212, 221–58, 279–88, 289– 302, 303–4

412

Index of Subjects

Rabina 233 Rachel 219 religion 49, 53, 75, 83, 84, 88, 97, 99, 101, 115, 309, 311, 312, 353, 354, 356, 361, 366, 367, 368, 381, 382, 386 Rib-Hadda 22–27 Rim-Sin I 64, 160–62 Ruth 217–20 sabbath 84, 113, 228, 240, 241, 257, 258, 272, 364, 379, 380, 381 Sagarakti-Surias 31, 34 Saite dynasty 91 Samaria 91, 111, 362, 385 Samium 17, 18, 20 Samsuiluna 163, 164 Sargon II 29, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 Sarah 316 Íarpanitum 81, 320 satire 115 Saul 84, 242 schools, school texts 89, 93, 136, 150, 152, 163, 164, 170 scribal techniques 114, 115, 136, 139, 162, 163, 166, 236, 260, 261, 268, 269, 378 scribes 20, 22, 24, 30–32, 47, 114, 130, 131, 138, 153, 154, 156, 162, 166, 232, 236, 267, 268, 275, 276, 299, 304, 317, 321, 328, 337, 394 scripts 33, 51, 55, 132, 230, 267 Scythian coalition 50 Sennacherib 11, 29, 30, 33, 37, 40, 353 Shalsheleth 224, 227, 229, 235, 237, 238, 241–44 Shamash 53, 54, 166–68, 320 Shamash-shum-ukin 37, 50 Shara 152 Shinar 250 Shu-Sin 17, 154, 155, 158 Shulgi 151, 152, 154 Sidon 39

silver 30, 31, 39, 46, 54, 76, 140, 141, 161, 165, 167, 168, 203, 241, 283, 316, 317, 358 Sin-iddinam 20, 159 Sin-iribam 20 Sin-kashid 159 Sin-muballit 10 Sin-shar-ishkun 37 Sin-shum-lishir 37 Sippar 18, 30, 31, 33, 54 Sin 53, 54, 65, 73–75, 95, 97, 98, 101, 167, 320 slavery 14, 20, 57, 59, 139–42, 282, 316, 319, 330–41 Standard Babylonian 119, 121, 132, 134, 135, 268 Solomon 223, 231 Sumer history 150–58, 161, 309, 362, 385 language 57, 67, 162, 163, 215, 216, 284, 379 texts 4, 88, 151–60, 162, 164, 200, 202, 348 Sumundana 32–34 Sura 281 Susa 34 Sutruk-nahhunte 29, 30, 33 suzerains 10, 352 Syriac and Greek origins 236 tablets 28, 51, 55, 65, 81, 135, 137, 158, 159, 162, 163, 267, 308, 311 Taharqa 40 Talmud Babylonian 113, 198, 199, 223, 227, 230–34, 238, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246–51, 253–57, 263, 279–85, 287, 288, 290, 291, 295–301, 303, 304, 339 Jerusalem 234, 285, 288, 296, 299 Targum 231, 245, 277, 286, 288, 304 tax 16, 153, 329 tebhir 229, 245, 252 Teima 54, 55, 63, 65, 69, 74, 96–98, 101, 167 Tello 18

413

Index of Subjects temples 18, 33, 41, 50–52, 54, 56, 57, 64, 65, 68, 76, 79–84, 98, 115, 139, 151, 152, 157–59, 161, 162, 165, 168, 202, 203, 207, 208, 211, 221, 248, 256, 257, 292, 297, 299, 310– 12, 323–32, 334–37, 339, 340, 347, 348 tetragrammaton 274–78, 379 textual criticism 114 Tiamat 5, 11–13, 16, 116, 117 Tiberian system 227, 230, 278 Tosephtah 293 transmission of texts 136, 261, 268– 69, 302, 349–50 treaties 5, 7–9, 11–13, 15 Tyre 39, 41, 92 Ugarit 109, 110 Umma 152, 153, 155 Ummanmanda 50 Ur 17, 20, 52, 54, 64, 65, 67, 69, 74, 101, 109, 119, 151, 153, 158, 161, 162, 164, 349

Ura 75 Ur-Nammu 151 Uruk 11, 158–161, 310, 326, 336 Utnapishtim 117 Utu 158 vassals

8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 110, 352

wheat 159, 310 wine 81, 82, 244, 245, 246, 254, 256, 257, 258, 285, 324, 326, 327 wool 202–16, 281, 282, 311, 324, 326 writing see scripts Xerxes

138

Yakin 29 yera˙ ben yomo 225, 240 Zabaya 17–20, 158 Zambiya 18 Zedekiah 14, 239 Zohar 233