« Some Text from Kuntillet ‛Ajrud Pithos II
Main
Friday Pot Blogging »
August 31, 2006
Further Reflections on Kuntillet ‛Ajrud Pithos II
For any of what follows to make much sense, you'll need to read my most recent post on the Kuntillet ‛Ajrud Pithos II inscriptions. When I first started looking at the literature on the Kuntillet ‛Ajrud Pithio, I was of the impression that various of the abecedaries were incomplete and incomplete by design. But it is now clear that these abecedaries were complete; the first parts of the alphabet having been broken off from the extent portions. There are also three abecedaries on Pithos II rather than the two that I had previously believed. However, I now believe that the line 4 abecedary has the ‛ayin immediately after the pe and before the sade. A qop then follows the sade rather than the g with an ‛ayin above it as I once thought. The ‛ayin is on the vertical line. Here is my revised reading of this section. Remember, I transliterate the abecedary on top and the blessing on the bottom.
Hadley, 185, summarizes the prevailing opinion line 4 that gave me so much grief. After noting that Meshel at first saw a gap in my line 4 she says,
In Meshel's gap between l.’dny and brktk., where he had only h . . . ’t (1978a), Chase reads hšlm . ’t, which Meshel now accepts (Meshel 1986). The lacuna arose because at this point in the text there is an abecedary written over the inscription. What Chase has done is to look underneath the abecedary in order to discern what is written beneath. Underneath the abecedary she reads šlm, following the initial h (Chase p. 64). This provides us with hšlm . ’t, as mentioned above. . .
Well, this may all be true, but it sure appears to me that the text containing the abecedary is under rather than over the text in question. Of course, this can't be determined without detailed examination of the shard. It's hard to tell from the transcription. Chase, 64, takes the sign that I originally read as an ‛ayin plus the sign I read as g to be a "large round headed qop." I now think this is correct. See the qop in line 8 of the right portion of the text. Chase's, 64, transcriptions illustrate well her view on the text in this area. One interesting thing that one sees in her reconstructed transcription is that the line weight of her šlm is much thinner than the line weight of the rest of the blessing inscription. However, try as I might, I cannot see any of the traces of the š, l, or m that she sees in her reconstruction in the transcription published in Biblical Archaeology Review. Because this has been an area of dispute one would hope that Meshel, who provided the Biblical Archaeology Review transcription, would have been especially careful in this region of the text.
Now all this is far from anything I know much about and I hope everyone who reads this and thinks they are reading the final word will think again. Even better, I hope they will look at the works in the references below and on the previous post on this subject.
References:
Hardey, Judith M. Some Drawings and Inscription on Tow Pithoi from Kuntillet 'Ajrud," Vetus Testamentum, 37, April, 1987, 180-213
Meshel, Ze'ev, "Kunitillet 'Ajrud, A religious Centre from the Time of the Judean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai," Israel Museum Catalogue, 175, Jerusalem, 1978
Meshel, Ze'ev, "The Inscriptions of Kunitillet 'Ajrud," Communication given at the 12th Congress of the International Orhanization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jersulem, 1986 [apud, Hadley]
Posted by Duane Smith at August 31, 2006 1:29 PM | Read more on Scribal Schools |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1844
Comments
Dear Duane,
I have not yet seen the photo of BAR, but:
As far as line 4 is concern, the mem is clearly visible also in your image (it is the three zigzag almost horizontal signs – overlapping the r – with the long tail turning left); the lamed is your "dots line" between the r and q; the shin is not visible in your image.
As far as Sitz im Leben is concern, abecedaries as well as greetings and conventional phrases (blessings or epistolary formulas) could be exercises (or only phrases for fun?). A similar association of epistolary formulas and abecedaries is found also in phoenician at Sarepta.
Finally, some interpreted the site of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud as religious center (Z. Meshel, in: E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 4, Jerusalem 1993, 1463-4 "a kind of wayside shrine"), some as caravanserai (J.M. Hadley, Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: Religious Centre or Desert Way Station?, in: PEQ 125 1993, 115-124), some as fortress (W. Zwickel, Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel. Studien zur Kultgeschichte Palästinas von der Mittelbronzezeit bis zum Untergang Judas, Tübingen 1994, 262 interprets the benchroom as "einen für kultische Zwecke genutzten Raum in einer staatlichen Festung").
Best wishes and abnormal yours,
Paolo Merlo
P.S.
I do not like the translation of *brk PN l-DN with "to bless PN by DN", I prefer "to bless PN to DN", cfr. D. Pardee, in: UF 8, 1976, 221-23; and C.A. Keller, s.v. brk, § 1b, in: E. Jenni, C. Westermann (ed.), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. I, 1997, 266-76.
Posted by: Paolo Merlo at September 4, 2006 12:53 AM
Paolo,
Again, I am indebted to you for your valuable comments. Thanks! Yes, you are correct; it is possible to see the "m" just before the word divider. I'm not sure I would use the word "clearly" but I do now see it. It does seem to reflect a different line width than what one sees in most of the blessing portion. As to the "l", that is even less clear to me but I do see what you mean. In any case, I am happy with the common reconstruction.
As to the translation of "l" in this kind of blessing formula, I would say that "to" rather than "by" is closer to the central meaning of the preposition.
As to the Sitz im Leben of the abecedaries, etc., the very fact that there are so many ideas as to how these graffiti should be interpreted is testimony to how little we know. I view the differences in interpretation of the function of the site as part of the interpretive problem. I will point out that serving as a "wayside shrine" could be an important part of being a caravanserai or even a fortress.
I plan to take up the parallels with the "epistolary formulas and abecedaries is found also in Phoenician at Sarepta" on the one hand and perhaps the Lachish step graffito on the other hand in an upcoming post.
Again, thanks for the valuable comments.
Posted by: Duane at September 4, 2006 8:13 AM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.