« And to All a Good Night
Main
A President for Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, and Atheists »
December 26, 2006
May Ba'al, Even the God Himself, Watch Over Your Life!
As a diversion to a hobby, I've been working my way through the fifteenth century BCE Akkadian letters from Taanach. Perhaps I'll post my full translations and comments in the future. But for now, Taanach 2 has a couple of interesting expressions, none more so than TT 2:2b-3a,
EN DINGER.MEŠ.nu / ZI.ka li-iş-şur
How to understand it? For the uninitiated, the signs in capital letters are ideograms that the ancients no doubt pronounced in Akkadian rather than Sumerian. Often we have a good idea of approximately how they pronounced these ideograms. In the case of DINGER.MEŠ.nu, the scribe kindly added a phonetic determinative, the "nu," to help us understand how to pronounce this word; it ends in nu. The ideogram DINGER stands for "god" and the MEŠ tells us to read it as a plural, "gods." So it is likely that we are to pronounce DINGER.MEŠ.nu something like ilānū, "gods" in Akkadian. But wait a minute. The verb, lişşur, is in the singular. And there is another problem, the EN. EN, Akkadian bêlu, can mean "lord" or any one of several gods (Marduk or Ellil for example) but Ba'al is the best candidate in this case. Horowitz and Oshima, 133-4, read EN DINGER.MEŠ.nu as ba‛al ilānu and translate the whole sentence, "May the Lord God guard your life." Rainey, 2006, 76, translates it, "May Ba'lu the deity preserve your life." Earlier, he (1996, I 147) had translated it, "May the lord, the deity, protect your life." I find both of Rainey's translations awkward but I must admit that, in the context of a god or gods, the ancients who wrote and read this letter likely thought of Ba'al when they saw the EN sign. My own translation, prior to thinking very hard about it or looking at Horowitz and Oshima or Rainey, was, "May the lord god watch over your life." But, what about the plural noun with the singular verb?
Rainey, 1996, I 147, points out the Amarna letters EA 96:5-6 and EA 189:r.13-15 both of which have singular verbs with nearly the same grammatically plural subject as our text. They only lack the EN. EA 96:5-6 reads,
DINGER.MEŠ.nu / šu-lum-ka šu-lum É-ka / li-iš-al.
"May the god(s) seek (singular) your welfare (and) the welfare of your house."
And EA 189:r.13-15 reads,
ù il5-la-ak / DINGER.MEŠ.nu-ka ù dUTU-ka / a-na pa-ni-ia.
"Your god(s), even (lit. and) your Sun (the sun god), went (singular) before me."
Of this Rainey, I 147, says, ". . . the impression is that the plural of the substantive was conceived as a kind of abstract."
Rainey further lists three examples (EA 281:1-3, EA 366:1-2 and EA 378:1) where the "divine plurality" is the one and only pharaoh himself. EA 366:1-2, which has an identical reading to EA 378:1, is instructive. It reads,
a-na šàr-ri EN-ia dUTU-ia DINGER.MEŠ-ia / qí-bí-ma
"To the king, my lord, my Sun, my god(s) say,"
There are several other examples that Rainey does not cite, such as EA 144:1-2, where DINGER.MEŠ-ia, "my god(s)," refers to the pharaoh. On other occasions, EA 165:4 for example, we find only DINGER-ia, "my god" referring to pharaoh.
The language of EA 387 and the other texts so far considered seem to provide evidence for two things. First, one can understand the "divine plurality" as a singular and we need not think of some trick or error in grammar. Second, these texts increase the likelihood that EN DINGER.MEŠ.nu in TT 2:2 should be understood "the Lord (or Ba'al), the God" somewhat as Rainey suggests. It is a list of divine appellatives. In the case of TT 2:2b-3a, there are only two items in the list. In the case of EA 378:1 there are four appellatives in the list.
There are also a number of letters from Amarna and elsewhere where there is a "divine plurality" with the verb also in the plural. Even another letter from Taanack, TT 1:5-6, has a plural verb with the plural substantive.
DINGER.MEŠ li-iš-a-lu / šu-lum-ka šu-lum / É-ka DUMU.MEŠ-ka
"May the gods (plural) have concern (plural) for your wellbeing (and) the wellbeing of your house (and) your children (lit. sons)."
In addition, note Hazor 10:4-6,
DINGER.MEŠ ù dUTU šu-lum-ka/ šu-lum / É-ka DUMU.MEŠ-ka / KUR-ti4-ka li-iš-a-lu
"May the gods and the Sun have concern for your wellbeing, the well being of your children (lit. sons) (and) your house."
Horowitz and Oshima, 81, correctly suggest that "the Sun" in this text refers to the king. If the author of the text sees DINGER.MEŠ and dUTU as two different things, the plural verb is understandable without further explanation but if this expression is to be understood as "the god, even the Sun" then the plural verb may have some additional force.
As a diversion from this diversion, you may notice, when comparing TT 1:5-6 with Hazor 10 4-6 for example, that in some texts the verb is nearer the beginning of the clause while in others it is closer to the end of the clause. Normally, Akkadian would have the verb at or near the end. Those texts where it is near the beginning may show the results of "interference" from the local West Semitic language into the written Akkadian of that place and time. West Semitic languages tended to have the verb very early in a sentence.
Now back to the original diversion. Aphek 7:9-12 also has "DINGER.MEŠ (the gods) of the Great King, your lord and DINGER.MEŠ (the gods) of the land of Ugarit" with two plural verbs (lu-uk-ru-bu-ka li-iş-şu-ru-ka, "bless you [and] keep you") but there need not be any special meaning of these plural verbs. Multiple gods are clearly intended. In any case, this letter comes from Ugarit where the greeting, DINGER.MEŠ a-na šul-ma-ni PAPru-ka (lişşuru-ka), "May the gods keep you in health," is fairly common (see RS 17.78 for example) and where the scribes certainly intended to imply multiple gods, perhaps the whole pantheon.
There are cases from Amarna, EA 71:4-6 and EA 86:3-5, where the verb is in the plural but the name of the Egyptian god, Amon, appears to be in the singular.
It is hard not to agree with Rainey, I 148, when he says, "Undoubtedly these passages reflect a use of the plural to denote 'excellence' like the use of the plural ’elôhîm in biblical Hebrew."
So how do I understand "EN DINGER.MEŠ.nu / ZI.ka li-iş-şur" in Taanach letter 2 now? First, I must say that I don't completely understand it. The interplay between EN meaning "lord" and EN meaning "Ba'al" of which the ancients were likely cognoscente in a way I cannot fully comprehend makes it hard for to me to translate this passage. Second, if one is to understand the subject of this passage as "Ba'al, the god," to what extent does this imply Ba'al's superiority? But it may imply his excellence. Surely, it can't mean "Ba'al, the only god." And the case ending of ilānu excludes translations like "Ba'al of the gods." Does ilānu function as kind of an adjective? In which case, we would translate it, "The god(s) Ba'al." How important is the plural? To what extent must we see it as denoting "excellence" within the framework of some kind of an abstraction?
My guess is that the ancient writer and reader of this passage would know that Ahiami, from whom the letter comes, or his scribe understood these words in both a more complex way than we can easily render them and, at the same time, a simpler way than any near literal translation could convey. The complexity is that Ba'al is excellent, that he is a god and that he is also lord. He is the most important god in the context of this greeting, the very source of the desired wellbeing. (See, I can be a theologian too.) But the simplicity comes in the author's desire to let the recipient know that he is well disposed towards him. So rather than directly translate this passage, I would prefer to paraphrase it,
"May Ba'al (the Lord), even the God himself, watch over your life,"
but understand it as meaning,
"I wish you well!"
And the next couple of lines (3b-4) of text in TT 2 support this interpretation:
"You are a brother and a loved one in this very place."
Please don't ask me why I translate i-na aš-ri šu-wa-at in TT 2:4, "in this very place" rather than "in that place." This post is already too long for the trivial point I wanted to make.
References:
Rainey, Anson F., Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribe from Canaan, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996 (4 volumes)
Rainey, Anson F., and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge, Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World, Jerusalem: Carta, 2006
Posted by Duane Smith at December 26, 2006 4:02 PM | Read more on Scribal Schools |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1978
Comments
My translation would be: May Ba'al, may (the) gods, watch over (or guard) your life."
Posted by: Loren Fisher at December 26, 2006 6:00 PM
Loren,
Thanks for the comment. I like your translation. It is certainly more poetic than any other I have seen or tried myself. It also does a very good job of solving the problem of the relationship between EN and DINGER.MEŠ. However, I'm not so sure it solves all the problems that the text offers, the singular verb for example. The big problem with this text is solving one set of small problems exposes another set of small problems.
Posted by: Duane at December 26, 2006 7:25 PM
The alt. translation by Loren is attactive, but I think that more generally, this opens the question of El versus Eloim found in Genesis.
Posted by: Gary Hurd at December 26, 2006 11:16 PM
Gary,
One of the problems in any understanding how this tablet might inform the Hebrew Bible is that this tablet was written 300-400 years before the earliest accounts in the Bible could have been written down in anything like the form we have them today. In fact, my guess is that the difference in time between the writing of the Taanach letters and anything we read in the Bible is even greater. The general cultural environment of this passsage, however it is understood, may inform the El, Elohim issue in Genesis. If you take the line in the way I do, you might want to see Ba'al identified with El in the same way that Biblical traditions seek to identify Elohim and Yahweh, if they are different, with El. If you read the line the way Loren does, then you may be reinforced in seeing El and Elohim as different gods. Any way one approaches these issues one must be careful. 300 years is a long time.
Posted by: Duane at December 27, 2006 8:17 AM
Duane,
I take "gods" as a collective, and as such it can have a singular verb.
See von Soden 132.c, p 186. "Ist das Subj. ein Kollecktivbegriff im Sing. ... steht das Pred, meistens auch im Sing." ( Also se 61.b) As you thought I did want Ba'al plus "the gods" in order to cover all bases.
Posted by: Loren Fisher at December 27, 2006 2:02 PM
Loren and I talked about this passage on the phone this afternoon. While I'm not ready to give up on my translation, he does have a point. As he understands the passage it means something like, "May Ba'al and (the other) gods watch over (or guard) your life." And his point about singular verbs with collectives is correct. On the otherhand, there is no grammatical requirement that the verb be in the singular with a collective and many occurrences are not, particularly when the collective is "the gods." Note the Aphek letter that I mention in the body of the post. It is interesting that the greeting in this letter mentions two sets of gods: the gods of the great king and the gods of Ugarit. I also find Hazor 10:4-6 instructive in this regard, because it seeks the intercession of both DINGER.MEŠ and UTU, "the gods and the Sun" and it uses a verb in the plural. While I now think Loren's interpretation is grammatical and very plausible, try as I might I cannot find an obvious parallel. So for now I am sticking to my own suggestion warts and all.
Posted by: Duane at December 27, 2006 9:10 PM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.