« Benazir Bhutto's Assassination and Presidential Politics
Main
Please, Send One Scribe ASAP »
December 28, 2007
An Evil Eye On KTU 1.96
In a recent paper, Nili Wazana eyes Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) 4:4-8. What does she see? The Evil Eye, that's what. Well at least she thinks there just might be several allusions to the evil eye in Qohelet 4:4-8. Part of her discussion involves the Ugaritic text KTU 1.96. She relies, for the most part, on Ford's 1999 work on this text but I think Pardee has more recently made additional strides in understanding this rather strange incantation. Below is my translation of the text. Although I differ here and there, it based, in large measure, on Pardee's understanding. The first 11 lines of the tablet are unbroken and present no problems in reading. Virolleaud, 182, misread the last letter of the first word but that's ancient history. Lines 12 and 13 are not completely readable but are easily restorable. There may be a missing line or two (or three or more) after line 14. While the text is likely a "real" incantation against the evil eye, I believe that, as we have it, it is a scribal exercise. The reverse contains a part of the Silbenalphabet, clearly, a scribal exercise.
(1) The eye walks, it even runs.
(2) It has seen its brother, that he is good.
Its brother, that he (3) is beautiful.
It is eating his flesh (4) without a knife,
Drinking his blood (5) without a cup.
It has seen him, the eye of a (6) (male) BṮY.
The eye of a (female) BṮY has seen him.
(7) The eye of a price-setter.
The eye of the assembler.
(8) The eye of the gate-keeper.
The eye of the gate-keeper, (9) to the gate-keeper may it return.
The eye of the assembler, (10) to the assembler may it return.
The eye of the price-setter, (11) to the price-setter may it return.
The eye of the (male) BTY, (12) to the (male) BṮY may it return.
The eye of the [(female) BTY], (13) to the (female) BṮY may it r[eturn].
A few notes if I may: I agree with Pardee, 161, 165f, that the "brother" is the person who the eye attacks and that what we both translate "price-setter," "assembler," and "gate-keeper" may well belong to the world of magic. Who the BṮY are I have no idea. But all of them, the BṮY, "price-setter," "assembler," and "gate-keeper" are likely possessors of the evil eye rather than victims of the evil eye. On this, see Pardee, 165. For a somewhat different translation and understanding of the text see del Olmo Lete, 379-384.
References:
Ford, James, N., "'Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye and One from Natural Causes': KTU 1.96 in Its Earn Eastern Context," Ugarit-Forschungen, 30, 1999, 201-279
Pardee, Dennis, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, Writings from the Ancient World, Theodore J. Lewis, ed., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002
Virolleaud, Charles, "Un nouvel épisode du mythe ugaritique de Baal," Comptes rendus du Groupe linguistique d'Étudies Chamito-Sémitiques, VIII, 6, 1960, 180-186
Wazaba, Nili, "A Case of the Evil Eye: Qohelet 4:4-8," Journal of Biblical Literature, 126:4, 2007, 685-702
Update: I have closed comments on this post because it is being spammed. I had hoped to keep the conversation going but it just got three clear spam comments and these make the total 7 for this post. (1/2/08)
Posted by Duane Smith at December 28, 2007 9:50 AM | Read more on Ugarit |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2363
Comments
You vaguely say that the "price-setter", "assembler" and the "gatekeeper" belong to the world of magic. Well, I don't know about a "price-setter" and an "assembler", but when I hear the term "gate-keeper", I think about the gates of the murky city of the dead. Then, I think, "Gee, that seems like a predictable place to find an evil eye, no?" Then with that in mind, "assembler" makes me think of Egyptian Khnum, the "assembler" of mankind and their souls.
So when you say "world of magic", are we talking about the themes of birth and death? Or am I simply connecting too many dots at once here?
Posted by: Glen Gordon at December 30, 2007 4:29 AM
I'm on roll. I gotta have fun with this train of thought, even if it's potentially wrong. I just had a more developped idea:
"Assembler" - Birth; The deity who creates your body and soul in the womb.
"Price-setter" - Life; The deity who creates your destiny before anything.
"Gatekeeper" - Death; The deity who admits you into the underworld when you die.
So, yes, it's perfect! I may be cracked in the head but I get a beautiful imagery of the complete cycle of life here that, if completely false, still is an interesting philosophy to fathom. You could think of this "evil eye" as representing all of the possible curses that may befall you in your journey through life from conception to resurrection, and hence a protective prayer against them.
Posted by: Glen Gordon at December 30, 2007 4:45 AM
Interesting! While I'm not so sure you are correct, but I'm not sure you are wrong either.
Posted by: Duane at December 30, 2007 9:03 AM
Call me obsessive, but I was thinking further on this concept and data mining as I always do, and I noticed another potential structure in the text:
Divine curses
The eye of the gate-keeper, to the gate-keeper may it return.
The eye of the assembler, to the assembler may it return.
The eye of the price-setter, to the price-setter may it return.Earthly curses
The eye of the (male) BTY, to the (male) BṮY may it return.
The eye of the [(female) BTY], to the (female) BṮY may it r[eturn].
Adding further to this concept of protective prayers against all curses possible, the first three lines here would protect against all possible divine curses throughout a person's life, while the last two lines cover all the sources of earthly curses made by other mortals, both by men and by women. This then implies that BṮY may simply refer to "(human) being" or "mortal" somehow, no?
Posted by: Glen Gordon at December 30, 2007 11:27 PM
The issue with BṮY (masculine form) is confusing. The feminine is BṮT. Olmo Lete suggested it was from the Akkadian bīšu (middle weak) meaning "evil person." But the masculine form makes one think it is final weak (y) or perhaps a gentilic. Pardee has suggested that it comes from the same root as Hebrew BWŠ meaning "shameful ones" or the like. But this suffers from the same problem as Olmo Lete's suggestion. From context alone, your suggestion makes since but it is not supported by any reasonable etymology that I know of and I can think of three words of common usage in Ugaritic that could be (and are) used to connote what you are suggesting. I see that I can't get the /th/ to work in a comment either.
Posted by: Duane at December 31, 2007 8:47 PM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.