« Another Ugaritic Ritual Text By A Semiliterate?
Main
Biblical Studies Carnival XXVII Is Up »
March 1, 2008
On The Latest Seal du Jour
Again, I'm late to the party. Several bloggers have already commented on the 8th century BCE seal recently discovered by Reich and Shukron in the City of David area of Jerusalem. This seal has been much discussed on the ANE-2 news list. Haaretz published the best picture I have seen in their online Hebrew edition. G.M. Grena's (publisher of the LMLK Blogspot) produced the following very helpful drawing.
Grena presented his drawing as the impression of the seal. It is, therefore, a mirror image of the seal itself.
Much of the discussion so far has focused on how to read the seal. I agree with what seems to be a growing consensus, I think first suggested by Michael Welch, that the seal should be read לרפאיהו שלם and understood "(belonging) to Rephayahu (son of) Shalem" or the like. I admit that the first sign, if it is indeed a ל, is morphological different from the second ל. But I think its placement on the seal can account for the difference. The final symbol appears to be an iconographic branch symbolic of . . . Well, I'm not sure what it is symbolic of in this context.
However, rather than focusing on the reading, I'd like to focus here on the name of the apparent owner of this seal, רפאיהו (Rephayahu). The name means, "Yahweh is healer," or "Yahweh heals" or something like that. The name does not appear in the Hebrew Bible but other seals bear the same name. Shiloh, 25, #17, published a late 7th - early 6th (<586 BCE) century BCE bulla, also from the city of David, which reads, רפאיהו בן אפרח, "(belonging) to Rephayahu son of Eproch(?)." According to Gogel, 453, Avigad also published a bulla that reads למשלם [ב][ן] רפאיהו "Meshullam [son of] Rephayahu.
Fairly clearly, Rephayahu (son of) Eproch and Rephayahu (son of?) Shalem are not the same person. Not only did they have different fathers, something of the order of a 100 years passed between them. This should provide an added caution against attempts to identify individuals based on their names alone.
Names containing on the root rp' are fairly common. Perhaps the best known is Hammurabi. Names with this root and this grammatical structure including a theophoric element are somewhat rarer. However, related to Rephayahu are the much earlier Mari names Ri-ip-i-dIM, "Hadad (ba'al) heals;" Ri-ip-i-dDa-gan, "Dagan heals';" Ri-ip-i-li-im; and Ri-ip-a-ma-lik.
References:
Huffmon (1965): Huffmon, Herbert Bardwell, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts, A Structural and Lexical Study, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1965
Shiloh, Yigal, "A Group of Hebrew Bullae from the City of David," Israel Exploration Journal, 36/1-2, 1986, 16-38
Posted by Duane Smith at March 1, 2008 2:46 PM | Read more on Hebrew Bible |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2428
Comments
Well, you do have to remember that the name is written by the person for whom the seal has been made. That plus the rounded surface could well account for this morphological difference. If the lameds were of a different design, that would be another story entirely. They are not; they are the same design.
Didn't one of the art historians out on ANE-2 comment that the "tree" is a palm branch? The palm branch is often the symbol of healing.
What I wonder about is the name? Where does it say "son of"? The other two seals do say "son of." This one does not and I do not understand why anyone would interpolate a "son of" when it is not there. Seems to me that a straight forward reading, Rephayahu [the] whole/healed, makes a lot of sense; the palm branch would then be his "seal" persona.
Hmm, perhaps it should be mentioned that the English word "Holy" means whole/hale.
Posted by: r. altman at March 3, 2008 2:37 AM
Dear Dr. Altman, Hi!!! The word ben is usually supplied by scholars of Hebrew seals, whenever it is not found in front of the patronym. It is understood as being there, much the same way that the word [the] is supplied but not actually written on the seal before Shallum in your analysis. Is the omission of the word ben--BN-- Bet, Nun, common? Yes it is. On the late Eighth Century personal seals (some scholars say they are the Royal Officials' seals of King Hezekiah) found on jar handles excavated mostly in Jerusalem, Beth Shemesh, and in Lachish, only one out of forty contain the letters --BN-- Bet, Nun, the other thirty-nine omit it. These forty seals are found among WSS 665 through WSS 710, in Drs. Avigad and Sass's book, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. I hope that this information helps.
With Much Gratitude,
Sincerely Yours,
Mike Welch
Deltona, Florida
Posted by: Michael Welch at March 3, 2008 7:01 AM
Hi, Michael,
I am familiar with the original Avigad and the Avigad/Sass books.I was not too happy about assumptions then; still am not. Didn't think it would hurt to phrase my comment as a question. Emendations, and assuming that somehow someone just forgot to write in "BN" is an emendation, are one of my pet peeves. Emending the standard abbreviation, Z~, led to a non existent 'D' being stuck into an inscription back in 1994.
There could be a reason, of which we know nothing, as to why "BN" on seals and jars are sometimes missing. In this particular case, the palm frond/tree symbol makes a great deal of sense if we do not assume a missing "BN" -- this looks more like a cognomen than a patronym to me.
A cognomen is a sure identifier, particularly if there are several people by the same prenomen. The same prenomen popping up 100 years later tends to suggest that Rephayahu may have been more common than we now know.
Just my thoughts on the question, after all.
Regards,
Rochelle
Posted by: r. altman at March 3, 2008 12:39 PM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.