Northwest Semitic Research Articles

Water-Mills in Northwest Semitic, Rabbinica and Archaeology: Levantine and Babylonian Evidence

ABSTRACT This article aims at assembling the available facts concerning the exploitation of water-power in ancient and Early Mediaeval Palestine (and partly Jewish Babylonia)—those to be found in written (that is, Rabbinic) sources as well as those deriving from archaeological finds. Both groups of materials are scant, and the conclusions remain tentative. But it can be stated almost with certainty that water-milling in the area goes back at least to the 2nd century CE and that both vertical and horizontal water-wheels were utilized. The most astonishing fact is the use of a more or less unique mill-type, with two pairs of “pseudo-Pompeian” millstones powered by a single, vertical wheel. In addition to this general survey and analysis of the material from a technical standpoint, we will discuss certain literary and exegetical roles of the milling motif—and water-milling specifically—in the relevant ancient literature, and explore how the motifs of water and milling tie together in the written sources, i.e., how they are used as a persistent literary motif in Northwest Semitic literature. In this context, the recurring literary motif of “the milling woman” is highlighted.

The Qatabanic term tqnt in the light of Northwest Semitic

The Qatabanic term tqnt in the light of Northwest Semitic

Serial Verb Constructions in North-West Semitic languages: From a synchronic radiation back to the ‘Big Bang’

The present article argues that Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) in North-West Semitic (NWS) languages have emerged from clause fusion. The analysis of the synchronic profiles of SVCs in four of the oldest attested languages of this branch, i.e., Canaano-Akkadian, Ugaritic, Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Aramaic, reveals an evolutionary path from less cohesive non-canonical serializing patterns of a pseudo-coordinated character to increasingly more cohesive and canonical serializing patterns. The ultimate source of this path and verbal serialization is reconstructed as conjunctive coordination with two clauses being linked by the predecessor of a coordinator that surfaces as u/w in the four analyzed languages.

Tatami: The Enigmatic Toponym of Western Judah, and Use of Suffixes in Dating Toponyms

ABSTRACT Sometimes, all that remains from the history of a place is its name. Thus, toponyms may provide valuable information. Moving backward in time, we trace the ancient history of the Arab/Crusader village Bēt ˁAṭab in western Judea, with remains from Middle-Bronze II (MB II), Iron III and Hellenistic periods. In Roman times it was Eusebius’ Ēnadab, ‘Spring of ˁaṭab’, identified near the spring of this name mentioned in the Survey of Western Palestine. While missing from Masoretic Biblical town lists, Tatami of the Septuagint derives by dropping the b- from reconstructed batˁaṭami, traced to Northwest Semitic languages exhibiting the ay>ā diphthong contraction. The MB II final -i is analysed as an enclitic -mi, found also in the Execration Text (ET) Shechem, and as enclitic -ma in personal names from Alalaḫ VII. The ‘prince’ of nearby ET ‘Ashnah (=Beth Shemesh) had an identical name as later Niqmi-epuh, King of Yamḫad, suggesting settlers from Yamḫad/Alalaḫ during the early 2nd millennium bce. In Bronze Age Bēt-X toponyms X was a deity. Thus, batˁaṭami = ‘place of the vulture-goddess shrine’. This, and additional evidence, suggest that Egyptian king Senwosret III could have set a shrine to goddess Nekhbet on Bēt ˁAṭab’s summit during his Shechem campaign.

An Unpublished North West Semitic Inscription from the Collection of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople

An Unpublished North West Semitic Inscription from the Collection of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople

From Phrase to Clause: The Active Participle in Ugaritic

This paper suggests a morphological, syntactic, and semantic analysis of the active participle in Ugaritic. The formally ambiguous cases are interpreted by taking into account the syntactic and semantic properties of explicit cases. The syntactic usages of the participle are the attributive phrase, the substantivized attributive phrase, the agent-noun, and the circumstantial participial phrase. The semantic analysis points at explicit verbal properties of some participial phrases in Ugaritic: they can denote a stage-level predicative core acquiring episodic interpretations and attaching temporal arguments. I hypothesize that the prototypical context for the development of the predicative participle (sporadically attested in the language of Ugaritic prose and consistently in later Northwest Semitic languages) is a participial phrase that suggests stage-level episodic interpretation and assigns subject that is co-referential with the main-clause subject.

How to Kill a Dragon in Northwest Semitic: Three Linguistic Observations regarding Ugaritic ltn and Hebrew liwyātān

Abstract Although scholars have generally treated Ugaritic ltn as a cognate of Hebrew liwyātān, the vocalization of this word and its relationship to the Hebrew form remain debated. In this article, we will argue that ltn should be vocalized /lītan-/ and that Ugaritic ltn and Hebrew liwyātān derive from Proto-Northwest Semitic *lawiy-(a)t-an- through a series of attested sound changes. We will also discuss the morphology of *lawiy-(a)t-an- and the syntax of the Northwest Semitic formula *lawiy(a)tanu baṯnu barīḥu … baṯnu ʕaqallatānu “Leviathan, the fleeing serpent … the twisting serpent” found in KTU 1.5 i 1–3 and Isa 27:1.

(Northwest) Semitic sg. *CVCC-, pl. *CVCaC-ū-: Broken plural or regular reflex?

AbstractThis paper provides a new explanation for the insertion of *ain plural forms of *CVCC-nouns also formed with an external plural suffix, e.g. *ʕabd-: *ʕabad-ū-‘servant(s)’, in various Semitic languages. This *CVCaC-ū-pattern is usually considered to be a remnant of the Proto-Semitic broken plural system in Northwest Semitic, but we show that it goes back to Proto-Semitic in this form. Internal evidence from Semitic as well as comparative evidence from Afroasiatic points towards a pre-Proto-Semitic plural suffix *-w-underlying the external plural suffixes. This suffix created a consonant cluster in the plural of *CVCC-nouns, triggering epenthesis of *a. As the prime example of broken plural formation in Northwest Semitic thus seems to be purely suffixal in origin, we conclude by briefly considering the implications for the history of nominal pluralization in Semitic.

“And Now”: Transitions in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy and Narrative

“And Now”: Transitions in Northwest Semitic Epigraphy and Narrative

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, volume 16: Aramaic Dictionary

This volume is the final installment of the English translation of the German Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. It covers the Aramaic portion of the German publication. Thus, in some sense, this review is of the German edition as well. This volume, for the most part, is a straightforward translation of the material that was published in 2015 in German with the addition of a few more up-to-date bibliographic entries (p. xx). The reader will have to compare the English edition with the German to note where these updates take place. That will not be covered here.The edition is edited primarily by Holger Gzella, professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at Leiden University. Gzella has left his mark on this volume more than the editors of the volumes on Hebrew terms, as he authored a large number of entries for this volume (p. xix). The volume begins with an introduction to the Aramaic language as a whole, including a discussion about the different eras (Aramaic of the Iron Age, Achaemenid Imperial, and Post-Achaemenid periods). There are also several appendixes that appear in the volume dedicated to Iranian official titles, numbers, and a helpful historical outline of Aramaic grammar.The reader who is unfamiliar with the publication history of the individual fascicles in German should note that there is a time gap between the first and second fascicle of the German edition. This gap occurs lexically between בנה and בעי. These two words are representatives of one of the major differences between the approach of the first editor, Ingo Kottsieper, and the second, Holger Gzella. In the first fascicle, begun in 1995 and published in 2001 (p. xix), words that older Aramaic scholarship would refer to as III-he are spelled with a final he. Under Gzella, these roots are more precisely spelled with a final yod. The English translation does not seek to remedy this inconsistency from the German edition. In other words, the inconsistencies between the approaches of the editors are maintained. This may be a positive or a negative aspect of the volume, depending on the preference of the reader.Another difference between the two editorial approaches is that, in the first fascicle, words were grouped by semantic field (e.g., the entry for אב contains an entry for אם). In the subsequent fascicles under Gzella, an alphabetical approach was adopted instead. However, there are exceptions to this, since some of the articles in later portions were commissioned under Kottsieper and therefore maintain the original approach (e.g., אמר is found under מלל).Gzella mentions briefly that some of the differences between approaches relate to “linguistic preferences” (p. xx). He does not identify all of these preferences to the reader. However, one “linguistic preference” that should be noted when reading this volume is the shift in the 1990s that occurred in Aramaic scholarship concerning “Old Aramaic” inscriptions. In the first fascicle, there is a clear statement under אבד that says, “Many classify the language of the inscription of KAI 215 from Zincirli as Old Aramaic. DNSI categorizes it as Sam’alian. The authors follow the traditional classification, however, and, accordingly, assign it here to Aramaic” (p. 4). In other words, the authors treat KAI 215 as Old Aramaic, rather than the more recent trend which treats it as a separate, yet related, Northwest Semitic language (for more on this, see John Huehnergard, “What is Aramaic?” ARAM 7 [1995]: 261–82). In Gzella’s portion of the book, the data from Zincirli is commented on but is almost always kept distinct from any discussion of “Old Aramaic” (e.g., pp. 135, 443).Overall, an undertaking of this magnitude is beneficial to the scholarly community. The most positive aspect of the dictionary is its sheer wealth of information. But readers will also benefit from the comparison of biblical Aramaic with the Aramaic found in the inscriptions and at Qumran. However, no work is without its criticisms. Of particular note for me was the omission of any discussion of the theological significance of “son” (בר) in Ps 2:12. At first, this could be because it falls outside of the Aramaic portions of Daniel or Ezra/Nehemiah. However, a word as mundane as “testimony” (שׂהד) and its use in Gen 31 receives treatment in its entry. Given the Christological importance of Ps 2:12, the absence of a reference in a theological dictionary is quite a significant omission.Overall, as long as the reader keeps the history of publication in mind and has a working knowledge of the history of Aramaic and its scholarship, the sections that discuss Old Aramaic will be helpful. If there is little or no knowledge of these older Aramaic inscriptions, the dictionary will still be beneficial, if one keeps to the sections on Imperial, Biblical, and Qumran Aramaic.

Opuscula Ugaritico-Accadico-Hebraica: Relative Particles, pa'am, and Amraphel

The article deals with two questions concerning the relationship between Hebrew, Akkadian, and Ugaritic: the background of the relative particle šeC-/šaC- and the relationship between Hebrew pa'am ("time, foot") and Ugaritic pamt ("time") and p'n ("foot, leg"). In the former case, a model of morphological conflation is argued. In the latter, Northwest Semitic dialectology is discussed, and the origin of the name Amraphel is used as a comparandum and given a partially new explanation involving borrowing from an international scribal koine, which shows difficulty in pronouncing the voiced pharyngeal.

The Etymology of Lwāt: A Tale of Two Prepositions

Abstract The Aramaic preposition lwāt has two distinct meanings: kinetic (‘towards’) and stative (‘with’). In this paper, I discuss the origin and etymology of this preposition, previous attempts to account for its form and other examples of similar polysemy in Semitic. I suggest that it is a derivation from two separate roots that have fallen together in Northwest Semitic: √lwy1 ‘to be with, accompany’ and √lwy2 ‘to encircle’.

William M. Schniedewind, The Finger of the Scribe. How Scribes Learned to Write the Bible

William Schniedewind is Professor of Biblical Studies and Northwest Semitic Languages at UCLA and his interest in the treatment of orality and textuality in ancient Israel is certainly nothing new. In his previous work How the Bible Became a Book? The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge, 2004), he already dealt with the social and historical context surrounding the composition of the Bible. With this new book, however, the author insists on examining the Bible from a practical point o...

Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts ed. by Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, John H. Walton

Reviewed by: Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts ed. by Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, John H. Walton Ki-Eun Jang jonathan s. greer, john w. hilber, and john h. walton (eds.), Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018). Pp. xix + 615. $49.99. This helpful volume features a collection of sixty-six essays by an international group of biblical scholars, archaeologists, and ancient historians based in six different continents —predominantly in North America, Israel, and Europe. Each essay contributes to the volume’s [End Page 152] aim to introduce historical, cultural, and social backdrops for the study of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible in a comparative manner. As suggested in the title, the editors draw on a metaphor of “drama” as a way to organize the book’s structure into three major parts. Following an introduction by the three editors, part 1, “Elements of the Drama,” surveys the historical geography and archaeological backgrounds of the ancient Levant and introduces ancient Near Eastern literature and iconography for the comparative study. This methodological overview is divided into four sections. The first section, “The Stage: Historical Geography,” has four essays: Paul H. Wright, “Introduction to Historical Geography”; Carl G. Rasmussen, “Regions and Routes in the Levant”; Elizabeth Arnold, “Climate and Environment of the Levant”; and Daniel Fuks and Nimrod Marom, “Plants and Animals of the Land of Israel.” The second section, “The Sets and Props: Archaeology,” consists of six essays: Seymour Gitin, “Introduction to Biblical Archaeology”; Joe Uziel, “Archaeology of the Late Bronze Age”; Aren M. Maeir, “Archaeology of the Iron Age I”; Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology of the Iron Age II”; Constance E. Gane, “Archaeology of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods”; and Jordan Ryan, “Archaeology of the Hellenistic Period.” The third section, “The Scripts: Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” includes Adam E. Miglio, “Introduction to Ancient Near Eastern Literature”; David C. Deuel, “Mesopotamian Literature”; Nili Shupak, “Egyptian Literature”; Alice Mouton, “Hittite Literature”; William D. Baker, “Ugaritic Literature”; Margaret E. Cohen, “Northwest Semitic Inscriptions”; Judith M. Hadley, “Hebrew Inscriptions”; and Ryan E. Stokes, “Early Jewish Literature.” The fourth and final section, “The Frames: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography,” contains Izak Cornelius, “Introduction to Ancient Near Eastern Iconography”; Laura Wright, “Egyptian Iconography”; Daniel Bodi, “Mesopotamian and Anatolian Iconography”; and Brent A. Strawn, “Canaanite/Israelite Iconography.” While many contributions in this part, which addresses material evidence, are efficiently supplemented by maps, photos, and drawings, it would have been welcome if such visual data had been included in the chapter on Egyptian iconography. Part 2, “Acts and Scenes of the Drama,” offers an overview of the broad-scale historical periods as depicted in the biblical narrative and further examines selected socio-political events in the history of ancient Israel and Judah. The first section, “Acts: Integrated Approaches to Broad Historical Contexts,” includes nine essays that follow a traditional division of biblical chronology: Richard S. Hess, “The Ancestral Period”; David A. Falk, “The Egyptian Sojourn and the Exodus”; Pekka Pitkänen, “The Settlement Period”; Steven M. Ortiz, “The United Monarchy”; Jens Bruun Kofoed, “The Divided Monarchy: Israel”; Eric L. Welch, “The Divided Monarchy: Judah”; Deirdre N. Fulton, “The Exile and the Exilic Communities”; Kenneth A. Ristau, “The Achaemenid Persian Empire in the West and Persian-Period Yehud”; and Joel Willitts, “The Maccabean Revolt and Hasmonean Statecraft.” The second section, “Scenes: Integrated Approaches to Event-Based Historical Contexts,” features ten essays: Mark D. Janzen, “Akhenaten and the Amarna Period”; Gregory D. Mumford, “The Late Bronze Age Collapse and the Sea Peoples’ Migrations”; Yigal Levin, “Sheshonq’s Levantine Conquest and Biblical History”; Mark W. Chavalas, “The Battle of Qarqar and Assyrian Aspirations”; Juan Manuel Tebes, “The Mesha Inscription and Relations with Moab and Edom”; K. Lawson Younger Jr., “The Tel Dan Inscription and the Deaths of Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah”; Kyle H. Keimer, “Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah and Neo-Assyrian Expansion”; Ryan N. Roberts, “Eighth-Century Levantine Earthquakes and Natural Disasters”; Sara L. Hoffman, “The Battle of Carchemish [End Page 153] and Seventh/Sixth-Century Regional Politics”; and D. Brent Sandy, “Alexander the Great and Hellenism.” The third and...

Abracadabra, or “I Create as I Speak”: A Reanalysis of the First Verb in the Katumuwa Inscription in Light of Northwest Semitic and Hieroglyphic Luwian Parallels

Previous translations of the Katumuwa Inscription have either rendered the first verbal phrase (qnt ly) “I commissioned for myself,” or “I acquired for myself.” No scholars have yet defended the possibility that it simply means “I made.” In fact, this is likely the case given the typical monumental rhetoric of Northwest Semitic and Hieroglyphic Luwian monumental inscriptions. In particular, a comparison with verbs of monumenting in Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions suggests that the monumenting phrase in the Katumuwa Inscription was calqued on a Luwian phrase. This difference is significant because it reveals an important aspect of the inscription’s monumentality and the Syro-Anatolian conception of the stele. The stele that Katumuwa created was not understood merely as the inscribed object. Rather, the monument was the conjunction of material object, ritual engagement, and the resultant manifestation of the monument’s commissioner. There was no monument apart from Katumuwa, whose voice was preserved in the inscription and whose presence could be reactivated through ritual. Therefore, Katumuwa did in fact “create” the stele as he spoke through it to his monument’s users.

Personal Names of the Pentateuch in the Northwest Semitic Context: A Comparative Study

ABSTRACTThe personal names of the Pentateuch (the first 11 chapters excluded) have not very often been under systematic scientific investigations. The topic is interesting from the points of view of linguistics, onomastics, theology and ethnohistory. The anthroponyms of the Pentateuch are compared with personal names found from the 2nd millennium BCE (from Amorite, Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite sources) and with anthroponyms from extrabiblical and biblical Hebrew sources, as well as with Phoenician sources of the first half of the 1st millennium. The conclusion is that the anthroponyms of the Pentateuch reflect the onomasticon of the second millennium, having slightly modified typological and lexical roots in the same Northwest Semitic entity as Amorite, Amarna Canaanite and Ugaritic personal names.

Content Clauses in Northwest Semitic in the Second and First Millennium BC

Content Clauses in Northwest Semitic in the Second and First Millennium BC

The Monumentality of the Sinaitic Decalogue: Reading Exodus 20 in Light of Northwest Semitic Monument-Making Practices

The Monumentality of the Sinaitic Decalogue: Reading Exodus 20 in Light of Northwest Semitic Monument-Making Practices

The Monumentality of the Sinaitic Decalogue: Reading Exodus 20 in Light of Northwest Semitic Monument-Making Practices

The Monumentality of the Sinaitic Decalogue: Reading Exodus 20 in Light of Northwest Semitic Monument-Making Practices

How Song of Songs Became a Divine Love Song

Abstract The origin of the interpretation of Song of Songs as a description of God’s relationship with God’s beloved community has been a persistent question in the work’s history of interpretation. Earlier scholarship has provided a number of possible solutions to this problem, none of them conclusive. This article offers another possible answer: the language and imagery of the Northwest Semitic combat myth in Song 8:6-7, which identifies love with Yhwh as the victorious divine warrior, triggers the work’s interpretation as a divine love song. This argument receives support from some of the earliest allusions to Song of Songs in Revelation, which interpret Song of Songs in the context of apocalyptic discourse that likewise draws heavily on the combat myth.