Letters from Collections in Philadelphia, Chicago and Berkeley by M. StolReview by: William L. MoranJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 108, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1988), pp. 307-309Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/603660 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 21:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.162 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:51:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books 307

II (see n. 115), will be published in transliteration and translation by E. Edel.

Another important group of letters is from Assyria, nn. 59- 64; 61-64 are possibly fragments of one and the same letter concerning events in Babylonia, where Tuthalija (IV), Kuri- galzu (II), Kudurenlil and his successor Sagaraktisuriag are mentioned (the latter one also in n. 64 obv. 3', to be added in the Indices p. XVI). The report is perhaps to be referred (following an unpublished suggestion of K. H. Deller) not to the accession of Kastiliag IV but to the troubles after the Assyrian conquest of Babylon. To the royal correspondence to and from Assyria in Assyrian dialect belong also the already published KBo 1 14 (Hattugili to Adadnirari), 20 (a minister of Adadnirari to Hittite nobles), KUB III 73, 74 (Tukultininurta to Tuthalija and vice versa), KUB III 77(+)78, 75, 79, XXXVII 114 and, in this volume, nn. 67, 72, 73, 91, 82 (all undatable, the latter from an Assyrian to Hittite nobles), to which must be added the fragments in Hittite KUB XXIII 102 (to Adadnirari), KUB XXIII 88, KBo XVIII 24 (from and to Shalmaneser), KUB XXIII 99, 101, 92//103, 109 (from Tuthalija to Tukultininurta, cf. also KBo XVIII 25).

Smaller groups are represented by the correspondence from Bentegina of Amurru nn. 53, 56, 58(?) (to Hattusili, who is also the addressee of KBo VIII 16 and RS 19.06 = PRU VI 1), 54, 55 (to Puduheba; the same Bentegina is cited also in n. 79 obv. 6' and possibly in n. 78: 6, by an [X]-ri to "[My Majesty], my Lord") and from Hanikalbat (nn. 65, 66, see also IBo T I 34). The other fragments of letters down to n. 104 cannot be attributed with any certainty: however, not all of them are letters; such is, e.g., the case of n. 75, a treaty with Kizuwatna, and n. 98, a treaty with a Syrian prince (see Oriens Antiquus 24 [1985] 263ff.). In n. 100 the phrase a-n]a su-pa-al GIR.M[ES occurs not only in KBo I 15+19 and in the treaty with Bentegina, as noted p. VII, but is certainly to be restored also in the treaty with Aziru, KUB III 1 19+KUB XLVIII 71 obv. 16'. On the contrary, nn. 125, 127, 144, 154, and other poorly preserved texts in the group 125-54 ("Varia"), are perhaps fragments of letters.

Treaties are represented by nn. 105-23, 126, 139-40. To the treaties with Kizuwatna (nn. 105-10) nn. 75 and 123 (see Oriens Antiquus loc. cit.) and perhaps 121 must be added; nn. 111-14 belong to the treaty Suppiluliuma-Sattiwaza, copy C-n. 113 preserves previously unknown clauses: lines 1'-5' are to be combined with the remnants of KBo I 1 obv. 74-78, but no coherent interpretation can still be gained. For nn. 116-17 (treaty Ljattusili-Bentesina), 118, 140 (treaty Suppiluliuma-Aziru) see most recently G. F. Del Monte, II trattato fra Murgili II e Niqmepac di Ugarit (= OAC 18), Rome 1986, pp. 2f. 122, 180, 184; n. 126 is possibly also a fragment of a Syro-Hittite treaty, see Oriens Antiquus 24 [1985] 267f., as is the case for the above-

mentioned No. 75. No. 122 belongs to a treaty similar to that with Tunip CTH 135 (Oriens Antiquus 24 [1985] 264f.).

It is a deep regret and sorrow to review here a book of a great cuneiform scholar and of a dear friend who, a few months ago, unexpectedly went to his fate. On p. VII, under nn. 105-10, he announced an article of his, on the Kizuwatna treaties, to be published in ZA. It would be of great interest and scientific profit to collect and edit the unpublished manuscripts and notes left by Hans Martin Kummel.

GIUSEPPE F. DEL MONTE

UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI PISA

Letters from Collections in Philadelphia, Chicago and Berke- ley. By M. STOL. Pp. viii + 129. Plates I-V. (Altbaby- lonische Briefe in Umschrift und (}bersetzung, 11.) Leiden: E. J. BRILL. 1986. Gld. 60,00.

In this volume M. Stol presents us with an edition of 194 Old Babylonian letters. With six exceptions, they have long been known in the copies of Ungnad (PBS 7), Lutz (PBS 1/2 and UCP 9/4), Luckenbill (AJSL 32) and Legrain (PBS 13), and most of them in the transliterations and translations by Ungnad in his Altbabylonische Briefe aus dem Museum zu Philadelphia of 1920. The exceptions are previously unpub- lished letters from the University Museum (5) and the Oriental Institute (1). They replace in Ungnad nos. 29, 87, 128 (not OB letters), and 132-134 (= AbB 5 222, AbB 1 102, and Ungnad, OLZ 18 [1915] col. 169ff., resp.). Copies of four of them are given on Plates I-V.

As in AbB 9, Stol's mastery of the Old Babylonian corpus is everywhere evident. The notes on lexical matters are especially good. See, for example, the following: apalum with dative (116, note c of translation); dianum, evidence for the D-conjugation, which is not in the dictionaries (69, note a of translation); eqlam alakum, "to work a field" (116, note b of translation); dummuqum, "to do one's best" (41, note c of translation; cf. also eptTvka dummuqam Iusme, AbB 6 220:36); nadanum, "to offer" (160, note c of trans- lation); saggih2, "assessment" (85, note b of translation); ina panT + pro. suff., "personally" (153, note a of translation; cf. bepdnau in Deut 4:37); (ana) qdti = krma (153, note b of translation).

Perhaps worthy of special note, and certainly gratifying to me (see Or ns 53 [1984] 299, n. 2), is Stol's understanding of the particle assurri/e: assurrJ-ma PN illakakkum, "Heaven forbid that PN should come to you" (11:12-14); assurri kT'am taqabbi, "I hope that you will not think like this" (42:20); ussurre-ma ilammad-ma (text: ulammad; correct the

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.162 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:51:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

308 Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.2 (1988)

zl-la-ma um-ma of CAD S 410b) imarrasanikkum, "Heaven

forbid that he should learn (about this) and get angry at

you" (156:15-17). In other words, Stol holds to the original

insight of von Soden (Or ns 18 [1949] 388ff.), reaffirmed by

Held (JCS 15 [1961] 20f.), that in Old Babylonian (and EA)

assurri/e indicates that the speaker hopes what is stated in the clause that follows, will not happen. Since 1961 the

evidence has increased considerably, and it strongly supports von Soden's position; there is still not a single counter-

example. It is, therefore, surprising and distressing to find

the neutral "perhaps" gaining currency (for example, Durand

and Charpin, RA 75 [1981] 106, translation of AbB 11 42; Veenhof, RA 76 [1982] 126), and CAD S 410ff. putting its

authority behind "surely, certainly" (to CAD's occurrences

in OB add the Mari letter published in Iraq 39 [1977] 150, which is cited under siinu, and correctly translated ["under

no circumstances"-in context, "surely, certainly" would make no sense whatsoever]; under EA, add EA 158:22, and

see Les lettres dEl Amarna, LAPO 13, 394). Here is a

sample of the future events prefaced by assurri/e: enemy

attacks, loss of grain, master's charges of incompetence or

negligence, hearing false rumors and worrying, king's rush-

ing from the palace and exposing himself to danger, one's mother being given away, mental distress and fear, unwel-

come interrogation, etc. Why does "perhaps" or "surely,

certainly" never introduce a happy thought? Why, too, does it always look to the future and never consider an event of

the past? It is now pleasantly obvious how Stol would

answer these questions. In general, from the viewpoint of idiomatic English, the

translations are acceptable. But certainly not always. The

handling of the introductions to direct discourse is still

unsatisfactory (see criticisms of AbB 9 in JAOS 104 [1984] 574); it is clumsy and inconsistent (for example, ". . . wrote

to me like this, in his words" [10:13-14], but also " . . . spoke to me like this, thus he said" [33:10-11]). Frequently un-

happy are the translations of sequences of injunctives. For

example, "Write me about anything expensive that you need,

and I want to send it to you" (153:21-23), where the meaning of the Akkadian and English idiom require "Write me for

anything you need, however expensive, so I can send it to

you"; see also 40:19-21; 66:31-33; 82:19-21 (Stol, "My lord

should not push me away and let me not serve at the gate of

Kubburum, who kills me"; rather, " . . . so I will not have to

serve ... who beats me up"); 150:15-18; 154:12-14. The

S-conjugation is at times rendered by a wooden and mis-

leading "make someone do something." For example, "As

for this silver that you are making me receive . . ." (16:15), whereas context requires " . . . that you would have me

accept"; see also 33:20; 161:7. Occasionally the translation is

obscure and should have received an explanatory note; for

example, "Let us be partners since we have gone out"

(150:22-23). Occasionally, too, the language is simply unidio-

matic: "They have been indicated to do the fishing . . but

you were ... (112:18-19), for "they were instructed . . ."

(unidiomatic sequences of tenses are also to be found); "I

have considered to write down. .." (118:13-14); "a heavy

emendation" (124, note a text). Finally, it might also be

observed that the indication of stress by an acute accent-for

example, "If youi do not write to me, i have to neglect my

property," 94:15-16; see also 155, 160, 175, 177)-certainly

looks odd in an English text. Some comments on individual passages: 16:17-18 lu-ri-ig-

ka-ma ana qigtim taddina.0u, "let me ask that you give it

to me as a gift," assumes a construction that I would like to

see supported by other examples. CAD Q 277b, jriAka, "I

asked and you gave," avoids the problem, but does not seem

likely in context. "Should I ask, would ydu then give...

(taina>ddina??u)"? 17:13-14 "Two minas .. . has been

lost." 29:13 Sat (not Sar). 33:12-15 I do not have as much

evidence as I would like, but the perfect in questions is not

only rare (GAG ?80b), it also seems largely (exclusively?)

restricted to questions that are not really requests for infor-

mation, but rather expressions of emotion or rhetorical

devices (so John Frederick Maloney, "The t-Perfect in the

Akkadian of Old Babylonian Letters, with a Supplement on

Verbal Usage in the Code of Hammurapi and the Laws of

Eshnunna," 1982, Harvard dissertation). Therefore, I think

the rendering of il-te-qe-e by "did he really take" very

questionable. In 133:5-8, mdtum kaht2a mi-nam i-te-ni-ma

iztu bilni ?ipram sabtu kdrum u tahhut ana sir belTni

gummurtu u istein sdb tup~ikkim mahrTya ul iba??i, Stol again

sees a perfect: "What has the entire country changed, so that

(ever) since our lord has undertaken the work, the mer-

chants' organization and replacements have been fully em-

ployed for our lord, no single corvee man being with me?"

Apart from the difficulty of a perfect in a question, I do not

see what this means. I would propose "Why has the entire

country worked in shifts (Gt preterite) so that ... and not a

single corvee-worker is at my disposal?" 42:29 Nd'imu? An

active participle form of a stative verb is highly unlikely. The

Amorite evidence (Naimu/Nahmu) favors Nacimu (Heb.

na'm) rather than Na'cmu (Heb. nd'im). 43:10 bTtam Id

tubazzah, 17-18 bTtam Id tudabbab: Why identical trans-

lations? Why not, for example, "don't put pressure," "don't

dun"? 48, note c of text, as it stands, makes no sense. Text:

sa-ma C)-ar-dab. Note c: "The small vertical is marked and

distinguishes this sign from KU or MA." ". . . from KU or

BA." 53:19 1 am not sure that ?umgurum u qabilm is

"obviously a hysteron proteron" (note a of translation). Of

course; if the literal meaning is "the coming to an agreement and the talking," then it is. But why not "coming to an

agreement and promising?" 66:9 Here, and regularly else-

where, Stol rejects "Koinzidenzfall" in the cliche ana gulmrka

aspuram. 71:5' nu-se-pe-e? Why preterite? 76:16 Once more

(JAOS 104 [1984] 574) "small cattle," and woolly ones at

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.162 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:51:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books 309

that! Englished-ed Kleinvieh-ana tittim liteir! 100:19, 24; 117:6 I agree with Stol that the name is La-pistum, not La- blstum, but why the long vowel (pTstum; so also AHw 869, but implicitly retracted 1459, wapdaum). Now that it is established that the root is wps, only pistum can be right; cf. biltu (wbl), littu (wid), sibtu (wsb), gibtu > gubtu (wsb). 101, note d of translation; 117, note a of translation; 119, note b of translation: certainly in gaptT.su gimi-ma, nTlsam ina gaptTKsa> igkunu, and gaptTlsu ligme-ma, the literal trans- lation is "lips," not "lip." 106:11' elinukka, "more than you?" The dictionaries give no other examples of such a use of elinu, and "apart from you" makes perfect sense. 120, note a of translation, "according <to> CAD . . ." 160:32 The form tapul is noteworthy, contradicting, as it apparently does, "Bei den fientischen Verben ist die St.-Form [des G] immer

paris (GAG ?87 1)." The only other evidence I know of for a parus-stative is la epug, "let it be made," in EA 10:35 (Babylonia), and the verbal adjective in narkabta la samutta in EA 16:11 (Assyria-rather, an Assyrianism, sammutta?). Sporadic i > u under the influence of a labial? Later, too, one finds the noun epustu replacing epistu (SB and Late Bab.), and adj. epsu, e6ustu (Late Bab.). Note also the shift of epjsu into the u-u class, with the alternation in the same letter of eppe? and eppu?, and of i-pu-?u on tablet and i-pi-?u on case (Frankena, SLB 4 10). Cf., too, irappu? occasionally instead of standard irappig. 163:7-9 sibitum mimma inuima kTma sibitlka ?upram-ma, which Stol renders by "Whatever wish, when(ever), write to me according to your wish." I would suggest "Whatever the wish, when (and) as you wish, write me." 186, note 3 of translation: not "rev. 2," but "l .e. 2."

Another splendid addition to the AbB series.

WILLIAM L. MORAN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. By J. MAXWELL

MILLER and JOHN H. HAYES. Pp. 528 including 29 maps. Philadelphia: THE WESTMINSTER PRESS. 1985. $27.95.

This is a textbook written to introduce students to the study of Israelite and Judean history who have had little preparation for the task. It begins with setting the subject of the history in the broad chronological and geographical contexts of the ancient world. The book then proceeds to the discussion of methodological issues having to do with the nature and use of the biblical literary testimony, the prob- lems of relating that testimony to the known historical witness of Mesopotamia and Egypt, the use of archaeology and the range of scholarly opinion as all of these have to do

with the "question of origins." In this way the authors deal at the same time with the biblical history down to the point of Israel's settlement in the land.

The history proper begins with the premonarchy period and with this and each subsequent chapter the student is first of all given a summary and analysis of the appropriate biblical texts, relevant historical materials from foreign and archaeological discoveries together with numerous maps, charts, photographs and excerpts from translations of major historical monuments. Building on this material the authors then provide a narrative reconstruction of the history for each segment down to the Persian period. According to the preface the division of labors between the two authors makes Miller largely responsible for the history down to the end of the Jehu dynasty in Israel and the time of Jotham in Judah and Hayes the primary author of the rest. A useful biblio- graphy and indexes concludes the work.

The book attempts to put into the hands of the student, in one volume, all the tools needed to introduce the subject. The selection of "sources" is judicious and the discussion of the biblical materials is consciously "moderate" and uncom- plicated. Reading the book from this perspective, the only problem I had was in the frequent disruption of the narrative history with the supplementary material, a problem difficult to solve within the limits of a one volume work.

This primary purpose of a handbook for beginners, how- ever, militates against the book as a scholarly contribution to the study of the history of Israel. There are no footnotes and little dialogue with opposing positions so that only a close familiarity with the works of these authors and other histories will allow one to assess what is new and different. On this point the book reflects more the major changes in biblical studies in the last few decades and less a set of new positions for consideration and debate.

The point at which one might actually begin a historical narrative remains a problem for the history of Israel which may be illustrated by Miller's treatment of David. After summarizing the sources in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, Miller proposes to extract "a kernel of historical memory" which produces an account not too different from the bib- lical record itself. He deals somewhat selectively with some of the problems and improbabilities, such as the fact that the revolts of Absolom and Sheba, coming late in David's reign, would certainly have affected his control of the "empire." So he places them early in the reign (p. 175). But if Absolom was born after David became king, the numerous events recorded about Absolom's adult life make it difficult to date his revolt before David's 30th year. In fact the whole chronology of events reflected in the "sources" of 2 Samuel is extremely difficult to reconstruct. For instance, Hiram, who was largely contemporary with Solomon, could only have built a palace of cedar for David (2 Sam 5:11) late in his reign which makes the events of chs. 6 & 7 late as well (see

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.162 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:51:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions