Zephanja: Versuch einer Neuübersetzung mit philologischem Kommentar by Liudger Sabottka;Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic by Kevin J. CathcartReview by: Dennis PardeeJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1974), pp. 506-509Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/600611 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:40

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 91.229.229.129 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:40:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.4 (1974) Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.4 (1974)

relation to an overall field, since "the picture field has local properties which affect our sense of the signs," and in this regard, "convention rests on a natural association of a scale of qualities with a scale of magnitudes"-i.e., a correlation between rank and size (M. Schapiro, "On Some Problems in the Semiotics of Visual Art: Field and Vehicle in Image-Signs," Semiotica 1 (1969), 229 and 237).

Many more such questions remain to be raised about visual imagery. Schapiro wrote in 1953 that "a theory of style adequate to the psychological and historical problems has still to be created," (Kroeber, ed., op. cit., p. 311), and while this is as true today as it was then, H. A. Groenewegen-Frankfort has the distinction of being one of the first scholars in the Near Eastern field to move toward verbalizing and applying a method by which one might penetrate the relationship between "style" and "culture."

If the print of the present edition is not as dark as the original, it is none-the-less readable; and if the matte reproduction of photographs is sometimes too dark and details are lost (as Pls. VIIA&B & LI), they are for the most part adequate; while the reasonable sale price puts this important book within reach of libraries, students and scholars alike. We must therefore also recognize the service of Hacker Art Books, Inc. in insuring the continued life of this study on the scale it so richly deserves.

IRENE J. WINTER QUEENS COLLEGE, NEW YORK

Zephanja: Versuch einer Neuiibersetzung mit philolo- gischem Kommentar. By LIUDGER SABOTTKA. Bib- lica et Orientalia - No. 25. Pp. xix + 177. Rome: PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM BIBLICUM. 1972. L. it. 3.900/$6.50.

Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic. By KEVIN J. CATHCART. Biblica et Orientalia - No. 26. Pp. 171. Rome: PONTIFICIUM INSTITUUM BIBLICUM. 1973. L. it. 6.000. $10.00.

With these works two more stones are laid in the edifice of biblical interpretation being put together by the "Rome school." Both works were originally doctoral dissertations prepared under the supervision of Mitchell Dahood at the Pontifical Biblical Institute (see Biblica 52 [1971], 290). Both works display the authors' agree- ment with Dahood's text-critical and grammatical presuppositions, though neither attempts to delineate them (indeed this has been done clearly enough by Dahood in the introductions to his Psalms commentaries in the Anchor Bible series [Garden City, New York:

relation to an overall field, since "the picture field has local properties which affect our sense of the signs," and in this regard, "convention rests on a natural association of a scale of qualities with a scale of magnitudes"-i.e., a correlation between rank and size (M. Schapiro, "On Some Problems in the Semiotics of Visual Art: Field and Vehicle in Image-Signs," Semiotica 1 (1969), 229 and 237).

Many more such questions remain to be raised about visual imagery. Schapiro wrote in 1953 that "a theory of style adequate to the psychological and historical problems has still to be created," (Kroeber, ed., op. cit., p. 311), and while this is as true today as it was then, H. A. Groenewegen-Frankfort has the distinction of being one of the first scholars in the Near Eastern field to move toward verbalizing and applying a method by which one might penetrate the relationship between "style" and "culture."

If the print of the present edition is not as dark as the original, it is none-the-less readable; and if the matte reproduction of photographs is sometimes too dark and details are lost (as Pls. VIIA&B & LI), they are for the most part adequate; while the reasonable sale price puts this important book within reach of libraries, students and scholars alike. We must therefore also recognize the service of Hacker Art Books, Inc. in insuring the continued life of this study on the scale it so richly deserves.

IRENE J. WINTER QUEENS COLLEGE, NEW YORK

Zephanja: Versuch einer Neuiibersetzung mit philolo- gischem Kommentar. By LIUDGER SABOTTKA. Bib- lica et Orientalia - No. 25. Pp. xix + 177. Rome: PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM BIBLICUM. 1972. L. it. 3.900/$6.50.

Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic. By KEVIN J. CATHCART. Biblica et Orientalia - No. 26. Pp. 171. Rome: PONTIFICIUM INSTITUUM BIBLICUM. 1973. L. it. 6.000. $10.00.

With these works two more stones are laid in the edifice of biblical interpretation being put together by the "Rome school." Both works were originally doctoral dissertations prepared under the supervision of Mitchell Dahood at the Pontifical Biblical Institute (see Biblica 52 [1971], 290). Both works display the authors' agree- ment with Dahood's text-critical and grammatical presuppositions, though neither attempts to delineate them (indeed this has been done clearly enough by Dahood in the introductions to his Psalms commentaries in the Anchor Bible series [Garden City, New York:

Doubleday, 1966, 1968, 1970]; in the "Grammar of the Psalter" in volume III of the aforementioned com- mentaries, 361-456; and by Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job [Rome: PIB, 1969], 3-35). Though the publications of the Rome school are now becoming so well known that it is unlikely that many students of Hebrew will pick up one of these works unaware of its philosophical precursors, it would none- theless be proper to include in future works of this type a statement of method.

Briefly the method is the following: virtually complete adherence to the consonants of the Massoretic text coupled with complete freedom towards the Massoretic vocalization and word division. F. M. Cross has recently dubbed this "Massoretic 'fundamentalism'," though it is clear that the attitude which earned the term "funda- mentalism" is exercised with repect to the consonants only (Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973], 210). This aspect of the method is most clearly stated by Dahood in the introduction to Psalms II: "The study of the Psalter within the wider ambience of Northwest Semitic so frequently vindicates the consonantal text against its ancient translators and its medieval reworking by the Masoretes that one must concede its primacy. To be sure, in the majority of cases in the Psalter, the consonantal text and the Masoretic pointing are in happy agreement, but where the Masoritic punctuation cannot be coaxed into yielding sense, the textual critic should cut free and chart a course on the linguistic map of Northwest Semitic" (p. xvii).

The other major principle of interpretation, alluded to by Dahood in the text just cited, is that of studying the Hebrew Bible in the light of "Northwest Semitic," that is, the epigraphic discoveries of the modern era which have provided new textual material in Aramaic, Phoenician, Moabite, Ammonite, and Ugaritic. It is especially the latter, because of its relatively large corpus and its texts of a mythological nature, which is put to service. Of the two books being reviewed it is Cathcart's Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic which, in accordance with its title, has included the greatest number of references to Northwest Semitic parallels, principally lexical.

Few dispute the validity of the comparative method as a tool of research and one can definitely detect a swing toward increased respect for the Massoritic text, as compared with the large-scale emendations which charac- terized text criticism around the turn of the century. This said, however, one must still deplore the excesses present in virtually complete adherence to the Massoretic consonantal text and in "the virtual equation of Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Hebrew" (Jonas C. Greenfield, review of Dahood, Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology, in JAOS 89

Doubleday, 1966, 1968, 1970]; in the "Grammar of the Psalter" in volume III of the aforementioned com- mentaries, 361-456; and by Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job [Rome: PIB, 1969], 3-35). Though the publications of the Rome school are now becoming so well known that it is unlikely that many students of Hebrew will pick up one of these works unaware of its philosophical precursors, it would none- theless be proper to include in future works of this type a statement of method.

Briefly the method is the following: virtually complete adherence to the consonants of the Massoretic text coupled with complete freedom towards the Massoretic vocalization and word division. F. M. Cross has recently dubbed this "Massoretic 'fundamentalism'," though it is clear that the attitude which earned the term "funda- mentalism" is exercised with repect to the consonants only (Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973], 210). This aspect of the method is most clearly stated by Dahood in the introduction to Psalms II: "The study of the Psalter within the wider ambience of Northwest Semitic so frequently vindicates the consonantal text against its ancient translators and its medieval reworking by the Masoretes that one must concede its primacy. To be sure, in the majority of cases in the Psalter, the consonantal text and the Masoretic pointing are in happy agreement, but where the Masoritic punctuation cannot be coaxed into yielding sense, the textual critic should cut free and chart a course on the linguistic map of Northwest Semitic" (p. xvii).

The other major principle of interpretation, alluded to by Dahood in the text just cited, is that of studying the Hebrew Bible in the light of "Northwest Semitic," that is, the epigraphic discoveries of the modern era which have provided new textual material in Aramaic, Phoenician, Moabite, Ammonite, and Ugaritic. It is especially the latter, because of its relatively large corpus and its texts of a mythological nature, which is put to service. Of the two books being reviewed it is Cathcart's Nahum in the Light of Northwest Semitic which, in accordance with its title, has included the greatest number of references to Northwest Semitic parallels, principally lexical.

Few dispute the validity of the comparative method as a tool of research and one can definitely detect a swing toward increased respect for the Massoritic text, as compared with the large-scale emendations which charac- terized text criticism around the turn of the century. This said, however, one must still deplore the excesses present in virtually complete adherence to the Massoretic consonantal text and in "the virtual equation of Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Hebrew" (Jonas C. Greenfield, review of Dahood, Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology, in JAOS 89

506 506

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:40:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books

[1969], 174; Greenfield's review is, by the way, the best characterization and criticism of the Rome school which I have seen). Were the method practiced by Dahood and his students presented as a method among others, with its final results to be decided by the tribunal of time, one could accept them at this value and begin the work of criticism which must inevitably take place sooner or later (W. F. Albright, under whom Dahood studied, has, probably off-handedly, tossed out the figure of "a third" in speaking of the percentage of Dahood's sug- gestions which may prove correct-New Directions in Biblical Archeology, eds. David Noel Freedman and Jonas C. Greenfield [Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Edition, 1971], 12). Such methodological modesty is not apparent, however, especially in the published statements of Dahood (the inclusion of the word Versuch in Sabottka's title is refreshing). Dahood presents his method in an entirely positive light and usually launches an aggressive counter-attack on a criticism with which he disagrees (see, for example, Biblica 53 [1972], 387-88, note 1). Though something is surely to be said for a positive attitude toward one's work, the spirit behind the Rome school's publications is closer to religious fervor or missionary zeal. This has led to a division into pro- and anti-Dahood camps with the expected alarms, sallies, conversions and defections. The net result in terms of the scholarship being produced in Northwest Semitic philology is that the work of the Rome school tends to be accepted or rejected in toto, with the inevitable repetition and colportering of poor suggestions by one side and the loss of many good suggestions for the other. It is to be hoped that in time a more objective atmosphere will prevail and that a critical but fair analysis of Da- hood's work, and of that produced by his students, will be undertaken (C. Brekelmans' article "The Preposition b = from in the Psalms according to M. Dahood," UF 1 [1969], 5-14, is an excellent exanlple of the spirit which should typify the work to be done).

The text critical method used by the two authors under review is perhaps best illustrated by Cathcart's treatment of Nahum 1:1-10. The acrostic behind these verses has beeny noticed at least since the 1860's (the original dis- covery is attributed to Frohnmeyer by Franz Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar iber die Psalmen [Leipzig: Dorffling und Franke, 1867], 106-7). Cathcart, however, not only makes no attempt to find the acrostic beyond the rea-

sonably well preserved portion in vss. 1-10, probably a useless task given the state of the text, but he refuses to emend vss. 1-10 in any way to put the required consonant in first position in a given line: 'umlal at the beginning of vs. 4b is maintained rather than inserting a word beginning with d; lipne is maintained before zadm6 in the line which should begin with z (vs. 6a); w is kept

before y6dea in the line which should begin with y (vs. 7c). Cathcart's defense for maintaining 'umlal appears to me ridiculous ("It is quite possible that the desire for repetition in the chiasm overcame the needs of the acrostic"-p. 50). Either there is an acrostic or there is not! Granted the importance of chiastic paral- lelism. Granted also the importance of recognizing the frequent use of a word in parallel with itself in poetry (and one of the great merits of Dahood's chapter on paral- lel pairs in Ras Shamra Parallels, vol. 1 [Rome: PIB, 1971] is to have systematically included the parallelisms of identical words in both Ugaritic and Hebrew). But having granted these two points, they cannot be accorded primacy over one of the steps in an acrostic. If the Nahum acrostic is the acid test of the Rome school methodology, Cathcart either passed with flying colors or else failed miserably-depending on the examiner's point of view.

The format of these two works differs somewhat from that of their predecessors in that both consist of a com- plete treatment of the biblical book in question, rather than a collection of studies on separate verses or sections. Both provide the comp ete text in question, Zephania in transcription, Nahum in Hebrew characters (the vowel pointing was practically illegible in the copy received for review-it is hoped that this major defect will be remedied in future printings, especially when a comparison of the prices of the two books shows roughly what the Hebrew printing adds to the price of the Nahum commentary). Sabottka is to be commended for indicating deviations from the Massoretic vocalization by an exclamation mark; the Hebrew text of Nahum is presented with the vocalic changes proposed by Cathcart with no indication of variation from the Massoretic pointing. Another point requiring commendation is the excellent set of indices in both volumes.

As it is impossible to offer a full criticism of all the points involved in these two commentaries in the space allotted for review, I will touch on only one point, in- novative translations of prepositions (a subject which I have been investigating for the past year and a half). Dahood has long stressed the important light thrown on the Hebrew prepositional usage by the other North-West Semitic dialects. Perhaps his most controversial state- ment was: "The writer considers that the Ugaritic usage of prepositions and particles alone sheds more light on the meaning of the text of the Old Testament than do all of the Qumran Scrolls" (Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology [Rome: PIB, 1965], 26). In spite of this statement, however, Dahood has never attempted, to my knowledge, any explanation of the linguistic situation prevailing in Ugaritic, or for that matter in Hebrew, which permits the various prepositions to have ranges of meaning wide

507

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:40:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.4 (1974)

enough to include opposites (b = "in," "into," and "from"; I = "to," "at," "from," "since," etc.). His entire argument may be summed up in one word, "ambiguity." By his full approbation of C. H. Gordon's treatment of the Ugaritic prepositions (in Ugaritic Textbook [Rome: PIB, 1965], ?10), based on the premise that the prepositions are ambiguous, Dahood seems to take that analysis as sufficient and thus probably considers a linguistic elab- oration superfluous (see Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology, 26f.). But Gordon's treatment itself is entirely descriptive and includes no discussion of the semantics behind the ambiguity of the Ugaritic prepositions (other than to claim that this ambiguity is a general feature of the Hamito-Semitic languages). Dahood's adoption of Gor- don's descriptive terminology should not be surprising, though, for virtually all of his grammatical work is empirical, descriptive, and, frequently, simplistic: if a grammatical feature appears in any of the Northwest Semitic dialects, examples of that feature may and should be sought in the others. He rarely attempts a historical or linguistic justification of a grammatical feature. As regards the case of prepositions, any meaning which has been discovered for any preposition in Ugaritic is considered probable to occur in Hebrew. Moreover, extrapolations of meaning not present in Ugaritic are posited for Hebrew, once again without an attempt to justify the extrapolation beyond a claim to "ambiguity" (e.g., b and I can be translated "from" in Ugaritic but neither is even once attested in a comparative usage "more than" [= Hebrew min], yet the latter meaning is claimed for both prepositions in Hebrew). In this grain- matical methodology Dahood is followed by his students.

The list of innovative translations which I have culled from the two works under review is as follows (order of the Massoretic text):

Sabottka, Zephanja

Gen. 48:22 b = "without" (Iqh mn ... b) (p. 118) Gen. 49:27: b= "from" (temporal-'kl b) (p. 106) Isa. 14:22: I = "from" (krt 1) (p. 16) Isa. 34:5: b = "from" (rwh b) (p. 93) Jer. 2:17: b = "from" (temporal-'zb b) (pp. 88-89) Zeph. 1:18: b = "from" (temporal-nsl b) (p. 58) Zeph. 2:11: I = "before" (yr' 'l) (p. 90) Zeph. 2:14: b = "from" (?rr b and erh b) (p. 98) Zeph. 3:3: 1 ="since" (grin 1) (p. 105) Zeph. 3:8: 1 = "from" (qwm 1) (p. 113) Zeph. 3:14: b = "from" ('lz b) (p. 124) Job 5:19: b = "from" (nsl b) (p. 58)

Cathcart, Nahum

Nah. 1:7: 1 = comparative (nominal) (p. 55) Nal. 1:7: b = "from" (alternate translation of hsIh

b . . b) (p. 56)

Cant. 1:2-3: I = comparative (nominal) (p. 55) Lam. 4:17: b = "from" (accepts Dahood's rendering of sph b) (p. 81)

5My study of prepositions has dealt primarily with the preposition in Ugaritic; a good part of this study has consisted of isolating verb/preposition combinations and attempting to ascertain the semantic import of both elements of the combination. This attention to verb/ preposition combinations has led to an evaluation of apparent ambiguity which goes beyond saying that a given preposition "means" "in," "into," and "from." For example: Sabottka suggests the nsl b means "save from" in both Zeph. 1:18 and Job 5:19. Examination of the concept "save" reveals, however, that within the verb itself are implied two situations: the situation of distress requiring salvation and the situation of having been saved. With this in mind it becomes clear that a preposition followed by a noun depicting a distressful situation will, because of the nature of the verb, indicate the first situation, that from which one is saved. Thus nsl b and nsl mn, when the preposition precedes a noun of distress, will usually describe the same concrete situation, i.e., one requiring salvation, and both may often be translated "from." I stress the word translated because it is not the preposition b itself which denotes "passage from," it is the verb/preposition idiom. Thus b in this particular idiom does not "mean" "from." It appears quite clear that the semantic import of the preposition alone is 'position in' and a paraphrase of Job 5:19 stressing the semantic import of the preposition would be: "When you are in a situation consisting of six distresses, he will save you (from that situation), and when you are in a situation consisting of seven distresses no evil will touch you." A full analysis of the semantic import of each element in the verb/preposi- tion pairs indicates that in general b and I do not in themselves carry the notion of "from"; rather, they constitute a component element of an idiom which denotes "passage from." On this basis I disagree with Sabottka's rendering of nsl b as "save from" in Zeph. 1:18. There the phrase is 16'-yikal lehassildm bEyom debrat YHWH (Sa- bottka interprets vs. 18b as dependent on 18a): ".. wird sie retten k6nnen vor dem Zorntag Jahwes... "(p. 58). If we accept that b indicates the distressful situation necessitating salvation, then we must further decide whether the author's emphasis was put on the situation itself or on the salvation from that situation. In the present case it appears to me that the emphasis is put on the distressful situation and that this is indicated by beyom: "When YHWH's anger strikes, no one will be able to save his silver and gold" (paraphrase).

508

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:40:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books Reviews of Books

A few remarks will have to suffice for the other ex- amples: to interpret b as "without" in Gen. 48:22 is an

extrapolation of sense for which there is too little evidence (the argument underlying the assumption that b can mean "without" would go something like this: mn can mean both "from" and "without," since b can mean "from" it should also be able to mean "without"). In Gen. 49:27 the semantic notion "from... to" is not

provided by the prepositions b and 1, but by the nouns with which they are construed ("morning . .. evening") -thus one may perhaps translate "from morning till

evening" but one may not claim that b therefore means "from." Though the correct translation of krt I in Isa. 14:22 is "cut off from," once again the preposition does not itself denote "from"; rather it indicates the situation

pertaining before the cutting off is carried out-a para- phrase would be "I will cut off the posterity (I?) and remnant which belong to Babylon." The preposition 1 in the meaning "since" is entirely too doubtful (Zeph. 3:8). Tlle best Ugaritic examples are from Ugaritic economic texts where lym hind renders Akkadian istu umi anni "from this day on." Elsewhere (in a disserta- tion at the University of Chicago) I have given a full defense of my position that this instance does not provide proof that I alone could mean "since" (basically it is claimed that the Ugaritic scribe was faced with an ancient translation problem, istu -= ?, which he solved as best he could by the use of 1). In seemingly comparable poetic usages such as lymm lyrhnm lyrlhm Isnt (Ugaritic Textbook, 49 v 7-8; 1 Aqht iv 175-76), the phrases are cumulative rather than adversative: "Unto days, (even) unto months; unto months, (even) unto years." It would be a mistake to assume from the translations of these usages into English that I in every other North- west Semitic dialect can mean "since." As for compara- tive I in Nah. 1:7 and Cant. 1:2-3, J. A. Emerton's com- inents (VT 22 [1972]; 507) on comparative b are equally valid for comparative I: the comparative usage of these

prepositions is not attested in Ugaritic and it is an un- warranted extrapolation of meaning to see them in Hebrew (unwarranted because there is too little empirical evidence and because the prepositions do not in them- selves bear the notion of "distance, passage, or difference

from"). Finally, it is far too optimistic to claim that: "The

interchange of these prepositions ['el, Cal, and 16] is similar to that found in Ugaritic between 'I and 1"

(Cathcart, p. 59). Though there is a certain degree of

overlap in I and 'l in Ugaritic, there is virtually no evi- dence for interchange of the two in any way comparable to the situation prevailing in certain strata of Hebrew. All of the evidence comes from one text, Ugaritic Text-

book, 1012 (in note 116, p. 59, Cathcart refers to Gordon's

A few remarks will have to suffice for the other ex- amples: to interpret b as "without" in Gen. 48:22 is an

extrapolation of sense for which there is too little evidence (the argument underlying the assumption that b can mean "without" would go something like this: mn can mean both "from" and "without," since b can mean "from" it should also be able to mean "without"). In Gen. 49:27 the semantic notion "from... to" is not

provided by the prepositions b and 1, but by the nouns with which they are construed ("morning . .. evening") -thus one may perhaps translate "from morning till

evening" but one may not claim that b therefore means "from." Though the correct translation of krt I in Isa. 14:22 is "cut off from," once again the preposition does not itself denote "from"; rather it indicates the situation

pertaining before the cutting off is carried out-a para- phrase would be "I will cut off the posterity (I?) and remnant which belong to Babylon." The preposition 1 in the meaning "since" is entirely too doubtful (Zeph. 3:8). Tlle best Ugaritic examples are from Ugaritic economic texts where lym hind renders Akkadian istu umi anni "from this day on." Elsewhere (in a disserta- tion at the University of Chicago) I have given a full defense of my position that this instance does not provide proof that I alone could mean "since" (basically it is claimed that the Ugaritic scribe was faced with an ancient translation problem, istu -= ?, which he solved as best he could by the use of 1). In seemingly comparable poetic usages such as lymm lyrhnm lyrlhm Isnt (Ugaritic Textbook, 49 v 7-8; 1 Aqht iv 175-76), the phrases are cumulative rather than adversative: "Unto days, (even) unto months; unto months, (even) unto years." It would be a mistake to assume from the translations of these usages into English that I in every other North- west Semitic dialect can mean "since." As for compara- tive I in Nah. 1:7 and Cant. 1:2-3, J. A. Emerton's com- inents (VT 22 [1972]; 507) on comparative b are equally valid for comparative I: the comparative usage of these

prepositions is not attested in Ugaritic and it is an un- warranted extrapolation of meaning to see them in Hebrew (unwarranted because there is too little empirical evidence and because the prepositions do not in them- selves bear the notion of "distance, passage, or difference

from"). Finally, it is far too optimistic to claim that: "The

interchange of these prepositions ['el, Cal, and 16] is similar to that found in Ugaritic between 'I and 1"

(Cathcart, p. 59). Though there is a certain degree of

overlap in I and 'l in Ugaritic, there is virtually no evi- dence for interchange of the two in any way comparable to the situation prevailing in certain strata of Hebrew. All of the evidence comes from one text, Ugaritic Text-

book, 1012 (in note 116, p. 59, Cathcart refers to Gordon's

discussion of 51 viii 5-6, but there the parallelism is 'I/ lr "upon // on top of," which has little if any relevance to a discussion of interchange of Ce and 1). In text 1012 the possible examples are skn I (lines 23-24), rgm Cl (line 25), and ytlz el (line 26). In context skn I seems to mean "impose on," but that is not what skn l means in the one attestation of the idiom (text 125:43, skn Cl = "settle on"); thus the evidence is a bit sparse to be speaking of "interchange" in this case. In text 1012 rgm 'I ("decree concerning"; perhaps "impose on") does not mean what rgm I means elsewhere ("say to"). Nor, I believe, does the idiom ytn el "give to" appear in the text; it is preferable to emend lines 25-26 to read Im lytnhm milk <b> ly and translate "why has the king my lord not provided them himself?" (Virolleaud). Thus the instances of 'jl interchange are reduced from four to one, and probably to zero (if the emendation <b>Cly is accepted). One example is too few to provide the basis for a general statement, especially when that one is itself very doubtful. It might be added that Dahood sees the parallelism I // l in the more recently published text 608, line 7 (Psalms III [1970], p. 27; but this paral- lelismn is not included in Ras Shamra Parallels I). The interpretation of this line offered by M. C. Astour (JNES 27 [1968]; 31) appears preferable however (he puts the two prepositions in two different poetic sections).

The general conclusion with regard to the two com- mentaries being discussed is that which many reviewers of Rome school publications before me have voiced: used carefully and critically by a trained scholar these works can be quite useful. The primary general criticism to be levelled against the works of Dahood's students, one applicable to both books being reviewed, is that they tend to accept their mentor's methodological and gram- matical presuppositions as faits accomplis to be exploited rather than constantly re-evaluated.

DENNIS PARDEE

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

discussion of 51 viii 5-6, but there the parallelism is 'I/ lr "upon // on top of," which has little if any relevance to a discussion of interchange of Ce and 1). In text 1012 the possible examples are skn I (lines 23-24), rgm Cl (line 25), and ytlz el (line 26). In context skn I seems to mean "impose on," but that is not what skn l means in the one attestation of the idiom (text 125:43, skn Cl = "settle on"); thus the evidence is a bit sparse to be speaking of "interchange" in this case. In text 1012 rgm 'I ("decree concerning"; perhaps "impose on") does not mean what rgm I means elsewhere ("say to"). Nor, I believe, does the idiom ytn el "give to" appear in the text; it is preferable to emend lines 25-26 to read Im lytnhm milk <b> ly and translate "why has the king my lord not provided them himself?" (Virolleaud). Thus the instances of 'jl interchange are reduced from four to one, and probably to zero (if the emendation <b>Cly is accepted). One example is too few to provide the basis for a general statement, especially when that one is itself very doubtful. It might be added that Dahood sees the parallelism I // l in the more recently published text 608, line 7 (Psalms III [1970], p. 27; but this paral- lelismn is not included in Ras Shamra Parallels I). The interpretation of this line offered by M. C. Astour (JNES 27 [1968]; 31) appears preferable however (he puts the two prepositions in two different poetic sections).

The general conclusion with regard to the two com- mentaries being discussed is that which many reviewers of Rome school publications before me have voiced: used carefully and critically by a trained scholar these works can be quite useful. The primary general criticism to be levelled against the works of Dahood's students, one applicable to both books being reviewed, is that they tend to accept their mentor's methodological and gram- matical presuppositions as faits accomplis to be exploited rather than constantly re-evaluated.

DENNIS PARDEE

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume 1: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. By JOHN C. L. GIBSON. Pp. viii- 116 + 3 plates. Oxford: CLA- RENDON PRESS. 1971. Sh. 60.

This volumes is meant, according to the preface, as the first of a series intended to replace G. A. Cooke's classic Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Before discussing the contents of this volume it may not be amiss to point up the strangeness of the title given it by the author. In his Preface he explains the term Syrian Semitic: "I have adopted the title Syrian Semitic as proposed by Professor Moscati in preference to Mr. Cooke's

Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume 1: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. By JOHN C. L. GIBSON. Pp. viii- 116 + 3 plates. Oxford: CLA- RENDON PRESS. 1971. Sh. 60.

This volumes is meant, according to the preface, as the first of a series intended to replace G. A. Cooke's classic Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Before discussing the contents of this volume it may not be amiss to point up the strangeness of the title given it by the author. In his Preface he explains the term Syrian Semitic: "I have adopted the title Syrian Semitic as proposed by Professor Moscati in preference to Mr. Cooke's

509 509

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:40:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions