Misgav, Maeir, Yardeni, Ahituv, and Schniedewind on the Qeiyafa Inscription

Below the fold, text, translation and commentary on the Qeiyafa inscription, based on the judgments of Misgav, Yardeni, Ahituv, and Schniedewind reported or expressed on Aren Maeir’s blog here and here, as well as my own. The contents of the inscription, and more especially, its estimated date and secure provenance, make it an extremely important find.

Details of the inscription will be debated for a long time. Nonetheless, given the relatively certain aspects of the inscription’s contents and the archaeological context in which the inscription was found, it is already difficult to avoid the conclusion that the kingdom of David – or some equivalent entity we would have to invent were it not for the fact that 1-2 Samuel preserve traditions whose basic outline is compatible with everything we know from the archaeological record - possessed a defensive infrastructure capable of giving the powerful Philistine city-states on its western border a run for their money. The balance of probability now rests with a hypothesis of that kind. The minimalist theses of a Davies and the skeptical theses of a Finkelstein now seem like so much ancient history.

Text (the circulus over a letter means that the letter is only partially preserved, and/or of uncertain identification):

א֯ל תעש [ ] ועבד את֯

שפט בואלמ [ ]ש֯פ֯ט֯

א֯ל֯ ובעלל

א[ ]מ ונקמ יסד מלכ גת֯

ס֯ר֯נ֯ ע[...] מג/דרת

 

Normalization to the phonology of Masoretic Hebrew for convenience only:

 אַ֯ל תַּעַשׂ [ ] וַעֲבֹד אֶת֯

שֹׁפֵט בְּואלמ [ ] שֹׁ֯פֵ֯ט֯

א֯ל֯ ובעלל

א[ ]מ וּנְקֹמ יסד מֶלֶכ גַּת֯

סֶ֯רֶ֯נ֯ עַ[זָּה ?..] מג/דרת

Translation

1          Do not do [anything bad?], and serve [personal name?]
2          ruler of [geographical name?] . . . ruler . . .
3          [geographical names?] . . .
4          [unclear] and wreak judgment on YSD king of Gath . . .
5          seren of G[aza? . . .] [unclear] . . . 

Except where noted, I default to Misgav’s decipherment of the inked letters.

Line 1. א֯ל תעש; compare Gen 22:12. ועבד את֯; compare Jer 27: 17. Schniedewind proposed that the sequence might be interpreted as an imperative clause.

Line 2. שפט ב; compare 2 Sam 15:4. Alternatively, “rule over” (vocalizing as an imperative or infinitive absolute). שפט twice according to Yardeni; the second instance is uncertain.

Line 3. There is no real justification for reading El and/or Baal in this line.

Line 4. ונקמ יסד מלכ גת֯; compare Josh 10:13.

Line 5. ס֯ר֯נ֯ uncertain according to Ahituv.

Provenance of inscription: Khirbet Qeiyafa, a massively fortified one-period site on the traditional border of Judah and Philistia. Date of inscription: based on converging lines of evidence, “mid/late 11^th [Saul and earlier, according to biblical chronology], early 10^th [David], or perhaps, but much less likely, mid-late 10th centuries [Solomon and Rehoboam]; . . . the stratigraphy and general chronological framework is very clear” (Aren Maeir). Language of inscription: Hebrew. There are no grounds I can think of for disputing that.  

Comments

[ed cook]

I'm not sure why you call the contents "relatively certain." Until a photograph is published and the readings of this difficult script are considered and verified by others, we have only someone else's word for what the contents are.

[JohnFh]

Hi Ed,

Unless I have misunderstood Maeir's report, Misgav's identification of the inked letters for the most part went uncontested by Yardeni, Demsky, and Ahituv, all of whom had access to photographs. The verification process is already at an advanced stage, with areas of relative certainty and uncertainty identified.

Where Maeir notes that questions were raised, I note it above, and base my general remarks on an interpretation of those elements in the inscription that are relatively certain.

At this point, we have the word of some of the most authoritative paleographers in the field. Based on past experience, I doubt my level of confidence about what can said with relative certainty about the contents of the inscription will go up once I have and we all have a chance to squint at photographs.

I do not expect that a substantially different picture of the relative certainties and uncertainties of reading the inscription will emerge, once other paleographers beyond these four, among the very best in the world, have a look at the photographs.

On the other hand, the other purpose of this post is to sow doubt, not relative certainty. Other bloggers have been posting Maeir's off-the-cuff translation of Misgav's decipherment without pointing out the instances in which identification and interpretation have been challenged.

[Duane]

Nice, I agree that there is no reason certain to see El or Ba'al line 3. A geographical name works well there. If only we knew where it was. As to the language: While there isn't enough to build a dialectical grammar on, I'm still cautious about calling it Hebrew. On the other hand, there seems little question that it is in the same dialectical continuum with Hebrew and, perhaps nearer it rather than more distant. Of course, Hebrew itself shows dialectical variation. That said, I really don't see anything in this text (grammar or vocabulary) that absolutely excludes the Phoenician branch of the family. Maybe I'm missing something.

While there is considerable room for disagreement about some/many readings and understandings within the text, the fact that it appears to have grammatical structure renders it being a lexical text all but impossible. That doesn't mean that its isn't a student exercise. To me it feels like a letter, the opening of which is now missing. Even if a letter fragment, it still might be a student exercise. But then again, it need not be.

[JohnFh]

Duane,

D'accord.

The occurrence of the verb עשה is what leads to the conclusion that this inscription is not Phoenician but Hebrew. It's not an airtight conclusion, but as you know very well, airtight conclusions are not connatural to historical science. It is a very plausible inference.

[Duane]

John,

Your point about עשה is well taken. I did overlook it not being in Phoenician. It's a little upsetting because I once used the flip side of this point, along with a few other observations, to argue that KTU 6.70 from Sarepta was Phoenician(ish). The use of עשה alone should make us think that the text is more Hebrewish and Phoenicianish. Absolutely definitive? No, but extremely indicative. This is particularly so with Phoenician using a different root for about the same thing. I thought someone might call me on the nota accusativi and I had at least a partial answer to that, אית in Karatepe A I:3 etc.

[Ed]

I still hold that transcriptions, no matter who has looked at them (and Ada, as adept as she is, has been very fallible of late). In other texts, this "Canaanite" script is not always easy to decipher. Sorry, but the interpretation of an inscription cannot begin until photographs are available.

[JohnFh]

Your caution, Ed, is admirable. Actually, photos, drawings, and extensive commentary by Misgav, Yardeni, Demsky, and Ahituv already exist in published form thanks to the IAA. If I had that in hand, I would compare it with Maeir's summary report, but I have no reason to doubt Maeir's summary.

I'm not so sure I would want to single out individual paleographers as fallible. They all are, and they would be the first to admit it.

But here there seems to be (1) general agreement and (2) qualified disagreement among four of the best. I think that counts for a lot. From this point on, the law of diminishing returns sets in.

[Nathan Hale]

What was the orgin of Hebrew?
Canaanite?

One can assume at some point in history, the laguage rose up adn we have the question of the chicken or the egg. Did Hebrews assume the language/alphabet from the native non-Hebrews, or perhpas assumed much more in that?

[JohnFH]

Hi Nathan,

Your questions are hard to speculate about due to the way they are framed. You might as well ask: What is the origin of English? German?

Do you follow me? Languages have multiple origins, are subject to influences from many directions, and so on. Easy answers to such broad questions do not often exist.

What is clear, from the text corpora in hand, is that Iron Age Phoenician, Hebrew, Aramaic, and so on are distinguishable.

For a first introduction to the relevant questions, I recommend the following review by Peter Bekins - then you might want to read the book reviewed, which is excellent:

http://balshanut.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/garr-w-randall-dialect-geography-of-syria-palestine-1000-586-bce-winona-lake-eisenbrauns-2004/

It is clear that the 22 letter alphabet is not a perfect fit for ancient Hebrew, in the sense that ancient Hebrew had more phonemes than that (25+). That is one reason among many for supposing that the alphabet was taken from a center of Canaanite civilization.