sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aramaic, Sarah Thomason

1

The fact that contact between ancient Israelites and other ancient Near Eastern entities resulted in foreign linguistic elements that entered into the Hebrew has been recognized since antiquity. For example, Theodore of Mopsuestia in the fourth century stated that

“his (Abraham’s) language was corrupted through contact with the Canaanites…. For this

reason, we say that the Hebrew was comprised of many . Yet it bears a great

resemblance to Syriac.”

Theodore at once recognized both the composite nature of Hebrew, and yet the ability to trace its genetic relatedness in some fashion with other Semitic such as Syriac, a recognition of both linguistic similarities and oddities that would, in many ways, augur the concerns of genetic and contact linguists a few millennia later. In the ninth century, Isho’dad of Merv likewise recognized the influence of what terms “Babylonian” in Syriac:

It is after all not surprising that Hebrew is a composite (mknsh) of (several) languages, since we

may ascertain that even Syriac has been altered (‘tdwd) and corrupted (‘tblbl) with the changing

of times, and the duration of generations. […] In fact, the was especially

corrupted in , because of the kings that carried each other (there) as captives, for the

stranger and the immigrant never have a pure and polished language (gywr’ wtwtb’ l’ sk mtmrq

lshnh).

Like Theodore, Isho’dad’s comments about Syriac presage concerns that would later become central to the examination of the Hebrew , namely the role of conquest and power relations in the development of ancient Israelite language and literature.

Such considerations would take on new importance with the decipherment of languages from ancient Near Eastern empires themselves, thereby making available the literature of the people who conquered ancient and Judah. Agreement regarding the extent of the influence of Mesopotamian literature on the and the method one should employ to explore similarities and 2

differences therein has remained elusive. Scholars such as George took one extreme, seeing as

much cultural continuity as possible and going as far as repairing lacunae in Akkadian literature based on

supposed literary parallels in the Bible. He states that “the three next tablets in the Creation series are

absent, there being only two doubtful fragments of this part of the story. Judging from the analogy of

the , we may conjecture that this part of the narrative contained the description of the

creation of light, the atmosphere or firmament, of the dry land, and of plants.”1 On the other extreme,

Assyriologists such as Benno Landsberger rightly cautioned against comparative work when a culture

had sufficient literary and linguistic information to be understood in its own context. 2 William Hallo proposed a mediating position, arguing that similarities and differences should be observed in the

juxtaposition of biblical texts with other ancient Near Eastern literature. 3 Though Hallo’s approach has

proven to be influential, he offered more of an openness towards meaningful divergences in

comparative work and little in the way of methodological sophistication.

What remains lacking after these debates is a rigorous linguistic method for comparative work. 4

It is the purpose of this dissertation to bring such a linguistic method to the study of the Hebrew Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context. This proposal will explain basic elements of contact linguistics which will be the methodological lens through which comparative examinations will be conducted in the dissertation. A test case will be presented, following which implications for will be

1 George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1876), 67. 2 Benno Landsberger, “Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt.” Islamica 2 (1926): 355-72; The Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian World (translated by Thorkild Jacobsen, Benjamin R. Foster, and Heinrich von Siebenthal; Sources and Monographs, Monographs on the Ancient ; Malibu, California: Undena Publications, 1976). 3 William Hallo, “Biblical History in Its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach” (Scripture in Context ; Edited by Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B. White; Pittsburgh Theological Monograph 34; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980), 1-26. 4 For a more empirical approach to the literary aspect of borrowing which considers the role of differences between the same literary texts that existed in the periphery and center of Mesopotamian society, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (eds. Mark E. Cohen, et al; Bethesda, Maryland: CDL, 1993), 250-55. 3

discussed. Finally, an outline of the aims and goals of the dissertation will be presented, including the data set that will be analyzed.

Contact Linguistics

Before explaining why contact linguistics is needed for comparative studies between the

Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamian literature, I will present some of the basic tenants of the method as well as some of the more disputed aspects of the field. Contact linguistics studies what happens when two languages come into contact. What seems like an intuitive statement becomes more nuanced when set in light of the history of historical linguistics: not every linguistic element can be explained genetically, and thus a linguist must be able to determine what is due to internal development versus what is due to foreign contact. A few implications become apparent. First, languages are not reified entities, capable of contact independent from speakers and writers. Contact linguistics is therefore, at least to a certain degree, also concerned with socio-linguistics. Though Sarah Thomason and Terence

Kaufman state that their study “is not primarily a socio-linguistic one,” they are nonetheless quick to state that where applicable “sociohistorical circumstances” need to be taken into consideration. Indeed,

they claim that “social factors can and very often do overcome structural resistance to interference at all

levels,” an assertion which, as will be shown, is pertinent to some debates in biblical studies. 5 Because history, the uses of literature, and social factors play a role in contact situations, such considerations

5Sarah Thomason and Terence Kaufman, Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 15. Note: Thomason was emphatic that social factors need to be taken into consideration in her talk at UC last spring, but denied, against Trudgill, that high-contact situations lead to simplification. Thomason claimed that “high contact” vs. “low contact” were very hard definitions to apply. Moreover, she claimed that there are very few detailed sociolinguistic studies of ongoing contact situations, so generalizing about factors such as relative isolation, low contact, tight vs. loose social network structures, and other issues is dangerously circular. She showed how Ethiopic was in a very high contact situation, but did not simplify overall. Thomason extrapolated on some of her work, arguing that imperfect learning in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) does not inevitably lead to simplification (she cited Birdsong). Thomason’s overall thesis involved the assumption that contact leads to simplification, which she claimed happens but not nearly as universally as some scholars claim. Moreover, “simplification” is tough to define. Some parts of a language might be simple (), but other aspects complex (pragmatics). She quoted Östen Dahl and Kuster’s dissertation (as well as McWhorter). Nichols (1992:193) argues the opposite: contact induced change results in linguistics/grammatical complication. She also addressed the older view of Schleicher (languages grow/evolve to a complexity, and then decay). 4

must be a part of any examination of contact linguistics, even more so as all of these factors are

important in the relationship between the Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamian literature.

Second, contact linguistics studies not simply the result of contact, but the processes which lead

to the contact-induced phenomena under investigation. Related to the issue of socio-linguistics, a highly bilingual or multi-lingual society will process linguistic contact differently than a mono-lingual society.

Moreover, issues of technological need, cultural prestige, and politics also affect both the process and result of . Contact linguists have developed borrowing hierarchies which tend to correlate with varying social situations to explain how a given linguistic feature resulted from a socio- linguistic context. The most enduring of these hierarchies, and the one which will be employed in this dissertation, comes from Thomason and Kaufman (table 1).6 This borrowing scale conveys the varying

results given certain degrees of cultural contact and mixing. On one end, lighter contact by fewer people

in less bi- or multi-lingual societies will result in more borrowing in content (less basic) vocabulary,

whereas heavier cultural contact and pressure on the other end can lead to more structural changes.

Other scholars such as Frans van Coetsem 7 (table 2) and Yaron Matras 8 (table 3) have constructed

similar hierarchies, and Aikhenwald and Dixon have offered sociological considerations for borrowing

(table 4).9 It should be noted that this hierarchy of borrowing describes situations when the recipient language, or RL, is nonetheless maintained and passed on from generation to generation. This process of borrowing and language maintenance should be distinguished from other contact situations, namely (which can result in ), pidginization, and creolization. This dissertation will

6 Sarah Thomason and Terence Kaufman, Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 74-76. 7 Frans van Coetsem, Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact (Publications in Language Sciences; Providence, Rhode Island: Foris Publication, 1988), 26. 8 Yaron Matras, “The Borrowability of Structural Categories,” in Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (eds. Yaron Matras and Jeanette Sakel; Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 38; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007), 31-73. 9 Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, “Introduction,” in Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics (eds. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon; New York: Oxford University Press), 14-16. 5

focus on language maintenance and borrowing between the Hebrew of the Bible and Akkadian

literature, since there is no evidence of a language shift from Hebrew to Akkadian within the biblical

record.

Despite general consensus on some elements in linguistic contact, there remain some areas of

disagreement. For example, there are debates regarding what can be borrowed, especially in the area of

syntax. Donald Winford has offered counterarguments to Thomason and Kaufman’s assertion about

structural borrowing, including syntax, claiming that what appears to be syntactic borrowing is better

understood as a different linguistic process, which he terms, following van Coetsem, “imposition.” 10 The term “imposition,” however, has not been universally adopted, many scholars preferring “transfer,” 11 and Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva conducted studies which indicate that syntactic borrowing, though rarer than other types of borrowing, can indeed happen. Heine and Kuteva argue directly against

Winford’s analysis claiming that Winford’s “generalization seems to be of doubtful value,” and thus affirm Thomason and Kaufman’s thesis that anything can be borrowed. 12 What is agreed upon, however, is that certain things tend to be borrowed in specific types of contact situations and that these specific social factors can be predictors of certain results of contact. This consensus should inform biblical scholars regarding what one should and should not expect when relevant linguistic data become evident in light of comparative examination between the Hebrew Bible and ancient Mesopotamian literature. 13

10 Donald Winford, “Contact-induced Changes: Classification and Processes,” Diachronica 22 (2005): 379- 81; “Contact and Borrowing” in The Handbook of Language Contact (Blackwell Handbook in Linguistics; ed. Raymond Hickey; Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 179-81. See also his general statement that “even where there is intimate inter-community contact leading to massive lexical diffusion, structure seems to resist externally motivated change” (An Introduction to Contact Linguistics [Language in Society; Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2003], 74; see page 97 for similar claims). 11 Even Winford has conceded the possibility that the term is infelicitous ( An Introduction to Contact Linguistics , 16). 12 Heine and Kuteva, Language Contact and Grammatical Change (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 158. 13 Linguistic studies in Hebrew, Akkadian, and have made the need for insight from contact linguistics more apparent. As has been discussed, one of the main contributions of contact linguistics is in the area of borrowing, namely what can be borrowed and under what conditions. As early as 1974, Stephen Kaufman expressed a desire for a more rigorous method for understanding the nature of between Akkadian and 6

Example: Genesis 6:14

One of the classic examples of literary contact between and the biblical record comes from the flood narrative. If contact linguistics has explanatory value, such a widely distributed story as Atra-ḫasis or Gilgamesh would likely prove to be an ideal case for the linguistic outcome of literary engagement with a foreign text. 14 Genesis 6-9 provides such an example. While all scholars agree that this passage in the HB is interacting with ancient Near Eastern epics, the exact linguistic nature of this interaction is still disputed. Indeed, Gen 6-9 contains multiple odd lexemes, which raises the issue of linguistic traces of contact given the literary similarities that Gen 6-9 shares with Atra-ḫasis and Gilgamesh. An examination of Gen 6:14, which contains a few of these odd words, reveals much about the nature of contact, and can also be used as a basis for investigating the broader implications of the nature of linguistic contact for biblical studies.

For contextual purposes, Gen 6:14-16 is as follows:

WTT hf,ä[]T;¥ ~yNIßqi rp,gOë-yce[] tb;äTe ‘^l. hfeÛ[] Genesis 6:14 15 rv<ïa] hz<¨w> `rp,Ko)B; #WxßmiW tyIB:ïmi Ht'²ao T'îr>p;k'(w> hb'_Teh;-ta, ‘hM'a; ~yViÛmix] hb'êTeh; %r `h'f,([]T;¥ ~yviÞliv.W ~YIïnIv. ~YI±Tix.T;

Aramaic (The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic [Assyriological Studies 19; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974] 16-17). While many helpful studies have appeared since, namely Chaim Cohen’s work on hapax legomena in the Hebrew Bible as well as Paul Mankowski’s 2000 dissertation on Akkadian loanwords into Hebrew, none of these scholars have seriously engaged with advances made in the field of contact linguistics (Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and [Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 37; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978]; Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in [Harvard Semitic Studies 47; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2000]). Speaking in reference to Egyptian contact with Aramaic, Na’ama Pat- has recently stated that while scholars such as T. Muraoka and Bezalel Porten have analyzed well loanwords, a full treatment of calquing and borrowed syntax is still lacking (“The Origin of the Official Aramaic Quotative Marker l’mr ,” 7 [2009]: 37 33). Thus, in ancient Near Eastern languages generally and in issues of contact between ancient Israelites and Mesopotamians specifically, there is a need for contact linguistics. 14 For a brief discussion of this text and a brief review of comparative issues and perspectives, see Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” 251-52. 7

One major question regarding the relationship between the Mesopotamian flood accounts and Gen 6-9

is whether or not Israelite scribes had direct access to Akkadian sources. Some scholars, such as Samuel

Loewenstamm, prefer to see the odd lexemes in Gen 6-9 as derivative of an older inner-Hebrew epic

tradition. 15 That tradition would have been poetic and thus the lexical inventory of Gen 6-9 would

contain archaic and odd words due to the use of archaic and infrequently attested words in Hebrew

poetry generally. Other scholars, with a broader view of the sophistication of Israelite and Judean

scribes in accessing Mesopotamian traditions, posit an Aramaic intermediary between many biblical

texts and Mesopotamian literature (see below). The argument claims that the structural similarities

between Aramaic and the relative simplicity of the alphabetic system make Aramaic an ideal

candidate as an intermediary between Hebrew and Akkadian literature.

Both of these arguments contain assumptions which contact linguists have shown to be false.

Regarding the structural similarities, Winford, Thomason, and Kaufman agree that a study based

exclusively on structural similarities is flawed as such similarities in isolation are poor predictors of the

likelihood of contact. 16 Conversely stated, Thomas and Kaufman claim that structural divergences between languages are by no means necessarily constraints for contact-induced changes. Power relationships, such as Neo-Assyrian imperial policy, can overcome such structural similarities. Indeed, linguistic elements in Gen 6:14 suggest that a phrase has been loaned into Hebrew from Akkadian. The verse is as follows:

This verse contains many notable linguistic features, some of which will be discussed later. For the

purposes of analyzing the nature of contact, however, it is sufficient to focus on the phrase

15 Samuel L. Loewenstamm, Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 204; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, Neukircher Verlag, 1980), 116-21. 16 Winford, Introduction to Contact Linguistics , 9-10; Thomason and Kaufman, Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics , 15. 8

. This verb plus prepositional phrase is unique not only in biblical Hebrew, but in any of Hebrew (ancient or modern). The G-stem of and the noun meaning “pitch” do not appear in inscriptional, biblical, rabbinic, or in the semantic domain of the phrase in

Gen 6:14. 17 Were the source of such odd lexemes an older Hebrew epic poem as Loewenstamm suggests, 18 one might expect some vestige of semantic equivalence to have survived into other forms of

Hebrew. No such vestige exists. 19 These considerations open the possibility that this phrase comes from

another source.

Two possible sources exist. Both the noun from k-p-r in the qutl pattern meaning “bitumen” and

the G-stem of k-p-r exist in Aramaic and Akkadian. As far as the Aramaic attestation is concerned, the

nominal kupr appears in both Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. The first scholar who, as far as I

am aware, noticed a possible Aramaic connection, was in the eleventh century. He states:

17 The does appear in broken and fragmentary texts in Old and Official Aramaic and Nabatean, but not with any of the meanings above. The verbal root, which could either be the G or D stem, appears once and seems to mean “to pardon or give compensation,” but the context is broken and this meaning is far from certain; the substantive means “” or “tomb,” the latter being a possible Greek into Nabatean. 18 Loewenstamm follows Cassuto on this suggestion. See Loewenstamm, Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures , 115. Loewenstamm provides comparative evaluations, but only from the basis of a supposed Hebrew epic literary source, and he attributes any odd linguistic elements of Gen 6-9 to this hypothetical older tradition. He claims to save the text for comparative work by arguing against a source critical approach even as this line of argumentation forces him to posit a tradition in which all linguistic oddities are subsumed, thereby preventing any comparative linguistic analysis. 19 The authors of biblical Hebrew lexica claim that the verb is a denominative from the noun; however, G- stem denominates are somewhat rare. According to the contact linguist Pieter Muysken, a hierarchy of borrowing is as follows (from most likely to least): nouns>adjectives>verbs>prepositions>coordinating conjunctions>quantifiers>determiners>free pronouns>clitic pronouns>subordinating conjunctions (“Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The Case for Relexification” ( Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies ; Edited by Arnold Highfield and Albert Valdman; Ann Arbor: Karoma, 1981), 52-78. Verbs rank relatively high on this list and, given the Akkadian data, one could also appeal to this use of the G-stem of k-p-r as a loan. 9

Rashi’s insights were brilliant inasmuch as he could explain the odd word in Gen 6:14 and why this word

diverged from the marine sealants used on the other in the Hebrew Bible, namely Moses’ basket in

Exod 2. His linguistic reasoning was acute given the evidence available to him. There are other Talmudic

20 references to in addition to the tractate he cites. The word is nonetheless rare, and the time period is late; thus, the likelihood of Aramaic influence on the phrase in Gen 6:14 is

unlikely. Additionally, Rashi’s reasoning aligns ֹin Gen 6:14 with Hebrew in Exod 2:3 on the

assumption that was the outer coating in Exod 2:3 and the inner coating. The E source in Exod

2:3, however, makes no such outer-inner distinction in terms of the two materials used. Rashi’s concern is to preserve Moses from smelling foul, and he thus assumes that the Hebrew word he knows as

21 “pitch,” namely , was the material used to coat Moses’ on the outside. It is not clear that

Rashi’s definition of and the material conceptualized in Exod 2:3 are the same. Indeed, two

(Pseudo- and Neofiti) use the other substance of Exod 2:3, the , which also appears in the J

source in Gen 14:10 and is a common term for “pitch,” as the of ֹ in

Gen 6:14 ). Rashi’s comments are instructive and ingenious, even as they appeal to sparse data and do not adequately align the correlation of the Hebrew data to Aramaic.

Moreover, the verb k-p-r in the G-stem in Aramaic means “to wipe off,” but never “to wipe on,” as the semantics of Gen 6:14 dictate. This association with wiping off is so strong in Aramaic that the verb eventually adopted the meaning “repudiate, deny.” There is one expression, , in which the noun may mean “a smearing on,” but this noun is limited to this one phrase, and the underlying

20 The only use of k-p-r applied as a sealant for a boat appears in this tractate, and is the best literary parallel to Gen 6:14; the uses of the noun in the other tractates do not match literarily as well. 21 A similar logic appears in , chapter 31, section 9. 10

action involved is uncertain. 22 Additionally, there are no known uses of the verb k-p-r in the G-stem with

the noun kupr . The Targums and other Aramaic versions use kupr at times but employ different

verbs ( , -w-, or - ) when describing Noah’s action of “smearing on” (table 5). Thus, while

the semantic domain of the noun in Aramaic is consistent with Gen 6:14, when one considers the

evidence of the phrase , the verbal constituent of the Hebrew of this verse does not match the known usages of the verb in Aramaic.

The attestation of the noun and verb from k-p-r in Akkadian cohere with the two forms of the root in Gen 6:14 much better than do the Aramaic terms. Not only does the G-stem verb of Akkadian from k-p-r mean “to wipe on,” a close fit to the same verb in the same stem in Gen 6:14, but there are at least three attestations, from a wide geographic area and time period, of the verb and noun appearing in the same sentence. Examples include (see also Table 6):

(various medications) taaa (Medicinal text)

“You shall wipe (various medications) on his teeth.”

ataaaatsa (from Nimrud)

“The door of the gate is set, the socket (and) bar 23 made, the drainage openings coated with bitumen.” 24

22 Sokoloff directs the reader’s attention to a parallel action in Akkadian, diq ra takappar, “you shall wipe the pot clean; however, this action in Akkadian is clearly one of wiping off, in which case Sokoloff’s phraseological parallel is contradictory with his suggestion earlier in the entry that the noun is related to Akkadian k-p-r, “to wipe on” (A of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002], 597). If this phrase is so limited and closely related to an Akkadian analogue, perhaps this is an Akkadian loan into Aramaic? 23 In one other text, the SAG.KUL (the logographic rendering of sikk ūru) is adorned with a winged representation of the Deluge monster ( bu muppar u). 24 Given the usages of and as bitumen and tar water sealants in Exod 2:3, and given that at least the former term has an extensive usage in a variety of in Hebrew, it appears that ֹ , with no such attested history in the , matches this usage in Akkadian well. Ancient Hebrew thus had at least one native term for “pitch” which functioned as a water sealant (namely ; the origin of the word is obscure). That a different word for such a sealant appears in Gen 6:14 that has a direct in Akkadian used in similar functions (as a water sealant) is significant. Contact linguists discuss a variety of notions for borrowing, the 11

taaaa (from Mari)

“from the base upward (the igum structure) is smeared with itt -bitumen, the upper part is smeared with kuprum bitumen.”

(if a house) a (a building text)

“(if a house) is coated with itt -bitumen, kupru -bitumen, baked bricks, gypsum (or) mud plaster….”

Thus, the linguistic properties of in Gen 6:14 have much closer and more precise analogues in Akkadian. 25 Additional evidence in this line of reasoning comes in the Akkadian word kpiru , referring to a caulker (one who applies a substance such as bitumen) as well as a tool, perhaps the means of applying such material. The presence of kuprum in both Atra-ḫasis and Gilgamesh denoting one of the building materials of the ark also more directly assures the tie to Akkadian as a source language.

This observation has implications beyond the one phrase in Gen 6:14. Indeed, Klaus

Westermann has observed that hapax legomena in Gen 6-9 could indicate a foreign source for this text. two most prominent (among many other factors) being need and prestige. Need, in this case, seems not to have been a factor since Hebrew had a word meaning “pitch” used as a water sealant. 25 The main linguistic difficulty, according to some, of adopting this phrase as a loan from Akkadian into Hebrew involves whether or not the G-stem of k-p-r is a denominative or whether it constitutes a separate root from the D-stem kuppurum in Akkadian (Wolfram von Soden proposed the former, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Band I [Harrasowitz: Wiesbaden], 443; Benno Landsberger proposed the latter, The Date of the Palm and its By- products according to the Sources [AfO Beiheft 17; Graz, 1967], 30-34). According to some, if the noun is primary and the verb denominative, then the noun would be loaned directly from Atra-ḫasis or Gilgamesh and the verb formed by analogy to a known Akkadian phrase. The reverse, however, would decrease the likelihood that the phrase is a direct borrowing into Hebrew according to some linguists. The relationship between the noun and verb in Akkadian is only marginally relevant for Gen 6:14. That the noun exists in both Atra-ḫasis and Gilgamesh in the same literary context and that the verb and noun are used together centuries prior to the writing of Gen 6:14 means that the author of the biblical flood story could have had access to both the noun and its use with the verb. From a biblical author’s point of view, whether or not k-p-r was a denominative verb may have had no impact if he simply knew the noun from his source text and the noun plus verb from other literary contexts. Moreover, comparatively speaking, a good case can be made that k-p-r in the G-stem is a denominative in Akkadian. It is the only Semitic language that uses this stem with this root for “to smear on.” It is easier to explain this particular semantic property in Akkadian by appeal to a denominative relationship to the noun (which exists in a variety of Semitic language, including and Aramaic) than to posit another proto-Semitic verbal root which survived only into Akkadian. 12

The noun in Gen 6:14 is one such word in his list. What he does not observe, however, is that all of the hapax he discusses fall in the P source and not the J source. 26 Another disputed example of Akkadian influence is less linguistically marked in this series, but is literarily intriguing. If one follows Ullendorf in reading instead of , one may have a literary parallel to Atra-ḫasis (Table 7):

q-ne-e g b-bi lu bi-nu-us-s, “may its structure (be) entirely of reeds.”

If this emendation is accepted in Gen 6:14, then one not only has a strong parallel to Atra-ḫasis, but an

inner-Hebrew problem is also resolved. 27 The context of the verse in Gen 6:14 deals with materials for

the ark, which gives way to a description of dimensions in 6:15 and then structural plans in 6:16. The

one detail which is out of this place is in Gen 6:14, namely the . If one emends, however, to , then Gen 6:14 consists entirely of a list of materials, namely a wood type, reeds, and pitch.

This emendation has an interesting literary counterpart in a manuscript of Gilgamesh XI, called

“c 1” in George’s edition of the epic. This manuscript allows for a surer reconstruction of tablet XI, lines

50-56, in which those constructing the boat consist of a carpenter ( LÚnagg ru ), a reed-worker

(LÚatkuppu ), and a rich person carrying pitch ( ar na i kupra ). An Old Babylonian manuscript of Atra-

26 Indeed, whether one follows one of the more standard divisions as in the models of R. E. Friedman, John Collins, or Baruch Schwartz or another, these lexemes only occur in the P source. See Baruch Schwartz, “The Flood Narratives in the and the Question of Where History Begins” ( Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its Language ; Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, at al; : Bialik, 2007), 139-54; John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 51-56; R. E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003), 42ff. Westermann is often adept at noting that J and P could have separate literary traditions, and that P at times shares a literary tradition closer to Atra-ḫasis and at times closer to Gilgamesh (an observation that also applies to J). See Genesis 1-11 (Translated by John J. Scullion, S. J.; Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1984), 384-458. He does not discuss the importance of the linguistic data, however, and what these data mean for language contact. Often Westermann seems to work from the same assumption as Loewenstamm that these lexemes reflect an older Hebrew epic and not direct literary contact with a foreign source. 27 Westermann and Loewenstamm rule out this proposal, but do not give sufficient explanations, and neither discusses the impact of the emendation on Gen 6:14-16 as a whole (though Loewenstamm does discuss Gen 6:14 more narrowly). Westermann claims that parallels with Gilgamesh, which evidently lacks this detail, rules out this suggestion; yet, the parallel of is really on the basis of Atra-ḫasis, which does have this description of “reeds.” See Westermann, Genesis 1-11 , 420; Loewenstamm, Comparative Method , 115 n 34. 13

Ḫas is has the same order in a much more fragmentary section: na-ga-[ru], at-ku-up-[pu], and ku-up-ra .

While these elements are in this order but spread across 6 lines in Gilgamesh, they appear in contiguous

lines in Atra-Ḫasis. This grouping is significant for the above proposal in Gen 6:14 since, if is

28 repointed to , then all three elements would appear in this verse as well.

These remarks have consequences for source criticism. In much of the discussion around Gen 6-

9 and Mesopotamian flood stories, Gen 6-9 have been treated somewhat as an aggregate. The linguistic data presented, however, may reveal that the P source has a marked linguistic trace of its interaction with the Mesopotamian flood stories, perhaps specifically with the Atra-ḫasis version or some version like it (though it is not the intent of this study to claim dependence on a specific text, but rather from

Akkadian sources generally). Some scholars, such as Samuel Loewenstamm, have argued that a source division prevents one from doing an adequate comparison with epic traditions and cognate stories of the flood. He claims that words such as , , , , , and should be understood as coming from an earlier epic Hebrew source (table 8). It should be noted, however, that three words in his list, , , and , are hapax legoumena , have no ready internal explanation within the

29 development of the Hebrew language, and only belong to the P source, whereas and occur

28 George points out an Old Babylonian letter in which the carpenter and reed-maker are addressed to make a cargo ship, indicating that even if the dimensions for the ship in Gilgamesh, Atra -Ḫasis , and Gen 6:15 are absurd, the materials out of which the craft was built did have a foundation in historical ship-building. The text L ME L reads nagg r(nagar) mal (MÁ.LAḪ5) at (AD.KID) …aaa (MÁ.Ì.DUB) , “let the carpenters, shipwrights and reed-workers…build a cargo-boat.” See George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts, Volume II (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 880-881. He discusses the similarities between Gilgamesh and Atra-Ḫasis, but does not discuss the connections made above to Gen 6:14. 29 The most difficult word in this list to connect with Akkadian is as Akkadian does not have /h/, which merged with / ʾ/ early in the history of the language. A possible cognate appears in Amarna Akkadian, namely uru , meaning “back,” which, if related to the word in Gen 6:16, would be extended to mean “roof.” The nominal pattern matches , but the reflex of / ḫ/ in Akkadian should be / ḥ/ in Hebrew, not /h/. Another 14

elsewhere in the HB (even if they are rare) and can be explained as deriving from Hebrew itself. 30

Despite Loewenstamm’s assertion to the contrary, isolating distinct sources can help define the nature

of linguistic contact, which is different in the P source and the J source. Thus, source division, when

linguistically informed, can aid comparative studies, and contact linguistics can highlight these aspects

when one has divided the sources.

problem occurs in that /z/ in Akkadian should correspond to /z/ in Hebrew, not / ṣ/ The spelling of this root in Amarna, however, reveals that neither the first consonant (which was variously spelled with / ṣ/) nor the middle element were stable. Perhaps regional variations existed in either an Akkadian or Canaanite word that could have manifested themselves in later, biblical Hebrew . One finds the following spellings: zu-u-ru-ma (from Akko); -u-ru-ma (in letters from Abdi-Aširte, Šubandu, and Šuwardatta); []a (from Šuwardatta); and a a (from Tyre). This instability leaves open the possibility for a dialect to preserve a somewhat related form which developed later into , the form seen in Gen 6:16. Indeed, the variant spellings could be substrate influence in that these Canaanite dialects, which did not have / ḫ/ as a phoneme in their native dialect, rendered an Akkadian word variously, sometimes correctly with / ḫ/, sometimes without. Thus, ru , or uru (CAD lists both as a root heading) could have been a Canaanite attempt to render a non-Canaanite word related to Akkadian sru . Ugaritic also has a root r; however, this root does not provide an immediate solution for the appearance of since one would have to explain the appearance of /h/ in Hebrew, which is lacking in the Ugaritic spelling of the cognate term r. Expanding /h/ elements appear as affixes on some Hebrew nouns (such as ) and infixed in Aramaic (Hebrew r to Aramaic rha ) but, as far as this author is aware, no such expanding elements appear infixed in a Hebrew word that corresponds to a Ugaritic root. In any case, the forms of this word listed above also contain an enclitic –ma , which syntactically functions differently, and therefore is likely unrelated to, the Akkadian connective –ma . H. D. Hummel sees the –ma on the various forms listed above as related to the enclitic mem in early Northwest Semitic, especially in Hebrew. Thus, despite the aforementioned phonological difficulties, a good case can be made for connecting in Gen 6:16 with an Akkadian root (“Enclitic Mem in Early Northwest Semitic, especially Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical Literature 76 [1957]: 90). One might argue on the basis of the above evidence that an oral line of transmission existed since a good cognate which roughly matches morphologically appears only in Amarna Akkadian. It should be observed that the translators who produced the also had trouble with this word, which evidently had no direct Syriac cognate. This word used was zw n, meaning “clearstory, base,” and Payne Smith proposed that it, too, was an Akkadian loanword from sam tu , which was perhaps pronounced /zw ēd/ in Assyrian. Thus, an inexact phonological correspondence between Syriac and Akkadian also appears in Syriac if this is truly a loanword from Akkadian. 30 could be related to . The root may be more difficult to explain. It could either derive from the verb , meaning “to tear, rend,” and so its presence in Gen 8:11 could refer to a fresh twig, in the sense of being freshly torn by the dove, a connection which Brown, Driver, and Briggs accept. Kohler and Baumgartner propose a separate root related to Arabic “to be fresh,” and related to an word for “sprig, branch.” While such a separate root is possible, it is not necessary to explain Gen 8:11. 15

These considerations of linguistic data and source division remain no matter how one divides the sources and no matter how one reconstructs the social world of the Priestly source. Regarding the former, a few different divisions of sources of Gen 6-9 exist among scholars. No matter which model one chooses, however, the foregoing linguistic comments regarding the difference between P and J remain

(table 9). Moreover, there are various scholarly reconstructions of the historical provenance of the

Priestly source. Again, no matter whether one chooses a late monarchic, exilic, or post-exilic date, there is heavy Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian influence throughout the . A fuller account of P in Gen

6-9 shows that while Akkadian linguistically influenced this source, borrowing is not slavish; thus, the narrative of P diverges from Mesopotamian flood stories on the issue of sacrifice as sacrifice does not begin in P until Sinai. Such a divergence, however, does not mean that P did not use a foreign source text.31

In some ways, these observations seem obvious enough. They provide, however, a helpful test case that should inform expectations when it appears as though ancient Israelites were the initiators of linguistic contact. Some scholars have argued in other cases, such as the Covenant Code and its relationship to Hammurapi’s law code, that direct Akkadian contact would reveal itself in the Hebrew through the presence of Akkadian syntax, resulting in greater than normal verb-final structure. This is not the case in the Covenant Code, and thus such scholars claim that Aramaic, which is structurally closer to Hebrew, was the intermediary between any similarities in the Exodus legal material and

Mesopotamian literature. William Morrow has made a similar claim in a review of Eckart Otto’s Das

Deuteronomium regarding the relationship between Deuteronomy and the VTE, in which he asks “how could cuneiform be acquired by a small Iron Age state on the periphery of the NA empire? What evidence is there, either in the biblical record or in archaeological discoveries, to support this idea?” 32

31 See Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” 254-55. 32 William S. Morrow, “Cuneiform Literacy and Deuteronomic Composition,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 62 (2005): 205. 16

Thus, he seems to posit, on the basis of the former claim regarding the possibility of cuneiform literacy in such a small state, that Aramaic may be a more plausible intermediary between Hebrew and Akkadian literature. The discovery of a NA treaty from Esarhaddon at Tel Tainat, however, makes Morrow’s skepticism less warranted. Moreover, the idea that a simple scribal administration cannot acquire knowledge of cuneiform literature and Akkadian, and therefore needs an Aramaic intermediary is analogous to the idea that structural similarity is a good predictor that linguistic traces will be borrowed from such comparable languages, a supposition contact linguists have shown to be false. As seen in the case of Gen 6-9, direct contact with Akkadian is likely as foreign linguistic traces in the Hebrew of these chapters cohere much better with Akkadian than Aramaic; however, no traces of Akkadian syntax are apparent. Contact linguistics dictates that one should expect this result. Simply because Aramaic is genetically closer to Hebrew and the Hebrew scribal schools were smaller and likely less sophisticated than Akkadian scribes does not necessarily mean that Aramaic is a better candidate for contact-induced changes in Hebrew.

The results of the test case of Gen 6:14 can also be affirmed in verses such as Isa 2:10, 19, and

21 (table 10). As Shawn Zelig Aster already noted, these verses contain a calque with the Akkadian terms

pul u and melammu (see Table 11 for examples).33 Whereas the case in Gen 6:14 combined both semantic and morphological peculiarities of the words involved as indicators of contact, Isa 2:10, 19, and

21 involve both semantic and syntactic oddities. When a verb of motion is used with , the of the preposition “is consistently and invariably the force or the person that causes the flight, never the

34 feeling of terror itself.” However, the usual semantic domain of in the Hebrew Bible is the terror

33 Shawn Zelig Aster, “The Image of in Isaiah 2:5-22: The Campaign Motif Reversed,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 127 (2007): 249-78; “The Phenomenon of Divine and Human Radiance in the Hebrew Bible and in Northwest Semitic and Mesopotamian Literature: A Philological and Comparative Study,” Unpublished PhD Dissertation (University of Pennsylvania, 2006), 295-327. 34 “The Phenomenon of Divine and Human Radiance in the Hebrew Bible and in Northwest Semitic and Mesopotamian Literature: A Philological and Comparative Study,” 315. 17

that one has, not the source of the terror. According to Aster, this semantic oddity is a good indication

of an Akkadian calque, and he is surely on solid grounds. His syntactic analysis, however, is on less solid

grounds. For example, at one point he claims that governs both and ; the

latter, however, is clearly governed by , which perhaps means that the calque is limited to

Moreover, Aster leaves completely unexplored the odd syntactic coupling of and in this

order as governed by the same verb in the Hebrew Bible. He can prove his case by semantics, and one

gets the sense that he overstates the similarities when he claims that the Hebrew syntax is mapped to

Akkadian syntax. However, even he is forced to recognize that the verb placement in Isa 2:10, 19, and 21

is common for Hebrew and not the expected Akkadian syntax. Thus, this case of contact, much like Gen

6:14, is indicated by an odd semantic domain even as the syntax is comfortably within biblical Hebrew

structures, a situation that contact linguists claim one should expect when examining a non-bilingual

society as was Iron Age Israel.

The analysis above is sufficient to establish that ֹin Gen 6:14 is loanword. The next step in this analysis will include further socio-linguistic reasons for why Aramaic was likely not the intermediary for this lexical oddity, as Iron-Age and Babylonian era Aramaic was not a vehicle, as far as evidence is available, for writing or transmitting epic sources. 35

35 Paul Dion claims that the first truly “literary” Aramaic text is Ahiqar from 400 BCE at the earliest (“Aramaean Tribes and Nations of First-Millennium ,” Civilizations of the , Volume 2 [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995], 1281-94). Though earlier royal inscriptions had literary elements, they are not the literary parallel to Gen 6-9 that many Neo-Assyrian document were. It is often assumed that since Aramaic existed as a mode of writing possibly as early as 1000 BCE that it could have been an intermediary between Mesopotamian and biblical literature. It has been shown in other ancient Near Eastern languages, however, that simply because a writing existed does not mean it was used for any and every kind of genre. See Yakubovich and Payne for socio-linguistic restrictions on the writing of Luwian (Annick Payne, Hieroglyphic Luwian: An Introduction with Original Texts [2 nd edition; Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis 2; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010], 1; I. Yakubovich, “Hittite-Luwian Bilingualism and the Origin of Anatolian Hieroglyphs,” in Acta Linguistics Petropolitana, Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies, Vol. IV, Part I [St. Petersberg, 2008], 9-36; “Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language,” PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago, 2008, 18-90). Even in rabbinic times, various perceptions of scripts and languages were controlling factors regarding what could and could not serve as a mode of transmission of biblical texts (M. Bar-Ilan, ”Part Two: Scribes and Books in the Late 18

Conclusions

The foregoing analysis of Gen 6:14 is revealing both as to the reality of linguistic contact between the authors of the Hebrew Bible and Akkadian and to the benefit of applying contact linguistics as a method for exploring such interactions. Einar Haugen, an early contact linguist, lamented that the field in his time was able to examine the results but not the process of contact induced phenomena. The breakthroughs in the past few decades in the study of language contact have provided such a methodological grounding for using contact linguistics as a means for describing not simply the results, but also the process when speakers of one language interact with another language. Of course, since the

Iron Age is far removed from the present, we cannot be absolutely certain how such contact occurred between ancient Israelites and Mesopotamian languages and literatures. The results, however, of literary engagement with Akkadian are evident in the Hebrew Bible in linguistic traces that have little or no internal explanation. 36 The use of contact linguistics as a vehicle for comparative work with Akkadian

not only provides a means for describing the process of language contact as best as a modern scholar

can, but also has implications for biblical studies proper. This dissertation will focus on texts from the

Pentateuch, which have served as a classical locus for comparative work with Mesopotamia in each of

the sources (J and P in the flood narrative; E in the Covenant Code compared with the Code of

Hammurapi; D in comparisons with the Vassal Treat of Esarhaddon). It will also focus on Isaiah, since the

Second Commonwealth and Rabbinic Period,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early [eds. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988], 21-38). Thus, simply because a language existed does not necessarily mean that it was used for any kind of writing, and the early evidence of anything like epic literature in Aramaic is not until well into the Persian period. 36 I should be observed that the above comments and lines of argumentation in this dissertation will not preclude the possibility of Aramaic intermediaries. Even as Aster notes that the Hebrew of Isa 2:10, 19, and 21 shows marked Akkadian influences, other passages and phrases such as 11:20, composed in the post-exilic period when Aramaic had been put to more literary uses than it had in the Iron Age and which contain literary reflexes akin to Akkadian literature, perhaps had an Aramaic intermediary has parallels to Ahiqar may indicate (“The Phenomenon of Divine and Human Radiance in the Hebrew Bible and in Northwest Semitic and Mesopotamian Literature: A Philological and Comparative Study,” 292-95). 19

rhetoric and background of the various strata in this book can with some certainty be located within a period of heavy Assyrian and Babylonian influence in the Levant.

Outline of Dissertation:

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Comparative Method: History of the discipline and review of the literature

- Attempts to compare the Bible with Middle Eastern cultures before the decipherment of Akkadian - Franz Delitzsch, George Smith, and Parallel-O-Mania - The contributions of Benno Landsberger - William Hallo and the Contextual Approach

Chapter 3: Methodology: contact linguistics and the comparative method in biblical studies

- Brief History of Contact Linguistics - Contact Linguistics and Historical Linguistics o The Usefulness of Contact Linguistics as Applied to Ancient Languages - What Contact Linguistics has to offer Biblical Studies

Chapter 4: Application of contact linguistics to bilinguals of the Iron Age as a methodological control

- General statements on evidence from bilingual inscriptions in the Iron Age generally - Focus on Aramaic/Akkadian bilinguals specifically and the linguistic relationship evidenced in this data relative to the models of contact linguistics - Texts Considered: o -Fekhariya o Incirli Trilingual Inscription o Fales’ work on Aramaic/Akkadian letters

Chapter 5: Application of the method to issues in the Pentateuch

- Gen 6-9 and Mesopotamian Flood Stories o Gen 6:14-16 and the Implications for the Priestly Source - Exod 21:2-23:19 and Mesopotamian Legal Sources o Exod 21:28-36 and the Law of the Goring Ox - Deuteronomy 28 and Mesopotamian Treaties o The Sequences of Curses in Deut 28 and the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon

Chapter 6: Application of the Method to Isaiah and its Various Layers

- Linguistic Evidence of Mesopotamian Contact in First Isaiah o Implications of Machinist’s Theory Regarding and melammu 20

o Calque in Isa 2:10, 19, and 21 - Linguistic Evidence of Mesopotamian Contact in Second Isaiah o A Divine Title in Isa 13:4 - Linguistic Evidence of Mesopotamian Contact in Third Isaiah

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Tables

Table 1 : Thomason and Kaufman’s Borrowing Hierarchy:

 1) Casual contact: lexical (content words) only; non-basic vocabulary is typically, if not always, borrowed first.

 2) Slightly more intense contact: slight structural borrowing (lexicon/function words and minor structural changes).

 3) More intense contact: slightly more structural borrowing (lexicon and less minor structure changes/adpositions, derivational , phonemes).

 4) Strong cultural pressure: moderate structural borrowing (relatively major structural features that cause relatively little typological change/word order, distinctive features in phonology, inflectional morphology).

 5) Very strong cultural pressure: heavy structural borrowing (major structural features that cause significant typological disruption, phonetic changes).

Table 2 : Van Coetsem, Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact , 26: Language Domains

 Least stable: Vocabulary

 More stable: Phonology and grammar (morphology and syntax)- (possibly) more frequent and structured elements

Table 3 : Yaron Matras, Language Contact , 157ff :

 Nouns, conjunctions>verbs>discourse markers>adjectives>interjections>adverbs>other particles, adpositions>numerals>pronouns>derivational affixes>inflectional affixes

 Each domain can have its own hierarchy (coordinating conjunctions: but>or>and)

Table 4 : Aikhenvald and Dixon, Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance , 14-17:

 Hierarchy of borrowing and what can be borrowed depend upon: 21

 Type of community: tight knit vs. externally open; lifestyle matters.

 Size of community

 Relations within a community

 Contact with other communities

 Degrees of “lingualism”

 Types of interaction of languages within a putative area

 Language attitudes

Table 5 : Aramaic Evidence:

 Gen 6:14:

 (Onkelos)

 (Pseudo Jonathan)

 (Neofiti)

     ˎ  ˎ (Syriac/Peshitta)

 ( Bavli, Nedarim 51a; Gi ṭṭ im 69b)

Table 6 : Akkadian evidence:

 (various medications) eli šinnēšu takappar (Medicinal text, perhaps from the Namburbi texts, SB, late 8 th -late 5 th cent)

 “You shall wipe (various medications) on his teeth.”

 daltu ša abulli šaknat uppu sikkūru epšu BI BI (?) [K]A? S[A (?) T]A(?) kupru kapru (from Nimrud/Kal ḫu, Neo-Assyrian)

 “The door of the gate is set, the socket (and) bar made, the drainage openings coated with bitumen.”

 ištu šaplānu adi eliš ESIR.UD.DU.A kapir elēnu ESIR.UD.DU.A ESIR kapir (from Mari)

 “from the base upward (the igum structure) is smeared with ittû-bitumen, the upper part is smeared with kuprum bitumen.”

 (if a house) ESIR ESIR.UD.DU.A SIG 4 AL.ÙR.RA IM.BABBAR IM.GÚ kapir (a building text) 22

 “(if a house) is coated with ittû -bitumen, kupru -bitumen, baked bricks, gypsum (or) mud plaster….”.

Table 7 : Atra-Ḫasis (middle Babylonian fragment CBS 13532, rev., line 7):

 Compare in Gen 6:14 vs. :



 qanē gabbī lū binūssa

 “May its structure (be) entirely of reeds.”

Lambert and Millard, Atra-Ḫasis , 126

Table 8 :

 Loewenstamm’s list of odd lexemes in Gen 6-9:

hapax , P only, Gen 6:14 - ֹ 

hapax , P only, Gen 6:14 - ֹ 

hapax , P only, Gen 6:16 - ֹ 

 - not a hapax , J only, Gen 8:11 (also Ezek 17:9)

 - not a hapax , J only, Gen 7:4, 23 (also Deut 11:6)

Table 9 :

 R. E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? , 246:

 J: Gen 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7, 10, 12, 16b-20, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22

 P: Gen 6:9-22; 7:8-9, 11, 13-16a, 21, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19; 9:1-17

 Baruch Schwartz, “The Flood Narratives in the Torah and the Question of Where History Begins,”143-47:

 J: 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7-8a, 10, 12, 16b-17a, 23; 8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22

 P: 6:9-22; 7:6, 8b-9, 11, 13-16a, 17b-22, 23; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19; 9:1-17

 Samuel L. Boyd

 J: 6:5-8, 9b; 7:1-5, 7-8a, 10, 12, 16b-17a, 23; 8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22 23

 P: 6:9a, 9c-22; 7:6, 8b-9, 11, 13-16a, 17b-22, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19; 9:1-17

Table 10 :

 Isa 2:10:



 Isa 2:19



 Isa 2:21



Table 11 :

 From Shalmaneser III (Kurkh Monolith Annals, against the Bīt Adini):

 ina pān namurrat kakkēja melammē bēlūtīja ipla ḫma ālêšu umaššir ana šūzub napšātīšu ÍD Puratti ēbir

 He became afraid in the face of the terrifying appearance of my weapons, the melammu of my lordship. He abandoned his cities and crossed the to save his life.

 Annals of Ashurnasirpal II

 ina pān melammē bēlūtīja ipla ḫūma, ālānīšu dūrēšunu uššerū ana šūzub napšātēšunu ana šadî matni šadî danni ēlû

 “They took fright in the face of the melammu of my lordship. They abandoned their strong cities. In order to save their lives, they went up to Mount Matnu, a strong mountain.”

 ’s third campaign (against Sidon)

 pul ḫi melammē bēlūtīja is ḫupšuma ana ruqqi qabal tâmtim innabit

 “Fear of the melammu of my lordship overwhelmed him and he fled far into the midst of the sea.”

 Sennacherib’s third campaign (against Hezekiah)

 šū IḪazaqiau pul ḫi melammē bēlūtīja is ḫupšuma

 “As for Hezekiah, fear of melammu of my lordship overcame him.”